Ministers reject ‘Loyalty Oath’ bill
Comment by Ted Belman
This legislation seems emminently reasonable to me. Citizenship comes with obligations. Free speech is limited in many ways. Advocating the end of Israel as a Jewish state should be one of them.
By JPOST STAFF AND GIL HOFFMAN
The ministerial committee on legislation voted down a controversial, Israel Beiteinu-sponsored bill on Sunday that would have required a loyalty oath and service to the state for citizenship.
Zevulun Orlev.
Likud, Labor, Shas and Habayit Hayehudi ministers voted against the bill, while Israel Beiteinu supported it.
Tourism Minister Stas Misezhnikov of Israel Beiteinu on Sunday blasted the rejection of the bill.
-
“Instead of fixing the problem and solving the absurd situation whereby people who assist terror attacks targeting Israel continue to receive welfare payments and salaries from the state, the government has decided to continue to bury its head in the sand,” he said. “In the Knesset, Israel Beiteinu will continue its efforts to remove funding for terrorists.”
The ministerial committee on legislation was also expected to vote down a bill presented by Habayit Hayehudi MK Zevulun Orlev that seeks to criminalize those who “incite against or attempt to undermine” – in Orlev’s words – the Jewish and democratic nature of the State of Israel.
Shas opposed the loyalty oath bill, because it would have required haredim to serve in the IDF or in alternative service to the state, but supports the other bill.
According to the loyalty oath bill, anyone seeking citizenship, including people moving to Israel and 16-year-olds obtaining their first identity cards, would have had to make the following vow: “I pledge to be loyal to the State of Israel as a Jewish, Zionist and democratic state, to its symbols and values, and to serve the state in any way asked of me in military service as required by law.”
The bill, which was initiated by Knesset Law Committee chairman David Rotem (Israel Beiteinu), would also empower the interior minister to cancel the citizenship of Israelis who do not fulfill their compulsory military or alternative national service.
Israel Beiteinu officials said the legislation was important due to the anti-Israel behavior of Israeli Arabs during the Second Lebanon War and Operation Cast Lead. But they stressed that the bill would apply to all citizens and was not intended to single out Arabs.
“The bill is important because we want everyone to be required to serve and do their part to help the country, as well as identifying with the country and its symbols,” an Israel Beiteinu spokesman said.
The full cabinet had been expected to vote on another Israel Beiteinu bill that would make it illegal to mark Independence Day as a day of mourning. The legislation would outlaw ceremonies for what Arabs call the Nakba (catastrophe). It passed in the ministerial committee on legislation last week and was appealed by Labor and Likud ministers who oppose it. Israel Beiteinu lawmakers delayed the vote to make changes that they believed would help it pass.
Arab MKs expressed outrage that the bills were even being considered by the government. They warned that if either of them became law, a “civil rebellion” of Arab citizens would break out.
“We are ready to go to jail,” Balad MK Jamal Zahalka said.
Labor rebel MK Ophir Paz-Pines called on Labor ministers to tell Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu that they would quit the coalition if the bills passed.
“These are dangerous bills that would be a mark of Cain on the forehead of the state and would make Israel a racist state,” Paz-Pines said.
The Law was doomed even before presentation due the the ultra Orthodox objections. But the enforcement of the current laws would amount to much the same as the presented law above. All that would be required is to end all of the exemptions both to religious Jews and Arabs in general and to enforce the laws brutally. To affix entitlements like child allowances pd through our national insurance authority contingent on national service would suffice instead of a new law. When every new recruit in inducted he swears fealty to the state and its institutions. Since the Arabs are the real targets here a way must be found to deny them entitlements while The ultra Orthodox keep theirs. Discrimination Sure soi what I may disagree with the Ultra Orthodox but they aren’t out to kill me and in spite of everything they are still Jews who tomorrow or next month or next year might decide to change. The Arabs never will love the Jews or the Jewish State of Israel.
So this putz deems the idea of a loyalty oath and outlawing nakba celebrations to be dangerous, however he doesn’t see it as dangerous when Israeli Arabs cavort with the country’s enemies; hezbollah, hamas, Syria and Iran. These bills are not racist since ALL citizens would be required to take a loyalty oath and service to the state. One does not get punished for simply being an Arab, but on the basis of being disloyal to the state of Israel, which would include a number of leftist Jews. But these days, and it happens here in America all the time, one only has to label something or someone “racist” in order to discredit ideas which the left cannot otherwise debate on the merits.
The Israeli Left is in favor of suppressing free speech by Kahanists and Zionists. But it stands for allowing Arabs who hate Jews to advocate Israel’s destruction. Common sense is in short supply in Israel these days.
Have any of you ever seen a newly minted American citizen? They all act the same way. They are giddy with joy and happiness. They strut around bragging to everyone they meet that they are a FELLOW AMERICAN. Every time they say it, it is with a big grin. They rush out and get a driver’s license and register to vote. They get a Social Security card. They never complain about paying taxes. They hope they are picked for jury duty. The young ones often enlist so they can get an education and serve their country. They fill out paper work just so they can check the box saying they are Americans. They give pop quizzes to fellow workers to show off their knowledge of American history. They hope someone will ask to see their citizenship papers. They take the loyalty oath AND MEAN EVERY WORD.
They act like they have a new lease on life. They think they are the luckiest people in the world. No one dares say anything anti-American around them. They get a long lecture on the wonders of America if they do. They will not stop until that person recants. They act like they just won the lottery.
They are obnoxious and a joy to behold.
I would also act this way if I become an Israeli citizen. It would be the proudest day of my life.
It seems to me that if a person did not feel this way about new citizenship, then they should not be allowed to be citizens of that country.
People in America advocate the end to America, and they keep their citizenship
Laura:
There isn’t one democratic state anywhere that would even consider having a loyality oath. Israel is not the only country with a dissenting minority. There are separatist movements in many countries in Europe and I live in Quebec which has a very militant independance movement, where violence occured not very long ago.America toyed with that idea during the 50′s when a demagogue Right Winger called McCarthy tore the country apart. He too called for a loyalty oath. Laura you would have loved him.
Peskin, living in Quebec answers a lot of questions about you. Everything about Quebec is traitorous including you.
In the USA, we have parties of different views; however, one thing we do have in common is the fact that we love this country and gladly take the oath of loyalty.
In Israel, with careful editing of the bill, would also accept the oath.
America toyed with that idea during the 50’s when a demagogue Right Winger called McCarthy tore the country apart.
Tailgunner Joe–Where Have You Gone, Joe McCarthy?
Senator Joseph McCarthy rose from obsurity, flared briefly as a crusader against Communist infiltrators, and died young, villified and rebuked.
For years his name has been the ultimate “nuke” from the Left: “MaCarthyism…”
And yet… recent revelations seem to show that if anything old “tailgunner Joe” underestimated the numbers infiltrators in the government… what’s the truth?
Peskin read em and weep! Seems Old Joe was right all along.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/935830/posts
A choice between Canadian Frog eaters and our Arabs would be a difficult if not impossible one to make. Little or no differences except our Arabs are more intelligent and more cultured. They eat sometimes with knife and fork and don’t like the frog eaters procreate with their mothers and sisters. I guess that explains the intelligence factors.
Peskin do you have frog eaters for relatives?
Be reminded of the American oath of allegience for all who seek to become citizens, which can be found at the following site:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_citizenship_(United_States)
America is nowhere considered a racist state for demanding such an oath of those who wish to be citizens.
Now if that is good for America, surely it is good for Israel and Israel would be on solid ground to emulate the American oath of allegience, without incurring accusations of being a racist state.
Narvey: what a nation demands of a new citizen can hardly be expected of indigenious native born individuals. People whose roots grow deep in the fabric and soil of the country.
And as a loyal canadian can you possibly remain mute in the face
of this bit of enlightenment from your philosophical buddy , Yamit
Narvey: I wrote the following under the section -Iran grows bolder- which you might have missed,
Yamit, with whom I rarely agree with has it right on the mark when he wrote.
It doesn’t take a genius and a map to understand that Saddam as bad as his regime was viewed was l was our best blocking agent against Iranian expansion.
Bill, you obviously are no genius but please how dim can you get?
To put it into very simple terms. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
The great victory, the total destruction of the Iraqi army, is what has brought Israel to this state, being menaced from a potentially nuclear Iran. Iran is a far more dangerous threat than Iraq ever was,an existential threat. It has also brought into existence another Islamist regime in Iraq.And you were and continue to be very busy warning us about the spread of Islamism.
Don’t be too down on yourself Bill,Belman as intelligent as he is, still despite all that has transpired, regards Bush as the best American President ever for Israel’s interests. What a joke!!!!!!
Peskin, you know I do not concur with Yamit’s colorful labelling Quebecers as frog eaters. That I did not comment is not to be taken as concurrence. There is plenty you say too that I just let pass.
Your sarcastic use of the word “philosophical” to broadly swipe at Yamit, is not fair.
Peskin, Yamit has his very clear point of view and he is exceedingly knowledgeable, bright and articulate. He, like you however sometimes resorts to crude and harsh language to get his point across, including characterizing either the author of the ideas he disagrees with or people he does not have a lot of respect for.
I have a number of times asked both of you to cool it and just stick with making your points clearly, backed up with fact, reason and logic in any discussion or debate.
You may recall that Yamit retorted a few weeks ago with something along the lines of me either being appointed or perhaps it was me being voted in as Israpundit’s ombudsman.
I found Yamit’s jibe at me fair and frankly very humerous and told him so.
Peskin, if you are going to take any swipes, follow Yamit’s lead and do it humourously.
We all need to be reminded not to take ourselves too seriously, even if we are serious about the views we hold.
Besides, a little humour sure lightens things up and we all need to laugh. The expression, “laughter is the best medicine” is so true.
Peskin, your snideness aside, I do not know to which of my comments you are referring to in your #11, which just showed up after I posted my number 12.
Yes by the way, I concur with both you and Yamit in describing the S. Hussein Iraqi regime as a balance and bulwark against Iranian expansion. That however was not foreseen by virtually anyone, be it Bush and his supporters or his detractors both domestic and foreign. I do not recall reading even one hint of concern by those against Bush going into Iraq that by ridding Iraq of Hussein, that Iran would become the threat that it became as America floundered in Iraq with no exit strategy.
Yes I do warn of the rising tide of Islamism within the Muslim world and in particular the Middle East and the Islamist infiltration into Western democracies, which the Saudis in particular have spent an unimaginable fortune on. Islamism is a mortal danger to Western democracies. One facet of that Islamism is the Iranian danger.
Anyway, let me know to what specifically you are referring Peskin as regards your comments in #11 referencing something I said.
I was referring to your comments as follows
Peskin have you changed? Your 5 and 7 are well stated, except for your last paragraph in #7. You took a needless and unjustified swipe at some of your debating adversaries on these pages.
No one was cheering on the Iraqi debacle. Most like myself believed the intelligence sound for America to lead a coalition into Iraq. By about a month later, we saw America floundering in not knowing what to do if they stayed or how to get out. So America stayed and continued to flounder.
No one is applauding America for that Peskin.
As for those who wanted the coaltion forces in Iraq to remain, if not increase their number, it was not because anyone wanted the American led coalition to stay forever in Iraq. They believed that more had to be done to badly cripple the Islamists, so that when the American led coalition did pull out, the Iraqi government in place would have a decent chance at maintaining order and control.
The concern with Obama wanting to pull the troops out by a certain near date, logically seemed to just play into the hands of the Islamists, be they Shia or Sunni. All they had to do is wait, re-arm and grow so that the day the coaltion forces left, they would there locked, loaded and ready to go at each other’s throats to seize power from the Coalition supported Iraqi government and then hold onto it from the opposing Islamist forces.
An Iraqi bloodbath would ensue.
Iran too just had to bide her time and walk in unopposed at a time of her choosing and take control of Iraq
Peskin, just what do you disagree with in my quoted comment?
My point of contention is with your basic arguments contained in previous posts. That is the removal of Saddam was somehow good for Israel. And that all would have been just great had America left after the completion of the mission. Well the removal of Saddam merely empowered Iran and placed Israel in a worse situation than prior to the invasion. The Israeli government warned the U.S. of these perils,and most of Europe understood the dangers involved in the destruction of the Iraqi regime and military. If you check with the 2003 archives almost all of Israpundit bloggers were ecstatic with these prospect of the invasion. These supposedly sophisticated political observers were really clueless, totally ignoring all the obvious risks inherent in these actions.
Now American troops are stuck in Iraq, expending billions attempting to referee and or prevent a civil war. U. S. casualties are still occuring. An Iranian proxy government has been installed in Baghdad. The Pro Iranian Shiites are now very much in ascendency in Iraq, Lebanon, and other parts of the middle east. America is now very much under pressure to obtain a quick mid east settlement perhaps to the detriment of Israel. Most of al-Qaeda have left Iraq and are operating in other venues. This whole Iraq adventure has been an unmitigated disaster. And all we are doing is blaming the leftists.
I reject both contentions of yours re: indigenous and native born. Question: are illegal occupier’s progeny considered native born? If yes do they inherit or attain indigenous rights derived from illegal occupation of others lands and properties? Do aggressors reserve any rights when losing those rights and property due to wars they initiated and lost? In my play book when you lose you lose and are made to pay for that aggression, not allow constant replays.
UNSCOP 1947
The Committee also realized that the crux of the Palestine problem is to be found in the fact that two sizeable groups, an Arab population of over 1,200,000 and a Jewish population of over 600,000, with intense nationalist aspirations, are diffused throughout a country that is arid, limited in area, and poor in all essential resources. It was relatively easy to conclude, therefore, that since both groups steadfastly maintain their claims, it is manifestly impossible, in the circumstances, to satisfy fully the claims of both groups, while it is indefensible to accept the full claims of one at the expense of the other.
Beteween 1948-1951 Israel doubled her population.
Backround:
The Arab uprising of 1936-9 was triggered by rising Jewish immigration, and rising Arab nationalist sentiment. Following the revolt, the British Peel Commission proposed a Palestine divided between a small Jewish state (about 15%), a much bigger Arab state and an international zone.
The Greek community in Anatolia
The archive document of 1914 Census of the Ottoman Empire. Total population (sum of all millets) was 20,975,345 and the Greek population before the Balkan wars were 2,833,370 (1909 census) was dropped to 1,792,206 (due to lost of lands to Greece) in 1914 census; published also by Stanford J. Shaw.[4]
One of the reasons proposed by the Greek government for launching the Asia Minor expedition was that there was a sizeable Greek-speaking Orthodox Christian population inhabiting Anatolia that needed protection. Greeks have lived in Asia Minor since antiquity and before the outbreak of the First World War, up to 2.5 million Greeks lived in the Ottoman Empire.[5] The suggestion though that the Greeks constituted the majority of the population in the lands claimed by Greece has been contested by a number of historians. In their book about the British foreign policy of World War I and post war years, Cedric James Lowe and Michael L. Dockrill argued that: “…Greek claims were at best debatable, [they were] perhaps a bare majority, more likely a large minority in the Smyrna Vilayet, which lay in an overwhelmingly Turkish Anatolia.”[6] Precise demographics are further obscured by the Ottoman policy of dividing the population according to religion rather than descent, language or self-identification.
Nevertheless, the fear for the safety of the Greek population was a well-founded one; In 1915, an extreme nationalist group called Young Turks enacted genocidal policies against the minorities in the Ottoman Empire, slaughtering hundreds of thousands of people. While the Armenian Massacre is the best known of these events, there were also atrocities towards Greeks in Pontus and western Anatolia. The Greek Prime Minister Eleftherios Venizelos stated to a British newspaper that:[7]
“Greece is not making war against Islam, but against the anachronistic Ottoman Government, and its corrupt, ignominious, and bloody administration, with a view to the expelling it from those territories where the majority of the population consists of Greeks.
After these proposals were rejected by the Arab side, the British changed their position and sought to eliminate Jewish immigration to Palestine. This was seen as a contradiction of the terms of the mandate, and an anti-humanitarian catastrophe, in light of the increasing persecution in Europe. In the prewar period it led to organization of illegal immigration. While the small Lehi group attacked the British, the Jewish Agency, which represented the mainstream Zionist leadership, still hoped to persuade the British to restore Jewish immigration rights and cooperated with the British in the war against Fascism.
Deep Roots of our indigenous aborigines?
7. Shfar’am: A Jewish Town Populated by Arab Late-Comers
by Hillel Fendel
The city of Shfar’am (pop. 34,000), ten miles east of Haifa, is known today as an Arab city in the Galilee – but it was not always that.
Though today it is nearly half-Christian, a third Muslim, and the rest Druze, it was for many years a large Jewish city – and boasted a significant Jewish presence for centuries on end.
In a project recounting the Jewish origins and history of many towns in the Land of Israel that are today considered “Arab,” historian Dr. Rivka Shpak-Lissak shows that Shfar’am was populated by Jews from the days of Joshua bin Nun, and from the times of the Mishnah up until only 88 years ago.
Dr. Shpak-Lissak told Israel National News that she was surprised to learn that Arabs began to settle in many towns that re today considered “Arab” only 300 years ago. “I started to investigate these towns,” she wrote on the Omedia site, which is publishing her series in Hebrew, “in order to see if it was true that the Arabs of the Galilee are actually descendants of Jews who converted to Islam. I never imagined that I would find that in most of the towns, the Arabs started to move in only in the 17th and 18th centuries” – well after the Arab conquest in the 7th century.
Shfar’am rose to the headlines in the summer of 2005 when a soldier killed four Arabs in a bus, and was then himself killed in a lynching (though the soldier was seen handcuffed and in police custody before he was killed).
Hebrew Name Changed to Arabic
Located along the ancient highway between Acco and Nazareth, Shfar’am is named in Hebrew based on the Hebrew words shofar [ram's horn] and am [nation]. Many centuries later it was given the Arabic name Shfa-Amar, for the “health of Al-Amar,” referring to an Arab who conquered the city.
During the period of the Jewish rebellion against the Romans, at the end of the Second Temple period, Shfar’am was one of the largest Jewish cities in the Galilee. It was later mentioned in the Talmud, and the Sanhedrin (Supreme Jewish Court) was headquartered there during the 2nd century C.E.
Christians began to move there during the ensuing centuries, and Moslems moved in after the Muslim conquest in the 7th century. Centuries later, when the Crusaders passed through the Holy Land, Arabs from Shfar’am used their town as a kick-off base to attack them. Later, however, the Crusaders were able to build a fortress in the city.
Jews continued to live there, and records show that Sephardic Jews began to move in towards the end of the 15th century. Subsequently, Bedouin gangs began to gain more power, which they greatly abused, and Christian and Jewish residents began to leave. After the Ottoman Turks conquered the Land in 1516, Jews began to return.
In 1525, three Jewish families were listed as living there, and this number grew to 10 within a decade. Jews from Tzfat later moved to Shfar’am, and in the 17th century a synagogue was built on the ruins of an ancient one.
Last Jew Left in 1920
In 1761, Shfar’am was conquered by a Bedouin, Dahar Al-Amar, who renamed the city after himself. Over the course of the next century, travelers such as David D’Beth Hillel reported on Jewish life in the city. During the First World War, Jews began to leave because of various difficulties, and Avraham Al-Azri, the last remaining Jew in Shfar’am, left in 1920.
Twenty years later, Shfar’am became a base for anti-Jewish Arab forces, and in the War of Independence in 1948, Israel’s new army captured the area for the newborn State of Israel.
Foreigners vs. Jews in the Holy Land
The bottom line, Dr. Lissak told Israel National News, is that the Arab claim that they have been here for “thousands of years” is far from true. “The goal of all the rulers of the Holy Land, from the times of the Romans and onward, was always to rid the Land of the Jews,” she said. “Finally, they succeeded. Many Jews simply left the Land rather than convert to Islam.”
——————————————————————————————————————————-
Historian: Jewish Towns Populated by Arab Late-Comers
by Hillel Fendel
(IsraelNN.com) Historian Dr. Rivka Shpak-Lissak has embarked on an ambitious project, detailing the history of Jewish towns in the Land of Israel that are now known as Arab. Seven of her articles in this series have appeared on the Omedia website, and she has many more coming.
The bottom line, Dr. Lissak told Israel National News, is that the Arabs have not been here for thousands of years, as they claim, and that in fact most of the formerly Jewish towns of the Galilee were populated by Arabs only within the last 300 years or so.
“The goal of all the rulers of the Holy Land, from the times of the Romans and onward, was always to rid the Land of the Jews,” she said. “Finally, they succeeded. Many Jews simply left the Land rather than convert to Islam.”
The series began last month with a short treatise on the town of Tzipori, famous from the times of the Mishna. The article noted that the Supreme Israeli-Arab Tracking Committee was preparing a “march of return” from Nazareth to Tzipori, to mark Catastrophe Day [Israel's Independence Day]. “We should remind the marchers,” wrote Dr. Lissak, “that Tzipori was a Jewish city for 2,000 years, while the [adjacent] Arab village Safuriya was founded only in 1561.”
Dr. Lissak was born in “the Land,” she told Arutz-7, received a doctorate in history, and lectured in Tel Aviv University and Hebrew University. She has also specialized in American history.
Other originally-Jewish cities highlighted in the series include Kafr Kana, Biram, Pekiin, Sakhnin, Gush Halav, and Arabeh.
Kafr Kana
The latest article is on Kafr Kana, just north of Upper Nazareth in the Lower Galilee. Some 260 Arab families lived there in 1945, and it now has a population of 18,000 people, mostly Moslems and some Christians – leading many to forget its Jewish past. It was a Jewish city during the period of the First Temple (between 2,800 and 2,400 years ago), as well as under Persian rule during the Second Temple period several centuries later. Josephus fortified the city against the Romans in the year 66 C.E., and after Jerusalem fell, priests from the Elyashiv watch moved to Kana. Talmudic sages lived there, and tradition has it that Rava and Rav Huna are buried there. Remnants of a 4th-century synagogue have been found in Kana.
Kana continued to be a thriving Jewish town in the ensuing centuries, though Christians began to move in as well. Eighty Jewish families were reported to be living there in 1473. Rabbi Ovadiah from Bartinura, whose student visited the town, reported that he heard that its Jews, though by then a minority among Christians, were living there peacefully. Somewhere in the 17th century, Bedouin and Arab attacks, as well as Turkish taxation, forced the Jews out, and Arabs replaced them.
During the War of Independence 300 years later, Arab terrorist gangs from Kafr Kana attacked nearby Jewish towns, until the IDF conquered it in July 1948.
Gush Halav
Another now-Arab town whose roots are Jewish is Jish, north of Tzfat (Safed). Known also by its Jewish name Gush Halav, the town is mentioned in the Mishna as having been walled since the times of Joshua ben Nun – i.e., nearly 3,300 years ago. Gush Halav was the last Jewish stronghold in the Galilee and Golan region during the First Jewish Revolt against Rome (66-73 CE); its fall was described at length by Josephus.
As was the case with other towns and cities in the Galilee, a dynamic Jewish presence continued in Gush Halav well into the second half of the second millennium C.E. Archaeologists have excavated a synagogue at Gush Halav that was in use from the 3rd to 6th centuries, and a Jewish burial site similar to that at Beit She’arim has been excavated. The Prophet Joel is said to be buried in Gush Halav.
Many Jews continued to live in Gush Halav, but by the 18th century – by which time the town was renamed Jish – their number had dwindled. Maronite Christians then began arriving in Jish, joining the few Jews who still remained. In 1948, most of the population left, but Arabs from nearby villages took their place. Jish-Gush Halav now has a population of some 2,700 – none of them Jews.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Jewish Towns Populated by Arab Late-Comers: Part 2
by Hillel Fendel
(IsraelNN.com) Historian Dr. Rivka Shpak-Lissak has embarked on an ambitious project, detailing the history of Jewish towns in the Land of Israel that are now known as Arab. Seven of her articles in this series have appeared on the Omedia website, and she says she has many more coming.
The bottom line, Dr. Lissak told Arutz-7, is that the Arab claim that they have been here for “thousands of years” is far from true. In fact, she says, most of the Galilee’s formerly Jewish towns were populated by Arabs only within the last 300 years or so – erasing many signs of the towns’ Jewish origins in the process.
“The goal of all the rulers of the Holy Land, from the times of the Romans and onward, was always to rid the Land of the Jews,” she said. “Finally, they succeeded. Many Jews simply left the Land rather than convert to Islam.”
Dr. Lissak’s articles on the towns of Gush Halav and Kafr Kana were summarized here.
Tzipori: Coming Full-Circle
Another important once-Jewish town is Tzipori, just north of Nazareth and Migdal HaEmek, where Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi concluded his monumental work, the Mishna. When the Supreme Israeli-Arab Tracking Committee prepared a “march of return” from Nazareth to Tzipori, to mark Catastrophe Day [Israel's Independence Day], Dr. Lissak wrote, “We should remind the marchers that Tzipori was a Jewish city for 2,000 years, while the [adjacent] Arab village Safuriya was founded only in 1561.”
Tzipori was known to have been Jewish in the times of Ezra and Nechemiah, and was the administrative capital of the Galilee under the Hashmoneans (2nd century BCE). Pompei conquered it for Rome in 63 C.E., but it remained proudly Jewish; Josephus called it the “pride of the entire Galilee.” Towards the end of the 2nd century C.E., the Sanhedrin (Supreme Jewish Court) relocated to Tzipori, which served as a center for Torah study and dissemination; its scholars took part in the formation of the Jerusalem Talmud.
Beginning in the 5th century, the proportion of Christians in the town increased; there is evidence of continued Jewish presence for at least another 500 years afterwards. The present-day Arab village of Tzafuriya was founded nearby in 1561, and its residents took part in the Arab riots against the Jews near 400 years later, in 1936-9. During the 1948 War of Independence, Tzipori was the site of a major battle in which the young Israeli army routed Arab forces comprised of neighboring village residents and reinforcements from Syria and Lebanon.
In 1949, the modern-day Moshav Tzipori was founded by Bulgarian and Turkish Jews, joined later by Jewish immigrants from Romania. Over 600 Jews currently live there, sometimes studying the Mishna – the marble gravesite of whose author, Rabbi Yehuda, has been uncovered nearby.
Once again, however, Arabs are trying to de-Judaize the area, Caroline Glick reports: Arab squatters from the Kablawi clan have, in recent years, built themselves an illegal village of some 20 houses in the form of storage containers on stolen Jewish land adjacent to the fields of Tzipori. Jews in the area have established a replica of the early 20th-century HaShomer (Guardsman) for the same purpose as its forebearer: protecting Jewish farming communities from Arab marauders.
Arabeh: Forgotten Jewish Roots
Another example of a Jewish-city-turned-Arab in the Galilee is Arabeh, six kilometers south of Carmiel. During the Second Temple period, it was a Jewish town named Arav, the third-largest such town in the Galilee. It was destroyed by the Romans during the Great Rebellion of 66-70, though its inhabitants had previously fled to safety. It was later rebuilt and served as a center of Torah study; Rabi Yochanan ben Zakkai, who lived there for 18 years, and Rabi Hanina ben Dosa established a yeshiva there.
When the Christians became more powerful in the Land, the Jews of Arav, together with the other Jews of the Galilee, suffered humilitation and the burning of their synagogues. Even worse occurred in subsequent centuries at the hands of the Christians and ruling Byzantines. Jewish presence in Arav apparently ended when the Arabs conquered the Holy Land in 638; even most of the Christians in the city converted to Islam. Some 300 years ago, the Moslems conducted a massacre of the Druze residents living nearby. Nearly 20,000 people live there today, most of them Moslems and some Christians. The town’s Jewish roots are all but forgotten
Now Peskin, I would say your positions are based on Ideological bias, Historical ignorance, Arrogance of moralistic relevatism and out right vile stupidity. What do you have to say to thatr Peskin?
Peskin, how wrong you are, even when you get some things right.
I will address your post #16:
I do not recall ever making that argument, at least not recently.
I recall that at the time America was pushing for a coalition to go into Iraq to remove Hussein, based in the main on British intelligence strongly suggesting Hussein was assembling WMD’s, I was in favour of America going in to take out Hussein. I vaguely recall those reasons were along the following lines:
1. Hussein had flouted or gotten around every UN resolution/sanction that sought to contain and control him. He did it with complicity of a number of corrupt UN departments and anti-American nations such as France and Russia;
2. Hussein proudly continued with his $25,000.00 prize/family of any Palestinian terrorist who atacked Israel.
3. Hussein was in other respects funding terrorism against Israel and America.
4. He was insanely evil by Western standards of what distinguishes sanity from insanity.
5. I saw Hussein as another facet of the Islamist movement, even though what moved Hussein was not as religiously inspired as say what moved Al qaeda.
6. I believed that if Hussein was ignored and he completed WMD capacity, this insanely evil leader would pose not only a threat to Israel, but all within the Middle East. It was just about 10 years before that Hussein had attacked Kuwait. His enmity for Westerners and particularly for America and some nations in the EU was well known.
7. I assumed that America on quickly taking out Hussein had plans to leave Iraq with a new leadership installed, which would have been arranged in advance. America would leave. There might well be a civil war between factions, but the victor, even if Islamist would hopefully be more practical the Hussein and would know not to mess with America and American interests or America would come back.
That was a big assumption based on common sense. It turned out to be the wrong assumption. There had been no such foreplanning and orchestrating.
That Israel had warned America not to go after Hussein in Iraq, but rather take steps or at least be more mindful of Iran, did not come out until well after Hussein was taken out and America was mired in the Iraqi muck.
No it was not per se the removal of Hussein that empowered Iran.
It was that America had no exit strategy from Iraq, was floundering there and was solely focussued on Iraq that gave Iran the opportunity and time to regroup from its war with Iraq and gain strength pretty much unnoticed by the world, save for Israel.
I believe the fact that Israel warned the U.S. against invading and taking out Hussein did not come to light until that fact was leaked by Israelis as many began concocting accusations that Israel had pushed America to take out Hussein for Israel’s benefit and thus Israel is really at fault for the American and world problems with Iraq.
You wrongly credit most of the EU as having forewarned against the perils of taking out Hussein. I recall reading much of the reasons given by EU nations, particularly France that was so opposed. It had nothing to do with foreseeing what would become or questioning what America’s plan was after they took out Hussein. In fact, no one I can recall ever asked that question of Pres. Bush.
The world pretty much assumed America had a plan and the capacity to execute that plan to leave after Hussein was taken out.
I believe it was Villepin who some time or a few years after taking out Hussein, conceded that even if America had proof positive that Saddam had WMD’s and was about to strike, France would have been opposed to doing anything.
France was at that time just exceedingly anti-American and very much into courting favour with the Muslim world and wanted no part of any war effort against any Muslim leader regardless of how evil that leader was.
I am not going to check the 2003 blogs, but would lay a bet with you that there was no unanimity of reasons why many at Israpundit were happy with the prospects of America invading and taking out Hussein. I told you some of the reasons I think I was in favour. Others had different reasons I am sure.
No one did or could have forseen America’s huge mistake in not having a carefully designed exit strategy from Iraq when she went into Iraq and took out Hussein. Israpundit bloggers were thus not alone in not considering that issue.
Those pundits at the time who had a crystal ball and may have written about their glimpse of the future never rose to the forefront of opinion critical of the intention to take out Hussein.
You are arguing from the benefit of hindsight
This part you got pretty right.
This you have very wrong. There is more then enough blame for the Iraqi debacle to go around and touch Americans from all along the political spectrum.
Where leftists are blamed Peskin is not for the Iraqi debacle but for their ideologically driven need to blame every one to the right of them for the world’s ills. Many leftists have a follow the leftist herd mentality. It is thus difficult to engage Leftists in a meaningful fact, reason and logic driven discussion for all too often in my experience, leftists have a one track mind that is akin to an obsessive compulsive need to relate reality to their ideological biases and thus they cherry pick or twist facts and strain logic beyond the breaking point.
Yamit, thx for the history lesson.
The tragedy is that while Arabs/Palestinians have been making a concerted effort to invent historical memories of times that never were, Israel and Jews forget historical memories of times that actually were.
May I suggest you and those as well informed as you join together to write a letter or better yet, seek an audience with the Ministry of Public Relations and related ministeries which are charged with the responsibility of putting forward Israel’s case to the world.
There you can make your case as to the importance of Israel challenging the historical revisionism of the Arabs/Palestinians, not just for the sake of putting Israel’s case before the court of world opinion in a much better light, but just as importantly to inform Israelis and Jews of their history long forgotten and its significance yet today.