Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Tuesday, June 09, 2020

This is what Palestinians hijacking George Floyd look like

This small demonstration in Bethlehem has all the hallmarks of what Palestinians always do: try to hijack any trendy cause and make it about them.

While protesters worldwide are trying to understand the pain that black Americans feel, Palestinians are confidently declaring that they know all about oppression.

First of all, they try to equate the killing of George Floyd with the (admittedly horrible) killing of Eyad al-Halaq. That already waters down any sympathy they might have for George Floyd.

They chant “Black Lives Matter. Palestinian Lives Matter.”

Listen to the interviews. Every Palestinian says that they know about oppression more than black Americans do.

There is no empathy. Instead, there is a game of “we are more oppressed so we are qualified to talk about police brutality.”

06/09 Links Pt2: Health minister: Coronavirus spike 'alarming and dramatic'; Israeli Arab Singer Mira Awad Slams Rogers Waters for BDS Support

From Ian:

Melanie Phillips: To put Israel's points, first learn about the Brits

Is the Israeli government reverting to its bad old ways by selecting the Likud politician Tzipi Hotovely as its ambassador to the United Kingdom?

On a number of occasions, Israel has seemed to treat the UK with contempt by appointing as its ambassador someone with poor English and even less diplomatic prowess.

In recent years, it seemed to have got the message with the appointments of the British-born, former foreign ministry lawyer Daniel Taub and the Australian-born diplomat Mark Regev. The British Jewish community sighed in relief at their diplomatic skills and perfect English.

The ambassador who preceded Taub, Ron Prosor, was in turn a diplomatic heavyweight who had previously run Israel’s foreign ministry and afterwards became its ambassador to the UN.

In addition to the acumen and polish of these three, the crucial point was that they effaced their own political opinions. The only viewpoint with which they were associated was that of the Israeli government.

Despite her intelligence and fluent English, Hotovely — who has yet to accept this post —would be laden with divisive political baggage.

A former deputy foreign minister, she was recently appointed settlements minister and will serve as such unless she goes to London.

A religious Zionist who opposes marriage between Jews and Arabs, she rejects the idea of a Palestinian state and dismisses criticism of the Israeli “settlements”, saying: “This land is ours. All of it is ours. We did not come here to apologise for that”.

Already, she has attracted criticism on account of her “ultra right-wing” views. Whether one agrees or disagrees with those views, however, is beside the point.

Ambassadors should be viewed in person as politically neutral. They are appointed to deliver their country’s story. They should not become the story themselves.

This isn’t the only reason to be concerned about Hotovely’s appointment. Her previous attempt to put Israel’s case to a hostile British public was a train-wreck.

April 27, 2020: One to listen out for on BBC World Service radio

BBC World Service radio is currently promoting what it describes as “an epic podcast drama about the momentous events leading up to the creation of Israel – seen through the eyes of two people, one a Jew, the other an Arab”.

The ten-part series – written by British playwright Steve Waters and titled ‘Miriam and Youssef’ – will be aired weekly commencing on April 29th, Israel’s Independence Day. A promo was released on April 22nd.

Podcast: BBC World Service - Miriam and Youssef

A 10-part drama about the founding of Israel. Miriam is a Jewish immigrant to Palestine, and Youssef is an Arab inhabitant driven into exile. At the heart of it all is the city of Jerusalem. (h/t Yerushalimey)

Health minister: Coronavirus spike 'alarming and dramatic'

The country will be doing more to enforce the Health Ministry’s primary coronavirus regulations as the number of people infected with COVID-19 surges throughout Israel.

At the urgent request of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the head of the National Security Council, Meir Ben-Shabbat, held a meeting to formulate immediate and practical steps for tightening enforcement against the spread of coronavirus. In attendance were top officials, including the health minister and chief of police, as well as the heads of local authorities.

A decision was made to activate the police, local authority inspectors and even population and immigration inspectors – each according to his strengths – to enforce regulations in four areas: wearing masks, congregating in groups that are too large or too close together, complying with the “Purple Ribbon” standard for businesses, and enforcing isolation of patients and people who have come in contact with them.

Local authorities are expected to complete a training program by Monday to prepare their inspectors for the task. The Justice Department is working on completing legislative procedures to empower the inspectors, and the Public Security Ministry has been tasked with taking responsibility for the project.

The meeting piggybacked on remarks made earlier in the day by Health Minister Yuli Edelstein, who said that the government did not yet have intention to “go backwards” and begin reinstating closures. Rather, he said, that strict enforcement of the regulations would be instated.
Edelstein compared violating regulations to breaking traffic laws.

“Anyone who walks around without a mask is like someone who drove at 160 kilometers per hour,” he said. “In 2019, 349 people were killed in traffic accidents.”

Some Arab incitement from 90 years ago

The Palestine Bulletin, the precursor to the Palestine Post/Jerusalem Post, used to have a column where they would translate Arab articles.

After the British White Paper of 1930, Jews demonstrated and rallied against the reduction of immigration that would be allowed. In this context, Arab newspapers responded with direct incitement against Jews. (They weren’t woke enough in those days to say “Zionists.”)

Felesteen, published on June 5, 1930:

Al Jamia, June 6, 1930:

Mohammed owned slaves. Why won’t anyone “cancel” Mohammed?

The cancel culture is very selective.

Jimmy Fallon thought imitating Chris Rock in blackface on national TV was OK, and people accepted his apology.

In 2011, Fred Armisen defended his use of blackface (or “honeyface”) to portray Barack Obama and Prince on Saturday Night Live, no one seems to mind and he’s still steadily working.

Megyn Kelly thought kids imitating Diana Ross in blackface on Halloween was OK, and her apology was followed by her being fired.

Was the issue blackface, or that people were looking for an excuse to fire a conservative TV figure anyway?

The New York Times published op-eds by Yasir Arafat, Moammar Gaddafi, leaders of Hamas and the Taliban. They never fact-checked the op-eds by Palestinians. Suddenly, when they publish an op-ed by a Republican US senator that was not nearly as offensive by any measure compared to the others, heads roll and they announce that they will start fact-checking op-eds.

Was the issue the content of the op-eds, or whether the causes were aligned with the politics of NYT staff and readers?

Roseanne Barr dressed up as Hitler in 2009 when she was still regarded as a liberal, and shook off the controversy. But she was literally cancelled after she posted an offensive tweet – after she publicly supported Donald Trump - and no one gave her the benefit of the doubt for her explanation. (I myself had no idea Valerie Jarrett was black.) If she would have still been viewed as a liberal, is there any doubt that her apology would have been accepted and she would have kept her job?

In all three cases there was a rush to judgment – people were fired within two days of the incident.

Now people are going after monuments to people who owned slaves when it was not considered out of the ordinary. Thomas Jefferson and George Washington are once again being attacked for their having had slaves. But would anyone even think for a second to “cancel” Mohammed, who bought, sold and even captured slaves – a much worse crime by any measure? And that’s hardly the worst thing he did by today’s standards.

The cancel culture has nothing to do with morality and everything to do with political intimidation. It is simply bullying. And the people who should be fighting against bullies – the media, the politicians – are too frightened to speak up because they could be the next victims.

06/09 Links Pt1: Dershowitz: Exploiting the Floyd protests to demonize Israel; Joshua Washington: The Palestinian appropriation of black pain

From Ian:

Alan Dershowitz: Exploiting the Floyd protests to demonize Israel

Historically, the Jews have always been caught between the black of Fascism and the red of Communism. This was true in the 1920’s and 1930’s in Europe, and there is a danger that it could now manifest itself during this time of extremism, when bigots on both sides are prepared to scapegoat the Jews and their nation state.

Those of us who are both Jewish and Liberal – who support Israel and oppose unjustified police violence – must be willing to participate and encourage legitimate protests against police violence, such as that caught on video in the Floyd case. We must stand up and be heard in condemnation of such violations – but we must stand up and be heard against those who would exploit tragedies to foment violence against Jews and the nation state of the Jewish people.

We should not generalize: the vast majority of protesters are focused on the injustices of police misconduct. But we cannot ignore those – even if they are relatively few in number – who would turn these protests into bigoted attacks against Israel. Bigotry unanswered grows in size and intensity.

Silence is not an option in the face of any injustice. Black lives matter greatly; so do Palestinian lives; so do Jewish and Israeli lives. We must not be afraid of being criticized for condemning bigotry on all sides. As the great sage Hillel put it 2000 years ago, “If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am not for others, what am I?” He ended his statement with a call to action: “And if not now, when?”

Now is the time to protest the injustice against George Floyd and other African American men and women who have been unjustly targeted by overzealous – and often racist – police. But now is also the time to speak out against those who would hijack this tragic history to manifest the oldest continuing prejudice known to mankind, namely antisemitism.

Joshua Washington: The Palestinian appropriation of black pain

What adds insult to injury is that BLM does seek allyship from the Jewish community, so long as they are diametrically opposed to the Jewish state. Jewish people should not be expected to check their Zionism at the door in order to join arms with BLM. Jews should not be expected to do that, no more than a Kenyan should be expected to denounce Kenya, or a Brazilian be expected to denounce South America. Can black Americans even imagine joining a Filipino justice movement only to be asked to voice our denunciation of the civil rights movement in order to join? No. We would not. Imagine a justice movement for black South Africans that, despite having good people on the ground who may be unaware of the movement’s national positions, posited that slavery was voluntary, and that West Africans got on ships because they were excited to come to America and be worked to death. There is no scenario where a black American, upon finding this out, would be a part of such movement. It is mind boggling to fathom why anyone would expect anyone else to do the same.

I appreciate my Jewish brothers and sisters seeking to make inroads in the black community, as they have been making these attempts for decades, but regarding the issue of Black Lives Matter, whether the black members are aware or not, there needs to be a conversation about their national official position on Israel. Not only Israel, and not only BLM, but in any movement, it is simply a good principle to find out what the movement is about beyond the facade before committing to it. I personally have issues with many of the official M4BL stances. The vast majority of our values do not align, and so for me to join them would be for no other reason than they’re the loudest and everyone is doing it. Those are bad reasons, and the Jewish community should not fall into that trap. We have seen what happened to Jewish members of SNCC when SNCC decided to shift their stance on Israel and Jews. It would not be wise to join a movement with antisemitism already as its bedrock.

The image is just one recent examples of Palestinians continuing to equate our struggles. Another image easily found on the internet is a painting of recently murdered George Floyd in a keffiyeh with a Palestinian flag behind him, depicting him as a Palestinian martyr. This is wrong on many accounts, as our struggle could not be any more different.

One of the biggest differences is terrorism. The Palestinian Authority encourages and incentivizes Palestinians to kill Jews. Palestinians who successfully kill Jews are awarded with a monthly stipend from the PA. Palestinians who commit suicide while killing Jews have a monthly stipend sent to their families. Palestinian children are trained to kill Jews by any means, including suicide bombing, and they are taught this through terrorist traning camps and Hamas TV shows. Streets are named after Palestinians who commit suicide bombings if they kill enough Jews. As heightened as the black community has ever been, never have we as a people resorted to killing white people everywhere just because they are white. Never have we encouraged the death of our own children for our cause. Never have we ever produced television shows to teach our children how to kill white people. What the Palestinian Authority is engaged in is not a struggle against oppression; it is pure and simple Jew hatred, and Palestinian leaders will do anything they can to legitimize it including exploiting black pain to do so.

We as black Americans need to realize these attempts to deceive us. We need to stop allowing people who have no real interest in our well-being to tell us how to behave toward our Jewish cousins. Blacks and Jews have much more history that binds us than we could ever have with the likes of the PLO, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, or Mahmoud Abbas. I will concede, however, that we do share a common struggle with the Palestinian people, and that is the struggle of many manipulative leaders who claim to be our saviors.

But that is a conversation for another time…

StandWithUs: Zionism & The Civil Rights Movement

What is the connection between Zionism and the civil rights movement? Join us as we chat with Joshua Washington, the director of the Institute for Black Solidarity with Israel (IBSI), who will discuss his role in the Zionist space, unearthing how Zionism and black civil rights walked hand in hand. As a composition graduate of the University of Pacific’s Conservatory of Music, Washington will also talk about how his music and advocacy help to amplify Zionism in a unique and innovative way.

The intellectual antisemitism of @Mondoweiss

Mondoweiss published a long article called “On the Racial Basis of Zionism” that tries to find some sort of pseudo-intellectual underpinnings to associate Zionism with antisemitism.

One doesn’t have to look far beneath the surface to see that the attempt is antisemitic itself.

The key paragraph:

Zionist ideology is racist because it defines Judaism as a race and maintains a regime that discriminates against non-Jews. According to the definition of Judaism by Zionists (the definition of the Jewish race, if you will), Jews are the ones who profess Judaism, as are their descendants. This means we have a mixture of religious-faith principles (and note you can also convert to Judaism) and genetic principles (as defined by the Nazis); thus the descendants of the Jews are hereditary Jews, regardless of their faith or the observance of any Jewish commandments or customs.

No, Zionism does not define Judaism as a race. It defines Jews as being a nation, a nation that kept its national character through 2000 years of exile.

And this isn’t only a Jewish definition. It is how the rest of the world has looked at Jews throughout history, as this 1848 book illustrates.

Note that the Jewish nation doesn’t only have customs, but also laws – a characteristic normally associated with nationhood more than faith.

Like any other nation, one’s nationality is defined by the nationality of their parents or from becoming a member through a process of joining the nation. There is very little difference between being a member of the Jewish nation and being a citizen of France or Belgium in this sense. There is nothing racial about it – after all, there are lots of black Jews, as well as Jews from China, India, and of course Arab lands.

Most importantly, there is no real distinction between Zionism’s definition and the Jewish definition of who is a member of the Jewish nation – which means that this article is calling Judaism inherently racist.

By calling Judaism a “race,” Mondoweiss is adopting the Nazi definition of Jews, not the Jewish definition. Like all bigots, the the modern antisemites do not allow the hated group to define itself.

The rest of the article is at least as antisemitic as the section quoted. For example, it attempts to claim that Nazis and Zionists shared a vision, an absurd and recurring theme by the anti-Zionists:

The fulfillment of the Zionist vision is largely the victory of the antisemites, as evidenced by what SS commander, Reinhard Heydrich, wrote in a statement in 1935:

“National Socialism has no intention of attacking the Jewish people in any way. On the contrary, the recognition of Jewry as a racial community based on blood, and not as a religious one, leads the German government to guarantee the racial separateness of this community without any limitations. The government finds itself in complete agreement with the great spiritual movement within Jewry itself, the so-called Zionism, with its recognition of the solidarity of Jewry throughout the world and the rejection of all assimilationist ideas. On this basis, Germany undertakes measures that will surely play a significant role in the future in the handling of the Jewish problem around the world.”

The German desire to ethnically cleanse Jews from Germany before the Final Solution was devised is well known, but Mondoweiss wants to make it look like Zionists were colluding with Nazis and Nazis were sympathetic with Zionists. This Holocaust inversion is pure antisemitism on the part of Mondoweiss. Jews trying to survive is twisted into Jews as Nazi-lovers. It doesn’t get more sick than that.

What Mondoweiss doesn’t want you to realize is that Germany was in the midst of a propaganda campaign to ensure it would host the 1936 Olympics and was downplaying its antisemitism in public statements. Only modern antisemites like the writers at Mondoweiss could take seriously statements like “National Socialism has no intention of attacking the Jewish people in any way.” Only a Jew hater could actually believe those words today.

If you need proof that Nazi Germany was as anti-Zionist as the writers at Mondoweiss, look at Mein Kampf.

A section of the Jews avows itself quite openly as an alien people, but even here there is another falsehood. When the Zionists try to make the rest of the world believe that the new national consciousness of the Jews will be satisfied by the establishment of a Jewish State in Palestine, the Jews thereby adopt another means to dupe the simple-minded Aryan. They have not the slightest intention of building up a Jewish State in Palestine so as to live in it. What they are really aiming at is to establish a central organization for their international swindling and cheating. As a sovereign State, this cannot be controlled by any of the other States. Therefore, it can serve as a refuge for swindlers who have been found out, and at the same time, a high school for the training of other swindlers.

Mein Kampf explicitly denounced Zionism, but the modern antisemites hate Israeli Jews so much that they want to make Nazis look moderate!

This article is all the proof you need to see that modern intellectual anti-Zionism is indistinguishable from antisemitism.

The moral failure of the American Jewish Committee

The American Jewish Committee has been around since 1906 and has done some fine work over the years (although it did a poor job during the Holocaust.) Nowadays it seems to have changed its name to simply AJC Global Jewish Advocacy. It fights antisemitism and is a Zionist organization.

On Monday, it failed in its primary mission.

AJC has been hosting a series of interviews with global figures, and on Monday it hosted a conversation with Dina Kawar, Jordan’s ambassador to the United States.

Before and during the interview, a number of people asked that AJC ask Kawar about the case of Ahlam Tamimi, the terrorist responsible for the murder of 15 at the Sbarro pizza shop in 2002 who is now living freely in Jordan, under the protection of the Jordanian government, which is defying a US demand for extradition.

Yet the AJC, dedicated to protecting Jews and Israel, failed in its mission. It had a golden opportunity to publicly pressure Jordan to do the right thing. And the timing was right, as Jordan is feeling the pressure from the US. Bringing it up would have created an avalanche of publicity, no matter what Kawar would have answered – and this is exactly the kind of pressure that is necessary for justice to be served.

By being polite to the representative of a regime that protects a murderer of Jews, the AJC has lost much of its clout and credibility.

I have no doubt that Kawar explicitly conditioned the interview on the AJC not asking sensitive questions like about Tamimi or about how Jordan still treats its Palestinian residents as second class citizens. The AJC should have either refused the interview under those conditions, or it should have broken the agreement because justice for the terror victims is a far more moral cause than telling the truth to a regime that protects murderers. The AJC, eager to appear influential and probably with an eye to ensuring more interviews with more international figures, betrayed its mission to protect Jews and to promote justice for antisemites.

So instead of doing something that could have had real results – and which would have brought the AJC a great deal of positive publiciy - we have a boring conversation that no one will watch.

The AJC squandered its chance to do good. And its reputation has been hurt because of its cowardice.

Palestinian Media Watch has been documenting a very disturbing trend of official Palestinian TV increasing the number of music videos it shows that directly call for attacking Jews in Israel.

Significantly, they are often referring to “restoring honor,” which justifies murder. They are showing videos and photos of stabbing attacks and of suicide bombers. And this is all in the past couple of weeks.

Here’s one:

O Arabs, Al-Aqsa has a request,
Light the fire of rage, this obligation is necessary...
The Zionists have become arrogant.
They attack and behave tyrannically
Call out Allahu Akbar and restore the glory of Khaibar
The Sons of Zion are in my land violating my honor today.
O people of Allah, respond! We will continue on the path of Allah…
The night of the occupation is growing long – prepare for the call!
We are the men of the Al-Aqsa Mosque, we cannot be humiliated.

This one also calls to restore honor, and shows videos of stabbing attacks.

When Jerusalem called to Gaza and Hebron
The Negev responded and the Triangle and the Galilee answered (i.e., all in Israel)
We are at your service, O Al-Aqsa, our blood is your torch
In our dictionary the word “impossible” doesn’t exist...
We ask Allah for refuge
Protect the dignity, protect it!
Defend the honor and the religion
With the help of men who are not traitors – they do not fear death...

This is direct incitement to murdering Jews in the name of “honor.”

5 Jordanians sentenced to hard labor for attempting to kill Jews

On Monday, the Jordanian State Security Court sentenced five Jordanians to five years in prison with hard labor after convicting them of planning to carry out terror attacks in Israel.

According to the indictment, in mid-2017, the defendants "examined the border area south of the Dead Sea towards Aqaba, two separate times, in order to find a safe way to infiltrate the Israeli side to carry out military operations."

And after it became clear to them that it was impossible to infiltrate there because of tight security by the Jordanian army and the IDF, they submitted “requests to enter the West Bank under the pretext of visiting the Al-Aqsa Mosque through one of the tourism offices,” and that, after entering Jerusalem, they would work on “carrying out stabbing operations against the Jews,” but their requests were rejected.

After that, the accused decided, according to the indictment, "to submit applications to work in Eilat through one of the employment companies." Two of them submitted two applications, one of which was approved.

One of them, Taher Jamal, entered Israel on November 30, 2018, and attacked several workers with a hammer, injuring two. He was captured with the help of another Jordanian worker and was brought before an Israeli court the following month and charged with terrorism.

Jamal recorded a video in which he spoke of his intention to attack Jews in Eilat.

Jamal seems to be in Israeli prison as one of the men were tried in absentia.

The terrorists said they want to kill Jews, not Israelis. Yet for some reason no one in the media seems to ever refer to Jordanian antisemitism.

06/08 Links Pt2: Hen Mazzig: No, Israel Isn't a Country of Privileged and Powerful White Europeans; Jonathan Tobin: Defunding police will sacrifice Jewish security

From Ian:

Hen Mazzig (Los Angeles Times): No, Israel Isn't a Country of Privileged and Powerful White Europeans

There is a growing inclination to frame the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in terms of race. According to this narrative, Israel was established as a refuge for oppressed white European Jews who in turn became oppressors of people of color, the Palestinians. As an Israeli, and the son of an Iraqi Jewish mother and North African Jewish father, it's gut-wrenching to witness this shift.

The majority of Jews in Israel today are of Middle Eastern and North African descent. I am baffled as to why mainstream media and politicians around the world ignore or misrepresent these facts. Israel was established for all Jews from every part of the world - the Middle East, North Africa, Ethiopia, Asia and, yes, Europe. No matter where Jews physically reside, they maintain a connection to the Land of Israel, where our story started and where today we continue to craft it.

Those who misrepresent Israel try to position it as a colonialist aggressor rather than a haven for those fleeing oppression. That all but erases the story of my family. In Iraq, my family experienced ongoing persecution. My great-grandfather was falsely accused of being a Zionist spy and executed in Baghdad in 1951.

Any erasure of the Mizrahi experience negates the lives of 850,000 Jewish refugees. They would also deny the existence of almost 200,000 descendants of Ethiopian Jews who were airlifted to Israel in the early 1990s in a daring rescue operation.

Israel is a place where an indigenous people have reclaimed their land and revived their ancient language, despite being surrounded by hostile neighbors and hounded by radicalized Arab nationalists who cannot tolerate any political entity in the region other than their own. Jews that were expelled from nations across the Middle East, who sacrificed all they had, have been crucial in building and defending the Jewish state since its outset.

Hetz Webinars: Modern Blood Libels

Tuvia Tenenbom, Ricki Hollander (CAMERA), Prof. Richard Landes (h/t Arie)

Nearly 30% of all murders in Iran are “honor killings” of women–hundreds a year

The New York Times has a good article about the horrible “honor killing” of a 14-year old girl by her father, because she had a boyfriend she wanted to marry. (In Iran, 13 year old girls can marry with their parents’ permission.)

Buried in the middle of the article, though, is an astonishing statistic:

Honor killings are thought to be rare but that may be because they are usually hushed up.

A 2019 report by a research center affiliated with Iran’s armed forces found that nearly 30 percent of all murder cases in Iran were honor killings of women and girls. The number is unknown, however, as Iran does not publicly release crime statistics.

According to the statistics I see online, the intentional murder rate in Iran is roughly 2.5 per hundred thousand. That would come out to an incredible 600 women murdered for “honor” every year in Iran – nearly 2 every day of the year.

That is almost too many to believe. The NYT doesn’t link to the study. But if it is true, then Iran may be the honor killing capital of the world.

(UPDATE: My original math was wrong, h/t DM)

“Zionists” aren’t only responsible for all social justice issues–they pull the strings on all international crises, too

A month ago I mentioned, and showed, how Israel is held responsible for every social justice problem – from climate to feminism to gay rights to disability rights to animal rights and police brutality.

But we Zionists don’t only concern ourselves with social issues. No, we control the world, which means that all geopolitical problems emanate from our secret hideouts in Jerusalem and Brooklyn.

One person who cracked the code is H. Amirabdollahian, Special Aide on International Affairs of the Islamic Parliament in Iran.

Look how insightful his tweets are on various international issues, as he finds Zionist tentacles in…

Libya:

The US:

Syria:

Germany:

Yemen:

Iraq:

Bahrain:

Of course, Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria:

Seems a bit obsessive, no?

06/08 Links Pt1: Bringing the Middle East Back Home; Annexation vs. sovereignty: Words matter; The investigation that caught the killer of Amit Ben-Yigal

From Ian:

Bringing the Middle East Back Home

Of course, the AOCs [American Orientalist Class] haughtily reply, it’s Trump who turned America into a third-world country—not us! But in fact, Trump, for all his flaws, was clear in his desire to perpetuate American uniqueness—hence his calls to overhaul immigration policy and border security. In response, the AOCs cried racism—advertising their own superiority to Trump and to their missionary predecessors.

Except, while racism is a discredited 19th-century pseudoscience, cultural differences are entirely real. They are also hugely important in shaping everything from social structure to personality to political culture.

Yet America’s leveling ideologues are happy to ignore the mountain of evidence that contradicts their dogma—especially in the service of opposing Trump. The shunning of assimilation and the celebration of grievance-based tribalism as the core American value—which they attempt to enforce by judicial fiat, education, and social pressure—is both a threat to American democracy and a source of progressive political power. Instead of liberation from third world norms—the norms of the societies they came from—immigrants and their children are shackled to them and told that their value to American society resides in these continuing attachments. In school, their children are taught that America is sinful, and that the noxious communal grievance politics of their parents’ societies can be applied to America and layered onto the historical American rights based political culture. On the low end, this means conditioning a new generation of young Americans into sectarian competition and resentment, and block voting within the structure of the Democratic Party. On the elite level, thanks in part to the AOCs and their use of “voices from the region,” this validation is sharpened further and made into a source of authority that torques both American foreign policy and increasingly the lens through which American domestic politics is presented to Americans.

For the AOCs—and for Obama, who incarnated their tendency to see American uniqueness as shameful and vulgar—exceptionalism is a misguided relic of the sinful American past, which “can discourage comparisons with other countries, suggesting that the United States cannot learn from others.” Hence, the exultation in the notion that America’s street action is a mirror image of the mass protests of the Middle East. In fact, the idea of America as the Middle East allows the AOCs to bring all of the conflicting emotions that drew them to the region into harmony. America offers a new canvas on which the guilt and pity—and even the erotic attraction—that this class of Americans feel for those societies in which they’ve lived and worked can be re-enacted.

Perhaps more important than the chance for a do-over of the failed Middle Eastern adventures and thought experiments is the opportunity that applying Middle Eastern thought categories to America offers the AOCs for reconciling feelings of frustration with and contempt for their own country. Take, for instance, the leveling language in this tweet by a think tanker who works on Syria and al-Qaida, in reaction to his Syrian friend participating in protests in Washington, D.C. The Syrian friend’s participation becomes a “fight for our rights in #America—just a few years after he was forced to flee #Syria while demanding the same.” What better way to transcend the bitterness and depression of helplessly covering and identifying with the third-world societies where they've lived and worked, in which virtually all mass protests ended in failure? Now it can play out in America, and this time, it will succeed, against our own Trump-Assad!

The identification of Obama and the AOCs with ugly third-world security regimes like Iran and the failed societies of the region points to a larger leveling process that is currently at work in America. That process makes me anxious about the future of the great country to which I immigrated—in the hope of leaving the sickness of my former society behind me.

As Americans, we’ve gone from glorifying the politics of crowds, to celebrating the tribalization of American society and the elevation of the culture of grievance and self-pity. We accept that the function of the media is not to provide objective accounts of events but to act as a put-through mechanism for security agencies. We have entrenched the culture of conspiracy and turned institutions of government into instruments to paralyze the opposite party and disrupt the peaceful transition of power. These all are hallmarks of the politics of the Third World.

9/11 gave birth to a lost generation that threw itself into the Third World in search of redemption. Now, tragically, they have brought the Third World back home.

Arsen Ostrovsky and Richard Kemp: Annexation vs. sovereignty: Words matter

Those who use the above rulings to argue against Israel’s plan to “annex” parts of Judea and Samaria omit three crucial points, however.

First, all apply to territory acquired by force or in an offensive war. The Six-Day War, in which Israel was compelled to defend itself from neighboring Arab armies seeking the Jewish state’s destruction, was defensive.

Second, in 1967, there was no “state of Palestine,” nor does such an entity exist today under international law. Therefore, Israel is not, and cannot, be annexing the territory of “another state.”

Third, and perhaps most importantly, all of the above negates the Jewish people’s inextricable connection to Judea and Samaria, which is rooted both in historical rights, and in undeniable legal ones.

One hundred years ago in April, after World War I, the allied powers gathered in San Remo, Italy and adopted an unprecedented resolution, for the first time ever entrenching the Jewish people’s pre-existing historical rights to the land as unequivocal legal rights under international law.

The San Remo Resolution, which followed the 1917 Balfour Declaration that called for the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, formed the basis in 1922 of the adoption of the Mandate for Palestine.

The Mandate for Palestine, adopted by the League of Nations, the precursor to the United Nations, recognized the “historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine” and the “grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.”

Even Article 80 of the U.N. Charter enshrined the guiding principles of the San Remo Resolution—notwithstanding the dissolution of the Mandate—by holding that “nothing in this chapter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties.”

Therefore, even after the adoption in 1947 of the U.N. Partition Plan, and since then with all subsequent U.N. resolutions, the legal rights granted to the Jewish state at San Remo have been retained.

David Singer: European Union shamefully denies Jewish rights in Judea and Samaria

The frenzied rush by the European Union (EU) to condemn Israel’s restoration of Jewish sovereignty in 30% of Judea and Samaria (West Bank) reflects poorly on an organization which has adopted an exceptionally confrontational approach to the Jewish State.

EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell has led the charge:
“We strongly urge Israel to refrain from any unilateral decision that would lead to the annexation of any occupied Palestinian territory and would be, as such, contrary to International Law”

So many false statements appearing in such a short sentence by this high-ranking EU official is breathtaking:
Israel’s action is not unilateral

Such action is being taken in tandem with President Trump following the outright refusal by the PLO to enter into negotiations with Israel on the basis of Trump’s detailed plan released on 28 January 2020.

70% of Judea and Samaria awaits the PLO – or any other Arab interlocutor such as Jordan – prepared to step up and negotiate on its future sovereignty.
Israel will not be annexing occupied Palestinian territory contrary to international law
“Annexing occupied Palestinian territory” means taking territory belonging to someone else to which Israel has no entitlement.
“Contrary to international law”: Israel will be applying sovereignty in 30% of Judea and Samaria pursuant to vested legal rights to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in this specific area conferred on the Jewish people by:
The San Remo Resolution and the Treaty of Sevres 1920
The League of Nations Mandate for Palestine 1922
Article 80 United Nations Charter 1945

The EU’s attempt to trash these existing Jewish legal rights in Judea and Samaria is extremely disturbing – since 20 of the 27 current member States of the EU – plus former member the United Kingdom – were among the 51 member States of the League of Nations that had unanimously included Judea and Samaria as part of the area in which the Jews were entitled to reconstitute their biblical Jewish homeland after 3000 years.

Supporters of Israel have seen the current NYT disaster for years (Daled Amos)

Journalism ain't what it used to be.

Journalists: From Servants Of Democracy To Servants of Truth...

Writing for the Washington Post in 1990, E.J. Dionne Jr. quoted Ted Smith, associate professor of mass communications at Virginia Commonwealth University. Smith described how journalists reimagined their role in reporting the news, following the Vietnam War era:

"They now see themselves as autonomous, neutral critics (who are) not of the culture but somehow outside the culture and above it," he said. "They now see themselves not as servants of American democracy, but as servants of the truth in some wider sense."

These days, journalists no longer see themselves as mere 'servants of American democracy.' Then, again, they don't necessarily see themselves as 'servants of the truth' either.

...To Activists For A Cause

In 2013, former New York Times editor Bill Keller published a "conversation" with Glenn Greenwald, whom he described as "an advocate of a more activist, more partisan kind of journalism." In explaining how he does journalism differently, Greenwald complained that

this suffocating constraint on how reporters are permitted to express themselves produces a self-neutering form of journalism that becomes as ineffectual as it is boring...all journalism is a form of activism. Every journalistic choice necessarily embraces highly subjective assumptions — cultural, political or nationalistic — and serves the interests of one faction or another. [emphasis added]

As activists, there are an awful lot of journalists out there who see themselves as members of a cause. The problem is that at least when you see yourself as serving Truth, you are inclined to accept criticism of error and make corrections. But if you see yourself as an activist to a cause -- are you really as likely to accept criticism and correct a mistake? For that matter, how far will you be willing to go to stretch a point (or two)? After all, it's for the cause. Another consideration is that, as an activist dedicated to a cause, journalists are susceptible to the pressures of other members of the cause, who now feel free to criticize your statements, and expect you to toe the line. That would explain how newspapers publish headlines that do not just give an idea of the story, but actually tilt the story.

If You Thought The Headlines of Reports on Palestinian Terrorists Were Bad...

In a recent post, I reviewed biased headlines that twist stories of attacks by Palestinian terrorists. I gave 2 examples where it took not one but 3 headlines in order to get the story straight. CBS online news went from -- 3 Palestinians Killed as Daily Violence Grinds On to: Israeli Police Kill 3 Alleged Palestinian Attackers to: Palestinians Kill Israeli Officer, Wound Another Before Being Killed The Associated Press went from -- Israeli Police Shoot Man in East Jerusalem to: Car Slams Into East Jerusalem Train Station to: Palestinian Kills Baby at Jerusalem Station But now, in the course of the past year, we have seen news stories in the US where The New York Times has felt obliged to rewrite its headlines multiple times -- by public, or political, demand. Last year, Trump spoke after mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton. The New York Times dutifully reported on his comments and used the headline: Trump Urges Unity vs. Racism. The headline was obviously not nearly anti-Trump enough. So following critical tweets from politicians, presidential candidates and others, the New York Times dutifully changed the headline to: Assailing Hate But Not Guns But this is not a one-time occurrence. Just last week, The New York Times again changed its headline after pressure from Democrats. When Trump threatened that he was ready to bring out the military as riots spread throughout the country in reaction to the police killing of George Floyd -- The New York Times reported with the headline: As Chaos Spreads, Trump Vows to ‘End It Now' Opposing the neutrality of the headline, Democrats condemned it as not sufficiently anti-Trump. So The New York Times obliged: Trump Threatens to Send Troops into States However, a personal best was probably achieved earlier this year, in March. Within the space of an hour, The New York Times produced 4 different headlines as it desperately tried to satisfy Democrats. The story was about the stalled coronavirus relief bill. The problem was how to write the headline so as not to be too harsh on the Democrats. Democrats Block Action on $1.8 Trillion Stimulus (that of course would never do) Democrats Block Action on Stimulus Plan, Seeking Worker Protections (toned down; they're doing it for the workers!) Partisan Divide Threatens Deal on Rescue Bill (it's not the Democrats! No, it's that darned 'cycle of partisanship' we hear so much about...) As State Pleas Mount, Trump Outlines Some Federal Action; Senate Democrats Block Stimulus Package (reflecting complaints from conservative leaders who were tired of The New York Times game)

The New York Times Outdoes Itself

But the latest headline gaffe, also last week, is having major reverberations. Last Wednesday, The New York Times published an op-ed by Republican Senator Tom Cotton:

Since then, there have been multiple explanations, excuses, denials and James Bennet resigned as The New York Times Opinion Editor. As the paper itself admits in the 'contextual' comments that now introduce the op-ed (sort of a warning label) it was The New York Times itself that created the headline -- not Senator Cotton. And the paper admits that the headline they chose is "incendiary". But that admission hasn't stopped The New York Times from continuing to mischaracterize what Cotton wrote:

The point is that contrary to the headline and what The New York Times claims in the above tweet, Senator Cotton did not "call for military force against protesters in American cities." What he did write is advise the use of the military to either back up and support the outnumbered police and National Guard or help out where elected officials have refused to take any action where violent riots have broken out. This would be accomplished by invoking the Insurrection Act, which in the past has been used by both Republican presidents as well as by presidents Kennedy and Johnson. Whether one agrees or disagrees with this opinion piece, the headline chosen was neither neutral nor accurate, and apparently was intended to provoke a reaction. And it did:

You would have to stop reading at New York Times headline, without reading what Senator Cotton actually wrote, in order to claim that Blacks -- or anyone for that matter -- would be put in danger. Yet among New York Times reporters there were 800 staff members who signed a letter condemning the op-ed. Then, of course, there are other members of the media and social media, and politicians who have joined in to help spin this out of control. After all, how many people actually read beyond the headlines?

Spinning The Narrative

But it is important to keep in mind that the headline manipulation in this case is different from the others mentioned above. The other headline manipulations, as shown by the subsequent changes, are meant to soften the blow and play down what is reported in the article itself. But in the case of the Cotton op-ed, the headline was meant to deliberately provoke. It was inaccurate and designed to influence in advance how the reader would understand the op-ed itself. Previous posts have looked at examples of New York Times bias when it comes to Israel as well as bias against Jews.

The manipulation of headlines and the distortions in dealing with the Senator Cottom op-ed are problems we are familiar with from The New York Times reporting on Israel. And to tell you the truth, when James Bennet tweeted proudly, if not boastfully about the "patriotic protests"...

...we also remember the insistence of The New York Times on reporting on violent Gazan riots on the border with Israel as "peaceful protests," even as attempts were made (and some, successfully) to infiltrate into Israel. In the current situation, you don't have to minimize the tragedy of the killing of George Floyd or deny the validity of the protests in order to take note of the cases of violence and the need to deal with them and report on them accurately.

On Saturday, former Islamic Jihad terror leader Ramadan Shallah died after a long illness in Beirut.

During his time as leader of the terror group, some 235 Israelis and visitors to Israel were killed in over 60 attacks that Islamic Jihad took credit for.

Mahmoud Abbas and the PLO are praising the terrorist responsible for killing hundreds.

Abbas called Shallah’s brother and offered condolences, saying that Shallah was a great national figure and a great fighter for the nation. He expressed wishes that the murderer dwell in Paradise.

The Executive Committee of the PLO, led by Abbas, issued a statement extolling Shallah’s “life full of giving and struggle and adhering to the national principles,” adding that he “worked to establish the rules of national action and jihad in a march of effort, giving and sacrifice, adhering to the rules of national and unitary action.”

In short, they are praising his terrorism.

You will never find the “peace loving” EU or UN say a negative word about the PLO or Mahmoud Abbas even when they show that they support the worst terrorists and terror attacks. These statements of support for terror and of a mass murderer are proof that even the “moderate” Palestinian leaders never opposed violence and they celebrate terror attacks and terrorists every single day. Their lukewarm opposition to terror today is tactical, not moral, and they explicitly say this all the time - but most Westerners don’t want to listen.