Israel charges UNESCO with ‘Fake history’

Israel/Palestine
on 44 Comments

“This irrelevant organization promotes FAKE HISTORY”,

wrote Israel’s Foreign ministry spokesperson Emmanuel Nahshon two days ago concerning UNESCO, after the latter voted on a resolution to include Al-Khalil (Hebron) and the Al-Ibrahimi mosque (Tomb of Patriarchs) as Palestinian World Heritage sites.  

The blast from Israeli officials didn’t stop there. Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman called the organization “anti-Semitic”, the supposed liberal President Reuven Rivlin said that “UNESCO seems intent on sprouting anti-Jewish lies”, and even Labor’s Merav Michaeli called the resolution “insane”.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, faithful to his ways of persuasion, took to twitter and made a video, where he says:

“Yet another delusional decision by UNESCO. This time they’ve decided that the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron is a Palestinian site, meaning not a Jewish one and listed it an endangered site. Not a Jewish site? Who is buried there? Avraham, Isaac and Jacob, Sarah, Rivka, Leah, our patriarchs and matriarchs.”

Today, Netanyahu resorted to the bible, reading from Genesis 23, which describes Abraham’s purchasing of the Cave of the Patriarchs. Netanyahu did so ostensibly in order to rebuff claims that the site is ‘not Jewish’. 

But pause there.

There’s nothing in the UNESCO resolution that suggests that the site does not have Jewish connection. In fact, UNESCO explicitly affirms the historic importance of the place as “a site of pilgrimage for the three monotheistic religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam”. As Orly Noy notes in her article of today titled ‘There’s nothing anti-Semitic about UNESCO’s Hebron vote’:

“I wonder how many of these politicians bothered reading the resolution before they ran to Twitter to trash it.”

Indeed, UNESCO was not disputing religious connections to the place. What seems to have infuriated the Israelis is that it is considered a PALESTINIAN heritage site.

But UNESCO recognized Palestine back in 2011, as have about three-fourths of the United Nations member states. Al-Khalil (Hebron) and the Al-Ibrahimi mosque (Tomb of Patriarchs) are in Palestine. What’s the big deal?

As we see from Netanyahu’s words, the idea of the place being a ‘Palestinian site’ is anathema to it being a ‘Jewish site’. But this is just disingenuous. Orly Noy provides a sobering comparison:

“Esther and Mordechai’s Tomb in Hamadan, Iran is recognized by the Iranian authorities as a Jewish site, yet no one would dream of calling it an Israeli site. Just as the Church of the Multiplication in northern Israel is a Christian site, yet is located in Israel and therefore an Israeli site.”

In other words, there is no contradiction between a site being Palestinian and Jewish at the same time. But for Netanyahu there is.

(Image: Carlos Latuff)

So what does Netanyahu do after he distorts the wording of the resolution? He takes to reading from the bible. This is the same trick that David Ben-Gurion used when the British Peel commission asked him in 1936 about whether he had a deed or contract of sale that gave him the right to take the place of the native Arabs who have lived here for generations: Ben-Gurion picked up a Bible and declared, “This is our deed!” 

And there’s more. Because what is Netanyahu reading? The story about Abraham, who bought the cave for the burial of his wife, Sarah. But Abraham wasn’t ‘Jewish’, really – that term evolved much later. If Abraham is a ‘forefather’ in a spiritual sense, he is the forefather of the three Abrahamic religions, all of which the UNESCO resolution affirms. So, ironically, Netanyahu’s religious preaching, seeking to prove the ‘Jewish connection’ (which UNESCO doesn’t dispute), ends up defeating his attempted point and strengthening UNESCO’s: Yes, the place is important for Jews, but not only for Jews.

The myopic, Jewish-centric ideas that Netanyahu presents betray the exclusivist intents of the Israeli government. It cannot seem to differentiate between state and religion with respect to Israel, and when it comes to Palestine will not accept Palestinian statehood or sovereignty. So it is the Israeli official narrative that is the exclusivist one, not the UNESCO narrative.

The many outraged Israeli politicians are creating fake news, manipulating history in fake ways, and blaming it on UNESCO.  

About Jonathan Ofir

Israeli musician, conductor and blogger / writer based in Denmark.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

44 Responses

  1. eljay
    July 10, 2017, 12:10 pm

    The greed of Zionists seems insatiable, and their urge to lie seems uncontrollable.

  2. W.Jones
    July 10, 2017, 12:13 pm

    In the city of Pervomaysk (“May 1st”), a 50 year time capsule from 1967 was dug up recently, for the centenniel of the November 1917 Revolution. In the capsule there was an Address to the future generation of 2017, where they believed there would be would peace. Instead of the 1967 Israeli-Arab conflict and Agression against Palestine, the Address said with certainty that the future generation would not have to worry about conflicts like the “Aggressors of Israel”.

    https://www.politforums.net/foreign/1499404831.html

  3. diasp0ra
    July 10, 2017, 12:58 pm

    This whole issue is laughable, and actually reveals more about the way Israelis think than anything else.

    The UNESCO resolution only:

    1. Named it as an endangered heritage site.
    2. Decided under which nation it should be regarded.

    Israelis seem outraged by number 2.

    They seem to be implying that considering it Palestinian means that Jews have no connection to it. This is quite the bizarre interpretation. This projection reveals so much about how Israelis conflate nationality with ethnicity and religion. A site can easily be Jewish and Palestinian. There is nothing contradictory there, Palestinian is an inclusive identity that literally anybody could be a part of, you don’t have to be a special religion or ethnicity.

    Second of all, under any peace deal or arrangement, Israelis should be able to visit with no problem. Same as Palestinians should be able to visit their holy places inside “Israel proper” as well.

    Third of all, Al-Khalil is a Palestinian city. It is inhabited almost exclusively by Palestinians. Those not, are a relatively minuscule amount of illegal settlers. Not even in the most broad interpretation of international law can anyone claim that it is a part of Israel. Is Israel the custodian of every Jewish site in the world? Does it get to exert control/sovereignty over Jewish sites in other countries?

    Is this what Israel wants? Control over it? Then, if this is the case, will it hand over control of Muslim and Christian sites inside Israel to the Palestinians? If no, why not?

    When you ask about it this way, it becomes clear how obtuse and greedy Zionist objections are. It is not merely about the sites, it is about acknowledging Palestinians and their existence.

    Again, the UNESCO resolution said literally nothing about its importance to anyone. This rhetoric was simply created to draw attention away from the expansionism and entitlement Israelis feel towards everything between the river and the sea.

    How dare those Palestinians exist, and a site in Palestinian territory, inhabited by Palestinians, is in fact, considered Palestinian.

    • Talkback
      July 11, 2017, 9:11 am

      diasp0ra: “How dare those Palestinians exist, and a site in Palestinian territory, inhabited by Palestinians, is in fact, considered Palestinian.”

      How dare you!!! If a group of people rule over a land for a couple of hundred years than those who claim to be their descendants have an eternal right to rule over it even after thousands of years later. That’s international law. At least in the World of Warcraft.

    • m1945
      July 11, 2017, 2:51 pm

      Why is the site considered endangered?

      • Jonathan Ofir
        July 12, 2017, 2:47 am

        M1945, as the Times of Israel reports about an earlier May resolution of UNESCO, the agency wrote that Hebron (and Bethlehem) was an “integral part of the Occupied Palestinian Territory,” and that it “deplores the ongoing Israeli excavations, works, construction of private roads for settlers and of a Wall inside the Old City of Al-Khalil/Hebron which are illegal under international law and harmfully affect the authenticity and integrity of the site.”

        http://www.timesofisrael.com/unesco-votes-to-declare-hebron-an-endangered-site/

  4. Naftush
    July 10, 2017, 1:54 pm

    “A site can easily be Jewish and Palestinian,” Diaspora says. Well, it was tried under Oslo: at Joseph’s Tomb and the synagogue in Jericho. Both went up in flames.

    • zaid
      July 10, 2017, 3:26 pm

      You forgot the Hebron massacre, in which a Zionist Jewish settler attacked Muslims at the dawn prayer in AL-Ibrahimi Mosque killing 2 dozen of them.

      The settlers built a shrine for the terrorist which stands until this very day.

      • Talkback
        July 11, 2017, 8:30 am

        JSIL removed the shrine in 1999 after it outlawed monuments to terrorists. Members of Irgun and Lehi only got military ribbons. And besides naming streets and places after them some only become prime mininsters like Begin, Shamir or war criminals like the butcher of Sabra and Shatilla.

    • diasp0ra
      July 10, 2017, 4:19 pm

      @Naftush

      Israel prevents the vast majority of Palestinians from accessing their places of worship. Some were even converted to other buildings after 1948.

      Naturally I do not cheer on what happened in Joseph’s Tomb (which isn’t as simple as you’re portraying it, btw), but if you really want to talk about one side preventing the other from worship Israel’s list would be unending.

    • Talkback
      July 11, 2017, 9:04 am

      Nathan: “Well, it was tried under Oslo: at Joseph’s Tomb and the synagogue in Jericho. Both went up in flames.”

      Well, they tried a Jewish democracy, too, and more than 400 Nonjewish villages, more than 1000 mosques were destroyed and up until now more than 1.25 million were expelled.

      • Nathan
        July 11, 2017, 7:21 pm

        Talkback – You have brought a quote that you attribute to me. It’s false. I have never made such a statement. You can quote me when the quotes are really mine (and then debate with me about my opinions), and that would be fine. But it’s dishonest to attribute to me things that I haven’t said (and there’s no reason for it).

      • Mooser
        July 11, 2017, 9:02 pm

        “Nathan”, he is confusing you with “Naftush”, and for all practical purposes, there’s no reason why he shouldn’t.
        I mean, it’s not like you guys are just egos on the half shell, zipping around defending Zionism, you all coordinate information with Israel to achieve message discipline, right?

      • Nathan
        July 11, 2017, 10:03 pm

        Yes, Mooser, there is a reason why one shouldn’t misquote. First of all, one should be honest. Secondly, one should be respectful of others even in debate (which includes calling a person by his own name). I find it disappointing that you don’t share these values of honesty and courtesy. Didn’t your mother explain it to you?

        By the way, should I understand from your comment that also all the anti-Israel crowd is “for all practical purposes” just the same (and, therefore, all the names are interchangeable)? It does seem that some of the crowd have this instinct for an exaggerated rudeness. They seem to lose it when someone doesn’t share their animosities. Maybe they come from broken homes.

      • Talkback
        July 12, 2017, 9:11 am

        Nathan: “Talkback – You have brought a quote that you attribute to me.”

        I did.

        Nathan: “It’s false”.

        It is.

        Nathan: I have never made such a statement.”

        You never have.

        Nathan: “You can quote me when the quotes are really mine (and then debate with me about my opinions), and that would be fine,.”

        Without an Israeli permit? That’s suicide!

        Nathan: “But it’s dishonest to attribute to me things that I haven’t said (and there’s no reason for it).”

        It could also be an honest mistake and that I read “Nathan” instead of “Naftush” on my small laptop screen. But maybe only an honest person with a miminum of intelligence would come to this conclusion.

        Nathan: “Yes, Mooser, there is a reason why one shouldn’t misquote.”

        It takes the same honesty, but even less intelligence to understand Mooser’s explanation.

        Nathan: “Secondly, one should be respectful of others even in debate (which includes calling a person by his own name). I find it disappointing that you don’t share these values of honesty and courtesy. Didn’t your mother explain it to you?”

        So you don’t accept Mooser’s plausible explanation, because that would mean that it was you who was showing a lack of courtesy when you accused me of being dishonest. But you can’t admit that you were wrong. You choose to be dishonest and continue with you mindless accusations and then yuo even accuse Mooser of not sharing the values of honesty and courtesy.

        You are a hypocrit narcissist, Nathan and I’m sure that your Mother had everything to do with it.

        Nathan: “They seem to lose it when someone doesn’t share their animosities.”

        Yep. See their hysteria about a simple mistake.

      • Mooser
        July 12, 2017, 11:15 am

        Nathan, I take that gospel whenever it’s possible, but with a grain of salt.

      • Mooser
        July 12, 2017, 11:40 am

        “Maybe they come from broken homes.”

        “Nathan” nobody can break a Jewish home. Not the Nazis, not the Czar, not the Soviets, not nothin’.

      • talknic
        July 13, 2017, 5:17 am

        @ Nathan July 11, 2017, 10:03 pm

        ” there is a reason why one shouldn’t misquote. First of all, one should be honest. “

        Go tell the Zionist Federation, Jewish Agency, Israeli Government

        http://wp.me/pDB7k-Yr

        http://wp.me/pDB7k-Yx

        http://wp.me/PDB7k-Y

  5. Jane Porter
    July 10, 2017, 2:21 pm

    Are the Alcazar and the Alhambra in Spain considered Spanish world Heritage or Arab?

    What a rubbish this Nethanyahu is telling. Good of you Ofir to denounce this stupidity.

    • zaid
      July 10, 2017, 3:29 pm

      Correct.

      and i will add, if Israel can claim Alibrahimi Mosque then Pakistan can claim Taj Mahal (Muslim shrine) from India .

  6. Brewer
    July 10, 2017, 4:03 pm

    As I understand it, there has long been a question mark over the origins of the Bible. I know that most Christian seminarians were required to learn Greek as the oldest known copies of scripture were in that language and date from around 270BC in Alexandria.
    Biblical scholar Russel Gmirkin has an interesting theory:
    “He demonstrates that there is simply no evidence that the Bible existed prior to the time of Alexander the Great (ca. 325 BC). All the evidence indicates that the collection of books we know of as the Hebrew Bible was written around the year 270 BC. And not only that: they relied heavily on Greek literature, particularly Plato’s final work: Laws.”
    https://www.sott.net/article/336354-The-Truth-Perspective-Interview-with-Russell-Gmirkin-What-Does-Plato-Have-To-Do-With-the-Bible
    http://vridar.org/2016/10/16/plato-and-the-creation-of-the-hebrew-bible/
    I am no Biblical scholar but his thesis does seem to me to be quite coherent.
    Does anyone know of texts that pre-date 270BC?

    • Nathan
      July 10, 2017, 6:56 pm

      Brewer – There are many Biblical texts that pre-date 270 BC. The Book of Deuteronomy was written in about 620 BC. Obviously, the books of the First Temple era prophets are very old. The first 39 chapters of Isaiah were written in the 8th century BC. Hosea is the only prophet from the northern kingdom (the Kingdom of Israel), so his book was written before the fall of the kingdom (721 BC). Obviously, the books have all been copied and edited throughout the generations, but their basic form came about during the era of the Kingdom of Judah or during the return from the Babylonian Exile (6th-5th centuries BC). Just a handful of books were written after 270 BC. Daniel, for example, was written on the eve of the Hasmonean revolt (164 BC).

      • Brewer
        July 10, 2017, 8:02 pm

        Do you mean that those texts you refer to exist and are dated or are those estimates of the date of composition based on content? Gmirkin alleges that there is no material evidence if I read him correctly. I should have mentioned that he refers only to the Pentateuch.
        “Gmirkin’s hypothesis is that the authors of the biblical texts shared the wider intellectual ethos of the Hellenistic era with its interest in exploring ideal constitutional and legal systems. The Great Library at Alexandria, Egypt, was a repository of these ideas and resources that Judean scribes were known to access as freely as any other scholar of the day.
        Another scholar who has argued for a Hellenistic provenance of the Biblical literature is Niels Peter Lemche, although his proposals have pointed Mesopotamia and Syria as possible centres where Judean scribes were exposed to Greek ideas and writings rather than Egypt. No doubt Judeans were exposed to Greek culture throughout the Middle East but Russell Gmirkin focuses on the Alexandrian library because we know that specific Greek texts (e.g. Plato’s Laws, Aristotle’s Politics) that contain some striking echoes in the Biblical literature were housed there and we further know that Judean scribes worked there.”

        http://vridar.org/2017/07/10/how-does-one-date-the-old-testament-writings/

      • Nathan
        July 11, 2017, 7:57 pm

        Brewer – So far, the oldest Biblical text that has been found in archeology is from the first century BC (the Dead Sea Scrolls). There are no copies of Isaiah’s prophecies from the 8th century BC (when he wrote them). The dating of Biblical texts is done through an analysis of their content, an analysis of the language – and (at times) a text might refer to an event in the Middle East that is known from other sources. The Book of Deuteronomy was written in the 7th century BC in Jerusalem. The other four books of the Pentateuch (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers) were composed in the Babylonian Exile or soon after the return to Judea (5th century BC). They were not composed under the impact of Hellenism, although some later books of the Bible were (Qohelet, Esther, Daniel).

      • echinococcus
        July 11, 2017, 9:28 pm

        Continuing outpour of bullshit with a big B and a big S from “Nathan”…

        In response to this, from somebody who knows what he is talking about:

        Do you mean that those texts you refer to exist and are dated or are those estimates of the date of composition based on content?

        And what does the Perfessor say?

        So far, the oldest Biblical text that has been found in archeology is from the first century BC (the Dead Sea Scrolls)

        So it’s a resounding yes and you would figure it is said as “yes, we have no bananas at all”. Only the guy speeds on as if he had the signed original in his pocket and proceeds to BS everyone on text analysis, literary gobbledygook and other stuff everybody knows is not any kind of evidence but castles in thin air.

        Some smart people the so benignly named Ha-Sebara organizations are paying, these days.

  7. Peter Feld
    July 10, 2017, 8:47 pm

    Talk about fake history. “Abraham,” “Sarah,” “Isaac,” “Leah,” “Jacob,” “Rivka” are all fictitious, there isn’t a shred of historicity to their stories, which were written many centuries after they supposedly lived, and the details don’t match the timeline. Genesis is a politically charged origin myth from 800 BC. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham#Historicity

    • Brewer
      July 11, 2017, 12:53 am

      Thanks for the link. This would seem to be in line with Gmirkin:
      “The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives: The Quest for the Historical Abraham is a book by biblical scholar Thomas L. Thompson, Professor of Old Testament Studies at the University of Copenhagen.
      Together with John Van Seters’s Abraham in History and Tradition (1975), this book marked the culmination of a growing current of dissatisfaction in scholarly circles with the then-current consensus (or near-consensus) on the Patriarchal narratives. The consensus can be summarized as the proposal that, even if archaeology could not directly confirm the existence of the patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob), these Patriarchal narratives had originated in a second millennium BC setting because many personal names, place names, and customs referenced in the Genesis narratives were unique to that era. This view was expressed by John Bright in his influential History of Israel (1959, 2nd edition 1960) in these words; “one is forced to the conclusion that the patriarchal narratives authentically reflect social customs at home in the second millennium rather than those of later Israel”

    • Mooser
      July 11, 2017, 12:58 pm

      “Talk about fake history.”

      The things you are liable to read in the Bible, they ain’t necessarily so.

    • Nathan
      July 11, 2017, 7:41 pm

      Peter Field – It’s absolutely true that the stories about Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were written many centuries after they supposedly lived. Also the creation story and the flood story are not historical, obviously. However, the author of Genesis (whoever he might have been) is not fictitious. He was a real person who lived in a particular country, spoke a particular language and belonged to a particular ethnicity. When you read Genesis carefully, you can begin to put together the motivation of the author. Why did he write the book? When was the book written? What were the circumstances in which he lived? What was the impact of his book on his community? The answers shed light on real history and on real events that have importance. The Garden of Eden story is not “fake history”. It’s literature. And, like all great literature, the brilliant author wants to say something about his times and the world from his perspective. He had some real historical event on his mind, and this event is being presented in the form of literature.

      • Mooser
        July 11, 2017, 9:09 pm

        ” It’s absolutely true that the stories about Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were written many centuries after they supposedly lived”

        Wait a minute, “Nathan”, what about other parts of the Bible. Did Jonah live in a whale? Did he make his home in that fish’s abdomen?

      • Nathan
        July 11, 2017, 9:37 pm

        Mooser – You might want to try and read my comment. I spoke of literature. The Book of Jonah is also literature, and it’s very good literature. The author who wrote the Book of Jonah was a real person, and this person wanted to say something about his time and place. When you figure out what his agenda was, then you catch on to the real history that the Bible tells. BTW, there are parts of the Bible that tell give true accounts of historic events. The exile of the Judeans to Babylonia, for example, is real history – and the Babylonian chronicles corroborate the information. Moreover, the Bible tells us of the decree of King Cyrus that allows for the Jews (the Judeans) to return to Jerusalem. The original decree was discovered and it is now on display in the British Museum.

      • gamal
        July 11, 2017, 9:38 pm

        “Did Jonah live in a whale”

        textual analysis is the way to go..

        “his home in that fish’s abdomen?”

        the evidence points to a jealous C-d

      • Keith
        July 12, 2017, 12:45 am

        GAMAL- …the evidence points to a jealous C-d”

        Now that was funny!

      • echinococcus
        July 12, 2017, 1:15 am

        He had some real historical event on his mind, and this event is being presented in the form of literature.

        So not necessarily a whale. It could have been one of the dinosaur-times marine mastodons of the early years of the Holy Hebrew Calendar (today is the 18th of Tamuz, year 5777 from the creation of the universe) because it’s literature, not all details of the exact type of fish have to check. But as he says, the event is absoflutinglutely historic, so Jonah, the fish and what happened are real. Put it under you hat and eat it.

      • Brewer
        July 12, 2017, 3:41 am

        It is a fascinating subject. Gmirkin’s thesis is inspired by what many other scholars have also remarked on – the similarities between Biblical Law and Greek as expounded by Plato. He postulates that the Jewish sages (at Alexandria) read Plato’s “Republic” and “Laws” and were inspired by his recommendation that a successful republic needs a mythology on which to base Law. So they created one out of various legends and oral traditions around 270BC (yeah I know, sounds very much like the modern-day Israelites!).

        It is no secret that much of Genesis is lifted from the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh (circa 2100 BC – before the emergence of Israelites). It tells tells the story of a man, Enkidu, who was created from the earth by a god. He lives amongst the animals in a natural paradise until he is tempted by a woman, Shamhat. He accepts food from this woman and is forced to leave the place where he lives after becoming aware of his own nakedness. Later in the epic, he encounters a snake which steals a plant of immortality from him.
        The story of Utnapishtim, also found in the Epic of Gilgamesh, goes like this:
        A man is warned of an imminent flood by a god and is instructed to build a large boat in order to survive. The dimensions of the boat are 120 cubits; the building materials are wood, pitch, and reeds; and there are six decks. After the flood, the boat lands on a mountaintop where the man sends out a series of birds to find dry land. He eventually lets all the people and animals free and sacrifices to the god that saved him.
        – so it seems that this: “the brilliant author wants to say something about his times and the world from his perspective” is not a good fit with the author of Genesis.
        Here’s a link to a very interesting discussion:
        http://vridar.org/category/book-reviews-notes/gmirkin-berossus-and-genesis/

      • Mooser
        July 12, 2017, 11:27 am

        As long as we are concerning ourselves with Biblical exegesis, I’ve got another question for “Nathan”: Who calls that ‘livin’, when no gal will give in, to no man what’s 900 years??

      • Mooser
        July 12, 2017, 12:00 pm
      • Nathan
        July 12, 2017, 7:20 pm

        Brewer – The Biblical story of the flood is surely based on the Babylonia legend. Actually, the very idea of a flood could not have been conceived in the Land of Canaan where where there are no floods. However, the Hebrew author has written a story that has a message for his audience (the community of Jews returning from the Babylonian Exile). It’s not a copy of the story and the messages of the Babylonian version. The Babylonian story is the framework within which the Hebrew author wishes to establish the principles of Judaism.

  8. Paranam Kid
    July 11, 2017, 1:07 am

    An excellent debunk Jonathan, as usual with your articles. It is ironic that the Foreign ministry spokesman calls UNESCO an “irrelevant” organsation, yet for all its irrelevance the complete government is up in arms over it, and proceeds to distort facts into alternative facts, as it has done with all its activity in Palestine since the creation of israel.

  9. JLewisDickerson
    July 11, 2017, 5:36 pm

    RE: This irrelevant organization promotes FAKE HISTORY”, wrote Israel’s Foreign ministry spokesperson Emmanuel Nahshon two days ago concerning UNESCO, after the latter voted on a resolution to include Al-Khalil (Hebron) and the Al-Ibrahimi mosque (Tomb of Patriarchs) as Palestinian World Heritage sites. ~ Ofir

    MY COMMENT: Israel’s Foreign Ministry is always so entertaining. A real barrel of laughs! But, I wish they would tell us more about those ThyssenKrupp submarines!*

    * The Israeli Submarine Scandal: What We Know ~ http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/LIVE-1.753695

  10. MHughes976
    July 12, 2017, 12:22 pm

    Orla Noy’s remarks about the non-anti-Semitism of Unesco are good. Judaism is the first religion of pilgrimage that Unesco mentions.

  11. Blake
    July 12, 2017, 1:54 pm

    Its a wonder why its even still in the organisation never mind all its vintage lying whines . Many have argued it automatically disqualifies itself by failing to fulfil membership requirements in the first place. Furthermore, it continues to show contempt for numerous UN resolutions, despite frequent reminders.

  12. Ossinev
    July 13, 2017, 7:21 am

    @Nathan
    ” The Garden of Eden story is not “fake history”. It’s literature. And, like all great literature, the brilliant author wants to say something about his times and the world from his perspective. He had some real historical event on his mind, and this event is being presented in the form of literature”

    I still much prefer the Wizard of Oz and I consider that I have God given undisputed rights to follow the yellow brick road , to kick out the existing natives and live in the Emerald City.

    Keep taking the Ziomedication. In fact up the dose a bit and you too may aspire to become a “brilliant author”.

Leave a Reply