Israel Kung Fu and world Nunchaku champion (2001) Eli Ivgi was born in and lives in Beit Shemesh.
The nun-chaku forms of Kung Fu and Karate utilize speed, agility and cunning in the mastery of this martial art technique.
The nun-chaku is most widely used in martial arts such as Okinawan kobudō and karate. Its intended use is as a training weapon, since it allows the development of quicker hand movements and improves posture. Modern-day nunchaku can be made from metal, wood, plastic or fiberglass. Toy and replica versions made of polystyrene foam or plastic are also available. Possession of this weapon is illegal in some countries, except for use in professional martial arts schools.
Because Jews have never left Eretz Yisrael but rather maintained a continuous presence in the Land of Israel since King David established Jerusalem as the Capital of the Kingdom of Eretz Yisrael; Jewish “aboriginal (indigenous) sovereignty” (Title) extends to the Jewish Tribal Territories of Judea, Shomron, Benjamin, Ephraim, Manasseh, Reuven, and Gad (in fact, JEWISH SOVEREIGNTY extends over all the Twelve Tribal Territories since International Law does not recognize territorial acquisition by force) and all Israel need do is apply Israeli Law to these territories in an exercise of self-determinism.
The right to self-determinism does not include a right to secede from an established government! Since the Arabs of Palestinian extraction voted for Abdullah I to be their sovereign and were collectively naturalized as Jordanians they cannot now claim a right to secede from the Hashemite Crown and violate Articles 5, 6, and 15 of the Anglo-American Treaty of 1924.
As it is, the Arabs of Palestinian extraction gained “independence” at the 1948 Jericho Conference and are classified under the laws or rules of war as hostile belligerent nationals (unprivileged enemy belligerent, see: e.g. 10 USC 948a (6) & (7)) of Jordan as customary international law does not condone acts of political disenfranchisement (imposition of statelessness) on a body politic; especially where such acts violate customary international law or the Jordanian Nationality Law.
The Palestinian Arabs’ claim for sovereignty over what they now insist is their long yearned-for homeland arose only after 1967—i.e. when it came under Jewish administration.
Martin Sherman , Apr 18 , 2021 11:14 PM Share
Palestinian Arabs Flash 90
The Arabs didn’t provoke war with Israel in 1967 to achieve Palestinian independence…Arab rulers could have established a Palestinian state in those territories whenever they chose to do so. But Palestinian statehood was of no interest to them.- Jeff Jacoby,The Boston Globe, June 7, 2017.
Not since the time of Dr. Goebels [Head of the Nazi Propaganda Machine] has there ever been a case in which continual repetition of a lie has born such great fruits…Of all the Palestinian lies, there is no lie greater or more crushing than that which calls for the establishment of a separate Palestinian state in the West Bank…—From “Palestinian Lies” [Hebrew], Ha’aretz, July 30, 1976, by former Education Minister, Prof. Amnon Rubinstein of the far-Left Meretz faction.
With Joe Biden in the White House, the question of Palestinian statehood is now back on the international agenda, after being largely sidelined under the Trump administration.
For decades, the discourse on the “Palestinian issue” has been dominated by the Palestinian-Arabs contention that Judea and Samaria (a.k.a. “The West Bank”) has long been their ancient homeland.
However, many would probably be interested—and certainly very surprised—to learn just when realization dawned on the Palestinian-Arabs that this territory supposedly comprised their yearned-for motherland.
Indeed, long before Israel held a square inch of “the West Bank”—before there was any “occupation” or “settlements”—the Arabs claimed all the territory of pre-1967 Israel i.e. within the Green Line—as “Palestinian” territory and threatened to reclaim it by force of arms, and annihilate all its Jewish inhabitants.
Thus, in March 1965, over two years prior to the 1967 Six-Day War—after which the “West Bank” came under Israeli administration—Egyptian President, Gamal Abdul Nasser threatened, with chilling genocidal malevolence: “We shall not enter Palestine with its soil covered in sand, we shall enter it with its soil saturated in blood“.
No less blood-curdling were the words of Yassir Arafat’s predecessor as head of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), Ahmed Shukeiry, who on the very eve of the Six-Day War—in a somewhat premature flush of triumph—crowed:
“D Day is approaching. The Arabs have waited 19 years for this and will not flinch from the war of liberation…This is a fight for the homeland – it is either us or the Israelis. There is no middle road. The Jews of Palestine will have to leave.[but] is my impression that none of them will survive…We shall destroy Israel and its inhabitants and as for the survivors — if there are any — the boats are ready to deport them.”
“…Jordanians & Palestinians are considered … one people.”
Significantly, the first version of the Palestinian National Covenant was formulated three years before the Six-Day War—in May 1964—in East Jerusalem (then under Jordanian control).
In it, the Palestinian-Arabs explicitly foreswear any sovereign claim to the “West Bank” (or to Gaza):
Thus, while in Article 16 it reads: “…the people of Palestine [look] forward [to] restoring the legitimate situation to Palestine, establishing peace and security in its territory, and…enabling its people to exercise national sovereignty and freedom”, in Article 24 the “West Bank” (and Gaza) are explicitly excluded from the scope of Palestinian sovereign aspirations.
Indeed, in Article 24, the Covenant unequivocally stipulates that the “Palestinian people” do NOT aspire to “any… sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip [then under Egyptian control] or the Himmah Area [then under Syrian control]”.
Moreover, when the original National Covenant was drafted, all the Arab residents in the “West Bank” were, in fact, Jordanian citizens—without that causing any great discordance between their national identity and the citizenship they held.
Accordingly, as late as 1977, Farouk Kaddoumi, then one of the most senior members of the PLO, told Newsweek: “…Jordanians and Palestinians are considered by the PLO as one people.”
Moreover, it was Jordan who demanded sovereignty over the “West Bank” until July 1988, when King Hussein relinquished his claim to the territory and stripped all his erst-while subjects of their Jordanian citizenship. On this, Anis F. Kassim, a prominent Palestinian international lawyer, commented: “… more than 1.5 million Palestinians went to bed on 31 July 1988 as Jordanian citizens, and woke up on 1 August 1988 as stateless persons.”
Palestine is where the Jews are.
Accordingly, it is clear that Palestinian Arabs’ claim to sovereignty over what they now insist is their long yearned-for homeland arose only after 1967—i.e. when it came under Jewish administration.
Indeed the Palestinian homeland seems to be a very fluid concept. After all, prior to 1967, it excluded all the territory it now purports to include. The common thread between the pre-1967 demands and the post-1967 ones, is that the Palestinian Arabs appear to focus their “national aspirations” on land only to deprive the Jews of it.
There is nothing complex about providing aid to terrorists in circumvention of the Taylor Force Act.
They are not “Palestinians” but rather Arabs whose origins are the Kingdom of the Hejaz. The Arabs, led by Hebron Sheik Muhmmad al Ja’abri voted by delegates for Abdullah I of trans-Jordan to be their sovereign at the Jericho Conference December 1948 and were “collectively naturalized” in April 1950 by King Abdullah. Their attendance and voting by delegates at the Jericho Conference was an exercise in self-determinism. They do not have a right to secede from the Jordanian Crown and occupy sovereign Jewish territory. See: Emerson, Self-Determination, 65 Am. J. INT’L L. 459, 465 (1971). What makes them “Palestinians?”
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.”Hamas Interior Minister Fathi Hamad stated on Egyptian Al-Helma TV on 23 March 2012: “Who are the Palestinians? Half are Egyptian, the other half Saudi.”
1970–Thames Television–Golda Meir discusses the Palestinian identity, and asks why the Arabs in the West Bank became more Palestinian than the Arabs in the East Bank, after June 5 1967.
Golda Meir – “I’m a Palestinian! From 1921 to 1948 I carried a Palestinian Passport.”
Tablet Magazine; original photos: Wikipiedia; Berliner Verlag/Archiv/picture alliance via Getty Images
During the Second World War, the Nazis and Palestinian Arab leader Haj Amin al-Husseini, mufti of Jerusalem, planned and executed a commando mission whose primary objective was killing Jews in the land of Israel. The five men who were parachuted into Palestine had all lived there for much of their lives and knew the territory well. Their plan was to incite Palestinian Arabs against Jews and to attack individual Jewish targets, such as synagogues and Jewish-owned stores. The operation was codenamed Atlas and took place in October 1944. This is the story of an event that has been all but lost to history, but which casts important light on the global dimensions of Nazi war planning—and the key role played by their willing accomplices.
In December 1943, Lieutenant Kurt Wieland reported to 32-37 Berkaer Strasse Berlin, headquarters of the SS security service. Up until 1941, the building had been a Jewish old age home. When the residents were deported, the security service, which was formally named the Sicherheitsdienst but more commonly known as the SD, took over the building.
Wieland had been summoned for an interview with an SD lieutenant colonel called Beissner, who wanted to know what Middle Eastern countries he was familiar with. Beissner mentioned Syria, Transjordan, and Palestine as examples. Wieland replied that he only knew Palestine.
Wieland had wanted to lead a commando mission to Palestine for some time. Through his cousin, an SD official, he’d managed to get himself in front of Beissner. The interview went well enough that Wieland was transferred from the Brandenburg Special Forces regiment to the SD and given control of an operation targeting Palestine called Elias. Wieland promptly changed the name to Atlas and focused it on a Special Forces mission to train and incite the Arabs of Palestine against the Jews. He would later write that the military aim of the operation was to cause “the greatest possible damage to the common enemies (Jews, English, Americans and the Allies).”
The Wieland family had left Germany for Palestine in 1923 when Kurt was 7 and had lived there as members of the German Templer community. Kurt attended junior school in Jaffa and Sarona and went to high school in the German Colony in Jerusalem. He left Palestine to go back to Germany in 1936 and spent another year in Palestine in 1938 before returning to Germany in time for the war. In late 1942, he was wounded while fighting in Odessa in the Ukraine. Shortly after recovering, he was sent to officer school.
Roughly a month after his meeting with Beissner, Wieland was taken to the Adlon Hotel in Berlin to meet with the self-styled grand mufti, the Palestinian Arab leader al-Husseini, for the first time. Husseini was a Palestinian leader who is widely blamed for the deaths of scores of Jews in the 1920s and 1930s. He led a three-year insurrection against the British from 1936 to 1939, during which he was chased out of Palestine by the British Army. After being forced from Palestine in 1937, the mufti made his way to Berlin, where he was warmly welcomed and paid considerable sums of money by various Nazi ministries for work that included propaganda and recruitment. Himmler himself ordered that the mufti receive 1 million Reichsmarks.
In the mufti’s hotel suite Wieland was quizzed about his plans for the Palestine mission. The mufti wanted to know how he planned on getting into the country, what he was going to take with him, and who he would need to carry out his mission. Wieland came to understand that this was to be a joint operation between the SD and the mufti.
Later that month, the mufti asked Wieland to visit him in his residence where he introduced him to Thulkifl Abdul Latif and Hassan Ali Salameh (the father of Ali Hassan Salameh, the future Fatah security chief and key CIA contact), better known as Abu Ali. These men were to accompany Wieland on the mission and the mufti insisted that operational control of the mission be handed over to Abu Ali as soon as they hit the ground. Wieland reluctantly agreed.
Abu Ali was well known in Palestine among the Arabs and the British. He had proven to be a capable guerrilla leader during the 1936-39 uprising and was popular among Arab Palestinians. The British had a file on him from that period which referred to him as a “well-known gang leader of the 1936-39 disturbances.”
After the failure of the Arab “disturbances” in Palestine, Abu Ali fled to Iraq, where he participated in another uprising against the British in 1941. When that uprising failed, he fled to Turkey until summoned to Rome by the mufti in 1942. A British intelligence report states of him that “while in Rome this man lived in the Mufti’s villa and was employed by the Mufti to look after his Arab soldiers.” Abu Ali had the experience, contacts, and knowledge of the area to succeed in an operation aimed at recruiting and training local Arabs to kill Jews.
Wieland also recruited a radio operator by the name of Werner Frank and a weapons specialist called Friederich Dieninger. Both were born in Haifa, grew up in the German community in Palestine, and had served in the Brandenburg regiment with Wieland.
The mufti had a particular obsession with the equipment Wieland and his men were to take with them. He persuaded Wieland to take pistols with silencers for the purposes of killing dogs, and poison to assassinate Arab traitors. He discouraged Wieland from taking large amounts of explosives, telling him instead to take a variety of detonators and claiming they’d be able to get hold of explosive material in Palestine. The mufti also insisted they take a large amount of money and propaganda material. When the mufti asked Wieland how much money he thought they’d need, he answered £1,500; they ended up taking £14,000 in gold sovereigns and paper notes.
Twice, Wieland went to the mufti’s residence to demonstrate the various submachine guns and grenades they planned on taking to Palestine. They test-fired them in a field near his residence. He also showed the mufti British Sten guns and German machine pistols and grenades, which particularly impressed the mufti and his coterie.
During the planning, the three Germans worked out ways to contact one another if they were separated on the ground. Three locations were agreed upon: a bench in a park in Jerusalem, a restaurant near Jaffa Gate, and a public bathroom close to the restaurant. The first team member to arrive at the venue would draw a shape and a number with chalk as a signal to whomever came next. A square would denote Wieland, a triangle meant Frank, and a circle was Deininger. The number was the day that month they would return to the place to make contact.
In late July 1944, while hundreds of German officers were being rounded up and shot for their involvement in the failed plot to assassinate Hitler, Abu Ali, Abdul Latif, Wieland, Frank, and Deininger sat with the mufti and his men to hammer out a written agreement on the formal objectives of the mission. Wieland later wrote about these objectives, stating:
“On the agreement of all members of the mission it was decided that the greatest possible damage should be done to the Jews in order to avoid too early an interference by the English. The German leaders were to regard their task as accomplished if there were continual riots between Arabs and Jews.”
Once the arrangements were finalized, Operation Atlas was submitted to Himmler, the head of the SS, who gave his approval.
At the beginning of September 1944, the members of the Atlas team, together with the mufti, associated SD officers, and members of the mufti’s entourage, participated in “a dinner party in an Officers Mess in Wannsee”—the location where the Nazis had formally decided on the Final Solution a year and a half earlier. Present at the dinner party was the head of the SD, General Walter Schellenberg, who made a speech saying:
I am delighted to meet the Mufti personally and sincerely hope that this mission will prove successful and by this success the Arabs will fulfil their hopes of ridding themselves of the Jewish danger forever. I promise to continue the supply of arms and munitions to the mission despite the critical German position, although Germany will be weakened by this present war she will never be brought to her knees. Germany is fighting now on all fronts and has Bolshevism and Anglo Americans as her foes. It is however to be remembered that those two regimes are totally opposed to one another on all points except in the ultimate defeat of Germany. I am fully cognizant of the degree the Jews are playing in defeating Germany, should Germany come out safely from this war she will once and for all take the opportunity of ridding herself of the Jewish problem and menace forever.
The mufti also made a speech where he spoke as if he was the leader of an Axis power: “The Arabs had long been fighting the Jews and now the Germans had joined the struggle. The Germans and the Arabs had always understood each other,” he said. He hoped that “now all Arab nations would join in the struggle against the Jews,” and that “the mission would contribute to a speedy and successful conclusion of the war.”
From there, the five commandos were flown to a small airfield near Athens, Greece. A captured American B-17 Flying Fortress bomber took off on Sept. 11, 1944, with the men and their equipment on board. After just 15 minutes, the pilot turned back to Greece with engine trouble. While the men were waiting for the aircraft to be fixed, an Allied air raid damaged the B-17 further. The operation was postponed for a month, and the men returned to Berlin.
A host of problems had already plagued the operation. Wieland was unhappy about the prospect of being under the command of Abu Ali in Palestine and had conspired with the SD to use a code signal in their radio communications when he wanted Berlin to pretend the mufti had vetoed Abu Ali’s plans. For their part, Abu Ali and Abdul Latif were planning on hiding the Germans away somewhere in Palestine, preventing them from participating in any decision-making at all. The mufti refused to hand over to Wieland the details of anyone on the ground in Palestine he could contact for help. After they returned to Berlin, the mufti interfered with the team’s equipment, adding propaganda leaflets, drugs, and poison; he also added a briefcase filled with personal documents for delivery to his wife.
On the night of Oct. 5, another captured B-17 took off from the airfield near Athens with the team on board. The team fell asleep on the flight and were woken by the aircrew moments before the signal to jump. Looking out the window, Wieland calculated that they were being told to jump too soon. But when he looked from the window to inform the others, they were already jumping out of the aircraft. With his teammates already out of the plane, Wieland had no option but to jump with the knowledge that they were in the wrong place. He hit the ground roughly five kilometers southeast of Jericho—instead of in the Jordan Valley, as he’d intended.
On the ground Abu Ali and Wieland found each other; Abdul Latif and Frank also found each other. No one knew what had happened to Deininger. The two pairs searched independently for their equipment but could find little of it except for the mufti’s briefcase and one of three radio sets the commandos had jumped with.
The two pairs of commandos made their way north with no clear plan as to where they were going or why. British intelligence painstakingly documented 10 days of meandering movement: The Germans spoke little Arabic and were reliant on Abu Ali and Abdul Latif, neither of whom was able to deliver them to a place of safety or find anyone willing to hide them for more than a night or two. Meanwhile, their equipment had been discovered and the British were searching for them.
On Oct. 11 the Jewish Telegraphic Agency wired a short article from Jerusalem: “Police have asked the population of Palestine to look out for one or more parachutists of ‘unknown nationality’ who are believed to have been dropped over the Jordan Valley over the last few days.” Various units including the police, the Arab Legion, and the Arab Frontier Force were dispatched to help with the search.
Local newspapers and international news outlets also followed the story. TheNew York Times reported on Oct. 27 that “a tip that gold coins were circulating among the inhabitants of Jericho in eastern Palestine led the Palestine police early this month to pick up a trail that resulted in the capture of three German air officers.” Wieland put it somewhat more laconically when he later wrote a report of his capture: “From about 0600 hours Abdul Latif was on guard. I went into the cave in order to continue sleeping. About 0900 hours when I wakened, I heard a noise in front of the cave. I was asked to come out. We were prisoners.” The three men were caught without a shot being fired or a radio transmission being sent. They had never managed to find Deininger.
The three were handed over to interrogators. At first, the prisoners were kept separate from one another. The Germans were brought before Lieutenant W.B. Savigny, who interrogated them individually from the 18th to the 29th of October 1944. Abdul Latif was interrogated by Lieutenant Brodie. All three men lied to varying degrees. Savigny pressed Wieland and Frank for details, not just about the mission but every aspect of their service. After his first interrogation of Werner Frank, he wrote, “Frank has yet to tell his full story. He should have much more to say especially on the subject of proposed W/T (wireless telegraphy) transmissions.” With Wieland, he recommended that “W should be interrogated further and should also now be questioned on his knowledge of the SD, Abwehr, and personalities connected with these organizations.”
A report summarizing the Atlas operation by an officer of Security Intelligence Middle East (Britain’s intelligence organization covering the Middle East) to London on Nov. 5, 1944, states: “It is felt here that none of these men is yet completely broken. The stories are incomplete and unconvincing.”
Savigny’s second interrogation of Wieland lasted from the 1st to the 28th of November. At the end of the month, he reported that Wieland was “now willing to tell the truth but whether this is the whole truth or he is still concealing something is not quite certain” and recommended that “the information obtained from W should be used to interrogate the other two members of the party.” That information included a written report by Wieland of everything that had happened in the planning and execution of the operation, which included the statement that the fight was to be “directed against Jews and it was to be done in such a way so as to not invite too strong a British response against Palestine’s Arabs.” Wieland also wrote that an “example of sabotage activity was to be taken from former Arab guerrillas in Palestine, e.g., incendiary bombs in Jewish shops, bombs in synagogues, etc.”
Wieland proved to be a gold mine of information for the British about the German intelligence setup. He wrote about the people he knew, their roles, the courses they ran, and the names of as many of the students as he could remember. His report included names of SD personnel and their plans, including one floated to him by Otto Skorzeny, the German Special Forces commander who had rescued Mussolini from prison. Skorzeny, who would help train the Egyptian Army under Nasser, advise the Perons in Argentina, and allegedly become an agent for the Mossad, was said by Wieland to be planning an audacious attack on the Haifa oil pipeline.
The second interrogation of Abdul Latif lasted from Nov. 27 to Nov. 29, during which he claimed “the Mufti’s object was to coordinate a united retaliation in the Arabic world against the Jews, and thus make them (the Jews) and their societies abroad release the mounting strangle-hold they had on Palestine. The Mufti’s intention was to organize an anti-Jewish movement in all the Arabic world.”
This was no idle threat. A British intelligence security summary from February 1945 refers to a second group of paratroopers who were dropped in Iraq: “Reinterrogation of one of the Iraqi parachutists seems to confirm that the object of their expedition was to organize armed bands which would attack Jews and Jewish interests in Iraq and Palestine. This coincides interestingly with the principal aims of the earlier Palestine parachute expedition which was despatched by the same German service also in cooperation with the Grand Mufti.”
Abdul Latif claimed that the impetus for the operation had come from the mufti in March 1944. “When asked what the Germans hoped to achieve by sending three German personnel on the mission, Thulkifl replied that he was informed by the Mufti that the object of including them was to ensure that the weapons were used correctly, i.e., against the Jews.”
In December, a letter was sent from the office of Security Intelligence Middle East claiming, “we consider all the prisoners to be completely broken.” After the interrogation, the British were faced with the question of what to do with their captives. The High Commissioner for Palestine sent a telegram to the secretary of state for Transjordan in June 1945, writing of Abdul Latif that he “is not less dangerous than those Palestinians who worked from Axis territory,” adding that he “is now in Egypt in military custody and intention is to ask that he be kept there until arrangements can be made for him to join exiles.”
A letter from an official at the British Foreign Office stated:
There appears to be no doubt that the Arab named Abdul Latif is liable to prosecution seeing that he was not in uniform and is stated to be a Palestinian by nationality. We do not anticipate any tiresome political reactions in the surrounding Arab countries as the result of a trial in this case. What the reactions are likely to be in Palestine itself is, of course, a matter for the Colonial Office and the Palestine Government to judge. We do not see how it is possible to bring the Germans to trial if, as is stated, they were wearing uniform. Surely in that case, they must be treated as prisoners of war.
Neither of the Germans was put on trial. Abdul Latif was sent from Cairo to the Seychelles in February 1946, where he was interned as a dissident.
Abu Ali was never caught. A report dated Dec. 6 states that “investigations in Palestine indicate that Salama (Salameh) and an unknown stranger are in hiding somewhere near Ramleh, Palestine. Salama is said to be considering surrender to the police but is rather worried about some of his earlier recorded activities.”
There the British paper trail on Salameh ends. In 1947, he emerges as a commander of irregular forces during Israel’s War of Independence. He was killed in June 1948 after being wounded in combat. But the war didn’t end there for his family. Abu Ali’s son Ali Hassan Salameh, better known as the Red Prince, became the leader of the militant Black September group responsible for terror attacks that included the murder of Israeli Olympic athletes at the Munich games in 1972. He was assassinated by the Mossad in 1979 during Operation Wrath of God.
Former New York lawmaker Dov Hikind organizes vigil outside French consulate in NYC, demanding France prosecute Sarah Halimi’s murderer.
Arutz Sheva Staff , Apr 18 , 2021 5:08 PM Share
French flag iStock
Former New York State Assemblyman Dov Hikind is calling on supporters to take part in a protest vigil outside of the French consulate in New York City later this week.
The vigil, slated for Tuesday afternoon, is being organized in response to the decision of the French high court to uphold a ruling preventing the murderer of a French Jewish woman from being put on trial.
In its decision last Wednesday, the Court of Cassation’s Supreme Court of Appeals upheld rulings by lower tribunals that Kobili Traore cannot stand trial in the 2017 killing of Sarah Halimi because he was too high on marijuana to be criminally responsible for his actions.
“Please join me in a candlelight vigil in front of the French Consulate – 934 Fifth Ave (btwn 74-75 st) NYC – this TUESDAY @ 1pm to honor the memory of Sarah Halimi and demand justice from the French government that has continually failed her,” Hikind tweeted Sunday afternoon.
The event is being organized under the slogan “Demand Justice for Sarah”.
Jordan continues to be the stumbling block to ending the 100 years old conflict between Jews and Arabs as it celebrated its founding 100 years ago on 11 April 1921 – whilst simultaneously 100 years of unbroken rule by the Hashemite dynasty has been publicly imploding.
Initially called the Emirate of Transjordan – the Hashemites – hailing from the Hejaz – now called Saudi Arabia – were anointed as Transjordan’s future rulers by Britain at the 1921 Cairo Conference as part of the machinations between Britain and France in the carve up of the territory of the defeated Ottoman Empire in World War 1.
99.99% of Ottoman-liberated territory was designated for Arab self-determination under the French Mandate for Syria and Lebanon and the British Mandate for Mesopotamia – whilst the remaining 0.01% was to be set aside for the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home in the area today called Israel, Jordan, Gaza and Judea and Samaria (West Bank) pursuant to the British Mandate for Palestine.
Two and a half of the twelve tribes of Israel had settled in Transjordan: Gad, Reuben and half the tribe of Manasseh:
Transjordan – 78% of the territory comprised in the Mandate – was however completely excluded as the site for any part of the future Jewish National Home – when Article 25 was inserted in the Mandate document unanimously endorsed by the League of Nations on 22 July 1922.
Transjordan’s exclusion from future Jewish settlement came after the exchange of the following telegrams between Britain’s State Secretary for the Colonies – Winston Churchill – and British Colonial Administrator – John Schuckburgh in March 1921:
The coup de grâce was duly delivered by the Council of the League of Nations on 16 September 1922:
With impeccable Anglo-French doublespeak – the Jews were thus denied any right to reconstitute their National Home in any part of the Mandate territory east of the Jordan River. However – Jewish settlement anywhere west of the Jordan River – including Gaza and Judea and Samaria (aka ‘West Bank’) – was preserved until today under Article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine and Article 80 of the United Nations Charter.
Former American President Jimmy Carter summed up Jordan’s founding in Time Magazine on 11 October 1982:
“[Jordan’s King] Hussein is personally courageous but an extremely timid man in political matters. That timidity derives almost inevitably from the inherent weakness of Jordan. As a nation it is a contrivance, arbitrarily devised by a few strokes of the pen”
Transjordan remained part of the Mandate for Palestine until Britain granted it independence on 25 May 1946 when it was renamed “The Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan”. A further name change to Jordan only came in 1950 after Transjordan had conquered Judea and Samaria and East Jerusalem in 1948 – uniting those areas with Transjordan to form a single territorial unit until their loss to Israel in the 1967 Six Day War.
In 1994 – Israel and Jordan signed a peace treaty- which remains in force today despite many events that could have derailed it.
The two-state solution first contemplated in 1922 for Palestine – one for the Jews in 22% of the Mandate territory – one for the Arabs exclusively in the remaining 78% – still remains the only realistic and politically-achievable basis for any two-state solution in 2021.
Subdividing Judea and Samaria (West Bank) and Gaza– 5% of the Mandate territory where sovereignty still remains unallocated – between Israel and Jordan – the two successor States to the Mandate for Palestine exercising sovereignty in the other 95% – remains the key to ending the Arab-Jewish conflict.
After 100 years – Jordan’s ruling Hashemite dynasty finally needs to end its timidity.
Author’s note: The cartoon — commissioned exclusively for this article — is by Yaakov Kirschen aka “Dry Bones”- one of Israel’s foremost political and social commentators — whose cartoons have graced the columns of Israeli and international media publications for decades. His cartoons can be viewed at Drybonesblog
David Singer is an Australian lawyer who is active in Zionist community organizations in that country. He founded the “Jordan is Palestine” Committee in 1979.
(JTA) — Relatives of a Paris woman who was killed by her neighbor while he spewed anti-Semitic slurs and was high on marijuana have lost their final appeal to have the killer tried.
In its decision Wednesday, the Court of Cassation’s Supreme Court of Appeals upheld rulings by lower tribunals that Kobili Traore cannot stand trial in the 2017 killing of Sarah Halimi because he was too high on marijuana to be criminally responsible for his actions.
The handling of Halimi’s slaying has been a watershed event for many French Jews, who say it underlines the French state’s failures in dealing with anti-Semitism.
Traore broke into the third-story apartment of Halimi, a physician and educator in her 60s, shouted about Allah, called her a demon and pummeled Halimi. The intruder then threw Halimi out the window.
Traore then shouted out the window, “A lady has fallen out the window,” and fled the scene, witnesses said. Police caught him nearby.
An appeals court said Traore, now in his early 30s, had anti-Semitic bias and that the killing was partly connected to it. But it also accepted the defense claims that Traore was too high to be tried for his actions and he was placed at a psychiatric facility.
The CRIF umbrella group of French Jewish communities called it a “miscarriage of justice.” The founder of the National Bureau for Vigilance Against Anti-Semitism, a communal watchdog known as BNVCA, said he “no longer had full confidence that anti-Semitic hate crimes in France are handled properly.”
After murder, armed robbers break into Johannesburg yeshiva, attack rabbi and two students, cutting up prayer shawl, using it to tie them up
David Rosenberg , Apr 15 , 2021 5:13 PM Share
Break-in (archive) ISTOCK
Burglars broke into a yeshiva in South Africa Thursday morning in a robbery which has shaken the local Jewish community.
The incident occurred at the Kehillas Shomer Emunim in Johannesburg Thursday morning, when two armed burglars broke into the synagogue’s study hall, which is used by the local yeshiva.
According to a report by Behadrei Haredim Thursday afternoon, the two suspects approached the yeshiva dean and two students with their guns drawn, robbing them of their personal possessions, including cell phones, one of the student’s car, cash, and other items. The robbers also stole computers owned by the study hall.
During the robbery, the suspects tied up the dean and the two students, by cutting up a tallit, or traditional Jewish prayer shawl. The three victims were left bound and gagged on the floor in the desecrated tallit while the robbers fled the scene.
While the facility is secured by private guards, the security teams assigned to the synagogue failed to prevent the break-in or the burglars’ escape.
A non-Jewish cook employed by the facility later found the three victims tied up and notified police.
Two days earlier, a member of the local Jewish community was murdered in Johannesburg, not far from the synagogue where the break-in occurred.
“This is the law of tzar’at” (Leviticus 14:57) Iyar 4, 5781/April 16, 2021 This week’s double Torah reading of Tazria-Metzora deals exclusively with the subject of ritual purity and impurity, a very difficult concept for our modern minds to fully comprehend. To make things even more obscure, following the opening verses concerning the birth of a baby boy or girl, the mother’s subsequent period of purification, concluding with the bringing of an offering to the Holy Temple, parashat Tazria-Metzora focuses exclusively on the even more obscure issue of tzar’at, a particular type of ritual impurity caused by the appearance of lesions upon one’s flesh, discoloration in one’s garments or a mold-like discoloration of the stones of one’s house. What are we to make of this? That tzar’at, often mistranslated as leprosy, was a psychosomatic, or spiritual-somatic ailment is made clear by Torah’s assigning of the kohanim (Temple priests) to both diagnose and prescribe the ritual cure for the outbreak of the malady. The cure involved immersion in pure waters and the bringing of an offering once the symptoms had disappeared and the the individual reentered into a state of purity. Similar, but somewhat more extensive means were applied concerning a person whose garments or house became afflicted with tzar’at. While certain aspects concerning ritual purity are still relevant to a modern Jewish lifestyle, the vast majority of the commandments concerning ritual purity are no longer applicable, by virtue of the fact that the Holy Temple is currently not standing. Naturally, being deprived of the actual application of these laws of purity for two thousand years has made them much more foreign to our modern sensibilities, much more difficult to grasp intellectually. What does Torah intend by the terms tahara (purity) and tum’a (impurity)? Note that Torah doesn’t employ an equivalent of our modern qualifier “ritual” in discussing purity. The modern use of the word ritual in this context is merely an admission of a lack of true understanding. In the Torah mindset tahara and tum’a are two very real realities unto themselves. To put it simply, to be tahor, (in a state of tahara) is to be connected to the life giving force of the Creator. To be ta’mei, (in a state of tum’a) is to be disconnected from G-d’s life giving energy. The Holy Temple is the place on earth of the highest level of purity. It is there where G-d’s Presence, known as Shechinah, is greatest on earth. This is why we cannot enter into the inner Temple courtyards unless we have been sprinkled by the waters of the ashes of the red heifer, which render us pure of any impurity contracted through contact with death. Clearly, we aspire to be pure, to be connected to HaShem, and as close to His Presence as possible. When the woman with whom parashat Tazria-Metzora opens, gives birth, she is rendered impure, due to the fact that her body has been temporarily rendered unable to produce new life, thus creating a temporary disconnect from G-d’s life giving force. The new mother’s impurity is not a negative reflection of her, neither morally nor spiritually, G-d forbid, but a physiological reality into which she has temporarily entered. Her subsequent period of waiting the prescribed amount of days and immersing in the pure waters of a mikvah, returns her to her former state of purity. Our natural state is to be connected to G-d’s life generating energy and therefore pure. Impurity is a temporary disconnect from this reality that can be readily rectified via the Torah prescribed remedies discussed above. As for the mysterious tzar’at, a phenomenon which seems to have passed from the world many thousands of years ago, what was it all about? Identifiable by physical symptoms, it nevertheless was a spiritual malady, which, according to what we have learned, was somehow brought on by a disconnect to the life force? How so? Our sages teach us that tzar’at was the result of lashon hara – evil speech – speaking negatively of others, being careless, insensitive and hurtful in how we speak of others, either to their faces, behind their backs, or, today, on social media. To speak ill of someone, Torah tells us, is a form of murder by diction – character assassination. Once upon a time, the speaker of lashon hara would come down with a case of tzar’at. His use of evil speech would be immediately exposed, and shameful as that was, he or she was afforded a path back to purity and rehabilitation. Today, of course, it is much easier to “get away with” speaking ill of others. But suddenly this archaic, ancient, extinct affliction known as tzar’at doesn’t seem quite so obscure or dubious. For it makes explicit the power of language, the need to keep our sharp tongues sheathed and to speak only life affirming words of positivity. For even necessary words of criticism can be couched positively. How the world might benefit today by a return of the tzar’at affliction, as a guard against evil speech. But even without the reappearance of tzar’at, we have the teachings of Torah and our sages to remind us that we need to be on the side of life and always in the life affirming presence of G-d, and must be ever so careful of every word which exits our lips. For in our words is the power of life and death. Let’s choose life – and guard our tongues!