Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Saturday, December 24, 2016

The UN is consistent (cartoon)

I tweeted this cartoon on Friday, changing the caption from the original WWI-era version to one that seems highly appropriate today.

I didn't caption the pile of bodies "Syria" which would be highly appropriate, as it is conceivable that Israeli housing in "settlements" literally could be seen from a high enough vantage point in Syria.

But the fact is that the UN has minimized dozens of far deadlier conflicts while remaining fixated on Israel for decades, so Syria is perhaps the most egregious example of how the UN's priorities are screwed up, it is far from the only one.

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.

12/24 Links: Trump on UN Anti-Israel Vote: 'Things Will Be Different After Jan. 20'; Five Ways Trump Could Avenge the Anti-Israel UN Vote

From Ian:

Obama’s Betrayal

Today’s resolution brands the Jewish presence in any part of the West Bank or in parts of Jerusalem that were occupied by Jordan from 1949 to 1967 as illegal. And it makes the hundreds of thousands of Jews who live in those parts of the ancient Jewish homeland international outlaws. The excuse given by the U.S. was that increased building in the territories and Jerusalem is endangering the chances of a two-state solution. But, as I noted yesterday when the vote on the resolution was postponed, this is a canard. The reason why a two-state solution has not been implemented to date is because the Palestinians have repeatedly refused offers of statehood even when such offers would put them in possession of almost all of the West Bank and a share of Jerusalem. The building of more homes in places even Obama admitted that Israel would keep in the event of a peace treaty is no obstacle to peace if the Palestinians wanted a state. Rather than encourage peace, this vote will merely encourage more Palestinian intransigence and their continued refusal to negotiate directly with Israel. It will also accelerate support for efforts to wage economic war on Israel via the BDS movement.
This lame duck stab in the back of America’s only democratic ally in the Middle East should only further encourage President-elect Donald Trump to make good on his promise to move the U.S. embassy to Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and let the world know that the new administration not only repudiates his predecessor’s betrayal but that the alliance is as strong as ever.
That will have to wait until January 20th and Obama’s exit from the White House. In the meantime, this is a moment for Democratic friends of Israel to apologize for eight years of excusing and rationalizing Obama’s growing hostility to the Jewish state. Though some will disingenuously argue that the president is trying to save Israel from itself, today’s vote must be seen for what it is. Freed of political constraints, the president finally showed his true colors by throwing Israel to the wolves at a United Nations where anti-Semitism and anti-Israel bias is integral to the culture of the world body.
This is a moment when those who have been in denial about the harm the president has done to the U.S.-Israel alliance should admit their mistake. But for the pro-Israel community as a whole, a bipartisan coalition of Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, this is a moment of anger that will hopefully be followed by a determination to work with the next president to repair the grave damage Obama has caused.

Trump on UN Anti-Israel Vote: 'Things Will Be Different After Jan. 20'

President-elect Donald Trump o the UN Security Council’s passage of an anti-Israel resolution Friday — thanks to U.S. abstention by President Barack Obama — by Tweeting: “As to the U.N., things will be different after Jan. 20th.”
It was not immediately apparent what Trump meant, but senior members of Congress — including several in the Senate — have called openly for defunding the United Nations in response to the vote, which declares Israeli settlements illegal.
The vote, which Israel argues mistakes both historical fact and international law, breaks with five decades of precedent in U.S. policy. The Obama administration had vetoed an earlier resolution substantially similar to the one that it allowed to pass.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) issued a statement in advance of the vote:
As the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I oversee the United States assistance to the United Nations. The United States is currently responsible for approximately 22 percent of the United Nations total budget.
If the United Nations moves forward with the ill-conceived resolution, I will work to form a bipartisan coalition to suspend or significantly reduce United States assistance to the United Nations.
Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) agreed, in a statement after the vote: “The United States provides considerable financial assistance to the United Nations and Security Council members. The UN and nations supporting this resolution have now imperiled all forms of U.S. assistance. I look forward to working with President-elect Trump and members of both parties in Congress to decide what the consequences for this action will be.”

YES: Trump BLASTS Obama's Anti-Israel Resolution: Change Is Coming To The UN

Late on Friday, the Obama administration demonstrated before the world just how morally perverse they are, and why so many Americans can’t wait for their benighted perspective on foreign policy to become a relic of the past. With Obama’s silent urging and acquiescence, the United Nations passed a resolution essentially declaring the holiest spot in Judaism, the Temple Mount, sovereign Muslim territory, and determining that all Jews living outside of pre-1967 lines are illegal residents on sovereign Muslim territory. Obama did this on behalf of a unity government comprised of three terrorist groups – Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the Palestinian Authority – and to the cheers of terror-sponsors like Iran.
Meanwhile, the Obama administration spoke words of empty nonsense as the Russian-backed Syrian regime continued its slaughter of hundreds of thousands just to Israel’s northeast.
Obama’s presidency has been a blot on the moral record of the United States with regard to world affairs, but his parting shot at Israel demonstrates his total animus for the Jewish state as a whole and his warmth toward the world’s leading terror-sponsors in Iran.
Thankfully, someone new arrives on January 20.
President-elect Donald Trump attempted stop the Obama UN atrocity before it began by publicly urging a veto, then working behind the scenes to scuttle Egypt’s sponsorship of the draft resolution. Obama then worked with the Palestinians to push it through with help from socialist dictatorship Venezuela and Senegal, which is currently threatening to invade Gambia.

Chanukah Night 1/Christmas Eve: The YidLife Crisis Guide to the Holiday Classics

Normally I wouldn't open the annual series of Chanukah videos with something like this, but the coincidence of Chanukah and Christmas makes this necessary for the first night.

The YidLife Crisis YouTube channel is hilarious, and quite profane. Do not watch if you are easily offended.

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.

12/23 Links Pt2: Obama lets anti-settlement resolution pass at UN Security Council At the U.N., Only Israel Is an ‘Occupying Power’

From Ian:

Choosing not to veto, Obama lets anti-settlement resolution pass at UN Security Council

In a stunning departure from its policy over the last eight years, the Obama administration abstained from voting on a United Nations Security Council resolution Friday that demands an immediate halt to all Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, enabling the measure to pass.
The resolution was approved with 14 member states voting in favor, none voting against, and one abstention — the United States.
The text calls on all states “to distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967” — language that Israel fears will lead to a surge in boycott and sanctions efforts, and that an Israeli official warned would provide “a tailwind for terror.”
Speaking at the Security Council after the vote, US Ambassador Samantha Power said the vote underlined the Council’s long-standing position that “the settlements have no legality.” She claimed the US position was “fully in line with the bipartisan history” of how US presidents have approached the issue for decades.
Still, she said “this vote for us was not straightforward” because Israel “has been treated differently” by the United Nations.
Originally initiated by Egypt, the resolution was co-sponsored by New Zealand, Malaysia, Venezuela and Senegal, who stepped in a day after Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sissi withdrew the measure amid pressure from Israel and President-elect Donald Trump.

Full text of UNSC resolution, approved Dec. 23, demanding Israel stop all settlement activity

Alan M. Dershowitz: Trump was Right to Stop Obama from Tying his Hands on Israel

The reason for this is that a Security Council resolution declaring the 1967 border[sic] to be sacrosanct and any building behind those boarders to be illegal would make it impossible for Palestinian leaders to accept less in a negotiation. Moreover, the passage of such a resolution would disincentivize the Palestinians from accepting Israel Prime Minister Netanyahu's invitation to sit down and negotiate with no preconditions. Any such negotiations would require painful sacrifices on both sides if a resolution were to be reached. And a Security Council resolution siding with the Palestinians would give the Palestinians the false hope that they could get a state through the United Nations without having to make painful sacrifices.
President Obama's lame duck attempt to tie the hands of his successor is both counterproductive to peace and undemocratic in nature. The lame duck period of an outgoing president is a time when our system of checks and balances is effectively suspended. The outgoing president does not have to listen to Congress or the people. He can selfishly try to burnish his personal legacy at the expense of our national and international interests. He can try to even personal scores and act on pique. That is what seems to be happening here. Congress does not support this resolution; the American people do not support this resolution; no Israeli leader – from the left, to the center, to the right – supports this resolution. Even some members of Obama's own administration do not support this resolution. But Obama is determined – after 8 years of frustration and failure in bringing together the Israelis and Palestinians – to leave his mark on the mid-East peace process. But if he manages to push this resolution through, his mark may well be the end of any realistic prospect for a negotiated peace.
One would think that Obama would have learned from his past mistakes in the mid-East. He has alienated the Saudis, the Egyptians, the Jordanians, the Emirates and other allies by his actions and inactions with regard to Iran, Syria, Egypt and Iraq. Everything he has touched has turned to sand.
Now, in his waning days, he wants to make trouble for his successor. He should be stopped in the name of peace, democracy and basic decency.
But it now appears that Obama will not be stopped. Four temporary Security Council members have decided to push the resolution to a vote now. It is difficult to believe that they would have done so without the implicit support of the United States. Stay tuned.

Eugene Kontorovich and Penny Grunseid: At the U.N., Only Israel Is an ‘Occupying Power’

The United Nations began its annual session this week, and Israel will be prominent on the agenda. Many fear the Security Council may consider a resolution setting definite territorial parameters, and a deadline, for the creation of a Palestinian state.
President Obama has hinted that in the final months of his term, he may reverse the traditional U.S. policy of vetoing such resolutions. The General Assembly, meanwhile, is likely to act as the chorus in this drama, reciting its yearly litany of resolutions criticizing Israel.
If Mr. Obama is seeking to leave his mark on the Israeli-Arab conflict—and outside the negotiated peace process that began in Oslo—there is no worse place to do it than the U.N. New research we have conducted shows that the U.N.’s focus on Israel not only undermines the organization’s legitimacy regarding the Jewish state. It also has apparently made the U.N. blind to the world’s many situations of occupation and settlements.
Our research shows that the U.N. uses an entirely different rhetoric and set of legal concepts when dealing with Israel compared with situations of occupation or settlements world-wide. For example, Israel is referred to as the “Occupying Power” 530 times in General Assembly resolutions. Yet in seven major instances of past or present prolonged military occupation—Indonesia in East Timor, Turkey in northern Cyprus, Russia in areas of Georgia, Morocco in Western Sahara, Vietnam in Cambodia, Armenia in areas of Azerbaijan, and Russia in Ukraine’s Crimea—the number is zero. The U.N. has not called any of these countries an “Occupying Power.” Not even once.
It gets worse. Since 1967, General Assembly resolutions have referred to Israeli-held territories as “occupied” 2,342 times, while the territories mentioned above are referred to as “occupied” a mere 16 times combined. The term appears in 90% of resolutions dealing with Israel, and only in 14% of the much smaller number of resolutions dealing with the all the other situations, a difference that vastly surpasses the threshold of statistical significance. Similarly, Security Council resolutions refer to the disputed territories in the Israeli-Arab conflict as “occupied” 31 times, but only a total of five times in reference to all seven other conflicts combined.

6 Things You Need To Know About The UN's Israel-Hatred

A United Nations resolution drafted by Egypt and the Palestinians demanding that Israel end its development of settlements in "occupied territories" was postponed on Thursday after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanhahu joined by President-elect Donald Trump called on President Obama to veto the measure.
"Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi told Egypt's U.N. mission to postpone the vote, which would have forced U.S. President Barack Obama to decide whether to shield Israel with a veto or, by abstaining, to register criticism of the building on occupied land that the Palestinians want for a state, diplomats said," reports Reuters.
The postponed resolution is yet another example from a long list of UN measures targeting Israel. In fact, the UN Human Rights Council has attacked Israel more than any other country — and in its first eight years of existence, more than every other country combined. Below are six facts about the UN's biased campaign against Israel.
1. The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) dedicated 56 of its first 103 resolutions to criticizing Israel. Just how disproportionately and unfairly focused is the UN on Israel? The UNHRC aimed more than half of its first 103 resolutions at Israel. The reason for the obsession and gross bias against Israel is in large part because of the heavy influence of Islamist countries on the council committed to Israel's destruction.
2. Between 2006 and 2014, the UNHRC’s devoted 33% of its special sessions to condemning Israel. In the first eight years of its existence, the UNHRC spent far more time criticizing Israel than any other country. From 2006 to 2014, an egregious 33% of its special sessions supposedly addressing emergency human rights situations were aimed at Israel. During that time only the human rights atrocities in Sudan, Libya, and the Ivory Coast only received 4.7% of the UN's attention each.
3. In that same period, the UN never held a single session on Saudi Arabia, China, or Russia. While it repeatedly condemned Israel, devoting a third of its time to doing so, in the first 8 years after its founding the UN did not hold a single special session about the overt human rights violations occurring regularly in Saudi Arabia, China, or Russia.
4. In 2016, the UN issued more resolutions against Israel than North Korea and Syria combined. Another egregious example of the UN's failure to recognize true human rights atrocities while targeting Israel: In 2016, while the UN issued five resolutions against Israel, it only issued one such rebuke of North Korea and one against Syria, despite the Syrian government’s genocide of its own people resulting in thousands dead.
5. The UN has created committees specifically designed to target Israel. In a 2014 article, Touro Institute on Human Rights director Anne Bayefsky provided a few examples of the committees created by the UN that were effectively designed to decry Israel, including, "the UN Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People; the UN Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People; the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories; the UN Division for Palestinian Rights, and the UN Information System on the Question of Palestine."
6. Even the UN Secretary-General has admitted that the UN treats Israel with "bias" and "discrimination." During a meeting with students at a Model UN program in Jerusalem in 2013, Ban Ki-Moon, the current UN Secretary-General, admitted that Israel faces "bias" and "discrimination" at the UN.

The anti-Israel resolution passes. Here's what it says.

The US abstained on the latest UNSC anti-Israel resolution, allowing it to pass.

Here's what it says, highlighting some problematic sections:

The Security Council,

Reaffirming its relevant resolutions, including resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973), 446 (1979), 452 (1979), 465 (1980), 476 (1980), 478 (1980), 1397 (2002), 1515 (2003), and 1850 (2008),

Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and reaffirming, inter alia, the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force,
Except for Russia, and Turkey, and Morocco, and China, and....

Reaffirming the obligation of Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, and recalling the advisory opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice,

Condemning all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, including, inter alia, the construction and expansion of settlements, transfer of Israeli settlers, confiscation of land, demolition of homes and displacement of Palestinian civilians, in violation of international humanitarian law and relevant resolutions,
The human right to live in your ancestral lands is denied to only one people.

Expressing grave concern that continuing Israeli settlement activities are dangerously imperilling the viability of the two-State solution based on the 1967 lines,
Making the assumption that a two-state solution must be based on arbitrary lines and not through negotiations.

Recalling the obligation under the Quartet Roadmap, endorsed by its resolution 1515 (2003), for a freeze by Israel of all settlement activity, including “natural growth”, and the dismantlement of all settlement outposts erected since March 2001,
While Palestinians were free to send suicide bombers to all of Israel without a peep of protest by this august organization.

Recalling also the obligation under the Quartet roadmap for the Palestinian Authority Security Forces to maintain effective operations aimed at confronting all those engaged in terror and dismantling terrorist capabilities, including the confiscation of illegal weapons,
Even though they are the ones who encourage such actions.

Condemning all acts of violence against civilians, including acts of terror, as well as all acts of provocation, incitement and destruction,
This is what makes it "even handed" so the US could abstain.

Reiterating its vision of a region where two democratic States, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace within secure and recognized borders,
Which contradicts the "1967 lines" paragraph.

Stressing that the status quo is not sustainable and that significant steps, consistent with the transition contemplated by prior agreements, are urgently needed in order to (i) stabilize the situation and to reverse negative trends on the ground, which are steadily eroding the two-State solution and entrenching a one-State reality, and (ii) to create the conditions for successful final status negotiations and for advancing the two-State solution through those negotiations and on the ground,
There is literally nothing making a two-state solution any further today than it was in 2001, except the palestinian decision to stop negotiating and to let the UN impose what it wants by fiat.

1. Reaffirms that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace;
Except in 1967 not one person called it "Palestinian territory." An inconvenient fact.

2. Reiterates its demand that Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and that it fully respect all of its legal obligations in this regard;

The US is now acceding to the maximalist Arab demands that Judaism's holiest sites should be under Muslim control.

3. Underlines that it will not recognize any changes to the 4 June 1967 lines, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties through negotiations;
Lines that were meant to be temporary since 1949.

4. Stresses that the cessation of all Israeli settlement activities is essential for salvaging the two-State solution, and calls for affirmative steps to be taken immediately to reverse the negative trends on the ground that are imperilling the two-State solution;
How many lies can be piled on?

5. Calls upon all States, bearing in mind paragraph 1 of this resolution, to distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967;
In other words: Internationally imposed BDS.

6. Calls for immediate steps to prevent all acts of violence against civilians, including acts of terror, as well as all acts of provocation and destruction, calls for accountability in this regard, and calls for compliance with obligations under international law for the strengthening of ongoing efforts to combat terrorism, including through existing security coordination, and to clearly condemn all acts of terrorism;

The Arab states consider this to only apply to Israel, and the UN itself cannot define terrorism to include murdering Jews.

7. Calls upon both parties to act on the basis of international law, including international humanitarian law, and their previous agreements and obligations, to observe calm and restraint, and to refrain from provocative actions, incitement and inflammatory rhetoric, with the aim, inter alia, of de-escalating the situation on the ground, rebuilding trust and confidence, demonstrating through policies and actions a genuine commitment to the two-State solution, and creating the conditions necessary for promoting peace;

Yes, Hanan Ashrawi and Mahmoud Abbas, pretty please don't say that Jews drink the blood of Palestinians, or else...well, nothing. OK?

8. Calls upon all parties to continue, in the interest of the promotion of peace and security, to exert collective efforts to launch credible negotiations on all final status issues in the Middle East peace process and within the time frame specified by the Quartet in its statement of 21 September 2010;
What incentive does Abbas have to negotiate when the UN just handed him everything without his having to promise a thing?

9. Urges in this regard the intensification and acceleration of international and regional diplomatic efforts and support aimed at achieving, without delay a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East on the basis of the relevant United Nations resolutions, the Madrid terms of reference, including the principle of land for peace, the Arab Peace Initiative and the Quartet Roadmap and an end to the Israeli occupation that began in 1967; and underscores in this regard the importance of the ongoing efforts to advance the Arab Peace Initiative, the initiative of France for the convening of an international peace conference, the recent efforts of the Quartet, as well as the efforts of Egypt and the Russian Federation;

Yes, international efforts are so effective in pressuring "both sides" to compromise.

10. Confirms its determination to support the parties throughout the negotiations and in the implementation of an agreement;

Look how great this support is!

11. Reaffirms its determination to examine practical ways and means to secure the full implementation of its relevant resolutions;

12. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Council every three months on the implementation of the provisions of the present resolution;

13. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

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.

Universities and Jews don't mix

From The Daily Telegraph:

Some of Britain's leading universities are becoming no-go zones for Jewish students because anti-Semitism is so rife, the first ever higher education adjudicator has warned.

Baroness Ruth Deech, a cross-bench peer who formerly held the highest office dealing with student complaints, said that institutions may be failing to combat hatred against Jews as they “afraid of offending” their potential benefactors from Gulf states.

Her comments come after a series of high profile incidents at top universities where Jewish students claim they were verbally abused or physically attacked. The academic community is at the forefront of calls to boycott Israel.

In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, Baroness Deech said that the extreme levels of hostility towards Israel at universities across the country can at times go so far as to equate to anti-Semitism.

“Many universities are in receipt of or are chasing very large donations from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states and so on, and maybe they are frightened of offending them,” she said. “I don’t know why they aren’t doing anything about it, it really is a bad situation.”

Baroness Deech, a former senior proctor at Oxford University and Principal of St Anne's College, said that a handful of universities are now gaining reputations as institutions where Jews are unwelcome.

“Amongst Jewish students, there is gradually a feeling that there are certain universities that you should avoid,” Baroness Deech said. “Definitely SOAS, Manchester I think is now not so popular because of things have happened there, Southampton, Exeter and so on.”

And not only in Great Britain.

The Algemeiner published a list of 40 US and Canadian campuses with the most hostile environments for Jews. The worst five were listed as Columbia, Vassar, University of Toronto, McGill and University of Chicago.

(h/t O)

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.

12/23 Links Pt1: Fatah celebrates its murdering 116 Israelis; Israeli official accuses Obama of ‘abandoning Israel’

From Ian:

PMW: Fatah celebrates its murdering 116 Israelis

As Fatah continues to promote and celebrate terror on an almost daily basis, one questions why the international community is not categorizing Fatah as a terror organization.
On two consecutive days this month, Fatah celebrated on its Facebook page 10 different "most outstanding" terror attacks - in total 20 attacks that killed 78 adult civilians, 16 soldiers, and 22 children.
In the first post, Fatah celebrated "the 10 most outstanding operations" of all times - 10 terror attacks from Fatah's 52 years of existence. In the second post, Fatah took pride in its "10 most outstanding operations in the Al-Aqsa Intifada," - attacks the organization carried out during the PA terror campaign from 2000-2005 (the second Intifada). Some of the attacks were "outstanding" because of the numbers killed, like the bus hijacking that left 37 murdered. Others were "outstanding" even though they failed because they were milestones in Fatah history, such as Fatah's first terrorist attack which targeted the Israeli National Water Carrier ("The Eilabun operation"), and its first attack on civilians ("Kfar Hess operation").
The post celebrating Fatah terror since its founding was quickly removed, but fortunately Palestinian Media Watch had already saved a screenshot. The image shows the PA map of "Palestine" that includes all of Israel together with the PA areas as "Palestine." The Fatah logo with its grenade and rifles appears on the map in the center of the post. On both sides of the map are images representing terror attacks and murders - what Fatah calls its "outstanding operations," in chronological order from right to left (details of the attacks, including numbers killed, appear below):

Caroline Glick: Israel and the rising new West

In foreign affairs, Obama has Israel in his crosshairs.
It is now apparent that the lame duck president, bereft of any partisan restraints, intends to make good on his eight years of promises to use his last month in office to stick it to Israel at the UN.
The opening act of Obama’s onslaught on Israel came on Wednesday, with State Department Spokesman James Kirby’s fatuous and unprecedented claim that Israeli communities built beyond the 1949 armistice line – the so-called settlements – are illegal.
Late Wednesday, the UN suddenly announced it would hold a vote on an Egyptian resolution parroting that language, and calling for a complete halt on construction projects for Jews in the areas, including Jerusalem.
The draft resolution included a call for an international governmental embrace of economic warfare against Israel. It called upon member states “to distinguish in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967.”
An indication of the depth of Obama’s commitment to enabling the resolution to pass came amid reports that Secretary of State John Kerry was planning to address the Security Council ahead of the scheduled vote.
In any event, following massive pressure from Israel and a statement by President-elect Donald Trump calling for Obama to veto the resolution, Egypt postponed the vote on its resolution “indefinitely.”
But with or without the resolution – and there are at least two others also poised for a vote – Obama is using his remaining time to empower the anti-Israel boycott, divestment and sanctions operation aimed at destroying Israel’s economy and international position.
As Anne Bayevsky reported in the Washington Examiner on Wednesday, Obama is supporting the UN budget which allocates funding toward the implementation of a UN Human Rights Council resolution promoting BDS. The resolution requires the Human Rights Council to compile a blacklist of companies worldwide with direct or indirect business ties to Israeli communities built beyond the 1949 armistice lines. Since all businesses doing business with Israeli entities have indirect or direct ties to the areas where some 750,000 Israeli live, the resolution represents a bid to conduct total war against the Israeli economy.
And Obama is funding its implementation.

Dore Gold: Was U.S. Policy on Israel and the UN Changing?

Was the U.S. about to sharply break with its past policy on the use of the UN for dealing with Israeli-Palestinian differences on the issue of settlements? Back in 2011, Ambassador Susan Rice provided an “explanation of vote” as to why she vetoed a similar resolution on settlements at the time. She made three points: 1) a resolution would harden the positions of both sides, 2) it would also encourage the parties to stay out of negotiations, and 3) it would establish a pattern by which every time the parties reached an impasse, they would return to the UN Security Council. She was right. What she was essentially saying was that the UN and meaningful negotiations are a bad mix – like oil and water.
Israel has multiple reasons to oppose the latest draft resolution. While Mahmoud Abbas has refused to negotiate with Israel, Israelis have not lost hope that someday there will eventually be a negotiated settlement between the two sides that leads to a true compromise. But that requires firm international support for such an outcome. President Obama correctly concluded in September 2011 that “Peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the United Nations.” If it becomes the conventional wisdom that in 2016 the U.S. gave up on a future negotiation and preferred instead that the UN take the lead on the Israeli-Palestinian issue, then the peoples of the region will pay a price for years to come.

"Rabbis for Human Rights" excuses the rape of Dinah

It is always fun to read the commentaries on the weekly Torah portions published by the leftist "Rabbis for Human Rights" to see how they twist the Torah for their own purposes.

This week's commentary by anti-Israel tour guide Tamar Avraham has a parenthetical comment about an episode in last week's parasha:

Dina’s attempt to get close to the young women of the land failed in the light of her brothers’ refusal to agree to “mixed marriages.” (It is not here the place to expand on the thought that it is reasonable to assume that there had been a real romantic connection between her and Shechem and that the story of rape was added later to modify the seriousness of the massacre that Jacob’s sons had perpetrated on the residents of Nablus).

Was Dina raped or was she in love with Shechem?

The text in Genesis 34 says, in JPS translation, "And Dinah the daughter of Leah, whom she had borne unto Jacob, went out to see the daughters of the land. And Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, the prince of the land, saw her; and he took her, and lay with her, and humbled her."

The word that is translated as "humbled" has many other translations as well. But the same root word is used to refer to rape without question in Judges 20:5.

Even if the word וַיְעַנֶּהָ doesn't literally mean rape, it means something like to humiliate. Targum Yonatan translates it to Aramaic as וְסַגְפָהּ, which means to afflict or cause to suffer.

Realistically speaking, it seems very unlikely that Dinah could meet a powerful prince, fall in love and sleep with him in a single day. As the Torah makes clear with the episodes of Pharaoh and Abimelech, rulers routinely would forcibly take women as they pleased. It is unlikely that Tamar would be unaware of this pattern of how women were treated by foreign rulers.

Why would Rabbis for Human Rights want to minimize a rape? That isn't what you would expect human rights campaigners to do.

But, of course, Dinah represents Jews, and Shechem represents "Palestinians" (note how the writer says Shechem lives in Nablus, a name that was not to exist for centuries afterwards - the city was originally named after Shechem himself.) Therefore, the story cannot be of natives attacking a Jewess, but of Dinah's Israelite brothers slaughtering the residents of the town for no reason. Dinah cannot be a victim, because it would violate the anti-Israel narrative that "Rabbis for Human Rights" wants to promulgate.

Which brings up something about honor.

When an Arab or Muslim woman gets raped, to regain the family honor, either she is killed herself or she is forced to marry her rapist and pretend that her attacker is really a lover. Rabbis for Human Rights seems to agree with this solution in Dinah's case- it restores her honor.

But Dinah's brothers also acted out of honor. Instead of blaming their sister and rewarding the rapist, they attacked the rapist and saved their sister.

It is unclear whether the Torah condones the murder of the rest of the town - there are commentators on both sides of the issue - but there is a crystal clear difference in morality between one who punishes the rapist and one who punishes the victim.

And we see which side Rabbis for Human Rights is on.

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 letters to Santa from Jewish kids

Apparently, many public schools ask kids to write letters to Santa as writing assignments.

Here is one that I saw, although I have no details on who wrote it.

Another letter, written in 2014 for a class assignment, is equally droll:

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.

Arab media is buzzing about a visit to Bahrain by a delegation of 28 religious American Jewish businessmen.

The visit was to explore opportunities from a free trade agreement between the US and Bahrain.

The delegation also is visiting Dubai, Oman, Qatar and Kuwait.

A Bahraini businessman said that the delegation's visit was an opportunity to introduce them to a tolerant kingdom, adding that "the visit opened the way for economic and trade opportunities."

Solomon Eisenberg, a member of the Jewish delegation, said that there was a need for direct dialogue, away from governments and media, between people of different faiths and origins

The visit included the Jews and Muslims singing and dancing together (which did not sit well with some Arabs on Twitter.)

وإن احتفلتم وإن رقصتم
وإن تمايلتم وإن ضحكتم
فخضوعكم لا يتجاوز رقابكم
وستبقى شعوب الخليج تقول لا #لا_للتطبيع #البحرين pic.twitter.com/2C3UkuFDcD
— محمد الشيب (@msalsheeb) December 22, 2016

The Jews had a minyan:

Here is a short talk by one of the businessmen at a meeting:

Who is the antisemite: Stephen Bannon or Hanan Ashrawi?

It's been four days since I publicized neo-Nazi material on Hanan Ashrawi's Miftah site. It was tweeted to Miftah by dozens of people.

It is still there.

Objectively speaking, the materials on this Western-funded NGO site are far worse than anything ever published on Breitbart. Yet publisher of that site Stephen Bannon came under withering criticism for antisemitism that is essentially non-existent on that site (and the many philosemitic articles on Breitbart have been ignored.)

Ashrawi's Miftah has hosted articles that featured the blood libel, adoring profiles of people who murdered Jews and neo-Nazi material. And the people who pretended to be so offended by Breitbart's supposed antisemitism have nothing to say. There is no outrage.

Is it because they only care about antisemitism when it is politically advantageous to them?

Is it because Arabs are given a pass for Jew-hatred?

Is it because Ashrawi is considered a "moderate"and they are afraid that exposing her responsibility might drive her to become an extremist?

Who knows? Either way, it stinks. If Bannon is responsible for the Jew-haters who love Breitbart despite its philosemitism (don't trust me - do your own search on every Breitbart article that mentions Jews), then Ashrawi is far more responsible for the hateful and bigoted articles that have been and remain on her website.

Anyone who claims they are offended by Bannon's purported antisemitism, and who does not have anything bad to say about media darling Ashrawi, is a hypocrite. Period.

By any yardstick, there are multiple outrages here: Miftah's habitual posting of antisemitic materials, Miftah's refusal to take it down, the Left's double-standards on antisemitism by those they support, and Miftah's funders willingly sweeping this under the rug as they continue to pour hundreds of thousands of dollars into an organization that hosts hate materials.

The double standards here are disgusting.

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.

12/22 Links Pt2: Europe's Compassionate Hatred of Israel; A World of Hypocrites: Praising Fidel Castro, While Criticizing Israel

From Ian:

Melanie Phillips: The Western reset

It is the behavior of America, along with Britain and Europe, which has incentivized Palestinian rejectionism and mass murder.
If Trump wants to break this impasse, he has to stop doing what the US has done for decades: he must stop funding the Palestinian Authority’s incitement to murder Jews, stop treating the Palestinians as statesmen-in-waiting while they continue to try to wipe out Israel, stop putting the thumbscrews on Israel to compromise its security, and stop endorsing the big lie about Palestinian entitlement to any of the land.
The turmoil in the region has created an unprecedented opportunity to reset the lethal Middle East trajectory. The Gulf Arabs have been made painfully aware that the real threat to themselves comes not from Israel but from within the Islamic world. Now they need Israel as a tactical ally against their common jihadi enemies.
The US and Israel between them have the capacity to become the “strong horse” in the region. That will make all those Arabs and Muslims who so desperately want to resist the Iranian regime or Sunni Islamists braver.
A “civilization spring” is now possible, centered on Israel and America – and, if it keeps its nerve over Brexit, Britain too.
For the desperate weakness of the West, through both cultural demoralization at home and pusillanimity abroad, is intimately connected to the erosion of national identity, patriotism and pride.
If the West is to survive, it must cast off its pathological guilt and shame and uphold once again the concept of the Western nation by putting the national interest first. (h/t Elder of Lobby)

Why Did the New York Times Publish Fake News About Trump, Zionism, and Alan Dershowitz?

A Times opinion piece fabricated and erased the positions of American supporters of Israel, including Alan Dershowitz, in order to link Zionism to the alt-right
On Nov. 20, the Zionist Organization of America, a small hard-right pro-Israel group, held its annual gala. To the chagrin of many in the American Jewish community, Donald Trump’s newly-appointed senior strategist Stephen Bannon was scheduled to attend. Outside, scores of Jews protested. And inside, celebrated Zionist lawyer Alan Dershowitz, who had been scheduled to speak before Bannon had been invited, took the opportunity to issue a pointed warning to those in attendance.
“There is an equally disturbing trend that you might not be as happy to hear about, and that is the anti-Muslim and often bigoted extreme right that is pro-Jewish and pro-Zionist,” the Harvard Law professor said. “I’m a little worried today that there are Jews in many parts of the world that are being seduced by the hard right. We must not become complicit in bigotry, whether it is from the right or the left… Being pro-Israel can never serve as an excuse for bigotry against any other group.”
This warning was of a piece with Dershowitz’s critique of Bannon, outlined in an op-ed titled: “Bannon’s not an anti-Semite. But he is an anti-Muslim, anti-women bigot.” Asked by The New Yorker about the anti-Bannon protesters outside the ZOA gala before his speech, Dershowitz said, “Part of me wants to be with them. But … I confront. In the twenties, Jews were seduced by Communists. Now it’s by a populist right that has elements of Fascism. I’m going to try to warn against that tonight.” For his performance, The Daily Beast dubbed Dershowitz “the bravest man of the night.” Bannon ultimately didn’t show.
And yet, remarkably, The New York Times published a piece yesterday which falsely claimed Dershowitz defended Bannon at the ZOA. Writing for The Stone philosophy blog in a post titled “Liberal Zionism in the Age of Trump,” New School assistant professor Omri Boehm attempted to argue that “Zionism [is] a political agenda rooted in the denial of liberal politics” that inevitably dovetails with hard-right bigotry and apologism. His banner example? Alan Dershowitz.

Israel Is Not Up For Grabs

There is much noise surrounding our little land. The clamor of rival claims to the Land of Israel from the podiums of terrorist leaders ruling over a conjured up Palestinian people reverberates through the unhallowed halls of the United Nations. It is perpetuated by an Islamic cartel, anti-Israel NGO’s and an ill-educated and profoundly biased mainstream media.
As if the aforementioned were not galling enough, we are forced to contend with Jews who are stuck in a mindset of pleasing the enemy to the point of discounting their own identity, devaluing their own nation’s status, and consequently surrendering their heritage to the Land of Israel.
Many of these Jews go as far as placing the “sensitivities” of our sworn enemies before the lives of their own people and vociferously join anti-Israel NGO’s such as New Israel Fund, J Street, Jewish Voice of Peace, Peace Now, B’Tzelem, Yesh Din and Breaking the Silence. These Jews have chosen to stand with those who wish to deny the rights of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel. A form of Stockholm Syndrome, if you will, left over from too many years of persecution and oppression under a myriad of unfriendly host countries.
But I’m not writing to argue against enemy narratives that are based on a deliberate and malevolent revision of history. Nor am I going to attempt in this missive to explain the Diaspora induced mental anarchy in the minds of some of our fellow Jews. Too limited a venue for the latter. I prefer only to state the obvious. The simple truth. With no apologies or drawn out explanations or justifications: The Land of Israel, in its entirety belongs to the Jewish Nation.

David Singer: Britain rebuffs Abbas call to apologise for Balfour Declaration

However, fake news stories repetitively dealing with the “stateless Palestinians” may have influenced Ms May into also telling the CFI meeting:
“Of course, people are correct when they say that securing the rights of Palestinians and Palestinian statehood have not yet been achieved.”
The Prime Minister has ignored the following pertinent facts:
1. The term “Palestinians” was not defined until 1964 when article 6 of the PLO Charter stipulated:

“The Palestinians are those Arab citizens who were living normally in Palestine up to 1947, whether they remained or were expelled. Every child who was born to a Palestinian parent after this date whether in Palestine or outside is a Palestinian.”
2. The “Palestinian people” was declared to be an integral part of the Arab Nation under Article 1 of the revised 1968 PLO Charter – not a separate and distinct people.
3. The rights of the Arab citizens of Palestine were secured in 1922 by articles 2 and 25 of the Mandate.
4. On 13 September 1922 a Note communicated to the League of Nations by the Secretary General contained a Memorandum by the British Representative limiting the site designated for the Jewish National Home to just 22 per cent of the mandate territory.
The other 78 per cent was designated for the Arab citizens of Palestine – where Statehood was finally declared on 25 May 1946 when the area was renamed the “Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan”. Another name change to “Jordan” in 1950 followed Transjordan’s illegal occupation of Judea and Samaria in 1948.
A second Arab State in former Palestine – in addition to Jordan – remains a fatuous and unrealistically attainable goal.

From the Israel Antiquities Authority:

Who was "Hyrcanus" whose name is engraved in Hebrew on a stone bowl from Jerusalem 2,100 years ago? In 2015 a fragment of a bowl fashioned from chalk (a type of limestone) was unearthed in the Israel Antiquities Authority archaeological excavation in the Giv?ati parking lot at the City of David, in the Jerusalem Walls National Park. The vessel was published today and immediately aroused the curiosity of researchers.
According to Dr. Doron Ben-Ami of the Israel Antiquities Authority and Professor Esther Eshel of Bar-Ilan University, "This is one of the earliest examples of chalk vessels to appear in Jerusalem. These stone vessels were extensively used by Jews because they were considered vessels that cannot become ritually unclean".
The bowl was discovered during an archaeological excavation beneath the foundations of a miqwe dating to the Hasmonean period, which was part of a complex of water installations that were used for ritual bathing. The Giv?ati parking site in the City of David is among the largest excavation areas opened so far in Jerusalem. The excavations at the site, sponsored by the ?Ir David Foundation, have so far uncovered a wealth of artifacts from different periods. Of these, those that arouse special interest are the objects with traces of writing on them, especially when they can be deciphered and read.
Was Hyrcanus, whose name is engraved on the bowl, a high-ranking person, or perhaps simply an ordinary citizen during the Hasmonean period? According to the researchers, it is difficult to ascertain. Since there are few vessels in the archaeological record of this period which are engraved with names, it is not known whether this type of engraving was a routine act or a special tribute. "The name Hyrcanus was fairly common in the Hasmonean period," say Dr. Ben-Ami and Prof. Eshel. “We know of two personages from this period who had this name: John Hyrcanus, who was the grandson of Matityahu the Hasmonean and ruled Judea from 135–104 BCE, and John Hyrcanus II, who was the son of Alexander Jannaeus and Salome Alexandra; however, it is not possible to determine if the bowl belonged specifically to either of them”.

The inscription is in the modern (Ashuri) script which anyone familiar with Hebrew nowadays can read.

I visited the Givati Parking Lot excavations at rhe City of David over the summer, and it is an amazing site. Here is a Hebrew report on the find where you can see this massive dig in the middle of Jerusalem:

(h/t Yoel)

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

Dear Mr. President-Elect and Mr. Prime Minister,

You understand that you are being tested, do you not?

Mr. Trump, they want to know if you are as tough as you say you are and if you will live up to your promises. And Mr. Netanyahu, will you for once confront an issue head-on instead of finding a way to deflect it?

I’m talking about the embassy.

Jerusalem has been Israel’s capital since the cease-fire agreements were signed in 1949. The Knesset, the seat of Israel’s government, has been there ever since except for a few months in 1949, when it met in a Tel Aviv theater while a more permanent location was prepared. Jerusalem was also the capital of the Kingdom of Judah under King David around 1000 BCE. Israel has never had another capital.

When the city was divided and part of it was occupied by Jordan, it remained the capital of Israel. Even if under some hypothetical “peace” agreement the city were to be re-divided, it would still be the capital of Israel. The argument that recognition of this fact somehow presupposes the outcome of negotiations or is an obstacle to peace is ludicrous. Nobody is talking about putting the embassy in a disputed part of the city. It would be no different than the Knesset.

Some point to the 1947 UN partition resolution (UNGA 181), which called for all of Jerusalem to be placed under international control, as a justification for denying Israel’s clear title. But this resolution was a non-binding recommendation and it was never implemented, since the Arabs chose to try to settle the question of a Jewish state by war. If the US Administration and State Department insist on this, then they should also insist that much of the Galil and the Negev also don’t belong to Israel, following the map of resolution 181. They don’t, because they realize that it would be insane to do so.

The non-recognition of Israel’s capital is no less than a denial of Israel’s sovereignty. What else does it mean to say that a state can’t choose its own capital city on its own territory?

Mr. Trump and Mr. Netanyahu, if you do not proceed with the transfer of the embassy, you will be allowing the gang of murderers and thieves that the international community – and the Israeli government – has cravenly anointed as the leadership of the Palestinian Arabs, to exercise a “terrorist’s veto” over this overdue recognition of Israel’s sovereignty.

PLO negotiator Saeb Erekat recently said that such a move would create “chaos, lawlessness and extremism.” He also promised that “the infuriated Arab public” around the world would force US embassies in their countries to close (presumably by means of rocks and firebombs). Erekat said that moving the embassy would legitimize “Israel’s illegal annexation of eastern Jerusalem.” I hate to repeat myself, but how does moving it to western Jerusalem do that?

Erekat’s comments are meant as a threat that he will invoke the terrorist’s veto. He knows that you, Mr. Trump, don’t want to see US embassies worldwide under siege, and that you, Mr. Netanyahu, don’t want to be blamed for yet another intifada in which Israelis, Jewish and Arab, will die. The gangsters of the PLO are confident that this technique – that they have employed countless times – will be successful yet again.

But appeasement is not the way to respond to terrorism. Surely we’ve all learned that by now! If the US embassy may not be located in Jerusalem, then why should the Knesset and the Prime Minister’s office be there? If Jerusalem isn’t part of Israel, why is Tel Aviv? Maybe the Jews should all move “back” to Poland, Iraq and Russia?

Giving in to blackmail seems like the easy way out, but in the end you will pay ten times as much.

This is a test, Mr. Trump and Mr. Netanyahu. Please don’t fail it.

Sincerely,

Vic Rosenthal
Abu Yehuda

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.

12/22 Links Pt1: UNSC anti-settlement vote postponed; One Ambassador and Two States

From Ian:

WATCH: Israeli PM Netanyahu Delivers Chilling Message During Speech

During his September 22, 2016, speech before the United Nations General Assembly, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told a powerful story. His official YouTube channel just released a clip from the speech, called "Remember Ali," and it's something quite extraordinary.
Netanyahu begins with the following:
"Had the Palestinians said yes to a Jewish state in 1947, there would have been no war, no refugees and no conflict. And when the Palestinians finally say yes to a Jewish state, we will be able to end this conflict once and for all. Now here’s the tragedy, because, see, the Palestinians are not only trapped in the past, their leaders are poisoning the future.
I want you to imagine a day in the life of a 13-year-old Palestinian boy, I’ll call him Ali..."
The prime minister goes on to deliver a chilling message. To simply transcribe the story would rob it of its impact. Instead, take three minutes out of your day to watch this clip:

Remember Ali?

Egypt’s Security Council anti-settlement vote postponed, possibly ‘indefinitely’

The United Nations Security Council on Thursday postponed a vote on an Egyptian-drafted resolution demanding that Israel immediately halt its settlement activities in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, diplomats said. The vote had been set to take place later in the day.
Egypt requested the delay to allow time for consultations on the measure, but no new time or date was scheduled. One unnamed Western diplomatic source told Reuters that the vote was postponed “potentially indefinitely.”
Egypt sought the postponement at Israel’s request, after “high level” contacts between the two governments, Reuters said.
The delay came as Israel was scrambling to head off a possible surprise move by the United States, with some indications the Obama administration may not have been willing to exercise its veto power.
According to a report in the Israeli news site Walla, an unnamed Israeli official said that outgoing US Secretary of State John Kerry told a Palestinian delegation to Washington earlier this month that the US would not veto the resolution; however, the Palestinians later denied this claim.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had convened his security cabinet for an emergency session Thursday evening, just hours before the vote was scheduled.

Eugene Kontorovich: By allowing an anti-Israel Security Council resolution, Obama will hurt the U.N., and not help peace

The Security Council is expected to vote today on a resolution, introduced by Egypt, condemning the presence of settlements — Jewish communities in the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem. For years, there has been mounting speculation, fueled by the administration itself, that President Obama would use his lame-duck period in office for a major anti-Israel action, probably by not providing the customary U.S. veto to such resolutions.
I expect the United States will veto today’s resolution, but that may be only a prequel to allowing the passage of one of the numerous similar resolutions that have been floated. The other resolutions are substantively similar, but unlike the Egyptian proposal, they may make cosmetic, inconsequential half-criticisms of Palestinian Authority “incitement” (while ignoring the PA’s ongoing solicitation and sponsorship of actual killings of Jews). Then the administration would then say it vetoed “anti-Israel resolutions,” but simply could not hold back the tide against a “balanced” resolution.
Obama’s goal with such a resolution would be to punish Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whom he personally dislikes, and to create diplomatic facts on the ground to box in President-elect Donald Trump’s foreign policy. The folly of a such resolution has been underscored by both Hillary Clinton and Trump, as well as near-unanimous majorities in both houses of Congress and an array of Democratic foreign policy experts, including former Senate majority leader and Obama administration peace negotiator George Mitchell.
Such a resolution would not cement any positive legacy for Obama. To the contrary, it would vastly magnify the actual obstacles to resolving the Palestinian issue. Moreover, by setting the U.N. against Israel, Obama may provoke a sharp conflict between Washington and the U.N. — one that would harm the latter much more than the former.