Category Archives: History

The Lethality of De-Judaizing Jerusalem

And stupidity..


As an example of what the insightful commentator Melanie Phillips referred to as a “dialogue of the demented” in her book The World Turned Upside Down, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is continuing a long tradition of attempting to de-Judaize Jerusalem by expressing his mendacious notion that, as he put it, “Jerusalem has a special flavor and taste not only in our hearts, but also in the hearts of all Arabs and Muslims and Christians,” and “Jerusalem is the eternal capital of the Palestinian state and without it there will be no state.”

The same scholar of history who wrote a doctoral dissertation that questioned the extent and truthfulness of the Holocaust was now making his own historical claim that there had never been a Jewish presence and history in the world’s holiest city.

In recent weeks, Abbas has been at it again, adding new layers of rhetoric to his tactical campaign to de-Judaize Jerusalem, in general, and to the Temple Mount, specifically. In an October PA TV broadcast, Abbas made the breathtakingly absurd claim that Jews not only had no historic claim to the Temple Mount, but they also should never even be allowed to have their presence known at that location. “The settlers have arrived . . . ,” he said. “This is our Sanctuary, our Al-Aqsa and our Church [of the Holy Sepulchre]. They have no right to enter it . . . [or] right to defile it. We must prevent them . . . .”

Only in an alternate, Orwellian universe could only one group of people on earth—Jews—be enjoined from praying on the single site most holy to their faith, and, moreover, be told that their presence there is not only provocative but is repugnant and befouls the very ground on which those of another faith—Muslims—have staked a triumphalist religious claim and now wish to gather and pray.

This attempt to airbrush out a Jewish presence from Jerusalem—in fact, all of historic Palestine—is not a new message for Abbas, of course. In 2000 he expressed similar contempt for the idea that a Jewish temple had ever existed on the Temple Mount and that, even if it had existed, the offenses committed by Israel against the Palestinians negated any claim Jews might have enjoyed, absent their perfidy.

“Anyone who wants to forget the past [i.e., the Israelis] cannot come and claim that the [Jewish] temple is situated beneath the Haram,” Abbas absurdly asserted in an article in Kul Al-Arab, an Israeli Arabic-language weekly newspaper. “ . . . But even if it is so, we do not accept it, because it is not logical for someone who wants a practical peace.”

Judging by the October 30th statement by U.S. State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki, forgetting the past is something in which the John Kerry’s office is also complicit.  “We’re extremely concerned by escalating tensions across Jerusalem and particularly surrounding the Haram al-Sharif, Temple Mount,” Psaki said, pointedly, and dangerously, referring to the Temple Mount by its Arab name first and thereby fortifying, and seeming to lend equal weight to, the Palestinian’s spurious claim to spiritual and territorial rights to the site, and to the wider area described now as East Jerusalem.

“It is actually critical that all sides exercise restraint, refrain from provocative actions and rhetoric and preserve the status quo,” she added, suggesting that Jews not be allowed to pray on the Mount and that the status quo prohibiting Jews from praying on the site be ordered to continue so as to not incite Muslim sensibilities.

But in characterizing East Jerusalem —or any part of Jerusalem, for that matter —as territory that Israel “occupies” but over which it enjoys no sovereignty, Abbas (and U.S. State Department, too) is misreading, once again, the content and purpose of 1967’s U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 that suggested an Israeli withdrawal “from territories [not all territories]” it acquired in the Six-Day War.

Critics of Israeli policy who either willfully misread or deliberately obscure the resolution’s purpose say that the Jewish State is in violation of 242 by continuing to occupy the ‘West Bank’ and Jerusalem, including what is spuriously now referred to as “Arab” East Jerusalem.  But the drafters of Resolution 242 were very precise in creating the statute’s language, and they never considered Jerusalem to have been occupied by Israel after the Six-Day War.  Former U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Arthur Goldberg, one of the resolution’s authors, made this very clear when he wrote some years later that “Resolution 242 in no way refers to Jerusalem, and this omission was deliberate[.] . . . At no time in [my] many speeches [before the U.N.] did I refer to East Jerusalem as occupied territory.”

But the true danger of the Palestinian thinking about Jerusalem—and, indeed, about all of the Palestine that they covet, including Israel itself—was revealed in Yasser Arafat’s own view that he expressed in a July 2000 edition of al-Hayat al-Jadida when he threatened that “They can occupy us by force, because we are weaker now, but in two years, ten years, or one hundred years, there will be someone who will liberate Jerusalem [from them].”

“Liberating” Jerusalem, of course, does not mean transforming it into a pluralistic, open city where members of three major faiths can live freely and practice their religions openly. Liberating Jerusalem for the Palestinians would be more in keeping with the type of liberation that Transjordan’s Arab League effected when they burned and looted the Jewish Quarter in Jerusalem in 1948; expelled and killed its hapless Jewish population; destroyed some 58 synagogues, many hundreds of years old; unearthed gravestones from the history-laden Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives and used them for latrine pavers; and barred any Jew from praying at the Western Wall or entering the Temple Mount.

But false irredentist claims, Islamic supremacism which compels Jews and Christians to live in dhimmitude under Muslim control, and an evident cultural and theological disregard for other faiths— while troubling in the battle over sovereignty in Jerusalem—are not, according to Dore Gold, Israel’s former ambassador to the United Nations, the most dangerous aspects of a diplomatic capitulation which would allow the Palestinians to claim a shared Jerusalem.

In his engaging book, The Fight for Jerusalem: Radical Islam, the West, and the Future of the Holy City, Gold pointed to a far more troubling aspect: in their desire to accede to Arab requests for a presence and religious sovereignty in Jerusalem, the State Department, EU, UN member states, and Islamic apologists in the Middle East and worldwide may actually ignite jihadist impulses they seek to dampen with their well-intentioned, but defective, diplomacy.

Why? Because, as Gold explained, “In the world of apocalyptic speculation, Jerusalem has many other associations—it is the place where the messianic Mahdi [the redeemer of Islam] is to establish his capital. For that reason, some argue that it also should become the seat of the new caliphate that most Islamic groups—from the Muslim Brotherhood to al-Qaeda—seek to establish.”

When Yasser Arafat in July 2000 gave expression to the eventual “liberation” of Jerusalem as a sacred and unending ambition for the Palestinian cause, he defined it as a recapture of what had been, and should be, in his view, Muslim land, just as the eventual extirpation of Israel and the reclamation of all of historic Palestine would accomplish. The establishment of the Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem is the first important step in the long-term strategy to rid the Levant of Jews and reestablish the House of Islam in Palestine.

“Jerusalem’s recapture is seen by some as one of the signs that ‘the Hour’ and the end of times are about to occur,” Gold suggested. “And most importantly, because of these associations, it is the launching pad for a new global jihad powered by the conviction that this time the war will unfold according to a pre-planned religious script, and hence must succeed.”

So far from creating a political situation in which both parties—Israelis and the Palestinians—feel they have sought and received equal benefits, such negotiations and final agreements would have precisely the opposite effect: destabilizing the region and creating, not the oft-hoped for Israel and Palestine “living side by side in peace,” but an incendiary cauldron about to explode into an annihilatory, jihadist rage.

Those in the West who are urging Israel “to redivide Jerusalem by relinquishing its holy sites,” Dore cautioned, “may well believe that they are lowering the flames of radical Islamic rage, but in fact they will only be turning up those flames to heights that have not been seen before.”

If the State Department and other Western diplomats are intent on mollifying the Arab street by pressuring Israel to divide Jerusalem as a peace offering to the Palestinians, it may well be setting into motion the exact opposite result—a jihadist, apocalyptic movement invigorated by the misguided diplomacy of the West that, once more, asks Israel to sacrifice its security and nationhood so that Islamists can realize their own imperial and theological ambitions at the Jewish state’s expense.

Richard L. Cravatts, PhD, president of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, is the author of Genocidal Liberalism: The University’s Jihad Against Israel & Jews.

The Hate-Wave All Over the Islamicized West

Dr. Inna Rogatchi

The wave of anti-Israel and anti-Semitic hatred has sprung all over Europe readily seizing the pretext of the completely justified Israeli military operation in Gaza. Mass demonstrations in London and the other cities of the United Kingdom, violent riots in Paris, ‘Kristallnacht’-style attacks on synagogues in France, Ireland and Poland, public hate preaches of imam calling for the death ‘the Jews until the last one’ in Berlin, abrasive threats to Jewish people in Denmark and Sweden; all this amassing daily.

The things are better in the USA, but  there a well Jewish people are threatened because of their national origin ( in Chicago) and where many anti-Israel and anti-Semitic demonstrations have been snow-balling.

As occurred numerous times before, Israel, under non-stop missile attacks by Hamas is presented as a very bad cop; as always, the die-hard left is indulged in calling white black and preaching to Israel to make peace with a cannibal. What’s new in all those anti-Israel and anti-Semitic activities all over the world this time, is the substantially larger number of demonstrators – just everywhere; their determination; their rather high level of confidence and aggressiveness; and largely prevailing Arab and Muslim presence among the attackers and demonstrators.

What we are experiencing today in Europe and the West,  is a wave of articulated hatred towards Jews, and Israel, in that order; and also a substantially higher arrogant confidence on the part of the attackers and demonstrators. They are acting in a much bolder way, also demonstrating to us all quite intentionally: we are here, it is within our rights to do whatever we want – and they are indeed allowed to spread all this hate and conduct all these attacks by the European and Western governments who remain largely meek towards racial violence peaking up in their countries.

This is the result of the more than 25 years of extremely short-sighted and inept policy, or actually, absence of firm stand and articulated policy of the European and Western governments on the issue on militant Islam’ spreading and planting roots in the West.

On the very serious issue on the Islamic presence in the Western world, Europe was dangerously blind to a highly risky lead. During past quarter of century, the process went from initial welcoming of the steadily increasing mass of hardly checked Muslim incomers, young and mid-aged males mostly, into the European and Western space, to pandemic appeasing of enforced militant Islam all over Europe.

Eleven years ago, a year and a half after  9/11, I published the analyses of the then-new security situation in, Europe: A Dangerous Place to Live  which had been cited in many books and dissertations, and in which I pointed out many of the phenomena that were appearing then and had high potential to develop into security nightmares, including the second and third generations of the militant Islamists born in Europe and becoming sworn enemies from within as they would be heavily indoctrinated.

As we know, that is exactly what has happened – but the Western governments have just noticed it now, and only because the European Islamists became involved in the Syrian conflict.

A decade later I wrote the next analysis on the same theme, focusing on the objective criteria for safety and security, and the dynamics of the process. The study “Islamisation of Europe: its Origin, Process, Objective and Consequences” was presented at the Institute of the World Politics in Washington D.C. in Spring 2013. I do not remember when I was depressed so much as while I was working on that study, collecting, reading, watching and systematizing all the material.

The process of massive, premeditated conquering of the West by the fanatical militant Islam had progressed enormously and had been advanced very much since the scheme was conceived by the Muslim Brotherhood and other similar organizations in the late 1960s. They developed their strategic initiative and tactical agenda in late 1980s,  followed by the quality change of the whole process brought by the crucial act of Al-Qaeda in 9/11 attacks.

Statistics show that 6% of all population of Europe today is Muslim, with over 44 million Muslims living in Europe. That statistic includes a large Russian population, and also the places wherethe  Muslim population is indigenous as is the case for Bosnia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Kosovo and the other places in the Balkans, with over a million Muslims (13,4% ) in Bulgaria, and over 200 thousand (22,7%) in Cyprus. The later are both members of EU, with all the absence of border control, and extremely light security  which did led to the terror attack against Israeli tourists in Burgas airport in 2012.

There is nothing natural about very solid presence of many large and growing Muslim communities practically in all large European countries and the UK as is shown by the conservative statistics: 7,5% in France with a 4,7 million Muslim population; 6% in Belgium, with 638 thousand; 5,7% in Austria with 475 thousand; 5,7% in Switzerland with 433 thousand; 5,5% in the Netherlands with almost a million, 914 thousand; 5% in Germany with over 4 million people there; 4,7% in Greece with 527 thousand; 4,9% in Sweden with 451 thousand; 4,6% in the UK with about three million, 2 869 thousand; 4,1 in Denmark with 226 thousands; 2.6 % in Italy with 1,5 million; 2,3% in Spain with over a million, 1,021 thousands.

All in all, Europe has the Islamic population of Saudi Arabia within its borders now. No wonder that hate-preachers of fanatical Islam are bragging now that “Europe does not even realize how small it really is, from our point of view”. In all these countries, except Spain, Islam had been totally alien and had been artificially brought into the space of completely different cultural, sociological, psychological and every possible tradition, values, practices and way of life.

Of course, not all the European and Western Muslims are militant fanatics. But there are too many of those who are, and who are thriving in Europe practicing their hateful violence. This tendency is continuously strengthening as we are see daily – and are hear from the imams’ preaching  from London to Berlin.

At last there are the many briefings of finally alarmed Western governments who can see now the real threat to the home-countries by their indoctrinated citizens who have also been trained on the Syrian and other battlefields and are shuttling between the West and Middle-East and Asia perpetually.

My study, stuffed with many facts and evidences, had been met with serious attention. Some of the Members of the European Parliament immediately decided to run a special hearing on the paper,  drafting and accepting the policy paper on the issue, vital for the security of the over 750 million people of the EU states. The hearings were planned for autumn 2013 but we are still waiting.

I do not know the other case in history when so imminent and so tangible danger – not to one or several groups of a population, but to the entire societies of people on their own land – has been ignored so blindly and so enthusiastically as it has under the guidance of the leadership of the foreign policy of the European Union under its outgoing boss, unelected appointee Mme Ashton and by both Obama Administrations, with the second one being completely unqualified and dangerously ignorant when it comes to matters of the Middle-East, and the speedy spread of the militant Islam all over the West.

Unlearned lessons did lead to the inconceivable yet few years ago success of ISIS/ISIL, that now threaten to undermine the entire Middle East very substantially, to only advantage of Iran.

Distinctively, the hate-wave which is now spread all over European and the West emphatically targets  the local Jewish population there, with outpouring threats and applied violence towards the European and Western Jewry one day after another. Coming alongside and at the same time of the unprecedented rise of the neo-Nazis and ultra-right movements all over Europe – and this is largely thanks to the increasing advance of Islam in Europe – it creates an atmosphere in Europe and the West which has potential to become even worse than the mortal attack on Jewish people orchestrated by Nazis and Hitler, – simply because now the Jews are attacked by several different forces, and because there is no clear division between aggressors and defending forces of allies, but people are hated, targeted and attacked in all European and many Western countries only because they are Jewish. Welcome to the Middle Ages.

All this hate, violence and drive for destruction and annihilation focuses on Israel, which is an embodiment of the strength, pride and statehood of the Jewish people whenever they are living.  Whenever Israel advances on those who are trying to harm her, the hate-waves in Europe and the West are and will become hotter and more voracious.

The point here is that with current degree of the Islamiaation of the West, these waves will not be ebb. There will not be a calm sea in European and Western life towards Jewry and Israel until the Western leaders and their government elaborate and implement a tough stand and adequate, firm policies protecting their citizens.

This is the matter on which Israel and its allies in the world, the European and world Jewry shall be united to bring it to the top of the international policy agenda. We all, on the state, government, parliament and public levels shall insist tirelessly that this urgent matter of international safety and security must be implemented, without bargains of any sort, by the world leaders and their governments.

There is simply no alternative to that, in order to handle those growing hate-waves that have risen over the horizon of the world as we know it.

Ed. Note: Just received from Ms. Anne Willner in Helsinki: A pro-Israel rally took place on Thursday 24 July in Helsinki, the capital of Finland. More than 1000 loyal friends showed their support to the brave nation of Israel that – over and over again – has to fight for its legal right to exist, have safe borders and guarantee the Israelis a peaceful life. The rally took place in front of the parliament building. Several well known politicians participated in the rally, as well, and loudly claimed, that Israel has the right to protect its borders and citizens and that Hamas aggressive and cowardly hostility must be stopped immediately. See photo below.

Dr Inna Rogatchi is the author, scholar, and filmmaker. She is the co-founder and president of The Rogatchi Foundation – Her new film is The Lessons of Survival. Conversations with Simon Wiesenthal –, and her forthcoming book is Dark Stars, Wise Hearts: Personal Reflections on the Holocaust in the Modern Times.  


UNESCO: Building Bigotry in the Minds of Men and Women

by Claudia Rosett

The United Nations cultural agency has disgraced itself again, deciding at the last minute to postpone an exhibition of the 3,500-year relationship of the Jewish people to the Holy Land. This exhibition, co-sponsored by the Simon Wiesenthal Center, was due to open this past Monday at the Paris headquarters of the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). But last week 22 Arab states sent a letter to UNESCO’s secretariat, protesting that this exhibition could endanger the “peace process.” (French text of the letter here, courtesy of UN Watch).


UNESCO’s secretariat — namely, its director-general, Irina Bokova — could have replied that any peace process that could be remotely endangered by a display of the long history of  Jewish ties to the Holy Land is no peace process at all.Bokova could have told the Arab states that UNESCO has no interest in trying to delegitimize the state of Israel at their behest, which is what this UNESCO delay is really all about. Bokova could have proclaimed that anti-Semitism has no place at the UN, and for any of UNESCO’s member states to insinuate it into the agenda is a jarring affront at a cultural agency dedicated, in the words of its motto (condensed from UNESCO’s charter and amended for political correctness), to “building peace in the minds of men and women.” She could have added that it is thug politics for many of UNESCO’s member states to employ the cultural agency as a vehicle for passing round after round of resolutions singling out Israel as a target of UNESCO condemnations. Bokova could have shown backbone and leadership by giving her blessing to the exhibition, “People, Book, Land — The 3,500 Year Relationship of the Jewish People to the Holy Land,” and insisting that it open on schedule. She could have turned up to celebrate it as an important element in the history of the Middle East, a genuine contribution to any real hope of peace.

Instead, UNESCO’s secretariat put out a press release last Friday, announcing that in the context of the Arab protest, “regrettably, UNESCO had to postpone the inauguration of the exhibition.” The press release went on to attribute this decision to UNESCO’s “relentless efforts to achieve consensus between Member States on all issues falling within UNESCO’s educational, scientific, and cultural mandate.”


That’s a fascinating admission, of sorts — implying that UNESCO is guided not by principle, or truth, but by “consensus.” And what, exactly, does UNESCO mean by “consenus”? UNESCO has 195 members. There is no sign here that they were all consulted and with one voice agreed to defer to the Arab states. For that matter, both the U.S. and Canada protested the decision to delay the exhibition. In other words, there was no consensus on any side of this matter. Rather, there was a relentless effort by UNESCO to justify an anti-Semitic decision by packaging it in a heap of UN baloney.


On Tuesday, UNESCO disgraced itself even further, trying to deflect criticism with yet more baloney. Out rolled another UNESCO press release, this one saying “UNESCO wishes to reaffirm that the exhibition has not been cancelled but postponed.” Apparently there is now a discussion going on with the Simon Wiesenthal Center, in which UNESCO wishes to “finalize the last points” (what “last points”? The exhibition was in the midst of being set up for a Jan. 20th opening, when UNESCO last week abruptly pulled the plug). The opening date has now been moved to June.


Meanwhile, as UNESCO last week began shunting the Jewish history display out of the way in the name of the “peace process,” the UN in New York, also in the name of the “peace process” was launching an International Year of Solidarity with the Palestinian People. More on that in my Forbes article on “‘Peace’ and Prejudice at the United Nations” — where evidently some people are more equal than others.


UNESCO is now touting its plans on Jan. 27 to commemorate the Holocaust (or might UNESCO, in the interest of consensus, postpone that, as well, should any member state object?). At least UNESCO is not trying to deny that piece of history. But when UNESCO  and the UN reward and promote bigotry in the name of peace, selectively “postponing” a few thousand years of Jewish history in deference to those who would try to rewrite reality by censoring Israel’s claim to a place in the Middle East, that is a step toward inviting the next Holocaust.


Back in 2011, UNESCO lost its U.S. funding when its members voted to admit the Palestinians to full membership before they had satisfied their Oslo promises to arrive at viable statehood by way of negotiations with Israel. That triggered U.S. laws forbidding government funding to any international body that might attempt this end run. Since then, UNESCO has been lobbying for the U.S. to override its own laws in order to re-open the money spigot and resume lavishing some $80 million per year in U.S. taxpayer dollars (with a quarter billion or so of “arrears” thrown in) on this UN hub of selective “consensus,” which masquerades as a “cultural” agency. UNESCO’s problem — amid the luxuries of its central Paris headquarters —  is not a lack of funding. It is a desperate lack of a moral compass.

Turkey: Execution dungeons and torture chambers discovered in excavations

Restoration of the Bursa city walls has been ongoing since the Bursa Municipality implemented a project to reveal the centuries old infrastructure. (Photo courtesy: Shutterstock

Following thorough excavations in the Turkish northwestern province of Bursa, archeologists have come across 2,300-year-old dungeons used for execution and torturing purposes during the Bithynia kingdom era.

The execution methods revealed to be horrific, as archeologists discovered that the dungeons contain a “bloody well,” and a “torture chamber.”

“Hangmen, who were deaf and mute, cut off the heads of prisoners here in the bloody well. While the head of the body was falling into the well, the body part was given to their relatives or left to the stream,” the Turkish Hurriyet Daily News quoted Ibrahim Yilmaz, a member of Uludag University Faculty of Science and Literature History of Art Department, as saying.

Restoration of the Bursa city walls has been ongoing since the Bursa Municipality implemented a project to reveal the centuries old infrastructure.

“There are also rumors that hangmen were selling dead bodies to families for a price. We discovered all of these things, proposed a project and it was approved. We will start construction here in the coming days,” Yilmaz explained.

Yilmaz, who is also part of the excavation team, said a large portion of the 3,400-meter-long walls as well as other locations surrounding those walls have already been revealed.

Dungeons were also discovered in the last part of the walls, specifically in the Zindan Kapi in Alacahirka neighborhood, Yilmaz said.

“Over these dungeons were houses were people were living. Considering that there were dungeons or dungeon remains might be there, we expropriated these buildings. After the houses were demolished, scientific excavations revealed remains of Bursa dungeons,” he added.

He also revealed that all spatial features of dungeons in the era of the Bythynia Kingdom could be seen in those dungeons. He said the Bursa dungeons were the underground structures named “stucco” and were connected to towers.

Yilmaz also said the dungeons will finally come to light after 2,300 years as they will be displayed in an open-air museum.

“Torture tools used in the past and places used for torturing will be displayed. We plan to display their mockups in two years,” Yilmaz said.

Christian Arabs: Historical myth

My intention – for once – is not get anyone’s ideological back up. I just want to talk about history, and it’s relationship to a new phenomenon among the so-called “Christian Arabs”, specifically those Arabs that are called “Palestinian”. I’m sorry to cloud the issue with the facts, but here’s the fact: you can’t be – by definition – a Christian Arab or, more specifically, a Christian Palestinian.

Simcha Jacobovici
Christians predate the Muslim invasion by some 600 years. Christianity, as we know, started with a group of people surrounding Jesus of Nazareth, who lived from approximately 4 BCE to 32 CE. These Jesus followers, who initially were all Jewish, grew into the worldwide “Christian” religion, which now numbers 2-3 billion people. The initial group was divided among people who saw Jesus as the long awaited Jewish Messiah, and people who saw him as a divine figure, a kind of God incarnate. The first group basically disappeared when the Roman emperor, Constantine, adopted the latter view in the 4th century.

Some 300 years later, in the first half of the 7th century, a group of Arabs from the area of Mecca in modern Saudi Arabia, declared Muhammad to be the ultimate prophet of Allah i.e., God. These “Muslims”, as they came to be known, first conquered Arabia and then fanned out, creating an empire that stretched from the borders of China and the Indian subcontinent, across Central Asia, the Middle East, North Africa, Sicily, and the Iberian Peninsula, to the Pyrenees. In the course of building their empire, in 638 C.E., under Caliph Umar, the Islamic armies conquered the Holy Land i.e., modern Israel.

So the bedrock historical fact is that Christianity and Islam – Christians and Arabs – came face to face for the first time in the Holy Land/Palestine/Israel only in the 7th century. The incontrovertible historical fact is that the Arabs from Arabia came to the area of modern day Israel as conquerors. The Jews and the Christians, who were indigenous to the land, were the conquered. The Arabs were all Muslims. The Jews and the Christians were not, and are not, Arabs. It can’t get any simpler.

What happened next? Many Jews and Christians were butchered, some were tolerated and still others were converted to the new religion. Despite the myth of Islamic tolerance of Jews and Christians, the fact is that by Islamic law, Jews and Christians are to be tolerated but not accorded equal status to Muslims. By definition, according to Islamic law, no Arab can convert to Judaism or Christianity. Islam will not allow it. It regards any conversion out of Islam as an act of apostasy, punishable by death. In September of last year, Nazir Ahmad Hanafi, Afghan Parliament Member, stated that any Afghani citizen who converts to Christianity should be executed. So even if, 1,300 years ago, some Arab converted to Christianity, he could not have broadcast this fact, nor set up a community of Christian “Palestinians” or “Arabs”. Put simply, every community of “Christian Arabs” is by definition not Arab.

This fact is easy to ascertain. All you have to do is enter any store selling Christian trinkets in the old city of Jerusalem and ask the Christian owner: “are you an Arab?” To be politically correct, after a moment’s hesitation, he might answer “yes”. But if you press the matter, and say “I don’t mean culturally. I don’t mean do you like Hummus and do you listen to Arabic music. I simply mean; did your ancestors arrive in Israel with the conquering Arabs in the 7th century?” The answer will always be: “No. We were here before.” What this means is that the so-called “Christian Arabs” of the Palestinian community are actually descendants of Aramians, Canaanites and – yes – Jews! Even DNA confirms this ethnic link.

The trouble has been that Jewish Israelis have not realized that the Christians living among the Palestinians are actually kinfolk. They have literally driven their Christian kinsmen into the Palestinian ideological camp. For their part, some of the local Christians tried to become more Palestinian than the Palestinians, founding and joining various anti-Israel terrorist groups. But pay careful attention; these groups are never “Islamic” groups. The most radical Christians among the Palestinians have expressed their “Arab nationalism”, by creating and joining non-Islamic, non-nationalist groups. Put simply, show me a Communist Palestinian terror group, and I’ll show you a so-called “Christian Arab” group. For example, the Palestine Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PLFP), was founded by Dr. George Habash, a Christian, and the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) was founded by Nayef Hawatmeh, also a Christian. In other words, the Christians among the Palestinians tried to reinvent themselves as Communist Palestinians.

The irony is that, as hard as these Christians tried to earn their Palestinian Arab credentials, they could not. Why? Because, as I wrote at the outset, they’re not Arabs. They know it. Their neighbors know it. More than this, everywhere in the Arab world Christians are persecuted. For example, Egypt’s natives i.e., the Copts, are Christian. How are they treated? They have been systematically discriminated against, raped and murdered.

Gunmen Kill Coptic Christian Outside Cairo Church; 4 Dead, Including 8-Year-Old And 12-Year-Old Girls

Gunmen Kill Coptic Christian Outside Cairo Church; 4 Dead, Including 8-Year-Old And 12-Year-Old Girls

For their part, the so-called Palestinian Christians have been driven out of Bethlehem and any other town under Palestinian jurisdiction where they were the traditional majority.

But is this historical assessment relevant today? More than ever. As I write this, a new phenomenon is unfolding. The so-called Christian Arabs are coming out of the Jewish/Aramian closet, and declaring themselves as non-Arabs. The most dramatic example of this is Gabriel Nadaf, a Greek orthodox priest from Nazareth, who has become the symbol of the new phenomenon. Father Nadaf is the spiritual leader of a group of Christians living in Israel who are now reclaiming their Aramian Jewish past and fighting on the side of Israel against Islamic persecution of Christians in the Middle East. Most dramatically, Father Nadaf has called on Israeli Christian youth to serve in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). He and his associates, such as Res. Captain (IDF) Shahdi Halul, have been responsible for a 300% rise in Christian enlistment in the IDF in the past year.

Father Nadaf recently stated on Israeli state television (Channel 1) that he is seeking full integration of Israel’s 130,000 Christians into Israeli society. He’s doing this, he said, because of his people’s history, and “in light of what we see happening to Christians in Arab countries; how they are slaughtered and persecuted on a daily basis – killed and raped just because they are Christians. Does this happen in the State of Israel? No, it doesn’t!”

This new Israeli-Christian phenomenon is something that should be embraced by all people who value ethnic survival and democracy. Some of the surviving Israeli-Christian communities still speak the language of the Gospels and the Talmud i.e., Aramaic. These people are preserving rituals that date back 2,000 years to the very dawn of Christianity, before it became a Roman religion.

The sad thing is that no one is going to embrace their cause any time soon. When the Pope comes to Israel in May, he is not going to visit the Israeli Christians in the IDF. That would be politically incorrect. Given that Mahmud Abbas, the leader of the Palestinian Authority, has now retroactively made Jesus a “Palestinian”, the Pope is not going to challenge Abbas. Rather, the Pope is going to celebrate Mass in Bethlehem, before an audience of Muslim Arabs pretending to be Christians for CNN cameras. The rest of the Christian world will also ignore the Christians of Israel. After all, these people are committed to serving in a Jewish army, as opposed to wanting to blow themselves up in Jerusalem pizzerias in the name of Islam. Unfortunately, Western liberals like the latter more than the former.

But spin doctors aside, we should all celebrate the fact that Aramian Christians have survived in the Holy Land and are now rejoining their Jewish brethren. For 1,400 years, Jews and Christians were “dhimmis” i.e., second-class citizens under Islamic rule. Now, they are joining forces in a democratic Israel.

The truth about Robert Spencer

Rebuttals to false charges

The charge: Both the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League have labeled the group that Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller founded as an anti-Muslim hate group.

The facts: Robert Spencer is no more “anti-Muslim” than foes of the Nazis were “anti-German.” It has become common, because of the efforts of Islamic supremacist and Leftist groups, to equate resistance to jihad terror with “hate,” but there is no substance to this. Spencer’s work has been entirely dedicated to defending the freedom of speech and the principle of equality of rights for all people before the law.

The SPLC keeps tabs on neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups. And that is good. But the implication of their hate group label is that the group that Spencer and Geller founded, the American Freedom Defense Initiative, is another one of those, which is false. While the SPLC may have done good work in the 1960s against white racists, in recent years it has become a mere propaganda organ for the Left, tarring any group that dissents from its extreme political agenda as a “hate group.” Significantly, although it lists hundreds of groups as “hate groups,” it includes not a single  Islamic jihad group on this list. And its “hate group” designation against the Family Research Council led one of its followers to storm the FRC offices with a gun, determined to murder the chief of the FRC. This shows that these kinds of charges shouldn’t be thrown around frivolously, as tools to demonize and marginalize those whose politics the SPLC dislikes. But that is exactly what they do. Its hard-Left leanings are well known and well documented. This Weekly Standard article sums up much of what is wrong with the SPLC.

The ADL traffics in the same reckless defamation. They have libeled the preeminent lawyer and orthodox Jew David Yerushalmi as an “extremist,” an “anti-Muslim bigot” and a “white supremacist.” The ADL has even condemned Israel for fighting anti-Semitism. According to Charles Jacobs of Americans for Peace and Tolerance: “The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) – biggest Jewish ‘defense’ organization — admits in private that the biggest danger to Jews since WWII comes from Muslim Jew-hatred, but because it fears offending its liberal donors and being charged with ‘Islamophobia,’ the organization remains essentially silent on the issue. In a study of ADL press releases from 1995 to 2011– a good if not perfect indicator of ADL priorities – we found that only 3 percent of ADL’s press releases focus on Islamic extremism and Arab anti-Semitism.” (For the full study, see

The ADL has defamed many people. The ADL was successfully sued for over $10 million for defaming a Colorado couple, whom they accused of bigotry. The judgment was confirmed by every court that reviewed it, and was ultimately paid by the ADL. This was the largest defamation judgment in the history of the State of Colorado — paid by the Anti-Defamation League.

The charge: Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller were both banned from Britain because of their founding of “anti-Muslim hate groups.”

The facts: The letter to Spencer from the UK Home Office said he was banned for saying: “[Islam] is a religion and is a belief system that mandates warfare against unbelievers for the purpose for establishing a societal model that is absolutely incompatible with Western society because media and general government unwillingness to face the sources of Islamic terrorism these things remain largely unknown.” This is a garbled version of what Spencer actually said, which is that Islam in its traditional formulations and core texts mandates warfare against and the subjugation of unbelievers. This is not actually a controversial point to anyone who has studied Islam. Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee, Assistant Professor on the faculty of Shari’ah and Law of the International Islamic University in Islamabad, in his 1994 book The Methodology of Ijtihad quotes the twelfth century Maliki jurist Ibn Rushd: “Muslim jurists agreed that the purpose of fighting with the People of the Book…is one of two things: it is either their conversion to Islam or the payment of jizyah.” Nyazee concludes: “This leaves no doubt that the primary goal of the Muslim community, in the eyes of its jurists, is to spread the word of Allah through jihad, and the option of poll-tax [jizya] is to be exercised only after subjugation” of non-Muslims.

A Shafi’i manual of Islamic law endorsed by the most prestigious institution in Sunni Islam, Al-Azhar University in Cairo, says that the leader of the Muslims “makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians…until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax,” and cites Qur’an 9:29 in support of this idea: “Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and His messenger have forbidden-who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book-until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled.” (‘Umdat al-Salik o9.8)

Also, the assumption that the British government is fair, consistent, and judicious in such judgments is false. Just days before Spencer and Geller were banned, the British government admitted Saudi Sheikh Mohammed al-Arefe. Al-Arefe has said: “Devotion to jihad for the sake of Allah, and the desire to shed blood, to smash skulls, and to sever limbs for the sake of Allah and in defense of His religion, is, undoubtedly, an honor for the believer. Allah said that if a man fights the infidels, the infidels will be unable to prepare to fight.”

That was acceptable in Britain. Spencer’s work, which has consistently been in defense of human rights, was not. He has never advocated for or condoned violence. Spencer and Geller are challenging this capricious decision and are confident they will prevail.

The charge: Robert Spencer inspired the Norwegian terrorist mass murder Anders Behring Breivik, who cited Spencer many times in his manifesto.

The facts: This charge is meant to imply that Spencer calls for violence and that Breivik heeded his call. This is absolutely false. In all his quotations of Spencer, Breivik never quotes him calling for or justifying violence – because he never does. In fact, Breivik even criticized him for not doing so, saying of Spencer, historian Bat Ye’or and other critics of jihad terror: “If these authors are to [sic] scared to propagate a conservative revolution and armed resistance then other authors will have to.” (Breivik, 2083: A European Declaration of Independence, p. 743) Breivik explains in his manifesto that he was “radicalized” by his experiences with Muslim immigrants in the early 1990s, before Spencer had published anything about Islam (See Breivik, p. 1348).

Breivik also hesitantly but unmistakably recommended making common cause with jihadists, which neither Spencer nor any other opponent of jihad would ever do: “An alliance with the Jihadists might prove beneficial to both parties but will simply be too dangerous (and might prove to be ideologically counter-productive). We both share one common goal.” (Breivik, p. 948). He even called for making common cause with Hamas in plotting jihad terror: “Approach a representative from a Jihadi Salafi group. Get in contact with a Jihadi strawman. Present your terms and have him forward them to his superiors….Present your offer. They are asked to provide a biological compound manufactured by Muslim scientists in the Middle East. Hamas and several Jihadi groups have labs and they have the potential to provide such substances. Their problem is finding suitable martyrs who can pass ‘screenings’ in Western Europe. This is where we come in. We will smuggle it in to the EU and distribute it at a target of our choosing. We must give them assurances that we are not to harm any Muslims etc.” (Breivik, p. 949)

Investigative journalist and author Daniel Greenfield explained:

Jeffrey Goldberg at the Atlantic goes so far as to call a prominent researcher into Islamic terrorism, Robert Spencer, a jihadist. The Washington Post admits that Spencer and other researchers are not responsible for the shootings, but sneers nonetheless. And the New York Times and a number of other outlets have picked and touted the “64 times” that Spencer was quoted in the shooter’s manifesto…

The “64 times” cited by the Times and its imitators reflects lazy research since the majority of those quotes actually come from a single document, where Spencer is quoted side by side with Tony Blair and Condoleezza Rice….

Many of the other Spencer quotes are actually secondhand from essays written by Fjordman that also incorporate selections of quotes on Islam and its historical background. Rather than Breivik quoting Spencer, he is actually quoting Fjordman who is quoting Spencer.

Quite often, Robert Spencer is quoted providing historical background on Islam and quotes from the Koran and the Hadith. So, it’s actually Fjordman quoting Spencer quoting the Koran. If the media insists that Fjordman is an extremist and Spencer is an extremist — then isn’t the Koran also extremist?

And if the Koran isn’t extremist, then how could quoting it be extremist?

The New York Times would have you believe that secondhand quotes like these from Spencer turned Breivik into a raging madman….

Breivik was driven by fantasies of seizing power, combined with steroid abuse and escapism. He used quotes from researchers into terrorism to pad out his schizophrenic worldview, combined with fantasies of multiple terrorist cells and an eventual rise to power.

This is not so different from lunatics who picked up a copy of “Catcher in the Rye” and then set off to kill a celebrity. A not uncommon event, for which J.D. Salinger bears no responsibility whatsoever.

The charge: Robert Spencer denies the Srebrenica genocide and justifies Serbian war crimes against Muslims.

The facts: This charge implies that Spencer approves of violence against innocent Muslims, which is absolutely false. It is based on two (out of over 40,000) articles published at Jihad Watch in 2005 and 2009 questioning whether the massacre of Muslim civilians in Srebrenica in 1995, which was unquestionably heinous, rises to the level of an attempt to exterminate an entire people. Neither was written by Spencer and neither approves of the killing of Muslims or anyone. In “Srebrenica as Genocide? The Krstić Decision and the Language of the Unspeakable,” published in the Yale Human Rights & Development Law Journal, Vol. VIII in 2005, Katherine G. Southwick writes:

In August 2001, a trial chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) handed down the tribunal’s first genocide conviction. In this landmark case, Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstić, the trial chamber determined that the 1995 Srebrenica massacres—in which Bosnian Serb forces executed 7,000-8,000 Bosnian Muslim men—constituted genocide. This Note acknowledges the need for a dramatic expression of moral outrage at the most terrible massacre in Europe since the Second World War. However, this Note also challenges the genocide finding. By excluding consideration of the perpetrators’ motives for killing the men, such as seeking to eliminate a military threat, the Krstić chamber’s method for finding specific intent to destroy the Bosnian Muslims, in whole or in part, was incomplete. The chamber also loosely construed other terms in the genocide definition, untenably broadening the meaning and application of the crime. The chamber’s interpretation of genocide in turn has problematic implications for the tribunal, enforcement of international humanitarian law, and historical accuracy. Thus highlighting instances where inquiry into motives may be relevant to genocide determinations, this Note ultimately argues for preserving distinctions between genocide and crimes against humanity, while simultaneously expanding the legal obligation to act to mass crimes that lack proof of genocidal intent

If Spencer is guilty of “genocide denial,” so also is the Yale Human Rights & Development Law Journal. In reality, neither are. The raising of legitimate questions does not constitute either the denial or the excusing of the evils that Serbian forces perpetrated at Srebrenica or anywhere else.

The charge: Robert Spencer blames all Muslims for the crimes of Islamic jihad terrorists who are condemned by the vast majority of peaceful Muslims.

The facts: This charge is never accompanied by any quote from Robert Spencer, because it has no basis in reality whatsoever. He has never blamed all Muslims for the crimes of jihad terrorists. He has called upon peaceful Muslims to acknowledge the fact that Islamic jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and supremacism, and to take action to mitigate the ability of these texts to incite violence. This call has not generally been heeded.

The charge: Spencer has argued that there is no distinction between American Muslims and radical, violent jihadists.

The facts: What Spencer actually said was that U.S. Muslim organizations have been slow to expel violent jihadists or report their activities, and so they move freely among peaceful Muslims. He was referring to the fact that there is no institutional distinction between Muslims who reject jihad terror and those who embrace, so jihadis move freely in Muslim circles among those who oppose them and claim to do so. In other words, there are no “Islamic supremacist” mosques and “moderate” mosques. There are just mosques, and there are both peaceful Muslims and jihadis in some of them. The Tsarnaev brothers, who bombed the Boston Marathon in April 2013, were members in good standing of the Islamic Society of Boston. The Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation’s most vocal Muslim organization, has counseled Muslims in the U.S. not to speak to the FBI.

The charge: Spencer and Pamela Geller sponsored ads that equated all Muslims with savages.

The facts: In reality, the ad said: “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat jihad.” The savages to which the ad was referring, obviously, were those jihadis who have massacred innocent Israeli civilians such as the Fogel family and celebrated those massacres.