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

Emet m'Tsiyon

Monday, August 28, 2006

Flaubert's Observations of Jerusalem and the Jews Living There [1850]

The famous French novelist Gustave Flaubert came to Jerusalem in 1850 as part of a tour of the Levant with his friend, Maxime du Camp. This was several years before publication of his masterpiece, Madame Bovary. His depiction of the Holy City was rather like that of Mark Twain [published in 1869] who visited Israel in the late 1860s, after the American Civil War. Flaubert's view is deliberately anti-romantic, unlike that of the very romantic Chateaubriand who came to Jerusalem in 1806. Yet, the details in both accounts are similar.


9 August 1850
Jerusalem has the effect of a fortified pile of corpses. There, old religions rot in silence. One walks over s--- and sees only ruins. It is enormously sad. . .
The Holy City was fully under Muslim/Ottoman control in 1850. This was before Western influence grew in Jerusalem after the Crimean War [1856], when France and Britain defended the Ottoman Empire against Russia, thus earning the right to demand favors in Jerusalem from the Sultan. Jews had been the largest single ethnic-religious group in the Holy City since 1839, and a French diplomat reported in 1853, a few years after Flaubert's visit, that the Jews formed an absolute majority of the city's population. To be sure, a few consuls were in place in 1850, one of them the Frenchman, Paul-Emile Botta. Indeed, the first consul, a Britisher, had set himself up in 1839. Missionaries too were operating in Jerusalem in 1850, but relatively new in town. By Islamic law, they were allowed only to proselytize among Christians and Jews, not among Muslims. Some Christians went over from the Greek Orthodox Church to various Protestant sects. The number of Jews converted was very few, especially considering the vast funds spent on converting them.
11 August 1850
. . . But how all that is false! How they lie [seemingly referring to the guides for Western tourists and pilgrims]! How crudely painted it is, how cheap looking, how varnished, made for exploitation, for propaganda and for displaying merchandise! Jerusalem is a charnel house surrounded by walls. The first curious thing that we encountered was the butcher shop. In a sort of square place, covered with mounds of garbage, a large hole. In the hole, scorched blood, entrails, s---, blackish and brown guts almost burnt by the sun, all around. There was a very strong stench. . .
Everything was silent [partly because of the Muslim Bairam holiday], we heard no noise, no one was passing by. Here and there, along the wall and making way for us, a Polish Jew, tall, bearded, with his wide fox fur hat. The bazaars are closed. It is Bairam, which, for each change of the Muslim day and night, causes a strong quantity of cannon shots to be fired. The shop fronts seem chewed by the dust and some are falling into ruin. . .

. . . the Mosque of Omar [`Umar] built on the location of the Temple.
The next morning, we rose at six o'clock in order to go see the Jews weep before the remains of its walls. They are, at the base, [built] of huge stones which are reminiscent of Egypt due to the power of the work, squared off and ornamented with an inner quadrilateral [actually with rectangles] similar to the one that carpenters make on the flat surface of doors [These huge stones are basically rectangular cubes].
An old Jew in a corner, his head covered with his white garment, barefoot, and chanting something in a book, his back turned towards the wall, while rising up and down on his heels. The same construction, the same wall is found on the other side of the Temple, on the east side. As we were going away from there, we met other Jews who were probably coming there. . .
[while smoking]
in a cafe'. . . we noticed a large square pool (the pool of Ezekiel [correctly: Hezekiah's Pool in the Christian Quarter]), full of greenish water, surrounded by high walls pierced here and there, in a few places, by small irregular windows. These were the back walls of the surroundings houses.
. . . Dinner with Botta [French consul]. . . in the city of ruins. . .
. . . visit to the Holy Sepulcher. The exterior with its romanesque parts, excited us. . . The keys are with the Turks, otherwise the Christians of all the sects would tear each other apart.
[quoted in: Claude Aziza, Jerusalem: le reve a` l'ombre du Temple ("Collection Omnibus"; Paris: Presses de la Cite, 1994), pp 1280-1283]


Note that Flaubert, writing in 1850, sees the Temple Mount as important because it was the location of the ruined Jewish Temple, whereas the "Mosque of Omar" [Dome of the Rock] is important because it is on the site of the Temple. The Holy City under Muslim/Ottoman rule was filthy, unhygienic, and stench-ridden. Old buildings were in ruins. The massive stones of the Temple make a strong impression on Flaubert, while he is disappointed with the commercial atmosphere surrounding the Church of the Holy Sepulcher and is not much impressed with the Muslim structures. Muslims held the keys of this Church [in fact, not Turks but an Arab-Muslim family that was paid for its services]. Flaubert and his fellow tourists/pilgrims are interested in the sight of Jews praying and weeping at the Western Wall prayer place. That section of the Wall --actually a retaining wall of the Temple Mount-- was customarily called in the West the Wailing Wall or a similar term in other Western languages [for example, Mur de Lamentations].

[Photos from Focus East, Early Photography in the Near East 1839-1885 (Jerusalem: Israel Museum 1988)]
- - - - - - - -
Coming: More on Jews in Jerusalem, Pierre Loti's account, British aid for the Arab war on Israel in 1948, etc.

Monday, August 21, 2006

The Follies of International Diplomacy & "Peace-Making"

UPDATING: 9-30-2006 The pro-Arab, anti-national Olmert regime in Israel, headed by the immensely corrupt ehud olmert, has agreed to the stationing of Malaysian troops [Malaysian prime minister mahathir muhammad is an IslamoNazi]. If olmert did not agree to this, then he has not objected vigorously. If the UN in the person of kofi annan or the UNIFIL command are the ones who decided to bring in Malaysian troops, then Israel should threaten to prevent their arrival by force, and if need be, to destroy those troops in the service of a Nazi government.

UPDATING: Must read [in French] on Lebanon and the Hizbullah,
here and here.


The UN is not capable of making peace, if we go by the UN's past record. That leaves aside the issue of whether the UN --as a grouping of states and a bureaucracy-- wants peace --for Israel in particular. Indeed, how could the UN be capable of peacemaking or even want peace? Consider: The UN is a grouping of states each one of which has its own interests, and furthermore, there are blocs of states within the UN, subsets of the UN, that have group interests [here we define an interest as what a person or group is interested in achieving, not what an outside observer might consider best for the person or group]. So we can see that there are likely to be conflicts of interest between many state members of the UN and between blocs of states. So we see that even theoretically the UN is unlikely to make peace or to be able to make peace [see previous post].Obviously, the major blocs of states in the UN are more likely to get their interests represented in UN General Assembly and Security Council resolutions, and in those of various subsidiary bodies like the "Human Rights Council." Further, the more powerful and influential states and blocs in the UN are more likely to be represented in the higher posts of the UN secretariat, such as the post of secretary-general. Now, Kofi Annan himself comes from Ghana, not an especially strong or important country. But he serves the interests of powerful, influential states and blocs.

The Arab bloc and the larger Islamic bloc are among the most powerful and influential in the UN. So Kofi Annan is servile towards them and hostile to those that they hate [i.e., Israel]. Meanwhile, the West does not view Israel as a part of itself, despite the fantasies of some Israeli politicians and intellectuals. The European Union today, as a whole, is hostile to Israel in many ways that follow in the groove of the past 2000 years of Western Judeophobia. Whereas 100 years ago, European Judeophobes stigmatized Jews as not being true or authentic Europeans --referring to their Middle Eastern [Oriental] origin-- the Jews in Israel today are stigmatized as not being true or authentic Middle Easterners. Fundamentally, the accusation is the same. The Jews are alien here and there and everywhere. The EU grandchildren of those who considered Jews alien to Europe, now consider Jews alien to the Middle East in general and the Land of Israel in particular.

Some of the conclusions ensuing from the above are that, in general, justice is not to be expected at the UN. Nor is any resolution favorable to Israel to be expected. Therefore, those Israeli ministers --first of all prime minister Olmert and foreign minister Livni-- who did not protest the way SC resolution 1701 was shaping up before it was voted on and later urged Israeli cabinet approval of 1701 are either liars or fools. Despite what the cretinous Livni claimed, the advantages she pointed to in urging acceptance of 1701 have evaporated. There is not going to be an international force that will disarm the Hizbullah. Nor will the UNIFIL be increased to 15,000 troops. Nor is it likely that any force, Lebanese or international, will work to prevent rearmament of the Hizbullah by controlling the Syrian-Lebanese border or the air and sea ports of Lebanon. Nor will the Hizbullah criminals be seized and tried. The Hizbullah will continue to dominate Lebanese politics, although it represents only a minority of the population. On the other hand, if Israel had continued fighting it would likely have weakened Hizbullah to the point where the elected Lebanese government would have used their army to suppress the remnants of Hizbullah. However, as long as Hizbullah maintains its strength, the Lebanese government is not going to fight it, fearing that the Hizbullah --as well as Shi`ite loyalties within the official army-- might overcome the government. The shameful debacle of the SC resolution 1701 once again demonstrates the destructive nature of the UN for peace in the world.

Whereas when 1701 was being formulated as well as after the Security Council vote on it, the press was full of claims that France --known to have a strong army-- would command it and commit many troops, now we hear that Italy will take the lead, sending the largest contingent of troops, though not as many as France was earlier reported as ready to send. But Italy is now ruled by a "center-left" coalition government. The foreign minister is a Communist [a democratic Communist, to be sure]. Here are some remarks by foreign minister D'Alema.

D'Alema: "The mission will aid the moderates. . . the situation is full of risks but Italy must answer Yes to the UN request." On the question of the Hizbullah, D'Alema observed that it "is not a small terrorist group but a complex movement that enjoys consensus and a vast parliamentary representation in Lebanon." D'Alema defends his photo taken with the deputy [ representing the] Hizbullah [in Lebanon's parliament]: "Taking into account costs and benefits, the cost of a photograph, that might have irritated and injured, with the benefit of an act of solidarity with the Lebanese people, I believe that I did well and acted in a positive way, even interpreting a positive sentiment widespread in our country. And anyhow, the voters will judge." [Il Foglio, 8-21-06]
D’Alema: “La missione aiuterà i moderati”. Secondo il ministro degli Esteri, “la situazione è colma di rischi ma l’Italia deve rispondere sì alla richiesta dell’Onu”. Sulla questione Hezbollah, D’Alema ha osservato che “non è un gruppetto terroristico ma un movimento complesso che gode di consenso e di una vasta rappresentanza parlamentare in Libano”. . . D’Alema difende la sua foto con il deputato di Hezbollah: “Mettendo in conto costi e benefici, il costo di una fotografia, che può aver irritato e ferito, con il beneficio di un atto di solidarietà al popolo libanese, io credo di aver fatto bene e di aver agito in modo positivo anche interpretando un sentimento positivo diffuso nel nostro paese. E comunque giudicheranno gli elettori”.
Il Foglio- 8-21-06
So D'Alema wants to help unidentified moderates by sending an Italian force to Lebanon. For him, the Hizbullah is not terrorist but "enjoys a consensus" in Lebanon, where it has the strongest armed force and intimidates other parties, and leading personalities. In fact, Walid Jumblatt, and even Sa`ad Hariri [whose father was murdered last year by Hizbullah's sponsor, Syria, as Syria had Jumblatt's father murdered in the 1970s] have shown courage in criticizing Hizbullah [without my necessarily agreeing with everything that they said].

Hizbullah is a minority party in the Lebanese parliament, but it decided on its own to carry out military/terrorist operations against Israel from Lebanese territory without approval of the majority. Yet, D'Alema identifies Lebanon with the Hizbullah. That is, for him, the Hizbullah is the "Lebanese people" [popolo libanese]. Of course, a Communist like D'Alema would not want to understand that Hizbullah acts without consulting Lebanon's government or parliament, so delighted was he to display solidarity with the terrorists by touring the al-Dahiya neighborhood of Beirut, location of the Hizbullah's closed compound with its headquarters and underground command bunker. That's where he was photographed with a Hizbullah parliamentary deputy, displeasing many Italians. But D'Alema could not resist the romantic charm of being in "solidarity" with real terrorists wearing the thin veil of a "resistance" movement. It didn't bother him that these "resistance" fighters stand for a fanatical movement formed in the seventh century, and still operating according to medieval principles, despite using modern weapons.

D'Alema's party is now the Democrats of the Left (DS), founded in 1998 out of the Democratic Party of the Left [Il Partito Democratico della Sinistra (PDS)], described as "post-communist" in character, founded in 1991, after the break up of the Italian Communist Party. The new party, the DS, was meant to "open up" to European [non-Communist] socialism and to "laborite and Christian Socialist forces."

Just what good could come out of an international force sitting on Israel's border and commanded or influenced by the likes of D'Alema seems infinitesimal, if at all. Meanwhile, the American press continues to propagate an attitude towards the UN of enthusiastic adoration.

Condi Rice, George W Bush's foreign affairs paladin, also bears responsibility for the farce of the "cease-fire" resolution at the Security Council, 1701, along with her State Dept which has been Judeophobic since the 1930s at least.
-- text of SC res. 1701 .
-- UN force won't disarm Hizbullah.
-- text of SC res. 1559, which mandated disarming Hizbullah in September 2004
-- Annan, not Israel, to decide on make up of UN force [article]
-- Abandoning Lebanon [Jerusalem Post]
-- The UN force won't disarm Hizbullah [UN official]
For more info on the UN farce [force?] in Lebanon see the Eye on the UN website.
- - - - - - - - - -
Coming: more on Jews in Jerusalem, Britain's nefarious role, etc.

Linked with Robinik.net.

Tuesday, August 15, 2006

The UN Is a Threat to Peace -- Get Rid of the UN for the Sake of Peace & Humanity

I guess we'll go right on having peace conferences
till the next war
Earl Wilson, American humorist & syndicated columnist
[E Wilson, Pike's Peek or Bust (New York: Doubleday 1946), p 75;

note publication date 1946, right after WW2]

The UN plays a bigger role in our lives than many of us realize. Although some believe that the UN is ineffective, it is rather all too effective. Not at making peace, of course. But at making war or creating the conditions for war. The sinister role played by UN secretary-general Kofi Annan in stopping Israel's war against the Hizbullah, an instrument of Nazi-like Iran and Syria, is a case in point. The UN Security Council, prodded by Annan, voted for a cease fire, which is what the Hizbullah and Iran and Syria wanted in order to stop Israel from wrecking the Hizbullah's military and terrorist capabilities. Annan is a black-face version of the peacemongering, white-faced pro-Nazi secretaries who preceded him. Except for Trygve Lie in the UN's early years, the secretaries-general have been anti-Israel. Kurt Waldheim, secretary-general in the late 1970s-early 1980s was in fact a Nazi war criminal who took part in massacres in the Balkans, including former Yugoslavia [his Nazi role is partly, if coyly, affirmed in Liberation 5 October 1999; p10].

However, the UN's role as warmonger in the guise of peacemonger was understood years ago. Abraham Yeselson & Anthony Gaglione, two American political scientists, explained the UN's reality 32 years ago in their book, A Dangerous Place: The United Nations as a Weapon in World Politics (New York: Grossman 1974):
We say: "The United Nations is a dangerous place." We do not mean that it is a good institution in need of a few reforms, or that it is usually ineffective, or that it changes nothing. It is a weapon in international relations and should be recognized as such. As part of the armory of nations in conflict, the United Nations contributes about as much to peace as a battleship or an atomic bomb. Disputes are brought into the United Nations in order to weaken an opponent, strengthen one's own side, prepare for war, and support a war effort. [p. x]
. . . the underlying purpose of initiating states [that bring issues to the UN] is always to buttress war or the preparations for war. . . States. . . do not refrain from war because they could fight with words [instead of firearms] at the United Nations. They do both simultaneously. [p 121]
Yeselson & Gaglione explain that the UN is not a peacemaking body. Rather it is another weapon of war. This ought to be kept in mind when considering what the diplomats do there and what comes out of the UN's main bodies, the General Assembly and Security Council, and the lesser bodies like the anti-humanitarian "Human Rights Council" [formerly the Human Rights Commission]. Kofi Annan's peacemongering [= warmongering] should be seen in the same light.

Anne Bayefsky, an expert on the UN from the Hudson Institute who runs the Eye on the UN website, describes and explains the nefarious role of the UN in general and Kofi Annan in particular in helping the Hizbullah come out of the recent war relatively unscathed. She also reports on statements by Annan and his henchmen that clearly misrepresent international law.
See an article by her in the Jerusalem Post and on her own site.

Before leaving for greener pastures, fertilized perhaps with false hopes spread by the peacemongers, consider that an early winner of the Nobel Peace Prize [1907], one Ernesto Teodoro Moneta, founder of the Lombard Union for Peace, "changed his mind. . . declaring himself in favor of intervening [by Italy] in the First World War" [La Stampa, October 3, 2001].

- - - - - - -
Coming: more on Jews in Jerusalem, "peace" as war, etc.

Linked to Robinik.net.

Sunday, August 13, 2006

Shi'ite Islam and the Jews -- & -- Arab Murders Friend of the Arabs in Jerusalem

A great misconception has long pervaded thinking about how Muslims have thought about Jews and treated Jews over the centuries since Islam's inception in the seventh century. Muslims and Islam have been wrongly thought to have been especially tolerant and benign towards Jews. These misconceptions have too long pervaded Jewish thinking too. This is most important because we Jews disregard the history of consistent Muslim hostility at our own peril.

Muhammad's persecution of Jews goes back to his struggles in Medinah, according to the Muslim traditions [called the Hadith]. After his death, his third successor, Caliph`Uthman, was attacked by Muhammad's cousin and son-in-law, `Ali, who was considered more legitimate a successor [or replacement = khalif] than `Uthman. The faction of `Ali [Shi`ites] and the majority faction of Muslims, the Sunnis, emerged from this struggle over the succession, producing the principal split among Muslims. And now the Jewish angle. Carlo Panella explains:
According to the Sunni tradition. . . [especially in al-Tabari's collection], the cause of this age-old breach is the plot of a falsely converted Yemenite Jew, `Abdallah ibn Saba, who supposedly urged `Ali to kill the third caliph `Uthman bin Affan and especially to believe in his own quasi-divine descent.
Bene, secondo la tradizione sunnita . . . [sopratutto per al-Tabari], causa di questa frattura epocale e` il complotto di un ebreo yemenita falsamenta convertito, `Abdallah ibn Saba, che avrebbe spinto `Ali a uccidere il terzo califfo Othman bin Haffan e sopratutto a credere in una propia ascendenza quasi divina. [Carlo Panella, Il 'Complotto Ebraico': L'antisemitismo islamico da Maometto a Bin Laden (Torino: Lindau 2005), p 65]
So the Shi`ite-Sunni split is blamed on a Jew. However, far from sympathizing with Jews, the dominant sect of Shi`ites, the Twelvers, believe that the split between themselves and the Seveners [or Isma`ilis] was also caused by a Jew.
Naturally, the Ismai`ili schism too is attributed by the Twelvers to a Jew, `Abdallah ibn Maymuna al-Qaddah, a falsely converted Jew.

Naturalmente, anche lo scisma ismailita e` attribuito dai duodecimani a un ebreo, `Abdallah ibn Maymun al-Qaddah, ebreo falsamente convertito.[Panella, p 66]
In case anyone was wondering, the Twelver sect of Shi`ism is now the state religion of Iran. Ayatollah Khomeini was a Twelver Shi`ite. Throughout Muslim history, both Sunnis and Shi`ites have oppressed, persecuted and exploited Jews. We need only mention the forced conversion of the Jews of Mash'had in Iran. Now, as we pointed out in the previous post, the Hizbullah [or Hizbollah, Hezbollah] is an instrument of the Iranian mullahs and ayatollahs. Of course, the fake cease fire voted in the UN Security Council did not condemn the Hizbullah for being unlawful combatants in violation of international law [for one things, they go into combat without uniforms, enabling them to pretend to be civilians, whereas in fact they wore their uniforms when marching in goosestep through the al-Dahiya neighborhood of south Beirut.
- - - - - - - - - -
AN ARAB MURDERS A FRIEND OF THE ARABS in Jerusalem [the text below includes part of the previous post plus new material. That part had been uploaded without appearing in the title of the previous post]

Arab Fanatic Murders a Friend of the Arabs Once Again
Last night, Thursday, 10 August 2006, an Italian volunteer, Angelo Frammartino, who had come to Israel precisely to help the Arabs, the Arab nationalists in fact, was stabbed to death just outside the Old City wall near the Flower Gate [שער הפרחים] [called Herod's Gate in English]. He was in fact a Communist [following in his father's footsteps]. And one of those whom he pitied murdered him.

He was connected with the Rifondazione Comunista, an especially hard-line offshoot of the old Communist Party. The RC publishes Il Manifesto, a virulently anti-Israel paper. To show that these people are slow learners, a female reporter for Il Manifesto was taken hostage in Iraq last year [Giuliana Sgrena]. In fact, he favored violence, of course, if it was employed by the politically correct: "We must recognize that non-violence is a luxury for many corners of the world. We indeed do not seek to abrogate legitimate defense" [only Israel's legitimate defense-Eliyahu]. He was in love with the slingshots of the Arab boys of the "first intifada." He was a victim of the lies of his own movement. He sympathized with the Arabs in the Land of Israel, one of the "colonized peoples." But he couldn't recall how the Arabs had helped Rome suppress the ancient Jewish revolts, and how Arabs oppressed, humiliated and exploited Jews in Israel after the Arab conquest [see earlier posts on this blog site]. The Arabs usurped the Land of Israel and oppressed Jews in the Land for more than a thousand years. But he learned nothing of this, it seems, in school or in the Party. He came here on August 1st after weeks of fighting between Israel and Hizbullah. But he did not come to help Israelis living in bomb shelters in Qiryat Shmonah or Nahariyah. He wanted to help Arab children in the Gaza Strip and the "occupied territories." He "was not an extremist," we are told, "He was a pacifist." And those whom he pitied murdered him.
La politica era la passione di Angelo. Ereditata dal padre Michelangelo, conosciuto in Comune per aver collaborato con alcune delle giunte di centrosinistra che negli anni si sono passate il testimone da queste parti. E il figlio aveva seguito le sue orme. Come testimonia una lettera inviata pochi mesi fa al giornale locale di Rifondazione: «Dobbiamo riconoscere che non violenza è un lusso per molti angoli del mondo, noi infatti non chiediamo di abrogare la legittima difesa. Mai (!) – aveva scritto il giovane volontario – Mai mi sognerei di condannare la Resistenza, il sangue del pueblo vietnamita, la riscossa dei popoli colonizzati e le fionde dei ragazzi palestinesi della prima intifada».
E proprio ai bambini della striscia di Gaza e dei territori occupati aveva deciso di dedicarsi nel corso di queste vacanze. Angelo ne aveva parlato a lungo con gli amici della sezione di Rifondazione e del circolo Arci. E la scelta alla fine era caduta sul campo lavoro organizzato appunto dall’Arci in collaborazione con la Cgil. Era partito il primo agosto, con altri undici ragazzi. «Era un entusiasta, credeva in quello che faceva ed era sempre pronto ad aiutare gli altri», raccontano davanti alla sede di Rifondazione.
«Ripeteva sempre che non si poteva assistere impotenti a quello che stava accadendo in Medio Oriente, diceva che bisognava andare a portare soccorso ai bambini del posto, alle vittime innocenti della guerra». I genitori – raccontano i vicini - erano preoccupati per questa «vacanza diversa» del figlio piccolo. Ma erano anche orgogliosi. E non si erano voluti opporre... dice una vicina. E poi scoppia in lacrime: «... Faceva politica ma non era un estremista. Era un pacifista.».
Paolo Foschi -- Corriere della Sera
11 agosto 2006
And here's what an Italian blogger from Rome, Oltreuomo, had to say about Angelo Frammartino.
Era un pacifista comunista. Sosteneva la possibilità di costruire un mondo con la pace dei cortei e delle buone intenzioni.
In più, era un militante comunista. La posizione più distante dalla mia. Ma era un italiano. Accoltellato vigliaccamente alla gola da un palestinese. Il popolo per cui era andato lì a fare l'animatore per bambini. Era un italiano. Come Quattrocchi e i ragazzi in divisa di Nassirya. Era un italiano. E ha pagato le sue stesse utopie. Era un italiano. E questo mi basta per onorarne la memoria.
Oltreuomo points out that Frammartino was stabbed in the throat in a cowardly manner by one of the people whom he had come to help by serving as camp counselor for Arab children in a project sponsored by his hard-line Communist party. Oltreuomo also mentions Quattrocchi, a guard who came to work in Iraq who was murdered by his captors, as well as the Italian soldiers slaughtered in Nassirya in 2003. "And he [Frammartino] paid for his own utopias." Indeed, I add again that Frammartino's pacifism was a bizarre and contradictory creature. On one hand, he supported the Arab war, including mass murder, against Israel [in the guise of a war by ostensibly oppressed and innocent "Palestinians"]. On the other, the Communist true believer considered himself a "pacifist," although he supported war by the historically aggressive, traditionally Judeophobic Arabs against Jews.
- - - - - - - -
Coming: The UN as a danger to peace, Jews in 19th century Jerusalem, etc.

Wednesday, August 09, 2006

How Should We View the Hizbullah? Nazi or Islamic Jihadist, or Both?

UPDATING added 8-28-2006: Must read [in French] on Hizbullah
& Lebanon, here & here.

UPDATING [Arab Stabs & Murders Communist in Jerusalem -- see at bottom]
What does the Hizbullah stand for? That should be a criterion for dealing with the self-styled "Party of God." Hizbullah's own public utterances contain some slick propaganda designed to fool those ignorant about Islamic jihad and history in general. In fact, Hizbullah sometimes tries to disguise itself with Marxist-sounding rhetoric about the "oppressed" or "the oppressed of the earth," echoing the words of the anthem of the Communist movement about the "wretched of the earth." Of course, all these terms have meaning for Hizbullah itself only in a Muslim or Shi`ite Muslim context of meanings. A rather lengthy programmatic statement by a Hizbullah leader can be found here.

The Hizbullah also favors the label "resistance" as a self-description. This term became an honorable one during the Second World War when the Resistance fought the Nazis and their occupation of many countries in Europe and North Africa. The resistance movements did not go around massacring German or Austrian civilians. They fought for freedom, not for Islamic supremacy or the imposition of Shari`ah [Muslim law]. So the differences between the real resistance movements and Hizbullah, originally appearing in the Western press as "the Party of God" [simply the English translation of Hizbullah], are many. But the poisonous superficiality of the Western press and the contemporary "left-wing" movements does not bring out these differences.

Hizbullah wants Lebanon to be an Islamic state [or "Islamic regime"], in the Shi`ite version. Which, if and when implemented, would make many Lebanese Christians, Druze, and Sunni Muslims unhappy. Hizbullah wants to institute shari`ah law, which means that non-Muslims are inferior, exploited subjects of the Muslim state, called dhimmis. Hizbullah shares many things with its chief moneybags, the Teheran maniacs. And Hizbullah shares the Judeophobia of the Iranian regime too. Back in 1987, as I recall, there was a French election. The results did not please Hizbullah. One of the Hizbullah newspapers blamed the results on "the Jewish vote" in France. But they didn't stop there. They concluded that: "The Jewish microbe is everywhere" [Le microbe juif est partout- published in LeFigaro, 1987]. That kind of talk sounds Nazi to me. So it's no surprise that Hizbullah and its sponsors in Teheran deny the previous Holocaust while openly calling for another one, and fighting to destroy Israel.

Another Hizbullah sponsor is Syria of course. Junior Assad who inherited the company from his father, Senior Assad [also called Hafiz al-Assad], used more traditional religious Judeophobia when the Pope visited Damascus in 2001 in the footsteps of Paul, the Christian missionary apostle. Junior told the Pope that not only had the Jews killed Jesus, but they had poisoned Muhammad and caused him to die a slow death. In fact, there is a Muslim tradition that after he forced a Jewish woman to marry him at the oasis of Khaybar in Arabia, after murdering her husband, she served him some poisoned lamb, which eventually led to his death. This legend may or may not be true but it is the kind of account that cannot be verified. Note that Hizbullah renamed the Fajr missile the Khaybar, after the defeat, massacre, and enslavement of Jews there, celebrated in jihadist lore [There is even an Arab battlecry against Israel: Khaybar Khaybar Ya Yahud, Jaysh Muhammad sa ya`ud!! = Khaybar Khaybar O Jews, Muhammad's army is coming back!!].

Another Judeophobic propaganda effort by Hizbullah's sponsor, Syria, lies in the assiduous efforts by Mustafa Tlas, former Syrian minister of "defense," to elaborate and spread the big lie that Jews have killed non-Jews to use their blood for Passover unleavened bread [matsoh]. Specifically, Tlas has written a few books on the 1840 Damascus Affair, when Damascene Jews were accused of murdering a European priest serving as a missionary in Damascus. The French consul in Damascus at the time, Count Ratti-Menton, vehemently supported the torture of scores of local Jews by the Muslim governor, plus the jailing of Jewish women and boys, etc. Four Jews died under torture. One of them testified to having seen the priest leaving the city with his servant [also vanished] in a direction away from the Jewish Quarter. In order to get this Jewish witness to recant, he was tortured to death without ever recanting his testimony. Massacres of local Christians occurred in Damascus twenty years later, in 1860.

Now, at the end of the 20th century and the start of the 21st, the Syrian government, through its war minister, Tlas, has been promoting the big lie of Jewish ritual murder, which is actually fairly common in the Arab press. The Nazi character of Hizbullah's sponsors, Syria & Iran, is clear, as is the poisonous Judeophobia of Hizbullah itself [on the Damascus Affair, see Jonathan Frankel's book, The Damascus Affair, and an article summarizing it in Midstream magazine --also on the web somewhere-- of March-February 2003, and called "From Damascus to Jenin"].

So Hizbullah rests on two broad ideological foundations. One is classic Muslim jihad [in the Shi`ite version], imposing shari`ah and dhimmitude [dhimma] on non-Muslims. The other is Judeophobia, deriving from both classical Islamic and modern European Judeophobic roots, including some lies of Nazi inspiration.

The implications of Hizbullah's continued existence and freedom of action in Lebanon mean that Lebanon cannot become a sovereign or democratic state, since Hizbullah's armed forces are stronger than the official Lebanese army which anyway is made up of 40% or 50% Shi`ites, mostly sympathetic to Hizbullah. Lebanon's non-Muslim population is under threat too, although for the time being Hizbullah pretends to be a patriotic Lebanese body. Yet, the programmatic statements linked to above express deep hatred for Maronite Lebanese Christians, plus Israel [of course], the USA [of course], and even for France --ironically-- which works hard to defend Hizbullah diplomatically. The tone of the statements is typically paranoid and based on falsehood. Shaykh Fadlallah [see link above] condemns the USA but forgets that the Carter Administration of the USA made it possible for Khomeini, the founder of Hizbullah in fact, to take over Iran in 1979. This was at a time when Carter's national security advisor was Zbigniew Brzezinski. Zbig was notorious for encouraging Muslim extremists without considering the consequences. Zbig's support for Khomeini was expressed in terms of democracy, civil rights, and human rights, by the way.

A few other considerations involve Hizbullah's repeated violation of the international laws of war. These laws mandate that prisoners be made available for visits by the International Committee of the Red Cross. Three Israeli soldiers captured by Hizbullah in October 2000 were murdered in captivity [one was a Muslim Arab in fact]. The two Israeli soldiers recently captured may be dead already, if experience is a guide. In fact, Hizbullah armed operatives are illegal combatants in international law, since they often do not wear uniforms in combat and hide among civilian populations, although they are well supplied with some advanced weapons [the Kornet anti-tank rocket, etc]. Hizbullah's very existence, let us repeat, is a violation of Lebanese sovereignty. On the other hand, when Hizbullah does wear uniforms, it is an instructive sight to see. The international TV networks [Fox, CNN, etc] have repeatedly shown Hizbullah troops goosestepping in perfect synchronization on the main street of the al-Dahiya neighborhood in Beirut, which has been an enclosed Hizbullah-controlled compound within the city. In other words, access to the area was restricted by Hizbullah guards at the entrances. This neighborhood has been devastated by Israeli aircraft bombardments in the past month and is a media exhibit for how poor civilians are suffering because of Israel. In fact, al-Dahiya was a closed compound, with underground bunkers, some of them very large and equipped with modern communications equipment, etc.

The publicly made claims of Hizbullah for the release of Lebanese prisoners are typical hypocrisy. In fact, there are hundreds of Lebanese who were arrested by Syrian forces in Lebanon and put in jail in Syria. Hizbullah is not concerned about them, nor does it request that its Syrian sponsors give the prisoners' families information about their loved ones.

The very existence of Hizbullah is a threat to civilization. France, which used to boast of its mission civilisatrice, now collaborates in destroying civilization.
- - - - - - -
UPDATING -- Arab Fanatic Murders a Friend of the Arabs Once Again
Last night, Thursday, 10 August 2006, an Italian volunteer who had come to Jerusalem precisely to help the Arabs, the Arab nationalists in fact, was stabbed to death just outside the Old City wall near the Flower Gate [שער הפרחים] [called Herod's Gate in English]. He was in fact a Communist [following in his father's footsteps]. And one of those whom he pitied murdered him.

He was connected with the Rifondazione Comunista, an especially hard-line offshoot of the old Communist Party. The RC publishes Il Manifesto, a virulently anti-Israel paper. To show that these people are slow learners, a female reporter for Il Manifesto was taken hostage in Iraq last year [Sgrena]. In fact, he favored violence, of course, if it was employed by the politically correct: "We must recognize that non-violence is a luxury for many corners of the world. We indeed do not seek to abrogate legitimate defense" [only Israel's legitimate defense-Eliyahu]. He was in love with the slingshots of the Arab boys of the "first intifada." He was a victim of the lies of his own movement. He sympathized with the Arabs in the Land of Israel one of the "colonized peoples." But he couldn't recall how the Arabs had helped Rome suppress the ancient Jewish revolts, and how Arabs oppressed, humiliated and exploited Jews in Israel after the Arab conquest [see earlier posts on this blog site]. The Arabs usurped the Land of Israel and oppressed Jews in the Land for more than a thousand years. But he learned nothing of this, it seems, in school or in the Party. He came here on August 1st after weeks of fighting between Israel and Hizbullah. But he did not come to help Israelis living in bomb shelters in Qiryat Shmonah or Nahariyah. He wanted to help Arab children in the Gaza Strip and the "occupied territories." He "was not an extremist," we are told, "He was a pacifist." And those whom he pitied murdered him.
La politica era la passione di Angelo. Ereditata dal padre Michelangelo, conosciuto in Comune per aver collaborato con alcune delle giunte di centrosinistra che negli anni si sono passate il testimone da queste parti. E il figlio aveva seguito le sue orme. Come testimonia una lettera inviata pochi mesi fa al giornale locale di Rifondazione: «Dobbiamo riconoscere che non violenza è un lusso per molti angoli del mondo, noi infatti non chiediamo di abrogare la legittima difesa. Mai (!) – aveva scritto il giovane volontario – Mai mi sognerei di condannare la Resistenza, il sangue del pueblo vietnamita, la riscossa dei popoli colonizzati e le fionde dei ragazzi palestinesi della prima intifada».
E proprio ai bambini della striscia di Gaza e dei territori occupati aveva deciso di dedicarsi nel corso di queste vacanze. Angelo ne aveva parlato a lungo con gli amici della sezione di Rifondazione e del circolo Arci. E la scelta alla fine era caduta sul campo lavoro organizzato appunto dall’Arci in collaborazione con la Cgil. Era partito il primo agosto, con altri undici ragazzi. «Era un entusiasta, credeva in quello che faceva ed era sempre pronto ad aiutare gli altri», raccontano davanti alla sede di Rifondazione.
«Ripeteva sempre che non si poteva assistere impotenti a quello che stava accadendo in Medio Oriente, diceva che bisognava andare a portare soccorso ai bambini del posto, alle vittime innocenti della guerra». I genitori – raccontano i vicini - erano preoccupati per questa «vacanza diversa» del figlio piccolo. Ma erano anche orgogliosi. E non si erano voluti opporre... dice una vicina. E poi scoppia in lacrime: «... Faceva politica ma non era un estremista. Era un pacifista.».
Paolo Foschi -- Corriere della Sera
11 agosto 2006
- - - - - - - -
Coming: Britain on the Arab side in Israel's War of Independence, Jews in old Jerusalem, etc.

Monday, August 07, 2006

Lebanon's Latest Ploy to Disarm Hizbollah -- A Fake Out --- And How Should We See Hizbollah?

UPDATING [as of 8-8-06, 6:20 Israel time; see at bottom]

Tonight, 7 August 2006, the Lebanese government [which includes two Hizbullah ministers] made a proposal that sounds good. But it is a fake out. Lebanon's cabinet offered to send 15,000 Lebanese army troops to the south --after calling up reserves-- in order to prevent Hizbullah from retaking its positions in the south from which it was driven out by Israeli army forces. All this on condition that Israel first withdraws from Lebanon. However, Security Council resolution 1559 mandates that Lebanon disarm Hizbullah. This resolution was passed a few years ago, yet never implemented by Lebanon. Maybe Lebanon was unable to do so. Nevertheless, its international legal responsibility was clear as a UN member state. Anyhow, if Lebanon wants to honestly fulfill that resolution it can start right there in Beirut, its capital. It can disarm Hizbullah in Beirut and in the Biq`a [the valley of Lebanon] too. If Lebanon's army would do that, then it would not be necessary for Israel to attack Beirut. Otherwise, Israel will have to continue to attack in Beirut when necessary. Further, the demand that Israel withdraw first before Lebanon's army will go south is fake. It's just too disingenuous. They pretend not to understand that Israel has no good reason to trust either Arab governments or the West. And certainly not the UN. The concomitant Lebanese demands concern Har Dov [the so-called "Sheba'a Farms"] and the release of Lebanese prisoners held by Israel.

First, Har Dov was controlled by Syria before the 1967 Six Day War. It is not and never was part of the modern Lebanese state. When Israel withdrew [mistakenly] from south Lebanon in 2000, a UN surveying team certified that Israel had withdrawn from all of Lebanon and that Lebanon had no claim on any more territory held by Israel. The Har Dov ["Sheba'a Farms"] issue was invented by Hizbullah in order to justify continuing the struggle against Israel which is in fact meant to destroy Israel. It is and was simply a pretext. What right do the US, France, and the Security Council have to disregard historical fact and the finding of the UN's own appointed experts, by including Har Dov in the cease fire proposal??

Second, the prisoners held by Israel are criminals [including terrorist murderers]. They cannot be compared with the Israeli soldiers held by Hizbullah. Further, Hizbullah operatives/warriors are unlawful combatants under international law. What right do the USA, France and the Security Council have to disregard international law by equating the Lebanese prisoners held by Israel with Israeli soldiers??

We will have more to add to this post tomorrow. Meanwhile, readers may want to read the text of the Hizbullah's founding declaration together with commentary by Ami Isseroff at the link. Isseroff's commentary is interesting and informative, but I disagree with some of his points.

UPDATING: It has been reported within the last hour in Israel [before 6:20 pm Israel time, 8-8-06] that prime minister Olmert has called the Lebanese proposal described above: "interesting." Thus, Olmert proves once again that he is not fit to be prime minister of Israel. By the way, respected political commentators Dore Gold and Carolyn Glick have already explained why the French-US cease fire proposal is bad for Israel. Yet Olmert and his teen-age prom queen [without the beauty] foreign minister, Miss Tsipi [= birdbrain] Livni, have failed to audibly protest the French-US draft proposal, which is defective and harmful to Israel on various points, such as "prisoner exchange" and Har Dov. [Carolyn Glick's articles are available in Hebrew with a one week delay here.] Usually, it is considered harmful to change a leader in the middle of a war. But Olmert's damage is too critical to let him continue. Send him back to being a lawyer for millionaires suing other millionaires.
- - - - -
Coming: More on the Hizbullah

Tuesday, August 01, 2006

Another Lebanese Voice

There have been some strange omissions from most major media coverage of Israel's war against the Hizbullah in Lebanon. Most of Lebanon has not been touched --or only barely-- by Israeli military actions against the Hizbullah. East Beirut, Mount Lebanon, and the north of Lebanon have not been touched except for certain military installations and infrastructure that could serve military purposes, such as radar, border crossings to Syria, airfields, Hizbullah bases, etc., plus passing transports of military equipment for Hizbullah. The media have not shown how these areas have been untouched or barely so. Nevertheless, we have seen various TV journalists blathering about destruction in the Lebanese south, real indeed, while in the background buildings in downtown Beirut are obviously untouched and traffic moves unimpeded. We are told that Israel is "attacking Lebanon," as if Israel were attacking the whole country, which is not true. By the way, when I write "media," I refer specifically to BBC, CNN, Sky, and Fox. BBC and Sky are the worst, as one would expect, since they are British --and UK government inspired.

Further, the Lebanese voices heard on the media are usually those of admirers or supporters of Hizbullah, one exception being Walid Jumblatt, the political leader of the Druze community, who was very outspokenly critical of Hizbullah. Yet, although overlooked by the media, many Lebanese see Israel's war against Hizbullah as an opportunity for Lebanon to regain control of itself, since Hizbullah serves as an instrument for Syrian and Iranian control of Lebanon, the most important such instrument since the Syrian army withdrew from Lebanon in 2005.

One of these other Lebanese voices is Louis-Noel Harfouche, who seems to be a French instructor in a New England educational institution. His blog, Eccelibano, presents views critical of the Arab nationalist illusions that he believes have harmed the Arabs in general and Lebanon in particular. Here is his forthright statement on the need to uproot Hizbullah, which he refers to in a very bitter modification of its name combined with Arabic terms of contempt.


Israel Must Not Be Sidetracked by Cana!

To rephrase Fouad Ajami’s famous adage: the sky won’t fall in Araby on account of Israel’s response to Zibballah’s premeditation and instigation of this—second—calamity at Cana! Lebanon’s Shiites should know that the nets that entrap and coop their community up are of their own hands’ weaving; that the beasts that suppress and silence them are of their own making. Lebanon’s Shiites, who in the past 30 years seem to have mastered precious little save superstitions, conspiracy theories, and the art of sycophancy, submissiveness, passivity, and adulation before tyrants and thugs like Nasrallah and his mercenaries, must rise against their true oppressors—not against Israelis seeking just retribution. There is no catastrophe in Cana, which necessitates a respite in Israel’s determination to do away with the Zibballah beast once and for all. The catastrophe dwells in that the Shiites themselves choose to remain silent and resigned to wounds meted out by their own; impugning others for their own home-grown afflictions and self-inflicted pains.

Instead of being alarmed at a bump in the road like Cana, Israel should stay focused, steadfast, assertive, and unyielding in its campaign against Zibballah, its culture of terror and intimidation, its depravity, and its sleazy tactics of hit-and-run in the shadow of civilian neighborhoods, hospitals, and places of worship. Zibballah, its infrastructure, its fronts, its patrons, its advocates, its protectors, its sycophants, and the whole obsolete “theological,” “intellectual,” and psychological edifice—in Lebanon and elsewhere in the Middle East—that made its existence possible, should be taken down, once and for all.

There is no conceivable “diplomatic solution” before the decapitation of Zibballah is complete. No cease-fires, no lulls, no wavering, and no settlements before Lebanon is rid of those vermin who have been sucking the lifeblood of the nation and holding it hostage for upwards of 25 years. Lebanon seems to have acquiesced in the reality that Israel has to, once more, clean house for us. Even Lebanon’s Shiites are are eager for deliverance from the malady of backwardness and Islamism, even as Zibballah’s terror continues to hijack their freewill and steal their tongues. Zibballah and the “Lebanon” who condones and supports them must be granted no waver until the monster is decapitated and its children tamed. Pragmatism is a sign of weakness in the theology of those Islamist louts. Israel should never lose sight of that!

Dr Harfouche's statement speaks for itself. He points out that there is no "diplomatic solution" before getting rid of the Hizbullah leadership. This contrasts with the simpleminded European Union position, led by France and Britain, which is simply a cover for hypocrisy and a disguised expression of their traditional Judeophobia.
- - - - - - -
Comments on International Law and Its Application to the Kana Deaths
Despite international criticisms of Israel for violations of "international humanitarian law," the Geneva Convention IV provides that 1) the presence of "protected persons" [non-combatants] does not foreclose military action against a location containing military targets; 2) private property can be destroyed when there is a military necessity for doing so. See articles 28 and 53 of Geneva Convention IV [also quoted in my previous post]. Does any serious person deny that Hizbullah shot at Israel from civilian locations?
- - - - -
Coming: Jews in Jerusalem under Muslim Rule, etc.