Friday, March 11, 2016

03/11 Links Pt2: The Legal Case for Israel’s ‘Settlements’; The Disappointment of Barack Obama

From Ian:

The Legal Case for Israel’s ‘Settlements’

Most people around the world firmly hold to the view that Israel’s residential housing communities built in Judea and Samaria/the West Bank are “illegal”.
For years, this fictitious claim has fed a wild campaign of incitement and ‘lawfare’ against Israel, based on the myth that Jews have no legal right to live or make their homes on Palestinian-claimed lands in the West Bank.
But the truth is that Israel isn’t an unlawful occupying power—certainly not according to any binding international laws.
Now, Northwestern University Professor of Law Eugene Kontorovich, a leading expert in the fields of constitutional law, international law, and the intersection of law and economics, is on a speaking tour of universities and colleges to explain why.

International Law Issues in the Israeli/Palestinian Conflict, with Eugene Kontorovich

Eugene Kontorovich is a professor at Northwestern Law whose research spans the fields of constitutional law, international law, and law and economics. He has authored a series of papers that extend "transaction cost" analysis from private law to constitutional law. He speaks and writes about contemporary law issues in the Israeli/palestinian conflict, including the BDS Movement, Palestinian statehood, and Israel's borders.

UC-Davis: Protesters shout “Allahu Akbar” and “Long Live Intifada” at Israeli speaker

Disruption of Israeli or pro-Israel speakers and events is becoming all too common on college campuses, including by groups like Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and similar groups. The purpose is to make sure that Israeli and pro-Israel points of view cannot be presented without incident, and to create a campus climate of intimidation.
We have reported on several such recent disruptions, including at University of Minnesota Law School, UT-Austin, Kings College (London), U. Windsor, University of South Florida, and an LGBTQ Shabbat Event in Chicago. Even events that are not disrupted are protested, such as the appearance of actor Michael Douglas and human rights hero Natan Sharansky at Brown University
The latest was the disruption of an appearance at UC-Davis by Israeli diplomat George Deek, who also happens to be an Arab Christian.
Israel On Campus Coalition reports:
Earlier this week, Israeli-Arab diplomat George Deek was shouted down by students affiliated with Students for Justice in Palestine at UC Davis. The SJP members, who called out “Long live the Intifada,” refused to engage with George, who came to Davis to discuss the need for mutual respect, dialogue, and understanding.
Legal Insurrection obtained the following video from someone in the room:

You’ll Never Guess Who’s Advising the New Herzl Biopic

Good news! A biopic of Theodor Herzl, Zionism’s founding father, is in the works, and Variety has reported that Sidney Blumenthal will be an advisor to the film “in order to deal with potentially incendiary nature of the subject matter.”
In other Hollywood news:
— In order to deal with potentially incendiary nature of The Revenant, the producer assembled an advisory board for the project that includes an angry bear.
— In order to deal with potentially incendiary nature of a new documentary about empowering women, the producer assembled an advisory board for the project that includes Bill Cosby.
— In order to deal with potentially incendiary nature of Bowling for Columbine, the producer assembled an advisory board for the project that includes Ted Nugent, Charlton Heston, and a .45 Colt.
— In order to deal with potentially incendiary nature controversial nature of Selma, the producers have hired Uncle Tom as a consultant.

It's Adar (II) - joke time!

I am having a hard time finding new, funny Jewish jokes to post about now that we are in the month of Adar II, with Purim coming up.

It is quite disappointing to go to "Jewish joke" sites and see some of them filled with jokes from 50 years ago that don't even make sense anymore.

But how about really old Jewish jokes?

I decided to find jokes from before the year 1900. Some of them are outright antisemitic but some are witty. Either way, it is an interesting history lesson.

This first one is unusual, coming from an article called "In Defense of Jewish Wit and Humour" by the Chief Rabbi of Great Britain, published in Review of the Churches, 1893. The joke shows that Jews believed Jewish stereotypes:

A Mr. Goldsmith became a convert to Christianity. He thought it advisable to adopt a name with a more Gentile ring, and dubbed himself Mr. Smith.

"What a fool!" exclaimed a member of the congregation on hearing of the change; "this is the first Jew who has thrown away his gold."

The joke that came after it is one I may have published in years past but it stands the test of time.

At a festive banquet, representatives of the Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish clergy had been invited, and were engaged in pleasant converse.

The Rabbi, faithtul to the dietary precepts ot his religion, partook of only a few of the dishes.

An appetising joint of roast pork was set on the table. The Catholic priest turned to his neighbour, and asked, "When will the time come that I may have the privilege of serving you with a slice of this delicious meat?"

"When I have the gratification of assisting at your Reverence's wedding," the Rabbi rejoined, with a courteous bow.

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

Arab intransigence, 1923

I just saw three consecutive articles from JTA in October 1923 that were illuminating.

Says Jews Plan to Set Up an Independent State in Irak

October 4, 1923
JERUSALEM (Oct. 3)

That the Jews are obtaining the best land, buildings and houses in Mesopotamia and that the Zionist movement is making great headway there is the contention of a writer in the Arab organ “El Carmel”.

The writer warns that the Jews in Mesopotamia may intend to set up a state of their own there and urges the Arabs to build up their country with their own resources exclusively.

Urges Prayer As Means to Fight Zionism

October 4, 1923
JERUSALEM (Oct. 4)

The use of prayer to combat the Zionistic movement is being urged by the Arab organ “Miraat el Shark”. The Moslems are urged to repeat daily in their prayers specified forms of anti-Zionistic statements. The following sentences should be said seven times daily:

“We do not recognize the Balfour Declaration” “We want full liberty” “We want full freedom without any mandates” “We hate the British” “We hate the Palestine government” “Down with Zionism”.

“We do not want Zionism”, the paper urges should be given an additional recitation or a total of eight times.

The article concludes as follows: “Say, dear readers, this prayer ten times a day and after this if you had sold your lands to Zionists, if you have acted as Zionist agents or received Zionist pay, if you have made the national question a personal one only, if you have been a Zionist or government spy, if you belong to those who let their good houses to Jews and themselves live in bad houses, say this prayer and we are sure that you will be freed of the taint of Zionism and treachery and will become a good and devoted nationalist.”

Protest Jews’ Entrance to Holy Places

October 4, 1923

JERUSALEM (Oct. 4)

Protest against allowing Jews to visit the Holy Places is voiced by the Bethlehem Arab paper “Sut el Shaab” in a recent issue.

The paper declares that by the terms of the treaty between Moslem rulers and the great powers. Jews were barred from the Holy places. Yet it declares notwithstanding this agreement, the government allows the Jews to enter and even gives them a military escort.

Conspiracy theories, antisemitism, Muslim fundamentalism. It is not exactly new, nor the result of "settlements" or "ethnic cleansing."

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.

03/11 Links Pt1: UNHRC 'diagnosed' with Israeli obsession; How Peace Now is fueling the PA libel factory

From Ian:

Candidate for UN’s Palestine observer compares Israel to Islamic State, watchdog says

The United Nations Human Rights Council has tapped a British professor, who has accused Israel of apartheid and compared it to the Islamic State, to be its investigator into human rights violations in the Palestinian territories, a UN watchdog group reported Thursday.
A committee charged with reviewing candidates to replace Makarim Wibisono, who will leave the position at the end of March, has recommended Penny Green — a professor of law and globalization at Queen Mary University of London — as its first choice for the role.
In response, UN Watch said it had submitted a report to the UNHRC against the “radical” Green’s appointment, citing her apparent bias against Israel.
The watchdog first spoke out against the position itself, charging that “while the title of the mandate implies that the special rapporteur monitors ‘the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories,’ this is false. In fact, the text of the mandate… makes clear that the rapporteur is charged with investigating only ‘Israel’s violations.'”
Not only does the rapporteur’s mandate not cover Palestinian actions against Israelis, it also ignores rights violations by the Palestinian Authority and Hamas against other Palestinians, the report said.
Meanwhile, a look at the Twitter feed of the top candidate for the post shows her to be vehemently anti-Israel. Green, UN Watch said, “accuses Israel of ‘criminal state practices,’ ‘ethnic cleansing,’ and ‘apartheid.'” She has lamented that the US and UK haven’t yet started “bombing Israel for its massacres,” as they have the Islamic State.
She also supports the total boycott of Israel and has posted tweets in support of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement. (h/t Yenta Press)

UNHRC 'diagnosed' with Israeli obsession

Israeli Ambassador to the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in Geneva Eviatar Manor issued strong criticism Thursday against the UNHRC for its biased stance towards the Jewish state.
Speaking before the UNHRC, Manor said, "I have by now realized that this Council suffers from an Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder with Israel, which it cannot control, and that it repeatedly produces reports, resolutions and ID’s on my country."
"I should remind you that associated with this disorder is an increased risk of suicide. This Council will bring upon itself its own demise," he warned.
"What this Council needs is behavioral therapy. The treatment includes exposure and ritual preventions. I suggest the Council exposes itself to some other pressing conflict areas with increased attention and a parallel reduction of the level of anxiety with which it considers Israel."
Manor referenced statements made last Monday by the High Commissioner to the Council, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, saying, "he pointed you clearly towards your real priorities."
"UNHCR numbers are staggering: 4.8 million Syrian refugees, 13.8 million IDP’s (internally displaced persons - ed.) in Syria, Iraq and Yemen. OCHA reports that 7.6 million people in Yemen have no food security and 14 million do not have access to medical facilities."
Quoting Al Hussein, he said, "ten hospitals and other medical units have been damaged or destroyed in Syria since January - and this Council will consider 6 reports and 5 resolutions on Israel? This is nothing but shameful and demonstrates total disregard for the human rights of millions."

Revealed: How Hamas exploits Gaza to harm Israel

Aside from siphoning off international aid for its missile and tunnel programs, Hamas has been cynically manipulating the residents in Gaza by imposing unreasonable taxes to prop up its terror activities, even while deceiving the world into blaming Israel for the bleak situation.
Hamas continues to complain of the "Israeli blockade" in the international press and accuse it for Gaza's economic crisis, but meanwhile the terrorist organization is fleecing its residents in various forms of taxes and funneling tens of millions of dollars into its "military arm" every month. Meanwhile the international community continues to ignore the duplicity of Hamas and condemns Israel's legal naval blockade.
Several of Hamas' methods of ripping off Gaza residents were exposed by Walla on Friday, which reported that nearly 100,000 residents in the coastal enclave remain homeless since Operation Protective Edge in summer 2014, Hamas' third war against Israel.
Qatar has been donating enormous funds to rebuild Gaza, and slowly new homes are being built for the 17,000 families whose homes were completely destroyed.
Recently Hamas held a raffle for 1,040 housing units built by Qatar in Gaza, promising Gazan homeless who signed up that they would receive the homes for free.
However, Walla reports that those who won in the housing lottery found that Hamas demanded that they pay $40,000 for each "free" house. The terror group claimed the expenses were required to hook up the houses to the various infrastructure systems such as water and electricity.

Palestine Press Agency has an article listing out the size of the major militias in Gaza.

According to the article, there are over a million weapons in Gaza and over a million land mines. That means more than one weapon for every man, woman and child in Gaza. But these are spread out among some 50 militias, causing fears of a massive bloodbath should a civil war break out.

The Hamas al Qassam Brigades has between 18-24 thousand fighters. (The article lists some of the weapons Hamas has and includes the fake tank!)

Islamic Jihad's Al Quds Brigades has between 8-14 thousand fighters.

The Abu Ali Mustafa Brigades (PFLP) has 3,000 fighters.

The National Resistance Brigades (DFLP) also has 3,000 fighters.

They do not list the numbers of members of the Al Aqsa Brigades, the Brigades of the Mujahideen, the Dughmosh clan, or the Nasser Saladin Brigades, among many others.

There are perhaps 275,000 men in Gaza between the ages of 19-40. This means that one in six men of fighting age is a member of a terror group.

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.

US embassy in Israel now creating old-fashioned newsreels

I laughed at this video just released by the US embassy in Tel Aviv. Its style is almost exactly that of old-fashioned newsreels that used to be shown before movies in the 1940s and 50s before TV.

The only differences (besides being in color) was that the announcer wasn't as enthusiastic, and they didn't tend off with a pithy phrase at the end. But the use of music, style of filming and editing is straight out of the World War II era.

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

The Gaza ministry of agriculture has announced that during 2015 it exported over 13,000 tons of produce, and an additional 3700 tons of exports this year.

During 2015 the sector exported 105 tons of vegetables to Europe, 3700 tons to Arab countries, 3460 tons to Israel and 5750 tons to West Bank Arabs.

This was all announced at an internal Gaza website.

But yesterday the minister of agriculture repeated these statistics to reporters, which would seem unusual. Why have newspapers publish the exact opposite of the impression that they try to give to the world of a suffering, besieged population?

The answer is that this press conference was meant to bash Israel anyway.

You see, the rates of cancer in Gaza have increased in recent years. Palestinians of course blame Israel (pretending that Israel used depleted uranium weapons), an easily provable falsehood, but the media also mentions inconvenient facts like the rate of smoking and the amount of pesticides used in Gaza.

Hamas' Ministry of Agriculture does not want to be blamed for any of the cancer increases in Gaza, so they staged this press event to say that the cancer in Gaza is strictly due to Israeli "experimental weapons". Their proof is that their produce goes through strict Israeli food safety checks before being allowed to be exported!

Mohammed Jadallah, Undersecretary of the Ministry of Agriculture, said "We took samples of the soil with radioactive material and gave them to international organizations asking them to send us the test results, but they refused to help us and this shows the extent of their collusion with the occupation."

What more proof do you need?

In order to avoid being shamed, the ministry was forced to contradict the meme of the siege.

Officials also bragged that chicken farming in Gaza is so successful that they refuse to import any chicken from Israel. Although if the Gaza chickens are eating grain that is contaminated with radiation from Israeli weapons that they claim permeates Gaza, then this means that the ministry is knowingly exposing its residents to cancer.

Too bad none of the reporters, eagerly drinking the Hamas Kool-Aid, thought to ask about that.

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 closes office of Islamic Jihad terrorist newspaper, Erekat whines

Ma'an reports:

Israeli forces during predawn raids on Friday ordered the closure of Falastin al-Yawm (Palestine Today) and TransMedia Production Company in the occupied West Bank hub of Ramallah.
Locals told Ma’an that forces stormed the media outlets’ headquarters in al-Bireh and detained two journalists, confiscated property, and delivered military orders for the offices to be shut down.
The journalists were identified as Muhammad Amro from Hebron and Shbeib Shbeib from Burqa near Nablus. Both were taken to the Israeli miltiary base in the nearby illegal settlement of Beit El.
Israeli forces also detained head of the Falastin al-Yawm Faruq Elayyat from his home in Birzeit, a town near Ramallah.
An Israeli army spokesperson told Ma’an the closure order was issued against the media outlets owner for “incitement,” adding that the station was “associated with Palestinian Islamic Jihad movement, an illegal terror organization.”
The raid was carried out through a joint operation between the Israeli military and Israel’s security agency Shin Bet, the spokesperson said, confirming that technical equipment and broadcast equipment had been confiscated.
The spokesperson was unable to confirm if the closure was permanent or temporary.

Palestine Today is indeed an Islamic Jihad newspaper; I've been reading it for many years. From a journalistic perspective it is one of the better Palestinian Arab media outlets although the quality went down in the past year as funds from Iran dried up and they had to make some budget cuts.

So why was this done now?

According to Palestine Today itself, the reason given was because the paper encouraged the current wave of terror attacks. It prominently features this graphic on its homepage:

The hashtag is "#Alquds_Intifada."

It has created featured graphics like that during every flareup of hostilities for years, but in this case an argument could be made that it is directly encouraging killing Jews. The hashtag is a call to action.

Islamic Jihad itself has a "media war" division that runs its media empire.This includes the Saraya.ps website for the Al Quds Brigades, which often shares articles with Palestine Today. The purpose of the division is indicated by its name - to use the media as a means to wage war on Israel.

Saeb Erekat of course chose to defend the newspaper that is owned and controlled by a terrorist organization. Suddenly he is an advocate for free speech even though the PLO has arrested journalists that it didn't like plenty of times.

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.

03/10 Links Pt2: UCL: Religious hate and boycotting Jews; Al-Jazeera admits: Jerusalem is not in Koran

From Ian:

David Collier: UCL: Religious hate and boycotting Jews

Yet another page of shame has been written in the history books of a student union in the UK. This time it was UCL or UCLU (University College London Union). On Tuesday 8/3/2016, a mob of rabid, semi-ignorant, hate-filled ‘red fascists’ assembled together to play ‘government’.
One of the motions tabled (unsurprisingly, given the make-up of the council), was to decide whether or not to support the boycott of Israel. Israel is a touchy subject amongst student unions these days. Time was, that the tiny Jewish state, surrounded by blood thirsty despots like Nasser, Saddam Hussein, the Ayatollah & Gaddafi could count on students to easily differentiate right from wrong.
Today, with talk of the Zionist run USA or Mossad being behind ISIS and 9/11 only too common in certain student quarters, all semblance of moral order has been lost. Israel, whilst still the target for every radical Islamic nutcase in a region that never runs out of them, has somehow become the cause of everything that is wrong in the student world. No doubt Netanyahu, seeing as ‘Zionists’ control the US, UK and the banks, is also responsible for raising university fees.
Think of a nasty accusation and place it before the word Zionist. They all work. ‘Racist’ – easy, ‘Ethnic Cleansing’- but of course, ‘Genocide’ – sure, even ‘Apartheid’ works, all placed on the only liberal country in the entire region where everyone has a free vote. Funny how some UCL students wouldn’t even be allowed to enter cities in Saudi Arabia because of their religion, yet that issue fails to bother a student union council that clearly isn’t working to an agenda about ‘universal’ human rights.
The real motive:
To deal with the claim that the student union vote was actually about human rights. Let’s just look at the central force behind the #BDS motion. UCLU Friends of Palestine Society.

Labour’s expelled Trotskyite says he will not ‘condemn’ 9/11

This week Jeremy Corbyn received flak from the Prime Minister during PMQs over the decision by Labour’s NEC to allow Gerry Downing — a member of the Trotskyist Socialist Fight — to re-join Labour. Cameron said he was ‘completely appalled’ by the decision — as revealed by Guido Fawkes — as Downing has previously described the motivation for 9/11 as ‘entirely understandable’.
After Labour finally expelled Downing again late last night, he appeared on today’s Daily Politics to fight his corner. In an interview with Andrew Neil, Downing attempted to show why he should be allowed to join Labour. Alas, he appeared to do the opposite as he spouted several alarming view points:
Downing also has some pretty interesting views when it comes to Zionism:
AN: You’ve also said that we need to confront the Jewish question, what is the Jewish question?
GD: Well, the fact that Israel can commit absolutely heinous crimes against, Palestinians, they can bomb them without letter and this is presented in the Western media as an attack on terrorists.
AN: Your group says that Zionism plays a major role in politics of all the advanced capitalist countries. You say that Zionists are behind the witch hunt behind Jeremy Corbyn. You say that Zionists hold great sway over our three main political parties. You say that Zionism is the vanguard of injecting anti-Muslim hatred into Western politics. It would sound when you see all that that for you the Jewish question is a Zionist conspiracy?
GD: No, it’s not a Zionist conspiracy. It adds up to something very material and that is the number of millionaires and billionaires of Zionist persuasion which in the American ruling class and in the European ruling classes in general it is their economic and political power, that leads to ridiculous situations.
AN: And Zionists — as you call them — play a key role in that?
GD: They obviously do play a key role, they have duel-citizenship most of them.
And to think he was a member of the Labour party just yesterday!

Gerry Downing on BBC's Daily Politics! [this is just the Zionism stuff, the link has the full 15 min train wreck]

"BDS is Nothing Less than a Declaration of Economic War against the Jewish People"

A truly excellent, even uplifting, speech this past week by Aussie federal Liberal MP Michael Sukkar (a Roman Catholic of Lebanese and Norwegian parentage):
"It is with some dismay that I rise today to acknowledge that 2016 marks 15 years since the seeds of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign, also known as BDS, began against Israel at the World Conference against Racism held in Durban in 2001. What passes for left-wing thought in our day and age has never been noted for coherent logic or factual accuracy. Nowhere are these leftist moral and intellectual failings more obvious than on the question of Israel in general and on the BDS campaign against the only democracy in the Middle East.
The member for Fremantle [Melissa Parke], who, I must say, made my day with her recent announcement of her departure from this place, exemplifies the Left’s noxious intellectual bankruptcy on matters Middle Eastern. By hitching her wagon to the anti-Israel BDS she exemplified how those who claim the rubric of progressive are actually quite oppressive when it comes to the Jewish People.
Make no mistake, BDS s nothing more than a declaration of economic war against the Jewish people. We have all seen the BDS causes and the antisemitic ugliness. We saw this on the streets in mob-scene blockades of Jewish owned businesses in Melbourne. We have also seen BDS in all of its genocidal ugliness when its founder, the Palestinian activist Omar Barghouti, made it clear that the movement would settle for nothing less than the elimination of Israel as we know it.

Rowan Dean interviews MP Michael Sukkar

Sky News Arabia confirms that Morocco and Jordan have also declared Hizballah to be considered a terrorist organization, joining the Gulf states who declared the same last week.

This goes beyond the EU position that only Hizballah's "military wing" is considered terrorist.

Morocco made its declaration last week at a meeting of the Arab Interior Ministers in Tunisia. That group as a whole also issued a statement not binding on its members declaring Hizballah to be terrorist, although Tunisia did not agree to that wording and said that Hizballah "has played an important role for Lebanon and the Palestinian cause."

As reported here before, Iran is very upset over this but so far the only ones supporting Iran in this matter are Algeria, Syria, Islamic Jihad, the Houthis and Israeli Arab ministers.

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

Vic Rosenthal's weekly column

The just-released Pew Survey (“Israel’s Religiously Divided Society”) contains some fascinating data. While most commentators are making a big deal over the fact that about half of Jewish Israelis agreed that “Arabs should be expelled or transferred from Israel” – astupid question because it doesn’t distinguish between Arab citizens of Israel and residents of Judea and Samaria, or whether ‘transfer’ is at gunpoint or voluntary with compensation, or many other things – I was more interested in its comparison between Israeli and American Jews.

As an American-Israeli, I am often struck by the way Jews in either place don’t understand each other’s cultures and concerns. Israeli Jews don’t understand the liberal (Reform and Conservative) Judaism which so appeal to Americans, they don’t understand American politics, and they think that all American Jews are rich and stupid – especially the ones dumb enough make aliyah (ask me about the ‘American price’ in the shuk). But since Israel has very little power to affect the US, this is of no importance.

What is of great significance is the fact that ignorance in the other direction – the misconceptions of American Jews about Israel and Israelis – are dangerous, especially because they are exploited by the US administration and others who do not have Israel’s best interests at heart.

Orthodox Jews in America are 10% of the Jewish population, and hold views similar to the 22% of Israeli Jews that identify as Orthodox. But the non-Orthodox populations are very different. In Israel, most of them are “hiloni,” usually translated as ‘secular’, and about half as many identify as “masorati” or ‘traditional’ (not to be confused with the tiny Masorati movement, which is the Israeli branch of American Conservative Judaism).

The survey describes Masoratim as holding the “middle ground between Orthodoxy and secularism.” Many Mizrachi Jews put themselves in this category. Although they vary widely in their degree of observance, one example is the man who votes for the ultra-Orthodox Shas party but still drives to the football stadium on Shabbat.

Neither of these groups correspond to anything in American Jewry. Israel’s secular hilonim are overwhelmingly married to other Jews (98%), they tend to be much more knowledgeable about Jewish texts (which they learn in school), they are more likely than unaffiliated American Jews to light candles before Shabbat, keep kosher, or attend a Pesach seder – even though 60% never go to a synagogue, and 40% of them say that they do not believe in God! But 28% of them oppose allowing Reform or Conservative rabbis to perform marriages in Israel, despite the fact that 88% believe that “religion should be kept separate from government policies.”

Almost all Israeli Jews, when asked their religion chose ‘Jewish’ rather than ‘no religion’, even if they also indicated that they didn’t believe in God. And when asked what strain of Judaism they identified with, half of them said ‘Orthodox’ even if they never went to a synagogue. Only 5% identified with the Reform or Conservative movements.

In other words, Israelis are closely tied to Jewish culture and traditions, even if their degree of religious observance is minimal. They respect traditional Jewish belief and ritual, even if they dislike the religious establishment and want it to keep its hands off their lives.

In America, about half of married non-Orthodox Jews have a non-Jewish spouse. The unaffiliated American Jew is usually the assimilated Jew with no knowledge of Jewish texts or identification with Jewish traditions. And Reform Judaism has separated itself from Orthodoxy and even Conservative Judaism so much – both in practice and in philosophy (think of the Reform concept of tikkun olam as social action) – that those who insist that it is more like a different religion than a kind of Judaism have a cogent argument.

Politically, American Jews are more dovish than Israelis. They are much more likely to think a peace agreement with the Palestinians is possible and would be productive, that settlements across the Green Line hurt Israel’s security rather than help it, and that Israel’s government is not making a sincere effort to achieve peace with the Palestinians.

It’s understandable that Israelis take the more pessimistic positions that they do, given recent experience. Only 8% of Israelis self-identify as part of the Left; the rest see themselves as centrists (55%) or right-wing (37%). But American Jews are overwhelmingly liberal or progressive, and they take their cues from the administration that they strongly support, liberal media and opinion leaders.

My experience has been that with some exceptions American Jews are acutely uninformed about the realities here. Because events in Israel are not vital to them, they uncritically accept what they hear from sources they consider authoritative. PM Netanyahu also comes in for a lot of unjustified criticism from Americans, who see him as an extremist, when he is actually squarely in the center of Israeli politics.

American Jews, like other Americans, are influenced to some degree by the flood of aggressive anti-Israel propaganda from the numerous groups whose function is to demonize Israel. There is also a large group of liberal rabbis who transmit information from the small-but-vocal Israeli Left to their congregants as though it is mainstream opinion in Israel.

The Pew survey notes that some 57% of American Jews see “working for justice and equality” as part of their Jewish identity (only 27% of Israelis agree). So anything framed this way is appealing to American Jews.

The Women of the Wall is an interesting example. Started as a movement of Orthodox women who wanted to be able to pray out loud in the women’s section of the Kotel, it was co-opted by the American Reform movement, and presented as a struggle against fanatic sexism. Ironically, the Reform movement’s intervention may have derailed the partial victory of the original Women of the Wall.

The Reform Movement, which is very close to the Obama Administration, also wants political influence in Israel, which it seems to believe it deserves because of its moral superiority to Israelis. Rabbi Rick Jacobs, URJ president, announced his intention to intervene in Israel’s affairs last October when he said

… Jews who see brokenness in the treatment of Israel’s minorities, or in the way ultra-Orthodox views of Judaism are being enshrined in secular law, are being told that, when it comes to Israel, you should check your commitment to tikkun olam at the door. We will not.

I don’t know how it played in America, but the arrogance inherent in his statement was not appreciated in Israel, which is struggling to do right by all of its minorities, including Haredim, its Arab citizens, illegal migrants, those living in neighborhoods flooded with illegal migrants, and Palestinian Arabs whose idea of politics or religion seems to be to stab Jews. And there is certainly more than enough to do in America on the question of minorities!

My message to American Jews would be that before trying to be the 800-pound gorilla you would learn about the complexity of the situation here, and the challenges that we face just to keep the state from being overrun by the surrounding barbarians. Probably a good default when you don’t understand something would be to align yourselves with the majority of Israelis, who after all have to live with the situation. And here is a hint on one specific issue: neither the government nor the opposition nor the average Israeli think the “two-state solution” is workable in the foreseeable future.

G. B. Shaw said that England and America are two countries divided by a common language. This can be taken to mean that the language is more different than it looks; but it could also mean that the common language hides deeper cultural differences, something which has always seemed to me to be true. I learned to be more careful speaking to British acquaintances in order to avoid misunderstandings.

Perhaps this would be a good lesson for American Jews as well.

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.

03/10 Links Pt1: Douglas Murray: Iran's Cash for Murder; My friend Taylor Force is dead

From Ian:

Douglas Murray: Iran's Cash for Murder: Why is the UK Silent?

The Iranian distribution of cash to families of terrorists is an open incitement to an ongoing campaign of murder. It should by now have not only been condemned by the whole world, but have caused a colossal rethink among the P5+1 nations that signed the ill-judged accord with Iran.
It is worth considering another recent Iranian development: the decision -- allegedly by a conglomeration of media outlets, but hardly able to be separated from the government in a country whose press is more "government" than "free" -- to increase the cash-bounty on the head of the British novelist Salman Rushdie.
The British government has been strangely mute on the matter. The "normalised" relations with Iran were meant to lead to business opportunities for Britain and an increase in decent behavior from Tehran. Instead, the first major test of Iranian-British relations in several decades turns out to be precisely the same test that the late Ayatollah Khomeini drew up in 1989.

My friend Taylor Force is dead

He laughed and smiled a lot in the classes at West Point. He sat behind me, next to me, or across from me during our first two years at the United States’ premier institution. He was very mild-mannered, sharp, and professional. I couldn’t think of someone who was more of a model of “America’s finest” than him. He was handsome, articulate, brilliant, and just so GOOD. I can’t think of a moment where he wasn’t exuding an aura of pure positive energy. He was as honest and heartfelt as they come, but now he’s dead.
Taylor Force was murdered in cold blood by a West Bank Palestinian. Hamas announced that they’re celebrating their martyrs last night. As I write this, there are parties from Gaza to Ramallah continuing all day, and probably tonight. It’s not every day they get a former US Army officer who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. For them, this is a great boon.
Taylor died in a war that he didn’t know he was in the middle of. Taylor is dead because of a lot of misleading ideas about exactly what goes on in Israel. Misleading people is currently the policy of the US government.
The US and Israel’s policy is to see the idea of a Two State Solution through. The reason for this policy is the belief that there’s more good than evil in the world, and peace is a reality that can be achieved. Moreover, they believe peace is something that must be achieved.

Mourning the Loss of Taylor Force

Taylor Force, who died yesterday when a Palestinian terrorist stabbed him to death near the beach in Jaffa, was an Eagle Scout. He was a Field Artillery Officer in the United States Army who had served in both Afghanistan and Iraq. He was a graduate student of business administration at Vanderbilt University, and he was in Israel on a school-sponsored trip to do what creative, enterprising people in free and robust societies do when they travel: meet like-minded people, inspire and draw inspiration in turn, and enjoy a meal and a stroll in a scenic part of town.
That’s a vision of life that Israelis readily share. The young Palestinian man who snuck into Tel Aviv for no other purpose than to take the lives of innocent men and women, and who ended up killing Force and wounding his wife, holds a starkly different view. So does Mahmoud Abbas, who recently insisted that terror acts like the murder of Force were nothing more than “a peaceful popular uprising,” as well as the majority of Palestinian officialhood, which supports the violence in words and in deeds, and, according to a recent poll, 72 percent of young Palestinians, for whom violence, not diplomacy, is the path forward.

How You Can Support the Family of Taylor Force, the American Student Murdered in Israel

On Tuesday, American business school student Taylor Force was murdered in Tel Aviv in a spree of terrorist attacks across Israel that left 14 injured. Force, 28, was in Israel on a school trip run by Vanderbilt University, where he was an MBA student. His wife was also severely injured in the attack, according to Israeli medical services.
A graduate of West Point, Force was a combat veteran who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Today, speaking alongside Prime Minister Netanyahu in Jerusalem, Vice President Joe Biden mourned Force, saying: “Let me say in no uncertain terms: the United States of America condemns these acts and condemns the failure to condemn these acts. This cannot become an accepted modus operandi. This cannot be viewed by civilized leaders as an appropriate way in which to behave even if it appears to inure to the benefit of one side or the other. It’s just not tolerable in the 21st century. They’re targeting innocent civilians, mothers, pregnant women, teenagers, grandfathers, American citizens. There can be no justification for this hateful violence.”
In the wake of Force’s tragic murder, one of his classmates has launched a crowdfunding campaign to assist his family. “The world lost a wonderful man on Tuesday,” the page reads. “Taylor was loved and respected by everyone who was fortunate to have known him. His permanent smile, positive spirit, and kindness were complemented with his honor, integrity, and dedication to serving others.” You can donate here.

UNRWA cover-up continues! UNRWA logo removed from hate-school page

UNRWA sprung into action after I revealed that one of their schools in a Gaza City camp last October held a ceremony to support the stabbing spree against Jews and posted about it on Facebook.

Oh, they didn't announce that they were launching an investigation. They didn't say that people would be fired. They didn't apologize for this blatant breach of UN and human rights. They didn't say a word about the child abuse they were involved in.

No, they first took down the specific posts that I referred to.

And now they removed the UNRWA logo from the page!

From this:

To this:

Will they claim that this school is not a UNRWA school? Even though it is located inside an UNRWA camp?

Most UNRWA schools follow the same design and all use the UN blue color scheme, and this school is no exception. Also note the UNRWA logo on these girl's vests in this photo taken earlier today:

And earlier photos on their Facebook page leave no doubt:

Not to mention that the school is mentioned on UNRWA's own site!

Once again, UNRWA is showing that it doesn't actually care that its schools teach support for terror - but it cares very much about the possibility of losing funding because of meddling Westerners who want to know how hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent. So they want to add some barely-plausible deniability to the hate that they teach, knowing that their donors (with the notable exception of Canada) are not likely to stop funds as long as they are fed a line about UNRWA caring about neutrality and human rights.

It is a cover-up and it is happening in front of our eyes.

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.

Legal scholars Eugene Kontorovich and Avi Bell have written an impressive new paper submitted to the Arizona Law Review that uses a well-known principle of international law to determine the borders of nations and applies it to Israel.

Here are the important excerpts of the 70-page paper.

ABSTRACT: Israel’s borders and territorial scope are a source of seemingly endless debate. Remarkably, despite the intensity of the debates, little attention has been paid to relevance of the doctrine of uti possidetis juris to resolving legal aspects of the border dispute. Uti possidetis juris is widely acknowledged as the doctrine of customary international law that is central to determining territorial sovereignty in the era of decolonization. The doctrine provides that emerging states presumptively inherit their pre-independence administrative boundaries.

Applied to the case of Israel, uti possidetis juris would dictate that Israel inherit the boundaries of the Mandate of Palestine as they existed in May, 1948. The doctrine would thus support Israeli claims to any or all of the currently hotly disputed areas of Jerusalem (including East Jerusalem), the West Bank, and even potentially the Gaza Strip (though not the Golan Heights).

What is uti possidetis juris?

Today, it is generally accepted that the borders of newlyformed states are determined by application of uti possidetis juris as a matter of customary international law. The doctrine even applies when it conflicts with the principle of self-determination. Summarizing the operation of the rule, Steven Ratner explains, “[s]tated simply, [the doctrine of] uti possidetis [juris] provides that states emerging from decolonization shall presumptively inherit the colonial administrative borders that they held at the time of independence.” Recent decades have shown that uti possidetis juris applies to all cases where the borders of new states have to be determined, and not just in its original context of decolonization. Thus, for instance, uti possidetis juris was used to determine the borders of the states created by the dissolution of the Soviet Union,Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia.

Does it apply to Israel?

The application of the principle of uti possidetis juris to the legal borders of Israel seems straightforward. Israel emerged as a new state in 1948, when it declared statehood at the expiration of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine. The new state of Israel was immediately invaded by its neighbors and several nonneighboring Arab states, and at the conclusion of hostilities, Israel possessed only part of the territory of the Mandate (the remaining mandatory territory was occupied by the states of Syria, Egypt and Transjordan). Israel and its neighbors reached armistice agreements, but they failed to reach peace treaties or boundary agreements. For its part, the British Mandatory government—the immediately prior ruling authority until 1948— did not propose or reach any agreement on borders with the new state. While there had been proposals to divide the territory of Palestine between two new states (one Jewish and one Arab), Israel was the only state to emerge from the Mandate of Palestine.

Israel’s independence would thus appear to fall squarely within the bounds of circumstances that trigger the rule of uti possidetis juris. Applying the rule would appear to dictate that Israel’s borders are those of the Palestine Mandate that preceded it, except where otherwise agreed upon by Israel and its relevant neighbor. And, indeed, rather than undermine the application of uti possidetis juris, Israel’s peace treaties with neighboring states to date—with Egypt and Jordan—appear to reinforce it. These treaties ratify borders between Israel and its neighbors explicitly based on the boundaries of the British Mandate of Palestine.Likewise, in demarcating the so-called “Blue Line” between Israel and Lebanon in 2000, the United Nations Secretary General relied upon the boundaries of British Mandate of Palestine.

Given the location of the borders of the Mandate of Palestine, applying the doctrine of uti possidetis juris to Israel would mean that Israel has territorial sovereignty over all the disputed areas of Jerusalem and the West Bank and Gaza, except to the degree that Israel has voluntarily yielded sovereignty since its independence. This conclusion stands in opposition to the many public figures who have pronounced that international law dictates very different boundaries.Amazingly, however, such pronouncements reveal no awareness or discussion of the application of uti possidetis juris to the borders between Israel and its neighboring states. Indeed, the literature on both the doctrine and the Israeli-Arab conflict has almost entirely ignored application of uti possidetis to Mandatory Palestine.

At its expiration in 1948, the borders of the Mandate of Palestine, both internal and external, were relatively well demarcated and uncontroversial. Thus uti possidetis juris could be a powerful tool for resolving extant disputes about the borders of Israel. To be sure, Israel appears to be interested in drawing consensual new boundaries that differ from the borders established by uti possidetis juris. Uti possidetis juris does not preclude later modifications of borders. Application of uti possidetis juris, as is customary in other boundary disputes, would nevertheless provide a clear baseline for future negotiated solutions.

Why would this apply to Israel whose boundaries did not come close to the British Mandate lines after the 1948 war?

On May 14, 1948, when Israel declared its statehood, its forces controlled only a small part of Palestine. While Israel’s geographic scope of authority expanded by the end of the war, the armistice agreements that ended the war in 1949 left large parts of Palestine in the hands of Syria, Egypt and Jordan. The doctrine of uti possidetis juris, however, rejects possession as grounds for establishing title, favoring instead legal entitlement based upon prior administrative borders. And it is clear that the relevant administrative borders of Palestine at the time of Israel’s independence were the boundaries of the mandate as they had been set in 1923. Israel was the only state that emerged from mandatory Palestine, and it was a state whose identity matched the contemplated Jewish homeland required of the Mandate, and that fulfilled a legal Jewish claim to self determination in the Mandatory territories. There was therefore no rival state that could lay claim to using internal Palestinian district lines as the basis of borders. At the same time, while considerable efforts had been invested in creating and advancing proposals for altering the borders of the ultimate Jewish state and a companion Arab state, no such efforts had ever been crowned with the success of implementation. Thus, it would appear that uti possidetis juris dictates recognition of the borders of Israel as coinciding with the borders of the mandate as of 1948.

Certainly Israel has the right to voluntarily modify the borders in peace agreements, and the authors suggest that perhaps Israel's withdrawal from Gaza would also have that legal weight. Nevertheless, this legal principle that has been the basis of determining the borders of many other states worldwide should be equally applicable to Israel's borders.

The paper notes that historically there was a competing legal principal, uti possidetis de facto which says that legal possession of land only applies to where there is actual control - but no international court has applied that principle in modern times, and it is universally understood in determining the borders of other nations that uti possidetis juris is the single guiding legal principle.

But what about the rights of Palestinian Arabs within the boundaries of the British Mandate?

Another set of problems related to the Palestine Mandate concerned questions of self-determination. From the outset, the Palestine Mandate was anomalous, in that it recognized a particular people as entitled to express its self-determination on the territory of the Mandate, even though that people was not at that time the majority population of the Mandate. Over the years, Palestinian advocates have argued that this portion of the Mandate was ultra vires, and that the Jewish people were not entitled to receive a grant of the legal right to self-determination. The argument has little to recommend it. But even if the argument were well-founded, it would have little effect on the outcome of the uti possidetis juris analysis, as we have seen. Even unlawful treatments of the right of self-determination have not been seen as grounds to undermine the uti possidetis borders of other Mandates.

A potentially more serious matter is the question of whether the Jewish people were the only nation entitled to self determination in the Mandate of Palestine. The Mandate itself gives no indication of there being another entitled nation, describing only a Jewish national home and no other national home or national expression. The Mandate provides for a single partition (the separation of Transjordan from the remainder of the Mandate), but no other. The Mandate of Palestine was not, of course, the only Mandate to encompass populations who would not be granted the right to self-determination and an independent state (consider, for instance, the Kurds in the Mesopotamian Mandate). However, the Mandate of Palestine was the only one in which the majority population (the Arabs of Palestine) was not granted a right of self-determination by the founding documents. It may be argued, nonetheless, that, notwithstanding the silence of the founding documents of the Mandate, the Palestinian Arabs did have a claim to self-determination. General Assembly Resolution 181 of 1947 would have given both the Palestinian Jewish and Palestinian Arab peoples independent states.

The rights of multiple nations to self-determination on a given territory should not, prima facie, disturb application of the doctrine of uti possidetis juris. This is not simply because the doctrine of uti possidetis juris does not rely upon the existence of a prior claim of self-determination for the new state. Nor is it simply because uti possidetis juris may actually conflict with and override the demands of self-determination, as the International Court of Justice stated explicitly in the Burkina Faso case.321 The most important reason for rejecting the idea that multiple claims of self determination forbid application of uti possidetis juris is that many of the states that have had their borders established by uti possidetis juris have, in fact, been subject to multiple claims of self-determination; in no case has the existence of an additional nation with a right of self-determination defeated application of the doctrine of uti possidetis juris. This is true even when the new state that claimed the benefit of uti possidetis juris was later itself driven apart by new internal claims of self-determination. Yugoslavia and the U.S.S.R. provide several examples of this. Consider, for instance, Serbia (later subject to the secession of Kosovo) and Ukraine (later subject to the highly controversial secession of Crimea).
If an Arab Palestinian state had achieved independence in 1948, alongside the Jewish one, this would doubtless have affected the application of the rule of uti possidetis juris. With two states having achieved independence at the same time within the Mandate of Palestine, it would obviously not be possible for both states to share the borders of the Mandate. Different lines would have to serve as the basis of the borders of each states—if the new states could not reach agreement on mutually acceptable boundaries, the borders of districts or subdistricts would have to do. But, despite the potential self-determination claim of the Arab population of Palestine, only one state was born in 1948 at the termination of the prior administration. As the Palestine Mandate ended, the state of Israel achieved independence. No other state did.

Likewise, if the partition of Palestine envisioned by General Assembly Resolution 181 had been implemented, even if only administratively, the application of uti possidetis juris would have changed. Resolution 181 called for a U.N. Commission to take over administration of Palestine as the Mandatory withdrew. The Commission was to “carry out measures for the establishment of the frontiers of the Arab and Jewish States and the City of Jerusalem” and then to assist in the creation of provisional governments before the states achieved independence. However, the Commission never arrived in Palestine. Neither the Commission nor the Mandatory ever sketched out the proposed frontiers. At no time was a separate administration ever set up for the proposed Jewish, Arab and Jerusalem territories as called for by the resolution. In short, at the time of independence, there was only one administrative unit in Palestine. To attempt to apply uti possidetis juris to any borders other than those of the Mandate would leave the remaining Mandatory territories terra nullius, which is exactly the situation the doctrine seeks to avoid.

The paper concludes:

It is likely that a future peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians future solutions will reflect the parties’ presumed desire to accommodate Palestinian self-determination, as well as the right of states to modify existing uti possidetis juris borders by agreement. Uti possidetis juris is not, therefore, the last word on matters.

At the same time, it is likely that any future solution to the boundary disputes of Israel that wishes to take international law seriously will have to take account of the rules of uti possidetis juris. The doctrine is therefore an indispensable starting point for legal discussions of borders.

And that is the precise point. The 1949 armistice lines never held any legal value under international law, they were meant to be temporary. Jordan's seizure of the West Bank was not recognized by international law. The assumption that the so-called "1967 lines" should be used as the borders of a Palestinian state is legally baseless.

UPDATE: Video of a lecture that describes this in detail:

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.