Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Thursday, October 31, 2019

PLO diplomat who says Palestinians never wanted peace VERY proud of his words

I reported last week about PLO representative to the UK, Husam Zomlot, giving a speech in Berlin where he admitted that Palestinians never wanted to a state in anything less than 100% of the land from the river to the sea.

He's very proud of this speech where he brags about Palestinian intransigence. His Facebook timeline shows the same video of his speech over twelve times!

Zomlot used to be the PLO representative to the US before that mission was closed down. The US never recognized the PLO as a state, but the PLO falsely referred (and still refers) to him as an "Ambassador."

You know who else referred to him falsely as an ambassador?

J-Street, at last year's conference.

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 September, Mahmoud Abbas announced at the UN that he intends to schedule elections as soon as he returns to Ramallah. "I have decided, upon my return from this international gathering, to announce a date for the holding of general elections in Palestine – in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip," he said.

Five weeks later, no such date has been announced.

What did happen is that Abbas appointed a committee with only members of his Fatah party, not to schedule elections but to "study" the elections. “We will discuss the elections, preparations for holding it and measures that will be taken to achieve this goal,” Abbas said.

I didn't bother to report about this because this is all a game. Abbas doesn't plan on holding elections - he is planning to use the pretense of elections to achieve more power.

This game has been played before. Abbas agreed with Hamas on elections in 2014 and 2018 and nothing happened.

There are two impossible challenges to overcome, which Abbas knows quite well.

One is that Hamas will insist that any elections include voting for members of the Palestine National Council, which is not a body of the PA but the legislative arm of the PLO.

The PA reports to the PLO. The PLO is where all the power is, and Abbas is the chairman. Members of the PNC aren't elected but appointed - by Abbas' party Fatah. At the last PNC meeting last year - the first such meeting since 1996 - Abbas filled the PNC's Executive Council with loyalists.

The PLO is not a democracy by any definition. Abbas will never allow members of the PLO's PNC to be elected because he has absolute power over it.

The other challenge is that Abbas is insisting that Arabs in Jerusalem be allowed to vote - in Jerusalem. Israel will not allow that to happen. Of course, Israel cannot stop them from traveling to Area A or B where they can vote - Jerusalem Arabs are the only people in the world who can freely travel to both Israel and the entire West Bank. But the PLO wants to use this pretense of elections as a political weapon to pressure Israel to give up some sovereignty over Jerusalem.

In other words, getting Israel to cede even a little sovereignty is more important than holding the elections.

Today, we are already seeing the backtracking from Fatah. Jamal Muheisen, member of Fatah Central Committee, said there are "obstacles" to a presidential decree on elections, blaming Hamas for not agreeing to certain administrative details. The other obstacle is that the PLO is contacting friendly countries to pressure Israel to allow voting for Palestinian elections in areas that Israel considers part of Israel.

This election sham also proves that Abbas is a liar in another way:

After the last elections in 2006, Abbas promised he won't run for re-election.

In 2009, Abbas promised he won't run for re-election.

In 2011, Abbas promised he won't run for re-election.

Yesterday, Fatah spokesman Osama al-Qawasmi said, “We confirm that our candidate is President Abbas in any upcoming presidential elections.”

Why does the media still believe anything this man says?

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 playbook of Palestinian officials for many years was to threaten the world, saying that if Palestinians don't get their political demands met by other nations pressuring Israel, then there would be massive waves of terrorism and instability.

The effectiveness of these regular threats have gone way down. But they can't get rid of old habits.

The latest naked threat to world security comes from the Palestinian Authority foreign ministry. It issued a statement that "the international community's silence on the Israeli occupation and its settlers against our people, land and sanctities directly threatens international peace and security and opens the door to regional and international chaos that are difficult to control or anticipate its repercussions."

You want to ignore us? Then we'll instigate some violence, directly or indirectly. You won't ignore us then!

ISIS used to be the unsaid party that would somehow increase its terror attacks on behalf of Palestinians. PA negotiator Saeb Erekat threatened that Arab people would attack all their US embassies and it would instigate "chaos, lawlessness and extremism" if the US moves its embassy to Jerusalem.

Arab countries have lost interest, and the international community has other priorities. Yet the Palestinians stick to the same tired playbook.

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.

Hey America: Israel is Losing It Too! (Vic Rosenthal)

Vic Rosenthal's Weekly Column

I know that I sound like a broken record. OK, none of you are old enough to know what that sounds like. How about a scratched CD, one that plays the same phrase over and over and over: Bibi, Gantz, Lieberman, Lapid: get your acts together. It is a matter of life and death.

I have sometimes sounded smug when I criticize the USA, my former home, for descending into madness. On the one hand you have the spitting and cursing leftist “resistance” to Trump, who find an angle to criticize everything that he does, accuse him of every imaginable crime, boo him at baseball games, and would certainly murder him if they could. On the other side are his partisans, to whom every action he takes, no matter how ill-considered, is portrayed as a stroke of genius. Normal mortals may not be able to see it, but there is a Plan.

That’s just the politics. Culturally, people are obsessed with race and gender in ways that defy reason, there is a strong current to throw away the idea of free speech, and – yes – they are beating up and shooting Jews there, too.

Israel, I used to suggest, is different. We aren’t crazy. We are a small country that makes the best of its opportunities, with competent leaders. We can’t afford an army like the US has, but ours is still the best in the region, because Jews are smart and know how to innovate. Aren’t we the “startup nation?” Haven’t we found a way to be both a Jewish state, a refuge for persecuted Jews the world over, while still maintaining halfway decent relations with the 20% of our population that are Arabs? Aren’t we, despite all the challenges, a democratic state?

Well, boker tov [good morning] Eliyahu as they like to say here to someone who finally understands the obvious. We are just as crazy as America. Our political and social fabric is tearing here just as badly as it is over there, and we seem to be just as clueless about how to mend it.

The behavior of Bibi, Gantz, Lieberman, and Lapid, whose almost unbelievable selfishness, egotism, and stubbornness has prevented the establishment of a government after two elections, and which threatens to produce a third (and probably equally inconclusive) one is deplorable – and intolerable. Israel is on the verge of war with Iran and its proxies, a multi-front, complicated war with an intelligent and creative enemy, one which will certainly exact a high price in blood from us. We are, it seems, unprepared, and it will take a supreme effort and expense to get prepared in time. And yet, the squabbling continues! How can they not understand this?

To the Left, it is all about Bibi’s alleged criminal activities and the Right’s “attack on democracy,” which means an attack on those unelected elements that lean Left and have so much influence, including foreign-funded lobbyists. But Bibi has been subjected to a campaign of fishing expeditions and illegal leaks to the media about them almost since he took office; something that played a large role in bringing about the current stalemate.

Today, Minister of Justice Amir Ohana referred to the “symbiosis” between the police investigators, the prosecution, and the media in connection with the leaks, which have never been investigated. Ohana is a Netanyahu appointee, but he’s quite right. Whether or not Bibi turns out to be a witch, he has been and continues to be the subject of a witch hunt (an interesting analysis of the charges against him is here).

On the other hand, Bibi has used more force to crush opposition to him in his party than he has to stop Hamas from setting wildfires in the area adjacent to our border. I can’t count all the ministerial portfolios that he is holding at once. Once perhaps the most competent Prime Minister in Israel’s history, his obsession with his legal problems and his inability to delegate responsibility seems to have neutralized him.

Yesterday’s big news was that a couple of Netanyahu’s aides allegedly paid a Bratslaver sound truck, one of those that drives around playing joyous music, stopping from time to time to allow the occupants to come out and dance in the street, to park in front of the house of Shlomo Filber, a State’s Witnesses in one of Bibi’s criminal cases. Instead of joyous music, they broadcast accusations that Filber was a liar. The police, investigating the incident, are alleged to have improperly taken the telephones of the perpetrators, and downloaded their content. The USA has nothing on us for craziness.

Social problems are multiplying. Young people still can’t afford apartments. The Haredi Rabbinut continues to embitter the lives of thousands of Israelis. The healthcare system is falling apart from a shortage of doctors, nurses, and money. Arab citizens of Israel elect politicians to the Knesset who oppose the existence of a Jewish state. Nothing is done to remove the infiltrators from South Tel Aviv. Nothing is done to prepare for the inevitable powerful earthquake. As happens in third world countries, money flows into the pockets of the elite, while public needs receive less and less attention.

I’d call for a military coup if the worthless opposition party weren’t already heavily laden with former Chiefs of Staff. Or a revolution, if I didn’t know that historically revolutions tend to end up with the most extreme, brutal factions in charge.

Really, all we need is a competent government, made up of people who put the needs of the state and its people first. Is that too much to ask?

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.

10/30 Links Pt2: Seth Mandel: This Jew doesn't tremble; Code Pink sells out women and exploits Jews on propaganda tour of Iran; A vote for Labour is a vote for anti-Semitism

From Ian:

Seth Mandel: This Jew doesn't tremble

How To Fight Anti-Semitism is tightly argued and clocks in at just about 200 pages. What it’s able to accomplish in that time is remarkable, but it really shines in two areas. The first is dispensing with the lazy defense of anti-Zionism as distinct from anti-Semitism. As Weiss shows, it really is a form of anti-Semitism.

Israel “exists. It is not an abstraction.” So pointing to the history of Jews opposed to the theoretical Jewish state in the early part of the 20th century is dishonest. The latest polls find 95% of Jews have favorable views of Israel, so the number of Jewish anti-Zionists is practically a rounding error. There’s a reason for this: Since Israel’s founding in 1948, being an anti-Zionist has meant not merely opposing the establishment of a Jewish state but supporting the existing Jewish state’s destruction. “The kumbaya of the anti-Zionist dream guarantees a very bloody reality, and anti-Zionists should be forced to defend it,” Weiss writes. Anti-Zionists are conspicuously focused on being “anti” the existence of only one state: the Jewish one. While Weiss acknowledges that some legitimate criticism of Israel gets unfairly labeled as anti-Semitism, she notes that it is more often the case that anti-Zionists are trying to launder Jew-hatred as criticism of Israeli policy. “To be an anti-Zionist in Poland before the Holocaust is one thing. To be one today is something else entirely,” she says. “It is not to be ideologically opposed to an idea. It is to be against the largest Jewish community on the planet.”

Weiss has famously become the target of an insane degree of online spite — not from random folks on the internet but from fellow journalists and commentators, as well as activists. Her book shows why: She consistently forces her antagonists to face the realities of their positions instead of letting them hide behind abstractions.

The other great triumph of the book is the final chapter, which fulfills the promise of the title: “How To Fight.” She tears into the defensiveness that leads so many Jewish Americans to fight on their accusers’ terms. She approvingly quotes a former Columbia student (Weiss is also an alumnus): “A man calls you a pig. Do you walk around with a sign explaining that, in fact, you are not a pig? Do you hand out leaflets expostulating in detail upon the manifold differences between you and a pig?”

Weiss counsels Jews to stop negotiating the terms of their own existence. She also quotes former British Chief Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks: “Non-Jews respect Jews who respect Judaism, and they are embarrassed by Jews who are embarrassed by Judaism.” Likewise, she asks readers to call out anti-Semitism, “especially when it’s hard” to do so. That means criticizing minorities, such as Ilhan Omar, who regularly use anti-Semitic tropes, rather than letting the fear of being called a racist intimidate you into silence.

Weiss tells readers to “expect solidarity.” As Jabotinsky recognized a century ago, it’s not “equality” if you’re not given equal standing. “We should not make a deal that requires us to erase ourselves,” Weiss writes. She advises other members of the tribe to “lean into Judaism,” not toward secularization and assimilation.

When, in 1982, then-Sen. Joe Biden tried to cajole Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin by holding U.S. aid to Israel over Begin’s head, the prime minister reportedly responded, “I am not a Jew with trembling knees.” Bari Weiss has picked up Begin’s baton in compelling fashion with a timely warning against a Judaism that trembles at the knees.

JCPA (Dore Gold ): The Attempt to Revive the False Charge that Israel Is Racist

Every few years a voice emerges which seeks to brand Israel or its leaders as racist. The most famous case was the decision of the UN General Assembly in 1975 to brand Zionism, the national liberation movement of the Jewish people, as racism.

Israel's ambassador to the UN, Chaim Herzog, speaking in the name of the Jewish people, responded by saying that the resolution was based on hatred, falsehood, and arrogance, as he tore the resolution in half. In 1991, the General Assembly formally revoked the resolution, largely as a result of diplomatic efforts of the United States.

Tragically, the issue has been reawakened in the context of the 2020 American presidential campaign, with the charge by Senator Bernie Sanders that the Israeli government under Prime Minister Netanyahu is racist. Israel does not want to get drawn into American domestic politics. But Israel cannot, indeed Israel must not, let such lies stand without a response.

It is Israel which reached out into Ethiopia during the 1980s to assist 120,000 of their Jewish brothers and sisters to cross Sudan and start new lives in Israel. During the Syrian civil war, it was Israel that quietly opened its borders to Syrian refugees in order to provide them with urgent medical care. Anyone visiting Hadassah Hospital, or for that matter any Israeli hospital, will witness how thousands of Arab and Jewish patients are cared for by Arab and Jewish doctors.

Israeli medical teams led the effort to defeat Ebola in West Africa, with mobile clinics which were flown in. Ironically, it was Prime Minister Netanyahu who put Africa at the top of Israel's priorities, with his repeated visits to the continent, starting in 2016.

Peace will eventually prevail in the Middle East, but it will be delayed if falsehoods about Israel continue to be spread and the Jewish state is defamed by those who should know better.

Bernie Sanders burns Israel

Abbas has used foreign aid to:
🇵🇸 Amass a $1 billion
🇵🇸 Buy a $50 million jet
🇵🇸 Build a $17 million palace
Hamas have used foreign aid to:
☠️ Fire 20,000 rockets at Israel
☠️ Build terror tunnels
☠️ Fund lavish lifestyles
Bernie wants to give Gaza aid instead of Israel.

Amy Klobuchar is, out of all the Democratic primary hopefuls, undoubtedly the most pro-Israel of the bunch. Perhaps that’s why she is often asked if she is Jewish. She is not, though the JTA has called her the “go-to Democrat for the Orthodox.”

Klobuchar has spoken out against antisemitism and for Jewish values. Her official website states, “As staunch allies of Israel, we must also ensure that harmful movements, like the resurgence in anti-Semitism and the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Movement are not successful.” But Klobuchar has done more than just talk about these things. To her credit, Klobuchar was the lone Democratic candidate (out of seven) who, back in February, voted for the $38b military aid package and anti-BDS bill. It is striking to note that while a majority of 76 senators voted for the legislation, 22 Democrats voted against it.

The bill, called Strengthening America’s Security in the Middle East Act of 2019, authorized state and local governments to demand that contractors make a declaration that they do not support boycotts of Israel and the territories (Judea and Samaria). With her vote, Klobuchar proved that she is not afraid to be the lone Democratic defending Israel’s interests.

Klobuchar On the Embassy

Klobuchar has also said she would not move Israel’s American embassy back to Tel Aviv. But don’t get too excited. She might just reverse Trump’s recognition of Israel’s annexation of the Golan. “I think it should be part of the negotiations,” said Klobuchar, speaking to Jewish Insider.

Reversing that recognition would certainly not be a pro-Israel move. When Trump moved the embassy, he wormed his way into Israeli hearts and minds, but when he recognized Israel’s annexation of the Golan, he rose above even Truman in Israel’s collective esteem. No president had ever done so much for Israel.

The thought that Klobuchar would reverse this move is horrifying and yes, puts Israel on shaky existential ground. Syria is a bad actor with Iran, Turkey, and Russia inside, all with their fingers in the pot. We need that territory to remain safe and secure. So when Klobuchar speaks of a reversal of Trump’s recognition, it makes a mockery of her statement that she “will never stop fighting for a strong U.S.-Israel relationship and a secure Israel.”

Klobuchar also wants to renegotiate the disastrous and illogical JCPOA, which is a tool to help Iran get the bomb so they can murder lots of infidels. It is impossible to understand how anyone ever supported this "deal," but Klobuchar says, "While the agreement is by no means perfect, I have concluded that it is our best available option to put the brakes on Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon and that is why I will support it. In conjunction with that support I will also push for increased security assistance to Israel and enhanced defense cooperation with our Arab allies to combat terrorism throughout the region."

Klobuchar On Netanyahu

Klobuchar seems to like and care about Israel, but is anti-Netanyahu, though half the people of Israel voted for him. “Trump has supported some of the prime minister’s moves and claims during the election that I disagreed with,” she said at JStreet's recent national conference. “And I think all of this is resulting in a loss of support for Israel. That’s very bad. As someone that views Israel as our beacon of democracy, I think it is important that we build support in the US.”

Which Netanyahu election claims and moves did she disagree with specifically? Bibi’s pledge to exercise Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria where some 450,000 Israelis reside. Klobuchar is against Jews building homes in Judea and Samaria, something that never fails to stymie this author. How can anyone be against Jews building homes unless that person is antisemitic? What can possibly be wrong about Jews building homes? Especially when they are built on uninhabited hilltops in Jewish indigenous territory?

The anti-settlement people say that settlements prejudice the outcome of possible negotiations. But this is nonsense. Facts on the ground in the form of housing would never get in the way of peace. Israel expelled more than 8,000 Jews from their homes during Disengagement. We dug up our dead and moved them, too. We proved we would go to any lengths for the sake of peace.

Being anti-settlement is not about negotiations and it's not about peace. Homes don’t get in the way of either of these. Being anti-settlement is about the belief that Jews don’t deserve even basic rights, such as a roof over their heads. To my mind, coming out against Jews building homes is the purest form of antisemitism that exists.

Klobuchar On Trump's Pull-Out

Klobuchar, on the other hand, was against Trump pulling American troops out of Syria, saying this was bad for Israel. “When you think of it from an Israeli perspective, and you think of it from the perspective of our allies, once again, this president has chosen to let Russia have a lead and then has again backed away from our allies,” said Klobuchar at the same J Street conference.

Is this true? I doubt it—we didn’t feel that Trump was backing away from Israel. But Trump’s pull-out definitely wasn’t good for the Kurds and most Israelis were upset about that. We feel a kinship with the Kurds and their desire for self-determination and a state of their own. We didn’t like the idea that Trump would move out of the way for Erdogan to perpetrate a genocide.

Klobuchar On A Two-State Solution

Klobuchar is in favor of a two-state solution. Now this is not groundbreaking news. Klobuchar shares this penchant for the two-state solution with all the other Democratic primary hopefuls. But none of the parties to the dispute desires a two-state solution. Not Israel and not the Palestinian Authority. And certainly not Hamas, whose charter calls for the destruction of the State of Israel. So why trot out the same tired formula that is unpalatable to all of the people it would actually affect?

Pushing the two-state solution shows a certain naiveté, a cluelessness about the region and the people. It suggests that like it or not, a Democrat in the White House will impose a solution on Israel and its counterpart(s), mindless of its reception. That’s not pro-Israel. It’s Big Brother writ extra-large, meddling in other people’s business.

Klobuchar's Primary Power Ranking

Business Insider gives Klobuchar a primary power ranking of eight among the 16 Democratic hopefuls still in the race as of October 25, 2018. This represents a move up in the polls for the Minnesota senator, as BI downgrades Julian Castro and Tulsi Gabbard. Could Klobuchar’s star still rise? It’s possible. These are still early days. But in terms of name recognition, Klobuchar still lags way behind that of Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, or Elizabeth Warren.

Would I take a Klobuchar over Sanders, Biden, or Warren?

Damn straight.

But that’s not what should happen.

Because being pro-Israel isn't just about sentiment, eating hummus, or dancing a hora. It's not even about giving money to Israeli causes. Being pro-Israel is about knowing the issues down to the nitty-gritty details; caring about the people who live there; and using your vote to make things better.

There isn't all that much you can do to bring peace to the region. But your vote has the power to help or hurt Israel. Use it wisely and don't vote Democrat.

It's the one thing you can do from there.

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

A BDS conference (with Linda Sarsour, Cornell West, Omar Barghouti via Skype and the usual crowd) is scheduled for November 12 at the University of Massachusetts/Amherst.

Some pro-Israel groups pressured the university to cancel, although it is not a university event and they are just leasing out the space.

The Chancellor of the university, Kumble Subbaswamy, invoked academic freedom and free speech in his statement allowing the conference, but he noted an irony with the BDSers:

An event scheduled for Nov. 12 on the UMass Amherst campus focusing on the anti-Israel “Boycott, Divest, Sanction” movement (BDS) is being presented by a private foundation – not by the university. This private foundation has, as many non-UMass organizations regularly do, rented space on campus to host the upcoming event, which is being billed as a panel discussion on “The Attack on BDS and American Democracy.” Despite our concerns regarding this particular gathering, based on its title and past statements by its panelists, as a public institution UMass is bound by the First Amendment to the Constitution to apply a content-neutral standard when making facilities available to outside organizations. For this reason, and in adherence to the principles of academic freedom, the university will take no steps to inhibit this event.

However, while UMass Amherst is firmly committed to the principles of free speech and academic freedom, the University remains firmly opposed to BDS and to academic boycotts of any kind. Academic boycotts are antithetical to academic freedom and it is ironic that individuals, who rely upon that very freedom to make their case, should advocate for a movement, in BDS, that seeks to suppress it.

That last sentence is as good a rejoinder to campus BDS activities as any ever made.

He went on to say that the event it one-sided and could alienate Jewish students, but again, he allowed it on the grounds of academic freedom.

So the BDSers won, right? You wouldn't know it based on their reaction. They put together an open letter signed by over 120 of the university's academics complaining about Subbaswamy's statement as not giving them enough academic freedom, somehow.

We, the undersigned UMass Amherst faculty, express our deep disappointment and dismay at the recent statement from Chancellor Kumble Subbaswamy regarding the upcoming November 12 event at the Fine Arts Center entitled “Criminalizing Dissent: The Attack on BDS and American Democracy.”...While we appreciate the chancellor’s stated commitment to freedom of speech, and his refusal to cancel either this event or the equally controversial event that occurred on May 4, his recent statement falls far short of the robust defense of academic freedom, and the integrity of the campus community, that we expect of our chancellor. Indeed, whether wittingly or not, his statement lends credence and legitimacy to the claims of those who have been fighting to silence criticism of Israeli violations of human rights, and to vilify those who publicly press these criticisms, including students, faculty, and staff on this campus.

Nothing the Chancellor said chilled free speech or academic freedom in any way. However, the BDSers are explicitly against free speech and academic freedom, because they insist that Israeli academics must be silenced and boycotted. If you are for academic freedom, you must be against BDS - no two ways about it.

Some of the signers explained their reasons for signing, and a number of them actually invoked academic freedom - the very thing they are against!

Louise Antony, Professor, Philosophy: "I am outraged, disappointed, and gravely offended by Chancellor Subbaswamy’s allegations that support for BDS is anti-Semitic, and that the attempt to promote civil discussion of BDS is hateful or racist.I challenge the Chancellor to cite one piece of evidence that the activists scheduled to speak at the 'Criminalizing Dissent' harbor or advance the hateful positions that he attributes to them."

He didn't say BDS is antisemitic, he said it "is considered by many as anti-Semitic." Sorry you apparently never learned to read.

But anyway, Louise, if you want any evidence that BDSers are antisemitic, how about the fact that the BDSers only boycott Jewish-owned businesses, and not those owned by Arab Israelis? Sounds like antisemitism to me. How come they claim that Jewish Israelis who move across the Green Line are settlers, but not the Arab Israelis who do? Have they boycotted any Israeli-Arab professors like Tel Aviv University's Amal Jamal who gave an anti-Israel lecture at London School of Economics?

Nope. Only Jews. What do you call that, Louise?

Theresa Austin, Professor, Teacher Education and Curriculum Studies, College of Education: "During these times, open discussion is needed to dismantle the tyranny of the dominant."

The only people stopping open discussion are the BDSers you support.

Ann Ferguson, Professor Emerita, Philosophy and Women, Gender, Sexuality Studies: "Totally support the statement! We need to defend academic freedom and challenge such unsupported normative claims that a particular action or point of view is 'anti-Semitic' when it concerns the policies of a nation-state which does not represent the views of all Jews or Semite people."

Really? A professor thinks that anti-semitism means against Semites? And again, if you support academic freedom, why are you supporting a BDS conference?

Mark Hamin, Senior Lecturer II, Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning: "Freedom of speech, assembly, and association are constitutionally inalienable rights."

Way to go, Captain Obvious. No one disagrees. You are so brave.

Sangeeta Kamat, Professor, Education Policy Studies: "I feel proud that my university is the site where we can hear the voices of those silenced and repressed such as the struggle for Palestinian rights and dignity. "

Care to give any examples of Palestinian opinions - easily found in pages of major newspapers and TV shows and social media - being silenced? (Outside those being silenced by the PA and Hamas, that is.)

Banu Subramaniam, Professor, Women, Gender, Sexuality Studies: "It is more critical now than ever for us to support academic freedom."

And the people who are against academic freedom are...? Oh yes, the group you are not signing open letters against.

Jacqueline Urla, Professor, Anthropology: "It is our duty to defend academic freedom. I am troubled by two things in particular: the characterization of a discussion of boycott, a long-standing means of protest, as exclusionary, and the conflation of BDS with anti-semitism."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't boycotts exclusionary by definition?

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.

10/30 Links Pt1: Israel Blocks Terrorists, Palestinians Block Critics; Balfour Declaration and Mandate for Palestine Still Keys to Peace; U.S. House recognizes Armenian genocide, backs Turkey sanctions

From Ian:

MEMRI: Saudi Writer: Those Who Blame U.S. For ISIS Terrorism Disregard The Fact That For Years Millions Have Been Taught Extremism And Hatred For The West

In its official responses to the killing of ISIS leader Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, Saudi Arabia fully supported the U.S. and its policy, while stressing the strong alliance between the two countries. This was expressed, inter alia, in a conversation between Saudi Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman and U.S. President Donald Trump, and in the Saudi Foreign Ministry statement on the topic.[1]

Conversely, many articles about Al-Baghdadi's death in the Saudi press directed criticism at the U.S., questioned the timing and character of the operation, and even accused the West of causing terror in the Middle East. Notable in this context was a polemic between Khaled Al-Suleiman, a columnist for the Saudi daily 'Okaz, who wrote an article titled "Has Al-Baghdadi's Role Ended?", and 'Abdallah bin Bakhit, an author and a columnist for the Al-Riyadh daily, who responded with an article titled "Has Al-Baghdadi's Role Ended, Sherlock?" Al-Suleiman wrote in his article that Al-Baghdadi was as an agent of the West, which assassinated him once he was no longer useful, and that the West was mostly responsible for the rise of terrorist organizations like ISIS. In his response article, Bin Bakhit rejected the conspiracy theories spread by many Arabs, which hold that outside forces, including the U.S., are responsible for Al-Baghdadi's terrorism, and accused Saudi Arabia and the Muslim world at large of cultivating the ideology of terrorist organizations and of figures like Al-Baghdadi and Osama bin Laden. He also complained about the support for Al-Baghdadi that prevailed in the Arab and Muslim public, and criticized the Arabs' and Muslims' disregard of their role in cultivating extremism, xenophobia, hostility to art and culture and the degradation of women in their societies.

Israel Blocks Terrorists, Palestinians Block Critics

On the one hand, leaders of the Palestinian Authority (PA) condemn Facebook for "surrendering to Israeli pressure" and taking action against those who incite terrorism and hate speech. On the other hand, the same PA leaders keep pressuring Facebook to silence Palestinians who demand an end to financial and administrative corruption in the PA.

"[E]very time Fatah posts a new terror message on Facebook encouraging violence or presenting murderers as role models, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians are given more motivation to kill Israelis. Facebook still chooses to do nothing to stop it." — Itamar Marcus, Jerusalem Post, September 11, 2019.

What Abbas and his senior officials apparently fear is that the current wave of anti-corruption protests sweeping Lebanon and other Arab countries may reach the West Bank. They appear nervous that their critics and political rivals will use social media to encourage Palestinians to revolt against corruption and tyranny.

For these leaders, when they turn to Facebook to clamp down on criticism and voices calling for reform and democracy, that is good government. However, when Israel tries to silence those who seek to spill more Jewish blood -- well, that is criminal.

From Naharnet:

Hundreds of Hizbullah and AMAL Movement supporters, some wielding sticks, on Tuesday attacked a protest camp set up by anti-government demonstrators in downtown Beirut, burning some of its tents and dismantling others.

The violence came shortly after dozens of other Hizbullah and AMAL supporters, also wielding sticks, attacked a roadblock set up by the protesters on neighboring Ring highway, a main thoroughfare in the capital.

Groups of protesters eventually returned to the main squares and began repairing their tents, while others went back to blocking the roads. They could be heard chanting one of the main slogans of the protests, "All means all," which is seen as referring to all of Lebanon's political factions, including Hizbullah and its allies.

It was unclear how many people were wounded. Fights broke out in places and security forces could be seen beating some people with batons.

The protesters armed themselves with wooden batons and metal poles as the Hizbullah and AMAL supporters approached but fled when the counterdemonstrators arrived in larger numbers. Security forces later fired tear gas to disperse them, but only after they had destroyed and set fire to several tents.

"There are political orders to attack. This was not spontaneous," said one demonstrator alluding to AMAL and Hizbullah, neither of which were spared by protesters, including from their own base.

The violence comes on the 13th day of Lebanon's anti-government protests, which have been an unprecedented expression of anger that's united millions of Lebanese against what demonstrators say is a corrupt and inefficient political class in power for decades since the 1975-1990 civil war.

But in recent days, Hizbullah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah grew critical of the protests, claiming they have been backed and financed by foreign powers and rival political groups. He called on his supporters to leave the rallies, and urged the protesters on Friday to remove the roadblocks. The mass rallies have paralyzed a country already grappling with a severe fiscal crisis.

Iran's Ayatollah Khamenei also said that the protests were being orchestrated by Zionists and Sunni Arab countries.

Apparently, Khamenei and Nasrallah decided that they stand to lose less by attacking the protesters than showing sympathy as Hezbollah did earlier.

Recently, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah appeared on Khamenei's website to say that Iran's leader was involved in creating his organization from the start:

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei was heavily involved in the establishment of the Iranian proxy group Hezbollah, said Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of the terrorist organization.
In a five-hour interview with Khamenei.ir, the supreme leader’s website, Nasrallah said that during “the early years of the establishment of [Lebanon’s Hezbollah organization], he [Khamenei] was involved in everything. The principles, goals, foundations, criteria, and guidelines that we had, [he] provided a solution to every issue.”

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 The Free Iranian:

Mohsen Lorestani, (born Mohsen Pourmast) an extremely popular Iranian-Kurdish singer, has been charged with “corruption on earth” for allegedly discussing having sex with a man over Instagram. If convicted, he can be sentenced to death.

As first reported by the Kurdistan Human Rights Network, Lorestani who began his career as an Islamic eulogizing singer or Maddaah, was originally arrested at his mother’s house in Tehran on March 2nd of this year, and has been imprisoned without charges until this month. The announcement of the charges only came after rumors began spreading on social media that Lorestani had died or been killed in prison.

According to Lorestani’s defense attorney, Seyyed Kazem Hosseini, the singer was charged with “corruption on earth” in Branch Four of Tehran’s Revolutionary Court on October 7th. Neither the singer, nor his attorney, was present at the arraignment hearing, and they were only informed of it afterwards.

Corruption on earth is a broad legal term for offenses, coined by Ruhollah Khomeini based on a quotation from the Koran, that the regime has used to refer to almost anything that it considers “un-Islamic.” At least 38 Iranians were executed for “corruption on earth” last year.

Hosseini later elaborated that the incidents that led to Lorestani’s arrest were private messages on Instagram. “No physical thing occurred,” the lawyer stated. He then explained that by “physical thing,” he meant sexual relations and that he had had the same type of discussions with women as well.

Thousands of gays have been executed since the Iranian revolution.

On November 8, the UN Human Rights Council will perform a review of human rights in Iran, for the first time in five years. It will be interesting to see if it finds anything negative.

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.

I came across a book published in 1783 in England, called "A Call to the Jews, from a Friend of the Jews."

The anonymous author makes his intentions clear at the start:

Dear Brethren,
AS fellow creatures, and many of you as fellow Britons the benevolent design of this address to you is to persuade you to become fellow Christians. In my humble opinion, I cannot evince more, to your and my own satisfaction, my love and friendship for you, than by endeavouring to convince you, from the testimony of your own prophecies, delivered by God to your forefathers, that the suffering Jesus of the Christians was your Messiah, of the seed of David, and that your dispersion throughout all lands, as strangers and sojourners, will continue, so as that you will not be able to obtain a settlement, or the rights of citizenship, in any part of the earth, till you believe in, and acknowledge the first past advent of your Messiah.

The nature of his "love and friendship" is more explicit later on.

Be assured then, you will still be outcasts from every civil community on the face of the earth, till you believe that the crucified Jesus was your predicted Messiah.

If you don't want to be hated, then just abandon Judaism and all will be well!

See how much the author loves Jews?

This attitude continues today, but instead of coming from mainstream Christians, it comes from the anti-Zionist Left. They love Jews - as long as they abandon their land and their people!

Nothing antisemitic about that!

Jews can join their causes - as long as they denounce the 90+% of Jews who believe that a Jewish state is important.

It is all out of love!

Many Muslims also let us know that they like the Jews as well, as long as they accept that Muslims are their natural protectors and Jews must pay a tax and make publicly clear that they are second-class citizens. If they refuse, well, it is their own fault they don't follow the rules and they must accept their inevitable and deserved punishment. Just like the poor Jews of England of 1783 who refuse to accept Christianity are doomed to never be accepted as members of society.

Amazing how everyone loves the Jews - as long as the Jews abandon their own beliefs and millennia-old aspirations.

The only people who admit they hate the Jews (at least in the West) are the far right antisemites. All the other antisemites are really Jew lovers - as long as the Jews meekly do what these Jew-lovers demand they do.

But it is all for their own good. It is all out of friendship and love. They aren't antisemitic - just ask them!

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.

Earlier today I was interviewed by David Schulberg of Jewish Australian Internet Radio about the J-Street Conference. You can hear the interview here (queued to start at about 31:00):

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 a chilling incident, a yeshiva in Toronto managed to keep two potentially dangerous people from entering the Jewish school thanks to good security procedures.

The school, Yeshiva Darchei Torah, sent out this letter to parents on Tuesday evening:

Dear Parents,

Over the last months, we have worked to enhance our security infrastructure and procedures. While we believe that our well-being is ultimately in the hands of the Ribbono Shel Olam ["Master of the Universe" - EoZ], we must still do our part to address the threats that we face in these troubled times.

This morning there was a “security incident” at the Yeshiva. During Shacharis [morning prayers], two unidentified men – clearly of foreign background – tried to enter the building representing themselves as Rogers repairmen. All the doors were locked in accordance with our procedures. They were forced to come to the front door and use the intercom/bell to gain entry. Rabbi Joshua responded to the call and asked for identification – also in accordance with our procedures. The two men were unable to produce I.D. and were sent away. We were able to confirm with Rogers that no servicemen were sent to the area and that there were no service outages in the general area of the Yeshiva.

The police have been informed.

This is what Jewish parents, children and teachers in North America have to worry about.

Thank God the yeshiva had proper security equipment and procedures for exactly this kind of scenario. It seems possible that a bloodbath was averted.

Hopefully these men will be captured by police soon and we can find out more about their motivation. But I think it has to do a little with Jew-hatred.

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.

10/29 Links Pt2: J Street, blank checks and putting the "squeeze" on Israel; Apologist for Terror: Hamas Suicide Bombings Were ‘Unwise Strategy’; Max Blumenthal: Tyranny’s Mouthpiece

From Ian:

J Street, blank checks and putting the "squeeze" on Israel

“Our aid is not intended to be a blank check,” J Street president Jeremy Ben-Ami, stated on October 27, at the organization's annual conference.

This type of so-called "conditioning," "linking," and/or "squeezing" of Israel over US aid and support has an unfortunately long history in Washington and it is time for it to stop, once and for all. It's unseemly and the US - Israel relationship loses its value for both nations every single time this road is gone down.

Ben-Ami's proposed tactics seem very close to those actually employed by Henry Kissinger in the 1970s. Kissinger is due to speak at an upcoming Jewish conference in New York, and it’s worth considering the real cost of this type of rhetoric and strategy.

Distinguished Israeli diplomat Yehuda Avner (1928-2015) saw this close up in his role as a speechwriter, secretary, or adviser to five different Israeli prime ministers, from both sides of Israel's political spectrum—Golda Meir, Levi Eshkol, Yitzhak Rabin, Menachem Begin, and Shimon Peres. He also served as Israel’s ambassador to both Britain and Australia, as well as in other senior diplomatic positions.

In his widely-acclaimed book, The Prime Ministers, Avner shared numerous remarkable anecdotes—including some troubling episodes involving Secretary of State Kissinger during both the 1973 Yom Kippur War and the 1974-1975 shuttle diplomacy between Egypt and Israel.

Avner bluntly refers to American officials—meaning Kissinger—who “tied” Golda’s hands on the eve of the Yom Kippur War, telling her “in no uncertain terms not to fire the first shot,” and even “warned” her “against full-scale mobilization” of Israel’s reserve forces. Over 2600 Israeli soldiers died as a result.

Kissinger did not want Israel to win a decisive victory because he thought that would make it hard to wring concessions out of the Israelis after the war.

Apologist for Terror: Hamas Suicide Bombings Were ‘Unwise Strategy’

It’s widely accepted that Israeli society has drifted to the political right since the breakdown of the Oslo process. Palestinian terrorism played a significant role in destroying faith in the peace process and the political left, and enabled the more risk-averse and security-minded Benjamin Netanyahu to become the dominant political figure of the age.

Outrageously however, for Angela Godfrey-Goldstein, an Israeli “peace activist” writing in The Independent, it’s not Palestinians who are responsible for terrorism but Israelis:

Although easier to paint “the other” as the guilty party, it’s more painfully honest, especially for promoting healing of that trauma, to acknowledge at least partial Israeli responsibility for those suicide bombings.

Yes, you read that correctly – Israel is partially responsible for the indiscriminate murder of hundreds of its own people in Palestinian suicide bombings.

This, Godfrey-Goldstein attributes to an environment of right-wing incitement, the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin by Yigal Amir, the election of Benjamin Netanyahu and the appalling massacre of Palestinians at Hebron’s Cave of the Machpela by Baruch Goldstein in February 1994.

In Godfrey-Goldstein’s alternative reality, the absence of peace is not due to Palestinian violence but primarily the figures of Yigal Amir, Baruch Goldstein and Benjamin Netanyahu.

While it is legitimate to argue the impact these people and their actions have had on the peace process, treating Palestinians as incapable of taking responsibility for their own actions and blaming Israeli victims for terrorism is not.

Tyranny’s Mouthpiece

On September 8, 2019, Syria’s state news agency published an article about the beginning of the Third International Trade Union Forum in Damascus, which hosted “dozens of intellectuals, journalists, (and) political and social activists from Arab and foreign countries.” Among the attendees were the American journalists Max Blumenthal and Rania Khalek.

If you want to know why Blumenthal and Khalek were welcome at an event organized “under the auspices of Bashar al-Assad”—aside from the fact that they’re frequent contributors to the Russian propaganda outlets Sputnik and Russia Today—the rest of the article should give you an idea. It condemns the “aggressive terrorist war” launched against Syria, along with the “economic war that constitutes terror in and of itself” (a reference to U.S. sanctions). It calls for a media campaign to galvanize world public opinion in support of the Syrian government and “reveal the truth about the U.S. policy of besieging independent and free countries.” It points out that the “real goal of the war on Syria is to stop it from being a force that opposes U.S. and Israeli plots in the region.” And it emphasizes the importance of “exposing the practices of international imperialism.”

In other words, Syrian government propaganda is almost perfectly aligned with the arguments Blumenthal and Khalek have been making for years. Like the Syrian Ministry of Information, they present the Assad regime as an embattled and encircled victim of a jihadist-led coup backed by the United States and other Western powers.

For example, Blumenthal constantly emphasizes the atrocities of jihadist groups like Jaish al-Islam and al-Nusra because they give him moral and political cover for defending Assad, who has committed atrocities on a far greater scale. When he posted a picture of himself in a “neighborhood east of Damascus occupied by the Saudi-backed Jaish al-Islam until early last year,” he didn’t bother mentioning the fact that he was also surrounded by notorious government interrogation sites that are part of what Human Rights Watch describes as the regime’s “torture archipelago.” Nor did he mention that he was just down the road from the sites of the Ghouta chemical attacks in August 2013, which HRW reports “killed hundreds of civilians, including large numbers of children” and which can “almost certainly” be blamed on government forces.

White ( non Venezuelan) Cosplay socialists Max Blumenthal & Ben Rubenstein assaulted an older women who’s an actual Venezuelan and part of the altercation IS recorded... and now they’re upset that they’re being held accountable.. 🎻 pic.twitter.com/TXynY2a0ZK
— Naomi S. 🍑 the 🍊 #freesyria (@NomiBlockS) October 29, 2019

On January 28, 2010 -- just one day after Holocaust Remembrance Day -- Udo Pastors made a speech, where he stated that "the so-called Holocaust is being used for political and commercial purposes" and condemned a "barrage of criticism and propagandistic lies" and "Auschwitz projections"

At the time, Pastors was a member of the Land Parliament of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, so his speech got some attention.

Enough attention so that in August 2012 a district court convicted him of violating the memory of the dead and of intentionally defaming the Jewish people.

In March 2013, he launched an appeal -- and it was dismissed.

Human Rights Without Frontiers summed up the ruling:

the court found that Mr Pastörs had used terms which amounted to denying the systematic, racially motivated, mass extermination of the Jews carried out at Auschwitz during the Third Reich. The court stated he could not rely on his free speech rights in respect of Holocaust denial. Furthermore, he was no longer entitled to inviolability from prosecution as the Parliament had revoked it in February 2012.

But Mr. Pastors was nothing if not persistent.

Finally, on March 10, 2019 a decision was passed down by the European Court of Human Rights -- and it was unanimous on the issue of Mr. Pastor's free speech rights:

The Court found in particular that the applicant had intentionally stated untruths to defame Jews. Such statements could not attract the protection for freedom of speech offered by the Convention as they ran counter to the values of the Convention itself. [emphasis added]

The "Convention" being referred to is The European Convention of Human Rights, which upholds the right of freedom of expression -- but with restrictions:

ARTICLE 10

Freedom of expression

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States
from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. [emphasis added]

Of course, Mr. Pastor's own rights had to be taken into account, which the court addressed in their conclusion:

Summing up, the Court held that Mr Pastörs had intentionally stated untruths in order to defame the Jews and the persecution that they had suffered. The interference with his rights also had to be examined in the context of the special moral responsibility of States which had experienced Nazi horrors to distance themselves from the mass atrocities.[emphasis added]

Here the court is apparently claiming that beyond the law, those countries that experienced "Nazi horrors" have a special "moral responsibility" to protect Jews from those who try to defame them with the Holocaust.

Logo of The European Court of Human Rights

This may be something new.

According to The European Court:

o It is a fact that the Holocaust happened
o  To say otherwise is a lie
o  Holocaust Denial is against the law not only because it is a lie, but because it defames: it damages the reputation and character of Jews
o  Europe has a special obligation "to distance themselves from the mass atrocities"

But is this really such a breakthrough?
Is this ruling good news for the Jews of Europe who are facing a sharp increase in antisemitic attacks across Europe?

Probably not.

Not if Europe limits its recognition of antisemitism to the speech of right-wing extremists, while ignoring the actual attacks by others.

For example, there have been multiple cases in France of denying the Jew-hatred behind attacks on Jews:

o In 2003, Sebastian Selam, was stabbed to death by a Muslim who said afterward: “Mother, I’m going to heaven. I killed a Jew!” The murderer, Adel Amastaibou, was found unfit to stand trial -- even though he had no previous history of mental illness.

o  In February 2006, Ilan Halimi was kidnapped and held for 3 weeks for ransom. He was tortured by his captors, led by a Muslim immigrant, and died from the injuries. French police initially dismissed the idea of antisemitism, even after one of the suspects confirmed it.

o  In 2015, a Muslim man, Farid Haddouche, was deemed unfit initially to stand trial for his stabbing attack of Jews in Marseille -- because of mental issues. He shouted about Allah during the attack. He had no history of mental illness. After protests by Jewish groups, Haddouche was sentenced to four years in jail.

o  Sarah Halimi, a Jewish physician, was murdered in Paris in 2017 by Kobili Traore, a Muslim. A review by an independent panel of psychiatrists determined that Traore was generally mentally competent, but because not on the night of the murder, because he consumed cannabis. The judge in the case went so far as to order a third psychiatric examination -- independent of the defense attorney. More recently, in February 2018, the investigator finally admitted in writing that the attack was antisemitic. But by May 2019, Traore was still being considered unfit for trial.

But even in Germany, recognition of antisemitism seems only to extend to speech --

In 2017, a German regional court ruled that the firebombing of a synagogue in 2014 was an act of criminal arson -- but not anti-Semitic: it was a protest against Israel by 3 Palestinian-born Germans who wanted to “call attention to the Gaza conflict.”

There appears to be a certain ease with which neo-nazis and fascists can be publicly condemned for their expressions of Jew-hatred, and that does not extend to Muslims.

This apparent effectiveness in censoring hate speech is itself deceptive, when attacks on Jews can be reinterpreted as protests against Israel.

Meanwhile, back in the US, a recent poll indicates that a growing number agree with The European Convention of Human Rights that free speech should be limited.

Just last week The Washington Free Beacon reported that according to a poll, a Majority of Americans Want First Amendment Rewritten:

Nearly 60 percent of Millennials—respondents between the ages of 21 and 38—agreed that the Constitution "goes too far in allowing hate speech in modern America" and should be rewritten, compared to 48 percent of Gen Xers and 47 percent of Baby Boomers. A majority of Millennials also supported laws that would make "hate speech" a crime—of those supporters, 54 percent said violators should face jail time.

Yet, over the past few years, we have seen the difficulty and unreliability of policing "hate speech." Just look at all of the stories about Facebook, YouTube and Twitter stepping over the line and targeting conservatives in particular, while confusing those who merely publish examples of hate with those who are actually disseminating it.

Even if the proposed decision would be made by a court, not everyone will be so obliging as Mr. Pastors. If the accusations of hate speech and racism tossed back and forth on Twitter are any indication, we are a long way from any kind of consensus of definition, and the whole idea may well be nothing more than an attempt to weaponize hate speech against political opponents.

And that is likely to leave Jews once again as defenseless in the US as they are in Europe.

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.