Ha’aretz: Israel offers aid to Turkey after 41 killed in earthquake
Yediot Aharonot: Turkey rejects Israel’s offer of post-quake aid
Apparently, Ankara thinks it’s preferable for innocent people to die than to accept help from Jews.
Ha’aretz: Israel offers aid to Turkey after 41 killed in earthquake
Yediot Aharonot: Turkey rejects Israel’s offer of post-quake aid
Apparently, Ankara thinks it’s preferable for innocent people to die than to accept help from Jews.
In a statement that reveals what’s really at stake in the ongoing controversy–and PA-stoked violence–over Israel adding some religious sites to a list of Jewish heritage sites, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan told the Saudi newspaper Al Wattan that al Aksa Mosque, the Cave of the Patriarchs and Rachel’s Tomb “were not and never will be Jewish sites, but Islamic sites.”
The al-Aksa Mosque is the black-domed mosque that sits at the southern end of the Temple Mount, which was not included (some Israelis have said, scandalously) on the list of national heritage sites.
As a reminder, Rachel was one of the Jewish people’s four matriarchs and lived several thousand years before the Islam was founded. Her grave, which is described in Genesis 35:19, has been a pilgrimage site for Jews (and, later, Christians) for thousands of years.
We told you before about the ongoing (low-burn) violence and media circus surrounding the Jewish state’s adding two major tourist and spiritual pilgrimage spots to a list of sites of “Jewish cultural heritage.”
Well, on Friday, worshipers at the Western Wall were stoned by rioters on top of the Temple Mount and 15 Israeli policemen and dozens of the rioters were injured in the resulting scuffles. (Don’t Islamic leaders mind their followers using the high ground of what is ostensibly a holy site to attempt to maim worshipers below?)
So let’s go over this again: Israel added two spots to a list that designates sites of historical and cultural relevance. And this caused Palestinians to riot? (Continuing the long tradition of the Palestinian Authority using violence or threats of it where other governments use diplomacy.) And countries ranging from Jordan, Egypt, and other Arab league states, to–predictably– the UN felt the need to condemn the list-making (while not condemning the violence fomented by the PA). And, of course, the U.S. hasn’t retracted the State Department’s comments on the matter, which were that the Israeli list was “provocative and unhelpful.”
So what are these sites anyway?
What exactly are these sites? One is Rachel’s Tomb, which sits on the edge of Bethelehem close to Jerusalem. The second is the Cave of the Patriarchs, which sits in the middle of Hebron. Just how “provocative” is it to add these to the list of sites of Jewish cultural import?
Rachel’s Tomb is identified in Genesis 35:19-20: “So Rachel died and was buried on the way to Ephrath (that is, Bethlehem). Over her tomb Jacob set up a pillar, and to this day that pillar marks Rachel’s tomb.” As the Bible relates, the site has been holy to Jews for thousands of years — more than a thousand years before Islam even came into existence! (And holy to Christians hundreds of years before…)
The case of the Cave of the Patriarchs is even more ironic: Genesis 23 records how Abraham insists on purchasing a burial cave near his home in Kiryat Arba (next to modern-day Hebron) from Ephron the Hittite, even when Ephron offers it to him as a gift:
Then Abraham rose from beside his dead wife and spoke to the Hittites. He said, “I am an alien and a stranger among you. Sell me some property for a burial site here so I can bury my dead.” (Genesis 23:3-4)
The Hittites offer him “the choicest of our tombs,” but Abraham asks them to “intercede with Ephron son of Zohar on my behalf so he will sell me the cave of Machpelah, which belongs to him and is at the end of his field. Ask him to sell it to me for the full price as a burial site among you.”
Ephron offers to give Abraham the cave for free: “No, my lord,” he said. “Listen to me; I give you the field, and I give you the cave that is in it. I give it to you in the presence of my people. Bury your dead.” (Genesis 23:11-12)
A recorded real estate transaction
But Abraham insists on paying for it:
Again Abraham bowed down before the people of the land and he said to Ephron in their hearing, “Listen to me, if you will. I will pay the price of the field. Accept it from me so I can bury my dead there.”
Ephron answered Abraham, “Listen to me, my lord; the land is worth four hundred shekels of silver, but what is that between me and you? Bury your dead.”
Abraham agreed to Ephron’s terms and weighed out for him the price he had named in the hearing of the Hittites: four hundred shekels of silver, according to the weight current among the merchants.
So Ephron’s field in Machpelah near Mamre—both the field and the cave in it, and all the trees within the borders of the field—was deeded to Abraham as his property in the presence of all the Hittites who had come to the gate of the city. Afterward Abraham buried his wife Sarah in the cave in the field of Machpelah near Mamre (which is at Hebron) in the land of Canaan. So the field and the cave in it were deeded to Abraham by the Hittites as a burial site. (Genesis 23:12-20)
The Jewish Sages comment that part of the reason that Abraham was so eager to pay for the burial cave was so that no one could ever dispute that fact that the Jewish people owned it. (The only other sites so recorded are the Tomb of Joseph, which is near the Biblical Shechem, now present-day Nablus, and the site of the Holy Temple, the Temple Mount – both of which Palestinians claim as being of dubious import to the Jewish people.)
Commentator Michael Freund says it best:
Sites such as Rachel’s Tomb and the Cave of the Patriarchs are part of the national and religious patrimony of the Jewish people, and we do not need anyone’s permission to renovate and maintain them. Our reverence for these sites and attachment to them predates Muhammad and precedes Jesus, and no one has the right to lecture us about where and how we choose to serve God.
In fact, this entire episode provides a revealing glimpse of just how transparently hypocritical our critics have become. After all, it was nearly 15 years ago, in the September 1995 Oslo II Accords, that the Palestinians themselves recognized Israel’s attachment to Rachel’s Tomb. In Article V, Annex I to the agreement, the Palestinians agreed that “the present situation and existing practices in the tomb shall be preserved,” meaning that they clearly consented to Israeli control and use of the site, which has never been anything other than a place of Jewish worship.
So for chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat to say last week that Israel’s move amounts to a “unilateral decision to make Palestinian sites in Hebron and Bethlehem part of Israel” is not only absurd, it is patently false.
And since the accords were signed on the White House lawn in front of the world, and were formally witnessed by representatives of both the US administration and the European Union, one would expect them to see right through the Palestinians’ shenanigans.
Worse yet, by playing along with the feigned outrage of the Palestinian leadership, the international community is merely giving credence to their boorish denial of the Jewish essence of these sites.
You don’t have to be a Biblical scholar or a learned archeologist to recognize the long-standing and incontestably Jewish nature of Rachel’s Tomb and the Cave of the Patriarchs. Arguing otherwise is akin to asserting that the earth is flat, Elvis is still alive and the moon is made of cheese, and that is how the Palestinian claims should be viewed.
Is it offensive to call Jesus’ birthplace a Christian site?
Can the world imagine a case in which Israel would list the Church of the Manger (Jesus’ birthplace) in Bethlehem and Jesus’ family home in Nazareth as sites of historical importance to Christians — and the Palestinians would protest?
Unfortunately, I think we can. But that doesn’t make it any more crazy.
London’s Guardian rails against the attempt to blot out Jewish history via the fracas over the “Jewish historical sites”:
Palestinian protests against the restoration of Jewish heritage sites are part of a campaign of delegitimization against Israel. The inclusion in Israel’s heritage restoration project of two of the most sacred Jewish sites, the Cave of the Patriarchs and Rachel’s Tomb, has sparked riots and led supposedly moderate Palestinian leaders to burst forth with disturbingly inflammatory rhetoric, with the U.S. State Department and the UN secretary general both reprimanding Israel for the decision as well.
This latest uproar is another example of the general Palestinian unwillingness to accept and acknowledge the deep-seated historical roots of the Jewish people in the region. The Cave of the Patriarchs is mentioned in the Bible and has been a focus of Jewish pilgrimage for more than 3,000 years as the burial place of the people’s three forefathers. The refurbishment of two shrines central to Jewish history in no way threatens Palestinian political ambitions. What it does do is present an obstacle to those who wish to erase Jewish history in the region.
Last week, we told you how a troika of terror heads–Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Hezbollah head Sheik Hassan Nasrallah–had a little dinner party.
Although some Western powers, including the U.S., continue a policy of engagement with Syria (Undersecretary of State William Burns visited Damascus just a week before the dinner party and the U.S. is sending its first new ambassador in five years), ties between Assad and Hezbollah remain strong. According to the Washington Institute, since the 2006 war with Israel, Hizbullah has procured an estimated 40,000 rockets and – with Syria’s help – reportedly improved the quality of its arsenal.
Syria also may have provided the Russian-made shoulder-fired Igla antiaircraft system, which is capable of downing Israeli F-16s.
Ha’aretz writer Yoel Marcus wrote that the well-publicized banquet was “certainly in Iran’s interest, but it is unclear whether it is in Syria’s.” After all, the Syrian regime is among those Iran would like to bring down: Not only is Assad not a Shi’ite Muslim like the Iranian mullahs, but he and his government are secular — something the Iranian regime wants to stomp out.
Marcus continues, showing just how “scary” Israelis find the troika (summary: not very):
As for Ahmadinejad, he has a big mouth – he does not understand that the more he threatens us with a second Holocaust, the more he spurs Israel to build greater means of deterrence and increases its willingness to use them. The reasoning, as Ronen Bergman wrote last week in Yediot Ahronot, which won the day when former Prime Minister Menachem Begin ordered the bombing of the Iraqi reactor and by which the Syrian reactor was bombed, is that a country calling for the destruction of Israel must not be given the means to do so. Our deterrence is based on force and the willingness to use it in the face of a threat to our survival.
Israel’s reputation is built on deterrence. Iran, full of itself, could presume that we will not act or we will not be allowed to act. But good intelligence on their part can depend on precedents where we did act in similar circumstances.
Wouldn’t you have loved to be a fly on the wall at a formal banquet hosted by Syrian dictator Bashar Assad whose guest list included Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hezbollah head Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, AFP reports.
It was a rare public outing for Nasrallah, who keeps his schedule private due to fears that he’s on the list of terror leaders Israel is looking to assassinate. According to AFP, he “has seldom left his Lebanese stronghold and has made few public appearances.”:
With an Israeli death threat hanging over him, the Hezbollah chief has even avoided religious or political gatherings in Lebanon, and his televised speeches have been taped or broadcast from secret locations.
Apparently, though, the chance to discuss “the latest developments in the region, and Zionist threats against Lebanon and Syria” was enough to lure him out of his hiding place.
Iran and Syria are the main backers of Hezbollah, the only militia that has kept its military arsenal since the end of Lebanon’s 1975-1990 civil war.
Assad and Ahmadinejad signed a visa-scrapping accord in Damascus on Thursday, signaling even closer ties and brushing aside US efforts to drive a wedge between the two allies.
Despite being one of the hot-button issues that consistently derails “peace talks,” the question of Palestinian refugees has rarely been substantively explored in the media. The conventional wisdom is that, like everything else (including global warming), it’s Israel’s fault.
In actuality, however, as shown in a recent important piece published in London’s Independent, the refugee problem not only isn’t due to Israeli actions, but is the result of a bizarre combination of Arab leaders’ intransigence and the UN’s strange choice to treat this conflict in a manner different than any other in its history.
Since 1948, Arab governments have refused to grant citizenship to stateless Palestinians and forced them to remain refugees in squalid camps as a means of applying pressure to Israel. The Independent decries Arab leaders’ “cynical but time-honoured practice” of bemoaning the Palestinians’ fate while refusing to do anything to end their legal limbo.
Meanwhile, the UN’s High Committee on Refugees helps out by taking a position unheard of with respect to any other conflict: Granting refugee status to the children, grandchildren and even great-grandchildren of the original refugees — with no limit on the generations that can obtain that status. Hence, the numbers of “official refugees” has climbed from 711,000 to 4.6 million, despite the fact that people who were around in for the 1948 Israeli war of independence has obviously gone down.
This is despite the fact that the UN’s own rules on refugees states that the relevant countries will ”make every effort to expedite naturalization proceedings” – the opposite of what happened to the Palestinians in every Arab country except Jordan.
Had Arab leaders agreed to grant them citizenship–as occurred in every similar conflict in modern history, such as India and Pakistan exchanging populations–there wouldn’t be a refugee issue in the first place. (And this is without mentioning that when–at the same time–some 850,000 Jews were unceremoniously expelled from the Arab countries they’d lived in for centuries, the fledgling Jewish State absorbed them.)
Thanks to this, millions of Palestinians live in squalid refugee camps–not because of any decision the Israelis made but because it’s better for the Arab leaders, who can use Israel as a convenient means to distract from their own failings: “Don’t question why your country is a mess — get mad at the Jews!”
Just in the last several years:
Some 250,000 Palestinians were chased out of Kuwait and other Gulf States to punish the Palestinian political leadership for supporting Saddam Hussein. Tens of thousands of Palestinian residents of Iraq were similarly dispossessed after the second Gulf war. In 2001, Palestinians in Lebanon were stripped of the right to own property, or to pass on the property that they already owned to their children – and banned from working as doctors, lawyers, pharmacists or in 20 other professions. Even the Palestinian refugee community in Jordan, historically the most welcoming Arab state, has reason to feel insecure in the face of official threats to revoke their citizenship.
How odd that the UN doesn’t bother appointing commissions to look into this.