Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Thursday, September 13, 2018

Did BDS Just Score Israel Nine Figures? (Divest This!)

When I started blogging about BDS back in the 19th century, I tended to focus on the BDS failures, highlighting how little impact the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions “movement” was having on the exploding Israeli economy, pointing out the triviality of BDS claimed “victories,” and noting how many of their alleged “wins” were actually hoaxes, or the result of bullying or trickery.

Over the years, others have taken up the #BDSFail meme with gusto, while I’ve tended to focus on strategy and tactics for fighting anti-Israel campaigns more generally. But a recent event, one in which BDS might have played a role in sending hundreds of millions of dollars into the Israeli treasury, seemed worth noting as potentially the greatest BDSFail of all time.

By now, most readers are probably aware of PepsiCo’s acquisition of the Israeli company SodaStream for $3.2 billion. This purchase, in and of itself, represents a stunning illustration of how little the business world takes boycott treats and bullying seriously. In addition to being one of the largest M&A deals in Israeli history, the sale also demonstrates how the Israeli economy no longer relies on just high-tech hiding inside other branded devices, but that Israeli brands (in commercial goods, no less) are playing and winning on the world stage.

The fact that the purchaser was Pepsi also demonstrates Israel’s success on other fronts. For during the heyday of the Arab boycott, Pepsi was one of the brands that was willing to sacrifice the small Israeli market for the larger Arab one. But with this purchase of Sodastream, Pepsi has demonstrated that good relations with the Jewish state may be more important than what the nations surrounding Israel say or do.

Given how much effort the BDSers have put into tarring SodaStream’s name over the years, one might think this multi-billion-dollar transaction just represents a monumental example of the boycotters being ignored. But might BDS have actually played a role in creating an environment that facilitated the sale of SodaStream for billions?

To understand this thesis (which I’ll admit is speculative), you must understand the company’s CEO Daniel Birnbaum who, in addition to creating a company that took on the world’s largest beverage manufacturers and won, also worked doggedly to keep Shimon Peres’ notion of a New Middle East – where economic cooperation would supplant political enmity – alive.

When Sodastream was operating its Mishor Adumin factory in disputed territories, Birnbaum insisted that Jewish and Arab workers be paid and treated equally in any factory his company ran. And, lest you think such behavior was just for show, when he and some of his Jewish and Palestinian co-workers visited Israel to celebrate the company’s success and the Palestinians were required to undergo a strip search, Birnbaum insisted he go through one himself in solidarity.

This is the behavior not of a money-grubbing plutocrat, but of someone willing to sacrifice certain business advantages to support a non-economic cause (in this case, the notion that Jews and Arabs can live and work in peace and friendship). And for his efforts, BDSers around the globe insisted that Birnbaum was running a slave labor camp that should be condemned and shunned.

If you, like Birnbaum, are actually altruistic as well as capitalistic, if you’ve made sacrifices – financial and personal – over the years to create a successful, growing company and then used that success to improve the lives of Israelis and Arabs that other Israelis and Arabs say can never be reconciled, how are you supposed to respond to accusations by unproductive cretins like Omar Barghouti that all the good you’ve tried to do amounts to little more than Apartheid?

One thing you can do is to start making decisions based more on economics vs. politics, especially if sacrificing economics to politics has led to nothing but propaganda being directed against the company you built. For example, shutting down the Mishor Adumin and moving operations to a larger facility in the Negev, a move supported by economic subsidies, allowed Sodastream to expand while remaining profitable. And profitable growth is the key factor a suitor is looking at when deciding what premium to pay for an acquisition.

In fact, it was just a few years after this relocation/consolidation took place that Pepsico decided to pay not one, not two, but more than three billion dollars for the company (seven times sales and more than a hundred times profit, based on its 2016 financial numbers). And while Israel does not tax foreign investors when they cash out on a sale like Pepsi’s purchase of Sodastream, Israeli investors do need to include the money they made as part of their taxable income. Which means that tens of millions of the proceeds from the sale of Sodastream will soon find their way into the coffers of the Israeli government.

This is not to say that the behavior of the boycotters played a direct role in Sodastream’s successful sale. As is usually the case in business, product, positioning and profits play more of a role than politics. But if the BDSholes made it easier for the company to stop sacrificing the bottom line for a political cause that was punished, rather than rewarded, then I think every Sodastream shareholder and Israeli tax official owes Omar Barghouti a great big hug.

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

Hating Jews is a big topic of discussion these days. They’re talking about it in the UK, where Jeremy Corbyn can’t understand why so many are making such a big deal about what he sees as merely a principle of his proposed foreign policy. And they are talking about it in the USA, where 21% of American voters said they had at least a “somewhat favorable” impression of Louis Farrakhan (that was in March, and I would be surprised if the percentage wasn’t greater today).

I should note that I’m trying to stop using the word “antisemitism,” a word invented by 19^th century German Jew-hater Wilhelm Marr to make his Judenhass more scientific-sounding. Marr also wanted to express his idea that the problem with Jews was more than just a religious, economic, or national issue: it was biological, racial. Of course this implies that Jewishness cannot be fixed. Even if a Jew got himself baptized, stopped being a money-lender, had German citizenship, or served with distinction in the German army, he was still corrupt and dangerous. We all know where this idea led.

Not using “antisemitism” also has the advantage of forestalling what I’ve called The World’s Stupidest Argument, the one that goes “Arabs can’t be antisemites because they are Semites.” No need to elaborate further on this one.

Jonathan Haidt, in his very illuminating book The Righteous Mind, tells us that the mind is like a rational rider on an emotional elephant. The rider has the ability to use linguistic reasoning to come to conclusions about the best way to proceed, and can nudge the elephant in his chosen direction. But ultimately, the elephant will go where he wants. Haidt argues that in most cases our emotions determine the positions we will take on moral, political, or religious issues, and that we try to justify them after the fact by logical reasoning. This is borne out by a consideration of Jew-hatred, which has had a mind-bendingly long line of pseudo-rational arguments adduced in its favor – everything from our failure to accept the true religion (anything but Judaism), to “racial” characteristics, to the countless Jewish conspiracy theories – but which seems to be at bottom irreducibly irrational.

Jew-hatred is found on all parts of the political spectrum, both right and left, although it is especially fecund at the extremes, where conspiratorial thinking is rife. Jews are seen as weak, cowardly, and corrupt, while at the same time enormously powerful. They are simultaneously held in contempt and feared. The accusation that Jews control the weather, which seems from the outside about as reasonable as the idea that the earth is flat, makes perfect sense to those who live inside the Jew-hating conceptual scheme.

What is most interesting about it is the way it seems to have a life of its own, mutating as societies and cultures change. During the Middle Ages in Europe, the religious aspect, blood libels, and various conspiracy theories about Jewish responsibility for plagues predominated. Later, when the causes of economic cycles proved to be as mysterious as the vector of the Black Plague, the Jews were accused of conspiring to manipulate them. Darwin’s discoveries were pressed into service as support for pseudo-scientific racial Jew-hatred, which enabled it to propagate even in “enlightened” cultures where religion was not an important factor. Jews have been accused of being behind every large-scale catastrophe, from world wars to 9/11.

The Holocaust interfered with the life cycle of the “organism” that is Jew-hatred. Although there were and are many who fully approved of Hitler’s project, and even wish that he had been able to complete it and rid the world of the Jewish menace at last, the sheer horror of the industrial techniques employed by the Nazis had a stunning impact. Certainly the emotional power of Jew-hatred was great, but opposed to it were images of piles of murdered babies, living skeletons, and piles of eyeglasses, hair, and gold teeth taken from humans that had been turned into smoke.

As a result, a strong counter-force against Jew-hatred came into being. In the West, at least, it became taboo to speak explicitly of hating Jews (or indeed any distinct group) or to advocate any kind of discrimination against them, because – well, because everyone knows where that leads. This doesn’t mean that nobody still harbored the old feelings, that Jews were economic parasites, sexual predators, conspirators, and even Christ-killers, but it was considered unacceptable to publically express these thoughts or to act on them.

But as always, the organism began to mutate. If it was no longer possible to express hatred for individuals, hating a country was still allowed (indeed, many governments encouraged hatred of rival countries). And unsurprisingly, one particular country has become the target for a hatred as popular, vicious and irrational as pre-Holocaust century Jew-hatred.

The pathological anti-Zionist, like the Jew-hater, will invent history and current events so as to “establish” that the Jewish state is illegitimate, evil, and should be extirpated from the land, which anti-Zionists believe was stolen from saintly Arabs by conniving, conspiratorial Je— er, Zionists. Like Jew-haters, who could be convinced that Jews committed ritual murder just on someone’s say-so, the Israel-haters have no trouble believing that IDF soldiers deliberately shoot at Arab children for fun, despite a total lack of evidence. The most ridiculous motives and impossible crimes are routinely attributed to Israel’s government and army, and are automatically believed by the legions of obsessive anti-Zionists.

Double standards for legitimacy, conformance to international law, treatment of minorities, and proportionality of actions taken in self-defense, are applied shamelessly by pathological anti-Zionists. Crimes like genocide, apartheid, and ethnic cleansing are falsely attributed to Israel, when these are precisely what would be done to Israel’s Jewish population if the remedies (like the “return” of Arab “refugees”) espoused by the anti-Zionists were adopted. The ideals of human rights and self-determination are strictly upheld for Palestinian Arabs, but ignored for Israel’s Jews. Any behavior is excused if it is called “resistance to occupation,” but Israel is held to the highest possible standards in self-defense.

The truth is that pathological anti-Zionism – as Fred Maroun, an Arab, says – “is a hatred worse than traditional anti-Semitism – it rivals Nazi-level anti-Semitism.”

Maroun argues, and I agree, that the question of whether anti-Zionism is antisemitism is not important. Analytically, they are different things, although very often the same people who fit one description also fit the other. But pathological anti-Zionism is a form of irrational bigotry that is no less evil and reprehensible than Jew-hatred, racism, homophobia, misogyny, or any similar moral aberration.

But it’s only “criticism of Israel,” say those like Jeremy Corbyn, who is as thoroughly suffused with the illness as the Munich terrorists that he honored with a wreath.

No. It’s simple to tell the difference. The easy acceptance of the false accusations, the double standards, the dehumanization of Israelis, and the association with those who express their hatred by acts of terrorism leave little room for error. It’s not criticism. Like old-fashioned Jew-hatred, it resembles demonic possession.

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.

09/13 Links Pt1: Haley: All the Palestinians Have Ever Done Is Ask for Money and Badmouth the U.S.; UNRWA perpetuates the refugee problem; Oslo Accords: 25 years of naivete

From Ian:

Haley: All the Palestinians Have Ever Done Is Ask for Money and Badmouth the U.S.

US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley on Wednesday justified the US State Department’s closure of the Washington mission of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, saying all the Palestinians have ever done is ask for money and badmouth the US.

She also said that Washington is still waiting for them to come to the negotiating table.

“All they’ve done is have their hand out asking for money, badmouth the United States, not come to the table on the peace deal — why would we have a PLO office?” she in an interview with Fox News. “Why would we continue to fund the Palestinians?”

Asked if she thought President Donald Trump’s strong-arm tactics would change the policies of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, who has shunned American officials since Washington recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital in December, she said it was “totally up to the Palestinians.”

Haley said that the US was ready to negotiate a peace deal as soon as Abbas was prepared to join the discussions.

“If the leadership of the Palestinians came to the table, automatically you’re going to have a peace plan. Negotiations are going to happen. Neither side is going to like it,” she said. “But the Palestinians have more to gain than Israel ever will.”

Haley said that the Trump administration was continuing to work on its long-awaited peace plan, even though Abbas has washed his hands of it.

CAMERA Op-Ed The Inconvenient Truth About Mahmoud Abbas and Palestinian Terrorism

Mahmoud Abbas, the head of the Palestinian Authority (PA), the entity that rules the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) has been appointed to lead a terrorist organization. Although the press has frequently called Abbas, who also leads the Fatah movement and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), a “moderate” and the PA a “peace partner,” not a single major U.S. news outlet has reported the PA chief’s new job.

According to Palestinian Media Watch (PMW), a non-profit organization that monitors Arab media in the West Bank, eastern Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip, on Aug. 2, 2018 the official newspaper of the PA reported that Abbas was now “the one responsible for the Palestinian National Fund.”

Israel’s defense ministry designated the PNF a terrorist organization in March 2017, noting: “The fund has a crucial role in the financial support for Palestinian terrorist operatives imprisoned in Israel, and it is used as the most significant route for transferring money.”

Times of Israel reporters Judah Ari Gross and Eric Cortellessa have noted that although the PNF “is said to contain billions of dollars from wealthy Arab donors and profits from various investments,” nonetheless “there is little transparency or oversight in the management and use of funds.”

Abbas’s appointment should be newsworthy. As PMW pointed out, the PA president is now in violation of Israel’s Counter Terrorism Law 2016-5776, which stipulates that “one who heads a terrorist organization or manages it or takes part in directing the terror organization in general, directly or indirectly” faces “25 years imprisonment.” In other words, a nominal U.S. ally is now leading a terrorist organization.

IsraellyCool: Re Boot

Columnist Max Boot argues in the Washington Post that the Trump administration’s pro-Israel moves (like closing of the PLO mission in Washington and defunding UNRWA) are big mistakes, opening the door to radicals. One part of his argument is thus:

They also don’t understand that the Palestinian Authority, for all its problems, is vastly preferable to any conceivable alternative. Yes, it is corrupt and undemocratic and, yes, it engages in anti-Israel propaganda. But, far from sponsoring terrorism against Israel, the Palestinian Authority is working closely with Israel to squelch terror. In May, after the U.S. Embassy relocation, thousands of Gaza residents tried to storm the Israeli border fence, resulting in 62 fatalities. There were no such attacks in the West Bank, because the Palestinian Authority worked there to prevent them. By gratuitously insulting and defunding the most moderate Palestinian faction, Trump is opening the door to the radicals. That’s a Rosh Hashanah present Israel could do without

Yet the very same Max Boot had this to say only a couple of years ago, in a post now flushed down the memory hole (thank you Google cache!):

Predictably, Obama is even more scathing when it comes to Israel, which, unlike Saudi Arabia, is a democratic country that respects human rights. It will surprise no one who has followed closely this administration’s foreign policy that Obama blames Prime Minister Netanyahu for the failure to achieve a peace treaty, giving a pass to the leaders of Hamas and the Palestinian Authority who refuse to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state or even to condemn terrorism against Israel. According to Goldberg: “Obama has long believed that Netanyahu could bring about a two-state solution that would protect Israel’s status as a Jewish-majority democracy, but is too fearful and politically paralyzed to do so.” If Obama has stern words for Mahmoud Abbas and the leaders of Hamas — who are the actual obstacles to peace — Goldberg does not record them.

Does Mr Boot really think the PA has changed its tune in just two years?

Jewish Rights to Israel (Part 2):
Israel’s Nation State Law

(part 1 here)

Israel’s system of Basic Laws is kind of weird. There is a saying in Israel that the things that are temporary are the ones that are most permanent and that is how we ended up with Basic Laws rather than a constitution.

The Israeli Declaration of Independence stated that a formal constitution will be formulated and adopted no later than 1 October 1948 but the war that ensued the day after the declaration was made got in the way, one thing led to another and eventually we ended up with Basic Laws - constitutional laws of the State of Israel, intended to be draft chapters of a future constitution and act as a de facto constitution until that time. Basic Laws can only be changed by a supermajority vote in the Knesset (with varying requirements for different Basic Laws and sections). Many of these laws are based on the individual liberties that were outlined in the Israeli Declaration of Independence.

The Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, protecting the freedom and equal rights of Israeli enjoys super-legal status, giving the Supreme Court the authority to disqualify any law contradicting it, as well as protection from Emergency Regulations.

While the status, importance and legitimacy of the Jewish State clearly defined in Israel’s Declaration of Independence (see Part 1), until very recently, there was no law to safeguard the rights of the State of Israel as a Jewish State. In cases of legal questions, Israeli courts could not bring into consideration the importance of protecting the future of the Jewish State because there was no law on which to base such rulings. In order to amend this imbalance, a new Basic Law was passed: Israel - The nation state of the Jewish people.

The new law sparked an uproar, mostly within the Jewish world. The question is, why? Is there something wrong with the law? In order to address these questions, we must first examine the content of the law. It is short and written in very clear language.

The following is the full content of the Basic Law:

1. The State of Israel

a) Israel is the historic homeland of the Jewish people in which the State of Israel was established.

b) The state of Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people, in which it fulfills its natural, religious, and historic right to self-determination.

c) The fulfillment of the right of national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people.

This point defines Israel as the Nation State of the Jewish People in which the Zionist movement, the national movement of the Jewish people that supports the re-establishment of a Jewish homeland in the ancestral land of the Jews, has been fulfilled. By extension, the right of self determination as a nation within the Jewish Nation State is unique to the Jewish People.

Is there anything wrong with these statements? Are they any different from what is written in Israel’s Declaration of Independence which clearly defines Israel as the Jewish State, Jewish rights to the land as those of the indigenous people and the rights of other inhabitants as being the same individual rights as any other Israeli citizen?

2. National symbols of the State of Israel

a) The name of the state is Israel.

b) The flag of the state is white, two blue stripes near the edges, and a blue Star of David in the center.

c) The symbol of the state is the Menorah with seven branches, olive leaves on each side, and the word Israel at the bottom.

d) The national anthem of the state is "Hatikvah"

e) [Further] details concerning the issue of state symbols will be determined by law.

Is there anything wrong with these statements defining that the current symbols of the Jewish State are the legal symbols of the Jewish State?

3. [The] unified and complete [city of] Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.

This a reference to and reinforcement of the Basic Law: Jerusalem, the Capital of Israel (passed in 1980) which defined the status of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and secure its integrity and unity. It determines that Jerusalem is the seat of the President of the State, the Knesset, the Government and the Supreme Court. The law also deals with the status of the holy sites, secures the rights of people of all religions, and states that Jerusalem shall be given special priority in the activities of the authorities of the State so as to further its development in economic and other matters.

4. The Language of the State of Israel

a) Hebrew is the language of the state.

b) The Arabic language has a special status in the state; the regulation of the Arab language in state institutions or when facing them will be regulated by law.

c) This clause does not change the status given to the Arabic language before the basic law was created.

Hebrew is the language of the Jewish State. Is there anything wrong with that?

Up until this law it was customary to make sure, particularly in official documentation and state institutions that Arabic would appear alongside Hebrew. For those who know neither language, English usually appears as well. For convenience many times there are also other languages such as Russian and Amharic. Now the law defines Arabic as having special status, particularly in regard to language in state institutions and instructs not to change (demote) what was customary before the law. This is actually an improvement in status as it makes what was customary but not mandatory, part of the law.

5. The state will be open to Jewish immigration and to the gathering of the exiled.

This is the legal version of the statement in the Declaration of Independence with almost the exact same wording: The State of Israel will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles. Adding this to the Basic Law is a reinforcement of Israel’s Law of Return (passed in 1950).

6. The Diaspora

a) The state will labor to ensure the safety of sons of the Jewish people and its citizens who are in trouble and captivity due to their Jewishness or their citizenship.

b) The state will act to preserve the cultural, historical and religious legacy of the Jewish people among the Jewish diaspora.

This clause defines the relationship of the Jewish State with the Diaspora:

The State of Israel will labor to protect anyone in trouble or in captivity due to their Jewishness or Israeli citizenship – including Jews who are not Israeli, sons of Jews (not necessarily Jewish according to Halacha) and non-Jewish citizens of Israel. This set of values and feeling of responsibility has led the decision-making process of the Jewish State from its inception to this day in regard to rescuing Jews in trouble anywhere in the world as well as paying the same regard and effort to assist all Israelis in trouble, whether they are Jewish or not.

The State will act to preserve Jewish legacy among the Jewish diaspora. This is a paradigm shift from the request in the Declaration of Independence asking diaspora Jews to assist the newly born State of Israel.

7. The state views Jewish settlement as a national value and will labor to encourage and promote its establishment and development.

This clause is the one that certain groups objected to but is it really any different from what is stated in the Declaration of Independence? Or the ideals of the Zionist movement? Or that of any newly founded nation state?

If the clause denied the right of non-Jewish settlement for Israel’s non-Jewish citizens that would certainly be problematic however that is not the case.

8. The Hebrew calendar is the official calendar of the state and alongside it the secular calendar will serve as an official calendar. The usage of the Hebrew calendar and of the secular calendar will be determined by law.

This is the current custom of the country, now made law.

9. National Holidays

a) Independence Day is the official holiday of the state.

b) The Memorial Day for those who fell in the wars of Israel and the Memorial Day for the Holocaust and heroism are official memorial days of the state.

This clause defines Israel’s Independence Day and Memorial Days as National holidays (as opposed to religious holidays). This has ramifications in regard to employer obligations to employees.

10. Saturday and the Jewish Holidays are the official days of rest in the state. Those who are not Jewish have the right to honor their days of rest and their holidays. Details concerning these matters will be determined by law.

Whereas the previous clause deals with national holidays, this deals with religious holidays. In continuation of what appears in Israel’s Declaration of Independence, the law determines that while the official holidays and rest day of the Jewish State are the days noted in the Jewish tradition, non-Jews have the right to honor their holidays and rest day. This can become a little complicated as Muslims, Christians (and people of other faiths) have different holidays and rest days, for example Muslims rest on Friday while Jews on Saturday and Christians on Sunday. Honoring the different holidays and rest days, including making it possible for employees to take vacations and receive full benefits, is already the custom of the land. Now it is reinforced by this law.

11. This Basic Law may not be altered except by a Basic Law that gained the approval of the majority of the Knesset members.

Like other Basic Laws, this law is harder (but not impossible) to overturn or change than regular laws.

Conclusion

Much has been written about Israel’s Nation State Law. Examination of the concerns raised leads one to discover that the objections are not to the actual content of the law but rather questions about what does not appear in the law:

1. “Why does the basic law not mention, as the Declaration of Independence does, equality for all citizens?”

When one understands the Israeli system of Basic Laws and notes the content of the new law, this question becomes moot.

Equality for all citizens is already enshrined in previous Basic Laws, the new law does not overturn or cancel previous laws, it only provides a legal basis upon which it is possible to balance the needs and rights of individual citizens with the needs and rights of Israel as the Jewish Nation State.

In addition, the new law reinforces the rights of minorities within the framework of the Jewish State regarding language and freedom of religion (which also effects freedom of employment).

2. “Why is it necessary to create this law when all these points can be understood from the Declaration of Independence?”

All the points in the law are elements lifted directly from Israel’s Declaration of Independence however a declaration is just that – a declaration, not a law.
Although these points are understood, it is necessary to give the court system laws on which they can base their decisions. Before this new law, there was no legal basis on which the courts could rule when questions regarding symbols of the state, holidays, language etc. arose.

3. What about Israel’s non-Jewish citizens who are objecting to this law?

Israel takes the rights of her non-Jewish citizens very seriously and has done so since the establishment of the State. It is important to examine the concerns raised and address each and every one of them – with the understanding that there are different groups making different objections. Each much be addressed separately and not lumped together as if they were the same people raising the same issues. The Israeli government is in the process of doing exactly this.

Some issues are easier than others to address:

· Some object to Israel as the Jewish Nation State, refusing to recognize Israel as the ancestral homeland of the Jewish People. These are the people who demonstrated in Rabin Square with PLO flags shouting “In blood and with fire we will free Palestine.”

· Others object to the fact that the Nation State Law does not legalize the status of minority groups in Israel. While previous laws define the rights of all individuals, including minorities, there is no law defining the status of minorities as groups. This does not indicate a problem with the existing laws but does suggest that it might be necessary to pass an additional law defining the status of minorities as groups.

· Druze and Bedouin who feel that the law drives a wedge between them and the State of Israel. This is a sentiment that must be taken seriously. Those of the Arab population (such as most Druze and some Bedouin) who have chosen to ally themselves with the Jewish State are people who we do not want to alienate.
Close examination of their objections uncovers that their complaints are not really about the law itself but about what does not appear in the law. A large portion of the objectors in this group used the discussion of the law to raise issues of inequality in day-to-day life Israel that need to be addressed in order to create a better society but do not actually have anything to do with the law or any other laws being broken, rather societal issues and some government bureaucracy that if amended would make it easier for minorities to better integrate in the general population. Others were asking for their minority status as a group to be addressed in law, which as previously stated, is not an indication of a defect in this law but that it is worth considering creating a new law for that purpose.

Finally –

Israel’s Nation State law is the realization of what the founding fathers of the reborn Jewish State detailed in Israel’s Declaration of Independence – the self-determination of an indigenous people returned to sovereignty in our ancestral homeland, the realization of 2000 years of yearning for Zion and a stunning example for all other indigenous peoples around the world.

And yes, there are a lot of people who don’t like that but that’s too bad. We are Zion, home to stay.

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.

A family from Deir al-Balah in Gaza is protesting a UNRWA decision not to allow 45 children from their family to attend UNRWA schools.

UNRWA has been educating the al-Aqra family's children for free since the 1950s, but now does not want to accept them - because they are not descendants of refugees.

The family admits this, because it says that it donated much of the land for the UNRWA camp in the 1950s. Which means that the family always lived in Gaza.

And while UNRWA, prompted from its budget woes, might now have incentive to find ways to cut services to those who never deserved them to begin with, by default UNRWA has always allowed non-refugees to take advantage of its services, because it didn't want to cause a scene.

Here is a fascinating summary of what happened in the West Bank camp of Jalazon from the 1950s through 1968:

The administrative decision to replace the refugees' flimsy tents with more permanent housing and to attach a plot of land to each hut succeeded in turning most of the camps into permanent urban or suburban quarters within a decade. By the 1960s, this process had run its course: The camp-dwellers had built up their plots and become the de facto owners of real estate, which they sold freely on the housing market. The project was so successful that UNRWA rapidly lost control of its own camps, occasionally making feeble but unsuccessful efforts to require residents to seek its permission for the sale of homes. By the end of the 1960s, UNRWA ceased to intervene in sales of houses.

Even in the 1960s, the camp population did not exclusively comprise the original 1948 refugees; there was a continuous stream of new arrivals. Data from a 1968 study of the Jalazon refugee camp, situated north of Ramallah in the West Bank, showed half the camp's households arrived from 1950 onward. Some people moved from outlying camps to ones situated close to a larger city in order to improve their chances of employment, but most of the newcomers, while officially designated as refugees, had never been in a camp. They typically had been living in towns and their circumstances had changed. Some had lost their livelihood, others had grown old and weak or had no one to take care of them. They moved into a camp because there were advantages to be gained: They paid no rent and no municipal taxes and their water supply and sanitation were free. While all designated as refugees had access to UNRWA services, the camp-dwellers were better placed to make proper use of them. Most health clinics, for instance, were located in camps, and their free services were available mainly to the inhabitants. Monthly food rations, which the heads of refugee households had to collect personally, were distributed in camps. From 1955 onward, the plots of land became an added inducement to move into camps. As a result, between 1951 and 1967, the camp population in the West Bank grew by two thirds, from 94,000 to 144,000, while the total West Bank population grew by only 12 percent—from 768,000 in 1951 to 871,000 in 1966.

It is well-known that poor people in the West Bank and Gaza would pretend to be "refugees" in order to gain free services from UNRWA, and UNRWA gave up on its basic responsibility to count and keep track of residents and real refugees, as the camp residents resisted any attempt at a census and the population kept growing by attracting non-refugees.

This is just one more example of how UNRWA abdicated its original mandate to help real refugees and to reintegrate them into the Arab world, and instead it has become a huge welfare operation for Palestinians, whether they ever lived in today's Israel or not.

(h/t Irene)

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

The EU funds illegal school that teaches kids to destroy Israel

From remarks by EU High Representative/Vice-President Federica Mogherini at a plenary session of the European Parliament on the threat of demolition of Khan al-Ahmar and other illegally constructed Bedouin villages:

...The European Union does not and will not give up on a negotiated two-state solution. We will continue our engagement on the ground in support of building a viable Palestinian state, in support of the essential work that UNRWA [United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East] is doing, and in support of projects that keep the perspective of a two-state solution alive. Several Member States are involved in the funding of Khan al-Ahmar, in particular, the Tyre school. Thanks to their engagement, hundreds of Palestinian children have been able to go to school and receive quality education.

Here are a couple of photos of the "tire school."

See the map of "Palestine" painted in the colors of the PLO flag on the school?

It doesn't look like this EU-funded school teaches the kids anything about a two-state solution. The "peace" that these kids are taught - symbolized by the doves - comes from driving out any Jews who want self-determination in the region.

How can Federica Mogherini self-righteously proclaim that the EU is solidly behind the two state solution when she admits that the EU proudly funds schools that teach generations of kids that Israel must be conquered?

(h/t Irene)

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

09/12 Links Pt2: Soviet Antisemitism in a British Guise; Interview with Colonel Richard Kemp; Artist turns Kassam rockets into flowers and mezuzahs

From Ian:

Soviet Antisemitism in a British Guise

Most of all, there was the Soviet practice of wheeling out “citizens of Jewish nationality” to denounce Zionism as a “racist” tool of “imperialism.” In March 1983, the Soviet news agency TASS even published a definition of Zionism drawn up by the state-run “Jewish Anti-Zionist Committee” that read as follows:

“In its essence, Zionism is a concentration of extreme nationalism, chauvinism, and racial intolerance, justification of territorial seizure and annexation, armed adventurism, a cult of political arbitrariness and impunity, demagogy and ideological sabotage, sordid maneuvers and perfidy.”

To my mind, the most obvious question here to Jeremy Corbyn, The Morning Star, and those of a similar pedigree, is this: Is there anything in this Soviet definition of Zionism that you disagree with? Make no mistake, the answer is critically important, because it is exactly this characterization of Zionism that grounded both the USSR’s domestic persecution of its Jewish community, and its international alignment with Arab regimes and terrorist groups.

If the answer is to disagree with this formulation — highly unlikely, given that Corbyn himself was present at dozens of left-wing political gatherings during the 1970s and ’80s where Soviet and Arab antisemitic literature was distributed — then it is a disingenuous one. Because when Corbyn and those in his camp speak and write about the triangle of Jews, Zionism, and Israel, these are the terms in which they think, and have always thought.

That is why Corbyn’s house journal uses terms like “embittered fifth column” to describe their leader’s Jewish opponents — also used by Valery Emelyanov, an official Soviet ideologue, in 1978 to describe the “internal danger” posed by Soviet Jews. It’s why they have no qualms about saying that Jewish leaders opposed to Corbyn have “tasted blood,” despite the associations with the antisemitic blood libel that such a metaphor unleashes; then again, Vladimir Begun, a particularly toxic Soviet antisemite, wrote with great enthusiasm of the “bloodthirstiness” that was inherent in “Zionist gangsterism.”

Given the number of occasions that Corbyn publicly defended the Soviet regime — “The Soviet Union makes far greater nursery provision than this country” (1984), “I do not believe that [the USSR] has ever intended to invade western Europe” (1990) — he was clearly well aware of Moscow’s stance on all the key international matters of the time, as well as its propaganda practices. That doesn’t make him a spy, but it does make him an ideological fellow-traveler. And as The Morning Star has demonstrated by defending Corbyn with an ugly rhetorical assault on British Jews, that Soviet-inspired journey rolls on.

Yisreal Medad: An Exercise in Deconstruction

Deconstruction is a literary term indicating "a critique of the relationship between text and meaning ".

I found this poem, "Everything in Our World Did Not Seem to Fit" by Naomi Shihab Nye here. It is an example of "new Palestinian poetry". Excuse me, "Arab Palestinian poetry". Ms. Nye's family roots are in Sinjil, just down the road from Shiloh where I live.

I realized that here poem is a literal work of deconstruction - of history, of Jewish national identity, of politics and of simple rational logic.

Let's deconstruct that literary work.

Once they started invading us.
Actually, the Arabs invaded Eretz-Yisrael in 638 CE. Moreover, despite the loss of political independence, Jews continued to reside in the Land of Israel, if in small numbers depending on the conditions and crcumstances of the various occupiers.

Taking our houses and trees, drawing lines, pushing us into tiny places.
Throughout the Zionist resettlement enterprise, almost all the land was purchased from its owners.

It wasn’t a bargain or deal or even a real war.
The Arab terror war against Jews in 1920, 1921, 1929, 1936-1939 and the 1947 war was real as were the fedyeen and the PLO's launching in 1964.

Interview with Colonel Richard Kemp

A United Nations report on recent violent clashes along the Israel-Gaza border hasn’t been written yet, but international terrorism expert Richard Kemp already knows it will condemn Israel for defending its borders against armed hordes.

Kemp, a retired British army officer who has watched, and fought against, terrorism around the world for 30 years, will tell an audience in Hamilton Thursday that’s the traditional response of a world community that doesn’t want to face up to terrorism.

In an interview ahead of his appearance, Kemp said the recent attacks on the Gaza border were just the latest phase of ongoing efforts by the terrorist group Hamas to smash the Jewish state.

It’s a campaign built around Hamas’ standard tactic of sprinkling its terrorists among civilians in the hope Israel’s response will result in civilian deaths that can, in turn, spark international outrage against the country.

“By creating a situation of violent disorder, breaking through the fence and attacking Israeli communities Hamas hope to provoke Israel in the hope that Israel’s reaction will result in many of (Hamas’) own people being killed,” he said.

Kemp said the tactic has worked to a degree – even fair-minded citizens around the world who understand a country’s right to defend itself are made uncomfortable by the sight of civilians being shot by Israeli soldiers.

“Even if people are against Israel, most sane people can understand that a country has to respond if it is attacked, if rockets are launched at it or attack tunnels are dug underneath it. Most people can accept that even if they don’t like it,” Kemp said.

“Even if they accept that they can’t understand how a civilized country like Israel can gun down people involved in peaceful demonstrations. We know they’re not peaceful demonstrations, but that is how it’s portrayed.”