Monday, August 26, 2019

From Ian:

Jewish Rabbis and Disloyalty
Like the boy in the tale of the emperor’s new clothes, President Trump has once again spoken a taboo truth: Some American Jews seem to be more loyal to an increasingly anti-Jewish and far-left Democratic Party than they are to the Jewish people. That’s not necessarily an immoral position for most American Jews to take: As individuals, they have no concrete duty of loyalty to the Jewish people, and it is their absolute right to seek stronger allegiances through political, rather than through religious or ethnic affinity. But American Jewish leaders, picked and paid as such by the Jewish community, are in a different position. Those Jewish leaders whose fiduciary duty of loyalty is to the Jewish missions of their organizations, but whose primary loyalty is to the Tlaibanized progressive movement and the party that champions it, are betraying that duty in some truly indecent ways.

Consider Reconstructionist Rabbi Toba Spitzer. As president of the Massachusetts Board of Rabbis (MBR), and as the long-time rabbi of the cultish Congregation Dorshei Tzedek, Spitzer has aggressively promoted extreme left-wing causes. Many are direct threats to the Jewish community: embracing anti-Semitic Islamist extremists like Linda Sarsour, hostility toward the U.S. government, hostility toward the Israeli government, support for the anti-Semitic Occupy Wall Street movement, support for the anti-Semitic Black Lives Matter movement, and open border refugee policies are some examples. Yet Rabbi Spitzer and the MBR insist that these causes are Jewish religious imperatives, even as they proclaim Jew-haters like the Hamas front group, CAIR, and the terror-affiliated Islamic Society of Boston to be their friends and allies. At the same time, Spitzer and the MBR demonize in vicious terms those fellow Jews who don’t agree with their political viewpoints.

Last year, Spitzer wrote that, when it comes to Israel, American Jews should ask themselves: “Do we believe that the physical continuity of the Jewish people supersedes other Jewish values?” In other words: Should the Israelis choose to die en masse instead of committing what Rabbi Spitzer feels is the unforgivable sin of perpetuating the fight with the Palestinians? Implicitly answering in the affirmative, Spitzer challenged the “existential narrative” of Israel, arguing that Jewish sovereignty -- and the Jewish lives protected by its existence -- should not supersede the Jewish values of “lovingkindness” (chesed) and “mercy” (rachamim) toward “supporters of Hamas” -- her words, not mine.

Rabbi Spitzer’s question, and the argument implicit in it, comes from ignorance. According to the Jewish canon, which deals with the laws of armed conflict at length, war against the likes of Hamas is literally a mitzvah. Beyond Judaism, the principle of individual and collective self-defense of life and property is a universal human value enshrined in the law of nations and in free sovereign legal systems like those of the United States. It is an inhuman demand, most often made by totalitarians, that a class of people die or submit to being robbed without putting up a fight -- for the good of another class or people. (h/t MtTB)

John Podhoretz: About This Whole Loyalty Business… A reflection on the discourse.
We American Jews are not disloyal when we turn our backs on Israel and insult its friends and treat them as though they are enemies–and when we treat its enemies as though they are our friends, Peter Beinart.

At best, we are blind fools who do not see how a mere twist of fate has kept us from speaking Hebrew as a first language as we ride on a bus headed toward Mount Scopus that will be blown up or ensanguined by a knife-bearing terrorist.

At worst, we are far lower than merely disloyal. We are acting as active collaborators with those who wish our destruction. Such people do not bother sorting out which Jew is full of deep feeling for Palestinian rights and which Jew is a settler seeking to annex the entire West Bank. What they see is a Jew, and the Jew should be dead, and that Jew could be you or your mother or your baby.

Clearly, Trump shouldn’t have wandered into this minefield. But spare me the outrage about Trump saying no Jew should vote Democrat. This isn’t about Jews. Trump thinks no person in America should vote Democrat. This is just part of his own evolution as a partisan since he was a Democrat until about five minutes ago. Now, he’s a Republican, so he thinks everybody else should be, too, especially because he’s sure he so wonderful. Why is this surprising? Every liberal thinks everybody should vote liberal. Every conservative thinks everybody should vote conservative. Every Jew thinks every other Jew should vote the way he does. You think you’re right and the other side is wrong. You can work to understand the opinions of others and respect them, but you still think they’re wrong. If you didn’t, you would vote the other way.

Donald Trump says things no president has ever said before, and many of his rhetorical innovations have not been good for our political life or our country. But in this respect, he’s just like everybody else these days. (h/t IsaacStorm)
Commentary Magazine Podcast: How Much Outrage Can Trump Generate?
Hosted by Abe Greenwald, Christine Rosen, John Podhoretz, Noah Rothman
What was Trump doing talking about Jews and loyalty? Why does everyone have a cow every five minutes about what Trump says when he’s been doing the same thing for four years now? Whom does this help? Whom does it hurt? The whole podcast gang is back to offer maybe a little insight.
‘The Squad’ Co-Sponsors Bill Claiming Israel Tortures Children, And Parrots Other Terrorist Propaganda
Many Americans now know that Reps. Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar—two members of “the squad” of far-left congresswomen so much in the news—were recently barred from traveling to Israel to agitate for the anti-Israel boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement. Fewer know all four members of “the squad,” including Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rep. Pramila Jayapal, have co-sponsored a bill that accuses the Jewish state of torturing children. Fewer still know the claims made in the bill originate mostly from a group that could be described as the propaganda arm of a terrorist organization.

The so-called “Promoting Human Rights for Palestinian Children Living Under Israeli Military Occupation Act“ was re-introduced in the House by Rep. Betty McCollum, whose congressional district neighbors Omar’s in Minnesota. Until recently, McCollum was considered a supporter of Israel, but a critic of its government.

In February, however, she condemned “[t]he right-wing, extremist government of Benjamin Netanyahu and its apartheid-like policies,” adding “there are now members of Congress who are not willing to ignore the Israeli government’s destructive actions because they are afraid of losing an election.”

McCollum’s invective prompted Mark Mellman of the Democratic Majority for Israel to respond that Netanyahu “came to office in a fair and democratic election in which every Arab citizen of Israel had the same right to vote as any Jewish citizen.” Mellman added that “by suggesting that Jews have disproportionate influence on U.S. elections, the Congresswoman exploits an anti-Semitic trope widely used by far right forces from Czarism to fascism.”

McCollum’s bill, while not directly exploiting the anti-Semitic trope of blood libel, trades on the accusation that Israel treats non-Jewish children cruelly and inhumanely. The bill claims Palestinian children detained by Israeli defense forces suffer torture and physical violence, are deprived of lawyers and parents, not informed of their legal rights, and so on. (h/t MtTB)



Something both fascinating, enraging and terribly sad happened this past week.

Like the honest storybook child who pointed out that the “Emperor has no clothes,” President Trump said two words no one wanted to hear, pointing out a situation many recognize but most are afraid to mention.

Disloyal Jews.

With a piercing, instinctive understanding, Trump put a spotlight on an identity crisis in the Jewish community.

“Who am I being disloyal to?!”

An indignant American Jewish Democrat asked me, who he is being disloyal to. He was angry and he really didn’t understand – and that is what makes this issue so very sad…

Context

President Trump’s quote about “disloyal Jews” was part of a statement regarding Israel barring Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib from touring the country, due to their active involvement in the BDS movement.

The media coverage, whether through sloppy reporting or deliberate spin, sparked rage and gave birth to numerous accusations against the President including:

·         “He is invoking a classic antisemitic trope about dual loyalty” the idea that Jews can’t be loyal to the land of their birth.
This idea is historically ridiculous considering that Jewish leadership always instructed Jews to be loyal to the laws of the land and not stand out too much because being too different from the neighbors put Jewish lives in danger.
·         “This is just proof of how hateful and divisive he is”
·         “He told Netanyahu to bar Congresswomen Tlaib and Omar from Israel to gain political points and Netanyahu did his bidding”a comment that completely disregards Israel as a sovereign nation that makes its own decisions and actually has a law barring BDS supporters from entering the country
·         He hates Tlaib and Omar because they are successful Muslim women
·         “If he means we should be loyal to him or to the Republican Party he’s just insane and should be impeached”
Listening to what he actually said paints a picture, 180 degrees opposite of the media spin.

He was answering the question:

“Ilhan Omar said the United States should rethink its policy of aid towards Israel after she and Congresswoman Tlaib were denied entry… Should there be any change in US aid to Israel?”

His answer was unequivocal.

“No. And you should see the terrible things that Tlaib has said about Israel. And AOC +3… Omar is a disaster for Jewish people. I can’t imagine, if she has any Jewish people in her district that they could possibly vote for her.”

He proceeded to call out Rashida Tlaib’s tearful anti-Israel press conference, recalling her behavior at his campaign rallies before she became a Congresswoman:

“I saw a woman who was violent and vicious and out of control and all of a sudden I see this person who is crying because she can’t see her grandmother. She could see her grandmother. They gave her permission to see her grandmother but she grandstanded and she didn’t want to do it. That’s a decision of Israel… They [Israel] could let them [Tlaib and Omar] in if they want but I don’t think they want to. If you read the things they’ve said about Israel and if you look at their itinerary before they found out [that they would not be allowed to enter Israel], you take a look at their itinerary, it was all going to be a propaganda tour against Israel. So I don’t blame Israel for doing what they did. I had nothing to do with it but I don’t blame them for doing what they did. I think it would have been very bad to let them in. Including the four. I’m talking about all four but these two, Omar and Tlaib. I think it would be a very bad thing for Israel but Israel has to do what they have to do but I would not cut off aid to Israel. I can’t believe we are even having this conversation. Five years ago, the concept of even talking about this — even three years ago — of cutting off aid to Israel because of two people that hate Israel and hate Jewish people — I can’t believe we’re even having this conversation! Where has the Democratic Party gone? Where have they gone where they’re defending these two people over the State of Israel? And I think any Jewish people that vote for a Democrat — it shows either a total lack of knowledge or great disloyalty.”

Antisemitic trope and disingenuous rage

Anyone who can understand English cannot possibly listen to what Trump said and believe there is a modicum of Jew-hate behind his words. In fact, all the accusations against him simply evaporate when you pay attention to what he said:

·         He was speaking about AOC +3, not just Tlaib and Omar.
·         He had nothing to do with barring the Congresswomen from Israel but he does understand and support Israel’s decision.
·         Tlaib was given special humanitarian permission to visit her grandmother – on the condition she didn’t turn her visit into a BDS propaganda display. She refused, choosing hate over her grandmother.
·         Trump expressed deep dismay at the change in the Democratic Party -
Israel was always a by-partisan consensus and now they choose to support haters like Omar and Tlaib rather than doing what the Party always did – stand for Israel. He wasn’t attacking the Democratic Party as a representative of the Republicans. He was asking as an American, how the values of the Party became so perverted.
And antisemitism? I am old enough to remember Presidents Obama, Bush and Clinton. None of them ever showed so much genuine concern for the well-being of the Jewish People.
The indignation and rage over Trump’s remarks are disingenuous and, well… enraging.

Identity politics

In a world of identity politics and intersectionality it is a tragedy that there are Jews who do not comprehend the basic truth behind what President Trump said.

The Jewish People are family. In a family, no matter how much you disagree, you are supposed to protect your relatives from attack by outsiders. Just think of the brother who bullies his sister but beats the snot out of anyone who treats her poorly. That is what family is supposed to do. 

Donald Trump instinctively understands what so many American and even Israeli Jews have forgotten about their own identity. Watching the way he lives his life and who he trusts, it is obvious that Trump sees value and strength in blood ties (wives can be replaced, children cannot). It is his children who he trusts and counts on the most. That’s why it is easy for him to recognize that the Jewish People are one family and no matter how much we love the lands we were born in or have other issues of interest, family comes first – or at least it should.

One doesn’t get to choose your relatives. We don’t always like our family members. We Jews have family who bring us pride (like Gal Gadot) and we have the problematic ones (like crazy Uncle Bernie). But it’s not supposed to matter - no matter how far apart we live or how different our ideas are, when facing an external threat, family is supposed to defend its members (we can go back to fighting after the threat is dealt with).

That’s what Trump was talking about.

Family that doesn’t come to the defense of other family members, particularly when their lives are threatened, are disloyal:

Jews who heard Israel say the Iran deal puts our lives in danger and supported it anyway.
Jews who saw how Obama treated Israel and voted for him the second time too.
Jews who choose socialism over Judaism. Who choose local politics over the politics of survival of our people and the safety of our ancestral homeland.
Jews who say that the hatred is directed at Israel, caused by Israel and not at Jews.

Just like German Jews said: “We’re not Jews, we are Germans of the Mosaic faith (the faith of Moses).” Sadly it was their neighbors who taught them otherwise. Jews are Jews first, no matter how they self-identify.

Jews who blame terror attacks against Israelis on “the occupation” and Netanyahu rather than the terrorists and the leaders that poisoned the minds of young people, raising a generation to believe that murdering Jews is an honorable act – those Jews aren’t just disloyal to family. They are disloyal to the Jewish ideals of morality, justice and common human decency. 

Donald Trump was talking about Jews who rush to stand in solidarity with Ilhan Omar and their “Muslim sisters” and don’t cry for Rina Shnerb.

Jews who choose those who hate and wish to destroy their family because it is the current fad in the Democratic Party. In my opinion that’s also disloyalty to America because America was founded on morality and acceptance of all people. Allowing a political party that represents half of the country to be led by people who incite hate, lie and front for actual terrorists is a betrayal of the entire American people, not just the Jews. Israel was always a bi-partisan issue. The security of Israel is in the best interest of the United States. Undermining this is bad for everyone.

THAT is what Trump was talking about when he said: “I can’t believe we are even having this conversation.”

Trump was gracious enough to give those Jews an excuse – possibly they are terribly ignorant about politics and don’t understand what is going on. That’s a much nicer possibility than willfully endangering and consciously betraying your own family.

I am less gracious.

Israel is wary of calling out disloyal Jews. Our numbers are so small, the idea that a large fraction of our people might break away from us is frightening. Considering the reality, I believe that it is worse to pretend the problem doesn’t exist and let the damage continue to be done from within by Jews who have turned against our family, who undermine our safety, delegitimize our history and side with those attempting to eliminate our future.

This isn’t a matter of the Republican Party vs the Democratic Party. This is a matter of policies that have a direct and immediate effect on my family.

The years of Clinton-Obama foreign policy caused so much damage to Israel and the entire Middle East that it is mind-boggling. The amount of bloodshed that occurred is so shocking that the world, particularly Americans seem to have promptly forgotten all about it.

Endangering the State of Israel, empowering Iran, denying our right to self-defense and supporting the denial of our connection to our ancestral homeland and holy places via the UN are just the beginning. The rest of the Middle East suffered too, much more than Israel has. These are just a few examples:

·         In Egypt - ousting Mubarak, supporting the Muslim Brotherhood, looking the other way when Christians were slaughtered and delegitimizing Sisi
·         In Iran – Remaining silent when the government shot young people in the streets during the Green Revolution, the Iran deal, enabling arms acquisition amnd shipment to Hezbollah, threatening Israel’s borders.
·         In Iraq – leaving a vacuum which enabled the rise of ISIS and subsequent slaughter of thousands, genocide of Yazidis, sex slavery, torture organ theft and more
·         The war in Yemen
·         Destabilizing Libya, Benghazi… does anyone remember Benghazi and the time American soldiers were given the order to stand down when Americans were under attack?!
Anyone who wonders why most Israelis hated Obama and love Trump should reread the list above. Israelis are not crazy or stupid, we are judging by results.

I didn’t expect Trump to be a good President. He has surprised me beyond my wildest dreams. His actions have undone a lot of the damage done by the previous administration. He has fulfilled the broken promises of multiple American administrations. Over and over he has spoken out against Jew hate – in America and abroad.

To him I say, thank you Mr. President.

To everyone else I say, if you support a policy or a politician that puts my life and that of my family in danger, I have a problem with you. If you are Jewish and you do that, you deserve the title of “disloyal Jew.”


You are being disloyal to ME. My family. My friends. My neighbors. 



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.


Lose-Lose

In any type of conflict, an ideal strategy is one that places your opponent in a lose-lose situation.
In military combat, this might involve trapping your enemy so that his army has only two choices: advance and be decimated, or retreat and get cut down while racing away in disordered flight.  In the first Gulf War, General Norman Schwarzkopf successfully shattered the Iraqi army not just through superior firepower, but through maneuvers that left his opponent no choice that did not involve annihilation.

Tactics that place your foe in a lose-lose situation are also common in other sorts of combat, such as the propaganda warfare carried out daily against Israel.  For example, a rhetorical maneuver proponents of BDS like to use is the claim that the fight against them demonstrate their own success, leading to questions like “Why would Israel’s supporters put so much effort into fighting BDS is it wasn’t effective?”

The brilliance of this maneuver is that it places Israel’s friends in a lose-lose situation: either fight against BDS and be used as evidence of enemy strength, or ignore it – which effectively hands the field over to that enemy to do as they like.

The recent flare-up over two BDS-supporting Congresswomen visiting Israel put the Jewish state into a similar lose-lose situation: either bar the pair and have condemnations rain down or say “Yes” to the visit and allow your foes to travel the region ginning up hatred.  While many pro-Israel activists helped blunt the effectiveness of this propaganda attack (by, for example, exposing the anti-Semitic nature of the organization that was sponsoring their Israel trip), that represented after-the-fact repair work in a situation where the enemy had already set the terms of engagement.
Unfortunately, I can’t think of many situations when Israel and her friends were able to perform this same trick.  Perhaps this is because our opponents can count on a pliant media to parrot their messages while treating anything our side says with skepticism.  Or maybe we lack the cynicism reflected in the other side’s willingness to use the suffering of others (including one Congresswoman’s own grandmother) to further their cause. 

Israel’s limited options also reflects the power dynamic of the war against the Jews.  While huge investment has been made in portraying Israel as powerful (and privileged), that has been done to mask the fact that the world’s sole Jewish state has had to do battle with 20+ Arab states allied with several dozen more Muslim ones who control not just half the world’s oil reserves, but also major international organizations like the UN. Given this, the majority of Israel’s energies must be invested in manning the siege walls, a defensive strategy that limits offensive choices that could pin down our foes in a lose-lose situation.

And then there is the reality that while Israel’s enemies are at war with the Jewish state, the reverse is not true.  As mentioned previously, the dream come true for nearly every Israeli (and every Israeli supporter) is to see the nation living at peace with her neighbors.  This is a worthy goal, but does not lend itself to the sorts of propaganda tactics used by enemies who want to see Israel become an object of hatred and ultimately destroyed. 

That said, it is possible to isolate and brand an enemy (such as the BDS “movement”) that doesn’t necessarily require us to ferment hatred against those we ultimately want to live in peace with.  The fact that most people on our side refer to BDS as anti-Semitic has already gone a long way to freeze that project and define it in our own terms.  We might also be able to do a little Jiu jitsu at their expense, insisting that the very existence of their program demonstrates that Israel must be fabulously successful and beloved (otherwise, why run boycotts and divestment campaigns against it?). 


The only trick with any techniques to place our opponents in a lose-lose situation in a propaganda war of their own making is to repeat our talking points incessantly, never replying to the other side’s charges and ignoring anything the other side tries to say in their own defense. This is obviously not the stuff of dialog, but dialog only takes place between people playing the same game and if the BDSers want to continue their propaganda warfare incessantly, our response should be an even more incessant counterattack.



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

Even Some of Israel’s Greatest Supporters Don’t Get the Middle East Conflict
In July, Israeli media reported that the Trump plan calls for a land corridor linking the Gaza Strip with the Palestinian Authority. It would be better called a terror corridor. Israel’s internal security services revealed recently that Hamas, more or less confined to the Gaza Strip, is pushing to create terror cells in the West Bank. An unrestricted land corridor, effectively cutting Israel in two, would make the job that much easier.

If Israel is nervous, Jordan is even more so. King Abdullah fears that the peace deal will make changes to Jordan’s status on the Temple Mount. Its control of the Muslim holy sites there is what gives the kingdom its religious legitimacy. Abdullah also fears the deal will propose some sort of confederation between the kingdom and the West Bank, which would undermine Hashemite rule and turn Jordan into a "de facto" Palestinian state.

In fact, when it comes to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, the only thing worse than trying for an agreement is succeeding in making one. The Oslo Accords were a catastrophe for Israel. Land was handed over to a terrorist entity that proceeded to kill nearly 2,000 Jews in attacks the likes of which Israel had never seen. The Oslo process eventually led to Israel’s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, which has exposed the country’s south to incessant rocket attack and the torching of thousands of acres of fields. With one such "peace agreement," can Israel survive two?

Trump could end this madness with a tweet. He isn’t overly invested.

Confronted with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s remarks that a deal may be "unexecutable," Trump responded quite simply that he "may be right." Just last week, on August 18, Trump said, "It is tough to make a deal when there is that much hate."

Such comments could swiftly lead to the exits. "Hey folks, we got it wrong. One side isn’t interested in peace." It would mean an end to the painful tradition of one administration after another jousting at the same peace windmills.

Lies can sow enormous suffering. But they’re also like balloons. Sometimes it just takes a pinprick.
Fabricating Palestinian History
A book titled Palestine: A Four-Thousand-Year History, which seeks to trace modern Palestinian identity back many centuries before the oldest parts of the Hebrew Bible were composed, might be dismissed out of hand as a work of quackery. But the author, Nur Masalha, has a doctorate from a British university and a post at London’s prestigious School of Oriental and African Studies. In a careful review, Alex Stein takes apart the book’s various distortions, half-truths, cherry-picking of evidence, insinuations, and logical leaps, of which a few examples suffice:
On . . . the enduring use of the name Palestine itself, [one of the book’s core arguments], Masalha provides no evidence to back up this claim. Nor does he identify the people or peoples who [supposedly] used the name Palestine so habitually. . . . [O]f the four specific examples produced to link the term Palestine to the Late Bronze Age (3300 to 1200 BCE), three are taken from the 7th century CE onward. Despite its presentation as a 4,000-year history, Palestine has a distinct bias toward the era that followed the Islamic conquest of the Levant in 636 CE.

Even when he is writing about the Bronze Age, Masalha strives to emphasize the Arab connection:

Arabic-language epigraphic evidence from Palestine east of the Jordan River is extensive, with some Arabic inscriptions dating from the Roman era and as early as 150 CE. In fact, Palestine is extremely rich in Arabic inscriptions, most of which date from the early Islamic and Umayyad periods.
A more relevant observation, especially in a chapter dealing with the Late Bronze Age, [which ended by] 500 BCE, would clearly be the numerous Hebrew inscriptions discovered by archaeologists and dating from that period.


Likewise, despite repeatedly insisting that his goal is to “read the history of Palestine through the eyes of the indigenous” in order to create a “pluralist” version of history as opposed to the version shaped by colonialism, Masalha goes to great lengths to minimize Jewish history in the land of Israel. As Stein puts it, “there is no room for Jews in Masalha’s ‘pluralist’ reading of Palestine’s history, other than as passive members of a ‘faith community’ living under Arab Muslim hegemony.” And as a historian explicitly hostile to imperialism and colonialism, Masalha has a notable blind spot, as evidenced by his discussion of “indigenous” vs. “settler-colonist” place names:
President Trump: When you leave the Middle East, do it with a big bang
THE ONLY way to prevent further decline in American capabilities, particularly in the Middle East, is to bolster deterrence. A withdrawal from the Middle East must be accompanied by steps that reduce the general impression of a weak US going home in defeat.

The place to make a stand is regarding Iran. Obama cut a deal with Iran that only encouraged its quest for hegemony and drive for nuclear weapons, while buying time in the hope that Iran will not harass the United States. In contrast, Trump understands that the Islamic Republic of Iran is an enemy of the US and that it is determined to acquire a nuclear weapon. But his hopes for forcing Iran to change its policies under diplomatic and economic pressure, while pursuing a policy of US disengagement from the Middle East, are unlikely to be realized.

The only way to leave the Middle East with as little as possible damage to US standing and security is to leave with a big bang. Washington must instill fear in the hearts of its enemies.

Despite the significant reduction in American military capabilities, the US still has enough punch to punish regional opponents and to generate fear. The US still possesses a strong enough air force to conduct a short campaign to destroy the critical Iranian nuclear installations.

Such military action would also delay nuclear proliferation, an important goal for the US, encourage US regional allies and discourage its opponents.

Indeed, action against a nuclear-aspiring Islamist Iran would reverberate beyond the Middle East and send a clear signal to anti-American forces all over the world.

Enhanced deterrence would prevent further Iranian provocations and would buy the US time to put its house in order and get serious about being a superpower.

By Daled Amos


Two years ago, David Hazony -- founding editor of The Tower -- described the potential bond between Israeli Identity and the Future of American Jewry. He proposed that Israeli culture could energize the American Jewish community. A key part of this is Israeliness:
Today, on a patch of land dreamed about for millennia, millions of Jews are living a different Jewish life. And they are doing it in a way that continues to preserve identity across generations. And increasingly, that unique approach to life and history and identity are exporting themselves—their cultural products, their innovation, their very life essence—to America.
But now it seems that Israeliness does not have to be exported in order to expand its impact.
In fact, the sense of identity offered by Israeliness may not even be limited to Jews.

In describing what he calls The Israelification of Israeli Arabs, Druze Israeli poet and essayist Salman Masalha points to a survey by Sicha Mekomit before the previous election. That survey found that
a deep process of Israelification is underway in Arab society. Forty-six percent of respondents defined themselves as Israeli Arabs, 22 percent as Arabs, 19 percent as Israeli Palestinians and only 14 percent as Palestinians. In other words, 65 percent affixed the term “Israeli” to the way they define themselves.

Contrary to prevailing conceptions, it turns out that the Arab public yearns to participate in determining the political and social agenda of this country.
Masalha wrote his article for Haaretz.

Another writer for Haaretz, Alexander Yakobson, continues that thought that Arab citizens seek ‘Israeliness’ and goes further, quoting from other findings from that same survey that Masalha didn't mention.

For instance:
76 percent of Arabs say relations between Jews and Arabs in Israel in everyday life are “mostly positive” and only 18 percent described them as negative (compared to 53 percent and 33 percent, respectively, among the Jewish respondents). And 94 percent of the Arabs surveyed agree there is a Jewish people as well as a Palestinian people (while 52 percent of the Jews surveyed said there is a Palestinian people and not just a Jewish people). [emphasis added]
This sense of Israeliness does not negate a Palestinian Arab identity.

Yakobson admits the need to be careful when evaluating surveys, especially when dealing with a single, individual one. After all, a lot depends on the way questions are phrased, and there are other surveys where the sense of a Palestinian identity is expressed more strongly. But despite those reservations, Yakobson believes the overall picture described by the survey Masalha cites does in fact correspond with dozens of surveys over the years.

He believes he can reconcile these 2 sides of an Arab identification with Israel while maintaining a Palestinian Arab identity as well:
My conjecture is that the Arab public votes as it does, first and foremost, because most of them accept the Palestinian national narrative that the Arab parties represent. However, in its attitude toward the state, most of this public does not draw the natural emotional conclusions from this narrative.
The implication is that there is a sense of pragmatism at work here.

Sure, there are good pragmatic reasons for Arabs to prefer living in an Israeli state rather than a Palestinian one, but Yakobson another poll, the 2018 Israeli Democracy Index, according to which 51 percent of the Arab respondents went so far as to say they are "proud to be an Israeli."

That is more than just pragmatism.

He concludes that on the one hand the Arabs accept the Palestinian narrative and will continue to vote for those who promote it, while at the same time these same Arabs do not represent what that Palestine narrative implies.

While, neither the Arab nor the Israeli leadership can make claim to total allegiance from the Israeli Arab population, the Israeli government has an opportunity "to make it easier for the majority of Arab citizens to realize their desire to integrate more fully into Israeliness without forgoing their distinct identity."

That is good news when it comes to the Arab Israelis.
But what about the Palestinian Arabs?

On that score, David Goldman suggests that The‌ ‌Palestinian‌ ‌Problem‌ ‌Is‌ ‌Dying‌ ‌of‌ ‌Natural‌ ‌Causes‌ -- literally -- on account of the failure of the oft-threatened "demographic bomb" to go off, as predicted by those who advised Israel of the urgency of making peace before Jewish Israelis become a minority in their own country.

Instead, the opposite was true.

Goldman quotes an article he wrote for the Asia Times, where he suggested that instead of making peace with a Palestinian Arab population "heavily tilted towards hot-headed youngsters", Israel should instead wait and take advantage of the declining Palestinian fertility rate which would raise the average age of the West Bank population. Comparable to the situation in Northern Ireland, the militants "would find themselves married with mortgages."

As proof of that potential for integration and peace, Goldman writes about the 5,800 Palestinian Arabs working at technology companies on the West Bank. He describes the booming Israeli software sector outsourcing to the West Bank, with Palestinian software companies filling orders for Israeli firms. Ariel University, located in Samaria, is a the top school for Palestinian computer science students and he brings quotes of the positive experience of Arab students who find that politics and academic studies can be separated.

Combined with Masalha and Yakobson the picture Goldman paints of the potential for peace is an encouraging one -- let's just hope that it is more successful than last time.

Last time?

An article last month in Haaretz describes the time When Arabs Were Invited to Live the Zionist Dream. The program was called Pioneer Arab Youth:
Young Arabs, mostly boys, from the country’s north were invited to live, study and work on kibbutzim. They left their village homes alone and spent years in these communities – working, eating and sleeping alongside the Jewish kibbutzniks. In some cases they made the move with their family’s blessing, but others were rebelling against their parents and their society.

The Arab Pioneers learned Hebrew, danced the hora, raised the Israeli flag, sang “Hatikva,” the national anthem, and in some cases even took Hebrew names. Some began relationships with Jewish girls and aspired to assimilate into the kibbutz society. Others wanted to learn new agricultural methods with the aim of returning home and improving life in their villages. A few of them tried to realize a dream and establish an Arab kibbutz.

“The Jews we had met until then were part of the cruel suppression by the military government,” Mahmoud Younes recalls in a conversation at his elegant home in the town of Arara in the Triangle’s Wadi Ara area. Sitting next to an expressive painting of a dove of peace, he continues, “Suddenly we were sitting with Jews as equals. Eating with them in the [communal] dining room, working. A different Israel.”

The movement, which was an initiative of the left-wing Hashomer Hatzair youth movement, existed from 1951 until 1966, the same year that military rule over the country’s Arabs ended. At its height, around 1960, it had 1,800 members and 45 branches in Arab villages. The participants had a uniform – the standard dark blue Hashomer Hatzair shirt with a white string, along with a kaffiyeh and aqal (headband). They also had their own emblem, in the form of a proud youth movement member standing under an Arab-style arch, and they had a variation of the movement’s slogan: “hazak vene’eman” – be strong and loyal – instead of “hazak ve’amatz” – be strong and brave. The Arab movement members took part in hikes, in May Day parades, even in Independence Day folk dancing.
photo
Members of the Pioneer Arab Youth movement, 1956. Credit: Hashomer Hatzair Archive
photo
Jews and Arab youths dancing the debka on Kibbutz Yakum near Netanya, 1955. Hashomer Hatzair Archive / Yad Yaari Research & Documentation Center
According to Avraham Ben Tzur, one of the founders, "the intention was not to turn them into Jews, but into pioneers."
he had taught his wards about the fate of the Jewish people and their need for a state, and at the time saw no contradiction between the national aspirations of the Jews and the Arabs. “The intention was to educate for positive Arab nationalism, not aggressive nationalism that would turn against Zionism, but one espousing historical and literary values.” 
Some of the members took what they learned on the kibbutz and brought that know-how back to their Arab villages:
In 1956, a cooperative vegetable garden called “The Pioneer” was founded in Kafr Yasif.
o  In Taibeh, an agricultural cooperative called “The Hope” was established. It included a plan for setting up a cooperative movie theater, that never came to fruition.
o  In 1957, a water-drilling project that Younes established in Arara.
According to historian Shaul Paz, the leaders of Hashomer Hatzair “wanted to believe that, just as a new Jew was being created, so, too, a new Arab would be created, one who could be a socialist, a pioneer and a kibbutznik as well.

But in the end, despite the original promise and success, there was disillusionment.

According to one former member of the Pioneer Arab Youth:
“the coexistence was forced, not genuine. Coexistence is expressed in everyday life, in deeds, not in theories. It was hypocrisy per se, and I think that the same hypocrisy exists to this day. The kibbutzim believe above all that this is a Jewish state and that the Jews in it are more privileged than the Arabs and have priority in everything.
Though the Arabs interviewed did not see it, it may be, if the surveys are accurate, progress has been made since then.

Maybe in part because of the demographics that Goldman refers to.
Maybe it is a function of time -- and realizing that neither the Arabs nor the Jews are going anywhere.

At least it is a start.






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.
  • Monday, August 26, 2019
  • Elder of Ziyon
Arab media yesterday uniformly blamed Israel for the drone that exploded at a Hezbollah media office in Beirut. Al Jazeera's report was typical:

Lebanon's Prime Minister Saad Hariri has said two Israeli drones, which came down in the Hezbollah-dominated southern suburbs of Beirut, amounted to an open attack on the country's sovereignty and an attempt to foment regional tensions.

"The new aggression ... constitutes a threat to regional stability and an attempt to push the situation towards further tension," Hariri said on Sunday in a statement from his office.

Speaking later on Sunday, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah said the fall of the two Israeli drones marked a dangerous development.

"The latest Israeli development is very, very, very dangerous," he said in a pre-scheduled televised speech.

Earlier, Mohammed Afif, a Hezbollah spokesperson, said a small, unmanned reconnaissance drone fell on the roof of a building that was housing Hezbollah's media office in the Moawwad neighbourhood in Dahyeh suburb on Sunday.

He said a second drone, which appeared to have been sent by Israel to search for the first drone less than 45 minutes later, exploded in the air and crashed nearby.

"We did not shoot down or explode any of the drones," Afif told The Associated Press news agency.
The thing is, this does not sound like an Israeli attack in the least. Israel has nothing to gain by attacking as minor a target as a Hezbollah media office or to attack heavily populated Beirut altogether.

Times of Israel notes:
The release of photographs of a drone that crashed in the Lebanese capital Beirut early Sunday morning cast doubt on the claim by the Hezbollah terror group that the craft belonged to the Israeli military, with some Israeli analysts speculating that the unmanned aerial vehicle was in fact an Iranian model.

Several well-connected Israeli commentators, including a former IDF general, said the drones appeared to be of an Iranian origin.

Former head of Military Intelligence Amos Yadlin, who now heads the esteemed Institute for National Security Studies think tank, speculated that the drone may have been part of a plot by Tehran to send armed drones into northern Israel to bomb military installations and national infrastructure, an attack that the IDF said it foiled late Saturday night with a series of airstrikes in Syria.
The photo released by Hezbollah shows a quadcopter-style drone, more like one from a hobbyist than an army:


Quadcopter drones are used by Iranian-allied forces, and they can be used by professional armies in specific circumstances, but nothing about this situation makes it seem likely to be Israeli.

Typically, quadcopter drones can only be aloft for a half hour or so and require someone controlling it from relatively close by. If a professional army uses quadcopter style drones it would be more for a soldier to gain real time intelligence than to be a suicide mission. The best commercial drones have a range of less than 10 kilometers, but the distance from Israel's northern border to Beirut is over 60 km - and the chances that the IDF would put a soldier on the ground closer to Beirut for such a nebulous target seems very small.

Military drones meant to bomb a target are almost invariably fixed wing drones, which can go much longer distances and can carry a much larger payload.

Nothing about this attack points to Israel. 

If it wasn't from Israel, than who sent it?

Yadlin's guess that this was an Iranian drone and meant to be part of the operation that was meant to be launched mostly from Syrian territory is possible but also seems unlikely. At the very least, the Israeli intelligence that uncovered the Iranian plot would (or should) have known about this one, but they wouldn't have the range to hit Israel from Beirut either. The Iranian drones that were hit by Israel in Syria looked like fixed-wing drones, not quadcopters. Houthi drones being used more recently are also fixed-wing.

Could an anti-Hezbollah Lebanese group have been testing a booby trapped commercial drone and they chose a time when everyone would blame Israel? Could it have been a Hezbollah drone that went bad?

It seems almost certain that this explosives' laden drone was launched from within a couple of kilometers of Beirut. This means that someone else is testing or using quadcopter drones for small scale attacks within Lebanon. Hezbollah (and Iran) might be blaming Israel to avoid thinking about a threat closer to home.

UPDATE: Times of London has a plausible scenario where there was an extremely high value target in that building, meaning that it would indeed be worth the risk for a precision quadcopter drone strike - either from Lebanon or the Mediterranean.



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.
  • Monday, August 26, 2019
  • Elder of Ziyon
JPost reported last week:

In a first for North Africa, German nonprofit organization Pixelhelper is building a Holocaust memorial and education center in Morocco.

The monument is situated some 26 km. southeast of Marrakech on the road to the Ouarzazate Film Studios in the little town of Ait Faska, a n area that attracts thousands of tourists.

PixelHelper founder Oliver Bienkowski told The Jerusalem Post on Wednesday that the only other Holocaust memorial on the African continent is in South Africa.

“Between our place and this, there is no [other] remembrance to the Holocaust,” Bienkowski said.

So of course Muslims are protesting. 
The news of the project has sparked a wave of public and official anger and sharp criticism of the authorities in the media and a number of interested and anti-normalization jurists.

Ahmed Ihaman, head of the Observatory of Morocco the anti-normalization, said the construction of a memorial to the Holocaust monument Holocaust in Marrakech, Morocco is a Zionist breakthrough, expressing his strong condemnation of the Zionist penetration, which reached unprecedented levels with Morocco 
 Two Moroccan human rights activists called on the government on Sunday to clarify the alleged intention of a German organization to build a Holocaust memorial and educational center near the central city of Marrakech.

On Facebook, human rights activist Hamid El Wali urged the Moroccan government to show the truth in light of media reports of a Holocaust memorial.

Because obviously commemorating the Holocaust is something only "Zionists" do.

The Masarabia article quoted above describes the Holocaust this way:

The Holocaust is a term used to describe the campaigns of the Nazi German government and some of its allies to ethnically liquidate Jews in Europe during World War II (1939-1945), according to the Israeli occupying power, which subsequently received substantial compensation from European countries for this.
To Arabs, the Holocaust is an Israeli "narrative," not a fact.


UPDATE: Moroccan authorities demolished the memorial, and the person interviewed here has to be seen to be believed:







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

Sunday, August 25, 2019

From Ian:

US State Department removes all mention of Palestinian Authority
The US State Department website has deleted the Palestinian Authority from the list of countries and areas on its website.

Until recently, 'Palestinians' appeared on the site under the name 'Palestinian Authority' and before that the 'Palestinian Territories'.

Over the past year there has been a significant devaluation of the Palestinian status on the US side, with the State Department ordering to remove any reference that included the word 'occupied territories' in reference to the Palestinian Arabs.

Now the very existence of a Palestinian Authority is not present on the official website representing the US State Department.
How Trump Started a Civil War Between the UN and Hamas
Even within the United Nations, a sprawling multinational bureaucracy linked by luxury dining, corruption and complicity in terrorism, the UNRWA stands out for waste, corruption and terror.

The UNRWA’s abbreviation leaves out its full title, United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, and its heavy focus on Gaza. The UNRWA classifies 1.4 million or 73% of the people living in Gaza as “refugees” even though it’s an independent territory run by Hamas.

There are really two UNRWA agencies. One is a UN agency run by a small number of international staffers. Another is an arm of Hamas which employs thousands of “Palestinians”. Many if not most of these are members of Hamas. Some, like Suhail al-Hindi, the former head of the UNRWA union, who was also a member of Hamas’ leadership, serve in the upper echelons of the terror group.

While a handful of European UN employees act as the public face of UNRWA, the actual agency is run by Hamas operatives who control its schools, using them to recruit and to store weapons. The union representing UNRWA employees is controlled by Hamas and its employees implement Hamas policies.

Hamas had announced as much when its newspaper responded to a call to fire UNRWA Hamas members by writing, “Laying off the agency employees because of their political affiliation means laying off all the employees of the aid agency, because…they are all members of the ‘resistance.’”

The power struggle between the UN employees and Hamas was tested before during clashes over the teaching of the Holocaust in UNRWA schools and the use of UNRWA schools to launch attacks on Israel.

The real crackup came when the Trump administration cut off all funding to UNRWA.

On a Rosh Hashana call, President Trump told Jewish leaders that the free ride for terrorists was over.

“I stopped massive amounts of money that we were paying to the Palestinians,” he announced. “The United States was paying them tremendous amounts of money.”

New Zealand suspends funding to UNRWA.
New Zealand has now joined the Swiss, Dutch, and Belgium governments in suspending donations to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) following an internal report that found “credible and corroborated” allegations of serious ethical abuses including “sexual misconduct, nepotism, retaliation, discrimination and other abuses of authority, for personal gain, to suppress legitimate dissent, and to otherwise achieve their personal objectives.”

Originally, Foreign Minister Peters and officials in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) said

“We are aware of recent media reports of allegations of ethical issues and mismanagement within UNRWA. We expect UNRWA to cooperate fully with any investigation and to report back on the investigation’s findings and recommendations.”Rt Hon Winston Peters

However, after seeing a draft report from The Israel Institute of New Zealand (IINZ) that shows MFAT officials did not brief Ministers on substantial failings within UNRWA, did not record meetings where concerns about UNRWA were raised, and took the word of UNRWA officials without any apparent attempts at independent corroboration, MFAT responded that

“the Ministry will review the findings of the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) report once the investigation is complete and provide advice to the New Zealand Government. New Zealand will not make any further payments to UNRWA until we have reviewed the report’s findings and assessed UNRWA’s response to any recommendations.”MFAT staff

This is the first time New Zealand has suspended donations to the UN agency.





Kahane's Baby

Michael Lumish

In pondering the Tlaib / Omar Israel fiasco we learned that while the Democrats were throwing a fit because Netanyahu decided against allowing US Representatives Rashida Tlaib and Ilham Omer into the country, they seem to have forgotten that the US refused to issue a visa to Knesset member Michael Ben Ari in 2012 when he was part of the National Union coalition.

This, of course, smacks of hypocrisy.

Ben Ari -- a student of hard-right-wing rabbi and politician, Meir Kahane -- was denied a visa to the US on the grounds that he had been a member of Kach, Meir Kahane's now-defunct political party that was outlawed in Israel on the grounds of racism. At some point that same year he co-founded the Kahanist political party, Otzma Yehudit, which translates into English as "Jewish Power" or "Jewish Strength." (To an American ear, these have very distinct connotations. On their English-language Facebook page they go with "Jewish Strength.") Otzma Yehudit represents a break-away party from the National Union coalition of right-wing and nationalist political parties, Ben Ari's former political home and from which he first gained entrance into the Knesset in 2009.

"Progressive-left," you can be sure, this guy is not.

The Kahanists, after all, also gave us Baruch Goldstein who on February 25, 1994, entered the Cave of the Patriarchs in the heart of Hebron, wearing his army uniform, and opened fire on Arabs in worship, killing 29 people and wounding 125 others. The able-bodied survivors overcame him and beat him to death on the spot. Perhaps dragging Goldstein into this is a bit unfair to Ben Ari but the decision-makers in Washington, D.C. (with Joe Biden sitting in the Vice President's office) were not oblivious to the reputation of Kahanism from whatever political party it comes out of.

This got me wondering just how heinous is Otzma Yehudit? Among liberal and progressive-left American Jews anything that smacks of Kahane brings to mind racism and violence if not terrorism and Otzma Yehudit is ultimately Kahane's baby. It is for this reason that the United States outlawed Kahane's Jewish Defense League as a domestic terrorist organization. Most liberal and progressive-left American Jews are ashamed of Kahane.

I, therefore, decided to examine the political ideology of Otzma Yehudit in order to see what I could make of it from a personal political perspective. Before I proceed, however, I want it understood that none of my conclusions represent an endorsement of Meir Kahane and certainly not of Baruch Goldstein. All I am doing here is cross-referencing the Otzma Yehudit Wikipedia page with its English-language self-described platform (pdf) as hosted by the Jewish Community Relations Council located in the San Francisco Bay Area. The reason that I bother with Wikipedia is because, in truth, their description of the party's platform is concise and closely in line with Otzma Yehudit's stated principles.

Wikipedia describes Otzma Yehudit  as follows:
The party is considered to be Religious Zionist, Kahanist, ultra-nationalist, anti-Arab, and far-right, and has also been described as racist, though the party disputes this.
The English-language self-described platform is very close to this, although they would never describe themselves as anti-Arab. Speaking strictly for myself -- as I intend to do throughout the rest of this exercise -- this does not sound like a very pleasant platform. As someone who grew up in a Reform Jewish household in both New York and Connecticut, such an ideology is entirely alien to my political sensibilities.

Wikipedia writes:
It calls for the annexation of the West Bank, and for complete Israeli rule between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.
The annexation of Judea and Samaria is not something that I have a problem with, in theory.  The question is how to balance the demographic issue with the international reaction to such a move, which obviously would be considerable. There are ways of easing the demographic issue even under the circumstances of annexation. Thus, I do not necessarily have an issue with the party on this part of the platform. The devil, as always, is in the details.
The party is against the formation of a Palestinian state, and advocates for the cancellation of the Oslo accords, as well as for imposing Israeli sovereignty over the Temple Mount.
I tend to agree on all three counts. A Palestinian-Arab state directly in the heart of the Jewish homeland would be a disaster. It would simply continue the process of what I sometimes call The Long Arab-Muslim War against the Jews of the Middle East. It would be a giant launching-pad looking down from the hills upon Tel Aviv.

The Oslo accords are, of course, dead in the water. In truth it was a chimera, to begin with. The reason for this is because the Palestinian-Arab leadership never accepted any offer for statehood. From the Peel Commission of 1937 to the offers from Ehud Barack to Yassir Arafat and Ehud Olmert to Mahmoud Abbas the answer was always an unequivocal "no." One begins to think that a free and democratic and peaceful Palestinian-Arab state next to Israel is not exactly what they had in mind.

As for the Temple Mount, I sometimes feel bad for the reputation of Moshe Dayan. He was an excellent soldier and an icon of the Movement for Jewish Freedom which we call Zionism. But the Israelis should never have offered the Jordanian Waqf authority on the holiest site of Jewish heritage. Personally, I would like to see the Temple Mount democratized for worship among all faiths under Israeli sovereignty.

So, I am good with the platform on this, as well, although with the caveat that such a move would be exceedingly sensitive and could easily cause Israel much blood and trouble, both internationally and at home. Nonetheless, the status quo is unacceptable because it is entirely unjust to everyone other than Muslims.
The party also advocates for increased teaching of Jewish history in all elementary schools to "deepen Jewish identity in students".
I find it difficult to believe that anyone who cares about the well-being, and ongoing existence, of the Jewish people, could possibly have any problem with such a proposition.
The party is against "freezing construction of Jewish settlements, releasing terrorists, or negotiating with the PA". 
As I do not necessarily oppose the annexation of Judea and Samaria, why would I oppose Jewish people living anywhere within the home of our forefathers?

Releasing terrorists, of course, is a wretched idea. It motivates Palestinian-Arab fighters to kidnap Jewish Israelis for the purpose of trading one or two of them for hundreds of terrorists who may go on to kill again.

As for the Palestinian Authority, I find it regrettable that Israel even feels the need to negotiate with those who would see the Jewish population either dead or gone. My inclination, as enemies of the Jewish people and the Jewish state, would be to make them persona non grata, but I also understand that such a thing is easier said than done and the European Union, the United Nations, and the Democratic Party would have ugly things to say, and do, concerning the matter.
The party advocates for the deportation of "Arab extremists".
I agree with this proposition, but it represents a slippery-slope. The definition of "Arab extremist" must be sharp and tight. Such a proposition could easily slide into an authoritarian position wherein Israel starts deporting people who may not deserve it. So, while I am in broad agreement, I would also keep a sharp eye for the abuse of such a policy. Here, again, the EU, the UN, and the Democratic Party would scream from the hillsides.
On 24 February 2019, party member Itamar Ben Gvir called for the expulsion of Arab citizens of Israel who are not loyal to Israel.
I disagree with this entirely because it borders on the fascistic. The standard, in my opinion, should not be one of loyalty, but of actually promoting hatred or violence toward Israel or Jews.
The party advocates for what it calls "Jewish capitalism" as its economic system...
I do not know about "Jewish capitalism" but as a classical liberal who believes in regulatory capitalism, I agree.
The party also supports aiding the elderly and disabled.
Who could possibly disagree?
The party is also opposed to abortion. 
I favor a woman's right to choose an abortion, within certain limitations around what is popularly known as "late-term" abortion. In the case of rape or the health of the mother, I would always stand with a woman's choice.
The party supports easing restrictions on the IDFs rules of engagement. The party is against price tag attacks.
I agree on both counts and the last thing that Israel needs is to employ soldiers afraid to fire their weaponry. There obviously needs to be rules of engagement, but none of us want to see Jewish soldiers dead or injured because they were paralyzed by concern over the court system.

Overall, I think the party has much to recommend for Israel and for itself.

However, there is a big distinction to be made between a party platform and the behavior of its members and leadership. I do not necessarily see much in the way of racism in the platform, but I am, nonetheless, distinctly uncomfortable with its association with Kahanism.

If I was an Israeli, one thing that might keep me from voting for them would be the matter of trust, but I would give them the opportunity to earn it.




We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
  • Sunday, August 25, 2019
  • Elder of Ziyon
From IINZ:

New Zealand has now joined the Swiss, Dutch, and Belgium governments in suspending donations to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) following an internal report that found “credible and corroborated” allegations of serious ethical abuses including “sexual misconduct, nepotism, retaliation, discrimination and other abuses of authority, for personal gain, to suppress legitimate dissent, and to otherwise achieve their personal objectives.”
Originally, Foreign Minister Peters and officials in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) said
“We are aware of recent media reports of allegations of ethical issues and mismanagement within UNRWA. We expect UNRWA to cooperate fully with any investigation and to report back on the investigation’s findings and recommendations.”Rt Hon Winston Peters
However, after seeing a draft report from The Israel Institute of New Zealand (IINZ) that shows MFAT officials did not brief Ministers on substantial failings within UNRWA, did not record meetings where concerns about UNRWA were raised, and took the word of UNRWA officials without any apparent attempts at independent corroboration, MFAT responded that
“the Ministry will review the findings of the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) report once the investigation is complete and provide advice to the New Zealand Government. New Zealand will not make any further payments to UNRWA until we have reviewed the report’s findings and assessed UNRWA’s response to any recommendations.”MFAT staff
This is the first time New Zealand has suspended donations to the UN agency.
Over the past decade, New Zealand taxpayers have contributed more than NZ$10m to UNRWA and recently committed to giving $3m over the next years in a deal struck between MFAT and the UNRWA staff member at the centre of the current allegations, Pierre Krähenbühl.




We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
  • Sunday, August 25, 2019
  • Elder of Ziyon
Ilhan Omar tweeted on Friday:





It was a little too much for me (I try to be restrained in my use of language, but sometimes the situation does not call for restraint:)


Omar has proven time and time again that she is an unrepentant antisemite for her own words, and then the Miftah incident is just the icing on the cake. If a Republican had partnered with a white supremacist group, the Left would never let the Right get away with it, but Omar and Tlaib's willingness to  partner with a group that not only supports terrorism but also publishes the most vile antisemitism from both the Left and the Right, and to defend them afterwards, proves beyond a doubt that anything they say about antisemitism is complete bull.

Yet her tweet gathered over 15,000 Likes on Twitter. 



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.

AddToAny

EoZ Book:"Protocols: Exposing Modern Antisemitism"

Printfriendly

EoZTV Podcast

Podcast URL

Subscribe in podnovaSubscribe with FeedlyAdd to netvibes
addtomyyahoo4Subscribe with SubToMe

search eoz

comments

Speaking

translate

E-Book

For $18 donation








Sample Text

EoZ's Most Popular Posts in recent years

Hasbys!

Elder of Ziyon - حـكـيـم صـهـيـون



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

Donate!

Donate to fight for Israel!

Monthly subscription:
Payment options


One time donation:

Follow EoZ on Twitter!

Interesting Blogs

Blog Archive