| Did Jews buy land in Transjordan as early as the 1870s?noreply@blogger.com (Unknown), 21 Jul 04:45 AM Jamil Youssef Al-Shaboul, writing in Sawaleif, | | Jamil Youssef Al-Shaboul, writing in Sawaleif, tells a story about a brief episode of Jewish settlement in Transjordan. Palestine was not alone as a destination for the Jews and the Zionist movement. With the intention of establishing the slandered national homeland, the eastern part of the river was also targeted. When the Zionist Montefiore built the first neighborhood for the Jews outside the walls of the city of Jerusalem in 1862, after he purchased a plot of land specifically for that, the first two agricultural settlements for the Jews were built in both Jerash / on the Zarqa River and Salt, and through bribes received by some Ottoman officials to facilitate their entry into the country and their ownership for the land. The Jordanian clans sensed the seriousness of the matter early on, especially after the Jews tried to buy other lands adjacent to the Zarqa River in order to bring in another group of immigrants. The northern and Bani Hassan clans came together and held a meeting in the guesthouse of Sheikh Mustafa al-Ayasra headed by Sheikh Mufleh al-Obaidat, the father of the martyr Kayed al-Obaidat, and they unanimously agreed to expel these Jews. With all the simple light weapons they had, they burned the settlement of Rachel in Jerash and expelled the Jews from...Read More |
From Ian: Book Review | Israel's Moment: International Support and Opposition to Establishing the Jewish State, 1945-194 Herf's book forensically demolishes the myth that the West set out to create Israel to promote its interests. Rather, he demonstrates how fragile support for the Jewish state was within the West. That support was mobilised not by imperialist interests but by leftist forces who remained influenced by the anti-Nazi struggle. Israel owes its existence to a combination of social democrats and liberals in the West and the communist Soviet Union. Israel was established on the cusp of the Cold War. Both the United States and the USSR supported the United Nations partition plan, which was the last time the superpowers would agree on a key strategic issue for decades. At the same time the Jewish struggle for self-determination against British Imperialism was supported diplomatically and militarily by the USSR and its satellites, a pattern that followed all subsequent anti-colonial revolts. It was simultaneously the last act of the war-time alliance and the first act of the Cold War. This is what Jeffrey Herf calls Israel's Moment. Herf's compelling new book tells the story of this process mainly from the viewpoint of the United States but with critical material on France. He has mined government archives and the debates...Read More |
Protocols: Exposing Modern Antisemitism posed an interesting problem for this once-a-week book reader. It is my habit to read books only on the Sabbath, when my computer is shut down for the duration. Since it is the Shabbat, when writing and drawing are forbidden, the use of a highlighter is similarly off-limits. How then, can one mark important passages for future reference, especially when there is something important on pretty much every page? That was the conundrum this writer encountered while reading the absorbing new read by Elder of Ziyon. In general, the answer to my Sabbath "problem" of how to mark pages for future reference, is lots and lots of paper scraps, recycled from old printouts. I cut the paper into strips before Shabbat, and slip the resulting scraps of paper between the pages of the books I read. Then all I have to do is hope I can later figure out whether it was the page on the left, or the page on the right that had the important passage, marked as it is, by only a flimsy paper placeholder. After Shabbat, I remove the paper scraps one at a time and type out the page numbers on a document which I then save to my computer. The problem with reading this particular book, written by Elder of Ziyon—by way of disclaimer, the host of this, my weekly column—is that I found myself slipping tiny pieces of paper between most of the pages. Everything I read seemed something...Read More |
This TikTok video shows a large assembly at the Anata Secondary School east of Jerusalem, where students play-acted a kidnapping of religious Jews.
This is the Palestinian version of woke. * * * * * * Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon! Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. Read all about it here! ...Read More |
From Ian: Caroline Glick: The strategic fallout of Biden's failure States that support Palestinian-centric diplomacy include Jordan and Qatar, and of course also the Palestinian Authority also supports it. All of these are harsh opponents of the Abraham Accords. Indeed, they condemned them. Jordan does not view Iran as a threat. Hamas and to a degree the Palestinian Authority view Iran as a sponsor and ally. And Qatar is Iran's close ally and partner. All the same, the Biden administration's policy is to bring the two sides together. The first sign of this came with Secretary of State Anthony Blinken's visit to Israel and the Palestinian Authority in March. At the time, Blinken tried to force the foreign ministers of the Abraham Accord nations to bring the Palestinians into their deliberations. He failed. But rather than walk away, the administration has doubled down. They have sought to bring Iranian allies and proxies Qatar and Iraq, as well as Jordan, into the regional air defense alliance that the United States seeks to create through CENTCOM. But bringing Qatar and Iraq into the alliance means emptying the alliance of all meaning. Similarly, Biden seeks to bring Jordan and the P.A., which oppose the Abraham Accords, into the summits of Abraham Accord partners, a move that would, again, gut the accords and reduce them to strategic incoherence, at best. Immediately after Biden left Jeddah empty-handed, Egypt...Read More |
By Daled Amos President Biden likes to recount his face-to-face confrontations with world leaders and how he gave them a piece of his mind. Biden says that just this past week, he gave Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman a tongue lashing that he will not soon forget: President Biden said he confronted Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) directly Friday about the 2018 murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, telling him in a "straightforward and direct" way that the killing was unacceptable and "making clear what I thought of it at the time and what I think of it now." The crown prince, who is the de facto ruler of Saudi Arabia, "basically said that he was not personally responsible for it," Biden recounted. "I indicated that I thought he was." That account is from The Washington Post, which then goes on to quote Princess Reema bint Bandar bin Sultan, Saudi ambassador to the US, who confirmed that Biden did in fact bring up Khashoggi's murder, though not in as confrontational a way as Biden claimed: It was candid, it was honest, it was open. And what I found profoundly refreshing is the president said, "I just need to be clear and direct with you," and the crown prince said, "I welcome you being clear, candid and direct, because that's the way that we move forward." But Fox News quotes the Saudi Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Adel al-Jubeir that...Read More |
UNIFIL, the UN peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon, released a TikTok video to show what a typical day looks like for one of its soldiers. The answer is...outside marching down the Blue Line, not much. Of course, this is not entirely fair. Their regular reports to the UN show that UNIFIL does do lots of things, mostly to support the Lebanese Armed Forces, although they do nothing to help disarm Hezbollah. Every report includes a paragraph like this: No progress was achieved with regard to the disarmament of armed groups. Hizbullah continued to acknowledge publicly that it maintained military capabilities. The maintenance of arms outside the control of the State by Hizbullah and other groups in violation of resolution 1701 (2006) continued to restrict the State's ability to exercise full sovereignty and authority over its territory. One thing I didn't know is that the Trump administration made some efforts to turn UNIFIL into a more useful organization. The Congressional Research Service notes: U.S. Administrations have disagreed over the mission and size of UNIFIL. Some U.S. officials have described UNIFIL as a stabilizing presence in southern Lebanon, stating that...Read More |
| | | |
אין תגובות:
הוסף רשומת תגובה