Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Friday, December 21, 2018

Kweansmom on Twitter takes down "proud" sabotagers of Birthright

A thread from "kweansmom," a great Tweeter:

12 hours ago, 12 tweets, 5 min read Read on Twitter

You're proud of the young Jews who are bashing Birthright, the organization which your family personally benefited from for years? Wow, what an ingrate. #BiteTheHandThatFeedsYou.
(This may be a long thread.)

Barat Ellman@BaratEllman

I am so proud of these young Jews for their courage, integrity, and ingenuity. What a brilliant idea.

IfNotNow@IfNotNowOrg

3:47

NowThisVerified account @nowthisnews

These young Jewish people are talking to Birthright participants before they travel to Israel to make sure they know the full truth about the trip 

12:09 AM - 20 Dec 2018

39

12:37 PM - Dec 20, 2018

Twitter Ads info and privacy

30 people are talking about this

Twitter Ads info and privacy

Your husband, Jay Golan was named CEO and President of Birthright Israel Foundation in 2005 and he remained in that position until 2012, meaning that for about seven years your family enjoyed his salary, paid for by the government of Israel and benefactors such as Sheldon Adelson

Jay's successor's salary was about $500K, according to @jdforward (Thank you, Forward, for digging into the financials of Jewish institutions!). I imagine your husband was also well-compensated. Did he "return the birthright"? Or did it help pay for Sophie's college tuition?

Sheldon Adelson has donated tens of millions, if not billions of dollars to Birthright over the years. Yet Sophie derides him as having a "twisted vision" of Jewish safety. And you posted an article comparing him to Farrakhan. Did you return his "despicable" money?

Yes, your husband spent years helping to raise money for a program which strengthens Jewish youth's connection to Israel. In 2007, he described how participants meet Israeli Arabs and Bedouin "to learn about Israel's cultural complexity." IfNotNow lies.

For Young Jews, a Chance to Reconnect With FaithAbout 145,000 young Jews from 52 countries have traveled to Israel as part of a program meant to strengthen meaningful religious connections.https://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/08/nyregion/08birthright.html

More recently, your daughter Sophie participated in Birthright Israel herself, in June of 2014. She had a great time, by the looks of it. Now she says "Israel is wrong" and shouldn't be defended.

Yes, Sophie Ellman-Golan, media person for Women's March and staunch ally of anti-Israel activist Linda Sarsour, was a Birthright participant. She didn't walk out. She didn't protest. She rode donkeys and camels, went swimming, and danced at the kotel. And befriended IDF soldiers

A few weeks after her trip ended, the three Israeli teenagers were kidnapped. She reached out to the soldiers who had been on her trip, saying she was thinking of them and hoping they were safe. I guess she used to think Israel was worth defending.

These are the soldiers tagged in that post.

Looks like she had fun sharing Sheldon Adelson's "twisted vision" of the Jewish future.

She even turned to her fellow Birthright participants, those terribly misguided and brainwashed tools of the evil Israeli government, to join her social activism.

So, in summary, you and your family happily benefited from the generosity of the Israeli government, wealthy Jewish donors, and "the Jewish establishment", and now you shit all over them. Well done, rabbi. I hope you're proud of that, too. (rant over)

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.

12/21 Links Pt1: Glick: Trump pushes past Obamas legacies; Mattis and Israel – Not a Love Story; Cruz introduces bill to impose sanctions on Palestinian officials for rewarding terrorism

From Ian:

Caroline Glick: Trump pushes past Obamas legacies

On its face, President Donald Trump’s announcement that he is pulling US forces out of Syria seems like an unfriendly act towards Israel. But it isn’t. Trump’s decision to pull US forces out of Syria is of a piece with outgoing US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley’s address on Tuesday to the UN Security Council regarding the Palestinian conflict with Israel. Both statements reflect the depths of the administration’s friendship and support for the State of Israel.

In Haley’s speech at the Security Council’s monthly meeting concerning the Palestinians’ conflict with Israel she decried the “UN’s obsession with Israel.”

Haley noted that the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians has failed for 50 years. And she said that it is time to try something new. She enjoined her “Arab and European brothers and sisters” to move beyond the “failed talking points” that formed the basis of the failed peace plans of the past half century.

Haley’s address intuited a key point that has never been raised by a senior US official. The “peace process” which has been ongoing between Israel and the PLO since 1993 is antithetical to actual peace.

Consequently, any effort to achieve actual peace between Israel and the Palestinians requires the abandonment of the “peace process.”

Haley made this clear by acknowledging that Israel has far less to gain and much more to lose from the peace process than the Palestinians do.

In her words, “Israel wants a peace agreement, but it doesn’t need one.”

“Both sides would benefit tremendously from a peace agreement. But the Palestinians would benefit more and the Israelis would risk more,” Haley said.

She added that if efforts to achieve peace were to fail, “Israel would continue to grow and prosper.”

The Palestinians on the other hand, “would continue to suffer.”

Haley’s insight puts paid the popular claim that Israel’s survival depends on the establishment of a Palestinian state in Judea, Samaria, Gaza and northern, eastern and southern Jerusalem. For years, pro-Palestinian forces have insisted that their demand that Israel surrender its capital and its heartland to the PLO is actually a pro-Israel position. Indeed, they say, anyone who rejects it is anti-Israel.

Caroline Glick: Pros and Cons of the U.S. Pullout from Syria

One of the consequences of the U.S. pullout from Syria is that Trump will finally abandon Obama’s pro-Iranian policy in Syria. True, he isn’t replacing it with an anti-Iranian policy in Syria. But all the same, by abandoning a pro-Iranian policy in Syria, the move will lend some coherence to the U.S.’s overall strategy for countering Iran’s growing power and influence in the region and worldwide.

Israel’s Hadashot news channel reported on Wednesday that along with Trump’s decision to remove U.S. forces from Syria, U.S. officials told Israel that if Hezbollah gains a more powerful position in the next Lebanese government, the U.S. will end its support for the LAF and agree to Israel’s request that it place an economic embargo on the Lebanese government.

Hezbollah announced its intention to take control over Lebanon’s health ministry shortly after the elections in May. The ministry has one of the largest budgets and plenty of disposable cash. The U.S. had already warned Lebanese President Michel Aoun that it would end its support for Lebanon if Hezbollah receives the health ministry.

On Thursday, it was reported that Hezbollah loyalist Jamil Jabak will serve as Lebanese health minister in the next government. If the U.S. follows through on its promise to end its support for Lebanon as a result, then the Trump administration will entirely abandon Obama’s pro-Iranian policy in the Middle East.

From Israel’s perspective, continued U.S. support for the Hezbollah-controlled Lebanese government and military has been a major concern. In 2006, due the Bush administration’s support for the Lebanese government, then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice prohibited Israel from targeting Lebanese infrastructures and other resources critical to Hezbollah’s war effort. If the U.S. is true to its word and aligns its policy towards Lebanon with Israel, the move will vastly expand Israel’s ability to decisively defeat Hezbollah, Iran’s proxy army in Lebanon, in the next war.

Commenting Thursday morning about Trump’s announcement, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said, “We will continue to act in Syria to prevent Iran’s effort to militarily entrench itself against us. We are not reducing our efforts, we will increase our efforts.”

Netanyahu added, “I know that we do so with the full support and backing of the U.S.”

Time will tell whether Trump’s decision to remove U.S. forces from Syria was a prelude to disaster for U.S. allies and a boon for America’s enemies, or whether the opposite is the case. But what is clear enough is that move is not entirely negative.

If You Like the Peace Process, Please Don’t Read Polls of Palestinians

There is one thing that Palestine obsessives never seem obsessed with: the opinions of Palestinians. There's no mystery here—asking what Palestinians believe exposes a fundamental problem with the liberal approach to the peace process, which is based on the belief that Palestinians are willing to live peacefully beside Israel.

If such a mentality prevailed, it would be easily revealed through polling. The Ramallah-based Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research conducts a quarterly poll of Palestinians that is largely focused on internal political questions but also surveys views toward Israel and peace. That one never reads media coverage of this poll suggests that its findings are reliably inconvenient. The latest poll is out. What does it say?

If a new presidential election was held today between the current president, Fatah's Mahmoud Abbas, and the leader of the terrorist group Hamas, Ismail Haniyeh, Hamas would beat Fatah 49 percent to 42 percent.

88 per cent said that Palestinians who sell property to Jews are traitors. 64 percent said the punishment for selling property to Jews should be the death penalty.

Palestinians oppose the concept of a two-state solution, 55 percent to 43 percent.

"A large minority of 44 percent thinks that armed struggle is the most effective means of establishing a Palestinian state next to the state of Israel while 28 percent believe that negotiation is the most effective means and 23 percent think non-violent resistance is the most effective."

In lieu of negotiations, "54 percent support a return to an armed intifada," i.e. terrorism.

50 percent of Palestinians reject in principle the holding of negotiations in order to resolve the conflict.

There exists an entire class of people in Washington and other western capitals who have devoted their careers to promoting Palestinian statehood, a quest now entering its fourth fruitless decade. Such people—many with good intentions—regularly explore every aspect of this issue in excruciating detail, every aspect except the one that matters the most: Palestinian public opinion.

Has UNIFIL Forgotten What Its Mandate Is? (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

On Thursday, UNIFIL spokesperson Andrea Tenenti was interviewed on an i24NEWS program called The Rundown. At one point, starting at 3:33 and extending to 4:40, Tenenti described just what UNIFIL's mandate is:So, according to Tenenti:

o UNIFIL's job is limited to monitoringo UNIFIL has no mandate to disarm Hezbollaho UNIFIL is not allowed to search private property

UNIFIL spokesperson Andrea Tenenti. Video screengrab

At first glance, Tenenti seems to be right.In 2006, when UNIFIL took on its new mandate, the commander in charge of UNIFIL,Major-GeneralAlain Pellegrini set the limits on UNIFIL's mandate:

Pellegrini made it clear, however, that UNIFIL's mission, even with the new rules of engagement, does not include disarming Hezbollah. "It's not my job," hesaid. UNIFIL's role, he said, is to assist the Lebanese army in guaranteeing state authority over all Lebanese territory.

That was on September 3.Three weeks later, Pellegrini gave an exclusive interview to The Jerusalem Post:

In his first interview to an Israeli paper since the war in Lebanon, Pellegrini revealed that last week a Syrian weapons convoy on its way to Hizbullah was intercepted by the Lebanese army near the Lebanese-Syrian border. While the new rules of engagement set by the UN allowed the new UNIFIL force to open fire in order to implement resolution 1701, Pellegrini said he would not automatically order his troops to open fire on Hizbullah guerrillas if they werespotted on their way to the Blue Line to attack Israel. The job of the new multinational force, he said, was to assist the Lebanese army and not to disarm or engage Hizbullah or even to prevent its attacks.

Pellegrini's admission that UNIFIL is allowed to use force to implement Resolution 1701 contradicts Tenenti's claim that UNIFIL's role is just to monitor. That Pellegrini goes on to turn around and then claim that their role is to assist the Lebanese army and not to disarm, engage or prevent attacks is puzzling.It also contradicts the text of Resolution 1701, which:

authorizes UNIFIL to take all necessary action in areas of deployment of its
forces and as it deems within its capabilities, to ensure that its area of operations is not utilized for hostile activities of any kind, to resist attempts by forceful means to prevent it from discharging its duties under the mandate of the Security Council, and to protect United Nations personnel, facilities, installations and equipment, ensure the security and freedom of movement of United Nations personnel, humanitarian workers and, without prejudice to the responsibility of the Government of Lebanon, to protect civilians under imminent threat of physical violence;

Again, this assigns to UNIFIL more than just a monitoring role.Now, what about a mandate to disarm Hezbollah?Back to the text of Resolution 1701, which:

Requests the Secretary-General to develop, in liaison with relevant international actors and the concerned parties, proposals to implement the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords, and resolutions 1559 (2004) and 1680 (2006), including disarmament...

Who are the relevant "international actors" who are supposed to implement disarmament?Former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan appears not to havegotten the memo -

Annan angered Israeli officials when he told Channel 2 on Tuesday that "dismantling Hizbullah is not the direct mandate of the UN," which could only help Lebanon disarm the organization.

Resolution 1701 implies an orchestrated effort; the only proposal that Annan seems to have developed was to keep the UN as far away as possible. But if UNIFIL is supposed "to ensure that its area of operations is not utilized for hostile activities of any kind," how is it supposed to maintain that kind of control without having the authority to disarm Hezbollah at some level?The last point Tenenti makes is that UNIFIL has no authority to search private property.But according to the Reportof the Secretary-General on the implementation of Security Council resolution 1701, that is not exactly accurate either:

In accordance with its mandate, UNIFIL does not proactively search for weapons in the south. UNIFIL cannot enter or search private property unless there is credible evidence of a violation of the resolution, including an imminent threat of hostile activity from that location. In situations in which specific information is received regarding the illegal presence of armed personnel, weapons or infrastructure inside its area of operations, UNIFIL, in cooperation with the Lebanese Armed Forces, has remained determined to act with all means available within its mandate and capabilities.

Again, instead of maintaining just a monitoring mode, UNIFIL does have a mandateto search homes when there is evidence of violations. More than that, the text clearly states that when the illegal presence of weapons is detected, UNIFIL notonly has the authority to search but also to act "with all means available" -- meaning that it can disarm.There is, in fact, a documented caseof UNIFIL doing a search of private homes in 2010, using sniffer dogs and resulting in villagers retaliating by grabbing the weapons of a UNIFIL patrol, throwing stones at them and blocking the road.In this case, it was UNIFIL that was disarmed.The bottom line is that clearly, the role of UNIFIL was not intended to be as
passive as Tenenti claims, limited to monitoring.

o UNIFIL is allowed to use forceo The issue of disarming Hezbollah is a hot potato everyone is trying to avoid, but there is no clear indication that UNIFIL cannot disarm Hezbollah in specific circumstances "to prevent hostile activities"o UNIFIL is allowed to do searches when there is evidence of a violation

The fact that Hezbollah was able to dig multiple tunnels into Israel is just onemore reminder of UNIFIL's failure to do its job.

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.

Academic fraud of the day defends Alice Walker: "Some of her best friends are Jewish" @myHNN

At History News Network, professor of social studies and history at NYU Robert Cohen states flatly that Alice Walker is not an antisemite:

Whatever the merits of Walker’s reading of Icke, her life history has been one in which she has consistently and eloquently battled bigotry since her teenage college years at Spelman College where she was active in the Atlanta movement against racial discrimination and the Jim Crow system. As one who has studied Walker’s history of political activism, I find no trace of anti-Semitism, but instead find a humane identification with the oppressed, including Palestinians, and a dedication to battling war, poverty, and hatred.

... I know this because this year I published a book on Howard Zinn, Spelman, and the Atlanta student movement, Howard Zinn’s Southern Diary: Sit-Ins, Civil Rights, and Black Women’s Student Activism, and Walker wrote a foreword to it that described in moving terms how her and her family’s love of education and reverence for teachers, along with her passion for freedom, and justice, motivated her to stand up for her beloved [Jewish] teacher.

Wow. Just wow.

A supposed scholar who has spent a great deal of time studying Walker not only brushes off her defense of David Icke, chooses not to mention Walker's antisemitic poem, on her website today, about Jews and the Talmud, based on her meticulous research of watching YouTube videos.

Walker says that for centuries Jews have been taught by their rabbis that they should enslave "goyim." Walker says that Jewish rabbis have taught generations of students that Jesus is burning in hell because he stood up for the poor. Walker claims that Jews are taught from birth to kill "goyim" (which she helpfully defines as "us," since Jews are clearly The Other.)

This isn't "support for Palestinian rights." This is Nazi-level Jew-hatred, Protocols of the Elders of Zion-level filth, far worse than what I see in the worst of Arabic media.

To excuse this hate and these lies is to be complicit in them.

Walker's poem should exclude her from any respectable circles. Full stop. Anyone who disagrees because of the good work she has done is enabling antisemitism in academia and intellectual circles. It is beyond immoral - it is dangerous.

The most charitable thing one can say about Cohen is that he is unaware of Walker's antisemitism in her poem and her earlier books (where she says that Israeli Jews have used the dictum, that "might even be enshrined in the Torah," that possession is nine tenths of the law.) If that is so, he is not a scholar - he is a hack and a fraud.

The least charitable thing you can say is that Cohen is aware of Walker's antisemitism (as he is clearly aware of her full throated support for Icke's Jew-hatred) and that he consciously decided to defend her anyway.

Either way, if he doesn't pull this article, he has been proven to have no intellectual honesty.

This is twice in one week that History News Network has published ridiculous defenses of antisemites. In the previous article, Jews who felt that someone who accuses Jews of poisoning Palestinian wells of antisemitism are the real racists.

HNN needs to employ some fact checkers, because what used to be a good and useful site is in danger of being subverted by "academics" whose goals are anything but the truth.

(h/t Phil)

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.

Every week since they started on March 30, the weekly Gaza protests (usually riots) have had a different theme.

Today's theme is "loyalty to the heroes of resistance in the West Bank."

The statement issued along with the announcement said "The Palestinian people have the right to resist the occupation in all forms guaranteed by international laws" - a patently false statement - and it called for "an escalation of the resistance to the Israeli offensive on the West Bank."

Meaning that they are urging West Bank Arabs to shoot more pregnant women and stab more children and any other Jews they can find in Judea and Samaria.

Ironically, all the recent attacks occurred in drive-by shootings, on the very roads that Israel haters keep claiming are "for Jews only."

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.

12/20 Links Pt2: U.S. Companies Need Relief from BDS Pressure; Sanders, Feinstein Urge Opposition to Anti-BDS Bill; Sodastream to open factory in Gaza

From Ian:

U.S. Companies Need Relief from BDS Pressure

The 1977 Export Administration Act, which I helped author at President Jimmy Carter's direction, prohibits American companies and individuals from participating in unsanctioned boycotts against U.S. allies, including Israel. For four decades, the law has been upheld by the courts.

Recently, U.S. companies have been facing the aggressive politics of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which is working against Israel through international governmental organizations (IGOs).

For three years, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), operating under a mandate from the UN Human Rights Council, has been working to create a database of companies that conduct business beyond the "green line," including east Jerusalem and the Jewish Quarter of the Old City. Companies that appear on such a list may be subject to new, unsanctioned boycotts.

In response, bipartisan legislation is pending to address this new challenge, the Israel Anti-Boycott Act (IABA). The IABA is carefully crafted to update the 1977 legislation by extending the prohibition against complying with boycotts to cover boycott-related activities by IGOs like the UN or the EU.

Some have raised free speech objections to the new legislation. However, like the 1977 legislation, the IABA exclusively targets commercial conduct only, not political speech or activities. U.S. courts have consistently ruled that regulating these commercial activities does not violate the First Amendment.

All the IABA does is follow the constitutional authority that underpinned the 1977 legislation by prohibiting U.S. individuals and companies from providing requested information to an IGO to assist in its efforts to further a boycott against a country friendly to the U.S. The IABA protects American companies from being pressured by IGOs.

Sanders, Feinstein Urge Opposition to Anti-BDS Bill

Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) urged Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) to not include the Israel Anti-Boycott Act into an upcoming spending bill.

Sanders and Feinstein argued in a letter that they are against the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, but the Israel Anti-Boycott Act is at odds with the First Amendment.

“Federal district courts in Kansas and Arizona have similarly considered state laws that target political boycotts of Israel and found them to violate the First Amendment,” Sanders and Feinstein wrote. “For example, in Jordahl vs. Brnovich, the court held in granting a preliminary injunction, ‘The type of collective action targeted by the [law] specifically implicates the rights of assembly that Americans and Arizonans use ‘to bring about political, social, and economic charge.’”

The senators also criticized the bill for cracking down on “certain constitutionally-protected political activity aimed solely at Israeli settlements in the West Bank.”

“At a time when the [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu government is pursuing policies clearly aimed at foreclosing the two-state solution, it is deeply disappointing that Congress would consider penalizing criticism of those policies,” Sanders and Feinstein wrote.

Brooke Goldstein, executive director of the Lawfare Project, told the Journal in an emailed statement that Sanders and Feinstein are “mistaken” about the bill violating the First Amendment.

Chloe Valdary: Why Zionism Is Not Like Pan-Africanism and White Nationalism

In a piece titled “Zionism, Pan-Africanism, and White Nationalism,” author Shaul Magid argues that because Zionism was a “lodestar for other minority attempts to solve the problem of the limits of ethnic self-determination,” it is, therefore a racialized movement that can offer freedom but never equality.

There are several problems with his analysis, which I will attempt to explain in full below.

Magid correctly points out how Zionism was a model for the beleaguered African-American community, beginning with Pan-Africanist Edward Blyden’s feeling of inspiration after reading Theodore Herzl’s Der Judenstaadt. The twin messages of self-empowerment and chosenness proved especially compelling to a people constantly told by the dominant society that they were less than nothing and attracted black leaders from W.E.B. Dubois and Marcus Garvey to Stokley Carmichael.

But in many ways, this is where the similarities end. Although a message of self-actualization and unique destiny are part of the Zionist creed, there are other ideas within statist Zionism that make it incompatible with the notions of racial purity contained in Marcus Garvey and Louis Farrakhan’s Black Nationalism.

For starters, while Zionism concerns itself with a particular ethnic group, it does not concern itself with a particular race insofar as race connotes skin color. And this speaks to the inherent contradictions within the very concept of black nationalism. On the one hand, a call for black nationalism via a separatist movement would naturally be attractive to a people persecuted by the dominant society. On the other hand, the black experience is, ironically and paradoxically, an American creation. The shared history, culture, and collective experience of black Americans is one that is bounded by and fixed within an American construct. In this way, black American culture cannot be separated from its American roots, and calls for black nationalism are rooted in an unsolvable contradiction.

The problem isn't the NYT or David Icke - it is Alice Walker herself

I have criticized Alice Walker in the past for her adoration of David Icke as well as for the borderline antisemitism in one of her books:

But until the Tablet coverage of New York Times interview where she idolizes Icke I had no idea that last year she had written a completely sickening anti-Jewish "poem" that sounds exactly like neo-Nazi propaganda.

Here's the crux of what she "learned" about Jews and the Talmud

Is Jesus boiling eternally in hot excrement,

For his “crime” of throwing the bankers

Out of the Temple? For loving, standing with,

And defending

The poor? Was his mother, Mary,

A whore?

Are Goyim (us) meant to be slaves of Jews, and not only

That, but to enjoy it?

Are three year old (and a day) girls eligible for marriage and intercourse?

Are young boys fair game for rape?

Must even the best of the Goyim (us, again) be killed?

Pause a moment and think what this could mean

Or already has meant

In our own lifetime.

You may find that as the cattle

We have begun to feel we are

We have an ancient history of oppression

Of which most of us have not been even vaguely

Aware. You will find that we, Goyim, sub-humans, animals

-The Palestinians of Gaza

The most obvious representatives of us

At the present time – are a cruel example of what may be done

With impunity, and without conscience,

By a Chosen people,

To the vast majority of the people

On the planet

Who were not Chosen.

Not chosen to receive the same dubious

“Blessing” of

Supremacy over the Earth,

Humans, and Beasts of this realm. As is

Stated plainly in the first chapter

Of the Bible we all read.

The Unchosen who, until now,

Were too scared of being

Called names

To demand to know why.

Why, a year after she published this, does she still command any respect whatsoever?

Not nearly as sickening, but very telling, is how Walker claims she learned all this stuff. Google was too objective, and she decided that YouTube neo-Nazi channels is the best way to learn about Jews and the Talmud:

She is proud that she uses Nazi-sourced videos as her research source material, and she encourages her fans to do the same, and she is convinced that by watching so much hate that contradicts itself, she can determine which is real and which is false!

Notice that she doesn't even think about asking a rabbi or scholar anything about the Talmud - people who would return her call in an instant. Why is that?

Because she thinks that all Jews would lie about the Talmud - and she trusts the Nazis to be more accurate!

This is beyond vile. This is stuff that should make her works unacceptable, period. I don't care how wonderful The Color Purple is - it should be tainted forever by someone who is clearly so filled with hate.

She should not be given a pass.

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

Caroline Glick is famous for viewing developments with alarm. But this time there is no doubt that her worries are justified.

If Jeremy Corbyn is elected British Prime Minister, it will not only be bad for the Jews of Britain, it will be very bad for Israel. While not the military and economic powerhouse it was in Queen Victoria’s day, Britain still has enormous influence in the world, including a veto in the Security Council. As Glick notes, it is Israel’s biggest European trading partner, including as a supplier of arms and components for American weapons systems. It has nuclear weapons, and the Royal Navy is still not to be sneezed at.

Corbyn has called for a boycott of Israel, accused her of war crimes, and promised to recognize a state of “Palestine” as soon as he takes office. He has laid wreaths at the graves of terrorists (and denied it) as well as expressing sympathy for Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah.

And Corbyn might make it. Theresa May’s government is hanging by a thread, and she has said that she will not stand for reelection in 2022, the latest possible date for elections. There are serious divisions in the Conservative Party over Brexit and other issues. Recent polling shows the parties within a percent or two. One juicy crisis could precipitate elections at any time.

Glick only discussed Corbyn. But the UK is not the only place that could experience a change in government for the worse, from an Israeli point of view.

Across the pond, the Trump Administration has so far proved itself one of the best allies of Israel in recent times. Trump, Pence, Bolton, and Pompeo are squarely in our corner. But support for Israel has become a partisan issue in recent years. While a large majority of Americans say they support Israel, only 49% of Democrats sympathize with her more than with the Palestinians. And the left wing of the Democratic Party, which is much more anti-Israel, has grown stronger lately, with several outspoken opponents of Israel elected to Congress.

The last presidential election was very close, with Donald Trump squeaking by a lackluster opponent, Hillary Clinton. Trump is currently being assailed with accusations of criminal behavior, which – even if they can’t be made to stick – make it difficult for him to expand support beyond his loyal base. It is certainly possible that he will choose not to run again in 2020, or that he will be defeated. Even if he is reelected, he will be gone after 2024. The chance that the next administration will exemplify the values of the left wing – the Obama wing – of the Democratic party is significant.

President Obama already abstained on a Security Council resolution condemning Israel. It is not a stretch to imagine a future Democratic president of like mind voting to sanction Israel for acts of self-defense, or acting against her in wartime. You may remember John Kerry’s acceptance of Hamas’ narrative of during the 2014 Gaza war, the administration’s holding up a shipment of Hellfire missiles during the war, or the unnecessary FAA ban on flights to Israel’s international airport, which some observers attribute to a quiet order from the administration.

The US and Britain are considered Israel’s allies today, although there can be friction or differences of opinion. Vladimir Putin is in a different category. Putin’s Russia is not exactly an ally, but has cooperated with Israel to an unprecedented degree. Without speculating about the reasons for Putin’s attitude, it’s well known that there are highly anti-Zionist and antisemitic circles in Russia, and her policy toward Israel would most likely be considerably worse without Putin in the driver’s seat.

But Vladimir Putin is only human, and humans can die or be overthrown. They certainly get old and tired at some point. Putin is 66, and he will not be in power forever.

All this leads me to speculate about a reasonably probable scenario within the next four years or so, in which Jeremy Corbyn is Prime Minister of the UK, a left-wing Democrat is President of the US, and perhaps even a more “traditional” (i.e., anti-Israel) Russian leader sits in the Kremlin. What would Israel’s situation look like?

We could expect that Corbyn would encourage economic and other boycotts of Israel, which – unlike today’s impotent BDS movement – could have damaging effects on our economy. At the same time, he would provide both concrete aid to our enemies as well as diplomatic support in the UN. In the event of war, he would call for disadvantageous cease-fires or settlements that would erase Israel’s battlefield gains. Even military intervention is imaginable, given the fanatical anti-Zionism of many of his supporters and associates.

The US administration would no longer be a reliable veto for anti-Israel resolutions in the Security Council. That means that – with the support of Corbyn’s Britain – the Security Council could apply economic or even military sanctions against Israel in order to force her to make concessions to her enemies.

One would expect such an administration to follow the precedent of the Obama Administration in intervening in Israel’s domestic affairs, preventing her from building in the territories, forcing her to release terrorist prisoners, and in case of war, using its leverage as arms supplier to prevent a clear-cut Israeli victory. An unfriendly administration could leak information about Israeli plans and operations to her enemies and the media – as the US did in connection with Israeli raids against Iranian arms shipments in Syria. It could prevent Israel from carrying out preventative strikes, as Obama did in 2012 when PM Netanyahu and then-Defense Minister Barak wanted to bomb the Iranian nuclear project.

Russia, from her base in Syria, could effectively choke off Israeli air operations with her advanced air defense systems that cover almost all of the area of Israel. She could spread her protective umbrella over Iranian forces in Syria. She could even intervene militarily in a war between Israel and Iran, or Iranian proxies.

This is truly a nightmare scenario, with three nations that today are at worst pragmatic players (Russia) and at best (the US) supportive allies of the Jewish state, becoming hostile to her in a short space of time. In particular, even if this scenario is only partially realized, Israel will face great difficulties if she finds herself at war. And today it is hard to imagine that the conflict between Israel and Iran – the “head of the snake” that animates her multifarious enemies – will be resolved without military conflict.

Israel’s leaders must realize that today we are living in a temporary strategic paradise, which can end at any time. If Theresa May, Donald Trump, or Vladimir Putin (or worse, all three) should be supplanted by their likely replacements, our freedom of action – diplomatic, economic, and military – would be severely circumscribed.

There are two conclusions that can be drawn from this. One is that we must prepare for the possibility by reducing our dependence on the US and the UK. That’s worth doing in any event.

The second is that we should act within the short time frame available to fundamentally transform our strategic situation. At the very least, that means ending the threat from Iran herself and her proxies by preemptive military action.

We’ve already wasted two years. It’s time to act.

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

12/20 Links Pt1: Bibi Was Right; Fatah official: Killing 3 innocent Israelis "is a great thing,"; PMW: Israelis are “blood suckers,” says mother of 6 terrorists who murdered at least 10

From Ian:

Ben Judah: Bibi Was Right

The arc of history was not supposed to look like this, I thought, as I followed Matteo Salvini, the most powerful man in Italy, through the Mahane Yehuda market in Jerusalem. Another day, another world leader was in Israel to meet Benjamin Netanyahu, known to most here simply as “Bibi.” And just like Donald Trump, Narendra Modi, Rodrigo Duterte, and Jair Bolsonaro before him, Italy’s populist interior minister was not coming to scold the Israeli prime minister. Here was another strongman both happy to be in Jerusalem and ready to work with Bibi.

That night, as Salvini relaxed on his market walkabout and shared a beer with his Israeli handlers, he smiled for the cameras in order to show how safe he felt in the hands of such an expert counterterror force. “I love the people,” he said, telling me how much he was looking forward to working with Bibi. I felt a crushing weight on my shoulders: the feeling of having been wrong.

Without a resolution to the Palestinian question, the arc of history was supposed to have bent toward consigning Israel to pariah status—not this. The U.S. embassy has transferred to Jerusalem. A slew of other nations have moved to support some or all of Israel’s claims to the city, including Guatemala, Brazil, the Czech Republic, and even Australia. Meanwhile, the threat of a common anti-Israel European foreign policy, sanctions and all, has imploded so utterly that Bibi can snub Federica Mogherini, the bloc’s foreign envoy, as though she were an irritating pro-Iranian NGO chief—then play the lavish host to Viktor Orbán, the Hungarian strongman.

And there is more: the love-in with India; senior Chinese officials flying in; not-so-secret talks, and even coordination, with Saudi Arabia; photo ops with the sultan of Oman; regular audiences with Vladimir Putin. And all with not even a hint of the peace process or pressure over settlements. Israel, it seems, is paying no price for its treatment of the Palestinians.

In Ramallah, too, pessimism is the order of the day. There is a deep sense of abandonment. Nasser al-Qudwa, a senior Fatah official and a nephew of Yasser Arafat, dejectedly told me he feared that the populist, anti-Arab “transformation” of the West had only just begun. “There has been an unexpected rise of Christian Zionism in countries like Brazil,” he lamented. “America succeeded in persuading Saudi Arabia,” he added, “that Israel and the United States can protect them from Iran.”

Salvini met with nobody from the Palestinian Authority.

Watching Salvini’s press conference, I felt forced to admit that Bibi was right and I was wrong about the shape of the 2010s. My theory of history had failed me. Back when Bibi was elected in 2009, I believed fervently that Obama was on the right side of history—and that Netanyahu, and Israel, were destined to suffer for their failure to reach a just settlement with the Palestinians.

I was convinced that Obama and yet more Obama was the future of Western politics; that demographic and generational change would lead, inevitably, to a more liberal, less Israel-friendly approach. Bibi, it was clear to me, was endangering the future of his country by resisting.

PMW: Killing 3 innocent Israelis "is a great thing," says Fatah official

Last week, a terrorist shot and murdered 2 Israelis and seriously wounded 2 others in a shooting attack next to Givat Assaf, near Ramallah. The terrorist fled the scene and as of Dec. 20, 2018, has not been apprehended.

Responding to these murders, senior Fatah official Abbas Zaki said it was "a great thing." Applying a twisted logic, Zaki indicated that this terrorist shooting was legitimate "blood vengeance" for Palestinians killed by Israel. However, he did not differentiate between deaths of innocent Israelis targeted by terrorists and the deaths of the terrorists who had murdered Israelis and were killed during Israel's attempt to capture them:
"We are proudly following the events in the West Bank. The young Palestinians are avenging a blood vengeance - three Martyrs (Shahids) for three Israelis. This is a great thing."
[SHMS News Agency, Dec. 13, 2018; official Facebook page of Fatah Central Committee member Abbas Zaki, Dec. 13, 2018;
official PA daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Dec. 16, 2018]

The "three Martyrs" are the terrorist murderers Ashraf Na'alwa, who murdered two of his Israeli coworkers in Barkan, and Saleh Barghouti who murdered a baby and wounded 7 others near Ofra. They were both killed while resisting arrest. The third "Martyr" is possibly terrorist Majdi Mteir who was killed while committing a stabbing attack. (See notes below.)

The three Israeli victims referred to by Zaki are probably the baby Amiad Yisrael Ish-Ran who died three days after he was born prematurely by emergency c-section after his mother was shot and critically wounded, and the two victims from Givat Assaf.

PMW: Israelis are “blood suckers,” says mother of 6 terrorists who murdered at least 10

For Fatah and the PA, the fact that Um Nasser Abu Hmeid's 6 sons are terrorist murderers responsible for the deaths of at least 10 Israelis, is something to brag about.

This cartoon (above) that Fatah publicized shows Abu Hmeid heroically for being a mother with numerous armed men emanating from her and going on the attack with their weapons poised.

Posted text: "The Khansa of Palestine, Um Nasser Abu Hmeid" [Official Fatah Facebook page, Dec. 15, 2018]

The name of honor "Khansa of Palestine" given by the PA to Abu Hmeid is yet another expression of the PA's encouragement of Palestinians to willingly sacrifice their sons as "Martyrs." The name refers to the woman Al-Khansa who lived in the earliest period of Islam who sent her four sons to battle and rejoiced when they all died as "Martyrs".

Abu Hmeid is the mother of 4 convicted terrorist murderers serving 18 life sentences combined for having murdered at least 10 Israelis. Another terrorist son was killed while resisting arrest after he murdered a member of the Israeli security forces, and the PA refers to him a "Martyr." The Abu Hmeid family's house was demolished on Dec. 15, 2018 after a sixth son admitted to murdering an Israeli soldier, and is now standing trial. (Israel has shown cases in which Palestinians have stopped terror attacks by their sons for fear their homes would be destroyed.)

The PA has turned mother of 6 terrorists Abu Hmeid into an icon and frequently honors her, as Palestinian Media Watch has documented. Recently, Abbas invited her to meet with him in the PA headquarters. Director of PLO Commission of Prisoners' Affairs Qadri Abu Bakr and District Governor of Ramallah and El-Bireh Laila Ghannam headed a "solidarity visit" to Abu Hmeid's home before it was demolished by Israel. The Palestinian officials praised her and glorified her terrorist sons as "a crown of honor":

Israelis are “blood suckers,” says mother of 6 terrorists who murdered at least 10 Israelis

Read more about this here: https://t.co/xDa6bQCTTz pic.twitter.com/Kn7cOAWZnP
— Pal Media Watch (@palwatch) December 19, 2018

@KenRoth from @HRW Is Not An Expert In International Law - But He Plays One On Twitter (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

Ken Roth is entitled to his opinion.

And Ken Roth thinks the Israeli settlements are illegal.

So far, so good.

But Ken Roth is also the executive director of Human Rights Watch

When Roth tweets, he is tweeting as the head of HRW, not as a private person -- and he does not even include the usual "retweets are not endorsements" disclaimer on his Twitter profile.

The halo effect that surrounds Human Rights Watch extends to Ken Roth, and he appears not to mind that.

That's OK too.

But Ken Roth does seem to throw around that claim of illegality an awful lot.

When he Tweets about Airbnb

And when he writes about the Gaza riots:

Using his position as executive director of HRW to support his Tweets condemning Israel for alleged illegal acts appears to imply that Roth is not merely offering an opinion, but is offering an assessment based on actual expertise and knowledge that he has.

Does Ken Roth actually have that kind of expertise?

It depends on where you look.

According to Wikipedia, Roth does have expertise:

His biography on the HRW website says he has "special expertise on: issues of justice and accountability for atrocities committed in the quest for peace; military conduct in war under the requirements of international humanitarian law; counterterrorism policy, including resort to torture and arbitrary detention; the human rights policies of the United States, the European Union, and the United Nations; and, the human rights responsibilities of multinational businesses."

Wikipedia indicates its source is the 2011 version of Ken Roth's bio on the Human Rights Watch website.

As recently as last year, in his book "International Law and the Use of Force against Terrorism", Shadi Adnan Alshdaifat writes in a footnote:

As far back as 2009, Roth has been credited with having this 'expertise':

On the HRW website, Roth is listed as having ‘investigated human rights abuses around the globe’, with ‘special expertise’ on issues of justice and accountability for atrocities committed in the quest for peace; military conduct in war under the requirements for international humanitarian law etc.

But when you actually take a look at his bio on the Human Rights Watch website, Roth's CV is more modest:

Prior to joining Human Rights Watch in 1987, Roth served as a federal prosecutor in New York and for the Iran-Contra investigation in Washington, DC. A graduate of Yale Law School and Brown University, Roth has conducted numerous human rights investigations and missions around the world. He has written extensively on a wide range of human rights abuses, devoting special attention to issues of international justice, counterterrorism, the foreign policies of the major powers, and the work of the United Nations. [emphasis added]

Roth's background in law is as a federal prosecutor. He has conducted "investigations" and "missions" on human rights and he has even written on issues of international justice -- but no, there is nothing in Ken Roth's background that makes him an expert in international law.

That has not stopped Ken Roth from regularly presenting his personal opinion on Twitter as legal fact.

This is reminiscent of the Marc Galasco controversy. Galasco resigned because of the optics of an avid collector of Nazi paraphernalia writing reports critical of Israel. But there were questions about Galasco's expertise as well.

NGO Monitor has noted about Galasco:

Although the level of his expertise and experience are obscure, Garlasco consistently presents himself and is presented as an “expert” on weapons and military technology. He has no combat experience, and his various Pentagon positions were apparently not concentrated on dealing with the details of weapons systems. This has not prevented him from making public statements and authoring reports that project the pretense of both a detailed knowledge of weapons such as unmanned drones and white phosphorous, and an understanding of the implications of their use under international law.

Even the most basic qualification, that of critical objectivity, seems to be lacking at Human Rights Watch.

A report from NGO Monitor about Sarah Leah Whitson, HRW's director of its Middle East and North Africa [MENA] division, finds that:

“Whitson’s soft approach towards totalitarian regimes clearly is counterproductive and immoral, as in the Libya cover-up” adds Herzberg. “She met with Hamas in May 2010 to reassure the terrorist organization that HRW’s reports were ‘objective and impartial,’ while at the same time promising that HRW’s next report would denounce Israeli violations of international law. Prior to that, she solicited funds in Saudi Arabia to combat so-called pro-Israel ‘pressure groups.’ Instead of confronting human rights violators, the MENA division under Whitson has helped sustain their power.”

During a November 2010 trip to Lebanon, Whitson praised “the Lebanese sophistication for human rights,” contradicting HRW’s own Lebanon Director, Nadim Houry, who condemned the lack of effectual and accountable state institutions, the absence of political will to implement change, and the problems created by the country’s political “confessionalism.” Shortly after Whitson’s assessment, Hezbollah overthrew the Hariri government in a bloodless coup.

Whitson's lack of objectivity may be explained by her background.

According to Whitson's biography on the HRW website:

Before joining Human Rights Watch, Whitson worked in New York for Goldman, Sachs & Co. and Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton. She graduated from the University of California, Berkeley and Harvard Law School.

David Bernstein of The Volokh Conspiracy notes what the HRW website omits about Whitson:

What the official bio doesn’t tell you is that Whitson was an active member of the New York chapter of the American-Arab Antidiscrimination Committee. She had served on the Steering Committee (source: ADC Times, Apr 30, 2002). When HRW hired her, she was serving a two-year term on the new Board of Directors, which replaced the Steering Committee (Source: ADC Times, Jan. 31, 2004).

The ADC styles itself as a civil rights organization, but like the Jewish organizations on which it is modeled, it also involves itself in Middle East issues, specifically by supporting the Arab and Palestinian cause against Israel. Local chapters are often more active on foreign policy issues than is the national organization.

...when HRW hired Ms. Whitson to be its Middle East director, it was hiring someone that was in the middle of serving what amounted to a second term on the Board of Directors of an organization that was firmly and openly on the Arab side in the Arab-Israeli conflict. And she had personally engaged in pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel activism while serving in that position. I don’t know whether she resigned her position when she started working for Human Rights Watch; if she didn’t, it was a clear conflict of interest. Regardless, it should hardly come as a surprise that one of her first acts at Human Rights Watch was to involve the organization in political action, supporting the campaign to get Caterpillar to stop selling tractors to the Israeli Army.

Expertise and objectivity do not appear to be among Human Rights Watch’s strengths.

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.