B’Tselem: champion of human rights?

The Israel-based organization called B’Tselem declares on its website that it champions human rights. Its specific mission is human rights in what it calls Gaza and the West Bank. Their Homepage clearly suggests that B’Tselem seeks to protect Arab citizens from human rights abuse.

According to the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a disregard and contempt for human rights brings barbarism.  Therefore, Human Rights has two goals: first, to rid the world of such barbarism as torture and other acts of physical oppression; and second, to create a world where all citizens can enjoy freedom of speech and belief, and freedom from fear. In addition, human rights include: everyone has the right to a fair and impartial trial, all have the right to an education (and elementary education shall be compulsory), no one can be arbitrarily arrested, tortured or otherwise detained because of speech, belief or opinion; and marriage requires the full consent of both parties. There are other rights listed in the Declaration.

One who, like B’Tselem,  ‘champions’ these rights effectively declares that he doesn’t just talk about them, but defends them to the highest degree possible; indeed, as a champion, his efforts should be aggressive and unrelenting. That means that any violation of the rights listed above will be monitored, tracked and reported until changes are made.

But according to the organization, Human Rights Watch (HRW), there have been human rights abuses committed by Arabs in Gaza and the West Bank that may have been ignored by B’Tselem. As of early May 2013, B’Tselem’s only easily-accessible website reference to serious Arab-on-Arab human rights violations is an essay dated January, 2011 that discusses incidents from 2007-08 only—nothing more recent.

But serious Arab abuses have continued after 2008. According to HRW, during the latest year-of-record, 2012, Hamas in Gaza carried out six executions, including after unfair trials, and committed another seven extrajudicial executions in November, 2012 when armed men took detainees from a detention center and killed them. Hamas also executed a citizen after a Gazan appeals court raised his sentence from life imprisonment to death—a clear violation of Palestinian law.

Where was B’Tselem?  

HRW reported that Hamas officials frequently denied detainees access to their lawyers.

Where was B’Tselem?

As of October 31, 2012, HRW recorded 121 credible cases of torture or ill-treatment by police and the Hamas internal security agency.

Where does the average visitor to the B’Tselem website find reports on these Arab-on-Arab abuses?

In 2012, Hamas security forces assaulted, arbitrarily detained and allegedly tortured civil society activists and peaceful protesters who were calling for reconciliation between Hamas and its rival, Fatah.

Where is the B’Tselem report?  How many clicks on the website must one make before finding it? Is it  there?

During 2012, Palestinian Authority (PA) security forces also committed abuses. They beat peaceful demonstrators, detained and harassed journalists and online activists, and arbitrarily arrested hundreds, including waves of arrests in May and September alone. Credible allegations of torture by the PA increased.

Then there’s the HRW 2011 World Report. Here, HRW accused Hamas of executing in 2011 five people without due process, identified 132 credible cases of torture in the first eight months of 2011, and accused officials of harassing, detaining and torturing citizens for ‘morality’ offenses that included homosexuality and extramarital sex. PA officials, meanwhile, were accused of 106 credible cases of torture in the first nine months of 2011--and were accused of assaulting and detaining journalists, and for preventing peaceful demonstrations. 

B’Tselem’s own 2011 Report, however, was blind. Its Human Rights in the Occupied Territories 2011 report mentions virtually nothing about these Arab-on-Arab abuses.

Gaza and the West Bank citizens live in fear. How does B’Tselem, the champion of human rights, defend them?

 Perhaps, by using the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a guide, B’Tselem can begin with these questions:

-what is the Gazan and West Bank literacy rate?

-what is the incidence of forced marriage and the honour-killing of women?

-Do citizens have the freedom to express their opinions safely?

-do authorities torture their citizens?

-do detainees receive a fair and impartial trial?

-are coerced confessions used in court as evidence of guilt?

Remember, B’Tselem champions human rights for these Arabs. But it ignores what amounts to persistent Arab barbarism. It does nothing to haul Hamas and PA authorities before the court of public opinion so they can be pressured to change.

It hauls Israel into the public eye. What about Gaza and the PA?

The average visitor to the B’Tselem Homepage finds it easy to read about alleged Israeli violations of Arab rights, detail-by-detail, page-after-page. But finding details about Arab-on-Arab abuse is difficult, time-consuming and not always successful. Meanwhile, Arab citizens in Gaza and the West Bank are murdered. They do not have basic freedoms.  They lack human rights. They are not safe. They are tortured by their own police.

Does B’Tselem champion human rights for Arabs?

You tell me.

 

 

Morality, dehumanization and the Arab cause

A cause that calls itself moral should be consistent. If one demands moral consideration, one should behave morally, if only to demonstrate that one understands what ‘moral’ means. But the Arab cause does not promote moral behaviour and its Arab citizens do not act morally.  Does that make their cause immoral?

 Think about how the Arab speaks about his cause. At the United Nations, on November 29, 2012, Mahmoud Abbas  told the world he wants his own state. He spoke of justice, ‘moral values’ and ‘moral duty’.

He connected statehood for ‘Palestine’ with morality. 

But Mahmoud Abbas and his fellow Arab leaders do not make this same association when speaking to their own people. They do not speak about morality. They don’t speak about peace. They speak of war-- against Israel; and the way they manipulate their people towards that war is anything but moral.

The Arab cause is the destruction of Israel. Read the Arab  Charters for PLO/Fatah, and Hamas. According to the Hamas Charter, the only solution for the ‘Palestinian problem’ is religious war, not political compromise.  According to the PLO/Fatah Charter, their cause is not peace-with-Israel, but the removal of the ‘Zionist entity’ from the Middle East.

To identify the destruction of a sovereign state as the reason for one’s existence is not moral behaviour.  To declare religious war against a homogeneous people (Jews in Israel) is not morality. It’s a call for ethnic cleansing.

Ethnic cleansing is not moral. It is connected to racial hatred. It is a crime against humanity.

It’s also the Arab battle-cry against Israel.

Arab leaders have one message: we will destroy Israel. Follow us, and the Zionist entity will disappear.

That’s not a moral cause. It’s racist hate.

Arab political and religious leaders are not shy about their hate. They love it so much they repeat it constantly: in speeches and publications, on TV and in the mosque. They will even hold up maps showing their Palestine in place of Israel, not beside it. They honour those who murder Jews. Their public heroes aren’t athletes or scientists; they’re killers.

When ethicists write about war, they often explore what makes war just or unjust. For these discussions, they identify a singular ‘smoking gun’ that presages unjust war: dehumanization of the enemy.

Dehumanization exists only for vicious intent. Arab characterizations of Jews and Israel dehumanize and demonize in ugly and repulsive terms. Arabs call Jews the enemy of god. They say Jews descend from apes and pigs. They say Jews engage in religious ritual to kill children for blood. They say Jews organize and control the world drug trade. Arabs call Israel a cancer.

Ethicists identify such tactics as immoral. These tactics are public manipulations designed for one purpose only: to remove psychological and moral barriers to killing. They are related to delegitimization, racism, moral exclusion and illegal violence—all characteristics of the Arab war against Israel.  Nazi dehumanization of the Jews as vermin—and similar Arab descriptions—make this point:  it might be tough to kill a fellow human; but killing vermin isn’t just acceptable—it’s socially desirable.  

For the ethicist, dehumanization is not just a way to prepare for killing. It is a particularly vicious and immoral behaviour directly linked to the worst kind of killing--genocide.  Dehumanization in both Nazi Germany and Rwanda telegraphed—and then led to--genocide.

Dehumanization is a communal preparation for genocide. Arab dehumanization prepares (and encourages) Arabs to slaughter Jews—often, for Islam (see the Hamas Charter and dozens of religious speeches recorded since the 1930’s).

Dehumanization, through manipulation and conditioning, encourages all ethical, moral and religious considerations to be thrown aside. Arabs have used dehumanization of the Jew for so long that slaughtering the Jew-pig has become the religious and social norm, not the exception.

Ethicists have observed that wherever you find public  dehumanization and demonization of another, you find unjust war.  The link between the two is that clear. We saw this in Gaza, in November, 2012. There, fighting against Israel, Arab warfare was purely unjust: they fired rockets from within civilian Arab populations; they fired into civilian Israeli populations; they used faked photographs and news reports to support their demonization of Israel.

To the ethicist, each of these examples illustrates what unjust war looks like. Each example is immoral; and each is linked to the contemporaneous use of some form of dehumanization (including celebrating over dead Jews).

If the Arab cause is moral, why does he so embrace the immoral?

Actions speak louder than words. Arabs want you to accept them as moral people seeking justice (the 2012 Abbas UN speech).  But their actions are immoral; and their dependence upon dehumanization telegraphs their desire for the ultimate immoral horror called genocide.

Arab dehumanization of its enemy does not suggest a moral cause. Their cause is not moral. It is horribly, unacceptably and criminally immoral.

Shavuot and the Women of the Wall

Last updated May 17, 2013

The Jewish holiday, Shavuot, celebrates the giving of the Torah to the Jewish people. It was at this moment, more than 3,300 years ago, that G-d made us a nation.  

Shavuot is the second and final part of the Biblical Exodus story. It is the culminating event of that story.

When the Jewish people gathered at Mount Sinai, they experienced a unique national moment—the only one of its kind in history. It was the first and only recorded moment when a complete nation experienced G-d’s Presence.

It was not just one man at Sinai who interacted with G-d. Every Jew did. That was the day Jews became distinct.  It was the day our ancestors committed to G-d as the defining  expression of their new-found freedom.  

In Judaism, freedom is not permission to do as we please. It is rather the necessary foundation for properly serving the Creator.

This year, Shavuot starts at nightfall on May 14, during the same seven-day period we saw the spectacle of a group calling themselves, Women of the Wall. These women recently went to the Kotel—the Western Wall—ostensibly to pray, just like thousands of others. But they went to pray like men, not women. They wore prayer shawls and phylacteries. They wanted to read from the Torah. They went, they said, to ‘liberate’ the Wall from Orthodox rules that prohibit women from praying like men. It appears that these women believe in Reform Judaism, which is not officially recognized in Israel. Reform Judaism rejects Orthodox practice and calls for, among other things, absolutely equality for women in all areas of Jewish life. The Women of the Wall want to show us what that equality looks like.

The Reform website Homepage declares that Reform Judaism was the first Movement to ordain women rabbis, invest women cantors and elect women to synagogue presidency. They give a brief nod to G-d, but declare that they choose to focus on repairing the world, so as to bring “peace, freedom, and justice to all people”.  That, and a mantra of 'change', appears to be their religious focus.

The Israel High Court has ruled that these women can pray at the Wall. It has been suggested that a portion of the Wall has already been allocated to those who, like these women, want to pray ‘as they please’. But these women apparently do not like that place.  They want to pray where they please.

Shavuot reminds us that these women use their religion in a way foreign to our 3,000 year tradition. You see, if Passover reminds us that Jews yearn to be free, Shavuot reminds us that freedom is not ‘to do as I please’.

Freedom did not lead to, ’me first.’ It led to Sinai. It led to G-d. It led to Torah and the unchanging Word of G-d.

Women of the Wall embrace freedom. But they reject 3,000 years of tradition. They reject Divine Immutability.

Women of the Wall do not have a single agenda. The leader of the group, Anat Hoffman, is not just interested in changing the rules of prayer at the Western Wall. In a BBC interview, she revealed that she has another goal: to change the Jewish religion in Israel. So as not to be mistaken, here are her exact words:

“…when you change the holiest site of the Jewish people you are actually asking ‘why not’ about a variety of life choices dictated to Israelis by the Orthodox monopoly (my emphasis)”

Her goals echo the Reform Judaism Homepage which states, about its interest in Israel, that it seeks to “reform the State of Israel.” Given the fact that the Reform Movement does not like the Orthodox Jewish vision of certain ‘life choice’ issues-- marriage, divorce and conversion--it seems clear from her words that Anat Hoffman’s ultimate purpose is to forward Reform Judaism’s desire to change  Israeli society—and to start those changes with an easy target, prayer at the Western Wall.

This is a serious plan. If implemented, it will alter Judaism-in-Israel forever. It is also a plan that hides a dirty secret: failure.

Reform Judaism states on its Homepage that Judaism must change and adapt to the needs of the day—in order to survive. Reform Judaism, however, has a serious survival issue. Unlike their religious adversary—the Orthodox and Ultra-Orthodox—Reform Judaism faces a demographic disaster of Biblical proportion: an outmarriage rate (marrying a non-Jew who does not convert) that averages 70 per cent. For a group that declares, ‘follow my changes and we will survive,’ their own track record suggests that they will not survive as Jews.

We do not survive because of the Reform Judaism agenda--or the agenda of the Women of the Wall. We survive because of the agenda of that momentous day 3,325 years ago.

That’s why we celebrate Shavuot: to celebrate what endures.

Old Communists would be proud of B’Tselem

 

More that forty years ago, Russia and the US were deep into a ‘cold war.’ One Russian propaganda goal was to demonstrate that Russia was better than the US. So great were the economic differences between the two countries that Americans typically found this effort laughable. But the Russians took it seriously. They worked overtime at it. They were bigger, better, stronger and faster than the US—in everything.

To prove this point—and to sell the superiority of Communism over capitalism--they often used fact to sell a lie. Facts-for-lies became a Russian joke. One of these jokes came to America.

In this joke, the Russians challenged America to a two-car race across Russia. The Americans accepted. The race was run. The Americans finished the race ten days ahead of the Russian car, which had continuously broken down. Nevertheless, the Russian government, with typical Communist creativity, heralded this race as a Communist triumph. How did they do that? They declared that, in a recent auto race across the Russian frontier, the Russian car came in second while the American car came in next to last!

The Communists didn’t lie. They just ‘massaged’ the facts. We smile—and understand that their intent was to create a false, anti-American conclusion.

We are reminded of this joke, and its underlying attack motive, because it has recently been updated by an Israel-based organization called, B’Tselem. B’Tselem is an anti-Israel, pro-Arab ‘human rights’ outfit that works aggressively to demonize Israel. 

One of B’Tselem’s tactics is to analyse Israeli military action against Arabs. Their intent appears to be to validate that Israel commits war crimes and violates International Humanitarian Law. They use facts gathered from Israeli military action in a way that Communists of old would have loved—to sell a lie.

B’Tselem used facts in this way with Israel’s Operation Cast Lead, December 2008-January 2009. They do it again with the November 2012 Operation Pillar of Defense.

In a newly-minted (May, 2013) report on Israeli attacks against Gaza in November 2012, B’Tselem has reported that 167 Arabs were killed by the IDF. Of these 167 deaths, they say, 87 were civilian. What B’Tselem does with these facts links its behaviour to those old Communists. They package facts to accuse Israel. The report gives only five words to  Arabs who clearly violated International Humanitarian Law (using human shields, firing rockets from within civilian populations, targeting Israeli civilians, dragging an Arab to death through the streets). Instead, they focus exclusively on the allegation that 70 of the 87 civilians killed by Israel had apparently died during the last four days of fighting (the fighting lasted eight days). They declare that such top-heavy deaths raise ‘suspicions’ of Israeli Humanitarian violations.

They ignore real international crimes and violations by Arabs. But they have a lot to say about their ‘suspicion’ of violations by Israel.

Their report claims that as many as 6 Arabs were killed by Arab rocket fire and an additional 7 were killed by Arabs after having been arrested for collaborating with Israel. B’Tselem harbours no ‘suspicions’ that these deaths have violated Humanitarian code.

They attack Israel’s reputation. They claim their report “challenges the common perception in the Israeli public and media that the operation was “surgical” and caused practically no fatalities among uninvolved Palestinian civilians.” This assertion is nonsense. It is a straw-man argument with no basis in reality. There was no ‘media and public perception’ that ‘practically no’ civilian casualties occurred. The common public perception at that time was that if Israel did not use ‘surgical strike’ tactics, the Arab death toll would not have been 167, but closer to 16,700.

What makes this anti-Israel attack so similar to the old Communist joke is how facts are used to sell a lie about Israel. The facts involve civilian death. A UN analysis of civilian –combatant deaths in asymmetric war (referred to in a 2011 news story) suggests that the average ratio of civilian-to-combatant death in asymmetric war is 3:1, or 3 civilians killed for every combatant killed.

In 2009, B’Tselem accused Israel of war crimes and violations of Humanitarian code—precisely because of the number of Arab civilians killed during fighting in 2008-9.  Because of the seriousness of the accusations, it would be reasonable to assume that, if a 3:1 death-ratio is simply the average, then Israel had far exceeded that ratio. Now they accuse Israel of ‘suspicions’ of similar violations in 2012.

But such death-ratios never occurred in 2009 or 2012. In 2009, the civilian-combatant death-ratio in Gaza was approximately 1.3:1 (or lower, if you use Israel’s numbers). In November 2012, the ratio was approximately 1.1:1.  These are not ‘Humanitarian violation’ ratios. They are, in fact (given the human shield factor) extraordinarily low. They are, possibly, lower than any other army, ever, in asymmetric warfare. Yet here is B’Teslem, the ‘human rights’ organization, ignoring such an extraordinary accomplishment to protect civilians in order to demonize Israel as a Humanitarian violator?

B’Tselem says that the November 2012 deaths challenge Israel’s claim that it uses surgical strikes to protect civilians. Really? How else did Israel achieve such historically low death-ratios?

Those old Communists would be proud of B’Tselem. They know how to use facts to sell a lie.

 

 

Jerusalem day, 2013

 

Think about the city you live in. In all probability, it’s a lot like most other cities—people, parks, jobs and schools. If it’s big enough, it might even still have a ‘downtown’ just like Jerusalem.

But your city is not like Jerusalem. First of all, your city isn’t old enough. Jerusalem is more than 3,000 years old. It has been destroyed twice, attacked more than 50 times, and captured-recaptured more than 40 times.

Chances are, your city probably hasn’t ever been destroyed. It’s probably never been captured or recaptured, either,  except perhaps by sports fans fighting their police after the occasional great victory by a local sports team.

That doesn’t compare to Jerusalem. Jerusalem isn’t about sports. It’s about religion. It’s about G-d. It’s so important, three religions want it as their own.

Judaism, the oldest of the three religions, claims Jerusalem. Judaism was first. It has provenance.

But both Christianity and then Islam claim they’re the new-and-improved versions of religion. They also want Jerusalem. For them, Jews don’t count.

Each claims Jerusalem for itself.

So it is that Jerusalem takes stage-center. Nations and religions kill to control it.  Somehow, through it all, Jerusalem remains holy—and, incredibly, Jewish.

The Jews have never gone away.

Jerusalem is Zion. She embodies the essence of the Jewish nation. She is the heart of Jewish history.

Jerusalem: this is where King David lived and King Solomon built our Holy Temple more than 2900 years ago.

Jerusalem: this is where close to 2,000 Jews were ethnically cleansed in 1948 after Arabs conquered the city’s Jewish Quarter.

Jerusalem: this is where, in 1967, Jews died to free our Temple Mount and Jewish soldiers felt the presence of G-d as they fought.

Jerusalem: this is where the Temple Mount, for the first time in 2,000 years, stands ready to offer freedom of worship to Jews (according to conditions set by Jewish law).

The G-d of Israel has been kind to Jerusalem, even as Man has not. When, after almost 2,000 years of exile, the United Nations gave Israel the right to become a modern State, it did not give Jerusalem to the Jews. It kept Jerusalem for UN control; the UN plan was that the Jews would not get their heart, their Zion. But then, two self-defensive wars later—less than 20 years after Independence--the G-d of Israel returned to Israel her heart, her Zion. Jerusalem and her Temple Mount became Jewish again, just as the Jewish G-d had promised thousands of years before.

Jerusalem is more than a city. It is the resting place of G-dliness. But it is also the battlefield for those who would destroy that G-dliness. Today may indeed be Yom Yirushaly-em—Jerusalem Day—when we remember those who died to unify under Jewish control this greatest of Jewish cities; but it is also a day to understand that our work is not yet done.

Jerusalem is still a battlefield. For example, this is Israel’s capital. But those who hate Jews claim it is the capital of Arab ‘Palestine’. 

Jerusalem is the home of the Temple Mount, Judaism’s Holiest site. But those who hate Jews prohibit Jews from worshipping there—and Israel’s government supports that hate.

Jerusalem is so holy, even prayer has become a battlefield. Wherever a Jew lives, he turns to Jerusalem to pray. Three times a day, he turns to Jerusalem. Those who hate Jews claim that Jerusalem is their exclusive Holy city. But when they pray, they show their backsides to Jerusalem.

We celebrate this day. But we do so knowing that Jerusalem is not yet free. According to at least one Waqf representative (representing the Muslim leadership of ‘Jerusalem’), the Temple Mount does not belong to Jews. It belongs to the Waqf—and Jews aren’t allowed there.

Today, some of Jerusalem’s neighbourhoods are Judenrein—Jew-free.

Today, it is legal for Arabs to sit in Jerusalem’s Knesset and support terror against the State of Israel. But today it is illegal  for Jews to move their lips  at their Holiest place, the Temple Mount.

Today, many Jews in the police, civil administration and  criminal justice system--those who rule us on a daily basis--see Jews as usurpers. For these anti-Jewish Jews, this city does not belong to Jews; it belongs to the Arab. Today, these anti-Jew Jews prefer to protect the Arab more than the Jew; and they now tell Jews that they don’t belong on what they apparently have decided is an Arab Temple Mount.

Even as we celebrate, the enemies of Jewish Jerusalem literally take stage-center, as one of the main singers scheduled for Jerusalem Day events is to be an singer who advocates dividing  Jerusalem and giving the Temple Mount to the Arab.

Despite this on-going battle, we celebrate our ‘Jerusalem Day’ with joy. We do that because we are Jewish, this city is Jewish—and our Temple Mount, Judaism’s holiest place, is Jewish.

MK Moshe Feiglin on the Temple Mount: isn’t that illegal?

Last updated May 6, 2013

When the United Nations voted in November, 1947 to create a two-state solution ‘for the future government of Palestine’ (read UN Resolution 181), Jerusalem received special attention. This was done deliberately, to establish Jerusalem “as a corpus separatum under a special international regime”. Jerusalem would not be a part of the proposed two-state solution. Instead, it would be carved out. It would be an ‘international city’  administered by the UN.

UN Resolution 181 created two states, Jordan for the Arabs and Israel for the Jews. The concept was to create a ‘Partition—with Economic Union’ between the two states. In separate ‘Parts’, the Resolution discussed “the Arab State, the Jewish State, and the City of Jerusalem (see Part 1A3)”.  In Part III, Sections C-1a; 12-a,b; and 13-a,b,c, the UN specified requirements for Jerusalem’s holy sites: (1) all holy sites were to be protected and preserved; (2) all citizens were to have freedom of religion and worship; (3) there should be no discrimination of any kind on grounds of race or religion; (4) rights to holy places, sites or buildings should not be denied or impaired; (5) there should be free access for everyone to all holy sites; and (6) no act is allowed that could in any way impair a holy site’s sacred character.

According to Wikipedia, what happened next was, ‘Civil War’. While this might be technically correct, it misrepresents actual events: the Jews accepted the UN plan; the Arabs attacked the Jews in order to impose their own one-state solution. Research contemporaneous news accounts of the 1947-48 war. That war was not between two peoples vying for the same national homeland (as many want you to believe). Resolution 181 had just created two separate homelands, Jordan for the Arab and Israel for the Jew.  The Arab rhetoric of the day was not nationalism; it was pure, unadulterated genocide—to kill Jews.

By 1949, this first Arab anti-Israel war ended with no peace. Boundaries were drawn--and because Arabs won major parts of Jerusalem, the city did not become an international city. It remained Arab-controlled and, as a consequence, all Jews were cleansed from Arab-controlled sections, Jewish holy sites were destroyed, and the Temple Mount was sealed off from Jews.

That Arab rule of Jerusalem lasted 19 years. During that time, no Jew had access to the Temple Mount. No Jew had freedom of worship within Arab-controlled areas.

In a 1967 war of self-defense, Israel won back Jerusalem. As part of that victory, Israel allowed the Waqf of Jerusalem—Muslim’s religious leader for the Jerusalem ‘area’—to remain (until this day) the ‘manager’ of the Mount.

Since that Jewish victory, all requirements for holy sites described in Part III of UN Resolution 181 have been enforced by Israel, for all religions. The Waqf, however, has violated every one of those requirements. Specifically, no Jew can worship on the Temple Mount; Jews approaching the Temple Mount are discriminated against because of their religion (their presence on the Mount is heavily restricted); Jewish rights to the Temple Mount are regularly denied and impaired; Jews are refused free access to the Mount;  Muslims have committed heavy damage to the Jewish character of the Mount (removing perhaps 15,000 tons of Temple Mount dirt, including  thousands of archaeologically rich Temple-era artifacts); and instead of preserving and protecting the Jewish nature of the Mount,  they have desecrated it by aggressively removing evidence of Jewish history—and have now begun to declare (after all the damage they have done) that there is no evidence of Jewish life on the Mount.

Someone has further desecrated the Temple Mount by chipping the word, ‘allah’ into one of the large stones there.

All of this becomes important in May, 2013 because MK Moshe Feiglin (Likud), who has been ascending to the Temple Mount once a month for years as a private citizen, has now been blocked from ascending by the Prime Minister himself. Feiglin insists that a Jew has the civil legal right (within  Jewish religious guidelines) to walk on the Temple Mount. He insists that it is illegal to forbid him to do so.

He’s right. When Israel won back the Mount in 1967, the Knesset realized the site’s religious significance. Just weeks after victory Israel’s Knesset passed the ‘Protection of Holy Places Law’, which made it illegal to (1) desecrate holy places; and (2) violate freedom of access to holy places.

Feiglin has the right to ascend the Mount.

 

But on visits to the Mount as far back as March, 2013, his ascent has been aggressively restricted. On one visit, when MK Feiglin attempted to approach the Dome of the Rock (which is not a mosque and which has been managed by the Waqf as a tourist attraction) a representative of the Waqf told him, ‘only Muslims may enter’--a direct violation of law. Then the police told Feiglin, ‘This place belongs to the Waqf.’

Now, Israel’s leader forbids him to ascend the Mount.

In case you missed it, there has been no change of law. The Mount and its tourist sites do not ‘belong’ to the Waqf. He has no legal right to restrict access. He had no right to forbid worship (if Jews even move their lips while on the Mount, they are arrested). Such restriction is illegal.

What’s going on here? Why are Jews so discriminated against in their own country?

Why does the Prime Minister break the law?

Signs that the Redemption is near?

For years, the American magazine, Sports Illustrated, has run a weekly mini-report entitled, “Signs of the Apocalypse” (or something like that).  It contains a one-or-two sentence announcement that features some weekly occurrence in the Sports world. Typically, it focuses on someone doing something really stupid. It highlights how incredibly awful highly-paid or famous people can be. Such   behaviour by those we honour, the piece suggests, is surely a sign that our world must soon end.

Mostly, these incidents entertain.

That magazine comes from America. We live in Israel, which follows a different religious and cultural orientation. So if someone in America thinks about Christian-inspired world Destruction, perhaps we can think about something different--a Jewish-inspired Redemption.

Consider now some recent examples from the news that, in some way—humorous and not so humorous-- might suggest that the world might be preparing for something New. If you don’t see how these headlines might pre-sage a Jewish Redemption, that’s okay. That just means that your ‘Redemption training’ isn’t up-to-date.

For APRIL, 2013:

-Breeding mental illness in the US (Al Jazeera English)   -Israel Made Me Beat My Wife (HonestReporting.com)

-Egyptian protesters operated on without anesthetic: report (Alarabiya English)

- Millions face starvation as world warms, say scientists (The Guardian)

-Back to the future: Iranian scientist claims to have invented ‘time machine’ (Alarabiya)

-IMF warns over rock-bottom interest rates (the Guardian)

-Science offers support to women who spurn their bras (The Times of London)

-Innovative Mikvot to Run on Shabbat Generators (Arutz Sheva)

- Electronic devices to be banned from court (Chicago Tribune)

- In Seoul, Kerry stresses 'possibilities of peace’ (Los Angeles Times)

- What God Wants (The New York Times)

 - Eating stale popcorn: Holiness through consumer empowerment (Times of Israel)

- Rabbi Yaakov Yosef Passes Away (Arutz Sheva)

 

- Labor MK tells Lapid: You're Thatcher with hair gel (Jerusalem Post)

 

- Technion ranks 6th in entrepreneurship, innovation (Jerudsalem Post)

-Two robbers attack Chicago store where owner fiercely fights back (Los Angeles Times)

-Bullying can be a crime, PM says (Toronto Globe and Mail)

-Jordanian Cleric: Happy to See Horror in America (Arutz Sheva)

-5 states running out of water (24/7 Wall St on MSNMoney.com)

-Old Fans Still Love Secular Singer Turned Religious (Arutz Sheva)

-Anti-Israel Protester No Match for Israeli Opera Singer (Arutz Sheva)

- Israeli Gymnast Takes Gold in European Championship (Arutz Sheva)

When The New York Times writes about what G-d wants, does that mean a ‘change’ has occurred?

When national political  leaders begin to think about criminalizing aggressive bullying—and robbery victims fight back fiercely—is there ‘change’ in the air?

Some lawyer once groused, ‘the only time they’ll keep  electronic devices out of the courts is when we reach Redemption’; well, someone congratulate him. Redemption must be here, because Chicago has just banned electronics in the courtroom.

More important, when a newspaper headline brings Holiness and consumerism together, does the world we inhabit change—or does the political accusation that Israeli politician Yair Lapid is nothing more than Margaret Thatcher with hair gel mean that nothing has changed?

Does the announcement of an Iranian Time Machine suggest that we can now travel to our future Redemption—or does it mean that the Iranians are crazier than we thought?

Can an Israeli win an international sports gold medal without Redemption?

Finally, when fans still embrace a now-religious singer, science helps women with their bras—and mikvaot (ritual baths) with Sabbath observance—can Redemption be that far away?

Is there change afoot?

Naturally, it’s possible that all of these headlines are meaningless. They may have nothing to do with the Jewish Redemption. Perhaps we needn’t worry about these things. But then, the New York Times does wonder about what G-d wants.

That’s a hint, isn’t it?