Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Tuesday, May 12, 2020

The problem with the ADL's antisemitism analyses (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

No one says that the ADL has not done good work. Just last month, the ADL pursued the removal of The Sbarro Bomber on Social Media

A notorious terrorist who is on the FBI’s list of Most Wanted Terrorists was kicked off of several social media platforms this week after ADL sounded the alarm about her gratuitous, hateful and terrorizing social media presence. ADL provided to Twitter and Instagram information about the social media activities of Ahlam al-Tamimi, an international fugitive wanted for her key role organizing and carrying out Hamas’s 2001 suicide bombing at a Sbarro pizzeria in Jerusalem.

And last week, the ADL joined in criticism of The New York Times for demonizing Israel in what should have been a positive story :

But according to the ADL, the most concerning culprit in the rise of antisemitism is the right-wing, and the individual they blame for that is Donald Trump. In a 2017 Press Release, the ADL reported a 86% spike in antisemitic incidents, during the first 3 months of 2017 alone:

Anti-Semitic incidents in the U.S. surged more than one-third in 2016 and have jumped 86 percent in the first quarter of 2017, according to new data from the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). In its annual Audit of Anti-Semitic Incidents, ADL reports that there has been a massive increase in the amount of harassment of American Jews, particularly since November, and a doubling in the amount of anti-Semitic bullying and vandalism at non-denominational K-12 grade schools.

The press release goes on to make clear that they connect this spike to Trump:

The 2016 presidential election and the heightened political atmosphere played a role in the increase [of antisemitic incidents]. There were 34 incidents linked to the election. For example, in Denver, graffiti posted in May 2016 said “Kill the Jews, Vote Trump.” In November, a St. Petersburg, Fla., man was accosted by someone who told him “Trump is going to finish what Hitler started.”

ADL head Greenblatt had already made abundantly clear what he thought of Trump. In a March 2016 article, he seemed to struggle to support his argument that No, Donald Trump is Not Adolf Hitler:

But while Trump’s stereotyping and bullying are truly troubling, he is not Hitler. He lacks an all-encompassing ideology like Hitler; he commands no paramilitary force like Hitler. He has no organizing principle like Hitler’s anti-Semitism. He has no genocidal ambitions.

Apparently, Greenblatt could not bring himself to just say that Trump was not a racist nor an antisemite.

Antisemitism By The Numbers?

In March 2017, Seth Frantzman -- oped Editor and Middle East affairs analyst at The Jerusalem Post -- took a look at that 86% jump in antisemitic incidents that the ADL reported. Frantzman looked at the data of an ADL Audit: US Anti-Semitic Incidents Surged in 2016-17...

...and makes the following chart of total antisemitic incidents during the Obama presidency, leaving out 2016, since results during that year could be made out to be tainted by the increase in antisemitism during the leadup to the election:

The total number of antisemitic incidents during that 7 year period is 7,034 and Frantzman draws some different conclusions:

o First, where was the outcry, by either the ADL or the media over those over 7,000 cases of antisemitism?

o Over those 84 months of Obama's presidency, that comes out to 84 (83.7) incidents per month during those 7 years -- again, why no outcry?

o Frantzman teases out the number of actual antisemitic assaults during those 7 years, noting the increase in attacks during Obama's last years. The number nearly doubled between 2009 and 2015, while rising from 17 in 2012 to 56 in 2015 (more than tripling) -- yet again, why no outcry?

How Much Antisemitism Can One Person Be Responsible For?

Getting back to that 86% spike the ADL audit found over the first 3 months of 2017, Frantzman critiques it from a different angle in another article: 86% Rise in Antisemitism in America? Half of It Caused by One Jewish Israeli. According to that ADL Audit:

In the first quarter of 2017, preliminary reports of the 541 anti-Semitic incidents included: • 380 harassment incidents, including 161 bomb threats, an increase of 127 percent over the same quarter in 2016;

Frantzman claims that the claimed increase of 86% is overstating the case because one person was responsible for them -- a Jewish Israeli. The 86% is based on the increase in incidents from the first quarter of 2016 (291 cases) to 2017 (541cases) But if you remove those 161 bomb threats, the increase from 2016 (291) to 2017 (380 cases) is 31%.

A 30% increase is still very high, but it is not as staggering as 86%. The ADL report bases its claim of a surge on the increase from 2015 to 2016 of 942 to 1,266 -- an increase of 34%. Frantzman compares the 1,266 in 2016 with the similar 1,239 incidents during the Obama administration and makes the case that there is no surge:

When something is the same as six years ago, it is not a “surge.” It is “historical levels.” When half of the surge in “antisemitism” is caused by a Jewish teen, the data shouldn’t be used for the purposes of discussion. We don’t track racism against black people in America by keeping data on every time a black rapper uses the n-word, do we? We track racism based on actual racist attacks. But when it comes to antisemitism we throw out the rules, and try to record as much as possible, even recording more than 100 incidents of “antisemitism” allegedly caused by a Jewish teen. That data should be thrown out.

Antisemitism As Perception

Lawyer David Bernstein also addresses Correcting the ADL’s False Anti-Semitism Statistic, pointing to the methodology the ADL itself says it uses:

Incidents are defined as vandalism of homes/businesses/public areas, or harassment or assault on individuals or groups, where either 1) circumstances indicate anti-Jewish animus on the part of the perpetrator or 2) the incidents result in Jews perceiving themselves as being victimized due to their Jewish identity. Any vandalism against Jewish religious institutions or cemeteries is also included. [emphasis added]

Bernstein writes that as a result of the increase in "perceived threats" in the Jewish community in 2017, between Trump's election victory and the bomb threats, it is likely that "ambiguous" incidents were reported to the ADL. As examples, Bernstein cites a case of cemetery vandalism that turned out to be a case of old stones falling over and the case of a "drunk and mad" individual with no antisemitic intent, according to the police. The ADL removed the first case from its list, but not the second. In another point, Bernstein notes that when the ADL compares incidents of antisemitism on college campuses, it reports an increase from 108 incidents in 2016 to 204 incidents in 2017, but does not delineate between those by alt-right nationalists who supposedly inspired by Trump and leftist anti-Israel activists, who are not -- allowing Trump to be blamed for all of them.

Lastly, since Bernstein is writing in 2018, he can pick up on a point that is raised by Frantzman and carry it one step further.

While Frantzman in 2017 pointed to the increase in antisemitic assaults during the final years of the Obama administration, Bernstein notes that

despite showing a 57 percent increase in incidents overall, from 1,267 [in 2016] to 1,986 [in 2017], the ADL study shows a 47 percent decrease in physical assaults, from 37 to 19. This is obviously inconsistent with the meme that 2017 saw a surge in violent anti-Semitism. Physical assaults are also the most objective sort of incident to document, which adds to concerns about the robustness of the rest of the data. [emphasis added]

He concludes that he is neither a supporter of Trump nor an apologist for him. Rather, his point is that "the Jewish community’s assessment of the dangers of anti-Semitism should be based on documented facts, not ideology, emotion, partisanship, or panic."

Can Hate Crimes Be On The Rise If Assaults Are Going Down?

Also in 2018 is an article by Robby Soave, a senior editor at Reason, who writes The Media Keeps Saying Anti-Semitism Spiked 57% Under Trump, but That Statistic Is Really Misleading.

He points to an article in The Washington Post that repeats the common accusation that not only is there a major increase in antisemitism, but Trump is to blame:

According to the Anti-Defamation League, the incidence of anti-Semitic hate crimes jumped nearly 60 percent in 2017, the biggest increase since it started keeping track in 1979. What made 2017 so different? It was Trump's first year in office. [emphasis added]

At issue is what the ADL is actually measuring.

The ADL statistic captures anti-Semitic "incidents," which is a much broader category of behavior than "hate crimes" or "attacks." Incidents include things like bullying in schools—which is bad, but usually not indicative of criminal conduct.

There are 2 issues at work here. First of all, do all of the incidents being reported actually qualify as actual "hate crimes" -- or do we now suffer from the domestic equivalent of overusing the accusation of "war crimes"? Secondly, if the results of ADL reports are going to be used to associate these antisemitic attacks on Trump, then a distinction should be made by the ADL to distinguish between right-wing and left-wing antisemitism -- based on the unlikelihood that the left-wing antisemites are taking their cue from Trump.

What Qualifies As Right-Wing Violence, Anyway?

This year, in April, another came out questioning the ADL's methodology. It addresses the issue of perception, but not of the victim of the incident but of the person behind it. In Business Insider, Anthony L. Fisher, their politics columnist, makes a distinction in extremist incidents between "violent incidents committed by people with ties to extremist groups or ideas" vs. "incidents motivated by extremist views where violence actually occurs, is attempted, or is substantially plotted -- but are not actually targeting minorities." Fisher is not arguing with the ADL claim that ultrarightist groups account for a disproportionate number of hate crimes and acts of terror. What he is arguing is that the number is still being inflated. Fisher and his colleagues examined over 500 cases, defining extremist violence as "incidents where police reports, court documents, or news articles presented evidence that the incidents were motivated by extremist viewpoints." They came to the conclusion:

Many of the ADL's 'extremist incidents' are not motivated by bigotry or politics. They're often extremists killing other extremists.

He gives some examples

o A member of a racist extremist group who is a methamphetamine dealer and kills a rival dealer, o A white supremacists who kills either rival white supremacists, or even allies they suspect of being police informants o A former neo-Nazi who killed his roommates when they made fun of his converting to Islam

These may still be classified by the ADL as "extremist killing." --

But by painting its findings with such a broad stroke, the ADL data might lead some to conclude that there are significantly more hate crimes and terrorism in the US than actually transpire. Based on the incidents cited by the ADL, in most years, extremists are just as likely to kill each other, their criminal associates, or their family members as they are to kill people in protected identity groups.

Armed with this distinction, Fisher and his colleagues went through incidents reported over a 10-year time period from 2009 to 2018 and found:

The ADL identified 414 extremist incidents during that 10-year period. Of those, I found just 240 met the criteria that it constituted actually attempted violence and involved a perpetrator with verifiable or self-identified extremist beliefs against a member of a marginalized or targeted group or their property. That's 58% of the ADL's count. [emphasis added]

Fisher, like the other critics, does not see his critique as a way of supporting or advocating for Trump. He sees a need for greater accuracy in the labeling of right-wing extremist violence. Violent extremists generally inspire each other, and the publicity they get in the media is exploited as a recruiting tool. Seen this way, inflated statistics have the potential to embolden and encourage other extremists whose goal is to terrorize the public with the apparent extent of their violence --

It's not dissimilar to ultranationalists cherry-picking statistics regarding violence perpetrated by undocumented immigrants. The bigger the number, the more likely the public is to be cowed by a sense of dread.

Fisher, in particular, makes a point of saying upfront that he is not accusing the ADL of deliberately trying to create a particular impression with their data. Not all of the critics of the ADL's methodology are quite that generous. But the fact remains that similar to human rights groups that maintain a certain "halo effect" giving added validity to their accusations, the ADL, too, gets a certain amount of respect, which attaches itself to the numbers in its reports -- easily turning its data into a political weapon. For example, the radical left-wing group Bend The Arc has decided to helpfully point out "far-right extremists and politicians" and reveal "who's inciting antisemitism."

As an example of their 'work' in ferreting out antisemites, here is an example where Bend The Arc uncovered over 30 antisemites -- at a conservative conference.

We don't need this kind of weaponization of antisemitism by such fringes groups for political purposes, tearing the Jewish community apart. All the more reason for the ADL to be more cautious and take more care in what it counts as antisemitism and how it documents it. As Bernstein pointed out:

the Jewish community’s assessment of the dangers of anti-Semitism should be based on documented facts, not ideology, emotion, partisanship, or panic.

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.

Of course the new @HRW report is filled with anti-Israel bias, as always

Human Rights Watch issued a new report, Israel: Discriminatory Land Policies Hem in Palestinians: Palestinian Towns Squeezed While Jewish Towns Grow.

As usual with HRW, it plays fast and loose with the facts to make Israel appear to be monstrous.

It starts off with

The Israeli government’s policy of boxing in Palestinian communities extends beyond the West Bank and Gaza to Palestinian towns and villages inside Israel, Human Rights Watch said today. The policy discriminates against Palestinian citizens of Israel and in favor of Jewish citizens, sharply restricting Palestinians’ access to land for housing to accommodate natural population growth.

Decades of land confiscations and discriminatory planning policies have confined many Palestinian citizens to densely populated towns and villages that have little room to expand.

Notice that HRW refers to Israeli Arabs as "Palestinians." As Daled Amos recently showed, the majority of Israeli Arabs do not identify as Palestinian. If anything, HRW is trying to place an artificial distinction between two sets of Israeli citizens more than they accuse Israel of doing!

While the issue of land use in Israel is very complex, and there has been validity to the charge of Israel showing a preference for growth in Jewish communities over the decades, Israel has recently been addressing the issue and putting enormous amounts of time and effort into solving the problem. HRW glosses over, minimizes and ignores these efforts. By saying at the outset, as a fact, that Israel is "boxing in" its Arab communities, HRW is lying, as we will see below.

Another indication of bias comes from this paragraph:

Palestinian citizens of Israel constitute 21 percent of the country’s population, but Israeli and Palestinian rights groups estimated in 2017 that less than 3 percent of all land in Israel falls under the jurisdiction of Palestinian municipalities.

The implication is that Arabs are allocated only one seventh of the land they should have by their population.

However, one cannot compare the land of Arab municipalities with the total land of Israel - because most of the land in Israel is not part of any municipality, Jewish or Arab. Only about 6400 of Israel's 22,000 square kilometers is urban. Which means that the actual percentage of municipal land dedicated to Arab-only towns is over 10%. Furthermore, many Arabs live in "mixed" towns like Lod or Jerusalem or Acre or Haifa making this statistic an even less accurate metric of reality since they aren't "hemmed in" at all and can build and buy real estate exactly like their Jewish neighbors. Additionally, tens of thousands of Bedouin in the Negev do not live in any municipality at all.

By using the 3% figure, HRW is distorting the truth by an order of magnitude.

The bias continues:

Jisr al-Zarqa, between Netanya and Haifa in northwest Israel, is the only Palestinian town in Israel on the Mediterranean coast. Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics lists its population as 14,700. Jisr al-Zarqa, a local council in the Haifa District with a size of about 1,600 dunams, is one of Israel’s poorest towns, with about 80 percent of residents living below the poverty line.

Policies of Israeli governments and institutions under the British mandate dating back almost a century have effectively boxed in its residents. In the early 1920s, the Palestine Jewish Colonization Association, according to Israel’s Foreign Ministry, drained the swamps, from which local residents derived their livelihood herding buffalos and weaving reed mats, to make room for new Jewish settlements. Residents say they ended with roughly their current plot of land, far less than they had historically lived on.

Again, one can make an argument that Israel hasn't treated the Arabs fairly - but to say that ridding the country of malaria is a bad thing is a fairly ridiculous argument. And it isn't like the Zionists controlled the land in the 1920s; the British were who moved the residents so the swamps could be drained, which is the sort of thing governments do all the time when people are living in a dangerous area. It was the British who decided how much land the residents would have, not the Jews. HRW says none of this.

HRW included an appendix with a letter from the Israel Planning Administration which listed in great detail what Israel was doing in recent years to help Arab residents achieve equality with Jews in regard to land use. Specifically for Jisr al Zarqa, it says:

The plan allocates new development areas, some west of the built-up areas within the municipal boundaries and some east of Road No. 2 and outside the municipal jurisdiction, on land that belongs to the Beit Hanania moshav community. In answer to your question, the added development areas in the west necessitated the advancement of planning measures for zoning changes of “green” areas (a national park, a landscape conservation area, and agricultural land), which are approved as part of national masterplans, to allow residential use on state land for the purpose of developing new residential neighborhoods. The zoning changes were approved by the National Planning and Building Council Subcommittee.

This undermines the entire thrust of HRW's report - the Israel government is not only allocating state land to this community, it is taking land away from a Jewish moshav to give to the Arabs of Jisr al Zarqa.

So when HRW says Israel is "boxing in" Arab communities, it is flatly lying.

The IPA lists everything it has been doing over the past few years:

Of the 132 Arab communities, 119 have current master plans that have been approved, are in the approval process, or are in preparation. These plans cover some 96% of the total population of these communities. The plans form a planning framework that encompasses the entire area of the community and determines zoning distribution for the coming decades as well as future development trajectories (residential, employment, tourism, public buildings, open public spaces and more), and they are made in a process that includes public involvement and participation.

These plans are complex and intricate, given the unique features of Arab communities, which are related to the structure of land ownership: Most of the land in these communities is privately owned, with few landowners in possession of a great deal of land (Some 20% in possession of some 80% of the land).

As a result of this, there are many unutilized agricultural enclaves. In addition, there is a short supply of land for public use, partly due to the inability of local authorities to utilize land for public purposes and authorize infrastructure on privately owned land. Most existing construction is in the ineffective form of diffused single-family dwellings. This precludes large-scale solutions for young couples and features multi-generational construction implemented over the years while forcing the authorities to deliver infrastructure over an expansive area, which constitutes both a financial and operational burden. All of this takes place in tandem with large-scale unregulated construction and challenging topographic conditions, particularly in communities in the Galilee.

The comprehensive plans promoted by the Planning Administration, as detailed above, address these issues on several planes: First, the plans recognize thousands of existing housing units, including ones located at a significant distance from the area approved for development. Second, the planning process includes great efforts to locate state-owned land that would allow both large-scale construction of housing units in order to provide solutions for individuals in need of housing, as well as the allocation of core public spaces needed for these additional housing units and as compensation for shortages in the older core. State-owned land is sometimes located at some distance from the existing community, with agricultural enclaves in between. These lands are included in the new development zones in order to produce a compact urban structure that is not detached from the urban tissue. The result of these measures is masterplans that include new areas for development on an extremely extensive scale, and are suited to contain a number of housing units far exceeding the programmatic and demographic needs of the community, as required by projected natural growth and internal migration over the coming decades. Some of the plans include vast development areas reaching beyond the jurisdiction of these communities. These plans bridge the gaps of the past and provide infrastructure for growth over the extended long term, while taking into consideration construction practices characteristic of privately owned land. All of this is in contrast to the compact high-density planning that is characteristic of planning in the Jewish sector.

HRW breezily dismisses this entire letter by saying,

in 2019, the Israeli group “Bimkom: Planners for Planning Rights” noted an increase in planning activity in Palestinian towns, including steps to allow for more housing construction, but observed that the housing shortage in Palestinian municipalities would continue without the state allocating them more state land.

This is a far cry from "boxing in." This is saying that Israel is trying to accommodate all its citizens and some interest groups are complaining that it is not enough.

HRW knows that no reporter is going to go past the first paragraphs of the report that accuses Israel of wholesale crimes against its Arab citizens and read the details and appendix that show that the situation is far more complex and that Israel is investing enormous resources into fixing the issue. Because HRW isn't interested in telling the truth, but in pushing an anti-Israel agenda.

As always.

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.

Monday was World Keffiyeh Day, which was made up by a student group in Canada ironically named Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights.

The reason it is ironic is that while in English the pro-Palestinian crowd says it is a symbol of "unity and struggle," in Arabic it is all about "resistance" - which means terror.

It originally was used during the 1936 Arab riots to hide from the British, and then became popular again when Yassir Arafat wore it everywhere. But Arabs understand it as a symbol of terrorism.

This poem, illustrated with the face of a girl wearing the keffiyeh, ends off with "The way to Palestine is through the barrel of a gun."

Anyone who tells you that the keffiyeh is a peaceful symbol of unity is lying, and probably knowingly so.

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.

05/11 Links Pt2: The Pogrom That Started the Palestinian Arab-Israeli Conflict; Where Black Nationalism Meets White Supremacy; Ancient coin from Bar Kochba revolt found near Temple Mount

From Ian:

The Pogrom That Started the Palestinian Arab-Israeli Conflict

In 1920, reality struck the Yeshuv (The Jewish community in Palestine). Many who believed hitherto in the possibility of a bi-national state in Palestine between Arabs and Jews were shocked by the ferocity of the Arab hate and violence. Even those belonging to ‘B’rith Shalom,’ the group of intellectuals who believed in a bi-national state, realized after 1920, that it was a conflict between two national groups over the same land.

Leaders of the Yishuv in Mandatory Palestine realized that counting on the earlier existing Ha’shomer (armed guards) had little effect and wasn’t enough. Chief among them was Eliyahu Golomb, who was the architect of the Haganah, the underground military organization for the defense of the Yishuv between 1920-1948. Golomb convinced Ben Gurion (founder and future first Prime Minister), then a leader of the Labor Zionist movement, and subsequently the General Secretary of the Histadrut, the Zionist Labor Federation, that the Ha’Shomer was too weak for the needs of the community.

The subsequent violent encounters with the Palestinian Arabs forced the Yishuv, the Haganah, and later the Jewish State of Israel and the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to understand that survival depended on a strong military force. Golda Meir, the late Israeli Prime Minister, put it best when she said, “If the Arabs put down their guns there would be no more fighting. If the Israelis put down theirs, there would be no more Israel”

What then has changed in the 100 years since the pogrom of 1920? Not much, albeit, Palestinian Arab terror is no longer an existential threat. The Palestinian Arabs aim however remains the destruction of the Jewish state. Moreover, the same notion that existed in 1920, that the Jews are a religious group and not a national one that deserves sovereignty, still holds. To the extent that peace agreements have been signed between Arab states (Egypt and Jordan) and Israel, they were based on the recognition that Israel is too powerful to destroy. But it is not a recognition of Israel’s legitimate rights of self-determination in its historical homeland. Both the Arab states and the Palestinian Arabs recognize that what the Jews built in Israel cannot be erased. Thus, Israel’s relations with the Arabs in the territories or the wider Arab world is not based on love and understanding but rather on mutual economic, military, intelligence-sharing, and environmental interests.

A century after the beginning of the Palestinian Arab - Israeli conflict in 1920, Palestinian Arabs anti-Jewish and anti-Israel religious (Islamic) and nationalist elements of hostility, and refusal to compromise remain unfortunately, essentially the same.

Where Black Nationalism Meets White Supremacy

In the last decades of the 20th century, black nationalist, anti-Semitic messaging has also found a receptive audience on college campuses throughout the country. At Wellesley, for example, one professor used The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews as a textbook and when he was accused of promoting bigotry in the name of history, he subsequently published The Jewish Onslaught, an attack on his critics whom he perceived were Jews. At Kean College, Khalid Muhammad, a disciple of Louis Farrakhan, accused Jews in a college lecture of being “bloodsuckers.” Invited by a black student group, rapper Professor Griff of Public Enemy told his audience at Southern Connecticut State University that Jewish doctors injected black babies with AIDS. These examples provide a sample of how anti-Semitic black nationalist rhetoric is being mainstreamed into academic programs that have as their stated objective the fostering of multicultural understanding.

In recent years, black nationalist spokesmen on college campuses have continued to verbally attack Jews while also using the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement (BDS) to give a sheen of legitimate concern over specific Israeli government policies to mainstream their hate-filled beliefs. In using the boycott movement to attack Israel, they have found commonality with neo-Nazis and far-right extremists while gaining access to young and impressionable students. When student organizations are criticized for bringing such bigoted speakers to campus, they respond that freedom of speech requires hearing the “other side.”

In comparing BDS to the boycott in South Africa during the apartheid era, black nationalist groups have found a wider audience for their transhistorical anti-Semitic hate while cloaking it in the language of normative anti-racist politics. While one can argue about whether BDS is inherently anti-Semitic—there are perhaps a majority of BDS supporters who are sincere in support of the Palestinian cause without being anti-Semites, many of them Jewish, especially within academia—it is clear that BDS has also become a nesting place for black nationalists, neo-Nazis, and far-right extremists who use the movement to spread anti-Semitic ideas that they believe to be universal truths, and which are hardly dependent on specific Israeli government policies.

The reality is that as long as the country is divided along racial and political lines, black nationalist organizations will continue to find fertile ground to recruit the likes of those in the Monsey and Jersey City attacks without being accountable for inciting hate crimes against Jews, the LGBT community, and other vulnerable groups. There will continue to be more attacks by lone wolves, whether Grafton Thomas or Dylann Roof, who are infected by the bile of not only black nationalist but also white extremist organizations. Which raises the question as to why the leaders of hate group organizations are not held criminally responsible for promoting violence through their websites and Charlottesville-like marches. Unless and until we strengthen hate crime laws against those who encourage violence against Jews and other groups, then the Farrakhans and David Dukes of this world will continue to recruit followers through social media while messaging anti-Semitic canards on an everyday basis.

Black nationalism represents one component of a growing war of hatred against worldwide Jewry and Israel. In our country, the road to Monsey and Jersey City is not too distant from the road to Charlottesville.

American Jewish useful idiots

"Jewish political intelligence is an oxymoron." Never forget that maxim when you walk into a gathering of Jewish/Americans. Be prepared to be amazed at their ferocious arrogance tempered with an unwillingness to hear you when you're recognized as a Conservative.

It's a fact that about 72% of this group are of the Democrat persuasion and infused with a suicidal zeal for the destruction of their own people. Their fanaticism and supportive compliance with their haters, a genetic mutation fostered by 2000 years of being treated like dirt in every nation in which they sought refuge, has led them to bend their knees to their oppressors, groveling to seek acceptance as "one of them."

Of course, they have been, time after time, looked down upon as useful idiots. And when the time comes, as in the past, bet on it, they will once again be treated as shifty, sly, deceptive, money hungry traitorous Jews. With no other country to seek refuge in, this next time, they may even, once and for all...... be made to disappear.

Did I hear you say, "What about relocating to Israel?" Understand that these same 72% of Jews who currently support all the Israel-hating voices emanating from the new leadership of The Party, will revel in the destruction of the Jewish homeland. Look at the astounding growth of such Jewish-infused groups such as J Street, Americans for Peace Now, T'ruah, Jewish Voice for Peace, Rabbis for Obama, The Center for Middle East Peace, If Not Now and Jewish Professors Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, Barry Trachtenberg and more than a host of others, all of whom are targeting the very existence of Israel by indoctrinating their students with a hatred for that land.

You can see the trend.

Naturally, all of the above groups and professors are adored and used by the Democrats to garner support for their candidates, all of whom march lock-step with The Party's leader. For eight years that was Reverend Wright-nurtured President Barack Obama. Now the lead Democrat Presidential candidate is Joe Biden, who recently promised to welcome back into D.C., the terrorist supporting Palestinian Liberation Organization's Embassy, opened by Obama in 2009 and kicked out by President Trump in 2018.

A 1900 year old coin that says "Israel" is a bit more important than am 80 year old British coin that says "Palestine"

Every once in a while, some brainy Israel hater will find an old British Mandate coin that says "Palestine" on it (including the initials for Eretz Yisrael in Hebrew) and say that, look, this shows that there was a place called Palestine before the State of Israel!

The arguments are uniformly stupid. The Arabs of Palestine protested against having their own currency, for one thing. This is a British coin.

But an easy way to counter the arguments comes from the news today:

In honor of Lag B’Omer, the Israel Antiquities Authority on Monday revealed a rare bronze coin from the period of the Bar Kokhba revolt (circa 132 CE), which was discovered in archaeological excavations of the Israel Antiquities Authority in the William Davidson Archaeological Park, under the supervision of the Company for the Reconstruction and Development of the Jewish Quarter in the Old City of Jerusalem, Ltd. located between the Temple Mount and the City of David.

The obverse of the coin is decorated with a cluster of grapes and the inscription “Year Two of the Freedom of Israel” and the reverse side features a palm tree and the inscription “Jerusalem.”

The revolt coins featured the Temple facade, trumpets, a harp/violin, as well as the inscriptions: “Redemption of Israel” and “Freedom of Israel.”

I think 132 CE is a little earlier than 1939 CE.

Here's a video about the coin:

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.

Palestinian women, facing COVID-19 domestic violence at home, urged to blow themselves up in Israeli cities

Palestinian Media Watch notes that this music video, urging women to become suicide bombers in Israeli cities, has been shown numerous times on official PA TV in recent weeks:

Lyrics: “Strap on the explosive belt
Detonate the first in Haifa
and the second in Atlit (i.e., Israeli cities)
Do not let the usurper (i.e., Israel) sleep
Make him constantly terrified...
O my enemy,
this is the day you have never seen...
Strap on the Molotov cocktails
and the AK-47 bullets
Make the tyrant constantly afraid,
and may a volcano of oil boil below him...
Strap on the belt, O daughter of my land,
and detonate it in front of the enemies
How sweet is the taste of Martyrdom,
I have found none like it...
O Wafa [Idris] and Ayyat [Al-Akhras] (i.e., female suicide bombers)
You have lifted our heads to the heavens
Our public is now following you
by the thousands”

It has been years since the last female Palestinian suicide bomber attempt. Why would this message be broadcast so much today?

Perhaps the answer can be found in this article about how Palestinian women are suffering under the closures of COVID-19. The PA minister of women's affairs Dr. Amal Hamad gave a press conference on Saturday where she revealed that domestic violence has doubled in the territories since the pandemic began, including cases of incest. There have been 20 attempted suicides by Palestinian women in recent weeks.

Could it be that the Palestinian leaders are trying to recruit abused women in order to give them a path to move from being ashamed to becoming heroines? Is this their planned response to Israel possibly extending sovereignty over parts of Judea and Samaria? Suicide bombers no longer generate as much sympathy as they used to, but a narrative of "distraught Palestinian women" could be effective among certain circles.

Given that many female suicide bombers in the past have been discovered to have been doing something considered "shameful," this seems like disturbingly possible scenario.

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.

05/11 Links Pt1: Trump and Netanyahu Ready to Create History in Judea and Samaria; The Real Victims of the International Criminal Court's Obsession with Israel

From Ian:

David Singer: Trump and Netanyahu Ready to Create History in Judea and Samaria

President Trump and Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are readying to create history together on 1 July when Israel restores Jewish sovereignty after 3000 years in 1697km² [square kilometers] of territory comprising 30% of Judea and Samaria – the Jewish People's biblical and ancient heartland.

About 65000 Arabs – 5% of the Arab population of Judea and Samaria – and 450000 Jews live in the area proposed for Jewish sovereignty.

The road forward has been made possible after Netanyahu was unanimously confirmed as Israel’s next Prime Minister by 11 judges of Israel’s Supreme Court.

Trump’s map (pictured below) gives practical expression to the following international treaties and documents justifyingIsrael’s proposed action:
• The San Remo Resolution and Treaty of Sevres in 1920
• The League of Nations Mandate for Palestine in 1922
• Article 80 of the UN Charter

Trump’s translation of a dream – begun 100 years ago at San Remo – into a miraculous reality for the Jewish people in July2020 – should be welcomed by every Jew worldwide – privileged to be the generation to see this amazing reaffirmation of the Jewish People’s past history coming alive again.

Instead, this momentous occasion is being met with opposition by many Jewish organisations, media and individuals concerned at what they call “West Bank Annexation” – the identical language used by the UN and EU, PLO and Arab League in opposing Israel’s action.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Restoring Jewish sovereignty in Judea and Samaria – designated for reconstitution of the Jewish National Home by the international community 100 years ago – is not “West Bank annexation”.

Trump and Netanyahu – therefore – would certainly not have welcomed the publication in the New York Times of an article by Middle East Forum President – Daniel Pipes – headlined “Annexing the West Bank would hurt Israel”.

Pipes opposes Israel’s decision for six reasons:
• President Trump could well erupt in fury at Israel for “unilaterally acting”on 1 July
• “Annexation”would alienate and weaken Israel’s diminishing number of friends in the Democratic Party and in Europe
• “Unilateral Israeli annexation”could end Israel’sexpanding ties with Sunni Arab states.
• “Annexation”could destabilize “Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza”.
• “Annexation”is sure to alienate Israel’s Leftwhich would lead probably to a contingent of Israeli Zionists turning anti-Zionist, with some Israelis leaving the country in disgust
• “Annexation”would be likely to make more Palestinians eligible to become citizens of Israel.

Two of Pipes’s reasons suggesting “unilateral action” by Israel are simply untrue.

When it Comes to Sovereignty, Daniel Pipes Is Wrong

Bonus Fear #7: Israeli sovereignty will achieve nothing

While not numbering it, Pipes sneaks in a seventh fear: that Israeli sovereignty in Judea and Samaria is merely “a symbolic move, a gesture towards Israelis living on the West Bank in legal limbo,” and will achieve nothing except trouble.

But Pipes forgets that symbolism is a powerful force in the ancient Middle East. Sending a signal that Israel intends to stay in its historic heartland forever will do much to deflate jihadist intentions. Israeli sovereignty in Judea and Samaria will also broadcast a message of Jewish historic rights to all those who claim that Israel is merely a European colonizer.

Far from achieving nothing, Israeli sovereignty in the ancestral homeland and the annexation of strategic positions will have a much-needed positive impact for both Israeli identity and Israeli security. Daniel Pipes’ latest article serves as a boon to enemies who wish to weaken Israel through exaggerating the very fears he mentions. To be fair, he has written many strong articles in favor of a robust Israeli policy; this one seems to be a departure.

The real Israel, thankfully, is not afraid because it shouldn’t be. There is a buoyant sense of prosperity in the air, and a healthy embrace of tradition is permeating Israel’s consciousness. Thousands of new housing units were just green-lighted in the Etzion block in Judea. Israel’s birth rate continues to be high, and the GDP per capita is above even that of the United Kingdom. Now is not the time to be gripped by fear. Now is the time for Israelis to gather strength and confidence from all we have been through and all we are becoming, and to take control of our land through sovereignty and of our future.

From Daniel Pipes: A Response to My Critics

I believe in a smart Israel “victory” that goes for the jugular, and I see annexation of the West Bank at this time as dumb, as going for the extremities. As I wrote in the article, it “would probably damage Israel’s relations with the Trump administration, the Democrats, Europeans, and Arab leaders, as well as destabilize the region, radicalize the Israeli left, and harm the Zionist goal of a Jewish state.”

I appeal for cool tempers, clear goals, and smart tactics.

In this case, that means carefully considering what steps will most advance the goal of breaking the Palestinian will to eliminate Israel, while simultaneously doing the least damage to Israel’s internal harmony and external standing. One possibility would be, as I have argued before: “When official [Palestinian Authority] guns are turned against Israelis, seize these and prohibit new ones, and if this happens repeatedly, dismantle the PA’s security infrastructure. Should violence continue, reduce and then shut off the water and electricity that Israel supplies.”

Again, let’s debate calmly and stay focused. Only that way — and not via legalistic distractions or tactical enthusiasms — can Israeli victory be achieved.

Now @UNRWA even brags that American citizens are "Palestine refugees" with USA propaganda campaign

Last year, UNRWA-USA - the American fundraising arm of UNRWA - started a "UNRWA Alumni" program to get people who grew up in the Middle East, going to UNRWA schools, to proudly say that they are "Palestine refugees."

The video is terrible and hard to understand, but each of the people speaking identify themselves as "Palestine refugees" - and are American citizens.

It just points to the absurdity of UNRWA considering anyone descended from people who lived in Palestine in 1948 to be forever "refugees" and forever eligible for UN benefits.

UNRWA-USA even admits that its agenda is political:

Dr. Yassine Daoud is a Palestine refugee now living in Maryland, but more than that, he is a successful medical doctor, caring father, and supportive husband to award-winning Palestinian author and public speaker Laila El-Haddad. As our country discusses who refugees are and what refugees looks like, this family has taken it upon themselves to help reshape that narrative, through participating in charitable events, giving back to their American and Palestinian communities, and sharing their own story.

There is a further irony in UNRWA using its fake "refugees" as a means to change American attitudes towards real refugees, as can be seen from this other story of a successful UNRWA graduate:

Today, Nada Kiblawi is a successful entrepreneur and businesswoman living in northern Virginia, alongside her husband and three adult children. The now retired founder and co-owner of NHK Consulting, Nada provided engineering services to some of the world’s largest and most reputable companies.

Born and raised in this camp and in poverty, Nada sadly recalls that she was deprived of a normal, happy childhood. “I’m at a loss of words when I think back upon my childhood years,” she says. “All children born refugees are deprived a childhood. My land, home, and youth, were stolen from me and those of the fourth generation of refugees born into and raised in camps. "

Why is no one pressuring Lebanon to treat their hundreds of thousands of Palestinians like human beings? Why are they still in disgusting camps after for generations? Because UNRWA exists! As Kibwali shows, generations of kids grow up to blame Jews for "stealing" land they have never seen and that many families had not even been there for as long as they have been in Lebanon. But if it wasn't for UNRWA, Lebanon would have been forced to take responsibility for the refugees, the way every other country has to. Because of UNRWA, the issue can be pushed off another few generations, with more kids being taught incitement against Israel and Lebanon, which literally has apartheid laws against Palestinians, is not mentioned by UNRWA or UNRWA-USA.

UNRWA instills this sort of antisemitism and it keeps people of Palestinian ancestry in these terrible conditions by virtue of its very existence.

The propaganda continues with the story of Mohammed Eid:

I grew up in a 200-square-foot house, with five siblings and our parents in Rafah Camp in Gaza. The street was my living room, my study area, and where I played. As a child, I had never seen a baseball field, a swimming pool, or the cinema.

Baseball field in Gaza?? Well, Gaza has some very nice soccer fields. And swimming pools.

And it used to have cinemas, but Hamas outlawed them.

Now, the question is, why Mohammed Eid, who was an toddler when the Palestinian Authority was created, grew up in a "refugee camp" at all? Israel tried to move Gazans into real houses - but the UN passed resolutions against it and those who tried to take advantage were threatened. Yet under PA and Hamas control, these camps still exist. People who live in their own country under their own rulers are not refugees. Why is Eid's family treated like one?

Because UNRWA exists. Because it has brainwashed generations to say that their homes are in Israel and they cannot live as equal citizens in a Palestinian state next to Israel.

UNRWA-USA is engaged in a massive propaganda campaign to extend the "refugee" problem forever. And it takes only a little effort to look at the words of their star propagandists to see how this works.

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.

Last week, under Israeli pressure, some Arab banks doing business in the territories stopped paying stipends and salaries to former prisoners and families of current prisoners.

Today, the Palestinian prime minister responded to the news in his speech at the opening of his weekly cabinet meeting.

Mohammad Shtayyeh opened his remarks by saying that "The occupation is launching a campaign of terror about the payments to the prisoners using a legal attack against banks. The payments to the prisoners is sacred to us and we will not accept Israel's actions....We are looking for solutions that protect the payments to prisoners on the one hand and protect banks from the threat of occupation on the other."

Interestingly, a poll done earlier this year showed that Palestinians are not nearly as supportive of paying prisoners and their families as they had been in the past. A February survey by the Washington Institute showed that 68% of Palestinians in the West Bank agree that prisoners do not deserve extra payments from the government, a huge increase from the 43% who held that opinion last year.

The bad news is that Israel has restored all the money withheld for prisoner payments - and more - last week, with a 800 million shekel loan to the PA to help its economic crisis. These loans are generally not expected to be repaid. So while Israel doesn't want an unstable PA, which is understandable, the PA is saying explicitly that it will continue to prioritize paying terrorists over any other need, including fighting COVID-19.

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.

Israel provides jobs, health insurance, PPE and extensive regulations to keep Palestinian workers healthy - and Israel haters spin it as evil

Last week I gave a high level overview of what Israel agreed to do to protect returning Palestinian workers while keeping them healthy and COVID-19 free.

I found a much more detailed list of the obligations given to Israeli employers of Palestinians by Israeli legislation:

On May 4, 2020, the government approved a legislative amendment that requires the employers of Palestinian construction, agriculture and industrial workers, needed to stay continuously in Israel due to the Corona crisis, to insure them in Israeli health insurance. The amendment ensures that Palestinian workers can receive health care in Israel when needed.

According to the emergency regulations, Palestinians who come to work in Israel are required to stay in Israel for three consecutive weeks, without the possibility of returning to their home. Legislative regulations were also determined for health and lodging conditions in a way that will allow the return of thousands of the required workers to the construction sector in Israel. At the end of March, the Knesset's Welfare and Labor Committee demanded that the matter be regulated, and the Kav LaOved, Association for Civil Rights, and Physicians for Human Rights organizations petitioned the High Court demanding that it will be implemented.

The living conditions currently defined in the regulations forbid to lodge more than six workers in a room and stipulate that you must provide each worker with personal space of at least 4 square meters, a bed, bedding, and blankets. The accommodations must be ventilated, separated from the workplace in a way that protects workers from physical hazards and accidents. Also, they must include a sink and stove for every nine workers, kitchenware in the necessary amount, and a refrigerator – except in cases where the employer is the one providing the workers' meals. In the building, you must provide a room or place designated for eating with a separate seat for each worker. Furthermore, employers are required to provide lighting, electricity, bathroom, showers with hot water sufficient for the number of workers, washing machines, a supply of drinking water and sewerage, and to take care of clearing sanitation hazards.

The regulations also specify that during the Corona period, government employees who are inspectors on behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Construction and Housing will be authorized to assist in the supervision and to enforce the regulations. These are additional inspectors to the existing inspectors of the Ministry of Labor and Administration of Population that is already authorized to supervise and implement the fulfillment of the obligations to an employer of a foreign worker by law.

"The issue of regulating the Palestinian workers' conditions was coordinated with us, and I am glad that the contractors accepted most of the State's requirements to allow the entry of migrant workers. It was requested that workers who come to work in Israel receive at least medical insurance," Chairman of the Construction and Wood Workers Union-Histadrut, Itzik Moyal, said to Davar. "We are in contact with the Palestinian workers who arrive and provide them with protective gear – masks and gloves. Together with the joint safety headquarters, we also go to check the workers' residence and make sure it meets the standards set by the Ministry of Health. In this period, it is most important to us that the workers feel that they have an address. Every problem that will exist, we will do everything we can to help them."

The pro-worker NGOs got what they asked for. Israel's still powerful Histradut is ensuring adherence. The Palestinian workers agreed to these conditions and some of them like health insurance, they demanded.

It is critical to minimize worker travel because they are more likely to get the coronavirus in Israel than at home, and if they commute they can easily infect many others before knowing they have the virus.

All of this is to help tens of thousands of Palestinian workers get back to work as safely and securely as humanly possible.

So, of course, anti-Israel idiots are spinning this as Israeli oppression:

The only alternative is for these 67,000 workers to remain unemployed. There is no safe way to allow them to move back and forth every day. And the workers agreed to this!

In short, even when Israel does the most socialist, liberal, lifesaving work humanly possible, Israel haters will say it is terrible.

And look who retweeted this absurdity:

Sari Bashi, formerly of Human Rights Watch, doesn't like the joint Israel-Palestinian plan to protect workers either.

Once again, we see that people who pretend to love Palestinians actually only hate Israel - so much so that they would prefer that Palestinians contract infect their communities with a potentially fatal virus, just so they can self-righteously say that Israel is "exploiting" them.

They are all hypocrites.

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.

No, @NYTimes. There haven't been 750,000 Palestinian prisoners since 1967. Not even close. And I can prove it.

The New York Times reported:

The Palestinian Authority, which governs parts of the West Bank under the Oslo accords, sends stipends each month to as many as 12,000 families of current and former prisoners, some of whom have been convicted of killing Israelis. More than an estimated 750,000 Palestinians have been imprisoned by Israel during the 53 years of the occupation, according to the Palestine Liberation Organization’s negotiation affairs department. Many Palestinians revere the current and former inmates as national heroes.

I've been chasing down that statistic for over ten years. And it is bogus.

Proof #1:

It was originally stated by the Addameer NGO, as 650,000 prisoners in 2005. They never gave a source for this statistic.

The burden of proof should be on the people who make the claim, and the numbers should not be quoted without any whiff of a source.

Proof #2:

Addameer raised it to 750,000 prisoners in 2009. B'Tselem counts an average of perhaps 7000 prisoners at any time between 2005-2009, which means that for there to be 100,000 new prisoners in those 4 years, there must be an astonishing turnover of the entire prison population.

Of course, there wasn't. The PCHR NGO keeps track of all arrests, and the average number of monthly arrests (from taking a random sample) was between 200-400 in that time period. Even if every person arrested ended up in prison, that would be at the very most 5,000 new prisoners a year, not 25,000. (And in reality it is far less.)

So we already know Addameer was either lying in 2005 or in 2009. And the answer is, they were lying in both. Because that would mean a huge number of prisoners between 1967 and 2005 - some 17,000 new prisoners a month over 38 years, then increasing to 25,000 a month by 2009.

These numbers are absurd. They don't line up with prisoner counts, they don't line up with arrests. They have no source. They are lies.

Proof #3:

Newer Addameer numbers (and PLO numbers) raise the number of prisoners to 800,000 (2014) and one million (2016.) Every single cited number is arbitrary and unsourced. And the newer ones are even more absurd, as the number of prisoners have been steadily declining over that time to less than 5000 now.

The Palestinian Prisoners Society claim of a million prisoners by 2016 contrasts with their claim of 850,000 in 2015, meaning an additional 150,000 imprisoned in that one year - a year where we know the number of arrests was less than 5000.

So everyone, not just Addameer, was making up numbers. Yet they were quoted by the UN, by Jimmy Carter, by untold NGOs who cannot believe that Palestinians would lie so easily.

Proof #4:

If the PLO has a policy of paying salaries to prisoners and former prisoners, why aren't they paying 750,000 people or a million people?

Every Palestinian is aware of "pay for slay." Mahmoud Abbas has bragged about it and said that he would never reduce it by a penny. If so many Palestinians were eligible for the payments, there would be riots in the streets from the former prisoners (and since there are only 4200 prisoners now, that means nearly all of the "750,000" or "million" are former prisoners.)

Proof #5:

When Addameer says this statistic, they often add another one: that this number represents some 40% of the total adult male population of Palestinians who have been in prison.

40%!

In a survey of Arab women in 2011, the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics asked a large sample of women "Has [sic] any of your family members been arrested/detained by the Israeli occupation" - within the previous 12 months or any time before that.

3.6% answered yes for the previous 12 months, and 20.8% said it had happened in the years before that.

Not counting the fact that great number of people imprisoned had been in prison previously, that is a maximum of 25% of male family members who had been in prison - if there is only one adult male per what the woman considers family. However, given Palestinian family sizes, one can assume that there are at least four adult males related to every woman surveyed on the average: husbands, fathers, adult sons, brothers. If my estimate is correct on 4 male relatives (and I am being conservative - they might include uncles and cousins) then that would mean more like 5-7% of adult males have been in prison. Adults are a little more than half the population, men are half of that, so this would mean that less than 100,000 men had been in prison at least once. (I am not counting the very real possibility that more that one male relative could easily have been in prison, but I am well overestimating in my other assumptions, so less than 100,000 seems far more reasonable.)

At any rate, there is no way to make those numbers add up to 40% of adult males or 750,000 men.

I emailed the Israel Prisons Service asking if they have any actual statistics, we'll see if they answer. But the overinflated numbers given by the PLO and Addameer, and parroted by the New York Times, has zero basis in reality.

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.

EoZTV: Interview with Kay Wilson

Kay is an amazing woman, and this interview proves it.

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

05/10 Links: Refuting NYTimes Op-Ed against sovereignty in Judea and Samaria; Three Gulf states seek partnership with Israel to fight coronavirus

From Ian:

Refuting Daniel Pipes’ NYTimes op-ed opposing Israeli sovereignty in Judea and Samaria

Daniel Pipes’ has written a fallacy-filled New York Times op-ed opposing Israeli legally valid sovereignty over Judea, Samaria and the Jordan Valley which sounds like it came from the hostile-to-Israel far left. Instead, it came from Pipes, a well-known pro-Israel rightist who is also a “never-Trumper.”

For starters, Pipes’ op-ed uses the leftwing misnomer “annexation” – which implies that Israel is taking lands to which she has no right. The accurate description is: “Israel’s exercise of her sovereignty over historic Jewish lands to which Israel is entitled under binding international law,” or “extending Israeli law to Judea and Samaria,” or “exercising her sovereignty.” International agreements, including the British Mandate and San Remo resolution, guaranteed the Jewish people’s rights to resettle and reconstitute the Jewish state on these lands.

Pipes also wrongly writes that “annexation” was a “fringe” idea prior to publication of President Trump’s “Peace to Prosperity” plan in January 2020. In fact, polls show that the overwhelming majority of Israelis have favored exercising sovereignty over Judea and Samaria and the Jordan Valley, since well before the Trump peace plan was announced. In January 2017, the Maagar Mochot Interdisciplinary Research Institute poll found that Israelis opposed a Palestinian-Arab state and favored Israeli sovereignty by 10 to 1. Prominent mainstream journalists have been writing about the advantages and inevitability of Israel exercising her sovereignty for years.

Notably, an Al-Monitor article posted in Arutz Sheva by respected security expert Efraim Inbar, directly contradicts Pipes’ op-ed. The article explains: “Netanyahu’s plan to annex the Jordan Valley is not just a far-right wish, but the fulfillment of long-standing Israeli security objectives. . . .”

Pipes’ assertion that “annexation” achieves nothing is ludicrous. Exercising sovereignty is a long-overdue step that will promote the security of Israel and its people; firmly assure that Israel maintains defensible borders; and end the decades-long limbo of the 500,000 Jews who live in Judea-Samaria.

Again, Pipes’ op-ed is contradicted by the Inbar article, which explained: “The Jordan Valley is the only available defensible border on the eastern front, and the closest to Israel’s heartland — the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv-Haifa triangle. This area holds 70% of Israel’s population and 80% of its economic infrastructure. The distance between the Jordan River and Jerusalem is only 30 kilometers (19 miles). . . .”

Pipes in fact offers no valid reasons for his anti-“annexation” stance. Five (out of six) of Pipes’ anti-“annexation” arguments simply consist of Pipes’ speculation that: basically “Annexation will make some people angry.” That’s a pitiful and dangerous rationale for Israel refraining from exercising her legally valid sovereignty.

Don’t Bank on Media to Hold Terror Payments to Account

If you want to have a conversation about the merits of the Martyrs Fund and Israel’s measures against it, you’ll need more information than what you would have seen in coverage from the Associated Press, Reuters and New York Times.

By 2017, the payments to prisoners and the families of the so-called “martyrs” equaled half of the PA’s foreign budgetary aid, or a whopping seven percent of the overall PA budget.

The most recent figures indicate that in 2019, the PA spent NIS 619 million ($176 million) on stipends in 2019 just for incarcerated Palestinians. Figures on what was paid to the families weren’t available because the PA isn’t transparent about the Martyrs Fund’s finances. This prompted Brig.-Gen. (res.) Yossi Kuperwasser to argue that if the PA lacks the funds to fight the coronavirus, it should stop paying salaries to terrorists .

Another facet to the story of interest to American readers, but omitted from the coverage is the Taylor Force Act. This was passed by Congress and signed into law following the murder of Taylor Force, a 28-year-old US army veteran and Vanderbilt U. graduate student killed in a 2016 Palestinian stabbing rampage in Jaffa. Eleven other people injured in the indiscriminate attack including a pregnant woman, an Arab Israeli, and a Palestinian illegally residing in Israel.

The Wall Street Journal reported that relatives of Bashar Masalha, the Palestinian terrorist killed by responding police officers, “now receive monthly payments equal to several times the average Palestinian wage.”

Australia and the Netherlands similarly cut back aid in protest against the stipends.

HonestReporting director Daniel Pomerantz debated with PLO executive committee member Mustafa Barghouti.

Context provides a frame of reference for us to make sense of the news. A lack of background information distorts our ability to understand and critically judge developments like this.

It’s important that the media convey the full context behind important stories.

Yesterday's NYT lede framing the Israeli army's battle against COVID-19 as a break from its habit of "killing people" was a psychological tell.

Today's piece on Palestinian payments to prisoners is everything wrong with the paper's coverage over time. It's this balanced: pic.twitter.com/xBaX17tDQp
— Gilead Ini (@GileadIni) May 9, 2020

The New York Times, Haaretz and the death of reporting (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

In May 2014, readers of Haaretz saw a plea from publisher Amos Schocken, asking them to subscribe to the online edition.

He assured them that by doing so, they would have access to all of Haaretz's online content.

But more than that

By doing so, you will become a partner in the ongoing effort to shape Israel as a liberal and constitutional democracy that cherishes the values of pluralism and civil and human rights. You will become a partner in actively supporting the two-state solution and the right to Palestinian self-determination, which will enable Israel to rid itself of the burdens of territorial occupation and the control of another people.

...Influencing the way Israel evolves is a daily effort of news gathering, reporting developments and creating editorial positions and sometimes campaigns to prevent negative outcomes and encourage positive ones. [emphasis added]

Haaretz has never hidden their liberal position, nor do they hold back on what they think of Netanyahu and his actions.

But for Schocken to go out of his way and proclaim that the goal of Haaretz itself, and not just its editorial columns, is to influence Israel -- that seems to be a bit much.

Since Haaretz is sometimes known as “the New York Times of Israel” -- what about The New York Times? Does it see also see itself as influencing the US, outside of the realm of reporting the news?

Last year, The New York Times came out with its "1619 Project," an examination of slavery in the United States on the 400th anniversary of the arrival of the first Africans in Virginia, with the message that the real founding of America began with the arrival of 20 slaves in Virginia in 1619.

According to the lead article by Nikole Hannah-Jones "our democracy’s founding ideals were false when they were written," "Anti-black racism runs in the very DNA of this country" and:

Conveniently left out of our founding mythology is the fact that one of the primary reasons the colonists decided to declare their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery. [A later correction notes it was "some" not all of the colonists]

This is more than a single article; it led to further articles, a multi-media presentation and a curriculum.

A curriculum!?
Why didn't Haaretz think of that?

It is one thing for a newspaper to come out with an almanac. An almanac if full of facts and figures, which you would expect a news organization to have at its fingertips. But a curriculum is an ambitious, and in this case self-serving, way for a news media company to directly shape American opinion and influence how it evolves.

In his column, The ‘1619 Project’ is filled with slovenliness and ideological ax-grinding, George Will runs down other historical errors in the "1619 Project," concluding:

“Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.” Has this, the slogan of the party governing Oceania in George Orwell’s “1984,” supplanted “All the news that’s fit to print” as the Times’s credo?

The New York Times may be no less ambitious as Haaretz.

Maybe part of the problem is that newspapers don't hire reporters anymore.
They hire journalists.

What's the difference?

In the good old days, when Jimmy Olsen was a cub reporter for the Daily Planet, he would run around with notepad in hand, get the facts, and report them.

Journalists can report the news too, but not necessarily.

According to Webster:

After all, news is a business.
And journalists, and the news media companies that hire them, are getting more and more ambitious, wanting not only to report the facts, but also let their readers know what they think and frame the story accordingly.

This growing subjective side to journalism was evident when the usual NewYork Times anti-Israel bias was on display again last week.

Maybe David Halbfinger has not heard of pioneering, cutting-edge technology like Iron Dome, David's Sling and Light Blade (designed to shoot down weaponized balloons aimed at fields and children).

In a lecture first published in 1995 as "The Other Middle East Problems," Bernard Lewis noted:

Thanks to this open society [in Israel], a large press corps is able to maintain a continuous supply of detailed and sometimes even accurate information about what is going on. It is possible to interview various parties and to hear complaints and grievances. After all, where else in the entire Middle East and North Africa is it possible to get an opponent of the government on television to denounce the government as conducting a police state? You may infer from this that Israel is the only police state in the region, or you may find another explanation. [included in his From Babel to Dragomans: Interpreting The Middle East, p. 340-1; emphasis added]

The New York Times does not have to publish a curriculum in order to influence how its readers view Israel. The way it keeps slanting the news and framing the story is sufficient.

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.