Doc's Talk: Palestinian Muslims Pelt French Tourists and Blame it on the Jews

Saturday, October 03, 2009

Palestinian Muslims Pelt French Tourists and Blame it on the Jews

Nidra Poller (October 2009)
http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/48958/sec_id/48958

Sometimes a small story sheds light on a big issue. This one almost escaped me. I skipped the item about inter-religious quarrels in Jerusalem in the breaking news column of the Figaro hours before the Kol Nidrei. I didn’t have the heart to read about Neturei Karta crazies attacking the police or haredi assaulting bare-armed women. It didn’t even occur to me that those unsavory incidents would be described as “intra-religious” conflict. I turned my mind to higher things for the hallowed space of Yom Kippur. Back to the news after the holiday, I hear a Jewish radio report about Palestinians throwing stones at “French tourists.” “Whaaat ‘French tourists,’ I mumbled. Don’t you mean French Jews praying at the Kotel?”
When I realized the target of all that stony wrath was a group of [non-Jewish] French tourists, my mind perked up. And I started digging under the Temple and behind the stones.

As the story goes, Palestinians attacked a group of French tourists who were visiting the “esplanade des mosquées” (French for Temple Mount). Israeli police intervened. Calls for help broadcast from the minarets drew Palestinian youths who scuffled with the police here and there in the Old City. It took several hours for calm to be restored. A dozen Palestinians and 17 policemen were injured.

Reports then make a quantum leap to flaming declarations from Palestinian officials. Saeb Erekat accuses Israel of “deliberately escalating tensions in Jerusalem” by sending police to the mosque compound just when President Obama is striving to bring peace to the region. The Palestinian Authority Information Ministry accuses “Israeli occupation police and extremist settlers of breaking into the courtyard of the mosque, firing tear gas bombs and live bullets” against Palestinian worshipers. The PA demands an emergency meeting of the Arab League and the Organization of the Islamic Conference. Gaza government spokesman Tahar an Nazou calls the Islamic nation to defend the al Aqsa mosque against aggression. Hamas authorities order the PA and Fatah to break off “useless” talks with the “occupation,” and advise Arab governments to speak out forcefully against Israeli crimes against al Aqsa Mosque and the Palestinian people, and stop hoping for an American solution. Islamic Jihad leader Abdallah Chami calls the Palestinian people to unite against Israeli plans to undermine the al Aqsa mosque and “Judaize” al-Quds (= Jerusalem). The residents of al-Quds, he adds, will firmly resist Zionist attempts to attack the mosque. PA President Mahmoud Abbas accuses Israeli authorities of “a crime that calls for an immediate intervention of the international community” and warns that these actions “destroy all efforts to bring peace and establish an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital.”

Granted, these extravagant declarations are the stock in trade of Palestinian leaders and their international fan clubs. But what exactly is the war crime that was committed on the Temple Mount / Mosque Compound on the 27th of September? Countless newspapers big and small picked up and retailed the story in French or English without giving it a second thought. If Israeli soldiers harvest the organs of their Palestinian victims and committed a variety of war crimes in the 2008 Cast Lead operation in Gaza, why question their guilt in this admittedly minor incident?
Did any news editor actually read the accounts before publishing them? How would a journalist pitch the story? Palestinians throw stones at French tourists visiting the mosque compound. Jerusalem police forces intervene. Skirmishes in the Old City pit police against Palestinian youths. X injured, x arrested. Saeb Erekat calls for an emergency session of the Arab League. Mahmoud Abbas declares that all hopes of peace are dashed. Hamas calls the faithful to defend al Aqsa mosque against assault by the occupation forces. Ban Ki Moon… International Court… Amnesty & the gang… everyone is up in arms.

About what? Up in arms because Palestinians threw rocks at French tourists? Not on your life! Should an emergency session of the UNSC be convened because Jerusalem police prevented Palestinian youths from sacking and burning the Old City? They’d like to but we haven’t reached that point yet.

Any clues in Isabelle Kershner’s Jerusalem Post report, “Palestinians and Israelis clash at Jerusalem Holy Site”? Having introduced her article by supposing that Palestinians mistook tourists for “Jewish activists,” Kershner gets confirmation from an “independent” Palestinian news agency, Ma’an, that the Palestinians were expecting a group of religious Jews. Quotes police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld who says 150 Palestinian Muslims attacked French tourists. And cites a Palestinian Authority Information Ministry statement calling all Palestinians to come to defend the mosque without mentioning--adds Kershner in passing--the French tourists.

After picking my way through a slew of mud pie articles in English and French blithely capped with the misleading “Palestinian-Israeli clash” title, I conclude that they are all based on a single release drafted by a Palestinian working for Agence France Presse.

A closer look at that release reveals a clever chain of non-events linked up to justify the mistaken identity. Yes, it’s true that police spokesman Shmuel Ben Rubin says 150 Muslims mistook a group of French tourists for Jews who had come to pray on the Temple Mount, but they weren’t far off the mark. Yehuda Glick says his group of 200 religious Jews was on the edges of the Old City near the Maghrebi Gate. Aha! The real villains were near the gate that opens on to the pathway that leads to the Kotel [Western wall] that leads to a walkway that leads to the “esplanade.” You understand? They were one step away from profaning the mosque!

The release provides background details about the mosque compound built on the ruins of the Temple destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD. Jews are sometimes permitted by the Waqf to visit the site but are not allowed to pray there. The “provocative” visit of Ariel Sharon to the holy site on September 28th 2000 triggered the “2nd Intifada.”
Yes but what about the provocative visit of French tourists? Did they enjoy their tour of the esplanade des mosquées? Who were they anyway? Grey-haired pensioners, Evangelical Zionists, leftwing anti-Zionists, students, swinging singles, amateur archeologists, aspiring journalists, who, what, when, where, why? Nothing. This lack of interest, which might be understandable in English-language media, was equally dense in French. Why? The Temple Mount clash--between 150 furious Muslims slinging rocks at an unspecified number of French tourists —was less tragic than the attack on French lycée students near a souk in Cairo last spring, plotted by a jihadi of French origin, that left one dead and several injured. But not without interest.

The victims must have something to say. How do they react, after this narrow escape, when they see fellow citizens in their native land with keffiehs wrapped around their necks? Have they modified or confirmed their opinions about the “Mideast conflict”? Were they grateful for the policemen who intervened, or do they intend to drag them into the international court as war criminals?

Nothing. Not an image, not a word, not the tiniest question mark. The French tourists have been erased from the picture like Soviet officials fallen from grace. And one media after another, without batting an eyelash, relayed extravagant reactions from Palestinian sources, deserving of inclusion in the Goldstone Report, without questioning the logic of it all. And no one noticed the empty place where the French tourists must have been standing.

Google finally yields the answer.

A Manar press release, in French, posted on the International Solidarity Movement site [my translation]. “Profanation of al Aqsa by Jews disguised as tourists: 19 Palestinians wounded.” Now do you see the whole picture?

“At least 19 Palestinians were wounded by Israeli occupant forces in clashes Sunday at the holy Al Aqsa mosque after occupation forces profaned the esplanade des mosquées. Most of the wounded were hit in the head and eyes.
“Palestinian worshippers gathered at the mosque to keep Jewish extremists, disguised as tourists, from seizing the mosque under the pretext of practicing rites on the occasion of a Jewish holiday baptized [sic] ‘Yom Kippur.’”

This recital of the “facts” is followed by the explosive declarations quoted above. Suddenly it all makes sense. If 150 Muslims assaulted these creatures it proves they were Jewish terrorists. If everyone who counts from Hamastan to Fatahland called the masses to defend the mosque, demanded emergency sessions, international action, ruptured negotiations, and death to the Jews, it follows. The holy mosque was profaned. Muslims were provoked. They did the right thing. N’est-ce pas?

And your corner journalist swallowed and regurgitated the story without noticing the bit about the provocative Jews coming to provocatively pray deceitfully disguised as French tourists. Ariel Sharon’s visit to the “esplanade” on September 28th 2000, we are reminded in all these copycat reports, was so provocative that it triggered the “al Aqsa Intifada” leaving thousands of victims in its wake. Or at least that’s the way the story went at the time. In fact, it took the staged Mohamed al Dura death scene, the most scandalous blood libel since the Shoah, to really provoke to the hilt and get the umpteenth Palestinian war on Israel going.

That was when our national George Mitchell made a reputation for Mideast conflict sleuthing with his sloppy report on the cause(s) of the violence. Upgraded to czar in our time he is now in charge of magical solutions based on age-old wisdom, to wit: if Jews are not allowed to build glass houses Muslims won’t throw stones at them.
Pas de chance, mon vieux. A bunch of French tourists wander onto the scene and spoil at all.

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk