Image 01 Image 03

Mahmoud Abbas denies Jewish history, again

Mahmoud Abbas denies Jewish history, again

Calls Israel “a colonial project that has nothing to do with Judaism” established to safeguard European interests.

Mahmoud Abbas is a “moderate” by Palestinian political standards.

He fools the world into thinking the dispute with the Jews is over a little land here, a little land there. In fact, Abbas is steeped in anti-Jewish paranoia and conspiracy theories.

His Ph.D. thesis was to blame Zionists for the Holocaust:

For the past 11 years Abbas has been the chairman of the PA, yet nobody bothered to check his ideology as reflected in this book – The Other Face: The Secret Contacts Between Nazism and Zionism (1984), Dar Ibn Rashid, Amman – based on Abbas’s PhD thesis, written while he was a student in the Soviet Union. (Recently it was reported that Abbas was a KGB agent and his thesis was probably written at the direct order of his Soviet commanders, to demonize Israel and the Jewish people.)

There has been a deliberate institutional silence regarding this issue. No one dared expose Abbas’ thesis, which basically denies the Holocaust. No one wanted to destroy Abbas’s “peaceful” image. Yad Vashem has never published a single article about Abbas’s thesis or book. Other academic institutions simply ignore the issue – which proves that there is no real academic freedom in Israel.

In his book Abbas claims that the Holocaust was a Zionist-Nazi plot, and indicts the Zionist movement and its leaders such as David Ben-Gurion as “fundamental partners” in the destruction of European Jewry. Abbas also wrote that the Zionists thought anything that would cause Jews to immigrate was justified, including antisemitism and cooperation with Hitler.

(This claim has come back into vogue with anti-Israel activists.)

He regularly uses Islamist supremacist terminology in referring to Jews, such as his claim that “filthy” Jewish feet should not be allowed on the Temple Mount:

And his call for Palestinians to become martyrs against the Jews:

Abbas nonetheless puts on a “moderate” show. He’s moderate by comparison to Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah and Iran, but everything is relative.

Yesterday Abbas gave a speech in which the mask came off once and for all, and his anti-Semitic true self was visible for all the world to see.

The ostensible reason for the speech was to attack Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel:

Abbas sharply escalated his rhetoric in a speech on Sunday, lashing out at Trump over recent policy moves, such as recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. Abbas also slammed Trump’s recent Twitter comment threatening to cut American aid and alleging the Palestinians are no longer willing to negotiate a peace deal with Israel.

“Since when did we reject negotiations?” Abbas told members of the Palestinian Central Council, a key decision-making body. “Shame,” Abbas said, addressing Trump.

To laughter from the crowd, Abbas then added the phrase “Yekhreb Beitak,” literally translated as “may your house be demolished.”

In colloquial Palestinian Arabic, the phrase can have different connotations, from a harsh to a casual insult, but its use in a widely watched speech seemed jarring.

But the heart of the speech was denial of Jewish history, calling Israel a “colonial project” unrelated to Jewish history. The Times of Israel reports:

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas on Sunday night implied European Jews during the Holocaust chose to undergo “murder and slaughter” over emigration to British-held Palestine, and alleged that the State of Israel’s first prime minister David Ben-Gurion imported Jews from Yemen and Iraq to the country against their will.

The Palestinian leader further asserted that the State of Israel was formed as “a colonial project that has nothing to do with Judaism” to safeguard European interests.

The PA leader delivered a mini-lecture on his understanding of the history of Zionism on Sunday, claiming the Jewish state deliberately stirred trouble in Arab countries in order to forcibly move Middle Eastern Jews into the sparsely populated nascent state.

Abbas, in his address, made no mention of the Jews’ historic presence and periods of sovereignty in the holy land. Israel is the only place where the Jews have ever been sovereign or sought sovereignty.

None of this really is surprising. The Arab narrative against Israel from the beginning has been phrased in highly religious terms. As historian Benny Morris discovered when researching the 1948 war against the new Jewish state:

What I discovered in the documentation relating to the war, at least from the Arab side, was that the war had a religious character, that the central element in the war was an imperative to launch jihad. There were other imperatives of course, political and others—but the most important from the enemy’s perspective was the element of the infidels who had the nerve to take control over sacred Muslim lands and the need to uproot them from there. The decisive majority in the Arab world saw the war first and foremost as a holy war, but until today historians have not examined the documentation that proves this. In my view, they have also ignored Arab rhetoric of the day, which universally included religious hatred against the Jews, because they thought the Arabs adopted this as normal speech that did not emanate from deep mental resources. They thought this was something superficial, that everyone talked like this. But I am positive the Arab spokesmen in 1948 did go beyond this and clearly and explicitly talked about jihad. [emphasis added]

Abbas claim that Jews from Arab countries were forced by Zionists to flee to Israel is fiction. In fact, Jews were persecuted, killed and expelled – the Jews from Arab countries who fled to Israel (and now make up roughly half of Israel’s Jewish population together with their descendants) were rescued. We’ve covered this many times, including recently in Jewish Refugee Day: Recognizing the 850,000 Jewish Refugees from Arab and Muslim Lands.

The rhetoric we hear coming from Abbas is par for the course in the anti-Israel movement, where Israel regularly is derided as a “settler colonial project.” It’s no wonder that so much Palestinian effort goes into getting UNESCO to disregard Jewish history, particularly in Jerusalem.

What’s the difference between the position of Hamas and Abbas? Not much, if anything. Hamas was upset only that its senior leadership couldn’t attend Abbas’ speech because it was held in Ramallah:

According to Haaretz, Hamas spokesman Fauzi Barhum criticized the decision to convene the gathering in Ramallah, saying that it should have been held in a different country to ensure the participation of senior representatives from all the factions.

“We are here, we are staying, we won’t make the same mistakes of the past, we will not commit the mistakes of 1948, nor the mistakes of 1967. We are staying here, occupation, settlements, we are staying here, no matter what. We will not leave our country. This is our country,” Abbas said.

Abbas has done the unthinkable – uniting Israel left and right:

Labor party leader Avi Gabbay slams Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’ speech, in which he said Israel is a “colonial project.”

“Abu Mazen’s words are grave and false and also included anti-Semitic fabrications,” says Gabbay, using Abbas’ Arabic nickname.

It’s not about a little land here, or a little land there.  It never has been.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Abbas is a “moderate” only in the sense he uses words instead of a bomb.

4th armored div | January 15, 2018 at 9:40 am

thanks for stating the obvious (no /sarc intended).

I was born in a DP camp, my parents Auschwitz survivors.

for all the faults that people have with Trump, he has the genius of bringing out the truth. stating the historical obviousness that Jerusalem is and has been the capitol city of the Jewish people (if i forget thee, Jerusalem …).

the Fakestinians have done the US a great favor in refusing to meet with VP Pence and in uniting the political parties in Israel.

Is it time now for the Final Redemption ?
I don’t know but the Biblical accounts of Gog and Magog seem closer to reality.
Is the concept of a Moshiach true ??
I am not a theologian, just a tired Jew wishing for the struggle to come to its’ conclusion.

wishing everyone the best – 4th armored div.

To the Muslim way of thinking anything done prior to the introduction of Islam was done out of ignorance, and therefore not worth knowing and certainly not worth honoring. The pre-Islam period is considered, by Muslims, as the Age of Ignorance. The term used is Jahiliyyah.

Because Jewish history dates well before the early 7th Century, that history must be ignored and discarded.

Consider Bill Warner’s lessons on these points,

Like it or not, the Holy of Holies, where the Almighty showed his presence to Israel was on Temple Mount in Israel. Only the High Priest was allowed to enter behind the curtain to minister to the Almighty on behalf of the people.

And what do you see now? A mosque where no glory is given to Yahweh. The islamics turn their backs to the holy of holies and face mecca, showing the Almighty their backsides.

What blasphemy. No Jewish person would do that, ergo, Temple Mount is only holy to Jewish people.

(It is true that Christ is risen, and the veil torn in two, the latter indicative of our ability to enter in to the presence of G-D through Christ. However Jesus will return to Jerusalem, and reign for 1000.)years.)

I’m surprised the left hasn’t been able to leverage the diversity and apartheid cards to better effect.

The WHOLE foundation of the Muslim/Arab struggle against the State of Israel is the tenet that the land was stolen from the Palestinian Arabs, by the Jewish population now living in Israel. The Palestinians claim an ownership of the region predating that of the Jews. However, history, both written and archeological, proves this to be untrue. So, the Palestinian leadership has no choice but to do what every other group with an agenda based up-on falsehoods does, ignore the facts.

There is nothing new here. It is simply more of the same.

They want us to believe that the establishment of Israel has “nothing to do with Judaism” and that radical Islam “has nothing to do with Islam.”

Not the proudest moment in my history. But to be fair, I could have been a slave like Spartacus. My family is from Campania.

Hey, Jews, isn’t that a Minorah?

    Milhouse in reply to Arminius. | January 18, 2018 at 9:28 pm

    As I wrote before, that area had a lot of Jews until it came under Spanish rule. Many Jews left, but many went underground. If you’re from there, there’s a small but significant chance that you’re descended from a Jewish family that stayed by pretending to be Catholic.

Daniel Dravot | January 15, 2018 at 3:11 pm

An interesting questionnaire for Palestinian Advocates by Yashiko Sagamori

If you are so sure that “Palestine, the country, goes back through most of recorded history,” I expect you to be able to answer a few basic questions about that country of Palestine:
When was it founded and by whom?
What were its borders?
What was its capital?
What were its major cities?
What constituted the basis of its economy?
What was its form of government?
Can you name at least one Palestinian leader before Arafat?
Was Palestine ever recognized by a country whose existence, at that time or now, leaves no room for interpretation?
What was the language of the country of Palestine?
What was the prevalent religion of the country of Palestine?
What was the name of its currency? Choose any date in history and tell what was the approximate exchange rate of the Palestinian monetary unit against the US dollar, the German mark, GB pound, Japanese yen, or Chinese yuan on that date.
And, finally, since there is no such country today, what caused its demise and when did it occur?

Is this gaslighting working on anybody?

“Years after her aunt was murdered in her home, a young woman moves back into the house with her new husband. However, he has a secret that he will do anything to protect, even if it means driving his wife insane…”

4th armored. If it means anything, I’m 7th fleet.

I didn’t walk the walk you walked. But I sailed into storms. Even though this country p###ed on my family…

“State apologizes for mistreatment of Italian residents during WWII
Legislature passes resolution expressing ‘deepest regret’ for the wartime internment, curfews, confiscations and other indignities that thousands of Italian and Italian American families faced.”

And they’re doing it again. You want to know why you see Cristoforo Colombo statues? Because the largest lynching in the south was when 11 Italians were hung in 1891.

But I don’t need an apology. This country named a street after my paisan.

It P.O.s me that this country wants to take those statues down.

He must be consulting with Turban Durban.

“Like it or not, the Holy of Holies, where the Almighty showed his presence to Israel was on Temple Mount in Israel. Only the High Priest was allowed to enter behind the curtain to minister to the Almighty on behalf of the people.

And what do you see now? A mosque where no glory is given to Yahweh. The islamics turn their backs to the holy of holies and face mecca, showing the Almighty their backsides.”

Daisy8, the victory mosque is an Islamic tradition. They’re all over India. They’d raze a Hindu temple and build a mosque.

When I debate Muslims, I prefer to bring up Indian history. Because Muslims and western idiots always bring up the Crusades. As if the Crusades explain the Muslim invasion of Spain in 711 A.D., or the Battle of Tours in 732. Two more dates for you. The last Muslim stronghold of the Islamic invaders in Italy was wiped out in 1091. The Pope called for the first Crusade in 1095.

Think there might be a connection?

But when I recount Indian history, I avoid all the confusion.

“…The Persian historian Wassaf writes in his book ‘Tazjiyat-ul-Amsar wa Tajriyat ul Asar’ that when the Alaul-Din Khilji (An Afghan of Turkish origin and second ruler of the Khilji Dynasty in India 1295-1316 AD) captured the city of Kambayat at the head of the gulf of Cambay, he killed the adult male Hindu inhabitants for the glory of Islam, set flowing rivers of blood, sent the women of the country with all their gold, silver, and jewels, to his own home, and made about twentv thousand Hindu maidens his private slaves.

This ruler once asked his spiritual advisor (or ‘Qazi’) as to what was the Islamic law prescribed for the Hindus. The Qazi replied:

‘Hindus are like the mud; if silver is demanded from them, they must with the greatest humility offer gold. If a Mohammadan desires to spit into a Hindu’s mouth, the Hindu should open it wide for the purpose. God created the Hindus to be slaves of the Mohammadans. The Prophet hath ordained that, if the Hindus do not accept Islam, they should be imprisoned, tortured, finally put to death, and their property confiscated…'”

The key to understanding pious Muslims is that they’re always the real victims. When they attack you, if you fight back you’re victimizing them. They’re the original crybullies. How horrible were those Spaniards, taking their country back!

I make the distinction between pious and non-pious Muslims for a reason. Every day thousands of Muslims are born into the religion. They have no choice; if their father was a Muslim, they’re a Muslim. And thousands of them have no use for that s***. But, they have no choice and if they leave they’re under a death penalty. There are very few honest pious Muslims (Taqqiya, tauriya, muruna, anyone?) but the few that there are will tell you that without the death penalty for leaving Islam after having been born into it there would be no Islam. The first “rightly guided Caliph” is famous for fighting the Wars of Apostasy after Muhammad died. Most Muslims only became Muslims because they only had the choice of that or death.

Most of the Muslims I know don’t take their religion seriously. So they’re nice people who don’t know they’re supposed to hate me. I know more about it than they do. Which is why the Islamic State’s warlord took the Nom De Guerre Abu Bakr al Baghdadi. And why it’s really stupid for Imams Obama, Kerry, Cameron, Merkel, Pope Francis, etc., to pronounce that the Islamic State can’t be Islamic because they mostly kill Muslims.

Hello! The original Islamic State mostly killed other Muslims. It’s called takfir. Deciding other Muslims are the wrong kind of Muslims, “excommunicating” them, then killing them.

It’s almost the official sport of the religion. “Good Muslims” killing “bad Muslims.”

Islam is basically a blasphemous bad joke. Whoever wrote the Quran didn’t know if conflicted in every important way with Judaism and Christianity. Whoever wrote the Quran thought they were confirming prior revelation.

Here’s how blasphemous it is. According to the Quran Allah is the best of those who do Makr. What is Makr? Lying, deceit.

Since it’s not possible to be better than your god, most transliterations of the Quran don’t honestly translate makr.

Surah 3:54

“And the disbelievers planned, but Allah planned. And Allah is the best of planners.”

You can translate makr as planning, as long as you know that the planning is to do someone else a foul. Makr is never a good thing.

And in the Bible it’s Satan who is the best of “planners.”

John 8:44

“You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.”

It’s funny. CAIR sells (well, they charge for shipping and handling) English transliterations of the Quran.

But invariably when you debate Muslims, pious Muslims, they tell you that you can’t possibly know anything about Islam unless you can read Arabic.

Which is funny on so many different levels. First of all, almost no Muslims including Arabs can read 8th century classical Arabic.

Read this. It’s from the 14th century.

Their Quran is less than 100 years old. It’s the 1924 Cairo edition. It’s just as much a translation from the original as any English Quran.

It’s entirely possible to transliterate between Arabic and English. We do it with contracts all the time. The real problem is that even classical Arabic scholars have to admit the Quran is unintelligible. If it can’t be read in Arabic, it can’t be transliterated. They can only understand about 80 percent of it. One of the reasons why is because despite claiming at least six times it’s written in Arabic, it’s not. At least not entirely. And why would you have to claim something like that unless it’s in dispute. How many times did the authors of the Septuagint or the New Testament have to declare they were writing in Greek?

One of the glaring examples of the fact that the Quran isn’t entirely Arabic is Issa. They have the wrong name for Jesus. The Arabic version of the Hebrew Yeshua is Yasu. There were Christian Arabs for six centuries before Muhammad, and that’s the name they used. Yet in the Quran he is called Issa. That’s not Arabic, that’s Syriac.

In a way, these people are right. Because most Quranic transliterations are not honest. The people transliterating them tend to be embarrassed by the Quran, and they clean it up for western readers.

My Yusuf Ali transliteration of Surah 4:34 says

“Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient and guard in (the husband’s) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part you would fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first). (next) refuse to share their beds. (and last) chastise them (lightly)…

An important note. When you read the Quran the words in parens are not in the Arabic. They are basically author’s notes.

And you can not translate “idribuhunne” as “chastise.” It means to beat, to scourge. And there’s nothing light about it.

Sahih al-Bukhari – Book of Dress – (23) Chapter: Green clothes

” Narrated `Ikrima:

Rifa`a divorced his wife whereupon `AbdurRahman bin Az-Zubair Al-Qurazi married her. `Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah’s Messenger came, `Aisha said, ‘I HAVE NOT SEEN ANY WOMAN SUFFERING AS MUCH AS THE BELIEVING WOMEN. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!’ When `AbdurRahman heard that his wife had gone to the Prophet, he came with his two sons from another wife. She said, ‘By Allah! I have done no wrong to him but he is impotent and is as useless to me as this,’ holding and showing the fringe of her garment, `Abdur-Rahman said, ‘By Allah, O Allah’s Messenger! She has told a lie! I am very strong and can satisfy her but she is disobedient and wants to go back to Rifa`a.’ Allah’s Messenger said, to her, ‘If that is your intention, then know that it is unlawful for you to remarry Rifa`a unless `Abdur-Rahman has had sexual intercourse with you.’ Then the Prophet saw two boys with `Abdur- Rahman and asked (him), ‘Are these your sons?’ On that `AbdurRahman said, ‘Yes.’ The Prophet said, ‘You claim what you claim (i.e.. that he is impotent)? But by Allah, these boys resemble him as a crow resembles a crow,'”

According to all the schools of Islamic figh (jurisprudence) you can beat your wife as hard as you like as long as you don’t hit her in the face or break bones. But Abdullah Yusuf Ali doesn’t want you to know this.

I prefer the Oxford University Press version of the Quran.

But still, not even the most dishonest Muslim can hide it all.

Also, that’s Aisha. Muhammad’s favorite child bride.

The “Mother of the Faithful.”

And she’s saying that pagan women have it better than Muslim women. Chew on that for a while. Muhammad punched her once in the chest, and she said it hurt.

Muslim recruiters, those doing Dawah, like to tell women that Muhammad was the original feminist. Like most of everything else you’ll read in the Quran, not true. There were hundreds of tribes in Arabia, and some were matriarchal. With the advent of Islam, a man can divorce his wife just by saying the word. But a woman has to go to a sharia court and beg their permission.

Guess how often they get it.

But in pre-Islamic Arabia in some tribes a woman could divorce her husband simply by turning her tent around. When the man came home and saw the entrance to the tent facing the opposite way he had to leave with only the clothes on his back.

    austin in reply to Arminius. | January 16, 2018 at 6:26 pm

    Ammianus Marcellinus: The Roman History, Book XIV.iv.1-7. , c. 380 CE

    Book XIV.4: At this time also the Saracens, a race whom it is never desirable to have either for friends or enemies, ranging up and down the country, if ever they found anything, plundered it in a moment, like rapacious hawks who, if from on high they behold any prey, carry it off with a rapid swoop, or, if they fail in their attempt, do not tarry. And although, in recounting the career of the Prince Marcus, and once or twice subsequently, I remember having discussed the manners of this people, nevertheless I will now briefly enumerate a few more particulars concerning them.

    Among these tribes, whose primary origin is derived from the cataracts of the Nile and the borders of the Blemmyae, all the men are warriors of equal rank; half naked, clad in colored cloaks down to the waist, overrunning different countries, with the aid of swift and active horses and speedy camels, alike in times of peace and war. Nor does any member of their tribe ever take plow in hand or cultivate a tree, or seek food by the tillage of the land; but they are perpetually wandering over various and extensive districts, having no home, no fixed abode or laws; nor can they endure to remain long in the same climate, no one district or country pleasing them for a continuance.

    Their life is one continued wandering; their wives are hired, on special covenant, for a fixed time; and that there may be some appearance of marriage in the business, the intended wife, under the name of a dowry, offers a spear and a tent to her husband, with a right to quit him after a fixed day, if she should choose to do so. And it is inconceivable with what eagerness the individuals of both sexes give themselves up to matrimonial pleasures.

    But as long as they live they wander about with such extensive and perpetual migrations, that the woman is married in one place, brings forth her children in another, and rears them at a distance from either place, no opportunity of remaining quiet being ever granted to her. They all live on venison, and are further supported on a great abundance of milk, and on many kinds of herbs, and on whatever birds they can catch by fowling. And we have seen a great many of them wholly ignorant of the use of either corn or wine.

Surah 16:67

“And from the fruits of the palm trees and grapevines you take intoxicant and good provision. Indeed in that is a sign for a people who reason.”

Initially Islam did not forbid alcohol. It forbade showing up to the mosque drunk. Only later did it forbid alcohol all together.

So, yeah, they weren’t ignorant of wine.