Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Friday, June 19, 2020

Underwhelming support for Gazans against “annexation”

Islamic Jihad’s women’s wing organized a protest against the “annexation” plan in Gaza this week.

While normally the group can get thousands to demonstrate at the drop of a hat, this rally was not very impressive.

Guess how many Palestinians have been killed by Israeli forces in June?

Not one Palestinian has been killed by Israeli forces since May 30.

So far this year, 21 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli forces, many as they were carrying out stabbing and ramming attacks.

Last year at this time, 70 had been killed. In 2018 in mid-June, the number was 162.

All these numbers are from the UN.

If the number of Palestinian casualties has dropped so dramatically, how come no one is celebrating this wonderful trend?

Because this was never about Palestinian lives. It was about cynically using Palestinians to demonize Israel. The casualty count could go down to zero for a year and then they would concentrate on tear gas. That could disappear and they would talk about demolishing terrorist homes. If that would go away they would talk about “humiliation” and “occupation.” And if Israel would allow a Palestinian state on the exact 1949 armistice lines, they would then harp on “right of return” and the Jewish star on the Israeli flag.

There is literally nothing Israel can do to make the anti-Israel side happy besides disappear. And all the people who continue to pretend that Israel is the obstacle to peace enable that mindset.

Palestinian lives matter to these haters only in the sense that Palestinian deaths are wonderful fuel for their anti-Israel jihad.

06/19 Links Pt1: The West Bank's Status Quo Is More Dangerous than Applying Sovereignty; UNHRC set to condemn Israeli annexation, call for arms embargo

From Ian:

Caroline Glick: No going wobbly now, Bibi

Considering that Obama's views are now the mainstream views of the Democratic Party, and given the depth of his hostility towards Israel, it is self-evident that a Biden administration will begin its treatment of Israel where Obama left off. So as far as US politics go, it is clear now that Democratic opposition to the sovereignty plan is not based on a studied assessment of the situation but of visceral hostility.

Which brings us to Saban's attempt to use the UAE ambassador to manipulate public opinion and pressure the prime minister.

The Democratic Party's turn against Israel placed Jewish Democrats in a wretched position. For generations, the party has not simply been their political preference at the ballot box. Being Democrats has been a way of life. Their party's rejection of Israel has had a dramatic impact on the pro-Israel Jewish Democrats' readiness to act on behalf of Israel and against anti-Semitism.

Saban is a case in point. Just three months after he co-founded the Maccabees on Campus with Adelson and worked with Adelson to build the IAC into a national organization, Saban pulled out of both ventures. Reports at the time of his withdrawal from both groups were speculative. But all the speculation zoned in on one conclusion. The shift in his party made Saban abandon his previous willingness to work across the partisan divide. By October 2015, he was no longer willing to be associated with organizations that could in any way be viewed as out of step with the Obama administration and the Democratic Party.

This brings us to AIPAC, the pro-Israel group Saban has continued funding. Last week it was reported AIPAC told lawmakers that it won't mind if they oppose Israel's sovereignty plan so long as their opposition isn't translated into efforts to curtail US military aid to the Jewish state.

Since its founding, AIPAC's policy has always been to support the policies of the governments of Israel no matter what they were. So it was that at the outset of the Rabin government's Oslo peace process with the PLO, AIPAC leaders ordered all of the group's employees to support Israel's policy even though just weeks before, AIPAC had opposed recognition of the PLO.

AIPAC lobbyists who were incapable of lobbying for US aid for the PLO or embracing Yasser Arafat as a peace partner were forced to resign. Considering AIPAC's sudden shift towards opposing the sovereignty plan despite the fact that it enjoys the support of a large majority of Israelis and is set to be implemented as a complement to President Trump's vision for peace, Jonathan Tobin wrote earlier this week, "If AIPAC is going to worry more about what the Democrats want rather than seeking to persuade them to back Israel's policies, then it has for all intents and purposes become one more liberal group, and not the reliable force it has always been."

More than a sign of hostility, AIPAC's unprecedented position and Saban's manipulative behavior appear to be signs of distress. Their party's hostility towards Israel has left Jewish Democrats with no easy way forward. They have four options.

Dore Gold: Why Is the Status of the West Bank Such a Charged Issue?

Why is the future of the West Bank (also known as Judea and Samaria) such a critical issue for Israel? Why does it engender debate, even strong debate, influencing even the language adopted for describing it?

In 1947, according to United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181, the area was called “the hill country of Samaria and Judea.” Jordan annexed the territory in 1950 and began to use the term “West Bank.” The battle over terminology reflects the stakes that were involved in this territorial dispute.

The first reason for the intensity of this dispute is the geo-strategic location of this territory. It is adjacent to Israel’s coastal plain, where 70% of our population and 80% of our industrial capacity are located. Moreover, it is only 40 miles wide at its maximum width. It would take a combat aircraft maybe three minutes to cross its airspace and attack Israel with little warning. Should the territory fall into hostile hands, it could pose a pressing threat to the State of Israel.

What were the reasons why this evolved into such an intense dispute, beyond the religious attachment of the parties to the land?

It was thought in the past that our territorial withdrawals would reduce the hostile intent of our adversaries, but we learned from the Gaza disengagement in 2005 that withdrawal can actually increase the hostility on the other side. Just look at the number of rocket launches from the Gaza Strip into Israel; they actually mushroomed in the year after we pulled out, shooting up from 179 to 946.

Now, what is the problem with the term “annexation” that is at the heart of the political debate today?

JCPA: Jordanian Tanks Crossed the Jordan Valley

Those insisting on Israel's retention of the strategically vital Jordan Valley say it serves as Israel's most important defense line against potential attacks from the east. The Jordan Valley showed its crucial importance in 1967, when the Jordanian army moved U.S.-supplied M-47 and M-48 Patton tanks, long-range "Long-Tom" artillery, and mechanized infantry (M-113 APCs) into the West Bank to face Israel, and the Iraqi army sent armored divisions toward the Jordan-Israel border.

According to Yitzhak Rabin's memoirs, Israel had dropped its objections to the U.S. provision of offensive weapons to Jordan after King Hussein pledged that the U.S.-supplied tanks to Jordan would not cross the Jordan River to threaten Israel. When the war broke out, Jordanian artillery and tanks blasted the Jewish side of Jerusalem and the Ramat David military airbase in Israel's north. Jordanian Hunter aircraft bombed Kfar Sirkin, Netanya, and Kfar Saba.

On June 5, 1967, Jordan dispatched its crack 40th Armored Brigade with 90 M-48 tanks across the Jordan Valley and into the West Bank. A major tank battle ensued in the Dothan Valley where the IDF, equipped with inferior Sherman tanks, lost 33 soldiers before the Israeli tankers and the Israeli air force won the day.

In another battle on June 6, the IDF's Duchifat Special Forces were sent to block Jordanian reinforcements with 30 Jordanian Patton tanks coming up toward Jerusalem from the Jordan Valley. Israeli ground and air forces stopped them at Tel el-Ful, where King Hussein was building a palace to overlook Jerusalem. The Jordanian armored unit was commanded by King Hussein's cousin, Brig. Sharif Zayd bin Shaker, a graduate of the U.S. Army Staff College.

Jordan’s king uses Arafat’s “they’ll kill me” playbook; expect the same from Abbas (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

Jordan's King Abdullah is doing what he can to head off Netanyahu's proposed plan to extend Israeli sovereignty to part of the "West Bank." But instead of discussing the issue with Israel, Abdullah is taking his case to the US.

As a Jerusalem Post editorial points out, we've seen this strategy before:

Yet, according to reports this week, Abdullah has refused to take phone calls from Netanyahu to discuss the issue or accede to requests by Gantz for a meeting. He should not be taking a page out of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’s playbook and give Israel the silent treatment because of policy disagreements...

King Abdullah is aware that if he expects to get the same warm embrace from Trump that Abbas received from then-EU Commissioner Mogherini...

Abbas and then-EU Commissioner Federica Mogherini

...he is likely to be disappointed.

So instead -- Abdullah this week is, in his words, "briefing" Congress instead.

That may explain the timing of the AP report this week about the consideration of cutting US aid to Jordan over its refusal to extradite Hamas terrorist Ahlam Tamimi, who is responsible for the deaths of 2 American citizens.

These days, according to the Jerusalem Post editorial, Jordan enjoys a level of criticism-free popularity in Washington that Israel no longer has:

While criticism of long-standing US Mideast allies such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Israel is commonplace in Washington, and has been for years, Jordan has generally received special treatment because of widespread recognition of its precarious strategic situation and the important role it plays in stabilizing the Mideast and in combating terrorism.

It is a position that Abdullah has, and continues to, milk for all its worth -- which is why the issue of Jordan insisting on harboring a terrorist is a potential sore point.

This week, UAE Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Anwar Gargash -- whose country is also opposed to Netanyahu's plan -- said Israeli policy in general and the Israeli-Palestinian issue, in particular, did not have to be a roadblock:

Can I have a political disagreement with Israel but at the same time try and bridge other areas of the relationship? I think I can. I think that is fundamentally where we are.

But Abdullah has an out. His defenders say he is limited in what he can do because the majority of his people are Palestinian and he would risk the stability of his kingdom if he were to be perceived as being friendly to Israel -- or in handing over a terrorist who murdered Israeli children.

That kind of logic raises a problem: if Abdullah gets away with this excuse because a majority of his people are Palestinian, what are we supposed to expect from Abbas, when all of his people are Palestinian?

Arafat, himself, was known to use the excuse, "I can't do it, they will kill me"

So, seeing how successful Jordan has been using this excuse, how long before Abbas starts using Abdullah's playbook?

Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdul Karim Al-Issa, secretary-general of the Muslim World League, told Al Arabiya “The Qur’an instructed Muslims to be righteous and benevolent to non-Muslims as long as they are peaceful and do not attack you or fight you.”

Arab News reports:

“We, as Muslims, respect, love, understand, cooperate, coexist and tolerate everyone. Our historically documented and verified actions demonstrate this, and in the Muslim World League we have played a major role in this aspect, pursuant to our Islamic values,” said Al-Issa.

“With our Jewish brothers, we concluded agreements and mutual cooperation, and we love them and respect them greatly, far from the problems of politics, as our principle is not to interfere in politics.”

Al-Issa emphasized that it is permissible to engage in normal business and friendly relations with members of other faiths, including Jews, as was the case in the Prophet Muhammad’s time.

Political disagreements are separate from religious precepts. Moreover, he added, Islam considers Jews and Christians to be Peoples of the Book who are accorded privileges in jurisprudential proceedings.

Amusingly, l-Issa uses an American Orthodox Jewish phrase to interpret seemingly antisemitic Quranic quotes:

The Qu’ranic references criticizing Jews that some have taken to mean a generalized attack on all Jews actually admonish specific followers of Judaism who went “off the derech” - strayed from the faithful commitment to the letter and spirit of their own Abrahamic tradition, he said.

Al-Issa is the Muslim leader who very publicly visited Auschwitz in January.

His message of tolerance is not being received well in at least one Arab media outlet.

Watan Serb headlines its article with the Arabic shorthan d of Joseph Goebbel’s description of The Big Lie, as “Lie until the people believe you.” They quote his words accurately, but say that he is talking about normalization with Israel, not relations with Jews. It said that he “desperately defended” normalization with Israel by quoting the Quran.

While Arab media has become significantly more conciliatory towards Jews in recent years, a large part of it still takes antisemitism – and its readers’ antisemitism – as a given.

EoZTV: Brooke Goldstein of The Lawfare Project

We spoke about Black Lives Matter, the Lawfare Project, Jewish students on campus, Jewish pride, how language is weaponized and a lot more.

06/18 Links Pt2: The American Soviet Mentality; ‘Major Blow to BDS’: Bill Criminalizing Business With Israeli Settlements Shelved by New Irish Government

From Ian:

The American Soviet Mentality

The mobs that perform the unanimous condemnation rituals of today do not follow orders from above. But that does not diminish their power to exert pressure on those under their influence. Those of us who came out of the collectivist Soviet culture understand these dynamics instinctively. You invoked the “didn’t read, but disapprove” mantra not only to protect yourself from suspicions about your reading choices but also to communicate an eagerness to be part of the kollektiv—no matter what destructive action was next on the kollektiv’s agenda. You preemptively surrendered your personal agency in order to be in unison with the group. And this is understandable in a way: Merging with the crowd feels much better than standing alone.

Those who remember the Soviet system understand the danger of letting the practice of collective denunciation run amok. But you don’t have to imagine an American Stalin in the White House to see where first the toleration, then the normalization, and now the legitimization and rewarding of this ugly practice is taking us.

Americans have discovered the way in which fear of collective disapproval breeds self-censorship and silence, which impoverish public life and creative work. The double life one ends up leading—one where there is a growing gap between one’s public and private selves—eventually begins to feel oppressive. For a significant portion of Soviet intelligentsia (artists, doctors, scientists), the burden of leading this double life played an important role in their deciding to emigrate.

Those who join in the hounding face their own hazards. The more loyalty you pledge to a group that expects you to participate in rituals of collective demonization, the more it will ask of you and the more you, too, will feel controlled. How much of your own autonomy as a thinking, feeling person are you willing to sacrifice to the collective? What inner compromises are you willing to make for the sake of being part of the group? Which personal relationships are you willing to give up?

From my vantage point, this cultural moment in these United States feels incredibly precarious. The practice of collective condemnation feels like an assertion of a culture that ultimately tramples on the individual and creates an oppressive society. Whether that society looks like Soviet Russia, or Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, or Castro’s Cuba, or today’s China, or something uniquely 21st-century American, the failure of institutions and individuals to stand up to mob rule is no longer an option we can afford.

Daphne Anson: "The Left Have Hijacked the Public Discourse" (And How!)

Here's Alan Freedman, vice-president of the Australian Jewish Association, ably and justifiably calling out the unconscionable intolerance of today's Woke Warriors:

Which brings me to this horrible piece of Wokism issued some days ago. To read this vomitous statement from the American Reform Movement is to revisit that equally vomitous slogan of crackpot radicals during the 1960s: "we are all guilty". It's not so much a call for bridge-building and compassion, which needless to say are admirable objectives, as a one-sided exercise in self-flagellation and group demonisation.

"Black Lives Matter is Jewish value" the statement declares, going on to castigate "white Jews" for their collusion (more supposed than real), in keeping black Americans down. It's as if the visible Jewish presence in the Civil Rights era never happened. It's as if there are no antisemitic or anti-Israel aspects to the organised Black Lives Matter movement.

Of course "Black Lives Matter", along with the lives of every human being on this earth, of whatever hue our skin happens to be. That's why many of us, Jew and non-Jew, prefer the slogan "All Lives Matter", since all of us are made in the image of our Creator: that is why the concept "All Lives Matter" can be considered a Jewish value.

But try telling that to some of the politically biased bigots both in and outside the Reform movement and you risk being smeared as a racist. They should know that Judaism is not a racist religion and that Jews who harbour contempt for their fellow human beings are, fortunately, few and far between.

My mom is white and my dad is black. Don’t call me a ‘Jew of Color.’

As a biracial Jew, there is an expectation that I must have something to say in this historic moment. Unlike at any other time in my life, people are treating my opinion as though it deserves a stage, or a glass case for passersby to take in as they walk through a new exhibition on the lives of various Jews of Color.

When I tell people that I do not have much to say about my experience as a “Jew of Color,” I see faces drop just a smidge. I sense that people want to hear about the time I was rejected because of the color of my skin, or when I was sitting in services at a synagogue and somebody came up and asked what inspired a nice non-Jewish girl like me to visit a synagogue, unaware of the fact that I am an observant Jew.

The truth is that nothing like that has ever happened to me, thankfully. There have been moments when a person’s curiosity got the better of them, and they can’t help but probe into the personal details of my life within a minute of meeting me in hopes of figuring out how somebody who looks like me ended up in a Jewish environment. I’ve heard comments like “Is it hard for you to date in the Jewish world because, you know, you’re not the stereotypical Jew?” or “You can’t meet his family yet because you grew up in a broken home and that’s not something that people in his community are used to” Here’s my personal favorite, which came up while I was living in Israel: “Can you rap for us, you know, like Jay-Z!”

Yes, all of these moments and a few more like them have happened to me, and some of them were painful. But they are not the moments by which I choose to define myself.

My mother is white and my father is black. I have lived as a proud Jew in a variety of Jewish communities, including Kansas, Israel, North Carolina and New York City. Aside from those few standout moments, I have always felt at home in the Jewish world. It is the only world I know and, more than that, it is an expression of all that I am.

The 20th-century German-Jewish philosopher Franz Rosenzweig defines Judaism as a person’s “most impenetrable secret, yet evident in every gesture and every word.” To call myself a Jew of Color would be to ignore that indefinable trait inside of me that is expressed in all that I do and unites me with my fellow Jews throughout the world.

The National reports on systemic discrimination against some 2 million members of Iraq’s black community:

[Black Iraqis] say racial discrimination against them is on par with the racism experienced by African Americans, sometimes even surpassing it, as they not only face a lack of recognition, but also economic, political and social atrocities.

Many of them are descendants of African slaves brought to Iraq and have lived in the southern city of Basra for centuries.

They want recognition as a minority group whose rights should be protected, but some told The National that their demands have been ignored by the Iraqi government.

Many say they are unfairly represented and want to prohibit being called “slaves”, especially as the burdens of their ancestors continue to haunt them.

Mohammed Falih, a 31-year-old photographer from Basra, told The National.

“What happened to Floyd must never happen again, it is not only a Black issue, but is a matter that concerns people from all over the world, we will keep fighting until racism ends,” Mr Falih said.

He says getting employment in Iraq has been very tough for those of African origin,

“Getting a job is like a dream, both the government and private sectors see us as second class citizens in the community,” he said.

For decades, Black Iraqis have been humiliated, degraded and have had their dignity taken away from them, Abdul Hussein Abdul Razzaq, founder of the People of Brown Skin movement, told The National.

“Blacks have lived in Iraq as slaves for centuries, they are among Iraq’s most poorest and vulnerable, which is a testament to the fact that racism in Iraq is worse than what exists in America,” Mr Razzaq said.

“The equality that the constitution talks about is a lie," he said.

Blacks in Iraq have been relegated to menial jobs or work as musicians and dancers.

“Some prefer to keep the jobs of their ancestors such as being servants in the homes of tribal sheikhs. Very few have managed to cross the racial barriers,” he said.

It is still common today to hear references to black Iraqis as “slaves,” whether on the street, in the workplace, or even from official figures, Miriam Puttick, Civilian Rights Officer at Minority Rights Group, told The National.

A 2008 NPR report adds details as a community leader describes their living conditions:

"[Arabs] here still look at us as being incapable of making decisions or even governing our lives. People here are 95 percent illiterate. They have terrible living conditions and very few jobs," he says.

[Jalal] Diyaab takes visitors across the street to a warren of mud-brick courtyards where dozens of people are packed into tiny rooms without running water or sewage. The narrow passageways reek of excrement. Many people sleep in the open yards when the weather is good, because there isn't enough space in the rooms.

"These houses are like caves. This house? This is it," says Diyaab, pointing at a single narrow room and the courtyard outside. He says 15 people, the family of a man called Abu Haidar, live here.

Lightning streaks the night sky as a thunderstorm rolls in from the Persian Gulf. Rain begins to speckle the hard-packed ground. The men gathered around say a heavy rain will flood these rooms ankle-deep with muck and sewage.

Arabic news media has been far more interested in racism in the US than racism in the Arab world.

Egypt Not Worried About Pyramid Slavery Legacy: Everyone Thinks Those Slaves Were Just Jews (PreOccupied Territory)

Our weekly column from the humor site PreOccupied Territory.

Check out their Facebook page.

Cairo, June 18 - Authorities in this country of nearly 100 million dismissed concerns today that the movement to dismantle monuments glorifying racist or oppressive regimes and figures will affect their state's archaeological and cultural sites, because in the popular conception, Hebrew slaves built those wonders of the ancient world, and it's OK to oppress Jews so no one will care.

Officials at the Ministry of Cultural Affairs, which administers the tourism and archaeological aspects of the various Pharaohs' tombs, told reporters Thursday they see little danger of protesters taking down statues and monuments in Egypt of people deemed problematic, since the adherents of the protest movement do not include Jews in their list oppression victims, seeing the targets of the world's oldest hatred as somehow deserving of genocide, pogroms, forced conversion, blood libels, and the like. While in fact Hebrew slaves did not build the pyramids - the structures largely precede the estimated dating of Israelite enslavement in Egypt - in many people's minds the forced labor those slaves performed involved construction of pyramids. The falsehood of the popular belief, officials explain, does nothing to diminish its effectiveness in preventing mass movements to dismantle the pyramids.

"We normally spend a not-insignificant portion of our educational efforts emphasizing that the pyramids have a far more ancient pedigree than the Biblical episode," explained Deputy Minister of Cultural Affairs Salman Moussa. "There persists, especially in the West, a misperception that the Jews built them. The Biblical text itself, the historicity of which is in dispute anyway, never once even mentions the pyramids; in fact it says the Israelites built 'cities,' and even names those cities. The timing of the Exodus narrative according to its traditional dating - say, the middle of the second millennium BCE - places it centuries later than many of the pyramids."

"Under normal circumstances we and our educational partners throughout the world - in museums, academia, for example - would be trying to combat the 'The Jews built the pyramids' nonsense," he continued. "It's a problem for us as scholars, of course, but as Arabs and Egyptians in particular, it would be pretty galling to owe anything to Jews, just speaking honestly. Stripping most of them of their assets and expelling them after Israel refused to let itself be destroyed, well, you can understand why Egyptians might get upset at them. But we're toning those educational efforts down for the moment, for the sake of preserving these ancient, imposing links to the past. If saving the pyramids requires allowing the mob to think it was the Jews who built the pyramids so that was a good kind of slavery, we can let that historical inaccuracy slide."

06/18 Links Pt1: The dead horse of Palestine; The ICC has nothing to do with justice; Jordan’s King Abdullah II needs to start being helpful

From Ian:

The dead horse of Palestine

George Orwell warned against ‘flyblown metaphors’ in his wonderful essay Politics and the English Language. Yet there are times when a political writer encounters sophistry so absurd that a descent into cliché constitutes the only adequate response.

Thus, the phrase ‘beating a dead horse’ leaps front of mind after reading a spate of newspaper editorials and opinion pieces bemoaning the evils of Benjamin Netanyahu’s plan to extend Israeli sovereignty to additional regions of Judea-Samaria, aka the West Bank.

The defunct equine in question is the ‘two-state solution’ that has long been the centre-piece of diplomatic initiatives to end the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. And typical of this teeth-gnashing, garment-rending ‘woe is me’ style of editorialising was an op-ed by Australian academics Anas Iqtait and Tristan Dunning that ran in the Age on 23 May 2020.

In this article, Drs. Iqtait and Dunning expend almost 1,000 words arguing that a move by Israel to annex portions of the West Bank will be the death knell of any chance for a negotiated peace. Of course, how anyone still retains faith in the two-state solution after almost three decades of diplomatic failure recalls that famous Einstein definition of madness as doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result.

The creation of an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank will never happen for very good legal, strategic and moral reasons. To indulge in another Orwellian faux pas, the ship of dreams Two-State-Solution has not only sailed, but has long since sunk.

The legal argument against Palestinian statehood has particular salience as this is the centenary of the 1920 San Remo Convention, when the victorious WWI Allies decided the fate of the vanquished Ottoman Empire. By the terms of this agreement, Britain was awarded temporary governance over the land of Israel for the express purpose of establishing ‘a national home for the Jewish people’. This British Mandate encompassed pre-1967 Israel, the West Bank and the entirety of Jordan.

Israel Has Always Sought Peace with its Arab Neighbors

In 1936, the British government appointed a royal commission of inquiry headed by Lord Peel, which decided to carve this land into two sovereign nations. The Jews agreed in principle, while the Arab side refused again and again. In 1947 the Arab leadership refused the UN partition plan. Then in the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, the Arabs in the land of Israel brought disaster down upon themselves. But things did not have to be that way.

In 1944 in a document titled "To our Arab neighbors," then-Etzel leader and future prime minister Menachem Begin portrayed a different possibility. He explained to the Arabs:

"We do not see you as an enemy. We want to see you as good neighbors. We did not come to destroy you or expel you from the lands you live on. The land of Israel has enough room for you, your sons and your grandsons and the millions of Jews that have no life but in this land. The Hebrew government will grant you full civil rights. Hebrew and Arabic will be the languages of the land. There will be no discrimination between Arabs and Jews for governmental or public work."

"The Muslim holy sites will be overseen by your representatives. The Hebrew government will grant education to all....No more will there be epidemics in our towns and villages. Work pay will be lifted to European standards. Agriculture will be developed. Houses will be built instead of tents. Water and electricity will reach every household. The Hebrew state will be a shared home for all, and peace and understanding will be between it and all independent Arab nations."

"If you want, and do not give your ears to agitators, peace and friendship between our two peoples can be eternal. Together we shall build this holy land. Together we shall gain from its fruits and treasures. Together we will develop its agriculture and industry. Together we will forward our sovereign peoples into a world of justice, freedom, wealth and dignity. To our Arab neighbors, we reach our hand out to you in peace and fraternity. Do not reject it!"

How to pretend not to be antisemitic (poster)

It’s really quite easy.

See also these posters on similar themes:

Finally! The differences between antisemitism and anti-Zionism, explained (poster)

Spot the difference (poster)

More “honor killings” in Iran

There were world headlines about the “honor killing” of 14 year old Romina Ashrafi, beheaded by her father late last month.

But the crimes, helped by lax Iranian laws on murdering women for “honor,” keep happening.

An Iranian man killed his wife and then beheaded her and threw her in the river. The wife, who was also his cousin, was forced into marriage with him and escaped with her lover. The husband found her a year later, begged forgiveness, convinced her to come back and then cut off her head.

Rayhaneh Ameri , above, was killed by her father – some reports say with an ax, others say an iron bar. He dumped her body in a nearby village and proudly confessed. Her body was found by tracking his cell phone. He was reportedly angry that she came home late.

The father had beaten Rayhaneh almost to death with a club a couple of years earlier.

Some 30% of murders in Iran are “honor killings” of women, meaning hundreds of such murders a year.

Iran’s penal code says that murderers of women for “honor” reasons are subject to only a 3 to 10 year prison sentence.

It took well over a decade, but a few Gazans decided to boycott Israeli goods.

A group of women and youths associated with the socialist Palestinian Democratic Youth Union and the Women’s Action Committee held a press conference announcing their intent to boycott Israeli goods. They then went to some shops and tried to convince owners to drop all Israeli goods.

At a supermarket they placed boycott signs over Israeli food items.

Meanwhile, here are some of the Israeli items advertised by the Taj Mall in Gaza City this week, including the very same Tnuva milk that is on the boycott poster:

104009324_155376049381252_526069843156165427_o

83062912_154911416094382_449046998758599940_o

104328757_154546646130859_8555012821207870322_o

It will be interesting to see if this gets any traction. I doubt it will.

06/17 Links Pt2: Why can’t you get canceled for anti-Semitism?; Assassinating the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr.; Special vessels show Jewish continuity in Israel after Roman destruction

From Ian:

Ruthie Blum: Assassinating the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr.

Though obfuscated by the noise of the Black Lives Matter movement, King's lifelong dream—that his children "one day [will] live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character"—has become his successors' nightmare.

Yes, the sad fact is that BLM members and supporters now scoff at such a notion, even while paying lip service to King as a paragon. Indeed, if they weren't in the process of renouncing his philosophy, Professor Klein would be hailed for his moral stance, not persecuted and placed on leave.

Nor is the aspiration of an America that puts character over color the only aspect of King's ideology that the current climate has eradicated. His views on Israel, too, are ignored or denied by BLM anti-Zionists and their Jewish fellow travelers.

In a letter to Jewish Labor Committee national chairman Adolph Held on Sept. 29, 1967, less than four months after the Six-Day War, King denounced an anti-Israel resolution introduced at the Chicago Conference of New Politics.

"If I had been at the conference during the discussion of the resolution," he wrote, "I would have made it crystal clear that I could not have supported any resolution calling for black separatism or calling for a condemnation of Israel and an unqualified endorsement of the policy of the Arab powers."

He went on to say, "Israel's right to exist as a state of security is incontestable," adding, "It is not only that anti-Semitism is immoral—though that alone is enough. It is used to divide Negro and Jew, who effectively collaborated in the struggle for justice. It injures Negroes because it upholds the doctrine of racism which they have the greatest stake in destroying."

How King would have reacted to the way in which black and Jewish radicals are distorting the spirit of the joint effort that he had championed is anyone's guess. Though their endeavor does involve "struggle," it bears no resemblance to "justice," certainly not where color-blindness and Israel are concerned.

Three years after its establishment in 2013, BLM and an alliance of more than 60 affiliated groups issued a policy platform labeling Israel an "apartheid state" that perpetrates "genocide" against Palestinians, and therefore should be subjected to a complete academic, cultural, and economic boycott.

Jonathan S. Tobin: Why can’t you get canceled for anti-Semitism?

Handler’s ability to survive this incident with her career intact shows that myths about Hollywood being controlled by the Jews are nonsense. It’s also likely that most Jews in the entertainment industry are either so cowed by the Black Lives Matter movement that they wouldn’t dare to act against her or actually agree that anti-Semitism shouldn’t disqualify Farrakhan from being considered a respected voice.But the pass for anti-Semitism doesn’t just exist in the arts.

In early 2019, newly elected Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) made a splash by engaging in anti-Semitic incitement against Jews and Israel with accusations about AIPAC buying congressional support for Israel with “the Benjamins,” coupled with charges that supporters of the Jewish state were guilty of dual loyalty.

While many on both sides of the aisle condemned her remarks, when push came to shove, congressional Democrats refused to censor her. While at the same time Republicans were punishing Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) for remarks that seemed an endorsement of white nationalism, Omar was rewarded with a seat on the Foreign Affairs Committee, where she could pursue her vendetta against Israel and support for the anti-Semitic BDS movement.

More than that, she got a pass from the same cultural forces that are canceling dissenters from the BLM mantra by being treated as an honored celebrity. Nor has that changed, since during the past two weeks she has made the rounds of the Sunday-morning talk shows, where hosts like CNN’s Jake Tapper fawn on her.

The practice of shaming, shunning and silencing those with unpopular or even offensive views is antithetical to democracy and the free exchange of ideas. That is especially true when it involves actions or statements that are not actually racist.

At the same time, it says something truly ominous about our society and culture that questioning the BLM movement—even while avowing that, of course, black lives matter—can destroy a career, while endorsing anti-Semites and even engaging in Jew-hatred is not considered a big deal. We already know that the consequences of giving anti-Semites a pass can lead to horror. Apparently, those who pose as the supposedly enlightened guardians of our culture have either forgotten that or no longer care about it.

When ‘Cancel Culture’ Is Right: Racists and Antisemites Shouldn’t Have Online Platforms

As questions about racism surround us about film and TV projects — and the presence of hate speech on mass-media outlets — the issue recently hit very close to home for me in the form of antisemitism.

I was searching for stand-up comedy options on TV via Tubi — a service offering movies, TV shows, and other content — when I noticed a listing for a program featuring Owen Benjamin, a notoriously antisemitic comedian whose videos have been banned by websites such as YouTube for their hateful content.

Among the videos he has created in the past are ones making light of the Holocaust, and others purporting to imitate stereotypically Jewish manners of speech.

Why is Tubi showcasing this personality?

This is important to ask, given the wave of movements to ban films, statues, and other works glorifying slavery and those who have benefited from it — along with individuals involved in the oppression of populations. My feeling is that these mandates, if conducted in a just way and by the proper authorities in a safe and expeditious fashion, are absolutely justified.

But such directives should be extended to works celebrating antisemitic individuals too — and there’s a surplus of movies, paintings, etc. that warrant further scrutiny.

Take Banksy’s “anti-Zionist” (read: antisemitic) graffiti or Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ. Maybe one even could look at David Lean’s Oliver Twist, which features a performance by Alec Guinness as Fagin that was widely criticized by Jewish groups at the time of its release because of elements such as a highly exaggerated prosthetic nose affixed to the actor. Or Alexander Payne’s Downsizing, which posited a future in which Israelis were miniaturizing Palestinians to render them helpless.

How will the debate rage around this, and where do we draw the line?

Obama’s Last Minute Plot Against Israel (Vic Rosenthal)

Vic Rosenthal's weekly column

Yes, as through this world I've wandered
I've seen lots of funny men;
Some will rob you with a six-gun,
And some with a fountain pen. – Woody Guthrie

On 23 December 2016, lame-duck President Barack Obama struck back at Israel for her insouciant refusal to acquiesce to the empowerment of her deadly enemy, Iran; and at the same time at least partly kept his promises to pro-Palestinian activists, who had been disappointed by what they saw as his insufficient firmness toward Israel.
On that day, the US abstained on a vote and allowed the UN Security Council to pass resolution 2334, which declared all “settlements” outside of the pre-1967 lines – including eastern Jerusalem – “illegal under international law,” and “call[ed] upon all States … to distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967,” a provision which has been used to justify discriminatory labeling and boycotts of Jewish products from the territories. The resolution asserted that Israel was in violation of the 4^th Geneva Convention and demanded that she “immediately and completely cease all settlement activities…”
This was the first anti-settlement Security Council resolution that the US had not vetoed since the Carter Administration. It directly contradicts the position of the Israeli government, which views the territories as disputed, not occupied, and the Jewish communities there as entirely legal (see here and here).
While creating dangerous precedents (e.g., for the prosecution of Israeli officials in the International Criminal Court and for the justification of BDS activity), the resolution was passed under Chapter VI of the UN Charter and not Chapter VII, which would justify the application of economic sanctions or even military action against Israel.
Although the resolution was introduced by Malaysia, New Zealand, Senegal and Venezuela (it was originally proposed by Egypt, but Israel persuaded the Egyptians to withdraw it), a spokesman for PM Netanyahu said that Israel received “ironclad information” via Arab countries that “this was a deliberate push by the United States and in fact they helped create the resolution in the first place.” Netanyahu said that he had asked Russian President Putin to veto resolution 2334, but Putin (although Russia apparently did try to delay the vote) would not do so.
Recently, PM Netanyahu told the Israel Hayom newspaper that Obama had planned to go even further:

He and his staff began working on another UNSC resolution, which would have forced Israel to agree to a Palestinian state based on the 1948 borders. Israel's UN ambassador at the time, Danny Danon, sounded the alarm.

At the time, the US administration denied the Israeli claim that another resolution, in addition to UNSCR 2334, was going to be brought before the UN Security Council.

Did Bibi exaggerate? Hardly. A clue to the details of this second resolution was provided by a contemporaneous article by Nathan Thrall, who described, on the basis of interviews with “top US officials” what such a resolution might look like:

…to set down the guidelines or “parameters” of a peace agreement—on the four core issues of borders, security, refugees, and Jerusalem—in a US-supported UN Security Council resolution. Once passed, with US support, these Security Council-endorsed parameters would become international law, binding, in theory, on all future presidents and peace brokers.

Top US officials see a parameters resolution as Obama’s only chance at a lasting, positive legacy, one that history might even one day show to have been more important to peace than the achievements of his predecessors.

As we know, Obama’s position on borders was that permanent ones had to be “based on” the 1949 armistice lines, with only small swaps to accommodate some settlement blocs, requiring that the Palestinians be compensated for the swaps with land from the pre-1967 state of Israel. In contrast to the Israeli view that Israel held title to the territories (although she would consider ceding some of the area in return for a peace agreement), Obama saw all of the land across the Green Line as “occupied Palestinian territories.”
Any agreement that would result in Israel losing control of the Jordan Valley and the high ground of Judea and Samaria would render the country indefensible. Israel cannot afford to allow those borders to be imposed under any circumstances.
Obama’s view was at odds with the 1949 armistice agreement as well as UNSC 242, the grandmother of all UNSC resolutions concerning the Israeli-Arab conflict, and the Oslo Accords. The armistice agreements clearly stated that the cease-fire lines simply represented the areas under control of the sides at the time of the cessation of hostilities, and that they had no political significance. UNSC 242 called for “secure and recognized boundaries” that would be arrived at by negotiation between the parties (at that time Israel and the Arab nations). Oslo replaced the Arab nations with the Palestinian Authority, but also made the question of borders a final status issue to be settled by negotiation.
Obama wished to upend all that and reward the Palestinians with the whole enchilada prior to negotiation. Whether such a resolution would indeed have “become [binding] international law” is not at all clear, but there is no doubt that it would be used as justification for continued pressure on Israel. If it had passed, it would have been used as an argument against the Trump plan, which is in essence a 2-state solution that is not based on the 1949 lines.
According to Netanyahu, when he heard about Obama’s intention, he called “his friend” Vladimir Putin, and convinced him that it was a bad idea. And Putin agreed to veto it if it came up. The Obama administration realized that this would be an embarrassment which would hurt the Democrats domestically without gaining anything, and so decided not to push it.
If Netanyahu’s story is true – and the Thrall article, which obviously represents Obama Administration thinking suggests strongly that it is – then what lessons can be drawn from it?
The main one is that Israel should beware of Obama and his gang, who have not gone away and will be very influential again if the Democrats win the coming election. We should think about this very carefully when considering when to apply Israeli law to the strategic Jordan Valley.
Another is that if indeed Putin intervened, it is evidence that Israel cannot afford to become a ward (or a satellite!) of one of the great powers. It must maintain friendly connections with all sides. A small country in the Middle East won’t survive otherwise.
And one more: Woody Guthrie was right. Not every enemy comes at you with a gun.