Daniel 7.24 “and another shall arise after them; and he shall be diverse from the former, and he shall put down three kings. 25 And he shall speak words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High; and he shall think to change the seasons and the law; and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and half a time. 26 But the judgment shall sit, and his dominions shall be taken away, to be consumed and to be destroy unto the end.”

and another shall arise after them – this is Muhammad, the false prophet of Islam

three “malkhin” kings – the three Jewish tribes of Yathrib (now called Medina) – Banu Nadir (Nadhir), Banu Qaynuqa (Kainuka) and Banu Qurayza (Eruzia). (Two of the tribes (Qurayza and Nadir) considered themselves al kahinan (kohanim).)

he shall think to change the seasons and the law

this is the season of Yom Kippur, which was changed into Ramadan Eid al Fitr (eliminating all festival seasons, and changing them into those Islamic festivals which, for instance, replace the Binding of Isaac, with Ishmael – Eid al-Adha). Here, the Torah relates that it was Abraham’s test of Faith in the binding of Isaac and how, if he slaughters Isaac is it possible that “in Isaac shall thy seed be called” not knowing that HaShem would provide a substitute for Abraham. Islam misses the point that in Isaac shall thy seed be called, even if Abraham were to have slaughtered Isaac, HaShem would resurrect Isaac from the dead so that HaShem’s promise of calling Abraham’s seed through Isaac would be fullfilled. In other words, the test of Abraham’s faith was that Abraham had already been told that in Isaac shall thy seed be called so he was told to raise up Isaac as a sacrifice to see if his faith in the promised seed would stand. HaShem promised to make Abraham a great nation through Isaac, the son of promise [through Sarah]; so if he were sacrificed, how could HaShem make Abraham that great nation through Isaac? It was through the binding of Isaac (the Akedah) that HaShem taught Abraham the teaching of the resurrection of the dead; which is the point that Islam misses in substituting Ishmael for Isaac!!! The Akedah was not just a test of faith but a profound lesson about the rejection of Human Sacrifice by HaShem and about the Resurrection of the Dead and the Laws of Inheritence concerning the Promised Land and the Covenant HaShem made with Avraham, Yitzaac (Isaac) and Ya’acov – Yes, Avraham was in total submission to HaShem through the Akedah, but he was also “in the dark” when going with Isaac to Moriah as to how in Isaac shall thy seed be called ! He had faith in HaShem’s promise concerning Isaac but he did not know how that promise would be fullfilled! “And Avraham said, “G-D will provide for Himself the lamb for the sacrifice. And the two of them went on together!”” Here, Avraham knew HaShem would somehow provide a lamb and inadevertently spoke prophetically of Pesach (“know of a surety that thy seed shall dwell in a land not their own and shall be afflicted ….”) while hoping for a substitute for Isaac! And the two of them went on together! The Torah takes great pains to relate how in Isaac shall Avraham’s seed be called to judgment – a division and inheritance of the land!

he shall think to change the seasons and the law

The law he shall think to change is the Torah law of blessing and curses, ritual washing, prostration, prayer and the like (changing the Torah’s teachings and rules of interpretation leading to our traditions) as well as the Sabbath; giving Moslems Friday afternoon jumu’ah as a sabbath rather then the full seventh day of rest – cessation from creative works!

Islam claims in the first sura of the Quran that the seed of Isaac is cursed; while Judaism teaches repentence Tshuvah a return to HaShem in the latter days – Devarim (Deuteronomy) 30.1-10!

11.36 And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak strange things against the God of gods; and he shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished; for that which is determined shall be done. 37 Neither shall he regard the gods of his fathers; and neither the desire of women, nor any god, shall he regard; for he shall magnify himself above all. 38 But in his place shall he honour the god of strongholds; and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and costly things. 39 And he shall deal with the strongest fortresses with the help of a foreign god; whom he shall acknowledge, shall increase glory; and he shall cause them to rule over many, and shall divide the land for a price. 45 And he shall plant the tents of his palace between the seas and the beauteous holy mountain; and he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.

Neither shall he regard the gods of his fathers – his fathers were idolators – he cleansed the Kabbah of the idols which his fathers worshipped! yet declared Allah had no sons because Allah had three daughters Al Lat, Al Uzza and Manat.

and neither the desire of women – he sold Jewish women as sex slaves, who desired their Jewish husbands (which Muhammad ordered slaughtered)

nor any god, shall he regard – he shall regard himself (his concept of deity) as supreme

in his place shall he honour the god of strongholds – his place(on second thought, his place of quandary over which god to choose from those idols in the Kabbah because of the Jewish tribes of Yathrib and their Monotheism. in his place is a place which is one of spiritual quandary. the god of strongholds is the god of war.)

strongest fortresses with the help of a foreign god whom he shall acknowledge – he is forced to acknowledge a god so he chose the god of war which his fathers knew not.

he shall come to his end, and none shall help him. – he was poisoned according to Islamic tradition!

Creation of Unity

By Rabbi Pinchas Kantrowitz

Rabban Gamliel used to say: “Whoever does not explain the following three things at the Pesach festival, has not fulfilled his duty, namely: the Pesach offering, matzah, and maror.”

Matzah represents freedom. Just as our ancestors did not have time for the bread to rise when they were leaving Egypt, we relive the Exodus by eating the bread of redemption.  

Maror represents servitude. The preferred type of maror is one which begins sweet and becomes bitter, just as the lives of the Jews in Egypt commenced in comfort and sweetness, but terminated in bitterness and servitude.

What is the significance of the Pesach offering, and why must it be eaten together with the matzah and maror? The Maharal of Prague teaches that the Pesach offering represents oneness, unity. The Paschal lamb or sheep is a “groupee,” an animal which associates with its flock. It may only be eaten by one who assigns himself to a group, and only in a single house or location.  Even the structure of the meat must be retained, as the meat must be eaten roasted (roasting shrinks and unifies the meat, as opposed to stewing which breaks the meat apart), and a bone must not be broken in the meat, to retain bone structure. 

The exodus from Egypt occurred in a generation when Jews were identified with the nation. Our Sages teach us that the final redemption will parallel the exodus from Egypt, and necessitates the unification of the Jewish nation.

Why must the Pesach offering be eaten together with matzah and maror? Because it represents the offering to the One G-d who is capable of decreeing servitude (maror) and redemption (matzah) for one ultimately beneficial purpose, the creation of a unified nation, loyal to the One G-d.


© 1995-2021 Ohr Somayach International – All rights reserved.

To President Biden: I remember shedding tears that day – it is four years later

An appeal to President Biden to see that justice is not only signed upon, but acted upon. Op-ed.

Frimet Roth , Mar 18 , 2021 7:00 PM Share
Malki Roth Hy"d

Malki Roth Hy”d Family

Almost exactly four years ago, during the evening hours of March 14, 2017, Department of Justice and FBI officials invited my husband and me to a meeting in a Jerusalem hotel.

The Roth family, 2001

There they shared with us news that we believed would herald the arrest and trial of our child’s murderer. Ahlam Tamimi had by then been enjoying freedom and security in Amman for five and a half years. In October 2011, she had been released in the lop-sided Shalit Deal with the terror organization Hamas.

The moment she landed in her native country Jordan, she began boasting of the terror bombing attack she had masterminded on Jerusalem’s Sbarro pizzeria in August 2001. The eatery had been packed with families that hot summer afternoon. The number of victims reached 15, including 8 children, among them our Malki.

Tamimi repeatedly urged her admirers to follow in her footsteps from the platform of a weekly talk show she hosted on the global Arabic-language Al Quds TV station. She also addressed live audiences both in Jordan and in several neighboring Arab countries to which she travelled during those years with ease.

On that March 2017 evening – it happens to have been my birthday – those US officials told us charges against Tamimi, the existence of which we knew nothing about until that moment, had just been unsealed. And her extradition to the US for trial had been demanded of Jordan pursuant to the 1995 Extradition Treaty between the two countries.

I remember shedding tears that day as I sat at the table across from those officials. I had little doubt that this monster would soon be where she belongs – behind bars in a US Federal penitentiary, this time until her last day on earth.

But here we are in 2021 and we are no closer to justice now than we were then.

King Abdullah’s regime steadfastly refuses to honor the extradition treaty that Jordan signed and ratified with the US in 1995.

Jordan receives generous financial aid from the US as well as praise and adulation from the White House and from numerous individual members of Congress.

My husband and I are incredibly disturbed by the apparent passivity on the part of the US in the face of Jordan’s brazen contempt for the rule of law.

It often seems to us that Jordan is the tail wagging the dog in this much lauded “partnership”.

We truly hope that you, President Biden, will impress on Jordan that the existential support lavished on the Hashemite Kingdom is contingent on this evil woman being brought to justice.

We produced the video below with friends to mark the fourth anniversary this past weekend. (It’s also accessible via YouTube.)


Tags: Frimet Roth Sbarro Restaurant Bombing Ahlam Tamimi

Pesach – It’s Essence

Pesach – It’s Essence:

“And HaShem spoke to Moshe saying, ‘This month shall be the beginning of months for you.’ “

“‘… for you.‘ ” As a Nation – “only a free people, a Nation, has an independent calendar.” (Quoting Rabbi Yonah H. Geller, Congregation Shaarie Torah – Pesach 5764 [April 2004])

” ‘… for you.‘ ” Yochanan: but not for “them.” them: the idolators (followers of Rameses).

Shmoth 12.13 “And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are; and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and there shall no plague be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt.”

12.23 “For the L-RD will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when He seeth the blood upon the lintel, and on the two side-posts, the L-RD will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite you.”

HaShem Roi (Tehillim 23) – Just as a shepard at night guards the sheep in the sheep-fold by sitting in the doorway of the sheep-fold with his rod and staff, so too did HaShem guard Israel, His first-born on that “guarded night!”

What did Avinu Ya’acov do? Ya’acov built sheep-folds for his sheep; as it says, “Ya’acov journeyed to Sukkoth and built himself a house, and for his livestock he made shelters/sukkoth; he therefore called the name of the place Sukkoth.”

“And Joseph placed his father and his brethren, and gave them a possession in the land of Egypt, in the best of the land, in the land of Rameses, as Pharaoh had commanded.” (B’rashith 47.11)

And what does the passuk (Shmoth 1.11) say? “And the children of Israel built treasure cities for Pharaoh, Pithom and Rameses.”

HaShem Roi (Tehillim 23) – Just as a shepard leads his flock away from danger, so too did HaShem lead His flock away from the danger of “Rameses” (idolatry) to the protective shade of Sukkoth!

And what does the passuk (Shmoth 12.37) say? “And the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Sukkoth, about six hundred thousand men on foot, beside children.”

Who can stand idly by while missionaries pursue Jewish children



miriam <mychessedfund@gmail.com>To:johnhummasti@yahoo.com Tue, Mar 16 at 5:03 PM

  2021-03-07 4 2021-01-05 1
“We are Jewish children. Don’t let the missionaries get us.
Our mother escaped from our father and took us with her to Israel, but the courts sent us back to New Zealand. They said she kidnapped us and now they want to send her to jail. But we wanted to go with her.
If our mother goes to prison, they will send us to a missionary school.
Our father doesn’t care about us. He wants us to be goyim and the missionaries are helping him, giving him money and lawyers and everything he needs.
The story began 18 years ago, when young, susceptible Miriam fell like a ripe fruit into the hands of M., a liar and imposter, an evil, conniving man who promised her roses and gave her thorns.
A violent drunkard and junkie, M. was finally arrested, and Miriam escaped with the children back to Israel. But he was out for revenge, and from behind bars M. conspired with his missionary friends to have Miriam and the children deported, appealing to the courts in Israel, claiming that New Zealand was their true home.
In court, Miriam recounted how she fled to Israel to protect the physical and spiritual lives of her children, imploring the judge to have mercy on the children who suffered physical and emotional abuse from the father. She told the judge about the non-Jewish foster children with whom the children will be forced to live, one of whom had already taken shocking advantage of her son, leaving him with deep emotional scars.
Strange as it may seem and despite the very real danger, the Israeli judge presiding over the Family Court in Haifa sided with the father, dismissed the mother’s testimony of abuse and fear for her children’s future as Jews and ruled that the children must be returned to their father in New Zealand.
Now Miriam is alone in New Zealand, fighting the battle for custody that will decide her children’s fate, facing an abusive ex-husband, funded and supported by the rich missionary organization and its well-oiled system of influencing judges, officials and public opinion.
Understanding the criticality of the case, Miriam’s Israeli lawyer waived payment for his services, however the lawyers in New Zealand must be paid. Psychologists, social workers and advisors are all needed to provide support, help reach influential people in New Zealand and rouse the local and international public opinion which could swing this case in favor of Miriam and her children.
Alone in a foreign country, Miriam and her children have nothing to live on and no one to sustain them, care for them or help them.
The cost is immense. The outcome is in our hands.
Will these helpless children be given over to an abusive father and the missionary organization waiting to convert them, or will they return to Israel with their mother and be brought up Jewish?
This is a battle for generations to come! Two Jewish souls, their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren for all generations!
YOU can save the children by helping Miriam win the battle in court.
Who can put a price on two Jewish souls!
Give generously and save worlds. All contributions are Tax-deductible DONATE NOW ijcf-1615437740820   ©2021 IJCF international jewish chesed foundation | kiryat hayovel

The Pursuit of Justice


Jerusalem Material Claims Conference Against the Arab League

Justice, Justice shall you pursue….” Deut. 16:18-20

Zion shall be redeemed with justice, And they that return of her with righteousness.” Isaiah 1.27

“And Judah also shall fight for Jerusalem; and the wealth of all the nations round about shall be gathered together, gold, and silver, and apparel, in great abundance.” Zechariah 14.14

“The children of thy bereavement Shall yet say in thine ears: ‘The place is too strait for me; Give place to me that I may dwell.’ ” Y’shiyahu (Isaiah) 49.20

It is advised by Yochanan Ezra ben Avraham that on or about 13 October 2021 through 19 October 2021, Jews, Christians and Muslims hold  a “material claims conference” in Jerusalem patterned after the 1952 Luxembourg Reparations Agreement, the UN Conciliation Commission for Palestine and Reintegration Fund, the UN Compensation Commission and Fund, together with the Canadian Treaty Land Entitlement Agreements to effect a just and lasting peace for the Indigenous Peoples of the Middle East that land reserves for “close Jewish and Arab settlement” in historical “Eretz Yisrael” (Palestine – “East & West” of the Jordan River) be “set aside” under a Trusteeship Agreement to secure reparations and restitution against the Arab League for the 1947 Draft Law of the Political Committee of the Arab League and expulsion of the Jews from Arab Countries, North Africa and the Persian Gulf as documented by Justice for Jews from Arab Countries; and for the refusal of the Arab League states to patriate by collective naturalization “Arabs of Palestinian extraction” and the recent denaturalization of Arabs of Jordanian Nationality who were collectively naturalized by King Abdullah on December 13, 1949.


Collective Naturalization

It is further advised by Yochanan Ezra ben Avraham that the State of Israel amend the Law of Return and “Collectively Naturalize” all Jews of the Diaspora, and symbolically re-patriate (viz, naturalize) the Arabs of Palestinian Extraction from the 1948 Israeli War of Independence (as contemplated by UNGA Resolution 194 (11) and as purviewed by the historical attempts via the UN CONCILIATION COMMISSION for PALESTINE [UNCCP] Reintegration Fund to reintegrate the Arabs of Palestinian extraction into the body polity of Eretz Yisrael; and Camp David II) for “close settlement” in historical Eretz Yisrael, east and west of the Jordan River.

The subject of collective naturalization is discussed at length in Boyd v. Thayer, 143 U. S. 135, (1892) and many cases cited and illustrations given.

Collective Naturalization can occur by legislation or by treaty of cession or through acquiescence, concession or assent (failure to remove, relocate or traverse international boundaries).

Citizenship by Conquest or Treaty of Cession & Election of Citizenship:

“Manifestly the nationality of the inhabitants of territory acquired by conquest or cession becomes that of the government under whose dominion they pass, subject to the right of election on their part to retain their former nationality by removal, or otherwise, as may be provided.” Boyd v. Thayer.

Although the “self-determinism” exercised by Arabs of Palestinian extraction who voted by delegates as a “free expression of the will of the people” for King Abdullah I as their sovereign at the December 1948 Jericho Conference and were “collectively naturalized” by King Abdullah; all Arabs of Palestinian extraction retain an inalienable and unalienable right of suffrage in the Jordanian Parliament, and possess Jordanian Citizenship by virtue of force majeure, acquiescence, concession or assent.

See: Bishop, International Law, Cases and Materials, Second Edition, 1962 (Little, Brown and Company, Boston, Toronto); Chapter 5, Nationality: (pp. 394, – 409, – 438)

“These commentators maintain that when territory is transferred to a new

sovereign by conquest or cession the inhabitants of the territory

become nationals of the new government only by their own consent,

express or implicit. [….] If the inhabitants remain within the territory

their allegiance is transferred to the new sovereign. [….] American Insurance Company v. 356 Bales of Cotton, 1 Peter 511, 542, 7 L. Ed. 242


In this case, the New Sovereign is the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan to which the Arabs of Palestinian extraction affirmed their allegiance to the Hashemite Crown at the December 1948 Jericho Conference!


Jerusalem Declaration 10 Sep 2012 :

“We, the participants of the conference “Justice for Jewish Refugees from Arab Countries”, hereby declare that we fully support the rights of Jews displaced, expelled or who fled Arab countries, to justice, rights and redress. [….] As the organizing body in the Arab world and the organization which drafted legislation against the Jewish communities in 1947, we hold the Arab League responsible for the exodus of Jews from Arab countries.”

Read the full Jerusalem Declaration on Justice for Jews from Arab Countries


Watch The Forgotten Refugees

Register Your JIMENA Refugee Claim


Read the Fact Sheet Jewish Refugees From Arab Lands

1952 Luxembourg Reparations Agreement:

The Reparations Agreement between Israel and the Federal Republic of Germany –

According to wikipedia,

“The Reparations Agreement between Israel and the Federal Republic of Germany was signed on September 10, 1952, and entered in force on March 27, 1953.

According to the Agreement, West Germany was to pay Israel for the costs of

“resettling so great a number of uprooted and destitute Jewish refugees” after the war, and to compensate individual Jews, via the Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany, for losses in Jewish livelihood and property resulting from Nazi persecution and genocide.”

More information on The Reparations Agreement of 1952 can be read here National Library of Israel

Canadian Treaty Lands Entitlement Agreements –

Treaty Land Entitlement process

First Nations who did not receive all the land they were entitled to under treaties signed by the Crown and First Nations, can file a Treaty Land Entitlement (TLE) claim with the Government of Canada. TLE settlement agreements are negotiated between First Nations and the Government of Canada, typically with the participation of provincial/territorial governments. The federal government must adhere to treaty obligations to provide the promised amount of reserve land to treaty First Nations.

Generally, a TLE settlement agreement specifies an amount of land that a First Nation may either purchase on a willing buyer-willing seller basis, or select from unoccupied Crown land, or both in some cases, within an agreed to acquisition or selection area.

Once purchased or selected, the First Nation may submit a proposal to the Government of Canada for the land to be added to the First Nation’s reserve under the Additions to Reserve process.

As of August 2016, some 90 percent of TLE transactions take place in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. The fulfillment of TLE agreements assists in building partnerships and encourages economic development on reserves and in surrounding communities.

More information can be read here Canadian Treaty Land Entitlement Agreements

And here Crown Indigenous Relations Northern Affairs


The Supreme Court of Canada has decided that, where a First Nation maintains demographic and cultural connections with the land, aboriginal title (including self-government rights) can survive both sovereignty changes and the influx of a new majority population, resulting from foreign conquest.Delgamuukw v. British Columbia

[1997] 3 SCR 1010 (Case Number 23799)

This jurisprudence is an important decision because only Jews indigenous to Palestine have maintained an “indigenous demographic and cultural connection” to the Land of Eretz Yisrael, have survived foreign (Arab) conquest and were guaranteed POLITICAL rights to self-government within Mandate for Palestine “Treaty Territories” pursuant to the San Remo Resolution!

The Canadian Treaty Land Entitlements Agreements, and the Jurisprudence decided in behalf of Indigenous First Peoples provides a useful model that could be negotiated as part of a comprehensive Arab-Israeli settlement under a trusteeship agreement as contemplated by Chapter XII (Articles 75 through 85) of the UN Charter, to “set aside” Land Reserves for “close Jewish and Arab settlement” in historical “Eretz Yisrael” (Palestine) both East and West of the Jordan River.


Reparations Against the Arab League

As for reparations against the Arab League, in 2013 Israeli MK Shimon Ohayon Called on the Arab League to Accept Responsibility for the Jewish Refugees from Arab Lands:

“It is time for the Arab League, not just to make diktats for a resolution to the conflict, but also accept their great responsibility for driving out almost a million Jews from lands which they had lived in for millennia,” MK Ohayon continued. “I call on the Arab League not just to take responsibility but also to provide redress to the Jewish refugees.

“This is a matter of justice and rights and has been ignored by the Arab League and the international community for too long. It is time to place the rights of the Jewish refugees from Arab lands at the forefront of the push for peace and reconciliation in our region.”


The Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran is a Memorial Day that is marked in Israel every year (starting in 2014,) on November 30 with the purpose of marking the departure and expulsion of Jews from Arab countries and Iran. It is based on a law sponsored by MK Shimon Ohayon (Yisrael Beiteinu) and passed in the summer of 2014 by the Knesset.


The 1947 Draft Law and more information about the expulsions, pogroms and internment of Jews in Arab Lands, North Africa and the Persian Gulf can be read here 1947 Arab League Draft Law – Jewish Refugees

Conference on Material Claims Against the Arab League States –

Claims Commission and Fund

As part of any future Middle Eastern “regional” peace agreement, there would need to be a claims commission set up and a claims fund following the establishment of a (Jerusalem/Al Quds) Reparations Agreement for distribution to those populations affected, as contemplated by UNSC Resolution 242 and US House Resolution 185; which was supposed to have been part of the Camp David Peace Accords with Egypt (Article 8) and was supposed to have been part of the Israeli-Jordanian Peace Treaty (Article 24).

Camp David Peace Accords – Article VIII The Parties agree to establish a claims commission for the mutual settlement of all financial claims.

Israeli-Jordanian Peace Treaty – ARTICLE 24 CLAIMS

The Parties agree to establish a claims commission for the mutual settlement of all financial claims.

— Justice Requires a Conference on Material Claims Against the Arab League States –

“In the aftermath of World War II and the establishment of the State of Israel, the World Jewish Congress was actively involved in assisting Jews in Arab and other Muslim countries, who had come under increasing pressure. In January 1948, WJC President Stephen Wise, appealed to US Secretary of State George Marshall: “Between 800,000 and a million Jews in the Middle East and North Africa, exclusive of Palestine, are in ‘the greatest danger of destruction’ at the hands of Muslims being incited to holy war over the Partition of Palestine … Acts of violence already perpetrated, together with those contemplated, being clearly aimed at the total destruction of the Jews, constitute genocide, which under the resolutions of the General Assembly is a crime against humanity.” The United States, however, did not take any follow-up action to investigate these pleadings.” (Source: Wikipedia World Jewish Congress)

Former U.S. President Bill Clinton made the following assertion after the rights of Jews displaced from Arab countries were discussed at “Camp David II” in July 28, 2000 (from White House Transcript of Israeli television interview): “There will have to be some sort of international fund set up for the refugees. There is, I think, some interest, interestingly enough, on both sides, in also having a fund which compensates the Israelis who were made refugees by the war, which occurred after the birth of the State of Israel. Israel is full of people, Jewish people, who lived in predominantly Arab countries who came to Israel because they were made refugees in their own land.”

Sign the Petition Jerusalem Material Claims Conference to the World Jewish Congress: “For any peace process to be credible and enduring, it must address the rights of all Middle East refugees, including Jewish and other minority populations that were displaced from Arab countries.”



As the [UNCCP] Commission was aware, it [the State of Israel] had already “declared its willingness to support the Reintegration Fund to be established by the United Nations by paying into it funds accruing from compensation for abandoned Arab lands”.

On December 2, 1950, the United Nations General Assembly passed resolution 393 by a vote of 46 in favor, 0 against, 6 abstaining. This resolution allocated, for the period 1 July 1951 to 30 June 1952, “not less than the equivalent of $30,000,000” for the economic reintegration of Palestinian refugees in the Near East “either by repatriation or resettlement”, their permanent re-establishment and removal from relief, “without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph 11 of General Assembly Resolution 194”.

Toward this goal, Israel donated the equivalent of $2.8 million, and Arab states pledged almost $600,000. The United States accounted for the greatest pledge with $25 million.


UNGA Resolution 194 (11) and the “Right of Return” –

Although UNGA Resolution 194 (11) is a non-binding resolution and is premised upon a return “at the earliest convenience” of those “willing to live at peace with their neighbor(s);” the right of return to treaty territories must now be construed and exercised on an individual basis with a qualified offer of collective rehabilitation (repatriation) in light of the December 1948 Jericho Conference wherein the 1,000 Arab delegates led by Sheik Muhammad Ali Ja’abari elected Abdullah I as their sovereign within the meaning of UNGA Resolution 181 (III Election of an Independent Sovereign).

As such, a “limited right of return” is still offered to the 1948 Arab (“Palestinian”) refugees, conditioned on a REGIONAL peace treaty with the Arab League States that will allow Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan to retain a TRUST, (as contemplated by Chapter XII (Articles 75 through 85) of the UN Charter) over the Jewish Treaty Territories east and west of the Jordan River (e.g. Judea, Shomron, Gad, Reuven, and Manasseh) for “close Jewish and Arab refugee resettlement” within the spirit of US Congress’ House Resolution 185, 1 April 2008 as these [trust] treaty territories were ceded to the Jewish Community via the Mandate for Palestine as contemplated by the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement.


Israel’s first offer of any limited right of return came at the 1949 Lausanne Conference, when it offered to allow 100,000 refugees to return, though not necessarily to their homes, including 25,000 who had returned surreptitiously and 10,000 family-reunion cases. The proposal was conditioned on a peace treaty that would allow Israel to retain territory it had captured which had been allocated to a proposed Palestinian state, and the Arab states absorbing the remaining 550,000–650,000 refugees. The Arabs rejected the proposal on both moral and political grounds, and Israel quickly withdrew its limited offer. At the 2000 Camp David summit 52 years following Israeli independence, Israel offered to set up an international fund for the compensation for the property which had been lost by 1948 Palestinian refugees, to which Israel would contribute. Israel offered to allow 100,000 refugees to return on the basis of humanitarian considerations or family reunification. All other refugees would be resettled in their present places of residents, the Palestinian state, or in third-party countries, with Israel contributing $30 billion to fund their resettlement. During this time, most of the original refugees had already died without any compensation. Israel demanded that in exchange, Arafat forever abandon the right of return, and Arafat’s refusal has been cited as one of the leading causes of the summit’s failure.


Megillat HaNechoshet (the Copper Scroll) –

This material claims conference would lead to compensation for all populations affected, Jewish, Christian and Arab/Muslim (within the spirit of US House Resolution 185) and I suggest a peace and reconciliation conference for the populations effected by the Arab Israeli Conflict “with a gesture of peace and reconciliation by the Hashemite Kingdom” of  a return of the Copper Scroll to the Jewish People from the Jordan Museum Amman!

UN Compensation Commission and Fund

The UN Compensation Commission and Fund provides a useful model that could be negotiated as part of a comprehensive Arab-Israeli settlement. In the aftermath of Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990, the UNCC adopted a policy of paying individuals first, with the remaining sums owed entirely to government entities. The UNCC also created six categories for resolving claims from the Iraq-Kuwait war. These categories include claims for families killed or injured during the war, business losses, individual anguish, cost of resettling citizens, and damage to the environment. These categories could be adapted to fit the needs of an international peace fund for the Middle East.


Truth and Reconciliation Commission –

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) was a court-like restorative justice[1] body assembled in South Africa after the end of apartheid.

Witnesses who were identified as victims of gross human rights violations were invited to give statements about their experiences, and some were selected for public hearings. Perpetrators of violence could also give testimony and request amnesty from both civil and criminal prosecution.

The TRC, the first of the 1003 held internationally to stage public hearings, was seen by many as a crucial component of the transition to full and free democracy in South Africa. Despite some flaws, it is generally (although not universally) thought to have been successful.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) provides a useful model for a comprehensive Arab-Israeli settlement.


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.”

1970–Thames Television–Golda Meir discusses the Palestinian identity


Stateless Again

Palestinian-Origin Jordanians Deprived of their Nationality*

Summary: More than half of the 6.3 million population of Jordan is of Palestinian origin-that is, from areas west of the River Jordan, including the West Bank, today’s Israel, and Gaza. With the exception of persons from Gaza, the vast majority of those persons of Palestinian origin have Jordanian citizenship. However, since 1988, and especially over the past few years, the Jordanian government has been arbitrarily and without notice withdrawing Jordanian nationality from its citizens of Palestinian [Israeli] origin, making them stateless. For many of them this means they are again stateless Palestinians as they were before 1950.

So far, Jordan has withdrawn its nationality from thousands of its citizens of Palestinian origin-over 2,700 between 2004 and 2008 alone. It has done so, in the individual cases Human Rights Watch identified, in an arbitrary manner and in violation of Jordan’s nationality law of 1954. Under that law Palestinian residents of the West Bank in 1949 or thereafter received full Jordanian nationality following Jordan’s incorporation of the West Bank in April 1950.


*Disclaimer: In order for there to be TRUTH and RECONCILIATION between Arabs and Jews, one must admit that the Arabs of Palestinian Extraction are simply Arabs who have migrated to Eretz Yisrael. That is, the author of this proposal does not espouse a distinct Palestinian Identity for Arabs of “Palestinian Extraction” as there is no difference between an Arab from Arabia and an Arab from Judea and Samaria (the West Bank of the Jordan River) or from the territories allocated (by Moses and Joshua) to Gad, Reuven and Menasheh (the East Bank of the Jordan River) as agreed to by the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement.

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.”

While Jews are Indigenous to Eretz Yisrael (Palestine); Arabs are Indigenous to [Saudi] Arabia, not Eretz Yisrael and many only recently settled within Mandate for Palestine [TREATY] territories! The Hashemites should be held to the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement as the Arabs have been given “independence” through the Mandates for Mesopotamia (Iraq), Syria and Lebanon and by and through the Kingdom of the Hejaz and exercised, by their free will, “national self-determinism” at the December 1948 Jericho Conference wherein they elected King Abdullah I as their sovereign (within the meaning of Chapter III [Election of Sovereignty] of UNGA Resolution 181).

The 1950 State Department Country Report on Jordan said that King Abdullah had taken successive steps [to wit: Annexation and Occupation] to incorporate the area of Central Palestine into Jordan and described the Jordanian Parliament resolution concerning the union of Central Palestine with Jordan. The report said the US had privately advised the British and French Foreign Ministers that it had approved the action, and that “it represented a logical development of the situation which took place as a result of a free expression of the will of the people.”[7] The major problems of concern to the United States were the establishment of peaceful and friendly relations between Israel and Jordan and the successful absorption into the polity and economy of Jordan of Arab Palestine, its inhabitants, and the bulk of the refugees now located there.[8]


Since the Arabs were collectively naturalized by Abdullah I of trans-Jordan April 1950, effectively nullifying and voiding UNGA Resolution 194(11); any Reparations Agreement must include a provision that those hostile belligerent nationals of Jordan unwilling to “live at peace with their neighbor” be classified as hosti humani generis and the parties to such Reparations Agreement should establish a Regional UN Human Rights / Terrorism Court in East Jerusalem for the prosecution of any terrorist or act of terrorism.

Withholding Foreign Aid to Jordan

Whereas Jordan was established in violation of Articles 5, 15 and 25 of the Mandate for Palestine; and,

Whereas Arabs of “Palestine” voted by delegates for King Abdullah I to be their sovereign at the Jericho Conference of December 1948 and exercised “self-determinism” at that Conference and the Hashemites remain in power as a foreign occupier of “Palestine” having their origins in the Kingdom of the Hejaz; and,

Whereas Arabs of “Palestine” have been disenfranchised of their Jordanian Nationality and their expressed natural right to exercise “self determinism” in the Jordanian Parliament; and,

Whereas the Hashemite (Islamic) Kingdom of Jordan made the following “Declarations” in regards to the International Convention on the Suppression of Terrorist Financing:

“1. The Government of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan does not consider acts of national armed struggle and fighting foreign occupation in the exercise of people’s right to self-determation as terrorist acts within the context of paragraph 1(b) of article 2 of the Convention.
       2. Jordan is not a party to the following treaties:
       A. Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, adopted in Vienna on 3 March 1980.
       B. Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, done at Rome on 10 March 1988.
       C. Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Contiental Shelf, done at Rome on 10 March 1988.
       D. International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, adopted in New York on 15 December 1997.
       Accordingly Jordan is not bound to include, in the application of the International Covention for the Supresssion of the Financing of Terrorism, the offences within the scope and as defined in such Treaties.”

Whereas Jordan condones terrorist offenses committed by Hamas (e.g. Ahlam Tamimi) and by members of it’s armed forces (e.g. Marek al-Tuwayha, Ahmad Daqamseh); and,

Whereas Jordan recently held a military exercise named “Swords of Karama” in material breach of it’s Treaty Obligations under the Israeli-Jordanian Peace Treaty; and,

Whereas Jordan refuses to extradite Ahlam Tamimi to the United States of America in material breach of it’s Treaty Obligations under the US – Jordanian Extradition Treaty and the obligation to suppress terrorism under the Israeli-Jordanian Peace Treaty; and,

Whereas Jordan is a recipient of foreign aid from the United States of America, providing more than $1.5 billion in 2019, including $1.082 billion appropriated by the U.S. Congress to Jordan through USAID in the 2019 fiscal year budget, and $425 million in Foreign Military Financing;

The President and US Congress should, as made and provided for in 22 USC 2377, et. seq., withhold foreign aid from Jordan and the US Secretary of State should declare Jordan a “state sponsor of terrorism” due to Jordan’s harboring of Ahlam Tamimi and the broadcasting of Tamimi’s Nasim Al-Ahrar [Breeze of the Free] and the broadcasting of Tamimi’s interview on the Jordanian Ammon News web site and should cut off diplomatic ties with Jordan.

The Numbers of the Mishkan

The numerology of the Mishkan teaches us the laws and story of Am Yisrael – for instance we see that the measurements of the three walls, the planks, sockets and bars, the pillars, screen and the loops of the Mishkan correspond to the 50 days between Pesach and Shavuoth, the 10 “bad” spies correspond to the height of the Mishkan (the planks measure 10 Amoth [cubits] high, and wood is a symbol of or represents arrogance), the 6 Orders of the Mishnah correspond to the 6 planks on the Western end of the Mishkan, the 5 Books of the Torah correspond to the 5 bars (as well as the 5 pillars), the 4 Matriarchs correspond to the 4 pillars, the 3 Patriarchs correspond to 3 walls of shittim wood, the 2 Tablets correspond to the 2 silver sockets (for a total of 40 sockets corresponding to the 40 days and nights Moshe spent on Har Sinai); and where the passuk (Shmoth – Exodus 26.6) says, “so that it become 1” corresponds to the Oneness of the Holy One, as the passuk (Zechariah 14.9) says: “On that day His Name shall be One!” Also the passuk [Habakkuk 2.14] says “For the earth shall be filled With the knowledge of the glory of the ETERNAL, As the waters cover the sea.” and also [Jeremiah 31.34], “and they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying: ‘Know the ETERNAL’; for they shall all know Me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the ETERNAL; for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin will I remember no more.”

And there are many other instances where the numerology of the Mishkan correspond to the People of Yisrael and Laws of the Torah.

Red Kubbeh Soup

Kubbeh Selek – Jewish Iraqi Recipe

Dec 8, 2016 Dana Attias

INGREDIENTS (serves 8)

Filling 1 lb. ground beef

1/2 onion, finely chopped

1/2 teaspoon paprika

1/2 teaspoon cumin

1/2 teaspoon salt

1/4 teaspoon black pepper

Dough 3 cups semolina

1 teaspoon salt

1 1/2 cups water

Beet soup

1 tablespoon olive oil

1/2 onion, finely chopped

1/8 teaspoon cinnamon

1/2 teaspoon paprika

1/2 tsp. cumin salt & pepper

2 tablespoons tomato paste

4 beets, peeled and cut into sticks

1 tablespoon sugar

juice of 1 lemon

7 cups water

PREPARATION 1. Many people fry the ground beef for the kubbe. Some people simply mix the meat ingredients together and add it to the dumplings. For the frying method, add ground beef to a frying pan on medium heat. Break up the meat and wait for the liquid to release from the meat, about a minute. Add onion, spices, salt and pepper. Fry and break in to small pieces. Cook until meat is no longer red.

2. Add semolina to a large bowl. Add the salt and mix. Gradually add the water and gently mix with your hands. Don’t knead it like a bread dough or it will become too chewy. Let it rest for 5 mins while the dough forms.

3. Oil your hands. Take the dough and divide it into small pieces of equal size. Flatten each piece, not too thin, and fill with the meat. Press it in with your thumb. Add more meat and repeat. Wrap and pinch the edges. Pass it between your hands to seal the cracks and make it smooth. It will take a few tries to get the hang of it.

4. For the soup, add the olive oil to a large pot on medium heat. Add the onion, cinnamon, paprika, cumin, salt and black pepper. Mix and fry for a minute until onions start to caramelize. Add tomato paste and mix well. Fry for 1 minute. Enjoy the amazing smell.

5. Add the beets, sugar, lemon juice and water.

6. Bring soup to a boil. Gently add kubbeh.

Cover and cook on medium heat for 30 minutes.


Obama’s Revisionist ‘Promised Land’

Dec 2, 2020
by Dov Moshe Lipman, JNS.org

print article
Obama’s Revisionist ‘Promised Land’

In his new memoir, the former U.S. president misleads readers in a way that will forever shape their negative perspective of the Jewish state.

I have never criticized former U.S. President Barack Obama publicly – neither during my time in the Knesset nor anywhere else – despite my having disagreed with many of his policies. I am of the strong opinion that Israelis should not engage in or interfere with American politics, and I regularly offer a blanket thank you to all American presidents, including Obama, for their economic and military support for Israel.

However, his memoir, A Promised Land, is filled with historical inaccuracies that I feel the need to address. His telling of Israel’s story (at the beginning of Chapter 25) not only exhibits a flawed understanding of the region – which clearly impacted his policies as president – but misleads readers in a way that will forever shape their negative perspective of the Jewish state.

Obama relates, for example, how the British were “occupying Palestine” when they issued the Balfour Declaration calling for a Jewish state. But labeling Great Britain as an “occupier” clearly casts doubt on its legitimacy to determine anything about the future of the Holy Land, and that wasn’t the situation.

While it is true that England had no legal rights in Palestine when the Balfour Declaration was issued in 1917, that changed just five years later. The League of Nations, the precursor to the United Nations, gave the British legal rights over Palestine in its 1922 “Mandate for Palestine,” which specifically mentions “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.”

The League also said that “recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.”

The former president’s noted omission of the internationally agreed-upon mandate for the British to establish a home for the Jews in Palestine misinforms the reader, who will conclude that the movement for a Jewish state in Palestine had no legitimacy or international consent.

“Over the next 20 years, Zionist leaders mobilized a surge of Jewish migration to Palestine,” Obama writes, creating the image that once the British illegally began the process of forming a Jewish state in Palestine, Jews suddenly started flocking there.

Obama should have portrayed the Jews as they were: a persecuted and desperate people searching for safety; not, as he implies, strong conquerors flooding into Palestine.

The truth is that Jews, who maintained a continual presence throughout the 2,000 years that most were exiled from the land, had already been moving to Palestine in large numbers way before then; considerably more than 100,000 immigrants arrived in the late 19th century and beginning of the 20th century. Then, in the 1920s, high numbers fleeing anti-Semitism in Europe could only find safe haven in Palestine due to the United States having instituted quotas in 1924 on the number of Jews who could enter America.

The number of immigrants rose even more in the 1930s when Adolf Hitler rose to power and began his conquest of Europe while the world remained silent.

Historical context is important, and once Obama chose to write about the history, he should have provided the full context and portrayed the Jews as they were: a persecuted and desperate people searching for safety, and not, as he implies, strong conquerors flooding into Palestine.

His claim that the new immigrants “organized highly trained armed forces to defend their settlements” is also misleading. A more accurate way to describe it would have been: “Because the Arabs in the region mercilessly attacked the Jewish areas, the Jewish refugees had no choice but to take up arms to defend themselves.”

Acknowledging that the Arabs were attacking Jews before there was even a State of Israel is important historical context for understanding the Israeli-Arab conflict.

A Promised Land recounts, as well, how the United Nations passed a partition plan for Palestine in November 1947, by dividing the country into a Jewish and Arab state, which the “Zionist leaders,” as he calls them, accepted, but to which the “Arab Palestinians, as well as surrounding Arab nations that were just emerging from colonial rule, strenuously objected.”

Obama’s use of “Zionist leaders” instead of “Jewish leaders” plays right into the current international climate, in which it is politically correct to be “anti-Zionist,” while unacceptable to be anti-Jewish. (In reality, Zionism is the movement for Jews to live in their biblical and historic homeland, so being against that actually is anti-Semitism, but that’s for another discussion.)

The description of “Arab nations that were just emerging from colonial rule” is a clear attempt to justify the Arab refusal of the U.N. Partition Plan. Those poor “Arab nations” that have been suffering due to outsiders colonizing their “nations” simply could not accept another “colonial” entity, the Jews, entering the region.

But the truth is that with the exception of Egypt, which was not colonized, none of the neighboring countries that rejected the partition plan had been established states before World War I. Yes, the post-war mandates of the League of Nations gave control in the region to the British and the French for a few decades, but this was in place of the Ottoman Empire that had controlled the region for centuries. Thus, the image of countries emerging from long-standing colonial rule as a subtle attempt to justify their objection to the Partition Plan is simply false.

Obama tells the story of the establishment of the State of Israel in two sentences, which are nothing short of outright revisionist history.

Obama tells the story of the establishment of the State of Israel in two sentences, which are nothing short of outright revisionist history: “As Britain withdrew, the two sides quickly fell into war. And with Jewish militias claiming victory in 1948, the state of Israel was officially born.”

Wow. I don’t even know where to begin. The two sides didn’t “fall into war” when Britain withdrew; the two sides had been fighting for decades, with the Arabs – who rejected more than half-a-century of efforts to establish a Jewish state in the region – attacking the Jews, and the Jews defending themselves. When the British then left the area in May 1948, the Jews made a very difficult decision to declare their independence based on the U.N. Partition Plan, which gave the right for a Jewish state alongside an Arab state.

There were no “Jewish militias claiming victory.” There was a unified Jewish army that formed the Israel Defense Forces, which knew that the surrounding Arab countries would begin an all-out assault to destroy Israel the moment its Jewish leadership declared an independent fledgling Jewish state. And that is exactly what the Arab armies did. The new State of Israel fought off that assault for months, emerging in 1949 both weakened and fragile.

Obama’s perspective on the formation of the State of Israel no doubt affected his foreign policy regarding the Jewish state. If one sees Israel as a colonial force occupying the land as a result of its armed militias, then it will be treated as an outsider that wronged others to establish itself as a state. The former president misleads others into believing this, as well.

The most disingenuous sentence of Obama’s history of Israel is in his description of what happened during the 30 years following Israel’s establishment: “For the next three decades, Israel would engage in a succession of conflicts with its Arab neighbors ….”

What? I had to read that sentence many times because I could not believe that a president of the United States could write such misleading, deceptive and damaging words about his country’s close ally.

Israel did not “engage” in any conflict with the surrounding Arab countries. The Arab armies and their terrorists attacked Israel again and again, and Israelis fought to defend themselves.

A straightforward history of Middle East wars involving Israel yields this basic truth. Facts are facts, and the former president’s misrepresentation of Israel as a country that sought conflict instead of peace – one that willingly engaged in wars with the Arabs – does an injustice to peace-seeking Israel and riles up anti-Israel sentiment.

Obama’s description of the 1967 Six-Day War continues this revisionism: “A greatly outnumbered Israeli military routed the combined armies of Egypt, Jordan and Syria. In the process, Israel seized control of the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan, the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, and the Golan Heights from Syria.”

Here he fails to address what led up to the war, when all those Arab armies gathered along Israel’s borders and declared their intention to wipe it off the map. He doesn’t describe Israel’s pleading with Jordan not to enter the war, nor that Jordan altogether had no legal rights to the West Bank, which it occupied in 1948 and annexed against international law in 1950.

Most significantly, Obama fails to mention Israel’s willingness, immediately after the war, to withdraw from all the areas that it won in its defensive battle in exchange for peace; and by extension, he also fails to tell of the Arab League’s “Three No’s” in response to that offer: no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel and no negotiations with Israel.

This omission serves once again to portray Israel as the aggressive occupier that seeks conflict and not peace.

The former president continues with another outright falsehood, which helps give insight into his policies regarding Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

The “rise of the PLO (the Palestinian Liberation Organization)” was a “result” of the Six-Day War he writes. That makes it seem like the Palestinian liberation movement, including its violent and murderous attacks against Israelis, was only a result of Israel’s taking control over the West Bank, eastern Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip.

It strengthens the message that if only Israel would vacate these areas, there would be peace between Israel and the Palestinians. This is what spurs leaders around the world to suggest that Israeli settlements in these areas are the obstacle to peace in the region.

But there is one flaw with this story and logic. It’s not true. The PLO was established in 1964 – three years before Israel was in control of any of those “occupied” areas and three years before there were any settlements.

What exactly was this Palestinian organization liberating at that time? Is there any conclusion other than the liberation of the Jewish state in its entirety? What other option could there be?

This is why the “Free Palestine” movement chants, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” They are against the existence of Israel anywhere between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. They see such a state as a colonial enterprise with armed militias grabbing the land of others, just as Obama leads readers to believe when describing the formation of the state.

The false description of the PLO rising after 1967 serves the narrative that the “occupation” and the settlements are the cause of the conflict, and this, no doubt, had a direct impact on Obama’s “not one brick” policy, including freezing settlement construction, in an effort to bring about peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

Obama describes the failed Camp David accords of 2000, in which former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered the Palestinians more than 90 percent of what they were asking for. “Arafat demanded more concessions, however, and talks collapsed in recrimination,” he writes. But the talks didn’t simply “collapse.” Sixty-six days later, Arafat unleashed the Second Intifada, in which 1,137 Israeli civilians were murdered and 8,341 were maimed by Yasser Arafat-funded terrorists who blew themselves up in Israeli buses and cafes.

Don’t trust my word on this. Mamduh Nofal, former military commander of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, revealed that following Camp David, “Arafat told us, ‘Now we are going to fight so we must be ready.’”

In addition, Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Zahar said in September 2010 that in the summer of 2000, as soon as Arafat understood that all of his demands would not be met, he instructed Hamas, Fatah and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades to begin attacking Israel. And Mosab Hassan Yousef, son of Hamas founder Sheikh Hassan Yousef, has verified that the Second Intifada was pre-planned by Arafat.

Not only does Obama fail to accurately connect the Second Intifada to Arafat’s not receiving everything the Palestinians asked for at Camp David – demands that would have prevented Israel from being able to defend itself against Palestinian terrorism – but he seems to place the blame for the intifada on Israel.

He describes the September 2000 visit of Israel’s opposition leader and subsequent prime minister, Ariel Sharon, to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem as “provocative” and a “stunt” that “enraged Arabs near and far.”

But Obama neglects to mention that Sharon only visited there after Israel’s Interior Ministry received assurances from the security chief of the Palestinian Authority that no uproar would arise as a result of the visit.

In fact, Jibril Rajoub, head of Preventive Security in the West Bank, confirmed that Sharon could visit the sensitive area as long as he did not enter a mosque or pray publicly, rules to which Sharon adhered.

Obama describes the Temple Mount as “one of Islam’s holiest sites,” making no mention that it is the holiest site in Judaism.

Even more incredibly, Obama describes the Temple Mount as “one of Islam’s holiest sites,” making no mention that it is the holiest site in Judaism.

An innocent reader who is unfamiliar with the region and its history reads this and concludes that it was simply wrong for a Jewish leader to walk onto a Muslim religious site. On the other hand, if he or she knew that it is the holiest site for Jews, then they would more likely wonder why there was anything wrong with Sharon’s having gone there – except Obama omits that part, leading anyone to conclude that Sharon was in the wrong.

That omission, together with the exclusion of Arafat’s plans for the intifada right after negotiations at Camp David failed, can only lead one to conclude that Israel was responsible for the five years of bloodshed during the Second Intifada.

Obama’s history lesson continues with the tension between Israel and Gaza. Remarkably, he makes zero mention of the Israeli disengagement from Gaza in 2005, when Israel pulled out all of its troops from the strip while forcing 9,000 Jewish citizens to leave their homes.

Anyone reading the president’s description of the wars between Israel and Hamas would never know that Israel no longer “occupies” Gaza, and that the Palestinians have been free to build a wondrous “Israeli-free” Palestinian state there for the last 15 years. That omission is glaring.

Finally, Obama’s misleading words describing Israel’s response to Hamas rocket fire on its civilian population only serves to inflame and incite anti-Israel sentiment worldwide. That response, he writes, included “Israeli Apache helicopters leveling entire neighborhoods” in Gaza – Apache helicopters that he identifies as coming from the United States, a subtle or not-too-subtle questioning of whether the United States should be providing Israel with military aid if it is used in this manner.

More importantly, what does he mean by “leveling entire neighborhoods,” other than to imply that Israel indiscriminately bombs Gazan neighborhoods, willfully murdering innocent people? And what human being on Earth wouldn’t be riled up to condemn Israel for such inhumane activity?

The problem is that it’s false. Israel targets terrorist leaders and the rockets that they fire into Israeli cities. Tragically, Hamas leaders use innocent Palestinians as human shields by hiding behind them in civilian neighborhoods, and by launching rockets into Israel from there and from hospitals and mosques.

Israel does its best not to kill innocent people, even airdropping leaflets announcing an imminent airstrike, and calls off missions to destroy rocket launchers or kill terrorist leaders when there are too many civilians in the area. Israel most certainly does not launch retaliatory attacks that aimlessly “level” entire neighborhoods.

I have no problem with criticism of Israel. We can debate the issues in intellectually honest discussions, and in the end, we may have to agree to disagree about Israel’s policies. But no one should accept a book that is filled with historical inaccuracies that invariably lead innocent and unknowing readers to reach false conclusions. Such a devastating book has real-life ramifications and consequences.

It is terribly disappointing. I surely would have expected truth, accuracy and fairness from Barack Obama, America’s 44th president. But the falsehoods and inaccuracies in this memoir only feed the theory that Obama was, in fact, anti-Israel. Now, through A Promised Land, he seeks to convince others to join him.

Reprinted with permission from JNS.org

Dov Lipman served as a member of the 19th Knesset.