Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Wednesday, June 20, 2018

Arabs come up with a new Khazar theory

At Elaph, a major pan-Arab news site, Mustafa El Sarraf writes a new bizarre variant on the discredited Khazar theory of the origins of most Jews.

According to El Saffar, most Jews who were in Persia under Cyrus the Great didn't emigrate back to Israel, but to the Balkans. The few who did go to Israel ended up converting to Christianity.

The Balkan Jews stayed there where they then convinced the Khazar king to convert the kingdom to Judaism. (Yes, the legend was over a thousand years later, but that's a distraction from the story El Saffar wants to tell.)

The article goes on to say that 92% of all Jews are Ashkenaz and therefore Khazars. Apparently the real Jews in the Balkans disappeared while the newly minted Jews took over. (This statistic would be a surprise to the roughly half of Israeli Jews who come from Arab lands.)

The writer is especially upset at anyone who says that Jews and Arabs are cousins. No, he says, Jews are "a bunch of criminals were and are still behind the ignition of wars to this day and who have has cursed God."

With all the NGOs around the Arab world, one would think that perhaps one or two would consider teaching basic journalism and fact checking instead of having major news sources allowing blatant lies and propaganda to brainwash readers.

Oh, sorry - when Jews are the victims of the propaganda, then anything goes.

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.

Neturei Karta nutcase claims Jews are safer in Syria, Yemen than in Israel (video)

Here's a cute interview from the Al Quds Day rally in London on June 10, where the obligatory crazy anti-Zionist Neturei Karta member hilariously claims that Jews in Israel are less safe than those in Muslim countries like Yemen and Syria.

More fun from that rally, where speakers claimed that Jews put typhus in the water and called for Israel to be wiped off the face of the planet (to applause.)

(h/t Ibn Boutros)

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.

On Sunday, Hamas issued a press release praising Human Rights Watch's latest report blaming Israel for responding to violent Gaza riots:

The Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) received great satisfaction and high appreciation of Human Rights Watch's report regarding the violations of the occupation against the residents of the Gaza Strip and the demand for the protection of the Palestinians, which revealed the facts that confirm the involvement of the Israeli occupation in what appeared to be war crimes against Palestinian demonstrators As well as the use by the occupation of policies, laws, arguments and pretexts to justify and cover their deliberate killing and harm to Palestinians by using live and lethal bullets.

The findings of the report reflect a part of the reality of the suffering and injustice inflicted on the Palestinians by the unjust siege imposed on Gaza and its inhabitants twelve years ago. The suffering continues and escalates. As a flagrant form of Israeli violence threatening Palestinian life and rights through a long series of killings, sniping, starvation and siege, which constitute a flagrant and serious violation of international law and international humanitarian law that amounts to war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Today, it issued another statement, supporting the barrage of rockets into Israel last night:

All praise for the valiant resistance that responded to the Israeli shelling of its positions in Gaza. This is a legitimate right. The message of shelling is to confirm that the resistance is the one who determines the rules of engagement in its own way and will not allow the enemy to unite our people or impose any new equations .

On the one hand, Hamas pretends to care about humanitarian issues and to be against violence that targets civilians. On the other, Hamas praises shooting rockets at civilians.

And there is no contradiction. Because Human Rights Watch, like Hamas, doesn't really care about human rights of Jews. Its report mentioned, but didn't comment on, the incendiary kites and balloons that have devastated Israeli forests and fields and threatened lives. HRW didn't even pretend to be even-handed by saying a negative word about Hamas or the rioters.

The Gaza riots are primarily a public relations war; their main purpose is to force Israel to shoot and kill people so Gazans can cry in front of Western cameras. If they would be peaceful demonstrations, Israel wouldn't shoot anyone, so the riots are calibrated to appear like they are simply protests and meanwhile Hamas sends people, sometimes children, to try to breach the Gaza fence as well as to send incendiary objects into Israel. Hamas uses the trappings of non-violence to cover violence, and western "human rights" organizations buy into it.

The rare times that HRW and Amnesty issue reports against Hamas, those reports are "balanced" and include as much blaming of Israel as of the terrorists. But their reports against Israel don't mention any responsibility by Hamas. That's why a terrorist organization is so effusive in praising a supposed human rights NGO.

HRW's report proved to Hamas that Israel's arguments about the purposes of the riots and its defensive measures are being ignored by the West. It proved to Hamas that the West completely buys the lies about peaceful protests and that Israel's response is cruel and wanton.

HRW proved to Hamas that it has little to lose by escalating things, because major western "human rights" organizations will support Arab violence against Jews but not Israelis defending themselves.

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.

Nikki Haley explains why the US is quitting the UNHRC (WSJ)

From the Wall Street Journal, by US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley:

------------------------
There is an international organization whose members include the repressive regimes of Cuba, Venezuela and China.

This organization recently added the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which is obstructing an investigation into the murder within its borders of two United Nations human-rights experts.

In the past decade, this organization has passed more resolutions to condemn Israel specifically than to condemn Syria, Iran and North Korea combined.

Most people would not imagine that such an organization would be dedicated to protecting human rights. Yet all of these details describe the misnamed U.N. Human Rights Council. In truth, the council provides cover for governments with awful human-rights records, and it refuses to eliminate its Agenda Item 7, which targets Israel unfairly by mandating that each session include a discussion of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

After more than a year of unsuccessful efforts to fix these fundamental defects, the U.S. delegation announced Tuesday our withdrawal from the council. Our country will no longer be party to this deeply flawed institution, which harms the cause of human rights more than it helps it.

There are two major reasons that so many countries have resisted U.S.-led reform efforts. The first is baked into the council’s composition. One look at this rogue’s gallery explains why the organization has such appalling disrespect for the rights Americans take for granted. A credible human-rights council would pose a threat to these countries, so they oppose the steps needed to create one. Instead they obstruct investigations and reports, while interfering with the council’s ability to name and shame the perpetrators of the world’s worst atrocities.

The second reason for resistance to reform is even more frustrating. Many countries agree with the U.S. about shunning human-rights violators and supporting Israel—but only behind closed doors. Despite numerous overtures, these countries were unwilling to join the U.S. in a public stand. Some even told us they were fine with the council’s flaws, as long as it let them address their pet issues. This is not a moral compromise we are willing to make. The U.K. has promised to oppose any resolution targeting Israel under Agenda Item 7, and we support that stance. We wish other countries would do the same.

In the end, our allies’ case for the U.S. to stay on the council was actually the most compelling argument to leave. They said American participation was the last shred of credibility left in the organization. But a stamp of legitimacy on the current Human Rights Council is precisely what the U.S. should not provide.

Our withdrawal from the council will not end America’s own steadfast commitment to human rights. The U.S. delegation remains proud of American leadership in drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. Our country has always championed freedom, individual dignity, human rights and the rule of law, and that will never change. The U.S. will continue to lead on human rights outside the council, even as we push for institutional reform with like-minded partners.

Last year when the U.S. presided over the U.N. Security Council, we initiated the first-ever Security Council session dedicated to the connection between human rights and peace and security. The same year, when the Venezuelan regime blocked a Human Rights Council discussion of the massive violations it had committed, the U.S. organized an event outside the council’s chambers with Venezuelan human-rights leaders. When several countries objected to holding a Security Council session on the Iranian people’s human-rights struggles, the U.S. succeeded in initiating one anyway.

I have traveled to U.N. camps for refugees and internally displaced persons in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Turkey and Jordan, and met with the victims of atrocities in those troubled regions.

America uses its voice and vote every day at the U.N. to defend human rights. We will continue to be a champion for the abused peoples of Burma, China, Russia, Syria, Iran, South Sudan, Cuba, Venezuela and countless other places. We will continue to push the Human Rights Council for reforms that would make it worthy of our involvement. Any country willing to work with us to reshape the council need only ask.

We believe in the sovereignty of all U.N. member states, but no country should use that sovereignty as a shield when it proliferates weapons of mass destruction, promotes terrorism or commits mass atrocities. The U.S. does not seek to impose its system on anyone else. But we do support the universal values of freedom and human rights. And we will speak out for those values at every opportunity.

That is why we are withdrawing from the U.N. Human Rights Council, an organization that is unworthy of its name. But even as we depart, our commitment to human rights will remain steady as ever, and our voice will only get louder.

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.

06/19 Links Pt2: How Campus Bullies Pulled Off the Anti-Israel BDS Movement; Sohrab Amari: The SPLC Has Its Nose Rubbed in the Dirt; Norwegian rapper curses Jews at concert celebrating diversity

From Ian:

How Campus Bullies Pulled Off the Anti-Israel BDS Movement

A recently published collection of essays, Anti-Zionism on Campus, examines the clout of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement at American institutions of higher learning, and its successful bullying of its opponents. Both of the volume’s editors, Doron Ben-Atar and Andrew Pessin, are professors whom BDS supporters tried to hound from their respective universities. In his review, Jonathan Marks writes:
Anti-Zionism on Campus consists of 32 essays, 25 by scholars and seven by students, which together make the case that those who speak up for Israel on campus, or merely deny that Zionism is racism, risk “verbal attack, social and professional ostracization,” and “setbacks to their careers.” As an undisguised Zionist [and college professor] who has so far avoided such consequences, I read Anti-Zionism on Campus as a skeptic. By the time I finished the book, I was convinced. . . .

At Northern Michigan State University, in 2011, Gabriel Noah Brahm complained of the lopsidedly anti-Israel character of a university-sponsored visit to Israel. He was soon “up on some kind of charges.” He was cleared, but the cloud that hung over him almost certainly contributed to his English Department colleagues’ hostility to his tenure bid. The resulting tenure denial was overturned by a unanimous vote, but Brahm had been put through the wringer. . . .

Faculty are not guiltless in these transactions. . . . When Shlomo Dubnov, a professor of music at the University of San Diego, opposed, in 2012, an anti-Israel divestment resolution, false and serious charges against him were retailed on the website of the San Diego Faculty Association with the active support of that body’s head. . . .

Sohrab Amari: The SPLC Has Its Nose Rubbed in the Dirt

The SPLC in 2016 included Nawaz, who has spent years peacefully combatting both Islamism and anti-Muslim bigotry in Britain, in its Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists, alongside a litany of genuine haters. As evidence, the SPLC cited the fact that Mr. Nawaz had once tweeted a cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad “despite the fact that many Muslims see it as blasphemous.” Dissidents across the Muslim world and in too many Muslim communities in the West risk beatings, torture, and worse for daring to criticize their religion and its founder. The SPLC in effect lent its liberal, “civil-rights” imprimatur to their mistreatment at the hands of their coreligionists.

“Given our understanding of the views of Mr. Nawaz and Quilliam,” SPLC President Richard Cohen said in a statement, “it was our opinion at the time that the Field Guide was published that their inclusion was warranted. But after getting a deeper understanding of their views and after hearing from others for whom we have great respect, we realize that we were simply wrong to have included Mr. Nawaz and Quilliam in the Field Guide in the first place.”

Damn right. But Nawaz wasn’t the only victim of SPLC smears. Another was the Somali-born author and activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who has written for these pages. In the same Field Guide, the SPLC seemed to question Hirsi Ali’s personal story–she suffered genital mutilation in her native land–and accused her of bigotry for emphasizing the religious and ideological dimensions of Islamic terrorism. She, too, deserves a retraction and apology from the SPLC.

As for journalists who regularly rely on SPLC, the religious-liberty law firm Alliance Defending Freedom, another victim of the group’s smears, got it exactly right in its statement on the Nawaz settlement: “SPLC has become a far-left organization that brands its political opponents as ‘haters’ and ‘extremists’ and has lost all credibility as a civil-rights watchdog . . . SPLC’s sloppy mistakes have ruinous, real-world consequences for which they should not be excused.”

Southern Poverty Law Center Lists SPLC as ‘Anti-Muslim Hate Group’ (satire)

Blasting the group as a “bunch of Islamophobic bigots,” the Southern Poverty Law Center has officially classified itself as an anti-Muslim extremist group.

“The Southern Poverty Law Center targets Muslims like Maajid Nawaz – who are most certainly not anti-Muslim extremists– simply for their faith,” SPLC President Richard Cohen said in a recorded statement on Monday. “These folks are using their white privilege to attack innocent Muslims.”

Earlier in the day, SPLC apologized for listing Nawaz in a directory of anti-Muslim extremists and agreed to pay a $3.375 million settlement to Nawaz’s organization, Quilliam, which combats Islamophobia and Islamic extremism. But in its later statement, SPLC went a step further, demanding that its followers take to the streets to confront SPLC over its hateful actions.

“We must all fight racial and religious extremism – and in this case, that means standing up to people like me,” Cohen said. “Where is antifa on this one?”

A Jewish marriage on the Temple Mount

A Jewish couple from Tel Aviv got married on the Temple Mount on Monday morning. The groom quickly put the ring on his bride's finger and said the words for a Jewish wedding.

Arab media said they were "settlers."

The interesting thing is that they are not religious. The couple already had kids together.

Even non-religious Israelis understand the holiness of the Temple Mount.

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.

I am sick and tired. More than anything, I am mad.

I am sick and tired of seeing cute stories of Israeli kids having kite festivals sending messages of peace and candy for Gazans. On one hand I love my people for their strength of spirit and eternal optimism. It is important to see to the psychological well being of children under attack. At the same time, the thought of children investing so much emotional energy in hoping for peace, in replanting trees that have been burned when they can be burned again at a moments notice seems to me to be both a waste of effort and setting them up for disappointment that could constitute one psychological knock too many.

My logic says stop the arson fires and then replant.

I am sick and tired of explaining our right to life. Over and over we in Israel find ourselves fighting for the right to live free in our own land. Over and over we find ourselves explaining to the nations of the world that we have a right to life and if life is threatened we have a right to fight to defend life. These aren’t theoretical issues, an opportunity for mental gymnastics or an exercise in philosophy. These are the most basic rights that all people have, rights that need no explanation.

“We recognize Israel’s right to defend herself but…”

I am tired of this politically correct, morally corrupt sentence. We hear this sentence in every political arena imaginable, in the UN, from the leaders of other countries and in the media.

It’s not acceptable. One little “but” negates the first part of the sentence, negates our right to self-defense, negates our right to LIFE. One little word opens the door for all the excuses that come after, every explanation under the sun as to why the Nation of Israel does not actually deserve the right to defend ourselves from our would-be murderers.

One little word makes all those who use it complicit with those who actively strive to murder us. There is no room for ifs ands or buts in that sentence. Israel has the right to defend herself. Period.

The Nations of the world are not actually blind, they simply have chosen not to see. We can explain ourselves blue in the face and it won’t influence those who have closed their minds to logic and common decency.

This is where the sick feeling comes in. It makes me physically ill to see Jews abroad and even my own government in Israel bend over backwards to not seem “too aggressive” to the nations of the world who love to condemn Israel for defending her citizens.

Israel is already being accused of using disproportionate force against rioting Gazans. Of course, the IDF’s reaction to 40 thousand people, reared on Jew-hate, instructed to kidnap and murder Israelis, attempting to storm Israel’s border was utterly disproportionate. It is stunning that from this mass of rioters the IDF managed to pick off only the major sources of the problem - 60 people, 52 of whom were claimed by Hamas as operatives (i.e. professional terrorists). Most of the remainder were claimed by Islamic Jihad (a different terror organization). Managing to kill terrorists and not the people they were using as human shields, killing so few people out of so many violent rioters is a breathtaking and unprecedented accomplishment.

But of course, everything good Israel does is somehow twisted against her.

Our border is under attack and our land is burning. Why do so few take this seriously?! This is the land that gives us life, our ancestral homeland whose name we share, the only country we have – and it is tiny. There is no place to move on to, no replacement. Attacks on our land are attacks on our person and there is a limit to how many scars one can take, how much abuse one can absorb.

My friend who lives in Be’eri tells me that it is hard to be in her home, the air reeks of so much smoke, it is hard to breathe. Hearing this, sitting in my (for the moment) comfortable home in northern Israel I feel tears of frustrated rage well up inside me.

I experienced a single day of arson terror that filled my city with flames, poisoned the air, imbedding the stench of smoke in our clothes, in the walls of our home and even our skin.

That was just one day.

Day after day firebombers fly seemingly innocent kites and balloons over our border. These weapons of destruction are diabolical in their simplicity and in the perversion of what would normally evoke happiness into tools of terror and ruin.

Day after day after day after day…

(next to Kibbutz Re’im)

It doesn’t look “nice” to send fighter jets after people flying kites and our government is worried about the Gaza conflict escalating to a war that will swiftly become a war – from both Hamas in the south and Hezbollah in the north.

I understand these dilemmas.

At the same time, my land, my People, my friends are under fire – literally.

And every day that Hamas is not deterred from continuing these horrific attacks I cannot help but wonder what Hezbollah is learning while they watch.

Every time they see Israel fire warning shots at Hamas firebombers, not aimed to kill, what do you think Hezbollah strategists think?

Every time I see images of the damage in southern Israel I think of the forests of northern Israel. I think of how I watched my own neighborhood burn.

I am sick and tired and angry. I don’t care what the nations of the world think. I care about my family, my friends, my land, my life. It is time to stop explaining our rights and simply do what it takes to protect them.

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.

06/19 Links Pt1: The Triumph of Reason at the United Nations; Hamas is sowing nothing but destruction; Murder an Israeli an become famous; Israelis Ponder The French Meaning Of ‘Ally’

From Ian:

Noah Rothman: The Triumph of Reason at the United Nations

This leads us to the UNHRC’s irredeemable flaw: Its institutional biases are so skewed in favor of murderers, dictators, and bigots that it serves primarily to legitimize the dregs of the earth.

The Council has a permanent agenda item—item seven—which obliges it to regularly survey potential abuses committed by Israel in the Palestinian territories. Item seven is such a blatant misuse of the Council’s time that Europe and North America boycott the group when that article is invoked.

In 2008, the commission appointed Richard Falk, a 9/11 conspiracy theorist and Hamas apologist, to serve a six-year term as a United Nations Special Rapporteur for the human rights situation in the Palestinian territories. In 2011, Falk was reprimanded by UN General Secretary Ban Ki-moon for endorsing the idea that the U.S. was behind the attacks on its own territory.

Jean Ziegler, co-founder of the Muammar Qaddafi International Prize for Human Rights—which is a real thing that has been awarded to such paragons as Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, and Louis Farrakhan—currently serves in an elected role on the United Nations Human Rights Council.

The Council’s special rapporteur on “unilateral coercive measures,” Idriss Jazairy, is alleged by UN Watch’s Hillel Neuer in testimony before Congress to have executed an “aggressive campaign of non-democracies to muzzle UN rights experts.” One of Jazairy’s most recent reports to the UNHRC is a typical jeremiad attacking the civilized world for maintaining strict sanctions against Bashar al-Assad’s government as punishment for Damascus’s use of genocidal tactics and chemical weapons on civilian populations.

Despite Haley’s earned hostility toward the United Nations for its biases against both Israel and the general appearance of sanity, she has proven to be a particularly effective ambassador. Last week, amid a rote condemnation of the Jewish State for engaging in targeted self-defense amid a flare up on its border with Gaza, Haley managed to expose something new: cracks in the UN’s anti-Israel consensus.

The United Nations’ Flawed Condemnation of Israel

As a thought experiment, one may consider, “What was Israel to do?” It is a shame that there were innocent civilian casualties and injuries — Palestinians that did not take part in the violence were harmed. It is important, however, to make a clear distinction that Israel did not see these protests as an opportunity to kill as many Palestinians as possible. These protests, especially when they turned violent, thrust Israel into a position to defend its border. Of course, Israel and Palestine have differing stories on the militant status of the protestors killed.

During the protests, the IDF has been running a live twitter feed of their defensive actions with video recordings for reference. In addition to this, the IDF have on several occasions dropped leaflets from aircraft warning protestors not to approach the border fence.

In response to the Israeli defense, Hamas fired approximately 100 rockets toward heavily populated Israeli towns and cities. The Iron Dome Missile defense system was able to prevent the projectiles from causing any civilian casualties. Again, the UN failed to make any mention of this in their latest condemnation towards Israel, even after the United States proposed an amendment enumerating such.

In the UN general assembly chamber, Turkey, Algeria, and Palestine, some of Israel’s most outspoken critics, proposed a resolution condemning Israel for “excessive use of force.” The Palestinians also formally requested heavier security apparatus to defend themselves against the Israelis. A majority of countries also chose to neglect the defensive position Israel maintained or any mention of Hamas’ involvement. The only nations that voted against this measure were Australia, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Solomon Islands, Togo, the United States, and Israel.

The greater community of the United Nations chose to forgo objectivity, and opt for a one-sided narrative.

Elliott Abrams: More Evidence that the UN's Automatic Majority Against Israel is Fraying

A few days ago (here) I analyzed the recent UN General Assembly vote on Gaza and concluded that the UN's automatic majority against Israel is fraying.

Now there is an important piece of new evidence. In his first address to the UN Human Rights Council, British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson said this:
I will say that we share the view that a dedicated agenda item focused solely on Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories is disproportionate and damaging to the cause of peace and unless things change, we shall move next year to vote against all resolutions introduced under Item 7.

Thus the British are now saying they will next year automatically vote against any and every resolution brought under this agenda item, regardless of its content. Britain's move is likely to open the door for others in the EU or the Commonwealth to follow suit, or at least give Israel and the United States a powerful new argument against that agenda item that singles out Israel. There are some good candidates on the Human Rights Council who ought to follow the UK--and, it should be said, Australia, which already takes this position. Among them are Belgium, Germany, Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, and Switzerland in Europe and Japan outside it. They should be the targets of an American and Israeli campaign for some basic standard of fairness. The alternative will be the withdrawal of the United States from the Human Rights Council.

Having criticized the Foreign & Commonwealth Office recently (in this blog post) it is only fair to give credit where it is due. Hat's off to Johnson and the FCO on this one.

Yesterday, I responded to Josh Malina on Twitter.

Josh Malina, Wikipedia

Malina supports J Street. Here is part of an email J Street sent out of Josh Malina actively campaigning for them:

Those who watched The West Wing may remember that my character, Will Bailey, played a minor role in brokering Israeli-Palestinian peace.
The West Wing, alas, is a fictional universe. Here in the real one, our president — unlike Jed Bartlet — is not a Nobel Prize-winning scholar with an unfailing moral compass and an exceptional command of statecraft — or even someone who, you know, reads books.
Nor has our president helped achieve the dream of Israeli-Palestinian peace.
But, like Will Bailey, I am working toward that goal. I’m supporting J Street — and I hope that you will too...

Elder of Ziyon brought this out into the open on Twitter:

Disappointed to see @JoshMalina supporting @jstreetdotorg.
J-Street doesn't just "support two states" as it claims, it is against Israeli democracy and it tries to divide US Jews. Read @AlanDersh, a liberal who understands J-Street's dangerous lies. pic.twitter.com/QmFMJaSgCL
— ElderOfZiyon (@elderofziyon) June 17, 2018

A number of people then joined in, responding to Malina.

So did I:

@joshmalina On the question of @jstreet:
From the beginning, J Street was less than honest about the involvement of George Soros (not known for his enthusiasm for the State of Israel) as far as his initial funding of J Street.https://t.co/ttUfnTFcaE
— (((daledamos))) (@daledamos) June 18, 2018

And I continued...

Malina did respond to a couple of points I tweeted.

About Soros, he agreed "that it was a misstep, trying to hide the financial involvement of Soros at the inception of the organization."

In another tweet, he wrote, "I try to RT and amplify their [J Street's] message when they justly criticize Hamas or Abbas."

As an example, he linked to one of their press releases:

J STREET STRONGLY CONDEMNS INCENDIARY, OFFENSIVE REMARKS BY PRESIDENT ABBAS

But that was not my question. The question I asked was whether J Street had come out recently in defense of Israel during the riots. Contrary to the narrative the media readily propagates, not all those involved are in fact peaceful, unarmed protesters. Instead, many are rioting and attempting -- and in some cases succeeding -- in infiltrating into Israel.

It would be nice to have help pointing that out on social media.

J Street's two-paragraph condemnation of "incendiary' comments by Abbas is irrelevant to the point.

I responded

Fair enough, but you do see the irony if @jstreetdotorg condemns "incendiary" remarks but fails to condemn the "incendiary" kites.
— (((daledamos))) (@daledamos) June 18, 2018

Malina tweeted back:

I believe they tweeted - and I RT-ed - about terror kites. I am trying to confirm that for you. They are tools of terror and should be called out as such. I have certainly tweeted about them.

And that is where things stand.

He has not yet gotten back to me.

I'm not sure he will.

When you do a search on Twitter for any tweets J Street has tweeted on the kites, only 2 tweets show up:

No condemnation.

No outpouring of...anything.

Both Tweets are informative -- but that's all, and who needs J Street for that?

A similar search on the J Street site turns up either links that go directly to articles or "News Roundups."

Maybe J Street is just too busy.

After all, besides piling up on Trump over the issue of the treatment of immigrant families J Street has been occupied with attacking Ambassador David Friedman.

From the beginning, J Street has attacked Trump, accusing him of racism and white supremacism, blaming him for an alleged increase in Antisemitism in the US and of causing instability both in the US and in the Middle East.

Similarly, J Street has painted David Friedman as unfit to be the US ambassador to Israel and last month J Street claimed he should be investigated.

And of course, we all know how J Street feels about Netanyahu.

But does that leave any time for actually advocating for Israel?

Do a search of what J Street has been tweeting about the Gaza riots, and there 6 of them -- 3 in April and 3 in May. One of which links to a press release on the J Street website:

While there are reports of a small number of Palestinians attempting to breach the fence or otherwise attack Israeli soldiers, the vast majority of those who have gathered appear to be exercising their legitimate and important right to engage in nonviolent protest.

Good to know that the people at J Street read The New York Times.

But other than attempting to impose their view of a peace plan on Israel, do the members of J Street in the US actually see themselves as standing up for and defending Israel from the libels and slanders that come at it from all quarters?

J Street does not call itself "The Home for Pro-Israel, Pro-Peace Americans" -- it calls itself "The Political Home for Pro-Israel, Pro-Peace Americans," which is why nothing they say about Abbas, Hamas and the enemies of Israel ever come remotely close to J Street's ongoing over-the-top attacks on President Trump, David Friedman and Netanyahu.

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.

One of the more bizarre contradictions from supposedly pro-Palestinian groups like "Jewish Voice for Peace" and the International Solidarity Movement and others is that while they all pretend to want peace, when something that resembles actual peace occurs, they are either silent (J-Street) or upset (SJP.)

Over the past week there have been visits to Israel from a group of professionals from Morocco and from a major Muslim leader from Indonesia. Having the Muslim world accept Israel as a permanent part of the Middle East and as a nation to be cooperated with is exactly what should be the goal of any group that pretends to want peace.

Obviously, Israel wants to have peaceful and normal relations with the Arab and Muslim world, which is far beyond the "cold peace" it has with Egypt and Jordan but which would include cultural exchanges, Israel offering expertise in medicine and environmental issues, and free visits between Israel and the Muslim world.

Somehow, that is not what the "pro-peace" groups seem to want.

Nevertheless, every day there is another story that upsets the crowd that wants Israel destroyed in the name of "peace."

Another Moroccan delegation is visiting Israel this week, mostly women, to "participate in social events, projects and seminars to promote the status of women."

Israel will participate in an international conference hosted by the Kingdom of Bahrain between June 24 and July 4, a meeting of UNESCO's World Heritage Committee, and Bahrain is not apologizing for allowing the Israelis to come. Arabic media reports list a slew of previous ties between Israel and Bahrain, some official.

Yesterday, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu visited King Abdullah of Jordan. Mahmoud Abbas spurns any high level contact with Israel but Jordan has no problem with it.

These are the sorts of things to be celebrated by anyone who wants peace. The fact that they aren't celebrating means that peace is not really the goal for the "pro-peace" and "pro-justice" movements.

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.

Freedom of assembly, Palestinian-style

Last Wednesday in Ramallah there was a protest against Mahmoud Abbas' sanctions on Gaza that was violently suppressed by hundreds, maybe thousands of Fatah members and PA security forces:

Palestinian security forces used sound grenades, tear gas and violent force to disperse an anti-government protest in the occupied West Bank on Wednesday night, as hundreds demonstrated against the Palestinian Authority's punitive measures against the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip.

Crowds of protesters in Ramallah chanted and hoisted signs calling for an end to PA sanctions against Gaza before they were quickly cut off as Palestinian National Security Forces threw sound grenades and fired tear gas into the crowd.

Security forces in riot gear also wielded batons and used Taser weapons against protesters, with dozens of people carried away and arrested.

Police yelled at everyone in the street to put their phones away and told them not to take photos – journalists included.

Many of those who did take photos were arrested or at least detained briefly by swarms of police officers who attempted to break or confiscate cameras and erase memory cards.

Those who were arrested, at least 50 as of midnight including two foreign journalists, were carried away by police while being beaten with batons, punched and kicked.

Young girls and women were among those who this reporter saw being carried away, screaming and struggling.

About 10 people were taken to hospital, where they had their identification documents confiscated by police.

In Gaza on Monday, Fatah members and others made their own demonstration, ostensibly for Palestinian unity. - and Hamas violently broke that up:

At the start of the event called for by the Committee of Prisoners and Liberators, with the participation of a number of factions, writers, dignitaries and liberated prisoners, about 100 people in civilian clothes dressed in kuffiyehs and white hats went in the midst of the demonstrators and began chanting "Down with Abbas." Among the organizers, They attacked the participants with sticks, throwing stones and then sabotaging the stage.

The [Independent Human Rights] Commission documented that members of the General Intelligence and Homeland Security pursued and attacked a number of citizens and journalists, which indicates that these attacks were carried out with the knowledge and protection of the security services in the Gaza Strip, which is contrary to the role entrusted to the security services to protect the participants in the assembly.

Just another week with the peaceful Palestinian leadership in Ramallah and Gaza suppressing any protests - and any reporting of the protests when they can.

Outside Haaretz and a couple of other Israeli media, the PA violence has not been reported. The Hamas violence has been roundly ignored.

Because when Israel (Jews) aren't involved, then it must not be very important.

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.

06/18 Links Pt2: The Many Ways the Palestinians Violate International Law; SPLC pays Maajid Nawaz $3.5Mil for false extremist accusation; Prince William an FCO hostage in a minefield

From Ian:

Amb. Alan Baker: The Many Ways the Palestinians Violate International Law

After the UN General Assembly on June 14, 2018, voted to condemn Israel for its handling of the Gaza border fence violence, It is all the more curious to observe the deliberate disregard of the serious and flagrant international humanitarian, environmental, and ecological crimes committed by Hamas and the Palestinians.
Since the Palestinian Authority is utilizing the events in Gaza to conduct its own political and legal campaign against Israel in international bodies, this renders the Palestinian leadership an accessory to Hamas in the commission of these crimes.

By initiating, encouraging, and supporting mass pollution of the border area through the organized stockpiling and burning of tires, the Palestinian leadership is responsible for repeatedly creating caustic clouds of carbon pollution. This act is damaging to the health of the Palestinian civilian demonstrators themselves, as well as the residents of Israeli communities in the vicinity of the border.

Incendiary kites and balloons have ignited vast swathes of agricultural land in Israel, destroyed crops, and endangered Israeli residents. The International Criminal Court Statute defines as a war crime "extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly."

Weaponizing kites and balloons by attaching explosive devices with the intention that they will explode upon landing or when found by Israeli civilians is a flagrant violation of international humanitarian law, notably the 1997 Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings. Moreover, the 2001 Conventional Weapons Convention prohibits the use of incendiary weapons.

From the viewpoint of international humanitarian law and accepted norms of humanity, placing Palestinian civilians, and especially women and children, at the forefront of violent demonstrations and attacks on the border fence as human shields to conceal the presence of Hamas terrorists is a violation of several international treaties protecting children and prohibiting their involvement in warfare.

The Palestinian leadership must be made to understand that its fixation with joining international treaties is not unidirectional. It involves solemn responsibilities to abide by the obligations included in such treaties. The international community must hold the Palestinian leadership to their commitments and not ignore their violations of the most fundamental norms and principles of international law.

Radical-Left SPLC Pays Anti-Islamist Think Tank $3.37 Million After Calling It 'Extremist'

On Monday, Quilliam, a London-based counter-extremism think-tank that battles against Islamic extremism, announced the hard-left Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) would pay Quilliam almost $4 million after SPLC had included Quilliam in its “Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists.”

SPLC released a statement, which read:
Today, we entered into a settlement with and offered our sincerest apology to Mr. Maajid Nawaz and his organization, the Quilliam Foundation, for including them in our publication A Journalist’s Manual: Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists. Given our understanding of the views of Mr. Nawaz and Quilliam, it was our opinion at the time that the Field Guide was published that their inclusion was warranted. But after getting a deeper understanding of their views and after hearing from others for whom we have great respect, we realize that we were simply wrong to have included Mr. Nawaz and Quilliam in the Field Guide in the first place.

Then, the acknowledgment of the payment: “As part of our settlement, we have paid $3.375 million to Mr. Nawaz and Quilliam to fund their work to fight anti-Muslim bigotry and extremism.”

And this conclusion: “As we move forward, we are committed to redoubling our efforts to ensure that our work is always carried out with the utmost care and integrity. The stakes in the battle against hate and extremism are simply too great to be satisfied with anything less.”

The SPLC has defended anti-Semite and radical leftist Linda Sarsour; called the late Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum a hate group; named the Family Research Council a hate group, and written that Prager University videos are “indispensable propaganda device for the right.” (h/t jzaik)

Antisemitism at the United Nations Cannot Be Ignored

Yet even most of us who care about these issues tend to treat the UN’s actions as mere rhetoric. While this is true, we’re wrong to treat days like June 12 as deplorable but not worth getting all that upset about. While what goes on in the United Nations is, in a sense, just talk, it’s far more dangerous than that.

What we forget about these exercises in hypocrisy is that they give official imprimatur to antisemitism. As Obama’s State Department certified, a “rising tide of anti-Semitism” is sweeping across Europe and Southeast Asia. Arab and Islamic hatred for Israel, as well as some Western elites’ belief that the Jews are the one people on the planet who aren’t entitled to a homeland, drive this trend.

If other countries are willing to give Hamas a pass for terror and bash Israel for defending its border in a way no different (if not far more humane) than almost all of the nations condemning it, then this is an act of prejudice against the one Jewish state on the planet.

To note this fact is not to assert that Israel is perfect or above criticism. But when a world body attacks Israel alone and vilifies it for doing what any other nation would do, that is called hate.

The Obama administration treated the United Nations like a sacred multilateral cow. But it’s time for the Trump administration to put even more pressure on the United Nations that it already has done, cutting the US allocations that keep it going.

By regarding everyday hate as ordinary, we are, even if only because of exhaustion and a sense of futility, enabling it. That has to stop. We must never allow ourselves to get used to UN-certified Jew-hatred. The United Nations must be made to understand that decent persons won’t tolerate this practice indefinitely without consequences.