Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Sunday, June 21, 2020

Any Leftist (or media outlet) that doesn’t immediately denounce Roger Waters for antisemitism is a disgusting hypocrite

After the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting, the media took note of the shooter’s love of conspiracy theories where George Soros was the “puppetmaster” in running the world. Everyone accepted that the idea of a Jewish puppetmaster was a pernicious, centuries-old antisemitic trope.

From Vox soon after the attack:

Anti-Semitic pamphlets and imagery throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries visually portrayed the Jew as something between a corporate fat cat and a shadowy overlord; someone “cosmopolitan,” urbane (and urban), and dangerous.

This rhetoric reveals the extent to which Jews were seen as scapegoats, responsible for somehow manipulating the current world order in order to destabilize white Christian identity. It’s the exact same story we see today in narratives around Soros: that of the scheming Jewish billionaire, without any real (i.e., blood) loyalty to the country that allows him to be a citizen, actively seeking to undermine white Christian unity.

…Last weekend’s attacks on the Tree of Life synagogue — the deadliest ever attack on Jews on American soil according to the Anti-Defamation League — reveal just how noxious the “Jewish puppet master” trope can be, and just how long it can survive.

Similarly, a cartoon by Ben Garrison that showed Soros as a puppetmaster of US government officials along with the Rothschilds, was vilified across the board as an unquestionably antisemitic, and the Left was correctly incensed that the artist was invited to the White House (an invitation later rescinded: )

Other media were unanimous that calling Soros a “puppet-master” is antisemitic.

The trope is quite old.

Now listen to Roger Waters, in a section of the interview on Hamas-linked Shehab News, where he describes Jewish Sheldon Adelson as literally a “puppetmaster” of the US working together with Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli right. (This was not the section transcribed by MEMRI on Sunday, which included other antisemitism from Waters.)

If the accusation of Soros – who all but rejects his Judaism - controlling the world is antisemitic, then by any yardstick the accusation of a proudly Jewish billionaire as being in cahoots with the leaders of the Jewish state as the puppet-master is even more antisemitic. Especially when you combine it with Waters' characterization of Adelson as believing that all non-Jews are subhuman, another Nazi-era antisemitic trope.

Yet there has been no criticism of Waters from the media or from the Jewish Left at this time. Nothing from Jewish Voice for Peace, nothing from IfNotNow, nothing from Mondoweiss, nothing from Electronic Intifada, nothing from J-Street, nothing from Robert Mackey, and nothing yet from the ADL. The people who screamed about the antisemitism of the Soros puppetmaster meme seem quite forgiving of a washed-up rock star calling Adelson the exact same thing.

Any credibility the Left has in pretending it is against antisemitism is shredded. Anyone who condemned the Soros accusations who remains silent about Roger Waters doesn’t give a damn about antisemitism, and only uses the issue to attack their political enemies.

And using Jews as pawns to attack your enemies while not giving a damn about antisemitism on your own side really is antisemitic.

EoZTV: Jonathan Neumann on “Tikkun Olam”

My latest EoZTV interview is with Jonathan Neumann, author of To Heal the World?: How the Jewish Left Corrupts Judaism and Endangers Israel.

I read it a couple of weeks ago and was very impressed. Neumann here gives a good overview of how “Tikkun Olam” became considered a major Jewish precept, when it is nothing of the sort, and in fact is simply another term for “social justice.”

06/21 Links: Why Black Lives Matter protests are a catalyst for anti-Semitism; So, Luxembourg thinks it can give Israel a Torah lesson; Who’s Afraid of Israeli Food?

From Ian:

Why Black Lives Matter protests are a catalyst for anti-Semitism

A few weeks ago, rioting in Los Angeles following the murder of George Floyd saw a number of Jewish shops destroyed, synagogues vandalised with “Free Palestine” grafitti, and a statue of Raoul Wallenberg, the Swedish diplomat who saved thousands of Hungarian Jews being murdered by the Nazis, daubed in anti-semitic slogans.

It goes on. Last week, at an anti-racism rally in Paris inspired by Black Lives Matter, placards and stickers read such jewels as “Israel, laboratory of police violence”, “Who is the terrorist?”, “Palestine to the Palestinians! Boycott Israel!’’, and “Stop collaboration with Israeli State terrorism.” Protesters wore T-shirts reading “Justice for Palestine” and waved Palestinian flags.

Fair enough, you say. Except to go with the slogans, the Place de la République was soon ringing with mass chants of “dirty Jews” – howls that the leader of the French far-Left, member of parliament Jean-Luc Mélenchon, managed to deny were anti-semitic.

Back in America, Ice Cube, the iconic rapper, chose to advance the cause of George Floyd by posting a caricature of Jewish figures with the caption: “All we have to do is stand up [against them] and their little game is over.” The image was nearly identical to one used by Nazis in the 1930s to incite hatred and violence against Jews.

Ice Cube also praised Nation of Islam founder Louis Farrakhan, one of the world’s most rabid anti-semites. All in the name of racial justice, naturally.

One is reminded of the Gilets Jaunes movement of 2019 – another far-Left cause with a mass following (this time for “economic justice”). At one rally in Paris, in February 2019, the Franco-Jewish philosopher Alain Finkielkraut was set upon by demonstrators yelling “dirty Zionist’’ and “filthy race” at him.

Anti-semitism became a major feature of the protests. The far Right has traditionally fostered vile racism and anti-semitism, while the Left has always staked its soul on being better, kinder, fairer. But now – as its outer reaches gather mainstream force – it can be hard to tell the difference between them.

After a backlash, the U.N.'s European headquarters here in Geneva has deleted its tweet defending Antifa. https://t.co/ApMd6RW0iC

Meanwhile, the U.N. has yet to defend Churchill, the man who saved the world from fascist tyranny, and co-founded the United Nations. pic.twitter.com/dqd64USBL1
— Hillel Neuer (@HillelNeuer) June 21, 2020

You locked up 1 million Muslims in camps & got 50 ignominious U.N. Human Rights Council ambassadors to praise you for it https://t.co/OyBmoFYu9Z https://t.co/ldbPtKd3PE
— Hillel Neuer (@HillelNeuer) June 20, 2020

Who’s Afraid of Israeli Food?

n February, the Washington Post published a broadside attack on Israeli food by the Palestinian food writer Reem Kassis. Kassis did not object to the flavors, textures, or aromas of Israeli food but to the very idea that it exists at all. Her piece might be the most visible example of this bizarre food fight targeting Israel. But it’s hardly the first one.

A few years ago, for example, after television food-show host Rachel Ray wrote about her “Israeli nite” dinner of hummus, eggplant, and other Middle Eastern dips, pollster James Zogby responded on Twitter with hashtags of fury: “Damn it @rachaelray. This is cultural #genocide. It’s not #Israeli food.”

Likewise, in 2017, when Conan O’Brien made the mistake of describing shakshuka as “Israeli,” he was accosted on camera by anti-Israel activists who insisted that the eggs-and-tomato dish is really Palestinian. (It isn’t. As Libyan food writer Sara Elmusrati has explained, Sephardic Jews brought the dish from its original home in North Africa to Israel, where it’s been “showcased in a way it has never been in the Maghreb states.”)

Kassis’s piece in the Washington Post uses more measured tones in an attempt to explain the angry reactions to a straightforward phrase. “As it is for many Palestinians, the term ‘Israeli cuisine’ is hard for me to swallow,” she writes.

After being introduced to an Israeli restaurant in Philadelphia that serves Levantine food, she explains, her eyes were opened to the gravity of the problem:

It’s not that I am opposed to the idea or can’t tolerate cultural diversity and fusion. To the contrary, I know full well that our Palestinian cuisine, like every other, is a byproduct of evolution and diffusion. In fact, the concept of national cuisine is a relatively recent construct, appearing in the late 18th and early 19th centuries following the rise of the nation-state.

But cultural diffusion is different from cultural appropriation. Diffusion is the result of people from different cultures living in close quarters and interacting with or learning from one another. Cultural appropriation, on the other hand, relies on exploitation and consequent erasure, followed by the willful denying of those actions. Food, after all, is an expression of history, culture, and tradition. By this token, presenting dishes of Palestinian provenance as “Israeli” not only denies the Palestinian contribution to Israeli cuisine, but it erases our very history and existence.

Israeli food is bad, in other words, because Israelis are bad. Those who talk about, celebrate, and serve the cuisine aim to exploit and erase Palestinians. And to suggest otherwise isn’t just disagreement, it is “willful denial.” The evidence of all this bad faith? Well, Kassis just knows it.

This insane, hate filled rant by former Pink Floyd member Roger Waters proves beyond any doubt his rabid antisemitism.

He was interviewed by the Shehab News Agency, a Hamas-leaning news outlet. But this interview went way beyond Waters’ supporting a terrorist group.

Musician Roger Waters on Hamas-Affiliated News Agency: Crazy Puppet Master Adelson Has Donald Trump’s Tiny Little Pr*ck in His Pocket; Israelis Teach U.S. Police How to Murder Blacks pic.twitter.com/0JUQuwsvhB
— MEMRI (@MEMRIReports) June 21, 2020

It went way beyond his insane theory that Israel somehow invented the idea of choking a person to death by putting pressure on someone’s neck. (I am not aware of a single Arab killed that way by any Israeli security force, ever.)

It went way beyond his insane assertion that US police import Israeli experts to teach them how to kill black people.

It went way beyond his characterization of Zionism as an “ugly stain” that must be removed.

No, Waters’ characterization of Sheldon Adelson as the “puppet master” behind the US government is what proves his Jew-hatred. This is classic antisemitism. But there is one detail that shows that Waters is a Jew-hater extraordinaire:

Sheldon Adelson believes that only Jews – only Jewish people – are completely human. That they are attached in some way…and that everybody else on Earth is there to serve them.

There aren’t any websites or books that say that Adelson believes this. But there are hundreds that say that Jews believe this, or that the Talmud says this.

This means that Roger Waters, in his spare time, surfs around the most antisemitic websites on Earth and believes what they way about Jews and the Talmud!

So, yes, this is proof positive that Roger Waters is an enthusiastic antisemite who gets his ideas about Jews and Judaism from fellow antisemites.

Architect of Israel-US police shreds “Deadly Exchange” lies

Steven L. Pomerantz, one of the architects of the programs to have US police train with Israeli police, puts to rest the lies by Jewish Voice for Peace and Amnesty International that claim that Israel somehow trains US police to be brutal towards minorities.

The argument falsely posits that counterterrorism trips and conferences organized by American Jewish organizations like the Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA), where I work, facilitate a “deadly exchange” of worst practices between U.S. and Israeli forces. In recent years, this charge has been promoted by extremist organizations that oppose Israel’s right to exist, and amplified by institutionally anti-Semitic regimes like Iran’s.

He doesn’t mention that Amnesty International is one of the extremist anti-Israel organizations promoting the lie.

What is the truth?

The truth is, JINSA’s Homeland Security Program was launched in the wake of the September 11th attacks in order to address the well-recognized counterterrorism needs of local law enforcement in the U.S….

Despite suggestions to the contrary, there is no field training involved in either the conferences or trips, and no training on holds or arrest mechanics. The exchanges, which are hosted by the Israel National Police, focus on effective counterterrorism techniques.

Participants learn how Israeli law enforcement deters, disrupts, and responds to terrorist attacks. They explore the ideology of suicide bombers and other attackers, ways to de-escalate an ongoing incident, and the intelligence-gathering and -sharing process.

Trip participants have discussed efforts to build trust with minority communities, visited hospital trauma units and crime scenes, and spoken with terrorists serving life sentences for murder. One year, JINSA organized a specialized trip for American bomb squad commanders which focused on topics such as post-blast forensics and the materials used in explosive devices.

As I have documented, more recent trainings have focused on community policing, respecting minorities and the importance of diversity in police forces. The Jewish Voice for Peace report that supposedly documents links between US police brutality and Israel is filled with links that prove the opposite, with police (many of color) praising the program for how it taught them to use force more sparingly.

An example I haven’t mentioned before from a trip in 2018:

Assistant DeKalb Police Chief Sonya Porter headed the delegation. “It was an awesome experience and I’m thankful I got to go,” Porter said of her first visit to the country.

Like she learned from Israel, she said she also would try harder to recruit from other religions that might not be represented well in the police force. “Our diversity is by races,“ Porter said. “We have to have diversity of religions to connect more to the community.”

The delegation visited the newly established administration for services to the Arab Sector, where Maj. Gen. Jamal Hakroosh—the first Arab Muslim major general in the Israel Police—briefed them. They met with Arab cadets in the police academy, who after graduation will become commissioned officers, and saw community policing in action in the northern city of Akko, where police bridges potential and real tensions between various religious groups. The delegation also participated in an emergency drill at Rambam hospital that prepares the hospital for times of massive missile attacks.

Here’s another photo from that trip.

I suppose that the Israel haters think that female black American police officials are liars and really are learning to attack members of their own communities in Israel.

The “Deadly Exchange” lie is a libel,one that takes only a couple of minutes of thought to destroy. But some people are so filled with hate that they will fight against evidence, logic and facts.

World Refugees report indirectly damns UNRWA

Although the UN Refugee Agency and UNRWA are both UN agencies, the annual UNHCR report seems most reluctant to include the fake “Palestine” refugees in its statistics.

For the main statistics, it includes them as a separate category:

The report is sprinkled with footnotes excluding the 5.6 million UNRWA “refugees.”

UNHCR could easily work with UNRWA to create a combined report, but the UNHCR knows that UNRWA’s definitions of refugee are a joke that would cheapen the plight of real refugees if they were included. For example:

Even UNRWA admits that there aren’t anything close to 476,000 Palestinians in Lebanon – the number is closer to one third of that amount, and their registration system is a joke. And the vast majority of Palestinians in Jordan are citizens – people UNHCR would remove from the rolls of refugees and count as a success story. (The same applies to “refugees” who live in the West Bank and Gaza, who live in the areas of British Mandate Palestine.)

The most damning part of the report to UNRWA doesn’t mention UNRWA:

UNHCR tries to resettle refugees. UNRWA doesn’t. UNHCR tries to reduce the number of refugees, UNRWA tries to increase them. UNHCR has rigid requirements for people to remain classified as refugees, UNRWA includes hundreds of thousands whose ancestors weren’t ever refugees to begin with, let alone their grandchildren and great-grandchildren. UNHCR refugees can apply for asylum in most countries as refugees, UNRWA “refugees” cannot – because they aren’t refugees, and everyone knows it.

UNHCR takes refugees seriously, UNRWA uses them as a means to stay in business.

06/20 Links: I am the architect of the U.S.-Israel police exchange. Don’t believe the lies; Williamsburg’s Jewish Liberated Zone Declares War on Clown Mayor de Blasio

From Ian:

Ron Dermer: We must stop pursuing a two-state illusion and commit to a realistic two-state solution

Determined to advance a realistic solution to the conflict with the Palestinians, Israel’s prime minister laid out his vision of peace in a speech to the Knesset. The Palestinians, he said, would have “less than a state,” Israel would retain security control over the Jordan Valley “in the broadest meaning of that term,” Jerusalem would remain united under Israel’s sovereignty, and settlement blocs in Judea and Samaria would become part of lsrael.

Those words were not spoken recently by Benjamin Netanyahu but by then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995, when he defended the Oslo peace process he had initiated two years earlier with President Bill Clinton and Yasser Arafat and for which he would be assassinated one month later.

Twenty-five years later, a gulf has emerged between the positions Rabin staked out and what is increasingly believed to be the gold standard for a potential Israeli-Palestinian peace. The result has been the emergence of a two-state illusion that will never happen rather than a two-state solution that might advance peace.

The extension of Israeli sovereignty to certain territories in Judea and Samaria will not, as many critics suggest, destroy the two-state solution. But it will shatter the two-state illusion. And in doing so, it will open the door to a realistic two-state solution and get the peace process out of the cul-de-sac it has been stuck in for two decades.

Let me explain why.

For 20 years, successive Israeli prime ministers have tried to advance peace with the Palestinians. In 2000, Ehud Barak offered sweeping concessions at Camp David. In 2005, Ariel Sharon unilaterally withdrew Israel from the Gaza Strip. In 2008, Ehud Olmert offered even more concessions. In 2009, Benjamin Netanyahu called for a two-state solution in which a demilitarized Palestinian state would recognize the Jewish state and agreed to a 10-month settlement freeze. And earlier this year, both Netanyahu and Benny Gantz, Israel’s alternate prime minister, committed to negotiate based on President Trump’s peace plan.

All along, Palestinian leaders have rejected every Israeli peace overture while systematically promoting a culture that rejects peace and glorifies terrorism, including by providing a lifetime of financial support for terrorists who murder Jews.

The rejectionism of Palestinian leaders has been no surprise to those who understand that this century-old conflict has never been about establishing a Palestinian state. It has always been about rejecting the Jewish state.

.@AmbDermer:

"... for the past 25 years, int'l leaders & policymakers have been unwilling to admit that they never had the Palestinians onboard for a genuine 2-state solution. And in constantly moving the goalpost to get them onboard, they have now lost Israelis as well." https://t.co/DQz3b8byU1
— Arsen Ostrovsky (@Ostrov_A) June 20, 2020

Sudden Annexation of the West Bank Not on Wary Netanyahu's Agenda

In the subsequent 1½ decades, a single major operation into Gaza has taken place (in 2014). There has been diplomatic and military action, to be sure, but it has been of the quiet and discreet kind intended to chip away at enemy capacities, to shift perceptions slowly or quietly to draw former enemies closer via shared interests. That is Netanyahu's way in government. A major lunge at sovereignty in 30 per cent of the West Bank, apparently against the partial or total opposition of the US, the Europeans, coalition partners, tacit Arab allies and even (for different reasons) the West Bank settlers would be out of character.

Some Israeli media reports have noted that as a result of his managerial and incremental style, Netanyahu lacks a major "legacy" policy move.

In this telling, an effort at setting Israel's permanent eastern border could fill the gap. The great Israeli prime ministers — David Ben-Gurion, Menachem Begin — are each associated with a series of major policy initiatives.

The declaration of statehood, the management of the war of independence, the gathering of more than a million immigrants and the acquisition of a nuclear capacity are the legacy of the former. The insurgency against British rule, the achievement of peace with Israel's largest Arab neighbour, ensuring the integration of immigrants from North Africa and West Asia and destroying Saddam Hussein's nuclear ambitions were among the major achievements of the latter.

Netanyahu's record reveals a cautious, incremental, managerial approach to governance.

This, however, seems to misunderstand the incumbent Israeli premier. Netanyahu's moves are not devoid of a strategic conception. He regards Zionism and Israel as engaged in a long war to establish and solidify the structures of Jewish sovereignty against a protracted Arab and pan-Islamic counter-effort to destroy them. The Palestinians, in this view, are only a relatively minor or subaltern element of the larger effort. This is a conflict not fought out only, or primarily, by kinetic means. Rather, it is one in which the full resources of each society are engaged — economic, diplomatic, cultural and military.

Victory comes in such a contest not through a single diplomatic masterstroke or a devastating blow. Rather, it is gained in careful, incremental steps.

Bold tactical moves are certainly part of Netanyahu's repertoire. Sudden strategic moves seeking to change the picture overnight, however, in the face of international and domestic opposition, would be quite out of character.

British experts, leaders respond to Israel’s sovereignty plan

Ahead of Israel’s planned application of sovereignty in Judea and Samaria starting on July 1, British experts and Jewish leaders spoke out about their support for Israel’s claim and right of sovereignty in the land, and the Jewish state’s democratic decision to carry out its policies.

Retired British army officer Col. Richard Kemp challenged the assertion that Israel’s proposed action would be a violation of international law, which was made by Member of Parliament Crispin Blunt, and other British MPs and members of the House of Lords, in a letter addressed to British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and the foreign secretary.

Based on Kemp’s lengthy experience working on the Israel-Palestinian issue at the UK’s Joint Intelligence Committee, as well as many years observing, monitoring and studying the situation on the ground in Israel, the Palestinian territories and elsewhere in the Middle East, he assessed in the letter “that the U.S. Administration’s current peace proposals, including sovereignty implementation, represent the best chance for a lasting peace between the two sides, as well as a future two-state solution.”

“I believe that this plan also has the potential to bring much-needed prosperity for the Palestinian people, as well as greater stability to the region,” he wrote.

Kemp further claimed that Blunt’s proposed sanctions against Israel if sovereignty is applied is harmful to Britain’s trade relationship with Israel and the United States. “The security of British citizens at home and overseas relies heavily on the continued strong intelligence, defence and technology relationship with Israel,” he wrote in the letter.

In the midst of economic uncertainty from coronavirus and Brexit, he told JNS, “the last thing we need is to damage relationship with U.S. and Israel, our important trading partners that share a mutual benefit in our security relationship.”

Israel’s application of sovereignty, which will infuse the Palestinian economy with massive investments and Israeli cooperation, will urge the Palestinians to “act more constructively”—an encouraging new idea in the context of “trying to achieve the same thing for decades and achieving nothing.”

The typical route to pursuing a two-state solution, he explained in the letter, has “proven not only fruitless but has also increased suffering for the Palestinian people and heightened danger for Israeli citizens and the Jewish diaspora.”

06/19 Links Pt2: David Collier: As toxic an event about free speech and antisemitism as you will ever see; A Farrakhan Supporter Led the LA Black Lives Matter Rally That Became a Pogrom

From Ian:

David Collier: As toxic an event about free speech and antisemitism as you will ever see

I have sat through many toxic events in my time, but even for me yesterday was something special. A gathering of no less than four of the Labour party’s ‘antisemitism’ stars, Chris Williamson, Jackie Walker, Tony Greenstein and Mark Wadsworth. As an additional bonus they had a special American panel member – the conspiracy theorist and anti-Zionist rock star, Max Blumenthal. It could have been even better. Ken Livingstone was due to speak but in the end was not well enough to participate. Maybe next time.

The event went on for almost two hours, with each of the participants giving a short speech before those watching were allowed to table questions.

It was hosted by ‘Resistance TV’, a YouTube channel with a whopping 800 subscribers. The event was titled ‘Defending Free Speech and Challenging Manufactured Consent’ and forms part of the ongoing Williamson campaign to start a new political movement. That’s right, all those that were forced out or expelled by the Labour Party want to create a movement where their toxic views will become part of the manifesto. Needless to say, Jews need not apply.
The speakers

Williamson chairs the event and gives a talk about the need for free speech. It is to be the drumbeat of the event. Williamson then quickly hands the floor to Tony Greenstein.

Greenstein opens by stating that the antisemitism in Labour is just ‘manufactured, simulated, created and falsified, before going on to say that the ‘whole campaign was contrived from the start’. Within minutes the tone for the entire evening has been set. When they talk about free speech, they mean they want freedom to attack the Jews.

I have seen all these people speak more times than I can care to remember. Listening to each and every one is like wading through a sewer. Some represent a deeper sewer than others. For example, Jackie Walker’s adoption of a Jewish identity, which she then used to bash the Jewish community organisations with, was one of the most toxic themes of the Corbyn era.

The speeches are guarded, but one by one they go beyond simply calling the antisemitism crisis a manufactured smear – it is unsurprisingly all about the powers that control.

Melanie Phillips: Why even black and brown-skinned Jews are 'white imperialists'

The answer is white guilt, as Shelby Steele pointed out in his 2006 book of that name.

Black rage, he wrote, seizes its opportunity from the perceived weakness of the white oppressor, even when there is no injustice.

Black rage started rising in America after the great civil-rights victories were won in the ’60s. White guilt then made racism into “a valuable currency for black Americans”. It gave them a political identity with no real purpose, except the manipulation of white guilt.

The subsequent Black Power movement articulated Marxist dogma, which went like this. Capitalism created power and oppression; white people were capitalists, so white people were powerful oppressors; Jews were behind capitalism, so Jews were oppressors; capitalism was bad because it was white; Jews were white because they were capitalists.

This doctrine was then turned into a toxic cultural poison by the immensely influential Columbia University literature professor Edward Said. He fused American racism and European colonialism, and represented Palestinians as the essential darker-skinned “Orientals” who were its supposed victims. At a stroke, he thus transformed Israel into the every embodiment of white supremacy.

As a result, Israel is viewed as a white-colonialist enterprise by those who subscribe to these ideas. Given that most Israelis are not white but dark-skinned, this is absurd. But then, in today’s upside-down world, whiteness is not a pigment but an ideology.

Last week, a workshop at the University of London’s School of Oriental and African Studies, called “Jews and whiteness in colonial spaces,” set out to associate Zionists, African Jews and eastern Mizrahi Jews with “whiteness” and thus turn them all into oppressors.

Who can be surprised? For “critical race theory,” part of post-modern academic orthodoxy, holds that science, reason and evidence are a “white” way of knowing. Crazy or what?

So both Israel and western society are falsely denounced for “white imperialism,” even black or brown-skinned Jews are white, and George Orwell is spinning in his grave.

StandWithUs: Israel, Britain and Beyond

A diplomat in Israel’s Foreign Ministry, spokesman for the prime minister, and currently ambassador to one of Israel’s most important allies, no one has an insider's view on how Israel is represented on the global stage better than His Excellency, Ambassador Mark Regev. This will be a fascinating, live, no-holds-barred, interactive discussion—join the conversation!

The New Anti-Semitism: The Delegitimization of the Jewish People

In the post-Second World War era, the new anti-Semitism is collective in character, as it seeks to address the actions and outcomes created by Jews as a people and the role of the Jewish State. "Whiteness" and "Delegitimization" are the new standards by which Jews are being judged. For the anti-Semite, Israel serves as the collective embodiment of the "international" Jew.

The new anti-Semitism reintroduces the issues of "race" and "nationality" into the mix, as Jews are being challenged in connection with their "whiteness" as well as their legitimacy as Americans. The far left classifies Jews as "too white," while the far right defines Jews as seeking to "replace" authentic white people.

In the aftermath of the George Floyd incident, various groups have sought to link Israel's military as a responsible party. BDS groups and the U.S. Campaign for Palestinian Rights began falsely posting on social media about how Minneapolis police are "trained" by the IDF. Yet the IDF has never been involved in the training of the Minneapolis police force.

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.