יום ראשון, 11 בדצמבר 2011

Elder of Ziyon Daily Digest

Elder of Ziyon Daily Digest

Unity! Hamas and Fatah reportedly agree to keep two separate governments

Posted: 10 Dec 2011 11:00 PM PST

Palestine Today reports that Fatah and Hamas plan to hold a meeting in Cairo on December 18th.

According to the director of the Center for Palestine Studies in Cairo, Ibrahim Alderawi, there will be a following meeting on the 22nd where all Palestinian Arab leaders will talk about whether the PLO should be revamped.

He said "There is a consensus between Fatah and Hamas to continue the Fatah government headed by Salam Fayyad in the West Bank, and the Hamas government headed by Ismail Haniyeh in the Gaza Strip," until planned elections in May.

The invented people in the 18th century

Posted: 10 Dec 2011 08:55 PM PST

Palestinian Arabs and their Israel-hating friends have been freaking out over Newt Gingrich's characterization of them as an "invented people."

One does not have to go far back in time to see that the different Arab communities of Palestine had nothing in common with each other, and in fact usually fought with each other.

From The New Werner Twentieth Century Edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, entry on Palestine, 1907:

The Arab tribes transplanted to Palestine their old distinctions, especially that between Northern and Southern Arabs (Kais and Yemen; cf. Arabia). The Arab peasantry is still divided into clans; for example, the districts of the Beni Hasan and Beni Malik to the west of Jerusalem, those of the Beni Harith, Beni Zeid, and Beni Murrd to the north, and that of Beni Salim to the east. Till recently the relations of the separate clans of fellahin was one of mutual hostility, and, unhindered by the Turkish Government, they engaged in sanguinary conflicts. In manners and in language (though Arabic is universally in vogue) the Palestine peasants retain much that is ancient. It is extravagant, however, to maintain from the traditions they preserve that primeval Canaanite elements still exist among them. The prevalent type, in fact, is Syro-Arabic, or in many districts pure Arabic; and their superstitious customs are partly remains of Syrian beliefs, partly modern Arabic reproductions, under similar external conditions, of ancient superstitions. These remarks are applicable to the saint worship at present spread through the whole Oriental world. The fellahin are on the whole a diligent frugal race, not destitute of intelligence. If well treated by a just Government which would protect them from the extortions of the nomadic tribes, they would be the means, with the assistance of the capitalists, of greatly improving the cultivation of the country, especially in the various lowland districts. They choose their own village sheiks, who derive most of their authority from the reputation of their virtues, their bravery, and their liberality. The Bedouins, i.e., wandering tribes of pure Arab origin, also play an important part in the country. Till quite recently they used to visit certain settled districts and exact black-mail from the peasants; and they find their undisputed domain in those districts which are incapable of cultivation, and fit only for cattle rearing, and in other fertile portions which for various reasons are not occupied by the husbandman. To the first class belong the belt of desert to the west of the Dead Sea, the southernmost parts of the country west of Jordan and the south country beyond the river (Moab); to the second belong the greater portion of the maritime plain, the depression of the Jordan valley and part of the country to the east. The divisions of the Arab tribes will be discussed in the article Syria. In Palestine east of Jordan the Beni Sakhr (Moab) are of most importance; Jebel 'Ajlun is the seat of the 'Adwan. The Ghawarine (the inhabitants of the Ghor or Jordan depression) form a peculiar race which, as they are partly agricultural, have been a long time settled in the district. In type, as well as by their degeneracy, they are distinguished from the other Bedouins. The true Bedouin style of life can be studied only beyond the Jordan or to the south of Palestine—the tribes west of the river, such as the Ta'Smire and Jehalin in the south being all more or less deteriorated.

The Palestine Exploration Fund in 1884 researched the names of the tribes around Jerusalem and discovered something fascinating:

If, however, we turn to the map of Arabia in the days of Muhammed and of Omar, we find the following tribes represented :—
Beni 'Amir, a tribe of the Nejed near Yemana, or again south-east of Medina.
Beni Harith, a tribe of Yemen north-east of Sana.
Beni Murreh, both east of Medina, and south of the Jauf Oasis.
Beni Suleim, east of Medina.
Beni Malik, a division of the Beni Temim, who lived near Yemana.

It was with the aid of these and other tribes that the famous Khaled defeated the Romans on the Hieromax in 634 a.d. ; and under Omar they swept over Palestine soon after.

It seems therefore probable that in these local names we have a trace of Omar's Conquest of Syria, and that the hills of Judea and Samaria were regularly portioned out among his followers. The noble families of Jerusalem still claim to have "come over with the conqueror" at this time. We have thus only another instance of the survival in Syria of early Moslem divisions, and the division of the Keis and Yemeni factions, which dates back to the early days of Islam, is still hardly extinct, and is well remembered in Southern Palestine.
Other more recent scholars concurred - the tribes of Palestine were transplanted splinter tribes from various parts of Arabia and kept their names.

A later work called Syrian Stone-lore, or The Monumental History of Palestine also written for the Palestine Exploration Fund seems to have heavily borrowed from the above quote, but added:
In 1881 I heard related in Taiyibeh (see 'Memoirs,' vol. iii.) a long account of the contests of these factions, occurring in quite recent times. In Palestine the Eastern Arabs were the Yemini party, and the settled village population mainly the Keis party. This feud of Keis and Yemini, which arose when the Ommeiyah ruled Palestine, was a split between the Aramaic or North Arab tribes, who claimed descent from the Adites, and the Yemenites or South Arab tribes, who claimed descent from Himyar and from Kahtan. The two factions were, however, joined by various tribes from purely political motives, so that the division is not exactly one of race. In 64 A.h. Merwan had some tribes of South Arab origin on his side at the battle of Merj Rahif.
This is not controversial. The simple fact is that the Arabs of Palestine before 1900  identified fully with their tribes and villages and not at all with each other, and they had no more in common with each other as they had with their neighbors across the Jordan and in Syria.

Saying that they were a "people" is simply fiction. An argument can be made that they are a people today, mostly because of their shared suffering at the hands of their Arab brethren, but before the 20th century it is simply not true.

Salafist party in Egypt calls democracy "kufr"

Posted: 10 Dec 2011 06:41 PM PST

Al Masry al Youm reports that leaders of the Salafist Nour party that gained about a quarter of the votes in the recent elections consider democracy to be "kufr," or apostasy.

They said that a proper government would use the system of "allegiance" to determine new leadership, as practiced by early Muslims after Mohammed's death.

They also claimed that the advertisements in the streets of Cairo are "Masonic Jewish ads" and should be banned.

If democracy is "kufr," then why did they participate and run in elections?

Could it possibly be to ensure that these are the last elections Egypt ever has?

Nah. That's infidel talk.

And the Salafists serve a great purpose: they allow the Western world to pretend that the Muslim Brotherhood is "moderate" by comparison.

Today, John Kerry even met with the virulently anti-semitic Brotherhood. Why not? They are respectable anti-semites!

(h/t Translating Jihad for confirming some of the translation for me)

Palestinian Arabs are Jebusites? ROFL!

Posted: 10 Dec 2011 04:10 PM PST

From CNN:

Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich stands by his support for a Palestinian state, his spokesman said Saturday, despite his comment about an "invented Palestinian people" that has drawn fire from leaders in the West Bank.

Gingrich made the comments in an interview that aired Friday with The Jewish Channel, a U.S. cable channel.

"I believe that the Jewish people have the right to have a state," Gingrich said in the interview. "Remember, there was no Palestine as a state. It was part of the Ottoman Empire. And I think that we've had an invented Palestinian people, who are in fact Arabs, who are historically part of the Arab community."

He added, "And they had a chance to go many places and for a variety of political reasons, we have sustained this war against Israel now since the 1940s. I think it's tragic."...

Fatah Revolutionary Council member Dimitri Diliani said Gingrich's remarks reflect "the ignorant, provocative, and racist nature of Mr. Gingrich," according to WAFA.

"The Palestinian people descended from the Canaanite tribe of the Jebusites that inhabited the ancient site of Jerusalem as early as 3200 B.C.E.," Diliani said. The "Gingrich remarks are ignorant of the basic historical facts of the Middle East."

This is too good.

The only confirmed mention of the historic Jebusites is in the Hebrew Bible. That's the only source that says that the Jebusites lived around Jerusalem. This exact same source says that one of their leaders, Araunah, offered to give the Temple Mount to King David; David insisted that he pay for it, and he did  - for the amount of fifty silver shekels.

So if you believe that the Palestinian Arabs are actually Jebusites, you must believe that they sold the Temple Mount to the Jews in a legal transaction.

(Since such a sale to a Jew would get Araunah the death penalty today, perhaps the Palestinians should atone for their sin!)

There is another problem, though.

The Constitution of Palestine refers numerous times to the "Arab Palestinian people" and that "Palestine is part of the large Arab World, and the Palestinian people are part of the Arab Nation." The PLO Charter similarly states "Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation."

But Jebusites were not Arabs. They were not even Semites! No self-respecting Jebusite (if any had still existed) would identify with the Arab hordes who overran his homeland in the seventh century. He would probably want to behead the infidel invaders.

Is the constitution and charter wrong? When they call themselves Arab, are they all lying?

Perhaps "Palestine" should quit the Arab League and re-assert its nebulous Jebusite ancestry.

If it isn't obvious enough already, note how Diliani chooses the Jebusites, not the Hittites or Amorites or other residents of Canaan, to be their ancestors - choosing the one tribe that is associated with Jerusalem.

A real people knows their own history; an invented people will invent their history - and change it whenever it is convenient for them. And since Jerusalem has only become important to the Arab residents of Palestine in the past hundred years, it is convenient to choose specifically that tribe that lived there to be their invented ancestors today.

In other words, Diliani's absurd assertion is actually proof for Gingrich's claims.

(h/t Dan)

The enigma of Jeffrey Goldberg (DG)

Posted: 10 Dec 2011 02:50 PM PST

From DG's daily Mideast Media Sampler:

The other day, Jeffrey Goldberg asked a few questions and demonstrated that Max Blumenthal made up a slander against Israel.


The next day, Goldberg quoted Peter Beinart and agreed with Beinart's slander.
I think we're only a few years away, at most, from a total South-Africanization of this issue. And if Israelis believe that the vast majority of American Jews -- their most important supporters in the entire world -- are going to sit idly by and watch Israel permanently disenfranchise a permanently-occupied minority population, they're deluding themselves. A non-democratic Israel will not survive in this world. It's an impossibility. So Israel has a choice -- find a way to reverse the settlement process and bring about the conditions necessary to see the birth of a Palestinian state (I'm for unilateral closure of settlements but the military occupation's end will have to be negotiated with the Palestinians) or simply grant the Palestinians on the West Bank the right to vote in Israeli elections. Gaza is an entirely separate problem, but one not solvable so long as Hamas is in charge, but even without Gaza's Arabs, Israel would cease to be a Jewish state if West Bank Arabs became citizens.

It will be extremely difficult for any number of reasons for Israel to leave the West Bank, but it will be impossible for Israel to survive over the long-term if it remains an occupier of a group of people who don't want to be occupied. I understand the security consequences of an Israeli departure from most of the West Bank, but I also understand that there is ultimately no choice. I don't believe a one-state solution is any sort of solution at all; Israel/Palestine will devolve quickly into civil war. The only solution is a two-state solution.
I don't get it. What occupation is he referring to?


In December, 1995 the Los Angeles Times reported:
In the last seven weeks Israel has handed over six West Bank towns and more than 400 villages to the Palestinian Authority. The authority now controls about 90% of the West Bank's more than 1 million Arabs, and about one-third of the land in the Delaware-size territory.
Efraim Karsh has expanded on this (h/t Daled Amos):
On September 28, 1995, despite Arafat's abysmal failure to clamp down on terrorist activities in the territories now under his control, the two parties signed an interim agreement, and by the end of the year Israeli forces had been withdrawn from the West Bank's populated areas, with the exception of Hebron (where redeployment was completed in early 1997). On January 20, 1996, elections to the Palestinian Legislative Council were held, and shortly afterward, both the Israeli civil administration and the military government were dissolved.
The geographical scope of these withdrawals was relatively limited; the surrendered land amounted to some 30 percent of the West Bank's overall territory. But its impact on the Palestinian population was nothing short of revolutionary. In one fell swoop, Israel relinquished control over virtually all of the West Bank's 1.4 million residents. Since that time, nearly 60% of them – in the Jericho area and in the seven main cities of Jenin, Nablus, Tulkarm, Kalkilya, Ramallah, Bethlehem and Hebron – have lived entirely under Palestinian jurisdiction. Another 40% live in towns, villages, refugee camps and hamlets where the Palestinian Authority exercises civil authority but where, in line with the Oslo accords, Israel has maintained "overriding responsibility for security."
In short, since the beginning of 1996, and certainly following the completion of the Hebron redeployment in January 1997, 99% of the Palestinian residents of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip have not lived under Israeli occupation; rather, they have been under the jurisdiction of the Arafat-led PA.
 (Emphasis mine)


Recently Sa'eb Erekat said something incredible:
In an interview with the Arabic radio station As-Shams two weeks ago, chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat​ said that based on an aerial photograph provided by European sources, the settlements cover only 1.1 percent of the West Bank.
So if settlements cover only 1.1 percent of the West Bank, why does the entire West deem them the main obstacle to peace? Because admitting that settlements aren't the main obstacle to peace would force it to confront an unpalatable truth: that the real obstacle to peace is Palestinian unwillingness to accept a Jewish state in any borders.
So a vast majority of  Palestinians do not live under Israeli jurisdiction and the percent of the West Bank on which Jewish communities exist, is miniscule. How exactly do these data demonstrate  an ongoing "occupation?"


The only possible explanation is that Goldberg subscribes to the Palestinian Authority's belief that it is the only party that can declare the occupation over. If so, Goldberg gives the PA the power to determine Israel's legitimacy. If so, what incentive does the PA to compromise or ever agree to terms? At some point, according to Goldberg, Israel will lose its legitimacy and the Palestinians will have won. 


And this also means that the Palestinians are never held accountable for their incitement and their refusal to accept Israel as a Jewish state. By Goldberg's calculus only Israel has legitimacy issues and the Palestinians are absolved from any responsibility towards advancing or even, maintaining peace.


So one day after demolishing one libel against Israel, Jeffrey Goldberg perpetuated another.
I would add a reference to a twitter conversation I had with Goldberg and a follow-up post I wrote.

I also made similar points to DG's in this post,

And another related post is here.

Jonathan Tobin at Commentary makes some good points as well here and here.
פורסם על ידי zoom ב- 0:10

אין תגובות:

הוסף רשומת תגובה

הירשם ל- תגובות לפרסום (Atom)