Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Thursday, May 10, 2018

Photos of Israel at 70 celebrations in Cairo

Arab media are distraught as they are showing photos from the Ritz Carlton Cairo Tuesday night, where the Israeli embassy held a celebration for Israel's Independence Day, including Egyptian dignitaries.

The reports emphasize that the hotel is on "Tahrir Square" which adds to the horror.

Lots of anguished comments on Facebook from Egyptians who are horrified at the event and the guests. Apparently some are recognizing some Turkish diplomats.

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 all started when an Arutz-7 reporter went to Tunisia to cover the annual Jewish pilgrimage to the synagogue in Djerba, an event that attracted many rabbis from Europe and Israel.

Arutz-7 got a video statement from the Grand Mufti of Tunisia, Othamane Battikh:

Now Tunisian Islamists are upset that the Mufti spoke to Israeli TV, and call for him to be removed from office.

The opposition Popular Popular Party demanded in a statement published Wednesday that the Mufti should be removed because of his statement which was "a deviation from the deep conscience of the Tunisian people and a betrayal of the blood of its martyrs."

The Mufti, under fire, now claims, implausibly, that the Arutz-7 reporter pretended to be an Arab reporter!
He told the Akher Khabar newspaper that he had been duped by the Israeli journalist who interviewed him, who pretended to be a Palestinian, having worked as a press secretary to Yasser Arafat.

His statement to the camera obviously doesn't bear that out; it is obvious he is speaking to a Jewish audience. But he knows more than most how Arab Islamists could act.

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.

There is a lot of contradictory information as to what happened overnight in the Golan and in Syria.

At first, Israeli media reported that Iranian forces in Syria shot some 20 missiles towards Israeli military sites, and Iron Dome intercepted "some" of them. The initial announcement from the IDF said there was "limited" damage to Israeli military bases.

Then, this morning Israeli's Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman said, “Not one Iranian rocket landed in the State of Israel. Nobody was hurt. Nothing was damaged. And we’re to be thankful for that. We damaged nearly all of the Iranian infrastructure in Syria.” The IDF confirmed that account.

The IDF spokesperson now says that four missiles were intercepted by Iron Dome and the rest of the 20 rockets fell in Syrian territory.

The disconnect between the two statements is concerning. It is possible that some of the Iron Dome shrapnel fell on Israeli territory which prompted the initial assessment, or that the original announcement was meant to play it safe in case there was one missile that made it through that hadn't been noticed yet, but it would be nice to clear that up.

The IDF also says that it struck dozens of Iranian military sites in Syria.

Pro-Assad media, not surprisingly, paints a different picture, but the interesting angle is that it quotes Russian defense sources as well.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights says the Syrian side shot "dozens" of missiles at Israel. Syrian army sources claimed that Israel fired first, and that they shot 50 missiles in retaliation. No Arab source is claiming that Iran was involved.

Al Medayeen, a pro-Assad news source, claims that Syria targeted ten Israeli military positions, including "a military reconnaissance centre, a position for border security, a military centre for electronic jamming, a military centre for spying on wireless and wired networks, a communication station, an observatory for precision weapons, a gunships heliport, the headquarters of the regional military command of brigade-810, the command centre of the military battalion in Hermon, and the winter headquarters of the special snow unit."

Al Medayeen also quotes Russian defense officials as saying that 28 F-15 and F-16 Israeli aircraft engaged in raids on Syrian territory and fired 60 missiles. More than half of the missiles were intercepted by Syrian air defense. The Russian source admits that Israel targeted air defense systems as well as Iranian positions in Syria.

Syrian state news agency SANA admits that several military sites in Syria including a radar facility, air defense positions and an ammunition depot were destroyed by the Israeli raids.

Lebanese media says that one or two missiles landed in Lebanese territory, causing little damage. It did not say what side these missiles were shot from.

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.

05/09 Links Pt2: Real anti-Semitism on Campus; The Presbyterian Church’s demonisation of Israel; One man’s race to bring the forgotten music of the Holocaust to life

From Ian:

Jonathan Marks: Real anti-Semitism on Campus

At Ithaca College, of six “bias-related incidents” reported in 2017-18, three were “cases of aggravated harassment involving swastikas.” One Jewish student there reported that a mezuzah “was knocked off of his door and damaged.” At Western Washington University’s library, seven Jewish Studies books were defaced with anti-Semitic slurs or destroyed, and someone drew a swastika on “a poster outside a faculty member’s office.” The University of Miami is investigating multiple anti-Semitic incidents, including one in which someone drew a “large swastika” on a whiteboard hanging on a Jewish student’s door. At Knox College, a professor of African Studies tweeted, among other things, that Jews are “pulling the strings for profit.” A faculty member involved in discussing the incident “found an anti-Semitic image had been slid under her office door.”

That’s a sampling of news stories appearing in the month of April.” This month, we learned of an incident at Towson University in which members of a Jewish fraternity “were walking near the campus when . . . two assailants began shouting “F*** the Jews” and called them by an ethnic slur.” The “assailants then began punching one of the fraternity members in the face.” The victims believe their assailants were fellow students. Last week, at UC-Irvine, amid an anti-Israel protest, a protester called a pro-Israel advocate a “Christ killer.”

The Anti-Defamation League has reported that anti-Semitic incidents were up 89 percent in 2017. There is no reason to think that 2018 will be a better year.

As the AMCHA Initiative’s useful but depressing “swastika tracker” indicates, incidents of anti-Semitism on campus are quite often perpetrated by people who are or are pretending to be neo-Nazis or white nationalists. According to the construct invented by some on right to justify these acts of subterfuge, no treatment is too harsh for the globalists who are betraying our country. A mirror image of this paradigm prevails in certain circles on the left. For supporters of the Jewish state, Jews who refuse to denounce the Jewish state, or sometimes just for Jews who are not card-carrying members of the anti-Israel movement, no treatment can be too harsh. After all, they are responsible for all that is wrong with America.

Left-wing anti-Semitism and right-wing anti-Semitism, then, need to be addressed, and no one who claims to care about anti-Semitism can address just one or the other. It must be said, however, that when it comes to campus anti-Semitism, our failure occurs almost wholly with respect to the left. To be sure, institutions often do quite well when anti-Semitism is absolutely blatant. On the other hand, the most thinly veiled anti-Semitism —for example the blood libel perpetrated by Jasbir Puar of Rutgers University—is not only tolerated but celebrated and rewarded. Academics are much more comfortable denouncing right-wing anti-Semitism, which is almost entirely an off-campus phenomenon, than left-wing anti-Semitism, which has a real, albeit small, foothold at our colleges and universities.

Cary Nelson: The Presbyterian Church’s demonisation of Israel

The Presbyterian Church (USA) has published an ideological and political manual for anti-Israel organising ahead of its bi-annual gathering in June. Reviewing its content, Cary Nelson argues that the publisher’s claim to have produced ‘a study guide’ cannot be accepted. Rather, the language of ‘intersectionality’ is misused in a Church-sponsored demonisation of the Jewish state that is propelled by insinuation more than responsible argument. The controversial academic Steven Salaita argues that the phrase ‘Israeli hummus’ is not just an act of ‘cultural appropriation’ but ‘a promise of genocide’. Sarah Schulman slams Israel’s gay-friendly legal and cultural environment as ‘pink-washing’. Reconciliation and dialogue initiatives are trashed as ‘normalisation’. Israel is accused of ‘genocide’ and the conflict is said to have ‘parallels to the history of slavery in the United States’. The result is a glossy Church-sponsored prospectus for the abolition of the Jewish state that should deeply concern Presbyterians in America.

Toward the end of the Presbyterian anti-Zionist book, Why Palestine Matters: The Struggle to End Colonialism, a sequel to Zionism Unsettled issued in April 2018, just barely in time for PC(USA)’s bi-annual meeting in June, there is a decidedly improbable effort to extend the politics of intersectionality to include a link between Gaza and Puerto Rico. The second item in ‘Parallels with Puerto Rico’ is ‘Letter from Gaza: “We Are All Puerto Ricans,”’ which opens by declaring ‘I know what it’s like to struggle with shortages of vital supplies such as electricity, gas, cash, and safe water’ (82).

Why Palestine Matters is a 110-page oversized book consisting of 39 essays, over 30 breakout supplements, and a large number of illustrations with full paragraph captions. It includes three very useful colour maps, one each of Gaza, West Bank settlements, and West Bank Areas A, B, and C. The editors make an effort to describe it as the third ‘study guide’ issued by IPMN, the Israel/Palestine Mission Network of the Presbyterian Church (US), but it is so fiercely one-sided that it really serves exclusively as an ideological and political manual for anti-Israel organising. The volume breaks with IPMN’s history by explicitly aligning itself with the BDS movement and doing so at length. Many of the essays are new, but a few are excerpts from earlier publications. In the latter category are Steven Salaita’s unusually intense ‘Cultural Appropriation or Theft?’ which warns us that the phrase ‘Israeli hummus’ is a radical form of cultural appropriation, amounting to ‘a project of erasure, a portent of nonexistence, a promise of genocide’ (61) and Sarah Schulman’s ‘Rebranding with Sex and Sexuality,’ which reprises her 2011 brief against ‘pinkwashing,’ the purported effort to distract attention from the military occupation of the West Bank by highlighting Israel’s gay-friendly legal and cultural environment.

David Collier: Banksy and the alien god killers that occupy Bethlehem

The Banksy Hotel and antisemitic imagery

Throughout the museum, there is use of Holocaust imagery, part of an ongoing strategy of equating the results of the 1947/48 civil conflict with the Holocaust. This one plays on both Holocaust and the idea that the value of life is not equal, with one Israeli tooth carrying more weight than over 2000 Arab lives.

This one suggests Israelis kill for money. That Arabs die just so Israelis can test weapons and the conflict is only there so that Jewish business can thrive.

Babies, clothing, shoes. Everywhere you look is the image of a brutal Holocaust committed by money grabbing Jews upon a defenceless and helpless population. Devil against the angels.

The next one is classic antisemitic imagery. Jews as god killers. An image of a Christ like figure with a red-dot sight on his forehead.

Endless hate in the Banksy hotel

There are many other similar images that will be uploaded by the groups who were there with me, and the IAM is also producing a video on the trip, but these few images provide a clear taste of the viscous propaganda on display. Our itinerary included various different faces of the conflict, but this was an important one. This is part of what we are up against, raw hatred dressed up as art. There is no middle ground to be found when facing such distortion and those who create it have no interest in building a dialogue. They want Jews to be seen as money grabbing god killers who invaded a foreign land and brutalised the inhabitants.

The Banksy hotel is a disgraceful blot on the landscape and full of antisemitic images. And the truth is that there is far more hate that went into building the exhibits within the hotel, than went into building the defensive wall the Hotel was designed to protest. One was designed to save lives, the other only sets out to demonise a people. Rather than join some of those we met who really want to make peace, Banksy chose to run with the hate.

Hate speech has always been difficult to define. Facebook, caught with its fingers in the cookie jar of our private information, has decided that teaching us what hate speech means is sufficient penance. But penance or contrition isn’t something Mark Zuckerberg understands. Giving us at long last a glimpse into Facebook’s mysterious Community Standards is MZ’s way of saying, “Okay. We stole your information, so here’s what we’ll give you.”

As if this is a business exchange.

Which it most assuredly is not.

For years, private individuals have reported anti-Israel Facebook pages that threaten Jews with violence and death, and defame the Jewish people in coarse and disgusting ways. The response from Facebook support has always been: we reviewed your report and determined that this page/content does not violate our community standards.

But we were never told what those standards were.

As far as we were concerned, a page called Death to Israel, for instance, violates ALL standards of permitted speech and human decency, leading us to believe that Facebook’s Community Standards were no standards at all.

Even worse, when trolls would report pro-Israel advocacy pages, Facebook would accede to demands to censor the pages or close them down. It seems that Facebook had initiated a concerted effort to bolster anti-Israel voices while squelching those of the pro-Israel community. This repugnant policy smelled all the worse for the fact that Zuckerberg is Jewish, if in name, only.

After a while, we discovered a go-around: that if enough people reported those awful antisemitic hate pages, Facebook would usually take them down. But then they’d go right back up, a few days or weeks later. They thought that once we won, we’d stop paying attention and they could allow those pages to tiptoe right back in.

It is a disgusting, disheartening experience that mirrors the process by which trolls are able to keep pro-Israel advocates endlessly in jail.

Now Zuckerberg is at long last being called on the carpet to come clean. In a statement he issued prior to his testimony before the Senate Judicial Committee, the guy admitted he was only reassessing Facebook’s hate speech policies because the media was on him like white on rice.

“… it’s clear now that we didn’t do enough to prevent these tools from being used for harm as well. That goes for fake news, foreign interference in elections, and hate speech, as well as developers and data privacy. We didn’t take a broad enough view of our responsibility, and that was a big mistake.”

In other words, it was a mistake only because he got CAUGHT.

One result of this was this release explaining, at long last, Facebook’s Community Standards. Here’s an excerpt from the section that defines hate speech:

We define hate speech as a direct attack on people based on what we call protected characteristics — race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, sex, gender, gender identity, and serious disability or disease. We also provide some protections for immigration status. We define attack as violent or dehumanizing speech, statements of inferiority, or calls for exclusion or segregation. We separate attacks into three tiers of severity, as described below.

Sometimes people share content containing someone else’s hate speech for the purpose of raising awareness or educating others. Similarly, in some cases, words or terms that might otherwise violate our standards are used self-referentially or in an empowering way. When this is the case, we allow the content, but we expect people to clearly indicate their intent, which helps us better understand why they shared it. Where the intention is unclear, we may remove the content.

We allow humor and social commentary related to these topics. In addition, we believe that people are more responsible when they share this kind of commentary using their authentic identity.

While some welcomed this attempt to finally lay out for us what Facebook deems hate speech, this document did not at all explain why a page called Death to Israel is allowed to stand, while a page that expresses love for Israel, is not, the minute a troll reports it.

I tend to be courteous on public fora. I avoid coarse language, bias, and bigotry. To the best of my ability, I don’t use insulting language. This approach has served me well. I’ve been in Facebook jail exactly once, and that was years ago, for a comment I shouldn’t have made, calling out a woman for claiming to be a Jew when she had privately admitted to me she was not. I embarrassed her. And I got the equivalent of a Facebook slap on the hand when the woman reported my comment.

Imagine my surprise then, when one week ago, out of the blue, I go to Facebook and confronting me is this text:

This post goes against our community standards.

Only you can see this post because it goes against our standards on hate speech.

Under this was a comment I only vaguely remembered from some years ago. It was a reply on a thread and it read:

Seeing things through rose-colored glasses is also discrimination-an idea you’ve come to with no proof-a generalization about an entire people. You actually don’t know that most Arabs are not terrorists and neither do I. I don’t make generalizations one way or the other. Because it is wrong to do so when you don’t know it for a fact. It is misleading.

I am not frightened of Arabs because I see all of them as terrorists. I am not discriminating against them. I am frightened of Arabs because of Arab terror. It is prudent to be cautious, realistic, considering our reality.

At the bottom of the comment was a button reading: “continue.”

When I went to the next page, there was an explanation that I probably didn’t know enough about Facebook Community standards to realize that this was hate speech, so they were hiding the post, as a kind of first warning. Only I would be able to see it. That is if I wanted to. If I wanted to dig through years and years of hundreds of thousands of comments to find it.

Not that anyone else would be digging through hundreds of thousands of comments to find it either. Although clearly someone in a cubicle at Facebook is busily perusing my comment history, scouring it for something, anything, that would offend the unfathomable Facebook Community Standards.

I would like to say that this little lesson from Mark Z. illuminated everything I needed to know about hate speech. I’d like to say that I learned something about being polite on a public forum, about being a kind, moral, and loving person. But reviewing the comment deemed by the Facebook powers that be as “hate speech,” I’m left more confused and upset than ever.

What I wrote was not hate speech. It was the opposite of hate speech.

I don’t hate Arabs. I don’t love Arabs. I am cordial to Arabs in stores and in public places and count some Arabs among my friends. But I also fear Arabs.

Which is not the same as hate.

The other night, my husband and I drove to my son’s army base in an out of the way settlement, which had years ago suffered a brutal infiltration and terror attack. We didn’t know our way around and it was night. We waited until a Jewish resident was traveling the last several miles up the lonely highway to the settlement and tagged along behind.

At one point, two cars with PA licenses passed us, one on the right and on the left. My husband thought they were about to do a pincer movement to create a barrier on the road that would trap us, so they could attack us and the Jewish family car ahead of us. It was just a split second and then the Arabs in those cars appeared to reconsider and drove on, leaving us unscathed.

Did we imagine it? I honestly do not know. What I do know: we had to be ready. Things like this can and do happen in Israel. And it isn’t Jewish Israelis that do these things, but Arabs. Arabs like the men in these two cars. In the dark, we had very little information to go on.

In the back of our minds, we must always be cautious in our dealings with Arabs we don’t know. It’s not about hate. It’s because of actual things a significant number of Arabs have done to Jews in Israel.

I try to be fair. I try to be open in my dealings with all people, no matter their ethnic identity or color. I don’t hate any people as a group with the exception, for instance, of known terrorists. My fear on that road was a reasonable fear and it was not even a little bit powered by hatred.

With the lecture it gave me on the comment it hid, Facebook taught me exactly nothing about hate speech. What it did teach me is that Facebook is running around in circles to continue in its Big Brother ways—making arbitrary and thoughtless rulings on the limits of free speech.

What a shame to waste all that power and influence when Facebook arguably could have been a force for good.

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.

Netanyahu Found To Be Least-Corrupt Current Prime Minister Of Israel (PreOccupied Territory)

Our weekly column from the humor site PreOccupied Territory.

Check out their Facebook page.

Credit: Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs, via Wikimedia Commons

Jerusalem, May 9 - Upheaval gripped the pundit class and political realm in Israel today following the release of a comprehensive academic study that found Binyamin Netanyahu the least corrupt prime minister of Israel in office right now.

A team of researchers from the Political Science department at the Hebrew University issued its findings today after examining numerous criteria to rank heads of government in terms of public trust and freedom from influences such as blackmail, cronyism, bribery, and other symptoms of corruption, determining that of all prime ministers of Israel serving at the moment, Netanyahu ranks highest in those categories.

Members and supporters of the prime minister's ruling Likud Party took the findings as vindication for the embattled premier, while few Opposition figures and critics within right-wing circles voiced willingness to go on record regarding this development. Accusations of corruption, leading to police investigations and talk of prosecution, have dogged Netanyahu for years, to the point that his rivals invoke them almost daily to assert his alleged unfitness for office. Now that Netanyahu has been declared scientifically the least corrupt figure occupying the post of prime minister since 2015, the power of those accusations is expected to wane.

"We've been saying for some time that this is all a witch hunt," declared a gratified Gilad Erdan, Minister of Internal Security and a longtime Netanyahu loyalist. "Now we have the statistical and mathematical proof. I've said before and I'll keep saying that Bibi's enemies will resort to whatever means possible to unseat the man they could not defeat by democratic means, and that is a major problem we need to address."

"Bibi is officially the least corrupt prime minister Israel has had in at least nine years," stated Minister of Culture Miri Regev. "Let that sink in. Nobody said that even about Ben-Gurion, let alone convicted criminals such as Olmert. I hope this puts to rest all the sordid efforts to unseat an elected prime minister through methods that do not involve the ballot box, but given our experience with the political opposition, that may be too much to hope for."

The few Opposition figures who agreed to speak on the matter include Zionist Union alliance head and Hatnua Party leader Tzipi Livni. "It means nothing," she insisted in a telephone interview. "When Bibi can claim victory in the mock-elections held at the Bleich high school in Tel Aviv, then maybe he can claim some legitimacy. That says it all."

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.

05/09 Links Pt1: Donald Trump Ends the Obama Mirage; Sohrab Amari: Obama Killed His Own Iran Deal; Palestinians announce embassy move date to be ‘day of rage’

From Ian:

Bret Stephens: A Courageous Trump Call on a Lousy Iran Deal

Apologists also claim that, with Trump’s decision, Tehran will simply restart its enrichment activities on an industrial scale. Maybe it will, forcing a crisis that could end with U.S. or Israeli strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites. But that would be stupid, something the regime emphatically isn’t. More likely, it will take symbolic steps to restart enrichment, thereby implying a threat without making good on it. What the regime wants is a renegotiation, not a reckoning.

Why? Even with the sanctions relief, the Iranian economy hangs by a thread: The Wall Street Journal on Sunday reported “hundreds of recent outbreaks of labor unrest in Iran, an indication of deepening discord over the nation’s economic troubles.” This week, the rial hit a record low of 67,800 to the dollar; one member of the Iranian Parliament estimated $30 billion of capital outflows in recent months. That’s real money for a country whose gross domestic product barely matches that of Boston.

The regime might calculate that a strategy of confrontation with the West could whip up useful nationalist fervors. But it would have to tread carefully: Ordinary Iranians are already furious that their government has squandered the proceeds of the nuclear deal on propping up the Assad regime. The conditions that led to the so-called Green movement of 2009 are there once again. Nor will it help Iran if it tries to start a war with Israel and comes out badly bloodied.

All this means the administration is in a strong position to negotiate a viable deal. But it missed an opportunity last month when it failed to deliver a crippling blow to Bashar al-Assad, Iran’s puppet in Syria, for his use of chemical weapons. Trump’s appeals in his speech to the Iranian people also sounded hollow from a president who isn’t exactly a tribune of liberalism and has disdained human rights as a tool of U.S. diplomacy. And the U.S. will need to mend fences with its European partners to pursue a coordinated diplomatic approach.

The goal is to put Iran’s rulers to a fundamental choice. They can opt to have a functioning economy, free of sanctions and open to investment, at the price of permanently, verifiably and irreversibly forgoing a nuclear option and abandoning their support for terrorists. Or they can pursue their nuclear ambitions at the cost of economic ruin and possible war. But they are no longer entitled to Barack Obama’s sweetheart deal of getting sanctions lifted first, retaining their nuclear options for later, and sponsoring terrorism throughout.

Trump’s courageous decision to withdraw from the nuclear deal will clarify the stakes for Tehran. Now we’ll see whether the administration is capable of following through.

John Podhoretz: Trump and America’s Centripetal Foreign Policy

With some exceptions (like the elder Bush’s administration in relation to Israel), every element on this list (if in some cases you substitute the Soviet Union for Russia pre-1991 and Libya for Islamist terror) was to some degree at play in American foreign policy from 1981 until 2008. Such has been the powerful logical flow of American foreign policy since the election of Ronald Reagan. This consensus ebbed and flowed depending on the circumstance, of course, and the parallels are not perfect. What Trump has done, and I don’t think strategically or with any grand design, is to place far greater stock in both the unilateralist and the realpolitik aspects of American foreign policy than his predecessors in the Reagan and post-Reagan era. He views enduring alliances more as constraints than grand benefits, which is perhaps the primary way in which he differs from the consensus. But his attacks on those alliances have basically ceased, which is itself a striking change from candidate Trump’s approach.

And what of 2008 to 2016? Barack Obama, schooled in 1970s liberal foreign-policy shibboleths, came at this consensus and flipped it—not entirely on its head, more like about 140 degrees. We went at Israel, we went light on Russia, we sought a concord with Iran, and Obama was celebrated for his acceptance of the monsters of Havana. Most notably, he accepted the left-liberal critique of postwar American foreign policy’s supposedly bad actions in the world and sought to apologize or make implicit amends for them. Viewed in this light, it’s the Obama years that represent the jarring discontinuity from the consensus path and not the election of the X-factor Trump.

We’ll have to see how this North Korea business goes to better understand Trump. (And certainly Trump’s trade practices mark him as very different, though there’s an argument that’s more an economic than a foreign policy.) There’s no reason to believe any of this is conscious or deliberate or designed. There is no Trump Doctrine. But there might be one yet, and it might be more familiar than we had any right to expect.

Sohrab Amari: Obama Killed His Own Iran Deal

He tried to circumvent the Israelis by keeping them in the dark about secret negotiations with the Islamic Republic. For Obama, Arab fears of Iranian expansionism were a tertiary concern, and he was surprised when the most important Sunni powers didn’t show up for a 2015 summit that was supposed to sell them on the deal. He likewise pooh-poohed Iran’s eliminationist anti-Israel rhetoric (“at the margins, where the costs are low, they may pursue policies based on [Jew] hatred as opposed to self-interest,” he told The Atlantic‘s Jeffrey Goldberg). His aides described a sitting Israeli prime minister as a “chickens—t” (on background, naturally).

He lectured and condescended, and then lectured some more.

On the home front, meanwhile, Obama relied on his signature “pen and phone” methods to ram the deal through. Rather than welcome GOP hawks as good-faith actors seeking to strengthen his hand against an adversary, he treated Republicans as the adversary. He thought his diplomacy pitted him and reasonable Iranians like Javad Zarif against “hard-liners” in Washington and Tehran.

Meanwhile, Obama’s Ben Rhodes-operated media echo chamber swarmed and shouted down journalists and experts who raised concerns about the terms of the accord, not least the fact that it permitted the Iranians to inspect their own military sites and left unaddressed the question of ballistic missiles. The Obama administration never satisfactorily answered critics’ questions about Iran’s refusal to come clean about its prior weaponization activity—the glaring flaw in the deal’s architecture that contributed the most to its undoing this week.

And here we are. The deal’s demise, then, was written into it by its primary author.

Some of the "anti-Zionist" tweets uncovered by ADL study

The ADL released a report showing that over 4.2 million antisemitic tweets were posted last year.

The report was careful not to include tweets that were "only" anti-Zionist, but some of those were so obviously using the word "Zionist" to represent Jew that they had to count them.

Some examples:

Bring these tweets to a Jewish Voice for Peace meeting or to Linda Sarsour and ask if they are antisemitic or not.

You can learn a lot by how they answer.

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

The biggest Human Rights Watch lie yet?

From CBS News:

Israel has given a Human Rights Watch director two weeks to leave the country, accusing him of promoting a boycott, in a move the rights group said sought to muzzle criticism. The interior ministry said Tuesday it had terminated the residency permit of HRW's Israel and Palestine director Omar Shakir, a U.S. citizen, over accusations that he supported a boycott of Israel.

"Following the recommendations of the Ministry of Strategic Affairs, containing information that Shakir has been a BDS activist for years supporting the boycott of Israel in an active way, the ministry has decided to terminate (his) residence permit," the interior ministry said in a statement.

"This is not about Shakir, but rather about muzzling Human Rights Watch and shutting down criticism of Israel's rights record," HRW said in a statement.

"Neither Human Rights Watch nor its representative, Shakir, promotes boycotts of Israel."

The media is quick to note that HRW has written critical reports of Israel - a fact meant to support the idea that Israel is muzzling critics.

Yet the articles don't bother to check the simple fact that Shakir indeed has explicitly promoted boycotts of Israel.

And HRW is knowingly lying.

These tweets were before Shakir re-joined HRW (he had worked there in 2013 and then returned in October 2016.) But they show that he is an enthusiastic BDS supporter. Much more from an article by Petra Marquardt-Bigman here.

As far as HRW's assertion that it doesn't promote BDS itself, what about this article in Haaretz by Kathleen Peratis, co-chair of the Middle East North Africa Advisory Committee of Human Rights Watch and an emerita member of its board of trustees?

This is a full throated and explicit call for support for BDS and giving advice to the movement on tactics.

HRW lies quite a bit. This may be the biggest lie yet.

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

The Washington Post published a "fact check" on President Trump's claim that under the JCPOA, Iran can build nuclear weapons in seven years.

The article conflates what the West can stop Iran from doing with what Iran has promised not to do. And that is a fatal mistake.

The worst example is this:

It’s worth noting that as part of the JCPOA, Iran said it was bound by this commitment: “Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons.”

...Whether the president was referring to “Termination Day” in 2025, or to the portions of the JCPOA that sunset in 2026, Iran has pledged to never develop nuclear weapons. The Non-Proliferation Treaty, the IAEA’s Additional Protocol and other parts of the JCPOA — all of which Iran has committed to — run well past 2025, and key provisions apply indefinitely.

In other words, don't worry: Iran promised!

Let's go back in time to the 1984, when the Ayatollah Khomeini first supposedly issued a fatwa against the building of nuclear weapons. Gareth Porter in Foreign Policy documents the event in an interview with Mohsen Rafighdoost, former minister of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) during the Iran/Iraq war:

Rafighdoost prepared a report on all the specialized groups he had formed and went to discuss it with Khomeini, hoping to get his approval for work on chemical and nuclear weapons. "When Khomeini read the report, he reacted to the chemical-biological-nuclear team by asking, ‘What is this?’" Rafighdoost recalled.

Khomeini ruled out development of chemical and biological weapons as inconsistent with Islam.

Rafighdoost also told Khomeini that the group had "a plan to produce nuclear weapons." That could only have been a distant goal in 1984, given the rudimentary state of Iran’s nuclear program. At that point, Iranian nuclear specialists had no knowledge of how to enrich uranium and had no technology with which to do it. But in any case, Khomeini closed the door to such a program. "We don’t want to produce nuclear weapons," Rafighdoost recalls the supreme leader telling him.

That edict from Khomeini ended the idea of seeking nuclear weapons, according to Rafighdoost.

And in December 1987:

Khomeini also repeated his edict forbidding work on nuclear weapons, telling him, "Don’t talk about nuclear weapons at all."

Rafighdoost understood Khomeini’s prohibition on the use or production of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons as a fatwa — a judgment on Islamic jurisprudence by a qualified Islamic scholar. It was never written down or formalized, but that didn’t matter, because it was issued by the "guardian jurist" of the Islamic state — and was therefore legally binding on the entire government. "When Imam said it was haram [forbidden], he didn’t have to say it was fatwa," Rafighdoost explained.

The "famous" Iranian fatwa against nuclear weapons by Khomeini's successor Khamenei, which President Obama noted in a speech at the UN, was actually written in the mid-1990s according to Porter, who then says how supposedly iron clad it was:

The analysis of Khamenei’s fatwa has been flawed not only due to a lack of understanding of the role of the "guardian jurist" in the Iranian political-legal system, but also due to ignorance of the history of Khamenei’s fatwa. A crucial but hitherto unknown fact is that Khamenei had actually issued the anti-nuclear fatwa without any fanfare in the mid-1990s in response to a request from an official for his religious opinion on nuclear weapons. Mousavian recalls seeing the letter in the office of the Supreme National Security Council, where he was head of the Foreign Relations Committee from 1997 to 2005. The Khamenei letter was never released to the public...

Since 2012, the official stance of U.S. President Barack Obama’s administration has been to welcome the existence of Khamenei’s anti-nuclear fatwa. Obama even referred to it in his U.N. General Assembly speech in September 2013. But it seems clear that Obama’s advisors still do not understand the fatwa’s full significance: Secretary of State John Kerry told journalists in July, "The fatwa issued by a cleric is an extremely powerful statement about intent," but then added, "It is our need to codify it."

That statement, like most of the commentary on Khamenei’s fatwa against nuclear weapons, has confused fatwas issued by any qualified Muslim scholar with fatwas by the supreme leader on matters of state policy. The former are only relevant to those who follow the scholar’s views; the latter, however, are binding on the state as a whole in Iran’s Shiite Islam-based political system, holding a legal status above mere legislation.

The full story of Khomeini’s wartime fatwa against chemical weapons shows that when the "guardian jurist" of Iran’s Islamic system issues a religious judgment against weapons of mass destruction as forbidden by Islam, it overrides all other political-military considerations.

Yet, as Netanyahu's Mossad revelations confirmed, Iran had an active and specific nuclear program well after these supposed fatwas against nuclear weapons.

If Iran's solemn pledge to never work on nuclear weapons has been proven to be worthless because of the Iranian nuclear weapons program before 2003 (that "everyone" now agrees existed in the wake of Netanyahu's speech,) then why are Iran's solemn pledges to adhere to the JCPOA and the Non-Proliferation Treaty worth any more today?

The fact that so many of Iran's nuclear activities are literally unverifiable under JCPOA is itself the best reason to fix or scrap it. However, Iran's history of lying and covering up its nuclear weapons program, after solemnly pledging tha tsuch activities are against Islamic law, is really what proves that any agreement that supposedly bars Iran from ever building nuclear weapons is worthless.

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

The EU loves JCPOA - because of the money made from selling to Iran

High Representative/Vice-President Federica Mogherini criticized the US move to reimpose sanctions on Iran - because Iran has been an economic windfall for the spineless Europeans.

After her boilerplate on how the EU considers the JCPOA to be essential to security, she emphasizes the real reason that Europe was so happy to lift the sanctions on Iran to begin with:

The lifting of nuclear related sanctions is an essential part of the agreement. The European Union has repeatedly stressed that the lifting of nuclear related sanctions has not only a positive impact on trade and economic relations with Iran, but also and mainly crucial benefits for the Iranian people. The European Union is fully committed to ensuring that this continues to be delivered on.

I am particularly worried by the announcement of new sanctions. I will consult with all our partners in the coming hours and days to assess their implications. The European Union is determined to act in accordance with its security interests and to protect its economic investments.

Iranian missiles aren't aimed at Western Europe.

I also love how Mogherini claims that the money going to Iran from European business deals are helping the Iranian people. The money is going towards gassing children to death in Syria and buying thousands more rockets for Hezbollah - all of which accelerated since JCPOA.

The EU purchased some 10 billion euros worth of goods from Iran in 2017.

(h/t Irene)

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.

05/08 Links Pt2: Trump says US withdrawing from Iran nuclear deal; Walid Shoebat site video calls Judaism a 'satanic religion'; Rabbis on secret visit to Muslim country

From Ian:

Defying world, Trump says US withdrawing from Iran nuclear deal

President Trump announced the US was withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal on Tuesday, following through on a campaign promise and defying European allies who implored him to maintain an agreement that international agencies have said Tehran is honoring.

In a highly anticipated address from the White House’s Diplomatic Reception Room, Trump cast the landmark agreement forged under predecessor Barack Obama as ‘defective’ and unable to rein in Iranian behavior or halt the Islamic Republic’s quest to develop a nuclear program.

“I’m announcing today that the United States will withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal,” he said while adding that his administration “will be instituting the highest level of economic sanction.”

Trump said the 2015 agreement, which included Germany, France, and Britain, was a “horrible one-sided deal that should never ever have been made.”

His remarks came ahead of his self-imposed May 12 deadline to walk away from the deal, which is when the president is required to renew waivers on sanctions against Iran’s nuclear program as required under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, as the deal is formally called.

Trump announces the U.S. is pulling out of the #IranDeal: "It is clear to me we cannot prevent an Iranian nuclear bomb under the decaying and rotten structure of the current agreement. The Iran deal is defective at its core." pic.twitter.com/hyoPzfrGMe
— Ryan Saavedra 🇺🇸 (@RealSaavedra) May 8, 2018

Netanyahu: Israel ‘fully supports’ Trump’s ‘bold’ pullout from Iran deal

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday led a chorus of effusive Israeli praise for US President Donald Trump’s decision to pull out of the Iran nuclear deal and reinstate the “highest level” of US sanctions on the Islamic Republic.

“Israel fully supports President Trump’s bold decision today to reject the disastrous nuclear deal with the terrorist regime in Tehran,” Netanyahu said in a live English-language televised statement from his office, moments after Trump’s announcement.

Trump on Tuesday announced the US withdrawal from what he called the “defective” multinational nuclear deal with Iran, signing a presidential memorandum to reintroduce high-level sanctions on the rogue regime.

Netanyahu said Israel opposed the nuclear deal “from the start,” because, rather than keeping Tehran away from the bomb, “it paves Iran’s path to an entire arsenal of nuclear bombs.”

The lifting of sanctions by world powers since the 2015 accord “has already produced disastrous results,” said the prime minister.

“The deal didn’t push war further away, it actually brought it closer. The deal didn’t reduce Iran’s aggression, it dramatically increased it,” the prime minister said, citing the regime’s military activities across the region.

“Since the deal, we’ve seen Iran’s aggression grow every day — in Iraq, in Lebanon, in Yemen, in Gaza, and most of all, in Syria, where Iran is trying to establish military bases from which to attack Israel.”

Ben Shapiro: WATCH: Trump Just Shredded The Iran Deal. Here Are 5 Reasons He Was Absolutely Right To Do So.

On Tuesday, President Trump announced that the United States would be terminating the Iran deal. He did so on firm footing, to the consternation of the nation’s media as well as European allies who have been itching to do business with the Islamic Republic for decades. Trump explained, correctly, that “the Iranian regime is the leading state sponsor of terror. It exports dangerous missiles, fuels conflicts across the Middle East, and supports terrorist proxies and militias such as Hezbollah, Hamas, the Taliban and Al Qaeda.” He went on to list the terrorist activities in which the regime has participated, and mentioned that the mullahs have “plunder[ed] the wealth of its own people.”

Then he got into the good stuff.

Trump said that Barack Obama’s Iran deal “was supposed to protect the United States and our allies from the lunacy of an Iranian nuclear bomb,” but that the deal “allowed Iran to continue enriching uranium and – over time – reach the brink of a nuclear breakout.” This is eminently correct. All of the deal’s proponents who suggest that Iran’s nuclear ambitions were curbed by the deal are, quite simply, lying – Iran’s ambitions were merely postponed, with the knowledge that a full nuclear breakout in 2025 would result in zero sanctions of any kind. As Trump stated, “at the point when the United States had maximum leverage, this disastrous deal gave this regime – and it’s a regime of great terror – many billions of dollars, some of it in actual cash – a great embarrassment to me as a citizen and to all citizens of the United States.”

Trump mentioned that Israeli-garnered intelligence showed that Iran had lied repeatedly about its ambitions – that it wanted to develop nuclear weapons all along. The deal, Trump concluded, “didn’t bring calm, it didn’t bring peace, and it never will.” As Trump pointed out, Iran’s military budget “has grown by almost 40 percent,” and the mullahs used the new money “to build its nuclear-capable missiles, support terrorism, and cause havoc throughout the Middle East and beyond.”

5. The Deal Did Not Deter The Quest For Nuclear Weapons. After the Iraq War, Muammar Qaddafi gave up his nuclear program, knowing that there was a serious possibility that the United States would take action. After the Iran nuclear deal, the North Korean regime even more loudly pursued nuclear development, knowing that it would earn goodies from the United States. By pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal and making it clear that there are continuing consequences for dictatorships seeking nuclear weapons, Trump has made it obvious to North Korea that their best move here is to disarm, and to do so with credible methods of enforcement.

No, killing the deal won’t lead to US-led war in Iran – Trump has no such desire. But it could and should lead to concerted action by America’s allies, both economic and military, if need be. The false binary presented by the Obama team was always a horrible lie, a propagandistic effort to paint foreign policy hawks into the corner.

The Iran deal was a disaster. Trump is right to kill it.

And the Obama team’s new attempts to curry favor with terrorists in Tehran should tell you everything you need to know about their agenda in the first place.

#Pallywood video of "injured" Gazan getting off of stretcher after cameras are gone

Here's a classic Pallywood moment, where one of those "injured" people who were supposedly shot by Israeli snipers gets up off his stretcher after the group thought all the cameras were off.

No doubt the UN counts this person as one of those shot by Israel.

(h/t Jewish Press Online)

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 Times of Israel:

A series of fires broke out on Monday in southern Israel, apparently as a result of flaming objects flown over the border from the Gaza Strip.

During recent clashes on the Gaza border, Palestinians have adopted a new tactic of sending blazing kites into Israel, sparking fires in nearby agricultural lands.

In a first, helium-filled balloons carrying flaming material were used to start a number of Monday’s blazes, according to Hebrew media reports.

As a result of the fires, hundreds of dunams (dozens of acres) of wheat fields were burned. There were no reports of injuries.

In addition to the flaming balloons sent over the border, a suspected booby trapped kite was reported to have landed near Kibbutz Nahal Oz.

These are not small fires.

According to the Meir Amit ITIC, over 200 incendiary kites have been sent into Israel so far, setting fire to hundreds of dunams of agricultural areas in western Negev communities and causing damage estimated in the hundreds of thousands of shekels.

In the US, deliberately setting a wildire is a felony. Wildfires destroy natural lands as well as buildings. They pollute the air and can cause respiratory problems. Over 50 people have been killed by arson wildfires in the US.

Palestinian media celebrates these fires.

So where is the condemnation from the liberal side of the political spectrum of the specific, deliberate Palestinian policy of setting wildfires in Israel?

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.

05/08 Links Pt1: Glick: With Hezbollah Calling Shots, Will U.S. Stop Arming Lebanon?; Mahmoud Abbas and the Art of Getting Away With Murder; Paraguay becomes third country to move embassy to Jerusalem

From Ian:

Caroline Glick: With Hezbollah Calling Shots, Will U.S. Stop Arming Lebanon?

Lebanon held elections for its parliament on Sunday for the first time since 2009. Not unexpectedly, Hezbollah was the big winner.

Hezbollah’s representatives and allies now control a majority of the seats in Lebanon’s parliament. Sunni candidates allied with – or rather controlled by – Hezbollah won seats that had been controlled by Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri’s Future Movement.

Lebanese President Michel Aoun’s party lost several seats, making Aoun more beholden than ever to Hezbollah dictates.

Foreign policy experts will no doubt argue that the election results change nothing on the ground in Lebanon. The Lebanese constitution’s division of power along confessional lines, which reserves the premiership to a Sunni, the presidency to a Christian, and the speakership of Parliament to a Shiite, will force Hezbollah to cooperate with Hariri and Aoun, who are expected to remain in their positions.

This “business as usual” argument bears consideration.

The assumption behind it is that Hezbollah is just a domestic political force. True, it has a relationship with Iran. True, it has its own army. But, the thinking goes, Lebanon is full of sectarian militias, so it makes sense that the Shiites would have one — even one that has an arsenal of 150,000 rockets missiles and constitutes one of the largest, best armed, most powerful, and battle-hardened armies in the region.

Mahmoud Abbas and the Art of Getting Away With Murder

Let’s have fun here: Imagine, for example, that the same liberal-minded cats had raised a righteous racket in September of 2015, when Abbas waxed poetic, saying that the Temple Mount and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre—both in Jerusalem, Israel’s capital—are exclusively the property of the Palestinians, warned Jews not to desecrate these holy sites “with their filthy feet,” and promised his listeners that “Every drop of blood spilled in Jerusalem is pure, every shahid [martyr] will reach paradise, and every injured person will be rewarded by God.” Imagine a Times editorial huffing that religious intolerance coupled with clear and direct incitement to violence is reprehensible. Imagine the United Nations calling a meeting to consider a rebuke. Instead, Abbas’s delegates were allowed to fly their flag on Second Avenue a few days later, and the Times editorial board remained silent.

Similar anecdotes abound. There was little outrage when Abbas continued to swear by his pay-for-slay program, which richly rewards the murderers of Jews and makes massacre a far more remunerative career path than, say, civil engineering. (Just last month, a Times reporter alleged that the program, which drove Congress to pass a bipartisan piece of legislation barring payments to Abbas’s Palestinian Authority so long as it continues to support terrorists, was no more than a far-right conspiracy theory.) There was no anger when Abbas, speaking in Istanbul in December of last year, said that the Jews had no real connection to history, adding that “they [Jews] would like to fake this history, they are really masters in this and it is mentioned in the holy Quran they fabricate truth and they try to do that, and they believe in that — but we have been there in this location for thousands of years.” There was hardly a whimper when Abbas, addressing the EU Parliament in the summer of 2016, said that senior rabbis had plotted to poison the Palestinian drinking water, a blood libel favored by the vilest anti-Semites from time immemorial. No European official condemned that statement, and no mainstream American press outlet called for Abbas’s resignation.

Those of us who’ve been reporting on the Palestinian president’s inexcusable bigotry for a while now have abandoned all hope that our deep-seated concerns will be shared by anyone in any position of prominence in the press, the UN, or other bastions of influence favored by progressives. Which is why the current consternation in the Times and elsewhere feels a little bit like a sad joke. Watching Abbas apologize so quickly makes one wonder what might’ve happened had the self-proclaimed champions of peace and human rights bothered to speak up against the petty tyrant from Ramallah much sooner. Abbas’s vile words last week were hardly his first or his vilest, and the time for him to step down as Palestinian leader was long ago. An unbiased press, an international community committed to real reconciliation, a Jewish left less furiously hateful of Benjamin Netanyahu’s government and more mistrustful of a long-time, unreconstructed Holocaust denier and champion of violence and terrorism might’ve done a lot of good for Israelis and Palestinians alike. Let’s hope it’s not too late.

Meet Palestine’s Million-Dollar Killers

On October 1, 2015, Eitan Henkin, a doctoral student at Tel Aviv University who also held American citizenship, and Na’ama Henkin, a graphic designer, were traveling in their car with their four young children when four Palestinian terrorists attacked their vehicle, murdering both parents. The Henkins’ killers were arrested by Israel, each sentenced to two life sentences plus an additional 30 years in prison.And thanks to the Palestinian Authority’s pay-for-slay program, the four terrorists, all members of Hamas, are slated to become millionaires.

According to figures released by Israel’s Ministry of Defense earlier this week, the gunman, Karem Lufti Fatahi Razek, will have been paid NIS 11,232,000 ($3.1 million) by the time he turns 80; Zir Ziad Jamal Amar, another leader of the attack, will enjoy NIS 10,056,000 ($2.8 million), while Yahia Muhammad Naif Abdullah Hajj Hamad, another gunman, will receive in NIS 10,080,080 ($2.77 million). No numbers were given for the car’s driver, Samir Zahir Ibrahim Kusah.

The numbers were released ahead of a vote in the Knesset proposing Israel cut some of its payments to the PA until the latter ends its pay-for-slay program. The ministry gave other examples of convicted terrorists who are slated to earn a windfall as a result of murdering Jews. Another example is Omar al-Abed: In July of 2017, al-Abed knocked on the door of the Salomon family, which was busy celebrating the birth of a new grandson. Entering their home with a knife, he murdered Elad, Yosef, and Chaya Salomon, as their spouses and children hid upstairs, terrified. Al-Abed has already been paid NIS 12,200 ($3,370) from the PA, the Defense Ministry claimed, a sum much higher than what average Palestinians earn, and is expected to receive at least NIS 12,604,000 ($3.5 million) by the time he turns 80.