01/01 Links: From Jew vilification to the delegitimization of Israel; Netanyahu slams ‘disgraceful’ UN request for ICJ opinion on Judea and Samaria; The NYTs Rush to Whitewash Palestinian Terror

From Ian:

From Jew vilification to the delegitimization of Israel - opinion

From the dawn of time, Jews have been maligned and slandered. Apion's vilification, the blood libels, the Dreyfus trial, and of course, the antisemitic propaganda of the 20th century are just a few examples. All of these manifestations of antisemitism got an "upgrade" to vilifying Israel, where the majority of world Jewry resides, by taking away the very legitimacy of Jewish presence in its ancestral homeland.

This effort began when the Roman emperor Hadrian renamed the land of Israel "Palestine" in order to detach the Jews from their homeland. In a nutshell, the vilification of the Jew has evolved into the delegitimization of the State of Israel. Words have power, and we still suffer the consequences of those words written and spoken over the last two millennia.

Today, the effort to delegitimize Israel has gone global and has permeated organizations like the United Nations and Amnesty International, which routinely try to undermine Israel's right to exist as a Jewish and democratic state within any borders. Furthermore, with the democratization of communication due to the emergence of social media, the average person has been handed the power and platform to throw misinformed accusations at Israel with the click of a button.

Making matters worse, influencers and celebrities can reach three, four, or even ten times the number of all Jews on the planet, spreading incorrect information. They share inaccurate content out of ignorance (like the star of Netflix's hit show Wednesday, Jenna Ortega) or out of pure malice (like antisemite Kanye West). Thus, the average person, who forms their opinions, including geo-political stances, based on memes, Instagram stories and TikTok videos, will easily be misinformed by these influencers. I experienced this firsthand when my friends around the world would easily share misinformation, while terrorist organizations were unleashing thousands of rockets upon Israeli civilians.

Seth Frantzman: The UN's vote against Israel and its historic contradictions

This is the essence of the contradictory policies behind “international law.” Western colonial powers were able to set up various administrations all around the world, sometimes only for a few decades. During that time they often carved up areas and created arbitrary lines on maps and then partitioned the areas they had taken over. But the Western powers were rarely accused under international law of “illegal occupation.” The concept of “international law” was primarily inaugurated after western colonial powers left most areas of the world.

The remaining vestiges of colonial-era rule, such as some islands here and there, are not considered “occupied.” In this narrative, Western countries never “occupied,” but when they decided to partition countries or draw arbitrary lines on maps, cutting peoples and tribal territories in half, it was always "legal." This was the case in the partition of India and the creation of the Kashmir dispute.

It was also the case with areas in the Middle East. The Golan Heights are part of Syria, not because of some ancient legal reason, but because the British and French colonial authorities demarcated the border this way. Neither side of that equation was ever “occupying.” Only when the European countries decided to give “independence” to various states or leave, did international law suddenly swoop in and say that the borders the former powers had drawn would be set in stone. Now any changes were against international law.

The strangest thing is that the partition plan the British and UN left behind in 1947 was unworkable. International status for Jerusalem and a patchwork of areas for two states, one Arab and one Jewish, in what had been British mandate Palestine. Yet the “law” today isn’t entirely based on the 1947 decision. Instead, there was a ceasefire in 1948 and then a war in 1967. International law has a way of swooping in only when changes are made in Israel’s favor.

For instance, there was no “occupation” of Jerusalem or “demographic change” issue between 1948 and 1967 when Jordan ran east Jerusalem. Even though Jews were ethnically cleansed from areas of the Old City, this was not a “demographic change.” When Israel took over Jordanian-occupied east Jerusalem, then international law says the situation in 1967 must be set in stone. Not the situation in 1947 or 1887. How does the law know when to draw the line?

Similarly, it’s not clear why international law often portrays Israel as an “occupier” of Gaza. The Gazans were not consulted on whether they wanted to be occupied by the British or the Egyptians. Yet the “law” seems to only relate to Israel’s temporary control of Gaza and in essence forces Israel to forever be the “occupying power.” This is the same international concept that underpins the Oslo Accords, in a sense abrogating those very accords and making it impossible for Israel to give up control. This is problematic because even if Israel wanted to withdraw from parts of the West Bank and enable a full-fledged Palestinian state, the “law” would always portray Israel as continuing to “occupy” something. This is the case in Lebanon, for instance, where even though Israel withdrew in 2000, Hezbollah continues to accuse Israel of occupying the Har Dov/Sheba’a farms area. It’s hard to imagine a way Israel can ever extricate itself from the endless UN focus, even if it wanted to. The focus on Israel is convenient since it means more contentious issues such as focusing on Turkey’s occupation of Syria, are not spotlighted. Many countries agree to shift the focus to Israel.

The related features of international law, that it is often rooted in arbitrary European colonial power decisions, and in arbitrary dates, create many contradictions. It’s hard not to see it as merely being made up as it goes along to single out Israel. Some of the countries that created the “law” and the chaos of 1948, then condemn Israel for controlling the very thing they created and also refuse to let Israel leave areas they demanded Israel leave. Increasingly this is a tool of countries in the global south and authoritarian regimes. Many western countries do not see the constant focus on Israel as helpful. Some countries have realized that letting Iran and Russia hijack international forums is also no longer helpful. It is unclear if there will be more pushback against these kinds of resolutions and decisions that focus on Israel.

What are possible legal ramifications of an ICJ advisory opinion on Israel?

International Legal Forum CEO and human rights attorney Arsen Ostrovsky, agreed that “Such opinions of the ICJ are non-binding on the parties involved. They are purely of an advisory nature,” but warned that “they do carry considerable moral weight and are regarded highly as a reference point by the legal community, as well as civil society and the United Nations.”

Daphné Richemond-Barak explained that the ICJ advisory opinion “doesn’t obligate a state as such” but the body could urge member states to take action. Member states could use the ruling as a basis to make political decisions. Whether the states’ local courts would use the advisory as legal precedent was not the main concern. The opinion was more relevant in international fora.

“It’s not so much what the opinion is going to say but how it's going to be used in the future,” she said.

Richemond-Barak gave the example of the 2004 ICJ advisory opinion on the security barrier, and how it became the keystone for many reports and resolutions by international bodies. The ICJ’s opinion of the legal consequences Israel’s practices and control of the territories would likely be held in high regard due to the court’s prestige and air of authority.

Shany said that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s new government would have to decide how to approach the ICJ opinion.

“There is always a question about what Israel should do, participate in the process or boycott.” said Shany. “If you don't make your case you may politicize the process but may face a more hostile decision.” He said that in the case of the 2004 advisory opinion on the security barrier, that Israel made a compromise between the two

In response to the ICJ’s 2004 evaluation on the “Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory,” the government submitted a statement challenging the “jurisdiction of the Court and the propriety of any response by it on the substance of the request,” but refused to address the legality of the fence.

According to Shany the opinion could take between 1-2 years to formulate, and in that time, even if the new government doesn’t directly respond to the proceedings, statements made by ministers could influence the decisions. This legal specter could therefore impact the speech of Israeli ministers.

“Although the new process began prior to the new government, the statements made by the ministers will impact the deliberations,” said Shany. Talk of “exclusive rights of Jews over all the territory of Israel, while this may play very well to the home base, in the Hague proceedings could be damaging.”

Read More

Did Arabs and Jews live in peace in 19th century Palestine?

I saw once again today the assertion, in an academic paper, that Arabs and Jews lived quite well together in the late 19th century in Palestine. I looked at the footnote and it refers to a 2014 paper by Menachem Klein, which brings an impressive amount of evidence for cooperation between the  Jews of Palestine and the Arabs, including Arabic words that became part of Palestinian Yiddish and Yiddish words that became part of Arabic, as well as evidence of the groups working together, even politically, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Whenever I read this sort of thing, I wonder how this jives with anecdotal evidence of derision and insults from Arabs to Jews in the 19th century. For example, John MacGregor published in 1870 that "Men in Palestine call their fellows 'Jew' as the very lowest of all possible words of abuse."  

In an 1824 letter from Rev. W. B. Lewis to the London Society, he writes, "Jerusalem is truly miserable, groaning under the tyranny of the oppressor. Jews...are subject to daily insults, and are shamefully and inhumanly oppressed." He then gives page after page of examples of Muslims treating Jews like garbage, stealing from them, the Ottoman authorities falsely accusing Jews and their Rabbinic leaders of petty crimes and torturing them and extorting obscene sums of money as fines. (See below)

James Finn, the British consul to Jerusalem from 1846-1863, says that Jerusalem Jews were forced to bury their dead at night: - "the usual practice is to pay the gate-keeper to let them out of the town in the middle of the night, and this from fear of having the dead disinterred by Moslems or Christians."

There were pogroms against Jews in 1834 in Hebron and Safed, in 1837 in Safed again, and in 1847 a Jewish boy was accused of a blood libel in Jerusalem.

How can we reconcile the stories of Arab abuse of and attacks on Jews in Palestine with the academics who claim that Jews and Arabs lived so cooperatively?

It appears that before the 1840s, the Jews were indeed treated like dirt. Then things started changing. The reason is that the increasing number of European Jews could appeal to their own governments for protection, starting in that decade. Different European powers even competed for influence in the Ottoman Empire and protecting Jews gave them more power. Oddly, in 1848 the Russians told their Jewish subjects that they would no longer be protected, and the British consul stepped in to be their protector. This protection made it much harder for Jews to be routinely harassed by the Arabs - being backed by European powers suddenly gave the Jews powers they hadn't had beforehand.

Only after the Jews came under the protection of European states did the Arabs start to treat the Jews with more respect. The Ottoman leaders were no longer able to mistreat most of their Jewish subjects out of fear of creating an international incident.

It is an old story: Arabs respect power. When Jews were powerless, Arabs treated them like garbage. Only when they had some protection did the Arabs start to "live with them together in peace." Did the Arabs suddenly become philosemitic? Of course not. But they were practical: The Jews couldn't be attacked with impunity anymore.

And that is the story of Israel in a nutshell. When Israel acts weak, it invites Arab (now, Palestinian) derision and attacks. Acting strong is the only formula for peace. It isn't a peace based on love or friendship, but a peace based on respect. 

It is no different now than in was 200 years ago.

(Some information here comes from Arabs and Jews in Ottoman Palestine: Two Worlds Collide, by Alan Dowty.) 

___________________________________

Here are excerpts of the 1924 letter from W. B. Lewis with many examples of Arab oppression of Jews, most first-hand:

PROCEEDINGS OF THE LONDON SOCIETY. 

PALESTINE. . 

LETTER PROM THE REV. W. B. LEWIS. THE Rev. W. B. Lewis in a letter dated Aintoura, February 23d, 1824, gives the following statement of the present condition of the Jews at Jerusalem :—

 Jerusalem is truly miserable, groaning under the tyranny of the oppressor. Jews...are subject to daily insults, and are shamefully and inhumanly oppressed. Their firmans are disregarded, and they know not where to apply for relief or protection, for the power of the consul does not extend to Jerusalem, and the European ministers at Constantinople are at too great a distance to protect them ; but I will describe some of their grievances more particularly. 

Those Jews who endeavour to obtain a livelihood by the work of their hands, are frequently forced to give up their time, and to work for the ungrateful Turk without payment. Sometimes a mere trifle is thrown to the Jew, but in either case if he attempts to reason with the Turk, he is threatened with the bastinado, and I know not what. 

Rabbi Solomon P ** is an engraver of seals. In the open street he was accosted by a Turk, who produced a large stone, and told him to cut out a seal. Solomon replied it was not in his power, for he only knew how to engrave, not to cut and prepare the stone ; the Turk thereupon laid hold of him by his beard, drew his sword, kicked him, and cut and struck him unmercifully. The poor man cried, but there was no one to assist him. Turks in the street passed by unconcerned, and the wounded Jew afterwards sought redress in vain from the officers of justice. 

Rabbi M. Bolter (now dead) with three or four of the Sephardim Jews, was thrown into a dungeon under pretence of their having sold wine to a Turk ; for Jews and Christians are not allowed in Jerusalem to make wine for Turks, but only for their own private use. Although the charge could not be proved, instruments to bastinado and to torture him were produced, to force money out of him for the governor; the man in his fright, and not able to speak Arabic, made a sign with three fingers, meaning to signify, as he said afterwards, that he would give three hundred piastres to be released, but the governor interpreted the sign as a promise to give three burses (or fifteen hundred piastres,) and he demanded that sum accordingly from each of the other Jews in prison for the same pretended crime, and ordered the house of the foreign Jew to be rifled, and himself detained until the sum was paid. The man was not in possession of half the money, and when he had been in confinement for some time, and dragged about the streets among his brethren as a criminal with a chain round his neck, an order was sent to the chief of the Askenazim Jews to appear before the governor. The old Rabbi was ill in bed, but this was no excuse, he was compelled to rise, and was placed on the back of an ass, supported by two men; the governor told him that he should be considered responsible for the money due from the Jew in prison, and on the Rabbi's remonstrating, he told him that he should likewise be sent to prison. The young man who accompanied the Rabbi as interpreter, said, that it was contrary to the Turkish laws, thus to imprison the chief Rabbi, upon which the young man himself was ordered to prison, put in chains, and kept with his brother Jew in a dark, dirty dungeon, until the avarice of the governor was satisfied. 

The Jews at Jerusalem, (I speak even of European Jews) are liable to be stopped by the lowest of the country, who, if he pleases, may demand money of them as a right due to the mussulman ; and this extortion may be practised on the same poor Jew over and over again in the space of ten minutes.

The Jews are fond of frequenting the tombs of their forefathers, especially on particular days, to read their prayers of remembrance of the dead. Here advantage is taken of them again. They are rudely accosted and pilfered, and if resistance is made, they are beat almost to death, and this not by common highwaymen or Bedouin Arabs, but by men they may have been in the habit of seeing and talking with every day. 

The Jew is always known by the manner in which he wears his hair. In my visit to Hebron, I was accompanied by a Jew, the same now with me in Amtoum ; I had the utmost difficulty in protecting him on the road, as well as in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem ; the Turks would have forced from him the chaphar, though under the wing of an Englishman. This same young Rabbi on his way to me one morning in Jerusalem, was laid hold of by soldiers, who were going to yoke him with another Jew to one of the heavy cannons they were drawing out against Bethlehem. Had he not been fortunate enough to escape, 200 piastres which he was bringing to me for Hebrew Scriptures, would, in all probability, have been seized upon by the soldiers, as well as a gold watch which I had desired him to get repaired for me. 

Rabbi Israel, also a foreign Jew, and chief Rabbi of the Parushim in Safet, was setting out for that place from Jerusalem, when the animals he had hired for the journey, and which he had actually paid for, were taken sans are-monis., for the use of the Cadis of Mecca and Cairo, who were to proceed to Damascus in a few days. This is a common Turkish trick, and it may afford a good picture of despotism, united with fanaticism, and in full exercise. Horses, camels, mules, &re. are considered as made for the exclusive use of the haughty followers of Mahomed, as well as the inferior animals of the man kind, so that he may seize and use or torture them at his will. But to add to the unpleasantness of the trick in the present instance, the Turkish muleteer refused to return the money paid by the Rabbi for the journey, and in vain the Jew asked for justice, until having applied to me, I interfered and succeeded in obtaining for the Rabbi his money through Omar Effendi. 

I formed this man's acquaintance through the means of Achmet Bey of Damascus, who gave me a letter of introduction to him, and he (Omar Effendi) made high professions of friendship. He desired me to apply to him as often as I stood in need of his services, and I was punctual. in doing so as often as I wished to interfere in behalf of the European Jews. This shows very strongly the necessity of an European resident protector in Jerusalem, and I am more and more confirmed in the persuasion that the residence there or in Damascus, as headquarters, of a person entrusted with the authority of consul, and who could feel for the suffering Jews as well as Gentiles, would be productive of great advantage. 

The facts I have mentioned may be substantiated, if necessary, by documents from the Jews themselves ; and to shew more fully the nature of Jewish grievances in Jerusalem, I might accumulate many such instances of barbarity on the part of the Turks of all classes, towards this people. One instance more of -shameless barbarity must suffice, and I will state it fully although I may be tedious, as it took place very lately, and will serve to shew how the governors and rulers in this part of the world manage their business without law, judge, or jury, and without respect to age, country, learning, or religion. The name of Mendel is well known to the Committee through the journals of Mr. Wolf, he is chief Rabbi of the Askenasim Jews in Jerusalem, an European, and an inoffensive old man. He is considered the most learned of the Jews in Syria, and in his religion lie lives in the strictest sense a Pharisee; he has a zeal for God, we must bear him record, though not according to knowledge. He was in bed, when, at a late hour of the night, he was disturbed by a loud knocking outside his door; he returned no answer, supposing robbers had entered. In a few moments the door was burst open, and in rushed a large party of soldiers. They approached the Rabbi with drawn swords, and seized and teal-treated the poor old man. His wife screamed, and the other Jews in the house came up. Young Rabbi Isaac, who speaks Arabic, demanded the cause of their unexpected visit. It is because the street door was found open, replied the soldiers, and one of you must go down to the governor, who is below. The young man accompanied the soldiers to the passage, and the governor asked him why the door was left open. Isaac said that Rabbi Mendel's daughter was near her confinement, that according to the custom of the country at this particular time, they had received company, and he supposed one of the visitors had forgotten to close the outward door. This was a simple answer, and the governor affected to be satisfied, and the Rabbi concluded the affair was over, excepting that they might be expected to pay a few pares, (about one penny English money,) usually levied upon houses where the street door is found open at night. 

In the morning, however, they were surprised by the appearance of soldiers, who informed them that the governor desired to see both the old and young man at the palace : they went accordingly, and on the way were joined by two other Jews, Rabbi Nathan, a native of Austria, and Rabbi Jacob, of Prussia, but of English parentage or connexions, as I understood. These were likewise under an escort, and repairing to the for they were also charged with the crime of leaving the outdoor of their house open ; but Nathan and others assured me this accusation was unfounded. However, the four Jews were ushered into the presence of the governor, and of Omar Effendi, &c., and being accused of the crime in question, they attempted to make a defence; but no defence would be taken ; the governor said he heard the old Rabbi (Mendel) exclaim that be had a firman, and feared not the governor. It was answered that the Rabbi was unable to speak the Arabic. " Will you say then," replied the governor, " that I tell you an untruth?" The Jews were therefore obliged to be silent, and after a short time were told to go away. They thought to direct their steps homewards, but no, they were ordered to walk into another room, and were decoyed under various pretences from one chamber to another, until they found themselves at one of the dungeons. Here they were shut up in darkness, and told they must pay the governor ten burses, and that unless this money was forthcoming, hot irons would be applied to their heads the following day, and sharp nails driven through the palms of their hands, &c., modes of torture, amongst others, used, as I am told, in Jerusalem to extort money from these unhappy people.

The Jews without, soon heard the sentence which had been passed on their afflicted brethren in confinement; they lost no time therefore in doing every thing possible to hasten their deliverance, and though they succeeded with the governor in bargaining to pay four and a half burses instead of ten, still these poor people were obliged to strip even poverty itself to raise the sum required, and were even obliged to pledge their clothes. 

This affair may give the Committee an idea of the indigent and oppressed state of the European Jews residing in Jerusalem. For the pretended offence of two doors having been left open at night, a sum little short of £60 sterling was wrung from a few miserable people, whose existence is supported by pittances sent to them chiefly by their brethren in foreign parts: and this is not a story made up by the Jews.

---

---

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon! Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.  Read all about it here!

 

Read More

Here are the Jewish American "leaders" who fawned over Abbas

Earlier today I wondered what idiotic Jews were going to a lecture and Q&A with Mahmoud Abbas without challenging him with a single damning question.'

The answer is here:

The dinner, hosted by Center founder and chairman Dan Abraham and Center president Congressman Robert Wexler at the Plaza Hotel, was organized at the request of Abbas.

Abraham, Wexler and Abbas opened the discussion with brief introductory remarks. Abbas then answered questions from the assembled guests. The event lasted one hour and a half.

Guests included former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, and former US Ambassador to Israel Daniel Kurtzer; Professor Alan Dershowitz, the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard University; Wolf Blitzer, host of CNN’s The Situation Room; Congresswoman Nita Lowey; Rabbi Rick Jacobs, President of the Union for Reform Judaism; Rabbi David Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center; Nancy Kaufman, CEO of the National Council of Jewish Women; Peter Joseph, president of the Israel Policy Forum; Daniel Lubetsky, founder of OneVoice; Eli Broad, founder of the Broad Foundation; Professor Daniel Kahneman, Nobel Prize recipient; Abby Joseph Cohen, board member of the Jewish Theological Seminary and other American Jewish community leaders and foreign policy scholars.

These are not American Jewish leaders. They are prominent American Jews who were handpicked to ensure that it would be a swell evening with the Holocaust minimizing, Olympics massacre-funding, terrorist-supporting, human-rights denying, intransigent dictator of the Palestinian Authority.

Instead of asking questions to expose Abbas as the liar and extremist that he is, he was fawned over by these so-called "leaders." Some of their questions are would make anyone cringe:

Alan Dershowitz: If only the people at this table were responsible for making peace I think we would have peace. Virtually everyone here is opposed to Israel’s settlement policy and wishes it would end. …

My question is this – Bill Clinton once said to me in a conversation, the real problems is, dammit Israel is a democracy and the PA is a democracy. Therefore before you make peace both sides have to persuade their constituents. And sometimes good things produce bad results. Let me give you an example. Many of us in this room were very active in bringing a million Soviet Jews to Israel. That was a great thing but it produced an extreme right wing in Israel which made peace more difficult. My question to you is how do you and we together work to persuade the constituencies on both sides that are opposed to the two state solution that it is in their interest to bring about a two state solution. How can we use democracy to help us rather than serve as a barrier to peace?

I could fisk his answer, about how most Palestinian Arabs and Israeli Jews want a two state solution (it isn't true) like I have fisked his lies dozens of times, but the problem here isn't the answer - the problem is the question. Here we have Alan Dershowitz, who is a wonderful defender of Israel's right to exist, telling the enemy (and yes, Abbas is the enemy) that Israeli democracy is a problem because so many Israelis aren't as bowled over by Abbas as Dershowitz is.

In reality, Russian Jews in particular are attuned to how dictatorships work, what real oppression is, and what anti-semitism is - and they see it all in Abbas' Palestinian Authority. Dershowitz' chutzpah is to say that American Jews know what is best for Israelis and Israelis don't - so he wants to work with a certifiable terror cheerleader to short-circuit Israeli democracy!

Not to mention his absurd characterization of the PA as a democracy. Unreal.

I met Dershowitz, I like Dershowitz, but this is sickening.

And so are practically all of the other sycophantic, deferential questions asked by these prominent liberal Jews.

The problem goes even beyond the wishful thinking I've noted many times before that trump any possibility of an honest ability to weigh the facts. The problem is this: just like Arabs tend to project their own violent history and desires onto Jews in Arabic, liberal Jews want to project their own fervent desire for peace onto any Arab dictator who wears a suit and mouths nice things in English.

It is closer to psychosis than it is to realism.

Right-wing Jews want peace too. Russian Jews want peace. Religious Jews want peace. Likudniks and Naftali Bennett want peace. Practically everyone wants peace - but they are not willing to risk their own families' lives for empty promises. And nothing that the PA has done gives any of them security that real peace is the objective of their Arab neighbors.

The Israeli and Western press is filled with talk about peace, plans for peace, methods to achieve peace, references to peace studies, quotes from so-called experts who work at "peace centers" like the one that hosted this talk.

But the Arabic press essentially never mentions peace.

Their media has lots of talk about justice, and about rights, and about perceived Israeli violations of both. But the yearning for peace that these prominent Jews take for granted is simply not there. It doesn't exist. Nada.

This is the reality. Wishing it away and forcing parties to sign a piece of paper will not change this reality. Right now, the word "normalization" is a dirty word in Egypt, in Jordan and in the PA-controlled territories. Arabs who talk about real peace with Israel are ostracized. I am not exaggerating one bit. Ask Khaled Abu Toameh.

I can barely recall every reading any Arabic op-ed or article that talks about real peace with Israel. (Rarely, there are backhanded compliments of Israeli innovations in science, to contrast it with the Arab world. That's the most complimentary I've ever seen in some nine years of reading Arab media.)

Ignoring these facts is not just stupid, but potentially deadly. I wish, more than anything, that I was wrong. But giving Abbas a free pass does not serve the cause of peace; it only strengthens the fantasy.

Real peace cannot be built on lies and dreams, and it is about time that prominent American Jews woke up to the reality, no matter how unpalatable it might be.

(h/t E ben Abuya)

Read More