Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Wednesday, August 19, 2020

Muslim clerics have always used Jerusalem as a political fatwa football

Yesterday I reported that the Mufti of Jerusalem issued a fatwa saying that UAE residents are “forbidden by law” to visit Al Aqsa.

Now a major Islamic scholar, former deputy at Al Azhar University, says that the Palestinian Mufti doesn’t know anything about Islamic law.

Dr. Abbas Shoman, a member of the Supreme Council of Senior Scholars of Al Azhar Al Sharif, expressed his astonishment over a fatwa forbidding Emiratis’ prayers at Al Aqsa Mosque, issued by the Mufti of Jerusalem after the announcement of the UAE-Israel peace treaty.

Dr. Shoman said: “I refuse to issue Sharia fatwas that are not based on sharia rules, and I do not know as a specialist in Islamic jurisprudence that there is a justification that annuls the prayers of an entire people of a Muslim country in a mosque on the grounds of a political position taken by their state.”

He added: “Indeed, the fatwa is selective and not based on Sharia….As far as I know, there has never been a fatwa in our Islamic history that prevents a person or a group from praying in a mosque for Muslims.”

This actually is similar to another dispute from 2012 when a former Mufti of Jerusalem Ekrima Sabri criticized Egypt’s Grand Mufti visiting Jerusalem. He used bizarre logic:

Sheikh Sabri said from a political perspective Gomaa’s visit implied the recognition of Israeli’s occupation.
“Recognition is a form of normalization because no one can enter Jerusalem without an Israeli visa or without proper coordination with the Israeli security forces.”
But if Muslim citizens of Europe or America visit Israel, their visit would not be considered as an act of “recognizing the occupation,” Sabri said.
“If German or French Muslims visit Jerusalem, this is not normalization since their countries already recognize Israel.
“Some Arab governments might not boycott Israel, but their people do and they reject normalization.”

Another dispute over whether Muslims can visit Jerusalem erupted in 2010 when an Egyptian soccer team planned to play a friendly match against the Palestinian team in the West Bank, and Egyptian extremist clerics issued a fatwa against it.

Similarly, major Muslim Brotherhood cleric Yusuf Qaradawi once issued a fatwa against non-Palestinian Muslims visiting Jerusalem:

He stressed in remarks published yesterday in Doha, "We should feel that we are deprived of Jerusalem and fight for it so that Jerusalem is ours, and that the responsibility to defeat the Zionist aggression is the responsibility of the Islamic nation as a whole and not the responsibility of the Palestinian people alone," he said, adding: "It is not reasonable to leave the Palestinians alone in the face of the Zionist state with a large military capabilities."
He said that "Jerusalem will not return except through resistance and jihad, and the combined efforts of the Arab and Islamic nation."

Muslim clerics like to use Jerusalem as a political football, just like Muslim politicians do. Indeed, there seems to be little distinction between Islamic jurisprudence and politics based on how Muslim clerics have issued contradictory (and sometimes self-contradictory) fatwas on Jerusalem in ways that happen to align with their political positions.

An antisemitic PLO poster circa 1970

Here is a photo of Yasir Arafat together with Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine leader, Nayef Hawatmeh and Palestinian writer Kamal Nasser at press conference in Amman in 1970.

Notice the poster behind them with the Star of David?

This poster, as seen in the Palestine Poster Project, is the one Arafat chose to pose in front of.

as pal

That, ladies and gentlemen, is antisemitism.

(h/t jess)

08/18 Links Pt2: Meir Y. Soloveichik: The 1620 Project; When George Washington Met Moses; Israeli supermarket baron sues UNHRC for defamation over 'blacklist'

From Ian:

Meir Y. Soloveichik: The 1620 Project

Four hundred years ago this month, the Mayflower set sail for the New World. On board was William Bradford, who would serve for decades as governor of Plymouth Colony and whose memoir is still the central source of knowledge about the colonists’ triumphs and travails. His grave is in Plymouth as well, an obelisk marking the spot and bearing his name. But above the engraved English words three words appear, etched in Hebrew: Adonai ezer hayai, the Lord is the help of my life. To most tourists, the Hebrew words are gibberish, but to Jews who come upon them, they are a source of fascination—and a reminder, 400 years after the Mayflower set sail, of the remarkable tale of America itself.

The origin of the intriguing epitaph can be found in Nick Bunker’s fascinating book on the Pilgrims, Making Haste from Babylon. There he reveals Bradford’s fascination with Hebrew, and how, at the end of his life, he began to study what he saw as a sacred script. “I have had a longing desire,” Bradford reflected, “to see with my owne eyes, something of that most ancient language, and holy tongue … and what names were given to things, from the Creation.” With paper scarce, Bradford “copied out his exercises on blank pages at the front of the manuscript of his history of the plantation. He covered the white space with nearly 900 Hebrew words, starting with eight names for God.” Bradford’s Pilgrims, like the Puritans who would follow him, “wished to swim back up the stream of learning, and to absorb the wisdom of the Bible from as close to the source as possible.” They sought out Christian exegetes with interests similar to theirs, who “read with sympathy the rabbis of the Roman Empire, Egypt, and medieval Spain, authors whose books were preserved by the Jews of Germany or Venice.”

Bunker further reveals that Bradford’s engagement with Jewish tradition began on the Mayflower itself. One book he carried with him was a commentary on the Psalms by the Hebraist Henry Ainsworth. While Ainsworth was interested in the vastness of rabbinic tradition, he was in love with Maimonides, whom he called “the wisest of the Hebrew Rabbins.” Ainsworth cites Maimonides in explaining how Psalm 107 serves as the source for Jews to express gratitude to God after successfully crossing a wilderness or a treacherous body of water. Bradford’s brethren could certainly identify with this teaching, and his memoir, which references the words of this Psalm, recounts that upon arriving safely at Cape Cod, the Pilgrims expressed their own gratitude to the Almighty. The feast that we annually commemorate today would not come until 1621, but, as Bunker reflects: “If we could ask William Bradford to define the first Thanksgiving in America, he would point to something else. He would say that it took place at the instant of arrival, at the moment on Cape Cod when the Pilgrims fell on their knees to say the Jewish prayer.”

Bradford’s Hebraism set the stage for what would follow. The Puritans who arrived after the Mayflower were equally obsessed with the people of Israel. This was succinctly and sublimely described by George W. Bush in remarks to Israel’s Knesset:
The alliance between our governments is unbreakable, yet the source of our friendship runs deeper than any treaty. It is grounded in the shared spirit of our people, the bonds of the Book, the ties of the soul. When William Bradford stepped off the Mayflower in 1620, he quoted the words of Jeremiah: “Come let us declare in Zion the word of God.” The founders of my country saw a new promised land and bestowed upon their towns names like Bethlehem and New Canaan. And in time, many Americans became passionate advocates for a Jewish state.

When George Washington Met Moses

In 1790, the United States of America was a new nation, but Moses Seixas was already living what would come to be called the American Dream. The son of Sephardic Jews who had migrated from Lisbon, Portugal, to Newport, R.I., Seixas took advantage of the opportunities his state and nation offered to civic-minded entrepreneurs of all faiths. He would become a leading town merchant and cofounder of the Bank of Rhode Island. He would also become the warden — or lay leader — of Congregation Jeshuat Israel, which had built a beautiful synagogue with a domed ceiling and Greek-style ionic columns at the center of town. (The synagogue, later called the Touro Synagogue, still stands at the center of Newport’s downtown.)

Though Seixas and other Jews of Newport had achieved prosperity, they were worried that their freedom to worship and participate in civic life wouldn’t last. Given what had happened to Jews throughout the old world, they had reason to worry. Jews had been kicked out of various European countries through the centuries, “expelled from England as early as 1290, forced to leave Spain in 1492, and kicked out of Portugal four years later.”

But Moses Seixas and many Jews in the new United States, numbering only around 2,000 in a total U.S. population of 2.5 million when the American Revolution began, found hope in the words of George Washington and the Founding Fathers on religious liberty and equality under the law. And when he learned that Washington would be visiting Newport — as part of a visit to Rhode Island in celebration of its becoming the final original state to ratify the U.S. Constitution — Seixas saw it as an opportunity to ask Washington to confirm explicitly that the Founders’ promises applied to Jews.

Soon after Washington arrived in Newport in August 1790, Seixas presented him with a letter from the members of Congregation Jeshuat Israel. Accounts differ as to how Seixas delivered the letter. An entry on Founders Online, a digital repository of letters maintained by the National Archives and University of Virginia, speculates that “Seixas probably presented it to GW on the morning of 18 Aug. 1790 when the town and Christian clergy of Newport also delivered addresses to the president.” Yet articles in the authoritative Mount Vernon Digital Encyclopedia say Washington actually visited the synagogue during that trip.

What is undisputed, however, are the powerful messages of religious freedom and equality under the law from the Jewish congregation’s letter and Washington’s swift response. The letter dated August 17 states: “Deprived as we heretofore have been of the invaluable rights of free Citizens, we now (with a deep sense of gratitude to the Almighty disposer of all events) behold a Government, erected by the Majesty of the People — a Government, which to bigotry gives no sanction, to persecution no assistance — but generously affording to All liberty of conscience, and immunities of Citizenship.” The letter implicitly asks Washington to affirm that the views of the promise of the new nation held by Seixas and the congregation were correct.

Einat Wilf and Oren Gross: Jews Without Israel

Between those two massive forces vying for America’s future, it appears that at least some Jews have become convinced that the survival of Jews in America would be better served by the success of this universalist coalition—and if the price of that be forswearing Zionism and Jewish self-determination, so be it. It has become a matter of urgency to reassure members of the self-proclaimed universalist coalition of “the left” that American Jews can be counted upon to support the universal vision across the board and not succumb to their tribal instincts when it comes to Zionism and Israel. Where the left celebrates a multiplicity of groups asserting their own identities, American Jews are required to shed their identity in order to be, perhaps, counted.

Knowing that the vast majority of Jews, including in America, are not so ready to give up their support for Israel and Zionism as the price of admission, a new “gateway vision” has been concocted that would serve to steer Jews away from Zionism. The Israel/Palestine imagined recently by Peter Beinart, for example, is designed to sound very much like the state American Jews inhabit, or believe they inhabit—one of equality, diversity, pluralism, and most importantly, the ability to live life freely and safely as a Jew in a non-Jewish majority country. That all experience from failed multiethnic states points to the fact that this Israel/Palestine country cannot exist peacefully and safely (certainly not for Jews), and that it would descend (yet again) into bloody civil war, makes no difference. The democratic deficit across the Arab world is conveniently ignored. So is the historical record of persecution and pogroms and second-class citizenry of Jewish minorities that eventually resulted in the ethnic cleansing of Jews and Jewish culture from the Arab world.

To help Jews move away from Zionism, Zionist history, Arab and Islamic history, and the contemporary politics of the region, all of these must be distorted beyond recognition. The simple fact that the overwhelming share of Zionists envisioned a state from the beginning, and only called for a more ambiguous “national home” for reasons of feasibility and attainability, especially when facing the empires that controlled the land, is also ignored. Thus, the argument that statehood is not inherent to Zionism has about the equivalent validity of arguing that voting rights are not inherent to feminism because women once were content to fight for elementary school education. Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai, whose plea to have Yavneh and its sages Beinart seeks to emulate, asked for Yavneh when Jerusalem was all but lost and destroyed. Beinart, on the other hand, calls for the effective destruction of Jewish sovereignty in order to get to an impossible Yavneh.

The Yavneh Beinart truly seeks to secure is not in Israel, but in the United States. Beinart could ignore fact, history, and evidence because his essay is not really about how to solve the conflict between Jews and Arabs in the Holy Land, but rather about how to secure the future of Jews, especially like himself, in America. To get there he would use the Jewish state as a sacrificial lamb. This is the reason why Beinart’s essay and numerous one-state essays and proposals published over the years have found no audience in Israel. Israeli Jews recognize none of their concerns in those visions of a magical one-state solution that is the product of narcissistic neocolonialism that draws borders to serve its own needs.

Ultimately, it is up to Jews in America to choose their allies, struggles, and vision for their life as individuals and as a community. It is up to them to decide whether their life in America is better secured by support of Zionism and the Jewish state or not, and whether the spirit of America is more in line with that of Zionism or anti-Zionism. Most Jews in America still believe that Zionism is deeply entwined both with their Jewish and American identities, and that Zionism incorporates both the particular and the universal, and we believe they are right on both counts. But either way—it is their choice. Jews in Israel will continue to celebrate the fact that they finally live in the sovereign nation-state of the Jewish people and can therefore walk this Earth knowing that someone has their back. Jews in Israel viscerally know exactly how fragile is this so-called privilege, that so many nations share, and have absolutely no intention of checking it at anyone else’s door.

Thank you @BenShapiro for hosting me to discuss @Twitter’s double standards against Jews and the Jewish State that were exposed in our Knesset hearing.

We MUST demand accountability to end the culture of impunity. #NoSafeSpaceforJewHate pic.twitter.com/EDdEycUTZo
— מיכל קוטלר-וונש | Michal Cotler-Wunsh (@CotlerWunsh) August 17, 2020

Hey Alma has yet another article about how young Jews who attended Zionist summer camps are unaware of the complexities of the Israeli/Arab conflict.

As is typical in these articles, the assumption is that the newly anti-Zionist Jews have been cheated out of real knowledge, and now they know better, and must “unlearn” the hasbara/propaganda they were force fed by evil former IDF soldiers.

For example:

My Jewish education at camp heavily involved learning about modern-day Israel and the reason why it was so central for Jews to have their own homeland. I remember first learning about Theodor Herzl at camp, along with famous Israeli prime ministers like David Ben-Gurion and Golda Meir. We had Hebrew lessons every day which often came with education about Israeli culture, and a section of our madrichim (counselors) were Israeli, young and usually fresh out of the IDF. They would teach us about where they grew up and put on a week-long celebration of Israel’s independence every summer. Posters with facts about Israeli culture and history were commonplace in camp buildings: Did you know that the average Israeli consumes 22 lbs of hummus each year?

I loved learning about Israel and felt a spiritual connection to this country I had never lived in or been to. When I was told by my counselors that Israel was the only democracy in the Middle East, that it had every right to defend itself from missile attacks coming from the West Bank, I believed them — why would I not? I was never told about the nation that existed before the formation of Israel or the native Palestinians who lived there. I was never told about the occupation and what it means for Palestinians living under Israeli rule.

So they are “unlearning” that Israel is a democracy and “learning” that there was a Palestinian nation on the land beforehand. Isn’t that great? Myths are replacing a vacuum.

It is way past time (if it isn’t happening already) for Jewish kids to be taught an accurate version of modern Israeli history, one that is proud and unapologetic. There is no reason to demonize ordinary Palestinian Arabs but there is a need to describe the antisemitism of their leaders, of the Hadassah Hospital convoy massacre, of how the Arabs attacked immediately after the partition vote, of how the Zionists waited for months before finally fighting back, of the drama of the UN vote and the declaration of the state, of the Palestinian Arabs who fled from Jaffa after their leaders abandoned them. It can all be taught accurately in a way that kids can understand.

From Al Monitor:

To pressure Palestinians and force them to back down from their decision to stop security coordination, Israel is refusing to recognize more than 24,000 Palestinian newborns while preventing their movement through crossings as well as their travel abroad.

RAMALLAH, West Bank — After waiting for six months, Anwar Abdel Hakim, a Palestinian from the town of Mikhmas in the center of the West Bank, managed to obtain the identification papers and US-Palestinian passport for her son Mohammed to join her husband in the United States. They were supposed to travel Aug. 9.

However, Hakim did not know that upon arrival at the Karama border crossing to Jordan, the Israelis would ban her newborn Mohammed from traveling. His ID number was not in the Israeli records because it was not transferred from the Palestinian Authority (PA).

This is the case for thousands of Palestinian newborns who were born after the PA announced in May it would halt security coordination with Israel because of the Israeli annexation plan.

In normal times, the PA would regularly transfer the records of newborns and the names of those who renewed their passports to the Israeli authorities, which control the border crossings and security permits in Israel.

..

Like Mohammed, there are thousands of babies that to this day have not been recognized by Israel after Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas announced in May that he wants to halt security coordination with Israel. This prevented hundreds of these babies from traveling with their families to their areas of residence despite full coordination with the Jordanian authorities.

According to figures Al-Monitor obtained from the General Authority for Civil Affairs, 24,279 Palestinian babies — 13,567 in the West Bank and 10,712 in the Gaza Strip — were born between May 20 and Aug. 9 and remain unrecognized by Israel.

The Palestinian Ministry of Interior says it is doing all the required work related to registering newborns in its records and issuing the official papers, but such records are no longer transferred to the Israeli side as was the case before the security coordination was halted.

Israel, like every country, has policies on who can enter or exit. it didn’t change those policies. The PA decided to stop giving Israel the information necessary to verify the identity of the travelers.

And they blame Israel.

Undersecretary of the Interior Ministry Youssef Harb told Al-Monitor that these unilateral measures are taken by Israel to manipulate the fate of these children in order to pressure the Palestinian political leadership into backtracking on its decision to stop the security coordination.

The only party that did anything unilaterally was the Palestinian Authority.

…Ahmed al-Deek, political adviser to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates, who is following up on this issue, told Al-Monitor that the Israeli position is a racist measure that violates human rights principles and the duties of the occupying state to facilitate the movement of the population.

Somehow, Israel doing exactly what it has been doing for decades is now racist.

It just goes to show that Palestinians never take any responsibility for their actions, and blame Israel for everything.

It is also absurd that the PA refusing to cooperate with Israel even for lifesaving transfers of patients to hospitals is called “security coordination.” It is a euphemism meant to hide the fact that the PA has decided to hurt its own people just so articles like this can be written and some Westerners will think that Israel is awful.

08/18 Links Pt1: Netanyahu: Ushering in a New Era of Peace; Destruction of Iranian Nuclear Facility Should Remind Democrats of Israel’s Unique Value as an Ally

From Ian:

Benjamin Netanyahu: Ushering in a New Era of Peace

Last Thursday, together with President Donald Trump and Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed, I declared the historic peace agreement between Israel and the United Arab Emirates. This is the first peace agreement between Israel and an Arab country in 26 years. It is different from its predecessors because it is based on two principles: “peace for peace” and “peace through strength.” Under this doctrine, Israel is not required to withdraw from any territory and together the two countries openly reap the fruits of a full peace: investments, trade, tourism, health, agriculture, environmental protection, and in many other fields, including defense, of course.

This peace was not achieved because Israel weakened itself by withdrawing to the 1967 lines. It was achieved because Israel strengthened itself by cultivating a free economy, military and technological strength, and by combining these two strengths to achieve unprecedented international influence.

This strong international position found expression in our willingness to take a stand against Iran’s aggression in the region and its efforts to attain nuclear weapons. The fact that we stood alone, and sometimes I had to stand alone against the whole world against Iran and the dangerous nuclear agreement with it, made a major impression on Arab leaders in the region.

A simple fact was proven anew: Strength attracts and weakness repels. In the Middle East, the strong survive and with strength, one makes peace. I have advanced the cultivation of Israel’s strength over the years and thereby the doctrine of “peace for peace” as well. I do this with leaders around the Arab and Islamic worlds.

This concept found public expression in my meeting with the president of Sudan about six months ago, in my meetings with senior Arab foreign ministers in the open meeting in Warsaw a year and a half ago, and in my open visit to Oman two years ago at the invitation of the late Sultan Qaboos. I can tell you that it found expression in a series of secret meetings, about which I shall not go into detail.

This doctrine stands in complete contradiction to the concept that held, up until a few days ago, that no Arab country would agree to make an official and open peace with Israel before a conclusion was achieved in the conflict with the Palestinians. In the Palestinians’ view, and in the view of many in the world who agreed with them, it would be impossible to achieve this peace with our capitulating to the Palestinians’ demands, including the uprooting of communities, the division of Jerusalem, and a withdrawal to the 1967 lines.

In effect, this mistaken concept gave the Palestinians a veto over achieving peace between Israel and Arab countries. It held Israel and the Arab world as hostages to the Palestinians’ most extreme demands, which put the State of Israel in genuine existential danger. Perhaps, in my view, the greatest danger was that more than a few Israelis agreed with the absurd conditions. No more. This concept of “peace through withdrawal and weakness” is gone from the world. It has been replaced by a different concept: Genuine peace, peace for peace, peace through strength. This is what we are advancing today.

I remind you that in the current agreement, not only has Israel not withdrawn from so much as one square meter, rather the Trump plan includes, at my request, the application of Israeli sovereignty over extensive territories in Judea and Samaria.

Khaled Abu Toameh: It's Official: Palestinians Join Iran-led Anti-Peace Camp

By holding a political protest at the compound of the Al-Aqsa Mosque, Palestinians are not only desecrating the sanctity of the site, but also sending a warning to citizens of UAE not to visit Jerusalem or the mosque, as many apparently hoped to do.

The Joint Statement of the United States, Israel, and the UAE on August 13 points out that according to President Donald J. Trump's Vision for Peace, "all Muslims who come in peace may visit and pray at the Al-Aqsa Mosque, and Jerusalem's other holy sites should remain open for peaceful worshippers of all faiths."

This warning shows that the Palestinians believe they have exclusive control over Islam's third-holiest site and are free to decide who can visit the site and who cannot. It is therefore the right time for Arabs and Muslims to step in to demand an end to Palestinian hegemony over the Al-Aqsa Mosque and other holy sites in Jerusalem.

By declaring war on the UAE, the Palestinian leadership has chosen to align itself with those who seek the elimination of Israel: Iran, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah. The Palestinian leadership has again demonstrated its determination to act against the interests of its own people, who could have benefited from the UAE-Israel deal by seeking financial aid from the Arab countries and jobs in the Gulf states.

Destruction of Iranian Nuclear Facility Should Remind Democrats of Israel’s Unique Value as an Ally

An explosion at the Natanz nuclear complex on July 2 laid waste to the Iran Centrifuge Assembly Center (ICAC), a workshop designed to mass produce thousands of advanced centrifuges for enriching uranium. Satellite pictures strongly suggest that the blast's cause was a powerful bomb placed at a critical juncture inside the facility. Not implausibly, many experts pointed to Israel—not least because “a Middle Eastern intelligence official,” widely suspected to be Mossad chief Yossi Cohen, told the New York Times that Israel was, in fact, responsible. If true, it’s a potent reminder of Israel’s enormous value as a strategic partner of the United States, one that combines the will, capabilities, and tactical skill to confront the region’s most dangerous threats in ways that are largely unrivaled by any other American ally. The point may be particularly worth underscoring in the run up to the 2020 elections, especially for a Democratic Party where support for Israel has seemed increasingly under stress.

The destruction of the ICAC was a significant blow to Iran’s nuclear program. Once deployed, the advanced centrifuges being assembled there would have dramatically reduced the time required to produce enough highly-enriched uranium (HEU) not just for one nuclear bomb, but for a small arsenal. Their mass production would also have made it much easier for Iran to divert a critical number of advanced centrifuges to a covert site, where any rapid breakout to develop nuclear weapons could proceed in secret. With a single exquisitely executed act of sabotage, cloaked in mystery, and avoiding the attendant risks of war associated with an overt military strike, those powerful Iranian cards have now been swept from the table—at least for the time being. Estimates are that the explosion could have set back Iran’s centrifuge program by up to two years.

That’s not to say that the danger has been eliminated, far from it. Deep underground, at a different facility in Natanz and at another in Fordow, several thousand older centrifuges, known as IR-1s, continue to churn outgrowing quantities of enriched uranium under the gaze of inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Over the last year, in response to the re-imposition of crippling U.S. sanctions following the Trump administration’s withdrawal from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), or the Iran nuclear deal, Iran has slowly but surely begun violating several of the deal’s restrictions—including on enrichment levels, stockpiles of low-enriched uranium, and research and development on advanced centrifuges. Roughly 1000 next-generation IR-2m centrifuges that were dismantled under the JCPOA could also be available for re-installation, leaving Iran’s breakout time for producing sufficient HEU for one nuclear bomb as low as 3 to 4 months—significantly less than the JCPOA’s 12-month target.

Nevertheless, there’s no question that the risks from Iran’s nuclear program are significantly more manageable without the looming danger posed by the thousands of far more powerful centrifuges that the ICAC was set to produce. The facility’s destruction has almost certainly bought those determined to contain the Iranian nuclear threat important time and space that, before the explosion, were rapidly dwindling in the face of Iran’s JCPOA violations.

One of Hamas’ demands: 100,000 Gazans working in Israel

Ma’an quotes Yediot Aharonot with a list of Hamas’ demands from Israel to stop the many incendiary balloons from being launched that are causing massive fires in Israel.

Hamas leaders told Egyptian mediators that they want a commitment for Israel to approve economic infrastructure projects related to electricity and water, something Israel never objects to.

In addition, Hamas has demanded that Israel allow Gaza to increase imports and export, keep the Kerem Shalom crossing open, and increase the fishing zone to 20 miles.

Most notable is Hamas’ demand that Israel increase the number of work permits for workers from Gaza to 100,000.

At the same time that Mahmoud Abbas is trying to minimize the number of Palestinian workers in Israel, Hamas wants to increase them.

Israel had been quietly increasing the number of work permits for Gazans every month before COVID-19. Israeli jobs pay double what jobs in the Palestinian Authority pay, and probably at least triple what jobs in Gaza pay, so 100,000 workers would mean a huge boost in Gaza’s economy – and a huge boost in Hamas’ budget.

Suddenly, BDS is not so important to Hamas.

It is also notable that Hamas is demanding that Qatar double the amount of aid it gives to poor Gaza families. Qatar’s response should be quite interesting.

A very small example of how much things have changed in the Middle East

The official Palestinian Wafa news agency reported on Saturday:

Member of the Supreme Advisory Council of the Arab Tourism Organization affiliated with the Arab League, Faisal Khazal, said that the UAE’s decision to normalize relations with the Israeli occupation state weakens the Arab position in uniting against one enemy.

In an interview with Voice of Palestine Radio today, Saturday, Khazal called on all Arab countries to take a unified position to defend Palestinian rights, which is the front line for all Arab issues.

Wafa always has stories like this – relatively obscure Arab officials saying things that Palestinians like to hear, highlighted by Palestinian media to give the impression of a groundswell of support.

But this time something else happened.

Faisal Khazal was sent a message by the Arab Tourism Organization saying that he has no right to speak or give statements on behalf of the group.

Khazal is a prominent Kuwaiti businessman but the Wafa article only referred to his position at the Arab Tourism Organization, because they wanted to make it appear that the Arab League was against normalization, when it in fact has not issued a statement.

Khazal was so upset at the message that he resigned from the organization, saying that he will never give up his support for the Palestinian cause.

Even though this is a tiny story, it shows how much things have instantly changed in the Middle East. Mild statements of support for Palestinians and of hate for Israel are no longer automatically assumed to be OK. No one wants to upset the UAE.

It is hard to overstate how big a deal this is.

Palestinians keep shooting themselves in the foot

Palestinians continue to respond to the Israel/UAE agreement in the worst possible way for them.

The Mufti of Jerusalem issued a fatwa saying that UAE residents are “forbidden by law” to visit Al Aqsa. UAE residents will of course ignore it – they aren’t bound by his fatwas. If he thinks that this will make them want to support Palestinians, he’s not too bright.

Similarly, the Palestinian prime minister Muhammad Shtayyeh said that Palestinians will boycott the Dubai Expo scheduled for October 2021.

The main weapon Palestinians have is propaganda, and in these two instances they are giving the chance to tell their story to a captive Arab audience away. And in both cases, nothing is accomplished by their supposedly principled positions.

It’s a wonderful way to ensure they never get a state.

A blue check white supremacist/antisemite on Twitter

Meet Jeff Wyatt, a white supremacist, antisemite and racist who Twitter thinks is fine.

He loves to quote that other “racial consciousness” account.)

Of course, his tweets on Zionism would fit right in with those of the “progressives” whom he otherwise hates so much.

08/17 Links Pt2: Eugene Kontrovich: UNIFIL: An opportunity for change; Woke anti-Semitism; 'We are all Hamas': Increasing Collaboration between Foes of India and Israel

From Ian:

Eugene Kontrovich: UNIFIL: An opportunity for change

There are other instances in which the UN temporary peacekeeping force – UNIFIL – has directly or indirectly hurt Israel's defense and security interests in the area and limited the IDF's ability to respond. The main claim voiced in the defense establishment at the time was that the forces had no real power and were too small to carry out their mandate of restoring peace and security and helping restore control to the South Lebanese Army.

But in 2006, after the Second Lebanon War was over, that idea crashed on the rocks of reality. The UN Security Council resolved to increase UNIFIL forces nearly fivefold, to 10,900 personnel, and expanded both its enforcement mandate and budget. Nevertheless, the increased forces failed in both motivation and efficacy when it came to taking action against violations on the Lebanese side of the "Blue Line." Since then, Hezbollah has dug attack tunnels under the border into Israel under the very noses of the UN troops, with the hope of carrying out a mega-terror attack against communities in northern Israel.

In biased reports to the UN Security Council and by its very presence in the region, UNIFIL "whitewashes" violations by Hezbollah and the Lebanese army, allowing them to act freely. If another war in the north takes place, UNIFIL's presence will likely hamper the IDF's ability to maneuver in south Lebanon, and serve as a de facto human shield for Hezbollah.

The next few weeks will bring a unique opportunity to improve security in the North and reduce the UN's biased intervention against Israel. This has to do with the nature of the UNIFIL mandate, which is extended on an annual basis in the Security Council. The next date for an extension is Aug. 31. Our leaders would do well to take advantage of the window of opportunity in which our friends in the Trump administration still have diplomatic influence and demand the cancellation of the mandate or that the forces be cut significantly. This request would fall in line with the Trump administration's aspiration of cutting back on bloated, ineffective international missions.

It would be a mistake for Israel to trust the illusion of stability created by the UNIFIL forces. The reality is fluid, Hezbollah is sedulously preparing for the next war, and the IDF needs to be ready for a rapid strike, without having its maneuvers restricted by UN soldiers. Cancelling or cutting back the mandate will be helpful to Israel's strategic interests in the region and will illustrate the defense ethos that Israel defends itself, by itself.

Woke anti-Semitism

Hirsch describes 2020 ‘as a year that shredded complacency’. Yet her own spotlighting of morally dubious ‘anti-racist’ activists demonstrates the woke congregation’s appalling complacency regarding anti-Semitism. Why is it that someone like Hirsch, who tirelessly campaigned for the removal of Nelson’s Column in Trafalgar Square for its connotations of historical racism, is happy to laud living, breathing activists with ongoing links to Jew-haters?

Anti-Semitism is a real problem on the woke left. The so-called Forever Family Force, which marched in Brixton recently as part of a reparations demonstration, made headlines for its paramilitary-style gear. Since then it has been revealed that FFF leader Khari McKenzie has made a series of anti-Semitic posts. Like Farrakhan, he blames Jews for slavery and has described the Jewish community’s alleged role in the slave trade as ‘the original holocaust’. Unsurprisingly, McKenzie was also quick to jump to grime artist Wiley’s defence after his anti-Jewish Twitter tirade last month.

This troubling undercurrent in progressive activism is an inevitable product of an intersectional ideology that labels certain groups as innately ‘privileged’, and thus evil, and others as eternally ‘oppressed’, and therefore virtuous. Jews (and indeed, truth itself) are mere collateral when it comes to the woke mission to deconstruct an allegedly evil society. And regrettably, this woke anti-Semitism is very much in vogue.

David Collier: Wikipedia, Urban Dictionary and the chaos of anti-truth

Online anti-truth terrorism

A better use of the word ‘massacre’ would be as a description of what happens to history and truth on Wiki’s pages. Jews are a tiny minority up against enemies that vastly outnumber them. Jews, nor their allies are capable of policing history. The more time goes on, the more distorted reality becomes.

The example I want to present now, amongst many I found, is a subtle one. It refers to a quote 120 years old made by the former mayor of Jerusalem, Yousef al-Khalidi.

This is how the Wiki page describes it:
“In 1899 he wrote a letter to the Zadok Kahn, the chief rabbi of France in which he stated “Who can deny the rights of the Jews to Palestine? My God, historically it is also your country!”

The source for the quote is ‘Palestine: Une terre, deux peuples’ by Dominique Perrin. Better still, Wikipedia link to an online version of the book, with the quote highlighted for our benefit. And here we run into real trouble.

Because in the source Wiki uses, the Mayor says ‘my god, historically it is your country”. The word ‘also’ clearly missing.

So who added the word ‘also’? It is an addition that clearly carries major political implication.

On 24 Jan 2019, a one-time user entered the page, made the single edit and left. It is highly likely this is the act of a more regular user who sought to make this change anonymously.

An online anti-truth terrorist.

As we know for a fact there are organised online armies on social media platforms using their numerical superiority to manipulate popular thought, isn’t it obvious they would also swarm inside the internet’s primary reference resource?
Outnumbered and outgunned

I am positive that it will take a proper Wikipedia editor about 4 seconds to clean up that quote – but this isn’t the point. It is just another piece of evidence of this endless whack-a-mole game that Jews are left playing.

There are just 15 million of us – perhaps just 10,000s are in some way politically active online. We cannot mobilise an entire people. In the other corner are 100,000s, if not 1,000,000s – some part of online gangs explicitly set up to swarm and distort the truth. In a world of ‘up-votes’, we are both outnumbered and outgunned.

Arab arguments against peace get nuttier and nuttier

Fatah Central Committee member Abbas Zaki said in a TV interview that the UAE is violating its own constitution by planning to normalize relations with Israel.

Zaki described the agreement as "an earthquake that deeply affected the Emiratis because their constitution does not permit what (Mohammed) bin Zayed (the Crown Prince of the Emirates) did."

He added, "UAE law prohibits and imposes penalties and imprisonment even for those who compliment the Israelis, let alone those who recognize them at the expense of the Palestinians."

Needless to say, there is nothing in the UAE Constitution that would be violated by normalization with Israel. Its penal code adheres to the Arab League boycott of Israel, which is still in force and widely ignored by nearly every Arab state.