Skip to content

Letter to a Left-Leaning Friend

November 26, 2014

Dear *****,

recently, you linked to the following content:

You then included this abstract:

The Palestine Liberation Organization has called on the international media to desist from using the term Temple Mount, saying its use doesn’t “adhere to international law.”

Temple Mount is the term commonly used in English to describe what in Arabic is known as Haram al-Sharif (the Noble Sanctuary) – the compound in the Old City of Jerusalem containing the al-Aqsa and Dome of the Rock mosques.

Your comments followed:

My views on Palestine are fairly obvious. East Jerusalem is occupied territory and it is regrettable that Israel has no current plans to end the occupation of Palestinian land and people. Never-the-less, this is outright wrong by the PLO. A place can have different names for different people. The Jews have called the place the Temple Mount long before Ben Gurion and Herzl wrecked their havoc on the Middle East. Yes, it is also al-Aqsa/Haram a-Sherif and Palestinians and Muslims have called it that for ages as well. We live in a world where dualism should not be a bad thing. A Jewish community in Palestine is not a problem and Jewish holy sites in Palestine are not the problem. Occupation, racism and oppression are the problems. One day, the great-grandchildren of both sides, if they still believe in religion, will all pray together in Jerusalem and look back at the previous generations in contempt for being so foolish. Shame on you all for dragging us through this mud.

I think that you realization is ironic, because it makes very much sense for the Arabs to change the terms. It helps the PA, as it already worked really well for them when they convinced everyone, including yourself, that the possession of parts of the historic Jewish homeland is no longer disputed, as it factually is. Do you honestly believe that Israel one day invaded Judea and Samaria and conquered as the Germans did to Poland back in 1939? Of course not! You know that those areas had been ethnically cleansed back in 1948, and Israel returned there to during a defensive war imposed upon her by her neighbors. At the very least, we should acknowledge the Jewish claim to the area! But instead, we describe it as  “occupied”, a term which implies that it rightfully belongs to some, while the occupiers should not be there. That term means that we wholly accept the Arab narrative in this story, a narrative that, unlike the Israeli one, is not so much based in fact as it is in a desire to create new facts.

This trick also worked when they renamed themselves “Palestinians,” a term that before the late 20th century  referred to Jews who lived in Palestine, who promptly renamed their country Israel and themselves Israelis when they rid themselves of the British occupiers. See this post, which shows evidence that in the 1930’s, Palestine, the country that was to become Israel, was the Jewish state in the making. It’s official languages were already English, Aarbic and Hebrew, and its flag had a prominent Star of David. Although it was actually under British occupation, as the British came from a whole other continent away and were on their way out, the Jews governed themselves, and had elective bodies that were the forerunner of the Israeli Knesset.

This ploy will work, and next time they will insist that Jews and Israelis be called Europeans, or something that totally erases their national history. And they’ll do it because it has had so much success the first few decades. Especially with people like you. Remember Apartheid? Do you know what they actually means and what actually transpired in South Africa? So why is it used so easily to describe the state of affairs in Israel? Granted things are not perfect, but to use that word is too much. It’s libelous. And unfortunately, commonplace. 

That was the point Feiglin was recently trying to make. Unlike most people, he will not go along with the Great Lie. He refused to believe that any writer in the 1940’s would use the word Palestinian to specifically refer to anybody but Jews. To do so would be a historical ret-con. You can easily find Arendt’s writings. She never referred to Arabs as just Palestinians. She always called them something else, because back then the word meant just that: Someone who lived in Eretz Yisrael, and for the most part, if the he were proud of that, he was a Jew. When she meant Arabs, she would say Arabs. And so did everybody who lived before the 1970’s.

I hope that this is the beginning of a great wakening for you.


From → Uncategorized

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: