WHY IS JUDEA AND SAMARIA VANISHING?
Dr. Steve Carol, Prof. of History (retired) - Contender
July 26, 2011
Have Judea and Samaria been figuratively lost? Judea and Samaria are the historically biblical names for the highland regions of the Land of Israel, with Samaria in the north and Judea to the south. They are the definitive and proper political and geographic names for the region and have been in general use since Clearchus, a disciple of Aristotle. These two areas have no other names. These names were used during the League of Nations Mandate period. They appear in British government documents, United Nations documents including the UN Partition Plan of 1947. They appear in U.S. State Department documents, including a July 18, 1948 map. Even as late as 1961, the Encyclopaedia Britannica refers to “Judaea” and “Samaria” in an article on “Palestine” (Vol. 17, p. 118).
Transjordan illegally invaded Judea–Samaria in 1948 and as a result of its aggression occupied that region. It then unilaterally annexed the area on April 4, 1950, which was recognized by only two nations, the United Kingdom and Pakistan.
The Arab League, their Muslim supporters, anti-Israel elements and misojudaic elements, deliberately sought to rob the region of its correct political and geographic name. They had to fabricate a brand new name for they could find no other name for the territory. Mislabeling was their technique of disinformation and de-legitimization. The “West Bank” was the name concocted by King Abdullah I of Transjordan and his British advisors, allowing the king to annex land outside of his artificially “created” kingdom. He then changed the name of his kingdom twice, first to “The Hashemite Kingdom of the Jordan” but that was quickly rejected since it gave the appearance of a kingdom only along the banks of the Jordan River. The name then was changed again to the “Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.” The term “West Bank” eradicates all Jewish historical connection to the area. It is a sad commentary that many in the West, including the political left, many Israel’s supporters, some Israelis themselves, as well as the naïve and self-delusional who think the name does not matter, have acquiesced to this unilateral change of names and use it in common parlance. But the name does matter. Similarly, the Arabs insist on calling the Persian Gulf, the “Arabian Gulf” and Iran’s Khuzistan province, “Arabistan.” Why then doesn’t much of the world call the Persian Gulf “Arabian?” Is there a double standard at work here?
Besides the political origins of the phrase, one must wonder from a geographical perspective how wide a river bank can be? A river bank may be a few feet or so, but not some 30 miles deep from the river! Just because a new name is invented, does not mean the world should adopt it in common usage. Does an aggressor get rewarded with the additional bonus of a geographic name change designed to eradicate the historic name of a region? In March 1939, Germany renamed the present-day Czech Republic, “Böhmen und Mähren” after seizing that land by aggressive act. During World War II, Germany invaded, occupied and annexed part of Russia calling it “Ostland.” Do we use those terms today? Do we call Mexico the “South Bank” because it borders on the Rio Grande? Would we accept Mexico or its citizens referring to Texas as the “North Bank”? Should we rename Serbia, the “West Bank” (of Europe) because it lies to the west of the Danube River and re-designate Poland the “East Bank” due to its location east of the Oder-Neisse Rivers?
Long before most of media capitulated to protests over Danish cartoons and statements by the Pope, the media and many in the world, out of fear and intellectual laziness agreed to obfuscate the truth by surrendering the use of the name Judea–Samaria and adopt the term “West Bank.”
The Roman emperor Hadrian in 135 C.E. after suppressing the Jewish revolt led by Bar Kochba, attempted to eradicate Jewish nationhood, statehood and any connection to the Land of Israel. He renamed the territory “Palestina” – after the Philistines, the ancient adversaries of the Israelites. Seeking to erase the Jewish connection to Jerusalem the Romans razed the city and named the city built atop the rubble, “Aelia Capitolina.” Nevertheless as late as the 4th century, the Christian author, Epiphanius, referred to “Palestina, that is Judea.” Despite this “Palestina” is still Israel, Aelia Capitolina is still Jerusalem and the West Bank is still Judea–Samaria.
HOW A MOSQUE AT GROUND ZERO IS VIEWED IS VIEWED IN THE ARAB/MUSLIM WORLD
By Dr. Steven Carol
June 6, 2010
Arab/Muslim conquerors have a penchant for destroying other people’s religious shrines and many times building their own on the ruins. It was, and remains, Islam’s way of saying, ‘We have defeated you, we rule you, and our god–Allah– is greater than your god.’ As I have pointed out, with numerous examples, in my book: Middle East Rules of Thumb: Understanding the Complexities of the Middle East, this has been a long established historic practice.
Islam’s holiest shrine–the Kaaba, a cube-like building in Mecca–is an older pre-Islamic pagan Arab shrine. According to Islamic tradition the first building was constructed by Adam and rebuilt by Abraham (Ibrahim). The Black Stone, possibly a meteorite fragment, is a significant feature of the Kaaba. The Masjid al-Haram mosque was built around the Kaaba.
The Ibrahimi Mosque was constructed in Hebron, in 637 C.E., over the second-most venerated Jewish holy site, the Cave of Machpelah–the Tomb of the Patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
The Dome of the Rock was built on the ruins of Judaism’s holiest site, the Temple Mount, in Jerusalem, by the Umayyad Caliph Abd al-Malik, 687–91 C.E. Al-Walid, son of al-Malik, erected the Al-Aqsa Mosque at the southern end of the Temple Mount and also over the Basilica of St. Mary of Justinian, in 712 CE. By no means is this practice limited to venerated Jewish holy sites. The Grand Mosque of Damascus was put up over the Cathedral of St. John the Baptist in 715 C.E.
On October 18, 1009, the Muslim Fatimid caliph Abu ‘Ali Mansur Tariqu’l-Hakim destroyed, down to the bedrock, the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, a Christian church venerated by most Christians as Golgotha, the Hill of Calvary, where tradition says that Jesus was crucified. Gravestones were also destroyed. Muslim forces tried to dig up all the graves and wipe out all traces of their existence. The site is now within the walled, Old City of Jerusalem.
This practice continued through the centuries and was applied not only to Jewish, Christian and Hindu sites but other faiths as well. Late in the 20th century, in Libya, on November 26, 1970, the Catholic Cathedral of the Sacred Heart in Tripoli was converted into the Gamal Abdel Nasser Mosque. Two 1,400 year-old statues of Buddha in the Bamiyan Valley of Afghanistan were blown up in March 2001. This came after a fatwa (a religious edict), ordered by the Taliban directed all Afghan “idols” be destroyed as being anti-Muslim. In the Central Asian republics no Buddhist temples remain.
While not a religious site, the World Trade Center stood as a symbol of Western commerce, industry and civilization. Then came the horrors of the destruction of those twin towers on September 11, 2001. No doubt many prayers were said there both during and after the calamitous collapse. In May 2010, it was announced that near the ruins of buildings reduced to rubble in the name of Islam, an Islamic mosque would rise. This fits the historic pattern of Muslim construction near or atop the ruins of their enemies’ symbolic buildings as a mark of Islamic supremacy.
The land for the mosque has been bought for $4.85 million in unaccounted for cash. The estimated cost of the new building that will house the mosque is $100 million. It is to be funded by donations. Just who specifically, would be making these donations is one unanswered question? Once built, 1,000 to 2,000 Muslims are expected to pray at the mosque every Friday. The target date for the opening of this mosque is September 11, 2011, the tenth anniversary of the attack on New York and Washington, D.C.
Furthermore, a second mosque seeks to build near ground zero. The Masjid Mosque has raised $8.5 million and is seeking an additional $2.5 million to begin construction. While it apparently has not settled on a final location, it has told donors it plans to build very close to where the World Trade Center once stood. In fact, the Masjid Mosque website states: “Insha’Allah we will raise the flag of La-Illaha-Illa-Allah in downtown Manhattan very soon!”
The World Trade Center was destroyed in the name of Islam. The perpetrators stated the people that were murdered were not innocent, which is blatantly false. The planned mosque will be just 600 feet from ground zero, at the site of the greatest Islamofascist achievement over infidels in hundreds of years. Thus, three questions can be raised. Are these mosques to honor the perpetrators of 9-11 rather than its victims? Is the mosque to indicate Islam’s triumph and supremacy? Finally, how will the establishment of these mosques be viewed in the Arab-Muslim world?
THE RIGHT QUESTION:
IS THERE NO OTHER POLICY EXCEPT FOR A FAILED ONE?
by Dr. Steve Carol ©
August 7, 2007
(Posted on the Internet at Israel National at http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/7356 ; http://politicomafioso.blogspot.com/2007/08/right-question-is-there-no-other-policy.html ; at War to Mobilize Democracy http://netwmd.com/blog/2007/08/07/1870 and at Israpundit http://www.israpundit.com/2006/?p=5517#comment-105218 )
The recent announcement of a planned U.S. $20 billion sale to Saudi Arabia and other members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) – Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates – and the new, U.S. three-line deployment strategy, is being discussed and questioned globally.
However, once again we are witnessing the repackaging of old wine in new bottles, except that this time the wine is vinegar. Major components of the proposed sale and strategy have been tried before by the U.S. and failed.
In 1970, as part of the “Nixon Doctrine”, the United States introduced the concept of relying on “regional influentials” to safeguard American interests in the wide area of the Middle East. Assigned to this role was Iran, under the Shah, whose task was to protect the Persian Gulf region. Second was Israel that was to watch over the Eastern Mediterranean area and Suez Canal. The third was Ethiopia, under Emperor Haile Selassie, that was assigned the task of safeguarding the southern approaches to the Red Sea. Arms aid was given to all three nations.
In all three cases, the policy failed. The Shah faced unrest that resulted in a revolution that toppled the pro-American Pahlavi dynasty in 1978-1979. All of the American military equipment, much of it top of the line at the time, fell into the hands of the Islamic republic. Israel suffered the shock of military setbacks and subsequent diplomatic reversals that were the immediately result of the Yom Kippur War of 1973. Ethiopia faced civil war, drought and revolution that swept from power the Imperial monarchy, and replaced it with a Marxist regime, where again American aid fell into the hands of that anti-Western regime.
The policy of relying on “regional influentials” did not work in the 1970s. It will not work now. Saudi Arabia has but one goal first and foremost, to preserve the House of Saud. It will not be a “deputy U.S. policeman” to block and, if necessary, combat Islamic Iran’s air force, any more than the misguided U.S. policy of hoping that the Palestinian Fatah organization will control militant Hamas.
To further complicate and make matters worse, the U.S. will offer Egypt $13 billion as part of the arms package. The Egyptian armed forces, largely equipped with U.S.-made weaponry thanks to US aid totaling over $70 billion since 1979, trains for a war against the named “enemy” – Israel. According to the Congressional Research Service, Egypt purchased $6.5 billion worth of foreign weapons in the years 2001-04, more than any other state in the Middle East. In contrast, the Israeli government bought only $4.4 billion worth during that period and the Saudis $3.8 billion. If Egypt is at peace with Israel, what are all those weapons for? The answer to the question lies in Egyptian war doctrine which still views Israel as Egypt’s main, if not its only, enemy. In view of these facts, for what purpose does Egypt need an additional $13 billion to fund sophisticated top-of-the-line aircraft? Let one not forget that despite the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty, the Arab League’s 1948 declaration of war to liquidate the state of Israel remains in force. Egypt is a member of the Arab League and subscribes to its decisions.
In an attempt to resuscitate the failed policy, the U.S. has added another failed strategy to the mix. As a sweetener to Israel (to swallow the bitter pill of a massive arms sale to the Arab states) and in order to get Congressional and Israeli approval to this pending deal, the U.S. administration has promised Israel an additional $30 billion in military aid over a 10 year period. While Israeli Prime minister Ehud Olmert was quick to praise the 25% US military aid increase as an important boost to Israel’s security, President Bush indicated that he could not guarantee this aid level beyond 2009! So much for 10 years of increased aid. Appeasement-minded Olmert added that President Bush had promised him Israel’s qualitative military edge in the region would be preserved. This may be wishful thinking on Olmert’s part, since the U.S. is now inclined to sell the F-22 Raptor stealth fighter-bomber to the Saudis, while only “considering” such a sale to Israel. In recent tests, a U.S. pilot using an F-22, engaged and defeated six F-15s in mock combat and that was repeated several times. The F-15 is the current top plane in the Israeli Air Force. Olmert, no doubt, is putting into practice Israeli President Shimon Peres’ infamously quoted statement that “It’s a great mistake to learn from history. There is nothing to learn from history.” (Maariv, May 23, 1996).
The Israeli Prime Minister has forgotten and ignored his nation’s history. In 1970, the United States and the Soviet Union brokered and guaranteed a cease fire that ended the 1,000 day War of Attrition (1967-1970). The Soviets and the Egyptians broke the agreement on the very first night it went into effect. To pacify Israel, the U.S. gave Israel more monetary aid and additional aircraft, much as it is promising now. The U.S. move was costly to Israel. The Israeli Air force witnessed 49 of its best planes shot out of the sky in the first two days of the Yom Kippur War. The additional American funds evaporated as the staggering costs of the war, both in life and expense, dramatically escalated. So Israel has had the experience of an American “pay off” to acquiesce to an American-Arab arms deal.
Also of importance in the pending U.S.-Saudi deal is a Saudi commitment to keep the new warplanes and missile systems away from Israel’s borders. Don’t hold your breath on that promise. A similar Saudi pledge offered in the 1990s for US F-15 warplanes was never kept despite reminders from Washington. The planes were housed at Tabuk close to the Jordanian border, Israel’s Red Sea port of Eilat and its Negev bases. Ultimately, Israel informed Riyadh through Washington that Tabuk would not be immune from attack in a fresh all-out Middle East conflict. All of this does not even begin to address the question as to how good an ally Saudi Arabia is. The arms deal was promoted despite the fact that Saudi Arabia was unhelpful to the U.S. in Iraq, opposed to U.S. policy in dealing with the Palestinians, and was unable or unwilling to stop suicide bombers reaching Iraq.
Thus the new U.S. proposed arms sale to Saudi Arabia is fraught with peril. Is there no other policy the U.S. Administration can pursue other than a failed one?
THE RIGHT QUESTION:
WILL ISRAEL WAKE UP?
Concept by Dr. Steve Carol ©
Artwork by Joe Consalvo
Dec. 11, 2006
As the maxim goes: "One picture equals a thousand words."
(C) 2007 Dr. S. Carol. All Rights Reserved
THE RIGHT QUESTION:
JUST HOW MANY ARAB STATES ARE THERE?
© by Dr. Steve Carol. All Rights Reserved.
June 8, 2007
(Featured on the world-wide web at War to Mobilize Democracy at http://netwmd.com/blog/2007/06/08/1763, Politico Mafioso at http://politicomafioso.blogspot.com/2007/06/right-question-just-how-many-arab.html and Exposing Islamofascism at http://somebodyhelpme.info/steve_carol/arab_states.html )
In recent days there has been a flurry of articles dealing with the 40th anniversary of the Six Day War – both factual and revisionist. Many of these articles speak of the Arab states and state there are “22” or even “23” Arab states. Just today, I was asked, yet again, how many Arab States are there? And why the confusion?
To set the record straight, below please find my chart of the League of Arab States. News media (who should know better) and pundits have not done their “homework.” The confusion comes from two sources.
First, the Arab League claims 22 members -- for they count "Palestine" as a real country -- which it is not, despite the fact that the Arabs have had control of Gaza and Judea-Samaria (what the Arabs call the “West Bank”) from 1948-1967, and again, in the case of Gaza, since 2005. They have yet to proclaim an independent “Palestine” – nor do they want to.
Secondly, some pundits, and news media people are still counting both the Yemen Arab Republic and the Peoples' Democratic Republic of (South) Yemen as two separate nations. The fact is that the two Yemens united in May 1990 and Arab League membership went down one.
Much of the world, including some in the U.S. and even Israel, has bought into the Arab propaganda line (yet again) to use the figure "22" as they use the terminology "West Bank," "occupied territory," “Arabian Gulf,” “Arabistan,” and “creation.”
THE LEAGUE OF ARAB STATES
© 1983. Sixth revision 2006. Dr. S. Carol. All Rights Reserved.
Formed: Mar. 22, 1945 Headquarters: Cairo, Egypt v
Charter members: Egypt v, Iraq, Jordan (originally Transjordan), Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, & Yemen æ
Libya ö Mar. 28, 1953
Oman Sept. 29, 1971
Sudan Jan. 9, 1956
United Arab Emirates Dec. 6, 1971
Morocco & Tunisia Oct. 1, 1958
Mauritania Nov. 28, 1973
Kuwait Julu 20, 1961
Somalia Feb. 14, 1974
Algeria Aug. 16, 1962
“Palestine”(PLO) Sept. 6, 1976
P.D.R. Yemen æ Dec. 12, 1967
Djibouti Sept. 4, 1977
Bahrain & Qatar Sept. 11, 1971
Comoros Nov. 20, 1993
Eritrea was given observer status at the Arab League – Jan. 2003
v In Mar. 1979, Egypt was suspended from the Arab League.
The headquarters was moved to Tunis, Tunisia.
In Mar. 1989, Egypt was re-admitted to the Arab League and the headquarters was returned to Cairo.
æ May 22, 1990 – Yemen and P.D.R. Yemen unified into the
Republic of Yemen.ö Oct. 25,2002, Libya withdrew from the Arab League. This would have been effective one year later;
however Libya cancelled (January 16, 2003), reaffirmed (April 3, 2003), and again cancelled (May 25,
2003) the decision to withdraw.