12/18 Links: Is The New York Times a ‘Strong Supporter’ of Israel?; Bibi must move early on Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine plan; Why the BDS campaign is futile

From Ian:

Is The New York Times a ‘Strong Supporter’ of Israel?

However, by focusing solely on Israel’s actions as the determining factor regarding the future of the two-state solution, the New York Times is effectively removing any responsibility from the Palestinian Authority.

Indeed, aside from a passing remark about Palestinian corruption dimming the hopes of a Palestinian state, this opinion piece makes no mention of the Palestinian Authority’s financial support for terrorists and their families, its twice rebuffing American attempts at peace negotiations over the past 10 years or its continued incitement against Israelis and Jews within its official media organs and schools.

The only mention of the word “terror” in the editorial is in reference to past convictions by incoming National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir.

All of these factors, which directly imperil the chance for a successful two-state solution, existed long before the incoming Israeli government was ever formed.

And yet, in the eyes of The New York Times, these factors do not warrant the same concern or admonishment as do the anticipated actions of Benjamin Netanyahu and his coalition partners.

Related Reading: Top Israeli Daily’s Exposé Paints Troubling Picture of New York Times’ Israel Coverage

Lastly, throughout this opinion piece, the editorial board seems to enjoin the current American administration to take an active role in opposing the actions of the incoming Israeli government.

The editorial board calls upon the American government to more vocally oppose Netanyahu’s coalition partners (as opposed to the administration’s current wait-and-see approach) and to also support Israeli civil society organizations in their fight against this new government’s legislation.

Thus, in extolling democratic principles, The New York Times editorial board is essentially calling on the American government to intervene in the political life of a stalwart ally and to actively support domestic organizations in their opposition to that country’s democratically elected government.

While it is common for the American government to comment on individual actions taken by foreign governments, it is quite another thing to endorse the active intervention of the United States in an ally’s domestic politics.

Tom Friedman’s Look at Israel
Two days before The New York Times editorial board published its opinion piece, longtime New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman published an essay entitled “What in the World Is Happening in Israel?”

Even though it is seemingly more balanced and nuanced than the editorial board’s piece (one critic of the New York Times’ Israel coverage referred to it as “more accurate and profound than anything I’ve read in NYT about Israel all year”), there are a number of concerning passages within Friedman’s work.

Similar to the editorial board, Friedman seemingly points his finger at Netanyahu and his allies for what he perceives to be the eventual failure of the two-state solution, discounting the above-mentioned actions taken by the Palestinian Authority that play a major role in the two-state solution’s demise.

Further on in his piece, Friedman is doubtful about a future Israel-Saudi Arabia peace deal under the incoming Israeli government as well as Netanyahu’s proposed role as a bridge-builder between the United States and Saudi Arabia, portraying the presumptive Israeli prime minister as someone who focuses solely on the political right and deeply religious at the expense of centrists and those who hold liberal values.

However, contrary to what Friedman suggests, Netanyahu has proven himself able to work with a wide variety of political actors, including Middle Eastern leaders (with whom he signed the initial Abraham Accords agreements), President Joe Biden and others who do not necessarily share his viewpoints on all Israel-related matters.

"NY Times Editorial Rant: Why Must Israel’s Right Wing Reject 2-State?"

All of the above rejections of the two-state solution are wasted on the NY Times editorial board that insists the Netanyahu “government’s posture could make it militarily and politically impossible for a two-state solution to ever emerge.”

It will also make it close to impossible for human beings to grow wings and fly from flower to flower suckling on nutritious nectar, but, thankfully, the Times board skipped that one rant.

Of course, now comes the part the Times board could have lifted from its affiliate, Ha’aretz, copy and paste fashion: “Ministers in the new government are set to include figures such as Itamar Ben-Gvir, who was convicted in Israel in 2007 for incitement to racism and supporting a Jewish terrorist organization. He will probably be minister of national security. Bezalel Smotrich, who has long supported outright annexation of the West Bank, is expected to be named the next finance minister, with additional authority over the administration of the West Bank. For the deputy in the prime minister’s office in charge of Jewish identity, Mr. Netanyahu is expected to name Avi Maoz, who once described himself as a ‘proud homophobe.’”

It’s the newspaper of record’s right to voice its objections to the decision of a majority of Israeli voters who were easily as familiar with the above accusations and still went with Ben Gvir, Smotrich, and Maoz. They also chose a prime minister who is under three criminal indictments and a former interior minister who has recently been convicted of tax fraud. However, ballot boxes, by and large, don’t read editorials, and newspapers should know better than to attack voters for disagreeing with their world view.

The Times board is also unhappy with Israelis’ reproduction choices, stating: “Demographic change in Israel has also shifted the country’s politics. Religious families in Israel tend to have large families and to vote with the right. A recent analysis by the Israel Democracy Institute found that about 60 percent of Jewish Israelis identify as right-wing today; among people ages 18 to 24, the number rises to 70 percent. In the Nov. 1 election, the old Labor Party, once the liberal face of Israel’s founders, won only four seats, and the left-wing Meretz won none.”

Next, the editorial puts on paper the following sentence which is the culmination of the demise of its self-awareness. They actually wrote: “Moderating forces in Israeli politics and civil society are already planning energetic resistance…” See, when it’s right-wingers exercising their democratic rights, they’re called fascists; when they’re from the left, they’re “moderating forces.”

Finally, the editorial reiterates its archaic and tired mantra about 2-state, warning: “Anything that undermines Israel’s democratic ideals — whether outright annexation of Jewish settlements or legalization of illegal settlements and outposts — would undermine the possibility of a two-state solution.”

Amen?

The Times of London’s Undiplomatic Correspondent

The Times of London’s diplomatic correspondent Catherine Philp’s 15-year career at the newspaper has included postings in Israel and the Middle East. During this time, while HonestReporting critiqued Philp on a number of occasions, her reporting rarely matched that of many of her British colleagues who made little effort to hide their disdain for the Jewish state.

Now, the mask has most definitely slipped.

In response to popular British comedian Joe Lycett highlighting soccer World Cup host Qatar’s record on LGBTQ rights with several headline-grabbing stunts, Philp decided to make it all about Israel. She urged Lycett to do something similar “on the truly cynical pinkwashing Israel is undertaking to hide its real time apartheid.”

Dear @joelycett congratulations on what you do re Qatar and sport washing. I would please urge you to similar on the truly cynical pinkwashing Israel is undertaking to hide its real time apartheid..peace and love.

— Catherine Philp (@scribblercat) December 15, 2022

The so-called “pinkwashing” accusation is one that has been leveled at Israel on numerous occasions.

First coined by Sarah Schulman in an article for The New York Times in 2011, the term suggests Israel’s progressive stance on LGBT+ rights is a component of a “deliberate strategy to conceal the continuing violations of Palestinians’ human rights behind an image of modernity signified by Israeli gay life.”

As HonestReporting has noted previously, the pinkwashing claim evokes historical antisemitic libels, specifically that anything Jews do that is good or beneficial must be a part of some nefarious ulterior motive — in Philp’s case, diverting attention from Israel’s “real time apartheid.”

David Singer: Bibi must move early on Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine plan

A new solution to achieve an Israeli-Palestinian peace authored by Ali Shihabi - a close confidant of Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince and Prime Minister - Mohammed Bin Salman - was published by Al Arabiya news on 8 June 2022 – but has amazingly received virtually no mention or scrutiny in the international media or at the United Nations in the six months since its release.

The plan recognises:
“Israel is a reality firmly implanted on the ground that has to be accepted ...“

The plan calls for the merger of Jordan, Gaza and part of Judea and Samaria (West Bank) into one territorial entity to be called The Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine with unrestricted citizenship being offered to the Arab populations of Jordan, Gaza, the 'West Bank' and the refugee camps located in Syria and Lebanon.

Netanyahu – significantly –told Al Arabiya viewers:
“I think coming to a solution with the Palestinians will require out of the box thinking, will require new thinking.”

The Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine solution is certainly the most creative plan ever proposed to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – its author declaring:

“The Palestinian problem can only be solved today if it is redefined. The issue in this day and age for people should be not so much the ownership of ancestral land but more the critical need to have a legal identity—a globally respected citizenship that allows a person to operate in the modern world.”

Netanyahu is offering his potential coalition partners a choice: Drop demands Bibi cannot accept and back him in as Prime Minister or miss this best opportunity ever to end the unresolved 100 years-old Jewish-Arab conflict.

21 December is Israel’s Judgement Day.

Read More

Universities Paper Over The New Exclusion Of Jews On Campus -- Just Like In 1930's Poland (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

Just two weeks ago, I wrote about how in May last year, the violence by Hamas terrorists resulted in increased antisemitic attacks on American Jews. In its report, the US Commission on Civil Rights put the anti-Zionism of protesters in context:

The Commission recognizes that individuals have a right to be critical of Israel and the Israeli government; however, anti-Semitic bigotry disguised as anti-Zionism is no less morally deplorable than any other form of hate. [emphasis added]

It's not clear if many noticed this point, that anti-Zionism can be just another form of antisemitism. Universities, for their part, appeared to miss the point entirely -- and still do.

In 2019, as a result of a lawsuit brought by the Lawfare Project alleging discrimination, San Francisco State University agreed to issue a statement affirming

it understands that, for many Jews, Zionism is an important part of their identity.

This apparent landmark development did not stop the president of SFSU the following year from defending the invitation of the terrorist hijacker Leila Khaled to speak there on the grounds of "academic freedom" and "free speech" -- while noting in passing the importance of Zionism to Jewish identity. 

The required statement was no magic formula and the words had no effect. There have been no attempts to bring similar lawsuits to encourage recognition of Zionism at other university campuses.

Instead, the situation on campus gets even worse as anti-Jewish groups have gone from toxic speech against Jews to attempts at ostracizing Jews on campus.

Here are 2 examples in the news.

University of Vermont

The Department of Education Office for Civil Rights opened a formal investigation into claims of discrimination and harassment of Jews on the University of Vermont campus:

o  May 12, 2021, in response to the ongoing conflict between Israel and Gaza, UVM Empowering Survivors posted on Instagram that it would “follow the same policy with zionists that we follow with those trolling or harassing others: blocked,” going on to say that “we will not be engaging in conversation about . . . Zionism.”

o  On May 1, 2021, UVM Revolutionary Socialist Union book club's first Instagram post stated that “No racism, racial chauvinism, predatory behavior, homophobia, transphobia, Zionism, or bigotry and hate speech of any kind will be tolerated.” The complaint further stated that the club’s bylaws “require every RSU member to pledge ‘NO’ to Zionism.”

o  On Sept. 24, 2021, a group of “rowdy, intoxicated students” reportedly vandalized the university’s Hillel building for close to 40 minutes by throwing rocks at the upper, dorm portion of the building, and hurled “items with a sticky substance” against the building’s back. UVM administrators did not categorize the attack as a “bias incident,” even though it took place where a large number of Jewish students were known to be.

o  The complaint also named a university teaching assistant who repeatedly targeted student supporters of Israel on social media. In a series of tweets on April 5, 2021, she wrote: 

is it unethical for me, a TA, to not give zionists credit for participation??? i feel its good and funny, -5 points for going on birthright in 2018, -10 points for posting a pic with a tank in the Golan heights, -2 points just cuz i hate ur vibe in general.

The following month, the TA wrote: 

“the next step is to make zionism and zionist rhetoric politically unthinkable,” (adding that it should be) “worthy of private and public condemnation, likened to historical and contemporary segregationist movements.”

University of Vermont Responds

Suresh V. Garimella, president of the university posted a denial on the university website and AP summarized his response:

After investigating the complaint made Sept. 30. 2021, that two groups excluded from membership students who supported Israel as the homeland for Jewish people, the university determined the groups were not recognized student organizations, received no university support and were not bound by the university’s policies governing student organizations.

The university also investigated allegations that an undergraduate teaching assistant made anti-Semitic remarks and had threatened to lower the grades of Jewish students. The university determined that no grades were lowered and no student reported they had been discriminated against.

Finally, after learning that rocks had been thrown at a campus building where Jewish students lived, police determined small rocks were thrown at the building to get the attention of a friend, and there was no evidence it was motivated by antisemitic bias, Garimella said. [emphasis added]

Garimella missed the point, claiming everything was fine and that the real problem was the investigation itself which "has painted our community in a patently false light." 

The action that the university president took with the 2 groups is laughable:

To ensure an inclusive environment within recognized UVM student organizations, student leaders were reminded of university policies prohibiting discrimination on the basis of religion, national origin, or any other protected category. [emphasis added]

There was no condemnation of the exclusion by the groups. Instead, they were "reminded" of the university policies -- policies that Garimella claims the groups don't have to follow anyway.

In his online response, he dismisses the posts by the TA, claiming:

The university took prompt action to ensure that the objectionable statements did not adversely impact students in the classroom and further, to perform a thorough review to ensure all grades were awarded on a non-discriminatory basis. [emphasis added]

So Garimella claims that the comments by the TA are irrelevant as long as grades were not altered. He argues that the hate expressed and the discrimination encouraged by the TA "did not adversely impact students in the classroom" as long as the threats were not carried out.

Garimella's description of the Hillel incident, claiming it was an innocent attempt to get someone's attention fails to address the allegation reported by The Lewis D. Brandeis Center that

When one student whose window had been pelted called out asking the perpetrators to stop, one of the students responsible for the rock throwing shouted, “Are you Jewish?”

Garimella's insistence that the intent was innocent is also contradicted by the claim that a sticky substance was put on the wall of the building.

University of California, Berkeley

The Jewish Journal reports that Berkeley Develops Jewish-Free Zones:

Nine different law student groups at the University of California at Berkeley’s School of Law, my own alma mater, have begun this new academic year by amending bylaws to ensure that they will never invite any speakers that support Israel or Zionism. And these are not groups that represent only a small percentage of the student population. They include Women of Berkeley Law, Asian Pacific American Law Students Association, Middle Eastern and North African Law Students Association, Law Students of African Descent and the Queer Caucus. [emphasis added]

The article is by Kenneth L. Marcus, founder and chairman of the Louis D. Brandeis Center. He describes this current development as going beyond the anti-Jewish discrimination that has long been proliferating on college campuses. Instead of toxic speech being aimed at Jews who stand up for their pro-Israel identity, now Jews themselves are being targeted on campus.

In response to the claim that these groups are allowed to exclude pro-Israel Jews as an expression of the groups' free speech, Marcus quotes Berkeley's dean, Erwin Chemerinsky, who said that the exact opposite is true because these groups have deliberately included anti-Zionist bylaws which themselves limit the free speech of Zionist students.

Marcus goes further, writing that discriminatory conduct -- excluding students who support Israel -- is not protected free speech:

While hate speech is often constitutionally protected, such conduct may violate a host of civil rights laws, such as Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It is not always the case that student groups have the right to exclude members in ways that reflect hate and bigotry. In Christian Legal Society [CLS] v. Martinez, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right of another Bay Area University of California law school, Hastings College of the Law, to require student groups to accept all students regardless of status or beliefs. Specifically, the Court blessed Hastings’ decision to require Christian groups to accept gay members. [emphasis added]

A Washington Post article at the time quotes Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, who made a comment on the case that seems prescient today:

"Although the First Amendment may protect CLS's discriminatory practices off campus, it does not require a public university to validate or support them," Stevens wrote separately.

CLS forbids those who engage in "unrepentant homosexual conduct," Stevens said, but the same argument could be made from groups that "may exclude or mistreat Jews, blacks, and women -- or those who do not share their contempt for Jews, blacks, and women. [emphasis added]

A university has no obligation under free speech to support a group that discriminates and excludes Jews who support Israel.

University of California, Berkeley Responds

Dean Erwin Chemerinsky was widely quoted as making the point that under the exclusionary criteria of these groups he himself would be banned from the groups as well as  90% of his Jewish students.

Yet despite this, he defended the groups against Marcus.

Chemerinsky claims that the Law School has an "all-comers" policy, meaning that every student group and all student-organized events must be open to all students. He claims he knows of no case where this has been violated or that Jewish students have been discriminated against.

He goes on to complain that Marcus exaggerates the extent of the exclusion of pro-Israel speakers:

But what [Marcus] does not mention is that only a handful of student groups out of over 100 at Berkeley Law did this. He also does not mention that in a letter to the leaders of student groups I expressed exactly his message: excluding speakers on the basis of their viewpoint is inconsistent with our commitment to free speech and condemning the existence of Israel is a form of anti-Semitism.

Finally, it is important to recognize that law student groups have free speech rights, including to express messages that I and others might find offensive.

Like Garimella of UVM, Chemerisnsky plays down the impact of the anti-Zionist actions taken by student groups on his campus.

In response to his numbers game that only a relatively few groups have an exclusionary policy, Marcus responds:

Would it be okay for only 5% or 10% of the campus to be segregated? What percentage of the Berkeley campus should be open to all? Shouldn’t it be 100%? And what is the right number of doors that should be closed to students of any race or ethnicity: isn’t it zero?

On Chemerisnsky's claim that these student groups have a free speech right to exclude Zionists, Marcus draws a key distinction:

Excluding Zionists is not like excluding Republicans and environmentalists. It is not just viewpoint discrimination. If a Democratic club amended their bylaws to prohibit Republican speakers from appearing before them, we could accept their right to do so. We might regret that they are restricting the possibility of dialogue. We might prefer the approach of those law student groups that seek balanced presentations, in order to advance civil dialogue and promote learning. But we wouldn’t consider this to be a civil rights issue.

When persons are excluded on the basis of their ethnic or ancestral identity, however, we must respond differently. [emphasis added]

University indifference to the increasingly virulent exclusion of Jews on campus is compounded by the spread of this new attempt to ostracize Jews to other universities:

Last month, the Brandeis Center and JOC filed a similar complaint with OCR [Office of Civil Rights] on behalf of two Jewish State University of New York (SUNY) at New Paltz students who were also kicked out of a sexual assault awareness group and then cyberbullied, harassed and threatened, over their Jewish and Israeli identities. Currently OCR is investigating complaints filed by the Brandeis Center against the University of Illinois, Brooklyn College, and University of Southern California (USC). And the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is investigating a Brandeis Center employment discrimination complaint of anti-Semitism in the DEI program at Stanford University.

 

1930's Poland 

Rafael Medoff writes about a historical analogy to the exclusion of Jews at Berkeley in an article on Berkeley's Version of "Ghetto Benches":

In many universities in pre-World War II Poland, antisemitic faculty and students humiliated Jewish students by forcing them to sit in the back of classrooms. Those areas came to be known as the “ghetto benches.” In some instances, the benches were marked with the first letter of the name of the Jewish student group on campus—a kind of precursor to the Nazi practice (first instituted in German-occupied Poland, in fact) of identifying Jews via a badge or i.d. card bearing a Star of David and the letter “J” or the word “Jude.”

If there were insufficient seats in the back of the Polish classrooms, the Jewish students were made to stand, even if there were empty seats elsewhere in the room. Jewish students who ignored the regulation were often assaulted, and those who boycotted classes in protest were severely penalized. [emphasis added]

In a 1964 article in The Jewish Quarterly Review, "The Battle of the Ghetto Benches," H. Rabinowicz writes about Endek -- the fascist anti-Semitic National Democratic party of Poland. Endek influenced the creation of an anti-Jewish "Green Ribbon" League and pushed for an "Aryan paragraph" that would limit membership and rights to members of the "Aryan race," thus excluding Jews.

Many students succumbed to Endek influence. Warsaw's anti-Jewish "Green Ribbon" League developed rapidly. The nationalists proclaimed "A Week Without Jews", and the Aryan paragraph figured in the new Statute of the Warsaw Polytechnic. It placed the Jews outside the student Code of Honour as persons with whom non-Jews were to have no dealings and who could not even be challenged to duels. [p.154]

Back then, white supremacy was used to exclude Jews on campus.
Today, Jews are accused of being white supremacists.

Anti-Jewish student groups are not picky about the excuses they use to ostracize Jews. 

After years of disrupting Jewish and Israeli speakers, and pushing the idea of boycotts, it was only a matter of time before student groups on campus would gravitate towards one more tactic that was successfully implemented in the furthering of Jew-hatred.

---

---

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon! Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.  Read all about it here!

 

Read More