It's Almost Supernatural

SA to Provide Iran with Diplomatic Cover

While the 5 permanent members of the United Nation’s Security Council (UNSC) and Germany were meeting this week to discuss further sanctions against Iran for brazen violations of the UNSC demand that it halt Uranium enrichment, South Africa was reported to have been formulating a strategy to provide the Islamic Republic with diplomatic cover.

Peter Fabricius, the foreign editor for the Independent Newspaper group, reported yesterday in The Mercury that Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani met with President Thabo Mbeki on Sunday. The aim of the meeting was to seek assurances that South Africa would not back the expected further sanctions against Iran. And it appears that that such assurances were in fact given by our president.

The South African Department of Foreign Affairs is denying these claims. One of their spokespeople insisted that Mbeki’s meeting with Larijani was routine and that the timing was coincidental. But Fabricius cites a senior Western diplomat who claims otherwise. I suggest that this meeting was as routine and coincidental as the department’s administrative oversights are freak in relation to matters of Jewish concern. We can only hope the international community will not be as gullible as Israel and the official South African Jewish community in accepting their spin.

The likely upcoming vote at the UNSC on further sanctions against the Islamic Republic is going to be a watershed moment for the South Africa government. They will have to choose, as George W Bush declared after 9/11, if they are either “with us “or they are with the terrorists. Sadly it looks like they have already chosen the latter.

Business Day Shrills for Apartheid Peddlars

Karima Brown, political editor at the Business Day, reveals her naked biases in a column about John Dugard’s latest "Israel is Apartheid^TM" report.

The column affirms (without any hint of challenge) Dugard’s findings with a headline that screams "Apartheid parallel reaffirmed in Palestinian report."

Brown sees ironies, but unfortunately the wrong ones.

It’s ironic that these findings come at a time when the US government — despite constant denials from Washington — seems determined to push ahead with plans to launch pre-emptive strikes against Iran, as Tehran refuses to bow to US pressure to abandon its nuclear ambitions. It serves as an eye-opener about the duplicitous politics that govern the global response to international conflict in general, and the Middle East in particular.

Ugh…

Anne Bayefsky has identified the real ironies: Jews Seek Racial Domination (via Atlas Shrugs).

According to Dugard, Israel has no right to refuse to transfer funds to the Hamas government. Why? “Predictably, Israel justifies its action on security grounds, but the real reason seems to be a determination to effect a regime change.” A look at the Hamas Charter might help determine the wisdom of regime change: “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it...There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad...” But according to this U.N. expert the problem is not a government dedicated to killing Jews, but the Jews themselves.

More on apartheid...
Our recent entry on this item: Part Hate
Benjamin Pogrund: Israel is a democracy in which Arabs vote
Joel Pollak: 26 thoughts on Apartheid
IAS entry: Israel appoints Arab Muslim to Cabinet
IAS Book review: Seeking Mandela - revisited by Pollak here.
IAS entry: Dennis Ross on Apartheid
IAS entry: Status of Israeli Arabs
The Guardian: Do not treat Israel like Apartheid SA

Part Hate

I have been thinking about the charges that Israel is an apartheid state following the many excellent posts on the topic by Joel Pollak. Joel will soon be participating in a debate on this topic. He also has a great list of 26 thoughts around the apartheid charge - one of the best apartheid posts on the blogosphere.

Apartheid was a legal framework by which whites (a minority) sought to ensure their continued political and economic domination of South Africa. It was based purely on race – South Africans were divided into 2 groups – whites and non-whites (blacks, Indians and colours).

There were two components to Apartheid – grand apartheid with its goal of political separation, and petty apartheid which sought to segregate whites from non whites. Both components were equally important and intertwined for one could not succeed without the other.

Grand apartheid was to be achieved by creating separate political realities for whites and non whites. This was done by revoking the citizenship from non-white South Africans reducing the ‘legal’ population of South Africa so that the whites would be the demographic majority. Homelands called Bantustans were created and these were eventually to become separate independent states. Blacks were to either be physically moved into these homelands, or nationally tied to them (i.e. they would become a citizen of the homeland that they might have never set foot in; and not a citizen of South Africa). Naturally, even blacks that were not yet assigned a Bantustan, were denied suffrage (i.e. they were denied the right to vote).

Legislation was passed to legally separate blacks from whites in all aspects of daily life. The separate public amenities act ruled that blacks and whites would receive separate public services. Blacks and whites were to have separate education, medical care, transport and beaches. The legislation even pervaded to the use of parks – blacks could not sit on the same benches as whites and they could not even use the same water fountains used by whites.

Laws were also passed prohibiting blacks and whites from having sexual relations. This was policed to the extent that a white could be incarcerated for allowing a black of the opposite sex to sit on the front seat in their car.

Apartheid ensured the domination by a white minority over a black majority in every apsect of their daily lives. Blacks could not participate in the political process, they were forced to study in languages selected by the government and their education was geared towards making them useful labourers for their white ‘bosses’.

It is thus easy to see that Israel is not an apartheid state. All citizens of Israel (whether Muslim or Jewish, Arab or European) have equality before the law. There is nothing close to resembling the separate provision of amenities – Muslims and Jews use the same hospitals, Muslims and Jews use the same public transport, Muslims and Jews all vote in Israeli elections, Muslims and Jews can run for election etc etc. Muslims in Israel can choose to study in the language of their preference and Arabic is even one of the national languages of Israel. In apartheid South Africa, although blacks made up over 80% of the population, not a single African language was recognised by the state.

So why does the comparison still stick? The peddlars of this fraudulent comparison often focus on the Bantustan analogy in order to push it.

The peddlars explain that the West Bank and Gaza (Palestinian territories) equate to the old South African Bantustans. It is claimed that this ‘separation’ is a convenient measure for the Jews to devoid themselves of responsibility for the Palestinians. (As a side note, it is this that is the real “Transfer” problem in Israel - - the transfer of all responsibility for the Palestinians to Israel. The Palestinians are never responsible for anything, not even for themselves).

The problem with the comparison is that the separation between Israel and the Palestinian territories is more akin to the separation between South Africa and Mozambique (or any other bordering state) than to South Africa and the Bantustans.

There are many differences in practice (Israel does not rely on the Palestinian territories for labour) but the key difference is one of design.

The separation between South Africa and the Bantustans was designed and implemented by apartheid South Africa. The separation between Israel and the Palestinian territories however, was designed by the 1947 UN partition resolution 181. It was not Israel that created this separation (in order to racially subjugate a majority population!) The UN created the separation in order to create two separate states for two separate nations. This happened all over the Middle East once the Ottoman Empire collapsed.

Those that now claim that Israel has created Bantustan-like homelands for the Palestinians are either completely ignorant of the Middle East history, ignorant of what apartheid really was, or they are being deliberately malicious. Either way I am certain that part of their campaign is driven by hate.

I wonder how many of the silly American students participating in the recent “Israeli Apartheid week” can even name a single apartheid law passed by the old South Africa.

South Africa Demonstrates its Biased Middle Eastern Foreign Policy — Again

Abba Eban, arguably Israel’s most adroit Foreign Minister, observed that ‘the Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity [for peace].’ The same could be said of South Africa’s Middle East policy. Despite their affirmations about wanting to be an honest peace mediator between Israelis and Palestinians, the South African government time and again behaves like a Palestinian advocacy group.

This week a whole host of South African government officials, including president Mbkei himself, gave their unconditional support to the new PA unity government. The president dedicated his entire weekly letter in ANC today to this very topic: The Mecca Agreement - pax fiat!

‘The conclusion of the Mecca Agreement must surely serve as a firm signal that the rest of the world must now end all measures intended to isolate the Palestinian Authority, and thus show respect for the wishes of the Palestinian people and their decisions to determine their own internal affairs. The challenge also faces the Government of Israel to respond positively to the Mecca Agreement, among other things by releasing all funds due to the Palestinian Authority and adopting a positive posture with regard to the tasks to reduce the misery afflicting the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, and create a climate conducive to the peaceful resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict. The balance of power in this regard decisively favours Israel. To end the destructive conflict that has gone on for far too long, will require the wisdom and courage of the more powerful. The positive results that both the Israeli and Palestinian people pray for will not come of their own accord. They will come about as a result of conscious and deliberate actions which must be taken in the first instance by the more powerful.’

How can one claim to be an honest broker and then place all the responsibility for making peace on the Israelis? Not only is this grossly unfair to Israel, but it also robs the Palestinians of the chance to shed the shackles of dependency and take their future into their own hands. Such biased statements only reinforce the mentality of occupation (both for Israel and the Palestinian).

More telling however than what the President said is what he in fact did not say. In contrast to the international consensus, he did not call on the new PA to recognise Israel’s right to exist, renounce violence and adhere to all previously signed agreements. These criteria for lifting the embargo were in fact reaffirmed by the quartet this week. (In fact, the other quartet - Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states - are also urging the Palestinian government to abide by the 3 conditions.)

Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Aziz Pahad, went even further than the President in his media briefing this week. He took a swipe at Israel and the quartet for demanding the PA accept the 3 peace principles. He decried that

‘once again it seems that powerful forces are incapable of grasping an opportunity for peace and stability and remain committed to negotiating positions that make solutions impossible.’

Once again South Africa has placed itself in opposition to international democratic consensus. It becomes clearer week by week that our country now considers itself part of the broad Islamist-Leftist totalitarian alliance.

SA Cabinet Minister Supports Israel Apartheid Week

JPOST reports:

A Jewish member of South Africa's cabinet has sent a message of support to the organizers of last week's "Israeli Apartheid Week" at London University's School of Oriental and African Studies.

Can you guess who?

Ronnie Kasrils, South Africa's minister for intelligence, sent the letter to the Palestinian Society at the School of Oriental and African Studies. In the the message, Kasrils said he was writing "in his personal capacity," the Palestinian Society said. Nevertheless, it cited his position and was titled a "message of support from South Africa." "Please convey to all involved my wholehearted support for your week of solidarity with the Palestinian people in your appropriately entitled 'Israeli Apartheid Week,' he wrote. "This year sees the 60th anniversary of the UN Partition Plan that set in motion the monstrous Zionist plot to violently dispossess the Palestinian people of their land and rights, and their dispersal through serial ethnic cleansing that has continued in one form or another to this day. "To any fair minded person, this process of colonial-style dispossession is the fundamental cause of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and is certainly akin to the racist-style humiliation and brutality of the notorious apartheid system under which South Africa's landless and dispossessed people suffered," he continued. Kasrils’s spokeswoman claims that he really is speaking in his personal capacity. Lorna Daniels, a spokeswoman for Kasrils, told The Jerusalem Post: "It is quite clear that it was administered in Ronnie Kasril's private capacity. It was not done on official paper and was clearly signed and delivered in his private capacity."

This debate is getting tired. Kasrils purports to speak in his personal capacity. But as Peter Fabricius commented last year, a cabinet minister simply cannot speak in his personal capacity on a policy matter of such importance.

It is however interesting that the government appears to be subtly distancing themselves from this.

<tongue in cheek>
But I wonder how the government would react to other cabinet ministers making public statement that contradict official policy - err, like if the Minister of Health (a speedy recovery to her) announced that HIV causes AIDS.
</tongue in cheek>

702 Style Radio Station for Ramallah

Primedia CEO Issie Kirsh has set up a radio station in Ramallah styled on South Africa’s Talk Radio 702.

According to Ha’aretz Kirsh believes that 702 played a key role in the transition from this country's apartheid regime to democracy and he hopes that this new radio station will provide a platform for “peaceful dialogue” between Israelis and Palestinians.

Playing a “key role in the transition” is quite a claim considering their small listenership relative to African language radio stations and the fact that during the transition period they only transmitted to Johannesburg and its environs. But any dialogue is important if it can help Israelis and Palestinians understand each other. Still, it will only be transmitted from the West Bank and most parts of Israel will have trouble picking it up - so for the short term it will presumably aim at creating inter-Palestinian dialogue.

Ha’aretz reports

"We're committed to telling both sides of the story," Andrew Bolton, the station's news editor said. "We are apolitical and will not toe any political line, other than peace." Bolton said the news program would therefore not include either terms like "martyr" or "terrorist," both of which he called "loaded."

I hope it's not an exact model of 702. Yusuf Abramjee, the 702 station manager, (and group head of news and programming for Primedia Broadcasting) is far from a neutral and objective observer when it comes to the Middle East. He has penned a number of anti-Israel articles including one which concluded in no uncertain terms that Israel is an apartheid state and should be condemned.

(That said, I have not found much wrong with their news reporting – it's their comment, opinion, and running of their Middle East talk shows that fall way off the mark.)

Their African correspondent who often hosts talk shows on the Middle East is on record as stating that "Israel's actions is a blight on humanity" and that "[it] gets up my nose when Israel is allowed for geo-political and strategic reasons to commit crimes against Palestinians."

Middle East talk-show hosts often allow unchecked hate speech from Muslim callers to hijack the discussions. Wild accusations often go unchallenged and the shows only end up further polarising local Muslims and Jews.

Islamic Focus

Be sure to check out the new Islamic newspaper called Islamic Focus. Islamic Focus caught my eye because it’s an Islamic newspaper not controlled by radicals; it’s actually produced in association with the much respected Centre for International Political Studies (CIPS). Professor Hussein Solomon from CIPS (who also lectures at the department of Political Sciences at the University of Pretoria) is the Editor-in-Chief.

For me the most interesting part of the publication so far has been the three part series on a lesser known form of Islam known as Sufism. (See issues 1, 2, and 3).

Issue three contains a letter from a Jewish reader appealing for dialogue and improved relations between the local Jewish and Muslim communities.

Issue three also has an interesting interview with Muslim MP Moulana R Shah who is a member of South Africa's official opposition party, the Democratic Alliance.

An excerpt from the interview…

South Africa Sets its Voting Record at the UN Straight?

South African Defense Minister, Mosioua Lekota, this week sort to clarify South Africa’s deplorable voting record of late at the United Nations. In an address on the program of action of government's International Relations Peace and Security cluster, the minister explained that despite our recent votes at the UN South Africa condemned human rights abuses in Burma and the Holocaust. Lekota put it on record that

‘South Africa condemns totally and without reserve the abuse of human rights [in Burma] and the arrest of outstanding democrats [referring to Burmese leader Aung San Suu Kyi, who has been held under house arrest in the country's capital for more than 15 years].’

Our vote last month against a resolution rebuking Burma’s military junta for its gross human rights abuses against its own citizens was not to sanction the actions of Burma’s oppressive regime but to demonstrate our opposition to the legitimacy of the Western dominated UN Security Counsel in making such judgments. As Lekota explained

‘The issue of the vote in the UN has to do with affording more nations of the world to be able to have a say on it, instead of just a few of them. We cannot support a situation in which issues which need to be considered by bigger proportions of the members of the UN are hived off, and become a special preserve of a few privileged nations. At this time of a unipolar world it is increasingly more important than more nations are heard on issues rather than fewer because that in itself weakens democracy at an international level, and it's a very dangerous formula when it's like that.’

It would seem unfortunately that for the South African government the struggle against American hegemony trumps all other foreign policy priorities.

To justify this ludicrous position, the Minister, in what could only be described as Orwellian, claimed that South Africa’s vote was ‘actually in the interest of the people of Burma’. For if

‘more nations in the world are participants in the decision as to what has to happen there [in Burma] because when they own that decision there will be greater support for it.’

No one more than me recognises the flaws in the UN system and no one more than me supports its extensive reform, but when it is in a position to do some good it must be assisted. Inaction in the face of evil can never be justified on the imperfect nature of the tools available to combat it.

In addition to our deplorable vote on Burma, Lekota also sort to clarify our bizarre actions in respect of the UN General Assembly resolution against Holocaust denial. Readers will recall that South Africa, not only did not co-sponsor the resolution (103 countries did so including Rwanda) but also absented themselves from the hall when the resolution was passed.

Lekota stated unequivocally that the South African government does not condone Holocaust denial. He put it on record that

‘the position of South Africa, not starting today, even as a liberation movement, the ANC has never hesitated to condemn the holocaust and what happened in Hitler's Germany. The historical records speak for themselves in this regard.’

The actions of the South African mission to the UN did not seem to represent the position of the South African government on this issue. As Lekota explained

‘There has been some suggestion that South Africa refused to co-sponsor the resolution. No such instruction was issued from the government of South Africa to the Mission in New York to hesitate or resist on this matter. There may have been practical matters on the ground and we are looking into this matter. Even the suggestion that our mission was ordered to absent itself during the voting is erroneous and has no basis.’

While I of course welcome the Government’s public clarification of its position on Holocaust denial, I am extremely concerned about the breakdown in management at the South African Department of Foreign Affairs. It is imperative, particularly now that we sit on the UN security counsel, that our representatives abroad implement the will of the South African government and its people. This affair has been a huge embarrassment to the international standing of South Africa. Controls need to be put in place to ensure that this does not happen again.

SA Minister Engages in Israel-Denial

South African Minister of Intelligence and rabid anti-Zionist, Ronnie Kasrils, has published a 15 page pseudo academic treatise on the ‘history’ of Israel in the official ANC journal Umrabulo. The 15 page article, is entitled ‘David and Goliath: Who is who in the Middle East’.

Kasrils sets out to delegitimise the Jewish historical claim to the Land of Israel. According to the bible and archaeological evidence, the Canaanites inhabited the region from 3500 until 1000 BCE. After returning from our exile in Egypt, the Jewish people defeated the Canaanites and established the biblical kingdom of Israel. Kasrils casts doubt on this widely accepted historical narrative by claiming that archaeologists question whether the Jewish kingdoms of David and Solomon even existed at all.

He then proceeds to claim that the Palestinians are the descendents of the ancient Canaanites and thus the true heir to the land of Israel. As if writing for some perverted Lonely Planet guide to Palestine, Kasrils writes ‘Visitors to the West Bank town of Qalquilia will find that the inhabitants proudly point out that its existence dates from the Canaanite era.’ While this may be a quaint anecdote, unfortunately for our good Minister old wives tales do not constitute historical facts. But Kasrils has never been one for verifying historical facts.

After diminishing the Jewish connection to the land of Israel and replacing it with a fraudulent Palestinian one, Kasrils sets out to demonise the national liberation struggle of the Jewish people to re-establish a state in our biblical homeland. He states ‘from the outset, Zionism was aimed at the dispossession and eviction of the indigenous Palestinian population so that Israel could become an exclusivist Jewish state.’ To this end, the Jewish National Fund (JNF) purchased large tracts of Arab land ‘by deception’ and expelled its ‘indigenous’ Palestinian inhabitants. Playing on Western guilt for the Holocaust, the Zionist managed to coerce the United Nations into legitimising this ‘colonisation’ of Palestine in 1947 when it accepted the partition plan.

But this was not enough for the evil Zionists. According to our cabinet minister they wished to establish a racist Jewish only state from the Nile to the Euphrates including what is today Southern Lebanon. So the Jews launched a ‘war’ in 1948 to ethnically cleanse the entire area of its Arab inhabitants. Kasrils dismisses the widely accepted historical fact that numerous Arab armies attacked the fledgling Jewish state in order ‘to wipe it off the map’. He argues ‘far from the Arab countries constituting a threat to Israel, it was precisely the Zionists that aimed to subjugate the Palestinians in particular and control the Arabs in general.’ And of course ‘this was planned in a Zionist scenario devised years earlier by Theodore Herzl’.

Zionists crimes did not stop at the war of Independence. Kasrils claims that because ‘thriving, well assimilated Jewish communities such as in Iraq were not interested in the Zionist project at all, the Mossad began bombing Baghdad synagogues in 1950-51.’ Does our Minister of Intelligence honestly expect us to believe that promoting anti-Semitism around the world became the new Zionists strategy for securing a strong Jewish majority in Israel?

Kasrils’ historical deception goes even further. He accuses Israel of deliberately provoking a war with Eqypt, Syria and Jordan in 1967 in order to advance its expansionist aims. (We have already disputed this tired lie: Six Day War). But Syria and Egypt’s attack on Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the year, in 1973 is described as ‘a just war to regain lost land’ which Kasrils extraordinarily claims as an Arab victory.

This venom (and lies) is not only directed at Israel’s Jews, South African Jews too come in for their fair share. Kasrils makes the libellous accusation that the South African Zionist Federation (the oldest Jewish umbrella body in South Africa) of being

'an unabashed advocacy group ready to defend anything Israel does - right or wrong; labelling anyone critical of Israel an "anti-Semite" or "self-loathing Jew" in an attempt to intimidate non-Jew and Jew alike.'

If I were the SAZF, I would not hesitate to sue our good minister for such slander. But unfortunately it is the SAZF rather than the anti-Zionists that is intimidated.

Kasrils, like any propagandist worth his salt (and he did after all learn from the best in the former USSR), sprinkles this ludicrous narrative with South African analogies. For example he writes ‘Consider that in South Africa such dispossession was a protracted process over three centuries, with ebbs and flows. In Palestine colonial settler dispossession was concentrated into fifty years of extreme relentless brutality, and outrageously permitted to happen in the mid-20th Century.’

This treatise, demonising the Jewish people and delegitimising our historic claim to the land of Israel, is a crude attempt by the Minister to enrage the already anti-Israel ANC base. For he knows all to well as the Party slogan in George Orwell’s 1984 goes ‘Who controls the past, controls the future and who controls the present controls the past.’

If the community does not launch a serious campaign to counter these lies among members of the ruling party, then we must resign ourselves to an extremely precarious situation for Jews in South Africa.

IAS Search: Kasrils

Local Coverage of the Temple Mount Violence

This past weekend saw the renewal of orchestrated Palestinian violence in and around the Temple Mount in the Old city of Jerusalem. The riots, aimed at creating chaos throughout the West Bank, were in response to Israel carrying out construction on a ramp near the Mugrabi Gate in Jerusalem's Old City. The Mugrabi Ramp and the new bridge being constructed are located entirely outside of the Temple Mount complex and are not part of it.

The Jerusalem Post described this reaction as part of the larger Palestinian pattern of violence and bullying where the Muslim world's tactic of combining claims of offense, followed by intimidation through violence, bullies the West into seeing the side of the "offended" party causing it to question its own actions. The JPost reports what the construction was all about:

What is Israel doing that has sparked such violent threats? Some years ago, the pedestrian ramp leading up to Jerusalem's Temple Mount fell apart. Now municipal authorities plan to build a permanent ramp to maintain access to this holy site, and are conducting, as required by law, an archeological salvage dig to make sure no artifacts are destroyed in the process. All of this is completely outside the Temple Mount platform, and bears no relation or threat to that structure, let alone to the Aksa mosque. Why would Israel dream of undermining the Temple Mount, which is Judaism's holiest site? The claim that Israel is doing so is patently absurd, as anyone familiar with the area can immediately see. ...

The media has obviously reported extensively on this mini-crisis. How has the local media fared? I have been able to monitor the coverage of the Citizen, the Pretoria News Weekend, the Saturday Argus, and the Weekend Witness.

The Bad
The Saturday Argus, using a Sapa-AP article, ran a headline that reminded their readers of the importance of the Mount to Muslims but failed to mention its more primary importance to Jews. It is the third holiest site in Islam but is Judaism's holiest site. They could very easily have just described the mount as holy to both sides. The headline read “Israeli police storm Islamic shrine.”

The Weekend Witness (Sapa-AP) headline described the site as ‘holy’. They followed this with an opening sentence that also only reminded readers of the sites importance to Muslims. “Israeli police stormed Islam`s third holiest shrine after noon prayers yesterday”

Remarkably, neither the Saturday Argus nor the Weekend Witness mentioned an incident where Palestinians hurled rocks at a bus carrying Canadian tourists which happened to be near the site.

The Good
The Citizen’s Sapa-AP report was by far the best coverage. The report mentioned that the Temple Mount is claimed by both sides describing it as a disputed holy site. The report was specific about what was under construction “Construction work resumed yesterday on a ramp leading to a disputed holy site… The new walkway is meant to replace an ancient earthen ramp that partially collapsed three years ago.”

They mentioned that the Muslim world objected to the construction giving context to the violent protests. They also mentioned the violent incident where Palestinian rioters hurled rocks at a busload of Canadian tourists who happened to be in the area.

The Pretoria News Weekend also described the site as contested “The site, venerated by Muslims as the third holiest in Islam and by Jews as the location of their ancient temple, is a notorious flashpoint.”

The Saturday Argus and the Weekend Witness could claim that they are not responsible for the reporting of Sapa-AP. But the Citizen and the Pretoria News who reported in a balanced fashion also used Sapa-AP.

Previously at IAS: Previous Islamic Slurs about Israel Destroying Al-Aqsa (with photos).