Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Sunday, January 17, 2021

New Palestinian Lie: "100,000 Martyrs since 1948"

Six of the "martyrs"

January 7 was "Palestinian Martyrs Day."

According to the PLO, there have been 100,000 Palestinian "martyrs" since 1948.

Since less than 30 Palestinians were killed by Israelis in 2020, I looked at previous years' announcements of the holiday - and none of them gave a total number of those killed since 1948.

The 100,000 number was first mentioned this year, implying that this nice, round number was achieved in 2020.

It is completely made up.

Wikipedia lists the number of deaths of Palestinians in wars since 1948. Less than 30,000 were killed in conflicts with Israel.

A higher number were killed by other Arabs - mostly in the Lebanese civil war, but also thousands in Jordan in 1970 and (not listed there) thousands in Syria in its civil war. At least a thousand more were killed by fellow Palestinians as "collaborators," mostly during the first intifada.

The total doesn't approach 100,000, and most of the Palestinians "martyred" since 1948 were killed by their fellow Arabs!

It is just as much a lie as the "900,000 Palestinians imprisoned by Israel since 1967" lie.

Why do Palestinians lie with completely made-up statistics? Because no Western reporters or NGOs expose the lies, so the lies get rewarded.

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.

Al Bayan reports that Lebanon has no plans to vaccinate Palestinians who have lived there for over seven decades.

Lebanon has been signing agreements with various pharmaceutical companied to obtain vaccines for its population, starting in early February.

Yet they have not announced any plans on how these vaccines will be distributed in Lebanon's overcrowded Palestinian "refugee" camps, which have become even more crowded since the Syrian civil war forced many more people of Palestinian ancestry to move in.

Palestinians in Lebanon only have limited access to Lebanese health services, and rely on UNRWA for their health needs. But UNRWA is not stepping up.

Lebanese officials told Al Bayan that they expected international organizations to vaccinate the Palestinians. UNRWA issued a vague statement that they expect the World Health Organization and the Lebanese Health Ministry to work on the issue. The Lebanese Health Ministry hasn't announced any plans, seeming to think it will be UNRWA's problem.

No one is making any concrete plans on distribution of vaccines in the 12 UNRWA camps in Lebanon.

UNRWA closed its 28 health facilities in Lebanon on Thursday as the nation went on lockdown, causing great anger among Palestinians. They plan to re-open tomorrow.

Nearly 4000 Palestinians have tested positive for COVID-19 in Lebanon, and 145 Palestinians have died so far.

There has not been a single article in The Guardian or Reuters or CNN or the New York Times about this situation. No "human rights" NGOs are up in arms about this. No one is castigating Lebanon for not taking care of the people who live in Lebanon.

In fact, no one in the West has even bothered to ask the question of how Palestinians in Lebanon will be vaccinated.

When Israel can't be blamed, no one seems too interested in Palestinian welfare.

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.

Marc Lamont Hill, the self-proclaimed expert on antisemitism who has accused Jews of poisoning Palestinian wells, has co-written a new book that will be published next month:

Except for Palestine: The Limits of Progressive Politics
A bold call for the American Left to extend their politics to the issues of Israel-Palestine, from a New York Times bestselling author and experts on U.S. policy in the region

In this major work of daring criticism and analysis, scholar and political commentator Marc Lamont Hill and Israel-Palestine expert Mitchell Plitnick spotlight how holding fast to one-sided and unwaveringly pro-Israel policies reflects the truth-bending grip of authoritarianism on both Israel and the United States. Except for Palestine deftly argues that progressives and liberals who oppose regressive policies on immigration, racial justice, gender equality, LGBTQ rights, and other issues must extend these core principles to the oppression of Palestinians.

Hill and Plitnick provide a timely and essential intervention by examining multiple dimensions of the Israeli-Palestinian conversation, including Israel's growing disdain for democracy, the effects of occupation on Palestine, the siege of Gaza, diminishing American funding for Palestinian relief, and the campaign to stigmatize any critique of Israeli occupation. Except for Palestine is a searing polemic and a cri de coeur for elected officials, activists, and everyday citizens alike to align their beliefs and politics with their values.

Really? There is an "exception" in progressive spaces where people don't criticize Israel?

Where are these places?

Not in the pages of The Nation, or The Guardian, or the New York Times. Not in the reports from Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International. Not on college campuses. Not on social media.

On the contrary - people who are Zionist are the ones who are cast out of "progressive" spaces. Jews are automatically suspect in those spaces and they must pass a purity test to be accepted.

The entire reason Zioness exists is because Zionists were being shunned and excluded from feminist spaces. Prominent feminist Phyllis Chesler has documented this antipathy to Israel among modern feminists in excruciating detail.

Because "progressives" pretend to be always on the side of the underdog, this book is meant to make anti-Zionists appear to be silenced and beaten down to be one of the victims, not one of the oppressors.

Even anti-Israel advocates know that the thesis of the book is ridiculous. Here is a quote from 2018:

“Palestinian rights are being integrated into the broader progressive agenda. It’s becoming almost standard that if you support single-payer health care and climate justice, you’ll support Palestinian rights,” said Rebecca Vilkomerson, the executive director of Jewish Voice for Peace.

The blurbs for the book come from a variety of the usual suspects whose voices in various media disprove the thesis:

Praise for Except for Palestine:
“For too long, many have championed the rights and liberties of oppressed peoples here and abroad, but remained silent on Palestinian freedom, or even worse, supported U.S. policies that render Palestinian humanity and suffering invisible. This clear and courageous book is a clarion call for moral integrity and political consistency.”
—Cornel West, Harvard University

“Hill and Plitnick deliver a thoughtful and incisive analysis of how progressive commitments to racial and social justice are undermined by the ‘Palestinian exception.’ Building the civil rights movement for the twenty-first century in America requires an international intersectionality that necessarily includes advocating for the rights and dignity of Palestinians and Israelis alike. Except for Palestine is timely and vital.”
—Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib, Michigan’s 13th Congressional District

“Except for Palestine calls on progressives to apply the same principles to Israel-Palestine that they apply to the U.S. It’s a simple, radical, and deeply important argument, which anyone who cherishes justice should not ignore.”
—Peter Beinart, author of The Crisis of Zionism

“Hill and Plitnick have produced a timely and powerful indictment of decades of U.S. policy exceptionalizing Israel at the expense of progressive values. Their thorough examination of American progressives’ intellectual and moral hypocrisy when it comes to defending Palestinians’ human rights, civil rights, and right to challenge Israeli occupation is a valuable resource.”
—Lara Friedman, president of the Foundation for Middle East Peace

“This book explores some of the most fundamental contradictions confronting liberal spaces in the U.S. and makes a powerful case for the progressive core values of humanity, justice, and dignity to finally include the Palestinian people.”
—Ahmad Abuznaid, executive director of the U.S. Campaign for Palestinian Rights

“Except for Palestine cogently explores the reasons for the silence of so many progressives and liberals when it comes to the unceasing violations of the rights of the Palestinian people. Hill and Plitnick dismantle one by one the arguments used to justify this shameful silence, and in doing so provide an eloquent, balanced, and hard-hitting analysis of why ending an egregious exception to accepted norms of justice and equality is so imperative.”
—Rashid Khalidi, author of Brokers of Deceit: How the U.S. Has Undermined Peace in the Middle East

Apparently, being subject to criticism is the same as being "silenced" to these people.

There are two major problems with this argument. One is that progressives, if they were consistent, would all be Zionist. The other is that progressives, if they were consistent, would be harsh critics of Palestinian nationalism as it exists today.

Progressives believe that peoples should have self-determination. There is indeed an Israel exception - the Jewish people alone among all other peoples are not judged to have that right. Moreover, Israel is the most progressive place in the Middle East, and in many ways it is more progressive than western European nations towards Muslims- look at French restrictions on burkinis, or Swiss restrictions on the call for prayer from mosques.

What would a Palestinian state look like? It would be anything but progressive. Palestinians, under their own rule, are intolerant of gays; they have many laws that penalize women. Polls show that Palestinians opinions on everything are regressive:

In literally every aspect, this book is based on lies - lies about Israel, lies about Palestinians, lies about the US, lies about the progressive movement.

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.

New member of Congress says Democrats would have done Abraham Accords sooner

New Congressional Representative Mondaire Jones, who replaced Rep. Nita Lowey, has some bizarre ideas about the Abraham Accords, in this interview with JNS:

Q: Are there any of U.S. President Donald Trump’s pro-Israel policies that you’ve agreed with—for example, the Abraham Accords?

A: I support the normalization of relations between Israel and its surrounding Arab nations. I think that we could’ve gotten to this point much sooner under a different president, such as Hillary Clinton or [U.S. President-elect] Joe Biden, and I think it is despite Trump’s efforts that we’ve been able to make progress in that regard.

Q: So you do not give the president credit for brokering the Abraham Accords?

A: Absolutely not. I think he has done more to harm the State of Israel than any president in modern history. His political approach to the region has been to inflame tensions between Arabs and Israelis.

Q: Who do you give credit for brokering the accords?

A: Oh, goodness. The diplomats who have been working in the State Department on a career basis, and, of course, both the Israeli government and leaders in the Arab world for finally coming together and making strides towards the peaceful environment that so many people have been hurting for many decades.

Jones is a staunch supporter of restoring the Iran deal and he also said, "I’ve been really distraught to see the assassination of Iran’s leading nuclear scientist [Mohsen Fakhrizadeh], and I’m hopeful that has not destroyed the conditions that will allow for us to seamlessly re-enter that agreement."

This guy does not sound too knowledgeable.

In this interview and others he positions himself as a friend to Israel but it sounds like his "friendship" is the kind that J-Street claims to have - which is not friendship at all except in name.

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.

01/16 Links: Memo to President Biden: Please Don’t Mess Up the Abraham Accords; Regional ramifications as Trump seeks to include Israel in CENTCOM

From Ian:

Bret Stephens: Memo to President Biden: Please Don’t Mess Up the Abraham Accords

Where does the creation of a Palestinian state rank on this list of American priorities? Not high, in the final analysis. There’s a shopworn argument that the failure to “solve” the Israeli–Palestinian conflict is a major reason for ideological extremism and jihadist terrorism. Yet to the extent that extremists and jihadis care about, and act upon, their Palestinian grievance, it’s to destroy Israel in its entirety, not to create a Palestinian state alongside a Jewish one. There is also an argument that a Palestinian state of some kind will be necessary to preserve Israel’s Jewish and democratic character. But even if one concedes the point, it’s an argument about Israeli interests, not American ones.

The upshot is that the infatuation so many U.S. policymakers have with Palestinian statehood has disserved American interests in myriad ways.

- It confuses a vital national interest with a political wish—in this case, the wish of American presidents like Bill Clinton and secretaries of state like John Kerry to be lauded as peacemakers.
- It wastes the White House’s political capital and diplomatic time.
- It perpetuates the damaging myth that the plight of the Palestinians is the gravest in the region—to the detriment of other Middle Eastern people, such as the Kurds, who have fared far worse at the hands of Turks, Iraqis, and Syrians alike.
- It perpetuates the false notion that a solution to the Palestinian issue would somehow solve everything else.
- It allows the Arab world to go on asking “Who did this to us?” rather than “What did we do wrong?”—thereby fostering a mindset of blame-avoidance, conspiracy thinking, and political prevarication.
- It plays into the propaganda of America’s radical enemies, led by Iran, that Israel’s behavior, rather than their own, is the chief source of turmoil and injustice in the region.
- It asks that this same ally, Israel, weaken its defenses and take the proverbial “risks for peace,” when what America most needs from Israel is a strong country that can defend itself, come to the aid of its neighbors, provide the U.S. with critical intelligence and tactical know-how, and serve as a bulwark against the region’s radicals.
- It puffs the vanity of Palestinian leaders and encourages them to pursue maximalist demands and reject every compromise, since it is only through the perpetuation of conflict that they remain relevant actors on the world stage. The paradox of the Palestinian issue is that the greater the public and diplomatic attention paid it, the harder it is to solve.
- It stands in the way of full normalization of ties between Israel and Arab states by tying normalization to demands that Israel cannot safely meet, such as relinquishing the Jordan River Valley or allowing the descendants of Arab refugees from 1948 to return to Israel.
- It feeds anti-Semitic stereotypes. As one French ambassador put it not long after 9/11, “All the current troubles in the world are because of that shitty little country, Israel. Why should the world be in danger of World War III because of those people?”

In sum, not only did the Obama administration harm U.S. interests and values by overworking the Israeli-Palestinian issue, it harmed Israeli, Arab, and even Palestinian interests as well. Could the Trump administration do better?

To its credit—and to the pleasant surprise of some of its critics, including me—it did, in spades.

Biden Doesn’t Need a New Middle East Policy

As with the past eight U.S. presidents, much of President Donald Trump’s foreign policy was dominated by the broader Middle East. Despite talk of ending “forever wars” and pivoting to Asia, core national interests have repeatedly drawn the United States back to the region.

In many ways, Trump’s priorities in the Middle East differed little from those of his two predecessors: eliminating weapons of mass destruction, supporting U.S. partners, fighting terror, and facilitating the export of hydrocarbons. In other ways, however, his administration—in which I served as envoy for both Syria and the coalition to counter the Islamic State (also known as ISIS)—oversaw a notable paradigm shift in the U.S. approach to the region. Both U.S. Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama pursued transformational campaigns in the Middle East based on the erroneous belief that by burrowing politically and militarily into states there, the United States could address the underlying causes of Islamist terror and perpetual regional instability.

Although Trump’s real policy views were often difficult to divine, his administration took a different tack, with clear results. By keeping American aims limited, responding to imminent regional threats but otherwise working primarily through partners on the ground, Trump avoided the pitfalls encountered by his predecessors while still advancing American interests. For all the partisan rancor in debates about foreign policy today, this new paradigm should—and likely will—continue to define U.S. policy. It offers the best option for containing challenges in the Middle East and prioritizing geopolitical challenges elsewhere.

A NEW STRATEGY
Most new administrations issue a National Security Strategy and then quickly shelve it. But the 2017 document drafted by the White House offered a novel blueprint for U.S. policy in the Middle East and one that the Trump administration generally followed. Overall, the strategy called for shifting focus from so-called endless wars to great-power competition, primarily with China and Russia. For the Middle East, that first principle meant avoiding entanglement in local issues while still pushing back on near-peer and regional dangers. In practice, this amounted to containing Iran and Russia while smashing serious terrorist threats.

Biden Administration Tells Israel It Will Continue to Pursue Normalization With Arab Countries: Report

The incoming Biden administration has told Israel that it plans to continue pursuing normalization agreements with Arab countries, according to a report from journalist Barak Ravid in Walla News.

“I do not think it is possible to reverse the relations that have been established between Israel and the Arab states in recent months,” Israeli Foreign Ministry official Eliav Benjamin told Ravid. “We’re in touch with Biden’s staff and what we have heard is that they are in favor of the normalization process, and that they are willing to continue it and we will work with them on that.”

Brokered by the Trump administration, the Abraham Accords saw normalized relations between Israel and Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Morocco, and Sudan — the first such deals since the Jewish state’s peace accord with Jordan in 1994.

“Some are more prepared and some less prepared,” Benjamin also said. “I expect more countries to join — I do not know if it will be in weeks or months, but there will be more”

President-elect Joe Biden praised the agreements in a Sep. 2020 statement, as a candidate, saying, “I welcome the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain taking steps to normalize ties with Israel … It is good to see others in the Middle East recognizing Israel and even welcoming it as a partner.”

Report: Biden team already holding talks with Iran on US return to nuclear deal

Officials in the incoming Biden administration have already begun holding quiet talks with Iran on a return to the 2015 nuclear deal, and have updated Israel on those conversations, Channel 12 News reported Saturday.

The network gave no sourcing for the report, and no details on what was allegedly discussed.

US President-elect Joe Biden has indicated his desire to return to the accord, while Israel is pushing for any return to the deal to include fresh limitations on Iran’s ballistic missile program and support for terror and destabilization around the world.

On Wednesday, Walla News reported that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is assembling a team to strategize for the first talks with the Biden administration on Iran’s nuclear program.

The team will include officials representing national security elements, the Foreign Ministry, the Defense Ministry, the military, the Mossad spy agency, and the Atomic Energy Commission, the report said, citing unnamed sources in the Prime Minister’s Office.

Netanyahu is considering appointing a senior official to head the team and to serve as an envoy in talks with the US on the Iranian nuclear program, the report said.

From Kitabat.com, an Iraqi news site that is also popular in Algeria:

The Noble Qur’an has shown that the Jews have many characteristics associated with them, and it is considered part of their deceitful methods and their intrigue in distorting the facts and their dealings with every prophet and messenger. ...And they kill the prophets, espionage, blocking the path of God, breaking promises and cruelty of hearts...Most of their events wreak havoc on humanity and their history is stained with blood and treachery.

The Jews say that cats on the island of Ozil when they feel near the end of time rush to a specific cemetery to die in it quietly, and other dogs on distant islands also swim The ocean to this cemetery without prior knowledge of it and it dies there just as it liked to die in the same way as cats, and this was published by the Egyptian newspaper Akhbar Al-Youm on 10/21/1971.

... The bitterness in the modern era is not different from what the Jews did in Palestine in 1948, of the extermination, displacement and slaughter of dozens of pregnant women and the slaughter of sheikhs in the Deir Yassin region. As for the series of their assassinations of nuclear scientists, their record of these criminal behavior continues, the last of which is the assassination of the Iranian nuclear scientist Fakhri Zadeh.

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.

01/15 Links Pt2: Caroline Glick: Israel goes back to the future; In the Guardian, Antisemites are Authorities on Antisemitism; Melanie Phillips: Inoculation, incompetence and intolerable exceptionalism

From Ian:

Caroline Glick: Israel goes back to the future

Then there are the Palestinians. In September 2000, the Palestinians launched a massive terror onslaught against Israel which lasted for four years. Every day, Israelis were subjected to acts of murderous terrorism that ranged from roadside stonings, shootings and bombings to mass shootings to suicide bombings, to mortar and missile assaults.

The Palestinians launched their terror war after rejecting Israel's offer of peace and statehood at the Camp David Peace Summit in July 2000. Yet in 2001, Burns was instrumental in convincing then-president Bush to become the first president to support Palestinian statehood.

Burns' support for the Palestinians is widely shared among members of Biden's incoming team. On Wednesday, Biden announced he is appointing Obama's former UN ambassador Samantha Power to serve as administrator of USAID.

Power played a central role in conceiving and passing UN Security Council Resolution 2334 in December 2016 which referred to Israeli communities and installations beyond the 1949 armistice lines in Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria as "a flagrant violation of international law." As USAID administrator, Power will be responsible for providing US financial support to the endemically corrupt and terror-supporting Palestinian Authority and to international organizations that facilitate Hamas's terror regime in Gaza.

According to sources in contact with Biden's transition team, Biden intends to appoint Obama's ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro to oversee the Abraham Accords. The sources raised the concern that Biden's goal in making the appointment is to restore the Palestinian veto over the normalization of relations between Israel and Arab states. Shapiro, who took the unprecedented step of remaining in Israel and active in public affairs after he left office, is expected to remain in Israel to take on this function.

In anticipation of the incoming administration's restoration of Obama's policies towards Israel and the Palestinians, on Tuesday, the foreign ministers of Germany, France Britain, Egypt, and Jordan called on the Biden and his team to lead negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians towards the so-called "two-state solution," replete with an Israeli withdrawal to the 1949 armistice lines. The foreign ministers also called on Israel "to completely end all settlement activities including in East Jerusalem."

The leftist political group J Street issued a call for Biden to officially abandon the Trump administration's peace plan. It also asked the new administration to end scientific cooperation with Israeli institutions located beyond the 1949 armistice lines, to open a diplomatic legation in Jerusalem to serve the Palestinians, and to pledge to open a US embassy to "Palestine" in Israel's capital upon the conclusion of a peace deal.

Efforts by Biden's supporters to blot out the actions and achievements of the outgoing administration extend to the fight against anti-Semitism. One of the most significant achievements that Israel and Diaspora Jewry have accomplished in recent years in the fight against anti-Semitism has been the adoption by governments throughout the world of the definition of anti-Semitism conceived by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance.

The IHRA: A Reply to the Guardian Letter signed by Sir Stephen Sedley et al.

On 7 January 2021 The Guardian published a letter from eight lawyers who claimed that the IHRA definition of antisemitism, which the UK government has instructed UK universities to adopt, undermines free expression. The signatories also claimed that examples included in the IHRA definition have been ‘widely used to suppress or avoid criticism of the state of Israel.’ Dave Rich, Director of Policy at the Community Security Trust and a leading expert on left-wing antisemitism, argues that the letter rests on a ‘misrepresentation of what the definition says and does, ‘unevidenced claims’ about its impact, and confusions about its legal status and power. The IHRA definition, he contends, offers universities ‘a modest, sensible and practical guide to antisemitism that would help Jewish students to play a full part in campus life’.

The campaign against the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism has been running for long enough that it is now possible to identify its common themes. These include repeated misrepresentation of what the definition does, and does not, say about Israel and antisemitism; unevidenced claims about the definition’s alleged impact on free speech; confusion of its legal status and power; and an appeal to authority by quoting others from within this same campaign.

A letter in last week’s Guardian (where else?), signed by eight experienced lawyers, is a helpful example of how this works. It opens with the claim that, ‘The legally entrenched right to free expression is being undermined by an internally incoherent “non-legally binding working definition” of antisemitism.’ The letter then cites the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Education Act 1986 before noting that the IHRA definition ‘has no legislative or other authority in international or domestic law.’

Given that this is the case, it is hard to see how a non-legal definition with no legal authority could undermine legally-guaranteed rights to free expression and academic freedom. Most universities understand this, even if these eight lawyers don’t: the University of Oxford, in announcing its recent adoption of the IHRA definition, stated that, ‘The IHRA definition does not affect the legal definition of racial discrimination, so does not change our approach to meeting our legal duties and responsibilities.’

There are other legal restrictions on free expression which these lawyers did not mention in their letter, including the Public Order Act, the Equality Act, the Protection from Harassment Act, the Malicious Communications Act and so on. These all limit free speech, including at universities, but the letter’s signatories do not seem troubled by this. Instead, a definition that even they concede is ‘non-legally binding’ is, apparently, such a grave threat to free expression that it is worth a letter to the Guardian. Why is this the case?

In the Guardian, Antisemites are Authorities on Antisemitism

Signers of the Guardian letter had previously accused Jews of dual loyalty; of using their control over the media and banks to manipulate others; of “whining” about the Holocaust and pedaling “fairy tales” about the Final Solution; and of being part of a “pampered religion.” They had celebrated terrorists who targeted and murdered innocent Jewish civilians. And they had excused those responsible for vile antisemitism, including the claim that Jews use Christian blood in their rituals, Holocaust denial, and calls to “kill the Jews.”

ANTISEMITISM
Subhi Hadidi: Jews forever disloyal to home countries
One co-signer, Subhi Hadidi, justified the persecution of Jews living in the Arab world by insisting their expulsion underscored a “higher truth”: that Jews are disloyal and insular.

In the London-based newspaper al-Quds al-Arabi, Hadidi took issue with historian Geoffrey Alderman’s criticism of the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Arab lands. It seems Alderman placed blame on the wrong side. The expulsions, Hadidi wrote, were “a textbook case of a greater truth: the failure of most Jewish communities to assimilate into any national culture, their unwillingness to meet a high or sufficient standard of citizenship sense and participation in society, and raising [their] loyalty to Israel, even before it was born, above all loyalties.”

The charge of dual loyalties is something of a habit for Hadidi. After the US ambassador to Israel criticized Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas for saying the Holocaust was provoked by the Jewish role in society — “usury and banking and such” —Hadidi insisted the real reason for the ambassador’s criticism was that the he was “a Jew before he is an American.”

He has also cast Judaism in general as being pampered — “a very spoiled [religion] on a global scale.”

Despite this history of flagrant antisemitism, the Guardian felt it was appropriate for him to instruct readers on what is and isn’t appropriate language about Jews.

Mohamed Alyahyai: “Jewish media machine” abuses Holocaust
Hadidi is hardly the only hen-house guard that looks suspiciously foxy.

Mohamed Alyahyai, another co-signer of the letter, has blamed the “Jewish media machine” for planting guilt in European minds about the Holocaust.

Ali Fakhrou: Jewish “whining” about Holocaust includes lies, fairy tales, exaggerations
Ali Fakhrou, a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, has taken such arguments even farther. If his co-signer Hadidi insisted the persecution of Jews in the Arab world is the fault of the Jews themselves, Fakhrou flatly denied any such mistreatment occurred, writing in al-Quds al-Arabi of a “false Zionist claim that the Arab Jews were persecuted.”

And just as co-signer Alyahyai charged the Jews with running the media and misusing the Holocaust, so too did Fakhrou, who expanded on the argument by raising doubts about Holocaust historiography.

Cartoon of the Day: The "Get Out of Jail Free" card for antisemites

Continuing my series of recaptioning cartoons....

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.

01/15 Links Pt1: Prof. Kontorovich: Refuting Btselem’s Israel-Apartheid Accusation; UNRWA Admits Educational Materials Rife With Anti-Israel Racism and Incitement

From Ian:

Prof. Eugene Kontorovich: Refuting Btselem’s Israel-Apartheid Accusation

The Apartheid accusation in Btselem’s recent report is not just totally false, it is anti-Semitic. Apartheid is not just a term for policies one dislikes – it is an international crime defined as “inhumane acts committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups, and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.” These “acts” include such things as “widespread” murder and enslavement. The legal standard for labeling a government an “apartheid regime” is set quite high—indeed, so high that no country since the end of South African apartheid has ever received the distinction. Despite massive systematic oppression of racial and ethnic minorities in countries from China to Sri Lanka to Sudan, the apartheid label has never been applied to those countries or any other country by the U.S. or anyone else.

Invoking the heinous crime of Apartheid to criticize Israeli policy is a classic anti-Semitic rhetoric: it accuses Jews, uniquely among the peoples of the world, of one of the most heinous crimes, while also judging the Jewish state by a metric not applied to any other country. And the clear agenda is to entirely delegitimize Israel: the remedy for apartheid is not reform, it is the abolition of the regime itself and a total reshaping of the government.

The very essence of apartheid was the physical separation – apartness – of people based on a legislated racial hierarchy. There is no racial or ethnic distinctions in Israeli law. Under the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act of 1953, municipal grounds could be reserved for a particular race, creating, among other things, separate beaches, buses, hospitals, schools and universities. Inside of Israel there are no separation of this sort. In Judea and Samaria Israelis and Palestinians buy at the same stores, work together and etc.In South-Africa Public beaches, swimming pools, some pedestrian bridges, drive-in cinema parking spaces, parks, and public toilets were segregated. Restaurants and hotels were required to bar blacks. In Israel and all territories under its jurisdiction, Palestinians patronize the same shops and restaurants as Jews do. It is true that Jews are de facto excluded from Palestinian-controlled territory, but that is not the Apartheid Btselem has in mind.

Though funded by EU countries, @btselem's is working to convince Israelis NOT to make territorial concessions to Palestinians. By claiming Israel commits "Apartheid" in Gaza, it says to Israelis: Instead of "land for peace," you get "land for accusations of Apartheid."
— Eugene Kontorovich (@EVKontorovich) January 15, 2021

US House reintroduces bill to sanction fiscal supporters of Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad

A bill that would impose American sanctions on supporters of Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) or their affiliates has been reintroduced in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Reps. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.) and Brian Mast (R-Fla.) reintroduced the Palestinian International Terrorism Support Prevention Act on Thursday. Hamas and PIJ are U.S.-designated terrorist groups.

The bill passed the House in 2019 but died in the U.S. Senate.

If enacted, the bill would require the president to submit to Congress an annual report for the next three years identifying foreign persons, agencies or instrumentalities of a foreign state who knowingly and materially assist Hamas, the PIJ or an affiliate or successor of one of those organizations.

It would also require the president to report to Congress on each government that provides support for acts of terrorism and provides material support to Hamas, PIJ or any affiliate or successor organization.

Additionally, the president would need to prohibit that government’s transactions in foreign exchanges that are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and prevent that government’s transfers of credits or payments between financial institutions subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

After Watchdog Report, UNRWA Admits Educational Materials Rife With Anti-Israel Racism and Incitement

The United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), which serves Palestinian refugees, admitted on Thursday that its educational materials contain exhortations to violence, hate speech, and terrorism that violate UN regulations.

In a statement by UNRWA Commissioner-General Philippe Lazzarini one day after the release of a report by the group IMPACT-se examining the materials, UNRWA asserted that its educational curriculum — which is used to teach over 500,000 children — “emphasizes the UN values of neutrality, human rights, tolerance, equality, and non-discrimination with regard to race, gender, language and religion.”

The agency claimed that the inclusion of the offensive material was due to bureaucratic problems prompted by the shift to remote learning during the coronavirus pandemic.

“Unfortunately, in the rush to continue students’ education uninterrupted, some material the Agency had previously identified as not in line with UN values was mistakenly included,” the statement said. “As soon as the issue was identified, the Agency conducted a thorough review of the entirety of the self-learning material that UNRWA developed and took steps to address it.”

“UNRWA has a zero-tolerance policy for discrimination and for incitement to hatred and violence in its schools and in all of its operations,” it claimed. “Any breach reported is dealt with firmly. The Agency adheres, in its education program, to the highest standards of neutrality, humanity, and tolerance.”

Marcus Sheff, the CEO of IMPACT-se, commented, “After years of hearing UNRWA’s claims that it does not teach hate and has safeguards in place, we have for the first time taken a [peek] behind the curtain and what we see is shocking.”

We suspended funding to UNRWA, which is riddled with waste, fraud & concerns of support to terrorism. UNRWA is not a refugee agency; it’s estimated <200,000 Arabs displaced in 1948 are still alive and most others are not refugees by any rational criteria. https://t.co/SdyigJPHiH
— Secretary Pompeo (@SecPompeo) January 14, 2021

The two faces of Palestinian leadership on COVID-19 (ElderToon)

Khaled Abu Toameh tweeted:

PLO official: We did not ask Israel for vaccines.
Palestinian Authority official: We asked Israel for vaccines.
— Khaled Abu Toameh (@KhaledAbuToameh) January 15, 2021

Which brings up another cartoon I made this week that captures the head of both the PLO and the Palestinian Authority perfectly.

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.

Christiane Amanpour adds to the vaccine libel

Yesterday, Christiane Amanpour of CNN interviewed Gideon Saar, new political rival to Benjamin Netanyahu, and asked him about Israel's response to the pandemic.

She then went right to the libel that Israel is responsible under international law to provide vaccines for Palestinians.

And as you know the United Nations and many human rights groups not to mention the Palestinians themselves have complained bitterly that they are not getting a fair shake when it comes to vaccinations as well. And the Palestinian political leader, also a physician, wrote this in the New York Times.
"The Israeli government's decision to make the vaccine available only to Israeli citizens is not just a moral injustice, it is self-defeating. Herd immunity will not be achieved for Israelis without vaccinating Palestinians."

The Palestinians themselves have not "complained bitterly" - for weeks while the libel spread, they were silent, and only when they saw that there was great propaganda benefit to blasting Israel for not doing what they never asked for did they jump on the bandwagon.

I wonder if you were prime minister you would make sure Palestinians on the occupied west bank and in Gaza did actually get fairly treated in these vaccinations as well. It is part of the Oslo accords. It is part of the Geneva Conventions for an occupying power to take care of the medical needs of those citizens.

The Oslo Accords says the exact opposite of what Amanpour claims, stating: "Powers and responsibilities in the sphere of Health in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip will be transferred to the Palestinian side, including the health insurance system."

The Geneva Conventions says that the occupying power must assist the local authorities, and the Palestinians for the most part have not asked for help. When they did - Israel gave them vaccines.

For months last year, the Palestinian Authority refused any cooperation with Israel. Palestinian doctors were forbidden to work with their Israeli colleagues because that was called "normalization." . Does anyone seriously think Israel should have forcibly vaccinated the Palestinians if they had the vaccine during that time?

Saar answered accurately:

Christiane, as you know after the Oslo accords and after our withdrawal from the Gaza Strip the vast majority of Palestinians are under Palestinian control. It is the responsibility of the Palestinian authority and the Hamas regime to take care of their residents.We would like to help but we will be able to help only after taking care of our own citizens.

CA: Well, I guess that's a pretty severe message to the Palestinians. Do you not think that actually, you know, you are also -- it is a pandemic.

GS: I think it is a good message. I think it's a good message. Because I said we are ready to help. We are ready to help. But we will be able to help after taking care for our own citizens. I think that the Palestinian Authority has enough money in order to pay salaries, to terrorists, to murderers, to those who are getting according to the crimes against Israel. They are getting more money.

CA: These are different issues.

GS: If they have money for that they can take care of their residents.

CA: Mr. Saar, these are two different issues These are two very different issues This is a global pandemic.

GS: No.

They aren't different issues, because the Palestinian Authority has the cash and the means to get its own vaccines. As such, Israel's responsibility is to make sure that there are no impediments to that happening (which is what Amnesty and other NGOs are actually against!)

Amanpour is lying, explicitly, and flustered when Saar makes his points.

I made this cartoon before this show, not knowing how prescient it was.

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 battle over Biden and the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism

Jewish Insider published a letter that was sent from the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations to President-Elect Biden:

January 12, 2021

Dear President Elect Biden,

We are writing on behalf of, and as members of, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, which is the umbrella organization of fifty-three national Jewish organizations that span the political and religious spectrum of American Jewry. We again congratulate you upon your victory, and look forward to working closely and productively with you and your Administration over the corning years.

One area of great concern among our constituents and throughout our community is the significant rise of antisemitism across the United States. The FBI's recently released annual report on hate crimes documented that in 2019, the number of antisemitic hate crimes increased 14 percent, and made up over 60 percent of hate crimes based on religion. We know that you share this concern, as you have many times identified the appalling display of antisemitism in Charlottesville as an essential factor in your decision to run for president

Three consecutive administrations, representing both political parties, going back to that of President George W. Bush recognized that antisemitism on college campuses is a serious problem. Each has taken the position that Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act applies to such biases in the college setting. Each of these Administrations has taken the position that some anti-Israel activity is simply a modern form of antisemitism. That is a position the US State Department has recognized since 2005, in its endorsement of what is now called the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition at antisemitism, and has urged other countries to adopt as well. Many have, such that the IHRA definition is now the standard used by governments around the world to identify antisemitism as they combat it.

We note too that the IHRA definition has enjoyed widespread bipartisan Congressional support as evidenced by legislative sponsorship of the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act in both the Senate and the House of Representatives over the last two Congresses.

The IHRA definition is now the most comprehensive and authoritative definition of antisemitism and as such ought to intones the enforcement of Title VI throughout the government. The Executive Order on Combating Anti-Semitism, which was Issued on December 11.2019, was an important and impactful step forward in protecting the rights of Jewish students and identifying antisemitic acts as a form of discrimination through the application of Title VI.

We believe that all federal departments and agencies should, in their work, corolder the IHRA working definition of antisemitism (with examples), which states, "Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews. which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities..

Them are essential tools for the federal government to combat the scourge that is aptly called the world's oldest hatred." We urge your Administration to maintain and build upon these policies of the last three Presidents, and we welcome the opportunity to collaborate on potential ways to implement this definition that responsibly safeguard freedom of speech.

We request an opportunity for representatives of our community to meet with members of your transition team and incoming Administration in order to discuss ways in which the Jewish community can work with you on these pressing issues.

Sincerely yours,

The socialist Jewish Left is going crazy with anger that the mainstream Jewish organizations are concentrating on the IHRA definition as the standard for defining antisemitism. They are trying to tie the mainstream Jews who promote that definition with white supremacists.

"Progressive" Jews, not quite as crazy as the socialists, have been embarking on their own campaign against using that definition.

All sides are gearing up. But in the end, the haters don't have a case. No one seriously disagrees that neo-Nazis are antisemitic, but the Left tries to deny that anyone BUT neo-Nazis are antisemitic - and ultimately, that is a losing argument, as well as being obviously self-serving.

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.