Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Saturday, March 03, 2018

03/03 Links: Women’s March Co-Chair Cites Anti-Semite to Prove She’s Not an Anti-Semite; State Department Backs Lebanese Land Grab against Israel; Iran and Hezbollah's Terror in Argentina

From Ian:

Women’s March Co-Chair Cites Anti-Semite to Prove She’s Not an Anti-Semite

A Women's March organizer who came under fire this week for attending a sermon by rabid anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan responded to criticism by tweeting a defense from a rapper who shared Farrakhan's bigoted views.

Tamika Mallory was called out by CNN's Jake Tapper after she attended Farrakhan's annual Saviours' Day address, during which the Nation of Islam leader attacked "that Satanic Jew," called Jews "the mother and father of apartheid," and declared that "when you want something in this world, the Jew holds the door."

One of Mallory's defenders was Bronx rapper and political activist Mysonne, who denied that Mallory was an anti-Semite. In appreciation, Mallory shared his tweet on Twitter and Instagram.

But in his defense of Mallory, Mysonne then made a series of comments agreeing with Farrakhan's view that Jews were uniquely to blame for the plight of black people.

"…farakhan[sic] has a view of Jews based on the pain and harm that he can prove they've inflicted on blacks for hundreds of years!" he tweeted to one user who compared him to David Duke, another anti-Semite.

"To disagree with farakhan[sic] is understandable," he tweeted to another user, "but to act as if the violence, pain, control and destruction that people he has evidence that are in fact Jewish have imposed on Blacks is not Realistic.

1. Jew asks @womensmarch co-chair why she supports American anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan
2. Anti-Semite replies "but Israel," as if that justifies Farrakhan's hate, then calls for Jesus to cast "wicked spirit" out of the Jew
3. Linda Sarsour interjects to defend … the anti-Semite pic.twitter.com/Ro1Ss1jLhg
— (((Yair Rosenberg))) (@Yair_Rosenberg) March 2, 2018

Evelyn Gordon: State Department Backs Lebanese Land Grab against Israel

State Department officials have spent a lot of time in Lebanon recently. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson visited the country two weeks ago, and Acting Assistant Secretary of State David Satterfield made an appearance last week. Among other issues, they are trying to mediate two Lebanese-Israeli disputes. The problem is that only one of these is a quasi-legitimate conflict; the other is a patently illegitimate Lebanese land grab. By treating that claim as legitimate, the State Department is not only encouraging aggression but proving, once again, that international guarantees to Israel are worthless.

The quasi-legitimate dispute relates to where the maritime border between Israel and Lebanon runs. As I noted back in 2011, Beirut is currently claiming maritime territory that it didn’t consider Lebanese as recently as 2007, when it signed (but ultimately didn’t ratify) a deal demarcating its maritime border with Cyprus. That makes the State Department’s proposal to award Lebanon 75 percent of this territory outrageous. Nevertheless, the fact remains that Israel and Lebanon have no agreed maritime border, and international law doesn’t provide an unequivocal answer as to where it should run. So State’s mediation is justifiable, even if its proposal isn’t.

The second dispute, however, is over Lebanon’s claim that Israel’s planned new border wall encroaches on Lebanese territory in 13 places. And on this, there should be no question whatsoever, because a recognized international border, known as the Blue Line, already exists and the UN has twice affirmed that Israel isn’t violating it.

The first time the UN affirmed realities on the ground was after Israel unilaterally withdrew from Lebanon in 2000. Then, the UN Security Council unanimously confirmed that all the areas Beirut now claims were, in fact, on Israel’s side of the border. The second was earlier this month when the UN Interim Force in Lebanon reaffirmed that all the new construction is on Israel’s side of the border.

Fashionable stone thrower

From the Fatah Facebook page, with a lyrical tribute to stone throwers:

Name brand sweater, nice looking watch, fashionable jeans...even the ski mask looks like it might be a designer version.

He really looks oppressed, doesn't he?

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.

03/02 Links Pt2: Phillips: The cutting edge of secular illiberalism; Racing Against History: The 1940 Campaign for a Jewish Army; Why Do We Continue to Tolerate Louis Farrakhan?

From Ian:

Melanie Phillips: The cutting edge of secular illiberalism

The chill winds of secular intolerance are blowing ever more strongly across Europe, with Jews now struggling against the blast.

A bill is being considered by Iceland’s parliament to ban circumcision for children under 18 years old. So here we go again.

Back in 2012, a court in the German town of Cologne ruled that the circumcision of a four-year-old Muslim boy constituted “bodily harm.” After an uproar, Germany hastily legalized ritual circumcisions if performed according to medical practice.

German objections to circumcision nevertheless did not die down. The Icelandic bill is drawing on increasing hostility within Europe to the practice. In Britain, a survey by the National Secular Society indicates that some 62% want Britain to follow Iceland’s example.

This is not the only attack on religious rites. There are bans on ritual slaughter in Denmark, New Zealand, Switzerland and other European countries and jurisdictions.

Although these are attacks on Islam as well as Judaism, they threaten Jewish religious life most of all.

Muslims are more flexible over ritual slaughter by allowing a measure of animal stunning which Jews cannot permit.

Circumcision bans are most threatening of all to Jewish life because the circumcision of eightday old boys, or brit mila, is absolutely fundamental to Judaism.

In Genesis, God tells Abraham all his male heirs must be circumcised and any Jew who breaks this covenant will be cut off from his people.

Brit mila is the nonnegotiable marker of Jewish identity. More than any other practice, it can be said to have kept the Jewish people together throughout the centuries.

A country than bans brit mila is a country that effectively bans Judaism.

Daniel Pipes: Racing Against History: The 1940 Campaign for a Jewish Army to Fight Hitler by Rick Richman

The when campaign to do what, you ask? You're excused if the subtitle does not ring a bell, for Richman, a lawyer, talented author, and formidable researcher, has resurrected the failed and now-obscure effort to mobilize American Jews to create a fighting force against Nazi Germany.

On the surface, he relates a story about three grandees of Zionism – Chaim Weizmann, Zeev Jabotinsky, and David Ben-Gurion – who traveled to the United States in the single year 1940 to arouse the world's largest, richest, and freest Jewish population to concern itself with the horrors underway in Europe and to respond by supporting a Jewish army. Each of the three met with frustration because of a prevailing American mood of isolationism and a Jewish leadership fearful of getting out too far in front of general opinion.

But Richman's real story is that of a heroic and visionary Jabotinsky, 59, then at the peak of his rhetorical and organization powers, versus not only the other two Zionist leaders, both too timid, but also against what a Jabotinsky assistant, Benjamin Akzin, more broadly called the "Society of Trembling Jews." Jabotinsky had already organized the Jewish Legion as part of British forces in World War I; now he foresaw something of the terrible fate awaiting European Jewry, an insight even his most distinguished contemporaries (Louis Brandeis, Abraham Cahan, David de Sola Pool, Stephen Wise) were unable to fathom and furious at him for even discussing. Jabotinsky could have organized the noble, important, and necessary reality of a Jewish army drawn from the ranks of refugees, residents in Palestine, and others; but he suddenly died in August 1940 while visiting a Jewish self-defense camp in Upstate New York. With him died that army.

Richman's tale reverberates with implications for today, when again a "trembling" Jewish establishment prefers to remain within the polite consensus than to have the imagination and drive to take on pending disasters. Be polite, they say, be patient, and things will work out. That approach failed in 1940; will it work today?

New ‘Entebbe’ hijacked by heavy-handed political correctness

Even though it was a French plane, the movie (and history) focuses on Israel. “7 Days in Entebbe” reduces it all to prime minister Yitzhak Rabin (the ubiquitous Lior Ashkenazi, great as always) as the prevaricating dove and defense minister Shimon Peres (Eddie Marsan in odd makeup) demanding action.

When the movie eases up and lets these two men behave like human beings, the scenes work. Most of the time, unfortunately, they are forced to blurt out facile positions. The dialogue has all the subtlety of two people yelling at each other on Twitter.

It’s unfortunate because when Padilha is on sturdier ground, he does some creative things. The raid itself, led by Yonatan Netanyahu (Angel Bonanni) and shown through the eyes of a young soldier played by Ben Schnetzer, is riveting and exhilarating.

Schnetzer’s character’s girlfriend is a dancer in an experimental group, which is enough connective tissue to use the Batshev Dance Company, as choreographed by Ohad Naharin, as a recurring motif. At first you may not know what the hell these shots have to do with the movie, but by the end — well, it isn’t that spelled out, really. But it just seems to fit. Frankly, it is the most memorable and engaging part of the film.

What’s unfortunate is how every other moment with spark has to be reigned in by a conflicted creative team that doesn’t feel secure enough to call this moment what it really was — swift, direct action against grievous harm. The very first shots feature expository text: “They called themselves freedom fighters, the Israelis called them terrorists.” Why not just show the event, and even include the typical dialogue about villages ripped apart by encroaching Zionists, and let us figure that out?

Steven Spielberg and Tony Kushner’s “Munich” is a masterpiece because it is both a ripping adventure yarn and a rumination about the endless cycle of violence. Its sprawling subject lends itself to that.

“7 Days in Entebbe,” however, would have been far better served to simply tell the story of what happened, not set a stage for political speechifying. Every other movie about Israel does that, you’d think if any story could stay focused on some glory it would be this one.

After the recent horrific school shooting in Florida I have been watching my American friends debate the issue of gun control.

It is amazing what an enormous chasm there is between Israel and America when it comes to guns.

From Israel it looks to me like Americans are shouting at each other, no one is listening to the other and, worst of all, the real issues that need to be discussed are being ignored.

School safety

It doesn’t matter what side you are on regarding the issue of gun control, we all want our kids to come home safe from school. Even imagining the experience of parents who’ve had their children ripped from them in such senseless violence is gut-wrenchingly terrible beyond words. The trauma for the children involved is a burden no child should have to endure. The problem is so excruciating it is no wonder that many are crying out, “Something has to be done!”

The question is: What?

Take all the guns away? Commonsense gun laws? Lockdown the schools and make everyone who enters go through metal detectors? Train and arm teachers so they can protect students?

I’ve seen this meme (right) floating around the internet. One of my friends actually asked me if this was an accurate depiction. I was glad he took the time to check because this is an example of using half-truths to promote an utter lie.

Israeli teachers are not armed. They are certainly not trained and armed by the State. There are no guns inside Israeli schools.

There are security guards at the entrance to Israeli schools.

On field trips out of the city kids go with one trained armed person who could be a teacher or parent and one medic.

The main point that everyone seems to be ignoring is that, in Israel, we need guns to protect our kids from terrorists, not from each other. This to me seems to be the real issue. Why are American kids killing each other?

Instead of focusing on the kids themselves, the issue being discussed is guns or gun violence. But what about violence in general? What about safety? We know that people hell-bent on murder find ways to do it. If there is no gun, there is a knife, or a bomb, or a car. Guns can save lives and they can take lives. The deciding factor is the person holding the weapon.

Israeli attitudes are a world apart from what I am seeing in America.

In Israel gun control is very strict and most Israelis are against easy access to guns. Israelis tend to be dumbfounded by American attitude towards guns – we see guns as necessary tools to be used to defend lives, nothing else. They are not toys for collecting or weekend entertainment and hunting is not considered a sport or cool.

When it comes to security there is actual safety and there is the feeling of safety. The two are not the same. It makes people feel safe to implement visible preventative measures, such as metal detectors. These can be useful deterrents to someone considering committing a crime however this type of measure, on its own, does not actually prevent the crime. There is always a “technology race” between the criminally minded and security enforcement in the search for ways to circumvent the measures implemented.

Actual security necessitates dealing with the source of the problem, not the symptom. Not the gun, knife, bomb or car – it is the person using these tools for evil that needs to be stopped.

When it comes to the issue of school shootings, I again ask – why are American kids shooting each other? I don’t see how any child in American schools will be safe until that question is answered.

#NeverAgain

I’m utterly horrified to discover that the hashtag #NeverAgain is being used by groups in the USA advocating for restrictions on the Second Amendment.

Conflating, gun violence with the Holocaust degrades the enormity of the Holocaust. Were there no other words to choose from? #NotOneMore? #StopGuns? #ProtectOurKids? Why were those or other options not chosen?

This is a real, live, example of rhetoric that is truly dangerous. This is what Antisemitism looks like.

The easy use of terminology that is known to be associated with one thing and one thing only is a minimization and a cheapening of the Holocaust. This ultimately leads to denial of the Holocaust.

But who will stand against it?

I hope and pray that no Jewish organizations, no matter where they stand on American gun laws will adopt this improper and deeply offensive use of Never Again. All other decent people should as well. From experience I know that I am certain to be disappointed. There will be Jews who see the impropriety of this language and will be afraid to speak up for fear of triggering a different, even more vicious antisemitic attack. Others will be so wrapped up in the politics of the here and now that they will feel that achieving the goal justifies any means, forgetting/ignoring the long-term results that will ensue.

For those who like to talk about dangerous and inflammatory language – this is a perfect example. Using this language enables the normalization of Holocaust denial, Jew hate and violence against Jews.

Or does that not matter? After all, violence against Jews, with guns or other means, would not be categorized as “senseless violence.” That is violence with a purpose.

Not to speak is to speak. #NeverAgainIsNow

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.

03/02 Links Pt1: Royal visit to Israel breaks a long-standing taboo; PA News Agency Ma’an Marks Purim Holiday With ‘Blood Libel’ Accusation

From Ian:

Melanie Phillips: ABOUT TIME!

Whether this momentous change is permanent, or merely a tactical alliance with Israel which won’t make even a dent in the profound Jew-hatred which is the default position in the Muslim world and which will in due course revert once again to hate-mongering rejection of Israel, remains to be seen.

For now, though, this geopolitical landscape has been altered in a way that was unthinkable until very recently. And that will undoubtedly have eased the way for a royal visit which Theresa May, as a genuinely warm Israel supporter, will have wanted to happen.

Prince William’s visit will be, however, extremely sensitive. Already the Palestinian Arabs and their cheerleaders in NGO-land are stirring the pot to make trouble.

The British are stressing that Prince William’s visit will be apolitical. The ambassador to Israel, David Quarrey, says : “It would be a visit about the strength of the contemporary partnership and relationship between the UK and Israel. It won’t be a visit about the peace process or issues like that”. He hoped that the prince would get “to see a bit of Israel and to meet as many Israelis as possible,” adding he wanted the prince to get “a flavour of this country, because I think that’s really important when visitors come that there are very special things about Israel, including the people.”

This royal visit to Israel, the west’s sole genuine ally in the Middle East, is not just long overdue. Prince William doesn’t have to say a word about the politics of the place. By bestowing upon Israel such a seal of approval, the visit will in itself send a message to the Arab and Muslim world that the the decades-long attempt by the Palestinian Arabs and their odious British and European supporters to delegitimise Israel has failed.

Israel is not a pariah state, it is not shunned and it is not alone. On the contrary, it is an important and valued ally of one of the most powerful countries in the west – which is now making plain its support, friendship and powerful ties to Israel by sending the Queen’s grandson to advertise this to the world.

About time.

Royal visit to Israel breaks a long-standing taboo

The news that HRH Prince William is going to visit Israel is to be wholeheartedly welcomed. A long-standing Foreign Office taboo has been broken, only four months after Theresa May’s extremely warm words about Israel at Lancaster House during the celebration of the centenary of the Balfour Declaration.

Royal visits have always been a central plank of Britain’s diplomacy over the centuries, and this one is a statement that Israel is no longer going to be treated like the pariah nation it so long has been by the Foreign Office. It is no therefore coincidence that although Her Majesty the Queen has made over 250 official overseas visits to 129 different countries during her reign, neither she nor one single member of the British royal family has ever yet been to Israel on an official visit.

Even though Prince Philip’s mother, Princess Alice of Greece, who was recognised as “Righteous Among the Nations” for sheltering a Jewish family in her Athens home during the Holocaust, was buried on the Mount of Olives, the Duke of Edinburgh was not allowed by the Foreign Office to visit her grave until 1994, and then only on a private visit. The Duke of Cambridge’s visit – which will be official – is therefore a splendid opportunity to right decades of wrong done to Israel in this regard.

“Official visits are organised and taken on the advice of the Foreign and Commonwealth office,” a press officer for the Royal Family explained when Prince Edward visited Israel privately – and a spokesman for the Foreign Office replied that ‘Israel is not unique” in not having received an official royal visit, because ‘Many countries have not had an official visit.’ That might be true for Burkino Faso and Chad, but the Foreign Office has somehow managed to find the time over the years to send the Queen on State visits to Libya, Iran, Sudan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, Jordan and Turkey. So it can’t have been that she wasn’t in the area.
Finally, the royal boycott of Israel ends. Tom Gross comments

The queen was happy to warmly embrace President Assad but not to visit the Jewish state.

Mark Regev: Prince William's visit - a testament to good ties

As early as several months ago, we received hints from the British that a historic visit from Prince William was possibly in the works. We were asked to be discreet about it. We are thrilled this visit has now been made public and official.

This visit is not materializing in a vacuum. It comes amid the backdrop of intensive talks at the highest levels between the two countries and their respective governments on sensitive matters pertaining to national security and Israel's role in matters of defense and the war on terror, in the private sector as well.

Relations between the two countries are exceedingly positive and healthy, as illustrated by the prince's upcoming visit. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has visited Great Britain twice in the past year, in February and November. At the same time, London officially commemorated the centennial anniversary of the Balfour Declaration.

Additionally, bilateral trade between the countries stood at a sum of $10 billion in 2017. This marked a 25% increase in one year. Great Britain is the second largest destination of Israeli exports after the United States and there many more examples of the countries' strong commercial ties.

For instance, one in every six medications sold within the framework of the British public healthcare system is Israeli-made. There are 300 Israeli companies with offices in Great Britain, 29 of which are publicly traded on the London Stock Exchange.

We will soon sit down with representatives of the British royal family and together build the prince's Israel itinerary, in a fashion befitting the lofty occasion. I will tell those representatives that when the red carpet is laid out, it will be more than just the Israeli government doing so. Indeed, a large number of Israelis have great interest in and affection for the British royal family.

.@HRW notices that wishing for children to be martyred is sick - but not when Palestinians wish it

There was a moment of moral clarity from a Human Rights Watch worker recently.

A BBC story said:

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has been criticised after telling a girl in military uniform that she would be honoured if killed while fighting.

"If she's martyred, they'll lay a flag on her," he told the sobbing girl at a televised congress of his AK Party.

In the event, broadcast live on state television, the young girl dressed as a soldier seems to catch the attention of Mr Erdogan, who then invites her to the stage.

"Look what you see here! Girl, what are you doing here? We have our maroon berets here, but maroon berets never cry," he told her, referring to the beret worn by the Turkish Special Operations Forces.

"She has a Turkish flag in her pocket too... If she's martyred, they'll lay a flag on her, God willing," he said during the congress in the southern town of Kahramanmaras on Saturday.

"She is ready for everything, isn't she?" The girl replied: "Yes."

In response, HRW's Andrew Strohlein tweeted:

Turkish President Erdogan tells a sobbing girl in military uniform that she would be honoured if killed while fighting. Glorifying children’s deaths? Promoting child soldiers? Sick. https://t.co/3PW1qKsTuT pic.twitter.com/Ua8rson2BD
— Andrew Stroehlein (@astroehlein) February 26, 2018

Doesn't seem like a controversial thing to say.

Yet there are many examples of glorification of death and encoraging child "martyrdom" in official Palestinian Authority TV, from official Fatah sites and Hamas sites.

And not once has Human Rights Watch called this Palestinian shahid culture, or any of these examples, "sick."

"These are our lion cubs.We have brought them up on the love of Jihad and Shahada (Martyrdom-death)"

Why is an obviously moral position on encouraging childhood martyrdom "sick" in Turkey but not worth mentioning in the Palestinian arena?

One reason is that in Turkey there was actually disgust in social media about Erdogan's actions - but you will be hard pressed to find a similar reaction in the Arab world towards Palestinian aspirations to death for Allah.

In other words, HRW doesn't bother to criticize Palestinians pushing their children to become martyrs, because they would be trying to kill Jews - and there is no local outrage about that goal.

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.

From The New Arab:

This Iranian mosque design is angering hardliners for being 'too Jewish'

A new “controversial” minimalist mosque, which departs from traditional early Islamic architecture is being condemned for ignoring tradition and subtly pushing 'secular and Jewish influence' into the country.

The architects behind the Vali-e-Asr Mosque dispensed with the traditional rounded domes and towering minarets, opting instead for a modern design of undulating waves of grey stone and concrete, which they say complements the surrounding architecture and evokes the austerity of early Islam.

The new Mosque has angered hard-liners, who see it as part of a creeping secular onslaught on the Islamic republic. An editorial posted on the Mashregh news website compared the curvature to that of a Jewish yarmulke, accusing authorities of "treason" for approving it. The "completely neutral" design betrays an "atheistic approach," it said.

Notice once again that while Iranians claim not to be against Jews...they are.

If Iranians are upset over any perceived Jewish influence on their culture, well, I have some bad news about Islam for them....

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.

From The New Arab:

Palestine's diplomatic corps and the international Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign have intervened in the row over Virgin Atlantic's decision to remove the word "Palestinian" from a dish on its in-flight menu.

The Palestinian ambassador to the UK accused the British-based airline of lacking "ethical integrity" after it changed the description of a maftoul and couscous salad in response to Israel-favouring complainants.

The BDS National Committee (BNC), which leads the worldwide Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, also rebuked the company, warning that pressure successfully placed on the company to delete the reference to Palestine was part of a "policy of Israeli ethnic cleansing".

The meal was initially offered on all Economy class flights from the UK under the name "Palestinian couscous salad", but within a few weeks was changed to simply "Couscous salad" as a response to what Virgin Atlantic called "feedback".

The airline - whose largest individual investor is Sir Richard Branson - faced a backlash after Electronic Intifada first reported the story in February.

As usual in stories like these, very few people actually research what the facts are.

Is there something traditionally known as "Palestinian couscous?"

Doing a search through Google Books, I can find quite a few mentions of the dish - but none of them before 2009.

A search of maftoul finds that it is similarly absent from any cookbook or other book before the 21st century, although a 2003 World Trade Organization study mentions it as a Jordanian dish.

Others identify the food with Lebanese couscous, known as Moghrabieh.

Articles detailing the types of couscous usually list the Moroccan, Lebanese and Israeli kind, and do not mention "Palestinian" couscous.

As is almost always the case, there is nothing "Palestinian" about "Palestinian couscous" and that term is quite new. (I have no doubt that Arabs in Palestine ate this version of couscous for decades, just that it is not in any way a "Palestinian" dish, rather an Arab or Levant dish.)

The idea that taking away the word "Palestinian" from a dish no one heard of a decade ago is "ethnic cleansing" is another example of hysterical anti-Israel propaganda.

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.

03/01 Links Pt2: 1946 US report says ‘Poles persecuted the Jews as vigorously as did the Germans’; Polish Holocaust law goes into effect; In Anti-Semitic Rant, Louis Farrakhan Confirms DNC’s Keith Ellison Was In Nation Of Islam

From Ian:

1946 US report says ‘Poles persecuted the Jews as vigorously as did the Germans’

A US State Department report from May 15, 1946, found “evidence that Poles persecuted the Jews as vigorously as did the Germans” during the World War II Nazi occupation of Poland.

The declassified report was distributed Thursday by the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the same day that a Polish law making it a crime to accuse the Polish nation of Nazi-era atrocities took effect. Also Thursday, senior Israeli and Polish diplomats met in Jerusalem in a bid to resolve differences over the law.

The report highlights Polish anti-Semitism and persecution of Jews in the immediate aftermath of the Holocaust, and traces it back to a long history of Polish anti-Jewish legislation before World War II and anti-Jewish activities by Poles during the Holocaust.

The 1946 document “analyzes the policies of the Polish Government, the current anti-Semitic manifestations, and the possibilities for Jewish survival in Poland” in the immediate aftermath of the Holocaust.

The report found that “native Poles” abetted the activities of the Germans during World War II.

The report, which was declassified in August 1983, speaks of anti-Semitism as “a traditional feature of Polish political and economic life,” saying that “the continuance of the conflict between the Government and the opposition in Poland is conducive to a resurgence of anti-Semitism, which is easily employed as a weapon in this conflict.”

The State Department conceded that following the Holocaust, “the government has made anti-Semitism a crime,” but, it said, “the outrages continue, although on a somewhat reduced scale.”

Despite uproar, contested Polish Holocaust law goes into effect

The controversial Polish law that criminalizes accusing the Polish nation of crimes committed by Nazi Germany during World War II has gone into effect.

The law has sparked a crisis with Israel, where officials fear its true aim is to repress research on Poles who killed Jews during World War II, something Polish officials deny or minimize.

As the law took effect Thursday, the Polish and Israeli teams on the task force established to resolve the standoff over the law held their first meeting.

Poland's president signed the legislation into law last month, but also sent it to the constitutional court for review. Polish officials have said no criminal charges will be brought until the court has made its ruling, expected in several weeks.

But prosecutors are also already looking for now-criminal instances in which Poland is wrongly accused of wartime activities.

Polish sock brand sparks uproar with "Adolf Hitler" footwear

A pair of socks bearing the likeness of Adolf Hitler's face has caused quite a storm. According to the website of "Nanushki", the Polish brand responsible for the controversial footwear, the product was designed “to bring order to the socks drawer”.

Not everyone is so amused, with the Auschwitz-Birkenau Museum posting to their official Twitter account that Nanushki is using “one of the biggest criminals in history for marketing purposes”.

Following backlash, the socks were officially renamed as "Patrick" on the company's site, with the claim that Patrick is a businessman who loves cars and has a unique sense of dressing.

Vic Rosenthal's Weekly Column

Today was not the first time that I read something in Ha’aretz dripping with moral indignation, only to find myself wondering why Ha’aretz gets indignant about things that seem perfectly sensible to me.

The item in question is about the opinions of Alex Stein, a legal scholar who has recently been appointed to Israel’s Supreme Court, along with Judge Ofer Groskopf. Both are considered world-class jurists, but the Left, used to dominating the legal system in Israel, is nervous about Stein’s “conservative” leanings.

It seems that someone discovered that Stein once posted on Facebook his opinion that it would not contravene international law if Israel were to stop supplying Gaza with electricity. To me, it has always seemed reasonable that Israel shouldn’t provide the power to run the lathes that make rocket nozzles while Hamas is bombarding our civilian population with rockets propelled by said nozzles.

Here is the description of Stein’s positions that Ha’aretz finds so extreme:

Stein’s posts on Gaza were published during the 2014 Gaza war. He wrote that because Israel isn’t occupying Gaza, it’s [sic] only obligation while defending itself from rockets is to minimize harm to civilians. For the same reason, Israel isn’t obligated to provide electricity to Gaza, though it may choose to do so for humanitarian reasons.

His posts also criticized what he termed a misinterpretation of international law. The principle of proportionality dictated by international law must suit the reality of modern war and common sense, he argued. An interpretation which says that large countries attacking small countries must seek to maintain parity in the number of victims is ridiculous and unacceptable, he wrote, and it is not what the law intended.

These positions are not in the slightest bit controversial among those who actually understand international law rather than simply claiming that anything Israel does that they oppose violates it. Israel’s supposed “occupation” of Gaza is the only military occupation ever accomplished without a single pair of boots on the ground; limiting the importation of military-use materials and maintaining a secure border may not please the Hamas regime, but it isn’t “occupation.” And the principle of proportionality of attack in warfare means exactly what Stein said.

He also slammed the Supreme Court for its judicial activism. Among other things, he criticized its view that everything is justiciable, in contrast to the American doctrine which holds that courts can’t rule on “political questions.” While Israel’s Supreme Court rarely overturns laws, he continued, its rhetoric is imperial and it demands power under the guise of checks and balances.

Stein also quoted the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia as saying that he read Israeli Supreme Court verdicts whenever he wanted to be truly shocked and to convince himself that the American court wasn’t so bad after all.

This is certainly “controversial” to a judicial establishment that is accustomed to a balance of powers between the branches of government biased heavily in its favor, but as an antidote to the putsch carried out by the Court under its former president, Aharon Barak, it is about time that it be administered. It’s only a slight exaggeration to say that according to Barak, the court can rule on anything, and anyone has standing to bring a matter to the Court, even if he is not directly impacted. This doctrine has led to an erosion in the power of the Knesset – that is, the democratically elected representatives of the people, and to some very questionable decisions by the Court.

Unsurprisingly, the Left is unhappy with Stein’s appointment. There have also been personal innuendos thrown at him in an attempt to derail it. And the fact that Stein deleted his Facebook account before he was selected is somehow seen to imply that he is ashamed of or trying to hide his “radical” views.

At the same time (2014) that Stein was commenting on Facebook, another law professor, Avi Bell of Bar-Ilan University and the University of San Diego School of Law, wrote a legal opinion on the subject of Israel’s non-obligation to supply electricity and water to Gaza. This opinion so annoyed another Israeli professor, that he suggested – although he wasn’t prepared to argue the merits of Bell’s argument – that pressure be applied against him to disavow it, because of the “moral horror” inherent in it (Bell, incidentally, said that he did not favor Israel cutting Gaza off even though Israel, in his view, has a legal right to do so).

Legal principles are ultimately derived from moral ones. While I defer to Professors Stein and Bell regarding the legal issue, it seems to me that the moral question of whether it is permissible to cut off electricity to Gaza is not a hard one:

Hezbollah places its rocket launchers in civilian areas in order to deter Israel from attacking them. And the laws of war say that where one side holds its population hostage as human shields, that side bears the responsibility for injuries to such hostages. The moral principle that justifies this is that Hezbollah made the unforced choice to put its people harm’s way.

Similarly, Hamas’ unforced choice to divert resources of all kinds away from the welfare of its people – including the development of independent sources of water and electricity – and into obtaining weapons and building war-making infrastructure, makes the welfare of the population depend on Israel’s continuing to supply their needs. Because this is Hamas’ choice, Israel is not responsible for injuries that might result from a cutoff.

It’s often argued that cutting off electricity would be collective punishment, which is forbidden by the laws of war. Today the WWII bombing of German cities that did not contain military targets might be considered war crimes for this reason (among others, including proportionality). The argument against collective punishment depends on the premise that the civilian population as a whole is not responsible for the actions of the regime, and that innocent people (e.g., children) would suffer from such an action. But if an electricity blackout were – as it certainly would be – temporary, preceded by warnings, and conditioned on the Hamas regime agreeing to terms, then the responsibility for any injuries would fall on the Hamas regime insofar as it refused to submit.

Whether or not Israel should adopt the tactic of cutting off electricity from Gaza is an additional question, even if it is permissible from the legal and moral standpoints. Here I think that neither Stein nor Bell has advocated such a tactic.

Alex Stein and Ofer Groskopf are first-rate legal minds that would add both intelligence and balance to the rulings of a Supreme Court that could benefit from more of both of those qualities. Stein is not an extremist or immoral because he happens to have a point of view that is uncommon in North Tel Aviv. The Justice Minister, Ayelet Shaked, and the President of the Court, Esther Hayut, should be congratulated on reaching a compromise that will raise the status of the legal establishment in Israel at a time that it could definitely use some help.

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.

Purim and natural hate

As I was reading the megillah this Purim, it occurred to me that the most resonant part of the story today is that Haman's hate for Jews was so irrational, although he pretended to justify it using weak arguments that people are more than willing to swallow to justify their own bigotry.

It is exactly the same today, as the Israel-haters are completely irrational. Their hate comes first, and their justifications come later. Answer their points and they will come up with others, because the entire basis of their antipathy to Jews is baseless, irrational hate.

The biggest lie they say is that they are "pro-Palestinian."

It just occurred to me that people who claim to be "pro-Palestinian" - like the entire staff at Electronic Intifada - are against any Palestinian being naturalized in any Arab country, and in fact they will say they are against Palestinians becoming citizens of any other country until they can "return" to destroy Israel. To these supposed lovers of all things Palestinian, they demand that millions of Arabs with Palestinian ancestry remain stateless, indefinitely.

What love they show!

But there is one recent exception where they fought mightily for a Palestinian to be a citizen of another country.

Terrorist Rasmea Odeh, as they fought hard to allow her to remain an American citizen. And even that they tried to justify on the basis of whatever crazy legal arguments they could find to hang their love for a murderer of Jews on.

Purim teaches us that the haters of Jews and Israel aren't ever going to go away. All we can do is win, over and over 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.

03/01 Links Pt1: Prince William to visit Israel this summer, in first official trip by UK royal; A New Low for the U.N. Dictator Club

From Ian:

Prince William to visit Israel this summer, in first official trip by UK royal

Prince William will travel to Israel this summer, in the first-ever official visit by the British royal family to the Jewish state, his residence declared Thursday.

While royals have traveled to Israel in the past, no member of the British monarchy has ever come to country on an official tour.

The official visit will be the first in Israel’s almost 70-year existence, during which time nearly every other country in the world has been visited by a representative of the Crown.

“The Duke of Cambridge will visit Israel, Jordan and the Occupied Palestinian Territories in the Summer,” Kensington Palace‏ announced on Twitter.

“The visit is at the request of Her Majesty’s Government and has been welcomed by the Israeli, Jordanian and Palestinian authorities,” the statement added.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hailed the announcement of the upcoming trip by the second-in-line to the throne.

“This is a historic visit, the first of its kind, and he will be welcomed here with great affection,” Netanyahu added. “I have ordered the Foreign Ministry director-general to coordinate preparations for the visit to ensure its success.”

100 years after Balfour, Britain still shaping the region, say pair of authors

Since the release of the Balfour Declaration 100 years ago, Britain has repeatedly found itself in the middle of a Middle East tug-of-war between Arab and Israeli interests.

How this pull has shaped the relationship between Britain and Israel was the topic of discussion at a Times of Israel event with authors Azriel Bermant and Elliot Jager on Tuesday evening at Mishkenot Sha’ananim in Jerusalem.

The event was produced by the Sir Naim Dangoor Center for UK/Israel Relations and moderated by journalist Matthew Kalman.

The experts discussed the historical significance of British-Zionist relations based on research each conducted while writing their recently published books.

Author Elliot Jager’s book, “The Balfour Declaration: Sixty-Seven Words – 100 Years of Conflict,” is a look into the personalities and interests of the characters who brought about the short statement that legitimized the idea of a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine.

Tel Aviv University lecturer Bermant’s book, “Margaret Thatcher and the Middle East,” reveals new findings on Margaret Thatcher’s relationship with Israel based on recently released British and Israeli documents.

Thatcher is often remembered for being the first British premier to visit Israel in 1986 and for her warm relations with the Jewish community. Bermant shared why a deeper look into Thatcher’s Middle East policy exposes a more complicated legacy.

From Interesting Engineering:

A team of Opthalmologists at Shaare Zedek Medical Center and Bar-Ilan University’s Institute of Nanotechnology and Advanced Materials developed eye-drops that have been found to repair the corneas and improve short and long sightedness. The nanoparticle solution called as “nanodrops” was successfully used on pigs’ corneas.

Clinical trials on humans are expected to be carried out later this year, and if successful, this revolutionary invention could potentially eliminate the need for eyeglasses. According to Dr. David Smadja, leader of the research team, the eye-drops could revolutionize ophthalmological and optometry treatments of patients suffering from myopia, hyperopia and other refractory conditions.

The revolutionary breakthrough was revealed by Dr. Smadja on Wednesday at Shaare Zedek’s second biennial research day, which was held at Steinberg Auditorium in Jerusalem. He said that nanodrops could even be used to replace multifocal lenses and allow people to see object from different distances.

“This is a new concept for correcting refractory problems,” Smadja said. He, however, did not mention how often the drops will require being applied to replace eyeglasses completely.

According to the research abstract, the experiment led by Dr. Smadja and his colleagues involved analyzing refractive errors of pig eyes before and after instillation of nano drops filled with various concentration of synthetic nanoparticles. The results showed significant improvement in error correction for both myopic (near-sightedness) and hyperopic (far-sightedness) refractive error.

If the results in humans are successful, prospective patients will simply require a smartphone app to scan the eyes, measure their refraction, create a laser pattern and then “laser corneal stamping” of an optical pattern onto the corneal surface of their eyes.

The research from Smadja was one of the two chosen works by an impartial team of judges from 160 pieces of research carried out by Shaare Zedek physicians and nurses over the last two years. The hospital staff publishes around 330 articles every year in different medical and science journals through the Shaare Zedek Mada’it (Scientific), a research and development company established for hospital researchers.

The abstract says:

A mean correction of 2,24 +/- 0.07D has been achieved for myopic refractive error testing, whereas a correction of 1,96+/-0.2D has been achieved for hyperopic refractive error. No statistically significant changes have been observed in the corneal central keratometry. Encapsulated hypereflective nanoparticules of 0.58nm diameter on average were observed throughout the first 60microns of the corneal thickness.

This sounds a lot better than laser eye surgery!

Apparently, the nanoparticles do not change the shape of the eye, but the refractive properties of the cornea. I found a 2016 video where Dr. Smajda discusses his research for a technical audience.

(h/t Yoel)

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.

Screenshot of Nasrallah speech, February 12, 2017, when he called Trump a fool

From the EU-funded Assessment of Media Legislation in Lebanon:

The Lebanese Penal Code punishes those who are found guilty of defamation crimes with fines and prison sentences that are highest (up to two years imprisonment) when the reputation of the Lebanese president or of the heads of other states are harmed (Articles 383 to 389 in the Penal Code, 17 to 23 in the Press Law). The informal title “the law of the kings and heads of state” given to libel provisions related to presidents and other world leaders dates back to the early 1960s. At the time, Arab heads of state who resented being criticised in the Lebanese press consistently pressured the Lebanese president to introduce amendments to the Press Law in order to shield them from criticism. Eventually, an amendment to the Press Law was introduced in 1965 by a special decree by President Helou.

Yes, if an ordinary Lebanese citizen criticizes Trump or Bibi, they can get up to two years of jail time!

And Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah called Trump an "idiot" (or "foolish") last year soon after he took office:

“So what if Trump comes? What’s new?” he asked.
“We are not worried, but very optimistic because when an idiot resides in the White House, this is the beginning of the release for the oppressed in the world,” he said. The Arabic word he used can also be translated as "fool."

Hassan Nasrallah has violated Lebanese law and should be arrested and jailed.

Calling Shurat HaDin....

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.

Purim video with Rabbi Sacks and some British comedian

My headline may be funnier than this, but enjoy it anyway:

(h/t Yerushalimey)

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.