Tag Archives: Israel

The Turkish Chickpea: Recep “Hummus” Erdogan

Posted on by
3

“Israel is dropping 400 tons of bombs on our brothers, not chickpeas…to agree with brutality is brutality itself,” said the prime minister.

The Turkish Prime Minister has come to the side of Gaza again, seemingly with a bowl of hummus.

Just over one year after Erdogan extracted an apology from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for the killing of nine “activists” on the Mavi Marmara, Erdogan is pointing an accusing finger at the victim of aggression again.

A satire of the Netanyahu apology to Erdogan is below. Perhaps Erdogan should leave it in his favorites folder.

 

 

 

Source:

http://www.jpost.com/Operation-Protective-Edge/Erdogan-accuses-Israel-of-using-terrorism-in-its-operations-against-Hamas-in-Gaza-362759

 

Opinion: Remove the Causefire before a Ceasefire

Posted on by
9

Egypt, one of two Israeli allies in the Arab world, has suggested a ceasefire in the current hostilities between Israel and the Palestinians in Gaza. US President Obama was encouraged about the development and said: “We are encouraged that Egypt has made a proposal to accomplish this goal that we hope can restore the calm that we are seeking.”

A ceasefire at this time would be a mistake.

Israel has already had two engagements in Gaza since it left the area in 2005: Operation Cast Lead in 2008 and Operation Pillar of Defense in 2012. Both of those ceasefires failed to grant any long-term peace to Israeli citizens because they did not address the fundamental cause of the Hamas rocket fire.

Hamas wants Israel destroyed. All ceasefires that Hamas agrees to are simply hiatuses between battles.

There are two basic actions that must occur that world bodies can help facilitate that will ensure a long-term cessation of hostilities:

  1. the destruction of all missiles in Gaza;
  2. the dismantling of Hamas

Removing and Destroying all Missiles in Gaza

Israeli Prime Minster Benjamin Netanyahu and Acting Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas spent much of the past year in a fruitless exercise of “Peace Negotiations” which had no chance of success. Much of the reason that talks were D.O.A. when they began, was because Abbas had no control (and still has no control) of Gaza. For Netanyahu, negotiating with a party who could not deliver the peace he sought was a fool’s errand – as the world witnessed.

All of the two-state peace negotiations over the years discussed a demilitarized Palestinian state. The action of removing all of the missiles now, would advance a major goal (and remove a major stumbling block) in moving towards a two-state solution. The removal itself would serve as the impetus for bringing the parties back to negotiations.

President Obama recently touted his accomplishment in ridding Syria of all chemical weapons in a peaceful manner. He said: “The fact that we didn’t have to fire a missile to get that accomplished is not a failure to uphold international norms, it’s a success.” Now would be the ideal time to follow that format and identify, remove and destroy all of the missiles in Gaza. It would save the people of Gaza and the soldiers in the Israeli Defense Forces many casualties.

Dismantling Hamas

Hamas is not simply a political party. It is a rabidly anti-Semitic terrorist organization. It should not be allowed to exist in its current form under any circumstances. It cannot solely give up its weapons nor can it merely modify its charter. The entire entity is a cancer and must be dismantled.

The Hamas charter is beyond an obstacle to peace; it is an instrument of war. While former President Jimmy Carter may have tried to overlook a passing phrase of animosity towards Israel and Jews, the basic fact is that the founding document is an unambiguous call to kill Jews and to destroy the Jewish State again and again.

As echoed by its leaders, the essence of the Hamas philosophy is to kill Jews and destroy Israel. No peace will ever come between the Palestinians and Israel as long as the party exists. The time is now for all world bodies to effectively terminate this vile entity.

Sources:

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/obama-welcomes-egypt-s/1264372.html

http://time.com/75043/obama-syria-chemical-weapons-removed/

http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/4300.htm

 

Around the Country in 80 Miles

Posted on by
1

In 1873, the science fiction writer Jules Verne imagined a world where a person could circumnavigate the globe in just 80 days. He understood that technology had developed to a point where the assumed correlation between distance and time was no longer part of the here and now.

In 2014, the civil war in Israel-Palestine entered its 78th year. The Arab riots that began in 1936 that sought an end to Jewish immigration, neighbors and nation, entered a new stage. The Arabs’ means of attempting to enforce their xenophobic demand moved from rocks to rockets; from stabbings to missiles.

The Palestinians have launched crude rockets against Israeli towns since 2006. While the Qassam rockets were not very accurate and did not have a particularly long range, Arab terrorists rejoiced as they fired thousands of these rockets at Israeli cities and towns.

In 2006, 2007 and 2008 Arabs from Gaza fired 1777, 2807 and 3716 rockets into Israel, killing 34 people and injuring over 1500. In retaliation, Israel launched Operation Cast Lead in December 2008 to stop the rocket fire. “Relative” calm was restored with “only” 858 and 365 rockets launched against Israel in 2009 and 2010, respectively. But the attacks ramped up again in the following years with 680 and 2273 rockets against Israel in 2011 and 2012. In response, in November 2012, Israel needed to launch Operation Pillar of Defense to protect its citizens. In 2013, rocket fired dropped 95%.

Most of the rockets were the rudimentary Gazan-made Qassam rockets. In recent years, both Syria and Iran have supplied Hamas, which runs Gaza, more sophisticated and longer-range weaponry. The Iranian-made Fajr-5 has a range up to 47 miles and the recent Gazan arrival of the Syria-made M-302s have a range of 93 miles. In just the past few days, the Palestinians have used these new rockets to fire as far north as Haifa, a city of 260,000 about 80 miles north of the Gaza Strip.

Israel’s action to stop the latest rocket fire, Operation Protective Edge, uses advanced technology to both destroy the Palestinians’ ability to fire missiles, and to intercept and destroy incoming missiles with its Iron Dome defense system. In the skies, technology’s reach and technology’s shield clash, while on the ground, Israel considers whether to deploy troops to root out the threat.

While technology has enabled Arab terrorists to claw further into the clouds, it has done nothing to help them modify their positions. Their hatred, xenophobia and goals remain fixed.

As a practical matter, the advance of technology and time without progress towards peace leads to a few conclusion for Israelis:

  1. Control of Borders is Essential. The Gaza blockade has minimized the influx of advanced weaponry.  Israel must similarly always enforce border control over Judea & Samaria.  This new Palestinian weaponry in both J&S and Gaza could cover the entire country.
  2. Intelligence in addition to technology.  While technology is essential to protect citizens, intelligence enables it to be used effectively with reduced collateral damage.
  3. Hamas must be dismantled. No terrorist entity may be permitted to exist, let alone participate in elections and govern.  Destructive ideology must be destroyed.

Today, just as in 1873, technology can be used to arrive at places once considered out-of-reach, and one can get there faster than ever imagined.  However, it cannot always modify primitive human emotions and reach places within our psyches.  Until a people can conquer primeval aggression, it cannot be allowed to control advanced technologies.

Source:

WSJ: http://online.wsj.com/articles/israel-and-palestinian-militants-exchange-fire-as-confrontation-continues-1404908708

 

US Hypocrisy – “Reasonableness and Restraint”

Posted on by
12

Thirteen years ago, on 9/11/01, 2,977 innocent civilians were murdered in the United States by terrorists armed with nothing more than pilot licenses. Since that time, the US has deployed over 1 million troops and waged two wars in countries thousands of miles from its shores. Over 100,000 Iraqi civilians were estimated to have been killed in the US-led war in Iraq, over 30 times the number of civilians killed on 9/11.

President Obama was critical of that war and pulled the US out of Iraq as he thought the US went to war with the wrong enemy. But when it came to Afghanistan, he engaged fully.

By the time Obama became president in 2009, an estimated 8,500 civilians had been killed in Afghanistan. Under his watch, from January 2009 until June 30, 2014, an additional 15,487 civilians were murdered, including 1,995 children. These totals were a fraction of the number of militants killed over those years.

Why has the Obama administration waged a war for so long? Why has it continued to fight – even though it knows of the terrible collateral damage – years after Osama bin Laden was killed?

The US continues to fight because the enemy still exists and intends to do harm.

President Obama was clear that the destruction of the terrorist infrastructure was one of the goals of his war. In November 2012 he said: “Thanks to sacrifice and service of our brave men and women in uniform, the war in Iraq is over, the war in Afghanistan is winding down, al Qaeda has been decimated, Osama bin Laden is dead.”

Obama clearly articulated his war goals: to get the US out of a war which did not have an enemy threat; destroy the enemy (al Qaeda); and take revenge on the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks.

However, Obama seemingly does not feel that such priorities relate to Israel. For him, the goal in the region is limited to one thing – stability (which is laughable considering the total instability of Syria, Iraq, Egypt…). Israel, in his mind, is strong enough to take a few murdered teenagers and qassam rockets. Israel’s stability is secondary to that of the region generally.

Witness Secretary of State John Kerry’s prepared remarks towards Israel after the murder of three Israeli teenagers coming home from school: “the perpetrators must be brought to justice. This is a time for all to work towards that goal without destabilizing the situation.”

Obama himself added: “At this dangerous moment, all parties must protect the innocent and act with reasonableness and restraint, not vengeance and retribution,”

America has been fighting with “vengeance and retribution” for 13 years (and counting), even when the collateral damage meant thousands of civilians murdered. Obama is actively seeking to defeat an enemy, even one thousands of miles away, that poses no existential threat to the USA.

So, how can Obama chide Israel, which has an enemy on its borders that is sworn to the country’s destruction, which fires missiles that can attack 80% of the population? How can he not understand Israel’s need to “decimate” its enemy?

The appropriate “reasonableness and restraint” may be limited to a polite response from the civilized world to Obama’s comment, while Israel actively engages Hamas and protects its citizens.

Sources:

http://www.unama.unmissions.org/Portals/UNAMA/human%20rights/PoC-Civilian-Casualties-report-2007.pdf

http://unama.unmissions.org/Portals/UNAMA/human%20rights/Protection%20of%20Civilian%202009%20report%20English.pdf

http://unama.unmissions.org/Portals/UNAMA/Documents/UNAMA%20POC%202011%20Report_Final_Feb%202012.pdf

http://unama.unmissions.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=K0B5RL2XYcU%3D

http://www.unama.unmissions.org/Default.aspx?tabid=12254&ctl=Details&mid=15756&ItemID=37692&language=en-US

http://unama.unmissions.org/Default.aspx?tabid=12254&ctl=Details&mid=15756&ItemID=38134&language=en-US

Differentiating Hamas

Posted on by
11

It is with confusion that I watch the press try to present different sides of Hamas.  While the press may say that some Hamas members belong to the “political wing” and others the “military wing”, the simple fact is that Hamas is:

  1. a terrorist group;
  2. the most anti-Semitic ruling party in the world;
  3. a group of Holocaust deniers;
  4. committed to destroying ALL of Israel;
  5. the leading democratically elected party (winning 58% of the Palestinian parliament in their last election in 2006)

To put it another way, splicing Hamas is like differentiating between the Nazi Party, the SS and the Gestapo.  While there were differences in their roles, each was evil and guilty of genocide.

Do not kid yourselves. Hitler was democratically elected and a politician too.

Political music video on Hamas Theme Song (CSNY): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kF2fcaSPB6M

Every Picture Tells a Story, the Bibi Monster

Posted on by
24

The “Every Picture” series highlights the power of photographs in the media and reviews the impact of size, color and placement of pictures along with their captions. The first installment reviewed how the New York Times painted a picture of Arab grief and suffering while portraying Israelis in a more aggressive and less sympathetic manner in a series of articles from June 30 to July 3 about the murder of three Israeli teens and a Palestinian teenager. If that article had a subtitle, it could have been “Palestinians trump Israelis”. You might think this second article in the series could be entitled: “Palestinians trump the World”, but the reality is much more subtle.

On July 7, 2014 the New York Times posted, on the top of its front page, a large color photograph of a Palestinian youth who was injured during riots against Israeli police. The bruised teenager was deemed to be a bigger story than victims of mass murders in other countries on a particularly violent day in Africa and the Middle East:

20140707_082918

On page A4, the paper posted a large black and white photograph and article about  20 people who had their throats slashed in Kenya;


On page A7, the NYT posted a black and white photograph of soldiers and militiamen in Uganda where 50 people were killed in a battle between security forces and a tribal militia;

On the bottom of that same page, a short article (with no associated picture) described how 35 to 40 people were killed in Yemen in a fight between “Shiite rebels and tribesmen associated with the government.”

20140707_08293720140707_08294820140707_083002
Pictures of mass murders buried in the NYT pages

While over 100 people were slaughtered in the region, the Times thought that a bruised youth was more significant than any and all of those atrocities. Could that have been because the teenager was a Palestinian Arab? That wouldn’t be logical as the Yemenis are Arab too. Could it be because the injured boy was a Muslim? That also would not make sense since al-Shabab is the Islamist terror group in Kenya that has been killing dozens of people every week, and both parties in the slaughter in Yemen are Muslim.

The difference in the dynamic of these stories lies in the counter-party – Israel – as evidenced by the other pictures in the news story. In a small picture on the (extreme right) side of the cover page, and then again in a color photograph on page A5, are close up pictures of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu. Netanyahu is possibly the only world leader who is more despised by the NYT editorial board than former US President George W. Bush. The Times often uses pictures of Netanyahu alongside stories of Israeli aggression. It does this uniquely and consistently for Bibi.

By means of comparison, imagine an article about US drones killing civilians in Afghanistan, and then a picture alongside of it of US President Barack Obama. It doesn’t happen in the NYT or liberal media outlets. You probably wouldn’t even see a picture of injured people or mourning mothers in US papers. That is because they do not want to sketch a killer in Obama’s image.

As examples, here are two NYT articles that are critical of US policy of drone attacks – but include no pictures (let alone two!) of Obama. These are attacks that Obama ordered, (compared to a general situation in Israel which Netanyahu was not directly involved). Needless to say, the articles that simply report on the use of drones have no pictures of the US Commander-in-Chief.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/22/world/asia/civilian-deaths-in-drone-strikes-cited-in-report.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/26/world/use-of-drones-for-killings-risks-a-war-without-end-panel-concludes-in-report.html

In another article that is completely about Obama’s war on terrorism, the picture puts Obama so far in the background you would think he was accidentally caught in the photo.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=all

However, the New York Times and various liberal publications like to paint Bibi and Israel as attackers. They use his image alongside articles which describe attacks and counter-attacks. He has been made into a caricature of war; a cartoon of a blood libel.

Every picture tells a story. It is time to ask what the artist had in mind.

The Subtle Discoloration of History: Shuafat

Posted on by
9

Reader’s often assume that the more reputable news organization do research and perform fact-checks before posting articles. However, they do not often consider the word choices or juxtapositions of those facts relayed in a story. The truths and half-truths can combine to distort reality. This becomes exacerbated when quotes from biased witnesses are included in the article.

Witness the July 6, 2014 New York Times article on page 8 describing the terrible abduction and murder of an Arab teenager as a case in point. The second paragraph of the story: “…Mohammed was at the recreation center named for his respected, expansive Palestinian family in the ancient section of the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Shuafat.” I will avoid commenting on the “respected” background of the Abu Khdeir family who “started farming [in Israel] 250 years ago” as I do not know them (and why should I doubt Jodi Rudoren?). Consider the proximity in one sentence of the words “Palestinian”, “ancient”, “East Jerusalem” and “Shuafat”. A reader could naturally conclude that Palestinian Arabs have long been living in the ancient Palestinian city of East Jerusalem. A quote from a member of the family in the article adds that “All Shuafat is in danger, all the settlers are around us. It’s like a monster – they want to eat us.” could lead a reader to conclude that Jews are recent “settlers” to the area and harass Arabs.

All of those conclusions would be false.

Shuafat is indeed thought to be an ancient site. Archeological excavations reveal Roman encampments and Jewish homes and mikvahs from 2000 years ago. However, neither Shuafat, nor the rest of Israel, have ancient Arab finds as Arabs did not come to the region en masse until the Muslim invasion in the 7th century.

Shuafat remained a small village until 1967 when Jordan (together with Palestinian Arabs who were granted Jordanian citizenship) attacked Israel in the Six Day War. Israel took control of the “West Bank” and extended the boundaries of Jerusalem to include Shuafat and other villages around the city. In 1980, Israel declared all of Jerusalem to be its united capital.

For parties that do not recognize Israel’s annexation of the eastern part of Jerusalem, it would logically extend that those same people would not recognize Israel’s extension of Jerusalem’s boundaries. Shuafat is either a neighborhood in Jerusalem, Israel (if one accepts Israel’s position) OR it is a village in the West Bank (if one doesn’t).

Regarding the comment of “[Jewish] settlers”- there are many more new Muslims that moved to Jerusalem than there are new Jewish residents. Since 1967, when Israel reunified the city, until 2012, the Jewish population grew by 2.6 times while the Arab population grew by 4.4 times. This huge difference comes despite the higher (4.3) birth rate for Jewish women in Jerusalem than for Arab women (3.6).

Lastly, Shuafat and “East Jerusalem” are integral parts of Jerusalem. Just below 40% of the eastern part of Jerusalem which was annexed in 1967 is Jewish. Arabs and Jews work and live together in the city (compared to some Israeli cities like Umm al-Fahm that are 99% Arab). Shuafat sits just south of the second largest neighborhood in Jerusalem, Pisgat Ze’ev (pop. 37,000). The new Jerusalem light rail line includes two stops in Shuafat, one of the only neighborhoods with two stops.

A fact-checked sentence should have read:

“…in the ancient Jewish section of the predominantly Arab East Jerusalem neighborhood of Shuafat in Jerusalem…”.

Just saying…

“East Jerusalem” – the 0.5% Molehill

Posted on by
26

The Middle East is not short on drama. Things in the region are magnified by perfect faith and distorted by perceived foresight. The people in the land are The People of The Land. Their collective perspective has long ago been blurred by reading texts about ethereal matters too closely.

To wit, Arabs have stated a quest for a new country with a capital city they call “East Jerusalem”. The small matter that seems to escape them is that it doesn’t exist.

Jerusalem was founded 4000 years ago. In the city’s turbulent history, it reached religious heights and was vanquished many times. Still, in all but 19 of those 4000 years, it remained a single united city.

In 1947, the United Nations considered expanding the borders of the city and put forth a plan to create a “Holy Basin” which was to include Greater Jerusalem and Greater Bethlehem. The proposed entity would have housed the significant religious sites of the three monotheistic religions and been under international control. The Arabs rejected the proposal and five Arab armies attacked the new State of Israel in 1948 with the stated objective of destroying the country completely.

At the end of that war, the Jordanians seized and unilaterally annexed the eastern part of the Jerusalem and renamed it “East Jerusalem”. The joyful Jordanians gave the Palestinian Arabs Jordanian citizenship, but evicted all Jews from their “East Jerusalem”.

So the spiritual center of Judaism was stolen by the Jordanians. From 1949 to 1967, (0.5% of the city’s existence), the Jordanians banned Jews from the eastern part of Jerusalem.

In 1967, the Jordanians (which included Arabs from Palestine who were granted Jordanian citizenship) attacked Israel again, and lost the eastern half of the city. Israel dismantled the barbed wire that split the city and reunited Jerusalem. “East Jerusalem” existed no more.

In 1995, in an effort to establish peace in the region, Israel handed control of Bethlehem to the Palestinian Authority, thereby giving half of the “Holy Basin” to the Arabs.  The “Holy Basin” sat divided, but not Jerusalem.

Remarkably, despite the short dark blip in history 46 years ago, and current control of Bethlehem, the Arabs contend that East Jerusalem still exists and always existed. Should it surprise anyone that when it comes to Jerusalem, people would try to turn a 0.5% molehill into owning the Temple Mount?

The history of united + divided Jerusalem

The history of united + divided Jerusalem

Every Picture Tells a Story, Don’t It?

Posted on by
24

The media – whether print or digital – are experts at what they do. They know what articles make people react. They know what motivates people to buy their newspapers and watch their news programs. They know how to drive tweets and retweets.

I therefore observe and review how they craft their craft; how they shape the stories they sell.

Photographs – even in papers that art the printed word – are the most engaging. They are no longer limited to tiny and grainy black & whites of decades ago; they are now displayed in vivid colors that convey a story and an emotion. The choice of which pictures to present, as well as the how and where, essentially prioritizes the news for the reader. For example, a color photograph on the top of the front page with an associated article in the far right column is the most news-worthy story of the day. If a photograph is small and in black & white in the back of the paper, alongside advertisements and other news stories, it would transmit the passing interest in the event.

With such understanding, I reviewed the New York Times coverage of the kidnapping and killing of three Israeli teenagers, and the killing of Arab children in the subsequent days.

 

On June 30, the NYT ran a cover story on the bottom of the page, including two color photographs, about two mothers of victims – one Arab woman from the West Bank and another Jewish woman. The caption stated that the Arab woman’s son was “killed by Israeli soldiers” (one would need to read the article to learn that he was pelting the soldiers with rocks and bricks). The caption added that the Jewish woman’s son was “missing”. The article continued on page A9, with black and white pictures of equal size showing each woman together with friends praying. The captions again repeated that the Arab boy “was killed by Israeli soldiers”, and that the Jewish boy “was abducted” with other boys.

On July 1, the NYT ran a cover story that the Israeli teens were found dead. The story ran on the left hand (secondary) column of the front page and had no picture. The paper did, however, include several color photographs in the middle of the paper, on page A8, of a prayer vigil, pictures of the three boys, and army jeeps near the discovery site of the boys. The caption reads that their bodies “were found”.

On July 2, the NYT did not have any cover stories about the killings of the Israeli boys. On page A4, it posted some black and white photographs of friends mourning at the gravesite of one of the murdered teenagers. The caption read that the boys were “found dead”. The associated article ran from page A4 and continued on page A20.

On July 3, the NYT posted a large color photograph on the top of the page of Arab women mourning and an associated right-hand column about the killing of an Arab boy (the trifecta – large color photo on top of page 1 and associated right-hand article). The caption said her “son Mohammed was found dead” included a quote from the mother of the dead boy “We don’t feel safe”. The cover article continued on page A8 with three additional color photographs of: Palestinian men clashing with Israeli police; Israeli police searching the crime scene; and the dead boy. The captions state that there was a “kidnapping and killing of a Palestinian teenager”.

Over these four days, if one were to just get news from pictures and their captions, what would a reader take away?

From the captions, it would appear that everything that happened to the three Jewish teenagers was passive. The boys were “missing” and their bodies “were found”. There was no mention of kidnapping or killing, nor any attribution of who was the aggressor.

Contrast that to the captions of the Arab boys who were “killed by Israeli soldiers” and another that stated there was a “kidnapping and killing of a Palestinian teenager”. The aggression described against the Arab victims was underscored by the cover article quote from an Arab woman that “We don’t feel safe”. Pictures and captions showed Israeli soldiers and police, but shared no sentiment of the Jewish women.

Further, the large color pictures on the top of the page with the Arab women mourning was the only time that the NYT gave the stories in the region prominence. The only time we saw a cover picture (on the bottom of page) related to the Jewish victims was when one of the mothers appeared alongside a grieving Arab woman in a story meant to convey balance in grief. In fact, the underlying message was not balance: the pictures and captions made clear that the Arab woman was a victim of Israeli aggression trying to find missing teens, while the Jewish woman still had hope that her “missing” son (not kidnapped) would reappear.

What does the NYT positioning of greater emphasis on Arab suffering convey to a reader? How do the pictures of Israeli soldiers in armored vehicles and border police with machine guns compare with Palestinians throwing rocks? Were the pictures and captions deliberately shaping a larger story than the immediate events?

Were people more likely to buy the paper or talk about it with friends? Does the Times believe that more readers sympathize with Arabs than Israelis? Does the NYT editorial board believe that Israelis are the aggressors and Palestinians the victims, even when this entire episode began with the abduction and murder of three Jewish teenagers on their way home from school?

June 30. cover June 30. A9 July 1. cover July 1. A8 July 2. cover July 2. A4 July 3. cover July 3. A8What do you think?

In Israel, Who’s New? Everybody.

Posted on by
9

Many items in the Middle East are subject to positioning and posturing.   People point to paragraphs in the papers and argue whether the piece has an Israeli or Palestinian perspective. Rarely does the news provide analysis or education for its readers. Instead, it rehashes the political leanings of its editorial board and applies it to the story of the day. How often does a reader put down a paper and say: “Who knew?”

Here is a review of “Who’s New” and the misrepresentation of the facts in the media. Note that statistics, while often easily distorted, can still say a lot. In an area like the Middle East, it is amazing that they are rarely discussed.

A common narrative (which has merit) is that Jews came to Israel en masse after the English took control of the entire region of Palestine (which includes today’s Jordan). That statement, however, is incomplete.

  1. Jews have always lived in Palestine
  2. Jews moved to Palestine in great numbers under the Ottomans
  3. Muslims did not move to Palestine under the Ottomans

In 1800, there were approximately 7,000 Jews in the region of Palestine. It is not a big number, and they accounted for about 3% of the population at that time.

Between 1800 and 1890, the population of Jews jumped to 57,000, then accounting for 8% of the population. Their numbers continued to grow under the Ottomans, with an estimated 94,000 Jews in 1914, or 14% of the population.

The population of Muslims and Christians during these time intervals barely moved. The Muslim population grew 113% over those 114 years, or a compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) of 0.7%. That is roughly the rate of natural growth (births minus deaths) which suggests that NO Muslims moved to Palestine for 114 years of Ottoman rule.

The Christian population grew at twice the rate of Muslims – 218% (vs. 113% for Muslims). To say that all of those Christians were Arabs would be surprising as one would expect the growth rate of both groups of Arabs to be roughly the same.

The Jewish growth in the region over the last 114 years of Ottoman rule was 1,243% – many multiples of Muslims and Christians. It clearly did not take the Balfour declaration in 1917 to get Jews to move to Palestine. They were historically (pre-1914) the only group who did move there.

4.  Arabs moved to Palestine in greater numbers than Jews during the British Mandate

Say that again?

While the common Arab narrative is that Jews came to Palestine under the British to do a “land grab”, and all of the Arabs were living in Palestine for centuries, the statistics do not support the claim.

For Jews, the Third Aliyah (1919-1923) brought about 40,000 Jews and the Fourth Aliyah (1924-1928) another 80,000 Jews to Palestine. About 15,000 Jews left Palestine due to the economic hardship at that time, meaning a total of about 105,000 Jews immigrated over the decade. The Fifth Aliyah was the most dramatic (1929-1939), bringing about 250,000 Jews. The Arab riots of 1936-9 basically shut down Jewish immigration to 75,000 people, so in total there were about 420,000 Jews who moved to Israel under the British.

The Arab narrative completely ignores the mass immigration of Arabs that happened under the British. From 1914 to 1949 (after the Israel War of Independence), the Muslim population grew to 1.18 million. That means that after over a century of 0.7% growth (and even lower 0.6% annual growth in 1890-1914), the Muslim population jumped to 2.3% annual growth. Put another way, the Muslim population was 540,000 people larger in 1949 than one would have assumed using all historical norms. So while the Arabs may point to the roughly 420,000 Jews who migrated from Europe, Russia and Yemen, they deliberately ignore the half of a million Muslims who moved from Egypt, Iraq and around the Middle East to Palestine under the British.

So who was new to Israel/Palestine? Who moved there under the British Mandate? Everybody. About 540,000 Muslims, 60,000 Christians and 420,000 Jews.

Which is all fine and good. But it is a lie to state that all Palestinian Arabs lived in their homes for centuries and Jews were “colonialists” brought by the British. There were more Muslims that moved to Palestine between 1914 and 1949 than Jews.

Consider further that the figures above net out over 300,000 Arabs that left Israel during the 1948 War to Lebanon, Syria and Jordan, which would suggest that Muslim immigration was twice that of Jewish immigration under the British.

 

Who knew?