Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Friday, July 12, 2019

07/12 Links Pt1: Time puts Netanyahu on the cover, says he ‘tests the limits of power’; J Streets: Magical Misery Tour; Let's Have Some Truth about the Situation in Gaza

From Ian:

Time puts Netanyahu on the cover, says he ‘tests the limits of power’

Time magazine has once again put Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on its cover for its upcoming July 22 edition.

Noting that Netanyahu on July 17 will “surpass David Ben-Gurion, the closest thing Israel has to a founding father, to become the longest-serving Prime Minister in the country’s history,” the interviewer, Brian Bennett, writes that the Jewish state’s future “remains mortgaged to Netanyahu’s approach to power.”

The article is less flattering than the last time Netanyahu was on Time’s cover, in a mostly sympathetic 2012 interview that branded him “King Bibi.”

“Inside the country, many Israelis have been alarmed by Netanyahu’s efforts to remain in power,” Bennett tells his readers. “The moves compound the impression, already articulated by critics, that Israel’s Prime Minister has embraced the same populist authoritarianism rising elsewhere around the world.”

Time has occasionally put Israel on the cover in recent years, usually to criticize it. A September 2010 cover story was headlined, “Why Israel doesn’t care about peace.” An August 2012 edition looked at a battle for control over a Jerusalem neighborhood.

The latest cover story follows a similar line, citing “a growing chorus of critics” who “condemn Netanyahu not for any personal indulgences but for undermining Israeli democracy itself.”

It depicts the upcoming September 17 election as a referendum pitting “the Prime Minister’s self-declared role as Israel’s protector, ‘indispensable Netanyahu,’ against ‘Bibi fatigue,’” in the words of former US ambassador Dan Shapiro.

Abe Greenwald: The Magical Misery Tour

On and on it goes, the students were treated to tales of Israel’s razing homes, harassing Palestinians, and restricting their freedom of movement. All of it seemingly without the context of the Palestinians’ unending war on Jews.

Finally, Halbfinger relays how students on the trip were turned off by Israel and Zionism: “By dinnertime, two participants said they were reconsidering their belief in a Jewish state.” He quotes one: “I came in here a very ardent Zionist . . . You never know when a Holocaust might happen again. Yet, coming here, I’m starting to doubt whether a two-state solution is possible—and whether Zionism is even worth pursuing anymore.”

This is, of course, the goal of the entire undertaking. It’s not about painting a nuanced picture of the conflict or moving toward peace. It’s about Jews showing other Jews what a terrible and misguided place Israel has become. Increasingly, that’s J Street’s mission. Despite its denials, the group has supported the boycotting of Israel on college campuses and targeted pro-Israel activists. Now, it’s packaging the supposed evils of the Jewish state for students to see up close.

Birthright, for the record, doesn’t ignore the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It just operates with an understanding that Israel is more than its efforts to combat terrorism. And those efforts are overwhelmingly noble.

The good news is that J Street has taken only 28 kids on a single trip. Put that against Birthright’s estimated 650,000. It will take a lot of David Halbfingers to make up the difference.

In NY Times Coverage of J Street, Advocacy Journalism for Anti-Israel Advocates

Later, the lens turns to Israel: “While the Israeli government and news media usually say the same things in Hebrew and English, Palestinians and Israeli critics say they also do little to promote the idea of a Palestinian state.”

Then there is the rationalization: “Some explain the overheated language [by Palestinians] as a natural expression of such a long-running conflict, and say that any real education in the language of peace is unlikely to come before negotiators resolve the core issues.”

And again, skepticism of the critics: “Some Israelis struggle with the practice of monitoring the Palestinian news media, acknowledging the importance of knowing what is being said in Arabic, yet disturbed by how its dissemination is exploited by those not eager to see Israel make concessions.”

It would be one thing if this were how the Times reports on critics of both Israel and the Palestinians. But as the J Street story reminds us, the newspaper’s standards are shifty. There is no commentary about J Street and their fellow critics looking to score “propaganda points.” No “arguable” interpretations. No “natural expression” of the conflict. No “exploitation” by anti-Israel extremists. The journalistic skepticism and right of reply that was seemingly important when reporting on Palestinian Media Watch disappears entirely in the report on J Street.

This isn’t impartial, hard-hitting journalism. It’s advocacy for anti-Israel advocates. And despite repeated promises of fairness, the paper can’t seem to avoid such partisan reporting.

Here's some child abuse, courtesy of Hamas, in these advertisements for their military summer which they call the "camps of pioneers of liberation:"

Al-Qassam Brigades promoting their summer camp for young Palestinians. Registration begins Saturday and training begins on the 20th. #Gaza pic.twitter.com/aOSabIVz3W
— Joe Truzman (@Jtruzmah) July 11, 2019

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.

Something to think about as we approach the 50th anniversary of the Moon landing....

JTA reported on July 22, 1969:

Thoughtful Jews have speculated about the impact on Judaism’s religious outlook that would be made by man’s successful exploration of space. In a small way the answer began to emerge within hours of the historic Apollo 11 moon landing and exploration by Astronauts Neil Armstrong and Col. Edwin E. Aldrin, Jr.

The word came from Israel where Gen. Shlomo Goren, the Armed Forces’ Chief Chaplain, issued instructions about a change in the prayer for the blessing of the new moon which is said each month. The old blessing was worded: “As I dance before you and cannot touch you, so my enemies will not be able to touch me.” It now reads: “As I dance against you and do not touch you, so others, if they dance against me to harm me, they will not touch me.” The new version of the prayer is actually an old one found in the Talmud in Masechet Soffrim, chapter 20.

I have never seen any Jewish prayer book that uses Rav Goren's changed language of Kiddush Levana.

The language in Sofrim indeed doesn't use the "cannot touch you" language.

אחר שסיים הברכה אשר במאמרו יאמר שלוש פעמים: סימן טוב סימן טוב סימן טוב לכל ישראל, ברוך יוצרך ברוך עשך ברוך קונך ברוך בוראך, ורוקד שלוש רקידות כנגדה ואומר שלוש פעמים: כשם שאני רוקד כנגדך ואיני נונע בך כך אם ירקדו אחרים כנגדי לא יגעו בי, תפול עליהם אימתה ופחד וכו' ולמפרע (פי' להיפך כאבן ידמו זרעך וכו) אמן סלה הללוי-ה. ואומר לחבירו שלוש פעמים: שלום! וילך לביתו בלב טוב.

Why do we use language that is apparently not true nowadays, as it is possible to touch the Moon?

I have seen three answers given. Rav Chaim Kanievsky said that it could mean that it is impossible to touch the Moon from Earth. Alternatively, it could mean that we are not permitted by Jewish law to go to the Moon as it is dangerous and we should not put ourselves unnecessarily in danger.

Rav Yitzchak Zilberstein has a different approach, saying that it means that we cannot touch the Moon without special equipment. He brings a proof from a law that if a man divorces his wife conditional on her being able to soar to the sky, the divorce is invalid because it is impossible. But the Midrash does describe elsewhere that Alexander the Great flew on the back of an eagle! The answer must be that when we talk about the impossibility of flight, we mean unaided. That is the meaning of Kiddush Levana.

But I have a more basic question: why do we use the language today of "cannot touch" when the very source for Kiddush Levana in Sofrim uses language of "does not touch?" The questions wouldn't even come up if we used the original language!

The first source I mentioned claims that the Vilna Gaon's prayerbook uses the original terminology, but the one I looked at online did not. I haven't found any other sources for the changed language.

Any ideas?

UPDATE: I've gone through all the online old Siddurim I can find and I see nothing like the Sofrim language.

However, I found an interesting sefer of halacha from 1860 that say that this is what one should say:

כשם שאני רוקד כנגדך ואיני נוגע בך כך אם ירקדו אחרים
כנגדי להרע ולהזיק לי לא יוכלו להזיק לי וליגע

לי

This is the only mention I can find that someone should say something different than our nusach - it is Sofrim, plus asking not to be injured.

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.

Every week's Hamas-organized Gaza demonstrations have a different slogan.

Today's slogan is "No negotiation, no peace, no recognition of the entity."

I wonder if any supposedly "pro-peace" groups will be upset that the people they claim want peace with Israel explicitly say they will never accept any peace under any circumstances.

I'm not expecting a statement from Peace Now condemning the slogan.

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 Forward criticizes "Hasbara" tours of Israel. Do their arguments add up?

In wake of J-Street's highly publicized "Let My People Know" tour of Israel that included professional anti-Israel activists lying to college students and being praised for it in the New York Times, the Forward has an article about similar, far less public and highly subsidized tours of Israel by Hasbara Fellowships and the Zionist Organization of America.

The article by Scott Boxer, currently an intern at Americans for Peace Now, who attended both tours as a college student, is highly critical and insulting.

Let's compare the language he uses with the examples he brings and see if his characterization of the tours adds up.

Tour leaders policed language and opinions. In ways that could be considered public shaming, they corrected neutral terms like “West Bank” and “settlements,” replacing them with terms in the lexicon sympathetic to the occupation: “Judea and Samaria” and “Jewish communities.”

"Judea and Samaria" and "Jewish communities" are in fact neutral terms - and far more accurate than "West Bank," terminology that didn't exist before Jordan illegally annexed the lands (even the UN used those terms), and "settlements" which now have a pejorative meaning.

As far as public shaming is concerned, Boxer doesn't give any examples, but imagine using the term "Judea and Samaria" in the J-Street trip and see if they would let it go.

Guides and guest speakers spoke of anti-occupation, Zionist organizations like J Street and Americans for Peace Now with derision; they questioned explicitly the Zionist, and even Jewish, identity of supporters of such groups.

The Forward in this very article calls these tours "reprehensible and even dangerous". (And racist, as we will see.) Are strong opinions not allowed, or only one one side? I question the Zionist identity of these groups since they are entirely dedicated to turning Jews against Israel's policies as chosen by the people who live there. (I do not agree with saying that their supporters aren't Jewish, my guess is that in reality the words used were that the groups did not adhere to Jewish values.)

Right-wing, pro-occupation, and even racist content filled most of the presentations we attended. “Make Greater Israel Great Again” was the title of the opening presentation on the ZOA trip, just weeks after the election of Donald Trump.

Right wing and pro-occupation, certainly. The groups make no pretense of being otherwise, and Boxer certainly knew that when he went on the trip. But "racist?" He has not mentioned anything in this paragraph that could be considered that.

The trips included substantial time in settlements as a means of normalizing them and building bonds with their residents.

Why is that bad, but J-Street's bringing students to an illegal building in Susiya where they get served lunch from the family that lives there not considered equally bad?

During meetings with settler leaders in Hebron, both tours featured talks by Rabbi Simcha Hochbaum, who called mass murderer Baruch Goldstein a righteous man.
Rabbi Hochbaum told us that the murderous Palestinians between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea made Goldstein’s 1994 massacre of 29 Muslims during prayer pale in comparison. I was stunned the first time I heard this. The second time, I confronted him. He insisted that the good Goldstein had done in his 11-year medical career far outweighed the moment in which he gunned down Palestinian Muslims in Hebron’s Ibrahimi Mosque.

While Hochbaum's words reported here could be considered technically accurate, it is wrong in any way to contextualize Goldstein's massacre as anything but pure evil. This is the only part of Boxer's criticism that I agree with.

We didn’t only meet settlers, though. Unlike on Birthright, these tours included meetings with Palestinians in the West Bank, though they were very carefully curated to convey a particular narrative.

Literally every tour of the region, ever, has been "carefully curated to convey a particular narrative." There is only so much time and every group has an agenda, whether they admit it or not. This cartoon I captioned several months ago used the same term when describing the B'Tselem, Break the Silence and J-Street tours of Hebron:

We went to the new Palestinian city of Rawabi, home to luxury apartments and high-end stores, and met with its founder Bashar Masri. The message: How could occupation be bad if one can buy Coach handbags?

Why is a visit to Rawabi considered bad? Why wouldn't J-Street go there if it wanted to show all sides of the story?

We also visited a settler-owned factory near the settlement-city of Ariel and engaged in a discussion with its Palestinian workers, a conversation heavily curated by the factory owner. Surely, occupation is good if it provides jobs for Palestinians, right?

Again, is this a bad thing? Isn't this showing a side of the conflict that rarely gets reported? In short - why would anyone be against speaking with Palestinian workers in a Jewish owned business? I've done it myself and I was able to ask whatever I wanted.

This article assumes that the left-wing narrative is the only one, and therefore anything else is "dangerous." Yet the examples brought show no such thing - on the contrary, they show that the Peace Now types want to limit what Jewish students can see when they visit Israel to only their own "curated" experiences in Susiya, Shuhada Street (never the rest of Hebron,) and elsewhere.

The "right wing" tours are meant to instill a love of Israel. The left-wing tours emphatically do not.

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.

07/11 Links Pt2: The Many Deceits of Edward Said; Remembering Ross Perot’s Relationship With Israel and the American Jewish Community; UN Launches All-out War on Free Speech

From Ian:

The Many Deceits of Edward Said

Few thinkers have had so enormous an impact on the humanities as Edward Said, an English professor whose 1978 book Orientalism argued that all Western scholarship of the Middle East—indeed, all European writing about the Islamic world—was inherently suspect, reflecting only stereotypes and fantasies. Accompanying this argument was vituperation against Israel, to which Said dedicated much of his subsequent public life, inspiring multiple generations of academic Israel-haters. William D. Rubinstein examines Said’s distortions and tortured logic:

[I]n films and popular culture, every identifiable group is depicted initially in stereotypical terms: upper-class Englishmen are depicted as plummy-voiced toffs, American army sergeants as martinets, Australians as beer-swilling ockers from the outback. So what? But Said presents only the most negative views of the Islamic world as representative of its depiction in the mainstream West, ignoring any more positive views.

[For instance], the academic and scholarly “orientalists” who wrote about the Islamic world between about 1750 and 1940 were seldom hostile to Islam or to Muslim culture; quite the opposite. Typical was Gottlieb Leitner (1840–99), born in Budapest to Jewish parents who became Protestants. Leitner lived in India and was a renowned linguist. . . . In 1889 he published a pamphlet, Muhammedism, which defended Islam against its critics, and, in the same year, established the Woking Mosque in Surrey, the first mosque in Britain.

Dozens of other scholars and anthropologists throughout the West, normally termed “orientalists,” were highly sympathetic to Islam and its culture. These scholars were ignored in Said’s works, as were modern scholars who studied the politics, economy, and religious culture of the Islamic world in a serious way.

It appears that Said became an ardent supporter of the Palestinian cause and, by extension, of the Islamic world, following the 1967 Six-Day War between Israel and the Arabs. At the time, Israel enjoyed the virtually unanimous support of the Western world’s left intelligentsia. . . . Said effectively—and, it seems, deliberately—provided scholarly backing for the reverse of this former consensus, and for whitewashing the culture and lifestyles of the Islamic world.

NGO Monitor: NGO Failure: Viva Palestina’s Delivery of Cash and Goods to Hamas Leaders

UK Charity Commission Investigation

On June 6, 2019, the Charity Commission for England and Wales released a statement on their investigation into “Viva Palestina,” a charity led by former Member of Parliament and former War on Want General Secretary, George Galloway. The Charity Commission concluded that Viva Palestina “was not properly governed, managed or administered by its trustees – as a result of those failings its reputation, that of the wider charitable sector, and charitable funds donated by the public to the charity were put at risk.”

The Commission paid special attention to Viva Palestina’s failure regarding “the basic requirement to keep receipts and records of income and expenditure and so be able to properly account for charitable funds raised and spent. These basic requirements are all the more important when charitable funds are raised from members of the public and used for humanitarian needs in conflict zones.” Viva Palestina reportedly claimed to have raised over £1 million in 2009 alone.
Viva Palestina’s Material Support for Hamas

In addition to the concerns cited by the Charity Commission, Viva Palestina has had significant contact with leaders of the Hamas terrorist organization, including providing them with cash, vehicles, and other items.

For example, during a March 2009 “aid convoy,” George Galloway met with then Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh and directly provided him with three cars and £25,000 in cash. Galloway claimed, “Just in case the British government or the European Union want to face me in any court, let me tell them live on television: I personally am about to break the sanctions on the elected government of Palestine…By Allah, we carried a lot of cash here… But I, now, here, on behalf of myself, my sister Yvonne Ridley…are giving three cars and 25,000 pounds in cash to Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh”

David Collier: The Guardian newspaper: Decades of baiting British Jews

What changed at the Guardian?

This isn’t difficult. The ‘rational left’ lost its soul when it became infected by the very viruses it used to be able to identify. It saw Islamic antisemitism until it became infected with it. So too Soviet antisemitism. Today those people writing these letters to the Guardian support the same ideology as those the Guardian quickly dismissed back in 1953. They started to use these media outlets to push their obsession. This is a map of the increase in mentions of the word ‘Israel’ from 1947-2003:

1966-1967, which includes the six-day war and its aftermath, saw 960 articles. 2002-2003 was to reach 3,402. I can only imagine how bad things are today. To put this in perspective. Israel’s 3,402 came over 24 months. ‘Congo’ did not even make 1,500 articles over the whole five years of the Second Congo War that cost millions of lives. Adding Rwanda to the search terms didn’t make much difference. Israel has become a Guardian obsession.

It becomes even more interesting when we search for ‘anti-Zionism’. Beyond criticism, until the 1990s there were no references to the words in the Guardian archives and a whole year could pass without a single article using it. In 1998 there was one article. Another two in 1999 and 2000. In 2001 that double to four and in 2003 it tripled to thirteen. Since then it has risen to a tsunami.

The only reference in 1998 was to a book from the 1930s. In 1999 the play ‘Perdition‘ was on the theatre pages as it enjoyed a short run at the Gate Theatre. January of 2000 saw David Ceserani used the term when he was critical of Norman Finkelstein. In June, John Fordham wrote a Jazz column about Gilad Atzmon. Then in August 2001, there was a mention in article about the Woodcraft folk, and the complexities of global politics. In September it was another Jazz advert for Gilad Atzmon.

Who speaks for Gazans? Good question, but be skeptical about the answer

Israel Hayom has an article by Muhammad AlZanati and Muhammad AlBuhaisi, called "Who Speaks for Gazans?", that is most interesting.

Their bio:

Muhammad AlZanati and Muhammad AlBuhaisi are natives of Gaza who have fled to Europe and are members of the Palestinian Opposition Coalition that is under formation.

The article says in part:

Now is the perfect time for the Palestinian populace to stand up and follow new leaders. We propose the creation of a new organization that can provide that leadership: the Palestinian Opposition Coalition.

We, the writers of these lines, are two Gazans who have fled Hamas’ hell to Europe. Both of us are computer geeks with good jobs in the EU. We have made it.

Why would Gazans choose to run an article in an Israeli newspaper? The answer is simple: No one but Israel cares what Gazans think and what Gazans want.

When UN officials open their mouths before the world’s media to speak about Gazans' suffering, they don’t know what they are talking about nor do they know what we are striving for as human beings.

When Arab dictators bleat about our rights and how Israel is allegedly crushing us, they don’t care for us. In fact, those very Arab rulers have played the greater part in creating suffering for Gaza.

When European officials talk about the need to help Gazans, it is, in most cases, a sugarcoating of their deep-seated anti-Semitism.

We will tell you what we Gazans want.

We want Hamas out. We voted for Hamas almost 14 years ago because we had enough of the corrupt Palestinian Authority. Even Christians in Gaza voted for Hamas as the lesser of two evils. Gazans have been historically more liberal and less religious than other Palestinians. This has been known since the British Mandate for Palestine was created.

We thought our lives could improve a little under Hamas. And what did we get? Hamas is more corrupt than the Palestinian Authority thugs. Even worse, Hamas labels anyone who opposes it an "infidel." At least the PLO would not do that.

And Hamas itself is not self-governed. It is common knowledge in Gaza is that Hamas is the Palestine chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood of Jordan.

...We are Hamas’ biggest victims. The parades you see in support of Hamas are staged. Schoolchildren are threatened: If they don't attend, their parents will be arrested.

Except for the 5,000 people who comprise Hamas' leadership and their children, we Gazans would love to see Israel taking over Gaza again and running it under the Civil Administration, as it did before the Oslo Accords.

We do not want the corrupt Palestinian Authority to take over Gaza again. And as much as we love Egypt and its president, Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi, we don’t want Egyptian rule, either. We want things to return to the days before Oslo.

For those who wonder what our identity and citizenship will be: Most Gazans are educated and well-read. We know Jordan’s regime stands on shaky ground. A change in Jordan would result in an extension of Jordanian citizenship to Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, and then, we would have peace based on facts and reality on the ground as US President Donald Trump said when he addressed the UN in September of last year. We are willing to hold Jordanian citizenship and connect administratively to Jordan, but that will require a change of the status quo in Jordan first.

This is the truth that could set all of us free.

Everything they say seems almost too good to be true.

It's been my experience that moderate Arabs still want independence - they might hate their leaders, but very few would say they want to be occupied by Israel.

And when two people claim, in an article asking who speaks for Gazans, that they speak for Gazans when they say they'd rather live in pre-Oslo days, we should be skeptical. If that thinking was prevalent, we would have heard about people like these years ago.

There is a small cottage industry with people who claim to speak for Palestinians in terms that are nearly identical to right-wing Zionist talking points. We want to believe this so much that some Zionists are willing to fund them. But invariably they claim to have lots of followers who don't exist.

I hope I'm wrong. I'd love to know that there is a groundswell of Palestinians that Zionists can talk to. But when things like this come out of nowhere, we have to fight the impulse to think that an intractable problem can be easily solved.

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

Palestinian Astronomers Challenge Heliocentric Model: 'Universe Revolves Around Us' (PreOccupied Territory)

Our weekly column from the humor site PreOccupied Territory.

Check out their Facebook page.

Ramallah, July 11 - The longstanding assumption governing human conception of the solar system and beyond must undergo revision, insists a group of West Bank and Gaza scientists who accuse the scientific mainstream of ignoring definitive evidence that they and their people, not the Sun, occupy the center of everything.

Palestinian astronomers convened a press conference today (Thursday) to rail against the scientific establishment for its refusal to recognize mounting evidence against the centuries-old heliocentric model of the solar system, which has the Sun at the center and numerous other bodies in orbit around it. The astronomers pointed to the phenomenon of every progressive cause allying itself with the Palestinian national movement, which they argue indicates that Palestine, or at least Palestinians, occupy the center of the universe, and nothing else can.

"Anyone observing the movement of social justice activity over the last several decades can come to only one conclusion," stated Professor of Astrophysics Inr Shah. "All social justice movement eventually comes to revolve around the Palestinian cause, indicating that the Palestinian cause constitutes the bulk of the mass, and exerts the most gravitational pull. We see this with the Women's March, human rights organizations in general, child welfare groups, and countless other instances. Astronomers who dismiss this evidence have much to explain."

Professor Shah suggested that establishment astronomy feels beholden to Zionists. "Just look at the number of Jews among Nobel Prize winners in the hard sciences," he indicated. "That can't be a coincidence. We know who holds sway and calls the shots in astronomy and related fields. No one will escape with his career intact if he challenges the so-called 'consensus' view of the Sun at the center. We all know who's behind that."

The heliocentric model gained currency in the study of the heavens only in the last five hundred years as a better explanation for the movements of celestial phenomena than the ancient geocentric model with the observer, on Earth, as the center. The old model, argue Palestinian scientists, better reflects the truth of a Palestinian-centered solar system and universe.

"In broad terms the geocentric model should once again be considered correct," noted Bir Zeit University postdoctoral researcher Massieff Iggo. "On the intergalactic scale, or even just in terms of our part of the Milky Way, not much should change in the way we see the universe. But closer to home we'll see some subtle and not-as-subtle shifts in understanding of the moon, nearby planets, and maybe some asteroids, because it's not the center of Earth from which to calculate things, but the center of Palestine. That of course can be tricky, because it shifts from day to day as we and our allies decide on new focuses for the world to revolve around."

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.

07/11 Links Pt1: You can’t Judaize Jerusalem; Abbas’ advisor praises Nazi collaborator as “role model”; Panorama: New revelations on UK Labour antisemitism

From Ian:

JPost Editorial: You can’t Judaize Jerusalem

“It has nothing to do with religion, it is fake,” Erekat told journalists at his office in Ramallah. “It’s a settlement project. It’s based on a lie that has nothing to do with history.”

We beg to differ. It has everything to do with history: Jewish history. Clear evidence – which no archaeologist denies – that this road was used by hundreds of thousands of Jewish pilgrims ascending to the Second Temple three times a year.

It was found by happenstance when a pipe burst, to everyone’s good fortune, for it is a visual manifestation of Jewish practice 2,000 years ago. To continue to deny that Jews were here, that Jews started here – and that Jews are deeply connected to the land beginning with Jerusalem – is to declare perpetual war between Jews and Arabs, between Israelis and Palestinians.
“The region is not interested in leaving the Palestinians behind,” Greenblatt told CUFI, “but I think the region is also tired of the Palestinian leadership preventing progress in the region.”

The Pilgrimage Road is part of Jewish history, and as Friedman said, Israel is as likely to give up that heritage site as the United States would surrender the Statue of Liberty. Soon it will be open to all, allowing visitors to walk in the footsteps of ancient pilgrims along a 350-meter stretch of the main thoroughfare that ran uphill to the Jewish temple.

What Pilgrimage Road does is uncover truth. Without an acknowledgment by Palestinians and the Arab world of the veracity of Jewish history – which is starting to happen – there can be no peace agreement that will include the “end of conflict” clause – which means no peace agreement.

We applaud Greenblatt’s statement – “You cannot possibly build peace without a foundation of truth” – because it confirms the absurdity of continuous Palestinian denial of Jewish history. One cannot “Judaize” Jerusalem.

“Stand up to this garbage, this nonsense,” Greenblatt told Evangelical Christians. “Let’s push back – and no longer should we tolerate their myths and their falsification of history.”

PMW: Abbas’ advisor praises Nazi collaborator as “role model”

Known Nazi collaborator, the former Mufti of Palestine Haj Amin Al-Husseini, was openly honored by Abbas' Advisor on Religious Affairs and Islamic Relations, Mahmoud Al-Habbash.

During World War II Al-Husseini moved to Berlin, where he was an associate of Hitler and gave active support to the Nazi war effort. Al-Husseini was on Yugoslavia's list of wanted war criminals, and was responsible for a Muslim SS division that murdered thousands of Serbs and Croats. When the Nazis offered to free some Jewish children, Al-Husseini fought against their release, and as a result, 5000 children were sent to the gas chambers.

Amin Al-Husseini meeting with Adolf Hitler (December 1941)

This week, on the anniversary of his death, Abbas' advisor posted Al-Husseini's photo and praised him as a "role model":
Posted text: "On this day, on July 4, 1974, the great Palestinian national leader, [former] Mufti of Palestine and Head of the Arab Higher Committee Haj Amin Al-Husseini - who for many years led the Palestinian struggle against the British and Israeli occupation - passed away; our leaders are our role models."
[Facebook page of Mahmoud Al-Habbash, July 4, 2019]

But Al-Habbash's praise is not an isolated example. The PA has named at least one school after the Nazi collaborator - the Amin Al-Husseini Elementary School in El-Bireh, the current PA Mufti has honored his predecessor by laying a wreath on his grave, and the PA National Security Forces have highlighted Al-Husseini on Facebook.

BBC Panorama’s exposé of Jeremy Corbyn’s meddling in antisemitism cases is further evidence that he is racist and unfit for office

Former Labour Party employees have spoken out publicly on the BBC’s flagship investigative documentary programme, Panorama, to reveal Jeremy Corbyn’s personal meddling in disciplinary cases relating to antisemitism.

The documentary lays bare the scale of the interference by agents of Mr Corbyn in the process. The programme is peppered with unconvincing denials from Labour’s press team.

The programme explains how senior Labour Party staffers, some of whom Campaign Against Antisemitism has known for years, used to independently run Labour’s disciplinary process, but soon after Mr Corbyn’s election as Party leader found themselves contending with his most senior aides.

The programme shows how brazen Mr Corbyn’s staff were in their efforts to subvert due process.

Early in the Party’s antisemitism crisis, Seumas Milne, often referred to as the ‘brain’ behind Mr Corbyn, is described as laughing by Mike Creighton, who led the Party’s disciplinary team, when Mr Creighton suggested means of improving the Party’s response to antisemitism. In a statement, Labour claimed Mr Creighton was lying.

However during the programme, one staffer after another described how gradually Mr Corbyn’s agents increased their interference in the disciplinary process. According to the former staffers’ testimony and e-mails shown to Panorama, Mr Corbyn’s team and his ally, General Secretary Jennie Formby, intervened to reduce the punishment for antisemites, and even to try to alter the composition of a disciplinary panel of the Party’s National Constitutional Committee.

One staffer described how a member of staff in Mr Corbyn’s office said that there was a “Jewish conspiracy” against Ken Livingstone, after Mr Livingstone said that Hitler was “supporting Zionism”. Another official said that a new leader of the disciplinary team installed by allies of Mr Corbyn claimed that there was no problem with an image shared by a Labour member from a far-right website depicting an alien parasite emblazoned with a Star of David smothering the Statue of Liberty.

Panorama: New revelations on UK Labour antisemitism (July 10, 2019)

Was Labour Twitter Account Really 'Hacked'

Isn’t it likely that an exasperated current or former staffer who knew the password sent this tweet? The hacked line is invariably a lame excuse.

Once again, the media gets BDS wrong. From Liam Hoare in The Forward:

BDS is a failed political movement, and the Israeli government stalks a tiger that walks on paper feet.

While BDS supporters are still able to muster enough people to gather outside stores selling Israeli products, underwrite letters to the Guardian, or pressure this or that artist into not stopping in Tel Aviv on their world tour, these are but demonstrative acts that, together, constitute a carnival sideshow.

In fourteen years, BDS has failed to attract support beyond those who were already inclined to dislike Israel to begin with ...and has made no perceptible impact on the Israeli economy.

Like so many others, Hoare misses the point of what BDS is about.

Even BDSers admit that they choose their targets of boycott for maximum leverage and publicity, even as they use Israeli products themselves. The boycotts are indeed a sideshow to their real aim - to have average people associate Israel with racism and apartheid.

By repeating the lies that Zionism is racism, Israel is an apartheid state, Israel must be boycotted for human rights abuses, and so on - over and over again - it makes an impression on college students and people who don't follow Israel closely.

When an artist boycotts Israel, it makes a huge impression on people who want to identify as supporting social justice.

When an academic group calls to boycott Israel, it puts an aura of respectability on hating Israel.

That's the real goal. They want to make the very idea of being pro-Israel toxic. They want to put proud Zionists on the defensive. They want to make people question any dealing with Israel as if it is immoral.

Sad to say, The Forward itself is a major contributor to that mindset.

Every time a college student hesitates before defending Israel publicly because of the very real consequences that can happen, BDS wins.

This week we saw a perfect example of a BDS victory - one that in terms of boycotts is minor, but in terms of the real goals of BDS is a huge win:

In a first-of-its-kind incident, a European academic association has reportedly canceled a planned conference in Israel due to fear that it will come under pressure from the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign.

Two weeks after the European Network for Mental Health Service Evaluation (ENMESH) last month concluded its 2019 meeting with a decision to hold its next biennial conference in Jerusalem in 2021, the chairman of its executive committee unilaterally canceled that resolution, Haaretz reported Sunday.

In a letter sent to board members, Mike Slade said his decision came after several members complained about the location, and that he was trying to preempt the resulting outcry from boycott supporters, the report said, citing sources who had read the letter.

Had he gone forward with the plans to hold the next conference in Israel, Slade contended, ENMESH’s work over the next two years would have been dominated by dealing with the controversy and the pressure from anti-Israel activists.

ENMESH didn't choose to boycott Israel because it is anti-Israel; it chose to boycott Israel because it didn't want to hassle with two years of anti-Israel idiots harassing its members.

Or look at this from the Hollywood Reporter this week:

"It's much more difficult to get people to support Friends of the IDF and Israel, even those who are Jewish," says Hollywood attorney and Friends of the IDF board member Marty Singer. "Sometimes people are afraid that it could have an adverse impact on them. It's not politically correct."

That fear is the biggest BDS victory, and it is not (yet) being effectively countered.

Just as we saw in the 1970s, where the fear by European nations of being the victim of Palestinian terrorism quickly morphed into a pretense that they support Palestinian nationalism, people don't want to think of themselves as being susceptible to blackmail. It is much easier to pretend to be idealistic, and to change one's self-view from a sniveling coward into a heroic defender of justice.

The constant threats by the Israel haters - along with the drumbeat of so-called social justice warriors who push the lie that being anti-Israel is progressive - results in a toxic environment where public support for Israel is eroded and derided. And where public opposition to Israel is done with pride.

BDS has already won in many venues. Any college, any European capital where a pro-Israel demonstration can be expected to be attacked and where an anti-Israel demonstration cannot is a BDS victory.

Similarly, every time J-Street style Jews says they are pro-Israel but they feel that they must emphasize the huge BUT more than their supposed love for Israel itself, BDS has won.

It doesn't have to be this way, even for people who are critical of Israel's policies or government.

When Nurit Baytch accepted a Hasby Award from me, she said to the crowd that she was a member of the far-left Meretz party in Israel. Yet she is a passionate defender of Israel online, one of the best there is.

Hen Mazzig is another perfect example. A gay Mizrahi Jew with a non-Jewish partner is not exactly a right-wing icon - but he is a lover and tireless defender of Israel.

They are as liberal as can be, they can criticize Israel when appropriate, but their overwhelming love for the country and ability to look at it in perspective show what Zionism from the progressive side can look like.

If J-Street would adopt the methods of Baytch and Mazzig, then we can believe that they are pro-Israel. As it is, J-Street legitimizes BDS' aims with every single email and press release, even if they are officially against BDS. Because BDS isn't about boycotts, it is only about turning Israel into a pariah state, and J-Street does more than its part in accomplishing that goal.

BDS doesn't care about boycotts. Its aim is to make Israel toxic in the public sphere. It has been fairly successful by that standard. And it must be fought by showing that true progressives should support Israel and that those who oppose Jewish self-determination are simply bigots.

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.

IfNotNow shows its antisemitism twice in one tweet

This tweet from IfNotNow is the perfect example of how modern anti-Zionism is simply antisemitism in progressive clothing.

The Haaretz article that they refer to goes into great detail about how Elad, a Jewish organization, has managed over 30 years to legally purchase half of the building from the shares of four of the eight Arab children who inherited it, and 25% more purchased from the Custodian of Absentee Property. Israeli courts looked at the case numerous times, sometimes ruling for Elad and sometimes against it. In the end, Eldad was ruled to own most of the building and therefore has the rights to act as the primary owner.

IfNotNow is saying that Jews should not have the right to legally purchase property in most of Jerusalem, simply because they are Jewish. According to these progressive, woke people, some parts of the planet should discriminate against Jews.

This is antisemitism in its purest form. But it is acceptable antisemitism - in certain circles, even laudable antisemitism.

The second way that IfNotNow shows its antisemitism is by using the word "Judaization" as an epithet. This is of course exactly how Arabs use the term; they coined it in this context as an insult and IfNotNow fully embraces the idea that Jerusalem is fundamentally an Arab city and Jews are the interlopers; anything that restores the Jewishness of Jerusalem is decried as "Judaization."

I found a similar use of that word as an epithet in the notorious The International Jew - The World's Foremost Problem, Henry Ford's famous antisemitic tract.

The most insidious aspect of modern antisemitism disguised as anti-Zionism is that these examples of pure hate against Jews are not denounced, but celebrated, as if antisemitism is a new form of human rights.

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.

An ice cream shop in Gaza - Great looking treats, barrier separating women from men

Palestine Today has a photo essay of an ice cream shop in Gaza, which is getting lots of business in the summer heat.

At first glance, it looks just like any Western ice cream shop - and not at all like the Gaza you see in the media. Men and women are enjoying their treats.

The food looks delicious.

But in all the pictures, women are in the back and men in the front.

And there is actually a barrier between them!

I've seen the Saudi religious police enforce such rules there. At least some parts of Gaza apparently are just as bad.

The difference is that it is fashionable for the Left to bash Saudi Arabia (rightly) for its discrimination against women, but Gaza's similar attitudes are covered up because there are other political reasons to pretend to love Gaza.

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.