Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations: First Banned Shir

First Banned Shir

1954. No-one knew Israel would be fighting wars for generations; it was reasonable to believe the one recently won had sufficed, even if the borders were not peaceful and the neighbors were anything but welcoming. Given this state of the matter, some folks went elsewhere to look for kicks.

Petra, for example. The unique Nabatian town carved into the red rock in southern Jordan, not that far east of Israel's border. You start at the border, cross the desert, climb a canyon, see the wonder of Petra and scurry back. The whole things takes, what, two days?

Eventually the Jordanians figured out what was going on, and its troops began ambushing the adventurers. I don't know how many young Israelis were killed, but some were. What had started out as an extreme lark was turning into a deadly stupid game.

At which point Arik Lavi came out with a haunting shir called Hasela Haadom, The Red Rock, about three young Israelis who made it to Petra but didn't make it back.

The authorities were horrified. It seemed to them the song was more likely than not to encourage additional daredevils. So they banned it. Being a democracy they couldn't make it illegal or anything, but since in those days all two radio channels (three?) were government controlled, the order went out that the song was not to be broadcast. (No, the was no television in Israel in the 1950s).

I don't know if it worked. Israelis apparently stopped going to Petra, for whatever reason: maybe their Jewish mothers read them the riot act. On the other hand, I can remember, some years later, the awe with which we kids talked about the mysterious banned song (by the time we were old enough to have entertained thought of going there, the world was a different place and it never occurred to us). After a while the ban faded, and anyway, long before You-tube, no-one would have dreamed of asking the government what they thought about a song anyway.

Though in the meantime there was one other attempt to ban a song; that story was more dramatic and complex. Perhaps some other day...

Words:
Across mountains and the desert
the stories say, there's a place
that a living person has not yet returned from,
and it's called the red rock.
Oh, the red - red - rock.

Three went on the way with the sunset,
against the the mountains' red scorching,
an old dream, a map and a water-bottle
they did take to the red rock.
Oh, the red - red - rock.

The first went (as) navigator, lifting his face,
looking at the stars up high,
but the view that his eyes saw -
was the view of the red rock
Oh, the red - red - rock.

Surely, they encamped some time
between stones,
one said, like smiting a dream:
I see - its face is white.
His mates answered: the red rock.
Oh, the red - red - rock.

Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations: First Banned Shir

Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations: Has Obama Given Up Too?

Has Obama Given Up Too?

The Wall Street Journal's editorial opines that Obama knows he can't stop the Iranian nuclear project, and has given up trying. Their line of argumentation is a bit different from Greg Sheridan in Australia, but the thesis is the same.

I continue not to have enough insider information to know. On the other hand, Jeffrey Goldberg, through whom I reached this item, claims that

On the other hand, no one, IMHO, has made a convincing argument that a military strike could, in fact, work.

Which puzzles me a bit, first, because I don't see why a military machine such as the US has couldn't put the Iranian program back many many years. It should be considerably easier than, say, subduing a civil war in Iraq: You need to destroy a limited number of hard targets, that's all. Second, because if it can't, why are American taxpayers spending so much money on it? Mostly, however, I'm puzzled because Goldberg seems to feel that such military capabilites should be posted on CNN or somewhere, for everyone to see them.

You usually do better than that, Jeffrey.

Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations: Has Obama Given Up Too?

The Orwellian Times: Burqa Bans - No; Free Speech Bans - Yes :: The Phyllis Chesler Organization

The Orwellian Times: Burqa Bans - No; Free Speech Bans - Yes :: The Phyllis Chesler Organization

Love of the Land: Obama’s Two-State Delusion

Obama’s Two-State Delusion

Moshe Dann
Frontpagemag.com
02 April '10

Let there be no mistake: President Obama’s attack on Israel’s right to govern in eastern Jerusalem has nothing to do with American national interests, and nothing to do with a “peace process.” Other American leaders may have disagreed with Israeli policy, but none of them made it a casus belli.

No other prominent politician sought to impose the “two-state solution,” based on 60-year-old cease-fire lines with Jordan, instead of a negotiated agreement. Obama’s move leaps beyond all previous “accords,” plans and “road maps.” Never before has the United States sought to dictate the terms of Israeli surrender, thereby undermining its only reliable ally in the region.

Obama’s obsession with the establishment of a second Arab Palestinian state might be understandable if it were based on a realistic appraisal of conditions as they are, instead of what they might be. The warning signals are there.

Two dramatic shifts have made the “two-state solution” irrelevant: the stand-off victory of Hezbollah in Lebanon and the hegemony of Hamas in Gaza and many areas of the West Bank, nominally under the Palestinian Authority, controlled by Fatah. One has to be ignorant, and/or blind not to appreciate what these situations mean – especially given the threats from Iran.

The developments have led to the widespread recognition, especially among Israelis, that the so-called “Oslo process” (“land for peace”) has failed, that Israel has no “peace partner,” and, therefore, that a second Arab Palestinian state is no longer relevant.

Today, unilateral withdrawal from Yehuda and Shomron (“the West Bank”) and the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state is a “clear and present danger,” not only to Israel, but to the entire region.

(Read full article)

Love of the Land: Obama’s Two-State Delusion

Love of the Land: Financial Times Columnist Labels Israel a Rogue State

Financial Times Columnist Labels Israel a Rogue State

Steven Stotsky
CAMERA Media Analysis
29 March '10
Posted before Chag

The Financial Times of London is the British equivalent of the U.S.-based Wall Street Journal, focused primarily on business and financial news. Readers might expect that such a media outlet would present the Arab-Israeli conflict in a dispassionate manner. But this is hardly the case. The newspaper's editorials are relentless in their lopsided criticism of Israel, portraying Israel as a rogue state and urging the United States to withdraw its support from the Jewish state. This striking bias was quantified in a report by British media watchdog group Just Journalism.

In an eight day period from Nov. 18 through Nov. 26, three separate editorials called on the Obama administration to end its policy of defending Israel from UN resolutions condemning the Jewish state. Op-Eds during the four month period of November 2009 through February 2010 repeatedly urged the U.S. to pressure Israel into accepting severe Arab demands that it retreat to the 1949 armistice lines, which would leave Israel's main population center within a vulnerable 8-10 mile wide strip of land and forfeit any claim to a unified Jerusalem. The Financial Times' displeasure at Israel's refusal to consent to such demands is expressed in vindictive and accusatory opinion pieces.

A Dec. 15, 2009 piece by former European Union Commissioner Chris Patten expressed support for EU President Carl Bildt's pro-Palestinian policy — with the caveat that it did not go far enough. Patten wrote that "seemingly on instructions from Israel's foreign ministry Italy, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Romania fought to dilute the original text." Evidently, there was no possibility, in Patten's view, that these nations simply held a view of events and issues related to Israel less negative than his. Rather they must be receiving "instructions." Nor was any proof provided for his insinuating a nefarious Jewish influence on European governments.

For Patten, the antagonism towards Israel is personal. As the official responsible for handing over billions of Euros to the notoriously corrupt Palestinian Authority, the lack of positive results clearly upsets him. Rather than admit this failure is due to endemic corruption among Palestinian officials, Patten instead shifts blame onto Israel, claiming: "The money I spent in Palestine.... has drained away into the blood-soaked sand." He further alleges the EU has become the "paymaster for [Israeli] intransigence and disproportionate force."

(Read full report)

Love of the Land: Financial Times Columnist Labels Israel a Rogue State

Love of the Land: Is Netanyahu ‘Apologizing to the Obama Administration’?

Is Netanyahu ‘Apologizing to the Obama Administration’?

Part II of a two-part interview with Moshe Arens — former Israeli defense minister, foreign minister, and ambassador to the U.S. (Read Part I here.)


Ruthie Blum Leibowitz
Pajamasmedia.com
04 April '10
Posted before Chag
The concluding half of Ruthie Blum Leibowitz’s interview with Moshe Arens — former Israeli defense minister, foreign minister, and ambassador to the U.S.

Q: Are the Obama administration’s policies towards Israel a total about-face from the position of the Bush administration, which maintained there was a global struggle going on between the West and radical Islam, and that the Palestinian conflict belonged to that struggle? The current administration seems to be asserting that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not only a phenomenon in and of itself, but that solving it is necessary to dealing with the rest of the world.

A: The major difference, again, is that this administration is taking its disagreements with the Israeli government public. If we look back at the history of U.S.-Israel relations, the last time we can discern this kind of a breach in the discourse was during the Eisenhower years. That was right after the Sinai Campaign, when Secretary of State [John Foster] Dulles publicly pressured Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion into moving the Israeli army out of the Sinai and the Gaza Strip, though Ben-Gurion was initially hesitant. The Eisenhower administration made no bones about its views on that subject, and hinted at additional pressures that might be forthcoming if Israel did not accept. That was in 1957. Here we are 53 years later.

Q: Why didn’t you mention the Carter administration in this context, as so many commentators have been doing of late?

A: Well, I don’t think we had a serious rift with the Carter administration, though we certainly might have had one, had Prime Minister Menachem Begin not accepted the terms that Egyptian President Anwar Sadat insisted on during negotiations at Camp David. President Carter might very well have come down on Sadat’s side. But we never got to that point, and in the final analysis, Carter was quite happy with the fact that Begin, after some convincing and maybe a little bit of discrete pressure, accepted the condition that there be a total withdrawal of Israeli forces and removal of Israeli settlements from the Sinai.

Q: Can Netanyahu be compared to Begin in this respect? After all, at the time, Begin seemed to be the least likely prime minister to give away territory. Netanyahu, today, is considered by many to be “intransigent.” Will the upshot in this case be similar? Will Netanyahu ultimately agree to withdraw to the 1967 borders?

A: It’s very unlikely. And the analogy is not entirely apt. Begin was quite doctrinaire, and what made it possible for him to agree to a total withdrawal from the Sinai was his view that it was not really part of the land of Israel. The fact is that he was not prepared to give an inch of the Gaza Strip, because he said it was part of the land of Israel.

(Read full interview)

Love of the Land: Is Netanyahu ‘Apologizing to the Obama Administration’?

Love of the Land: Jewish string quartet drowned out by loony anti-Zionists

Jewish string quartet drowned out by loony anti-Zionists

Douglas Murray
Telegraph.co.uk
01 April '10
Posted before Chag

Let’s say you have disagreements with a foreign government. How do you make your feelings clear? By writing to your MP? Engaging in peaceful and legitimate protest? Or do you decide to do what some people did earlier this week and… target a string quartet?

At lunchtime on Tuesday, the Jerusalem Quartet were doing a recital at the beautiful Wigmore Hall in London. It was broadcast live on BBC Radio 3. The Jerusalem Quartet – who come from Israel and who have done national service like everyone else there – were performing string quartets by Mozart and Ravel. Nothing too controversial there, you would have thought. Ravel is pretty established repertoire, and it’s a while since anyone had a problem with Mozart.

But enter the great anti-string quartet alliance (for this was a joint operation by the “Brighton and Hove Palestinian Solidarity Campaign” and a group called “Jews for Boycotting Israeli Goods” (J-Big) which has membership running into single digits).

A little way into the Mozart string quartet, a semi-trained, fully barking music teacher called Debbie Fink started braying a witless anti-Israeli song at the top of her voice to disrupt proceedings. The effectiveness of this tactic of hers can be judged from an earlier video available here. Once again, this time at the Wigmore Hall, she was led away. Then, in this carefully planned offensive, another member of the Wigmore Hall forward-operations unit stood up to denounce the quartet as having “blood on their hands”. This tactic of disruption was repeated, every ten minutes, by a few other planted members of the audience so that the concert was wrecked. Radio 3 cancelled their live broadcast.

(Read full story)

Love of the Land: Jewish string quartet drowned out by loony anti-Zionists

RubinReports: A Large List of Individual Terrorists and Groups, Compiled by New Zealand's Government

A Large List of Individual Terrorists and Groups, Compiled by New Zealand's Government

By Barry Rubin

Here's an interesting resource for those interested in studying terrorism, a 163-page list of those groups and individuals designated as terrorists by New Zealand's government. A large portion are associated with Taliban though there are many other groups (though some, like the PFLP, aren't on the list). What's unique here is the inclusion of individuals associated with terrorist groups.

RubinReports: A Large List of Individual Terrorists and Groups, Compiled by New Zealand's Government

RubinReports: If There's No Project to Engage Hizballah Why Do People Keep Telling Me They Were Contacted About It?

If There's No Project to Engage Hizballah Why Do People Keep Telling Me They Were Contacted About It?

Please be subscriber 9,836. Just put your email address in the box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.

We depend on your tax-free contributions. To make one, please send a check to: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th Street, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10003. The check should be made out to “American Friends of IDC,” with “for GLORIA Center” in the memo line.

By Barry Rubin

Recently, I wrote an article about receiving a letter saying the Center for American Progress is running a project to advocate U.S. engagement with Hizballah and that high-ranking officials in the Obama administration were encouraging this as part of their own campaign to start talking with the Lebanese terrorist group that is a client for Iran and Syria in trying to take over Lebanon and destroy Israel.

The head of the project, Cambanis, a strong supporter of Hizballah, has denied it. Yes, he admitted. That's what my assistant wrote but he lied. The letter began, however, with the assistant saying the director asked him to write me. So one would think the director approved the letter.

Cambanis wrote last year

"The Islamist axis commands real power and is a force to be reckoned with. Israel has never stopped negotiating with Hamas and Hezbollah. European diplomats are quietly talking to Hezbollah officials, and looking for ways to initiate contacts with Hamas without violating European law. American intelligence services and diplomats find they have less and less leverage and understanding from their increasingly isolated stations and embassies; they’ll need to craft new channels through which to speak to groups in the Islamist axis."

For more on his strongly pro-Hizballah views, see here.

That sounds to me like advocating contacts with Hizballah as well as Hamas. The statement about Israel, by the way, isn't true at all, with the very limited exception of freeing Israelis held prisoner, which is not exactly the kind of political talks in which the United States would engage.

The Cable, a publication of Foreign Policy magazine, speaks dismissively of a "conspiracy" proving to be non-existent. In one-sentence, it said the Center for American Progress denied the story: "In a separate interview with The Cable, CAP's Katulis confirmed Cambanis's account and added that he's a `deep skeptic' of the prospects of engaging terrorists...."

Glad to hear it. I wrote in some detail, however, about why this response in the Cable wasn't satisfactory. But why have three different sources told me that they were explicitly contacted, invited to participate, and told that the Center for American Progress was doing this study by different people?

Incidentally, aside from Obama's "counter-"terrorism advisor John Brennan, who favors engaging Hizballah, the other most militant such official in the Obama administration on these issues is Mara Rudman, on the staff of Middle East negotiator George Mitchell. She is a former leading figure at the Center for American Progress.

She is also the most likely candidate as the source for a particularly nasty slur leaked on National Security Council official Dennis Ross, who was said to be more loyal to Israel than to the United States because he didn't think the administration's current confrontation with Israel was a good idea. Ross, by the way, may be the only foreign policy expert so respected that he was appointed to a high position under Presidents Bush, Clinton, and now Obama, that is three of the last four chief executives.

It's peculiar. If someone was running around falsely claiming he was doing a project for your think tank wouldn't you expect that institution to loudly proclaim it isn’t true and to be real angry with Cambanis for saying otherwise? Has the Center for American Progress sent an angry note to Cambanis asking him to stop using their name? Has Cambanis fired his assistant for a great (alleged) ethical abuse?

So I’m getting even more suspicious that the story is true and they are undertaking such a project, albeit somehow making a denial on some technical grounds.

RubinReports: If There's No Project to Engage Hizballah Why Do People Keep Telling Me They Were Contacted About It?

Israel Matzav: Obama's foolish innovation

Obama's foolish innovation

Shana tova, a good year to everyone.

President Obama thought he had a great innovation when he decided to demand a full 'settlement freeze' from Israel, including 'east' Jerusalem. But as Steve Rosen points out, all Obama has done is to ensure that no negotiations between Israel and the 'Palestinians' can take place.

The record is clear and consistent: The United States has never liked Israeli construction in East Jerusalem, and frequently stated that it complicated the peace process. But until Obama, no U.S. president had made its cancelation a precondition for negotiations, and until Obama, Palestinian leaders including Abbas did not make it a precondition either. For 19 years -- from the Madrid conference of October 1991 through the Olmert/Abbas negotiations that ended in 2008, negotiations moved forward while Jerusalem construction continued. Madrid, Oslo I, Oslo II, the Hebron Protocol, the Wye River Memorandum, Camp David, Taba, the disengagement from Gaza, and the Olmert offer to Abbas -- all these events over the course of two decades were made possible by a continuing agreement to disagree about Israeli construction of Jewish homes in Jewish neighborhoods outside the pre-1967 line in East Jerusalem.

Today, for the first time in 19 years, we have an aministration unable to produce Israeli-Palestinian negotiations . Abbas is following Obama's lead in demanding an unprecedented precondition that Israel cannot satisfy. This is the same Abbas who negotiated with seven previous Israeli prime ministers -- Shamir, Rabin, Peres, Netanyahu (in his first term), Barak, Sharon, and Olmert, without the precondition that he now demands of Netanyahu. We have a crisis. Netanyahu is doing something that every past Israeli prime minister of the left and right has done, but Obama is doing something that past American leaders considered unwise. It is the U.S. behavior that has changed.

At this moment, Obama's decision to confront Netanyahu about construction in Jerusalem wins wide praise. Whether Obama's policy will still look good in six months, when people realize he has mired the negotiations in quicksand, remains to be seen.

Obama would do better to take the advice of his own Mideast envoy, George Mitchell, who wisely told PBS host Charlie Rose, "For the Israelis, what they're building in is in part of Israel. Now, the others don't see it that way. So you have these widely divergent perspectives on the subject. Our view is, let's get into negotiations, let's deal with the issues and come up with a solution to all of them including Jerusalem. ... The Israelis are not going to stop settlements in or construction in East Jerusalem. ... There are disputed legal issues. ... And we could spend the next 14 years arguing over disputed legal issues or we can try to get a negotiation to resolve them in a manner that meets the aspirations of both societies."

Read the whole thing.

Israel Matzav: Obama's foolish innovation

RubinReports: Afghanistan: Another U.S. Ally Unhappy with Obama Administration

Afghanistan: Another U.S. Ally Unhappy with Obama Administration

Please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.


We depend on your tax-free contributions. To make one, please send a check to: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th Street, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10003. The check should be made out to “American Friends of IDC,” with “for GLORIA Center” in the memo line.

By Barry Rubin

President Hamad Karzai has reportedly complained about the lack of U.S. support and is nervous about being abandoned (thrown under the bus, in current slang) by the Obama administration. He has reportedly complained that the United States is interfering too much in Afghanistan's internal affairs. Karzai appears worried that U.S. policy is too open toward making a deal with the Taliban, or at least the "moderate" elements in it.

Yes, just as the administration is reaching out to Iran, Syria, Colombia, and others who are enemies of the United States, it is also hoping to "win over" some from the group that hosted Usama bin Ladin and turned Afghanistan into a hellish situation. Karzai is also no doubt miffed at some hints that he didn't win the election fairly, which are probably true but Obama saying so was taken as an insult.

Yes, when the United States criticizes an ally which it thinks dependent on Washington's backing--the only countries in the world that the Obama administration dare criticize or pressure nowadays--even a relatively "weak" country may not take it lying down.

Karzai then also dropped his own anti-American hints, saying according to the Wall Street Journal that the Taliban is only fighting because of the foreign presence, implying they like him but not America.

It should be remembered that President Barack Obama said things about Afghanistan that went beyond former President George W. Bush's optimism about Iraq. Obama said the United States was going to help build an effective Afghan army and an honest government, which sort of doesn't comprehend the nature of Afghanistan.

One is starting to wonder what country in the world really has a high opinion of America's leaders nowadays and feels it can depend on them for support or survival. That confidence certainly isn't a widespread view in the moderate regimes of the Arabic-speaking world. I wouldn't bet on even the United Kingdom, France (President Sarkozy is on record saying some sharply critical things about his counterpart), or Germany.

How I wish I could stop writing this kind of article and talk about what a great job the Obama administration is doing! But it has to do something well in foreign policy first.

RubinReports: Afghanistan: Another U.S. Ally Unhappy with Obama Administration

RubinReports: Strange, Obama-Allied Think Tank Doesn't Deny It's Doing a Pro-Hizballah Project for the U.S. Government

Strange, Obama-Allied Think Tank Doesn't Deny It's Doing a Pro-Hizballah Project for the U.S. Government

Please be subscriber 9,833. Just put your email address in the box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.


We depend on your tax-free contributions. To make one, please send a check to: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th Street, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10003. The check should be made out to “American Friends of IDC,” with “for GLORIA Center” in the memo line.


By Barry Rubin

Recently, I wrote an article about receiving a letter saying the Council for American Progress is running a project to advocate U.S. engagement with Hizballah and that high-ranking officials in the Obama administration were encouraging this as part of their own campaign to start talking with the Lebanese terrorist group that is a client for Iran and Syria in trying to take over Lebanon and destroy Israel.

The head of the project, a strong supporter of Hizballah, has denied it. Yes, he admitted. That's what my assistant wrote but he lied. The letter began, however, with the assistant saying the director asked him to write me. So one would think the director approved the letter. The Cable, a publication of Foreign Policy magazine, dismissed the story merely because the director denied it. The Cable's headline speaks dismissively of a "conspiracy" proving to be non-existent. Yet the Cable didn't even bother to interview anyone from the Council for American Progress!

Two different sources told me that they were explicitly told the same story by those running the project about the connection to the Council and the Obama administration.

Thus, I wrote in some detail about why this response in the Cable wasn't satisfactory. But now there's a new factor:

My two stories and the Cable article have been widely circulated. It suddenly struck me that the Center for American Progress has issued no denial that it is conducting such a project. It's hard to believe they thought the project director--a strong supporter of Hizballah--had said enough.

But it's peculiar! If someone was running around falsely claiming he was doing a project for your think tank wouldn't you expect that institution to issue an official denial?

So the lack of a denial by the Center for American Progress is making me even more suspicious that the story is true and they are undertaking such a project. The project director's letter also said it is being done for the Obama Administration. Might that also be true?

If the Center for American Progress denies conducting this project I'd be ready to believe them. But why haven't they denied it?

RubinReports: Strange, Obama-Allied Think Tank Doesn't Deny It's Doing a Pro-Hizballah Project for the U.S. Government

Elder of Ziyon: Jordanian Christians visiting Jerusalem for Easter under threat

Jordanian Christians visiting Jerusalem for Easter under threat

Remember the absurd Reuters article that implied that Israel was doing everything it could to discourage Arab Christians from visiting Jerusalem, and that Israeli policies were keeping Christians from Arab countries away? From The Christian Science Monitor: Many of the Arab Christians flocking to holy sites in Israel this Easter Sunday come from neighboring Jordan. But they do so at a price. Those who make the trek – and, as part of a broader rise in religious tourism, more are making it every year – risk their professional reputation and their family’s disapproval. For a country whose 1994 peace treaty with Israel was never accepted at the popular level, receiving an entry stamp, let alone a visa from Israel, is considered “treason” to the Arab cause. But despite a growing movement to discredit those involved with the “Zionist enemy,” hundreds of Jordanians risk their careers and reputation to complete a pilgrimage to holy sites in Israel’s occupied territories. “I cannot help it,” says Daoud Yazeed, a Jordanian Christian who disguises his pilgrimages as business trips. “Jerusalem is calling.” In 2009, 15,000 Jordanians traveled to Israel, the most of any Arab or Muslim country. While a majority of them were visiting Palestinian relatives, a significant number are part of a growing trend of religious tourism. According to tour operators, an increasing number of Jordanian Christians and Muslims – Jerusalem is Islam’s third holiest city – are taking part in all-inclusive week-long trips through Nazareth, Hebron, and Jerusalem, priced at $600. But under the Anti-Normalization movement, spearheaded by Islamists and professional associations opposed to Jordan’s 1994 peace treaty – or “normalization” with Israel – those found to have normalized are disbarred from their union and lose their professional licenses, which are required by Jordanian law. Families further face the public humiliation of being added to a once-publicized blacklist of individuals and companies that deal with the “Zionist entity.” 'Anti-normalization' activists Anti-Normalization activists are determined to crack down on the practice this holiday to bring to light those who have “normalized with the enemy,” according to Muslim Brotherhood and National Anti- Normalization Committee leader Hamzah Mansour. “This is supporting Zionist efforts to rid the holy lands and Palestine of its inhabitants, and it is forbidden,” he said. He compared trips to Jerusalem to the Hajj, the pilgrimage to Mecca which is considered the duty of every adult Muslim, pointing out that the journey is not required if a worshiper has poor health or a lack of money. “Al Aqsa is occupied territory and you are not expected to pilgrimage to Al Aqsa. God understands,” Mr. Mansour said, calling on Jordanian Christians to pray in local holy sites this Easter to “support the local industry.” According to the professional associations, they have yet to revoke union memberships over normalization. But the threat itself has deterred hundreds, if not thousands, from making the trip, or pushed their travel into secret, tour operators say. Normalization, however, was the last of the concerns for Ramzi Mustafa, one of 200 Christian pilgrims from Egypt – the only other Arab country that has made peace with Israel – in the holy city this weekend with organized tour groups. He said his participation in processions on Via Dolorosa on Good Friday is a way of showing support for the Palestinians and the need for peace, not support for “Zionism.” And what do the Arabs of Jerusalem think about all this? Nor do Muslim pilgrimages suggest support for occupation, says the head of Jerusalem’s holy sites, Sheikh Mohamed Azzam Tamimi. "Jordanians and Egyptians, all Arabs should come and see the holy city,” he said, noting that due to visa restrictions most of the visitors are from Asia, not the Arab world. “We may be under occupation, but supporting our efforts is not normalization.” Politics should not prevent Arab Christians and Muslims from traveling to the holy city, according to William Shomali, auxiliary bishop of the Latin Patriarch in Jerusalem, who welcomed all Arabs to take part in Easter services. “Our dream is for all Arab Christians and Muslims to come and pray in the holy city,” he said, acknowledging the current situation has been “difficult” for Arab Christians across the region. “They should come regardless of the political situation,” he said. “We should separate politics from religion, even if certain parties want to join them together; all have the right to pray in the holy sites.” The Islamists in Jordan, Egypt and elsewhere threaten those who want to come to Jerusalem for any reason - religious or to give cultural support for Palestinian Arabs. The PalArabs who they pretend to be supporting are unanimous in their desire for the visitors, even if they get an Israeli visa stamp. It just goes to show once again that the people who pretend to care about Palestinian Arabs really only care about hating Israel, not supporting their Palestinian brethren. It also shows that Israel welcomes these Arabs into the country, and it indicates that Israel is much more interested in freedom of religion for the holy sites under its control than Arab nations ever were. By way of example, some 105,000 visitors were expected in Jerusalem this week, as opposed to the 10,000 or less that would come during Holy Week before the Six Day War. Any implication that Israeli policies have reduced the number of religious visitors to Jerusalem (as the Reuters article implied) is not only a lie, but an egregious lie.

Elder of Ziyon: Jordanian Christians visiting Jerusalem for Easter under threat