He said that “there was not a place to land this issue in a way that would have great consensus” during the time he served as ambassador – from May 2017 to January 2021.
“Had we reached out to get more buy-in from the Left, we would have lost the support of the Right,” he told the Post, referring to what he considers some of the Trump administration’s greatest accomplishments: recognizing Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights and changing the State Department’s legal analysis with regards to the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria.
While there were Democrats who supported the State of Israel, the push against by the so-called progressive Left, had stirred this controversy around support for the Jewish state. Friedman said he wished that more of an effort was undertaken to break that wedge by finding common ground - between both sides of the aisle - for Israel support among all Americans.
The Trump administration announced in November 2019 that it did not view Israeli settlements in the West Bank as illegal. The announcement by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in Washington marked a historic reversal of US policy.
“Bipartisanship is important,” Friedman said, “but it does not mean that you are looking for the lowest common denominator. If that is the price of bipartisanship then it probably isn't worth it.”
He said, “you cannot abandon principles to achieve great consensus” and “it is clear… that uniform support for Israel in the US is being challenged.”
But he said that the United States’ decision to move its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem is one of the moves the Trump administration made that enjoys greater consensus.
Ben Rhodes, the former national security aide to President Obama — who once boasted that he used non-governmental groups and the media to create an “echo chamber” to garner support for the Iran nuclear deal — can’t stand people looking over the government’s shoulder when it formulates policy regarding issues of importance to them.
Rhodes made his contempt for democratic accountability perfectly clear in a recent interview with Peter Beinart, a well-know Israel hater and a fellow at the Foundation for Middle East Peace. During the interview, which allowed Rhodes to promote his forthcoming book, “After the Fall: Being American in the World We’ve Made,” he complained about the interest that American Jews and Christians have exhibited in their concern for foreign policy in the Middle East.
“You have this incredibly organized pro-Israel community that is very accustomed to having access in the White House, in Congress, at the State Department,” Rhodes said. “It’s kind of taken as granted, as given, that that’s going to be the way things are done.”
Rhodes also complained about media oversight of American policy regarding Israel.
“The media interest is dramatically intensified,” he said, complaining of an “aggressive, kind of pro-Likud media in the United States” and of a “mainstream media that delights in Israel controversies.”
The pro-Likud media seems to be anyone who doubts the good intentions of the Iranian government, which is intent on developing nuclear weapons, and declares its desire to attack Israel and the United States on a daily basis. It’s also curious that Rhodes can’t bend the media to his will, since he once said, “The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. […] They literally know nothing.”
Oded Revivi, mayor of Efrat, has no problem participating in
the annual Haaretz conference sponsored
by Btselem and Breaking the Silence. That was the upshot of a shocking news piece
that appeared in the Jewish
Press on Sunday. That a conference by fifth column newspaper Haaretz was to be co-sponsored by fifth
column NGOs Btselem
and Breaking
the Silence is not shocking and no surprise. All three share a common goal:
undermining the State of Israel. But why on earth would Revivi grace the conference
with his presence and lend credibility to these three fifth column entities
bent on Israel’s destruction?
Especially since David Elhayani, head of the Council for
Judea and Samaria, canceled his own scheduled talk at the conference. Elhayani
announced his withdrawal from the conference after he was pressured to do so by
the Choosing Life Forum of Bereaved Families and the Wounded IDF Veterans
Forum. These two organizations begged Elhayani not participate in a conference
sponsored by organizations that actively work to harm IDF soldiers. Elhayani
did the smart thing for his political career and canceled his talk:
“I agreed to participate in the
Haaretz conference in order to make the important voice of the communities [in
Judea and Samaria] heard and to represent a sane voice on that day. At the same
time, I can’t help recognizing the pain of bereaved families and terror victims
that see these organizations as partners in activities against IDF soldiers,
who suggest that my participation would add to their pain.”
Elhayani then tried to get Oded Revivi to back out along
with him:
“Therefore, I announced that I am
canceling my participation and ask that my friend Oded Revivi, head of the
Efrat local council, who is also scheduled to participate in the conference,
listen to the voices of these dear families and cancel his participation.”
Is it possible that Elhayani only grudgingly canceled his
participation when pushed into a corner by bereaved families? Could the decision
have been made in consultation with others? Elhayani has joined Gideon Saar’s
New Hope Party, and Israel is in the midst of yet another election cycle. It sure
wouldn’t look good for Elhayani to be seen hobnobbing with fifth column agents during
an election cycle. Why, on the other hand, should it matter to Elhayani (or
Gideon Saar) what Revivi, a free agent, does with his time?
My theory is that Elhayani withdrawing his participation
from the conference meant that Revivi would become the conference’s main
settler sell-out attraction, with all the attendant publicity. Revivi would
have been smart enough to see this golden opportunity. That may be why Revivi
then refused to withdraw from the conference. From the Jewish Press:
Revivi said he does not plan to cancel his participation in
the forum. “I will go to every possible platform to give my opinion about our
rights to the Land,” Revivi said in a statement.
Sure enough, Revivi went ahead and participated in filming
for the conference. From Arutz 7:
Efrat Council head Oded Revivi
today participated in filming for the Haaretz newspaper conference, despite
many calls he received to boycott it, which was also attended by
representatives of organizations that delegitimize the State of Israel and the
IDF.
In his opening remarks, Revivi
explained his participation, "I came despite the calls and requests for a
boycott. I am unwilling to be boycotted and I am unwilling to boycott others. I
came because the truth must be told."
Like Elhayani, Revivi appears to have his heart set on
taking his political career in a national direction. He has managed to garner
more attention than would seem proportional to his small town role as mayor of
Efrat. Revivi has been cited by the New
York Times, the Washington Post,
and the Atlantic, and even wrote an
op-ed for the LA
Times. He has done so riding on the cachet of being a dependable settler
“expert” to call on for quotable quotes.
It is worthy of note that most Efratians (as we call
ourselves) would be appalled to know that Revivi took part in the Haaretz conference. Ahead of the
conference, Efrat council member and Opposition head Avraham Ben-Tzvi, gave the
following statement to the Jewish Press:
“Even if Mayor Revivi participates
in this conference, he speaks in his name only, not in the name of Efrat
residents. It’s embarrassing that the mayor chooses to not include Efrat’s name
on pro-settlement petitions and statements supported by the majority of the
residents of Efrat, Gush Etzion, Hebron, and other settlements, but has no
problem sitting down with these anti-Zionist and anti-IDF organizations.”
How bad are these “anti-Zionist” and “anti-IDF”
organizations? Bad enough that in January, Education Minister Yoav Gallant took
the extraordinary measure of issuing
an order banning groups that slander the IDF and call Israel an
"apartheid state" from giving talks in Israeli schools. Only last
month, Btselem did just that, agitating against Israel through the launching of an international campaign that libels Israel as an apartheid state. Breaking the Silence, on the other hand, is more focused on defaming the
IDF, telling wild lies of cruelty by IDF soldiers to Arab civilians. Both organizations
are heavily funded by private European individuals and European government
sources. This too, is no surprise, Europe being the place where millions of
Jews were forced into gas chambers.
Btselem
Here is a small taste of a long bulleted list hosted on the NGO
Monitor website under the heading of “political activity” on
the egregious anti-Israel activities of Btselem:
·In December 2020, B’Tselem, alongside a number
of Israeli, Palestinian, and international organizations, issued a declaration
headlined “Israel
must provide necessary vaccines to Palestinian health care systems.” The
NGOs falsely claim that Israel has “legal obligations” to “ensure that quality
vaccines be provided to Palestinians living under Israeli occupation and
control,” while altogether ignoring that Palestinians residing in Jerusalem are
part of the Israeli health care system; that under the Oslo Accords the PA is
responsible for health care of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza; and that
the PA
has adopted its own vaccine policy for its population.
·In July 2020, in the context of the Black Lives
Matter protests, Hagai Elad compared
Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians to the death of George Floyd,
stating that “I think about us and the Palestinians, and see the picture of
George Floyd in my mind. We have our knee on their necks while holding an
argument with ourselves on how we wish to continue doing so.”
BtS Spokesman Dean Issacharoff's commander calls BS on Issacharoff's lies.
Breaking the Silence, like Btselem, has no compunction about
lying to drive home its anti-Israel narrative. After Breaking the Silence Spokesman
Dean Issacharoff trumpeted lies about his military service and that of others
with whom he served, speaking of unspeakable (and imaginary) human rights violations against
Arabs, his “brothers” in arms (including his commanders) refuted those disgusting
lies with a video that really packed a wallop, if you’ll excuse the pun:
Having just celebrated Purim, it is unfathomable, not to mention reprehensible, that
settler leaders would grace such a conference for any reason. The conference
was not a platform for talking about Jewish land rights or spreading a different narrative and the truth. On the contrary,
participating in such a conference is to pal around with Amalek, a latter day Haman, pretending
that this will somehow benefit the Jewish people. And if we learn anything from
Purim it is that you give such monsters no quarter because participating in their events turns you into just another pawn to be put into play by evil.
The participants and sponsors of today’s conference were not
there to listen to dupes like Elhayani or Revivi. Nor were they there to learn because the truth has no meaning to them, liars to a man, every one. The
purpose of the fifth column NGOs and the conference they sponsored on behalf of the most
anti-Israel newspaper in Israel, was to lie and cheat and cause Jewish blood to
be spilled and to steal Jewish land they openly promise to give to enemies
of the Jewish people. By their actions, the evil ones name themselves among those enemies, proclaiming their hate for Israel loud and clear to the world at large. The righteous have no place among them.
International Criminal Court Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda announced on Wednesday that she is opening a full war crimes probe against Israel and the Hamas terrorist group in the Gaza Strip
"The decision to open an investigation followed a painstaking preliminary examination undertaken by my office that lasted close to five years," Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda said in a statement.
"In the end, our central concern must be for the victims of crimes, both Palestinian and Israeli, arising from the long cycle of violence and insecurity that has caused deep suffering and despair on all sides," she added. "My office will take the same principled, non-partisan, approach that it has adopted in all situations over which its jurisdiction is seized."
Bensouda's announcement comes less than a month after a February decision by the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber recognizing a State of Palestine and authorizing her to move forward.
The probe is expected to cover the 2014 Gaza War, the 2018 Gaza border crisis and the Israeli settlement enterprise in the West Bank as well as Hamas' rocket attacks against Israeli civilians.
War crimes suits could be leveled at Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, defense ministers and any other high-level officials involved in such activity since June 13, 2014. Soldiers and commanders could also be targeted.
The State of Israel is a strong, Jewish and democratic state which knows how to defend itself and to investigate itself when necessary.
We are proud of our soldiers, our sons and daughters, the essence of our people, who stand guard for their country generation after generation
The International Criminal Court's announcement Wednesday that it would launch an investigation into Israeli conduct in Judea and Samaria and the Gaza Strip sent shockwaves throughout the country, drawing condemnation from both sides of the political divide.
President Reuven Rivlin called the decision "scandalous" on Twitter and asserted Israel's right and duty to protect its citizens.
"The State of Israel is a strong, Jewish and democratic state, and it knows how to defend itself and also to investigate itself if necessary," the president tweeted. "We are proud of our soldiers, our sons and daughters. We will make sure that they are not harmed as a result of the decision."
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the decision was "the essence of anti-Semitism and hypocrisy." He added that "there is only one answer: to fight for the truth with all our might, all over the world, and to protect our soldiers."
Echoing similar sentiment, the head of the newly created right-wing party New Hope Chairman Gideon Sa'ar accused the ICC of having been "hijacked by sponsors of terror" and vowed to work with Israel's "allies and friends around the world to defend our moral army, and brave soldiers who risk their lives to keep us safe."
StandWithUs TV: The ICC vs. Israel. Israel in Focus
The chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court announced today that she was opening an investigation into alleged war crimes committed by Israel and the Palestinians.
Any investigation undertaken by the Office will be conducted independently, impartially and objectively, without fear or favour. The Rome Statute obliges the Office, in order to establish the truth, to extend its investigation to cover all facts and evidence relevant to an assessment of whether there is individual criminal responsibility under the Statute and, in doing so, to investigate incriminating and exonerating circumstances equally.
To both Palestinian and Israeli victims and affected communities, we urge patience. The ICC is not a panacea, but only seeks to discharge the responsibility that the international community has entrusted to it, which is to promote accountability for Rome Statute crimes, regardless of the perpetrator, in an effort to deter such crimes. In meeting this responsibility, the Office focuses its attention on the most notorious alleged offenders or those alleged to be the most responsible for the commission of the crimes.
In the end, our central concern must be for the victims of crimes, both Palestinian and Israeli, arising from the long cycle of violence and insecurity that has caused deep suffering and despair on all sides.
Sounds very fair and impartial, doesn't it?
Except for one thing:
The investigation will cover crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court that are alleged to have been committed in the Situation since 13 June 2014...
Eyal Yifrach, Gil-ad Shaer, and Naftali Fraenkel.were kidnapped and murdered on June 12, 2014.
The ICC is deliberately excluding their kidnapping and murders from being investigated. It begins with Israel's response to that horrible event.
Does that sound objective, "without fear or favour"? Does that sound like an investigation that will "cover all facts and evidence relevant to an assessment of whether there is individual criminal responsibility under the Statute"? Does that sound like the ICC's "central concern must be for the victims of crimes, both Palestinian and Israeli"?
This is a kangaroo court, and its own words prove it to be so.
The B'nai Brith Messenger (Southern California) had a column of witticisms written by Rabbi Isidore Myers. Here is what he wrote about Albert Einstein, March 4, 1921:
The rabbi passed away the following year.
He had an interesting life - born in Lithuanian Poland in 1856, emigrated to Australia at 13, around 1890 he visited the Land of Israel and England. In 1897 Myers emigrated to California, where he became rabbi of various synagogues - and also became involved with the silent film industry.
In 1893, he wrote a book of Talmudic aphorisms, translating them into rhymed English. Here are a couple of pages from the book, showing he had skill:
Austrian chancellor Sebastian Kurz and Danish prime minister Mette Frederiksen are travelling to Jerusalem this week to discuss a new joint-approach with Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, officials from Vienna and Copenhagen told the Financial Times.
An Austrian chancellery official familiar with the plans said that at the core of discussions were plans to construct in-country production facilities for mRNA vaccines. The three countries are in talks with Pfizer and Moderna about the factories.
Austria has already identified an intended site for manufacture, the official added, indicating the extent to which the scheme is already well-advanced.
The three will also discuss pooling vaccine stockpiles, although the sharing of surplus vaccine supplies is likely to be a sensitive topic. Sharing small shipments of excess supplies of vaccine with allies has already caused some political turbulence in Israel. The EU, in common with countries such as the UK and US, has measures in place that allow it to curb vaccine exports.
Notice that practically no Western country is sharing vaccines with others outside of the COVAX mechanism from the World Health Organization. Every nation instinctively knows, and most of them legislate, that their own citizens take absolute priority over anyone else.
Only Israel gets vilified for that policy.
The Palestinian Authority representative to Denmark is incensed at Danish cooperation with Israel on COVID-19 vaccines.
Diplomat Manuel Hassassian (who falsely calls himself the "ambassador" to Denmark) wrote an angry article condemning the Danish Prime Minister ahead of her visit:
The Prime Minister is willing to ignore the conditions of apartheid and the continuing discrimination practiced against the Palestinians who are under the oppression of the Israeli occupation before everyone else's eyes, as clear as the sun.
This matter is completely unacceptable, and in the event that Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen ends up purchasing the so-called surplus vaccine doses from Israel, then Denmark de facto acknowledges that it relinquishes Israel’s responsibility towards the Palestinians as the occupying power, and by that it is rewarding the Israeli apartheid policies with this approach.
We did not forget, in September 2020, the statement of Prime Minister Mitt Frederiksen after presiding over the Danish government that the Danish Foreign Ministry will base its future policies on social democracy; And that it will be based on the concepts of values such as rights and duties, equality and freedom, and that it will bind societies to that. However, we still have to fully understand what the Danish foreign policy, based on social democratic values, means. After her recent statement regarding visiting Israel, this policy should not be a reward for violators.
Mrs. Mette Frederiksen's failure to criticize the public absurdity of the Israeli occupation state by not providing treatment and vaccines to the Palestinians who are under its occupation is considered unjustified ignorance by her of what international law imposes on the occupying power.
Moreover, Mette Frederiksen did not include a visit to the Palestinian Authority or a meeting with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on her agenda, as it should be noted that many Danish NGOs provide assistance to the Palestinians in the fields of human rights and infrastructure development. This step is a contradiction to the Danish foreign policy toward Palestine.
Once again, the Palestinian leaders show how tone deaf they are. The childish Palestinians want Denmark's cooperation with Israel to be conditioned on Denmark condemning Israel. Yeah, that makes sense.
The Danish want their citizens to be protected from pandemics. To insult them for trying anything they can to accomplish that will not endear them to the Palestinian cause.
Yet again, the Palestinian leaders are shooting themselves in the foot because they insist, like toddlers, on being the center of attention.
The left-leaning media has been trying very hard to ignore the Abraham Accords as a meaningless event from the Trump era. This is to placate the Israel hating contingent who have been positioning it as yet another manifestation of Zionist evil.
Thomas Friedman, for all his faults, sees how big a deal the new peace deals are.
[S]omething big seems to be stirring. Unlike the peace breakthroughs between Israel and Egypt, Israel and Lebanon’s Christians and Israel and Jordan, which were driven from the top and largely confined there, the openings between Israel and the Gulf States — while initiated from the top to build an alliance against Iran — are now being driven even more from the bottom, by tourists, students and businesses....
If the Abraham Accords do thrive and broaden to include normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia, we are talking about one of the most significant realignments in modern Middle East history, which for many decades was largely shaped by Great Power interventions and Arab-Israeli dynamics. Not anymore.
Today, “there are three powerful non-Arab actors in the region — Iran, Turkey and Israel — and they have each constructed their own regional axis,” argues Itamar Rabinovich, the Israeli Middle East historian, who just co-wrote “Syrian Requiem,” a smart history of the Syrian civil war. Those three axes, Rabinovich explains, are Turkey with Qatar and their proxy Hamas; Iran with Syria and Iran’s proxies running Lebanon, Iraq and Yemen; and Israel with the U.A.E., Bahrain and tacitly Saudi Arabia and Oman.
It’s the interactions of these three axes, says Rabinovich, that are really driving Middle East politics today. And because the U.A.E.-Israel axis brings together the most successful Arab state with the most successful non-Arab state, it’s radiating a lot of energy.
With Israel and the U.A.E., “what you are seeing are two ecosystems fusing together,” says Gidi Grinstein, head of Reut, the Israeli strategy institute. Israel is a society that for many years faced hostility from its neighbors and had no oil. “So, over the years, Israel learned to go from isolation and scarcity to abundance and global influence by developing its own explosive innovation economy in areas such as water, solar, cyber, military, medical, finance and agriculture.”
The U.A.E., by contrast, is transitioning from decades of oil abundance to an era of oil scarcity by building its own ecosystem of innovation and entrepreneurship in the same fields as Israel.
The U.A.E.’s population consists of one million citizens and nine million foreigners, most of them low-wage, non-unionized laborers from India and other parts of South Asia and the rest professionals largely from America, Europe, India and the Arab world. The U.A.E.’s growth strategy for the 21st century — of which the opening to Israel is a key part — is to become THE Arab model for modernity, a diversified economy, globalization and intra-religious tolerance.
To that end, in November the country announced a major liberalization of its Islamic personal laws — allowing unmarried couples to cohabitate, which, among other things, makes the U.A.E. more accepting of gay and lesbian people; criminalizing so-called honor killings of women who “shame” their male relatives — as well as made divorce laws much more equitable for women and loosened restrictions on alcohol.
The U.A.E. is still an absolute monarchy, and a multiparty democracy is not on the menu. But greater gender equality, a more open education system and religious pluralism are. It still has work to do in all those areas, though — witness the embarrassing saga around the leader of Dubai, whose daughter is reportedly being held hostage in her father’s palace. But the U.A.E.’s new social laws constitute a big leap forward in its quest to attract the talent needed for a non-oil economy.
All the neighbors are watching, and they are particularly watching how Iran and Saudi Arabia react.
If you are a Lebanese Shiite living in the poor southern suburbs of Beirut having to scramble every day to barter eggs for meat — as the economy teeters on collapse — you’re asking, Why are we stuck with Iran and its axis of failing proxies like Hezbollah, which just keep letting the past bury our future?
That is a dangerous question for Iran and Hezbollah. And more Lebanese are asking every day.
The importance of the accords has been obvious to anyone who isn't saddled with a reflexive anti-Israel ideology. Which is exactly why articles like this have been few and far between in mainstream media.
Friedman, being Friedman, still has his own baggage, still trying to resurrect vestiges of the Saudi peace plan that he relentlessly pushed in 2002.
The U.A.E., Bahrain, Morocco and Saudi Arabia need to understand that they have more leverage now to influence Israeli-Palestinian relations than they realize. Israel does not want to lose them. Imagine if Saudi Arabia agreed to join the Abraham Accords, but only on the condition that it could open the Saudi Embassy to Israel in Israeli West Jerusalem while, at the same time, opening an embassy to the Palestinians in an Arab neighborhood of East Jerusalem.
Just that one move would help preserve the possibility of a two-state deal, would revitalize the 2002 Saudi peace initiative and would further isolate Iran’s axis of failure. And Israel would find it very hard to reject.
Friedman still doesn't get that the Palestinians themselves have made the Palestinians irrelevant, and the Arab states no longer want to coddle them when they can't get their own act together, split between the old guard that wants to destroy Israel politically and the terrorists who still dream of destroying Israel militarily. The Gulf states realized that Israel is not only a permanent part of the Middle East but it is an ally that they can have a mutually beneficial relationship with, and they are disgusted that Palestinians who could have taken advantage of that dynamic instead rejected it time after time - while demanding more money.
Nevertheless, Friedman does a good job here in laying out how earth shattering the new alliances are, and the Israel haters really cannot argue.
These debates on the role of the Jewish people and Israel in the global scheme does not take into consideration a second factor: internal tensions within the Left. The initial development of Israel as a social-democratic state with some revolutionary implementations of socialist practice via the kibbutz movement made the country a beacon for the labor-movement oriented Old Left in the West, but the sudden creation of the New Left in the 1960s, which emphasized Third Worldism, reshaped that perception. Israel’s miraculous victory in 1967 cemented the changed perception and split between the Old and New Left.
While the initial perception of Israel among the Old Left was that beleaguered social-democratic state surrounded by reactionary Arab regimes, the Six Day War, leading to the capture of Jerusalem and West Bank, paved the view in the New Left of a Western state with irredentist goals. Where one stands in the current makeup of left-wing political parties, whether Old or New Left, inherently shapes your perception of Israel.
The left-wing debate over the 1967 war, as a justified war of defense or conquest, is another fundamental point of contention the Left currently struggles with. The change could be seen in the UK Labour party, initially dominated by the Old Left and strongly supportive of Israel up until the 1980s, then following the Blair era, becoming increasingly supportive of radical anti-Zionism, hitting its peak with Jeremy Corbyn. The same struggle today can be seen within the two camps of Antifa in Germany, the fiercely Zionist anti-Germans and the dominant anti-imperialist camp that is also anti-Zionist. It remains unclear if the US Democratic Party will follow the same path as Labour, but the split does exist, between the weaker democratic-socialists and liberal/moderate factions of the party.
The group Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) claims to oppose bigotry and to support security and self-determination for both Israelis and Palestinians. But a new campaign JVP has joined aims to block rumored plans by Facebook to add the term "Zionism" to its hate speech policies. Zionism is the belief in Jewish self-determination in their ancestral homeland: In other words, supporting Israel's right to exist.
"@Facebook is considering whether to treat 'Zionist' as proxy for 'Jew' in its hate speech policy," JVP tweeted last week during a Twitter town hall. "This would make 'Zionist' a de facto protected category, letting FB shut down critical conversations about Zionists under the guise of fighting antisemitism."
"If @Facebook restricts use of the word 'Zionist' on its platforms, already severe censorship will grow," the anti-Semitic BDS Movement also wrote during the Twitter town hall. "Palestinians will be blocked from describing our daily lives under Israeli apartheid, and our family histories of dispossession and military occupation."
An anonymous Facebook employee sent out an email detailing how the social media company should moderate anti-Semitism on its platform, technology news website The Verge reported in November. A Facebook spokesperson told The Verge that the term Zionist is removed from its platform if and when it is used as a proxy for anti-Semitism.
"We are looking at the question of how we should interpret attacks on 'Zionists' to determine whether the term is used as a proxy for attacking Jewish or Israeli people," the Facebook employee wrote. "The term brings with it much history and various meanings, and we are looking to increase our understanding of how it is used by people on our platform."
JVP joined the campaign opposing the policy, "Facebook, We Need to Talk." It has received support from nearly 52,000 people. It claims that the social media giant may decide on a policy this month. JVP will be on board to virtually deliver the petition to Facebook during a webinar this week.
Pushback against the IHRA definition of antisemitism also intensified in February. A discussion hosted by the leading BDS organization IfNotNow laid out the stakes, stating, “the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism has been destroying the progressive movement.”
Angrily claiming that BDS and hatred of Israel are not antisemitism despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, various “human rights” groups such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International and Jewish groups such as J Street, the New Israel Fund, and American Friends of Peace Now, use opposition to IHRA as a means to consolidate institutional power, split Jews and liberals, and legitimize opposition to the definition.
Misrepresenting the IHRA definition is critical to this approach — especially in higher education. At Syracuse University, a motion in the student government to adopt the IHRA definition was tabled due to allegations that it conflated antisemitism and anti-Zionism.
At University College London (UCL) the student union rejected calls for the university to rescind its adoption of the IHRA definition. Jewish students also complained that the debate had been scheduled for Holocaust Remembrance Day. In contrast, a faculty board at UCL rejected the definition, demanding the administration “retract and replace [IHRA] with a more precise definition” that presumably does not include mention of Israel. The faculty decision prompted the angry resignation of a faculty member specializing in antisemitism, who accused some of his colleagues in Jewish Studies of spearheading the assault on the IHRA definition.
Other examples in the UK include Bristol University professor David Miller, who has a long history of antisemitic abuse of students and overt anti-Israel hatred. Most recently, Miller was condemned by students, the university, and others for demanding “the end of Zionism as a functioning ideology” and for alleging that “Jewish students on British campuses [are] being used as political pawns by a violent, racist foreign regime engaged in ethnic cleansing,” and that Jewish student “lobbying for Israel is a threat to the safety of Arab and Muslim students as well as of Jewish students and indeed of all critics of Israel.”
An American counterpart to Miller is Marc Lamont Hill of Temple University, who claimed that the Black Lives Matter movement supports the “dismantling of the Zionist project.” Hill also stated that Israel was a “settler-colonial movement in Palestine” which was responsible for police violence in the US.
Anti-Semitism is very real, of that there is no doubt, but the greatest threat to Jewish people today comes not from those on the political left who criticise the Zionist state of Israel. It comes from those on the far right whose pernicious influence is spreading across North America and Europe.
This is obvious to reasonable political observers. However, the facts are being masked by the pro-Israel lobby which insists on conflating anti-Semitism with criticism of Zionism, the ideology which underpins colonial Israel. It is enough simply to mention Israel's brutal military occupation of Palestine to incur the lobby's wrath. Ironically, though, this Zionist witch-hunt fails to protect Jews.
We should all be deeply concerned by this sinister development. Not only is this an attack on free speech and one step away from book burning, but it is also diverting attention from the real threat to Jews from right-wing anti-Semites who feel so emboldened that they have brazenly turned their guns on synagogues and carried out other atrocities against Jews.
See? She cares about Jews!
The person who has written for Iranian media that has denied the Holocaust!
The person who once called Jewish politician David Miliband "a gutless little weasel who lost more than his foreskin when he was circumcised"!
The person who said, “The Zionists have tentacles everywhere"!
I want you to imagine, well what I was going to say that I want you to imagine they are my children but they are our children, they are our children. And this is what Barbara Lubin wrote in her email to me today. She got through the Rafah border after queuing for 10 hours and she said ‘out of all the devastation that I have seen so far, there is one story in particular that I think the world needs to hear. I met a mother who was at home with her ten children when Israeli soldiers entered the house. The soldiers told her she had to choose five of her children to give as a gift to Israel. As she screamed in horror they repeated the demand, and told her she could chose or they would choose for her. Then these soldiers murdered five of her children in front of her.’ The concept of Jewish morality is truly dead. We can be fascist, terrorist, the Nazis, just like anyone else. Can you imagine the mother’s dilemma being told choose! Can you imagine the horror of being told choose! Which child should live and which child to die.
But perhaps the most impressive part of her pretending to care about Jews is the venue for her op-ed. It is Al Resalah, a Hamas newspaper. And (despite press reports to the contrary) Hamas has never renounced its antisemitic founding charter.
(Of course, this op-ed is not in Al Resalah's Arabic edition. It is purely meant for idiotic Westerners who might actually believe that she cares about Jews and only means "Zionists" when she says that they should be hunted down.
Former US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is accusing certain US and European officials of attempting to block the historic Abraham Accords in order to keep the Palestinian issue at the top of the international agenda.
In a speech at the annual conference of the Combat Anti-Semitism movement, at which the organization awarded him a prize, Pompeo discussed opposition to the accords and said that the Russians, as well as certain policy-makers in the United States and Europe, would have preferred to see them fail to materialize.
According to Pompeo, the unnamed officials wanted to maintain the "delusion" that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was the keystone to regional peace. The former secretary of state said that when the opponents of the accords, realized that no Intifada would erupt as a result of the agreements being signed, and Israel could establish "warm ties" with its regional neighbors, they saw that the Trump administration's approach had been correct.
Pompeo said he believed that many other countries would sign on to the accords, adding that he hoped Saudi Arabia would be one, as well as Muslim countries outside the Middle East.
Pompeo also discussed the processes that led up to the accords, saying that the Palestinians had clung to their line of "no, no, no," prompting the administration to decide to move ahead with other countries in the Middle East, whose leaders said they did not want the Palestinians to bar them from establishing relations with Israel. Those countries said they wanted ties "not founded on hatred," Pompeo said.
The Abraham Accords will last, he said, adding that people in Sudan, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates would not go backward.
As Pompeo observed about the DNI note: The release of this report was reckless. It was political. It was aimed at harming a relationship with the kingdom of Saudi Arabia through the use of intelligence in a way that, as a former CIA director, I would have never stood for. I regret that because this administration wants to develop a relationship with Iran and destroy one with the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, they chose to use intelligence to do that.
According to US officials, by implicating MBS in Khashoggi’s killing but opting not to punish him personally the Biden administration wants to recalibrate the relationship with Saudi Arabia without destroying it. The Wall Street Journal reports that, according to President Biden’s press secretary: as part of the recalibration of ties Mr. Biden sees the King as his counterpart, not the Crown Prince.
This is all astonishingly stupid. The King is old and barely functioning. MBS is the de facto ruler of Saudi Arabia. Moreover, MBS is a reformer trying to drag his country out of the dark ages. Saudi women now work, drive and travel abroad without permission of a male guardian. Previously banned cinemas have sprung up along with public entertainments such as rock concerts.
Sure, this is all small change by western standards; and the Saudi regime is still guilty of barbaric abuses of human rights. But at least MBS is pushing his country a little in the right direction. By damaging him in this way, the Biden administration has empowered his Muslim Brotherhood enemies who want to bring him down and return Saudi Arabia to an even more repressive ethos — as well as enmity against the west. What perversity is this?
The risks are that, with such cold winds once again blowing from the White House, Saudi Arabia will cosy up to Russia and China, thus destabilising the region and damaging western defences. And America will again shockingly become what it became under President Obama — anti-anti-Islamist. Which, whether the Biden administration wants this to happen or not, will put it on the side of the Islamic fanatics, whether the Sunni Muslim Brothers or the Shia “Twelvers” who are all at war with the west — and also intent upon repressing freedom-seeking Muslims everywhere.
Internationally, America is now a wasting asset. Its enemies can scarcely believe their luck — or conceal their contempt. Its allies are looking on aghast. And the Biden administration is still only six weeks old.
The presence of the extremist groups in the “jihadist belt” has destabilized the area and has had a crucial impact on the willingness of outside investors to risk huge sums in those regions at risk. The United States and France’s military presence, together with its local allies of the G5 (Mauritania, Mali, Niger, Burkina Faso, and Chad), has succeeded in limiting the damage perpetrated by the Jihadist organizations but has failed to eradicate the phenomenon.
“We also see a serious regional threat from violent extremist organizations emanating from the Sahel,” warned General Townsend, head of the U.S. Army’s AFRICOM. “Security is deteriorating rapidly, with a 250% increase in VEO violence since 2018 in Burkina Faso, Mali, and western Niger. Having quickly spread from northern Mali, al-Qaida’s JNIM, ISIS-aligned groups, and other VEOs are now operating throughout the Sahel region.”9 Nevertheless, France’s President Emmanuel Macron is considering a reduction of the French military force of 5,100 in the Sahel states.10
The involvement of Western powers in the fight against jihadism is meant primarily to fight the terrorists in their own territory in the hope that it will also thwart terrorism outside Africa. However, it is unclear if this method actually protects Europe, in particular, as many attacks have been carried out by home-grown jihadists affiliated with the Islamic State.
On the other hand, it is also clear that ending the West’s war carried out in Africa against jihadism would prove fatal to shaky regimes and open the doors to terrorist activities in Europe. The example of thousands of brain-washed Europeans who volunteered to join the ranks of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria proves that there is fertile ground in Europe to sow jihadist activity exported from Africa.
Today, it is obvious that the declaration of victory against the Islamic State was erroneous. “The international community is not making durable progress in containing priority VEOs in Africa,” warned the American Army commander in Africa.11
Even though beaten and left without its territorial base following its defeat by the coalition forces in 2017, the Islamic State is still very much alive and, from time to time, reminds all concerned that it has not been vanquished.
This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For 20 years and 40,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.
Jonathan Sacks: Fire: Holy and Unholy שמיני
-
Jonathan Sacks: Fire: Holy and Unholy שמיני IsraelSeen.com
Jonathan Sacks: Fire: Holy and Unholy The shock is immense. For several
weeks and many chapters ...
Mimouna and the myth of Jewish-Arab coexistence
-
In 2016, Jimmy Bitton wrote effusively about the ‘re-emerging coexistence
that once existed between Jews and Muslims’ in Morocco. This symbiosis was
sym...
Shabbat Shalom from Israel
-
Well folks, we are supposedly in the beginning few days of a 2 week
ceasefire. The north of the country is still getting missiles from
Hezbollah consta...
The Forward Dulls Mahmoud Khalil’s Sharp Teeth
-
Key Takeaways: The Forward frames Mahmoud Khalil as a reassuring voice,
while downplaying his record of extremist rhetoric. Khalil’s most
controversial cla...
Is Anti-Zionism to be Considered Anti-Semitism?
-
Anti-semitism is the hate of Jews for being Jews.
Being Jewish includes the belief that the Land of Israel is the covenanted
homeland of the Jewish natio...
The Art That We Keep Or Destroy
-
The Mayor of Providence, Rhode Island, has called for the removal of a
mural of Iryna Zarutska, a young Ukrainian refugee whose brutal murder was
caught ...
New Passover Haggadah-- Az Nashir
-
I couldn't resist this new Az Nashir Haggadah for many reasons. One
important reason is that many of my friends were involved in writing and
editing i...
Now What?
-
Today, Jews cannot walk down the street in North America, Europe, or even
Australia without the possibility of being spat on, beaten, or even
murdered. Cou...
Closing Jews Down Under Website
-
With a heavyish heart I am closing down the website after ten years.
It is and it isn’t an easy decision after 10 years of constant work. The
past...
‘Test & Trace’ is a mirage
-
Lockdown II thoughts: Day 1 Opposition politicians have been banging on
about the need for a ‘working’ Test & Trace system even more loudly than
the govern...
Wednesday, March 03, 2021
