Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News: Leila Khaled

Showing posts with label Leila Khaled. Show all posts

Monday, January 16, 2023

The era of self-righteous indignation - and politically correct antisemitism

As the story of classified papers being discovered in Joe Biden's private residences snowballs, it is fun to watch the hypocrisy on both sides of the aisle. The people who are filled with anger at Biden were nonchalant when Donald Trump was found to have done the exact same thing, and those who were in the forefront of being angry at Trump are muted now.

It is fairly obvious that neither side really believes that national secrets that jeopardize the security of the United States were revealed in either case. Both episodes are excuses to score political points, to attack and injure the hated enemy.

The classified papers are a prop, an excuse to act morally righteous. But there is no morality involved here - if there was, then there should be an identical response to both episodes.

How many people have responded the same in both cases? I haven't seen any. (I don't want to downplay the seriousness of either situation - the laws are there for a reason - but it seems highly unlikely that in either case there was a malicious intent.)

The partisan nature of the responses to both episodes is proof that morality isn't the driver, but smugness. It isn't righteous indignation, it is self-righteous indignation. It isn't virtuous, it is virtue signaling. It is a message to the world - my political enemy is beneath contempt while I am morally superior. He does despicable things that my side would never do (and if it does, it is completely different.)

The self-righteous indignation allows me to hate my opponent without the opprobrium normally associated with the emotion of hate.

It occurs to me that this same psyche is the norm for anti-Zionists. They claim to be righteous; they claim to be moral, they claim that their outrage is a reflection of their pristine values. But when it comes to Israel, the posturing is not merely to feel morally superior - it is to actively attack "Israelis" (meaning, today's eternal Jews) while wearing the mantle of morality.

It is politically acceptable antisemitism.

The proof is clear to those who care to open their eyes. The people who claim to be defending Palestinian rights do nothing to help Palestinian attain those rights. These moral posers don't support peace; they justify the most heinous terror attacks against Jews, they don't say a word about Palestinians being attacked or discriminated against in other Arab countries, they were silent when Palestinians were expelled from Kuwait and Iraq and Libya. Palestinian lives matter - but only when Jews can be blamed. Otherwise, they are just cannon fodder to be placed in limbo until the final battle to destroy the Jewish state.

Antisemitism has always had a measure of self-righteousness - attacking Jews was the most principled thing anyone could do. Martin Luther told his followers to burn synagogues and Jewish schools, calling it "sharp mercy." Hitler framed Jews as a cancerous danger to Germany that must be excised - and that philosophy became part of mainstream German medical ethics.

Morally sanctioned hate has an almost irresistible attraction. Imagine the psychic rewards of being not only allowed to but encouraged to express and act upon your worst instincts, assured that it is for the greater good!

Jews become the focal point of hate for everything the self-righteous find reprehensible. Climate change? US police brutality? Ocean pollution? Domestic abuse of women? Your favorite antisemite not getting the job he wanted? Anything and everything can and has been blamed on the Jews and Israel - and always couched in moral terms.

The more vicious your attacks, the more you are elevated within your circle. That's how Leila Khaled and Rasmea Odeh become heroes in the West.

Today, when more people act smugly virtuous than ever before, Jews are again the target. As they have been for centuries.

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!

12/14 Links Pt2: No, Zionism isn’t out of date: Why the US arrests some terrorists but ignores others; Professor reveals pervasive antisemitism at University of Toronto Medical School

From Ian:

No, Zionism isn’t out of date

Ha’aretz columnist Anshel Pfeffer does not believe in Zionism. He doesn’t oppose it, he just thinks talking about it is a category mistake:

You cannot be either a Zionist or an anti-Zionist, he says, just as you cannot be a veteran of Iwo Jima unless you were born at least 90 years ago and fought in that battle. Zionism isn’t an ideology. It’s a program, or an ideological plan, to establish a state for Jews in the biblical homeland. And that program was fulfilled on May 14, 1948, when David Ben-Gurion declared Israel’s independence at the old Tel Aviv Museum. That’s it. Done.

"…believing that on the whole, founding the State of Israel was the right thing to do, doesn’t make you a Zionist any more than thinking that Oliver Cromwell was right to overthrow King Charles, makes you a Roundhead. It simply doesn’t matter what you think about long-ago events you didn’t take part in. Israel is a reality and it’s not going anywhere."

He’s wrong. There absolutely is such a thing as Zionist ideology, a set of basic principles that Zionists believe. And here they are:
-There is an am Yehudi, a Jewish people. You might think this is obvious, but Mahmoud Abbas denies it, and so do the “[insert nationality here] of the Mosaic persuasion” crowd, which includes the American Reform Movement.

-The survival of the Jewish people requires the Jewish state, a state that is more than just a state with a Jewish majority. The precise meaning of “more” differs according to the faction of the Zionist movement to which one belongs, but the Nation-State Law that was passed by the Knesset in 2018 is an example of a secular attempt to explicate that.

-Only in the Jewish state can a person fully realize his Jewish identity. You can still be a Zionist if you don’t believe that all Jews ought to live in the Jewish state, but Zionism includes the idea that diaspora life is sub-optimal even when it is not actively dangerous.

-One needn’t be a Jew to be a Zionist. Agree with the principles above and you are a Zionist, regardless of your own religion or ethnicity.

Pfeffer points out that there were religious and secular, socialist and revisionist Zionisms. This was true before 1948, and it’s still true today. But all of them affirm the principles above. The existence of factions doesn’t negate the truth behind an ideology. After all, these are Jews we are talking about!

Tom Stoppard and the Failure of ‘Diasporism’

As much as the contributions of Diaspora Jews should inspire pride and celebration, it has become clear that there has emerged no serious alternative other than Israel for those who would sustainably perpetuate specifically Jewish achievement and inquiry. Those of us in the Diaspora will not all move there—although Stoppard is here to remind us that Jews will always require a refuge from the forces of hatred that now seek Israel’s destruction. But we are called upon to support the Zionist project not only as a form of self-defense but also to continue providing the wider world with the fruits of Jewish labors. Leopoldstadt’s invocation of a potential Jewish state at the play’s beginning, and Israel’s existence at its end as the tiny remnant of the Merz and Jacobowicz families gathers in the once-grand apartment of assimilation in 1955, mark it as one of the most profoundly Zionist documents of our time.

It is a reflection of the durability and power of anti-Semitism that, even if the playwright had uncovered the facts of his own Jewish past in 1955 the way his young British character does, rather than in the 1980s, he would have risked a great deal by writing Leopoldstadt as a young man in the wake of his career-making success with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead in 1966. He likely would have become known as a Jewish, rather than a British, playwright—a dramatist making a special pleading due to the tragedy visited upon his own family. No, it was his established reputation as the greatest living English dramatist that has enabled this unlikely production—among other things, Leopoldstadt has a cast of 38, the largest any play on Broadway has seen in generations. Therein lies yet another lesson about the limits of Diasporism.

The Hanukkah Queen Who Saved the Jews

A generation after the Hanukkah miracle, in the midst of great turmoil, Salome Alexandra defended Judaism and restored Jewish practice.

The story of Hanukkah is one of the best-known in Jewish history: how a small group of faithful Jews, led by the Maccabees, revolted against their Hellenist Greek rulers during the years 167-160 BCE, and restored the Temple in Jerusalem to Jewish worship once again.

Their unlikely military victory and the miracle of a single jug of oil burning in the Temple’s golden Menorah for eight days are celebrated during the holiday of Hanukkah. Less known is what came next.

The “Maccabee” brothers (named after one brother, Judas Maccabeus) established the Hasmonean royal dynasty that ruled the Jewish kingdom of Judea for over 200 years. Far from presiding over a peaceful nation, the Hasmonean rulers were mercurial, autocratic, and ruled a land continually on the brink of civil war. It fell to Queen Salome Alexandra - also known as Shlomit Alexandra and as Shlomzion - to stand up to some of the most terrifying dictators imaginable, champion traditional Judaism, and restore peace to Judea.

A key fact that’s often ignored in telling the Hanukkah story is that many Jews at the time embraced a Hellenist lifestyle, worshiping Greek deities and embracing Greek values. Within a generation of the Hanukkah miracle, the Jewish community was again riven into factions, most notably the Sadducees, who rejected the Talmud and many Jewish elements of a traditional Jewish lifestyle and who dominated the ruling classes, and the Pharisees who clung to Jewish traditions and lifestyles.

Queen Salome and her Wicked Husband
Queen Salome was born into a prominent scholarly family and married into royalty. She possessed incredible courage and calmness. Salome’s brother was Shimon ben Shetach, one of Judea’s most renowned rabbis and a champion of the Pharisee cause. When it became too dangerous for her brother to remain in Judea because of Sadducee persecution, Queen Salome hid him, as well as other rabbinic allies of traditional Judaism.

John Glubb and Leila Khaled (guest post)

Guest post from Paul M.

John and Leila

The most effective army Israel faced in its 1948 war of independence was the Arab Legion of Transjordan. There’s a reason for that: It was not just armed and trained by Britain, it was led by British officers as well, commanded by Lt. General Sir John Bagot Glubb, affectionately known by the Ottoman honorific Glubb Pasha.

Glubb was a career soldier, a much-decorated British officer from 1915 until 1956, through two world wars and the assault on the new Jewish state. He was much-honored too, with an alphabet behind his name: KCB, CMG, DSO, OBE, MC, KStJ & KPM.

If, in the fighting world, you wanted to find Lt. General Sir John Bagot Glubb’s diametric opposite, you might be tempted to choose Leila Khaled, member of the Marxist-Leninist PFLP, serial airplane hijacker, pin-up for terrorism groupies everywhere.

And, surprisingly, you might be wrong. They’re less different than you would imagine.

In 1973 Leila Khaled wrote her autobiography, called “My People Shall Live.” (I expect there will be a second volume someday, “Your People Should Die,” but I digress.) Who supplied the foreword? John Bagot Glubb. I had always assumed Lt. General Glubb was simply a good soldier, following orders to serve his country by serving his country’s client, but it seems it was more personal than that.

The first thing to strike you about Glubb’s foreword is how naive it is. He simply takes her words at face value. Everything else written on Palestine is “prejudiced, if not pure propaganda,” full of “half-truths,” “distortions” and “intentional deception.” Khaled, by contrast, is “refreshing” because her position is so clear. The things she has to say are “simple facts.” Perhaps we should give him credit for at least acknowledging that she’s not impartial but there’s almost nothing to show that he has any opinion of his own on the morality of her refreshingly clear position or its consequences.

He does, though, eventually find a flaw. Her politics are “oversimplified” to the point of paranoia and her rejection of anyone who doesn’t embrace violence makes it hard for her sympathizers to help her. As you read this, you can’t help but feel his personal sense of unfair treatment. Perhaps it pulled at the quarter-century-old scar of his dismissal by King Abdullah.

What begins by seeming like amorality, a disinterest in Khaled’s choices, veers into something else soon enough. Before the end of the first page Glubb presents the conclusion of his moral thinking. Violence begets violence, but Palestinian violence is their “only means of recovering their country and their freedom.” Wait, wasn’t that what the Jews were doing?. He quotes Khaled,”As a Palestinian, I had to believe in the gun as an embodiment of my humanity,”without comment except to note that she’s a bit down on anyone who thinks otherwise. Even so, he wants us to know that she cried when John Kennedy was shot. When he turns to the Jews, it’s different: Jewish violence is inherited from the Nazis.

Now we know where to place him. We’ve heard that one before.

Her contempt for non-violence and political difference notwithstanding, Glubb simply takes Khaled at her word when she says Jews and Arabs will be equals in the democratic Palestinian state she and her friends are going to create. The real problem is the Jews won’t allow it. They “desire to have an all-Jewish state.” Like the one we see today, presumably.

Glubb ends by solemnly informing us that “It is easy for us, who have never been the victims of foreign conquest ... to denounce with vehemence the crimes of the evicted Palestinians.” That’s some chutzpah from a son and servant of the empire on which the sun never set. It’s world-class chutzpah when we remember that Transjordan’s purpose in invading on May 15th 1948 was not to free the Palestinian Arabs—who could have had their freedom for the asking but chose war instead—but to annex the land to itself. Abdullah had said as much to Jews and Arabs alike(1).

In his own memoirs, Glubb wrote that he came to love the Arabs(2). That must have been British understatement, because what shines through this foreword is not just love but infatuation. This is the Glubb Pasha who led his army into the Old City of Jerusalem and who had ultimate responsibility for the emptying, looting & burning of the Jewish Quarter. Some people (not me, obviously) can say much in a few words. Glubb was accidentally one of those. It’s hard not to wonder how many others among the British military and functionaries, in Mandatory Palestine and back in London, felt the way he did.

1) Howard Sachar, “A History of Israel” 2007, p.321–322

2) John Bagot Glubb, “A Soldier with the Arabs” 1957, p.5

An angry Twitter thread to @Amnesty @AmnestyUSA, serial liars and Jew-haters.

I don't use the word "antisemitic" loosely, but in the case of Amnesty International, it really fits.

Amnesty USA has spent the past two days posting a huge number of tweets to justify the "apartheid" report, which did not get a wonderful reception in the US.

In one thread, AmnestyUSA claimed that the organization treats all countries equally:

Amnesty International is committed to researching and documenting human rights abuses wherever they occur. We have issued reports on crimes against humanity committed by authorities in countries around the world, from China to Sudan to Saudi Arabia.

In 2017, Amnesty International released conclusive evidence that authorities in Myanmar are committing apartheid against the Rohingya.

Our sole mandate is to document and expose human rights violations wherever we find them and to issue recommendations that will remedy and end them.

As someone who has followed Amnesty's antisemitism for years, I sort of lost it.

Here is my response, fixing typos because I was so angry:

Why you are full of crap:
1. Oh, great, you also accused Myanmar of apartheid. So you are comparing Israel with a country that engaged in mass rapes and genocide. AND NO ONE ELSE is given the title "apartheid.". Not even China with Uighurs. Not Darfuris in Sudan. You are comparing Jews with the worst abusers ever. Drop dead.

2. You have OBSESSED over Israel. You spent untold time and money just to attack travel companies who don't discriminate against Jews in Judea and Samaria. Your priorities are all screwed up,@amnesty, and it happens to be against Jews. There's a word for that.

3. Remember your Gaza Platform? It's still there today. It was based on complete garbage input. I showed scores of photos of terrorists that you called "civilian" or even CHILDREN. I pointed it out. You never corrected it. Still online today. You KNOWINGLY lie about Israel.

4. But that wasn't the only dedicated website you set up to demonize Israel. You also have "Black Friday," paying web designers who knows how much to meticulously demonize Israel. You NEVER do anything remotely similar against anyone else. Not Myanmar, not China. NO ONE.

5. Do you spend so much time on Israel because you care about Palestinians? Of course not. Palestinians in Lebanon REALLY DO live under apartheid - special laws just against them, limits on where they can live. But your last report on them was in 2007! Why? NO JEWS.

6. Amnesty-UK has hosted antisemites in its space. But it refused to host a Jewish group! Why? Because you support f-king antisemites. elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2018/01/amnest…

7. You accept as credible the most absurd Palestinian lies, and you suspect anything a Jew says. Only one example: elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2015/10/outrag…

8. Remember back in 2013 when you accused Israel of limiting fuel into Gaza? It was a lie. Hamas was limiting fuel. You never corrected it. Why? Because you have a problem with Jews, you antisemitic jerks.
elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2013/12/amnest…

9. You try REALLY HARD to find things to blame on Jews, but when Hamas is caught on film using ambulances and hospitals for fighting - you claim you "can't find evidence" of the charges. Yes, you excuse Hamas war crimes - and Gaza civilians lose because of your unrestrained hate of the Jewish state. elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2014/08/amnest…

10. You have articles where you are against incitement to violence. Yet when Israel arrests an Israeli Muslim who has a long history of direct incitement to kill Jews, you support the threats. Because - Jews. elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2015/11/amnest…

11. Saleh Hijazi, Deputy Director for MENA at International, SUPPORTS TERRORISTS. His Facebook page includes tributes to senior Islamic Jihad leader Khader Adnan (who openly advocates blowing up Jews) and to airplane hijacker Leila Khaled.
Human rights. Yeah, right.

12. In 2015, Amnesty International rejected a motion to tackle the rise in antisemitic attacks in Britain at its annual conference.

You guys NEVER reject resolutions at your conferences - unless it is against antisemitism.

Now you claim to be against antisemitism. Sure.

13. Besides Gaza and Black Friday, you have a THIRD dedicated subdomain/website against Israel, about the "Nakba." Name one other country that has 2. I think you have 1 about Syria.
Don't tell us that you treat all issues equally. You HATE the only Jewish state.

I could do this all day. How you praise organizations that support terror and post antisemitism (YAS.) How you claim IDF soldiers can't be hurt by firebombs and boulders dropped on them. How you deny Hamas uses human shields - defending human rights violations.

ENOUGH.

Feel free to look at my MANY articles proving 's lies, bias, duplicity and false interpretations of international law. elderofziyon.blogspot.com/search/label/A…

And then AmnestyUSA made me even angrier with this thread which has nothing to do with their report:

On 1 June 2018, 21-year-old paramedic Razan al-Najjar was killed by Israeli sniper fire while she was treating injured protesters during the Great March of Return. Razan was wearing her white coat, clearly identifying her as a medic. According to an investigation by the New York Times, the sniper fired one round of live ammunition into the crowd.Moments earlier, Razan and three other Palestinian paramedics had moved closer to the fence to provide assistance to the injured protesters, holding up their hands to show they meant no harm. Razan was shot in the chest and died in hospital.Neither Razan nor her colleagues posed any threat to Israeli forces. Amnesty International believes that Razan Al-Najjar was wilfully killed - a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions and a war crime.

Up until the last sentence, Amnesty was relying on the New York Times reporting of the incident, using hundreds of photos and videos to track the path of the bullet, something that only ever happens in Israel. But al-Najjar was indeed killed by an Israeli bullet, that part is accurate.

However, the New York Times didn't say that the sniper targeted the nurse. On the contrary, the investigation showed that the bullet fragmented and ricocheted off the ground, breaking into three pieces that hit three different people.

Amnesty takes the NYT investigation, and without adding any new information, decides that the NYT is wrong and the sniper aimed at the nurse. This is a figment of Amnesty's imagination and there is no evidence of it. One can claim the sniper was reckless or made a mistake, but one cannot say that it was a murder given the evidence.

Clearly, Amnesty is more interested in crucifying Israel than telling the truth. And that is a consistent pattern, as I have shown scores of times over the years.

Why did Amnesty USA decide to bring up this story from three years ago now? Because they want to deflect from the clear evidence that their "apartheid" report is biased and has no basis in international law. So they do what Twitter trollers do - ignore the evidence against their position and try to go on the offensive on an unrelated topic.Calling them trolls is generous. Because their only obsession centers on Jews.

When the utopian vision of a one-state socialist "Palestine" crashes into Palestinian Islamism

Both Western Leftists and Palestinian Arabs agree that they would love to see a single state from the river to the sea.

Neither of them admit aloud how different their visions of such a state are.

When speaking to Western audiences, the Left - whether they are Jews like Peter Beinart or prominent Palestinian Leftists like Leila Khaled - describe a socialist utopia where Jews would ostensibly be treated equally with Arabs under the law, but the state would be strictly secular.

Palestinian Arabs, however, favor an Islamist state run by Sharia law. To them, the Palestinian Authority is too secular already.

The last time Pew did a survey of Muslims worldwide, it found that 89% of Palestinians would want Islamic law - Sharia - to be the law of the land. This was the third highest in the world, behind only Afghanistan and Iraq.

A vast majority of Palestinians would like to see corporal punishment for crimes like theft and stoning as a punishment for adultery. A majority would like their state to give the death penalty for those who leave Islam. Most Palestinians say that it is a bad thing that their current laws do not adhere closely to sharia law.

There is nothing in common between these two views of what a single Palestine would be. The majority of Palestinians have no interest in the secular paradise that you see described in the pages of Open Democracy and The Guardian and Jacobin. Most Palestinians say that their end goal is not one state with equal rights for Jews but one Palestinian state from the river to the sea where Jews are, at best, tolerated second class citizens - and many openly advocate for deporting any Zionist from the country altogether.

Polls show that a mere 10% of Palestinians want a state with equal rights between Jews and Muslims. The latest political polls show that socialist parties like the PFLP and DFLP would only get 2% of the vote in any election held now.

Palestinians hate socialism. They prefer Islamism.

Palestinians do not want equal rights for Arabs and Jews. They want an Islamic state.

Everything written about a one-state solution in the pages of the Washington Post and the New York Times is fiction. The Western Leftists will trot out people with Arabic-sounding names who write passionately about a single state with equal rights for all as if they represent Palestinian public opinion.

Only rarely does the Left admit that the idea of equal rights for Jews in a majority Arab state is problematic. Edward Said, the intellectual father of the one state idea, admitted in 2000 that he couldn't see how Jews would be treated equally in his solution. "It worries me a great deal. The question of what is going to be the fate of the Jews is very difficult for me. I really don't know."

The socialist fantasy and Palestinian reality cannot co-exist. A single state would become a nightmare for Jews. Everyone knows it.

Which goes to prove that the Leftists who make their one-state argument in the West - and who do not make the same argument in Arabic-language media - are only paying lip service to equal rights for Jews. They want to see Israel destroyed, and they are willing to partner with their Islamist ideological opponents to make that happen. They paper over their differences and hoping that no one notices that they are supporting a Muslim ethnostate where Jews are tolerated if they behave like good dhimmits and persecuted if they demand their own rights.

There is only one reason the socialist Left and the Palestinian Right support each other: their shared antisemitism.

Antisemitism unites the Right and the Left - for Palestinians

It has been long long recognized that the extreme Right and the extreme Left in the US disagree on everything - except their antisemitism.

For Palestinians, it is the same thing - but there is no "extreme" about it.

The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine is holding a celebration today for the 20th anniversary of the assassination of Israeli Tourism Minister Rehavam Ze'evi. The PFLP and its offshoots the DFLP, PFLP-GC and others are Marxist and their terrorists like Leila Khaled are the darlings of the anti-Israel Left.

Yet during the Second Intifada, the PFLP coordinated terror attacks on Jewish civilians together with Hamas and Islamic Jihad - both of them Islamist organizations whose values are polar opposites to Marxism.

Their philosophies could not be more different, but they share something far more fundamental than mere politics: both sides hate Jews, and therefore they are allies. Even today, they coordinate their activities in Gaza for fighting Israel.

The divide between Right and Left simply doesn't exist when they both share their belief in antisemitism.

Even more amazing is that the socialist Left in the West does not seem to have any real philosophical problem with far Right, Islamist terror groups in the Middle East. This goes to absurd lengths, such as when far Left icon Judith Butler said that "understanding Hamas, Hezbollah as social movements that are progressive, that are on the Left, that are part of a global Left, is extremely important." She admitted to some differences of opinion with Islamist groups, but altogether they are considered part of the Left because they oppose Israel - even though their opposition is based on traditional Muslim Jew-hate and not, as she claimed, their "anti-colonialist" stance.

Similarly, Western anti-Israel rallies organized by socialist groups will include signs and banners supporting Hezbollah.

In the end, people have their own biases and then will attach to groups that share those biases, and ignore any inconsistencies. Jew-hatred is a fundamental principle, and the haters will attach to whichever group supports that position, and not be too particular about the specifics.

Support for terror. Demonization of Israel. Antisemitism. This feedback loop is all illustrated on the security barrier.

Recently, Palestinian artist Taqi al-Din Sabateen painted a picture on the separation barrier, showing an Israeli soldier who removes his helmet to reveal a KKK mask, as he glares at a Palestinian child hilding a goldfish bowl.

Calling Israeli Jews racists has been fashionable since Israel existed, and it is not considered outrageous anymore.

It should be.

The cumulative effect of this slur - along with "genocide" and "apartheid" and all the others - is that people believe it and eventually it becomes something that you cannot even argue against because they are accepted as historic fact.

Which is entirely the point.

To the immediate left of this mural is another, of PFLP terrorist and airplane hijacker Leila Khaled.

At the very same time that the audience is being told that Israeli Jews are like the KKK, we see that killing Israeli Jews is a heroic act - it is the "struggle" and the "resistance." Terror against Jews is not only allowed, but mandatory, because they are evil racists who think they are "chosen" and better than goyim - which is a mainstream Palestinian view.

And Westerners are not allowed to criticize this because the Palestinian experience makes their opinions tantamount to facts - if they are antisemites, they are justified in being antisemites.

Therefore, antisemitism is a legitimate opinion.

And when repeated over and over without pushback (because it is considered vaguely racist to question Palestinian hate,) it becomes more and more accepted.

Latest report proves again that @Amnesty International is antisemitic

Amnesty International just issued a report on Israel's arrests for the attacks between Arabs and Jews inside Israel during May.

The report includes outright lies:

Amnesty International has documented unnecessary and excessive force used by Israeli police to disperse Palestinian protests against forced evictions in East Jerusalem as well as against the Gaza offensive. The protests were mostly peaceful though a minority attacked police property and threw stones. In contrast, Jewish supremacists continue to organize demonstrations freely. On 15 June thousands of Jewish settlers and supremacists marched provocatively through Palestinian neighbourhoods of East Jerusalem.

Those "mostly peaceful" Arab protests resulted in the deaths of two Jews, synagogues burned, apartments firebombed, people knifed.

The Flag March on June 15 was not "organized freely." Israeli police limited the route of the march specifically to avoid Arab neighborhoods. While some Jews may have deviated from the route, Amnesty is saying that Israeli police allowed the marchers to do whatever they wanted, which is a lie.

And look how Amnesty describes the Jews: "settlers" and "Jewish supremacists." Really? Every marcher either lives across the Green Line or considers Arabs to be less than human?

Most of the marchers were not extremists or bigots. Some were. But Amnesty is saying all the Jews who support Jerusalem as their capital are "supremacists."

In fact, Amnesty uses the phrase "Jewish supremacists" ten times in this report. Not "Jewish nationalists," not "Zionists," but "Jewish supremacists."

In the entire voluminous Amnesty website, there are only two types of "supremacists" mentioned: "White" and "Jewish."

People who demand that Israel be replaced with a Palestinian state "from the river to the sea" are never called "Palestinian supremacists." Members of ISIS are not once called "Muslim supremacists."

The word choice is deliberate: Amnesty is saying that Zionists who support the existence of a Jewish state are the moral equivalent of white supremacists and Nazis.

Amnesty is demonizing proud Jews as being in the same category as the most reprehensible racists. That is antisemitism, pure and simple.

What is even more ironic is that the report quotes Saleh Hijazi, Deputy Director for the Middle East and North Africa at Amnesty International, a "human rights" activist who is literally a supporter of terrorists. His Facebook page, even today, includes tributes to senior Islamic Jihad leader Khader Adnan (who openly advocates blowing up Jews) and to airplane hijacker Leila Khaled, with admiring pictures of Yasir Arafat, cartoons from antisemite Carlos Latuff and evil caricatures of Benjamin Netanyahu.

His bias is blatant.

For Amnesty, that is why they hired him to begin with.

This is yet more proof that Amnesty International, at least its Middle East division, is systematically antisemitic.

Pearson textbook fixes anti-Israel bias; Israel haters complain the fixes were all "pro-Israel" - and publisher caves to them

A UK-based textbook publisher has paused the distribution of two Middle East high school books after a report that showed that the books - which were filled with anti-Israel bias - had been changed in a "pro-Israel" direction.

Conflict in the Middle East, c1945-1995 and The Middle East: Conflict, Crisis and Change, 1917-2012, both written by Hilary Brash, were shown to be highly biased against Israel. David Collier wrote a report on just chapter 1 of the second book showing clear bias, and he mentioned some other examples:

• P. 29 refers to terrorists, or Fedayeen, as freedom fighters “depending on one’s point of view.” It is internationally accepted that those who randomly target civilians are terrorists regardless of the cause they are fighting for. Palestinian terrorists and terror groups – like Hamas – wage such attacks against Israeli civilians to this day.
• P. 56 has a reference of PFLP as a “guerrilla group”. In reality, PFLP is an internationally proscribed terror organisation, having been designated as such by the United States, Japan, Canada, Australia, and the European Union. It does not recognise Israel and openly calls for its annihilation and is well known for pioneering armed aircraft-hijackings in the late 1960s (one of its most infamous militants being Leila Khaled).
• P. 78 refers to the Coastal Road Massacre and says that Israeli civilians “died” during the shootout. In reality, the Israelis kidnapped by the Palestinian terrorists were murdered by them and not caught in the crossfire, as the book aims to portray; 13 of the victims were children. Furthermore, the passage does not once refer to the Palestinians as terrorists, preferring to call them “militants”.

A timeline on events in the region from that book that is still online shows the pattern of bias against Jews and Zionism.

Not one mention of Arab aggression against Jews before 1972. The only attack mentioned is the King David Hotel attack - not one mention of the 1929 massacres, the 1936 uprising, the attacks on Jews throughout the period. Nothing about Jews fleeing Europe for their lives before the Holocaust, or the Holocaust itself. Conflicts and wars "break out" - they aren't initiated by Arabs. The PLO is not involved in any terror attacks at all - the only two attacks mentioned are from the PFLP and Black September, which students aren't told was the PLO. It says Arafat renounces terrorism and doesn't mention the terrorism that he directed in the years that followed. And, of course, history only begins in 1917, with no mention of the Jewish presence on and love of the land for three thousand years.

To correct this bias, the Board of Deputies of British Jews and UK Lawyers for Israel met with Pearson in 2019 and worked with them to eliminate this bias. Revised textbooks were released in 2020.

Now, the British Committee for the Universities of Palestine, a virulently anti-Israel group, issued their own report written by professors John Chalcraft and James Dickins complaining about the revisions.

In assessing the changes that we found there was one dimension on which almost all of the changes could be arrayed, namely from which perspective the history of Israel/Palestine should be told. In assessing the direction of change we used a simple scheme, based on whether a reasonable, broadly informed person would understand a change to be pro Israeli, pro-Palestinian or neutral between those positions. The terms ‘pro-Israeli’ and ‘pro Palestinian’ are defined in their most generally accepted sense – as characterizing an account which exonerates Israelis or Palestinians from blame, fault or wrongdoing. On this basis we found (a) a small number of changes that are broadly neutral, (b) around half a dozen changes that may be described as mildly pro-Palestinian, and (c) the remainder, the vast majority, that are pro-Israeli. The net effect is that the content and substance of the textbooks has been significantly altered. The RVs are emphatically more pro-Israeli than the OVs.

Obviously, if the books were heavily slanted against Israel, changes to correct the books would be regarded as "pro-Israeli!" That isn't bias - that is a correction to anti-Israel bias.

The authors did not release the full list of changes, but only some cherry-picked ones, with no images of the pages where the changes can be evaluated in context. So when they complain that the word "atrocity" was removed in reference to Deir Yassin, we cannot see whether that word was used in reference to the Hadassah Hospital convoy massacre - or even if that massacre was mentioned at all. Without that context, they make it look like the book is now completely pro-Israel, which seems highly unlikely.

Yet as a result of this biased report, Pearson has again paused the distribution of the book!

Chalcraft and Dickins present themselves in the report as "senior academics in Middle East Studies," yet two minutes of research shows that they are anti-Israel activists who support boycotting Israel. Here is Dickins (right) at an anti-Israel rally:

Dickins also recently promoted a video by airplane hijacker Leila Khaled.

Chalcraft is likewise a proponent of boycotting Israeli universities.

The opinions of those who want to see the Jewish state destroyed can hardly be trusted to be unbiased in their review of textbooks!

And yet Pearson is giving these haters' opinions enough respect as to pause distribution of a book that was painstakingly edited to eliminate the exact sort of bias that these professors have.

Should Twitter remove Trump's tweets?

As a publisher who has had my own materials removed from social media, I am very sensitive to freedom of speech issues.

And I'm sensitive from both sides of the issue, since I am certainly against antisemitic and other hate speech.

The topic is fraught with emotion, as it should be. We should get emotional both about defending our freedoms and also against those who abuse their speech to harm others.

Twitter wrote:

As a result of the unprecedented and ongoing violent situation in Washington, D.C., we have required the removal of three @realDonaldTrump Tweets that were posted earlier today for repeated and severe violations of our Civic Integrity policy.

This means that the account of @realDonaldTrump will be locked for 12 hours following the removal of these Tweets. If the Tweets are not removed, the account will remain locked.

Future violations of the Twitter Rules, including our Civic Integrity or Violent Threats policies, will result in permanent suspension of the @realDonaldTrump account.

Our public interest policy — which has guided our enforcement action in this area for years — ends where we believe the risk of harm is higher and/or more severe.

Was this the correct thing to do?

This explanation is a little misleading. Twitter's Civic Integrity Policy is mostly concerned with manipulating elections or other civic processes, and while I suppose one can say that the violence at the Capitol on Wednesday was a version of manipulating a civic process. But if anything encouraged that mob, it sure wasn't Twitter - it was the President himself speaking directly to them and telling them to march to the Capitol, which was also covered by national cable TV news networks live.

So what benefit to society was there for Twitter to take away those tweets when his message was freely available elsewhere?

I want to be clear - I'm not discussing the law here. Twitter has every right to censor whomever it wants, as long as it sets up its rules ahead of time and enforces the rules consistently (which often does not appear to be the case.) I have no problem with Zoom censoring terrorist Leila Khaled from speaking on its platform when she is in the US but allowing her to speak when she is in the UK, because Zoom is only following its own policies that are different in each country.

In general, my opinion is that freedom of speech should be close to absolute unless it is inciting to violence. Unfortunately, that kicks the can down the road - what is considered incitement? Is saying that Jews control the world incitement to attack Jews? What about claiming that Jews abuse infants when they circumcise them? Do racist comments make it more likely for people to attack people of color?

Or do we draw the line at direct specific threats? That sounds like a reasonable policy, but we've already seen how white supremacists and neo-Nazis have adapted to that - by treating everything they say as a joke, jokes that are taken seriously by their audience who understand the game they are playing.

There are two conflicting principles, between freedom of speech and prohibiting incitement, and going too far in either direction can result in either criminalizing independent thought or creating an environment where people can get murdered. There is a third complicating principle as well - that providers of communications platforms treat all speech with a consistent policy, not favoring one political stance over another.

These are difficult questions.

In the specific case here, Twitter is clearly trying to tamp down violence, which is of course a good thing. I think that this can easily backfire, though.

The people who were marching in Washington feel that they are not being heard, that they are marginalized by the mainstream, that their issues with the election are not being taken seriously. They are being censored by YouTube and Facebook and Twitter and they are frustrated - convinced that this is a huge conspiracy against their viewpoints. This drives them underground to other sites that still have plenty of viewers but no alternative points of view.

And that fuels extremism.

I didn't see the mainstream media give much of a warning that this demonstration could be as big or unruly as it was. There are demonstrations in Washington every day. But most of the media ignores the underground sites, where people have been planning this demonstration for at least a month. Obviously, tens of thousands came to Washington from all over and just as obviously, the Capitol police and DC police were not close to prepared.

If the protesters had been allowed to speak freely about their issues with the election on mainstream social media, perhaps they would not be as paranoid. Perhaps they could have been exposed to other points of view as people would argue with them in the open. Perhaps the mainstream media and the police could have been following the situation more closely and defended the Capitol better (and that is a scandal in itself - if there had been a proper defense, there would have been no riots.)

This is only one example of how a more liberal approach to free speech could actually make violence less likely.

As I said, I get it. I am frustrated by prominent people using social media not only to mislead but to outright lie, and I fight it every day. Skilled people use social media for propaganda that can have very bad real world effects. I am very sensitive to the possibility of violence resulting from irresponsible conspiracy theories.

But I still believe that shining a light on the crazy, the paranoid and the hate is a far better approach than to force it underground, where it can become much, much worse - as we saw today.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Palestinian pundit says American Jews in politics, media and banking support Israel above the US, insists he isn't antisemitic

Attorney Ibrahim Shaban writes a regular column for Al Quds and often publishes about Palestinian issues in other media.

Today he wrote an antisemitic piece for Al Quds which was picked up by other Arab media in which he takes it for granted that American Jews have dual loyalty to Israel.

The phenomenon of American Jews who occupy high positions in successive American administrations raises questions about their loyalty to the American state or the Israeli state.

The matter is not a rare phenomenon that occurs occasionally, but rather a rampant phenomenon that occurs frequently, but this phenomenon is rarely addressed, for fear of being accused of anti-Semitism, mainly, and the striking Jewish force.

A simple look at the new American administration explicitly [shows this issue.] Here is the proposed new US Secretary of State (Anthony Blinken) of Jewish descent, and he will take over the Middle East issue and the Palestinian issue mainly. And here is Mr. Ron Klein, the Jew, who has been proposed to take over the position of chief of staff of the White House, which has wide powers. And here is the husband of US Vice President Kamala Harris, Mr. Douglas Craig Imhoff, of similar origins. And here is Alejandro Majoras as a proposal for the US Department of Homeland Security. On the proposed list is Janet Yellen, incoming Treasury Secretary, and many more.

This administration followed the path of successive US administrations that preceded it, as if the American nation had not given birth and the American womb was sterile. As if the new and old American administration had not escaped the issue of dual loyalty to American Jews, it decided to ignore it and sweep it under the rug.

This article will not be expanded to refer to all American Jews who held high positions in successive American administrations after World War II to the present day, as this indicates an inventory. The talk of Jared Kushner, Greenblatt, the Zionist Friedman and other aides of Donald Trump, is still buzzing in my ears. Before them was Dennis Ross' Jewish staff who served the days of Clinton and Obama in the late 1990s and the Camp David negotiations during the days of the late Abu Ammar and his famous position regarding the Al-Aqsa Mosque.

And here is Henry Kissinger, the American academic, deceitful Jew in the seventies, who manipulated Sadat and served Zionism with all his power in the 1973 war. There are many ambassadors, Jewish experts, and even doctors, who were recruited to serve Zionism under the banner of Judaism. Loyalty mixed, mingled, and American interest lost in the midst of dual loyalty.

Someone might say, the Jews are a cultured, liberal, educated and democratic group, so why is this strange, envy and jealousy of their appointment in the American administrations? Or do Muslims, Catholics, Hindus and Brahmins not enjoy such opportunities, and no one is surprised? Didn't Ilhan Omar of Somali origin and Rashida Talib of Palestinian origin succeed in the US congressional elections? Didn't people of Asian roots succeed in the US Congress? Wasn't Rima Dudin appointed to the legislative department in the White House in the incoming Biden administration? Absolutely, it is true, but the two matters are completely different.

There is no dispute that the Jewish community, regardless of its political leanings, holds high positions in the American community, in European society and outside official administrations. Many of the most prominent American lawyers are Jews, and among the most prominent American jurists are Jews, and law school graduates are Jews. Many of the owners of capital are Jews, and many of the print, audiovisual media are Jewish, and many university professors in the various colleges are Jews. But the Jews are not the same, some of them are liberal, some of them socialist, some of them are communists, and some of them are religious extremists, and some of them are secular and so on. Consequently, their positions are different on the issues at hand, but they converge greatly if the issue relates to Israel, its policies, and the Palestinians. Here emerges the issue of dual loyalty to America and Israel, and the extent of the attraction of the conflict around it.

The Jews occupy high positions and even participate in the American decision-making. As for the [Muslim] names mentioned, they do not play a role at all in American politics, neither from near or far, in addition to the absence of a Palestinian Arab lobby that affects American policy. Even the Palestinian daughter of Dudin, whose work is secondary and far from creating American policy, and so is the Palestinian Rashida Tlaib. Add to that the fact the Jew has a state whose interests intersect with the interests of the United States of America and thus creates for him a problem of conflict of interests. Perhaps the case of the American spy Jonathan Pollard is still fresh in minds.

This happened in the recent past during the Camp David meeting at the end of the term of Democratic US President Clinton. Dennis Ross, the American Jew, vehemently objected to the position of the late Saeb Erekat regarding the alleged Temple. And President Clinton began to complain and incite against this basic Palestinian doctrinal, realistic, historical, and religious position and support Dennis Ross and the Protestant Christian mentality in general. Ross even asked Clinton to reference a book from the White House library that supported the details of the alleged temple. It is as though the American Jew will support the Israeli proposal in the end, even if it contradicts the American interest; rather he will prevail over it, even though he must basically prevail over the American interest and achieve international peace and security.

....Can we protest against the appointment of an American Jewish cabinet member, refuse to meet with him, or boycott him, because of conflict of interest and double allegiance? An American Jew, whose Jewishness means he holds Israeli citizenship completely under Israeli law, also holds an American passport at the same time. Is this not only a contradiction, but a contradiction that must be avoided?

Neutrality, objectivity, and independence are conditions that must be met in every honest broker, so how can these conditions be fulfilled in a Jewish-American diplomat who is Israeli by default, even if he is a liberal or leftist? Or do these conditions apply to all peoples of the world except the Jews ?!

This is not anti-Semitism, but rather sheds light on the issue of conflict of interest, and the supposed dual loyalty of American Jews, regardless of their inclinations, and turning a blind eye to conflicts of interest.

One cannot serve two masters nor gather two swords in one sheath !!

One thing is certain: No Palestinian will publicly object to this antisemitism.

And it is articles like these that motivate anti-Zionist American Jews - leftists that Shaban throws into the same dual loyalty bucket - to redouble their efforts to prove that they aren't like those other Jews, that Palestinians should love them because they are moral and pro-Palestinian and support terrorists like Leila Khaled and Rasmea Odeh and boycott Israel even more than Palestinians do.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

When The Media Extols Evil: Hitler, Farrakhan and Ahlam Tamimi (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

On October 17, Natalie Hopkinson -- an associate professor at Howard University -- wrote a glowing opinion piece in The New York Times on antisemite Louis Farrakhan. Entitled The Women Behind the Million Man March, the article recounts the role played by Cora Masters Barry, wife of then DC Mayor Marion Barry, in mobilizing the women who played a significant role in the success of the march.

Hopkinson notes that

A key supporter of the event was Marion Barry, who had just returned to the Washington mayor’s office after a stint in federal prison. [emphasis added]

Nothing, however, is mentioned of Farrakhan's Jew-hatred and homophobia.

As Bari Weiss put it

If you read the oped and knew nothing about Farrakhan, you would think he was a gentleman.

When criticism was made of this whitewash of Farrakhan, Hopkinson responded by reminding her critics that she is a 'scholar':

But Hopkinson was just warming up, falling back on Black oppression and negating the oppression of others:

Rafael Medoff, the founding director of The David Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, compares Hopkinson's depiction of Farrakhan with the New York Times interview that Anne O'Hare McCormick did in 1933, Hitler Seeks Jobs for All Germans.

Medoff points out that Hitler did not waste any time persecuting Germany's Jews once he took office:

During Hitler’s first months in power, there was extensive coverage in the American press of his anti-Jewish policies, such as the mass firing of Jews from their jobs, public burnings of books by Jewish authors, and sporadic anti-Semitic mob violence. To counter this negative attention, Hitler in July 1933 granted Anne O’Hare McCormick of the New York Times his first exclusive interview with an American reporter since becoming chancellor of Germany.

To her credit, McCormick did in fact take the opportunity to ask about Germany's treatment of its Jews -- but did not follow up when her subject replied:

"It is true we have made discriminatory laws, but they are directed not so much against the Jews as for the German people, to give equal economic opportunity to the majority.

"You say the Jews suffer, but so do millions of others. Why should not the Jews share the privations which burden the entire nation?

According to Medoff, unlike Hopkinson's devotion to Farrakhan, there is no indication that McCormick was actually sympathetic to her subject and his views.

But the fact remains that in both cases, favorable pieces in The New York Times contributed to positive images for their subjects -- and only McCormick bothered to attempt a balanced article.

These days, whitewashing hate -- especially hatred of Jews -- seems to be in style.

This month, Jordan deported terrorist Nizar Tamimi, husband of Hamas terrorist Ahlam Tamimi, the mastermind of the Sbarro massacre. He is now in Qatar. Meanwhile, Ahlam Tamimi, whom Jordan has refused to extradite to the US despite their extradition treaty, risks the possibility of being apprehended and being turned over to the US if she leaves to join her husband.

What is a terrorist to do?

You turn to the media -- in this case, the always obliging BBC, whose program 'Trending' featured a whitewashing of the terrorist couple by BBC Arabic’s Rania ‘Attar:

Not once during the entire 6 minutes of broadcast could one detect the slightest hint of criticism towards either of the two from BBC Arabic. The social media solidarity campaign supporting them was uncritically portrayed as a matter of freedom of speech for the weak and persecuted. No less notable were the selective omissions from the couple’s violent history: the programme referred to Ahlam as though she was merely “accused of involvement” in the Jerusalem bombing (despite her own public admission of the crime) and failed to mention the reason for Nizar’s imprisonment at all.

The programme, entitled “#Jordan: Ahlam_Tamimi_Your_Voice_is_Loud_and_Clear”, was hosted by BBC Arabic’s Rania ‘Attar; one of Trending’s regular presenters. Describing the Tamimis as “freed detainees from Israeli prisons”, ‘Attar told her audience how the two met in the halls of an Israeli military court, got engaged while in prison and married once they were both released in the 2011 Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange, against a background of sentimental pictures of their newfound life in Amman, Jordan.

The BBC host continued with the latest developments in the couple’s story, explaining that Jordan had not renewed “detainee” Nizar’s permit to reside in the kingdom with his wife (herself a Jordanian citizen), resulting in his expulsion to Qatar earlier this month. She then quoted Nizar’s brother Mahmoud who claimed that the decision to expel the husband was related to the American extradition request currently pending against his wife and that the family considers it an indirect Jordanian acquiescence to American dictates.

Next it was explained what had triggered the social media campaign which gave the programme its hashtag-style name. Last Tuesday a radio host was supposedly documented censoring Tamimi as she was on air, making her plea to King ‘Abdullah II to let her husband back into Jordan. The Jordanian-Palestinian solidarity campaign which followed used the hashtag “#Ahlam_Tamimi_Your_Voice_is_Loud_and_Clear”. Among the many comments shown, ‘Attar featured those that praised Tamimi as a woman “of great value” and “honour”, whose story should be heard by “everyone”.

The host concluded the programme with a full, uncensored video of Ahlam Tamimi addressing the King for a second time. Only afterwards were viewers made aware of what ‘Attar referred to as “the main landmarks of Ahlam’s life”, with the following statements being used to elaborate on her terrorist activity:
“First woman to join al-Qassam battalions, Hamas’s military wing […]

“She was accused of involvement in the ‘Sbarro’ restaurant bombing in Jerusalem […]

“In 2013, American Department of Justice ranked her on the list of ‘most dangerous wanted terrorists’, under the accusation of conspiring to kill Americans in the ‘Sbarro’ restaurant bombing in Jerusalem”

While the program was first broadcast on October 8th, protests against the program finally led to its being removed from Facebook, Twitter and YouTube on October 16th and from the BBC Arabic website itself on October 19th.

A BBC spokesperson later told The Jewish News:

Following an editorial review we found that this segment was in breach of our editorial guidelines and we removed the clip from our digital platforms last week. We accept that the segment should not have been shown and apologise for the offence caused.

This example of BBC moral deafness is matched only by Sarah Montague, the presenter of BBC’s Radio 4 Today program. Back on August 12, 2001, Montague called Arnold Roth -- whose daughter was one of Tamimi's victims. The family was sitting Shiva.

Montague asked whether Roth would be willing to come onto Radio 4 Today by phone the following morning to be in a two-sided interview with a man called al-Masri, the father of the human bomb [who carried out the Sbarro massacre]. This would enable the audience to hear “the two sides” of the atrocity. [emphasis added]

Two sides?

Only if you believe that a terrorist who targets children in a pizzeria is another man's freedom fighter.

But how about if you just hijack airplanes?

On August 29, 1969, Leila Khaled was a member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), the terrorist group that hijacked TWA Flight 840 from Rome to Tel Aviv, diverting it to Damascus.

On September 6, 1970, Leila Khaled and an accomplice, attempted to hijack El Al Flight 219 from Amsterdam to New York City as part of a series of almost simultaneous hijackings carried out by the PFLP:

Soon after takeoff, [pilot Uri] Bar-Lev and his co-pilot got word that two terrorists were hijacking the plane. They had shot and gravely wounded an El Al flight attendant and had put a gun to the head of another, demanding to be let into the cockpit, which Bar-Lev had immediately locked.

Bar-Lev saved the passengers by putting the plane into a steep dive. Khaled was captured -- and later released by Great Britain in a hostage exchange.

Fast-forward to 2020.

On September 23, Leila Khaled was scheduled to give a talk at San Francisco State University, entitled “Whose Narratives? Gender, Justice, & Resistance.” Khaled was helpfully described as a "Palestinian feminist, militant and leader."

In the end, the talk was stopped by Zoom and Facebook, right at the point where Khaled said "people have the right to fight those who occupy their land by any means possible, including weapons," and despite multiple attempts to hold the talk online since then, so far it has continued to be (mostly) blocked.

Associate professor Rabab Abdulhadi, director of the Arab and Muslim Ethnicities and Diasporas Initiative (AMED) was to be the moderator -- and at this point, Abdulhadi's comments defending having a terrorist speak to the students is predictable:

Abdulhadi claimed the outrage over her invitation to Khaled was manufactured by the "Israel Lobby Industry," and said opposition to her was "catering to donors, catering to the right-wing agenda and catering to Islamophobia." Abdulhadi doubled down on her comments later on in the video, stating that the university president "only talked to Zionists, only talked to one brand."

"The university is participating in a very discriminatory, racist, defamatory, smearing campaign by the Zionist bullies and their right-wing, neoliberal and wealthy allies," Abdulhadi said. She also claimed the talk with Khaled was only canceled because of the university's desire to retain wealthy Jewish donors, alleging the school's president told donors she would "crush the Palestinians" and "crush AMED studies."

The reason for the opposition to giving a podium to a terrorist is stated in a September 17 letter from 86 organizations, a letter Abdulhadi avoids addressing:

We fully acknowledge that faculty members like Prof. Abdulhadi have every right, as private citizens, to express anti-Zionist views and engage in anti-Zionist activism. However, we believe Abdulhadi's continuous and intentional use of her SFSU position and the name and resources of the University to indoctrinate students with her own personal animus towards the Jewish state and its supporters and to promote anti-Israel activism, does not constitute a legitimate use of academic freedom, but an abuse of it.

The full letter points to a few of Abdulhadi's AMED activities, such as:

In 2013, AMED co-sponsored an on-campus event that involved students using stencils to create placards and T-shirts with the image of a keffiyeh-clad Leila Khaled holding an AK-47 rifle accompanied by the message, “Resistance is Not Terrorism,” and other stencils with the message, “My Heroes Have Always Killed Colonizers.” In the wake of public outrage over the event’s unambiguous lionizing of a convicted terrorist and promotion of terrorism against Israel, Prof. Abdulhadi defended the event as a legitimate use of academic freedom. [emphasis added]

The BBC's fawning coverage of Hamas terrorist Ahlam Tamimi and Abdulhadi's manipulation of terrorist hijacker Leila Khaled as a resistant icon is reminiscent of the episode of Rasmea Odeh, who was convicted in 1970 and imprisoned in Israel for 10 years for the supermarket bombing in Jerusalem which killed 2 Hebrew University students -- Edward Joffe and Leon Kanner.

Odeh later lied about her conviction when she entered the US and was eventually convicted of immigration fraud and deported from the US -- but not before she became a cause celebre and described by The Rasmea Defense Committee as an “icon of the Palestine liberation movement.”

It is one thing to give Hitler a pass, or to whitewash Farrakhan -- but in the case of Ahlam Tamimi, BBC Arabic deliberately hid facts from its audience, such as Tamimi's pride when she actually admitted to the murder of innocent schoolchildren.

And in the cases of Leila Khaled and Rasmea Odeh, there is an attempt to go a step further and to not only use terrorists to energize protest against Israel but also use their public appearances to encourage outright hatred.

Taken in the context of the increase in antisemitic rhetoric from within the progressive wing of the Democratic party and the rise in the number of antisemitic attacks by radicals on both the right and the left, Jews will continue to be a target in the US.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.