Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Friday, December 20, 2019

Is Bernie Sanders Supposed To Be A Symbol of Jewish Pride? (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

Earlier this week, Peter Beinart described Bernie Sanders as "the most successful Jewish presidential candidate in American history"

After all, it is a 'thing' now to talk up how 'Jewish' Bernie Sanders is.

I responded to Beinart's tweet:

There were a few responses to what I wrote, but they avoided the question of whether Bernie Sanders actually embraces his being Jewish. Instead, they attacked Lieberman -- totally missing the point.

Or avoiding it.

The fact is that Bernie Sanders, despite the best efforts of Beinart and others, has not registered as a Jew in the minds of voters.

Back in 2016, a Los Angeles Times article reported that Bernie Sanders fares poorly against Hillary Clinton with fellow Jews, polls indicate

Sen. Bernie Sanders has gone further than any other Jewish candidate in a presidential campaign, but he’s not garnering much support from Jewish voters, polls indicate...

Now that the campaign has moved to New York, however, which has the nation’s largest Jewish population, the numbers are in, and they’re not favorable.

That shouldn’t be terribly surprising. Both Hillary Clinton and former president Bill Clinton have long been popular among Jewish voters, and while American Jews tend to be liberal, they’re more often regular Democrats than the sorts of independents most drawn to Sanders.

On the other side, Sanders is not actively engaged in Jewish life. He has also been critical of Israel, although he lived briefly as a young man on a secular, socialist kibbutz. When asked about his faith, his responses have reflected a generalized commitment to liberal concepts of social justice as opposed to any specific link to Jewish ideals of equality. [emphasis added]

The article is based on 2 polls: the Sienna College Poll, which found Clinton leading Sanders among Jewish voters by a 60%-38% margin and the NBC/Wall St. Journal/Marist poll,which found Clinton leading among Jews 65%-32%.

Putting aside where he stands on Israel, the fact remains that Sanders is not Jewishly involved and his inspiration is from socialism, not Judaism.

That is not a judgement on Sanders, just a recognition of where he stands.

In a presidential election pitting Sanders and Trump, Sanders would clearly get the majority of the Jewish vote, but that is because most Jews vote Democrate anyway and not because they think of him as a Jew.

Not only does he not embody Jewish pride, Sanders does not have a typical reaction to antisemitism either. At an event at the Apollo Theater in New York in April 2016, Sanders faced an antisemitic question:

“As you know,” opened the questioner, “the Zionist Jews–and I don’t mean to offend anybody–they run the Federal Reserve, they run Wall Street, they run every campaign.” As this unfolded, Sanders began wagging his finger in dissent, and interjected to deem “Zionist Jews” a “bad phrase.” His interlocutor, pressed to articulate a question, concluded by saying, “What is your affiliation to your Jewish community? That’s all I’m asking.”

“No, no, no, that’s not what you’re asking,” Sanders quickly replied, in a nod to the question’s underlying prejudice. “I am proud to be Jewish,” he declared, to cheers from the audience. But then Sanders did something odd. Rather than using the question as a teaching moment to address and rebuke its anti-Semitic underpinnings, Sanders instead immediately pivoted to his stump speech on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. “Talking about Zionism and Israel,” he said, “I am a strong defender of Israel, but I also believe that we have got to pay attention to the needs of the Palestinian people.” He never challenged the actual contents of the question, let alone labeled it anti-Semitic. [emphasis added]

It is tempting to compare Sanders' failure to address the clear antisemitism of the questioner with his making Linda Sarsour his surrogate. This is the same Linda Sarsour who in 2015 spoke at a Farrakhan rally. Then again, Sanders has met publicly with antisemite Al Sharpton.

Associations with Farrakhan and Sharpton don't seem to bother Bernie Sanders.

But that Sanders-Sarsour connection really is especially jarring.

And, as Ron Kampeas points out, that alliance of Sanders and Sarsour is self-contradictory as well.

Kampeas notes Sarsour's statement that:

Ask them this, how can you be against white supremacy in America and the idea of being in a state based on race and class, but then you support a state like Israel that is based on supremacy, that is built on the idea that Jews are supreme to everyone else?” [emphasis added]

Kampeas then points out that:

[Sanders] notes the time he spent in Israel as a young man and says “It is true that some criticism of Israel can cross the line into antisemitism, especially when it denies the right of self-determination to Jews, or when it plays into conspiracy theories about outsized Jewish power. I will always call out antisemitism when I see it.” [emphasis added]

This leads Kampeas to the point:

Is there wiggle room to reconcile Sarsour’s rejection of a “state like Israel that is based on [Jewish] supremacy” and Sanders’ label for those who deny “the right of self-determination to Jews” as antisemites?

This is an issue that does not seem to bother Sanders.

So if he does not embrace his being a Jew and not does publicly react to defend his being a Jew -- why is there this attempt to emphasize that Bernie Sanders is a Jew?

It seems there is an attempt to not only redefine what is and is not antisemitism, but even to redefine what it means to be a Jew -- something that no other minority has to put up with.

Maybe it is an attempt to redefine the connection between Jews and Israel, in the way that small radical fringe groups like If Not Now try to do.

But whatever the reason, this attempt to sell Sanders as a symbol of Jewish pride is a symptom of the weakening of Jewish identity in general and the problematic connection of Jews in the US with Israel.

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.

It looks like the ICC will continue with investigating Israeli actions - but also Palestinian

Today, ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda announced:

...Following a thorough, independent and objective assessment of all reliable information available to my Office, the preliminary examination into the Situation in Palestine has concluded with the determination that all the statutory criteria under the Rome Statute for the opening of an investigation have been met.

I am satisfied that there is a reasonable basis to proceed with an investigation into the situation in Palestine, pursuant to article 53(1) of the Statute. In brief, I am satisfied that (i) war crimes have been or are being committed in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip ("Gaza") (for specifics, see paras. 94-96); (ii) potential cases arising from the situation would be admissible; and (iii) there are no substantial reasons to believe that an investigation would not serve the interests of justice.

Israel released its own objections to why the ICC doesn't have jurisdiction, also today. I'm not sure which statement was released first. The ICC prosecutor did say that she wants to further clarify specifically whether the ICC has jurisdiction over the territories:

However, given the unique and highly contested legal and factual issues attaching to this situation, namely, the territory within which the investigation may be conducted, I deemed it necessary to rely on article 19(3) of the Statute to resolve this specific issue.

Earlier today, I therefore requested from Pre-Trial Chamber I a jurisdictional ruling on the scope of the territorial jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court ("ICC" or the "Court") under article 12(2)(a) of the Rome Statute in Palestine.

Specifically, I have sought confirmation that the "territory" over which the Court may exercise its jurisdiction, and which I may subject to investigation, comprises the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza. Such determination is made strictly for the purposes of determining the Court's ability to exercise its jurisdiction and the scope of such jurisdiction under the Statute.

Looking at the specific charges that the prosecutor believes are admissible as war crimes, besides the usual charges against Israel we see that there are quite a few against "Palestine as well:"

94. On the basis of the available information, there is a reasonable basis to believe that war crimes were committed in the context of the 2014 hostilities in Gaza. In particular, there is a reasonable basis to believe that members of the Israel Defense Forces (“IDF”) committed the war crimes of: intentionally launching disproportionate attacks in relation to at least three incidents which the Office has focussed on (article 8(2)(b)(iv)); wilful killing and wilfully causing serious injury to body or health (articles 8(2)(a)(i) and 8(2)(a)(iii), or article 8(2)(c)(i)); and intentionally directing an attack against objects or persons using the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions (article 8(2)(b)(xxiv), or 8(2)(e)(ii)). In addition, there is a reasonable basis to believe that members of Hamas and Palestinian armed groups (“PAGs”) committed the war crimes of: intentionally directing attacks against civilians and civilian objects (articles 8(2)(b)(i)-(ii), or 8(2)(e)(i)); using protected persons as shields (article 8(2)(b)(xxiii)); wilfully depriving protected persons of the rights of fair and regular trial (articles 8(2)(a)(vi) or 8(2)(c)(iv)) and wilful killing (articles 8(2)(a)(i), or 8(2)(c)(i)); and torture or inhuman treatment (article 8(2)(a)(ii), or 8(2)(c)(i)) and/or outrages upon personal dignity (articles 8(2)(b)(xxi), or 8(2)(c)(ii)). With respect to the admissibility of potential cases concerning crimes allegedly committed by members of the IDF, the Office notes that due to limited accessible information in relation to proceedings that have been undertaken and the existence of pending proceedings in relation to other allegations, the Office’s admissibility assessment in terms of the scope and genuineness of relevant domestic proceedings remains ongoing at this stage and will need to be kept under review in the context of an investigation. However, the Prosecution has concluded that the potential cases concerning crimes allegedly committed by members of Hamas and PAGs would currently be admissible pursuant to article 17(1)(a)-(d) of the Statute.

(Paragraphs 95 and 96 talk about prosecuting Israel for "transferring settlers" and for defending itself from Gaza border riots.)

The prosecutor seems to be saying that while she still needs to clarify the ICC's jurisdiction on filing war crimes charges against Israel, she does not need that for determining whether Hamas is guilty of war crimes.

Of course, Israel is not a party to the ICC because parts of the Rome Statute were written specifically against Israel. Still, it is bad for Israel to be subject to such an investigation.

But Hamas cannot celebrate this either.

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.

Two years ago, James Zogby - a prominent pollster and Democrat - tweeted to Rachael Ray that she was engaging in "cultural genocide" by saying that calling a set of foods that Israelis eat every day (like hummus, tabouli, stuffed grape leaves...) is "Israeli" is "cultural genocide."

A few times a year we see similar accusations that people calling foods Israelis are known for eating, like falafel, "Israeli" is "cultural appropriation" and a terrible thing. (No one bothers to mention that street falafel, in pita, is a purely Israeli invention.)

Yet the same people who are so sensitive to "cultural appropriation" have nothing bad to say to Arabs who say that Jesus, his family, his contemporaries and the towns he lived in are "Palestinian."

An egregious example comes from this video by Amer Zahr, a comedian who works for Bernie Sanders whose ancestry is from Nazareth. It was tweeted by the PLO's Saeb Erekat:

pic.twitter.com/0zRIPAOGuj
— Dr. Saeb Erakat الدكتور صائب عريقات (@ErakatSaeb) December 19, 2019

Not one person mentioned in that video would have self-identified as "Palestinian." They were Jews (with a Greek or two thrown in.) Calling Jesus "Palestinian" makes as much sense as calling King David "Palestinian" and it is very offensive.

Appropriating Jewish history itself is much more offensive than people calling falafel "Israeli."

Apparently, "cultural appropriation" is one of the many things that are a crime only when Jews do it.

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.

The Supreme Fatwa Council, the decision making body of the Palestinian Fatwa House which was created by Yasir Arafat as an official Palestinian institution in 1994, has announced that it does not accept the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).

The Council said that it cannot accept any provisions of CEDAW that are inconsistent with the provisions of Islamic Sharia Law.

Here's where it gets interesting. The Palestinian Authority says it acceded to CEDAW in 2014 without any reservations. But, the Supreme Fatwa Council notes, the Palestinian Constitutional Court ruled in 2018 that international human rights treaties and agreements must agree with the religious and cultural identity of the Palestinian people.

Which means that since CEDAW violates Sharia law, the Palestinian leadership really never accepted the convention. Indeed, several NGOs noted last year that Palestinian laws fall far short of what CEDAW requires - there are no equal rights for women under existing Palestinian law, even five years after supposedly acceding to CEDAW. In fact, Palestinian laws for women seem to be fully in line with Islamic law and inconsistent with CEDAW.

The Fatwa Council said that CEDAW cannot be accepted specifically in terms of Palestinian laws for marriage and inheritance. Shares of the inheritance today are calculated according to Sharia law for all Muslims and Christians as well in the West Bank. Each female share, upon the death of their parents, is equal to half of each male share. If there is no male child, siblings receive the inheritance before daughters. The rules are complicated but generally unequal towards women.

The Council also reiterated its opposition to abortion, as codified in a 2008 law. Abortion is forbidden except under extremely limited cases which have to be approved by the Mufti.

The Supreme Fatwa Council has only male members.

For some reason feminists who say they are pro-Palestinian never say a word about the Palestinian laws that explicitly discriminate against women and against abortion. The news media, of whom there are many in Israel and the territories, avoid topics like this. As always, if being pro-Palestinian is regarded as a liberal cause, then illiberal Palestinian laws and customs must not be mentioned.

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.

12/19 Links Pt2: Progress on 'the Jewish question'; Boris Johnson’s Government Pledges to Take Action Against BDS Movement; Toxic left-wing antisemitism: Australia, UK and the USA

From Ian:

Clifford D. May: Progress on 'the Jewish question'

Though opponents of the EO charge that it threatens free speech, the EO states plainly that government agencies "shall not diminish or infringe" the First Amendment. And when the legislation that this EO is based upon was introduced, former Solicitor General Paul Clement and former White House Counsel Kathy Ruemmler – representatives of the Bush and Obama administrations respectively – wrote opinions stating it did not violate the First Amendment, nor raise other Constitutional issues.

The other criticism being leveled at the EO is that, in the words of a New York Times news story, it "effectively interprets Judaism as a race or nationality, not just a religion." Untrue. The EO simply says that, "Discrimination against Jews may give rise to a Title VI violation when the discrimination is based on an individual’s race, color, or national origin."

Also: Is The Times suggesting that anti-Semitism is only about Judaism, the religion of the Jewish people? When the Nazis were ascendant in Europe, millions of Jews – secular and observant alike – were sent to concentration camps and ovens. Following World War II, hundreds of thousands of Jews – not all religious – were forced to flee Arab lands.

Identity is a puzzle – one we’re unlikely to solve anytime soon. For now, suffice to say that such terms as people, nation, tribe, ethnicity, and even race have fluid meanings.

An example: In 1939, when Bernard Lewis joined His Majesty’s Armed Forces, he was asked his race. He didn’t know what to say – until the presiding sergeant explained that there were only four choices: English, Scottish, Welsh, or Irish.

Sixty years later, established as a great historian, Professor Lewis would write that in America, "Every citizen, in addition to his US citizenship, has other identities, defined by race, by ethnic origin or, often, origins, and by his personal or ancestral religion."

At issue now is what in past centuries was called "the Jewish question." Should the government turn a blind eye to discrimination based on this identity? Or do Jews, like other minorities, deserve protection? President Trump’s decision, coupled with the defeat of Jeremy Corbyn, adds up to an encouraging week – at least if you happen to be an anti-anti-Semite.

British PM Boris Johnson’s New Conservative Government Pledges to Take Action Against Anti-Israel BDS Movement

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s new Conservative government will take action against the anti-Israel boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement, it was officially announced on Thursday.

“We will stop public institutions from imposing their own approach or views about international relations, through preventing boycotts, divestment or sanctions campaigns against foreign countries and those who trade with them,” the background briefing notes on the Queen’s Speech that was delivered on Thursday read.

“This will create a coherent approach to foreign relations from all public institutions, by ensuring that they do not go beyond the UK Government’s settled policy towards a foreign country,” the notes went on to say. “The UK Government is responsible for foreign relations and determining the best way to interact with its international neighbours.”

Such a policy would prevent “divisive behaviour that undermines community cohesion,” the notes pointed out. “There are concerns that such boycotts have legitimised antisemitism, such as Jewish films being censored and Jewish university societies being threatened with bans.”

In remarks in Parliament on Thursday, Johnson — fresh off his decisive victory over the Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour party in last week’s general election — said, “When it comes to standing by our friends…one innovation that this Queen’s Speech introduces…is that we will stop public bodies from taking it upon themselves to boycott goods from other countries, to develop their own pseudo foreign policy against a country that with nauseating frequency turns out to be Israel.”

Liar academic Juan Cole really upset at Jeffrey Goldberg for pointing out facts about Jews

Juan Cole, the twelfth rate academic whom I have shown to be a tendentious liar many, many times, is very upset at Jeffrey Goldberg:

Phil Weiss at Mondoweiss, the most lucid and informed voice on the American Jewish left doing journalism critical of right wing Zionism, reports on remarks of The Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg at a Jewish Community Center forum in Manhattan.

In Weiss’s telling, Goldberg argued to his audience that Israelis are like the Seminole indigenous people of Florida, and the Palestinians are “the cowboys.”

This framing of the issue is completely ahistorical and frankly ignorant, and is offensive on all sides.

It's worth reading the entire section that Weiss quoted from Goldberg, because it is quite accurate, which is why it bothers the serial liar Cole.

Many Palestinian leaders understand the conflict not as the conflict between the cowboys– the Jews– and the Indians– the Palestinians.

But the Jews are the Indians, and the Arabs, the Palestinians, the cowboys, in the following sense. What happened in the Middle East– this is not a political commentary about what should actually be done leading to a fair and equitable solution to the challenge here– but what happened here is the equivalent of the Seminoles sitting in Oklahoma or wherever they are today, scattered around the United States– Seminoles coming together and deciding that they’re going back to Florida. And going back in such numbers and telling the whites and blacks and Hispanics of Florida, Oh by the way, we’re home and we’d like a state, and we’d like to take over Florida.

The people of Florida would probably say to them, you haven’t been here in 200 years. This isn’t your home. And the Seminoles would say, Actually, it is our home. This is where our people are buried. This is the center of our religion, this is where we were expelled from.

That [discussion] doesn’t happen; and people need to understand that – what’s happened is, it’s really interesting from an analytical perspective. As Israel has become more and more powerful as a country, and every year it becomes more powerful, it becomes bigger, it becomes more militarily powerful, economically powerful, it’s lost more and more control of its own narrative. The narrative is of an indigenous people coming home to its homeland and to some degree, to a large degree, to some degree, willing to share that homeland or at least parts of that homeland with the people who moved in after. Right? But they lost total control of that narrative, because the people who were opposed to Israel’s existence are very very powerful and clever narrators as well.

In order to understand what’s going on historically you need to understand history…

It is completely natural that the people of Florida would say to the Seminoles who are walking back 200 years after the Trail of Tears, coming back to Florida, What the hell– what do you mean? You don’t live here, your father wasn’t here, your grandfather, your great grandmother, nobody was here, you can’t claim this as your own, but that’s because we don’t really understand and privilege historical memory, among other things.

Cole can't handle the truth, so he sputters. The next sentence in his article is that "Goldberg apparently can’t bring himself to say the word 'Palestinian,' as though all Arabic-speakers are indistinguishable." As you can see above, Goldberg used the word Palestinian and didn't use the word Arab. Cole apparently knows that his brain-dead followers won't bother clicking on the link that proves he cannot help making things up.

Cole then goes on an extended pseudo-history of Jews with cherry picked (and possibly made up) facts where he strenuously tries to say that Jews aren't from Palestine - he doesn't seem to subscribe to the Khazar myth but something close - and that Jews hardly ever controlled Palestine, and that Jews weren't interested in living there anyway.

As an example:

The Crusaders killed or expelled most remaining Jewish populations. From about 1100 until the early twentieth century there were virtually no Jews in Palestine. Oh, there were a handful here and there– a few Kabbalist mystics at Safad, retirees in Jerusalem. But I wrote a book about Napoleon Bonaparte’s invasion of the Middle East and the French report that they only found 3,000 Jews in geographic Palestine in 1799.

That's an interesting and counterfactual view. Jews were the majority in Palestine until the Muslim invasion - yes, the Arabs were colonialists, even though Cole falsely claims that most Palestinians have been there for millennia. (Research shows that the only truly indigenous Palestinians are the Christian community, and most of them were originally Jews.)

Since the Muslim invasion, the Jews that lived there went through an astonishing number of massacres and expulsions from both Christians and Muslims. Yet through it all, they kept coming back. Dozens of major rabbis kept immigrating with their students, often to be slaughtered again (with a few major earthquakes that also killed hundreds.)

This Wikipedia article fills in the gaping historic holes that Cole doesn't want you to know. The overwhelming conclusion is that Jews were always spiritually tied to their land despite it having very few ways of supporting them. This is the exact opposite to what Cole wants you to believe.

What about the 3000 Jews that Cole says he found out about? Well, his book on Napoleon says it - without a citation.

However, it was estimated that there were 4000-6000 Jews in Jerusalem alone in 1815, only 16 years later. This doesn't count Jews in Hebron, Safed, or Tiberias. Perhaps the French person Cole refers to, whoever that is, isn't so trustworthy.

Cole continues to lie:

The European Jews were brought to Palestine by British imperial policy during the early twentieth century heyday of colonialism, and by the rise of Fascism in Europe that drove out or killed millions of Jews. Because of the complications of the Holocaust, Jewish migration into Palestine is not exactly like the voluntary settler=colonialism of the Pieds Noire in Algeria,

Cole, the self described expert, apparently has never heard of the Perushim, the First Aliyah, the Second Aliyah. He thinks that somehow the British brought the Jews to Palestine, even though practically none of those were from Britain. He pretends that most Jews came to Palestine post-Holocaust not because they wanted to but that they were forced to. As someone who has looked up the Holocaust archives for my parents and relatives, I can tell him that the refugees filled out forms where they were offered where they would like to emigrate to. My parents chose America, they weren't forced to go to Palestine; one of my uncles and his mother chose Palestine.

In other words, Cole is a liar. Nothing new about that.

And by denying Jewish history including how fundamental Israel has always been to Jews and Judaism, Cole is proving that he is dabbling in antisemitism as well.

(h/t Dan, who reads Cole so I don't have to)

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.

Organizers Shocked That Bethlehem Christmas Tree Not Supposed To Have Bombs Underneath (PreOccupied Territory)

Our weekly column from the humor site PreOccupied Territory.

Check out their Facebook page.

Bethlehem, Palestinian Authority, December 19 - Nonplussed community and government officials expressed puzzlement and surprise today upon encountering the fact that the public display of yuletide symbols includes no traditional elements geared toward violent opposition to Jewish sovereignty.

Municipal and national leaders initially refused to believe a reporter who questioned whether bombs belonged underneath the large Christmas tree in Manger Square here in the town Christian tradition associates with the birth of Jesus. A brief flurry of internet research disabused the officials of their error, which led them to express again and again disbelief that no such practice exists.

"I could swear that's what the tree is for - I mean, what else do you stow under it? Non-explosive toys? Don't be ridiculous," stammered a confused Deputy Mayor Issa Fashla. "The Christmas tree has always been a symbol of Palestinian resistance to Zionist aggression."

"Next you're going to tell me the ball-like things you hang from the tree aren't hand grenades," challenged Palestinian Authority representative Fadikha Majnoun, referring to decorative baubles. "Wait, you're serious. They're not? No way. No way," he continued, interjecting a profanity into the phrase.

Ignorance of authentic Christmas traditions surrounding the ornamental tree stems in part from the rapid decline in the Christian population of Bethlehem under Palestinian rule, says analyst Rich Ewell. "There are only a few thousand left, whereas there were tens of thousands of Christians in the town when it was under Israeli rule" prior to the Oslo Accords of 1993 that granted Palestinians self-rule, he explained. "Muslim intimidation and mistrust have driven many Christians from the cradle of their faith, leaving a token presence there that dares not speak ill of the majority population or its official anti-Israel positions. They obviously haven't felt it was their place to inform the organizers that Christmas is a time of peace and goodwill, or at least haven't felt they could do so safely."

Discovery that traditional Christmas displays such as the tree or Nativity scenes contain no violent elements or messages of enmity toward Jews and Jewish sovereignty will not change official Palestinian plans, declared Fashla. "Let's get real," he stated. "Everything gets subordinated to the national struggle, especially the truth. You think I don't know it wasn't Yasser Arafat who established the custom of setting up a fir tree to mark the holiday? But some values are more important. Believe me, I know it was actually the Prophet Muhammad."

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.

12/19 Links Pt1: Palestinian terrorist leader's arrest highlights 'extensive overlap' between BDS, terrorism; Historic Palestine – An Anachronistic Term; Russia Feud Continues as 2nd El Al Plane Delayed in Moscow Airport

From Ian:

Palestinian terrorist leader's arrest highlights 'extensive overlap' between BDS, terrorism

The announcement on Wednesday by Israel’s Shin Bet security agency that it has arrested some 50 members of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) capped off a monthslong targeting of the terror group for its role in the deadly terror attack on Aug. 23 that killed an Israeli teenager hiking with her father and brother.

Rina Shnerb, 17, died as a result of an explosion near the town of Dolev in Samaria; her brother, Dvir Shnerb, 19, was injured, along with their father, 46-year-old Rabbi Eitan Shnerb. According to Israeli reports, the explosive device included 3 kilograms (6.6 pounds) of explosive material, making it an "unusually powerful bomb."

The arrests coincidentally provide evidence of further links between the PFLP and the boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement. Among those arrested by the Shin Bet include Khalida Jarrar, 56, who the Israeli security service noted was the head of the terror group’s operations in the West Bank. Until recently, Jarrar also served as the vice chairperson, director and board member of the BDS organization Addameer.

"With regard to Jarrar, this is really the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the BDS/terror connection," said Marc Greendorfer, president of the Zachor Legal Institute and author of The New Anti-Semites: The Radicalization Mechanism of the BDS Movement and the Delegitimization Campaign Against Israel.

"Jarrar is simply one example of the extensive overlaps between terror organization leadership and BDS, going all the way to the top, where the organizing and operational leadership of BDS [the BDS National Committee, or BNC] includes a coalition of groups designated as foreign terror organizations by the United States and other countries," Greendorfer told JNS.

Last February, Israel’s Strategic Affairs Ministry released a report titled Terrorists in Suits that found that Hamas and PFLP activists had infiltrated organizations that call for boycotts on, divestment from, and sanctions on Israel.

The report, which examined 13 international BDS organizations, discovered that senior positions were held by 30 terror activists – 20 of whom who had actually spent time in prison for their crimes, including murder.

PMW: It's official. It's a Palestinian "value" to murder Israeli men on their way to prayer. It depends on who you kill.

Two Israelis, Rabbi Nehemiah Lavi and Aharon Bennett, were stabbed to death in October 2015 by 19-year-old Palestinian terrorist Muhannad Halabi. The terrorist attacked the Bennett family on their way to pray at the Western Wall in Jerusalem. Halabi murdered the father and another man, and also stabbed and seriously wounded Bennett’s wife, Adele and their 2-year-old son.

In the eyes of senior Fatah official Abbas Zaki, murderer Muhannad Halabi was following Palestinian “values,” when he only killed the father and “spared” the mother and the son. Zaki’s claim is false on two accounts.

1. PA ideology does not limit its support for murder to Israeli/Jewish men but supports murder of women and children as well.
2. Murderer Halabi did in fact try to murder the mother and the son, however they miraculously survived with stab wounds.

Although the PA’s policy of promoting and rewarding the murder of Israeli men, women, and children has been documented thousands of times by Palestinian Media Watch, it is unusual for a senior Palestinian leader to admit in front of cameras that murdering a rabbi is a Palestinian “value” because the murderer did not also kill his wife and infant child: “We don’t kill people as we please. There are values, customs.”

It depends on who you kill. Murdering a man in front of his wife and 2-year-old son, and not killing the wife and son, shows Palestinian “values,” says Fatah leader Abbas Zaki

Read more about this here: https://t.co/lRNgJYW7ro pic.twitter.com/9LzVbELtw9
— Pal Media Watch (@palwatch) December 19, 2019

Today the Arab League held an emergency meeting to discuss reactions to Brazil's opening up a trade office in Jerusalem and their announced intentions to open an embassy there.

The draft resolution from the meeting shows that no real moves have been agreed upon.

The statement condemns the opening of the trade office, calls it illegal, it said it would "seriously harm Arab-Brazilian political, economic and diplomatic interests," it called on member states to summon their respective ambassadors from Brazil, and similar pronouncements.

It did not call for any concrete action, like closing embassies in Brazil or cutting off relations.

Even though very few nations have opened up embassies in Jerusalem, each one makes it that much easier for the next. And Brazil has said it will try to convince other South American countries to follow its lead.

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.

Jewish Studies academic writes about the Title VI Executive Order. Apparently, he never actually read it.

Michael Zank is a College of Arts & Sciences professor of religion and director of the Elie Wiesel Center for Jewish Studies at Boston University.

Which makes the op-ed he wrote for the BU newspaper attacking the Executive Order on Combating Antisemitism all the more perplexing.

The article's first sentence already shows that facts are not too important to Professor Zank, an avowed expert on Jewish studies:

Most of us think of Judaism as a religion, rather than a “race, color, or national origin.”

Really? Because Jews and non-Jews have traditionally thought of Jews as a people and a nation. Jewish prayers and the Jewish scripture itself never refers to Jews as a religion but usually as a people (Am Yisrael), sometimes a nation. A third of Jews born after 1980 identify themselves as Jews but also as having no religion. While some clearly do think of Judaism as merely a religion, there is no support for the assertion that most of us do.

Zank then goes into his analysis of the EO itself:

The Executive Order on Anti-Semitism does not distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate criticism of Israel. Omitting this sentence from the policy directive opens the door to civil rights proceedings being triggered by entirely legitimate Israel-critical protests on campus.

The EO doesn't mention the words Israel or Zionism at all. Saying there there is an "omission" of any sentence saying that legitimate criticism of Israel is OK makes no sense when the topic is not directly addressed to begin with.

The EO does refer to the IHRA definition, which says explicitly that legitimate criticism of Israel isn't antisemitic. So how did Zank come to the conclusion that the EO opens to door to stopping legitimate anti-Israel speech? Nothing at all supports that conclusion.

Furthermore, the EO states explicitly that it does not affect existing free speech protections under the First Amendment. Zank claims it does.

It appears he didn't actually read the text of the EO and wrote this entire article based on news reports. This is hardly what one would expect from an academic.

He goes on:

But the executive order neither combats white supremacism nor offers law enforcement a useful tool to fight bigotry in its many forms.

Title VI's main text - which Zank quotes - says it "prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin." Doesn't that mean it already combats white supremacism?

The IHRA definition of antisemitism referred to in the EO - which Zank quotes - says "Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews." Doesn't that cover white supremacism? Does Zank think that IHRA only applies to left-wing antisemitism and not all antisemitism?

And finally, what does Title VI have to do with law enforcement?

Title VI is not about speech, it is about discrimination. The EO does not change that. Zank's entire thesis that it chills free speech is not supported by a single proof in his article.

And if Zank or other critics are afraid that it chills free speech, then they should be equally concerned that the existing Title VI does the same about free speech that can be considered racist or xenophobic. Yet for the past fifty years, no one has seemed concerned about the free speech implications of Title VI until now.

One must wonder why.

This entire article is based on faulty premises and incorrect assumptions. It is astonishing that an academic can write something so indefensible.

I asked Zank on Twitter to comment on my questions, and I commented on the article itself as well. 24 hours later he has still not responded.

I suspect, because he can't.

My main test for intellectual honesty is when people can admit they are wrong. Academics should be held to a higher standard than even journalists. But this is not the way it usually works - academics can spout their own ideas with impunity because so few people hold them to account.

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.

Vic Rosenthal's Weekly Column

The nightmarish prospect of a third election – and worse, the campaign for the third election, will become a reality for Israelis in the next few months, culminating at the ballot boxes on March 2^nd. There are several ways in which the outcome could be disastrous, and one way in which it could present a path forward out of the political swamp into which Israel has descended in the past few years, the almost-gridlock that has kept us from solving many long-standing problems.

I have to begin by talking about Binyamin Netanyahu. In my opinion, he is one of Israel’s greatest Prime Ministers, supremely competent and qualified to continue in his job – but mortally wounded, taken down by enemies who exploited his tragic flaws (we all have them) and a broken constitutional structure which does not properly provide for the separation of powers with appropriate checks and balances.

What happened to Netanyahu, destroyed by a multi-year effort to stick criminal charges to him (and to his wife, whose own personal weaknesses didn’t help), an interminable investigation accompanied by a daily barrage of leaks and innuendos gleefully reported in an almost uniformly hostile media, must never be allowed to happen again.

The fact that Netanyahu managed to accomplish anything at all in his last three years as PM – and actually he accomplished quite a lot – despite the harassment tells much about his competence. But this is no way to run a country. And no less important, the degree to which the police and state prosecutor’s office have been dragged into politics sets a dangerous precedent.

I don’t want to discuss the charges against him in detail. Some of them appear justified, although perhaps not rising to what would be called “impeachable offenses” in America; others are based on interpretations of the law that may be strained or novel. Some things were done to witnesses to force them to testify against him that were clearly improper, even criminal themselves. But whatever happens – if he goes to trial and is convicted or exonerated, or if he receives a pardon from the Knesset – he is finished in politics.

I don’t know if he will accept this, or if he will fight to the death. Probably the latter, which will add to the damage that has already been done to the country. I would like to see him get a deal which would allow him to step down in return for a pardon. But Bibi is a tragic hero, and that’s not what tragic heroes do.

Netanyahu’s Likud party will now see a primary election, in which his main opponent is Gideon Sa’ar. It’s too early to tell, but I am hoping that Sa’ar will defeat Netanyahu for the leadership of the party and the candidacy for Prime Minister. I know Bibi has been treated unjustly, and it hurts me to take a stand against him. It is to some extent a betrayal. But the nation is more important than he is.

I mentioned possible outcomes. The best one is that Gideon Sa’ar defeats Netanyahu in the primary, and gets enough seats on March 2 to form a stable government. Sa’ar is ideologically right-wing, and has promised that as PM he would extend Israeli law to the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria, and to the Jordan Valley (the Left in Israel and America will say that he wants to “annex the West Bank”, but that is wrong).

He would also reform the judicial system in such a way as to improve the balance of powers between the Supreme Court, the Prime Minister, and the Knesset; and he would split up the job of the Legal Advisor to the Government, which now encompasses the functions of Attorney General, Chief Prosecutor, and others. One of the objectives of this reform would be to prevent abuses such as have occurred in the prosecution of Netanyahu.

But there’s more at stake than protecting the PM. The combination of the Supreme Court and the Legal Advisor have arrogated to themselves far too much power. Both are essentially appointed by the legal establishment (the PM appoints the Legal Advisor, but from a short list provided by the Bar Association), and they have stymied important initiatives of the Knesset and the government, like the arrangements to develop Israel’s natural gas reserves and attempts to deport illegal migrants.

If the opposition Blue and White Party were to form the government, that would count as a bad outcome. Blue and White’s leaders are four politicians who have no unifying ideology except a desire to replace Netanyahu. They range from the right-wing Moshe Ya’alon to the left-leaning Yair Lapid. They dislike each other, and their party has already had to work very hard to hide the sharp disagreements between them. If they did succeed in forming a government, it would either have to depend on the support of the Arab parties – leaving them open to blackmail on security issues – or somehow get the “ultra-Orthodox” Haredi parties to sit with Yair Lapid, or Avigdor Lieberman, or the extreme leftists. None of this is a recipe for stability.

A not-as-bad-but-still-not-good outcome would be if Netanyahu succeeded to hold onto the leadership of his party and managed to form a government. It would probably have a very small majority in the Knesset, making it unstable, and Netanyahu would remain preoccupied with getting a pardon from the Knesset above all. He would not be able to reform a judicial system that was prosecuting him.

Davka [just because of this], Netanyahu must be replaced. Only a new right-wing Prime Minister who is not tangled up in the legal system can turn that system upside down, as needs to be done.

Israel needs a government that can act confidently and with one voice to take advantage of the opportunities provided by a pro-Israel administration in the US, something which will not continue forever (it may need to deal with an anti-Israel one, which is a distinct possibility judging by the contenders for the Democratic nomination).

Many people have said that a third election would be no more decisive than the first two, and that the instability will just continue. But if Likud members will put their (understandable) personal loyalty to Netanyahu aside and see what is actually at stake here, it might finally break us out of the paralysis that his gripped the country in recent years.

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.

Stop ignoring black antisemitism! Elected black officials double down on antisemitic rant by school board member (update)

What the hell is going on in Jersey City?

Yesterday and this morning, the headlines were about Joan Terrell-Paige, an elected member of the Jersey City Board of Education, who appeared to condone the murder of two religious Jews in Jersey City:

A member of the Jersey City Board of Education unleashed an anti-Semitic, conspiracy-laden Facebook rant appearing to justify the shooting rampage there that left a cop and three hostages in a Jewish market dead.

“Where was all this faith and hope when Black homeowners were threatened, intimidated, and harassed by I WANT TO BUY YOUR HOUSE brutes of the jewish community?” Joan Terrell Paige began her screed, which was apparently deleted but captured by the Reagan Battalion conservative outlet.

“They brazenly came on the property of Ward F Black homeowners and waved bags of money,” Paige continued.

“If we are going to tell a narrative it should begin with TRUTH not more cover up of the truth,” wrote Paige. “Mr. Anderson and Ms. Graham went directly to the kosher supermarket. I believe they knew they would come out in body bags.

“What is the message they were sending?” she continued. “Are we brave enough to explore the answer to their message? Are we brave enough to stop the assault on the Black communities in America?”

The bizarre screed included insinuations that Jews sell body parts and threaten blacks to sell their houses to them or else they will bring in prostitutes and drug dealers, and somehow eliminated community gardens.

While the (Jewish) mayor of Jersey City condemned the statement, the Hudson County Democratic Black Caucus - while pretending to want dialogue with the Jewish community - ended up agreeing with the content - not the tone - of Terrell-Paige. This wasn't the drunken ramblings of an individual but an official press release:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, December 18, 2019

Hudson County Democratic Black Caucus Issues Statement on Comments by School Board Official Joan Terrell-Paige

The Hudson County Democratic Black Caucus does not condone hatred towards any group. The actions taken by the two individuals on December 10, 2019 were not reflective of our community. While we do not agree with the delivery of the statement made by Ms. Terrell-Paige, we believe that her statement has heightened awareness around issues that must be addressed and should be a topic of a larger conversation by two communities that have already and must always continue to coexist harmoniously. We have begun taking steps to reach out to leaders in the community to work through these pressing issues and feelings in a peaceful and productive way.

Thank you,
Senator Sandra Cunningham
Assemblywoman Angela V. McKnight
Freeholder Jerry Walker
Councilwoman at Large Joyce Watterman
Councilwoman Denise Ridley (Ward A)
Councilman Jermaine Robinson (Ward F)

In other words, the antisemite has a lot of valuable things to say about Jews.

Instead of denouncing antisemitism, this caucus is doubling down.

The Democratic Black Caucus statement on the murders themselves - written the day afterwards - didn't even acknowledge that anyone besides the police officer were killed:

Share. Share. Share.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2019

HUDSON COUNTY BLACK DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS ISSUES STATEMENT ON JERSEY CITY SHOOTINGS

A tragedy has happened in our community and our hearts are heavy. We stand strong today united as a caucus in our heartfelt sympathy for the police officers who responded to yesterday’s shooting incidents. We will not forget the important role that the police has played and the lives that were loss.

Our prayers and condolences go out to the families of the police officers and we stand with the families in the community who have been affected during this tragic time.

Senator Sandra Cunningham
Assemblywoman Angela V. McKnight
Freeholder Jerry Walker
Councilwoman at Large Joyce Watterman
Councilwoman Denise Ridley (Ward A)
Councilman Jermaine Robinson (Ward F)

No condolences for the families of three of the victims, who they knew damn well were all in the kosher grocery. Clearly, they do not consider Jews to be part of the community - or even to have lives worth mourning or mentioning.

There is a problem with black antisemitism in America. As much as we want to believe that the Jersey City black community is disgusted by the cold blooded executions in their midst, there is plenty of this official antisemitism from the actual leaders of the black community there.

It isn't only people who follow Farrakhan. This goes far deeper and is just as dangerous.

Where are the black leaders who will condemn these sickening press releases by elected officials and the antisemitic rant by a seventh?

Only a few miles from Jersey City, where there is a large Jewish community, the NAACP Passaic Branch Facebook page includes this pure antisemitism posted Wednesday:

And they posted this Tuesday:

Finally, just because a Black person, group, or Black organization condemns Jews for the horrendous acts they’ve committed and continue to commit against Black people doesn’t make that person or organization Anti-Semitic and an Anti-Semite. As I asserted and proven here, in order to be correctly classified as an Anti-Semite or Anti-Semitic, one must be anti all of those various peoples whose primary language is a Semitic language. You cannot exclude any of those various people whose primary language is a Semitic language. You must include all of them in order to be anti-Semitic -End of discussion. P.S. For The Record Jeffrey Dye Or The Passaic NAACP Don't Speak A Semitic Language So Please Stop Putting That ( "Propaganda" ) False Claim On Us.

Black antisemitism is almost always swept under the rug. Major media that reported on Joan Terrell-Paige ignored her most antisemitic statements. Just as the liberal media doesn't like to report on Arab antisemitism for fear of being labeled Islamophobes, they really want to stay away from reporting about black antisemitism for fear of being labeled racists.

And if it is not discussed, it cannot be fought.

I found one great black speaker on the topic of antisemitism, apparently speaking at a synagogue. (UPDATE: This is Larry Elder.)

Unfortunately, he seems to be an exception, based on what I can find.

And as long as black leaders don't speak out against antisemitism in all its forms, we will be having more Jersey Citys.

(h/t WoMenFightAntisemitism)

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.