I met the author of this book, Sha’i ben-Tekoa, a few years back. He wrote to me to tell me about his book. He advises
Once upon a time I was Arutz 7’s lead commentator in English.
I have been a recipient of your emails for some time and a once-a-year donor in appreciation for them, news stories I sometimes deal with on my own listener-sponsored Internet radio program.”
I bought the Kindle version and am already enjoying the content and the writing style.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/
![ShaiPoster[2]](https://www.israpundit.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/ShaiPoster2.jpg)
From the First Reviews:
A great read, eye-opening information that changes your perception of what is reality and what passes for popular misconceptions foisted by our experts and the chattering classes…
…exhaustive research…unique…one of the most sober-minded, articulate commentators on Middle East issues… language which describes reality, not masks it …a must-read…the author’s review of history is excellent, thorough, well documented, and well footnoted…
…The writing style, scholarship and attention to detail is reminiscent of Sir Martin Gilbert…lucid and always on track….brings to life and explains events that most people over 50 will have recollections of but did not fully understand at the time…
A relentless and thorough presentation of historical fact, arranged in chronological order…draws the reader’s attention to the incremental corruption of language used to describe tactics, people and places,
culminating in a fictitious “Palestinian narrative”…Truth turned upside-down. If you wonder how the conflict began, or why it continues today, then read this book. Many surprises throughout…Highly recommended.
Sha’i ben-Tekoa was born, raised and educated in the United States of America. He received a B.A. in Comparative Religion from Columbia University and did graduate work in same at the University of Chicago Divinity School. A traveler in Arab lands, he served in the Yom Kippur War effort of 1973. His articles on the Arab-Israeli conflict, terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism have appeared in The Wall Street Journal, National Review, Midstream, Congress Monthly and other publications. He appeared on American Public Broadcasting’s The MacNeil-Lehrer NewsHour. In preparation for 1991’s historic Arab-Israeli peace conference in Madrid, he worked on assignment for the Office of the Prime Minister of Israel Yitzhak Shamir. Formerly the lead English language commentator for IsraelNationalNews.com, his Internet radio commentary and music program can be heard at www.deprogramprogram.com.
Shy Guy Said:
The hangover in the morning,Cowboy Mrs Guy may have an objection or two.
honeybee Said:
Bourbon sprinkled on everything. What’s not to like!
@ Shy Guy:
@ yamit82:
For my poor deprived Yiddisha boys, an invitation: http://youtu.be/mriXncI96lw
yamit82 Said:
Shade in summer,warth in the winter,Sugar pie: http://youtu.be/mhB-P820HP0
honeybee Said:
Small portions or fat husbands?
CuriousAmerican Said:
Context Context, context!! stop cherry picking verses out of context but read what precedes and what comes after. Your stupid book not mine. 🙂
Paul bases this assertion primarily on the verse from Genesis 15:6, ” And he (Abram) believed in the Lord, and He accounted it to him as righteousness.” In both Romans 3:4 and Galatians 3:6, Paul set out to prove from this verse that faith alone is what saves man – not his observance of the Law. Paul insists that this verse clearly demonstrates that Abraham was considered righteous through faith alone and not by his deeds. This quote, however, is taken out of context. A little further in the Book of Genesis, the Torah describes the very fabric of Abraham’s faith. In Genesis 26:5, the Bible declares that ” Because Abraham hearkened to My voice, and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My instructions.”
It was Abraham’s unwavering obediance to the commandments of the Almighty in spite of the challenging tests placed before him that revealed his unyielding faith in God. Who then is the Redeemer coming to in Jacob if no one can turn from transgression?
CuriousAmerican Said:
Context Context, context!! stop cherry picking verses out of context but read what precedes and what comes after. Your stupid book not mine. 🙂
“In Isaiah 59:20, Isaiah describes the final redemption when the messiah will come to his people who have turned away from transgression. For Christians, however, Isaiah 59:20 presents a serious theological problem because in the third chapter of the Book of Romans, Paul insist that no one can merit his own salvation. One of the most fundamental underpinnings of Christian doctrine on salvation is the Pauline teaching that the cross alone, not our own good deeds and heart-felt repentance, can save.
Paul bases this assertion primarily on the verse from Genesis 15:6, ” And he (Abram) believed in the Lord, and He accounted it to him as righteousness.” In both Romans 3:4 and Galatians 3:6, Paul set out to prove from this verse that faith alone is what saves man – not his observance of the Law. Paul insists that this verse clearly demonstrates that Abraham was considered righteous through faith alone and not by his deeds. This quote, however, is taken out of context. A little further in the Book of Genesis, the Torah describes the very fabric of Abraham’s faith. In Genesis 26:5, the Bible declares that ” Because Abraham hearkened to My voice, and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My instructions.”
It was Abraham’s unwavering obediance to the commandments of the Almighty in spite of the challenging tests placed before him that revealed his unyielding faith in God. Who then is the Redeemer coming to in Jacob if no one can turn from transgression?
Paul therefore rearranges the words of Isaiah 59:20 in the Book of Romans (11:26), so that Isaiah appears to predict that it will be the Redeemer (yeshu) who will turn away sin from Jacob. “And so all Israel shall be saved: even as it is written, There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer; He shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob.”
This, of course, is not what the prophet predicts. As mentioned above, the original verse declares that the messiah will come to those who have repented of transgression. It is not difficult, therefore, to understand why Paul found it necessary to manipulate Isaiah’s message. In the following verse Paul continues to tamper with the text in order to make it congruous with his alterations of the previous verse. Romans 11:27 was designed to appear as a continuation of Isaiah’s message when he writes, “And this is my covenant unto them, When I shall take away their sins.”
Although the first half of this verse, “And this is my covenant unto them,” is correctly quoted from the first part of Isaiah 59:21, the second half has disappeared.
So Paul was not just Mr courteous, “All right, then; I did not make myself a burden to you, but, trickster that I am, I caught you by trickery.” – 2 Corinthians 12:16
He was a liar and a thief, manipulator of G-d’s word a deceitful low character of zero morals and purveyor of lies.
@ Shy Guy:
When you eat as much unclean straight from the farm pork as he does, or food that has been sitting out on the counter for days – or the perpetual whiskey bottle that he drinks – I don’t think a little margarine would hurt him. The cheap brands are just like pure lard.
dove Said:
Margarine is pure poison. Seriously.
False dichotomy.
Gen 15:6 Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness.
Abram was righteous because of belief NOT mitvah.
Hab 2:4 … “Behold the proud, his soul is not upright in him; but the just shall live by his faith.”
I could explain it to you but you would not listen
It is grace through faith which saves. Actions are merely evidence of the faith.
The dichotomy is false.
James ultimately agreed with Paul
James 2:23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
I am used to you taking things out of context; and will not waste my time taking to you.
Ted does not want it.
However, if you believe you are righteous enough by your own mitvahs to stand before a Holy God then good luck to you.
I love leftovers! They can be made to be just as or even more tasty than the original dish!
Christian men are too demanding – and unrealistic. I know this one Christian husband who is very poor demands that is wife only use real butter and will not eat margarine. real butter is very expensive. He will demand it – deprive his own children of a proper breakfast to use the money to buy it.
Shy Guy Said:
If you were a Christian husband, you wouldn’t be eating left overs!!!!!!!!darlin.
yamit82 Said:
Tony!
CuriousAmerican Said:
Explain what you mean by “The Kol Nidre is more problematic”
How and to whom is it problematic? It’s strictly an internal Jewish subject that has nothing to do with non-Jews or in your opinion it does?
“Kol Nidre is not even a prayer, but rather a legal formula for the annulment of certain types of vows. The name of God is never mentioned. The language is a curious mixture of Aramaic—the Jewish vernacular of the Talmudic period—and Hebrew—the language of classical Jewish prayer. The style is prosaic, the wording technical. Moreover, although Kol Nidre has become virtually synonymous with the Day of Atonement, it is not, strictly speaking, part of the Yom Kippur liturgy; it is a prefatory declaration which must be recited before the sunset which ushers in the holy day.”
James Vs paul: Who is correct?
If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:
But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.
So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.
For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.
What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
Seems James was on to something. 😀
yamit82 Said:
26 Consider, brothers, how you were called; not many of you are wise by human standards, not many influential, not many from noble families.
27 No, God chose those who by human standards are fools to shame the wise; he chose those who by human standards are weak to shame the strong,
28 those who by human standards are common and contemptible — indeed those who count for nothing — to reduce to nothing all those that do count for something,
29 so that no human being might feel boastful before God.
– 1 Corinthians 1
Aren’t these the same candidate attributes used by CIA recruiters in the 60’s?
CuriousAmerican Said:
It’s called the ends justify the means.
“Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.”
It Seems Like PAUL Believed That By Doing Away With G-d’s Laws, People Could No Longer Be Considered Sinners. Therefore They Would Automatically Be Saved Through Grace — Having Faith In yeshu And Having Nothing To Do With Their Actions. Talk About Lowering The Standards. If You Don’t Have a Scale And Can’t Weigh Yourself, Does This Mean You Can’t Gain weight? I Wish!!!!
King Solomon the wiseth man who ever lived or that ugly pervert dwarf paul….. who should we believe?????
Slam dunk for wisdom…..
dove Said:
The original Dear Abby!
CuriousAmerican Said:
And the Mister Congeniality Award goes to Paul of Tarsus, for his courteous candidness when he smiled and said:
“All right, then; I did not make myself a burden to you, but, trickster that I am, I caught you by trickery.” – 2 Corinthians 12:16
Johnny. Tell Paul what he’s won.
@ CuriousAmerican:
Courteous?? Paul was an idiot! He didn’t believe in second chances – that is NOT the Jewish way. He didn’t believe in marriage that is NOT the Jewish way. Christian men who follow the gospel according to Paul are horrible husbands!
Other way around.
In full context, all that Paul is saying is be courteous. The Kol Nidre is more problematic.
CuriousAmerican Said:
No. The verses say what they say about Paul. Anyone can read it. You’re desperate for the propagandist interpretation of the verses.
So, when taken in full context, Kol Nidrei is truth, while Paul in the NT is about deceit. Sucks, don’t it?!
@ CuriousAmerican:
Whatever! Paul was the founder of Christianity and he was a false prophet. Who better to discern real prophets from false ones than the people that G-d entrusted the Torah to!
You attack Paul and misinterpret him.
He never advocated dishonesty – and you know it. What the verses mean is that a Christian should meet a person at their cultural level. If I got to an Italian house, bring some capicola (pork sausage) but if I go to a Jewish house, bring kosher meat.
This is NOT dishonest, it is courtesy.
It is NO more dishonest than the Kol Nidre. You say the Kol Nidre was honest. Okay! Then so is Paul.
You say our clerics lie about the Kol Nidre. Well you clerics do the same with Paul.
Shy Guy Said:
My favorite Francis
honeybee Said:
The leftover chicken was to die for!
Not.
🙁
Shy Guy Said:
I love lamb since I was a little girl. I prepare Leg of Lamb by making slits in the roast and inserting garlic and oregano< then I marinate the roast in olive oil and lemon juice. I roast the meat in a "hot oven" for the first 1/4 hour of the roasting time, and then turn the oven down untill the meat is done. Enjoy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
yamit82 Said:
I thought the current one’s name was Francis.
Or it it Nancy? 🙂
Essen! Essen!
Shy Guy Said:
Do pious christians eat lamb? Do they symbolically eat their god? Does that make them symbolic cannibals?
Shy Guy Said:
Exactly. Thanks!
yamit82 Said:
Now you made me hungry. Suppertime soon.
CuriousAmerican Said:
Shy Guy Said:
Here is why in CA’s (not so subtle way) he has chosen Kol Nidre to attack Judaism.
“agnus dei qui tolis peccata mundi”???
That heading is Latin for “a god’s lamb that removes the world’s sins” and is just one example of the christian obsession about lambs. It’s the first line of the sixth section of the Roman catholic “Ordinary Mess” and like the “Credo”, was one of the last elements to be incorporated into that idolatrous, pagan ritual – apparently by Poop “Sergius” (687-701).
It is very well-known that G-d provided Israel with an annual “Atonement Day”, Yom Kippur (the Scriptural term is actually plural, yom kippurim = day of “atonements”), on which we are to fast in order to be “forgiven for all our sins”—
What is less well-known is that Yom Kippur is actually just a “safety-net”, a day when we assemble as a nation in our prayer-houses and study-houses to make a generalised confession before G-d of all the sins for which we have not already made “atonement” in any of the several prescribed ways Judaism allows and to beg Him to forgive us. It is not the only vehicle for obtaining forgiveness, and we are not supposed to rely on it and on it alone – devout Hebrews pray for forgiveness in all three prayers recited every day (morning, afternoon and evening), and if a person knows that he has committed a particular offense, he is expected to perform t’shuvah (i.e. “repentance”) for it, and to beg G-d to forgive him, immediately he realizes that he has committed it. On top of that, the Rabbanim were adamant that Yom Kippur only provides “atonement” in respect of offences between man and God – that is, violations of purely religious laws – it can never provide “atonement” for wrongs done against another human being unless the wrong-doer first obtains the forgiveness of the person he has wronged (the injured party does have a duty to forgive a fellow-Hebrew who comes to him showing remorse, offering to put right the wrong he has done and begging forgiveness – but that’s a whole different topic).
In the periods of Hebrew history when the Temples existed and the offering of sacrifices was permitted, sacrificial ceremonies were prescribed by the Torah for all the holy days, and Yom Kippur was no exception.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CA is upholding a long held christian tradition:
The Jewish defense of Kol Nidre always was that the declaration applied only to the relations between man and God, not to contractual obligations between man and man: “For transgressions between a man and his fellow man, Yom Kippur does not effect atonement until he shall have first appeased his fellow man” (Yoma 9:9).
“secret Jews,” in various times and places, did utilize Kol Nidre as a means of absolving themselves from vows made under coercion. In any case, there is a very long history in Jewish writings, going back to ancient rabbinic literature, of explaining innovations and peculiarities in worship and ritual in terms of persecutions at the hands of a variety of enemies. Whatever the merits or demerits of any particular theory of this type, the overall effect has generally been further to endear the prayer in question to the Jewish people.
The Above extracted from an Essay by my former Rabbi in my hometown. The Curious Case of Kol Nidre by Herman Kieval
yamit82 Said:
I would take them to the Kotel. But first we need to put up a sign that says:
CONSTRUCTION SITE
FUTURE HOME OF THIRD TEMPLE
AUTHORIZED WORKERS ONLY!
See what I did there? 😆
CuriousAmerican Said:
A country with no gentiles,their customs or their places of worship. Then I would be happy.
When foreign dignitaries visit Israel NO Yad Vashem NO Kotel. I would show them only ruins of all now extinct or defeated Empires and enemies of Israel. 🙂
Out of economic necessity I would allow tourists even christian ones as long as they hide their crosses in public.
It seems to me odd that we should allow those who advocate a belief that negates Judaism and has been the historical and even contemporary enemy of the Jews and Judaism in our Jewish homeland.
CuriousAmerican Said:
Kol Nidre is not about “salvation”. It is about failure, mending and looking forward.
What’s the matter? Don’t wanna answer my question about Kol Nidrei’s history? Try. The truth will set you free!
No more dishonest than the Kol Nidre.
CuriousAmerican Said:
Paul’s summary in those verses is clear: “…so that by all possible means I might bring some to salvation.”
Anyone else here have trouble understanding these verses as they are written and as some wishful hope they mean?
Back to Reading 101 you go!
Your father, mother superior, minister, preacher, deacon, abbot, costello, has trained you well. Have a cookie!
CuriousAmerican Said:
Did you notice that after Isaac found out (when Eisav showed up and said to Isaac that Jacob cheated him), Isaac wasn’t exactly upset with Jacob and he wasn’t exactly thrilled with Eisav? Nor do we directly find G-d Himself upset so to speak with Jacob.
And this is true whether one justifies Jacob’s actions or not.
Now go and study to figure out why.
I am not taking Kol Nidre out of context.
I understand the context.
You refuse to understand Paul. All he was saying is meet people at a level they can understand.
No dishonesty there.
It is you who take things out of context.
CuriousAmerican Said:
There is indeed a lot of argument around what Jacob did as to whether it was justified or not. In any case, if you read the Torah carefully, you’ll see that Rivkah put Jacob up to it and he strenuously objected. Not that it would justify it according to those that say that it was still wrong.
However, I can read text, plain and simple, whether in the New Testament or in The Berenstain Bears and Too Much Jesus. You’re only fooling yourself.
So the methods Paul is willing to use to bring someone to achieve pie-in-the-sky christian salvation is through deception. Got it!
“All right, then; I did not make myself a burden to you, but, trickster that I am, I caught you by trickery.” – 2 Corinthians 12:16
Trickery. Deception. Hukstery. Taqiyya. All the same to me.
It is you who is taking Paul out of context. You have to. He spoke too much.
As for Kol Nidrei, how ironic of you to bring it up. Tell us, pilgrim, historically what are the main vows the prayer is referring to and who really had to say this? After answering that honestly, you can take Kol Nidrei out of context all you want again and again.
Boy is that batted around without context.
It is NOT a Christian equivalen of Islamic taqqiya. Nor even deception at the level of Jacob stealing his brother’s blessing from Isaac.
What Paul was saying is that he meets people where they are at.
Paul would not force a Roman to keep Torah in order to become Christian; nor would he force a Jew to start eating pork.
He is not counselling dishonesty. He is saying that Christ is so important that these other issues are trivial by comparison so do not fight over them.
Paul is taking about method, not doctrine.
I am tired of rabbis who cite that passage out of context.
Taking that passage out of context is like those who say the Kol Nidre is sanctioned dishonesty.
Is that dishonest?
You would say … I am taking that out of context.
Even so, you are taking Paul out of context.
A rabbi visited the Pope at the Vatican. On the wall was phone that said ‘DIRECT LINE TO GOD’. The rabbi said “You have a direct line to God?” The Pope said “Yes, but there is a cost. It is long distance you know.” The rabbi asked the Pope how much it would cost to have a chat with God. The Pope replied “2 thousand dollars a minute.” The rabbi said ” What! That’s highway robbery!” The Pope said ” Well you know it is a VERY long distance call.
The rabbi invited the Pope to his home. When the Pope arrived there was a phone on the wall that said ‘DIRECT LINE TO GOD’. The Pope said “YOU have a direct line to God?” The rabbi said “sure do!” The Pope asked “How much do you charge a minute?” The rabbi said ” No charge. It’s a local call”.
CuriousAmerican Said:
The Torah doesn’t respect nor view as trivial paganism nor idolatrous “holidays” and their customs. This is not news.
I will take a guess, with Yamit’s permission, that you misunderstood him. Yamit and I would like the Pope to stay far away from us. Both of us would certainly not want the head of the RCC to step foot in Jerusalem. Yamit is complaining about Netanyahu, not the Pope, when he concludes:
“Stupid Ass Kisser BB: He reaps what he has sown, more degradation of Jews by the Church.”
That is what’s bothering Yamit. That’s what’s bothering me.
I repeat: appreciated but I would easily live without it.
Perhaps the reason here is simple: christian society can tolerate other religions to a great extent because Paul boasts in the NT what a liar you can be if you’re a christian:
There’s no room in Tanach for being such a two-faced huckster, certainly not when it comes to false beliefs.
Savvy now?
I am not asking for Israel to be America.
But a Christmas symbol – not necessarily a tree – would have been as respectful as Menorahs in a bank.
Yamit complains that the Pope will not perform a service in Jerusalem. I agree with Yamit that the Pope should.
The other side of that coin has to be displayed, too.
I do not ask Israel to make Christmas a National Holiday; but a Happy Christmas sign in the Knesset would not have been such a big thing.
If the WHITE HOUSE can have a Menorah on the Front Lawn [in a public space] … http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/11/27/national-menorah-illuminates-white-house-south-lawn/
… would it kill Israel to make an allowance for Christians in Israel who are the same percentage of the population in Israel that Jews are in the USA?
No one is asking you to make it a national holiday.
yamit82 Said:
The shoe fits: Giulio Meotti: Calling the Pope an Anti-Semite
CuriousAmerican Said:
Israel is not supposed to be America. What’s odd is your assumption that it should be.
Born and raised in the US. I appreciated the “Happy Hanuka” sign and menorah in my bank branch. But when I ventured elsewhere throughout America where Jews were not to be found, I never felt a lacking that all I saw were another belief’s symbols. And the reason for that was that I knew from my parents that at the end of the day no land other than Israel is the real the home for our people. And this was way before I ever imagined that one day I would leave America and move home.
Whatever you call them … Arabs … Palestinians … Fakestinians … they are there on the land. They will not disappear because you re-label them.
This is what I call the bizarre dialectic of this contest.
Both sides feel they win the debate by relabeling the other side.
You call them Fakestinians. Will this new name clear them out of the land?
The Arabs call the Jews Khazars. Does that empty the land of Jews?
Why not call them East Andorrans? Will that change anything?
With half the money spent on trying to persuade the world that these people do NOT exist, you could pay a lot of them to leave – and start a trend – and who knows, maybe more money would pay these people to leave – and then Whaddya know? maybe they really wouldn’t exist.
Whether they arrived with Omar, or Saladin, or in the 19th century, they have been there for generations, even if you call them French.
Both sides do this …
This is the game being played:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubIpoPjBUds
Until they leave … it won’t matter what you call them!
Pay them to leave!
Time ran out before I could edit the last post
Seems odd. America is 85% Christian, yet there are Jewish symbols in America’s Legislature
I agree the Pope should have a service in Jerusalem; but I suspect you would object.
Christmas celebrations were scotched by the Mayor of Upper Nazareth, Shimom Gapso.
So wouldn’t you object NO MATTER WHAT THE POPE DID?!
Netanyahu should not meet the Pope – the Pope should meet him.
And the Pope should be told if he wants to have Mass in Bethlehem, he must also celebrate it in Jerusalem … But let’s be honest, Yamit82, nothing would make you happy.
Abbas: Jesus was a ‘Palestinian messenger’
Palestinian president claims Jesus was a ‘Palestinian messenger who would become a guiding light for millions’
Pope’s plans for Bethlehem Mass disappoint Israel
Stupid Ass Kisser BB: He reaps what he has sown, more degradation of Jews by the Church
Restoring the truth is of a fundamental importance and re-establishing the facts would be a first step towards a better comprehension.
Based upon the fake narrative of the Fakestinians, it seems that Jews are “occupying” a Land with which they have no historical links.
Even worse, during thousands of years, the Fakestinians were living in a fertile land and prosperous country, and because of the “colonizer” arrival, the country lost its color and life.
But where the lies end and the truth begins?
Some authors of the nineteenth century witnessed the state and condition of the Land and they shared their opinions in their writings. The following quotes are only some among many others describing the “prosperity and the richness” of the Fakestininans’ “historical country”.
Alphonse de Lamartine, in 1835: “…a complete eternal silence reigns in the town, on the highways, in the country … the tomb of a whole people”.
H. B. Tristram, in 1865: “… both in the north and south (of the Sharon plain), land is going out of cultivation, and whole villages are rapidly disappearing from the face of the earth.”
Arafat himself, leader of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) was born and grew up in Cairo. Therefore, who better than an executive member of the PLO is in a position to tell the truth about the lie?
In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, said in an interview “The ‘Palestinian people’ does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel.”
There is no doubt that restoring the truth is of a fundamental importance and re-establishing the facts would be a first step towards a better comprehension.
Based upon the fake narrative of the Fakestinians, it seems that Jews are “occupying” a Land with which they have no historical links.
Even worse, during thousands of years, the Fakestinians were living in a fertile land and a prosperous country, and because of the “colonizer” arrival, the country lost its color and life.
But where the lies end and the truth begins?
Some authors of the nineteenth century witnessed the state and condition of the Land and they shared their opinions in their writings. The following quotes are only some among many others describing the “prosperity and the richness” of the Fakestininans’ “historical country”.
Alphonse de Lamartine, in 1835: “…a complete eternal silence reigns in the town, on the highways, in the country … the tomb of a whole people“.
H. B. Tristram, in 1865: “... both in the north and south (of the Sharon plain), land is going out of cultivation, and whole villages are rapidly disappearing from the face of the earth.”
Arafat himself, leader of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) was born and grew up in Cairo. Therefore, who better than an executive member of the PLO is in a position to tell the truth about the lie?
In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, said in an interview “The ‘Palestinian people’ does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel.”