Have you ever wondered about what Arabs think of their Jewish anti-Israel fellow travellers? The video below might provide a hint. It's from one of the weekly demonstrations held by the radical left in the Jerusalem neigborhood of Shimon HaTzaddik (aka "Sheikh Jarrah")
In the video, several demonstrators can be seen getting arrested by the police. The overwhelming majority of the arrestees seem to be Israeli Jews. Meanwhile, starting at about 3:19 in the video, a woman in traditional Arab garb, looking on as these pro-Arab Jewish demonstrators are led away by the police, loudly shouts the following chant:
This translates into:
(It should be noted, by the way, that she did not say that the "Zionists" are the Arabs' dogs, or that the "Israelis" are their dogs -- she said that the "Jews" are their dogs.)
Now, this raises an interesting question: Who, exactly, are the Jews that this woman is describing as her "dogs"? Surely not the ones living in the building! While there is no question that the Arabs despise those Jews, it would be absurd to suggest that those particular Jews are playing the role of the Arabs' "dogs". Quite the opposite -- the Jews who live in Shimon HaTzaddik stubbornly refuse to obey the Arabs' will, and do not allow themselves to be intimidated into abandoning their heritage. Hardly what the Arabs would expect from their "dogs".
Clearly, the Arabs' "dogs" about whom the woman is chanting can only be the leftist Jewish demonstrators, who are being marched off by the police as she watches and grins. And very obedient "dogs" they are, dutifully and eagerly carrying out the desires of their Arab "masters", and basely seeking their masters' approval.
The woman seems quite animated and enthused about all the tricks that her "dogs" are performing for her. On their masters' command, they can sit, fetch, beg, play dead -- and even get arrested.
Now, since this video shows an Arab demonstrator in Shimon HaTzaddik shouting a disgusting antisemitic slur, you might assume that the video was publicized by a right-wing, pro-Jewish group, seeking to publicly expose the antisemitism and condescension of the Arab demonstrators at these events.
But then, you would be wrong: In fact, this video was publicized -- believe it or not -- by one of the leftist organizations that demonstrates regularly in Shimon HaTzaddik, as part of their effort to promote their anti-Israel agenda! (The organization, "Ta'ayush", which means "coexistence" -- is funded by -- guess who -- yes, the New Israel Fund.) Apparently, these leftist, anti-Israel Jews have become so accustomed and desensitized by their constant exposure to blatant antisemitism, that it didn't even occur to them that it might not be so smart to publicize a video in which one of their fellow Arab demonstrators declares that "the Jews are our dogs".
In fact, I would say that the most striking thing about this video is not the fact that an Arab said that Jews are dogs (which is hardly unusual), but the fact that the leftist organization that posted it saw nothing at all untoward or embarrassing about this.
Jews have always been particularly adept at convincing themselves that it's only raining while they're being spat upon. But as this video shows, groups like "Ta'ayush" have turned this pathological character flaw into a veritable art.
(For the record, I did a search to see whether "Ta'ayush" or any of the other leftist or Arab organizations who sponsor the demonstrations in Shimon HaTzaddik issued a condemnation of the "Jews are our dogs" chant. I failed to find any such condemnation.)
At 2:36 in the video, extremist anti-archaeology Rabbi Arik Ascherman of the grossly misnamed "Rabbis for Human Rights" (funded by -- surprise, surprise -- the New Israel Fund) can be seen urging all the demonstrators to come back the following week for more of the same.
One cannot help but wonder what the Jewish demonstrators -- especially the ones being led away in handcuffs -- thought as the loud Arab woman "thanked" them for their devotion and sacrifice toward the Palestinian cause, by proclaiming them to be the Arabs' "dogs" -- and in their very presence. Do you think any of them took offense at this vile affront to their people, and decided not to come back the following week?
I doubt it.
Hat-tip: ck of Jewlicious
Shimon HaTzaddik was a Tanna (Jewish sage of the Mishnaic period) and a Kohen Gadol (High Priest), who lived approximately 2300 years ago in Jerusalem. The neighborhood in question is named for Shimon HaTzaddik because his tomb is located there.
The neighborhood was built and settled by Jews in 1876. A community of poor Sefardic Jews lived there, until they were driven out during the Arab massacres of 1936, but they returned shortly afterward. In December 1947, the community came under attack once again by the Arabs, who drove them out.
Jordan did not allow the Jews to return to Shimon HaTzaddik after the war. The armistice agreement stipulated that Jordan would permit Jews to visit their holy sites, and the tomb of Shimon HaTzaddik was mentioned explicitly. However, Jordan did not abide by this agreement, and in fact shot dead any Jew who approached the border. (Similarly, Jordan did not allow Jews to come to the Western Wall, or to the ancient Mount of Olives cemetary, whose tombstones they desecrated and turned into latrines.) In addition, Jordan changed the name of the neighborhood to "Sheikh Jarrah", and populated the Jewish-owned homes with Arab settlers.
After Israel captured eastern Jerusalem during the 1967 war, the illegal Arab settlers were permitted to remain on the property, with the stipulation that they pay rent to the legal Sefardic Jewish owners. The Arabs refused to pay rent, however, and eventually the Jewish owners filed suit for the squatters' eviction. Several months ago, the Jews won their (rather open-and-shut) case in Israel's Supreme Court, and two illegal Arab settler families were ordered to vacate the premises. After they refused, they were evicted. Jewish families then returned to the Jewish-owned homes of Shimon HaTzaddik, for the first time since they were attacked and driven out in 1947.
From that point onward, radical Israeli leftists have been holding anti-Jewish demonstrations in "Sheikh Jarrah" every Friday. As a rule, the Israeli left purports to hold the "Rule of Law" as a fundamental value, and demands strict adherence to the rulings of Israel's Supreme Court, which they regard as the cornerstone of Israel's democracy. In spite of this, however, these same leftists are now stridently calling for the Supreme Court's ruling to be disregarded, and for the "Rule of Law" be abandoned: They are demanding that the State flout the Supreme Court's ruling by expelling the Jewish, legal owners of the Shimon HaTzaddik homes, and by allowing the illegal Arab squatters to return. Apparently, for Israel's leftists, the true value of "Rule of Law" and "Democracy" depends upon the ethnicity of whose ox is being gored...
Visiting Israel?
Learn to Shoot at Caliber-3 with top Israeli Anti-Terror Experts!
Wherever I am, my blog turns towards Eretz Yisrael טובה הארץ מאד מאד
I'm 100% on your side here, but I don't think this deserved a post. She said it one or two times and then the others shushed her. If you would tape what the 'settlers' say and do, there would be a lot worse to write about.
ReplyDeleteLook how proud those doggies are to be Jewish!!
ReplyDeleteYou should copy it before they take it down and cut it out.
ReplyDeleteYou've got to love all these protesters demanding their rights, a lawyer, etc., talking back to the cops, as they're led off. Let them try that in "Palestine."
ReplyDeleteShimon HTzaddik is just the flavor of the month but these protests can be easily moved to virtually any neighborhood in any Israeli city. See http://electme.blogspot.com/2010/03/we-all-live-in-shimon-hatzaddik.html to see why this fight is so important.
ReplyDeleteBut it is starting up everywhere else.
ReplyDeleteIt didn't get a lot of coverage, but there was a protest yesterday near Har Gilo ("Beit Jala").
And the army physically prevented the Arabs and Lefties from shutting down the Gush Etzion tunnel road yesterday.
By way of contrast, how do right-wing Jews react when confronted with someone like the Green Prince? With contempt or with respect?
ReplyDeleteSquare Peg: I think my blog posts on the subject of the Green Prince spoke for themselves.
ReplyDeleteKol HaKavod to him!
Of course, Ehud Barak probably dislikes him, because Barak stated that if HE were a Palestinian, he would be a terrorist.
...gosh.....amazing
ReplyDeleteExcellent post. I'm going to link to it and write some about it also.
ReplyDeleteThe gentleman who spoke at 2:20 is spot on as to the real issue at hand here. The question is why Jews are being allowed to reclaim their property in which Arabs settled after 1948, but Arabs are not allowed to reclaim their property in which Jews settled after 1948. It is the inconsistency that bothers him (and me).
ReplyDeleteYes, I realize that many of the Arab and leftist demonstrators actually believe that Jews should be categorically banned from living in certain parts of Eretz Yisrael. Their voice is drowning out the voice of those making the point that I mentioned above, and as I see it, it is undermining their argument. (As an example, this whole blog post focuses on the idiotic chant of one woman, and ignores the point that is actually worth discussing.)
I believe that Eretz Yisrael is the inheritance of Am Yisrael, and that no part of the land should be off limits to Jews. However, I also believe that the law should treat Jews and Arabs equally when it comes to private property ownership. There are many different possibilities as to treat property that was owned by one party since before 1948 and then inhabited by a different party after the war, but the same approach should be used consistently.
DC: There are major issues in your claim that "Jews are being allowed to reclaim their property in which Arabs settled after 1948, but Arabs are not allowed to reclaim their property in which Jews settled after 1948."
ReplyDeleteThere are many Arab homes in Jerusalem; old katamon, edge of rechavia, etc, in which rent goes to the "Apoptropus" the State's guardian of those properties.
The Arabs didn't settle the land in 1948.
ReplyDeleteJordan and the UN decided to (illegally) settle and colonize Arabs onto that Jewish owned (Arab occupied) land in 1955.
Hersh: If you would tape what the 'settlers' say and do, there would be a lot worse to write about.
ReplyDelete(1) That's a pretty strange thing to say, since the leftists try to do exactly that all the time. Usually the best they can come up with are videos like this, which actually makes the leftists themselves look worse than the "settlers" whom they're trying to demonize. Note that according to Ynet, citing the IDF Spokesman, the background of the confrontation in that video was an attempt by Arabs to bulldoze land on property that did not belong to them -- prompting the "settlers" to come out and defend their land. The bulldozer driver was subsequently arrested. Ironically, the Ta'ayush activist who posted the Sheikh Jarrah video with the "dog woman" also included this video in the very same blog post! He described the incident as "settler violence", and linked to the Ynet article. But apparently he's hoping that you don't follow the link, since the Ynet article actually says that the incident was instigated by the Arabs!
(2) More importantly: You seem to have completely missed the point of my post. The point was not "Arab utters antisemitic slur". It it were, I would have simply given a couple of links to MEMRI or Palestinian Media Watch, which have more videos of Arab antisemitism than one can imagine.
Please go back and read the post again. I explain my points there quite clearly, but I will reiterate them here once again:
(a) As the Arab woman's chant indicates, Arabs tend to have nothing but loathing and contempt for self-hating Jewish leftists, who foolishly imagine themselves to be the Arab's beloved allies and comrades-in-arms.
(b) The Jewish leftists themselves have become very adept at ignoring the constant Arab antisemitism that they're exposed to, and they engage in cognitive dissonance so as to pretend that the antisemitism doesn't exist. This way of thinking has become so imbued into their psyche that they fail to realize that others can easily see the blatant antisemitism that they are willfully ignoring.
SquarePeg613: By way of contrast, how do right-wing Jews react when confronted with someone like the Green Prince? With contempt or with respect?
ReplyDeleteSpeaking for myself, I can barely find the words to express the high level of respect I have for that incredible man. I am in utter awe of a person who was raised in the belly of the beast, in an environment supersaturated with barbaric, bloodthirsty hatred and evil -- and who still managed to hear the small, nearly drowned-out voice of his own humanity and conscience -- and even more, to heed that voice and to act upon it, risking his own life in the process.
I think he's a tzaddik.
D.C.: The gentleman who spoke at 2:20 is spot on as to the real issue at hand here.
ReplyDeleteIs he indeed? And exactly why is that gentleman's issue the "issue at hand", rather than the issue I discussed? Perhaps the true "issue at hand" should be Global Warming, or Obama's health care plan, or the flight of the Balloon Boy.
With all due respect, as the author of the post, I wrote about the issue that I wrote about, and it doesn't happen to be the one you're writing about. Futhermore, you don't even seem to have grasped what the issue was that I raised in the first place. Please see my response to Hersh, above.
D.C.: The question is why Jews are being allowed to reclaim their property in which Arabs settled after 1948, but Arabs are not allowed to reclaim their property in which Jews settled after 1948. It is the inconsistency that bothers him (and me).
Really now, is that the whole of the "inconsistency" that bothers you?
In 1947/8, thousands of Arabs left their homes in Palestine in order to make way for the invading Arab armies who promised to massacre the population of the fledgling Jewish state and "push the Jews into the sea". The vast majority of the Arabs who left did so voluntarily: They were not attacked in any way or expelled. At the same time, in the surrounding 22 Arab states, 800,000 Jews were viciously attacked and forcibly expelled from their countries -- where, they had been living for hundreds, or in some cases (like Iraq) thousands of years. Most were forced to leave behind all their property, not only their land.
So here's the "inconsistency" that bothers me: Why are people like the gentleman at 2:20 and yourself demanding that Israel submit to a "right of return" for all the Arabs who voluntarily left their property in 1947/8, while at the same time demanding no such "right of return" -- let alone financial compensation -- for the 800,000 Jews forcibly expelled at the same time? Why should Israel, who was forced by the Arabs to bear the financial and social cost of absorbing close to a million Jewish refugees expelled by the Arabs, also now be required to absorb all the Arab refugees on top of that -- while the Arab states remain steadfast in their refusal to provide a single penny for them?
To me, this is not just an "inconsistency". It is pure and utter hypocrisy, and indicative of a repulsive anti-Jewish double standard.
D.C.: There are many different possibilities as to treat property that was owned by one party since before 1948 and then inhabited by a different party after the war, but the same approach should be used consistently.
Indeed. So in that case, why are you not demanding that "the same approach should be used consistently" -- by Israel, and by the Arabs?
Stalin and Marx had a term for these young "revolutionaries" - useful idiots. And they play their part very nicely.
ReplyDelete-OC
Jameel and Lurker, my question about the Green Prince was rhetorical -- sorry that wasn't clear. Of course rightist Jews respect the Green Prince (who supports the Jewish cause). But this is in contrast to Arabs, who express contempt for Jews who support the Arab cause. I thought the contrast was noteworthy.
ReplyDeleteLurker,
ReplyDeleteI understand the main point that you were making with your post, and the point is valid and well taken.
However, since you posted the entire movie, and also included a footnote with your take on the controversy over the Shimon HaTzaddik neighborhood, I figured that the whole topic is open for discussion. My point was that if this is presented as just another case of people saying that Jews have no right to live east of the Green Line, then I have no sympathy for them, but given that there is another issue at play here with which I can identify, I think that issue is worth addressing.
Neither I nor the gentleman at 2:20 are demanding that Israel submit to a "right of return" for all the Arabs who left their property in 1947/8. We are simply asking that a consistent approach be applied to everybody. (When a Jew in Katamon doesn't pay rent to the apotropos, the property is not turned back over to the Arab owner.)
As I wrote, there are many possible approaches to the question of property whose original owners no longer had access to it after the War of Independence, which was then settled by those who did have access to it. Personally, I do not think that absorbing all of these Arabs and their descendants into Israel is the desirable solution.
I think that ideally, compensation should be given to those who have well documented property claims, and everybody should continue living where they are living.
I absolutely agree that Jewish refugees from Arab countries are entitled to compensation for property left behind as well. If Arab refugees would receive compensation and Jewish refugees would not, then yes, that inconsistency would absolutely bother me.
In fact, even though an Arab who owns land in Jerusalem cannot be blamed for the fact that the Iraqi government is not providing compensation for Jews who left Iraq in the 1950s, I can see a valid argument being made to defer compensating this Arab until a comprehensive regional peace deal addresses both issues.
I think that ideally, compensation should be given to those who have well documented property claims, and everybody should continue living where they are living.
ReplyDeleteI know you said "ideally", but that really means that just us Jews will follow it. Do you really, in your wildest dreams, feel that any muslim gov't. would ever compensate a Jew for this? Please don't say yes, as this would just invalidate your entire argument. You must present arguments that are within the sphere of reality.
Speak the truth, it really will set you free!
As the Arab woman's chant indicates, Arabs tend to have nothing but loathing and contempt for self-hating Jewish leftists, who foolishly imagine themselves to be the Arab's beloved allies and comrades-in-arms.
ReplyDeleteLurker, you've clearly never met any of the Arabs involved in peace and reconciliation. I'm surprised that just one recorded quote might be enough for you to prove this point for yourself. The "cognitive dissonance" you speak of is not that at all, rather an understanding of the fact that Palestinian culture has been imbued with a hatred of Jews/Israelis and nobody sane can expect that to change overnight, in view of the ongoing circumstances. But it is changing, slowly.
Leftists- with the exception of a very few wacko souls on the extreme- aren't desperate for Arab approval, they're doing what they do to appease their own consciences, as Israelis.
Like your first commenter said, you could find some equally troubling quotes in far right circles if you look hard enough (or just scroll down to any of Joe's posts)
Shabbat Shalom.
Could you please point out some relevant examples from "Joe's posts" including the context they were said in?
ReplyDelete