Conspiratorial Anti-Zionism: Professor David Miller and the ‘paranoid style’ of politics

For a wide range of ideological extremists, anti-Semitism is still the stupid answer for why what goes wrong with the world does go wrong. Op-ed.

Tags:Dr. Richard L. CravattsAntisemitismCampus Antisemitism Dr. Richard L. Cravatts , Sep 26 , 2021 8:25 AM Share
Anti-Semitism lurks behind German flag

Anti-Semitism lurks behind German flag iStock

“Anti-Semitism,” wrote Stephen Eric Bronner, author of the engaging book A Rumor About The Jews, “is the stupid answer to a serious question: How does history operate behind our backs?”

For a wide range of ideological extremists, anti-Semitism is still the stupid answer for why what goes wrong with the world does go wrong. It is a philosophical world view and interpretation of history that creates conspiracies as a way of explaining the unfolding of historical events; it is a pessimistic and frantic outlook, characterized in 1964 by historian Richard Hofstadter as “the paranoid style” of politics, which shifts responsibility from the self to sinister, omnipotent others—typically and historically the Jews.

Long the thought product of cranks and fringe groups, Hofstadter’s paranoid style of politics has lately entered the mainstream of what would be considered serious and respectable academic enterprise. Witness, for instance, the ongoing controversy engulfing Professor David Miller, professor of political sociology in the School for Policy Studies at Britain’s Bristol University, who has enraged Jewish students and other external stakeholders by his vicious attacks on Zionism, Israel, and Jewish organizations in England.

In his lectures, writing, and public statements Miller has vehemently suggested that Jewish communal organizations work in tandem, behind the scenes and in a furtive and underhanded manner, to subvert the interest of British universities and government. More than that, Miller also contends that Zionism itself, which he characterizes as a “fanatical” political ideology, has as one of its primary roles to slander Islam, that Zionism, he contends, is a chief source of Islamophobia. And the shady Jewish organizations he identifies as being part of the defense and promotion of Zionism are therefore agents of this bigotry, not to mention, as he put it, that “the Zionist movement and the Israeli government are the enemy of the left, the enemy of world peace.”

What troubles observers of this type of intellectual output from academia is that, unlike its intellectually flabby predecessors from right-wing hate groups or left-wing cranks, this political analysis comes complete with academic respectability, a trend that Professor Hofstadter had himself originally found curious.

“In fact,” he wrote, “the idea of the paranoid style as a force in politics would have little contemporary relevance or historical value if it were applied only to men with profoundly disturbed minds. It is the use of paranoid modes of expression by more or less normal people that makes the phenomenon significant.”

Much has been made of lecture slides Miller uses in his “Harms of the Powerful” module, slides which Jewish students thought contained anti-Semitic tropes about Jewish power, malignancy, and manipulation. One of the slides, titled “Five Pillars of Islamophobia,” includes the Zionist movement as one of the five pillars responsible for promoting Islamophobia. Another slide, “Pillar 4: The zionist [sic] movement (parts of),” lists such nefarious groups as “ultra Zionist funders, the Jewish National Fund, the Israeli government itself, and even the Community Security Trust (CST), an organization roughly analogous to the U.S.’s benign ADL which fights anti-Semitism and addresses other Jewish communal issues.

Any conspiracy or unlawful or immoral activity lives only in Miller’s mind, in the paranoic recesses of his anti-Semitic brain.
The slide which drew the most attention was an elaborate diagram depicting dozens of organizations, all listed under the Israeli government (Miller’s suggestion, of course, being that all the listed organizations work in concert with and for the benefit of Israel itself, and against British interests and as sources of Islamophobia). The structure of pro-Israel individuals, organizations, and agents delineated in the slide is complex, furtive, until now hidden from sight, and in Miller’s paranoid fantasies reveals a nefarious and powerful “British Zionist scene” that he has now exposed and which, he seems to believe, prove some point about Jewish power and malignancy.

Miller’s slide must be very meaningful to him, but it tells us nothing. It reveals nothing unknown, nothing sinister, nothing more than Jewish communal organizations and individuals working, sometimes alone, sometimes in concert, to protect Jewish interests, fight anti-Semitism, and support Israel. Any conspiracy or unlawful or immoral activity lives only in Miller’s mind, in the paranoic recesses of his anti-Semitic brain.

The characterization of pro-Israel lobbying by organizations and individuals as manipulation, dual loyalties, using power and influence behind the scenes, greed and money—this language is the very tone that drew an understandable thunderous denunciation of Miller’s wild ideas, including from Bristol’s Jewish students. And it is a particularly incendiary bit of language when discussing Zionism and Israel, a Jewish state, for it parallels so invidiously classic anti-Semitic canards, such as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, that purport to reveal the intention of Jews to furtively rule and dominate the globe.

And as happens in Miller’s case, there is the double insult to Jews: first, that they achieve this supposed sway over governments and other people by indirection, betrayal, and stealth; and, second, that in the end they are not only not admired for accomplishing these extraordinary, nearly superhuman feats, but envied and reviled for having supposedly surreptitiously achieved them.

“The Israel lobby’s attack on me lays bare what is actually going on,” Miller wrote, “– a weaponization of bogus anti-Semitism claims to shut down and manipulate discussion of Islamophobia.” Here Miller places himself in the very core of an unfolding conspiracy, seen only by him and his fellow travelers who claim that when Jews point to anti-Semitism of his type, they are simply being disingenuous, that they make a false claim of bigotry only to perniciously excuse the behavior of Israel and shield it from legitimate criticism.

“Manufactured controversies around Judeophobia — such as in my case —,” Miller said, “are being used to silence criticism of Zionism and Israel. That is the purpose of the IHRA definition in practice. If Saudi Arabia was engaged in a similar censorship campaign on British campuses, we would laugh it out of the room.”

And when defenders of Israel denounce the violence and terrorism of the Palestinian Arabs and Hamas in the unending campaign to murder Jews, for Miller this is simply more evidence of the Islamophobia that Jews promote, not a concern that their fellow citizens are being murdered by rockets and mortars raining down on southern Israeli towns from Gaza.

For Miller and his fellow travelers, assigning malignant attributes to Zionism and Jews is a convenient, not to mention socially acceptable, way of justifying the enmity they clearly feel for Jews. A self-fulfilling prophesy, the conspiracies that Miller weaves create proof, at least in his addled mind, of the validity of his fundamental view that there is something inherently flawed about the morality and even the existence of Jewish self-determination.

By exposing the alleged linkage between all these pernicious actors, by revealing the sinister ways that interlocked organizations and individuals conspire to undermine non-Jewish interests, Miller offers up supposed evidence of the very malignancy he already assumes lurks in Judaism, Zionism, and supporters of Israel.

Because anti-Semitism is inappropriate and no longer acceptable in academia and elite institutions, enmity toward Jews is only allowed if their behavior can be shown to be underhanded, malicious, destructive, and immoral—just as Miller’s revelations purportedly prove.

Miller is also presumptuous enough to redefine what Zionism actually means, airbrushing away its central place as the spiritual striving for a Jewish home that has animated Judaism for three millennia, thousands of years before Mohammed’s birth.

“ . . . [I]t is this exposure of Zionist Islamophobia that most terrifies Israel’s fanatical advocates,” Miller wrote, “particularly as the Israel lobby repositions itself from defending against accusations of Israeli war crimes to an offensive designed to rebrand Zionism – absurdly and ahistorically – as a “Jewish liberation movement.”

Miller thereby tries to define what Zionism means and is for Jews, just as many anti-Semites try to do when they reject the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism because they believe they are better equipped—morally and intellectually—to define the hatred they manifest themselves but of which they are totally unaware.

And Miller’s delusional notion that Zionism has as its primary purpose and effect the promotion of Islamophobia, what was once wryly defined as “a disease without any symptoms,” is breathtakingly inane.

Could there be other possible sources of suspicion and distrust of Islam, leading to some people harboring negative feelings towards the religion and many of its radical adherents?

Could it be because, from 1979-2019, there were at least 33,769 terrorist attacks, the majority of them in the name of Islam, causing the deaths of over 167,000 people?

Is it due to the regressive, theologically driven repression of human rights, other faiths, and even the lives of the infidel that Islam condones and, in fact, demands?

Is it because of its 7th century notions about the human and civil rights of women, gays, and other non-Muslim minorities?

Or because it is an ideology which allows, even encourages, stonings, beheadings, hangings, and other manner of barbarism against infidel and apostate alike?

And, more relevantly, might negative views of Islam be found in the cult of death and desire for martyrdom central to the founding charter of Hamas, for instance, which encourages the soldiers of Allah to murder Jews wherever they are by reminding them that “The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say ‘O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him’”?

Might any of those inconvenient facts about Islamism and its manifestation in any of the current-day conflicts on Islam’s “bloody borders” have more to do with whatever amount of Islamophobia actually exists than the 3000 year-old Jewish self-determination intrinsic to Zionism? Of course they do; but not, apparently, for the obsessed Professor Miller.

Having negative feelings about a religion that has spawned horrific and promiscuous violence in the modern world is not an irrational “phobia,” as Miller suggests is now directed at Islam. It is a logical conclusion one comes to after observation, historical truths, and a reading of the Koran and other foundational texts of Islam which command certain aberrant and barbaric behaviors of its adherents.

The virtue-signaling narcissists who pretend to care about Muslims and Palestinians do so, not because they actually authentically care about the well-being of these particular groups, but because it enables them, in a socially-acceptable, stealth manner, to critique, slander, libel, and hate Jews.
On the other hand, someone who is obsessively distrustful about “fanatical Zionists,” who believes Israel is singularly a threat to world peace, and who constructs elaborate, hallucinatory relationships of malicious, self-serving Jewish individuals and organizations attempting to subvert British society and undermine Islam might be thought of as irrational, phobic, even, in fact, anti-Semitic.

Miller’s purported zeal for protecting Muslims from the plague of his alleged Islamophobia is similar in intent to those who profess to be in allegiance with Palestinian solidarity—and for the same reason; namely, that in both instances the virtue-signaling narcissists who pretend to care about Muslims and Palestinians do so, not because they actually authentically care about the well-being of these particular groups, but because it enables them, in a socially-acceptable, stealth manner, to critique, slander, libel, and hate Jews.

All the concern and intrigue engendered in Miller’s deranged, paranoic views show that the obvious, and easy, answers are not the ones the paranoid is likely to accept at face value. He is condemned by his nature to suffer in the labyrinthine schemes he uncovers.

“We are all sufferers from history,” Hofstadter concluded, “but the paranoid is a double sufferer, since he is afflicted not only by the real world, with the rest of us, but by his fantasies as well.”

Richard L. Cravatts, Ph.D., a Freedom Center Journalism Fellow in Academic Free Speech and President Emeritus of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, is the author of Dispatches From the Campus War Against Israel and Jews.

Understanding the enemy: An interview with Dr. Anat Berko

Likud Knesst member Anat Berko attends a Foreign Affairs and Security committee meeting at the Knesset, Nov. 19, 2015. Photo by Miriam Alster/Flash90.

Likud Knesst member Anat Berko attends a Foreign Affairs and Security committee meeting at the Knesset, Nov. 19, 2015. Photo by Miriam Alster/Flash90. feature

The criminologist and former Knesset member has spent decades researching the psychology of suicide bombers and their handlers, including one-on-one talks with senior Hamas figures such as the terror group’s founder, Ahmed Yassin. “There’s no potential of rehabilitating them because, from their perspective, they didn’t do anything wrong,” she says.By Ran Puni Republish this article Spread the word.
Help JNS grow! Share now:

(September 20, 2021 / JNS) Israel Defense Forces Lt. Col. (ret.) Dr. Anat Berko is a criminologist and a world-renowned expert on terrorism whose research focuses on suicide bombers and their handlers. Over the course of 20 years, she met with Palestinian terrorists, including senior Hamas figures such as the group’s founder, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin. Between 2015 and 2019, she served as a member of Knesset for the Likud Party.

Q: During your research for your doctoral thesis, you interviewed security prisoners and compared them to criminal prisoners with respect to matters related to moral judgment. You spoke with them while they weren’t handcuffed. Isn’t that intimidating?

A: There were definitely situations when I felt threatened. Once I was sitting in one of the wings in the highest-security prison, and I interviewed someone who dispatched suicide bombers for Hamas. He was 2 meters [6.5 feet] tall, and behind me was a crowbar. He asked me: ‘What would you do if I hit you over the head with that crowbar? Like the Jews did to us, during the Intifada?’”

Q: How did you respond? Subscribe to The JNS Daily Syndicate by email and never miss our top stories

A: I didn’t allow him to unnerve me. My response was very cold. I said to him: “I’m sitting with you here, you’re not handcuffed, and you’re threatening to hit me? I asked them to remove the handcuffs, I showed you respect so that you could sit and talk with me like a free man, and you’re threatening me? What kind of a man are you? Aren’t you ashamed of yourself? You call yourself a man?” It rendered him speechless.

It neutralized his opposition and he cooperated with the interview, far beyond what I asked. It was important to me to sit with prisoners when they didn’t feel like they were under investigation, so I took the chance of sitting with terrorists, some of them serving numerous life sentences, without them being handcuffed.

The personal relationships that I built with them led to deep insights from a research and operational perspective.

Q: Did you encounter other unusual situations?

A: I had some unbelievable encounters. For example, the Hamas deputy prime minister asked me if I had been in the army, and I replied: “Of course, who doesn’t go to the army in Israel?” I didn’t take an apologetic stance, even when a terrorist was harsh toward me. When terrorists would ask me about my children, I answered them. A sort of give-and-take was required in order to make a genuine conversation possible.

Q: Your children even wrote letters to security prisoners.

A: It’s true. My children’s letters appear in my first book, “The Path to Paradise.” My youngest daughter, Keshet, who back then was nine, chose to ask the terrorists rational questions, for example: “Would you have carried out a terrorist attack in a kindergarten?” My eldest daughter, Tzlil, who was 15, chose to appeal to their hearts in a letter that even caused a female terrorist to burst into uncontrollable tears. My son, Yehiam, refused to write to them. One prisoner asked me why my son didn’t write, and I told her exactly what he told me—”I don’t want to write to murderers.” He was only 13 at the time. A guard speaks to inmates at the Neve Tirtza women’s prison in Ramle. July 21, 2010. Photo by Moshe Shai/Flash90.

Q: What drives a young, educated woman in her 20s to want to spend most of her time between the prison walls and later to study security prisoners?

A: My bachelor’s degree was in criminology, psychology and sociology, and I reached the conclusion that the field of criminology involves other areas, and also offers insights into people in extreme cases of human behavior. When I finished my master’s degree, while I was in the army, immediately after a term as a commander in the officer training course, I asked to oversee a prison, and I was promoted to commander of Prison 400.

I understood a prison to be a living human laboratory. I think that was the source of my interest. For my thesis, I carried out research among criminal prisoners at Neve Tirtza Women’s Prison, and later, while I was looking for an interesting subject for my doctorate, Reuven [Middle Eastern scholar Dr. Reuven Berko], my spouse, suggested that I study Hamas and Islamic Jihad prisoners. Those were people that, on the face of it, were impossible to study.

Q: And you decided to begin with then-Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin. Sounds challenging.

A: I knew that if I interviewed him, and he spoke with me, that all the other security prisoners would agree to speak with me. And the prisoners didn’t stop talking; they looked forward to their meetings with me. Ahmed Yassin too—I had to stop him after five hours because I didn’t want him to miss his lunch.

Since the sheikh was very religious, I interviewed him dressed like an ultra-Orthodox woman. To hold an interview, I knew that he had to feel comfortable. I come from an Iraqi family, I understand Arab culture from the inside, and I was glad to see that, for the sake of my research, I was able to form a meaningful connection with Hamas leaders, murderers and with those who dispatched suicide bombers. Palestinian artist Mohammed al-Dairi paints a mural of late Palestinian Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat (R) and late Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin (L), in Gaza City on March 13, 2012. Photo by Wissam Nassar/Flash90.

Q: What do you remember about Ahmed Yassin?

A: He came with all the [cachet] that he had from the outside, so he had a special status in jail. At the same time, as he had physical disabilities, he always had another prisoner alongside him who took care of him. Sometimes that same prisoner would tell Yassin to be quiet, that there were things that he shouldn’t talk about. Another surprising thing was that he didn’t quote the Koran accurately.

Q: From a broader perspective, what is the recurring pattern in the inner world of security prisoners?

A: They are very sensitive people who are rooted in a collective society, while we conduct ourselves as individuals. The issue of masculinity is very important to them, and they don’t see incarceration as a blow to their status, as criminal prisoners do, but as something that reinforces their status in the eyes of society—something for which they receive recognition as future leaders. Therefore, I think that security bodies need to lend higher importance to what happens inside the prisons. With the help of in-depth research, such as I conducted for many years, it’s possible to better understand who we are dealing with, and this is relevant in areas like psychological warfare, for example.

Q: Who are we dealing with?

A: In their society, they are seen as normative people. Even when it reaches the “Jews,” and they lose all restraint and inhibition, they are essentially conformists, since acts of terrorism are not seen as something wrong there [in Palestinian society].

Even inside the prison walls, they don’t feel isolated, unlike criminal prisoners. Security prisoners feel safe in prison since they are jailed in certain affiliation groups, according to the terrorist organization to which they belong, so that they have social support from the inside, and public support from the outside.

It’s also possible to understand them from their life stories. For example, a prisoner serving 46 life sentences told me that when he was 15, he worked at a supermarket in Herzliya. According to him, “the Jews” treated him well, but he felt that it wasn’t right that he was working on land that was his but wasn’t under his control. He said to me: “It harms my spirituality.” Sahaban Altiti is brought to the courtroom for sentencing at Israel’s Ofer military court near Ramallah on July 6, 2020. Altiti committed a terror attack south of Hebron in 2015, killing Avraham Asher Hasno. Photo by Yonatan Sindel/Flash90.

Another clear element is connected to the fact that security prisoners try to distinguish themselves from the criminals. It’s true that some of them started out as car thieves, but they made a sort of switch to terrorism and over time made a career out of it. It begins with throwing stones and Molotov cocktails. Afterward, they become aides and in the end, they deploy terrorist squads for suicide bombings.

Another difference is that, unlike criminal prisoners, they don’t think they will serve out their entire sentence—they’re certain that they will be released as part of a deal. For example, at the end of our conversation, Sheikh Yassin invited me to Gaza if I had any more questions. He was convinced that he would be freed—and after a few months there was the failed assassination attempt on [then-Hamas politburo chief] Khaled Mashal in Jordan, and he was indeed freed.

Q: Turning to current events, what drives prisoners to escape from prison?

A: Sometimes it can be a situation where they don’t see any chance of a deal and their motivation to escape rises accordingly. But I don’t think that was the case in the recent escape [of six terrorists from Gilboa prison] because a deal does occasionally come up as a possibility. I think that, beyond the desire for freedom, they aimed to receive social accolades and recognition as heroes of the struggle. Israeli security forces examine the exit point of a tunnel used by six Palestinian terrorists to escape from Gilboa Prison in northern Israel, Sept. 6, 2021. Source: Twitter.

Q: To what extent does the behavior of prisoners predict a possible escape, and how much did the organizational structure of the Israeli Prison Service encourage an escape like this?

A: It’s enough that a prisoner who isn’t affiliated with the Islamic Jihad asks to transfer into their cell and the request was granted. That’s a very bad sign.

Q: How does that happen?

A: I really don’t know. There’s intelligence that three prisoners want to escape and they put them together? It’s absurd. The way that we jail the prisoners leads to how they band together. We allow people from different areas to facilitate communication between them, to organize terrorist attacks. Dividing them up according to their organizations allows them to cultivate a new generation of leaders. The recent case was a chance to clean out the stables, to shake up the system. I hope that it won’t be limited to blaming the guards. The [prison] commanders share the responsibility. A watchtower at Gilboa Prison in northern Israel on Feb. 28, 2013. Photo by Moshe Shai/Flash90.

Q: The organizational conduct of the different terrorist groups allows them, in many cases, a certain amount of control of the prison. Did you identify this trend during your research?

A: I didn’t carry out research in Gilboa Prison and I also didn’t identify a level of total control, but I did see that security prisoners have autonomy in prisons. They sit openly in the wing, cook and eat together, and their canteen looks a lot better than any military canteen for combat soldiers in a closed unit. When that’s the situation, we have a problem.

By the way, they also receive medical care that isn’t included in the [Israeli] healthcare basket. It’s crazy. Why shouldn’t the Palestinian Authority pay for treatments like that? There are security prisoners with serious illnesses who get imprisoned only so they can receive certain medications, or others who get imprisoned so they can study quietly for their matriculation exams. The life of Hamas leader in Gaza Yahya Sinwar, for example, was saved thanks to brain surgery he had when he was a prisoner [in Israel]. If he had been in Gaza, he wouldn’t be alive today. Criminal prisoners in jail often have a feeling of time wasted. Security prisoners, on the other hand, feel that they are growing and developing all the time.”

Q: Are the prison guards afraid of the inmates?

A: It’s not necessarily fear, but there’s an attempt to placate them. It’s also important for the prison wardens to maintain calm—to avoid irregular events, hunger strikes or various pressures—because when there’s a diplomatic process and they [terrorist groups] want to create pressure, they do it using the prisons. Likud Knesset member Anat Berko (L) speaks during a Knesset committee meeting on March 23, 2016. Photo by Yonatan Sindel/Flash90.

Q: The last bill that you passed as an MK was a law canceling committees that reduced sentences. You passed this because of recidivism—the tendency of paroled criminals to reoffend. On the other hand, Maj. Gen. Moshe Ohayon, a prison commander in the south, who also has a doctorate, says that security prisoners need to be provided with educational and rehabilitation programs. Is there a possibility of rehabilitating them?

A: They don’t express remorse; in my opinion, there’s no potential of rehabilitating them because, from their perspective, they didn’t do anything wrong or forbidden. Their society empowers them for what they did. Moreover, there’s also difficulty on our side. Beyond the law that you mentioned, I passed a law to prevent the election of convicted terrorists to the Knesset. There wasn’t a law like that before. The State Attorney’s Office told me that it’s a basic right to be elected to the Knesset and demanded that I place a time limit on the ban. I requested 25 years, and in the end, I had to make do with 14. Does it seem reasonable that convicted terrorists will sit in the Knesset, even after 14 years?

Q: So you’re pessimistic with regard to rehabilitation?

A: I am pessimistic—but sometimes there’s another perspective. For example, men don’t wish for themselves and their families to be terrorists. A young man who I interviewed from Islamic Jihad, an intelligent youth and a good student, told me, “My father, who was one of the Islamic Jihad leaders, told me that my role in life was to get good grades. He gave me money for every good grade.” He said that the moment he started carrying out security offenses his father beat him up. So even the most senior leader doesn’t want his child to spend his life in prison. Life as a wanted man isn’t comfortable, and people prefer to be outside of prison.

Q: Prison is a difficult place and that’s clearly true for prison personnel as well, and for you as a researcher. After hours of interviewing terrorists, you returned home. What did you feel?

A: When I came home from the prison I had a strong need to disconnect, to get rid of the prison stench before hugging my children. Anything you touch there is difficult. Home life was very influenced by it.

Q: During your conversations with security prisoners, you formed, as you noted, meaningful connections. Weren’t you worried that you might develop empathy or sympathy with the prisoners?

A: I once wrote an article on this subject, titled “Talking with Terrorists,” together with the late professor Jerrold Post. Listen: Empathy is a tool, it allows us to [share] exceptional human moments, but it doesn’t mean we identify with them. It reminds me of when a female [would-be] suicide bomber started crying during our conversation, and hugged me. She said to me, “I really only want my mother.” She was a terrorist who was captured on her way to carry out a suicide attack.

Q: What goes through your head during those moments?

A: That she’s the same height as my daughter, who at the time was 15, and she could have got onto the bus at the same time my daughter was coming back from school. So sometimes there is indeed empathy—but there’s no sympathy. I read the indictments, I know what they did. My approach was very professional. I didn’t lose my identity when I worked in the prisons. On the contrary, beyond intellectual curiosity, I viewed my research as a mission. We have to have an in-depth understanding of the people confronting us.

This article first appeared in Israel Hayom.

Iraq issues arrest warrants for 2 who called for peace with Israel

Authorities vow to arrest hundreds of participants of conference in Kurdish region which called for Iraq to make peace with Israel.

Tags:Iraq Iraq-Israel Kurdistan Arutz Sheva Staff , Sep 26 , 2021 1:18 PM Share

Baghdad ISTOCK

A Baghdad court issued an arrest warrant Sunday for two people who participated in a conference that took place on Friday in Iraq’s Kurdistan autonomous region and in which prominent Shiite and Sunni leaders urged Iraq to make peace with Israel.

The warrants are for Sahar al-Ta’i, a senior official in Iraq’s Culture Ministry, and for Wisam al-Hardan, a tribal leader who called for peace with Israel in an Op Ed published in the Wall Street Journal on Friday.

Iraqi authorities said that the other attendees of the conference, who number about 500, would be arrested “as soon as their identities become known.”

At Friday’s conference, held in the city of Erbil, the capital of the Kurdistan region of Iraq, the leaders and former generals in the Iraqi army demanded that Iraq join the US-brokered “Abraham Accords”, which were signed last year between Israel and the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain.

The conference, which was broadcast live on several social media networks, featured, among others, Chemi Peres, the son of the late President and Prime Minister Shimon Peres, who spoke in Hebrew about the need for peace.

While the Abraham Accords were an initiative of former US President Donald Trump, they have been backed by the Biden administration as well.

The Iraqi government condemned the conference as “not representative of the population’s (opinion) and that of residents in Iraqi cities, in whose name these individuals purported to speak.”

What Makes an Arab a “Palestinian”?

The Arabs first began to describe themselves as “Palestinians” in 1964 when they adopted the PLO Charter

But lets ask a few pertinent questions:

Why is the Hashemite Klan not considered “Palestinian”? Is it because it is impossible to hide their origins in the Kingdom of the Hajaz?

As former terrorist Walid Shoebat asks: “How is it that [in 1967] I went to sleep a Jordanian and woke up a ‘Palestinian’ ?”

Lets ask another question: Why is it that Arabs living in Eretz Yisrael are “Israelis” while those Arabs living in the Jewish Tribal Territories of Judea, Benjamin, Shomron/Samaria, Gad, Reuven and Manasseh are “Palestinians”?

Another question to ask is: “By what right did the Hashemite Crown in 1988 cede to the PLO the sovereign Jewish territories of Judea, Benjamin and Shomron?”

Since the Hashemites illegally “occupied” and “annexed” the sovereign Jewish territories of Judea, Benjamin and Shomron and “ethnically cleansed” the indigenous Jewish population from these territories, it was not possible for the Hashemites to cede to the fictitious “Palestinian” people sovereign Jewish territory.

Why does that make the Arabs of Eretz Yisrael “Palestinians” or rather, perhaps the Hashemites are trying to play “slight of hand” and falsely accuse Israel of “occupying” the “Palestinians” to draw attention away from the fact that the Hashemites are a “foreign power” unlawfully occupying sovereign Jewish Territory in violation of the Mandate for Palestine and the Anglo-American Treaty of 1924?

One must ask – Why is it that the Arabs of December 1948 living in Eretz Yisrael, led by Hebron sheikh Muhammad Ja’abari voted for Abdullah I of the Kingdom of the Hejaz to be their sovereign at the Jericho Conference but the Arabs of September 1970 tried to overthrow the Hashemite Kingdom?

What makes the Arabs of 1948 different from the Arabs of, say: 1964, 1967 or 1970?

In their own words: In 1977, Zuheir Mohsen, PLO Executive Council member, articulated the goals of the new “peoplehood” strategy saying, “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…. It is only for political and tactical reasons that we speak today about…the existence of a distinct ‘Palestinian people’ to oppose Zionism”.

The Errors of the Quran

1. Mary, the mother of Jesus, was the same individual as Miriam, the sister of Moses and Aaron and daughter of Amram:

“Then she brought him to her people, carrying him. They said, ‘O Mary, you have certainly done a thing unprecedented. O sister of Aaron, your father was not a man of evil, nor was your mother unchaste’” (Surah 19:27-28).

“And [the example of] Mary, the daughter of ‘Imran, who guarded her chastity, so We blew into [her garment] through Our angel, and she believed in the words of her Lord and His scriptures and was of the devoutly obedient” (Surah 66:12).

‘Imran is an alternate spelling of Amram who is the father of Moses, Aaron, and Miriam according to the Bible:

“Amram took as his wife Jochebed his father’s sister, and she bore him Aaron and Moses, the years of the life of Amram being 137 years” (Exod 6:20).

“[Mention, O Muhammad], when the wife of ‘Imran said, ‘My Lord, indeed I have pledged to You what is in my womb, consecrated [for Your service], so accept this from me. Indeed, You are the Hearing, the Knowing.’ But when she delivered her, she said, ‘My Lord, I have delivered a female.’ And Allah was most knowing of what she delivered, ‘And the male is not like the female. And I have named her Mary, and I seek refuge for her in You and [for] her descendants from Satan, the expelled [from the mercy of Allah]’” (Surah 3:35-36).

This mistake is understandable given that the name Mary comes from the Hebrew name Miriam.

2. Haman lived at the same time as Moses and was a servant to Pharaoh:

“And We did certainly send Moses with Our signs and a clear authority to Pharaoh, Haman and Qarun [Korah]; but they said, ‘[He is] a magician and a liar’” (Surah 40:23-24).

“And Pharaoh said, ‘O Haman, construct for me a tower that I might reach the ways – the ways into the heavens – so that I may look at the deity of Moses; but indeed, I think he is a liar.’ And thus was made attractive to Pharaoh the evil of his deed, and he was averted from the [right] way. And the plan of Pharaoh was not except in ruin” (Surah 40:36-37).

Here, the Quran confuses the story of the “Tower of Babel” with Pharaoh, Haman and Korach.

3. Pharaoh used “crucifixion” as the method of the death penalty:

The Qur’an tells us that Joseph interpreted the dream of his prison-mate:

“O my two companions of the prison! As to one of you, he will pour out the wine for his lord to drink: and as for the other, he will be crucified, and the birds will eat from his head. Thus is the case judged concerning which you both did enquire.” [Surah 12:41]

Centuries later, according to the Qur’an, Pharaoh threatened his magicians, who believed in Moses, saying:

Be sure I will cut off your hands and your feet on opposite sides, and I will cause you all to die on the cross [Surah 7:124, see also Surahs 26:49 and 20:71]

The major problem with these statements from the Qur’an is that there is no archeological or historical evidence that the Egyptians used crucifixion as a form of punishment in the time of Joseph, or in the time of Moses. Crucifixion only becomes a punishment much later in history in another culture before it has been taken over by the Egyptians. Such threats made by a Pharaoh of these time periods would be historically inaccurate. The Egyptians executed people by impaling a pointed stake [or tp-ht in hieroglyphs] through the victim. Centuries later, the Romans executed people by fastening the victim to a cross with rope or nails, and they called this crucifixion. Simply put, crucifixion defines a method of execution used by the Romans and the techniques of impalement used by the ancient Egyptians cannot properly be referred to as crucifixion.

Because the Quran is mistaken in these three instances and the Torah says not to follow a false prophet but rather, such false prophet shall be put to death “at the mouth of two or three witnesses” [the Quran’s mistakes are “three witnesses” against Muhammad] ; we may safely reject the Quran and the “prophet-hood” of Muhammad.

Settlement housing starts rise 68% as Bennett pledges W. Bank development

The Settlement Affairs Ministry pledged to “preserve state land in Judea and Samaria for cultivation and development,” in a document published  Monday in which the government laid out its priorities.



View of the Israeli settlement of Ariel, in the West Bank on July 2, 2020. Photo by Sraya Diamant/Flash90 (photo credit: SRAYA DIAMANT/FLASH90)

View of the Israeli settlement of Ariel, in the West Bank on July 2, 2020. Photo by Sraya Diamant/Flash90 (photo credit: SRAYA DIAMANT/FLASH90)

Prime Minister Naftali Bennett pledged to develop West Bank settlements as housing starts in those Jewish communities rose by 68% in the first two quarters of this year, according to Central Bureau data.

The Settlement Affairs Ministry pledged to “preserve state land in Judea and Samaria for cultivation and development,” in a document published  Monday in which the government laid out its priorities for the near future.It also stated that it would develop “settlements and villages in Judea and Samaria.”

Bennett, whose right-wing Yamina party supports West Bank settlement construction, has been clear since he took office that he has no intention of freezing any such building. A number of parties in his government, however, are opposed to such building, even though it is now part of the coalition’s work program. 

Still, despite Bennett’s statements, the Higher Planning Council for Judea and Samaria, has not met to substantively approve or advance settlement construction plans since January 2021. This includes the period since Bennett’s government was sworn into office in June.

View of the Jewish settlement of Eli, in the West Bank on January 17, 2021. (credit: SRAYA DIAMANT/FLASH90)View of the Jewish settlement of Eli, in the West Bank on January 17, 2021. (credit: SRAYA DIAMANT/FLASH90)

A council meeting to advance plans for 2,223 settler homes slated for August was canceled and a new date has not yet been set.

The lag in approvals came after the spike in West Bank settlement planning that occurred during the former Trump administration four-year term, but those approvals did not translate into an increased rate of building.

There were fewer settler housing starts during the four years of the Trump administration than in the last four years of the Obama administration. In 2020, which was also the last year of former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s tenure, there were only 1,285 settler housing starts, one of the lowest such numbers in a decade.

In contrast during the first six months of this year, ground was broken for 979 new Jewish homes in Judea and Samaria.  There was, however, a 7% drop in the number of finished homes in the first half of this year, when compared with the first six months of 2020.

As of the end of June, 1,091 settler homes were completed compared with the  1,013 that were finished in the first half of last year.

According to CBS, the rate of settler population growth has dropped in 2020 to 2.3%, the lowest in the history of the movement.

Bennett is not the only one in his party to speak of the need for settlement development. On Tuesday the Minister of Religious Services Matan Kahana pledged to prioritize synagogues in Judea and Samaria when allocating budgets. 

The Oslo Myth

In Response to Caroline Glick’s Arutz Sheva Article: “Why Oslo Still Rules” I answer that –

“Oslo is a Myth”

Let’s look at the law and the facts:

Fact: Jews have never abandoned Eretz Yisrael but rather have maintained a continuous presence in Eretz Yisrael for more than 3,500 years.

The Law recognizes that where “a First Nation maintains demographic and cultural connections with the land, aboriginal title (including self-government rights) can survive both sovereignty changes and the influx of a new majority population, resulting from foreign conquest.

Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, [1997] 3 SCR 1010 (Case Number 23799).

Fact: Since Jews have never abandoned the Kingdom of Eretz Yisrael but rather, (in spite of being ethnically cleansed from their homeland) have prayed for the restoration of the Throne of David, and maintain aboriginal title to all of Eretz Yisrael, Jewish sovereignty extends to all Jewish Tribal Territories, both East and West of the Jordan River.

Fact: By the terms of Articles 5, 15 and 25 of the Mandate for Palestine, the Hejaz Hashemites were unlawfully established as a foreign power over Sovereign Jewish Territories.

Let’s look at those terms:

ART. 5.

The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power.

Abdullah I was a subject of the Kingdom of the Hejaz when he was made “Emir” of “trans-Jordan” – As such “Palestine” territory was placed “under the control of a Government of a[ny] foreign Power.” in violation for the Mandate for Palestine.

ART. 15.

The Mandatory shall see that complete freedom of conscience and the free exercise of all forms of worship, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, are ensured to all. No discrimination of any kind shall be made between the inhabitants of Palestine on the ground of race, religion or language. No person shall be excluded from Palestine on the sole ground of his religious belief.

Since “Palestine” was defined as being territory on both sides of the Jordan River, it was unlawful, as a violation of Article 15 for the Mandatory (UK) to issue the infamous “White Paper” of 1939.

ART. 25.

In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, the Mandatory shall be entitled, with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions, and to make such provision for the administration of the territories as he may consider suitable to those conditions, provided that no action shall be taken which is inconsistent with the provisions of Articles 15, 16 and 18.

What were the “territories” referenced in Article 25? Why, the Jewish Tribal territories of Gad, Reuven and Manasseh.

What does the terms postpone or withhold mean, except for a temporary provision?

And finally, what does the phrase: “for the administration of” mean, except for an “administrative” power? Certainly, in light of the raison d’etre of the Mandate for Palestine being the “National Home of the Jewish People;” the phrase “for the administration of” cannot mean a grant of “sovereignty” to a foreign power.

Because the terms of the Mandate for Palestine were violated by the Mandatory (UK), the Hejaz Hashemites are an unlawful foreign power illegally occupying Sovereign Jewish Territories!

Fact: There are no “Palestinians” – The Arabs, (after having installed Abdullah I as their sovereign at the Jericho Conference of December 1948,) led by Yasser Arafat in 1970 tried to overthrow the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. For this “Black September” PLO “operation” the Arabs of the PLO Faction gained popularity.

There are Arabs residing in Eretz Yisrael both East and West of the Jordan River. In 1977, Zuheir Mohsen, PLO Executive Council member, articulated the goals of the new “people-hood” strategy saying, “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…. It is only for political and tactical reasons that we speak today about…the existence of a distinct ‘Palestinian people’ to oppose Zionism.”

Fact: PLO Chairman, Yasser Arafat, after signing the Oslo Accords called for Jihad to Liberate Jerusalem:

Arafat declares,

And long after this agreement (1993 Oslo Agreement) which is the first step and not more than that, believe me. There is a lot to be done. The jihad will continue and Jerusalem is not for the Palestinian People. It is for all the Muslim Uma, all the Muslim Uma. You are responsible for Palestine and for Jerusalem before me.

In addition to calling for the jihad on Jerusalem, Arafat also compares the unpopularity of the agreement with Israel among Muslims with the Hudaybiyyah Treaty signed by Muhammed in 628. Yasser Arafat South African Speech of 10 May 1994.

The Law states that for an agreement to be valid, the parties must come to terms with full disclosure of the facts and in “good faith” – means that both parties intend to comply with the terms of the agreement “in good faith” –

“Good faith” has generally been defined as honesty in a person’s conduct during the agreement.

Fact: The PLO admitted “after the fact” that the Oslo Process was a “Trojan Horse” – To quote from Glick’s Arutz Sheva article:

“Faisal Husseini, who held the Palestinian Authority’s Jerusalem portfolio, gave an interview shortly before his death in the summer of 2001 in which he exposed the fraud at the heart of the Oslo process. Speaking with Al Araby newspaper, Husseini said that Yasser Arafat, his deputies and henchmen never saw the “peace process” as a way of achieving peace with Israel. Oslo, for them, was a means to advance their goal of destroying Israel, “from the river to the sea.”

Husseini described the Oslo process as a “Trojan Horse.” Arafat and his people were the hostile army that infiltrated the city “in the belly of the wooden horse.” When Arafat rejected Palestinian statehood and peace at the Camp David summit in July 2000 and initiated the Palestinian terror war two months later, it was as if he and his men had exited the horse and begun the fight.

“This is the beginning of the real work,” Husseini explained.”

Because the Olso Process was never entered into in “good faith” by the PLO, it is a null and void agreement – A Myth.

Caroline Glick Writes: Why Oslo still rules

The Oslo paradigm has survived despite the fact that it has been a catastrophe for Israel on every level for 28 years because Israel’s permanent ruling class supports it. Op-ed.

Tags: Caroline Glick Oslo Accords Oslo Has Failed – Now What , Sep 19 , 2021 7:28 PM Share
Oslo Accord handshake Rabin, Arafat

Oslo Accord handshake Rabin, Arafat JNS photo

(JNS) Faisal Husseini, who held the Palestinian Authority’s Jerusalem portfolio, gave an interview shortly before his death in the summer of 2001 in which he exposed the fraud at the heart of the Oslo process. Speaking with Al Araby newspaper, Husseini said that Yasser Arafat, his deputies and henchmen never saw the “peace process” as a way of achieving peace with Israel. Oslo, for them, was a means to advance their goal of destroying Israel, “from the river to the sea.”

Husseini described the Oslo process as a “Trojan Horse.” Arafat and his people were the hostile army that infiltrated the city “in the belly of the wooden horse.” When Arafat rejected Palestinian statehood and peace at the Camp David summit in July 2000 and initiated the Palestinian terror war two months later, it was as if he and his men had exited the horse and begun the fight.

“This is the beginning of the real work,” Husseini explained.

The PLO used the seven years that preceded the Palestinian Arab terror war to build up their power. Arafat held “peace” talks and Israel paid through the nose for the privilege of sitting across the table from him and his apparatchiks. Israel gave them the Gaza Strip. Israel gave them the Palestinian cities and villages in Judea and Samaria. Israel gave them weapons and ammunition. Israel gave them international legitimacy. Israel—and with Israel’s permission, the nations of the world—gave PLO terrorists billions of dollars every year. Israel permitted the European Union and the CIA to arm and train Arafat’s terror legions.

Arafat promised that in exchange for all that, he would fight terror and build the institutions necessary to run a state. Instead, he and his minions transformed the cities Israel gave them into terror bases. They used the funds to finance terror armies. They used the international legitimacy Israel’s recognition conferred to escalate and expand their political war against Israel’s right to exist.

The Israeli public didn’t need Husseini’s interview to know that Oslo was the gravest strategic error in Israel’s history. The first Palestinian suicide bomber blew up at a crowded bus stop seven months after Yitzhak Rabin and Arafat shook hands at the White House on Sept. 13, 1993. Between their handshake and the beginning of the Oslo war in September 2000 the number of Israelis killed by Palestinian terrorists was twice the total killed from 1967-1993.

Despite the public’s opposition, today, 28 years after Oslo’s launch, we are still living in the world Oslo unleashed. The strategic and political realities the Oslo process created still dominate the life of the country. The P.A. still exists. It still finances and incites terror and wages its political war against Israel. The Oslo-obsessed “international community” still demands that Israel “make painful concessions for peace,” and together with the Israeli left insists that the “two-state solution” is the only possible way to resolve the Palestinian Arabs’ never-ending war for the annihilation of Israel.

For years, led by Shimon Peres, the Israeli left dismissed public opposition to their radical, failed policy with the jeering catcall, “What’s the alternative?”—as if Israel’s only option was surrender to Palestinian terrorists in the name of “peace.”

A year ago, we caught a glimpse of the alternative: the sovereignty plan, which was supported by America. That plan showed that there is an option for governing Judea and Samaria and securing the interests of both Israel and the Palestinian Arabs that doesn’t involve empowering a terrorist organization.

As for peace, the Abraham Accords showed that the key to peace with the Arab world isn’t kowtowing to Palestinian terrorists.

The key to peace is Israel’s military, economic, diplomatic and social power. The parties to the Abraham Accords made peace with Israel because we are powerful, because Israel stubbornly defends its rights and interests.

Last year’s glimpse of the true alternative to surrender seems like a distant dream today. The Lapid-Gantz-Bennett government has embraced Oslo’s tired, insipid slogans and presents them as original ideas—as if we were all born yesterday.

“Security for prosperity,” Lapid’s plan for “stabilizing” Hamas-controlled Gaza, is an attempt to repackage Oslo’s requirement that Israel give the Palestinians everything they demand up front in exchange for vague promises of Palestinian moderation sometime down the line.

In Lapid’s plan, Israel will let Hamas rebuild its missile stores and terror infrastructure by transferring astronomical quantities of civilian aid. Hamas will respond by temporarily suspending its missile attacks on Israel.

“The international community” will guarantee Hamas doesn’t use the humanitarian aid to do what it has been doing since seizing control over Gaza 15 years ago, even though “the international community” has passively and actively supported Hamas for 15 years.

“Gaza residents” will overthrow Hamas if it blocks prosperity by using “humanitarian aid” to build its terror arsenal, even though the Palestinian Arabs of Gaza and Judea and Samaria support Hamas and want elections so that Hamas, which has been diverting humanitarian aid for 15 years, will oust Fatah and the PLO.

Although P.A. chairman and PLO chief Mahmoud Abbas has no public support, he is Israel’s “legitimate partner” for peace. He’s our partner for fighting terror, even though he incites and finances terror. The Lapid-Gantz-Bennett government is committed to expanding Abbas’s powers to empower “moderates.”

The Israel Defense Forces, Lapid says, can’t fight endless rounds of war with Hamas. But then again, he argues that the IDF is so powerful that Israel can afford to let Hamas rebuild its arsenal and military infrastructure.

And if all this fails to convince, Lapid brought out the big guns: “international legitimacy.” Israel can’t live without “international legitimacy,” and it won’t have any if it doesn’t give the Palestinians everything they demand. Anyway, it all makes sense because the only alternative is “the two-state solution.”

How is it possible after all we have been through and all we have learned and seen, we are still living in the Oslo reality?

The answer begins with the name of the phony peace process: Oslo. It was a Norwegian production, not an Israeli one. In 1993, the anti-Israel Norwegian government asked two Israeli peace activists who worked at a think tank connected with then-deputy Foreign Minister Yossi Beilin to come to Oslo to meet with senior PLO terrorists. They agreed despite the fact that at the time, Israeli law banned all contact between Israeli citizens and PLO members.

Although they represented no one, Yair Hirschfeld and Ron Pundak were happy to oblige, and carried out negotiations as if they were Israel’s representatives. When the talks advanced to a certain point, they told Beilin about them. And he told Peres.

After Arafat (with Israeli coaching) scuttled the official peace talks that Rabin’s representatives were holding in Washington, Peres told Rabin. Whether unwilling to get into an open battle with Peres that could potentially bring down his government, or hopeful that something positive might come from the anti-democratic exercise, Rabin agreed to make the Oslo deal official policy.

The public opposed Oslo from the beginning. To get the Oslo deals approved by the Knesset, Rabin required the support of the anti-Zionist Arab parties. Once the ultra-Orthodox Shas party left his government, to survive Rabin needed to entice two lawmakers from the far-right Tzomet party to bolt their party, and abandon their ideology. He bought them off with a ministry and a deputy ministry, and got the second Oslo deal through the Knesset with a one-vote majority.

Rabin and Peres were able to push ahead with Oslo because the media and the legal fraternity supported their efforts to demonize its opponents. Zionists became “enemies of peace,” collaborators with Hamas and Fatah. Rabin coined the term “murderers of peace.” Opposition leaders who gave firmly documented, heart-rending speeches against Oslo were accused of “incitement.” Victims of Palestinian terror were dubbed “victims of peace.”

When Ariel Sharon became prime minister at the height of the Palestinian terror war, he opted to end the media’s demonization of him by joining the Oslo mob. Arguing that things looked different from the Prime Minister’s Office, Sharon adopted the left’s policy of mass expulsions of law-abiding Israeli citizens from their homes in Gaza. True, Sharon was reelected in a landslide in 2003 by running against the left’s expulsions platform. But he didn’t care. He expelled 10,000 Israelis from their homes in 2005, and 18 months later, as he had previously warned would happen, Hamas seized control of Gaza. The media swooned.

Benjamin Netanyahu preferred to ignore Oslo in the hopes that it would wither on the vine and disappear in the face of the success of the diplomatic alternative he built on the basis of Israel’s strength. Despite the wild success of his efforts, Oslo survived the sovereignty plan and the Abraham Accords, and of course, Netanyahu’s tenure in office. And now it is roaring back.

In pre-Yom Kippur interviews, Prime Minister Naftali Bennett echoed Sharon when he said he left his ideology and political positions behind when he entered the Prime Minister’s Office. Tuesday night, Bennett’s sidekick, Interior Minister Ayelet Shaked warned of growing “incitement and extremism.”

The Lapid-Gantz-Bennett government is sort of a Rabin-Peres government on steroids. Rabin bought his right-wing turncoats with one ministry and one deputy ministry. Bennett was able to extort a two-year premiership and Gideon Sa’ar got to be justice minister. The Rabin-Peres government needed the anti-Zionist Arab parties to pass the Oslo deals. The Lapid-Gantz-Bennett government needs the anti-Zionist Arab parties for everything. And like the Rabin-Peres government, the current government owes its survival to the wall-to-wall support it receives from the media and the legal fraternity.

This is the heart of the matter. Oslo has survived despite the fact that it has been a catastrophe for Israel on every level for 28 years because Israel’s permanent ruling class supports it.

In the early years of Oslo, I was a witness to the process that brought Israel’s diplomatic and military leaders, along with the senior civil service, to put reality aside and embrace Oslo’s illusion of peace. During Oslo’s heyday, from 1994-1996, as an IDF captain in the Defense Ministry, I served as a core member of Israel’s negotiating team. I sat in the negotiating sessions in Cairo, Taba and Eilat.

The fraud was obvious even then. Every two weeks, I wrote and circulated detailed reports setting out how the Palestinian officials left the negotiating halls each week and ordered their people to breach every promise and pledge they had just made. I documented the fraud, the Oslo lie. And I saw how one by one, commanders and senior officials who understood the danger and knew the truth embraced the “new narrative” while ignoring the facts in most cases.

We won’t be able to bury Oslo at the ballot box—although winning elections is a precondition for burying it. Oslo will only be finally laid to rest when we compel Israel’s permanent ruling class to abandon it in favor of Zionism—and the truth.

Caroline Glick is an award-winning columnist and author of “The Israeli Solution: A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East.

Israel’s Monarchy’s



To answer your question –
There is a difference between Shaul and David:Shaul, of the Tribe of Benjamin, was “chosen” only as a concession to the demand for a king “that we may be like all other nations” 1 Samuel 8.18-20; whereas, David, of the Tribe of Judah was chosen in fulfillment of prophesy – “The Septre shall not depart from Judah….” – because the Tanak describes David as “a man after the heart of HaShem” – David himself said, “…for He has chosen Judah to be prince….” 1 Chronicles 28.4
David is described as a “prince” and “servant” of HaShem – meaning that when klal Yisrael accepts the Davidic monarchy, HaShem will once again be their Ruler and the Kingdom governed by David their “prince” – Ezekiel 34.24:
“And I the L-RD will be their G-D, and My servant David prince among them; I the L-RD have spoken.”
When Am Yisrael demanded a king that “we may be like all other nations” they rejected HaShem’s Sovereignty – 1 Samuel 8.7:
“And the L-RD said unto Samuel: ‘Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee; for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected Me, that I should not be king over them.”
The distinction between David and Shaul is clear: All of Yisrael followed David with one heart as they recognized that David, as HaShem’s servant drew them near to HaShem [for Worship]; whereas Shaul rebelled against HaShem: “For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, And stubbornness is as idolatry and teraphim. Because thou hast rejected the word of the L-RD, He hath also rejected thee from being king.” 1 Samuel 15.23
HaShem’s Torah is contrary to Democracy which is a concept “foreign” to Judaism – HaShem does not want Israel to “be like all other nations” but rather desires Israel to be unique, a “holy nation” as HaShem chose Israel “sui generis” out of all nations to be His servant…. He gave them a “unique” calendar to reflect His Sovereignty over all of Creation – (“This shall be the beginning of months for you”) that Am Yisrael, (led by a monarch in submission to the Torah: Devarim 17.18,19) would be a witness (with one heart) “here on earth” – Shaul’s monarchy was a divided rebellious monarchy whereas David’s united monarchy was in submission to HaShem.
Anyways, I hope you have a wonderful, joyous Sukkot.
kol tov,
Yochanan Ezra ben Avraham