Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Friday, June 12, 2020

EoZTV: Joshua Washington, Institute of Black Solidarity with Israel

This was an enjoyable interview.

When Joshua gets back to me with the information about ways to help, I’ll post it here.

06/11 Links Pt2: How calling people ‘White Jews’ became an insidious slander; If Jews took down symbols of their oppression; European court rules against France in Israel boycott activist case

From Ian:

Seth Frantzman: How calling people ‘White Jews’ became an insidious slander - Comment

The use of the term “white Jews” is used by those who feel uncomfortably with the knowledge that Jews are a historic ethnic and religious minority. The increasing use of the term “white Jews” is also used to deny the complex and diverse history of Jews. It negates the reality of the Jewish experience in Yemen, Iraq, Greece or the Pale of Settlement. It prefers to see Jews solely through an American lens of racializing groups. In this way Jews are twice victims, first of antisemitism and then of being reclassified as “white” so a to castigate them for being part of a “white” power structure.

This use of the term "white Jews" also appears to be a term of abuse that is sometimes linked to the Nation of Islam or other groups that blame Jews for the slave trade in an antisemitic re-writing of history. In this narrative there are "white Jews" who are called "fake Jews" and black Jews are seen as authentic. Sometimes those who use the term "white Jews" innocently do not realize they are playing into this bifurcation that has also created categories such as "Black Muslims" to differentiate a uniquely US experience from the global experience of Jews and Muslims.

US history is full of stories of people forced to navigate the US focus on the black-white divide to racialize themselves in the US context. In
The Senator and the Socialite, a history of an African-American dynasty, the author tells of a black man named Barrington Guy who changed his name to “Sharma” to pretend to be Indian. The author says this was done to “pass as white or Indian.” Jews also changed their names when immigration to America. One article notes that they were told their names were “too long, too foreign and too Jewish.” If Jews were indeed “white” then they wouldn’t have needed to change their “Jewish” names, and they wouldn’t have suffered discrimination at clubs and universities.

It appears that in popular debate in the US when it was considered bad to be non-white, Jews were perceived as non-white, and now that the overwhelming conversation has shifted to oppose white supremacy, Jews have been reclassified as being “white” to make them on the wrong side of the equation again. The term “white Jews” in increasing a term of abuse or a term used to try to set Jews apart from other minorities, such as Muslims or Arabs. With increasing numbers of Jews living in the US who are more recently from the Middle East or who are of mixed ancestry, it appears the term is being pushed more today to try to force Jews into a category at the very time when they are more diverse than in recent history in the US.

Melanie Phillips: 'Taking a knee' to the destroyers of worlds

Channelling Mao, the Taleban and the French revolutionary terror, Mayor Khan can surely leave no-one in any doubt that this committee will reduce diversity by aiming selectively to erase those bits of British history of which it disapproves. In Khan’s words: “…our statues, road names and public spaces reflect a bygone era. It is an uncomfortable truth that our nation and city owes a large part of its wealth to its role in the slave trade…”

So the Mayor of London now stands revealed as someone who hates his nation. For if it was indeed created, as he so misleadingly claims, by a great evil then how can it be anything other than evil itself? Feeling at last the wind in his sails supplied by the rage and contempt of the mob on the streets, he intends to abolish the nation’s birthright to the evidence of its own past and construct its future in the image he will determine.

So will this commission erase memorials to all historic British figures with an obnoxious side to their achievements? Will its destroy the statues of the Labour politicians Keir Hardie or Ernest Bevin, or Karl Marx, who were all antisemites?

Or the playwright George Bernard Shaw who promoted eugenics? Or the parliamentary titan Oliver Cromwell who massacred the Irish? Or Britain’s greatest Liberal prime minister, William Gladstone, whose family, like so many prominent people in previous, very different era was involved in slavery?

That last question already has an answer. Liverpool university has agreed yesterday to rename its Gladstone Hall, which houses student accommodation. Bim Afolami, the Tory MP for Hitchin and Harpenden, tweeted in response: “This is all going completely nuts. When will this stop??”

When indeed. As George Orwell wrote in 1984 about a state under totalitarian tyranny: “Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”

Or as the future US president Ronald Reagan said even more pertinently in 1975: ‘If fascism ever comes to America, it will come in the name of liberalism”.

Well, here it is, on both sides of the pond.

Bad things happen not just because bad people do them but because otherwise decent people lack the courage to stop them; or because they indulge in fantasies that the agenda is basically good but has been “hijacked” by a few thugs; or that they agree with the ends but purse their lips at the violent means; or because of a myriad other excuses that the spineless and the misguided always provide for “taking a knee” to the destroyers of worlds.

Israel Advocacy Movement: If Jews took down symbols of their oppression

Palestinians are apathetic–and some supportive!–of “annexation” (Daled Amos)

It is not completely clear that Netanyahu in fact will be extending Israeli law over sections of Judea and Samaria come July 1st. The voices coming out against the idea are coming out louder and in increasing numbers. Some of those opposed are from the right-wing in Israel as well. But what about the Palestinian Arabs? Are all of them opposed to the idea? The Algemeiner reports that Some Palestinians Voice Enthusiasm About Potential West Bank Annexation by Israel

While Palestinian Authority (PA) officials are warning of a wave of violence in response to the possible annexation of parts of the West Bank by Israel, at least a few Palestinians on the ground appear to be unconcerned.

The article itself is based on a report by Channel 13 (Hebrew). The report notes that unlike the days of Arafat, when the Arabs followed what Arafat declared to be the will of the people -- willingly or unwillingly -- things are very different with Abbas in charge:

When the Palestinian Authority wanted to clear the area, the citizens wanted work permits in Israel. When the United States moved the embassy to Jerusalem, the Palestinians promised a wave of violence and the public chose not to take to the streets. Now, for annexation, this abyss is as wide and big as it never has been. [Google Translate]

The quotes in the Channel 13 article epitomize this abyss.

"I am from the village of Jeba. I want the villagers to be happy. They are subject to the authority today and they want Netanyahu and no one else, they want an Israeli identity card." "It is better than a million times for Israel to be responsible for the entire territory. We are prepared to be under Israel's military shoes and not under Abu Mazen's head." "I do not want a state - I want money. Money is better than a state. All the Palestinian people want it. The authority has looted us and destroyed us."

This account, of a minimal reaction to the extension of Israeli sovereignty, is echoed in an article in Haaretz earlier this week, Palestinian Leadership Struggling to Rally Public Against Israeli Annexation:

On Monday, at the height of the blitz of interviews, Palestinian factions organized a demonstration in Manara Square in Ramallah against Israel’s plans to annex territories of the West Bank. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah party and the Palestinian security forces had been asked to recruit people to attend the demonstration, but even these two powerful organizations were unable to whip up public enthusiasm to turn out. Barely 200 people showed up at the square. [emphasis added]

Even the usual spots where the media can usually rely on for getting a story on conflicts between Israel and the Arabs are disappointing:

On Tuesday, news photographers who had their fill of two hours of speeches at Manara Square turned their attention to the nearby Beit El checkpoint, which is known to be an area of friction where clashes can quickly develop between young Palestinians and Israeli soldiers, but no one cared to show up there either. “There isn’t even one picture to take,” one photographer groused. [emphasis added]

Times really are tough. Whether the lack of reaction is in response to the growing dissatisfaction with Abbas, lack of interest in Israel's proposed policy or even acceptance of the proposal -- the signs are there that the expected anger from the "Arab street" in the "West Bank" just is not there:

“It’s not that Palestinians have forgone their dream of self-determination, independence and liberation and the end of the occupation. It’s just that Palestinians have gotten to a situation in which they no longer believe in anyone,” a longtime Fatah member remarked. “The disconnect between the leadership and the public is worsening, and what happened at Manara is a symptom of it.” [emphasis added]

That is according to Fatah. But go ahead and combine the quotes from the Channel 13 article, with a recent poll indicating the shrinking identification of Arabs in the territories as "Palestinian," where the percentage of Arabs identifying as "Palestinian" has gone down:

o 14.6% in 2017 (Shaharit) o 14% in 2019 (972 Magazine) o 7% in 2020 (Jewish People Policy Institute)

Do that, and it may be that the claims made by Abbas and the Palestinian Authority in their fear of 'normalization' are reflective of an increasingly minority view.

06/11 Links Pt1: Col. Kemp: A British mandate to recognize Israeli sovereignty; Do Arab States Support a Palestinian State? Don’t Bet on It; Trump okays sanctions against ICC employees investigating US troops

From Ian:

What Bibi wants to do in the West Bank is not annexation

Fifty-three years ago today, Israel was fighting for its survival. In a larger sense, that doesn’t make it all that different from any day in the preceding 19 years or the 53 that have followed. The Six-Day War was different, however, because it not only saw the tiny nation’s improbable victory over three Arab powers bent on its destruction, it returned vast swathes of the Land of Israel to Jewish custodianship. Two thousand years of history had been overturned in less than a week.

The legacy of this war is still debated today, because, in the words of Yossi Klein Halevi, victory ‘turned Israel into… history’s most improbable occupier’. Now we are told Israel is becoming an apartheid state — we’ve been told this for decades — because Benjamin Netanyahu is preparing to ‘annex the West Bank’. The UK’s Middle East Minister James Cleverly has denounced ‘annexation which we have consistently said we oppose — and which could be detrimental to a two-state solution’. Prominent British Jews have expressed ‘concern and alarm at the policy proposal to unilaterally annex areas of the West Bank’.

One problem: Israel isn’t preparing to annex the West Bank. I don’t mean in the sense that Haaretz’s Anshel Pfeffer has been warning: that Bibi has no intention of fulfilling his election promise. Bibi may well opt to keep the relative peace seen in the territories in recent years, but that’s not the issue. I’m not even pettifogging about the fact that the correct terminology is not ‘West Bank’ but Judea and Samaria. Though it is.

What Netanyahu has pledged to do is change the legal status of Israeli settlements as well as the Jordan Valley, a topographical buffer zone between Israel and Jordan. All in all, 30 per cent of Judea and Samaria would be governed in the same manner as the rest of Israel, leaving the remainder under a mixture of Israeli military administration and Palestinian civilian control.

This is not annexation. Under international law, annexation describes ‘the forcible acquisition of territory by one state at the expense of another’, and a) there is only one state involved in this dispute, b) since Israel already exercises a form of sovereignty over the territory in question, there would be no fresh acquisition, and c) the proposed changes would see the settlements and the Jordan Valley transfer from military to civilian law, the very opposite of the belligerence implicit in ‘forcible’.

Amb. Alan Baker: The U.S. Peace Plan, Political Wisdom and Double Standards

The Palestinian leadership's refusal to even consider the U.S. peace plan, despite the considerable political, economic and financial benefits that it offered them, threatens to undermine any possible return to genuine negotiations.

Their refusal undermines the commitment by PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat in the name of the Palestinian people, in his September 9, 1993, letter to Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, according to which: "The PLO commits itself to the Middle East peace process, and to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two sides, and declares that all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations."

The Palestinian refusal should logically have generated considerable international condemnation of the Palestinian leadership. Yet the UN, the EU, international leaders and the international media have refrained from criticizing or condemning the Palestinian refusal to cooperate in a plan intended to restore peace negotiations. To the contrary, they encouraged the Palestinian leadership in its determination to undermine the plan.

The international community and specifically the European states, after having turned a blind eye to the Palestinian boycott of the peace plan, are not really in the position to criticize and condemn Israel for considering ways to realize those components of the plan that are ultimately intended to apply to Israel.

The Palestinian leadership cannot exercise an indefinite right of veto over peace negotiations. Had they used political wisdom from the start and welcomed the plan as a basis for negotiation, then the issue of the unilateral application of sovereignty by Israel over parts of the West Bank would most likely not have arisen.

Do Arab States Support a Palestinian State? Don’t Bet on It

Why is the red carpet that welcomes Palestinian leaders to Western capitals exchanged for a shabby rug when they land in most Arab capitals?

In 2020, the widely-disseminated Arabic hashtag “Palestine is not my cause” reflects a growing Arab disdain toward Palestinian activism. It is consistent with the policy of key Arab leaders, which facilitated the successful conclusion of the 1979 Israel-Egypt peace negotiations by avoiding the myth of Palestinian centrality.

For example, Morocco’s King Hassan, who provided an essential tailwind to the initial stage of the peace negotiations, proclaimed: “The PLO is a cancer in the Arab body.” It is also compatible with a statement made by Egypt’s former President Anwar Sadat, a co-signer of the peace treaty: “Why would I want a Palestinian state? A Palestinian state would enhance the Soviet standing in the region and would join the radical Arab camp.”

This position was echoed by Hosni Mubarak, Sadat’s deputy, who succeeded him as president: “Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are not concerned about the Palestinians, and Jordan does not want a Palestinian state either … nor does Israel” (No More War, E. Ben Elissar, 1995, pp 106, 209, 207).

The tangible Arab walk — rather than the placating Arab talk — on the Palestinian issue reflects Arab contempt for the Palestinian track record, as well as the peripheral role played by the Palestinian issue in shaping the Middle East reality.

In 2020, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and all other pro-US Arab regimes are preoccupied with domestic and regional epicenters of subversion, terrorism, and conventional, ballistic, and nuclear threats, which significantly transcend the Palestinian issue.

70 years ago: Chicago Tribune publishes a front page story “exposing” a “secret US government” led by three Jews

On May 29, 1950, this story was on the front page of the Chicago Tribune:

…

JTA reported:

The assertion that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, Senator Harbert H. Lehman, and Henry Morgenthau, Jr. constitute “the secret government of the United States” is made by the Chicago Tribune here in a two-column dispatch from its Washington correspondent. The correspondent attributes this assertion to “a person with the highest State Department connections.”

Justice Frankfurter is termed as “the most powerful man in the government, reaching into the White House with his proteges.” Sen. Lehman is pictured as “a powerful Wall Street force,” while Mr. Morgenthau was named by the alleged “State Department authority” as “the spokesman of the powerful Zionist groups.”

Declaring that “the names of all three figures were woven into the case of Alger Hiss” who was convicted of perjury, the Chicago Tribune says: “None of the three has been named as a fellow traveler, or has ever fallen under any suspicion of taint of Communism. All have been pro-Soviet to a degree, but only when the Russian position advanced the British or Zionist causes, or worked toward the fall of Nazi Germany.”

More here.

A couple of weeks later, the Tribune apologized to Jewish organizations, but it denied that the article was antisemitic and it never apologized in the newspaper:

The Chicago Tribune today apologized to Jewish organizations for a front-page article asserting that Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, Henry Morgenthau Jr., and Sen. Herbert H. Lehman constituted a “secret government of the United States.” The article appeared May 29 under a Washington dateline.

The apology was made in the form of a letter addressed by J. Loy Maloney, managing editor of the paper, to the Chicago chapters of the American Jewish Committee, American Jewish Congress, Jewish Labor Committee and Anti-Defamation Leagus of B’nai B’rith. However, the letter was not published in the Chicago Tribune.

Declaring that the article to which the Jewish organizations took exception “was an isolated news report and not the start of a series,” Mr. Maloney’s letter says that the Washington correspondent dealt with Justice Frankfurter, Mr. Morgenthau and Sen. Lehman as public men, regardless of their religious beliefs. “The story was not meant to imply any association or parallelism between Zionism and Communism,” the editor said.

“The Tribune is not anti-Semitic,” Mr. Maloney continued. “Its record has been that of a defender of minorities when they were right, however unpopular their cause.” Emphasizing that in printing the article, the Tribune “did not foresee the interpretations which have been put upon it in Jewish circles,” the letter concludes by saying that “these implications were not intended by the Tribune, which has no desire to create ill-feeling or to furnish ammunition to anti-Semites.”

In 1968, the Congressional Record included a speech with an attached article against George Ball becoming the UN ambassador, claiming that he was working for “international bankers” and referring to this article.

Trohan didn’t seem to like Israel much, as he highlighted an obscure opinion by a law professor denying any Jewish legal claim to Israel in 1964:

Marc Lamont Hill is against conspiracy theories–unless they are Zionist conspiracies

In an exchange on Twitter, Marc Lamont Hill sadly admitted that rapper Ice Cube had posted some antisemitism, gently denouncing them as conspiracy theories that he, of course, never engages in:

Hill’s record indicates otherwise.

In 2018, Hill said that Israel “poisons the water” of Palestinians, echoing the antisemitic conspiracy theory of Jews poisoning water that has been hurled since the Black Death of 1348.

Last year he said that the entire State of Israel created a category of Mizrahi Jew out of thin air for as part of a “racial and political project that transformed Palestinian Jews (who lived peacefully with other Palestinians) into the 20th century identity category of ‘Mizrahi’ as a means of detaching them from Palestinian identity.”

While one can argue that Mizrahi Jews from Morocco, Jerusalem, Syria and Yemen have different customs, they have far more in common with each other, and accept the same interpretations of Jewish law as each other compared to Jews who lived in Europe. For all of Israel’s failures in integrating the Mizrahi Jews properly in the 1950s, putting them in the same category had zero to do with any “Palestinian identity” that they wanted to “detach” them from.

That is a conspiracy theory, and worse, it is an attempt to erase the identity of Jews who identify as Mizrahi.

Hill’s love of conspiracy theories about “Zionists” doesn’t end there.

Last year Hill participated in a conference with other prominent anti-Israel activists, whose criticisms of Israel are published as op-eds in the most influential media outlets, claiming that they are being “silenced” by Zionists. Being fired from CNN has not slowed down Hill’s anti-Israel activism – in fact, it probably accelerated it – and there is no “silencing” going on.

That is a conspiracy theory.

An example of how Hill has not been “silenced” is his bizarre comments at the Netroots Summit also last year, where he said that news outlets like CNN, ABC and NBC are “Zionist organizations.” He described a Zionist conspiracy behind the news that he then quickly denied was a conspiracy:

“They’re like, I want to work for Fox, or I want to work for ABC or NBC or whoever. I want to tell these stories. You have to make choices about where you want to work. And if you work for a Zionist organization, you’re going to get Zionist content. And no matter how vigorous you are in the newsroom, there are going to be two, three, four, 17, or maybe one powerful person — not going to suggest a conspiracy — all news outlets have a point of a view. And if your point of view competes with the point of view of the institution, you’re going to have challenges.”

When you say that Jews control the media, you are peddling an antisemitic conspiracy theory. But when you say Zionists control the media, you are celebrated as an anti-racist fighter.

At that same summit, fellow panelist Noura Erekat invented a new conspiracy theory about an “explicit project” led by Ashkenazi Jews in Israel to avoid “sully[ing] the blood line with becoming dark and oriental” by marrying Mizrahi Jews. Hill didn’t say a word against that. (Her theory is complete fiction – today, some 20% of children in Israel are born to parents of marriages between Ashkenaz and Mizrahi Jews.)

Finally, Marc Lamont Hill still proudly associates with Louis Farrakhan, and while he has expressed discomfort with Farrakhan’s anti-LGBTQ preachings, he has never said a word against his antisemitism – including his rabid antisemitic conspiracy theories such as that Jews were behind the trans-Atlantic slave trade.

There is no difference between saying Jews poison the wells or Israelis poison the wells, between saying Jews control the media or Zionists control the media, between claiming Jews have supernatural powers to silence critics or that Zionist have that power. The fact is that in order to believe in an Israel of unparalleled evil, one must believe in the same kinds of conspiracy theories that traditional antisemites have believed about Jews over the centuries. And Marc Lamont Hill is an enthusiastic purveyor of these conspiracy theories.

Malik Athamena, writing in Al-Hurra, is disdainful of Arabs who are jumping on the George Floyd bandwagon while they remain racist and sexist in their own countries.

Among the hypocrites he calls out are:

- Palestinians, who discriminate against Christians
- Egyptians, who oppress Copts – and women
- Lebanon, where African domestic workers are treated like slaves
- Gulf countries, where domestic workers from India, the Philippines and elsewhere are treated like dirt
- The entire Muslim world where Shiites and Sunnis hate each other
- North Africa where the Berbers are oppressed, and there is still actual slavery – and some 19 Arab countries have some form of slavery or human trafficking, today
- All Arabs, who live in police states but pretend to care about US police brutality

He admits that the US has a racism problem, but at least it discusses it openly and makes efforts to change it, unlike Arab states.

Being an Ally Works Both Ways (Vic Rosenthal)

Vic Rosenthal's weekly column

In a recent column, Hen Mazzig takes some Jews to task for failing to support “Black Lives Matter.” Just because a few “fringe activists” have tried to inject the Palestinian issue into the justified cause of black people being disproportionately the targets of police violence, he thinks, is not a reason for us to become unsympathetic to it:

The black community in America needs and deserves our voice and support. We must not allow the few activists trying to turn this important cause into an anti-Israel campaign to succeed. The way to do this is simple. Our ancestors already did it. When he saw the injustice the black community faced, Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel marched alongside Martin Luther King Jr. He put his life on the line for the cause, and in turn, King became an unapologetic advocate against anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. Instead of worrying about minority groups turning against Jews, we should be asking how can we show we haven’t turned our backs on them.

Hen Mazzig doesn’t have to prove that he’s a Zionist who has dedicated himself to the Jewish people and the Jewish state. He is an effective voice, especially to young people. But I think he misses the mark here.

I feel compelled to say that BLM’s primary cause is just. I don’t know if proportionately more blacks are killed by law enforcement than whites, because there are persuasive statistical arguments made on both sides. But every black American that I’ve ever talked to about this – and they have been primarily well-educated, middle-class black people – can recount numerous anecdotes about harassment, humiliation, and fear at the hands of police officers.

I grew up in a lower middle-class white family which improved its status to middle-middle by the time I left. Only once in my life did I fear the police, and that was in 1970 when I participated in an antiwar demonstration, and the club-swinging Pittsburgh police tac squad charged the demonstrators. Much later, two of my own kids were stopped by police for “engaging in a speed contest” on a public street. The cop brought them home and was more worried that my wife would kill them than anything else. This is more or less the experience of most members of the white middle class. The black experience is different.

But these aren’t the days of Martin Luther King Jr. and Abraham Joshua Heschel. These days visibly Jewish pedestrians in New York City are beaten for looking Jewish, primarily by blacks. And there aren’t just a few “fringe activists” that are responsible for adding the Palestinian issue to the mix of intersectional issues that all progressives are required to sign onto. Sure, the people who added accusations of Israeli apartheid and genocide to the BLM platform were anti-Israel activists, but who else would they pick to write that section of the document? The whole document was approved by the leadership. And for a long time, this view of Israel has been prevalent among the rank and file of the broader Left. It isn’t just BLM. Remember the “Occupy” movement?

The black Left is, if possible, even more extreme. Anti-Zionism became part of the Black Power movement of the late 1960s and 70s, as militants distinguished themselves from more moderate (and pro-Israel) leaders like King, seeing themselves as part of a worldwide revolutionary struggle against colonialism and imperialism. Kwame Ture (Stokely Carmichael) was strongly anti-Zionist and considered Arab terrorism against what he called a “settler colony” justified. Huey Newton of the Black Panther Party met with Arafat in 1972, and wrote an essay “On the Middle East” in which he argued that Israel was an outpost of American imperialism that persecuted Palestinians. Angela Davis also met Arafat, has always taken the Palestinian side, and today supports BDS. Now we have Marc Lamont Hill and Cornel West, the “intellectual” voices of Israel-hatred. All this is added to the antisemitism that has been rife in the black community since the 60s, and which is fed by those like Louis Farrakhan, Al Sharpton, Jeremiah Wright, and others.

As was famously said about a different group, the black Left “imbibed Jew-hatred with their mothers’ milk.” It’s not accidental that accusations of Israeli apartheid and genocide were included in the BLM platform; it is essential.

So how are we to respond? Mazzig thinks that we must support BLM despite its anti-Israel position:

Attacking Black Lives Matter only fuels anti-Semitism, making it easier to paint Jews as racists willing to reject the modern civil rights movement just to defend Israel.

“Just to defend Israel?” Did he actually write that? I would argue that a Jew is obligated to defend our homeland, and that takes priority over concern for other peoples. Even if it were necessary to “reject the modern civil rights movement” to do it, it would be so. But of course nobody is rejecting it. An overwhelming majority of Jews strongly oppose anti-black racism.

What we are rejecting – what we must reject – is the hijacking of every social justice cause on behalf of some of the least just people on the planet, the misogynist, homophobic, antidemocratic, terrorist-paying, murder-inciting, child-soldier-abusing, corrupt leaders of the PLO and Hamas. You’d think social justice activists would have noticed.

Worrying that our antisemitic enemies might call us “racists” is a symptom of severe Oslo Syndrome. Nothing is more Sisyphean than to try to obtain the approval of those who hate us for being Jewish by modifying our behavior. Indeed, the more abject our apologies, the more we kneel in recognition of our guilt over white and/or Jewish privilege, the more we will be held in contempt. It’s not what we do, it’s who we are that they have a problem with.

What we are required to do as Jews is to stand unequivocally against those that libel the Jewish state. It doesn’t matter how good the rest of their cause is, they deserve zero support from us if part of their program is the destruction of our homeland and the death or dispersal of its Jewish population. That is precisely what supporting BDS and the “liberation movements” in “Palestine” means.

The sight of Jews abasing themselves before a movement that wishes to return them to the time that there was no Jewish state is embarrassing, but more importantly, demonstrates that there is no downside to joining the anti-Israel parade.

“If you want to change Black Lives Matter Israel agenda, you need to show up for them,” says Mazzig. He has it backwards. If they want our help, they need to stop supporting those who want to kill us. We understand that American blacks have a legitimate problem with racism. They want “allies.” But being an ally works both ways.

PLAIN TALK ABOUT HATRED AND VIOLENCE by John W. Gardner (Reader’s Digest, 1968)

This article, written during the worst part of the 1960s racial tensions, is very interesting to read today. I could not find it online in text format (it was entered in the Congressional Record) so I am publishing it here.

____________________________

Most white people are neither haters nor practitioners of violence. Nor are most Negroes. The majority of each race earnestly wishes that constructive, non-violent solutions could be found to the racial problems that rack—and may yet wreck—the nation.

But there are whites that hate, and whites who advocate violence. There are Negroes who do the same. And, unfortunately, the whites and Negroes who do not hate and destroy too often quietly tolerate those who do.

Those who hate and those who resort to violence—whether they are white or black— cannot resolve the problems that divide this nation. They can only intensify the senseless spasms of emotion and savage action.

There are many levels at which we must seek solutions to the problems which are tearing the nation apart. We must attack hard-core poverty with renewed vigor— through education, job-training, employment, housing and other measures. We must attack discrimination in every form. We must take steps to ensure civil order.

But, at the same time that we are working on such basic problems, we must cope with the upward spiral of mutual fear and corrosive hostility between white and Negro communities.

Hatred and violence used to be chiefly the stock-in-trade of the white racist. Then they became the stock-in-trade of the Negro extremist. Both justified their malevolence with cogent arguments.

But today there is a curious contrast between the two. Negro hatred of whites is often expressed openly. It is frankly defended and widely discussed. In contrast, white hatred of Negroes has gone underground. It is rarely discussed publicly, rarely debated candidly. Indeed, when the President's Commission on Civil Disorders spoke of it openly, many people thought the authors of the report had done an unseemly thing.

Yet the white hatred is there. And everyone who reads this article knows it. The long tradition of white brutality and mistreatment of the Negro has diminished but has not come to an end.

It still excludes Negroes from white neighborhoods, and bars them from many job opportunities. No Negro reaches adulthood without having been through many experiences with whites that bruise his self-respect and diminish his confidence. That is hard for him to understand, living as he does in a society that bases its moral claims on the worth and dignity of the individual.

Such attitudes on the part of whites must come to an end if this nation is to survive as a free society. Each one who adds his bit to the storm of hatred does his share to move us toward a final reckoning that no free American will like.

Negro extremists who advocate violence assert that non-violence did not work. It is untrue. The greatest gains for the American Negro came in response to the non-violent campaigns of Martin Luther King, Jr., and (before it turned violent) the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee.

It is the fashion now to belittle those gains, but they were great and undeniable. They were registered in historic civil-rights legislation and even more emphatically in social practice. Compare Negro voting patterns today with those prevailing as little as three years ago; or southern school desegregation today with practices of four years ago; or patterns of restaurant and hotel desegregation over the same period; or employment opportunities now and then.

The gains are not enough. They cannot satisfy our conscience. But they were substantial. And they came in response to non-violence.

The violent tactics of the past two years have brought nothing but deepened hostility between the two races and a slowing down of progress in the necessary drive toward social justice.

Many white liberals have now allied themselves with the Negro extremists in the sanctioning of violence. They speak approvingly of past riots as having “dramatized” the problem. They never speak of the negative consequences of the riots, but everyone who observed the session of Congress that followed the riots of 1967 knows that the negative reactions were reality, and diminished the possibility of constructive solutions.

Nor do those who condone violence ever speak of the legacy of bitterness and division that will be left by increasingly harsh outbursts of destructive interaction. What good will it do to dramatize the problem if, in the process, hatreds burn themselves so deep that the wounds permanently cripple our society? Nor do those who condone violence ever face up to the likelihood that the paroxysms of public disorder will lead ultimately to authoritarian countermeasures.

One of the difficulties in halting the interplay of fear and violence is the tendency toward indiscriminate indictment of one race or the Other. One man killed Martin Luther King—and Stokely Carmichael indicts the whole white race. A small minority of Negroes loot and burn, and many whites indict the whole Negro race.

Where will it lead? Negro extremists shout slogans of hate. White racists whisper their rage. Each justifies himself by pointing to acts of members of the other race. Hatred triggers violence, violence stirs further hatred, savage acts bring savage responses, hostility begets hostility, and the storm rages on. At some point, the terrifying interplay must have an end.

We must break through the terrible symmetry of action and reaction, assault and counterassault, hatred and responsive hatred. And the only way to do that is to ask the moderates on each side to cope with the haters and the doers of violence within their own ranks.

There is no way for the Negro moderate to curb the white extremist, or the white moderate to curb the Negro extremist. If they try, they just give further impetus to the interplay of hostility. That is why moderate Whites must curb the haters within their own ranks, and moderate Negroes must curb their own extremists.

To date, the moderates—both Negro and white—have been all too silent. It was predictable. Moderates are alike, whatever their race. They don't want to become involved. They don't want to appear controversial. They don't like trouble.

But, increasingly, the extremists of both races are giving them trouble, whether they like it or not. And it will get worse before it gets better. It's time for the moderates to speak up and assert their strength.

This “revolt of the moderates” must go on day in and day out—in offices, factories, homes and clubs. Those who promote hatred must be called to account. Those who commit or condone destructive acts must feel the full weight of disapproval by their friends and neighbors. Each contributes his little bit to the destruction of this society.

In a curious way, the whites who hate and destroy and the Negroes who hate and destroy are allies moving the rest of us toward a terrible climax. Martin Luther King understood that, and fought against both all his life, by word and deed. And so must all of us who care about the future of this society.

06/10 Links Pt2: Co-opting Black Lives Matter to target Israel; Where there's Antifa there is antisemitism; 'Post' inquiry leads to closure of French BDS terrorism group's PayPal

From Ian:

Co-opting Black Lives Matter to target Israel

Groups on the far-Right and far-Left, including pro-Palestinian organizations with links to terrorism, have been engaged in a campaign to co-opt the Black Lives Matter movement to target and delegitimize Israel.

"The cynical use of the Black Lives Matter by groups backed and controlled by foreign terror movements is nothing less than a repeat of the many other times that terror groups have used human shields to push their violence and hate," Mark Greendorfer, president of the Zachor Legal Group, told JNS.

A "civil-rights movement (Black Lives Matter) has been hijacked by extremists to push an agenda focused on promoting hate, in the form of anti-Semitism, rather than seeking justice," he said.

Last week, it was widely reported when several Jewish institutions were targeted during protests in the Fairfax District of Los Angeles, which included vandalism to Jewish businesses and synagogues, such as Congregation Beth El, which was vandalized with graffiti stating "Free Palestine" and "F*** Israel."
While these incidents drew headlines and condemnations, several far-Left anti-Israel groups have been engaged in a campaign on social media and in protests blaming Israel for police violence and linking the Black Lives Matter movement to Palestinian uprisings.

In particular, anti-Israel groups have been using the protests over the public murder of 46-year-old George Floyd in Minnesota by a police officer to target the Jewish state over past training programs set up between the United States and Israeli police departments.

"This is where the Minneapolis Police Department learned their police brutality tactics from. Israeli occupation terrorist soldiers (on the Left) murder Palestinians on a daily basis. We must stop training our American police officers to be gestapo units. #GeorgeFloyd #Palestine." tweeted Abbas Hamideh of the group Al-Awda, a pro-Palestinian boycott, divestment and sanctions group.

Similarly, the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights and a student leader in Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) also blamed Israel for the police tactics.

The anti-Israel group Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), which in 2017 launched its "Deadly Exchange" campaign, has long blamed Israel for helping to train U.S. police in "extrajudicial executions, shoot-to-kill, police murders, racial profiling, massive spying and surveillance, deportation and detention."

Over the past week, JVP's campaign has spread and become a popular conspiracy theory among anti-Israel activists, according to the Canary Mission, an anti-Semitism watchdog group.

"Anti-Israel activists have claimed that Israel and American Jewish organizations are responsible for police brutality resulting in the deaths of black people, such as George Floyd," said the Canary Mission. "They state that US police forces are trained by Israel to deliberately use brutal methods of policing. They further claim that this training is organized and sponsored by the American Jewish community."

Where there's Antifa there is antisemitism

Several demonstrations in Germany against restrictions of freedom due to the Corona pandemic included antisemitic incidents. The infiltration of Jew-hatred not related to anything Jewish or Israeli has been a frequent occurrence in Western mass protests in past decades. Now, an even worse illustration of this phenomenon has emerged: the violent expression of antisemitism during the anti-racist protests in the United States after the murder of George Floyd by a policeman in Minneapolis.

Many of these were not demonstrations but sprees of lawless burning and looting. Some of the worst violence took place in Los Angeles. Various Jewish shops were destroyed in the Fairfax district. A variety of Jewish institutions were damaged including synagogues and a school. A statue of Raoul Wallenberg was smeared with anti-Semitic slogans. In Richmond, Virginia a Reform congregation, Beit Ahaba, had its windows smashed by rioters. Attacking synagogues is an act of antisemitism.

Commentators highlighted aspects of antisemitism in the demonstrations. In the British daily, Telegraph, Zoe Strimpel wrote: “Yet alongside those peacefully protesting are those criminally marauding in the name of social justice. Some of these do it in the name of anti-racism – as seen above – and some in the name of anti-fascism. The ring-leaders of the anti-fascists are the loathsome group, Antifa.

"While Antifa goes beyond Jews it seems that people purporting to be 'antifascist or antiracist' will sooner or later begin to behave like the lowest of criminals and bullies using a cause as an excuse for vandalism and destruction.…It is a notable irony that where there's Antifa there is antisemitism.”

Melanie Phillips pointed out the strange attitude of many Jewish organizations. She wrote that in a statement by the Jewish Council of Public Affairs, 130 organizations said that they were "outraged by the killing of Floyd, declared 'solidarity' with the Black community and called for 'an end' to 'systemic racism.'" Phillips remarked: "They make no protest against the specifically targeted attacks on synagogues and Jewish businesses." Phillips called Black Lives Matter, an "anti-white, anti-capitalist and anti-Jewish hate group."

The American Black Lives Matter movement aims to rectify the wrongs perpetrated against African American citizens in the past and present. Its 40,000 word manifesto accuses Israel of perpetrating genocide against Palestinians, labels Israel as an ‘apartheid state’ and joined with the BDS movement in calling for the total academic, cultural and economic boycott of the country. No such demands are made for any other state.

In a blog posted by the Zionist Organization of America, Daniel Greenfield also addressed the attitude of the Jewish organizations writing: “One would think that the hateful vandalism of 8 Jewish institutions and a mob screaming slurs after trashing Jewish businesses would lead to some sort of meaningful response. But, that would be the optimistic perspective of people who haven’t experienced the unmitigated level of cowardice and appeasement that comprises Jewish institutional life at virtually every level.

Israel Advocacy Movement: Is Ice Cube antisemitic?

We Must Re-Think Identity, Privilege and Oppression in the Middle East

Conversations on identity in the U.S. are strongly connected to the notion of privilege, which is understandably based on history, imperialism, conquest and oppression. MENA Jews, because of their wider regional and historic experience, sometimes see an Arab Muslim privilege in a somewhat similar way that a person of color might see a white person in the U.S.

This is what possibly shapes the fact that on the Israel-Palestinian conflict, MENA Jews remain on average more hawkish than their European Jewish counterparts. The Arab culture, language and mentality is instantly more familiar to them because it was one forced on their community for the last 1,300 years.

However, the culture, language and tradition of MENA Jews is sadly less familiar to people in the U.S., who judge Israel according to what they see through the lens of a supposed European semi-colonial implant—thus erasing Israel's indigenous identity and culture.

In fact, there are arguably even hints of racism when some figures in the U.S., predominantly among those highly critical of Israel, simply do not see or recognize what Israel is or has become. Frequently, their conception of Israel is through a Westernized prism that just erases MENA Jews.

They want to see Israel as a European invention and extension—as a privileged nation in a sea of local and indigenous people. The presence of a majoritarian MENA Jewish culture disturbs this worldview and its privilege. Which is all the more reason that there needs to be a greater understanding and respect for what it means to be a MENA Jew.

Unfortunately, we see debates, conferences and commentators on the Israel-Palestinian conflict ultimately using narrow prisms of understanding that reflect the debate they seek—rarely including any MENA Jews, and certainly not taking their community's position and historic narrative into account. Including MENA Jews would disrupt this distorted reflection, even if it would be morally and intellectually more honest to include them.

This blind spot, whether intentional or because of ignorance, must be ended once and for all.

The current debate in the U.S. is an opportune time to talk about identity, oppression, colonization and privilege in the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Understanding the historical context of Israel and the Jewish people in the region would break the racist and false paradigm surrounding the conflict's current narrative—and allow for the possibility for a realistic peaceful solution, based on historic justice.

"Dreams never Dreamed" offers an inside look at how a child’s devastating injury from a tainted vaccine, led to the founding of Shalva, the Israel Association for the Care and Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities and home of the famous Shalva Band. As author Kalman Samuels, founder and CEO of Shalva would have it, Shalva’s accomplishments are all due to his wife Malki’s vision. Malki Samuels has a keen sense of what needs to be done, and how it should be accomplished.

Like many young people of the 70s, Kalman, a Canadian national, grew up in a secular Jewish home, and ended up religiously observant in Israel. It’s always interesting to read how people get from point A to point B in their personal journeys, but that’s not the reason to buy this book. You want to read “Dreams never Dreamed” to learn how people turn tragedy into hope and hope into tremendous accomplishments, as Kalman and Malki Samuels have done. You want to know how people keep dreaming dreams and beyond when life throws a curve ball. How you get up the next day and make things happen.

There are other reasons to read “Dreams never Dreamed.” You’ll want to know more about Yossi Samuels, his life today, and how the Shalva Band made a splash on the national stage. I spoke to Kalman (full disclosure, we have a family connection) to find out more about the book and his story:

Varda Epstein: Tell us about the name of your book: “Dreams never Dreamed.” What are some of the dreams you never dreamed that came about? To what do you attribute these successes?

Kalman Samuels: The name of my book reflects the nature of the miraculous series of events that led to my son Yossi's breakthrough and the establishment of the Shalva organization, which serves thousands of children with disabilities and their families. These were not my childhood dreams or particular goals that I set out to achieve from a young age. They are dreams that I could have never imagined, and as such they are dreams which I never dreamed.

One of the dreams that I never dreamed would come about is Yossi's remarkable breakthrough to communication. It changed all of our lives forever. Yossi became blind and deaf during infancy, and after eight long years of silence and darkness, he learned to spell sign language in the palm of his hand. Yossi was able to communicate with us and learn about the world. Everyone in the family learned how to speak sign language and we helped Yossi learn new words. He was like a sponge and he soaked up the whole world around him instantly. We could have never imagined this miraculous turnaround.

You can't hold a good man down. Yossi Samuels, at work.

Varda Epstein: Can you tell us a bit about your family roots? Your wife’s?

Kalman Samuels: I was born in Vancouver, Canada to a very loving and supportive family. Although not religiously practicing Jews, my parents were very proud of their Jewish roots and celebrated Jewish holidays. My siblings and I grew up with all of the luxuries of a middle-class, North American lifestyle.

Malki's family came from Europe and survived the Holocaust. Malki grew up with a pure faith in G-d and was raised in an Orthodox Jewish lifestyle, went to good schools, and enjoyed belonging to a growing community.

Kalman Samuels' high school graduation photo, back when he was "Kerry."

Varda Epstein: Your book is very interesting in that it’s a first person account, but your wife is a central figure in your story. You take her guidance, and somehow it always works out, better than you had expected. Malki seems to be equal parts intuition and wisdom. How does she know what she knows? How did you come to trust her? Can you give us an example of a counterintuitive directive from Malki that followed this successful formula?

Kalman Samuels: Malki always had a very profound understanding of the human spirit. Whether it was something related to Yossi, our family's general wellbeing, or Shalva's growth, I always trusted Malki every step of the way—and I still always do.

Malki insisted on Yossi wearing glasses, even though he was confirmed blind. She explained that they were the one thing he didn't take apart and that he insisted on having his glasses with him at all times. It must mean that the glasses are helpful to him in some way—and they were.

Also when it came to things beyond Malki's motherly instincts—like navigating my job in computer programming, or the architecture of the Shalva center—Malki's direction was always spot on. Successful counterintuitive directives from Malki is definitely a theme of our story and the inspiration behind how our lives and Shalva have progressed and developed over the years.

A young Yossi Samuels, learning about the world.

Varda Epstein: Yossi was the victim of a tainted vaccination. How do you see him today? How do you see the issue of vaccination? What about the Israeli legal system? Is it possible to get justice?

Kalman Samuels: Yossi is not the victim of a vaccination; rather, he is a victim of medical malpractice in that they knew they had a tainted batch of vaccine and continued using it for six months injuring hundreds including Yossi. Unfortunately, there are many people around the world who are victims of this sort and I believe that many can relate to the helplessness that may transpire as a result of lacking transparency within large, bureaucratic systems.

Yossi Samuels was a beautiful healthy baby. Until he received a tainted vaccine.

Varda Epstein: How many families have you helped as a result of the organization you and Malki founded, Shalva?

Kalman Samuels: Every day, about 1,000 individuals with disabilities walk throughout our doors, and when including our additional programs that take place on a weekly or period-specific basis there are over 2,000. Their families also participate in support groups, events, and programs; and as such, our Shalva family is very large. Going back thirty years, I know that tens of thousands of families have been helped by the Shalva organization.

Kalman Samuels with son Yossi Samuels

Varda Epstein: Can you give us an overview of Shalva’s services and programs?

Kalman Samuels: Shalva provides a range of services to guide children with disabilities and their families throughout the lifecycle, from infancy through to adulthood. From a mere few weeks post birth, Shalva has personal early intervention therapy sessions for infants and their parents. We also have a day care and preschool for toddlers and an after school program for children in grade school. They come to Shalva for an afternoon full of activities- swimming, music, art, baking, and more. We also have a respite program that allows children to sleep over at Shalva once a week. We have summer camps and sports teams for our children as well. In recent years, Shalva branched out into adult services as well. Today we also provide programs for vocational training, employment, military service, and independent living in the community.

Rabbi Kalman Samuels, today.

Varda Epstein: The thing about Shalva is that it’s stunning. Why is this important?

Kalman Samuels: Many people who come to Shalva are taken by the colorful and welcoming interior design. Coupled with high standards of cleanliness, these physical elements of the building embody Shalva's emphasis on human dignity. Our children and parents feel welcome here and enjoy spending time here with their families and friends. It sends a message that people with disabilities are no less deserving of respect and high standards of quality than anyone else in society.

The Shalva Center is stunning, and situated in the heart of Jerusalem.

Varda Epstein: Everyone is in love with the Shalva band. How did they end up getting the gig to play for the president?

Kalman Samuels: The Shalva Band was invited to perform at the IAC Summit in 2019 and were notified just minutes before the performance that they would be introduced to the stage by United States President Trump. They performed a very moving rendition of "God Bless America" which was concluded by a surprising group hug with the President. Their performance made the front page of the newspapers in Israel and was tweeted by both President Trump and the White House. It was a very special moment for the band and the President.

Varda Epstein: What skills does it take to open a nonprofit like Shalva? Would you have jumped in if you had realized the extent of the undertaking?

Kalman Samuels: It takes a great deal of organizational, management, and fundraising skills to run an organization on Shalva's scale. We have thousands of beneficiaries, hundreds of employees and volunteers, and a 220,000 sq. meter building that runs around the clock. What I jumped into in 1990 was far from this. We had six children in a local garden apartment—and even then, we were overwhelmed. We could have never imagined that Shalva would become the organization that it is today and we feel blessed to be able to facilitate all of our programs to help so many children and families.

The very famous Shalva Band, which bears witness to the fact that dreams can be realized, even with disabilities.

Varda Epstein: Can you give us an update on Yossi’s life, today?

Kalman Samuels: Today Yossi is just as full of dreams and aspirations as ever. His daily routine is comprised of gainful employment at Israel’s Highway Six, which he finds personally meaningful. In recent years, Yossi has also channeled his keen sense of smell and taste to become certified as a sommelier and to produce two of his own wines. Outside of work, Yossi enjoys exercising and riding horses and his life is rich with family and friends.

Yossi Samuels meets President Bush in 2006.

"Dreams never Dreamed" is currently available on Amazon, Kindle, and the Koren website (https://korenpub.co.il/products/dreams-never-dreamed).

***

· Read more Judean Rose interviews:

· Arnold Roth: Ahlam Tamimi is Not in Hiding. Why is She Free?

· Shai Glick and Btsalmo: Unmasking the Disguise and Fighting for the Real Human Rights

· Betina Thorball to BDS: Herbalists Have a Right to Professional Neutrality

· David Collier’s Report on Amnesty International Reveals Its Toxicity and Hate

· Richard Landes: The Man Who Gave Pallywood a Name

· Genie Milgrom: “I Could Just Feel my Grandmothers Through the Papers”

· Phyllis Chesler: The Radical Feminist Who Refuses Your Intersectional Anti-Israel Slot

· Otzma Yehudit’s Dr Adva Biton: Finding Strength to Fight for Others

· Ryan Bellerose: Indigenous Has Nothing to Do with Time and Everything to Do with Connection

· Akiva Fuld: “I’m Doing This For Me”

· A Father Speaks Out: The Murder of Malki Roth and the Refusal of Jordan to Extradite the Beast Ahlam Tamimi (Arnold Roth)

· Israel's Jewish Indigenous Land Rights: A Conversation with Nan Greer, Part 1

· Israel's Jewish Indigenous Land Rights: A Conversation with Nan Greer, Part 2

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.

Spain self-righteously stops selling handcuffs to Israel–but it sells them to Syria

JPost reports:

The Spanish government vetoed the selling of 2,000 handcuffs to the Israel Police, valued at 17,000 Euros, fearing they will be used in "violation of human rights," according to the Spanish El País.

As far as I can tell, there is only one manufacturer of handcuffs in Spain – Alcyon.

This appears to be the company that is selling to Israel, as Israel is listed as one of the countries it sells its products to.

Guess who else they sell handcuffs to?

Oh, just Syria and Venezuela and Saudi Arabia and Iran and other champions of human rights who could not possibly ever use the handcuffs for anything bad.

Spain knows it can get brownie points by pretending to be against both Israel and police brutality by announcing the ending of a tiny contract with the Jewish state, while not changing its policy of selling to the most brutal violators of human rights on the planet.

Hypocritical much?

(h/t iTi)