Houthis in Yemen are incensed not only at the participation of Yemen's foreign minister Khaled al-Yamani at the Warsaw conference, but also at his being seated next to Benjamin Netanyahu. At one point Bibi's microphone failed and Yamani let him borrow his.
On social media, al-Yamani's picture was edited to give him a yarmulke.
The Houthis also had a protest in Yemen Sunday about this "normalization," and they waved their logo that includes the phrase "Curse the Jews."
But these Arabs have nothing against Jews, no, of course not.
All these can be seen under the hashtag "Normalization_Betrayal," in Arabic #التطبيع_خيانة .
The conclusion is that not only are extremist Arabs freaked out over the Warsaw conference, but they have confirmed that they are antisemitic as well.
You can see that many of the tweets use graphics that have the same logo, with a dagger, symbolizing how "normalization" is a "stab in the heart" of the Arab world.
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.
What the 3rd grade teachers are told to do in order to indoctrinate the young children to hate Israel is unreal. This is from the teacher's guide to the book National and Social Upbringing, Grade 3, Part 2 (2016) p. 64, written by the Palestinian Authority.
The teachers are told to tell the students that they will go on an exciting trip to somewhere in "Palestine." They hype up the trip for weeks, and discuss what they will see and do when they get there. The children are told to bring cameras and paper and pens to write notes, and how they will present their reports to the class when they get back. They are told to get consent forms signed from their parents for the trip. They bring food from home on the day of the field trip.
Then, the morning of the trip, when the students are excited about a day away from the classroom, the teacher tells them that the trip is canceled. They cannot go because Israel won't let them into their land.
This is unethical in the extreme, lying to students and manipulating them emotionally so that their frustration will be taken out not on the lying teacher but on the Jews.
This is incitement, psychological torture and indoctrination to hate.
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.
Because the content of the Collections comes from around the world and from many different sectors, the Collections may contain information that might be deemed offensive, disturbing, pornographic, racist, sexist, bizarre, misleading, fraudulent, or otherwise objectionable. The Archive does not endorse or sponsor any content in the Collections, nor does it guarantee or warrant that the content available in the Collections is accurate, complete, noninfringing, or legally accessible in your jurisdiction, and you agree that you are solely responsible for abiding by all laws and regulations that may be applicable to the viewing of the content.
As far as uploading goes, the only type of material that the Internet Archive may act on is child pornography and anything else that hurts minors. Otherwise, the Internet Archive will keep its hands off, even if the material violates copyright or is illegal in some jurisdictions, saying that they have no responsibility for what is uploaded, but asking people not to break the law.
Some of the content available through the Archive may be governed by local, national, and/or international laws and regulations, and your use of such content is solely at your own risk. You agree to abide by all applicable laws and regulations, including intellectual property laws, in connection with your use of the Archive. In particular, you certify that your use of any part of the Archive's Collections will be limited to noninfringing or fair use under copyright law. If a Creative Commons or other license has been declared for particular material on the Archive, to the extent you trust the declaration and declarer (which is rarely the Internet Archive), you may use the content according to the terms and conditions of the applicable license. In using the Archive's site, Collections, and/or services, you further agree (a) not to violate anyone's rights of privacy, (b) not to act in any way that might give rise to civil or criminal liability, (c) not to use or attempt to use another person's password, (d) not to collect or store personal data about anyone, (e) not to infringe any copyright, trademark, patent, or other proprietary rights of any person, (f) not to transmit or facilitate the transmission of unsolicited email ("spam"), (g) not to harass, threaten, or otherwise annoy anyone, and (h) not to act in any way that might be harmful to minors, including, without limitation, transmitting or facilitating the transmission of child pornography, which is prohibited by federal law and may be reported to the authorities should it be discovered by the Archive.
In short, if your material violates YouTube or Facebook community guidelines, you can upload hate (videos, books, posters) to the Internet Archive and not worry about anyone complaining and taking it down.
In general, I am supportive of free speech, but that ends with incitement to hate and violence. There are videos in the Internet Archive with names like "Goyim Goddess Explains Jew Usery" [sic] and "Jew World Order vs Hitler." Hosting these videos is of course free.
The site is not yet overrun with hate, but there needs to be awareness of this before it happens. European laws against disseminating neo-Nazi materials especially need to be tested against the Internet Archive's Terms of Use that tries to make the organization blameless for what people upload.
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.
Hoyer as well as Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Elliot Engel (D-NY)are strongly pro-Israel. Pelosi, while less outspoken, has never been a foe of the Jewish state or of American Jews who support Israel and seek to secure continued bipartisan support for a strong U.S. alliance with the Middle East’s only democracy.
And yet, all of these leaders gave a pass to a woman who effectively said that American Jews exert malign and all-powerful influence over the Congress with their “Benjamins,” (which we now all know, thanks to Omar’s slur, refers to $100 bills).
What gives?
To find the answer it is necessary to look in two directions – first to former president Barack Obama’s consigliere, Valerie Jarrett.
By all accounts, Jarrett is the closest person to the former president. As a practical matter, it is difficult to imagine that the views she expresses contradict those of the former president even if, from time to time, he strikes a more moderate public stance than Jarrett.
Jarrett is an outspoken supporter of Omar. In a series of tweets, Jarrett has not only supported Omar, she has gushed that Omar represents the future of the Democratic party. On January 3, when Omar was sworn into office, Jarrett tweeted, “You are the change in Congress we have been waiting for. Thank you Ilhan Omar for your willingness to jump with both feet into the arena! Many in the country are both counting on you and have your back!”
In other words, Omar – and Tlaib and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (D-NY), whom Jarrett also supports – are the legitimate heirs of Obama’s Democratic Party, as far as his closest and most powerful advisor is concerned. They aren’t marginal figures, radicals with no real links to the party’s power structures. Omar, as well as Tlaib and Cortez, reflect the interests and positions of the most powerful faction in the Democratic Party – the Obama faction.
When seen in this light, the congressional Democratic leadership’s decision to respond to Omar’s latest assault on Jewish Americans and the Jewish state by smacking her with a wet noodle indicates that they are mere figureheads. They have less power than Omar does. Because, as Jarrett told Omar the antisemite, Jarrett, (and by inference, Obama), has her back.
There are all kinds of Nazis. The worst ones are the Hitlers, the Eichmanns, the Goerings, the Streichers, the ones who went on trial at Nuremberg. And then there are the lower-level Jew-haters who never rise to that level but comparably harbor hate deep within their souls. Thus, Jew-haters take different forms, but they all share that same deep-rooted visceral hate that somehow ultimately targets “the Jews.” Some hate “the Jews” because of a landlord, and others hate “the Jews” because of a tenant. Some hate “the Jews” because of the same kinds of liberals that so many Jews ourselves cannot abide, and others hate “the Jews” because of conservatives like Sheldon Adelson and the comparative political conservatism of Israel’s and the growing conservatism of the Jews of England. Some blame “the Jews” for Communism (Karl Marx, Trotsky) and others blame “the Jews” for capitalism (the Rothschilds, Milton Friedman). It is what it is.
But what now is unfolding in the Democrat Party — the party that always speaks of “racism” and “sexism” and “dog whistles,” and that finds racism and this-ism and that-ism in every word that deviates from left-liberal dogma — is that real Jew-haters are starting to come out of the cracks. It is ironic that, even as Louis Farrakhan has termed Jews to be “termites,” his Democrat acolytes of hate are the ones emerging from the woodwork. We have beheld the emergence of Jew-haters (and White-haters and man-haters) Linda Sarsour and Tamika Mallory as the new leaders of the rapidly decomposing “The Women’s March.” And now two new Democrat Congressional representatives have emerged as outright Jew-haters: Rashida Tlaib of Michigan and Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, the once-“Nice” state where Keith Ellison, anti-Semite, likewise holds court.
Omar, who hails from Somalia, now tweets about Jews and money. Quite a thing when newcomers who themselves are members of demographic groups (Muslim, Somalian) that are labeled by stereotypes, begin stereotyping others. Omar is an irrepressible Jew-hater. The things she says and tweets about Israel, for example, are not simply the legitimate expressions of someone who articulates a political counterpoint. It is perfectly fine to disagree with this or that aspect of Israeli democracy or Israeli politics. For many years, I wrote passionately against Israel’s then-socialist economy. Nowadays my political concern is Israel’s continued failure to increase Jewish housing in Judea and Samaria and finally to annex all of Judea and Samaria — or at least the region known as “Zone C.”
In and of itself, it can be fair to express criticism of Israel. But when one criticizes Israel as a cover for going after Jews, typically reflected by holding Israel to an insanely higher standard that is not expected of any other country, then — ding! ding! ding! — we have uncovered a Jew-hater. When someone has no problem with the state of human rights in Saudi Arabia, Putin’s Russia, China, North Korea, Venezuela, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Iran, Erdogan’s Turkey, and the like — but demands uniquely that Israel be boycotted and sanctioned, and that investments in companies that deal with Israel be divested, we have not “anti-Zionism” but “anti-Semitism.” It is like saying “I am not against Catholicism. I only despise the Pope and the Vatican and the College of Cardinals and the Archbishops and Bishops and nuns and the Eucharist. But I have nothing against Catholicism.” Zionism, like kosher dietary rules, is part of Judaism.
Protecting women has been a big part of the American effort in Afghanistan. We’ve spent more than $1.5 billion on it since 2001, opening girls’ schools, securing the place of women in Afghan politics, and setting up various projects to keep the issue at the forefront of Afghan development. That’s to say nothing of the fact that fighting the Taliban means checking its brutal Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice.
All this raises a question: Why did so many Democrats who’ve declared themselves as 2020 presidential candidates refuse to oppose President Trump’s terrible plan to make peace with the Taliban and withdraw U.S. forces? Earlier this month, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, and Kirsten Gillibrand voted against a bill that condemned Trump’s plan.
In Afghanistan, an empowered Taliban and the absence of American troops would mean a future that’s decidedly not female. We know Trump’s thinking on this. He doesn’t believe that protecting women from a hellish life under the Taliban is worth American military action. But all these feminist Democrats? If they explicitly agree with the president on that point, they should be made to say so.
Over the years, the most frequent questions I have been
asked on the subject of BDS and other anti-Israel campaigns are variations on whether
our response to Israel’s enemies should mirror the strategies and tactics our
opponents use against us.
Since strategy and tactics are a means to an end, my
position has always been to better understand what our ultimate goals might be,
then select strategies aligned with those goals, after which we will be in a
better position to select tactics that can help us execute those strategies.
For reasons I’ll soon get to, I don’t believe aping our foes
is the best choice for a number of reasons.
But the Israel haters do provide a useful template of how to put the
horse (goals that define a desired end point) before the cart (choice of
strategy and tactics).
The goal of Israel’s enemies, easily understood if you look
past their insincere (but tactical) claims to represent peace, justice and
everything virtuous, is to see the Jewish state eliminated. This goal is somewhat obscured by the fact
that groups advocating BDS and other measures contain many innocent dupes who
sincerely believe they are doing good.
The leaders duping them also obscure things further since they, with a
few exceptions, rarely participate in or advocate violence themselves.
They do, however, offer vital protection for those who not
only advocate but regularly visit violence on the Jewish state, such as Hamas,
Hezbollah, terror groups within the Palestinian Authority, and Arab states
still at war with Israel. This
protection comes in the form of ignoring all of the preparation for war
militaries and militants engage in (despite claims to represent “peace”) then
roaring to life once those groups’ actions trigger the inevitable Israeli
military response.
Protests against Israeli military activity (and only Israeli
military activity) can take the form of organized condemnations – locally and
globally (through corrupt and coopted organizations like the UN, also posing as
peace advocates), demands for an immediate cease-fire once their preferred side
is losing, and street protests that increasingly end in attacks on any Jews the
mob can get their hands on (thus creating a price tag for non-Israeli Jews in
hope of getting the IDF to stand down).
With the goal of Israel’s elimination as their North Star,
the boycotters have an end clearly in mind which makes the selection of
strategies to achieve that end straightforward.
Their successful march through the Left end of the pollical spectrum,
leaving submitted Progressives of all stripes in their wake, is testament to
their ruthlessness (since they are the only party ready to destroy anyone and
anything that gets in their way), but also their clear understanding where they
want to go.
Those of us on the receiving end of the other side’s Long
Game are justifiably concerned (if not frightened), and left pondering whether
we should try to replicate our opponent’s behavior in hope of achieving comparable
success. If that were the case, the
first question we should ask is what is the end point we are driving towards?
If our goal was to see the Palestinians destroyed, or to see
Arab or Muslim nations wiped from the map, that would constitute a militant
goal comparable to the goal of our enemies.
But does anyone, including the most militant pro-Israel activist, long
for such an outcome?
I have never seen any sign of such destructive desires. In fact, if I were to distill decades of
listening to Jewish and Israeli leaders talking about their hopes and dreams, I
would say our goal is Israel at peace with everyone around her, and Jews left
unmolested anywhere they reside.
Sometimes this goal gets wrapped up in utopian visions of an
end to violence and bigotry everywhere.
But shorn of such wishful thinking, a practical end point for the Jews
and their state would be normalization
ending with Israel treated with the same respect automatically given every
other nation (regardless of behavior) coupled with seeing antisemitism, if not
eliminated entirely from the human heart, limited to bigoted thought instead of
discriminatory and violent action.
While not as aggressive as the militant goal of our enemies,
seeing Israel at peace and the Jewish people no longer assaulted in word and
deed is a concrete goal we can and have been striving for. Like most ambitious goals, it is audacious
and possibly unachievable. But it does
represent a concrete end point no less useful to us as our enemy’s equally
ambitious (if destructive) goal is to them.
Given this, what strategies can we pursue that will
simultaneously help us achieve our goal while making the goal of our enemies
ever more difficult, if not impossible, to achieve?
Tune in next time for some thoughts…
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.
As a marketer advertising fascinates me. Political campaigns are no different, they are just advertisements on a larger scale, designed to drive life-changing decisions.
In tiny Israel politicians make decisions that swiftly impact our day to day lives. War and peace, life and death are literally in their hands – particularly those of the Prime Minister and Minister of Defense. That gives voting for the right person / party critical significance.
Israeli elections are crucial to me as an Israeli, as a Jew, as a person who loves freedom. As a marketer, Israeli elections set my mind buzzing. This is an extraordinary opportunity to delve into advertisements, analyze their effectiveness, the psychology behind the campaigns and the gap between the marketing material and the “product” being marketed – the candidates, their ideas and the reality they promise to create.
So how does it work?
Israel’s Parliamentary system combined with the inherent Jewish trait of “one person, three opinions” means that we have a multitude of parties, representing every sector in society. The system seems like an insane mess but there is a method to the madness and it’s a fairly good reflection of Israeli society – complicated, varied, opinionated, frustrating to the point of making you want to scream – that somehow works out pretty well in the end.
The most important thing to understand is that a coalition needs to be formed in order to create a government and the number 1 in the party that won the most mandates in the election AND succeeded in forming a coalition becomes the Prime Minister.
And yes, it is possible to win more mandates and fail at creating a coalition. That’s what happened to Tzipi Livni in 2008 which led to Benjamin Netanyahu forming the government.
So, basically voting is a choice between two strategies:
Voting for one of the major parties headed by the leader you want to become Prime Minister
Voting for a party that deals with societal issues that matter to you, hoping that by strengthening them, the party will have more clout within the coalition or opposition
Lesson 1:
In Israel, it’s not enough to be strong. Candidates and parties have to know how to collaborate.
Lesson 2: Content over style
Israelis seem to have an inherent aversion to style.
For years one of the main complaints about Prime Minister Benjamin (Bibi) Netanyahu has been: “He’s too sleek, he’s like an American politician, speaking excellently but when it comes to action not necessarily doing what he was elected to do.”
Israelis have traditionally voted on ideas they approved of with little or no regard to external characteristics. Israel has elected short, fat, untactful, uncharismatic, old and female (the world’s 4th female Prime Minister, long before America imagined a female President).
Israelis expect their candidates to present ideas, to be ideologically motivated and/or come with a track record of success in getting things done.
This is why Israeli IDF generals, both left and right leaning, are given a lot of credit when they enter the political arena – they have already proven, through their service, that they are willing to dedicate themselves to the country and have gained the experience of command.
Lesson 3: Military ranks bring with them a high credibility score but they do not guarantee success in politics.
The two systems are very different and just because someone was successful in one, does not mean they will be successful in the other. Ehud Barak, for example, is the most highly decorated living IDF soldier and was considered a brilliant strategist. He is also considered one of the worst Prime Minister’s Israel ever had.
Lesson 4: Be careful what slogan you choose
The way you present yourself is always important. This is true for individual interactions but even more so when you are trying to present to the entire nation a convincing image of yourself in the position to which you wish to be elected.
How do you sell Pepsi Cola when Coca Cola has dominated the market for decades?
Benjamin Netanyahu has dominated Israel’s political market for decades, developing "brand power" unlike that of any other candidate in the country.
Marketing the candidates competing for his position is no easy task.
The Labor Party, the party of Ben Gurion and Rabin has sunk so far in public opinion that they are expected to attain less than 10 mandates in the upcoming elections. The current Labor leader Avi Gabbay seems to be delusional in his declarations that he will be the next Prime Minister.
Sometimes it’s better to go with a slogan like Avis’s: “We try harder.” Knowing that they were not number one, Avis chose a slogan that evokes sympathy, offers differentiation from the competition (more enthusiastic service) and displays a realistic view of the world. This is a smart way to gain credibility and fans.
In the previous elections “the Zionist Union,” a coalition of the Labor Party and Tzipi Livni’s “Tnuah”, was created specifically for the purpose of unseating Netanyahu. Their campaign was basically “anyone but Bibi.”
“I’m Pepsi, buy me because I’m not Coca Cola!” Does that sound like a winning strategy to you?
Lesson 5: The media and social elites are not the same as the people
Israel’s elite, the media, artists and academia generally lean to the left and as such provide vocal, active opposition to Prime Minister Netanyahu and his Likud Party. The way news is reported (or not reported), the focus in the public arena has, for years, shown obvious bias against Israel’s democratically elected government.
The country’s elites seem dumbfounded and frustrated that the public keeps electing Netanyahu over and over. The public, flooded with obvious and more subtle messaging against the government, still draws its own conclusions.
As a nation we watched Netanyahu stand against all odds and win – over and over and over.
He vocally opposed Obama’s decisions regarding Israel and Iran, despite all the advice from the elites that annoying the American President would lead to disaster. Netanyahu warned against Iran, putting emphasis on the pending danger although others abroad and even in Israel mocked him, pointing out the more immediate short-term threats. He spoke up in the UN, against the UN. He managed the threats on our borders and within our country. Terrible things happened, including Operation Protective Edge, soldiers kidnapped and not yet returned and ongoing riots and arson terrorism from Gaza and yet we survived and are currently celebrating the annual “Darom Adom” festival in southern Israel where all the Anemones bloom and the fields turn into carpets of red flowers.
While antisemitism is on the rise around the world and Israel lives under the constant threat of terrorism, our country is one of the safest places in the world – especially if you are a Jew.
When economies around the world collapsed, Israel’s economy gained in strength and unemployment levels went down. Travel became easier and Israelis are taking multiple vacations abroad a year.
We watched the tide turn, President Trump declare Jerusalem the capital of Israel, open the embassy and a stream of world leaders waiting in line to meet, discuss and plan a new future with Israel.
Just this last week Netanyahu attended the US-led Warsaw conference with delegations from most of the Arab counties in the Middle East including Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Morocco, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Tunisia to see how the Arab world can ALLY WITH ISRAEL in defense against Iran.
Lesson 6: If you can dream it, you can make it real.
Just a few years ago none of this would have been considered possible. Now Israelis are left to complain that things aren’t better than they are (and yes, complaining is a national pastime).
Of course, there are many things that need to be improved. Many decisions were upsetting and still are. And yet, the public always comes back to the same question: who could do the job better?
The “not Bibi” candidate
During Netanyahu’s previous term in office, even those who desperately wanted to replace him were forced to admit that no candidate on the horizon could challenge him.
The Labor party tried and failed to challenge Netanyahu. For a while, many thought Yair Lapid could be a contender for Netanyahu’s position. He’s good looking, charismatic and says things everyone can agree with. Of course, when one has to move from speeches to decisions and actions it’s impossible to please everyone, mistakes are made and failures occur. After a strong political start, Lapid swiftly lost his “not Bibi” appeal because that’s exactly what he is – not Bibi.
Now we have Benny Gantz, the new “not Bibi”. Although less charismatic than Lapid, he’s much taller and carries with him the automatic respect given a man with his military rank. He seems like a nice guy and is free from the aura of corruption that surrounds Netanyahu after years of being told that Netanyahu is under investigation and “where there is smoke there must be fire.” Due to the multitude of investigations many are convinced that Netanyahu will be indicted and will not be able to remain Prime Minister. At the same time, the law says that he can remain in office until convicted because the principle of innocent until proven guilty is a right due to all citizens, even a Prime Minister that the elites do not like.
Gantz’s election campaign is the opposite of Israeli elections 101 lesson 2 (content over style). His is a highly stylized campaign, meant to make him look like a Prime Minister.
Anticipation was built up first by him not articulating his platform. This enabled the disillusioned on the left and on the right (mostly on the left) to place their hopes and dreams on his shoulders, believing that “he could be the one.”
Then his prolonged silence began to annoy people, the regular folks and the media elites.
His first off-the-cuff statement against Israel’s Nation-State Law annoyed many people. And then he backpedaled. A little. There has been a lot of confusion with other members of his party making contradictory policy statements as if they too are not sure what exactly the party platform is.
Then his people put out campaign videos that many Israelis, on the right and the left found repugnant. Featuring a running toll, the video seems to be bragging about how many Arabs were killed under Gantz's watch. Another video focuses on the amount of destruction left in Gaza following the last war with the slogan: "Parts of Gaza were bombed back into the stone age." The assumption seems to be that the people of Israel (particularly those on the right) are bloodthirsty and violent and these videos would convince the nation that Gantz could lead the country.
I’m not sure who thought this messaging was a good idea. It goes against the fundamental values held by Israeli society - war is bad, killing is bad and only done when necessary, in defense. Neither Israelis on the left or the right wish death and destruction on our enemies. In fact, we’d prefer that they led prosperous, peaceful and happy lives and let us do the same.
It seems that the people who created this campaign neither understand nor like the average Israeli. Their views are similar to the antisemitic tropes we have to counter from Israel's enemies. Why would anyone choose a leader who believes the worst about the public?
Then came the speech. Each sentence was carefully crafted to appeal to the widest audience possible without upsetting anyone. Put together it sounded like a lot of bumper sticker slogans read one after the other. In fact, it reminded me of a song that is exactly that, lyrics built from political bumper stickers
Gantz had obviously been taught to stand and move his hands the way politicians are supposed to do to attain maximum likeability and project a convincing and powerful image – the way Netanyahu learned to do years ago. Watching this, I felt sorry for Gantz. He was trying to make the gestures and say the things he was told would make the best impression but his body language expressed louder than words just how uncomfortable and unsure of himself he was.
Lesson 7: It’s not over till it’s over (and even then, it might not be over)
As Gantz’s party rises in the polls, the other parties on the left sink. Obviously, the Israeli public has understood that this new “not Bibi” candidate is not presenting a right-wing alternative, even if he is being marketed as one.
The incumbent always has an advantage in a campaign. The original product with a strong brand image always has an advantage although a new product can take over a market – if they provide value that the original does not.
This again goes back to the issue of content and value.
Android’s utilitarian ease is creeping up and taking over the market iPhone created but can Pepsi ever really beat Coke? Sometimes the public can be convinced that they need a change, that they should try something new. But in just a few short weeks, when Israelis stand alone at the ballot box, will trying "something new" seem as tempting as it does to many now, during the campaign? To me, as an Israeli and as a marketer, it seems like a hard sell, particularly when the only difference is that the new offering isn’t the original.
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.
The security cabinet on Sunday approved the implementation of a law to cut over half a billion shekels in funds to the Palestinian Authority over its payments to terrorists and their families.
Applying the law has faced opposition from the security establishment, who worry it could destabilize the situation in the West Bank.
A statement from the security cabinet said that ministers agreed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could withhold NIS 502,697,000 ($138 million) in PA tax revenues, the amount Israeli officials say the PA paid out in stipends to attackers and their families in 2018.
Netanyahu also instructed security authorities to examine additional payments the PA is making in relation to terrorists and their families, the statement said.
“The amount frozen will be adjusted accordingly,” it noted.
The $138 million will likely be deducted incrementally over a 12-month period, according to local media reports.
A spokesman for Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas denounced Israel’s decision to cut half a billion shekels in funds over its payments to security prisoners and their families Sunday.
Nabil Abu Rudeineh called the decision to implement the law “piracy of the Palestinian people’s money.”
Abu Rudeinah warned that the decision would have serious repercussions and would be placed at the top of the agenda when the PA leadership meets in the coming days.
“We consider this arbitrary Israeli decision to be a one-sided blow to the signed agreements, including the Paris Protocols,” he said, referring to an annex of the Oslo Accords that defines Israel and the PA’s economic relations.
Earlier Sunday, the security cabinet approved the implementation of a law to cut NIS 502,697,000 ($138 million) from the PA, over its payments to terrorists and their families.
Applying the law has faced opposition from the security establishment, who worry it could destabilize the situation in the West Bank. Some analysts have predicted that it may also lead to a further deterioration of the humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip should Abbas cut funds to the coastal enclave in order to continue paying security prisoners.
Abu Rudeineh said the move would not keep the Palestinians from supporting “imprisoned heroes” or the families of those killed while carrying out attacks.
Let’s begin with the principle of impartiality: the provision of aid solely on the basis of need. A chart (see below) plotting the organization’s 2019 budget shows that the Middle East is the overwhelming beneficiary of EU humanitarian aid – nearly 1 billion of just over 1.4 billion euros (174 million is earmarked for reserves and bureaucratic costs). The bulk of the funds go towards meeting the costs of assistance to Syrian refugees, followed by smaller sums to Iraq, Yemen, Palestine, and North Africa.
Sub-Saharan Africa, by contrast, receives less than one-third of that amount.
The problem with such allocations is that the overwhelming majority of people living in dire poverty reside in sub-Saharan Africa, India, and Bangladesh, according to a map (below) drawn up by a group of concerned economists based at Oxford University. These countries have the highest percentage of populations with a household consumption of less than $2 a day. Only one country in the Middle East fits this sorry bill: Yemen. According to the map and the principle of impartiality, the bulk of EU aid should be going to these countries, yet they receive only a small percentage.
To get a clear picture of the reality of ECPHAO “impartiality,” one need only compare the amount Palestinians receive to the amount received by the poorest 20% of the world. According to the World Bank, 732 million people live in lower income countries. The 4.8 million Palestinians, by contrast, are classified as “lower middle class” – that is to say, in the quintile above them. Yet those 4.8 million Palestinians will receive 36 million euros, while 490 million will be disbursed for the benefit of 680 million people living in 32 other countries (not including Syria and Yemen, which are funded separately). The Palestinians, who are richer on average than those living in the poorest states of the world, will thus receive over six euros per capita, while the populations of the poorest states will receive around 0.70 euro per capita – less than one-eighth that amount.
No one has explained why Ethiopia, which has a GDP per capita one-third that of Gaza and one-fifth that of the West Bank, should receive one-eighth the amount of aid Palestinians receive on a per capita basis. This is particularly remarkable as the ECPHAO has itself acknowledged Ethiopia’s greater plight – including a massive emergency refugee problem stemming from the 37-year-old Somali crisis.
Discrimination in favor of the Palestinians even extends to Yemen, where a true humanitarian disaster exists. According to the EU, 79 million euros have been expended annually on average since the onset of the Yemeni crisis, compared to 36 million for the Palestinians. That is slightly more than double. Yet there are 4.8 million Palestinians, while the population of Yemen is estimated at over 28 million (of whom 22.5 million are in dire straits, according to the Commission). Yemenis thus receive less than half of what the already richer Palestinians receive.
Ilhan Omar was at the center of the news last week, amidst her antisemtic tweets and her attack on Elliott Abrams.
Yet despite what her tweets condemning AIPAC and her false claim that it pays off government officials, Omar's own history of violating and abusing the rules governing receiving money -- and having to return it -- has received scant attention.
Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor congressional candidate Ilhan Omar said Monday that she will return $2,500 in college speaking fees that she accepted in violation of Minnesota House of Representatives rules.
Minnesota state lawmaker Omar was paid $2,000 in February 2017 to speak at Normandale Community College in Bloomington, Minnesota. She was paid $500 in April 2017 to speak at Inver Hills Community College in Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota, according to a press release issued by Republican state Rep. Steve Drazkowski.
Omar was elected to the Minnesota House of Representatives in November 2016. She had agreed to speak at the events before she was sworn into office in January 2017 and did not know the rules for an elected official would apply to her, she said, according the Star Tribune. [emphasis added]
Drazkowski said Omar clearly violated rules that are in place to prevent payment to a member from an organization that has business before the Legislature. According to Minnesota House Rule 9.20, Acceptance of an Honorarium by a Member: A member must not accept an honorarium for a service performed for an individual or organization that has a direct interest in the business of the House, including, but not limited to, a registered lobbyist or an organization a lobbyist represents.
Rep. Omar voted to adopt the Permanent Rules of the Minnesota House – which includes Rule 9.20 - on February 16, 2017, 12 days before her first paid MNSCU speaking engagement.
In addition, Drazkowski noted every newly-elected member attends an orientation where non-partisan House research staff explains potential conflicts of interest to incoming lawmakers, including gifts, travel and lodging, and honoraria.
And there were other issues with Omar's less than stellar transparency on her finances:
o On May 17, 2017, Rep. Omar was fined $1,000 due to the late filing of her 24-hour notice reports.
o On November 30, 2017, Rep. Omar was fined $150 due to the late filing of her campaign finance report. That 2016 report listed a non-campaign disbursement in the amount of $2,250 in legal fees to the Kjellberg Law Office, which specializes in divorce law, and is listed as her representative during her 2017 divorce case. It also noted that she paid her now current husband $3,100 for unspecified campaign services.
o On June 20, 2018, Rep. Omar was fined the maximum $1,100 due to the late filing of her Statement of Economic Interest.
That last point, that Omar filed her Statement of Economic Interest late is important. It helped Omar avoid the consequences for her financial violations:
Omar was able to avoid a potential House Ethics Committee hearing into her financial misdeeds because the Legislature had adjourned sine die (with no appointed date for resumption). The late filing also prevented bad publicity or any other conflicts that could have arisen during the DFL endorsement to replace outgoing Congressman Keith Ellison.
Fast-forward to now.
How did Ilhan Omar conduct her successful campaign for the US House of Representatives?
Sunday, August 5, 2018: Hussam Ayloush, Executive Director of CAIR-California posts on Facebook that Ilhan Omar, campaigning for Democratic Representative of Minnesota, will attend 3 CAIR sponsored events -- in California. It's just like the lady said: "It's all about the Benjamins, baby."
But while Omar claimed she would "share our vision" as it turned out, Omar's "vision" was a little bit blurry that day. According to Haaretz, the reaction was that Omar was less than straightforward, in light of her later public support for BDS:
This seemed like a bait-and-switch to many Jewish Minnesotans: When she was asked at an August primary debate held in a synagogue to specify “exactly where you stand” on BDS, Omar said that BDS was “not helpful in getting that two-state solution” — never explaining that she in fact supported the policy. [emphasis added]
Does anyone think that Omar was equally evasive in her 3 CAIR-arranged appearances in California to collect donations?
o CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) is one of Rep. Omar’s top 20 contributors. CAIR was an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror financing trial for funneling money to Hamas. FBI testimony reportedly indicated that CAIR has been a Hamas front group.
o In addition, CAIR-CA’s executive director Hussam Ayloush, who called for Israel’s “termination,” gave Ilhan Omar $1,200.
o James Zogby, president of the anti-Israel Arab-American Institute (AAI), chairman of the anti-Israel Palestine Human Rights Campaign, and a major anti-Israel propagandist, gave Rep. Omar $2,700. Zogby falsely accused Israel of committing a “Holocaust” against Palestinians, called Israelis “Nazis,” campaigned to prevent the extradition to Israel of a Fatah terrorist who killed two Israeli teenagers and wounded 36 other Israelis, called Cuban-American Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen an “Israel-firster” (an antisemitic trope implying dual loyalty), praised the intifada as a “good story,” and was a leading architect of propaganda themes used to pry progressive Jews away from supporting Israel.
o The Soros-funded MoveOn.org, which attempted to kill the pro-Israel anti-BDS bill in Congress, gave Omar $5,000. MoveOn.org also co-founded Avaaz, which initiates extremely offensive, falsehood-filled anti-Israel campaigns, including movements to release Palestinian Arab terrorist Ahed Tamimi and in support of Ireland’s dangerous BDS Bill.
o A $500 donor to Rep. Omar showed his wife wearing Hamas scarves and put on his Facebook profile in Arabic: “Jerusalem is ours, WE ARE COMING!”
o Debbie (Dhabah) Almontaser, who defended an Arab women’s group for hawking “Intifada NYC” T-shirts that glorify Palestinian-Arab terror, gave Omar $500.
Putting it all together, we see that:
o Despite campaigning out of state at 3 events for CAIR, just one day later, Omar sidestepped a direct question on BDS that she knew was important to the people who invited her to talk -- and took $5,000 from CAIR
o Omar was less than transparent in reporting money she received
o Omar agreed to return money she received in violation of Minnesota House laws that she herself voted on and was informed about at an orientation.
o Omar donations from people and organizations that strongly support the BDS movement and oppose the existence of Israel.
Last year, Drazkowski said:
Representative Omar’s willingness to accept money from institutions that are dependent on her committee and her vote for their funding is the textbook definition of unethical
Omar's antisemitic comments last week come from someone with a record for violating both the rules and the trust of her constituents.
But in terms of real consequences, Ilhan Omar has so far received nothing more than a slap on the wrist -- and an appointment to the House Foreign Affairs Committee, where she behaved exactly as her history indicates she would.
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.
In Foreign Policy, Stephen Walt - the co-author with John Mearsheimer of the infamous article and later book "The Israel Lobby" - actually gives a good description of what the Israel Lobby is, and what it isn't:
First, what groups such as AIPAC, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, Christians United for Israel, the Zionist Organization of America, the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, and various other groups are doing, and what wealthy individuals such as Haim Saban and Sheldon Adelson have done for years, is normal political activity and wholly in line with the interest group basis of U.S. politics.
The U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of association and protects free speech, which means that any Americans who want to organize themselves and press for particular policies can do so within the confines of the law. The activities of the various groups and individuals comprising the Israel lobby are no different from what the National Rifle Association (NRA), the farm lobby, Big Pharma, the American Civil Liberties Union, or dozens of other interest groups do. There’s nothing secretive, conspiratorial, or illegitimate about it; it is how the U.S. system of government works.
Second, these groups and individuals are not a unified monolith, and there is no central leadership that directs their activities. Yes, there are a number of groups that actively work to preserve the so-called special relationship between the United States and Israel, but they sometimes disagree on specific issues, such as the merits of the nuclear deal with Iran or whether a two-state solution is the right answer to the Israel-Palestinian conflict. To suggest otherwise echoes the tropes described earlier and is simply incorrect.
Third, the Israel lobby is defined not by its members’ religion or ethnicity but by its political agenda—i.e., working to promote staunch U.S. support for Israel. To be sure, this includes American Jews who are ardent in their support of Israel, but some Americans who strongly favor unconditional support for Israel—notably Christian evangelicals—are not Jewish. Moreover, there are many people in the U.S. Jewish community who are critical of Israel and its policies. For this reason, using terms such as “Jewish lobby” to talk about pro-Israel groups is both inaccurate and inevitably conjures up dangerous stereotypes.
Fourth, like other interest groups, the Israel lobby uses a variety of strategies to accomplish its goals. Some of its influence comes from campaign contributions to political parties or politicians (although AIPAC does not do this), some from direct lobbying on Capitol Hill, some from public outreach (op-eds, books, position papers, media appearances, etc.), and some from the role that pro-Israel individuals may play in the U.S. government itself. Once again, such influence is no different from the influence that oil or pharmaceutical companies gain when individuals sympathetic to their aims get appointed to run the Department of the Interior or the Food and Drug Administration. Focusing solely on one item such as campaign contributions misses a lot of the story and risks reinforcing old historical canards.
Lastly, no interest group gets its way all of the time. The Israel lobby doesn’t control every aspect of U.S. Middle East policy, just as the NRA doesn’t control every aspect of gun control and health insurers didn’t get everything they wanted with Obamacare. But no one who has worked on foreign-policy issues in Washington or studied them with any objectivity would deny that AIPAC and related groups have considerable clout (which AIPAC brags about on its website), and policymakers remain sensitive to the lobby’s concerns, as any number of former officials have testified. But words matter, and using words such as “control” conjures up creepy and inaccurate images of shadowy puppet masters pulling strings.
If the article had ended here, it would be a welcome bit of context in the current stirring up of debate over AIPAC and other pro-Israel political groups.
Unfortunately, Walt then goes into both martyr and historical revisionism mode:
[H]ere’s the kicker: Though Omar deserved to be educated about the unfortunate manner and content of her critique, she would still have been pilloried even if she had been more sensitive to the history of anti-Semitism and offered a nuanced and well-documented argument. Why? Because being aware of, sensitive to, and deeply opposed to anti-Semitism and offering an informed, factual picture of the lobby’s activities affords little or no protection to anyone who is critical of Israel’s actions, is concerned about the one-sided nature of the U.S.-Israel relationship, and disagrees with the policy positions that groups like AIPAC endorse.
How do I know? Let’s just say I have some experience with this phenomenon.
Really? Nancy Pelosi and the House of Representatives would have reacted the exact same way if she wouldn't have accused AIPAC's money of controlling debate? Chelsea Clinton would have mentioned that she was using antisemitism if she had used different language?
This is absurd.
Walt then goes on to defend his book, saying that it was not at all saying that the Israel Lobby has complete control over the US government. Perhaps he added some "may have"s and "could be"s in the text, but the main examples he and Mearsheimer brought about the Israel lobby were completely wrong, and they overstated the influence of the pro-Israel lobby to such an extent that there is virtually no moral difference between what they were saying in 2007 and what Ilhan said last week.
The main argument in The Israel Lobby was that the pro-Israel crowd pushed the US to invade Iraq against its own interests and only to appease Israel. This thesis is wrong on two counts - Israel had little interest in the US invading Iraq (they would have preferred Iran, if anything) and the decision to invade had nothing to do with Israel.
In this long critique of The Israel Lobby at the Brookings Institution, it is pointed out that Jeffrey Goldberg once asked Donald Rumsfeld if the pro-Israel lobby was behind the decision to invade Iraq. His response was, “I suppose the implication is that the president and the vice-president and myself and Colin Powell just fell off a turnip truck to take these jobs.” Goldberg concludes that Mearsheimer and Walt “seem to think that William Kristol is the commander in chief.”
A secondary argument, that the pro-Israel lobby has consistently damaged U.S. foreign policy and American interests in the Middle East, is wrong as well. As we have seen since its publication, if anything damaged US interests in the Middle East it was the conscious tilt of the Obama administration towards Iran and against the Gulf states - which is the opposite of what the supposedly powerful Israel lobby wanted. Walt and Mearsheimer took at face value the old Arab talking point that Israel is the most important impediment to a wider Middle East peace, without having the insight to realize that the Arabs didn't believe it themselves.
Not to mention that the Obama administration was not worried about the pro-Israel lobby when pushing the Iran nuclear deal. That one example shows that Walt and Mearsheimer's 2007 thesis of the lobby's power was quite wrong. It was strong enough to force the US into a war but couldn't even stop a very flawed agreement that would give Iran nuclear weapons in a couple of decades?
A major third flaw in the Walt/Mearsheimer article and book was a one-sided view of Israel as being the cause of all troubles in the region and of Palestinians are being innocent. They spend a lot of time calling Israel racist, of claiming that Israel is not a security asset for America but a liability, that Israel and the US do not share the same moral values. Those criticisms, while not specifically antisemitic, are mirrored by antisemites.
In short, while Walt now admits that the pro-Israel lobby is not all powerful and works like any other, the broad implication of the book was that the Israel Lobby has an outsized influence to push US leaders to make stupid decisions against national interests and towards selfish Israeli racist interests.
That is not too far off from saying that the Zionists control US policy, which Walt now admits is uncomfortably close to an antisemitic canard of Jews controlling US policy.
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.
A spokesman for Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas denounced Israel’s decision to cut half a billion shekels in funds over its payments to security prisoners and their families Sunday.
Nabil Abu Rudeineh called the decision to implement the law “piracy of the Palestinian people’s money.”
Abu Rudeineh said the move would not keep the Palestinians from supporting “imprisoned heroes” or the families of those killed while carrying out attacks.
Acting PA Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah said Israel’s cutting of PA funds is “a part of a plan to destroy the National Authority and deny it the ability to continue to provide services and fulfill its commitments to its citizens.”
“Cutting the maqasa funds puts the Palestinian economy in danger and threatens our ability to pay employees’ salaries on time,” he added, using the Arabic term that refers to the taxes that Israel collects on behalf of the PA and then transfers back to Ramallah.
The Palestine National Council also released a statement saying that "Palestinian prisoners are prisoners of war who fought for the salvation from the occupation and live in dignity in their homeland" and that Palestinian institutions will continue to provide full care for the prisoners and families of martyrs and wounded."
Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah said "We will not be deterred from continuing to take care of the families of the prisoners and the martyrs, no matter what the cost, and that this measure will be met by a clear Palestinian position, official and public."
The Palestine Mission to Austria called the terrorists "national heroes."
Hanan Ashrawi said Israel "has systematically demonized and dehumanized all Palestinian political prisoners to justify its crime." Yes, being imprisoned for murdering Jewish children is "political" - because to Palestinians, they are heroes.
The clear message is that when funds are short, the top priority of the Palestinian leadership is payment of money to terrorists and their families. The major policy that encourages terrorists to continue to murder Jews is considered sacrosanct - more important than paying employees, more important than building schools, more important than building hospitals, more important than paying social security or to help those who are sick or wounded from not attempting to murder Jews.
Ariel Gold, of CodePink, came out in support of the Palestinian policy, calling Israel's withholding of funds "apartheid." (Her logic is a bit fuzzy, but that is to be expected.)
Any people who prioritize terrorists over taking care of their own larger population does not deserve to be rewarded with statehood. It seems obvious - but the world still supports the people who will imperil their own in order to support their murderers.
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.
This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For over 19 years and 40,000 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.
Happy Passover
-
[image: Happy Passover]
Wishing all of my Jewish family, friends, and followers a Chag Sameach
v'Kasher. Blogging to resume Tues evening or Wed morning.
C...
Matza and Mattresses in Morocco
-
Raquel Levy-Toledano spent her childhood in Casablanca, Morocco. For the
Arche magazine (October 2023 special issue) she recalled her memories of
Pesah ...
Happy Pessah!
-
Wishing all our readers celebrating the festival of freedom a happy holiday
and hoping for the liberation of all the hostages.
The post Happy Pessah...
Happy Pessah!
-
Wishing all our readers celebrating the festival of freedom a happy holiday
and hoping for the liberation of all the hostages.
The post Happy Pessah...
The New Jihadists Are Our Kids
-
“I will use my knives and machete to slit their throats and kill them."
Coeur d’Alene, an Idaho city with a population of over 50,000, had too many
chur...
A Conversation on X with a Professor
-
Basically starts here, with him responding to me reaction so:
Re: "That is the least disruptive way of occupying space on a campus”
Actually, it's one of...
Confrontation with Iran: Who Won?
-
The West likes its Jews passive, dependent, and weak. When American
officials say “Israel has a right to defend [herself]” they mean that they
will allow h...
The Palestinian “Two-State” Plan: Duping the West
-
One of the great unsolved mysteries of the 21st century is why, given what
a catastrophe it proved to be, anyone, much less a whole phalanx of
politicians,...
06-Feb-24: Obituary: Naftali Gordon
-
The obituary that follows was published yesterday by *Times of Israel* under
the headline "*Master Sgt. (res.) Naftali Gordon, 32: A man of ‘honesty and
...
Closing Jews Down Under Website
-
With a heavyish heart I am closing down the website after ten years.
It is and it isn’t an easy decision after 10 years of constant work. The
past...
‘Test & Trace’ is a mirage
-
Lockdown II thoughts: Day 1 Opposition politicians have been banging on
about the need for a ‘working’ Test & Trace system even more loudly than
the govern...
Tuesday, February 19, 2019
Elder of Ziyon
