Is Gilo an Israeli settlement in East Jerusalem?

While I am usually opposed to building Jewish settlements in the West Bank, I think that the White House (White House: Israeli housing plans dismaying) is foolish to try to prevent Israel from building more apartments in Gilo - a Jewish neighborhood of Jerusalem that is, in fact, over the Green Line, but which in any realistic plan to make peace with the Palestinians will never be part of a Palestinian state. The Washington Post calls Gilo part of "East Jerusalem," but in fact it is in southern Jerusalem, north of the Palestinian town of Beit Jalla, which is just north of Bethlehem. It would be important to know exactly where these new apartments would be built and whether any Palestinian land would be expropriated for them. I would certainly be opposed to expropriation, but not necessarily to building more Gilo apartments on land that doesn't belong to Palestinians.

Saeb Erakat, the Palestinian negotiator, of course opposes Israeli building in Gilo (which doesn't surprise me, nor do I blame him), on the grounds that this belongs to the part of Jerusalem Palestinians want for their capital. This reason I do find surprising - I've never heard the Palestinians say that Gilo should be part of the Palestinian capital, I've always understand that other neighborhoods in the east and north of the city should be part of the Palestinian capital (the Arab parts of the Old City, the built-up area of east Jerusalem near the Damascus Gate - Sultan Suleiman St., Salah al-Din St., Harun al-Rashid St., Sheikh Jarrah, Ras al-Amud, Abu Dis).

Haaretz reports on the substance of the plan:

The plan - named "Gilo's western slopes" - will account for a significant expansion of the neighborhood. The planned 900 housing unites will be built in the form of 4-5 bedroom apartments, in an effort to lure relatively well-off residents.

The plan was initiated by the Israel Land Administration, and has received an initial green light, but on Tuesday the authorization was finalized.

The additional housing units are only part of the planned expansion of Gilo. In fact, the majority of apartments slated to be built in Jerusalem in the coming years will be located in Gilo. Other building plans in various stages of approval include some 4,000 new housing units in Gilo and adjacent areas.

According to sources in the planning committee, extensive building plans stem from the scrapping of the Safdie plan, which would have seen the city expand westward. The Safdie plan, named after architect Moshe Safdie, included over 20,000 housing units on open areas covering 26,600 dunams (some 6,600 acres) west of the city on natural and planted forests near Ramot. The plan had come under attack by environmental groups, and was later discarded.

According to the sources, this created a need for new land for construction, which can be found in the southern parts of the city and beyond the Green Line.

I'm not sure that this is a battle that the White House should be having with Israel. Israeli building in other parts of Jerusalem appears to me to be much more crucial to oppose (for example, in Sheikh Jarrah or in Silwan), because it breaks up cohesive Palestinian neighborhoods and makes it much more difficult for them to be included in a future Palestinian state. As far as I know, this is not true of Gilo.

Ft. Hood Shooting

I'm watching Lou Dobbs now (I know, probably not a good idea for my mental health, but I was hoping to hear the latest information about the shooting), and the thing that's infuriating me about his discussion of the shooting is the assumption that the shooter (Major Nadal Malik Hasan) acted because of combat stress/PTSD. As far as I can tell, he hadn't yet been deployed at all, although he was about to be sent to Iraq.

He was a psychiatrist who had trained for his medical degree in the military, and before he went to Ft. Hood, he had worked at the Center for the Study of Traumatic Stress at the Bethesda Naval Facility and had been a Fellow, Disaster and Preventive Psychiatry, Department of Psychiatry, F. Edward Hebert School of Medicine, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences. He had also worked at Walter Reed Army Medical Center for six years before being transferred to the Texas base in July.

On various websites I've read a variety of disgusting reactions, based upon the political leanings of the commenter - some are anti-Muslim (on the basis of his name), others are simply anti-military with the assumption that all soldiers are bloodthirsty murderers or potential murderers.

Since we don't know anything about his motive for the shootings, I think it's useless at this point to speculate on them.

Update - from press conference right now with General Robert Cone (9:20 p.m.) - apparently the shooter is not dead. He was shot, but did not die, and is in stable condition.

Further Update (Washington Post):

Nidal M. Hasan, the Army major suspected of shooting dozens at Fort Hood in Texas on Wednesday, was a devout Muslim and Virginia native born to two Jordanian immigrants. His family moved to Roanoke, where he attended high school, afterward enlisting in the Army.

The 39-year-old received a bachelor's degree in biochemistry from Virginia Tech in 1997, followed by advanced degrees in psychiatry and public health from the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda.

Starting in June 2003, Hasan was an intern at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, later becoming a resident and then a fellow at the Center for the Study of Traumatic Stress.

During his time in the D.C. area, Hasan attended the Muslim Community Center in Silver Spring and was "very devout," according to Faizul Khan, a former imam at the center. Khan said Hasan attended prayers at least once a day, seven days a week, often in his Army fatigues.

Khan also said Hasan applied to an annual matrimonial seminar that matches Muslims looking for spouses. "I don't think he ever had a match, because he had too many conditions," Khan said. On his application, Hasan described his personality and character: "I am quiet and reserved until more familiar with person. Funny, caring and personable."

This year, he was promoted to major and then transferred to Darnall Army Medical Center at Fort Hood and was set to be deployed to Iraq.

Some more interesting details from the New York Times:

Born and reared in Virginia, the son of immigrant parents from a small town near Jerusalem, he joined the Army right out of high school, against his parents’ wishes. The Army, in turn, put him through college and then medical school, where he trained to be a psychiatrist.

But Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the 39-year-old man accused of Thursday’s mass shooting at Fort Hood, Tex., started having second thoughts about his military career a few years ago after other soldiers harassed him for being a Muslim, he told relatives in Virginia.

He had also more recently expressed deep concerns about being sent to Iraq or Afghanistan. Having counseled scores of returning soldiers with post-traumatic stress disorder, first at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington and more recently at Fort Hood, he knew all too well the terrifying realities of war, said a cousin, Nader Hasan....

Major Hasan was not married and had two brothers, one living in Virginia and another in Jerusalem, his cousin said. The family, by and large, had prospered in the United States, with various members working in law, banking and medicine, Mr. Hasan said.

The Associated Press, quoted federal law enforcement officials saying Major Hasan had come to their attention at least six months ago because of Internet postings that mentioned suicide bombings and other threats.

Our extremists on the Temple Mount

From Ynet:

In a move that may heighten tensions in the capital, the Organization for Human Rights on the Temple Mount (OHRTM) called for Jews to visit the east Jerusalem compound, which houses the al-Aqsa Mosque.

During a rightist event held in Jerusalem Sunday evening, just hours after Muslims rioted in and around the Temple Mount amid reports that Jewish extremists were planning to visit the site, Professor Hillel Weiss said, "The (third) temple must be built now. The mosques do not have to be destroyed in order for us to do this."

The conference, which was attended by a number of Knesset members and leading rabbis, was held in protest of the decision to seal off the compound due to the recent violence.

"It's time that we stop surrendering to violence," Temple Institute Director Rabbi Yehuda Glick said, adding that "before his assassination, prime minister Yitzhak Rabin said the greatest threat to Israeli democracy is bowing down to violence. "Unfortunately, lately police are surrendering and withdrawing in the face of the Palestinians' violence," said the rabbi.

Kiryat Arba Chief Rabbi Dov Lior said, "It is vital that the Israeli people visit the (Temple Mount). We are suffering because a large segment of the populations is indifferent towards this issue. "Reclaiming our sovereignty over (the Temple Mount) will bring redemption closer," said the rabbi.

Far-right activist Moshe Feiglin told the conference that the Temple Mount riots and the Goldstone Report, which accuses the IDF of committing war crimes during its December-January conflict with Hamas in Gaza, both constitute attempts to "undermine our legitimacy in this land."

Don't these people realize they are playing with fire? It seems like the Islamic movement in Israel, Hamas, the PA, and this right-wing Jewish group are working together to start the third intifada. (Although I doubt that the OHRTM intends to start the third intifada, unlike Hamas).

(For a contrary view, read Yisrael Medad at My Right Word. He attended the conference, and I hope will write more about it on his blog).

Hamas on Jerusalem: Fate of the city to be decided by war

Rioting in Jerusalem has resumed today, and Hamas leader Khaled Mashall says the fate of the city will not be decided upon by negotiations, but by war. He claims that the Israelis want to demolish the Al Aqsa mosque and replace it with the Temple.

Following a day of clashes between security forces and Arab rioters in Jerusalem, Damascus-based Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal on Sunday evening stated that the fate of the capital would be determined by force, not negotiations.

"The fate of Jerusalem will be determined only by confrontation and not by the negotiating tables," Mashaal said in a speech, according to Channel 10. "The Israelis want to divide al-Aqsa Mosque, and this is not all. They want to hold their religious ceremonies in the mosque … in preparation for demolishing it and building their temple there," he reportedly said. Israel is interested in handling the Jerusalem issue unilaterally so that it is not included in negotiations with the Palestinians, Masha'al claimed.

"Jerusalem is all of Jerusalem, not only [the east Jerusalem neighborhood of] Abu-Dis. The Arabs and Muslims are [the city's] residents, and the Zionists have no claim over it," he said.

"I call for angry protests in Palestine and in the Arab world. Today, protests began in [the] Gaza [Strip], and we hope they will spread to the West Bank. It is important for there to be a united Palestinian position. We must send a message to the world: In light of the settlements and actions in Jerusalem, there are no negotiations and we must rethink our steps," the Hamas leader concluded.

It's clear, of course, from this story, that Masha'al does not think Jews have any claim to Jerusalem, even the right to live in it. (We should not be fooled by his use of the word "Zionists" - he means Jews).

The Ma'an News Agency (Palestinian) offers a different translation of Masha'al's words:

Bethlehem – Ma'an – Hamas’ top political official, Khalid Mash'al, warned that Israel could attempt to divide the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound in Jerusalem in a televised news conference from Damascus on Sunday evening.

"It was the first time Israeli army locked the gates of the mosque with chains, barring the call to prayer, breaking into its yards for long periods of time," Mash’al said in remarks denouncing an Israeli police raid early on Sunday that sparked a day of demonstrations." These acts are intended to divide Al-Aqsa and force their [Jews’] religious rituals on it," he added.

Mash’al may have been alluding to the division of the Ibrahimi Mosque in the West Bank city of Hebron, half of which is controlled by Israeli settlers.

Mash’al also struck a chord of Muslim-Christian solidarity in his address. He said that among those who holed themselves up inside the Mosque on Sunday in response to the Israeli intrusion were Palestinians from inside Israel and Christians. "Jerusalem for us, as Palestinians, is all of Jerusalem with all of its land, residents and its Islamic symbols … the Jews have no right to it," he also said.

"Jerusalem’s fate will not be decided in negotiations but in the balance of confrontation and resistance," he added.

For an archive of stories about the rioting in Jerusalem this fall, see my wiki on Jerusalem: Clashes on Temple Mount.

A Jerusalem encounter

David of Israelity reports on A Jerusalem encounter.

Jerusalem has always been a volatile place, but the last week of protests and rioting by local Palestinians in the Old City and east Jerusalem over what they claim to be Israeli efforts to move in on the Temple Mount really show what a tinderbox it is.

But sometimes, trying to hone in on a human aspect instead of looking at the dismal macro situation can provide a different view of the situation that Jews and Arabs find themselves thrown in together in the place both sides call their home.

I was waiting for a bus yesterday across from the Regency Hotel near Hebrew University’s Mount Scopus campus to take me through the tunnel and to Ma’aleh Adumim. A short distance away, at the intersection that leads to Wadi Joz, the police had blocked off the road and were redirecting traffic – evidently a common procedure during the busy days of Hol Hamoed Succot when so many extra visitors come to Jerusalem, but undoubtedly mighty annoying for residents of the area.
There was one other person at the bus stop, a young man in his 20s, wearing trendy sunglasses and holding a small overnight bag.

“Are you going to Beit She’an too? he asked me in Hebrew, revealing with his accent that he was Arab. I told him no, and we started talking about his journey.
“I’m going to Jordan to visit my sister. She’s lived there for years,” he said. “It’s easier for me to cross over the border at Beit She’an.”

Turns out his name was Khaled and he lives in Shuafat, the Arab neighborhood that borders the Jewish neighborhood of French Hill, next to Hebrew University.
We started talking about Jordan, and he offered some tips about visiting our eastern neighbor. “There’s not much to see in Amman, it’s best to just go to Petra. But don’t go to Akaba, they don’t like Jews there.”

“Are things quiet in Shuafat now”? I asked, referring to rock throwing and tire burning that had taken place there in recent days.

“Yes, but you never know when it will start again. There’s a few instigators who start doing those things,” said Khaled, who said that he was entering his last years of a Master’s degree in business administration at the university. “I don’t like living here,” he added, pointing to the roadblock a few feet away. “You can’t go where you want. When I finish my Masters, my girlfriend and I are leaving – to America, or maybe Europe.”

We tossed things around for a few more minutes until my bus arrived. Khaled and I shook hands, wished each other well, and I got on the bus leaving him waiting for his.

On the way back home, I reflected on the encounter and felt a certain sadness – if decent people like Khaled are throwing up their hands in despair and leaving the fate of Jerusalem to the rock throwers and tire burners, then our future looks bleak. I wanted to get off the bus and go back and tell him, ’stay here, help us build a society that we can all live in together.’

But my bus was already entering Ma’aleh Adumim.

A nice sentiment on David's part, but it would be nice if he had referred to all the things that Israel does to make the lives of people like Khaled miserable. It's not just the stone-throwers of Shuafat, it's the separation wall and the checkpoints. Yes, I know all the arguments in favor of the barrier - it keeps suicide bombers out of Israel. If, however, that were the only goal, it would be built along the Green Line and settlements in the West Bank would not be on the Israeli side of the barrier. And in places like Jerusalem, the barrier would not be built right in the middle of Arab neighborhoods, as it is. See this 2007 article on the Brit Tzedek web site for a discussion of how difficult the separation barrier makes the lives of ordinary, non-terrorist Palestinians. And a blog posting by Dennis Fox on his walk from Ramallah to Jerusalem, passing by Shuafat, which is behind the separation wall and has only two entrances to it.

Below is a photo of the separation barrier in Jerusalem. See how it divides most of the buildings of one Arab neighborhood from a couple of houses further down the hill.

The Merits of Jerusalem

One of the things that I find quite astonishing about the current denial by some Muslims that the first and second Temples stood on the Temple Mount is that Muslim sources from the early centuries of Islam clearly recognize that a Jewish Temple used to be there. There is a genre of Muslim religious writing on the merits of cities, including the merits of Jerusalem. The earliest example is Fada'il Bayt al-Maqdis by al-Walid b. Hammad al-Ramli (died 912 CE). (I have learned about this genre of Muslim literature from Suleiman Mourad, who wrote an article on it for Jerusalem: Idea and Reality). This genre contains traditions that clearly go back to earlier Jewish and Christian traditions about Jerusalem, including evidence that Solomon's Temple stood on the Temple Mount. Why do contemporary Muslim religious leaders in Palestine deny the evidence of their own tradition? (Or do they just not know about these texts?)

You just can't make these things up - the Conservative Bible Project

Wow, this reads like a parody of itself. Do these people know how ignorant they sound? The Conservative Bible Project proposes ten principles to follow in order to make a new conservative Bible translation.

1. Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias. Why would a "thought-for-thought" translation lead to a conservative translation? I would think that a "word for word" approach would be more conservative (and not incidentally, much harder to read!)

2. Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, "gender inclusive" language, and other modern emasculation of Christianity. I myself do favor a more literal translation that doesn't elide originally sexist language in the Bible, but sometimes a gender inclusive translation is justifiable.

3. Not Dumbed Down: not dumbing down the reading level, or diluting the intellectual force and logic of Christianity; the NIV is written at only the 7th grade level. I agree with this - but why is this a conservative principle?

4. Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms as they develop; defective translations use the word "comrade" three times as often as "volunteer"; similarly, updating words which have a change in meaning, such as "word", "peace", and "miracle". One of the examples they give below is translating "word" (as in the Prologue to John) as "truth" instead. How about taking a look at the Greek and its semantic range before imposing your own translation? Ever heard of eisegesis? And "peace"? What, replace it with "war"?

5. Combat Harmful Addiction: combating addiction by using modern terms for it, such as "gamble" rather than "cast lots"; using modern political terms, such as "register" rather than "enroll" for the census. So Jonah and the sailors "gambled" to figure out who was responsible for the storm that threatened to overwhelm the ship? This is ridiculous.

6. Accept the Logic of Hell: applying logic with its full force and effect, as in not denying or downplaying the very real existence of Hell or the Devil. So how would this translation understand "the Satan" in Job?

7. Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning. Free-market parables?? Nothing like imposing a modern economic system upon a text from first century Palestine.

8. Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story. And why is this a "liberal passage"? Because it indicates that Jesus was merciful? (Their most egregious example in the article is the last words of Jesus in Matthew - "Jesus said, 'Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.'" Apparently this is a "liberal addition" - the idea that God is merciful and forgives sinners!

9. Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples: crediting open-mindedness, often found in youngsters like the eyewitnesses Mark and John, the authors of two of the Gospels. I have no idea what this means.

10. Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word "Lord" rather than "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "Lord God." Again, why is conciseness a conservative style and wordiness a liberal one?

Lord, forgive them, for they know not what they do!

Ah, so much for a good rumor - Ahmedinejad NOT Jewish after all

Meir Javedanfar, on the Guardian site Comment is Free, has scotched the idea that Ahmedinejad is Jewish: Ahmadinejad has no Jewish roots.

And it seems likely to me that he knows what he's talking about: according to the Guardian website, "Meir Javedanfar is an Iranian-Israeli Middle East analyst and co-author of The Nuclear Sphinx of Tehran: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the State of Iran."

More trouble on the Temple Mount

Nadav Shragai's opinion piece in the March 12, 2009 issue of Haaretz reveals some information that I did not know, and it provides a key to why there was violence on the Temple Mount the morning before Yom Kippur a week ago. He wrote in March:

For years, the Jerusalem District Police "benefited" from the fact that few Jews visited the Temple Mount, sparing the police this "headache." But now the situation is changing. The halakhic consensus that Jews are forbidden to ascend the mount has been broken. More and more rabbis are permitting Jews to visit, and more and more Jews are seeking to do so.

The police have not come to terms with this new situation. They are confused and are confusing others, and have inverted the natural order of things on the mount, which is both the world's most sensitive site and the Jewish people's holiest site. Not much remains for Jews on the Temple Mount. The Temple is gone. Prayer is forbidden there. The mount's antiquities have been destroyed, and its mosques have become founts of religious and nationalist incitement against the State of Israel.

It is certainly true that more religious Jews have started to go to the Temple Mount, despite the halakhic prohibition of the Chief Rabbinate which has existed since 1967. The question is whether this should be regarded as a "provocation," as the leaders of the Islamic Movement in Israel and the Palestinian Authority seem to.

On April 16, 2009, Haaretz reported that "Hundreds of Muslim protesters block Jewish entry to the Temple Mount." Apparently a Jewish group was given permission to ascend the Mount and pray there, something which I thought was not allowed at all.

Hundreds of Muslims gathered Thursday at the foot of the Al-Aqsa Mosque in the Old City of Jerusalem, to prevent Jewish worshippers from entering the Temple Mount for a planned prayer service. The Muslim protesters began arriving Wednesday evening, gathering on the slope leading to the Temple Mount area. The rise, which overlooks the Western Wall, is considered holy to both Jews and Muslims, and houses a sacred site for both religions.

The Islamic Movement had opposed the prayer session, and police said they would allow the Jews to pray on the Mount, but not to engage in any other activities in the area.

Army Radio on Wednesday quoted Jerusalem Police as saying that they would limit the number of Muslim worshippers entering the Temple Mount for prayers on Thursday due to fears of disturbances. Hundreds of police and Border Police officers were to be deployed to East Jerusalem to prevent violence, and entry to the Temple Mount was to be restricted to women, and men over age 50 holding Israeli ID cards. Police said they received intelligence warnings about thousands of Palestinians being called to protest at the site. The Islamic Movement's northern branch arranged dozens of buses to take Muslim protesters to the area.

See also Shragai's September 28, 2009 Haaretz article, "Digs, Lies, and Mugrabi bridge," on growing Muslim denial that Jews ever had anything to do with the Temple Mount, including denying that Solomon's Temple once stood there.

The problems on the Temple Mount were renewed today: Israel keeps Temple Mount closed in wake of clashes

After a day of clashes near the Temple Mount in the Old City of Jerusalem on Sunday, Israeli security forces have decided to limit access to the compound for another day. The compound will be open only to men over the age of 50 with a valid Israeli identification card and to women of all ages.

Tensions in the Old City seemed to have calmed by late Sunday afternoon, following hours of clashes between Arab youth and security forces. Israeli security forces released from custody Jerusalem's senior Fatah official, Khatem Abed Al-Kadr, who was arrested earlier in the day on suspicion of inciting riots. Al-Kadr was released on condition that he not enter the Old City of Jerusalem and that he remain at least 250 meters from the area gates for 15 days. He was released on NIS 10,000 bail. Deputy leader of Israel's northern Islamic Movement, Sheikh Kemal Khativ, was also released on similar conditions.

Some 150 Palestinian protesters hurled rocks and bottles at Israeli police on Sunday after being barred from one of the holiest shrines in Jerusalem, on Temple Mount.

Jerusalem police spokesman Shmuel Ben-Ruby said police have dispersed the demonstrators who had gathered near the disputed hilltop compound. One police officer was lightly hurt in the clash. Ben-Ruby said that the unrest continued at a nearby East Jerusalem neighborhood and that three men have been detained.

Earlier Sunday, police closed the Temple Mount complex to visitors. The complex is sacred to Jews as the site of the two biblical Jewish temples and to Muslims as home of the al-Aqsa mosque. The closure was imposed after Palestinians rioted at the site last week on Yom Kippur. The northern chapter of the Islamic Movement reported Sunday morning that buses en route to the Al-Aqsa mosque had been detained on route 6.

It was further reported that tensions were high in the area following recent calls on Muslim residents of East Jerusalem to show a presence at the mosque.

On Friday, the Islamic Movement held a rally in the Israeli Arab town of Umm al-Fahm, under the heading "Al-Aqsa is in danger." The rally is a 14-year old annual tradition. The head of the northern branch of the Islamic Movement, Ra'ad Salah, warned Friday against Israel's alleged plan to take over the mosque. "[Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu will set the Middle East on fire," Salah told his supporters at the rally.

I would say that the northern branch of the Islamic Movement in Israel is also trying to set the Middle East on fire, as the words of Ra'ad Salah below demonstrate:

An Islamic Movement leader on Sunday urged Muslims across Israel to gather at the Temple Mount in Jerusalem to prevent extreme right-wing Jews from entering the compound to pray. "I call on everyone in Jerusalem and within the Green Line to come to the [Al-Qasa] mosque and show your presence," said Sheik Ra'ad Salah, who heads the northern branch of the Islamic Movement.

A reporter for a website affiliated with the northern branch of the Islamic Movement was beaten by police during the riots today:

A reporter for the Arab-Israeli news website PLS48.net was injured during the riots that broke out Sunday morning at the Temple Mount compound in Jerusalem's Old City. He claims a police officer struck him with a baton and disappeared. Police reject the claims.

Reporter Abdallah Zidan arrived at the Temple Mount at dawn to cover the prayers for his website, which is sponsored by the Islamic Movement's northern branch.

Many heeded Islamic Movement leader Sheikh Raad Salah's call to arrive at the Al-Aqsa Mosque after word got out that extreme-right wing Jews would be making their way to the site as well.

Zidan, a resident of the Manda village in the Galilee was among the visitors, and along with a group of fellow worshipers arrived at the entrance gate at around 5 am. A tumult suddenly erupted near Sheikh Kamal Khatib, Salah's deputy, who was standing in Zidan's vicinity. Khatib, who was later arrested on suspicion of incitement, was surrounded by people who prevented officers from reaching him. Zidan claims that during the fracas a police officer struck him with a baton in a forceful manner. "I started bleeding from my eye, the people around me tried to help but the police officer disappeared," Zidan recalled.

Zidan was evacuated to an east Jerusalem hospital and transferred by ambulance to the Hadassah Ein Kerem Hospital. "I was lucky the actual eye wasn't hurt, it was very close," said Zidan, who required stitches.

"Police officers were behaving very brutally, like animals. They came and hit me for no reason. Media personnel who come for news coverage cannot be hurt in such a way," he said.

The reporter added that he intends on filing a complaint against the officer with the Justice Ministry.

Jerusalem Police rejected the claims and stated that "Border Guard forces together with minority section officers requested Kamal Khatib to come with them, which he did. Nothing unusual occurred at any stage of his arrest. It went by very smoothly."

While I deeply suspect the motives of the Islamic Movement, I don't necessarily believe all of the police accounts either. Police certainly present themselves in the best possible light and deny any wrongdoing when they clearly did the wrong thing in a given situation - like beating a reporter.

Khaled Abu Toameh of the Jerusalem Post also reports on today's events:

At least 100 Palestinian men, who had refused to leave the Temple Mount despite an Israeli decision made on Sunday morning to shut down the site due to security concerns, left the area in the early evening. The Palestinian Authority and the Waqf had instructed the men to arrive at the site on Saturday night and stay put, fearing what they termed a "Jewish takeover."

On Sunday morning, approximately 150 Arabs hurled rocks and bottles at security forces in the Old City shortly after the decision to shut down the compound was announced.

In the evening, Jerusalem Magistrate's Court issued restraining orders against senior Fatah official Hatem Abdel Kader and Islamic Movement official Kamal Khatib, banishing both men from the Old City area for a period of 15 days. Khatib was arrested in the afternoon on suspicion of fanning the riots. Kader was detained overnight Saturday on suspicion of inciting Muslims to cause disturbances in the Old City by issuing the call. Kader previously served as the Palestinian Authority's minister for Jerusalem affairs after acting as PA Prime Minister Salaam Fayad's adviser on Jerusalem affairs.

In Gaza, Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh commented on the riots, saying that "The Israeli attack on Al-Aqsa Mosque is continuing, they have surrounded the mosque and broken into it." Speaking at a function in honor of the release of the 20th female Palestinian prisoner, Haniyeh claimed that gun-toting Israeli security forces had forced devout worshipers to leave the compound.

Earlier in the day, Border Police closed off roads around the Old City and dispersed the rioters into the neighborhood of Wadi Joz, where residents briefly joined in the disturbances. Three rioters were arrested and one border policeman was lightly wounded in the clashes.

Many of the Arab rioters were believed to have traveled to the capital from the North. Palestinians had claimed that police planned to order groups of Jewish settlers to pray within close proximity of mosques.

The clashes come two days after the US State Department called on its citizens to avoid the area over Succot.

According to police, access to the area was barred following a call made throughout east Jerusalem to "come and defend" the mount.

Last week, shortly before Yom Kippur, disturbances flared up across east Jerusalem, beginning when 18 policemen and 15 rioters were hurt during clashes on the Temple Mount, and later elsewhere in the Old City.

A Channel 2 commentator suggested that the riots were not just a reaction to Jewish presence in the compound, but also "induced by fear that Israel would plant false archaeological evidence, as though a Jewish temple never existed in Jerusalem."

Police said some 150 Muslim worshipers participated in last week's disturbance on the Temple Mount, which began when a group of Jewish visitors entered the compound with a police escort.

The Temple Mount compound will also be shut down on Monday, when tens of thousands of Jewish worshipers are expected to pray at the Western Wall. Only Muslim worshipers over the age of 50 will be allowed access to the compound.

Abe Selig contributed to this report.

Click here for a video report from the Jerusalem Post.

From Jaffa Gate - Holy Sepulcher - Haram - Mt. Zion

View of a northern archway on the Temple Mount.

One of the things that has disturbed me about the status quo on the Temple Mount is that Jews (or any non-Muslims) are forbidden to pray there in any way. If the police see someone just moving their lips in prayer they can take the person off the Mount. I understand that some Jews go up to the Mount to pray in order to provoke Muslims - I can see why the police wouldn't want to permit them to do so. But I do wish that some provision could be made for peaceful prayer by non-Muslims. The Temple Mount is the holiest place for Jews. When I visit there, I wish I could pray.

From Muslim Quarter & Temple Mount/Haram esh-Sharif

Inside view of the ceiling of the Dome of the Chain (situated just to the east of the Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount).

I would prefer that the permission allow personal, individual prayer, however, not the establishment of a synagogue on the Temple Mount, because it would inevitably be controlled by the most rigidly Orthodox. (Not by the ultra-Orthodox, who wouldn't go on the Temple Mount in any case, as far as a I know). Men and women would be separated in prayer and the men would be in control. I would like unfettered prayer there - not controlled by the Waqf, the Israeli police, or Orthodox Judaism.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad from a Jewish family?

This is a fascinating story, if true - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad revealed to have Jewish past.

A photograph of the Iranian president holding up his identity card during elections in March 2008 clearly shows his family has Jewish roots. A close-up of the document reveals he was previously known as Sabourjian – a Jewish name meaning cloth weaver. The short note scrawled on the card suggests his family changed its name to Ahmadinejad when they converted to embrace Islam after his birth.

The Sabourjians traditionally hail from Aradan, Mr Ahmadinejad's birthplace, and the name derives from "weaver of the Sabour", the name for the Jewish Tallit shawl in Persia. The name is even on the list of reserved names for Iranian Jews compiled by Iran's Ministry of the Interior....

A London-based expert on Iranian Jewry said that "jian" ending to the name specifically showed the family had been practising Jews. "He has changed his name for religious reasons, or at least his parents had," said the Iranian-born Jew living in London. "Sabourjian is well known Jewish name in Iran."

An article from 2005 in the Guardian also talks about the name change, but without mentioning that the family was Jewish previously.

The Saborjhian family rented the two-storey house before leaving their impoverished environment in the late 1950s in search of prosperity in Tehran. Mr Ahmadinejad was little more than one year old when they went to the city.

It was a move that coincided with changing the family name, a step taken for a mixture of religious and economic reasons, relatives say.

The name change provides an insight into the devoutly Islamic working-class roots of Mr Ahmadinejad's brand of populist politics. The name Saborjhian derives from thread painter - sabor in Farsi -a once common and humble occupation in the carpet industry in Semnan province, where Aradan is situated.

Ahmad, by contrast, is a name also used for the prophet Muhammad and means virtuous; nejad means race in Farsi, so Ahmadinejad can mean Muhammad's race or virtuous race.
"Moving from a village to big cities was so common and widespread at that time that perhaps people, not wanting to show their roots, would change their names," said Mehdi Shahhosseini, 31, son of one of Mr Ahmadinejad's cousins, still living in Aradan.

A skeptical take from Evan Hill, a blogger on a site called The Majlis, points out that the Telegraph and Guardian articles contradict themselves on the meaning of the name Sabourjian. Another thing that strikes me as possibly fishy about the Telegraph article is that it quotes an unnamed "London-based expert on Iranian Jewry." Who is he? Why didn't the article name him?

An article on the Radio Free Europe website from January of this year says that:

Mehdi Khazali, the son of the conservative Ayatollah Khazali, has written on his personal website that he recently learned that President Mahmud Ahmadinejad has Jewish roots. Khazali notes that Ahmadinejad changed his family name from Saburjian, and says that the origins of the Saburjian family in the town of Aradan should be investigated.

Is Khazali likely to be a reputable source? Or could he have written this simply to smear Ahmedinejad? A follow-up on this story comes from the Jewish Chronicle:

Dr Mehdi Khazali was reportedly detained after writing on his website earlier this year that the president had changed his family name from Saburjian — thought to be Jewish in origin. And during the election campaign, reformist candidate Mehdi Karroubi also challenged Ahmadinejad in a live TV debate to give his full name. The “Jewish Ahmadinejad” dispute has even spread beyond Iran. A Bahrain newspaper, Akhbar al-Khaleej, published an article on the claim.

More on Mr. Khazali's arrest comes from an article this summer (July 5, 2009) in the Jerusalem Post. (The link appears to be broken - I have the text from the International Free Press Society).

The Iranian blogger who claimed President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has Jewish roots is being detained by the authorities after he was arrested along with 150 university students earlier this week, according to sources in Teheran.

Dr. Mehdi Khazali, who reportedly participated in several recent opposition demonstrations, was reportedly summoned to a special court convened for religious figures, detained and transferred to an unknown location. The son of a prominent, conservative pro-Ahmadinejad ayatollah, Khazali wrote on his Web site earlier this year that the president – a Holocaust denier and relentless critic of Israel – was of partially Jewish origin, asserting that Ahmadinejad had changed his family name from Saburjian, and calling for the origins of the Saburjian family in the town of Aradan to be investigated.

The assertion featured in the bitter presidential election campaign, when rival reformist candidate Mehdi Karroubi challenged Ahmadinejad in a live TV debate, reportedly stating: “My full name is Mehdi Karroubi. What is your full name?” Ahmadinejad gave his full name, according to an Al-Arabiya TV report, but left out one surname which is said to indicate Jewish ancestry.

The “Jewish Ahmadinejad” dispute even spread beyond Iran, when Bahrain’s oldest newspaper, Akhbar al-Khaleej, was briefly shut down by the governing authorities two weeks ago after it published an article recycling the claim.

It will be interesting to see if this report is borne out by further investigations.

The NYTimes doesn't want us to know that William Safire was Jewish?

So I guess the Jews really do control the media, according to Philip Weiss of Mondoweiss: Dowd breaks ‘Times’ seal on Safire’s ‘influential’ religion. The site seems to have an obsession with the NYTimes obit of Safire - there are three articles on the subject - and how its failure to mention that Safire was Jewish is part of some deep plot to minimize the evil Zionist/Jewish influence on the diabolical MSM. It's kind of embarrassing to read this classically anti-semitic trope on the website of someone who prominently mentions his Jewishness himself.

The White House blog

I guess I'm behind the times, but the White House has a blog? See Reality Check: Trying to Turn a Point of Pride into a Moment of Shame. Apparently Glenn Beck thinks that there's something wrong with Chicago trying to win the Olympics, and the White House blog replies to his false charges. The last line is the most delicious - "For even more Fox lies...."

Daniel McGowan, again

I discovered a couple of days ago that Daniel McGowan has republished his article, "What does Holocaust denial really mean?" on the "Palestine Think Tank" website. (He apparently republishes this article on a regular basis - it appeared as a letter in the Ithaca Journal a couple of years ago). Why his Holocaust-denying article is published by a supposedly pro-Palestinian site, I do not know, although upon cursory checking of the site, it appears that his is not the only anti-semitic article to appear on the site.

Another site where the same article has recently appeared is a 9/11 "truth" site, "What really happened." Earlier iterations of the article appeared on Rense.com, a right-wing anti-semitic website; CODOH, a Holocaust-denying website; and Dissident Voice, which bills itself as "a radical newsletter in the struggle for peace and social justice" (it also published McGowan's fond recollections of his visit to Ernst Zundel, the German Holocaust denier, in prison in Germany). This same journal has also published Gilad Atzmon, another anti-semitic partisan of the Palestinian cause who does that cause no favors.

The article has also been published on the website of "Deir Yassin Remembered," the organization that McGowan chairs which is dedicated to the memory of the 1948 massacre at Deir Yassin, perpetrated by members of the Stern Gang. While his devotion to keeping the memory of the massacre alive is commendable, his descent into Holocaust denial in the name of supporting Palestinians is not.

Temple Mount riots - what really happened?

Isabel Kershner, in an article in today's New York Times, reports that the visitors to the Temple Mount who aroused such violence yesterday were not in fact a group of Jews, but a French tourist group.

Palestinians had been expecting a group of religious Jews to try to enter the Temple Mount compound, according to an independent Palestinian news agency, Maan.... A police spokesman, Micky Rosenfeld, said the police dispersed a crowd of about 150 Palestinian Muslims with stun grenades after they attacked the tourists, who he said were French. Disturbances then broke out in and around the Old City and elsewhere in East Jerusalem as Palestinian officials urged more Muslims to come to the holy site. At least 40 Palestinians were injured, according to Palestinian officials. Mr. Rosenfeld said that 17 police officers were injured, and that 11 Palestinians were arrested for throwing stones.

The Palestinian Authority's Information Ministry responded as if this was a deliberate attempt by Jewish settlers to enter the Temple Mount. Was it?

The Palestinian Authority’s Information Ministry issued a statement after the initial clashes on Sunday accusing the “Israeli occupation police and extremist settlers” of “breaking into the courtyard of the mosque, firing tear gas bombs and live bullets” against Palestinian worshipers.

It did not mention the French tourists, but added: “The Ministry of Information calls upon our people to gather at the mosque and to stand in the face of extremist Jewish groups.”

Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, accused Israel of “deliberately escalating tensions in Jerusalem” by sending the police up to the mosque compound.

According to Kershner's report, however, there weren't live bullets, there were stun grenades. At least some police were already there on the mosque compound, as they always are during the hours when non-Muslims are permitted to visit (as I know from my own personal experience this summer). One of the Old City's police posts is right next to the Temple Mount, at the Mahkameh, and thus it's very easy for the Border Guards to get there. (See picture below)

From Jaffa Gate - Holy Sepulcher - Haram - Mt. Zion

While looking for some images on the web of the disturbances yesterday, I came across an interesting AFP photo that shows Israeli border guards deployed near the Al Aksa mosque, in the southwest corner of the Temple Mount:



(From Getty Images - since I haven't paid for it, the Getty Images copyright image appears on it).

The AFP caption reads:

A picture obtained on September 27, 2009 shows Israeli policemen taking position inside the grounds of the al-Aqsa mosques compound in Jerusalem. Tensions ran high after clashes erupted in Jerusalem's Old City at the Al-Aqsa, a site revered by Muslims and Jews that has been a major faultine in the Middle East conflict. Police and witnesses said the unrest erupted after a group of tourists entered the mosque compound. The visitors were probably mistaken for Jewish worshippers because a group of some 200 mostly religious and right-wing Jews had gathered in the early morning at the gate through which police allow tourists access to the holy site. AFP PHOTO/STR

So this source also says that the visitors who actually went up to the Temple Mount were not the religious Jews who had gathered earlier in the day. What happened to them, in that case? Did they go up to the Mount?

The next AFP/Getty Images photo shows Israeli border guards just outside the entrance to the Al Aksa mosque:
















Another AFP/Getty Images photo shows masked Palestinians carrying rocks and glass bottles:
















The Maan (Palestinian news agency) report is somewhat different from the New York Times in some details, but notes the inconsistency between the reports of 150 (or 15) Jews and a group of French tourists:

But there were also conflicting reports about the group spotted prior to the clashes. An Israeli police spokesman, who initially said the visitors belonged to the Jewish group, later insisted it was actually a group of French nationals that toured the compound.

In any event, Palestinians were seen throwing stones and other objects at police sent to the mosque area, reportedly hurting several. Using police batons and stun grenades, Israeli forces injured dozens during attempts to forcefully disperse the gathering crowds.

Clashes later erupted near Majlis Gate, one of the main entrances to the mosque, after police prevented worshippers from entering the area, according to witnesses. More clashes followed noon prayers near the Lions' Gate entrance to Al-Aqsa.

Israeli police closed all entrances in what they said was an effort to contain the fighting. However at one point Palestinians aged over 50 were briefly allowed to return, but the main gates toward the compound were again sealed later in the afternoon.

Hundreds of Jerusalemites and Palestinians living inside Israel arrived at the mosque compound when word of the clashes spread. They gathered outside several sealed entrances, chanting and denouncing the occupation and what they called assaults against holy places and residents in Jerusalem.

Meanwhile, Israeli police prevented Islamic notables such as Sheikh Ekrima Sabri, chief of the Islamic Supreme Committee and grand mufti of Jerusalem and Palestine, from entering the Al-Aqsa area.

Also denied access was Hatim Abdul Qader, former PA minister of Jerusalem affairs and current Fatah representative on Jerusalem. Israeli police produced an order preventing Abdul-Qadir from accessing Al-Aqsa until further notice, under the pretext that he urged demonstrators to gather at the compound.

(One wonders if it really was a pretext, or if he actually urged demonstrators to gather at Al Aksa). Below is a photo from Maan of Border Policemen gathering in the Al Aksa compound.


















The Maan report raises the question of whether the Israeli police were telling the truth (that it really was a group of French tourists) or were trying to cover up for a Jewish group going onto the Temple Mount before Yom Kippur. The original report I linked to said that the group of Jews went up with police escort. This is not usual. When tourists go to the Temple Mount, there is no special police escort.

A Ynet report from today is also confusing.

Palestinian leaders warned Israel on Sunday not to stoke tension in Jerusalem in the hope of thwarting peace talks, after clashes at a sacred site in which Palestinians and Israeli police were injured.

"At a time when (US) President (Barack) Obama is trying to bridge the divide between Palestinians and Israelis, and to get negotiations back on track, Israel is deliberately escalating tensions in Jerusalem," chief peace negotiator Saeb Erekat said.

"We've seen this before, and we know what the consequences are," the Palestinian minister added, in a statement that recalled the visit of then Israeli opposition leader Ariel Sharon to the site in Jerusalem's Old City in 2000. Sharon's presence at al-Aqsa mosque, the third holiest site in Islam, triggered the second Palestinian uprising and dealt the biggest setback to peace efforts in years.

The reasons behind Sunday's clash were disputed.

According to legislator Hathem Abdel Kader and other Palestinian sources, the clash erupted in the early morning when Palestinians inside the complex - sacred to both Islam and Judaism - saw a group of 15 religious Jews trying to enter. The Jews never managed to get into the complex, because several hundred Palestinians, who were on alert for such a possibility, began a loud protest. Israeli police responded with tear gas then stun grenades.

The clash occurred hours before the start of Yom Kippur, the solemn "Day of Atonement" which is the holiest day in the Jewish calendar. Police were on alert for violent protests in several flashpoints where Jews and Arabs live side by side.

Palestinians: No tourists were involved

Protesters threw stones, chairs and whatever they could lay hands on as riot police rushed to the scene. Video showed them trying to drive police away from the doorway of the al-Aqsa mosque, but there was no sign that police entered it. Police said 17 officers were hurt and 11 rioters arrested, and medics said 13 Palestinians were treated for injuries. There were no reports of serious injury or death.

Israeli police said it began when religious Palestinians angered by immodestly dressed tourists grew violent. Palestinians dismissed that account, saying no tourists were involved. There was no further comment from Israeli authorities, who were observing the Yom Kippur silence.

"Providing a police escort for settlers who are against peace at all costs, and whose presence is deliberately designed to provoke a reaction, are not the actions of someone who is committed to peace, but of someone who will go to extraordinary lengths to scuttle all hopes of peace," Erekat said.

He said it was "deliberately timed to coincide with the eve of the anniversary of that visit" by a government "emboldened by its ability to fend off calls for a settlement freeze."

These accounts raise a lot of questions:

1) Was there a large group of religious Jews waiting to get into the Temple Mount in the morning?
2) Or were there only 15?
3) Or was it actually a group of immodestly dressed tourists?
4) Or a group of French tourists (perhaps the same as #3)?
5) Did Palestinians react when the Jews/tourists reached the Temple Mount via the Mughrabi Gate (which is the only entrance non-Muslims can use), or did they prevent people from coming onto the mount altogether?

I find it hard to imagine that even if this were a group of religious Jews, that they had come there specifically at the behest of the Netanyahu government to cause trouble before Yom Kippur. I think that if Netanyahu wants to cause trouble about the Temple Mount, he will do something similar to what he did in 1996 (when the Kotel tunnel was opened at its northern end at the Via Dolorosa, sparking riots in which 80 people died) - that is, act openly, not in a hidden fashion. Groups of religious Jews do now go up to the Temple Mount, in defiance of the ban imposed by the Israeli Chief Rabbinate on Jews' entering the site. They do this on their own, however, not at the government's urging. I hope this gets untangled, since the Temple Mount is such a flashpoint that even the mistaken belief that this was planned by the Netanyahu government could lead to much worse clashes between Palestinians and the Israeli government than have already happened yesterday and today.

Dancing on Yom Kippur

Gershom Gorenberg has a wonderful article at South Jerusalem on Yom Kippur: Hiya Judge: On Dancing Yom Kippur. He writes about the difference in the melancholy melodies sung at an Ashkenazi Yom Kippur service versus the joyous melodies at a Sephardi service that he experienced in Bangkok years ago. He hazards a guess as to why this ethnic difference exists:

Anyway, I mentioned this story a week or so ago to a friend learned in Jewish history. “That’s the difference between people whose neighbors opposed their existence and people who were accepted as – even if second class – members of society.”

I wouldn’t want to attribute all the differences in Ashkenazi and Sephardi culture to the gap between how Christian Europe and the Muslim Middle East related to Jews. But I’d guess that it is one key reason. As I noted last year in an article on anti-gentile prayers that worked their way into Jewish liturgy and that should be removed:

Hebrew University historian Israel Yuval says that traditional liturgical attacks “are always against Christianity,” and are found in Ashkenazi prayers, not Sephardi ones. The rage reflects theological battles with Christianity, which claimed the Bible as its own and argued that Jews suffered in exile because God had ended the covenant with them. The Jewish response was a stress on “vengeful redemption”—looking forward to a conclusion of history in which the power relations were reversed, the Christians destroyed.

While there were ups and downs in Jewish-gentile relations in both the Christian and the Islamic worlds, Jewish liturgy itself bears testimony that Jews felt that their lives were far more precarious among the Christians. Recently, in the midst of contemporary nonsense about the “Clash of Civilizations,” some rightwing Jews have made a habit of arguing that things were as bad or worse for Jews among the Muslims. The psychological record of the prayerbook says otherwise.

May you have a joyous Yom Kippur.

Yom Kippur

To my Jewish readers - have an easy fast and g'mar hatimah tovah (may you be sealed for a good life).

This Associated Press story on Yom Kippur in Israel is a good account of the meaning of the day for Israeli Jews, religious and non-religious: Israel shuts down for Day of Atonement amid fears.

A group of about 15 Jews went up to the Temple Mount today, under police guard, during the time that non-Muslims are permitted to go there. Their group was met with stone-throwing and a riot ensued in which the police threw stun grenades at the Palestinian rioters. Twelve policemen and fifteen rioters were injured.

I hope that this is not a harbinger of worse trouble. It's hard to forget that one of the proximate causes of the second intifada was Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount on September 28, 2000. (See this account from the Jewish Virtual Library on the second intifada - see that Sharon's visit was certainly not the only cause).

Farouk Hosny - the Jews are to blame

Farouk Hosny, the Egyptian culture minister who was not chosen to be the head of UNESCO, blames Jews for UNESCO loss. He said that "European countries and the world's Jews" wanted him to lose. Another statement from him: "There are a group of the world's Jews who had a major influence in the elections who were a serious threat to Egypt taking this position,"

Nothing like being convicted out of your own mouth of anti-semitism.

Hitchens on Jimmy Carter

The latest absurdities to emerge from Jimmy Carter's big, smug mouth - Christopher Hitchens (article of May 21, 2007).

It's always pleasant to read a literate takedown of Jimmy Carter, who is one of my least favorite former living presidents. I learned something new and startling from this article - apparently Eugene McCarthy voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980 rather than for the sitting president of his own party. McCarthy said: "Mr. Carter quite simply abdicated the whole responsibility of the presidency while in office. He left the nation at the mercy of its enemies at home and abroad. He was the worst president we ever had."

Hitchens' case against Carter: "It was because, whether in Afghanistan, Iran, or Iraq—still the source of so many of our woes—the Carter administration could not tell a friend from an enemy. His combination of naivete and cynicism—from open-mouthed shock at Leonid Brezhnev's occupation of Afghanistan to underhanded support for Saddam in his unsleeping campaign of megalomania—had terrible consequences that are with us still. It's hardly an exaggeration to say that every administration since has had to deal with the chaotic legacy of Carter's mind-boggling cowardice and incompetence." I hadn't realized that Carter had supported Saddam Hussein also. He joins the illustrious company of Donald Rumsfield in misestimating Saddam.

I also did not vote for Carter. I was living in Seattle in the fall of 1980, and had temporarily turned into a Republican in order to vote for John Anderson in the Republican caucuses. When election day came, I didn't vote for Reagan, or Carter, or Anderson (who I think was running as a third party candidate), but for another third party candidate, Barry Commoner. Carter demonstrated how little concern he had for his own party when he conceded before the polls had closed on the west coast, thus reducing the incentive of Democratic voters to go to the polls and vote for Democrats in other races.