Tikun Olam-תיקון עולם: Make the World a Better Place

Pages

• Home
• Photo Gallery
• Advertising
• Comment Rules
• Subscribe to Posts (per post)
• Tikun Olam Store
• Donate
• Subscribe (daily digest)
• Contact
• About
• Monthly archives
• Terms of Use

11 Responses to “JTA, Unlike The Who, May Get Fooled Again”

1. Amir says:

   December 1, 2007 at 11:56 AM

   You sure do give Hamas a lot of credit.
   Maariv’s NRG website also reported this: Link http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART1/665/385.html
   A news service from Israel reported this to: http://www.infolive.tv/en/infolive.tv-14930-israelnews-hamas-calls-un-rescind-un-resolution-60-years-ago
   But I used googles translation service to find stories in Arabic on this too.
   If you know someone fluent in Arabic this appears to cover the story for the maan news service I believe they are Palestinian: http://www.maannews.net/ar/index.php?opr=ShowDetails&ID=91458
   The first paragraph translated by google appears to support the version provided by the JTA

   Gaza-together – Hamas said, “The Palestine Arab land since time immemorial of the Islamic blamed her to the sea and a maximum Bakdsha and churches and mosques, mountains and plains, and not for Jews by the presence, a single unit does not accept retail.”

   The Maariv version seems to be closest.
   Ironically, Maan has an English version of their news service, but at least I couldn’t find this story in English. Imagine my shock. Do you think the Palestinian Arabs say one thing in English and something else in Arabic?

   Reply
2. Amir says:

   December 1, 2007 at 1:12 PM

   The full Hamas statement can apparently be found here: http://arabnews.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3064&Itemid=2
   and the Google translation here: http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Farabnews.ca%2Findex.php%3Foption%3Dcom_content%26task%3Dview%26id%3D3064%26Itemid%3D2&langpair=ar%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
   The relevant paragraph is probably
   

   Palestine Islamic Arab land since time immemorial blamed her from the sea and Bakdsha up and churches and mosques, mountains and plains, and not for Jews by the presence, a single unit does not accept the division or retail will not overly seed from its soil, nor recognize any international resolutions unfair Down rights and Palestinian constants first and foremost the right of return of refugees to their homes, and the establishment of an independent Palestinian state must enjoy full sovereignty and Jerusalem as its capital

   A better translation is needed. A Hebrew translation of the relevant paragraph can be found here: http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART1/665/385.html
   It’s very revealing what a lousy job the English language MSM is doing covering the conflict, since a decent English translation of the Hamas statement cannot be found on the web. No wonder you guys are so clueless. Maybe MEMRI will translate this soon.

   Reply
3. David says:

   December 1, 2007 at 3:58 PM

   Amir, are you saying you discern something similar to “there is no place in Palestine for the Jews” hiding in the above paragraph? And you are waiting for MEMRI to confirm it?

   You may be right, but I would strongly advise more skepticism.

   Reply
4. David says:

   December 1, 2007 at 4:08 PM

   I do hope Richard pursues this line of investigation. (And I know from past examples that once he sinks his teeth into a subject he doesn’t give up easily.) JTA had to get that translation from SOMEWHERE. It might be very revealing to know just where.

   Reply
5. Jerry Haber says:

   December 1, 2007 at 6:06 PM

   Get me the text and I will get you a translation. I couldn’t find it on the Hamas Arabic website. My “Fusha” isn’t great, but it’s good enough. There is a difference between denying that the Jews had a presence in Palestine and between calling for the forceful elimination of the Jews from a future Islamic Palestine. If that is Hamas’s position, then it differs from the Hamas Charter, which states:

   Article Thirty-One: The Members of Other Religions The Hamas is a Humane Movement
   Hamas is a humane movement, which cares for human rights and is committed to the tolerance inherent in Islam as regards attitudes towards other religions. It is only hostile to those who are hostile towards it, or stand in its way in order to disturb its moves or to frustrate its efforts. Under the shadow of Islam it is possible for the members of the three religions: Islam, Christianity and Judaism to coexist in safety and security. Safety and security can only prevail under the shadow of Islam, and recent and ancient history is the best witness to that effect.

   I am not an expert on Islam, but there seems to be little within Islam that allows it to systematically discriminate against Jews more than other non-Muslims. In so far as Hamas, as a Palestinian national movement, has to assure Christians that their dhimmi status will be respected, I can’t imagine it would differ in its ideology with respect to Jews.

   For most Jews, all the above is “pilpul” — most Zionists see no distinction between calling for the elimination of Israel as a Jewish State, and calling for the physical destruction of Jews. They are, of course, wrong, but that is not the point. The point is that the actions of the US, Israel, and Abbas, have forced Hamas into a corner, and I cannot imagine that the Palestinian people, who are pissed off with both Hamas and Fatah, will be the winners. As usual, we are doing all the wrong things. Hamas in the past has sounded more conciliatory (e.g., hudna), but as long as Hamas is a player, they cannot be ignored and demonized. That is what every rational commentator on the subject has said. The strategy of the so-called “peace camp” will fail, even if elections in the PA votes out Hamas.

   Jerry Haber, a.k.a Magnes Zionist

   Reply
6. Jerry Haber says:

   December 1, 2007 at 7:02 PM

   All right, thanks to Amir, I have read the Arabic, the Hebrew, and the translation on Hamas’s website.

   The phrase about the Jews in Arabic is: وليس لليهود فيها وجود، — lit.: “and the Jews have no presence/existence in it.”

   A literal translation of the Hebrew translation: “and there is no place for the Jews in it.”

   From the Hamas website: “Hamas affirmed that Palestine is an Arab, Islamic country since time immemorial and Jews have no right whatsoever in the land of Palestine,”

   So it all boils down to the meaning of wujud, translated into Hebrew in the twelfth century as metziut – which literally means existence or presence — and not place. This is not how one would say in Arabic that the Jews have no place in it. I don’t have my trusty Arabic dictionary here with me, and the author of the Maariv article knows Arabic better than I do. But he missed the point. What Hamas is claiming is that Jews had no historical presence in Palestine, that Palestine has always been Arab, including its mosques and churches. Hence Jews have no political rights or claims in Palestine. And that is the point.

   Time to send this to Juan Cole!

   Reply
7. Jerry Haber says:

   December 1, 2007 at 7:16 PM

   When I wrote, “A literal transltion of the Hebrew translation”, I mean the one that appeared on Maariv’s website

   Reply
8. Jerry Haber says:

   December 1, 2007 at 7:51 PM

   I just received this email from Juan Cole, the man who set the record straight on Ahmadinejad’s “erasing them from the pages of history” quote:

   “Dear Jerry:

   Thanks!

   Yes, I think mundhu al-azal actually puts the phrase in the past tense, i.e. it is talking about the pre-1880 Palestine, and just saying there were no Jews therein. It is an exaggeration, since there were a few thousand, but it doesn’t say anything about their not having a right to be there.

   cheers Juan”

   Case closed — Thanks, Richard…looks like this will go on the Magnes Zionist blog, and maybe Juan Cole will put it on his blog. And thanks, Amir, for the links.

   Jerry

   Reply
9. Ramsey says:

   December 1, 2007 at 8:47 PM

   Under the shadow of Islam it is possible for the members of the three religions: Islam, Christianity and Judaism to coexist in safety and security. Safety and security can only prevail under the shadow of Islam, and recent and ancient history is the best witness to that effect.

   I’m guessing that for the average Israeli this is not particularly comforting, but I could be wrong.

   Reply
10. Ramsey says:

    December 2, 2007 at 6:50 AM

    Nor may it be particularly comforting for the Bahais living in Israel and the rest of the region, should Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood gain power. I didn’t see them on the list.

    Reply
11. tangentlama says:

    June 18, 2008 at 6:53 AM

    I’m thinking that: “not for Jews by the presence, a single unit does not accept the division” means “by the presence of Jews as a single unit does not accept the division [of the land]”

    i.e. the presence of one unit of people – Islamic, Christian, Jewish, Israeli, Palestinian, Bedouin, etc – does not mean that the land should be divided accordingly to each unit of people.

    Reply