Tuesday, March 05, 2019
Elder of Ziyon
Continuing my re-captioning of single-panel cartoons....
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.
Tuesday, March 05, 2019
Tuesday, March 05, 2019
Elder of Ziyon
Mrs. Elder and I spent our first day in Israel with friends in Ashdod, and we had lots of fun - eating at two terrific places, doing an escape room, and walking on the beach.
One thing I wanted to see was the Museum of Philistine Culture.
It seemed interesting to me that Israel would host a museum for the culture of one of our most implacable enemies.
Unfortunately, the museum was underwhelming. It has two exhibit areas, but the downstairs one had nothing to do with Philistines - it was more a collection of collections of random items like keychains, lighters, matches and other stuff.
The main level had a basic history and some artifacts from real Philistines.
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.
One thing I wanted to see was the Museum of Philistine Culture.
It seemed interesting to me that Israel would host a museum for the culture of one of our most implacable enemies.
Unfortunately, the museum was underwhelming. It has two exhibit areas, but the downstairs one had nothing to do with Philistines - it was more a collection of collections of random items like keychains, lighters, matches and other stuff.
The main level had a basic history and some artifacts from real Philistines.
That was about it, not really worth the price of admission.
But it is still is interesting that Israelis, rather than try to erase the culture of their enemies, are trying to preserve it.
From Ian:
Abbas’s legacy
Caroline Glick: Time to walk away from Afghanistan
Abbas’s legacy
Abbas’s response was again quick to come. If Israel dares to implement the law, he will refuse to accept any of the remaining taxes.Hamas's Systematic Use of Civilians to Promote Terrorism
Without these funds, the PA will no longer be able to provide essential services to the innocent Palestinian population or pay the tens of thousands of its law-abiding civil servants.
As if positively choosing to deprive the law-abiding Palestinians of hundreds of millions of shekels a year while instead squandering it to pay financial rewards to terrorists was not enough, Abbas is now positively choosing to inflict financial ruin on all the Palestinians. The PA has announced that public employees and employees in the private sector will have to take pay cuts in order for the PA to continue paying terrorist murderers in full.
In the absence of any other clear legacy, Abbas will certainly be remembered as the PA chairman who paid the most in financial rewards to terrorists, at the expense of and to the detriment of the millions of law-abiding and productive Palestinians.
The writer is head of legal strategies for Palestinian Media Watch, and a retired lieutenant-colonel who served for 19 years in the IDF Military Advocate General Corps, most recently as director of Military Prosecution in Judea and Samaria.
Since seizing power in a 2007 violent coup, Hamas has developed a range of cynical ways to exploit civilians in the Gaza Strip to build up its military wing and promote lethal terrorist activities.What media ignored: 15-year-old killed at Gaza border was active military member of terror groups
Within Gaza, around its borders, and away from it, Hamas's military wing sends out tentacles disguised in civilian camouflage.
These tactics including importing equipment for its military build-up program, embedding rocket launchers in civilian neighborhoods, using human shields to protect its armed operatives, digging attack tunnels into Israel, and exploiting civilian infrastructure needs for terrorist purposes. Hamas regularly exploits humanitarian efforts, designed to save Gazan lives, in order to enable terrorist atrocities designed to kill Israelis.
Exploiting humanitarian traffic
Hamas frequently tries to exploit Israel's practice of allowing humanitarian crossings in from Gaza to send cash and explosive materials to its West Bank terror cells.
For example, when the Palestinian Authority stopped medical equipment supplies to Gaza, as part of its pressure tactics against Hamas last May, and reduced the number of medical referrals for Gazans that allow them treatment in West Bank hospitals, Israel increased the number of permits allowing Gazans to visit Israeli hospitals.
Israel did this despite having multiple intelligence warnings of Hamas intentions to take advantage of the measure.
A 65-year-old Gazan woman, received a permit last April to receive cancer treatment in an Israeli hospital. The woman was stopped at the Erez border crossing with enough explosives to blow up four buses.
On February 23rd, 2019, a 15 year-old Palestinian, Yusef al-Daya, was shot in the chest at a weekly event called the March of Return. The event is held every Friday at the Gaza border. Al-Daya was rushed to a local hospital where he was resuscitated but a short time later, succumbed to his wound.
Prominent media outlets such as Reuters stated; “Israeli troops shot dead a Palestinian teen.” The article makes no mention of important facts about al-Daya and what he was doing at the security fence.
This is a common framing of the “protests” at the security fence, which portray the participants as civilians and highlight people under 18 (“children”) killed. The death received considerable media attention, and came not long before the UN Human Rights Council issued a report condemning Israeli killings of “civilians” at the Gaza security fence.
Al-Daya wasn’t just a civilian protesting, he was a member of the Palestinian Mujahideen Movement who have a military wing called Mujahideen Brigades.
"The Palestinian Mujahideen Movement mourns its knight: The knight of the Mujahideen / Yusuf Sayeed al-Daya, who was martyred during his participation in the March of Return and Breaking the Seige east of #Gaza." #Israel pic.twitter.com/tRGtLYnZgK
— Joe Truzman (@Jtruzmah) February 22, 2019
Caroline Glick: Time to walk away from Afghanistan
While curtailing U.S. support for Pakistan, the Trump administration has been working steadily to solidify a strategic alliance with India. Most significantly, last September, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and then-Secretary of Defense James Mattis met with their Indian counterparts in New Delhi and signed an agreement that increased the interoperability of the U.S. and Indian armed forces, paving the way for Indian purchase of U.S. military technology that had been out of bounds until then.
That brings us to Afghanistan. The current U.S. policy is to leave after finalizing an agreement with the Taliban and other stakeholders through ongoing talks in Geneva. The talks are reportedly leading to an outcome that will see the Pakistan controlled-Taliban return to power in Afghanistan supported by Turkey on the one hand, and Iran on the other. This outcome, which may be inevitable in light of the balance of forces on the ground, is not one that redounds to the U.S.’s benefit.
Given that the outcome of the talks will not be a good one for America, the U.S. has no interest in being a party to such an agreement. The U.S. would be better off not signing any deal and walking away, rather than acquiescing to a settlement that isn’t in its interest. By walking away with no agreement, the U.S. would reserve its right to attack enemy targets, as it deems necessary, in the future.
Pakistan’s policy of using terrorism and nuclear brinksmanship to force India to accept its belligerence, like its policy of sponsoring the Taliban and other groups attacking U.S. forces in Afghanistan even while serving as the logistical base for U.S. operations, shows that it is well nigh time for the U.S. to follow through on Trump’s campaign policy of walking away from Afghanistan.
Just as there is nothing to be gained by taking a neutral stance between India and Pakistan, so there is no point in permitting Pakistan to play the U.S. for a fool in Afghanistan.
There are downsides to walking away from Afghanistan and Pakistan, but they are far smaller than the price the U.S. pays by funding the wars Pakistan wages against it.
- Tuesday, March 05, 2019
- Elder of Ziyon
By Daled Amos
Richard Nixon's antisemitism did not prevent him from coming to Israel's aid in 1973 and resupplying it with the weapons that enabled it to win the war.
But beyond that, Nixon may be responsible for the enduring US foreign policy that sees
In a recent article on The Top Four Reasons Why Rep. Ilhan Omar Is Wrong About AIPAC, Israel and the Palestinians, CAMERA notes that historically, US support for Israel was actually minimal before 1970 -- despite the combined alleged influence of the Jewish vote, Jewish political contributions, and the activities of the pro-Israel lobby. After all, just 3 years earlier, in 1967, Israel's main source of weapons was not the US; it was the British and the French. Yet after 1970, US support for Israel began to grow rapidly.
The turning point was President Richard Nixon -- and Arafat.
As Alex Safian puts it in the article:
According to Safran, when the Syrian army captured Irbid, a city in northern Jordan which contained a junction of roads linking Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Israel -- King Hussein appealed for American and British help. The British refused and advised the US to do the same. Other European allies also advised against helping. Nixon had Kissinger work out a plan for a joint American-Israeli intervention. Kissinger and Israeli Ambassador Rabin put together a plan for a combined Israeli air strike and armored assault on the Syrian forces in conjunction with an American airborne descent on Amman airport. If necessary, Israeli armored columns would advance in a pincer movement from the Golan and the Jordan Valley and cut off the Syrian intervention forces and destroy them.
Because of the American and Israeli support, King Hussein was able to commit all his forces to fighting Arafat's forces. The Syrians, on the other hand, wary of that support, and of a flanking attack by columns of Israeli tank columns, withdrew -- saving Jordan, and making direct Israeli intervention unnecessary.
According to Safran this affair had a profound impact on U.S/Israel relations:
Safian concludes:
Donald Neff, in an article "Nixon's Middle East Policy: From Balance to Bias," quotes from Rabin's memoirs where he tells about Kissinger's description of the president's appreciation:
None of this would have happened if Arafat had not tried to take over Jordan.
He single-handedly created a destabilizing situation that allowed Nixon to see the strategic asset Israel represented in the Middle East. Nixon was developing the Nixon Doctrine, allowing the US to rely on military and economic aid and on allies instead of committing US troops.
And Israel continues to serve as a key ally of the US to this day.
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.
Richard Nixon's antisemitism did not prevent him from coming to Israel's aid in 1973 and resupplying it with the weapons that enabled it to win the war.
But beyond that, Nixon may be responsible for the enduring US foreign policy that sees
o The value of a strong Israel
o Israel as solid US ally in Mideast
o Israel as important for Mideast stability
 |
| Richard Nixon. Source: National Archives. Public Domain |
In a recent article on The Top Four Reasons Why Rep. Ilhan Omar Is Wrong About AIPAC, Israel and the Palestinians, CAMERA notes that historically, US support for Israel was actually minimal before 1970 -- despite the combined alleged influence of the Jewish vote, Jewish political contributions, and the activities of the pro-Israel lobby. After all, just 3 years earlier, in 1967, Israel's main source of weapons was not the US; it was the British and the French. Yet after 1970, US support for Israel began to grow rapidly.
The turning point was President Richard Nixon -- and Arafat.
As Alex Safian puts it in the article:
The US president in 1970 was Richard Nixon, a Republican who knew very well that overwhelmingly Democratic and left-leaning American Jews had already voted against him in large numbers and would do so again in 1972. What happened in 1970 that convinced Nixon, the arch practitioner of realpolitik, to press for increased support for Israel?Safian quotes the late Harvard professor, Nadav Safran, who in his book "Israel: The Embattled Ally," notes that the turning point in US/Israel relations was not any kind of Jewish influence. That influence was consistent and yet had failed to improve US-Israel relations. Instead, the turning point was the crisis of Black September, when Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization, with the assistance of invading Syrian tanks, attempted to overthrow and assassinate Jordan’s King Hussein, who was an ally of the US. If successful, they would have posed a threat to western oil supplies.
According to Safran, when the Syrian army captured Irbid, a city in northern Jordan which contained a junction of roads linking Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Israel -- King Hussein appealed for American and British help. The British refused and advised the US to do the same. Other European allies also advised against helping. Nixon had Kissinger work out a plan for a joint American-Israeli intervention. Kissinger and Israeli Ambassador Rabin put together a plan for a combined Israeli air strike and armored assault on the Syrian forces in conjunction with an American airborne descent on Amman airport. If necessary, Israeli armored columns would advance in a pincer movement from the Golan and the Jordan Valley and cut off the Syrian intervention forces and destroy them.
Because of the American and Israeli support, King Hussein was able to commit all his forces to fighting Arafat's forces. The Syrians, on the other hand, wary of that support, and of a flanking attack by columns of Israeli tank columns, withdrew -- saving Jordan, and making direct Israeli intervention unnecessary.
 |
| King Hussein. Source: US Government. Public Domain |
According to Safran this affair had a profound impact on U.S/Israel relations:
The Jordanian episode had a far-reaching effect on the American attitude toward Israel and the Arab-Israeli conflict… [T]he President … was deeply impressed by the determination shown by the Israelis at a time when America’s formal allies had quit on him. He also appreciated the speed, efficiency, discretion and trust with which the Israelis acted through their gifted ambassador, Yitzhak Rabin…It wasn't AIPAC or Jewish influence that brought about this change in support for Israel. Instead, it was the threat, brought about by Arafat's PLO that led Nixon to appreciate the strategic importance of Israel.
Apart from its effect on Nixon’s personal attitude towards Israel, the Jordanian episode drove home to the President and some of his advisers a crucial point which they previously saw only in the abstract. The crisis and its denouement demonstrated to them in a concrete and dramatic fashion the value for the United States of a strong Israel. At a time when the regional balance among the Arab states, between the United States and the Soviet Union, as well as between Israel and the Arabs states was seen to be imperiled and when the entire American position in the Middle East appeared, as a result, to be jeopardy, the United States was able to retrieve the situation and turn it around only through the effective cooperation of a powerful Israel….
The American action in the Jordanian crisis was therefore seen by Nixon as the first successful attempt to call a halt to the Soviet drive and begin to reverse it by forcing the Soviets to back down in view of their friends, and the key role of Israel in that action was particularly appreciated. (emphasis in the original)
Safian concludes:
There is no doubt that AIPAC plays a key role in shaping the debate in Congress and in the details of legislation, military aid packages, etc., but none of these details would matter were it not for the strategic realities of the US-Israel alliance.In an article in the New York Post back in 2001, Israeli journalist Uri Dan wrote about the release of sensitive British government documents which provided the first public confirmation that an Arab country once requested an Israeli military attack on a fellow Arab nation:
British documents, sealed for 30 years, now reveal that Hussein sent “a series of messages” to the British Embassy in Amman “reflecting the extreme anxiety with which he now regarded the situation.”According to the report, Prime Minister Edward Heath is quoted as doubting whether it was worth “prolonging, possibly only for a short time, [Hussein’s] increasingly precarious regime.”
The report said that Hussein “not only appealed for the moral and diplomatic support of the United Kingdom and the United States, coupled with the threat of international action, but had also asked for an air strike by Israel against Syrian troops." [emphasis added]
Donald Neff, in an article "Nixon's Middle East Policy: From Balance to Bias," quotes from Rabin's memoirs where he tells about Kissinger's description of the president's appreciation:
The President will never forget Israel's role in preventing the deterioration in Jordan and in blocking the attempt to overturn the regime there. He said that the United States is fortunate in having an ally like Israel in the Middle East. These events will be taken into account in all future developments.Neff goes on to describe how Israel benefited. While US aid to Israel totaled $93.6 million in 1970, by 1971 it jumped to $634.3 million and then reached $2.6 billion in 1974 after the war in 1973. He concludes: "The Nixon-Kissinger years set a dramatic new benchmark for aid to Israel. Levels continued to climb until 1985 when they settled at $3 billion, where they remain today (1990)."
None of this would have happened if Arafat had not tried to take over Jordan.
He single-handedly created a destabilizing situation that allowed Nixon to see the strategic asset Israel represented in the Middle East. Nixon was developing the Nixon Doctrine, allowing the US to rely on military and economic aid and on allies instead of committing US troops.
And Israel continues to serve as a key ally of the US to this day.
- Tuesday, March 05, 2019
- Elder of Ziyon
Issa Amro describes himself as a "Palestinian activist based in Hebron, Palestine, Recognised Human Rights Defender by the UN and European Union."
He tweeted this on Monday:
So I did a fact check. And everything he wrote was wrong, although in the end, in important ways, the US diplomats in Jerusalem helped create the Palestinian cause, but not until the 20th century.
All US Consulates in the Middle East in the 18th and 19th centuries were meant primarily to help the US increase trade with the region, and secondarily to help US travelers to the area. The main US consul in the first part of the 19th century was in Beirut, and all others reported to that one.
In 1844, based on the recommendation of a Congressman, US Secretary of State John Calhoun appointed a Judeophile named Warder Cresson as the first Consul of Jerusalem, a position Cresson desired. But he was considered a strange person by others who knew him - perhaps because of his love of Jews and his determination that their ingathering would help bring the Messiah in a few years - and the appointment was rescinded before Cresson took up the post, but after he divorced his wife and departed to the Holy Land.
Cresson went anyway under the illusion he was Consul, even helping out the Jews of the area by providing what appears to be bogus papers giving them US citizenship and therefore protection. Finally the Ottomans saw that he had no credentials and he was informed that he had no title in 1848. Cresson then converted to Judaism and went back to the US to settle his affairs, where his relaives tried to get him declared insane because of his conversion. Cresson ultimately won the case in what was seen as an important early case of religious freedom in America.
The first real Consul General, John Warren Gorham, was appointed in 1856 and opened the Consulate in 1857. He hated the post, bored out of his mind and taking up alcohol, to be quickly followed by a series of equally unhappy Consuls who wanted to find ways to increase US trade with Palestine and couldn't figure out how the US could profit at all from the backwards region.
From what I am reading, the Arab residents of Palestine were of little interest to these diplomats. A number of them, notably Victor Beauboucher and Richard Beardsley, did provide protection to the Jews of Jerusalem, although Beauboucher was involved in a case where a Jewish orphan girl who was being pressured to convert to Christianity was being protected by a rabbi and the diplomat forcibly arrested the rabbi with no permission.
Frank S. DeHass (1873-1877) protected hundreds of Russian Jews who were left without protection because of a war between Russia and Turkey. He and met with Moses Montefiore.
It appears that during and after World War I, the American diplomatic role changed. Protestant missionaries and educators who went to Palestine became friendly with the local Arabs and soon became the backbone of the next generation of diplomats to Jerusalem, moving their pro-Arab ideas into the State Department, a tilt that remained for the next hundred years. On the other side of the coin, they taught their Arab friends about nationalism in the American-style schools they founded, and in that sense were a large reason for the emergence of Arab nationalism and anti-colonialism in the region in the 20th century. There is a lot about this in Michael Oren's book, Power, Faith and Fantasy.
The diplomatic history of the US in the Middle East is fascinating, but Amro shows no knowledge of the topic - only a willingness to lie about it.
We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
He tweeted this on Monday:
The US consulate in Jerusalem was opened in 1844 to give services to the Palestinian people. after 175 years, Trump decided to emerge it to the US embassy in occupied Jerusalem. Last year he closed the Palestinian mission in the USA too, he is destroying the Palestinian cause.— Issa Amro عيسى عمرو 🇵🇸 (@Issaamro) March 4, 2019
All US Consulates in the Middle East in the 18th and 19th centuries were meant primarily to help the US increase trade with the region, and secondarily to help US travelers to the area. The main US consul in the first part of the 19th century was in Beirut, and all others reported to that one.
In 1844, based on the recommendation of a Congressman, US Secretary of State John Calhoun appointed a Judeophile named Warder Cresson as the first Consul of Jerusalem, a position Cresson desired. But he was considered a strange person by others who knew him - perhaps because of his love of Jews and his determination that their ingathering would help bring the Messiah in a few years - and the appointment was rescinded before Cresson took up the post, but after he divorced his wife and departed to the Holy Land.
Cresson went anyway under the illusion he was Consul, even helping out the Jews of the area by providing what appears to be bogus papers giving them US citizenship and therefore protection. Finally the Ottomans saw that he had no credentials and he was informed that he had no title in 1848. Cresson then converted to Judaism and went back to the US to settle his affairs, where his relaives tried to get him declared insane because of his conversion. Cresson ultimately won the case in what was seen as an important early case of religious freedom in America.
The first real Consul General, John Warren Gorham, was appointed in 1856 and opened the Consulate in 1857. He hated the post, bored out of his mind and taking up alcohol, to be quickly followed by a series of equally unhappy Consuls who wanted to find ways to increase US trade with Palestine and couldn't figure out how the US could profit at all from the backwards region.
From what I am reading, the Arab residents of Palestine were of little interest to these diplomats. A number of them, notably Victor Beauboucher and Richard Beardsley, did provide protection to the Jews of Jerusalem, although Beauboucher was involved in a case where a Jewish orphan girl who was being pressured to convert to Christianity was being protected by a rabbi and the diplomat forcibly arrested the rabbi with no permission.
Frank S. DeHass (1873-1877) protected hundreds of Russian Jews who were left without protection because of a war between Russia and Turkey. He and met with Moses Montefiore.
It appears that during and after World War I, the American diplomatic role changed. Protestant missionaries and educators who went to Palestine became friendly with the local Arabs and soon became the backbone of the next generation of diplomats to Jerusalem, moving their pro-Arab ideas into the State Department, a tilt that remained for the next hundred years. On the other side of the coin, they taught their Arab friends about nationalism in the American-style schools they founded, and in that sense were a large reason for the emergence of Arab nationalism and anti-colonialism in the region in the 20th century. There is a lot about this in Michael Oren's book, Power, Faith and Fantasy.
The diplomatic history of the US in the Middle East is fascinating, but Amro shows no knowledge of the topic - only a willingness to lie about it.
- Tuesday, March 05, 2019
- Elder of Ziyon
ElderToons, Linda Sarsour
Muslim activist and faux feminist Linda Sarsour posted this on Facebook:
This is why we wanted Congresswoman Barbara Lee to be the Speaker of the House and “progressives” were like nah, Pelosi is a leader and omg you should see how she claps. What a clap!Sarsour is saying that Nancy Pelosi is "upholding the patriarchy" and "doing the work of white men." Apparently, fighting antisemitism is something only racist white men do.
Nancy is a typical white feminist upholding the patriarchy doing the dirty work of powerful white men. God forbid the men are upset - no worries, Nancy to the rescue to stroke their egos.
For years, when members of Congress have spewed blatant anti-Muslim racism, islamophobia, propaganda against Muslims and even held racist hearings with our tax payer dollars, Democratic leadership were never swift to condemn said members or put out resolutions condemning islamophobia and/or standing in solidarity with Muslims on the record in Congress.
Democrats are playing in to the hands of the right. Dividing our base and reinforcing their narrative and giving them an easier path towards 2020.
I reject this. I will speak out. I won’t be silent. I am not following this. They don’t speak for me as a Democrat. No more double standards.
You want a resolution? Condemn all forms of bigotry. All forms of bigotry are unacceptable. We won’t let them pin us up against each other. We stand with Representative Ilhan Omar. Our top priority is the safety of our sister and her family.
And doesn't Sarsour, who wears a hijab and defends Islam at every opportunity, doing the bidding of Muslim men who say that she cannot remove it without being in danger of being raped by sex-crazed men who cannot control themselves at the sight of her hair?
If Sarsour is so concerned about the patriarchy, why does she defend a misogynist religion?
Moreover, when House Resolution 569 was introduced in December 2016 "Condemning violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States," I can find no record of Sarsour speaking out against it because it didn't include other forms of bigotry besides that against Muslims. But a resolution against antisemitism is considered, and she is so upset that it is only on a single kind of hate!
According to the "woke" Sarsour, only antisemitism must be universalized (and therefore minimized.)
Monday, March 04, 2019
- Monday, March 04, 2019
- Elder of Ziyon
- NYT
Now that Ilhan Omar has made the topic of the Jewish Lobby's supposed stranglehold on US politicians kosher to speak about again, the New York Times has to write an article meant to confirm the thoughts of the worst antisemites about Jews.
I don't know, let's see: AIPAC put everything it had to stop the Iran nuclear deal - and lost. Does that sound like it is all powerful to you?
While the article mentions that as an aside, the tone of the article answers the question as a resounding "yes." It features a single AIPAC activist among many thousands, and says (without directly quoting him) that he wants to "punish" Ilhan Omar for her antisemitic statements.
Shouldn't every moral person condemn antisemitism? Why does the NYT want to make it look like the powerful Jews are working to "punish" those who are critical of the Jews for being too powerful?
Even worse, the same activist is pictured - not knocking on the doors of members of Congress, but praying with a talit and tefillin.
Because the dog-whistle of AIPAC being the Jewish lobby was apparently too subtle for the New York Times editors. They had to show him do something really, really Jewy, just to get the message across that yes, the Jews are the ones who are controlling the US government.
The Times uses another worn journalistic trope of using a question to imply something is true, but the question form gives it plausible deniability:
But the Newspaper of Record is using the question format to say, yes, those tefillin-wearing Jews are indeed stopping all conversation of criticism of Israel.
By doing that, the New York Times is implicitly agreeing with Omar that there really is no antisemitism coming from the Left, only criticism of Israel that is supposedly being silenced by people saying that her statements are antisemitic. Even though they are and no one - no one at all - is trying to silence legitimate criticism of Israel.
Every paragraph is dripping with implicit insinuations of AIPAC doing something underhanded, even though nothing adds up to anything beyond what any other lobby does. For example:
The newspaper even quotes known AIPAC hater MJ Rosenberg, who says that Omar is entirely correct in how she characterizes the organization.
In short, Omar has legitimized the false charge that the Jewish lobby owns Washington, and the New York Times pretty much agrees, somehow without fear of that Jewish lobby that is supposed to shut down all dissent.
Omar has managed to mainstream antisemitism, and to use the New York Times' methods of using a question to make a statement:
Has the New York Times legitimized Omar's antisemitic claims that the Jews control Congress, that they have hypnotized the world, that they prioritize Israel over America, and that any criticism of Israel is considered antisemitic by those Jews?
Whether the newspaper meant to or not, the answer is clearly yes. This was irresponsible journalism done in an irresponsible way, without context and - with that photo- providing fuel to Jew-haters.
We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
I don't know, let's see: AIPAC put everything it had to stop the Iran nuclear deal - and lost. Does that sound like it is all powerful to you?
While the article mentions that as an aside, the tone of the article answers the question as a resounding "yes." It features a single AIPAC activist among many thousands, and says (without directly quoting him) that he wants to "punish" Ilhan Omar for her antisemitic statements.
Shouldn't every moral person condemn antisemitism? Why does the NYT want to make it look like the powerful Jews are working to "punish" those who are critical of the Jews for being too powerful?
Even worse, the same activist is pictured - not knocking on the doors of members of Congress, but praying with a talit and tefillin.
Because the dog-whistle of AIPAC being the Jewish lobby was apparently too subtle for the New York Times editors. They had to show him do something really, really Jewy, just to get the message across that yes, the Jews are the ones who are controlling the US government.
The Times uses another worn journalistic trope of using a question to imply something is true, but the question form gives it plausible deniability:
The question is too ridiculous to be taken seriously. No one is muzzling J-Street, or IfNotNow, or Jewish Voices for Peace, or the months of "Israel Apartheid Week" on campuses, or the BDS movement. No one.
Has Aipac — founded more than 50 years ago to “strengthen, protect and promote the U.S.-Israel relationship” — become too powerful? And with that power, has Aipac warped the policy debate over Israel so drastically that dissenting voices are not even allowed to be heard?
But the Newspaper of Record is using the question format to say, yes, those tefillin-wearing Jews are indeed stopping all conversation of criticism of Israel.
By doing that, the New York Times is implicitly agreeing with Omar that there really is no antisemitism coming from the Left, only criticism of Israel that is supposedly being silenced by people saying that her statements are antisemitic. Even though they are and no one - no one at all - is trying to silence legitimate criticism of Israel.
Every paragraph is dripping with implicit insinuations of AIPAC doing something underhanded, even though nothing adds up to anything beyond what any other lobby does. For example:
Aipac does not lobby on behalf of Israel; it is sensitive about being characterized as an agent of a foreign power, as Ms. Omar suggested it was during her talk in Washington last week. But it almost always sides with the Israeli government, no matter who is in charge.Perhaps because Israel is a democracy and the choice of its voters should be respected if you want to support the Israel-American relationship? The significant Jewish lobby of J-StreetPAC specifically lobbies against virtually all Israeli government policies, which would - in a normal reading of the situation - mean that AIPAC respects democracy and J-Street does not. This paragraph implies that American should oppose Israel's government policies, democracy be damned.
The newspaper even quotes known AIPAC hater MJ Rosenberg, who says that Omar is entirely correct in how she characterizes the organization.
In short, Omar has legitimized the false charge that the Jewish lobby owns Washington, and the New York Times pretty much agrees, somehow without fear of that Jewish lobby that is supposed to shut down all dissent.
Omar has managed to mainstream antisemitism, and to use the New York Times' methods of using a question to make a statement:
Has the New York Times legitimized Omar's antisemitic claims that the Jews control Congress, that they have hypnotized the world, that they prioritize Israel over America, and that any criticism of Israel is considered antisemitic by those Jews?
Whether the newspaper meant to or not, the answer is clearly yes. This was irresponsible journalism done in an irresponsible way, without context and - with that photo- providing fuel to Jew-haters.
From Ian:
PMW: Holocaust explained by Fatah: Jews deserved to be killed because of “who they are”
PMW: Holocaust explained by Fatah: Jews deserved to be killed because of “who they are”
On Facebook, Fatah posted the three photos above from World War II together with a story it presented as authentic. According to the version posted by Fatah, Jews willingly and eagerly agreed to bury Russian civilians alive in order to save their own lives. Seeing this, a Nazi soldier proclaimed to the Russians:New York Times Op-Ed Writer Faults Paper’s Israel News Coverage
"I just wanted you to know who the Jews are and why we are killing them!"
[Official Fatah Facebook page, Feb. 27, 2019]
Fatah presented the story as an authentic quote from the purported memoirs of a Russian civilian:
"One of the Russian prisoners in World War II wrote in his memoirs: 'In 1941 the Germans made us dig deep pits in the ground. When we finished doing what they wanted, they brought a group of Jews, threw them into the pits, and ordered us to bury them. We refused to carry out this atrocious act. So the Germans ordered to throw us in instead of the Jews, and ordered them to bury us. The Jews began to pour dirt on us without hesitation. The dirt almost covered us, but the Germans stopped them and took us out. We were surprised when the German commander shouted at us: "I just wanted you to know who the Jews are and why we are killing them!"'"
[Official Fatah Facebook page, Feb. 27, 2019]
Fatah chose to post the text without comment. It did not condemn this story for portraying Jews as evil, selfish, and ungrateful. Nor did it distance itself from the Nazi commander’s justification of the murder of Jews in the Holocaust based on the antisemitic libel that Jews are defined by these character traits.
How bad is New York Times coverage of Israel?The war against antisemitism must be conducted on social media
So bad that not even one of the newspaper’s contributing opinion writers appears to believe it.
For the second time this year, New York Times “contributing opinion writer” Matti Friedman has used the Times‘ own op-ed pages to not-so-subtly throw shade on the Times news coverage of Israel. “Contributing opinion writer” is a lofty title the Times uses for people who aren’t quite weekly columnists but are nonetheless frequent and formally affiliated op-ed writers for the paper.
The last time Friedman made this move was back in January, when he wrote a column basically endorsing a criticism I had made of a big investigative project by the Times that accused Israel of “possibly a war crime.”
Friedman made essentially the same move in Sunday’s Times, with a column criticizing the idea that the West Bank settlers are to blame for all of Israel’s problems. That theory had been advanced by New York Times Jerusalem Bureau Chief David Halbfinger, whose byline was also atop the “possibly a war crime” investigation.
The recent surge of antisemitism is frightening. The World Zionist Organization [WZO] recently compiled data that reveals a sharp increase in the amount and level of hatred directed towards the Jewish people.
In the United States there was a 57% increase of antisemitic incidents in 2018. Berlin police reported that violent cases of antisemitism have tripled. In France, a 69% increase of antisemitic incidents was recorded.
Over half of the Jews in France - 58% - said they are afraid of becoming the target of abuse due to their identity. Nearly half the Jews in Germany - 47% - reported similar concerns and in Belgium the numbers - at 41% - are only a bit lower.
One cause of the increasing number of antisemitic incidents is the increasing role that social media play in our lives. The social networks have become weapons which fuel antisemitism around the world.
In the past, antisemitism was based on religious and Christian dogma, especially the influence of the Catholic Church. Modern-day studies suggest that antisemitism is motivated by other causes, foremost of which is the prominent roles that Jews enjoy throughout the world, and what is seen as their dominant influence and wealth. In the past, the Jews in Europe were viewed as inferior and were mostly restricted from prominent roles in public arenas.
Another reason for modern-day antisemitism is the festering hatred on the European continent for foreigners due to the hordes of refugees and immigrants in recent years. It’s interesting to note that these refugees and immigrants are currently the most dangerous and central threat to Jewish communities in Europe.
- Monday, March 04, 2019
- Elder of Ziyon
- cartoon of the day
Continuing my re-captioning of single-panel cartoons....
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.
From Ian:
Gerald M. Steinberg: The UN's humanitarian propaganda war
JPost Editorial: Defeating terrorism
Gerald M. Steinberg: The UN's humanitarian propaganda war
For decades, American taxpayers have poured hundreds of millions of dollars into United Nations "aid" agencies that went to promote Palestinian propaganda wars against Israel. The most notorious is UNRWA (the specialized Palestinian refugee framework created in 1949), which was finally cut off last year.
But the problem continues in other and in some ways even more virulent forms. For example, the "Occupied Palestinian Territory" branch of the U.N.'s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA-oPt) is also neck-deep in political warfare and demonization.
Under the guise of providing aid, this agency sends out a constant flow of false accusations, including reports to the Security Council and "news items" promoted on its specialized ReliefWeb media platform. The officials also coordinate the agendas of dozens of NGOs that are active in these political attacks. The anti-Israel Norwegian Refugee Council and the Palestinian NGO Network (PNGO) are among their main partners in promoting radical goals.
But the façade that has protected OCHA-oPt and its partners is being slowly stripped away. Jamie McGoldrick, the U.N.'s "Humanitarian Coordinator," complained that "U.N. Watch and NGO Monitor (the organization I founded and lead) are out there to delegitimize humanitarian action in Palestine, including allegations of misconduct and misuse of funds." In January, his organization's bulletin warned against what they refer to as Israeli "de-legitimization, access restrictions, and administrative constraints," and warned about a nefarious "network of Israeli civil society groups … with the apparent support of the Israeli government." No details are provided – only shadowy allegations and hints of dark conspiracies. For the record, NGO Monitor neither requests nor receives any support from any government, unlike OCH-oPt's circle of friends.
JPost Editorial: Defeating terrorism
The UK officially designated the entire Hezbollah organization as a terrorist group last week, following a debate in parliament days after UK Home Secretary Sajid Javid announced his plan to have the government do so. Previously, it had recognized Hezbollah’s military wing as a terrorist organization, but not its political wing.Mazel Tov! Daughter of hero Ari Fuld, who died saving others, gets married
As a result, this past June – when Iran’s al-Quds Day against Israel coincided with the last Friday of Ramadan – may have been the last time someone will be able to see the despicable sight of thousands of demonstrators waving Hezbollah flags on the streets of London.
The vote in parliament has not yet taken place, but the UK government has taken a clear stand against terrorism and the kind of Iranian expansionism that Hezbollah represents, being Tehran’s proxy in Lebanon and in parts of Syria. Hezbollah regularly threatens Israel – not only in words, but also by stockpiling rockets and missiles, and building cross-border tunnels into the North, several of which were recently destroyed by the IDF.
British Prime Minister Theresa May’s administration said the decision was made “on the basis that it is no longer tenable to distinguish between the military and political wings of Hezbollah... [which] continues to amass weapons in direct contravention of UN Security Council Resolutions, putting the security of the region at risk.”
Javid said that: “Hezbollah is continuing in its attempts to destabilize the fragile situation in the Middle East,” and UK Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt said: “We cannot... be complacent when it comes to terrorism. It is clear the distinction between Hezbollah’s military and political wings does not exist... Its destabilizing activities in the region are totally unacceptable and detrimental to the UK’s national security.”
Australian Foreign Minister Marise Payne said soon after Javid’s announcement that her government may follow Britain’s lead – and they should be encouraged to do so.
But despite these strong arguments that Hezbollah is not only a threat to Israel, but a destabilizing force for the entire Middle East – with the potential to harm Western and British interests as well – Germany said this weekend that it is not convinced that it should ban the terrorist organization.
Tamar Fuld, the daughter of Ari Fuld, who was murdered in a terrorist attack at the Gush Etzion Junction in September, tied the knot on Sunday night to Michaya Beasley.
The wedding was a bittersweet event, as the joy of the couple's union mingled with the deep sadness at Ari's absence. There wasn't a dry eye in the room when Tamar's mother walked her to the chuppa, according to one of the wedding guests.
MK Bezalel Smotrich, whose political aide is Ari's brother, Eitan Fuld, wrote on his Twitter account after the wedding: "I'm leaving the wedding of Tamar and Michaya. Tamar is the daughter of Ari Fuld, who was murdered less than a half a year ago while saving others from being harmed in a heroic pursuit after the terrorist who stabbed him. A hero of Israel in his life and his death. Ari is the brother of my amazing political partner, Eitan."
Ari Fuld, 45, left his home for a routine shopping trip and became a national legend for the way he shot a terrorist after he himself was mortally wounded near the Rami Levy supermarket in the Gush Etzion junction.
The father of four, Fuld was the grandson of a Holocaust survivor and had miraculously dodged a bullet while serving as an IDF soldier in Lebanon.
Less than 6 months ago, Ari Fuld was stabbed to death by a terrorist. In an heroic act, he prevented him from further attacking innocent civilians before succumbing. Today his daughter Tamar married her fiancé. Am Israel Chai!
— Dani Dayan (@AmbDaniDayan) March 4, 2019
pic.twitter.com/NPLsc0nUbq
- Monday, March 04, 2019
- Elder of Ziyon
As we've discussed before, "pinkwashing" is the accusation that Israel treats gays so well purely in order to whitewash its many, many crimes against Palestinians. Therefore, the logic goes, Israel gets no credit for doing anything moral because even Israel's moral acts are ultimately immoral.
The haters who came up with this idiocy stretch the logic to everything else Israel does. If it looks evil, it is proof that Israel is evil; if it looks good and liberal and progressive, it is Israel hiding its evil.
When these definitions come up against reality, the haters look even more idiotic.
Jerusalem Post reports:
Given the open attacks that Iran has against gays, and the open support for gays in Israel - no matter what the motivation - which should gay people be campaigning against?
The "Queers for Palestine" group apparently believes that, somehow, Israel's "pinkwashing" by treating gays well is worse than actual abuse of gays.
We see so much everyday hate for Israel that we forget how crazy it is. Even if you accept the worst possible spin about Israel from its enemies, Israel is still a better place to be from every liberal perspective - as a queer, as a woman, as a minority in religion, as an artist, as a journalist - than anywhere else in the Middle East.
The worst you can credibly say about Israel is still better than the best you can credibly say about all other countries in the region.
Yet all the publicity is about Israel's supposed abuses, with relatively little about the abuses of her Middle East neighbors.
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 haters who came up with this idiocy stretch the logic to everything else Israel does. If it looks evil, it is proof that Israel is evil; if it looks good and liberal and progressive, it is Israel hiding its evil.
When these definitions come up against reality, the haters look even more idiotic.
The Islamic Republic of Iran’s judiciary charged a female equality activist with violating its national security because she sought to “normalize same-sex relations” in a country that imposes capital punishment for homosexuality.
The Iranian Lesbian and Transgender network group 6rang wrote on its website in late February that Rezvaneh “Mohammadi’s charges include ‘collusion against national security by normalising same sex relations.’ This is the first time that an activist faces such an accusation in Iran. She may be sentenced up to five years imprisonment.”
Volker Beck, a leading German expert and activist on LGBT rights, told the Jerusalem Post on Monday “This case is not about homosexuality, it is about freedom.” He said the charge of “collusion against national security by normalizing same sex relations’ as an accusation means that in Iran there is no freedom of expression, no freedom of science or press or religion. This is what the Iranian theocratic regime is standing for.”
The "Queers for Palestine" group apparently believes that, somehow, Israel's "pinkwashing" by treating gays well is worse than actual abuse of gays.
We see so much everyday hate for Israel that we forget how crazy it is. Even if you accept the worst possible spin about Israel from its enemies, Israel is still a better place to be from every liberal perspective - as a queer, as a woman, as a minority in religion, as an artist, as a journalist - than anywhere else in the Middle East.
The worst you can credibly say about Israel is still better than the best you can credibly say about all other countries in the region.
Yet all the publicity is about Israel's supposed abuses, with relatively little about the abuses of her Middle East neighbors.
- Monday, March 04, 2019
- Elder of Ziyon
People like Saeb Erekat and Hanan Ashrawi love to tell their Western audiences that it is Jews, not Muslims, who are trying to turn this into a religious conflict.
Um, no.
On Sunday, the Association of Palestinian Scholars issued a fatwa - a Muslim religious legal ruling - entitled "The ruling of Islam concerning normalization with the Zionist enemy occupying the land of Palestine."
Not surprisingly, they come out against it.
The fatwa said that "normalization is one of the most dangerous initiatives, and a threat to the security of the nation and a corruption of its faith."
"Peace and normalization means the empowerment of Jews in the land of the Muslims, and over the necks of the Muslim people, [which is forbidden on] this or any Islamic land," the document continued.
"Reconciliation and normalization with the Zionist enemy means surrender to the infidels and their affairs, and the loss of religion and Islamic lands. "
It is notable that the scholars are referring to Jews here as "infidels" and not "dhimmis." The usual apologia that Muslims respect Jews as people of the book is absent in this document.
The fatwa notes that a long term truce is possible with infidels if it serves the larger Muslim interest, but treating them a regular people is always forbidden.
The fatwa "considers reconciliation and normalization with the Zionist enemy null and void and a crime...an explicit violation of the provisions of sharia. "
The document bitterly notes that "the current normalization represents injustice and aggression against the Palestinian people because it denies the right of the Palestinian people in its land and falsely recognizes the right of the Jews there."
The fatwa concluded with the duty to expel the Jews out of the land of Muslims.
(h/t Ibn Boutros)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
