Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Wednesday, November 29, 2017

Mustafa Barghouti accidentally admits that there would be no Palestinianism without Zionism

Al Ahram has a fairly stupid article by Mustafa Barghouti, the secretary-general of the Palestinian National Initiative, where he argues that Zionism has failed.

As with virtually every Palestinian "thinker," Barghouti defines Zionism as a movement to destroy Palestinians rather than a movement to recreate a nation-state for the Jewish people. Early Zionists had no intention of expelling non-Jews, on the contrary they felt that they would bring great economic and social benefits to the non-Jewish population. And they did. (Compare the infant mortality rates and life expectancy of Arabs under Israeli rule to those of neighboring Arab countries.Compare the number of universities built in the territories under "occupation" with zero built under Arab rule.)

But Barghouti instead builds a straw man:

The Zionist movement did not triumph but is living its worst crisis because it was founded on realising two objectives. The first was seizing the land, and this was carried out through criminal violence, waging wars and occupation. The second was displacing the Palestinian people and ethnically cleansing the land of Palestine, in which it failed. Despite the forcible displacement that took place in 1948, the Palestinian people learned from their experiences and stood fast on their land and today their numbers on the historic land of Palestine exceed that of Israeli Jews.

No one even blinks at these lies any more.

Part of the lie is simple psychological projection. Because, indeed, Palestinian nationalism is not built on the desire for an independent nation state for the "Palestinian people." That goal could have been accomplished a half dozen times since 1947. Palestinian nationalism is centered around the destruction of the Jewish state by any and all means possible.

So naturally Palestinians see Zionism as a projection of what they themselves want. A goal that Palestinians freely admit in surveys.

Barghouti unwittingly admits this. Later on in this essay he says "the Zionist project has awakened Palestinian nationalism."

Exactly. There would be no Palestinian nationalism if it wasn't for Zionism. They would be part of a greater Jordan or Greater Syria or Greater Egypt - there never would be any interest in an independent Palestinian state if Israel never existed.

All of the insistence that Palestinians are a historic people is a fiction that was created ex post facto to support the nationalist claims. One could just as easily prove that residents of the Hauran area of Syria or the Northern Sinai are a "people" since they may have customs distinct from others even in the same nation.

Beyond that, of course, Barghouti's main thesis - that Zionism has failed - is a bit absurd as Israel is about to celebrate its 70th birthday, and the Palestinian project to destroy Israel is no longer of interest even to their fellow Arabs.

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.

Notorious plane hijacker Leila Khaled has not been allowed to leave Leonardo da Vinci International Airport and was forced to return to Amman, Jordsn yesterday

Khaled, a member of the PFLP terror group, spoke at the European Parliament in September, and the backlash was belated but fierce. The Parliament passed a motion not to allow members of known terror organizations to speak there again. In an era of Islamist bombers in European cities, it was realized that perhaps treating one of the earliest modern terrorists as a hero was not a good message to send.

She was scheduled to speak at the Porta Maggiore Hotel on Saturday for a meeting of the UDAP, the Arab-Palestinian Democratic Union, where the "right to resistance" (i.e., terror) is to be celebrated.

UDAP issued a statement saying "The repatriation of comrade Leila Khaled is only a demonstration of the impotence of Italian institutions and their inability to escape Zionist blackmail:"

The plane that she hijacked in 1969 originated in Rome.

When asked to comment on her ban from Italy, Khaled said, "I was expecting it. Not because they are so afraid of me but of that the drama of the Palestinian people coming back to Italy. All the support that the Italian left once gave to our cause vanished as fog in the sun. They have all become conservatives, who have blotted out their ideas of solidarity with the oppressed peoples. But History goes on, it will end up overwhelming these bourgeoisie, who proclaim they are left but represent only their interests, and my wish is that the Italian people will judge them severely at the next elections."

Palestinian terror supporters have been dismayed recently at Italy's turning against them. This is indeed a turnaround; during the heyday of Palestinian airplane hijackings Italy used back channels to cooperate with Palestinian terrorists so they wouldn't hijack any Alitalia flights.

(h/t Andrea)

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.

60 members of EU parliament call to stop funding Israel boycotters

From Europe-Israel Public Affairs:

A cross party group of 60 Members of the European Parliament have urged the EU’s Foreign Affairs Chief, Federica Mogherini to marginalize, both financially and politically, organizations such as BDS (Boycott, Sanctions and Divestment) that are increasingly becoming a virulent source in the spread of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism under the pretense of exercising freedom of speech and association.

The unprecedented initiative, spearheaded by representatives of the four major political groups, MEP Cristian DAN PREDA, MEP Ioan Mircea Pascu (S&D, Romania) and a Vice-President of the European Parliament, MEP Petras Austrevicius (ALDE, Lithuania), MEP Arne Gericke (ECR, Germany) “calls upon ensuring that no public funds go to organizations calling for a boycott of the State of Israel, and to instruct agencies not to engage with companies, organizations or other entities involved with the BDS movement”.

MEP Cristian DAN PREDA, foreign affairs coordinator for the largest political group, the European People’s Party, and co-initiator of the letter underlined his party’s opposition to calls for the suspension of the bilateral agreements with Israel as some of his extreme left wing colleagues echo directly from the BDS playbook. “It’s in the interest of this House, and of our citizens, to see an upgrade in the partnership agreement with Israel. We should not allow the current stalemate in the peace process to dictate the terms of our relationship with Israel.”

Swedish MEP and President of EIPA’S political Board Lars Adaktusson – a co- signatory – underlined that “the Union, and the Parliament, is in danger of being deemed irrelevant as a peace broker if it fails to address the incitement on its own soil against Israel.”

Vice President of the European Parliament, Ioan Mircea Pascu concluded that “boycotting strategic ties with Israel, a leader in the intelligence and defence international community, may prove counterproductive to the common security interests of both EU and Israel”.

The 60 signatories, among which are Chair of Security and Defence, MEP Anna Fotyga (ECR, Poland), Vice-Preident Pavel Telicka (ALDE, Czech Republic), Dietmar Koster (S&D, Germany), Vice-Chair of Human Rights Beatriz Becerra (ALDE, Spain) urged their Foreign Affairs chief to “address the incitement to hatred and violence and discriminatory practice of calls for boycotts, divestment and sanctions against the State of Israel.”

There are 751 members of EU's parliament, so this is not exactly a majority, but it definitely puts the Israel-haters on the defensive in a field that they have been pretending to dominate.

(h/t Yoel)

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

11/28 Links Pt2: Judea Pearl: Nov 29 – the Jewish Thanksgiving Day; BDS as the Spearhead of a Global Anti-Semitic Movement

From Ian:

Judea Pearl: November 29 – the Jewish Thanksgiving Day

For several years now, I have been campaigning to declare November 29 the Jewish Thanksgiving Day; a day where we give thanks to Lady History and to the many heroic players who stood behind the historic UN vote of November 29, 1947, an event which has changed so dramatically the physical, spiritual and political life of every Jew in our generation.

I have argued that Jewish communities in every major city in the world should invite the consuls general of the 33 countries who voted yes on that fateful day to thank them publicly for listening to their conscience and, defying the pressures of the time, voting to grant the Jewish nation what other nations take for granted – a state of its own.

Imagine 33 flags hanging from every Jewish Federation building, 33 bands representing their respective countries and the word “yes” repeated in 33 different languages in a staged reenactment of that miraculous and fateful vote in 1947.

The idea came to partial fruition in 2012, when a spectacular production of “The Vote” took place at the American Jewish University in Los Angeles, featuring clergy, speakers, actors, musicians, singers and dancers, commemorated the day when, 65 years earlier, the United Nations voted 33 to 13 to partition Palestine into Jewish and Arab states.

Efforts to turn this into an annual event worldwide have so far not borne fruit, perhaps because we became overly fragmented, or perhaps we need time to digest our debt to history to appreciate the impact that such a ceremony would have on strengthening the spines of our children and grandchildren.

But I am not one to be deterred by hesitations.

Martin Kramer: Why the 1947 UN Partition Resolution Must Be Celebrated

Earlier this month, the governments of Britain and Israel marked the centenary of the Balfour Declaration with much fanfare. From London to Jerusalem, prime ministers, parliamentarians, and protesters weighed in. The world’s major media outlets ran extended analyses, while historians (myself included) enjoyed their fleeting few minutes of fame.

In comparison, notice of this week’s 70th anniversary of the 1947 UN partition resolution, the first international legitimation of a Jewish state—and the subject of my essay, “Who Saved Israel in 1947?”—will be subdued. Why?

A centenary is certainly a rarer thing, and the Balfour Declaration makes for dramatic telling. But the vote over the partition resolution had plenty of drama, too, and some of us, or our parents or grandparents, still remember the suspense that attended it and the elation that followed.

The Israeli novelist Amos Oz is one of them. In an autobiographical passage, he recalled that night in Jerusalem as his father stroked his head in his darkened bedroom:

“From the moment we have our own state [said Oz’s father], you will never be bullied just because you are a Jew and because Jews are so-and-sos. Not that. Never again. From tonight that’s finished here. Forever.” I reached out sleepily to touch his face, just below his high forehead, and all of a sudden instead of his glasses my fingers met tears. Never in my life, before or after that night, not even when my mother died, did I see my father cry. And in fact I didn’t see him cry that night, either. Only my left hand saw.

For those of us who are too young to remember the tears or the dancing in the streets, something of the excitement of the vote is easily retrievable. The balloting at the United Nations occurred in the presence of cameras, and anyone can see it spring to life on YouTube, along with the joyous celebrations that ensued. By contrast, the ecstasy prompted by the Balfour Declaration seems remote. Some 100,000 reportedly turned out in the streets of Odessa, but not even one photograph attests to it.

So why, one asks again, did the Balfour Declaration centenary resonate, while the partition-vote anniversary doesn’t?

UN celebrates 70 years since vote established the Jewish State

The State of Israel is returning to the hall in Flushing Meadows, New York, where the crucial vote to establish a Jewish state was held on November 29th, 1947.

Israel’s Mission to the United Nations is celebrating the 70th anniversary of the historic United Nations vote on Resolution 181 that called for the establishment of a Jewish state. The event is taking place at the Queens Museum that served as UN headquarters in 1947.

United States Vice President Mike Pence will be the guest of honor and deliver the keynote address on the eve of his planned visit to Israel. Dozens of ambassadors will participate in the event, including representatives of the 33 countries that voted in favor of establishing the new state 70 years ago. The main hall of the Queens Museum has be redesigned to resemble the UN assembly as it was in 1947.

Other guests expected at the gathering include Secretary of the Treasury Steven Mnuchin and more than 50 UN ambassadors and Jewish community leaders. World Jewish Congress president and US Ambassador to Austria Ronald Lauder will address the gathering and Israeli singer Ninet Tayeb will perform.

We reported last week about a Jewish Israeli blogger, known as Ben-Tzion, who visited Muslim holy sites in Saudi Arabia (and elsewhere) without hiding his Jewish identity.

He insists that everyone he met treated him with respect.

The fallout continues in the Arab world, though, and this article in Qatar's Al Sharq is delightfully over the top:

Finally the Zionist dream of reaching Yathrib (Medina) has been achieved

I did not imagine that the day would come when I saw and heard that the people of the Arabian Peninsula, from the sea eastward to the sea in the west, would allow themselves to see a Jewish Israeli walking around freely in this part of the world. I did not imagine that a Jew would enter the sanctuary in Madinah "Yathrib" Since the era of prophecy. I did not imagine that the Saudi political leadership, as well as the senior religious scholars, would allow all their religious beliefs to allow any Jew to reach Medina. where lies Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, along with a number of his companions and wives. No Muslim who believes in God and his messengers has ever heard or heard of a Jew publicly entering and wandering around the Mosque of the Messenger of Allah and next to his honorable residence.

The truth is that I did not believe all that was published in the Arab and Israeli press about the entry of a Jew to the city taking pictures next to the tomb of the Prophet, peace be upon him, in the Prophet's Mosque, and I do not know whether he walked in Mecca which is forbidden to them by virtue of the Koran.

I saw a YouTube movie that included pictures of the Prophet's Mosque and the Jewish man in one of the rows among the worshipers. I saw his picture as he walked around the Prophet's Mosque. The Israeli Jew in this corner named Ben Tzion Chadnovsky admits that he is an Israeli Jew and that he entered the Prophet's Mosque with the knowledge of Saudi personalities and that they know his Jewish background and his Israeli nationality. "Our generation must build bridges between Jews and the Arab world once and for all. Saudi Arabia and Israel must stand side by side to achieve the goal of joint peace in the Greater Middle East region in a comprehensive manner," he said.

Of course, Qataris are especially sensitive to this: Saudi Arabia does not allow them to visit because of their perceived pro-Iran tilt. The idea that an Israeli Jew can visit a Muslim holy spot that a Qatari Muslim cannot is (understandably) outrageous to them.

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.

Anatomy of an interview: Tzipi Hotovely, ideals and fake news

Last Wednesday, Israel’s deputy foreign minister Tzipi Hotovely gave an interview to i24 News. Many responded to the thoughts she expressed in the last few minutes of the relatively long interview with outrage. She has since been widely denounced by American Jewish leaders, Israeli politicians and internet activists.

The media scandal

Ms. Hotovely has been accused of causing a rift between American Jews and Israel, being insensitive, offensive and stupid.

Some Israeli commentators have expressed horror that a “person like her” is in such a delicate position (i.e. liaising with all important Jewish community in America). The media coverage both in Israel and abroad has used highly emotive terminology such as “accuses” and “attacks” to describe what was said. Headlines imply that Ms. Hotovely’s statements could drive the ultimate wedge between American Jews and Israel, causing diaspora Jews to abandon Israel altogether.

Such extreme commentary is rare. I did not see the interview when it aired. It was the backlash that made me wonder, what could she possibly have said that is so awful? Thankfully, in today’s world, everything is recorded and accessible online.

So, what did she actually say?

Ms. Hotvely was interviewed by two people, Calev Ben David and Nurit Ben. I have brought below the parts of the interview that sparked the controversy.

Interviewer Calev Ben David asked Ms. Hotovely: “Is Israel losing the young Jews of America and doesn’t your government have some responsibility for that through some of the policies that you are pursuing?”

Hotovely answered: “I have to ask you, what is happening with Hillel? What is happening with freedom of speech and academic freedom? …. The problem is that those young people, in the top ivy league universities are not willing to open their mind to different opinions and I think that is tragic. It has nothing to do with the way the Israeli government is handling, because you should have asked me this question if I wasn’t doing outreach to Princeton, if I stayed in Israel and said I didn’t care about these people but I DO care about these people! Some of them are my brothers (the Jews of course), some of them are young Americans interested in what I have to talk about…”

Here Tzipi Hotovely emphasized her desire to speak to American Jews, even those whose opinions differ from hers, because she sees them as her “brothers”. She also expressed frustration at a campus atmosphere that is willing to shut down free speech over a difference in opinion. She did not say that she believes everyone should hold the same opinion as hers. She said that she wishes conversation to be possible because she cares about American Jews (and American non-Jews who are interested in Israel). Is that bad?

Ben-David interrupted, using as an example an American Jewish friend who complained about not being able to pray the way he wanted at the Kotel, asking: “Why isn’t the government doing everything possible to make American Jews closer to Israel?”

Hotovely answered: “I think that it’s a very important goal to bring American Jews closer to Israel. I think this is one of my goals but we need to be open about this.”

Again, the desire to have an honest and open conversation.

“The solution that the Israeli government found about the Kotel issue, with having a beautiful place called Ezrat Yisrael, I’ve been there. Most of the time it’s empty and the reason it’s empty, if you ask me, is not because they don’t like the arrangement. The reason it’s empty is because, most of the time those people are not even interested in going to the Kotel. And the Israeli government was doing really a lot to make sure that the people can have an egalitarian prayer. Women can go together with their families. Men can go together with their daughters. Everything is set up. But they are not willing to get that because, if you ask me, this is a political matter. They want to get recognition through the Kotel issue and they are making a religious holy site something for political dispute.”

Ben-David: “So it’s all their fault?”

Hotovely: “I think that the solution that was offered was really quite good.”

Did you know that there is a lovely egalitarian prayer section at the Kotel where anyone can pray, however they want? I personally think it is nicer than the other section but like Tzipi Hotovely said, every time I have been there (and I have gone at all times of the day and night), I have never seen anyone praying there.

Nurit Ben, interjected: “When we’re talking about what is described as an abyss between American Jewry and the Israeli government, for many reasons, whether it is a massive ideological divide, whether it is egalitarian prayer at the Western Wall, conversions, or the lack of Israeli-Palestinian peace, American Jews are believed to be today and very vocally growing much further from Israel. Can you understand those Jews that feel that they no longer have a connection with Israel on any level?”

Did you notice the implication in this question? There is an abyss between American Jewry and the Israeli government because of a lack of Israeli-Palestinian peace? As if it is because the Israeli government has not done enough to reach out for peace?! Is it the fault of Israeli Jews (who overwhelmingly chose this government) that there is no peace?! This is a shocking idea. Interestingly Hotovely was not defensive about this and simply responded with what she sees as the cause of the abyss.

Hotovely: “Well, I can’t understand that. Because maybe they are too young to remember how it feels to be a Jewish person without a Jewish homeland, without a Jewish State. I think the memory is too short. 70 years ago, the Jewish people went through a horrible Holocaust because there was not a nation state for the Jews to go to.

I see the truth of this statement in my own home, in Israel. My own children are unable to comprehend not having the State of Israel. Their grandparents survived the Holocaust. Their parents were raised, hearing what it was like to have no state, to be utterly defenseless in the world and having to fight for Israel’s survival. The children of today, Israeli children who have seen wars and been to the funerals of friends murdered by terrorists cannot conceive of a day when Israel might cease to exist. Memory is short. This is the reality of the generation gap and growing up in (relative) freedom. If Israeli youth have difficulty understanding this, American young people will have an even more difficult time understanding.

This is not an accusation or an attack, this honest realism.

Nurit Ben: “So should all Jews be accepted in that nation state?”

Frankly, this question is more than a little offensive. Since when has there ever been a question about this??

Hotovely: “Of course! I am always saying, this is the home of ALL Jews, from all streams. Everyone is welcome to come here, to influence Israeli politics. Please. Come. As I said, I’m willing not to have a right-wing leadership in order to have all Jews sharing this beautiful, amazing place that is called Israel.”

Listen to that! I am willing to not have a right-wing leadership (Ms. Hotovely’s party) in order to have ALL Jews share Israel. What politician, in the history of the world, has ever proclaimed willingness to lose power in order to have all of their nation enjoy the same benefits they have?? Tzipi Hotovely, idealistic as she is, holds a higher ideal than that of her politics – the Nation of Israel should be united, in Israel -and she is willing to give up her personal power in order to gain this.

This is nothing short of astounding and yet, all the commentary I have seen on this interview has completely overlooked this statement.

Hotovely’s final statements seems to have been the source of most of the controversy:

“But there is another issue and I think that issue is not understanding the complexity of the region.”

The Middle East has dumbfounded statesmen, politicians, religious leaders and philosophers from biblical times. This is not an accusation, it is simply a statement of fact.

“People that [have] never sent their children to fight for their country, most of the Jews don’t have children serving as soldiers going to the Marines and going to Afghanistan or to Iraq, most of them are having quite convenient lives, they don’t feel how it feels to be attacked by rockets and I think part of it is to actually experience what Israel is dealing with on a daily basis.”

This has caused a lot of confusion so let’s break it down:

“People that [have] never sent their children” –
This statement refers to one generation of people that have not sent their offspring.
This obviously does not refer to all time, from the beginning of history.
In the same vein, this does not refer to people who have sent their children.

Honest reading of this statement makes the intention very clear. There is absolutely no reason to be offended because “Jews fought in many wars” or because “my family enlisted”. This statement refers to the people who have not fought. And yes, she did mean to say “have”. She is Israeli and while her English is very good, it is not her first language. English IS my first language and I don’t believe I would have succeeded in speaking with as great an accuracy as she did in this double-pronged interview.

“To fight for their country”
This statement also seems to have confused many people. What did she mean by “their country”? America or Israel?

From the words she used after this, it is obvious that she was referring to US military service. The IDF does not have Marines and we do not fight in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Interestingly a number of people chose to be offended by things she did not say.

“Why was she disrespectful to lone soldiers?!” seemed to me a particularly strange objection considering that she did not mention lone soldiers at all (Well, then why didn’t she?!) because she was speaking about American military service. Lone soldiers obviously do not fall under the category of “those who have never sent their children to fight.”

To clarify, lone soldiers, soldiers that come from the US or other diaspora communities to serve in the IDF are held in high regard by Israelis for two reasons:

1) Few actually make this step – while any support of Israel is appreciated, standing shoulder to shoulder with us, showing up physically, possibly putting your life on the line, is given much higher value than moral or financial support.

2) They don’t have to - Israeli are drafted in defense of our country. We defend our country for our families and friends but also for the Jews who may need (and hopefully will want) to come here. We have to, otherwise we would be annihilated. Lone soldiers give up the comforts of home, family and what is usually a comfortable life abroad to join us. This is a sacrifice by choice rather than necessity and that makes it more meaningful.

Some commenters declared that it is unfeasible or improper to demand that all Jews enlist in the IDF. The only thing is that no one requested this happen, much less demanded this.

“most of the Jews don’t have children serving as soldiers going to the Marines and going to Afghanistan or to Iraq”
This is true of most Americans, not just American Jews. Most don’t have children serving as soldiers. Most Americans do not know anyone who is a soldier and many have never seen a US soldier in real life. There are certain areas of the USA where it is more common to serve but that does not reflect on the majority of the population. As a Jewish child in Detroit I knew no one, Jew or non-Jew currently serving in the military. My grandfather was a Marine in WW2. In his generation everyone served. In mine, very few and no one I knew served.

“most of them are having quite convenient lives”

Could it be that, of all things Ms. Hotovely said, this is what was construed as an attack on American Jewry? If so, could the expressions of offense actually be masking feelings of guilt?
Most American Jews DO have convenient lives. It is easier to live in America than in Israel. The salaries are higher, the cost of living is (usually) lower and terrorism and war are things that usually happen “over there”. Israeli Jews don’t resent Americans for having good and comfortable lives. We don’t want Jews anywhere to suffer and we pray for the day that all Jews have convenient lives.

“they don’t feel how it feels to be attacked by rockets and I think part of it is to actually experience what Israel is dealing with on a daily basis.”

Americans don’t know what it is like to be attacked by rockets. Americans have never had to race to bomb shelters, praying that the rocket will not hit your home, that if it does, the bomb shelter will be strong enough to protect you even if the rest of the house comes crashing down.

Americans have never been trapped outside with no place to go for protection and no way to protect their children besides sheltering them with your own body.

The vast majority of Americans have never witnessed a terror attack and have never or known anyone who had to battle a terrorist with their bare hands. When Americans go to the grocery store they don’t worry about being butchered by a terrorist.

The vast majority of Americans have never had to take their children to the funeral of a classmate murdered by a terrorist. Or to the funeral of a soldier one year older than them, who was killed in a war.

Even Americans who have service members in their families don’t know what it is like, knowing your son is fighting for his life just a few miles away from you and you are powerless to protect him. Hearing the news of soldiers killed, the names not yet released (because the families were not yet notified) and being terrified that the knock will be on your door.

And you know what? We don’t want Americans to know. We want Jews everywhere to be able to enjoy a peaceful life of not knowing.

None of Tzipi Hotovely’s statements were accusations. They were all statements of fact. It is living in this reality, living as we live in Israel, that gives us our perspective. Only those who have walked in our shoes can truly understand. That is a truism relevant to all situations…

Conclusion

Careful consideration of everything Ms. Hotovely said, I am at a loss to find anything offensive, accusatory or inappropriate. She spoke the truth with kindness and grace, repeatedly stressing the desire to have good, open and honest relations with American Jewry.

I am left to wonder, was the real spark of the outrage caused by the idea that, if American Jews want to influence Israeli politics, they need to first become Israeli?

Or was it actually something said earlier in the interview? Tzipi Hotovely laid out the main principles the Israeli government holds in regard to any future peace agreement:

· The settlements are not the issue that is preventing peace

· No Jews or Arabs will be uprooted from their homes for the sake of territorial exchange

· Washington will not impose an unacceptable peace deal that endangers Israeli security

· Jews have 3000 years of connection to Judea and will continue to live in Judea

· IDF will retain security control between the Mediterranean and the Jordan river – for the protection of both Israelis and Palestinian, in order to prevent the creation of another terrorist state like Gaza.

· Jerusalem remains the undivided capital of Israel

These principles are diametrically opposed to the sentiments held by the political left (to which most American Jews subscribe). Obama, Clinton and basically every American administration before the current one, have championed the policies of the left. In Israel, reality has caused the political left to diminish drastically. Land for peace has proved an utter failure, over and over. One sided withdrawal from territory has made it possible for ISIS and Iran to set up camp on our northern border and turned Gaza into a terror state that tortures its own citizens and is a constant threat to ours. In America, it is still possible to hold leftist views – because it is not American lives who are in danger.

Could it be that this is the real reason Tzipi Hotovely was so widely denounced? Either listeners have a comprehension problem (which I do not believe) or the outrage is really a scream of despair that a decades long, failed political platform is no longer acceptable.

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.

11/28 Links Pt1: U.N. Challenged to End Its 'Anti-Israel Hate and Rejectionism'; An Arab Muslim in the Israeli Army

From Ian:

Caroline Glick: The State Department drops the ball

Over the weekend, The New York Times published its latest broadside against US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson for what the newspaper referred to as his “culling” of senior State Department officials and his failure to date to either nominate or appoint senior personnel to open positions.

But if the State Department’s extraordinary about face on the PLO’s mission in Washington is an indication of what passes for US diplomacy these days, then perhaps Tillerson should just shut down operations at Foggy Bottom. The US would be better off without representation by its diplomats.

Last week, in accordance with US law, Tillerson notified the PLO’s Washington envoy Husam Zomlot that the PLO’s mission in Washington has to close within 90 days because it has breached the legal terms governing its operations.

Specifically, Tillerson explained, PLO chief and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas breached US law when he called for the International Criminal Court to indict and prosecute Israeli nationals during his speech before the UN General Assembly in September.

Tillerson explained that under US law, the only way to keep the PLO mission in Washington open is if US President Donald Trump certifies in the next 90 days that its representatives are engaged in “direct and meaningful negotiations” with Israel.

The PLO didn’t respond to Tillerson with quiet diplomacy. It didn’t make an attempt to appease Congress or the State Department by for instance agreeing to end its campaign to get Israelis charged with war crimes at the ICC. It didn’t put an abrupt end to its financial support for terrorism and terrorists. It didn’t stop inciting Palestinians to hate Israel and seek its destruction. It didn’t disavow its efforts to form a unity government with Hamas and its terrorist regime in Gaza.

It didn’t join Saudi Arabia and Egypt in their efforts to fight Iranian power and influence in the region. It didn’t end its efforts to have Israeli companies blacklisted by the UN Human Rights Committee or scale back its leadership of the international boycott movement against Israel.

The PLO certainly didn’t begin “direct and meaningful negotiations” with Israel.

Melanie Phillips: Reformist noises coming out of Saudi Arabia, what all this might mean for the Arab-Israel conflict

Please join me here as I discuss with Avi Abelow of Israel Video Network the significance of the continuing reformist noises coming out of Saudi Arabia, what all this might mean for the Arab-Israel conflict and the row over the remarks made by Israeli deputy foreign minister Tzipi Hotovely about American Jews.

The shedding of blood, the violation of the sacred houses of God and the terrorizing of worshippers are acts of corruption on the earth.
Ahmed El-Tayyeb, current Grand Imam of al-Azhar and former president of al-Azhar University

This past Friday, over 300 Sufi Arabs were murdered in a terrorist attack on their mosque:

The death toll in a bomb and gun attack on a Sufi mosque in northern Sinai has risen to 305, with 27 children among the dead, Egypt's state prosecutor said Saturday.

Another 128 people were wounded, according to a statement from the public prosecutor read out on Egyptian state-run news channel Nile TV.

Between 25 and 30 armed men carried out the assault on the al Rawdah Sufi mosque in Bir al-Abed, the statement said.

Along with the horror at the senseless massacre is the sense that of all places, a mosque -- as a holy place of worship -- should be immune from bloodshed. Even if the Islamists behind the attack considered Sufis to be heretics, the blind gunfire would result in the destruction of copies of the Koran in addition to the carnage.

There was a similar Western sense of revulsion and confusion in response to other news reports of Muslim attacks on mosques over the years.

In the course of one year, from August 2010 to August 2011:

In August 2011, the New York Times reported: 28 Are Killed in a Bombing at a Mosque in Baghdad.
In October 2010 in Afghanistan, The Taliban murdered the head of Kunduz province, along with 14 other people, in a mosque bombing in Tahkar after the governor had been spoken out against the Taliban and other terror groups.
In September 2010, a mosque was burned during the arson attack on the Crazy Water Park in Gaza according to a report by The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights.
August 2010, a mosque was destroyed in Lebanon in a fight between Hezbollah and a rival group.
In addition, a Turkish general admitted he deliberately destroyed a mosque in 1974 to intimidate an enemy:

In remarks published in the Haber Türk daily yesterday as part of an interview with Gen. Sabri Yirmibesoglu, who led the Special War Department in 1971 and also worked to mobilize civilian resistance during Turkey's military intervention on Cyprus in 1974, said: “In Special War, certain acts of sabotage are staged and blamed on the enemy to increase public resistance. We did this on Cyprus; we even burnt down a mosque.” In response to the surprised correspondent's incredulous look the general said, “I am giving an example,” in an attempt to clear things up. [emphasis added]

While the Turkish destruction of a mosque was in the context of a "military intervention" if not a war, those other examples, including the Sufi mosque massacre, were a consequence of Muslim infighting.

Why was there no sense of sacrilege to inhibit the attackers in each case?

Back in 2010, in response to the Goldstone Report on Operation Cast Lead, the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center dedicated a chapter of it's own report, Hamas and the Terrorist Threat from the Gaza Strip, to the Hamas exploitation of mosques. An article in The Jerusalem Post summarized the report findings: Hamas used almost 100 mosques for military purposes:

The Malam report asserts that the extensive use of mosques to store weapons and as launch pads for rocket attacks on Israel was part of a Hamas strategy based on the knowledge that the IDF would not target civilian infrastructure including mosques, which were therefore ideal for weapons storehouses and rocket attacks.

The Malam analysis is based on Hamas sketches of neighborhoods that show that mosques were used as sniper positions, Israel Air Force videos showing massive secondary explosions after mosques were hit as well as reports from IDF troops.

One mosque in the Zeitoun neighborhood of Gaza City was raided by IDF troops who discovered a warehouse full of rockets and mortar shells. During the operation, a rocket-propelled grenade was fired at Israel troops from the mosque.

On January 13, IDF troops raided a mosque in Jabalya in northern Gaza that was full of weaponry including an anti-aircraft cannon. In a mosque in the Atatra neighborhood in northern Gaza City, troops uncovered a secret warehouse built under the podium, from where the imam leads prayers, which was full of weaponry and improvised explosive devices.

According to the report, the use of mosques for military purposes is as old as Islam itself:

The massive military use Hamas and the other terrorist organizations made of mosques has historical-religious roots. By the 7th century the prophet Muhammad had turned the mosque he built in Medina into a center for preaching, a place where political matters were dealt with, consultations held and appointments made, and where the Muslim army was prepared before it was dispatched to war and to attack the enemies of Islam. Muslim sages are of the opinion that the mosque is not only a house of prayer but that other uses, including military and political, are acceptable. Contemporary examples of the military and political uses made of mosques by radical Islamic terrorist organizations can be found in the Gaza Strip and many other places in the Arab-Muslim world. [p145. Emphasis in the original]

One example of such a Muslim religious leader is the Salafist Sheikh Saeed Abdul Azim:

The mosque is the place of worship and retreat, the place of education and guidance, the place of consultation and advice of Muslims, the safe driving center, the headquarters of the military command, the holding of the armies of the Mujahedeen in the cause of Allah and the place of reception of the coming delegations of the Messenger of Allah. The mosque, and say to them - peace be upon him -: (without you sons of Arvada) Agreed upon.[translated with Google Translate; emphasis added]

Then there is Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who until 2015 permitted suicide bombings:

Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi asserted at the time that mosques may be used for political, social, cultural and religious purposes, including on issues related to jihad. He noted that in the days of the Prophet Muhammad, the mosque was the center of activities for the entire Muslim society. The mosque was not only a place to worship Allah, but also a place of study, a gathering place for consultation, a place for people to get to know one another and the like. According to him, in the days of the Prophet Muhammad, delegations would travel from the Arabian Peninsula to meet with the Prophet at the mosque. In those days, Friday sermons were delivered at mosques, and instructions from the Prophet were given to his followers on various topics, including religious, social and political matters. In AlQaradawi’s opinion, since the inception of Islam, the mosque has played an important role in encouraging Muslims to embark on jihad and in the management of the "resistance against the enemies of the [Muslim] community, from among invaders who seek to govern it [i.e., the Muslim community]." Al-Qaradawi noted that mosques play an important role in any jihad. Moreover, in his opinion, it is permissible to preach in a mosque against a government that does not comply with Sharia. [p. 2, emphasis in original]

Al-Qaradawi. Source: Wikipedia. Credit: Nmkuttiady

Using mosques as a base of operations to fire rockets of course disregards the danger it causes to civilians. We have seen in the past that civilian casualties are not a concern for a terrorist group like Hamas. However, the further danger of this approach towards mosques is that they do not appear to have the kind of sanctity that protects worshippers from attacks by other Muslims.

This is a Pandora's Box that was faced by Jews, when in protest against the writings of the Rambam, they burned his books. When non-Jews saw how Jews treated their own writings, they picked up on the idea and burned Jewish holy books too.

This domino effect explains how the Taliban had no problem defacing a Koran in order to sell Heroin.

We learned our lesson.

The Muslim attitude towards mosques, however, is hardwired into Islam -- and considering the tinderbox that is the Middle East, that Sufi mosque is unlikely to be the last to be targeted by Islamist terrorists.

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.

Teachers in Gaza are upset at UNRWA.

Apparently, UNRWA (reasonably) decided to dismiss 164 teachers for not having bachelor's degrees, a requirement.

The teacher's union is fighting the decision, saying that it violates the "dignity" of all UNRWA workers. They are holding several meetings all over the territories.

The description of the end of one of these meetings is quite revealing:

At the end of the meeting, it was confirmed that the teachers and teachers refused to sign any papers or deal with the decisions of the Agency's administration. The aim of these measures is to steal the toil and efforts of the teachers through a planned policy of piracy that begins with stealing the wages of the teachers and ends with doing away with the issue of the refugees .

Every single time UNRWA threatens to cut a service because it doesn't have the money, the pushback from Palestinians is insanely over-the-top. They start with threats, move on to strikes and eventually go to violence, and that constant threat of terror causes UNRWA to find some Western country to donate and hold off the next "crisis."

But the reason why they are so adamant against the slightest compromise is revealed here: The Palestinians think there is a slippery slope between losing a penny of UNRWA benefits - and UNRWA benefits disappearing altogether.

Which means that they will no longer be considered "refugees," uniquely defined among the 50 million real refugees in the world today.

And their entire self-definition is based on being considered "refugees" and therefore oppressed because they cannot "return" to Israel.

They live in the areas of British Mandate Palestine - the country they claim.They are not refugees. Their parents and grandparents weren't refugees either. At best, 70 years ago, some were displaced persons. But no one maintains that status for generations besides Palestinians.

There is a real fear here. Palestinians know that UNRWA is a bizarre, anomalous agency that really has no reason to exist. It provides services far above and beyond what the main UN refugee agency provides to the true refugees who were forced from their countries.

So they act in the only way they know how to: they threaten, they attack, they tenaciously claim that the slightest weakening of benefits will inevitably bring the end of the gravy train they have been on for seven decades.

UNRWA cannot continue the way it has been. Not when the number of fake "refugees" under its working definition increases by tens of thousands a year. Something's got to give.

But UNRWA and the Palestinians agree that they don't want to actually think about that. So UNRWA points to the threats and violence as a reason to gain ever-increased funding, and both parties can pretend that UNRWA will exist in 2050 providing free food, medicine, shelter and schooling to another 10 million "refugees" who haven't been born yet.

(h/t Ibn Boutros)

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.

Giving Tuesday

If you think that this website is valuable - and thousands of you think so, every day - please consider donating to keep it going.

Thanks so much for your support!

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.

If it is not possible to be Zionist and a feminist, then it is impossible to be a feminist at all

The Forward, disgracefully, gives space to Mariam Barghouti, a Ramallah-based writer (I don't know if she is related to the terrorists with the same last name.) She reiterates the absurd claim that one cannot be a feminist and a Zionist.

The crux of her argument:

When I hear anyone championing Zionism while also identifying as a feminist, my mind turns to images of night raids, to the torture of children and to the bulldozing of homes. But I also think of those female soldiers who casually partake in it all, including ex-Israeli soldier and “Wonder Woman” Gal Gadot, who expressed her love and support for the Israel Defense Forces as they bombed and killed thousands of Palestinians in Gaza in 2014.

Being a feminist and a Zionist is a contradiction in terms because the Zionist feminist is complicit in propagating supremacy and domination over a people on the one hand, while on the other hand calling for an end to patriarchy.

Let's pretend that her argument has merit. Let's forget that the definition of Zionism has nothing to do with subjugating another people.

According to Barghouti's logic, anyone who believes in any system where there is a whiff of supremacy or domination over anyone else cannot possibly be a feminist.

Her next paragraph actually goes in that direction, where she essentially says that it is impossible to be a white feminist as well!

Indeed, the Zionist feminist is reminiscent of another kind of feminist: the white feminist. Women of color have been historically marginalized within the feminist movement, mostly due to white women stifling racial justice issues and de-emphasizing the specific oppressions faced by people of color because of their race, ethnicity and class. This negligence was often justified as working for collective sisterhood. But as Hooks eloquently explains, “As long as women are using class or race or power to dominate other women, feminist sisterhood cannot be fully realized.” Fundamentally speaking, feminism cannot support racism, supremacy and oppressive domination in any form.

Barghouti's thesis is that if you belong to any group that can be considered oppressive, then you cannot be a feminist.

Therefore - can one be a Muslim feminist? After all, Islamic law does not allow women to have the same rights as men. Not in testimony, not in marriage, not in clothing. So by her definition, one cannot be a Muslim feminist.

Can one be a Palestinian feminist? Polls show that Palestinian Arabs overwhelmingly support specific terror acts against Jews, so therefore they support the oppression and murder of Jews. Moreover, they deny the Jewish right to self determination and a homeland, not accepting the concept of a Jewish state. So by her definition, it is impossible to be a Palestinian feminist.

Can one be a Belgian feminist? Belgium has a rich history of colonialism, and since stereotyping is an essential part of Barghouti's definition of oppressors (considering all white women to be racist, considering all Zionists to be bloodthirsty killers or cheerleaders of such) then Belgians (and British, and French, and Spanish....) cannot be feminist.

Can one be an Australian or New World feminist? Of course not, because any non-indigenous person who lives in Australia (or North and South America) lives on land that rightfully belongs to First Peoples. Their very existence shows oppression is an inseparable part of them. In her own words, an American or Australian feminist "is complicit in propagating supremacy and domination over a people on the one hand, while on the other hand calling for an end to patriarchy.") If you don't give your house away to the indigenous natives, you are an oppressor and have no right to call yourself a feminist.

So we are left with very few people in the world who can possibly be feminist. Too bad. I thought the idea of equal rights has merit, but obviously it would be hypocritical to push feminist ideas when one is a citizen of a nation/state that has laws that prioritize its citizens above non-citizens - a clear case of subjugation of others, when you think about it.

And therein lies the irony: By pretending that "feminism" means something other than equal rights for women, Barghouti and her intersectional pals are hurting the cause of equal rights for women by adding these insane, arbitrary rules that can disenfranchise and exclude the biggest champions of equal rights.

If Barghouti is crafting this argument to exclude only people who support Jewish nationalism, then she is a bigot. If she is consistent in applying her argument to all who are equally "guilty," then it is almost impossible to be a feminist unless you are a member of an aboriginal tribe with no history of sexism or oppression against other tribes.

By the way, here is what Mariam Barghouti (who has American citizenship) looks like.

A white person who is trying to pretend to be a person of color in order to hijack other movements towards the Palestinian cause - to the detriment of everyone else.

Sounds like oppression.

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.

11/27 Links Pt2: How some Jews are empowering BDS; Antisemitic attacks in Australia increase nearly 10% over last year

From Ian:

Melanie Phillips: The Jewish identity detective agency

Tzohar, headed by the inspirational Rabbi David Stav, is the Israeli rabbinical organisation which is challenging the monopoly of Israel’s ludicrously harsh and inflexible rabbinate by adopting, within halachah, a more humane, inclusive and rational approach.

So much is generally appreciated. What is less widely known is its extraordinary “roots” project.

This sets out to prove the Jewish antecedents of Israeli Jews whose families come principally from the former Soviet Union. To their horror, some of these Israelis discover they don’t possess the documentary proof that their families are halachically Jewish. And without that, they cannot get married in Israel.

Many couples only realise just before their wedding that they have this devastating problem. Working very fast, Tzohar unearths lost evidence to enable them to marry.

In its Shorashim forensic unit, Tzohar has created a kind of religious detective agency. Remarkably, its rabbis often need to resort to cloak-and-dagger operations to extract documentary proof from government and security forces’ archives in the former Soviet Union.

The challenges are formidable. The trail is often as complex as it is hidden. Under the harsh decrees of Soviet communism, many of these families ditched their Jewish identity to adopt a nationalistic one.

Grandparents, both in Israel and in the former Soviet Union, are a crucial source of information and leads. Racing against time before these elders pass away, Shorashim tries to reach them to obtain their testimony before it is even needed.

Edwin Black: Mennonites and BDS: A Lawsuit Amid a Legacy

Ellen Koontz, a Kansas contract schoolteacher, is asking a federal judge to re-affirm the anti-Jewish boycott campaign begun by Adolf Hitler on April 1, 1933, openly adopted shortly thereafter by the Mufti of Jerusalem as part of the Arab-Nazi alliance during the Holocaust, internationalized against the Jewish State after WWII by the Arab League in December 1945, made illegal in America by a 1976 amendment to the Tax Reform Act and a 1977 amendment to the US Export Administration Act, which governs commercial activity impacting foreign policy, reaffirmed by continuous Presidential Executive Orders, and re-labelled in recent years with glitter and violent disruption as the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, otherwise known as BDS.

The IRS publishes specific reports explaining the criminal nature of anti-Israel boycotts by individuals or companies in commercial transactions as a function of foreign policy. In this vein, anti-BDS legislation has been adopted by more than 20 states, including Kansas. Koontz says Kansas Law HR 2409 infringes on her religious right to boycott Israeli Jews and those individuals and companies who do business with Israel.

So, Koontz sued—Koontz vs. Watson—to overturn the Kansas law and now seeks a temporary injunction of the enforcement of HR 2409. Watson disguises her purely political campaign as a religious duty handed down from the sixteenth-century, non-confrontational teachings of the pacifistic Mennonite religion.

Koontz has duped the court.

The Mennonite Church USA has abandoned its spiritual underpinnings and jumped from its religious exemption into the realm of political and racial bias.