Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Friday, May 11, 2018

Syria's argument against partition, 1947. Sound familiar?

In my last post I invited readers to look at the arguments that Arabs advanced against the UN partition plan that would have granted Jews a tiny, impossible to defend state.

The Syrian ambassador sounds a lot like Mahmoud Abbas today.

...The Arab delegations, as everyone knows, have not failed to point out to their colleagues the real danger involved in the partition plan. On several occasions, we have reminded the world that this Organization cannot trample on its own Charter, to which it owes its existence, without running the risk of dealing itself a very dangerous blow.

We have voiced here the uneasiness of the Arabs in Palestine and in all the Arab countries. In their opinion this plan is contrary to the principles of justice and to their natural rights, since their right to independence is not questioned.

Yesterday, however, certain delegations invoked, in support of the Jewish argument, an alleged "historic right" to Palestine. Even supposing that this right existed, it could not be considered equal to the historic and acquired rights of the Arabs, rights which we have moreover explained to you on more than one .occasion.

By quoting, in the Ad Hoc Committee, whole pages of the Jewish Encyclopedia, we have been able to prove that the Jews of Eastern Europe are not related in any way to Israel and that they are purely of Russian Khazar origin.

The article he is referring to in no way says that.

...As we have already stated in the Committee, if it had been only a question of Jewish refugees fleeing from persecution and terrorism, we should have received them not only in Palestine but also in all the Arab States. However, as everyone has already realized, we are faced, in this case with no more than a political scheme of an imperialist nature in which all ambitions coincide and the two extremes meet.

The Polish delegation, which is usually so punctilious with regard to interpretations of the . terms of .the Charter, is silent when it is a question of violating that same Charter, because that violation is aimed at founding a Jewish State in Palestine which would allow Poland to get rid of its own Jews.

...The United States Government is fighting communism not only in its own country but everywhere; it is attacking communists from Hollywood to the frontiers of Manchuria; it is deporting foreign communists even if they are recommended by very highly placed persons; it is granting all sorts of loans to fight communism in Europe.

But if the Black Sea ports could pour half a million communists into Palestine today, the delegation of the United States of America would be all the happier so long as Palestine was swarming with Jews. They are not satisfied with the one hundred and fifty thousand communists who are already in Palestine.

No plan has ever been more contrary to logic or to social, political and economic laws; no plan has ever been more absurd in its financial and economic difficulties, and in its political and administrative complications; no proposal has been adopted with more misgiving, one might even say repugnance; no plan has been defended with more propaganda and less courtesy. ...

You need only cast a glance at the map drawn up by Sub-Committee 1 to see that the whole affair is only a conspiracy. The southern part of Palestine, inhabited exclusively by Arabs, has been given to the proposed Jewish State on the excuse that a desert region like the Negeb is of no use to the Bedouins. This is a type of logic quite peculiar to the Zionists and their friends; they claim that a desert like the Negeb or Sinai is useless to the Bedouins but can be of great use to the Jews of Warsaw and Riga. What logic!

The truth is that the Zionists and their friends have other aims in mind. That is proved by the fact that they have made the territory of the Jewish State extend to the Red Sea; that is a threat to the Suez Canal, the Islamic Holy Places of the Hedjaz, the interests of all the Arab countries in the Red Sea region, and the interests of Ethiopia. In short, the United States delegation and the other delegations in favour of this plan consider it impossible and unjust to subject six hundred thousand Jews to a decision making Palestine one State; but these same delegations want the Arabs in Palestine and all the independent Arab States, with a total population of thirty million people, to be subject to an illegal decision contrary to the Charter and their vital interests.

I hope that the good people of this great and truly democratic country, the United States, will wake up one day, open their eyes, see things clearly and demand that their country's policy shall be independent of that of the Zionists.

As for us, we will never recognize this proposed partition, and we reserve the right to act accordingly.

One more word. Before concluding, I appeal to your consciences. May I remind you that, in this plan, the Charter's essential principles of justice and the dignity of the United Nations are at stake. I am sure that you will reflect, and that you will bear in mind all the disadvantages and dangers of this plan.

This has it all - antisemitism ("swarming with Jews"), accusations that Jews are all Communist, that they are not really Jews but converts from Russia, that opposing a Jewish state is a principled position, that creating a Jewish state would threaten the entire Arab world with its colonialist aims, that "justice" means no Israel, that the US bends its will to the "Zionists."

This speech is remarkably similar to things Palestinian leaders have said only weeks ago.The same arguments against "occupation" today were used against the very idea of Israel 70 years ago.

Which shows that today's arguments are really not motivated by "occupation" but by Israel having the chutzpah to continue to exist and defend itself.

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.

I'm shaking my head at an article on the far-Left Israeli site +972 by Orly Noy, about BDS targeting Israeli Eurovision entrant Netta Barzilai:

Israel is buzzing with excitement over the country’s contestant in this year’s Eurovision, and for good reason. Netta Barzilai is talented, has an awesome vibe, and is a strong female character who bucks all of the traits we have become used to seeing in a female performer. If you are a left-wing, Jewish feminist, and even if you’re not, it’s hard not to fall in love with her.

So it wasn’t surprising that a campaign by Israeli boycott activists asking European viewers not to vote for Barzilai managed to rile so many people, including in various left-wing Israeli circles — and no small number of my friends.

I don’t know anything about Barzilai’s political views but I don’t get the impression that she has any special affinity for militarism or that she likes anything about the killing of innocent people. My impression was actually the opposite, and that’s the point.

One of the fundamental truths with which the boycott movement attempts to confront Israeli society is that all of us, even the humanists and human rights lovers among us, are responsible for the crimes of the occupation, whether we participate in them directly or indirectly.

Netta Barzilai is a means for Israel to show the world that we are normal and pretty and creative, and that we send stunning representatives to compete in the Eurovision. In a way, that’s not a false representation of reality. Indeed, we live our lives like any other people trying to make it in the world, and we have a real culture and real musicians to be proud of — like Netta Barzilai. And while it is true that we Israelis do not live the occupation as part and parcel of our daily lives, the occupation is a part of us and who we and our society are and have become. That we have succeeded in creating a conscious separation between our lives and the occupation is our tragedy. The boycott movement is simply trying to stop the rest of the world from making the same mistake.

What a load of crap.

The BDS movement is not based on morality. It is based on hate. Its leaders freely admit that their goal is the destruction of Israel, not the end of "occupation." It is the direct descendant of the anti-Israel movements before the "occupation" that also tried to justify their hate based on the fig leaf of human rights - as did the Arabs who attacked the Jews in 1947 months before Israel declared itself to be a state. Their speeches in the UN also pretended to be concerned with human rights. Read them - they sound eerily familiar, yet it is obvious that their problem was with Jews having political power, not the lofty standards of human rights or protecting the UN Charter as they claimed.

Any objective observer can see that the haters of 1947 were animated by their antisemitism, not their love of justice or peace. BDS is exactly the same. The word "Zionist" elicits the same knee-jerk and violent hate that the word "Jew" has throughout history. BDS supporters who are less careful over their words in social media than their leaders regularly will call Israel "satanic" - they simply substitute "Zionist" for "Jew" but the hate remains the same. Justice and peace and human rights are the excuses to make their hate appear justified. But it is still hate, it is still ugly, and any real supporter of human rights should recognize this and fight against it, not support it.

Orly Noy might want to flagellate herself over the "occupation." Maybe one day she will set herself on fire in support of the Palestinian Arabs she cares about so much. But she knows, deep down, that if Israel would withdraw from every inch of the territory it won in a defensive war, the hate that the BDSers feel for her would not be reduced in the least.

Noy's pathetic desire to show how much she identifies with those who want to subjugate her to living as a second-class citizen in an Arab "Palestine" will not make them want to subjugate her any less. Her eagerness to justify the hate that BDS has for her and her people is pitiful.

There is no moral difference between the irrational hate for Israelis and irrational hate for Jews, or irrational hate for blacks, or irrational hate for gays. Racists and bigots find justifications for their hate that sound just as humanistic as those of BDS. The very term "anti-semitism" was based on a pseudo-scientific theory to justify hate. Most of us can see through the justifications and understand that they are after-the-fact, meant to make the hate that animated the bigotry be more palatable to a larger audience.

Which is exactly what BDS does.

The BDS movement is a hate group just like the KKK, and their arguments can be demolished just as easily as those of any white supremacist group - but only if one is willing to wake up enough to notice that their "human rights" and "justice" and "legal" arguments are mere justifications for hate. It is a shame that so many people who care about human rights can be as deluded as Orly Noy is.

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.

Syria is so F-ed up - massive Israeli airstrikes are a minor story in the bigger Syria picture

Syrian media, and Lebanese media that follows Syria, has very little objectivity. The best (although not perfect) place to see what is happening in Syria is the Syrian Observatory of Human Rights, which reports on all attacks in Syria from all factions and the casualties.

Reading their website on the day after the massive Israeli airstrikes yesterday is almost unreal. Sure, there were a couple of articles about the raids as they happened, but so many people get killed by so many different actors in Syria every day, the Israeli raids were just considered one event among many.

As of this writing, the SOHR hasn't published the total death toll in Syria from Thursday. On both Wednesday and Tuesday more than 60 were killed throughout the country on all sides of the civil war. The SOHR says that 23 people, apparently all of them Syrian or Iranian fighters, were killed in the Israeli raids - the biggest Israeli air raids in Syria since the 1973 Yom Kippur War.

The Israeli airstrikes are just another story.

As of this writing, here are the stories in the top two news sections of the site:

The Israeli raids are little more than a footnote the next day.

The Observatory's early story on the Israeli raids themselves show how precise they were. Although they say it is possible that two civilians were killed by being at the wrong place at the wrong time during an Israeli raid on Wednesday, the couple might have just died in a car accident.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights documented the death of 23 people at least as a result of the Israeli missile strikes, which targeted several military positions and points of the regime forces and allies in scattered areas in central Syria, near the capital Damascus and Rif Dimashq, the western countryside of al-Suwaidaa and the triangle of Daraa – Quneitra – West of Rif Dimashq just before dawn of Thursday the 10th of May 2018, and the casualties are: 5 members of the regime forces including at least one officer, and 18 others of Syrian and non-Syrian nationalities, and the death toll is expected to rise because there are some people in critical situation, and due to information about other casualties, the Syrian Observatory published that violent explosions rocked the several areas in the Syrian territory just before dawn of today, Thursday, the 10th of May 2018, caused by Israeli missile strikes which targeted scattered sites near the capital, Damascus, Rif Dimashq, central Syria and Quneitra, where the strikes targeted sites believed to belong to the Lebanese Hezbollah southwest of Homs city, and other sites of Hezbollah and fighters loyal to the regime forces in the triangle of Daraa – Quneitra – west of Rif Dimashq, also the strikes targeted a military area of the regime forces in al-Dumayr Airbase area at the Eastern Qalamoun, where the missiles fell near the headquarters where the Iranians are located, also the strikes targeted Muadamiyat al-Sham town west of Damascus, where fighters of Hezbollah, Iran and the 4th Division of the Syrian regime are located, but no information until the moment as to whether the missiles that fell on Muadamiyat al-Sham has targeted military positions or not, also a missile landed in the vicinity of Jaramana south of the capital, and the shelling targeted regime’s Air Defense sites, while the fall of Israeli missiles was renewed after midnight of yesterday on Al-Quneitra province, where the missiles targeted sites of the regime forces and their allies near Hodr town north of Quneitra and near Khan Arnabah town, and in the same context, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights in conjunction with the these intensive targeting operation has monitored explosions in the sky of the areas; caused by regime’s anti-aircraft interception for the Israeli missiles and managed to shoot down some of them, and the Israeli missile strikes caused significant material losses in several targeted locations, amid confirmed information about casualties.

The Israeli shelling came just before the dawn of Sunday after the fall of missiles after midnight, launched from al-Quneitra area and southwest Rif Dimashq adjacent to the occupied territories of Golan, following the Israeli shelling which took place last night and targeted locations near al-Ba’ath city in the central countryside of Quneitra.

The Syrian Observatory published yesterday, Wednesday, that the number of casualties continues to rise as a result of the missile strikes that targeted al-Kiswah area in the southwest sector of Rif Dimashq, which were carried out by Israeli forces targeting Iranian missile warehouses and platforms, where it rose to at least 15 including at least 8 Iranians, the number of members who were killed by the missile strikes on the area, while it is not known yet whether the rest of them belong to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard or if they belong to a militia loyal to Iran, also a man and his wife were killed near place of shelling but the circumstances of their deaths are not known whether they were killed the result of a traffic accident, or it happened that they were there in the moment of shelling which caused their deaths, and the death toll is expected to rise because there are some people in critical situation, and due to the presence of missing persons.

Israel seems to be the only player in Syria that actually cares about avoiding civilian casualties.

What a thoroughly messed-up country.

This raid proves (among many other things) that the world media pretty much ignores Syria unless somehow Jews are part of the story.

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.

05/10 Links Pt2: Salt Lake Tribune Op-Ed Fits EU Definition of Anti-Semitism; Gaza: Where Terrorists Are ‘Victims’ and Terrorism Is ‘Resistance’; Jerusalem has never been holy to Islam

From Ian:

CAMERA: Salt Lake Tribune Op-Ed Fits EU Definition of Anti-Semitism

The Salt Lake Tribune recently published an Op-Ed, penned by one Michael S. Robinson, that can best be described as an anti-Semitic rant, filled with attacks against “the Jews,” falsehoods demonizing Israel, calls for “regime change” targeting the Jewish state and insistence that it was a mistake to establish a Jewish state. This conforms perfectly to the definition of “anti-Semitism” used by the United States and the European Union.

Perhaps one of the most appalling aspects of Robinson’s guest column is his dismissive and demeaning analogy of Jewish Holocaust victims to a young child who has suffered a minor injury in the past:

“…It doesn’t make a naughty child any better when parents decline all discipline, just because little Suzie had a nasty owie two weeks ago.”

Robinson tries to innoculate himself against charges of anti-Semitism by pretending he is merely criticizing the Israeli government and policy:

“I hate Israel — not, of course, its many innocent citizens, but its inhumane and murderous government.”

But he reveals early on exactly what he is trying to conceal – that his is not legitimate criticism of a specific Israeli policy but an attack on “the Jews” in general:

“There seems to be a mindless philosophy that, because the Jews have historically suffered so much, we must never criticize them… “[emphasis added]

Robinson again refers to “The Jews” when he demonizes them as as lacking in “human compassion”:

“Oh, yes, the Jews know all about concentration camps, but they seem unable to muster any human compassion for the suffering of their neighbors.”

Gaza: Where Terrorists Are ‘Victims’ and Terrorism Is ‘Resistance’

"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" is one of the worst clichés in the English language. Unfortunately the phrase's logic is applied all too often to the ongoing violence at the Israel-Gaza Strip border. Just look at Peter Beinart's recent column on the riots there. "Why are thousands of Palestinians risking their lives by running toward the Israeli snipers who guard the fence that encloses Gaza?" asks Beinart. "Because Gaza is becoming uninhabitable." And why is the Strip becoming uninhabitable? Because Israel is "denying Gaza's people the water, electricity, education, and food they need to live decent lives."

According to Beinart, the ongoing attempts to damage and breach the border security fence to attack Israel, the rocks and firebombs hurled and shots fired at Israeli soldiers, the firebomb-bearing kites that torment Israeli farmers trying to grow crops, the widespread presence of swastikas at the demonstrations, the anti-Semitic threats against Jews, the horrible ecological effects caused by burning tires to blind Israeli border guards—all actions carried out by Gazans—are reactions of victims motivated by resistance against their oppressors. The fact that most of the rioters who Israelis have killed were terrorist operatives, or individuals affiliated with terrorist organizations, is irrelevant, because it gets in the way of this narrative.

"Hamas is indeed a brutal and destructive force, to both Israelis and Palestinians," acknowledges Beinart. "But Hamas did not force Israel to adopt the policies that have devastated Gaza. Those policies represent a choice—a choice that has not only failed to dislodge Hamas, but has also created the very conditions in which extremism thrives."

This argument is so inaccurate—yet so commonly found in Western media—that it requires a response. One simply needs to look at recent "protests" to see who is really devastating the lives of Palestinians in Gaza, who suffer under the cruel and incompetent rule of Hamas, an Islamist terrorist group that seeks Israel's destruction.

Apology? Abbas again mocks the Holocaust

Palestinian Authority (PA) chairman Mahmoud Abbas is apparently incapable of concealing his true views.

Channel 10 News reported on Wednesday that Abbas had held a press conference following a meeting with the President of Chile and spoke about the suffering of the Jews in the Holocaust, while comparing their suffering to the suffering of Palestinian Arabs in Judea and Samaria.

"I respect the victims of the Holocaust, which was the greatest and most heinous crime in history, but also express the hope that the suffering of Palestinians who live 70 years in exile and the occupation will end," Abbas said, according to the report.

The report follows last week’s controversy surrounding Abbas’s anti-Semitic speech in which he claimed was that the Holocaust was not the result of anti-Semitism but rather of the Jews “social behavior, [charging] interest, and financial matters.”

The PA chairman’s remarks were met with a flurry of condemnations, both in Israel and abroad.

U.S. Ambassador to Israel David Friedman ripped Abbas over his remarks, saying the PA leader has “reached a new low in attributing the cause of massacres of Jewish people over the years to their ‘social behavior relating to interest and banks.’ To all those who think Israel is the reason that we don't have peace, think again.”

German’s Foreign Minister, Heiko Maas, criticized Abbas as well, writing on Twitter that Germany was responsible for “one of the worst crimes in history and therefore, we must respond resolutely to any anti-Semitic expression.” He linked his comment to Abbas's speech.

Britain similarly criticized the anti-Semitic speech, saying Abbas’s remarks were “deeply concerning” and unhelpful to peace in the region.

John ‘Maverick’ McCain carries a certain amount of clout to his name awarded by his peers and the American populace over the years, and a distinct reputation as one of the last true advocates of bipartisan collaboration for his numerous efforts to extend beyond party bounds to support the greater good of the American people. Such is the legacy by which his political service will be characterized for years to come. He’s never been one to acquiesce to the ideals or ulterior motives of others, be it constituents or donors--a prevalent component of the Washington political machine, regrettably--or fellow politicians, or the media, even if it means he needs to ‘maverick’ on a particular issue, and adopt an unpopular stance for all the right reasons. For those that are current with secular American politics, you’ll remember he shocked his party and the world with a resounding ‘thumbs down’ to nix the proposed healthcare bill in 2017, among other contentious decisions possibly detrimental to his long term political career, but true to his beliefs. He’s a good person for his evident moral compass, and is also somewhat unique compared to many other politicians: McCain is a truly logical thinker, and supportive of whatever position makes sense to him.

He applies his nearly infallible logical reasoning to the complex issues surrounding the Middle East and Israel, and while Republicans as a cohort comprise a significant amount of Israel’s American support base, Senator McCain doesn’t rely on his party’s alignment with Israel to influence his understanding of what’s going on. Instead, McCain reaches the conclusion that Israel is a free and democratic and just state, through his logical reasoning:

McCain always takes an ‘America first’ approach to any and all political matters, applying his sensibility to assess ramifications for the American people--a tactic surprisingly little-used by American politicians. He reasons that American support for the welfare of the State of Israel can only prove beneficial for American national security efforts. Having a staunchly democratic ally as a proxy in the Middle East can only have an upside for America, logics McCain. A focal point of the McCain 2008 campaign and his work as a senator since has emphasized the eradication of Islamic extremism, and Israel is at the forefront of this effort due to its geographic proximity to the terrorist activities of the region. In a 2008 campaign trail interview with Jeffrey Goldberg, editor of the Atlantic, McCain described Iran as “hell-bent on the destruction of Israel, they're hell-bent on driving us out of Iraq, they're hell-bent on supporting terrorist organizations, and as serious as anything to American families, they're sending explosive devices into Iraq that are killing American soldiers.”

And of course, McCain is completely correct, on all of the above. A top-priority of the Iranian government is the swift annihilation of Israel, a sentiment purportedly shared by much of their population. McCain recognizes that Israel is America’s best shot at eliminating Islamic fundamentalism at the source of the problem, before it fully reaches the United States. And Israel simultaneously upholds democratic ideals in a predominantly theocratic Middle East, promoting American interests abroad just by implementing democracy. Ensuring mutually-beneficial cooperation between the two nations is the logical route to take. It doesn’t take a genius to figure that one out, just a simple understanding of the facts, something disturbingly lacked by many--maybe even most--Americans.

While McCain prides himself on being an individual in all respects, he’s emblematic of a shrinking cohort of moderates in Congress, who place political points below righteousness. Chuck Schumer is an example from one of the political spectrum, who remains justifiably committed to Israel, breaking from the typical Democrat ideology on Israel. But unfortunately, other political figures have in recent years discounted the truth on a host of issues, including Israel, fully undoing the ethical work of senators and congressman like McCain and Schumer.

McCain’s outlook on politics is exactly what the political world is currently lacking, making it all the more unfortunate that his health issues, battles with brain cancer among other issues, have kept him from promoting bipartisanship for the past months. As much as the world has been reluctant to say it over the past few days and as much as it pains me to acknowledge it, John McCain is dying, and it seems the pursuit of truth may die with him, for if the majority of politicians nowadays even remotely worked the way McCain operates, support for Israel would be indisputable, irrefutable and certainly, common ground across the aisle.

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.

Lies, damned lies and biased surveys written to make the Iran deal sound wonderful (@CNN and @Politico)

CNN published a poll asking Americans if the US should withdraw from the Iran deal.

And the question was designed to get the answers they wanted.

The question was:

As you may know, the United States and five other countries entered an agreement with Iran aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Do you think the U.S. should or should not withdraw from that agreement?

Pollsters know that most people answering a poll know little or nothing about the topic, so they will include an explanation of what they are asking. That's how they can get the answers they want.

The explanation is "the United States and five other countries entered an agreement with Iran aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons." If that is the only thing in your mind, why wouldn't you support it?

A similar poll, widely reported, from Politico has the exact same methodological error, and a similar result (56-26.) The question there was:

As you may know, the United States and other countries made a deal in 2015 to lift economic sanctions against Iran in exchange for Iran agreeing not to manufacture nuclear weapons. This agreement is sometimes referred to as the Iran nuclear deal. Knowing this, do you support or
oppose this agreement?

Again, no reason given to oppose something that sounds so great on paper, and critics have no say in the wording of the poll.

A fair question would have either been "Do you think the US should or should not withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal" without any explanation whatsoever, to reveal that most people really don't know one way or another - or it should have added a single sentence: "Critics say that the deal only delays Iran's ability to build a nuclear bomb by a few years and it should be renegotiated."

The results from that poll would be radically different. But CNN and Politico doesn't want people to answer that question.

I believe that the ubiquitous wording that surveys use of "As you may know..." discourages people from answering honestly that they don't know about the topic, and it prompts them subconsciously to make a guess that would make them appear to be better informed than they are. Only people who are intimately aware of the details and who oppose the deal are going to say they are against it; the "don't knows" are prodded to lean towards support by the very wording.

These questions show that polls are now used not to inform, but to influence. It is a scandal that no one wants to talk about. And the media loves to report on polls that fit their biases.

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

As everyone knows, US President Donald Trump has dumped the so-called “Iran deal” (JCPOA), and re-imposed strict economic sanctions on the Iranian regime.

I agree with PM Netanyahu that not only did the deal not prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, it “[paved] Iran’s path to an entire arsenal of nuclear bombs.”

The deal limited the enrichment of uranium, at least at the sites that were known to the IAEA. It mandated the removal of some centrifuges from Iran’s facilities and the sealing of a nuclear reactor that could have produced Plutonium. But it did not prevent the regime from developing advanced centrifuges that will allow it to produce fissionable material much faster once we reach the deal’s “sunset” dates. It did not prevent it from continuing its development of nuclear warheads at military sites that are off-limits to IAEA inspectors. It did not prevent it from developing the missiles that will carry those warheads.

It did provide a diplomatic shield that protected the Iranian program from attack by Israel, which quite reasonably sees herself as a target – the regime itself told us so, more than once. It did offer sanctions relief that provided large amounts of money, which were used to finance the war in Syria, terrorism against Israel, and probably secret nuclear-related work. It also weakened existing UN resolutions against missile development.

Reuel Marc Gerecht, anything but a Trump supporter, said the deal “isn’t really an arms-control agreement; it’s just cover for American inaction, and for President Obama’s acute desire to leave the Middle East.” One might add that the Europeans also had a strong desire to see sanctions lifted so that they could jump into the Iranian market with both feet.

The deal, which wasn’t actually signed by either the US or the Iranian regime, was implemented by the Obama Administration against the wishes of the majority in Congress and the majority of the American people, as Bret Stephens, another non-Trump-supporter, notes. But it was ratified by the UN Security Council, which is how previous Security Council resolutions demanding that Iran not undertake missile development were weakened into one that merely called upon Iran to do so.

Supporters of continuing the deal argue that while it isn’t perfect, it at least slows Iran’s progress to an arsenal of deliverable nuclear weapons. They also suggest that ending the deal will cause Iran to be more aggressive in its nuclear program, ultimately leading to war (either with the US, Israel or both).

In response, we need to consider the objectives of the Iranian regime in the region and in the world. If we take it at its word and by its actions, the revolutionary regime has truly grandiose goals: establishing a Shiite caliphate in the Middle East, removing all US influence from the region, ending America’s world leadership, and destroying Israel – which it sees as both an agent of the US and an unacceptable Jewish presence in what should be an all-Muslim region.

The JCPOA assisted Iran in accomplishing these goals. Although it may have slowed her nuclear program somewhat, it allowed the regime to develop components of nuclear weapons without interference, so that when it is ready it can quickly “break out” before its opponents are able to confront it. In the long term, it guaranteed stability for Iran to carry out her plans.

It goes without saying that Israel and the Sunni Arab powers in the Middle East will not permit this to happen, and that if Iran continues its march toward its goals, regional war is unavoidable. What will happen with the US is less predictable, because it will depend on whether the US returns to appeasing the regime – that is, feeding the crocodile in order to be eaten last, as Churchill said – or continues Trump’s policy of starving it. Unlike the far-away USA, Iran’s regional neighbors don’t have the luxury of embracing appeasement. They will always be the ones it eats first.

I’ve argued that war between Iran and Israel is unlikely in the short term due to Israel’s deterrent strength, and the very astute David P. Goldman agrees with me. The long-term picture is cloudier, but it’s likely that continuing the JCPOA would have resulted in a gradually stronger and more militarily capable Iran that would ultimately be ready to challenge Israel. Its cancellation will weaken Iran economically and strategically, and disrupt her plan to make war on her own terms and at a time of her choosing.

Whether it will be enough to prevent war depends on the actions taken by all the anti-Iranian players: the US, Israel, and the Sunni Arabs. The pressure on Iran must be increased, and internal regime opponents strengthened. Countries like India and China that buy a lot of oil from Iran should be encouraged to find alternative sources. Russia’s anti-Western mischief will continue to be a problem, as well as European greed and shortsightedness. Finally, for Israel there is nothing more important than to continue to build up her deterrent capabilities – and also to continue to demonstrate them as aggressively as possible to Iran.

Iran is truly a rogue state, but in conventional military terms it is a relatively weak one. Today it can be deterred, and perhaps at some point its own people will be able to overthrow the regime. But thanks to Obama’s policy of feeding the Iranian crocodile, it has grown stronger and more dangerous in recent years.

Trump’s decision to end the policy of appeasement is the right one. This is a beast we cannot afford to feed.

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.

05/10 Links Pt1: IDF Strikes Iranian Targets in Syria; Liberman: If it rains in Israel, it will pour in Iran; How Trump took away Iran’s “war” card; Give Netanyahu credit

From Ian:

IDF Strikes Iranian Targets in Syria

Iran is actively conducting its military activities beyond its borders, which not only is a threat to Israel, but to the Middle East as a whole. On Wednesday, May 9, 2018, the Quds force, a special force wing of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, stationed in Syria, shot 20 rockets towards IDF posts in the Golan Heights. The IDF intercepted four of the rockets, preventing casualties and damage. This is the first time that Iranian forces have directly fired at Israeli troops.

In response, IDF fighter jets struck dozens of military targets in Syria that belonged to Iran’s Quds force. The IDF’s wide-scale attack included Iranian intelligence sites, the Quds force logistics headquarters, an Iranian military compound in Syria, observation and military posts, et cetera. In spite of a warning from Israel, Syrian aerial defense forces fired towards the IAF aircraft as they conducted the strikes. In response, the IAF targeted several aerial interception systems (SA5, SA2, SA22, SA17) which belong to the Syrian Armed Forces. All of the IDF’s fighter jets returned to their bases safely.

This is the second time this year that Iran has used its military facilities in Syria to attack Israel. In February 2018, the Quds force launched a UAV from Syria, which violated Israeli airspace and threatened Israeli security.

Iran’s aggression is further proof of the Iranian regime’s intentions and the threat it poses to Israel and regional stability. Iran continues to use Syria as its personal military outpost from which it can attack the State of Israel and its civilians, while the Syrian regime allows it to happen.

Overnight clashes show Shiite ‘monster’ in Syria is limited, for now

The broadly unsuccessful Iranian military response overnight Wednesday to alleged Israeli attacks on Iranian-affiliated targets in Syria in recent weeks — themselves a response to Iran’s deepening military presence in Syria, and to its launch of an attack drone into Israel in February — reveals a lot about the present Iranian deployment in Syria.

Despite the impression one might get from some Israeli reports that a real monster in Syria is threatening the very existence of the Jewish state, it emerged that pro-Iranian Shiite forces in Syria are, at this stage, limited in their capacity to attack Israel.

During Iran’s overnight revenge operation, 20 rockets were fired at Israel, of which 16 landed in Syrian territory and the other four were knocked out of the sky by Israeli missile defense systems.

It’s doubtful that this was what the Iranians or the ayatollahs had in mind when they authorized Qassem Soleimani, commander of the Revolutionary Guards’s Quds Force, to respond to what foreign sources have called recent Israeli attacks on Iranian-affiliated targets in Syria.

Not only did the operation not achieve anything — there was no damage and there were no injuries on the Israeli side — it gave Israel the pretext for a wide-ranging attack on Iranian targets inside Syria.

According to Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman, nearly the entire Iranian military infrastructure was attacked overnight. The Israeli army said this infrastructure sustained heavy damage.

What worries Israel, though, is not the attacks launched from Syria but the threat of a broader military confrontation with the much more important Iranian proxy in the region — Lebanon’s Hezbollah.

Up until now, the Lebanese Shiite terror organization has avoided being drawn into war with Israel. It is keeping its troops on alert but has not ordered them into action.

As long as Hezbollah in Lebanon remains out of the picture, the exchange of blows in Syria can continue without escalating into war.

Liberman: Israel destroyed ‘nearly all’ Iranian military sites in Syria

Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman said Thursday morning that the IDF had destroyed “nearly all” of Iran’s military infrastructure sites in Syria overnight in response to a rocket barrage on Israel’s north, and warned Tehran that attacks on Israeli territory will be met with “the strongest possible force.”

In his first public comments following the strikes on dozens of targets that the IDF said were affiliated with Iran’s Revolutionary Guards’ al-Quds Force, Liberman said that Israel has no interest in escalating tensions but will not accept any provocation against it.

“If we get rain, you will get a flood,” he warned Iran, speaking at an annual Herzliya Conference. “We will not let Iran use Syria as a base to attack us from.”

“The Iranians tried to attack the sovereign territory of Israel,” Liberman said. “Not one Iranian rocket landed in the State of Israel. Nobody was hurt. Nothing was damaged. And we’re to be thankful for that. We damaged nearly all of the Iranian infrastructure in Syria.”

But he added, “It’s not a stunning victory. Everything’s limited at the moment to a confrontation between us and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards in Syria. Everyone wants to limit this confrontation and keep it in this form.”

Liberman stressed that Israel had no interested in an escalation but that Iranian provocation met with force.

Photos of Israel at 70 celebrations in Cairo

Arab media are distraught as they are showing photos from the Ritz Carlton Cairo Tuesday night, where the Israeli embassy held a celebration for Israel's Independence Day, including Egyptian dignitaries.

The reports emphasize that the hotel is on "Tahrir Square" which adds to the horror.

Lots of anguished comments on Facebook from Egyptians who are horrified at the event and the guests. Apparently some are recognizing some Turkish diplomats.

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 all started when an Arutz-7 reporter went to Tunisia to cover the annual Jewish pilgrimage to the synagogue in Djerba, an event that attracted many rabbis from Europe and Israel.

Arutz-7 got a video statement from the Grand Mufti of Tunisia, Othamane Battikh:

Now Tunisian Islamists are upset that the Mufti spoke to Israeli TV, and call for him to be removed from office.

The opposition Popular Popular Party demanded in a statement published Wednesday that the Mufti should be removed because of his statement which was "a deviation from the deep conscience of the Tunisian people and a betrayal of the blood of its martyrs."

The Mufti, under fire, now claims, implausibly, that the Arutz-7 reporter pretended to be an Arab reporter!
He told the Akher Khabar newspaper that he had been duped by the Israeli journalist who interviewed him, who pretended to be a Palestinian, having worked as a press secretary to Yasser Arafat.

His statement to the camera obviously doesn't bear that out; it is obvious he is speaking to a Jewish audience. But he knows more than most how Arab Islamists could act.

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.

There is a lot of contradictory information as to what happened overnight in the Golan and in Syria.

At first, Israeli media reported that Iranian forces in Syria shot some 20 missiles towards Israeli military sites, and Iron Dome intercepted "some" of them. The initial announcement from the IDF said there was "limited" damage to Israeli military bases.

Then, this morning Israeli's Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman said, “Not one Iranian rocket landed in the State of Israel. Nobody was hurt. Nothing was damaged. And we’re to be thankful for that. We damaged nearly all of the Iranian infrastructure in Syria.” The IDF confirmed that account.

The IDF spokesperson now says that four missiles were intercepted by Iron Dome and the rest of the 20 rockets fell in Syrian territory.

The disconnect between the two statements is concerning. It is possible that some of the Iron Dome shrapnel fell on Israeli territory which prompted the initial assessment, or that the original announcement was meant to play it safe in case there was one missile that made it through that hadn't been noticed yet, but it would be nice to clear that up.

The IDF also says that it struck dozens of Iranian military sites in Syria.

Pro-Assad media, not surprisingly, paints a different picture, but the interesting angle is that it quotes Russian defense sources as well.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights says the Syrian side shot "dozens" of missiles at Israel. Syrian army sources claimed that Israel fired first, and that they shot 50 missiles in retaliation. No Arab source is claiming that Iran was involved.

Al Medayeen, a pro-Assad news source, claims that Syria targeted ten Israeli military positions, including "a military reconnaissance centre, a position for border security, a military centre for electronic jamming, a military centre for spying on wireless and wired networks, a communication station, an observatory for precision weapons, a gunships heliport, the headquarters of the regional military command of brigade-810, the command centre of the military battalion in Hermon, and the winter headquarters of the special snow unit."

Al Medayeen also quotes Russian defense officials as saying that 28 F-15 and F-16 Israeli aircraft engaged in raids on Syrian territory and fired 60 missiles. More than half of the missiles were intercepted by Syrian air defense. The Russian source admits that Israel targeted air defense systems as well as Iranian positions in Syria.

Syrian state news agency SANA admits that several military sites in Syria including a radar facility, air defense positions and an ammunition depot were destroyed by the Israeli raids.

Lebanese media says that one or two missiles landed in Lebanese territory, causing little damage. It did not say what side these missiles were shot from.

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.

05/09 Links Pt2: Real anti-Semitism on Campus; The Presbyterian Church’s demonisation of Israel; One man’s race to bring the forgotten music of the Holocaust to life

From Ian:

Jonathan Marks: Real anti-Semitism on Campus

At Ithaca College, of six “bias-related incidents” reported in 2017-18, three were “cases of aggravated harassment involving swastikas.” One Jewish student there reported that a mezuzah “was knocked off of his door and damaged.” At Western Washington University’s library, seven Jewish Studies books were defaced with anti-Semitic slurs or destroyed, and someone drew a swastika on “a poster outside a faculty member’s office.” The University of Miami is investigating multiple anti-Semitic incidents, including one in which someone drew a “large swastika” on a whiteboard hanging on a Jewish student’s door. At Knox College, a professor of African Studies tweeted, among other things, that Jews are “pulling the strings for profit.” A faculty member involved in discussing the incident “found an anti-Semitic image had been slid under her office door.”

That’s a sampling of news stories appearing in the month of April.” This month, we learned of an incident at Towson University in which members of a Jewish fraternity “were walking near the campus when . . . two assailants began shouting “F*** the Jews” and called them by an ethnic slur.” The “assailants then began punching one of the fraternity members in the face.” The victims believe their assailants were fellow students. Last week, at UC-Irvine, amid an anti-Israel protest, a protester called a pro-Israel advocate a “Christ killer.”

The Anti-Defamation League has reported that anti-Semitic incidents were up 89 percent in 2017. There is no reason to think that 2018 will be a better year.

As the AMCHA Initiative’s useful but depressing “swastika tracker” indicates, incidents of anti-Semitism on campus are quite often perpetrated by people who are or are pretending to be neo-Nazis or white nationalists. According to the construct invented by some on right to justify these acts of subterfuge, no treatment is too harsh for the globalists who are betraying our country. A mirror image of this paradigm prevails in certain circles on the left. For supporters of the Jewish state, Jews who refuse to denounce the Jewish state, or sometimes just for Jews who are not card-carrying members of the anti-Israel movement, no treatment can be too harsh. After all, they are responsible for all that is wrong with America.

Left-wing anti-Semitism and right-wing anti-Semitism, then, need to be addressed, and no one who claims to care about anti-Semitism can address just one or the other. It must be said, however, that when it comes to campus anti-Semitism, our failure occurs almost wholly with respect to the left. To be sure, institutions often do quite well when anti-Semitism is absolutely blatant. On the other hand, the most thinly veiled anti-Semitism —for example the blood libel perpetrated by Jasbir Puar of Rutgers University—is not only tolerated but celebrated and rewarded. Academics are much more comfortable denouncing right-wing anti-Semitism, which is almost entirely an off-campus phenomenon, than left-wing anti-Semitism, which has a real, albeit small, foothold at our colleges and universities.

Cary Nelson: The Presbyterian Church’s demonisation of Israel

The Presbyterian Church (USA) has published an ideological and political manual for anti-Israel organising ahead of its bi-annual gathering in June. Reviewing its content, Cary Nelson argues that the publisher’s claim to have produced ‘a study guide’ cannot be accepted. Rather, the language of ‘intersectionality’ is misused in a Church-sponsored demonisation of the Jewish state that is propelled by insinuation more than responsible argument. The controversial academic Steven Salaita argues that the phrase ‘Israeli hummus’ is not just an act of ‘cultural appropriation’ but ‘a promise of genocide’. Sarah Schulman slams Israel’s gay-friendly legal and cultural environment as ‘pink-washing’. Reconciliation and dialogue initiatives are trashed as ‘normalisation’. Israel is accused of ‘genocide’ and the conflict is said to have ‘parallels to the history of slavery in the United States’. The result is a glossy Church-sponsored prospectus for the abolition of the Jewish state that should deeply concern Presbyterians in America.

Toward the end of the Presbyterian anti-Zionist book, Why Palestine Matters: The Struggle to End Colonialism, a sequel to Zionism Unsettled issued in April 2018, just barely in time for PC(USA)’s bi-annual meeting in June, there is a decidedly improbable effort to extend the politics of intersectionality to include a link between Gaza and Puerto Rico. The second item in ‘Parallels with Puerto Rico’ is ‘Letter from Gaza: “We Are All Puerto Ricans,”’ which opens by declaring ‘I know what it’s like to struggle with shortages of vital supplies such as electricity, gas, cash, and safe water’ (82).

Why Palestine Matters is a 110-page oversized book consisting of 39 essays, over 30 breakout supplements, and a large number of illustrations with full paragraph captions. It includes three very useful colour maps, one each of Gaza, West Bank settlements, and West Bank Areas A, B, and C. The editors make an effort to describe it as the third ‘study guide’ issued by IPMN, the Israel/Palestine Mission Network of the Presbyterian Church (US), but it is so fiercely one-sided that it really serves exclusively as an ideological and political manual for anti-Israel organising. The volume breaks with IPMN’s history by explicitly aligning itself with the BDS movement and doing so at length. Many of the essays are new, but a few are excerpts from earlier publications. In the latter category are Steven Salaita’s unusually intense ‘Cultural Appropriation or Theft?’ which warns us that the phrase ‘Israeli hummus’ is a radical form of cultural appropriation, amounting to ‘a project of erasure, a portent of nonexistence, a promise of genocide’ (61) and Sarah Schulman’s ‘Rebranding with Sex and Sexuality,’ which reprises her 2011 brief against ‘pinkwashing,’ the purported effort to distract attention from the military occupation of the West Bank by highlighting Israel’s gay-friendly legal and cultural environment.

David Collier: Banksy and the alien god killers that occupy Bethlehem

The Banksy Hotel and antisemitic imagery

Throughout the museum, there is use of Holocaust imagery, part of an ongoing strategy of equating the results of the 1947/48 civil conflict with the Holocaust. This one plays on both Holocaust and the idea that the value of life is not equal, with one Israeli tooth carrying more weight than over 2000 Arab lives.

This one suggests Israelis kill for money. That Arabs die just so Israelis can test weapons and the conflict is only there so that Jewish business can thrive.

Babies, clothing, shoes. Everywhere you look is the image of a brutal Holocaust committed by money grabbing Jews upon a defenceless and helpless population. Devil against the angels.

The next one is classic antisemitic imagery. Jews as god killers. An image of a Christ like figure with a red-dot sight on his forehead.

Endless hate in the Banksy hotel

There are many other similar images that will be uploaded by the groups who were there with me, and the IAM is also producing a video on the trip, but these few images provide a clear taste of the viscous propaganda on display. Our itinerary included various different faces of the conflict, but this was an important one. This is part of what we are up against, raw hatred dressed up as art. There is no middle ground to be found when facing such distortion and those who create it have no interest in building a dialogue. They want Jews to be seen as money grabbing god killers who invaded a foreign land and brutalised the inhabitants.

The Banksy hotel is a disgraceful blot on the landscape and full of antisemitic images. And the truth is that there is far more hate that went into building the exhibits within the hotel, than went into building the defensive wall the Hotel was designed to protest. One was designed to save lives, the other only sets out to demonise a people. Rather than join some of those we met who really want to make peace, Banksy chose to run with the hate.