A reporter in Portland’s KOIN News, Jenny Young, came under fire when she tweeted a very accurate statement.
She described a speaker at a “Day of Rage” rally as “openly anti-Zionist”, and the BDS movement as “an anti-Semitic movement that’s been admonished by U.S. lawmakers.”
All of this is perfectly true.
There was a huge outcry from anti-Israel activists, of course, and the tweet was taken down after an hour.
Bob Horenstein, spokesman for the Jewish Federation of Greater Portland, said he felt the reporter’s tweet was an oversimplification of the issue, but said he also took exception with some other organizations’ characterization of the BDS movement. He said the Jewish Federation of Greater Portland had made their stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict clear.
"We came out with a statement opposing unilateral annexation of the West Bank. We support a two-state solution," he said.
He said while the Jewish Federation of Greater Portland doesn’t believe everyone who supports the BDS movement is anti-Semitic, he said many people believe the effects of the BDS movement harm Jewish people.
He also noted that while some local Black Lives Matter chapters have come out in support of the BDS movement, most around the country have not taken a stand on the issue.
The newspaper already had quoted multiple Muslim leaders who all supported BDS and denounced Israel and Zionists. (It referred to them as “civil rights organizations.”) They wanted to hear from the other side for a token comment. And instead of a full-throated expression of support for Israel and against antisemitism and BDS, Mr. Horenstein hedged and dodged and declared how reasonable many Jews are in drawing fine lines between supporting Israel and opposing sovereignty over Judea and Samaria (which the reporter didn’t ask about) and how some people who want to see the Jewish state destroyed are perfectly fine people who aren’t antisemitic at all, oh no, they just want to boycott Jewish businesses and entertainers and academics from Israel while not boycotting Israeli Arab entertainers or businesses or academics.
He doesn’t even know what he is talking about with Black Lives Matter – it is a national BLM decision to support BDS, not local. If Horenstein wanted to make distinctions, he could have distinguished between the Black Lives Matter movement and supporting black lives.
It is possible that the paper selectively quoted Horenstein. He has explicitly called out antisemitism on the Left. But the way that this reads is that both sides are against the decisions of the Israeli government, both sides don’t consider BDS to be antisemitic - and the Jews are wishy-washy while the Muslims are passionate.
The tweet should have been defended by the Jewish community. BDS has been recognized as antisemitic not only by US lawmakers but by European leaders as well, and it fits the IHRA definition of antisemitism.
Furthermore, Jenny Young should be supported by the Jewish community for what she wrote instead of getting hung out to dry.
UPDATE: It turns out that the reporter, Jayati Ramakrishnan, did cherry pick Horenstein's comments. A reader who is the head of another Jewish organization reached out to the Portland Federation and their president/CEO Marc Blattner categorically denounced the piece and said that with no ambiguity that the Jewish Federation of Greater Portland is "100% against BDS." They contacted the journalist who refused to correct the piece. Apologies to the Federation.
It is this modern politicization of anti-Semitism that ensured that Rebecca Long-Bailey, who would have been instantly awake to a racist jibe directed at any other minority group, could mistake the anti-Semitism in the interview for benign criticism of a state she doesn't much care for.
The belief that every injustice can be traced to Israeli evil was perhaps best demonstrated by another British Labour politician (now mercifully retired), Clare Short, who claimed during a pro-Palestinian conference in Brussels in 2007 that not only was Israel "much worse than the original apartheid state," but that it "undermines the international community's reaction to global warming." Given Short's conclusion that global warming could "end the human race," one can readily connect the dots about how loathsome and threatening Israel must be, and what should be done with it. For good measure, Israel has also been accused of causing domestic violence in Gaza.
More recently, Black Lives Matter, a group ostensibly formed to combat racism, adopted in 2016 a manifesto that, amidst the discourse on incarceration rates, police conduct and racial profiling, also accuses Israel of being an "apartheid state" and committing "genocide" of the Palestinians—whose population throughout the Holy Land has undergone a continuous and spectacular increase since the advent of modern Zionism in the 19th century. The British arm of the movement then paused its tweets on black lives in order to shoot off an anti-Israel medley, including offering its weighty legal opinion that Israel is in breach of international law and lamenting the "gagging" of attacks on Zionism.
The campaign to attach Zionism to every grievance and injustice has its origins in Stalin's deteriorating mind during the last years of his reign. It became the basis for official Soviet anti-Zionism and remains as a vestige in far-left political movements today. But in a sense, it runs even deeper than that. It is the hallmark of an irrational, fanatical mind, incapable of grasping the nuance and complexity of life. Just as traditional anti-Semitism brought ruin and misery, anti-Zionism will corrupt noble movements and worthy causes unless it is finally stamped out.
CAMERA, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis, recently prompted three corrections from The Forward. All involved one of the publication’s contributing columnists, Muhammad Shehada.
In one case, he had falsely claimed that, in the midst of the COVID-19 crisis, officials in the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip “have a shortage of the chemicals necessary to make disinfectants, including hydrogen peroxide and chlorine,” because “Israel bans both from entering Gaza under the pretext of ‘dual-use’ items—items they say can also be used for building weapons.”
The correction noted that “an earlier version of this piece stated that Israel bans hydrogen peroxide and chlorine. Israel does not ban either; it restricts hydrogen peroxide. We sincerely regret the error.”
Two other corrections that were made just this month pertained to factual misstatements made nearly a year ago in an August 28, 2019 opinion column. In those cases, notably, the publication did not even indicate that they had made any changes.
But these were just a few of the many false claims that Shehada has made over time in The Forward, a national Jewish media outlet that began publication at the end of the 19th century as a Yiddish-language socialist newspaper. And, as described below, some of those that remain uncorrected were of far greater magnitude.
Shehada is on the leadership team at the NGO EuroMediterranean Human Rights Monitor, an organization whose board of trustees is chaired by Richard Falk. Falk was condemned in 2011 by then-British Prime Minister David Cameron for publishing an anti-Semitic cartoon, and in 2012 by the U.K. Foreign Office “for providing a cover endorsement for an anti-Semitic tract called ‘The Wandering Who’ that compared Jews to Nazis.”
Falk has also embraced 9/11 conspiracy theories. In addition to writing for The Forward, which he has been doing regularly since January 2018, Shehada has written for The New Arab, Al Jazeera, Vice and others.
In the last few weeks, around 140 police officers have been injured in this country; 27 in just one night last week in Brixton. A day later, the force’s LGBT+ network could be found tweeting their support for asexual people. Perhaps the thugs who assaulted their colleagues in Brixton would have been mollified had they known how supportive the constabulary is of the asexuals in their midst? Or perhaps – and I simply put the possibility out there – such efforts by all branches of the British police do not in fact show how much the police have got with the beat, but just makes things harder for the policemen and women on the actual beat?
When you cast your mind back across recent months what are your most distinctive memories of the British constabulary? Dancing for public likes in TikTok videos? Skateboarding down major London thoroughfares closed down by climate extremists? Officers “taking the knee” before Black Lives Matter activists shortly before some of those same officers had to flee from the protesters who had turned violent?
All of these sights are indelibly linked in the minds of everybody who has seen them. But in the minds of a portion of the public they meld with another vision of the British police. A vision which numerous commentators and politicians have helped to exaggerate in recent weeks.
In the wake of the death of George Floyd in Minnesota, politicians and Left-wing pundits in the UK as much as in the US sought to make some grand strategic play off the back of that appalling incident. In the US, various commentators argued that the Minnesota incident was not isolated, but part of a broader problem of US policing and of American society as a whole. There is a debate to be had about certain aspects of US policing, certainly. But inevitably there were those in our own country who tried to make political gains by claiming the same situation exists here. These people – not least the organisers of BLM UK – wish to present the British police and the American police as being the same and the history of American racism synonymous with all British history.
It is a very dangerous game that such opportunists are playing. Some responsibility at least for the assaults on police officers that have occurred since the first BLM UK protests must be laid at their door. A week before the assault on police in Hackney, the Labour MP Dawn Butler stood in the House of Commons and told the Conservative government that it needed to “get its knee off the neck of the Black, African, Caribbean, Asian and minority ethnic community in this country.” It was a disgraceful intervention, that went off almost without censure.
Recently the European Union announced that it would reopen its borders to visitors from some other countries. Israel was not on the list (neither was the US). Many Israelis reacted indignantly, but objectively our Coronavirus situation is not good.
On June 30, Israel marked the highest number of new cases of Coronavirus since the beginning of the pandemic, with 803 reported. After succeeding to extinguish the first wave with an economy-crushing lockdown, the re-opening was marred by some strategic mistakes, for which we are beginning to pay the price. Here is a graph of new cases per day:
Although there has been a recent increase in the daily number of tests done, a Health Ministry employee said on 16 June that “the proportion of positive tests was higher than before,” and therefore the increase in reported new cases was indicative of a new wave of infection.
I don’t pretend to be an expert, but some of the reasons were obvious. In the educational system: it was necessary to reopen the schools, because Israelis have a lot of children, and it’s very difficult to get people back to work when there’s no solution for child care. The usual safety valve for parents, retired grandparents, was not available due to the danger to them from the disease. The first mistake was to open all grades almost at once. It would have been possible to open the lower grades first, which would have freed the parents to work, while reducing the risk. What followed was a sharp spike in the 10-19 year age group and a smaller one in the 0-9 group at the start of the second wave in early June.
The Education Ministry devised a plan that would separate students and teachers in the schools into “capsules” which would be isolated from one another, students would sit 2 meters apart, masks would be required for students and teachers, and so on. The second mistake was not following the plan. I am not sure if it proved unworkable, or if teachers and administrators didn’t take it seriously enough, as some said. But in many schools, compliance was lax. Schools in which cases of Corona occurred were closed, but the damage was done.
Coronavirus transmission is believed to be primarily by droplets released when an infected person sneezes, coughs, talks, or sings. These droplets may remain in the air for a few minutes. It is also thought that the more viral particles a person ingests, the more likely they are to become sick, although it is not clear if this affects the severity of the illness. Transmission outdoors where droplets may be blown away or dehydrated by breezes and diluted in a larger volume of air, is much less likely than in a confined indoor space. Masks may not be fine enough to prevent viral particles from passing through, but they do greatly impede the much larger droplets; they are useful both when worn by the person who is infected and by others nearby. There is also the possibility of droplets impinging on a person’s eyes, so a face shield is useful in addition to a mask.
Israelis love “life cycle events” like circumcisions, bar mitzvahs, weddings, and so forth. Big weddings are the rule, often held in large event halls. There are even websites that help you decide how much money to give according to the type of event, your relationship to the principals, and so on. These events are often held indoors, and the Health Ministry allowed event halls to reopen when the first wave subsided. There are guidelines on the number of people allowed at an event, but they were liberal. Religious services, which were initially sharply restricted, were reopened with more relaxed guidelines. These actions may have been premature, and some restrictions have been re-imposed.
What everyone wants to do is to find ways to protect the population without destroying the economy. The best way to do that (at least, until a vaccine or effective treatment is developed) is to identify each and every sick person and isolate them before they can infect others. This requires a) the ability to do enough tests, b) a rapid turnaround of test results so that it is possible to identify someone as a carrier of the disease before they can infect others, and c) trained people to investigate the sources of infection so that those exposed can be tested. While the number of tests has been increasing, the turnaround time has been poor. In the early part of the second wave, when many cases were detected in schools, the labs were unable to keep up with the tests. As far as investigations are concerned the Health Ministry reports a serious shortage of personnel trained to do this; and it has been accused of poor management as well. They have just hired several hundred medical students and paramedics for this function; it’s mysterious why this took so long.
The public, which was relatively disciplined during the first wave, seems to have decided that “the Corona is over,” and that masks are best worn around the chin, to be moved up when a police officer, who might give them a ticket worth 500 Shekels ($146), is nearby. The latest news is that specific cities and neighborhoods will be placed on lockdown in order to try to break the chain of infection.
PM Netanyahu got good marks for his handling of the crisis during the first wave, when he made good decisions such as closing the country’s borders quickly. The removal of restrictions, however, has not been handled so well. Employment has not snapped back – unemployment stands at near 21% – and the epidemic has moved into a second wave, which could be as bad or worse than the first one. Some industries, like tourism and performing arts, have been devastated and little has been done to help them. Of course, everything isn’t his responsibility, but he is known for micromanaging what he believes are areas of importance, and many Israelis feel that he doesn’t believe that they are of importance.
It isn’t helping that after the scandal of the obscenely bloated unity government of 36 ministers and 9 deputy ministers, and after the unity negotiations produced unprecedented perks for the Prime Minister and his alternate, Bibi got the Knesset to pass legislation to exempt him from taxes on work done on his private residence by the government. He did not improve his image when he remarked that although he deserved the tax break, his “timing was wrong.” No kidding.
***
Israel’s approach to the Corona has been very – Israeli. First, we tried to overcome it by brute force. Then we became overconfident. And now, hopefully, we’ll try to be smart.
Israel has announced that it will apply Israeli civilian law to areas of Judea, Samaria and the Jordan Valley, (the area renamed “the West Bank” by Jordan after 1948), on or after July 1, 2020. Whereas this is seen by some as a hurried political decision, the more fundamental question is, does Israel have the right to do this under international law?
The answer to this question is a clear – Yes.
The League of Nations allocated all of Israel, including these areas, for the purpose of establishing the Jewish National Home in 1922. No other internationally recognized instrument has superseded that decision;
The Arab countries and most of the Arabs resident in British Mandate controlled Palestine, rejected the 1947 UN partition plan, so it has no relevance today under international law.
No other country has a legal claim to that territory;
No state border has ever separated Judea, Samaria and the Jordan Valley from the rest of Israel;
The application of Israeli law to Judea, Samaria and the Jordan Valley should not be referred to as “Annexation”, since annexation is the acquisition of territory by one State “at the expense of another State”.
Accordingly, Israel has the right under international law to Israel apply its civilian law to these areas.
The last few weeks have seen a herd mentality take hold and misrepresentations about Israel abound. There has been fevered discussion over Israel’s proposed application of civilian law to parts of Area C in the West Bank. The move is consistently misrepresented as “annexation” and a “violation” of international law. Both allegations are false. The misconceptions betray a concerning level of ignorance. Most importantly, they stand in the way of any informed debate about the pros and the cons of the move.
There is an urgent need to realise that what is being considered is a change to the internal administrative legal framework in certain parts of Area C of the West Bank, which would replace military law with the civilian law that applies throughout Israel. The existing framework was intended to be temporary, but it has been dragged out for 53 years, through decades of failed negotiations. It is regarded as an inadequate and antiquated administration, comprising a confusing patchwork of Ottoman, British Mandate, Jordanian law and aspects of international humanitarian law.
The clamour of allegations that this proposal would violate international law rejects fundamental principles of international law and deploys double standards against Israel. Any legal analysis of the status of the disputed territory cannot ignore the basic principle that a country cannot be said to “occupy” territory that does not belong to another sovereign and to which it has a credible claim of title. The UK certainly does not recognise Palestinian sovereignty over the territory. Israel has the strongest legal claim to the territory, based on a fundamental principle of international law governing the formation of new states and the delineation of their boundaries.
The universal rule for determining borders for emerging states, ‘uti possideitis juris’, dictates that they are established with the administrative boundaries of the prior administrative entity. Israel was preceded by the ‘Mandate for Palestine’, which was established by the League of Nations and administered by Britain. As the only state to emerge from the Mandate in 1948, international law dictates that Israel inherited the Mandate’s administrative boundaries. This principle provides that the territory concerned has been under Israeli sovereignty since Israel’s independence, even during Jordan’s occupation of the territory between 1948 and 1967. While the territory is politically disputed, the legal principle is clear. The term “annexation” is fundamentally misconceived.
I believe that it is possible for multicultural countries to succeed, but it is incredibly difficult to say the least, which is why most multicultural states do not succeed. It requires making the vast majority of a country's citizens believe in a national identity that supersedes any racial, ethnic, or religious identity. The only country I know that has been able to do this successfully and last through the centuries is Switzerland, which is largely a country of three distinct ethno-linguistic groups of Germans, French, and Italians. The Swiss Confederation has largely avoided the violence and strife that plagues so many other multicultural states. But as I understand Swiss history, the cantons that make up today's Swiss Confederation united for the sake of collective security to protect their freedom against neighboring imperial powers. Thus, over time, the Swiss have been able to forge a collective identity that has endured to this day.
A similar, but not identical, scenario has played out in Canada. The provinces that make up Canada united largely due to the threat faced by revolutionary America. Nevertheless, the unity of Canada has always remained tenuous, especially in regards to the majority French-speaking province of Quebec, in which many people yearn for independence. There is also the ongoing tension between different regions of the vast country as the needs of each region differ significantly from one another.
Quebec, and to a lesser extent, western Canada, want to preserve what they perceive as their distinct identities. It remains to be seen whether or not Canada will continue to flourish, or if regional, ethnic, racial, and linguistic differences will tear it apart. Moreover, it is almost impossible to export Canadian-style multiculturalism to the Holy Land, where the Jewish and Palestinian peoples have two very distinct narratives and national ambitions, and where there is no sense that a binational arrangement for the sake of collective security is needed.
If Jews and Palestinians were forced to live with each other in the same country, the results would be disastrous and would probably result in Jews being victims of another holocaust. Once such a state was formed, the Jewish people would quickly become a minority, as millions of Palestinian so-called refugees would stream into the country, thereby creating a Palestinian majority, who would attempt to erase any trace of Jewish heritage in the Holy Land. At best, we the Jewish people would be reduced to a persecuted minority, just like many of the persecuted minorities in Muslim countries. At worst, we would be exterminated.
Is it antisemitic to like a post of a Louis Farrakhan video
that has nothing to do with Jews? Or is liking such a post just plain ignorance of the fact that
Farrakhan is an ugly antisemite? A sign of cluelessness?
Is it antisemitic to criticize Israel and its
duly elected leadership? Or could it be an honest opinion or about not knowing
any better: not realizing you’ve been fed a load of propagandist hogwash?
By
letting lesser antisemites earn the label, do we dilute the significance of our
cause?
The article in question begins with the statement that
building such a list is probably impossible. First, there’s the question of
whom to include. Some wanted me to include, for instance, Barack Obama, who took
pains to hurt Israel whenever possible. Obama is no longer a politician, and
since he is famous, he certainly qualifies as a celebrity. Keeping things simple,
however, meant sticking to a narrow definition of the celebrity as entertainer: singers, actors, and the like.
Speaking of Obama, some said that if we’re going to include
actors for liking Handler’s
Farrakhan post, we should include all the actors who supported Obama.
Others said we should include all the entertainers who
supported the Iran deal, which surely poses an existential threat to the Jewish
State.
Satisfying IHRA
Some commentators, notably CAMERA
UK’sAdam Levick,
felt that some of the celebrities listed had clearly crossed the line, while
others hadn’t, and that the inclusion of the latter diluted the significance of
the word antisemitism, by conflating the former with the latter. Levick
referenced the IHRA
working definition of antisemitism, stating that this should be the only
accepted criteria for such a list. While I respect and appreciate Levick’s
thoughtful disagreement, I find that interpreting a celebrity’s behavior
according to the IHRA definition is somewhat subjective.
In fact I had referenced
the IHRA definition in building my list, in particular noting the examples
listed below the definition for illustration purposes, including the following:
“Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of
Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel
similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as
antisemitic.”
Mental Boxes
Keeping the above in mind, prior to including a name on the
list, I asked several questions, ticking off mental boxes:
Had the celebrity leveled similar accusations against other
countries? Or are the accusations made only against Israel?
Is the celebrity voicing benign tourist-type complaints about the
weather or the food in Israel? Or is the celebrity with the public platform
singling out Israel for criticism by insulting Israel’s leadership and/or
accusing Israel of malfeasance in relation to its Arab population and its legal
maritime blockade of Gaza?
If the latter, it seems to me such criticism of Israel is
dissimilar to criticism of other countries, and directly targets the Jewish
State based on anti-Israel propaganda, alone. But should we blame celebrities for
believing what they read in the media? For not taking the time to read more
varied reports from which a truer, more positive picture of Israel might
emerge?
Yes. Because in antisemitism, as in life, ignorance is always a choice.
Especially when it comes to singling out the Jewish State from one’s very
public platform.
Liking A Public Figure
The same is true of liking a post of Farrakhan speaking out
against racism—a post having nothing to do with this public figure’s very vocal and infamous expressions of antisemitism. If you’re going to put yourself out there and like
a Farrakhan post, you better know what you’re liking. And by now, who doesn’t
know who Farrakhan is, and what he represents? And if you don’t, why don’t you?
You’re an adult. You are putting yourself out there in the public eye on a
variety of causes, using your celebrity to stump for presidential candidates
and to advocate for change.
The use of a public platform is a responsibility, and like
all responsibilities, requires a familiarity with current events and a thorough
study of the subject in question. If you like a Farrakhan video, you better
know all about the man. That, in essence, is your job as a celebrity voicing
support for a movement or a cause.
When Israel is singled out for criticism—or when a celebrity
favors a post highlighting the views of a notorious antisemite—I believe the
IHRA working definition of antisemitism has been satisfied.
Natalie Portman's Calculated Insult
Take Natalie Portman. The Jewish actress, who was born in
Israel (hence an Israeli citizen), received the coveted Israeli Genesis Prize
but refused
to attend the awards ceremony because she “did not want to appear as
endorsing Benjamin Netanyahu, who was to be giving a speech at the ceremony.”
But Portman announced her decision not to attend six months after she had confirmed her attendance
to the Genesis Prize Foundation, and a full nine months after the award was
announced. From the Genesis
Prize website:
“This announcement was made almost six months after Ms. Portman confirmed her
attendance at the Genesis Prize ceremony. Prior to accepting the Genesis Prize,
Ms. Portman was made aware that the Genesis Prize is a partnership between our
foundation, the Office of the Prime Minister of Israel, and The Jewish Agency
for Israel. Moreover, we informed Ms. Portman that the Prime Minister of Israel
presents the Genesis Prize and also delivers a keynote address at the award
ceremony.”
So Portman accepted the award knowing that Netanyahu
partners with the foundation, presents the prize, and delivers the keynote
address at the award ceremony. But she let everyone think she was coming to
Israel to accept the prize, then used her public platform, at the last minute,
to insult the elected leader of Israel and to bash Israel’s policies on Gaza.
In fact, Portman kept changing her mind: was she not coming to the awards ceremony to insult Bibi or
to make a point about Israel’s
policies in Gaza? Whatever the reason, it was a concerted attack on Israel: an insult, planned and calculated to embarrass Israel—to make Israel look bad.
Dave Lange (Aussie Dave) of Israellycool
feels that Portman is within her rights to criticize Israel and Netanyahu, in
part because she is an Israeli citizen. I disagree. Portman doesn’t live in
Israel, doesn’t vote in Israeli elections and uses her celebrity to accuse
Israel and Israel’s duly elected leadership of malfeasance. Her last-minute
announcement regarding the Genesis Prize was planned, timed, and calculated to
demonize Israel and its democratically elected leadership. Portman’s dissent
with Israel’s prime minister and the policies of the Israeli government are
based on a narrow, unflattering view of the Jewish State, an obvious byproduct
of anti-Israel propaganda/biased media reports.
Comparing Israel to the Nazis
Portman’s statement (quoted in the above-linked Israellycool
piece) regarding her decision to skip the awards ceremony further fulfills the
IHRA working definition of antisemitism by accusing Israel of “atrocities” and
appearing to compare Israeli actions in Gaza with Nazi activity during the
Holocaust:
“Israel was created exactly 70 years ago as a haven for
refugees from the Holocaust. But the mistreatment of those suffering from
today’s atrocities is simply not in line with my Jewish values. Because I care
about Israel, I must stand up against violence, corruption, inequality, and
abuse of power.”
IHRA examples of antisemitism include: "Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis."
Portman seems to own her Israeli citizenship when she can use it to hurt
Israel. But when she stumps for Obama in Ohio, she’s suddenly “Very Ohio,”
though Obama’s intention to fund the mullahs’ nuclear program, with its
expressed intention of obliterating the Jewish State, was well known.
Will the real Natalie Portman please stand up? Actually, I
believe she has. Which is why she stays on the list. Of course, part of the
problem of creating the list was how to document antisemitism while keeping
things simple.
Portman Email Chain Scandal
Each celebrity’s name was linked to a single news item. In
Portman’s case, I could have listed many more such items. There was, for
example, that public temper tantrum about having her email address outed on an email
chain about Gaza. Was Portman only upset about having her address exposed,
or was she upset at being included in an effort supportive of the Jewish State
of Israel? From Gawker:
“Kavanaugh and Rotholz's forwarding habits were irritating
enough to Portman that she'd previously asked Kavanaugh to remove her from the
list: ‘you should not be copying me publicly so that 20 people i don't know
have my personal info,’ she admonished the producer. ‘i will have to change my
email address now.’
"’Sorry,’ he replied. ‘You are right jews being
slaughtered for their beliefs and cannes members calling for the boycott of
anything Israel or Jewish is much much less important then your email address
being shared with 20 of our peers who are trying to make a difference. my
deepest apologies.’ (Grimace emoji.)”
Antisemitic Or Just Clueless?
Moving along, many voiced disgruntlement at Jennifer
Aniston’s name being included on the comprehensive list of antisemitic
celebrities. Her name is linked to a story about all the celebrities who liked
Chelsea Handler’s Instagram post with Farrakhan’s video about racism. She liked
a post?? Why does that earn her the sobriquet of antisemite?
Because ignorance is a choice: lather, rinse, repeat. Farrakhan
is a notorious public figure who has said so many horrible things that simply appearing in a photo with him is enough to damage
reputations. The Southern Poverty Law Center called his organization Nation of Islam, a "hate group" (and so apparently did Martin Luther King).
If Aniston doesn’t know about Farrakhan, she should. She has a
duty to know before approving any message issuing forth from his mouth. But just for the record, here are a few choice Farrakhan quotes (see HERE for more examples):
“Satanic Jews have infected the whole world with poison and deceit.”
“The Jews have control over those agencies of government. When you want something in this world, the Jew holds the door.”
“Jews were responsible for all of this filth and degenerate behavior that Hollywood is putting out, turning men into women and women into men…. White folks are going down. And Satan is going down. And Farrakhan, by God’s grace, has pulled a cover off of that Satanic Jew, and I’m here to say your time is up, your world is through. You good Jews better separate because the satanic ones will take you to hell with them because that’s where they are headed.”
What makes anyone think Aniston would be woke enough to know about Farrakhan? Aniston has, in the past, used her celebrity
platform to take a stance on other political issues, which suggests she keeps up
with current events. Aniston’s political activism goes back to at least 2003
and the Second Intifada, when she, along with ex-husband Brad Pitt, created
their “One Voice” peace
initiative.
Aniston: Describing A False Equivalence
At a time when Israeli civilians, including children, were
being blown to bits on buses by suicide bombers, I found it particularly
insensitive when Aniston and Pitt, in their joint statement, drew a false equivalence between Arab and Israeli society, suggesting that Israeli children,
like their Arab counterparts, were growing up learning to hate:
"The last few years of conflict mean that yet another
generation of Israelis and Palestinians will grow up in hatred. We cannot allow
that to happen."
A quick glance at the work of IMPACT-se, shows that the opposite is
true. Arab school children are inculcated with hate by their teachers and their
textbooks every day in their UNRWA classrooms. Israeli
textbooks, on the other hand, contain no such incitement or racism. Because
this is contrary to Jewish values and the values of the Jewish State. Which is
why Arabs are found alongside Israelis in every Israeli sector and sphere,
including in the Israeli parliament, where Arabs make up the third largest party in the
Israeli Knesset. Which is why accusations of Israeli “Apartheid” are equally
spurious. (Also: Israelis were not blowing up buses of Arab civilians in 2003
or at any other time.)
Aniston and Pitt, with their false assertion that another generation of Israeli children are growing up in hate, fulfill this IHRA example of antisemitism: "Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such . . . "
Some might suggest that Aniston is merely clueless for
liking Handler’s Farrakhan post, or for suggesting a false equivalence between
Israeli and Arab children. But actions have consequences and if you use your celebrity
platform to prove you are woke, you better actually BE woke, by being
conversant with current events and the varied perspectives on these issues. Is
Farrakhan worthy of a like when he speaks out against racism? Is he an upright
human being one should like or quote? Are Israelis actually growing up “in
hatred” or is that something you say to make you feel better about Arab terror?
Silverman: Defending An Assailant Of IDF Soldiers
Sarah Silverman was another addition to my list to which
some readers took exception. Silverman’s name was linked to her support for
then 17-year-old Ahed Tamimi, who was arrested for physical and verbal abuse of
IDF soldiers. Linking to an Amnesty International campaign for Tamimi’s
release, Silverman tweeted, “Jews have to stand up EVEN when—ESPECIALLY when—the
wrongdoing is BY Jews/the Israeli government."
The IHRA definition of antisemitism includes this example: "Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation."
Is it wrong to arrest a 17-year-old who assaults the military? Would it be
wrong in America? Or is it only wrong when Israeli soldiers are on the
receiving end of the assault?
This is “as a Jew” criticism of Israel at its worst. Tamimi
has been assaulting Israeli soldiers for years. From the link I supplied with Silverman’s
entry:
“Many Palestinians consider her a political icon as she has
a history of confronting IDF soldiers. Ahed Tamimi had first came to public
prominence when, aged 11, she appeared in another video threatening to punch a
different soldier.”
Exploiting Fame
Dave Lange has been documenting Ahed Tamimi’s behavior at
Israellycool for years, dubbing Tamimi “Shirley Temper” due to her youth, her
big blond frizz, and her temper tantrums. The Tamimi family is notorious for
using its children to attack the State of Israel. The whole family is involved
in one way or another in this effort. Why not? This is, after all, the same clan that is
responsible for masterminding the Sbarro Pizzeria Massacre. Which is why none
other than Arnold
Roth, responding to Silverman’s tweet, wrote:
“Entertainers exploiting their fame are often a poor choice
for clarifying what’s moral or good. Sarah, did you stand up for our daughter
Malki and the other 15 Jewish lives extinguished by Ahlam Tamimi, Ahed’s cousin
and role-model-in-life? Do you stand with Ahed’s call to kill?”
If Silverman is going to stick her neck out and criticize
Israel, she has an obligation to know all the facts, from every angle. A simple
Google search would have led her to Lange’s comprehensive coverage of Tamimi’s antics. Is it fair for
Silverman to single out the Jews and Israel for criticism in regard to Tamimi’s
arrest? In my opinion, her tweet is antisemitism according to the IHRA
definition. Because a girl of 17 with a long, documented record of assault, no
matter in which country the assault occurs, and no matter the religion of the
victims she assaults, should be held culpable.
When celebrities use their public platforms to demonize
Israel on the basis of propaganda, that's antisemitism. If you're going to
single out the Jewish State, you better be basing your assertions on fact, or
we'll call you out on them. Otherwise, it's gratuitous hate.
Criticism Of Israel, Alone
Is Portman leveling accusations against the democratically
elected leaders of other countries? Is she turning down awards from other
countries based on what she thinks about their leaders? No. Her accusations extend
to Israel, alone.
Is Aniston merely clueless? No. She is a person who follows current events
enough to start a peace initiative on behalf of people who don’t live in her
own country.
What about Silverman, who fights for the freedom of a girl who has been made
into an anti-Israel propaganda tool by her family? Does Silverman have a right
to criticize Jews and Israel for detaining this “girl” who is now on the cusp
of adulthood? Context is everything.
Silverman used her celebrity to call for the release of a
person with a long record of assaulting Israeli soldiers. That cannot be
understood in a kind light. Silverman is singling out Israel. We don’t see her
demanding the release of anyone else assaulting soldiers in any other country.
No. She only holds the Jews, her own people, to account. Only the Jews are not
allowed to pursue justice in response to physical assault, according to
Silverman.
Shades Of Antisemitism
I do understand that there are levels and gradations of
antisemitism. I understand those insisting on nuance and proof. Because there
is a difference between making a political statement and outright Jew-hatred. There's
a difference between Mel Gibson calling Jews "oven dodgers" and
liking a tweet that has nothing to do with Jews.
The point of making a comprehensive list, however, is that
it should be comprehensive. The idea of such a list is to let these people know
we see them. We know what these celebrities are doing. And their behavior is
unacceptable, no matter how rich, talented, and beautiful they are.
When celebrities use Israel to virtue signal, they turn
Israel into a common icon for everyday condemnation and abuse, in which Israel
becomes the pivot on which all attacks turn. Celebrities use Israel to get
attention. Because when they demonize Israel, they know they will receive
applause and approbation. And this is disgusting.
It's Not Torah M'Sinai
The “comprehensive list of antisemites” is not Torat Moshe M’Sinai. My suggestion is
that you use it as a tool to take a stand and defend your values. One commenter
suggested as much: “I think the list is fine even if—especially if—it's as
blunt a tool as those used by the critics. Let them stand on their own values
and defend them. We are in an either/or world now. Take a stand and live with
it.”
My feeling is that the links on each name in the list tell
us to be careful about these people at a minimum. We need to be careful about
people who like a post featuring a notorious antisemite, even if that “like”
was totally innocent and clueless. There are all kinds of (poor) excuses for
bad behavior. But ignorance is no excuse at all. Just as we wouldn’t give the
Nazis a pass because they had “no choice” or because they were swept away by
Hitler’s charisma.
Some say that being cavalier in my determination of who is
and isn’t an antisemite is not strategic. Guilty as charged. I am not a
strategist. I believe in speaking out against even a hint of antisemitism. You
don’t have to be a Mel Gibson to make it onto my list. At the same time, there
has to be something to look at. One friend wanted me to include John Travolta
because of an old (dismissed) lawsuit in which the complainant alleged Travolta
said Hollywood was run by old Jewish homosexuals "who expect favors in return for sexual activity."
The case was dismissed. It’s hearsay. I have no reason to believe
this report and neither do you. It’s a rumor, it’s only slander: an anecdote.
So Travolta stays off the list. Unless you have something real to show me.
Ignorance Is A Choice
Clueless about the antisemitism of Farrakhan? Ignorance is a
choice. So is speaking out against what you don't know about. Of the famous
four sons of the Passover Seder, the last is an ignoramus. The famous
commentator Rashi calls him “evil.” Because . . . wait for it . . . ignorance is a choice.
Which is why some of those who made it onto my list are,
according to one commentator, “just ignoramuses and dolts, not antisemites.
Useful idiots. But, still, stupidity is not an excuse when the issues are not
trivial. They are taking a position, and should be called on it.”
I concur. Antisemitism is an important topic and we should
be able to discuss it with due frankness. We need to be aware of our enemies,
their supporters, and their enablers. Sometimes the three are
indistinguishable.
If we lived in a kinder, softer world, we could ignore the threat and be fine.
But considering the times, we need to take note. And when push comes to shove, it
doesn’t much matter if a celebrity is motivated by ignorance or hatred. Liking
a post about Farrakhan is as bad as admiring Hitler’s paintings. It’s fruit of
the poisonous tree.
You may disagree with this or that entry on the comprehensive
list of antisemitic celebrities. But the IHRA working definition of
antisemitism tells us that when you slander Jews, it's wrong. The IHRA working definition of antisemitism tells us that when you take a position against Israel, singling Israel out for criticism, it’s wrong. It stands as a basic denial of the right
of the Jewish people to be a people, it's a denial of the right of the Jewish people to self-determination and self-defense. It’s siding with
the enemy narrative. As such, there is no practical difference between
anti-Zionists and antisemites.
Speech Has Consequences
One commenter wrote that in Judaism, we have a commandment
to guard one’s tongue. “Because there is [the] realization that [the] consequences
of one’s speech can be far-reaching and extremely damaging to others.”
We need to let people know that when they like a post
focused on a notorious antisemite it makes us nervous. We need to let them know
that when they single out Israel or the Jews for criticism, it’s wrong. Jews are made of
DNA like every other people and we have a right to be treated as normal people.
Our country has a right to be treated as any other normal country.
In this light, creating a comprehensive list of antisemitic
celebrities serves as an attempt to dissociate ourselves from those who, with
their unthinking actions and words, put the Jewish people in greater danger.
Perhaps their deeds are unwitting. All the same, they aid our mortal enemies.
We cannot afford to stick our heads in the sand, and ignore the things they do,
clueless or not.
I will end this by saying thank you to all who helped to
form the debate. I think the discussion helped to refine my own views. Thank you for
letting me learn from you. I am sure you can see yourselves in this piece.
And to the world at large, know this: when you like a video of an antisemite or speak out against Israel and
only Israel, or without fully knowing the facts, it makes you a willful ignoramus.
Which makes you an antisemite. Because ignorance is always a choice.
No matter how famous you are.
We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
MESPI is a curated interactive platform for Middle East Studies resources, specifically tailored for the needs of teachers, researchers, and students. It is a one-stop-shop for course design on the macro level, lesson planning on the micro level, and for scholarship vis-a-vis specific topics, countries, and disciplines. The MESPI project strives to reorient the way educators and students research, learn, and teach the Middle East.
In Cooperation with The Middle East Studies Program at George Mason University (GMU), The Center For Contemporary Arab Studies at Georgetown University, The Asfari Institute For Civil Society And Citizenship at the American University in Beirut, the Center for Global Islamic Studies at GMU, we are launching he Middle East Studies Pedagogy Initiative (MESPI) to provide critical, user-friendly, and informative pedagogical material and instruction to educators in the field and beyond. MESPI will build on at least four counts: a) create and grow a community/network of educators; b) make available to them and to researchers, journalists, and students a wide array of resources; c) provide in good time a robust syllabus-building tool; and, finally, and most critically, d) MESPI will build partnerships with research centers, organizations, and projects that will constitute its evolving decision-making body.
Every article and book I see on the site that mentions Israel is anti-Israel. It is associated with Jadaliyya and the Arab Studies Institute.
Wrapped argues that the plight of Israel’s Mizraḥim and the plight of the Palestinians are complementary. Both are subject to the state of Israel’s deployment of war as a unifying force to divert attention from domestic issues of racial and gender justice through the sanctity of the “chosen people” in their “chosen land.”
While Mizraḥi feminists stage protests against the neocon restructuring of Israel’s economy and society, this all but disappears when Israel undertakes a new cycle of violence against the Palestinians. They do not challenge their communities’ ultranationalism. As a result of the Jewish state’s unity against all goyim (non-Jews, Hebrew; enemies, colloquial Hebrew), the Mizrahim, Israel’s demographic Jewish majority—racialized and minoritized—increasingly vote for right-wing, authoritarian politicians.
This is antisemitism in an academic wrapping. And it is hardly the only example. Other articles include, for example, “a selection from the University of California Press on the theme of Occupation and Militarism in Palestine/Israel.”
Using academia to smear Israel is nothing new. But this is a project specifically meant to create fully anti-Israel curricula throughout universities, and possibly high schools, while positioning it in the larger context of Middle East studies.
It’s July 1, the day that Benjamin Netanyahu has been touting. The day that the Palestinian Arabs and their fans have declared a “Day of Rage.” The day that has been causing great angst in Western Europe. The day that countless articles and op-eds have been declaring the end of Israeli democracy. The day the UN said will witness a massive violation of international law.
The main reason seems to be that the Trump administration has not agreed to any change in the status quo, and possibly that it wanted Israel to make more concessions to Palestinians in concert with the move.
While I think Israel extending sovereignty on areas that it insists on keeping in any possible peace agreement is a good move that can contribute to peace, this entire affair was handled poorly and amateurly.
Here’s a scorecard:
Bibi is the biggest loser. His unfulfilled promise, especially one with a deadline, is a major blow to his credibility which has already been hit hard with his legal troubles and his insistence that he deserves tax breaks when the economy is in trouble.
Beyond that, Netanyahu didn’t plan for the day that sovereignty was to be extended. Israeli media was filled with stories about how no maps were prepared, no one who needed to know the details from the army to local mayors were kept in the loop. It was simply a fiasco. Major details like whether Palestinians in the newly sovereign territories would be offered citizenship were never clarified, allowing Israel’s haters to define the terms of the argument.
Bibi is normally a master strategist, but this was bungled from the start, and the lack of a contingency plan in case Trump didn’t approve is a huge rookie mistake.
Israel is a major loser. The plan generated lots of animosity towards Israel – and Israel doesn’t yet get any of the benefits. Furthermore, this fiasco has been a major speedbump in Israel’s improving relations with Gulf countries. It has damaged Israel’s relations with much of Europe. No one in the world has defended the plan. And Israelis themselves have not generally supported the plan; it was heavily criticized from the left and the right.
American Jewry and American Zionists have lost. This aborted plan has caused big splits in the community as organizations were forced to take positions they weren’t altogether comfortable with, with insufficient information as to the extent of the plan. Jewish unity towards Israel has already been battered by Obama and by Trump, but now it was done by the prime minister of Israel who never properly explained what extending sovereignty meant and the benefits it would have for everyone.
The Palestinian Authority has lost. Their attempts to inflame anger among their people has failed. No one cares. They cannot even claim victory, because Bibi might end up slowly extending sovereignty over some settlement blocs, and a single square millimeter would be considered a major loss to them.
Israel’s haters have won, but not because their tweets had any effect. They’ve won because Israel has lost credibility and its friendship with many countries has been hurt. They’ve won because they have had months of opportunities to slander Israel without Israel being able to answer because the plan was never solidified.
Possibly worst of all, this fiasco isn’t over. If Netanyahu decides to extend sovereignty over bits and pieces of Judea and Samaria, every single move will generate more anger, more negative media and more denunciations from world leaders who are otherwise sympathetic with Israel. Instead of weathering the world’s opprobrium all at once, it will be spread out over months or longer.
If Bibi abandons the plan altogether, it makes Israel look weak in a Middle East where only strength is respected.
It’s hard to think of a more prominent anti-Semite in American public life over the last 30 years than the Rev. Al Sharpton. Louis Farrakhan may give him a run for his money, but the leader of the so called Nation of Islam remains a pariah—Barack Obama was photographed with him once, in 2005, and never made that mistake again.
Sharpton is a different story. He has never apologized for leading a pogrom against the Jews of Brooklyn that marked the worst outburst of anti-Semitic violence in modern American history, but despite all that, or perhaps because of it, has laundered himself into an elder statesman and star television host whose endorsement ambitious Democratic politicians must now seek.
Look no further than MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough, who personally introduced a resolution condemning Sharpton’s "racist and anti-Semitic views" in his previous life as a Republican congressman. In his present life as a Trump-hating MSNBC host who has toyed with a presidential run, Scarborough celebrates Sharpton’s moral clarity about Facebook.
We never thought we’d see Sharpton embraced by Jews, but that’s what’s transpiring now as the Anti-Defamation League strays onto the Reverend’s turf—leading a boycott campaign against one of the most successful Jewish-owned businesses in the world. Its CEO, Jonathan Greenblatt, has tapped Sharpton as a partner in a political project to police objectionable speech that both are trying to cast as a modern civil rights issue.
Sharpton has come a long way. So has the ADL.
As Crown Heights burned, the organization had no trouble identifying Sharpton as an enemy of the Jewish people. "Anti-Semitism is all over the place in Crown Heights," the ADL’s then-director, Abraham Foxman, told the New York Times in August 1991. "It is ugly, it is crude, it is classical and it is deadly. And the fact that it is American and it is black should not make it invisible or tolerable."
A new Fox Broadcasting Company streaming channel canceled on Monday a scheduled live feed of an address by antisemitic Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan after facing a torrent of criticism.
Fox Soul — which is geared toward African Americans — advertised the July 4 speech under the title “The Criterion: The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan Speaks Live,” but soon after removed the ad from Twitter.
Following the widespread outcry, Fox Soul tweeted later on Monday that the Farrakhan speech would not be aired.
The Simon Wiesenthal Center had called for the broadcast to be scrapped, recalling, “Since the 1980s, Louis Farrakhan has denigrated the Jewish people, Judaism, and the Jewish State, members of the LGBT community, the United States of America, and entertainment leaders from Hollywood.”
It called Farrakhan “a demagogue and divider at a time when all Americans need to hear messages of unity and hope.”
“We urge Fox Television Network to cancel the speech by a person who has spent his adult life spitting on everything July 4th stands for,” they concluded.
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders joined four House Democrats on Tuesday in calling for the United States to cut or withhold aid from Israel if Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu carries out his plan to annex parts of the West Bank or enacts policies to facilitate an eventual annexation, according to a source familiar with the matter.
A new letter to US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo urges the reductions to the $3.8 billion in annual American assistance to Israel if Jerusalem moves to unilaterally extend its sovereignty to West Bank territory.
The letter was orchestrated by the progressive powerhouse Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and has thus far also been signed by Michigan Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib, Washington state Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal and Minnesota Congresseoman Betty McCollum.
Sanders’s signature adds new weight to the missive as Ocasio-Cortez continues to circulate it among liberal lawmakers on Capitol Hill, in an effort to gain more supporters.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, left, testifies before the House Oversight Committee on July 12, 2019 (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)
“Should the Israeli government move forward with the planned annexation with this administration’s acquiescence, we will work to ensure non-recognition as well as pursue conditions on the $3.8 billion in U.S. military funding to Israel, including human rights conditions and withholding funds for the off-shore procurement of Israeli weapons equal to or exceeding the amount the Israeli government spends annually to fund settlements, as well as the policies and practices that sustain and enable them,” a draft of the letter says, according to a copy obtained by Jewish Insider.
The current level of US military assistance to the Jewish state was solidified in a 2016 memorandum of understanding between the Obama administration and the Netanyahu government — roughly $38 billion over 10 years.
In Madrid, they helpfully point out that they aren’t just against “annexation” but Zionism and Israel altogether.
In Los Angeles, the Jewish community is nervous that the protest will spread into rioting through the Jewish community. Notice it says “Zionist consulate.”
In Chicago, one of the sponsors is the Palestinian American Council, whose webpages do not have that logo.
Looking at that logo closer, it shows Israel not existing and “Palestine” is the flagpole for an American flag. The implication is that the destruction of Israel is a patriotic act.
Because we know how pro-America Palestinians are.
I somehow don’t think that the Palestinian American Council was upset when Abbas didn’t accept a phone call from the US vice president – or when Palestinians burn American flags.
I wrote last night that Wednesday is supposed to be a “Day of Rage” for Palestinians as a response to Israel extending its laws over parts of Judea and Samaria.
Now the Islamic Movement in Jordan is calling for another “Day of Rage” on Friday for Muslims worldwide.
In Gaza yesterday, there was a demonstration against the so-called “annexation” sponsored by Fatah. The turnout was a bit underwhelming.
The Arab street – and even the Palestinian street - really doesn’t give a damn about the issue.
During the last half-century, several reputable scholars and defense professionals have devoted careful attention to the world view and aspirations of the Palestinian Arabs. Working independently, these researchers described the strategic goals of the Palestine Liberation Organization and exposed the widespread denial of their importance.
The PLO program has never been a secret. The destruction of the State of Israel and the pursuit of the "armed struggle" has been its main goal since its founding in 1964. Despite having adopted a facade which has lent them a veneer of respectability, terror and violence have constantly remained a part of their program. Proof of this may be found in the well-publicized program of the PA to subsidize terrorists who have committed violent crimes against civilians. No Jewish (and Israeli) civilians can be innocent and they are considered legitimate targets.
Beyond the failure of the Oslo process to bring peace, there is a broader cultural dimension: how the Israelis view themselves and their place in the world and how official Israel understands its relationship with the Palestinian Arabs.
One of the most surprising aspects of the sovereignty debate (or as some prefer, annexing parts of the West Bank) is the opposition shown by many settlers and Israel’s closest friends. While opposition was expected from the left and Israel’s opponents (no, they’re not the same), opposition wasn’t expected from right-wing settlers, centrist scholars, and Israel’s friends in Congress. Settlers fear a Palestinian state that the Trump plan promises, scholars fear the impact of annexation on the war for Israel’s legitimacy, and Israel’s friends in Congress fear, “Unilateral annexation would likely jeopardize Israel’s significant progress on normalization with Arab states at a time when closer cooperation can contribute to countering shared threats, insecurity in Jordan, and that unilateral annexation could create serious problems for Israel with its European friends and other partners around the world.”
When asked why they believe Israel should extend sovereignty, most proponents explain that to build in Judea and Samaria Israelis need permission of the land authority, an extra step of bureaucracy Israelis on the west side of the Green Line don’t suffer. Other proponents say that after 50 years without an Eastern border, it’s time to declare one, and that after years of the two-state solution going nowhere, Israeli and Palestinian leaders unable to even negotiate, it’s time to move in a different direction to end the conflict.
I’m not a representative of the “settler movement,” I’m just one man living in Mitzpe Yericho, with a slightly above-average familiarity with the issues of the conflict and an affinity for truth and justice. I maintain that Israel should extend sovereignty according to the terms of the Trump Plan. Israel should extend its laws to Judea and Samaria because doing so aligns with truth and justice. We’re often too scared to say it, but an honest look at history demonstrates that Judea and Samaria is the heartland of the historic homeland of the Jewish people. This isn’t “just” a religious belief. It is historic fact that Jews lived in these lands, only left because they were forcefully exiled, and yearned to return for 2,000 years.
There is a confusing duality to the Jewish people. We are ancient people who embrace modernity. Our embracing of modernity often confuses people into thinking we aren’t connected to our past. Israeli Zionists are the descendants of the ancient Jews who lived in these lands. We might wear suits and lab coats today, but we used to look just like the Bedouins who are my neighbors today. Progressives dedicated to everyone’s truth but that of the Jews, tend to restart the clock a few hundred years ago and declare that the “West Bank” is Palestinian land. Only moral gymnastics and historical revisionism can stand by that claim. Liberals who stand for human rights should be standing with the Jewish people’s just claim to these lands. Ease of building, setting forth a realistic future by determining final borders and instituting civil law for both Israelis and Palestinians are good reasons to extend sovereignty. But truth and justice of returning the land to its ancestral people is the ultimate reason that Israeli sovereignty should be extended to Judea and Samaria.
For at least the past five years, Palestinian media have been using this photo as a generic image to illustrate a story about someone being arrested by Palestinian police:
Meaning that placing a knee on a suspect’s neck is considered normal behavior for Palestinian police.
And the image is being used post-George Floyd, which means that Palestinians don’ treally think there is anything wrong with this.
In fact, using the exact logic that the Israel haters have been using, we can say that since US cops have met with their Palestinian counterparts, then they probably learned the knee-on-neck technique from Palestinian police!
Asher Fredman just published a book (free online) where he goes into great detail about the BDS movement’s methods and what has worked against them.
I found one chapter to be particularly important. It showed that whenever BDS targets give the Israel-haters the tiniest amount of attention, this emboldens the BDSers to increase pressure on that company.
Meeting with them will make them increase their pressure. Partial concessions will increase it more. Even when they cave to BDS demands completely, the BDSers don’t leave them alone – they keep demanding more and more in terms of “reparations” for previous damage.
If a company shows the BDS movement that it is vulnerable to pressure by giving in to some BDS demands or engaging with BDS activists, this will increase the chances that the BDS campaign against the company will intensify.
CEMEX, the Mexican building materials company, is a good example of this BDS tactic. In 2015, CEMEX gave in to one BDS demand by selling its holdings in an Israeli quarry located in the West Bank. It has since refused to give in to other BDS demands and continues to operate three concrete mixing plants in Israeli-controlled industrial zones in the West Bank (in which, it should be noted, the majority of workers are Palestinian). …
However, despite Cemex’s declaration that it does not intend to give in to further BDS demands, the BDS movement, seeing that the company once showed itself vulnerable, continues to prioritize it as a target.
This principle applies not only to companies that surrender to BDS demands but even to those that merely attempt to engage BDS activists in serious dialogue. While it is understandable why companies may believe that engagement is a good policy and that the activists might be open to hearing the company’s point of view, in practice, such a policy only serves to intensify BDS campaigns. BDS activists interpret such attempts as a sign of pressure and an invitation to push harder. Companies that consistently ignore BDS pressure are more likely to see the campaign against them decrease, as the BDS movement chooses to look for softer targets.
The case of HSBC is a good example of this principle. Following the launch of a BDS campaign against the bank, HSBC attempted to engage British BDS groups in dialogue. This willingness was interpreted by BDS groups as a sign that the company was under pressure and could be pressed into accepting their demands. As described by the organization, “War on Want,” a key member of the British BDS campaign:
In summer 2017, we launched our campaign to pressure HSBC to cut all ties with companies selling weapons and security services to Israel’s repressive regime. Activists held pickets at HSBC branches in over 20 locations in the UK, and over 10,000 people emailed HSBC demanding divestment.
HSBC responded by asking for a meeting. In September 2017, and again in March 2018, we met with bank executives to reiterate that HSBC must immediately divest from companies selling arms to Israel.
We took one clear message away from our meetings with the bank’s executives: HSBC is nervous about the public response to its business complicity. And to us, that means one thing: time to increase the pressure on HSBC. (emphasis added [in book])
Likewise, the G4S security company discovered that each time it attempted to engage BDS groups involved in the campaign against it that began in 2010, or to respond to BDS accusations, the campaign not only intensified but broadened the scope of its demands.
Similarly, if one company in a particular sector has given in or engaged with BDS, this increases the probability that other companies in the same sector will be targeted. The BDS movement reasons that if one company can be successfully pressured, other companies in the same industry may prove vulnerable as well.
This is demonstrated by the intensified focus on the tourism and travel companies, Airbnb, Booking.com, Expedia, and TripAdvisor. This focus is a result of Airbnb’s November 2018 decision to delist approximately 200 Jewish-owned properties in the West Bank (following a BDS campaign against the company). After extensive public and legal backlash, Airbnb reversed its decision in April 2019. However, although Airbnb reversed its decision, and although the company from the outset repeatedly denied that it supported BDS, and insisted that it remained committed to investment in Israel, major BDS groups “smelled blood.” The BDS movement, therefore, continues to focus on travel companies, with the hope that the initial success against Airbnb can be replicated.
If a company has shown that it can be pressured into giving in to BDS demands, then even after it has capitulated, and the BDS movement has declared victory, the BDS movement is still unwilling to end the campaign. As long as the BDS campaign has hope that a few more drops of “victory” can be squeezed out of the vulnerable company (and given that in most cases, extensive resources have already been invested in creating and disseminating the campaign), the campaign will continue.
For example, in October 2014, even as BDS celebrated as a “major success” SodaStream’s announcement that it would be closing down its production plant in the Mishor Adumim industrial area located in the West Bank, and moving its plant to Israel’s southern Negev region,88 the BNC’s spokesperson declared, “SodaStream will remain a focus of boycott campaigning.” While it is undeniable that the Negev is within the Green Line, the BDS used, as an excuse for its continued campaign, the land disputes between the state and the semi-nomadic Bedouin citizens of Israel living in the area. Given that SodaStream had shown itself vulnerable to BDS pressure,91 and given that extensive resources had already been invested in disseminating the anti-SodaStream campaign worldwide, the BNC had no interest in ending the campaign. This, despite the fact that the company moved entirely to within the lines of pre-1967 Israel.
In 2018, it was announced that SodaStream would be acquired by PepsiCo for 3.2 billion dollars. Following news of the sale, BDS leader Omar Barghouti affirmed that “SodaStream is still subject to boycott by the global, Palestinian-led BDS movement for Palestinian rights.”
Another tactic used by the BDS movement, which serves both as an excuse to continue BDS campaigns against vulnerable companies even after “victory,” and as a potential method for financial gain, is the demand for “reparations.” A company that fully complies with BDS demands implicitly recognizes the validity of the accusations made by the BDS movement against it. It will, therefore, likely become subject to BDS demands and legal actions seeking reparations.
For example, in September 2015, the BNC celebrated the French corporation Veolia’s full capitulation to the demands of the BDS movement. It declared “The sale of [Veolia’s] stake in the Jerusalem Light Rail project ends all of Veolia’s involvement in the Israeli market, including all projects that violate international law and the human rights of the Palestinian people.”93 BNC Coordinator Mahmoud Nawajaa stated that “Veolia's withdrawal from Israel sets an example to all companies that are complicit in Israel’s human rights violations.”
However, Nawajaa added: “We call for legal action, by specialized organizations, against Veolia to compel it to pay reparations to the Palestinian communities adversely affected by its infringements of international law.”
A June 2017 announcement by the BNC shows that this demand for reparations was not just a one-time statement made in the exuberance of a BDS victory, but an ongoing effort. The announcement, regarding a BDS campaign in the Netherlands against an Israeli transport company, noted:
Veolia and Connexxion [a Veolia-owned transport company] have ended their complicity with Israel’s violations of Palestinian human rights, but have yet to pay reparations to the Palestinian communities they harmed, and campaigners are still demanding that they do so.
What would happen if a company is so scared that they actually pay “reparations?” I imagine BDS would demand s public statement of contrition and apology plus a demand that the company funds further BDS projects and gives a percentage of its profits to Palestinian “civil society” forever.
Modern jizya tax.
The only policy that corporations can and must take when BDS targets them is to state clearly that they will not give in to blackmail – and then ignore the haters forever more afterwards.
This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For 20 years and 40,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.
A Safe Place?
-
[image: Dry Bones cartoon, Sinwar, Iran, Israel, Hostages, War, Hezbollah,
Lebanon, Qassem, Nasrallah,]
Maybe not so safe for him!
* * * *Please support Dr...
Fear and Loathing on the Left
-
Win or lose, fans of the Philly Eagles go out into the street and smash
things. Whoever wins on Election Day, leftists will smash things. The
election o...
The GPU festival – my weekend with the devil
-
The Global Peace and Unity – GPU festival The first GPU festival in eleven
years was just held at the Excel London exhibition and convention centre.
Orga...
Gaza: A Brief Modern History Outline
-
Pre-1917 - Gaza part of the Ottoman Empire
1917 - Gaza conquered by British Army and subsequently becomes part of
Mandate Palestine
1948 - Gaza conquere...
One Choice: Fight to Win
-
Yesterday Israel preempted a potentially disastrous attack by Hezbollah on
the center of the country. Thirty minutes before launch time, our aircraft
destr...
Yom Hashoah 5784 – 2024
-
Israel’s Yom Hashoah began at sundown this evening with the annual ceremony
at Yad Vashem with torches lit in memory of the 6 million Jewish victims of
the...
Closing Jews Down Under Website
-
With a heavyish heart I am closing down the website after ten years.
It is and it isn’t an easy decision after 10 years of constant work. The
past...
‘Test & Trace’ is a mirage
-
Lockdown II thoughts: Day 1 Opposition politicians have been banging on
about the need for a ‘working’ Test & Trace system even more loudly than
the govern...
Thursday, July 02, 2020
Elder of Ziyon
