Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Wednesday, August 08, 2018

Jordanian politicians insist that Palestinians in Jordan be treated as second class citizens

It is instructive to see how Jordanian politicians justify their support for UNRWA in that country.

The two million Palestinians in Jordan who use UNRWA services - of whom the vast majority are full Jordanian citizens - are being told that they are expected one day to "return" to Israel, and therefore they should not get too comfortable in Jordan.

Yahya al-Saud, head of the Palestine Committee in the Jordanian parliament, gave various bogus reasons for why UNRWA should exist in Jordan.

"Jordan is no longer able to bear more burdens because of the various waves of asylum it has hosted," he said, the latest of which was Syrian asylum, which exceeded 1.3 million refugees.

But the Palestinians have been in Jordan for 70 years. They are citizens. Jordan is paying a great deal of money for the Syrian refugees, who are in real need - and who aren't citizens. In other words, Jordanian citizens of Palestinian origin are a lower priority to Jordan than Syrian refugees.

What a great message to send them!

The official stressed that "the Jordanian state will not be a substitute for any services provided by UNRWA."

Because some Jordanian citizens aren't really Jordanian.

And they are reminded of their tenuous status every single day.

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.

08/07 Links Pt2: Letter to my Palestinian Israeli neighbors; The NYTs Repeats Its Error on Ben-Gurion Giving Up Territories; What Happened to Cory Booker?

From Ian:

Letter to my Palestinian Israeli neighbors

We appeal – in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months – to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the state on the basis of full and equal citizenship.
–Israel’s Declaration of Independence, May 14, 1948

Dear Neighbors,
We live in the same building at the edge of French Hill in Jerusalem, an almost equal number of Jewish Israeli and Arab Israeli families. We exchange pleasantries in the parking lot, smile at each other’s children, but never talk “politics” — a euphemism for nothing less than our future in this land.

Since the passing of the Nation-State Law, which invokes only the Jewishness of Israel and ignores its aspirations for an inclusive democratic society, and which downgrades Arabic from an official language to a vague “special” status, I have wanted to tell you: That law doesn’t represent my vision of Israel. I have wanted to reassure you that I am committed to an inclusive Israel that honors its two non-negotiable identities, Jewish and democratic, and that any attempt to upset the delicate balance between them threatens our very being. I have wanted to tell you that sharing a home – symbolically and, in our case, literally – is not only a challenge but an opportunity for us to embrace our shared indigenousness in this land.

But as neighbors who cling to gestures of civility and whose only shared language is in the safety of small talk, we lack the means to discuss urgent issues. And so, I am writing this letter to you.

My starting point in navigating the relationship between us is Israel’s Declaration of Independence. To be true to its essence, Israel must continue to see itself as a continuity of Jewish history, repository of four thousand years of Jewish civilization, and concerned for the well-being of Jews around the world. So much of Israel’s vitality and achievements comes from the country’s Jewish identity, from the motivation to turn a two-thousand-year dream into an ongoing miracle of fulfillment. Remove the Jewishness of Israel – and its heart, its passion are excised.

Martin Kramer: The New York Times Repeats Its Error regarding Ben-Gurion's Position on Giving Up Territories

Max Fisher of the New York Times has taken to Twitter to defend his claim that David Ben-Gurion "emerged from retirement in July 1967 to warn Israelis they had sown the seeds of self-destruction" if Israel did not give up the territories it had conquered in the Six-Day War.

Fisher sourced this story to a recollection by the late Arthur Hertzberg, writing in the New York Review of Books in 1987, who claimed to have heard the grim prophecy during an encounter between Ben-Gurion and American Conservative rabbis at Beit Berl in July 1967.

I'd grown suspicious of this story, so I tracked down the transcript of Ben-Gurion's remarks in his archives. I found no evidence of his having said anything of the sort. I published my findings back in April 2018, so imagine my surprise when Fisher repeated the fable on the front page of the Times on July 23.

I've uploaded the transcript of Ben-Gurion's meeting here, dated July 12, 1967. The transcript doesn't include even a hint that Ben-Gurion made the dramatic renunciation of territorial acquisition. Moreover, in Ben-Gurion's diary of July 12, his own summary of his remarks includes nothing whatsoever on territorial concessions. I've uploaded it here.

Nor is there any corroboration in the Mapai party newspaper Davar of July 14. It summarized Ben-Gurion's remarks and made no attribution to Ben-Gurion of any territorial position, except this quote about Jerusalem: "We will not return Jerusalem - and no force in the world can take it from us."

In fact, Ben-Gurion issued a press release immediately after the war that appeared in almost all the Hebrew newspapers on June 19, in which he said: "We will propose to the inhabitants of the West Bank to choose representatives with whom we will conduct negotiations on a West Bank autonomy (excluding Jerusalem and its environs), which will be tied to Israel in an economic alliance....A Jewish army will be stationed on the western bank of the Jordan river to protect the independence of the autonomous West Bank."

Shmuley Boteach: What Happened to Cory Booker?

Last week, the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights (USCPR), one of the most radical organizations promoting the antisemitic BDS movement, posted a widely-shared photo of aspiring presidential candidate Cory Booker beside the group’s government affairs associate. Booker is smiling while holding a sign that says, “From Palestine to Mexico, all the walls have got to go.”

Really?

In an apparent attempt to win over the left wing of the Democratic Party — and perhaps prove that he can criticize Israel on a par with Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren — Cory is increasingly alienating himself from the American Jewish community, which once loved him.

That same Jewish community played an outsized role in Cory’s political success. Based on his public promises to defend Israel, Cory became one of the largest recipients of pro-Israel campaign contributions.

But then came his choice to put political expedience over principle by supporting the Iran nuclear deal. He chose supporting his party leader rather than opposing a genocidal regime that hates both the US and Israel. Despite all evidence to the contrary, which has been compounded since the agreement was signed, Cory bought the snake oil that the deal was good for the US and the world.

Then this past April the Senate Foreign Relations Committee — of which Cory is a member — held a vote to halt US taxpayer funding to the Palestinian Authority because of its despicable “pay-to-slay” policy, which pays salaries to terrorist murderers and their families.

Unbelievably, Cory voted “No” in committee.

Then came the photo this past Friday.

At an Islamist conference in Rabat, Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri vowed to destroy Israel, saying,"Israel is a fragile entity and we are capable of removing it, God willing."

"We are confident of victory, because we have a people who demand martyrdom in the face of occupation," he said in a speech at the opening of the sixth national assembly of the Movement for Unity and Reform in Rabat, Morocco.

Abu Zuhri added, "We say that we are confident of victory because in Palestine, mothers are singing when they hear the news of the martyrdom of their children. We are confident of victory because we have an Islamic nation that supports us and stands behind us and people who support our cause like the Moroccan people."

Despite his optimism, he admitted things aren't all rosy, saying: "The picture looks difficult and grim, and conspiracies are great. But I say with confidence that these conspiracies do not frighten us or break our will. We seek God. "

All Hamas members should meet with their god as quickly as possible.

It doesn't take a graduate degree in psychology to understand that Hamas thinks the exact opposite of what it confidently tells its fans. It has never been so weak and it has never had less support from the Arab world.

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.

Haaretz claims calling Israel the Jewish homeland is a myth

One of the more idiotic articles in an ever more crowded field of such from Haaretz comes from Ofri Ilany, who claims that his problem with the Nation State law is that it is ahistorical - that Israel was never the homeland of the Jews.

The attempt to determine historical truth by means of laws is ridiculous. But what makes it impertinent as well is that this claim is blatantly incorrect – even according to the Bible. As the scholars of Jewish history Jonathan and Daniel Boyarin note in their article “Israel Has No Motherland”: “The biblical story is not one of birth from the land, but of those who always came to the land from elsewhere.”

According to the Bible, the Promised Land was not the homeland of Abraham (who came from Ur of the Chaldees) or of the Israelites (who came from Egypt). It is impossible both to rely on the divine promise to “inherit” the land, and to talk about it as a “homeland.” The contradiction here is clear. The history we are familiar with shows, in addition, that the actual Jewish people, in the form we know it today, was born in the Diaspora and not in the Land of Israel.

Of course, this means that no one on Earth, except perhaps some Africans, have a homeland, since all of humanity migrated from Africa.

And if Israel isn't the homeland for Jews, it sure as hell isn't the homeland for Palestinians!

This is a typical pattern of Israel haters - they will create a set of rules for Israel in order to damn it, and ignore that applying those rules to everyone else would result in chaos.

But wait, there's more:

It’s important to understand that the scientific study of the history of the Levant in the Iron Age treats the term “ancient Israel” with considerable skepticism. Since the 1990s, many scholars have maintained that it would be best to abandon that term altogether, as it refers to an entity that is meaningless in historical terms. For example, the influential biblical scholar Niels Peter Lemche noted in a 2008 article that the kingdom of David and Solomon “nowadays may be considered a fairy kingdom rather than a historical fact.”...

That view is not accepted by all scholars, but in the view of the minimalist school of thought, to which Lemche and Thompson belong, the only reason that “ancient Israel” is still being referenced scientifically is that the evangelical community in the United States and elsewhere is interested in hearing this story.

It turns out, then, that the claim that “Israel is the historic homeland of the Jewish people” is at best dubious.

Let's cherry pick the opinion of a minority of scholars, ignore anything that contradicts it, and call that truth.

The massive mines from the time of the Biblical Kings that point to a powerful monarchy? The Tel Dan Inscription that mentions David? Let's not talk about them. It doesn't fit the narrative, so therefore it is best left ignored. That's Haaretz-quality research.

Of course, it doesn’t follow from this that the Jews have no historical association with the country, or that the Palestinians have exclusive rights to it. But it’s worth recalling that throughout the history of this land, a broad range of peoples and groups have lived in it: Christians, Samaritans, Greeks, Canaanites and others. Some of them thrived here for periods that are longer than the whole history of Jewish sovereignty. In the Gaza Strip, for example, a Zeus-Dagon cult existed for 300 years, and in Hebron there was a temple devoted to the androgynous embodiment of Hermes.

Maybe in the near future the pagans and the genderqueers will also demand rights to worship in the Tomb of the Patriarchs.

Because the claims of a new group of people are exactly as important as the claims of a people who have existed for thousands of years.

Which is, in fact, the Palestinian argument in a nutshell.

(h/t Yoel)

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

08/07 Links Pt1: Diplomacy Backed by Military Force; Seeking ‘WORLD PEACE,’ Trump says US won’t trade with those who trade with Iran; When Palestinian blood isn't equal

From Ian:

JISS: Diplomacy Backed by Military Force

How the wise use of force facilitates diplomatic processes in the Israel-Egypt-Hamas and Israel-Russia-Syria triangles

The measured and effective use of military force does not run counter to diplomacy; on the contrary, it facilitates diplomacy. Recent events in Syria and the confrontation with Hamas in Gaza have involved three-cornered diplomacy, in which the use of a small fraction of Israel’s military power is what enabled the mediators—Russia and Egypt—to “explain” what is at stake to their interlocuters.

Public discourse about the escalating events in Gaza demonstrates again that for many Israelis, from both ends of the political and ideological spectrum, diplomacy and the use of force are mutually exclusive, a case of “either or.” Some feel that only diplomatic moves accompanied by major gestures of goodwill can prevent an additional slide towards a military solution. On the other hand, there are many who view any efforts to arrive at a settlement to be a sign of cowardly denial of the need for an unambiguous military victory. The long-running political discourse in Israeli society has hindered the effort to have it both ways – to use military power in order to convey a political message and at the same time to manage diplomatic efforts in a way that will not tie Israel’s hands in its use of force.

In fact, there have been indications in recent years—which became even more pronounced in the last few weeks in Gaza, and prior to that, in relation to Syria—of a more coherent pattern of behavior than is generally attributed to Israel’s highest echelon of leaders, namely the Prime Minister, the Minister of Defense and the Chief of the General Staff. This pattern of behavior is characterized by the combination of a measured use of force against Israel’s enemies (with whom there will be no dialogue as long as they are committed to our destruction—namely Iran and Hezbollah in Syria; Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad in Gaza) with intensive diplomatic dialogue through a third party that has a direct interest in preventing escalation, namely Russia in the north and Egypt in the south.

This is not the traditional role of an honest broker who mediates between Israel and the Arabs, which has been filled by US administrations out of idealistic, political and economic motives. Rather, in this case, we are seeing the leveraging of the military and diplomatic influence of a powerful external player. That player must be made to understand that if it does not act to achieve moderation, its essential interests are liable to be affected and will certainly suffer if Israel decides to use all the force at its disposal. For this message to be convincing, it must be demonstrated to both the Russians and the Egyptians that this is a real threat, even if at first Israel prefers to act with limited force.

When Palestinian blood isn't equal

A recently published report by the Action Group for Palestinians in Syria, a human rights group, documented 3,840 cases of Palestinians who have been killed since the onset of the Syrian civil war in 2011. The causes of death ranged from artillery shelling to shootings or torture in the regime's infamous prisons across the country.

In addition to this report, the Syrian regime released for the first time a list of names that included the identities of 548 killed Palestinians; without noting the causes of death. Rights groups, however, agree those Palestinians died as a result of being tortured, starved and deprived of adequate medical treatment.

The AGPS said that 1,682 Palestinians are still missing, their fates unknown. According to some assessments, these Palestinians were either killed at some time during the bloody civil war or "in the best case" are still in prison. Therefore, at least 5,522 Palestinians have either been killed or have gone missing since 2011.

Along with those killed or missing, tens of thousands of Palestinians in Syria have lost their homes and employment. Thus, for example, the Yarmouk refugee camp, which was home to thousands, was utterly demolished over the course of the war. Before the camp was destroyed, the Assad regime had laid siege to it. During that time, images of emaciated Palestinians began emerging in Syrian opposition media outlets. Despite these horrors, not one official in the Palestinian Authority publicly condemned the Assad regime.

Seeking ‘WORLD PEACE,’ Trump says US won’t trade with those who trade with Iran

US President Donald Trump on Tuesday warned that any country doing business with Iran will not trade with the US as the first set of US sanctions against Iran that had been eased under the landmark nuclear accord went back into effect.

The sanctions, under an executive order signed by Trump, target financial transactions that involve US dollars, Iran’s automotive sector, the purchase of commercial planes and metals including gold.

More US sanctions targeting Iran’s oil sector and central bank are to be reimposed in early November.

In an early-morning tweet, Trump said the reimposition of sanctions means, “Anyone doing business with Iran will NOT be doing business with the United States.”

“I am asking for WORLD PEACE, nothing less!”

The stiff economic sanctions ratchet up pressure on the Islamic Republic despite statements of deep dismay from European allies, three months after Trump pulled the US out of the international accord limiting Iran’s nuclear activities.

Trump declared the landmark 2015 agreement had been “horrible,” leaving the Iranian government flush with cash to fuel conflict in the Middle East.

Iran's president says he'll talk to Trump "right now"

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani issued a challenge to President Donald Trump on Monday, saying the Islamic Republic would welcome talks with the US "right now."

"I don't have preconditions. If the US government is willing, let's start right now," Rouhani said during an interview that aired on state television late Monday local time, just hours before the US renewed sanctions on Iran. "If there is sincerity, Iran has always welcomed dialogue and negotiations," Rouhani said.

Trump's national security adviser John Bolton, when asked about the offer by CNN's Jake Tapper, dismissed it as possible "propaganda."

"Let's see what really comes of it or whether it's just more propaganda," Bolton said, adding that Trump has been "consistent" that he would be willing to negotiate with regimes such as North Korea and Iran.

This year, as you may recall, a firestorm of indignation exploded over the Tweets of a new hire at The New York Times.

As a result of the backlash, The New York Times and the new hire decided to go their separate ways - just hours later.

That person is, of course, Quinn Norton.

At the time, Norton was a journalist and an essayist at Wired magazine and was their editorial board’s lead opinion writer on technology.

Quinn Norton. Public Domain

One reason given for her leaving was Norton's friendship with Andrew “Weev” Auernheimer, a white supremacist who helps run the Daily Stormer website. The other issue was that she had used derogatory slurs against gay people.

The editor of the editorial page of The New York Times, James Bennet, came out with a statement:

Despite our review of Quinn Norton’s work and our conversations with her previous employers, this was new information to us. Based on it, we’ve decided to go our separate ways.

And that was that.

Until last week.

On August 1, The New York Times announced they were hiring Sara Jeong to join their Editorial Board. In the press release, they praised Jeong's book:

She also authored the book, “The Internet of Garbage,” which examines the many forms of online harassment, free speech, and the challenges of moderating platforms and social media networks. [emphasis added]

Sarah Jeong. Credit: Brandt Luke Zorn.
Source: Wikimedia Commons

As it turned out, Jeong is actually quite experienced in online harassment:

Are these racist?
These are tweets by Sarah Jeong who was just hired to the NYT editorial board. pic.twitter.com/B3P7ay8QNR
— Armin Navabi (@ArminNavabi) August 2, 2018

So what was The New York Times response this time?

We hired Sarah Jeong because of the exceptional work she has done covering the internet and technology at a range of respected publications.

Her journalism and the fact that she is a young Asian woman have made her a subject of frequent online harassment. For a period of time she responded to that harassment by imitating the rhetoric of her harassers. She sees now that this approach only served to feed the vitriol that we too often see on social media. She regrets it, and The Times does not condone it.

We had candid conversations with Sarah as part of our thorough vetting process, which included a review of her social media history. She understands that this type of rhetoric is not acceptable at The Times and we are confident that she will be an important voice for the editorial board moving forward.

Some have pointed out the apparent double standard at play here: the different attitude taken by The Times when a white woman makes derogatory remarks about a minority as opposed to an Asian woman making derogatory remarks about whites.

The New York Times held Norton to a different standard while shielding Jeong from criticism for her many racist rants attacking white people.

The New York Times stuck to their guns and kept Jeong. That decision does not say much about their objectivity, thoroughness or evenhandedness. It reeks of a double standard, regardless of the excuses they use to justify hiring Jeong.

It is reminiscent of another kind of double standard at The New York Times - their reporting on Israel and Jews, where The Times reserves a level of criticism it does not apply equally to others.

Doing a quick search through articles written by media critic Ira Stoll for the Algemeiner, there is no shortage of examples.

Ira Stoll. YouTube screenshot

In one article alone, Stoll notes that:

o The New York Times criticized the idea of accommodating Orthodox Jewish swimmers with women-only hours at a public swimming pool in Williamsburg, Brooklyn. The Times complained of the “strong odor of religious intrusion into a secular space.” However, The Times felt very differently when separate swimming was established in order to accommodate Muslims in Toronto. In that case, The Times praised it as a “model of inclusion.”

o When The New York Times wrote about an exhibit at the New York Historical Society entitled “The First Jewish Americans: Freedom and Culture in the New World,” the article concluded with a warning about “the kind of religious fervor that promotes a kind of violence against certain groups.” On the other hand, a review of “The Art of the Qur’an: Treasures from the Museum of Turkish and Islamic Arts,” instead of a warning got a rave review: “It’s a glorious show… art of a beauty that takes us straight to heaven. And it reminds us of how much we don’t know — but, given a chance like this, will love to learn — about a religion and a culture lived by, and treasured by, a quarter of the world’s population… everything seems to glow and float, gravity-free… miraculously beautiful things.”

o A review of one book faulted it for being too Jewish while a book about African Americans is praised precisely because it focuses on them:

To insist that stories about poor, oppressed or otherwise marginal groups of people are really about everyone can be a way of denying their specificity.

o The New York Times has nothing in its archives about the Yitzhak Rabin Center in Tel Aviv, but it did cover the new Yasser Arafat museum in Ramallah.

In another article Stoll points out The Times' chicken bias:

An article about kaporos entitled “A Raw Deal for Chickens, as Jews Atone for Sins,” focused on how the custom was not good for the chickens. But when describing caged birds being kept and sold in Senegal for a custom "to whisper prayers to the bird and then let it fly away, taking your problems with it” there is no comment on the treatment of the birds.

Another double standard is a story entitled “Railway Work in Israel on the Sabbath Threatens to Unravel Netanyahu’s Coalition” which rated 700 words, but a story about Polish lawmakers voting, at the request of Catholic bishops, to eliminate Sunday shopping in the country by the year 2020 gets only 200, and no pictures.

When Abbas this year called the US Ambassador to Israel a "son of a dog," The New York Times ignored the story -- but you can be sure that if instead, it had been the Israeli leader who insulted a US diplomat, The Times would have been all over the story.

When the NRA's magazine had a picture on its cover of Mayor Michael Bloomberg as an octopus, the Times described it as “an Anti-Semitic Symbol,” and that “the image has been used in anti-Semitic propaganda, from the Nazis to the modern Arab world.” Yet when it ran a story about the West Bank settlement Beit El, The Times reported:

The yeshiva complex is a multitentacled enterprise.

The New York Times condemned Netanyahu for criticizing Obama, saying he interfered in US politics - yet it ran a headline: “As Trump Offers Neo-Nazis Muted Criticism, Netanyahu Is Largely Silent,” criticizing Netanyahu for not getting involved.

There is also a geographic double standard at work at The New York Times:

When it comes to demographic counting, or blaming Israel for what happens in the “occupied territories,” the Times is all too happy to impute Israeli control over land...Yet when Jews are getting attacked by terrorists in Jerusalem, the capital city of Israel, the Times goes falling all over itself rushing to remind people with a correction that “the status of East Jerusalem is disputed” so somehow therefore it doesn’t really count as an attack in Israel.

When Russia apparently meddles in American presidential politics, the outraged Times call it “unconscionable” and a “threat.” But when European governments - some of which participated in murdering millions of Jews and some with large Muslim populations - try to meddle in Israeli politics, the Times objects to the idea of a requirement that the funding be made transparent.

The New York Times hailed the election of 92-year-old Mahathir Mohamad, known for a history of antisemitism as prime minister, calling the election “the greatest show of democracy” in Malaysian history. Yet when there is a hint of antisemitism by an American supporter of Trump, or a commenter on the Breitbart website, The Times goes on the attack.

The bias of The New York Times goes beyond their reporting and now impairs their judgment in other areas as well.

But in this case, The Times may yet realize their mistake...

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.

Fatah honors Hamas "martyrs" - but implies they were civilians

From YNet:

The IDF attacked with tank fire a Hamas position near Beit Lahiya in the northern Gaza Strip on Tuesday, killing two members of the terror group's military wing.

The Hamas fighters opened fire at IDF soldiers, prompting retaliatory tank fire. The Gaza Ministry of Health provided a different version, reporting a drone strike. No Israeli troops were hurt in the incident.

The Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades identified the killed fighters as Ahmed Mourjan and Abdel Hafez al-Silawi, both 23 years old.

The Fatah Facebook page immediately put up a graphic showing the "martyrs" - but didn't identify them as Hamas fighters. They implied that they were innocent civilians.

The caption says "Martyrs Abdul Hafez Al-Silawi and Ahmad Marjan, 23 years old, who were bombarded by bombing in the northern Gaza strip just earlier."

Hamas' photos of Marjan and Silawi look a little different:

Truth is really quite optional for Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah party.

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.

We have discussed The Map That Lies a number of times, showing how the well-publicized maps of "disappearing Palestine" are complete misrepresentations of the truth.

It turns out that the entire concept of the false map was done many years ago - by Zionists.

Yisrael Medad uncovered this map from an essay by L.B. Namier taken from “In the Margin of History” published in 1939.

The map accurately shows the diminishing size of the homeland promised to the Jews from the time of the Balfour Declaration through the British Mandate to the infamous 1939 White Paper:

The haters can't even be original.

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.

08/06 Links P2: SJP Posts Column Supporting Palestinian Terrorists; Corbyn’s antisemitic anti-Zionism is part of his core belief system; Why Do Christians Love Israel? What I Learned.

From Ian:

Temple University SJP Posts Column Supporting Palestinian Terrorists

The Marxist-Leninist Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) terrorist group is the “most ideologically clear organization in the Palestinian liberation movement,” a Temple University Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) officer wrote on Thursday. The statement appeared in a column promoted and linked to by the group.

It should be noted that the PFLP’s goal is Israel’s complete destruction.

The PFLP rejects “concessions made by the Arab misleadership class, which has supported so-called ‘peace’ agreements with Israel,” wrote Temple SJP Vice President Brandon Do. “These agreements have allowed the forces of occupation to extend deeper into Palestine and diminished chances of Palestinian liberation.”

The PFLP rose to notoriety in the 1960s and 1970s through a series of airline hijackings, including the 1976 hijacking of a Paris-bound Air France flight, which was then flown to Entebbe, Uganda. In a legendary operation, the IDF stormed Entebbe airport and rescued the hostages.

The PFLP was also responsible for a 1972 airport massacre that left 26 people dead. During the Second Intifada at the beginning of the century, several PFLP terrorists committed suicide bombings.

Brandon Do has also supported PFLP terrorist Rasmea Odeh, who played a key role in a 1969 Jerusalem supermarket bombing that killed two people. A 2016 picture posted by the Temple SJP chapter shows Do holding a sign calling for charges against Odeh to be dropped.

In his column, Do praised PFLP founder George Habash, who has been called the “godfather of Middle East terrorism” as an authority for “raising the Arab world’s consciousness” against Israel. He also attacked Palestinians who he claimed “sell out” their own people to Israel. The Palestinian Authority’s establishment following the 1993 Oslo Accords, he says, created a “crypto-Zionist front.”

Open Hillel’s Latest Initiative Shows Its Indifference toward Anti-Semitism

The campus organization Open Hillel aims to reform the rules followed by campus Hillel houses that prohibit partnership with certain organizations, specifically those that endorse boycotts of Israel. While Open Hillel claims that its goal is to make Hillel more inclusive, its real objective seems to be to make it more anti-Israel, or to shut it down completely, as evidenced by a recent amicus brief submitted by Open Hillel in favor of San Francisco State University (SFSU). SFSU is currently being sued by Jewish students who claim that it has done nothing to stem the tide of anti-Semitism on its campus, including a decision by a university civil-rights fair to exclude the school’s Hillel chapter from participating. David Schraub comments:

The argument [in the brief] was striking: the [school’s] deliberate targeting of Hillel for exclusion from campus life . . . should not even be seen as potential evidence plausibly suggesting anti-Semitism. Open Hillel’s view is that attempts to shut out and shut down Hillel cannot be considered anti-Semitism because not all Jews are represented by Hillel. [Thus] Open Hillel seems indifferent to how excluding Hillel from university activities would impact the many Jews for whom Hillel occupies a central role in campus Jewish life. It is entirely reasonable for these Jews to perceive efforts to target Hillel for isolation and expulsion as a denial of their equal standing on campus. . . .

Open Hillel . . . could have very easily asserted that while debates over Hillel International’s policies are both desirable and legitimate, debates over whether the primary space for Jewish communal life on campus should be expunged are not. Such a position would have been easily harmonized with Open Hillel’s putative commitments to pluralism and open engagement. After all, how can Hillel be “open” to a campus that refuses to allow it in the door?

Instead, Open Hillel actively chose to align itself with groups who seek to drive Hillel from campus outright. It is not just at SFSU, either—from Cal Poly to Stony Brook to the University of Ottawa, campus activists have grown increasingly emboldened in asserting that Hillel’s association with Israel necessitates that it be isolated and if possible extirpated from the university setting entirely. This has historical precedent as well: it chillingly echoes the concerted campaign in the 1970s and 80s to ban Jewish Societies from British campuses on account of their alleged “intrinsic racism.” . . .

A response to David Grossman

1
It's not pleasant to watch writer David Grossman puff his feathers in indignation. But has he ever missed an opportunity to hurl public accusations against Israel? Grossman takes every crime by a police officer, soldier, or civilian – provided that it is perpetrated against a Palestinians – and makes it a universal issue to use in collectively blaming the State of Israel and the Israeli people. But this time it feels untruthful, like someone is standing behind him, holding a hair dryer to make sure that he puffs photogenically.

Again, we have the same torrents of words, backed up by demagogy, lies, and fictions. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Grossman writes, "has made the decision not to end the occupation or the apartheid situation in the [Palestinian] territories. The opposite – [he has decided to] deepen them and bring them from the occupation into the State of Israel. In other words – this law [the nation-state law] effectively gives up on any chance of ever ending the conflict with the Palestinians."

2
A few weeks ago, I heard this argument from a friend. I was surprised. I didn't understand where he had gotten this, because it is well-known that one of the reasons for enacting the Basic Law: was so that when a peace deal with the Palestinians is made, there will be a law in place that curtails the Palestinians' right to self-determination.

Does Grossman oppose self-determination for the Palestinians? Of course not. He and his friends, intellectuals and writers – alive and dead – blindly support the Palestinians' right to self-determination, but are seized with fear when the Jews seek to ratify that right for themselves, in their own laws. Why are we asking the Palestinians to recognize us as the Jewish state if Grossman and his pals are so afraid of the law and making up stories that Israel is racists? The late Yehoshefat Harkabi, a former head of Military Intelligence, opined his entire life that Israel underestimates the power and influence of the enemy's guiding ideology. He was referring to the Muslim Arabs' hatred of Israel, but also to the lack of understanding on the Left – from Grossman to Yitzhak Rabin – that to the Palestinians, a right to self-determination means a right to the entire country, without recognizing any border. The nation-state law was designed, among other things, to limit the Palestinians' struggle for self-determination.(h/t steelraptor from Saturn)

This concludes a series, the rest of which can be read at: Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3.

One of the most powerful objections one could raise to the critique I’ve been making regarding Israel and international law would be that it is a “shooting the messenger” – style argument. “So what if the institutions condemning Israel as being in violation of international law are flawed or even corrupt?” the argument goes. “If Israel is guilty of what they say, then it shouldn’t matter who is making the accusations.”

This is actually a strong argument, which also implies another one that says it doesn’t matter if other nations (including Israel’s accusers) are guilty of even greater human rights “crimes,” since the question under discussion is Israel’s guilt (or innocence) of the charges.

Israel’s supporters need to treat this argument with respect since Israel does not stand alone with regard to the developing framework of international institutions and rules, so should not be quick to dismiss the entire edifice as illegitimate.

In order to counter this argument, one would need to demonstrate that there exist objective standards for judging whether these accusations are unfair or not. And fortunately, we can go back to our original discussion of the nature of law to find such standards.

If you recall, this analysis began by describing the rule of law based on consent and enforcement representing a pact between generations to believe, and raise their children to believe, that the law is fair and thus worth preserving. And there are some situations which have reasonably shaken this belief, regardless of the societies in which these situations have emerged.

The first is inequality before the law. After all, the law is meant to be impartial (and blind), applying equally to rich and poor, aristocrat and worker, well-connected and isolated. But if can be demonstrated that law is applied unequally on a systematic basis, that is a strong foundation for challenging its legitimacy.

Inequality before the law can take two forms: a law that can clearly be applied to many instead being applied to just an unfortunate few. Alternatively, law can be written so selectively and precisely that it is designed to prosecute just a few specific individuals or groups. The non-stop (and systematic) condemnation of Israel by international bodies made up of nations far more guilty of the crimes they accuse Israel of committing falls into the former category. And the increasingly narrow definitions of “Occupation” (something we saw in the Irish boycott example that kicked off this series) is an example of the latter.

The other principle that can be used to demonstrate the fairness vs. unfairness of law is the notion of selectivity, in this case selectively enforcing parts of a law while ignoring important components (such as context, qualifiers or additional obligations) found elsewhere in the same law.

For example, Israel’s accusers routinely claim the Jewish state is in violation of United Nations Resolution 194 which states that "refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date," to support the so-called “Right of Return” of Palestinian refugees. But even within this sentence, 194 is meant to apply only to those refugees wishing to “live at peace with their neighbors,” which immediately highlights that it might not apply to refugees who refuse to this day to acknowledge their neighbor’s (Israel’s) right to exist (much less live at peace with her). The resolution also does not indicate a specific set of refugees, meaning it could be used as the basis for Jews kicked out of their West Bank homes after the 1948 war having a legitimate right to move back there (not quite what the BDSers have in mind, no doubt).

Similarly, Article 13 of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights (which states that "(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state; and (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country") is also frequently invoked to “prove” Israel is in violation of the law by not allowing Palestinians an unlimited right of return. But, again, the legal ambiguity of the territory under dispute in the Arab-Israeli conflict (coupled with the fact that “Palestine” is not a state, and thus cannot be a party to the Declaration), means that this freedom of movement and return can equally be applied to both Jews and Arabs, rather than selectively applied to Arabs alone.

Both strands of unfairness (inequality and selectivity) come together when you look at the aforementioned Declaration of Human Rights in its entirety. For reading through all 30 articles of the Declaration, one is struck by how one region in the world more than any other: the Arab Middle East, exists in contravention to almost every one of these principles: from freedom of the individual to representational government to freedom of religion, peaceable assembly, and equal rights before the law. Yet those who most aggressively flog the distorted reading of just one article of the Declaration are the most passive with regard to the clear meaning of the Declaration as a whole applied outside of Israel's borders.

BDS advocates making this or that accusation of illegality are free to use their free speech rights to do so, as long as they don’t mind other people using their free speech rights to point out the BDSers inaccuracy and hypocrisy. But accepting newly-devised or newly-developing international law that is supposed to transcend the laws of nation states requires that evolving legal framework prove itself to be at least as good as the national law (especially national law based on the twin pillars of consent and enforcement) it is meant to replace.

Israel, its friends and supporters obviously have their work cut out for them ensuring that new laws are not invented or selectively enforced at their expense. But those who truly believe the emergence of international law to be a positive trend have an even greater obligation to fight the exploitation of this emerging field by ruthless state actors. For if international law turns out to be just another means by which the powerful and numerous can torture their smaller and less powerful rivals, it will join the League of Nations as an even greater and costlier noble failure.

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 Palestinian Authority did seem to cut or reduce the "salaries" of some terrorist prisoners - the salaries of the prisoners from Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

There was a protest today in Gaza by the Mujahat al-Quds and the Department of Women 's Action for the Islamic Jihad movement protesting the cuts of prisoner salaries by the Palestinian Authority.

The prisoners held banners saying "The prisoner's salary is a right, not a gift. Give our prisoners their rights, don't starve the sons of the prisoners in Israeli jails. Shouldn't you reward my father who sacrificed his freedom for his homeland?"

It called on the Palestinian Authority to reconsider the allocation of prisoners' allowances as a basic and legitimate right for them and their families. It insisted that the PA not keep all political differences away from the subject of paying terrorist salaries.

It seems that the PA made these cuts in order to further punish Hamas and other Gaza terror groups, but also to show the West that, see, it doesn't support all terrorist salaries. Only the ones from the terrorists on the side of the Palestinian Authority - their heroes.

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.

08/06 Links P1: Stabilizing Israel-Hamas Relations in Gaza: Can It Be Achieved?; UNIFIL has another chance to do its job; Poll Shows Israelis Support Negotiations, but Pals Don’t

From Ian:

JCPA: Stabilizing Israel-Hamas Relations in Gaza: Can It Be Achieved?

Israel and Hamas are seriously engaged in “regularizing” the situation in Gaza that will end the arson kites and the assaults on the border fence, and, in return, Israel will permit the rehabilitation of Gaza to alleviate the current humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Under discussion is a long-term ceasefire and the reconstruction of Gaza.

Both Israel and Hamas are interested in the positive conclusion of the efforts. That is why this time the chances of an agreement are fair. However, there are too many spoilers ready and willing to prevent its fulfillment.
Who Are the Spoilers and What Motivates Them?

First among the deal opponents is the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah. Sources in Ramallah insist that PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas strongly objects to any engagement with Hamas. He wants Hamas to accept Ramallah’s rule in Gaza under Ramallah’s terms. There will be no return to “reconciliation talks” after today.

Also, when it comes to the governing structures that were central to the talks in the past – elections for president and the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) – Abbas is not interested in their revival. He is now basing his legitimacy on the established institutes of the Palestine Liberation Organization that are not democratic.

The reluctance to return to futile reconciliation talks goes together with Abbas’ concern over the separate contacts between Israel and Hamas. According to sources in Ramallah, the chances of an agreement between Israel and Hamas are much better than the reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah. If negotiations with Gaza leads to Gaza’s detachment from the West Bank, some Palestinians believe it will be the first step of the Trump deal and remove the refugee issue and Jerusalem off the negotiating table.

As far as Ramallah is concerned, there will be no blessing for the deal. It will also present a regional and international dilemma whether to grant the terror organization, Hamas, legitimacy.

Ron Prosor: UNIFIL has another chance to do its job

Good riddance. These words are the proper sendoff for Maj. Gen. Michael Beary, the commander of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, who is about to complete his four-year term.

Beary had one job: to prevent Hezbollah from spreading south of the Litani River. He consistently refused to enforce this prohibition, insisting that the terrorists moving south of the river were actually shepherds and hunters. Even during his farewell interviews, he could not utter the word Hezbollah.

U.S. envoy to the U.N. Nikki Haley has lambasted Beary for shirking his duty, calling him a disgrace to the organization and "blind." His conduct is also the reason why for the past year I led an international campaign to have him replaced. The U.N. has appointed Maj. Gen. Stefano Del Col in his stead. He is to enter the job on Tuesday.

I hope that when the outgoing and incoming commanders sat down to discuss the transition, the word Hezbollah came up. But since there is no way to trust Beary to do this most basic task, I would like to suggest several ways in which he could effectively do his job.

Maj. Gen. Del Col, I am not so naive as to think UNIFIL can single-handedly remove Hezbollah from southern Lebanon, and no one expects you to actively take on the organization. But here is what you can and should do:

Haaretz: Why Younger Saudis Won't Fund, Facilitate or Fight for a Palestinian State

Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are experiencing tremendous socio-political change that has accelerated a generation gap. The younger generations are characterized and led by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) and his close ally Mohamed bin Zayed (MBZ), the crown prince of Abu Dhabi and primary driver of the UAE's foreign policy.

The younger Gulf generations are now unconvinced that moderation would follow the establishment of a Palestinian state. They believe it is more likely that a fully independent Palestinian state would itself be hostage to radical forces, and would in fact become an extreme source of instability in the region. MBS and MBZ believe that establishing a Palestinian state would mean handing Iran and Sunni political Islamists another Arab capital to control and influence.

Many Western policymakers still fantasize about the idea that the Gulf countries could provide money to birth and develop a Palestinian state - indeed, this is reportedly one of the founding principles of the Trump-Kushner peace plan. That is never going to happen, despite what they may promise publicly. Those who actively dictate policy in the Gulf are convinced that every dollar the Saudis give to the Palestinians means handing it to Iran.

In my last article I wrote about endemic and sickening Palestinian abuse of animals.

If a caring animal right activist wants to donate money to help animals under PA control, there is exactly one Palestinian organization that is dedicated to helping animal welfare - the Palestinian Animal League.

Yet the Palestinian Animal League seems to care more about "occupation" than about the kinds of animal abuse that I've documented.

In May, the PAL held a conference called "Defending Palestine: Liberating the People, the Land, and Animals." It's description:

What is the “Defending Palestine” Conference ?
Defending Palestine: Liberating the People, the Land, and Animals is a groundbreaking three-day international conference hosted by Palestinian Animal League (PAL) in occupied Palestinian territory, from May 3 through May 6, 2018. This will not be a traditional conference; it will focus on the shared struggle for land and liberation for all species in Palestine.

Among the many international attendees will be passionate animal rights activists, environmentalists, human rights advocates, those interested in the intersection of all these causes within the context of occupied Palestine.

Instead of actually helping the animals being abused by Palestinians, the only Palestinian animal rights organization is trying to use "intersectionality" to conflate animal rights with hating Israel!

The video promoting the conference doesn't show a single animal!

The only way they could attract people to their conference was to call for "freedom" of Palestinian animals - meaning, a Palestinian donkey that is dragged behind a truck is OK as long as it is "free" from "occupation."

I don't think the PAL will be issuing any statement thanking Israeli police for caring more about Palestinian animals than Palestinian animal rights activists themselves do.

As it stands, I could not find any photos of the participants in the three day conference, so I think there might have been more speakers than attendees.

But PAL used the conference to send their speakers on a European tour to show "intersectionality" to cynically use animal rights to push their main goal, demonizing Israel - the only country in the region that actually gives a damn about animal rights.

This shows the priorities of Palestinian animal lovers. Donating to the Palestinian Animal League is not going to help the abused donkeys and horse shown previously, the money just goes to another anti-Israel NGO that clothes its anti-Israel stance in a cynical pretense to care about animals.

This is doubly cynical, because even PAL knows that no one would donate to them unless they push their anti-Israel agenda. The pro-animal agenda was obviously not lucrative enough on its own.

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.

Horrific animal abuse in the territories

Ma'an publishes this horrific picture of a donkey that had been dragged behind the car of a Palestinian who lives in Hebron:

Israeli police noticed the Arab dragging the donkey on Route 60 near Hebron and arrested him. The injured donkey was transferred for further veterinary treatment.

At the end of his interrogation, the suspect was imprisoned and he is being brought to the military court in Ofer for the purpose of extending his detention.

The police issued a statement that "the Israel Police views with great severity the offenses of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of animals committed by criminals. And will continue to act determinedly to stop them and to strictly prosecute the suspects. "

A month ago, in the same area, Israeli police arrested another Palestinian for beating his horse, also in a horrific way, badly wounding it.

This is a pattern. In March, another Palestinian was arrested by Israeli police for pulling/dragging his donkey behind his car.

It doesn't appear that Palestinian police arrest anyone for animal cruelty. In the third story mentioned here the Arab didn't believe he was doing anything wrong.

I'm not even going to go into the sickening public slaughter of animals during Eid in the territories, where Arabs stab frightened, tied up animals to death.

My question for the animal lovers who hate Israel: Should Israeli police be involved in saving the lives of animals being routinely abused in the territories - or would it be better if the animals remain abused in the "State of Palestine"?

And if you choose option B - what are you doing to stop Palestinian animal abuse?

Stay tuned for a followup post.

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.

Tunisian BDS claims they stopped Turkish ship working for Israeli company from docking

Arab media report that Tunisian naval forces prevented a cargo ship belonging to Arkas, a Turkish company, from entering Tunisian waters - because it was working with Israeli shipping company Zim.

The Tunisian campaign of the cultural and academic boycott of Israel claims, a bit improbably, that a vessel under the Turkish flag regularly transported containers from the port of Haifa to Tunisia through the Spanish city of Valencia, working the the huge Israeli shipping company Zim.

Electronic Intifada last week said that the Zim website mentioned the planned itinerary of the Cornelius A ship to land in the port of Radès. The Zim webpage does not say anything about that now; the current news articles say that they erased the itinerary.

But it seems unlikely that the Tunisian navy stopped the ship. According to the Marine Traffic website, the Cornelius A was last in Algericas on Sunday and is now in the middle of the Mediterranean, nowhere near Tunisia.

The real story is probably that Tunisian BDS pressured the government to not allow the ship to dock, the Turkish company came up with an alternative plan and nothing dramatic happened at sea.

The story says that the ship was originally scheduled to land in Tunisia on Sunday.

The Tunisian boycott initiative expressed its deep satisfaction at what it described as aborting a "serious normalization process with an institution of the Israeli regime."

Tunisian BDS group TACBI issued a bizarre statement that "Since its establishment in 1945, ZIM has transferred Israeli settlers from around the world to occupied Palestine." Their problem with ZIM isn't "occupation" but the fact that originally it saved hundred of Jews and helped transport them to the Land of Israel.

TACBI also claims that ZIM "plays an important role in transferring weapons and equipment to the occupation army to use in its wars and massacres against the Palestinian 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.