Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Tuesday, November 08, 2016

Egyptian paper quotes David Duke Jew-hate, identifying him as a "professor"

Al Wafd, an Egyptian paper associated with the liberal Wafd party, has an article quoting David Duke's antisemitic rantings of Jews rigging the US elections and how AIPAC hates Donald Trump because he is a threat to their interests.

What is more interesting is that Al Wafd only identifies Duke as a "history professor" and not as a white supremacist - who also happens to hate Arabs.

Meaning that Al Wafd wants to make it appear as if Duke is a mainstream figure and it is laundering its own Jew-hatred through the words of a convenient American antisemite.

This is the sort of thing we see all the time from Iranian media.

"We cannot be accused of hating Jews," goes the logic. "We are merely quoting prominent Americans who hate Jews!"

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Times of Israel reports:

Israel successfully prevented the Palestinians from joining the international police force Interpol, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced Tuesday, praising the Foreign Ministry’s diplomatic efforts.

The Palestinians wanted their request to join Interpol to come to a vote during the organization’s annual general assembly, which is taking place this week in Bali, but Jerusalem worked behind the scenes to prevent the vote.

Sixty-two Interpol member states voted against the Palestinian proposal to have a vote on their membership bid, according to a joint press release by the Foreign Ministry and the Israel Police.

“Many others abstained, including countries that are part of the automatic pro-Palestinian majority,” the statement read. “The vote is a major achievement and reflects the change in Israel’s international status and the success of Israeli diplomacy.”

Israel fears that sensitive information could be leaked to terrorists if the Palestinians join the organization, an official in Jerusalem said last week, without giving further details.

That's one reason.

But for the main reason, read this NYT article from yesterday about how despotic nations are misusing Interpol:

Determined to punish domestic opponents who flee abroad, as well as non-Russians whose lives and finances it wants to disrupt, Moscow has developed an elaborate and well-funded strategy in recent years of using — critics say abusing — foreign courts and law enforcement systems to go after its enemies.

Some countries, including Russia, “work really hard to get Interpol alerts” against political enemies, said Jago Russell, the chief executive of Fair Trials International, a human rights group in London, because “this helps give credibility to their own prosecution and undermines the reputation of the accused.”

“It is also potentially a good threat to use against people still in the country: ‘You may be able to leave, but don’t assume you will be safe,’” he added.

...the Interpol membership of nations — like Russia, Iran and Zimbabwe — routinely use their justice systems to persecute political foes has stirred worries that wanted notices can be easily misused. In September, the congressional Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission heard a litany of complaints about abuse from experts and victims of Interpol notices during a discussion of how to reform the police organization’s system of so-called red notices.

Interpol issues such notices, which amount to an international arrest warrant, at the request of a member country seeking help in catching a fugitive who has fled abroad. Interpol’s computer system also circulates diffusions. These are less formal than red notices, but are also used to request the arrest or location of an individual, or information, in relation to a police investigation.

Interpol does not release figures for how many red notices or other arrest alerts are issued through its computer system by each member country, but the number of people identified in Interpol’s databases as wanted criminal suspects has risen sharply in recent years.

The Palestinians, whose only purpose to desire membership in Interpol is political, would use all of Russia's playbook to prosecute any Zionist worldwide that they can find a flimsy pretext of a local court judgment against them. They would prosecute Jews in Judea and Samaria, claiming jurisdiction and demanding they be extradited when they visit relatives in Europe or the US. They would file baseless lawsuits against Israelis and demand Interpol detain them. Interpol doesn't have a system to determine the validity of the request and would be forced to comply with the demands of any member.

Luckily, the organization saw through the attempt this time. But as the Russian cases already show, the organization will need to revamp itself to stop things like this from happening.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Wikileaks shows media wrong, Bibi supports two state solution

The headline in the New York Times for an article by Jim Rutenberg in March 2015 assumes that Netanyahu is not interested in the two-state solution:

Wikileaks shows that Rutenberg emailed Philippe Reines, longtime Clinton aide, asking him to confirm that Hillary supports a two-state solution.

I'm pressing the R (likely) candidates on their positions on the two-state solution and figure I should make sure I take note of Secretary Clinton's, which I assume is not expected to change from "essential" ?

Reines passed the email up the chain at the tightly scripted Clinton campaign, where Jennifer Palmieri, its Director of Communications, amplified the question:

thanks - adding Jake and John to this.

Think this is our first incoming on how to handle Bibi being against a 2 state solution.

Are we clear on how we want to handle this? Should we do a call? thanks

The answer same from Jake Sullivan, senior adviser to Clinton:

Don't think we need a call. She is for a two-state solution and thinks the status quo is unsustainable. She had dozens of hours of convos with Bibi where he not only supported a two-state solution but actively negotiated to bring it about. We don't need to wade into Israeli politics but we should be clear and unabashed about our own position.

Remember that the Obama administration dismissed Bibi's clarification that he supported a two-state solution.

This shows once again that they were speaking out of hatred for Bibi, not facts.

See more at AIJAC.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Mahmoud Abbas defends teen caught stabbing Israelis on video

Yesterday:

The Jerusalem District Court on Thursday sentenced a Palestinian minor to 12 years behind bars for a stabbing attack in the capital last year that injured two Israeli civilians.
The 14-year-old from East Jerusalem was convicted earlier this year on two counts of attempted murder for the October 2015 knife attack, in which he and his cousin critically injured a 12-year-old boy and a 25-year-old man.
The teenage assailant was 13 when he carried out the attack along with his 15-year-old cousin, who was shot dead by security forces responding at the scene.

Mahmoud Abbas called for the boy, 14 year old Ahmed Manasra, to be freed, claiming that jailing him goes against international law and that he was coerced into confessing.

However, there is video showing him and his cousin Hassan chasing Jews and stabbing a 13 year old boy on a bicycle.

This is who Mahmoud Abbas is saying should be free - to stab again.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

"Supporting the Iran deal is electoral poison" - and J-Street looks idiotic for supporting it

A fascinating study in The Weekly Standard:

Republicans in tight races are closing out the election with ads blasting their Democratic opponents for supporting last summer's nuclear deal with Iran, while Democrats are remaining largely silent about the broadly unpopular agreement, according to media analysis provided to THE WEEKLY STANDARD and interviews with GOP pollsters and campaign strategists.

Liberal groups that favored the deal and urged Democrats to back it have been left to counter the Republican push and the perception that support for the deal is electorally damaging. These groups have launched a media effort suggesting that prominent Democrats are in fact eager to run on the deal, a claim that strategists told TWS is at odds with data about campaign spending and messaging.

An analysis of advertisements provided to TWS by a campaign media expert found that over 100 Republican broadcast federal campaign ads mention the Iran deal, while only three Democratic television ads focused on it. One of the three advertisements was released by a Nebraska congressman who says he opposed the deal and describes how he "stood up to my own party."

And where did the only two ads that favored the deal come from?

The other two Democratic advertisements came from the liberal advocacy group J Street, which told reporters last month it was releasing ads for states like Illinois and Wisconsin. The spots counter the perception that Democrats are being damaged for backing the Obama administration's diplomacy toward Iran.

But pollsters and strategists cast doubt on the specifics of J Street's campaign, and on the broader suggestion that Democrats were willing to campaign on their support for the deal.

A GOP pollster working on several races this cycle told TWS that to their knowledge, "not a single Democratic campaign in a competitive race is running this as a positive message." If Iran deal backers really thought the deal was a "'winning' issue that would bring new voters into the fold," the pollster added, they would have targeted Republicans in "reach" or "red" states, especially states like Arizona with significant Hispanic votes.

Asked specifically about the J Street ad buy, the pollster speculated that the group was trying to create the impression that the Iran deal was boosting candidates by choosing races in states that Obama won in 2012 by 5 to 16 percent—and suggested the campaign was backfiring.

"J Street picked 'safe' seats early in the year, and are probably shocked that at least a couple of them have become competitive, [and] their donors would probably be more shocked to learn the Iran Deal is a significant part of why," explained the pollster. "Essentially, J Street and the Iran Deal are alienating swing voters in what should have been easy-to-win races."

A senior official at a national Jewish organization said ..."J Street and other Iran backers promised Democrats that they'd have electoral cover if they voted for the Iran deal. But by the end of 2015 the public opposed the deal 2:1, and that's where the number has stayed," said the official. "Supporting the Iran deal is electoral poison, and politicians who have their seats on the line know that better than anyone. No amount of Potemkin spending is going to fool them."

This Reuters article from October, when it was assumed that Trump's campaign was fatally wounded, agrees that Republicans used their opposition to the Iran deal as their main talking points to get voters while distancing themselves at the time from Trump.

Indeed, the Free Beacon reports that even on the presidential level, the Clinton camp decided to distance themselves from supporting the Iran deal in the campaign:

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton drafted plans to aggressively campaign on the comprehensive nuclear deal with Iran after it was announced last summer, but quietly abandoned the tactic as the deal grew more unpopular among the electorate, according to leaked campaign strategy documents.

The plan, outlined by Team Clinton in a July 25, 2015 strategy memo, would have involved deluging the media with positive stories praising the deal and crediting Clinton for originating and pushing it. The plan was shelved as the agreement’s popularity plummeted over the next few months and hardened into broad public disapproval.

Instead, campaign staffers began emphasizing distance between Clinton and the deal’s final terms, even as the former secretary of state publicly states the agreement was necessary, mirroring a broad trend during the election in which Democrats avoid bringing up the deal, according to multiple sources who spoke to the Washington Free Beacon.

What does J-Street say about its campaign to get people elected based on their support for the Iran deal?

They admit that "the campaign is the first and only national effort to defend the Iran agreement in the context of the 2016 elections" and claim "We aim to exact a cost from the deal’s most strident opponents."

In fact, most of the candidates that J-Street pushed have seen their leads narrow since they ran these ads.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

11/07 Links Pt2: Pipes: The SPLC Finds Niqabs and Kippahs Equally Threatening; American and Israeli Jews, Compared

From Ian:

New Holocaust, Genocide Curriculum at Boston U's Elie Wiesel Center 'Perfect Fit' for Renowned Survivor's Legacy, Says Jewish Studies Prof

A new secondary academic discipline offered at Boston University (BU) — aimed at educating about mass murder in the 20th century — has generated much excitement among students, a teacher of one of its courses told The Algemeiner on Friday.
The Holocaust and Genocide Studies minor, which is being offered through BU’s Elie Wiesel Center for Jewish Studies “fits perfectly with the social justice legacy” of the man after whom the center is named, said Nancy Harrowitz, associate professor of Italian and Jewish studies.
“Racism, prejudice and xenophobia, unfortunately, are not things of the past. Educating ourselves about history so as to learn from it is vital in today’s world,” Harrowitz said. “We hope to create empathy and sensitivity in our students about persecuted groups, past and present, that will go beyond specific topics studied,” among them “History of the Holocaust” and “History of Genocide.”
Equally important for students to study, she said, is the role of bystander complicity — crucial for “understanding warning signs and our ethical duty as citizens.”
“Do we go out of our way to help others who are suffering oppression? What does it mean if we don’t? It makes me think of the provocative slogan sometimes seen at Black Lives Matter rallies: ‘White Silence is Violence.’ Some may see that as excessive, but the point it makes is thought-provoking,” she said.

UK Media Watch interview with Dave Rich, author of ‘The Left’s Jewish Problem’.

Dave Rich is deputy director of communications at the Community Security Trust (CST), and is the author of a timely new book titled The Left’s Jewish Problem: Jeremy Corbyn, Israel and Antisemitism.
Though anti-Jewish racism on the left is of course not a new story, the issue came to the forefront last year in the UK with the election of Jeremy Corbyn as Labour Party leader and ensuing scandals involving the suspension of party members for antisemitism.
The row continues to garner significant media attention both in the UK and abroad, and a recent report by a British parliamentary committee upheld complaints that the Labour Party leadership has failed to seriously confront incidents of antisemitism within their party.
Rich agreed to answer a few of our questions about his book, which is a must-read for those interested in understanding the political and intellectual context of the current crisis.
UKMW: In the first chapter of your book, ‘When the Left Stopped Loving Israel’, you argued that the rise of anti-imperialism and anti-colonialism as the defining ideologies of the radical left influenced activists to see the Israeli-Arab conflict through a different lens. Is it a fair reading of this chapter to say that, contrary to most theories, this left-wing intellectual tide began to turn before the Six Day War – that is, before Israel occupied one square centimeter of land?

Daniel Pipes: The SPLC Finds Niqabs and Kippahs Equally Threatening

The Southern Poverty Law Center's Heidi Beirich has distributed a standardized reply to the avalanche of protests (including a particularly eloquent one by National Review) against its wretched Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists (of which I am allegedly one). Her apologia makes a quite remarkable claim in reference to me that calls for a response. She writes that
the calling for a ban of any religious dress is indeed extreme, regardless of the religious institution. Calling for a ban on the niqab is akin to banning a kippah. Daniel Pipes, another extremist on this list, has also called for a similar ban. These calls are contrary to religious freedom.
A kipper.
The kippah (aka the yarmulke); really? In response, two points addressed to Ms Beirich:
1. I am fine with the wearing of a hijab or burkini because these do not threaten public security. They are a matter of personal Islamic expression. But I reject the niqab and burqa because they do threaten public security. Had you bothered to consult my blog on this subject, with over a hundred incidents where these articles of clothing have been used to facilitate criminality, political violence, and jihad, you would understand the problem.
2. Headgear like niqabs and burqas are banned in banks and other commercial institutions around the world, for the obvious reason that criminals use them as accessories to holdups. So far as I know, not a single institution has ever banned the kippah, a tiny covering at the top of the head, on security grounds. Can you possibly figure out why not?

Al Watan Voice, which often features explicitly antisemitic articles, has an interesting piece by Helwa Zayekh about her visit to her sick mother at Hadassah Hospital on Mount Scopus.

She writes that sharing her mother's room is a Jewish woman, adding that "this is normal, of course."

The Jewish woman was born in 1930 and was clearly of Syrian descent. Her daughter brought an iPad for her mother to watch Syrian TV drama, speaking to her in Syrian-accented Arabic. While the Jewish woman couldn't talk, her eyes lit up when she saw her favorite Syrian actors on the screen.

The writer says that she appreciates that Syrian Jews still appreciate Arab culture, but then forces herself to add, "I was amazed at people who could change religion into a nationality," pretending that this family was Syrian first and Jewish only by religion.

If Zayekh wouldn't have added that sentence, she might have been accused of "normalization" with Jews. Arabs like to pretend that Judaism is only a religion, not a nationality.

But what she actually revealed is not only that Israel treats its Arab citizens with respect, but also that a significant number of Jews in Israel are indigenous even by the Arab definition that regards Jews from Europe as being somehow not really Semitic.

If she could have asked the woman if she considered herself a member of the Syrian people or the Jewish people, she might not have liked the answer.

(h/t Ibn Boutros)

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

William al Sheik-Speare and the Palestinian Dead Sea Scrolls (Petra Marquardt-Bigman)

by Petra Marquardt-Bigman

Just as William al Sheik-Speare was a famous Palestinian writer, the Dead Sea Scrolls are of course part of the awesomely ancient Palestinian cultural heritage. But while Twitter users had much fun with the latest Palestinian effort to appropriate Jewish history, there is every reason to expect that UNESCO will be eager to endorse this utterly pathetic Palestinian claim – after all, declaring the Dead Sea Scrolls part of the Palestinian “heritage” would be a worthy follow-up of the organization’s recent vote to declare the Temple Mount an exclusively Muslim holy site.

Interestingly, this is not the first time the Palestinians are trying to claim the Dead Sea Scrolls as part of their “heritage.” Back in 2009, the scrolls were exhibited at the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto, and the Palestinians promptly protested this “illegal use of the scrolls” and eventually pushed the Jordanian government to ask Canada to seize them “in a bid to keep the artifacts out of the hands of Israel.” According to the cited report on the incident, “Palestinian experts acknowledge the scrolls are Jewish, but argue that they are also part of Palestinian heritage just as ancient Roman and Byzantine ruins comprise part of their history.”

In other words, if Arab Muslim armies had conquered Britain well after Shakespeare died, we might now really be faced with claims that his works are “part of Palestinian heritage.”

But claiming the Dead Sea Scrolls as “part of Palestinian heritage” should actually pose a real dilemma if “Palestinian experts” still “acknowledge” that “the scrolls are Jewish” – after all, how to square this with endlessly repeated Palestinian claims that the Jews are evil European colonialists who are desperately faking archaeological finds to claim an ancient connection to the land of Israel? And what to do about inconvenient facts, such as that “Hebrew is the most frequently used language in the Scrolls” and that the scrolls include “partial or complete copies of every book in the Hebrew Bible (except the book of Esther)”?

Well, it shouldn’t be too hard to get UNESCO to vote for a declaration that the Hebrew in the Dead Sea Scrolls is really Arabic and that those copies of the books of the Hebrew Bible are actually just sneak previews of the Quran. (And maybe while UNESCO is at it they could confirm that “Shakespeare Was an Arab Named Shaykh Zubayr”???)

If you’re wondering just how low Palestinians are willing to go in order to push their fake claim to the Dead Sea Scrolls, the “award winning Palestinian journalist” Daoud Kuttab penned a helpful Huffington Post column about “Growing Up in Bethlehem With the Dead Sea Scrolls Story” in an attempt to bolster Palestinian demands in 2009 that Canada should seize the scrolls exhibited back then in Toronto. In a related post under the title “The Dead Sea Scrolls: Anything but Jewish?,” I highlighted at the time that Kuttab was particularly upset by Israeli claims that “the scrolls have no connection to Jordan or the Jordanian people,” and he was furious that “Israeli foreign ministry spokesman, Yigal Palmor, made the preposterous claim that Jordan’s rule over fellow Arabs before 1967 was an ‘occupation.’” So in other words, it doesn’t really matter if the Dead Sea Scrolls are part of the oh-so-ancient Palestinian or Jordanian “heritage” – all that matters is denying the fact that they are actually “an intrinsic part of Jewish heritage and religion.”

As I noted back then, Kuttab was self-absorbed enough to be convinced that these Israeli claims were easily invalidated by his own childhood memories of being told the story about the discovery of the first Dead Sea Scrolls by a Bedouin goat herder who asked an Arab cobbler to make sandals out of them. Fortunately, the cobbler realized that these scrolls could be valuable (and that it would be worthwhile for him to become an antique dealer); according to Kuttab, the scrolls were eventually passed on to a high-ranking official of the Syrian Orthodox Church who managed to sell them for a fortune. Could there be a better illustration for the deeply-felt Arab attachment to this unique historic treasure?

But the perhaps most appalling part of Kuttab’s post comes when he pontificates about how the “holy land is sacred to the three monotheistic religions,” because as far as he is concerned, this apparently means that as followers of the first monotheistic religion, Jews can’t claim anything as their own heritage. Thus, Kuttab rails against “[c]laims of religious exclusivity” and argues: “Fragments of every book of the Old Testament were found in several caves, not all of which are limited to the Jewish faith but are an integral part of Christianity. Islam also considers the Old Testament sacred.”

Well, Mr. Kuttab, here’s a thought: if Islam “also considers the Old Testament sacred,” maybe it’s time that Muslims start showing some respect for the followers of the Old Testament and the heritage that Jews and Christians created long before there was Islam?

But perhaps this is really asking too much at a time when UNESCO is so eager to promote Muslim supersessionism and to help Palestinians to pillage their “heritage” from the people whose history in the area between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean stretches back some three thousand years.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

11/07 Links Pt1: Hen Mazzig ‘My existence is a provocation’; 'Catch the Jew' author takes aim at US

From Ian:

‘My existence is a provocation’

Hen Mazzig on how campus culture has become hostile to Jews.
Mazzig says this ugly climate is not unique to university campuses. It is part of a wider problem whereby Jews outside of Israel are forced to pick a side on the Israel-Palestine conflict. ‘A few years ago, a Jew could just be a Jew. Today, they do not have the luxury of being a Jew without deciding where they stand on Israel. A Muslim doesn’t need to decide where he stands on Muslim countries in the Middle East. But it seems like, for Jews, it is always a challenge.’
After the protest, UCLU posted a statement on its website, explaining that police were called ‘due to the controversial nature of the event’. According to UCLU, the 30-odd police officers were called to campus to protect everyone from controversy. It’s as if UCLU sits in a parallel universe. Clearly, when it comes to Israel, only one view is accepted on campus, and you oppose that view at your peril. As Mazzig puts it, ‘my existence is a provocation’.
Anti-Israel activists are keen advocates of this through-the-looking-glass approach. They talk up their right to protest and express their opinions. And yet they deny the same right to pro-Israel students by banging on windows and making as much noise as possible at these so-called peaceful protests. This is a clear attempt to deny pro-Israel speakers the right to speak, and the right of students to hear them. If the protesters have so much to say about Israel, why not go inside and have the debate? As Mazzig puts it, it’s an opportunity to ‘grill an Israeli’.
Mazzig is adamant he will return to the UK and give more talks. ‘The only way to fight hate speech is with good speech’, he says. He is right, but it takes some courage to do it.
Israel student societies face more opprobrium on campus, and require more security for their events, than any other kind. Israeli students are held personally accountable for their government’s actions. The singling out of Israel in campus politics is producing ugly results. So much so that the sight of a room of mostly Jewish students being surrounded by an angry, jeering mob has become all-too familiar. The National Union of Students refuses to comment on the UCL incident, and UCLU seems uninterested. What more has to happen before that looking glass is smashed?

'Catch the Jew' author takes aim at US

Arutz Sheva spoke with Tuvia Tenenbom, author of the new book, The Lies They Tell. Tenenbom's book has been released in Hebrew recently, will be released in German this week and is set to be released in English in January.
Tenenbom is the best-selling author of Catch the Jew, which humorously, but pointedly, delves into the world of left-wing anti-Israel activism, including that of NGOs and leftists within the State of Israel.
The publishers of The Lies They Tell explained that the book deals with USA, the world's empire understanding that what America does will affect our lives and the lives of our children.
"Who are the Americans? What are their dreams? What are their fears?", ask the publishers of the Hebrew version, "They say that they believe in multiculturalism. They say that hey love all: black, white, Jew, and Arab. They say that they are free. They say that they are brave. They say that they would love to see you, that they love you like a brother, and that their food is amazing. Their politicians compete with each other over who cares more about Israel".
After defining what values Americans "say" they follow, Tenenbom asks "Is any of this true?"

Elliott Abrams: Understanding the Human Rights Assaults on Israel

Rabbi Sacks’s explanation is in fact doubly powerful. Not only does he explain why Israel’s enemies choose the language of human rights, he also reminds us that the central motivation of those critics is, quite simply, anti-Semitism. As he explained,
Antisemitism means denying the right of Jews to exist collectively as Jews with the same rights as everyone else. It takes different forms in different ages. In the Middle Ages, Jews were hated because of their religion. In the nineteenth and early twentieth century they were hated because of their race. Today they are hated because of their nation state, the state of Israel. It takes different forms but it remains the same thing: the view that Jews have no right to exist as free and equal human beings.
His conclusion is stark:
It was Jews not Israelis who were murdered in terrorist attacks in Toulouse, Paris, Brussels and Copenhagen. Anti-Zionism is the antisemitism of our time.

A guest post from Irene:

If you don’t understand what the question is, your answer will be wrong.

The question is not “Why are we celebrating the centenary of the Balfour Declaration?” The question is, “What gave the British the right to give land that was not theirs to people who did not live there, ignoring the wishes of indigenous people?”

That’s the question the average person will have after reading almost any one of the recently numerous articles extolling the Balfour Declaration (and more will follow in the coming year), including most of those written by persons friendly to Israel. And it’s exactly the question that Arabs want people to ask, knowing that it leads the average person to conclude that Israel has no right to exist.

The Arabs use the Balfour Declaration as a potent weapon against Israel. Balfour conjures up images of the world’s foremost colonial power using force to impose its will on lands thousands of miles away with arrogant disregard of the native peoples. It is an image so vivid, so powerful, that it burns its way through the minds of the uninformed with lasting effect.

That is why I recommend that writers defuse the weapon by immediately putting the Balfour Declaration in perspective as an historically interesting letter that was almost immediately superseded by international law. I would dismiss Balfour in five sentences or less. That is all it deserves. If you spend any more time on it, you are playing into Arab hands.

All of the emphasis of articles should be on the international law that followed Balfour and that formed the basis for Israel—the decisions of the winning powers (not just the British) at San Remo and the unanimous decision of the 51 members of the League of Nations to issue the Mandate for Palestine. The League issued the Mandate pursuant to Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, which provided a path towards statehood for peoples previously under Ottoman rule who were not immediately able to stand up a nation of their own. Although it does not use these specific words, the Mandate in effect recognized the Jews as an indigenous people with aboriginal rights.

Emphasis should also be given to the fact that the decisions regarding Palestine were made at the same time that decisions were made to carve five Arabs nations out of the carcass of Ottoman Turkey’s Empire and mirrored decisions redrawing boundaries and changing sovereignties in Europe, Africa, and the Pacific at the end of World War I.

Some people may quibble with my statement that Balfour was “superseded by international law” because both the San Remo decision and the Mandate refer to it and quote from it. Balfour was a very short and very vague document. The Mandate for Palestine is a long and detailed document that provides for encouragement of Jewish immigration and close settlement on the land. It specifies a Jewish governmental body (but no Arab governmental body) with which the British would interact during the period of the Mandate and which would be the basis for the new state. It addresses a long list of other concerns, for example, access to holy places. So I stand by my statement. A few vague sentences issued by the British were supplanted by a detailed international law adopted unanimously by the League of Nations.

The answer to the question of “What gave the British the right to give land..." is that the British did not give away any land. The disposition of conquered lands at the end of World War I was addressed by international laws that recognized five Arab nations and a single small Jewish nation in the Ottoman Middle East. Few nations on earth have such a nice pedigree in international law as does Israel.

If you are a writing a scholarly paper, then yeah, spend a lot of time on Balfour. It was an interesting document. But it you are writing for the popular press, be aware that your words go out to people who already think Israel is illegitimate and are looking for memes to prove it. The Balfour Declaration, issued by a colonial power about a faraway land, is the perfect meme for that purpose. These people will not reach paragraph 18 of your article, when you finally get around to mentioning the Mandate.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

This week is the Marrakech Climate Conference - COP 22, the followup to the Paris Climate Agreement last year.

The Israeli Ministry of Environmental Protection is heavily involved in the conference, and it released a very impressive book-length document that describes well over 200 Israeli companies that have technologies to help the world's environment, in the categories of Climate, Solid Waste Management, Water Resources, Building and Construction, Agriculture and Extreme Events and Disasters. Any way you look at it, Israel is a leader in environmental protection, and as such must be a key player in any conference on the topic.

But...it is in Marrakech, Morocco.

So the local Arabs are very, very upset not only that Israelis are in their country, but that Israel's flag is fluttering among the flags of the other attendees.

Reports say that the flag is a "provocative step against the feelings of Moroccans and honorable people of the nation."

It's microaggression! The entire country of Morocco must be a safe space where people cannot be subjected to this horrible sight that one needs to go out of their way to even find!

Air pollution, clean water shortages, poisonous chemicals in food - all of that pales in importance to the feelings of Arabs who know that their country is hosting the Jewish state. And if there is something more important to the world than Arab feelings, I'd like to know what it is.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Ken Roth of Human Rights Watch tweeted this:

Something is wrong when she has lived in the United States since age 3 but isn't considered an American. https://t.co/tNZXgLsxLA pic.twitter.com/068ZTb2OKV
— Kenneth Roth (@KenRoth) November 6, 2016

This is richly ironic - because there is one group of people that HRW believes should not have the automatic right of citizenship after a much longer period of time i a country.

HRW and Amnesty have never advocated for the rights of Arabs of Palestinian descent to become citizens of the countries that they - and their parents and grandparents - have been born in.

Palestinians in Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Syria, Egypt and especially Lebanon (as well as thousands in Jordan) are supposed to be stateless, according to these "human rights" groups. Instead of citing international conventions that demand that people born in a nation become citizens, HRW and Amnesty lie about international law to demand that they become automatic citizens of Israel - even for the huge number who would happily accept citizenship in the countries they live in!

For only one group of people does HRW insist on a fictional right to "return" as superseding the right to nationality - the people who identify as Palestinians. Not to mention that the rights of Palestinians to become citizens in their host countries far exceed the right of the Mexican-born woman in the NYT article he cites to be considered an American citizen.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

The "Gadite" Jews in Silwan, 1920

The Jerusalem News was the first English-language daily newspaper to be published in Jerusalem, started in 1919. It was founded by Elizabeth Lippincott McQueen who later became a pioneer in women's aviation.

It only lasted six months, but I saw an edition for sale on eBay, with many stories in the aftermath of a major blizzard - about 29 inches of snow fell in Jerusalem on February 10, 1920.

It included this story of how the Zionist Jews tried to get food to the Yemenite Jews, called "Gadites," who lived in Kfar HaShiloach - known today as Silwan.

We have discussed previously the Yemenite Jews who moved to the area, now regarded as purely Arab, in the 19th century, moving into these houses on an otherwise empty hill..

I found one other edition of the newspaper online, with this otherwise forgotten story from 1920:

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

A group of Christian ministry leaders in the UK, under the name Balfour100.org, are planning events to celebrate the centennial of the Balfour Declaration next year.

Here is their take on the history of the document:

Five hundred years ago the Reformation led to the Bible being translated into English and read by the common man. This led to a greater interest, particularly among Puritans, in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament. They were able to read for themselves the prophetic passages speaking of the eventual return of Israel to her biblical promised land. By the 17th Century there was a growing awareness among British evangelicals generally that the Bible prophesied the return of the people of Israel to their historic Promised Land.

Later, in the 19th Century, many well-known preachers like Bishop J.C.Ryle and Baptist preacher Charles Spurgeon taught on the restoration of the Jews to their land. Bible-believing Christians (such as William Wilberforce and Lord Shaftesbury who were also enthusiastic restorationaists) had a huge influence on the governments of the time. A belief in the restoration of the Jewish people to Israel has been described as the “default position” for evangelicals in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Sadly, that is not the case today.

Ryle, Spurgeon and others were influential in presenting the case for the return of the Jews. As Bible students they longed to see the return of Jesus Christ. Before that could happen, the Jews had to be back in their own Land (Israel). They understood this from prophetic passages in the Old Testament foretelling the appearance of Messiah in Jerusalem to a restored Jewish people. This then became the central focus of their prayer and political action but seemed impossible while the ancient Land of Israel was under Muslim Turkish control and the Jewish people scattered for 1,900 years.

In 1896 Austrian Jewish journalist Theodor Herzl, incensed at the anti-semitism he saw around him (especially the notorious Dreyfus affair), wrote 'Der Judenstaat' on the need to re-establish the Jewish State as the only viable long-term solution for the survival of the Jewish people.

As Herzl began the movement that became known as “Zionism” he became friends with an evangelical Christian minister, Rev William Hechler. Hechler’s high level contacts as a diplomatic chaplain in Vienna enabled Herzl to gain valuable patronage for Zionsim and helped to envision influential leaders, including the Kaiser of Germany.

Historians have noted that if Herzl had not had Hechler’s support and encouragement to continue his work, Zionism might never have been birthed as a political movement. Hechler, a spiritual heir of the likes of Ryle and Spurgeon, was one of the first “Christian Zionists”.

As the 19th Century became the 20th, another partnership between Jew and gentile was developing that was key to the furtherance of the dream of a revived Jewish homeland.
Chaim Weizmann, born in 1874, was one of fifteen children born to a Jewish couple in Belarus. He studied biochemistry in Germany and moved to Manchester in 1904. Becoming a leading bio-chemist in the years that followed, Weizmann also became a leader in the Zionist movement in Britain.

During World War 1 he developed an important chemical ingredient for gunpowder, which brought him to the attention of the British Government and particularly Lord Balfour, with whom he had already become friends.

Born in Scotland, Arthur Balfour became MP for Manchester East (where he first met Weizmann) in 1885, and was Prime Minister from 1902-05. In 1917, when the Balfour Declaration was made, he was Foreign Secretary

This was the partnership that eventually led to the letter known to this day as the 'Balfour Declaration' (Balfour was the signatory). A friendship developed, during which Weizmann, the ardent Zionist, persuaded Balfour, an evangelical Christian in favour of Jewish restoration, of the case for a homeland for the Jewish people in what was then “Palestine.”

Britain’s strategic needs, burgeoning alliances with Arab leaders and the clear justice of the zionists’ dreams coalesced on 31st October 1917, when Britain’s war cabinet (most of whom were also evangelical Christians) agreed the final wording of a letter to Lord Rothschild and the Zionist Federation; a letter which became known as “The Balfour Declaration”.

Another event took place on 31st October 1917, which was key to the intentions expressed in the Declaration. General Allenby won a key battle against the Turks and Germans for the desert town of Beersheva. Without a plan for the future, the victory at Beersheva would have been just another battle in a long and bloody war, a footnote in history. The two events, occurring at the same time yet thousands of miles apart, was a sure sign that this was God bringing His plan for the Jewish people's restoration to their land closer to its fulfilment.

Bye itself, the Balfour Declaration carried little legal weight. It was simply an expression of intent by the British government of the day. Five years later however, in the aftermath of World War One, its intent and most of its very wording were incorporated into international law in the San Remo Declaration and the British Mandate for Palestine.

Christians and biblical teaching were instrumental in the events leading to the Declaration, going right back to the Reformation. This gives Christians who love the Jewish people and the state of Israel a desire to celebrate the centenary of this short but vital document along with the Jewish community in November 2017.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

11/06 Links: Col Kemp: Balfour Declaration; Twitter users lampoon Palestinian claim to Dead Sea Scrolls

From Ian:

Col. Richard Kemp: Balfour Declaration, November 2016

Flying in the face of the long-standing US bipartisan policy of rejecting the so-called 1967 borders, there is increasing concern that President Obama's parting shot at Israel might be to either endorse such a resolution or fail to veto it. Such actions would have incalculable consequences -- not least a flare-up in violence and the prospect of global sanctions against Israel.
Depending on his audience, Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas claims to desire a two-state solution. But his actions speak louder. How can it be possible to bring about peace with a country or a people that you constantly vilify and attack? Hatred of Jews and denial of their rights permeate PA speeches, TV shows, school-books, newspapers and magazines.
Arab Jew-hatred has caused Britain up to the present day to sometimes fail to condemn Arab aggression against Israelis, and to find excuses for their violence. All in the name of appeasing the Arabs and their supporters in the Muslim world and even at home.
Britain can be intensely proud that it alone embraced Zionism in 1917. And it was the blood of many thousands of British, Australian and New Zealand soldiers that created the conditions that made the modern-day State of Israel a possibility.
Even 99 years after the world-changing Balfour Declaration, we still have our work cut out for us in supporting the Zionist project, which owes so much to the unequalled historic backing in Great Britain.

Haaretz: The Politics Behind the Drafting of the Balfour Declaration

Ninety-nine years after it was written, the British document supporting the formation of a 'national home for the Jewish people' is back in the news. But it caused unrest among some British Jews at the time, too.

“His Majesty’s Government views with favour the establishment in Palestine of a centre of Jewish culture.” Had it been up to British-Jewish lawmaker Sir Philip Magnus, that would have been the formulation of the Balfour Declaration, which was published 99 years ago this week and paved the way for the establishment of the State of Israel.
Magnus was among the Jewish leaders canvassed by the British government regarding the suggested declaration, a few weeks before it was eventually published on November 2, 1917. But unlike some of his fellow peers in Britain’s Jewish community, Magnus was not an enthusiastic Zionist. He saw Britain – and not the Land of Israel – as his national home.
The fascinating correspondence between Magnus and the British government concerning the declaration is stored at the National Library of Israel in Jerusalem. Until now, no one showed much interest in it. Recently, though, ahead of the declaration’s upcoming centenary, Dr. Hezi Amiur discovered the letters anew. The curator of the Israel Collection at the National Library regards his find as like unearthing a great treasure: “It’s just one of the millions of items preserved here, but I rubbed my eyes when I read it,” he said.
As Amiur discovered, the letter was part of a chain of correspondence and talks conducted at the time between the British and leading Jews – some of whom were Zionists and some not – concerning the final version of the declaration.
Some may consider this to be irrelevant and outdated, while for others renewed discussion of the Balfour Declaration – mainly because of the Palestinian Authority’s threat to sue Britain over it – has stimulated new interest in the original process, even 99 years after the fact. (h/t Elder of Lobby)

Hillel Neuer Testifies to US Congress

Ten Years Later: The Status of the United Nations Human Rights Council
Hearing of the U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, Tuesday, May 17, 2016 – 2:00pm