Crippled Zelda, "The Pogrom Girl"

I was busy in the newspaper archives yesterday, and noticed by chance the following article, headed "The Pogrom Girl," in three New South Wales rural newspapers starting with the Quirindi Herald and District News, 18 October 1907. It was reproduced from a column written by Gertrude Landa (Aunt Naomi) in the London Daily News. 

Concerning a Russian Jewish refugee in Edwardian London, it reads like a short story but is a factual article.  I think it's worth posting, for the record. (Of course, "the Lane" mentioned in the article is the famous Petticoat Lane, in Whitechapel. pictured left.)

Little Zelda rides daily in her carriage now, and is extremely happy. Some people feel very sorry for her when they see her drive past daily, and say, "Poor little thing." 

Zelda's large shining eyes do look sorrowful and there is even a touch of sorrow in the sweet smile with which she answers all the glances directed at her.

Zelda is a cripple, and the carriage in which she rides is the omnibus which calls for her and for others afflicted as she is, and takes them all to school. 

A bright, clean, and cheerful lady, in a nurse's costume, sits with them, and altogether they feel very happy; and in their prayers they do not forget the kind and generous people who have devised these and other things for their comforrt.

When I first saw Zelda lifted out of the omnibus one day, I cried. One foot is strangely twisted. She cannot put it to the ground, and, even with a crutch she walks with very great difficulty.

I asked her how she came to be so afflicted, and the poor little girl's face went white and she trembled. She looked so frightened that I was sorry I had asked the question. She cried also
when 1 kissed her.

"Everybody in this wonderful land is so kind," she said. " I think this must be Heaven mentioned in our prayers."

It was so strange a remark for a girl only ten years old to make that I was really anxious to hear her story. And when I got to know Zelda better she told me it of her own accord, in quaint, broken English.

Zelda is a pogrom girl. She was one of the victims of a pogrom in a fearful Russian town, where Jews have been set upon and massacred.

"Oh! it was a horrible time," she told me."My father – peace be on him – he was a teacher of Hebrew – he came running into the house one day and cried, 'In God's name, hide ! Hide in the cellar!"

"That was not easy. Mother was in bed. We had a new baby – peace be on him – and mother could not move. We would not go  nto the cellar without her.  There was my eldest brother, Yankel,
nearly a man, a brave boy. He got the big wood-chopper and stood near the door.

'This for the first pogromchik who comes in here,' he said fiercely; but my father said, 'No, no." My mother cried bitterly. Only my older sister, Sorra, she whose betrothed went away to fight for the Czar in Manchuria [during the Russo-Japanese Wat, 1904-5 – D.A.], she was calm.

She took me into the cellar. Then we heard a great noise and screaming and scuffling. 

What happened I cannot tell you. Ask me not. The pogromchik found us; they dragged us up the steps into the room whore mother lay. Father was not there. Yankel was not there. Only mother, was there!

She was moanlng, oh, so pitifully. The baby,the little blue-eyed Moses, only two weeks old, he was not crying. He was covered with a white tablecloth, which was red – yes. with blood."

I wanted Zelda to cease telling me her story.

But she said, "No; let me finish. There was somebody else dead in the room, a great big, ugly man, one of the pogromchlks. It was horrible to look at him. Near him was the big wooden chopper, and 1 know it was my brother, Yankel, who had killed the man. I began to cry. I was only a little girl. I had never seen such things before.

Sorra had no tears. She never cried after she heard that her betrothed was wounded in the war. We sat down on the floor and mother looked at us as if strange. She kept asking for the baby.

Then there was a great noise in the street. Sorra got up to bar the door,but it was broken. 

The pogromchiks came back. We stood by the bed to guard mother.  Sorra picked up the big
wood-chopper, but it fell from her hand,and she gave a terrible scream. I screamed as well. The men had some thing on a board. They threw it on the floor .

'This is yours,' they said, and they laughed in a way that made me feel cold. Then they went away. 

The thing on the board was once our father."

Again Zelda interrupted her story with an outburst of tears, and I said I did not wish to hear the rest;

"I had two straight legs then," she.went on as if she did not hear me. "When I saw my dear father dead, my father who loved me so, my father who taught me the beautiful prayers and told me the wonderful stories from the Bible and from the Talmud, I felt like Yankel must have felt when he picked up the big wood-chopper. It was there on the floor, with blood on it. 

I looked at it, and I could see nothing but the blood. I picked it up. I ran to the door. I threw it with all my might at the men. It hit the man who had said, 'This Is yours.' It hit him on the head.It did not kill him. 

Blood came from his face, but he picked up the chopper, and  – and, you can see I the mark on mv leg yet.  It is all twisted. Oh, It did hurt! It burnt like fire, and I fell across my father's body.  I thought I was going to die too."

****

The rest of the story I heard from others.

Zelda, with her foot in bandages, and her mother and sister, left home one night – the same night that their father and the baby were buried. Her mother and sister are working here, and they
live on a nice, clean little tenement not far from "the Lane." 

They are going to America soon. Sorra's young man escaped from Manchuria to British Columbia, and he is now in Cincinnati, working hard and making money for his future wife. They have heard from the brave Yankel, too. He was sent to Siberia, but he is hopeful of escaping and reaching America.

"Yankel always keeps his word, mother says," Zelda told me. "If he says he will escape from Siberia, we know he will. He sent us word with a man who escaped. They could not escape, together, or they would have been found out."

Zelda told me one thing more.

"I am collecting pennies and halfpennies for the Cripples' Fund. I have put all my halfpennies in a box. I do so want to leave something for the fund before I go to America. I shall so sorry to miss my beautiful carriage."

(I wonder whether she and Yankel did in fact settle there.)

David Singer: United Nations Loses the Plot in Ignoring Israel-Jordan Reality

Here's the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

He writes:

29th November 2017 marks the 70th anniversary of United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) (Resolution) calling for the creation in Western Palestine of independent Arab and Jewish States and a Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem (Partition Plan).

The Resolution did not mention:

· the “West Bank” (a term dreamt-up in 1950) – using instead the terms “Judea” and “Samaria” - their correct geographical place names for the previous 3000 years

· a “Palestinian State” – only an “Arab State”

· one Arab State had already been created in Eastern Palestine on 25 May 1946 named the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan covering 78% of the territory comprised in the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine (Mandate).

The Partition Plan was accepted by the Jews but vehemently rejected by the Arabs.

H. R. H. Amir FAISAL AL SAUD (Saudi Arabia) fulminated:

We have felt, like many others, the pressure exerted on various representatives of this Organization by some of the big Powers in order that the vote should be in favour of partition. For these reasons, the Government of Saudi Arabia registers, on this historic occasion, the fact that it does not consider itself bound by the resolution adopted today by the General Assembly. Furthermore, it reserves to itself the full right to act freely in whatever way it deems fit, in accordance with the principles of right and justice. 

Mr. JAMALI (Iraq) protested:

In the name of my Government, I wish to state that it feels that this decision is antidemocratic, illegal, impractical and contrary to the Charter. It contradicts the spirit and letter of the Charter. Therefore, in the name of my Government, I wish to put on record that Iraq does not recognize the validity of this decision, will reserve freedom of action towards its implementation, and holds those who were influential in passing it against the free conscience of mankind responsible for the consequences. 

 Amir ARSLAN (Syria) joined the chorus:

Gentlemen, the Charter is dead. But it did not die a natural death; it was murdered, and you all know who is guilty.

My country will never recognize such a decision. It will never agree to be responsible for it. Let the consequences be on the heads of others, not on ours. 

H. R. H. Prince Seif El ISLAM ABDULLAH (Yemen) was just as condemnatory:

The Yemen delegation has stated previously that the partition plan is contrary to justice and to the Charter of the United Nations. Therefore, the Government of Yemen does not consider itself bound by such a decision for it is contrary to the letter and spirit of the Charter. The Government of Yemen will reserve its freedom of action to-wards the implementation of this decision.

This implacable Arab rejectionism was the catalyst for the 1948 invasion of Western Palestine by six Arab armies and the perpetuation of the Arab-Jewish conflict for the next 70 years.

2017 sees:

· Iraq, Syria and Yemen as failed states - with Saudi Arabia in danger of joining them.

· The General Assembly sinking in quicksand of its own making after creating “The Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People” in 1975 and adopting countless resolutions using emotive and artificially-contrived terms such as:

· “West Bank”

· “Occupied Palestinian Territory”

· “historic Palestine”

· “Palestinian People”

· “Palestinians”

· “Palestinian State”

· “two-state solution”

 The United Nations continues to lose the plot whilst it:

(i) Uses such deceptive and misleading language

(ii) Fails to recognise that Jordan and Israel are the two successor states currently exercising sovereignty in 95% of former Palestine.

The United Nations must resurrect 1947 reality and abandon 2017 fiction.

In Australia, the NIF Hooks a Big 'Un

'Any Jew who endorses the view that Judaism’s most sacred site – formerly occupied by the Jordanians who denied Jews access to worship – is occupied territory is reminiscent of medieval “mosers” (informers), who were ostracized from the religious and social life of the community. Those in J Street, The New Israel Fund and other far left Jewish groups who consider Jewish districts of Jerusalem and Judaism’s holiest site to be “occupied territories” should be regarded as renegades and treated as such.'

So wrote the renowned Isi Leibler, who, with his soaring intelligence (as many readers will know, he graduated from the University of Melbourne with a first-class honors degree in political science, embarked on a doctorate and would have entered the diplomatic service had not fate intervened) and other extraordinary qualities, led the Australian Jewish community for some 25 years before leaving for Jerusalem.  Known for his quick incisive mind, instantaneous grasp of the essence of issues, and his vigorous dedication to the welfare of Israel and world Jewry, he has inveighed several times against the New Israel Fund (NIF), which established a branch in Australia in 2011. 

That organisation's mischief-making has been exposed and ably summarised  by Professor Gerald Steinberg's NGO Monitor here

See also here and here

For NIF Australia see here

There seems little doubt that the leaders of NIF Australia are largely if not exclusively on the political left.  Australian Jewish (JAir radio) broadcaster Michael Burd commented below Shirlee Finn's post here last year:

"Our radio program Nothing Left has been exposing this insidious bunch of anti Israel activists for a long time.

We have had ... experts on our program ...  who have provided facts and figures not just raw opinion . Our Jerusalem based good friend Isi Leibler has on many occasions let our listeners know how NIF are helping our enemies to demonize Israel around the world .

[Fellow broadcaster] Alan Freedman and myself delivered an excellent talk with fantastic feedback at the recent Limmud O . In fact one of NIF supporters also on the board of the far left wing Limmud Oz was in the audience and I think was hugely embarrassed by the overwhelming evidence we supplied. Of course in typical leftist manner all [that] NIF supporters could do was demonize and shoot the messenger...."

NIF Australia now has, it's rumoured, a new cobber in Australia, namely the country's oldest Reform congregation, Temple Beth Israel in Melbourne, established in 1930, and led for decades by two very great men in succession, intellectuals Rabbi Dr Herman Sanger from Berlin, a robust Zionist, and Rabbi Dr John Levi, whose sense of history and love for Eretz Israel and Medinat Israel is palpable.

But now, under its present rabbi and board of management, the Temple is rumoured to on the verge of partnering, so to speak, with NIF Australia and, through the employment of a holder of an NIF Australia Naomi Chazan Fellowship, of acting as a sort of propaganda vehicle for the NIF, at any rate within the congregation itself.

No doubt the Temple, naively, has the best of intentions in pursuing such a path.  But it's disturbing to see it hoodwinked.

To quote Isi Leibler again, interviewed by Michael Burd last year:

"I would urge anybody who has the interest of Israel at heart not to have anything to do with New Israel Fund. It is an organization which is sponsoring enemies of the Jewish people, which is sponsoring groups which are reviling and demonizing the Jewish people. It is sponsoring groups within Israel which are undermining the Zionist vision, and all I can say is you can just look at the list of where their donations go to some of these organizations. It's quite frightening.

I would say to you, any Australians who are committed to the Jewish people, you're not doing the Jewish people or Israel a favor by sponsoring this organization, which, as I say, whatever it may do on the side, you can do it directly.

Give it to the Keren Hayesod or give to any other Jewish organization. You know where it's going to go. But don't give it to an organization a large proportion of whose funds are going to go towards anti-Zionist bodies. In fact, they've even got organizations that they're sponsoring who are calling for a boycott of the territories over the Green Line. To have Jews supporting such a body, it's a great shame. Many of these people are stupid, and some of them are not stupid. Some of them are bad.

... There's no excuse for anybody that is committed to Israel today to be providing money to people that give money to anti-Israeli causes. 

I must tell you, this group is one of the worst of all the groups. You've given only one example, but they send their emissaries all over the world to try and ...demonize Israel, and accuse Israel of war crimes. Everybody has condemned them here. Everybody has condemned them. Even the Israel labor party foreign has condemned these groups... 

All I can say to Australians is please, think twice before you support this group, and don't be conned by the fact that they describe themselves as progressives. There's nothing progressive about supporting elements that are against Israel, and undermine Israel. Believe me, Australia's a pretty good country when it comes to Israel, but you've still got plenty of negative elements in Australia.

You've got the ABC. You've got the Fairfax Media, and you've got quite a few other left-wing media that are doing nothing else except attacking Israel. Why on earth do you have to support an organization which is going to bring people into Israel, into Australia, that are going to help build up the anti-Israeli campaign? What's wrong with people that they can ... It's very hard to visualize and understand how people can behave in this manner. 

Michael: Yes. Finally, on the NIF they bring out a conga line of far left-wing anti-Zionist Jews. One of them they're bringing out recently, or coming, is a very prominent American journalist who happens to be Obama's favorite Jewish journalist. So you can imagine where he's come from. His name is Roger Cohen, and one ... 

Isi: Yes. He writes for the New York Times, and he has written pernicious stuff against Israel, vicious, Vicious, Vicious stuff, and you should also, when he comes out, some people should look up and Google some of the articles he wrote about Iran, because he went to Iran and thought they weren't so bad. Quite nice people, the Iranians. They're bringing this man out to Australia. What for? 

Michael: Yeah, that's right. Cohen wrote that he said that the hospitality he received as a Jew in Iran was a sign that the country was misunderstood. I think that just sums up ... 

Isi: Exactly. Exactly. This sort of a man is being brought to Australia? That's the New Israel Fund ? That is the New Israel Fund. That sums them up."  [Emphasis added]

Ayatollah Khamenei: "This cancerous tumour should be fought against"

Addressing scholars from around the world who were in Tehran for a conference on tackling the Takfiri ideology, Iran's supreme spiritual leader describes at length the Zionist Entity as the root of all the Islamic world's evil and fomenter of plots in the Middle East region.

Palestine was "an Islamic country that has been usurped and turned into a means of sabotaging the security of several countries in the region," he rants, and "This cancerous tumour should be fought against".

In the following Press TV video, which is no substitute for the above as far as the actual speech goes, Dr Riaz Karim of the recently formed Veritas Centre for Strategic Studies in London, appears to agree.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmprsj1XpuQ

However, relief may be on the way!

"You're Just a Bunch of Liars": In London, anti-Israel activists get told the truth

At London University's School of Oriental and African Studies yesterday, an Israel-demonising affair didn't go exactly as planned, owing to the presence of a stalwart band of Israel-supporters who told the participants what they didn't want to hear, got ejected for doing so, and are now being slurred as "having ties to the EDL".

(See video, which should be watched to the end, and post here)

That slur is not only baseless but most ironic, given the fact that one of the anti-Israel activists who couldn't attend, but would very much have liked to, is 9/11 truther Tony Gratrex, founder of the Reading PSC, who (see here for example) is widely perceived to be an antisemite:

Moreover, Ms Pinch herself, the Anglican daughter of a Jewish mother from Czechoslovakia if I'm informed correctly, has raised eyebrows in linking to material from the notorious antisemitic Redress site that I understand most PSC types try, publicly at least, to avoid:

(A post of mine regarding Littlewood here)

Some more reactions on Twitter to the SOAS event:

Talking of Iran, our old mate rhe CEO of "Peacemaker Mediators" (freshly fired up with support for Sabeel, btw) has just recorded a Christmas message:

Just what is it about the land of the mullahs that seems to fascinate the ex-vicar so much?  What, oh what, can it be?

Israel, Jordan and PLO Apprehensive about Trump Peace Plan

Here's the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

He writes:

President Trump has appeared to dampen expectations that his “ultimate deal” to resolve the Arab-Jewish conflict will shortly emerge.

The only clue given so far is this statement from the White House:

“What we can say is we are engaged in a productive dialogue with all relevant parties and are taking a different approach than the past to create an enduring peace deal. We are not going to put an artificial deadline on anything and we have no imminent plans beyond continuing our conversations. As we have always said, our job is to facilitate a deal that works for both Israelis and Palestinians, not to impose anything on them."

Israel, Jordan and the PLO each have their own reasons to be apprehensive as to the different approach that Trump might be contemplating.

The approach for the last 24 years has concentrated on implementing:

1. The 1993 Oslo Accords (Oslo) signed between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) and

2. The 2003 Bush-Quartet Roadmap endorsed by America, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations (Roadmap) – agreed to by Israel – albeit with 14 reservations – and the PLO

These two internationally-sanctioned agreements sought to create a second independent Arab state – in addition to Jordan – in the territory comprised in the 1922 Mandate for Palestine.

Sovereignty in 95% of the Mandate territory had already been vested in:

1. Jordan since 1946 (78%) and

2. Israel since 1948 (17%).

Sovereignty remained unallocated in just 5% of the Mandate territory – Judea and Samaria (West Bank) and Gaza (“the unallocated territories”).

Under Oslo, 40% of the unallocated territories containing 95% of the Arab population living there are currently under PLO or Hamas administration – whilst 5% are under Israel’s administration in the remaining 60%.

The Roadmap’s attempt to convert Oslo’s achievement into a “three-state” subdivision of the Mandate territory has failed.

Offers by Israel in 2000/1 and 2008 to cede its claims to sovereignty in more than 90% of the unallocated territories were rejected by the PLO – which demanded 100%.

The idea of territorial swaps was unsuccessfully floated by President Obama.

Negotiations to create this third state – suspended since April 2014 – appear dead and buried.

Trump’s different approach from these past failures could lead him to revisiting the following viewpoint enunciated by Ronald Reagan on 4 September 1980 – when seeking election as President:

“Israel and Jordan are the two Palestinian states envisioned and authorized by the United Nations. Jordan is now recognized in some 80% of the old territory of Palestine. Israel and Jordan are the parties primarily authorized to settle the future of the unallocated territories in accordance with the principles of the mandate and the provisions of Resolutions 242 and 338.” 

President Reagan after his election however adopted a different stance when declaring on 1 September 1982:

1. The United States would not support the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, and would not support annexation or permanent control by Israel.

2. Self-government by the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza in association with Jordan offered the best chance for a durable, just, and lasting peace.

Israel rejected this proposal. The PLO refused to allow Jordan to negotiate on its behalf.

An amalgam of Reagan’s 1980 and 1982 positions could break the current negotiating stalemate by proposing that:

1. Jordan be allocated sovereignty in areas of the West Bank and Gaza agreed with Israel and

2. Jordanian citizenship be granted to the entire Gazan and West Bank Arab populations.

There is no substitute for a solution based on history, geography, demography and international law.

Jennifer's Jesting? "Turnbull Must Urgently Clarify Whether or Not He is Entitled to Israeli Citizenship"

The Australian "Dual Citizenship" debacle, which has seen several federal policians departing their parliamentary seats because they are dual citizens of Australia and another country grew ugly during the past week or so with suggestions, lauded by antisemites, that energy minister Josh Frydenberg, may be ineligible to sit in parliament because his mother was born (1943) in Hungary, a claim roundly denounced by prime minister Malcolm Turnbull.

Now, antisemites and anti-"Zionists" are jubilant over the issue of whether Mr Turnbull himself is ineligible to sit in Parliament owing to the Israeli Law of Return!

"Turnbull must urgently clarify whether or not he is entitled to Israeli citizenship

The S44 citizenship saga has thrown up possible queries concerning the citizenship status of Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull.

The first is this interview with the Times of Israel in September 2015, recorded when Turnbull ousted former Prime Minister Tony Abbott and took over the top job:

My mother always used to say that her mother’s family was Jewish, he (Turnbull) told the Australian Jewish News two years ago. Judaism is passed from generation to generation on the mother’s side, so if his mother was in fact Jewish, so is Turnbull.

The second is a piece from the Australian Jewish News, August 2013, headlined “Menachem Mandel Turnbull?” in which the same statement is made by Turnbull about his mother, Coral Lansbury.

If Turnbull is Jewish, he is, as is every Jew in the world with the exception of criminals and terrorists, entitled to Israeli citizenship under the 1950 Law of Return.

How does this bring into question Turnbull’s legitimacy as an MP?

Section 44(i) of Australia’s Constitution disqualifies someone from office if that person:

…is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power… (emphasis mine)

We know from recent events that:

The High Court’s reading of section 44 is strict and unsurprising. It means that a dual national is barred from Parliament even where they were born in Australia, are ignorant of their other citizenship and have never attempted to use the rights or privileges of another country. A person can even be disqualified where they become a dual national later in life due to legal changes in another country.

Obviously his citizenship status and S44 were far from Turnbull’s mind in 2013 and 2015, when the interviews were recorded. Yet he was, at the beginning of his political career, like any other aspiring MP whose background carries the possibility of dual citizenship or entitlement to that citizenship, required to establish his status before standing for parliament. His failure to do this places his legitimacy as an MP and Prime Minister in doubt.

For the sake of the country’s stability, Turnbull must immediately address these issues, and rapidly and transparently convey his citizenship status to the Australian people. It is unthinkable that we should continue with a Prime Minister who is ineligible to sit in our parliament.

Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg is in the same situation as Turnbull. Frydenberg’s mother is Jewish, and he is also entitled to Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return."

The originally appeared here: the comments below the line there tell their own story.

Its author, Jennifer Wilson, is thus described:

"Jennifer, who has a PhD, has worked as an academic and a scholar, but now works at little of both her careers. She has published short stories in several anthologies, academic papers and book chapters, frequently on the topic of human rights. Her interests and writing are wide ranging, including cultural analysis. Jennifer has written for On Line Opinion, Suite 101 and ABC’s Drum Unleashed. Jennifer is well-known for her long-running blog No Place for Sheep: an eclectic blog that covers politics, society, satire, fiction and fun stuff."

So I'm assuming that it's a clumsy satire on her part, misrepresented by the Jew- and Israel-haters who have shared it on Facebook.

Mr Turnbull is certainly a firm friend of Israel, and as I've written before, he's hinted more that once that he is of Jewish descent on his mother's side. 

To quote the Australian Jewish News in 2013:

'....“My mother always used to say that her mother’s family was Jewish,” the member for Wentworth said....
Asked if his mother’s revelation has shaped his views he said: “Yes, maybe.”
 “I grew up in the Eastern Suburbs and as we all observe there were a lot of Jews in the Eastern Suburbs and I have always been very comfortable.
“There is no doubt that the strong traditions of family and the whole heimishe atmosphere of the Jewish community, which I’m sure some people don’t like, for me – as someone who is a good friend, but not part of it – I find very admirable.”
Reflecting on his mother, he noted, “She had a lot of Jewish friends in Sydney and a lot of Jewish friends in Philadelphia, where she was living when she died.”....'

 But as commenter Max stated on this post of mine, he (Max) failed to find a definitive answer:

'Turnbull's being pretty well claimed as of Jewish halachic descent by half the Jewish press in the world! If he wants to be Jewish - great - who are we to keep him out? As far as I can make out his mother Coral's mother was May Morle whose own mother was Alice Harriet Hawes, born GB 1848, her mother being Sarah somebody - there the trail runs cold.'

And as far as "dual citizenship" is concerned it wouldn't matter if he had! Being eligible to emigrate to Israel under the Law of Return does not an Israeli citizen make.

Snowballs & A Missive from British Columbia

It's swelteringly hot in Oz this week, which is perhaps why my thoughts have turned longingly to snow.

Alas, this is what I came across, written by Dan Snow.

The Duke of Westminster's son-in-law, the well-connected Dan comes from a broadcasting family: he's pompous Israel-bashing Channel 4 newspeader John Snow's nephew and BBC broadcaster Peter Snow's son.  He himself presents television documentaries on historical topics.

Here's a recent photo of Dan with Israel-demoniser Professor Avi Shlaim, practically every British Israel-bashing event's de rigueur guest.  

Judging from the chummy smiles, it's perhaps not so very surprising seems that Mr Snow, who calls himself "The History Guy," has been falling for and disseminating faux propaganda (in polite parlance "balls") on Twitter regarding a certain Declaration:

He soon found himself challenged.  When asked whether he included Palestinian Jews in the above, he responded "Absolutely".

The questioner then observed: "Glad you clarified that, Dan because dig into the soil of Israel and you find eons of Jewish history." 

To which Snow replied: "You bet. Texan soil has eons of Spanish history too but the British empire would have been behaving oddly giving it to Spain..."

Among the subsequent criticisms of Snow came this, from an international relations specialist at a UK university: 'I was more intrigued by "owned by the Ottomans" as if that's somehow a more legitimate form of imperialism than a League of Nations mandate.'

Quite so.

Meanwhile, from a Canadian, an old mate of ours has received, none too happily, some home truths:

What irony!

I mean, has there ever been a time when any of Sizer's followers has intervened to suggest a red card for, let alone police action against, the raw antisemitic commenters and "Israel did 9/11" conspiracy theorists who are among the ex-vicar's Facebook friends?

Not that I've noticed.

David Singer: ABC News Admits “Human Error” Wiped Israel from Map

Regular readers of this blog will know that the ABC is the terrible twin of the BBC: publicly funded, obligated to objectivity, but pursuing a left-wing agenda nevertheless, one that more often than not entails bias against Israel. 

In this, his latest article, Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer examines a recent admission, owing to a challenge from him, regarding an omission on the ABC's part, and how they have arrogantly stopped short of apologising for their "error".

BBC watchers, especially those who have complained to the BBC over items of bias, will certainly feel a sense of déjà vu when they read this.

Writes David Singer:

ABC News has belatedly admitted that “human error” caused Israel to be wiped from the following map:

This admission came during the investigation of a complaint lodged by me concerning a segment aired on Media Watch featuring the above map titled “Misplaced map outrage”

Audience and Consumer Affairs (“AACA”) – a unit separate to and independent of the content making areas of the ABC – dealt with my complaint alleging that Media Watch had breached the ABC's editorial standards of accuracy.

Media Watch had focused on a Daily Mail story dated 19 August which accused the ABC of wiping Israel off the map.

Media Watch sought to provide the context missing from the Daily Mail article – namely, that the ABC report was about repealing a law which allows rapists to escape punishment if they marry their victims, that Israel had never had that law whereas such laws had been applied in Palestinian territories.

The ABC had responded to the Daily Mail on 21 August:

“[t]he graphic did not represent a map of the Middle East but a visual representation of the countries relevant to the story”.

Media Watch presenter Paul Barry justified Israel’s omission from the map:

“But two days is obviously an age in the Mail’s hectic newsroom. And clearly no one bothered to watch the ABC report. Because if they had they would have known that the nations in blue are where this law has been abolished. And the nations in yellow are those that still have it on their books. And Israel was not on the map because it never had the offending statute." 

AACA’s investigation found otherwise:

“With regards to the original image used on The World, we have sought additional information from ABC News who have advised that unfortunately due to human error the yellow shading covered a larger area than where the laws are applicable. But as marry-your-rapist laws have never been enacted in Israel, Israel was not labelled on the map so as not to mislead viewers that Israel had or has any such laws. However, this was not an implicit political comment or any attempt to delegitimise Israel.”

AACA determined:

“Within the context of the Media Watch segment which especially sought to provide context to the Daily Mail’s article, Audience and Consumer Affairs are satisfied that viewers would not be materially misled by the inclusion of the graphic from The World. Nevertheless, we have noted your concerns and made them available to the program, ABC Television and ABC News for their consideration.” 

Challenging AACA’s determination as “perplexing” – I responded: 

“The yellow shading in covering a larger area than where the laws are applicable was not accurate because:

(i) the yellow shaded area mistakenly included Israel and

(ii) the yellow shaded area mistakenly identified and clearly labelled "Israel" as "Palestine" Surely this admitted "human error" needs to be publicly acknowledged by the ABC and a public correction or clarification issued.

I would further submit that this human error comes within part 2.1 of the ABC's editorial standards - which you do not appear to have even considered:

"2.1 Make reasonable efforts to ensure that material facts are accurate and presented in context" 

AACA replied: 

“We have nothing further to add to our substantive response.”

This dismissive response coming from the annual $1 billion taxpayer-funded ABC is not acceptable.

Reprimanding those responsible for this “human error” and those who sought to publicly justify Israel’s exclusion from the map using artificially-contrived reasons is surely warranted – particularly as the ABC has been recently accused of anti-Israel bias.

Media Watch certainly needs to issue a clarification and apology.

"Stefan" Says: "Ben Gurion Airport Security is Not What it Used to Be ..."

Ah, how pristine our old friend Stephen Sizer's passport appears to be in this 2013 checkpoint photo opportunity:

As gleaming as this token, honorary one the peripatetic ex-vicar acquired on his travels recently:

With frequent peregrinations hither and thither in the cause of undermining Christian support for Israel it's not surprising that the owner's EU one is looking a tad knocked about a bit.

Our old friend has been visiting Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Nazareth and Ramallah, all the while treating his followers on social media to such posts as these (the first two are nods to Sandra Watfa):

which, inter alia, attracted such odious and unchallenged responses as these from his disciples:

 There was also this from the so-called Peacemaker Mediators' CEO:

That article:

'Howard Jacobson, Simon Sebag Montefiore and Simon Schama posted an open letter in The Times in which they said they were “troubled by the tone and direction of debate about Israel and Zionism within the Labour Party”.

In the centenary year of the Balfour Declaration, in which the British government committed its support to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine, the trio say: “Zionism is the right of the Jewish people to self-determination. We believe that anti-Zionism, with its antisemitic characteristics, has no place in a civil society.”

 In 2009, Booker Prize winner Jacobson, now 75, wrote that criticism of Israel was “a desire to word a country out of existence,” and this week he again equated criticism of Israel with the will to destroy it.

“We do not object to fair criticism of Israel governments,” the three wrote, “but this has grown to be indistinguishable from a demonisation of Zionism itself – the right of the Jewish people to a homeland, and the very existence of a Jewish state.”

They said Jewish conspiracy theories had resurfaced along with “the promotion of vicious, fictitious parallels with genocide and Nazism,” adding: “How, in such instances, is anti-Zionism distinguishable from antisemitism?”

Adding their voice to a growing debate about anti-Zionism and antisemitism, the authors also allege that anti-Zionists “claim innocence of any antisemitic intent” but “frequently borrow the libels of classical Jew-hating”.

Turning their combined attention to Labour, they say “such themes and language have become widespread in Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party… so far the Labour leadership’s reaction has been derisory. It is not enough to denounce all racisms”.'

And if by this post he's attempting to indict Israel, he's barking up the wrong tree:

 For we read:

 'Approximately 215 million Christians experience high, very high, or extreme persecution. North Korea remains the most dangerous place to be a Christian (for 14 straight years). Islamic extremism remains the global dominant driver of persecution, responsible for initiating oppression and conflict in 35 out of the 50 countries on the 2017 list.  Ethnic nationalism is fast becoming a major driver of persecution. “While this took an anti-establishment form in the West, in Asia it took an anti-minorities form, fueled by dramatic religious nationalism and government insecurity. It is common—and easy—for tottering governments to gain quick support by scapegoating Christians. The total number of persecution incidents in the top 50 most dangerous countries increased, revealing the persecution of Christians worldwide as a rising trend.

The most violent: Pakistan, which rose to No. 4 on the list for a level of violence “exceeding even northern Nigeria.”

....The top 10 nations where it is most dangerous and difficult to practice the Christian faith are:

North Korea, Somalia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sudan, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Eritrea'

But coming back to that passport with its Israeli stamps, here's what our old friend has to say, along with his fellow Christian Israel-basher Jeremy Moodey, who as its (now ex-) CEO put Embrace the Middle East (formerly BibleLands) on its present anti-Israel path:

 As to why these campaigners against Christian Zionism are so deplorable, read what French-born US-based Olivier Melnick wrote in 2015 here

Incidentally, on the subject of the phrase "Judeo-Christian" there is a most contentious current article by a Canadian  British-based academic here

The Anglo-Jew Who Pioneered Animal Rights

See the vile act here

Like many Australians I'm upset by just released shocking footage of a jockey in South Australia, Dylan Caboche, whacking his mount, a filly,  just prior to a race because she had proved reluctant to enter the starting gate.  As the footage shows, he delivered a ferocious thump with a riding crop to the poor animal's bellt or rib cage, delivered with such callous force that the animal jumped sideways.

Caboche's  punishment for this sickening cruelty? A two-week ban from racing and a $A500 fine. 

This is not the first time an Australian  jockey has treated his horse in exactly this way, and the penalty has been similarly token. 

Such cruelty (and imagine what the public never gets to see) should mean a lifetime ban for the jockeys concerned.

And given the large number of fatalities suffered by racehorses on Aussie tracks in 2016-17 alone a thorough investigation of this greed-ridden "sport of kings" is now long overdue.

 All of which brings me to the Anglo-Jew who can beregarded as the pioneer of the modern animal rights movement.   Readers of my posts on the Elder of Ziyon blog (I had to give up writing them owing to pressure of work) may recall this post about the admirablr Mr Gompertz, but in view of the present spotlight on the racing industry I thought I'd post it on here, too.  Of him Anglo-Jewry can be very proud:

 In September 1893 at least two British newspapers (the Yorkshire Evening Post and the Aberdeen Journal), having noted that on 20 August Switzerland had passed a law banning shechita, commented identically:

“The situation is full of irony.  That the Societies for the Protection of Animals should claim to take Jews to task for the manner in which they prepare their food would be amusing if it were not so serious a matter.  It was a Jew, Lewis Gompertz, who practically founded the movement in Europe for the prevention of cruelty to animals!”

In 1944, at London’s celebrated Brook Street Gallery, an exhibition on the theme “What the Jews have done for civilisation” was opened by the humanitarian peer and former politician Lord Sankey.  Reported one of the country’s most prominent and respected provincial newspapers, the Yorkshire Post (22 February 1944):

“It is lined from floor to ceiling with nearly 900  miniature portraits of Jews past and present, eminent in science, medicine, philosophy, art, music, literature and many other fields.  Their names are legion … Animal lovers may note the name of Lewis Gompertz, who founded the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.”

On 6 May 1949 the Leamington Spa Courier carried a letter from the then chairman of the Shechita Committee of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, Elsley Zeitlyn, objecting to the paper’s statement

“We hesitate to charge the sons of Israel with deliberate barbarity.  Religious conviction dating from Old Testament times, is the basis of the practices they employ.”

In defence of shechita, Zeitlyn cited the support for it of 400 eminent non-Jewish authorities, and quoted London University physiologist Professor (Sir) Charles Lovatt Evans:

“I should be happy to think my own end was likely to be as swift and painless as the end of those cattle killed in the Jewish way undoubtedly is.” 

Zeitlyn also gave examples of the obligation Judaism places on its adherents to treat animals with consideration and decency:

‘For many centuries Jewish teaching has inculcated the utmost concern for the exercise of kindness to animals.  It is regarded as the mark of a righteous man, and finds expression in the laws governing the daily life of the Jew.  It was the Jew who first taught “Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn”, “Thou shalt not yoke an ox and an ass together.”  Indeed, until the end of the 19th century cruelty to animals was nowhere illegal except under Jewish law.  It is ironical to recollect that the RSPCA itself was founded by, amongst others, a Jew, Lewis Gompertz …’

If you think that the famous, controversial, Australian-born moral philosopher Professor Peter Singer, who authored Animal Liberation in 1975, is the Jewish pioneer of animal rights, think again.

On 1 May 1830 the following appeared in the correspondence columns of an English provincial newspaper, the Bucks Gazette:

“…. Let those who are satisfied that they commit no active cruelty, see whether they partake in a dish produced by unnecessary or excessive torture, eat lobsters, &c, which have been boiled alive … or eels skinned alive, or whether they countenance butchers who skin sheep or cut open and singe pigs before life is extinct, or run a hook through the nose and tail of calves.  Let them go still farther – descend into their cellars and see whether they have any cats which are starving; whether any arsenic has been laid to poison, with excruciating torture, the unfortunate rats created there or any steel traps to mutilate them; and let them ask themselves if they had their own deaths to chuse [sic], if they think they could not find one more mild.  Let them say whether they ever sit at ease in their carriages and unconcernedly hear the lash unmercifully applied on horses, – and here again we recommend the test of pain to be taken from their own bodies …. [A]nd farther be it known, that the link between man and brute is as strong as many others of nature’s chain, the ape and monkey being evidently man’s next of kin; while if report speak true, an offspring has arisen between them, half monkey and half man.  Has, then, such offspring been granted only half a soul?”

Seems remarkably modern, doesn’t it, well ahead of its time?

The writer was Lewis Gompertz, born about 1783, the youngest of the large brood  (including five sons) of a London couple, Solomon Barent Gompertz and his second wife Leah (née Cohen).   Solomon Gompertz was a wealthy diamond merchant of Dutch Ashkenazi background and Leah was Dutch-born.  The family was active within the Hambro Synagogue.  In 1771, though, Solomon had the name of his newborn son Barent (his principal heir) recorded in the baptismal register of the church of St Olave, in the City of London, without, it seems, actually having him christened.  The relevant entry reads thus: 

“Barent, the son of Solomon and Lea [sic] Gompertz, was born in the parish April 13 1771 which is here noted at the request of his father, as it may be of service to him hereafter, tho’ a Jew, to know his parish.”

Whether the same was done for Lewis and other siblings I do not know, but on 12 December 1809 Lewis married a non-Jewish wife, Ann Hollaman, at St Leonard’s Church, Shoreditch, and set up home in Kennington, a London district south of the Thames.  Lewis believed strongly in the equality of women and like John Stuart Mill deplored their subjugation.  The childless marriage proved a happy one.  His brother Benjamin, who in 1810 at the Hambro Synagogue married Sir Moses Montefiore’s daughter Abigail, was a gifted mathematician, and Lewis was similarly accomplished. 

He had a gift for mechanical engineering, and over the ensuing years devised a number of inventions, many of them intended to alleviate the suffering of animals, or to abolish the use of animals as beasts of burden altogether, for instance in the invention of a type of velocipede in 1821.

In fact, the welfare of animals was his consuming passion.   What he must have inculcated of the Jewish teaching on kindness to animals morphed into vegetarianism, even veganism.  He abstained from eggs and meat, would not ride in carriages out of sympathy for the horses that pulled them, and avoided leather products.   Resolutely opposed for killing animals for their flesh or by-products, he did concede that animals who had died of natural causes might be consumed or otherwise used.  His essential attitudes are contained in his book, Moral Inquiries on the Situation of Man and of Brutes (1824), as outlined by himself in a letter to the Morning Advertiser (12 February 1830):

“That man possesses no other right over dumb animals than that of the strong over the weak, not even … to use them for his food and labour, much less to sacrifice for sport.  That the chief mental superiority of man over other animals consists in his greater power of communication, and that, individually, or divested of this advantage, he is, at least in many principal respects, inferior to some brutes.  That with regard to prior and future states, man and brutes seem precisely similar.  That in each of them consciousness may be suspended by death for an indefinite times, but never destroyed, the possibility of re-animation always remaining.  That life can never exist by sport alone, but it must be suspended after death until a new body be formed, and that then all recollection of this life will cease….”

Yes, in many ways incomprehensible stuff.  Imagine how that must have been received by the average reader, especially in an era when badger-, bear-, bull- and otter-baiting, as well as cock-fighting, dog-fighting and of course fox-hunting were tolerated pastimes! 

The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA; the prefix Royal came later, thanks to the patronage of Queen Victoria) was founded in 1824 by such good and compassionate men as the parliamentarian Richard Martin and clergyman Reverend Arthur Broome.  Gompertz was on its committee from the start, becoming its manager in 1826 and its hon. secretary in 1828.  He also acted as de facto treasurer and out of his own pocket (he had private means) rescued it from financial difficulties.  His zeal for its work is exemplified by the prosecution he brought in 1828 against a man called Turner, whom he had seen in his own neighbourhood, Kennington, beating “in a very scandalous manner” a heavily-laden donkey (“ass” in the Times report) about the head and shoulders with “a long thick stick, more resembling a bludgeon than the proper instrument for quickening its pace” and for no discernible reason than the “gratification” of doing so.

And also in his prosecution in 1830 of a butcher for transporting calves in a cart with their heads hanging over the sides resulting in serious injury to many and even death.  The magistrate dismissed the case on the grounds that the butcher had no alternative means of conveying the livestock and had not been deliberately cruel, but the upshot was that, with the magistrate’s encouragement, Gompertz devised a more satisfactory means of transport for such animals.

His noble endeavours ensured that in 1832 he was awarded a silver medal by the SPCA, but in 1833, following its merger with the rival Association for the Promotion of Rational Humanity to the Animal Creation (whose journal had accused Gompertz of anti-Christian and Pythagorean views), he was, being a Jew, effectively marginalised when the resultant new committee declared itself founded on Christian principles.  He consequently resigned, and with the support of a number of sympathisers  including subscribers, founding patrons, and the neo-Pythagorean Thomas Forster MB, FRAS, FLS – whose Philozia; or Moral Reflections on the actual condition of the Animal Kingdom (published 1839) would be dedicated to Gompertz – he founded the Animals' Friend Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.  It carried on the work of prosecuting animal abusers and of distributing tracts that the revamped original organisation had suspended.

Three press items during 1836 illustrate the Animals’ Friend’s Society’s effectiveness, for, aided by his wife Ann as “Honorary Inspector”, Gompertz applied himself it its work with all the energy and enthusiasm that had characterised his involvement with the SPCA (which for a time his organisation eclipsed as a result):

Bell’s Weekly Messenger (30 October 1836):  

“The Animals’ Friend Society.  The Hon. Secretary [Gompertz] and officers of this necessary society, last week called John Haines, a drover, to be fined 13 s[hillings] by the Court of Aldermen, and John Lambert’s drover 5s 6d by Mr Trail, for having ill-treated their cattle.” 

Morning Advertiser (2 November 1836):

“The Animals’ Friend Society has recently met with the most flattering testimonials of gratitude from the respectable inhabitants of Birmingham, Bilston, Sedgeley, Darlastan and other places, for the great good it has effected towards the suppression of bull-baiting in those districts; no less than forty-eight bull-baiters having been severely punished by the society last year [bull- and bear-baiting were outlawed in 1835], and this society being again engaged in directing its energies and means in the same laudable work, and having also, we understand, this year repeated its efforts towards abolishing the barbarous Stamford bull-running.  We also learn that Lewis Gompertz, Esq. (its Hon. Secretary), has reason to believe that its previous interference will present that sport from again taking place.  We hope our humane readers will bear in their minds the great expenses of these operations, and aid the society to continue its efforts.”

Bell’s Weekly Messenger (13 November 1836):

“Proceedings of the Animals’ Friend Society at West Bromwich and London.  Last Sunday having been the day appointed for the commencement of the wake of bull-baiting, a bull which had been baited every year for the last 10 years, was got ready by a fellow called John Hancox, to be again baited (and on that sacred day).  But upon his having discovered that the society was watching him, he concealed the bull in his own pantry, when his wife, on her having entered the pantry the next morning, little suspecting such a visitor, was terribly alarmed, and let the bull escape.  Hancox then having been severely admonished by the Rev. Dr Spry, became truly penitent, and no baiting is now expected to take place.  The agents next having notice that a badger was being baited, went to the spot and rescued it; after which they proceeded with nine constables to stop some dog fights, and took two offenders into custody, one of which was unfortunately rescued by the mob.”

 To quote an advertisement for its organ, The Animal’s Friend (in Bell’s Weekly Messenger, 17 June 1838):

“The Animal’s Friend No. VI just published for the Animal’s Friend Society (not the Society usually called the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals), 60 pages octavo and a copper plate, price 6d, containing its Sixth Report with its Prosecutions, 280 by this Society during the last six years, for Cruelty to Dumb Animals.  Also, much miscellaneous matter connected with the subject, in which the crimes of Field Sports and vivisections perpetrated by the Rich; and Bull-baiting and other enormities by the poor are alike impartially exposed.  Lewis Gompertz, Hon. Sec., Oval Kennington.”

Gompertz’s wife Ann died in  April 1847.  He felt her loss keenly.  His own health was in decline and to make matters worse the Animal’s Friend Society had been experiencing difficulties.  In 1843, for instance, three disaffected members spread a false report that it had disbanded, and kept its takings for themselves.  In 1849 Gompertz appeared as a witness in a court case, a spiteful reporter describing him as “a miserably dressed decrepid [sic; archaic; i.e. decrepit] old Jew’. 

He died at his Kennington home on 2 December 1861 and was buried beside his wife in the local churchyard.  Described in his Last Will and Testament as “Lewis Gompertz, gentleman” (and in the 1861 Census as a “fundholder”) he left around £14,000 (the equivalent of £1.5 million today).  Had he flaunted his wealth, we can imagine what that spiteful reporter would have written.

David Singer: Britain Backs Jordan and Israel to End the Arab-Jewish Conflict

Here's the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

He writes:

Britain’s Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has acknowledged that Jordan and Israel represent the only viable “two state solution” that can end the Arab-Jewish conflict.

Writing in the Daily Telegraph on 29 October – ahead of the centenary of the Balfour Declaration on 2 November – the Foreign Secretary stated:

“I have no doubt that the only viable solution to the conflict resembles the one first set down on paper by another Briton, Lord Peel, in the report of the Royal Commission on Palestine in 1937, and that is the vision of two states for two peoples.” 

 The Royal Commission had been authorised by Royal Warrant dated 7 August 1936:

“… to enquire into the manner in which the Mandate for Palestine is being implemented in relation to Our obligations as Mandatory towards the Arabs and the Jews respectively; and to ascertain whether, upon a proper construction of the terms of the Mandate, either the Arabs or the Jews have any legitimate grievances upon account of the way in which the Mandate has been, or is being implemented”

Significantly the Royal Warrant did not mention or identify the “Palestinians” as being a party to the dispute. There were only two parties – the “Arabs” and the “Jews” – not three. The “two-state solution” - one Jewish, one Arab – first envisioned in article 25 of the 1922 Mandate for Palestine (Mandate) – had restricted Jewish rights to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in just 22% of the territory covered by the Mandate. The Jews had accepted that proposal but the Arabs had rejected it.

The Peel Commission after a lengthy and detailed Inquiry confirmed that the “two-state solution” contemplated by the Mandate – one Jewish, one Arab – remained the only solution to end the grievances between Arabs and Jews – concluding that:

“two sovereign independent States would be established – the one an Arab State, consisting of Trans-Jordan united with that part of Palestine which lies to the east and south of a frontier such as we suggest in Section 3 below; the other a Jewish State consisting of that part of Palestine which lies to the north and west of that frontier.”

Transjordan – renamed Jordan in 1950 – comprised the remaining 78% of the territory contained in the Mandate for Palestine closed to Jewish settlement under the Mandate. Britain still retained full responsibility for Transjordan as Mandatory Power until Transjordan was finally granted independence by Britain in 1946.

The Peel Commission’s “two-state solution” is shown on the following map:

The Arabs rejected partition and the creation of any Jewish State. The Jews accepted the principle of partition – but not the borders designated on the map.

Boris Johnson has advanced the resolution of the Arab-Jewish conflict by highlighting that:

· the only viable “two-state solution” is the partition proposed by the Peel Commission with newly-negotiated borders agreed between Jordan and Israel

· Jordan remains the Arab key to resolving the Arab-Jewish conflict - which a naïve and gullible world continues to ignore.

Trying to create two Arab States and one Jewish State in an area where only one Arab state and one Jewish state is warranted by history, geography and demography has been a diplomatic disaster with horrendous consequences for Arabs and Jews.

Messrs Arkush and Johnson: read article here

Jordan and Israel  the two successor States to the Mandate – currently exercising sovereignty in 95% of former Palestine – need to sit down and resolve Jewish and Arab claims to the remaining 5%.

Britain’s reaffirmation of Peel’s proposed “two-state solution” is long overdue.

The “two-state solution” posited in 1922 and 1937 – Jordan and Israel – still remains the only viable solution to resolve the Arab-Jewish conflict in 2017.