Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Sunday, June 06, 2021

06/06 Links: UNRWA finds attack tunnel under one of its Gaza schools; Ben Shapiro: Here’s THE TRUTH About the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

From Ian:

Jake Wallis Simons: The problem with the New York Times’ Gaza coverage

That’s where the New York Times comes in. It goes without saying that it’s impossible to report objectively on any story when your editorial line has been decided in advance. The latest Israeli campaign was more accurate than any recent war, with combatants accounting for the vast majority of the dead. All of this is lost when you sacrifice the facts for emotive photographs of children.

Don’t get me wrong. Emotive photographs have their place, and we must never lose touch with the tragic cost of war. But from the point of view of the victims, there is a certain indignity in the fact that they have been used to further a political agenda. And from the point of view of the Times, it is troubling that its journalists have participated in doing so.

When the front page was published, Brad Parker, a representative of the NGO, Defense for Children International Palestine (DCIP), tweeted his thanks to the Times for ‘reaching out to us at @DCIPalestine to help make this front page’.

This was revealing. As was evident from his Twitter name, to which he had appended the hashtag #SaveSheikhJarrah, Mr Parker was not an entirely dispassionate observer of the conflict. And a quick look at the DCIP website shows that it is hardly objective, either. What exactly did the New York Times expect when it asked them for ‘help’?

It has long been an aphorism of journalism that if one man says it’s raining and another says it’s dry, it’s not your job to quote them both, but to look out of the window and see for yourself.

If the Times journalists had followed the basic tenets of their profession, America’s paper of record would not have become a pawn in the chess game of Hamas. To have the Gray Lady contribute towards Hamas' war aims was a major boon for the terror group – and another dark day for journalism.

I am a Jew and I am scared. Will I be the last one in Britain?

The most worrying sign is that the Jew hate obsession has opened up a new front. Having long ago penetrated our universities and created a febrile and intimidating environment, intensely hostile to Jews and Israel, the disease is now infiltrating our schools. The Jesuit dictum was ”Give me the child until he is seven and I’ll give you the man”. Children are now being exposed to the vicious doctrine of Jew hatred. Some would call this brainwashing.

In a Leeds school the police were called to protect a head teacher, Mark Roper, after he referred to an incident where a pupil brought in and waved a Palestinian flag. He is quoted as saying during a school assembly that “some might interpret this action as a call to arms and feel threatened and unsafe”. On social media, an avalanche of cries of Islamophobia echoed and demands that heads must roll trended. Apologies were demanded and meekly given.

This represents a stunning victory for the many Jew haters. It signals that it is acceptable to migrate anti-Semitism from the mosque to the classroom. It legitimises the slanderous and libellous lies underpinning the ever-growing Jew hatred movement, no matter whether those Jews are in Leeds or Jerusalem.

Had the Israeli flag been brought in by a Jewish pupil, then that individual would almost certainly have suffered verbal abuse and also probably physical assault. Further the media would have almost certainly have chosen to question his/her patriotism, asking where their primary loyalty lay? Was it to the UK or Israel? But nobody dared question the loyalties of the pupil who provocatively waved the Palestinian flag. Conclusion? Jews have dual loyalty. Plucky pro-Palestinian Muslims are being discriminated against and insulted because they are a minority. This despite the fact that Muslims outnumber Jews in Leeds by 7 to 1. (ONS)

No matter how much of worth Jews have contributed to humanity, it counts for nothing to the Jew haters. They close their ears to any facts that detract from their unquestioning world view that Jews are evil.

Lest we forget: throughout history anti-Semitism has been the norm, with relatively short periods of calm between pogroms. What is happening today in most parts of the world is likely to be merely a reversion back to that norm. Fortunately, unlike earlier times Jews now have somewhere that will always welcome them no matter how bad things become in their country of residence. An attack on Israel is therefore an attack on all Jews everywhere.

Over recent years the number of my Jewish friends has steadily decreased. Gladly the grim reaper has not claimed them. Rather they have “made aliya”, that is moving to the “Land of Israel”. In practice this proves to be a complex and bureaucratic process for Jews, contrary to popular perception.

I wonder, how long will it be until I am the last Jew left In Britain? Will I be the one that turns the lights off?

Ben Shapiro: Here’s THE TRUTH About the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (A Comprehensive History)

From biblical times to today, Ben takes us through time to explore the long history of Israel and explains the many conflicts along the way. (h/t Yerushalimey)

I guess Biden Admin is all about free speech and expression, and all that jazz ... except when it comes to Israeli Jews in our capital, #Jerusalem? https://t.co/gpwORxgesW
— Arsen Ostrovsky (@Ostrov_A) June 6, 2021

Arab pride: Egypt told the world it was winning the 1967 war

From the New York Times, June 6, 1967:

And because Egypt wanted to maintain that fiction, it refused a cease fire demand from the UN - ensuring that it would lose far more territory:

From Times of Israel:

Defense Minister Benny Gantz on Saturday said he will demand a right-wing nationalist parade through Jerusalem’s Old City be called off if it “requires extraordinary security measures and endangers public order and diplomatic processes.”

An Israeli official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Hebrew media earlier on Saturday that police would make the final call on whether the march would be held. “Israel has returned to routine, there are no current restrictions and Jews are visiting the Temple Mount,” the official said.

Leaders of the left-wing Labor, Meretz and Joint List parties warned earlier Saturday of the potential negative consequences of the march and indicated they believed it could be a deliberate attempt to thwart the formation of the so-called “change government.”

Police chiefs were set to hold a meeting Sunday to decide whether to approve the march. According to Channel 12, the parade was likely to be approved, though possibly with changes to its route, including a refusal to allow participants to pass through the volatile Damascus Gate area that was at the center of unrest in the capital last month.

Haaretz has a headline: Biden Administration Fears Jerusalem Flag March May Reignite Tensions in Gaza

It hardly needs to be said that in a democracy, protests and rallies should be allowed unless they endanger innocent people. But that danger must come from the demonstration itself, not from people reacting to the demonstration who disagree - if any demonstration could cause others to react violently, then it is the responsibility of the police to protect the protesters.

Otherwise, people who oppose the demonstration have full veto power on freedom of speech by threatening violence.

Yet when it comes to Israel, those rules don't apply to right-wing demonstrations. If Palestinians say that Jews walking peacefully around their capital waving flags will "provoke" them, somehow their feelings are now considered more important than the basic democratic principle of freedom of assembly.

Where are the liberals who are defending freedom of speech and freedom of assembly?

On Friday, thousands of people marched through Jerusalem for the annual Pride Parade, which many conservative and religious Jerusalemites oppose. If the opponents had threatened violence, can anyone imagine that liberal politicians would call to cancel the parade?

It appears that the Israeli police are being the sanest people in this case - leaning towards allowing the march but changing the route, which would be in line with other democracies in allowing demonstrations but with restrictions.

Obviously, if the marchers become violent or incite violence, it should be shut down as well. The police have the responsibility to maintain order.

One does not have to agree with the marchers to support basic democratic principles. If freedom of assembly is subject to a veto by Hamas, then that freedom has disappeared, and that is something every liberal person should strenuously oppose.

Yet so far, the Israeli and Western liberals are on the side allowing Hamas and Fatah threats of violence to curtail basic freedoms.

Where are the true liberal voices defending freedom of assembly for a cause they disagree with?

Jordanian anti-Israel "turn off lights" demonstration seems to have fallen flat

Jordanian activists have been pushing a nationwide effort to have Jordanians turn off their electricity from 10-11 PM Saturday night in protest of Jordan buying natural gas from Israel.

Roya News tried to get dramatic footage of the great electricity turn-off - and it doesn't look like very many Jordanians listened.

Jordan imports nearly all of its fuel for energy, and stopping Israeli natural gas would have big repercussions.

06/05 Links: Six Day War: When Israel reclaimed Jerusalem, its eternal capital; State Department Shuns Term ‘Abraham Accords’; Apartheid libel is a cover to target Jews; Does Google really understand racism?

From Ian:

Six Day War: When Israel reclaimed Jerusalem, its eternal capital

It was Begin who set in motion the final act. He had been overruled in the cabinet the night before when he called for an immediate attack on the Old City. Waking from a troubled sleep, he tuned into the BBC. The lead news item was about a Middle East ceasefire that the Security Council was planning to call this day. Begin telephoned Dayan and said “we can’t wait anymore.”

Dayan agreed. At 5:30 a.m. Narkiss was contacted by Dayan’s deputy, Gen. Haim Bar-Lev. The paratroopers were to attack the Old City as soon as possible. The cabinet had not yet approved, he said, but there was no doubt that it would in a telephone poll. Any lingering ambiguity had been cast aside by the fast-moving developments.

The departure of Haza’a’s force spared the paratroopers who broke through Lion’s Gate at 10 a.m. a bloody fight. (Two Israelis would be killed inside the walls in skirmishes with a scattering of Jordanian soldiers who had remained behind.)

When Dayan arrived on the Temple Mount he ordered that an Israeli flag raised by soldiers on the Dome of the Rock be taken down. He would shortly order de facto control of the Temple Mount returned to the Muslim religious authorities.

At the Western Wall, Dayan read a statement to the press: “We have returned to the holiest of our sites and will never again be separated from it. To our Arab neighbors, Israel extends the hand of peace; and to the peoples of all faiths we guarantee full freedom of worship and of religious rights. We have come not to conquer the holy places of others, nor to diminish their religious rights, but to ensure the unity of the city and to live in it with others in harmony.”

Though generous and statesmanlike, Dayan’s words meant that the Old City would not be relinquished.

A committee consisting of senior civil servants and a general was appointed to draw up Jerusalem’s new eastern boundary. Three weeks after the war, the Knesset adopted their recommendations, annexing 28 square miles that included land belonging to two dozen Arab villages.

Overnight, Israeli Jerusalem tripled in size and Jordanian Jerusalem ceased to exist. The annexed area was carved out primarily on the basis of security, not sanctity. Choosing high ground, the planners created a buffer to serve – militarily and demographically – should war threaten again from the east.

What had been Jordanian Jerusalem, including the half-mile square Old City and the Mount of Olives, constituted only 6% of the land taken. But the walled entity, with its ramparts and holy places, would remain the heart of Jerusalem, harboring narratives capable of inspiring both sublime contemplation and rocket wars. Jerusalem’s Arabs and Jews would begin praying in proximity while jostling for position at the gateway to heaven.

Israel’s raid on Osirak, 40 years on

The pilots, along with Israel Air Force Maj.-Gen. David Ivri and IDF chief of staff Rafael “Raful” Eitan, clustered at Etzion Air Base prior to the strike, dubbed Operation Babylon (also known as Operation Opera). It was the eve of Shavuot. The pilots were briefed. The six F-15s and eight F-16s flew the complex mission over Saudi Arabia, entering Iraq from the miles of open desert that form the boundary between Iraq and Saudi Arabia. They had to fly low, some 100-150 feet from the desert landscape. While the F-15s used radar and electronic counter-measures, the F-16s continued their bomb run to the reactor southwest of Baghdad.

There were other obstacles as well. Jordan’s King Hussein, according to reports, saw the F-16s pass over and a warning was sent to Iraq according to a 2012 Air Force Magazine report. It was just after 4 p.m. and the reactor was to be struck at sunset. Radio silence had to be maintained and the pilots had to avoid Saudi early warning systems operating to the south. There was a larger context here. At the time, controversy had grown in the US over sales of F-15 enhancements to Saudi Arabia and AWACS radar planes. Such advanced aircraft were not in the hands of Riyadh yet.

The mission’s success not only gave Israeli additional military respect around the world, it also aided deterrence. It once again proved its capabilities for using the latest aircraft. Ford notes that “the IAF used the F-15, designed for long-range detection and air superiority, in its optimal role: protecting strikers as they dropped their munitions. Similarly, the IAF used the F-16 in its optimal role as a strike fighter against heavily defended targets. Israel was the only nation in the region that possessed these aircraft and tactical knowledge about their optimal use.”

Today Israel is pioneering uses for the F-35, having received two dozen of the aircraft in two squadrons, with the plan to acquire up to 75 of the planes.

The raid on Osirak was a watershed moment. It changed the region and ushered in a new era of Israeli dominance. Where once Israel’s military abilities were contested by conventional militaries like Egypt and Syria, by the 1980s and 1990s Israel would possess the strongest most capable military in the region.

But that hasn’t changed the equation when it comes to non-conventional weapons, such as nuclear weapons or Iran’s missiles and drones, the kind Hamas has used recently. Israel’s use of advanced warplanes, such as the F-15 and F-16 and now F-35, isn’t a magic wand to win wars.

Dangerous facilities, such as Syria’s nuclear reactor that was destroyed in 2007, can be stopped – but more threats will emerge.

Apartheid libel is a cover to target Jews

WHAT DOES it mean when someone libels Israel by comparing it to the abject evil of South African apartheid? It does a few things simultaneously: it legitimizes opinions hostile toward Israel’s existence that would otherwise be unacceptable in popular discourse regarding other liberal democracies, appropriates actual oppression under apartheid in South Africa, whitewashes and justifies violence against Israelis in the name of “self-defense,” and contributes to the widespread sense of perpetual victimhood found throughout Palestinian communities.

This claim to violence as a defensive measure is particularly dubious. The legitimacy of violence as a form of protest has long been disputed as it undermines democracy at the altar of the mob. In some contexts, it’s been used to justify attacks on police in the US, in others, to weaponize children against Israel. Of course, the immorality of indiscriminate violence poses a big problem for proponents of this kind of political expression, but in the context of Palestinian “armed resistance,” something else is at play. If a group justifies its use of violence as an act of defense, but lies about what prompted said defense, all that’s left is the violence.

One example of such a false claim belongs to Khulood Badawi, one of the researchers who contributed to the currently circulating HRW document. In 2012, Badawi, a staff member of the Jerusalem branch of the UN Office of Coordinated Humanitarian Affairs at the time, posted a picture on social media of a deceased and bloodied Palestinian six-year-old girl being held by her father accompanied by a caption: “Palestine is bleeding. Another child killed by Israel.” As it turned out, the picture was taken six years earlier than claimed, and the cause of the heart-wrenching tragedy was an accident entirely unrelated to any Israeli military action.

However, this type of dishonesty did not stop Mohammed Merah from murdering three Jewish children under the age of 10, and their father at Ozar Hatorah school in France a week later. He claimed to have been partially motivated by the fact that “the Jews have killed our brothers and sisters in Palestine.” While there’s no exact causal link between Badawi’s lie and Merah’s actions, Merah’s chilling words underscore that incitement can be a motivating factor for violence in the context of the Israeli-Arab conflict. This tragedy epitomizes most, if not all, lies told about Israel. It’s no surprise that Badawi has found a home at HRW and had a hand in crafting their piece about Israel’s non-existent apartheid.

THIS KIND of dishonesty was not lost on me as I attended a Students for Justice in Palestine rally at Colorado College. It was May 15, the same day Hamas was raining down its many murder-attempt rockets at dense population centers on and around Tel Aviv. For 40 minutes, I listened to SJP members parrot the apartheid libel and others like Badawi’s to a small, enthusiastically empathetic crowd of students and professors. I was given a QR code to a resource page filled not only with links to organizations that have been unmasked as dishonest instigators of violence against Jewish people inside Israel and out, and a handful of organizations that have a history of working with US-designated terrorist groups like the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), but also encourages activists to proclaim that “There is only one solution: Intifada, Revolution.”

All this while the frequency of attacks on Jewish people from self-proclaimed “pro-Palestine” activists worldwide in places like NYC, Toronto, and basically all of Europe have risen dramatically in the past few weeks. I’m reminded of the push to have a plane hijacker speak directly to students at SFSU last year and the effect that such an environment has on its Jewish students. I wonder how long it will be until Jewish Coloradoans are targeted, considering SJP promulgates violent ideologies on their campuses unabated. Colorado College, is this what you want for your Jewish students?

Thank you @RepRitchie for standing with Israel!

“Israel is held to a double standard. I ask people, ‘ask yourself a simple question, if you and your neighbors were the target of 4,000 rockets, what would you expect your government to do?’”https://t.co/QjUa8OQSgB
— AIPAC (@AIPAC) June 5, 2021

06/04 Links Pt2: Bobby Kennedy’s Admiration for Israel; Melanie Phillips: Facing a tsunami of antisemitism, diaspora Jews cling to their bubble

From Ian:

Bobby Kennedy’s Admiration for Israel

In the months between his graduation from Harvard in the spring of 1948 and his enrollment in the University of Virginia Law School in the fall of that year, Bobby Kennedy embarked on an overseas trip at the urging of his father. Through the elder Kennedy’s Boston connections, the 22-year-old aspiring attorney landed a reporting job with the Boston Post. There, Kennedy convinced his editors to let him report from the Middle East on the Arab-Israeli war.

Kennedy arrived in early April and spent a few weeks in war-torn Palestine. From there, he wrote four very vivid and wide-ranging articles. He left Palestine before Ben-Gurion’s May 14th declaration of Israeli statehood and returned through Europe to the United States.

In early June, after Israel was established and diplomatically recognized by the major powers, the articles were published in a series under the byline “Robert Kennedy, Special Writer for the Post.” In the first article, under the headline “British Hatred by Both Sides,” RFK labored mightily to present the arguments of both Arabs and Jews. “There are such well-founded arguments on either side,” Kennedy wrote, “that each side grows more and more bitter toward the other. Confidence in their right increases in proportion to the hatred and mistrust for the other side not acknowledging it.”

In the subsequent three articles, however, RFK and his Boston Post editors no longer attempted to convey an objective view of the competing claims of Jews and Arabs. As the headline on his June 4th article indicates, RFK chose a side: “Jews Have a Fine Fighting Force—Make Up for Lack of Arms With Undying Spirit, Unparalleled Courage—Impress the World.” The article gets directly to the point: “The Jewish people in Palestine who believe in and have been working toward this national state have become an immensely proud and determined people. It is already a truly great modern example of the birth of a nation with the primary ingredients of dignity and self-respect.” Many similar articles appeared in the American press of the day. The surprising thing about these Boston Post articles was not their pro-Zionist sentiments, but the fact that they had been written by Joseph P. Kennedy’s son.

Melanie Phillips: Facing a tsunami of antisemitism, diaspora Jews cling to their bubble

The problem isn’t just the appalling number of Jews who believe the lies about Israel. The deeper issue is the desperate desire of Diaspora Jews to “fit in” with the surrounding society.

In Britain, missing the point that the country’s entire establishment is running scared from Islamist extremism, they are now shocked to find the police standing by when Muslims publicly scream for the murder of Jews.

In America, terror of being thought Islamophobic, anti-Black Lives Matter or anti-Palestinian—thus alienating the Democratic Party and the all-powerful liberal cultural elite—has similarly paralyzed most of the Jewish community in their response to the attacks. They, too, are behaving like rabbits caught in the headlights.

The correct response by Jewish community leaders to the anti-Semitism onslaught would be to call out the factors driving it. Jewish leaders should be pointing out the lie that Israeli residence in Judea and Samaria is illegal. They should be producing the copious evidence that exists of Palestinian Nazi-style anti-Semitism. They should be accusing anyone who supports the Palestinian Arab cause of supporting genocidal, racist fanaticism.

Yet from Diaspora Jewish community leaders, there has been on these crucial matters only silence.

The problem isn’t just the appalling number of Jews who believe the lies about Israel. The deeper issue is the desperate desire of Diaspora Jews to “fit in” with the surrounding society.

They refuse to acknowledge the full enormity of what’s happening because it would force them to confront what they have constructed an entire social framework to deny—that they will always be regarded as “the Jew” in society, as the ultimate outsider. And the toleration of them will always be conditional.

This was recently spelled out with brutal clarity when Aaron Keyak, the Biden administration’s “Jewish engagement director,” told American Jews: “It pains me to say this, but if you fear for your life or physical safety, take off your kippah and hide your Star of David.”

The majority of American Jews have bought into liberal universalism and rejected Jewish nationhood. For British Jews, minhag anglia (“English custom”) means never rocking the cultural boat. These trembling Diaspora Israelites don’t even realize that they are feeding the beast that intends to devour them. Their Jewish identity will not survive the experience.

British Actor Stephen Fry Praises ‘Brilliant’ Essay Calling Israel an Embarrassment to Jews

Jewish British actor and comedian Stephen Fry shared on Thursday what he described as a “brilliant” essay that bashed Israel and described the country as an embarrassment to Jews.

“It’s hard for me to think of the State of Israel as anything but a shanda fir di goyim … a Jew that embarrassed the Jews, and thus justified Gentile persecution and hate,” wrote 2020 Pulitzer Prize-winning author Benjamin Moser in an essay published on his Substack newsletter on Tuesday, titled “A trip to Hebron.”

Fry posted on Twitter on Thursday a link to the essay and wrote, “This is quite brilliant, as Benjamin Moser so often is. Aside from being a wonderful piece of writing in itself, it has clarified so much for me.”

Moser, who is Jewish, started his essay by recalling a trip to Israel five years ago for the Palestine Festival of Literature and his visit to Hebron. The Houston-born author said that when his parents were growing up, “Jim Crow was the law of the land in our state,” referring to the laws that enforced racial segregation in the late 19th and early 20th centuries in the US.

“Yet Hebron felt worse to me than anything I’d read about Jim Crow. Worse than apartheid — a word that is now, finally, being applied to Palestine,” he added. “The restrictions on Palestinian life — starting with the simple ability to walk down the street — are so suffocating that you can’t quite believe you’re not in some grotesque movie. The Palestinians have no citizenship, and nowhere to go: if they leave the Occupied Territories, they become stateless refugees. And if they stay — well, their lives are restricted in ways that are very hard to imagine. Imagine the COVID lockdowns, but for your entire life, generation after generation, and with no vaccine on its way.”

Jewish Palestine's competing political parties, 1921

One hundred years ago The Hebrew Standard of June 3, 1921 published in its weekly British Jewish news column the details of the various Jewish political parties in Palestine.

They were as diverse as the ones in Israel today.

I just saw a 58 page paper published by Oxfam last year about what the PA and Hamas (barely mentioned) could do to reduce poverty,

Buried deep within this document is a very mild criticism of Hamas quoting an unnamed development expert in Gaza:

The policies of the de facto authorities in Gaza are not conducive to economic growth and development. Their export and import policies, as well as discriminatory policies in terms of distribution of land, subsidies, external funding and investment opportunities, are all leading to the demise of small businesses, small farmers and fishers. In contrast, there is no room for advocacy with the government given the limitations placed on civil society or to influence positive change on behalf of those who are victims of these policies.

This is an exceedingly polite way to say that Hamas gives out favors to its members and friends and doesn't give a damn about actual people under its control, who have no recourse - they cannot vote Hamas out, they cannot protest without being arrested.

Elsewhere in this report, Oxfam mentions that Hamas employees are incompetent, possibly because the jobs are given out as favors: "[N]ew staff of the de facto authorities in Gaza have very limited

experience and capacities. "

Occasionally, an NGO will throw in a "we condemn indiscriminate Hamas rockets" in order to justify their obsessive focus on finding faults with Israel. Here, however, we see a rare counterexample where the unnamed Hamas is being called out for corruption, in a report that hardly anyone will ever read.

People say that their fanatical insults of Israel is "legitimate criticism." Where is the legitimate criticism of a terror group that controls all aspects of the lives of two million people? How come the news media that has reporters all over Gaza never bothers to report on Hamas corruption, its giving land and jobs to friends?

Media bias is obvious when you look for what's missing.

(h/t Irene)

06/04 Links Pt1: Judea Pearl: How Did Hamas Become the Darling of the West?; Tackling the myth of Israel’s ‘disproportionate response’; Israel’s Potential Post-Netanyahu Government, Explained

From Ian:

Judea Pearl: How Did Hamas Become the Darling of the West?

And this brings me to 2021 and to the latest war in Gaza. To the New York Times front page depicting the victims of Israel’s defense operation, as if they had never heard the word “Hamas” or read Hamas’s charter. To CNN’s anchor Fareed Zakaria asserting that Israel is a military superpower, hence Hamas does not pose an existential threat to it. To NYT analyst Nicholas Kristof asserting (in an interview with Bill Maher) that Israel, too, positions its military headquarters among civilians. To UCLA Department of Asian American Studies stating (on its official University website) its “Solidarity with Palestine” and its authoritative understanding that such “violence and intimidation are but the latest manifestation of seventy-three years of settler colonialism, racial apartheid, and occupation.”

To the Statement of scholars of Jewish Studies and Israel Studies from various universities who, in the Forward,condemned “the state violence that the Israeli government and its security forces have been carrying out in Gaza.” To members of If Not Now, saying Kaddish for fallen Hamas fighters (among other victims). And, finally, to the mob roaming the streets of Los Angeles and shouting, “Honk, Honk, From the River to the Sea.”

Looking back on the past 12 years, there is no question that Hamas has gained a major uplift in status and respectability. It has become, in fact, the darling of the West. True, seasoned commentators remember to add the obligatory, “We are not condoning Hamas, of course, but…”

“But what?” I ask.

Doesn’t Fareed Zakaria imply that it is not the end of the world if 300,000 Israeli children continue to bleed sleeplessly for another 20 years under Hamas rockets? Didn’t Nicholas Kristof imply that if those children suffer post-traumatic scars for the rest of their lives that it is Israel’s problem because Israel, too, positions its headquarters in civilian areas? Western analysts will go to any absurd lengths to fabricate symmetry between Israel and Hamas, because symmetry is our new goddess of right and wrong.

But let’s not forget that it all started in academia, with a herd of passionate intellectuals who managed to hijack the name of their academic institution, which hardly cared. Do not blame them. After all, intellectuals are trained to cheer their peers when the marching band starts playing, and academic institutions are too slow to understand what is being done in their names. Sadly, as Ionesco understood so well, we are all herd-honking organisms. Please take another look at the rhinos roaming the streets of Los Angeles, here, and see for yourself how hard it is to hold back and not join them with: Honk, Honk!

Tackling the myth of Israel’s ‘disproportionate response’

Turning from theory to practice, how is the principle of proportionality affected when instead of protecting its civilians, Hamas intentionally conducts its military activity from within densely populated areas? How is Israel expected to protect its major cities from Hamas rockets, when these rockets are developed, built and launched from within the Gazan civilian population? What does international law require Israel, a law-abiding state, to do, when facing Hamas’ unlawful tactics that endanger the people of Gaza and Israeli civilians?

The Law of Armed Conflict clearly states that when a civilian presence is used to shield military objectives from attacks, that presence does not grant the target immunity. So when Hamas commits the double war crime of attacking Israeli children, schools and airports from within its own civilian population, any objective analysis of the situation would be distorted if Hamas’s criminal behaviour is not taken into account.

Despite Hamas’s blatant disregard for the law or its citizens’ wellbeing, Israel takes every feasible precaution to prevent or at least minimise harm to the Palestinian civilian population, often at the cost of operational advantage. In doing so, Israel employs precautions that exceed the requirements of international law and surpasses practices commonly employed by advanced militaries of western states. Fighting a reckless enemy that deliberately abuses the Law of Armed Conflict in the most cynical way raises grave challenges for Israeli soldiers. Nevertheless, Israeli commanders strictly apply international law and maintain the utmost moral high ground in every military action.

Hamas will continue to use its own population as human shields so long as it continues to benefit from a narrative that misrepresents and reduces the concept of proportionality to a crude calculation – and so long as they benefit from knee-jerk reactions that blame Israel for the war crimes perpetrated by Hamas, ignoring the question of who put Gazan civilians in danger in the first place.

Israel conducted a moral and just operation against Hamas’ indiscriminate aggression. Any Israeli government would have acted in the same manner of self-defence. By the same token, any future Israeli government will continue to strive for a long and sustainable peace and quiet with Gaza.

This commitment to peace means Israel will offer, as it always does, humanitarian and any other assistance needed in the reconstruction effort in Gaza, so long as Hamas is prevented from rearming and rebuilding its terrorist capabilities.

Israel’s Potential Post-Netanyahu Government, Explained

5. Can it last? As noted above, this proposed coalition sits on a knife’s edge, with just 61 out of 120 seats. Even if it actually gets sworn in, between its numbers and its incoherent mix of internal ideologies, it’s easy to see how this government could fall apart under the weight of its own contradictions. At the same time, the coalition’s members have many political incentives to stick together. Bennett and his party know that they will be punished by right-wing voters if they do not deliver while in government. The same is true for Abbas, who must make good on his promises to his Arab constituents. Lapid and his allies want the government to last two years so that he will get his turn at the helm. And all the while, Benjamin Netanyahu will loom over it all as leader of the opposition, providing a constant reminder to the coalition as to why they banded together in the first place. Netanyahu himself managed to hold power for years with a 61-seat coalition, which means it’s entirely possible for his opponents to do the same, and more likely than many skeptics assume. But it won’t be easy.

6. Biden’s big opportunity: Netanyahu, with his American upbringing and unaccented English, long believed that he could run circles around American politics and politicians—and often did. This mindset led Bibi to take unprecedented partisan stances in American politics, ratchet up public tensions with President Barack Obama, openly campaign against the Iran deal in the U.S. Congress, and regularly rebuff entreaties on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

But historically, most Israeli leaders—including avowedly right-wing ones like Ariel Sharon—have not had the appetite for such confrontation, and responded to pressure from the senior partner in the U.S.-Israel relationship. Bennett, especially in this government, may find it hard to shrug off Biden’s interventions on everything from Iran to Palestinian policy in the way Netanyahu has with successive American presidents. And Lapid, the other half of this government, wants nothing more than to work closely with Biden and the Democrats to reset the U.S.-Israel relationship on a bipartisan footing. This means that a pathway for a sophisticated and serious diplomatic approach on Israel, the West Bank, Gaza, and the Iran deal just opened up where there wasn’t one yesterday. The question is whether the administration is ready to seize it.

Donald Trump, contrary to some of his critics, was quite successful in remaking much of the Middle East in his image. From his empowering of like-minded right-wing elements in Israel to his brokering of the Abraham Accords, Trump showed that American presidents have far more diplomatic ability to affect the trajectory in Israel and the region than is often assumed. That’s one lesson that Biden might learn for his own purposes.

What does #Israel’s new “#Apartheid” government look like?

- 8 Arab MKs in the coalition
- An Arab minister
- An Arab party in the coalition
-1/3 Mizrahi
- 8 Female ministers

I’ll just wait here for the apology from @RashidaTlaib @bellahadid @aoc and @IlhanMN pic.twitter.com/uMd9TTqRee
— Emily Schrader - ????? ?????? (@emilykschrader) June 4, 2021

The headline in the Philadelphia Inquirer says, "A teacher at a Main Line Jewish school criticized Zionism on Twitter. Then he got fired."

That is an inaccurate and irresponsible headline, which is being abused by anti-Zionists who are having a field day claiming this is Zionist cancel culture.

The school, the Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy, is unapologetically Zionist. The tweets by teacher Jesse Schwartz were bragging that he was going to violate school policy by secretly teaching students to hate Israel.

The three tweets at issue are:

“young jews are worth saving from the morally and intellectually corroding clutches of zionism! idk how to do this but i’m gonna try to do it lol”

“i sort of do the opposite of what the CIA does in the sense that i am infiltrating a right wing institution instead of a left wing institution and also instead of successfully sabotaging and disappearing activists i am just going to like, get fired after maybe changing 1 kid’s mind”

“i’m also gonna try to make [the students] socialists and ******** the faculty”

These tweets aren't anti-Zionist - they are a threat that a teacher plans to clandestinely undermine school standards. The fact that he doesn't use his real name or the name of the school is irrelevant - any employer would fire any employee who threatens to secretly sow discord in the workplace.

If Schwartz, an English teacher, had merely tweeted "Israel is an apartheid state" then of course he shouldn't be fired. It has nothing to do with his job.

But this is closer to a pharmacist saying that she will purposefully fill dosages incorrectly to people she doesn't like. No pharmacy would take the chance that she is only joking. Yet the author of this Inquirer article excuses Schwartz's tweets, writing that "His tweets are a particular brand of dry, leftist humor found on corners of the internet among young people who would identify as 'extremely online.'"

This is biased reporting and the lies are spreading online.

On May 20 - after Israel endured thousands of rockets - the Schenectady High School sent out an email to all teachers instructing them to be anti-Zionist.

The entire letter has not been published, but local media quoted enough of it to show how insanely biased it was.

“As we continue in our anti-racism journey, it is important to bring attention to the injustices that have escalated against Palestinians in recent weeks,” wrote the school's “culturally-responsive committee,” which is supposed to advance the school’s anti-racism and equity goals.

The letter gave a list of words for teachers to use, and not to use, when referring to the Israel/Palestinian conflict - one of the words not to use.

The “words to use” list included: apartheid, colonialism, ethnic cleansing, boycott Israel, and anti-Zionism. “Words not to use” included: ‘clash, war, both sides and conflict.”

When the backlash started, the committee that sent out the letter didn't apologize for its anti-Israel viewpoint. Instead, it said it wasn't antisemitic.

“The CRC’s critique of state-sanctioned violence is never intended to give either implicit or explicit condemnation of a religion,” the committee wrote in its follow-up message. “Any antisemitic ideologies should be given no quarter in our community or in our committee. We are deeply sorry for the harm that we caused by not making that more clear.”

But calling to boycott Israel and to be explicitly anti-Zionist and implicitly support Hamas is perfectly okay!

It took the school district two full weeks after the letter to finally acknowledge that they screwed up.

Schenectady Interim Superintendent Aaron Bochniak apologized on Wednesday for the “hurt, anger, disappointment and fear” caused by the email.

Bochniak, said "it did not include the necessary context and framework to help move the dialogue in the right direction.”

But his defense of the committee that sent out the email is unbelievable:

“Ultimately, the work is intended to make teaching and learning relevant and supportive of all students,” Bochniak said of the culturally relevant committee. “The work of these teachers does not mean that they are the experts; they are learning the work by doing the work and encouraging difficult conversations. Sometimes they need help and support, too.”

Excuse me? The teachers that send out an email telling other teachers how to teach aren't experts, and this fiasco is just a learning experience for them? We should feel sorry for these bigots because they are just muddling by, trying to do the best they can?

Imagine if a teacher said a racist statement in the classroom, or said that Native Americans really didn't suffer when America was colonized. Would that be chalked up as a mere mistake that the teacher can learn from, or would the teacher be immediately fired?

The fact is that this “culturally-responsive committee” is filled with ignoramuses who look at the world through the lens of "privileged whites" and "oppressed people of color", they know literally nothing beyond that. This letter proves it. It shows that the current members are supremely unqualified not only to be members of such a committee but unqualified to be teachers in the first place.

The UN makes up another international law against Israel

The UN's Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs published an infographic at the end of the May fighting in Gaza describing how many of the dead in Gaza were civilians. Here is a detail from the May 25 graphic:

The footnote to this graphic says:

Disclaimer: Those reported as civilians are individuals that are not members of armed forces and were not directly participating in hostilities at the time that they were killed. Whether an individual is qualified as civilian or not, has no bearing on the legality of the killing.

That last sentence is, to put it mildly, bizarre. The entire Fourth Geneva Conventions were written for the "Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War," Distinction between civilians and military objects, including members of armed groups, is a fundamental principle of international law.

Now the UN is saying that international law is the same for both civilians and members of armed terror groups? Or even full soldiers?

To be sure, there have been questions about exactly what is allowed under international law during conflict with terror groups. In a 2006 court case before Israel's High Court of Justice, Israel tried to argue that there is a third category between civilians and combatants, namely "unlawful combatants" who do not fit the legal definition of combatants since they do not carry arms openly and do not wear military emblems but who nevertheless engage in hostilities. The HCJ rejected that argument, and said that existing international law does deal with such people, as described in the 1977 First Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions:

"3. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this Section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities."

The HCJ said, that "terrorists participating in hostilities do not cease to be civilians, but by their acts they deny themselves the aspect of their civilian status which grants them protection from military attack. Nor do they enjoy the rights of combatants, e.g. the status of prisoners of war."

The remaining question is to define "for such time" and "hostilities" and "direct." The HCJ says that commanders who send out militants are taking direct part in hostilities, and that members of a terror organization who are taking a rest between fighting are only preparing for the next attack and are therefore subject to attack themselves. Meaning, that Israel can attack them in their homes, assuming that the military advantage gained by killing them is proportionate to the expected damage to civilians.

Israel’s Manual on the Rules of Warfare (2006) states:

The fundamental rule is that war should be conducted between armies and each army should only attack the army of the enemy. A military target is any target that, if attacked, would damage the military competence/fitness of the other side. ...Every soldier (including women soldiers!) in the enemy’s army is a legitimate military target to be attacked on and away from the battlefield.

So while the question of exactly what is allowed in a war against terror groups who do not adhere to the laws of war themselves is complex, the UN's assertion that there is no difference in the legality of attacking civilians and members of armed groups is clearly wrong - whether one considers them to be combatants or whether one considers them to be civilians engaging in hostilities.