Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Wednesday, February 20, 2019

Houthi leader insults Yemenis by accusing them of being donkeys - and Jews

Houthi leader Mohammed al-Emad attacked the people of Yemen and their origins.

Al-Emad called the non-Houthi people of Yemen donkeys, and said they should go to their ancestors in Israel, because the donkeys are Jews.

Al-Emad claimed that the true people of Yemen are those whose ancestors came from Muhammad He said: "You are a donkey race, the race of the Jews, and you have no honor, dignity, or pride."

The video was widely condemned and denounced by a number of different members of Yemeni society and Yemeni and Gulf activists and media.

But no one was bothered by the antisemitism. No, they were truly insulted by being called Jewish, beyond being called donkeys.

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.

By any objective measure, Palestinians in Lebanon are treated far worse than those who live under "occupation" - even in Gaza.

They are banned, by law, from holding jobs in dozens of fields including law and medicine.

They are banned from owning property.

They are forced to live in terrible "refugee" camps, in pitiful conditions, and they need a permit to leave their camps.

Even within the camps, they are banned from building new buildings or additions on buildings.

They are banned from owning businesses.

They cannot ever become citizens.

They have a 67% poverty rate.

This is all institutional discrimination. It is so bad that over half of the Palestinians registered by UNRWA as living in Lebanon have left to live in Europe or elsewhere.

The Palestinians who cannot leave say that living in Lebanon is like living in prison.

The European Union claims that "human rights are at the heart of the European Union's external action and the EU reaffirms its role as a leading global proponent of the promotion and protection of human rights. "

Last year it issued a report on the human rights situation in Lebanon - and it did not mention one of the facts listed above.

Its summary of the human rights situation in Lebanon says "Lebanon generally upheld and preserved respect for human rights and the rule of law and undertook some important key reforms."

The EU, of course, doesn't hesitate to condemn Israel when it is perceived as doing something that the EU disagrees with, like cutting payments to the PA that go to terrorists or allowing Jews to build houses in their homeland.

The hypocrisy is only fully seen when we compare how the EU describes Israel's human rights record towards Palestinians and how it ignores the blatant discrimination and oppression of Palestinians in Lebanon.

It isn't only the EU, of course. No one calls on artists to boycott Lebanon because of how it treats Palestinians. No one says not to buy Lebanese products.

Based on this EU report, one can say that there is a conscious effort to suppress news about how Lebanon mistreats the remaining 200,000 Palestinians who live there. This is more Palestinians than the number who live in Area C, under Israeli rule, who are in the headlines constantly.

Lebanon's direct oppression of Palestinians is consciously downplayed and ignored. Israel's much better treatment of Palestinians is highlighted and condemned, daily.

The only conclusion one can come to is that the people screaming about human rights for Palestinians aren't really concerned about human rights for Palestinians.

They only want to use that issue as a bludgeon to go after Israel.

What is the reason why they are obsessed with blaming Israel beyond all logic and facts while ignoring the abuses that Palestinians undergo in Lebanon and the rest of the Arab world?

Apparently, those who pretend to care about human rights of Palestinians are really more concerned about denying the human rights of another people.

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

Palestinian dictator Mahmoud Abbas defended continuing to pay terrorists in the wake of Israel reducing the amount of taxes paid to the Palestinian Authority by the amount they pay terrorists and families of terrorists.

"Israel is claiming that the Palestinian Authority is transferring money to terrorists," he said. "So I say we do not want to receive this money and every penny we have will be transferred to the families of the martyrs."

"Even if we only have 20 or 30 million shekels (about 9 million dollars), we will pay them to the families of the martyrs," said the leader of the Fatah terror group, who uses the nom de guerre Abu Mazen.

Promising money to families of terrorists is a life insurance policy that encourages terrorists to want to die during attacks on Jews.

Also, yesterday, Abbas met with a delegation from J-Street and Democratic members of Congress. He told them how much he wanted peace and how the "peace process" is in danger - because of Israel.

He went on to blame Israel for everything, and described "Israeli violations in the Palestinian territories,", Israel's "ongoing attacks on Islamic and Christian sanctities in the occupied city of Jerusalem," and how the PLO is trying to stop these alleged attacks (meaning, things like Jews visiting Jewish holy sites) by going to international institutions and courts.

He answered questions, but I cannot find any transcript of that, and J-Street doesn't even admit when it meets with Abbas, for some reason.

The photo above shows J-Street leader Jeremy Ben-Ami asking a question from the group that includes Abbas and Saeb Erekat, under the smiling face of Yasir Arafat.

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.

EU criticizes Israel for trying to stop payments to terrorists

Wafa reports:

The European Union slammed Israel’s recent decision to withhold part of the Palestinian tax revenues.

Speaking to Voice of Palestine radio station, Communication Officer at the European Union (EU) Shadi Othman slammed the Israeli government’s decision to deduct $138 million from the tax revenues it collects on behalf of the Palestinian Authority.

The EU, Othman added, emphasized the need for Israel to respect the agreements signed with the Palestinian side and refrain from taking any unilateral action on the Palestinian tax revenues, which should be transferred in full to the Palestinian Authority.

Commenting on the EU’s follow-up this Israeli decision, Othman noted that the EU has maintained contact with its member states, urging them to put pressure on Israel, so that it refrains from implementing its decision.

I didn't see any statements on the EU External Action page or on their Twitter feed about this, but Othman is a spokesperson for the EU.

I also couldn't find a single time that the EU condemned the Palestinian Authority "pay to slay" program. (The details have been presented to various EU nations by Palestinian Media Watch.)

Which means that the EU tacitly supports the Palestinians paying part of their budget to terrorists.

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.

02/19 Links Pt2: Shapiro: On January 29, Two Hate Crimes Occurred. The Media Only Covered The Fake One.: Everything You Wanted to Know about Anti-BDS Laws

From Ian:

Ben Shaprio: On January 29, Two Hate Crimes Occurred. The Media Only Covered The Fake One. Here's Why.

On January 29, 2019, Chicago Police opened a hate crime investigation into the alleged assault of Empire actor Jussie Smollett. Smollett, who is black and gay, alleged that two men approached him at 2 a.m. in Chicago, where they shouted “f*****” and “n*****,” tried to wrap a noose around his neck, and poured bleach on him. He also told TMZ that the men shouted, “This is MAGA country.”

The story received unending press. The Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), tweeted, “The racist, homophobic attack on [Smollett] is an affront to our humanity.” Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) called it a “modern-day lynching.” Congresswoman and Fresh Face™ of the Democratic Party Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez slammed anyone who questioned the story, tweeting, “The attack was not ‘possibly’ homophobic. It was a racist and homophobic attack.”

The media ran with the story. Good Morning America hosted Smollett, where he maligned anyone who asked questions as a racist and a homophobe. CNN’s Brooke Baldwin stated, “This is America in 2019.” Celebrities parroted their support for Smollett, with many blaming President Trump and Vice President Pence for the attack.

The story was a hoax.

That same night, a Jewish man in New York was beaten by three thugs. Nothing was stolen. The attack was caught on video.

Outside of a report in The Jerusalem Post, the story received virtually no attention.

This isn’t the only story of anti-Semitism in New York. Not by a long shot. Two weeks before that beating, a Jewish man, 19, was “violently assaulted” as he walked past a local laundromat by a group of teenage black males. In December, a 16-year-old Jewish teen spent a week in a hospital after being beaten by two other teens; witnesses said that the teens screamed “Kill the Jew.” The NYPD categorized the attack as “gang related” rather than a hate crime, angering Jews in the area. This weekend, vandals shattered the window of a Chabad in Bushwick as the rabbi and his family slept inside.

Ben Shaprio: How Do You Define Anti-Semitism?

Rich Lowry: Ilhan Omar’s Big Lie

The Left distorts what happened in El Salvador in the 1980s.

In a viral exchange at a congressional hearing last week, the new congresswoman from Minnesota, Ilhan Omar, who is quickly establishing herself as the most reprehensible member of the House Democratic freshman class despite stiff competition, launched into Elliott Abrams. She accused the former Reagan official and Trump’s special envoy to Venezuela of being complicit in war crimes.

“Yes or no,” she demanded, “would you support an armed faction within Venezuela that engages in war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide, if you believe they were serving U.S. interest, as you did in Guatemala, El Salvador, and Nicaragua?”

Omar was cribbing from the Left’s notes on U.S. Latin American policy, and doing it badly. She made much of the 1981 El Motoze massacre in El Salvador. The idea that Abrams is somehow directly implicated in this bloodcurdlingly awful event is completely absurd. He was assistant secretary of state for international organizations in the Reagan administration, then became assistant secretary of state for human rights and humanitarian affairs on December 10, 1981. The massacre occurred the next day. Unless we are to believe the El Salvadoran military unit took his change of jobs as a green light to indiscriminately kill villagers (which unfortunately was not a new practice), Abrams obviously had nothing to do with the massacre.

Nonetheless, the Omar attack is an opportunity to examine the premises of the Left’s narrative on Reagan’s policy in El Salvador, which supports the persistent attacks on Abrams as a “war criminal.” To paraphrase the famous Mary McCarthy line about Lillian Hellman, every word in this narrative is a lie, including “and” and “the.”

In what follows, I rely throughout on Russell Crandall’s book The Salvador Option: The United States in El Salvador, 1977–1992, a fair-minded, factual account that’s a marked contrast to the tendentiously left-wing material that dominates online.

Hypnotizing the World: Omar Has Ties to Radical Anti-Israel, Anti-American Group

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D., Minn.) has ties to a group that includes numerous radical anti-American and anti-Israel activists on its board of directors.

Notes of support posted to the controversial congresswoman's door include a message from the organization Witness for Peace. "Keep up the good work!" the note reads, signed, "Witness for Peace Columbia Team :)."

The note appeared the same week Omar attacked Elliott Abrams, a Jewish-American and longtime diplomat who served in the Reagan and Bush administrations. Abrams is now the U.S. Special Representative for Venezuela. Omar has sided with the socialist government in Venezuela, accusing the Trump administration of leading a "U.S.-backed coup" against Nicolas Maduro.

Witness for Peace got its start fighting the Reagan administration's anti-communist policies during the Cold War, specifically the group opposed funding the Contras in Nicaragua. Abrams, who Omar called "Mr. Adams," pleaded guilty to misdemeanors for withholding information from Congress during the Iran-Contra scandal, and was later pardoned.

"Faith-based peace activists founded Witness for Peace in response to the U.S. funding of the Contras," its website states. In 1984 "Witness for Peace activists across the country organized events to resist Reagan's war on Central America," the group said.

Omar attended a delegation sponsored by Witness for Peace to Honduras in November 2017. She returned to the Minnesota House of Representatives calling for an end to U.S. military aid to Honduras, a position shared by the radical group Code Pink.

Jew hatred in Jerusalem, 1834

From Three Weeks in Palestine and Lebanon, book published in 1834 in England by a Christian society, that reveals not only the antisemitism of Jerusalem's non-Jewish inhabitants but also that of the author:

Lower down is the Jewish quarter, presenting nothing but filth and wretchedness. Wanting to purchase some wine, we heard that we might get it there ; so we went in search, making it an excuse for prying into the Israelitish dwellings. They seemed evidently afraid of letting us know that they had any in their possession: at length, after several denials, we entered a miserable house, in which were two or three dirty unveiled women, and one old blear-eyed man, who, after talking among themselves, apparently about us, whether we might be trusted, brought out a small quantity with great caution. Poor wretches!—everything about them exhibited signs of depression and misery: outcasts from the common rights and sympathies of men—oppressed and despised alike by Mahometans and Christians—living as aliens in the inheritance of their fathers—what an awful lesson of unbelief do they hold out!

The author sees Jewish deprivation as vindication for the truth of Christianity:

It was, I think, the Prince of Condé who said that while a Jew existed, he was a sufficient refutation of all the arguments of infidelity; and most truly did he speak. I never behold a Jew, carrying with him as he does the evidence of eighteen centuries to the truth of Christianity, without a feeling of gratitude towards him, and a forcible impression of St. Paul’s exclamation—“ Behold, therefore, the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but towards thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness, otherwise thou also shalt be out olf.” They form a proof the rejection of which by any candid mind I cannot comprehend: here it came with tenfold force.

This is one of the consequences of the rebirth of Israel that is often forgotten now. Before 1948, especially during the Holocaust, there was a lot of Christian opinion that the Jews' suffering is a fulfillment of their destiny for rejecting Jesus. That was the opinion of mainstream Christianity for centuries in Europe. The founding of the modern State of Israel was an actual crisis for Protestants in America because it simply didn't fit in with their absolute knowledge that Jews deserved to be suffering.

However, in 1834, it was axiomatic that Muslims mistreated and despised Jews.

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.

Jimmy Carter reportedly blames New York Jews for his losing election in 1980. (NY Jews voted FOR him!)

Mondoweiss notes a book that came out last year by Jimmy Carter adviser Stuart Eizenstat. If his description of the book is accurate, then we have even more evidence that Carter is an antisemite.

Weiss writes:

What I did not know till I read the new book, “Jimmy Carter, The White House Years,” by his former top domestic policy adviser Stuart Eizenstat, is that Israeli settlements also bedeviled the Carter administration. From the beginning of his presidency in 1977, Jimmy Carter determined that the settlements were an obstacle to peace because they stood in the way of a Palestinian homeland, which he wished to help establish in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Carter and his secretary of state Cyrus Vance and national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski repeatedly hammered the Israeli government to end Jewish colonization or at least freeze it.

Carter failed miserably in this aim, overwhelmed by a new force he had not accurately reckoned: American Jewish organizations. “I will commit suicide before I abandon Israel,” Carter promised Jewish congressmen when they met with him to express concern about his policy. But Carter could not abandon a parallel commitment to Palestine; and Eizenstat says that Carter believes that taking on Israel and its American lobby cost him his job.

“From the New York primary [in March 1980] onward, I believe Carter was left with the view that New York Jews had not only defeated him in the primary but were also a factor in his loss in November,” Eizenstat writes.

That is, to put it bluntly, ridiculous.

First of all, Weiss is (as can be expected) not telling the whole story. One major reason New York Jews voted by a 4-1 margin for Ted Kennedy over Carter in the primary was because the US (mistakenly, according to this article) voted against Israel in a major UN Security Council vote a week before - a resolution demanding not only that Israel stop settlement activity but that Israel dismantle all existing settlements, including in Jerusalem. It was a farce of a resolution, completely one sided and given Carter's antipathy towards Israel, it seemed to the Jewish community that Carter was certainly capable of pushing such a resolution.

But in the end, Carter won the nomination.

In November, Carter did lose New York, and practically every other state as well.

In New York, Carter lost by a margin of 51-41%, but Jews still voted for him, 45-39% (15% for John Anderson.)

If 20% of New York State voters were Jews (a generous estimate), then even if Carter would have received 85% of the Jewish vote, he still would have lost. And even if he had carried New York, he would have lost the election in a landslide anyway, 399-90 electoral votes.

If Carter really does blame Jews for losing the election, then how can he be considered anything but an antisemite?

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.

02/19 Links Pt1: PA deletes Jewish history from key sites in Judea and Samaria; The Impossibility of Unilateral Withdrawal from the West Bank; Muslim woman fights for Israel despite death threats

From Ian:

PA deletes Jewish history from key sites in Judea and Samaria

The Palestinian Authority is violating its agreements with Israel by trying to redefine historic sites and nature reserves in Judea and Samaria, Israel Hayom has learned.

The Oslo II Accord, as well as subsequent agreements, grant the Palestinian Authority limited control over certain landmarks and nature reserves in Judea and Samaria at the discretion of Israeli authorities and only if the PA commits to coordinating the administration of the areas with Israeli forces.

The 1995 agreement, which has been only partially implemented, says that "the two sides shall each take appropriate measures in order to protect Nature Reserves, Protected Natural Assets and species of animals, plants and flowers of special breeds, as well as to implement rules of behavior in Nature Reserves."

But recent steps taken by the Palestinians suggest that PA officials have been flouting those provisions.

As part of this rogue behavior, the PA has recently placed a sign at Arugot Stream, which runs from west to east in Judea, calling it Al-Kanub Reserve. The sign states that the EU and the U.N. help support the administration of the site.

The PA has also set up a new website called Mahmiyat (which means nature reserves in Arabic), which provides tourist information on the various landmarks in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip. The descriptions obscure the Jewish links to those landmarks dating to biblical times.

PMW: Abbas to inflict humanitarian crisis on Palestinians, after Israel penalizes PA for its support of terrorists

PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas has officially announced that the PA will refuse to accept all tax money Israel transfers to the PA if Israel deducts the amount the PA uses to reward terrorists. This PA policy will lead to a grave humanitarian crisis for Palestinians.

The Israeli Cabinet announced yesterday that Israel will be deducting 502,697,000 shekels/year - $139,638,000 - from taxes to be transferred to the PA. This is the amount reported exclusively by PMW that the PA paid in 2018 in salaries to imprisoned and released terrorists. This sum does not include the PA's financial rewards to families of dead terrorists, the so-called "Martyrs," or to wounded terrorists. The deduction will be made in 12 monthly portions of approx. $11,636,500 million/month - almost 42 million shekels/month.

Information obtained by PMW from Israel's Ministry of Finance in response to a request based on Israel's Freedom of Information Act, shows that the taxes Israel collected and transferred to the PA in 2018 amounted to $2.2 billion (8 billion shekels) - an average of $186,121,569/month (670,037,651 shekels) - while PA payments to terrorist prisoners, released prisoners, and families of dead terrorists in 2018 averaged at least $204 million/year (732 million shekels/year), or $17 million/month (61 million shekels) according to PMW calculations.

Earlier this month, Abbas declared that if Israel deducts a sum equal to what the PA spends on rewarding terrorists from next month's transfer - approx. $11.6 million according to the sum announced by the Israeli Cabinet - he will refuse to accept the entire remainder - approx. $174.5 million/month - that the Palestinian population needs to keep the economy functioning:

Shamima Begum: Manchester Arena bombing 'justified' because of Syria airstrikes, Isis teenager says

The Manchester Arena attack was “justified” because of airstrikes that have killed civilians in Syria, Shamima Begum has claimed.

The 19-year-old, who is pleading to be repatriated from a detention camp in Syria, told the BBC that it was “wrong that innocent people did get killed” in the 2017 atrocity.

But she compared the Manchester bombing to the "women and children in [Isis territory] being killed right now unjustly with the bombings", adding: "It’s a two-way thing really because women and children are being killed in the Islamic State right now and it’s kind of retaliation. Their justification was that it’s retaliation so I thought ok that is a fair justification.”

Isis claimed responsibility for Salman Abedi’s bombing, which killed 22 victims including young children, with a statement that claimed it was in response to "transgression against the Muslims".

Almost identical wording citing the international coalition has been used for Isis statements claiming numerous terror attacks across Europe since spokesman Abu Muhammed al-Adnani called for global atrocities in 2014.

Angry Arabs Photoshop a yarmulke on Yemen minister at Warsaw meeting (but they have no problem with Jews)

Houthis in Yemen are incensed not only at the participation of Yemen's foreign minister Khaled al-Yamani at the Warsaw conference, but also at his being seated next to Benjamin Netanyahu. At one point Bibi's microphone failed and Yamani let him borrow his.

On social media, al-Yamani's picture was edited to give him a yarmulke.

The Houthis also had a protest in Yemen Sunday about this "normalization," and they waved their logo that includes the phrase "Curse the Jews."

But these Arabs have nothing against Jews, no, of course not.

All these can be seen under the hashtag "Normalization_Betrayal," in Arabic #التطبيع_خيانة .

In fact, in Gaza a group (probably Islamic Jihad) set up a room for people to send out tweets en masse with that hashtag just to get it to trend. Various graphics were set up for the hashtag as well.

The conclusion is that not only are extremist Arabs freaked out over the Warsaw conference, but they have confirmed that they are antisemitic as well.

You can see that many of the tweets use graphics that have the same logo, with a dagger, symbolizing how "normalization" is a "stab in the heart" of the Arab world.

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

Palestinian teachers psychologically torture 3rd grade students to indoctrinate hate for Israel by "canceling" fake field trip to "1948 Palestine"

Arnon Groiss at Israel Behind the News has translated Palestinian Authority teacher guides for textbooks.

What the 3rd grade teachers are told to do in order to indoctrinate the young children to hate Israel is unreal. This is from the teacher's guide to the book National and Social Upbringing, Grade 3, Part 2 (2016) p. 64, written by the Palestinian Authority.

The teachers are told to tell the students that they will go on an exciting trip to somewhere in "Palestine." They hype up the trip for weeks, and discuss what they will see and do when they get there. The children are told to bring cameras and paper and pens to write notes, and how they will present their reports to the class when they get back. They are told to get consent forms signed from their parents for the trip. They bring food from home on the day of the field trip.

Then, the morning of the trip, when the students are excited about a day away from the classroom, the teacher tells them that the trip is canceled. They cannot go because Israel won't let them into their land.

This is unethical in the extreme, lying to students and manipulating them emotionally so that their frustration will be taken out not on the lying teacher but on the Jews.

This is incitement, psychological torture and indoctrination to hate.

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.

Browsing through the Internet Archive one can find openly antisemitic material.

And anyone can upload pretty much anything.

Its terms of use says:

Because the content of the Collections comes from around the world and from many different sectors, the Collections may contain information that might be deemed offensive, disturbing, pornographic, racist, sexist, bizarre, misleading, fraudulent, or otherwise objectionable. The Archive does not endorse or sponsor any content in the Collections, nor does it guarantee or warrant that the content available in the Collections is accurate, complete, noninfringing, or legally accessible in your jurisdiction, and you agree that you are solely responsible for abiding by all laws and regulations that may be applicable to the viewing of the content.

As far as uploading goes, the only type of material that the Internet Archive may act on is child pornography and anything else that hurts minors. Otherwise, the Internet Archive will keep its hands off, even if the material violates copyright or is illegal in some jurisdictions, saying that they have no responsibility for what is uploaded, but asking people not to break the law.

Some of the content available through the Archive may be governed by local, national, and/or international laws and regulations, and your use of such content is solely at your own risk. You agree to abide by all applicable laws and regulations, including intellectual property laws, in connection with your use of the Archive. In particular, you certify that your use of any part of the Archive's Collections will be limited to noninfringing or fair use under copyright law. If a Creative Commons or other license has been declared for particular material on the Archive, to the extent you trust the declaration and declarer (which is rarely the Internet Archive), you may use the content according to the terms and conditions of the applicable license. In using the Archive's site, Collections, and/or services, you further agree (a) not to violate anyone's rights of privacy, (b) not to act in any way that might give rise to civil or criminal liability, (c) not to use or attempt to use another person's password, (d) not to collect or store personal data about anyone, (e) not to infringe any copyright, trademark, patent, or other proprietary rights of any person, (f) not to transmit or facilitate the transmission of unsolicited email ("spam"), (g) not to harass, threaten, or otherwise annoy anyone, and (h) not to act in any way that might be harmful to minors, including, without limitation, transmitting or facilitating the transmission of child pornography, which is prohibited by federal law and may be reported to the authorities should it be discovered by the Archive.

In short, if your material violates YouTube or Facebook community guidelines, you can upload hate (videos, books, posters) to the Internet Archive and not worry about anyone complaining and taking it down.

In general, I am supportive of free speech, but that ends with incitement to hate and violence. There are videos in the Internet Archive with names like "Goyim Goddess Explains Jew Usery" [sic] and "Jew World Order vs Hitler." Hosting these videos is of course free.

The site is not yet overrun with hate, but there needs to be awareness of this before it happens. European laws against disseminating neo-Nazi materials especially need to be tested against the Internet Archive's Terms of Use that tries to make the organization blameless for what people upload.

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.

02/18 Links Pt2: Glick: Ilhan Omar & Co. Were Elected Because of Their Racism, Not In Spite of It; MP says UK’s Labour ‘institutionally anti-Semitic’ as 7 lawmakers quit party

From Ian:

Caroline Glick: Ilhan Omar & Co. Were Elected Because of Their Racism, Not In Spite of It

Hoyer as well as Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Elliot Engel (D-NY)are strongly pro-Israel. Pelosi, while less outspoken, has never been a foe of the Jewish state or of American Jews who support Israel and seek to secure continued bipartisan support for a strong U.S. alliance with the Middle East’s only democracy.

And yet, all of these leaders gave a pass to a woman who effectively said that American Jews exert malign and all-powerful influence over the Congress with their “Benjamins,” (which we now all know, thanks to Omar’s slur, refers to $100 bills).

What gives?

To find the answer it is necessary to look in two directions – first to former president Barack Obama’s consigliere, Valerie Jarrett.

By all accounts, Jarrett is the closest person to the former president. As a practical matter, it is difficult to imagine that the views she expresses contradict those of the former president even if, from time to time, he strikes a more moderate public stance than Jarrett.

Jarrett is an outspoken supporter of Omar. In a series of tweets, Jarrett has not only supported Omar, she has gushed that Omar represents the future of the Democratic party. On January 3, when Omar was sworn into office, Jarrett tweeted, “You are the change in Congress we have been waiting for. Thank you Ilhan Omar for your willingness to jump with both feet into the arena! Many in the country are both counting on you and have your back!”

In other words, Omar – and Tlaib and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (D-NY), whom Jarrett also supports – are the legitimate heirs of Obama’s Democratic Party, as far as his closest and most powerful advisor is concerned. They aren’t marginal figures, radicals with no real links to the party’s power structures. Omar, as well as Tlaib and Cortez, reflect the interests and positions of the most powerful faction in the Democratic Party – the Obama faction.

When seen in this light, the congressional Democratic leadership’s decision to respond to Omar’s latest assault on Jewish Americans and the Jewish state by smacking her with a wet noodle indicates that they are mere figureheads. They have less power than Omar does. Because, as Jarrett told Omar the antisemite, Jarrett, (and by inference, Obama), has her back.

Democrat Identity Politics allow Jew-Haters to seep through the cracks

There are all kinds of Nazis. The worst ones are the Hitlers, the Eichmanns, the Goerings, the Streichers, the ones who went on trial at Nuremberg. And then there are the lower-level Jew-haters who never rise to that level but comparably harbor hate deep within their souls. Thus, Jew-haters take different forms, but they all share that same deep-rooted visceral hate that somehow ultimately targets “the Jews.” Some hate “the Jews” because of a landlord, and others hate “the Jews” because of a tenant. Some hate “the Jews” because of the same kinds of liberals that so many Jews ourselves cannot abide, and others hate “the Jews” because of conservatives like Sheldon Adelson and the comparative political conservatism of Israel’s and the growing conservatism of the Jews of England. Some blame “the Jews” for Communism (Karl Marx, Trotsky) and others blame “the Jews” for capitalism (the Rothschilds, Milton Friedman). It is what it is.

But what now is unfolding in the Democrat Party — the party that always speaks of “racism” and “sexism” and “dog whistles,” and that finds racism and this-ism and that-ism in every word that deviates from left-liberal dogma — is that real Jew-haters are starting to come out of the cracks. It is ironic that, even as Louis Farrakhan has termed Jews to be “termites,” his Democrat acolytes of hate are the ones emerging from the woodwork. We have beheld the emergence of Jew-haters (and White-haters and man-haters) Linda Sarsour and Tamika Mallory as the new leaders of the rapidly decomposing “The Women’s March.” And now two new Democrat Congressional representatives have emerged as outright Jew-haters: Rashida Tlaib of Michigan and Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, the once-“Nice” state where Keith Ellison, anti-Semite, likewise holds court.

Omar, who hails from Somalia, now tweets about Jews and money. Quite a thing when newcomers who themselves are members of demographic groups (Muslim, Somalian) that are labeled by stereotypes, begin stereotyping others. Omar is an irrepressible Jew-hater. The things she says and tweets about Israel, for example, are not simply the legitimate expressions of someone who articulates a political counterpoint. It is perfectly fine to disagree with this or that aspect of Israeli democracy or Israeli politics. For many years, I wrote passionately against Israel’s then-socialist economy. Nowadays my political concern is Israel’s continued failure to increase Jewish housing in Judea and Samaria and finally to annex all of Judea and Samaria — or at least the region known as “Zone C.”

In and of itself, it can be fair to express criticism of Israel. But when one criticizes Israel as a cover for going after Jews, typically reflected by holding Israel to an insanely higher standard that is not expected of any other country, then — ding! ding! ding! — we have uncovered a Jew-hater. When someone has no problem with the state of human rights in Saudi Arabia, Putin’s Russia, China, North Korea, Venezuela, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Iran, Erdogan’s Turkey, and the like — but demands uniquely that Israel be boycotted and sanctioned, and that investments in companies that deal with Israel be divested, we have not “anti-Zionism” but “anti-Semitism.” It is like saying “I am not against Catholicism. I only despise the Pope and the Vatican and the College of Cardinals and the Archbishops and Bishops and nuns and the Eucharist. But I have nothing against Catholicism.” Zionism, like kosher dietary rules, is part of Judaism.

Where Are Feminist Democrats on Afghan Women?

Protecting women has been a big part of the American effort in Afghanistan. We’ve spent more than $1.5 billion on it since 2001, opening girls’ schools, securing the place of women in Afghan politics, and setting up various projects to keep the issue at the forefront of Afghan development. That’s to say nothing of the fact that fighting the Taliban means checking its brutal Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice.

All this raises a question: Why did so many Democrats who’ve declared themselves as 2020 presidential candidates refuse to oppose President Trump’s terrible plan to make peace with the Taliban and withdraw U.S. forces? Earlier this month, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, and Kirsten Gillibrand voted against a bill that condemned Trump’s plan.

In Afghanistan, an empowered Taliban and the absence of American troops would mean a future that’s decidedly not female. We know Trump’s thinking on this. He doesn’t believe that protecting women from a hellish life under the Taliban is worth American military action. But all these feminist Democrats? If they explicitly agree with the president on that point, they should be made to say so.

Over the years, the most frequent questions I have been asked on the subject of BDS and other anti-Israel campaigns are variations on whether our response to Israel’s enemies should mirror the strategies and tactics our opponents use against us.

Since strategy and tactics are a means to an end, my position has always been to better understand what our ultimate goals might be, then select strategies aligned with those goals, after which we will be in a better position to select tactics that can help us execute those strategies.

For reasons I’ll soon get to, I don’t believe aping our foes is the best choice for a number of reasons. But the Israel haters do provide a useful template of how to put the horse (goals that define a desired end point) before the cart (choice of strategy and tactics).

The goal of Israel’s enemies, easily understood if you look past their insincere (but tactical) claims to represent peace, justice and everything virtuous, is to see the Jewish state eliminated. This goal is somewhat obscured by the fact that groups advocating BDS and other measures contain many innocent dupes who sincerely believe they are doing good. The leaders duping them also obscure things further since they, with a few exceptions, rarely participate in or advocate violence themselves.

They do, however, offer vital protection for those who not only advocate but regularly visit violence on the Jewish state, such as Hamas, Hezbollah, terror groups within the Palestinian Authority, and Arab states still at war with Israel. This protection comes in the form of ignoring all of the preparation for war militaries and militants engage in (despite claims to represent “peace”) then roaring to life once those groups’ actions trigger the inevitable Israeli military response.

Protests against Israeli military activity (and only Israeli military activity) can take the form of organized condemnations – locally and globally (through corrupt and coopted organizations like the UN, also posing as peace advocates), demands for an immediate cease-fire once their preferred side is losing, and street protests that increasingly end in attacks on any Jews the mob can get their hands on (thus creating a price tag for non-Israeli Jews in hope of getting the IDF to stand down).

With the goal of Israel’s elimination as their North Star, the boycotters have an end clearly in mind which makes the selection of strategies to achieve that end straightforward. Their successful march through the Left end of the pollical spectrum, leaving submitted Progressives of all stripes in their wake, is testament to their ruthlessness (since they are the only party ready to destroy anyone and anything that gets in their way), but also their clear understanding where they want to go.

Those of us on the receiving end of the other side’s Long Game are justifiably concerned (if not frightened), and left pondering whether we should try to replicate our opponent’s behavior in hope of achieving comparable success. If that were the case, the first question we should ask is what is the end point we are driving towards?

If our goal was to see the Palestinians destroyed, or to see Arab or Muslim nations wiped from the map, that would constitute a militant goal comparable to the goal of our enemies. But does anyone, including the most militant pro-Israel activist, long for such an outcome?

I have never seen any sign of such destructive desires. In fact, if I were to distill decades of listening to Jewish and Israeli leaders talking about their hopes and dreams, I would say our goal is Israel at peace with everyone around her, and Jews left unmolested anywhere they reside.

Sometimes this goal gets wrapped up in utopian visions of an end to violence and bigotry everywhere. But shorn of such wishful thinking, a practical end point for the Jews and their state would be normalization ending with Israel treated with the same respect automatically given every other nation (regardless of behavior) coupled with seeing antisemitism, if not eliminated entirely from the human heart, limited to bigoted thought instead of discriminatory and violent action.

While not as aggressive as the militant goal of our enemies, seeing Israel at peace and the Jewish people no longer assaulted in word and deed is a concrete goal we can and have been striving for. Like most ambitious goals, it is audacious and possibly unachievable. But it does represent a concrete end point no less useful to us as our enemy’s equally ambitious (if destructive) goal is to them.

Given this, what strategies can we pursue that will simultaneously help us achieve our goal while making the goal of our enemies ever more difficult, if not impossible, to achieve?

Tune in next time for some thoughts…

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.

As a marketer advertising fascinates me. Political campaigns are no different, they are just advertisements on a larger scale, designed to drive life-changing decisions.

In tiny Israel politicians make decisions that swiftly impact our day to day lives. War and peace, life and death are literally in their hands – particularly those of the Prime Minister and Minister of Defense. That gives voting for the right person / party critical significance.

Israeli elections are crucial to me as an Israeli, as a Jew, as a person who loves freedom. As a marketer, Israeli elections set my mind buzzing. This is an extraordinary opportunity to delve into advertisements, analyze their effectiveness, the psychology behind the campaigns and the gap between the marketing material and the “product” being marketed – the candidates, their ideas and the reality they promise to create.

So how does it work?

Israel’s Parliamentary system combined with the inherent Jewish trait of “one person, three opinions” means that we have a multitude of parties, representing every sector in society. The system seems like an insane mess but there is a method to the madness and it’s a fairly good reflection of Israeli society – complicated, varied, opinionated, frustrating to the point of making you want to scream – that somehow works out pretty well in the end.

The most important thing to understand is that a coalition needs to be formed in order to create a government and the number 1 in the party that won the most mandates in the election AND succeeded in forming a coalition becomes the Prime Minister.

And yes, it is possible to win more mandates and fail at creating a coalition. That’s what happened to Tzipi Livni in 2008 which led to Benjamin Netanyahu forming the government.

So, basically voting is a choice between two strategies:

Voting for one of the major parties headed by the leader you want to become Prime Minister
Voting for a party that deals with societal issues that matter to you, hoping that by strengthening them, the party will have more clout within the coalition or opposition

Lesson 1:

In Israel, it’s not enough to be strong. Candidates and parties have to know how to collaborate.

Lesson 2: Content over style

Israelis seem to have an inherent aversion to style.

For years one of the main complaints about Prime Minister Benjamin (Bibi) Netanyahu has been: “He’s too sleek, he’s like an American politician, speaking excellently but when it comes to action not necessarily doing what he was elected to do.”

Israelis have traditionally voted on ideas they approved of with little or no regard to external characteristics. Israel has elected short, fat, untactful, uncharismatic, old and female (the world’s 4^th female Prime Minister, long before America imagined a female President).

Israelis expect their candidates to present ideas, to be ideologically motivated and/or come with a track record of success in getting things done.

This is why Israeli IDF generals, both left and right leaning, are given a lot of credit when they enter the political arena – they have already proven, through their service, that they are willing to dedicate themselves to the country and have gained the experience of command.

Lesson 3: Military ranks bring with them a high credibility score but they do not guarantee success in politics.

The two systems are very different and just because someone was successful in one, does not mean they will be successful in the other. Ehud Barak, for example, is the most highly decorated living IDF soldier and was considered a brilliant strategist. He is also considered one of the worst Prime Minister’s Israel ever had.

Lesson 4: Be careful what slogan you choose

The way you present yourself is always important. This is true for individual interactions but even more so when you are trying to present to the entire nation a convincing image of yourself in the position to which you wish to be elected.

How do you sell Pepsi Cola when Coca Cola has dominated the market for decades?

Benjamin Netanyahu has dominated Israel’s political market for decades, developing "brand power" unlike that of any other candidate in the country.

Marketing the candidates competing for his position is no easy task.

The Labor Party, the party of Ben Gurion and Rabin has sunk so far in public opinion that they are expected to attain less than 10 mandates in the upcoming elections. The current Labor leader Avi Gabbay seems to be delusional in his declarations that he will be the next Prime Minister.

Sometimes it’s better to go with a slogan like Avis’s: “We try harder.” Knowing that they were not number one, Avis chose a slogan that evokes sympathy, offers differentiation from the competition (more enthusiastic service) and displays a realistic view of the world. This is a smart way to gain credibility and fans.

In the previous elections “the Zionist Union,” a coalition of the Labor Party and Tzipi Livni’s “Tnuah”, was created specifically for the purpose of unseating Netanyahu. Their campaign was basically “anyone but Bibi.”

“I’m Pepsi, buy me because I’m not Coca Cola!” Does that sound like a winning strategy to you?

Lesson 5: The media and social elites are not the same as the people

Israel’s elite, the media, artists and academia generally lean to the left and as such provide vocal, active opposition to Prime Minister Netanyahu and his Likud Party. The way news is reported (or not reported), the focus in the public arena has, for years, shown obvious bias against Israel’s democratically elected government.

The country’s elites seem dumbfounded and frustrated that the public keeps electing Netanyahu over and over. The public, flooded with obvious and more subtle messaging against the government, still draws its own conclusions.

As a nation we watched Netanyahu stand against all odds and win – over and over and over.

He vocally opposed Obama’s decisions regarding Israel and Iran, despite all the advice from the elites that annoying the American President would lead to disaster. Netanyahu warned against Iran, putting emphasis on the pending danger although others abroad and even in Israel mocked him, pointing out the more immediate short-term threats. He spoke up in the UN, against the UN. He managed the threats on our borders and within our country. Terrible things happened, including Operation Protective Edge, soldiers kidnapped and not yet returned and ongoing riots and arson terrorism from Gaza and yet we survived and are currently celebrating the annual “Darom Adom” festival in southern Israel where all the Anemones bloom and the fields turn into carpets of red flowers.

While antisemitism is on the rise around the world and Israel lives under the constant threat of terrorism, our country is one of the safest places in the world – especially if you are a Jew.

When economies around the world collapsed, Israel’s economy gained in strength and unemployment levels went down. Travel became easier and Israelis are taking multiple vacations abroad a year.

We watched the tide turn, President Trump declare Jerusalem the capital of Israel, open the embassy and a stream of world leaders waiting in line to meet, discuss and plan a new future with Israel.

Just this last week Netanyahu attended the US-led Warsaw conference with delegations from most of the Arab counties in the Middle East including Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Morocco, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Tunisia to see how the Arab world can ALLY WITH ISRAEL in defense against Iran.

Lesson 6: If you can dream it, you can make it real.

Just a few years ago none of this would have been considered possible. Now Israelis are left to complain that things aren’t better than they are (and yes, complaining is a national pastime).

Of course, there are many things that need to be improved. Many decisions were upsetting and still are. And yet, the public always comes back to the same question: who could do the job better?

The “not Bibi” candidate

During Netanyahu’s previous term in office, even those who desperately wanted to replace him were forced to admit that no candidate on the horizon could challenge him.

The Labor party tried and failed to challenge Netanyahu. For a while, many thought Yair Lapid could be a contender for Netanyahu’s position. He’s good looking, charismatic and says things everyone can agree with. Of course, when one has to move from speeches to decisions and actions it’s impossible to please everyone, mistakes are made and failures occur. After a strong political start, Lapid swiftly lost his “not Bibi” appeal because that’s exactly what he is – not Bibi.

Now we have Benny Gantz, the new “not Bibi”. Although less charismatic than Lapid, he’s much taller and carries with him the automatic respect given a man with his military rank. He seems like a nice guy and is free from the aura of corruption that surrounds Netanyahu after years of being told that Netanyahu is under investigation and “where there is smoke there must be fire.” Due to the multitude of investigations many are convinced that Netanyahu will be indicted and will not be able to remain Prime Minister. At the same time, the law says that he can remain in office until convicted because the principle of innocent until proven guilty is a right due to all citizens, even a Prime Minister that the elites do not like.

Gantz’s election campaign is the opposite of Israeli elections 101 lesson 2 (content over style). His is a highly stylized campaign, meant to make him look like a Prime Minister.

Anticipation was built up first by him not articulating his platform. This enabled the disillusioned on the left and on the right (mostly on the left) to place their hopes and dreams on his shoulders, believing that “he could be the one.”

Then his prolonged silence began to annoy people, the regular folks and the media elites.

His first off-the-cuff statement against Israel’s Nation-State Law annoyed many people. And then he backpedaled. A little. There has been a lot of confusion with other members of his party making contradictory policy statements as if they too are not sure what exactly the party platform is.

Then his people put out campaign videos that many Israelis, on the right and the left found repugnant. Featuring a running toll, the video seems to be bragging about how many Arabs were killed under Gantz's watch. Another video focuses on the amount of destruction left in Gaza following the last war with the slogan: "Parts of Gaza were bombed back into the stone age." The assumption seems to be that the people of Israel (particularly those on the right) are bloodthirsty and violent and these videos would convince the nation that Gantz could lead the country.

I’m not sure who thought this messaging was a good idea. It goes against the fundamental values held by Israeli society - war is bad, killing is bad and only done when necessary, in defense. Neither Israelis on the left or the right wish death and destruction on our enemies. In fact, we’d prefer that they led prosperous, peaceful and happy lives and let us do the same.

It seems that the people who created this campaign neither understand nor like the average Israeli. Their views are similar to the antisemitic tropes we have to counter from Israel's enemies. Why would anyone choose a leader who believes the worst about the public?

Then came the speech. Each sentence was carefully crafted to appeal to the widest audience possible without upsetting anyone. Put together it sounded like a lot of bumper sticker slogans read one after the other. In fact, it reminded me of a song that is exactly that, lyrics built from political bumper stickers

Gantz had obviously been taught to stand and move his hands the way politicians are supposed to do to attain maximum likeability and project a convincing and powerful image – the way Netanyahu learned to do years ago. Watching this, I felt sorry for Gantz. He was trying to make the gestures and say the things he was told would make the best impression but his body language expressed louder than words just how uncomfortable and unsure of himself he was.

Lesson 7: It’s not over till it’s over (and even then, it might not be over)

As Gantz’s party rises in the polls, the other parties on the left sink. Obviously, the Israeli public has understood that this new “not Bibi” candidate is not presenting a right-wing alternative, even if he is being marketed as one.

The incumbent always has an advantage in a campaign. The original product with a strong brand image always has an advantage although a new product can take over a market – if they provide value that the original does not.

This again goes back to the issue of content and value.

Android’s utilitarian ease is creeping up and taking over the market iPhone created but can Pepsi ever really beat Coke? Sometimes the public can be convinced that they need a change, that they should try something new. But in just a few short weeks, when Israelis stand alone at the ballot box, will trying "something new" seem as tempting as it does to many now, during the campaign? To me, as an Israeli and as a marketer, it seems like a hard sell, particularly when the only difference is that the new offering isn’t the original.

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