One of them is the historical handicap the conflict between Arabs and the State of Israel and its Zionist character has been cast for a century. Indeed, the frame of reference of the "Palestine conflict" has always been one that includes the entire Muslim world. That world's identification with and sympathy for the "plight of Palestine" is now, in a sense, dissolving.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

What was the historical backdrop to that phenomenon?

As Suleiman Mousa, writing in the International Journal of Middle East Studies, notes that already in July 1922, at the time of the Haj: "A Palestine delegation arrived in Mecca to explain to the king [Hussein ibn Ali] the dangers inherent in the policy of the Jewish National Home. The British government of Palestine, perturbed at the activities of the delegation, sent a letter to the Hijaz government refuting its complaints and claiming that the Arabs in Palestine were faring well and prospering. The Hijaz government refused to accept this statement and insisted that the Balfour Declaration should be canceled."

The head of that 1922 delegation was Abdelqader Al-Muzaffar, who had led previous Haj pilgrimages to Mecca. Its members sailed to Sudan and from there to Jeddah, arriving on July 11. It established pro-Arab Palestine committees at all the stops and sought meetings with leading political and religious personalities. Their theme was "Defend Al-Aqsa."

As Doar Hayom reported on July 23, 1922, the Zionist Organization in Egypt published a response to the claims of the delegation in the al-Muqaṭṭam newspaper. It also dealt with the remarks of Alfred Mond purposely misrepresented by the Mufti, as well as the criticism directed at Norman Bentwich, the British Mandate's Jewish legal secretary, who the Mufti considered as being too Zionist.

This propaganda ploy by the Supreme Muslim Council was a repeat of the efforts that Chaim Weizmann had to counter in Egypt in April 1918, while on his way to Palestine, when it was asserted that the British had granted the Zionists the right to replace the Dome of the Rock with the Jewish Temple. Three days earlier, the Vaad Leumi in Jerusalem was forced to publish a denial that the Zionist flag had been unfurled from the top of the Golden Dome, a calumny to be revived in 1929.

On July 17, the High Commissioner Herbert Samuel himself declared, as carried in Doar Hayom of July 19, that he was forced to address rumors that Omar and Al-Aqsa are in danger, and would be removed from Muslim control, unfounded rumors spread by the delegation that was now in Mecca seeking assistance to "defend Muslim rights." Two other delegations followed the following year, one to the Hijaz again and another to India. This third on consisted of Jamal Al-Husseini, a Haifa mufti, Imam Mohamed Rashid Reda and Sheikh Ibrahim al-Ansari, a Temple Mount preacher. They remained in India from November 1923 to June 1924, raising money and engaging in anti-Zionist activity.

Oddly, Nicholas E. Roberts ignores the 1922 delegation, as does Yehoshua Porath, although Porath does include a fourth delegation in 1924. A huge sum was collected for major renovation work and construction within the Haram A-Sharif compound.

This charity was a significant instrument that tied Muslims across the world in a religious sense to an Arab Palestine, as well as acting as a political mobilizing tool.

The selection of India was astute. As P.R. Kumaraswamy researched, India was quite able to recognize and admit the religious dimension of the Palestine question.

In April 1921, a year before the Palestine Mandate confirmation at the League of Nations, Mahatma Gandhi observed: "The Muslim claim Palestine as an integral part of Jazirat-ul-Arab [the Islamic land of Arabia]. They are bound to retain its custody, as an injunction of the Prophet" (CWMG, 2000, p. 530). He continued and argued: "The Jews cannot receive sovereign rights in a place that has been held for centuries by Muslim powers by right of religious conquest. The Muslim soldiers did not shed their blood in the last war for the purpose of surrendering Palestine out of Muslim control."

In other words, according to Gandhi, non-Muslims could not acquire sovereign jurisdiction over Palestine.

The Indian National Congress similarly adopted an anti-Zionist position at a meeting in Lucknow in June 1921. Its All-India Congress Committee declared that "unless Jazirat-ul-Arab are freed from all non-Muslim control, there can be no peace and contentment in India," and a few years later, the party demanded "the removal of alien control from the Jazirat-ul-Arab." The Mufti Haj Amin El-Husseini met the Ali Brothers during the 1924 and 1926 Hajj pilgrimage, had Muhammad Ali, the head of India's Muslims, buried in the Haram wall in January 1931. Shaukat (Shawkat) Ali was a central figure in the convening of the Jerusalem Conference in December that same year.

Thus, within a decade of being selected by Herbert Samuel to be the Mufti, El-Husseini had established a firm financial base throughout the Middle East and beyond; had created a dominant political force in the Mandate itself that disallowed any dissent from his violent and extremist line; had forced the British to create a new status quo at the Western Wall; had initiated the campaign of terror in 1920, 1921 and 1929 that would, until this day, serve as the sole means of "negotiating" with the Jews; and had formed a support bloc of all the Arab states and countries with Muslim majorities.

One additional external reliance of the Mufti was the arrangement in 1937 with British assistance to have their regional Arab allies, the "Arab Kings" – Amir Abdullah of Transjordan, King Ghazi of Iraq and King Abdul Aziz ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia – mediate an end to the revolt the Arab Higher Committee had initiated in April 1936. Unfortunately, their involvement created serious pressure on Great Britain, and by 1939, pan-Arab pressure led to the White Paper that reneged on the original intent to reconstitute the Jewish national home carried increasing weight in London.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

In 1948, Arab states invaded Israel and ever since, the issue of Palestine has always been a regional rather than a local conflict.

Recalling this history and grasping what the previous 100 years had fashioned, one can realize that the signing of the Abraham Accords on the White House Lawn on Sept. 15 with the abrogation of the boycott against Israel and the pledge "to establish peace, diplomatic and friendly relations, co-operation and full normalization of ties between them and their peoples" is a major reverse of the Mufti's legacy and an opportunity for a promising future.

Reprinted with permission from JNS.org.

The post Reversing a century of Pan-Islamic anti-Zionism appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

One reason is probably his thinking on the two-state solution of which he believes that "Israel and the Palestinians can, and should, peacefully coexist, and that the Palestinians should have a country of their own." That "solution" must include:

"Compromises from both sides to achieve a fair and lasting peace in the region. The Palestinians must fulfill their responsibilities to end terrorism against Israel and recognize Israel's right to exist. In return, the Israelis must end their policy of targeted killings, prevent further Israeli settlements on Palestinian land, and prevent the destruction of Palestinian homes, businesses and infrastructure."

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

Of course, right there, he falls into the trap that "solution" promotes: "compromises."

The Arabs-termed-Palestinians were offered a state in 1937 and 1947, but refused because in accepting that offer – once by British and once by the United Nations – the Jewish people would also gain a state, and that could not be tolerated.

They lost a chance for statehood when they were occupied by the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in 1948 and annexed in 1950, although to be fair, their national will was expressed on July 20, 1951 when the mufti-inspired assassination of King Abdullah I occurred on the Temple Mount. A start toward a state was the Menachem Begin Autonomy Plan of 1977, though that, too, was rejected.

By the way, Mehdi Hasan has termed that as "cling[ing] to the fantasy of a two-state solution, which has been dead and buried for years."

What, then, is driving presidential candidate Bernie Sanders?

He believes that both Israel and a future Palestine have the right to exist, stating:

"The bottom line is that Israel must have the right to exist in peace and security, just as the Palestinians must have the right to a homeland in which they and they alone control their political system and their economy."

Therefore, it should have been no surprise that in the recent California debate, he declared, "US foreign policy must be about is not just being pro-Israel. We must be pro-Palestinian as well." Perhaps the ferocity of his tone may have increased, but his is an old message.

Unfortunately, he was not queried as to how he would actually achieve being "pro-Palestinian," and what policies he would promote in that direction. And so, we are left to wonder: What would a "pro-Palestinian" orientation be? And moreover, what "compromises" should be undertaken by Palestinians?

In fact, it's about time that all pro-Palestine proponents – whether human rights activists, Diaspora Palestine propagandists, officials of the European Union, diplomats, and NGO machines – ask themselves if the Palestine National Authority, founded in 1993, has fulfilled its goals, responsibilities and obligations as regards the Arab population living in its territory. As my friend Uri Pilichowski tweeted, where are the necessary reforms that need to take place in Palestinian communities? Why are so very few talking about the corruption that exists in the Palestinian Authority, lack of democracy, elections, freedom of expression, women's rights, and cultural freedom? And not to mention exploiting foreign assistance funds to fund terrorism.

To improve those concerns is being pro-Palestinian, and those need to be accomplished before moving on to the next stage of statehood.

A sincere and honest concern for individuals would probably be a better way of building peace. This would contribute to a more balanced policy outlook on the Arab-Israeli conflict (much more the Arab conflict with Israel) from Sanders or Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, or the more radical wing of the Democratic Party for that matter.

On the other side of the political divide, we have an upbeat, pro-Israel president, a pro-Israel secretary of state and other senior administration officials, and that reality leads to the inevitable question that need be directed to the American Jewish community: If a President Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton had adopted and furthered similar actions and decisions to those President Donald Trump has taken, would you then also be as vociferously negative to them?

In other words, what makes the difference for America Diaspora Jews? That the president is pro-Israel or is a Democrat? What is the defining element for them? Let us recall what was the result of Jews voting blindly for FDR as Rafael Medoff's new book informs us.

The raising by Trump's critics of a false "dual-loyalty" charge is unacceptable as the promoting of energized pro-Israel policies, even a pro-Judea and Samaria agenda, is supported by many more millions of Christians in the United States than by Jews. Are these non-Jews also a target of that anti-Semitic accusation?

Of course, one could argue, as Sanders does, that to be pro-Israel is to reduce its administrative territorial control over Judea and Samaria. But reducing Israel's geographical area has not proven to be a good move or effective, especially vis-à-vis the entity known as the Palestinian Authority. They are still a terrorist entity, thinking and acting like one.

Democratic candidate for president Bernie Sanders is throwing sand in the eyes of his supporters, and is trying to spread that blinding instrument to other groups and sectors. To that end, we need to protect our instruments of vision.

 Reprinted with permission from JNS.org.

The post Sanders in our eyes appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

It seems obvious to me that she is covering for anti-Semitism of one variety because only white supremacist anti-Semitism fits her political outlook. I can only presume that is her thinking because it is of the nationalist variety, rather than an economic-propelled hatred.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

Here is her tweet in which she (a) blames "long-term tensions" for anti-Semitic attacks on Jews in Brooklyn, NY.; (b) these "horrible attacks" do not easily fit into "Left-Right category;" and (c) that all this is not "parallel to white nationalists whose beliefs are based on anti-Semitism." (I had to quote from another Twitter account source as Jacobs has blocked me.)

In making those distinctions, someone is going to think that if he or she can come up with an excuse for being all tensed up about Jews, maybe Jacobs, who is looking in only one direction – that is, to the far-out extremist Right – won't see, or better, that she'll be less alarmed about blacks and Muslims knocking head coverings off Jews, punching them as they walk to and from synagogue, breaking their windows and such. I am sure that all forms of Jew-hatred are abhorrent to Jacobs – well, almost all – but asserting there is a lack of a parallel is a severe Jewish failing on her part. And for that, she need be criticized for she may be dangerous for Jews.

And what are "long-term tensions?" Is she alluding to claims of economic oppression of African-Americans? Is she sympathetically channeling charges of assumed white privilege by Jews – the latest left-wing formulation of anti-Semitism, which, of course, is then transferred to the Israel-Palestine issue. Arabs, it is presented, are of color; Israelis are white (don't ask about Iraqis, Yemenites, or Ethiopians); and Zionism, therefore, is a form of oppression that justifies revolutionary violence.

But Jacobs takes it one step more. Eli Steinberg, writing in The Forward, pointed out that Jacobs approvingly quoted Mark Asher Goodman, also a rabbi, who seemingly disparaged Hassidim in writing.

"We are a sacred moral community. Our Torah is a book of actions, not a rallying point for mumbling in an ancient tongue while wearing the garb of our grandfathers and gathering for a shtickle of herring afterwards."

It's odd that Jacobs sees no problem with that characterization of traditional Judaism, as perhaps she thinks that's in-house Jewish humor. Many Jews viewed US President Donald Trump's White House pre-Hanukkah remarks basically in the same way. But if she was upset at Trump, I am sure she can understand that Jews are upset at her approval of Goodman's disparaging, as they are parallel, to borrow her term.

There is a shared and even at times coordinated theme that runs through the Jewish progressive Left. The Jewish Worker tweeted, in protection of Eli Valley, that "American Jewish leaders, to all of our disgust, dismay, and trepidation, sure seem to be" in cahoots with Nazis. Valley's "artwork" was denounced by the ADL as bigoted, stereotyping Jews as bloodsucking monsters drivel. Jews deserve, somehow, it seems, hatred of long-term tensions. Yet there are Jewish radical voices pushing material that if not outright anti-Semitic is nevertheless clearly understood as such. They are dabbling in danger to the Jewish community as a whole.

Even worse is the in step phenomenon of how liberal media outlets highlight marginal minority Jewish voices as if "representative" of the community. First, the journalist is fed information by extremist left-wing Jews, which is then published. The source then quotes that news item to give it coverage and then the journalist reintegrates that fully unrepresentative view as the true reflection of Jews. And the spiral continues. The Washington Post, it appears, has published within the span of just a few days, two op-eds and a report, all one-sided against the Trump Executive Order. The New York Times acted similarly, overloading in favor of one point of view.

Jacobs seems to be delving into hairsplitting definitions in order to keep the focus primarily on only one source of anti-Semitism. That not only is wrong, unhelpful, and immoral, it is not being Jewish. And she appears to extend that to her main area of professionalism as T'ruah's director: undoing Israel's "occupation."

For example, she published in The Washington Post last May that while she personally does "not support boycotting Israel, partly because so much of the movement is rife with anti-Semitic undertones," nevertheless, to her mind, "one may even boycott Israel without stepping into anti-Semitism if it's clear that the tactic aims to pressure Israel to change its policies."

She knows that distinction not only is too subtle for anti-Semitic anti-Zionists, but that the Palestinian sovereignty movement she supports rarely, if at all, troubles itself to make that distinction in their propaganda or in their shouts of "from the river to the sea, Palestine shall be free" – the result of which would be Israel's obliteration, not to mention Jewish deaths.

Therein lies the worse of her culpability. She downplays or reduces the potency of Islam-generated pro-Palestinian promoted anti-Jewish actions and pronouncements so that her main goal, which is not local Jewish safety, is protected: that is, vilifying and pressuring Israel enough so that it surrenders its national legacy of the Land of Israel. She sacrifices Jews in America for Arabs in a preferred Palestine.

Jacobs is not facilitating a certain anti-Semitism, but she is, to my mind, providing it with a cover that purposefully and disingenuously awards it a worth, enough that it should even be forgiven due to the "sins" of Israel. And portraying those who seek to protect Jewish students from anti-Semitism on campus, like the Trump Executive Order does, as themselves anti-Semites, by tweeting "Don't fight antisemitism with antisemitism" are not only irrational, but seeking the injury of Jews.

They have failed the "sanity test."

I repeat, doing that is not only wrong and immoral, it is not being Jewish.

Reprinted with permission from JNS.org.

The post A rabbi who thinks anti-Jewish violence isn't anti-Semitic appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

I already discussed some of the contradictions and inanities involved with it in August. I even proposed a solution, to which I will return. But now that the judgment has been finalized, a second review is in order.

The main thrust of the judgment – despite all the denials and obfuscation by the European Union – is to enable a boycott of those wines as well as other grown, produced and manufactured foodstuffs and items in the Jewish communities of Judea and Samaria, the Jordan Valley and parts of Jerusalem:

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

"Foodstuffs originating in the territories occupied by the State of Israel must bear the indication of their territory of origin, accompanied, where those foodstuffs come from an Israeli settlement within that territory."

In claiming that there is a failure to indicate the country of origin which then "might mislead consumers into believing that that foodstuff has a country of origin or a place of provenance different from its true country of origin" is itself a misleading claim.

After all, foodstuffs produced by Arabs in the same area, if labeled as "Palestine" (as, for example, the Taybeh Brewing Company does) would be quite misleading as there is no country or state by that name. It is the geographical name of a region. In fact, it became "Palestine" in the modern era, sanctioned by international law, only because of Zionism and the just goal of reconstituting in that area the Jewish national home.

Moreover, Israel legally maintains a belligerent occupation – that is, one whose origin is as a result of hostilities. The hostilities themselves – namely, the 1967 Six-Day War – were of a self-defense nature against aggression. As the court notes, the relevant regulation refers equally to a "territory" and a "state." To label the wine as made in "Judea" or "Binyamin" or "Samaria" should suffice. Israel surely exercises its "full range of powers recognized by international law" in those territories.

Moreover, as the court notes: "It follows from the very wording of the Union Customs Code that that term [the concept of 'country of origin'] refers to entities other than 'countries' and, therefore, other than 'States.' "

It would logically follow from all that verbiage that labeling a bottle of Psagot wine or dates from the Jordan Valley as "Binyamin, State of Israel" or "Jordan Valley, State of Israel" is not misleading and falls within the geographic definition required. After all, the court, as I understand, agrees with this as so:

"The indication that a foodstuff comes from an 'Israeli settlement' located in one of the 'territories occupied by the State of Israel' may be regarded as an indication of the 'place of provenance,' provided that the term 'settlement' refers to a specific geographical area."

But no, the court insists that its judgment is intended "to prevent consumers from being misled as to the fact that the State of Israel is present in the territories concerned as an occupying power and not as a sovereign entity." But Israel does exercise its legal sovereign power in being the legitimate occupier of those areas in accordance with international law. Occupation per se is not necessarily illegal.

In a third point, which I consider invidious, the court declared that it:

"First of all underlined that the settlements established in some of the territories occupied by the State of Israel are characterized by the fact that they give concrete expression to a policy of population transfer conducted by that State outside its territory, in violation of the rules of general international humanitarian law."

That "characterization" ensues from the label and an "omission of that indication … might mislead consumers. Consumers have no way of knowing, in the absence of any information capable of enlightening them in that respect."

But why should consumers need to know about a supposed "violation" of humanitarian law"? I can only guess, despite EU protestations otherwise, that it wishes to point the consumers in the direction of boycott. There can be no other reason. As the court makes explicit:

"The provision of information to consumers must enable them to make informed choices, with regard not only to health, economic, environmental and social considerations but also to ethical considerations and considerations relating to the observance of international law. The Court underlined in that respect that such considerations could influence consumers' purchasing decisions."

Quite clearly, they intend to educate consumers to take "ethical considerations" that can only lead to conclusions for the practice of boycott. Moreover, the court's reasoning is quite shakey.

I turned to and received this official response from the EU Spokesperson's Office in Tel Aviv:

"The EU does not support any form of boycott or sanctions against Israel. The EU rejects attempts by the campaigns of the so-called "Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions" (BDS) movement to isolate Israel."

I beg to differ with that assertion.

NGO-Monitor detailed on Tuesday the corrosive financial and political backdrop to the decision, which includes that fact that NGOs, as a stepping-stone to boycotts, pushed for labeling and, ironically, receive large funds from these same EU governments. There is a lot more.

Of course, there is another way out.

Why not initiate direct marketing to Europe, which, I think, is already done on a small scale? Internet sales. It could be, facetiously but advantageously, marketed as "The Wine Banned By Brussels." It would tell the consumer that the EU bureaucracy wants to prevent him from making quality purchases based on a political outlook. As a friend suggested, for Judea and Samaria-friendly people, "the EU wants you not to purchase this wine because they are made by Jews in places the EU forbids Jews to live."

Jews are by right in Judea and Samaria. The League of Nations confirmed our historical connection to these territories. In the 1947 UN Partition Plan, the terms "Judea" and "Samaria" are employed. Jews were not in Judea and Samaria between 1948-1967 due to an unhumanitarian and illegal ethnic-cleansing operation conducted by Arabs between 1920 and 1948. Our presence there post-1967 is a result of Arab terror and aggression.

It is our right to be Judea and Samaria and to grow grapes and dates and everything else we can grow and produce and manufacture there. And we will continue to so do.

Reprinted with permission from JNS.org.

The post European Court of Justice courts BDS appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

That case was presented as if it was simply all about putting a label on a wine bottle so that people will know the origin of the wine. But, of course, it's more than that.

 Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

The EU guidelines on wine are in two languages. For wine produced in EU countries, they insist only on a "region" as the geographical identification unit: "For most products, at least one of the stages of distillation or preparation takes place in the region. However, raw products do not need to come from the region."

If so, then you might naturally ask, why would "Judea and Samaria" on a label not suffice? After all, those names are the historical terms. They have appeared on maps of the "Holy Land" for centuries. "Judea" is in the New Testament, so it's not just a Jewish thing. In the 1947 UN Partition Plan, in the section delineating the borders, "Judea" and "Samaria" appear. And the name "West Bank" itself only appeared in April 1950.

Israel, one presumes, is unique.

The official EU position as regards Israel, as clarified for me from an official spokesperson whom I contacted, is as so: "The indication of origin of products from territories occupied by Israel is a technical consumer protection issue, based on the EU recognizing Israel within its 1967 border. Goods of origin from these territories, as other goods for import into the EU, need to be correctly labeled so that consumers in the EU have full clarity where the products come from. The EU does not support any elements of the so-called BDS [boycott, divestment and sanctions] approach against Israel, and hence also not the boycott of products from Israeli settlements."

Very simple. Then it's a matter of "recognition." An Interpretative Notice of the European Commission was issued in November 2015 and provides some clarity on the existing EU rules. The main purpose is to be helpful to a consumer in that an improper labeling would "mislead the consumer as to the true origin of the product." It demands that the mandatory indication of origin be "correct and not misleading."

As they note: "Made in Israel" used for the products coming from Israeli settlements would mislead the consumer and therefore is inconsistent with existing EU legislation.

And further, "'Product from Israel' should not be used for products from the Golan Heights or the West Bank (including east Jerusalem). For products from West Bank or the Golan Heights that originate from settlements, an indication limited to 'product from Golan Heights' or 'product from West Bank' would not be acceptable. In such cases, the expression 'Israeli settlement' or equivalent needs to be added."

The EU asserts that the geographical area of origin must be "internationally recognized," and for the EU, Israel was and continues to be internationally recognized as defined by its "pre-1967 borders," so "In line with UNSC resolution 2334 of 2016, the EU considers Israeli settlements in occupied territories as illegal under international law."

Odd. By this time, I would think that "Judea and Samaria" are quite recognizable as the territories that are "disputed," "occupied" or whatever by Israel.

Nevertheless, let's deconstruct this.

In the first instance, we need to be clear there were no proper "borders" prior to 1967. They were, as defined in an internationally recognized Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement, "end of fighting lines" specifically categorized in Article II of the Agreement that, once demarcated, it is stipulated that "no military or political advantage should be gained."

"Political advantage" meaning a diplomatically recognized border. No changes until a future peace treaty, which did happen with Israel in 1994.

Furthermore, as appears there, "No provision of this agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims, and positions of either party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question."

In other words, Israel and Jordan could both put forward territorial claims beyond those lines or, for that matter, behind them.  There's a territorial dispute. Indeed, "The basic purpose of the armistice demarcation Lines is to delineate the lines beyond which the armed forces of the respective parties shall not move."

Nothing more. Nothing political, but rather a simple marking at which point the military forces had stopped operations.

Moreover, those lines were temporary in the extreme, with no permanency as per Article XII 3, which reads: "The parties to this agreement may, by mutual consent, revise this agreement or any of its provisions, or may suspend its application, other than articles I and III, at any time."

Those lines had no real legitimacy and now for the EU to retroactively demand that the territory gained in the 1967 Six-Day Waar should not have the same status as territory gained in the 1948 War of Independence (that is, by demanding, as it were, Israel go back to those lines without peace or other final status arrangements), is not only unfair and wrong but quite prejudicially discriminatory.

Jordan, invading Israel in June 1967, effectively put an end to the legitimacy of those lines. To sanctify, as it were, the "pre-1967 borders" is an act of nonsense.

Now, between you and me, everyone knows that Israel has extended its administrative rule to those regions of the Land of Israel that were under British Mandate rule until 1948, a rule quite legal and internationally recognized. That is the meaning of "belligerent occupation," that is, as the result of military engagement. Israel, in an act of self-defense, thwarted the intentions of the invaders and assumed administration over Judea and Samaria, as well as Gaza. Judea and Samaria are the heartland of the homeland.

Those regions were geographically part of the area of "historic Palestine" that the League of Nations awarded to the Jewish people to, among other purposes, "encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish Agency, referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews, on the land, including state lands and wastelands."

From 1922 until 1967, no recognized country or state legally ruled those areas except the Mandate. Jordan was an illegal occupier. In Hebrew, Mandatory Palestine was translated as "Land of Israel."

All this leaves us with a simple solution for the requirement of the EU to note the origin of the product: the Land of Israel.

Reprinted with permission from JNS.org.

The post EU's product labeling is skewed appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The original intent of the Arab who originated the nakba concept has been repressed by today's champions of Nakba. In Syrian historian Constantin Zureiq's 1948 pamphlet "Ma'na al-Nakba" ("The Meaning of the Disaster"), he denied that the catastrophe was the result of a premeditated Zionist design, writing, "We must admit our mistakes … and recognize the extent of our responsibility for the disaster that is our lot. … The defeat of the Arabs in Palestine is not a small downfall [naksa]. … It is a catastrophe [nakba] in every sense of the word."

And he added: "Seven countries go to war to abolish the partition and to defeat Zionism, and quickly leave the battle after losing much of the land of Palestine – and even the part that was given to the Arabs in the Partition Plan."

Could that result have been avoided? Were the Arabs of British Mandate Palestine open to other avenues of conflict resolution?

With this background, I think it instructive to review U.S. Rep. Rashida Tlaib's (D-Michigan) recent remarks. In an interview, starting at 27:25, she engaged in a bit of what I would term the disordering of history.

" … when I think of the Holocaust, and the tragedy of the Holocaust, and the fact that it was my ancestors – Palestinians – who lost their land and some lost their lives, their livelihood, their human dignity, their existence in many ways, have been wiped out, and some people's passports … just all of it was in the name of trying to create a safe haven for Jews, post-the Holocaust, post-the tragedy and the horrific persecution of Jews across the world at that time. And I love the fact that it was my ancestors that provided that, right, in many ways, but they did it in a way that took their human dignity away and it was forced on them."

Tlaib's revisionism goes so:

1. Arabs of Palestine were punished and suffered because the Jews required a safe haven due to "horrific persecution … at that time." Not a state or their reconstituted national home.

2. That suffering was mainly due to the Holocaust (and here I am giving her the benefit of the doubt, as she could have been thinking of earlier pogroms as Arabs viewed Zionism from the late 19th century as only being a result of anti-Semitism, rather than an age-old vision of restoration).

3. The Arabs both "provided" that haven, even though it was "forced on them."

Despite sharp criticism, in a follow-up tweet, she added: "Policing my words, twisting & turning them to ignite vile attacks on me will not work. All of you who are trying to silence me will fail miserably. I will never allow you to take my words out of context to push your racist and hateful agenda. The truth will always win."

The simple truth is that Arabs were constantly, consistently and continually violent in their relations with Jews. Before the Balfour Declaration and after. Before the Six-Day War and after. Arab terror was a principle ("Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine," Article 9 PLO Covenant). The object was to kill Jews. The object still is to kill Jews. There is no differentiation between soldier and civilian or "settler." All Jewish residential locations are "colonies" and "settlements" within Green Line or in Judea and Samaria.

What Tlaib is pushing is not only a cover-up of the historical record, which I will summarize shortly; she is fashioning an old message into a new narrative form. It is that thanks to the Arabs that Jews have a home. And that message can work, Tlaib believes, not only because she will hammer away at it – bolstered by a sophisticated support apparatus and the nigh-ignorant young Jewish demographic that could and should take her on but doesn't – but because simply she leaves out all the unhelpful aspects of that period.

Murderous Arabs riots in which Jews lost their lives and property, during which Jews were injured and women raped, took place, initiated by Muslim and Christian Arab communal and religious leaders in 1920, 1921, 1929 and for almost three full years during 1936-1939. After 1933, that violence was increasingly funded by both Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. It was purposefully in support of a racial anti-Jewish ideology adopted by local Arab leaders.

And it was successful, politically, in that it convinced the British Mandatory to severely restrict Jewish immigration into the country thus causing Jews to be stranded in Europe, prey to Hitler's genocidal program.

Arabs were actively involved in the Holocaust. The mufti planned crematoria in Dothan Valley.

Jews had been purchasing back their country from a people who had conquered it and disenfranchised the Jews from it for centuries. Arabs only benefited from the Jewish return to the land of Israel. If there had been a sense of willingness to compromise, the Arabs would still be where they were in 1947.

Tlaib, however, in this most recent rhetorical maneuver, is seeking to hide and pervert the true historical record. And this is not done for the sake of hindsight but to lay the groundwork for the future. She observes Jewish students reciting kaddish for Hamas terrorists. She sees Jews leading the BDS struggle. She reads the "as a Jews" fawning before the idea of a "Palestinian people," and she can only conclude that they are figuratively and literally "blind in Gaza".

She can only presume that if Jews today ignore Arab violence, why not then cleanse the Arabs of Palestine from all their violence? Brush over the mufti's pro-Nazi sympathies, his support for the pro-Nazi revolt in Iraq, his pro-Nazi broadcasts over years while in Berlin, his raising an armed Muslim force to fight the Allies. If that can be accomplished, Tlaib has robbed Jews not only of their ability to know historical fact but their sense of morality.

For if Arabs, first and foremost, choose violence and prefer conflict to its resolution and reject all possible compromises, why should a Jew, from a morality perspective, prefer to support that unless his sense of the historical record has been undermined? Unfortunately, it is not only Jewish ignorance that assists efforts such as those of Tlaib.

Perhaps worn down, perhaps seeking escape from their ethnicity and religion and culture, Jews – and not only students – seek to be embraced by those who intend to harm them.

This article is reprinted with permission from JNS.org.

The post Rashida Tlaib wants to rob Jews of their history appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.