PLO leader: Political parts of ‘deal of the century’ already implemented

Secretary General Saeb Erakat of the Palestine Liberation Organization has responded to the United States announcement of a workshop in Bahrain on economic aspects of its peace plan for Israel and the Palestinian Authority by writing on Twitter, Tuesday, “The political parts of the deal were implemented:

1-Jerusalem Capital of Israel

2-Refugees off the table

3-No self determination of the Palestinians.(National racist law)

4- Settlements are legal( annexation soon)

5-Occupation no more

6-American Counsulate closed , American Embassy Moved

7-All aid to Palestinian cut .

8-PLO office in WASH DC closed .

Now let us make the deal ,or the price is right .”

Doctor Erekat closed by asking, “How much for all of this ? proposed a work shop in Manama.Palestinians will reject , we blame them and have Netanyahu pocket it .Why Bahrain?”

Moral Lessons Derived from the Laws of Leket

Leket’s Lessons

Orthodox Union

And when you harvest the harvest of your land you should not completely harvest the corner of your field. You should not make a collection of the fallen ears of grain. Do not collect lone grapes from your vineyard and do not make a collection of the fallen grapes. Leave them for the poor person and the convert. I am Hashem your G-d. (Sefer VaYikra 19:9-10)

1. Support for the poor through their participation in the harvest
Among the many mitzvot described in Parshat Kedoshim are a number of commandments designed to assure that the poor and less fortunate are cared for at the time of harvest. All of these commandments operate in a similar manner. They restrict the manner in which a field of grain or vineyard is harvested and assure that some portion of the crop is left behind for collection by the poor. The first of the two passages above delineates specific mitzvot that apply to a field of grain and the second passage describes the commandments that apply to a vineyard.

Two mitzvot are described in regard to a field of grain. The first is the commandment of Pe’ah. The mitzvah of Pe’ah requires that the corner of the field not be harvested. The grain is to be left standing for collection by the poor and needy. The second mitzvah is Leket. This mitzvah requires that ears of grain that fall to the ground at the time of harvest not be subsequently collected. Instead, these ears of grain should be left in the field for the poor to collect.

Two mitzvot are described in regard to a vineyard. The first is Olelot. Loosely defined, this commandment requires that isolated grapes be left on the vine to be collected by the poor. The second commandment is Peret. This mitzvah requires that fallen grapes be left for the poor.[1]

2. How much fallen grain must be abandoned to the poor?
The mishne in Mesechet Pe’ah describes a basic dispute between Bait Hillel and Bait Shamai – the School of Hillel and the School of Shamai. As explained above, the mitzvah of Leket requires that when a few ears of grain fall to the ground at the time of harvest, they are to be left to the poor. Bait Hillel and Bait Shamai argue over the number of ears that are regarded as “a few”. According to Bait Hillel a single ear of grain or two ears that fall to the ground in a single spot are regarded as a mere “few” and the field’s owner must leave these for the poor. Bait Shamai argues that even three ears that fall to the ground together must be left to the poor. Only groups of four ears that have fallen together may be collected by the field’s owner.[2]

It is hard to imagine the basis for such an argument. However, the Talmud Yerushalmi explains the issue in dispute.

When you reap your harvest in your field, and forget a sheaf in the field, you shall not go back to take it. It shall be for the convert, for the orphan, and for the widow; so that Hashem your G-d may bless you in all the work of your hands. (Sefer Devarim 24:19)

3. Talmud Yerushalmi’s explanation of the dispute between the schools of Hillel and Shamai
In Sefer Devarim the Torah discusses another mitzvah that is similar to Leket. The mitzvah of Shich’chah requires that bundles of grain that are forgotten in the field and not collected when the grain is gathered must be left for the poor. In other words, the mitzvah of Leket requires that individual or small quantities of dropped ears must be abandoned to the poor. Shich’chah requires that even after the grain is bundled in order to be collected, individual or small quantities of overlooked bundles must be abandoned to the poor. How many bundles are regarded as a small quantity? Again, Bait Hillel and Bait Shamai argue. Bait Hillel posits that if one or two bundles are forgotten at a single spot, then they are left for the poor. If three bundles are overlooked, the owner of the field may recover them. Bait Shamai contends that even groups of three bundles that are forgotten in a single spot must be overlooked. Groups of four or more bundles may be recovered by the field owner.[3]

The Talmud Yerushalmi notes that both the passages in Sefer VaYikra and those in Sefer Devarim direct Bnai Yisrael to leave Leket and the other agricultural gifts to the poor. However, the two sets of passages describe the beneficiaries differently. The passages in Sefer VaYika direct Bnai Yisrael to “leave them for the poor person and the convert”. Two beneficiary groups are identified – the poor and the convert. In Sefer Devarim the Torah tells us that “it shall be for the convert, for the orphan, and for the widow”. In this passage three beneficiary groups are identified.

The Talmud Yerushalmi explains that Bait Hillel maintains that the maximum number of sheaves or ears that must be left for the poor corresponds with the number of beneficiary groups identified in Sefer VaYikra – the poor and convert. Therefore, only two or less ears or sheaves dropped or forgotten in a single spot are left for the needy. If more than two ears are dropped or sheaves forgotten, the owner may collect them. Bait Shamai bases its position of the number of beneficiary groups identified in Sefer Deravim. That passage identifies three groups – the convert, orphan, and widow. Based upon this passage, even three dropped ears or forgotten sheaves must be abandoned and only four or more may be collected by the owner.[4]

4. Reconciling two descriptions of Leket and Shich’chah
In considering this dispute it is important to note an observation made by the commentator on Talmud Yerushalmi, P’nai Moshe. He explains that the dispute between Bait Hillel and Bait Shamai does not suggest any actual contradiction between the passages. The convert, orphan, and widow are all entitled to Leket and the other agricultural gifts. However, the passage in Sefer Devarim mentions each beneficiary group specifically. The Sefer VaYikra passage combines the orphan and widow into a single group – the poor.

P’nai Moshe further explains that the dispute between Bait Hillel and Bait Shamai is over which passage is more fundamental to the commandments discussed in the passages. According to Bait Hillel, the Sefer VaYikra text is the fundamental source text. It identifies two beneficiary groups. The Sefer Devarim text only intends to delineate more fully the members included in the beneficiary group that Sefer VaYikra refers to as “the poor”. Bait Shamai disagrees. It argues that the Sefer Devarim text is more significant. It delineates three beneficiary groups. The Sefer VaYikra text abbreviates its list of beneficiaries by referring to widows and orphans with a single descriptive term – the poor.[5]

The Talmud Yerushalmi’s explanation of the dispute is difficult to understand. Bait Hillel and Bait Shamai were certainly aware of both passages. Yet, Bait Hillel accepts the Sefer VaYikra passage as the relevant text and Bait Shamai bases its ruling on the Sefer Devarim text. The question remains. On what basis does each school select its specific source text?

5. Alternatives to the Talmud Yerushalmi’s view
Before attempting to answer this question, it is useful to consider how the dispute between Bait Hillel and Bait Shamai could be explained without recourse to the Talmud Yerushalmi. In other words, is there an alternative explanation of the dispute that is not based upon the passages cited by the Talmud Yerushalmi?

There is a simple explanation that does seem to emerge. Two sheaves or ears constitute a pair. However, three ears or sheaves constitute a group. This suggests that the two schools agree that a pair of ears or sheaves must be left to the poor. However, they differ on the status of the minimal – the smallest possible – group. Bait Hillel argues that if the forgotten or dropped grain constitutes a group, then it is no longer an insignificant quantity. Once the forgotten or dropped grain is significant in quantity, it belongs to the field’s owner and not to the poor. Bait Shamai disagrees. This school argues that the field’s owner is obligated to leave the minimal group – comprised of three ears or sheaves – to the poor. Only when the number of ears or sheaves comprises a group that exceeds the minimum – it is composed of four or more ears or sheaves – is the owner permitted to collect them.

Perhaps, this dispute between Bait Hillel and Bait Shamai reflects a fundamental divergence of views on the nature of the institutions of Leket, and Shich’chah. According to Bait Hillel, these mitzvot essentially enjoin the field owner to not collect insignificant amounts of dropped or forgotten grain. Two ears or sheaves are deemed by the Torah as insignificant because they constitute only a pair and not a group. Essentially, the Torah commands the owner to not be miserly and sweep the field of every last ear and sheave. According to Bait Shamai, the obligations of Leket and Shich’chah are not satisfied by leaving behind insignificant amounts of ears and sheaves. The Torah requires that the owner leave for the poor even significant amounts of ears and sheaves. Therefore, the minimal group – the group of three must be left for the poor as their portion. Only when the group is larger than minimal – when it is comprised of more than three ears or sheaves – may the owner retrieve it. The Torah is requiring much more from the owner than suggested by Bait Hillel. Although not required to intentionally create Leket and Shich’chah, the owner is required to leave for the poor forgotten sheaves and dropped ears that are significant in number – that constitute a minimal group.

6 The Talmud Yerushalmi revisited
This analysis provides insight into the Talmud Yerushalmi’s explanation of the dispute between the schools of Hillel and Shamai. According to Bait Shamai, the source text is the Sefer Devarim passage. Bait Shamai contends that this passage enumerates the beneficiary groups – the convert, orphan, and widow. The enumeration suggests that the Torah is stressing the breadth of the challenge to be addressed in responding to poverty. The Torah is demanding that we take note of multiple causes for poverty and respond accordingly. It follows from this perspective on the immensity of the challenge that the response to poverty must be more aggressive. Therefore, Bait Shamai suggests that leaving the poor only those ears and sheaves whose numbers are insignificant is inadequate. Instead, a higher level of support for the poor is requisite. A subsidy of some significance must be left for the poor. Therefore, even the group of three ears and sheaves must be abandoned to the poor. Only when the group of forgotten or lost grains becomes more than just significant and is deemed substantial – a group of four or more ears or sheaves – may the owner collect it.

Bait Hillel argues that the Sefer VaYikra passage is the more significant text. In contrast to the Sefer Devarim text, this passage combines the orphan and widow into a single category – the poor. The passage is apparently moderating the description of the challenge suggested by the Sefer Devarim passage. Consequently, Bait Hillel suggests that the Torah only demands that the owner not be stingy. He may not sweep the field of insignificant, lone or pairs of ears and sheaves. However, the more maximal requirement to abandon even amounts of grain that are significant is not mandated.

7. The underlying moral lesson
In short, both schools agree that the number of sheaves and ears that the Torah requires be abandoned to the poor corresponds with the degree of need. Bait Shamai argues that the Torah emphasizes the extent of the need. Therefore, even ears and sheaves significant in number must be abandoned to the poor. Bait Hillel suggests that it is not the Torah’s intention to emphasize the extent of the need. In fact, the Torah’s intention is to moderate the impression of extensive need implicit in the Sefer Devarim text. Therefore, numbers of ears or sheaves that are significant may be collected by the owner. However, he may not be parsimonious and collect even the insignificant dropped or forgotten ears and sheaves.

It is appropriate to note that both schools agree on an underlying principle. Charity and support for the needy must correspond with the extent of the need. The two schools differ only on the extent of need that the Torah describes. This lesson should inform our personal charitable giving. A commitment to make an annual gift to charity of a set amount is praiseworthy. However, this behavior does not meet the standard suggested by the above discussion. Sometimes need in a community burgeons. At such times, charitable giving must grow and expand in proportion to the need. We conform to the principle of Bait Shamai and Bait Hillel through expanding our giving to meet the greater need. In other words, in difficult economic times; at times when more people are in need and when need is more intense; those blessed with resources to help others embrace the principle espoused by these schools by expanding their charitable giving in response to that need.

1. This is a very simplified presentation of the contents of these two passages. Actually, each of the institutions outlined above is legislated by two commandments. For example, a positive commandment legislates that Pe’ah must be left for the poor and a negative commandment prohibits the owner of the field from harvesting Pe’ah. The same dual-commandment structure legislates each of the other three forms of support for the poor. This results in a total of eight commandments legislating four institutions.

2. Mesechet Pe’ah 6:5.

3. Mesechet Pe’ah 6:5.

4. Talmud Yerushalmi, Mesechet Pe’ah 30a.

5. Rav Moshe Margolis, P’nai Moshe, Commentary of Talmud Yerushalmi, Mesechet Pe’ah 30a.

Why was Ahed Tamimi allowed to enter Britain?

Why was Ahed Tamimi allowed to enter Britain?

Ahed Tamimi is a convicted criminal, an inciter of terrorism and has spoken libel against the UK, yet she is currently in the UK, speaking to crowds of thousands, sharing the stage with Labour politicians and encouraging people to become “freedom fighters”.

There are so many reasons why Ahed Tamimi shouldn’t have even been allowed into this country:

  • She is a convicted criminal
  • She has incited terrorism and encourages people to carry out “stabbings and martyrdom-seeking operations (i.e. suicide bombings)” and has repeatedly called for people to be “freedom fighters” (support for terrorism and encouraging terrorism is a criminal offence in the UK)
  • She has vowed to be a terrorist herself, declaring she will “follow in the path of the martyrs”
  • She has praised Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah (Hezbollah is banned in the UK and support for the group is illegal in this country)
  • She calls for the destruction of Israel
  • She has accused the UK of being “racist”, “completely controlled by Israel” and spoke libel against the UK
    (All evidence to these reasons detailed below)

In her first major public appearance in the UK, Ahed Tamimi spoke at the “National Demonstration for Palestine: Exist! Resist! Return!” march, a pro-Palestinian hate rally against Israel that featured several Labour MPs, including Shadow Ministers Diane Abbott and Richard Burgon, and political activist Owen Jones.

About 2,000 pro-Palestine protesters marched in Central London on Saturday with hundreds of placards with messages from “Israel provokes antisemitism” to swastikas daubed over the Jewish Star of David, showing that their hatred of Israel was morphing into anti-Semitism.

Ahed Tamimi, who served almost eight months in prison in Israel for hitting an Israeli soldier and telling people to carry out stabbing attacks and suicide bombings, addressed the crowd in a short speech, saying, “We choose to struggle for freedom and justice. We choose to be freedom fighters… from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.”

It is important to note that “freedom fighters” is the common term used to describe Palestinian terrorists, and the saying “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” is a call for Israel’s destruction, which is situated between the Jordan river to the Mediterranean sea.

So how could someone who holds anti-Semitic views, who advocates terrorism and hates the UK be allowed to enter this country? What’s more, why were political leaders supporting her? She should not be allowed here, let alone be given such a platform.

Sadly, we won’t find the answer out any time soon. Below are the reasons why Ahed Tamimi shouldn’t have been allowed.


Ahed Tamimi’s accusations against the UK

Just last month, Ahed Tamimi was interviewed by Russia Today and levelled a series of derogative statements against the UK, calling the country “racist” and “completely controlled by Israel”.

Tamimi was being asked about her plans to study in the UK, which at the time she felt were being stopped because of some basic questions on her application documents.

During the interview, Tamimi charged that “the UK government is completely controlled by Israel, who are the biggest supporter of terrorism, they encourage the killing of Palestinian people.”

“The UK is completely occupied and controlled by Israel and it is supporting Israel to kill innocent people who are demonstrating for their rights,” Tamimi said.

Not only is Tamimi making libellous claims about the UK, but she is also using the anti-Semitic trope that Israel (or Jews) control foreign governments, in this case the UK.

Tamimi continued: “The whole world is defeated, we are alone”, before declaring, “but I am pretty sure that the Palestinian people will bring back dignity to the whole world even to the UK who are supporting Israel. The UK brought Zionism to Palestine in the era of the British mandate. We will eventually end this occupation. Their power will not last forever.”

Clearly, this is not the language of someone who is supportive of the UK or someone who the UK should be inviting into this country (and especially not for government figures, such as Labour, to be aligning themselves with).

Ahed Tamimi then spoke of Israel’s actions on the Gaza border, falsely accusing Israel of wanting to “kill all Palestinians” – a blood libel.

“They (Israel) have no right to harm any Palestinian and this is another reflection to their terrorism. They want nothing but to kill all Palestinians so they can take all their land. They believe that all Palestinians should be killed, which also shows that they’re racist.”

Be warned, it is very anti-Israel and there are a lot of lies and distortions throughout the below video.

Ahed Tamimi’s support for terrorism and Israel’s destruction

Ahed Tamimi has become a “symbol of resistance” in the eyes of the Palestinians and, thanks to the biased media reports on her, she is now viewed this way by many in the West. The reality is that she incites and condones terrorism.

Last year, Ahed praised the leader of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah.

She was interviewed on France 24 TV in September asking about her views on Hezbollah.

Tamimi replied, “At the end of the day, everybody is entitled to an opinion. I’m with Hassan Nasrallah…”

When asked if she regretted the outcry her comments caused, Tamimi replied, “Of course I do not regret it. Hassan Nasrallah supports the Palestinian cause, and he is against America and Israel, so I’m with him on that matter. I agree with many people on certain issues and disagree with them on others, but ultimately, I thank him for his support for the Palestinian cause.”

It is important to note that Hezbollah’s actions “against America” include the killing of 241 American soldiers in Beirut in 1983, and his opposition to Israel includes calling for the destruction of Israel and saying that “if [Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide”.

Hezbollah has just been banned in the United Kingdom as a terrorist organisation. This ban means it is illegal to support Hezbollah, be a member of Hezbollah or even invite support for Hezbollah. It is easily arguable that Ahed Tamimi is inviting support for the leader of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah, a criminal act in the UK. So she should not be allowed to enter the country based on that alone.

Tamimi has previously said it is everyone’s responsibility to slap Israeli soldiers, no matter if the soldier is doing anything bad or not.

This comment is just the tip of the iceberg, however, as Ahed goes on to explain how Palestinians, and herself, are on “the path of the martyrs” and that they are no longer aiming for a two-state solution, but for “the liberation of all of Palestine”.

“The world should not panic or be appalled by a Palestinian who slaps an IDF soldier. Everyone should do it, not just me,” she told Musaique FM, a Tunisian radio station.

She claimed that harming soldiers “is a natural response to the presence of the occupation, to the presence of occupying soldiers on my land, all of them have to contradict the soldiers.”

She went on to say that “Jerusalem was and will remain the eternal capital of Palestine”.

In another interview (also featured in the video above), Ahed says how the previous generation “fought and died as martyrs” with the aim of a two-state solution. But claimed that her generation “will not repeat this”.

“We, as a generation, will fight for the liberation of Palestine in its entirety”, Ahed Tamimi said.

Note: She is not saying that the mistake was in dying as “martyrs”, but that the cause was for a “two-state solution”. She still believes in the “path of martyrs”, but instead wants Israel destroyed so that only “Palestine” exists.

She went on to clarify that Palestinians will not accept Israel on any part of the land, that Israel controlled 78% of the land before repeating her claim to liberate the whole area.

It is clear that Ahed Tamimi seeks the destruction of Israel. Something she has spoken of many times over the years, as well as her parents.

Ahed Tamimi was arrested after a video of the teen went viral, showing her slapping, punching and kicking two Israeli soldiers who did little to react.

When Ahed Tamimi was arrested, the media and anti-Israel activists were quick to condemn Israel for convicting a child. However, they also failed to recognise the true crime of Ahed Tamimi. She did not just attack Israeli soldiers, she spoke on camera afterwards telling people to continue martyrdom operations, including suicide bombings and stabbing attacks.

Ahed Tamimi’s message to the world:

“I wish that everybody would participate in demonstrations because that is the only way for us to get results; because our strength is in our stones; and I wish that everybody all over the world would unite so we can liberate Palestine, because Trump must bear responsibility for the decision he took for any Palestinian reaction – be it stabbings, martyrdom-seeking operations [i.e. suicide bombings], throwing stones – everyone must do something. So we can unite this way, so we can get our message across in the required way and get this result, that is the liberation of Palestine, Allah willing.”

A family relative said that Ahed would often express a desire to die as a martyr. “She would say ‘I am not scared of them arresting me or killing me. I am struggling for the Palestinian people. Many martyrs have fallen and they deserve a lot. Maybe there will be more martyrs and I will be one of them.’”

It is surprising then that organisations like the Jewish Voice for Labour (JVL) would run campaigns such as, “We are Ahed Tamimi” and that the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn would give his support to Ahed Tamimi.

The UK government also showed support for Tamimi through former-foreign office minister Alistair Burt (Conservative) who also defended the teen’s actions.

“The truth is the soldiers shouldn’t have been there and the young woman shouldn’t have needed to do what she did,” said Mr Burt.

Labour MPs have in the past been lectured by Bassam Tamimi (Ahed’s father) inside of the UK Parliament, where his lies and distortions have been allowed to be spoken unchallenged.

Bassam Tamimi has brainwashed his children and used them as weapons to attack Israel. He himself referred to Ahed as a weapon that he wields when talking to children at an American school. He also told that American children to become “Freedom Fighters” for Palestine.

It is also worth noting that Ahed Tamimi’s mother was the one who told the teen to attack the soldiers whilst she filmed, which led to her arrest.

Ahed Tamimi’s family has long been involved in attacks against Israel. Ahlam Tamimi, Ahed’s aunt, is a member of Hamas and carried out a suicide bombing that killed 16 Israelis in a restaurant, including children.

Watch the video below to see her take on the incident:

‘On the right side of history’

Special article by US Ambassador David Friedman, one year since the transfer of the US embassy to Jerusalem.


Arutz Sheva Staff, 12/05/19 10:39


US ambassador:

‘On the right side of history’

Special article by US Ambassador David Friedman, one year since the transfer of the US embassy to Jerusalem.

Arutz Sheva Staff, 12/05/19 10:39
David Friedman

David Friedman

Yonatan Sindel/Flash90

US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman published an article in Israel Hayom Sunday morning on the occasion of the anniversary of the transfer of the US embassy to Jerusalem.

“On May 14, 2018, the United States finally opened its Embassy in Israel’s eternal capital, Jerusalem. In making the courageous decision to take this historic step, President Trump not only fulfilled a 23-year-old mandate from the United States Congress, but he also recognized a 3,000-year-old truth that Israel’s enemies have long sought to erase.”

He continued: “America has been fascinated by Jerusalem since the early days of our republic. In 1844, Warder Cresson, the first Consul General, announced after his appointment by the Secretary of State that the United States was thereby extending its protection to the Jews of Jerusalem. The first permanent consular presence opened just inside the Jaffa Gate in 1857, and diplomatic presence has remained constant in and around the Old City ever since. President Lincoln, just before his death, told his wife how he longed to visit Jerusalem. And President Ulysses Grant and Mark Twain both visited Jerusalem in the mid-19th century and wrote extensively about their experiences.”

“Neither Grant nor Twain were all that impressed with Jerusalem in those days. It was poor, inhospitable and undeveloped. The Old City of Jerusalem remained that way well into the 20th Century, whether under the rule of the Ottoman Empire until 1917, the British Mandate until 1948, or the Kingdom of Jordan until 1967.

“In 1967, Jerusalem was reunified as a single city under Israeli rule. Almost immediately, Jerusalem began to bloom, to flourish and to become, for the first time in its history, a free city open to the worshipers of all three Abrahamic faiths. Many in the United States took notice and, in 1995, Congress, by overwhelming majority votes, passed the Jerusalem Embassy Act, recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Israel and requiring the relocation of the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

“Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama all found reasons to avoid the implementation of this law. All in all, more than 40 presidential waivers were signed delaying the move of the Embassy. And then came President Donald Trump.

“President Trump recognized the truth – that Jerusalem was, is and will always be the capital of Israel. He saw the dishonest and shameful efforts of UNESCO and the United Nations Security Council to deny Israel’s biblical, historical and practical connection to Jerusalem. And he refused to pursue a foreign policy based upon anything short of the truth. President Trump, like other Republican and Democratic candidates before him, had promised during his campaign to move the Embassy. Unlike his predecessors, President Trump kept his promise.”

He concluded: “The United States Embassy in Jerusalem has now been open a full year. We have a beautiful campus in the Arnona and magnificent facilities on Agron Street in downtown Jerusalem. Well more than 100 American diplomats come to work every day, working hand in hand with Israelis and Palestinians, and American and foreign tourists visit every day just to take a picture or say a prayer. Contrary to all the negative predictions, the Jerusalem Embassy has been an extraordinary success, advancing peaceful coexistence, bilateral cooperation and cultural exchange between and among Israelis, Palestinians and Americans.”

“Most of all, the United States Embassy in Jerusalem stands for the truth – the bedrock of all successful policies. Moving our Embassy places the United States firmly on the right side of history.”

US Muslim children are taught Islamic Jew-hatred

Arutz Sheva – Israel National News

Dr. Andrew G. Bostom, 08/05/19 01:11

It’s not just in Philly. The virulent antisemitism intrinsic to Islam is being taught to Muslim children all over the USA. The failure of Jewish “leadership” to even identify Islam’s sacralized Jew-hatred will lead to disaster.



Chilling videos surfaced this past week (here; here) from an April 17, 2019 event sponsored by the mainstream, traditionalist Muslim American Society (MAS)—“one of the nation’s major Islamic groups”—at their Islamic Center in Philadelphia. Dubbed “Ummah [Global Muslim Community] Day,” the celebrations featured Muslim children intoning “you need force and the Koran,” then paying tribute to jihad murder martyrdom—sacrificing their “bodies and souls…without hesitation”—to kill “Zionists”, i.e., Jews. These “liberating” murderous actions—beheadings [Koran 8:12; 47:4]—would further cause their Jewish victims eternal Koranic [4:5455, and 98:56; glossed, 4:5455 and 98:56] damnation:

“We will chop off their heads, and we will liberate the sorrowful and exalted Al-Aqsa Mosque. We will lead the army of Allah fulfilling His promise, and we will subject them to eternal torture.”
We will chop off their heads, and we will liberate the sorrowful and exalted Al-Aqsa Mosque. We will lead the army of Allah fulfilling His promise, and we will subject them to eternal torture.

Only on May 3rd, after exposure of these videos in the national press did the MAS provide a statement, transparent in its mendacity. The songs and declarations recorded for posterity and placed triumphantly on the MAS Philadelphia affiliate’s Facebook page, in all their ugliness, were “not properly vetted.”

A spokesperson for the national MAS insisted on Sunday May 5th the video “does not represent our understanding of Islam, nor the understanding of the mainstream Muslim community,” and in response to media backlash, its Philadelphia affiliate’s Facebook page was shut down.

However, on May 6, 2019 the Middle East Media Research Institute revealed another video from the MAS Philadelphia affiliate’s Facebook page, uploaded two years earlier, May 28, 2017, with children also calling for jihad murder “martyrdom.”

Philly fanatics


Later that same day, May 6, 2019 Fox News chose to air an uncontested Islamic takiya (Islamic dissimulation) about the video presentation pronounced by so-called “reformist” Muslim Qanta Ahmed. Ms. Ahmed had the temerity to claim—again, without anyone to challenge her dishonest assertions that:

“It is absolutely anathema to Islam…This is completely not what Islam teaches. Islam sees Christians and Jews as legitimate believers who are party to paradise, who have a true message from God, and they are our brethren. We cannot be Muslim unless we believe in the Bible and the Torah.”

The unchanged toxic reality of how U.S. Muslim children are educated, vis-à-vis Jews, can be gleaned by re-examining a March 30, 2003 New York Daily News exposé (free full-text here), entitled, appositely, “Sowing the seeds of hatred.”

The 3-month long NY Daily News 2003 investigation of textbooks widely used in New York city area Islamic schools demonstrated that antisemitic archetypes—based on central motifs in the Koran, and the traditions of the nascent Muslim community under Muhammad (i.e.,  the “hadith”, and earliest pious Muslim biographies of Islam’s prophet, or “sira”)—were rampant in the texts being used to instruct American Muslim students. Amongst the examples provided were these:

  • In Long Island City, Queens, fifth- and sixth-graders at the Ideal Islamic School on 12th St. learn that Allah has revealed [pace Koran 2:61/3:112] that “the Jews killed their own prophets and disobeyed Allah.” …Yet a third book, in use at the Ideal school, describes the hostile relations between Jews and the [Muslim prophet] Muhammad in Medina in the 7th century. “The reasons for Jewish hostility lies in their general characteristics,” the book says. Numerous Koranic citations follow with negative references to Jews – for example, “You will ever find them deceitful, except for a few of them.” [3:71; 4:46]
  • On Jewish hostility to Islam: “The reasons for Jewish hostility toward the Muslims of 7th century Medina lies in their general characteristics described in the Koran.” Example: “You will find the most implacable of men in their enmity to the faithful are the Jews and the pagans.” [Koran 5:82; from a textbook “The Messenger of Allah,” p. 34; targeting Grades 6-9]
  • On Jews wanting to kill Jesus, who in Islam is “Isa,” an exclusively Muslim prophet, preaching Islam: “The Koran states that the Jews did not kill Jesus [“Isa”] nor did they crucify him. Allah states, however, that the Jews thought they did it.” [Koran 4:157, 158, 159; from “What Islam Is All About,” targeting Grades 6-8]  

Yahiya Emerick, then head of a Queens-based nonprofit curriculum development project for the Islamic Foundation of North America, and author of one of the texts examined [“What Islam Is All About,”], when questioned for the 2003  NY Daily News story, defended the language in these books, denying they were inflammatory. Emerick opined,

“Islam, like any belief system, believes its program is better than others. I don’t feel embarrassed to say that…[The books] are directed to kids in a Muslim educational environment. They must learn and appreciate there are differences between what they have and what other religions teach. It’s telling kids that we have our own tradition.”

A more conciliatory tack was adopted by Dr. Abidullah al-Ansari Ghazi, creator of the IQRA (= “recite”) Educational Foundation, whose textbooks were also examined—and inculpated. Mr. Ghazi for 11 years running, since its inaugural issue in 2009, has been listed as one of the  “The World’s 500 Most Influential Muslims,” per the assessment of “The Muslim 500,” a yearly publication by a mainstream Islamic think tank epitomizing “Islamic moderation.” Promising future “revisions,” Ghazi made the following candid admission about textbook materials he produced:

“And, to tell you the truth, I based it on the classical sources, which are much harsher than what I wrote here.” [as reported in 2003].

Fast forward 13 years. The 2016 version of Ghazi’s “Mercy to Mankind: Madinah Period” was edited into a caricature apologetic of Muhammad’s interactions with the Jews of Medina.  Islam’s prophet “tried hard to live in peace” with these Jews, despite, the textbook alleges, “their chiefs” having broken “their agreement with him.” Accordingly, the Jews were “defeated and moved out of Madinah” by Muhammad and his Muslim coterie, but “treated with fairness.”

There is no mention (as depicted in the authoritative “classical” sources) of the gruesome political assassinations of individual Jews Muhammad orchestrated, or Muhammad labeling the Jews of the Banu Qurayza with the Koranic epithet [5:60] “apes and pigs,” prior to personally beheading some 600-900 of their adult males, and enslaving their women and children, to “celebrate” his victory over them.

Notwithstanding these misrepresentations, albeit conveyed in a mellowed tone, the concluding message to Muslim schoolchildren is identical:  The Jews are untrustworthy (“break agreements”) and must be subdued (by violence if required) to establish an ideal Sharia-based order of Islamic domination, as achieved by Muhammad: He [Muhammad] brought the Sharia which treats all human beings equally.

Moreover, IQRA’s website currently promotes a “classical” source redolent with Jew-hating “classical”-cum- modern Koranic exegeses, Justice Sheikh Taqi Usmani’s, 2010 “The Meanings of the Noble Quran.” Usmani, who served as a Judge on the Sharia(t) Appellate Branch of the Supreme Court of Pakistan for two decades (1982-2002), is 6th overall, and 2nd amongst “scholars and preachers” in the 2019 “Muslim 500.” This highly esteemed “leading scholar of Islamic of Islamic jurisprudence,” per the assessment of the “Muslim 500,” composed the following Koranic glosses on central verses characterizing the Jews:

[Koran 3:112/2:61]: “That disgrace has been stamped over [i.e., indelibly] the Jews has also been mentioned in in [verse] 2:61.”

[Koran 5:51]: “The Jewish tribes, despite having a treaty of mutual cooperation with the Muslims, conspired against them. At the same time, they developed friendship with some Muslims in order to spy on them. Verse [5]:51 therefore forbade the Muslims from having close relations with the Jews…”

[Koran 5:64; Note—This is the terse, ancient Koranic antecedent to “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” and helps explain why that Czarist Russian forgery of conspiratorial Jew-hatred resonates across Islamdom]: Jews experience “divine punishment for their rebellious attitude toward the truth [Islam]…They frequently intend to wage war against the Muslims…they [also] adopt other ways to spread their mischief, like speaking ill of the Muslims before new converts, conspiring against them, preventing people form accepting Islam, and presenting [a] distorted version of the Torah.”

[Koran 5:82]: “Since…greed is the main hurdle in accepting the truth [Islam], they [Christians] are not as arrogant and hostile to the Muslims as the Jews…”

Not surprisingly, given such opprobrium, Usmani’s gloss on Koran 9:29 also concurs with this permanent, classical Koranic jihad war injunction that the Jews must be brought under the Sharia jurisdictions by force if they do not submit peacefully:

“[T]hey must submit to the Sharia in all civil and criminal matters…to be imposed on all non-Muslim citizens of an Islamic State”

Canonical Islamic Jew-hatred, as elucidated by an authoritative theologian such as Usmani, and conveyed by a respected educator like Ghazi, is promulgated throughout U.S. mosques, and Islamic education centers [here; here; here; here], to adults and children alike. Sowing this hatred has reaped a measurable harvest of disproportionate extreme antisemitism within the U.S. Muslim community.

The Anti-Defamation League, applying their scale of extreme Antisemitism (i.e., agreeing with at least 6 of 11 Antisemitic stereotypes), has determined that the prevalence of this severe extent of Jew-hatred was 34% amongst U.S. Muslims, vs. only 14% in the general U.S. population, a 2.4-fold greater excess.

Since September 11, 2001, as one tangible manifestation of this Muslim Jew-hatred, there have been four murderous attacks by Muslims targeting Jews, resulting in 6 deaths. Moreover, during the past 5-month period, alone, four (three + one) potentially mass murderous attacks by Muslim jihadists on American Jews have been thwarted by U.S. law enforcement, in Montana, Georgia, Ohio, and California. One of the attacks prevented involved a convert to Islam “inspired” by the Pittsburgh Tree of Life synagogue mass shooting.

Nidra Poller observed that when the 23 year-old Parisian Jew Ilan Halimi was being tortured to death in February 2006, his Muslim torturers, “…phoned the family on several occasions and made them listen to the recitation of verses from the Koran, while Ilan’s tortured screams could be heard in the background.” Ilan Halimi’s Muslim torturers/murderers, in the heart of Western Europe, did not invoke any non-Islamic sources of anti-Jewish hate, only the Koran.

Disingenuous Muslim obfuscation of Islam’s canonical Jew-hatred, by even much ballyhooed Muslim “reformers,” bolsters Islam’s mainstream theological supremacism. Till now, American Jewish political, religious, academic, and media elites have also chosen to ignore, or deny the virulent antisemitism intrinsic to Islam. The failure of Jewish “leadership” to even identify Islam’s sacralized Jew-hatred has already had tragic consequences for U.S. Jews, which are destined to become calamitous if this cowardly denial persists.

Parshat Emor (V’Yiqrah – Leviticus 23.22)

The following is an Addendum to my previous post, “The Mishneh Says“-

Been studying Parshat Emor (V’Yiqrah – Leviticus 23.22) (as my birthday is coming up) – “When you reap the harvest of your Land, you shall not completely remove the corner of your field during your harvesting, and you shall not gather up the gleanings of your harvest. [Rather,] you shall leave these for the poor person and for the stranger. I am the L-RD, your G-D.”

The Mishneh (Peah 1:1) says, “These are the precepts that have no prescribed measure: ‘the corners “Peah” of your field [which must be left for the poor] – the firstfruit offering (“Bikkurim“), the pilgrimage, acts of kindness, and Torah study.”

The Sages instituted that 1/60th of a field must be left (azav) for the poor. (mathematically – 60 is fairly divided by 5, which equals 12, [as in the 12 Tribes]; or if you will, 60 divided by 3 equals 20 [20=Keter, crown or Kook, statute] and 20 divided by 5 equals four – there are four cubits each person is entitled to; moreover, if you divide 60 by 2 it equals 30 and 30 divided by 2 equals 15 which in Gematria equals Yah! 15 is further divided by 3 which is a fifth, as in Yoseph’s “kook” – statute: B’rashith (Genesis) 41.34 – “Let Pharaoh do this, and let him appoint overseers over the land, and take up the fifth part of the land of Egypt in the seven years of plenty.” It is also related to the warning not to oppress the stranger and the poor person: “I am the L-RD, your G-D.” [meaning – I am faithful to reward or punish -] “or the thing which he hath gotten by oppression […] he shall even restore it in full, and shall add the fifth part more thereto ….” V’Yiqrah 5.20-26.) In Gematria 60= Samech which means “support” as in, “He supports all the fallen, and uplifts all those bowed down.” Tehillim (Psalms) 145.14.

The Samech is the only letter of the Aleph-Bet that is missing from [the passuk – verse] V’Yiqrah 23.22!

There is a debate in the Mishneh between Baith Hillel and Baith Shammai as to which is more significant: Peah (Corners) of V’Yiqrah 19.9, 10 (the poor and the stranger) or Peah of Devarim (Deuteronomy) 24.19 (the widow, orphan and the stranger). There is also a debate as to whether two or three are leket (gleanings): Hillel says two are leket and three are not, while Shammai says three are leket and four belong to the owner!

I say (and this is only my opinion, not that of the Mishneh) that Shammai creates a case of doubt, and the Mishneh says, doubtful leket is leket! One cannot evenly divide 15 – it must be divided by three (as Shammai says, “One for the widow, one for the orphan and one for the stranger” Devarim 24.19) for there to be a fair distribution of 60 which is five or a fifth of 60 which equals the twelve tribes…. If one divides 15 by two, one has 7.5 and one cannot evenly (viz, “fairly”) distribute or allot Peah, Leket or Shichichah (forgotten sheaves) to 7.5 people.