The willful blindness of the Israeli Left

From +972, quoting Daniel Seidemann, founder of Ir Amim:

This afternoon, I paid a working visit to a friend in the Palestinian neighborhood of Sur Bahir, barely a kilometer from my home. When we took leave of one another, I headed home in my car. I had the misfortune of ending up in a traffic jam in the center of the village, just as school was getting out.

I didn’t see it coming, but should have: I was a sitting duck. The rock was probably thrown at point blank range; it smashed the side window with enough force to leave a deep gash in the back of my head. I was fortunate: I did not lose consciousness, nor my sense of orientation. Thankfully, the traffic jam loosened up a bit. Within a minute or so I was out of danger and on my way to get treatment.

This ended with a few stitches and no serious damage (confirmed by a CT).

...I don’t romanticize the prick that cracked my head open. But I don’t find it particularly important if he is or is not apprehended. (OK – I do fear that he might have just been practicing on me, and that more deadly violence can be expected of him in the future).

But this ends not when Palestinians behave better, or when our Shin Bet becomes more efficient. It ends when occupation ends. Until then, I remain a symbol of that occupation, and not without reason. And no good deeds, as it were, will redeem me or protect me.

Seidemann is not a stupid man. But the idea that Arab violence will end if Israel withdraws to the 1949 armistice lines is willful blindness of the worst kind.

He knows that before "occupation" there were Palestinian Arab attacks on Israel - and not on Jordan, which occupied the West Bank at the time. He knows that before the state of Israel was reborn the Arabs (not called Palestinians then) would routinely attack Jews (not called Israelis then.)

"Occupation" is not the cause of violence, but a trendy excuse for violence. Nothing proves that more than the rocket attacks that not only didn't end after Israel's withdrawal from Gaza, but that increased.

Yet he is willing to ignore all of that, and even his now first-hand knowledge of the dangers of the "non-violent resistance" that Mahmoud Abbas encourages that includes stone throwing. No, he is - like so many in the Israeli Left - so singlemindedly obsessed with "occupation" that simple facts have no meaning to him anymore.

It would behoove him to read this article from earlier this year from a former member of his religion of Leftism:

I participated in the Dialogue for Peace Project for young Israelis and Palestinians who are politically involved in various frameworks. The project’s objective was to identify tomorrow’s leaders and bring them closer today, with the aim of bringing peace at some future time.
...
The Israeli side, which included representatives from right and left, tried to understand the Palestinians’ vision of the end of the strife– “Let’s talk business.” The Israelis delved to understand how we can end the age-old, painful conflict. What red lines are they willing to be flexible on? What resolution will satisfy their aspirations? Where do they envision the future borders of the Palestinian State which they so crave?

We were shocked to discover that not a single one of them spoke of a Palestinian State, or to be more precise, of a two-state solution.

They spoke of one state – their state. They spoke of ruling Jaffa, Tel Aviv, Akko, Haifa, and the pain of the Nakba [lit. the tragedy – the establishment of the State of Israel]. There was no future for them. Only the past. “There is no legitimacy for Jews to live next to us” – this was their main message. “First, let them pay for what they perpetrated.”

In the course of a dialogue which escalated to shouts, the Palestinians asked us not to refer to suicide bombers as “terrorists” because they don’t consider them so. “So how do you call someone who dons a vest and blows himself up in a Tel Aviv shopping mall with the stated purpose of killing innocent civilians,” I asked one of the participants.

“I have a 4-year-old at home,” answered Samach from Abu Dis (near Jerusalem). “If God forbid something should happen to him, I will go and burn an entire Israeli city, if I can.” All the other Palestinian participants nodded their heads in agreement to his harsh words.

When an Israeli peacenik is attacked, he is instantly willing to forgive. When an Arab liberal is attacked, he is instantly drawn to revenge, even if it takes generations.

Real peace is impossible. All the Daniel Seidemanns in the world willing to work to help all the Palestinian Arabs in the world will not bring them one step closer to accepting Israel's existence. Believing otherwise is not moral - it is delusional. And it will result in more attacks, more terror and more deaths, not less.

(h/t YM)

Read More

BDS leader explains how the movement is meant to manipulate Western liberals

The Badil Center, a Palestinian Arab organization that is a major force behind the BDS movement, has published an extensive analysis in Jadaliyya magazine of their perspective on its progress and shortcomings over the past eight years.

The magazine reprints what appears to be a seminal 2011 piece by Nimer Sultany of SOAS in London, one of the theoreticians behind today's BDS movement.

A careful reading of his article reveals the pure hypocrisy that underpins the entire anti-Israel movement.

Sultany brings up three points and potential pitfalls about BDS.

His first point is about the role of pacifism and violence in Palestinian Arab discourse:

Palestinian history oscillates between two dogmas: the new dogma of nonviolence and the old dogma of violence and armed struggle. ...Given its apparent failure to achieve its declared objective, armed struggle has given way to nonviolence, which has become more fashionable today since it resonates with Western perspectives. Given that stereotypes cast Palestinians as violent, aggressive, and irrational Arabs or Muslims, Palestinians are forced to declare their pacifism before being admitted to the world of legitimate discourse or given a hearing of their views.

...But nonviolence should not now become the new dogma. Westerners ask, “Where is the Palestinian Gandhi?” They ignore the fact that Western practice and discourse have always vindicated violent resistance to unjust foreign occupiers. Thus, it is hypocritical for Westerners to dismiss violent means altogether in the Palestinian case.

...The legitimacy of the struggle and the justness of the demands need not necessarily correlate with the character of the means. The fact is that violent and nonviolent tactics have always co-existed as forms of resistance and they are likely to do so in the future. Therefore, in order to choose nonviolent means, one need not necessarily be a pacifist. The choice of the means depends on historical and political circumstances; they need not become the end. The means should not be deployed for their own sake but for the purpose of achieving noble political goals. The ability of violent or non-violent means to achieve them in a concrete, prudential form should be constantly critiqued and re-examined.

So while BDSers swear up and down that they are against violence, we see that the truth is quite the opposite. The movement is meant to sway Westerners, but it is not meant to mirror how Palestinian Arabs think. Amongst themselves, violence is considered quite acceptable - but not prudent at this time. Next year, it is possible that violence might come back into vogue. He even refers to the current Palestinian Arab pretense of nonviolence as "fashionable."

There is no morality here except the "noble" goal of destroying the Jewish state, and for that, all means are on the table. Pretending that they embrace non-violence for moral reasons is simply a scam to fool clueless Western liberals.

Sultany's second point is about international law:

The boycott movement speaks the language of human rights and international law. It is intended to pressure Israel to abide by international law. By doing so, it risks falling into the trap identified by critical legal scholars. The risk has two aspects. First, there is a danger in conflating law with justice; there is no intrinsic connection between law and justice. The gap between them may not be apparent to those who equate the attainment of justice with the application of law. Second is the belief that applying international law can produce self-evident, concrete consequences; this belief presupposes that applying law is a mechanical operation. But law-application involves inevitably normative interpretations that are not independent of power relations and hegemonic understandings. In addition, law (whether local or international) is not a monolithic entity nor a gapless system. Rather, it contains gaps, ambiguities, and contradictions...

This is not to say that the language of universal human rights and international law should be rejected or that it lacks a positive value. I only wish to caution that this rather limited discourse could produce unintended consequences. One should be cognizant of the detrimental ramifications of this discourse.

Sultany understands that while the anti-Israel movement uses the language of international law and human rights, they don't really mean it - if they can be interpreted in ways that is detrimental to the cause.

If, for example, the definition of "refugee" is standardized so that Palestinian Arabs have the same definition as the rest of the world, that would be quite supportable under international law - but it would be catastrophic for a movement whose intent for decades has been to use millions of people as pawns to help destroy Israel. The same can be said for the definition of "occupation" - if Gaza or Areas A is not occupied, the Israel-haters lose a great deal of their rhetorical power. Ditto for the mythical "right of return," one of BDS' cornerstones, which has no basis in international law in these circumstances.

Beyond that, Sultany makes it clear that human rights and international law have no value to Palestinian Arab nationalist thought. They are only concerned with what they call "justice." And who decides whether justice is served? Why, they are! And there can be no justice, in their minds, while Israel exists.

This is not compatible with international law, and Sultany knows it. But he figures that using the fig leaf of international law, with luck, can weaken Israel enough that the "justice" part of the equation can then have a chance of succeeding.

Sultany is saying, in effect, that while they use the language of international law and human rights, it is just a scam to fool clueless Western liberals. To be sure, they work tirelessly to ensure that NGOs adhere to their definitions of terms like  "occupation", but in the back of their minds they know that international and humanitarian law is not nearly as supportive of their movement as they pretend it is. Sultany is warning the BDSers that they just might end up on the wrong end of the law before they finish their goal of making Jews as weak and marginalized as Christians are in the Middle East.

His third warning is about being too serious about boycotting everything that is "Zionist:"

Transforming every aspect of the political struggle to a boycott-orientation reduces the range of political means and vocabulary. Not every adverse discourse or initiative should be addressed through the boycott prism. Surely, these initiatives, to the extent that they warrant criticism, can and should be critiqued. However, the discourse of boycott is inapplicable when the object of the critique is not a state-sponsored activity, nor an Israeli or foreign institution involved in sustaining the occupation militarily or economically. The boycott campaign should be based on credible evidence of targeted institutions’ role in sustaining the apartheid regime’s practices.

Additionally, boycott should not be seen as merely the manifestation of an unguided, blind moral outrage. Its primary purpose should neither be moral preaching nor vengeance and punishment. Rather, it should be applied as a political tool for achieving political ends through political mobilization of activists, constituencies, and consumers. Therefore, there should be some considerations of efficacy. For boycott to be effective it should not be reduced to trigger-happy tactics. If one cries wolf all the time, one risks losing credibility and political currency.

Overplaying the boycott card can discredit it, even when directed against worthy targets. ...Consider the example of the New York Times which is blatantly pro-Israel; it does not follow that it should be boycotted by a writer commissioned to represent a pro-Palestinian position.

The argument can be extended to make sure that Apple or Google or Microsoft aren't boycotted, since that would be counterproductive. As he says explicitly, boycotting Zionist products  is not a moral position but a political tool. That's why Sodastream and Max Brenner are perfect targets but Intel isn't.

Yet BDS positions itself to the West as if it were a moral movement, using moral arguments!

For the third time, Sultany is saying that BDS is a scam to fool clueless Western liberals by using language they can identify with, while the movement itself is actually anti-liberalism. It has no ethical problem with murdering Jews, it is willing to discard international law if that contradicts its idea of "justice," and it couches its goal in terms of a morality that it explicitly discards.

This is not an essay that BDSers want thoughtful Western liberals to read.

(h/t Spotlighting)

Read More

"Vegan-washing" and the fanaticism of the far-Left

+972 has an unintentionally hypocritical article about tensions within Israel's vegan community.

A fanatic animal-rights activist named Gary Yourofsky is planning to speak about his passion in Ariel, which is of course in the "territories." +972 finds this hard to believe, because it is such a left-wing topic; how could he even think about speaking in a city that is deemed illegal by the international community?

His answer shocked the +972-niks:

“Since the ‘international community’ is comprised of violent, bloodthirsty thugs who terrorize billions of innocent animals every second of every minute of every hour of every day, the ‘international community’ can go to HELL,” he wrote back.

Responding to the core question of the Palestinian struggle and the call to boycott Israeli academia and the settlements, Yourofsky said he sees no point in caring about any human beings so long as animals that are being regularly slaughtered. “When people start eating sliced up Jew flesh, or seared Palestinian children in between two slices of bread with onions, pickles and mustard, then I’ll be concerned about the Middle East situation.”

The +972 author, Haggai Matar, tries to wrap his head around such thinking, and finally gets an answer. Another animal rights activist explains that Yourofsky is a "single issue activist" who is focused on animal rights above all. He is, simply, a fanatic. Some people can be so obsessed with a single topic that they can be understood, even if their resulting actions are unforgivable.

Matar then quotes far left anti-Zionist Aeyal Gross, in Haaretz (Hebrew), where he notes that recently Bibi Netanyahu made statements supporting animal rights during a cabinet meeting. It wasn't a policy statement, it wasn't a public speech, it was just a conversation during a meeting.

Gross is incensed at how such a disgusting person as Netanyahu could possibly advocate a liberal position on anything. It is like Gross, a "part vegetarian part vegan," is sickened that he could have anything in common with the prime minister of Israel.

So Aeyal Gross, who had previously railed against Israel's officially gay-friendly public stance, called this "vegan-washing" as a successor to the ridiculous term "pinkwashing."

What Haggai Matar is completely blind to is that while he is condescending towards single-issue activists for animal rights, he doesn't realize that his article, +972 magazine and his entire far-Left community is focused on a single issue as well: the  evil of Israel, especially the"occupation."

To these fanatics - and they are no less fanatic than Gary Yourofsky - there is only one issue, Israel's supposedly horrible treatment of non-Jews. When they hear about Yourofsky speaking in Ariel, the first question they ask is "what about the occupation?" When they hear that a politician they don't like advocates a liberal position, they ask "what about the occupation?" When they see Israel sending aid to Haiti or the Phillipines, they ask "what about the occupation?"

To these far Left fanatics, the "occupation" and the fact of Israel's unique evil trumps all else. They see everything Israel does, whether it is a music festival or archaeology or scientific achievements or medical breakthroughs, as simply either proof of oppressing Palestinian Arabs or a scheme to distract the world from Israel's oppression of Palestinian Arabs. The only thing good about Israel, to these haters, is that there are so many people there that loathe Israel.

Like Yourofsky, they simply cannot hold two ideas in their heads at once. Because, to fanatics, the world can only be divided into those who see the world exactly their way and those who don't. There is no grey, no middle ground, nothing even orthogonal to their pet topic. Nothing else exists.

That's pretty much the definition of "fanatic."

(See also here and here for previous examples of this obsession among the anti-Zionist Israelis.)

(h/t Ruchie)

Read More

Leftist professor subverts Wikipedia to attack his enemies - and promote himself

An Israeli student sent this to me. Some of the information is a little dated and Wikipedia's internal attempts to stop abuse seem to have softened some of the specifics noted here over time, but it shows in great detail how people try to use Wikipedia not only as a weapon against those they disagree with, but as an advertising medium for themselves!

---

The Wikipedia editor “Newmanthfc” has made approximately 80 edits to a number of Wikipedia articles since April 2008. As acknowledged by “Newmanthfc,” he is David Newman, originally from the UK and today a professor of political geography at Ben-Gurion University in Beersheba, Israel.

The vast majority of Newman’s edits involve self-promotion, particularly regarding his academic career and ideological causes. Despite a warning from an administrator that “You have an obvious conflict of interest with this, suggesting that you are not the best person to write the article,” he created his own Wikipedia article. Unsurprisingly, initially it read like a “self-written bio, no sources, in style of a resume.” He presented himself as “A noted peace activist in Israel and international expert on borders”, and lavished praise on his own work (“The most comprehensive analyses of Gush Emunim have been carried out by David Newman”), celebrating what he claims is activity to counter UK academic boycotts of Israel, and referencing his own academic writings in a number of Wikipedia articles.

He even listed himself as amongst the notable alumni of two British schools.

He has also vandalized the articles of ideological opponents and academic rivals, copying content that appears repeatedly in his Jerusalem Post column. Newman has focused this activity on the Israeli political advocacy organization Im Tirzu, as well as Gerald Steinberg, a political science professor at Bar Ilan University and head of NGO Monitor.

Newman’s editing of his personal Wikipedia entry, as well as NGO Monitor’s, resulted in an edit war, in which Newman blatantly violated Wikipedia rules, and he was sanctioned with a 48-hour ban. However, he continues to refer to himself in the third-person in his edit summaries (short descriptions of edits that appear in the history pages of articles), suggesting that he is seeking to obscure the clear conflict of interest.This is reminiscent, albeit on a smaller scale, of the Wikipedia behavior of another Israeli professor, Amiram Goldblum.

A repeat offender: Edit wars and other Wikipedia troubles

Newman was called out for an “obvious conflict of interest” already in September 2008, although no sanctions were administered at that time.

 

In November 2008, it was recommended that the David Newman article be deleted from Wikipedia because, as written by Newman, it read like a “self-written bio, no sources, in style of a resume.” During the deletion discussion, the article was changed, and remained on Wikipedia.

More egregiously, Newman also engaged in “edit warring” - a serious violation of basic Wikipedia rules and norm of etiquette. The edit war took place on both the David Newman and the NGO Monitor articles on January 8, 2011.

The edits included Newman’s removal of any factual material that criticized Newman, even though it was sourced to reliable online publications, as per Wikipedia standards and rules. He also added unreferenced editorial comments in order to support his cause.

 

Newman, using the Newmanthfc username, was joined in by an anonymous internet user (194.90.167.222), whose internet address is assigned to Ben-Gurion University, where Newman works.

Both Newmanthfc and the anonymous user were warned about their abusive and unproductive edits and were reported to the Wikipedia Administrater’s noticeboard on January 10. Administrators decided on a 48-hour ban (though most first time violators receive a 24-hour ban).

Edits promoting Newman’s academic work

The very first edits made by Newmanthfc (April 19, 2008) were to Wikipedia’s Gush Emunim article, engaging in self-promotion (“The most comprehensive analyses of Gush Emunim have been carried out by David Newman”) and adding references to four of his own publications on the subject.

In September 2008, Newman listed himself in the Border article as a “leading scholar in the contemporary study of borders,” as part of “a renaissance in the study of borders in the past two decades.”

In April and June 2009, and then again in February 2011, Newman made edits to the Academic boycotts of Israel article. In April 2009, he first added a reference to an article he wrote in the Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs; seven minutes later, he included a paragraph (with a typo) on the substance on attempts to boycott Israel.  On June 20, 2009, Newman added a number of sentences, basically repeating the argument of his Jerusalem Post column of June 6.

His February 2011 edits to that page consisted of more self-promoting, adding

This was particularly the position taken by the representtaives (sic) of Israel's universities in the UK, Professor David Newman who, while countering the attempts at academic boycott, did not see all such activity as being inherently anti-semitic. Newman, the Dean of the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences at Ben-Gurion University in Israel, focused his activities on strengthening scientific and academic links between Israel and the UK, and was influential in creating the BIRAX research and scientiric (sic) cooperation agreement between the two countries - an agreement which was promoted by successive British Ambassadors to Israel, Tom Philips and Matthew Gould, and which has been funded, amongst othersm (sic) by the Pears Foundation in London.

Creation of and edits on the “David Newman” article

In October 2008, Newman created the article “David Newman (geographer),” subsequently moving it to “David Newman (Professor of Geopolitics)” because it is a “more accurate description of a person who was a geographer but has moved into the field of political science.” (Newman’s claims of expertise in this field are not supported by any evidence, such as a degree in political science.) It appears that he had tried to create a page about himself in September 2008, but was rebuffed by an administrator because “You have an obvious conflict of interest with this, suggesting that you are not the best person to write the article. This shows in unsourced claims... and non-encyclopaedic non-neutral phrases...”

Newman tried again, producing, as noted above, an article that read like a “self-written bio, no sources, in style of a resume.”

After the deletion controversy, Newman did not edit his article again until July 2009, when he made an insignificant edit related to an academic journal he edits. But, in May 2010, Newman added the following, without providing a reference, “In March 2010, Newman was elected Dean of the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences for the period 2010-2013.”

Newman’s next edits involved the abovementioned edit war, when he removed a criticism section from his own article.

His latest edits were on July 7, 2013, when he added two paragraphs, again without any citations, on “information about david Newman relating to the past 4-5 years.” As with his other Wikipedia editing, his addition included self-promotion and ideological attacks.

He writes a weekly oped column in the Jerusalem Post. Many of these articles touch on issues relating to Israeli politics, the Israel-Palestine conflict and the interface of politics and academia. During 2012-2013, Newman was active in defending his University and Department against attempts at right wing political intervention on the part of Israel's Council of Higher Education (the CHE).

He represented Israel's universities in the UK. Despite this, he has been subject to attacks by extremist right wing organizations in Israel, such as Isracampus, Academic Monitor, Im Tirzu, and the NGO Monitor, for his founding and leadership of the Department of Politics and Government at the University and for his left of center political positions on the Arab-Israel conflict. This has not prevented him from being elected, almost unanimously, for a second term of Faculty Dean for the period 2013-2016.

At the time of his edit, he promised, “references will follow in due course.” To date, references have not been added.

Attacks against ideological opponents and academic rivals

Newman’s edits have targeted Im Tirzu repeatedly, and these appear in his Jerusalem Post column as well. For instance, on January 8, 2011, Newman vandalized the Im Tirzu entry, labeling the organization as “ultra right wing anti-Zionist” and claiming that “Its objectives are to impose constraints on the freedom of speech and opinion within the Israeli academic community, through the use of threats against the faculty which do not share their extremist views.”

He has also attacked NGO Monitor, an organization headed by academic rival Gerald Steinberg, from Bar Ilan University. Newman’s violations in these edits resulted in a 48 hour ban (see below). Also on January 8, Newman sought to delegitimize NGO Monitor by labeling the think tank as “an extreme right wing NGO”, adding (with no specifics):

NGO Monitor has been responsible for indiscriminate attacks on all left wing pro-peace NGO's which support human rights and Israeli-Palestinian reconciliation. They have focused their attacks on NGO's funded by the European Union, but have refused to display a balance by investigating right wing NGO's or organizations funded by American donations, for fear of annoying their own North American right wing supporters. NGO Monitor has been responsible for damaging the image of Israel internationally and raising serious questions concerning Israel's continued comitment (sic) to values of democracy and free speech.

Similar statements were made in Newman’s January 10, 2011 column in the Jerusalem Post.

On January 8, 2011, Newman made a petty edit to the NGO Monitor page, changing the description of Steinberg, NGO Monitor’s president.

Edits on Newman’s personal life

Newman’s self-promotion extended to articles related to his personal life. He added himself to the list of notable alumni of Dame Alice Owen’s school (“Prof [[David Newman]], Professor of Political Geography and Dean of the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences at [[Ben-Gurion University in Israel]], and editor of the International Journal of [[Geopolitics]]. A noted peace activist in Israel and international expert on borders.”), as well as the Hasmonean High School.

Newman also added a reference in a Wikipedia article to one of his columns on his fandom of Tottenham Hotspurs Football Club (which explains his Wikipedia username).

Read More

Video of the Temple Mount this morning and musings on leftist racism

This video, from the Al Aqsa Foundation, shows Muslims throwing stones at Israeli soldiers  (starting around 0:45) from inside their "third holiest shrine". The police do nothing at all until they are attacked.

Out of the dozens of videos I've seen made and edited by Arabs on the Temple Mount, I have yet to see a single provocative action by Israeli police or by Jewish visitors to the area. Not once. The violence is invariably started by Muslims.

The good news is that, assuming the scenes in the video are shown in order, that Jews managed to visit the Mount shortly thereafter (1:36) without further incident.




Only an antisemite can view this video and conclude that the Jews are the provocateurs, the violators of the sanctity of the Mount, while the Muslims are reacting normally.

I can't stop thinking about the stupid Guardian article by Giles Frasier I noted yesterday where this supposedly liberal priest, who should be sensitive to freedom of religion, claims that the Jews walking peacefully in the area are the ones who are provoking "unimaginable violence."

Like many European liberals, he is a racist.

To him, violence is expected of Muslims when they don't get 100% of their demands. That's just the way they are. It is genetic, according to the subtext of articles and arguments like that. Enlightened Westerners and Jews are the ones who must modify their behavior to accommodate inherent Muslim insanity.

The idea of denouncing the Muslims is simply unacceptable, for the same reasons one doesn't denounce the mentally handicapped. Because that is how they are.

This racism is not anomalous, but mainstream.

A sane viewing of this video would consider the Israeli police heroes for allowing  Jews to visit their holiest spot unmolested, for consistently trying to uphold their freedoms and for not giving in to Muslim blackmail and threats of violence. This is the proper response - and it works.

Is there are real difference between Jews wanting to assert their right to visit and pray at their holiest site, and blacks in the 1960s wanting to assert their right to go to formerly segregated schools? In both cases law enforcement must help assure that no harm comes to them and that the rioters do not gain a victory by succeeding in their own racist agendas. Yet Giles Fraser identifies with, and supports, the Muslim rioters - not out of conviction, but simply because he thinks it's the most expeditious way to mute Islamist hate. And he is exactly wrong.

This leftist racism is not only morally wrong, but it also encourages Muslims to continue to act like spoiled children. Without the world denouncing unprovoked Muslim violence, without any consequences, the Muslims who riot and those who incite them to violence have no incentive to change. On the contrary, accidental racists like Fraser are giving Muslims carte blanche to continue to riot at the slightest discomfort. The fruits of this mindset can be seen in European cities as well as in Jerusalem.

One day, when they are on the receiving end of a hail of rocks from their Muslim neighbors that they pretend to be defending, maybe some of these leftist racists will see the light.

Others will just keep on blaming Jews and the "settler mentality" for all the problems.

Read More