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 of 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!

 

Read More

04/03 Links Pt2: World Vision, Prominent U.S. Evangelical Charity, Caught Funding Jihadis; How J Street Turned Democrats Against Israel; Telling a Story Founded the Jewish Nation

From Ian:

World Vision, Prominent U.S. Evangelical Charity, Caught Funding Jihadis

When U.S. officials discovered that World Vision was funding a designated terror group, they ordered WV to stop paying ISRA, but WV maintained its relationship with the organization. In January 2015, WV said it had "discontinued any future collaboration." Yet almost a year later, WV posted a job position working with ISRA in December 2015, apparently indicating it had not ceased collaborating as it claimed.

Around the same time, World Vision partnered with yet another group that "has helped fund the Hamas military wing," the Humanitarian Relief Foundation (IHH).

In 2012, World Vision was exposed using Australian government dollars to fund a terrorist front group operating in the West Bank. World Vision was funding the Union of Agricultural Work Committees (UAWC), a front group for the U.S. terror designated Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP).

Australian Solicitor Andrew Hamilton, who worked with the Israel Law Center which exposed the funding, told the Jerusalem Post that, "The Union of Agricultural Work Committees is an integral part of the proscribed terror organization, the PFLP, that Australian citizens and corporations are prohibited from providing support to."

In an email to FWI, Hamilton called on the recently elected Australian Government "to initiate a detailed criminal investigation into the Halabi scandal."

"For more than a decade, World Vision Australia has avoided justice in Australia for its criminal activities in funding PFLP terrorism using Australian taxpayer money obtained by deception," Hamilton told FWI.

"It would be reasonable to assume that if a smaller organization, whose CEO [Tim Costello] was not the brother of a former federal Treasurer [Peter Costello], had similarly deceived the Australian Government to obtain taxpayer funds which were then sent to terrorists, then they would have been prosecuted to the full extent of the law." (FWI has attempted to obtain a response from the Costellos and from World Vision Australia, but has been unsuccessful.)

In 2010, World Vision partnered with a group headed by a PFLP operative, Khaled Yamani, who led the Palestinian Children and Youth Foundation in Lebanon. And a few years prior to that, WV signed joint memoranda with the U.S. designated terror group Interpal, a financial supporter of Hamas.

WV responded to FWI's inquiry regarding the claims made by Cliff Smith in an email declaring, "We remain adamant we are committed to a positive relationship with Israel in our humanitarian work and we do not now, and never have, supported terrorism."

World Vision portrays itself as a "global Christian humanitarian organization." McDonnell asks how WV's support of Islamist terrorists is really in line with the Gospel message it presents. "To see this activity from World Vision in Sudan and then continuing in Israel too—it just makes me wonder: 'What kind of Christians are supporting a group that is funding terrorists?'"

Yisrael Medad: Update on Cordoba: "cultural reductionism"

Spanish Church ‘accused of glossing over Muslim identity of Cordoba’s Great Mosque’

February 28 2023,
The Catholic Church has been accused of glossing over the Muslim identity of the Great Mosque of Cordoba with a visitor centre that emphasises its Christian origins.

The Church’s planned centre for the mosque, which has served as a cathedral since the Spanish city’s reconquest by Christian forces in 1236, aims to “correct” what it deems to be an overly Islamic vision of the city’s past.

“The need to redesign the entire space [of the mosque area] derives from the finding that Cordoba is marked with a very powerful cultural label: that of a Muslim city,” said a report by Demetrio Fernandez, the Bishop of Cordoba.

The mosque has served as a cathedral for hundreds of years and is used for traditional processions at Easter

“The cultural reductionism is so strong that it has the capacity to eclipse the brilliant Visigoth, Roman and Christian [periods]..."

So, Muslims are engaged in cultural reductionism of Jerusalem as the capital of Judea, where the Temple stood on Mount Moriah?

Telling a Story Founded the Jewish Nation

Many of the basic fundamentals of the seder—not only eating matzah and bitter herbs, but also relating the story of the liberation from Egyptian bondage to one’s children—can be found in Exodus 12, which is set in Egypt just before the tenth plague. By imagining what this archetypal seder might have been like, Cole Aronson explores the ritual’s meaning for Jewish history:

You don’t tell the children they were once slaves in Egypt, because that’s all they know. But it wasn’t always so, you tell them—long ago, their ancestors enjoyed over a century of freedom under God. God chose to raise the patriarchs up from the idolatry of their native culture and gave them a covenantal life. A famine some generations later compelled the chosen family to live in Egypt, first as guests and then—until now—as slaves. Tonight, God will keep His promise to the patriarchs and restore the Israelites to His service.

What the parents of the Exodus told their children was the very first maggid the first “telling” of Passover night. But the story as originally told didn’t commemorate the founding of the Jewish nation. Telling the story founded the Jewish nation.

Until the Exodus, the before-time of the patriarchs was a rumor whispered by strangers subjugated in a strange land. On the Exodus night, teaching the children about God’s choice of Abraham converted his descendants into his self-conscious heirs. A free nation was created by restoring a memory of itself. The pageantry of the seder is often and correctly said to recreate the Exodus night in order to tell a story. The reverse is also true. Jews recreate the Exodus night in part by telling a story that the Exodus parents must have told their own children 3,500 years ago, and with the same function—initiating youngsters into the chosen people of God.

Read More

J-Street complains about "right-wing Jewish-American billionaires"

This fundraising email from J-Street is kind of amazing on a number of levels.

Israel is in the midst of a major political struggle.

On one side, those fighting to protect Israel’s founding ideals of democracy, equality and justice. On the other, the new hardline Netanyahu government, bent on centralizing power, circumventing the courts and cementing permanent occupation in the West Bank.

...The government’s radical plan was drawn up by the Kohelet Forum, an increasingly powerful right-wing, pro-settlement think tank that’s funded largely by two right-wing American billionaires. 

They’ve been called “the brains of the Israeli right wing” and helped draft the problematic “Nation-State Law” -- which according to Netanyahu made Israel “the national state, not of all its citizens, but only of the Jewish people.” They were also behind Donald Trump and Mike Pompeo’s tenuous legal argument claiming that Israeli settlements in occupied territory do not violate international law.

The group is funded by two Republican Jewish-American billionaires from Pennsylvania who have also helped fund the campaigns of MAGA extremists like Lauren Boebert. They hope that GOP-style policies and values can come to dominate Israeli society....

We might not have right-wing billionaires backing our work, but we do have thousands of supporters like you. Can you chip in $18, $54, $90 -- or any other amount -- to help us fight back?

Their use of the word "Jewish" here is telling. It is meant to be a dog-whistle, just like "right-wing" and "billionaires" and "Republican." Not that J-Street is against Jews per se, but when you add Jewish to the other terms it makes them sound so much worse - as if Jewish conservatives are traitors to the liberal Jewish people. 

J-Street, of course, takes millions of dollars from wealthy left-wing people (like Bill Benter, who helped fund its start-up.) And of course, only last year George Soros gave J-Street's SuperPAC a million dollars, in addition to his other donations to the group over the years, a significant percentage of their annual budget.

Now, how would it sound if far-right people said that J-Street was heavily funded by a "Jewish left-wing billionaire"? It would sound like a dog-whistle. And that is exactly what J-Street is doing here - trying to raise money from leftist donors to counter the evil influence of "Republican, right-wing Jewish billionaires."

Beyond that, J-Street cannot counter the Kohelet Policy Forum.  What exactly would funds raised be used for? To create left-wing think tank to criticize Israel in Israel?

They are creating a bogeyman to inflame the feelings of people who hate the Right, people who hate Republicans, people who hate billionaires, and people who especially hate Jewish right-wing billionaires. They hand-wave as if giving J-Street money will do something against these nefarious forces, but the entire mailing is simply a lesson in propaganda: "Here are people you never heard of before that you should loathe so much that you will want to give us money to pretend to counter them." The fundraising wouldn't work without the appeal to emotion, and the word Jewish is used as part of that appeal. 

If it looks, sounds and smells like an antisemitic dog whistle....

---

---

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

01/07 Links: Blood libel: Kremlin claims organs harvested by Ukraine end up in Israel; Israel to halt PA construction, withhold funds in response to UNGA vote

From Ian:

Seth Frantzman: How can Israel win the Palestinian conflict? Historian explains

Do the Abraham Accords and the focus on Ukraine and China change things? Not really. The Abraham Accords are great, both in of themselves and because they got Netanyahu in 2020 to abandon his plan to annex parts of the West Bank. Ukraine and China reduce the spotlight on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, always a good thing. But Israel’s thriving relations with the UAE and other states barely diminishes the Palestinian campaign of delegitimization. And whenever the Palestinian Authority or Hamas wishes the spotlight to return, it will do so, instantly.

How should Israel handle the international spotlight?
By recognizing it as a fact of life and finding ways to deal with it. When Hamas decides to launch missiles into Israel, it knows it will get clobbered militarily but will gain international political support. Likewise, Israel knows it will get clobbered internationally, so it should take advantage of the crisis to send a very strong message to the Gazan population that it has lost the war. Ultimately, media coverage matters less than winning on the ground.

Practically speaking, how does Israel win?
I prefer to posit Israel victory as a policy goal, without going into detailed strategy and tactics. First, it’s premature to get into specifics. Second, delving into these topics distracts from establishing the policy goal.

That said, Israel has an extraordinary range of levers due to its vastly greater power than the Palestinians – and not just military and economic.

One creative example: Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman would probably love to add al-Aqsa to his collection of Islamic sanctities, especially at a time when Tehran challenges Saudi control of Mecca and Medina. How about Israel opening negotiations on this topic with Riyadh, offering the jewel in the Palestinian Authority’s crown in return for full diplomatic relations and a change in the status quo on the Temple Mount?

Can Israel defeat Hamas without reoccupying Gaza?
Again, I prefer not to discuss strategy and tactics. But, as you ask, here is one tactic: Israel announces that a single missile attack from Gaza means a one-day border closure: no water, food, medicine, or fuel crosses from it to Gaza. Two missiles means two days, and so forth. I guarantee this would rapidly improve Hamas’s behavior.

But isn’t the delegitimization issue a struggle against those in the West, too? Don’t they have to be defeated? Horrors, no. Plus, that would be impossible. But it is also not necessary, for they are mere followers. Imagine the Palestinians acknowledge their defeat and truly accept the Jewish state; this would pull the rug out from leftist anti-Zionism. Sustaining a more-Catholic-than-the-pope stance is tough to keep up. Israel is lucky that its principal enemy is so small and weak.

Over time, do Palestinians increasingly accept Israel?
Former minister Yuval Steinitz just told me that 75% of Palestinians have come to terms with the State of Israel and live normal lives, but I wonder. A recent Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research poll found that “72% of the public (84% in the Gaza Strip and 65% in the West Bank) say they are in favor of forming armed groups such as the Lions’ Den, which do not take orders from the PA and are not part of the PA security services; 22% are against that.”

Yes, there’s a general calm. In the hotel where we are meeting, the Dan Jerusalem on Mount Scopus, the Palestinian staff goes quietly about its work and is not stabbing anyone. But at a time of crisis, say a Hamas rocket attack, I would avoid this or most other Jerusalem hotels.

Israel’s previous leadership seems to accept Micah Goodman’s idea of “shrinking the conflict.” Do you?
No, I see it as just another in a long line of attempts to finesse the difficult work of attaining victory. Prior ideas included expelling the Palestinians either by force or voluntarily, the Jordan-is-Palestine scheme, erecting more fences, finding a new Palestinian leadership, demanding good governance, implementing the Road Map, funding a Marshall Plan, imposing a trusteeship, establishing joint security forces, splitting the Temple Mount, leasing the land, withdrawing unilaterally, and so on. None worked; none will work. Defeat and victory remain imperative.

What about Iran? The Palestinian terrorist groups, like Hamas and Islamic Jihad, get support from Iran. If Iran’s regime falls, will that matter?
Regime change in Iran has vast implications for the Middle East but not so much for the Palestinian war on Israel. The mullahs’ political collapse will not close down the Palestinians’ conviction that rejectionism works, that “revolution until victory” will prevail, that they can eliminate the Jewish state. Israel cannot outsource victory.

Blood libel: Kremlin claims organs harvested by Ukraine end up in Israel

A Russian former senior official argued the war in Ukraine became a very profitable battlefield for "black-market transplantologists," in a report picked up by several Russian media outlets.

In an interview with Russian outlet Moskovskij Komsomolets, retired Major General of Police, and ex-head of the Russian Central Bureau of Interpol Vladimir Ovchinsky claimed the Armed Forces of Ukraine are delivered human organs harvested from the dead and wounded in the war, people who are still alive, such as Russian prisoners of war, and even Ukrainian civilians who happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time.

When asked where the organs are transported to, Ovchinsky said: "The most effective and successful 'workshops' are located in four countries - Turkey, India, Israel and South Korea."

"Israel is also a leader in the field of innovative medical techniques, which are used throughout the world. The clinics of this country successfully perform organ transplant operations."

The former advisor to the interior minister of Russia also added that large amounts of medical equipment, including containers for transporting human organs, were sent to Ukraine since the beginning of Russia's invasion.

When asked what they do with the bodies, he replied: "They burn them like in Auschwitz or Dachau, they are after all heirs of Hitler. There is also information about mobile crematoria to burn the remains of people whose organs were removed."

Taxpayer Dollars Could Reach Terrorists Under Biden Admin Aid Changes, McCaul Says

Biden Treasury Department authorizations, announced late last year, rolled back safeguards on U.S. humanitarian aid, a move that is likely to pave the way for millions in taxpayer dollars to reach "designated terrorists, human rights abusers, and violent authoritarian regimes," according to a congressional foreign policy leader.

The authorizations, which will make it easier for aid dollars to be allocated in conflict zones and areas where terrorist activity is taking place are generating concerns in Congress. Rep. Michael McCaul (R., Texas), the incoming chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said that in its rush to push aid dollars out the door, the Biden administration is relaxing longstanding safeguards meant to stop taxpayer aid from enriching malign regimes and terrorism supporters.

"By relaxing longstanding basic restrictions on the provision of aid to countries subject to U.S. sanctions, [the] action by the Biden administration increases the likelihood some of our assistance funding will go to designated terrorists, human rights abusers, and violent authoritarian regimes," McCaul said in a statement. "I urge the administration to reverse this decision."

As part of this recalibration, the Treasury Department issued authorizations that will inject U.S. taxpayer dollars into areas that have historically been subject to strict sanctions, including in China, Cuba, Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, Iran, and other conflict areas, according to congressional officials who reviewed the new initiative.

The Treasury Department changes, these sources said, remove longstanding restrictions that prevent U.S. aid from being injected into sanctioned areas. To skirt these restrictions, the United States will funnel taxpayer dollars to United Nations organizations working in these conflict zones.

The aid policy also protects U.N. organizations from repercussions should U.S. aid dollars end up in the hands of terrorists or other sanctioned entities, like the Taliban or Bashar Al-Assad’s regime in Syria, according to one congressional official tracking the matter.

Samantha Power, the U.S. Agency for International Development’s (USAID) administrator, acknowledged in a statement issued late last year that the new aid practices will grant blanket immunity to organizations operating in conflict areas.

Read More

12/30 Links Pt2: Facts most Arabs and a hostile world would rather not admit; Wiesenthal Center publishes Top Ten antisemitism list for 2022

From Ian:

Melanie Phillips: The religious culture war comes to Israel

Far from creating a liberal, tolerant society, progressive ideologies are profoundly illiberal and coercive. Far from producing the brotherhood of mankind, left-wing universalism sets group against group in a battle for power over each other.

A constitutional monarchy, such as exists in Britain, promotes unity because it exists above politics and therefore above division. This was the great insight of King David, who unified the tribes of ancient Israel to form a coherent nation and whose limited monarchy was the inspiration and template for the British Crown.

King Charles’s patent desire to bring the British people together has transformed him from a figure widely disparaged and distrusted as cold and remote into a person viewed affectionately as the benign and genial grandfather of the nation.

The State of Israel, of course, doesn’t have a monarchy. Nor does America, which is being pulled apart over these cultural issues.

For all the unifying strength of the monarchy he represents, however, King Charles is actually in a lonely and perilous position. For the prevailing culture in Britain is actively undermining the religious continuity he realizes is essential.

No political party in Britain is prepared to face down and defeat the culture warriors writing women and conservatives out of the public sphere. No party is prepared to stop children being taught the lie that Britain and the West were born in the original sins of colonialism and oppression. No party is prepared to conserve and defend the classical liberal settlement underpinning freedom, tolerance and democracy. And no party is prepared to challenge radical, pagan environmentalism—to which the King, with his belief in the spiritual unity of all creation, is unfortunately also deeply attached.

In America, the parallel collapse of conservatives’ understanding of what was at risk and needed to be defended led to the implosion of the Republican Party and the rise to power in 2016 of Donald Trump as the only way to defeat the cultural predations of the left.

In Israel, the collapse of the moderate, religious Yamina Party meant that those who believe the combination of Jewish religious integrity with a modern economy, scientific advancement and the duties of citizenship is crucial to Israel’s identity and survival were left with no political representation.

They have been presented instead with a stark choice between religious zealots in one camp and left-wingers in the other screaming about the end of democracy while urging insurrection against an elected democratic government—and with Netanyahu holding the line against the extremism on either side.

Considering the way Netanyahu has been characterized as beyond the pale, this is indeed an irony. He and King Charles, it turns out, have something rather crucial in common.

David Collier: How the Twittersphere spreads antisemitism

We all know that Jew-hate spreads in the Twittersphere, but nobody touches on how much of it is there. Nor do people draw comparisons between the level of ‘anti’ activity, and the level of ‘pro’ that seeks to answer it.

As a quintessential minority group, Jews are drowned out on social media, and because these platforms operate on algorithms that reward ‘popularity’, Jewish people are on a loser from the start. Networks of hate even gang up to have Jews removed from the platform.

‘Zioporn’ addicts. Thousands of accounts in the Twittersphere that indulge their ‘kink’ by watching, liking, or sharing, either fake or butchered images that demonise Israel or Israelis. The more gruesome the image, the better the high. Authenticity is irrelevant. The ‘happy ending’ normally involves a tweeted utterance of disgust or outrage directed towards the state of Israel, or those that support it.

In a world which contains brutal regimes that slaughter millions, this tweet (posted 28/12 at 2:28am) suggests Israel is the ‘most despicable’ nation on earth:

A Twittersphere snapshot
I wanted a snapshot. Analysing a period on Twitter and then quantifying the output that was found. Such an exercise would also allow me to draw a comparison with the way other nations are treated on social media – showing just how exceptional (and therefore antisemitic) the anti-Israel rhetoric is.

I took a 36-hour period, from midnight on the 28 Dec, to noon on the 29th. Only two search terms were used. As nobody has any interest in a troll spamming his way to 100 dormant anti-Israel tweets a day, I set a bar for a minimum number of retweets. This ensured that only the hate that travelled was tallied.

Facts most Arabs and a hostile world would rather not admit

I was complimented some time ago by a reader of one of my earlier published articles, titled, Lies, Myths and Obama, which dealt – as many of them do – with the history of Israel and its enemies: Biblical and post-Biblical.

I had included in the article the following sentence: “Only one people has ever made Jerusalem its capital and only one people ever established their ancestral and Biblical homeland between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea: the Jews.”

I had also added that: “the Jews were the indigenous inhabitants of the Land for millennia long before the Muslim religion was created.”

The reader, nevertheless, had correctly pointed out that most people, because they have been exposed for so long to anti-Israel Arab propaganda, believe that there has not been a continuous Jewish presence in the Land during the last 2,000 years. They are thus unaware that the territory was never Judenrein (that is empty of a Jewish presence). And most Arabs and a hate filled world would rather you forget also that Jews lived for millennia in Mesopotamia or what became later known as British created Iraq.

Indeed, Jews had resided for nearly 3,000 years in that territory from the Babylonian Captivity in 586 BCE onwards. It was when Israel was reborn in 1948 that the Iraqi Arabs drove the Jews from their ancient homes, turning them into penniless refugees who found sanctuary in Israel; an impoverished country barely able to support them at the time.

More Jewish refugees were created than Arab refugees as one Arab state after another in the Middle East and North Africa drove out their Jewish populations. A monumental crime, which hardly is ever recognized.

Arabs and their anti-Israel supporters try to convince the world that the Jews just appeared in the early 20th century after being dispersed for two thousand years from their Biblical homeland. That is a flat out lie and flies in the face of recorded history. Indeed the Arabs who call themselves Palestinians do not even acknowledge ancient Biblical Jewish history ever existed. But facts never seem to matter to Arabs and pro-Arabs. So this brief history lesson will be for them an inconvenient truth.

Let me start by quoting from an article written in The Weekly Standard, May 11, 1998 by Charles Krauthammer:

"Israel is the very embodiment of Jewish continuity: It is the only nation on earth that inhabits the same land, bears the same name, speaks the same language, and worships the same God that it did 3,500 years ago. You dig the soil and you find pottery from Davidic times, coins from Bar Kokhba, and 2,000-year-old scrolls written in a script remarkably like the one today advertising ice cream at an Israeli corner candy store."

Read More

12/15 Links Pt2: Herzog: Comparing Israel to apartheid South Africa is a ‘blood libel’; Melanie Phillips: How the White House attempt to counter Jew-hatred undermines itself

From Ian:

Herzog: Comparing Israel to apartheid South Africa is a ‘blood libel’

Israeli President Isaac Herzog on Thursday slammed as a “blood libel” comparisons of the Jewish state’s policies towards the Palestinians to South African apartheid.

“The comparison between the State of Israel and the apartheid regime is not a legitimate criticism—it is a blood libel,” Herzog said in a video address to the World Zionist Organization’s annual conference in Tel Aviv.

“It is a dangerous and intensifying terrorism, since the legitimacy of the State of Israel and the justification of its existence is directly related to its ability to protect itself and hence they are trying to undermine this ability,” he added.

Herzog also described the BDS movement as a “brutal campaign” spearheaded by organizations “spreading lies and false facts and seeking to build a long-term policy that will undermine the existence of the state.”

He continued: “Let’s make no mistake, this is not a peace-seeking campaign, it is a campaign promoting hatred and incitement.”

For his part, WZO chairman Yaakov Hagoel warned of a resurgence in antisemitism, which he called a “malignant cancer” that required “major medical surgery to remove… at its roots.”

Melanie Phillips: How the White House attempt to counter Jew-hatred undermines itself

Then there’s Hady Amr, who was recently made deputy assistant secretary of state for “Israel-Palestine” in order to promote the Palestinian Arab cause. One year after the 9/11 attacks, Amr wrote about his work as the national coordinator of the anti-Israel Middle East Justice Network: “I was inspired by the Palestinian intifada,” the murderous terror campaign against Israelis from 1987 to 1993.

Or how about Maher Bitar, the senior director of intelligence at the National Security Council, who spent years promoting the boycott of Israel and was on the executive board of the Muslim Brotherhood-linked Students for Justice in Palestine, which hounds Jewish students on campus and disseminates antisemitic propaganda.

Then there’s Reema Odin, deputy director of the White House Office of Legislative Affairs, who justified Palestinian suicide bombings of Israelis in 2002—when hundreds of Israelis were being blown up in buses and pizza parlors during the second intifada—as “the last resort of a desperate people.”

And let’s not overlook Uzra Zeya, the under-secretary for civilian security, democracy and human rights. As Alana Goodman reported in the Washington Free Beacon last year, during Zeya’s time working for the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs she compiled research for a book arguing that “the Israel lobby has subverted the American political process to take control of U.S. Middle East policy” by establishing a secret network of “dirty money” PACs that allegedly bribe and extort congressional candidates into taking pro-Israel positions.

In a section entitled “Jewish Power in the Formulation of U.S. Middle East Policy,” the book claimed that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee gave American Jews secret marching orders on how to vote and which candidates to support financially.

It further argued that “non-Jewish Americans increasingly perceive their Jewish fellow citizens as members of a single-issue voting bloc which, at best, divides its loyalties between an increasingly exploitative Israel and an increasingly exploited United States.”

“The more strident lobbyists for Israel must also accept a major share of the blame for whatever changes have taken place in American public perceptions of the loyalties of America’s Jews,” it continued. “The inevitable public perception is that such ardent supporters of Israel have no real interest in making the United States a better place for all of its citizens, but only in making Israel a more secure and prosperous place for Jews.”

In other words, the book blamed Jews for antisemitism.

The chances of the new White House group calling out the bigotry of all these officials are clearly zero.

The likelihood is that this new strategy will as ever pin antisemitism on the “far-right” while ignoring it where it is most ubiquitous and powerful: In black and Muslim communities, the Democratic party—and the Biden administration.

The White House statement said the new strategy will “raise understanding about antisemitism and the threat it poses to the Jewish community and all Americans.” It would seem that the White House itself needs someone to teach it just what antisemitism is.

Benjamin Netanyahu: The Biggest Lie in the Palestine vs. Israel Debate - Jordan B Peterson

Benjamin Netanyahu was recently reelected as Prime Minister of Israel, having previously served in the office from 1996–1999 and 2009­–2021. From 1967–1972 he served as a soldier and commander in Sayeret Matkal, an elite special forces unit of the Israeli Defense Forces. A graduate of MIT, he served as Israel’s Ambassador to the United Nations from 1984–1988, before being elected to the Israeli parliament as a member of the Likud party in 1988. He has published five previous books on terrorism and Israel’s quest for peace and security. He lives in Jerusalem with his wife, Sara. In his newest book "Bibi: My Story" the newly reelected prime minister of Israel tells the story of his family, the story of his people, his path to leadership, and his unceasing commitment to defending his country and securing its future.

Read More

12/07 Links Pt1: When Antisemites Sue the Jews; Will Bibi Make the Left’s Nightmares Come True? It’s Never Happened Before; Terrorist Killed After Shooting at Military Post Near Ofra

From Ian:

Two former diplomats display their inveterate animus towards Israel

We must ask: Why are Miller and Kurtzer not calling on the Biden administration to simply uphold U.S. law—namely, the Taylor Force Act—which stipulates that American financial aid misappropriated by the P.A. in order to reward terrorism must be withheld? Why do the authors not criticize the administration’s decision to continue funding the P.A.— $816 million this year from American taxpayers—despite the law?

In contrast to the kind words for the P.A., Miller and Kurtzer refer to the incoming Israeli government in the most vitriolic terms: “Radical, racist, misogynistic and homophobic.” Yet Israel’s next Gay Pride Week and Parade are scheduled for June 2023. There is no such celebration scheduled in any territory controlled by the P.A. or Hamas. In fact, gays are routinely murdered—often thrown off buildings head first—in Hamas-controlled Gaza. As for misogyny, do Miller and Kurtzer really believe that women in Palestinian-controlled territories are living as equals to men and enjoy greater rights than women in Israel?

It is telling, moreover, that Miller and Kurtzer do not even mention the issue of religious tolerance. Christians live in peace and freedom in Israel. This is most definitely not the case in P.A.- or Hamas-controlled territory. Seventy years ago, Bethlehem was 86% Christian; in 2022, it is 12% Christian. Of course, Israel is routinely blamed for this, but Christians who dare to speak the truth are unequivocal: Islamists are the cause of this mass exodus, as has occurred in Christian communities in Muslim-majority states such as Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Turkey and Egypt.

Miller and Kurtzer do not confine their vitriol to Israel. Their contempt for Muslims—especially those from the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan, which have normalized relations with Israel—is palpable. The authors believe that the United States should coerce those Arab states into adopting the policies preferred by Miller and Kurtzer themselves.

It is shocking and sad that, after decades of work persuading Arab governments to adopt non-ideological and pragmatic foreign policies that could stabilize the Middle East, there are spiteful Americans like Miller and Kurtzer who want to bully those governments into prioritizing the Palestinians over the needs of their own people. It is remarkable that former diplomats, allegedly dedicated to peace, have taken positions that are inherently anti-Israel, anti-Arab and anti-peace.

Miller and Kurtzer also have unabashed contempt for their own countrymen. They fulminate, for example, over the “blindly pro-Israel Republican majority soon to control the House.” Yet Miller and Kurtzer have never had a harsh word to say about the current Democrat-controlled House, which has “blindly” tolerated antisemitic and anti-Zionist members like Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib.

Under Democratic control, the House has summarily ignored the proposed Anti-Semitism Awareness Act (2019) and the Israel Relations Normalization Act (2021). Miller and Kurtzer, so far as I know, have never referred to the “blindly anti-Israel and antisemitic Democrat majority that controls the House.”

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism, which has been adopted by the State Department, recognizes that criticism of Israel that is not leveled against any other country constitutes antisemitism. What Miller and Kurtzer have done in their screed is to judge Israel by one standard and its enemies by quite another, more generous, standard. I leave it to the reader to ponder the implications.

Nearly 50 lawmakers urge Thomas-Greenfield to work to defund U.N.’s Israel inquiry

House lawmakers are urging the U.S. delegation to the United Nations to work through the body’s upcoming budgeting process to limit funding to, and ultimately shut down, the U.N. Human Rights Council’s dedicated Commission of Inquiry investigating Israel — a new push in ongoing congressional efforts to scrap the open-ended probe.

A bipartisan group of 49 lawmakers wrote a letter, obtained by Jewish Insider, to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Linda Thomas-Greenfield on Tuesday, in which they encouraged “the United States delegation to strongly advocate to restrict this biased commission’s funding from within the UN system, and take steps to eliminate the commission completely.”

The commission was launched in the wake of the May 2021 conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza. The letter was organized by Reps. Dean Phillips (D-MN) and Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA).

The lawmakers note that the U.S. led efforts in 2021 to cut the commission’s budget for 2022 by nearly 25%, and argue that the U.S. delegation should “assemble a coalition of like-minded allies and partners to ensure a timely end to the operations of this commission through the restriction and ultimate elimination of its funding from within the UN system.”

The letter highlights a string of concerns about the commission, referring to its “profoundly problematic” and “incomplete and biased reports,” “numerous antisemitic comments” by commission staffers and the body’s ongoing mandate.

“Respect for human rights is a core American value, and an ideal to which all international actors must be held accountable. That accounting must be done in a balanced manner consistent with international norms, and the U.N. Commission of Inquiry abjectly fails to meet these standards,” the letter continues. “The coming weeks will require the administration to redouble its diplomatic efforts to ensure that funding to this discriminatory investigation ultimately ceases. We stand ready to assist you in any way in defending our democratic ally, Israel.”

US State Department spokesman mute on Israeli ‘war crimes’ accusation

U.S. State Department spokesman Ned Price on Tuesday failed to push back on a reporter’s accusation that Israel was perpetrating “war crimes” against the Palestinians.

“I mean, what we have seen in the past couple weeks is really an uptick of Israeli aggression against the Palestinians. We see war crimes being committed on—in front of everybody. So that would not bother the United States of America, despite the fact that these guys [Religious Zionism Party head Bezalel Smotrich and Otzma Yehudit leader Itamar Ben-Gvir] have such a long rap sheet?” a reporter asked Price during the daily press briefing.

Answered Price: “Said, whether it—whether the question is government formation or any other hypothetical, we just don’t entertain those types of questions. It doesn’t do us any good to comment on something that may or may not come to pass. When it comes to governments that haven’t been formed, I’ve been asked this question from this podium for any number of democratic countries around the world—how, whether, will we work with various individuals around the world—and our answer’s always the same. We are going to judge a government on how it governs, once it is in place—on the policies that it pursues.”

Price also failed to correct the reporter’s assertion in a follow-up question that an Israeli policeman had shot “at point blank an unarmed Palestinian,” when in fact the officer in question had fired on a terrorist in the process of attacking him.

Palestinian refugee: We were told in 1948 to “leave and go to Jordan. It's just for a few weeks”

Read More

12/05 Links Pt1: Glick: The Peace Processors Turn Against Peace; Reclaiming the Narrative: It was never about the territories; US Funds Arabs Who Want to Destroy Israel

From Ian:

Caroline Glick: The Peace Processors Turn Against Peace

The purportedly "pro-peace" diplomats' most revealing recommendation related to Israel's Abraham Accords peace partners.

"The Biden administration," they wrote, "needs to inform the Abraham Accord countries—the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan—that their evident lack of interest in the plight of the Palestinians will undermine their relationship with Israel and damage their credibility in advancing other regional objectives with the United States."

So to advance their anti-Israel agenda, the two men who built their careers through their supposed efforts to build Middle East peace, call for scuppering Middle East peace.

This tells us something very basic about the true nature of their work—and that of their like-minded colleagues—across the decades, and still today. It was never peace that they were after. "Peace," for them, was a fig leaf behind which they hid their true goal. That goal is clear, given that their noxious policy prescriptions are the same today as they have always been.

In the name of the vaunted "peace process," for more than 30 years Miller, Kurtzer, and their colleagues in the Washington foreign policy establishment pressured Israel to appease the Palestinians despite their anti-Jewish bigotry and terrorism. "In the interest of peace," they threatened and coerced Israel to concede its national and strategic interests in unified Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria. The goal wasn't peace. The goal was to get the U.S. to implement anti-Israel policies.

Likewise, they aren't demonizing Israel's incoming government because they actually believe that any of the terrible things they attribute to Netanyahu and his colleagues are true. They are demonizing them because the utter failure of the "peace process" they helped orchestrate and oversee is now indisputable. They, like their friends in the Biden administration, openly admit the "peace process" is "moribund."

The intense demonization of Israel is the new fig leaf. It is also a way to justify capsizing actual Arab-Israel peace. If Israel is evil because it elected a fascist, racist, homophobic government, then everyone who supports Israel or lives in peace with it is also evil, fascist, racist, etc.

The Miller/Kurtzer op-ed is a conclusive demonstration that the so-called "peace process," which never led to peace, was a complete sham. They knew it all along, and they didn't care.

Peace is not the goal of the "peace processors." It never was. Their singular aim, for the past generation of fake "peace processing," has been to undermine and end the U.S.-Israel alliance and replace it with a set of hostile policies toward Israel. The natural end of their policies has always been clear: to promote Arab wars on Israel, delegitimize the Jewish state, and legitimize the Palestinian terrorists that seek its destruction. Their demonization of Israel's yet-to-be-sworn-in government is both instrumental and as insincere as their former love for "peace." Without the guise of a "peace process," the Washington poobahs have fabricated a new failing of Israel to serve as a new fig leaf. Supporters of the U.S.-Israel alliance should be wary of falling for their cynical act.

Reclaiming the Narrative: It was never about the territories - opinion

To be clear - in 1964, there was nothing “occupied” to be “liberated,” but that didn’t stop the formation of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO). The false narrative of occupation and liberation began to spread well before there were disputed territories in Israel. The fact is, the antisemites who loathe Jews and Israelis simply do not believe in Israel’s right to exist at all, territories or not.

Facts are always important, and context is as well. The territories are disputed land. They were not “taken” or “stolen,” as some wish to falsely portray. In 1967 Israel was forced to fight a defensive war to stave off annihilation once again. It was from precisely those lands that Arab armies were massed in order to annihilate and put an end to the world’s only Jewish state.

Of course, today those territories have become a de facto impediment to peace, due to the false narrative that has now been shamefully accepted in the capitals of western Europe and certainly in the Democratic party in the United States. I am not naive; today, they are an impediment. That does not change the “fact” that they are not the reason for the lack of peace.

It is past time for liberals and progressives in the United States and Europe to acknowledge the historical and present-day realities. The Palestinian narrative of victimization has been all too easily accepted, and the facts have been ignored.

The fact that the Arabs rejected the United Nations partition in 1947. The fact that the PLO was chartered in 1964 precisely because they never accepted the UN, making Israel a sovereign Jewish state in the first place.

It would have been nice had President Obama stated in his 2009 speech at Al-Azhar University in Cairo before the entire Arab world that Israel was legitimately remade sovereign once more, because of its historical roots, and not as he implied as some sort of “colonial implant” resulting from the guilt of western nations because of the Holocaust. With one line, this presumed brilliant President could have deconstructed the big lie. He chose not to.

The lack of peace has never been about the territories. Make no mistake; the West Bank and Gaza (which has been relinquished), along with the Golan Heights, are not the reason for the lack of peace in the region. This is what needs to be stated boldly and frequently. Israel should not be afraid to ruffle feathers. Israel should not be afraid to justify what took place in 1948 or 1967.

I am tired of Israel’s poor public relations posture and how this false narrative has permeated into some twisted sense of truth used to condone antisemitism. The Jewish people should not be afraid to engage in this debate to set the facts straight. We should not be afraid to offend sensibilities. I believe Israelis are ready for peace, but a peace that must be based on facts.

US Funds Arabs Who Want to Destroy Israel

What is disturbing is that a large portion of this incitement is coming from Arabs whose governments signed peace treaties or other agreements with Israel: Egypt, Jordan and the Palestinians.

What is even more disturbing is that the hate against Israel is coming from Arabs who continue to benefit from unconditional US financial aid.

The Palestinian Authority, headed by Mahmoud Abbas, continues to spearhead the Arab campaign of incitement and delegitimization against Israel. In addition to the incendiary rhetoric, the Palestinian Authority does not hide its vehement opposition to any kind of peace with Israel.

In its latest tirade against Israel, Abbas's ruling Fatah faction claimed that the Israeli counter-terrorism measures, designed to save the lives of Jews and Arabs alike, are acts of "terrorism and war crimes." According to the logic of the Palestinian Authority, a terror attack against Israel is legitimate and the perpetrator is a hero and martyr, but an Israeli action to stop terrorism is illegitimate.

This is the same Palestinian Authority that maintains good relations with the Biden administration, which recently decided to upgrade US relations with Abbas and his associates....

[T]he allegation that Israel is committing "war crimes" can be seen as a direct call to Palestinians to engage in violence against Israelis. The "war crimes" libel is also intended for Western audiences as part of the campaign to delegitimize Israel and pave the way for prosecuting its leaders before international courts.

It is worth noting that since April 2021, the US has provided more than half a billion dollars in assistance for the Palestinians.

If the US thinks that showering money and concessions on the Palestinian leaders will lessen the tension, you heard it here first: this approach definitely will not work. All that will happen is that the hostilities will increase so that the bribes will increase. Giving hard, concrete gifts in exchange for soft promises is inevitably doomed from the start.

Read More

12/04 Links: A House of Lies; Islamist Terror; Journalistic Error; Has antisemitism in US reached a tipping point?; One day’s headlines reveal the entire Israeli-Arab conflict

From Ian:

Jeffrey Herf: Islamist Terror; Journalistic Error

A review of Can “The Whole World” Be Wrong?: Lethal Journalism, Antisemitism, and Global Jihad by Richard Landes, 523 pages, Academic Studies Press (November 2022)

The failures of journalism that Landes examines did not begin in 2000 with the Second Intifada. The idea of Israel as oppressor and colonialist interloper and the Palestinians as innocent victims have been central to Arab and Palestinian Arab political culture since the 1940s. In the early 1950s, the Soviet Union, the support of which during 1947–49 was so important to the establishment of the Jewish state, joined Israel’s enemies in maintaining that first Zionists and then the state of Israel were to blame for the conflict. From the 1960s to the end of the Cold War, an anti-Israeli consensus emerged in the United Nations General Assembly. The Soviet bloc, communist China and other communist regimes joined Islamic states, many Third World nations, and the Arab states in denouncing Zionism as a form of racism and Israel as a practitioner of cruelty and aggression.

The description of Israel as an apartheid state began in the United Nations during those decades as well. After the Six Day War of 1967, the radical Left in Western Europe, the United States, Latin America, and Japan joined the anti-Zionist and anti-Israeli chorus, with intellectual ballast provided by Edward Said and other postcolonial writers and thinkers. Support for Israel became incompatible with membership in good standing in the panoply of progressive politics. It was in those decades that the Palestinians emerged as icons of global anti-imperialism, and the journalistic habits that Landes discusses entered international journalism.

Can “The Whole World” Be Wrong? urges us to take a fresh look at the critical months in the fall of 2000, when the idea of Palestinians as the world’s “most honored of victims” entered mainstream discourse in the West’s democracies. It is time, Landes argues, to “reread the Intifada, this time not as an uprising of the oppressed against the oppressor, but as the opening salvo of the Caliphator assault on Western democracies in the twenty-first century.” Landes asks his readers, especially those of liberal and leftist leanings, to recall the liberal nature of the Zionist project and the realities of Israel’s democracy, and to look honestly at the ideology of those seeking to destroy it. His book makes a compelling case that too many prominent journalists, political figures, NGOs, and academics were, in fact, wrong about the fundamental causes of terror. They misunderstood the war between Israel and its enemies, and as a result, they also misunderstood the facts of that war. Landes notes that there were journalists who resisted this consensus, but that they were the exception.

It turns out that, concerning the history of Israel and its secular and Islamist adversaries, the 20th century was a long not a short one. The modern hatred of the Jews, Zionism, and liberal democracy emerged in Europe and the Middle East during the 1940s, persisted into the 1950s, and found global reach by the 1970s and 1980s. The anti-Zionist impulse has drawn from Nazi propaganda, Soviet campaigns during the Cold War, 1960s style anti-imperialist ideology, as well as the traditions of the Islamists. Today, it remains alive and well in the assaults and threats to Israel that Landes examines in this book.

Richard Landes is right to call for a rereading of the Second Intifada, and to draw our attention to the way the images and interpretations of those years contributed to misunderstanding the years of terror, and to a new Islamist-inflected species of antisemitism. He makes a convincing case that, yes, “the whole world”—or at least too many very accomplished professionals in the media, public life, and politics—were indeed wrong about the causes of the terrorism directed at the Jewish state in recent decades. Twenty-two years after the Second Intifada erupted, it is time for a rethink.

A House of Lies

The UN in Perspective Israel’s formal acceptance as the 59th UN Member State on May 11, 1949 was consistent with the UN’s original core beliefs. The UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in Paris on December 10, 1948 by the UN General Assembly, was issued in response to the “disregard and contempt for human rights” that resulted in the “barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind” called the Holocaust—the attempt to annihilate the Jews of Europe by the Nazis. [7] Thus the Jewish state and the human rights revolution “were as one in 1948… . There is a clear symbolic—if not symbiotic—relationship between Israel and human rights… and Israel was born of that commitment.” [8]

“On May 14, 1948, Israel’s founders wanted to emphasize to the world that while the Jewish people had been born in Eretz-Israel [??? ?????, the land of Israel], its state was the adopted child of the United Nations” noted historian Martin Kramer. “Israel had a ‘natural and historic’ right to exist,” he said, “and that right had been recognized by the world. Nothing made this point more clearly than the crucial passage of the declaration: “By virtue of our natural and historic right and on the strength of the resolution of the United Nations General Assembly, we hereby declare the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz-Israel, to be known as the State of Israel.” [9]

“Does this suggest that the United Nations ‘created’ the state of Israel?” asked Kramer. “Hardly; if it were within the power of the UN to create states, an Arab state would have arisen in 1948 alongside Israel. After all, the Arabs of Palestine possessed exactly the same recognition of their rights and the same license to act as did the Jews (although not the historiical connection to the land, ed). The difference, to revert to the term invoked by the UN Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP), was that the Arabs didn’t constitute a “state within a state….absent a Jewish army, Israel wouldn’t have arisen in any borders, and certainly not in the expanded borders of 1949.”[10]

A Final Note
From their initial UN deliberations, the permanent representatives of the UN understood the gravity of the problems they confronted and how their decisions would affect the future of the world. In hindsight, their remarks were prescient.

Moe Finn, a Norwegian politician, who was a member of the UN Security Council from 1948 to 1949, viewed the UN’s attempt to find a solution as being “very well a test case,” since it “may be decisive for the future of the United Nations.” [11]

Addressing the Special Session of the General Assembly held between April 28 and May 5, 1947, Mr. Quo Tai-chi, Chinese representative to the Security Council, prophetically warned that unless Arabs and Jews “learn to love their neighbors as themselves.” there will be no peace in the Holy Land, or indeed, in any land.” Historical and legal procedures, political and economic considerations will never provide a solution for peace. Until Jews and Christians “return to the teachings of the prophets and the saints of the Holy Land … no parliament of man, no statement, no legal formula, no historical equation, no political and economic programme can singly or together themselves solve the problem.” [12]

For Asaf Ali, Indian ambassador to the United States in 1947, Palestine had “become the acid test of human conscience. The United Nations will find that upon their decision will depend [on] the future of humanity, whether humanity is going to proceed by peaceful means or whether humanity is going to be torn to pieces. If a wrong decision flows from this august Assembly…the world shall be cut in twain and there shall be no peace on earth.” [13]

Seth Frantzman: Has antisemitism in US reached a tipping point?

The main tipping point comes due to the amplification of these views in major traditional media and social media. Twitter has now suspended Kanye West’s Twitter account, which had 32 million followers. This comes after he appeared on Alex Jones’ far-Right InfoWars website and praised Hitler. One video of the appearance on the show has received more than two million views on Twitter. West, who is now called Ye, had posted a Star of David with a swastika inside of it on Twitter before being suspended. News about West was one of the top trending topics on CNN’s website on Saturday.

The news cycle of antisemitism has been flooding people’s homes with anti-Jewish views for two months now, since early October. Whenever a celebrity makes antisemitic comments they are then amplified by media and there are numerous interviews.

It is difficult not to see a pattern here. According to an October 11 report at the The Hill “Ye, the artist formerly known as Kanye West, made several antisemitic remarks… in unaired portions of his recent interview with Fox News host Tucker Carlson.”

However, that wasn’t the only major interview. Throughout October and November, numerous hosts on various media sought out the “controversy” of interviewing someone who would say “controversial” antisemitic things.

The tipping point comes because today, antisemitism is the “cool” thing that radio hosts and media people want to have on their shows in order to get maximum ratings and clicks. This is more than just “shock jock” culture.

The reason we are seeing a tipping point is because media isn’t rushing to interview people with homophobic or other types of racist views. There is only one group whose hatred they want to amplify.

Of course, they are “against” antisemitism. However, the most “controversial” antisemitic rhetoric is being amplified daily. How many millions of people who are being exposed to this are now beginning to think that the usual filters they might have can be taken off?

Read More

12/02 Links Pt1: R.I.P., UN Two-state Solution; Welcome, Bibi: Blinken To Headline Anti-Israel J Street Conference; Palestinian teens order Haredi man to kiss their feet, post on TikTok, are arrested

From Ian:

Welcome, Bibi: Blinken To Headline Anti-Israel J Street Conference

A State Department spokesman told the Free Beacon that Blinken’s engagement with anti-Israel groups like J Street is an "important part" of the agency’s mission.

"It is routine for the secretary of state to engage with different civil society groups representing a broad array of foreign policy interests, this is an important part of the State Department’s domestic outreach," the spokesman said.

While Blinken is not the first secretary of state to address a J Street conference—then-secretary John Kerry and then-vice president Joe Biden both spoke in 2016—the timing of his address is being viewed as highly symbolic. The Biden administration in December took the extraordinary step of launching a Justice Department investigation into the shooting of a Palestinian-American reporter by the Israel Defense Forces.

Israel in September conducted its own independent review in cooperation with the U.S. State Department, and U.S. lawmakers are accusing the administration—given the president's support for an additional FBI investigation—of kowtowing to radical elements in the Democratic Party who seek to transform Israel into a pariah state.

One senior State Department official told the Free Beacon that "attending this J Street event is like a blatant and obvious attempt to stick Bibi [Netanyahu] in the eye."

"Unfortunately," said the source, who was not authorized to speak on record, "it has the effect of undermining our relationship with Israel, and thus U.S. national security."

It's not the first sign that the Biden administration is less than elated at Netanyahu's reascension to power last month. Biden waited days to congratulate the newly elected Israeli leader, drawing accusations the president was trying to isolate Netanyahu's conservative government before it even was seated.

"The Biden administration is filled with partisans who hate Israel and Benjamin Netanyahu. They banned the use of the phrase ‘Abraham Accords,' couldn't bring themselves to have President Biden call Netanyahu to congratulate him until their silence became comical, and now they're even unleashing the FBI," Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas) told the Free Beacon. "So of course Secretary Blinken is going to J Street, an anti-Israel activist group that also criticized the Abraham Accords, loathes Netanyahu, and regularly calls for investigations against Israel. It's both disgraceful and predictable."

One former Israeli government official told the Free Beacon the administration is not even trying to hide its disdain for Netanyahu and his conservative coalition.

"This is simply bad diplomatic strategy," said the source, who would only speak on background so as not to upset either government. "Speaking to J Street may displease the incoming Israeli government, but they're hardly afraid of the lobby. This doesn't send a message of strength but rather one of petulance. Secretary Blinken should know better."

US insists it’s still committed to reopening Jerusalem consulate, but few convinced

The Biden administration’s new envoy to the Palestinians declared Wednesday that the US still plans to reopen its consulate in Jerusalem after nearly two years of delays, but Israeli and Palestinian officials did not appear convinced.

Asked for his response to US Special Representative for Palestinian Affairs Hady Amr’s renewed pledge, a senior Palestinian official speaking on condition of anonymity chuckled. “At this point, we don’t get excited over these kinds of declarations from the Americans,” he said. “With all due respect, we’ll respond when there are facts on the ground.”

Prime minister-designate Benjamin Netanyahu’s office has avoided commenting on Amr’s remarks, ostensibly waiting until he is sworn into office, but an official in the Likud leader’s inner circle told The Times of Israel that his boss’s position on the matter has not changed, confirming a report in the Makor Rishon news site.

After vowing during the campaign to reopen the de facto mission to the Palestinians, which his predecessor Donald Trump shuttered in 2019, US President Joe Biden’s Secretary of State Antony Blinken informed Netanyahu in May 2021 that Washington wanted to follow through on the pledge.

The then-prime minister responded by voicing his opposition to the proposal. Netanyahu and other opponents to reopening the consulate have argued that it encroaches on Israeli sovereignty in the city — the eastern portion of which the Palestinians claim as the capital of their future state.

The Biden administration did not move on the matter following Netanyahu’s refusal. And if the Democratic president’s hesitance to enter public spats with Israel guided his policy then, that inclination was boosted in the year that followed, when Israel was governed by a unity government led by prime ministers Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid.

David Singer: R.I.P., UN Two-state Solution

The founding document of the Palestine Liberation Organisation in 1964 (PLO) expressly disavowed any claim to sovereignty “over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan” and “the Gaza Strip”. It was only in 1968 – after Jordan and Egypt had lost these lands to Israel in the 1967 Six Day War – that the PLO began to agitate for an independent Arab state west of the Jordan River – employing terrorism to try and achieve it.

The PLO strategy failed.

However the long-dormant UN two-State solution was resurrected by the international community in: 1980: Venice Declaration
1993: Oslo Accords
2002: Arab Peace Initiative.
2003: President Bush Roadmap
2011: President Obama
2020: President Trump

Powerful backers indeed – but no such two-State solution has appeared a remote possibility for the last forty years

A radically-different proposal however surfaced in Saudi Arabia on 8 June 2022 that was both revolutionary and ground-breaking: Merge Jordan, the Gaza Strip, and part of the West Bank into one territorial entity to be called the Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine – no new Arab State between the River and the Sea.

The UN’s response has been disgraceful.

Instead of welcoming this Saudi proposal and the prospects its successful implementation offers for ending the Jewish-Arab conflict – the UN has failed to even acknowledge its existence - denying it any oxygen, exposure or traction in the UN.

Secretary General Antonio Guterres and UN Special Co-ordinator for the Middle East Process Torr Wennesland have made no public comments whatsoever on the Saudi proposal or included any reference to it in their monthly reports to the Security Council since its release. They need to break their silence. Until they do – they remain compromised and conflicted.

A UN closed forum convened on 8 November by the UN Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (CEIRPP) with Civil Society Organizations (CSO’s) from “Palestine” Israel and the United States “Advocating for Accountability in the Occupied Palestinian Territory” - - asserted that “Safeguarding the two-State solution” remained their prime objective.

Not one of them apparently mentioned the Saudi proposal - whose successful implementation would put them all out of business by finally ending a conflict that has defied resolution for more than 100 years.

Guterres continued parroting the UN’s commitment to the two-state solution on 22 November -without mentioning the Saudi solution – which needs to be aired and debated in the UN General Assembly, Security Council and CEIRPP and no longer suppressed.

The UN’s 75 years-old failed two-State solution to end the Jewish-Arab conflict has well and truly passed its use by date. The time has come for the UN to adopt the Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine solution to replace it.

Read More