My Right Word

Belated Cordoba Cathedral Update

noreply@blogger.com (YMedad) — Wed, 15 Apr 2026 05:09:00 +0000

(ZENIT News / Córdoba, 09.19.2025).- The Cathedral of Córdoba, one of Spain’s most iconic religious monuments, faced an unsettling episode last month when repeated bomb threats forced police to sweep the site and activate emergency protocols. Authorities later arrested a man in Palencia, hundreds of kilometers away, accusing him of public disorder and hate crimes linked to the incident. On August 12, the cathedral’s security staff received nearly twenty threatening phone calls over several hours, warning of explosives in the building. For more than an hour, the vast medieval complex—visited daily by thousands of tourists and pilgrims—was combed by officers and evacuated in parts, until investigators determined the alarm was false. While no explosives were found, the caller, according to Spain’s National Police, used racist and xenophobic language alongside his threats. Tracing the calls eventually led officers to the north of the country, where the suspect was taken into custody.

Who was the suspect?

Background. Additional background.

"...the building evokes a supposedly harmonious past, when Muslims, Christians, and Jews lived together in peace, an idea that the Spanish refer to as convivencia, or “coexistence.”

If the above is true and a genuine ex‎pression of Islamic "tolerance", why not apply it to Jerusalem's Temple Mount?"

Is Anti-Zionism to be Considered Anti-Semitism?

noreply@blogger.com (YMedad) — Tue, 07 Apr 2026 13:23:00 +0000

Anti-semitism is the hate of Jews for being Jews.

Being Jewish includes the belief that the Land of Israel is the covenanted homeland of the Jewish nation.

It is the land where the nation, as a federation of the Twelve Tribes, settled in under the leadership of Joshua after Moshe brought the Israelites out of Egypt back into the land of the Forefathers.

It is the land in which the Monarchy ruled.

It is the land which first withstood and then was defeated when the Assyrian Empire invaded.

It is the land which revolted against the Greek-Selecuid occupiers.

The land that stood up to the Roman occupiers.

The land in which the entire ancient religious and cultural heritage of the Jewish People, in its unique Hebrew language, was formulated and fashioned.

The land to which Jews constantly and continually returned over the 18 centuries of foreign rule including the Byzantines, the Persians, the Muslim Arabs, the Crusaders, the Mamlukes, Ottomans, British and Jordanians and the loss of political indendence.

It is the land where the Two Temples stood and served as sacred sites of worship.

It is the land in which special commandments can be exclusively fulfilled and no where else.

It is the land that, ever since Talmudic times of the second Babylonian exile, Jews felt obligated to support those living in it, especially the scholars, sending charity funds from across 70 countries of the Diaspora.

It is the land towards which Jews pray, no matter wher they may be - north, south, east, west.

It is the land mentioned in our daily prayers, our Shabbat and Festival prayers, in the Passover Haggada, Tisha B'Av elegies and more.

Anyone who seeks to sever the connection between Jews and the Land of Israel, anyone who claims there is no Torah-based directive to return to it and reside in it and make it bloom, who declares him or herself an anti-Zionist, is being anti-Jewish.

They may love Jews but to dislike and disregard the Land of Israel, ideologically, economcially, politically or security-wise, to reject the right of the Jews to establish a state in their historic homeland, is being anti-semitic.

A Story of the Status Quo and the Prince (with apologies to Rebbe Nachman)

noreply@blogger.com (YMedad) — Tue, 07 Apr 2026 12:30:00 +0000

A story of the Status Quo and the Prince*

Once upon a time, the king's son fell into madness of being in an exiled state, which he called the Status Quo, which is similar to suffering an identity crisis, and decided that the king's palace had to be abandoned as if it had become a desolate place for his enemies, and the king's son would sit outside as if in exile.

All the doctors and prophets despaired of helping him and curing him of this, and the king was in even greater sorrow than that. Until a wise man came and said, "I will take it upon myself to cure him," and he left the palace and sat outside with the king's son. And he asked the king's son, "Who are you and what are you doing here?" And he answered him, "I am in exile, for that is what the status quo is. What are you doing here?" And the wise man replied, "I am also in exile."

And they both sat together like that for a while until they became accustomed to each other. And the Wise Man said to the king's son, "Do you think that those who are in exile cannot live in the Land of Israel under Jewish sovereignty? They can establish a state, and yet it will be a status quo."

And he continued, "They established a state. After some time, they received a hint, and they went to war and won and conquered the mountain and the valley and Jerusalem." And he also said to him as above, "Do you think that with Jerusalem there cannot be a status quo, etc., until they have settled in Jerusalem and with the rest of the Land?"

And then they received another hint and they began to ascend the Temple Mount and pray there and bow down and he said to him, "Meynstu az aoyb men davent aoyfn har habayis ven es iz nishta keyn status kvo, ken men davenen aun aoykh habn dem status kvo, aun zikh anshtrengen aoyfn har habayis?" (Do you think that if one prays on the Temple Mount while there is no status quo, one can pray and also have the status quo, and prostrate on the Temple Mount?"

And then again the Wise Man spoke and said to the king's son, "Do you think that the status quo must be precisely without sacrifices or that there can be a status quo and there can be sacrifices as well?" And thus he behaved with him until he completely healed him and they returned and built the king's palace and expelled all the king's enemies. And the parable is understandable to those who understand.

This tale, whose author I am still searching for, is based on an actual Nachman of Bratslav tale:

Hebrew source.

An English translation.

Introducing Miriam Engel (whoever "she" is)

noreply@blogger.com (YMedad) — Sun, 05 Apr 2026 08:42:00 +0000

"Miriam Engel" is to be found at Instagram.

Whoever she really is I do not know but "she" is an AI creation but with a twist.

The creator obviously is from within the Satmar (or closely related) court of Hassidim, uses largely Yiddish and deals with very Haredi/Jewish subjects and themes.

And does so in sometimes an outrageous but good-hearted and humorous manner.

"She" stretches limits but within limits.

Here is one of here more 'shocking' series, with her on a motorcycle and the results of the wind:

The Litani River as a northern Border (Updated)

noreply@blogger.com (YMedad) — Fri, 03 Apr 2026 06:54:00 +0000

This has recently appeared:

which recalls the 1919 efforts to set the northern border of the future state of Israel.

From the Zionist Organization Statement on Palestine at the Paris Peace Conference on February 3, 1919:

"The boundaries of Palestine shall follow the general lines set out below:

Starting on the North at a point on the Mediterranean Sea in the vicinity south of Sidon and following the watersheds of the foothills of the Lebanon as far as Jisr El-Karaon thence to El-Bire, following the dividing line between the two basins of the Wadi El-Korn and the Wadi Et-Teim, thence in a southerly direction following the dividing line between the Eastern and Western slopes of the Hermon, to the vicinity west of Beit Jenn, then eastward following the northern watersheds of the Nahr Mughaniye close to and west of the Hedjaz Railway.

In the east a line close to and west of the Hedjaz Railway terminating in the Gulf of Akaba."

UPDATE:

Arabe sources claim there's a suggestion to move the border northwards to the Awali River:

More on the 1391 Martyred Monks by Muslims

noreply@blogger.com (YMedad) — Tue, 31 Mar 2026 07:51:00 +0000

Back in January 2012, I posted details on the four martyred Franciscan monks in Jerusalem, after failing to persuade Muslim officials of the truth of the Gospel.

Note the cowering Muslim figure:

There is a memorial day for them:

They were canonized, being the only Franciscans martyred in the Holy Land to be canonized.

Extract from an academic article:

And no Jew was involved.

Amit Segal Responds to Ilana Dayan

noreply@blogger.com (YMedad) — Sun, 29 Mar 2026 07:29:00 +0000

After a monolgue by Channel 12's Ilana Dayan, Amit Segal responded in his Israel Hayom weekly column:

Oiy Ilana Dayan

"Ilana Dayan was not the first to cause a stir in the middle of a war when she called for "not to normalize the death around us and insist on sanctifying life." She was preceded, albeit in a novel and not in an investigative program, by the writer S.Y. Agnon:

'A lot of things are happening and going on, every day Jews are killed, secretly and publicly, and every day the newspapers are decorated with black decorations. At first, when we would see a black stripe in the newspaper and read that an Israeli had been killed, we put down our dinner.

'Now that troubles are here, a man sits at his table and eats his fat with butter and honey, reading and saying – Another Jew was killed. Another Jewish woman was killed, another baby from Israel was killed.'

My friend Ilana's words are worthy of discussion and not insults: 'I want to dedicate the last two minutes of our broadcast to human life. While our screens are being flooded with airstrikes and assassinations, while the Prime Minister is telling how he is once again removing an existential threat that he has already declared has been removed and is once again changing the face of the Middle East, in an apartment in the heart of Ramat Gan an Israeli couple was sitting the other day.

"When the alarm went off, he was probably trying to get to the walker, maybe it was waiting for him and they didn't have time to get to the shelter. The missile hit and both were killed, the mayor and the Home Front Command representative scolded the dead for not following the instructions... The responsibility should be left with those in the government who approved attack plans but forgot to check protection plans for those who have no chance of getting to the shelter in time or who have no shelter at all.'

I will return to the rest of the monologue, but it is important to note one fundamental difference between Ilana and Agnon. He attributed the normalization of death to weakness in the face of the enemy: "And we sit with our hands clasped and surrender ourselves to killing and say, 'Restraint, restraint.' They kill and murder and burn, and we sit and restrain ourselves."

While Dayan hinted that the source of the indifference is precisely in the excessive enthusiasm of Eli Kareb: "The responsibility should be left with those who take us out to a war within a war within a war. They shoot videos full of excitement and announce that a superpower has arisen here that hits hard and always wins." And this is precisely where the disagreement lies, not only with Agnon but also with little me, with the claim. Because the opposite of the current war is not peace; the opposite is an even more bitter war in the future. After all, this was exactly the justified argument against Netanyahu after October 7: Why did you let the monster grow stronger on our borders instead of acting against it? Obviously, no one is under the illusion that in such a preventive war there would be no victims, perhaps two adults from Ramat Gan who did not have time to reach the protected area, perhaps twenty. Would that have turned such a war into something that the officers "took us out to," a hint at a war of permission to come, a war of luxury to come, perhaps a war of deception?

And in general, this is not a "war within a war within a war." Elhanan Kalmanzon, an Israeli hero who fell in Be'eri on the morning of October 8 while rescuing kibbutzniks, certainly not a sign of neglect and indifference towards human life, wrote to his wife years before: 'If I die as a martyr in the war for the land, I ask that they remember that this is not another war or intifada, this is the same long war for our country and the identity of our people that has been going on for almost a hundred and fifty years.'

'Yaron and Ilana from Ramat Gan will no longer win, and neither will we," Dayan added, "if on the way to crushing the axis of evil, we forget what we came together for. If we become indifferent to the weak and to human life... If we become equal to the lives of the children Yaakov, Sarah, and Abigail from Beit Shemesh and Amit from Petach Tikva. Human life, every human. Also the lives of Ali Wa'ad from the village of Tamon and their young children, Muhammad and Othman. They did not die from an Iranian missile, but from Israeli fire. They were on their way home earlier this week after shopping for the holiday and an undercover force sprayed their vehicle, killing all four of them. You can hear the fighters say they felt threatened, but then you have to see the look in the eyes of the child who saw his parents and siblings being shot before his eyes. Stay with him for a moment and not normalize the death around us and insist on sanctifying life. There is no more complete victory than that.'

I too would have liked to dwell more broadly on the deaths of Yaron and Ilana, or Mary Ann, or the murdered Beit Shemesh children. It seems to me that there is a discussion here about aesthetics and journalism, disguised as a discussion about morality. There is not a lack of caring in the country, but a lack of attention. Already in Tractate Berakhot it is written that "last troubles make one forget the first," and as we know, there has been no shortage of troubles lately.

As for the Palestinian family killed by undercover fire due to mistaken identification, it seems that the veiled claim is not merely a condemnation of the neglect but rather hints at the responsibility of Israeli society, a kind of causing death out of collective indifference due to too-light orders to open fire.

Clearly, the claim is not about forgetting the unfortunate children but about the shooting party, Israel. After all, last week, three Palestinian women were murdered by an Iranian missile in a bridal salon near Hebron, and to this day we don't even know their names. Gideon Levy and Amira Hess didn't bother to visit the village of Amal, Mays, and Sahira until the issue closed, and haven't written a heartbreaking article about them until now. Palestinians are only interesting in their deaths if there is an Israeli to blame for them. If we're going to mention forgotten names, shouldn't we remember them too?"

The Mystery of the Roman Sword in the Mikveh

noreply@blogger.com (YMedad) — Thu, 26 Mar 2026 07:16:00 +0000

In the latest edition of Israel Museum Studies in Archaeology Volume 12 2025, there's an article describing the results of new efforts to investigate "A Roman Spatha Sword and Scabbard From Excavations on Mount Zion in Jerusalem" found over 50 years ago.

The authors are Shimon Gibson University of North Carolina at Charlotte; Rafael Y. Lewis Bar-Ilan University; Yarden Pagelson Ben-Gurion University of the Negev; Dudi Mevorah Israel Museum, Jerusalem; Hadas Seri Israel Museum, Jerusalem.

The spatha was found south of the Zion Gate:

Here it is in situ:

And its appearance in 1971:

By all means, read it even it it can be very technical. It is dated to late Second Temple Period and its following century.

What excited my imagination, however, is its exact location when found. It "was uncovered on 3 October 1971 in earthen sediments and fills within a plastered stepped ritual bath (miqweh) inside one of the rooms of a very large Early Roman mansion exposed in Area I (Square 6, Locus 12, Basket (B) 1254). This was the first area to be excavated on the eastern side of the Armenian courtyard of the St. Saviour property, due south of the Zion Gate (Fig. 1)."

A mikveh?

We have a novel waiting to be written.

What was a Roman sword doing in a mikveh?

Was it stolen from a soldier or his corpse and stored there?

Did a Roman soldier attempt an assault there?

Did a Jewish woman belong to a Jewish fighting force and had hidden it there?

If you have any other suggestions, comment below.

"𝙋𝙖𝙡𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙞𝙖𝙣 𝙘𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙯𝙚𝙣𝙨"

noreply@blogger.com (YMedad) — Mon, 23 Mar 2026 14:15:00 +0000

I found this term in The Guardian, in a March 23, 2026 story:

"Parties that represent 𝙋𝙖𝙡𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙞𝙖𝙣 𝙘𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙯𝙚𝙣𝙨 of Israel are likely to offer the only path for the opposition parties to form a government."

There is no "Palestine" and such a political entity never existed so one cannot have been or currently be a citizen of such.

One can be an Israeli Arab.

One can be a resident of the Palestinian National Authority.

Are all Israelis who were born during the period of the British Mandate for Palestine and who held Palestine nationality still be, if they are alive, a "Palestinian citizen of Israel"?

What is the Guardian newspaper doing in its magic bag of journalistic rhetoric skills?

Going to Jerusalem in 1615

noreply@blogger.com (YMedad) — Mon, 23 Mar 2026 12:49:00 +0000

From a new book, Ottoman-era Documents from the Cairo Genizah.

A Rabbi Shmuel set off for Jerusalem from Egypt in 1615 for a 20-day trek and required a document that he coulkd present to various government officials along the way which would provide him security from the dangers of raiding Bedouin as well as food and lodging. It also afforded him escorts for his protection although once he reached Jerusalem's gates, he would be required to make a payment to enter the city.

A Jew in Egypt, not European, a country ruled by the Ottoman Empire and going to Jerusalem, in the occupied territory of the former Judea in the early 17th century to spend the Pilgrimage Festival of Passover.

Think about it.

Describing Shiloh in...1898

noreply@blogger.com (YMedad) — Thu, 19 Mar 2026 16:10:00 +0000

An Insight into Whether Arabs are Indigenous to 'Palestine'

noreply@blogger.com (YMedad) — Wed, 18 Mar 2026 11:19:00 +0000

From "The Nusseibeh Family: Khazraj Roots That Grew and Blossomed in Jerusalem", July 10, 2024:

"The origins of Jerusalem’s Nusseibeh family trace back to the large Banu Khazraj tribe, one of the tribes of Mazin ibn al-Azd, originally from southern Arabia. Along with their cousins from the Banu Aws tribe, the Banu Khazraj supported the Prophet Muhammad and welcomed him and his Muslim followers in Medina after they fled Mecca during the hijra in 622 CE....

The Nusseibehs were named after Nusseibeh bint Ka‘b of Medina, also known as Umm ‘Ammara, one of the earliest women to convert to Islam. During the Battle of Uhud near Medina in 625 CE between the early Muslims and the tribe of Quraysh, Umm ‘Ammara is said to have treated and cared for the wounded at night and fought alongside the Prophet during the day, sustaining wounds herself...

The detailed origins of the family are recorded by Hafiz Abdul Rahim Nusseibeh al-Khazraji in his book The Khazraj Nusseibeh Family: Custodians of History and the Present. Extensively researched and drawing on more than 830 Ottoman documents related to the family, the book traces 600 years of the family’s lineage since the advent of Islam. The sources used to tell these elaborate details also depict the family’s high social and religious status in Jerusalem, owing in large part to its members participating in the Islamic conquest of the city under the leadership of Caliph Umar in 638 CE.

Arrival in Jerusalem

Regarding the family’s arrival in Jerusalem, Hafiz Nusseibeh explains that, among the warriors in Caliph Umar’s army was Abdullah ibn Nusseibeh, the son of Umm ‘Ammara. The Umari conquest of Jerusalem, which included a four-month siege of the city, led to the capitulation of the Byzantines under Patriarch Sophronius. But upon conquering the city, Caliph Umar instructed his Muslim army to protect the churches and other non-Muslim shrines, assigning Abdullah ibn Nusseibeh the responsibility and honor of protecting the Church of the Holy Sepulchre from any attacks by Muslims or others. This was part of a treaty, known as the Pact of Umar, reached in 637 CE between the invading Muslim army and the non-Muslims of the Levant. As part of the pact, non-Muslims were granted security, protection, and rights under Muslim rule in exchange for loyalty..."

"...Jerusalem Story sat down with one of the eldest members of the Nusseibeh family, 70-year-old Wajih Nusseibeh, who has been responsible for opening and closing the door of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre for more than 40 years. We met in his home in the Wadi al-Joz neighborhood of Jerusalem, in the presence of a younger family member, Munir Nusseibeh, to recount the family’s enduring presence in Jerusalem for nearly 14 centuries.

Wajih was born in 1949 in the Nusseibeh family home in the Musrara neighborhood of Jerusalem near the Damascus Gate...Wajih described his Khazraj origins, explaining that the Nusseibeh family’s roots go back to Medina, and that their ancestor, Umm ‘Ammara, was a devoted fighter who stood by the Prophet Muhammad.

“We came to Jerusalem as conquerors during the time of Umar ibn al-Khattab..."

Arabs in 'Palestine' - since the 7th century, as conquerors.

How Did the Palin Commission View Jabotinsky's Role in the 1920 Defense of Jerusalem?

noreply@blogger.com (YMedad) — Thu, 12 Mar 2026 05:56:00 +0000

Extract from the 1920 Palin Report on the "Disturbances" of April 1920 in Jerusalem:

"...A singular incident was the offer by Mr. Jabotinsky and Mr. Ruthenberg to place at the disposal of the local authorities the volunteer bands which had recently been raised by these two gentlemen in anticipation of some such catastrophe as had occurred that day. The whole history of this movement is extremely unsatisfactory. It seems scarcely credible that the fact that these men had been got together and were openly drilling at the back of the Lemel School and on Mount Scopes should have been known as it undoubtedly was, to the population during the month of March - it was organised after the demonstration of the 8th - and yet no word of it reached either the Governorate or the Administation until after the riots. Yet this is what is alleged and this ignorance can only be attributed to the curious defects in the intelligence system which the evidence occasionally reveals. There was no attempt at secrecy. Mr. Ruthenberg actually went to Brig. General Waters Taylor in March and asked permission to arm the force. Brig. General Waters Taylor's answer to this is that he understood Mr. Ruthenberg to be referring to the question of arming outlying colonies of Jews.

He admits that towards the end of March, Colonel Bramley reported that the Jews were drilling on Mount Scopes, but neither of them appear to have associated this with the idea of a defence force. At any rate as the result of his interview, Mr. Ruthenberg appears to have understood that he must not arm his force. After this, Lieut. Jabotinsky asked Colonel Storrs for permission to arm the force - he was at the time drilling daily behind the Lemel School - but he also appears to have left Colonel Storrs under the impression that what he wanted was arms for outlying colonies and to have failed to have made it clear that he had raised a defence force. Dr. Eder in backing this application apparently made it no clearer. The organisers decided to arm their men in spite of the Administration although they were unable to raise more than about thirty pieces - so convinced were they that trouble was coming. It is claimed that the force kept guard in the city on the 2nd, but the police deny all knowledge of this.

On Sunday morning, as soon as they heard of the trouble, Messrs. Ruthenberg and Jabotinsky went to the Military Governor and offered the services of themselves and the force they had raised to assist in restoring order. What actually took place is narrated by Mr. Ruthenberg and as Colonel Storrs admits its general accuracy, it may be accepted. In the course of conversation both men admitted having arms; Mr. Jabotinsky as an ex-British officer - Mr. Jabotinsky was principally concerned in raising the Jewish Battalions which served with the Egyptian Expeditionary Force in Palestine - surrendered his arm when ordered to do so. Mr. Ruthenberg was persuaded to give his up and it was not returned to him. A discussion ensued in which Ruthenberg and Jabotinsky refused to surrender the arms their men possessed but asked for the men to be armed by the Administration and used. Colonel Storrs said he must refer the matter to the Chief Administrator and arranged a meeting for the afternoon. At 4 p.m., they again met and Colonel Storrs tried to restore confidence in the Administration by relating the measure taken to protect the Jews. Messrs. Ruthenberg and Jabotinsky approved, but insisted on the Arab police - against whom by this time there were many complaints - being disarmed and the Jewish youth being armed under their responsibility if the Administration considered it necessary.

As a compromise, Colonel Bramley suggested the formation of a body of special constables to which Ruthenberg and Jabotinsky agreed, but Colonel Storrs refused. A number of other propositions were discussed and agreed on. During the evening and night the Jewish leaders made use of their men in a limited way as Colonel Storrs had promised that nobody should be arrested if they did not collect in bands. (It is only fair to state that Colonel Storrs denies giving any such promise), They patrolled the city and collected information. The events on Monday and Tuesday decided the authorities to use the force and on Tuesday Mr. Ruthenberg was summoned to the Governorate and informed by Colonel Storrs and Colonel Beddy, O.O. Troops, that the Administration had decided to use his men and asked how many he could produce. It was explained they were to be used as special constables not armed. Late that night Mr. Ruthenberg was asked for a hundred men to be presented at 8 a.m. the next day. These they succeeded in presenting at the time and place named. Two companies of about fifty men were actually sworn in when the Administration decided to suspend the order and it was not proceeded with. It was Mr. Jabotinsky who selected the men and he was in constant consultation with the officials up to the time of his arrest on April 7th.

On the 18th April, Mr. Ruthenberg writes to Colonel Storrs stating that calm having been restored to the city, he had demobilised the "Self Defence", to which Colonel Storrs replied with the decidedly disingenous letter of the 21st April, asking what was meant by "Defence Corps" as the Administration had no cognisance of such a body. Mr. Ruthenberg admits that in arming the corps "the wishes of the Administration were disregarded for the reasons already alleged - but subsequent events proved we were right". The Administration disclaims all responsibility for Mr. Jabotinsky's arrest and places the onus upon the Military - yet the Legal Officers of the Administration were employed to draw the charges. This Court is unable to extend its mission into an inquiry into the conduct of the subsequent Military Court; but in view of the preceding circumstances into which the Court has been obliged to probe very thoroughly: the undoubted cause for anxiety among the Jewish Community, the admitted purely defensive intention of the organisers of the force, the constant consultation into which both the local officials and the Military entered with its leaders after the disturbances had broken out, the actual enrolment of a portion of the force as special constables with the active help of Mr. Jabotinsky: taking all these matters into account, together with Mr. Jabotinsky's record as the organiser of the Jewish Battalions for the service of the British Army, the Court feels itself obliged to record its opinion that the arrest and prosecution of Mr. Jabotinsky was ungenerous.

No doubt the persistent impression that the Jews were in some way concerned as aggressors as well as the Arabs, in spite of the fact that the Arab casualties were practically negligible, is largely responsible for the attitude of the Military Authorities; and undoubtedly the repeated attempts of the Zionists to take action irrespective of the Authorities was embarrassing and a cause of exasperation, but other and milder methods might well, in view of all the circumstances, have been adopted."

Guttersnipe Antisemitism Masquerading as Political Commentary

noreply@blogger.com (YMedad) — Tue, 03 Mar 2026 08:41:00 +0000

Candace Owens

Max Blumenthal

Nick Fuentes

Tucker Carlson to be uploaded soon.

Why do mainstream/legacy media outlets ignore the content of their remarks, what they portend in a socio-political sense as hate speech?

UPDATE

"Now that Trump has allied with Israel in a war for Iranian regime change, there’s no made-up story wild enough for the anti-neocon gang to pretend that either Trump is “with them” or neocons are in despair. They feel boxed out, and they’re enraged.
Tucker Carlson has called Operation Epic Fury “absolutely disgusting and evil.” Marjorie Taylor Greene responded by saying that the Trump administration was packed with a “bunch of sick f--king liars.” Nick Fuentes instructed his simian audience to vote for Democrats in the midterms. Blackwater founder Erik Prince said, “I don’t see how this is in keeping with the president’s MAGA commitment.” And on and on it goes...they’re lost in their own fantasy roleplay game where motives are disguised or inverted, double agents are showing their faces, and state-backed cabals wield wizardly powers of influence—you know, it’s the Jews’ fault. Megyn Kelly simply confessed, “This feels very much to me like it is clearly Israel’s war.”...Vance, after all, once assured a groyper at a live event that “Israel doesn’t control this president.” And in downplaying the rise of the right-wing Jew-haters he was courting, he claimed that the whole issue of anti-Semitism on the right was made up by pro-Israel conservatives to distract Americans from discussing the supposedly problematic U.S.-Israel relationship.
Three days ago, that relationship showed the world the most successful single day of warfighting in history...the real question is how Vance tries to explain to the hate-peddling right his own involvement in the most ambitious U.S.-Israel military effort we’ve ever seen. Another is how he tries to justify his association with the hate-peddlers to the rest of us. This is a dilemma of his own making. Vance thought he could court the right’s Tucker wing without losing conservatives. And he thought he could distance himself sufficiently from Trump’s pro-Israel stance to keep the Tucker wing happy.
The war in Iran could turn in any number of directions. At the moment, it looks far more promising than Vance’s battle for the future of the right.
Abe Greenwald, the executive editor of COMMENTARY.

What to do about Jerusalem's "Holy Places" - 1918

noreply@blogger.com (YMedad) — Thu, 26 Feb 2026 07:02:00 +0000

With the conquest by British military forces of Jerusalem in December 1917, both British diplomatic and political figures, as well as Zionists, began to plan for the future administration of the territory. The Balfour Declaration made it a clear government policy that the country would develop into a homeland for the Jews. Nevertheless, as the Sykes-Picot negotiations had shown, there were multiple interests that needed to be attended to including economic, strategic and religious in natre.

In December 1918, Ze'ev Jabotinsky penned a long essay and part of it discussed the issue of the Holy Places. It follows in its original form, with Jabotinsky's editing and crossing out:

  A few words chaned the choice of the protecting Powers “Trustee” – the protecting Power to be put by the peace conference in charge of Palestine. This choice is a matter to be decided by international agreement.

          ~~The Holy Places should be carefully~~

          ~~We suggest~~

          Whether this scheme of government, when applied, would leave any real and genuine need for special arrangements safeguarding the Holy Places of the New Testament, ~~of Christianity Holy Places~~ is a question to be decided in the first place by ~~Christ~~ the Christians Powers themselves. As outsiders we can only say that, with a Christian Power holding the supreme authority over Palestine, there does not seem to be any need for proclaiming them ~~“extra territorial”~~ “ex territorial”. The intersects of the different Churches into which Christianity is divided could be protected by placing certain localities, town-guarders, or holding under special joint Boards representing all the sections concerned. However, Zionists never intended to ~~put forward~~ object even to ~~extra~~ exterritorialization provided it should be strictly limited ~~to places where really constitutional~~ areas which really and palpably constitute places of Christian pilgrimage and worship.

          As to the holy places the Old Testament, their exterritorialization from a Jewish “National Home” would of course be out of the question. We fully admit ~~the~~ and appreciate ~~the interest right of~~ all monotheistic religions ~~to consider them as our and their common property~~ are entitled to, take in them, but it would be really monstrous to deny that Jews’ connection with them is incomparably the most intimate. Here again joint Boards could be instituted to secure Christian and Mohammedan as well as Jewish representation, but the places themselves should remain for even incorporated into the Jewish national patrimony.

Jabotinsky's 1935 'Band Wagon'

noreply@blogger.com (YMedad) — Wed, 28 Jan 2026 15:46:00 +0000

This is the first of a series of three articles by Vladimir Jabotinsky, the Revisionist leader, written specially for the Jewish Daily Bulletin. The second of the series will appear in tomorrow’s Bulletin.

It is not only difficult but probably impossible to bring home to American Jews the intensity of Zionist feeling in the Zone of Jewish Distressâ€”Eastern and Central Europe. That is a terrible and cruel intensity; it looks irrational, for there is the impression that Palestine (they now call Palestine simply “certificate,” for short) is wanted at once and for every single individual out of a crowd of several millions, and yet it is realistically wise because there actually is no other way out for all those millions but Palestine. During my present tour I have many a time thought of trying somehow to convey to the American audiences this tangible, immediate mass hunger - but had to renounce the attempt for fear of dropping into sob-stuff.

So it probably will have to be accepted as inevitable - that the largest and most powerful of Jewish communities should remain in a state of just sympathetic aloofness while the zone of distress across the ocean is traversing a period of acutest mass agony.

Some readers may here feel shocked by the term “sympathetic aloofness,” they may find it unjust, may claim that theirs is much more than mere “sympathy,” and the claim may be true: but I cannot help it - compared with the tremendous immediacy of that painful “certificate-hunger” out there the American attitude strikes me as condolence by remote well-wishers, rather skeptical as to all those stories about a “frozen stampede” to Palestine.

This is probably also why American Jews can play with pink leftism just at a moment when all the Jewish “middle class” in the zone of distress is up in revolt against the present left wing hegemony in Zionism. What is fanning that revolt into real white heat is, naturally, the monopoly over “certificates.” The “mittelstand” (eighty per cent of the whole ghetto) can no longer afford to renounce them for the benefit of “halutzim;” it needs them for itself, too.

No Jew of the “mittelstand” imagines that Palestine can absorb shopkeepers or luftmenschen: he knows that, apart from people with money, only laborers are wanted; but he is himself, in many cases, an artisan, and in any case believes himself fully capable of becoming a laborer, and quite rightly so in most cases. Yet he is debarred from even asking for a “certificate” because he does not belong to the monopolist party and (being a man above 25, probably already married) cannot go to a “hachsharah” place (where, as everybody by now admits, they learn nothing of any use). He realizes, moreover, that there are too few “certificates” to go round, that it is a lottery with hardly one lot for 10,000 applicants - but for him there is even no lottery ticket, and resents it bitterly; and as conditions grow worse his bitterness threatens to degenerate into hate.

There is, of course, also the ideological controversy about “class war;” even without the “certificates” complication it has ever been an irritant. The ordinary poor shul-goer who, as long as he could spare a cent, has been feeding the funds that fed the Halutzim and has made the Histadruth what it now financially is, feels profoundly insulted being treated as white trash by those very Halutzim. The small and medium capitalist whose initiative, since 1925, has endowed Palestine with hundreds of factories providing work for 20,000 Jewish workers, stands bewildered in discovering that even in Zion he is nothing else but a class enemy, an exploiter, and altogether a social nuisance. All that has long been causing a great deal of resentment; but now, added to the non-admission of the “mittelstand” to that “lottery,” it makes people see red.

American Jewry is also mittelstand, but their life is paradise in comparison, they do not feel that searing pain, and sears can never be “explained.” So they have chosen just this moment for getting infatuated with the party whose domination is gall and wormwood to four-fifths of distressed European Jewry, chosen this moment for no other reason, I fear, than a purely local coincidence - the fact that just now “Labor” catchwords happen to be popular in America.

American Zionists are under the impression that this is a very noble and very liberal spiritual departure. I see in it something quite different. There was no trace of such infatuation when Palestinian labor was poor and helpless, in those days of the “stone breakers” when Halutzim were really “pioneers” in the heroic sense of the term, suffering untold material privations and ready to stand even more the glory of Zion. Yet in those days American Zionism, though generous with its money for the improvement of their position, never dreamed of accepting their ideological leadership. Today Palestinian left wing labor gets wages that would make English working men envious; they have abandoned en masse the agricultural colonies, partly even the Dead Sea, because they are better paid in towns; a quarter of the membership of the left-wing Histadruth either live in neat little houses of their own, or else are already listed to get such houses as soon as donations from the bourgeoisie will permit it.

The Histadruth cooperatives employ hired Jewish labor just like capitalist enterprises do: at last year’s Histadruth convention a special report on this painful subject was read by a Mr. Garfinkel from which we learned some really piquant facts, e.g., that more than 50 per cent of those Histadruth members working for Histadruth employers get wages of “from one to six pounds” a month (the Trade Union minimum in Palestine is seven pounds a month); or that some of those cooperatives, whose shares originally cost 100 to 200 dollars, now refuse to sell them, owing to the boom, for less than “two to three thousand dollars.”

Individual members of the left wing Histadruth also employ hired labor - the proletarian “boss” working for high wages in town, but letting his vegetable plot in a nearby colony to be tended by another proletarian for a lower wage; after which, of course, he will sell those vegetables to the bourgeoisie and pocket the profit. In short, belonging to the left wing Histadruth is nowadays rather a comfortable social position.

The Histadruth itself, and the “Mapai” (the Socialist Party) which dominates it, are also very “comfortable:” in proportion to membership, probably one of the richest trade unions throughout the world. Beside the ordinary Keren Hayesod sources, and the “Gewerkschaft” campaigns, the Histadruth now also enjoys a nice steady clean income from the Transfer Agreement between some of its organs and Hitler’s government, helping Germany to import her wares into our Holy Land. This is why left wing labor has at its disposal such a mighty war chest for sending delegations across all the oceans, and for election campaigns to Zionist Congresses.

This is the moment when America’s middle class intelligentsia has chosen to . . . to jump on the band wagon.

_____

This is the second of a series of three articles published in the JTA by Vladimir Jabotinsky, the Revisionist leader, written specially for its Jewish Daily Bulletin.

Foreign words should be used with a bona fide knowledge of what they really mean. Fasces was the Latin term for a bunch of rods with an axe in the middle. Roman “lictors” used to carry them ostentatiously, to remind the citizens that if they don’t obey orders they will be beaten, or their heads chopped off. Fasces was the symbol of coercive discipline, of the State’s resolve and power to enforce obedience on all dissenters, no matter whether wicked criminals or honest conscientious objectors. Italian Fascism is an attempt to reaffirm the principle that the State has the right and the duty to "coerce” and the actual power, too.

Right or wrong, all this can have no application to Jewish social phenomena. There is no Jewish government, and no Jew can be administratively “coerced” to obey orders issued by any Jewish leader or committee of leaders. Jewish political organizations are voluntary associations and can be nothing else. Should one of them conceive the whim of imposing on its membership the strictest kind of “compulsory” discipline, that would simply mean that all its members choose to agree to this kind of game: all of them, for if you or I suddenly cease to agree we can simply walk out of that organization and cannot be “coerced.” When a minority of that membership say “We submit to the will of the majority,” they simply mean that they voluntarily condescend to submit. The doctrine of Fascism is rooted in the opposite principle; the individual will be made to agree whether he agrees or not. In Jewish life this doctrine is simply unreal, as unreal as “depth” in a two-dimensional oil painting.

As to the very old principle that the interests of a nation should supersede those of an individual, a family, or a “class” - to describe this idea as “Fascism” is silly. This is everyman’s view, including ninety-nine per cent of all Socialists, probably also of all Communists if ever put to the test.

The really “Fascist” addition to this world-old idea is, again, only that thoroughness of coercion which Fascism applies to social relations. It refuses to rely on the workers or the employers’ own patriotism: it simply commandeers all the workers and all the employers, treats them as battalions of the State, orders, forbids and punishes. This again, cannot be initiated in our Jewish life. When we Jews speak of “compulsory” arbitration in Palestine, what we mean is a free pledge by all concerned to renounce voluntarily any other method of settling industrial disputes and to accept (voluntarily) the arbitrators’ judgment however unpalatable.

Whether such a covenant is a possibility (as I believe) or a dream (as pessimists affirm) is beside the point: the point is that this program is the reverse of Fascism. Fascism says to both Labor and capital: “I don’t ask you to be patriotic, you may go on feeling selfish: but you will have to accept the State’s ruling or go to jail - and even if you do go to jail, it won’t help you, for the State’s ruling will be enforced in your enterprise all the same.”

There is, on the other hand, also this difference - that, while in Fascism any concrete form of “class war” is only verboten, in Zionism (where nothing can actually be “verboten”) the very idea of “class war” is immoral. The national funds which support the proletarian Halutzim are being provided by the. bourgeoisie. That bourgeoisie is being daily urged to leave the Galuth and come and build factories in Palestine, because there “you can be among your brethren. When a bourgeois starts a workshop in Palestine, he is being urged to employ expensive Jewish labor instead of cheap Arab labor - because “the Jewish workmen are his brethren.”

All this is absolutely fair: they are brethren, and partners in the great enterprise of building the Homeland, and comrades in Zionist ideology: brethren, partners, comrades in a sense incomparably more intense and more concrete than it can be said of capital and labor in any other country. That is why it is unfair and immoral to import “class war” ideas into Palestine - even though it cannot be “verboten.”

Fascism is wholly and organically inapplicable to any aspect of Jewish lfe; it is therefore simply dishonest to call any Jewish party “Fascist.” In many cases, it is even akin to hitting under the belt. In liberal or democratic countries Fascism is looked upon as politically subversive, governments have been known to take active measures for suppressing it by police action, and may have to do so in the nearest future with considerable severity. In view of all this, decent opponents should be very chary of stamping a Zionist party as “Fascist.” It is just as indecent as calling Socialists “Communists,” and likely to lead to the same kind of outside interference.

In countries like Austria, where the term “Marxist” is equally dangerous, we Revisionists have instructed our followers never to apply that term to left-wing Zionists, quite regardless of whether that would be scientifically true or untrue; and, though we officially disbanded our German branches when we decided to join the boycott movement, that wing of Zionists in Germany who share our Herzlian views also know that “Marxist” is a word never to be used in Polemics.

_____

And I finally figured out to find the third section, here.

When a man in America says, “I am not a Republican,” it means that he is an adherent of some other party, probably a Democrat. When a man says the same thing in England, it means that he is a Monarchist. Which is a reminder that the same term can often cover quite different phenomena: another example is the word “petition.”

The officially prescribed way in which a private group or individual in Palestine can approach the Permanent Mandate Commission in Geneva, is by sending their request or memorandum through the High Commissioner: and the document thus forwarded is called “petition.” It may bear many signatures or one only: the Revisionist memorandum was signed by Mr. A. Weinshal on behalf of the Palestinian Revisionists.

This has nothing to do with the “Petition Movement” initiated by the Revisionists a year ago. That movement demands signatures en masse: between April and June, 600,000 signatures were collected, and this year we intend to raise the number up to several millions. The mass petition is not addressed to the Mandate Commission or to the League of Nations: its four different texts are explicibly addressed (a) to his British Majesty, (b) to the British Parliament, (c) and (d) to the government and parliament of the country where the petitioners reside. And, in fine, this mass petition has not yet been “presented” either in London or in any other capital, but will only be presented after many preliminary manifestations, culminating probably in a World Congress of the petitioners themselves.

Those who are genuinely interested should, therefore, remember that anything that may have happened in Geneva to Dr. Weinshal’s memorandum, officially described as “petition,” or may subsequently happen to his next memorandum to Geneva, has no bearing whatsoever on the progress of the real petition - the mass movement petition.

The two have also different aims. The mass petition is primarily meant to register all those who actually and personally want and need repatriation to Palestine. Secondly, - to impress upon the governments of those countries where the Jewish distress has become a grave local problem that it is in those governments’ interest to start a friendly talk with the British Mandatory about facilitating Jewish immigration. Thirdly, - to bring home to British Jews’ suffering, and to British public conscience the discrepancy between a pledge and a reality.

The memorandum to the Mandates Commission had another aim, to “draw” that body into a discussion on that all-important subject: what is the true meaning of a “national home” - is it a Jewish State or just a new Jewish minority?

I know, of course, that there are people who consider such a discussion undesirable. We Revisionists consider it necessary and intend to go on promoting it until we obtain the inevitable final result: an admission, on the part of the League’s organ supervising the Mandates, that “a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine” means Palestine transformed into a self-governing commonwealth with a Jewish majority; that this was the intent of the Balfour Declaration and of the Mandate. As I said, such an admission is inevitable provided there is a discussion: wherefore, we will see to it that the discussion should continue.

In forwarding to Geneva Mr. Weinshal’s memorandum we knew, of course, that the first reaction of the Mandates Commission would be negative. For the last seven years or more I have been quoting in my public addresses a proverb current in one of the Mediterranean countries: “In politics, just as in true love, it is only after the seventh ‘no’ that you can hope to hear the bashful ‘yes.’ No important political advance has ever been reached in any other way but via several preliminary refusals: the first very dry and curt, the second probably angry. This is how the Jewish Legion was formed: the story began with Kitchener’s “no.” The same applies to the story of the Balfour Declaration, or to any political story worth telling. Whoever fears that preliminary cold drop had better renounce all hope of ever getting anywhere.

The Mandates Commission has said its first “no.” That important body must forgive me for pointing out that this answer clashes with the Commission’s own attitude with regard to all the problems implied in our question. Logically, the present situation in Palestine can only end in one of the following three ways: (a) the Mandatory withdraws, leaving Palestine a State with an Arab majority; (b) the Mandatory stays on forever and ever; (c) a State with a Jewish majority.

As to the first eventuality - the Permanent Mandates Commission at half a dozen of its sessions, when dealing with the question of a Legislative Council for Palestine has always stubbornly maintained that any kind of majority rule by the Arabs would endanger the Jewish national home, would therefore be contrary to the Mandate, and was therefore inadmissible - which all, and a fortiori, applies to an Arab State.

As to the second eventuality (“the Mandatory strays on forever”) - that would be tantamount to annexation, therefore contrary to the very letter and essence of the League of Nations’ Covenant. Some people in England may desire it, but there is at least one body under the sun which simply cannot admit such a perversion of the Covenant - and that body is (last part couldn't copy text, so here:)

Jabotinsky's Funeral as Reported in the New York Times

noreply@blogger.com (YMedad) — Tue, 27 Jan 2026 10:42:00 +0000

TRIBUTE BY 12,000 PAID JABOTINSKY;

They Stand Outside Chapel in Second Ave. During Funeral of Noted Zionist Leader; 200 Cantors sing ritual; Thousands Line Streets When Cortege Passes Through East Side After Service; No Eulogies Given; Many Weep as Taps Sound Military Service at Grave

Aug. 7, 1940

TRIBUTE BY 12,000 PAID JABOTINSKY; They Stand Outside Chapel in Second Ave. During Funeral of Noted Zionist Leader

As more than 12,000 persons stood out in the street, a funeral service was held yesterday for Vladimir Jabotinsky, author, soldier and world leader of the New Zionist Organization, at the Gramercy Park Memorial Chapel, 152 Second Avenue. Mr. Jabotinsky, who died of a heart attack Saturday night at Camp Betar, Zionist youth camp at Hunter, N. Y., was unaware that his son Eri, who had been imprisoned at Acre Fortress in Palestine for nationalist activities, had been released from prison earlier that day. A Zionist holiday was declared in Palestine yesterday in memory of Mr. Jabotinsky.

Prominent Jewish leaders and representatives of Jewish organizations and the British, Polish and Czech Consulates were among the 750 per- sons invited to the funeral service, at which Rabbis Maurice Rose of Temple Sinai, Brooklyn; Samuel Telushkin of Brooklyn, and H. S. Epstein of St. Louis, officiated. Led by Joseph Ruminsky, Jewish composer, 200 Verband cantors sang an ancient Hebrew ritual chant.

At the request of Mr. Jabotinsky, there were no speeches, eulogies or instrumental music, based on the precedent of the funeral of Theodore Herzl, founder of modern Zionism. John H. Patterson, D. S. O., British commander of the legion Mr. Jabotinsky fought with in Palestine during the World War, was among the 150 honorary pallbearers, all close associates of Mr. Jabotinsky in his fight for a Jewish nationalist state in Palestine. Other pallbearers were Professor James G. McDonald, former High Commissioner for Refugees of the League of Nations; James Freeman of Ottawa, president of the Canadian Zionist Organization; Colonel A. Ralph Steinberg, Past Master of B'nai B'rith; John Gunther, author; Willard G. Stanton, chairman of the American Friends of Jewish Palestine; William B. Ziff, Chicago publisher; K. B. Friedman, assistant United States District Attorney; Professor Benjamin Akzin of City College, Dr. Joseph E. Braunstein of the Menorah Home for the Aged and Infirm, Colonel Maurice Mendelsohn, past national commander of the Jewish War Veterans; Jacob Landau, editor, and Judge Jacob S. Strahl of the Municipal Court. Mayor La Guardia was represented by his secretary, Stanley H. Howe. The funeral arrangements were made by the New Zionist Organiza- tion under the direction of E. Ben-Horin.

At the end of the chapel service the coffin, draped with a Zionist flag, was carried from the funeral home, surrounded by an honor guard of fifty boys and girls, mem- bers of the Brith Trumpeldor. Many men and women wept as Martin Winnick, national bugler of the Jewish War Veterans, sounded taps before the coffin was placed in the hearse. Estimated by Inspector John J. De Martino, who directed fifty patrol- men and five sergeants, as one of the largest funerals on the East Side, a throng of 25,000 followed the cortege or lined the route.

All vehicular traffic was stopped on Second Avenue as the hearse and guard of honor went north on Sec- ond Avenue to Fourteenth Street, east to First Avenue, south to Thirteenth and then west again to Second Avenue. Proceeding south on Second Avenue, where Jewish theatres and homes had hung out mourning drapes, the cortege stopped be- tween Tenth and Ninth Streets in front of the funeral chapel, where the cantors sang a Jewish mourn- ing song and the Jewish national anthem. At Houston Street and Second Avenue, a salute of honor was giv- en the hearse, and then a motorcade of fifty cars and eight buses left for the New Montefiore Ceme- tery at Farmingdale, L. I., where a military service was held.

Burial was in the cemetery's Nardau Circle. It is expected permanent burial will take place in Palestine when the war is over. The military guard of honor was formed by the Jewish War Veterans, East Side Post No. 4, and led by A. Propes, leader of the Zionist youth movement in Poland, and Jeremiah Halpren, leader of the Marine League of Zionists. Other Jewish organizations represented were the Nardau Circle of the Zion- ist Organization of America and Young Israel.

Israel's Reform Movement and Crime in the Arab Sector

noreply@blogger.com (YMedad) — Tue, 27 Jan 2026 10:38:00 +0000

On January 8 this year, the Israel Religious Action Center - IRAC posted a "Public Statement".

It addressed, on behalf of the Israel Movement for Reform and Progressive Judaism and the Council of Reform Rabbis in Israel, the issue of murders in Israeli society. While claiming that the "number of murders in Israeli society has reached unimaginable proportions', even they could not escape the reality that "the overwhelming majority of the victims are Palestinian citizens of Israel" yet added, "the harm is to Israeli society as a whole."

The statement reads - and I quote in full:

After more than 250 people were murdered in 2025, 11 people were murdered in the first week of 2026 alone. This violence is not an inevitable fate, but rather the result of neglect, selective enforcement, and a governance vacuum into which criminal organizations have entered. The police are not adequately addressing this horrific phenomenon, creating a reality that would be unthinkable in Jewish localities. Israel's rate of solved murder cases in Arab society stands at only 15%, compared with 65% in Jewish society. The message conveyed is that the lives of Arab citizens are worth less than the lives of Jews. This is a message that must not be accepted in a Jewish and democratic state.
This shocking reality cannot be accepted. Jewish tradition sanctifies the life of every human being, expressed in the teaching: “Beloved is humanity, for it was created in the image [of God].” It teaches us that “whoever destroys a single life is considered as though they destroyed an entire world, and whoever preserves a single life is considered as though they preserved an entire world” (Sanhedrin 4:5). It also teaches us that it is our duty to be responsible for the lives of every person, and when we fail to do so, we transgress the commandment, “You shall not stand idly by the blood of your neighbor” (Leviticus 19:16).
Maimonides writes on this matter: “Anyone who is able to save and does not save transgresses ‘You shall not stand idly by the blood of your neighbor.’ Likewise, one who sees their fellow drowning in the sea, or bandits coming upon them, or a wild animal attacking them, and is able to save them personally, or to hire others to save them, and does not do so… and all similar cases—one who does these things transgresses ‘You shall not stand idly by the blood of your neighbor’” (Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Laws of Murder and the Preservation of Life 1:20).
From the ritual of the heifer whose neck is broken (‘Egla Arufa’), we learn of the obligation of leadership to take responsibility for the blood of the murdered, as well as the duty to protest. As the sages taught: “Anyone who could have protested against the members of their household and did not do so is held accountable for the members of their household; against the people of their city and did not do so is held accountable for the people of their city; against the whole world and did not do so is held accountable for the whole world” (Shabbat 54b).
The government, and the Ministry of National Security in particular, are obligated to protect all citizens of the state, without distinction of religion, nationality, or race. Indeed, this is a complex issue, but if there is will and commitment to the safety of Palestinian citizens of the state, it can be solved. The proof is the dramatic decline in the number of murders during the tenure of the previous government, which placed the issue at the top of its priorities and formulated a multi-year national emergency plan called “Safe Path.”
We call on the Government of Israel to place the fight against crime in Arab society at the top of its priorities, to allocate sufficient resources to address it, and to immediately formulate an effective plan to deal with the phenomenon, in dialogue with the leadership of the Arab public in Israel.

My comments:

1. To adopt the terminology of "Palestinian citizens" is purely fanciful political "correctness" with no legal legitimization. Moreover, it has nothing to do with the issue they are addressing except to blur the matter as if they are not Israelis.

2. No responsibility or agency is awarded to the "Arab society" mentioned. Not to the immams. Not to the Armayors of Arab localities. Not to educators. Not to politicians. It's all the fault of the Jews.

3. No criticism of Israel's Attorney-Gneral and others who have stymmied attempts of the government to treat the issue through the GSS with authorized intelligence-gathering usually applied to terrorists.

In short, a politicall diatribe.

The Palestine entity - 1960

noreply@blogger.com (YMedad) — Fri, 16 Jan 2026 13:14:00 +0000

From FRUS:

Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961–1963, Volume XVII, Near East, 1961–1962

34. Circular Telegram From the Department of State to Certain Near Eastern and North African Posts

Washington, April 15, 1961

...At Arab League meeting at Shtaura* last August, decision was made to establish Palestine “personality” or “entity” with implication of Algerian-type movement designed ultimately to eliminate Israel. While longer range plans include military organization and Palestine government, Arabs apparently plan take steps gradually. At last fall’s UNGA meeting, Arab UN delegates promoted concept of UN custodian for Arab properties left in Israel apparently as suitable first post-Shtaura gambit. They obviously encouraged by new composition of UN, believing that through mutual back-scratching tactics they can parlay Afro-Asian and Soviet bloc votes into series of votes progressively hostile to Israel. Upset by Nkrumah’s opening speech which urged Near East states to be “realistic” and implied Arabs should agree to Arab-Israel settlement, all Arab delegates engaged in lengthy harangues rehashing whole Palestine problem to “educate” new delegations.

* Chtaura, in Lebanon in last week of August when Arab foreign ministers conferred from 22 to 29 August.

_________________

UPDATE

From this article:

On January 19, 1960, King Hussein publicly expressed this urgency. In an interview with the Associated Press, he explained, “Since 1948, Arab leaders have approached the Palestine problem in an irresponsible manner. They have not looked into the future. They have no plan or approach. They have used the Palestinian people for selfish political purposes. This is ridiculous and, I could say, criminal.” Hussein suggested that the Arab League reactivate the Palestine Conciliation Commission and base negotiations with Israel upon U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194, which suggested that refugees “wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours” should be permitted to do so. The king charged Foreign Minister Nasser Musa with formulating a plan to present to a February 1960 Arab League session. King Hussein hoped that the Arab League would endorse principles of a settlement that could then serve as a basis for negotiations with Israel.
In a speech before parliament, Prime Minister Haza’ al-Majali[9] outlined general principles for a more productive Arab approach to the Palestinian problem. He called for an end to exploitation of the “emotions of the Arabs in general and the Palestinian refugees in particular"; a “realistic assessment of the situation and plans"; collective Arab responsibility; recognition of the existing legal status of Jordan; and the unity of the East and West Bank.

A Paralleling of Germany's Nazification of Christianity?

noreply@blogger.com (YMedad) — Wed, 14 Jan 2026 10:48:00 +0000

Did you know that in Nazi Germany, from 1939 to 1945, a special academy existed, the Institute for the Study and Eradication of Jewish Influence on German Church Life? It resulted from an effort, begun in the 1920s, to Nazify Christianity. It was established with the backing of eleven regional Protestant churches.

According to Prof. Susannah Heschel's research article, among other activities, a committee of the Institute produced a de-Judaized version of the New Testament, which was published by the Institute in 1940 with the title, Die Botschaft Gottes - God's Message.

As Heschel notes:

"In it, all references to Jesus' Jewishness were eradicated, including his descent from Old Testament figures, mention of Jerusalem and the Temple, and any positive references to Jews. For example, John 4:22, "Salvation comes from the Jews," was changed to the famous antisemitic slogan, "The Jews are our misfortune." Bethlehem was shifted to Galilee, reflecting Grundmann's claim, discussed below, that Jesus could not have been a racial Jew because the Galilee was populated by non-Jews."

There's an online exhibit informing about the Institute.

It was not a minor episode. Bishop Weidemann of Bremen issued a de-Judaized New Testament. and Reich Bishop Ludwig Miiller issued a "germanized" version of the Sermon on the Mount in 1936 to eliminate what he considered inappropriate Jewish moral teachings. The Die Botschaft Gottes was printed, in its first edition, in 100,000 copies as the demands of pre-publication from parish churches throughout the Reich was significant.

Richard Steigmann-Gall, reviewing the book, "The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945", realizes

"Christianity was part of the cultural framework of Germany in the 1920s and 1930s, the interesting point is that some people saw it as grounds to support participation in Nazism, whereas others saw it as grounds to resist. Conformity or resistance; intolerance or tolerance; Inquisition or charity? The religious texts stay the same, but what people have done with them always has varied greatly."

Listening to Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, Nick Fuentes and others and especially their attacks on Israel, on Christian Zionists and, in cases, on Jews and Judaism, should alert us to previous irregularities of Christians using their form of Christiantiy as a banner to wield politically.

'Of No Concern' Ignorance as regards the Temple Mount

noreply@blogger.com (YMedad) — Sun, 28 Dec 2025 07:55:00 +0000

In an academic journal, Revista d’Arqueologia de Ponent 34, 2024, Bijan Rouhani of the School of Archaeology, University of Oxford and Bill Finlayson, also of that same School of Archaeology, published "Constructing, Deconstructing, and Reconstructing Heritage Values Amidst Conflicts".

Israel is mentioned, of course, mostly in the connection with Iran and the heritage legacy of Cyrus the Great. They note, in another reference, that "in April 2024, UNESCO confirmed the destruction of at least 43 historical sites in Gaza, including a museum."

They quote from a 2000 work by Meron Benvenisti which "details how over 9,000 Palestinian natural features, villages, and ruins were systematically renamed with Jewish names, reshaping the physical and human landscape into a Jewish state, reflecting profound changes and cultural erasure." There is no counter-source to that and so the readers must assume that Benevinisti's claims are absolute truth, an incorrect assumption.

In another mention they further press this point:

The 1948 Israeli-Palestinian war transformed Palestine’s cultural landscape, with the systematic destruction of village landscapes as a key Israeli military strategy. The surviving ruins, representing a lost cultural topography for Palestinians, challenge claims denying their historical ties to the land (Falah 1996).

What is not mentioned is the 7th century conquest and occupation of Judea, then ruled by the Byzantine Empire which it had assumed from the Roman Empire which applied to the territory the name "Palastina". That conquest was done by Arab tribes from the Saudi Peninsula who then applied Arabic names causing the loss of a 'cultural topography' not to note the various prohibitons by subsequent Muslim rulers on Jewish residency, immigration, property ownership and other elements of suppression, All this, especially the denial, until this very day, which obliterates the historical claims of Jews to this land.

It never occurs to them to see the other side of the picture.

They do quote from a speech delivered by Prime Minister Biyamin Netanyahu at the United Nations in 2013 in which he described the proclamation of Cyrus:

"he proclaimed the right of the Jews to return to the land of Israel and rebuild the Jewish temple in Jerusalem. That’s a Persian decree. And thus began an historic friendship between the Jews and the Persians that lasted until modern times."

A temple. A temple? Could a temple or a place where a temple, or even two, were located be part of all this culutral topography?

Could a cultural site, a heritage and legacy location be added to their study? After all, they do deal with the Babri Mosque in Ayodhya, India.

I am referring to Jerusalem's Temple Mount. But they do not relate to it. At all.

A response there in that issue does not mention the Temple Mount either. In the response to that response, "temple" is mentioned. An Aztec one.

The Temple Mount's Jewish character is adamantly denied by Muslims and, in particular, the Palestinian Authority (Ramallah) and Hamas (Gaza). Under the supervision of the Islamic Waqf Trust, with Jordan's oversight, much archaeological destruction has been done. That, it appears, does not concern them although I would guess they have no idea of this issue at all. Their "of no concern" translates into their willful ignorance.

Moreover, it probably just isn't part of their agenda, their political interest, that is.

Interviewed for a Christmas Story in Trouw

noreply@blogger.com (YMedad) — Fri, 26 Dec 2025 07:53:00 +0000

I was interviewed, by telephone, by Mella Fuchs for the Dutch newspaper, Trouw. Incidently, that paper is a bit famous amongst Israelis as way back on March 31, 1977, it published an interview with PLO Executive Committee member Zuhayr Muhsein (see below) with a remarkable admission about the existence of a "Palestinian people".

The headline of the story is "What would Joseph and Mary's journey to Bethlehem have looked like in 2025?" with the Trouw correspondent speaking with residents along the route.

I will present my entire section and then make some comments.

"For Yisrael, it's relatively easy to travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem, he says. Unlike Palestinians (without an Israeli passport), he's allowed to cross the border between Israel and the West Bank. Entering Bethlehem itself is a different story: he needs special permission from Israel, unless he—a native American—poses as a tourist. Bethlehem is located in Area A.

Under the 1995 Oslo Accords, which were intended to lead to Palestinian self-government, the occupied West Bank was administratively divided into three zones. Area A (18 percent of the West Bank) is officially administered by the Palestinian Authority (PA). This does not mean the Israeli army remains absent; Jenin, for example, also falls under this zone. In Area B (22 percent), the PA and Israel share control. Area C (the remaining 60 percent) is entirely under Israeli authority. This division was intended as a temporary solution: power would gradually be transferred to the PA. But almost thirty years later, nothing has come of it.

The route Mary and Joseph have traveled thus far is one that Yisrael would never take. After all, it runs through Palestinian urban areas (mostly Areas A and B) in the north, around Jenin. Moreover, there are few settlements in that part of the West Bank. Settlers travel on their own roads, which are often directly connected to Israeli highways, such as Routes 55 and 5, and are (partially) prohibited to Palestinians.

Yisrael himself usually travels by hitchhiking, as he doesn't own a car. He only gets into cars with yellow license plates, avoiding green Palestinian ones. "That's the first check," he says. "The driver's accent is the second." In 2014, three hitchhiking Israeli boys in a settlement were kidnapped and killed by Hamas. "Since then, we've been very categorical," Yisrael says. "We don't get into cars that aren't driven by Jews."

According to Yisrael, the idea that settlers have their own road network is "propaganda" and that "apartheid" is a fabricated concept. But he also says he takes the bus to Jerusalem three times a week, where Palestinians are only allowed with special permits. And that he's never locked out of his settlement, while Palestinians are often confined to their towns or villages.

Yisrael doesn't find it strange that Palestinians have to pass through checkpoints constantly. "If I cross a border in Europe, I have to show my travel documents. There's no Palestinian state, but the principle is the same." Yisrael believes that the nearly 1,000 roadblocks within the West Bank are also necessary. "The army is looking for terrorists. It's not because they're trying to cause problems for people. Yes, they sometimes get stuck. But sometimes I also have to travel long distances to get somewhere."

Yisrael doesn't think it would be dangerous for Joseph and Mary to walk to the settlement where he lives. "They were Jewish, right? Then there wouldn't be any problems."

An overnight stay is likely necessary after traveling 35 kilometers from Nablus. In Shilo, there's a kosher winery, where Joseph might enjoy a glass, unless he were in solidarity with Mary. "We produce hundreds of thousands of bottles of wine a year and win gold medals in Europe," Yisrael says."

My comments:

a. "it's relatively easy to travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem, he says."

I actually said that it is not at all easy, as a Jew and an Israeli, or safe, as due to most of the route is from Jenin to Shiloh going through PA territory, I would be required to take a detour that would easily double the distance, and more, of the road length.

b. "They were Jewish, right? Then there wouldn't be any problems."

I had also said that at the time of the actual trek, the Romans were the occupiers of Judea and the family would perhaps have been feeling insecure, not to mention King Herod, the Jewish ruler, on the look out for them.

c. "Settlers travel on their own roads"

I specifically said that there are no "settler-only" roads and moreover, most of the traffic on Route 60, for example, was Arab traffic. There is no apartheid transportation phenomenon. Moreover, as noted in the article, most of the actual road kilometers in Judea & Samaria are prohibited for Israelis to travel along.

d. "The route Mary and Joseph have traveled thus far is one that Yisrael would never take."

I related to her that until the Oslo Accords of 1993, we indeed drove through much of the area. Bus 955 drove from Jerusalem to Afula (near Nazereth) straight through Ramallah and Shchem until the First Intifada [I maintain, as do the Arabs, that 1936-39 was the true first intifada] and its violence cause route changes.

----------------------------------

The words of Zuhayr Muhsein:

The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.
For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.

How Oren Yiftachel Sees Zionism

noreply@blogger.com (YMedad) — Sun, 07 Dec 2025 05:39:00 +0000

How do Israeli academic anti-colonialists who identify with the cause of a liberated Palestine view Zionism? What is their conceptual thinking? How do they grasp the historical record?

One prominent such figure is Oren Yiftachel. As his biography attests, he is a product of Australia's higher education, home to the deveklopment of post-colonial studies.

I have selected an excerpt from a recent article, published in Hebrew in the Van Leer Institute's journal Theory and Criticism that recently appeared. Even the most cursory reading as well as a nominal knowledge of Jewish nationalism can easily notice that Yiftachel chooses to denude all historic depth of Jewish attachment to, residence in and returning to the Land of Israel over a 3,000 year period.

There is an absence of the literature, the religious rituals and cultural customs attached to the land, the various Returns of Zion, prayers and poetry, laws and commandments, financial support for the communities living in the Land during the centuries of Exile and so much more. He adopts fully the approach poularized by A.B. Yehoshua in his essay "Between Right and Right" [translated from his Hebrew Bein Zechut Le-Zechut], Doubleday, 1981 in which, as one reviewer puts it, he "proposes justifications for Israeli statehood in terms of universal morality rather than particularistic religious entitlement.".

On the other hand, the Palestinian narrative, all theoretical, lacks any critical review or detailed attention from Yiftachel. They, in good part, are "liberal".

The excerpt:

There is a clear disregard in Palestinian academic and political discourse in the Diaspora and the occupied territories for the tragic fate of Jews in the twentieth century and the need to discuss their future in the Middle East, most of which is hostile to Zionism. Zionism is perceived by many Palestinians primarily as an ideology of taking over the land, and not as much of its members formulated it — a national movement to save Jews from anti-Semitism and persecution. Palestinian discourse sometimes lacks the understanding that Israel served and still serves as a land of refuge in a historical homeland, and is characterized by frequent disregard for the legitimate rights of Jews the Israelis have earned them from the family of nations.

The Zionist project is perceived as one-dimensional – an occupying homogeneous power of which the Palestinians are eternal victims. The critical discussion of the active part of the Palestinians in the disaster that rages upon their people is extremely poor, except for a few exceptions such as the researchers Salim Tamari, Rama Hammami, Asaad Ghanem or Yazid Sayigh, and its lack of an internal critical discussion on the devastating consequences of Palestinian defiance and terrorism in the century of struggle. Also, from the Palestinian discourse is almost completely absent an examining of non-colonial structural factors, such as Israeli nationalism and liberalism, which also shape the conflict and sometimes even moderate it.

And yet, it is important to note that throughout a century of conflict there have been Palestinian voices calling for mutual recognition and division of the land, led by communist leaders such as Emil Habibi and Tawfik Ziad but also prominent figures from the Nashashibi and Dajani families or relatively liberal organizations led by leaders like Hanan Ashrawi or Mustafa Barghouti.

Turkey Reincarnating Itself as a Neo-Ottoman Empire

noreply@blogger.com (YMedad) — Thu, 04 Dec 2025 21:08:00 +0000

The threat from Turkey is deeply historio-ideological and religious.

How do I know?

Read on:

August 25, 2025
'Jerusalem Unites Us': Gaza Conference in Istanbul highlights Islamic duty toward Al-Aqsa
Delegates on Democracy and Freedom Island debate sanctity of Al-Aqsa Mosque, lessons of history, and practical strategies for global Muslim unity as Israel’s genocide on Gaza rages on
'Jerusalem Unites Us': Gaza Conference in Istanbul highlights Islamic duty toward Al-Aqsa
Delegates on Democracy and Freedom Island debate sanctity of Al-Aqsa Mosque, lessons of history, and practical strategies for global Muslim unity as Israel’s genocide on Gaza rages on
The eight-day Gaza Conference's fourth day continued Monday on Democracy and Freedom Island in Istanbul, with a series of workshops on the protection of the Al-Aqsa Mosque, the historical lessons of the medieval Crusades, and strategies to strengthen unity across the Muslim world.
In the morning session, participants split into groups to discuss “the value of Al-Aqsa Mosque, the threats it faces and what must be done for its protection,” while another group examined “the duties of Muslims toward Al-Aqsa.”
The discussions underscored the centrality of Jerusalem to the Islamic faith and the shared responsibility of safeguarding its sanctity.
The afternoon program turned to historical and political questions, with one group analyzing “the causes that initiated the Crusader occupation” and another reflecting on “the reasons that would bring it to an end.”
...On the role of religious leaders, he stressed the need for spiritual revival: “If the Muslims are close to Allah, then Palestine will be close to their hearts. But if the Muslims are far away from Allah, Palestine won’t be.”
He recalled how an Israeli prime minister once remarked that “as long as the Muslims are not (performing) fajr (dawn prayers) in the masjid, they are still safe.”
For Gabriels, this reflected the urgent responsibility of scholars “to bring the Muslims closer to Allah and closer to their Deen (religion) and closer to the Quran.”
He emphasized that the Palestinian issue is not only political but moral and universal: “The issue of Gaza, the issue of Palestine, the issue of Al-Aqsa, it’s not a Palestinian issue. It is an issue of humanity and more so an issue of Muslims.”

MEMRI's report relates to the resolutions:

"A call for all countries, especially the Islamic ones, to immediately sever all their relations with the occupying Zionist entity and with anyone who supports it – including political, economic and military [ties] – in accordance with the principles of the Islamic shari'a and international law, which enjoin [us] to battle tyranny and restrain the occupation and its ongoing violations.
"The shari'a forbids maintaining commercial ties, or anything resembling them, with the occupying Zionists, or to allow their ships to traverse the waterways of the Islamic countries. This ruling applies to individuals, companies and governments.
"A call on Muslim scholars to urge mass demonstrations and protest strikes, and on governments to respect the civil rights of their peoples and remove all restrictions on public liberties – especially on freedom of expression and the right to demonstrate peacefully and express support for Gaza and opposition to the continuation of the war – as required by international charters of human rights.
"The decisions of the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court must be implemented, and the international justice system must commence proceedings against the perpetrators of the crimes of extermination, war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza… We demand that the Islamic countries and the free countries establish criminal tribunals in their territory to prosecute the war criminals…
"The IUMS contends that the countries likely to be harmed by the 'Greater Israel' plan [i.e. Jordan, Lebanon and Syria] bear the responsibility of dealing with the enemy's plans and initiating tangible and pragmatic measures to deter it and confront it…"[10]

And most recently, this analysis from November last month:

Turkey’s return to great power status November 6, 2025
Sumantra Maitra
A resurgent Turkey is returning to its Ottoman roots as an essential and influential pivot in the Eurasian balance of power.

Vigilance is required.

Judea, Samaria and...Tahpanhes, Egypt

noreply@blogger.com (YMedad) — Mon, 01 Dec 2025 09:00:00 +0000

In a recent academic archaeological article you can read of Judean Jews who are soldiers arriving in Egypt. The article is "Judeans and Samarians at Tahpanhes: Speculating on the Identity of the King in Papyrus Amherst 63" by Marshall A. Cunningham in Advances in Ancient, Biblical, and Near Eastern Research 4, no. 1 (Spring, 2024).

Cunningham highlights similarities between the story in the Papyrus record and the story of the prophet Jeremiah’s forced flight to Egypt in Jeremiah 40–44. Finally, he suggests that the two accounts are similar enough to use the Jeremianic version.

He thereby provides another ex-Biblical source that could possibly confirm the truth of Biblical history. He identifies the unnamed king as Apries, the fourth pharaoh of the Twenty-sixth Dynasty, and the royal outpost of Tahpanhes as the site where he receives the Judean and Samarian caravan.

Excerpts:

Papyrus Amherst 63, a scroll featuring a collection of Aramaic compo-sitions written in Demotic script, features a short narrative concerning the arrival of a group of Judean and Samarian refugees to an unnamed royal outpost. At this outpost, they are received by an unnamed king who welcomes them into his kingdom with an offer to sustain them...The narrative of the Judean and Samarian caravan occurs in col. xvii of P. Amh. 632...the text opens with narration in the first person...When asked their place of origin, a spokesman for the caravan answers:ʾ[n(h)] ⸢mn⸣-[y]hwd ’t(h) [I] come from [Y]ehud. ’ḥy mn-šmry⸢n⸣ m{m}y⸢t⸣(y) My brother is brought from Samaria. pkʿt ʾdm ⸢m⸣sq ’ḥty myrwšl{l}m And now a man is bringing my sister up from Jerusalem.
...In a recent article on when the Judean garrison at Yeb was established, Kahn (2022, 154) has connected this scene with the description of the Elamite jackal causing chaos in Rash’s temples in the preceding column, suggesting Rash as the caravan’s point of origin...
...While the details surrounding the scene are vague, there is strong evidence to suggest that the Judean and Samarian caravan is to be understood as a group of refugees: displaced soldiers and their families fleeing war and seeking shelter. First of all, the narrator identifies the band of Samarians as a gys, [גיס] a “troop” (l. 1).
... a comparison with a similar account of migration to Egypt may allow us to fill in some of the omitted details. Jeremiah 40–44 narrates the prophet Jeremiah’s forced flight from Judah in the aftermath of a political assassination of the Babylonian-appointed governor, Gedaliah, and his supporters. While the traveling party in that narrative is primarily composed of Judeans fleeing Babylonian reprisal, it does include a group of Samarians that had been taken captive by the rebel Ishmael outside Mizpah. Notably, the group includes men of fighting age alongside their families (41:16; 44). Finally, according to Jeremiah 43:7–9, the Judeans and Samarians in Jeremiah’s caravan made their first stop at the Egyptian city of Tahpanhes (תחפנחס). Once there, the prophet received an oracle that began by identifying the city as the site of a royal palace (בית פרעה) before performing a sign-act and announcing Pharaoh’s (and the caravan’s) impending devastation at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonian army (43:8–12)...

Impressive.

And another study there, posits that the Damascus Document, in existence before its earliest copy 4Q266 was produced in the first half of the first century BCE, employs a rhetorical use of the terms “Israel,” “Ephraim,” and “Judah”.