Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Wednesday, June 19, 2019

Cartoon of the Day: Orientalism!

Continuing our series of re-captioning single panel cartoons....

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.

06/19 Links Pt1: The invention of Palestinians; Iran’s Liberal Conspiracy Theorists; The British Christian Volunteer Who Fought for Israel’s Independence; Don’t Blame Trump for Iran’s Aggression

From Ian:

The invention of Palestinians

Rumors circulate of an impending Israeli-Palestinian peace plan to be proposed by the Trump administration. It might, therefore, be appropriate to scrutinize the Palestinian claim—grounded in myth and not history—to national sovereignty.

Jewish sovereignty in their biblical homeland began with the rule of kings David and Solomon in the 10th-century BCE. The kingdom of Israel existed as an independent state until 722 BCE, while the kingdom of Judah maintained its independence until 586 BCE. There was no sign of any people identified, or self-identified, as Palestinians. Despite repeated claims, there is not a shred of evidence—historical, archeological or textual—to connect them with the ancient Canaanites, Philistines or Jebusites, who preceded the return of Jews from Egypt to the homeland of their biblical patriarchs and matriarchs.

Modern conceptions of Palestine began to emerge in mid-19th-century England. Artist David Roberts, following the trail of the ancient Israelites from Egypt to their promised land, filled The Holy Land with romantic depictions of local people, places and ancient Jewish sites. Rev. Alexander Keith authored The Land of Israel, based on his belief in fulfillment of the ancient prophecy that Jews would return to their homeland. In a memorable phrase, often repeated, he wrote that Jews were “a people without a country; even as their own land … is in a great measure … a country without a people.” Palestinians were not mentioned.

Several years later, Lord Shaftesbury, in a letter to British foreign minister Lord Palmerston following the Crimean War, wondered whether there was “such a thing” as “a nation without a country.” Answering his own question, he referred to “the ancient and rightful lords of the soil, the Jews.”

In the beginning of the 20th century and continuing throughout British Mandatory rule, Zionist land development and work prospects attracted Arabs from Middle Eastern countries (who eventually became known as “Palestinians”). There was little discernible evidence of Palestinian national consciousness. The Balfour Declaration (1917) further negates Palestinian fantasies. In his famous letter to Lord Rothschild, British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour wrote: “His Majesty’s government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.” The League of Nations adopted a resolution affirming the Balfour declaration. There was no mention of a Palestinian people, which did not then exist.

Noah Rothman: Iran’s Liberal Conspiracy Theorists

Conspiratorial thinking requires cognitive leaps, so it’s unsurprising that so many of the accusers have not reconciled these claims with their recent assertions that questioning the validity of American intelligence assessments was reckless in the extreme.

Like most conspiracy theories, the notion that Trump is spoiling for war in the Middle East is wholly resistant to contradictory evidence. Administration officials have told any reporter willing to listen that it is Tehran, not Washington, that sees utility in a set of limited strikes on Iranian targets—an overreaction that Iranian leaders believe will reinforce the regime’s faltering domestic position. Trump’s reaction to Iranian provocations, however, has been restrained almost to the point of negligence.

Despite Iran’s attacks, the president and his Cabinet officials have continued to set conditions for direct diplomatic engagement with Iran. Trump even went so far as to call the attacks on international shipping “very minor.” That is a heedless dismissal of America’s obligation as the guarantor of the collective right to freedom of navigation on the high seas and is indicative of a historical and legal illiteracy more common among his pacifist liberal critics.

Contrary to the tinfoil hat-clad opposition, the Trump administration is not warm to the prospect of war with Iran. The White House’s steadfast reliance on economic sanctions to bring Iran back to the negotiating table has led to a dangerously passive response to these audacious attacks on the U.S.-led global commercial order. The pattern of escalation in the Persian Gulf suggests that Iran is not done testing America’s lack of resolve. Absent the U.S.’s imposing unendurable costs on Iran’s bellicose behavior, the next attack could be one that Washington simply cannot afford to ignore.

The notion that Trump and company are salivating for violent conflict with Tehran is rooted not in evidence but in shared assumptions and subjective inferences. It is a conclusion in pursuit of supporting evidence. This is hardly the first conspiracy theory the Iran deal’s proponents have embraced, and it probably won’t be the last.

MEMRI: Russian Reactions To The Attacks On Tankers In The Gulf Of Oman: Once Again, We Are Witnessing Events Being 'Shaped' By Washington

On June 13, two oil tankers – the Kokuka Courageous and the Front Altair - caught fire in the Gulf of Oman in a torpedo attack.[1] The US immediately accused Iran of responsibility for the attack. The US also blamed Iran for four other attacks on tankers that occurred outside the Strait of Hormuz in May. Iran denied any involvement.

Commenting on the attack, the Russian Foreign Ministry said: "First of all, we would like to thank the Iranian authorities for assistance in rescuing eleven Russian mariners, crewmembers of one of the tankers (Front Altair). All of them were promptly evacuated from the burning vessel and taken to the port of Jask… Moscow resolutely condemns the attacks whoever might be behind them."

The Ministry then added: "We think it necessary to refrain from quick conclusions. It is inadmissible to place responsibility for the incident on anyone until a thorough and unbiased international investigation is over."

"We are worried over the tensions in the Gulf of Oman. We take note of deliberate efforts to whip up tensions, which are largely encouraged by the United States' Iranophobic policy. We call on all the parties to show restraint."[2]

Russian pro-Kremlin commentators, such as Senator Konstantin Kosachev, commenting on the attacks in the Gulf of Oman, accused the US of fabricating fake news and evidence against Iran, in order to secure a pretext for escalating tensions in the Middle East.

Below is an overview of reactions by pro-Kremlin commentators and lawmakers to the attacks on tankers in the Gulf of Oman:[3]

The terms of the 1922 Palestine Mandate included recognition of "an appropriate Jewish agency as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish National Home and the interests of the Jewish population of Palestine."

In 1923, the British High Commissioner in Palestine offered to set up an Arab Agency, parallel to the Jewish Agency that was mentioned in the Mandate, to help build local governance and fulfill a similar purpose for Palestinian Arabs as the Jewish Agency was for Palestinian Jews.

The Palestinian Arab leaders, represented by the Arab Executive Committee, flatly refused.

The entire long refusal letter is proudly displayed in the "Palestinian Journeys" website, a joint project of the Palestinian Museum and the Institute for Palestine Studies. It is a prototype of the absolute Arab refusal to allow Jews to have any rights to self determination, and their perfect record of happily punishing their own people for their own shortsighted goals.

The Jewish Agency was a quasi government that was able, in 1948, to step in and run the new State of Israel without having to build a government from scratch. An Arab Agency could have filled the same role, but Arab refusal to do anything strategic for Arabs of Palestine is a century-old constant. Saying "no" is the most consistent Arab position.

The refusal letter gives many reasons that an Arab Agency would be an insult. The main argument is that Palestine must be for Arabs only, period, and that the British had promised this to them in the controversial McMahon-Hussein correspondence. The Balfour Declaration was illegal, the Arab Executive Committee said, and even though the wording was enshrined in the League of Nations Mandate system, the Arab leaders insisted that a Jewish national home was violating the spirit of the League of Nations.

The letter even complains about the proposed name "Arab Agency," saying "the name of the agency makes them feel that they are strangers in their own country as well . "

Notably, the letter not once refers to the Arabs of Palestine as "Palestinians."

Today's Palestinians still celebrate this rejectionism.

Then as now, pride prompts Arabs to make decisions that have always proven to be disastrous to their own people,

(h/t Irene)

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

Number of Palestinians working for Israelis, especially in the settlements, surges

In the Reuters article I wrote about previously, there is this little gem at the end:

The only thing staving off a major economic crisis was cash earned by the over 100,000 Palestinians who work in Israel, and remittances from Palestinians working abroad.

Reuters is understating the numbers by a large amount.

According to the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, there were 131,000 Palestinians working in Israel in the fourth quarter last year, and an additional 28,000 working in Jewish towns in Judea and Samaria.

Compare that with the 125,000 who worked in Israel and 20,000 who worked in the settlements in the first half of 2018. It is more than double the number of such workers five years previously.

That is nearly 160,000 Palestinians who are getting about 2.4x the average daily wage of those who work in the areas controlled by the PA and Hamas.

Which means that the PA economy, today, gets about 37% of its worker wages from Israel.

This is the basis for the "economic peace" that is being disparaged by the media. One cannot help but notice that the number of terror attacks have decreased from the West Bank as the number of Palestinians who work in Israel have increased. When Palestinians have something to lose, they are more likely to stay away from doing things that would cause them to lose their highest-paying jobs. If a safe way could be found to allow Gazans unaffiliated with terror groups to work in Israel, it would pressure Gaza terror groups to tamp down rocket and incendiary balloon attacks as well.

This is besides the fact that the only possible way for the PA economy to survive is by encouraging real work as opposed to do-nothing government and NGO positions that take up the bulk of the jobs that Palestinians have today.

V'hameyvin, yavin.

Yes, a better economy brings peace. When the PA says that they refuse money from the US and Israel, they are using that same calculus - they are threatening Israel with new terror attacks that would come from a collapsing economy that they are encouraging. They are threatening economic suicide unless they get the money they want without strings attached.

For people who haven't followed the PLO over the years, the willingness to screw their own people for the principle of paying terrorists and their families would be astonishing.

Keep in mind also that if the supposedly "Palestinian led" BDS had its way, those 160,000 people who work in Israel would be unemployed.

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.

Reuters reports:

Palestinian finances are on the brink of ruin after the suspension of hundreds of millions of dollars of U.S. aid, the head of the Palestine Monetary Authority (PMA) said on Tuesday.

The mounting financial pressures on the Palestinians’ self-ruling entity have sent its debt soaring to $3 billion (£2.3 billion), and led to a severe contraction in its estimated $13 billion GDP economy for the first time in years, Azzam Shawwa told Reuters.

“We are now going through a critical point,” Shawwa said with respect to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’s Western-backed Authority, which exercises limited self-government in the Israeli-occupied West Bank.

“What’s next, we don’t know. How we are going to pay salaries next month? How are we going to finance our obligations? How will daily life continue without liquidity in the hands of people?” said the head of the PMA, the Palestinians’ equivalent of a central bank.

“I don’t know where we are heading. This uncertainty makes it difficult to plan for tomorrow,” Shawwa said during a visit to neighbouring Jordan.

He doesn't mention that terrorists and their families will continue to receive full salaries, as they are the top priority in the PA budget. Reuters doesn't bother to mention it either.

But then, way down in paragraph 10, we learn something else:

Worsening the Palestinian Authority’s plight, Shawwa said, Arab countries had failed to honour their donor pledges, providing just $40 million a month, which barely dented the PA’s financing gap. Half of that sum came from Saudi Arabia.

Arab states pledged $100 million a month in April - and haven't been paying. I'm pretty sure that the $40 million is what the PA was receiving even before the conference from previous pledges. Either way, this is $720 million a year that is not being paid!

No one seems to talk about that!

The media is very selective in what it reports from the region. But that's par for the course.

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.

06/18 Links Pt2: John Cusack retweets anti-Semitic meme with neo-Nazi quote; Douglas Murray: Mahathir Mohamad and the hypocrisy of Cambridge University; Is Corbynization the Democratic Party’s Future?

From Ian:

John Cusack retweets anti-Semitic meme with neo-Nazi quote

American actor John Cusack on Tuesday retweeted an anti-Semitic meme captioned with a neo-Nazi quote, then apologized and deleted his retweet following backlash from his social media followers.

The meme retweeted by Cusack depicted a giant hand emblazoned with a blue Star of David crushing a group of people beneath it, accompanied by the quote: “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.”

The meme incorrectly attributed the quote to French thinker Voltaire, but it’s actually an excerpt from a 1993 essay by American neo-Nazi Kevin Strom.

Cusack added his own caption to his since-deleted tweet, telling followers to “follow the money.”

The post immediately elicited backlash from online users, who accused Cusack of promoting anti-Semitic tropes about Jews and power.

Cusack initially defended the post, saying that Israel was “committing atrocities against Palestinians” and told outraged followers that he simply retweeted the image, and did not create it.

Several hours later, Cusack deleted the post, and blamed his retweet on a bot.

3. John Cusack repeatedly defended his tweet before deleting it.

His “bot” excuse is absurd. pic.twitter.com/Jm2NArFVEO
— Yashar Ali 🐘 (@yashar) June 18, 2019

Douglas Murray: Mahathir Mohamad and the hypocrisy of Cambridge University

The critiques of this write themselves. Would any guest of the Cambridge Union have been so indulged if the above had been said about people of any other ethnic group? Or of any other minority? I would have thought not.

But that isn’t what is interesting. The interesting thing is that this happened (as with LSE in 2010) in the heart of an institution that is positively bursting with what used to be called ‘political correctness’ and has now become ‘wokeness’.

Indeed as I recently wrote in the Telegraph, Cambridge University is becoming a veritable epicentre of the wokeness epidemic. This is an institution which, under its lamentable new Vice-Chancellor (one Stephen Toope) has launched an inquiry into Cambridge University’s involvement in the slave trade, has repeatedly shown that it believes academic freedom should be adjudicated by mobs, and recently removed a bell from public display in one of the colleges because there was a chance that said bell might once have been rung on a plantation.

So last night’s events provide an almost beautiful demonstration of human idiocy. For while the students and authorities at Cambridge University are running around town trying to confiscate bells that might once have been rung in the wrong place, the hall of the university’s own union was ringing out with laughter at an ugly old anti-Semite being anti-Semitic. It’s almost as though all these attempts to pass judgement on the distant past and endlessly signal our outstanding virtue in the present do not in fact make us brave or decent people. Who could have guessed?

CAA complains to Charity Commission and Home Office after Cambridge Union lets Malaysian PM Mahathir Mohamad spew antisemitism, unchallenged

Campaign Against Antisemitism is making a complaint to the Charity Commission after Cambridge Union, a registered charity, permitted proud antisemite, Dr Mahathir bin Mohamad, the Prime Minister of Malaysia, to spew antisemitic comments at an event on Sunday evening without challenging him.

In a video recording of the event posted on YouTube, Dr Mohamad was questioned by the moderator, an elected official at the Union, about his past comments about Jews. He replied: “I have some Jewish friends, very good friends. They are not like the other Jews. That’s why they are my friends.” The audience laughed loudly.

When questioned on his views of the Holocaust, he said: “The Israelis should know from the sufferings they went through in the war not to treat others like that.” Although he denied saying that only 4 million died in the Holocaust, something that he has previously stated on the record. Under the International Definition of Antisemitism, “Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis” is antisemitic.

On antisemitism, he said: “Of course if you say anything against the Jews, you are labelled antisemitic. No other race in the world labels people like that, why is it forbidden to criticise the Jews when other people criticise us?” He added that: “The Jews do a lot of wrong things, which force us to pass comment.”

In response to a question about previous comments that he made calling Jews “hooked nosed”, Dr Mohamad stated: “People do generalise, in describing certain people we take some general characteristics that they have, why is it that it’s the Jews who resent this when other people don’t resent being accused of some general characteristic that they have? Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems that pretty much every group of people objects to being casually racially stereotyped.” He followed this up by using an example that: “The British Jews used to say the Malays are lazy.”

It is disgraceful and unforgivable that Cambridge Union, a club affiliated to the University of Cambridge, one of Britain’s most prestigious educational institutions, rolled out the red carpet for this self-confessed and unrepentant antisemite, and presented him with a platform from which to share his dangerous views with students, unchallenged.

#TerroristsInSuits, part one: Amnesty's favorite Palestinian NGO has terrorist members

In February, the Israeli Ministry of Strategic Affairs released a truly damning report, detailing the huge number of ties between terrorist organizations and "peaceful" groups that support BDS.

By far the terror group that does this most is the PFLP, the Marxist terror group that was not only active in the 1960s and 70s with several high profile airplane hijackings but also in the 2010s with the Jerusalem synagogue massacre of 2014, which the PFLP claimed responsibility for, and a drive-by shooting in 2015, killing one.

The Marxist background of PFLP makes one wonder if this strategy of laundering terrorists as leaders in "non-violent" NGOs was part of an old Soviet plot to destroy Israel from many angles.

The Palestinian Center for Human Rights is regarded as a reliable and fair NGO by the world. Amnesty has used it for much of the information in their (discredited) Gaza Platform.

But Jaber Wishah, Deputy Director of the PCHR Board until 2017, was in charge of
the PFLP military wing. He was sentenced to two life sentences and served 15 years in
prison (1985-1999).

Wishah - again, in a major position for a human rights NGO- eulogized Samir Kuntar, the child murderer who is one of Israel's most reviled terrorists. Wishah wrote that Kuntar “was an example for all the world’s dignitaries in the struggle against evil, and that there are thousands following in Samir’s footsteps today.”

Wishah isn't the only problematic person at PCHR.

PCHR Director-General Raji Sourani and Director of the Legal Department and Legal Aid Program, Iyad al-Alami, both maintained ties with Hamas (as of 2017). The two provided legal aid and consultation to Hamas, collecting materials and writing documents for the terror group’s use in legal proceedings against the State of Israel.

Aiding a terror group? Not exactly peaceful.

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.

Misoziony (mis-OZ-yo-nee), noun: The irrational and extreme hatred of Israel and Zionists

In 2007, I coined the term "misoziony" to describe the irrational and disproportionate hate of Israel and Zionism.

As we have seen, use of "antisemitism" when discussing people's anti-Israel views may be technically correct but it is often a distraction from the argument being made, and overuse of that term waters it down over time.

Misoziony is a term meant to solve this problem. Miso- is a prefix, based on the Greek misos, that means "hatred." Misoziony - the hatred of Israel and Zionism - is a fundamentally irrational loathing that is just as disgusting as anti-semitism but without the baggage.

We don't know for sure what is in the minds and hearts of people who spend their lives attacking Israel. Calling Walt and Mearsheimer, or Jimmy Carter, or even John Cusack "antisemitic" doesn't help anyone. But no one can argue that they are misozionist.

Hating Israel in grossly disproportionate ways compared to the behavior of any other nation is in fact part of the IHRA definition of antisemitism, but the people who espouse that viewpoint passionately disagree and the meta-argument takes away oxygen from pointing out that the misozionist hate that animates them is no different psychologically or culturally from any other hate like racism, sexism or antisemitism. "Jewish Voice for Peace" members may or may not be antisemitic but they are undoubtably proud misozionists. Changing the frame of reference allows us to engage in - and destroy - their arguments far more effectively, since they are animated by an irrational hate based on lies and gross distortions, demanding Israel adhere to impossible moral standards that no one else is expected to reach and obsessively hammering at Israel falling short of perfection as being proof of it being Nazi-like.

Anyone who would be obsessed with hating, say, Italy and Italians, writing papers and tweets to prove that Italianism is evil and must be eradicated, would be instantly recognized as a bigot. So are misozionists.

Israel-bashers like to claim that Zionists use the term "antisemitism" as a club to crush all criticism of Israel. The problem is, of course, that the same crowd uses the claim of Zionist use of anti-semitism as a means to avoid discussing real issues. The word misoziony can neatly solve that problem and can help re-focus the arguments back on their fundamentally untenable bases. Pointing out misoziony can help to sharpen the debate and point out the basic irrationality of the Israel-bashers.

No one else picked up on the term misoziony - until today, when The Jewish Press published an article by EoZ contributor Vic Rosenthal titled "Tikkunism Begets Misoziony."

It took twelve years, but maybe the time for using the term misozionists and misoziony when accusations of antisemitism would have no or negative effect.

(Rosenthal helpfully says the words are pronounced "mis-OZ-yo-nists," "mis-OZ-yo-nee".)

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.

06/18 Links Pt1: Caroline Glick: Why Foreign Governments Are Shielding Iran; Why is Trump More Popular in Israel than in the US?

From Ian:

Jason D. Greenblatt: Bahrain workshop on Palestinian economy is the opportunity of a generation

This is exciting - an opportunity of a generation. The June 25 and 26 workshop in Bahrain for the benefit of Palestinians is a pivotal opportunity to convene government, civil society, and business leaders to share ideas, discuss strategies, and galvanize support for potential economic investments and initiatives that could be made possible by a peace agreement. The results of those discussions could lead to significant investment in the talented Palestinian and regional population.

Saeb Erekat, the lead Palestinian negotiator, claims we are trying to buy the Palestinians. We know that won't work. We fully recognize that our economic plan cannot be successful without a political agreement, just as a political agreement would have little chance without an effective economic plan.

Saeb also is making claims that the Arab countries who are attending the workshop have no right to negotiate for the Palestinians. On that point, we agree. No one is suggesting that anyone other than the Palestinians have such a right. But those attending sincerely want to help the Palestinians. Those countries who are participating should be praised and thanked by Saeb and the Palestinian Authority.

It is disheartening to see the supposed leaders of the Palestinians attack Palestinian entrepreneurs and Palestinian supporters in general for supporting a better future for their people. Supporters of this workshop want only the best for the Palestinians and the region. For masked, armed gunmen to threaten Palestinians against support of a better future, as seen on official Fatah social media sites and in refugee camps, is despicable.

US Envoy Jason Greenblatt Speaks with i24NEWS

US President Donald Trump's special adviser on Israel Jason Greenblatt explained the vision for the Bahrain economic workshop to be held next week as the first part of the long-awaited peace plan to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Emphasizing the nature of the "workshop" as apolitical, Greenblatt confirmed that since the Palestinian Authority (PA) has chosen to boycott the summit, Israeli government officials would not be invited either, nor would other world leaders or foreign ministers. The Trump administration will decide when to release the peace plan following the Bahrain summit, Greenblatt said, suggesting that it would be around November due to the Israeli elections in September 17. Trump's adviser did not convey discontent over the delay, arguing that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not the core of the conflict in the region but that Iran was the source of it.

Why is Trump More Popular in Israel than in the US?

Speaking at a ceremonial event for the inauguration of 'Trump Heights' -- a new Israeli settlement in the Golan Heights named in honor of the US President -- Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vowed that Israel would control the northern region "with might" and that neither Hezbollah nor Iran could threaten its northern borders. “We are making an important step towards the placing on the ground of the settlement of Ramat Trump (Trump Heights), that proudly carries the name of a very great friend of the state of Israel, and I am very proud to say a great friend of mine, Donald Trump,” Netanyahu said at the event. During the speech, Netanyahu laid blame on Iran for the attack on two oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman last week, calling on the international community to support US efforts to curb Iran in the Middle East.

Jpost Editorial: A marriage of ideas

That any sign of carrying out normal relations with Israelis is still considered taboo among the Palestinian Authority regime does not bode well for the upcoming Bahrain economic workshop.

On Sunday, Jason Greenblatt, US President Donald Trump’s special envoy for international negotiations, told the Jerusalem Post Annual Conference in New York, that the administration is focusing on the Bahrain workshop, which is scheduled to take place on June 25-26.

Interviewed on stage by The Jerusalem Post’s editor-in-chief Yaakov Katz, Greenblatt said Palestinian negotiator “Saeb Erekat and others are distorting our message. They’re saying essentially that the Bahrain conference is about buying the Palestinians off. Absolutely not true.”

Greenblatt explained the goal of the workshop: “The Bahrain summit is aimed to show what could happen to the Palestinian economy if there’s a peace agreement. We understand completely that there is no economic vision that’ll work without a peace agreement. But we also want to make the point that there will be no peace agreement that works without true economic vision. We’re trying to break the cycle of aid and dependency and create an economy. They work hand in hand.”

The economic workshop has had a hostile reception by the Palestinian Authority although some Palestinian businessmen have stated their intention to participate – people who can envision a better future for their own people and are brave enough to try to bring it about despite the antagonism of the Palestinian Authority.

On this the PA is on the same page as the terrorist organization, Hamas, that controls Gaza.

Terrorism and anti-normalization campaigns put an end to any hope of the Oslo Accords succeeding in the 1990s and doomed all subsequent peace talks. This is the true tragedy of the Palestinians. They are being betrayed by their own leaders.

The economic workshop in Bahrain should be seen as a positive move for the whole region, but as long as the PA top ranks are not willing to see Israelis dancing together with Palestinians at a wedding, it is hard to imagine the PA allowing its own people any joy in other fields.

Caroline Glick: Why Foreign Governments Are Shielding Iran

It is difficult to imagine that mere embarrassment will pry the Europeans away from their preference for ignoring the reality of Iranian aggression in order to pursue their longstanding policy of appeasing Iran and its terrorist proxies. Germany and the EU still refuse to acknowledge that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. Hezbollah is permitted to operate openly in EU states despite the fact that it has been caught planning and carrying out terrorist attacks in Europe repeatedly in recent years. Indeed, Britain took no action against Hezbollah after Israel tipped it off in 2015 that Hezbollah had built a bomb factory in North London. The British Parliament only outlawed the Iranian proxy force in February 2019.

Whereas Britain, with its close ties to the U.S., has sometimes evinced a willingness to abandon general European appeasement of terrorists and state sponsors of terror, Germany, France, and other major European governments have never entertained the prospect of abandoning appeasement for confrontation, let alone defeating terrorists and their state sponsors. Acknowledging Iran’s aggression is largely inconceivable for Germany and its EU partners.

As for Russia and China, their refusal to take action against Iran stems in part from their strategic competition with the United States. If they admit that Iran is behind the attacks, like the Europeans and the Japanese, they will need to admit that the U.S. strategy of maximum pressure is reasonable and justified. Such an admission would strengthen the U.S. position.

Admitting Iran’s responsibility would empower the U.S. to diminish Iran’s capacity to continue committing acts of naval aggression, either directly or through its Houthi proxy. As Jim Hanson from the Security Studies Group suggested on Fox News, such action could include U.S. strikes against Houthi bases in Yemen or IRGC bases in Jask or other locations.

Given the behavior of U.S. allies and adversaries in light of Iran’s self-evident aggression against merchant tankers in the Persian Gulf, the U.S. cannot expect to operate with their support as it pursues its goal of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and denying the regime the means to continue sponsoring terrorism and aggression against the U.S. and its regional and global allies.

As a consequence, going forward, the Trump administration must continue to place all of its evidence of Iranian aggression on the table and continue to pursue its policy of maximum aggression. Unlike appeasement, the U.S.’s policy is based on reality. And so, unlike appeasement, it is a policy with the potential to actually succeed.

Google Doodle for falafel is (unintentionally) Israeli

Get ready for the next round of falafel wars.

Google is celebrating falafel in the Google Doodle today:

But notice that the falafel in the doodle goes into pita bread, along with what is presumably tehina and what Israelis call Israeli salad.

Now, no one doubts that falafel pre-dates Israel. But the idea of falafel in pita with salad and toppings came, as far as I can see, from Yemenite Jews who immigrated to Israel. I see a number of sources that say this and I cannot find an Arab source that says that it was known to have been served in pita before the 1940s, when it was already gaining popularity (and more than a few jokes) in Israel even among the Ashkenazim, as this 1940 Palestine Post story shows:

Jews in Palestine seem to be the ones who turned falafel into a street food, and a pita (or laffa) is necessary to hold the falafel when buying it on the street.

Assuming this is accurate, Google is advertising Israeli falafel.

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

The Academic Engagement Network and Indiana University Press have released "Israel Denial: Anti-Zionism, Anti-Semitism, & the Faculty Campaign Against the Jewish State" by Cary Nelson.

Nelson is a professor of Liberal Arts and English at the University of Illinois and Urbana-Champaign. His liberal arts background gives him an uncommon insight into the worst part of anti-Israel and antisemitic attitudes on college campuses today.

The centerpiece of the book is four chapters that each take on the writings of one of the four major intellectual leaders of the anti-Israel movement: Judith Butler, Steven Salaita, Saree Makdisi and Jasbir Puar.

In each of these chapters, Nelson methodically destroys their arguments, one by one. He doesn't just prove that, say, Jasbir Puar is a liar in her claims that Israel purposefully maims and stunts the growth of Palestinian children - he goes through their entire written record on the topic of Israel and shoots down their arguments, one fact at a time.

Nelson's audience seems to be fellow academics who can be convinced by the arguments of these BDS supporting, Israel hating professors. Nelson has spent several years visiting Israel and the territories and has done an admirable amount of original research as well as in compiling the facts that prove these academics are wrong. He is careful not to accuse anyone of using antisemitic arguments unless the evidence is overwhelming.

Nelson even admits being an admirer of Butler's work on gender, but that doesn't stop him from going through her almost unreadable prose, extracting her main argument (that Jews are naturally disposed to be forever in the Diaspora and it is actually anti-Jewish to want to live as free, independent people in the Land of Israel) and then demolishing it.

If that was the entire book, it would be worth reading (although the sheer amount of fact checking gets overwhelming after a while.) But Cary Nelson also takes a larger view. He provides a critical analysis of the entire BDS movement and its philosophy, and shows that its claims to non-violence are specious (as their plan for a binational state could never come about without war) and that their claims to only be against Israeli institutions and not individuals are absurd. He brings example after example of BDS intimidation on campus, and highlights how universities are ill equipped to protect students and professors who are the victims of BDS campaigns.

Yet Nelson remains intellectually honest and consistent - he is a champion of free speech and academic freedom, and he explains exactly what and what is not acceptable on campus while adhering scrupulously to those principles. A professor can teach a class in as biased a manner as he wishes, but he cannot intimidate or punish students who disagree. The book brings a number of examples of cases of extremely biased courses, based on student reports, syllabi and required reading lists.

Nelson also goes behind the scenes on the campaigns by BDS to take over major academic disciplines and associations, often using underhanded methods. He notes how BDS has exposed the shaky foundations of the liberal arts and how a now second generation of anti-Israel academics have turned entire disciplines into the opposite of what academia should be. He highlights how difficult it would be for any Zionist to survive in this academic environment which has been so thoroughly politicized. Most of all, he shows that the embrace by academia of "scholars" who literally make up lies to support their arguments endangers entire academic disciplines that end up looking foolish or worse by allowing these lies to go unchallenged.

After showing that Israel is a bastion of academic freedom and that Arabs are not discriminated against in Israel, one of the most important chapters deals with the little reported lack of Palestinian academic freedom. This chapter involved significant original research and Nelson spent time talking with Palestinian professors and students, describing in harrowing terms how intimidated students are by the political forces on campuses in the West Bank and Gaza. One professor who dared bring students on a trip to visit Auschwitz was not only fired but he was nearly assassinated by terrorists who booby trapped his car to explode when it warmed up from being driven - the car exploded prematurely on an unusually hot day.

The hypocrisy of the BDSers who claim to care about Palestinian academic freedom while there is so little of it in the territories is clear, and has never been described as well before.

Nelson, quixotically, describes a number of things that Israel and the Palestinians could do unilaterally to create an atmosphere where he believes a two state solution can be successful. Nelson did enormous amounts of research into the issue, speaking with lots of Israelis and Palestinians who want peace and who have practical ideas (many of which have merit.) I believe that his wishful thinking, combined with his conviction that a two state solution is the only possible solution, has given him some rare blind spots about exactly how rejectionist and antisemitic the Palestinian people and leaders have become, and how most of them look at a two state solution as only a stage towards their own version of a one state solution. He addresses many of the concerns as far as he can but I don't think he quite gets that there is no solution possible with today's Palestinians, and the only thing to do is to manage the conflict, and not pretend to end it. His ideas for peace are useful in the context of the rest of the book, however, because he can credibly show that the BDS groups who pretend to want peace have no interest in any type of two state solution, and there are no comparable peace plans on that side.

The other part that bothers me about the book is Nelson's obvious antipathy both towards Israeli settlers, who he tends to dismiss as religious fanatics, and the Likud government that dominated Israeli politics of the past decade. Nelson insults Benjamin Netanyahu as a racist while at the same time emphasizing how much Israel has been working to improve the lives of its Arab citizens - exactly during Netanyahu's premiership. He praises Israel's Supreme Court for scrupulously protecting equality of all citizens under the law - but he implies that demolitions of terrorist homes or of illegally built Arab structures are a serious human rights violation, ignoring that the same Supreme Court has allowed that to occur in most cases.

My last nitpick is that Nelson, while fully supporting Israel's right to exist, does not seem to understand the importance of the heartland of Eretz Yisrael - of Hebron, Bethlehem, Shiloh, Bet El - to the very souls of Jews. His desire for a two state solution seems to force him to minimize the importance of the holy places, which he seems to understand intellectually but not viscerally. Israel without the Biblical cities is just another secular nation. We don't need a Jewish Singapore. The very reason that the Arabs insist on ownership of the most holy places in Judaism is because they understand how separating Jews from their ancestral lands and sacred places is the most effective way to destroy the very heart of Israel.

Nelson, who is an expert in poetry, has a chapter on how colleges could improve their teaching about the region by suggesting a course in comparative poetry between Jewish and Palestinian writers. It is certainly an appropriate topic for a college course. Poetry can illustrate the feelings (and myths) of a people better than most other mediums. Yet the poets Nelson chooses to stand in for Israel are all secular, all against the "occupation." If Nelson wants to tell the stories of people through poetry, he should include the works not only of the Israeli superstar poets but also the burgeoning number of religious and settler poets who write of their love of the land in a much different style than the secularists. Given that he wants everyone to empathize with the others' feelings, settlers are no less human than secular Israelis and Palestinians. It is necessary to humanize the settlers, something that hardly happens. Whether one agrees with them or not, they choose to put their lives on the line every day to walk in the footsteps of their ancestors and to hold on to that right. That is the stuff of poetry.

I apologize for spending too much of the review on the small parts that bother me (I have that habit.) I don't want to dissuade anyone from reading this book. Israel Denial is an epic response to BDS and its pseudo-intellectual underpinnings. The book is a huge challenge to the liberal arts academic community to respond to this attack on their very foundations.

Israel Denial is a model of what academic scholarship in the liberal arts should look like.

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.

Jordanian actor Iyad Nasser plays a Jewish army official in a new hit Egyptian movie,"Al Mamar" (The Corridor) about the War of Attrition between Egypt and Israel between the Six Day War and the Yom Kippur War.

He is thrilled the audience hates his character. However, Nasser stressed that his Jewish character is not evil; his faith is corrupt and evil.

Nasser says that he had to work with a Hebrew language expert to get the right accent. He says that the accent is actually a Palestinian peasant dialect that Zionists stole from the Palestinians and pretended it was their own.

A group of children were taken by officials to see the movie. As the trailer shows, this is a war movie, with explicit scenes of people being shot and killed, yet Egyptians believe that it is appropriate for even young children to teach them to take pride in Egypt's army.

Islam al-Hussainy, who is in kindergarten, described the movie this way: "Every time they kill a group of Jews, another group comes, but our army is strong and defeated them."

Ahmed Moustafa, 7 years old, attacked a photo of the Jewish character outside the theatre "to kill him," expressing his love for the army and country.

Al Mamar has been the number one movie in Egypt for three weeks in a row.

A special screening was held for one of the largest political parties in Egypt, the Nation's Future party, which gave awards to the filmmakers and actors.

(h/t WC)

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.

06/17 Links Pt2: Why neo-Nazis Love the BDS Movement So Much; French Jews face trinity of hate from left, right, and Islamists, says author; Birthright: Why the Controversy?

From Ian:

Petra Marquardt-Bigman: Why neo-Nazis Love the BDS Movement So Much (click via tweet at the bottom)

It’s been clear for quite some time that "progressive" spaces have a problem with "Zionists"and their "offensive" symbols – including any flags with the most recognizable Jewish symbol, the Star of David, on them.

That must be why, when progressive protesters countered a small Ku Klux Klan demonstration in Dayton, Ohio they tried to burn an Israeli flag. Their passionate "anti-Zionism" must have prompted burning the Jewish state's flag to equate it with KKK white supremacy.

But it's increasingly clear that a similar antipathy for "Zios" energizes the far right. Last weekend, a neo-Nazi, who had come with his buddies to protest the Detroit Pride parade, felt the urge to demonstrate that Jew-haters can also be anti-Zionists when he urinated on an Israeli flag. And the small neo-Nazi German party Die Rechte campaigned for the recent EU elections with the slogan: "Israel is our misfortune."

That’s quite the common denominator. If, as a progressive, you claim to take the fight against the oldest hatred seriously and find yourself on the same side as neo-Nazis, it’s arguably time to reconsider your views.

Which leads to the critical question: what has facilitated this meeting of minds, rhetoric and action? My answer: the tireless efforts of the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement.

BDS supporters on the far left and far right are only too happy to support the claim that anti-Zionism has nothing whatsoever to do with anti-Semitism – and to assert that in fact it is Zionism that equals racism. But if you insist on treating Israel as the Jew of the nations, don’t feign outrage when that is considered anti-Semitic. (h/t IsaacStorm)

"If, as a progressive, you claim to take the fight against the oldest hatred [anti-Semitism] seriously and find yourself on the same side as neo-Nazis, it’s arguably time to reconsider your views."

An excellent Haaretz piece by @WarpedMirrorPMB: https://t.co/Gir91ms70b
— Avi Mayer (@AviMayer) June 16, 2019

French Jews face trinity of hate from left, right, and Islamists, says author

If France has no monopoly on anti-Semitism in all its vile, even homicidal, manifestations, it’s haunted by its checkered record involving Jews. In 1791, France became the first country in western Europe to emancipate its Jews. It also has many dark chapters, including the Dreyfus Affair, in which a Jewish captain in the French army was framed and falsely convicted in 1894 of spying for Germany, resulting from and feeding already pervasive anti-Semitic sentiment. More notoriously, during World War II, France’s fascist Vichy regime actively collaborated with the Nazis in deporting 75,000 Jews to death camps in the 1940s.

Today, given this charged history and the fact that France’s half-million strong Jewish community is the world’s second-largest outside Israel, what happens to French Jews commands interest far beyond its borders. Indeed, foreign media have long reported on anti-Semitism in France.

In fact, Weitzmann’s book sprouted from a series of five 4,000-word reportages he wrote in 2014 for the US-based Jewish online magazine, Tablet.

“The dismissal of anti-Semitic aspects of what was going on in France at the time by both the media and public authorities made me look abroad to publish my series,” says Weitzmann, who’s written for major French newspapers. “I went to Tablet because I felt French media wouldn’t be interested in publishing what I wanted to do. Even outside France, there weren’t many places where I could publish such a lengthy, in-depth look at this subject.”

Weitzmann had long been troubled by anti-Semitism in France, especially two murder cases French authorities initially refused to treat as hate crimes. In 2006, a gang, led by an openly anti-Semitic Muslim, abducted and killed Ilan Halimi, a 23-year-old Parisian Jew. In 2012, a jihadist gunman opened fire at a Jewish day school in Toulouse, killing three children and a rabbi. However, it was a demonstration in Paris in early 2014 that prompted Weitzmann’s series.

“The situation for Jews in France had actually been bad since the early 2000s,” says Weitzmann. “Synagogues had been attacked in the suburbs and there were several anti-Semitic murders. But in January 2014, something changed. That month, you had this far-right protest march in Paris called Day of Wrath where you heard for the first time since the 1930s, people crying out anti-Semitic slogans in the streets of Paris. Among them was ‘Jew, France is not yours!’ From then on, you had a dramatic rise in anti-Semitic incidents.”

The following year, French right wing comedian Dieudonné M’bala M’bala, who has been convicted several times for anti-Jewish incitement, popularized an arm gesture widely seen as an inverted Nazi salute and intended as an expression of anti-Semitism. Some Yellow Vests protestors have used it at demonstrations, a few of which Dieudonné has attended with right wing, anti-Semitic writer Alain Soral, who recently was sentenced to a year in prison for Holocaust denial. (h/t IsaacStorm)

HonestReporting Prompts Improved Guardian Headline on Planned ‘Trump’ Village

With Sunday’s unveiling of a plaque marking the site of a planned village in the Golan to be named after United States President Donald Trump, media coverage was assured, and the vast majority of news outlets managed to keep their comments accurate and fair.

Not The Guardian.

Despite the fact that the plaque unveiling was merely symbolic, the Guardian’s headline informed readers that Israel has in fact already “built” a settlement in Trump’s honor. “Israeli settlement called Trump built on conquered land”

This is, of course, false. With no budget allocated, no planning done, no final location decided for the project, and not even so much as a binding decision to actually oversee the construction of Ramat Trump, (Trump Heights in Hebrew,) no building whatsoever has been undertaken.

HonestReporting swiftly called the Guardian out on social media, including Facebook and Twitter, and the Guardian consequently renamed the article to more accurately reflect the reality: “‘Trump Heights’: Israeli settlement in Golan named after US president.”

Though the revised headline could make clear that Trump Heights is only being planned at this stage, and has not yet received funding or a government mandate, it at least doesn’t claim that it has already been “built”.

The UN's False Palestinian History (part 2)

I continue going through the Palestinian Question display in the halls of the United Nations. Part 1 here.

I'm not going to spend too much time on this UNRWA section; the problems with UNRWA having a different definition of refugee from the one spelled out in the Refugee Convention is a topic we have covered many times, and by no stretch of the imagination can anyone say there are 5 million refugees today.

The display, as mentioned, does not mention the Intifadas. It also skips over Oslo and Arafat's refusal to accept a state. True, the UN wasn't involved but the history matters, people reading this as their education on Palestinian history learn virtually nothing about why they do not have a state - because they rejected it many times.

UNSC 1515 does not say much beyond that the UN endorses the Quartet's roadmap.

The roadmap does not mention Jerusalem as capital of Palestine at all, although it implies that it should be divided: "a negotiated resolution on the status of Jerusalem that takes into account the political and religious concerns of both sides, and protects the religious interests of Jews, Christians, and Muslims worldwide, and fulfills the vision of two states, Israel and sovereign, independent, democratic and viable Palestine, living side-by-side in peace and security." But there is nothing in that text, a least, that precludes Israel maintaining control over all of Jerusalem.

The exhibit again ignores Israel's peace offer in 2008 that would indeed have divided Jerusalem.

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.

In the zero-sum world of BDS politics, last month’s Eurovision Song Contest could not be perceived as anything but a massive defeat for the boycotters. Their extreme efforts to get the program moved from Israel, their strong-arming of artists to now show up, and their incessant calls for boycott could not prevent the thousands of people who visited Israel for the event or millions watching the song contest on TV from seeing the actual Israel, rather than the dystopia of BDS fantasies and *gasp* making up their own minds, rather than let the BDSers think for them.

The one bright spot for the boycotters were the antics of the Islandic band Hatrio Mun Sigra which did not misbehave during their performance, but did engage in politics by sneaking out a Palestinian flag during the announcement of the winner (it wasn’t them, BTW).

What little heat their “reveal” generated was soon forgotten, except for some BDSers looking for a fix and the Icelandic government which may punish the band for not playing by the rules. But I got re-interested in the controversy when this piece appeared in Tablet revealing that – for all their goth, outsider posing, the members of Hatrio Mun Sigra are part of a hereditary caste of Iceland’s elite – the sons of diplomats and bankers – playing at punk while demonstrating their wokeness in the way all European aristocrats do these days: by dissing the Jewish state.

One need only look at the pale, scrawny members of the band to combine their appearance and background into a single well-worn phrase: white privilege. In fact, if that term had any meaning among the people who use it the most, one might be led to think that anti-Zionism is the touchstone of the most melanin-deprived elite.

This fits nicely with the concept of Palestinian privilege that titles this piece. For example, sixty million of the world’s refugees (including those from Syria for whom the world shows such concern) is supported by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) whose budget is comparable to the money spent on a UN agency, UNWRA, dedicated solely to not solving the problem of five million Palestinian “refugees.”

Many commentators describe Palestinian behavior such as refusing tax revenue from Israel unless it includes sums they have committed to pay those who killed Israelis or doing everything possible to derail an economic conference dedicated to their economic improvement as the acts of “spoiled children.” But another way to look at those choices is as the acts of an outraged elite doing everything in their power to preserve their wealth, power and position in society.

The poverty such choices might cause the average Palestinian might seem to counter any discussion of privilege, but keep in mind that the elite making these decisions are not impacted by them. The wealth they have skimmed off foreign donors is not likely to be seized, and their positions of power is not threatened by those below them (unless the masses organize under the rule of a new elite of fanatical Islamists). Similarly, the privileged Palestinian elite has no fear that parents of members of Hatrio Mun Sigra or their pals in the European diplomatic core will hold Palestinian members of their caste to account.

The privilege model also helps explain why members of this elite in “Palestine” are so quick to lash out at fellow Arab tyrants who seem to be distancing themselves from “the sacred cause.” After all, with dozens of Arab nations allied with even more Islamic ones within the halls of the United Nations, having their way internationally has been taken as a given by Abbas and Company. So condemning Arab leaders for not sacrificing their own interests is the equivalent of the rich and powerful condemning President Roosevelt as a traitor to his class.

Given how much our own intersectional elite demands they get to decide who gets to speak and who does not based on their own ever-changing ranking of privilege, it’s interesting how the power relationships described above: where European hereditary castes prove their progressive bone fides by embracing the anti-Israel cause, all in support of the least progressive regimes on the planet, is not mentioned (or shouted down when someone else brings it up).

Interesting, but not surprising. After all, rank does have its privilege.

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.