BDSers are proud of using violence to stifle free speech

From JTA last week:

Pro-Palestinian protesters injured a university employee while demonstrating against a lecture speaker who heads the Brazilian chapter of a pro-Israel advocacy group.

Andre Lajst, the director of StandWithUs Brazil, was speaking about ways that Israeli technologies could help develop the Amazon region at the Federal University of Amazonas in Manaus on Thursday when protesters clashed with security and other university employees outside the lecture auditorium.

According to news reports, the advisor to the university’s rector left the scene with a broken nose after attempting to safeguard her daughter. Several students entering the lecture were also harassed, and police officers escorted Lajst into and out of the venue. One protester was reportedly arrested for pushing a police officer but later released.  

Here's video at the scene:

Andre Lajst completed his lecture and had to be escorted out by police for his safety from the violent mob.

But BDS-aligned media are bragging (and lying) that they managed to shut down his speech with their thuggish mob!

Pro-Palestine Brazilians demonstrated at a university in the Brazilian city of Manaus against the organization of a pro-Israeli-occupation event on campus.

Despite the high-security measures against them, the protesters managed to stop the meeting in support of the Israeli occupation, which is entitled “Cooperation with Israel”.

André Lajst, director of the Brazilian branch of StandWithUs, a pro-Israeli-occupation group in Brazil, spoke at the event about supporting the occupation and normalization with it.

Video clips showed the large number of anti-Israel-occupation demonstrators, known as BDS Mob, who confronted the Brazilian police and attempted to shut down the event by force, forcing Lajst and his companions to leave the place quickly.

These protests are a part of the international BDS activities against all forms of normalization with the Israeli occupation, especially educational normalization.

Among themselves, BDSers don't even pretend to be "non-violent." They are happy and proud to threaten and attack people.

And then they claim in mainstream media  articles that they are doing it in the name of "academic freedom."

 

---

---

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

So much apartheid!

Indigo Traveller, a popular social media personality, visited a beautiful but very dangerous slum in Brazil and interviewed people there.

One of his subjects is a dancer who has traveled around the world. 

He describes how he experienced racism in Europe, especially Spain. 

But his favorite place to visit and perform is Israel - he says he even learned Hebrew.

(h/t Ezequiel Doiny)

---

---

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

12/27 Links Pt2: How did black, Jewish communities go from friendship to tension?; Making sense of the great Mizrahi exodus; Dishonest Reporter of the Year Awards 2022

From Ian:

How did black, Jewish communities go from friendship to tension? - opinion

The events over the last couple of months involving the black and Jewish communities have triggered a lot of thought-provoking questions and concerns. During my entire time working for Jewish non-profits, leaders of these organizations encouraged us to use the strong history of solidarity between black and Jewish communities as part of our outreach.

When educating Jewish university students, we always discussed the special relationship between Dr. Martin Luther King and Rabbi Heschel. We used quotes from influential black leaders to showcase how these figures were supporters of Zionism at a time when Israel was vulnerable.

Looking back now, I realize that historically, the relationship between both communities is a lot more complicated, and today is no different. While black and Jewish solidarity during the civil rights movement sounds beautiful, those stories don’t resonate with my generation because it’s not our reality anymore. Historically the black and Jewish communities supported one another, but clearly, things are different now.

So what happened? How did we get here?
Since the civil rights movement, different events have caused friction between our communities, which have dampened the good relationship which black and Jewish people once shared. Over time, antisemitism and racism have infested both groups. In addition, various events, like the Crown Heights riots, created tension. Hate also spewed from extremist groups and organizations like the Nation of Islam, causing more friction.

Today, black nationalists like Louis Farrakhan and his followers are normalizing antisemitic rhetoric. And now, prominent figures like Kanye West openly spreads antisemitic conspiracy theories while promoting extremists from the Black Hebrew Israelite community who openly support Hitler and the Nazis on the streets of New York.

The black and Jewish communities have, in the past, worked together as vulnerable groups to fight for equality. Over the years, they lived as neighbors in segregated neighborhoods in the US.

Their alliance had some profound moments. Jewish philanthropist Julius Rosenwald teamed up with Booker T. Washington to create schools for black children in the south. Rosenwald donated $70 million to build 5,000 schools for black children.

Black colleges also stepped in during World War II to rescue Jews from Germany. After the Nazis took power, the US failed to take immediate action, thus administrators from Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) saved 50 Jewish-German scholars by hiring them.

Lyn Julius: Making sense of the great Mizrahi exodus

Sixty years ago, Algeria declared its independence from France after a bloody war that is thought to have claimed over a million lives. In the course of throwing off the French colonial yoke, Algeria divested itself of 800,000 “white settlers” or pieds noirs. But along with the settlers went 130,000 native Algerian Jews.

There was a reason for this: Within a year of independence, it was clear that there would be no place for non-Muslims in the new Algeria. Indeed, the country’s constitution stipulated that only those with a Muslim father or grandfather could acquire Algerian citizenship.

The Jewish refugees, who held French citizenship, were “repatriated” to France, where they had never lived. One of them was Shmuel Trigano, then 14-years-old. Within two days and with two suitcases in hand, his life changed forever. Uprooted from the only home he had ever known, he was left permanently scarred.

However, it was only relatively recently, when he saw Palestinians brandishing the keys to homes they had left in 1948, that Trigano realized there was a political dimension to his trauma.

“We also had keys,” he says of the 900,000 Jews forced to flee Arab countries. “But we were too modest. We did not make claims—and because we were silent, we allowed a false narrative to fill the vacuum.”

In order to counter what he calls a massive distortion of the facts, Trigano set about applying the tools of his trade as a professor of sociology. He constructed a conceptual framework to make sense of the post-1940s Jewish exodus from 10 Arab countries over a period of 30 years.

David Collier: Gazan scams the anti-Zionists – antisemitism makes people dumb

A Gazan has just scammed anti-Zionists out of £1000s. Pete Gregson, the Scottish man who ran the campaigns has even just admitted it. The truth here is that this is a cycle; The lies of anti-Israel propaganda creates anti-Zionists, anti-Zionism embeds antisemitism, and antisemitism makes people targets for scams. And trust me on this, the people in Gaza and the West Bank are fully aware of it.

A Gazan scammer – the backstory
Keeping this part short: Those who read this blog will know that throughout 2022, I ran several articles on the relationship between Pete Gregson, an active antisemite from Scotland, and a Gazan by the name of Mohammed Almadhoun. Gregson put out an endless stream of fundraisers to help Almadhoun and even ran the Gaza- Edinburgh twinning campaign alongside him. I went digging (as did one or two friends), tracking down Almadhoun and all his claims. It took a while, we had to dig deep – and I even ended up speaking to an Egyptian surgeon referenced in one of the campaigns (who denied ever operating on Almadhoun). My research showed beyond doubt that not only did Almadhoun’s family have ties to both Islamic Jihad and Hamas, but that the fundraising campaigns were a scam.

A Christmas Eve notice and the Boxing Day email
Pete Gregson carried on with his campaigns, ridiculing my research and standing by his Gazan ‘friend’. Until on Christmas Eve the latest campaign was suddenly closed. Then yesterday (Boxing Day), Pete Gregson personally sent an extraordinary email to all those that had contributed. It began like this (full email – see image) :
“It greatly pains me to admit to our having been victims of a humongous scam “

He even openly admitted that I had been right:
Gregson explains that he now knows that Almadhoun, the Gazan scammer will ‘tell lies with impunity if he can scam money‘

Let Jews Arm Themselves to Keep Their Synagogues Safe

Since 2018, there have been three violent attacks on worshippers at American synagogues; numerous others were attempted, threatened, or successfully foiled by law enforcement. Under these circumstances, Jewish communities have adopted various protective measures, including arming themselves. State laws in Maryland and New York, however, specifically prohibit carrying weapons in houses of prayer. Stuart Halpern and Tevi Troy argue against such regulations:

Legally speaking, the laws appear to violate the Second Amendment guarantee of the right to bear arms. Indeed, the New York law was challenged on that basis, and the Maryland law may face a legal challenge as well. But the laws could also be subject to a First Amendment challenge, as they could be seen as an unreasonable burden on the free exercise of religion. After all, if you can’t worship safely because of the threat of anti-Semitic violence, how can you be free to practice your religion?

Legalities aside, there is a larger problem here: these laws may be well-meaning, but the fact remains that, if enacted, potential victims will comply with the law, while their potential attackers won’t. As a result, the attackers will remain armed and dangerous, while potential protectors will be disarmed and limited to the run, hide, and fight directives of local synagogue security committees. These committees do great work, but they necessarily tell congregants, as a last resort, to throw a siddur (Jewish prayer book) at an attacker. A siddur, alas, is a poor substitute for a gun in a firefight.

The 3,000-year-old Jewish tradition has examined the tension between sanctity and safety in the synagogue. In the book of Exodus, the Almighty offers instructions for building a sacrificial altar—what would become a central component of the holy sanctuary. The Israelites are told that it is not to be made of hewn, or carved, stone. Using a sword—a weapon—in the construction of a ritual object, the Bible makes clear, would profane what is meant to be sanctified. Yet the Jewish tradition also recognizes instances of violence as necessary in defense of holy places. The book of Kings recounts how the rebellious Joab, after a failed coup, tries to avoid capture from King Solomon by grasping the sanctuary altar. Solomon ordered him executed there nonetheless.

Read More

11/01 Links Pt1: How Israel’s elections may impact the Middle East; UN: Suspend adoption of IHRA definition of antisemitism; Canada Calls to Oust Iran From UN Women’s Rights Commission

From Ian:

Seth Frantzman: How Israel’s elections may impact the Middle East

As Israelis voted for the fifth time in less than four years, the region could greet these latest elections with a shrug. After all, another election will probably come in a year or so.

However, the current government of Prime Minister Yair Lapid and alternate Prime Minister Naftali Bennett made major strides in the region. Lapid, Bennett and Defense Minister Benny Gantz put a premium on public meetings and outreach around the Middle East, including hosting such important forums as the Negev Summit.

On the other hand, Lapid also rushed into the agreement with Lebanon days before the election. This matters, and on policies from Ukraine to Turkey, there could be shifts after the election that impact the region.

Israel and Turkey
One of the most important shifts in the last year has been Israel’s decision to work with Turkey. After years in which Ankara had bashed the Jewish state, comparing Israel to Nazi Germany and backing Hamas, Turkey sought to change its tone over the last year. This resulted in numerous high-level meetings and visits.

The normalization between Ankara and Jerusalem may be only on the surface, because Turkey’s ruling AKP Party is the same party as before the reconciliation. But it could also mark a shift that continues after the election.

It’s clear that with Turkey, there was a choice to normalize relations after former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu left office. Ankara had increased its extreme rhetoric and anti-Israel behavior during Netanyahu’s 10 years in power. This included the launching of the Mavi Marmara flotilla, as well as hosting Hamas leaders and vocal threats to “liberate al-Aqsa.”

Ankara’s behavior occurred against the backdrop of close Turkey-US relations during the Trump administration and its increasing role in Syria. It’s not entirely clear what led to Turkey’s increasingly anti-Israel behavior, especially considering that in the early 2000s, the countries had managed to continue amicable relations despite the differences between the AKP and Israel. The party is rooted in the Muslim Brotherhood and is close to Hamas ideologically, making it naturally hostile to Israel.

During the Netanyahu era, there was little chance of reconciliation with Turkey. Netanyahu always believed that Israel had to exude strength in the face of threats, and he wasn’t afraid to critique Turkey’s actions.

Today, both Ankara and Jerusalem have shifted rhetoric, and this has enabled major changes on the political and diplomatic fronts.

The Commentary Magazine Podcast: Will Bibi Make a Comeback?

Dan Senor joins the podcast today to map out five scenarios for the Israeli election results—Israel is voting today. And then we discuss why professional Republicans seem a little more anxious than thrilled about the clear pattern in the polling about what’s going to happen next Tuesday here in the American elections. Give a listen.

Netanyahu's peace plan with the Saudis may also end the Arab-Israel conflict

Israel’s Leader of the Opposition Benjamin Netanyahu has broken his silence - giving his nod of approval to examining the Saudi-proposed Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine solution (Saudi Solution) :
“I think the big prize is peace with Saudi Arabia, which I intend to achieve if I go back into office… The rise of Israeli power facilitated the Abraham Accords, and the continual nurturing of Israeli power will also nurture a broader peace with Saudi Arabia and nearly all of the rest of the Arab world. I intend to bring the Arab-Israeli conflict to a close.”

Peace with Saudi Arabia and ending the Arab-Israeli conflict will require Netanyahu to successfully negotiate to make the Saudi Solution - published in June - acceptable. That would see:
· Jordan, Gaza and part of Judea and Samaria ('West Bank') being merged into one territorial entity to be called The Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine - with its capital in Amman - not Jerusalem
· Abandonment of the 74 years-old Palestinian Arab demand to return and live in Israel
· Recognition of Jewish sovereignty in part of Judea and Samaria ('West Bank') for the first time in 3000 years
· No new Palestinian Arab state between Israel and Jordan

Yesh Atid Party Leader - Yair Lapid, Blue and White Party Leader - Benny Gantz - and Labor Party Leader - Merav Michaeli - have all rejected the Saudi Solution outright - aligning their respective parties policies with President Biden’s to continue pursuing the failed unachievable two-state solution first dreamt up by the European Union in 1980 and endorsed by the United Nations in 2003.

The leaders of all other Israeli political parties have yet to comment on the Saudi Solution.

Netanyahu, however, indicated his thinking was clearly in sync with the game-changing proposals.

Hundreds of Jews visit Temple Mount on election day

Twice the number of Jews visited the Temple Mount in Jerusalem on election day this year compared to last year, the Temple Mount Administration reported on Tuesday afternoon.

“The visitors said they took advantage of the election day vacation to go up and visit the site where the House of God stood,” the administration said in a statement. “It reminds them of how fortunate they are to be in a Jewish state, voting for a Jewish government.”

Nearly 300 Jews had already visited the mount by 10:30 a.m., the administration said.

Visits to the Temple Mount by Jews have been on the rise over the past year in general.

Some 47,988 Jews visited the Mount last year, in Hebrew year 5782—a 94% increase over the year before.

Anything about the Palestinian Auth, which is in the 18th year of Abbas’ 4 year term, without elections? No, didn’t think so. Just more lies and Jew hate from @hrw? https://t.co/0jkRZI9fWq

— Arsen Ostrovsky (@Ostrov_A) November 1, 2022

Read More

10/31 Links Pt1: The UN CoI's 2nd: The Continued Assault on Israel; Sunak should acknowledge Jerusalem as Israel’s capital; NZ PM calls to expel Iran from U.N. Women’s Rights Commission

From Ian:

NGO Monitor: The UN Commission of Inquiry’s Second Report: The Continued Assault on Israel

Failure to Address Commissioners’ Antisemitism

In issuing its second report, the members of the COI ignored the numerous condemnations of the antisemitic statements they had made since the COI began.

In June 2022, speaking before the UN Human Rights Council, Commissioner Chris Sidoti appeared to trivialize the International Holocaust Remembrance Association (IHRA) consensus-building definition of antisemitism by dismissing it as “the definition of antisemitism promoted by the government of Israel, and its GONGOS.” He contended that “accusations of antisemitism are thrown around like rice at a wedding,” and claims that such accusations “legitimize” antisemitism.

In July 2022, Commissioner Miloon Kothari also made antisemitic comments on a podcast, claiming that the “Jewish lobby” controls social media and questioned whether Israel should have UN membership. In a letter to UNHRC President Federico Villegas, Pillay refused to condemn Kothari’s remarks, stating his comments “have deliberately been taken out of context…[and] deliberately misquoted.”

Dozens of countries, as well as UN Special Rapporteur Ahmed Shaheed, and HRC President Federico Villegas condemned these remarks. (Read NGO Monitor’s letter to United Nations Human Rights Council President Federico Villegas calling on him to initiate an assessment of the UNHRC’s Commission of Inquiry on Israel for violations of the mandate and UN codes of conduct as well as NGO Monitor’s joint letter to the UNHRC President calling for the removal of the Commissioners due to their antisemitic biases. NGO Monitor has also thoroughly documented the Commissioners’ prior anti-Israel biases and their links to Palestinian NGOs in detailed reports.)

Nevertheless, no punitive action was taken against the COI or its commissioners, and the COI report made no mention of the controversy. As a result, following the presentation of the report, many countries, including Albania, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Federated States of Micronesia, Germany, Guatemala, Hungary, Liberia, Marshall Islands, Palau, Republic of Nauru, and the United States, again condemned the antisemitism exhibited by the Commissioners. Many of these countries also denounced the inaction of the United Nations to repudiate these statements or remove the Commissioners from their positions.

Once again, Navi Pillay ignored this glaring criticism, and made several false and dismissive statements in response to the State remarks. Pillay falsely claimed, “This has been dealt fully by the President of the Human Rights Council, who is the proper authority to clear up criticism of the mandate and clear up criticism of those he selected for appointment as commissioners. So I do encourage you to look at the President’s website on that.” To date, the President has taken no action. Pillay also rejected claims of antisemitism, stating that “I’m 81 years old now, and this is a very first time I’ve been accused of antisemitism. In my own country, that will not be received well because everybody knows the role I played, and similarly with the other two commissioners. So let me make absolutely clear, we are not antisemitic.” These remarks represented yet another attempt by Pillay to whitewash the clear antisemitism expressed by the Commissioners and to absolve herself and the COI from taking the necessary concrete steps to address the deep-seated problems.

At the United Nations, Israel Becomes the Outlaw when Palestinians Reject Peace

First and foremost, the COI claim relies on ignoring that Israel has, in fact, repeatedly tried to end the occupation. Nowhere in the COI report is there any mention of the repeated offers of statehood made by Israel, including in 2000 at Camp David, and then the even more generous 2008 offer by then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

How does one square these offers with the claim that Israel has “no intention of ending the occupation?” How does one square Israel’s agreement to the Oslo Accords, which gave a Palestinian entity autonomy over parts of the West Bank for the first time ever in history, with this charge? Any serious legal inquiry would have to account for and overcome these facts to come to the conclusion that the COI reached .

Second, the claim relies on ignoring all the instances when Israel gave up land for peace, and even gave up land in the hopes of reaching peace. Far from Israelis being “covetous aliens” and Israel being an “acquisitive occupier,” as Lynk claimed while using openly antisemitic tropes in his final report, the Jewish state has repeatedly traded land captured in defensive wars back to states like Egypt and Jordan in exchange for lasting peace. As Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid’s recent statement at the UN General Assembly demonstrated, that is still Israel’s desire when it comes to the Palestinians, too. No amount of baseless, conspiratorial assertions by the COI that Israel only “uphold[s] the appearance of agreement” — with a two-state solution as part of a duplicitous strategy — can overcome this history.

This is particularly evident when considering Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, which the COI only acknowledges to the extent necessary to absurdly accuse Israel of still “occupying” the territory. To admit that Israel completely uprooted not just its military, but also thousands of Israeli residents of Gaza, would require also acknowledging that many of the policies that the COI claims are designed to make Israeli occupation in the West Bank “permanent” are, in fact, quite capable of being overcome, just as they were in Gaza.

Third, and perhaps most telling, is that the claim relies on ignoring Palestinian rejectionism and maximalist demands. The entire narrative crafted by the likes of the COI members is that Israel alone bears responsibility. The fact that Israel prevailed in repeated wars of survival against invading Arab armies and decades of terror attacks that began long before the “occupation” started in 1967, does not square with the COI’s portrayal of pure Palestinian innocence and absolute Israeli malevolence. The COI has to conceal that the conflict persists in large part due to Palestinian rejectionism and refusal to accept the existence of a Jewish state in any part of the Land of Israel.

That is also why Palestinian leaders openly bragging about rejecting peace offers must go unmentioned, as with Mahmoud Abbas’ demand that “not a single Israeli” will be allowed to be part of a Palestinian state. It is why the COI cannot acknowledge that the Palestinian Authority (PA) arrests and tortures Palestinians for participating in peace workshops. It is why Hamas is rarely if ever mentioned — and no acknowledgement is made of its violent, antisemitic, and openly genocidal charter. The fact that the PA tells its people that the Palestine Liberation Organization’s Charter still calls for Israel’s destruction must also remain hidden.

Stephen Daisley: Sunak should acknowledge Jerusalem as Israel’s capital

Under Jordanian occupation, Jews were expelled from eastern Jerusalem and their synagogues burned, but under Israeli authority there are provisions to facilitate freedom of worship. This set-up is not particularly loveable. Jews are banned from praying on Temple Mount, the holiest site in Judaism, while Muslims are free to pray there. There are tensions. Clashes are not unknown. But on the whole it works.

The UK’s policy, one shared by the overwhelming majority of countries, is to deny recognition to this uneasy but enduring arrangement. We pretend that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel because we fear doing otherwise would concede that international law, or at least the dominant reading of it, has failed as a conceptual framework in the most scrutinised conflict of modern times. We wish to see a viable Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria, Gaza and eastern Jerusalem and fret that acknowledging Israel’s capital would prejudice or hinder that.

This is an error born of a paradox. Mindful of its history in Palestine, Britain wishes to be uninvolved in the conflict but uninvolved in a way that aggrandises its status in the region. By withholding recognition of Jerusalem, we tell ourselves, the UK is advancing the cause of peace. Without wishing to sound like one of those ‘Britain is crap, ackshually’ historians, we are seriously overstating our swing in this part of the world. The Palestinian conflict with Israel will end when the Palestinians accept their own state alongside the Jewish state. Nothing we say or do is likely to influence them either way. This is their conflict, not ours.

Those of us who advocate recognition tend to do so in political, historical, moral, legal and, yes, emotional terms. But there is also a realist case. Under these terms, recognising Jerusalem is not about what Israel or the Palestinians want. It is about what the UK considers its foreign policy ought to be. What is in our interests? Some might argue that it is in our interests to be scrupulously even-handed and leave well enough alone. Even if that were true, the fact is that we are not neutral at present. Even as it refuses to acknowledge Israeli sovereignty in any part of Jerusalem, the UK government defines East Jerusalem as part of the ‘Occupied Palestinian Territories’. So our position is not one of balance or non-intervention. We have intervened in the conflict to say that East Jerusalem belongs to the Palestinians and West Jerusalem is up for debate.

Read More

02/01 Links Pt1: The Palestinians: Who Really Cares?; Melanie Phillips: Ireland’s obsessional hatred of Israel; Booker Flip Flops on BDS; Saudi columnist mocks boycott of Israel

From Ian:

---

The Palestinians: Who Really Cares?

Protests by the Palestinians in Lebanon are unlikely to draw any attention from the international community, including so-called pro-Palestinian groups that are active especially on university campuses in the US and Canada, among other places.

The real "pro-Palestinian" groups are those who are willing to raise their voices against the mistreatment of Palestinians at the hands of their Arab brothers. The real "pro-Palestinian" groups are those who are prepared to defend the rights of women and gays living under Hamas in the Gaza Strip. The real "pro-Palestinian" groups are those that are prepared to advocate for democracy and free speech for Palestinians living under the repressive regimes of the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. The real "pro-Palestinian" groups are those who are prepared to condemn Lebanon for its racist and discriminatory measures against Palestinians, living and dead.

Hiding at a university campus and spewing hatred against Israel does not make one "pro-Palestinian." Rather, it makes one just an Israel-hater. Will the "pro-Palestinian" groups listen to the urgent messages coming from the people in Lebanon they claim to represent?

David Singer: Trump Should Reaffirm Core Bush-Congress Commitments to Israel

The upcoming Israeli elections will give Israelis the chance to vote on the future direction Israel’s new government should take in resolving the future of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) and Gaza (“disputed territories”) – the last remaining 5 per cent of the territory of the Mandate for Palestine where sovereignty still remains unallocated between Arabs and Jews.

The choices offered to Israeli voters should be explicitly spelt out by the political parties contesting the elections. The newly-elected government’s stated policy should be implemented. This basic premise of democracy has been undermined in America as Trump’s election commitment to build his promised border wall remains unfulfilled because of Congress’s opposition.

Trump should not similarly attempt to thwart the mandate of Israel’s next government.

Trump should shelve his long-overdue ultimate deal indefinitely – due to the changed circumstances that have demonstrably arisen since his well-intentioned thought bubble in November 2016.

Instead – Trump should:

• Pledge his Government’s full support for Israel’s next duly elected Government
• Reaffirm the core commitments made by President Bush to Israel’s Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in Bush’s letter dated 14 April 2004 – endorsed overwhelmingly by the Congress by 502 votes to 12 (“Bush/Congress Commitments”).

Those core American commitments – made to procure Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza – included:

• Opposing any peace plan other than the 2003 Bush Roadmap
• Being strongly committed to Israel’s security and well-being as a Jewish state.
• Not supporting any right of return by Palestinian refugees to Israel
• Regarding as unrealistic a full and complete withdrawal from the disputed territories.

Congress could endorse this Trump initiative – reinforcing continuing bipartisan support for Israel.
Peace will remain elusive – but Trump will have saved himself from drowning in a cesspool that has swallowed previous American presidents who believed they had the answer to ending this unresolved 100 years old conflict.

Dr. Martin Sherman: Benny Morris, an unlikely proponent of Arab emigration?

As readers will recall, I have, for years, been urging the initiation of a largescale initiative for the incentivized emigration of the Arab population in Judea-Samaria and Gaza, as the only viable policy option that can facilitate (albeit not ensure) the continued survival of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people—as it is, demonstrably, the only policy option that allows Israel to adequately contend with the geographic and demographic imperatives required for such survival.

This week, I encountered strident—albeit somewhat doleful, and certainly unintended—support for my thesis from a rather unexpected source—the well-known historian, Benny Morris.

Morris: Coming full circle?

Once a member of the so-called New Historians, a radical, left-wing group of academics, who challenged the traditional Zionist view of the inception of Israel—particularly the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Arabs due to the fighting during the 1948 War of Independence—Morris has come to adopt a far more understanding view of the alternatives facing the then-nascent Jewish state—and its resultant actions.

Indeed, in many respects Morris has come “full circle”—at least in terms of prevailing public perceptions of his political positions. Once denounced as an anti-Zionist, considered too radical for employment in the Israeli academe, and who was imprisoned, rather than serve as an army reservist in the “occupied territories”, he now not only defends, but endorses, the coercive displacement of Arabs—indeed, even lamenting that it was not sufficiently implemented.

In this regard, he has chided Ben Gurion for being overly reticent: In a 2004 interview with Haaretz’s Ari Shavit, he declared provocatively: "If he was already engaged in expulsion, maybe he should have done a complete job…my feeling is that this place would be quieter and know less suffering if the matter had been resolved once and for all.”

Morris speculates: “If Ben-Gurion had carried out a large expulsion --the whole Land of Israel, as far as the Jordan River. It may yet turn out that this was his fatal mistake. If he had carried out a full expulsion - rather than a partial one - he would have stabilized the State of Israel for generations."

Read More