Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Thursday, March 29, 2018

"Neutral" UNRWA voices support for Gaza "great return march"

UNRWA's Chris Gunness once said that "UNRWA’s neutrality is the family's silver".

Here's another example of UNRWA giving away its family's silver, without a peep of protest.

UNRWA's Gaza director, Matthias Schmale wrote a letter to the organizers of tomorrow's "Great Return March" where thousands of Gazans are expected to try to walk into Israel, a violation of Israel's borders.

He told the organizers that the protest can be a very strong initiative once its seriously adopted. Schmale added that UNRWA supports the right of peaceful gathering and nonviolent protests of the Palestinians.

He didn't say that Gaza authorities should ensure that the protesters stay on their side of the border. He knows their aim is to enter Israel. But he is fully supportive of 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.

German gov't allows employees to post anti-Israel memes - but fires one who defends Israel

From JPost:

The German Corporation for International Cooperation in Amman fired an employee for her pro-Israel comments on a Facebook page in December.

The former employee, who asked not to be named, told The Jerusalem Post this month that her contract was not extended because she posted a personal Facebook post stating if the Palestinian girl Ahed Tamimi slapped a Jordanian soldier, “she would have been immediately shot.”

The former employee told the Post that “it is not fair that we can’t talk about it [the Tamimi case].

She faced a wave criticism on Facebook, including wild conspiracy theories that she is a “spy.” She worked for the German Corporation for International Cooperation for seven years without any complaints.

When asked about the employee’s alleged discharge for defending Israel, Michaela Baur, the head of the corporation’s office in Amman, said that she “was not fired, her contract expired.”

When asked about anti-Israel, including alleged antisemitic, posts, on Facebook by corporation employees, Baur declined to answer.

Anti-Israel posts by GIZ were cataloged by NGO Monitor:

In January 2016, Luke McBain, head of GIZ’s “Civil Society Programme Palestine” and of the program for “Strengthening Women in Decision-Making in the Middle East,” described Zionism as a “settler-colonialist movement,” claiming that this “explains everything,” including the “endless occupation.”

Referring to the 2014 Gaza war, McBain accused the Israel Defense Forces of adhering to an “illegal military doctrine,” and claimed that “Responding to violence originating from a territory which you occupy is not self-defense.”

Mohammed Al-Mutawakel is currently a project manager at GIZ headquarters in Germany and was previously a project manager in Jordan. He has used social media to compare Israel to the Nazis and to threaten Israel’s destruction.

Safa Kamal el Naser is a GIZ regional advisor in Jordan. In December 2017, he shared a Facebook post claiming that a “Hebrew spring” was behind the downfall of Arab dictators Saddam Hussein, Muammar Qaddafi and Ali Abdullah Saleh.

Before joining the GIZ program “Values for Religion and Development” in 2016- a program that he heads, Ulrich Nitschke led the Local Governance and Civil Society Development Program and Future for Palestine at GIZ Palestine” and the chairperson of the GIZ’s Sector Network Governance for the Middle East and North Africa region.
He has used Facebook to promote BDS, advocate for Ahed Tamimi, deny the Jewish connection to the Temple Mount, accuse Israel of misusing the term “antisemitism” and stake out other anti-Israel positions.

Tobias Thiel heads GIZ’s “Strengthening Reform Initiatives” project. He has shared articles claiming that Israel committed a “deliberate massacre” in Gaza, and arguing that Israel does not have the right to defend itself.

The former employee told me that when she got in trouble for her completely accurate post about Tamimi, she told her supervisor that many GIZ employees post horrible things about Israel all the time. Her country director replied it's a security issue...saying anything pro-Israel could upset the Jordanians and therefore puts all GIZ employees at risk.

However, the security of the employee who was vilified for a pro-Israel post was not a concern. She was the one called to the carpet for her actions. Her original comments were in a private Facebook group, a Jordanian reported it publicly, putting her in danger. Instead of showing concern for her, GIZ complained about her post in a private group!

But virulently anti-Israel posts? That's just fine! (Even though they also violate GIZ guidelines, where they are told not to say anything political on social media.)

She also told me that these are not isolated cases, and not only on social media. "You have people on the level of regional director for MENA, who have not only 1 but 3 public Facebook accounts with their picture and reference to GIZ, that are entirely dedicated to spreading anti Israel hate," she says. She emphasized that they say these things in person as well. And it is reflected in their policies, in who they choose to partner with and fund, and who knows how many other decisions.

This is thoroughly rotten, and it is only a single organization.

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.

In December, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein commented on the death of wheelchair-bound Ibrahim Abu Thurayeh at a protest on the Gaza border:

Shocked at the “incomprehensible” killing of a wheelchair-bound amputee protester by Israeli security forces, the top United Nations human rights official has called on the country to open an independent and impartial investigation into the incident.

“International human rights law strictly regulates the use of force in the context of protests and demonstrations. The lethal use of firearms should only be employed as the last resort, when strictly unavoidable, in order to protect life,” Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, said on Tuesday.

“However, as far as we can see, there is nothing whatsoever to suggest that Ibrahim Abu Thurayeh [the protester] was posing an imminent threat of death or serious injury when he was killed,” he added, stressing: “Given his severe disability, which must have been clearly visible to those who shot him, his killing is incomprehensible – a truly shocking and wanton act.”

I noted at the time that Abu Thurayeh had told his family the night before that he planned to die:

The Palestinian’s brother told Ruptly that Thurayeh knew he would not be coming back from the protest alive. “Yesterday my brother said to me while he was eating dinner us: ‘Brother, forgive me. This is the last night you will see me. And you, my mother, forgive me, and you my sisters, you all forgive me...’
“He kissed the hand and the leg of my father and said to him: Father, forgive me. This is the last night you will see me, as I intend to be a martyr. I am bored of this life, I have no legs and I have nothing. I want to die and rest from life.”
His mother told Ruptly that her son wanted to “sacrifice himself for the homeland,” adding that “he has become a martyr.” His father said that his son died for Jerusalem.
....The older bereaved brother, who took part in Ibrahim’s funeral, recalled for Mondoweiss their last conversation during breakfast last Wednesday. Ibrahim saw that the demonstrations were becoming deadly. “Mom, bro… please forgive me for any mistake I have ever did, I have lost my legs for my country and I think that is not enough, I must sacrifice my whole body for the sacrifice of the homeland,” Ibrahim said.

No comment from Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein.

Now Israel has completed its investigation, an investigation that Hussein insisted upon:

Findings of a Military Police investigation into the death of Ibrahim Abu Thuraya, a double amputee who was killed during a violent protest near the border fence in the northern Gaza Strip in mid December, reveal that the sniper fire had ended at least an hour before the time Abu Thuraya was hurt according to Palestinian reports, Ynet has learned.

Two snipers from the Maglan special forces unit were questioned under caution by the Military Police Investigations Division in recent weeks on suspicion of causing Abu Thuraya's death. One of the snipers told his investigators, "There's no chance we killed him. We have been trained to detect injuries."

According to the findings, Ynet had learned, the sniper fire that day was halted at least one hour before the Palestinians claim Abu Thuraya was shot and hit. The snipers fired at key instigators only three times that day.

Gaza Division officials have also detected the growing participation of many disabled Palestinians, including people in wheelchairs, in these protests. The fighters have been instructed to avoid hitting the disabled protests, who are usually positioned in the centers of friction, so as not to provide Hamas with the image it is hoping to gain.

The bottom line of the military investigation is that no fault was found in the forces' conduct during that incident. One of the assumptions, which hasn’t been proved as part of the investigation, is that Abu Thuraya died from a ricochet of a certain crowd dispersal mean used by the forces to drive the rioters away.

The two Maglan unit snipers were questioned under caution by the Military Police following Palestinian claims that an autopsy found Abu Thuraya had been struck in the head by a bullet while attending the weekly fence protest.

The two fighters and their commanders argued that no shots had been fired at the disabled protestor. "We are trained to accurately hit our targets," one of the snipers told his investigators. "And in any event, the instruction is to shoot at the lower part of a key instigator's body. There's no chance we killed him. We are trained to detect injuries after every shooting, and when that happens we see people gather around the wounded person. In this case, it didn't happen."

I also noted that Abu Thuraya was depressed for years over not being able to provide for his family and to find a wife.

All evidence points to his staging his own death so he could appear to have "died for Jerusalem" and to ensure financial help for his family as he would become a "shahid."

Which means that someone in Gaza shot him in the head, away from the protests (the IDF soldiers did not see a crowd gather around him during the riots.)

Will the UN call for an investigation into a society that encourages people to die so they can be regarded as heroes? Will Hussein demand that Hamas open an "independent investigation" into who actually killed Abu Thuraya?

The very question is absurd. The UN doesn't really care about dead Palestinians when Israel cannot be blamed for their deaths.

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.

03/28 Links Pt2: New Book Exposes Depth of Anti-Israel Hate on American Campuses; Let’s Not Forget Farrakhan’s Shameful Stance on Slavery

From Ian:

ITP: New Book Exposes Depth of Anti-Israel Hate on American Campuses

About six months after Andrew Pessin posted on his Facebook profile a defense of Israel during its 2014 war against Hamas, the once popular Connecticut College philosophy professor was subjected to an academic smear campaign. The school paper published articles defaming him. The administration hosted condemnations of Pessin from across the campus community on the school's website, and tolerated other anti-Semitic activities that only worsened the climate for Jews and Israel supporters. Pessin received death threats and, in the spring of 2015, took a medical leave of absence. The Connecticut College administration offered no meaningful protection or support to Pessin, and never issued any apology for its role in his abuse.

The Pessin affair was part of a growing trend of anti-Israel hostility on U.S. campuses, but at least his story has a somewhat happy ending. Pessin resumed teaching last fall after an extended paid sabbatical, and – together with a colleague – convinced the school to establish a Jewish Studies program. Moreover, he has edited a new book with Fordham University's Doron Ben-Atar on the general campus trend: Anti-Zionism on Campus: The University, Free Speech, and BDS. Ben-Atar, who is part of Fordham's American Studies program, protested at a faculty meeting about the 2013 passing of a resolution calling for a boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) targeting Israel, only to find himself soon being investigated for unspecified charges, resulting in a Kafkaesque campaign of intimidation and vilification. This volume of essays, by faculty and students who have confronted anti-Israelism on their campuses, documents and analyzes how this movement masks an underlying anti-Semitism that creates a hostile environment for Jews while undermining free speech and civility.

Writer Noah Beck interviewed Pessin via email.

Q: Your book catalogues the many underhanded tactics used to promote the anti-Israel agenda on college campuses, which should help Israel advocates prepare for what awaits them. Did your personal ordeal inspire you to create a potential resource for campus Israel advocates? Or did you have the idea for such a book even before what happened to you?

Pessin: I had been observing the general campus scene for some time, but passively; like many professors, I preferred to spend my time teaching and doing my research, rather than get involved in the mess. And so, when I read about Doron's affair at Fordham, being persecuted for standing up for Israel, I simply thought, "That's terrible," then clicked on the next story. It was only six months later, when I began to receive hundreds of emails of support from around the world, that I realized how important it is to hear from people off campus. So I wrote to him, belatedly, to offer my support—and he wrote back immediately to suggest we collect narratives from faculty members who have been on the receiving end of anti-Israel nastiness on their campuses. Though the book evolved from there—we include several more analytical essays, as well as some narratives from students—that's how it was born.

‘Zionism Is a Humanist Movement, Not a Colonial One’: Prominent French-Tunisian Movie Producer Said Ben Saïd Reflects on Arabs, Jews and Islam

Last November, the Tunisian-born French movie producer Said Ben Saïd briefly found himself thrust into the center of the Arab world’s conflict with Israel as a result of his work with Nadav Lapid, an Israeli film director.

In an op-ed for the French daily Le Monde, Ben Saïd revealed that an invitation to preside over the jury of the 28th Carthage Film Festival in Tunisia had been curtly rescinded because of his cooperation with Lapid, as well as his participation on the judges panel at the 2017 Jerusalem Film Festival in Israel. That decision provided an opportunity for Ben Saïd to articulate some home truths.

“[I]t must be admitted that the Arab world is, in its majority, antisemitic,” Ben Saïd wrote at the time. “This hatred of Jews has redoubled in intensity and depth not because of the Arab-Israeli conflict, but with the rise of a certain vision of Islam.”

Four months on, Ben Saïd, who was on a visit to New York, seemed unfazed that his critique of the widespread, socially acceptable antisemitism that has endured throughout the Arab world for more than a century had not become more commonplace.

“I’m talking as an Arab and as a Muslim, and that’s what I am,” Ben Saïd explained during an interview with The Algemeiner at his hotel in Manhattan’s Soho district. “But I am talking against a majority of people who do not think as I do. Those people who need to think completely differently about their relationship with Israel, they are the same people who are at present convinced that they are not antisemitic. They think they are merely anti-Zionists.”

Charles Jacobs: As Passover Nears, Let’s Not Forget Farrakhan’s Shameful Stance on Slavery

In 1995, as Research Director of the American Anti-Slavery Group, I co-authored a New York Times op-ed with Mohammed Athie, an African Muslim refugee, that first brought broad national attention to the plight of black chattel slaves in North Africa. In Sudan, for decades, as part of a war waged by the Arab north against the black, mostly Christian south, militia armed by Khartoum stormed African villages, killed the men and captured the women and the children. These served their masters as goat-herds, domestic servants, and sex-slaves. In Mauritania, Arab Berbers who had conquered the area centuries before had always kept African slaves, even though these were Muslims. As our Times piece explained, Western rights groups had thoroughly documented human bondage in these two countries, but did next to nothing to marshal their constituencies to act. No one was trying to free the slaves.

As interest in the issue grew, especially in the black press, Mohammed and I were invited on PBS’s Tony Brown’s Journal, a popular news show where we described our experience and research. We cited reports on current day slavery from Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the State Department in Sudan, Mauritania, and Libya.

Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam immediately demanded to have its spokesperson—Akbar Muhammed—come on the show with a different view. Akbar claimed this was all a “big lie,” part of a Jewish conspiracy against Minister Farrakhan. Akbar was particularly upset about our mention of human bondage in Libya; It turned out that he was Farrakhan’s emissary to that country. According to the Chicago Tribune’s Clarence Page, Khadafi had loaned Farrakhan $5 million in 1984 and later promised to give the Nation of Islam a billion dollars for “Muslim causes” in America which, Clarence Page suggested, was what kept Farrakhan mute on African slavery.

“I could never live in Israel,” is something people often drop in conversation. In some respects, they mean this as a compliment. They’re calling me brave. At the same time, they’re calling me foolhardy and worse, because what they really want to know is how anyone could choose to raise children in a dangerous neighborhood: could put their children’s lives at risk.

I could do what some do and answer with statistics that prove it’s more dangerous to live in New York than in Jerusalem. Statistics are infinitely malleable that way. But that would be dishonest. The fact is, in New York, there aren’t a lot of people getting killed in horrible ways because they’re Jewish.

In Jerusalem, on the other hand, if someone is the victim of violence, God forbid, it’s almost always because that person is Jewish.

Which is kind of crazy, if you think about it, and in some ways, defeats the purpose of living in the Jewish State. Isn’t the idea to escape antisemitism? To live and breathe free in our own land?

If peace isn’t arriving any time soon, what’s the point of sticking out one’s neck to live in a place where you might be blown up, stabbed, stoned to death, or rammed by a truck because of your religion?

Where’s the advantage in that??

After all, I might have stayed in Pittsburgh. My mom has, in the past, wondered at my Aliyah, “Israel is for people who have no other place to live, persecuted people, poor people. People from places like Morocco, France, and Russia.”

A lot of Israelis agree with her. These Israelis have no love for Western immigrants. We look like show-offs, brandishing our bravado. Trying to be oh-so-tough and Israeli. We’re not fooling THEM, the real Israelis. The ones who don’t speak Hebrew with cringe-worthy American accents.

But I’m here in Israel a long time now. I’m what’s called a “vatik.” A veteran.

I know it’s dangerous. I know it’s a dangerous place to raise children.

And still: I choose to live in Israel. I choose to raise my 12 children here.

In spite of the danger.

Because some things are more important than even life itself.

The land, for instance.

If someone dies, God forbid, in order to strengthen the Land of Israel, this is a huge mitzvah. It’s a mitzvah no one aspires to and everyone dreads. But a mitzvah all the same.

Which is the difference between Jews who come to live in and raise families in Israel, and the 700,000 so-called Arab “refugees” who fled Israel in 1948.

The Economist, October 2, 1948: "Of the 62,000 Arabs who formerly lived in Haifa not more than 5,000 or 6,000 remained. Various factors influenced their decision to seek safety in flight. There is but little doubt that the most potent of the factors were the announcements made over the air by the Higher Arab Executive, urging the Arabs to quit ... It was clearly intimated that those Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as renegades."

Near East Arabic Radio, April 3, 1948: "It must not be forgotten that the Arab Higher Committee encouraged the refugees to flee from their homes in Jaffa, Haifa and Jerusalem, and that certain leaders . . . make political capital out of their miserable situation . . ."

Nimr el Hawari, Commander of the Palestine Arab Youth Organization, in his book Sir Am Nakbah (The Secret Behind the Disaster, Nazareth, 1955), quoted Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Said as saying "We will smash the country with our guns and obliterate every place the Jews seek shelter in. The Arabs should conduct their wives and children to safe areas until the fighting has died down."

Golda Meir famously traveled to Haifa to try to convince the fleeing Arabs to remain during the Arab offensive on Haifa. But they didn’t listen. They were afraid they’d be accused of being traitors. By the time the fighting in Haifa was over, more than 50,000 had turned tail and fled to neighboring countries.

A British police report from that time notes that "every effort is being made by the Jews to persuade the Arab populace to stay and carry on with their normal lives.”

You see? They weren’t expelled. They fled. They fled at the behest of the invading Arab armies, even though Israeli leaders begged them to stay, and pledged their safety. They were afraid.

And it wasn’t just Haifa. It happened everywhere in Israel. The few Arabs who did stay were granted full citizenship after the war ended. Because they stayed the course.

The rest fled because they put their lives and their safety ahead of the land, ahead of their beautiful homes . . .

(photo credit: Dov Epstein)

. . . many of which now, as a result, belong to Jews: Jews who stayed the course, stayed in Israel, risking their lives.

Now it’s understandable that Arabs put their lives ahead of the land. They don’t have that tie to Eretz HaKodesh, the Holy Land. Jerusalem isn’t mentioned in the Quran. Many Arab inhabitants of the Israel of 1947, had only a brief history there. They arrived because the Jews were beginning to arrive. The Arabs were poor. They hoped that following the Jews might mean riding Jewish coattails to prosperity.

Arab hopes were indeed born out. They made money, prospered. Built solid homes. They still prosper in a sense, pretending to be refugees, getting gazillions in aid, getting money to kill Jews.

The Jews prospered, too. They prospered because they stayed. They won the wars, won the land, got the beautiful homes the Arabs built and left. Left because the Arabs had their priorities straight: life, not land.

Yes, for them, life is more important than land. But religion is king above all. Jews and Arabs have a symbiotic relationship in that respect: Jews are willing to die for the land. Arabs are willing to die killing Jews.

Yet the Arabs fled the land at the first sign of trouble. It’s not their abandoned homes they mourn, as their crocodile tears are shed for the TV camera, as they hold out a key, the symbol of return. Because if they really cared so damned much about the land and their homes, they would not have left in the first place.

Left of their own volition.

Which is why they must now pretend they are refugees, that they were expelled. Because the truth doesn’t look so great: Jews stayed the course, stayed in Israel, no matter what. But the Arabs turned tail and fled. Except for the small number who stayed. They received Arab citizenship, a prize from a democracy that wants to live with the Arabs in peace. They got citizenship because they placed Israel above their most genuine fears and concerns.

As did I.

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.

Logistical Problems: Only Some Hamas Units Equipped With Human Shields (PreOccupied Territory)

Our weekly column from the humor site PreOccupied Territory.

Check out their Facebook page.

Gaza City, March 28 - Tension gripped the Izzedin al-Qassam Brigades this week in advance of operations against the Zionist Entity, as several platoons of fighters discovered they had not received their allotment of women and children to use as human shields.

Commanders in the Gaza City, Sujaiyya, and Rafah districts complained this week that their requisitions for the proper number of noncombatants to accompany their units had gone unfulfilled, leaving the rocket-launching, tunnel-digging, and roadside-bomb-planting squads without the cover that those human shields provide. Without the women, children, and elderly Gazans, they note, the units are unable to leverage their presence to score either political or military victories against Israel.

"My orders, and the battle plan, call for placing the women and children in harm's way, either to deter Israeli fire or to capitalize on the deaths to depict the Zionists as brutal fiends," explained Mustafa Massiqr of the Rafah district. "Without the children to either prevent or absorb enemy fire, I can't proceed according to plan. I can't expose my men to enemy fire like that."

"That's not how our training has taught us to fight," seconded a commander near the Kerem Shalom crossing who gave his name as Ali. "We can pretend it's our glorious, courageous warriors taking the fight to the Zionist infidel pig all we want, but without the women and children we're essentially naked. What am I supposed to do, send our fighters out to confront enemy soldiers while not violating six or seven laws of armed conflict? Not happening."

Hamas's command center inside Shifa Hospital in Gaza City has remained mum on the cause of the supply snafu, leading those in the field to speculate. "There have been rumors of dissatisfaction with Hamas rule, so maybe some noncombatants have just stopped 'volunteering' to put their lives on the line for this glorious cause," suggested a lieutenant in Rafah. "For some reason, I've heard grumblings, it's never the wealthy, high-ranking Hamas people who suffer, despite their constant repetition of the sanctity and importance of sacrificing oneself. You'd think they could spare a Mercedes or two for the purpose. But no, it's always us peons in harm's way."

Others blame Israel. "They must have found a way to disrupt the movement of these vital supplies," worried Muhammad al-Kalb of Gaza. "When the next war comes, I don't envy our fighters, who will have to actually fight and not cower like girls behind, well, girls."

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.

03/28 Links Pt1: PA publishes new budget; continues to defy US by rewarding terror; Congress threatens to cut UN funding for voting against Israel; 'There's a tendency in Israel to demonize Sweden'

From Ian:

PMW: PMW Exclusive: PA publishes new budget; continues to defy US and Europe by rewarding terror

- 7.47% of the PA's operational budget is for salaries to terrorist prisoners, released terrorists, and payments to families of "Martyrs" and wounded

- The PA has 2 budget categories rewarding terror; together they equal 44% of anticipated foreign aid

- New in 2018 Budget: For the first time since 2014, the PA is directly paying the Commission of Prisoners, which pays the salaries to terrorist prisoners; as a result, the PA now fits Israel's criteria to be declared a terror organization

Total PA 2018 operational budget: 16.559 billion shekels ($4.76 billion)
Salaries to terrorist prisoners: 550 million shekels ($158 million)
Payments to families of "Martyrs" and wounded: 687 million shekels ($197 million)
Total expenditure in budget categories rewarding terror = 1.237 billion shekels ($355 million)
For comparison: PA Ministry of Health which serves the entire population of 5 million has a budget of 1.787 billion shekels, a mere 44% more than 1.237 billion shekels serving the recipients in the two budget categories rewarding terror

In the same week that the United States passed the Taylor Force Act, which cuts off nearly all US aid to the Palestinian Authority if it continues paying salaries to terrorist prisoners and allowances to families of terrorist "Martyrs," the PA publicized the main parts of its 2018 budget. In open defiance of the US, other donor countries, and Israel, the PA's new budget shows it is continuing to reward terror. The amount the PA has budgeted to spend on the two categories that reward terror (salaries to prisoners and allowances to families of "Martyrs" and wounded) is 7.47% of the total operational budget. The amount equals 44% of the funding the PA hopes to receive in foreign aid in 2018, which is 2.79 billion shekels according to the budget.

Murder of 11 at Savoy hotel in 1975 was “greatest and most wonderful quality operation,” says Fatah

Congress threatens to cut UN funding for voting against Israel

United Nations agencies that single out Israel may soon be on the hook to lose a certain portion of US funding.

According to a little-noticed provision in the massive government spending bill that President Donald Trump signed into law last week, UN agencies and entities that act against the United States or its allies, including Israel, could lose 5% of their US contribution.

The new law requires the secretary of state to consult with the US ambassador to the UN to determine if an “agency or entity has taken an official action that is against the national security interest of the United States or an ally of the United States, including Israel.” Israel is the only US ally that is explicitly named in both the bill’s text and its accompanying report language.

In an effort to sway UN policy, the law stipulates that the UN agency must take steps to change the policy in question before receiving the withheld funds. Otherwise, the funds are subject to reprogramming for other international organizations.

Josh Reubner, the policy director for the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights, a coalition of groups supporting Palestinian statehood, denounced the new law as “yet another example of how the United States bends over backward to shield Israel from valid criticism at the UN.”

“It also shows how the Republican-led Congress is closely coordinating with the Trump administration to make good on its threat to punish the UN for criticizing Israel’s separate-and-unequal policies toward Palestinians,” added Reubner.

But US lawmakers and successive US administrations have long held that the UN singles Israel out for unfairly harsh treatment relative to other countries. Nonetheless, the Trump administration is considering options to make the UN more favorable to Israel.

'There's a tendency in Israel to demonize Sweden' (not satire)

Sweden’s ambassador to Israel on Tuesday claimed there was a tendency in Israel to “demonize” his country and in particular foreign minister Margot Wallstrom.

In an interview with i24news, the ambassador, Magnus Hellgren, also insisted he doesn’t see the Boycott, Divestment and Sanction (BDS) movement as anti-Semitic.

Relations between Israel and Sweden have been tense in recent years. Wallstrom in particular has come under fire for her harsh anti-Israel comments.

In 2014, then-Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman denounced Sweden’s decision to recognize the Palestinian Authority (PA) as "the State of Palestine", saying that “relations in the Middle East are a lot more complex than the self-assembly furniture of IKEA”.

Wallstrom later replied and said she would be “happy” to send Liberman some IKEA furniture “and he will also see that what you need to put that together is, first of all, a partner.”

Following that incident, Wallstrom accused Israel of being “extremely aggressive” and accused the Jewish state of “irritating its allies”.

In December of 2015, she attacked Israel again, claiming during a debate in parliament that Israel was “executing” without trial terrorists who carried out stabbing attacks in Israel.

The Passover story is too Zionist for the "progressives" at Mondoweiss

I couldn't find any new anti-Israel Haggadot from Jewish Voice for Peace or J-Street this year, but Mondoweiss attempted to fill the gap.

This article called "The Problem with Passover" is by another pseudo-intellectual academic fraud, this one named, Harriet Malinowitz a retired professor of English at Long Island University, part-time teacher at Ithaca College, faculty advisor to Students for Justice in Palestine and on the Academic Advisory Board of Jewish Voice for Peace.

Excerpts:

Over many years I taught a few bible excerpts from anthologies for literature survey courses, but it wasn’t until recently, in researching the history and symbology of Zionism, that I sat down and attentively studied the longer text. The context I found for the liberation of the ancient Hebrew people was, to say the least, disturbing. Aside from the traffic in women, the abuse of animals, the imperative to obedience, the copious administration of capital punishment, and the self-aggrandizement of an authoritarian in absolute command, there was the inescapable ultimate hook on which all the liberation depended: ethnic cleansing and genocide. Neither Yahweh nor his followers were troubled about the Chosen, upon release from bondage in Egypt, being gifted with “a land rich and broad, a land where milk and honey flow, the home of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites” (Exodus 3:7-9).

Note that she only decided to read the Bible to research " the history and symbology of Zionism" - meaning, her reading was from the start meant to find ways to denigrate the children of Israel - i.e., the Jews.

When she says " the self-aggrandizement of an authoritarian in absolute command" she's not talking about Pharaoh - but God.

I began to search for commentary on the dark side of the saga. Edward Said, in a 1986 essay, may have been the first to note that Exodus could certainly be regarded as a “tragic” and dystopic rather than uplifting tale. He described “the injunction laid on the Jews by God to exterminate their opponents” as “an injunction that somewhat takes away the aura of progressive national liberation…. [I]t isn’t clear how the dehumanization of anyone standing in Moses’ way is any less appalling than the attitudes of the murderous Puritans or of the founders of apartheid.”

Yes, the poor Amalekites and Egyptians who stood in Moses' way. So innocent!

The Native American scholar Robert Warrior (Osage) was once a student of Said’s and has written movingly about the elder’s influence on his own thinking. In an influential 1989 essay called “Canaanites, Cowboys, and Indians,” Warrior expanded on Said’s perception that the Exodus narrative left little to rejoice in if read “with Canaanite eyes.” ....Putting the Canaanites at the center of the story completely upends Exodus as a paradigmatic liberation narrative.

Malinowitz is obviously subscribing to the "Palestinians are Canaanites" myth, whether literally or figuaratively, because the analogy between the Israelites destroying the Canaanites and the Jews supposedly expelling the Arabs is too irresistible.

Yet the idea of a Palestinian national liberation movement that has been based on terrorism since the 1920s does not unsettle the sensitive stomachs of these "progressives."

Fascinating how that happens.

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.

It is worth reminding ourselves how screwed up the campuses have become

I just saw this statement given by the San Francisco State University's Department of Gender and Women's Studies i response to SFSU's president saying that Zionists are welcome on campus:

Zionism mobilizes race, gender, and sexuality in specific ways, which continue to be a topic of investigation and contestation in fields such as Women and Gender Studies. The history and contemporary discourse of racialized gender and sexuality for Jewish people in Zionism is a site of debate and political protest today--especially as the Israeli state’s project of “pinkwashing” is decried by queer activists internationally. In addition, there is strong contestation among feminists regarding Zionist ideologies. As the case of Palestinian teenager Ahed Tamimi illustrates, feminists are identifying and protesting contemporary conditions of emergency in Palestine, and pointing out how Zionism targets women and families in broader projects of racialized population control. This, among other histories of feminist debate, show that Zionism as a political ideology needs to be up for debate at minimum.

Palestinian nationalism is not up for debate. Certainly, Palestinian misogyny is not up for discussion. The fiction of "pinkwashing" is not up for debate. The absurd idea that Zionism targets women specifically is not up for debate. Arab antisemitism is not even a remote possibility for discussion.

But the idea of Jewish nationalism - that a people that have been a nation for thousands of years should be allowed to have a state today - that is up for debate "at a minimum."

The absurd statement is followed by a highly biased reading list of anti-Israel pseudo-academia to buttress the argument that while every possible idea is welcome on campus, Jewish nationalism is beyond the pale.

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' spokesperson Nabil Abu Rudeina said the Taylor Force Act is a "declaration of war" against the Palestinian people.

The Taylor Force Act. which passed Congress on Thursday, threatens to freeze State Department funds to the Palestinian Authority unless it stops paying terrorists and the families of terrorists.

Mahmoud Abbas' official position is that not giving his government free money without strings attached is a declaration of war against the Palestinians. (Wafa in English phrased it as "tantamount to a declaration of war" but none of the Arabic sites say anything but a literal declaration of war.)

The Palestinian culture of entitlement continues in ways that beyond farcical. But this is even worse, because the Palestinian Authority is so entrenched in direct support of terror that it will defend that policy to the hilt and lash out at anyone who objects to its spending a significant chuck of its budget to terrorists and their families.

There is no better proof that despite the fawning articles and willful blindness of the nations about how "moderate" Mahmoud Abbas is, he chooses direct monetary support of terror over the well-being of his own people.

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.

03/27 Links Pt2: Why is the UN defining Judaism as a war crime?; Bibi to Europe: You have to pick America or Iran; Everyone Loves Israel Now

From Ian:

Bibi to Europe: You have to pick America or Iran

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told French and German foreign ministers who visited Jerusalem today that he predicts "with high probability" that President Trump is going to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal on May 12th and urged the Europeans to agree to significant changes in the deal, Senior Israeli officials who attended the meetings told me.

Why it matters: The European powers — Germany, France and the U.K. — have been engaged in intense negotiations with the U.S. in an attempt to reach a formula that would save the Iran deal. The Europeans believe the chances of finding a formula which will satisfy Trump are very slim.

Netanyahu said changes will be needed to three parts of the deal to keep the U.S. from killing it:
1. Sanctions on the Iranian ballistic missile program
2. Inspections of suspicious sites in Iran
3. A removal of the the "Sunset clause" which would start to lift limitations on the Iranian nuclear program in nine years

According to the Israeli officials Netanyahu told the European foreign ministers:
"We can debate whether it (U.S. withdrawal from the deal) is a good thing or a bad thing, but it is just the reality. Then you Europeans will have to choose between the small economy of Iran and the huge economy of the U.S."

German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas told Netanyahu that the current deal is better than no deal. The Israeli officials said Netanyahu replied: "The Munich agreement from 1938 was also a deal. I also want to remind you what happened to the nuclear deal with North Korea."

French foreign minister Jean Yves Le Drian briefed Netanyahu on his recent visit to Tehran, saying he came back deeply disappointed and frustrated with the difficult position the Iranians presented regarding the European demands on the Iranian missile program and the Iranian activity in Syria, Lebanon and Yemen, the Israeli officials said.

Everyone Loves Israel Now

The muted Arab government reaction to President Donald Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital is indeed a marker of what has changed — and what hasn’t. In absorbing that step, Arab governments have likewise had to reaffirm their Arab and Muslim solidarity with the Palestinian leadership and the Palestinian claim to Jerusalem. Israel achieved a symbolic victory, but it may face a more united Arab front if it follows up with new unilateral steps that impede Palestinian aspirations. If Israel’s government wants to cultivate Arab state goodwill, it will have to be sensitive to the concerns of Arab governments who face contrary public opinion.

The new regional environment also presents Israel with new dilemmas it did not face when Sunni Arab states were uniformly hostile. The most vexing concerns whether Israel can tolerate the transfer of sophisticated Western arms and technology transfers to Arab governments. Traditionally, Israel has used its considerable political influence to prevent the United States, Europe, and even Russia from selling Arab militaries advanced technology that might erode the country’s vaunted “qualitative military edge.” It has also expressed unequivocal opposition to any possible transfer of sensitive nuclear technology to Arab states.

But what to do now that the eager seekers of such weapons and technology are Israel’s newfound “friends”? Can Israel afford the risk that in the future these states — which would then be much better equipped — might return to open confrontation? Israel already faced this dilemma regarding a pending sale of advanced German submarines to Egypt — and the disagreements among Israeli military and civilian leaders over this question have now resurfaced amid allegations of corruption and a criminal investigation surrounding Israeli relationships with the German submarine producer. Saudi Arabia’s recent quest for nuclear technology presents an even more vexing issue, since both states oppose Iranian nuclear capability — but to say the least, Israel is not comfortable with the idea of the Saudis acquiring such capabilities either.

It’s clear that today’s chaotic Middle East has created some strange bedfellows. For Israelis who have been isolated in their region for some 70 years, the possibilities are exhilarating. But the new horizons must not blind Israeli leaders or the Israeli public to tough choices they will have to make in dealing with their Arab frenemies in the months and years to come. Sometimes, it’s easier to have an implacable foe.

'Will UNESCO demand Western Wall be given to the Muslims?'

Several Arab states submitted a new draft resolution to the UNESCO organization on Jerusalem prior to the meeting of the organization's Executive Committee to take place immediately after the Passover holiday.

The proposal is very short, and at first glance appears to be devoid of offensive language against Israel. The title of the proposal deals with 'occupied Palestine', and states that the Old City of Jerusalem is an international heritage site with a Jordanian connection.

The proposal also includes a direct reference to UN General Assembly resolutions on the legal status of 'Palestine' and Jerusalem, and in particular UN Security Council Resolution 2334 which declares all Jewish presence over the so-called 'Green Line' illegal and the recent UN General Assembly resolution condemning US President Donald Trump's recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

The Arab states included a reference to the importance of the sanctity of Jerusalem to all religions in order to avoid the appearance that the resolution is biased against Israel and the Jewish people.

Israeli Ambassador to the UN Carmel Shama Hacohen said that "Israel cannot agree to the proposal because it is a package of all the elements we fought against in a miniature package, wrapped in a misleading cover. This is an attempt to persuade us to swallow a small poisonous pill in the shape of a well-wrapped candy, instead of a bucket of poison from previous times that was different in size and that smells very bad due to false, offensive and inflammatory expressions."

"The wording does not include false and offensive details as in the past, but in fact it contains references to all the decisions of the past, including those that the Arabs have already withdrawn from, such as the Islamization of the Western Wall and the Temple Mount through the back door. It is trying to drag countries that voted against this in the past to change the way they vote," added Shama Hacohen.

The Israeli Foreign Ministry began working to ensure that the proposal is not brought for a vote as soon as it was published.

UN Watch: Why is the UN defining Judaism as a war crime?

My interview with Rabbi Michael Shudrich originally appeared in the March 23rd print issue of The Jewish Press and on their online edition. It is posted here with permission.

Although several weeks have passed, indignation over Poland’s “Holocaust Law” still pervades the Jewish community. The law outlaws blaming Poland for crimes committed during the Holocaust, but it has been seen by many as an attempt to deny the Holocaust itself. In reaction, some have suggested boycotting Poland, including ending student trips to the country.

Rabbi Michael Schudrich, chief rabbi of Poland, sees matters in a very different light, arguing that much of the criticism of the new law is misplaced. He recently shared his perspective with The Jewish Press.

The Jewish Press: Before we address the new law, please provide a brief primer on the modern Jewish community of Poland?

Rabbi Schudrich: What’s important to know is that before the war there were 3.5 million Jews, who were murdered by the Germans and their accomplices. That still leaves 10 percent – 350,000 Polish Jews – survived the war. Most of the Jews left, but not all. Those that remained basically stayed in Communist Poland without being Jewish. Many did not even tell their children and grandchildren that they were Jewish.

It remained a deep dark secret from 1939 to 1989. In 1989, communism fell, at which point the not-so-young survivors were confronted with the question: Do I feel safe enough today to tell my children and grandchildren that I am really Jewish? Since 1989, thousands and thousands – perhaps even tens of thousands – of Poles have discovered their Jewish roots. That is the story of Polish Jewry today.

What’s your take on Poland’s new “Holocaust Law”?

The law was not written with the Holocaust as its main concern. It is designed to protect the good name of Poland from false accusations. There really is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the law is about. To say “Polish death camps” is not true, and it is very painful for Poles to hear it.

Now, the way they constructed the law, one could imagine that it speaks about Polish collaborators. But this law is not about the Holocaust directly; it’s about protecting the good name of Poland.

There is a growing number on the right that doesn’t like to talk about the bad things Poles did in the past. But it’s not about distorting the history of the Holocaust. It’s not anti-Semitic; it’s pro-Polish. In other words, it’s not that they don’t want to talk about the fact their grandfathers or uncles collaborated with the Germans because they don’t like Jews. Rather, they don’t want to talk about their grandfathers and uncles [having done something] bad.

Now, the problem is that the way they wrote this very poorly-written law may make it seem like I can be prosecuted if I say a Pole killed a Jew during the war. But fundamentally, this law is not about the tragedy of what happened to the Jews. It’s about hiding what the Poles did.

But isn’t hiding this history a distortion of history?

Yes, but on the other side, to say that all Poles are anti-Semites is also a distortion of history. When survivors say the Poles were worse than the Germans, that’s because the Germans could not tell a Jew from a non-Jew in Poland, and therefore Polish collaborators became very important because they could point out the Jews. The Jews were more threatened by their Polish neighbor than by the Germans who wouldn’t recognize them.

But people misunderstand today. They think the Polish government worked with the Germans. That is simply not true. Germans thought of the Holocaust, planned the Holocaust, and did the Holocaust with the help of collaborators in every country. But without the Germans, there would have been no Holocaust.

So there is a battle against stereotypes on both sides. Now I, personally, as a Jew, am far more offended by the false stereotypes that Poles say about Jews than I am by the false stereotypes Jews say about Poles. What I hear from the Polish side is more difficult than what I hear from the Jewish side. But that anti-Semitic things are said in Poland doesn’t mean we are permitted to say anti-Polish lies.

What does the average Pole on the street think of this law?

Poland was not really free until 1989. It was occupied by the Soviet Union. Poland has only been able to deal with its past since 1989, and this is coming up now because some Poles feel their name is being besmirched. Unfortunately, the way they reacted leaves them worse off than they were before, which is a great irony.

They are a certain segment of the population that likes the law very much. And there is a whole other bunch of people that really don’t get why it is necessary. I believe that certainly more than half the country is against the law.

Has Poland seen a rise in anti-Semitism since this controversy erupted?

For me the concern is not rising anti-Semitism, but that we have heard – because of this controversy – anti-Semitic statements that we have not heard in 25 years. That is the issue.

You have been quoted as saying that Jews should respond to this law by “looking for new ways to connect with the [Polish] Jewish community.” How should they go about doing that?

When people say, “Stop going to Poland,” who is that going to hurt? The Poles would actually be relieved not to have to confront Jewish visitors. And the truth is that right now is the most sensitive period we’ve lived through in 25 years, and all of a sudden we are left by ourselves.

[The boycott] isn’t happening – people have not stopped coming to visit Poland. But the concept is very flawed. So many tens of thousands of Jews visit today. We recently had the yahrzeit of Reb Elimelech of Lizhensk. Many Jews come for many different reasons. And when you come, you should make sure to stop by a living Jewish community such as Warsaw, Krakow, Lodz, Wroclaw, and Gdansk. Bring presents, even small things like your favorite Jewish book or favorite Jewish music tape.

People should write to the Polish embassies and consulates where they live and tell them they are concerned by what’s happening. Write also to your senator and congressman to keep the pressure on — about the law, but also about not allowing discussion of it to permit people to make anti-Semitic statements.

You have been in contact with members of the Polish government. What is your assessment of where they stand on this law?

The problem is no longer the law; the problem is the language and dialogue – or lack of dialogue – around the law. The government has to clearly state that the anti-Semitism we’ve heard is unacceptable. That has nothing to do with the law. People cannot say anti-Semitic things today and think it’s acceptable.

This is something the Polish government is trying to address, but so far has not done so very successfully. They are not sure how to do it. Of all the political leaders in Poland, the president has been the most forthcoming. He visited the JCC in Krakow and said there is no place for anti-Semitism in Poland today and that Poland wants its Jews to stay, which is important for a Polish leader to say. He also spoke on the 50th anniversary of the expulsion of Jews from Poland in 1968 and asked for forgiveness. Keep in mind that he was very young back then.

Where do you see the Jewish community in Poland 20 years down the road?

Twenty years from now? I can’t imagine because I couldn’t begin to imagine 20 years ago what would be today.

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.

Sometimes, in Israel, the conversations you overhear are extraordinary. Sometimes, they break your heart.

I was standing in a beautiful overview, looking out on to the northern border of Israel. The hills of Lebanon look the same as the hills of Israel - the Hezbollah flag visible in the village nearest the border the only giveaway that the land there is very different.

The overview was built in memory of Major Benaya Rhein who was killed in the Second Lebanon War. Throughout the war Benaya went on numerous missions to rescue other soldiers. On August 12^th 2006 Benaya and his crew were on another rescue mission when their tank was hit by a Hezbollah anti-tank missile. They were all killed.

It was from this breathtaking spot that Benaya and his crew went on their final mission. This spot overlooking the land that they loved, the land that they died to preserve for their family, friends and the generations to come – other people’s children, not theirs.

I stood there, listening to the recording of Benaya’s mother talking about her son, his legacy and the land that he loved. As the recording ended, a father with two small sons entered the lookout.

The younger of the two boys was full of questions.

He had not heard the recording I had just listened to. I don’t think he noticed the stone dedicating the lookout to Benaya.

His questions were all his own, from his own knowledge, experience and understanding of the world.

“Daddy, where was the war?”

“Over there, son.” answered the father.

“But I can't see anything that looks like fighting. Can we go there?”

“No son.”

“Why daddy?”

The father sighed before he answered: “Because we are at war with the people there. We are trying hard not to fight with them and hopefully they will try not to fight with us either.”

A different child, in a different country might have asked: “What’s a war daddy?” Or “Why do they fight us?” Not this boy, not in this country. He already knew.

A different father, in a different country, might have answered his son differently. There was a time when Israeli parents told their children: “Don’t worry, by the time you grow up you won’t have to be a soldier. There will be peace and we won’t need the army anymore.” At the time, they said it because they believed it. Because they hoped and they prayed that their children would not have to experience what they had experienced.

Israeli parents don’t say that to their children anymore.

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.