My Right Word

What to Keep in Mind Regarding the Altalena Incident

noreply@blogger.com (YMedad) — Mon, 24 Aug 2026 18:43:48 +0000

The Hagana in Europe was aware early on that the Irgun had purchased a ship and were preparing it for sailing to Israel with arms and men/women to fight early in 1948.

At one point, given the expense of keeping the Altalena in port (rental fees, etc.), the Hagana was offered to purchase it from the Irgun.

On June 16, a meeting was held in Tel Aviv between the Irgun High Command and Yisrael Gallil, Levy Eshkol and other Defense Ministry officials to arrange its arrival.

The arrival location, Kfar Vitkin, was a Mapai moshav.

Defense Minsitry officials were update on Saturday night, June 19, that the Altalena had reached the area off of Tel Aviv and would be proceeding to the off-load area near Kfar Vitkin.

The talks broke down on the beach at Kfar Vitkin over the division of the arms and Begin was given 10 minutes to stand down his men. The people who were there with whom I spoke insist it were the IDF soldiers under Moshe Dayan's command who first fired on those on the beach.

The Altalena was shadowed by navy corvettes on its way to Tel Aviv. As the ship neared the coastline, the corvettes began firing at it with bursts of machine gun fire, and stopped after fighters on board.

According to the book Altalena by journalist and political analyst Shlomo Nakdimon [he], Ben-Gurion instructed the Israeli Air Force to sink the ship on the high seas, long before it approached the shore. This would have resulted in much greater loss of life aboard. Gordon Levett, a Mahal volunteer pilot, wrote in his book Flying Under Two Flags that Heiman Shamir, deputy commander of the Air Force, tried to convince non-Jewish pilot volunteers to attack the ship. However, three pilots refused to participate in the mission, one of them saying, "You can kiss my foot. I did not lose four friends and fly 10,000 miles in order to bomb Jews."

On June 22, the day the Altalena reached the Frishman Street area of the Tel Aviv shoreline, where subsequently it was fired upon, the Palmach arms ship Inaco slipped into Jaffa Port indicating that the excuse that the Altalena should not have set sail as the UN Truce had begun was only applied to the Irgun, not the Palmach.

The Temple of Solomon and Alfred Mond's Near Doom

noreply@blogger.com (YMedad) — Sun, 23 Aug 2026 08:09:17 +0000

As published in Fathom Journal entitled

The Roots of the ‘Al Aqsa is in Danger’ Myth: Alfred Mond and a Speech Distorted

I have added photographs, illustrations and newspaper clippings.

______________

In 1921 British politician Alfred Mond, visiting Palestine, said ‘our sanctuary, our Temple, we will construct as an everlasting building’. Yisrael Medad shows how, although Mond was plainly talking figuratively not literally, expressing his hopes for the rebirth of a nation. Arab political entrepreneurs, most notably the Grand Mufti, Haj Amin Al-Husayni, seized upon these remarks and throughout the 1920s employed them as a successful aid to political mobilisation, as fodder for anti-Zionist propaganda, and as a goad to violence. Still today, Mond’s remarks form part of the false narrative that ‘Al-Aqsa is under threat from the Jews’.

INTRODUCTION

Today, one often hears the false charge that Israel is ‘building tunnels under the Temple Mount‘, or that, ‘The Al-Aqsa Mosque is in danger of being bombed and destroyed. This is a true and serious Zionist threat’. There are dire warnings about how the ‘Jews invade the Mosque’ and even that Jews are ‘injecting chemical substances into the walls of the mosque in order to cause its corrosion’. This article examines one of the lesser-known origins of these myths and legends: remarks of the British politician Alfred Mond in 1921 which, though he subsequently clarified them, were purposefully distorted by the Arab leadership as a justification for violence for decades after.

WHO WAS ALFRED MOND?

Sir Alfred Moritz Mond (1868 – 1930), industrialist, plutocrat, politician and philanthropist, knighted as the 1st Baron Melchett, was born to parents who had immigrated to Great Britain from Germany. Although both his parents were born of Jewish parents, they did not consider themselves practicing Jews and he was not raised as a Jew. His wife, Violet (sister of the Foreign Office muralist Sigismund Christian Hubert Goetze), was also of Jewish heritage but her parents had converted. They were married in the Anglican Church and the children were raised as Christians.

Mond’s father, Ludwig, was a chemist and had emigrated from Germany to England in 1862. He developed a process for processing soda ash and later, another for extracting nickel. After founding a chemical engineering firm he became extremely wealthy in that he discovered that adding 3.5 per cent nickel to steel greatly increased its strength. Alfred was a director in his father’s businesses and expanded them. In 1926, he brought about the merger of four separate companies to form Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI), one of the world’s largest industrial corporations at the time and became its first chairman. He was one of the wealthiest Englishmen at the time.

He involved himself in politics and sat as Liberal Member of Parliament from 1906 to 1923, becoming a member of David Lloyd George’s government as First Commissioner of Works from 1916 to 1921 and Minister of Health (with a seat in the cabinet) from 1921 to 1922. He then switched party and sat in Parliament from 1924 to 1928. Upon his death the obituary of The Times noted he had triumphed over ‘a bad voice, a bad delivery, and a presence unimpressive to all but the caricaturists’.

Although not identifying as Jewish, nevertheless, Mond was frequently the victim of antisemitic attacks in Parliament. T.S. Elliot’s poem, ‘A Cooking Egg‘, published in 1920, includes these lines: ‘I shall not want Capital in Heaven, For I shall meet Sir Alfred Mond: We two shall lie together, lapt / In a five per cent Exchequer Bond,’ and he was targeted by Henry Hamilton Beamish (an early promoter of the Madagascar Plan for Jewish deportation to that island of the east coast of Africa) and his The Britons group which, in a poster, ‘The Jews’ Whose Who’, attacked Mond as a traitor to England.

MOND AND ZIONISM

In the wake of the Balfour Declaration, he adopted the Zionist cause with fervor even though, according to Edwin Montagu’s October 1917 letter to the Cabinet (NA CAB21/58, ‘The Future of Palestine’), he had been previously opposed or, perhaps, non-supportive. He eventually became President of the British Zionist Foundation, invested in Pinchas Rutenberg’s Electric Corporation and he was a signee on the Keren Hayesod Manifesto, published on 24 December 1920 in the Jewish Chronicle, having been appointed Chairman of the Zionist fundraising instrument at the beginning of the month. At an event in Manchester in the first week of December, he was obliged to address a charge that appeared in the Morning Post that the Zionist was demanding a decisive role in the appointment of the High Commissioner.

Earlier that year, on 8 April 1920, Mond, then Minister of Health, expressing his view on the future of the Jewish national home in Palestine, had declared in a private letter to David Lloyd George that ‘to place a highly civilised world people like the Jews under the sovereignty of the quasi-barbarian and backward Arabs is unthinkable! Nor from a British standpoint, as a question of policy, could such an enhancement of the insatiable lust of domination of Mahomedan Arabs be anything but disastrous’ (David Lloyd George Papers, as cited in Maryanne A. Rhett, The Global History of the Balfour Declaration: Declared Nation, Routledge, 2016) and that it was the responsibility of the state to show the Arabs ‘how to become civilised’.

Moreover, in an earlier letter sent to Lloyd George on 13 October 1919, Mond expressed a similar ‘concern’ regarding the views of the Amir Feisal on Palestine, specifically, ‘the idea that Palestine should be part of an Arab Kingdom in which the Jews will be welcome but will in fact be governed by Arabs. This is so entirely contrary to the expressed policy of the British Government, that I so hope you will impress on him the intention of the Governments of the Allies regarding the Jews and their national home’. He further pressed that ‘there should be no weakening on this question’ which was causing him ‘a great deal of anxiety’.

MOND IN PALESTINE

In early January 1921, Mond and Chaim Weizmann had arrived in Palestine, then still under British military occupation, having left England on 5 January. The purpose of his visit was to tour the land and observe the progress made by the Jewish pioneers — an on-site inspection, as it were. Indeed, his itinerary took him to cities and the kvutzot, from north to south.

On Sunday evening, 30 January, hundreds of guests congregated at the Lemel School in Jerusalem, up from the Bikkur Cholim Hospital and quite near to Meah Shearim. All strata of Jerusalem’s Jewish society were represented. Weizmann spoke and then Mond addressed the guests. Acknowledging that sharp criticism of the Zionist leadership had been conveyed to him, he asked that the assembled understand that he has full faith in their ability and requested that unity be the goal. Mutual recriminations can only have a negative effect on the Zionist work that needs to be done. World Jewry need be harnessed to assist the financial needs of the Yishuv.

According to press reports, Mond was planning, as soon as the League of Nations mandate over Palestine was confirmed, to raise a loan for the development of the country. He was impressed by the ‘unbounded enthusiasm’ displayed by Jews, some of whom were walking across Europe to get to their homeland even over a period of eleven months. It was a country of ‘mineral oil … phosphates and asphalt’.

MOND'S REMARKS ABOUT THE TEMPLE

According to the Hebrew language report of Haaretz on 1 February, he then said ‘our sanctuary, our Temple, we will construct as an everlasting building. Strong stones we will lay at its foundation. We are a stiff-necked people, even stubborn, in work and aspiration, and we will not lose hope’. The crowd, as the paper noted, reacted with applause, and he added, ‘the fourteen million Jews worldwide have one hope and will give their all to assure that our national home become a fact’. As it developed, that reference to the ‘Temple,’ symbolising the return of the national glory in a metaphorical sense, would almost be his doom. Incidentally, Mond’s biographer, Hector Bolitho, note in Alfred Mond, First Lord Melchett, that when Mond arrived at the Western Wall, he exclaimed:

‘My God, I should like to blow it up. It is terrible! It is terrible! It is the symbol of their humiliation and of the death of their pride. It is not in this way that they will build a nation or a people. In this is only further destruction: not escape.’

Back home, Mond, in a speech in London before the Palestine Foundation Fund [the Keren HaYesod] on 21 March 1921, repeated his appeal for a new ‘edifice’ to be erected ‘that would testify to the legacy of Solomon’s Temple’ as reported in the Daily Telegraph. Mond declared he would dedicate his remaining energies to the construction of a steadfast structure ‘on the site on which Solomon’s Temple once stood’.

Interestingly enough, in an interview in the local Meraat al-Shark (Mir’at al-Sharq/Mirror of the East) Arabic-language newspaper as quoted in Haaretz on 8 February, there was no mention of Mond’s supposedly inflammatory words. To the contrary, Mond was quoted in this organ of the Nashashibi faction as advancing an appreciation of the centuries-long Arab presence in the country, which needed to be taken into consideration. The country’s culture would be a mixed Jewish and Arab one, Mond was quoted, who also identified a need for joint Jewish-Arab cooperation in economic affairs for the country required an input of finances and a labor force.

QUESTIONS IN PARLIAMENT

On 5 April 1921, Conservative MP for Maidstone Commander, Carlyon W. Bellairs, put a question to the prime minister that was answered by Leopold Amery, his Parliamentary Secretary. Bellairs had asked whether the prime minister’s ‘attention has been drawn to the proposal put forward at a meeting of the Palestine Foundation Fund to erect a great temple on the site of the Temple of Solomon; whether he is aware that the site is now occupied by the Mosque of Omar; and whether, in view of the difficulties which such proposals cause to the Mandatory Powers, he will state that in no circumstances will Mohammedan institutions be interfered with?’

Amery’s response was that those words were a passage ‘in a speech delivered by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health [Mond], to which the hon. and gallant Member apparently alludes. I think it is clear that my right hon. friend was speaking figuratively and did not intend so literal an interpretation to be given to his words’.

He then drew attention to Article 13 of the draft Mandate for Palestine ‘which clearly sets forth the policy of His Majesty’s Government with regard to all holy places, religious buildings, or sites in Palestine’.

The very pro-Zionist MP of Kingston upon Hull Central, Lieut.-Commander Joseph Kenworthy, Baron Strabolgi — who had intervened a year earlier on behalf of Ze’ev Jabotinsky, arrested for the defence of Jerusalem during the Arab riots and who, in November 1928, would attack the newly implemented status quo regulations at the Western Wall as discriminatory towards the Jews — asked a supplementary question:

‘Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that there is no intention whatever of interfering with any mosques by the Palestine Committees, and also that King Solomon is held in equal reverence by Mohammedans, Jews, and Christians?’

Edward Turnour, Earl of Winterton, objecting to any interference with ‘holy places’, then wished to know if Amery will ‘convey to the Minister of Health the un-desirability of making the sort of figurative speech which he did, in view of Mohammedan susceptibilities’? Amery indicated that he could not be ‘responsible for the extent of misinterpretation which may be put on figurative speeches, but it is certainly the case, as my Noble Friend stated, that a guard has been on the Mosque of Omar ever since the occupation, and there is every intention of safeguarding the holy places of every religion’.

ENTER AL-HUSAYNI: A POLITICAL ENTREPRENEUR

According to Nicholas E. Roberts, Mond’s words intersected with the electioneering literature distributed by Amin Al-Husayni in 1921 when on the night of 19 April his supporters pasted up a poster entitled ‘Wake Up Moslems’, accusing his rivals of willingly handing over the Haram al-Sharif to the Jews so that its buildings, the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa, might be pulled down and the Temple be rebuilt ‘as stated by Alfred Mond and the president of the Zionist Commission David Eder’ (p. 109).

Back in Palestine, according to Haaretz of 10 August that same year, Mond’s words about a newly reconstructed Temple were still agitating the Arab population. The High Commissioner, Herbert Samuel, felt it necessary to request further clarification. The response from the Colonial Office, with assistance from William G. A. Ormsby-Gore, who had just been appointed to the post of British Representative to the Permanent Mandates Commission, was that Mond was using figurative speech as regards the country as a whole and had no intention to relate to any specific area upon which, ‘according to the legend, Solomon’s Temple once stood’.

The Mufti Haj Amin Al-Husayni seized upon these remarks and throughout the 1920s they were employed as a successful aid to mobilisation, as well as fodder for anti-Zionist propaganda. The attempts (see p. 141) made by Zionists to purchase the West Wall courtyard, of Weizmann, Rabbi Kook, Yaakov Thon and others, seemed to confirm what Al-Husayni was saying about Mond’s words. Already on 1 May 1918, Weizmann had written to Ormsby-Gore that a conveyance of the Western Wall to the Jews, currently ‘surrounded by ill-kept, ramshackle buildings’ and ‘the haunt of Arab loafers and vagrants’, for fair market value, reportedly £75,000, would return ‘dignity and solemnity which should attach to this monument of the ancient glories of Israel’ rather than a scene ‘of humiliation and degradation’. As he elucidated, ‘We feel that the present time, when Jewry is looking forward to a revival of its national life, would be of all times the most fitting for the carrying out of this project.’

SHEIKH ABD AL-QADIR AL-MUZAFFAR TAKES THE MYTH TO THE MUSLIM WORLD

Sheikh Abd al-Qadir al-Muzaffar, who headed in 1922 the first of several delegations that toured the Moslem world, especially Mecca during the Hijaz season, published manifestos beginning that year which utilised the theme of a Jewish ‘takeover’ of the Haram area. On 23 July, Doar HaYom published a rebuttal to the pamphlet and, inter alia, refuted the claim that Mond had proclaimed he would devote the rest of his life to ‘the restoration of Solomon’s Temple on the ruins of the Mosque of al Aqsa’, a quotation frequently quoted (see below). Roberts describes these delegations of the Supreme Muslim Council as ostensibly raising funds for the renovation of the Dome of the Rock but an added element was a call on Muslims ‘to rally to its defence of the Haram al-Sharif’.

The idea to renovate the Dome of the Rock originally came from a Jew and Zionist, High Commissioner Herbert Samuel. In August 1920, he wrote to Lord Curzon to request that the British government provide funds to renovate the Haram al-Sharif. Correctly foreseeing that if the British repaired the site, Muslims would protest ‘that Britain was taking over an Islamic space’, Samuel, the secretary of state, and the viceroy of India decided that it would be better for Hajj Amin al-Husayni to lead the campaign to repair the site with Britain providing background technical and financial assistance. However, al-Muzaffar and his comrades spread a very different message when visiting Egypt, the Sudan, Iraq, the Hejaz, Kuwait, Bahrain and India. British observers of the next three trips made between 1923–1924 observed the injection of nationalist politics into their fundraising appeal. Quite simply, they added to their message that monies collected ‘would also help to defend the Haram al-Sharif from Zionist takeover’.

While on tour in America in 1928, Mond admitted in a speech on 26 October, as reported in the 9 November edition of Philadelphia’s The Jewish Exponent, that the proposed purchase of the Wall was ‘not feasible now’. But, he added, ‘the Zionist Organization is determined to force the issue and obtain a definite arrangement with the government or parties concerned’ for regular Jewish assemblies to worship at the Wall.

Mond’s utterances were constantly highlighted by Arab spokespersons throughout the 1920s and particularly during the Western Wall dispute of September 1928-August 1929. As Thomas Adam has noted, Mond’s Zionist ‘activities found opponents in the Arab world, and Mond was quickly targeted for plans to destroy Arab religion and culture. In 1928 the influential Cairo newspaper Mokattam accused Mond of having said “I shall devote the rest of my life to the restoration of Solomon’s Temple on the ruins of the Mosque of al Aqsa”’.

In 1930, Emil Ludwig published an article in the New York Times surveying the scene in Palestine. Towards its end, he wrote, ‘Only by mutual understanding can the Arabs and the Jews live together in this country…No prudent Zionist speaks any longer of the Jewish State of Palestine, but all speak of a home in Palestine. The first would be as senseless as the published assertion of the Arabs that Sir Alfred Mond and Einstein wanted to erect again the Temple of David.’ In 1934 David Ben-Gurion, meeting Mussa Alami, then employed in the Legal Department of the Mandatory Government, heard Alami express alarm about Mond’s statement. (See Ben-Gurion’s memoir Zikhronot, 1972, p. 170).

THE MYTH, FROM THE 1929 RIOTS TO TODAY

Disturbances from September 1928 to August 1929 culminated in Arab-instigated riots throughout Mandate Palestine. The notion that a Jewish drive to restore the Temple and erase al-Aqsa must be resisted was central to Arab propaganda throughout this period.

On 8 October 1928, the Mufti submitted a memorandum pointing to ‘the unlimited greedy aspirations of the Jews in this respect, Moslems believe that the Jews’ aim is to take possession of the Mosque of Al-Aqsa gradually on the pretence that it is the Temple, by starting with the Western Wall of this place, which is an inseparable part of the Mosque of Al-Aqsa’ (See the 1929 Commission’s report, p. 31).

On 1 November 1928 a meeting of the new General Moslem Conference was convened and a resolution was passed reading, ‘Whereas we, the population of the Holy Land, have been entrusted by God with the custody of this House and His Temple, we deem it our duty to submit to all our Moslem brethren in the East and West a statement of the danger which threatens this Mosque owing to the ambitions of the Jews to expropriate it from the hands of Moslems.’ Thus were Mond’s words recalled and recycled as part of the propaganda efforts.

A Commission of Inquiry arrived in the country in October 1929. As its report accepts, ‘the Mufti or any educated Moslem might — genuinely and not without reason —have feared that, if at some future time the Jews became politically dominant in Palestine, they would not be content to leave the old Temple Area in Moslem ownership. No declaration by the Zionist Organization could remove such a fear.’ (p.73)

When the Mufti presented evidence before the Shaw Commission on 2 December 1929, the issue of Mond’s remarks were part of his cross-examination and correspondence dating to July 1921 was reviewed (p. 498). The follow-up International Commission report on the Western Wall of December 1930 specifically included Mond in its summary entitled ‘The real intentions of the Jews’:

‘Lord Melchett (then Sir Alfred Mond) has declared in public (1922) that the day of the reconstruction of the Temple was very near. Jabotinsky, Zangwill [who had written of the rise of a ‘new Cyrus’ who would pave the way for a ‘new Nehemiah’], Professor Klausner of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and other prominent Jews have expressed themselves to the same effect. Pictures to be found in sundry Jewish papers also show it to be the intention of the Zionists to rebuild the Temple at the spot that is now occupied by the Haram-esh-Sherif.’

The Mufti conducted a pan-Islam World Islamic Congress in Jerusalem in 1931 and again, Mond’s words and the theme of replacing the Haram al-Sharif with a Third Jewish Temple was played up. Since then, and until today, the theme of ‘Temple-Replacing-Mosque’ and the ‘Judaisation of the Temple Mount’ fill the Palestinian Authority media and their diplomatic initiatives and the UN and additional international forums incessantly, consistently and constantly.

And so is the historical example of a calumny.

---------

And a follow-up:

The current Lord Reading is taking steps to assume Israeli citizenship. His grandmother, Eva Mond, married the second Marquess of Reading and — though raised in her mother’s Christian faith — became an active Zionist and even converted to Judaism in 1933.
She held court at a beautiful building on the shores of the Sea of Galilee, a house which became known as Villa Melchett. Eva’s father was the first Baron Melchett.

I Am Interviewed in Italian

noreply@blogger.com (YMedad) — Tue, 18 Aug 2026 06:39:26 +0000

I was text interviewed for an Italian outlet. I received an email, responded, was asked two additional questions of clarification and here I am: (translation via ChatGPT)

[For text of the full correspondence, see at end]

Israeli settler: “The violent ones? Three hundred young men”

Journalist Medad even denies the Palestinian question: “We have the right to live here”

Rome, August 17, 2026 — First he uses international law as his argument. Then, when it is pointed out to him that the League of Nations has not existed for quite some time, he moves onto the terrain of history. Yisrael Medad, an Israeli journalist, settler from Shiloh and a historian who supports the settlements in the West Bank, has one virtue: clarity. He finds surprising analogies between the Holy Land and our own country. And, according to him, the solution to the Palestinian question is “Italian” as well.

Medad, on what basis does an Israeli claim the right to live and build in the West Bank, which much of the international community considers occupied Palestinian territory?

“The fact that the international community considers Judea and Samaria occupied territories does not mean that they are. In 1922, fifty-five countries of the League of Nations recognized the right of the Jews to reestablish their historic national homeland.”

But the UN Security Council subsequently stated that settlements in territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity, and in 2024 the International Court of Justice ruled that the settlement policy is contrary to international law.

“I do not base the rights of the Jews on the League of Nations or on the UN Security Council. The right exists and is applicable even without recognition. It is based on three thousand years of Jewish presence in the land of kings, priests and prophets, psalms and revolts, olive trees and vineyards.”

If this right applies to Israelis, what equivalent right do you recognize for Palestinians who have lived there for generations?

“Arabs, like Druze and anyone else, can live there. But they do not have the right to carry out terrorist acts against Jews, which they have been doing since 1920.”

Terrorism: the same term used to describe the siege of Qusra by the American ambassador to Israel. Do you think the definition should change if the aggressor is Israeli?

“It should not change. Anyone who attacks civilians is a terrorist. Huckabee, however, is wrong in how he characterizes certain incidents; one has to have a sense of proportion. I checked, for example, the statistics on sexual violence in Italy: would it be justified to call Lombards ‘sexual terrorists’ because many cases are reported in Lombardy? No.”

But Palestinians repeatedly report assaults, arson and attacks on villages.

“All violence is wrong. But there is much more violence perpetrated by Arabs against Jews, and it is also more lethal. I am surprised that the world's attention is so one-sided.”

When Palestinian villages are attacked, don't you think that the settler movement bears political responsibility?

“No. That violence is the result of the failure of the education provided by parents and religious authority. I must, however, emphasize that Arab violence is tolerated and even praised, especially in Europe, by ‘progressive’ forces. This makes it difficult to explain here to these 300 young men that violence does not work.”

You speak of Judea and Samaria as part of the Land of Israel. Does that mean that, in your view, there should not be a Palestinian state in the West Bank?

“Exactly. I am convinced that the real objective of the Palestinians is not to have their own state, which they could have had in 1937, 1947 and 1967, but to deny the Jews a state.”

But if you reject the two-state solution outright, what is the concrete alternative for millions of Palestinians?

“We could try autonomy and see what happens.”

Can Israelis and Palestinians really coexist in the same territory without having the same rights?

“If there were no terrorism and incitement to violence, there would be no restrictions. In Italy, for example, millions of foreigners live without Italian citizenship.”

What is the political objective of the settler movement?

“To guarantee the continuity of the Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria.”

The problem is how. Imagine that your political vision were fully realized: twenty years from now, who would govern the territory between the Jordan and the Mediterranean?

“Israel will be the sovereign power. An Arab could be an Israeli citizen, or a resident without citizenship, or could once again become a Jordanian citizen. Or perhaps we could learn something from South Tyrol.”

“If he says so.” [Se lo dice lui — the journalist's closing, slightly ironic, comment.]

And here are a couple of nuances in the Italian (added by ChatGPT)

There are a few places where the Italian framing is somewhat sharper than your actual answers:

“nega persino la questione palestinese” literally means “even denies the Palestinian question.” That is the journalist's characterization; your answer itself does not deny that Palestinians exist or that they have rights to live there.
“I violenti? Trecento ragazzi” is a headline, roughly “The violent ones? Three hundred young men.” It refers to your statement that it is difficult to explain to “these 300 young men” that violence does not work.
“colono” means “settler.” It is not necessarily derogatory in Italian, but colono israeliano is the terminology the newspaper chose.
Your South Tyrol/Alto Adige analogy is particularly interesting because it invokes a model of territorial autonomy within a sovereign state rather than partition into two sovereign states.

Also, the headline “abbiamo diritto a vivere qui” (“we have the right to live here”) is not actually a verbatim quotation appearing in your answers as reproduced below it; it is the newspaper's headline characterization of your position.

P.S. My final line to him was:

"Of course, I have kept my replies short and concise but the issue is quite complicated."

I do not think I convinced him of the practicality that a democratic, binational society in which Jews and Arabs live together without ethnic domination cannot exist.

-----

I found there this interview too: (translation via ChatGPT)

West Bank, No Other Land activist: “An ethnic-cleansing campaign is underway”

Huraini, Palestinian reporter: “There is no everyday life there; Israeli settlers continue with complete impunity.”

Rome, August 17, 2026 —

“On the 19th of last month, late at night, more than 40 masked Israeli settlers broke into At-Tuwani. I was with my cousins when we heard desperate screams coming from my house: they were my sisters. They were sleeping when the settlers began smashing the windows in order to throw gasoline inside. They wanted to burn my family members alive.

For the first time in my life I felt completely helpless: I was alone against forty of them, and the only ‘weapon’ I had in my hand was my camera. My neighbor lost the baby she was carrying because of the terror of those scenes.”

It is through his own story that Mohammad Hesham Huraini, a Palestinian reporter and activist from Masafer Yatta, describes the West Bank today. Huraini collaborated on No Other Land, the Oscar-winning documentary.

“A huge campaign of ethnic cleansing is being carried out by Israeli settlers with complete impunity.”

What is everyday life like there?

“There is no everyday life. We wake up in the morning to demolitions and in the evening we witness pogroms. We cannot even move from one village to another because of army and police roadblocks and the continuous attacks by settlers. Going to the doctor or buying food is an ordeal.”

How do the people who live there make a living?

“Securing an income is complicated. Since October 7, 2023, most of the people who worked inside ‘48”—in Palestinian terminology, the Israeli territory within the Green Line—“have lost their jobs and no one has been able to return there.”

Are you more afraid of violence, or of gradually being forced to abandon those lands?

“The greatest fear is facing the daily threat of death.”

U.S. Ambassador Mike Huckabee has called those responsible for the siege “Israeli terrorists.” Can words like these really make a difference?

“They are important, but they are not enough. Real pressure is needed from the European governments and the United States.”

Israel will go to the polls again on October 27. Do you hope the election can change anything?

“For the Palestinians, little or nothing will change. The settlers are taking advantage of the election period: they know that the government needs their votes, so they attack knowing that they will never be stopped.”

Do you still believe that Israelis and Palestinians can live together?

“Every time a solution has been proposed, Israel has destroyed it because it does not believe in peace, but only in the displacement of Palestinians. We are human beings, not numbers.”

After the Oscar, it seemed that the world had become aware of No Other Land. Do the people who live there feel that anyone is still watching?

“Precisely after that recognition, the filmmakers became the principal targets of attacks, arrests and detentions. The 96 minutes of the documentary showed our past life; the reality we have been experiencing from October 7 until today is even more insane and brutal than what was shown in the film.”

You mentioned October 7. Beyond the horror, don't you think that massacre caused enormous political and moral damage to the Palestinian cause?

“I prefer not to answer this question because the issue is not about October 7: the occupation already existed beforehand, as did the attacks, pogroms and killings of Palestinians.”

And ChatGPT added

A couple of points worth noting

The Italian interviewer uses “pogrom” (pogrom) in the questions/description as well as Huraini using the term in his answer. I have retained it rather than softening it to “attacks.”

Also, “inside the ‘48” is Huraini's terminology for Israel within the Green Line. The Italian journalist actually inserts an explanatory parenthesis making this explicit.

One potentially important point for your purposes: the article is not an independent report of the alleged July 19 incident. It is an interview in which Huraini gives his own account and characterization of events. The article does not provide corroborating evidence for his claims about the settlers, nor does it present an Israeli response.

_________________________________

My responses to a questionaire sent by Antonio Del Prete, Responsabile Redazione Interni/Esteri - QN Quotidiano Nazionale, in Bologna, Italy:

Dear Antonio,

Allow me to respond from my personal/private gmail as I am retired from the Begin Center (although I still do research there) and my opinions are solely mine.

"Let me startt with the fundamental question: why should an Israeli have the right to live and build in the West Bank, in territory that most of the international community regards as occupied? Is that right historical, religious, legal or political?

That the international community regards Judea and Samaria as occupied does not make those territories so. They may be technically under belligerent occupation but that is but a legal technicality. In 1922, based on the San Remo Conference of April 1920, the right of Jews to reestablish their historic national homeland was recognized in international law by 55 nations of the League of Nations. By the way, at San Remo, Italy played an important part. The official minutes for 25 April 1920, when the Palestine mandate resolution was adopted, list Francesco Saverio Nitti — Prime Minister, and chairman of the meeting; Vittorio Scialoja — Foreign Minister and Italian secretaries: Garbasso, Galli, Trombetti and Lt. Zanchi who were present at the San Remo Conference. That, of course, followed the 1919 Versailles Peace Treaty. The right to reside in these areas is the natural, historical, legal and religious right of Jews based on a 3,000 presence in the Land, of kings and priests and prophets, of psalms and revolts, of olives and grapes - and a constant residency even after dispersion and conquest all throughout the centuries, especially in Jerusalem and Hebron.

If that right applies to Israelis, what equivalent right do you recognise for Palestinians who have lived there for generations? When those rights clash, who should decide which one prevails?

Arabs - and Druze and anyone else - can live there. One right they do not possess is to conduct terror against Jews which they have been doing since 1920.

You speak of Judea and Samaria as part of the Land of Israel. Does that mean that, in your view, there should ultimately be no Palestinian state in the West Bank?

Yes. I am convinced their utmost goal is not their own state - which they could have had in 1937, 1947, 1967 and so forth - but to deny Jews a state. I do not need to reward them for their failure to eliminate Jews. They could have had autonomy of a condominium with Jordan. It's their choice to keep losing. Besides, the two-state solution is actually a four-state solution as Jordan, separated from the Palestine Mandate in 1922 by Churchill, is properly "Palestinian" (and so is the majority of its population if we want to be exact) and Gaza will never accept rule by the PLO in Ramallah. And besides, why should there be three Arab uni-ethnic states but just one Israel with 20% Arab population?

If the two-state solution is dead, what is the concrete alternative for millions of Palestinians?

Israeli citizenship with full political rights, limited autonomy, or permanent life without sovereignty? We could try autonomy and see what happens. Unfortunately, after 30 years+ since Oslo they have done abolsutley nothing in state-building.

Can coexistence genuinely exist when Israelis and Palestinians living in the same territory are subject to different legal systems, different restrictions on movement and different levels of protection?

A. if there was no terror, incitement to violence, there would be no restrictions.

B. Did you know that as of January 1, 2026, ISTAT (the Italian National Institute of Statistics) reported that 5,560,000 foreign residents with non-Italian citizenship live in Italy, making up about 9.4% of the country's total population? I presume they all have mostly the same rights except for voting and being elected. I am sure similar situations exist all over Europe. It could work in Israel + Judea and Samaria as well. By the way, I am not at all convinced there is a separate, distinct national grouping called 'Palestinian Arabs'.

Palestinians argue that the expansion of settlements, outposts and roads is making territorial separation physically impossible. Is creating an irreversible reality on the ground part of the political objective?

It should be.

How do you judge violence committed by Israeli settlers against Palestinian civilians, and how significant do you believe this phenomenon is today in the West Bank?

All violence is wrong, immoral and criminal unless exercised by authoritative state agencies. As there is much more violence perpetrated by Arabs against Jews - more deadly, too - I am amazed of the world's attention being one-sided.

When fields are burned, residents assaulted or Palestinian villages attacked, does the settlement movement bear any political responsibility beyond the criminal responsibility of the individuals involved? Directly?

No. It is a failure of education, parental guidance and religious authority. It is a wrong ideological orientation and immoral. However, I must point out that Arab violence is tolerated and even praised especially in Europe by 'progressive' forces which makes it difficult here to tell these 300 youngsters that violence doesn't work.

Mike Huckabee, who has long been one of the strongest American supporters of the settlement movement, has used the word “terrorism” in relation to violence by Israelis against Palestinians. If the same act were committed by a Palestinian against an Israeli family, it would certainly be called terrorism. Why should the definition change when the attacker is Israeli?

He was wrong, as he was at the incident in Taybeh [https://tps.co.il/articles/burning-questions-what-really-happened-at-taybehs-church/]. No definition should change. Persons attacking civilians uninvolved in violence are engaging in terror. Of course, there is also perspective and proportion. I checked stats for sexual violence in Italy and found that in 2024, 6,831 rapes occurred in the country. Lombardy was the region with the highest reports nationwide, with over one thousand cases of sexual violence in 2022. Would I be justified in thinking Lombardy people are sexual terrorists? P.S. I wouldn't.

Palestinians also describe a more gradual form of pressure: grazing livestock next to homes, blocking access, intimidation and repeated harassment until families eventually leave. If the result is the depopulation of a Palestinian community, is that not a form of displacement?

A. As Regavim has been reporting for years, Arabs are being funded to move into Area C and take over state land. There is a counter move on. Almost all of the incidents involve this type of Arab incursion, but not all.

B. In 1948, some 15,000 Jews were displaced from Jerusalem, its neighborhoods and other communities due to the Jordanian invasion and subsequent illegal occupation. Did they have rights? Why not?

What, ultimately, is the political objective of the settlement movement? To live alongside Palestinians, to incorporate the West Bank permanently into Israel, or to create a Jewish-majority territory in which the Palestinian presence is progressively reduced?

I would think to assure continued Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria. If I can quote Ze'ev Jabotinsky from 1923: "I am prepared to take an oath binding ourselves and our descendants that we shall never do anything contrary to the principle of equal rights, and that we shall never try to eject anyone. This seems to me a fairly peaceful credo. But it is quite another question whether it is always possible to realise a peaceful aim by peaceful means. For the answer to this question does not depend on our attitude to the Arabs; but entirely on the attitude of the Arabs to us and to Zionism."

Imagine that your political vision is fully realised. Twenty years from now, what does the map between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea look like? And what status does a Palestinian currently living in Tuba, Qusra or Al-Mughayyir have?

Israel is the sovereign power there and the Arab in Qusra is either a citizen of Israel, a resident non-citizen or a re-citizen of Jordan (Arabs there possessed Jordanian citizenship until 1988) or perhaps we could learn from South Tyrol?

Of course, I have kept my replies short and concise but the issue is quite complicated.

P.S.

Oh. And one more thing, a "der Treppenwitz" matter, regarding "settlement".

It is a legal right guaranteed to the Jews as found in Article 6 of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine decision:

"The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes."

And, of course, the territory then of the Jewish historic homeland envisioned was at least from the sea to the Jordan River.

There was a follow-up:

Thank you very much for your previous answers and for taking the time to respond so fully. I would be grateful if you could also answer these two follow-up questions:

You base the legal right of Jews to settle in the West Bank on Article 6 of the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine. However, the UN Security Council has repeatedly taken a different position: Resolution 446 stated that Israeli settlements in the territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity, and Resolution 2334 reaffirmed that they constitute a flagrant violation of international law. In 2024, the International Court of Justice also found Israel’s settlement policy in the occupied Palestinian territory to be contrary to international law. On what legal basis do you consider a provision of the 1922 Mandate to remain controlling today while rejecting these subsequent UN resolutions and the conclusions of the ICJ?

A. To be precise: I do not base the Jews' right on the League of Nations nor the UN Security Council. They recognized that right. That right exists and is applicable even without that recognition, or for that matter, non-recognition. I am sure Italians did not need, for example, Garibaldi's One Thousand volunteers in 1860-61 to create a right to a united Italy.

The same Article 6 that you cite also states that Jewish settlement should be encouraged while ensuring that “the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced.” How do you reconcile that condition with settlement expansion, restrictions on access to land and the displacement of Palestinian communities in the West Bank?

If you review that entire decision, Arabs are not mentioned once. Not at all. The League of Nations knew of Jews and non-Jews: Arabs, Germans, Armenians, Turks, Italians, Christians (of a half-dozen denominations), Alawites, Bahais, Sunni & Shi'ite Muslims. All were "existing non-Jewish communities". Arabs were awarded after WW One Saudi Arabia, Mesopotamia (Iraq), Syria, Lebanon, Jordan from the former Ottoman Empire, not to mention the later Arab states of today, almost 30 in North Africa and Middle East including a few countries built entirely around oil refineries. There was no "Palestinian people/nation" then for sure.

Quick Quiz: Did I write 'West Bank'?

noreply@blogger.com (YMedad) — Sun, 16 Aug 2026 13:51:10 +0000

Did I write "West Bank"?

Here:

Palestine is Southern Syria, 1915

noreply@blogger.com (YMedad) — Tue, 28 Jul 2026 11:48:25 +0000

"Palestine is Southern Syria"

Ze'ev Jabotinsky
June 30, 1915

What Did the Temple Mount Floor Look Like?

noreply@blogger.com (YMedad) — Wed, 22 Jul 2026 14:16:32 +0000

From this clip illustrating Frankie Snyder's work:

Jabotinsky using "Palestinian"

noreply@blogger.com (YMedad) — Tue, 21 Jul 2026 18:31:43 +0000

When Jabotinsky used "Palestinian" (referring to Jews of the Palestine Mandate), as reported in Denver Jewish News, Sept. 3, 1925

From the Series: Extra-Biblical Testimonies to Biblical Events

noreply@blogger.com (YMedad) — Sun, 19 Jul 2026 06:26:54 +0000

Many doubt the Bible is a genuine reliable record of history.

For example, do we have testimony to an exile of Jews from Judea as a result of an Assyrian conquest in 585 BCE?

Well ---

There are the Āl-Yāhūdu tablets. "Āl-Yāhūdu" is Akkadian and means "Town of Judah" or "Village of the Judeans." There was a settlement in Babylonia where deported Judeans and their descendants lived after the exile that followed the destruction of the First Temple in 586 BCE.

The tablets found numer about 200 cuneiform, including fragments. They were written in Akkadian on clay tablets. Most date from approximately 572–477 BCE, spanning the late Neo-Babylonian and early Persian periods. They were salvaged from the antiquities market and were later studied by scholars.

These are ordinary administrative and legal documents, including land leases, tax records, loans, labor obligations, property transactions and court-related documents.

They show that the Judeans, aka Jews, retained their identity, bore clearly Yahwistic names, such as Ahikam, Gedaliah, Shelemiah, Yashuv-Tzadok and...Netaniah. They contain references to the God of Israel (Yahu/Yah) and prove the exiles did not just disappear into Babylonian society but retained their national ethnic identity.

As Ariel Kopilovitz has observed:

“It will be a long time” (Jer 29:28). These words, allegedly sent to the Judean exiles in Babylonia, were meant to suppress expectations that existed among them, and possibly also among some of those remaining in Judah, that the exile would end soon (Jer 28:1–4). Jeremiah declares that the opposite is true: the exiles must prepare for a long stay in Babylonia and therefore should build houses, plant gardens and do as much as they could to improve their living conditions until their long-awaited restoration.

As Lauire Pearce has written:

The term ‘Judean’ refers to people with origins in the southern kingdom of Judah, which, along with the northern Israelite kingdom, occupied a strategic position between the imperial powers of Mesopotamia (Assyria, and later, Babylonia) and Egypt. Assyrian king Sennacherib (704-681 BCE) vanquished the northern kingdom, and deported the vast majority of Israel’s population throughout locales in Mesopotamia and North Syria. Although he also deported a significant portion of the Judean population, as illustrated in wall reliefs depicting the siege of Lachish and recorded in 2 Kgs 18:14-16, Sennacherib maintained Judah as a political identity, albeit as a vastly reduced vassal state. The scattered redistribution of deportee populations across the landscape complicates the identification and study of Israelites and Judeans in Assyrian sources, as the few distinctively Israelite or Judean names stand in geographic and social isolation from others of the same background; it is thus difficult to trace their history and/or social and economic location. The documentary situation is different with the population of Judah, deported to Babylonia in several waves: in 597 BCE, following Nebuchadnezzar’s capture of Jerusalem, which resulted in the deportation of the 18-year-old king Jehoiachin and his family (2Kgs 24:12-16); in 587 BCE, after destruction of the Jerusalem Temple; and in 582 BCE. Unlike their Assyrian predecessors, Babylonian kings (primarily Nebuchadnezzar) resettled their deportees as largely intact groups and resettled them in single locales, in many cases, in new settlements named for their places of origin. Some deported Judeans were settled in a town called Yahudu (“Judah”).

The tablets cover more than a century, showing families across multiple generations. This helps explain why many Jews remained in Babylonia even after Cyrus the Great allowed exiles to return to Judah in 538 BCE.

The Āl-Yāhūdu documents provide direct contemporary evidence of the lives of ordinary Judeans in exile.

The tablets

help confirm that large numbers of Judeans were indeed deported to Babylonia, that they formed recognizable communities and maintained distinct identities while adapting to Babylonian rule.

The Babylonian exile was not simply a literary or theological concept but a documented historical reality reflected in everyday records.

The standard scholarly publication is the book Documents of Judean Exiles and West Semites in Babylonia in the Collection of David Sofer by Laurie E. Pearce and Cornelia Wunsch, which first brought many of these texts to broader academic attention. Documents of Judean Exiles and West Semites in Babylonia in the Collection of David Sofer.

One scholar wrote:

"The documents published in the present volume are of immense importance for the study of Judeans in Babylonia... The new evidence from Āl-Yāhūdu and its surroundings corroborate...that exile did not equal enslavement, but Judeans had rights, responsibilities, and even opportunities to prosper. From now on, the study of Judean communities in Babylonia is to be primarily based on cuneiform sources, not only on the sporadic pieces of information found in the Hebrew Bible."

And most importantly, from this community that retained and preserved and cherished its identity, Jews returned to the Land of Israel.

The Cassandra Project

noreply@blogger.com (YMedad) — Fri, 26 Jun 2026 07:40:44 +0000

After reading Richard Landes' Substack post on cognitive war, I commented that I found this summary:

Cassandra appears to be the only one who takes notice; she warns the Trojans that they must burn the wooden horse. Unfortunately, the Trojans disregard her warnings. She’s described as having “one heart was steadfast, and one soul clear-eyed.” (Smyrna, 556) She has a very powerful gift of prophecy and sees evil forces falling upon the city of Troy. She is compared to a lion, running about and screaming of the city of Troy’s impending fall. Here, she embodies pure terror and doom. “Her neck writhed, like a sapling in the wind shaken, as moaned and shrieked that noble maid” (Smyrna, 565) It appears that no one takes her omens seriously and she tries to convince everyone to burn the wooden horse, but unfortunately no one believes her. She tries to take matters into her own hands and burn the horse herself but is unable to do so. She exhibits determination and will by attempting to respond to her prophecy and prevent their downfall; however, her failure to destroy the horse demonstrates her powerlessness as a woman.

I suggest the effort be termed The Cassandra Project.

Jabotinsky and Petliura - in Jabotinsky's Words

noreply@blogger.com (YMedad) — Thu, 25 Jun 2026 10:44:44 +0000

"Petliura and the pogroms", a letter from Vladimir Zhabotinsky to the newspaper "Latest News" first published in Russian on October 11, 1927 in Paris

and then in Yiddish in the Warsaw Haint daily on October 16, 1927

and then in Hebrew, in Haaretz on October 21, 1927

In English:

Part of the Ukrainian press, discussing the Schwartzbard case, completely misinterpreted my position on the issue of Petliura’s responsibility for the pogroms of 1917-1920.

There were two reasons for this:

1) In the summer of 1926, I published an article in the New York newspaper Morgen-Journal, in which I said that, although I had never seen Petliura, I did not, however, consider him a convinced pogromist; and that in general I saw pogroms as the result not so much of the subjective “anti-Semitism of people” as of the objective “anti-Semitism of things”.

2) In the autumn of 1921, I signed an agreement with Maksym Slavinsky, the Prague representative of Petliura's then-exile government, establishing a special Jewish gendarmerie within Petliura's army (the remnants of which were then encamped in Galicia) specifically to prevent pogroms. (This agreement was never implemented, as Petliura's army was soon liquidated.)

From all this, a section of the Ukrainian press has concluded that I consider Petliura not responsible for the pogroms. I believe it would be useful to explain to this section of the Ukrainian press that they are profoundly mistaken.

The question is not whether Petliura was a supporter of pogroms at heart. I have expressed my hypothesis and consider it plausible. But even if my hypothesis is correct, I insist most emphatically that it has no bearing on the question of Petliura's responsibility for the pogroms. Petliura was the head of the Ukrainian government and the Ukrainian army for two years or more; pogroms continued for almost the entire time; the head of the government and army failed to suppress them, did not punish the perpetrators, and did not resign. Therefore, he bears responsibility for every drop of Jewish blood spilled. This is so clear that no excuses will suffice.

Petliura's apologists won't be helped by arguing that, from the perspective of the philosophy of history, pogroms are a consequence not so much of "the anti-Semitism of individuals" as of "the anti-Semitism of things." Every sociology textbook claims that theft, banditry, and the like are explained not so much by the evil will of individuals as by the pressure of social conditions. But no one has ever concluded from this that an individual thief or bandit is "innocent" and not guilty and not subject to punishment.

The pogromists who slaughtered Jews during Petliura's reign were also guilty and subject to severe punishment. Petliura didn't punish them, even though he was the head of the government and the army. The philosophy of history has nothing to do with this: such a head of government, such a head of the army, is guilty of an unheard-of and unforgivable crime against the Jewish people, the Ukrainian people, and all of humanity.

That Petliura, if he had seriously wanted to, could have taken measures to truly suppress the pogroms is best proven by my agreement with his authorized representative, Mr. Slavinsky. This agreement stipulated the establishment of a Jewish gendarmerie. In other words, the legalization of Jewish self-defense and the right to maintain order by force of arms. This means there is a remedy against pogroms. But this very remedy was already available in 1917-1920. Jewish self-defense organizations existed in Ukraine even then. Therefore, they could have been legalized, armed, and all Jewish youth could have been called upon to participate. But Petliura did not take advantage of this remedy. On the contrary, the Jewish self-defense, under the pretext of eradicating Bolshevism, was exterminated by his own soldiers.

Whatever Petliura's inner self, responsibility for the pogroms falls on him; to deny it is to misunderstand the nature of the head of government and the army.

If a portion of Ukrainian society concludes from this explanation that I have become an enemy of the Ukrainian national movement, it will be as absurd as the suggestion that I considered Petliura "innocent."

I remain a friend of the Ukrainian movement. I will continue to strive to allay the righteous indignation pent up in the Jewish soul, even if it means invoking the philosophy of history or constructing hypotheses about the psychology of figures I don't personally know. Moreover, I will continue to seek an agreement with the Ukrainian movement—as I did, incidentally, in the agreement with M.A. Slavinsky—despite this movement's grave sin against the Jews. But I consider it unacceptable to deny this sin or to treat it as a trifle. And if there are people or groups in the Ukrainian movement who think that pogroms are a forgivable trifle, that one can tolerate the systematic slaughter of Jews and still remain heroes and pure—then I am not a friend to such people and groups, but an enemy, and I warn Ukrainian society that such people or groups are not its friends, but its enemies.

Academic Distortion: Was Jabotinsky a Leader Prior to 1923?

noreply@blogger.com (YMedad) — Wed, 27 May 2026 13:36:08 +0000

How do academics distort?

Example:

From a book review by Professor Josdeph Heller published in Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 29, No. 2, April 1993, pp. 355-369 -

Anyone who checks Google, Wikipedia or the Jabotinsky Institute will readily find that he was a leader on the world Zionist stage well before 1910.

He was one of the initiators of Jewish self-defence in 1905 in Russia. Was a delegate to the 1903 Zionist Congress and subsequently became one of Russia's leading Zionists polemicists. He was sent to Turkey to lead the Zionist press there in 1909. By 1913, he was on the Committee to establsih the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

Almost single-handedly he establsihed the Jewish Legion in 1917. He was a member of the Zionist Commission in 1919. In 1920 he led the Hagana in Jerusalem. In 1921 he was appointed to the World Zionist Executive. He was a member of the Keren Hayesod delegation to America spending some eight months there.

He was a leader.

Left-wing anti-Zionism - Historical Note

noreply@blogger.com (YMedad) — Sun, 24 May 2026 07:26:20 +0000

From the abstract of the article: "The Palestine Question in the Soviet Press in the 1920s and 1930s", Kesher No. 38 (2019):

The Soviet state and Party press invested much space in discussing events in and around Palestine. It was a major vehicle in presenting the Soviet leadership's official stance to readers in and outside the Soviet Union in all matters related to foreign policy. In the first half of the 1920s, the Soviet press reported with emphasis a "drastic turning point" in Great Britain's Middle East policy: "The general situation in the Near East has forced Britain to waive its policy of pro-Zionist bias and to tilt toward the Arabs," mainly due to "the growing strength of the [...] Arab national movement [...] in Palestine."
In the 1920s and 1930s, the Soviet press indulged in active anti-Zionist propaganda of three main types. The first was comprised of ideological and political criticism of Zionism. Soviet publications termed Zionism the "idealistic national movement" and devoted much attention to "exposing" Zionism's class essence. Bogen called Zionism "the dream of the Jewish petite bourgeoisie, which lacks a class perspective." In the opinion of Broido, Deputy People's Commissar for Nationalities, Zionism is shunned due to the "class despair of the Jewish bourgeoisie, which was driven from its economic bastions by its powerful rivals: Russian, Polish, and American capital, etc." The "British imperialism" and "Jewish economic circles, which view Palestine as a convenient place to invest money," were considered the main pillars of the Zionist Movement. Hence the definition of Zionism as "the ally of British imperialism" and "spearhead of the capitalist colonization of Palestine." The press repeatedly spoke of the bankruptcy of Zionism. Similarly, from the second half of the 1920s (and regularly from the early 1930s onward), it commonly applied the term "Fascist" or "Social Fascist" not only to the European Social Democratic movement but to Zionism as well. Second, the Soviet press ran frequent descriptions of the horrors awaiting Jews who immigrated to the "Land of the Patriarchs." The evident purpose, quite clearly, was to reduce their numbers.
The press described Palestine as a place where "unparalleled exploitation of workers is practiced" amid "a perceptible increase in prostitution, a phenomenon unmatched anywhere in the Jewish Diaspora." It also underscored the lack of minimum security for the immigrants, since "the British authorities have disavowed their promise due to unwillingness to offend the Arabs," whereas Zionist leaders "are afraid of making their relations with Britain, which are bad to begin with, even worse." The press made special efforts to present accounts of Jews who left Palestine for the Soviet Union. Third, the Soviet press contrasted the favorable outcomes of Soviet policy for the improvement of Jews' status in the USSR with the "failures" of Zionism. Especially noteworthy is the criticism that the Soviet newspapers brought against the Zionist Labor Movement and emphasis on the claim that "proletarian Zionism" lacks broad support among "workers of the soil and true proletarians." Conclusions were drawn from these arguments about the lack of support for Zionism among workers in Palestine (Bogen) or workers' mass abandonment of Zionist ideas (Drezen, Steinberg). Media publications posited the Soviets' Jewish resettlement projects against the Zionist programs that were geared to solve the Jewish problem. Thus, the Crimea plan sponsored by the All-Russian Central Executive Committee (VTsIK) was termed "the bitterest fruit served up to the Zionist Congress in Vienna in 1925."
At the outset of the Jewish resettlement project in Birobidjan (late 1920s—early 1930s), the Soviet press habitually stated that the British authorities would never allow Jewish sovereignty in Palestine. In the late 1930s and early 1940s, Soviet pundits were wont to note the "perceptible change that has come about in the situation in Palestine." Thus, they spoke about the change in the composition of immigrants, "who are not only Zionist occupiers but also victims of the Fascist regime, fleeing for their lives from Germany to Palestine." The Soviet leadership viewed with concern the growing strength of anti-Jewish thinking among the Arabs, which they construed as evidence of the victory of Nazi propaganda. However, it smiled on the actions of the Arab "guerrilla fighters who are attacking the Zionist colonies, [which were] established on land confiscated [from the Arabs]." The Soviet authorities regarded the Zionist formula for the solution of the Jewish problem as "an intrigue of British imperialism," even though Jewry obviously was up against an unprecedented catastrophe. Only "the unification of the ranks of Jewish and Arab workers in Palestine and the establishment of a united front among all progressive elements" might, to the Soviet leadership's minds, solve the problem that had come about in Palestine.

I add:

An example of the convolutionism can be found in this booklet composed in 1939 by Paul Novick of the National Council of Jewish Communists

Antifa in Palestine or, When Avigdor Hameiri Turned on Jabotinsky

noreply@blogger.com (YMedad) — Wed, 13 May 2026 09:14:25 +0000

Avigdor Hameiri (1890-1970) was born in Hungary, then ruled by the Ukraine, as Avigdor Feuerstein. He published his first poem in Hebrew in 1907 and his first book of poetry five years later.

For approximately two years he fought in Galicia against the Russian army and at the end of 1916 was captured. For six months he was transported to, and tortured in, various prison camps in Asiatic Russia, until he was set free in February 1917 as a result of the Russian Revolution.

Hameiri immigrated to Mandate Palestine in 1921, joined the staff of the daily Haaretz, and was editor of several literary and cultural journals. In 1932, he founded the first social satirical theater in Hebrew in Tel Aviv, Ha'Metateh. Hameiri wrote over 30 books, including poetry, novels, short stories, non-fiction and children’s books. He was awarded the Bialik Institute Prize (1936) and the Israel Prize (1968).

Among his works are the documentary novels Ha-Shiga‘on ha-gadol (The Great Madness; 1929) and Be-Gehinom shel matah (Hell on Earth; 1932); three compendia of surrealistic-fantastical short stories (1925–1928); and an anthology of poetry, Sefer ha-shirim (The Book of Poems; 1932), which includes some of his best lyrical poems. These latter works are Hebrew literature’s most important contributions to pacifist literature, a genre that flourished in the wake of World War I.

During the late 1920s, he befriended Ze'ev Jabotinsky with whom he conducted a correspondence preserved in the Jabotinsky Institute Archives and was partially employed in two of the newspapers then associated with the Revisionist Movement - Doar HaYom and Ha'Am. Together with Jabotinsky and Itamar Ben-Avi, they thought to romanize the Hebrew alphabet.

Jabotinsky and Hameiri articles highlighted in Doar Hayom April 5, 1929:

On March 12, 1929, Hameiri and Jabotinsky are advertised to appear on the same stage for a Trumpeldor Memorial on behalf of Betar in Jerusalem:

In his own biographical entry that he authored for David Tidhar's Encyclopedia of Eretz-Yisrael Pioneers, he erases all mention of his links with Jabotinsky and Revisionism. On January 14, 1929, it was reported that he had spoken to a group of Betar members in Tel Aviv on the topic of "slogans' amongst the youth. Much earlier, on April 30, 1924, a letter appeared in the conservative Doar HaYom, responding to an article in Ha'Aretz (here),

complaining about insults that were published in the left-wing socialist weekly HaPoal HaTzair against Hameiri (the letter - ).

What happened? (As for Jabotinsky's fall-out with Bialik, see here.)

Although the Zionist socialists and German Zionists had begun, already by 1925, to refer to Jabotinsky as a 'fascist', the big break came as a result of the 1929 riots which some viewed as resulting from the efforts of Jabotinsky and Betar to assure Jewish rights at the Western Wall as well as the economic confrontations over the role of the Histadrut dominance in which Mapai-linked groups initiated violence towards Betar at strikes and meetings. The 1933 murder of Chaim Arlosoroff was a further event that led to socialist anti-Revisionist extremism and could have been decisive for Hameiri.

In a letter that Jabotinsky sent him on December 11, 1929, it is possible to grasp the indications of the beginnings of Hameiri's transformation (in another letter, Jabotinsky remarks as to Hameiri bit of a peacock character):

"I am sorry that here you are writing about a 'broken heart.' Perhaps you meant the wounded heart of a Jew who saw the events, then I understand. But if there is a hint in your words of a personal wound of a friend who was insulted by his closest friends - I am sorry. The heads of the square do not understand insults between friends. Both I am insulted and I insult: Schwam Drieber (forget about it) and there are no accounts. It is impossible to work in any other way. I would be very happy if you would accept this philosophy despite all the personal obstacles."

By this time, Hameiri's pacifism had increased. I found a January 25, 1931 new item reporting that there were official Zionist complaints about speeches Hame'ri was making in Czechoslovakia as he was on an official Keren HaYesod speaking tour. Again, ,ost of 1932 he was abroad and probably was influenced by the events there.

Not long after, in Germany, a new anti-Nazi/fascist movement developed: Antifa, Antifaschistische Aktion, founded in 1932. It was a Communist storm troop group based on paramilitary organisation, Roter Frontkämpferbund (Alliance of Red Front-Fighters), established by the Communist Party of Germany (KPD), in 1929.

Its Palestine branch was established in 1934. They, too, engaged with the Zionist Right. In 1936, it presented its own Memorandum of the violent Arab 'disturbances'. Some of its members went off to volunteer in Spain's civil war. It resurrected form, it is active today in Israel.

On April 12, 1935, a ceremonial opening of the Second National Antifa Conference took place at the Mugrabi Theater in Tel Aviv. Hameiri spoke. An English translation has been published of that speech. The relevant excerpts to Hameiri's attitude at that time to Jabotinsky and Revisionism is evident and follows:

During one of my discussions with my friends, the creators of Jewish fascism in Israel, I asked their leader if he has ever felt the double responsibility implicit in war: 1) responsibility to himself, to his own life, that is to say those whom he loves and whose love depends on him—his wife, sons, mother, brothers, and friends who fear for his life; 2) responsibility to others—the simple, upright men under his command who risk dying a gruesome death at any moment. I knew that he had never felt this in his life. I knew that he had never in his life stood face to face with awful death and never experienced the grisly death of others. It was enough for me to read his book about the Jewish Legion, to sense that he had never been at the front in his life. It is difficult to deceive us on this point—we, who came so close to death, not once but several times during the war. It is sufficient for us to hear a short sentence from someone about the war to recognize that, for him, it is only a theoretical concept...
Only when a quarter of my life had passed did I gradually realize for whom and for what I had given up everything for which my sacred soul had wailed and wondered: it was for the new Hebrew fascism that copies all the impurities in Europe in all its details!
...have carefully preserved my socialist ideal even at a time when I was forced to work for non-socialist newspapers, who, by the way, never thought of equating Marxism with infamy. My socialist ideal always seeks its counterpart in every party and movement, in the same way it sought it in revisionism until it became too right wing. I speak here in the name of the deep inner revulsion that damages my entire life, I speak about the human impurity called war, about which Fascists shamelessly boast, and which our Hebrew Fascists imitate with buttons and straps, confusing our youth who haven’t tasted war even in their dreams...I will rise up from my grave to warn you against this loathsome poison that your children soak up without proper knowledge of what is happening by their parents and teachers, who have not yet trodden the path on which fascism steals into young, impressionable brains...
...I wish that you could inoculate your children with an antidote against the plague called “culture of the homeland,” whose sole purpose is to sacrifice them like sheep on the altar of the unappeasable appetite of the Capitalist Moloch!......We must scream with all our strength, and whisper burning words in each other’s ears, against a war for such “culture” and “ideals”: Don’t go! Don’t go! Don’t go! Better to die on the spot than go and die over there or even to return like a leprous dog, living for generations for the next war like a leprous dog and then dying like a leprous dog!
Learn the bitterest, most obstinate slogan of all: Don’t go! Don’t go! Don’t go!"

What is obvious from this is that Hameiri both errs as to facts and has made a political volte face. Jabotinsky actually did fight on the front, leading his men in an enagagement at the Jordan River and it is in the book he mentions.

On September 23, 1918, the Fusiliers were ordered to capture the Umm esh-Shert crossing and Jabotinsky led the first company to cross the River Jordan for which he was praised for his courage in leading the Fusiliers during the difficult action under firs from the enemy Turks.

Using the terms "Marxism", "socialist" and "Capitalist" points to a turnabout in his political orientation or to gross hypocrisy for money during his work with the Revisionist press. Another similar instance is that of Arthur Koestler.

Having to recourse to a diary of Hameiri and the limited sources I have so far located, I am inclined to limit myself to assuming that personality aspects played much upon his mind, that is, the horror of war, and perhaps, also, his own battlefield experience, not to mention the obvious hypocrisy his previous employments reveal.

Nassar, Jack Nassar, and I on Twitter

noreply@blogger.com (YMedad) — Sun, 10 May 2026 07:05:00 +0000

It all started here at Twitter/X..

He claims that:

"My Christian family lived in Jerusalem continuously since the time of Jesus, and our family tree that we have today can trace our roots back to around 1400 in Palestine, though it goes much further than we can track. Until 1948, when Zionist terrorists ethnically cleansed them from their city, stole their home, personal belongings, clothes, documents, books, money, and properties… and turned them into refugees overnight. Today, NONE of my family lives in Jerusalem. ZERO. Not a single one. And that is because of Israel, not Muslims."

He's based in Ramallah and holds a master of arts degree in political communications from Goldsmiths, University of London. Some of Nassar's articles are here, including one entitled "How Zionism poisoned Western Christianity" among others. An academic contribution is here, on "Rawabi, The Palestinian City for the Future" (anyone seen or heard of Rawabi lately?).

He posted this to his 3,500+ followers on May 4, 2026, at 9:03:

In 1947, before the creation of Israel, Jerusalem had over 31,000 Palestinian Christians, about 20% of the population. Today, only around 9,000 remain, less than 1%. But sure, let’s pretend Christians are thriving in “the Middle East’s only democracy.” Just not in real life.

I, among others, responded and I wrote:

Jerusalem existed as the capital of the Jewish national homeland, Eretz-Yisrael or Judea, for 2000 years prior to the creation of the Arab peoples, who in 638 CE invaded Judea, called "Palestine" by the Romans, and then recreated themselves as Palestinians.

Nassar replied:

So you agree that Palestine is almost 2,000 years old?

And I countered:

The name "Palestine" was awarded by the Roman occupiers to Judea in 135 CE using an older term that geographically indicate a region along the coast from Lebanon to Gaza, but it was never a country. The name existed for almost 2000 years. Not a real country nor a people.

Nassar, continuing the back-and-forth, posted:

That argument oversimplifies both history and terminology. No political state has existed continuously for 2,000 years, borders, names, and systems of governance have always changed. Most modern nation-states took their current form in the 19th and 20th centuries, but they also weren’t “countries” in the modern sense before that either.
It’s true that the Romans used the name Syria Palaestina after 135 CE, but that was drawing on earlier geographic terms. But from that point on, “Palestine” remained a widely used name for the region across different periods and administrations, including Byzantine and later eras.
Even within Jewish tradition, the term appears in a geographic sense. The Jerusalem Talmud is often historically referred to as the “Palestinian Talmud” because it was compiled in Palestine.
As for the idea that it was “never a country” or “not a real people,” that applies broadly across history. Many peoples existed long before modern nation-states formalized identities and borders. Names and identities evolve over time, but that doesn’t make them any less real.

I clarified that:

The "Palestine Talmud" is called in Hebrew, the original language of the time as "The Jerusalem Talmud" 🤦‍♀️ (see pic) See how ignorant some people can be. "Palestine" didn't exist for the Jews until the Ottoman period.

Nassar was a bit incensed:

You shall NOT lie! Shame on you!

And I added:

And since we're on words, can you explain to me why Arabs chose to call this land "Palestine" when there is no "P" in Arabic and therefore, its pronunciation is actually "Filastin"?
And therefore, according to your logic contra me, "Palestine" doesn't exist you must admit.

Nassar came back with:

Arabic doesn’t have a “P” sound, so it naturally shifts it to “F.” That’s basic linguistics—not a political statement. By that logic, “Paris” (Barīs) or “Plato” (Aflāṭūn) wouldn’t exist either, which is obviously nonsense.
“Filastin” (فلسطين) is simply the Arabic form of “Palestine,” used continuously for over a thousand years—long before modern politics. The name itself goes back even further to Greek and Roman usage. So this isn’t evidence of anything. It’s just a weak attempt to twist normal language differences into denial.
I really feel sorry for someone your age who uses such childish and stupid argument!

I retorted in kind:

You seem not to grasp my point.
Can you name for me one other "national people" who call their "national homeland", supposedly, by a name they cannot pronounce correctly in their own "national language"? Could it be it's all false? Or that you're just propagandizing?

His next post to me again illustrated a lack of an ability to read someone whose opinion he rejects:

You’re building your whole argument on the idea that “Filastin” is a mispronunciation. It isn’t, it’s how Arabic works. Languages adapt sounds all the time. By your logic, Germans aren’t real because they say “Deutschland,” and Greeks aren’t real because they say “Hellas.” So no, this doesn’t prove anything is “false”, it just shows you’re confusing pronunciation with identity… and using evil manipulation for political reasons.

Which is what I wrote back to him:

Just the opposite.

My oh my. You really lack a grasp of English. Okay, my English. Reread my points and try to answer my question.

His comeback:

You clearly don’t grasp how language works. “Filastin” is not a mispronunciation, it’s the natural Arabic form because the letter “p” simply doesn’t exist in Arabic. This is basic linguistics, not some grand mystery. Plenty of nations call their homeland by a different name than in English. People say Misr, not Egypt. They say Deutschland, not Germany. That doesn’t make those countries fake, it just shows languages adapt names differently.
So your entire argument is built on a misunderstanding of pronunciation versus identity. I’m honestly surprised you’re still pushing it.
And to be frank, I’m curious how someone your age is wasting my time on such a shallow claim. Are you seriously this limited in understanding, or just trying anything to push a false narrative and demonize Palestinians?

I don't think he adequately dealt with my points.

But for those wondering, my point is why Arabic-speaking pro-Palestine people insist on "Palestine"?

And for those suggesting that even "Israel" is not properly Hebrew, I would say (a) it's close enough; (b) it's the Hebrew name. "Palestine" has no cultural, religious or linguistic connection to Arabic. It's Latin and was 'absorbed' by a foreign people who came to the territory from the Arabian Peninsula.

Bundist Henryk Ehrlich on Ze'ev Jabotinsky

noreply@blogger.com (YMedad) — Tue, 05 May 2026 19:01:00 +0000

Poland's Bundist leader Henryk Ehrlich:

"An eventual Jewish state cannot offer itself as a spiritual center to the Jewish masses of the 'goles' lands, and as a center for immigration (the natural growth alone of the Jewish population of Poland significantly exceeds the absorption capacity of Palestine)... The anti-Semitic Czas [newspaper] opened its columns wide for any topic of the "Duce"; the anti-Semitic Kurier Warszawski transformed Jabotinsky’s book, Di Yidishe Melukhe ["The Jewish State"], into almost the greatest literary event of our time."

Di Tsukunft, October 1938

and

In 1933, the Bundist leader Henryk Ehrlich offered a prophetic censure: “If Jewish nationalism, as a general rule, is not bloodthirsty, this is only out of necessity, not virtue; if an appropriate opportunity arose, Jewish nationalism would show its sharp teeth and nails no less than the nationalisms of other nations.”

Ehrlich added: “[Ze’ev] Jabotinsky’s brown-shirt soldiers [the Irgun militia in Palestine and Betar in Europe] are nothing more than a tragicomic caricature of Hitler’s [Sturmabteilung paramilitary organization]. But the only thing missing in order for them to become the same beasts is some muscle strength, some territory, and a political opportunity … No, we are not a chosen people. Our nationalism is just as ugly, just as harmful, and has the same inclination to fascist debauchery as a nationalism of other nations.”

Quoted in The Guardian from Molly Crabapple who sources Ehrlich's "We are Not the Chosen People”, Ehrlich's 1933 essay:

Factoid: "[Simon] Dubnow’s daughter and Erlich’s wife, Sophia Dubnow Erlich, was once courted by Ze’ev Jabotinsky."

And how did Ehrlich end his life?

Here:-

Following the outbreak of World War II, Erlich left Warsaw, as did many other Jewish public figures. Jewish Communists denounced him to the Soviet authorities in October 1939; Alter was arrested as well. Erlich was imprisoned and interrogated for two years, and was forced to write a long and comprehensive essay on the activities of the Polish Bund in which he provided a host of information on the operations of the party’s institutions. In August 1941 he was sentenced to death for participating in anti-Soviet activities, but a few weeks later the sentence was commuted to a 10-year jail term, and immediately after that he was released from prison...
For about three months in 1941, Erlich was involved in setting up what eventually became the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee. The Soviet leadership viewed this committee as an important propaganda vehicle for gaining support among Western Jews, especially Jewish workers’ organizations, for Soviet war efforts against the Germans. Erlich, however, wanted the organization to have a wider scope, and wished to unite Jewish socialist groups from around the world, including the Polish Jewish Underground, to form a political bloc against Nazism. This goal worried the Soviet authorities, who were especially suspicious of the independent channels that Erlich and Alter established with British diplomats stationed in the Soviet Union. In October 1941, Erlich and Alter were rearrested. For a second time, Erlich endured harsh interrogations, which severely affected his health. Bund activists in New York and London made untiring but futile efforts to discover their fate. On 15 May 1942, a drained, tired, and ailing Henryk Erlich ended his life by hanging himself from the bars in his Kuibyshev (mod. Samara) jail cell. An official notice of his death was not published by the Soviet leadership until February 1943.

Jabotinsky Describes Meeting Herzl

noreply@blogger.com (YMedad) — Wed, 29 Apr 2026 19:54:00 +0000

From his translated autobiography:-

"A very amusing comedy could be written about my adventures at the congress. First of all, I was not entitled to participate in it, as I was almost a year and a half too young with respect to the legal age for a delegate, and I do not remember who the friendly false witnesses were who attested to my being twenty-four years old; my face was that of a boy, and the official in charge of the delegates’ cards did not want to accept me until I brought the witnesses. After that I loitered by myself in the corridors of the casino; I did not know anybody except those bigwigs I had seen in Kishinev, but they were members of the executive committee and were busy with secret meetings inside. I was introduced to a thin and tall young man—with a black triangular beard and a shining bald head—called Dr. Weizmann, and I was told that he was the leader of the opposition: I felt immediately that my place was also in the opposition, although I did not know yet why. So when I saw that young man sitting with a group of his friends around a table in a café, engaged in a conversation full of intensity, I came toward them and asked, “I hope I am not intruding?” Weizmann answered: “You are”—and I went away

I tried to ascend the podium of the congress and to speak precisely on a burning question: Some months before that, Herzl had gone to Russia and talked with the minister of the interior, Plehve; the same Plehve whom we considered the instigator of the Kishinev pogrom. A passionate discussion broke out among the Zionist circles in Russia—whether it is admissible or forbidden to conduct negotiations with a monster such as him. True, both sides had agreed not to touch on this dangerous subject from the tribune of the congress, and I also knew it. Nevertheless, I decided that the interdiction did not apply to me because my experience—the experience of a journalist in Russia, skilled in the art of writing on a risky question without irritating the censor—would help me on this occasion, too, to steer clear of the reefs

My turn came when the time allotted to the speakers had already been limited to fifteen minutes, but I was not allowed even that quarter of an hour for my eloquence. I began to demonstrate that the two issues of ethics and tactics ought not to be confused. The delegates in the corner of the opposition sensed immediately what was in the mind of that young man, unknown to everybody, with a black head of hair, speaking a polished Russian as if he were reciting a poem at a gymnasium examination, and began to stir and to shout: “Enough! No more!” Panic broke out in the hall. Herzl himself, who was busy in the adjoining room, heard the noise, came out hurriedly to the tribune, and asked of one of the delegates, “What is it, what does he say?” It so happened that delegate was the same Dr. Weizmann, and he replied briefly and emphatically: “Quatsch” (“Nonsense”). At that, Herzl came toward me from behind the podium and said: “Ihre Zeit ist um” (“Your time is up”), and these were the first words and the last I ever had the privilege to hear from him. Dr. Friedman, one of the close associates of the leader, emphasized these words with the outrageous bluntness of his native Prussian: “Gehen Sie herunter, sonst werden Sie heruntergeschleppt” (“Come down or else you will be hauled down”). I came down without finishing the defense unwanted by the man in whose defense I had taken the floor.

I realized that my task in that congress was to keep silent and to observe, and that is what I did. I found a lot of things to observe there. The Sixth Congress, the last in Herzl’s life, was perhaps the first congress of adult Zionism. The name of that examination of maturity is known as Uganda. I was one of the minority that voted against Uganda and, together with the rest of the “Neinsagers” [“the no sayers”], walked out of the hall. I wondered myself at the motive hidden deep within my soul that prompted me to vote against, in spite of what I had told my electors. I had no romantic love for Eretz Yisrael then—I am not sure that I have it now—nor could I have known whether there was a danger of a split in the movement. I did not know my people, I saw my delegates for the first time, and I did not yet have time to approach any of them; and the great majority of them, among these many who, like myself, came from Russia, raised their hand to vote “for.” Nobody tried to persuade me to vote as I did. Herzl made a colossal impression on me—this word is no exaggeration, no other description would fit: colossal—I am not one of those who will easily bow to a personality. In general I do not remember, out of all the experiences I have had in my life, one man who made any impression on me whatsoever either before Herzl or after him. I felt that truly there stands before me a man of destiny, a prophet and leader by the grace of God, deserving to be followed even through error and confusion. And even today it seems to me that I hear his voice ringing in my ears, as he swore to all of us, “Im eshkachekh Yerushalayim. . . .” [“If I forget thee, o Jerusalem”]. I believe his oath; everyone believed. Yet still I voted against him, but I do not know why: “just so”—that same “because” that is stronger than a thousand reasons

It is a strange thing: I felt that, after that vote, the congress reached such a height that the level at which it began simply could not be compared to it. In spite of the split, the tears, and the indignation, some deeper inner cohesion between the “Neinsager” and the “Jasager” [“the yes sayers”] came about. Perhaps they learned to have more respect for one another or for the movement than they had before; and it seems to me the movement as a whole also attained greater elevation on that day, when the delegates of the people mourned their first political victory. I am sure that Chamberlain, the author of the Uganda proposal, and Balfour and many more statesmen in England and in other countries, only on that day realized what Zionism meant, and that the same is true also of many veterans of the movement."

Yes, Palestine Was Considered Southern Syria

noreply@blogger.com (YMedad) — Fri, 24 Apr 2026 13:33:00 +0000

"the Arab Independence Party (Ḥizb al-Istiqlāl al-‘Arabiyya). Al-Istiqlāl was created with three goals, as expressed on the official statement registering it as a political organization on 13 August 1932:

“1) The independence of the Arab countries; 2) The Arab countries are one and inseparable; 3) Palestine is an Arab country and an integral part of Syria.”...as the idea of a “Greater Syria” (Sūriya al-Kabīra or Bilad al-Sham) – of which Palestine comprised the southern section..."

Source

Anti-Zionism in Parliament, 1923

noreply@blogger.com (YMedad) — Thu, 23 Apr 2026 09:15:00 +0000

On June 21, 1923, Lord Islington, among others, spoke in the British House of Lords to move to reconsider the Mandate over Palestine.

One of his points was to separate "Zionism" from the Jews residing in the area, as if Zionism is not the Jewish national liberation movement, as if Jews do not want an independent polity in their historic homeland and as if Zionism is illegitimate. And as if only super isolationist insular religious messianic-beleiving Jews are the only 'true' and 'genuine' Jews. As if only non-Jewish anti-Zionists have the right and privilege of telling the vast majority of Jews that they're wrong about the centrality of Israel.

Here is how he phrased it:

The Jewish people in Palestine have lived in the past in harmony with the Arab community. They have enjoyed in largo measure the same privileges as their Ottoman fellow subjects and, I venture to say also as a fact, they never agitated for Zionism. I do not think—I speak subject to correction—that there has ever been a demand from the Jewish Community in Palestine for the introduction of a Zionist Home in that country. The whole agitation has conic from outside, from Jews in other parts of the world. I go further, and say—I think I have said it before; if so, I repeat—that a very large number of the Jewish community in Palestine to-day look with considerable aversion not only upon the Zionist Home but upon the Jews who are being introduced into the country from Eastern Europe.

That claim, as presented, continues to be voiced, by Jews and non-Jews to this day - and we'll ignore his historical untruths and prejudice against East European Jewry.

David Ben-Gurion Talking with Brit Shalom

noreply@blogger.com (YMedad) — Wed, 22 Apr 2026 07:47:00 +0000

David Ben-Gurion to the members of the binationalist "Brit Shalom" in November 1929:

"But if in your formula you want to establish the equal value of the land for Jews and Arabs, then you are again missing the point and distorting the truth. Israel for the Jewish people and Israel for the Arab people are not the same thing.

The Arab nation is holding a multitude of vast countries, whose area in Asia alone is about a third of the area of all of Europe. The economic, cultural and political existence of the Arab nation, its national identity and statehood are not tied to and do not depend on the Land of Israel. Our country is but a small region in the vast and gigantic territory inhabited by Arabs – and, by the way, exceptionally sparsely. Only one fragment of the Arab people – perhaps seven or eight percent (if we consider only the Arabs of Asian countries), lives in the Land of Israel and is tied to it. This is not the case with the Jewish people.

For the entire Jewish nation – in all its generations and diasporas – this is the one and only land with which its fate and historical future as a nation are tied. Only in this land can it renew and sustain its own life, its national spirit and its unique culture, only here could it establish its sovereignty and state freedom. And whoever obscures this truth – determines the soul of the nation.

We are commanded to preserve the rights and equality of our Arab neighbors, but we would be lying to ourselves if we said that Israel is the same for the Arab people as Israel is for the Hebrew people. If this comparison is what the formula of binationalism refers to, then it is nothing but a distortion of the truth and a neutering of the purpose. Instead of this distorted formula, I say: Israel is destined for the Hebrew people and the Arabs who live within it."

Sounds like Jabotinsky to me.

Jabotinsky's London Residence

noreply@blogger.com (YMedad) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 13:15:00 +0000

From 1915 and until the beginning of 1918, Ze'ev Jabotinsky resided in London in order to promote the idea of a Jewish fighting force within the British Army that would participate in the campaign in Ottoman Palestine. It finally was authorized in the summer of 1917 and the announcement was published in the London Gazette on August 23, 1917.

During the years 1915 - 1917, Jabotinsky lived on Justice Walk and for two months, Chaim Weizmann moved in to share lodgings. During 1917, Yosef Trumpeldor moved in for a while.

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: