Sunday, September 09, 2018

  • Sunday, September 09, 2018
  • Elder of Ziyon

Once I saw a piece of art that turned the sounds of the shofar into a graphic format, done by Avraham Lowenthal of Tzfat. (h/t Amiyena and Vermue) I thought it was a nifty idea and made one of my own.

So here is a Rosh Hashanah poster for EoZ fans using the same motif, although using only the mandatory 30 sounds instead of the full 100,  and mine is a bit more literal.

It would also make a great sukkah decoration!



I want to wish all of you a Shana Tova u'Metukah, a happy and sweet year. May this be a year of health, a year of prosperity, a year of joy, a year of peace, and a year of security.

I will not be blogging during the holiday.

(This is a repost from 2012 if it looks familiar....)



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.
  • Sunday, September 09, 2018
  • Elder of Ziyon

Young Goodman Lumish came forth at sunset...
Young Goodman Brown by carinaka
One of the paradigmatic early American short stories is Nathanial Hawthorne's Young Goodman Brown (1835). The link goes to the 1846 edition of the story as published in his collection, Mosses from an Old Manse. What fascinates me, oddly enough, is its potential resonance for diaspora Jewry within recent decades.

Hawthorne, of course, is an icon of American letters and closely associated with his Massachusetts Puritan ancestors as a primary subject of his work. His material is often surreal and dream-like and dark and represents one source of American literary Romanticism that later gave expression to major figures such as Edgar Allen Poe.

Hawthorne's portrayal of his ancestors' sense of a pagan and morally foggish world around Boston and Salem fits nicely with historian David D. Hall's analysis of the Puritans in Worlds of Wonder, Days of Judgment: Popular Religious Belief in Early New England (Harvard University Press, 1990). Hall describes the Puritan imagination as filled with "wonders" and portents and visions wherein the reality of the Devil and the anger of God is revealed in terrible storms, shipwrecks, and deformed babies born to allegedly immoral mothers.

I hope that I will be forgiven for finding enough universality in Young Goodman Brown to relate it to my own little journey into "the woods," so to speak. A brief description of his trip may resonate with others.

Goodman Brown's story begins in Salem village, Massachusetts, as he leaves his wife, Faith, for a necessary trip into the forest in the seventeenth-century.
Young Goodman Brown came forth at sunset, into the street of Salem village, but put his head back, after crossing the threshold, to exchange a parting kiss with his young wife. And Faith, as the wife was aptly named, thrust her own pretty head into the street, letting the wind play with the pink ribbons of her cap, while she called to Goodman Brown.
We do not know why Goodman Brown must head alone into the wood, but he must and so he does.

The story is traditionally understood to have three settings. The first is that of departure from his beautiful wife and the well-ordered and morally-upstanding village of his youth. The second is the realization that the figures he discovers romping in the woods in a most devilish fashion are, in fact, his neighbors and friends. The conclusion represents Goodman Brown's gloomy disillusionment with the faith of his youth and the friends of his upbringing.

There is a reason that literary classics resonate throughout the centuries. It is the mythic universality of the story. Scholars like Joseph Campbell and Jordan Peterson -- not to mention Carl Jung -- analyze mythology because mythology and story-telling represent guidelines to human experience. A work like Young Goodman Brown is beautiful not merely because it is so beautifully written, but because it speaks to universal human themes. It is among what Peterson calls Maps of Meaning.

I hope that I am not stretching analogies too far to suggest that the story of Young Goodman Brown nicely reflects the ideological journey of many diaspora Jews.

Most "post-Vietnam" American Jews, such as myself, grew up in an environment that was not particularly antisemitic and generally decent for Jewish people. My folks raised me in Kingston, New York, and Trumbull, Connecticut and my life was filled with a hodge-podge of all sorts of different people. Black people and White people and This people and That people and we all got along pretty well.

But then, one day, for no good reason whatsoever, I just had to wander off into "the wood." And there, much to my sadness and dismay, I learned that my friends and neighbors were not necessarily who I thought that they were.

As I wrote my dissertation in twentieth-century American cultural and intellectual history for Penn State University, during the cusp between Bush and Obama, and as a former Green Party member, I got involved in Daily Kos under the nom de blogKarmafish. Daily Kos was, at the time, and perhaps still is, the most prominent pro-Democratic Party blog in the United States. And it was within the surreal forest-like depths of emerging social media that I learned about progressive-left antisemitic anti-Zionism.

It amazed me in 2010 that when jihadis on the Mavi Marmara screamed for Jewish blood in the ancient cry of "Khaybar! Khaybar! Oh, Jews! The army of Muhammad will return!" that the western press and progressive-left political activists described them as "peace activists." The traditional "Khaybar" call among Muslims of the jihadist variety is a call for genocide. It is to remember the glory of when Muhammad ordered the beheading of hundreds of Jewish men, and the taking of their wives and children into slavery, sexual and otherwise, in the town of Khaybar on the Arabian Peninsula in 628 CE.

That response by the Western press and "social justice activists" is, in fact, very reminiscent of the recent description of environmental warfare against Israel by Hamas as something akin to peaceful protests. The attempt to burn Jews out of Israel while seeking to invade the border between Israel and Gaza was described as "peaceful."

It was the realization of the contempt for Jewish self-determination and self-defense that drove me away from them in a satiric farewell entitled, Breaking: Jew Builds Second Bathroom in East Jerusalem. What I discovered during my months of participation on Daily Kos was a toxic loathing for Jewish self-determination and self-defense residing within the heart of the progressive-left. This is not to say that most "progressives" or Democrats are antisemitic, but it is to assert that they have, nonetheless, made a home of themselves for antisemitic anti-Zionists.

And therein lies the dilemma and the problem.

For Young Goodman Brown his return to Salem village meant the end of innocence with no clear road ahead and that, in a sense, is what many American Jews are awakening to.
Had Goodman Brown fallen asleep in the forest, and only dreamed a wild dream of a witch-meeting?

Be it so, if you will. But, alas! it was a dream of evil omen for young Goodman Brown. A stern, a sad, a darkly meditative, a distrustful, if not a desperate man, did he become, from the night of that fearful dream. On the Sabbath-day, when the congregation were singing a holy psalm, he could not listen, because an anthem of sin rushed loudly upon his ear, and drowned all the blessed strain.




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 Ian:

On Rosh Hashanah 5779, Netanyahu Expresses Optimism About Future of Israel and Jewish People
In a Rosh Hashanah message he shared on Sunday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu expressed optimism about the future of his country and the Jewish people.

“Our people are united not only by a common past, but by a common and burning support and reverence for liberty, for pluralism, for debate,” Netanyahu said. “As we debate, we remember our common heritage, our commitment to our common future, and our common values, of liberty, of inquiry, of ensuring the Jewish future, of contributing to the betterment of the world, and Israel and the Jewish people are doing all of that.”

Watch Netanyahu’s message below:


The 50 most influential Jews of the year
As we begin the Jewish New Year 5779, it’s more difficult than ever before to predict what will happen in our rapidly changing world, and who will most impact Israel, the Jewish world and the world at large. Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been the powerful leader of the Jewish state for more than 12 years, and wields significant influence with a range of global leaders from US President Donald Trump to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Netanyahu’s fate, however, lies in the hands of Attorney-General Avichai Mandelblit, who is due to decide within the next few months whether or not to indict him in one or more cases involving alleged corruption. That’s why Mandelblit tops our list of influential Jews this year, followed by Netanyahu. Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump, who led last year’s list, retain huge influence over President Trump, perhaps the most powerful person on the planet, and are in third place. Following them is the US ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, the man primarily responsible for the historic decision to move the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, on May 14, 70 years after the establishment of the State. To highlight his special role, this special supplement features a fascinating interview with Friedman by diplomatic correspondent Herb Keinon. We don’t expect our readers to agree with all our choices, but we hope to provide food for thought and discussion over the High Holy Days. As Shimon Peres once told me, it’s our job to tell our readers what (or in this case who) to think about, and not what to think.

Mazal tov to all those on this list, and shana tova to all our readers!

50 Most Influential Jews:
1. Avichai Mandelblit
2. Benjamin Netanyahu
3. Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump
4. David Friedman
5. Maggie Haberman
6. Steve Mnuchin
7. Audrey Azulay
8. Ayelet Shaked
9. Ronald Lauder
10. Gal Gadot
11. Naftali Bennett and Avigdor Liberman
12. Yossi Cohen and Gadi Eisenkot
13. Ruth Bader-Ginsberg, Elana Kagan, and Stephen Breyer
14. Michael Cohen
15. Isaac Herzog
16. Sheldon Adelson
17. Claudia Sheinbaum
18. Miri Regev
19. Esther Hayut
20. Reuven Rivlin

Greenblatt: ‘Pray with me’ for release of Hamas held Israeli captives
United States envoy Jason Greenblatt called on Jews around the world to pray with him this new year for the release of the Israeli captives and the remains of two IDF soldiers that Hamas is holding in Gaza.

“This Rosh Hashanah I will pray for the Goldin and Shaul families that Hamas will return Hadar and Oron to them. I will pray for the Mengistu and al-Sayed families, that Hamas will return Avera and Hisham to them. Please pray with me,” Greenblatt tweeted on Friday in advance of the holiday.

The Mengistu and al-Sayed families also issued a call on Thursday for the release of the two men, both of whom are suffering from mental illness and as a result crossed into Gaza.

They unveiled a new campaign, #SpecialNeedsCaptives, which highlights the fact that these men have a psychological disability.


  • Sunday, September 09, 2018
  • Elder of Ziyon
From J-Street:

As we approach the High Holidays this year, many of us will engage in cheshbon hanefesh—taking account of our actions over the past year. As individuals dedicated to bringing about change and building a better future for our own country and for Israel, we are continually striving to fully realize our own power, to find our own voice and to live in accordance with our values. Thankfully, Judaism gives us this unique opportunity to process, to repent, to renew our energies and to steel our resolve in commiting to the important work that lies ahead.

As an organization, J Street is undertaking our own cheshbon hanefesh—reflecting on the record of our movement this past year and on our goals for the coming year. We protested the Israeli government’s demolitions of Palestinian villages; we spoke out about the nation-state law, which erodes israel’s foundation as a tolerant, democratic and pluralistic state; we fought for humanitarian aid to the most disenfranchised Palestinian communities; and—here at home—we opposed President Trump’s cruel immigration policies.

Today, we are fighting for important victories in the midterm elections that will enable us to build a bulwark against the administration’s most reckless inclinations going forward.
Not surprisingly, J-Street's cheshbon hanefesh shows that it has nothing to apologize for in the past year. It is proud of what it did so this Rosh Hashana provides no opportunity for it to think there is anything wrong about an organization that is against every single thing Israel and the US does - including declaring Jerusalem to be Israel's capital. No introspection about supporting UNRWA to the hilt, including the so called "right to return" whose only purpose is to destroy Israel  No problem being adamantly against a peace plan before it becomes public.

As you look at the examples of J-Street's activism in this letter and the linked newsletter where activists talk about how proud they fought for Palestinian rights, it occurred to me that not one person said that they helped the poor or downtrodden in Israel. Not one said that they worked against Arab terror. Not one said that they were trying to mainstream haredim into Israeli society. Not one talked about how they might have volunteered to help Ethiopian communities in Israel. No, the only examples of cheshbon hanefesh they had is how aligned they are with Israel's enemies.

Yes, J-Street needs to engage in some cheshbon hanafesh - not self-congratulatory nonsense that they care about every human being.




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.
  • Sunday, September 09, 2018
  • Elder of Ziyon
From Al-Monitor:

Palestinians started using coins for transactions in the 5th century BCE, with the Persian conquest of Palestinian lands. The Persian coins replaced the barter system, said Mohammed al-Zard, head of the Palestinian Association of Coins and Stamps Collectors.

He told Al-Monitor that the Persian coins were not used in the entirety of the Palestinian territories, as the coastal areas were controlled by the Canaanites, who introduced their own coins in their dealings with Persians.

“In the third century BC, after the conquest of Alexander the Great, Palestinians traded using Greek coins, which were minted in the ancient Kingdom of Gaza and were also accepted across the Greek territories,” he added.
There were Greek coins minted in Gaza, actually from the 4th century BCE.

But there was no ancient Kingdom of Gaza! (Except in Africa in the 19th century.)





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.

Saturday, September 08, 2018

From Ian:

Seth Frantzman: The Trump Doctrine and the end of the ‘new world order’
THE TRUMP administration has forced Europe to do what the EU largely failed to do for 30 years, which is to take a seat at the table. For many years after Bush Sr. brought his new world order, the European powers accepted US leadership and preferred to let the US make mistakes and then critique the US, but not to take the baton and run with it themselves. It is hard to find one major case where the EU led the way on a foreign policy decision since 1990. That is partly Washington’s fault for wanting to muscle in. Europe plays the wise skeptic to Washington’s flailing, from George W. Bush’s “war on terror” to Obama’s promise to “secure the peace” in Berlin in 2008. Europe was rightly skeptical of neoconservatism, WMD and preemption. But it generally went along and got dragged into wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and then joined the Global Coalition against Daesh.

Since the 1990s the brief period of American global hegemony has withered. Former US ambassador to Moscow Michael McFaul met a mild-mannered man in 1991. “If you had asked me to list 5,000 Russians that might be the next president of Russia, he would not have made this list.” That man was Vladimir Putin. Putin was thinking about a mutlipolar world in the 1990s. I was studying in Russia when he was about to be appointed prime minister by Boris Yeltsin. We thought Russia was Dickensian and cool. But he knew the country could do better and command respect on the global stage. Now he holds court with Turkey and Iran’s president.

For all the anti-Russian rhetoric in the US now, none of those who complain about Putin today did much to stop Russia marching into the Caucuses and into Ukraine, or Syria. Clausewitzians failed. Clausewitz himself probably would have sensed the Russian rising power. The new world order failed. It didn’t restrain Russia or China or Iran or Turkey.

Trump’s policy has made Turkey and Iran think twice. Turkey didn’t expect US sanctions over a jailed pastor. It expected a quiet deal. Iran expected the US to leave Syria and hand over Iraq.

The Trump Doctrine is the end of the new world order. It is its graveyard. It is America’s decision to accept a multipolar world. It has to accept that Turkey, Iran and Russia have run into each other’s arms. It accepts Chinese sovereignty over the islands China built on under Bush and Obama. Trump has birthed a new European policy. The Trump Doctrine tore up decades of foreign policy. What will replace it, relatively quickly, is a new multipolar world.

In the Middle East that may not be a bad thing. For years US hegemony didn’t provide security in the region, because the US was balancing too many interests to confront the multiplicity of threats. A more narrow American policy, tailored to deal with certain types of threats, such as Iran and Islamist extremism, can bolster US allies, rather than balancing all the allies against each other.
Caroline Glick: The Immoral Foreign Policy of the 'Resistance'
Netanyahu said, “The weak crumble, are slaughtered and are erased from history while the strong, for good or ill, survive. The strong are respected, and alliances are made with the strong, and in the end, peace is made with the strong.”

The same cast of characters who condemned him for welcoming Duterte to Israel also attacked his speech. Jacob Siegel, for instance, writing in Tablet magazine, derided the remark as un-Jewish, and referred to the speech as “Bibi’s Bismark speech.”

But as Duterte’s visit shows — and indeed, as Saudi Crowned Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s cooperative policies towards Israel also show — Israel’s power is what attracts new allies. And through its intrinsic morality, Israel also encourages these nations to diminish their prejudice and hatred – because they think doing so will serve their own nations better.

Moreover, just as Israel helps others to fight common foes, it opposes governments that support those foes. So it was that on Wednesday, when Paraguay’s new government announced that it was revoking its recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and returning its embassy to Tel Aviv, Netanyahu’s response was swift and brutal. He did not merely recall Israel’s ambassador to Paraguay for consultations. He announced that Israel would be closing it embassy in Asuncion. Certainly, Israel has no reason to allow Paraguay to open an embassy in Tel Aviv.

The same tactics – reaching out to other leaders on the basis of common interests, using common interests as the basis for relations, and striking out at those who harm his country – are the guiding principle of Trump’s “America First” policies.

Like Israel, the U.S. cannot help its allies if it doesn’t help itself. The U.S. cannot advance its interests if they are subjected to automatic vetoes by allies acting selfishly. It cannot advance its interests if it maintains faith with “moral” policies, like the Iran nuclear deal and similarly failed nuclear agreements with North Korea, at the expense of actual counter-proliferation strategies that may involve smiling and waving while standing next to Kim Jong-un and Vladimir Putin.

The hypocrisy and substantive failure of the “moral” policies of Trump’s and Netanyahu’s critics show that the assaults against these leaders are not about the proper ends of foreign policy, or even about morality.

They are a power play. And given the disastrous failures of the “Resistance’s” foreign policies, it is clear that the outcome of this power struggle is something to which no one can be indifferent.

Friday, September 07, 2018

From Ian:

Caroline Glick: AIPAC loses the script
In short, the version of the AIPAC-sponsored anti-BDS bill that is set to be voted on before the full House of Representatives does more to legitimize UN and European Union efforts to economically discriminate against Jews in Israel than it does to counter them. AIPAC and AIPAC-supported Republicans like Rep. Royce opted to gut the bill in order to retain the support of Democratic legislators who have been cowed into ending their substantive protection of Israel by the rising forces in their party that are hostile to Israel.

This dire situation – which foretells a future where, in the interest of preserving the fiction of bipartisan support for Israel, all pro-Israel bills are gutted to secure the support of the lowest-common denominator of pro-Israel sentiment among the Democrats – can be reversed.

The Senate version of the bill is the original version of the legislation. It is the version of the bill that should be adopted into law. Republicans in the full House can refuse to approve the Foreign Affairs Committee’s bill and wait instead to pass the Senate version.

Looking ahead, Republican lawmakers in the House and Senate need to stop agreeing to water down their initiatives to secure support from their Democratic colleagues who have been cowed into paralysis by the rising anti-Israel forces in their party. After all, if the Democrats retake control of the House in November, they will not lift a finger to secure Republican votes.

AIPAC may have made perpetuating the myth of strong bipartisan support for Israel its cri de couer. But Republicans, who are truly pro-Israel, have no reason to join them.

Melanie Phillips: The west’s antisemitism crisis
Confronted by reports of rising antisemitism, officials decided that the Jews themselves were to blame because of their “inordinate attention to the possibilities of the ‘black market’ and a lack of pleasant standards of conduct as evacuees.”

Only when the enormity of the Holocaust was finally revealed after the war did hatred of Jews become unsayable. It thus went underground — until the left’s adoption of the Palestinian narrative made it sayable again.

Now the Arabs who want to wipe out Israel are regarded falsely and grotesquely as the victims of the Jews. As a result, western antisemites are once again licensed to treat Jews with disgust.

Because Israelis take up arms to defend themselves against extermination and thus kill some of their attackers, they are viewed as aggressors. Jews can only be considered victims if they are passive, helpless and, above all, dead.

Since relatively few Israelis are being killed, they are said to be up to the Jews’ habitual trick of claiming to be victims in order to manipulate the world to their advantage.

Israelis are thus presented obsessively, falsely and malevolently as brutal, willful killers of the innocent. This unique demonization is profoundly antisemitic. But the Israel-bashers really do think it is legitimate criticism—because they believe these deranged and demonstrable falsehoods are actually true.

They resent the claim of antisemitism because they think it’s constantly used to give the Jews in general a free pass for their misdeeds. But these “misdeeds’ are lies. The Israel-bashers believe that they are true because they are antisemites.

This is why Labour’s antisemitism problem cannot be solved. Far beyond the unlovely person of Corbyn himself, it is rooted in bigotry over Israel that has become the default position of mainstream progressive politics. And that, in turn, is part of a broader picture.

Israel is the paradigm nation-state, while Jewish principles lie at the very core of Western civilization. In Britain and America, a culture war is being waged against the west and the nation state. Who can be surprised, therefore, that the Jews are at the very center of that battleground.
Melanie Phillips: Corbyn, Farrakhan, Franklin funeral sermon
The holidays are over! Please join me here in discussion with Avi Abelow of Israel Unwired as we pick up developments in our crazy world (which has got even crazier in our absence, if that’s possible). We’re talking about the continuing antisemitism crisis in Britain’s Labour party, the emergence of America’s party of hatred and the remarkable sermon delivered at Aretha Franklin’s funeral.


Why Clinton Sat with Farrakhan
You don’t have to have much of an imagination to ponder what would happen if Duke [KKK Leader] received a similar place of honor at a funeral for a famous singer. Or the storm that would follow if a former GOP president were to share a platform with Duke, or, as Clinton did with Farrakhan, shake his hand. That would have been the only story coming out of such an event, dwarfing the coverage that Franklin’s funeral or even the John McCain funeral received.

But that didn’t happen when Clinton treated Farrakhan as just another friend of Aretha’s who deserved respect last Friday.

The only explanation is that, for many in the media and the liberal political establishment, hate coming from a black or Islamic group or individual is somehow less odious than hate from white supremacists — even if their rhetoric is remarkably similar.

This may stem in part from the bogus theory about prejudice that holds that it’s impossible for blacks or anyone without power to be guilty of racism. But the problem goes deeper than that absurd assertion. Hate from any source that can’t be identified as somehow tied to conservatives or Trump is simply of no interest to the political Left these days. Even worse, such hate is sometime even whitewashed by the Left — recently, in a YouTube video, Vox and Pro Publica sympathetically depicted MS-13 gang members as nice teenage kids who ride bikes and hold part-time after-school jobs.

The claim that Trump has empowered the far Right continues to be repeated by many liberals even though there is no proof that such a thing is remotely true. Trump’s policies and his administration’s personnel are diametrically opposed to the hate that Duke, the KKK, and the neo-Nazis promote.

But whatever they may think of Trump, the mainstream media should not excuse Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism and hate for whites, or pretend that it’s a result of a misunderstanding.

The Franklin funeral may be dismissed as a meaningless media event with no impact on society. But the truth is that it was a major triumph for Farrakhan and his efforts to bring his message of Jew-hatred into the mainstream. The willingness of the networks to ignore Farrakhan’s hate and the ability of figures such as Clinton and Stevie Wonder to embrace him with impunity allows the virus of hate to spread. A society in which Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism is normalized, as it was last week, is one in which Jews cannot claim to be entirely safe.


From Ian:

The Oslo handshake, 25 years on
From the perspective of 25 years, however, it’s clear that Rabin’s deep skepticism was sound and the public’s euphoria groundless. The Oslo process didn’t lead to peace. Arafat’s pledge to renounce “terrorism and other acts of violence” was a sham. In an Arabic-language broadcast on Jordanian TV the very day of the White House ceremony, he assured Palestinians that he was signing the accords not to end the conflict, but to acquire territory from which the war to “liberate” all of Israel could be pursued.

The Oslo process was the worst self-inflicted wound in Israel’s history. Palestinian terrorism didn’t end, it spiked. In the 24 months following the handshake, more Israelis were killed in bombings and suicide attacks than in any previous 24-month period in the country’s history.

Yet Rabin, of all people, refused to pull the plug. He had declared at first that the Oslo accords were reversible; if Arafat and the new Palestinian Authority didn’t uphold their commitment to halt all violence, Rabin had said, Israel would reoccupy the territory it relinquished.

It was a threat he never carried out. Instead, as terror attacks surged, Rabin grimly repeated that the empowerment of the Palestinians must go forward. “For all his exasperation, he could not bring himself to break with Arafat,” writes Karsh. “Acknowledging that Arafat had made no serious effort to fight terrorism or to enforce law and order in Gaza, he nevertheless insisted that ‘there is no other partner. . . . We must abide by our commitments.’ ” It was as if, having surmounted such a steep psychological barrier and forced himself to publicly shake Arafat’s hand, nothing could ever again induce him to reverse course. Perhaps that would have changed had Rabin not been assassinated, but there’s no way to know.

Twenty-five years on, Oslo is a monument to the folly of magical thinking in diplomacy. Land-for-peace was a deadly delusion. The crowd swooned at the White House that day, but it was Rabin whose instincts were right. He should have trusted his intuition and refused to take that anti-nausea pill. Instead he shook hands with a mass killer, and led his nation into disaster.
David Singer: Jordan’s Re-entry into West Bank Looms Large as Trump Dumps PLO
2. The PLO announced it had refused Trump’s proposal to create a Jordan-West Bank confederation:

Israel and the PLO have been unable to agree on the creation of an additional Arab State between Israel and Jordan after fruitless negotiations conducted over the last 25 years.

Rejecting a Jordan-West Bank confederation now sees the PLO hoisted by its own petard– leaving Jordan to fill the yawning diplomatic void by stepping in and negotiating with Israel to engineer Jordan’s return to a large part of the West Bank – occupied by Jordan from 1948 until its loss to Israel in the 1967 Six Day War.

Restoring Jordanian citizenship to the West Bank Arab population – as existed between 1950 and 1988 – would once again see parity of rights re-established between the Arab populations spanning both sides of the Jordan River.

The 29 refugee camps in Jordan and the West Bank could be closed and their inhabitants integrated into the general population. “Palestinian refugees” would be relics of the past.
No Arab or Jew living in the West Bank would be forced to move.

Palestinian Arabs residing in other Arab countries could emigrate to this newly-merged Jordan-West Bank entity – which might even choose to rename itself “Palestine” – comprising as it would about 80% of the territory contained in the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine. Israel would end up exercising sovereignty in about 19 per cent – leaving sovereignty in the remaining 1 per cent – Gaza – to be determined by Israel, Jordan and Egypt.

As with any good settlement – no-one would be 100 per cent happy – but 100 years of conflict would be ended and Trump would have pulled off yet another stunning success.

Palestinians: Spitting in the Well
In reality, the Palestinians have one main message for the US administration: We hate you and incite against you, but we fully expect that you will continue providing us with cash, to the tune of billions of dollars. And, when you do try to help us, we reserve the right to spit in your face.

The entire existence of Fatah, the faction that dominates and controls the Palestinian Authority, relies heavily on financial aid from the US, EU and other Western donors.

So, while the protesters in Ramallah were demanding that the US rescind its decision to cut off its funding to UNRWA, Abbas's men in east Jerusalem were trying to block a US-sponsored meeting to discuss ways of helping the Palestinian economy.

Abbas and his top officials in Ramallah evidently want to have it both ways -- to continue their incitement against the Trump administration while being bankrolled by US taxpayer money.

Abbas and company would do well to learn that when they spit in the well they drink from, the water they draw will be bitter indeed.

  • Friday, September 07, 2018
  • Elder of Ziyon
From PMW:



Fatah Salfit Branch Secretary Abd Al-Sattar Awwad: "We see the occupation’s policy and the methods of the occupation’s policy. I've seen our young men, the young men of the Committee [to Resist Settlements and] the Wall, and our young men in the Jerusalem district, and everyone located there, and the ways in which they are treated. When an Israeli soldier directly grabs a civilian in this way, his body immediately receives blue or red marks. They have a policy that they can harm in a certain way. They harm a person in this way despite the cameras. The cameras can’t reveal this policy that they implement. I've seen their bodies [that were harmed] in this way - blue and red marks - by the occupation forces, which the cameras are incapable of revealing."
[Official PA TV, Topic of the Day, July 10, 2018]
Maybe their cameras have red filters on the lenses?





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.
  • Friday, September 07, 2018
  • Elder of Ziyon
Haaretz has a long article on the wave of DJs who have decided, many at the last minute, not to play in Israel - even though many of them have played in Tel Aviv in the past.

It quotes some of them giving their varied and hypocritical reasons for not playing now. But one section tells the truth:

Amotz Tokatly, who’s responsible for bringing DJs to Tel Aviv’s Beit Maariv club, isn’t feeling much of a change. “The cancellations or refusals by DJs and artists based on a political platform didn’t begin just this year. I’ve been encountering this for many years now. There are even specific countries where we know the prevailing mood is political and tending toward the boycott movement. For example England. The rhetoric there is a priori much stronger,” Tokatly says.

“But take Ben UFO, who has played in Tel Aviv in the past. When we got back to him about another spinning gig he said explicitly, ‘It simply isn’t worth it for me from a public relations perspective, and it could hurt me later on.’ DJs like him make their own calculations.”
 Ben UFO has played in Lebanon, whose Palestinians would love to trade places with their brethren under "occupation." He's played in China and Russia and Turkey, where human rights are a joke. He's played in Morocco, the occupier of West Sahara.

At least he admits privately that he has no principles.

Other DJs who now pretend to be so moral by not playing in Israel have also played in nations whose human rights records are abysmal like DJ Seinfeld (Russia, Turkey), Shanti Celeste (Russia, China), and Leon Vynehall (Morocco, UAE).

And all of these artists hate Donald Trump and US policy but happily play to big crowds in the US.

I'm not saying that these artists should play in Israel because there are other countries that are worse. I'm saying that they are so brainwashed that they don't understand that Israel's human rights record is outstanding for a nation in a state of war for 70 years which must interact with millions of people who are taught from birth that killing Israeli Jews will get them to Paradise.

The hypocrisy is crystal clear. But until people actually point out to them that we all see what hypocrites they are, nothing will change.




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.
  • Friday, September 07, 2018
  • Elder of Ziyon
I received a fundraising email from UNRWA-USA where they give a reason why UNRWA must exist:

UNRWA was created nearly 70 years ago by the United Nations at the will of the international community to provide assistance and protection to Palestine refugees until a just and durable solution to their plight was achieved.

If we look at UN General Assembly resolution  302 that created UNRWA - on the UNRWA webpage - here is the entire part of the resolution describing the creation and purpose of the agency:

7. [The General Assembly] Establishes the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East:
(a) To carry out in collaboration with local governments the direct relief and works programmes as recommended by the Economic Survey Mission;
(b) To consult with the interested Near Eastern Governments concerning measures to be taken by them preparatory to the time when international assistance for relief and works projects is no longer available.
Nowhere does it say that UNRWA must exist until a permanent solution is found to peace in the Middle East. On the contrary - UNRWA was always meant to be a temporary agency, to work with all the countries in the Middle East (later reduced to Gaza/Egypt, Jordan/West Bank, Syria and Lebanon) to provide works projects and temporary aid with the goal of integrating the Palestinian Arabs into the existing countries of the region. The expected lifetime for UNRWA was meant to be only a year or two, because the resolution didn't expect to continue funding UNRWA forever - the refugees from the 1948 war were expected to be integrated into the countries they fled to as all refugees had throughout history and UNRWA's job was to assist them.

The original mandate of UNRWA has been trampled upon by the Arab world and self-declared Palestinian "leaders" who insist that Palestinians must remain stateless and "refugees" until "return."

The UNRWA of the early 1950s was conscientious and actually tried to do its job. It tried to find permanent solutions to the refugee issue. It tried to create works programs so the Palestinian Arabs could be integrated into the economic life of the Arab world. It tried to reduce the rolls of those it provided assistance to, eliminating tens of thousands who pretended to be refugees in order to get free food and shelter. All of these efforts were fought against and ultimately thwarted by a cynical Arab world and the so-called Palestinian leaders themselves, against the wishes of the majority of actual Palestinian refugees who just wanted to have a home in an Arab country to raise their families with honor.

The UNRWA of today is a joke that justifies its existence on the back of millions who are now permanently considered "refugees" by its bizarre administrative definition that it now claims (falsely) is international law.

The idea that UNRWA was always meant to exist until there is a diplomatic and "just" solution is just another lie its spokespeople tell a gullible world. The only reason that Palestinians are uniquely considered refugees forever - not Syrians, not Iraqis, but only Palestinians - is because of the Arab desire to destroy the Jewish state.




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.

Thursday, September 06, 2018

From Ian:

Trump to US Jews: I won’t give Palestinians aid until they make deal with Israel
US President Donald Trump told Jewish leaders Thursday that the US would not give aid to the Palestinians until they reach an agreement with Israel.

In a conference call with several dozen American Jewish leaders ahead of Rosh Hashanah, Trump noted that he had recently slashed immense amounts of US aid to the Palestinians — a reference to the administration’s recent cuts in overall aid to the Palestinian Authority and its complete defunding of the UN’s Palestinian refugee agency UNRWA. The US would resume funding, he said, but only if the Palestinians reached a deal with Israel.

“What I will tell you is I stopped massive amounts of money that we were paying to the Palestinians and the Palestinian leaders,” Trump said to the Jewish leaders in a recording of the conversation aired by Israel’s Channel 10 news. “The United States was paying them tremendous amounts of money. And I say, ‘You’ll get money, but we’re not paying until you make a deal. If you don’t make a deal, we’re not paying.'”

“I don’t think it’s disrespectful at all” for US aid to be utilized as a bargaining chip, the president added, according to a transcript of the call published by the Jewish Insider website. Rather, “I think it’s disrespectful when people don’t come to the table.”

The president said that the Palestinians couldn’t have it both ways, according to a participant on the call who spoke to The Times of Israel. They couldn’t criticize him and rebuff negotiations on the one hand, while seeking financial aid from the US on the other.
Telegraph : 'Jews are only safe because of Israel'
For perhaps the first time in a mainstream British newspaper, the narrative of the Jewish refugees from Arab countries, who found refuge from persecution and death in the Jewish state, is used as a moral argument against the anti-Zionism of the hard left. Column by Allister Heath in the Telegraph:

I’m a Zionist, dear reader, and I cannot understand how any mainstream politician in Britain today could not be. I find the fact that so many on the extreme Left and at the top of the Labour Party now routinely describe themselves as anti-Zionists to be not just baffling but absolutely horrifying. The implications of their ideology fill me with dread, and the fact that the Labour Party has now adopted, with a key caveat, the international definition of anti-Semitism resolves very little.

Zionism involves accepting a simple proposition: the Jewish people should have their own country in the historic Land of Israel, from where they were expelled all those years ago. Zionism is not a programme for government; it is neither “Left-wing” or “Right-wing”. Apart from agreeing that there should be Jewish national self-determination in a viable, secure homeland in Israel, Zionists disagree on everything else, including on where borders should be drawn. Plenty believe that Palestinians have been very badly treated.

It was one thing to be an anti-Zionist in 1896, when Theodore Herzl published Der Judenstaat, launching the modern Zionist movement; or in 1898, when Emile Zola wrote J’accuse in defence of a Jewish officer set up by the French establishment; or even in 1917, when Lord Balfour issued his declaration officially supporting “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people”.

Israel didn’t exist then, even though tens of thousands of Jewish refugees had already fled to Palestine. Some were even tempted by alternative locations, including Uganda, or by the view that America was the real promised land, despite the fact that Temple Mount, the holiest site in Judaism and the Western Wall are to be found in Jerusalem.
Indigenous Rights and Israel: A Historical Perspective
Are Jews indigenous to Israel, and why does it matter today? Take this journey through history to find out.


Corbyn loathes Israel, and Labour’s new anti-Semitism rules won’t change that
This was the week in which many Labour MPs expected, hoped and predicted that the party would draw a line under a disastrous summer of stories about anti-Semitism and begin the process of closing the huge, widening gulf which has opened between Labour and Britain’s Jewish community.

But such optimism was a total misreading of the character of the United Kingdom’s main opposition party and the man who now dominates it.

On Tuesday, Labour’s governing body, the National Executive Committee, revisited its July decision not to adopt in full the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism.

After several hours of rancorous debate, it was announced that the NEC had given way and accepted the four IHRA examples — all of which define the point at which legitimate criticism of Israel can dip into anti-Semitism — which it had struck from Labour’s new code of conduct at its previous meeting.

There was, though, a sting in the tail. Alongside the IHRA definition, the NEC adopted a statement saying that its decision would not “in any way undermine freedom of expression on Israel or the rights of the Palestinians.”

As the Jewish Leadership Council declared, this so-called “free speech” caveat “drives a coach and horses through the IHRA definition.”

  • Thursday, September 06, 2018
  • Elder of Ziyon
I found this infographic by Pew from 2014:


That's 64 countries with a religious symbol on their national flags. 

Buddhist, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Shinto - no one worries about minority rights in those countries because they are closely tied to a religion.

Only the Jewish state gets criticized as "racist."

Yes, saying that you hate Israel is based on its supposed racism as symbolized by its flag or national anthem really is antisemitic.





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.

 Vic Rosenthal's Weekly Column



Who is rich? He who is happy with what he has. – Shimon ben Zoma (2nd century CE)

As the new year approaches, Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics released its annual report. It contained the astonishing detailthat 89% of Israelis – including Jews, Arabs, and other minorities – say they are “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with their lives.

This is the case despite the fact that everyone believes that we are on the verge of what promises to be a bloody war with Iran and its proxies, and that despite the vaunted success of the Israeli economy, some 31% of Israelis have trouble “finishing the month” – their income fails to cover their expenses. It is the case despite the high cost of living, especially the cost of housing, and despite the fact that of all 37 OECD countries, Israel has the largest share (19.5%) of her population earning less than 50% of the median income. Most Israelis aren’t rich, many are poor, and the amount of money (public and private) allocated to the social safety net is comparatively small.

But this isn’t a fluke. The 2018 World Happiness Report (WHR) came out in March, and like the last few years Israel was in 11thplace out of 117 countries (the US came in 18th). The ratings are based on survey respondents’ subjective evaluation of how happy they are. 

Israelis prove they are happy in other ways, too. The fertility rate of 3.1 children per woman is by far the highest in the OECD.  The number of Israelis that left the country for a year or more was the lowest since 1990. I’ve often heard that Israelis take out their considerable frustrations on each other when driving, but surprisingly the rate of injuries or deaths per million from road accidents is among the lowest in the developed world.

So what is the explanation?

Obviously, there are some things that are necessary, though not sufficient, for a happy population. Israel has a decent, relatively inexpensive health care system. The educational system is generally acceptable, although not outstanding, based on test resultsUnemployment is low. There is poverty, but not starvation. But none of this stands out among developed nations.

The answer lies in the social structure, the relationships between people and their families, and the individual’s feeling about his or her place in the world. 

The WHR evaluates six factors: per capita GDP, healthy life expectancy, social support, generosity, freedom to make life choices, and perception of corruption. Then it attempts to correlate them to the reported perception of happiness. In some cases (e.g., Singapore and Hong Kong), the correlation between the six factors and reported happiness is high; in others, like Israel and some Latin American countries, there is a larger “residual” component of happiness: in other words, people are happier than one would expect, given their circumstances. Something else explains why people in those countries are happy.

The WHR discusses the special case of Latin America, noting that “…high happiness in Latin America is neither an anomaly nor an oddity. It is explained by the abundance of family warmth and other supportive social relationships” which counterbalance to some extent the negative influence of low income and high rates of crime and corruption. Their data suggests that Latin American cultures emphasize close and long relationships between immediate and extended family members and close friends, while civic and political connections are relatively weak. This is also the case in more traditional Jewish and Arab cultures here in Israel.

But there’s more to it. Despite the perception that Israelis are a rude, pushy bunch, there is actually a large degree of consideration for others in everyday life, especially if someone perceives that another person, even a stranger, is in trouble. Alongside the real phenomenon of Palestinian terrorism, there are also cases of Jews and Arabs helping one another. Possibly there can even be an excess of empathy, as when the government is forced by public pressure to exchange hundreds or a thousand murderous terrorists for one or two hostages.

Rogel Alpher, the post-Zionist Ha’aretz staffer whose specialty seems to be supercilious bleating about how Israel doesn’t live up to his moral standards and atheist sensibility, has argued that the happiness of Israelis comes from their being in engaged in a long-term war. It’s having a common enemy that gives us a warm feeling about our country, he says. 

In addition to this being enormously offensive to victims of terrorism, his argument doesn’t account for the happiness reported by Arab citizens of Israel, which was somewhat less than that of Jews, but still remarkably high. Perhaps some of the Arabs have looked over their shoulders at Gaza and the Palestinian Authority (not to mention Syria) and decided, although they would never admit it, that there could be worse things than living a Jewish state. The fact is that Israel, over all, is a good place to live for Jews, and even for Arabs.

Nevertheless, there’s no doubt that the pressures of the conflict drive us – at least within the Jewish and Arab cultures – closer together, even while it separates the cultures from each other.

Ben Zoma might have said that happiness is closely related to gratitude to Hashem. The bitter post-Zionists like Alpher and his Ha’aretz colleagues practically ooze ingratitude, to Hashem for giving the Jewish people another chance at the Land of Israel, and to those who gave their lives so that we could realize this gift. No wonder they are so unhappy!




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 Ian:

What Palestinians Mean When They Talk about a "Two-State Solution"
To American ears, the meaning of "two states" is straightforward. The struggle between Israel and the Palestinians, to them, is a struggle between two indigenous peoples fighting over the same space of land in which they share a history.

As Shlomo Avineri, Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the Hebrew University, wrote in Ha'aretz, "According to the Palestinians' view, this is not a conflict between two national movements but a conflict between one national movement (the Palestinian) and a colonial and imperialistic entity (Israel). According to this view, Israel will end like all colonial phenomena - it will perish and disappear. Moreover, according to the Palestinian view, the Jews are not a nation but a religious community, and as such not entitled to national self-determination."

From my extensive experience speaking with Palestinians, I have come to learn that the Palestinian version of the two-state solution leaves no room for a Jewish state.

This year, I led an in-depth seminar in Israel trying to understand what Palestinian citizens of Israel want. To almost all Palestinian citizens of Israel I spoke with, a state of the Jewish people is illegitimate in their eyes; Zionism is a colonizing enterprise of Jews stealing Arab land. They view the Jewish historical claim to the land as fictional and Zionism as racism.

Their idea of a fair "two-state solution" is one completely Arab state in the West Bank and one democratic binational State of Israel that allows the right of return for descendants of Palestinian refugees.

They said they would not consider Israel a legitimate democracy until the Jewish star is removed from the flag, Hatikvah is no longer the national anthem, and the right of return for diaspora Jews to Israel is rescinded.

Shift to UNHCR criteria would strip refugee status from millions of Palestinians
At a cabinet meeting in January, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to gradually take over the mandate of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA).

Netanyahu argued that the former, the UN agency charged with aiding refugees fleeing persecution and conflicts around the world, has legitimate criteria for granting refugee status, whereas the latter, the UN body tasked with supporting Palestinian refugees, does not.

He also contended that UNRWA “perpetuates the Palestinian refugee problem.”

Netanyahu’s comments raised the question of how UNHCR and UNRWA differ in their definitions of a refugee, which they use to determine to whom they grant refugee status.

Eight months later, that question is even more resonant after US President Donald Trump’s administration announced that it is completely defunding UNRWA, with a reported goal of shutting it down altogether.
The UN flag at the Fawwar Palestinian refugee camp, southern West Bank, near Hebron, on September 2, 2018. (AFP PHOTO / HAZEM BADER)

Were responsibility for the designation transferred to the UNHCR, millions of Palestinians would lose their refugee status — which is a key factor in the longstanding demand by the Palestinian leadership for refugees to be granted a “right of return” to today’s Israel. How many exactly of the 5.4 million Palestinians registered by UNRWA as refugees would lose that designation under UNHCR? It’s complicated, as we will see.

But based on a comparison of UNRWA’s refugee figures and the assessments of James Lindsay, a former UNRWA legal adviser who has written extensively on the differences between UNHCR and UNRWA, almost all of Jordan’s 2.2 million UNRWA-designated refugees would likely lose their status under UNHCR criteria, as would most of Syria’s 560,000 and just under half of Lebanon’s 521,000. All 2.17 million UNRWA-designated refugees in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem would lose that status were those areas to become parts of a sovereign Palestinian state. This would leave a refugee total of a little over half a million.
Is Jordan Palestine?
For all of his talk about wanting to see a sovereign, independent Palestinian state on the West Bank, that is about the last thing Jordan’s King Abdullah II wants if he expects to keep his job. As my mother would say, he needs it “like a loch im kopf,” and that goes for the latest recycled idea being floated by the Trump administration.

First son-in-law Jared Kushner has been tasked with putting together the “deal of the century” to bring peace to the Israelis and Palestinians – even if neither side has shown any real interest. The Trump plan, according to those who’ve been briefed, notably Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, recycles a short-lived 1972 proposal for a confederation between Jordan and the West Bank. It envisioned no Palestinian state and no peace with Israel.

Israeli officials denied Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was the one who sold the idea to his friend Jared. Netanyahu has long regretted his heavily conditioned 2009 endorsement of the two-state solution in favor of what he calls “state-minus,” a semi-autonomous state with Israeli security control – a proposal no Palestinian leader, present or future, is likely to accept.

Unlike its predecessors, the administration of US President Donald Trump has avoided endorsing the two-state solution, which is opposed by top Jewish Republican donors, Kushner and his team of Orthodox Jewish lawyers and the president’s evangelical Republican base.

Abdullah has personally urged Trump not to rush into reviving peace talks. He knows better than most that neither side is ready to get serious, maybe not even ready to begin talking about beginning. For now, Palestinians can’t make peace with each other, much less with Israel.

US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman privately told a group of American Jewish visitors that regional powers are no longer pushing for revival of peace negotiations. He added that the rollout of the Trump peace plan is “not imminent,” according to The Jerusalem Post.

AddToAny

EoZ Book:"Protocols: Exposing Modern Antisemitism"

Printfriendly

EoZTV Podcast

Podcast URL

Subscribe in podnovaSubscribe with FeedlyAdd to netvibes
addtomyyahoo4Subscribe with SubToMe

search eoz

comments

Speaking

translate

E-Book

For $18 donation








Sample Text

EoZ's Most Popular Posts in recent years

Hasbys!

Elder of Ziyon - حـكـيـم صـهـيـون



This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For 20 years and 40,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.

Donate!

Donate to fight for Israel!

Monthly subscription:
Payment options


One time donation:

Follow EoZ on Twitter!

Interesting Blogs

Blog Archive