Rudoren Unhinged

Jodi Rudoren became known to many people during her years as the Jerusalem bureau chief for the New York Times. From that perch, she attempted to educate the paper’s liberal and international readers of the evil ways of the Jewish State which infect Palestinian society. She left the Times in July 2019 and became the editor-in-chief of the far-left Jewish paper, ‘The Forward’.

Who could have imagined that her invective could become worse?

On January 20, Rudoren published an interview she had with an affable Jewish actor named Joshua Malina, about his career on ‘The West Wing’ and other shows. One would imagine something light-hearted.

Ha.

She opened her Malina piece with some personal comments about The West Wing‘s fictional White House pondering Middle East Peace compared to reality today:

Of course Netanyahu’s far-right and racist partners would not even consider the proposals for refugee resettlement and international control of parts of Jerusalem…. It is difficult to fathom these extremists even sitting for Shabbat dinner while their Palestinian counterparts pray outside.

There was no such observation about the anti-Semitic, Holocaust-denying, Palestinian Arab terrorist neighbors.

After feeding (choking) the witness, Malina responded that while he was a “lefty” in politics, he had to contend with co-stars who were “super lefty.” These alt-left Jews (very much like Rudoren) were extremely aggressive, “particularly the Jews, the liberal Jews behind the scenes and in the cast, had a hard time finding space for the Israeli perspective. I remember trying to be a proponent of nuance.

Perhaps sensing the rebuke, Rudoren responded “I, too, am a committed proponent of nuance.

What a joke.

And sickness.

Jodi Rudoren, editor-in-chief of the Forward. Photo: David Packard

Two things struck me in reading the article.

First, however bad The New York Times was (and is) about portraying Israelis as racist, sinister invaders and murderers, and simultaneously absolving the Palestinians of even the most-heinous crimes and blatant anti-Semitism, the paper is actually BETTER than how liberal non-Orthodox Jews discuss Israel among themselves.

The second observation was that the woke believe they are nuanced. To imagine otherwise would presumably not be open-minded, a feature ascribed to the opposition. They believe that they have honestly assessed the situation and correctly concluded that religious people (only Jews and Christians mind you) are racists and close-minded at their core, embedded in right-wing extremism and nationalism. Progressives are not the counterpoint to people on the right reaching the opposite conclusion, but the only thinking party on the issues.

The righteous smugness and blindness of it all.

Progressive anti-Zionism has become common in politics, college campuses and mainstream media. Each is being fed the lines of the alt-right “Jews will not replace us,” by super-lefty non-Orthodox Jews like Jodi Rudoren and her counterpart at Haaretz, prepackaged and sanitized with the false banner of “nuance”.

Pitchforks and tiki torches are passé, and don’t burn into minds of the masses the way that the woke intelligentsia’s propaganda drip permeates society.

The Jewish anti-Zionist vanguard has given people a fast track to popularity and highbrow society, with easy anti-Semitic slurs which can be openly uttered in public. ‘The Forward’ is the Jewish fortune cookie which is unfortunately not read quietly, scoffed at and tossed, but read allowed, enjoyed by friends, and taped to a wall for posterity.

Related articles:

The Root of Left-Wing Anti-Zionism in Congress is Left-Wing Jews

For The NY Times, Antisemitism Exists Because the Alt-Right is Racist and Israel is Racist

Reading Roduren: “Unrest by Palestinians”

If Palestinians are Scared, it Must be Real

Honor Killings in Gaza

The Right Number of Anti-Semites in Congress

Peter Beinart is an Apologist for Anti-Semites

NY Times Repeatedly Tells Its Readers That An Israeli Supported A Mass Murderer, But Never That Many Palestinians Embrace Many Terrorists

The Media’s Divergent Coverage of Abbas’ “50 Holocausts”

The Progressive New World Order Flips The Holocaust From Anti-Semitism To Woke Fodder

No One Mentions Actual Palestinians’ Sentiments

You Cannot Be Progressive And Pro-Palestinian

Pro Israel Advocates Should Stop Using “Judea and Samaria”

In the narrative war in the Israeli-Arab conflict, pro-Israel advocates often use the term “Judea and Samaria” instead of the commonly used “West Bank” in an effort to show that Jews lived in the land far longer than Arabs, and that Arabs are actually occupying Jewish land. While the rationale has merit, the approach does not.

Judea and Samaria

The Children of Israel came back to Canaan in the 12th century BCE. The land was allotted to the twelve tribes, in a division that was mostly stable for about 300 years.

Jan Jansson’s holy land map, 1630, which shows the migration of the Israelites from Egypt to the holy land, and the location of the twelve tribes.

After the death of King Solomon in 931BCE, the Jewish people split their kingdom under two rulers, creating the southern kingdom of Judah and northern kingdom of Israel. Sometimes fighting together against external foes and sometimes fighting internally, the kingdom of Israel fell to the Assyrians between 734 and 712 BCE from the Assyrian campaigns of Tiglath-Pileser III, Shalmaneser V and Sargon II. Sargon II swapped the population of the Jews and his kingdom in Babylon as told in 2 Kings 17:

בִּשְׁנַ֨ת הַתְּשִׁעִ֜ית לְהוֹשֵׁ֗עַ לָכַ֤ד מֶֽלֶךְ־אַשּׁוּר֙ אֶת־שֹׁ֣מְר֔וֹן וַיֶּ֥גֶל אֶת־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל אַשּׁ֑וּרָה וַיֹּ֨שֶׁב אוֹתָ֜ם בַּחְלַ֧ח וּבְחָב֛וֹר נְהַ֥ר גּוֹזָ֖ן וְעָרֵ֥י מָדָֽי׃ {פ}
In the ninth year of Hoshea, the king of Assyria captured Samaria. He deported the Israelites to Assyria and settled them in Halah, at the [River] Habor, at the River Gozan, and in the towns of Media. (2 Kings 17:6)

וַיִּתְאַנַּ֨ף יְהֹוָ֤ה מְאֹד֙ בְּיִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל וַיְסִרֵ֖ם מֵעַ֣ל פָּנָ֑יו לֹ֣א נִשְׁאַ֔ר רַ֛ק שֵׁ֥בֶט יְהוּדָ֖ה לְבַדּֽוֹ׃ The LORD was incensed at Israel and He banished them from His presence; none was left but the tribe of Judah alone. (2 Kings 17:18)

וַיָּבֵ֣א מֶֽלֶךְ־אַשּׁ֡וּר מִבָּבֶ֡ל וּ֠מִכּ֠וּתָה וּמֵעַוָּ֤א וּמֵֽחֲמָת֙ וּסְפַרְוַ֔יִם וַיֹּ֙שֶׁב֙ בְּעָרֵ֣י שֹֽׁמְר֔וֹן תַּ֖חַת בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל וַיִּֽרְשׁוּ֙ אֶת־שֹׁ֣מְר֔וֹן וַיֵּֽשְׁב֖וּ בְּעָרֶֽיהָ׃ The king of Assyria brought [people] from Babylon, Cuthah, Avva, Hamath, and Sepharvaim, and he settled them in the towns of Samaria in place of the Israelites; they took possession of Samaria and dwelt in its towns. (2 Kings 17:24)

Those new Assyrians who were settled in Samaria were told to follow Jewish religious customs, but they did not:

עַ֣ד הַיּ֤וֹם הַזֶּה֙ הֵ֣ם עֹשִׂ֔ים כַּמִּשְׁפָּטִ֖ים הָרִֽאשֹׁנִ֑ים אֵינָ֤ם יְרֵאִים֙ אֶת־יְהֹוָ֔ה וְאֵינָ֣ם עֹשִׂ֗ים כְּחֻקֹּתָם֙ וּכְמִשְׁפָּטָ֔ם וְכַתּוֹרָ֣ה וְכַמִּצְוָ֗ה אֲשֶׁ֨ר צִוָּ֤ה יְהֹוָה֙ אֶת־בְּנֵ֣י יַעֲקֹ֔ב אֲשֶׁר־שָׂ֥ם שְׁמ֖וֹ יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃ To this day, they follow their former practices. They do not worship the LORD [properly]. They do not follow the laws and practices, the Teaching and Instruction that the LORD enjoined upon the descendants of Jacob—who was given the name Israel— (2 Kings 17:34)

There are many papers written by historians and archaeologists about Samaria during this time period, as there are written documents such as the Annals of Sargon II and prisms which reflect these battles, as well as a shift in types of pottery found with the population migration.

Map of holy land after Israel exiled by Assyrians, from The Carta Bible Atlas

Judea refers to the province of the tribe of Judah which held Jerusalem and the area to the south. King Cyrus of Persia allowed the Jews to return to Jerusalem to rebuild the Temple in 538BCE, after Nebuchadnezzer destroyed the Temple in 586BCE.

The term “Jews” arose because they were the people of Judea. As noted above, Samaria was part of the region but inhabited by non-Jews who did not follow Jewish rituals.

The Christian Bible also referred repeatedly about the Jew Jesus from Judea (Matthew 19:1; 3:1Luke 1:54:447:1723:5John 4:311:7Mark 10:1; Acts 10:3711:12926:20).

Creation of the “West Bank”

The United Nations General Assembly voted to partition the holy land into a Jewish State and an Arab State in November 1947, but the Arab countries uniformly rejected the effort. Five Arab armies invaded Israel when it declared itself a new state in May 1948, and by the end of the war in 1949, Israel secured more land than conceived under the partition plan.

While the borders were not considered official under the 1949 Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement, (“The Armistice Demarcation Lines… are agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlement or boundary lines”), the Kingdom of Transjordan opted to unilaterally – and illegally – annex the region it had seized in an offensive war.

United Nations map showing the contours of the various Armistice Lines Israel signed with its neighbors to halt the fighting.

When Transjordan annexed the area on April 24, 1950, only the United Kingdom, Iraq and Pakistan recognized its actions while the rest of the world rejected it. After that time, during the years 1950 through 1958, the United Nations used various terms for that area which were tied to either Jordan or the Jordan River:

  • “west bank of the river in Arab Palestine” (1951)
  • “the area west of the Jordan River” (1952)
  • “West Jordan” (19501951195219541955195619571958)
  • “the western bank” (1952)
  • “Western Jordan” (19511952)
  • “that part of Jordan west of the Jordan River” (1956)
  • “west bank of the Jordan” (1957)

Then, in 1959, the United Nations seemed to embrace the de facto Jordanian annexation, referring to the area simply as “Jordan,” no different than the eastern part of the kingdom. To the extent that the U.N. wanted to specifically call out that area it used wordy terms:

  • “Jordan side of the armistice demarcation line”
  • “frontier villagers in Jordan”

That changed after Jordan illegally attacked Israel in June 1967 and lost the region. By the end of that month, the United Nations quickly moved to shorthand (A/6713) by the third mention:

  • “the West Bank of the Jordan”
  • “West Bank area of the Jordan”
  • “West Bank”

This shortened version for that area east of the 1949 Armistice Line has stuck at the U.N. and media parlance since that time.

Judea and Samaria Versus the “West Bank”

As reviewed above, Judea and Samaria and the West Bank are not the same. Judea and Samaria are historical names to much of the land, while the “West Bank” is a smaller, modern day creation due to an illegal act of war waged by Arab states upon Israel.

When people refer to the West Bank, they are only reviewing that part of the land that has been subject to negotiation between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, as laid out in the Oslo Accords, signed by both parties. They are not considering the broader reach of all of Judea and Samaria, which includes land west of the 1949 Armistice Lines inside of Israel.

If one does not like to give the term “West Bank” – an area that existed for only 18 years from 1949 to 1967 and named only upon its extinguishment – any legitimacy, then perhaps a better term would be “east of the Armistice Lines (EAL)”, to highlight that the contour of such region was created as a temporary measure to halt hostilities, was never intended to be a border, and has no historic significance.

Related articles:

When You Understand Israel’s May 1948 Borders, You Understand There is No “Occupation”

The Legal Israeli Settlements

Considering Carter’s 1978 Letter Claiming Settlements Are Illegal

The 1967 War Created Both the “West Bank” and the Notion of a Palestinian State

Related First One Through video:

The Green Line (music by The Kinks)

Judea and Samaria (music by Foo Fighters)

Is It Time To Stop Using The Name “Palestinians”?

Before Israel declared itself an independent state in May 1948, “Palestinians” were a mix of Jews, Christians and Muslims. At the end of the 1948-9 Arab-Israeli War, the region was divided and renamed. There were Israeli Jews, Christians and Muslims, but no longer any “Palestinians,” as the non-Israeli territory fell under Egypt (Gaza) and The Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan (the west bank of the Jordan River). The term “Palestinians” for the United Nations came to only mean Arab refugees from Israel, who were then living either in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Gaza and Israel (the term Palestinian refugees inside of Israel was phased out by the global body in 1952).

Jordanians and subsequently, Former Jordanians

After Transjordan illegally seized control of the west bank of the Jordan River in 1949, it renamed itself as “Jordan”, now controlling both banks of the river. Jordan annexed that west bank land in 1950 and subsequently gave all the people who lived there – as long as they weren’t Jewish – Jordanian citizenship in 1954. These new Jordanians moved freely between both sides of the Jordan River and many opted to NOT take on the label of “refugee.” To wit, in June 1950, there were 506,200 refugees in Jordan, and that number shrank to 465,741 in June 1951, an 8% drop.

The new Jordanians were part of the force that attacked Israel in June 1967 and lost the eastern part of Jerusalem and all of the land Jordan illegally annexed in 1950. Jordan ultimately withdrew Jordanian citizenship from these West Bank Arabs in July 1988, when the Palestinians declared their independence, in a move not recognized by much of the world.

The former Jordanians are ruled by the Palestinian Authority, under the unpopular leadership of Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah. He has championed for more countries to recognize the Palestinian State and has secured the Muslim countries as well as several in Latin America. As the United States and western Europe have refused to recognize the country until it negotiates borders and other matters with Israel, they are viewed as stateless.

Meanwhile, Israel lifted the Jordanian ban on Jews living in the region. Israeli Jews now live throughout the area known as Area C, while they are still banned in Areas A and B under Palestinian Authority-control.

Gazans

Gaza is a terrorist enclave run by the terrorist group Hamas. A majority of Gazans support the killing of Israeli Jews inside of Israel. They support keeping the terrorist group in power and spending finite resources attacking Israel. The majority of Gazans have always opposed a two state resolution to the conflict. It is for those many reasons, that the Gaza Strip has been blockaded by both Israel and Egypt.

Hamas and Fatah have not been able to reconcile their differences over the past many years. Gaza remains an Islamic terrorist territory, and Areas A and B of the West Bank (handed by Israel to the Palestinian Authority) remain under control of the PA, for now. Should elections ever be held, it is likely that Hamas will win control of the PA and thereby take control of the former Jordanians in those areas.

One hundred years ago, “Palestinians” included a mix of Jews, Muslims and Christians living together. Today it means nothing. As Hamas controlled-Gaza and Fatah-controlled Areas A and B are completely distinct and there is no country of Palestine, the people should similarly be referred to differently, as Gazans and former Jordanians.

Related articles:

The 1967 War Created Both the “West Bank” and the Notion of a Palestinian State

When You Understand Israel’s May 1948 Borders, You Understand There is No “Occupation”

Quantifying the Values of Gazans

Palestinian “Refugees” or “SAPs”?

The United Nations Can Hear the Songs of Gazans, but Cannot See Their Rockets

The New York Times Lies About Ben-Gvir And Muslim Arabs Regarding Temple Mount Visit

Isabel Kershner deposited an article in the international section of The New York Times on January 4, 2023 about an Israeli member of Knesset visiting the Jewish Temple Mount. It should have been posted in the opinion pages.

The article led off with a comment lifted from the Muslim Arab world that Itamar Ben-Gvir’s visit to the holy site was “provocative.” Kershner used the term three times (highlighted in red boxes above). The visit was nothing of the sort. The Temple Mount has standard visiting hours as it did when Ben-Gvir visited on Tuesday.

That was unmentioned in the article. Instead the article was replete with characterizations of Israel as full of “right-wing” and “hard-line” extremists unfairly punishing Palestinian Arabs, rather than Israelis trying to live a normal life with genocidal anti-Semitic neighbors.

After Kershner said that Ben Gvir was provocative, she added this:

The visit under heavy guard to the site – a frequent flash point in the Old City of Jerusalem where past Israeli actions have set off broader conflagration – was the first by such high level official in years and passed without incident. But coming two days after Mr. Ben-Gvir took office, it was an early indicator of the difficulties Israel’s new government , its most right-wing and religiously conservative yet, will face in the domestic and global arenas.

This is a complete inversion of victim and aggressor. A visit by a prominent Israeli Jew to the holiest site in Judaism during regular visiting hours was not the trigger for violence, any more than a woman who rejected an unwanted incel’s advance deserves to be attacked. Adding the clause that Israel’s government is politically and religiously right-wing while saying nothing about the Islamic terrorist groups further paints Israelis as instigators of violence.

The picture accompanying the article showed many “Israeli security personnel” surrounding the visitors, but the article failed to report that Jewish visitors are frequently assaulted during their visits by radical Islamists. The security personnel were not just “near visitors” but there to guard Jews from marauding jihadists.

Kershner’s article continued in the same noxious vein. She wrote that Israelis had “a nationalist and religious agenda,” and held “hard line policies,” and Ben-Gvir “support[ed] a terrorist group.” She failed to mention that Hamas is a recognized terrorist group by the United States which seeks the destruction of Israel. She did not write about the Palestinian Authority’s “pay-to-slay” terror-incentive program. She ignored Palestinian polls which show half of all Palestinians supporting the murder of Israeli Jews in their homes, and ADL polls which shows that almost every Palestinian is an anti-Semite.

Quite the opposite. Her opinion piece masked as reporting said that Israelis are “hard liners” and Arabs are peaceful victims.

Kershner claimed that former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon ignited the “second Palestinian intifada”, when it was actually deliberately launched by Yasser Arafat in the collapse of the Oslo Accords in which he led the slaughter of over 1,000 Israeli civilians in hundreds of terrorist attacks (also unmentioned). She said that Israel’s new government had an “uncompromising approach to the Palestinians,” as if terrorism and threats to murder deserve a compromise.

Perhaps only kill Jewish males and leave the females alive, like the Egyptians in the bible?

To underscore Kershner’s fake narrative on the peaceful ways of Muslim Arabs regarding the Jewish Temple Mount, she added this bit of malarkey:

the [Temple Mount] compound was conquered by Israel during the Arab-Israeli War of 1967. Under an uneasy arrangement that has prevailed for decades under Jordanian custodianship, Jews are permitted to visit, as are non-Muslim tourists, but they are not supposed to pray there.”

This fantasy narrative for the ignorant has Israel forcefully seizing the Temple Mount and the Jordanians giving Jews and other non-Muslims the right to visit.

The Times is lying to its readership and inverting history.

The reality is the Jordan attacked Israel in 1948, ethnically cleansed all Jews from the Old City of Jerusalem, destroyed the synagogues and illegally annexed the Temple Mount compound, the Old City of Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria. During the eighteen years 1949-1967 while Jordan illegally held the Temple Mount, it barred Jews from even visiting the western wall/ Kotel, let alone the Temple Mount. Jordan attacked Israel again in 1967 and Israel took the Old City in a defensive battle. The Jewish State granted Jordan administrative rights on the Temple Mount while it provided security.

In short, it is Israel – not Arabs – which has tried to create a system of coexistence in the holy city and holy places, exactly the opposite of NYT reporting.

It is seemingly insufficient that Jews must fight to survive among genocidal jihadists in the Middle East and anti-Semites in the diaspora. Mainstream media is working to ensure that Jews will be hamstrung in public opinion, as the anti-Zionists attempt to sever the ties of the Jewish State’s critical backer, the United States, and leave Israel isolated among those hell-bent on its destruction.

Related articles:

The New York Times Refuses To State Judaism’s Holiest Site

Will The New York Times Write About Terrorism From Israelis’ Point Of View?

The New York Times Is Morphing Into The Notorious Dearborn Independent

New York Times Mum on Muslim Anti-Semitism

New York Times Buries Stories of Slaughtered Jews in Temple Mount Account

New York Times Recharacterizes Hamas as a Right-Wing Terrorist Group

For The New York Times, “From the River to the Sea” Is The Chant of Jewish and Christian Zealots

New York Times Pushes the Lie of Israeli Apartheid

On Defenses: Provocative and Legal / Unprovocative and Illegal

Each society makes rules to govern its citizenry. It considers the tastes and preferences of its inhabitants and tries to balance enabling human rights and the maintaining of public order. Some countries opt to ban certain activities if they might lead to violence, while others believe that human expression cannot be stifled because of the reactions that might ensue.

The world has seen this play out in the recent past, with an interesting wave of defenses and condemnations.

Charlie Hebdo Drawings of Mohammed

France is a deeply secular society that prizes its freedoms, including freedom of the press. It was perfectly legal for a French satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo, to draw pictures of the Islamic prophet even though it was highly provocative and upsetting to devout Muslims. Indeed, several Islamic radicals shot up the magazine’s headquarters, killing many of its writers. As part of the jihadists’ derangement, they followed up on that violent vengeance with a visit to a local kosher store to slaughter Jews who had nothing to do with the cartoons.

The western world rallied to the defense of France, with global leaders marching arm-in-arm in defense of freedom of expression and against reactive violence. The provocative nature of the drawings was dismissed as irrelevant.

World leaders march in support of France and freedom of expression in January 2015 (Photograph: AFP)

Gay Pride Parade and Israeli Pride Marches in Jerusalem

The city of Jerusalem is both holy and contentious. It is the holiest city for Jews, the third holiest city for Muslims, and holy for Christians who don’t rank cities as commonly as Jews and Muslims.

It is also a politically sensitive city. Recommended to be an international city (along with Bethlehem) by the United Nations General Assembly in 1947, it became divided between Israel and Jordan in the 1948-9 Arab-Israeli War. After Jordan attacked Israel again in 1967, the reunited city became completely Israeli, even while much of the world still considers it to be international or under negotiations for a final settlement.

The holiness of the city makes the annual gay pride parade offensive to many religious Jews, Muslims and Christians. While legal, the provocative nature of holding the event in Jerusalem has sparked violence, such as occurred in July 2015 when a Jewish man just released from a mental hospital, stabbed six people, killing one. The public condemned the violence and defended the right to parade.

For their part, proud Jewish nationalists flew Israeli flags through Jerusalem, including in predominantly Arab sections of eastern Jerusalem, to mark the reunification of the city. When Palestinian groups claimed the parade was “provocative” and threatened violence, the United States asked Israel to reroute the march away from Arab areas, an action it did not take for the gay parade.

Both legal marches went on as planned, with left-wing groups labeling the nationalist march as provocative, and right-wing groups stating the same about the gay parade.

Israeli Jews on the Temple Mount

In sharp contrast to the legal actions above which are defended, the fundamental human right to pray at a holy site is deemed illegal and condemned. At least, only for Jews in Jerusalem.

The central point of prayer and holiest place on earth for Jews is the Jewish Temple Mount in the Old City of Jerusalem. Jews around the world pray facing it, and many around the world make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem three times a year, as commanded in the Jewish Bible.

It has historic significance as the place where two Jewish Temples stood, and deep relevance today, especially to Orthodox Jews.

Jews have a basic human right to pray at their holiest location, as detailed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Even more, they have an accepted right to visit the Jewish Temple Mount according to rules laid out by the Islamic Waqf which has administrative rights on the compound.

But Arab extremists want to have none of it.

  • Wafa, the official Palestinian news site saidIsraeli Jewish supremacist Minister of National Security, Itamar Ben-Gvir, Tuesday stormed the compounds of al-Aqsa mosque in the occupied city of Jerusalem under heavy protection from the Israeli forces.
  • The political-terrorist group Hamas’s news site saidBen Gvir’s incursion into the Al-Aqsa Mosque courtyards on Tuesday morning constitutes a grave violation against the Palestinian people and their holy sites.” It condemned and mocked other Jews praying outside of the Temple Mount as “settlers [who] organized provocative dances and performed Talmudic rituals in the Old City and near Al-Aqsa Mosque.
  • Jordanian Foreign Ministry spokesman Sinan Al Majali saidThe storming of the blessed Al Aqsa Mosque by one of the Israeli ministers and violating its sanctity is a provocative, condemned move.
National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir quietly visited the Temple Mount on the Jewish fast day of the 10th of Tevet, January 3, 2023. (Courtesy Minhelet Har Habayit)

While not directly condemning Ben-Gvir’s visit or mocking Jews who pray in Jerusalem, the US Embassy in Jerusalem said that Ambassador Thomas Nides “has been very clear in conversations with the Israeli government on the issue of preserving the status quo in Jerusalem’s holy sites. Actions that prevent that are unacceptable.”

It is deeply disturbing that Israeli Jews visiting their sacred site is greeted by condemnation by not only radical Islamists, but by the western media and governments. Did those same people argue for the “status quo” of banning gay marriage? Segregation? Why do liberal values melt before jihadi zealots when it comes to the Jews?

Jews visiting and praying on the Temple Mount do so because the site is dear to them, not to antagonize Muslims. The people who condemn Jewish visitation and call it and act of “provocation” are not simply echoing radical Islamist propaganda, but denying Jewish history and Judaism itself, while simultaneously trampling on a basic human right.

Related articles:

Visitor Rights on the Temple Mount

The United Nations and Holy Sites in the Holy Land

Active and Reactive Provocations: Charlie Hebdo and the Temple Mount

I’m Offended, You’re Dead

Tolerance at the Temple Mount

The Jewish Israeli Rosa Parks

The US State Department’s Selective Preference of “Status Quos”

Related music video:

Israel Provokes the Palestinians (music by The Clash)

There Is No Backing For A Palestinian “Right Of Return”

Palestinian Arabs and their supporters claim that they have a “right of return” to towns in Israel based on two principles. One is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (established December 10, 1948) and the other United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194 (issued the following day, December 11, 1948). These are grossly misapplied, and if anyone wants to see a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, this issue is a complete roadblock.

UDHR, Article 13

Article 13 of the UDHR makes two statements that Palestinian propagandists assert give Palestinians the right to move into Israel:

  1. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
  2. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Regarding the first point, the freedom of movement is “within the borders”, meaning that any Israeli Jew or Arab should be free to live anywhere inside of their home country of Israel. This clause has nothing to do with Palestinian Arabs or wards of UNRWA who live outside of Israel. It simply means that Israeli Arabs should be free to move into Israeli towns – where grandparents may have lived or entirely new locations – as long as there are no security matters which render such movement impossible.

As it relates to the second point of leaving and returning to a country, there are two issues with Palestinians using this clause to move to Israel: the people and the land.

Israel is a new country, founded on May 14, 1948. There are only an estimated 20-30,000 elderly Arabs who lived in Israel on that date who now reside outside of the country’s recognized borders. The other 14 million Palestinian Arabs were born elsewhere and have no such claim to “return” to Israel, including the 6.4 million registered persons with UNRWA.

The second related matter has to do with the borders of Israel. If one were to take the non-factual view that the land of pre-1948 Palestine is a single country (it was a region / territory), then the millions of Arabs living in Gaza and the West Bank today still live in that same country, so there is no argument under the second clause. Only the Stateless Arabs of Palestine (SAPs) in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan could argue to move into Israel, Gaza or the West Bank. The right of return in UDHR relates to returning to a country, not a particular town or region.

UNGA Resolution 194, Article 11

As opposed to the general UDHR meant for all people, UNGA Resolution 194 was specifically adopted for Palestinians. Article 11 calls out the matter of returning to “homes,” not a country as specified in UDHR:

Resolves that refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.

At the most fundamental level, General Assembly resolutions are simply suggestions and not binding in law. Israel is not beholden to GA resolutions.

Critically, Palestinians have shown in deeds and words since the founding of Israel that they are not willing to “live at peace with their neighbors.” Add to the fact that only 20-30,000 people at this time are actually “refugees” makes this resolution relatively meaningless in application.

Two State Solution

Those people who back the notion of a “two-state solution” for the Israeli-Arab Conflict, with one state for Jews and one state for Arabs, should be appalled at the idea of a Palestinian “right of return” to the Jewish State. The Jewish State currently has 25% of its citizenry being non-Jews. It would destroy the basic principle of the “two state solution” for millions of Arabs to enter Israel. It is even more outrageous, when the United Nations demands that NO JEWS be allowed to live in a future Palestinian State. There’s no two-state solution if 50% of the Jewish State is comprised of non-Jews and 0% of the Arab State has Jews.

One State Solution

For advocates who argue for a single Jewish-Arab country and that Palestine was always a singular country, there are a couple of considerations.

One, Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza already live in such country, so are not and have never been “refugees” but just internally displaced people, taking billions of dollars from the world’s largess over the past decades. Resolution 194 Article 11 is specifically for refugees which excludes Arabs in Gaza and the West Bank. Only UDHR 13.1 would argue for freedom of movement within the single country, if security matters permit.

Secondly, there is only return to a country under UDHR 13.2, not to villages where grandparents once lived. Allowing refugees from Lebanon, Syria and Jordan to move to the West Bank or Gaza satisfies this clause as much as moving inside the borders of Israel.

Palestinian Sentiment

Importantly, Palestinians have no interest in either of these solutions. According to the PCPSR December 2022 poll, only 32% of Palestinians support a two-state solution and 26% support a one-state solution with equal rights for Jews and Arabs. That compares to 55% who favor terrorism against Israelis, to destroy the Jewish State and replace it with a single Arab state. It’s outrageous for Palestinians to demand the right to move to homes under UNGA Resolution 194, and skip the basic premise of coexistence that the resolution demands.

The poll also showed that the right of return issue was the second most important issue for Palestinian Arabs, behind establishing a state. The fact that UNGA Resolution 194 requires coexistence while Palestinians support new armed gangs can only be viewed as an attempt to better infiltrate and take over the Jewish State, as part of establishing a new Palestinian State.

Sentiment of Israeli Arabs

When polled in June 2018, Israeli Arabs were the most likely to cap Palestinian refugees coming to Israel (the proposed question used a figure of 100,000 people) with the balance going to a new state of Palestine and getting compensation for lost property. A whopping 84.1% of Israeli Arabs supported such limited “right of return”, compared to 21.3% of Israeli Jews and 47.5% of Palestinian Arabs. When offered a different formulation in which a capped number of Palestinians would get permanent resident status but not citizenship in Israel, and Jews in the West Bank would similarly get such status in a new Palestinian State, Israeli Arab support (63.8%) dwarfed that of Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs with 36.1% and 31.7%, respectively.

Beyond the differences in granting a Palestinian “right of return” among Israeli Arabs, Jews and Palestinian, the same poll showed a big difference in support for a two state solution. Not surprisingly, no Israeli Arabs favored the idea of “apartheid” or expulsions of the other, while 14.9% of Israeli Jews voted in favor of minimal rights for Israeli Arabs, and 17.2% of Palestinians favored expelling all the Jews from the region.

SAPs in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan

The Stateless Arabs from Palestine (SAPs) only poll people in Gaza and the West Bank where the Palestinian Authority and Hamas have control and self-determination, having been given land to administer by Israel. The SAPs who might have some actual claims under UDHR and UNGA Resolution 194 are those in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan as described above but were not polled.

Almost all of the SAPs in Jordan have Jordanian citizenship so cannot be considered “refugees.” Jordan illegally annexed the West Bank after the 1948-9 War against Israel, and granted all Arabs living there citizenship– as long as they were not Jewish – in 1954. Palestinian-Chileans have the same non-claim to move to Israel as these Palestinian-Jordanians.

The Palestinians who might be considered “refugees” with rights to move to the holy land are those elderly Palestinians who left Israel in May 1948 and now reside in Lebanon and Syria, countries which have denied them citizenship for almost their entire lives. Of the 1.2 million SAPs in those two countries (18.8% of the total people getting services from UNRWA), around 2% are over 75 years old and would qualify to move to Israel under UDHR Article 13.2, and under UNGA Resolution 194, Article 11, if they are willing to live with Israelis in peace. While it is well understood that Palestinian Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza have no desire to live peacefully with Israelis, it is possible that those in UNRWA camps in Lebanon and Syria might.

If one advocates for a two-state solution, one must simultaneously be against a Palestinian “right of return” for any Arab other than the elderly living in UNRWA camps in Lebanon and Syria. All other Palestinians wishing to return to the region would need to move to Gaza or the West Bank under the approval of the Palestinian Authority. This has long been the logical bipartisan approach of both Democrats and Republicans.

In summary, there are very few people who qualify for a Palestinian “right of return” and there is very little support for, or belief that it can be implemented peacefully amongst the people in the region.

Related articles:

Time to Dissolve Key Principles of the “Inalienable Rights of Palestinians”

Stabbing the Palestinian “Right of Return”

The Fourth ‘No’ of the Khartoum Resolution: No Return of Palestinian Refugees

The United Nations Bias Between Jews and Palestinians Regarding Property Rights

The “Great Myth of Return”

Removing the Next Issue – The Return of 20,000 Palestinian Arabs

Ban Ki Moon Defecates on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

No One Mentions Actual Palestinians’ Sentiments

UN Lies About Palestinians Favoring Two States

UNRWA in the eastern portion of Jerusalem (photo: First One Through)

Obama’s Ego Came For The Jewish State and Global Jewry

On December 23, 2016, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 2334. The resolution was disgraceful in several familiar respects in condemning Israel unfairly. To name just a few:

  • It falsely labeled a place called “East Jerusalem” which had only existed for a mere eighteen years from 1949 to 1967
  • It called East Jerusalem a “Palestinian territory”, when it never was anything of the sort, before, during or after 1949-1967
  • It proposed a “two-state solution based on the 1967 lines” when Israel and the Palestinian Authority had already signed agreements to negotiate lines without any preconceived final boundaries
  • Demanded that Jews be prevented from living in “East Jerusalem” and other “occupied Palestinian territory”, a blatantly anti-Semitic demand
  • Called for countries to treat Israel and Israeli territory differently, even though countries around the world – including the United States – do not distinguish in labeling their own products

The U.N. General Assembly (GA) had frequently made such horrible comments. What was new and alarming in this instance was that the resolution PASSED THE SECURITY COUNCIL, which may become legally binding.

As noted by the UN, “resolutions adopted by the GA on agenda items are considered to be recommendations and are not legally binding on the Member States. The only resolutions that have the potential to be legally binding are those that are adopted by the Security Council.” Further, “in contrast to the decisions made by the General Assembly, all Member States are obligated under the UN Charter to carry out the Security Council’s decisions…. As Article 25 of the UN Charter states, “The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.””

This alarming anti-Israel action managed to pass because the United States opted to abstain in the Resolution 2334 vote. Until that time, the U.S. had always voted against such anti-Israel measures at the Security Council because of possible ramifications.

This time, President Obama took this action in the final days of his administration because of lobbying from Jewish pro-Palestinian groups like J Street, and as payback for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accepting an invitation from the Republican House Speaker to speak to a joint session of Congress about the existential threat of the Iranian nuclear deal in 2015, without coordinating with the president’s office.

At that time, a senior Obama official said that Netanyahu “spat in our face publicly and that’s no way to behave. Netanyahu ought to remember that President Obama has a year and a half left to his presidency, and that there will be a price.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. President Barack Obama in 2015

Anti-Jewish attacks in the United States jumped 22.9% shortly thereafter in 2017, the largest spike since the FBI tracked hate crime data.

The ever-increasing number of boycotts and lawsuits against Israel, and the dramatic spike in harassment on college campuses and other locations of global Jewry, is related to Obama’s bruised ego and lobbying of alt-left groups like J Street.

Related articles:

On Accepting Invitations

Netanyahu’s Positions Are Not Leaving

Netanyahu’s View of Obama: Trust and Consequences

Missing Netanyahu’s Speech: Those not Listening and Those Not Speaking

The Three Camps of Ethnic Cleansing in the BDS Movement

Israel And Jews Everywhere Must Be Protected As An Ethnic, Religious And Linguistic Minority

Biden Enables Anti-Semitism On College Campuses

Hamas Militant or Football Player? Offensive or Defensive?

During Chanukah and the week when the bible portion dealing with Joseph is read in synagogues around the world, Jews often make the trip to Joseph’s Tomb in Shechem / Nablus in Judea and Samaria / West Bank. Accompanied by a military escort, the cars often come under fire from local Palestinian Arabs, as was the case last week.

Ahmed Atef Daraghmeh, a 23-year old Palestinian man from a nearby city, was armed and involved in the shooting attack on the Jewish convoy, and was shot and killed by Israeli troops. The news media covered the story very differently.

  • The Jordan Times headline was “Israeli forces kill Palestinian militant in West Bank clashes,” making it clear that the Palestinian was an armed militant. The article added “Islamist group Hamas, which rules the Gaza Strip, said Daraghmeh was a member of its military wing who “was killed by occupation bullets during clashes at dawn on Thursday”.
  • Al Monitor picked up the exact same headline and story as above, as produced by Agence France-Presse (AFP).
  • The Times of Israel similarly led with “Hamas ‘fighter’ killed during armed clash with IDF in Nablus.” The Israeli site was more clear labeling the Palestinian a terrorist in the article.

Other Arab and Muslim sites reoriented the story.

  • Turkish site TRT World‘s headline was “Palestinian football player killed by Israeli army in West Bank,” made it sound like Israeli forces went into a soccer stadium and wantonly attacked someone kicking a ball. The sub-header “23-year-old Ahmad Atef Daraghmeh was killed, and five other Palestinians injured during an Israeli army raid in Nablus,” made the Israeli visit an incursion rather than a visit to a Jewish holy site.
  • Free Press Kashmir picked up the footballer focus with “Palestinian footballer shot dead by Israeli forces in West Bank”
  • Daily Sabah wrote “Israeli army kills another Palestinian man in occupied West Bank,” skipping the militant’s profession and making it sound like Israelis were on a daily warpath.
  • Arab News extended the story with “Palestine’s FA asks FIFA to probe reported Israeli killing of footballer,” connecting the story to the just concluded World Cup.
  • Al Jazeera headline was “Palestinian footballer killed by Israel in West Bank: Medics”
  • Middle East Eye: “West Bank: Palestinian footballer killed by Israeli forces in overnight raid”
  • Middle East Monitor: “Israel kills Palestinian footballer in Nablus” and led with “Just days after the FIFA World Cup during which the issue of Palestine featured prominently, Israeli occupation forces have today shot dead a Palestinian footballer.”
  • Tasnim News headline was “Young Palestinian Soccer Player Killed by Israeli Forces during West Bank Raid”
  • The anti-Zionist blog Mondoweiss wrote “Soccer player and resistance fighter Ahmad Daraghmeh killed in Nablus,” covering his profession and alluding to his military activities.
PALESTINIAN MOURNERS AT THE FUNERAL PROCESSION FOR AHMED ATEF DARAGHMEH, 23, KILLED DURING CLASHES WITH ISRAELI FORCES ON DECEMBER 22, 2022, IN THE TOWN OF TUBAS IN THE WEST BANK. (PHOTO: WAJED NOBANI/APA IMAGES)

Most of the Muslim and Arab world led with Daraghmeh’s profession which had nothing to do with the incident, as did a commentator from BBC, as reported by the Jewish Chronicle:

“The dead Palestinian footballer lamented by soccer pundit Gary Lineker was actually a Hamas terrorist killed after firing on Israeli soldiers. The former England striker and BBC presenter sparked fury after he described the death as “awful” without giving the context…. Mr Lineker had voiced his outrage over the shooting in response to a tweet that read: “This #Palestinian soccer player Ahmed Daraghmeh was waiting for a great future in representing his country’s team, #Palestine. The bullets of the occupation stopped his football dream & took his life treacherously. A little while ago in #Nablus. #FreePalestine #Ukraine #sportgala”.”

Lineker has a history of retweeting Palestinian propaganda and anti-Semitic vitriol. He has 1.1 million followers who read such posts. Add that total to the readership of the Arab sites, and millions of people were fed false news that Israel was targeting Palestinian athletes for assassination.

Hamas militants are also doctors, merchants, teachers and athletes. It doesn’t absolve them of their heinous terrorism – let alone make Israel the aggressor – but highlights how mainstream the political-terrorist group is in Palestinian society.

Related articles:

Review of Media Headlines on Palestinian Arab Terror Spree

Why the Media Ignores Jihadists in Israel

The New Salman Abedi High School for Boys in England and the Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel Soccer Tournament in France

The Media Splits on Showing “Islamic Terrorism” and its Presence in Israel

The Media’s Divergent Coverage of Abbas’ “50 Holocausts”

Radical Muslim Groups Celebrate Bombings And Murder of Jewish Teenager In Jerusalem

NY Times Repeatedly Tells Its Readers That An Israeli Supported A Mass Murderer, But Never That Many Palestinians Embrace Many Terrorists

The Media Cares Much More About Journalists Than Children

Is The Beheading Of A Gay Palestinian Man News Or Opinion?

Pros And Cons Of Muslims Considering Jewish Holy Sites As Sacred Also

The Menorahs of Defiance

On December 19, 2022, The New York Times published an article about a menorah that was lit in the window of a Jewish home across from a Nazi flag in Germany, in defiance of the edicts to ban Jews from participating in society. The descendants of that German family brought the menorah back to Germany to rekindle it once again.

It’s an interesting story on many levels. To consider the defiance and fear that the Jewish family must have felt in 1931 as Nazis gathered power in Germany, to openly declare their Judaism in the face of growing anti-Semitism. And then, eighty years later, to return to Germany after the genocide of European Jewry with that same menorah.

Chanukah candles lit in the ashes of millions of slaughtered Jews.

Yehuda Mansbach, the grandson of the Jewish couple who lit that menorah in the iconic 1931 photograph, wept openly after lighting the two candles to mark the holiday of Chanukah in Germany in 2022.

It was the only story that the New York paper would write about the Jewish holiday of Chanukah, other than some recipes for latke cocktails and how to make a DIY menorah. The actual holiday story of Jews expelling the Hellenist pagan rituals from the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem and throughout the Jewish holy land 2,200 years ago must have been considered too political for the anti-Zionist paper.

During the holiday, the paper preferred to write stories about Arabs who had “ancestors” in “modern day Israel” whose towns were destroyed at Israel’s creation. These “Palestinian citizens of Israel” (commonly called Israeli Arabs) have been trying to get back to the homes where their grandparents lived but have been blocked from doing so by the Israeli military and courts because the town sits in a buffer zone along Lebanon which is in a state of war with the Jewish State.

These are stories that neatly contour to the Times’ jaundiced narrative: Jews are native to Europe but were pushed out by Nazis, and Arabs are native to Palestine but were pushed out by Jews.

The actual Chanukah story disrupts the anti-Zionist propaganda, that Jews have thousands of years of history in Israel and not just throughout the land, but on the Jewish Temple Mount itself. That is where the original menorah of the Jews was lit, not in defiance of any edict but as a basic part of Jewish religious ritual.

Today, while Arabs may be blocked from returning to living in villages alongside the border of a hostile country by Israel’s military, Jews are considered to be in violation of United Nations edicts for going to Jerusalem and the Temple Mount. While Israeli Arabs freely drive around Israel as recognized citizens of the Jewish State, countries around the world demand that Jews be forbidden from living and praying in their holiest city.

Jews have been lighting menorahs for 2,200 years, even in the face of blatant anti-Semitism from neighbors, governments and media propaganda. And Jews will continue to light their menorahs in their windows as proud Jews, and visit the reestablished Jewish State, as they use the anti-Jewish and anti-Israel propaganda as the rags that they are.

A single menorah of defiance lit before a Nazi flag in Germany, dozens of menorahs held aloft in Montana in 1993 amidst a wave of anti-Semitic attacks, and thousands of menorahs lit in Jewish homes in Jerusalem and around the world today in the face of blatantly anti-Semitic articles and resolutions. Jews are indigenous to Israel and will always insist on the basic human right to practice their faith everywhere, especially in their holiest city.

Related articles:

The UN Talks About Jews Building In Jerusalem On Chanukah

Chanukah And The Puppets Of Power

For Chanukah, Arab League Shines Light On Why It Should Be Condemned

Chanukah and Fighting on Sabbath

Today’s Inverted Chanukah: The Holiday of Rights in Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria

NY Times Repeatedly Tells Its Readers That An Israeli Supported A Mass Murderer, But Never That Many Palestinians Embrace Many Terrorists

The New York Times has spent considerable ink this year telling its readers that Israeli leadership loves a murderer of Arabs, yet it never prints anything about Palestinians who do it daily.

The anti-Zionist and very anti-Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu paper has written repeatedly about a new member of the Israeli government Itamar Ben-Gvir. It portrays him as a racist extremist who praised a killer of Palestinians, over and over, again and again.

  • October 24, 2022: “Until recently, he hung a portrait in his home of Baruch Goldstein, who shot dead 29 Palestinians in a West Bank mosque in 1994…. The portrait of Mr. Goldstein, who killed the Palestinians in 1994, no longer hangs in Mr. Ben-Gvir’s home.”
  • November 2, 2022: “Itamar Ben-Gvir, Jewish Power’s leader, seeks to grant legal immunity to Israeli soldiers who shoot Palestinians and deport rival lawmakers he accuses of terrorism. Until recently, he hung a portrait in his home of Baruch Goldstein, who shot dead 29 Palestinians in a West Bank mosque in 1994.”
  • November 4, 2022: “The mosque massacre in 1994, whose perpetrator, Baruch Goldstein, was once feted by Mr. Ben-Gvir in his home, occurred a few hundred yards away. “I’m afraid that fanatic settlers will feel more empowered” by Mr. Ben-Gvir’s rise, said Mr. Amro. “I’m afraid that more Baruch Goldstein massacres will happen.”
  • November 13, 2022: “Mr. Ben-Gvir, a resident of Hebron with a history of provocations and racism, who until recently hung a portrait in his home of Baruch Goldstein, an American-born Israeli doctor who massacred 29 Muslim worshipers praying at the city’s holy site in 1994.”
  • November 17, 2022 podcast: “Patrick Kingsley (NY Times reporter): Why have you got a picture of Baruch Goldstein, this extremist, on your wall? And when your son asks who he is, what do you say? And he defends it. Archived Recording (Itamar Ben-Gvir) Patrick Kingsley: He says, I tell my son, he’s a righteous man, he’s a hero. Sabrina Tavernise (another NYTimes journalist): Wow. A picture of a mass murderer hanging on his wall. Patrick Kingsley: Exactly.”
  • November 20, 2022: “Mr. Ben-Gvir has also been a source of alarm. He has expressed admiration for Meir Kahane, a politician who called for expelling Israel’s Arab citizens and banning sex between Jews and non-Jews, as well as for Baruch Goldstein, a West Bank settler who killed 29 Palestinians and wounded 125 more when he attacked a mosque in 1994.”

The examples continue. Over and again, the paper mentioned that Ben-Gvir once hung a picture of Baruch Goldstein, a man who shot 29 Muslim worshipers in the Cave of the Jewish Matriarchs and Patriarchs in Hebron, nearly 30 years ago.

It’s repetitive and lazy journalism, but that’s not really the point. The issue is that the Times never points out that the lionization of many Palestinian mass murderers of Israeli Jews is a daily occurrence in Palestinian society. It happens in schools, public squares and the government-controlled media. Constantly.

Dalal Mughrabi was a woman who killed 37 people including 12 children. Her name appears in public squares and elementary schools. She is a featured celebrity in Palestinian society. School children call her the “bride of Jaffa” to this day.

Abd Al-Baset Odeh was a Hamas operative who killed 30 Jews enjoying a Passover seder in a hotel in Netanya in 2002. In 2003, the Palestinian Authority sponsored a soccer tournament named the “Tulkarm Shahids Memorial soccer championship tournament of the Shahid Abd Al-Baset Odeh” describing the mass murderer as a “martyr.” According to Palestinian Media Watch’s translation of Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, official PA daily, the event was under the auspices of the Department of Education, and the mass murderer’s brother handed out trophies to the winning team.

In 2020, the Student Union Council at Palestine Polytechnic University gifted the school with a gate named after Salah Khalaf, the leader of the Black September terror organization who planned the Munich Olympics massacre, in which 11 Israeli athletes were murdered in 1972. According to the Israeli watchdog group Palestinian Media Watch, there are four Palestinian schools named after Salah Khalaf.

In March 2022, Palestinians planted a garden in a boys’ school naming various trees after several mass murderers.

According to Palestinian Media Watch, there are 31 schools named after terrorists, aside from the various other mentions of killers in places like gardens.

This is never mentioned in the mainstream media.

Wafa, the official Palestinian news agency, wrote that the recently deceased Nasser Abu Hmeid, a murderer of seven Israelis, was in an Israeli prison because of his “activism in the resistance of the Israeli occupation of their homeland.” The media site then called him a “martyr” and “resistance fighter,” as did Palestinian leadership including PA President Mahmoud Abbas, cleansing his crimes and vaulting him to hero status.

In October 2022, Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Mohammed Shtayyeh went to Jenin to pay his respects to the mass murderers of Israeli civilians in Tel Aviv in April. He stood next to Fathi Khazem, the father of the terrorist Raad Khazem, and said “This struggle is an ongoing process, from generation to generation, victims to victims. Jenin has created national unity on the ground.” Mahmoud Abbas had told the father “We are all mourning. That is our destiny and we can’t escape it. We must make sacrifices for the homeland.”

Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Mohammed Shtayyeh seen during a visit to a mourning tent alongside Fathi Khazem, October 16, 2022. (Screenshot/Twitter: used in accordance with Clause 27a of the Copyright Law)

These comments are in addition to the terrorism incentive scheme orchestrated by Abbas. The weak president scores points with the Palestinian street with his pay-to-slay program which rewards the families of terrorists with salaries for life.

Such is the essence of Palestinian leadership and society: a culture of anti-Semitism and terrorism. All deliberately hidden from western eyes.

On the Israeli side, there is an extremist politician who once hung a picture of a solitary Israeli terrorist, and The New York Times mentions it almost daily. On the Palestinian side, there are dozens of mass murderers who are celebrated everywhere in Palestinian society, and the Times refuses to mention it a single time.

That is neither hypocrisy nor double standards. It is corporate anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism; vile propaganda to incite hatred and actions against Jews and the Jewish State.

Related articles:

Palestinians Want Their Young Girls To Become Terrorists

Empowering Women… To Murder

What do you Recognize in the Palestinians?

You Cannot Be Progressive And Pro-Palestinian

The New Salman Abedi High School for Boys in England and the Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel Soccer Tournament in France

NY Times Is Not Willfully Ignorant But Willfully Misleading About The Arab-Israeli Conflict

NY Times Considers Notion That Terrorism Against Israel is a Matter of Free Speech

NY Times Will Not Write About Arab Pogroms