- Jeremy Corbyn
- Margot Wallström
- Ali Khamenei
- Hassan Nasrallah
- Recep Tayyip Erdoğan
- Mahmoud Abbas
- Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani
- Ismail Haniyeh
- Linda Sarsour
- Miko Peled
- Louis Farrakhan
- David Duke
- Sigmar Gabriel
- Roger Waters
- Jackie Walker
- Richard Spencer
- Carl Bildt
- Ken Loach
I receive ludicrous and inflammatory lies about Israel all the time. The tiny nation of Israel is under the magnifying glass more than any other country. If all the stuff was happening in Israel that they claim, there would be video and images coming out every day, and not all the fabricated garbage that you see.
Let break down one of these lies. I received this tweet recently.
The claim is that Israel for 13 years has murdered a child, on average, every 3 days. I’m not that great at math, but if you do a simple calculation, that would mean that at minimum, in it’s worst year, Israel “murdered” 121 children.
365 days in a year divided by every 3 days = 121.667 children in a year.
That would be in Israel’s very worst year mind you. All other years would be less bad than that one.
I immediately called him out on this. I wanted proof. So he sent me the following tweet as proof.
So I read the article. It’s from a British publication called the Independent, which has a history of anti-Israel bias and publishing uncorroborated claims. You can read more about this biased, bordering on anti-Semitic publication in my article, Deciphering Anti-Israel Propaganda. The first thing you will notice about this article is that it is based on a report from an NGO called “Defence for Children International” (DCI), which is a biased Palestinian NGO. You can read more about it in NGO Watch. In their report they claim that 2016 was the very worst year for Israel killing Palestinian children and the total killed in 2016 was 32. Of course, if it was a 17 year old who stabbed several Israelis to death and was killed in the process of stopping that terrorists attack, that “child” is included in the 32. For example, in January 2016 alone, a 15 year old boy was shot and killed after stabbing an Israeli soldier. Also in the same month, a 13 year old girl was shot and killed trying to kill another Israeli soldier. This is just the first month of 2016. Those two children who tried to murder Israelis and were killed in the attempted murder are considered child victims by biased NGOs and are included in the total of 32. It’s as if they feel the soldiers should allow themselves to be killed and should not exercise any self defense. These fake numbers go out into the world and are picked up by anyone looking for even the least credible of sources to defame Israel.
But wait a second, even though I’ve already shown how those numbers are biased and fabricated, let’s take DCI’s numbers at face value. It states that 32 children were killed by Israel in 2016 and that was the very worst year in a decade. Something doesn’t add up. Doing my very simple math:
365 days in a year divided by 32 children = a child every 11.4 days in the worst year.
Wait a second, didn’t he just say that a child is killed every 3 days on average for the last 13 years? That would be 122 children at minimum in the very worst year. But now he is showing me “proof” that in the very worst year it’s 32 children or every 11.4 days. So which one is it? Is it his fabricated number of every 3 days or the biased NGOs calculation of every 11.4 days (in the worst year). Incidentally, his “calculation” makes Israel look FOUR TIMES worse than even the biased NGO report he sent as proof.
It doesn’t matter to them. The truth doesn’t matter. Facts don’t matter. Statistics don’t matter. They will find any source, not matter how fake, biased, uncorroborated, or taken out of context to advanced their lies. Because, at the end, all they have are lies. There isn’t a shred of truth to their claims.
If you continue to read further down in the article he sent, it states “According to DCI, 28 Palestinian civilians under 18 were killed in 2015, 13 in 2014, and four in 2013.” So even from that fake number of 32, which represents the very worst year possible, the number provided by the biased Palestinian NGO drops dramatically. That did not stop him from tripling down on his now disproved claim.
Hold it. First he said 13 year, now it’s 12 year. And guess what? The math is getting even worse.
1500 children divided by 12 years = 125 per year. 365 days a year divided by 125 = every 2.92 days.
My guess is next time I check my twitter feed it’s going to be 10,000 children in the last 15 years, and then 100,000 children in the last 50 years, and eventually 1 million children in the last 500 years. See when you have a political agenda based on vilifying and hating a group of people, facts don’t matter. All that matters is getting your propaganda out and enough like minded haters will believe it no matter what. And you know what, eventually, you will also convince a few gullible people to join you in your lies.
Before the problems of the West Bank are resolved, the issue of Gaza must first be addressed.
Gaza represents everything that Israel fears the West Bank can become if they were to withdraw – an enemy state with no prospects of peace and a predetermined time frame for war that you can schedule on iCloud. After all, that is exactly what’s happened in Gaza.
After Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza in 2005, leaving the Palestinian Authority to govern the strip, and within two years, the militant political party Hamas won regional elections, a blood civil war ensued, and a military Junta deposed the ruling “moderate” Palestinian party replacing it with a government with no interest in compromise and an unwavering goal of fighting Israel until death or victory. Since that time, you can almost set your calendar based on a calculation when there will be a war between Israel and the de facto enemy state to it’s southwest. Take the amount of time it takes Hamas’ to deplete it’s military arsenal (rockets, IEDs, rocket launchers, tunnels and underground bunkers) and then add the amount of time it takes for them to replenish that arsenal. The one variable is the amount of pressure the international community places on Israel to allow into the strip materials that can be used in order to replenish it’s weaponry. Gaza does not need to win the wars they start. They know they cannot win a conventional war with Israel. They function more like a startup in an established industry. They only need to disrupt Israel long enough to create both domestic and international pressure. This is far more effective for them than military victory and a strategy that has worked all too well for them in the last ten years. Domestically, the Israel public grows frustrated that the government does not do enough to stop Hamas’ rocket fire and provocations. Internationally, pressure mounts as Hamas, efficient at using human shields and launching attacks from populated hospitals and schools, has been successful at controlling the media narrative.
There is no reason to believe that the quagmire in Gaza that started in 2005 and continues through the present, will not be duplicated in the West Bank if Israel withdraws unilaterally. In fact, Israel knows that it is exactly what will happen. And Israel has a good point, whether the majority of the world wants to accept it or not. Israel is between a rock and a hard place. If Israel withdraws unilaterally, the unpopular Palestinian Authority will almost surely be replaced with Hamas, or some other militant group, which will ensure an unending cycle of conflict like in Gaza, but on a much larger scale and with even more international pressure. If Israel maintains the status quo in the West Bank, which seems like the only viable option at the moment, Israel will continue to have to play defense on the international stage, slowly eroding is standing. It’s a case of do you let the pot boil over quickly or slowly. Either way, it’s going to boil over.
The only way to prevent a duplication of Gaza in the West bank is to first resolve the issue of Gaza and have that be the model for what peace will look like long term. Gaza remains the infection in the body that must be resolved before a surgery can take place.
How do you resolve the situation in Gaza? The first step is to stop thinking of Gaza and the West Bank as a single unit.
The idea that the West Bank – an area historically known as Judea and Samaria – and Gaza are the same entity is a modern construct, created in the 20th century by the European victors that divided up the spoils of the middle east after the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I.
In ancient times, the West Bank was part of the Kingdom of Israel and Judea, while Gaza was the stronghold of the Philistines, a sea faring people with no connection to the modern day Palestinian Arabs except for similarities in name.
During Ottoman occupation, a period lasting over 500 years and just prior to the British Mandate, Gaza had it’s own Sanjak (administrative region) with it’s administrative office in Gaza City and was separate from the Sanjak of Nablus in the West Bank and the Sanjak of Akka in the north.1 They were all part of the greater Damascus (Syria) Eyalet, but that also included the areas of Syria, Lebanon, and modern day Jordan.
After the Arabs rejected the UN partition in 1947 and after Israel’s victory in the war of independence, when the 1949 Armistice Lines were drawn, control of Gaza went to Egypt and the West Bank to Jordan. The Arabs in the West Bank became Jordanian citizens until 1967, when that was revoke.
Only after Israel captured Gaza and the West Bank after the 1967 war did the Arabs begin to lump the two into a single political entity, aside from both being part of a pan-Arab region. It has no basis in history or logic. By lumping the two together, it makes it exponentially more difficult to resolve the conflict. Israel is expected to negotiate with one entity to resolve the issue of two separated areas controlled by two different groups with completely different agendas. Once thing is for certain. Before resolve the conflict with the Palestinians, the conflict with Gaza must first be resolved, and that does not include direct negotiations with the Palestinians in Ramallah only, but a collective effort of Israel, the Arab League, and the international community at large to redefine what Gaza is and what it will be after a peace agreement.
First of all, as it has historically been, Gaza should be considered separate from the West Bank. To combine the two makes peace that much more difficult because you now add the logistics of connecting the two regions artificially, a security concern for Israel that could become tinder for future conflicts between the two. By separating the two, Israel can maintain border control and integrity within it’s own territory and a more realistic solution can be pursued to allow travel between the two territories.
Second, Gaza must become demilitarized, as a precursor to a demilitarized Palestinian state in the West Bank. Israel, only 9 miles wide at it’s narrowest, which corresponds to the nexus of the majority of it’s population, will never be able to accept a Palestinian state that is militarized. More importantly, there is no reason for them to believe that even if a demilitarized Palestinian state is accepted and created, that it will remain so. That is where Gaza becomes a model that can eventually be extended to the larger West Bank region. Gaza is manageable enough that if it does militarize, as it currently is, Israel will be in a position to rectify the problem without a much larger war. Once Gaza shows that it can function as an independent, demilitarized region with interest in cooperation, rather than war, with Israel, it will give the Israelis more confidence in allowing a larger seaport, an airport, and eventually to resolve the issue with the Palestinians in the West Bank.
Third, Gaza must be under the administration or protectorate of a larger, established country that can be held accountable if Gaza break any of it’s obligations. The natural option is Egypt, which once controlled Gaza. But other options exists, including having a demilitarized Gaza be administered by the Arab League with responsibility resting in the hands of the Arab League member states. If having Gaza as an administrative region or a protectorate sounds far fetched, it’s not. Think of Hong Kong, Macau, or even US territories like Puerto Rico and Guam, whose are run independently but are protected by larger countries. There is no reason why Gaza can not become another Hong Kong or Singapore. To ensure that the Arabs maintain their end of the bargain, Israel should be allowed to enter into regional treaties to help ensure it’s protection, such as NATO.
If Gaza is treated as a separate, demilitarized entity it can then be used as a model to show what peace with the Arabs in the West Bank might look like. If Israel can resolve the issues with Gaza, on a regionally level, vis-a-vis with involvement of the Arab nations at large, and if a new normal can be established for a period long enough to convince Israel that peace is possible (say 10 years), then there is no reason that the model can’t be applied to the West Bank and a lasting peace established.
But, it all begins with separating Gaza from the West Bank politically and mentally, and beginning to treat them as two completely separate regions.
1 In 1872, near the end of Ottoman rule, the Turks created the Mutasarrifate of Kudus (Jerusalem), which encompassed Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Hebron, Nazareth, Jaffa, Beersheba, and Gaza, but not the majority of the West Bank to the North. Gaza still remained it’s own separate administrative district within the Mutasarrifate.
I have published my first podcast, discussing the false assertion that Hitler in any way supported Zionism. The podcast is available at this time on SoundCloud and TuneIn.
Please send me any comments you may have.
Anti-Semites will use any and every angle they can to discredit Israel and the rights of Jews to live there. One of the most common canards advanced by the anti-Semites is the claim that European Jews are not real Jews, that they are not descendants of the ancient Israelites, and do not come from the Levant region where Israel is located. You will hear such terms as “Khazars,” “Ashkenazim,” and “Slavs.” In spite of scientific and genetic evidence that all Jews – Ashkenazi or Sephardi – can trace their ancestry to the Levant (see https://www.familytreedna.com/PDF/Genetics-of-Ashkenazi-Jewish-origins.pdf) the accusation persists.
In order to advance the lie that the modern Jew is not related to the ancient Israelites or the “real Jews,” the anti-Semites will often present red-headed Jews as proof, often in a very derogatory way, as shown here:
Can this be the truth? Does the fact that there are some red-headed Jews mean that the modern day Jews are impostors? That they have no connection to the ancient Israelites or the land of Israel? Of course not. It’s just another antisemitic canard advanced by Jew haters to try and convince others that the Jews are not what they think. That they are an evil, sub-human group. Let’s look at this from several angles to dispel this vicious antisemitic lie.
What is Red Hair?
Red hair occurs in up to 2% of world population and most frequently in Northern and Western Europe whose prevalence of red hair rises up to 6%. It is a recessive gene and a genetic mutation. If the anti-Semites used red hair to identify Jews as European, it would dispel another anti-Semitic canard that all Jews come from the Eastern Khazars which are not known for red hair and do not come from the region where red hair is most prevalent, such as the Scandinavian areas. But anti-Semites are not in the business of disproving lies about Jews, they are in the business of starting and advancing them, so they have no problems advancing both lies often at the same time.
Getting back to the issue of red hair, people all around the world contain the gene mutation that results in red hair, from China to Papua New Guinea to the Berbers of North Africa to, yes even, the Middle East.
Here is a Melanesian red-headed woman from Papua New Guinea with the red hair gene mutation.
And who can forget the Iraqi military commander and Saddam Hussein adviser Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri with his bright read hair, thick red mustache, and fair complexion.
Yes, there are even red-headed Palestinians, as evidenced by this man with a large bushy red beard gathered outside the house of a 17 year old terrorist in the Palestinian Territories after the terrorist broke into the bedroom of a 12 year old Jewish girl and stabbed her to death in her sleep.
Even looking at a map showing the genetic haplogroup that determines red hair R1b shows the Levant clearly included.
What about the Jews?
A 1903 study in New York City of 2300 Jews found that the vast majority had dark hair and only 3% had red hair. I would assume that is within a standard deviation of the global prevalence of red hair. If you just look at men’s beards, over 10% of Jewish men have red beards. Well doesn’t 3% seem a little high or 10% for beards? Not really when you considered that Jews were forcibly evicted from their homes and scattered to places in the known world including the rest of the middle east and yes, Europe. One thing that anti-Semites require of all Jews is to show pure racial homogeneity to prove they are Jews and entitled to return to their ancestral home. An impossible requirement. The truth is like all people in the world past and present, Jews in Europe at times married the local population and integrated them into the community or the “tribe.” So yes, there are European genes among Jews, just as there are in South American among the native populations from the invasion of the conquistadors or in all parts of the world controlled by the British Empire. But in the end, remember that science proves that all Jews share a common middle eastern ancestry regardless were they were exiled to or the proportionally few number of interracial/interfaith marriages that occurred.
The Ancient Israelites, King David, and Red Hair
That still does not give us insight into the ancient inhabitants of the land of Israel and the modern Jews connection or disassociation from them based on red hair. Does it? Our knowledge of ancient Israel and Israelites comes from the Bible. Let’s analyze the Bible not as a work of theology, but as a historical collections of tales told by ancient people who relate their experiences in their writing.
The Jewish Bible, or what the Christians call the Old Testament, does not often give physically descriptions of biblical figures unless they are distinctive or germane to the tale. For example Queen Esther is described for her abounding beauty, which is important to her story and why the Persian king chose her.
In the book of Samuel I, Samuel is instructed by G-d to find the next king of Israel. He is sent to a man named Jesse to meet his sons as possible candidates. He meets the seven oldest sons and they are quickly dismissed. They are not given any kind of distinctive physical description, nor is Jesse the father or their family as a whole. But when Samuel meets David the Shepard, the youngest son and the man who would be the most famous king in Israel’s history, he is very specifically described.
The word they use to translate as ruddy is admoni.
Admoni comes from the root word in Hebrew of Adom or Red
Modern Hebrew uses the transliteration of the English word “ginger” – gingi – instead of admoni to demote a person with red hair because the definition of admoni is debated. However, modern Hebrew does use admoni to for red haired animals, such as:
- Pandor Admoni – Red Panda
- Ze’ev Admoni – Red Wolf
Biblical scholars and historians are split on whether the description of David as adomi refers to his hair, his face (rosy cheeks), or both. But red hair is just as if not more likely than red faced. If you look at David’s description as a whole you can imagine the young David, with his red hair/cheeks, fair/beautiful eyes, and attractive appearance, looked something like this:
Often people who are described as having a ruddy face also have a fair complexion and/or red hair to match.
We know that the writer(s) of the bible meant to describe David physically as admoni (red) and not an allusion to his personality. The biblical authors were very careful to not assign similar personality traits to both heroes and anti-heroes of the bible. The only other individual who is described with the word admoni in the bible is Essau, who is painted in very negative light. It is extremely unlikely that they would have used the same personality trait for one of the least likable and one of the most likable figures in the entire bible. It is more likely that admoni referred to both of them sharing the recessive red-headed gene.
So biblical exegesis shows us that King David is the only brother described with red hair and also one of only two individuals in the entire bible with red hair.
In other words, there were people with red hair among the ancient Israelites, but they were few in number. Doesn’t that sound a bit like modern Jews?
David was one of eight brothers with red hair – or 12% – statistically similar to the number of modern Jewish men with red beards. Surely if one of the most famous ancient Israelites can possess red hair so can modern day Jews, don’t you think?
The truth is the entire argument put forward by the anti-Semites is an exercise in futility. Any person anywhere can have red hair. Hair color is irrelavant. It is just an attempt on their part to advance a false narrative that results in the destruction of the Jewish nation state and the elimination of the Jews. Hopefully you will see that whether it is red hair or Khazars or David Icke’s theory that Jews are a race of reptilian extra-terrestrials, the affect is the same, to demonize and dehumanize the Jewish people.
More images of red headed Arabs and Mid East people
Facts and figures for this blog post were gathered from:
The French brothers Marie-Théodor and Marie-Alphonse Ratisbonne were converts to Catholicism from Judaism, who dedicated their lives to the conversion of Jews to the Catholic faith.
They both became priests and then later missionaries.
In 1852 they founded a congregation dedicated to the education of Jewish children in a Christian setting, and then in 1855 Pope Gregory XVI gave his blessing to move the congregation to the heart of the Jewish homeland – Jerusalem. Ask yourself this question, why would two brothers who dedicated their lives to converting Jewish boys and girls in 1855 choose to move their ministry to Jerusalem, if there were no or few Jewish people there at the time? Does that make any sense? How odd that they would choose a place that supposedly had no Jews. Or maybe it did and what you’ve been told about Jews in Israel is a lie. There were Jews in Jerusalem and the rest of the holy land at the time, just as there were continuously for thousands of years. Even when Jews were evicted from the land, they eventually returned home.
To this day, their church survives in Israel with the goal not of conversion, but improving Jewish/Christian relations. The name of the congregation they founded?
OUR LADY OF SION