Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News: IHRA

Showing posts with label IHRA. Show all posts

Monday, June 19, 2023

Latest EoZ memes, comics, posters

This is a good batch.

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!

Some good editorial cartoons (for once)

I was looking through a collection of editorial cartoons, and many of them dealing with Israel are horrific - antisemitic, ignorant or both.

But there were a few good ones that hold up..

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!

J Street opposes the IHRA definition - because it shows the politicians they support are antisemitic (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

Last week the Biden Administration unveiled its plan to address the growing antisemitic violence that threatens Jews nationwide.

No one can deny the importance of fighting antisemitism, and the attempt by the Biden Administration to formulate a plan to do this is of course a positive step. However, some issues undermine Biden's plan from the outset.

One of the organizations Biden included to implement the plan is the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which is not known to be friendly to Jews. On November 27, 2021, Zahra Billoo -- the executive director of CAIR in San Francisco -- described to the American Muslims for Palestine’s (AMP) Annual Convention for Palestine that Zionists and their synagogues are enemies:

We need to pay attention to the Anti-Defamation League. We need to pay attention to the Jewish Federation[sic]. We need to pay attention to the Zionist synagogues. We need to pay attention to the Hillel chapters on our campuses. Just because they're your friend today doesn't mean that they have your back when it comes to human rights…know your enemies, and I'm not going to sugarcoat that they are your enemies.

CAIR claimed that Billoo's comments were taken out of context and CAIR would "continue to proudly stand by Zahra." According to the White House Fact Sheet, this is the same CAIR that will be responsible to "launch a tour to educate religious communities about steps they can take to protect their houses of worship from hate incidents."

Another organization listed on the fact sheet as part of the fight against antisemitism is the National Action Network, which was founded by Al Sharpton, and used by Sharpton in 1995 to stage the protest at Freddy’s Fashion Mart, during which Jews were called “bloodsuckers” and the protesters threatened, “We’re going to burn and loot the Jews.” In the end, one protester killed 7 people. In December 2019, the executive director of NAN's North Jersey chapter -- Carilyn Oliver Fair -- stood up for Jersey City Board of Education trustee Joan Terrell-Paige. Paige had defended the 2 shooters who targeted a kosher grocery store, killing 3 people inside and another at a different location. According to Fair:

[Paige] said nothing wrong. Everything she said is the truth. So where is this anti-Semitism coming in? I am not getting it.

Obviously, in order to fight antisemitism, it is necessary to recognize antisemitism when it occurs. For that reason, many organizations wanted to see the Biden Administration explicitly and unambiguously support the IHRA working definition of antisemitism. The IHRA definition of antisemitism is widely accepted as the gold standard for defining antisemitism. It is used by the US, has been adopted by 26 US states and by 36 other countries -- as well as by the EU, the Organization of American States and the Council of Europe.

Contrast the wide acceptance of the IHRA definition with the claim made by J Street.

Dylan Williams, senior vice president for policy and strategy at J Street claims that the IHRA is no help at all in the fight against antisemitism:

efforts to give the force of law to a single, controversial definition of antisemitism that focuses disproportionately on criticism of Israel does a disservice to Jewish Americans targeted by this hatred.

What has been widely accepted is, according to J Street, controversial. And as far as criticism of Israel is concerned, the IHRA makes it very clear:

criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.

J Street is also among those who claimed that IHRA would be a threat to freedom of expression and criticism o f Israel. This is a claim that has been made without giving actual, concrete instances where this has happened. On the other hand, a report on Understanding Jewish Experience in Higher Education has been published in the UK. It was researched over a 6 month period at 56 different universities. Besides noting the "underlying fear of being targeted," the report went further and pointed out:

Despite concerns expressed by some academics, none of the 56 universities spoken to could identify a single example of the [IHRA] definition restricting freedom of expression. [emphasis added]

Instead of using the IHRA definition, J Street is pushing for the definition of antisemitism given by the Nexus Task Force.

According to the Nexus definition:

Paying disproportionate attention to Israel and treating Israel differently than other countries is not prima facie proof of antisemitism. (There are numerous reasons for devoting special attention to Israel and treating Israel differently, e.g., some people care about Israel more; others may pay more attention because Israel has a special relationship with the United States and receives $4 billion in American aid). [emphasis added]

This is wonderful news!

As Lea Speyer points out, we can now attribute the UNHRC fixation with singling out Israel to it either "caring more" about Israel or because of Israel's "special relationship" with the US. The Nexus excuse for applying a double standard to Israel and singling it out for condemnation and punishment is worse than laughable.

Yet J Street supports the Nexus definition -- and no wonder.

Daniel Greenfield points out that J Street leader Jeremy Ben Ami is on the Nexus advisory committee, and this is made clear on the website:

Ben-Ami's interest in a contrary definition of antisemitism is not surprising. In fact, it could very well be that J Street opposes the IHRA definition on principle -- if it were to accept the IHRA definition, many of those whom J Street supports and allies itself with could be labeled as antisemitic.

For example, that would explain why J Street couldn't get their story straight about receiving money from George Soros.

In 2010, Eli Lake wrote in the Washington Times that from July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2009 Soros and his 2 children contributed $245,000 to J Street. Lake writes that at the very time that Ben-Ami claimed to be "very proud" to have the support of Soros, the J Street website featured a "myths and facts" section which denied receiving any money:

George Soros very publicly stated his decision not to be engaged in J Street when it was launched — precisely out of fear that his involvement would be used against the organization.

Soon afterward, the website was amended with an addition:

J Street has said it doesn’t receive money from George Soros, but now news reports indicate that he has in fact contributed.

At the same time, a spokesman for Soros had no problem stating publicly stated Soros was very clear about his desire to be involved with the group and “has made no secret of his support" for J Street.

J Street's reluctance was based on Soros's anti-Israel stance.

In 1995, Soros admitted to the New Yorker:

I don’t deny the Jews their right to a national existence — but I don’t want to be part of it.

A 2004 article in Commentary notes that in a speech to the Yivo Institute for Jewish Research in 2003, "Soros likened the behavior of Israel to that of the Nazis," an example of "his coldness toward the Jewish state. The IHRA definition explicitly points to comparisons of Israel with Nazis as antisemitic. On the other hand, the Nexus definition does not.

In 2007, The New York Sun quoted from a piece that Soros wrote for The New York Review of Books:

The current policy of not seeking a political solution but pursuing military escalation -- not just an eye for an eye but roughly speaking ten Palestinian lives for every Israeli one -- has reached a particularly dangerous point.

Soros's claim that Israel deliberately targets Palestinian Arabs mendacious.

Tablet Magazine noted in 2016 that in 14 grants since 2001, Soros had given over $2.5million to Adalah, which accuses Israel of war crimes. In 2013, the groups published a database claiming to have found 101 Israeli laws that discriminate against Palestinian Arabs. NGO Monitor has an article debunking Adalah's claim.

The Tablet article, Soros Hack Reveals Evidence of Systemic Anti-Israel Bias, concludes:

there can be little doubt about the Soros-funded extensive and deliberate effort to delegitimize Israel while doing comparatively very little to address real human rights abuses in the Palestinian Authority or elsewhere in the region.

No wonder J Street was reluctant to admit to accepting money from Soros.

Similarly, J Street -- which claims to be pro-Israel -- has itself supported politicians who are antagonistic towards Israel.

Take for example J Street's initial support for Rashida Tlaib:

J Street supported Tlaib despite the fact that Tlaib:

o supported Palestinian terrorist Rasmea Odeh
o supported Islamic Relief, which has links to the Muslim Brotherhood.
o accused Harris of “racism” for meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
o retweeted a post from Linda Sarsour supporting Ahed Tamimi, who was jailed for incitement and assaulting an IDF soldier -- and upon release voiced support for suicide bombing.

Did J Street consider any of this to be antisemitic? Apparently not. Maybe all of this merely falls under the category of criticism when in fact Tlaib was demonizing Israel.

The only reason they withdrew support from her was that Tlaib did not support a two-state solution. Nevertheless, J Street still gushed over Tlaib:

We strongly support and are encouraged by her commitment to social justice, and we are inspired by her determination to bring the voice of underrepresented communities to Capitol Hill. We wish her and her campaign well, and we look forward to a close working relationship with her and her office when she takes her seat in Congress next year. [emphasis added]

Then there is Betty McCollum, senator from Minnesota, who in 2018 was the first elected US official to accuse Israel of Apartheid.

Despite this, J Street insisted on their website at the time:

Rep. McCollum has been a strong ally of the pro-Israel, pro-peace community since her election to Congress.

While Amnesty and HRW had to cobble together different definitions of Apartheid to single out Israel, McCollum did not back up her claim, and J Street simply ignored it.

In its most recent support for McCollum, J Street no longer praises McCollum for being pro-Israel -- but rather pro-Palestinian and uncritically accepts her claim that Israel holds children in military detention and praises her stance against evictions from Masafer Yatta without any context:

J Street also supports Mark Pocan, the representative from Wisconsin, who in 2017 anonymously reserved official Capitol Hill space for an anti-Israel forum organized by organizations that support boycotts while not attending the anti-Israel forum he sponsored. A senior Congressional official was quoted as saying that Pocan "chose to facilitate a pro-BDS smear campaign using taxpayer dollars without even showing his face at the event."

Pocan's sole support for boycotting Israel as opposed to any other country represents a double-standard, which explains his hiding his support at the time.

In 2016, Pocan was one of a handful of Democratic congressmen who met an Arab terrorist affiliated with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Shawan Jabarin was described as the General Director of Al-Haq, for a discussion on “Palestinian political prisoners,” but in fact

A member of the PFLP, Jabarin was convicted for his efforts to enlist support abroad for attacks on Israel. He was sentenced to two years in prison, but was released after nine months due to respiratory difficulties.

But J Street continues to support Pocan, in part because

Lacking in J Street's description is any mention that the destruction of homes is a measure taken against terrorist attacks or that "expanded settlements" refers to the building of homes within settlements, not building additional settlements. Similarly, J Street gives no details on how Pocan's "strong support for Israel's security" manifests itself or support for human rights of Israelis facing terrorist attacks. Also, no mention of Pocan's support of BDS and how it fits in with the J Street policy of not supporting BDS but not opposing BDS that supports a two-state solution, assuming that such a thing exists.

J Street's part in drawing up the Nexus definition of antisemitism shows that their support is not based on inpartiality. This is the definition they want and their claims about the flaws in the IHRA definition is merely gaslighting in an attempt to defend and maintain the double-standard that Israel is held to in the UN and by self-proclaimed "human rights" groups. J Street supports the disproportionate focus on Israel.

Back in the day, Ben-Ami bragged that J Street saw itself as Obama's "block back."
Just who is J Street blocking for now?

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!

This week's memes, posters, cartoons

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!

Study indicates antisemites took advantage of Twitter's tumult after Elon Musk took over

A new study by the Institute for Strategic Dialogue looks at the amount of antisemitic tweets before and after Elon Musk took over the company - and found that the amount of Jew-hate more than doubled:

New research from CASM Technology and ISD has found a major and sustained spike in antisemitic posts on Twitter since the company’s takeover by Elon Musk on October 27, 2022. Powered by the award-winning digital analysis technology Beam– and based on a powerful hate speech detection methodology combining over twenty leading machine-learning models– researchers found that the volume of English-language antisemitic Tweets more than doubled in the period following Musk’s takeover. In total, analysts detected 325,739 English-language antisemitic Tweets in the 9 months from June 2022 to February 2023, with the weekly average number of antisemitic Tweets increasing by 106% (from 6,204 to 12,762), when comparing the period before and after Musk’s acquisition.

There is a lot in the 32-page report, and its methodology appears to be largely sound. (I think if they would use my definition of antisemitism rather than the IHRA Working Definition, they might find it to be more accurate.)

But one statistic stood out to me: Antisemites were eager to take advantage of the apparent loss of moderation by creating new accounts at a much higher rate than before:

We identified a significant surge of new accounts posting plausibly antisemitic content. 3,855 such accounts were created between Oct 27 and Nov 6, an increase of 223% compared to the 11 days (the equivalent timespan) leading up to Oct 27.

To me, this indicates that much of the antisemitism on social media is not simply unintentional or naïve antisemitism. People go out of their way to not only post antisemitic content but to create new accounts dedicated to hate.

I would be interested in finding out if there was a similar surge in new accounts dedicated to racist, anti-Asian, homophobic or misogynist tweets in that time period. I'm sure there was an increase - if for no other reason than that antisemites have other targets of their hate - but I have a feeling that the antisemites are far more activist and willing to take the extra effort to showcase their hate than other bigots

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!

The PLO writes a book claiming Jews exploit antisemitism to persecute Palestinians

The official Palestinian Wafa news agency describes a new book written by the Palestinian Liberation Organization Research Center.

The Palestine Liberation Organization-Research Center has issued a new book, entitled: "Zionism, Israel and Anti-Semitism: Exploiting the Suffering of the Jews to Persecute the Palestinians," by the researcher and journalist specializing in Israeli affairs, Khaldoun Barghouti.

In the book, Barghouti discusses the motives and stages of developing the definition of antisemitism from “racism against Jews on an ethnic and religious basis” to new definitions, mainly targeting those who adopt anti-Zionist positions as a colonial-settler idea, and those who criticize Israel as a country that practices military occupation and apartheid against the Palestinians. They are accusing them of being racist against Jews, "that is, antisemites," with the aim of suppressing and silencing these voices.

The book focuses on the IHRA’s Working Definition of Anti-Semitism, which was adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA in 2016, after it was issued in 2005 by a European organization that cooperated with Israeli and Western academics and Zionist organizations, with the aim of suppressing critics of Israel’s policies against the Palestinians during the Al-Aqsa Intifada, which began in 2000.

The book also reviews the most prominent areas in which this definition is used by Zionist organizations defending Israel, especially in the United States and Europe, and some forms of using this definition, with a review of the most prominent countries that adopted it through membership in the IHRA organization .

Its importance lies in its being the first Palestinian and Arab in dealing with the process of developing the definition of anti-Semitism in order to divert it from its original and historical context, and exploit it for political purposes, causing injustice to the Palestinian victims of Israel on the one hand, and to the Jewish victims of anti-Semitism in its classical concept on the other hand, by conflating their suffering with the . Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and its exploitation to suppress critics of the occupation.

The cover betrays the mission of the book: not to analyze the IHRA Working Definition but to oppose it, and the arguments within are not sober analysis but a polemic masquerading as an objective look at antisemitism.

Palestinian and other Arabic media are filled with antisemitism every day. Just today, Jordan's Al Ghad has an article responding to a piece by Robert Satloff arguing that Arabs should learn about the Holocaust. "Who says we don't know about the Holocaust?" Al Ghad writes, saying that Palestinians live through a much worse holocaust every day, and adding for good measure that the "six million" figure is certainly an exaggeration.

If Holocaust denial and minimization isn't antisemitism, nothing is.

The official position of the PLO is that anyone who points out endemic Palestinian antisemitism is a liar who supports their persecution. We've seen this position before, mostly among the Left, and certainly they provided this author with the underlying arguments he uses. It is an inversion of the truth: Anti-Zionists attempt to silence discussion of Arab antisemitism to justify Palestinian incitement, hate and terrorism.

IHRA, for all its faults, accurately notes that much of modern anti-Zionism is simply a repackaging of the same hate we have seen for thousands of years.

There is a direct line from the explicit Arab antisemitism of the 1940s and the attempts to hide it as a mere political position today. The hate hasn't changed, but because groups like MEMRI and Palestinian Media Watch started publicizing Arab Jew-hatred the Palestinians became embarrassed and started obfuscating the hate a little more by substituting "Zionist" for "Jew," with sometimes absurd results where one can see articles about how "Zionists" have been the source of evil since Biblical times.

Arab antisemitism is undeniable. The PLO has written an entire book to not to combat it but to support it as a valid political position.

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!

02/15 Links Pt2: The Truth Behind the Palestinian ‘Catastrophe’; Irwin Cotler: To combat antisemitism, we must first agree how to define it; Moral idiocy: Academics fuel Palestinian terror against Israel

From Ian:

The Truth Behind the Palestinian ‘Catastrophe’

ON AUGUST 5, 1948, not quite three months after the new state of Israel was invaded by five Arab armies, a short volume titled Maana al-Nakba (later translated as The Meaning of the Disaster) appeared in Beirut to popular acclaim. The author was Constantine K. Zurayk, a distinguished professor of Oriental history and vice president of the American University of Beirut.

Zurayk was the wunderkind of the Arab academic world. Born in Damascus in 1909 to a prosperous Greek Orthodox family, he was sent off at 20 to complete his graduate studies in the United States. Within a year he had obtained a master’s from the University of Chicago. One year later, he added a Ph.D. in Oriental languages from Princeton. He then returned to Beirut and the American University.

Zurayk soon became one of the leading advocates of the liberal, secularist variant of Arab nationalism. After Syria won its independence in 1945, he was chosen to serve in the new nation’s first diplomatic mission in Washington, D.C., and also served with the Syrian delegation to the United Nations General Assembly.

Zurayk’s book reflected the sense of outrage among the Arab educated classes over the 1947 UN partition resolution and the creation of the Jewish state. Zurayk’s anger was even more personal, since he had participated in the UN deliberations on the Palestine question. His 70-page book then became a reference point for future pro-Palestinian historians and writers. Yoav Gelber, a prominent Israeli historian of the 1948 war, cited Zurayk’s work when he told me he didn’t think there was much new in Arafat’s 1998 Nakba Day declaration. “The Nakba was at the basis of the Palestinian narrative from the beginning,” Gelber said. “Constantine Zurayk coined the phrase in 1948.”

In previous writings about the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, I wasn’t able to comment on Zurayk’s book. A limited-edition English translation of Maana al-Nakba appeared in Beirut in 1956, but it was never published in the United States. It was only recently that I found a rare copy in a university library and finally read the real thing.

It was not what I expected. The Meaning of the Disaster actually isn’t about the tragedy of the Palestinian people. According to Zurayk, the crime of the Nakba was committed against the entire Arab nation—a romantic conception of a political entity that he and his fellow Arab nationalists fervently believed in. And, it turns out, Zurayk was no champion of an independent Palestinian state.

In an introductory paragraph, Zurayk writes about “the defeat of the Arabs in Palestine,” which he then calls “one of the harshest of the trials and tribulations with which the Arabs have been afflicted throughout their long history.” Zurayk’s only comment about Palestinian refugees is that, during the fighting, “four hundred thousand or more Arabs [were] forced to flee pell mell from their homes.” (All italics added.)

Zurayk predicted that all Arabs would continue to be threatened by international Zionism: “The Arab nation throughout its long history has never been faced with a more serious danger than that to which it has today been exposed. The forces which the Zionists control in all parts of the world can, if they are permitted to take root in Palestine, threaten the independence of all the Arab lands and form a continuing and frightening danger to their life.”

Irwin Cotler: To combat antisemitism, we must first agree how to define it

The IHRA definition provides examples of both forms of antisemitism. The examples addressing older forms include stereotypes of Jews as controlling the media, world governments and the economy. Examples of newer forms include denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination and holding Jews collectively responsible for the actions of the State of Israel.

These latter examples have provoked some opposition, with opponents alleging that the IHRA definition will stifle criticism of the actions of the Israeli government, as well as advocacy for Palestinian human rights. This claim is as misleading as it is unfounded.

In fact, distinguishing between what is and what is not antisemitic enhances and promotes free expression and peaceful dialogue. In particular, the IHRA definition explicitly states that “criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”

Accordingly, the definition serves to protect speech that is critical of Israeli policy — which I have myself engaged in — so long as it does not cross the delineated boundaries into antisemitism. Conversely, using this definition, genuine antisemitism, such as those examples listed above, can be defined and recognized.

The IHRA definition therefore sets the parameters for a healthy, democratic, tolerant debate and dialogue. It fosters non-hateful communication, and prevents both actual instances of antisemitism as well as unjust labelling of antisemitism. In doing so, it aligns with Canadian values of equality, diversity and human rights.

My hope for 2023 is that the Canadian jurisdictions that have not yet adopted the IHRA definition of antisemitism will do so, and that the ones that have adopted it begin to implement and use it. The IHRA definition is an indispensable resource in helping to identify, recognize and define antisemitism, and adopting it is the critical first step towards Canada’s collective effort to combat the rising tide of antisemitism.

Gil Troy: Moral idiocy: Academics fuel Palestinian terror against Israel - opinion

Imagine the hate required to overrun fellow humans at a bus stop. Imagine the super-sized evil required to keep accelerating when you notice six- and eight-year-old brothers standing there, innocently chatting with their dad. And imagine the perversity involved in celebrating such murders. Friday proved – again – how deep anti-Jewish demonization has been drilled into too many Palestinian hearts, deforming their souls.

Until the world acknowledges this wickedness – which on Friday ended three lives – more such murderers will be mass-produced – with Western dollars, progressive encouragement, and, in modern Jewry’s sickest trend, some Jews’ validation too.

Too many Blame-Israel-Firsters discount this cultivated ugliness which mocks their delusions that peace will descend once Israel retreats, creating a Palestinian dictatorship – er, state – next door. These pie-in-the-skiers keep deciding that Palestinian abominations confirm Israeli iniquity. They theorize that only desperate individuals driven by evil “occupiers” would act so viciously.

Jews have often been blamed for their enemies’ enmity. This Palestinian addiction to violence, however, reveals more about the killers than those killed.

This, the real cycle of violence, with Palestinian rejectionism and antisemitism fueling terrorism, poses the biggest obstacle to peace. The terrorist rot infects Palestinian identity. Contrast Israel’s army, which will abort legitimate missions to minimize civilian casualties, with Palestinians’ death cult, which targets kids and often blackmails the most vulnerable Palestinians into terror.

The Terrorist-Intellectual Complex
An academic recently challenged some other centrists and me for attacking the Netanyahu-Deri corruption yet ignoring the “occupation’s corruption.” Actually, I’m struck by many critics’ corruption, judging us long-distance through ivy-clouded lenses.

Their “Terrorist-Intellectual Complex” perpetuates violence. Palestinians keep deluding themselves that terrorism works, emboldened by ever-accumulating stacks of UN resolutions, academic treatises, “human rights” proclamations, and student petitions – amplified by retweets and likes.

Many have long noted that only intellectuals could figure out how to call themselves “progressive” while supporting sexist, homophobic, Jew-hating, murderers. Today, “woke” parents training their kids in self-abasement and cravenness to dodge confrontations, even in self-defense, nevertheless cheer Palestinians’ killing cult. And self-proclaimed “Social Justice Warriors” justify this most unjust movement, forgiving the Palestinian Authority and Hamas autocracies.

American Bar Association caves to modern antisemites, condemns an "antisemitism" that could mean anything

The American Bar Association proposed a Resolution 514 condemning antisemitism that referred to the widely accepted IHRA working definition.

Israel haters immediately attacked.

More than 40 organizations, both those that are explicitly anti-Israel and "progressive" organizations, joined a campaign claiming that the IHRA Working Definition chills free speech. "Any embrace of the IHRA definition by the ABA would legitimize and encourage this undermining of core democratic rights," they say, without explaining exactly how.

The National Lawyers Guild said, falsely, that "the IHRA definition would provide a tool to stigmatize and suppress lawyers, legal advocates and law students from expressing political criticism of Israel or advocacy for Palestinian human rights." Of course, they cannot point to any wording in the IHRA definition that would do anything like that.

Human Rights Watch wrote a similar letter.

The main point that these critics make is that the IHRA definition has supposedly been used to suppress free speech. They cannot point to where the definition actually does that, because it doesn't mandate anything: the definition is filled with caveats that in the end only provide guidance. If the IHRA Working Definition is being misused, then these organizations should fight the misuse, not the definition. The fact that they don't tells you all you need to know.

Moreover, the ABA resolution explicitly said that nothing in the resolution is intended to diminish or infringe upon the Bill of Rights or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, so even if their lies about IHRA were true, the text wouldn't allow it to be misused that way.

They are lying when they say that their opposition to the definition is based on human rights and free speech concerns. The only problem they have with it is that it notes that singling out Israel as uniquely evil far out of proportion to its supposed crimes is antisemitic. And they want to have the right to do exactly that.

Their objections are based on their hate of the Jewish state, not their interest in Palestinian human rights or in fighting antisemitism.

The original draft resolution also included an attached 17 page report on antisemitism that went through a history of antisemitism in Europe and in the US. It mentioned Natan Sharansky's "3-D" test for antisemitism as well as further references to the IHRA and US State Department definitions of antisemitism.

In the end, the ABA removed everything that could be considered a definition, including virtually the entire report, and left the eviscerated resolution to condemn something that could mean anything:

Without a definition, this is entirely meaningless. Some Israel haters define antisemitism as hating Arabs. Others define Zionism as antisemitism. There is nothing in this resolution that contradicts those bizarre definitions.

The resolution doesn't even mention Jews - only a single reference to improving security at "Jewish institutions and organizations." It mentions "houses of worship," not synagogues.

Right now, the resolution is about as meaningful as a resolution saying that puppies are cute. It is a checkbox - now the ABA can say they oppose antisemitism (whatever that is)! Mazel tov!

Because of the modern antisemites who use obsessive, conspiracy-theory driven hate of Israel as a proxy for the age old obsessive, conspiracy-theory driven hate of Jews, the ABA believes that it passed a resolution that didn't upset anyone.

Well, this Jew is upset.

The Jews who publicly identify as Jews, those who wear identifiably Jewish clothing, those who publicly support the Jewish state or speak Hebrew in public or who stand proud in their Zionism - they are the biggest targets and victims of antisemitism today.

This resolution doesn't give a damn about them.

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!

12/29 Links Pt2: Understanding the upsurge in black attacks on Jews;

From Ian:

Understanding the upsurge in black attacks on Jews

The path of promoting Jew-hatred as a strategy for popularizing withdrawal into racial authenticity and ethnic isolationism is today still represented by Louis Farrakhan, the Nation of Islam and their myriad followers, including in the political, entertainment and professional athletic realms. It is also represented by significant segments of the Black Lives Matter leadership, elements of the black Hebrew Israelite movement, black college and university groups that have advocated segregation on campuses and others.

Black Americans who seek common cause with others and have spoken out against black antisemitism include academics and intellectuals like the Hoover Institute’s Thomas Sowell and Brown University’s Glenn Loury, various political figures on both sides of the aisle and numerous religious leaders, as well as prominent cultural and sports personalities.

Gates’ insight has implications beyond the issue of recent black antisemitism. For centuries, Jew-hatred has been used as a tool in political struggles between competing elites, with one or both sides attacking the other for being associated with or too tolerant of Jews.

In today’s America, this phenomenon is not confined to the black community. White advocates of the balkanization of America along racial and ethnic lines—whether on the far-left or the far-right—target Jews as champions of an integrationist ideal and defame Jews in order to discredit non-Jews who embrace that ideal.

For example, Martin Luther King, Jr., who advocated color-blindness and integration, would be as unwelcome on many of today’s college campuses as would defenders of the Jewish community. But to attack King directly would still generally be frowned upon. The Jews are a much easier target, and maligning and attacking them is an indirect way for both white and black bigots to undermine King and his integrationist message, especially in light of King’s lifelong alliance with Jewish activists and leaders.

The American Jewish response to the rise in Jew-hatred has been piecemeal and weak. This is largely because the increased antisemitism—or at least that part of it that has made the greatest inroads in American society—is coming mainly from sources towards which many American Jews have long felt affinity and identification: Black Americans, too often conceived as a monolithic community; progressives; and educators, especially those staffing what has become the greatest institutional font of antisemitism in America, the campuses.

The increasingly heated division between Americans who advocate balkanization and those who champion integration will likely grow even more intense, and the ever-increasing use of Jew-hatred as a weapon of the former against the latter will grow more ingrained and uglier. Gates’ observations cast a light on this reality. If American Jews wish to stem the rising antisemitism, they must cast aside their preconceptions, take a clear-eyed look at their situation and join with others who embrace the integrationist ideal in pushing back against those who would tear the nation apart and weaponize Jew-hatred as a means to that end.

Will Biden follow through on his pledge to combat antisemitism?

President Biden could better the Trump record by entrenching the Executive Order in the Code of Federal Regulations, further fleshing it out. Biden might also use the occasion to solidify protections for other ethno-religious groups, such as Arab Muslims, Coptic Christians and Sikhs. This would be a welcome addition.

Each of the last three administrations have built upon work done by their predecessors. During the George W. Bush administration, the Office for Civil Rights recognized that Jewish students enjoy legal protection under Title VI. The Obama administration affirmed the Bush policy, embellishing it with clarifying guidance. The Trump administration affirmed the Bush-Obama rules and, in addition, provided that federal agencies will use the Working Definition when appropriate.

The importance of maintaining IHRA cannot be overstated. Without this definition, OCR was long rudderless in its efforts to address a form of hate which it simply did not understand. And absent such a formal definition, the agency was unable to handle systemic campus antisemitism cases for nearly a decade and a half following the initial 2004 guidance.

Under the current OCR guidance, which includes IHRA, Assistant Secretary Catharine Lhamon has commendably opened several important cases involving systemic antisemitism, including the Brandeis Center’s cases Brooklyn College, the University of Vermont and the University of Southern California.

Whatever Biden does, he should not diminish use of the Working Definition by pairing it with a lesser standard. The controversial Jerusalem Definition, which some left-wing activists advocate, has been criticized for defining anti-Semitism too narrowly, misunderstanding Jewish experience and inadvertently giving cover to antisemites. It is hardly a substitute for the internationally agreed-upon standard, and its usage would significantly undermine civil rights enforcement.

President Biden’s words are strong, but his administration’s actions do not always match. Earlier this month, the Biden administration botched its presentation of federal hate crimes data. Nationwide underreporting has plummeted so far this year, especially in areas with high Jewish populations, that the FBI data mischaracterizes last year’s record spike in anti-Semitism as if it didn’t occur—falsely suggesting a decrease. Mistakes can happen. But it is hard to excuse the administration’s failure to correct these errors, now or in the future.

The stakes are high. President Biden has correctly identified the seriousness of confronting anti-Semitism. Now his administration needs to deliver a strong regulation to ensure, in his words, that evil will not win and hate will not prevail.

It’s Time to Apply ‘Broken Windows’ Thinking to Antisemitism

In another incident, this one online, Jewish students at Texas A&M University contacted us in November 2022 about posts on a Snapchat story that included crass references to the Holocaust, and defense of the murderers who perpetrated the Holocaust. The post stated, “we should’ve let the ‘ant exterminator’ do his job back in WW2,” — a reference to Hitler and the Holocaust.

This Snapchat group can only be accessed with a Texas A&M student email address. Our organization, at the request of and together with students, wrote to the administration, noting the various university policies that were being violated by this egregious display of antisemitism. The university couldn’t be bothered to respond — something inconceivable if the hate was directed at almost any other identity group. So we are bringing the story to broader attention.

Some might ask why go to such efforts over one mezuzah or a Snapchat story?

One of the reasons hate crime laws exist is because when one sees a fellow member of one’s racial, ethnic or religious group targeted with a hate crime, it makes every member of that group also feel fearful and targeted. Part of the justification for hate crime laws is the impact of this specific type of crime on the broader community. When a Jewish person learns that their neighbor’s mezuzah has been vandalized, they are not just upset that this happened to another Jew, but may also worry about their own safety.

As the director of StandWithUs’ legal team, I believe we must act in the spirit of the “broken windows” theory. There are some situations where going after “the worst, first” is necessary and appropriate. But as a general rule, we should consistently and vigorously go after the “small” antisemitic crimes with as much force as the headline-grabbing crimes. If we do not show that we are actively concerned, monitoring, and responding with vigilance and strength to all types of anti-Jewish hate, we likely will see hate crimes increase, antisemites grow emboldened, anti-Jewish bigotry normalize, and the overall environment worsen. If we show antisemites that they won’t get away with vandalizing mezuzahs or Snapchat hate, it is far more likely that we will never have to confront a wave of far more severe antisemitism.

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.

12/26 Links Pt2: It’s time for Jews to say, ‘Sorry, not sorry’; The American Jewish left’s endorsement of antisemitism; Glick: Jason Greenblatt: Two State Solution is meaningless

From Ian:

It’s time for Jews to say, ‘Sorry, not sorry’

There are many Jews out there who blame Israel for antisemitism:

“If only we didn’t ‘occupy’ the ‘Palestinians,’ there would be no antisemitism.”

“If only those ultra-Orthodox Jews wouldn’t dress like that and stick to their ‘primitive ways,’ people wouldn’t hate us so much.”

But they’ll never accept our apology, so it’s time we stop apologizing.

The new government is too right-wing for you? You must have confused me for someone who cares about your opinion.

Foreign aid? Go ahead, Biden, try to pull it. Try to boycott Israel, BDS. Go for it, let’s see how that goes for you.

We don’t need you any more than you need us.

Allow me to officially declare that the era of the apologetic Jew is dead. It should rest in peace.

Now let me introduce you to a new creature: the proud Jew.

We have a lot to be proud of.

20% of all Nobel prizes have been awarded to Jews. We have the most moral army in the world. We are able to balance our military power with our unwavering need to behave morally and ethically, sometimes too ethically.

We lead the world in life-changing tech: Medicine, food, you name it, we are at the forefront of it all.

We took a desert that Mark Twain famously referred to as “a hopeless, dreary, heartbroken land” and transformed it into one of the most flourishing societies in the Middle East and the world, and it only took us 75 years.

So, it’s time we all declared the apologetic Jew dead and introduced the world to a new breed of Jew, the proud Jew.

If we don’t respect ourselves, how can we expect the world to?

Our new government, despite its shortcomings, represents the proud Jew. There has never been more Torah learning than there is right now. We have never been stronger physically or economically. That’s something to be proud of.

This new government will support Torah. It will support the land of Israel—all of it. It will support our needs, not the needs of our enemies.

We have always talked about and prayed for the people of Israel, with the Torah of Israel, in the land of Israel. And now, we have arrived, not yet to the final destination, but we are well on the way.

For that, we, the Jewish people, should be proud, not ashamed and apologetic.

Or, in other words: Sorry, not sorry.

The American Jewish left’s endorsement of antisemitism

Once upon a time, identifying an antisemite required the proverbial duck test. If it quacked like an antisemite, then it probably was an antisemite.

Back then, antisemites had ways to avoid responsibility, but this has changed in recent years due to the widespread adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s Working Definition of Antisemitism, which is now used by 38 countries, including the United States.

The IHRA definition, which includes examples of antisemitism directed against Israel, fits Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) perfectly.

For years, Omar has used the vocabulary of antisemitism delineated in the IHRA definition, such as tweeting “Israel has hypnotized the world” and that U.S. politicians’ support for Israel is “all about the benjamins”—a reference to hundred-dollar bills.

Even the Democratic House leadership, headed by outgoing speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said that Omar “engaged in deeply offensive antisemitic tropes.”

One of the IHRA definition’s most important examples of antisemitism is “accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel.”

Omar did precisely that in Feb. 2019, when she angered fellow House Democrats Eliot Engel and Nita Lowey (both of New York) by saying in reference to Israel, “I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is OK for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country.”

Omar has also repeatedly applied double standards to Israel and singled out the world’s only Jewish state for her attacks, both of which are also included in the IHRA definition. She even equated Israel and the U.S. with Hamas, Afghanistan and the Taliban.

But despite all that quacking, several left-wing groups that label themselves “Jewish” and “pro-Israel” recently had the audacity to pretend that Omar is not a duck.

Who came to Omar’s defense when House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) pledged to remove Omar from the House Foreign Affairs Committee?

It was J Street, Ameinu, Americans for Peace Now, Bend the Arc: Jewish Action, Habonim Dror North America, the New Israel Fund, T’ruah and the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism.

12/24 Links: “Rabbi” Who Said Kaddish for Hamas Threatens to Boycott Israeli Government; Police release body cam footage from Kfar Qassem terror attack

From Ian:

Far-right MKs said to agree not to impede Netanyahu efforts to normalize with Saudis

The far-right elements of Israel’s incoming government have agreed not to hinder any efforts by incoming prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu to reach a normalization agreement with Saudi Arabia, according to a Saturday report.

Such a deal has been one of Netanyahu’s greatest goals since signing the historic Abraham Accords with Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates in September 2020, as he has stated several times since.

While Morocco and Sudan also joined the accords later, Saudi Arabia has been reluctant.

The Saudis have been widely reported to maintain clandestine ties with Jerusalem. Though Netanyahu himself is reported to have flown to the country in secret to meet with Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman, Riyadh has continued to insist publicly that a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians was a “requirement” for any normalization agreement.

Still, Netanyahu is optimistic that such a deal can be reached with the Gulf state and his political partners understand this, according to Channel 12.

The report said there was an understanding between Netanyahu and far-right lawmakers Itamar Ben Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich to not sabotage any effort to normalize relations with the Saudis.

As one example, the unsourced report cited the vague wording of Netanyahu’s agreement in principle to advance annexation of West Bank land as part of the coalition deal with Smotrich, head of the far-right Religious Zionism party.

The agreement was worded in a way that could allow Netanyahu to make no movement on the issue if he chooses. And the report said Smotrich understands that such a scenario is dependent on US approval, which would only be feasible under a Republican president. It hinted he may remain quiet on the matter for the time being to allow Netanyahu to make overtures to Riyadh.

A second example given was Ben Gvir’s statement that though he wants to advance bills providing security forces with immunity from prosecution and looser open-fire rules, he has also agreed to adhere to international law — another apparent agreement not to rock the boat.

Ron Dermer meets Netanyahu, will only join gov’t if made foreign minister — report

Incoming prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly met this week with Ron Dermer, a close confidant and a former Israeli ambassador to the US, to continue talks on bringing Dermer into the government in a top role.

Netanyahu is said to have been considering appointing Dermer as foreign minister, an idea that has been contested by senior Likud members who, in recent weeks, have seen a number of key cabinet portfolios handed over to the Likud’s far-right and ultra-Orthodox coalition partners as the Likud leader has tried to cobble together a coalition. As the number of top jobs dwindled for lawmakers within his own party, Netanyahu has faced tough criticism for such decisions.

Netanyahu announced Wednesday that he has finally come to agreements with his coalition partners to form Israel’s 37th government. The Likud leader has yet to finalize coalition agreements with any of his party’s intended partners, however. Knesset Speaker Yariv Levin will announce the development during Monday’s legislative session. Netanyahu will then have until January 2 to swear in his coalition.

On Friday, Channel 12 reported that Dermer and Netanyahu met a day prior and that the ex-envoy expressed a strong willingness to be part of the incoming government but only in the position of foreign minister. The unsourced report also said Netanyahu was pitched the idea of appointing two foreign ministers, Dermer and a senior member of the Likud, but this move was deemed unlikely.

The report said Netanyahu sees Dermer as very closely aligned with his right-wing ideology and a future part of the Likud. Get The Times of Israel's Daily Edition

Palestinians slam Israeli coalition deals, warn of Middle East ‘explosion’

Palestinians have expressed deep concern over the agreements signed between Prime Minister-designate Benjamin Netanyahu and his far-right coalition partners, especially Otzma Yehudit head MK Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich of the Religious Zionists Party (RZP).

They warned that the policies of the incoming government will lead to an “explosion” and urged the Palestinian Authority and the international community to prepare for the worst scenarios.

The Palestinian Authority called on the international community, the US administration, and the European Union to link their relationship with the Netanyahu government “to the extent of its commitment to international law, international legitimacy decisions, and human rights principles.”

The Palestinian foreign affairs ministry said that it views “with great seriousness” reports in the Israeli media regarding Netanyahu’s “ill-fated agreements with his far-right fascist coalition partners.”

Palestinians fear move giving West Bank control to Smotrich
KAN News reported Friday that as part of the coalition agreement with RZP, Netanyahu has agreed to relinquish significant control over the approval process for settlement construction to Smotrich.

Netanyahu reportedly agreed to hand authority over the two key bodies responsible for Israeli control in the West Bank – the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT) and the Civil Administration – to Smotrich’s party.

The Palestinians fear the move would pave the way for the new government to extend Israeli law to large portions of the West Bank, especially Area C, which is exclusively controlled by Israel.

The Palestinians, in addition, are concerned about Ben-Gvir’s insistence on including a clause in the coalition agreement that imposes a death sentence on convicted terrorists.

“Rabbi” Who Said Kaddish for Hamas Threatens to Boycott Israeli Government

Israel has a new conservative government and its enemies, and by that, I mean anti-Israel leftists, couldn’t be angrier. Ron Kampeas at the JTA has another anti-Israel press release disguised as a news story promoting a push by anti-Israel activists to boycott members of the incoming Israeli government.

“More than 330 American rabbis, including some who occupy prominent roles in major cities, are pledging to block members of the Religious Zionist bloc in Benjamin Netanyahu’s new government from speaking at their synagogues,” Kampeas gushes.

The list largely consists of anti-Israel clergy, many, if not most of them, also members of the ‘Rabbis for Hamas”. This was a list that Annie of Boker Tov Boulder put together back in the day of leftist clergy who signed a letter urging “constructive engagement” with Hamas.

Over the years I’ve noted the same bunch of names on assorted anti-Israel letters as the ‘Rabbis for Hamas’.

Sure enough, Melanie Aron, a speaker at the Islamic Networks Group, has signed both letters. As did Elliot Baskin, James Bennett, Phil Bentley, Leila Berner, Jonathan Biatch, Rena Blumenthal and Jonathan Brumberg-Kraus. And that’s just the A’s and B’s.

That’s impressive considering that a number of these people must have died or retired since then.

While I won’t bother going through the list, a few names do pop out. Most notably, Sharon Kleinbaum.

Sharon Kleinbaum, the girlfriend of teachers’ union boss Randi Weingarten, is infamous for her role at a gay temple in New York City where her hatred of Israel was so extreme that it drove the members away.