Showing posts with label Opinion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Opinion. Show all posts

Wednesday, March 03, 2021

abuyehuda

 


Israel’s Supreme Court decided a few days ago that conversions to Judaism by the Reform and Conservative movements in Israel must be recognized by the state for the purposes of the Law of Return. Until now, the state has somewhat illogically recognized non-Orthodox conversions done outside of the country, but has not accepted those that took place here.

Despite what many of us think about the Court, it did not make this decision out of rampant leftism and desire to destroy Judaism. In fact, the justices probably would have preferred not to have to take up this issue, which is the hottest potato in Israeli politics.

At the time of the founding of the state David Ben Gurion negotiated a historic agreement with the religious Agudat Israel party in return for its support. This compromise, which is often referred to as the “status quo,” included stipulations about state observance of Shabbat and kashrut, separate streams of education, and – very significantly – that the state would “satisfy the needs of the religiously observant” in connection with “marital affairs.” This came to mean that the Haredi-dominated Chief Rabbinate (the Rabbanut) would be the sole authority concerning marriage, divorce, burial, and so on, of Israeli Jews.

Until recently, the only authority in Israel whose conversions to Judaism were recognized for any purpose was the Rabbanut. About 15 years ago, two petitions were filed with the Court by people who were denied citizenship under the law of return because they had non-Orthodox conversions to Judaism in Israel. At that time, the Court said that it was up to the Knesset to legislate the conversion issue, which was problematic for many reasons besides immigration, and set a deadline for it to do so.

One of the most pressing aspects was that a large percentage of the roughly one million Russian immigrants to Israel were not accepted as Jewish by the Rabbanut, although they had been considered Jewish by the state for the purposes of immigration. Documentation of Jewish parentage was very hard to obtain in the former Soviet Union, where records had been destroyed during the war, and where the Soviet government had discouraged the practice of Judaism. Orthodox conversion via the Rabbanut was long, difficult, and required the adoption of a Haredi lifestyle which many secular Russian Jews were not willing to adopt – although they considered themselves part of the Jewish people (and so did almost everyone else). But if they weren’t Jewish according to the Rabbanut, then they and their descendants were unable to marry, divorce, or be buried in the Jewish part of a cemetery (unless they served in the IDF!)

In order to solve this problem (and satisfy the Supreme Court), various arrangements and compromises were proposed, involving the establishment of Orthodox (but not Haredi) conversion courts outside the control of the Rabbanut. This was shut down by the political power of the religious parties. Conversions in Israel still had to be under the auspices of the Rabbanut. In 2016, the Supreme Court decided that private, Orthodox conversions in Israel would be recognized by the state – but only for the purposes of the Law of Return, and not for matters of family law.

But the old petitions of the Reform and Conservatives Jews had still not been acted upon after 15 years, and the Knesset, after the appointment of a commission and countless extensions of the Supreme Court’s deadline, still had not legislated on the matter. It became clear that the religious parties would continue to stonewall any attempts to introduce leniency into the conversion process. Former Justice Minister Moshe Nissim, who headed the legislative commission, said,

At the time I proposed establishing courts for conversion and determined that the conversion would be done according to Torah law and the judges would be certified by the Chief Rabbinate … They didn’t accept the proposal because the words “under the supervision of the Chief Rabbinate” did not appear in it.


So the Supreme Court had no choice but to rule, and in light of its prior decision to accept Orthodox conversions outside the Rabbanut and not wanting to be put in the position of deciding which branches of Judaism were legitimate, extended its recognition to Reform and Conservative conversions.

Practically speaking, the ruling has little effect. It does not include family law and other matters, which remain under the control of the Rabbanut. Very few people in Israel who are not citizens convert to Judaism via the Reform or Conservative movements; the movements say they number 30 or 40 a year.

But the decision is symbolically important, because it constitutes a form of state recognition of the Reform and Conservative movements as Jewish institutions, something that Haredim and many other Orthodox Jews do not accept any more than they accept “Jews for Jesus.” They especially object to what they see as the liberal movements’ lax standards for conversion and recognition of a person’s Judaism.

Full-time rabbis of larger congregations in Israel receive salaries from the state, but until 2014 only Orthodox rabbis were eligible. In response to a petition by a (female) Reform rabbi, the Supreme Court decided that Reform and Conservative rabbis must be included. The government had no choice but to comply, but the religious parties insisted that the payments come from the Ministry of Culture and Sport rather than the Ministry of Religious Services!

***

So now I will give my personal opinion: the Rabbanut has always been Orthodox, but it has not always been Haredi. The organization today is corrupt, slow, and intolerant, and needs to be at least reformed (not Reformed!) and possibly abolished. I believe the refusal to permit Orthodox conversions outside of the Rabbanut is harmful and should be ended, as well as the Rabbanut’s monopoly on kashrut certification. I would also like to see an option for civil marriage and divorce in addition to traditional religious marriage. It’s ridiculous that many Israelis have to jump through demeaning hoops or leave the country to get married.

What about Reform and Conservative Judaism? I think a good argument can be made that Conservative Judaism is just a less stringent form of Judaism, while the Reform Movement practices a different religion from Judaism. Here are some relevant comparisons:

Early Christianity was an offshoot of Judaism. Beginning with a significant theological divergence – the attribution of divinity to Jesus – it continued to diverge by the introduction of extreme leniency in practice and the mass incorporation of formerly pagan converts. By the time of Constantine, and probably well before then, nobody would have said that Christianity and Judaism are the “same religion.” Protestantism (which is in itself very diverse) was a later offshoot of Catholicism. There are many theological and practical differences, but the most essential part – the human need for salvation from sin that is provided by Jesus – remained. Most people agree that they are both forms of Christianity.

Now consider Unitarian Universalism, an even more recent offshoot of Protestantism. It has abandoned the doctrine of the divinity of Jesus. Today’s Unitarian Universalists do not identify as Christian, and may even be atheists. They have crossed the line and now explicitly practice a “different religion.”

Rabbinical Judaism became the primary form of Judaism after the destruction of the Temple. It added to the monotheism and narrative of the Jewish people that had previously characterized Judaism alongside the Temple ritual, an elaboration and codification of the mitzvot found in the Torah. This became the halacha, the laws for Jewish living. Halacha became an essential part of Judaism.

Jews living in Eretz Yisrael and in the various parts of the diaspora placed emphasis on different parts of the halacha or observed it more or less stringently. However, Reform Judaism, from the moment of its creation, rejected the idea that there is an obligation of any sort to follow halacha. The famous “Trefa Banquet” held in honor of the first graduating class of Hebrew Union College in 1883 was not significant because Reform rabbis ate non-kosher food, but rather because it demonstrated that they did not consider themselves bound by halacha. Their deliberate action defined them not as nonobservant or even “bad” Jews, but as Jews who had stopped observing Judaism.

Since then, the Reform Movement has replaced halacha with a different moral code, one which is very similar to that of Unitarian Universalists and other liberal and progressive people, emphasizing values like diversity, environmentalism, gender and racial equality, and so on. Indeed it is often hard to tell the difference between Reform Jews and Unitarians, and I am acquainted with numerous people that have moved from one to the other faith. But unlike the Unitarians, the Reform Movement does not admit how far it’s come from its roots.

The Conservative Movement observes halacha, although its rabbis have – especially in America – issued halachic rulings that are more lenient than Orthodox Judaism; for example that it is permissible to drive to the synagogue (but only there) on Shabbat. However, if a line must be drawn between Judaism and not-Judaism, I would place the Conservatives on the side of Judaism – and the Reform movement on the other.

***

The Supreme Court’s decision will change little. The Russian immigrants are already citizens. What they need is to be able to be married (and buried) like anyone else. It would be good for all of us if this could be achieved by making it possible for them to affirm their Jewish identity.


Oded Revivi, mayor of Efrat, has no problem participating in the annual Haaretz conference sponsored by Btselem and Breaking the Silence. That was the upshot of a shocking news piece that appeared in the Jewish Press on Sunday. That a conference by fifth column newspaper Haaretz was to be co-sponsored by fifth column NGOs Btselem and Breaking the Silence is not shocking and no surprise. All three share a common goal: undermining the State of Israel. But why on earth would Revivi grace the conference with his presence and lend credibility to these three fifth column entities bent on Israel’s destruction?

Especially since David Elhayani, head of the Council for Judea and Samaria, canceled his own scheduled talk at the conference. Elhayani announced his withdrawal from the conference after he was pressured to do so by the Choosing Life Forum of Bereaved Families and the Wounded IDF Veterans Forum. These two organizations begged Elhayani not participate in a conference sponsored by organizations that actively work to harm IDF soldiers. Elhayani did the smart thing for his political career and canceled his talk:

“I agreed to participate in the Haaretz conference in order to make the important voice of the communities [in Judea and Samaria] heard and to represent a sane voice on that day. At the same time, I can’t help recognizing the pain of bereaved families and terror victims that see these organizations as partners in activities against IDF soldiers, who suggest that my participation would add to their pain.”

Elhayani then tried to get Oded Revivi to back out along with him:

“Therefore, I announced that I am canceling my participation and ask that my friend Oded Revivi, head of the Efrat local council, who is also scheduled to participate in the conference, listen to the voices of these dear families and cancel his participation.”

Is it possible that Elhayani only grudgingly canceled his participation when pushed into a corner by bereaved families? Could the decision have been made in consultation with others? Elhayani has joined Gideon Saar’s New Hope Party, and Israel is in the midst of yet another election cycle. It sure wouldn’t look good for Elhayani to be seen hobnobbing with fifth column agents during an election cycle. Why, on the other hand, should it matter to Elhayani (or Gideon Saar) what Revivi, a free agent, does with his time?

My theory is that Elhayani withdrawing his participation from the conference meant that Revivi would become the conference’s main settler sell-out attraction, with all the attendant publicity. Revivi would have been smart enough to see this golden opportunity. That may be why Revivi then refused to withdraw from the conference. From the Jewish Press:

Revivi said he does not plan to cancel his participation in the forum. “I will go to every possible platform to give my opinion about our rights to the Land,” Revivi said in a statement.

Sure enough, Revivi went ahead and participated in filming for the conference. From Arutz 7:

Efrat Council head Oded Revivi today participated in filming for the Haaretz newspaper conference, despite many calls he received to boycott it, which was also attended by representatives of organizations that delegitimize the State of Israel and the IDF.

In his opening remarks, Revivi explained his participation, "I came despite the calls and requests for a boycott. I am unwilling to be boycotted and I am unwilling to boycott others. I came because the truth must be told."

Like Elhayani, Revivi appears to have his heart set on taking his political career in a national direction. He has managed to garner more attention than would seem proportional to his small town role as mayor of Efrat. Revivi has been cited by the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Atlantic, and even wrote an op-ed for the LA Times. He has done so riding on the cachet of being a dependable settler “expert” to call on for quotable quotes.

It is worthy of note that most Efratians (as we call ourselves) would be appalled to know that Revivi took part in the Haaretz conference. Ahead of the conference, Efrat council member and Opposition head Avraham Ben-Tzvi, gave the following statement to the Jewish Press:

“Even if Mayor Revivi participates in this conference, he speaks in his name only, not in the name of Efrat residents. It’s embarrassing that the mayor chooses to not include Efrat’s name on pro-settlement petitions and statements supported by the majority of the residents of Efrat, Gush Etzion, Hebron, and other settlements, but has no problem sitting down with these anti-Zionist and anti-IDF organizations.”

How bad are these “anti-Zionist” and “anti-IDF” organizations? Bad enough that in January, Education Minister Yoav Gallant took the extraordinary measure of issuing an order banning groups that slander the IDF and call Israel an "apartheid state" from giving talks in Israeli schools. Only last month, Btselem did just that, agitating against Israel through the launching of an international campaign that libels Israel as an apartheid state. Breaking the Silence, on the other hand, is more focused on defaming the IDF, telling wild lies of cruelty by IDF soldiers to Arab civilians. Both organizations are heavily funded by private European individuals and European government sources. This too, is no surprise, Europe being the place where millions of Jews were forced into gas chambers.

Btselem

Here is a small taste of a long bulleted list hosted on the NGO Monitor website under the heading of “political activity” on the egregious anti-Israel activities of Btselem:

·         Accuses  Israel of “apartheid,” perpetrating “war crimes,” “beating and abus[ing]” Palestinians, “demolition of [Palestinian] houses as punishment,” and forced “deportations.”

·         In January 2021, B’Tselem launched a discriminatory and hateful campaign, under the banner of “A regime of Jewish supremacy from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea: This is apartheid.” As part of the campaign, B’Tselem attacked Israel’s role as a haven for the Jewish people (the Law of Return) and used the phrase “from the river to the sea” – echoing long-standing Palestinian terminology for the destruction of Israel. (Read NGO Monitor’s analysis: “From the “River to the Sea”: B’Tselem’s Demonization Crosses the Line.”)

·         In December 2020, B’Tselem, alongside a number of Israeli, Palestinian, and international organizations, issued a declaration headlined “Israel must provide necessary vaccines to Palestinian health care systems.” The NGOs falsely claim that Israel has “legal obligations” to “ensure that quality vaccines be provided to Palestinians living under Israeli occupation and control,” while altogether ignoring that Palestinians residing in Jerusalem are part of the Israeli health care system; that under the Oslo Accords the PA is responsible for health care of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza; and that the PA has adopted its own vaccine policy for its population.

·         In July 2020, in the context of the Black Lives Matter protests, Hagai Elad compared Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians to the death of George Floyd, stating that “I think about us and the Palestinians, and see the picture of George Floyd in my mind. We have our knee on their necks while holding an argument with ourselves on how we wish to continue doing so.”

·         In September 2019, B’Tselem published a report titled “Playing the Security Card: Israeli Policy in Hebron as a Means to Effect Forcible Transfer of Local Palestinian” stating that “For 25 years, Israel has been openly pursuing a policy of segregation in the center of Hebron…Some features of the regime employed in Hebron recall certain aspects of the apartheid regime in South Africa.” (The report was funded by the European Union.)

           

 Breaking the Silence

BtS Spokesman Dean Issacharoff's commander calls BS on Issacharoff's lies.

Breaking the Silence, like Btselem, has no compunction about lying to drive home its anti-Israel narrative. After Breaking the Silence Spokesman Dean Issacharoff trumpeted lies about his military service and that of others with whom he served, speaking of unspeakable (and imaginary) human rights violations against Arabs, his “brothers” in arms (including his commanders) refuted those disgusting lies with a video that really packed a wallop, if you’ll excuse the pun:

Having just celebrated Purim, it is unfathomable, not to mention reprehensible, that settler leaders would grace such a conference for any reason. The conference was not a platform for talking about Jewish land rights or spreading a different narrative and the truth. On the contrary, participating in such a conference is to pal around with Amalek, a latter day Haman, pretending that this will somehow benefit the Jewish people. And if we learn anything from Purim it is that you give such monsters no quarter because participating in their events turns you into just another pawn to be put into play by evil.

The participants and sponsors of today’s conference were not there to listen to dupes like Elhayani or Revivi. Nor were they there to learn because the truth has no meaning to them, liars to a man, every one. The purpose of the fifth column NGOs and the conference they sponsored on behalf of the most anti-Israel newspaper in Israel, was to lie and cheat and cause Jewish blood to be spilled and to steal Jewish land they openly promise to give to enemies of the Jewish people. By their actions, the evil ones name themselves among those enemies, proclaiming their hate for Israel loud and clear to the world at large. The righteous have no place among them.


Thursday, February 25, 2021

abuyehuda

Vic Rosenthal's weekly column


Joe Biden has been in office for about a month. I have my doubts about the degree to which Joe himself is running things, but because he has always bent pragmatically to the winds of political (and perhaps personal) advantage, it’s not really important. Someone is making policy, in particular policy that concerns Israel. The course set by the Biden Administration appears to be almost 180 degrees from that taken by Donald Trump, and promises to bring back the sharp disagreements between the two nations that characterized the Obama period. He has already brought back most of the same people.

There are two main areas with which Israel must be concerned: the Palestinian and Iranian arenas. The Palestinian question seems to be on the back burner now, perhaps because everyone realizes that no solution is likely. But the Iranian desk is buzzing with activity. Obama’s people had four years to lick their wounds and plan for a rematch. Now their time has come, and they are moving swiftly.

Indeed, it has recently been revealed that during the Trump Administration, John Kerry and Robert Malley met with Iranian and EU officials and advised them to ignore overtures from President Trump’s people to fix the defects in the deal, and wait for their team to return with the expected Democratic victory. Seeing no alternative, Trump took the US out of the deal in 2018 (several European nations remain in it with Iran).

Biden’s declared Iran policy seems to be more or less the same as Obama’s, and it will be implemented by the same people: Malley, Jake Sullivan, Wendy Sherman, and Anthony Blinken. Before his appointment, Malley’s “International Crisis Group” prepared a report that recommended that the new administration should “move swiftly to revive the nuclear agreement on its existing terms.”

This is the deal that provided for an inspection regime with holes big enough to drive a truck through, which had sunset clauses that in effect guaranteed that after a certain point Iran’s weapons development would be legitimate, which revoked UN prohibitions on missile development, and which suffered from numerous other flaws – to the point that Binyamin Netanyahu risked an open break with the US, its essential ally and prime supplier of critical military equipment, in order to oppose it.

The new administration has already begun to make concessions to Iran in order to initiate a process of mutual moves to restart the deal. It removed the designation of Iran’s proxy Houthi rebels in Yemen as terrorists, and announced that it would no longer support Saudi Arabia’s military campaign against them. Biden also reversed Trump’s “snapback” to honoring pre-2015 UN sanctions on Iran.

Iran, for its part, has said that it wants to see all sanctions lifted and the deal reinstated at the point Trump left it. It’s not clear what the Iranians would do with the prohibited high-enriched uranium and even uranium metal that they have produced in violation of it since then.
Biden’s policies, from Israel’s point of view, are extremely dangerous. And the political situation in Biden’s Democratic Party is becoming more and more anti-Israel, as it moves to the left. There is little to restrain the administration, and there are forces pushing it to take positions even more disadvantageous to Israel.

The evaluation in Israel is that we cannot simply leave it to the US and trust that everything will be fine. A return to the deal without significant changes – which nobody thinks the American negotiators can, or even want to, obtain – will ultimately result in a nuclear Iran. On the other hand, direct opposition to the US could leave Israel in trouble, a result of the excessive dependence of the IDF on American aid. Israel is locked into extremely complex weapons systems that in many cases are integrated with our own systems, and switching to (for example) Russian systems, or even trying to develop our own, would be a very long, difficult process.
Caroline Glick thinks that Israel can maintain good relations with the US while working to decrease dependence, and establish relationships various political factions in the US as well as with other allies who are not happy with the prospect of Iranian nuclear hegemony.

I am afraid this is wishful thinking. Everything she suggests about developing our allies, and so forth, is worth doing, but there is no way Israel can avoid direct conflict with the American administration if it will not “concede either its sovereignty or its core interests to satisfy an administration committed to policies that harm both,” as Glick puts it. In my opinion, a confrontation is unavoidable, even if our PM does not travel to the US and speak to a joint session of Congress, as Netanyahu did in 2015.

I can see one way out of the dilemma. That is to present the Americans with a fait accompli that will at the same time send an unmistakable message that Israel cannot accept a nuclear Iran, and that will significantly set back the Iranian project. I mean, of course, military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities. And the sooner – before the US becomes fully enmeshed in negotiations with Iran – the better.

Although there is no doubt it will anger those in the American administration who are more anti-Israel than worried about Iran’s expansionism, it will speak to those who have a realistic attitude and understand that the primary goal is to keep Iran from going nuclear. The Rob Malleys will not approve. The Tony Blinkens might. You may recall the condemnation of Israel that followed her destruction of Saddam’s reactor in 1981; ultimately, almost everyone agreed that it was a good thing.

This time the job is much more difficult. Is it possible to carry it out without too much damage from the certain retaliation? Is there a way to neutralize Iran’s ability to retaliate? What are the probabilities?

These are questions that I can’t answer. They are questions for our Chief of Staff, and I believe the Prime Minister has already asked them.

Wednesday, February 24, 2021


As we approached the northern entrance to Efrat, my husband gasped. A car with Palestinian Authority license plates had run a red light, right in front of us. It was nighttime and we were returning from Jerusalem to our home in the Judean Wilderness. We’d traveled there to receive the second of our two vaccination shots against COVID-19. Watching that car speeding past, the driver ignoring the stop light, my first thought was that this wouldn’t happen if Israel exercised sovereignty here in this place, in Judea. My second thought was that people have no clue that sovereignty is about more than land rights.

As the errant driver passed the bright red traffic light, the safety of other drivers on the road in the dark of night was clearly not his concern. And since the residents of Judea and Samaria live under martial law, there was also no one to apprehend him for his misbehavior. Here is a driver who never had to take into account the niceties or legalities of risky driving behavior. Why should he? There is no one to deal with those who drive dangerously on the roads of Judea and Samaria.

According to Prof. Eugene Kontorovich, head of the International Law Department of the Kohelet Policy Forum, it’s not just a matter of no one to police the roads. Without sovereignty, there's simply no law and order. “By preventing the normal administration of law and policing, the existence of military law, and in particular the Civil Administration, prevents effective enforcement against property crime," says Kontorovich. "The military is not organised to be property police, and the Civil Administration does not see law enforcement as its primary priority.”

Crime Doesn't Care About Your Religion

Crime, by the way, is not exclusive to Jewish residents of the territories. Because crime doesn’t care about your ethnicity, religion, or nationality. Though religion does matter--along with your gender--when it comes to inheriting or purchasing property. Naomi Linder Kahn, director of the International Division of Regavim, explains:

“Both Arab and Jewish residents are suffering as a result of the legal limbo that has existed in the territories since 1967, where outmoded Jordanian and Ottoman law is still being enforced by Israeli courts. The old Jordanian legislation means that women—whether Arabs or Jews—cannot inherit or purchase land in Judea and Samaria. Worse yet, Jordanian laws still in effect prevent Jewish people of either gender from purchasing land anywhere in Judea and Samaria, in what is a clear case of Israel propping up an antisemitic policy. Finally, Israel continues to uphold outrageous Ottoman laws no longer in effect anywhere else in the world for over 100 years that allow for property theft through agricultural land use in territory over the Green Line.”

Failure of Israeli Leadership

Beyond these points of concern, there are many more problems that go unresolved as a result of the failure of Israeli leadership to implement sovereignty. But while sovereignty is currently relegated to the backburner for a variety of reasons, the sole issue of the Sovereignty Movement (Ribonut) is to keep the issue of Israeli sovereignty front and center. Asked about the implications of sovereignty beyond the issue of land, Nadia Matar, co-founder of Ribonut, along with Yehudit Katsover, reframed the issue to show how the application of Israeli law to Judea and Samaria would necessarily improve society. Matar provided a bulleted list:

·      Substantive rather than political considerations when deciding whether to build or not to build

·      Fewer road accidents

·      Economic benefits, such as a drop in housing prices, nationwide

·      Ecological benefits: Enforcement and supervision in the areas of the environment: landfills, quarries, pollution of streams and groundwater, and etc. 

·      The IDF will be free from being occupied with silly things like giving out building permits and will finally be able to deal with its real missions, fighting terrorism and protecting borders

·      Improvements in the provision of road infrastructure, electricity, water, and etc.

·      Preservation of and preventing the looting of heritage and archeological sites by official and unofficial robbers

“But above all,” says Matar, “sovereignty will be an official political and national statement that this land is ours.”

Being There

It is this last point that resonates most of all with those of us who live in Judea and Samaria. We poke along under an onerous and archaic quasi legal system--one that is woefully subpar, ignoring as it does, infractions of basic legal norms. The Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria must put up with a lot, simply for the privilege of being here: the unfairness of how we are treated compared to other Israelis; the dangers of living beyond the Green Line; and living without the standard legal rights our contemporaries have come to expect.

But we live where we live because we love the land, indigenous Jewish territory for thousands of years. And we live where we live because our presence serves to protect the holy city of Jerusalem (the enemy has to go through here to get to there). Finally, we live here because we hope that if enough of us do so, our government will come to do the right thing.

From our point of view, you see, it doesn’t matter who sits in the White House, Trump or Biden. What matters is who sits in the prime minister’s seat in Jerusalem. And we are waiting for someone who has the stones to declare our sovereignty over all our land, at last.

 


 

Wednesday, February 17, 2021

vic

Vic Rosenthal's weekly column


Bedouins are tribal, nomadic Arabs, tracing their ancestry to the Arabian peninsula, who today live all over the Middle East and North Africa. Today there are at least 200,000 Bedouins in Israel, and the population is growing rapidly. They are Israeli citizens with full political and civil rights.

Historically they fed themselves primarily by herding animals and other forms of nomadic agriculture and fishing. Some were bandits, raiding the caravans that passed through their region, and taxing non-Bedouin tribes in the vicinity. Over the years they have become more settled, with many of them living in towns and cities. But there still are some who follow traditional nomadic ways.

Bedouins are mostly Muslim Arabs, but most do not see themselves as “Palestinians.” Their political identification is with their (large) extended families and tribes. Tribes have supported whichever side in the conflict benefits them. Some volunteer for the IDF. There is a Bedouin (Ismail Khaldi) who served as Israeli Consul in San Francisco, and who has been chosen to become Ambassador to Eritrea.

Recently there has been a disturbing trend in which some Bedouins have returned to banditry as a way to make a living.

Everything that is not nailed down in IDF bases like Tze’elim in the Negev, including large quantities of weapons, ammunition, night vision equipment, vehicles, uniforms, and even soldiers’ kitbags is stolen by Bedouin thieves. The loot finds its way into the hands of Jewish and Arab criminals in Israel and in the territories, as well as terrorists. Rules of engagement only permit soldiers to use their weapons (even to fire in the air as part of the “procedure to apprehend a suspect”) if they think there may be immediate danger to life. Theft, even of weapons and ammunition, is not an acceptable reason.

This has been going on for decades, although the scale of it has recently expanded to a massive degree. When I did reserve duty guarding southern airbases during the 1980s, it was already a problem. When my son was part of a large training exercise ten years ago, Bedouins stuck close to IDF soldiers during live fire exercises, sweeping up shell casings and stealing anything they could. Over time it has taken on an ideological character. In an interview (Hebrew) with an Israeli website, one thief said “…all the firing ranges of Tze’elim belong to us. The state stole our land, expelled us. We are stealing back what belongs to us.”

The criminals are becoming bolder all the time, stealing cars in broad daylight and breaking into homes. Recently a 70-year old man, Aryeh Schiff of the Negev town of Arad, was indicted for manslaughter after shooting a thief who was driving away in his car. According to his family, Schiff had already had several cars stolen. In a particularly horrible episode, three Bedouin burglars broke into a home and raped a 10-year old girl while her parents slept. They have been arrested, but the punishment will not fit the crime. It rarely does.

These incidents are not part of the organized Palestinian war against the Jewish state. But they are not just apolitical crime either. The unrelenting propaganda from the Palestinian Authority and Israeli Left, which accuses Israel of stealing “Palestinian land,” oppressing and murdering Palestinians, even to the point of genocide, finds its mark among Bedouins and other Arab citizens of Israel. One man’s crime is another man’s jihad.

There are also cultural differences that are difficult to overcome. Bedouins practice polygamy, for example, which is illegal in Israel, although the state has almost always ignored it. It is usually bad for the women (the men tend to live with their newest, youngest, wife and leave the older ones to take care of their children), and there is pressure to enforce the law.

The Palestinians and their sponsors, the European Union, have found it possible to make use of Bedouins to create incidents in which Israel plays the role assigned to it, the powerful colonialist oppressor of third-world people. For example, there is Khirbet Humsah, a shepherding encampment squatting (even the left-leaning Israeli Supreme Court agrees) on an IDF firing range, which has been dismantled several times and rebuilt as many, thanks to the assistance of the EU.

Of course the most celebrated Bedouin settlement is Khan al-Ahmar, built illegally at a strategic location next to main roads in Area C (the part of Judea/Samaria that is supposed to be under full Israeli security and civil control according to the Oslo Accords). Here is how Regavim, an organization dedicated to Israeli sovereignty, describes it:

Khan al-Ahmar is one of more than 170 illegal outposts created by the P.A. and funded by the European Union for the sole purpose of establishing a corridor of P.A.-controlled territory disconnecting Jerusalem from the Jordan Valley and the Dead Sea. These outposts are populated by the most vulnerable, disadvantaged and easily manipulated Bedouin families, stateless pawns in the P.A.’s power play, and follow a very simple, very predictable pattern of development.

First, the P.A. places water tankers at strategic points: along major Israeli highways, on land belonging to or abutting existing Jewish communities, or along lines that create territorial contiguity between major Arab population clusters in Areas A and B of Judea and Samaria. Knowing that Bedouin require little more than a steady supply of water to congregate and remain in any particular spot in this arid region, the P.A. thus attracts the tribes to strategic locations, even when those locations pose serious hazards to the health and livelihood of the Bedouin.

The next step is the construction of a school. This, too, attracts population—and makes for devastating publicity if Israel’s Civil Administration knocks it down. From this point, the battle of narratives begins. The “village” quickly rises up, constructed almost entirely of prefab housing units bearing the symbol of the European Union. It is given a name and equipped with a fictitious history. An army of internationally financed “do-gooders” takes up the cause of the unfortunate Bedouin who are “threatened” with relocation by the Israeli authorities—to new, modern neighborhoods on Israeli state-owned land, along with cash payouts and other forms of compensation.

The P.A., the European Union and a host of “humanitarian aid” groups take to the High Court of Justice to block any and all compromise solutions, forcing the helpless Bedouin to remain in unbearable conditions in the illegal outposts, in the service of the P.A.’s geopolitical machinations.

Bedouins, like Jews (and unlike most Palestinians), are an indigenous people in parts of Eretz Yisrael. Will it be possible for us to coexist? And if not, then what?


Biden has yet to phone Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, though it has been a full 4 weeks since Biden assumed office as president of the United States. The more time goes by, the more speculation by the media on what, exactly, the lack of a phone call to the Israeli premier signifies, or whether it means anything at all. Is the lack of a phone call a snub, a slight? Or is Biden holding back until the results of the upcoming Israeli election are clear?

My host for this column, Elder of Ziyon, is on record as saying the no phone call to Israel is no big deal:
Some think that the symbolism of Biden not calling Netanyahu is important. I don't. Unless he calls Abbas first, this is not something to waste time on.
It’s true, as far as we know, that Biden has not yet called Mahmoud Abbas. Biden did, however, have Deputy Assistant Secretary for Israeli and Palestinian Affairs Hady Amr reach out to Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Dr. Mohammad Shtayyeh. So claimed Shtayyeh during an interview on France 24 Arabic TV on February 7, 2021, that was documented by MEMRI TV:

Interviewer: "Have you opened a channel of communication with the new Biden administration?"

Dr. Mohammad Shtayyeh: "Yes, there has been a phone call between myself and Mr. Hady Amr – Deputy Assistant Secretary for Israeli and Palestinian affairs. Mr. Amr reaffirmed what this administration declared during the election campaign: It will restore the aid, it will reopen the PLO office in Washington, and it will open a U.S. consulate in East Jerusalem. This is an important political message. In addition, the administration intends to restore aid to UNRWA and aid to the Palestinian people. These issues, as far as we are concerned, fall under the definition of confidence-building measures between this administration and us.”

[...]

"We requested that this administration reverse all the decisions that were made by the Trump administration, including the decision [to move the] U.S. embassy [to Jerusalem]. However, we know that the new administration, might not go this way, and instead choose an alternative option, which is opening a U.S. consulate in East Jerusalem in order to deal with the Palestinians directly. I believe that it sends a [clear] political message."

How important is this exchange? It’s hard to gauge, because first of all, it’s anecdotal. We weren’t there, and we don’t know if Shtayyeh’s account is faithful to the truth. But we do need to acknowledge that while Biden hasn’t spoken to Netanyahu, there have been contacts between the Biden administration and Israel. Haaretz, in fact, said that the first official contact between the two administrations took place on January 23, when U.S. National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan spoke with Israeli counterpart, Meir Ben-Shabbat.

The exchange with Ben-Shabbat, oddly enough, took place on a Saturday, when Israeli officials generally refrain from official business out of respect for the Jewish Sabbath, “Shabbat.” This phone call, like the lack of a phone call from Biden to Netanyahu, could, in theory, be seen as a slight by the Biden administration to Israel. Having his guy call Bibi’s guy on Shabbos? It’s certainly an affront to Israeli sensibilities.*

But I may be reading too much into this—it is likely that there are meetings and phone calls with Israeli officials on Shabbat all the time, they just aren’t advertised for fear of public backlash. As a result, when such meetings or phone calls take place on a Saturday, they tend to fall below the radar, and go unmentioned by the media. In this case, it may very well be that Israel wanted the media to put out the word that the phone call, in fact, took place, in order to take the sting out of the fact that Biden has yet to call Bibi.

Robert Spencer, director of Jihad Watch and a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, notes that Biden is the first president in 40 years to delay contact with an Israeli prime minister on taking office:

He called Xi. He called Putin. But three weeks into his presidency, Old Joe has pointedly refrained from calling the head of the government of our most reliable ally in the Middle East, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. And so it’s clear now: Biden’s handlers intend to put immense strain on the U.S.-Israel alliance over the next four years, at a time when Israel and the rest of the free world are threatened by Iranian mullahs who are newly emboldened amid all the signs that Biden’s handlers plan to readopt Obama’s appeasement policies toward them.

Of the phone call between Hady Amr and Mohammad Shtayyeh, Spencer says:

The import of that call was as clear as the import of the snub of Netanyahu: the money will flow again, the jihad will be enabled again, the Israelis will be treated with contempt again, the peace accords that Trump enabled will be put on the back burner, if not repudiated outright. Everything is back on track now after a four-year speed bump.
The Washington Free Beacon, meanwhile, describes the lack of a phone call from President Biden to Prime Minister Netanyahu as a “diplomatic slight” and says that “congressional Republicans are piling on the White House for not speaking with Netanyahu, with multiple members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee telling the Free Beacon it is a slight that endangers the close U.S.-Israel alliance at a time when the world’s only Jewish state is facing down multiple terrorist threats.”

The Free Beacon lists a number of prominent Republicans who have spoken out against the slight:

· Rep. Michael McCaul (Texas), the top Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee

· Rep. Lee Zeldin (N.Y.), a top HFAC Republican

· Rep. Jim Banks (R., Ind.), a member of the House Armed Services Committee

· Rep. Ronny Jackson (R., Texas), another member of HFAC member

· Rep. Darrell Issa (R., Calif.), who sits on both the HFAC and the House Judiciary Committee

· Rep. Mark Green (R., Tenn.)

· Rep. María Elvira Salazar (R., Fla.), also on the HFAC

· Rep. Joe Wilson (R., S.C.), ranking member of the House's Middle East Subcommittee

Former Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations Danny Danon also spoke out against Biden’s snub in this tweet of February 10th, tacking on Netanyahu’s phone number at the end for a bit of snarky emphasis:

In an earlier piece, the Free Beacon enumerated the history of US presidents contacting Israeli leaders over the past four decades:

Upon assuming office in January 1981, Reagan made overtures to Israel, vowing to protect its interests, and sent Secretary of State Henry Kissinger to meet with Israel’s leaders to build "Israeli confidence in the administration of President-elect Ronald Reagan," according to an Associated Press report from the time.

President George H.W. Bush followed this trend. He called then-Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Shamir on Jan. 25, 1989, five days after he entered the White House.

President Bill Clinton reached out to Israel even sooner. He called then-prime minister Yitzhak Rabin on Jan. 23, 1993, three days after being sworn in.

President George W. Bush phoned former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak on Jan. 27, 2001, a week after taking the White House, to express his support for the U.S.-Israel alliance.

President Barack Obama, who faced criticism from Republicans for policies they branded anti-Israel, called the Jewish state’s leaders on his first day in office. Obama also called Palestinian leaders that day, laying the groundwork for that administration’s failed bid to foster peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

President Donald Trump not only called Netanyahu but made the historic decision to invite him to Washington, D.C., on Jan. 22, 2017, two days after he took the oath of office.
From Biden, however? Crickets. Of more concern to some, however, is the inability of White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki’s inability to confirm Israel as a US ally. Elder of Ziyon covered this story in White House press secretary cannot say that Israel is a US ally. This is very bad. Here too, Elder once again opines that the failure of Biden to call Bibi is no big deal. He does, however, see the failure of the White House press secretary to clearly state that Israel is a close US ally as an ominous and significant harbinger of doom:

I don't think that it is a big deal that Biden hasn't called Netanyahu, but the inability to say that Israel is an ally is mind-boggling. Even if she didn't want to answer the same question about Saudi Arabia so she avoided answering about Israel, it is a big deal, because this points to Biden as being the third term of Obama, and the idea that the White House believes that a tilt towards Iran and away from US allies is a good idea is a very bad harbinger for the next four years.

Note also that even President Obama had no problem saying that the US was a strong ally of Israel.

Perhaps, as Elder suggests, the absence of a phone call, in and of itself, is not very important. Or maybe that was true, up to a point. Now, however, it points to a deliberate diss, as time goes by—an entire month in which a certain phone in Israel just doesn’t ring.

People are talking about it, leaders are speaking out, calling the lack of a phone call from Biden to Bibi an insult. It means something that the phone call hasn’t happened. The delay is a statement of malignant intent.

Taking a step back and looking at the big picture only makes things look worse. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Republican, is stripped from her committee roles as a result of airing her despicable conspiracy theories among them some that are antisemitic. Far left antisemite Ilhan Omar, on the other hand, is elevated in status, having been appointed vice chair of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, and Global Human Rights.

Should someone like Ilhan Omar have a say on foreign affairs? Someone who applauds Biden for stripping the Houthis of their designation as a terrorist organization?
Someone who tweets: “Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and let them see the evil doings of Israel.” Someone who publicly expresses hunger for the ICC to prosecute American ally Israel for imaginary war crimes?
But then again, Jen Psaki can’t say that Israel is a US ally. And that is the new reality: Israel, apparently, is no longer America's greatest ally in the Middle East. Which just goes to show that with Jobama in office, you can lead Netanyahu to wait and wait by the phone, but you can’t make it ring.

 *On reviewing this piece, Elder pointed out the time difference between Israel and the US. It would have been Shabbos in Israel only if Sullivan called Ben-Shabbat before 11 am EST. 

UPDATE: Biden finally called Netanyahu just as this piece was coming out. But the point was made. It took Biden an entire month to call, as the whole world was watching, and talking. We got the message: this will not be an Israel-friendly administration.




Wednesday, February 10, 2021

vic

Vic Rosenthal's weekly column


There is no world government based on international law, and there should not be one. That seems like something that should be understood and agreed to by everyone, but apparently it is not.

Today, Israelis, from the Prime Minister to almost any IDF soldier, are in legal jeopardy as a result of the overreach of arrogant international institutions and an overly-expansive idea of international law.

In its simplest form, international law is based on the (supposedly) universal acceptance of the principle that a nation should honor its agreements with other nations. If, for example, Iran signs the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and then develops nuclear weapons, it is in violation of international law. When a country joins the UN, it agrees to be bound by the UN Charter (which, for example, forbids the “threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state”), and by certain kinds of Security Council resolutions. In these contexts, international law depends on consent: a nation is not bound to follow any laws that it hasn’t agreed to.

There is also something called “customary international law.” That refers to principles that are not covered by treaties, but are unwritten rules based on the customary behavior of states and a subjective opinion of obligation. One area in which it is applicable is where non-state actors are concerned, who are not members of the UN and have not signed any treaties. So Hamas’ use of human shields can be considered a violation of customary international law even though Hamas is not a member of the UN and has not signed any of the protocols of the Geneva Conventions. Here there is no consent. But even when customary international law is applied to states the question of consent can become murky, since there are no agreed-to treaties to refer to.

The difference between the laws of states and international law is most pronounced when you consider interpretation and enforcement. States establish domestic courts that interpret their laws and determine when someone is in violation of them. They have jurisdiction over all the residents of a country and their decisions are binding. A state can use force to enforce them. For international law, jurisdiction is limited by the principle of consent and enforcement is more complicated.

There are international courts. The UN has established an International Court of Justice (ICJ), which can adjudicate disputes between nations in the framework of international law. In order for the ICJ to do so, either the nations involved must explicitly consent, or they must have signed treaties that include clauses that require such adjudication of disputes. The ICJ can also give advisory opinions to various UN agencies when asked to do so. Such opinions are not binding on the nations involved. For example, in 2004, the ICJ produced a highly politicized advisory opinion for the UN General Assembly, holding that Israel’s security barrier violated international law and construction of it should stop. Israel cooperated with the court by providing testimony, but was not required to do so or to accept its judgment.

There is also an International Criminal Court (ICC). The ICC is not a part of the UN; it was established in 2002 by a multilateral treaty called the Rome Statute and is financed by contributions from its member states. The ICC can try individuals (not states) who are accused of serious crimes like genocide, crimes against humanity, or war crimes. The ICCs jurisdiction is limited to crimes committed within the territorial area of states that have adopted the Rome Statute or declared their acceptance of its jurisdiction; or crimes committed by nationals of those states; or in special cases referred by the UN Security Council. 123 states have signed on to it and 42 (including the US and Israel) have not.

Note that the criterion for jurisdiction seriously undermines the principle of consent. The court can prosecute a citizen of a particular country whether or not that country is a member of the Rome Statute, as long as the offense was committed in a country that is a member.

The ICC can prosecute someone only if it decides that “national justice systems do not carry out proceedings or when they claim to do so but in reality are unwilling or unable to carry out such proceedings genuinely.” It can prosecute anyone, even if they are a head of state or a soldier who is required to follow orders. So far it has indicted 44 people, mostly for crimes committed in several African conflicts.

The ICC can issue arrest warrants which may be executed by member states, or any state that cooperates with it. Arrested persons can be tried at the Court’s headquarters in The Hague, Netherlands. If convicted, they can be sentenced to prison terms up to and including life imprisonment, which can be served in cooperating countries.

As you probably know, the ICC’s head prosecutor has announced that the Court would initiate a criminal investigation against Israelis and (presumably) Hamas members for war crimes committed during 2014’s Operation Protective Edge and the defense of the Gaza border, as well as Israel’s settlement policy. The prosecutor claims that the Court has jurisdiction over Gaza and Judea/Samaria, even though “Palestine” is not a sovereign state and Israel is not a party to the Rome Statute.

A pre-trial panel of judges decided that “The State of Palestine” had joined the Rome Statute in 2015, and that therefore – although the Court didn’t wish to decide the question of whether “Palestine” is a state – the very fact that it had joined the statute implies that it can be treated as a “state party” to the Statute. Once a “state party,” it would be unfair to deny it any of the rights and privileges accruing to one! (See pars. 89-113 of the decision linked above). Sometimes an argument is so bad, it’s hard to even restate it.

But since “Palestine” isn’t actually a state with borders, how do we know that the “crimes” were committed within its borders? Easy, say the ICC judges: UN General Assembly Resolution 67/19, which admitted “Palestine” to the UN as a “Non-member Observer State” in 2012 says that “Palestine” includes the Gaza Strip and the “West Bank.” QED.

Regarding the UNGA, I don’t think I have to add anything to Abba Eban’s well-known comment, “If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions.”

The Kafkaesque ICC decision, 60 pages of mumbo-jumbo intended to obscure the intention to pillory Israel and punish Israelis, proves that the ICC is “nothing but a pack of cards,” in the words of Lewis Carroll’s Alice.

And this illustrates how, at least in the realm of nations, politics trumps law. It illustrates why the expansion of international law beyond the principle of consent is dangerous. And – as if any more such illustrations are needed – it shows how important international institutions are viciously biased against one particular country, which just happens to be the one Jewish state.

“American Jews voted for this,” is something I’ve taken to writing as a preface to every article I share on social media detailing the ways in which the Biden administration is bad for America, for Israel, and for the free world at large. I do this, in part, because I am angry. Angry at this betrayal of brother for brother, prioritizing hatred of the Orange Man over the welfare of the Jewish State. Angry at this very large subset of Jews who care more about criminals who enter their country illegally than they care about the Jews of far-off Israel. Most of all, I am angry at American Jews for being blind to the threat of Iran that looms over us all, choosing fluffy social justice issues over this major existential threat.

I am angry and I want them to know it. So I tell them, at every chance I get, “American Jews voted for this.”

I’ve pointed my finger and said “American Jews voted for this,” when the Biden administration announced its intention to restore aid to UNRWA, whose schools are hotbeds of incitement that teach Arab children to hate and kill Israeli Jews. UNRWA schools have even been used to house the missile launchers that fire rockets at the one million Jewish civilians of Southern Israel, which includes my children and grandchildren. UNRWA is thoroughly disreputable with serious allegations of corruption at the highest level. But that didn’t stop Biden from appointing former UNRWA official and “Palestinian-American” Maher al-Bitar to be director of the NSC intelligence service. 

American Jews voted for this.


“American Jews voted for this,” I said when Biden predictably appointed Robert Malley as US envoy for Iranian affairs. Malley wants to end the sanctions and return to the JCPOA. This wrongheaded policy of appeasement—of making funds available to the cash-strapped mullahs—only hastens Iranian nuclear breakout time.  The appointment of Malley undoes everything the Trump administration did to contain Iran. Yet American Jews voted for Biden even while he promised to reinstate this self-destructive policy—a policy that empowers an enemy sworn to the goal of first obliterating Israel and then the United States.

When the Biden administration rejoined the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC), something he had promised to do during his campaign, I said it again: American Jews voted for this. The UNHRC is a body made up of representatives from some of the worst human rights-abusing countries, for instance Pakistan, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, China, Indonesia, Venezuela, and Russia. The main purpose of this body of evil is to censure Israel for imaginary infractions, which was the reason President Trump pulled the US out of the council: the UNHRC is clearly antisemitic in its singular focus on and hostility toward the Jewish State.

Last year in fact, the UNHRC published a blacklist of companies it said raised “particular human rights concerns” due only to the location of these businesses in Judea and Samaria, indigenous Jewish territory for thousands of years. A vote for Biden was, in reality, a vote for a return to the UNHRC, an antisemitic body purporting to care about human rights as it looks daily for new ways to punish Israel. American Jews looked the other way, if they looked at all. American Jews voted for this.

The Matter of the Houthis

Then there’s the matter of the Houthis. While the Trump administration imposed sanctions on the Houthis, the Biden administration has already moved to suspend some of these sanctions. That’s because Iran is sending lots of sophisticated weaponry to this Yemen-based militia group and training Houthi militants in their use. And Biden, you see, is loath to upset Iran.

The Trump administration designated the Houthis a terrorist organization. Biden, on the other hand, is reviewing this designation. Antony Blinken, Biden’s secretary of state, said he has “deep concern about the designation” of the Houthis as a terrorist organization. The Biden administration's “review” is part and parcel of a return to the bad old days of the Obama administration and the JCPOA appeasement policy in which America pretends it can mollify the mullahs by funding their nuclear ambitions. American Jews voted for this and it literally makes no sense. It’s suicide.

The Biden administration is, in fact, an extension of the Obama administration’s “abnormal Middle East strategy,” in which enemies are strengthened, and friends are punished. In voting for Biden, American Jews voted for strengthening Iran and punishing Israel. Because that is how much they hate Donald Trump. For hatred of this one man, they threw the Jews of Israel under the bus. They empowered an Iran that promises to wipe out both Israel and America.


Duss is "Infected with Jew-Hatred"

When rumors emerged that Bernie Sander’s top aide, Matt Duss, was to be hired by the State Department, I said it again: “American Jews voted for this.”

“Duss,” said the Free Beacon, “will join a growing roster of Biden administration hires who have displayed a deep animus toward Israel, promoted boycotts of the Jewish state, and advocated for a Palestinian ‘right of return’ that would destroy the country’s Jewish composition.”

No less than the Simon Wiesenthal Center described Duss as "infected with Jew-hatred.” But American Jews voted for Biden, knowing that Joe would need to placate the influential, far left, Israel-hating wing of the Democratic Party. What better way to do this than to hire far left, Israel-hating hacks to serve in the Biden administration? American Jews voted for this, as well.

Iran's New Rocket: The Zuljanah

When Iran tested a new rocket on February 1, a rocket capable of hitting Britain, I gritted my teeth and thought (and said), “American Jews voted for this.” The rocket launch was an Iranian threat timed to coincide with Biden’s assumption to power. The intent was clear: Iran is telling Biden to lift the sanctions and reinstate the JCPOA. In effect, the mullahs are saying, “Give us money or we will blow some country—Britain or perhaps Israel—to smithereens.”

Iran's newest rocket, the Zuljanah

And of course, Iran knows that Biden is rehiring all the Obama appointees so intimately involved in appeasing Iran the last time around. Iran knows that Biden coming to power is the same as Obama assuming power. The mullahs have already played this game. They know the rules, and how to win—how to get more money to make more weapons. American Jews voted for this, as well.

During the election campaign, Biden promised he would open the PLO mission in Washington. Already, the PA is in talks with the State Department on how to make that happen without the PA having to pay the $650 million it owes after being found guilty in 2015 by a New York jury, for no less than seven terror attacks. A survivor of one of these attacks, Alan Joseph Bauer, described his personal connection to the lawsuit, “In March of 2002, a Palestinian policeman, Muhammed Hasheikah, detonated himself on King George Street in downtown Jerusalem. I had two screws pass through my left arm, and our son, then aged 7, had the head of a Philips screw pass fully through his right brain.”

Biden intends to empower the terrorists responsible for this and countless other abhorrent antisemitic attacks, by reopening the PLO mission. He is, moreover, trying to find a way to do so without making the PLO pay the monies it owes to its victims. American Jews voted for this.

"Amcha"

When I met first Dr. Elana Heideman, of the Israel Forever Foundation, she talked to me about the possibility of writing a story for her website. She mentioned that she didn't care whether I was religious, or what my politics might be, all she cared about was whether I had something positive to say about Israel. It was such a simple concept, so sweet and clean. 

She explained that the one thing we all shared was a love of Israel. And she told me that once upon a time, Jews in the Old Country had a way of identifying each other. They'd come up to a person and whisper, "Amcha."*

Amcha. A hidden way of asking: "I'm Jewish. Are you? Is it safe to speak?"

By asking, you were declaring your Judaism. And that was a bit of a risk. But it was a good feeling to find others like you in a world that hated your people. You felt warm and safe in the knowledge of that.

What happened to that simple way of showing up for each other, of caring for each other in a world that hates and wants to kill Jews, just because they are Jewish? When did we stop being a part of each others' lives, each others' worlds?

This is what angers me most of all about the American Jewish vote. This lack of connection, the lack of being there for their own kind in a time of crisis. It makes me think that maybe they aren't really Jewish after all, for all their talk about "tikkun olam."

Did Hatred Overrule Their Common Sense?

There is much more to say on this subject than can be contained in a single article. But there is enough here to ask the obvious questions: Did American Jews know the full import of what they were voting for, when they voted for Joe Biden? Did they care? Or did their hatred for the Orange Man and his difficult personality overrule their common sense?

Where did that feeling of connection to their people go? What happened to the concept that we are your people, and you are ours? What happened to common cause?

Did American Jews know, when they voted for Biden, that they were prioritizing animus for a single person over being actually complicit in the institutionalized hatred of an entire people: their own, "amcha?" Were they the victims of a media colluding with the left to hide the truth of what all of what a Biden administration would mean to Israel and the Jewish people? I don't see it, because ultimately I believe that every voter is responsible for learning all the facts--for digging deep and discerning the truth. Especially when it affects your people, "amcha."

And so, in order to make things entirely clear to them, I will say it often, and I will say it aloud, “American Jews voted for this. You threw us under the bus, and with us, yourselves."

I couldn’t make them see it then, and I couldn’t make them see it back when they voted for Obama, twice. I couldn’t make them see the wrongness of their vote, how it hurts us, how it hurts them and divorces them from their own people, their nation, and the world.

But maybe I can make them see it now, after the fact. Which is why I will keep saying this mantra and writing these words. “American Jews voted for this."

And I promise you, I will not stop.

*Lit. "Your Nation" as in: "I'm part of your nation, I'm Jewish."



Wednesday, February 03, 2021

vic

Vic Rosenthal's weekly column


The other day YouTube decided that I wanted to see a compendium of large ships crashing into each other or into docks, cranes, and other installations. What impressed me was the unavoidability of the crashes: the ships moved ponderously, inexorably, toward their fates as tiny humans scuttled around on the decks, horns blowing with great urgency (I imagine the ship’s captains shouting “Full astern!”), but all for nothing when the almost irresistible force of the ship meets the almost immovable object of its nemesis in a crescendo of crushing, grinding, and snapping.

Whew. And this reminded me of the situation with Iran. The Iranians have ramped up their production of enriched uranium and activated advanced centrifuges in their Natanz facility, and they are threatening to kick out IAEA inspectors on 26 February. They are telling US officials that if they want to reenter the (worthless) deal, they’d better hurry and start removing sanctions while there is still time. US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, for his part, is demanding that the Iranians first “return to compliance,” although what that would mean in practice considering the progress they have made is unclear.

What is becoming clear is that the Biden Administration is dead set on a course of returning to the deal, although Blinken, at least, wants to renegotiate it. On the other hand Robert Malley, President Biden’s choice for Special Envoy to Iran, wants to jump back in to the deal as it was when President Trump took the US out of it. Malley’s think tank published a position paper a few days ago, which contained this:

The Biden administration should pursue U.S. re-entry into the 2015 nuclear deal, starting by revoking the 2018 order ending U.S. JCPOA participation and initiating a process of fully reversing Trump-era sanctions while Iran brings its nuclear program back into full compliance. As further confidence-building measures, Washington could support Iran’s International Monetary Fund loan request as a sign of good-will in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, and perhaps engage Tehran in discussions on a prisoner swap.


Do you hear the horns blowing and the captains shouting yet?

Persia was among the earliest known places where the game of chess was played, and the Iranians have proven to be very good negotiators. A strategy that calls for American concessions up front (“confidence building”) will fail, as it did under Obama. Only a tough strategy that demands action by Iran as an alternative to more pressure (“an offer that they can’t refuse”) will succeed. The Trump Administration left the US in a strong bargaining position toward Iran, with very painful sanctions in force. The US should insist on concrete, verifiable steps by Iran before removing any sanctions, and should threaten to take even stronger action if Iran does not comply.

Biden’s administration is replete with former Obama Administration officials (conservative blogger Jeff Dunetz calls it “the reBama Administration”), including Malley, who incidentally is also very out front about his pro-Palestinian sympathies. From the standpoint of American or Israeli interests, Malley is a wretched choice. He is far more pro-Iranian than even Blinken, Jake Sullivan, or Wendy Sherman, all former Obama-era Iran hands retreaded by Biden.

One wonders why Biden picked a team that is unlikely to produce better results than it did under Obama, and may even do considerably worse. Maybe Blinken vs. Malley is a good-cop bad-cop routine. But who knows if Biden was responsible for those choices, or if they were made for him?
Fortunately I am not Prime Minister of Israel, but if I were I would not expect better performance from a reBama Iran team than from the original one. And I think this could have been known for some time. Biden announced his intention to reenter the deal in September of 2020. From then on, it became clear that any military action by Israel – even special operations short of war – would be construed by the new administration as a slap in the face.

This could be the reason that Biden announced so early that he would be re-entering the deal: so that the “slap in the face” argument could be used against any last-minute Israeli action before Biden took office, or even before the election. And it was indeed deployed (by Obama surrogates Ben Rhodes and John Brennan) to criticize Israel’s assassination of the head of Iran’s nuclear program, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, on 27 November.

Rhodes and Brennan said that Israel’s act was “aimed at undermining diplomacy” between the US and Iran, and that seemed ridiculous. How could anyone see it as anything but an attempt to slow Iran’s progress to the bomb? But in fact they were sending a message: after Biden becomes president, we’ll remember anything you do now, and you’ll be sorry.

I missed this. On 1 October, I wrote that I had expected that if Biden won the election, Israel would act against the Iranian nuclear facilities in the last weeks of the Trump Administration. I was wrong. Apparently our government got the message that the Americans would not forgive Israel if she eliminated the need for an Iran deal before Biden could sign one.

The weeks passed, Iran ramped up their processes, and Israel did nothing. Now that Biden is in the White House, it is even less likely that Israel will act, despite the recent sabre-rattling of our Chief of Staff.

Israel is in the position of a helpless observer on the deck of a small vessel who can only watch as a huge cruise ship or supertanker plows into it – which is just where the people pulling Biden’s strings want us.

Printfriendly

EoZTV Podcast

Podcast URL

Subscribe in podnovaSubscribe with FeedlyAdd to netvibes
addtomyyahoo4Subscribe with SubToMe

search eoz

comments

Speaking

Follow by Email

translate

E-Book

For $18 donation








Sample Text

EoZ's Most Popular Posts in recent years

Hasbys!

Elder of Ziyon - حـكـيـم صـهـيـون



This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For over 14 years and 30,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.

Donate!

Donate to fight for Israel!

Monthly subscription:
Payment options


One time donation:

subscribe via email

Follow EoZ on Twitter!

Interesting Blogs

Categories

#PayForSlay Abbas liar Academic fraud administrivia al-Qaeda algeria Alice Walker American Jews AmericanZionism Amnesty analysis anti-semitism anti-Zionism antisemitism apartheid Arab antisemitism arab refugees Arafat archaeology Ari Fuld art Ashrawi ASHREI B'tselem bahrain Balfour bbc BDS BDSFail Bedouin Beitunia beoz Bernie Sanders Biden history Birthright book review Brant Rosen breaking the silence Campus antisemitism Cardozo cartoon of the day Chakindas Chanukah Christians circumcision Clark Kent coexistence Community Standards conspiracy theories COVID-19 Cyprus Daled Amos Daphne Anson David Applebaum Davis report DCI-P Divest This double standards Egypt Elder gets results ElderToons Electronic Intifada Embassy EoZ Trump symposium eoz-symposium EoZNews eoztv Erekat Erekat lung transplant EU Euro-Mid Observer European antisemitism Facebook Facebook jail Fake Civilians 2014 Fake Civilians 2019 Farrakhan Fatah featured Features fisking flotilla Forest Rain Forward free gaza freedom of press palestinian style future martyr Gary Spedding gaza Gaza Platform George Galloway George Soros German Jewry Ghassan Daghlas gideon levy gilad shalit gisha Goldstone Report Good news Grapel Guardian guest post gunness Haaretz Hadassah hamas Hamas war crimes Hananya Naftali hasbara Hasby 2014 Hasby 2016 Hasby 2018 hate speech Hebron helen thomas hezbollah history Hizballah Holocaust Holocaust denial honor killing HRW Human Rights Humanitarian crisis humor huor Hypocrisy ICRC IDF IfNotNow Ilan Pappe Ilhan Omar impossible peace incitement indigenous Indonesia international law interview intransigence iran Iraq Islamic Judeophobia Islamism Israel Loves America Israeli culture Israeli high-tech J Street jabalya James Zogby jeremy bowen Jerusalem jewish fiction Jewish Voice for Peace jihad jimmy carter Joe Biden John Kerry jokes jonathan cook Jordan Joseph Massad Juan Cole Judaism Judea-Samaria Judean Rose Judith Butler Kairos Karl Vick Keith Ellison ken roth khalid amayreh Khaybar Know How to Answer Lebanon leftists Linda Sarsour Linkdump lumish mahmoud zahar Mairav Zonszein Malaysia Marc Lamont Hill Marjorie Taylor Greene max blumenthal Mazen Adi McGraw-Hill media bias Methodist Michael Lynk Michael Ross Miftah Missionaries moderate Islam Mohammed Assaf Mondoweiss moonbats Morocco Mudar Zahran music Muslim Brotherhood Naftali Bennett Nakba Nan Greer Nation of Islam Natural gas Nazi Netanyahu News nftp NGO Nick Cannon NIF Noah Phillips norpac NSU Matrix NYT Occupation offbeat olive oil Omar Barghouti Only in Israel Opinion Opinon oxfam PA corruption PalArab lies Palestine Papers pallywood pchr PCUSA Peace Now Peter Beinart Petra MB philosophy poetry Poland poll Poster Preoccupied Prisoners propaganda Proud to be Zionist Puar Purim purimshpiel Putin Qaradawi Qassam calendar Quora Rafah Ray Hanania real liberals RealJerusalemStreets reference Reuters Richard Falk Richard Landes Richard Silverstein Right of return Rivkah Lambert Adler Robert Werdine rogel alpher roger cohen roger waters Rutgers Saeb Erekat Sarah Schulman Saudi Arabia saudi vice self-death self-death palestinians Seth Rogen settlements sex crimes SFSU shechita sheikh tamimi Shelly Yachimovich Shujaiyeh Simchat Torah Simona Sharoni SodaStream South Africa Sovereignty Speech stamps Superman Syria Tarabin Temple Mount Terrorism This is Zionism Thomas Friedman TOI Tomer Ilan Trump Trump Lame Duck Test Tunisia Turkey UAE Accord UCI UK UN UNDP unesco unhrc UNICEF United Arab Emirates Unity unrwa UNRWA hate unrwa reports UNRWA-USA unwra Varda Vic Rosenthal Washington wikileaks work accident X-washing Y. Ben-David Yemen YMikarov zahran Ziesel zionist attack zoo Zionophobia Ziophobia Zvi

Blog Archive