Jerusalem, June 27 - A representative of a not-for-profit organization that depends on the generosity of supporters rang your phone while you sat eating with your family after a long day and attempted to convince you that because you have contributed to them before, you obviously find them worthy, and would you please contribute again, because the cause is so worthy, when in fact you have never contributed to said organization an would prefer to enjoy the time with your family without such a disruption.
A woman calling herself Rivka called at 6:45 pm on behalf of a charitable organization whose name you did not catch, but did not sound familiar in any case, and thanked you for your past donations to the charity. The confidence with which she recited her spiel caused you a moment of doubt during which you considered that perhaps you had given some money to her organization despite neither recognizing the name nor recalling having made such a donation, an activity for which you would have kept records for tax purposes.
"Good evening, my name is Rivka," she began and mentioned the name of her organization and mispronouncing your name. "I'm calling to thank you for your generous donation, and to ask you for further support of our activities." She then exploited your wish to avoid unpleasant confrontation by regaling you with a list of the organization's flagship activities, in addition to what she called "exciting new initiatives" in the community.
At no point in her prepared script did Rivka apologize for the intrusion into what in most households represents one of the few stretches of quality family time, whether around the dinner table or in various recreational or relaxation pursuits. Nor did the caller acknowledge that many households, notably yours until last year, spend that time of day readying a preschooler for bed and coaxing the remaining schoolchildren to complete their work and pack for for the next day's sessions, and that therefore a call to ask for money disrupts the harmony, bonding, or basic functioning of said household.
Rivka also attempted a gentle deflection of your insistence that you have never donated to the organization she represents, but found herself unable to provide an adequate response to your challenge that you never received a receipt for the previous donation for which she appeared so thankful.
We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
Israel's peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan were a result of their leaders coming to terms with the fact that fighting Israel was too costly and that it was therefore preferable to make peace. But the treaties were not about the public's recognition of the legitimacy of Israel and the Zionist cause.
The idea of "normalization," as Israelis like to call it, is unacceptable to most Arabs. It means acceptance of Israel as a natural facet of the Middle Eastern neighborhood. But they don't, and they won't (and they don't think they should).
There is an antipathy towards Israel which is perceived as having imposed itself on the Arabs, inflicting a humiliating defeat upon them. It is too much for us to ask for them to not only accept Israel, but to embrace it too. This "cold peace" means that Israel must retain its military superiority to maintain deterrence.
The Arab world has entered a protracted period of crisis, with declining economies and rapidly growing populations creating unmanageable economic situations and instability. What happens if Jordan or Egypt collapses economically? How is Syria expected to be re-established? What lies ahead for the West Bank and Gaza? There is a zone of instability on Israel's doorstep and it could blow up at any time.
A key refrain in the Israeli-Palestinian narrative is the issue of the Palestinian poverty, allegedly resulting from the Israeli occupation. Surveys cite statistics that anywhere from 26 to 53 percent of Palestinians are poor. In October 2018, the United Nations warned that humanitarian aid to the Palestinians is at an all-time low, a sign of increasing Palestinian poverty.
This raises several key questions:
- How poor are the Palestinians relative to other economies?
- Is Palestinian poverty evenly distributed at all levels of society?
- What is being done to remedy Palestinian poverty and is it effective?
- Are there other nationalities that are poor, but do not get the attention that poor Palestinians get?
- Is Palestinian poverty a legitimate reason for the belligerent actions of its leaders?
The default reason for Palestinian poverty is “Israeli occupation.” Thus, by extension, since Israel wishes to prolong the occupation, Palestinian poverty is in Israel’s interest. As the argument goes, Israel wishes to force its enemy into submission and therefore keeps the Palestinians impoverished. This argument however doesn’t account for something befuddling – the wealth of the Palestinian leadership. If a nation wishes to defeat another nation, it looks to weaken the other nation’s leaders. In the case of the Palestinians: Professor Ahmed Karima of Al-Azhar University in Egypt claims that Hamas has some 1,200 millionaires among its members, but is unwilling to reveal his sources.
Corroborating this claim, albeit on a lesser scale, Deborah Danan writes: Pan-Arab London based paper, Asharq al Awsat, which is considered a reliable media outlet, recently ran a story saying there are 600 millionaires in Gaza.
Moreover, as Ynet detailed: In 2010, Egyptian magazine Rose al-Yusuf reported that [Hamas leader Ismael] Haniyeh paid for $4 million for a 2,500 m sq parcel of land area in Rimal, a tiny beachfront neighborhood of Gaza City.
This Friday, the world’s leading economic powers will gather in Osaka, Japan, for the G20 summit, and though it won’t be on the official agenda, the rising tensions between Iran and the United States will loom large over the gathering. Since May, the Islamic Republic has carried out half a dozen acts of sabotage and violence against the U.S. and its allies. What is the story behind Iran’s escalating provocations? Is it looking for war? Is America? Earlier this week, Hudson Institute scholar Michael Doran offered a compelling account of the strategic thinking behind these recent Iranian actions. In “What Iran Is Really Up To,” published in Mosaic, Doran presents compelling evidence that Iran is seeking to sow fear among European governments in the hope that they will pressure the Trump Administration to reinstate two vital waivers that would ensure the continued viability of Iran’s nuclear weapons program. This is part of a long game, writes Doran, to revive the Iran Deal and preserve Iran’s path to a nuclear bomb. In our podcast this week, Michael Doran joins Jonathan Silver to explain his essay and its argument. He discusses why the revoked waivers are so important, why the Iranians believe their strategy will work, and why the biases of European governments and many American Democrats play right into Iranian hands.
In Amad.ps, which appears to be associated with the DFLP terror group, Saleh Awad writes that Israel is on its way to disappearing.
After saying that Zionism is racist and how wonderful Jews were treated under Arab rule, Awad writes one of the most bizarre paragraphs I've read in Arabic media:
The agreements that took place between some Arab regimes and the Israeli regime proved that there is nothing sacred in Zionist thought. The Zionist entity gave up some of what was long promoted as sacred in the body of the Hebrew state. What happened to the slogan about a land from the Nile to the Euphrates? Where is Judea and Samaria? What happened to the settlements that Tel Aviv said were for security and were then demolished by their own hands in the Sinai and the Gaza Strip? All this has become nonsense .. The country of honey and milk is the country of explosives and violence and death and anxiety.
The rest of the article is similar nonsense, but this paragraph is useful because it shows that to many Arabs, Israeli concessions for peace are regarded not as noble but as evidence of weakness, to be mocked.
It doesn't mean that Israel should never make bargains with its enemies for peace. It does mean that Israel should not assume that there will be any goodwill in Arab countries as a result of its concessions.
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.
Many of the speakers at the Bahrain economic workshop emphasized how none of the vision is possible without political buy-in from Palestinian leaders.
Beneath the surface, though, the workshop was meant to undercut and minimize that very political power.
Scott Adams, the cartoonist behind Dilbert, has a daily podcast where he discusses the news. One of his specialties is in noticing and analyzing persuasion techniques. He called Jared Kushner's opening speech at Bahrain a brilliant example of how to speak persuasively (starting around 11:30 and going past 38:00.)
He specifically mentions that Kushner made the audience "think past the sale." The idea of peace has become a roadblock and Kushner, instead of pushing the immovable, got the people to imagine a world after a peace agreement, which then makes them believe that peace is possible.
Although Adams didn't say this, when Kushner made people think past the sale, they also thought past the real roadblock - that the Palestinian Authority vetoes every single peace plan. For the times that they thought past the sale, the PA's intransigence was forgotten.
Which means that the people who want to see a prosperous Middle East now have, at least subconsciously, realized that the current Palestinian leadership is not part of the solution. They are part of the problem.
Palestinian leaders need, more than anything else, to feel relevant. That relevance has been most obvious when they say no. The dynamic has been that Israel makes a peace offer, Palestinians refuse it, and the West pressures Israel to sweeten the offer. Palestinian leaders sit back and let the desire for peace push Israel towards their positions without their making any concessions.
Bahrain turned that logic on its head. Yes, the West and now the Arab world want peace, but instead of seeing this as Israel not giving enough, the Palestinian attempt to get the world to boycott a conference meant to help them showed that they are the obstacles to peace, not Israel, which was publicly eager to participate.
Israel and the Gulf states are looking at what a peaceful future might look like - and the only way to get there is to bypass or replace the obstacles.
Bahrain looked past the sale in another important way. It showed Arab officials talking with Israeli reporters and others. This is what the world would look like after peace.
This is what the Palestinians and their fans contemptuously call "normalization." Article after article in the Palestinian Arab press decries this normalization, especially the statement from Bahrain's Foreign Minister Khalifa to Israeli media that "Israel is part of the heritage of this whole region, historically. The Jewish people have their place amongst us."
This was a stunning statement from an Arab official, and it broke the Palestinian-led consensus about what Arabs are and aren't allowed to do vis a vis Israel.
Seeing Zionist Jews and Arabs acting friendly with each other is looking past the sale. It shows what the future could hold. And once again, the main roadblock to that vision is Palestinian intransigence. Being against "normalization" means that one is against real peace. The wonderful thing about Bahrain is that the Gulf states, even though they do not have formal relations with Israel, have already shown more warmth towards the Jewish state than Jordan or Egypt have after peace agreements. People who want real peace want normalization; conversely those who consider normalization to be a dirty word are clearly not the people who should be considered peace partners.
Up until recently, for the most part, Palestinians had veto power not only on the peace process but also in what the Arab world was allowed to say about Israel. That political power has been eliminated with this one interview, which went beyond what the Saudis have said about Israel. Not only did Khalifa say that he wanted peace - he said that Jews have a political history in the region. He left unsaid that this predates Palestinians - and Islam.
Palestinians have been denying Jewish heritage, and even Jewish peoplehood, in the Middle East specifically because they know that if Jews are a people with a history, they also have rights that precede their own. They know the truth but they have been suppressing it, largely successfully, among the Arabs (and their anti-Israel fans.)
Bahrain's Foreign Minister has broken their choke-hold on history and refuted them, breaking their hold on the narrative of the historic place of Jews in the Middle East. This is huge, not only because it shows another viewpoint for the Arabs to embrace, but because it deflated Palestinian political power in the Arab world.
Which is necessary if one wants peace. The obstacles must be removed, or set aside.
The "peaceniks" of the West have been emotionally invested in what has become a religion of Israel making more concessions to Palestinians in order to bring peace. Ten years ago, they would have said that peace with Palestinians is important because it is a prerequisite to peace between Israel and the larger Arab world. Hearing pro-Israel statements from Oman, Bahrain, the UAE and Saudi Arabia shows that this linkage is not nearly as strong as was assumed. The biggest boosters of Palestinians over the years are now the biggest critics (although that is not yet too public - it is notable that Khalifa said that Palestinians boycotting the workshop was a mistake, as did Jordan.) It is almost comical to see the people who were so invested in the old, discredited method of bringing peace try to mock the Bahrain conference. They are proving that they are not interested in peace but in pressuring Israel. They also had political power as pundits or NGOs, and this conference has not only reduced Palestinian political power, but also that of the J-Streets and Peace Nows of the world.
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.
“Gaza right now is feeling a lot of pain because of bad leadership and the sanctions that have been imposed on them because of it,” Kushner said. “So the question that (Hamas) leadership has to ask themselves is ... do they hate their neighbor in Israel more than they love their citizens and their people?”
Does he have to ask? The entire reason Gaza is a hellhole is because of Hamas insisting on the right to attack Israel, and it regularly insults Fatah for allowing security coordination with the hated Zionists.
But the same can be said for the Palestinian Authority.
A telling incident happened yesterday:
Oman will open an embassy in the occupied West Bank city of Ramallah, the sultanate's foreign ministry said.
“This is a positive development,” said an adviser to PA President Mahmoud Abbas. “But we hope that this is not a first step toward establishing diplomatic relations between Oman and Israel.”
Palestinians only think in terms of zero-sum games. Gaining diplomatic recognition from Oman is great - but it is not worth it if Israel also benefits. Oman recognizing Israel, if it plans to, dos not affect Palestinian lives at all. But to their puerile way of thinking, if Israel gains anything, they lose.
This little comment also shows how Palestinians only define themselves in terms of Israel.
That zero sum thinking is what makes Kushner's question unfortunately relevant to the "more liberal" West Bank Palestinians. Because since they think in terms of zero sum, they in fact do hate Israel more than they love their own people.
Their boycott of the Bahrain Conference, meant to bring a vision of prosperity to them, proves this as well as anything can.
Adults look for win-win results. Only severely emotionally stunted people cannot accept anything good if it also benefits their supposed "peace partner."
The difference between seeing Gulf Arab officials happily speaking to Israeli businesspeople and reporters and how Palestinians shun any public meetings with Israelis (who aren't BDSers) is striking. One wants to actually find a way to peace, the other wants to find ways to block it - because peace benefits Israel.
The Palestinians have no clue how much they hurt themselves by playing this game.
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.
War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over. William Tecumseh Sherman
The recent tension between the US and Iran is being watched very closely here in Israel, because it could well be the trigger for our next war.
I am convinced, to my very great sorrow, that this war is unavoidable. The 130,000 rockets and longer-range missiles under Iranian control in Lebanon will not be left to rust away, nor will those in Gaza. Our enemies – Iran and its proxies, as well as Hamas and the PLO – are not interested in peace.
Iran has spent billions and struggled for decades in its attempt to become a nuclear power, and to establish regional hegemony. We are not only a bone in the throat of their Islamic sensibility, we are physically in their way. They won’t give up without a fight, and they believe they can win.
US President Trump thinks he can break them with sanctions. But the Iranian regime doesn’t care what happens to its civilian population. If they are willing to shoot their people down in the streets (and they have demonstrated this), they will let them suffer. At some point they will be on the verge of going nuclear, and when that happens, someone will have to stop them. It is not a question of if there will be war. It is a question of when – and of precisely what will set it off. And once it starts, no matter who starts it, Israel will be in the thick of it.
It will almost certainly be a multi-front war. Iran has its proxies in Lebanon, Iraq, and Syria. The Palestinian Arabs in Gaza and Judea/Samaria have demonstrated, over and over, that they do not want a state of their own. They want our state, without us. No amount of money will persuade them to become other than who they are. By themselves they do not have the strength to challenge us, but in the context of a general conflagration, they will take the opportunity to cause as much damage as possible.
Numerous experts have predicted that this will be a terrible war, for our soldiers, for our home front, and for our enemies. Indeed, the home front has been mostly spared since our War of Independence in 1948. This time, our enemies – understanding our lack of strategic depth and believing that they can break both our spirit and the support system of the IDF – will concentrate on bringing the war to us, with rockets and ground invasions.
Hezbollah has the ability to launch thousands of rockets per day, far more than can be intercepted by Iron Dome or our other antimissile systems. In 2006, when they had far fewer and less sophisticated rockets, they threw the northern part of the country into a panic. Degrading their launch capability will take time, and in the meantime rockets will be exploding into our homes. Those who have safe rooms or access to nearby shelters are lucky, but many Israelis – like my daughter – live in older buildings which do not have such facilities. Large-payload missiles may bring down whole buildings, in which case safe rooms will be little help. Missiles that can hit densely populated urban areas will create mass casualties.
We know that both Hamas and Hezbollah plan cross-border incursions to kill and kidnap Israelis, maybe even to capture smaller communities. IDF ground forces will be spread thin, and they will have to worry about terrorist “operations” by Arabs from Judea and Samaria as well.
The sheer inevitability of this war weighs on us. We know it will happen; we are expecting it from week to week. Although people here don’t talk about it often, it’s never far from their consciousness. We know that some of our friends and neighbors, maybe even ourselves, will not survive. Others will lose their homes and all their possessions. We know too that numerous young soldiers and some older reservists will not come home alive to their families.
There will be funerals, and horrendous wounds. As is often said, in Israel all the soldiers are everyone’s children. It will tear us apart. It will make us angry. It won’t however, cause us to flee the country, as our enemies hope.
Will we prevail? We’d better. Otherwise Israel, and ultimately the Jewish people, will disappear. Losing the war would be a disaster on the scale of the one in the year 70 CE, and I doubt that the conditions exist for our people to survive another two-millennium diaspora.
I think the outcome will depend primarily on one thing: leadership. In 2006, we could not defeat Hezbollah, because the team of Ehud Olmert, Amir Peretz, Tzipi Livni, and Dan Halutz was incompetent from top to bottom. Do we have the leaders that we need today? Do we have a Churchill to stiffen the home front against a blitz, or officers who will take the initiative like Arik Sharon did when he crossed the Suez Canal in 1973? We’ll find out.
We have the desperation – and advantage – of having no place else to go. Our enemies cannot imagine how much firepower is available to the IDF, and if it is unleashed they will not be able to stand against us. In its recent operations, the IDF has gone out of its way to minimize enemy civilian casualties. This next war might begin that way, but at some point Hamas and Hezbollah’s use of civilian infrastructure as a shield will leave us no other option but to put that concern aside.
When relatively accurate rockets with large payloads start striking industrial targets and big cities, for example, the launchers in Lebanon will have to go – regardless of what they are built next to or inside of. It’s pretty certain that most of southern Lebanon will end up a slag heap, and parts of the Gaza strip will meet the same fate.
If thousands die in Israel, tens of thousands will lose their lives in Lebanon and Gaza, or anywhere else from which our enemies fight. If the Arabs of Judea and Samaria rise up, their communities, too, will be razed, and they’ll find themselves homeless, another nakba.
War, it’s well-known, is hell. This one will be, too. But we must ensure that it will be a bigger hell for our enemies than for us.
Sometimes it takes a war to change things that otherwise would be frozen forever. WWI changed the face of Europe and the Middle East, brought down the Ottoman, Austro-Hungarian, and Czarist empires, gave freedom to some peoples and a new kind of slavery to some others. WWII facilitated the destruction of Europe’s Jews, the creation and use of atomic weapons, and the establishment of a Soviet empire in Eastern Europe – but also ushered in the United Nations (not an unmixed blessing), the American civil rights movement, the end of the British Empire, and the creation of the State of Israel.
Maybe, in addition to a new regime in Iran, the next war will bring about the end of Hamas and the PLO, and even the creation of the long awaited Palestinian state – in Jordan, where it belongs.
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.
Indeed, Sharpton had become a fixture in Obamaworld. The seeds for that alliance were planted in 2007. Obama had been getting flak from Jesse Jackson and others for supposedly not supporting black activism enough. Obama confidant Valerie Jarrett was looking for someone from the world of civil rights advocacy to fill the void. That’s when Rev. Al stepped up, reported Jillian Melchior, then at National Review, in 2015. “In late 2007 or early 2008, Jarrett negotiated a simple deal with the reverend: Sharpton would discreetly support Obama for president, working mostly behind the scenes; he wouldn’t publicly criticize Obama, but he also wouldn’t back him in a way that aroused attention.”
That helped change the narrative that the black establishment was with the establishment candidate, Clinton. But Sharpton’s value to the campaign would skyrocket when controversial comments by Obama’s family pastor, Jeremiah Wright, became too much of a headache to be ignored. Obama distanced himself from Wright. “Behind the scenes,” Melchior reported, “the Obama campaign relied on Sharpton to reach out to influential black pastors across the U.S., persuading them not to revolt against Obama for his treatment of Wright.” That earned the trust of "Team Obama," and the relationship continued into the White House.
“His counsel was invaluable,” Jarrett recently told Evan Halper of the Los Angeles Times, especially when it came to “pushing back on people he thought were not constructive and unfairly criticizing President Obama.”
Just having Sharpton around, in fact, was a boost for Obama’s standing among black activists, according to Emory University expert on African American politics Andra Gillespie. “There were some concerns that Obama would be symbolically important but would not advocate for substantive change to help the African American community,” Gillespie told the LA Times. “The fact that Rev. Sharpton, who clearly came from an activist background and put race at the forefront and was unafraid to speak out on behalf of African Americans explicitly, put him in a position to lend an air of credibility to the Obama administration.”
You are about to enter a twilight zone, a place deep in antisemitic conspiracy. Everyone mentioned has implied that they have been members of the Labour Party. Many explicitly say they joined because of Jeremy Corbyn. Because of the antisemitic nature of these conspiracy theories, ‘Israel, ‘Zionist’ and ‘Jewish’ are used interchangeably.
There will be two images on each conspiracy, the first evidence that the poster is affiliated to the Labour Party, the other an example of the antisemitic conspiracy theory that they shared.
I have created this compilation for a simple reason. Antisemitism is not about what one person says or believes. Antisemitism is a way of seeing the world, an ideology, and the pieces need to be put together for the dangers to be understood properly.
The antisemitic conspiracies
One of the most widespread claims is that Israel did 9/11. I could fill an entire report with images just containing this antisemitic conspiracy theory, however I intend to provide just one example from each of the claims:
Israel is ISIS
Or just fund ISIS:
Israel was behind Charlie Hebdo:
Responsible for the November 2015 attacks in Paris:
The Zionists are behind the attack in Brussels too.
Incredibly, some believe the Zionists even control the Labour Party. Sheem Bari is also admin for the FB Group ‘the Labour Party Supporter‘:
The Mossad blackmail MPs to get them to defend the indefensible:
Review of Shadow Strike: Inside Israel’s Secret Mission to Eliminate Syrian Nuclear Power by Yaakov Katz
Rolling the dice of war is the loneliest decision of any leader, but for an Israeli, rolling them without superpower support is especially harrowing. Every Israeli leader knows Ben-Gurion’s dictum: Never go to war without great power support. It is easy for Israel to start a war alone, but nearly impossible to bring the conflict to an end on favorable political terms without help from a powerful backer in the international arena.
Israelis tell a story about what happened, in 1967, when Ben-Gurion schooled then–chief of staff General Yitzhak Rabin on the necessity of great power support. President Lyndon Johnson, preoccupied with the Vietnam War, had refused to take any significant action against Nasser in the lead-up to the Six-Day War. “You won’t have to go it alone, unless you go it alone,” he famously told the Israelis. In other words, the United States would not stop Israel from attacking, but it would not support the war. If things went wrong, the Israelis were on their own. During the tense waiting period between the Egyptian remilitarization of the Sinai and the Israeli decision to attack, Rabin visited Ben-Gurion, who was living in retirement at his home in Sde Boker in the Negev. Ben-Gurion, so the story goes, castigated Rabin for preparing to launch a war without American backing. Following the dressing down from Ben-Gurion, he suffered a nervous breakdown that incapacitated him for two weeks.
Bush probably never heard this story, but his own experience had taught him the loneliness of ordering men and women into harm’s way. He offered Olmert the emotional and political support needed to face any adversity that lurked ahead. Among American presidents, Bush surely ranks as one of the most supportive of the Jewish State. Nevertheless, his administration still harbored very serious doubts about the Israelis’ chosen course of action. The al-Kibar episode thus reminds us, among other things, that algorithms do not determine how best to secure national interests, people do.
Although the bet that Olmert placed on Bush entailed some risks, he always held a trump card up his sleeve: the IDF. Olmert was confident from the outset that even if the Americans would oppose military action, Israel still possessed the tools to get the job done. One of Olmert’s colleagues, Katz reports, had been working for years to keep this fact at the forefront of the Israeli thinking. Major General Eliezer Shkedi, the commander of the Israeli Air Force, had distributed a dramatic photo to countless Israeli soldiers and airmen. The photo captures the moment when three Israeli F-15s, operating on Shkedi’s orders, defied the Polish authorities and flew low over Auschwitz. Shkedi had personally inscribed most of the photos, “To remember. Not to forget. To rely only on ourselves.” Shkedi was the man responsible for planning the al-Kibar operation.
This exhortation to self-reliance is laudatory, but as practical advice to prime ministers it probably requires a slight revision: “To remember. Not to forget. To rely, when necessary, only on ourselves.” Olmert was wise to seek assistance from Bush, and he did so shrewdly, but his readiness to go it alone in very trying circumstances was his greatest asset. Without that, Bush’s red light would never have turned to green.
Way back in January, Israel opened Route 4370, a stretch of highway that leads from Samaria to Jerusalem. This particular 5-kilometer stretch of 4-lane highway is divided by a wall that runs smack down its middle. The wall divides PA citizens from Israeli citizens and those with Jerusalem entry permits, separating these populations so they never have to come in contact with each other.
The new stretch of highway eases traffic congestion, cuts down on accidents and fatalities, and prevents terror. In other words, route 4370 saves lives and time.
"Apartheid" Road
The outcry, of course, was predictable. The word “Apartheid” was heard, and comparisons to South Africa regurgitated ad infinitum by the usual Arab talking heads as the eager media rushed to print. Speaking to the Times of Israel, Palestinian Liberation Organization Executive Committee member Ahmad Majdalani remarked that “This is an Israeli example of apartheid and racist separation that once existed in South Africa. Any Israeli who believes in democracy should feel ashamed about this new road.”
The Palestinian Authority issued an official statement that the "apartheid" road "poses a challenge to the credibility of the international community."
Now these things were bound to be said by those who hate Israel: “racist,” “Apartheid,” “South Africa.” The good civic deed of easing traffic and keeping people safe was predestined to be miscast and shown in an evil light. But still, it must be said: how can this divided road be considered discrimination when Arabs and Jews share a single side of this divided road?
Because this is exactly the case: Jews and Israeli Arabs and Arabs with Jerusalem entry permits are on one side of the walled highway, with PA Arabs on the other. It isn’t that Arabs are barred from the road, it’s that Arabs who are governed by a different body, the PA, are barred from sharing the Israeli side of the road.
And that is because they, the Arabs of the Palestinian Authority, WANT their freedom from Israel and are the avowed enemy of the Jewish people. So we gave them their freedom: they don't have to mix with us, or drive on our roads, and we are safe from their hatred.
After all, it's not like their hatred is something that remains in their hearts and minds, ideological and dormant. Theirs is an active and violent hatred that often finds expression in terror attacks. Which makes separation the only prudent course of action for Israel.
So there you have it: one side of the road is mixed Arab and Jew. These are the Arabs who are willing to coexist with Jews and share a highway with them. Those Arabs who don’t wish to coexist with Jews, the PA Arabs, are on the other side of the highway, across the barrier. This is the same paradigm we see with the Peace to Prosperity conference in Bahrain. Ashraf Jabari, a businessman from Hebron, is happy to attend and look at opportunities to help his people. Even if Israelis and Israel are to be part of that opportunity.
Ditto, Mohammed Arif Masad, who lives in Burqin, not far from Jenin. These men understand that their people are suffering. They understand that at least for the time being, the Jews are in Israel to stay, that they might as well work alongside them and accept an opportunity. Which is how coexistence works, a thing which is not all hearts and flowers.
This attitude of coming to terms with Israel and making the best of the situation, is distinct from the official stance of the Palestinian Authority on the Bahrain conference. That stance is a stance of antisemitic intransigence and xenophobia. Anything connected to the conference, including Donald Trump, is labeled an evil Jew (is there any other kind?) by association with Israel. From Palestinian Media Watch (PMW):
A Palestinian dressed as former PA leader Arafat burned a poster portraying Trump with red satanic horns and a swastika on his forehead and with US and British flags with swastikas and a blue Star of David over them (above). In another photo, Trump is crossed out with a red "X." Trump's peace plan is referred to as "the Deal of the Devil."
This official PA attitude to Israel and the Jews shows a doubling down of hatred, a refusal to countenance Jews, Israeli and otherwise, as human beings like themselves. It is not Israel that wants to separate from them. It is the PA that insists on separation, even where Israel has extended the hand of peace and prosperity.
Getting back to Route 4370, we have two sides of a road. On one side we have Arabs and Jews driving on the same stretch of highway. These are the Arabs who have accepted the situation and are making the best of things. Israelis are happy to coexist with them on the same road. Just as they are happy to work with them in Bahrain.
Those on the other side of the road, refuse to see Jews as human beings or even just mind their own business and drive. That is the side that is emulating South African Apartheid in word and deed: the side of the road that belongs to the Palestinian Authority. Because if the PA really wanted that wall in the road to come down, it would be so easy. All they’d have to do is decry the violence, lay down their arms, and come to terms with the Jewish State of Israel.
The proof is staring down at them from across the road, where Jews and Arabs are driving side by side. Just as it is in Bahrain, where Arabs and Jews are sitting together at a conference, talking about how to make things better for the Arab people. If the PA wanted to end this dire state of affairs where separation is necessary for safety, they’d be on the Israeli side of the road. The one with the mixed Jewish/Arab population, content to drive in peace.
In Israel.
Where everyone is safe.
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.
This is a guest post from someone who goes by the pseudonym Adam Johnson.
____________________________
There has been increasing recognition by Jews
that anti-Zionism in modern times is in no way distinct from antisemitism. Any
distinction that may have been able to be drawn between the two in the 19th
Century when there was no a Jewish state is not able to be drawn in the 21st
Century when we are commemorating 70 years of the reborn Jewish state in which
the majority of the world’s Jews now live. The consensus is that anti-Zionism
is a form of antisemitism, or something along those lines.
But there has unfortunately been little
success in spreading this to the wider public’s consciousness. Large numbers of
people continue to believe that anti-Zionism is a wholly legitimate and
distinct thing from antisemitism, even if the former on occasion becomes the
latter.
We have hit a roadblock and the discussion has
turned into a merry-go-round. It has moved on from arguments of substance to the
various sides now rehashing and repeating the same arguments, occasionally
throwing in a new turn-of-phrase or an original example to keep things seeming
fresh.
The recent Intelligence Squared debate between
Melanie Phillips and former Israeli Labor MK Einat Wilf on the one side and
Ilan Pappe and Mehdi Hassan on the other demonstrates the issue perfectly. The
proposition to be debated was that anti-Zionism is antisemitism. While Ms
Phillips and Ms Wilf argued admirably for the proposition, Mr Hassan won well
enough by pointing out that the proposition in question was not that
anti-Zionism can turn into antisemitism, but simply that it is antisemitism,
which he asserted is false because Zionism and anti-Zionism are political philosophies
and antisemitism is not.
It’s hard to fault the arguments that Ms
Phillips and Ms Wilf offered. Both of them are more than qualified to represent
their side. But most normal people already accept that trying to destroy Israel
is a morally repugnant thing to do regardless of any debate about anti-Zionism.
Most people don’t believe that deliberately murdering Jews or Israelis is
acceptable. Most normal people in general support some kind of two-state
solution, even though they may wrongly blame Israel for its absence.
That doesn’t mean we should relax the fight
against such things. It means that just as much as people don’t believe
anti-Zionism is antisemitism, they don’t particularly care for anti-Zionism
anyway, or they believe ‘anti-Zionist’ activities are immoral or undesirable
for other reasons.
If that’s the case, there’s little point in
trying to advance further on this front by merely repeating that anti-Zionism
is usually bad or very bad or similar.
But if anti-Zionism literally is antisemitism
and not just a form of it on occasion then it’s just not good enough to get
stuck in the mud. It’s important for Jews to know it. And it’s not just
important for Jews to know, it’s important for everyone to know. Because we all
know that what starts with the Jews doesn’t end with them. Ms Phillips in
particular has been very clear on this point. That being the case, we must have
a breakthrough.
What if the very existence of a concept called
anti-Zionism is antisemitism? What if anti-Zionism is not at heart
antisemitism, but antisemitism is actually just anti-Zionism? What if we have
it all backwards? What if this whole discussion is antisemitism in action? What
if we are really discussing whether or not if antisemitism is antisemitism?
Zionism is poorly described as being about the
establishment of a Jewish homeland or state. Truthfully, it is about the rights
of the Hebrew nation in the Hebrew homeland. Of course, technically speaking,
there is some distinction to be drawn between the Hebrew nation and the Jewish
people. That distinction is splitting hairs by any measure.
The modern world so strongly associates Jew
with Judaism, and Judaism with religion, that any mention of Jews or a Jewish
state is almost always misunderstood. It is not surprising that no ground is
being made when the basic premise of Zionism is so poorly expressed.
This distinction is also vital because the antisemite,
upon being identified as such, will always immediately claim (pathetically) that
he respects people of all faiths and that he just hates Zionism. The discussion
has been immediately misdirected.
We know too that the Palestinian Arabs and
their aides deny large amounts of Hebrew history, even accusing Israel of
faking the Dead Sea Scrolls. And when they do that, they simultaneously claim
that Jews used to live in peace with Christians and Muslims before the
Zionists. Lo and behold, the heritage of the Hebrews has vanished and we are
left in the trenches babbling more about religion and ethnicity, about
Christians and Muslims, and in general about everything other than the rights
of the Hebrew nation.
By emphasising that Zionism is about the
rights of the Hebrew nation, we emphasize the ancient claim of the Jews and counter
the idea that it is about religion. We are less susceptible to misdirection and
are in a better position overall.
Antisemitism was a polite word for Jew-hate in
Germany. But what if antisemitism is not really about Jew-hate? What if the
Jew-hate is actually hatred of the Hebrew Semitism? A Hebrew hate? It is after
all the Hebrew aspect that gives the Jews their association with Semitism. It
is the Hebrew language we all learn and love. It is the Hebrew Bible that we
have all read. It is the Hebrew homeland that Jews dwell in and it is the
rights of the Hebrew nation that Zionism is concerned with. And by no special
extension, anti-Zionism is antisemitism and antisemitism is anti-Zionism: because
Zionism is the Semitism in antisemitism.
During the debate with Ms Phillips and Ms
Wilf, Mr Hassan expressed the idea that Zionism is a political philosophy. But
the rights of the Hebrew nation are not a political philosophy. And here we
reach the point where we discover not only that anti-Zionism is antisemitism,
but that the very existence of anti-Zionism is antisemitism.
If Zionism is a political philosophy, then
what is the corresponding political philosophy for other nations? For
Argentina, Ukraine, or Indonesia? Can anyone think of any corresponding word
for Zionism at all? If you can think of one, and I’m sure there are some, when
was the last time you heard about it? Or about a debate where they discussed
whether anti-whatever was a form of prejudice against that nation? I’m not much
of a betting man, but I’m going down to my bottom dollar on this one that the
answer is ‘no’ or ‘never’. Only the Hebrew nation has to justify itself in this
way.
Something like pan-Arabism or pan-Slavism is a
political philosophy. Uniting different Arab or Slavic nations is a political
philosophy; having those nations live freely in their own lands is not. The
very existence therefore of this debate is a double standard: one standard for
every other nation whose national rights are taken for granted and who suffer
no prejudice against them, and one standard for the Hebrew nation, whose
friends and representatives must vainly fight to convince people from near and
far that their national life is no political philosophy. This is all the more ridiculous
when we are living 70 years after the re-independence of the Jews.
If the distinction between anti-Zionism and
antisemitism can be drawn after or before the independence of modern Israel,
then why can’t it be drawn in the time of the Roman Empire? Or at any other
point in history? The Roman Empire did somewhat distinguish between Jews in
Judea and Jews elsewhere; yet that is mere geography. Everyone can distinguish
between a Chinese community in Canada and the Chinese nation whose home is
China. That is elementary. There are still no debates about ‘anti-Chinaism’ and
whether or not it is ‘anti-Sinism’.
The Romans destroyed the Hebrew nation and
expelled it, carting of its treasures and its people. They had no distinction
between anti-Zionism and antisemitism, even accounting for the recent origins
of those words. No one in history has drawn the distinction that we now debate;
neither should we.
The facts as stated clearly establish that
anti-Zionism is not only antisemitism, but that the very concept itself is
antisemitic. Jews around the world are threatened and attacked every day, but
instead they waste time on discussing this garbage. Anti-Zionism is so
absolutely antisemitic that the only solution to my mind is to get Western
governments to recognize it as such.
The last, desperate strategy of the antisemite
is always to ask if such and such a person was really antisemitic. The most
common example given is always anti-Zionist religious Jews. ‘Zionism is not the
same as Judaism’ they always say. The time has come to put the nail in that
coffin.
Judaism is a Zionist religion. It presupposes
axiomatically that Zionism is a fact. It speaks ceaselessly about a Hebrew
people and a Hebrew homeland with Jewish soldiers and Jewish leaders. The Bible
has been called a Zionist handbook and Zionism is a basic principle of Judaism,
being all but commanded by it. And so we must be very clear that belief in
Judaism is itself an act of Zionism, as it was for generations of ancient Jews.
This is a fact of history; in a way, Zionism is indeed nothing more than the
facts of history. This is not negated by someone’s personal opinion.
People can believe what they want, of course:
but anti-Zionism is antisemitism and no one can change it.
I suspect that large numbers of Jews and their
friends have cottoned on to all of the above in their own way over the years. Nowadays
we see attempts to coin a word for it. The candidates include Ziophobia and the
dreadful misoziony. There are alternatives. Anti-Zionism. Antisemitism. Zion-hate.
How about “Hebrew-hate”?
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.
Neither the Palestinian Authority nor the Hamas tyranny over the Gaza Strip are functioning democracies with structures that assure that the opinions of their citizens will be taken into account. But neither could those leaders totally ignore “the street” — Palestinian public opinion. The problem is that the street will not even know what their leaders are denying them unless they become aware of the contents of the U.S. economic plan.
There is no free, independent media on the West Bank or Gaza Strip. Residents can tune into Israeli or international media but they have been taught not to trust either. So it is uncertain whether the Palestinian street will know what their leaders are depriving them of by not engaging with the U.S. and its beneficial economic proposals. It is certainly possible that Palestinian leaders will once again miss an opportunity to help their people and that their people will be misinformed about that missed opportunity.
This may be the Palestinians’ last chance for a peaceful resolution of the long conflict with Israel that has caused so much misery and so many deaths on both sides. When then-Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat turned down the offer of a two-state solution from President Bill Clinton and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak in 2000, the Saudi ambassador to the U.S. called Arafat’s decision a “crime” against the Palestinian people. Will Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas commit yet another crime against his people by refusing even to listen or negotiate?
If he were to agree to negotiate in earnest about the proposed peace plan — the geopolitical elements of which will be rolled out toward the end of this year — there is a significant likelihood that the end result of mutual, painful compromises may be a Palestinian state. If he persists in his refusal to negotiate, he and his people will have no one but themselves to blame for the persistence of an untenable status quo.
The U.S. has presented the first phase of its plan. It’s an excellent, fair start. The ball is now in the Palestinian court. They should reconsider their knee-jerk rejection and begin negotiations that may be the only road to statehood.
Bahrain sees the US-led economic workshop taking place in Manama this week as a possible “gamechanger” tantamount in its scope to the 1978 Camp David peace agreement between Israel and Egypt, the Gulf state’s foreign minister said Wednesday, also firmly backing Israel’s right to exist.
“We see it as very, very important,” Khalid bin Ahmed Al Khalifa told The Times of Israel on the sidelines of the “Peace to Prosperity” workshop.
Khalifa also stressed that his country recognizes Israel’s right to exist, knows that it is “there to stay,” and wants peace with it.
He said the US-organized conference here, which is focused on the economic aspects of the Trump administration’s Israeli-Palestinian peace plan, could be like Egyptian president Anwar Sadat’s visit to Jerusalem in 1977, which helped pave the way to the Camp David Accords and the normalizing of relations between Egypt and Israel.
“As much as Camp David 1 was a major gamechanger, after the visit of President Sadat — if this succeeds, and we build on it, and it attracts attention and momentum, this would be the second gamechanger,” Khalifa said.
In an interview in his suite at Manama’s posh Four Seasons hotel, Khalifa did not commit to normalizing diplomatic ties with Israel in the near future, but unequivocally affirmed Israel’s right to exist as a state with secure borders.
“Israel is a country in the region… and it’s there to stay, of course,” he said.
“Who did we offer peace to [with] the [Arab] Peace Initiative? We offered it to a state named the State of Israel, in the region. We did not offer it to some faraway island or some faraway country,” Khalifa continued, referring to a Saudi-backed peace framework.
“We offered it to Israel. So we do believe that Israel is a country to stay, and we want better relations with it, and we want peace with it.”
Leaders from several Arab nations will gather in Bahrain this week to discuss a 50 billion dollar relief plan and a possible path to peace between Palestinians and Israelis. The economic incentive program for building a future Palestinian state will be discussed at the “Peace to Prosperity” conference, co-hosted by the U.S. government and Bahrain. Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, Jordan and Morocco are participating. The Palestinians are boycotting the conference- Israeli government officials were not invited, but a business delegation from Israel will attend.
Under the plan, donor nations and investors would contribute about $50 billion over 10 years, with $28 billion going to the Palestinian territories. States that have absorbed Palestinian refugees int he past will also receive a significant amount of funding. $7.5 billion will be earmarked to Jordan, with $9 billion going to Egypt and $6 billion going to Lebanon.
Among 179 proposed infrastructure and business projects is a $5 billion transport corridor to connect the West Bank and Gaza. The proposed plan will facilitate billions of dollars of investment in Palestinian electricity, water, and telecommunications in an effort to create efficient transmission and distribution networks. Tourism, health care and cultural institutions will also be funded.
The Palestinian Authority is boycotting the conference, although 15 private Palestinian business leaders were expected to attend. President Mahmoud Abbas said focusing on economic issues “is unacceptable before the political situation is discussed.”
Comprehensive peace proposals have been presented to Palestinian leadership many times times in the past, and have all been rejected.
Once again, we have more evidence that "peace" to Palestinians does not mean what the West thinks it means.
It sounds cynical, but an impartial look at how Palestinians have responded to every peace plan or economic opportunity shows a single consistent pattern:
If it brings Israel closer to being destroyed, they are all for it. If it doesn't, they are opposed.
This is why there are "refugee" camps under Palestinian control. Tweeter Imshin links to an important article by Eldad Beck, who wrote in 2017:
There was another area in which I tried to promote initiatives: improving the living conditions of the residents of the refugee camps. The Palestinian Authority opposed such projects completely. Senior PA officials made it clear to us: "The refugee camps are a political issue, and they will remain in their present situation until a solution is found to the refugee question, that is, their return to their homes."
This is why Palestinian leaders have resisted every peace plan that would end the conflict.
This is why Palestinian leaders consciously choose to keep their own people in misery, because to them their people are only pawns to have their outrage directed at Israel.
Arafat formulated the "phased plan" for Israel's destruction in the 1970s and Abbas is slavishly following it, too frightened or too indoctrinated to change it to actually help his people.
The Bahrain workshop, which places no demands on Palestinians, is an object lesson in how the "phased plan" is still being implemented.
In the end, the Palestinians were there too. About 15 Palestinians attended, including Ashraf Jabari from Hebron, the only Palestinian scheduled to speak at the conference. They told Haaretz that they came from all parts of the West Bank and Jerusalem, and Jabari may be representing them as a speaker, but they support the conference, too. At one point, the former IDF Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories, reserve general Yoav Mordechai, sat with them on the sofas in the hotel lobby. Mordechai attended the conference as a private businessman. Haaretz also saw other Palestinians at the event who were not part of Jabari’s group – but they asked to remain anonymous.
The Palestinian Authority, if they cared about their own people, would have said "we are against the conference but you can attend if you want." Instead, they pressured Palestinian businesspeople not to attend - with implicit threats - so the ones who showed up must remain nameless.
Is this how national leaders who want to build a state act?
Israelis want good relations with the Arab world, including the Palestinians. The PA, though, forbids any ties and even threatens people who want to shop in Jewish-owned supermarkets in the territories.
The Arab world has woken up to the reality of the trash fire that is the Palestinian leadership. They understand the honor/shame dynamic that leads the Palestinians down the path of self-destruction, and they have failed in trying to convince them that they are only hurting their own people. That's why they have largely given up.
On the other hand, the Europeans and liberal Americans still cannot accept the breathtaking cynicism that the Palestinian leaders have shown again and again. The thought process is so utterly foreign to them that they can't accept it as even being possible. Of course Palestinian leaders want what is best for their people! Of course they want a state! How can anyone even conceive otherwise?
This is why the only real support for Palestinian political leaders nowadays comes from the liberal West - not from the Arab world. The liberal worldview is that everyone thinks the same as they do, and counter-evidence is glossed over and ignored.
Look at Bahrain with clear eyes and you can see that the Palestinian leadership is not interested in peace, nor in a state, nor in helping their own people. They only have one overarching political goal in mind - to destroy Israel, one step at a time.
An economically prosperous Palestinian entity is good for Israel and therefore it must be fought.
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.
UNRWA held a fundraising conference in New York on Tuesday, raising $113 million to keep the utterly worthless agency going for another few months before the next fundraiser.
The following delegations confirmed 2019 pledges in the following amounts: European Union (€21 million); Turkey ($10 million); Philippines ($10,000); India ($5 million); Sweden ($5 million); France (€20 million); Germany (€29 million); New Zealand ($1 million); Belgium (€11.6 million total for 2019); Estonia (€280,000); Ireland ($22 million); Norway ($2 million in addition to $26.4 million already paid); Indonesia ($200,000 in addition to the $1 million already paid); United Kingdom ($24 million for a total of $83 million for 2019‑2020); Switzerland ($1 million to the $21 million already paid in 2019); Kazakhstan ($50,000); Pakistan ($250,000); Cyprus (€100,000) and the Holy See ($40,000).
The following delegations indicated pledges pending approval: Austria (€1.95 million to a UNRWA health programme), Mexico, Malaysia and Italy.
Not a single Arab state contributed a dime (although Qatar pledged $16 million for 2019-20 the last time this was done.)
Instead, the Arab nations paid lip service to helping Palestinians via UNRWA:
Further support for UNRWA was expressed by representatives of Jordan, Lebanon, Republic of Korea, Egypt, Algeria, China, Netherlands, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Tunisia and Iraq with no specific pledges announced.
Once again, the rich Arab nations are far less interested in wasting their money on their fellow Arab Palestinians than the West is.
Trump's decision to cut UNRWA aid was not regressive - it was ahead of its time. UNRWA is a poor investment if one is interested in actually solving the Palestinian issue. Their fellow Arabs know this very well. The EU is too blind to see.
UNRWA's budget is $1.2 billion a year, so while this $113 million makes a dent, asking for that amount of money ten times a year will turn old quick. One day, not too distant, citizens of Ireland and Switzerland and Norway will ask their government why paying for medical and educational and housing services for nearly 2 million Jordanian citizens, and even more residents of "Palestine" who cannot be considered refugees under any definition, makes sense.
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.
This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For 20 years and 40,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.
Educating Arabs about the story of the Jews
-
Rabbi Elhanan Miller is an Ashkenazi Israeli rabbi who speaks fluent
Arabic. He has half a million online followers, and almost all of them are
Arabs. He...
The Fall of a Black Lives Matter ‘Thugologist’
-
When the Feds finally raided Cedric Dean’s mansion, out front were the words
“Thug Mansion” and “Black Lives Matter”.
Inside the homes of the expert ‘Th...
Stevie Van Zandt Takes On Antisemitism
-
[image: Stevie Van Zandt Takes On Antisemitism]
Musician Stevie Van Zandt joins Gene Simmons to combat antisemitism and
celebrate Jewish heritage through h...
Disarming Hamas?
-
Dry Bones Golden Oldies by Sali, the LSW. This cartoon is from 2009. Some
things don't seem to change much.
Much love, and wishes for peace!
Vice Presi...
Mamdani the Elder in 2004
-
It seems that I never uploaded this post from 2015. But now that his son
is running for election as New York City's next mayor with his 2023 Not On
Our Di...
Elder Eoten
-
The Elder Eoten is one of a handful of Apex Creatures you’ll find while
exploring the most difficult Forest Realm in Nightingale. It’s a huge,
animate tree...
Now What?
-
Today, Jews cannot walk down the street in North America, Europe, or even
Australia without the possibility of being spat on, beaten, or even
murdered. Cou...
Closing Jews Down Under Website
-
With a heavyish heart I am closing down the website after ten years.
It is and it isn’t an easy decision after 10 years of constant work. The
past...
‘Test & Trace’ is a mirage
-
Lockdown II thoughts: Day 1 Opposition politicians have been banging on
about the need for a ‘working’ Test & Trace system even more loudly than
the govern...
Thursday, June 27, 2019
Elder of Ziyon
Jerusalem, June 27 - A representative of a not-for-profit organization that depends on the generosity of supporters rang your phone while you sat eating with your family after a long day and attempted to convince you that because you have contributed to them before, you obviously find them worthy, and would you please contribute again, because the cause is so worthy, when in fact you have never contributed to said organization an would prefer to enjoy the time with your family without such a disruption.
.png)
