Showing posts sorted by relevance for query obama. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query obama. Sort by date Show all posts

Wednesday, September 09, 2020

From Ian:

Trump Nominated for Nobel Peace Prize for UAE-Israel Peace Deal
A Norwegian lawmaker has nominated Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize for 2021 for helping broker a deal between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, the second time he has put forward the U.S. president for the honor.

Thousands of people are eligible to nominate candidates for the Nobel Peace Prize, including members of parliaments and governments, university professors and past laureates.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee, which decides on the award, declined to comment.

"It is for his contribution for peace between Israel and the UAE. It is a unique deal," Christian Tybring-Gjedde, a member of parliament for the right-wing Progress Party, told Reuters.

Tybring-Gjedde, who nominated Trump for the 2019 award for his diplomatic efforts with North Korea, said he also nominated him this year because of the U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq.

Last year Trump said he deserved to be awarded the Peace Prize for his work on North Korea and Syria, but he complained he probably would never get the honor. Former President Barack Obama, a nemesis of Trump, won the prize in 2009 just months into his first term in office.

Nominations for this year’s award closed on Jan. 31 and the winner will be announced on Oct. 9 in Oslo.
Why Trump Deserves the Nobel
By thinking out of the box and looking at the world though a prism untainted by the swamp, the Trump administration accomplished what previous American administrations could not. It had bucked politically insurmountable odds to foster cooperation between historical enemies and in so doing, brought political stability and economic opportunity to two volatile regions.

So will Trump receive a Nobel Peace Prize? Don’t hold your breath. The highbrow folks who sit on that worthless Norwegian Committee revile Trump. They are an integral part the swamp, viewing the world through an elitist prism that is detached from reality. These are the same people who gave a Nobel Peace Prize to the now deceased gangster of Ramallah, Yassir Arafat, a revolting figure who was arguably the most notorious terrorist of the last century and whose word wasn’t worth the paper it was written on.

In October 2009, the Nobel Committee awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to Barack Obama, barely nine months after the former freshman senator and community organizer assumed office as America’s 44th president. Between January 2009 and October 2009, Obama hadn’t a single foreign policy success. In fact, during his tenure, Obama’s foreign policy was marked by failure and fecklessness. He downplayed the ascendancy of ISIS, vacillated when Syria used poison gas against its own people, emboldened Iran through policies of appeasement, ignored human rights abuses in Turkey and China, and shut down a very promising investigation into Hezbollah’s transnational criminal enterprise.

The Nobel committee’s mindset mirrors that of the establishment media, which detests Trump and operates as the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party. That is why the establishment media buried the Israel-UAE peace accord beneath deprecatory articles on Trump and tributes to his challenger, despite the deal’s enormous positive implications for regional peace and stability. And that is why members of the press corps directed off-topic questions at Kushner, O'Brien and Grenell when the trio issued a press conference on the Serbia-Kosovo-Israel breakthrough. Grenell, though, would have none of it and angrily responded to a journalist’s off topic question by dryly asking the journalist if he could find Serbia or Kosovo on a map. But Grenell’s tongue lashing didn’t stop there. He deprecatingly noted that there was a “crisis in journalism,” and that “people aren’t listening to you (journalists) anymore.”

So despite his achievements in forging peace on two continents, Trump will not receive the Nobel Peace Prize. But judging by the lowly caliber of the people issuing that prize, their dishonest media allies, and their skewed world outlook, the lack of committee recognition, though contemptible, should be viewed as a positive thing.


UAE-Israel deal-signing ceremony to be held Sept. 15 in Washington
The signing ceremony of the Abraham Accord between Israel and the UAE will take place on September 15 in Washington, the White House confirmed on Tuesday. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will represent Israel, the Foreign Affairs Minister and the crown prince’s brother, Abdullah bin Zayed will represent the UAE.

Netanyahu said he is “proud to be going to Washington next week at US President Donald Trump’s invitation, to participate in the historic ceremony in the White House, celebrating establishing a peace treaty between Israel and the United Arab Emirates.”

Last week, Israel and the United Arab Emirates started discussions to open embassies in each other’s countries, during a high-level government meeting in Abu Dhabi.

The Israeli delegation headed by National Security Adviser Meir Ben-Shabbat, together with his American counterpart Robert O’Brien, White House special advisers Jared Kushner and Avi Berkowitz, and others arrived on the first-ever direct flight by an Israeli airline from Israel to the UAE. The El Al plane, bearing an Israeli flag, was also the first-ever Israeli flight over Saudi Arabia.

Thursday, June 07, 2018

From Ian:

Palestine- failing the test of history
Merit is no qualification for freedom…. Freedom is enjoyed when you are so well armed, or so turbulent, or inhabit a country so thorny that the expense of your neighbour's occupying you is greater than the profit. -From a letter by T.E. Lawrence (a.k.a.”Lawrence of Arabia”) published July 22, 1920, in The Times of London setting out a case for the political independence for the Arabs in the Middle East.

Despite being written almost a century ago Lawrence’s diagnosis is still extremely pertinent in assessing the validity of the frequently aired view that "the Palestinians deserve a state of their own."

Indeed, such views have been explicitly expounded by US Administrations for well over a decade from George W. Bush to Barack Obama ,who both incorporated the idea into their "visions" for the Middle East.

Cannot condition national sovereignty on regime type
In the past, several pro-Israeli pundits have tried to dispute the widely accepted contention that "the Palestinians do indeed deserve a state" Some, like author Naomi Ragen, have warned of the unsavory nature that such a state would take – devoid of any semblance of law and order and due process, tolerance of religious diversity, right of political dissidence, freedom of expression, or regard for the status of women. Others, like former Israeli government minister Natan Sharansky, have argued that Palestinian statehood should be conditioned on the emergence of Palestinian democratization.

Regrettably, despite factual accuracy and moral validity, objections of this ilk cannot serve as a binding political criterion for national independence.
Sohrab Ahmari: Anything for the Ayatollah
The full history of the Obama administration’s nuclear dealings with Iran has yet to be written, not least because many of the details remain shrouded in secrecy. The bits of the story that do seep out into the public sphere invariably reinforce a single theme: that of Barack Obama’s utter abjection and pusillanimity before Tehran, and his corresponding contempt for the American people and their elected representatives.

Wednesday’s bombshell Associated Press scoop detailing the Obama administration’s secret effort to help Tehran gain access to the American financial system was a case study. In the months after Iran and the great powers led by the U.S. agreed on the nuclear deal, the Obama Treasury Department issued a special license that would have permitted the Tehran regime to convert some $6 billion in assets held in Omani rials into U.S. dollars before eventually trading them for euros. That middle step—the conversion from Omani to American currency—would have violated sanctions that remained in place even after the nuclear accord.

That’s according to the AP’s Josh Lederman and Matthew Lee, citing a newly released report from the GOP-led Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. Lederman and Lee write: “The effort was unsuccessful because American banks—themselves afraid of running afoul of U.S. sanctions—declined to participate. The Obama administration approached two U.S. banks to facilitate the conversion . . . but both refused, citing the reputational risk of doing business with or for Iran.”

Put another way: The Obama administration pressed American banks to sidestep rules barring Iran from the U.S. financial system, and the only reason the transaction didn’t take place was because the banks had better legal and moral sense than the Obama Treasury.
America’s Cash-for-Genocide Program in Syria
Agents of Influence: Obama and his advisers, now seeking to shape his legacy, say they are proud they ditched the ‘Washington playbook’ and decided to stay out of the Sunni-Shia conflict in the Middle East. Only they didn’t. They intervened on behalf of Iran.

Like the president he served, Ben Rhodes wanted to stop Bashar al-Assad from gassing little children. But it was complicated.

In an excerpt from his new book, The World As It Is, published in The Atlantic, Barack Obama’s former deputy national security adviser explains the decision-making that led Obama to choose against bombing Assad targets in late summer 2013. Among other issues, writes Rhodes, the White House didn’t know if it could trust the assessment coming from the American intelligence community claiming that Assad had used chemical weapons against his own people. U.S. spies got Iraq wrong. Obama was elected because he got Iraq right.

With that in mind, Obama told Rhodes that “it is too easy for a president to go to war.” Also, the White House could find no legal basis to strike Syria. The Europeans backed off at the last minute, and Senate Republicans like Marco Rubio, who talked a tough game, refused to vote for the authorization of military force.

Endowed with a tragic sense of life, Obama knew that in the end there was little he or anyone could do to stop the slaughter in Syria. As Rhodes writes: “I was also wrestling with my own creeping suspicion that Obama was right in his reluctance to intervene militarily in Syria. Maybe we couldn’t do much to direct events inside the Middle East; maybe U.S. military intervention in Syria would only make things worse.”

Obama himself has said that his decision not to bomb Assad was the moment that he broke with what he derisively called the “Washington playbook.”

Sunday, November 08, 2020

  • Sunday, November 08, 2020
  • Elder of Ziyon


One of the amazing things about Donald Trump's tumultuous administration was that he essentially redefined what it means for a president to be pro-Israel.

From around 1973  until 2008, there was large agreement as to what pro-Israel meant. It meant supporting Israel's existence, it meant providing Israel with weapons and allowing it to keep a qualitative military edge over its Arab enemies. It meant speaking at AIPAC. But that was about it.

Obama started to redefine what "pro-Israel" means by embracing the liberal J-Street definition, one that practically no Israelis would agree with. He tried to claim that trying to bully Israel into giving up strategic lands is "pro-Israel." A Palestinian state is "pro-Israel." 

Trump moved things way in the other direction. He had no problem with a two-state solution - as long as Israel agrees to the terms. He finally moved the embassy to Jerusalem. He recognized the Golan Heights as part of Israel, which as far as I know wasn't even an Israeli request. He made some noises about the settlements but his peace plan would allow Israel to keep virtually all of them. 

So what will happen now under a Biden administration?

Biden is not Obama. He is more an old-school pro-Israel Democrat. But things have changed.

Almost certainly all of the momentum towards Israeli normalization with other Arab countries - Oman, Morocco, and especially Saudi Arabia - will stop. Perhaps it has already stopped. Relationships between Israel and those other countries will continue to improve beneath the radar but those countries will not risk public recognition. 

The good news is that he says he will not move the embassy back to Tel Aviv. But he will probably re-open a Palestinian consulate in east Jerusalem and also re-open the PLO mission in Washington. He will probably resume USAID money to the Palestinians and he will probably resume aid to UNRWA.

In those cases, the devil is in the details. How much oversight will that money have?  

Biden says he will "push" the PA to end "pay for slay." What that means is unclear, especially since the PA isn't the one who pays the terrorists now, but its parent PLO. 

Settlements will once again be considered "incompatible with international law."

The biggest and most problematic move would be the resumption of the Iran deal. Giving Iran a lifeline will give Iran the flexibility to give Hezbollah and other groups more money, not to mention oxygen for its ballistic missile development program which was not covered by the JCPOA. He says that he will try to extend the "sunset clause" of Iran being able to resume nuclear activities, but as we saw with Obama, the zeal to cut a deal can allow a poor deal to be cut. And would he stand up to European allies who want the deal resumes in order to trade with Iran? 

There is no doubt that the Biden administration will not push the IHRA working definition of antisemitism the way that the Trump administration has, even if he personally believes that some anti-Zionism is antisemitism. I am not sure that Joe Biden would cancel Trump's executive order on combatting anti-semitism but I can see him quietly instructing the Justice Department not to enforce the parts that refer to the IHRA working definition. 

I also expect that Biden would replace Elan Carr as the State Department Special Envoy for Monitoring and Combating anti-Semitism. Carr has been pushing the IHRA working definition hard, and there would be too much opposition to that from other Democrats.

There are a lot of articles about how pro-Israel Biden and Harris are. By a Democratic yardstick, this is probably true. However, both of them seem to they really, really dislike Benjamin Netanyahu. The lack of a warm relationship with Israel's leader is always a red flag, and it indicates that their pro-Israel positions are not going to be as warm as Biden's stories about Golda Meir try to indicate. 

A lot depends on who Biden would choose for Secretary of State. Front runners Chris Coons and Chris Murphy are similar in their pro-Israel voting records, although both opposed moving the US embassy to Jerusalem and supported the JCPOA. Murphy has aligned himself with the more Leftist Democrats recently. Susan Rice may be more problematic and most likely to revert back to Obama's positions. Another front runner, Tony Blinken, follows Biden's line on Israel but claims that he recommended the US veto UNSC 2334 that the lame duck Obama administration allowed to pass. 





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, June 06, 2018

From Ian:

PA warned Paris that Gaza border clashes financed by Iran — report
The Palestinian Authority informed the French government last month that Iran was financing and encouraging the weeks of violent protests along the Gaza border, Channel 10 reported Tuesday.

“Iran is fully financing and pushing the Hamas demonstrations,” Salman al-Harfi, the Palestinian ambassador to France, reportedly told a government official. “The PA has no choice but to support the demonstrations because so may of the participants are demonstrating against the economic situation.”

While the Ramallah-based PA does not support the Hamas-led protests, the Palestinian ambassador said it “does condemn Israel’s response, because most of the protesters are non-violent.”

Last week Iran agreed in principle to renew its funding for the Hamas terror group, according to a report published in a London-based Arabic daily.

The move reportedly sparked anger in Iran, which is experiencing an economic crisis and in recent days Iranian protesters have been throwing away charity boxes for the Imam Khomeini Relief Foundation after a film showed it gave millions of dollars to Palestinians rather than direct the money to needy Iranians.

Poverty Isn’t What Causes Gaza’s Endemic Violence. It’s the Other Way Around
No cliché has dominated the discourse on the Gaza situation more than the perception of Palestinian violence as a corollary of the Strip’s dire economic condition. No sooner had Hamas and Israel been locked in yet another armed confrontation over the past weeks than the media, foreign policy experts, and politicians throughout the world urged the immediate rehabilitation of Gaza as panacea to its endemic propensity for violence. Even senior members of the Israel Defense Forces opined that a “nonmilitary process” of humanitarian aid could produce a major change in the Gaza situation.

While there is no denying the argument’s widespread appeal, there is also no way around the fact that it is not only completely unfounded but the inverse of the truth. For it is not Gaza’s economic malaise that has precipitated Palestinian violence; rather, it is the endemic violence that has caused the Strip’s humanitarian crisis.

For one thing, countless nations and groups in today’s world endure far harsher socioeconomic or political conditions than the Palestinians, yet none has embraced violence and terrorism against their neighbors with such alacrity and on such a massive scale.

For another thing, there is no causal relationship between economic hardship and mass violence. On the contrary: in the modern world it is not the poor and oppressed who have carried out the worst acts of terrorism and violence, but rather the militant vanguards from among the better educated and more moneyed circles of society – be they homegrown terrorist groups in the West or their Middle Eastern counterparts.

Yasser Arafat, for instance, was an engineer, and his fellow arch terrorist George Habash – the pioneer of aircraft hijacking – a physician. Hassan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, was a schoolteacher, while his successor, Sayyid Qutb, whose zealous brand of Islam fired generations of terrorists, including the group behind the assassination of Egyptian president Anwar Sadat, was a literary critic and essayist. The 9/11 terrorists and certainly their multimillionaire paymaster, Osama bin Laden, as well as the terrorists who massacred their British compatriots in July 2005 and those slaughtering their coreligionists in Algeria and Iraq, were not impoverished peasants or workers driven by hopelessness and desperation but educated fanatics motivated by hatred and extreme religious and political ideals.

Thursday, January 09, 2020

From Ian:

Noah Rothman: Has Iran Blinked?
On Tuesday night, that response came in the form of a barrage of ballistic and cruise missiles launched from Iran at U.S. targets inside Iraq. But the volley produced no casualties—a conspicuous outcome given Iran’s capabilities. Their targets did not include some of the positions where the U.S. forces were concentrated in the largest numbers and excluded some likelier targets closer to the Iranian border. In the wake of the strike, Iranian foreign minister Javad Zarif talked about Iran’s retaliatory response in the past tense, telegraphing a desire to deescalate. Donald Trump’s refusal to respond to the Iranian volley indicates that Washington got the message.

It would be premature to suggest that the crisis is over, but it is possible that a worst-case scenario has been averted. For American policymakers, the most pressing threat posed by Iran is its capacity to execute deniable attacks against soft targets and civilians in theaters far removed from the Middle East. That threat will persist, but the prospect of direct and conventional conflict between the United States and Iran has dissipated for now. If Iran returns to a strategy of unconventional and asymmetric attacks against the U.S. and its allies, it would be a reversion to the status quo ante that has prevailed for the better part of the last 40 years. That’s hardly ideal, but it would represent a dramatic retreat from Iran’s strategy of taking direct (or implausibly deniable) action against U.S. and allied assets, personnel, and interests.

On Wednesday, commentators and media figures praised Iran’s restraint and suggested Tehran had provided the president with a way to deescalate the conflict if he so chose, but this is a myopic and unfair assessment of how the Trump White House managed this crisis. This administration didn’t accidentally stumble its way into a textbook strategy for defusing a cascading spiral of violence against a revisionist adversary. It’s too soon to say if Iran is once again deterred, but there is reason to be cautiously optimistic. If there is any credit to be doled out at this early stage, it’s the Trump administration, not the Mullahs, who deserve it.
Ben Shapiro: Trump’s Iran Policy Isn’t the Problem. Barack Obama’s Was.
This is a deliberate misreading of history designed to absolve the Obama administration of its Iran policy debacle. The administration pursued a policy of strengthening Iran economically — and did so while openly acknowledging that Iran would use that newly gained economic strength to pursue terrorism and ballistic missile testing. In speaking of the sanctions relief given to Iran, then-Secretary of State John Kerry explained in January 2016, “I think that some of it will end up in the hands of the IRGC or other entities, some of which are labeled terrorists.”

That’s precisely what happened. In March 2016, then-U.S. Central Command nominee Army Gen. Joseph Votel said that Iran had become “more aggressive” since the advent of the nuclear deal. Indeed, Iran has built up Hezbollah in Lebanon, propped up Bashar Assad in Syria, increased its presence in Iraq and bolstered its war in Yemen. In the past few months, Iran and its proxies have attacked shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, Saudi oil facilities, an American drone and an American embassy, among other targets. All of this occurred while the Trump administration did little or nothing in response.

Then Trump ordered the killing of Soleimani. Suddenly, we have been informed by dishonest Democrats and their media allies, Iran has gone rogue.

Nonsense. Iran has been rogue for decades. The Iran deal was simply an attempt to whistle past the graveyard with the terror regime — to pay it off long enough so that President Barack Obama could declare the problem handled. This was, after all, the Obama strategy in Crimea and Syria: Declare a red line; run away from it; pretend that pusillanimous inaction is bravery and deterrence provocation.

Trump thought differently. Now Iran has come face to face with the prospect that actions have consequences — and those consequences don’t involve pallets of cash being shipped over to fund terror organizations that span the globe.
Ben Shapiro: Iran Loses Its Showdown With Trump
At this point, it behooves the administration to allow Iran to save face. No Americans were killed; the base was not American. What’s more, the Iranians will seek the last word in this latest exchange — which means that unless the United States is truly willing to go to war, we ought to let the Iranians save face with this tepid response.

The truth is that Iran came off poorly in this exchange. That’s not just because a ballistic missile attack that fails to damage American assets looks pitiful. It’s because Iran just undercut its entire case in Iraq. In the aftermath of Soleimani’s killing, the left-wing press, Democrats, and isolationist right in the United States were blaming Trump for escalating the Iranian situation; that take will not hold water after this latest response.

Meanwhile, Shiites in the Iraqi parliament were militating in favor of pushing America out of Iraq, suggesting that Trump had participated in aggression in Iraq by killing an Iranian terrorist there — but now Iran is responsible for firing on Iraqis in Iraq directly. Iran has also put itself in position for further diplomatic isolation from its erstwhile friends in Europe, who were already moving earlier today toward re-establishing sanctions thanks to Iran’s statements about restarting its nuclear program.

None of this is likely to raise sympathy for Iran at a time when they were attempting to shift blame for the current confrontation onto Trump. No matter how unpopular Trump is on the world stage, he isn’t bombing Iraqi soldiers or threatening military action against Western allies.

Iran did what it had to do to demonstrate that it wasn’t going to let Soleimani’s death pass without response. But Iran has demonstrated that at the center of its foreign policy lies the same rot at which the Obama administration winked and nodded — and that they were perfectly happy to fire ballistic missiles, perhaps paid for with Obama-era cash and allowed by the Iran nuclear deal, at Iraqis and Americans.
White House: Iran's Campaign of Terror Will No Longer Be Tolerated
President Trump said Wednesday: "No Americans were harmed in last night's attack by the Iranian regime. We suffered no casualties, all of our soldiers are safe, and only minimal damage was sustained at our military bases....Iran appears to be standing down, which is a good thing for all parties concerned....No American or Iraqi lives were lost because of the precautions taken, the dispersal of forces, and an early warning system that worked very well."

"For far too long...nations have tolerated Iran's destructive and destabilizing behavior in the Middle East and beyond. Those days are over. Iran has been the leading sponsor of terrorism, and their pursuit of nuclear weapons threatens the civilized world. We will never let that happen."

"The civilized world must send a clear and unified message to the Iranian regime: Your campaign of terror, murder, mayhem will not be tolerated any longer."

Thursday, September 03, 2020

From Ian:

BESA: The Israel-UAE Agreement’s Greatest Achievement: Little Arab Protest
To the surprise of Iranian and Palestinian leaders, the Arab public did not protest the Israel-UAE peace agreement—but they continue to protest Iranian meddling in Iraqi and Lebanese affairs. The lack of protest against the Israel-UAE breakthrough is a sign of political maturity as Arab and Muslim populations clamor for reform at home rather than destructive ideological visions.

Lively analysis has taken place over the possible ramifications of the Israel-UAE peace agreement. Some have rightly noted that while this is the third peace treaty Israel has signed with an Arab state, it is the first to contain the promise of a warm peace. This is in sharp contrast to Israel’s relations with prior accord partners Egypt and Jordan, which are limited to very narrow personal, diplomatic, and security relations. With Egypt, the peace treaty has rarely reached even that threshold.

Hosni Mubarak, throughout his 30 years of ruling Egypt, never made an official visit to Israel, which is less than an hour’s flight away. Nor has King Abdullah of Jordan. In over a decade of rule, Abdullah has abstained from visiting Israel despite meeting several times with PA head Mahmoud Abbas in nearby Ramallah.

Israel has been at peace with Egypt for nearly a half a century, but not one Egyptian soccer team has ever played against an Israeli team either in Israel or anywhere else. Not one delegation from an Egyptian university has ever visited an Israeli counterpart, let alone engaged in a joint program. Not one Egyptian cultural ensemble or group has ever visited Israel. On the rare occasions when individual Egyptian artists have come to Israel, they did so primarily to appear before Israel’s Arab citizens. For that gesture they were met with opprobrium and threats. Such was the power of the Arab world’s boycott against “normalization.”
Dore Gold interviewed by Jenni Frazer: Israeli and Arab Interests "Have Begun to Coalesce"
In 2015, Dr. Dore Gold, a former director-general of Israel's Foreign Ministry, opened a small Israeli economic office in the UAE and is better placed than most to judge the pace of Israel's outreach to the Arab world. He told the Jewish Chronicle this week that other Arab countries are quietly falling into line behind the UAE, driven not only by fear of Iran, but also by concern at the machinations of Turkey, where President Erdogan is trying to revive the status of the Ottoman Empire.

As far back as 1996, when he first came into government as foreign policy adviser to Prime Minister Netanyahu, "I visited a number of countries, including Qatar and Oman," Gold said. He also went to Paris that year for a meeting with a senior Saudi diplomat.

When he served as Israel's ambassador to the UN between 1997 and 1999, "there was an African country with a Muslim majority, whose ambassador was head of the committee for the inalienable rights of the Palestinians." After a fire-and-brimstone speech to the General Assembly, "he came up to me and asked, 'Dore, maybe you could take me for lunch at one of your kosher restaurants?'" Today, Israel and the country have full diplomatic relations.

"The point here is that countries are driven by a keen understanding of their interests. If their interests lead them to closer ties with Israel, they will pursue them. First perhaps in a hidden way, but later in an overt way....Our vital interests and those of the Arab world have begun to really coalesce. And that makes great opportunity for dramatic breakthroughs. I am optimistic with respect to what can be done."
Col. Richard Kemp: A Great Step Forward for World Peace - and Who Seems Determined to Ignore It
Some months ago, in talks with leaders in Saudi Arabia as part of a delegation from former Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Friends of Israel Initiative, together with their Executive Director and former Spanish National Security Adviser Rafael Bardaji, I heard first-hand how open the Saudis were to the prospect of embracing Israel in the future.

Of far greater significance, however, is the looming threat to the region from Iran and, to a lesser extent, Turkey. Most Arab countries see common interests with Israel in the face of the mullahs in Tehran with their imperial aggression in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and beyond, coupled with insatiable nuclear ambition.

Notwithstanding the economic, technological and security imperatives that lie behind the evolving Middle East relationships, great credit must go to the men behind the Abraham Accord.... Mohammed bin Zayed... [and] Benjamin Netanyahu... know only too well that such actions carry with them serious risks to themselves personally and to their nations.

Friday, November 13, 2020

From Ian:

Caroline Glick: The approaching storm in US-Israel relations
Resolution 2234 was geared towards setting up Israeli leaders and civilians to be prosecuted as war criminals in the International Criminal Court by claiming baselessly that Israeli communities in unified Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria are illegal. In the words of the resolution, those communities and neighborhoods, which are home to more than 700,000 Israelis have "no legal validity," and "constitute a flagrant violation under international law."

President Trump's recognition of Israel's sovereignty over Jerusalem and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's determination last November that Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria are not illegal were of a piece with the Trump administration's attempt to nullify Resolution 2234, at least from a domestic US perspective. A Biden administration will ignore the Pompeo Doctrine and the State Department's legal opinion substantiating his position just as Obama ignored Trump's repeated statements of opposition to 2234 in the weeks before its passage.

Driving home their plan to pick up where Obama left off, Biden, Harris, and their advisers have all said they will reinstate the Obama administration's demand that Israel bars Israeli Jews from asserting their property rights to build homes and communities in Judea and Samaria.

As for Jerusalem, while Biden has said that he will not close the US Embassy in Jerusalem and reinstate the embassy in Tel Aviv, he has pledged to reopen the US consulate in Jerusalem to serve Palestinians. Until Trump recognized that Jerusalem as Israel's capital, the US Consulate in Jerusalem operated independently of the embassy. The US consul in Jerusalem was not accredited by the Israeli president because the US refused to acknowledge that Jerusalem is located inside Israel.

Although Biden congratulated Israel, the UAE, and Bahrain on signing the Abraham Accords – which Sudan has since joined as well – his advisers have spoken of them derisively. This week, Tommy Vietor, who served as National Security Council spokesman under Obama, spoke derisively of the normalization deals, which just weeks after the accords were signed have already blossomed into a deep and enthusiastic partnership and alliance encompassing private citizens and government ministries in all participating countries.

Vietor said they were not peace deals but a mere vehicle for the UAE to acquire F-35s. Vietor then alleged that the UAE wants to use the deals to help Saudi Arabia win its war against the Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen.

Biden, Harris, and their advisers have pledged to end US support for Saudi Arabia in the war and to reassess the US-Saudi alliance.

If implemented, these policies will not end the Saudi war against the Houthis. They will end the US-Saudi alliance. For the Saudis, the war against the Houthis is not a war of choice, it is an existential struggle. The Houthis are an Iranian proxy regime. Their control over the strait of Bab el-Mandeb threatens all maritime oil shipments from the Red Sea. Houthi missile strikes already temporarily disabled Saudi Arabia's main oil terminal and have hit Saudi cities. If the US ends its alliance, the Saudis will continue their war and replace their alliance with the US with an alliance with China.
Caroline Glick: The 2020 Election Has Been Terrible for the Jews
No matter who ultimately wins the presidential election, the Jews in America are the big losers. As Professor Ruth Wisse of Harvard has long explained, Jews are the bellwether for the health of democracies. Hatred of Jews rises in societies whose democratic institutions and values are in crisis. Jew-hatred is generally low in healthy, working democracies.

If we learned nothing else from the election campaign and its aftermath, we learned American democracy is in crisis.

The media is the first force responsible for this crisis. For the past four years, all major U.S. television networks and national newspapers have dedicated themselves not to reporting news, but to defining the boundaries of acceptable public discourse. Big Tech firms—Facebook, Google and Twitter, in particular, having amassed powers the KGB could only have dreamed of—serve as the enforcers of those boundaries.

The goal of all media corporations has been the same: to overturn the results of the 2016 election. To advance this goal, the media have demonized President Donald Trump and his supporters for four straight years. The shared conviction has been that by subjecting the public to continuous indoctrination to hate Trump and his supporters, Trump would disappear from the White House, whether through a prolonged special counsel probe, impeachment or defeat at the polls.

Nearly all the stories about Trump and his supporters have been negative for the past four years. Consequently, while most Americans never heard that Trump conceived and implemented an entirely new foreign policy doctrine that has met more success than any adopted since the end of the Cold War, all Americans know that the media expect them to believe Trump is a racist. They know that the media expect right-thinking Americans to hate Trump and his supporters, and admire his opponents, from Nancy Pelosi to Black Lives Matter (BLM).
David Singer: Trump-Netanyahu Mapping Committee needs to deliver the map
Trump still has until 20 January 2021 left in his present term to try and bring his Plan to fruition.

Trump – unlike Clinton, Bush and Obama - has been unable to get the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) to negotiate with Israel on his Plan.

However Trump can still materially advance his Plan by: - releasing the Mapping Committee’s map showing the areas of Judea and Samaria where Israeli sovereignty can be applied now - procuring consent to that map by Egypt, Jordan, United Arab Emirates, Bahrein and Sudan who have all normalized their relationships with Israel - getting other Arab states to normalize their relationships with Israel and agree to the Mapping Committee’s proposals - attempting to get the PLO to negotiate with Israel and - giving Israel the green light to apply sovereignty when it considers appropriate

Trump begun his presidency by visiting Saudi Arabia and pledging to bring peace to the Middle East.

During his Presidency - Trump took significant steps to recognise Israel’s claim to Judea and Samaria by determining that: - Israeli settlements located there were not inconsistent with international law - the US would not distinguish between Israel and Judea and Samaria in its future dealings with Israel

Early release of the Mapping Committee’s map will ensure Trump’s momentum for peace continues full speed ahead until at least 20 January 2021 - and beyond if re-elected for a second term.

Monday, November 23, 2020

From Ian:

Netanyahu meets Saudi crown prince MBS, Pompeo in Saudi Arabia
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Mossad chief Yossi Cohen met with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in Neom, Saudi Arabia on Sunday, Israeli sources confirmed.

Netanyahu used a private plane belonging to businessman Udi Angel, which he has used for past diplomatic trips. The plane left Israel at 5 p.m. on Sunday and returned after midnight. The Israeli and Saudi sides discussed Iran and normalization, The Wall Street Journal reported, citing a Saudi source.

Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan denied the meeting took place on Twitter, saying only Saudi and American officials were present.

Yet Education Minister Yoav Gallant confirmed the meeting, calling it an “amazing achievement” and “a matter of great importance” in an interview with Army Radio.

The trip was kept tightly under wraps as it was planned for over a month, with Netanyahu not informing Defense Minister Benny Gantz or Foreign Minister Gabi Ashkenazi before it took place.
Pompeo made history
Instead, Pompeo's visit and his statements were correctives to these errors of judgment in reporting and commentary. Facts still matter. Pompeo's visit reminds the International community of a truth that every Israeli government since 1967 have attempted to convey to the world, unsuccessfully: Psagot and Petach Tikvah share the same legitimacy. The secretary's visit marks the first time that a United States administration has formally recognized the equality of Jewish sovereignty.

This US recognition of collective Jewish human rights parallels the principle of secure Jewish collective life that every Israeli government has recognized since the Jewish people's reestablishment of sovereignty in 1948. The International community had formally recognized those same rights to Jewish Sovereignty in 1920 at the international San Remo Conference. The principal powers of the League of Nations formalized San Remo's declarative recognition in 1922 of the Right of the Jewish People to "reconstitute their National Home In Palestine". The League of Nations further called for "close (Jewish) settlement" establishing and unanimously approving the Mandate for Palestine, that anchored the Jewish collective human right to collective freedom and sovereignty and ultimately led to Israel's Declaration of Independence and policy of every Israeli government Since 1967, sanctioning rights to Jewish community building on both sides of the 1949 armistice lines on state land.

The United States' top diplomat apparently did his legal and diplomatic homework. Apparently, he and his advisers studied the abovementioned international legal documents. His visit to Israel's Psagot winery and his accompany condemnations of BDS and anti-Semitic product labeling, reminiscent of the World War II-era, break the "glass ceiling" regarding formal US recognition of Israel's legal rights to sovereignty. US and Israel's alignment on Israel's rights to sovereignty safeguards the most fundamental Jewish collective human right today. Unfortunately, the cynical discrediting of Secretary Pompeo's alignment with the policy of all Israeli governments since 1967 reflects the lack of understanding of its critics rather than the well-reasoned positions of the current US State Department.
MEMRI: Saudi Journalist In Message To Iran Following Normalization Agreements With Israel: Iran, Not Israel, Is The Enemy Of The Arabs, Destabilizes The Region
In a September 23, 2020 column titled "Message to Iran, in Light of the Peace with Israel," Saudi journalist 'Abdallah Zayed reacted to Iran's harsh attack on the normalization agreements between the UAE, Bahrain and Israel. [1] Iran, he wrote, is forgetting that it is the one whose bullying and terrorist behavior is destabilizing the region and who has become the enemy of the Arabs. He added that Iran spouts slogans of liberating Jerusalem, but in practice it does nothing to realize that goal and, moreover, continues to occupy many Arab countries while pursuing the goal of renewing its lost Persian empire.


The following are translated excerpts from his article:[2] "The wailing, weeping, pain and sorrow of the of the government officials of Iran and its proxies have been steadily growing since the UAE and Bahrain signed a peace agreement with Israel. The spokesman of Iran's foreign ministry keeps repeating terms like 'Arab nobility' and 'Islamic values,' while the Iranian government keeps forgetting its [own] actions in the region and [the fact that it has] crossed many red lines, which have turned it into a blatant enemy [of the Arabs].

"The Iranians are forgetting that it is they who are in a state of hostility and actual war with the countries of the region. Who is occupying the [UAE's] Persian Gulf islands?[3] Who tried to precipitate a coup in Bahrain? Who conspired against Kuwait by employing terror cells? Who are the ones firing their missiles into Saudi Arabia? Who are the ones who sent their mercenaries to [fight in] Syria? Who founded the militias in Iraq? Who founded a terrorist party in Lebanon [i.e., Hizbullah]? Who is cultivating the [Houthi] mercenaries in Yemen to stage a coup against the legitimate government? The truth is that the one who did all this is not Israel but Iran.

"No Israeli official has ever declared [with pride] that his country is occupying five Arab capitals.[4] Although Iran brandishes the slogan of resistance, although it has [a military force] called 'Qods [i.e., Jerusalem] Force'… and although it claims that its goal is to liberate Al-Aqsa, we have never seen the top Iranian officers [firing] a single bullet in retaliation for Israel's bombing of their bases in Syria. Israel sends planes and fires missiles, constantly bombs the [Iranians'] bases in different areas, yet Iran does not respond. When Russia intervened and ordered the Iranians to move their bases hundreds of kilometers away from the Israeli border, Iran did so, [despite] the intense humiliation.

"Doesn’t Iran claim that it now has a foothold in northern Israel, thanks to Hizbullah, which controls Lebanon, and also thanks to its presence in Syria?! Yet it hasn't liberated Al-Aqsa and Jerusalem, as it constantly calls [to do].

"The clear equation and the obvious [conclusion] is that Iran's real goal is to take over the Arab world and reestablish the obsolete Persian Empire in it. Simply put, that is the reason for the Iranian actions we are seeing on the ground. Is it Israel that is present [in Yemen], on Saudi Arabia's southern border? What does [Iran] want with Yemen? Is it Israel who is present north of Saudi Arabia, in Iraq? What does [Iran] want with Iraq? Is it Israel who is present east of Saudi Arabia, [in Bahrain]? What does [Iran] want with Bahrain?

Tuesday, September 10, 2019

From Ian:

Netanyahu vows to annex all settlements, starting in Jordan Valley
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced on Tuesday that if he is re-elected, he will express Israeli sovereignty over all the Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria, starting with the Jordan Valley.

Netanyahu said the steps would be taken in coordination with the administration of US President Donald Trump. He revealed that Trump intends to announce his Middle East peace plan the day after the September 17 election.

“This is an historic opportunity that we may not have again,” Netanyahu said in his statement that he delivered at Ramat Gan’s Kfar Hamaccabiah Hotel.

Pointing to a map of the Jordan Valley, he said Israel could carry out the plan without annexing a single Palestinian and while ensuring that Palestinians maintain complete freedom of movement.

He warned that if he did not win the election, Blue and White leaders Benny Gantz and Yair Lapid would not take such steps and would not be able to handle the Trump administration’s plan.

But both Gantz and Lapid have said in the past that they envision keeping the Jordan Valley forever.

PMW: Stop the Lethal Fatah – Facebook Terror Promotion Partnership
Fatah, like all terror promoting organizations, needs a platform to turn its unknown terrorists into heroes and role models to emulate. Fatah has chosen Facebook as its prime tool, and through its Facebook page instantaneously promotes terror to its 224,000 Facebook followers.

PMW again demands that Facebook immediately close down Fatah’s official page before more innocent lives are lost to murderers who are inspired and drawn to terror by Fatah’s Facebook page.

In January 2019, Palestinian Media Watch sent a copy to Facebook officials of our comprehensive report on Fatah’s Facebook page documenting Fatah’s use of its official Facebook page to promote terror and glorify terrorists throughout 2018. PMW director Itamar Marcus spoke with the Director of Facebook’s Global Counterterrorism Policy Team, Brian Fishman, and described how Fatah’s use of Facebook for its terror promotion was both life threatening and in violation of Facebook's Community Standards.

Tragically, in spite of the clear documentation, Facebook has chosen to knowingly let Fatah continue.

Below is PMW's new report on Fatah’s use of Facebook from January to June 2019, which shows that Facebook still constitutes a central part of Fatah’s terror promotion mechanism. Facebook’s willingness to ignore all the evidence and keep the page open makes Facebook a willing and active partner in Fatah’s terror promotion. Whereas in 2018 Facebook was an unwitting accomplice in Fatah's terror promotion, in 2109, Facebook is a partner by choice.


Tuesday, October 29, 2019

From Ian:

J Street, blank checks and putting the "squeeze" on Israel
“Our aid is not intended to be a blank check,” J Street president Jeremy Ben-Ami, stated on October 27, at the organization's annual conference.

This type of so-called "conditioning," "linking," and/or "squeezing" of Israel over US aid and support has an unfortunately long history in Washington and it is time for it to stop, once and for all. It's unseemly and the US - Israel relationship loses its value for both nations every single time this road is gone down.

Ben-Ami's proposed tactics seem very close to those actually employed by Henry Kissinger in the 1970s. Kissinger is due to speak at an upcoming Jewish conference in New York, and it’s worth considering the real cost of this type of rhetoric and strategy.

Distinguished Israeli diplomat Yehuda Avner (1928-2015) saw this close up in his role as a speechwriter, secretary, or adviser to five different Israeli prime ministers, from both sides of Israel's political spectrum—Golda Meir, Levi Eshkol, Yitzhak Rabin, Menachem Begin, and Shimon Peres. He also served as Israel’s ambassador to both Britain and Australia, as well as in other senior diplomatic positions.

In his widely-acclaimed book, The Prime Ministers, Avner shared numerous remarkable anecdotes—including some troubling episodes involving Secretary of State Kissinger during both the 1973 Yom Kippur War and the 1974-1975 shuttle diplomacy between Egypt and Israel.

Avner bluntly refers to American officials—meaning Kissinger—who “tied” Golda’s hands on the eve of the Yom Kippur War, telling her “in no uncertain terms not to fire the first shot,” and even “warned” her “against full-scale mobilization” of Israel’s reserve forces. Over 2600 Israeli soldiers died as a result.

Kissinger did not want Israel to win a decisive victory because he thought that would make it hard to wring concessions out of the Israelis after the war.

Apologist for Terror: Hamas Suicide Bombings Were ‘Unwise Strategy’
It’s widely accepted that Israeli society has drifted to the political right since the breakdown of the Oslo process. Palestinian terrorism played a significant role in destroying faith in the peace process and the political left, and enabled the more risk-averse and security-minded Benjamin Netanyahu to become the dominant political figure of the age.

Outrageously however, for Angela Godfrey-Goldstein, an Israeli “peace activist” writing in The Independent, it’s not Palestinians who are responsible for terrorism but Israelis:

Although easier to paint “the other” as the guilty party, it’s more painfully honest, especially for promoting healing of that trauma, to acknowledge at least partial Israeli responsibility for those suicide bombings.

Yes, you read that correctly – Israel is partially responsible for the indiscriminate murder of hundreds of its own people in Palestinian suicide bombings.

This, Godfrey-Goldstein attributes to an environment of right-wing incitement, the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin by Yigal Amir, the election of Benjamin Netanyahu and the appalling massacre of Palestinians at Hebron’s Cave of the Machpela by Baruch Goldstein in February 1994.

In Godfrey-Goldstein’s alternative reality, the absence of peace is not due to Palestinian violence but primarily the figures of Yigal Amir, Baruch Goldstein and Benjamin Netanyahu.

While it is legitimate to argue the impact these people and their actions have had on the peace process, treating Palestinians as incapable of taking responsibility for their own actions and blaming Israeli victims for terrorism is not.
Tyranny’s Mouthpiece
On September 8, 2019, Syria’s state news agency published an article about the beginning of the Third International Trade Union Forum in Damascus, which hosted “dozens of intellectuals, journalists, (and) political and social activists from Arab and foreign countries.” Among the attendees were the American journalists Max Blumenthal and Rania Khalek.

If you want to know why Blumenthal and Khalek were welcome at an event organized “under the auspices of Bashar al-Assad”—aside from the fact that they’re frequent contributors to the Russian propaganda outlets Sputnik and Russia Today—the rest of the article should give you an idea. It condemns the “aggressive terrorist war” launched against Syria, along with the “economic war that constitutes terror in and of itself” (a reference to U.S. sanctions). It calls for a media campaign to galvanize world public opinion in support of the Syrian government and “reveal the truth about the U.S. policy of besieging independent and free countries.” It points out that the “real goal of the war on Syria is to stop it from being a force that opposes U.S. and Israeli plots in the region.” And it emphasizes the importance of “exposing the practices of international imperialism.”

In other words, Syrian government propaganda is almost perfectly aligned with the arguments Blumenthal and Khalek have been making for years. Like the Syrian Ministry of Information, they present the Assad regime as an embattled and encircled victim of a jihadist-led coup backed by the United States and other Western powers.

For example, Blumenthal constantly emphasizes the atrocities of jihadist groups like Jaish al-Islam and al-Nusra because they give him moral and political cover for defending Assad, who has committed atrocities on a far greater scale. When he posted a picture of himself in a “neighborhood east of Damascus occupied by the Saudi-backed Jaish al-Islam until early last year,” he didn’t bother mentioning the fact that he was also surrounded by notorious government interrogation sites that are part of what Human Rights Watch describes as the regime’s “torture archipelago.” Nor did he mention that he was just down the road from the sites of the Ghouta chemical attacks in August 2013, which HRW reports “killed hundreds of civilians, including large numbers of children” and which can “almost certainly” be blamed on government forces.


Monday, August 19, 2019

From Ian:

Dr. Mordechai Kedar: Israel is the sole sovereign of the Temple Mount
If I were Israel's ambassador to Jordan, and I were called in for a dressing down over Israel's actions on the Temple Mount and over Israelis ascending the site to mourn the destruction of the First and Second temples on the annual Jewish fasting day of Tisha B'Av, I would remind the official doing the dressing down that we Jews worshipped the one God at the temple that was located at the site over 3,000 years ago. Islam is only 1,409 years old.

I would remind the official that in classical Arabic, Jerusalem is referred to as Bayt al-Maqdis, meaning "temple," and that this is further proof of the falsehood that prevails today among the people of the region, according to which a temple never existed on the site.

I would present to Amman's envoy official Jordanian maps drawn prior to 1967, which have the words Mount Moriah written on the site of the Temple Mount, to its southeast the words Solomon's Stables, its south, the Valley of Josaphat, to the east of the mount, the Tomb of Zechariah and the Tomb of Absalom are listed, and to its west, Mount Zion. I would show the official these maps, and then I would note the following Arabic proverb: "A liar needs a good memory."

I would remind the official that while his country's 1994 peace agreement with Israel afforded the Hashemite Kingdom special status on the Temple Mount, Amman was not made sovereign of the site, because the sole sovereign of the site is Israel.
Jpost Editorial: No need for UNRWA
UNRWA – which employs more than 30,000 workers – has no motivation to end the “refugee crisis.” And since UNRWA’s mandate to resettle the Palestinian refugees was rescinded in 1965 without a serious reform, the numbers will keep on growing, to be used as a political tool against Israel.

The PA has reason to be concerned about UNRWA’s future, but it plays a double game, and it is time it is called out. On the one hand, the PA claims to represent the State of Palestine (which has observer-state status in the UN. and is recognized by more than 135 UN members), yet on the other hand it protests that the Palestinians continue to be refugees.

Alongside the status of perpetual refugeehood, UNRWA also perpetuates a culture of entitlement. Instead of fostering self-sufficiency, it is undermining the Palestinians it professes to care for. And that is without relating to the hate-filled nature of the education being received by Palestinian children, which deprives both the Palestinians and Israelis of hope for peace in the future.

UNRWA needs to be drastically reformed, with the aim of later closing it down and moving responsibility for the relatively small number of genuine refugees to the auspices of the UN’s High Commissioner for Refugees. The Palestinians themselves would be the first to benefit from UNRWA being revamped. UNRWA has done nothing to build a sustainable, peaceful Palestinian state. On the contrary. The report containing allegations of serious flaws could be the wake-up call the UN needs to reexamine UNRWA’s status. It’s time for the absurdity to end.

In Argentina, France, and Elsewhere in Europe, Attacks on Jews Are Judged by a Separate Yardstick
Indeed, a good two years before the Rue des Rosiers attack, following another terrorist outrage against a Jewish institution in Paris, Raymond Barre, then prime minister, acknowledged this reality. On October 3, 1980, a powerful bomb exploded near the entrance of the Reform synagogue on the Rue Copernic, wounding nearly 50 people and killing four: specifically, three Frenchmen and a young woman who turned out to be an Israeli tourist.

Interviewed on French television after the attack, which was blamed on far-right extremists but was more probably the work of Palestinians, Barre committed what those of a more generous disposition might describe as an unfortunate slip of the tongue. “This odious bombing,” he said, “was aimed at striking Jews who were going to the synagogue, and it hit innocent French people who were crossing the Rue Copernic.”

However distasteful, Barre’s remark was inadvertently enlightening. When Jews are in the crosshairs, an act of terrorism that might otherwise generate appalled outrage and swift police work could be rationalized if not excused. Some such thinking has left an indelible mark on governmental, judicial, and law-enforcement responses to anti-Semitic terror both in France and elsewhere in Europe. If it can be boiled down to a single principle, it is this: when it comes to the victims of Islamist-inspired terrorism, Diaspora Jews are innocent, but not as innocent as others.

Today, as then, terrorists can (and do) make the same calculation. Over the last decade in France, eight Jews have been killed by Islamist terrorists, three of them small children gunned down at a Jewish school in Toulouse in 2012. This has occurred amidst an atmosphere of rising anti-Semitism in the country and, with it, a broader tolerance of extreme violence directed at Jews.

Of course, terrorists have struck at many more general targets in France during the same time period, but these are seen by politicians and the media unambiguously as attacks on France itself, and not “merely” as attacks on Jews who happen to be living in France. This practical distinction between Jew and non-Jew, which has licensed bloodshed in the past, will no doubt do so again.

Tuesday, January 07, 2020

From Ian:

The Death of Qassem Suleimani Is a Strategic Victory for the U.S.
Last week, an American drone strike killed Qassem Suleimani, who for over two decades led Iran’s Quds Force—which of late has been fighting wars in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen—and managed a network of proxy militias and terrorist groups throughout the Middle East. Among Suleimani’s accomplishments are the transformation of Hizballah into a military powerhouse and the creation of guerrilla forces that have killed hundreds of Americans in Iraq, and many more Iraqis. President Trump had until now refrained from responding militarily to the Quds Force’s multiple attacks on American allies and even military hardware throughout the region since he came to office. But the killing of a U.S. contractor changed the equation.

Joining a number of other Israeli experts in commenting on the significance of Suleimani’s death, Hillel Frisch explains why it is more than a merely tactical success:

Suleimani’s death is a major blow to Iran. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s designation of Esmail Ghaani, Suleimani’s second-in-command, as his successor as head of the Quds Force is an indicator of the magnitude of that blow. Ghaani is in his sixties (as was Suleimani)—not the ideal age to take over a major undercover organization with tentacles throughout much of the Middle East and beyond.

Over twenty years ago . . . a younger, more vibrant Islamic revolutionary leadership chose then-forty-year-old Suleimani over his superiors to head the elite [Quds Force]. Khamenei is older now, and less willing to take the risk of choosing a daring young commander, but that is not the only reason why he did not do so.

Even if the ayatollah were inclined to select a younger replacement, the targeting of Soleimani prevents him from making such a choice. The killing proves beyond doubt that the Iranian security system is riddled with informants. . . . The killing of Soleimani was, [moreover, a meaningful] show of American force because he was touted by Iran as invincible.

Soleimani, the Blob, and the Echo Chamber
At one level the complaints are inescapably partisan; Democrats complaining about the Trump Administration is the first and only law of American politics today. Parallel complaints regarding process, wisdom, and ultimately fitness for office were leveled at Obama by Republicans and will be again, but they hardly reached the current level of antipathy directed at Trump. The questions then become not simply whether Trump's policy decision was correct, but whether critics adopting such tones of ill-disguised hatred are themselves to be trusted.

But the responses to Soleimani have additional relevance not simply because of their partisanship and self-referential elevation of expertise, which illustrate if nothing else the processes of elite groupthink. They anticipate a possible future, namely the way Democratic presidential candidates uniformly disapproved of killing Soleimani.

Current frontrunner and former Obama Vice President Joe Biden likened the act to throwing "a stick of dynamite into a tinderbox." Elizabeth Warren acknowledged "Soleimani was a murderer, responsible for the deaths of thousands, including hundreds of Americans. But this reckless move escalates the situation with Iran and increases the likelihood of more deaths and new Middle East conflict." Finally, Bernie Sanderswarned "Trump's dangerous escalation brings us closer to another disastrous war in the Middle East that could cost countless lives and trillions more dollars."

The parallels between the blob/echo chamber and the Democratic candidates illustrate their interlocking nature; Obama veterans would return under Biden or Warren, while Sanders likely bring in ideologue outsiders, such as his foreign policy advisor, progressive blogger Matt Duss. But they also illustrate common intellectual foundations, the elevation of process and celebration of expertise, the search for predictability and corresponding avoidance of disruption. Readiness to be gamed by canny adversaries is thus built in.

The candidates' responses are thus a foreshadowing of a future Democratic administration. Like most members of the blob and the echo chamber, the candidates have already stated they would recommit to the JCPOA nuclear deal (which of course may not longer be possible). But they would likely return to the Obama policy of indulging Iran's 'legitimate regional aspirations,' 'security concerns,' and Islamic government, even as they offer tepid criticism, as means of restructuring American relations away from Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Still, every new administration has to deal with reality bequeathed by its predecessors. The killing of Soleimani may, or may not, upend the chessboard of Iranian imperial expansion, much less unleash World War III. As the new reality unfolds, the question remains whether experts on all sides of the equation are willing to rethink their premises and contend with the world as it is now. First indications are not promising.
Alan M. Dershowitz (WSJ Google Link): Easy Call: The Strike on Soleimani Was Lawful
There can be no serious debate about the president's constitutional authority to order a single attack on an enemy combatant who has killed and is planning to kill American citizens. Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama issued such orders.

The targeting of Soleimani was more justified, as a matter of law, than the targeting of Osama bin Laden in 2011. The killing of Soleimani was in large part an act of prevention, whereas the killing of bin Laden was primarily an act of retaliation.

The killing of Soleimani was also entirely legal under international law. The Quds Force commander was a combatant in uniform who was actively engaged in continuing military and terrorist activities against Americans. The rocket that killed him and a handful of others was carefully calibrated to minimize collateral damage, and the resulting death toll was proportionate to the deaths it may have prevented.
Shmuley Boteach: Killing Soleimani was a moral response
Like Hitler, Soleimani had a knack for survival. He was reported killed in 2006, 2012 and 2015 – only to show up, time after time, alive and well with a sinister grin. Would yet another practitioner of genocide be allowed to live, into the second decade of the second millennium?

He would, but only for a mere few days. His being considered the second-most powerful man in Iran wouldn’t stop Trump from imposing the most basic law of human justice – that there’s a death sentence for those who engage in genocide.

IN KILLING Soleimani, Trump has finally managed to do what no American president has managed to do before: put Iran on notice that it’s not primarily ordinary Iranians who will suffer for the crimes of their leaders, but, rather, the leaders themselves would pay the ultimate price.

The corrupt Iranian mullahs who slaughter their own people, steal their wealth, and bring terrorism and mayhem to the world are now on notice that they are squarely in American sites for justice.

In his lifetime, Soleimani sought to prove that evil and brutality will ultimately triumph over goodness and mercy. With Soleimani’s death, Trump has proven that those tactics are no match for God’s cosmic force of justice.

Martin Luther King, the greatest American of the 20th century, put it best: “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.

Friday, September 18, 2020

From Ian:

Matthew Continetti: How Trump Changed the World
By establishing inescapable facts on the ground over the ceaseless objections of critics, President Trump overrides the often meaningless verbiage that constitutes international diplomacy and ends up changing the very terms of the foreign policy conversation. Nowhere has this dynamic been clearer than in U.S. relations with China.

Beginning with his surprise call to Taiwanese president Tsai Ing-wen in December 2016 and continuing through his resumption of U.S. Navy freedom of navigation operations in the South China Sea the following year, his tariffs on Chinese goods in 2018, his and his administration's rhetorical barrage against China beginning in earnest in 2019, and culminating in his multiple actions against China this year, from limiting travel to canceling visas to forcing the sale of TikTok to tightening the vise on Huawei to selling an additional $7 billion in arms to Taiwan, Trump has reoriented America's approach to the People's Republic. No longer is China encouraged to be a "responsible stakeholder." It is recognized as a great-power competitor.

Resistance to this proper understanding of China's position in the international system remains strong. But it is unquestionably the case that both Republicans and Democrats are starting to see China more as a threat than a partner. And it is Donald Trump who is behind this clarification of vision. (Xi Jinping and the pandemic helped too.) Whatever a President Biden might do about China—and he seems far more interested in repairing our alliances in "Old Europe" than in tackling this paramount challenge of the 21st century—he would operate within the constraints Trump established and on the intellectual terrain Trump landscaped.

There is no greater measure of presidential significance than a chief executive's ability to transform not just his own but also the opposing party. When it comes to the Middle East and China, the Democrats are closer to Donald Trump today than they were at the outset of his term. That they find themselves in accordance with someone whom they despise is evidence of Trump's ability to realign politics at home and abroad. This is no small feat.

Some might say it's worthy of a prize.




Melanie Phillips: The fundamental fracture Abraham Accords may begin to heal
Of course, with conflict as long and intractable as the Arab war against Israel, cautious skepticism over any apparent breakthrough is only prudent. And the strategic necessity of this Arab-Israel alliance against Iran is obvious.

But it was the immensely touching visual images that told a deeper story. A photograph was posted on Twitter showing Jared Kushner, the president's senior adviser, handing a Torah scroll to King Hamad bin Isa bin Salman al-Khalifa of Bahrain to be used in a synagogue in the kingdom. Both men were looking reverentially at the scroll.

Scarcely less moving was the poignant image of the line of white-robed Emiratis all waving to the El Al jet departing with the Israeli and American delegation on the first direct return passenger flight between Tel Aviv and Abu Dhabi.

This is now a chance for the Arab and Muslim world to start showing the West that it can live alongside and with respect for other peoples. It's a chance for it to fundamentally recalibrate its dire association with violence and death. And it's also an opportunity for the Jewish people to reach out to the Muslim world and show that what it welcomes is a bond far greater than economic ties or strategic defense.

It's the bond of family.

Nor does the potential for good stop at Israel. Hatred of the Jews lies at the very core of the Islamist war against the West. Islamist ideologues have argued for almost a century that modernity threatens Islam and the Jews are behind modernity.

If the moderate Arab world now finally understands that Israel is not its enemy but its ally, this could begin to undermine the foundations of irrational and self-defeating hatred that has fueled the Islamist war against the West.

While intractable Islamic fanaticism will not just disappear, the Abraham Accords might give Arab and Muslim reformers wind in their sails to bring their culture into an accommodation with the rest of the world.

And Britain, Western Europe and the American left will be the last people on earth to realize this.
Biden Is No Friend of Israel; He’s an Adversary
Biden pledges to re-enter the Iran deal. Iran’s goal of annihilating the United States and Israel doesn’t seem to bother Biden.

How precious that Biden is offended about foreign election interference when it was Obama-Biden that meddled in Israel’s election, funneling U.S.-taxpayer dollars to organizations trying to defeat PM Netanyahu and then misleading Congress about it.

It was Obama-Biden that refused to oppose the anti-Semitic Boycott, Divestment and Sanction (BDS) movement, whose goal BDS co-founder admitted is to eliminate “any Zionist state like the one we speak about [in present-day Israel].” Even WaPo’s Jennifer Rubin (not exactly a friend of Republicans) succinctly titled her piece, “Obama Winks at BDS” and stated it well: “That the administration would in any way encourage BDS practitioners or suggest that some forms of BDS might not be so objectionable is as unprecedented as it is unsurprising. It is increasingly difficult for fair-minded people to deny the president’s [Obama] anti-Israel animus.” The same goes for Biden.

And, on its way out of the door, it was the Obama-Biden administration that betrayed Israel again in December 2016 by orchestrating the U.N. Resolution 2334 vote, falsely claiming the Old City of Jerusalem was “illegal” and “Occupied Palestinian territory.” And if that wasn’t bad enough, Obama-Biden actually instigated the humiliation of Israel’s U.N. Ambassador Danon by having every other ambassador at the Security Council table stand and applaud the Resolution’s passage as Danon sat there. As Ambassador Haley said with respect to the U.N.’s bias against Israel, “what really broke my heart … was how much the Obama administration contributed to it.”

Biden’s abysmal Israel track record speaks for itself. The United States simply cannot relive this nightmare and neither can Israel.

Monday, July 13, 2020

From Ian:

Amb. Alan Baker: Sovereignty in the West Bank Areas of Judea and Samaria: Historical and Legal Milestones that Make the Case
The subject of the rights of the Jewish People and the State of Israel under international law, in the West Bank areas of Judea and Samaria, involves a complex and extensive web of historical, legal, military, and political issues.
The Jewish People Have Historical Claims in Judea and Samaria

Israel’s claims to sovereignty regarding the West Bank areas of Judea and Samaria did not originate with Israel’s attaining control of the area following the 1967 Six-Day War.

Israel’s rights are based on the indigenous and historical claims of the Jewish people in the area as a whole, virtually from time immemorial.

Israel’s international legal rights were acknowledged in 1917 by the Balfour Declaration’s promise to the Jews to reestablish their historical national home in Palestine. These rights are based on clear historical, archeological, and Biblical evidence.

The Balfour Declaration was subsequently recognized internationally and encapsulated into international law through a series of international instruments commencing with the 1920 San Remo Declaration by the Supreme Council of the Principal Allied Powers, followed by the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine.

The continued validity of these foundational legal rights was also assured under Article 80 of the United Nations Charter.

Persistent Palestinian Refusal to Negotiate Leaves Israel No Option but to Act Unilaterally to Protect Its Rights
While Israel’s prior, well-established, and documented international, legal, political, and indigenous rights to sovereignty over the areas are clear, Israel nevertheless acknowledged in the Oslo Accords Palestinian rights in the areas, and agreed to negotiate with them the permanent status of the areas.

Persistent Palestinian refusal to return to negotiations and their rejection of peace plans to settle the dispute, cannot and should not serve to veto a settlement of the dispute.

Such ongoing refusal and rejection undermines the peace process, invalidates the Oslo Accords, and leaves Israel no option but to act unilaterally in order to protect its vital security and other interests and historical rights.
David Singer: Britain Shamefully Betrays the Jewish People Again
Britain – the architectof the San Remo Resolution and Treaty of Sevres in 1920 that led to the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine in 1922 – has yet again shamefully betrayed the Jewish People by warning Israel not to extend its sovereignty into Judea and Samaria.

Britain’s Prime Minister Boris Johnson has told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that any such action would be in violation of international law – which Netanyahu disputes – despite the Mandate vesting in the Jewish People the right to “close settlement” in Judea and Samaria for the purposes of reconstituting the biblical Jewish National Home in what had been the heartland of the Jewish People 3000 years ago.

Britain had betrayed the Jewish People in 1950 after all the Jews living in Judea and Samaria had been ethnically cleansed by the invading Arab army of Transjordan in 1948. Britain – supported only by Pakistan and Iraq – recognised Transjordan’s illegal annexation of Judea and Samaria, the renaming of the newly merged entityas “Jordan”whilst “Judea and Samaria”was renamed“West Bank”.

Johnson told Netanyahu:
"I am immensely proud of the UK’s contribution to the birth of Israel with the 1917 Balfour Declaration. But it will remain unfinished business until there is a solution which provides justice and lasting peace for both Israelis and Palestinians.
The only way it can be achieved is for both sides to return to the negotiating table. That must be our goal. Annexation would only take us further away from it."


Peace for both “Israelis” and “Palestinians”?

Neither existed until 1948 and 1964.

There were only “Arabs” and “Jews” in 1917. The Arab residents of Palestine then comprised part of “the existing non-Jewish communities”.

Johnson seems apparently unaware that the “Palestinians”:
• were defined for the first time in recorded history by article 6 of the 1964 PLO Charter
• did not claim “regional sovereignty in the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan”or“on the Gaza Strip” under article 24
• were Jordanian citizens between 1954 and1988.

Biden’s Foreign Policy Team Looks to Repeat a Legacy of Failure
It was under Obama’s watch that Bashar Assad burnt Syria to the ground and Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine and annexed Crimea. The Obama administration’s policies in Syria and Ukraine were a disaster that handed victory after victory to Putin, none more so than the total abdication of responsibility following the crossing of Obama’s own chemical-weapons “red line.”

Even the much-vaunted Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), Obama’s defining foreign policy legacy, while seeking to use diplomacy to prevent a future war with Iran over its imagined potential ability to build a nuclear weapon, was signed by largely ignoring its very real ability to cause untold human suffering through conventional slaughter, further fueling the fires burning in Syria and Iraq.

Speaking last week on whether Biden’s team had learned anything from the Iran deal and its impact on the region, former U.S. special envoy to Syria, Ambassador Frederic Hof said, “the Obama administration and in particular with the president, there was faith in the proposition that by signing the nuclear agreement, Iran would begin to modify its other regional policies. Many of us believed from the beginning that this was false, that it was not going to happen. And I think it’s a lesson learned.”

One of the principal architects of the Iran deal, Colin Kahl, has taken on the Iran file for Biden’s foreign policy team. Kahl’s appointment likely signals a reversal of Trump’s maximum pressure policy and, at least in policy terms, an attempt to return to the JCPOA, but is there any real evidence that lessons have been learned? While it’s important not to read too much into social media reactions, Kahl’s smug social media post following the assassination of Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani, stating, “In death, Soleimani accomplished one of his ultimate objectives: getting the US kicked out of Iraq,” displays a worrying naivete, not just of internal Iraqi politics, but also of his own brief. Just what did he think his own administration’s policy was towards Iraq?

A thread posted by Kahl in January laid bare the moral bankruptcy of the previous administration’s failed Middle Eastern pivot, as Kahl concedes “there is no question that Iran’s military spending went up by a few billion after the JCPOA,” before concluding that the best strategy should be “playing the long game to counter their influence in places like Iraq and Lebanon through engagement and institution building.”

Wednesday, July 01, 2020


Is it antisemitic to like a post of a Louis Farrakhan video that has nothing to do with Jews? Or is liking such a post just plain ignorance of the fact that Farrakhan is an ugly antisemite? A sign of cluelessness?

Is it antisemitic to criticize Israel and its duly elected leadership? Or could it be an honest opinion or about not knowing any better: not realizing you’ve been fed a load of propagandist hogwash? 

By letting lesser antisemites earn the label, do we dilute the significance of our cause? 

These are questions at the heart of the hot debate generated by last week’s column, an attempt at building a comprehensive list of antisemitic celebrities, a work in progress.

The article in question begins with the statement that building such a list is probably impossible. First, there’s the question of whom to include. Some wanted me to include, for instance, Barack Obama, who took pains to hurt Israel whenever possible. Obama is no longer a politician, and since he is famous, he certainly qualifies as a celebrity. Keeping things simple, however, meant sticking to a narrow definition of the celebrity as entertainer: singers, actors, and the like.

Speaking of Obama, some said that if we’re going to include actors for liking Handler’s Farrakhan post, we should include all the actors who supported Obama.

Others said we should include all the entertainers who supported the Iran deal, which surely poses an existential threat to the Jewish State.

Satisfying IHRA

Some commentators, notably CAMERA UK’s Adam Levick, felt that some of the celebrities listed had clearly crossed the line, while others hadn’t, and that the inclusion of the latter diluted the significance of the word antisemitism, by conflating the former with the latter. Levick referenced the IHRA working definition of antisemitism, stating that this should be the only accepted criteria for such a list. While I respect and appreciate Levick’s thoughtful disagreement, I find that interpreting a celebrity’s behavior according to the IHRA definition is somewhat subjective.

In fact I had referenced the IHRA definition in building my list, in particular noting the examples listed below the definition for illustration purposes, including the following:

“Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”

Mental Boxes

Keeping the above in mind, prior to including a name on the list, I asked several questions, ticking off mental boxes:

Had the celebrity leveled similar accusations against other countries? Or are the accusations made only against Israel?

Is the celebrity voicing benign tourist-type complaints about the weather or the food in Israel? Or is the celebrity with the public platform singling out Israel for criticism by insulting Israel’s leadership and/or accusing Israel of malfeasance in relation to its Arab population and its legal maritime blockade of Gaza?

If the latter, it seems to me such criticism of Israel is dissimilar to criticism of other countries, and directly targets the Jewish State based on anti-Israel propaganda, alone. But should we blame celebrities for believing what they read in the media? For not taking the time to read more varied reports from which a truer, more positive picture of Israel might emerge? 

Yes. Because in antisemitism, as in life, ignorance is always a choice. Especially when it comes to singling out the Jewish State from one’s very public platform.

Liking A Public Figure

The same is true of liking a post of Farrakhan speaking out against racism—a post having nothing to do with this public figure’s very vocal and infamous expressions of antisemitism. If you’re going to put yourself out there and like a Farrakhan post, you better know what you’re liking. And by now, who doesn’t know who Farrakhan is, and what he represents? And if you don’t, why don’t you? You’re an adult. You are putting yourself out there in the public eye on a variety of causes, using your celebrity to stump for presidential candidates and to advocate for change.

The use of a public platform is a responsibility, and like all responsibilities, requires a familiarity with current events and a thorough study of the subject in question. If you like a Farrakhan video, you better know all about the man. That, in essence, is your job as a celebrity voicing support for a movement or a cause.

When Israel is singled out for criticism—or when a celebrity favors a post highlighting the views of a notorious antisemite—I believe the IHRA working definition of antisemitism has been satisfied.

Natalie Portman's Calculated Insult 

Take Natalie Portman. The Jewish actress, who was born in Israel (hence an Israeli citizen), received the coveted Israeli Genesis Prize but refused to attend the awards ceremony because she “did not want to appear as endorsing Benjamin Netanyahu, who was to be giving a speech at the ceremony.” But Portman announced her decision not to attend six months after she had confirmed her attendance to the Genesis Prize Foundation, and a full nine months after the award was announced. From the Genesis Prize website:

“This announcement was made almost six months after Ms. Portman confirmed her attendance at the Genesis Prize ceremony. Prior to accepting the Genesis Prize, Ms. Portman was made aware that the Genesis Prize is a partnership between our foundation, the Office of the Prime Minister of Israel, and The Jewish Agency for Israel. Moreover, we informed Ms. Portman that the Prime Minister of Israel presents the Genesis Prize and also delivers a keynote address at the award ceremony.”

So Portman accepted the award knowing that Netanyahu partners with the foundation, presents the prize, and delivers the keynote address at the award ceremony. But she let everyone think she was coming to Israel to accept the prize, then used her public platform, at the last minute, to insult the elected leader of Israel and to bash Israel’s policies on Gaza. In fact, Portman kept changing her mind: was she not coming to the awards ceremony to insult Bibi or to make a point about Israel’s policies in Gaza? Whatever the reason, it was a concerted attack on Israel: an insult, planned and calculated to embarrass Israel—to make Israel look bad.

Dave Lange (Aussie Dave) of Israellycool feels that Portman is within her rights to criticize Israel and Netanyahu, in part because she is an Israeli citizen. I disagree. Portman doesn’t live in Israel, doesn’t vote in Israeli elections and uses her celebrity to accuse Israel and Israel’s duly elected leadership of malfeasance. Her last-minute announcement regarding the Genesis Prize was planned, timed, and calculated to demonize Israel and its democratically elected leadership. Portman’s dissent with Israel’s prime minister and the policies of the Israeli government are based on a narrow, unflattering view of the Jewish State, an obvious byproduct of anti-Israel propaganda/biased media reports.

Comparing Israel to the Nazis

Portman’s statement (quoted in the above-linked Israellycool piece) regarding her decision to skip the awards ceremony further fulfills the IHRA working definition of antisemitism by accusing Israel of “atrocities” and appearing to compare Israeli actions in Gaza with Nazi activity during the Holocaust:

“Israel was created exactly 70 years ago as a haven for refugees from the Holocaust. But the mistreatment of those suffering from today’s atrocities is simply not in line with my Jewish values. Because I care about Israel, I must stand up against violence, corruption, inequality, and abuse of power.”

IHRA examples of antisemitism include: "Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis."

Portman seems to own her Israeli citizenship when she can use it to hurt Israel. But when she stumps for Obama in Ohio, she’s suddenly “Very Ohio,” though Obama’s intention to fund the mullahs’ nuclear program, with its expressed intention of obliterating the Jewish State, was well known.

Will the real Natalie Portman please stand up? Actually, I believe she has. Which is why she stays on the list. Of course, part of the problem of creating the list was how to document antisemitism while keeping things simple.

Portman Email Chain Scandal

Each celebrity’s name was linked to a single news item. In Portman’s case, I could have listed many more such items. There was, for example, that public temper tantrum about having her email address outed on an email chain about Gaza. Was Portman only upset about having her address exposed, or was she upset at being included in an effort supportive of the Jewish State of Israel? From Gawker:

“A few weeks before sending the email, Kavanaugh, an outspoken supporter of Israel, had become the first major studio head to denounce a letter, signed by actors Javier Bardem and Penelope Cruz, that condemned the Israeli bombing of the Gaza Strip. He later wrote an editorial for The Hollywood Reporter calling for the film industry to stand with Israel against Palestine.

“Kavanaugh and Rotholz's forwarding habits were irritating enough to Portman that she'd previously asked Kavanaugh to remove her from the list: ‘you should not be copying me publicly so that 20 people i don't know have my personal info,’ she admonished the producer. ‘i will have to change my email address now.’

"’Sorry,’ he replied. ‘You are right jews being slaughtered for their beliefs and cannes members calling for the boycott of anything Israel or Jewish is much much less important then your email address being shared with 20 of our peers who are trying to make a difference. my deepest apologies.’ (Grimace emoji.)”

Antisemitic Or Just Clueless?

Moving along, many voiced disgruntlement at Jennifer Aniston’s name being included on the comprehensive list of antisemitic celebrities. Her name is linked to a story about all the celebrities who liked Chelsea Handler’s Instagram post with Farrakhan’s video about racism. She liked a post?? Why does that earn her the sobriquet of antisemite?

Because ignorance is a choice: lather, rinse, repeat. Farrakhan is a notorious public figure who has said so many horrible things that simply appearing in a photo with him is enough to damage reputations. The Southern Poverty Law Center called his organization Nation of Islam, a "hate group" (and so apparently did Martin Luther King). 

If Aniston doesn’t know about Farrakhan, she should. She has a duty to know before approving any message issuing forth from his mouth. But just for the record, here are a few choice Farrakhan quotes (see HERE for more examples):

“Satanic Jews have infected the whole world with poison and deceit.”

“The Jews have control over those agencies of government.  When you want something in this world, the Jew holds the door.”

“Jews were responsible for all of this filth and degenerate behavior that Hollywood is putting out, turning men into women and women into men…. White folks are going down. And Satan is going down. And Farrakhan, by God’s grace, has pulled a cover off of that Satanic Jew, and I’m here to say your time is up, your world is through.  You good Jews better separate because the satanic ones will take you to hell with them because that’s where they are headed.”

What makes anyone think Aniston would be woke enough to know about Farrakhan? Aniston has, in the past, used her celebrity platform to take a stance on other political issues, which suggests she keeps up with current events. Aniston’s political activism goes back to at least 2003 and the Second Intifada, when she, along with ex-husband Brad Pitt, created their “One Voice” peace initiative.

Aniston: Describing A False Equivalence 

At a time when Israeli civilians, including children, were being blown to bits on buses by suicide bombers, I found it particularly insensitive when Aniston and Pitt, in their joint statement, drew a false equivalence between Arab and Israeli society, suggesting that Israeli children, like their Arab counterparts, were growing up learning to hate:

"The last few years of conflict mean that yet another generation of Israelis and Palestinians will grow up in hatred. We cannot allow that to happen."

A quick glance at the work of IMPACT-se, shows that the opposite is true. Arab school children are inculcated with hate by their teachers and their textbooks every day in their UNRWA classrooms. Israeli textbooks, on the other hand, contain no such incitement or racism. Because this is contrary to Jewish values and the values of the Jewish State. Which is why Arabs are found alongside Israelis in every Israeli sector and sphere, including in the Israeli parliament, where Arabs make up the third largest party in the Israeli Knesset. Which is why accusations of Israeli “Apartheid” are equally spurious. (Also: Israelis were not blowing up buses of Arab civilians in 2003 or at any other time.)

Aniston and Pitt, with their false assertion that another generation of Israeli children are growing up in hate, fulfill this IHRA example of antisemitism: "Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such . . . "

Some might suggest that Aniston is merely clueless for liking Handler’s Farrakhan post, or for suggesting a false equivalence between Israeli and Arab children. But actions have consequences and if you use your celebrity platform to prove you are woke, you better actually BE woke, by being conversant with current events and the varied perspectives on these issues. Is Farrakhan worthy of a like when he speaks out against racism? Is he an upright human being one should like or quote? Are Israelis actually growing up “in hatred” or is that something you say to make you feel better about Arab terror?

Silverman: Defending An Assailant Of IDF Soldiers

Sarah Silverman was another addition to my list to which some readers took exception. Silverman’s name was linked to her support for then 17-year-old Ahed Tamimi, who was arrested for physical and verbal abuse of IDF soldiers. Linking to an Amnesty International campaign for Tamimi’s release, Silverman tweeted, “Jews have to stand up EVEN when—ESPECIALLY when—the wrongdoing is BY Jews/the Israeli government."

The IHRA definition of antisemitism includes this example: "Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation."

Is it wrong to arrest a 17-year-old who assaults the military? Would it be wrong in America? Or is it only wrong when Israeli soldiers are on the receiving end of the assault?

This is “as a Jew” criticism of Israel at its worst. Tamimi has been assaulting Israeli soldiers for years. From the link I supplied with Silverman’s entry:

“Many Palestinians consider her a political icon as she has a history of confronting IDF soldiers. Ahed Tamimi had first came to public prominence when, aged 11, she appeared in another video threatening to punch a different soldier.”

Exploiting Fame

Dave Lange has been documenting Ahed Tamimi’s behavior at Israellycool for years, dubbing Tamimi “Shirley Temper” due to her youth, her big blond frizz, and her temper tantrums. The Tamimi family is notorious for using its children to attack the State of Israel. The whole family is involved in one way or another in this effort. Why not? This is, after all, the same clan that is responsible for masterminding the Sbarro Pizzeria Massacre. Which is why none other than Arnold Roth, responding to Silverman’s tweet, wrote:

“Entertainers exploiting their fame are often a poor choice for clarifying what’s moral or good. Sarah, did you stand up for our daughter Malki and the other 15 Jewish lives extinguished by Ahlam Tamimi, Ahed’s cousin and role-model-in-life? Do you stand with Ahed’s call to kill?”

If Silverman is going to stick her neck out and criticize Israel, she has an obligation to know all the facts, from every angle. A simple Google search would have led her to Lange’s comprehensive coverage of Tamimi’s antics. Is it fair for Silverman to single out the Jews and Israel for criticism in regard to Tamimi’s arrest? In my opinion, her tweet is antisemitism according to the IHRA definition. Because a girl of 17 with a long, documented record of assault, no matter in which country the assault occurs, and no matter the religion of the victims she assaults, should be held culpable.

When celebrities use their public platforms to demonize Israel on the basis of propaganda, that's antisemitism. If you're going to single out the Jewish State, you better be basing your assertions on fact, or we'll call you out on them. Otherwise, it's gratuitous hate.

Criticism Of Israel, Alone

Is Portman leveling accusations against the democratically elected leaders of other countries? Is she turning down awards from other countries based on what she thinks about their leaders? No. Her accusations extend to Israel, alone.

Is Aniston merely clueless? No. She is a person who follows current events enough to start a peace initiative on behalf of people who don’t live in her own country.

What about Silverman, who fights for the freedom of a girl who has been made into an anti-Israel propaganda tool by her family? Does Silverman have a right to criticize Jews and Israel for detaining this “girl” who is now on the cusp of adulthood? Context is everything.

Silverman used her celebrity to call for the release of a person with a long record of assaulting Israeli soldiers. That cannot be understood in a kind light. Silverman is singling out Israel. We don’t see her demanding the release of anyone else assaulting soldiers in any other country. No. She only holds the Jews, her own people, to account. Only the Jews are not allowed to pursue justice in response to physical assault, according to Silverman.

Shades Of Antisemitism

I do understand that there are levels and gradations of antisemitism. I understand those insisting on nuance and proof. Because there is a difference between making a political statement and outright Jew-hatred. There's a difference between Mel Gibson calling Jews "oven dodgers" and liking a tweet that has nothing to do with Jews.

The point of making a comprehensive list, however, is that it should be comprehensive. The idea of such a list is to let these people know we see them. We know what these celebrities are doing. And their behavior is unacceptable, no matter how rich, talented, and beautiful they are.

When celebrities use Israel to virtue signal, they turn Israel into a common icon for everyday condemnation and abuse, in which Israel becomes the pivot on which all attacks turn. Celebrities use Israel to get attention. Because when they demonize Israel, they know they will receive applause and approbation. And this is disgusting.

It's Not Torah M'Sinai

The “comprehensive list of antisemites” is not Torat Moshe M’Sinai. My suggestion is that you use it as a tool to take a stand and defend your values. One commenter suggested as much: “I think the list is fine even if—especially if—it's as blunt a tool as those used by the critics. Let them stand on their own values and defend them. We are in an either/or world now. Take a stand and live with it.”

My feeling is that the links on each name in the list tell us to be careful about these people at a minimum. We need to be careful about people who like a post featuring a notorious antisemite, even if that “like” was totally innocent and clueless. There are all kinds of (poor) excuses for bad behavior. But ignorance is no excuse at all. Just as we wouldn’t give the Nazis a pass because they had “no choice” or because they were swept away by Hitler’s charisma.

Some say that being cavalier in my determination of who is and isn’t an antisemite is not strategic. Guilty as charged. I am not a strategist. I believe in speaking out against even a hint of antisemitism. You don’t have to be a Mel Gibson to make it onto my list. At the same time, there has to be something to look at. One friend wanted me to include John Travolta because of an old (dismissed) lawsuit in which the complainant alleged Travolta said Hollywood was run by old Jewish homosexuals "who expect favors in return for sexual activity." 

The case was dismissed. It’s hearsay. I have no reason to believe this report and neither do you. It’s a rumor, it’s only slander: an anecdote. So Travolta stays off the list. Unless you have something real to show me.

Ignorance Is A Choice

Clueless about the antisemitism of Farrakhan? Ignorance is a choice. So is speaking out against what you don't know about. Of the famous four sons of the Passover Seder, the last is an ignoramus. The famous commentator Rashi calls him “evil.” Because . . . wait for it . . .  ignorance is a choice.

Which is why some of those who made it onto my list are, according to one commentator, “just ignoramuses and dolts, not antisemites. Useful idiots. But, still, stupidity is not an excuse when the issues are not trivial. They are taking a position, and should be called on it.”

I concur. Antisemitism is an important topic and we should be able to discuss it with due frankness. We need to be aware of our enemies, their supporters, and their enablers. Sometimes the three are indistinguishable.

If we lived in a kinder, softer world, we could ignore the threat and be fine. But considering the times, we need to take note. And when push comes to shove, it doesn’t much matter if a celebrity is motivated by ignorance or hatred. Liking a post about Farrakhan is as bad as admiring Hitler’s paintings. It’s fruit of the poisonous tree.

You may disagree with this or that entry on the comprehensive list of antisemitic celebrities. But the IHRA working definition of antisemitism tells us that when you slander Jews, it's wrong. The IHRA working definition of antisemitism tells us that when you take a position against Israel, singling Israel out for criticism, it’s wrong. It stands as a basic denial of the right of the Jewish people to be a people, it's a denial of the right of the Jewish people to self-determination and self-defense. It’s siding with the enemy narrative. As such, there is no practical difference between anti-Zionists and antisemites.

Speech Has Consequences

One commenter wrote that in Judaism, we have a commandment to guard one’s tongue. “Because there is [the] realization that [the] consequences of one’s speech can be far-reaching and extremely damaging to others.”

We need to let people know that when they like a post focused on a notorious antisemite it makes us nervous. We need to let them know that when they single out Israel or the Jews for criticism, it’s wrong. Jews are made of DNA like every other people and we have a right to be treated as normal people. Our country has a right to be treated as any other normal country.

In this light, creating a comprehensive list of antisemitic celebrities serves as an attempt to dissociate ourselves from those who, with their unthinking actions and words, put the Jewish people in greater danger. Perhaps their deeds are unwitting. All the same, they aid our mortal enemies. We cannot afford to stick our heads in the sand, and ignore the things they do, clueless or not.

I will end this by saying thank you to all who helped to form the debate. I think the discussion helped to refine my own views. Thank you for letting me learn from you. I am sure you can see yourselves in this piece.

And to the world at large, know this: when you like a video of an antisemite or speak out against Israel and only Israel, or without fully knowing the facts, it makes you a willful ignoramus. Which makes you an antisemite. Because ignorance is always a choice.

No matter how famous you are.



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.


Printfriendly

EoZTV Podcast

Podcast URL

Subscribe in podnovaSubscribe with FeedlyAdd to netvibes
addtomyyahoo4Subscribe with SubToMe

search eoz

comments

Speaking

Follow by Email

translate

E-Book

For $18 donation








Sample Text

EoZ's Most Popular Posts in recent years

Hasbys!

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!

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 Sovereignty 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