11/29 Links Pt2: What happened to the 1947 UN Partition Plan?; The Failed British Double-Cross of Israel; Kanye walks out of interview after being questioned about antisemitic beliefs

From Ian:

What happened to the 1947 UN Partition Plan?

Today, Nov. 29, 2022, is the 75th anniversary of the 1947 UN Partition Plan – UN General Assembly resolution 181 - which divided the geographical area to the west of the Jordan River, into two states: A Jewish state and an Arab state. In its essence, the Partition Plan was a fundamental breach of the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, which placed that entire area under the governance of Great Britain, for the sole purpose of creating a Jewish state on all of the land.

The 1922 Mandate for Palestine had already taken the entire geographical area then referred to as “Palestine” and divided it in two: The eastern part of Palestine - the Arab country - was placed under the rule of the Hashemite family and changed its name to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. The western part of Palestine was to become the Jewish state.

Despite the breach of the Mandate, the Jewish leadership of the day – represented by David Ben Gurion - accepted the plan. The Arab leadership and countries, on the other hand, rejected the plan and immediately started planning how to eradicate the Jewish state before it even came into existence.

75 years later, speaking at the UN, Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas has now decided to accept the plan and even demand its implementation:
“Therefore, I present today to this UN organization, the title of international legitimacy in this world, with a formal request to implement General Assembly resolution 181, which formed the basis for the two-state solution in 1947…”

[WAFA, English edition, Official PA news agency, Sept. 23, 2022]

In making this demand, Abbas ignores a number of fundamental realities.

First, Abbas is demanding the implementation of a plan that has been defunct for 75 years. Living up to their promises, even before the British Mandate came to an end on May 14, 1948, the Arab countries attacked the nascent Jewish state.

[Boston Evening Globe, May 1, 1948]

While Israel managed to survive and expand in a war in which 6.000 Israeli men, women, and children were killed, a full 1% of the population most of the areas allocated for the Arab state - Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip - were occupied by Jordan (which was not yet recognized by the UN as a state) and Egypt, respectively.

In its original charter from 1965, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), which is now headed by Abbas, disavowed its connection to the areas provisionally allocated for the Arab state openly declaring:
“This Organization [The PLO] does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area”.

Indeed, while Egypt controlled the Gaza Strip and Jordan controlled Judea and Samaria (which it renamed “The West Bank”), from 1948 to 1967, they and the other Arab countries refrained from creating what could have been the “Palestinian” Arab state.

The Failed British Double-Cross of Israel

When the warrior poet Avraham “Yair” Stern founder and leader of Lohamei Herut Israel (Lehi, “Fighters for the Freedom of Israel”) who believed that the British had to be forced out with assassinations and bombs and would never leave voluntarily, was killed after being captured and handcuffed by British detectives on Feb. 12, 1942, no Jew could celebrate his death.

But the leaders of the Jews of British Mandatory Palestine, already then led by David Ben-Gurion, viewed Stern’s death as a gain for the national cause rather than a loss—and not only because the poet and his followers were reckless political dilettantes: Some fantasized alliances with Mussolini, even the Nazis, as well as Arab nationalists in a common anti-British cause.

At a time of maximum danger—Rommel seemed to be on the verge of conquering Egypt, with Palestine next—Ben-Gurion and his allies doggedly pursued cooperation with the British in spite of bitter disappointments. Perhaps the worst of these was the May 1939 White Paper which limited the immigration of Jews to 75,000 over five years, sentencing countless European Jews to death at the hands of the Nazis. Yet Ben-Gurion believed, and rightly so, that the British were the least-bad allies the Jews could have.

Nor did Ben-Gurion have much choice. The Americans had refused to enter the war even after the Germans had conquered most of Europe. They still refused to act when the Germans seemed on the verge of defeating Russia, which would soon mean Britain’s defeat, too. On Dec. 2, 1941, German tanks were 14.7 miles from Moscow’s Red Square. America was only at war when Stern died in 1942 because the Japanese had attacked them.

It was unimaginable that the Americans would intervene on behalf of the Jews in the distant Middle East—indeed the U.S. only lifted its total weapons embargo on Israel in August 1962!—to allow the sale of defensive antiaircraft missiles, seven years after the Soviets had agreed to deliver bombers to Nasser’s Egypt (part of a huge Soviet weapons gift package misrepresented as “Czech” at the insistence of the CIA to avert hostility from their own man Nasser: That always-wrong agency was betting on Nasser’s mighty Arab nationalism rather than on seemingly puny Israel).

When Avraham Stern was killed, the communists still gave all their loyalty to Stalin. According to Ben-Gurion and the majority of Jewish leaders in Palestine, Churchill was still the best bet the Jews could have, even after the exposure of his crass duplicity toward the Yishuv. Having vehemently condemned the May 1939 White Paper to please his Jewish benefactors while out of office and short of ready cash, Churchill refused to change the policy once he became prime minister—thus denying escape from death to millions, and incidentally preventing my father, mother, two brothers, and myself from leaving Arad, Romania, to reach safety by a comfortable Orient Express ride to Istanbul and thence Haifa. A 5-inch-by-2-inch Palestine entry slip was enough to obtain Bulgarian and Turkish transit visas, but the British refused to issue them, even in 1944—by which point detailed eyewitness accounts and impeccable documentation of the operation of every part of the Nazi killing machine had reached London and Washington.

In spite of all that, on the evidence available at the time, Ben-Gurion was still mostly right and Avraham Stern was still mostly wrong. The British did eventually, and very reluctantly, agree to the U.N.’s termination of their mandatory rule on May 15, 1948, thus allowing the Jews to fight for their state. The qualifier is necessary because a factor in the British decision was the terrorist attacks inspired by Stern, including the July 22, 1946, bombing of the British headquarters in the King David Hotel whose 91 killed set a deadliest-attack record that lasted for decades.

I Was Robbed of 70% of the Land of Israel

Jordan ruled over Judea and Samaria, Egypt ruled over Gaza and Syria ruled over the Golan Heights. For those that do not understand the importance of the sentence above, it means that all the lands that the Arabs call “occupied” were under Arab control between 1948-1967! Was there peace?

It was Jordan, Egypt, and Syria that built the refugee camps and stuck their own Arab brothers and sisters in them to create a refugee problem in order to bash Israel. If creating a new State called Palestine was the goal and all the Arab countries are in favor of such a State, why didn’t Jordan Egypt and Syria help the “Palestinian” Arabs start a State during those 19 years (1948-1967).

Israel liberated Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, Gaza and the Golan from Arab States occupation and it has nothing to do with an Arab people who call themselves (since 1964) Palestinians. We never occupied an Arab place called Palestine and there never was an Arab place called Palestine before Israel that could have been occupied.

You are probably saying this is enough to completely destroy the anti-Israel propaganda, but it gets much better (or worse). Today, Jordan is ruled by a king.

Over 75% of Jordan’s population are Arabs who call themselves “Palestinians”! So why hasn’t the majority of “Palestinians” taken over? Because Jordan does not give them full rights!

In fact, Jordan has the largest “Palestinian” refugee camps!

Where is the UN? Where is UNWRA? Where are the SJWs? Where are all the Leftists who care about Human Rights?

Just to sum up, Jordan sits on 77% of British Palestine and has a majority of over 75% of Arabs who call themselves “Palestinians”. Why aren’t the Arabs, who so want to create a Palestinian State, not fighting over 77% of the Land where they are a 75% majority? Why are they fighting over a small sliver of 23% where they are the minority? The answer is simple.

This has never been a struggle to build a new state called Palestine, it’s a struggle to destroy the one called ISRAEL.

Now, can we start fighting for truth and stop giving into false diplomacy that is based on lies?

#OTD in 1947, Jews around the world celebrated as the @UN adopted Resolution 181 in favor of creating independent Jewish and Arab states.

These are all of the countries that voted in favor:

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? pic.twitter.com/hyXSUgZc1w

— Israel Defense Forces (@IDF) November 29, 2022

Find out why UN Resolution 181 remains very relevant today for 3 critically important reasons????https://t.co/IbF6B2PsZX

— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) November 29, 2022

Read More

11/28 Links Pt2: IHRA Definition of Antisemitism Is Only "Polarizing" to Israel's Detractors; Anti-Israel activists and human sacrifice; Ye x Milo x Fuentes

From Ian:

IHRA Definition of Antisemitism Is Only "Polarizing" to Israel's Detractors

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's (IHRA) "working definition" of antisemitism is not polarizing to anyone other than Israel's detractors and antisemites.

The IHRA definition has been adopted by three dozen nations, at least six Canadian provinces and numerous states in the U.S.

The IHRA's detractors refuse to acknowledge that modern antisemitism is often tied to the Jewish State (e.g., Jewish soldiers being called Nazis).

They accuse those of us who defend the definition of being "right-wing" and of "weaponizing antisemitism" in order to defend Israel.

This is meant to undermine our efforts to protect ourselves against hate.

In the case of the IHRA definition, it's often the same people who call for universal rights and freedoms who oppose those very same rights for the Jewish people, particularly as they define their relationship with the State of Israel.

The IHRA definition is not "polarizing" to anyone other than those who either lack an historical understanding or are with an agenda to exacerbate the problem of hate and defame the Jewish state.

Anti-Israel activists and human sacrifice

In the anti-Israel context, there is the more recent case of Rachel Corrie. A college senior, Corrie became a member of the International Solidarity Movement, a terror-connected NGO that exploits foreign activists in service of the Palestinian cause. It is likely that she had already been indoctrinated in anti-Israel ideology, but the ISM almost certainly compounded it by orders of magnitude via a cult-like environment of hate.

Corrie lived for some time in Gaza, where she became infatuated with the people and decided that Israel was committing genocide against them, in which, as an American, she was complicit. In 2003, she knelt in front of an Israeli bulldozer, ostensibly in protest of a house demolition. The driver could not see her, and she was crushed to death.

She has, of course, become a martyr, and her letters and emails have been transformed into books and plays. Yet what they reveal is a deeply insecure and troubled young woman, possessed by existential guilt and desperate to redeem herself. Corrie’s death, in other words, was less a tragic accident than a kind of seppuku—a ritual suicide that she hoped, perhaps unconsciously, would be a moral expiation. She did not come to this conclusion on her own. She was the victim of unscrupulous people who wanted, or at least knew they were likely to acquire, a martyr.

One should not look away from what this means: Emotional blackmail kills. It is a kind of murder. Murder at third hand, perhaps, but murder nonetheless.

It is also part of a very ancient tradition. What the blackmailers are after, in the end, is the most primal of all forms of absolution: the human sacrifice. It is sometimes an emotional sacrifice, but far too often it is also physical.

From their origins in prehistory, such sacrifices were, almost invariably, expiatory acts. They were attempts to redeem a person or a community from their sins, to appease the gods and turn them away from stern judgment. And above all, such sacrifices made the victim a sacred object.

There are many among us, often young and vulnerable, who wish to become sacred objects and are told that if they sacrifice themselves, whether in life or in death, they will become so. It is tragic that many choose to believe this, but that does nothing to redeem those who lead them to the altar.

Judaism has always seen human sacrifice as an abomination, which indeed it is. We should not forget this admonition. No one, however righteous they consider themselves to be, has the right to demand such things from anyone. Like the priests of Moloch, those who use emotional blackmail of vulnerable individuals to achieve such an end stand accused.

Ye x Milo x Fuentes

Stop me if you've ever heard this one before:

Fueled by his hatred of Jews, one of the most recognizable black man of his era decided to forge an alliance with one of its most high-profile white nationalist, or, at the very least, the one whose juvenile stunts attract the most attention. One of the men behind the scenes who worked on arranging the meeting is himself Jewish, though he has long repudiated his heritage, is known to have engaged in antisemitism, as well as for being a grifter, and is distrusted by many in the movement. On the other hand, he has shown an uncanny ability to ingratiate himself with its leaders and keep the spotlight on himself. All of this revolving around grand political ambitions on both sides.

Obviously, I'm referring to the infamous 1961 entente of George Lincoln Rockwell, Malcolm X, and Daniel Burros which culminated in years of friendly relationships between the American Nazi Party and the Nation of Islam.

On June 25th, 1961, ten members of the American Nazi Party quietly arrived at the Nation of Islam rally in Washington, DC. In the Uline arena, they were surrounded by more than 8000 members of the Nation of Islam. They were not there to disrupt, attack the attendants, to protest the speech; instead, they were front-row guests. That night, Elijah Muhammad had called in sick, so Malcolm X took the stage to give the keynote speech in his stead. Rockwell contributed $20 to the cause and, while having his picture snapped by Jewish photographer Eve Arnold, he barked at her, 'I'll make a bar of soap out of you.' (She answered, "As long as it isn't a lampshade”).

At first glance, it would seem highly bizarre that members of the American Nazi Party, in full regalia and occasionally Sieg Heiling, would be tolerated amongst the Black Nationalist movement. Still, it more than made sense once you realized that they shared the same antisemitism and views on racial separatism. There was also a historical precedent; the units described as the most vicious, brutal, and antisemitic of the SS were the 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar, composed almost entirely of Muslims.

Eight months after their first public meeting, George Lincoln Rockwell addressed more than 12,000 black audience members at the Chicago International Amphitheatre, urging them to ally with Nazis to be truly uplifted. "You know we call you niggers," he addressed the crowd. "But wouldn't you rather be confronted by honest white men who tell you to your face what the others all say behind your back?". He later praised the Nation of Islam leader Elijah Muhammad as the 'Adolf Hitler of the black man.'

The Decline of Islamism, and the Rise of the Muslim-American Far Left and Far Right

Born in St. Louis, Umar Lee (né Brett Darren Lee) converted to Islam at the age of seventeen, and was quickly drawn to its stringent Salafist form, and to Islamist political radicalism. He subsequently broke with extremism, although he remains a committed Muslim. In conversation with Dexter Van Zile, Lee discusses his own experiences—including a recent visit to Israel—and his observations about Islam in the U.S.
Islamism is no longer popular. Back in the day, it was very popular. . . . I attribute that to reality—the failure of the Arab Spring, the disaster of what happened in Syria, Iraq, and Egypt. Islamist politics has become so unpopular in the Muslim world that historians in 100 years are going to write that there was a 40-year period—from the mid-to-late seventies until the late 2010s—of Islamist political revival that faded away after the Arab Spring. In the U.S. we don’t see people talk about Islamist politics.

Conversion had some negative consequences [for me]—a period of extremism and Islamist politics—but it also kept me out of trouble and away from a criminal lifestyle. You have to remember that a very high percentage of guys who grew up where I did ended up addicted to drugs, or alcoholics. Many didn’t live to see forty and quite a few didn’t make it to twenty-one. For all of the problematic aspects of the Muslim experience in America, there is a track record of conversion keeping some men off the streets and clean.

On the subject of how American Muslims fit into contemporary political divides, Lee comments:
What you’re increasingly seeing in the Muslim community in America is a gender divide. You’re seeing that progressive politics [are] very popular, especially with women, especially young women. We know after 9/11 there was [a] leftward shift in the American Muslim community. . . . But you’re [now] seeing an insurgency led by men, particularly younger men, that are rejecting this progressive shift. They’re rejecting it in very harsh terms and going very far to the right. What you’re seeing in the Muslim community is—especially the young people—the left, and now this segment of the far right, are really taking up all the oxygen and moderate politics is very unpopular.

Unfortunately, there is more uniformity when it comes to attitudes toward the Jewish state:
By far, the least popular thing you can do [in the Muslim community] is support Israel. I could get on video and drink liquor [or] smoke weed and people would say, “Hey everybody, no one’s perfect. Everyone makes mistakes.” I could be in a [pornographic film] and people would say, “Hey, well, . . . ” But support Israel? That is the worst thing that you can do.

When it comes to Israel, everyone is still unhinged. It doesn’t matter what segment of the communities they’re in. There are very few rational people. And even the rational people I talk to, [who] agree with me in private, won’t say anything in public.

Read More

11/14 Links Pt1: Gleefully abandoning Israel; Why the Palestinians Snubbed the Israeli Left; Zelensky aide; Ukraine’s vote against Israel at UN ‘a grave mistake’

From Ian:

Gleefully abandoning Israel

Kasher's post was so incendiary that Facebook removed it for violating rules of decent conduct. But Kasher didn't let up. He continued to expectorate that "a Jewish people with this face is not my Jewish people, and not the Jewish people among which I wish to be counted as a son." As a result, he announced that he now prefers not to be called a Jew but rather only "a person of Jewish origin."

He then went on to reject "invalid" calls for unity with the two camps he views as mutations. "The differences between me and the people of the mutations are not marginal and should not be ignored for the sake of a higher goal," he wrote. "There is no true unity and there never will be."

What makes Asa Kasher's diatribe so disturbing is its source. Until now, Kasher had been considered one of this country's respected and reasonable thinkers, someone who authored the IDF's code of ethics in warfare and who defended its targeted assassination policies in academic and legal forums worldwide. He is an Israel Prize laureate. Now it seems that Kasher has lost his bearings in a haze of hatred and self-hatred.

Religious Zionist Party Chairman Bezalel Smotrich responded to Kasher's remarks, saying they saddened him. "People like Asa Kasher, whose wisdom, integrity, and morality I wanted to appreciate, are now unmasked as lacking national responsibility, personal integrity, and minimal morality."

Addressing his "brothers on the Left," Smotrich said his camp was "given a mandate to promote what we believe is right and good for the State of Israel. We are positively going to fulfill this mandate. But you should know that your attempts at intimidation are baseless and unnecessary. No one is going to destroy democracy, turn Israel into Iran, harm someone's individual rights, or force Israelis to change their personal lifestyle."

My conclusion is that "Ben-Gvir-Phobia" (as opposed to reasonable concern about his rise) is a purposefully blown-out-of-proportion fear of the Right that serves as cover for people who apparently weren't comfortable with staunch Zionist and real Jewish identity to begin with. It leads to off-the-rocker reactions like those of Friedman and Kasher, who seem only-too-happy to jettison their associations with Israel and Judaism.

We shouldn't go there. Israel's democratic and Jewish discourse is sound even as it tends towards the conservative side of the map, and Israel's religious, defense, and diplomatic policies will not easily be hijacked by Ben-Gvir-ism. The radicals that truly worry me are those that seek to crash Israel's diplomatic relations and Israel-Diaspora relations with false, apocalyptic prognostications of Israel's descent into barbarism.

Perhaps the best advice is to ignore angry self-declared prophets like Friedman and Kasher. Perhaps I shouldn't have written about them at all. I am certain that they do not represent mainstream opinion in either the American-Jewish or Israeli communities. The Israel they fabricate and scorn ain't the real, responsible and realistic Israel I know.

Ruthie Blum: Let’s replace the term ‘national unity’ with ‘majority rule’

It’s no wonder, then, that the “anybody but Bibi” bloc disintegrated as soon as the latest election campaign kicked off. Grasping that the best he could hope for—even with the virulent anti-Zionist parties’ support—would be to prevent Netanyahu from being able to form a coalition, Lapid’s goal was to remain interim prime minister for as long as possible until a sixth round of elections.

He thus discouraged voters from opting for smaller left-wing parties. The upshot was that Meretz didn’t pass the threshold and Labor garnered only four mandates. He also colluded with the far-left Jewish-Arab Hadash-Ta’al Party not to join forces with its radical Islamist counterpart, Balad, which then didn’t make it into the Knesset.

Then there was Gantz, who ran against, rather than with, him. To do this, he established a party whose name in English, hilariously, is “National Unity.” Neither this nor his enlisting of former Israel Defense Forces Chief-of-Staff Lt. Gen. Gadi Eizenkot as a draw helped him come close to surpassing Lapid, let alone Netanyahu.

The icing on the “unity” cake was on display during the coalition consultations with Herzog. The only parties to recommend Lapid were his own, Yesh Atid, and Labor, headed by Merav Michaeli, who publicly blamed Lapid for the electoral defeat.

Angry at her for having dared to cross him in this manner, he stormed out of the Knesset last Sunday when she took to the podium to deliver a speech at the ceremony marking the 27th anniversary of the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. The “unity” was heartwarming.

To be fair to Lapid, who is about to assume the role of opposition leader, “unity” is a meaningless concept in general, unless applied to a specific tenet or circumstance at a given time. The same goes for Netanyahu’s newfound coalition, which undoubtedly is and will continue to be fraught with frequent squabbles.

Still, the contrast in this respect between the outgoing and incoming governments is stark. Whereas the sole glue for Lapid’s coalition was anti-Bibi animosity, Netanyahu’s espouses a set of values and objectives shared by a higher percentage of the population.

Whether this constitutes “unity” is questionable. But it’s what democracies call “majority rule.”

PreOccupiedTerritory: People Who Think Actual Terrorist Arafat Changed Ways Refuse To Accept Former Kahanist Has Moderated (satire)

The evolution of a far-right figure who, among other beyond-the-pale rhetoric, once expressed admiration for a man who massacred dozens of Palestinians at prayer, into an influential kingmaker who professes a shift to more tolerant views, has prompted skepticism among his political opponents, many of whom had little problem believing that the mass-murderer Yasser Arafat sincerely disavowed violence, despite the latter’s flagrant use of such means to achieve his political ends after signing peace agreements.

Numerous commentators, politicians, and other public figures in Israel have spent months, some even years, denouncing Itamar Ben-Gvir as a fascist Islamophobe who must be kept as far from governmental power as possible – warnings that have taken on greater urgency since the alliance of his Otzma Yehudit Party and the Religious Zionism Party garnered fourteen seats in elections two weeks ago, putting Ben-Gvir in position to extract policy and personnel concessions from Binyamin Netanyahu, the prospective prime minister of an emerging right-wing coalition. Ben-Gvir has in recent years renounced some of the extreme positions that characterized his activism in prior decades, such as calling Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin a traitor and threatening harm to him; Rabin was assassinated in 1995 by another extremist with views that overlapped Ben-Gvir’s. That political evolution, however, has failed to sway Ben-Gvir’s critics, who find unconvincing his protestations of moderation, even as many of them make excuses for the arch-terrorist who ran the Palestine Liberation Organization and commitment to pursue his political aims through negotiation rather than terrorism, but disregarded that commitment repeatedly.

“A leopard can’t change his spots,” insisted Zehava Gal-On, whose far-left Meretz Party failed to meet the electoral threshold of 3.25% of the vote, and will be absent from the Knesset for the first time in more than thirty years, but for some reason journalists keep seeking out her opinion despite its questionable relevance. “Arafat was totally different. He renounced violence and I believed him. Anything that happened afterwards was just technicalities, necessary sacrifices for peace. Doesn’t count.”

Read More

Enthusiastic Crowds at Trump Rallies a Contrast to the Hate of the Mainstream Media (Judean Rose)

President Donald Trump, if you believe the media spin, is the most reviled person ever walk the earth. A search for “Trump” in Google News overwhelmingly generates negative headlines. A more nuanced search, however, suggests that voter enthusiasm is for Trump, while the response to the Biden Harris ticket is somewhere between lackluster and nonexistent.

Here are the first seven results generated in a search I did for “Trump” on October 13, 2020, all negative:

I next turned to some work-related research on the creative use of cars during the pandemic. Here, too, the election figured large in the search results. It seems that cars in the 2020 election cycle have been enlisted as a safe way for people to rally for their preferred presidential candidates while adhering to social distancing standards. But this time, when I did my search, the shoe was on the other foot. The search results were mostly positive, and they were mostly about Trump. 

The rallies with the largest, most enthusiastic turnouts were clearly for Trump. Similar rallies held for Biden, by contrast, yielded fewer attendees, and sometimes none, as happened in the battleground state of Arizona.

Biden and Harris hold a campaign event in Arizona and the local news can’t believe that not one supporter showed up! pic.twitter.com/JKj0fPi6Jj

— David Croom - (ツ) (@dailycallout) October 11, 2020

Only one week earlier, an Arizona rally with Vice President Pence drew a large crowd:

Here is a view of the crowd and line as we are a few minutes from the Vice President Pence’s arrival. #12News pic.twitter.com/kb96IdeK8A

— Michael Doudna (@MichaelDoudna) October 8, 2020

Here's a tweet from Jenna Ellis, senior legal adviser for the Trump campaign, noting that the crowds turned out to see her and other lesser Trump campaign figures, including Trump Campaign Director of Strategic Communications Marc Lotter, and Senior Trump Campaign Adviser John Pence, compared to NO people, whatsoever, turning up to see presidential candidate Joe Biden himself, in the flesh.

This is embarrassing. 100x more people showed up just to see @Marc_lotter, @jepence, and me on our @TeamTrumpOnTour!! 😂 https://t.co/ceNW1kbhVE

— Jenna Ellis (@JennaEllisEsq) October 11, 2020

A drive-in event in Toledo, at which Biden spoke, appeared to have just six Biden supporters in attendance, sitting in their cars. 

.@JoeBiden brings his economic message to Toledo, Ohio where how main message besides selling his “Build Back Better” plan to union members gathered at the drive-in is promising to never turn his back on them like Pres. Trump has in the last several years. pic.twitter.com/P9UrRCVcaa

— Marianna Sotomayor (@MariannaNBCNews) October 12, 2020

There were more Trump supporters in attendance than Biden supporters.

Dozens of Trump supporters were loudly chanting a mix of “Four more years,” “Trump” and “USA” throughout the event, growing louder anytime @JoeBiden mentioned the president. pic.twitter.com/7M0iZWdmRf

— Marianna Sotomayor (@MariannaNBCNews) October 12, 2020

Trump rallies, it is clear, generate large cheering crowds. Biden rallies, by comparison, are poorly attended. Hundreds of cars decorated with American flags, Make American Great Again signs, and Trump posters, for example, made up a rolling caravan that ran all the way from Plymouth, Massachusetts to Nashua, New Hampshire.

A Vietnamese family decking out their van with Trump posters and flags. Apparently there’s a contest to see who has the most swagged out car.

Rally goers say they’re not here to change people’s views—just to voice their support for the President. #WBZ pic.twitter.com/glBGnHbNrV

— Tiffany Chan (@TiffanyChanWBZ) October 3, 2020

By contrast, 70 cars came out for Biden in Des Moines, in September.

Next stop in Cedar Rapids: a drive-in campaign rally with @DrBiden and @DouglasEmhoff. Here’s my view. @FoxNewsMMR pic.twitter.com/gIJYKlSi4C

— Mitti Hicks (@MittiMegan) September 26, 2020

In the Little Havana neighborhood of Miami, some said as many as 30,000 cars took part in a Trump rally on October 10, waving American and Cuban flags. There were so many cars that police officers had to come direct traffic. Biden may think the Latino community is incredibly diverse, but they appear to have a single-minded preference for Trump.

The same day the “incredibly diverse” were cheering for Trump in Miami, a “Trump Train” made of cars took over an oversized parking lot in St. George, Utah, before setting out in support of President Trump. This time, hundreds of people lined the streets for blocks, straining for a glimpse of the event, already an hour before it was slated to begin. The crowds had put aside the danger of contagion in favor of showing support for their favored presidential candidate, Donald J. Trump. People said the “train” of cars seemed to go on forever.

The mainstream media has left no doubt as to what it thinks you ought to think about Trump. You should hate him with every fiber of your being, and do everything you can to make him lose the election. For the media, it’s not about generating love for Biden and his running mate Kamala Harris. Especially since neither of them are especially loveable. Instead, this election cycle has been all about hate—in particular, about hating President Trump.

The good news is that it’s not working. People would rather love than hate, especially when the object of that feeling is the holder of the highest office in the land, the president of the United States. The people have made their choice and they choose veneration over hate. So the crowds turn out for Trump. And they turn out with enthusiasm.

This, of course, is good news for Israel, where an October 12 poll found that 63.3% of Israelis favor Trump over Joe Biden for president. Maybe this has to do with the way Biden upbraided two Israeli prime ministers. Or maybe it’s because Biden plans to reinstate the JCPOA. What we know for sure: Israel won’t be naming any city squares or neighborhoods for Joe Biden Jr., at any near point in time, and probably not ever. Because Joe Biden hasn’t shown much love for Israel. And like the people of America ignoring the hate-filled spin of the media in favor of flocking to those rallies for Trump, Israelis choose love over hate.

Joe Biden is no friend to Israel, which means he’s no friend to the Jews, which is why Israelis are glad that when it comes to presidents, Americans would rather choose love over hate. 

---

---

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

Read More

Jealous for Jerusalem: Trump's Semi-Recognition (Judean Rose)

If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning. Let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth, if I remember thee not. If I set not Jerusalem above my chiefest joy. (Psalm 137: 5-6)

The deadline for delaying the implementation of the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, has come and gone, with no signature having been affixed to the provision. President Trump hasn't signed the waiver that lets the U.S. off the hook for moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem. It is the first time this has happened since 1998, when the provision for what turned out to be a permanent biyearly delay, signed by president after president, took effect.

On Tuesday, President Trump announced he would indeed be moving the embassy, however it would take time to plan and execute the move. Four years. So he's going to sign the waiver yet again.

From the Jerusalem Post:

For technical reasons involving funding, Trump will have to sign that waiver until such time as the doors of a new embassy open in Jerusalem, the official said.

Trump, meantime, has offered his recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of the Jewish State.

With a caveat:

“The specific boundaries of Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem are subject to final status negotiations,” [U.S.] officials said.

This, in other words, is President Trump saying that Jerusalem is for sale, a property that can be negotiated. Whether or not Israel agrees.

In what universe is this friendship?

This sort of "recognition" is the last thing Israel needs.

Even the president's declaration that the U.S. embassy will be moved to Jerusalem, meanwhile feels like it may be a bluff, a cover-up for kicking that can down the road.

To underscore that new policy understanding Trump [will direct] the State Department to create a plan to relocate the embassy to a site in Jerusalem, the officials said, adding that it could take at least four years to execute the move. 

This is nonsense. All the talk of security needs, of finding a suitable physical plant, and etc., is very nice and all these things can be implemented with the passing of time. But moving the embassy technically requires only changing a sign. The American Consulate is already in Jerusalem. The sign affixed to that building can be changed to read "embassy" instead of "consulate."

And that can be done right now. It could have been done in May. It could have been done on the first day that Trump assumed office.

All these years, Jerusalem has been shunned. Her honor sullied. And some people think that Jerusalem has now regained her rightful place in the eyes of the world, as a result of the announcement of the intentions of a sitting U.S. president.

This man, at the same time, says that the borders of Israel's sovereignty in Jerusalem are yet to be determined. This being the case, how is it that those on the Trump Train remain gleeful? What right does anyone have to say that our capital, our holy city, is negotiable? 

I am jealous for Jerusalem, as all of us should be. Jerusalem has now been snubbed, scorned, and rebuffed every six months by presidents Clinton (who let the Jerusalem Embassy Act pass by leaving it unsigned on his desk) through Trump. Trump signed the waiver in May, breaking his promise to the Jewish people. Now Trump says he will move the embassy, but will sign the waiver anyway; recognizes Jerusalem, but says it is a piece of real estate to be negotiated.

In this game of opposing statements: a capital that can be negotiated, recognition and nonrecognition, President Trump lets the State Department win, and spurns Jerusalem once more.

And still, everyone knows the truth. Which makes this worse in a way. Makes all these machinations of U.S. officials ugly and dishonest toil. Because we all know that the Jews were in Jerusalem before Christ, and before Mohammed. Before there was an Arab people.

Jerusalem is mentioned 850 times in the Torah, not once in the Quran.

The Jews have prayed for Jerusalem for generations, yearned for it to be rebuilt speedily in our time, at weddings, holidays, and in our daily prayers. No other people has Jerusalem playing so central a part over thousands of years.

The Christians know it. The Muslims know it.

Everyone knows that Jerusalem is ours.

No one gets a pass. Not Donald Trump. Not anyone.

Situating and maintaining the American Embassy in Tel Aviv has been a continuous slap in the face to America's best friend in the Middle East: Israel. It's been an ongoing slap in the face to the Jews. And a slap in the face to God Himself, many times over.

Europe (plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose), which tried and failed to eradicate the Jews, has been desperate to keep Trump from recognizing Jerusalem as a Jewish city. Various Arab and Muslim entities, meanwhile, threaten to go out and kill the Jews should the embassy be moved. And the State Department uses these threats to pressure the president to sign the waiver once more.

It's ironic. The Arabist State Department uses terror as its cover to rob the Jews of Jerusalem. Yet terror is ever-present in Israel. So it's a very flimsy cover that doesn't make sense to any thinking person.

And if Israel is willing to take the risk of terror in exchange for moving the embassy, why should it be any concern of the U.S.?

The State Department fears that the entire region could blow up with internecine warfare (with attendant universal fallout)?

Now? With Israel having cordial relations with so many Arab countries and with said Arab countries having bigger fish to fry?

This is not to say that moving the embassy would not bring an increase in terror. Of course it will. They'll go out and do their thing, the terrorists, if Trump moves the embassy. That will happen even with this half-recognition of Jerusalem using mere words. The terrorists? They'll call terror "legitimate resistance."

Which means: Kill the Jews.

But the terrorists would do that anyway. They're always doing that. Trying to kill us and sometimes succeeding.

If we were to let that stop us, let the killing deter us from reaching important goals, the State of Israel would not now be here. We wouldn't be the awesome friend that we are to the U.S., sharing technology and knowledge, and helping to defend U.S. interests.

If we allowed the terrorists to win, Israel wouldn't be, would cease to exist.

And anyway, the State Department could, if it truly wished, put a damper on that terror. All it has to do is close the wallet. Close the PLO office.

Instead it makes empty threats, and then caves.

Here is something President Trump needs to know: Arabs respect strength. If you live in the Middle East, you come to understand this and appreciate it. You have to meet their bluff, even when it's not a bluff, but the real thing.

It's how you end up on top. The only way.

Weakness is the reason the Arabs hated Obama. They hated him because he actively supported terrorists, and looked away from evil.

For all that it looks as though Trump is the most friendly president ever, a good friend to the Jews, by not changing that sign on the consulate, and by saying that Israel's sovereignty over Jerusalem is negotiable, Trump is slapping the Jews in the face, and showing weakness to the Arabs. He's giving the terrorists a leg up, and pushing the Jews down, forcing them to grovel for tidbits.

It's wrong. And it's no way to treat a friend.

We should all be jealous for Jerusalem's honor. We should demand that justice be done instead of congratulating ourselves over President Trump's recognition/nonrecognition of our capital.

The president should have moved the embassy on day one of his presidency. He should have had that sign on the American Consulate changed.

He could do that today.

It is sad to say, but the president has wronged Jerusalem.

And this has been recorded in the annals of history.

For all time.

---

---

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

Read More