Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Sunday, June 07, 2020

Airhead Fox reporter, anchor don't realize the man interviewed threatened to burn down the Diamond District

A Brooklyn man who delivered a threat to New Yorkers during a live interview with Fox News on Saturday has been charged with multiple offenses, including making terroristic threats, police said.

During the live interview Saturday afternoon, a man who identified himself as “Ace Burns” threatened to burn down the Diamond District if New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio did not meet with protesters and give the youth “some direction.”

"Today, I'm giving a demonstration from Barclay's Center at 6 p.m. to City Hall, and that's the first stop -- and we're hoping [Mayor] de Blasio and [Gov.] Cuomo come out and talk to us and give the youth some direction," Burns told Fox News reporter Jacqui Heinrich.

"But if they don't, then [the] next stop is the Diamond District," he said, referring to a block on Manhattan's 47th Street known for jewelry shops. "And gasoline, thanks to Trump, is awfully cheap. So, we're giving them a chance right now to do the right thing."

Earlier, Burns showed the reporter the initials "FTP" on his arm, which he said could mean either "Free the People" or "Fire to Property, and that's very possible."

Here's the video. Notice that the Fox reporter Jacqui Heinrich and the anchor Arthel Neville don't say a word about the threat that Burns just made on live TV to burn down the heavily Jewish Diamond District.

How stupid can they be? The man just threatened to burn down a Jewish neighborhood in Manhattan and they go on like he talked about the weather.

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

06/07 Links: Time to call a terrorist a terrorist and ban Hezbollah in full; Palestinians tell ICC that annexation will void Oslo Accords; Former top Dubai official: ‘It’s time Gulf states normalized ties with Israel,’

From Ian:

Arsen Ostrovsky: Time to call a terrorist a terrorist and ban Hezbollah in full

Last month, the German government took the principled decision to ban the entire Iran-backed Lebanese group Hezbollah and designate it as a terrorist organization. As a key player in the war on radical Islamic terror, Australia should do likewise.

In February this year, Peter Dutton, Australian Minister for Home Affairs, said Australia was considering listing the ‘military wing’ of Hezbollah as terrorist, adding that “nobody should have sympathy” for the Shiite terror group and that a full review would be conducted in April.

In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, that review has, understandably, been put on hold.

Australia since 2003, like Germany previously, has maintained a superficial distinction between Hezbollah’s ‘military’ and so-called ‘political wings.

Germany’s announcement followed a similar decision of Britain in February this year, after Home Secretary Sajid Javid said the UK came to a realization that “we are no longer able to distinguish between their already banned military wing and the political party.”

Even Naim Qassem, Hezbollah’s Deputy Leader, has said: “Hezbollah has a single leadership”, reinforcing that “the same leadership that directs the parliamentary and government work also leads jihad actions in the struggle against Israel.”

In case anyone needs a refresher, make no mistake about it, Hezbollah is a ruthless genocidal jihadist terrorist organization created in 1982, funded, armed and answerable entirely to the Iranian regime. 

Hezbollah’s primary goal is not only the elimination of the State of Israel, but Jews worldwide. Its ‘Manifesto’, clearly states: “Our struggle will end only when this entity [Israel] is obliterated.” 

In 2002, Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah Secretary-General, stated “if Jews all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of chasing after them worldwide.”

‘It’s time Gulf states normalized ties with Israel,’ former top Dubai official says

Former Dubai Police Chief Lt. Gen. Dhahi Khalfan Tamim sparked controversy over the weekend when, in a series of tweets, he called on of Persian Gulf states and the rest of the Arab world to admit they want to establish open diplomatic relations with Israel, Channel 12 News reported on Saturday.

Tamim, currently deputy police chief, is known as the police officer who exposed the Mossad intelligence agency’s connection to the 2010 assassination of Izzadin al-Qassam Brigades co-founder Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in the UAE capital.

He is also known as a harsh critic of the Palestinians and an avid supporter of U.S. President Donald Trump.

In a series of tweets that according to the report went viral within minutes, Tamim wrote, “The truth is that it’s meaningless not to recognize Israel.

“Israel is a country built on science, knowledge, prosperity and strong relations with all developing countries. Who are the people who do not recognize Israel’s [international] status? Where do they think Jews come from? Hawaii?”

In another tweet, Tamim further urged the Arab world to formalize relations with Israel.

“As soon as the Gulf states normalize their relations with Israel, Qatar’s role as a proxy state for terrorist organizations, will be over,” he wrote, referring to Doha’s close ties to the terrorist group ruling the Gaza Strip.

“It is known that Qatar supports Hamas and still maintains a relationship with Israel. So what stops us from having a normal relationship with it [Israel]?”

Former Dubai Police Chief Dhahi Khalfan Tamim: "Israel is a country built on science, knowledge, prosperity and strong relations with all developed countries. Who are the people who do not recognize Israel’s scientific standing? Where do they think Jews come from? Hawaii?" https://t.co/hPlrzgxTJr
— يوناتان جونين Yonatan Gonen (@GonenYonatan) June 7, 2020

Jews and Muslims are cousins, but only Jews can be racists, according to “anti-racists”

Here’s a random paragraph by a random anti-Zionist Jew named Robert A. H. Cohen from a random screed at Mondoweiss:

It’s impossible for even liberal Jewish supporters of Israel to recognise the structural and institutional racism they inhabit while they cling to the idea that only an exclusive Jewish sovereignty in Israel/Palestine can guarantee Jewish security. The longer this idea is treated as a universal law of nature rather than a sorely overrated political ideology, the longer it will take to recognise and then shed a racist mind set.

The key phrase is “exclusive Jewish sovereignty.” He cannot say “exclusive Jewish residency” because, obviously, Israel is 20% non-Jewish. So it is the “exclusive Jewish sovereignty” that is a problem.

But if that is true, then isn’t exclusive Muslim sovereignty an equally racist issue for the 57 Muslim majority states? Nearly all of them reference their Muslim character in their constitutions. Isn’t that a “racist mind set” by the exact same criteria that are applies to Israel?

No, only Jews can be racist. Which means only Jews can be publicly insulted as being worse than other human beings. Which means that antisemitism is legitimate.

Just to bring another example from today about Jews, Muslims and exclusivity, here is Hanan Ashrawi at the PLO website, also today:

Over the past two weeks, Israeli occupation authorities have banned dozens of Palestinians from access to the Al-Aqsa Mosque Compound and the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, while facilitating provocative raids by illegal Israeli settlers into the Al-Aqsa Compound and providing protection for their infringements on the holy site.

…Jerusalem’s special status and centrality to world heritage must be protected from such hateful acts. Freedom of worship is also a fundamental right that must not be used as a tool of political repression and colonial aspirations.

She is saying that the Temple Mount must be an exclusively Muslim site, and Jews should be banned from visiting it even to peacefully stroll, let alone pray – while at the same time pretending to care about freedom of worship! (She also calls all Jews, no matter where they live, “illegal Israeli settlers.”)

By the criteria of the Leftist self-defined anti-racists, isn’t that prima facie evidence of racism?

But the rule is, only Jews can be racists in the Middle East. Arabs cannot be even when they do worse than what the Jews are accused of (falsely, nearly always.)

Which is a modern justification for antisemitism.

The people who claim to be in the forefront against bigotry are the real bigots.

The horrific racism of 19th century South Carolina Jews

During a brief Twitter argument with black Orthodox rabbi Ma Nishtana over a graphic he created that I found hugely offensive, he mentioned an 1820 synagogue constitution in Charleston, South Carolina that explicitly excluded blacks from its membership.

Rule XXIII of the Constitution of Congregation Kahal Kadosh Beth Elohim, Charleston, South Carolina, said, “This congregation shall not encourage or interfere with making proselytes under any pretense whatever, nor shall any such be admitted under the jurisdiction of their congregation, until he or she or they produce legal and satisfactory credentials, from some other congregation where a regular Chief [Rabbi] or Rabbi and Hebrew Consistory is established; and, provided, he, she or they are not people of color.”

I looked up the quote and found it in a 1905 book called The Jews of South Carolina, by the then-rabbi of the same congregation, Barnett A Elzas. It’s quite accurate, and incredibly offensive. I do not believe that it is representative of Orthodox shuls nationwide at the time (I see that in the late 18th century New York’s Shearith Israel said it accepted “every free person professing the Jewish religion” and Richmond’s Jewish community said it accepted “every free man…who congregates with us.” Yes, they excluded slaves, but they did not exclude Jews of color, at least not officially.

However, this 1905 book revealed some other horrific racism.

It discusses as a matter of fact how many prominent Jews in South Carolina eagerly bought and sold slaves.

Moses Lindo, an indigo seller, advertised to buy a plantation along with 50 or 60 slaves:

One of them created a poem in his advertisement of selling slaves, extolling how great they are and mentioning that of course if they don’t do their job one should lash them:

Even if you try to justify these sickening examples a being just the way things were before the Civil War, Rabbi Elzas shows his own racism quite explicitly when quoting the accomplishments of another racist Jew, Edwin Warren Moise:

General Moise, as he was familiarly called, was the type of what a good man and citizen should be. Brilliant as was his record in war, his record in peace was no less glorious. He will be ever remembered as the right arm of General Wade Hampton in Reconstruction days, who by his unselfish devotion to the cause, his many sacrifices, and his soul-stir ring oratory, helped to redeem the State of South Carolina from the horrors of carpet-bag rule. True patriot that he was, he sought no political advancement for his services, and though he gave his fortune to the cause, he was content to live as a private citizen.

He then quoted one of Moises’ eulogies:

"When the true sons of South Carolina rose in their might to redeem the State from the hands of aliens, renegades, and negroes he was called to the front, and he did his part like a man and a patriot. The red-shirt Democrats of '76 still remember how he rode with Hampton from the mountains to the sea, and how his eloquence, his zeal, and courage inspired them to stand steadfast for white supremacy and an honest government. To do this he abandoned a most lucrative law practice, and being elected Adjutant and Inspector-General in 1876, he served for four years, and declined reelection in 1880.”

That a rabbi in 1905 would approvingly speak of white supremacism, even as he realized that Jews were usually the victims of the same bigotry, seems astonishing nowadays.

Interestingly, the current South Carolina Encyclopedia says that General Moises “was a moderate on racial issues. He invited black South Carolinians to join the militia.”

General Moises’ son is then described as someone who attended the South Carolina College for a few months, “leaving that institution when negroes were admitted in 1873.”

It is shocking to read this explicit racism described so matter of factly.

The question for today as I see it is whether we still harbor some of that racism and are just as clueless as the author of this book was.

Peter Beinart’s “Safetyism”

Peter Beinart tweeted:

“Safetyism,” for those who don’t know, is “a culture or belief system in which safety (which includes ‘emotional safety’) has become a sacred value, which means that people become unwilling to make trade-offs demanded by other practical and moral concerns.”

Beinart’s assertion is misplaced. No one is afraid to debate Zionism. But anti-Zionism is indeed essentially antisemitism, and as such there is no debating it – it is like debating whether France or Belgium have a right to exist. It is insulting to debate what is essentially a pathological hate.

But what, exactly, have Zionists done to shut down the free speech of anti-Zionists? I don’t see any shortage of outlets for anti-Zionists to spew their hate. None of them are shouted down on campus, the way Israelis routinely are (I have not seen Beinart criticize that.)

I tweeted back a thread asking Beinart to define, exactly, where the line between anti-Zionism and antisemitism is – something that the critics of the IHRA definition of antisemitism refuse to do.

Then I remembered how little Peter Beinart himself cares about free speech and debate.

A number of years ago, Beinart hosted an initiative called “Open Zion” where he claimed that the voices that were unheard (meaning, anti-Zionists like Youssef Munnayer who do not hurt for publicity) could be heard. I once chided Beinart saying something like “Open Zion has a range of voices from Left to Far Left.” He responded that, no, they had Benny Morris to represent the Right. (He seems to have deleted his part of the thread, which is interesting in itself.)

If he really wanted to show all points of view, he cold have published the thoughts of the many thoughtful people who decided to live on the east side of the Green Line. Beinart’s interest in free speech doesn’t include Jews who support Israeli rule over Judea and Samaria, but it enthusiastically embraces BDSers who call Israel a Nazi or apartheid state.

Why doesn’t Beinart want Jewish indigenous rights supporters to be heard? Sounds like their very existence is upsetting to Beinart, and he wants to make sure that they are marginalized so no one else can hear them either.

For that matter, why does this strong supporter of free speech block me on Twitter for the past eight years?

Sounds like safetyism to me.

06/06 Links: Israeli Nobel laureate: We should annex now, not 'talk it to death'; A New Level in the Cyber War between Israel and Iran

From Ian:

Israeli Nobel laureate: We should annex now, not 'talk it to death'

Nobel laureate Professor Yisrael (Robert) Aumann gave a special interview to the Jerusalem Post sister publication Maariv ahead of his 90th birthday on June 8.

The Nobel prize winner is famous for holding right wing views. When asked, he said that Israel should annex the Jordan Valley and a portion (30%) of the West Bank on July 1 as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanayhu said he will do “and not talk it to death.”

When asked about the chance of a peace agreement with the Palestinians he said that some things should not be a matter of compromise. “The Arabs are also not flexible, they say everything belongs to them”, he argued. "We Jews should not waiver in our conviction that this is our rightful historical homeland, “dating back thousands of years.”

Aumann won the Nobel prize in 2005 for the contribution his research of Game Theory made in the field of economics.

His research helped understand how seemingly irrational actions might, in reality, be rational when we take into account the situations they work with and the logic guiding them. For example, in his Nobel speech called "War and Peace," he explained how the seemingly irrational act of building enough nuclear bombs to destroy the planet is effective in preventing war because the other side can’t know if these weapons will be used or not.

Aumann joked with the reporter that until he won the prize, he worked in science. But as the prize tends to be the best sales promoter in the world, he said “I now work in sales”, referringg to the sales of his theories.

A tale of two countries: The politics of indigeneity in Israel

While the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is often thought of as a complex and highly-nuanced topic, any understanding of the conflict ultimately revolves around a single question, the question of who is indigenous to the land. All the differing perspectives on Israel boil down to whether they consider Jews or Arabs the original inhabitants of the region.

A common narrative regarding indigeneity is that Palestinians are the original inhabitants of the land, and anti-Zionists frequently make claims based on the premise that Palestinians are the indigenous people and Israelis are the occupiers.

Chairman of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, stated to the UN Security Council, that “[W]e are the descendants of the Canaanites who lived in the land of Palestine 5,000 years ago, and continuously remained there to this day.”

Linda Sarsour, an Arab-American activist tweeted, “Jesus was a Palestinian of Nazareth.”

Jonathan Cook wrote in The Electronic Intifada that Israel is systematically “Hebraizing” Arab city names in order to erase an Arab connection to the land, and accused Israel of turning al-Quds into Yerushalayim, al-Nasra into Natzrat, and Jaffa into Yafo. In doing so, the article assumes that the Palestinian connection to the land is longer than that of the Jews.

But do the facts support these claims that Palestinians are the original inhabitants of the land?

Linguistic analysis provides insight into this central question. In the 2nd millennium BCE, the inhabitants of Canaan, what is modern-day Israel, all spoke a language called Proto-Canaanite. Over time, their language underwent a phonetic shift known as the Canaanite Shift, which was characterized by a transition from an ā vowel to an o vowel. All the languages that descended from this Proto-Canaanite language had this o vowel in place of the ā, while the other Semitic languages from outside the region of Canaan kept the original ā.

The effect of the shift is still noticeable today. For example, the word for peace in Hebrew is Shalom, demonstrating the vowel shift, whereas Arabic keeps the ā vowel in Salām: Hebrew’s vowel shift indicates it was historically spoken in Canaan, while Arabic’s lack of the vowel shift suggests it developed outside of Canaan.

The Electronic Intifada article claims that the Arabic name of Yafa is the original term for the place, but as the true indigenous people would have used the vowel-shifted name of Yafo, as Hebrew does, the truth is laid bare: Arabic doesn’t fulfill the criteria to be a native language to Israel. The linguistic patterns of Arabic are consistent with the historical context –– Palestinians are Arabs, who are indigenous to the Arabian peninsula, but their indigenous claims do not extend to Israel.

"People of certain lineages of people who want to delegitimize our leaders... who will say Linda is anti-Israel...”

That’s a longgg convoluted way of saying ‘blame the Jews’. pic.twitter.com/JmyPLMXoZT
— Hen Mazzig (@HenMazzig) June 6, 2020

06/05 Links Pt2: Caroline Glick: The great threat to America – and to American Jewry; Media Obsession with the Palestinians; Latma 2020 Episode 9

From Ian:

Caroline Glick: The great threat to America – and to American Jewry

In a letter to police sergeants in the New York Police Department, Ed Mullen, President of the Sergeants Benevolent Association gave expression to the distress of New York police officers. "I know we are losing our city," Mullen wrote.

"We have no leadership, no direction, and no plan. I know that you are being held back and used as pawns," he continued.

He then asked the sergeants to hold the line.

"Remember," he added, "you work for a higher authority."

For American Jews, the violent riots constitute a challenge on several levels. First, there is the challenge of squaring their political identity with their Jewish identity. As the 2014 Pew survey of American Jews showed, around half of American Jews identify as progressives. As progressives, many American Jews share the views of their non-Jewish progressive counterparts regarding the need to prioritize the interests of minority communities over their own interests.

But the Jews' progressive desire to work on behalf of those demonstrating for African Americans places their political identity on a collision course with their Jewish identity. Black Lives Matter, the radical group leading the demonstrations, is an anti-Semitic organization. BLM was formed in 2014 as a merger of activists from the anti-Semitic Nation of Islam, the anti-Semitic Black Panthers and Dream Catchers. In 2016, BLM published a platform that has since been removed from its website. The platform accused Israel of committing "genocide" and referred to the Jewish state as an "apartheid" state. The platform accused Israel and its supporters of pushing the US into wars in the Middle East. The platform also officially joined BLM with the anti-Semitic BDS campaign to boycott, divest and sanction Israel. BDS campaign leader Omar Barghouti acknowledged this week that the goal of the BDS campaign is to destroy Israel. BDS campaigns on US campuses are characterized by bigotry and discrimination directed against Jewish students.
A demonstrator holds a sign during a Black Lives Matter protest in Buffalo Grove, Ill., Thursday, June 4, 2020 (AP/Nam Y. Huh)

BLM's platform's publication was greeted with wall-to-wall condemnations by Jewish organizations from across the political spectrum. But today, Jewish progressive are hard-pressed to turn their backs on the group, despite its anti-Semitism. As white progressives, they believe they must fight America's "structural racism" even at the cost of empowering social forces that reject their civil rights as Jews. As Jews, they feel that their rights should be protected. One progressive Jew tried to square the circle writing in the Los Angeles Jewish Journal, "Today Jews need to support Black Lives Matter; tomorrow we can talk about Israel."

As white progressives radicalized over the past decade, radical Jewish progressives built a formidable Jewish organizational framework whose mission is to advance the progressive revolution. They have worked to recast Judaism itself as the apotheosis of progressive revolutionary ideals under the banner of "tikkun olam."

Latma 2020 Episode 9

Latma 2020 Episode 9 - Jordan's king honors Latma's studio with his presence, the police investigators strike again and a Jerusalem Day clip

Melanie Phillips: Victim culture tears up Jewish moral norms

The appalling rioting that followed the shocking death of George Floyd under the knee of a police officer has left a trail of devastation across America. Once again, however, Jews have found themselves singled out for particular attack.

In Los Angeles, Jewish-owned stores and synagogues in Beverly Hills and the predominantly Orthodox Fairfax district were looted and defaced with anti-Jewish graffiti.

How could this Jew-hatred have occurred in what was repeatedly described as "protests" against racism? And why were so few Jewish voices raised against either this or the general destruction and violence?

In a statement by the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, 130 organizations said they were "outraged" by the killing of Floyd, declared "solidarity" with the black community and called for an end to "systemic racism."

Yet they expressed no outrage about the rioting during which police officers had been shot, businesses and buildings torched and looted, and innocent people beaten up. They made no protest against the specifically targeted attacks on synagogues and Jewish businesses.

In the Jewish Journal, Yonathan Reches was "pained" by the picture of "a predominantly white and highly militarized police force," which used "heavy-handed tactics to protect a synagogue from a predominantly black crowd."

The riots, he asserted, were a "natural response" to "five centuries of unfathomable subjugation," which gave "communities of color" an "undisputed moral authority to call attention to their own oppression."

An "undisputed moral authority" – to riot, burn and loot, or perpetrate anti-Semitic attacks?

Media Obsession with the Palestinians

While Christians were murdered by jihadists in the Middle East and millions of people were being brutally oppressed in China, journalists fed an unwholesome obsession with Israel.

Collectively they promoted the messages that there is something particularly loathsome about how Israel is behaving toward Palestinian Arabs, and that the latter are the world's quintessential victims of injustice and oppression.

As a result, meeting the needs of the Palestinian Arabs, whose leaders have refused to negotiate in good faith and incited against Jews for decades, has become the primary moral - and strategic - imperative embraced by a large swath of American elites.

Over the past five years, the Washington Post published 756 articles mentioning Gaza, compared to 164 articles about the Uighurs and 161 articles about Tibet.

Over the same period, the New York Times published 412 articles mentioning the Uighurs, 491 articles mentioning Tibet, and more than 1,500 referring to Gaza.

This image, taken in a Muslim country and posted to the @IsraelArabic social media pages, drives some people (who pretend to want peace) mad.

Now, why could that be? pic.twitter.com/JDSp7vt84l
— Elder of Ziyon (@elderofziyon) June 2, 2020

Like I said, people who think that "antifa" is the same thing as "anti-fascists" are not the sharpest tools in the shed. https://t.co/za9vcNUwop
— Elder of Ziyon (@elderofziyon) June 1, 2020

Notice how silent Jewish Voice for Peace and @IfNotNowOrg are about the defacing of a LA synagogue during riots, "Fuck Israel/Free Palestine."

And they will remain silent for 2 reasons:
(A) the defacers might be PoC
(B) they agree 100% with the message.@YonahLieberman pic.twitter.com/ZVtvKjDSRT
— Elder of Ziyon (@elderofziyon) May 31, 2020

I'm very disappointed in the Left. Nearly all of the looters were men.
— Elder of Ziyon (@elderofziyon) June 3, 2020

And if you want a role model of people that have succeeded after being in literal slavery, you might want to look at Israelis.
— Elder of Ziyon (@elderofziyon) June 2, 2020

But of course. Because #GeorgeFloyd would have worn a terrorist keffiyeh. pic.twitter.com/kKKeW7MQU3
— Elder of Ziyon (@elderofziyon) June 2, 2020

Shot and chaser from @MairavZ (who has many dozens of tweets obsessing over the right-wing billionaire) pic.twitter.com/OW6fYvizYN
— Elder of Ziyon (@elderofziyon) June 3, 2020

Abbas Zaki, a member of Fatah’s Central Committee, said, “In the coming days, you will see a noticeable change in the resistance, the approach, the institutions and the individuals, and we will cut the intestines of the apartheid state with peaceful popular resistance.

"If we decide to confront, we will make all the settlers hide in burrows, and the settlers will not feel safe," he said.

It wasn’t only settlers that he threatened. He threatened Palestinians as well.

The Palestinian people who are still in contact with the occupation and suspicious destinations – the fifth column - will be severely punished,” he said, stressing that the consequences of speaking with Israeli Jews “will be dire.”

Zaki also said that Fatah invited other terror groups to join them. “We tell our brothers in the Hamas and Islamic Jihad movements: The time for truth has come, you asked us to stop security coordination with America and Israel, and now we stopped it, and we are waiting for your response.”

06/05 Links Pt1: Menachem Begin vs. Benjamin Netanyahu: A window of opportunity; UN atomic watchdog says Iran now violating all restrictions of nuclear deal

From Ian:

Menachem Begin vs. Benjamin Netanyahu: A window of opportunity

Then in January came the unveiling of the so-called “Deal of the Century,” which took Israel from an administration that had wanted it to withdraw to pre-1967 borders to one that was now allowing the Jewish state to hold on to all of its settlements in the West Bank. Not a single one would need to be evacuated.

As pro-Israel as this plan might be, it is still a vision being laid out for Israel by another country. This is not Netanyahu outlining his plan but him entering into a process with a plan presented by a third party – the United States.

I asked Naor what he made of the contrast between Begin, who implemented his plan without coordination, and Netanyahu, who is following a plan someone else put on the table.

“Are we a state or a banana republic?” Naor asked. “This is an issue at the core of our existence. We can say that the land is ours, and we can say that if we do it [annexation], we will endanger Israel due to demographic results. What does it all mean?”

The point is that ultimately Israel has to be the one to decide what it wants and how it wants to do it. If that is so, then why doesn’t Netanyahu do something like Begin did in 1981? Why not decide on a course of action with recognition that there may be a price? Of course, it is helpful to have an ally like the US on your side from the outset, but ultimately, the decision rests in Israel’s hands.

That might work when politics are not a consideration, but when they are – as seems to be the case now – everything is different.

Netanyahu, for example, needed the January rollout of the plan to shore up his base’s support ahead of his third election within a year. He needed to continue talking about annexation after the March election to retain his right-wing bloc, and alongside coronavirus, to corral Blue and White into a unity government. Now he needs to keep talking about annexation – even at the risk of upsetting the Jordanians, the Saudis and US Democrats – because of his trial that renews on July 19, around the same time he plans to bring an annexation vote to the cabinet.

There is no question that Israel faces a unique opening similar to the window of opportunity that Begin identified while confined to a wheelchair in the winter of 1981. Trump’s reelection is in November. If annexation is going to happen, it is better for Israel that it take place when there is an administration that can provide the support and defense it will need after the move, whether in the United Nations or to rebuff sanctions from the European Union.

But most important, it is for Israel to decide what it wants and what it plans to do in the future. We don’t need a country – no matter how friendly – to plan our destiny. We can do it on our own.

Danny Ayalon: Israel should seize the opportunities Trump's peace plan offers

What is most disappointing to me is that there are a few members of the Israeli Right who are opposing this plan, mainly several influential municipal leaders in Judea and Samaria.

In recent days, these officials have launched an unfortunate campaign to delegitimize the plan and mislead the Israeli people as to the facts and details of the plan.

In doing so, they claim that the plan seeks to establish a terror state in the heart of Israel.

False.

The plan specifically says that the Palestinian Authority will be given four years to change its behavior. If it chooses to do so, it would have to renounce terror and violence, end its incitement and glorification of murderers, as well as its gross pay-for-slay program.

Additionally, it would be forced to reform its education system to include recognition of the Jewish state. If the Palestinians become like Canada, it would hardly be a “terror state.”

These officials also claim that, according to the plan, this plan would come “at the expense of Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria.”
False.

Under this plan, no Jew or Arab would be forced to leave his or her home. While previous proposals have suggested that hundreds of thousands of people evacuate their residences, which the Gaza Disengagement proved to be catastrophic, this plan will keep all existing communities intact.
They also claim a better opportunity could arise in the future.

Don’t be too sure.

If Israel rejects the Trump plan, a future American administration could take advantage of that rejection and offer us much less. If Israel accepts and implements the Trump plan, it would be nearly impossible for a future US President who is less sympathetic to Israel to change the facts on the ground. And if indeed a future president wishes to build on the Trump plan and offer us more, they will not have to start from scratch.

There is a Talmudic saying:
“Tafasta Meruba, Lo Tafasta.”
“If you grasp it all, you lose it all.”

Israel cannot grasp all of Judea and Samaria at once. We cannot even grasp all of Area C at once. If we demand this, we lose it all. Let’s not be like the ones who never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Let’s take what’s offered to us and make the best of it. It’s simply the best offer ever made to us.

It's time to wean ourselves off American aid

It started in 1949, a few months after the state was founded. American aid, millions of dollars' worth, ‎was earmarked to help Israel cope with mass immigration. At first, it was a loan, but most of the ‎money was never returned after various US administrations let it go. Starting in 1958, we started to ‎receive American defense aid – bit by bit, in the form of grants – which became permanent after the ‎‎1967 Six-Day War, when France cut off its special defense relations with us. Aid peaked after Israel ‎signed the peace treaty with Egypt. ‎

Prior to the initiation of the big economic plan of July 1985, then-Prime Minister Shimon Peres struck a ‎deal with Ronald Reagan's secretary of state, George Shultz, for the US to give Israel a regular yearly ‎grant of $3 billion, mostly for security purposes (particularly the acquisition of US military equipment), ‎with a little for civilian use. Apart from that amount, Israel also receives help in the form of special ‎projects (Iron Dome, Arrow 1, Arrow 2, David's Sling). We are also helped by the fact that the grant is ‎transferred in its entirety at the start of each year, rather than in installments. ‎

Of course, we owe the Americans a thank you for the generous aid. But it's also clear that assistance ‎creates dependence, just as it is clear that the moment it is conditional upon it being spent on ‎American products, we are not free to buy the equipment optimal for our needs at better prices, ‎thereby weakening Israeli industry. ‎

American presidential candidates frequently refer to this assistance as something that should be ‎reconsidered, and President Trump goes to the trouble of reminding us from time to time that we ‎need to "pay" for American defense aid. ‎

The money from the US does not account for more than one percent of Israel's GDP. At one time, it ‎was critical, but now, it's a habit. At age 72, we can manage without our parents' help. The ‎establishment of a national unity government might be an opportunity for Israel to make a bold ‎decision about weaning ourselves off of it. A plan to gradually reduce it or even end it by 2028 would ‎be a gesture to the Americans in a time of coronavirus, and a declaration of independence for us. ‎

The Syrian Observatory of Human Rights reported today that since the beginning of 2019, Israel has attacked targets in Syria nearly 40 times.

According to the report, 198 Iranian and Hezbollah forces and allies were killed, along with 27 members and officers of the Syrian army.

These numbers include the 9 killed last night on am airstrike on a factory in Masyaf.

Targets included shipments of arms, arms depots, ammunition, military vehicles, radars, and air defense batteries, as well as missile manufacturing plants.

The report says that 11 civilians were killed as well, but I believe that some or most of them were killed from shrapnel from Syrian anti-aircraft missiles. Even if the figures are accurate that comes out to over 95% military deaths, an extremely high number for wartime.

(h/t Yoel)

For the first time, Norway will freeze part of the aid it sends to the Palestinian Authority because of incitement in PA textbooks.

Newspapers in Norway reported about the incitement found by IMPACT-SE last November and it caused an uproar.

In December, the Foreign Affairs Committee asked the government to reduce or withhold funds to the PA, much of it earmarked for education, unless significant changes are made. In a letter to the government it wrote, “The Committee believes it is necessary to ensure that Norwegian funds support teaching that is ethically sound and forms the basis for peaceful coexistence and tolerance for future generations in the region, and believes that the government must use available means to achieve this….it asks the government to reduce or withhold financial support for PA if they do not provide satisfactory improvements in school materials within a reasonable time.”

Last month, a member of Parliament asked Foreign Minister Ine Marie Eriksen Søreide what the status of the issue was. She wrote her response yesterday:

Review of the Palestinian school curriculum from the Georg Eckert Institute for International Textbook Research (GEI) has been commissioned by the EU. The corona pandemic has complicated GEI's work, but they expect to complete the final report in November / December 2020.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is following up the question of the curriculum vis-à-vis Palestinian autonomous authorities in line with the remarks to the majority in the Foreign and Defense Committee's recommendation on the state budget for 2020. Among other things, the Government, pending GEI's final report, has withheld the payment of more than half of the planned sector of the year. . Disbursement of these funds will depend on the will and ability of Palestinian autonomous authorities to improve the syllabus.

In my meeting with Palestinian Prime Minister Mohammad Shtayyeh in Ramallah on February 20 this year, I communicated the government's views on the matter, stressing that lack of improvements in the school curriculum could have budgetary implications for future Norwegian aid. Furthermore, the Norwegian representative office in Al Ram has informed Palestinian self-government authorities of possible withholding of financial support if no positive changes to the Palestinian curriculum are seen within a reasonable time.

Norway raised the issue in a meeting with the Palestinian Minister of Education on May 15. There is also close contact between Norway and other donors to the education sector in Palestine. Norway, together with other donors, participated in a meeting with the Palestinian Minister of Education on reform of the Palestinian school curriculum on May 21. We feel that there is a good and close dialogue with the Palestinian education authorities on the issue. Some of the curriculum changes have already been made by Palestine's own textbook quality control committee.

Norway gives about $6 million a year to the PA. This would not be a huge blow to the PA budget but funding from the rest of the EU might be jeopardized as well.

Last month, the European Parliament passed a resolution that was critical of Palestinian textbooks, saying it "is concerned about the problematic content of Palestinian textbooks that have not yet been removed and is concerned about the continuing lack of effective action against hate speech and violence in school books." That resolution passed with a vote of 402-263.

The evils of partisanship in a world gone mad

These are frustrating times.

Social media and traditional media are hyper-partisan and this dedication to a political line has overwhelmed the few people who want to have sane discussions. Each side hardens its positions to exclude even the smallest deviation. We all lose when so many are more dedicated to their party than the truth.

The news media is insane. The New York Times, which has unapologetically given op-ed space to Adolf Hitler, Yasir Arafat, leaders of Hamas and the Taliban, caves under pressure from its own staff to distance itself from allowing an op-ed by a US Senator. The staff claimed, in an astonishing example of coordinated mindless tweets, that somehow this op-ed endangered black employees of the Times as well as blacks across the nation.

No one explained exactly how.

Two of the most respected medical journals, the New England Journal of Medicine and the Lancet, published a study that claimed that hydroxychloroquine when given to patients as a treatment for COVID-19 killed more patients than it helped. Neither of them bothered to look at the data, which was debunked by the Internet and forced both of them to distance themselves from the study.

This would never have happened if Trump hadn’t mentioned the drug. So even science is partisan and political. (Another study, perhaps the first truly double blind random study of the drug, found no statistical benefit from hydroxychloroquine for patients who had been recently exposed to the virus. Another study on patients who were already sick is being done. But it is not as sexy as claiming that the drug is deadly, so reporting on this study is a fraction of the bogus one.)

In a similar vein, health authorities who had been warning about the dangers of not employing social distancing are suddenly supporting mass protests. All the things we heard about how social distancing was more important than keeping schools and houses of worship and shops open has been turned upside down.

Why? Partisanship. Their biases are more important than being consistent, ore important even than public health.

Forget Twitter or Facebook or other social media. They are awash with fake news on both sides, with the only thing in common seemingly being antisemitism.

But both sides also have some excellent points.

Racism exists and it is terrible. The fear that blacks have just living their lives are unfathomable to whites. Things are a hell of a lot better than in decades past but that it not good enough.

The police response to the recent riots has been, based on numerous videos, awful. Rather than making the Minneapolis murderers of George Floyd look like outliers, too many police departments across the nation appear to resort to brutality with little or no provocation. The videos I’ve seen have not indicated any racial tendencies – just violent ones.

This is not acceptable.

But the answer of “defunding the police” is idiotic. Police are necessary in any functioning society. Police departments need to be reformed, police need to be trained, procedures need to be created, violations need to be swiftly and comprehensively punished – but police are needed.

Similarly, there is clearly a major problem with incarceration in America. Way too many are put in jail for non-violent crimes, and the US has more prisoners per capita than any other nation. A disproportionate number of prisoners are black. This is not OK. But the answer of “release them all” is also idiotic. Reforms are needed in both the prison system and the courts but violent criminals must stay where they can’t hurt the innocent. This should be obvious but many people really advocate releasing all prisoners.

On the other hand, violence and arson and riots are not okay. People who spent their lives building businesses, already hit hard by the pandemic, don’t deserve to have their shops looted and trashed and graffitied. Bigger stores like Macy’s and Apple and Target don’t deserve to be looted either. Yet I’ve heard prominent people defend the smashing windows and burning stores.

Why? Partisanship. Partisanship makes people either accept the abuses on their side, or it forces them to stay quiet so as not to be ostracized. And both sides are now excellent at ostracization.

Since things are so polarized, the necessary conversations cannot occur. We can’t talk about racism or police brutality or prison reform without it being politicized. We cannot talk about freedom of speech or how to deal with violent protesters and looters without it being politicized. Everyone is so busy pointing fingers that there is no time or energy left to actually admit that the other side has some points. Moreover, even when that is conceded the extremists don’t allow compromise or civil discussion.

It doesn’t help matters that the president, the one person who in a normal world has a chance to bring both sides together, is the most divisive person on the planet. Even when he says something that makes sense, his detractors will automatically choose the opposite position. And he revels in that division, using the hate on both sides to gain politically.

I made a graphic that I labeled a summary of Twitter in six words:

First comes the hate, then the pseudo-logic to justify the hate. One’s political opponents are responsible for everything bad that happens.

If Americans don’t drop the partisanship and the hate, the future of the country does not look promising.

06/04 Links Pt2: Yehudah Glick beaten while leaving home of killed Palestinian's family; Norway Withholds Funding to PA Over Antisemitic and Jihadist Textbooks

From Ian:

Yehudah Glick beaten while leaving home of killed Palestinian's family

Former MK Yehudah Glick was severely beaten on Thursday when he visited the bereaved family of Iyad al-Halak, a Palestinian man who was shot by Border Police last Friday.

Halak was autistic and, according to his family, had the mental capacity of a child.

Glick was beaten when he left the bereaved family, who lives in east Jerusalem, and taken to Shaarei Zedek Medical Center, N12 reported.
The Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem Rabbi Aryeh Stern visited the mourning tent on Tuesday.

The shooting of an autistic man, leading to his death, led to wide condemnation across the country.

Norway Withholds Funding to Palestinian Authority Over Antisemitic and Jihadist Content in School Textbooks

Norway’s foreign minister on Thursday announced that funds earmarked for the Palestinian Authority’s education sector would be withheld until changes were made to schoolbooks that promoted antisemitism and terrorist violence against Israelis.

The decision followed a vote last December in the Norwegian parliament to demand such changes after the publication of a report by IMPACT-se — an NGO that analyzes school textbooks around the world for signs of intolerance — that demonstrated systematic insertions of violence, martyrdom and jihad across all grades and subjects in the textbooks used by the PA.

Foreign Minister Ine Eriksen Søreide said that when she met with PA Prime Minister Mohammad Shtayyeh in Ramallah in February, she had “communicated the government’s views on the matter, stressing that lack of improvements in the school curriculum could have budgetary implications for future Norwegian aid.”

Søreide expressed optimism that changes to the textbooks would be implemented. “We feel that there is a good and close dialogue with the Palestinian education authorities on the issue,” she said. “Some of the curriculum changes have already been made by Palestine’s own textbook quality control committee.”

A statement from IMPACT-se praised Søreide for her “unprecedented decision.”

“This remarkable pronouncement is a clear message that Norway’s elected leaders will not allow their generosity to be abused, to deliver a daily diet of violence, bigotry and incitement against Jews and Israel in Palestinian schools,” the NGO declared.

NGO warns of suicides in Hamas prisons. (I don’t think this ever happened to Palestinians in Israeli prison.)

The Independent Commission for Human Rights i Gaza called on Hamas to take the necessary measures to prevent suicides in detention centers and prisons.

Recently, Muaz Ahmed Shukri Abu Amra, 19, hanged himself in a Hamas prison. On April 24 he was transferred from th Deir al Balah jail to the Central Governorate Reform and Rehabilitation Center, and he died on May 29 after being refused release.

Mustafa Fayek Abed Rabbo Salman. 17 committed suicide in 2017 at the Beit Lahia police station , and Walid Abdel Aziz Al-Dahini, 30, killed himself in 2018 in the Rafah Police Station.

As far as I can tell, in the 53 years of “occupation,” not a single Palestinian prisoner has committed suicide in those horrendous Israeli prisons we keep hearing about. (Several Jews have killed themselves in Israeli prisons, however.)