Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Monday, February 08, 2021

Egyptians still paranoid that Israel is trying to steal water from the Nile

Egyptian site El Nabaa has a bizarre conspiracy theory that they somehow think shows that Israel has every intention to steal water from the Nile River.

I cannot say I understand it, but they seem to be saying that Binyamin Netanyahu is using Judaism as an excuse to steal water, and that somehow the Ethiopian Jews who immigrated to Israel is part of the plot for Israel to grab or redirect the water from Ethiopia.

Here is some of the craziness in the article:

Israel's dream to grab the Nile water is not spur of the moment, as Dr. Zubaida Muhammad Atta, Dean of the Faculty of Arts of Heloun and a professor of history and expert on the Jewish issue, says. Her study "Israel in the Nile" provides documents and conclusive evidence of Tel Aviv Satanic scenarios to block Egypt water inside the Nile Basin countries, pointing out that the basin countries are not witnessing a breakthrough as much as they are witnessing an organized Israeli invasion.

Zubaida indicated that the Egyptian people have the right to know the fate of its eternal river and the evil Zionist conspiracy being hatched for it, explaining that Israeli engineers flocked to Addis Ababa to study the implementation of dams there for more than 30 years, and that President Sadat announced at the time that he would fight a fierce war against Israel and Ethiopia for the waters of the Nile.

Zubaida indicated that Israel's ambitions in the waters of the Nile date back to 1903, that is, before the Balfour Declaration and the establishment of the State of Israel itself, and that the waters that it stole from Sinai, Palestine and Jordan after the 1967 setback did not stop them, stressing that Israel dreams of delivering the Nile water to Israel through water channels in Egypt, and that the "New Middle East" project is the one that world Zionism has been seeking since the days of Herzl.

Of course, part of the theory comes from the Biblical description of Israel as stretching "from the Nile to the Euphrates."

The article also highlights that the former assistant to David Friedman, Aryeh Lightstone, is a rabbi. There is no small amount of antisemitism in this article.

The funniest part is that, because of extensive desalination, Israel has had a water surplus for several years now. It would cost more to transport fresh water from Africa than to create it from the Mediterranean.

02/08 Links Pt1: Only an Israel victory over Palestinian Lawfare will stop the ICC process; US rejoins UN Human Rights Council, reversing Trump's withdrawal

From Ian:

Only an Israel victory over Palestinian Lawfare will stop the ICC process

Israel should see this as just another front in the over-100-year war against Jewish sovereignty in its ancestral and indigenous homeland, and respond accordingly.

It should use all of its tools available to defeat the Palestinian Arabs on this and every front.

The Palestinians have taken off their gloves, if they ever even had them on. Israel should do likewise.

Bringing Israel or Israelis into the international dock is more than a declaration of war, it is an aim to defeat Israel by other means. It is an attack on those who protect us. Its chilling aim is to weaken our defenses and make every Israeli more vulnerable.

We can not sit idly by, merely condemning and talking about hypocrisy.

We must act, and act now.

We must break the Palestinian Authority leaders’ will to continue this process. They can stop it at any time, and they should be pressured intensely and ruthlessly to do so.

Only overwhelming strength will win the day on this battlefield that the Palestinians have chosen for us and achieve an Israel victory.

The ball is now in the court of Israel’s decision-makers. Harshly worded press releases and empty threats will not protect our soldiers.

Only an Israel victory will.

Eugene Kontorovich: The ICC's unique approach to Israel

US rejoins UN Human Rights Council, reversing Trump's withdrawal

The Biden administration has reestablished ties with the United Nations Human Rights Council three years after former United States president Donald Trump exited the contentious body over its anti-Israel bias.

“The United States will engage with the Council as an observer,” US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said in a statement he issued Monday. When the Trump administration left the UNHRC, it had been one of 47-member states with that held three years terms on the council, which gave it voting power.

It not only gave up its seat, but severed all ties and refused to publicly engage in meetings.

Blinken clarified that the US is now reestablishing those ties, but in an observer capacity, and not as a member state, a move that can happen only when annual elections are held by the UN General Assembly.

The US “will have the opportunity to speak in the Council, participate in negotiations, and partner with others to introduce resolutions,” Blinken said.

“It is our view that the best way to improve the Council is to engage with it and its members in a principled fashion,” he added.

“We strongly believe that when the US engages constructively with the Council, in concert with our allies and friends positive change is within reach,” Blinken said.

“We recognize that the Human Rights Council is a flawed body, in need of reform to its agenda, membership, and focus, including its disproportionate focus on Israel,” Blinken said.

“However, our withdrawal in June 2018 did nothing to encourage meaningful change, but instead created a vacuum of US leadership, which countries with authoritarian agendas have used to their advantage,” he added.

US pendulum swings back into the UN Human Rights Council - analysis

Ever since the United Nations Human Rights Council was established 15 years ago, the American position on it has swung back and forth like a pendulum, staying out, joining, leaving, and now rejoining.

The problems at the UNHRC run deep. UN Watch, an NGO promoting UN reforms and transparency, has a database that shows just how badly the UNHRC has failed to do its stated job.

The UNHRC’s Executive Board is currently made up mostly of non-democratic countries, including notorious human rights violators like Venezuela and Pakistan, among others. At the UNHRC dictatorships are allowed to take leading positions.

Israel remains the only country about which the UNHRC has a permanent agenda item. Since the council was established, it condemned Israel 90 times, Syria 35 times, North Korea 13 times, Iran 10 times and Venezuela twice. Among the countries that have never been condemned by the UNHRC are China, Cuba, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Zimbabwe.

The UNHRC has held eight special sessions on Israel, as opposed to one on Libya, two on Myanmar and five on Syria, and has had eight commissions of inquiry on Israel, as opposed to one on North Korea and two each on Libya, Myanmar and Syria.

And the number of inquiries and special sessions is not the only issue; it’s their content. The UN’s expert on “Palestine” is only supposed to investigate Israel’s supposed violations, and not the Palestinian Authority and Hamas abuses of Palestinians and Israelis.

Every US administration since the UNHRC’s establishment in 2006 has admitted that it is a deeply problematic institution. The question is, in what way should the US use its considerable influence and budget in relation to the Council.

The UN Human Rights Council doesn’t improve human rights. It covers for dictators & human rights abusers like Russia, China, & Venezuela. Sad to see the Biden admin legitimize an org that has become a farce to human rights advocates around the world. https://t.co/1tsJTG0oix
— Nikki Haley (@NikkiHaley) February 8, 2021

UNRWA spokesman Sami Masha’a announced that the UAE has slashed its annual payments to UNRWA from $51.8 million in 2019 to only $1 million in 2020, a reduction of over 98%.

Palestinian media is claiming that this came as a result of pressure from the Trump administration. Perhaps, but the Abraham Accords were announced in August and the UAE didn't pay anything beyond the token amount all year.

It isn't only the UAE, though. The entire Arab world pledges very little to UNRWA - and pays even less. According to an expert in UNRWA, Essam Adwan, the Arab world pledges to pay only 7.8% of UNRWA's budget yet pays less than 5%.

Notably, "experts" keep insisting that the Arab world wholeheartedly supports Palestinians yet they always seem to overlook how little they actually do.

It is widely expected that the Biden administration will restore much or all of the $360 million that was cut from annual US payments to UNRWA but the bulk of aid now comes from European states.

Two weeks ago, Palestinian and anti-Israel media were filled with reports like this one:

A Palestinian worker died Sunday after suffocating from tear gas when the Israeli army attacked workers near the occupied West Bank city of Tulkarem.

50-year-old Fouad Joudeh from the city of Nabulus along with other workers were trying to pass through a separation fence in the village of Faroun to reach their jobs in Jaffa.

Fouad attempted to reach his workplace after more than 20 days of unemployment since Israel imposed a new lockdown as a protective measure to control the spread of COVID-19.

Doctors at Rafidia Hospital in Nablus said the autopsy confirmed that Fouad died as a result of inhaling large amounts of toxic tear gas and heart failure.

The story is strange. Unless someone has a previous medical condition, it is extraordinarily rare for people to die from tear gas inhalation - and next to impossible for this to happen outdoors.

Apparently, Joudeh did not die from anything that Israel did, despite what the Rafidia Hospital says.

The death is not mentioned by the Palestinian Center for Human Rights, which counts every Palestinian death that can be blamed on Israel.

It is not mentioned by the Al Mezan Center for Human Rights.

It is not mentioned by the UN's OCHA-OPT unit, which likewise keeps a running count of all Palestinian casualties by Israel, both deaths and injuries.

B'Tselem likewise does not have this case in their own database of all Palestinian casualties.

If none of these groups who have every incentive to count all Palestinians killed by Israel list Joudeh, you can be certain that Joudeh was not killed by Israel. He probably had a heart attack and his relatives are making up a story about tear gas killing him, perhaps to get benefits due to the family of "martyrs."

Note that the Rafidia hospital the was reported to say he was killed by tear gas is a Palestinian government hospital. Assuming the report is correct, it means one cannot trust Palestinians to report accurate death information when they can make Israel look bad.

Just another Palestinian lie.

But this is important for another reason. The four NGOs listed must have researched the circumstances of the death of Fouad Joudeh before determining that he was not killed by Israel. This means that they are aware of the lie. How many other times has the media blindly reported lies falsely blaming Israel for killing Palestinians? They know the answer - but they will never publish it, because they have a vested interest in keeping the world ignorant to the extent of the mendacity of the Palestinian authorities and official media.

We know about some of these cases, but only the NGOs attacking Israel know the true extent of the deceit of the Palestinians. Only they know how little one can trust official Palestinian news and government statements. But these organizations, which are supposedly founded on moral principles and fact checking, won't ever report on these lies - because they support the goals of those lies.

The ICC considers “Palestine” a state–but Palestinian leaders explicitly say it isn’t one

The International Criminal Court decided that it had jurisdiction to charge Israel with crimes. As the NYT notes, one of the reasons was that Palestine was legally a state :

Dealing a severe diplomatic blow to Israel, the court ruled that for its purposes, Palestine qualified as the state on the territory where the events in question occurred and defined the territorial jurisdiction as extending to the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. The ruling was not unanimous, with one of the three judges, Péter Kovács, presenting a dissenting opinion, disputing the notion that the court has jurisdiction in this case.

Péter Kovács’ dissent includes an interesting annex that shows, quite clearly, that Palestinian leaders themselves do not consider Palestine to be an independent state.

The name of the annex is “Public Annex 1: Recent statements of leading Palestinian personalities on the ‘State of Palestine’ as an ‘aim to achieve’ but not as an existing, sovereign and independent State.”

Here are only a few of the quotes he brings – all within the past year.

Who	Date	Where	Quote
Mahmoud Abbas	11 February 2020	United Nations Security Council	‘Mr. Trump’s plan [...] will not lead to the implementation of the vision of two independent sovereign States, Israel and Palestine.’
Mahmoud Abbas	19 May 2020	Ramallah	‘that the peace process will then be held under the auspices of the United Nations through holding an international conference [...] to end the occupation and establish an independent Palestinian state.’
Mahmoud Abbas	1 December 2020	United Nations with Secretary- General, General Assembly, Security Council	‘to convene an international conference [...] leading to an end of the occupation and the achievement by the Palestinian people of their freedom and independence within their State’
Mohammad Shtayyeh	10 December 2020	Meeting with Spanish Foreign Minister	‘For the Palestinian side, any political path must aim to end the [Israeli] occupation and establish a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders’
Foreign Minister Riad Malki	26 January 2021	United Nations Security Council	‘While we pursue our long journey to freedom and peace, we call for immediate protection for our people, who are equally entitled to security, until such time where we can ensure their protection as a sovereign State.’
Riad Malki	30 April 2020	Ramallah	‘if the annexation plan is implemented, the possibility of an independent, sovereign, viable and geographically contiguous Palestinian state will be undermined’

It is an interesting state where its own leaders don’t consider it as such. One would think they would know.

Which makes the ICC decision that Palestine is a state, contradicting its own leaders, most curious.

It calls into question the entire ICC methodology.

(h/t Irene)

Cartoons of the Day: How Israel haters watch the Super Bowl and Boycotting the Buccaneers

Super Bowl edition.

The Bucs' Ali Marpet did indeed go to Israel on Birthright.

02/07 Links: This flawed decision turns the ICC itself into just one more Israel-basher; Some Western leaders are ‘divorced from reality’ with regard to Palestinians, Iran

From Ian:

Amb. Alan Baker: This flawed decision turns the ICC itself into just one more Israel-basher

It is both tragic and ironic that the State of Israel, one of the founding fathers of the vision of creating an independent International Criminal Court after the unimaginable atrocities committed against the Jewish People during the Holocaust, has now become the target of that very International Criminal Court.

As one of the leading countries actively involved, from the start, in the negotiation and drafting of the founding document, the Statute of the ICC, it is all the more ironic that Israel now finds itself being accused by the Court based on Palestinian political manipulation.

What was intended to be an independent juridical body devoted to preventing impunity enjoyed by the most serious and atrocious war criminals, by bringing them to justice, is now being politically manipulated against the one state that since the early 1950s has consistently advocated the establishment of such a body, the State of Israel.

The irony is all the more evident given the legal acrobatics by the politically oriented and politically influenced prosecutor of the Court and the majority of judges of the Pre-Trial Chamber, in their obstinate and flawed insistence on attributing elements of statehood and sovereignty to a Palestinian entity that is distinctly, and by all international standards, not a state.

Nor does such entity have any sovereign territory, and thus, even according to the Statute of the ICC, cannot be the subject of the Court’s jurisdiction. The Palestinians have absolutely no standing in the court.

This ironic situation is not surprising given the prevailing international atmosphere of incitement and hostility towards Israel throughout the UN system.

However, what is shocking is the fact that the one international juridical institution that was hoped and intended by its founders, and stated in its founding document, to be “an independent, permanent International Criminal Court…with jurisdiction over the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole,” has allowed itself to be politically manipulated and abused.

Six actions Biden should take to hold the ICC and Palestinian leaders accountable

Though the Biden administration also condemned the ICC decision, there are indications that it wants to reverse the strong policies against the ICC adopted by its predecessor, the administration of former U.S. President Donald Trump.

Instead, however, Washington should take the following actions to impose consequences on the ICC and the Palestinian leadership:

First, it should implement Trump’s Executive Order 13928 to impose additional sanctions, such as the blocking of property and revoking of visas of “ICC officials, employees, and agents, as well as their immediate family members” who are part of this decision against Israel.

Trump firmly asserted that “any attempt by the ICC to investigate, arrest, detain or prosecute any United States personnel without the consent of the United States, or of personnel of countries that are United States allies and who are not parties to the Rome Statute or have not otherwise consented to ICC jurisdiction, constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, and I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat.”

His administration then imposed sanctions on ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda and her aide, Phakiso Mochochoko, for launching an illegitimate investigation into alleged “war crimes” by U.S. forces in Afghanistan. Israel expressed support for the U.S. sanctions. But the European Union, along with more than 70 countries, announced opposition to them.

Unfortunately, the Biden administration is now reviewing those sanctions, and may acquiesce to the pressure campaign to lift them as part of a softer approach to the ICC. This would be a big mistake.

Second, the Biden administration should use Trump’s E.O. 13938 to impose sanctions on individual P.A. leaders who have been materially assisting or providing support for this charade against Israel. After acceding to the 2015 Rome Statute, P.A. leader Mahmoud Abbas appointed a 45-member “higher national supervising committee,” chaired by the late PLO Executive Committee Secretary General Saeb Erekat, to pursue legal action against Israel in the ICC.

Erekat told Palestine TV that the committee was made up of the “the complete spectrum of Palestinian political factions,” including Hamas, the PFLP and DFLP—and that P.A. Foreign Minister Riyadh al-Maliki served as its official liaison to the ICC.

In other words, the P.A. has been collaborating with members of State Department-designated foreign terrorist organizations that seek the destruction of Israel to provide material against it to the ICC. This is in addition to public statements by Abbas, al-Maliki, P.A. Prime Minister Mohammad Shtayyeh and Hamas encouraging and lauding ICC actions against Israel.

ICC, ICJ push Joe Biden into Donald Trump’s shoes - analysis

In less than a week, the International Criminal Court and International Court of Justice have shockingly put US President Joe Biden into former president Donald Trump’s shoes on the international law scene.

Last week, the ICJ issued a jurisdiction ruling against the US sanctions program on Iran. Then, over the weekend, the ICC issued a jurisdiction ruling against Israel in the six-year running war crimes controversy.

US reactions from the State Department to both rulings were highly critical.

To the layperson, the criticism might have sounded the same for the ICJ and the ICC as what would have come from the Trump administration. Israel would be happy if the US does not get too chummy with the ICC and the ICJ, since Jerusalem also supports US sanctions on Iran.

That is not all.

True, the Biden administration has reaped global praise for signing a range of executive orders re-joining the Paris climate treaty, erasing Trump-era prohibitions on immigration and travel from certain Muslim countries and a more positive tone toward the UN and the EU.

But 17 days into his administration, Biden has neither rescinded Trump-era financial and visa sanctions against the ICC nor has he rescinded the executive order that could allow him to use such sanctions further in the future.

Kamala Harris signed letter in May against ICC's ‘dangerous politicization'

The bipartisan letter Harris signed last May when she was a senator, urged then-secretary of state Mike Pompeo to “stand in full force against any biased investigation of Israel” by the ICC. The leading signatories were Senators Ben Cardin of Maryland, a Democrat, and Rob Portman of Ohio, a Republican. Close to 70 more senators, including Harris, joined them.

The letter came six months after ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda announced that she thought there was “a reasonable basis to proceed with an investigation” into crimes by Israelis and Palestinians.

That announcement “constitutes a dangerous politicization of the Court and distorts the purposes for which the court was established,” the Senators wrote, pointing out that it was meant to be a court of last resort for prosecuting serious international crimes.

“ICC actions currently underway could lead to the prosecution of Israeli nationals despite the fact the ICC does not enjoy legitimate jurisdiction in this case,” the letter reads. “Both Democratic and Republican administrations have refused to join the Court in part because they feared its politicization and misuse.”

The Senators pointed out that “Palestine” does not meet the criteria for statehood and that Israel – as well as the US – are not members of the court, and that the court’s own rules “prohibit it from prosecuting cases against a country that has a robust judicial system willing and able to prosecute war crimes of its personnel,” which Israel has.

“By accepting Palestinian territorial claims over the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza, the Prosecutor is making a political judgment that biases any subsequent investigation or trial,” the letter states. “Establishing the boundaries of any future Palestinian state is a political decision that must be determined through negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. Any ICC determination regarding its jurisdiction over the disputed territories or investigation of Israel would further hinder the path to peace.”

US President Joe Biden has used executive orders to overturn dozens of former US president Donald Trump’s policies, but lifting sanctions on ICC officials is not one of them.

While conservative Zionists fret that a Democratic-leaning Congress is turning anti-Israel, the anti-Israel Washington Report on Middle East Affairs - the magazine of the anti-Israel American Educational Trust - is upset that most of the new representatives are Zionist:

TRADITIONAL PRO-ISRAEL TALKING POINTS ARE ALIVE AND WELL. For decades, pro-Israel politicians have uttered the same basic talking points propagated by the lobby: Israel and the U.S. share the same values, Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East, Israel has the right to defend itself from threats, etc. Unsurprisingly, the congressional freshman class has by and large regurgitated these talking points in unison, with very few dissenters. Below are a few examples of the talking points recycled by Congress’ newest members.

“Israel is the one standing country that comports with our values as Americans,” Rep. Byron Donalds (R-FL) told the Jewish News Syndicate (JNS).

“I support Israel’s right to self-defense, and believe that Israelis, like citizens of all countries, have the right to live in safety and peace, free from terrorist threats and attacks,” Rep. Carolyn Bourdeaux (D-GA) said in a position paper.

“It is critically important for the state of Israel to always maintain a qualitative military edge,” Rep. Kathy Manning (D-NC) told Jewish Insider.

The freshman class also has its fair share of Christian Zionists, who claim that their faith demands unconditional support for Israel. Echoing this line of thinking, Rep. Barry Moore (R-AL) told the JNS, “The Bible is very clear—those who bless Israel will be blessed. That’s one of the things that’s fundamental to my faith.”

BDS IS PORTRAYED AS THE EPICENTER OF ANTI-SEMITISM. While pro-Israel, anti-BDS organizations, such as the Anti-Defamation League, have produced studies showing that anti-Semitism is much more pervasive among the political right than the left, most new members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans alike, discussed anti-Semitism almost exclusively through the lens of the non-violent BDS movement. Time and again, BDS was depicted as a progressive anti-Semitic plot to undermine Israel.

“Anti-Semitism has become an all-too-common occurrence in politics among the Democrat base and the far left who see Israel as nothing more than an extension of fantom corruption and colonialism,” Sen. Roger Marshall (R-KS) said in 2019, when he was a member of the House of Representatives. “It is that type of loose, cheap, anti-Semitic rhetoric that led to the rise of the Third Reich,” he added.

Rep. Lisa McClain (R-MI) told the JNS that BDS stands for “bigotry and hatred,” a pithy, provocative, and yet common sentiment expressed by many of her peers.

Perhaps the most predominant supporter of Israel among freshman Democrats, Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY), described BDS as “beyond the pale” in an interview with Israel’s i24NEWS television network. BDS, he maintained, inappropriately singles-out Israel. “That’s not criticism, that’s extremism, that’s hate, and we as a Democratic Party should be against hatred and extremism,” he said. He also told Jewish Insider, “There is a deep rot of anti-Semitism at the core of BDS…I am concerned about the normalization of BDS within the progressive movement, and I worry deeply that BDS has the potential to poison progressivism.”

Many of the new members support legislation to criminalize BDS, with a few having worked to pass such laws during their time in state government. Even new members who pledged not to target BDS legally—on the basis that it is protected First Amendment speech—nonetheless accused BDS of anti-Semitism or otherwise expressed their opposition to the movement.

Members taking this position include Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-GA). “I strongly oppose the BDS movement and its anti-Semitic underpinnings, including its supporters’ refusal to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist,” he wrote in a widely distributed op-ed. His counterpart, Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA) said in his position paper, “I oppose the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which seeks to isolate and delegitimize Israel. I want Israel’s economy to thrive and I want U.S.-Israel trade to grow.”

While the media spends a lot of time on Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar and Cori Bush for their support of BDS, the WRMEA sees the youngest members of Congress as the most Zionist:

Of the 70 new members of Congress, 11 are in their 30s, and one, Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-NC), is 25 years old. While polls show that younger Americans (including young Jews, conservatives and evangelical Christians) tend to be more critical of Israel than their elders, this congressional freshman class does not match this trend.

Of the 12 new members in their 20s or 30s, this analysis determined eight to be “diehard Zionists,” two to be “liberal Zionists,” and two to have strong, but not outspoken, pro-Israel views.

The author has a bitter conclusion for his fellow haters:

The newest members of Congress are, on average, just as zealous about their support for Israel as their seasoned peers. While much has been made about growing support for Palestine within the Democratic Party, manifestations of this grassroots reality are scarce among this freshman class.

Sometimes we need to listen to our enemies to see that the sky isn't falling - although that doesn't mean that Zionists should be complacent.

History Today asked four anti-Israel historians or other supposed experts whether the peace/normalization treaties between Israel and Bahrain, the UAE, Sudan and Morocco are considered "historic."

They unanimously say that these agreements are more or less meaningless. The reason? Because they do not address the real problem in the Middle East: peace between Israel and Palestinians.

Check out this groupthink:

Fawaz Gerges says, "Far from a turning point, this top-down Israeli-Arab partnering overlooks the fundamental question of Palestinian rights and Israel’s place in the region."

Ilan Pappe says, "It has very little to do with the real issue in Israel and Palestine."

James Rodgers, a former BBC correspondent, says, "They are not a historic turning point in Arab-Israeli relations because they do not directly address the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. "

Avi Shlaim says, "In my opinion the Abraham Accords do not merit the grand epithet of ‘historic’ because they do not touch the root cause of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The Palestinian problem is the core of this conflict and has been the central issue in Arab politics since 1945."

The amount of denial here is hilarious. These people's hate for Israel is so great that they look at the entire world through an anti-Israel lens, and therefore come up with anti-Israel conclusions.

First of all, the Palestinian conflict was never the core of the conflict nor was it the "central issue in Arab politics since 1945." It was an excuse for the conflict which was based on antisemitism and, after Israel was reborn, shame at mighty Muslims having lost to weak dhimmi Jews. The proof is obvious: the Arabs never actually helped the Palestinians. They didn't give them independence in 1949, they didn't give them equal rights, and except for Jordan they didn't give any of them citizenship. They used them as cannon fodder and they kept them miserable for public relations purposes. The idea of an independent Palestinian state was not even considered until after 1967.

The Abraham Accords revealed the truth that has been obvious to observers for over a decade: Arab nations were sick of the Palestinian issue. They are disgusted that Palestinians didn't accept any peace offers and they are aghast that Palestinians cannot even unify the Hamas and Fatah factions.

This is not a secret. Any historian worth the name would know these basic facts. It is written in the Arabic media and it is obvious from the actions of the Arab leaders - promising billions of dollars and paying only a tiny fraction.

Secondly, the Abraham Accords are momentous not only because of peace but because of normalization. The UAE-Israel agreement, and the Bahrain agreement, explicitly changes Israel from an pariah state into a state that has historic and permanent ties to the region:

Recognizing that the Arab and Jewish peoples are descendant of a common ancestor, Abraham, and inspired, in that spirit, to foster in the Middle East a reality in which Muslims, Jews, Christians and peoples of all faiths, denominations, beliefs and nationalities live in, and are committed to, a spirit of coexistence, mutual understanding and mutual respect;

Anyone who says that this isn't historic doesn't know history as well as they pretend.

Third, the open trade relations between Israel and the Gulf states will not only cement Israel as a permanent economic partner for Bahrain and the UAE, but to all other Gulf states as well who might not be interested in publicly trading with Israel but who will happily trade through those two countries. Israel already had clandestine trading with other Arab states - expect this to skyrocket.

Fourth, the accords have destroyed the anti-Israel unanimity of the Arab League.

Fifth, these accords have ushered in more cooperation between Israel and other Arab states who have not yet signed their own agreements. Saudi Arabia now allows Israeli planes to fly over its territory and Saudi leaders have met Israeli leaders. Israel has improved ties with Oman, which welcomed the accords. Many Arab states may not officially recognize Israel, but very few are officially enemies any more.

That is a sea change in how the Arab world looks at Israel. To minimize that is, frankly, delusional.

The accords have proven the exact opposite of the History Today critics' main assumption - that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the core issue. It never was. Arab states have had much more important issues to deal with, chiefly the Iranian threat, and Israel is a far better partner for them than Palestinians could ever be. Even the cold peace between Israel and Jordan/Egypt is stronger than ever, as they are purchasing much needed natural gas from Israel now and they could not afford to shut that off.

These historians might not like it, but 2020 was the year that Israel became largely integrated into the Middle East, something that has been fought against for over seven decades.

The History Today article is not sober analysis. After all, most of the people interviewed have become famous because of their books on the Israel/Palestinian conflict, and their fame is dependent on that conflict being considered important. This article is sour grapes at being shown to be so spectacularly wrong for so long.

(h/t Charlie in NY)

From Anadalou Agency:

A forum was held in Khartoum on Saturday to support the normalization of relations between Sudan and Israel, in the first such move in the country.

In a statement, the forum organizers said the aim of the event was to “enhance tolerance and social peace in Sudan, promote national and human values, and call for peaceful coexistence”.

“The idea is not new, but it has become urgent and necessary because Sudan needs serious initiatives and the establishment of platforms that bring people of different religious backgrounds together as well as the launch of a new discourse that rejects division,” the statement said.

For his part, Jewish Rabbi David Rosen, who attended the forum via videoconference from Jerusalem, said he was “honored” to take part in “making the future of our [Sudanese and Israeli] people”.

Bishop Ingeborg Meidtum from Norway said: "The people of religions work together for tolerance, respect, peace, love and justice”.

The Sudanese Ministry of Religious Affairs and Endowments had earlier announced its refusal to participate in the event, citing that it was unaware of its objectives.

On Friday, the local Sudanese Ansar Affairs organization said it will not participate in the forum.

The former head of the Islamic Fiqh Academy in Sudan, Abd al-Rahman Hasan Hamed, said: “The dialogue with the other should be based on the strength of logic, not the logic of force, without using weapons to preserve the value and greatness of man.”

Rabbi David Rosen is the American Jewish Committee’s International Director of Interreligious Affairs.

He praised the conference, saying, "The holding of the religious forum is a special occasion because the Qur'an and the Torah affirm tolerance." He says that the forum was held despite efforts to stop it.

Even though he is based out of Jerusalem, Al Jazerra Mubasher said he is a "Tel Aviv-based rabbi."

Rosen never claimed to represent Israel, and he has met with many Muslim national leaders.

02/06 Links: ICC investigation into Israeli 'war crimes' an immoral decision; Melanie Phillips: Why can those on the left never see their own antisemitism?

From Ian:

JPost Editorial: ICC investigation into Israeli 'war crimes' an immoral decision - editorial

The International Criminal Court at The Hague made a terrible decision on Friday in announcing that it had legal justification to open a war crimes investigation against Israel.

In a majority ruling published on Friday, following a six-year review by the chief prosecutor, the ICC judges said that, “The Court’s territorial jurisdiction in the Situation in Palestine... extends to the territories occupied by Israel since 1967, namely Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.”

Granting itself jurisdiction over the territories paves the way for the court – set up under the Rome Statute of 2002, which Israel and the US did not ratify – to investigate Israel and, if it wants, the Palestinians, for alleged war crimes. These could include past Israeli military operations like Protective Edge in 2014 against terrorist groups in the Gaza Strip as well as settlement construction in the West Bank.

As expected, Israel and the United States responded harshly to the court decision.

“Today, the International Criminal Court has proven once more that it is a political body and not a judicial institution,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Friday.

“This is refined antisemitism,” Netanyahu said. “This court was created to prevent horrors like the Nazi Holocaust against the Jewish nation, and now it is attacking the only country of the Jewish nation.”

He added that the court “casts these delusional accusations against the only democracy in the Middle East” while refusing to “investigate the real war crimes committed by brutal dictatorships like Iran and Syria on a daily basis.”

In the US, State Department Spokesman Ned Price said the Biden administration is committed to Israel’s security, and objects to the court’s decision.

“As we made clear when the Palestinians purported to join the Rome Statute in 2015, we do not believe the Palestinians qualify as a sovereign state, and therefore are not qualified to obtain membership as a state, or participate as a state in international organizations, entities, or conferences, including the ICC,” Price said.

“The United States has always taken the position that the court’s jurisdiction should be reserved for countries that consent to it, or that are referred by the UN Security Council,” he added.

Melanie Phillips: Why can those on the left never see their own antisemitism?

In his new book Jews Don’t Count, David Baddiel observes that people on the left don’t treat the problem of antisemitism on the same level as prejudices over race, sexuality or gender.

I personally started to detect a double standard over antisemitism in the 1980s, when I wrote that antisemitism had become “the prejudice that dare not speak its name”.

This was when the left was calling Israelis “Nazis” for trying to root out from Lebanon the Palestine Liberation Organisation’s terrorist infrastructure. It was when people started saying openly: “Jews make so much money / they’re so clannish / they always stick together against everyone else”.

Merely to mention the word “antisemitism” among left-wingers, though, caused an instant glacial chill, provoked eye-rolls or produced the charge: “You’re using antisemitism to sanitise Israel’s atrocities”.

It wasn’t until the issue so spectacularly blew up in Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour party that this last accusation was itself finally acknowledged as a form of Jew-hatred. And it was only then, because Corbyn was so left-wing he was deemed beyond the pale, that Jews began to feel it was safe to use the a-word.

So why does the left deny or marginalise the antisemitism amongst it? And why are many Jews still so nervous about provoking a bad reaction if they talk about this on the left other than in the context of the Corbynised Labour Party?

One obvious factor is that, in progressive circles, Marxist assumptions have been absorbed often without their provenance being recognised. Like Marx himself, many left-wingers believe capitalism is evil and white, that capitalism is run by Jews, that money is power and that Jews have so much money and power they run the capitalist world.

Michael Doran [WSJ]: In the Mideast, Biden Returns to Abnormal

Joe Biden implicitly campaigned on Warren G. Harding’s 1920 promise of “a return to normalcy.” But his administration is returning to Barack Obama’s abnormal Middle East strategy. A normal policy would respect the fundamental commandment of sound statecraft: Strengthen friends and punish enemies. It would distinguish between them by asking two simple questions: Which states have tended to shelter comfortably under the American power umbrella? And which have instead sought to destroy the American order? Israel, Turkey and the Gulf states, led by Saudi Arabia, have functioned as pillars of the postwar American order. By contrast, for the past 40 years Iran has tirelessly opposed the American security system.

Three details of Iran’s strategic position could make it more dangerous in the near future. First, the Persian Gulf contains five of the world’s 10 largest proven oil reserves, and Iran threatens to dominate the region. Second, Tehran is increasingly allied with both Russia and China. Third, outreach to Iran by the U.S. has deeply angered most of America’s Middle Eastern allies.

A normal policy would seek to contain Iran. Every president since Jimmy Carter regarded Iran as a threat—except Mr. Obama. His flagship policy was the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, to which Mr. Biden is dedicated to return. The JCPOA won’t contain Iran. Its sunset clauses create a clear path for Iran to obtain nuclear weapons. By lifting sanctions, it supplies the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps with cash.

Mr. Obama also dispensed with traditional military deterrence. Tehran saw a green light to expand and arm its militia networks. By the time Mr. Obama left office, Tehran held substantial sway over four Arab capitals: Baghdad, Beirut, Damascus and Sana’a. Donald Trump returned to containment. While revitalizing deterrence and imposing sanctions, he also supported military and intelligence operations by allies, especially Israel, against Iran and its proxies. A new coalition of regional states developed and was formalized in the Abraham Accords.

JINSA PodCast: Vaccinating in Israel: A Genuine Success Story

Professor Eugene Kontorovich of George Mason’s Antonin Scalia Law School joins host Erielle Davidson to discuss Israel’s COVID-19 vaccination program and what has made it so successful. Professor Kontorovich discusses the international treaties that govern Israel’s current vaccine distribution regime and corrects misinformation surrounding its vaccine program, including what international law says about Israel’s responsibilities and abilities to vaccinate Palestinians.

A week ago:

Irek Ziganshin, Chairman of the Halal Standard Committee of the Muslim Spiritual Directorate of Tatarstan, said some 25 million Muslims live in Russia, including many in Tatarstan, and they want to make sure that the vaccines comply with Halal standards.

Ziganshin noted that if a vaccine contains elements like gelatin coming from porcine materials, it will be Haram (not allowed for Muslims to use).

Good news: It has been confirmed that the vaccine does not include pork products.

The Russian Muslims Management Center announced, on Thursday, that it had received all information about the formulation of the Sputnik V vaccine from its manufacturers, indicating that the vaccine does not include pork gelatin.

Jewish law does not have a problem with medicines with non-kosher ingredients that are not given orally. And many Muslim authorities agree that if the non-halal substance undergoes a transformation that changes it to a completely different kind of substance, as it would be for vaccines, it would be considered halal.