Tag Archives: Palestinian people

The Palestinian war on history


A quiet war has been raging for years and few but researchers in the field have paid it any attention. This war is a “war of history” that the Palestinian Authority has been waging against the State of Israel.

The scandal surrounding Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s remark recently that Jerusalem Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini planted the idea of exterminating the Jews in Hitler’s head can be considered a mild revision of history when compared with what is currently happening in Palestinian society, in a blatant, intentional manner.

One of the main staples of the Palestinian Authority’s policy is the rewriting of the history of the Land of Israel. Thus, Jewish history is wiped and replaced with a fabricated, ancient Muslim-Palestinian history that supposedly pre-dates the Jews. Before the establishment of the state, the Zionist narrative rested on the Bible as a source of legitimization for establishing a Jewish state here. When David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister, was asked by the Peel Commission why he — a native Pole — was demanding rights to this land, he replied: “The Bible is our mandate. Our historic right has existed since the dawn of the Jewish people.”

To counter this narrative, the Palestinians have, for years, cultivated the “Canaanite myth.” On Palestinian television programs, the Biblical Canaanites are morphed into Arabs who have lived in this land since 7000 BCE and to this day. After all, even the Bible says that the Canaanites lived in this land before the Israelites and Abraham came along. Incidentally, in these Palestinian documentaries, Abraham is turned into a Muslim who built Al-Aqsa mosque. Moses becomes a Muslim who shepherded the Muslims out of Egypt, and Jesus is not a Jew but a Palestinian.

Jerusalem, and at its heart the Temple Mount, is a historical and archaeological battleground where antiquities proving the Jewish link to the land are systematically destroyed. The Palestinian response to existing Jewish artifacts is that they are forged. According to official Palestinian Authority documents, the Temple Mount is an exclusively Muslim territory that includes the Western Wall, which, according to Islamic tradition, is where the Prophet Muhammad tied his winged horse Buraq during his Night Journey from Mecca to Jerusalem.

Let us focus on slightly more modern history: Palestinian Authority textbooks detail the events of World War II but conspicuously leave out any mention of the Holocaust. In fact, the term Holocaust is reserved by the Palestinians for what Israel has done to them. So-called Palestinian historians have argued on broadcast television that Auschwitz and Dachau were “disinfection sites,” where Jews were simply disinfected, and that early Zionist leaders collaborated with the Nazis to get rid of handicapped and disabled Jews.

According to the Palestinians, the ones who were burned in the crematoria were not the Jews in Europe but rather Palestinian children in Israel. These are widely held beliefs, attributed to the highest-ranking clergymen in the Palestinian Authority. They can be found in school textbooks. They are broadcast on Palestinian Authority television, not just Hamas networks. The rewriting of both Jewish and Palestinian history has one very clear goal: It serves to negate Israel’s right to exist and as a basis for refusing to recognize it.

There are a few reasons why all this is largely ignored by the Israeli public. One reason is the mental exhaustion in Jewish society, which has become a post-Zionist society seeking only to live in peace. But in these days of increased terrorism, where the slogan “there is no solution to lone-wolf attacks” is heard incessantly, it would be wise to think about the collective atmosphere these lone-wolf attackers come from and about the narratives they are taught from infancy.

It is very hard to fight lies, because those who want to believe them will continue to believe them even when presented with historical facts and scientific proof to the contrary. However, what we can do is to reinforce the historical and Zionist awareness among our own children in our Jewish schools so that at least we know why we are fighting.

Dr. Nesia Shemer is a lecturer in the Middle Eastern Studies Department at Bar-Ilan University.

Why Palestinians Do Not Want Cameras on the Temple Mount

  • The Palestinian Authority (PA) will continue to work against having cameras in the hope of preventing the world from seeing what is really happening at the site and undermining Jordan’s “custodianship” over Islamic holy sites in Jerusalem.
  • Another reason the Palestinians oppose King Abdullah’s idea is their fear that cameras would expose that Palestinians have been smuggling stones, firebombs and pipe bombs into the Al-Aqsa Mosque for the past two years.
  • The cameras are also likely to refute the claim that Jews are “violently invading” Al-Aqsa Mosque and holding prayers on the Temple Mount. The cameras will show that Jews do not enter Al-Aqsa Mosque, as Palestinians have been claiming. Needless to say, no Jewish visitors have been caught trying to smuggle weapons into the holy site.
  • It remains to be seen how Secretary Kerry, who brokered the camera deal between Israel and Jordan, will react to the latest Palestinian Authority escalation of tensions. If Kerry fails to pressure the PA to stop its incitement and attempts to exclude the Jordanians from playing any positive role, the current wave of knife attacks against Jews will continue.

Why is the Palestinian Authority (PA) opposed to Jordan’s proposal to install surveillance cameras at Jerusalem’s Haram al-Sharif (Temple Mount), sacred to Christians, Muslims and Jews?

This is the question that many in Jordan have been asking in light of the recent agreement between Israel and Jordan that was reached under the auspices of US Secretary of State John Kerry. The idea was first raised by Jordan’s King Abdullah in a bid to ease tensions at the holy site in the Old City of Jerusalem.

Shortly after Israel accepted the idea, the Palestinian Authority rushed to denounce it as a “new trap.” PA Foreign Minister Riad al-Malki and other officials in Ramallah expressed concern that Israel would use the cameras to “arrest Palestinians under the pretext of incitement.”

During the past two years, the Palestinian Authority and other parties, including Hamas and the Islamic Movement (Northern Branch) in Israel, have been waging a campaign of incitement against Jewish visits to the Haram al-Sharif. The campaign claimed that Jews were planning to destroy Al-Aqsa Mosque.

In an attempt to prevent Jews from entering the approximately 37-acre (150,000 m2) site, the Palestinian Authority and the Islamic Movement in Israel hired scores of Muslim men and women to harass the Jewish visitors and the police officers escorting them. The men are referred to as Murabitoun, while the women are called Murabitat (defenders or guardians of the faith).

These men and women have since been filmed shouting and trying to assault Jews and policemen at the Haram al-Sharif. This type of video evidence is something that the Palestinian Authority is trying to avoid. The PA, together with the Islamic Movement, wants the men and women to continue harassing the Jews under the pretext of “defending” the Al-Aqsa Mosque from “destruction” and “contamination.”

Hundreds of Muslims on the Temple Mount, yelling and throwing objects, surround three Jewish men and their children, as about a dozen police officers try to hold back the angry crowd and evacuate the Jews.

The installation of surveillance cameras at the site will expose the aggressive behavior of the Murabitoun and Murabitat, and show the world who is really “desecrating” the Islamic holy sites and turning them into a base for assaulting and abusing Jewish visitors and policemen.

The cameras are also likely to refute the claim that Jews are “violently invading” Al-Aqsa Mosque and holding prayers at the Temple Mount. The Palestinian Authority, Hamas and the Islamic Movement have long been describing the Jewish visits as a “provocative and violent incursion” into Al-Aqsa Mosque. But now the cameras will show that Jews do not enter Al-Aqsa Mosque, as the Palestinians have been claiming.

Another reason the Palestinians are opposed to King Abdullah’s idea is their fear that the cameras would expose that Palestinians have been smuggling stones, firebombs and pipe bombs into Al-Aqsa Mosque for the past two years. These are scenes at the PA, Hamas and the Islamic Movement do not want the world to see: they show who is really “contaminating” the Haram al-Sharif. Needless to say, no Jewish visitors have thus far been caught trying to smuggle such weapons into the holy site.

Palestinian Arab young men with masks, inside Al-Aqsa Mosque (some wearing shoes), stockpile rocks to use for throwing at Jews who visit the Temple Mount, September 27, 2015.

By rejecting the idea of setting up 24-hour surveillance cameras at the Haram al-Sharif, the Palestinian Authority has found itself on a course of collision with Jordan. Jordanian politicians and columnists have voiced outrage over the stance of the PA, and have dubbed it harmful to Palestinian and Islamic interests.

The Jordanian newspaper Al-Ghad, which is close to the government, quoted Jordanian politicians as denouncing the opposition of the Palestinian Authority to the cameras as “inappropriate, clumsy, tasteless and unfair.”

Sources in Ramallah explained this week that the PA’s opposition to cameras should also be seen in the context of the power struggle between the Palestinians and Jordan over control of the Islamic holy sites in Jerusalem. The Jordanians have long been seeking to preserve their status as “custodians” of Al-Aqsa Mosque and other Islamic holy sites in Jerusalem. This is a status that some Palestinians and the Islamic Movement in Israel have been trying to change during the past two decades, especially after the signing of the Oslo Accords between the PLO and Israel in 1993.

The Palestinian Authority’s opposition to the installation of cameras is seen as an attempt to undermine Jordan’s status at the Islamic holy sites. Many Palestinians argue that they, and not the Jordanians, should be in charge of the Haram al-Sharif. Members of the PA are opposed to the cameras because it is a Jordanian proposal and reinforces Jordan’s role at the holy site.

As such, the Palestinian Authority’s position could be seen as an attempt to change the status quo at the holy site by driving the Jordanians out of the area. King Abdullah is obviously aware of the Palestinian attempt to prevent him from playing any role at the holy site; that is why he was quick to reach a deal with Israel about the installation of cameras. The PA, meanwhile, will continue to work against having cameras in the hope of preventing the world from seeing what is really happening at the site and undermining Jordan’s “custodianship” over Islamic holy sites in Jerusalem.

It now remains to be seen how Secretary Kerry, who brokered the camera deal between Israel and Jordan, will react, if at all, to the latest Palestinian Authority attempt to continue escalating tensions at the holy site. If Kerry fails to pressure the PA to stop its incitement and repeated attempts to exclude the Jordanians from playing any positive role at the Haram al-Sharif, the current wave of knife attacks against Jews will continue.

  • Follow Khaled Abu Toameh on Twitter

Israel Blood is all on Obama’s Hands

How Obama and Kerry caused the stabbing terror spree in Israel.

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.

Before the Muslim terror stabbing spree, Netanyahu had made repeated efforts to meet with the leader of the PLO. And for once, Abbas, the PLO leader, had not been averse to a meeting.

Instead it was Secretary of State John Kerry who told Abbas not to meet with Netanyahu.

Abbas went to the UN and disavowed the Oslo Accords. The first Muslim stabbings of Jews, with the encouragement of the PLO, began a few days later.

It is unlikely that Kerry had directly told Abbas to escalate the violence, but he had sent him the same effective message by coordinating with the PLO boss at the expense of Netanyahu. The top terrorist came away with the understanding that the administration favored him and was hostile to Netanyahu.

And he was right.

So Abbas decided to see what another outburst of violence would net him.

It wasn’t the first time that Obama and Kerry had unleashed Abbas’ worst impulses.

Obama’s splashy trip to Israel didn’t lead to peace, but it did make the PLO’s Palestinian Authority more dictatorial and corrupt. The closest thing to an accomplishment that the Bush administration’s own failed efforts had to show for them was the appointment of Salam Fayyad as Prime Minister of the PA.

While Fayyad had nothing to contribute to the peace process, and the Palestinian Authority remained a corrupt coven of terrorists subsidized by foreign aid, there were some improvements when it came to financial transparency. Most importantly, Fayyad provided a check on Abbas in an organization which had otherwise abandoned elections and made the PLO boss into a dictator for life.

In 2013, Obama finally followed the advice of his Jewish leftist allies to visit Israel and “make the case for peace” to the Israeli people. This he did to a handpicked younger audience, while snubbing the usual Knesset speech in Israel’s parliament that Bush, Clinton and even Carter had delivered.

“I genuinely believe that you do have a true partner in President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad. I believe that,” Obama told his Israeli audience.

Earlier, Abbas had told a Russian interviewer, “As far as I am concerned, there is no difference between our policies and those of Hamas. So why are they labeled as terrorists?” It was a good question, but not one that Obama was in the mood to address.

Despite Obama’s vote of confidence in Fayyad, it was his visit with its free pass to Abbas that would finish Fayyad’s career. Fayyad’s rise had been a response to growing skepticism by the Bush administration and Congress of Abbas’ mismanagement of the Palestinian Authority.

When Obama arrived, Abbas had already been trying to force out Fayyad. The visit, with the trappings of one president visiting another, sent the message that Abbas didn’t have to worry about democracy. US diplomats scrambled to persuade Abbas to keep Fayyad on, but the damage had been done. Soon Fayyad was gone, leaving Abbas with the Palestinian Authority as his private fiefdom.

Fayyad’s departure fed Abbas’ hubris. There were no more elections and no independent prime minister to get in his way. So Kerry’s attempt at a peace process was met with a crazy demand by the PLO boss that Israel release hundreds of terrorists as a precondition to any negotiations.

Instead of giving Abbas a reality check that Israel shouldn’t have to release dangerous terrorists just for the privilege of sitting at a table with him, Obama and Kerry once again backed up Abbas.  While Netanyahu’s expectation that Abbas should recognize Israel as a Jewish state, according to Kerry was “not going to happen in the beginning”, the release of murderous Muslim terrorists would.

Most of the terrorists were freed, but Abbas just escalated his demands and then made a big push at the UN. Negotiations collapsed, but instead of blaming Abbas, Kerry blamed Israel.  “Israel didn’t release the Palestinian prisoners on the day they were supposed to be freed, and another day passed, and another day,” he grumbled to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

The worse Abbas behaved, the more Obama and Kerry backed him up.

Even when Jews were being butchered in the streets of Jerusalem, while Abbas’ henchmen and propagandists cheered on the killers, Kerry once again blamed Israel claiming that the violence was caused by Muslim “frustration” due to an imaginary “massive increase in settlements.”

(Settlements being places in Israel where Jews live, as opposed to where Muslims live, which are never damned as settlements even when the land is illegally acquired and when houses are built on land that the Jewish population had been ethnically cleansed from.)

Kerry was once again sending the message that Abbas and the PLO could do no wrong.

The recent roots of this violence can be found in how Obama and Kerry chose to feed Abbas’ hubris.

Abbas has learned that he can do just about anything and his pals in Washington D.C. will blame Israeli settlements or the manic depressive frustration and desperation of terrorists instead of the PLO leader.

Obama’s overhyped visit didn’t set the stage for peace, but for an escalation of the conflict. The meeting of the two men only nourished Abbas’ grandiose delusions and totalitarian itches.

The Bush administration made an effort to set some expectations for the PLO. Those expectations weren’t met, but at least they existed. The Obama administration has zero expectations for Abbas.

Those zero expectations have translated into an unapologetic dictatorship subsidized by US taxpayers, an international diplomatic campaign whose only real purpose is the self-glorification of that dictator and a campaign of violence and terror so that the dictator can feel like a player on the world stage.

Not only did Obama and Kerry fail to do the right thing, but at every turn they managed to make things worse. Their determination to blame everything on Israel told Abbas that he could do anything. Even when Abbas might have actually met with Netanyahu, Kerry insisted on sabotaging the meeting.

None of this was an accident. There was a lot more at stake here than another failed peace deal.

Obama views Netanyahu as a political enemy and stirring up violence in Israel is one way of hurting him.

It’s no coincidence that the peace push followed Netanyahu’s Iran speech at the UN and growing worries by Obama’s people that Israel would carry out its own strike against Iran’s nuclear program.

While the PLO peace circus was in town, negotiations with Iran were moving forward and being kept secret from Israel. Forcing Israel to negotiate with the PLO terrorists was meant to distract it from the other negotiations with the Iranian terrorists that the Jewish State wasn’t supposed to know about. And making those negotiations as difficult and disastrous as possible was one way of diverting a good deal of Israel’s diplomatic and intelligence capabilities to coping with a growing threat at home.

Obama and Kerry may not have understood that their gambit would end in violence, that an arrogant Abbas would escalate the conflict with a new wave of terror that would lead to Jewish men, women and children being murdered by Muslim terrorists emboldened by Abbas’s martyrdom rhetoric.

It’s more likely though that they just didn’t care.

Giving Israel a domestic security crisis to deal with it is one more way of preventing a last ditch effort to take out Iran’s nuclear program. Whether or not Obama and Kerry had that particular outcome in mind, it clearly benefits their agenda and they have shown no sign of cracking down on Abbas’ incitement.

Obama and Kerry want Netanyahu out. They want to see a more pliable government in Israel. Their efforts at influencing an Israeli election failed. But it did incrementally yield a weaker and less conservative government coalition. Abbas’ combination of diplomatic and terrorist attacks also yields incremental results by denying Netanyahu the breathing room to make considered decisions.

The White House may not be directing Abbas’ violence, but it benefits from it and it is unwilling to shut it down because even if it doesn’t bring down Netanyahu, it will weaken him and limit his options.

Obama could quickly send the signal to Abbas that the free ride is over. He could call for Palestinian elections, political reforms and use foreign aid to force an end to the PLO’s promotion of terrorism.

None of that is happening. Nor will it. Instead Kerry is taking great pains to avoid saying anything that could be characterized as singling out Abbas for blame. And that is a covert message of approval.

Abbas’ PLO terror will only escalate as long as he senses that he has the support of the White House. And as long as the White House continues to support him, the blood of his victims is on Obama’s hands.