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

11/12 Links: Lapid slams UN after pro-PLO measure advances, calls move 'prize for terrorist organizations'; To anti-Zionists, Ben Gvir is not a problem, he is an opportunity

From Ian:

Lapid slams UN, calls pro-Palestinian vote 'prize for terrorist organizations'

Israel lambasted the United Nations on Saturday after a key committee approved a draft resolution Friday calling on the International Court of Justice to urgently issue its opinion on the legal consequences of supposedly denying the Palestinian people the right to self-determination as a result of Israel's actions since the 1967 Six-Day War.

The measure was vehemently opposed by Israel, which argued it would destroy any chance of reconciliation with the Palestinians.

"This step will not change the reality on the ground, nor will it help the Palestinian people in any way; it may even result in an escalation. Supporting this move is a prize for terrorist organizations and the campaign against Israel," Prime Minister Yair Lapid said in a statement, adding that "the Palestinians want to replace negotiations with unilateral steps. They are again using the United Nations to attack Israel."

The vote in the General Assembly's Special Political and Decolonization Committee was 98-17, with 52 abstentions. The resolution will now go to the 193-member assembly for a final vote before the end of the year, when it is virtually certain of approval.

The draft cites Israel's supposed violation of Palestinian rights to self-determination "from its prolonged occupation, settlement and annexation of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the holy city of Jerusalem, and from its adoption of related discriminatory legislation and measures."

It would ask the court for an opinion on how these Israeli policies and practices "affect the legal status of the occupation, and what are the legal consequences that arise for all states and the United Nations from this status."

The International Court of Justice, also known as the world court, is one of the UN's main organs and is charged with settling disputes between countries. Its opinions are not binding.

"Israel strongly rejects the Palestinian resolution at the United Nations. This is another unilateral Palestinian move which undermines the basic principles for resolving the conflict and may harm any possibility for a future process," Lapid tweeted and thanked that handful of countries that voted against the resolution with Israel. "We call upon on all the countries that supported yesterday's proposal to reconsider their position and oppose it when it's voted upon in the General Assembly. The way to resolve the conflict does not pass through the corridors of the UN or other international bodies," he continued.

Jonathan Tobin: Don’t apologize for Ben-Gvir or anything else about Israel

When Netanyahu became prime minister again in 2009 and in the 12 years that followed, when there was no thought of Ben-Gvir being a minister, the same arguments about Israeli policies being oppressive and alienating American Jews were heard over and over again.

During this time, as the anti-Semitic BDS movement gain footholds on American college campuses and on the left-wing of the Democratic Party, there was no talk about Ben-Gvir or the evils of Israel being governed by right-wing and religious parties.

To the contrary, the so-called centrists of Israeli politics—Lapid and Gantz—were just as reviled by those who spread the “apartheid state” smear as Smotrich and Ben-Gvir are today. The same claims about a mythical old “good” Israel being destroyed were made by those who opposed Netanyahu.

Those who think one Jewish state on the planet is one too many didn’t need Religious Zionists in Israel’s cabinet to be convinced that Israel shouldn’t exist. American Jews who are embarrassed by Ben-Gvir and Smotrich were already embarrassed by Netanyahu and even some of his left-leaning opponents in the Knesset. Their failure to magically make the conflict with the Palestinians disappear has been cited by those who note a decline in support for Israel in the years since the collapse of the Oslo peace process, and even before that while the delusion that it might succeed was still alive.

This goes beyond the fact that the claims that Smotrich and Ben-Gvir are fascists is without real substance. As I’ve noted previously, the talk about the winners of last week’s election being enemies of democracy is just an echo of the Democratic Party talking points about Republicans in the U.S. and just as specious. Whatever one may think of either man, their party doesn’t oppose democracy.

None of that matters because this discussion isn’t rooted in the facts about Israel or those who will make up its next government. Rather, it is an expression of unease with the reality of a Jewish state that must deal with a messy and insoluble conflict with the Palestinians as well as one where the majority of its Jews don’t think or look like your typical liberal Jewish Democrat.

Israel-haters will work for its destruction no matter who is its prime minister or the composition of the government. As has always been the case, the anti-Semites don’t need any new excuses for their efforts to besmirch and delegitimize the Jewish state.

One needn’t support Netanyahu or his partners to understand any of this.

Rather than apologizing for Ben-Gvir or the other aspects of Israeli reality that make readers of The New York Times cringe, those who care about the Jewish state and its people need to stop longing for an Israel which looks like them and embrace the one that actually exists. By buying into the disingenuous claims that this government will be less worthy of their support than its predecessors, they are merely falling into a trap set for them by anti-Semites.

Those who support the right of a Jewish state to exist should stop apologizing for it not conforming to some idealized liberal vision of Zionism, and understand that the people who voted for Netanyahu and Ben-Gvir are just as deserving of respect and representation as they are.

Fred Maroun: To anti-Zionists, Ben Gvir is not a problem, he is an opportunity

While Ben Gvir calls for Palestinian terrorists to be expelled from Israel, we know that Arab entities (including the Jordan-occupied West Bank and the Egypt-occupied Gaza) indiscriminately expelled all Jewish residents decades ago. We also know that Israel’s enemies are “bent on wiping the Jewish state and its inhabitants off the map” (as Canadian National Post columnist John Robson put it). As racist and as anti-democratic as Israel’s far right is, it is nothing compared to Israel’s enemies. That is of course cold comfort to those who are genuinely concerned about Ben Gvir and his ilk, but it points to a double standard.

Criticizing Ben Gvir and the Israeli extreme right while giving a pass to far worse Palestinian groups is a double standard. It sets high expectations of Jews while setting much lower expectations of others. It is obviously a form of antisemitism.

Using Ben Gvir to demonize Israel is not a new concept. Before Ben Gvir and the Israeli extreme right became popular, it was Netanyahu and his Likud party who were the favorite target of anti-Zionists. Anti-Zionism was not born with Ben Gvir’s entry into Israeli politics, nor was it born with Netanyahu’s entry into Israeli politics. It has existed ever since Israel exists. Anti-Zionism was just as strong, and perhaps even stronger, when Israel was governed by socialists like David Ben-Gurion and Golda Meir.

In essence, there are two types of criticisms of Ben Gvir. There is the criticism that aims to make Israel better (or at least not worse). This criticism comes from Zionists in Israel and abroad. And there is the criticism that uses Ben Gvir as a new and more convenient way to demonize Israel. This criticism comes from anyone who hates Israel and does not give a fig about Israeli Arabs but looks on with glee as Ben Gvir weakens the fabric of Israeli society.

To Zionists, Ben Gvir is dangerous for several reasons. He is likely to weaken Western support for Israel, he is likely to weaken Israeli democracy, and he is likely to increase Israel’s investment in West Bank settlements which make a one-state bi-national solution increasingly likely. To Zionists, Ben Gvir is a problem. But to anti-Zionists, these are all reasons to celebrate. To them, Ben Gvir isn’t a problem, he’s an opportunity.

Read More

They Say Biden Only Criticizes Israel Behind The Scenes -- The Same Place He Undermines It (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

President Joe Biden called Netanyahu to congratulate him on his victory, as he returns to serve as prime minister of Israel.

It only took a week, but a lot was made of the fact that a number of world leaders lost no time in contacting Netanyahu to wish him well, while Biden -- who likes to brag about his friendship with Bibi -- seemed to be deliberately delaying his congratulations.

And maybe he was.

In February 2021, CNN reported that Biden took his time after winning his own election before contacting Netanyahu -- and that was because Netanyahu had taken his time contacting Biden on winning the election in 2020.

And so it goes.

But we are told that Biden and Netanyahu are actually good friends -- after all, Biden tells us so himself. He has claimed that he once gave Bibi a photo inscribed with the words:

“Bibi I don’t agree with a damn thing you say but I love you.”

Whatever that means.

During Biden's last visit to the Middle East, he visited Israel and met with Netanyahu, even though he was no longer prime minister at the time, and shook hands with him, saying “You know I love you.” Ha'aretz reported that a member of the US delegation met with a senior Israeli figure and told him that Biden's comment had nothing to do with affection --

When the president tells Netanyahu, “You know I love you,” the interlocutor from Washington explained, the implicit continuation of the sentence is: love aside, but you know I don’t want to see you return.

In any case, no matter how the media and the pundits choose to describe their relationship, Biden supposedly limits his criticisms of Netanyahu and Israel to private communications, while publicly providing unwavering support for the Jewish state. Yet that has not prevented Biden from publicly calling Netanyahu "counterproductive" and "extreme right." 

That may be something to keep in mind when Netanyahu confides to Mark Levin that 

[Biden] always says, 'Bibi, I love you, but I don't agree with a word you're saying' — [and] I say to him, ‘Joe, sometimes I reciprocate that.'"

Netanyahu and Biden apparently each can give as good as they get.

And when it comes to Israel, not all the things that Biden says about the Jewish state are complimentary.

Two years ago, Channel 13’s Nadav Eyal provided excerpts from a classified memo detailing a meeting Biden had with Golda Meir in 1973. The media's major focus was on the revelation that Biden relayed to her the conversations he had with Egyptian leaders who told him that they respected Israel's military superiority. Weeks later, Egypt attacked Israel. Obviously, Biden is not responsible for Israel's lack of preparation and military intelligence at the time.

However, there are some other comments Biden made that seem to have been overlooked.

Speaking directly to Golda Meir, Biden not only claims that Israel has an outsized influence on the Nixon administration against its will, but also claims that the US Senate is afraid of crossing American Jews. 

There is a certain brazenness there that would make Ilhan Omar jealous.

But Biden is known for his odd comments and gaffes. What about what he has actually done since taking office -- what do his actions indicate about his attitude towards Israel and what Netanyahu can expect?

Just last November, it was reported that the Biden administration wanted to reopen the US consulate for the Palestinian Arabs in its original location in Jerusalem, despite the fact that the establishment of such a consulate in Jerusalem would be a violation of the Oslo Accords. 

This is the same Biden who in support of the Jerusalem Embassy Act in 1995, said

Mr. President, it is unconscionable for us to refuse to recognize the right of the Jewish people to choose their own capital. What gives us the right to second-guess their decision? For 47 years, we, and much of the rest of the international community, have been living a lie.

Yet here was the Biden Administration trying to create conditions that would imply a division of Jerusalem between Jews and Arabs.

Eugene Kontorovich put it in stronger terms:

"The US does not want to open a consulate merely to have a place for diplomatic connections with the PA [Palestinian Authority]. If that is all they wanted, they could easily do this by opening a mission in Abu Dis or Ramallah -- where most other countries conduct their relations with the PA... the purpose of opening the consulate is to recognize Palestinian claims to Jerusalem."

Actually, Biden himself was explicit when he visited Abbas during his visit to the Middle East:

Jerusalem is central to the national visions of both Palestinians and Israelis, to your histories to your faiths to your futures. Jerusalem must be a city for all its people.

One month later, the Biden administration seemed to have shelved the idea. 

Another area that reflects Biden's attitude towards Israel is the appointments he makes to fill positions that influence policy in the Middle East.

o  In February, the State Department's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor invited nonprofit groups to apply for grant money in order to "strengthen accountability and human rights in Israel and the West Bank and Gaza." Not only would this strengthen those seeking to delegitimize Israel, but the appointee to head the program was Sarah Margon -- the former Washington director at Human Rights Watch who has openly supported boycotting Israel.

o  The White House appointed George Salem as chairman of the U.S. Agency for International Development's Partnership for Peace Fund board. Salem lobbied for the Palestinian government from 2015 until late 2021 and was registered as a foreign agent for the Palestine Monetary Authority. Under Abbas, the Palestinian government has been known for the way it has mishandled foreign aid -- especially exploitation of those funds for the pay-to-slay program.

o  The Biden administration appointed Elizabeth Campbell as a deputy assistant secretary of state at the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration. She is the former director of UNRWA, criticized for its use of textbooks promoting hatred of Jews and of terrorism in Palestinian schools.

o  Hady Amr serves as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Israeli-Palestinian Affairs and Press and Public Diplomacy in the Biden administration. He is also in charge of US negotiations with Israel and Palestinian organizations. He was the lead author of a report published by the Brookings Institution in December 2018 that said that the US must "reconnect" with Hamas, "create a Palestinian unity government integrating Hamas" and "compel Israel to make major concessions" even if this would "endanger Israel" -- concluding that "should Israel prove uncooperative with American efforts, the United States could signal it will move ahead anyway."

o  Biden's nominee for a top role at the US Agency for International Development (USAID), Tamara Cofman Wittes, was director of the Middle East Policy Center at the Brookings Institution. She promoted articles that criticized the Abraham Accords and discouraged Arab countries from normalizing ties with Israel before the 2020 election. She tweeted that peace between Israel and the UAE was a ‘new Naksa,' a setback. She also retweeted an article that called the Abraham Accords misogynistic, a “triumph for authoritarianism.”

ZOA head Morton A. Klein has his own list of anti-Israel appointees that Biden put into key positions within his administration.

Reema Dodin [deputy director of the White House Office of Legislative Affairs]—who justified and even encouraged suicide bombings against Jews, organized anti-Israel rallies and spread Medieval-style blood libels, including the false claim that Israel denies Palestinian Arabs food, water and medical treatment; Maher Bitar [National Security Council official]—who organized the Palestine Solidarity Movement anti-Israel boycott conference at Georgetown University, at which he ran a session on how to demonize Israel; Karine Jean-Pierre [White House Press Secretary]—who helped orchestrate Democratic presidential candidates’ boycott of a major pro-Israel conference; Wendy Sherman [United States Deputy Secretary of State]—who negotiated the terrible Iran deal, praised secret concessions to Iran and downplayed PLO suicide bombings and other terror attacks on innocent Israelis; Avril Haines [Director of National Intelligence]—who signed a vicious letter falsely accusing Israel of violence, terrorism, and incitement; apologist for Hamas and Iran Robert Malley; and numerous others.

Klein also recalls that Biden praised Rashida Tlaib last year:

I admire your intellect, I admire your passion, I admire your concern for so many other people. You’re a fighter and God thank you for being a fighter.

He also notes that Biden resumed funding to Palestinian projects, in violation of the spirit -- if not the letter -- of the Taylor Force Act.

In fact, last month it was reported that the legal advocacy group America First Legal, a group of conservative lawyers and activists, filed a FOIA request for internal documents about US funding for the Palestinian Authority. The group claims that the Biden administration is violating US law by providing more than half a billion dollars to the PA. They claim the documents they are demanding will show an illegal effort "to undermine Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem."

And let's not forget about Biden and Iran.

Remember the tension we saw between Netanyahu and Obama?
The next 2 years might just make Netanyahu nostalgic for those days.

---

---

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

10/15 Links: Top Law Firms Fund Anti-Semitic Campus Groups at Berkeley; White House ‘deeply disappointed’ after Abbas tells Putin he doesn’t trust US

From Ian:

Nation’s Top Law Firms Fund Anti-Semitic Campus Groups at Berkeley

A host of the nation’s premier law firms are financially supporting organizations at Berkeley Law School that are accused of fostering anti-Semitism and hatred of Israel, according to a campus watchdog group.

Student groups at the elite law school, led by Law Students for Justice in Palestine, adopted what they called a pro-Palestine bylaw earlier this month pledging to ban all speakers who support "Zionism" or "the apartheid state of Israel." The resolution primarily targets Jews who identify as pro-Israel and support the Jewish state, fueling accusations of anti-Semitism among Berkeley law students.

An analysis by StandWithUs, a nonpartisan pro-Israel organization that combats anti-Semitism on campus, indicates that half of the student groups that backed the resolution are funded in part by some of the country’s most elite law firms, including Latham & Watkins, Jenner & Block LLP, and Cooley LLP. StandWithUs is demanding these firms pull their support from the student groups, but, as of Friday, none have committed to do so. A Washington Free Beacon request for comment to 10 of the law firms named by StandWithUs was not returned by press time.

Roz Rothstein, StandWithUs’s CEO and cofounder, told the Free Beacon that she is hopeful once these law firms learn that they are financially backing anti-Semitism, they will pull their support.

"It is hard to fathom that such distinguished law firms would knowingly sponsor student groups that support anti-Semitism by punishing Jewish students for aspects of their identity," Rothstein said. "We are hopeful that as these firms learn about what their grantees have done, they will publicly and rapidly condemn the antisemitic action and cease further sponsorship of groups who are perpetrators of such hate."

Analysts offer pros and cons on Lebanon maritime deal but agree it will not make Israel safer

Opponents of the deal, among them opposition leader Benjamin Netanyahu, also complained that the agreement was a capitulation to Hezbollah, an Iranian proxy and the most powerful force in Lebanon. In July, the terrorist group launched three unarmed drones at an Israeli gas rig, and Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah warned that “no one” would drill gas as long as Lebanon’s “rights” to extract gas were not upheld.

Amidror said his central question was how Nasrallah would react. “What will be the assessment of Nasrallah? … If, sitting with his people, he says, ‘Guys, we won. Israel collapsed under the pressure. … The Israelis retreated because they don’t want another war with Hezbollah, and let’s think what will be the next space in which we can blackmail them.’… it might lead to escalation,” Amidror said.

David Schenker, assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs during the Trump administration, shared Amidror’s concern during the JINSA webinar. “The big question for me is whether this agreement makes Israel safer. And this is what we’re hearing from the Israeli government. This is what we heard from the IDF. I think it’s to be determined. It could go either way. And the problem of Hezbollah doesn’t go away because of this agreement. It could potentially exacerbate the problem,” he said.

Schenker also offered a positive note, saying the deal would essentially turn Hezbollah and its Lebanese Christian allies into Israel’s business partners. “The Israeli government got … [them] … to sign off on a document that essentially recognizes Israel. This has never been done. … This discredits Hezbollah at home [and] undermines a little bit the resistance narrative,” Schenker said.

Amidror said proponents of the agreement have argued that what matters is that Israel can start drilling immediately, something “more important than all the symbolic lines in the sea.” He agreed that with the threat from Hezbollah at least temporarily shelved, oil and gas companies will more readily agree to explore in the area.

The U.S. has agreed to mediate between French oil giant TotalEnergies and Israel. TotalEnergies will drill in Lebanese waters and as part of the deal, Israel is to receive a percentage of revenue from gas that extends over the Lebanese line into Israeli waters. The U.S. also said that it would guarantee Israel’s security and economic rights should Hezbollah challenge the agreement. The U.S. provided Israel with a letter to that effect, Israeli sources said.

“It’s a PR paper. Legally, no one is obliged to fulfill it,” Amidror said. Schenker agreed, saying, “This letter, if it exists, doesn’t have any legal weight.”

Both analysts expressed concern that some of the funds from an offshore gas windfall could end up in the hands of Hezbollah. “I think the Lebanese already fear that this money will disappear into the abyss of corruption,” Schenker said. “There’s no transparency. The state does not have a sovereign wealth fund. Already there are contracts … by Total and others to shell companies that are partially owned by some of the most corrupt political elites in Lebanon.”

“We can expect that not only will it help Hezbollah’s allies benefit, but that Hezbollah to some extent will benefit as well,” he said.

Majority of Israelis Support Maritime Deal, Poll Shows

The majority of Israelis support the maritime border deal with Lebanon, believing it was the appropriate measure notwithstanding the coincidence with the election, according to an opinion poll released on Friday.

For 47 percent of respondents to Channel 12‘s survey, the signing of the agreement some three weeks before a general election represents the right decision, while 36 percent oppose it and 17 percent have no opinion on the matter.

On a separate topic, 47 percent of respondent believe that Prime Minister Yair Lapid’s main motivations for concluding the agreement were of a “political” nature, while 41 percent say the leader was guided by considerations of what is best for the security and economy of Israel.

In addition, 57 percent of those polled believe that former premier Benjamin Netanyahu’s opposition to the agreement and his harsh criticism of Lapid are political, compared to 31 percent who believe that his positions are motivated by Israel’s security and economy.

Israel’s security cabinet voted on Wednesday afternoon in favor of the maritime border deal with Lebanon. The text is now subject to approval by the parliament.

Lapid hailed the Lebanon deal on Wednesday, saying it was “a great achievement for the state of Israel, for Israel’s security and for Israel’s economy.”

Netanyahu meanwhile accused the government of caving in to external pressures and putting Israel’s security at risk.

Read More