Monday, July 23rd | 11 Av 5778

April 6, 2016 6:40 am

Scottish Paper Spreads Palestinian Propaganda

avatar by Adam Levick

Email a copy of "Scottish Paper Spreads Palestinian Propaganda" to a friend
The Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Photo: Wiki Commons.

The Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Photo: Wiki Commons.

We recently came across an article in The Herald (of Scotland) by former Member of Scottish Parliament Colin Campbell, titled “The power keg that is East Jerusalem,” which recounts his tour of Jerusalem as part of a delegation funded by the Palestinian Committee of the Jordanian Parliament.

Its propaganda value is truly off the charts, as Campbell repeats nearly every Palestinian talking point about Israel’s alleged “desecration” of the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem’s Old City. He also notes that Al-Aqsa is Islam’s third holiest site, while failing to even acknowledge the holiness of the Temple Mount complex for Jews. (It is, of course Judaism’s holiest site.)

However, the most egregiously false claim is found in the context of his complaint about Israel’s “encroachment” on the mosque

Extremist settlers have been allowed, many would say assisted, in entering and occupying the mosque and using it to conduct Jewish ceremonies.

As anyone familiar with the rules in place at the Temple Mount/Al-Aqsa compound would surely know, Jews (and all non-Muslims) are not allowed inside the mosque, and are only allowed to tour the larger compound. Indeed, even within the larger compound, Jews are not allowed to (even silently) pray.

The only Jews who ever occasionally go inside the actual mosque for any reason are Israeli soldiers, who of course do so to quell periodic Palestinian violence. Indeed, we were unable to find any serious news site even claiming that Jews have entered the mosque to “conduct Jewish ceremonies.”

Such broader narratives about “Jewish incursions” on the mosque “to conduct Jewish rituals” are sometimes spread by Palestinian media sources, but are widely understood to represent crude propaganda designed to fuel the campaign of incitement.

Here’s one example, from Palestine News Network (republished at International Middle East Media Center) to show you how bizarre such claims are:


We’ve complained to Herald editors, under the terms of the accuracy clause of the editors’ code, and will update you when we receive a reply.

Share this Story: Share On Facebook Share On Twitter Email This Article

Let your voice be heard!

Join the Algemeiner
  • Can the paper be sued for defamation?

  • There never has been, there is not now and there never will be a country called “Palestine for the Arabs in Greater Israel. ”The Arab/Palestinians/Muslims squatting on Jewish land in and around Israel are overwhelmingly either descendants of invaders, illegal immigrants or trespassers. The term “Palestinian” was popularized after the Six Day War in ’67 in an attempt to delegitimize Israel. There are already 21 Arab/Muslim dominated countries spread out over 6 million square miles of territory, including most of Jordan which was part of the Jewish allocated land under the 1920 San Remo Conference and the 1919 Faisal Weizmann Agreement which was suppose to be implemented by the League of Nations in 1922. It also stated that the Jewish people are to set up their own government and none other. The Arabs also ejected close to a million Jewish people from their countries and confiscated their homes and assets, about a third of the Jewish people died while leaving the Arab countries. The Arab/Muslims are not interested in creating a 22nd Arab controlled country. Their only desire is to annihilate the one and only Jewish state.” And We said thereafter to the Children of Israel “Dwell securely in the land (of … (Holy Quran 17:104). (Surah Al-Ma’ida, verse 21), and the other (Surah Al-Shara’a, verse 59) says that the land was bequeathed to the Jews.
    1. Under International Law and Treaties – An Arab/Palestinian State cannot be established in Israel on Jewish land allocated to the Jewish people under the San Remo agreement of 1922 and ratified by the League of Nations and signed by 51 member states.
    Jordan is the Palestinian State – The land originally allocated to the Jewish people,
    The British violated the agreement and gave it to the Arabs.
    YJ Draiman

    British reneging on it’s obligation to Israel THE FORSAKEN PROMISE
    League of Nations – A Dying Protest
    As it became apparent that Britain was about to repudiate its obligations under the Mandate and violate international treaties, indignation and anger were voiced, particularly in the United States. In its dying moments, the League of Nations accused Britain of a flagrant breach of its Mandate, calling attention to her “virtual suspension” of Jewish immigration. In the face of these reactions, and at a time of an international crisis in Europe, the British cabinet met on October 19 and announced that no drastic action would be taken against the Jews. The plans for a reorganized Arab Palestine were shelved, and it was announced that military action would be taken at once to put down the Arab rebels.
    In November 1938, the British Government convened the London Conference on the future of Palestine. It was attended by the representatives of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Yemen and Trans-Jordan – as well as a Palestinian Arab delegation (which was split between followers of the Mufti and people who were frightened of him), the Zionist Executive, and the British hosts. The Conference broke up in deadlock on March 17, 1939, two days after Hitler’s occupation of Prague. It paved the way for a unilateral statement from the British Government, which would be much more favorable to the Arabs than any official statement since the beginning of the Mandate. This was the famous White Paper of May 1939, of which the main provisions were: no partition; no Jewish state; an independent Arab state within 10 years; Jewish immigration, after five years, would not be allowed “unless the Arabs of Palestine were prepared to acquiesce in it”.
    The legality of the White Paper, in terms of the Mandate, was not only contested by the Jews. The Permanent Mandates Commission, reporting to the Council of the League, found unanimously “that the policy set out in the White Paper was not in accordance with the interpretation which, in agreement with the Mandatory Power and the Council, the Commission had placed upon the Palestine Mandate.”
    YJ Draiman

  • Scots are descendants of amalek

    Scots are descendants of amalek…Long live England