.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Emet m'Tsiyon

Monday, May 29, 2017

The New York Times Gets into Serious Falsification Again -- Altering Quotes about Israel


We at Emet m'Tsiyon have already covered several cases where the overrated New York Times distorted facts. We showed how once the NYT changed the meaning of what Pope Francis said to Mahmoud Abbas [= Abu Mazen]. That was a serious falsification because it had the Pope declaring that Abbas was "an angel of peace." What the Pope actually said was that Abu Mazen "could be an angel of peace" [Lei possa essere un angelo della pace].That is, he could be one if he made peace with Israel.

The present case of falsifying a quote does not involve false translation but rather deliberately leaving out several words from a statement by President Trump. Here I thank CAMERA, the media monitor, for bringing this notable NYT falsehood to light.

Trump made a statement on 2 February of this year about Israeli settlements in Judea-Samaria:
While we don’t believe the existence of settlements is an impediment to peace, the construction of new settlements or the expansion of existing settlements beyond their current borders may not be helpful in achieving that goal. (Emphasis added.)
Now a video on the NYT website produced by its Jerusalem-based journalists Ian Fisher and Camilla Schick, narrated by Fisher, left out the words in boldface which means that they were significantly altering the meaning of Trump's statement. Instead of what Trump said Fisher and Schick give us this truncated and therefore distorted and misleading version:
The White House had this to say back in February. "While we do not believe the existence of settlements is an impediment to peace, the construction of new settlements or the expansion of existing settlements [the missing words belong here] may not be helpful in achieving that goal." Trump publicly asked Mr. Netanyahu to exercise restraint on settlement building. . .
Tamar Sternthal of CAMERA explains the problems of distortion, done for what I see as clearly political partisan reasons [here]. That is, the Jerusalem-based journalists and the NY Times itself on the whole are partisans in favor of the PLO.

Basically, what Trump's actual statement said that it would be all right for Israel to expand the existing settlements, in terms of numbers of housing units, if that expansion did not go beyond the current of these settlements. Serious politically motivated distortion.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Also see the links below for more on NYTimes hatred of Jews and Israel:
1-- defense of Nazi sympathizer, Linda Sarsour [here]
2-- five NYT anti-Israel op eds -- hatred of Israel intensifies at the NYT [here]



Labels: , , , , ,

Friday, May 26, 2017

What Does "Left" Mean Today? Is the Right-Left Spectrum Notion Anymore than a Fraud Nowadays?

Who said professors don't have  a sense of humor? Two professors wrote an article as a spoof on the pretentiousness and earnest absurdity of the rather new and novel field of Gender Studies. Their article, The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct,”  claimed to prove that the penis, the male reproductive organ, was the cause, not only of pregnancy, but of, among other things, climate change. Anyhow, soon after publication in the journal Cogent Social Sciences, they revealed their real names and that the article was a hoax. I personally think that they should have waited a while longer before revealing the reality in order to see how many fish --or dupes-- they could catch who might take the article seriously and quote from it in all seriousness with admiration for and in agreement with its novel thesis. Here is a quote from the original hoax essay:
 "Nowhere are the consequences of hypermasculine machismo braggadocio isomorphic identification with the conceptual penis more problematic than concerning the issue of climate change,”
Be that as it may, the online magazine for academics, Inside Higher Ed [Ed = education] ran an article describing the hoax and quoting from it liberally while discussing several related issues. This article in turn drew a good number of comments. One line of discussion was how the toilers in the field of Gender Studies, although identifying themselves as Left, neglected the traditional concerns of the Left:
Don't you all miss the days when the "academic left" was preoccupied with issues such as social formations and the class structure of contemporary capitalism, the relationship between the dominant economic order and the state, the analysis of ideological hegemony, the application of Marxist theory to contemporary social conflict, the anarchist critique of Marxian strategies for social change, labor history . . .  
This raises the question of just what meaning the label or term Left has today. Especially since its concerns have changed so much and some charge that it is too often preoccupied with what the critics call "Identity Politics." Some used a phrase of the poet William Blake who lived in the late 18th century when the factory, the steam-powered mill was just making its appearance. Blake hated early industrialization which he characterized with the phrase: dark, satanic mills. Here is my contribution to the discussion between the two broken lines:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
It really is hard to know nowadays just what "Left" is and how it may be different from "Right." Furthermore, the gender studies and queer theorists seem to have no time to study the Dark, Satanic Mills that actually exist today in the inevitably progressive 21st century. How about the building sites in Qatar for the 2022 world soccer championhip as today's counterpart --or worse-- to Blake's dark, satanic mills? So are the gender and queer theorists really Left, in the traditional (patriarchal?) sense of the term, as they neglect the oppressed proletarians of Qatar? Indeed, an earnest lady of the philosophical persuasion prestidigitating in the gender studies field informed us a few years ago that Hamas and Hizbullah were parts of the "Global Left". Yet precisely Hamas was at the time (and probably still is) a recipient of $$ billions from Qatar. Now Qatar, besides overworking --sometimes to death-- the toiling gastarbeiter from Nepal and India, etc, enjoys one of the highest per capita incomes in the world, at least for its own citizens which the laborers are not. 
Although Lenin defined imperialism as not only the highest stage of capitalism but as any very large concentration of capital --a definition that surely fits Qatar & some of its neighbors on the Persian Gulf-- our philosophical theorist of what is Left today failed to see the contradiction in her own labeling of Hamas as Left. Since it is an Islamist organization funded in large part by Qatar, an imperialist state by Lenin's definition anyway, Hamas would seem to be an imperialist cats paw.
On the other hand, the old style Marxist-Leninists too might quite possibly have failed to apply Lenin's definition of imperialism consistently and might also have been reluctant to define Qatar as imperialist. And I certainly reject Marx and Lenin's notion of historical inevitability. Which leaves us with prejudice, preference, and selectivity marching forward hand in hand with new-fangled theories.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Here is a comment that partly expresses some of my thinking about the meaning and purpose of today's "Left":
. . .  the American "Left's" preoccupation with identity politics has been a major distraction from the economic and critical methodologies noted above by Goodsensecynic [= another commenter-Eliyahu]. Maybe we're talking "post-Marxism" but, if we are in that period, then Capital can continue to have its way with most workers and citizens, no matter what their race, color, creed, or gender. The "hoax" article is, of course, about gender.
Capital has always offered "bread and circuses" to the masses (although not always the bread); chariot races have been replaced by NASCAR.
The implications of all this are obvious in the current state of academia . . .          [Frank Tomasulo]

In my view, circuses today are more the demonstrations of the Occupy Movement than of NASCAR.
The Left in the 21st century -- is it any more than pane et circenses, the Roman practice of giving the plebeians Bread and Circuses? Does the left-right notion do any more than confuse and mislead the public and the student of politics in our first fifth of the 21st century?
- - - - - - - - - - - -

--More on Qatar as well as on how certain capitalist institutions finance "leftist" organizations, especially if they are anti-Israel/anti-Jewish [here]
--Qatar's beneficiary, the Hamas Islamist group that controls the Gaza Strip [here]
-- The Qatar paradox, anti-American & pro-American at the same time [here]
-- How Qatar's royal broadcasting enterprise, Al-Jazeera, broadcasts anti-Israel "leftists" [here]

Labels: , , ,

Friday, May 19, 2017

Abbas Lied in Washington when He Claimed that His "palestinian authority" Was Promoting Peace Education for Arab Children

This post consists mainly in quotes from Palestinian Media Watch showing the mendacity and hypocrisy of Mahmoud Abbas and his distaste for peace with Israel:

The PA leadership publicly proclaims that it is promoting peace education. Mahmoud Abbas recently announced during a press conference with US Pres. Donald Trump: "I affirm to you that we are raising our children and our grandchildren on a culture of peace." [White House Press Conference, May 3, 2017]
But Abbas' embracing a "culture of peace" in Washington is meaningless when his schools in Ramallah embrace a culture of terror. Indeed, Palestinian youth themselves make a mockery of Abbas' claim, as children in the schools named for terrorists declare that those terrorists are their role models.
[the Palestinian Authority habitually names schools and other public places and institutions after Arab terrorists & Arab Nazi collaborators. The paragraphs from PMW below list schools named after prominent palestinian Arab Nazi collaborators]

The following is a list of schools the PA has named after Nazi collaborators:
The PA has named one school after Nazi collaborator and war criminal Amin Al-Husseini.
1.The Amin Al-Husseini Elementary School - El-Bireh
Amin Al-Husseiniwas the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem at the time of the British Mandate. During World War II he moved to Berlin, where he was a Nazi collaborator and an associate of Hitler. Al-Husseini was on Yugoslovia's list of wanted war criminals, and was responsible for a Muslim SS division that murdered thousands of Serbs and Croats. When the Nazis offered to free some Jewish children, Al-Husseini fought against their release, and as result, 5000 children were sent to the gas chambers.
  
Amin Al-Husseini meeting with Adolf Hitler (December 1941)
  
The PA has named two schools after Nazi collaborator Hassan Salameh.
2.The Hassan Salameh Junior High School for Girls - Gaza
3. Hassan Salameh Elementary School - Gaza
Hassan Salameh was a leader of Arab gangs in the Lod and Jaffa region in the 1930s and 1940s. He was a loyal follower of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin Al-Husseini, who spent World War II in Berlin supporting the Nazi war effort. In 1941, Salameh was recruited to be a Nazi agent, and in 1944, he was sent on a mission by the Nazis in the British Mandate of Palestine, with the goal of starting an Arab revolt against the British and poisoning Tel Aviv's water sources. The plot was discovered and thwarted by the British. In 1947, Salameh was appointed by the Mufti as Deputy Commander of the "Holy Jihad" Army that fought Israel in the 1948 War of Independence. In June 1948, he was killed in battle.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

This story of Arab Nazi Collaboration should be more widely known but it is not. There are those who want to make the world  forget thi ugly chapter in Arab history.
See more on Arab Nazi collaborators on our blog:
The anniversary of Amin el-Husseini's first visit with Hitler [here]

Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, May 17, 2017

Surprise! A Reasonable Article about the Alleged Trump Leak

James Freeman explains why it is not wise to get too worked up over the alleged leak by President Trump to Russian president Vladimir Putin. Note that those who were present at the meeting between Trump and Putin deny the claims made by the Washington Post's article. The alleged sources for the article, on the other hand, are all anonymous.

I would add another point. If there were any information improperly given to Putin --if any-- we don't know exactly what it was. But it is very likely that more damage was caused by all the reports, truthful or not, that claim to divulge parts of the content and/or the source of the alleged info. For instance, ABC news was reported to have broadcast that the info in question came from Israel and that its source was an Israeli operative planted inside Da`ash. If there is such an Israeli agent, then such a broadcast was more likely to have endangered the agent than whatever Trump said.


Bear in mind that once in the Bush2 administration and at least once in the obama admin Washington intelligence personalities gave out info that was said to have harmed Israel. Those instances are forgotten.

If "news" outlets like ABC were so concerned with intelligence security, why then did they report on what they claim Israel's intel services have been doing? Or was Israel's name dragged in in order to create animosity and suspicion between the pro-Israel community and the president?

Another point is the credibility of the original "news" outlet for the story. It was first reported by the Washington Post. But the WAPO has been very hostile to Trump for many months and has devoted a great many pages and barrels of ink to besmirching him. For instance, I get an email from the WAPO just about every day. It contains links to stories in the newspaper that supposedly might be interesting to me --  or more precisely, to the average reader. For months now, I have seen a dozen or a score of articles every day knocking or besmirching Trump on all sorts of grounds. You can understand why I don't pay much attention to those "reports" which may or may not be true, but are often trivial in substance. In any event, they certainly become boring soon enough. 

Michael Ledeen points out another problem. Trump is facing hordes of Obama holdovers who are still in high positions. And ready to sabotage his administration and his policies at every turn [here].
Here is another issue: Powerful  press organs such as the Washington Post and the New York Time besmirch his image every day helped by partisan media "news" outlets like CNN. The Times called for impeachment of Trump, one complaint being that he lies. Well, Obama lied early and often. Yet the NYT & WAPO seldom if ever saw fit to disqualify Obama on those grounds. Could we be witnessing an attempted coup d'etat?



Freeman's article appeared in the Wall Street Journal:

McMaster and Commander

Trump’s national security adviser takes on the Washington Post’s anonymous sources.

National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster answers questions during a press briefing at the White House on Tuesday.
 National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster answers questions during a press briefing at the White House on Tuesday. Photo: Win McNamee/Getty Images
By
James Freeman
Former government officials have been demanding anonymity from the Washington Post in order to discuss a meeting they did not attend at the White House. President Trump’s National Security Adviser, Gen. H.R. McMaster, who did attend the meeting, has been going on the record this week along with other attendees to knock down the resulting story. Yet much of the press still seems to credit the Post’s unnamed non-attendees.
Here’s the lede from the Post:
President Trump revealed highly classified information to the Russian foreign minister and ambassador in a White House meeting last week, according to current and former U.S. officials, who said Trump’s disclosures jeopardized a critical source of intelligence on the Islamic State.
On Monday evening Gen. McMaster said in response:
The story that came out tonight as reported is false. The President and the foreign minister reviewed a range of common threats to our two countries, including threats to civil aviation. At no time, at no time, were intelligence sources or methods discussed. And the president did not disclose any military operations that were not already publicly known. Two other senior officials who were present, including the Secretary of State, remember the meeting the same way and have said so. Their on-the-record accounts should outweigh those of anonymous sources. And I was in the room. It didn’t happen.
On Tuesday the national security adviser elaborated on his remarks and took questions from reporters. At his Tuesday appearance in the White House briefing room, Gen. McMaster called Mr. Trump’s discussion “wholly appropriate” and consistent with the normal sharing of information on terror threats that occurs in high-level meetings with representatives of foreign nations. He said he was not concerned by Mr. Trump’s disclosures and had not contacted any foreign governments about them.
The anonymous sources quoted by the Post, on the other hand, appear to have very deep concerns, and the Post says that some of them even know what was said at the meeting. But many of the story’s harshest critiques of the President come from people who were not only not at the meeting, but are no longer in government:
“It is all kind of shocking,” said a former senior U.S. official who is close to current administration officials. “Trump seems to be very reckless and doesn’t grasp the gravity of the things he’s dealing with, especially when it comes to intelligence and national security. And it’s all clouded because of this problem he has with Russia.”
Here’s another excerpt from the Post story specifically focused on the President’s discussion of a particular plot hatched by Islamic State:
“Everyone knows this stream is very sensitive, and the idea of sharing it at this level of granularity with the Russians is troubling,” said a former senior U.S. counterterrorism official who also worked closely with members of the Trump national security team. He and others spoke on the condition of anonymity, citing the sensitivity of the subject.
Now why are such subjects sensitive enough to require anonymity but not sensitive enough to avoid discussing with a Washington Post reporter? We normally think of current government employees needing to remain anonymous while leaking data to the press in order to keep their jobs, but it’s not immediately clear why all the former officials also deserve anonymity in this case.
It’s possible that the sources in this story understand that people not named Clinton may be punished if they are caught mishandling sensitive information they obtained while they were in government. But one would think that a former official could publicly opine that the President is recklessly sharing information without disclosing any particular details of intelligence or the way it is collected. This raises the possibility that the sensitivity problem relates to a source’s current and future employment rather than previous government service.
Not every organization enjoys having its employees publicly accuse the President of endangering national security. And even people without an institutional affiliation understand they run the risk of offending clients when they publicly stand behind a controversial idea. But of course the grant of immunity by a reporter denies readers the opportunity to evaluate sources for themselves and consider their possible agendas.
Readers can’t tell whether the former officials quoted by the Post are retired or work for defense contractors or think tanks or political operations—or perhaps at firms that have nothing to do with government.
But readers are able to evaluate H.R. McMaster. He has spent a highly distinguished career defending the United States. And he was at the meeting. And he’s on the record.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Related topics:
Seth Rich: He revealed DNC emails to Wikileaks through an American Wikileaks associate in London. Rich was murdered in the summer of 2016:

Democratic Party hypocrisy in regard to leaking information to other powers, hostile powers

Monday, February 20, 2017

BBC Equals Fake News -- Gavin Esler & Dateline London

The Dateline London program on BBC is usually interesting even if the guests, journalists stationed in London, British or foreign, usually stay within certain acceptable or conventional bounds of permitted opinion. Hence, the opinions expressed about Israel and issues connected with Israel stay within the narrow framework of conventional Western anti-Israel opinion -- or better said, within the bounds of anti-Israel prejudice. Of course they are free to express their opinions. They are free to affirm fake news, however false it may be. Now, with charges of "fake news" flying in all directions, it is relevant to discuss the falsehoods of the BBC, not only of the guests on the Dateline London discussion panel.

We are long  used to the BBC's anti-Jewish prejudice, which was expressed during the Shoah by avoiding reporting on the ongoing mass murder of Jews by the German Nazi forces. And we also keep in mind that the BBC's foreign reporting is supervised by the Foreign Office, as Shmul Zigelboym noted during the Holocaust.

So it was no surprise to hear Gavin Esler, moderator of Dateline London, utter several lies that fit into the smear-Israel, anti-Israel, pro-PLO narrative. In the middle, approximately, of the show broadcast on 18 & 19 February 2017, Esler introduced the topic of one-state or two-states to supposedly settle the Palestinian Arab-Israeli conflict. He said that there were supporters of the one-state solution on both sides, Israeli and Arab. Then he said that Israeli supporters of that "solution" wanted the one-state to be Jewish, whereas Arabs ("Palestinians" in his lingo) wanted "a democratic state" with --presumably-- equal rights for all and Jews and Arabs ("Palestinians") living "side by side". This presentation of the desires of both sides --to an audience devoted to equality and democracy-- makes Israelis sound bigoted and Palestinian Arabs sound broad-minded, democratic, egalitarian, and liberal.

Now, how accurate or honest was Esler's description? First, have the many mass murder terrorist attacks against Jews by Palestinian Arabs over the years, and especially in the wave of murderous terrorism that began about one and a half years ago in September 2015, demonstrated a desire to live together in peace with Jews on the part of the Arabs, who are --by the way-- an overwhelmingly Muslim population? Second, how is it that, whereas no Arab state is truly democratic and all but Lebanon affirm the supremacy of Islam or Islamic law in their constitutions, that the Palestinian Arabs, unlike the other Arabs, want a democratic government with equality for persons of all religions and all ethnic groups living within the state -- quoth Esler? That would be very curious indeed and would demand special scholarly investigation -- if true. Thirdly, the treatment of Arabic-speaking Christians in the Palestinian Authority is bad and does not indicate respect for their equal rights. Fourth, is there any documentation of the supposedly democratic inclinations of the Palestinian Arabs and their putative statelet, the Palestinian Authority? Can Esler or anyone else supply a reliable public opinion poll to that effect?

In fact, it is widely known that the Palestinian Authority is far from democratic. It is far from respecting basic human and civil rights for its own people-- let alone Jews. Just look at documentation provided by PMW (Palestinian Media Watch) demonstrating the hate agitation of the PA government in Ramallah headed by Mahmoud Abbas [Abu Mazen], as well its financial corruption regarding its own people. There is also the record of anti-Israel hate agitation in Arab media generally --although there are exceptions-- provided by MEMRI (Middle East Media Research Institute) And most pertinent to the discussion, the PA has drawn up a constitution for its not yet existent state. This document like Arab state constitutions generally, provides for the supremacy of Islam and Islamic law. What exactly does the PA-proposed constitution for a future state comprise?

The draft constitution of the planned state affirms: 
“This constitution is based on the will of Palestinian-Arab people,” (Article 1), “the Palestinian people are a part of the Arab and Islamic nation,” (Article 2), “sovereignty belongs to the Palestinian Arab people,” (Article 10), “the legal character of the Arab-Palestinian people will be embodied by the state,” (Article 13). “Islam will be the official religion of the state,” (Article 6). [emph. added[Prof Shmuel Trigano pointed to these articles of the draft constitution]
Now, it is notorious that the status of the non-Muslim, the dhimmi, in the Islamic state is an inferior one. The section of Islamic law that deals with dhimmis is called the dhimma and it provides for the regular inferiority of the dhimmi in many areas of life, such as the special taxes borne by the dhimmi and his regular humiliation, his worth as half of a Muslim in that his testimony in court is worth half of a Muslim's testimony, and so on and so forth [see dhimma rules here & here].

Further, Esler claimed that the "Palestinians" who wanted a one-state solution wanted it to be "a democratic state" with --presumably-- equal rights for all and Jews and Arabs ("Palestinians") living "side by side". Whereas Islamic law, shariy`ah holds that non-Muslims, dhimmis, are inferior, one wonders whether there are more than a handful of genuine, loyal Arab Muslims who want a truly democratic liberal state where Jews have equal rights. And as to living "side by side," Jews in Arab-Muslim-ruled lands were often forced to live in ghettos, as in Christian Europe up to the French Revolution and after it in many places. I have not found a public opinion poll of Palestinian Arabs who both want a single state and want it to be democratic with equal rights for Jews. If Esler or anyone knows of such a poll, please publicize it and send us a link. I will be glad to post such a link. However, I did find something:
Saeb Erekat, the secretary-general of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, said Wednesday that the only alternative to a two-state solution is one state with equal democratic rights for all. [here]
Now Saeb Erikat is an expert propagandist, a liar and double-talker. The liberal affirmations that he makes when speaking English are typically contradicted by what he says to his own people in Arabic. So his sincerity in speaking of an egalitarian, democratic state is highly dubious, especially if we take into account how his Palestinian Authority treats its own Arab population. And bear in mind that he subscribes to the draft constitution quoted above which is an Islamic supremacist document. Furthermore, it seems likely that when Esler was saying that Palestinian Arabs who wanted a single state wanted it to be democratic and egalitarian with Jews and Arabs living side by side, he was thinking about Erikat's statement above which had been published just days before on 15 February 2017. If Esler believes one word uttered by Erikat then he is a fool. But maybe believing in the likes of Erikat is a rule at the BBC.

Be that as it may, how about Jews living in the same state with Palestinian Arabs? Could they live or reside in such a state? As far as Erikat's relative, Maen Areikat [the spelling difference is immaterial] is concerned, Jews would not have the right to live in a "Palestinian state."

INTERVIEWER: So you think it would be necessary to first transfer and remove every Jew.
AREIKAT: Absolutely. No, I'm not saying to transfer every Jew. I'm saying to transfer Jews who, after an agreement with Israel, fall under the jurisdiction of a Palestinian state.
INTERVIEWER: Any Jew who is in the borders of Palestine will have to leave?
AREIKAT: Absolutely.
[here & here]

The "Palestine" that Areikat wants to construct would include Jewish holy places and cities that the Jews have long traditionally considered holy, like Jerusalem, especially the Old City, and Hebron. The Jewish holy places that he would foreclose Jews from living close to include the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, the Tomb of Simon the Just in Jerusalem [outside & north of the Old City], the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron, Rachel's Tomb in Bethlehem and so on. Given the record of the Kingdom of Jordan before the Six Day War in preventing Jews from visiting the Jewish holy places, access to which had been stipulated in the 1949 armistice accords,  the projected "State of Palestine" would likewise prevent Jews from visiting Jewish holy places.

We see that public opinion among Arabs in the Palestinin Authority is not liberal and not eager to live in equality with Jews. And therefore, Gavin Esler was broadcasting fake news. Nothing new for the BBC.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Monday, January 09, 2017

European Union Tortures Greek Fellow Europeans - What Can Israel Expect from the EU?

In January 2012 the EuroZone, the countries sharing the single currency, the euro, demanded extreme austerity from Greece. One of the provisions of the set of demands on Greece was to reduce medical benefits for the Greek population [veda qui].

We can now see the effect of these draconian demands. The French daily Le Figaro reported one and a half years ago, July 2015, on the gloomy picture. That is when Greece accepted a further set of harsh austerity demands by the EuroGroup which runs the EuroZone. I have no doubt that the situation now is worse than in 2015. Le Figaro writes:
Elevators out of service, tired greenish linoleum, a corridor burdened with patients abandoned on rolling beds. Over-aged medical material and medications that are running out. Austerity. At the Evangelismos Hospital in Athens, "We know what it is." . . .   
We hear them speaking harshly to each other . . .  "Go in front of me? Do you take yourself for a German?" exclaims an irritated fifty-year old  waiting his turn at the window where medicines are given out. "We're all worn out," another patient makes an excuse. "We mustn't complain," sighs Denise, an epileptic, 40 years old who subsists with her daughter  thanks to a disability pension of 300 euros per month. "We still have free medications." . . . . "I try to survive as best I can," chief cardiologist Dr Ilias Zarkos confides.  "At the  age of fifty-five I earn 1320 euros per month, as against 1600 euros four years ago. . . . In the past five years, we have all had our salaries reduced, and 20% of the staff went on retirement without being replaced. . . . Who would want to work under these conditions? Greece is now naked." "Every year the subsidies and equipment provided to the hospital are reduced by 15%," Dr Sioras continues. [Le Figaro, 15 Juillet 2015]
That is the state of Greek hospitals as of July 2015. That is the result of years of EU austerity treatment for the original debt crisis, whereas Greek debt as of July 2015 and as of now too, is worse, is higher than in 2010 when the debt crisis first came to light. Sometimes the remedy is worse than the disease.

If the Greeks were perhaps an exotic tribe in Africa or on the island of Borneo or some decidedly Third World country, would the EU be so callous to their suffering? Would the hospitals have to make do with short supplies and out of date equipment and supplies and reduced staff? Wouldn't Europe's supposed charitable and humanitarian instincts take over and wouldn't the cries for help be answered? Where is the solidarity for fellow Europeans, whereas solidarity is supposed to be a fundamental principle of the EU? Indeed, solidarity may be located in the same place as another EU principle, transparency, another EU value which is honored as much in the breach as the observance.

Besides, when the Palestinian Authority, a new form of the old PLO, is short of funds, somehow the EU finds the money. But the same generosity does not show up for the Greeks, for their fellow Europeans who are suffering. Nor does the supposed EU principle of transparency come into effect when it comes to funding a whole array of anti-Israel NGOs .....

The EuroGroup policy toward their fellow European Greeks is harsh and callous, and unproductive. What is their attitude toward Israel? Do they any longer recognize the Jewish right to live throughout the Land of Israel (Palestine in their parlance) west of the Jordan,  as the international community had decided in 1922 in the Mandate for Palestine issued to the UK for the purpose of erecting the Jewish National Home?  Today old commitments are forgotten. In fact, prominent EU member states voted at the UN Security Council for a resolution calling it a crime for Israelis to live east of the Green Line, the 1949 armistice line, even in Jerusalem, a city that has had a Jewish majority since 1853, if not before, whereas all Jews were ethnically cleansed from parts of Jerusalem --including the Old City's Jewish Quarter-- that were under Arab control after the 1947-1949 Israeli War of Independence. So the EU states represented in the UN SC favored apartheid against Jews by proclaiming that Jewish residence east of the Green Line, in Jerusalem too, was illegal according to international law, no less. That is what UN SC resolution 2334 has to say. Those EU states want to return Jews to their traditional status in Europe in the Middle Ages where often Jews were forced to live in ghettoes. Indeed, this demonstrates the cyclical nature of history. Out of the ghetto, now back to the ghetto.

Israel can hope for nothing decent at the upcoming French-sponsored "peace conference" in Paris. Bear in mind that the words, working-for-peace, can really mean working for war. There are strong grounds for assuming that the Paris war conference due to start on January 15 is meant to produce a resolution that will be taken to the UN Security Council before Donald Trump is inaugurated as US president on 20 January 2017 in order to prevent him from interfering in the gang up on Israel which Trump has already defined as "unfair". The Paris-to-New York time schedule is tight but possible. As the example of Euro treatment of Greece demonstrates, the EU and its member states can be not only stingy but harsh and cruel. Can Israel expect better from the EU after nearly 2000 years of discrimination and oppression of Jews and often of persecution?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

For more on the Eurozone's treatment of Greece, as well as the contrast between favoritism for the PLO/PA contrasted with stinginess with Greece, see here & here .

A quote from Il Sole-24 Ore (30 January 2012) on proposed reductions of medical coverage for Greeks:
Sul fronte previdenziale, la Troika fa notare che il 50% dei medicinali rimborsati dal sistema sanitario pubblico è generico, con prezzi bassi (e che vi è quindi spazio per ridurre l'esborso di denaro pubblico). [Il Sole-24 Ore, 30 Gennaio 2012  qui

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, January 02, 2017

The Sacred Anti-Israel Narrative & Ukraine's Vote at the Security Council

Why did Obama and his gang want so much for Ukraine to vote for the noxious UN Security Council resolution 2334? The resolution would have passed anyway. The one vote of Ukraine would not have made a difference if the Security Council vote on the resolution would have been 13 for, 0 against, and 2 abstentions, instead of one (the United States itself). What would have been the damage if the Ukrainian government had been left alone to make its own decision on the matter? Even if Ukraine had cast its lone vote against the resolution? Yet Vice President Joe Biden was assigned and deputed to call the Ukrainian president, Pan Poroshenko, and demand that he order the Ukrainian ambassador to the UN to vote for the resolution.

 Now at this point the reader will have noted that I do not try to prove that Biden called Poroshenko to tell him to change the Ukrainian vote from the expected "abstain" to "for." Several reports in English substantiate that Biden made such a call. The best substantiated report that I know of is that of Vladislav Davidzon on the Tablet website. One of the interesting things that Davidzon says is:
A wealth of evidence is now emerging that, far from simply abstaining from a UN vote, which is how the Administration and its press circle at first sought to characterize its actions, the anti-Israel resolution was actively vetted at the highest levels of the U.S. Administration, which then led a pressure campaign --both directly and  through Great Britain  —to convince other countries to vote in favor of it.
 So we see that the US government under the so-called "liberal" US president Obama believes in housing/residential segregation for Jews, that is, for restricting where Jews are allowed to live as both Christian and Muslim rulers did during the Middle Ages and afterwards. These restricted Jewish residential areas could be called a ghetto, as in Europe, or a mellah, as in North Africa, or hareth el-Yahud in some other places under Islamic rule, and perhaps by other names. And residential segregation of Blacks in the United States was sometimes called the jimcrow system and in South Africa apartheid. But the question remains, Why did Obama and his gang or the State Department or whoever makes such decisions in Washington want the Ukraine too to vote in favor. Davidzon reports something interesting:
According to one U.S. national security source, the Obama Administration needed a 14-0 vote to justify what the source called “the optics” of its own abstention.
The optics, that is, the visual impression made by its own vote and the other votes. This is an interesting observation by a U.S. national security source. So let's develop our own theory. The Obama gang and the US State Dept and national security establishment were concerned about visual impressions, about appearances. I would say that they wanted to promote a narrative, as they often or usually do when it comes to Israel. They wanted this narrative to influence and be adopted by Americans, especially Americans sympathetic to Israel, and in Israel too especially among the so-called or self-styled "peace camp." They wanted Israel to appear isolated, totally isolated, isolated from all powers but the USA itself. They wanted people to see Israel as isolated and as isolating itself by --among other things-- allowing Jews to build homes across the 1949 armistice line, the so-called Green Line.

At the same time, the narrative says: We, the USA or the Obama Administration, are your friends, your real friends and your only friends. You can only depend on us. So you have to do whatever we say. Therefore, the vote in the Security Council had to be unanimous except for the United States itself. Therefore, it was essential for "the optics" that Ukraine too vote in favor of the resolution. Of course, the United States and the UK had to cover their tracks in promoting and working out the resolution. It had to seem that it was the initiative of other states, although the New Zealand foreign minister had more or less let the cat out of the bag in mid-November in a little noticed interview with a daily in his own country.

It would be best for it to be seen as an Arab initiative that was supported by the Enlightened World, the world of morality and humane and decent  concern beyond Israel's boundaries. This latter line is a favorite of Israel's Peace Camp or Left or what may be called the Anti-National Camp. The Peace Campers used to often write in their newspapers and other publications, of which HaArets is the main one today, that the Enlightened World --ha`olam hana'or העולם הנאור-- which may exist somewhere over the rainbow, is terribly angry with us for disobeying international law in all sorts of ways, among them, for allowing Jews to live beyond the Green Line, where in fact thousands of Jews had been living before the 1947-1948 Israeli War of Independence in which all Jews were driven out of areas captured and held by the Egyptian army or by the Arab Legion of Transjordan, now Jordan. Those Arab-held areas were judenrein after that war, to use a Geman term referring to places and/or countries ethnically cleansed of Jews. Jews were fleeing Arab attacks in the areas later held by Jordan and Egypt as early as December 1947. But our Peace Camp demonstrates its loyalty to State Department and Foreign Office and Quai d'Orsay demands --and later those of the EU-- by scolding Israelis and their government that they must not defy the wishes of the Enlightened World. And the West is Enlightened.

At the same time, the poor "palestinians", the Arabs who never considered themselves a separate, distinct people or nationality before the mid-1960s when the PLO was founded, are perpetually oppressed and persecuted by Israelis or by Israel, the collective Jew, whereas Jews have long been hated in the European Christian and Muslim Arab traditions. Nowadays, Israel the collective Jew takes the place of "the evil Jews" of days gone by.

For the purposes of the narrative, the UN SC vote had to be seen as initiated by others (such as New Zealand, Malaysia, Senegal and Venezuela) and that the Obama administration only came along for the ride and that the US was forced to abstain rather than veto because even the US cannot stand against the conscience of the world and the enlightened consensus. And they were looking for the reaction that they did in fact get from Israel's domestic pro-fascist Peace Camp. But they were saying to all Israelis and to Jews abroad as well: We are your last and only friends. But we might abandon you too if you don't do what we say.

So it must have been annoying to the State Department-CIA crowd that Prime Minister Netanyahu exposed their game. Which weakens the impact of the 14-0 vote. Which spoils the narrative. That's a reason to hate Netanyahu.
The gambit reminds me of the original explanation for the Benghazi incident 11 September 2012, that it started as a spontaneous demonstration [on 9-11 to be sure] against a mysterious video which may or may not have denigrated the Muslim prophet Muhammad. Recall too that at first the official or semi-official reference to the video was that  it was made by so-and-so, an Israeli (I forget the name offered at the time). When the Israeli ambassador to Washington Michael Oren said at the time through his embassy  that there was no Israeli by that name, he took the wind out of those official sails. Then the video was officially or semi-officially blamed on a person of similar name identified by the media as an Egyptian Copt, that is, a Christian. If he had been identified as an Israeli and that claim had been allowed to stand, then officialdom and their subservient media would have blamed Israel for the killing of the ambassador and the other Americans at Benghazi, at least by insinuation. Those Islamists in Libya were understandably reacting to the Jewish-made video, the White House and national security council would have spread around, if only by insinuation. It was all Netanyahu's fault. Or all Israel's fault or all the Jews' fault. By insinuation.
I am not so sure about the story of the Egyptian Copt, either. It was very much like planting a story of a blood libel. But part of the warfare to bring down Israel is the Narrative, that is, psychological warfare -- which can be very potent in the hands of experts.

- - - - - - - - -
See Vladislav Davidzon [here]
Jonathan Hoffman provides more insight into the New Zealand foreign minister, Martin McCully [here]
Stephen Pollard, editor of the Jewish Chronicle of London, supplies background to the British role in the resolution. He writes that British support for it, including helping to draft it to make it more generally acceptable, was the work of permanent Foreign & Commonwealth Office officials, not of Theresa May's government [here], which --I add-- later on criticized John Kerry's speech of late December that was very hostile to Israel, as well as refusing to sign the final communique of the French "peace" conference in Paris on 15 January 2017 and opposing adoption of the communique by the EU Council.

Labels: , , , ,

Monday, December 26, 2016

New Zealand's Mercenary Motives for Its UN Vote against Israel

See UPDATING at bottom of page

In the 20th and 21st centuries, Peace is the refuge of scoundrels. It is the excuse for all sorts of aggressive diplomatic moves and sometimes it is even the excuse for military attacks. In September 1939, after Nazi Germany and the Communist Soviet Union, under Hitler and Stalin respectively had invaded Poland and while the ruins were still burning, both of these aggressor powers issued a joint statement that they were engaged in a "struggle for peace." Likewise, after the racist anti-Jewish vote at the Security Council, the White House spokesman, Ben Rhodes claimed that US abstention --effective support for the racist anti-Israel resolution, which he acknowledged-- was meant to help bring peace. Nothing new under the sun.

No doubt New Zealand would make that same claim, perhaps adding a devotion to justice. But maybe there were other motives for New Zealand's bigoted vote at the UN SC. Indeed, a New Zealand foreign policy expert explained the business advantages that New Zealand would receive on account of this mendacious pro-Arab vote. An item on the site of Radio New Zealand on 25 December 2016 tells us: 
New Zealand's role in promoting a UN Security Council resolution against Israel may have some economic payoff, a foreign policy analyst says.
The expert, one Steve Hoadley, reassures his countrymen that New Zealand will not suffer from any Israeli retaliation on account of the vote:
"New Zealand also trades with the Arab states, is about to sign a free trade agreement with the Gulf Co-operation Council. There's huge profits being made to export lamb and other dairy products, other food products to the Arab states. If there was to be a big trade payoff, the calculations would be in favour of going with the Arab and the Muslim countries."  [emphasis added]
So there is big money to be made by New Zealand in trade with Arab and Muslim countries.
OK. Make your money but don't tell us you are acting in the name of peace and justice. Nevertheless, a commentator, also on Radio New Zealand, praises his country as a "peacemaker":
A few years ago, after the successful Bougainville peace talks, New Zealand imagined a role for itself as an international peace broker. It was a nice idea that turned out to be harder than it sounded, but it marked an increased New Zealand confidence to act independently, for good purpose.This week's action is a further brave step from New Zealand. It has no obvious ulterior motives, but instead seems an attempt to simply do the right thing. [emph. added; Phil Smith, Radio New Zealand, 24 December 2016]
It seems that our two commentators contradict each other. Was the vote made for mercenary benefit or for the sake of  ''peace" and the "right thing"? Maybe they would claim for both reasons and say that there is no contradiction. But New Zealand has been selling sheep, both already butchered and live --for certain Muslim festivals that require a sheep be slaughtered on the spot-- to the Arabs for many many years, and after all a country needs a market. Even a country that is the epitome of a European colony founded far away from Europe in a land which Europeans had never seen let alone lived in until a few hundred years ago (unlike Israel, a land where Jewish roots go back thousands of years) and is now settled in its overwhelming majority by European settlers.

They say that New Zealand is very English, maybe more English than England itself is today. One thing that the New Zealanders brought with them from Europe is hypocrisy. A good European should never be without some egregious and saccharine sweet sanctimonious hypocrisy.
- - - - - - - - - - -

UPDATING
12-28-2016 New Zealand Herald (13 November 2016) reported that Kerry was in the New Zealand capital in mid-November talking with the prime minister and foreign minister. New Zealand is a strong partisan of the Arabs. For those concerned about such things New Zealand is a European, British colony. As I wrote above, it is "a country that is the epitome of a European colony founded far away from Europe in a land which Europeans had never seen let alone lived in until a few hundred years ago (unlike Israel, a land where Jewish roots go back thousands of years) and is now settled in its overwhelming majority by European settlers." The New Zealanders, who belong to a colony, have no shame criticizing Israel for building settlements. Here is what is important in the article from 13 November 2016:
One of the closed-door discussions between United States Secretary of State John Kerry and the New Zealand Government today was a potential resolution by the United Nations Security Council on a two-state solution for the Israel - Palestinian conflict. After the talks, Foreign Minister Murray McCully even raised the possibility of the US or New Zealand sponsoring a resolution.
So Kerry and the NZ foreign minister discussed sponsoring a pro-Arab resolution. This contradicts US government spokesman Mark Toner who shamefully lied when denying any US collusion in the resolution produced in the Security Council the other day.

Labels: , , , ,

Sunday, December 25, 2016

Obama Supports anti-Jewish Racism & anti-Jewish Apartheid at the UN Security Council

Before getting to the outrageous anti-Israel resolution at the UN let us just bear in mind that the UN does not operate to bring peace to the world or even to conflicts limited in scope unless major powers see peace as an interest. And that includes peace in small, individual, limited conflicts. This is so whatever the intentions of the UN's founders may have been.

The US State Department was hostile to the very idea of a Jewish state even before Israel's independence. But since the Six Day War this traditional State Dept policy has been complemented by a narrative that portrays Arabs as perpetually oppressed and persecuted by Israeli Jews. In fact, history says the opposite. Since the rise of Islam, Jews and Christians in Islam-ruled countries have been subject to an inferior status which eventually was named the dhimma and Jews and Christians in the Islamic domain have been named dhimmis who suffered all sorts of legal disabilities and inferiorities. Later a version of dhimmi status was extended to populations in south and east Asia who were neither Jews nor Christians.

Of course, in Christian lands too Jews suffered all sorts of legal disabilities and inferiorities. What we face now is a further legal-like denial of Jewish human rights. Our rights are denied on so-called "legal" grounds. At one time, the so-called "Left" defended people and their rights against cold, inhuman Law that ignored the realities of concrete situations and defended people against oppression by the unfeeling Law. Yet today no one would expect any self-proclaimed "leftist" to defend Jews against the depredations of the Law, often seen by "leftists" in the past as a mere instrument of capitalist, imperialist oppression. Today of course Jewish human and civil rights are denied in the name of Law, in this case International Law. The interpretations made of Law are false of course. And Geneva IV:49:6 does not forbid Jews from moving into the Judea-Samaria area, the so-called West Bank, territory recognized by the international community as the Jewish National Home by the San Remo Conference, 1920, and by the League of Nations, 1922. This status was confirmed in the UN Charter Article 80, when the charter was adopted in 1945.

So Law is being used as a bludgeon against the Jews and their rights. And it is a false interpretation of law at that. But the hatred of Jews endemic in the State Department and in the Obama White House is palpable and cannot be quenched by a reasonable study of the relevant international law or its honest interpretation.

Obama has shown himself to be the enemy that we knew he was back in 2008 when he ran in the presidential primaries. He colluded with the four Security Council member states that promoted the evil resolution. He wanted it, and according to an account on Israel TV by Oded Granot, US and Palestinian Arab representatives were discussing this step as far back as March of this year.

Jews in the Diaspora need to worry about this resolution too because if the rights of Jews to reside in the ancestral homeland of the Jews can be denied --a right guaranteed by international law in the Jewish National Home principle as well as in the League of Nations Mandate-- then their rights of residency and other rights can be denied in the countries where they live, including in the United States.


- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Relevant Articles on the Stab in the Back at the UN
Melanie Philips [here]

Phyllis Chesler  [here]

Benny Avni, New York  Post [here]

Wall Street Journal [here]

Washington Post    [here]

Comment by Gov. Mike Huckabee
Obama gives Israel middle finger; gives Iran wet kiss; he's hates Israel for building bedrooms more than Iran for building bombs. [here]

Monday, December 12, 2016

Italian Jewish Response to the UNESCO Big Lie & Western Collaboration In It

Fiona Diwan, editor of the Bulletin of the Jewish Community of Milan, had some sharp words for UNESCO over its sinister vote "revising" the known history of Jerusalem and the Jewish role in that history. She also had sharp words for her own government and other EU and Western governments that collaborated in that vote by voting in favor or by merely abstaining. By abstaining they refused to take an honest stand on the integrity of known history. The West stays on the route towards barbarism.

Fiona Diwan in Mosaico, il Bollettino of the Milan Jewish Community, November 2016, no. 11:
Every month, here on earth, we cannot even count the pieces of archeological evidence and the discoveries of Jewish, Biblical, Hasmonean, and Herodian antiquities. However, France and Italy pretended not to know that. and were ready to exhibit the most scandalous silence when they abstained from the vote on the motion at UNESCO labeled "occupied Palestine," in which last month any tie between the Temple Mount and Judaism and Christianity was definitively denied. Among so many things that it did, the motion cancelled the Hebrew names of all the places on the Temple Mount in order to keep only the Arabic names. By now, everything has been written about this ignominious text. It is a text that falsifies history, denies the ancestral tie between Jerusalem and the Jewish people, once again giving in to the pressures and the intellectual terrorism of the Arab states and the Palestinian Authority. I want to point out that England, Holland, the United States, Germany, Lithuania, and Estonia voted against the motion.
We hoped that Italy and a France would have been more courageous by rejecting this buffoonish text. We would never have thought that at the session of the definitive vote, they would have chosen to abstain, thereby endorsing UNESCO's perverse calling in the delegitimization of Israel. Because, obviously, this is what was at stake. A delegitimization that runs in parallel with the demonization of Israel and the new European antisemitism with an Arab-Muslim matrix and its demographic explosion on the continent of Europe.

Ogni mese, quaggiù, non si contano le evidenze archeologiche e le scoperte di antichità giudaiche, bibliche, asmonee, erodiane. Eppure Francia e Italia hanno fatto finto di non saperlo, pronte a esibire il più scandoloso silenzio quando si sono astenute al voto della mozione Unesco denominate "Palestina occupata," con cui si è negato il mese scarso, in via definitive, qualsiasi legame tra il Monte del Tempio, l'ebraismo e il cristianesimo.  Tra le tante cose, la mozione cancellava i nomi ebraici da tutti i luoghi del Monte del Tempio per mantenere solo quelli in arabo. Su questo testo ignominioso si è ormai scritto di tutto, un testo che falsifica la storia, nega il legame ancestrale tra Gerusalemme e il popolo ebraico, cedendo, una volta di più, alle pressioni e al terrorismo intellettuale degli stati arabi e dell’Autorità palestinese. Voglio qui ricordare che Inghilterra, Olanda, Stati Uniti, Germania, Lituania e Estonia avevano votato contro. Speravamo in una Italia e Francia più coraggiose nel rigettare questo testo buffone. Mai avremmo pensato che, in sede di voto definitivo, avrebbero scelto l’astensione avallando così la vocazione perversa dell’Unesco alla delegittimazione di Israele. Perché, ovviamente, di questo si tratta.
 Una delegittimazione che corre in parallelo con la demonizzazione di Israele e col nuovo antisemitismo europeo di matrice arabo-musulmana e la sua esplosione demografica in terra d’Europa. [testo qui]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Italian daily newspaper, Il Foglio, sponsored a demonstration against the UNESCO in Rome, in front of the UNESCO offices, I believe. It was rather well-attended for an event of this kind.
See the video at the link [qui]

Labels: , , , , ,

Wednesday, November 23, 2016

Colosseum Built with Money from Loot from Rome's Jewish War

See additional info at bottom of page

UNESCO disgraces its assigned mission to protect the world's cultural heritage and enhance it and defend it. It did so by adopting a resolution proposed by Arab states, working with the PLO/Palestinian Authority/, that denied the Jewish historical connection to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem and its sacredness in the Jewish religion.

However, Italian archeological authorities are more honest. They frankly state that the Colosseum in Rome was built with loot from the Jewish War finally concluded while the Colosseum was already under construction. This determination was made in the last 15 years on the grounds of the recent discovery, or shall we say reexamination of previously discovered monumental stones that had not yet been thoroughly and sufficiently examined in the past, a common problem in archeology. Furthermore, it is likely that much or most of the loot taken from Judea [IVDAEA CAPTA to the Roman Empire of the time] was taken from the very Jewish Temple on the Temple Mount. We say this since we know that monetary contributions to the Temple from Jews throughout the Diaspora for ritual purposes were stored in the Temple. Further, the Arch of Titus, only about 150 or 200 meters north or northwest of the Colosseum, shows loot from the Temple, such as the golden menorah, being carried in a Roman victory parade, a triumph, through the streets of ancient Rome.

A standing sign inside the Colosseum states in two languages, Italian and English:

the colosseum, history

In AD 72 the emperor Vespasian used the spoils of his Jewish campaign to build Rome's first permanent amphitheater to host hunting spectacles and gladiatorial combats . . . .

il Colosseo, la sua storia

Nel 72 d C,  l'imperatore Vespasiano intraprese con il bottino della guerra giudaica, la costruizione del primo amfiteatro stabile di Roma . . .

It is a shame that the honesty of the Italian archeological authorities and their promptness in bringing the newly discovered information to the public's knowledge was not matched at the UNESCO vote by the Italian foreign ministry, which abstained on a matter of well known historical fact. Prime Minister Matteo Renzi, to be sure, expressed his regret over the vote. Could someone please notify UNESCO, and its Arab members especially, about the extensive literature in ancient Latin, Greek, and Hebrew writings, as well as in other languages, about the Jewish War, not to mention the archeological discoveries, the continuously known Arch of Titus, the coins and other concrete reminders of that war and the battle against the Jews in Jerusalem?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Other Related Info
The war, called by the Romans the Jewish War, started in 66 CE and ended in 73 CE (or in 74 CE, according to some scholars) with the fall of the fortress of Masada to Roman forces. Incidentally, Arab auxiliary troops fought for Rome in the war, including at Jerusalem. All considered, the bulk of the fighting was over in the summer of the year 70 CE when the Romans captured the Temple of Jerusalem and looted it, as said above. Thus they would have been able to start building the Colosseum before the actual end of the war.
--on the Menorah's importance for Jews here  and here.
--the Menorah goes from Jerusalem to the Roman "Peace" Temple   here.
-- better pix of the bas reliefs on the Arch of Titus plus inscriptions on it here. Click on the photos to enlarge.
-- Depiction of the Temple utensils in an ancient Jewish mosaic from the Byzantine period here. By the way, these photos of ancient Jewish mosaics are found in a book published by UNESCO. But that was long ago.
-- commentary on outrageous UNESCO vote here.
-- The Romans minted coins to commemorate their victory over the Jews with at least two types of insciptions on them. One was Judea Captured/Conquered [IVDAEA CAPTA]. Another was Judea Defeated [IVDAEA DEVICTA]. A third inscription used was Judea Recaptured [IVDAEA RECEPTA] on a gold coin (aureus). Few of these were minted although they may have been minted first. It seems that they were then replaced by IVDAEA CAPTA and others. I will report on the Judea Recaptured coin soon. One of this type is on display at the Israel Museum in Jerusalem.
See pix of Jewish coins of the Revolt as well as other ancient Jewish coins here.

ADDED 5 December 2016
The scholar who determined that loot from the Jewish war, especially from the Temple in Jerusalem, financed the building of the Colosseum in Rome was Professor Geza Alfoldy, a Hungarian. See links here & here.



Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Friday, November 11, 2016

Judea & Samaria Belong to Israel by International Law -- Declare this to the world

It has been reported that Obama and his administration --in their boundless rancor against Jews-- plan to join France's initiative for a "peace conference" to "settle" the Israel-"palestinian" conflict. The plan would be take the resolution resulting from the conference to the UN Security Council and there "sanctify" it as it were with a UN SC resolution which would replace and cancel UN SC 242 of 1967 which has been considered the international legal framework for settling the Arab-Israeli conflict since that year.

The content of the resolution is expected to "undermine the legitimacy of Israeli activity in Judea and Samaria. The estimate is that the Palestinians will raise it [the resolution] towards the end of the secular year, in the three weeks before President Barak Obama ends his tenure." [Maqor Rishon, 11-11-2016] Other reports consider a possible effort to define the before between Israel and the projected Arab state of palestine along the 1949 armistice lines --which were never borders-- and a demand for immediate or very quick Israel withdrawal to such lines. This is obviously unacceptable to Israel and would encourage Arab warfare and terrorism against Israel. The Arab state-in-waiting called the "Palestinian Authority" has already made it clear that it wants to drive Jews out of the whole country, on both sides of the Green Line, the armistice line from 1949. The PA has made clear its hatred for peace with Jews, which is also illustrated by its refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

In these circumstances, the best strategy for Israel is to declare that international law has already, long ago, recognized Jewish sovereignty over the whole land of Israel, including a belt of land east of the Jordan river. The ancient kingdom of Judea, recognized by Rome, included that belt of land as well as Samaria, the Galilee, the Golan Heights and the Bashan.

There is a sufficient body of legal argumentation supporting Israel's sovereignty and ownership of the land in question, and Judea-Samaria in particular. See notably the work of Howard Grief and Eugene Kontorovich and Avi Bell in English, and David Ruzie' in French. See a broad selection of articles and videos in English and French and Hebrew here.

Prime Minister Netanyahu can announce this through his facebook page as can other ministers. Likewise, the foreign ministry should make such a declaration. Now is the time.

Labels: , , , ,

Monday, October 31, 2016

Outrageous UNESCO Vote against History -- Craven European Response

The European and Arab countries that denied Jewish history in Israel demonstrated hostility to history in the notorious UNESCO vote that presented Jerusalem as an Arab-Muslim city.  In this case, we are dealing with facts continuously known in both the Arab-Muslim and Western historical traditions. Those who deny the Jewish identity of the city of Jerusalem are inventing a fake history apparently required for political/diplomatic purposes. But a lie. Now Western countries like France, Italy, Belgium, Portugal and Spain have long traditions of historical scholarship, which includes knowledge about the Land of Israel with which these countries have been in contact since the time when all of these countries plus the Land of Israel itself were part of the Roman Empire.

Since the study of the Latin language has long been part of higher education in those lands and they take pride in their scholars --who exemplify and demonstrate their higher civilization-- there is no excuse for the governments and foreign ministries of these lands not to know the real history as related in Latin [and Greek] ancient books. Even an abstention from voting against the lying resolution proposed in UNESCO bodies by Arab states on Jerusalem is shameful. Yes, it is shameful to let a historical lie go unopposed. To be sure, Prime Minister Matteo Renzi of Italy regretted his foreign ministry's vote which he may have been unaware of.

I do not mean that only ancient Latin or Greek writings are authoritative on the history of ancient Israel. Far from it. Jewish works in Hebrew and  Aramaic are important too (as well as writings by Jews in Latin and Greek). But let us approach it this way. The bigot, the Judeophobic ignoramus, including the academic variety, will say that he cannot accept Jewish accounts of Jewish history because Jewish historians are "biased". Parenthetically, the rejection of Jewish historians represents bias too. In this case, challenge this bigot or ignoramus --whichever label you like-- to accept accounts by non-Jews in Latin, Greek and other languages. The Roman historian Tacitus supplied an account of the Roman-Jewish war from 66 CE to 73 CE in his Histories. The Romans took Jerusalem in the summer of the year 70 CE and destroyed the Jewish Temple at the same time. The Roman general Titus Caesar won the war, however, not only with Roman legions but with auxiliary forces including a "strong contingent of Arabs" [various translations vary. See Tacitus' Histories V:1:2 ]. I quoted the Latin original and various translations years ago on this blog. Now I will quote what he wrote farther on in his book which is highly explicit in refuting the UNESCO lies:

V:8:1 --  The greater part of Judea [note that Tacitus calls the country Judea] is divided up into villages. They also have cities. The capital of that people is Jerusalem.

So Tacitus and Romans generally recognized Jerusalem as the Jewish capital. Rivka Fishman wrote a scholarly article about this recognition in Greek and Latin literature for the Jewish Political Studies Review. The key phrase that is important here is, "The capital of that people is Jerusalem." See the Latin original just below.

Now here is the Latin original of  the quote from Tacitus above:
V:8:1 -- Magna pars Iudaeae uicis dispergitur; habent et oppida; Hierosolyma genti caput.
[for full original of V:8:I see here]

The key word in that key phrase is "genti" which can be "of the people" or "of the nation." It is a declined form of the word gens meaning people or nation. Since Tacitus calls the country Judea and since the whole text, the whole context, furthermore, is about the Jewish revolt in Judea, we see that the "people" or gens (genti) in the phrase means the Jewish people or nation.

Full disclosure: While I write these lines I am translating from an Italian translation since I do not have an English translation available. The study of Latin is still important in Italy and the Italian translations from ancient Latin texts are fully as reliable as the English and American  translations of those works. Here is my source for the Latin and Italian texts: Tacito, Le Storie a cura di Francesco Nenci. Here is his Italian translation:

V:8:1 -- Gran parte della Giudea e' suddivisa in villaggi; hanno anche citta'; la capitale di quel popolo e' Gerusalemme. [for full original of V:8:I see here]

One of the reasons that this line from Tacitus is not more widely known in the English-speaking world may be that some translators into English of Tacitus' Histories have chosen not to translate the Latin word genti into English, for whatever reason.

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

UPDATINGS/ADDITIONS AS OF 31 October 2016

Here is one of many good commentaries on the UNESCO disgrace -- [here]
Here is  a commentary by Herbert London -- here.
Rivka Fishman on the relevant line:
"Tacitus, Historiae V, 8:1, in Menahem Stern, Greek  and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Vol. II, No. 281,1980), 21,28. The Latin reads: “Hierosolyma genti caput.” The term “gens” refers to the people of Judea, the Jews, mentioned in the first part of the sentence." [here]
Tablet online mag [here] on Arab accusation that Israel is trying to destroy the al-Aqsa  Mosque, built on the Temple Mount and effectively usurping it.
The Boston Globe ran a good editorial on the issue of the shameful UNESCO vote [here]

Labels: , , ,