Showing posts with label Opinion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Opinion. Show all posts

Monday, August 31, 2020

Of Course Anti-Zionism is Antisemitic (American Zionism)

 

Once the exclusive domain of the far-right and far-left, the expression “anti-Zionism is not antisemitic” has crept into the mainstream. We hear it all the time on social media from athletes to politicians, from journalists to “influencers.” Most surprising is that the expression has even made its way into the vernacular of liberal, progressive Jews, going so far as to claim that not only is anti-Zionism not antisemitic, but “conflating Zionism and Judaism” is what’s really antisemitic, disregarding that Zionism is a core belief for the vast majority of Jews around the world. So, is anti-Zionism antisemitic, or isn’t it? Before we can answer that question, we need to define what antisemitic means and what anti-Zionism means, two concepts that are far more complex than they appear.

If you ask most people what antisemitic means, they would answer that it is the hatred of Jews, and they would be correct...if you were talking about a person doing the hating. A person can hate Jews. But when you are talking about an idea, hatred of Jews doesn’t make much sense. Ideas don’t hate, people hate. For example, if there was a law that Jews could not attend school, the law does not hate Jews. The law discriminates against Jews. So, when we talk about ideas, and anti-Zionism is an idea, antisemitic means “discriminatory against Jews.”

Antisemitic – Discriminatory against Jews.

The terms Zionism and anti-Zionism are much more difficult to define. Many people who claim to be anti-Zionist struggle just to explain what Zionism is. You will hear definitions that are all over the place. Nearly all of them are wrong, and many of them are downright offensive. To understand Zionism, let’s consider the Israeli national anthem, Hatikvah or The Hope, which was inspired by a Jewish poem from the 19th century titled Tikvatenu by Naftali Herz Imber and revised by Dr. Yehuda Leib Matmon-Cohen. Hatikvah proclaims that that the two-thousand-year hope of the Jewish people is “to be a free nation in our home,” with home meaning the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people, the Land of Israel. That is the essence of Zionism. To put it more simply, it means the Jewish nation is afforded the same rights as any other similar nation of people, which includes a right to a home, just like Indians have a home, and Poles have a home and Arabs have many homes. Anti-Zionism denies that right to the Jewish nation and only the Jewish nation – to live as a free people in their nation state. Since the state of Israel already exists, it also means seeking the destruction of the nation state of the Jewish people while not seeking the destruction of any other nation state of any other people. When is the last time you heard a large section of the population lobby for the destruction of a country other than Israel – not a government but an entire country?

Anti-Zionism - denying the Jewish nation the same rights as any other similar nation of people

Even with those definitions, it can still be hard for some people to wrap their heads around how anti-Zionism is antisemitic. To better understand, let’s look at another instance where a group of people are denied a right not denied to a similar group of people – gay marriage. For a long time, the homosexual community was denied the right to marry (and in many places they still are) - a right granted to the heterosexual community. A person may oppose same sex marriage for any number of reasons, religion being the most common. The person may not hate gay people, but the idea is surely anti-gay. It’s hard to argue that not allowing gay people to marry when straight people are allowed to marry isn’t discriminatory against homosexuals. Ironically, the very same people that will argue anti-Zionism isn’t antisemitic will be the ones who shout loudest that denying same sex couples the right to marry for any reason is anti-gay.

You may be saying to yourself, “Wait a second, I hear liberal Jews all the time identify as anti-Zionist and say that anti-Zionism is not antisemitic. Gay people never opposed gay marriage.” That’s not true, actually. During the height of the gay marriage debate in the early 2010s, you could hear or read many stories of gay people who opposed gay marriage for one reason or another. Here are two examples: The Gay People against Gay Marriage and I’m Gay and I Oppose Same-Sex Marriage. It’s important to note that those in the gay community who oppose gay marriage don’t necessarily hate homosexuals (although they might), but there can be no doubt that their position on gay marriage discriminates against homosexuals and that opposition is anti-gay. In the same way, Jews who oppose Zionism and want to see the dissolution of the state of Israel don’t necessarily hate Jews (although they might), but there can be no doubt that opposing the right for Jews to have a state like all other similar nations of people is discriminatory against Jews and that position is antisemitic. The same rationale applies to all people who are anti-Zionist. The person may not hate Jews, but the idea is discriminatory against Jews and thus antisemitic (a large portion of people who identify as anti-Zionist also happen to be anti-Semites or at least hold antisemitic views which drives their anti-Zionism).

What about the argument that “conflating Zionism and Judaism” is antisemitic? First, let’s define Judaism. Judaism put simply is the religion of the Jewish people. It is not the religion of every single Jew, some Jews do not practice Judaism while others may be atheists, but rather the religion of the nation of Jews. It can also be called an ethnoreligion.

Judaism – the religion of the Jewish people.

Considering the definition of Zionism – the longing to be a free nation in the Jewish home – and Judaism – the religion of the Jewish people – it is hard to see how longing to be a free nation in the Jewish home in anyway discriminates against the religion of the Jews. It seems to be quite the opposite. In order for the Jewish people to be a free nation in their home it would imply that part of that freedom would include the ability to practice their religion openly and safely, something that has not been the case throughout Jewish history in nearly every land where they lived as a minority. Even when replacing Judaism for a Jew, an idea for a person, it is still hard to see how Jews longing to be a free nation in the Jewish home is hateful to any Jews or discriminatory against that Jew. No one is forcing them to live in that home. Is it because the home founded by Jews, made up of a majority of Jews, and who are able to live free of religious & ethnic persecution as Jews, uses the word “Jewish,” as in Jewish state, that they think discriminates against them? Is the website Christian Mingle anti-Christian? Because some Christians do not want to date other Christians does that mean the site is discriminating against them because the site uses the word Christian? Since they don’t see a need for Christian Mingle, and they themselves are Christian, does it mean the site has no right to exist? The answer to all those questions is clearly no. But would trying to shut down Christian Mingle for any of those reasons, while having no problem with JDate or BlackCupid or Muslima, be anti-Christian? Sure. So why is okay for so many people when they apply the same exact logic to Jews and Israel?

The argument that “by conflating Zionism and Jews you are causing antisemitism” really tells more about the people that “become” antisemitic than the relationship between Zionism and Jews. Notwithstanding the fact that the people who make that statement have to jump through many hoops and unquestioningly accept many far-fetched stories to feel that the policies of the state of Israel are irredeemable, even if they were true it would still be wrong to hate people that have nothing to do with those actions, other than sharing an ethnic background and feeling a connection to that land. And that response is not applied to any other people on the planet. It is exclusively reserved for Jews. People do not say “by conflating Iran and Iranian-Americans you are causing anti-Persian racism.” Have you heard of anti-Persian racism in America based on the actions of the Iranian government? Have you heard of anti-Persian racism in America at all? For a person to hate an Iranian because something the Iranian government did thousands of miles away, they would have had to hated Iranians before those actions. The actions become an excuse to justify their hatred. You don’t see that with Iranians, or any other people. You only see that with Jews. Has there ever been an anti-Israel protest that did not include antisemitism? Let’s look at an example were the actions of a distant government were the catalyst for creating hate for an ethnic group. Consider America during World War 2. After Pearl Harbor, discrimination against Japanese Americans increased, including against many people who were born in America and had no direct connection with Japan. Was conflating Japan and Japanese Americans what caused the racism? Of course not. Was the racism any more legitimate because of the actions of the Japanese government? Would anyone say that Japanese Americans caused the racism or brought it upon themselves by being proud of their Japanese heritage or even having a Japanese flag? Racism caused racism, nothing else. Conflating Zionism and Jews does not cause antisemitism. Antisemitism causes antisemitism.

So, is a person who is an anti-Zionist necessarily an anti-Semite? No, but they most likely are. Their anti-Zionism, however, of course is antisemitic.

Hatikvah (The Hope)

As long as in the heart within,

The Jewish soul yearns,

And toward the eastern edges, onward,

An eye gazes toward Zion.

Our hope is not yet lost,

The hope that is two thousand years old,

To be a free nation in our land,

The Land of Zion, Jerusalem.

Wednesday, August 26, 2020

Israel’s PM and Government Should Resign Today (Vic Rosenthal)

Vic Rosenthal's weekly column


I’m not looking forward to writing this, or to reading the responses that I will surely get from various quarters. But here it is.

The Breslov Hasidim venerate Rabbi Nachman of Breslov (1772-1810), a kabbalist, scholar, and founder of a movement that stresses joy and the personal closeness of a Jew to Hashem. Israelis are familiar with the Breslov trucks that drive around playing loud, rousing music, sometimes stopping for the passengers to get out and dance in the street with passers-by. Some see their approach as a welcome infusion of life and spirituality into what can be a dry and forbidding faith; others see their attitude toward Rabbi Nachman as avoda zara (worship of something or someone other than Hashem).

The Breslov Hasidim have developed a tradition in recent decades of visiting Uman (in Ukraine) where he died and where his grave is located, on Rosh Hashana. This pilgrimage has included tens of thousands of Israelis and others over the years. While for most of the pilgrims the goal of the trip is increased spirituality, there is also an element that treats it like the American college students’ Spring break, lubricated by alcohol and spiced up by prostitution.

The advent of the Coronavirus pandemic has (maybe) put a damper on the phenomenon. Israel’s numbers of serious cases and daily deaths from Corona are about as high as they have ever been, and its total number of cases per million population is 19th in the world (out of 213). Ukraine is also suffering an increasing number of new cases, although it ranks only 87th in cases per million. Last month, Ukraine decided to bar Israelis from the pilgrimage after the EU placed Israel on its “red list” of countries unsafe to visit.

Since then, pressure has been applied to authorities in Israel and Ukraine, both for and against the event. As one can imagine, tens of thousands of visitors mean a huge amount of income for the relatively small town of Uman. On the other hand, the danger of spreading Covid-19 at this kind of happening, where there will be large crowds and little social distancing, is very great. As Prof. Roni Gamzu, the Corona coordinator of Israel’s Health Ministry, recently pointed out, travelers to Uman will have to be placed in quarantine when they return home. A few thousand could be placed in hotels, but there is no way to quarantine and keep track of tens of thousands. Gamzu wants the government to forbid Israelis from flying to Uman. He also communicated his feelings to Ukranian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

In response, former Health Minister and present Housing and Construction Minister Ya’akov Litzman, himself a member of a (different) Hasidic sect, was infuriated and called for Gamzu’s resignation. The most recent development has the Ukranian President announcing that the pilgrimage would be “significantly restrict[ed]” although no precise details were given. Zelensky said that he was responding to a request made by PM Binyamin Netanyahu, but the PM’s office denied that he had made such a request, and said only that travelers should follow health instructions (proving yet again that at least in the case of Bibi, physical courage in youth doesn’t necessarily translate into moral courage in maturity).

I don’t know what will come out of this for Gamzu, who recently implied that he would resign if “not given the tools to bring down morbidity.” Gamzu, who has been properly trying to balance the medical demands of the epidemic with the need to protect the economy, has been stymied at almost every turn by politicians.

Why is an advanced, small country like Israel doing so poorly in managing the epidemic? There are several reasons. One is the fact that government decisions are being made on the basis of political interests, and not from medical or economic considerations. The pilgrimage to Uman is only one example. Another is that the Haredi and Arab sectors, where the virus has spread the most, institutionally resist authority, and ignore the rules. And finally, last but definitely not least, is the lack of leadership from the one person that should pull everything together, the Prime Minister, Binyamin Netanyahu.

Netanyahu is more concerned with keeping the support of Litzman’s Haredi faction to keep him in power and out of jail, than with the threat of a major outbreak of the virus and concomitant economic disaster. Netanyahu has systematically kept his rival Naftali Bennett on the political margins. Bennett is one of the few politicians who has demonstrated real creativity in dealing with the present crisis, but he was forced out of the Likud by Bibi, reportedly because Mrs. Netanyahu dislikes him.

Recently the government managed to avoid falling and precipitating yet another election when it negotiated an internal compromise to delay voting on a budget. This is the best thing this pitiful government is capable of accomplishing: saving itself by not doing something essential.
Thanks to the irresponsibility of our politicians, people are dying of the virus. And the ones who don’t die are out of work.

After three elections in one year, Israelis have no appetite (or half a billion shekels) for another one. But the people have had it. We are sick of the endless crises of their own making, while the country misses opportunities like the application of sovereignty to the Jordan Valley, while the southern part of the country absorbs blow after blow from Hamas (yesterday their incendiary balloons started 30 fires), and while the number of seriously ill increase daily as the politicians dither.

Recently the entire government of Lebanon resigned, after an ongoing economic meltdown was followed by a massive explosion that destroyed large chunk of their capital. I don’t envy the Lebanese their economy or their explosion, but our government should follow their example.

Thursday, August 20, 2020

A Page a Day (Vic Rosenthal)

Vic Rosenthal's weekly column

 


Since January, I’ve been participating in a daf yomi program. That means that every day, 7 days a week, I study a page (actually, two facing pages), of Talmud.

The fact that someone like me, who grew up in a secular home and did not have a Jewish education, has the opportunity to do this is a new development. The Talmud itself, for those who don’t know, consists of passages from the Mishna, the Oral Law first written down around 200 CE in Hebrew, and the Gemara, a much larger body of commentary on the Mishna that was compiled over a period of several hundred years afterwards. The Gemara is written in Aramaic, a language close to Hebrew, but the writing is condensed and elliptical. It also includes notes by Rashi and others commenting on and explaining the text. Until recently there was simply no way a modern reader could approach this without a great deal of preliminary study with knowledgeable teachers.

But in the last three decades, scholars have produced translations of the Aramaic texts along with detailed commentary to fill in the gaps for ignoramuses like me. In particular, Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, z”l, who died earlier this month, created a monumental translation of the entire Babylonian Talmud (there is also a Jerusalem Talmud, but the one compiled in Babylonia is considered more authoritative) into modern Hebrew, which in turn has been translated into English. More than just a translation, Rabbi Steinsaltz interpolated explanations and context into the text, so that it’s possible to read it almost like a novel. There are even diagrams, which my wife says remind her of computer games.

The Talmud is not an orderly exposition of Jewish law. Rather it is a record of the deliberations and conversations of generations of sages, in which arguments are given for multiple interpretations of the Mishnaic texts, which themselves are an attempt to elucidate the commandments of the Torah and apply them to everyday life. Sometimes the Gemara will say “the halacha is such-and-such” but most of the time, all you have are the arguments. There are also stories, ridiculous medical advice, superstitions, insults – including some passages that have been used by Jew haters throughout the years as evidence for our evil ways. During the Middle Ages, non-Jewish authorities sometimes ordered printed copies of the Talmud to be censored or even burned.

The seven years it takes read the whole thing are daunting. When I started the daf yomi program, I didn’t believe that I would last more than a few weeks. But I’ve become more and more interested and involved as time goes by. I have even learned a few useful expressions in Aramaic, for example in yesterday’s daf, pok t’nei l’vara! (“go, take that teaching outside”). I’m convinced that if I live long enough (b”h), I will finish the project. I will never be either a scholar or very observant, but this study brings me closer to Judaism and Jewish history.

I think that this would not have happened if I still lived in a non-Orthodox community in the USA. In Israel, Judaism and Jewish history are in the air. I am continuously made aware of who I am, by the language, the holidays, the symbols of the state, the biblical geography, and the fact that I am surrounded by Jews. There are neighborhoods in Brooklyn in which I would also be surrounded by Jews; but even there, the consciousness of living as a small minority in someone else’s country is inescapable (not to mention the reminders provided by the growing number of antisemitic incidents). And I would miss the diversity of Israeli Jews, Jews of every color and culture.

But don’t I know that one of five Israelis is an Arab? Of course. There is room for an Arab minority. Nevertheless, there are also dangers – not directly from the presence of the Arabs, but from those that want to use their presence as a reason to weaken the Jewish state. Meir Kahane believed that the Arab citizens of Israel posed a demographic threat. Their birthrate was higher than that of the Jews, and so he predicted that the Jewish majority would ultimately be eroded. Today the birthrates of Jewish and Arab citizens are not far apart (I think the high Haredi birthrate is a greater threat to a functional state).

The real problem is an ideological one, posed by those (Jews and Arabs) who want to replace the state of the Jewish people with a state of its citizens. 62 members of the Knesset understood this when they passed the Nation-State Law to guarantee the continued Jewish character of the state. Right now there are attempts to weaken the law by inserting language to guarantee “equal rights.” We should be aware that the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty is already interpreted to guarantee equal civil rights to individual Jews and Arabs; and it is not necessary or desirable to weaken the provision of national rights that is made by the Nation-State Law to the Jewish people alone.

I am also not at all diffident about calling for Jews everywhere to make aliyah, despite the difficulties. You can certainly study Talmud in the diaspora, whether by subscribing to the daf yomi or by studying at one of the numerous yeshivot or other institutions of Jewish learning there. But you cannot, even in deepest Brooklyn, breathe Jewishness with every breath, as you can in the Jewish state.

Wednesday, August 19, 2020

Peace for Peace or Sovereignty for Peace? Was Sovereignty Ever Really on the Table ? (Judean Rose)


Sovereignty, or the application of civil law to Judea and Samaria, has been hereby suspended, in favor of a peace accord with the UAE. How long that suspension will last is anyone’s guess. Some think it’s a done deal—that the subject of sovereignty is permanently off the table—while others think Bibi will make good his electoral promise of sovereignty, doing the right thing at the right time, in good time. But was sovereignty ever really on the table in the first place?

 “Peace for peace,” said Netanyahu in his remarks to the nation about the accord, emphasizing that this would not be a cold peace, but a peace in which Israel and the UAE would be equals and friends. But the prime minister’s words also suggested that Israel traded not sovereignty for peace, but peace for peace: that Israel got something so huge in the exchange that it was worth it—worth giving up Israel’s sovereignty. But are sovereignty and peace commodities that might be traded, one for the other, even Steven? Is peace somehow bigger and more important than sovereignty? More worthwhile?

A reasonable person might ask: is "peace for peace" only more Netanyahu oratorical sleight of hand? For how is peace made, if not by sovereign entities as equals? And if Israel is robbed of the right to self-determination in parts of its lawful, indigenous territory, one might argue that it has no power to make an accord. That the right to make accords belongs solely to sovereign countries.


Giving up sovereignty is unfortunate in many ways, not least for creating a gap between the UAE and Israel, removing any semblance of parity between the two. Suspending sovereignty at the behest of the U.S. turns Israel into a vassal state, tied to Uncle Sam’s apron strings. It means that America decides the fate of the Jews and the land God gave them. Or rather, in agreeing to suspend sovereignty, Israel has ceded its rights, making America sovereign over the Holy Land.

This is what Netanyahu did in agreeing to suspend sovereignty. But who knows, perhaps sovereignty was never really on the table at all. Perhaps the suggested parameters of sovereignty were only meant to suggest the borders of a “Palestinian” state.

I put the question to Nadia Matar, co-chairman of Women in Green with Yehudit Katsover. The two have lately gone on to create the Sovereignty Movement (Ribonut), which serves as a forum and a campaign for the application of sovereignty in Judea and Samaria. Matar’s response to my question regarding partial sovereignty was succinct: “Bibi is on his way to create a PA state. He has to go.”


The same question put to Professor Efraim Inbar, however, president of the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security, yielded a surprising response, one that is brimming with optimism for the future, “The Americans got cold feet and Bibi got an agreement with UAE. Not so bad. Sovereignty remains for better days. History does not end in 2020.”

Inbar sees Bibi and Israel as the big winners here. A different picture emerges, however, in a recent interview of Finance Minister Yisrael Katz (Likud) on Kan Bet, where Katz said that sovereignty had been frozen before the agreement with the United Arab Emirates. The MK was frank in stating that there actually is no connection between the peace accord with the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and the decision to suspend sovereignty. That it was simply “more convenient” for the Arab nations to present the accords as if they had brought about the suspension of sovereignty.

In this light, freezing sovereignty is akin to Israel freezing construction in Judea and Samaria, or what hostile elements call “settlement expansion.” It was canny of the UAE to squeeze this concession from the Jews. In theory, if not in application, the suspension of sovereignty makes the UAE a hero to the Arab people for staying Israel's hands in applying its land rights in the Holy Land, land that is coveted by the Arab people.

President Trump announces the agreement on August 13, 2020

Jared Kushner, however, asserts that the entire question of sovereignty is moot, “That land is land that right now Israel quite frankly controls. Israelis that live there aren’t going anywhere. There shouldn’t be any urgency to applying Israeli law. We believe they will respect their agreement.”

With this statement, Kushner betrays his lack of understanding of a very basic issue: that the territories have been under martial law since 1967, and living under martial law, is no way to live. Sovereignty means bringing civility to Judea and Samaria. For the wild, wild “West Bank” is a lawless place, where anything might happen when tensions flare, and the only thing to stop it is soldiers.

This is not a proper or humane state of affairs for Jews or Arabs. Asked if the application of civil law to the territories stood to benefit the Palestinians, Khaled Abu Toameh, an Israeli Arab journalist and Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Gatestone Institute, responded, “I believe they would prefer any law to the existing set of laws, which includes Israeli military law, Jordanian law and Palestinian law. These laws have complicated the lives of Palestinians and created much confusion for many.”

The Point of the Deal: A Palestinian State

The Trump peace plan doesn’t factor in that confusion. It’s not the point or the focus of the deal. The purpose of the Deal of the Century, is to create a Palestinian state on 70 percent of Judea and Samaria through the application of Israeli sovereignty to just 30 percent of that land, effectively giving up another huge chunk of Jewish land to the Arabs for good, land that now legally belongs to Israel under international law. The normalization agreement with the UAE, however, puts a stopper into that idea, stipulating that Israel suspend its plan to extend Israeli law to these areas.

Kushner was frank about all this in his public remarks on the accord, in which he stated that Prime Minister Netanyahu had agreed to a map dividing Judea and Samaria into a Palestinian state with a part that would belong to Israel, calling it “the first map ever agreed publicly to by one of the parties.”

This, it appears, was the intent of partial sovereignty from the beginning. In giving up sovereignty over most of Judea and Samaria, Israel gives up more land to the Arabs for a state. Hence Trump’s peace plan turns the application of civilian law into another Israeli land giveaway, yet more land for peace. The plan actually turns sovereignty into something that is anathema to the world: annexation, by making Israel the thief in asserting its rights to a mere 30 percent of Jewish land, when in fact it is Israel, giving away yet more of its God-given land, more lifeblood, to the Arabs.


The Deal of the Century gives the Arabs license to encroach on yet more Jewish land, in the very same sort of creeping annexation of which Israel stands accused. Make no mistake: this is an Arab land grab going all the way back to the British Mandate for Palestine, when responding to Arab entreaties, Britain reneged on its promise to the Jews, and created Transjordan on 78 percent of the Mandate. It is the same creeping Arab annexation of Jewish land that was Oslo, the same creeping Arab annexation of Jewish land that resulted from the expulsion of the Jews from Gaza. And yet it is Israel that is the enabler of this state of affairs, in which the Arabs get more Jewish land over time, as the Jews are squeezed into borders that shrink over time, inching ever closer to the sea. 

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Thursday, August 13, 2020

After Five years, the Duma Saga Approaches Conclusion (Vic Rosenthal)

Vic Rosenthal's weekly column


On the night of 31 July 2015, someone firebombed two homes in the Palestinian village of Duma, in the northern part of Judea, about 55 km. west of Tel Aviv. One of the buildings was empty, but sleeping in the other were Saed and Riham Dawabshe, and their children Ali (18 months) and Ahmad (5). Ali died in the fire, and the parents succumbed to their injuries a short time later. Ahmad was carried out by his father or grandfather and survived, though he was severely burned.
Almost immediately, government officials, including President Ruben Rivlin, let it be known that the attack was likely “Jewish terrorism” and the culprits would be found among “extremist settlers,” specifically the “hilltop youth,” religious teenagers and young adults who lived independently of their parents in Judea and Samaria, and who wanted to replace the democratic state with one governed by Jewish law. The nation was gripped by a paroxysm of guilt and self-flagellation over the allegation that Jews had done such an awful thing, although there were as yet no suspects. This happened at about the same time a religious fanatic stabbed several people, one fatally, at a gay pride parade in Jerusalem, and left-wing elements connected the events and blamed “settlers,” religious Jews, and PM Netanyahu for the “outbreak of Jewish terrorism.”
The Shabak (Internal Security Service) arrested several suspects in early August. They were held in administrative detention – that is, without being charged – and subjected to “enhanced interrogation techniques,” a euphemism for torture that may or may not fall short of the acts that are prohibited by customary international law.

Even at this point, there were good reasons to wonder if the official account that Jewish extremists had done it fit the evidence. On August 21, then-Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon said he was “confident” that the murderers were Jewish extremists, and that the exceptional measures taken against the suspects were justified. But there was a very good alternative explanation, which was that the firebombs were thrown by Arabs involved in an ongoing feud with the Dawabshe family. There were several other suspicious fires in property owned by the Dawabshes before and after the murderous attack. And the Shabak was unable to provide a sensible explanation (Hebrew link) for why this line of investigation hadn’t been pursued.
By December the Shabak had not succeeded in getting a confession out of the various suspects in its custody, and the best that Ya’alon could do was say that their actions (presumably “price-tag” vandalism of Arab property) “led to [הובילו], among others, the murder of three innocent Palestinians, and as a result, contributed to instability in the region, and worsened the security situation.” But “led to” is not the same as “committed.” Although there was still no proof that Jews were responsible for this atrocity, it became part of the accepted narrative in almost all segments of Israeli society.

In January 2016, one of the initial suspects was released (ultimately, they all would be), and two additional suspects arrested: Amiram ben Uliel (21), and an additional minor. Ben Uliel was charged with murder – the first time anyone had been charged in connection with the crime. He too was subjected to “enhanced interrogation,” and by 2018 he produced a “confession” and “reenactment of the crime.” While the other (minor) suspect also “confessed,” he was alleged only to have participated in the planning of the crime and was not accused of being present at the scene. Ben Uliel was accused of having perpetrated the firebombing by himself. Some confessions were thrown out after attorneys argued successfully that they were obtained by torture, but some of ben Uliel’s statements, plus the reenactment, were allowed to stand.

On 18 May 2020, Amiram ben Uliel was convicted by a three-judge panel (there is no jury trial in Israel) of murder, attempted murder, arson and “conspiracy to commit a crime motivated by racism.” His wife testified that he was at home with her all night, but the judges did not believe her. The prosecution asked for three life sentences, and he was to have been sentenced on 12 July. But in a dramatic development, lawyers for ben Uliel convinced the judges to delay sentencing in the light of new evidence (see also Hebrew link here).

Apparently, the one survivor of that terrible night, Ahmad Dawabshe, now ten years old, was interviewed in Arab media and described the events that occurred five years ago in detail; in particular, he said that there were several attackers and they came into the house and struggled with family members. This contradicts the official version that ben Uliel was alone and threw firebombs through the windows. It also agrees with other testimonies of Arab witnesses who said at the time that there was more than one attacker (of course the Arabs say it was a group of “settlers”).

The court agreed to consider the evidence and pass sentence next month (ben Uliel could be acquitted of murder and convicted of other offenses).

Can a 5-year old be a reliable witness? Maybe yes and maybe no. Certainly the events he witnessed were likely to be engraved in his mind. “If he saw what he said he saw, ben Uliel is innocent” says ben Uliel’s lawyer. But memory is a tricky thing, and who knows if he is capable of reporting events without interpretation.

This has been a long road. The state does not come out looking good, no matter what the outcome. In the best case, the Shabak is guilty of mistreatment of numerous suspects, most of whom were guilty of nothing more serious than vandalism and adolescent fantasizing. It is likely that the agency engaged in a theatrical provocation intended to slander the hilltop youth as vicious murderers taunting their victims. Many public officials – including President Rivlin and right-wingers like Naftali Bennett – jumped to conclusions when they should have kept quiet.

The worst case has the Shabak deliberately ignoring evidence that the arson/murders were carried out by Arab enemies of the Dawabshe family, and using the case to crush and discredit the admittedly extremist, and to some extent criminal, underground Jewish movement.

For what it’s worth (nothing, really) my personal opinion is that Amiram ben Uliel is innocent, perhaps guilty only of having grandiose plans for revenge. But of course I am only privy to the details that I can read in the media. In any case, the court will decide next month if he will be freed or spend the rest of his life in prison.

Wednesday, August 12, 2020

Explaining Israel to a 10-Year-Old (Judean Rose)


It can be difficult to explain Israel’s right to exist to the online haters and debaters. After all, not all of us are Eugene Kontorovich. And since we’re not, how can anyone expect us to have all the complicated legalese at the ready to plead the legal twists and turns of Israel’s case? It’s better, instead, to keep things as simple as possible: We were here first. It’s ours.

But that’s not always as easy as it sounds. Take Quora, where I’ve been answering questions about Israel since 2011. I try to keep my answers uncomplicated so they will be easy to remember in future debates.

Quora, however, has a policy called “Be Nice, Be Respectful.” Violate this policy and Quora will collapse your answer. At this point, the moderators generally give you the option of editing your answer and allow an appeal. For me, that’s good enough, since I can usually find a workaround and rephrase.

An edit may mean changing “Palestine doesn’t exist” to “At this point in time, there is no state called "Palestine.” Which is a lot more complicated, but satisfies everyone, all around. You get to the point where you can spot what language is likely to trigger a report, so you can avoid such language right out of the starting gate. And if there’s a hiccup and an answer is collapsed, I edit and resubmit, and there’s no further problem.

Note that the Israel-hating Quorans stand ready to pounce on any perceived policy violation by the Israel-loving Quorans. It’s a war out there on Quora. The hope is that by reporting us, the Israel haters will get us permanently banned from the site. Once that happens, our truthful answers about Israel will disappear.

I was a top writer in 2018, and the best Quora answers come up in Google queries. I therefore see it as kind of mission to keep my content diplomatic enough to suit Quora moderators so my responses will stay up there on the ‘net, offering a truthful account of what Ruth Wisse calls “The Arab War Against the Jews.”

This can be a delicate balancing act. Not everyone is capable of coloring inside the lines. That goes for either side of the fence.

Rima Najjar, for instance, was permanently banned on Quora for her (apparently) anti-Israel/antisemitic content. I never read her stuff so I’m only guessing. I’m not sure what, exactly, was objectionable. But according to her Jewish friend Benay Blend, Quora is biased in favor of pro-Israel voices like my own and in banning her, is discriminating against Najjar.

This supposed bias is the reason Najjar filed suit against Quora and it’s nonsense, as I explained a little over a year ago in this space (see: Blend and Najjar Implicate Me and the Israel Forever Foundation for Getting Banned on Quora). If Najjar was banned, it wasn’t because of a pro-Israel bias, but because she couldn’t figure out how to speak Quora-ese. She likely found it hard not to sound hateful when discussing the Jewish State. Thus, Najjar violated Quora’s Be Nice, Be Respectful, one too many times and was banned for life.

It would have been difficult for Najjar to prove bias, since Quora is an equal-opportunity hand-slapper, collapsing answers and banning users on either side of the Israel/Anti-Israel divide. Najjar must have realized this fact. Because the academic subsequently dropped her suit in March (h/t Elder of Ziyon).

As I said, there’s always a work-around on Quora and Najjar could have still been on Quora today, happily typing out her hate for Israel, as long as she couched things in neutral, inoffensive terms. But hiding the truth of what one really thinks is an art and it’s definitely not always easy. The other day, for example, I answered a question:

“Can you explain the Israel-Palestinw [sic] conflict to me like I'm 10 years old?”

“This will be fun,” I thought, rubbing my hands together with glee, before formulating an answer, which was this:
A long time ago, God gave the land of Israel to the Jews. It is a beautiful and special land, so everyone was jealous and they are still jealous now. Other people keep trying to take bits and pieces of the land, and when the Jews won’t let them, they attack the Jews in all sorts of cruel ways, for instance sending exploding balloons over the border so Jewish children will play with them and get hurt. Or they’ll explode a pizza shop at a time when it is likely to be full of Jewish kids on summer vacation, having fun.
Instead of seeing how wrong it is to steal Jewish land and hurt Jewish children, the world sides with the thieves, the people that keep trying to take Jewish land, the people hurting Jewish children. Why? Because the world is mad that the Jews don’t want to switch religions. They figure it makes their newer religions look phony and false and that hurts their feelings.
Also, Jews tend to be smart and successful, and even though there aren’t a lot of them, they tend to rise to the top no matter what they decide to do with their lives. This makes other people jealous of the Jews. Which is stupid. They should instead study the Jews and try to copy them.


Not long after I posted this response, I of course received a message that the moderators had collapsed my answer for violating the Be Nice, Be Respectful policy. I was invited to edit and appeal.
But for some reason, this time, I balked. I knew exactly what language needed changing to suit the moderators, but I just didn’t care. I had written the truth: this is what I would have said to a ten-year-old to explain things, to MY ten-year-old. To any ten-year-old.

I saw no reason to change my answer if that’s not the way I’d say it to a ten-year-old. Ten-year-olds don’t understand political correctness. It makes no sense to add a lot of language to obscure the truth and give it a neutral makeover. Such language would lengthen my answer and overly complicate things so that a child would come away more confused than before.

Which is why, after thinking it over for a couple of days, I opted to submit an appeal without editing my answer, as follows:
Dear Moderator, the question asks how I would explain things to a ten-year-old, not how I would couch things in a politically correct manner to satisfy the Quora moderators. This actually is what I would say to a ten-year-old. Using more neutral terms would render the explanation unintelligible or confusing to a young child. I say that as a parenting expert and a mother of 12.
Kids understand only the simplest language. As such, I would venture to suggest this was a trick question intended to trip up a pro-Israel Quoran, triggering by design, perceived violations of the Be Nice, Be Respectful policy. I believe this is the reason the question was edited after the fact: after I answered the question. This gives the question an entirely new meaning, so that my answer may seem mean-spirited in some lights, instead of merely honest.
Just as there are frivolous lawsuits, this was a frivolous report, to get me in trouble: collapsed or banned. I hope you will reconsider your decision in the interest of freedom of speech on Quora.
Thank you for your consideration.
Note that somewhere between when I answered the question and my response was collapsed, the original poster changed the question. It now says: “Can you explain the Israel-Palestine conflict to me (I'm 10 years old)?” The edit is meant to exaggerate the supposedly harmful effect of my response. We’re no longer discussing a thought experiment. Instead, my answer stands retroactively, as an actual response to a ten-year-old child.

Which is why I didn’t expect for a moment that I would win my appeal. I figured the moderator would determine that my answer is “hate speech” and collapse it for good. This has happened on occasion.

"So be it," I thought. 

What some Quora moderators call "hate speech" I call "the truth.”
And sometimes I’m just not willing to lie.

I had a surprise, however, when I looked at my inbox this morning. There was a new notification: Quora had uncollapsed my answer.
Rima Najjar would say the moderator's decision reflects the same pro-Israel bias that led to her permanent ban from the social media network--that in responding favorably to my appeal, the moderator sided with Israel. But I think the decision is a sign that sometimes reason prevails, at least on Quora. On Quora, it turns out that speaking to a moderator like an adult, allows me to explain Israel to a ten-year-old. 

This is a refreshing contrast to the prevailing ethos at social media giant Facebook, where "Death to Israel" fails to violate community standards. It's a whole 'nother ballgame from Twitter, where despots are deemed to be just rattling sabers when they call for the annihilation of Israel and the Jews.

Quora is different. At Quora I sometimes lose. But sometimes I win. In this round, I got to explain Israel to ten-year-olds. Which seems a good enough reason to stay in the game. 

For now.
We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Wednesday, August 05, 2020

Who on Earth is Dana Ron, and the Beirut Explosion (Vic Rosenthal)

Vic Rosenthal's weekly column

The longer I live here, the more I understand how different Israel is from my former home, the USA.

There are elements of Middle East culture, unsurprising since about half of all Jewish Israelis are descended from immigrants from the Jewish communities of the Mideast and North Africa. The more recent immigrants from the former Soviet Union and Ethiopia are beginning to have an influence. Social intercourse between Jews and Arabs is strong in some places and weak in others, but one out of every five Israeli citizens is an Arab (I suspect the Arabs are more influenced by the Jews, but that’s another story). And there are more than a few remnants of the Eastern and Central European origins of the founders of the state.

The founders were primarily socialists (and they worked very hard to keep non-socialists from gaining influence in the new state). They left us with the somewhat contrary traditions of a strong central government that tends to behave coercively – Israel still has media censorship (which is often bypassed by social media), people accused of crimes have far fewer rights than in the US, and there is no jury trial. Another tradition is excessive and self-serving bureaucracy, both in government and private businesses.

Over the years an economy dominated by government-owned enterprises has been replaced by one that is mostly private; this has greatly improved the economic performance of the country (but also has created a small class of super-rich Israelis with excessive economic and political clout).

Americans care very much – or at least they used to care – about freedom of speech. There’s less emphasis on that here. What we have as a gift from our founders, who continued to believe very strongly in the right of the proletariat to strike and demonstrate even after they became the bosses, is an obsession with the right to protest. Sometimes it seems that Israelis believe that democracy means the right to block traffic. Haredim, disabled people, Ethiopians, and others have taken to the streets and junctions in recent months to press their demands. Workers in government-subsidized or regulated industries who have a dispute with the Treasury often express their frustrations by torturing ordinary citizens who have absolutely no influence on the government.

In a way, this is understandable, because despite what seems like an excess of democracy (an election every few months), the behavior of our politicians and their bureaucracy is very little influenced by the wishes of the people. Hence demonstrations.

For at least a month there have been nightly demonstrations in front of the Prime Minister’s residence in Jerusalem; recently they started demonstrating in front of his home in Caesarea as well. Before his indictment on corruption charges, there were daily demonstrations in front of the home of the Attorney General, demanding his indictment. Recently there have been violent clashes between pro- and anti-Netanyahu demonstrators, and between demonstrators and the police.

There are several different groups involved. With the advent of Corona and the limitations that the government has placed on some industries, independent business owners and tradespeople, who are not eligible for unemployment compensation, took a big hit (my son is one of them). There are also artists and performers, also independent, whose venues have been shut down. There is the ridiculously exaggerated wedding and events industry – that’s worth another blog post – which employs many, also shut down by the limitations on the number of people who can gather in one place. There is everything to do with tourism. Their frustrations are real, and they are demanding that the government remove restrictions or compensate them in some way.
But the “independents” were joined by the radically anti-Bibi crowd, who – despite the fact that he is legally allowed to remain in his position until he is convicted of a serious crime – insist that he must step down immediately. And there are some anarchists and hard-left people for whom chaos is their bread and butter, as well as those who are non-political but enjoy the excitement and danger of borderline violence (and the possibility that a woman might take off her shirt). It’s ironic that the complaint of those who want to depose the PM by force of demonstrations is that he is “destroying democracy.”

As usual, the overheated atmosphere is fed by social media. Recently, the PM complained to the police about a Facebook post from an account named “Dana Ron” which called for his removal by a “bullet to the head.” In a country which has the murder of a Prime Minister in its recent memory, this is pouring gasoline on the flames that are already too high. Facebook responded that the profile was “fake” and removed it; the police cybercrimes unit determined that the account belonged to an Israeli woman living abroad. The anti-Netanyahu people claim that the threats were actually posted by Netanyahu’s media advisors. Interestingly, other fake profiles that posted pro-Netanyahu content were found that were connected with this one.
Would Bibi be dumb enough to fake a threat on Facebook? Certainly not. Would he hire someone dumb enough to do that? Very possible. Tune in tomorrow.

***

On Tuesday there was a massive explosion in the port of Beirut, Lebanon. It seems – and there will probably be more information available by the time this article is posted tomorrow – that a warehouse containing some 2750 tons of a nitrate compound exploded. Before the main blast, there were smaller explosions that may have been fireworks or small arms ammunition. There was speculation that the explosive material was some form of rocket fuel, but now it seems that the material was ammonium nitrate that had been left there by a Georgian ship that broke down in 2013 on its way to Mozambique. What set it off is still not clear. More details about this event are here.

Naturally, the usual suspects are blaming Israel. Israeli officials said that we had no connection to it. It would be very surprising if we did, because Israel bends over backwards to avoid hurting civilians (sometimes excessively, in my opinion). Really, the only thing that might tempt Israel to do that kind of damage would be the presence of a nuclear weapon – and even then, I believe the IDF would have found some other way to destroy it.

This comes after several incidents in which Hezbollah has attempted to get even for Israel’s killing one of their operatives in Syria.

Lebanon is in the worst financial condition in its history, and a good part of the reason is Hezbollah. First the Corona, and now this explosion (which, incidentally, wrecked the structure in which 80% of Lebanon’s grain was stored) may push the country completely over the edge. I don’t know what is likely to happen now, but the best option – for Lebanon, for Israel, and for world peace – would be for Hezbollah to be pushed out. It is absolutely criminal that the resources of the country are squandered on being the point of the spear for the Iranian war on Israel. But how do you get out from under the thumb of a terrorist organization that has more military capability than your official army?

If the story about the ammonium nitrate is correct, then the government officials who allowed it to sit for years in a dilapidated warehouse near a highly populated area are guilty of criminal negligence. What brought Lebanon to the state it was in before the explosion was the less dramatic, but equally criminal, failure of those in whom the inhabitants of the country placed their trust.

Now let us come back to Israel, where there hasn’t been a cataclysmic explosion, but where a bloated, selfish, childish, and venal political establishment is failing to carry out its responsibilities to the public. Can we get our house in order before we find ourselves in a place similar to that of our northern neighbor?

Seth Rogen’s Phone Call to Isaac Herzog: “My Mommy Made Me Do It” (Judean Rose)

Isaac Herzog became a new twist in the Seth Rogen story when he decided to write a note to the clueless actor, asking him to clarify remarks questioning the existence of the State of Israel. 

Who knows? Maybe Herzog thought inserting himself into this celebrity storm in a teapot could revive his career as an Israeli politician, or perhaps lead to a plum diplomatic position, say at the UN, in New York.

Alas, Herzog was wrong.

What Jewish Agency Chairman Herzog did in the way he approached Rogen was make himself look the fool and even more irrelevant than before.

For one thing, Herzog’s approach was meant to give Rogen an “out.” This at a time of severe scrutiny and criticism for the actor’s careless and hurtful words about Israel and the Jewish people. “[As] a Jewish person I was fed a huge amount of lies about Israel my entire life,” said Rogen, during the now-infamous July 28 podcast with Marc Maron, aptly named the WTF podcast. “They never tell you that, ‘Oh, by the way, there were people there.’ They make it seem like it was just like sitting there, like the fucking door’s open.”

But no, dear Reader. Do not despair. These hurtful words about Israel will not stand! Enter Isaac Herzog, shining knight to the rescue, to make the true sentiment of Rogen's words go away—to help the comedian explain that Israel is really important to him.

From the Jerusalem Post:

“One can definitely argue about policies and positions, as I did in my political career, but for me, the red line is the imposition of doubt on the right of existence of the Jewish State and the encouragement of its delegitimization,” Herzog clarified to Rogen.

Herzog continued to explain that Rogen made it “clear... that what was missing in the published interview was what he did not say: How important Israel is to him. And that, of course, Israel must exist.”

In Herzog’s retelling of this encounter, the former head of Israel's Labor Party offers Rogen a prompt in essence saying, “Please, please, oh famous Canadian actor. Take your words back. Tell us it ain’t so—tell us you’re not saying that Israel has no right to exist!”

Failing to elicit such a disavowal, Herzog assures us instead that Rogen was only joking, giving him a pass for the things he said in that podcast, and blaming Rogen's ignorance regarding Israel, on Israel. Herzog:

"While [Rogen] was speaking in jest during the noted conversation, we cannot ignore the fact that Jews outside Israel often have to stand at the forefront and explain the State of Israel, and sometimes they do not know how nor what to explain." 

Herzog wants you to know: It's all Israel’s fault that Seth Rogen doesn’t know how to respond when people trash talk the Jewish State. Because Israel is not telling its story.

But Herzog, the chairman of the Jewish Agency (!), is wrong. 

Israel has been telling its story for thousands of years. It’s an amazing story, full of miracles and wonders. And if Rogen doesn't know that, it's because he didn’t care enough to tune in and listen. He didn’t care enough to read Jewish history, or the bible, the best-selling book of all time.

The actor didn't care to learn the facts of a story that belongs to him: that the Jews have always been in Israel, have had a continuous presence in the land for thousands of years through successive invaders, somehow managing to maintain a toehold in the Holy Land even after the destruction of the Temple, hiding out in caves. The Jews, the indigenous people of Israel, never left the land. Because the relationship between Jews and the land is symbiotic. Because when a Jew in France (or anywhere else in the world) prays for rain, he does so during Israel’s rainy season; he’s not praying for rain in France or Albuquerque. He’s praying for rain in Israel.

At Passover seders the world over, Jews conclude with the words “Next year in Jerusalem.”

Three times a day and after meals Jews pray for the speedy rebuilding of the Temple.

Jews have done these things for millennia. 

The Jewish religion is all about the Holy Land. Israel is central to Judaism.

To any normal person, the obvious conclusion must be that Jews are supposed to live in Israel. And that no other people can make that claim. That the Jews and only the Jews have earned that right by birth. 

No matter how many other people say it ain’t so.  No matter how many people malign Israel, calling the Jewish State an oppressor that occupies "Arab" land.

Now, unlike Isaac Herzog, I don’t really care about Seth Rogen or other celebrities of his ilk. I don’t care about Jews who turn their backs on their people and their land. But had I cared enough to approach Seth Rogen, it would have been a very different conversation. I wouldn't have excused him, or given him an out for his imbecilic assertions. I would have called him to task.

I would have said to him, “Seth, read a book for Chrissakes! Read O Jerusalem. Read the bible. Read some Bat Yeor and learn what really happened to the Jews under Islam—under the people you think were in Israel first. Know what’s what."

(Because how can it be that Rogen knows nothing of his own history? And cares not enough to correct his own ignorance!)

But I am not “Bougie” Herzog. Or perhaps more accurately, Bougie Herzog is not me. So instead of calling the actor out for his ignorance, Herzog gave Rogen a very public way to duck responsibility for his gross actions, as if he were saying, “Oh please, Seth. Say it isn’t so. Say you don’t really want us to be obliterated from the face of the earth just because some poor brown people say the land belongs to them and that we’re thieves and oppressors.”

And even though Rogen refused to obey that prompt or disavow his disdain for Israel, Herzog doubled down, telling us we’ve got it all horribly wrong. Rogen doesn't hate Israel and want it to disappear, the actor is merely “misunderstood.” 

The actor is just being Jewish, questioning things, and all. 
 
So Herzog clarified, explaining that in Rogen's view:
“asking questions, and arguing differing positions are fundamental in Judaism... as part of the process of casting doubt, which he says is an important motif for the Jewish people” and that “in some interviews he humorously asks questions about almost everything,” trying to explain why he thought his comments were misunderstood or taken out of context.

Rogen? He doesn’t hate Israel. He’s just oh-so-Jewish, a truth-seeker marching along on this journey of life.

How awesome that Bougie explains Rogen to us, helping him wiggle out of this slippery little spot, this conundrum with his people (and his land) without actually eliciting either an actual apology, or a disavowal for what he said.

How marvelous that Bougie managed all that with just one little letter and a follow-up call. Of course, Herzog didn’t really write that letter to Rogen. Instead he got the Vancouver Jewish community to do it:

“Herzog decided to address a letter to Rogen in order to better understand what he meant by his statements. He did so with the help of the Jewish community in Vancouver, where Rogen grew up, according to Herzog’s post.”

Now, we don't know why Herzog needed help writing a letter to Rogen. We can only guess. Perhaps Herzog lacks self-confidence. Which would explain the failed political career.

But having others write a letter to Rogen didn't really help Herzog. This story, like Herzog's career as a politician, will only fade into beige, and the only one who will remember the thing with Rogen, is Rogen, who will only use the conversation with Herzog to hurt Israel some more.

Which is exactly what Rogen did, making Herzog once more the fool when he confessed to left-leaning journalist Mairav Zonszein that his mommy made him do it: made him make that call to Herzog. Which Mairav Zonszein was happy to air in public with a tweet, which Rogen subsequently liked, an outright admission that the actor did not reach out to Herzog of his own accord. It was only filial duty that made him place that call to the Jewish Agency, to Herzog.

Because the truth of the matter is that Rogen isn't sorry. Rogen was not misunderstood. He didn’t mean any of those nice words Herzog put into his mouth. After all, how could Rogen mean those words when, according to the Times of Israel, he never actually said them? 

What did Rogen say to Herzog? We'll never know because when Rogen placed that call to Herzog, he “insisted that the conversation not be recorded.” What we do know: Rogen subsequently told Zonszein: “Read what I actually said about all this and not these secondhand telling.”

In other words: don’t listen to Herzog. Listen to Rogen. He stands by what he said in that WTF podcast with Marc Maron. You know, like when he said that the Jewish State, and having the Jews all together as one people in the Holy Land, “doesn’t make sense.”

The actor never took those words back, and is not in the least contrite. As Rogen explained to Haaretz, “I did not apologize for what I said. I offered clarity. And I think [Herzog] is misrepresenting our conversation. At no point did I give him permission to publish any part of the conversation.”

What, exactly, did Herzog accomplish here? He didn't actually approach Rogen or write to him, contrary to what Herzog suggested to the media. Instead, Herzog by way of the Vancouver Jewish community, wrote to Rogen's mother. Rogen told us so.

He said that Herzog (emphasis added), “sent a letter to my mother on very fancy letterhead. My mom implored me to call this guy and I did and told him I thought this was a private conversation... at no point did I give him permission to publish any part of the conversation.”

So there you have it. No disavowal. No apology. No retraction. Rogen meant what he said. He feels he was “fed lies about Israel” and thinks that Israel, as a concept, “doesn’t make sense.” He only made that call to Herzog because his mommy made him do it.

And so Herzog’s intervention in the Seth Rogen story is yet another gaffe for Herzog, reminding us of the election he lost and how he mistakenly said, “We will keep Netanyahu united,” instead of, "We will keep Jerusalem united," which made everyone laugh. Especially Bibi. 


We laughed and Bibi won and Herzog faded away, blending into the woodwork, tucked behind a desk at the Jewish Agency, desperately trying to remain relevant.

As Seth Rogen has the last laugh at Israel and the Jews. 

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Wednesday, July 29, 2020

Incident at Har Dov (Vic Rosenthal)

Vic Rosenthal's weekly column


On Monday there was a “security incident” on our northern border. I am not going to try to explain it, because I have no idea of what actually happened. First reports were that Hezbollah fighters had crossed the border in the Shebaa Farms area at the foot of Har Dov, and fired an antitank missile at a Merkava tank. The missile was said to have missed, and IDF soldiers returned fire, killing four of the enemy. Lebanese sources, on the other hand, said that that several Israelis were killed.

Then it was reported that none of the Hezbollah fighters had been hit, and that no missile was fired. The story was that they had infiltrated into Israel (apparently the border fence is not continuous in the area), were detected, and driven back by IDF fire. Artillery fire and Israeli aircraft, as well as explosions, were seen in the area.

There were credible reports that the IDF deliberately did not aim directly at the Hezbollah fighters, in order to drive them back without killing them.

Hezbollah claimed that they had not crossed the border and had not fired any missile.
The background is that a couple of weeks ago a Hezbollah operative was killed when Israel bombed an ammunition dump some 15 km. south of Damascus. Several Iranian and Syrian personnel were killed as well. Israel sent a message to Hassan Nasrallah saying that the Hezbollah operative’s killing was unintentional. But Nasrallah has promised that every Hezbollah casualty, wherever it occurs, will be avenged. So the IDF has been expecting and preparing for Hezbollah to retaliate.

Monday’s incident was supposed to be that retaliation. But Nasrallah has said no, the debt is still unpaid (though the mother of the man killed in Syria gave out sweets in honor of the operation).
Another similar incident happened on the border last August. Again Hezbollah owed the IDF a debt of violence after its personnel had been killed by an Israeli strike in Syria. Several antitank missiles were fired at an IDF APC, and troops were seen evacuating apparently wounded soldiers from it. But it turned out that the vehicle had been empty. Apparently the idea was to convince Hezbollah that they had succeeded in getting their revenge.

All this makes me uneasy. It seems as though we are trying to prevent escalation by exhibiting weakness, rather than strength. Think about the statement that the death of the Hezbollah fighter in Syria was “unintentional.” That ammunition dump was most likely bombed because it contained equipment being sent from Iran to Lebanon to enable Hezbollah to convert its tens of thousands of rockets to precision-guided munitions, able to strike within a few meters of a selected target. Everyone understands that such weapons are game-changers. The goal of Hezbollah’s buildup, financed and supplied from Iran, is to kill Jews and destroy our state. Does it make sense that we should in effect apologize for killing someone involved in that project?
The same strategy seems to be applied in Gaza. Hamas is allowed to fire barrages of hundreds of rockets at towns and cities in Israel; we try to knock them away (so far, pretty successfully) with our anti-missile systems. Then we punish Hamas by carefully targeting empty Hamas facilities in the Strip. If we killed anyone, then they would need to retaliate, and this way we prevent escalation while at the same time make them pay a price.

There is a problem on several levels here, which should be evident to anyone:

On the level of deterrence, the message we are sending is, “go ahead, try to hurt us, nothing much will happen if you fail.” And the natural result of this is that they are encouraged to keep trying.

On the psychological level, we are telling them – and ourselves – that we are targets. Shooting at Jews is acceptable. We have come to believe this ourselves. If we didn’t, we would respond more strongly.

Finally, on the level of honor, our failure to respond harshly to attempted murder is a sign that we are too weak to defend our own lives and property. In a Mideastern culture in which personal, family, clan, and national honor are almost tangible, someone who can’t defend what he has doesn’t deserve to keep it.

The appropriate response to maximize deterrence, self-respect, and honor is to always respond to attempts to hurt you with greater, even disproportionately greater, force. This is an elementary schoolyard lesson for dealing with bullies that kids of my generation learned quickly.
The youthful Ariel Sharon understood this when he commanded Unit 101. Today, our leaders seem to have forgotten.

The strategy our leaders have chosen is to avoid escalation at all costs, even when it damages deterrence. They continue to kick the can down the road, perhaps in the hopes that war can be avoided until Iran self-destructs and Hezbollah withers away. In any case, they hope that whatever bad things might happen, it will be after their term as PM or Chief of Staff is finished.

Unfortunately, the long term application of this strategy has left us in a situation in which we are deterred by Hezbollah, rather than the opposite. They have the initiative, and can turn the pressure on and off at will. We are demoralized, despite the fact that we are objectively stronger than our enemies. And as a nation without national honor, we are held in contempt by allies and enemies alike.

This is not an easy thing to turn around. Our enemies have been conditioned to expect certain behavior. We need to teach them otherwise, which won’t happen overnight. But we have to try. Miscalculations on either side might lead us into war; but continued weakness will almost certainly do so.

We Need to Talk About Joe (Judean Rose)

Joe Biden is ahead of President Trump in key battleground states, according to a new Fox News poll, and the lead is significant. Biden passed Trump by 11 percentage points in Pennsylvania, 13 points in Minnesota, and 9 points in Michigan. The question is why, considering a Rasmussen poll released June 29, found that 38% of voters believe that Joe Biden has dementia. That’s almost four out of ten voters.

It’s no secret the mainstream media is pulling for Joe Biden. They want Donald Trump dethroned and a Democrat—any Democrat—installed in the White House. In spite of this fact, they too, cannot help but notice Joe Biden’s little (and not so little) brain farts. 

The media has tried hard to recast Biden’s strange utterings as “gaffes.” See, for instance, here, here, here, and here. But it’s not a “gaffe” when he falls asleep during Hillary’s endorsement. 
It's not a gaffe when he has his wife do the talking so he won’t have to speak. 

It's not a gaffe when he has brain freeze. 

Not a gaffe, but a memory issue, when he forgets the President’s name.

Especially not when the name of the president he served under is forgotten not once, but several times. 
Which is why Obama told Joe Biden he didn’t have to do this—didn’t have to run for president. Lather, Rinse, Repeat.

Joe Biden’s brain issues, of course, may not actually be dementia. The fact is, the presidential candidate has had surgery for not one but two aneurysms. Remember the bloody eye incident when Biden’s eye literally filled with blood on live television?

The hubbub surrounding this event prompted Biden to talk about his experiences with brain surgery in 1988. From the Washington Examiner:

“I ended up with what they call a cranial aneurysm,” Biden said at a campaign event on Friday. “I had to be rushed to a hospital in the middle of a snowstorm, and the fact is, the president was nice enough to offer a helicopter to get me there. I couldn’t go up because of the altitude. My fire company got me down in time for [a] 13-hour operation and saved my life.”

Biden suffered the burst aneurysm in 1988, when he was a Delaware senator. Believing that he was close to death, a Catholic priest was preparing to administer Biden's last rites. Surgeons clipped a second aneurysm before it bust a few months later.

A later piece goes into a bit more detail:

At the time of Biden’s brush with death in 1988, his wife, Jill Biden, feared that he would never be the same. In a forthcoming autobiography, “Where the Light Enters," Jill recounts Joe's doctor telling the family that there was a significant chance he’d have permanent neurological damage, particularly after he suffered a second aneurysm, a condition in which an artery becomes weak and bulges out.

"Our doctor told us there was a 50-50 chance Joe wouldn't survive surgery," she wrote. "He also said that it was even more likely that Joe would have permanent brain damage if he survived. And if any part of his brain would be adversely affected, it would be the area that governed speech."

This is a candid account of what happened back in 1988. But does this past history have implications for the present? And are Biden and his wife still being upfront with the public today? From the same piece:

The last time Biden disclosed information about his health was in 2008 when Dr. Matthew Parker, a physician the Obama campaign selected when Biden was the running mate, spoke to the press. Biden’s actual doctor, John Eisold, the physician who attended to Biden and the rest of Congress, was not the one to present the medical records...Parker said he didn’t know whether Biden had more aneurysms, and said “everything that could be done is being done.”

From the information revealed, it was not clear how often Biden has been screened for aneurysms, and there wasn't any other information provided when he was vice president. In contrast, records show that Barack Obama had at least four medical checkups during his presidency.

No law requires presidents, vice presidents, or candidates to have a medical checkup or to disclose what comes of it.

The article also makes the point that if Joe Biden had two aneurysms, he could well have another:

Dr. Babu Welch, a neurological surgeon with University of Texas-Southwestern’s O’Donnell Brain Institute, said that people who have had one aneurysm can always have another. People are supposed to undergo regular screenings shortly after they have an aneurysm, but then can space them out further as time goes on, he said.

Dr. Gavin Britz, director of the Houston Methodist Neurological Institute, said his research has revealed that people have a decrease in life expectancy after an aneurysm. The key, he said, is to make sure to catch them before they rupture.

The New York Times asks whether Joe Biden might have developed another aneurysm going so far as to suggest that having had two aneurysms, Biden is actually “more likely” to have a third:

A question arises: Has Mr. Biden developed a new aneurysm over the last two decades that could burst?

Doctors, who long thought that berry aneurysms were a once-in-a-lifetime event, now generally believe that they can recur. About 5 percent or less of patients who have had a berry aneurysm develop new ones at the original site or elsewhere in the brain.

“Over the last two decades,” said Dr. Robert F. Spetzler of the Barrow Neurological Institute in Phoenix, “we have learned much more about aneurysms, and the fact is that when you have had one aneurysm, you are more likely to develop another one. Although the likelihood is very low, it does exist.”

Are Joe’s “gaffes” a result of his aneurysm, or from his brain surgeries? And what would happen if another aneurysm were to burst while Joe was in office? That last may be a bit difficult to predict, but Wikipedia offers a history of what happened at that time, pointing out that Biden had a serious complication. We also learn that back then, Biden was sidelined from work for a full seven months, and that he was told his chances for a full recovery were somewhat slim (emphasis added):

In 1988, Biden suffered two brain aneurysms, one on the right side and one on the left. Each required surgery with high risk of long-term impact on brain functionality. In February 1988, after suffering from several episodes of increasingly severe neck pain, Biden was taken by long-distance ambulance to Walter Reed Army Medical Center and given lifesaving surgery to correct an intracranial berry aneurysm that had begun leaking. While recuperating, he suffered a pulmonary embolism, a major complication.

Another operation to repair a second aneurysm, which had caused no symptoms but was at risk of bursting, was performed in May 1988. The hospitalization and recovery kept Biden from his duties in the Senate for seven months.

In retrospect, Biden's family came to believe the early end to his presidential campaign had been a blessing in disguise, for had he still been campaigning in 1988, he might well not have stopped to seek medical attention and the condition might have become unsurvivable. In 2013, Biden said, "they take a saw and they cut your head off" and "they literally had to take the top of my head off." He also said he was told he would have less than a 50% chance of full recovery.

Biden has, until now, failed to share any appraisal of his cognitive state. And some voters may be getting nervous about that with November not so far away. The Hill had a piece in early July entitled, “Joe Biden must release the results of his cognitive tests — voters need to know.” The piece references more voter polls:

A recent Zogby poll found that 55 percent of likely voters surveyed thought it was “much more” and “somewhat more likely” that Biden is in the early stages of dementia, while 45 percent thought it was less likely. That number included 56 percent of independents and 32 percent of Democrats.

More worrisome for Biden, perhaps, is that about 60 percent of young voters between the ages of 18 and 29 thought it likely that Biden is suffering early-onset dementia, along with 61 percent of Hispanics. The good news is that only 43 percent of blacks doubted Biden’s mental capacity.

Another piece, from Chicago Sun Times (July 26), asks, “Can Joe Biden keep it together?” and speaks of “whispered doubt” suggesting the public may be concerned about Biden’s fitness for office:

There is a dreadful possibility, a whispered doubt that lurks at every Biden appearance.

“I watched, and sometimes cringed, at his performances in debates and other public appearances,” Laura Washington writes. “Biden stumbled over and mangled names, facts and concepts. At times, he seemed confused.”

It is only natural that Trump supporters would attempt to capitalize on Joe’s oopsies. Hence we have this ad from the Committee to Defend the President which speaks not about “gaffes” but asks if Joe Biden “has the mental capacity to keep America safe,” and then comes right out with it: “Does Joe Biden have dementia?”

Politico (July 3) emphasized the meanness of the dementia accusations referring to this election cycle as “The Dementia Campaign.”  An excerpt:

Just listen to Tucker Carlson on Wednesday night, the day after Joe Biden’s big Super Tuesday victory and the victory speech in which he was momentarily confused over which side of the podium his wife and sister were standing. “As a smart friend said last night, Joe Biden has spent his entire life trying to succeed in presidential politics,” the Fox News host chortled, “and now he has: Too bad he’s not there to enjoy it. Pretty funny.”

Politico wants to de-emphasize the dementia/brain damage and shift the focus to the mild impairment of age, stressing that we have a geriatric political culture:

The issue is especially acute now that so much power in American government is held by people older than 65. While rates of dementia are going down gradually in the United States, 65 is the age at which 20 to 25 percent of people have mild cognitive impairment and 10 percent have dementia, according geriatric researcher Kenneth Langa at the University of Michigan. Six members of the Supreme Court are over 65, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will turn 80 on March 26, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell last month turned 78.

Joe’s brain issues, however much the liberal left wants to distract us, make it really difficult to resist watching and laughing at his latest “gaffes” such as the one about nurses blowing into his nostrils to get him moving.

That “go home and get me pillows,” sends me into giggle fits, each and every time. But then I feel a little bit mean and even voyeuristic. And I can’t help but think: It’s not nice they’re putting this brain damaged guy out there like this. Why are they doing this: running this guy with brain damage?

I know what the conspiracy theorists think: if Biden wins the presidency, which he might win in spite of dementia, because he’s the Not Trump, he won’t be the one making the decisions. Instead, he will be a puppet. The Manchurian Candidate come to life. 

So who is really running the show? Deep State? Soros? Obama?

Someone/something else? And what does this mean for Israel, and for the world at large? 

Will Biden hang in there, or will the pressure and stress become too much, say during a debate with President Trump? And if it does become too much for the man who has twice undergone the neurosurgeon's knife, what happens next? Who will step in and take over the show?

Your guess is as good as mine. Which means that about all we can do is sit back and watch this public circus with guilty pleasure and not a little incredulity at the fact that, should nothing and no one intervene, the Democrats will vote for Joe Biden, despite his cognitive issues, come November. 

Because they definitely choose brain damage over Trump. 

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Printfriendly

EoZTV Podcast

Podcast URL

Subscribe in podnovaSubscribe with FeedlyAdd to netvibes
addtomyyahoo4Subscribe with SubToMe

search eoz

comments

Speaking

Speaking

Follow by Email

translate

E-Book

For $18 donation








Sample Text

EoZ's Most Popular Posts in recent years

Hasbys!

Hasbys!

2019 Nobel Peace Prize nominee

Elder of Ziyon - حـكـيـم صـهـيـون



This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For over 14 years and 30,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.

Donate!

Donate to fight for Israel!

Monthly subscription:
Payment options


One time donation:

subscribe via email

Follow EoZ on Twitter!

EoZ Videos

On YouTube
EoZNews channel
On Liveleak

Also, Middle East Posters

Interesting Blogs

Categories

#PayForSlay Abbas liar Academic fraud administrivia al-Qaeda algeria Alice Walker American Jews AmericanZionism Amnesty analysis anti-semitism anti-Zionism antisemitism apartheid Arab antisemitism arab refugees Arafat archaeology Ari Fuld art Ashrawi ASHREI B'tselem bahrain Balfour bbc BDS BDSFail Bedouin Beitunia beoz Bernie Sanders Biden history Birthright book review Brant Rosen breaking the silence Campus antisemitism Cardozo cartoon of the day Chakindas Chanukah Christians circumcision Clark Kent coexistence Community Standards conspiracy theories COVID-19 Cyprus Daled Amos Daphne Anson David Applebaum Davis report DCI-P Divest This double standards Egypt Elder gets results ElderToons Electronic Intifada Embassy EoZ Trump symposium eoz-symposium EoZNews eoztv Erekat Erekat lung transplant EU Euro-Mid Observer European antisemitism Facebook Facebook jail Fake Civilians 2014 Fake Civilians 2019 Farrakhan Fatah featured Features fisking flotilla Forest Rain Forward free gaza freedom of press palestinian style future martyr Gary Spedding gaza Gaza Platform George Galloway George Soros German Jewry Ghassan Daghlas gideon levy gilad shalit gisha Goldstone Report Good news Grapel Guardian guest post gunness Haaretz Hadassah hamas Hamas war crimes Hananya Naftali hasbara Hasby 2014 Hasby 2016 Hasby 2018 hate speech Hebron helen thomas hezbollah history Hizballah Holocaust Holocaust denial honor killing HRW Human Rights Humanitarian crisis humor huor Hypocrisy ICRC IDF IfNotNow Ilan Pappe Ilhan Omar impossible peace incitement indigenous Indonesia international law interview intransigence iran Iraq Islamic Judeophobia Islamism Israel Loves America Israeli culture Israeli high-tech J Street jabalya James Zogby jeremy bowen Jerusalem jewish fiction Jewish Voice for Peace jihad jimmy carter Joe Biden John Kerry jokes jonathan cook Jordan Joseph Massad Juan Cole Judaism Judea-Samaria Judean Rose Judith Butler Kairos Karl Vick Keith Ellison ken roth khalid amayreh Khaybar Know How to Answer Lebanon leftists Linda Sarsour Linkdump lumish mahmoud zahar Mairav Zonszein Malaysia Marc Lamont Hill Marjorie Taylor Greene max blumenthal Mazen Adi McGraw-Hill media bias Methodist Michael Lynk Michael Ross Miftah Missionaries moderate Islam Mohammed Assaf Mondoweiss moonbats Morocco Mudar Zahran music Muslim Brotherhood Naftali Bennett Nakba Nan Greer Nation of Islam Natural gas Nazi Netanyahu News nftp NGO Nick Cannon NIF Noah Phillips norpac NSU Matrix NYT Occupation offbeat olive oil Omar Barghouti Only in Israel Opinion Opinon oxfam PA corruption PalArab lies Palestine Papers pallywood pchr PCUSA Peace Now Peter Beinart Petra MB philosophy poetry Poland poll Poster Preoccupied Prisoners propaganda Proud to be Zionist Puar Purim purimshpiel Putin Qaradawi Qassam calendar Quora Rafah Ray Hanania real liberals RealJerusalemStreets reference Reuters Richard Falk Richard Landes Richard Silverstein Right of return Rivkah Lambert Adler Robert Werdine rogel alpher roger cohen roger waters Rutgers Saeb Erekat Sarah Schulman Saudi Arabia saudi vice self-death self-death palestinians Seth Rogen settlements sex crimes SFSU shechita sheikh tamimi Shelly Yachimovich Shujaiyeh Simchat Torah Simona Sharoni SodaStream South Africa Speech stamps Superman Syria Tarabin Temple Mount Terrorism This is Zionism Thomas Friedman TOI Tomer Ilan Trump Trump Lame Duck Test Tunisia Turkey UAE Accord UCI UK UN UNDP unesco unhrc UNICEF United Arab Emirates Unity unrwa UNRWA hate unrwa reports UNRWA-USA unwra Varda Vic Rosenthal Washington wikileaks work accident X-washing Y. Ben-David Yemen YMikarov zahran Ziesel zionist attack zoo Zionophobia Ziophobia Zvi

Blog Archive

Copyright © Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News | Powered by Blogger
Blogger Templates