Sunday, June 26, 2016

The Jews Are The Indigenous Population of Israel


Too many governments, politicians and “intellectuals”, either are ignorant or misrepresent or refuse to acknowledge the infinite number of facts that, overwhelmingly, prove that the Jewish people are the indigenous population of present day Israel and the adjoining land.

Alduous Huxley accurately stated, “Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.”

In the following sections I will present some of the facts that are either ignored or not publicly stated. These facts unquestionably show, the unassailable truth, that the Jews are the indigenous population of Israel.

In the Judeo-Christian world, the bible emphatically states that the land of Israel belongs to the Jews and their descendants. Jesus Christ, who according to the Romans, was King of the Jews, lived about 600 years before the advent of Islam. Countless archaeological evidence, including the Dead Sea scrolls (written in Hebrew), attest to the fact of the Jews being the native population of, what is presently called Israel, the West Bank, Gaza and Jordan.

The “West Bank” denotation was invented by the Jordanians after the 1948 war. Until then it was denoted in all world texts as Judea/Samaria, the ancient kingdoms of the Jews.
In 1924, the Islamic Supreme Council, (highest religious authority) stated, “ The Temple Mount's identity with King Solomon's temple is beyond dispute.”

Winston Churchill in 1921 said, “It is manifestly right that the scattered Jews should have a national center and a national home and be reunited , and where else but in Palestine, with which for 3,000 years they have been intimately and profoundly associated.”

That statement was made after the League of Nations adopted the Palestine Mandate recognizing “Palestine” (Israel, both sides of the Jordan River,etc.) as the Jewish homeland under international law. Unfortunately, the British took 78% of that denoted Jewish homeland, the eastern part of the Jordan River, and invented the country Jordan.

Since 1860, when the Ottomans began conducting an official census in Jerusalem, the Jews were the majority group in Jerusalem. That majority status remains until today. Despite being the majority the Jews still elected a Muslim mayor in 1899 , Yusef Diya al-Khalidi. He stated, “Who can challenge the rights of the Jews in Palestine? Good Lord, historically it is really your country.” According to some historians, the Ottoman census also shows a Jewish majority in Safed, Jaffa, Tiberias and Haifa.

So one asks, who are these people calling themselves Palestinians?

As Jews began returning to “Palestine”, developing infrastructure, draining swamps and forming governmental entities, the neighboring Muslims were attracted to the better economic opportunities offered.

In addition, Arabs came to work on infrastructure projects during the Ottoman occupation of Israel and later, under the British Mandate.
In 1856 the French who controlled Algeria expelled thousands of Algerians, who settled in Syria and Palestine.

In fact, in 1914, half of the Muslims in Safed were of Algerian descent. The balance were Bedouins and from Syria.

Thousand of Egyptians who refused to serve in the military fled to northern Israel around 1830. . They were followed by thousands of Sudanese.

Some prominent Arab family names show this influx of Arabs from other parts of the Ottoman Empire. For example, Al-Obedi (Sudan), Halaba (Syria),Al-Yamani (Yemen), etc.
In the book “From Time Immemorial” by Joan Peters, she points to the 1931 census which showed at least twenty three different languages used by Muslims. There were at least twenty four different birthplaces listed by the non-Jews of Palestine.

Most of the 320,000 Arabs who left Israel during the 1948 war of independence were the descendants of these migrant workers from other parts of the Muslim world.

The distinguished scholar Professor Philip K. Hitti, in his book, “The Arabs” stated, “There is no such thing as 'Palestine' in history, absolutely not.”

Of course the following statement by Yasser Arafat completely demolishes the myth of Arabs being indigenous to Palestine. In 1967, Yasser Arafat, stated,” The Palestinian people have no national identity. I, Yasser Arafat, man of destiny, will give them that identity through conflict with Israel.” ( author Alan Hart, in his book, “Arafat, Terrorist or Peace Maker?”)

Most people on learning the above stated narrative would accept the fact that the Jews are the indigenous people of present day Israel, the West Bank, Gaza and Jordan. To those individuals who refuse to accept the facts, I refer them to a statement by the late Senator Moynihan. “Everybody is entitled to their own set of opinions, but not to their own set of facts.”

Please note:

I am indebted to two people from whose articles I learned many specific facts concerning the Arab and Jewish migration to “Palestine”.

Yoram Ettinger from whose article (Israel Hayom 6/13/2016) I quote some Jewish/Arab emigration figures and reasons for their emigration.

Also to Ted Belman (IsraPundit) who published an article by Nomi Benari, from which I extracted examples of specific Arab emigration to Israel and some pertinent quotes.

Rosenthal's Ten Propositions (Part Two)

Michael L.

{Also published at the Elder of Ziyon.}

Vic Rosenthal of the Abu Yehuda blog, the Elder of Ziyon, and other venues, has a recent piece entitled simply, Ten Propositions.

I discussed the first five at Israel Thrives the other day.

These are the next five:
6 - Everyone should be able to follow their own religion or lack thereof without coercion. But the official religion of the state of Israel should be Judaism.

7 - Israel and the Jewish people have an absolute right to defend themselves.

8 - Collective guilt justifies collective punishment.

9 - Nobody has the right to try to kill Jews or Israelis, even if their means are ineffective.

10 - There should be a death penalty for murderous terrorism.
Let's take these individually.

Number Six:

Everyone should be able to follow their own religion or lack thereof without coercion. But the official religion of the state of Israel should be Judaism.

Many secular Jews have a problem with this.

I do not.

We have to keep in mind that the Jewish people are a tiny minority throughout the world and almost half of us live in Israel. The forces against the Jews of Israel are many and their defenders are few.

Were it not for the Long Arab-Muslim War against the Jews in the Middle East I would not care whether or not Israel declared Judaism as the official state religion. In fact, as a creature of the European Enlightenment and the Constitution of the United States, I generally oppose declarations of state religions.

However, given this political moment in the history of the Jewish people declaring Judaism as the official religion of the state serves to promote the idea of Israel as the national homeland of the Jewish people.

And it is this idea that must finally be driven home to both Christian and Arab, alike.

Number Seven:

Israel and the Jewish people have an absolute right to defend themselves.

Yes, we do, but the rest of the world does not see it that way.

On the contrary, Jewish self-defense has been viewed as a form of aggression for millennia. Whether in Europe or the Middle East - whether in terms of Romans or Christians or Arab-Muslims - Jews have historically been denied self-defense on the grounds that we are guilty of whatever accusations are flinged at us. Thus Jewish self-defense is a means of avoiding righteous justice and should not be allowed.

This is an ancient anti-Semitic sensibility, prominent in both Europe and the Arab / Muslim world, that has evolved and attached itself to present-day political sensibilities. This is why so many westerners, largely on the Left, but not entirely, believe that Arabs have every right to try to kill Jews as a matter of "resistance" or "social justice."

However, it must be made explicitly clear to both westerners and the Arabs of Israel - in word and action - that the Israeli government, on behalf of the Jewish people, will simply no longer put up with the racist, Koranically-based violence toward ourselves or our children.

Number Eight:

Collective guilt justifies collective punishment.

It is only those of us who live in cozy and secure places, like northern California, who think otherwise.

It is very easy for people who, for example, live in the United States to oppose "collective punishment" because Americans are not in an ongoing war for survival.

The Jews of Israel are.

Whenever Hamas starts tossing Qassams and Katyushas into southern Israel, on or around the towns of S'derot and Ashkelon, the world community sleeps. However, whenever Israel stands up and says, "Enough of this!" the western-left leaps to its feet and starts screaming from the hillsides about "genocide" and "collective punishment" despite the fact that, yes, the IDF does more than any other army in human history to avoid civilian casualties.

The truth is that the Arabs of the Middle East have inflicted a long war of attrition upon the Jews and in war there is always "collective punishment." The Jews of the Middle East did not start this war and they do not want it, but if they are to survive and thrive - if they are to protect their own children - they absolutely must fight it.

And, of course, in war innocent people are hurt and killed.

There is always "collective punishment" in war.

If the Arabs would like to see such "collective punishment" end then they should very much consider relinquishing their never-ending murderous, theocratically-based hysteria concerning the Jewish people.

Number Nine:

Nobody has the right to try to kill Jews or Israelis, even if their means are ineffective.

This is an exceedingly strange statement.

Would anyone ever suggest that nobody has the right to kill, say, Rosicrucians... even if their means are ineffective?

It flat-out amazes me that Rosenthal even needs to say this... and, yet, I agree that he does.

How many comments have we heard from the anti-Israel / anti-Jewish Left in the last decade that the rocket-fire coming from Hamas is really nothing but "bottle-rockets"... and similar statements?

The western progressive-left has a tendency to downplay anti-Semitic violence against Jews because either they simply could care less or honestly believe that the Jewish people have it coming for allegedly oppressing the bunny-like, native, indigenous, olive-tending, "Palestinians."

Number Ten:

There should be a death penalty for murderous terrorism.

Jewish religious tradition opposes the death penalty.

Nonetheless, Jewish religious tradition also stresses the necessity for self-defense. Although I am not a theologian, I feel reasonably certain that such a proposition would find advocates among religious Jews, as well.

We cannot have hostile and powerful political actors, such as Barack Obama, demanding that Israel release the murderers of Jews from Israeli prisons as a "confidence building gesture" to terrorists like Mahmoud Abbas.

I am, therefore, in agreement.

Anyone who seeks to murder Jews in Israel for either Islamic religious reasons or due to Palestinian-Arab nationalism needs to be made to understand that Israel will not put up with it.

The penalties for those who seek to murder Jews within Israel must be harsh enough to seriously discourage the idea that it is perpetually Jew Killing Season among Arabs.

I just feel badly that I failed to find more points of disagreement between myself and Vic.

Maybe next time.

Friday, June 24, 2016

A Quick Congratulations to the Brits

Michael L.

I am not generally a big fan of Britain, given its history with the Jewish people, but I am very pleased to see them vote against continued participation in the European Union.

In my view, as in the view of many millions of people throughout the West, the EU is non-democratic.

Who makes the laws that we have to live by, and how accountable are they directly to us? That's all that matters in this referendum, because everything else flows from that. If you can't remove the people who govern you, you live in a dictatorship, however many fancy labels and buttons and bows they dress it all up in. - Pat Condell.
It seems pretty obvious, particularly given how close the vote was, that were it not for the EU's open-door policy on Arab-Muslim immigration the vote would have gone the other way.

The EU is asking the European nations to surrender their distinctiveness as nations. Unfortunately for the EU, very many Europeans prefer not only to maintain their culture, traditions, and values, but believe that there should be a single set of laws for every citizen of their country.

They would also very much prefer not to read about Muslim rape gangs going after their pre-pubescent daughters.

And also, of course, as Condell notes above, the EU is democracy decaf.

It is a means by which sovereignty is bled from the nations, and their peoples, in favor of a multi-national body that will make binding decisions for their countries. It is a way of concentrating power in direct opposition to the will of regular people because the big decisions - such as immigration policies and economic policies - are no longer in the hands of their directly elected representatives.

This is non-democratic and should be opposed.

Condell refers to the idealists that think that the European Union is supposed to be something like the United States of Europe, but as he notes the EU "has no Constitution that guarantees fundamental liberties and government by consent."

The international market has taken a hit from the Brexit vote, but that is not surprising. Just how much of a hit we will see in the coming weeks and months.

Some have argued that Britain leaving the EU is bad for Israel because it means losing a powerful friend to Israel within the EU. I very much hope that I can be excused for an eye-roll. Whatever else Britain is, it is no friend to either the State of Israel or the Jewish people.

Finally, the supreme hypocrisy of the Obama administration and friends needs to be noted.

Netanyahu, via Congressional invitation, was asked to address the US Congress on the question of Obama's Iran "deal" - actually a treaty in need of Congressional approval - and was thoroughly castigated as a malicious interloper by the Democratic Party and the progressive-left.

And, yet, Obama felt free to travel to Britain in order to lecture the Brits about what is in their own best interest despite the fact that, unlike Netanyahu's concerns, it has nothing to do with an existential threat to the United States.

And, remember, this is the guy that upon coming into office insulted that country by returning a gift, a bust of Winston Churchill, which he did not want standing anyplace within the White House.

Comet ISON

comet ISON

ISON, a recently discovered sungrazing comet, got a little too close to the Sun.

Comets are very beautiful. 

The Indigenous Population


It's heartening to see more Israeli politicians and policy makers stating that, “The Jews Are the Indigenous Population of Israel”. Even a group of Jewish Republicans have stated the inherent right of Jews to settle in the “West Bank”.

The early Jewish settlers, although Zionists, for whatever reason did not insist on the fundamental fact of Israel being the land of the Jews.

In 1967 after capturing Jerusalem, General Moshe Dayan made the fateful decision to let the Jordanian Waqf (religious authority) administer the Temple Mount. At a minimum, he could have let both the Jordanian Waqf and the Israeli religious authorities share administration. There would be, I believe, a more tractable problem on that site today.

Even the Oslo Accords implicitly hinted that the West Bank is “Palestinian” territory. It included some verbiage to the effect that, Israel will leave when it's security concerns are addressed.

Yes, it is heartening to hear public figures stating, “The Jews Are the Indigenous Population of Israel.”

Thursday, June 23, 2016

Where analogies are useful

Sar Shalom

A week ago, Abu Yehuda posted about how analogies do not always work. Vic's example was a speech given by Secretary Rice comparing the Palestinians' situation to that of the pre-1960s blacks. While Vic is correct that Rice's analogy does not describe the Palestinians' situation, there is an analogy based on the civil-rights movement that does describe the Middle East.

When the first black students attempted to enter Little Rock Central High School in 1957, their fellow student spat at them and physically abused them. Examples included throwing acid in their eyes, drop flaming paper from above and trapping them in the washrooms. This is what was done while the students had escorts from the 101st Airborne. The motivation was simple racism, the whites believed their space should not be "contaminated" by the presence of blacks.

Such is the case with prayer on the Temple Mount. In today's world, the mark of Seriousness, as opposed to seriously evaluating the issue, is to declare that the interests of peace require that Jews refrain from provoking the Muslims by praying on the holiest spot. In other words, the "international laws" that are so often pompously invoked can be set aside when, as is for the case of Jews exercising their rights under Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a heckler's veto is sufficiently fierce. By that standard, Brown v. Board of Education should have been overturned due to white opposition throughout the South.