Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Tuesday, January 07, 2020

01/07 Links Pt1: The Death of Qassem Suleimani Is a Strategic Victory for the U.S.; American Mainstream Media Mourns Death Of Iran Terrorist Leader; ICC is undercutting its own legitimacy

From Ian:

The Death of Qassem Suleimani Is a Strategic Victory for the U.S.

Last week, an American drone strike killed Qassem Suleimani, who for over two decades led Iran’s Quds Force—which of late has been fighting wars in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen—and managed a network of proxy militias and terrorist groups throughout the Middle East. Among Suleimani’s accomplishments are the transformation of Hizballah into a military powerhouse and the creation of guerrilla forces that have killed hundreds of Americans in Iraq, and many more Iraqis. President Trump had until now refrained from responding militarily to the Quds Force’s multiple attacks on American allies and even military hardware throughout the region since he came to office. But the killing of a U.S. contractor changed the equation.

Joining a number of other Israeli experts in commenting on the significance of Suleimani’s death, Hillel Frisch explains why it is more than a merely tactical success:

Suleimani’s death is a major blow to Iran. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s designation of Esmail Ghaani, Suleimani’s second-in-command, as his successor as head of the Quds Force is an indicator of the magnitude of that blow. Ghaani is in his sixties (as was Suleimani)—not the ideal age to take over a major undercover organization with tentacles throughout much of the Middle East and beyond.

Over twenty years ago . . . a younger, more vibrant Islamic revolutionary leadership chose then-forty-year-old Suleimani over his superiors to head the elite [Quds Force]. Khamenei is older now, and less willing to take the risk of choosing a daring young commander, but that is not the only reason why he did not do so.

Even if the ayatollah were inclined to select a younger replacement, the targeting of Soleimani prevents him from making such a choice. The killing proves beyond doubt that the Iranian security system is riddled with informants. . . . The killing of Soleimani was, [moreover, a meaningful] show of American force because he was touted by Iran as invincible.

Soleimani, the Blob, and the Echo Chamber

At one level the complaints are inescapably partisan; Democrats complaining about the Trump Administration is the first and only law of American politics today. Parallel complaints regarding process, wisdom, and ultimately fitness for office were leveled at Obama by Republicans and will be again, but they hardly reached the current level of antipathy directed at Trump. The questions then become not simply whether Trump's policy decision was correct, but whether critics adopting such tones of ill-disguised hatred are themselves to be trusted.

But the responses to Soleimani have additional relevance not simply because of their partisanship and self-referential elevation of expertise, which illustrate if nothing else the processes of elite groupthink. They anticipate a possible future, namely the way Democratic presidential candidates uniformly disapproved of killing Soleimani.

Current frontrunner and former Obama Vice President Joe Biden likened the act to throwing "a stick of dynamite into a tinderbox." Elizabeth Warren acknowledged "Soleimani was a murderer, responsible for the deaths of thousands, including hundreds of Americans. But this reckless move escalates the situation with Iran and increases the likelihood of more deaths and new Middle East conflict." Finally, Bernie Sanderswarned "Trump's dangerous escalation brings us closer to another disastrous war in the Middle East that could cost countless lives and trillions more dollars."

The parallels between the blob/echo chamber and the Democratic candidates illustrate their interlocking nature; Obama veterans would return under Biden or Warren, while Sanders likely bring in ideologue outsiders, such as his foreign policy advisor, progressive blogger Matt Duss. But they also illustrate common intellectual foundations, the elevation of process and celebration of expertise, the search for predictability and corresponding avoidance of disruption. Readiness to be gamed by canny adversaries is thus built in.

The candidates' responses are thus a foreshadowing of a future Democratic administration. Like most members of the blob and the echo chamber, the candidates have already stated they would recommit to the JCPOA nuclear deal (which of course may not longer be possible). But they would likely return to the Obama policy of indulging Iran's 'legitimate regional aspirations,' 'security concerns,' and Islamic government, even as they offer tepid criticism, as means of restructuring American relations away from Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Still, every new administration has to deal with reality bequeathed by its predecessors. The killing of Soleimani may, or may not, upend the chessboard of Iranian imperial expansion, much less unleash World War III. As the new reality unfolds, the question remains whether experts on all sides of the equation are willing to rethink their premises and contend with the world as it is now. First indications are not promising.

Alan M. Dershowitz (WSJ Google Link): Easy Call: The Strike on Soleimani Was Lawful

There can be no serious debate about the president's constitutional authority to order a single attack on an enemy combatant who has killed and is planning to kill American citizens. Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama issued such orders.

The targeting of Soleimani was more justified, as a matter of law, than the targeting of Osama bin Laden in 2011. The killing of Soleimani was in large part an act of prevention, whereas the killing of bin Laden was primarily an act of retaliation.

The killing of Soleimani was also entirely legal under international law. The Quds Force commander was a combatant in uniform who was actively engaged in continuing military and terrorist activities against Americans. The rocket that killed him and a handful of others was carefully calibrated to minimize collateral damage, and the resulting death toll was proportionate to the deaths it may have prevented.

Shmuley Boteach: Killing Soleimani was a moral response

Like Hitler, Soleimani had a knack for survival. He was reported killed in 2006, 2012 and 2015 – only to show up, time after time, alive and well with a sinister grin. Would yet another practitioner of genocide be allowed to live, into the second decade of the second millennium?

He would, but only for a mere few days. His being considered the second-most powerful man in Iran wouldn’t stop Trump from imposing the most basic law of human justice – that there’s a death sentence for those who engage in genocide.

IN KILLING Soleimani, Trump has finally managed to do what no American president has managed to do before: put Iran on notice that it’s not primarily ordinary Iranians who will suffer for the crimes of their leaders, but, rather, the leaders themselves would pay the ultimate price.

The corrupt Iranian mullahs who slaughter their own people, steal their wealth, and bring terrorism and mayhem to the world are now on notice that they are squarely in American sites for justice.

In his lifetime, Soleimani sought to prove that evil and brutality will ultimately triumph over goodness and mercy. With Soleimani’s death, Trump has proven that those tactics are no match for God’s cosmic force of justice.

Martin Luther King, the greatest American of the 20th century, put it best: “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.

From Middle East Monitor:

Israel yesterday opened one of the gates of its rainwater stores east of Gaza, allowing rainwater to flood large swathes of Palestinian land, Ma’an reported.

The Palestinian Ministry of Agriculture said in a statement that the water drowned “hundreds of dunams of agricultural lands and damaged barley and wheat crops.”

According to the statement, the water storage area was located in the east of Shuja’iyya neighbourhood in the east of Gaza city.

This absurd accusation was popular a few years ago. In 2015 AFP even published the accusations. Juan Cole and HRW's Sarah Leah Whitson doubled down. But when the truth was pointed out, AFP didn't just issue a correction, but it published a full debunking of the libel and made an accompanying video showing it was a complete lie.

The accusation of Israel opening floodgates has since died down - until now.

(The Palestinian Ministry of Agriculture referred to is the Hamas version, not the PA version. )

But then Middle East Monitor goes even further

Israel builds a number of reservoirs to stop rainwater from running through the Gaza valleys in winter. These prevent Palestinians in the enclave from storing rainwater to irrigate their crops and to fill underground wells.

Israel builds reservoirs in the desert just to deprive Palestinians of rainwater??

Just more lies about Israel being reported and retweeted by the usual crowd of Israel haters.

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

Protesters demonstrated Monday in the plaza outside the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, in an attempt to block the entrance of the Greek Orthodox Patriarch Theophilus III from attending the midnight mass of the eastern churches celebrating Christmas.

The "Movement of the Truth" called for the continued boycott of Theophilus III because of his alleged role in selling church properties to Jews.

In 2017, the Church - suffering from enormous debt - sold some properties to Kronty Investments Ltd. of London, which is headed by David Sofer.

The demonstrators in Nativity Square called Theophilos III "the traitor", "unworthy", and chanted "shame on us for receiving him."

A similar protest happened last year and the year before.

Last month, the Patriarch and the Greek Orthodox Church complained that the Palestinian Authority was trying to steal Greek Orthodox-owned land in the plaza outside the Church of the Nativity as well as elsewhere in Bethlehem.

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 prime minister admits they won't honor signed agreements that contradict Sharia. (Spoiler: This includes peace with Israel.)

I have been reporting on how the PLO had signed the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) in 2014 - without any real intention of implementing it, but to make it look like they are a liberal modern state so they can use that impression to attack Israel at the ICC and elsewhere.

Now we receive confirmation from both the prime minister of the Palestinian Authority and their Constitutional Court that there was never any intention of implementing CEDAW, and that Islamic Sharia is more important than adhering to signed agreements with the West.

Prime minister Mohammad Shtayyeh said, "The government adheres to Palestinian values and principles, and does not violate the Sharia. ...Our religious and national values are above everything else, and this is in keeping with the decision of the Constitutional Court's decision, and as a protection of our (women's) honor, the unity of our society and the rule of law."

What did the Constitutional Court rule?

Al-Monitor reports, quoting an Abbas aide: "There is also a decision by the Constitutional Court whereby international agreements prevail over local laws, provided these are consistent with the Palestinian religious and cultural legacy."

They did not tell the UN this little fact that they follow Sharia over international agreement when they signed CEDAW. There were no reservations included in their agreement.

This goes way beyond CEDAW and women's rights. This goes to the fundamental issue that the PLO and the Palestinian Authority will happily sign agreements they have no intention of keeping. They will tell the West that they signed the agreement, yet will privately ignore the agreement - just as they have with CEDAW.

Which means that even if the PLO would sign a peace agreement with Israel, the agreement would be literally worthless if it violates Sharia law. If it is against Islamic law to make a permanent peace agreement with Jews, or to allow non-Muslims to control any land that is considered an Islamic waqf (endowment for a religious cause) - and I am fairly certain that both of those are against Islamic law - then Sharia would outweigh any agreement with Israel.

In fact, it is worse - not only Sharia but "Palestinian cultural legacy" are considered more important than signed agreements. Meaning, every single agreement signed by Palestinian leadership does not have to be honored if someone believes it contradicts their "culture" of killing Jews and achieving martyrdom.

In short: The "State of Palestine" does not consider any of its signed agreements to be binding if they don't like them. And any agreements with Israel are, by definition, contradicted by not only Islamic law but by Palestinian "values."

(h/t Ibn Boutros)

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

Ashraq al Awsat reports that a contingent of US Marines have been dispatched from Italy to Lebanon to shore up protection for the US Embassy in the Awkar section of Beirut there, in wake of the assassination of Quds Force leader Qassem Soleimani.

The Marine Corps Embassy Security Group has protected US embassies around the world for decades.

This is a precautionary measure to protect the Embassy from a possible violent takeover attempt as happened in Baghdad and which has occurred in other Middle Eastern countries.

The Embassy has released a warning for all American citizens in Lebanon to have a "high level of vigilance."

The article then said something truly crazy:

A Lebanese security source told Asharq Al-Awsat that "once the expected force arrives in Awkar and takes over its mission, the embassy will turn into a military target due to the presence of the soldiers and officers who will protect it."

I have no idea who this "security source" is but embassies are never military targets and they are all protected by their country's military.

For an Arab newspaper to even publish such an opinion is essentially incitement for people to attack the embassy. (And Ashraq al Awsat is a moderate news outlet.)

Indeed, at least one Hamas-leaning news site wrote a headline, "Awkar turns into a military target."

(h/t Ibn Boutros)

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

01/06 Links Pt2: Don’t confuse me with facts: It’s always about the ‘occupation’; Bari Weiss: Jews Do Not Cause Anti-Semitism; City of David archaeologists say 2,000-year-old central Jerusalem market found

From Ian:

Ben Cohen: The multiple faces of anti-Semitism

Several years ago, in an article for Commentary magazine, I offered a distinction between two kinds of anti-Semitic mindsets. I named the first one "bierkeller" anti-Semitism and the second one "bistro" anti-Semitism, as a way of illustrating the cultural gulf between these two forms.

Bierkellers, or "beer cellars," were the drinking establishments in Germany that during the 1920s and ’30s were the domain of Nazi thugs. They also provided an arena for Adolf Hitler to refine his foaming gutter rhetoric targeting communism, liberalism, and most of all, the Jews. There was no attempt to camouflage or prettify any of this rhetoric, which loudly declared that the Jews were Germany’s misfortune. The thorough dehumanization of the Jews in Nazi propaganda prepared the ground for a decade of persecution that culminated in the Holocaust.

Bierkeller anti-Semitism, then, was unmistakable and instantly recognizable. But "bistro" anti-Semitism – named a bit mischievously in honor of the cozy restaurants and bars where metropolitan intellectuals tend to gather – was, I argued, harder to identify. That is because Jews as Jews are rarely the direct targets of these writings, speeches, parliamentary resolutions and so on. Instead, the bistro mindset relies upon qualifiers, codes and euphemisms that seek to separate "Jews" and "Judaism" from "Zionism," "The State of Israel," "The Jewish Establishment" and the other bugbears of progressives who advance anti-Semitic arguments while indignantly deflecting the charge of anti-Semitism as a reputational smear without foundation.

This contrast between the full-throated anti-Semitism that denies the Jews their humanity and the camouflaged anti-Semitism that denies the Jews their nationality isn’t the only difference. Arguably more important is the observation that the "bierkeller" form of anti-Semitism explicitly aims to visit physical violence upon Jews, whereas in its "bistro" form, protestations against Jewish power and privilege manifest in the main non-violently form: for example, boycott campaigns, demonstrations against pro-Israel and Zionist speakers on university campuses, the constant opprobrium poured upon the Jewish state in the halls of the United Nations, and by leading human-rights NGOs like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.

Still, as the years have gone by, the gulf between crude anti-Semitism and its more polite expressions (between the "bierkeller" and the "bistro") has narrowed considerably. Among the examples I would cite is the British Labour Party, where the anti-Semitic rhetoric that destroyed its reputation over the last five years was, more often than not, of the "Rothschild Bankers Rule the World" variety. (Not to mention blaming Jews for the trans-Atlantic slave trade, accusing "Zionists" of having "collaborated" with the Nazi regime and a slew of other murky fantasies that had nothing to do with Israeli settlement policy.)

Don’t confuse me with facts: It’s always about the ‘occupation’

Like clockwork, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s recent observation that “the establishment of Israeli civilian settlements in the West Bank is not, per se, inconsistent with international law” was immediately denounced by the Jewish left.

The head of the Reform Movement in North America, Rabbi Rick Jacobs, said that the U.S. government’s new position on Israeli settlements will undercut the fight against BDS and the delegitimization of Israel in the United States, specifically on college campuses.

It’s not clear when Rabbi Jacobs was last on a campus, but the debate at North American colleges is not about the so-called “occupation” but about whether Israel has a right to exist, period. Pro-BDS groups, including “Jewish” ones, are talking about the illegitimacy of the 1949 armistice lines, not those of 1967.

Moreover, a recent survey conducted by Ron Hassner at the University of California, Berkeley shows that most students who care strongly about the “Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories” do not have knowledge of even basic facts on the subject.

Jacobs’s lack of understanding speaks to the divergent lexicon of the conflict, and more pointedly to the growing split between American Jews and Israelis. In many “progressive” circles there is little to no understanding of what areas are even in dispute; witness the continued claims that Gaza is “occupied” by Israel. For the BDS movement, everything Israeli, including Haifa and Tel Aviv, is a “settlement” and hence “illegal.”

Far more than American policy, it is the language of “occupation” that plays a key role in what has become the religion of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The main feature of that religion is the Palestinian claim that their (alleged) territories are “occupied” by Israel, regardless of where they are located on the map, much less in any legal sense under international law.

The mantra of “occupation,” and the demand that Israel be shunned until the “occupation” is ended—meaning the time when Israel is dissolved by the implementation of the Palestinian “right of return”—is the key demand of the Palestinians and the BDS movement.

The U.S. Should Stop Ignoring the Malaysian Prime Minister’s Anti-Semitism

In September of last year, Columbia University hosted Mahathir Mohamad—who served as Malaysia’s prime minister from 1981 to 2003 and returned to the office in 2018—as part of its World Leaders Forum. This year, Mahathir is expected to host the American president in Kuala Lumpur. Mahathir’s virulent anti-Semitism, notes Isaac Herzog, has never stopped democratic countries or their institutions from giving him this sort of respect—and he doesn’t even attempt to dress up his hatred of Jews as criticism of Israel:

This is a man who openly touts his anti-Semitism, repeatedly claiming Jews “are not merely hook-nosed, but understand money instinctively.” [He] has distributed copies of The International Jew—an anti-Semitic diatribe that had a key influence on the Nazis and is still banned in Germany—to his party members. Nevertheless, President Barack Obama and his wife Michelle recently visited Malaysia for the Obama Foundation’s inaugural Asia Pacific leaders gathering from December 10-14.

With over 60 percent of its population harboring negative opinions of Jews, Malaysia has the highest rate of anti-Semitic views in Asia, [excluding the Middle East]. This is despite the fact that Malaysia has no geographic proximity to Israel, has never had any conflict with Israel, and does not have many Jewish citizens—the last reported to have fled due to anti-Semitism in the early 1980s.

But the most troubling aspect of the Malaysian example is the warm welcome Mahathir receives around the world. The welcome mat has been rolled out for him time and again in global cities, top universities, and leading media outlets. Time magazine has even named him on its 2019 list of the world’s 100 most influential people for his “core values.”

While the events attended by Presidents Obama and Trump in Malaysia are important global forums, America’s leaders and their counterparts worldwide must at a minimum adhere to and reaffirm their commitment to fighting and condemning Mahathir’s anti-Semitism.

Pride and fear

I think I would consider myself a proud Jew. I wear a kippah all the time, I am happy to speak to anyone about Judaism and act as a representative when in a place where people are curious.

But since antisemitic incidents have been becoming more frequent, what is the best response?

My instinct has always been to continue to wear my kippah in public. I want people to consider it to be normal, which can only happen if a critical mass of Jewish men wear them. And it is an appropriate response to Jew-hate - they are not forcing me to change my habits.

Mrs. Elder, however, wants me to wear a cap on top of my kippah when in public. She is scared for me. She doesn't want me to be hurt or killed because some crazy person decides to target identifiable Jews.

I can't blame her. It is easy for me to make a statement for myself, but I cannot only worry about my own life - I'm responsible for my family as well.

I have not seen overt antisemitism towards me in years. On the contrary - most non-Jews are very respectful and curious. In Colorado this past summer, as I walked to shul, non-Jews called out "Shabbat Shalom" to me. (This past weekend in an elevator in a hotel a black guest mentioned that he saw my yarmulka and jokingly asked me if I know how to get discounts on things; I said I wish I knew with the same big smile.)

But there are crazy people out there. We have seen videos. Taking chances for making a statement seems foolhardy.

I don't have any answers. I am certainly not hiding or denying who I am when I wear a cap (and, frankly, the caps religious Jews wear all look the same, we can always tell who we are.)

It is a real shame that the only place on Earth I, and many others, can feel truly comfortable being publicly Jewish is Israel. The people who want that haven to disappear may or may not realize that. Jews should have the right to be in public without fear, but no one has come up with any realistic solutions.

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 Jewish Left is silent when white supremacists are featured in Iranian media

From Iran's Tasnim News:

Gen. Soleimani’s Assassination Extra-Judicial, War Crime: Ex-US Senate CandidateTEHRAN (Tasnim) – Mark Dankof, a former US Senate candidate, called the US assassination of Lt. General Qassem Soleimani “extra-judicial” and a “war crime” under international law.

Who is this guy?

Mark Dankof has made broadcasts with David Duke (whose interviews have also been published by Iranian English-language media.) He has written for the white supremacist American Free Press and the neo-Nazi National Vanguard. He has quoted the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and has spouted explicit antisemitism on a number of occasions.

His Senate campaign in Delaware in 2000 attracted 0.32% of the vote.

Also published by Iranian media today is this article by Robert David Steele where he blames "Zionists" for misleading Trump about the airstrike on Soleimani. Steele (under a slightly different name, but the same person) has previously written a pamphlet called "Zion in Shiksa-Land: Harvey Weinstein – First Major Jewish Pedophile Domino in the USA." He has written for Tehran Times about the need to unify Muslims and white nationalists against "Zionist Israel."

So why does the anti-Israel Left, who claim to be so sensitive to the white supremacist style of antisemitism that they insist is really the only one, so silent about the white supremacism that is published by Iran's English Language propaganda "news" sites? (Dankof and Steele are hardly the only ones.) Dankof hits all the boxes - former Republican, far right white supremacist antisemite. But when PressTV features Dankof or the other white supremacists who have been interviewed or written for them, and pushes explicitly antisemitic opinions, the Jewish Left who speak non-stop about white nationalist antisemitism is suddenly struck dumb.

Could it be that they hate Israel so much that they support the theocratic, misogynist, terror supporting Iranian regime over Israel, and therefore they are willing to give a pass to white supremacists and pure antisemitism published by Iranian media?

Could they be pretending that since Iran claims to not be antisemitic, its many antisemitic articles published in state-run media are somehow not important?

Or could it be that they claim to be against antisemitism but only when it perfectly aligns with their political beliefs, which are more important than opposing Jew-hatred from any corner, even the far right?

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.

01/06 Links Pt1: Killing Soleimani Comparable to Killing Holocaust Architect Reinhard Heydrich; IDF Data Shows Rocket Attacks Up, Terror Attacks Down in 2019

From Ian:

JPost Editorial: Don’t mourn Soleimani

Unfortunately, because of the polarization that has become more extreme under Trump, his political rivals found it impossible to praise him. Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders and fellow progressives went so far as to introduce legislation to block funding for any military action connected with Iran without congressional authorization.

Similar sentiments were expressed by other representatives of the Left, emphasizing the possible risk of war as a result of the targeted assassination.

What they ignore is the very high and escalating risk of war that existed under Soleimani, which the arch terrorist himself fostered. As British commentator Maajid Nawaz put it in part of a longer tweet, those opposed to the targeted killing will “proactively and without invitation condemn ‘America in the region’ without saying anything at all about ‘Iran in the region.’”

Care should be taken not to turn this into a partisan issue, despite the obvious temptation to do so in a presidential election year.
Similarly, this should not be seen as the US carrying out Israel’s dirty work for it. It’s true that Israel, across the broad political spectrum including some of the Arab parties, welcomed the removal of Soleimani. So, too, did Saudi Arabia. As did many people struggling against Iran’s pernicious and spreading control in the region.

Iran might want to turn Soleimani into a martyr, but he was no saint. He should not be mourned or missed by anybody with a sense of moral decency.

In response to Soleimani's killing, around the world angered protesters have taken to the streets to rage at…

Israel. pic.twitter.com/dh7DWdVhm0
— Israel Advocacy Movement (@israel_advocacy) January 5, 2020

Israeli Analyst: Killing Soleimani Comparable to Killing Holocaust Architect Reinhard Heydrich

Veteran Israeli analyst Ehud Yaari told Israel's Channel 12: Soleimani's execution "is the most important assassination from the Jewish point of view since the assassination of Reinhard Heydrich, the architect of the Final Solution, in Prague in 1942."

"This man was the brains and the engine of the Iranian machine that is trying to wrap the Middle East in the arms of an octopus. He was the head of the octopus in this regard."

"He is the man that conceived the idea of how to slowly tie the noose around Israel's neck, so I say - second only to Heydrich."

As a high-ranking officer in the SS, Heydrich headed the Wannsee Conference that approved plans for the genocide of the Jews. He was killed by Czech partisans.

Photos: Top 10 atrocities from the now-vaunted Soleimani

As creeps like Rep. Ilhan Omar denounce the rubout of Iranian terrorist kingpin Qassem Soleimani as the killing of a "foreign official," the press calls him "a farm boy" or "icon," and stupid Hollywood celebrities send their condolences to "the Iranian people," (who are celebrating, actually) the ugly hard reality remains that Qassem Soleimani, leader of the terrorist Quds force, was a monster, a stone-cold killer of innocents, the driving force behind Iran as a state sponsor of terror. His funeral song should be "That Smell." He stunk of death all around him and liked the stench. According to the Washington Post:

“The warfront is mankind’s lost paradise,” Soleimani said in a 2009 interview. “One type of paradise that is portrayed for mankind is streams, beautiful nymphs and greeneries. But there is another kind of paradise. ... The warfront was the lost paradise of the human beings, indeed.”

But this isn't stopping the left from lionizing the beast. Here's a list, in no particular order, of the worst of what he did:

10. The first 9/11s. Soleimani was involved in the still-unpunished bombing of the Israeli embassy in 1992 and the even bigger AMIA Jewish Center in Buenos Aires in 1994, which killed more than 100 people. Up until then, mass casualty murder of civilians was not a terrorist 'thing.' After that, it was. AMIA was said to be the first 9/11, the model for this sick new mode of terror which culminated in 9/11. Soleimani wasn't the chief of the Quds force at the time but the Guardian reports he was thought to have been in on it. We know he got promoted not too long after.

This list is just a little list. The beast's terrorism career extended across the world, with his involvement in attacks in India, in Thailand, in France. He's the creep who gave Hugo Chavez all that protection and entrenchment in Venezuela. Remember the bizarre assassination bid against the Saudi ambassador that originated in Texas? Him again. He never stopped aiming for the big atrocities. Let him explain them now as he meets his Maker.

The Orchard is a novel that ties together literally scores, probably hundreds, of Talmudic stories and expressions into a compelling narrative of Rabbi Akiva, the pre-eminent Torah sage of the generation after the destruction of the Second Temple.

The author, Yochi Brandes, who wrote it in Hebrew, masterfully weaves the legends along with the halachic discussions to create a thoroughly modern book that is feminist and even Zionist. Most of the major figures of Rabbinic Judaism of the first and second centuries CE are intertwined in the story.

The book's voice is Rachel, the wife of Rabbi Akiva, the strong willed daughter of the rich Kalba Savua who rejects her betrothal to the brilliant Rabbi Ishmael and instead chooses to marry 40-year old Akiva, an illiterate shepherd in Kalba Savua's employ. Rachel convinces Akiva to go to a yeshiva and become a Torah scholar, leaving her alone and struggling for many years with her two children.

Akiva goes to study but remains silent during discussions until his brilliance is recognized and revealed. Akiva himself is stunned that his loving wife sent him away and assumes, in his modesty, that she no longer wants him. In fact she realizes that he cannot achieve his potential while he relies on her own wisdom and advice. But she is still bitter that he never returns until circumstances force him to.

In the book, Rachel has uncanny intuition and is the unseen protagonist in many Talmudic stories, as are the other strong women in the book: Imma Shalom, the wife of Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus and sister of Rabban Gamaliel, and Beruriah, who in this story is Rachel's daughter's best friend.

Brandes describes the political divisions between the Schools of Shammai and Hillel, and in the book Akiva is used as a pawn by leaders of each camp who assume he would be on their side. The politics between Jews and Sadducees, as well as Romans and between different schools of thought for how Torah should be interpreted, are all part of the story where Akiva is given prominence.

The book even has a small subplot about the birth of modern Christianity, where Saul/Paul - in this story, Rabbi Eliezer's maternal uncle - says that Jesus is the actual messiah, but only for non-Jews. He wants to set up a religion where Jews are revered as the Chosen People as a way to counter the existing antisemitism from the pagan world. His sister Judith, another woman who sees things clearly, strongly objects and predicts that Christians will become the Jews' biggest persecutors.

Even the famous Passover seder of the five rabbis in Bnei Brak makes a pivotal appearance in this book.

The Orchard itself is the famous story of how Ben Azzai, Ben Zoma, Elisha and Rabbi Akiva used esoteric methods to visit the heavenly abode. Ben Azzai died, Ben Zoma (who in this story is betrothed to Akiva's daughter) goes mad, Elisha becomes a heretic and Akiva emerges unscathed. The actual vision is revealed in the novel as an ingenious explanation of their reactions.

We all know that Rabbi Akiva's end is not pleasant and it is elaborated upon as a result of his support of Bar Kochba rather than his teaching Torah, as most traditions state.

For people who actually learn the Talmud, it is necessary to recognize that this is wholly fictional, and many Talmudic stories are twisted to fit the narrative. It is easy to be upset at seeing how the stories we know are changed, and indeed there is a danger of not knowing where the truth ends and fiction begins. Brandes does a brilliant job in taking many disparate stories and even halachic rulings and making them into a consistent story. The book will likely irritate the more didactic. For those who can look past that, it is a remarkable achievement that describes the mindset of the leading Jews in that crucial point in history and how their decisions allowed Judaism to survive in the critical years after all seemed lost.

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.

Official Saudi news agency Okaz has published an article slamming Hamas for officially mourning Qassem Soleimani, slamming both Soleimani and the terror group.

In a new confirmation of its dependence on the mullahs ’regime and its subversive sectarian agenda in the region, Hamas - the arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in Gaza - announced that its political bureau chief, Ismail Haniyeh, called the Iranian Foreign Minister, Jawad Zarif, and offered condolences for the killing of a leader Revolutionary Guards Corps Qassem Soleimani.

Haniyeh was not satisfied with mere condolences, but praised "the role of Soleimani in supporting the resistance and standing by the Palestinian people." The Brotherhood movement did not stop at the borders of fabrication and describing the child killer as a "martyr". Rather, it established a mourning tent in Gaza, in which it raised pictures of Soleimani.

As for Haniyeh, he forgot that the battles of the deceased Soleimani were on top of Arab bodies...We do not know that he killed a single Israeli, but he killed women and elders and children and assassinated the dreams of thousands of innocent people in Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Lebanon.

It can be said that his terrorist regime par excellence provided military support or trained gunmen from Hamas, Jihad, or Hezbollah militia, but he did not do so to serve the cause or belief in the liberation of the occupied land, but to polish his image and expansionist sectarian project.

This can be proven: When the Hamas movement's calculations contrasted with Tehran's interest in Syria, the latter stopped support and cut the relationship. When the cries of death for America as the "Great Satan" were rising in the streets of Tehran and Qom, Soleimani and his militias and mercenaries of several nationalities continued to massacre innocents in Syria and Iraq.

Soleimani, who Hamas claimed was a "martyr", was not a fighter defending the interests of the Islamic nation, but he was a symbol of an expansionist project drenched in terrorism, killing, ruin, and sectarianism.

Haniyeh is now in Iran offering his condolences directly and probably trying to ensure that Hamas' funding doesn't dry up.

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.

After the US assassination of Qassem Soleimani and his friends, Iran is responding by threatening the US - and Israel.

The former commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and secretary of the Expediency Council in Iran, Mohsen Rezai, said Sunday in a televised appearance to a gathering of mourners in Iran that Tehran's response to the killing of the commander of the Qassem Soleimani, would include Haifa and Israeli military centers.

Rezai vowed that Iran would wipe Israel from the face of the earth in case of any American attack.

The Tasnim news agency on Saturday evening quoted Ghulam Ali Abu Hamza, the senior leader of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, as saying that Iran will target 35 vital US targets in the region in addition to Tel Aviv, saying "the United States and Israel must be in a permanent state of terror after the assassination of the martyr Qassem Soleimani."

I have seen no evidence that Israel had anything to do with Soleimani's assassination. Iranian media has tried to come up with some very tenuous "proof." Yet it is completely natural for Iran to say that they will retaliate against Israeli civilians in major cities. Not against England, nor Saudi Arabia, nor any other US ally that is an enemy of Iran - only Israel.

This is one of those cases where leftists would argue that this isn't antisemitism, but merely anti-Zionism. But even if you grant that Iran hates Israel and not Jews, there is still no logic behind holding Israel - civilians or military - responsible for American actions.

Either Iran holds that America is Israel's puppet, or Iran's hate for the Jewish state is so visceral that they will use any excuse to attack it.

Either of those responses proves Iran is inherently antisemitic.

Good luck with getting leftist Jewish groups who claim to care so much about antisemitism to admit it. Good luck getting groups with the name "peace" in their titles to condemn Iran over its threats. Because they are on Iran's side against Israel.

The silence of "Jewish Voice for Peace" over direct and unfounded threats to hundreds of thousands of Jews shows that it isn't for peace, it isn't a voice for peace and it isn't Jewish.

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.