August 6, 2014

The fire that burned on the Temple Mount

Posted in Israel/Zionism, Temple Mount tagged , , at 9:49 am by yisraelmedad

The fire that burned on the Temple Mount

By YISRAEL MEDAD. 05/08/2014

Israel Police spokesman’s office noted that over the month of Ramadan, more than 400 Muslims had been arrested on the Temple Mount for disturbing the peace and some 135 charge sheets had been presented to the courts.

Josephus witnessed the moment, over 1,900 years ago, when the Temple first began to be engulfed in flames.

He writes in his The Jewish Wars, “…one of the soldiers… snatched something of the materials that were on fire, and being lifted up by another soldier, he set fire to a golden window, through which there was a passage to the rooms that were round about the Holy House, on the north side of it. As the flames went upward the Jews made a great clamor… .”

And he adds to his description that, “While the Holy House was on fire, everything was plundered that came to hand.”

On Thursday night, July 24, which marked Laylat al-Kadr, the anniversary of the revelation of the first verses of the Koran, when Muslims believe that God blesses everyone, and forgive all sins, a sacking of a building and the burning of its contents on the Temple Mount was repeated.

This time that structure was an Israeli police station located on the raised platform section, north of the Dome of the Rock. An ecstatic crowd of Muslims were the perpetrators.

Despite the great embarrassment, we can be thankful that no policeman was killed or wounded. That is not because back-up forces raced to the rescue, the heroic defense put up by the police barricaded inside the small building or because they managed to escape, some would say flee, through the back windows.

The simple fact is, as Jerusalem Commander Yossi Parienti announced on Channel 10 television, that the police left the building, locking it and walking away earlier on in an orderly fashion.

They did not desert it, he insisted.

Whether the police prematurely fled before the attackers or beat a strategic retreat in expectation of a worse development, the result was one police station looted, ransacked and burned. To top this activity, literally, two masked Arab youth climbed up the roof and planted a Palestinian flag atop the “Islamic-conquered” police station. The expensive security cameras affixed to the station were destroyed.

But there was more damage. Confidential documents dealing with security issues, including identities of suspected Arabs instigators of violence, as well as Jews, were found dispersed at the site, uncollected.

Have the police learned from their errors of planning and judgment? Monday morning this week, once again specially-equipped police officers were required to enter the courtyard following the throwing of rocks as well as the shooting off of Roman candles.

A surprise awaited them: blockades had been set up that halted their advance temporarily. At least five were wounded.

But why are the police, time after time, still surprised? Why is entrance permitted during the evening hours and if so, why is the Temple Mount not cleared toward morning? Why can the rioters gain the benefit of hours to prepare, to bring in dangerous materials? Why do the police to fail, repeatedly, to deal with what one would presume is a simple matter of security? Several members of the force admitted to Channel 2 TV reporter Shimon Ifergan that they were ashamed at the decision that was made and that they were ordered to withdraw from the Mount for their own protection with the full knowledge that the station was the target.

But how is it that given the dangers faced by police, the policy of our law enforcement is to allow such riots to develop, to be the norm? In a response from the Israel Police spokesman’s office, it was noted that over the month of Ramadan, more than 400 Muslims had been arrested on the Temple Mount for disturbing the peace and some 135 charge sheets had been presented to the courts. Nevertheless, the taking of preventive measures seems to be the police’s weak point.

One could argue that the police are caught in the middle. On the one hand, they are responsible for maintaining peace and order but on the other, the political echelon, ever since 1967, seeks to placate Jordan as the holy site’s patron, hoping to offset any real local Arab control, as via the Palestinian Authority, for example. But this paradigm of false coexistence ignores Jewish rights and involves willful blindness to the inroads of the Islamic Movement.

Israel’s government is not obligated to begin the construction of the Third Temple.

However, the government is obligated to not allow the destruction of state property, the trampling of basic human rights of non-Muslims, the provocative, violent behavior of male and female Islamists, the holding of pro-Hamas assemblies and the flying of terrorist flags and planting of banners on the mosque buildings in support of anti-Jewish propaganda.

Exerting Israel’s sovereignty on the Temple Mount, applying the law of the land, promoting religious freedom, protecting the site’s legacy above and below ground are all things the state must do, in the interest of the Jewish character of the state, for the commitment to human rights for all and even for the Waqf authorities who have proven less than capable of administering the site.

The author serves as the secretary of the El Har Hashem NGO which promotes Jewish rights on the Temple Mount.



December 12, 2012

Busy Temple Mount Visitors Day

Posted in Israel/Zionism tagged at 2:13 pm by yisraelmedad

A lot came.

Via here:-








March 22, 2007

The Double-Standard of Israeli Post-Feminism

Posted in Israel/Zionism at 1:12 am by yisraelmedad

This is the original prior-to-being-edited version of my op-ed that appeared in the Jerusalem Post today (and also at my MyRightWord blog)


A good friend of mine, Edva Naveh of Shaarei Tikvah, made an observation recently concerning the police announcement that there was a gang of Beduin youths who had committed, it was claimed, a series of rapes.  These rapes were perpetrated on Jewish women solely because they were Jewish and as a politically-motivated act of revenge for
Israel‘s policies towards the Arabs living in
Judea and Samaria.  Those arrested have made court appearances.  As Edva noted, there are many women’s organizations in
Israel.  Several devote themselves exclusively to the issue of rape and of sexual commerce.  All deal with harassment matters in addition to disparate pay scales and other economic and social themes.  Almost all these groups have been extremely active in protesting President Moshe Katzav’s continued term of office despite the fact that no charge sheet has been brought.  Haim Ramon’s osculatory maneuver was also a matter that deeply disturbed the feminists, as it did males. However, as Edva asked, why has not one of these associations, or their representatives or other feminist spokepersons spoken out and addressed this matter of Jewish women being raped and injured on the background of nationalist violence?  Ofer Glazer and MK Yoram Marciano have been pilloried.  Rami Heuberger is being investigated.  But the young residents of the Galilee seemingly have been studiously ignored.  Where are MKs Ruhama Avraham and Zahava Galon when needed?  Could it be that “rape as resistance” is somehow to be judged differently?   

Local humanitarian groups, those who always define themselves as liberal, left and progressive, as well as international ones, have been quite vociferous when deliberating what needs to be done in such instances when the exploiting of rape as a weapon of war occurs in Bosnia, Rwanda, the Congo and Darfur, among many other locations. Some sociologists are of the opinion that rape in these circumstances is done to show the men that they cannot even defend their women – they are worthless.  It is used to fragment societies.

Already during the American Civil War in April 1863, Francis Lieber, a Columbia College professor, composed instructions that were then promulgated by President Abraham Lincoln as a code of military conduct.  Its Article 44 stipulates, “All wanton violence committed…all rape…of such [civilian] inhabitants, are prohibited under the penalty of death”.  Would Mesdames Galon, Aloni, Avraham and Yechimovitz come out and support a severe form of punishment for these young men, if they are found guilty?  Would they, at the very least, speak out on this issue and not ignore it?  Why the double standard?  Why ignore a behavior pattern that is surely criminal and, if the charges prove true (and the defendants words and actions shown on the news broadcasts seem to confirm police suspicions), would be an offshoot of the terror campaign that Arabs have practiced against Jews for over 80 years here? 

LET US CONSIDER some possibilities. A)    These women’s groups and their assorted supporters are not convinced that the police assertions are true.  After all, the trial hasn’t begun yet and we must consider the accused as innocent until proven otherwise.   

This doesn’t seem logical.  No one has seen any solid evidence against Moshe Katzav and yet demonstrations have been conducted outside his residence and demands have been made for his ouster based on a standard of “public ethics” that they have made up. B)   These women would consider protest activity as racist.  Since these young men are Beduin, it would be fair, the thinking goes, to blame them for actions we really don’t know why the committed.  In fact, it could be that their low socio-economic status and educational level was a contributory element that ‘pushed’ them. 

This, too, isn’t rational.  Hareidim are routinely stereotyped, as are those who live across the Green Line.  For example, the caricatures of the liberal Haaretz routinely disparage observant Jews, mocking their religious beliefs and practices. C)   These women empathize with the deep-seated violent emotions that they insist are caused by the “occupation”. 

Despite the fact that any injury, – physical, mental or implied – done to a Jewish woman and her body is denounced and roundly and loudly criticized, could it be that a crime stemming from what they view as an immoral, oppressive situation as well as from a deprived population is to be considered less of a crime? While, at first, this may appear as abhorrent, we do know of the Stockholm syndrome and other psychological situations which may cause normal people to adopt and justify criminal actions, even those done against themselves.  This, though, is a difficult proposition.  Nevertheless, I think that what is at work here is an aberrant form of Israeli post-feminism.  Some might even say that it’s a sick twist on the ‘she asked for it’ excuse.  In this instance, however, it is not  because she was provocatively dressed but her provocative act was in being a Jewess. 

LEFT-WING PROGRESSIVES have for years been promoting a theory that violence in Israeli society, and especially female-directed violence, has resonated from the military service of husbands and boyfriends.  It is assumed by the theory’s proponents that the soldiers are either frustrated or have become temporized by the force they must use against the civilian Arab population in the disputed territories.  This pent-up emotion is eventually released at home against children, mothers and girlfriends. The upsurge in post-Zionist popularity in academic circles, in my opinion, is insinuating itself into those very echelons of civil society activists that are well-educated and highly sensitized to all sorts of modern interpretations of political sociology.  Many of these groups, I suggest, may be locked in a pseudo-psychiatric cognitive disorder.  Their feminism is competing and contradicting their radical world-view of the Arab-Israel conflict. 

Whatever the reason for the silence of Israel’s women’s movement, it is a blemish on their feminist ideology and surely an immoral standpoint from a Zionist position.  At the very least, all women and men should be embarrassed and contrite.  An accounting is needed.

November 23, 2006

The Grounding of Judea and Samaria

Posted in Israel/Zionism, Judea & Samaria, revenant, Uncategorized, Yesha at 1:12 am by yisraelmedad

The grounding of Judea and Samaria

A few months after my family and I moved to Shiloh in 1981, I witnessed a microcosm of the land problem between Jews and Arabs. A section of land was to be put aside for security purposes and, as the legal procedure dictated, the mukhtars of nearby villages were informed and asked to make sure that any resident claiming private ownership rights should show up on a certain day to stake his claim.Sure enough, at the appointed hour, seven Arabs walked onto the area and then were asked to stand on what each claimed as his private plot. Within minutes a difficult situation developed when two villagers stood on the same fertile section, insisting that each owned it. A minute later and they were throwing stones at each other.

We, the residents of Shiloh, the IDF officers and legal officials all stood around amazed. In the end, with no documents, no tax receipts, no maps nor any other reliable proof of ownership, the land was confirmed as “state land” and assigned to its new use.

The new Peace Now report, “Breaking the Law in the West Bank,” besides making the front page of The New York Times, has generated local headlines as well. Claiming access to leaked “precise” information regarding the legal status of the land upon which Jewish revenant communities have been established, the group asserts that a “direct violation of Israeli law” has been done by “the state itself.”

This arguably illegal circumvention of the system, presumably by a Peace Now sympathizer within the civil service, was done to gain a few days advantage over the settlement movement. It’s obviously impossible to respond to the report in all its details with just a few hours notice.

It’s nevertheless not too difficult to point to several shortcomings and misleading information.

In the first instance, Hebron doesn’t appear as a “settlement.” Not at all. One could presume that the purchase of the Machpela Cave by Abraham some 3,000 years before a so-called Palestinian people came into being would indicate that perhaps Jews do have a place in the territory disputed between Jews and Arabs.

For what the Peace Now report does is, in sleight-of-word fashion, ignore the issue of state lands. The three sole classifications of “land area” in the report are private land, survey land and land owned by Jews.

UNTIL 1979, the State of Israel regularly appropriated private land. Karmiel was built this way and even the Ein Kerem neighborhood of Jerusalem benefited from such classifications.

Since, then, however, no Arab private land has been used for the Jewish communities. State (mirie) land is a different matter and, therefore, ignored in the report’s charts. To include it would injure the Peace Now case. The report, it appears, also resurrects the concept of ardh as-sahil – the lands of the fields – which were somehow termed as collectively owned.

As the League of Nations Mandate makes clear, in Article 6, “the Administration of Palestine… shall encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish Agency… close settlement by Jews on the land, including state lands and waste lands not acquired for public purposes.”

State lands make up the vast majority of the area in Judea and Samaria. Land disputes began with the Turkish Ottoman administration and continued throughout the British Mandate period. At the base of the Peace Now approach is the rehashing of many Arab propaganda claims, now being given legitimization by sympathetic Jews.

As Arabs have asserted, they supposedly owned 93 percent of the land which came to be known as the State of Israel, of which 43% was privately owned and the rest was identified at that time as the Sultan’s Land. Jews owned but 7%. This five-decades old myth is now being resurrected by Peace Now, which is largely funded by foreign sources.

THERE ARE other concerns, such as questionable data. For example, at Karnei Shomron, only 1.47% of the land is noted as Jewish-owned. In fact, almost all the area of the community is Jewish-owned and the same for the Etz Efraim community.

Peace Now doesn’t recognize, it would seem, Jewish land purchases. It would be interesting to learn whether the concern of Peace Now for private land extends to Jews who own property in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, either from pre-state days or afterward, and cannot realize the land’s potential due to Israeli government policy or Arab terrorism, such as at Havat Gilad.

There is also the matter of Arabs who have sold land but then claim otherwise in fear of extra-legal punishment – in other words, they don’t want to be murdered for selling land to Jews.

In addition, the pictures of the land supposedly owned by “West Bank” Jewish communities on the Peace Now Web site are misleading. There is a vast difference between the area displayed and the actual area zoned at various government ministries and civilian administration offices. The boundaries are arbitrary, usually delineated by patrol roads which do not reflect on the actual property definitions.

THERE IS, it need be admitted, a very fundamental chasm between Peace Now and the reality on the ground. Property disputes have always existed, especially since the first land registration –Tabu – law was promulgated from the days of the Turks only in 1858.

But we should not lose sight of the major issue and that is that this conflict is not about private property but one between two nations claiming the same land.

Even if 51% of the land in question was owned by Jews as private property, Peace Now would oppose a Jewish presence in the area. Shiloh, Hebron and Beit El are place names that simply do not resonate with these concessionists. Their goal is simple: to get the Jews out of the territory they want for a future Palestinian state. To this end, even a juggling of terms and data is permissible.

The writer, a volunteer spokesman for the Council of Jewish Communities in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip, comments on political, cultural and media affairs at