Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Saturday, August 15, 2020

08/15 Links: I grew up with anti-Semitism in the UAE. Peace with Israel is a dream come true; Iran, Turkey, Ben Rhodes, Tlaib united in criticism of UAE-Israel deal; Don’t Let Iran Blow Up the U.N. Security Council

From Ian:

Mujahed Kobbe (Siraj Hashmi's co-host): I grew up with anti-Semitism in the UAE. Peace with Israel is a dream come true.

Never in a million years did I believe there would be a deal in my lifetime where an Arab Gulf state would recognize the Jewish state. Watching the news this week of Israel and the United Arab Emirates normalizing relations was something of a dream come true.

From the age of eight until adulthood, I called the UAE home. It was a place I enjoyed most of my firsts: my first day of school, the first time I ditched school, my first kiss, my first chicken shawarma, crashing my first car.

It’s also where I had my first experience with anti-Semitism. Of course, I didn’t know what that actually was at the time.

Calling Israel and its Jewish inhabitants the enemy of Islam and God was as common as breathing while I was growing up. Anti-Semitism was in my home. It was in the school hallways and yard. You heard it at the café while having a hookah, enjoying a chicken shawarma and playing a hand of tarneeb.

At Friday prayers, a religious cleric at any given mosque was sure to make a comment about how Allah will one day destroy Israel from the map and all the yahoud that live in it so that our brothers may finally be free.

Believing in conspiracies like the idea that Israel was the true mastermind behind 9/11 or that Israel is funding ISIS was prevalent, mainstream, part of the culture. It was a hate taught and passed down through generations by people who had never once interacted with a Jew.

It’s so weird looking back at it now, trying to understand how it is that I had this hate in my heart for an entire group of people I had never met.

I myself didn’t meet a Jewish person until I was about 25 years old and traveling through New York. He also happened to be an Israeli.

I’m not going to lie: I was nervous when he first told me where he was from. I didn’t know how to feel about, if I was supposed to walk away, or punch him in the face.

But something came over me, a curiosity, a deep desire to know more about this person I was taught to just hate. We talked about a wide range of topics in the short time we spent together, but the one that interested me the most was Israel.

You could tell he loved his country; there was a glow about him when talking about his favorite bakery that he would go to on the marina, or how he enjoys his chicken shawarma with pickles and garlic paste — just the way I would eat it as a kid in the UAE.

From my interview on @WIONews on why peace agreement between #Israel & #UAE is so historic!

I should add, as #India 🇮🇳 has important strategic relations with all 3 countries - 🇮🇱 🇦🇪 🇺🇸 - they can have crucial role to play in advancing this peace process!https://t.co/V8Vy5bg7wC
— Arsen Ostrovsky (@Ostrov_A) August 14, 2020

Vivian Bercovici: A Dream of Peace Made Real

To say that Israel is reeling today is a cosmic understatement.

All of Israel–left, right, center–was dealt a knockout blow by the indefatigable Netanyahu on Thursday when the Oval Office announced on Thursday the agreement between Israel and the UAE to immediately formalize “full normalization” of diplomatic, economic and all relations.

The revelation was so surreal, in fact, that in this hopelessly gossipy nation, where everything leaks, nothing did. It was the equivalent of an atomic bomb. In terms of sheer force, not devastation. A good atomic bomb.

For the Emiratis to engage openly, fully, and proudly has left this nation stunned. In the best way. It was totally unexpected.

Perhaps it was best expressed in a tweet by former MK Einat Wilf, who wrote: “Israeli Jews are keenly aware of their minority status in an Arab and Islamic region and so yearn for peace with the Arab and Islamic world. The #UAE showed today yet again that when the Arab world comes to us with offers of genuine peace, they always find in us willing partners.”

Mired in an evergreen domestic political morass, PM Netanyahu, “the magician,” has clearly worked for years to pull off the impossible, as he was sliced and diced six ways to Sunday by local scandal and subterfuge.

“Full normalization.”

Peace, in the vernacular. With one of the most important, progressive, influential Middle Eastern countries, the UAE.

Israeli media reports that this agreement has been brokered by Jared Kushner, Mossad Chief Yossi Cohen, and others. But foremost, Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed, ruler of the UAE, has boldly led the Middle East into what will not just re-align the region’s geopolitics, but quite likely those of the world. And, in a flash, the notoriously aggressive Israeli media was rocked back on its heels, collective mouths agape, at the unsurpassed brilliance of Bibi.

If Shakespeare were alive, he would have to reinvent his canon, which has become the literary foundation of Western story-telling. With Bibi, there simply is no Act V–no denouement. We are stuck in Act III, where the hero is unstoppable. Where his brilliance and unsurpassed triumphs continue, mere human frailties notwithstanding.

“On regional strategy, this shows the benefit of the U.S. standing by its historic allies in the Middle East. Pres Obama shunned Israel & the Gulf states and sought to normalize Iran. His nuclear deal, an economic boon to Tehran, was a means to that end.”https://t.co/IFnZRW4ajj
— Nikki Haley (@NikkiHaley) August 15, 2020

08/14 Links Pt2: Caroline Glick: Harris, Omar and the party's great march leftward; NY Democratic Socialists asks City Council candidates to pledge no Israel visits

From Ian:

Caroline Glick: Harris, Omar and the party's great march leftward

Under the leadership of Obama White House alumni Jonathan Greenblatt, in recent years the ADL has tried to reinvent itself as a progressive group that focuses mainly on criticizing the other side of the political divide.

The ADL's fervent efforts to ingratiate itself among progressives places in stark relief the "Open Letter to the Progressive Community" signed by more than a hundred groups calling for ostracizing it. It shows that today's Democrat party is unwilling to accept Jews or politicians who are both progressive and pro-Jewish.

This brings us to Omar's primary victory. It wasn't particularly surprising that Omar won the poll. Her national profile has made her a lightning rod in national politics. While as a bigot she is justifiably hated by many, leftist donors and activists adore her and back her as an anti-Semite.

While predictable, three aspects of her win are particularly significant. First, the main difference between the Omar and the progressive black opponent she defeated is that unlike Omar, Antone Melton-Meaux isn't an anti-Semite. Rather than drawing praise from progressives for his lack of bigotry, Melton-Meaux was decried by progressive activists who accused him of being controlled by Jews.

The second significant aspect of Omar's win is that despite her open anti-Semitism, her reelection bid – and that of her anti-Semitic comrade Rashida Tlaib – was endorsed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi even donated $14,000 to Omar's campaign from her political PAC. Pelosi was long viewed as a friend to both American Jews and to Israel. The fact that she monetarily supported an out and out anti-Semite speaks volumes about the direction of the party.

The final significant aspect of Omar's win is that it was a testament to the rapidly growing power of the radical left in the Democrat party. Two years ago, four female radicals with harshly anti-Israel positions were elected as first-time lawmakers. The joined together, called themselves "The Squad" and proceeded to drain all the air out of the policy discourse in their party.

As the Squad members rose in power and prestige, moderate Democrats insisted their voice was out of synch with their actual power. To be sure, the moderates argued, the likes of Omar and Alexandria Ocasio Cortez have the loudest microphones, but they represent but a fraction of the party's Congressional delegation.

So far, Tlaib and Omar handily won their primaries and three new candidates with their same brand of radical, anti-Israel positions just won their primaries replacing moderate lawmakers who either retired or were defeated. These victories point to two things. First, the squad has already nearly doubled its numbers in one Congressional term, and two, they have become, without a doubt, the rising force – and with Pelosi's backing, the dominant force in the Democrat party.

In light of all of this, it is self-evident Omar's primary victory was far more significant than Biden's selection of Harris as his running mate. Biden and Harris, weather vanes both, will not lead their party. They will follow their party's grassroots and donors as they lead the Democrats every further along on their great march into the anti-Semitic leftist abyss.

NY Democratic Socialists asks City Council candidates to pledge no Israel visits

Lots of candidates for New York City Council are expected to seek an endorsement from the local Democratic Socialists of America chapter, a rising force in city politics, in next year’s elections.

To apply for the endorsement, the candidates will have to decide if they will pledge not to travel to Israel if elected.

According to a screenshot of a candidate questionnaire from the DSA posted to Twitter by local reporter Zack Fink, candidates are being asked to “pledge not to travel to Israel if elected to City Council in solidarity with Palestinians living under occupation.” (The party did not immediately confirm that it had distributed the survey.)

The group also asks candidates if they support the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, which is part of the New York City DSA chapter’s platform.

Some candidates declared their answers already on Twitter. “Easy: 1. No. 2. No,” Eric Dinowitz, a teacher (and son of a state Assemblyman) who is running for City Council in the Bronx, posted late Thursday.

The questionnaire comes after pro-BDS activists were vindicated this month when Reps. Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar, who have voiced support for the BDS movement, both won their Democratic primaries. Both represent overwhelmingly Democratic districts where they are likely to be reelected to Congress. A third congressional candidate who has indicated support for the BDS movement, Cori Bush in Missouri, also defeated a longtime incumbent in her primary.

With 35 out of 51 city council seats up for election this year due to term limits as well as open elections for citywide offices like mayor and comptroller, citywide elections in New York City next year present a rare opportunity to reshape most of New York City’s government.

The DSA is considered to be a rising force in New York City after helping Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez defeat incumbent Joe Crowley in 2018. In this year’s Democratic primary, DSA member Jamaal Bowman defeated Eliot Engel, a longtime incumbent and champion of Israel. Far from pledging to boycott Israel, Bowman has indicated his backing, last week telling City & State, “I am in full support of Israel.”

A few years ago, I had an amazing learning experience when I visited Israel and I encourage my colleagues to be open-minded and travel there to form their own opinions. I refuse to be a part of this litmus test/cancel culture movement. Let’s do more engaging not less. https://t.co/djZDrhTWg5
— Senator Brian Benjamin (@NYSenBenjamin) August 14, 2020

Jonathan S. Tobin: Can a Jewish leader coexist with an anti-Semitic extremist?

As it turns out, it isn't Rodney Muhammad who is on the spot in the controversy about the NAACP and anti-Semitism. The people who should really be worried about the controversy engendered by Muhammad are the Jewish members of the national board of the NAACP, like Rabbi Jonah Pesner, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, who are being discredited by the organization's failure to draw a line in the sand about Jew-hatred.

Muhammad is the Philadelphia chapter president of the venerable civil-rights group who sparked controversy last month with a blatantly anti-Semitic Facebook post. The post combined pictures of African-American celebrities who had recently made anti-Semitic statements, and included the image of a Nazi-style caricature of a hook-nosed Jew above a fake quote from Voltaire that said: "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize." The obvious point was the false claim that powerful and sinister Jewish forces are working to suppress criticism of their fiendish hold on society by courageous but oppressed black people.

While Muhammad was bitterly criticized by various Jewish groups, as well as local politicians and public figures, he doesn't seem so concerned about his future as a public figure, even after such a gross display of prejudice. The national leadership of the NAACP was slow to issue a statement about the incident and when it did, its condemnation stopped well short of demanding Muhammad's resignation or his firing by the Philadelphia chapter.

As the African-American newspaper The Philadelphia Tribune reported, local black leaders such as Bishop J. Louis Felton, the first vice president of the Philadelphia chapter, said they had not received any instructions or guidance from the group's national office. Instead, the Tribune reported that NAACP president and CEO Derrick Johnson would be meeting with Muhammad, as well as local community and faith leaders, to "open a dialogue and continue the educational conversations." But the time for dialogue about this scandal is over. That statement could be reasonably interpreted as an indication that the national leadership has no interest in breaking with Muhammad, despite the fact that a state board could vote to The reluctance of the NAACP to take swift and decisive action is disappointing. Jews were active in the organization's founding. And there is a direct precedent in which the NAACP was faced with a similar situation in the not-too-distant past.

In August of 2000, Lee Alcorn, president of the group's Dallas chapter, sparked controversy by denouncing the selection of Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) as the Democratic candidate for vice president. Alcorn said he opposed Vice President Al Gore's running mate because "if we get a Jew person, then what I'm wondering is, I mean, what is this movement for, you know? … So I think we need to be very suspicious of any kind of partnerships between the Jews at that kind of level because we know that their interest primarily has to do with money and these kind of things."

NAACP president Kweisi Mfume responded immediately. He not only condemned Alcorn's remarks as "repulsive, anti-Semitic, anti-NAACP and anti-American," he also immediately suspended him from the organization.

The International Union of Muslim Scholars said that any agreement the UAE makes with Israel is “high treason.”

The group, which is associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, has on its website a truly bizarre chronology of events that supposedly led to the agreement, and the Elders of Zion are the main people behind it. It is an allegory, but only barely.

Historians and news analysts agree that the beginning [of the events] was in 2011, the year of the Arab Spring, when the advisors of the "Elders of the Children of Israel" volunteered to convince the UAE that this Arab Spring is a real danger to them, and that any success for it is a nail in their coffins, and that this requires swift actions and a comprehensive confrontation, in order to eliminate this danger in its presence and uproot its roots and extensions.

The UAE said: We are a small country, and simple people, we sell our oil and protect our home. And our army is barely enough for us even inside the UAE, so how can we face this Arab Spring, these revolutionary peoples, and these deeply rooted movements?

The Elders of Zion said: You can trust us and rely on us, because we have enough expertise and capabilities, networks and plans, ideas and supporters. We only need funding, the battle requires huge and long-term financing.

The UAE said: This is entirely on us, so what is this money and wealth suitable for if we do not use it to protect ourselves and secure our judgment?

The Elders of Zion said: So we agree; Funding is upon you and the rest is upon us .. Thanks to Gulf money and Jewish genius, states, armies, parties, the press will be with us and at our disposal ... and everything we need.

The UAE said: Yes, this is excellent, but we have a special problem that preoccupies us. We want your help in solving or overcoming it, so that we can go comfortably facing our common enemy.

The Elders of Zion said:….You will become Little Israel, and we will be Greater Israel ...We will truly adopt you, and you will be safe under our care and protection.

The UAE said: This is great, but adoption in Islam is not permissible, so how do we tell people?

The people of Zion said: We will not talk about our adoption of you. Rather, we will say: normalization with you ..

These people are crazy.

08/14 Links Pt1: Michael Oren: Stunning Israel-UAE deal upends the ‘rules’ about peace-making in Middle East; Norm Coleman: They told us the sky would fall if Trump stood by Israel. They were wrong.

From Ian:

Eli Lake: Why the UAE Chose to Normalize Relations With Israel

For the Gulf States in particular, normalization of ties with Israel has historically been tied to the full withdrawal of forces to the pre-1967 lines and recognition of a Palestinian State. These principles were affirmed almost two decades ago through something known as the Arab Peace Initiative. The UAE had previously endorsed that initiative. Now the UAE and Israel have agreed to sign agreements to establish reciprocal embassies in their countries without any agreement for Israel to remove its forces from the West Bank.

The UAE is not the first Arab country to formally recognize Israel. Egypt signed the Camp David Accords in 1979 in return for the Sinai, while Jordan signed its agreement in 1994 at the height of the Oslo Peace Process. It’s notable that the UAE has signed its agreement with Israel when there are no peace negotiations whatsoever.

And that is the most striking element of the normalization agreement. It reflects two realities of today’s Middle East: First, Israel and most Gulf states have been quietly cooperating for the past 20 years. The Israelis and the Emiratis in particular have shared intelligence and private diplomatic initiatives to roll back Iranian influence in the region.

The other important reality is that no one in the Middle East can say with a straight face that Israel is the source of the region’s instability. Experience is a cruel teacher. Israel had nothing to do with the collapse of the U.N.-recognized government in Yemen — the Iranian-supported Houthis did. Israel had nothing to do with the collapse of Syria — that was the fault of the country’s dictator, Bashar al-Assad. And Israel had nothing to do with the rise of Islamic State in Syria and Iraq. In all of these cases, the regimes and groups most vocally opposed to Israel also served as the region’s chief arsonists.

This is something Arab leaders in the region understand better than many advocates for Palestinian sovereignty in the West. As Osama bin Laden once observed, “When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will like the strong horse.” In assessing the region, the UAE’s leaders have seen one state thrive as its neighbors burned. They have chosen the strong horse.

Noah Rothman: There Is No Going Back

Indeed, even before the rise of The Squad and their allies, a contingent of progressive congressional Democrats sought to bar the disbursement of U.S. military aid to Israel under the guise that its treatment of Palestinians was “inconsistent with the values of the United States.” These lawmakers aren’t going out on a limb—they are responding to the demands of the Democratic base. In 2019, A Gallup survey found that, while most Americans maintained favorable views toward Israel, “liberal Democrats” had become more sympathetic toward Palestinians overall.

Joe Biden does not appear eager to cater to this wing of their party. He has said that he will preserve the U.S. embassy’s new home in Jerusalem. He would return to the Iran nuclear accords only if and when Iran is no longer in violation of its terms—an unlikely prospect. He has even praised, albeit obliquely, the work the Trump administration did to yield today’s achievement. “The UAE’s offer to publicly recognize the State of Israel is a welcome, brave, and badly-needed act of statesmanship,” Biden said in a statement. “A Biden-Harris Administration will seek to build on this progress and will challenge all the nations of the region to keep pace.”

Perhaps Joe Biden is friendlier to Israel than his party’s progressives, but these statements are not the product of an abiding affection for Israel. They are acknowledgments of the world as it is. There is no going back to the status quo circa 2015. The United States cannot abandon its strategic commitments to the region and its partners in pursuit of the fanciful idea that Iran will suddenly become a responsible actor, or that the Sunni states it is currently at war with by proxy will acquiesce to their own defeat. If he becomes America’s 46th president, Biden will have to govern—and preserving America’s interests in the Middle East involves maintaining its alliances and partnerships.

Biden’s left flank remains committed to the hidebound notion that Israel is the true obstacle to peace in the region, but the region itself has moved on. What seems to look like progress to progressives would, in fact, be regression.

Commentary Magazine Podcast: Living Through History

Hosted by Abe Greenwald, Christine Rosen, John Podhoretz, Noah Rothman

The historic announcement that Israel and the United Arab Emirates will pursue a peace accord reflects changing dynamics in the Middle East that the European and American left simply refuse to acknowledge. But there will be no turning the clock back.

Michael Oren: Stunning Israel-UAE deal upends the ‘rules’ about peace-making in Middle East

The impending peace agreement between Israel and the United Arab Emirates is more than just a stunning diplomatic breakthrough. It represents a fundamental shift in the paradigm of peace-making.

For more than 50 years, that paradigm has been based on seemingly unassailable assumptions. The first of these was that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was the core dispute in the Middle East. Resolve it, and peace would reign throughout the region. The premise was largely dispelled by the Arab Spring of 2011 and the subsequent civil wars in Syria, Libya, Iraq, and Yemen. Still, a large body of decision-makers, especially from Europe and the United States, continued to regard a solution to Israel-Palestine as the panacea for many, if not most, of the Middle East’s ills. Then-secretary of state John Kerry’s intense shuttle diplomacy, which paralleled the massacre of half a million Syrians in 2012-14, proceeded precisely on this assumption.

The next assumption was that core of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was settlement-building in Judea/Samaria, East Jerusalem, and Gaza. Freeze it and the dispute would be easily mediated. This, theory, too, collapsed in the face of facts. Israel withdrew from Gaza, uprooting 21 settlements, in 2005, and then froze settlements for much of 2009-10. The conflict nevertheless continued and even worsened, but that did not prevent foreign policymakers from persisting in the belief that peace is incompatible with settlements.

And, in addition to ceasing construction in the territories, Israel was expected to give virtually all of them up. This was the third assumption — that peace with the Arab world could only be purchased with Israeli concessions of land. This belief is as old as Israel itself. The first Anglo-American peace plans — Alpha and Gamma — were predicated on Israeli concessions in the Negev and elsewhere. After 1967, the principle applied to areas captured by Israel in the Six Day War and, after the return of Sinai to Egypt in 1982, to Judea, Samaria, and Gaza. The same secretary of state Kerry repeatedly warned Israel that failure to forfeit those areas would result in its total international isolation.

Yet another assumption held that “everyone knows what the final agreement looks like.” With minor modifications and territorial swaps, this meant that a Palestinian state would be created along the pre-1967 lines with a capital in East Jerusalem. The Palestinians would give up the so-called right of return for Palestinian refugees, agree to end the conflict with Israel and to cease all further claims, and to accept the formula of “two states for two peoples.” Israel, in turn, would remove dozens of settlements, redivide its capital, and outsource West Bank security either to the Palestinians or some international source. Of all the assumptions, this was the most divorced from reality. Not a single aspect of it was achievable. In fact, no one knew what final agreement looked like.

LIVE: Netanyahu Addresses Historic Israel-UAE 'Abraham Accord' Peace Deal

Some hysterical reactions to the Israel/UAE agreement

From Wafa:

The republics of Iran and Turkey vehemently condemned today the UAE-Israeli deal on a full normalization of the relations between the two countries.

"The UAE, which is pursuing secret ambitions over a US plan that is stillborn, null and void, ignores the willpower of Palestine," said the Turkish Foreign Ministry in a statement.

The statement added, "The UAE administration has no authority to negotiate with Israel on behalf of Palestine without consent from its people and administration regarding vital matters."

"Neither history nor the collective conscience of the region will ever forget and forgive the hypocritical behaviour of the UAE, which is trying to depict the deal as a sacrifice for Palestine, when in reality it is a betrayal to the Palestinian cause for its own narrow interests."

Meanwhile, Iran called the deal a "stab in the back" of all Muslims, according to a Foreign Ministry statement.

"The UAE government and other accompanying governments must accept responsibility for all the consequences of this action," Iranian Foreign Ministry said, describing the move as an act of "strategic stupidity from Abu Dhabi and Tel Aviv that will undoubtedly strengthen the resistance axis in the region."

"The oppressed people of Palestine and all the free nations of the world will never forgive the normalizing of relations with the criminal Israeli occupation regime and the complicity in its crimes."

The Iranian Foreign Ministry described the deal as a "dagger that was unjustly struck by the UAE in the backs of the Palestinian people and all Muslims."

And:

In an official statement broadcast this night on Palestine TV by Nabil Abu Rudeinah, spokesman for President Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian leadership considered this step as a "blow to the Arab Peace Initiative and the decisions of the Arab and Islamic summits, as well as an aggression against the Palestinian people."

"The Palestinian leadership rejects what the United Arab Emirates has done and considers it a betrayal of Jerusalem, the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Palestinian cause. This deal is a de facto recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel," said the leadership, as it demanded the UAE to immediately withdraw from this "disgraceful" declaration.

The leadership also rejected any correlation between Israel's freezing of its illegal annexation plan and any normalization of relations with the UAE or any nations, warning the rest of the brotherly Arab countries against "bowing" to American pressure, against following in the footsteps of the UAE, and against free normalization with the Israeli occupation at the expense of Palestinian rights.

"Neither the Emirates nor any other party has the right to speak on behalf of the Palestinian people. The Palestinian leadership shall allow nobody to interfere in the Palestinian affairs or decide on their behalf regarding their legitimate rights in their homeland," said the leadership.

The Palestinian leadership also affirmed that the Palestine Liberation Organization shall remain the sole and legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, and that the Palestinian people are united behind their legitimate leadership, headed by President Mahmoud Abbas in the face of this brutal tripartite declaration.

In the Arab world, there is a direct correlation between the level of anger expressed and impotence.

Remember the Arab boycott of Israel? It is still the official policy of the Arab League

This week was the 94th conference for the liaison officers of the regional offices of the Arab boycott of Israel that started before Israel was reborn.

The Arab League boycott of Israel has been in place since 1945, when the brand new organization said, “Products of Palestinian Jews are to be considered undesirable in Arab countries. They should be prohibited and refused as long as their production in Palestine might lead to the realization of Zionist political aims.”

Even though most Arab countries have stopped enforcing the boycott – the only exceptions now being Syria and Lebanon – the Central Boycott Office remains.

On Wednesday, that office held a videoconference with members of the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, which includes Iran.

The conference also expressed its appreciation for the progress and impact of the BDS movement “in confronting the occupation, settler colonialism and Israeli apartheid, in order to achieve freedom and justice in Palestine and enable the Palestinian people to exercise their right to self-determination and establish their independent state with Jerusalem as its capital.”

Meanwhile, Israel trades directly with the Arab world, officially and unofficially.

The Arab League is a living example of the Arab honor/shame mentality. It cannot officially accept that the world has changed since the days of the Arab oil embargo. Dismantling the Boycott Office would be an admission of “defeat.” And no one wants to show any cracks in Arab unity which would undermine the entire purpose of the Arab League. Since Syria prioritizes the BDS agenda, and no one opposes a paper committee that does nothing in reality, they continue to meet, twice a year, unwilling to say out loud that they are wasting their time.

Former Palestinian negotiator: UAE deal will HELP Palestinians

Ghaith al-Omari of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy has had a number of positions in the Palestinian Authority, including Director of the International Relations Department in the Office of the Palestinian President and an advisor to Mahmoud Abbas. He was also an advisor to the PLO negotiating team from 1999-2001.

His analysis of what the Israel/UAE deal means for Palestinians is therefore most interesting.

Importantly, the UAE’s recognition of Israel also tests whether the Palestinian issue still resonates with the Arab street, especially the younger generation. While the UAE is not a democracy by any stretch of the imagination, its leaders, as is true throughout the Arab world, are sensitive to public opinion. Though this move will not be as popular with Emiratis as with Israelis, there are indications that Palestinian issue is no longer a high priority for the UAE public.

The historic willingness of Arab states to put the plight of the Palestinians in the center of their foreign policy has magnified the clout of the Palestinians and their struggle. But if the UAE can pull off this diplomatic 180, it will suggest that the Palestinian issue is losing its traditional resonance and is now incapable of mobilizing the masses. This could further weaken the Palestinians’ diplomatic hand.

The most immediate plus is the removal of annexation from the agenda.

But beyond this near-term advantage for the Palestinians, history has shown that Arab countries that have relations with Israel — namely, Egypt and Jordan — are more effective in advancing Palestinian interests. Partly, that’s because they hold direct conversations with Israel, which doesn’t want to lose its ties to these two neighbors. But that’s also because in Washington and in the wider international community, their formal relations with Israel lend them more credibility than countries that do not have that status and are seen as automatically criticizing the Jewish state. The UAE will be a valuable and effective addition to this grouping, particularly as it extends the Israeli-Arab dialogue to the strategically important Gulf.

The Arab-Israeli peace process has been mired for many years. This vacuum has led to the hardening of positions among Palestinians and Israelis, and many international and regional actors have given up on the prospect of any progress between the two sides. Indeed, the two-state solution — the idea that the conflict can be resolved through dividing the Holy Land between Israel and a Palestinian state — has been fast losing support. Annexation would have put an end to any prospects for progress, as it would have made a future Palestine unviable. This new development can create a window to begin shifting these dynamics.

I’m not so optimistic on Israel and the Palestinians reaching any sort of agreement, because the Palestinian position has been nothing but rejectionism and waiting for the international community to pressure Israel for it without compromising.

The dynamic is now different. If the PLO can no longer rely on the Arab world to reflexively support it, it has to recalibrate its strategy. At the moment it has no leader with the foresight or the courage to do that. However, a prerequisite for any sort of peace is Israeli security – and Israel’s psychological security is as important as its physical security.

If Israel feels like it is a part of the Middle East, and that it is a true ally with the Arab world, and if it knows that its Arab friends want peace more than they want to see Israel disappear, it will be more willing to take chances for peace.

If the Palestinians realize that their strategy of relying on a solid wall of Arab support has failed, they will face a stark choice of becoming a vassal of Iran and becoming a mini-Syria or Lebanon, or choosing to do what is best for their own people.

So far in their brief history, Palestinian leaders have consistently made the worst choices. I see no reason to think that is going to change. But this diplomatic lightning strike gives them the chance, at least, to wake up.

Scorecard–who supports, opposes peace between Israel and Arabs?

Support peace	Oppose peace	On the fence
UAE/Israel/USA	PLO	Japan
Albania	Hezbollah	Jordan
Australia	Houthis	Luxembourg 1 2
Austria	Iran	Pakistan
Azerbaijan	Libya	Qatar
Bahrain	Turkey	South Africa
Brazil	Yemen
Canada
China
Croatia
Cyprus		Human Rights Watch
Czech Republic	IfNotNow	Amnesty International
Egypt	Jewish Voice for Peace
Ethiopia	Rashida Tlaib
France	CODEPINK
Germany
Greece
India
Kosovo
Mauritania
Moldova
Netherlands
New Zealand
North Macedonia
Norway ... (barely)
Oman
Poland
Romania
Slovenia
South Korea
UK

UN
EU
AIPAC
J-Street, barely
Peace Now

Notice how the socialist Left has no problem aligning with the worst terrorists and terror supporters on the planet.

As of this writing on Thursday night I see no comment from Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Morocco, Tunisia, the Arab League, Indonesia, Malaysia and many other counties.

If you see any other reactions please link to them in the comments and I will update this list.

(h/t Zvi)

08/13 Links Pt2: Ancient Muslim Texts Confirm the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem; Al-Jazeera Unmasked: Political Islam As A Media Arm Of The Qatari State; An Antisemitic ‘Peace’ Organization Strikes Again

From Ian:

JCPA: Ancient Muslim Texts Confirm the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem

The Palestinian Lie about Jerusalem Has Legs
“A lie,” according to the well-known saying, “has no legs,” but that does not mean lies do not need them.

The “Al-Aqsa is in danger” libel rests on a huge false leg that, in the end, will collapse. The lie would not have survived so long without it. Today, the Palestinians and many Muslims charge that Israel “seeks to destroy al-Aqsa” and build the Temple in its stead on a site where no Temple ever stood; that the Jewish Temple on the Temple Mount is al-miza’um, that is, “supposed,” “fraudulent,” “invented,” or “imaginary;” that the Jews have no connection to the Temple Mount or, for that matter, to the Western Wall.

This is a libel on top of a libel, a double lie. The many Muslims who are convinced that al-Aqsa is in danger are now also convinced that “their” al-Aqsa stands on a place where “our” Temple never stood – the latter being nothing but a fabrication.

Some of the legitimacy that terrorism draws from the libel rests on that added lie. It is more legitimate to libel and murder Jews, so as “to protect the captive al-Aqsa and free it from the Jews who are plotting to destroy it,” if Israel and the Jews who “conspire to attack the site,” have only a false and concocted connection to it. Thus, the lie that undergirds the libel also bolsters the legitimacy to murder in its name. From the standpoint of the “Al-Aqsa is in danger” terrorists and their supporters, they do not murder only those who seek to wrest the Mount from their hands. As they see it, they are also murdering the falsifiers of history, who have no link to the site at all. They also want the Mount to be “liberated” psychologically so that their historical and religious narrative will prevail. This chapter (the appendix of the book) aims to refute this lie as well and to prove that it is nothing but a broken prop.

To grasp the magnitude of the lie, one must go far back on the path the Muslims themselves trod over the past 1,350 years, the path from which they have strayed only in recent times. Despite the misrepresentations and the sweeping denial that many Muslims now adopt regarding the Jewish connection to the Temple Mount and to the Temple that stood there, they themselves were the ones who, up until the Six-Day War, identified the Mount – unequivocally – as the site of Solomon’s Temple and as the place where David said his Psalms. Furthermore, Solomon and David, as important prophets in Islam, are seen as the ones who laid the foundations on the Temple Mount for the building of the mosques there. Nevertheless, today, Muslim clerics and leaders remove the Jewish Temple from the Mount and “transfer” it to places like Mount Zion, Nablus, and even Yemen.

Moreover, many of the names and terms the Muslims have used over the years for the Temple Mount, particularly “Beit al-Maqdis,” which is a translation of the Hebrew name Beit haMikdash, derive from the Jewish designation for the site, where the two Muslim shrines were built around 1,350 years ago. Today, Muslims commonly use the name Beit al-Maqdis for Jerusalem, but in the ancient past, they used the name for the Temple Mount itself. The Jewish people and the State of Israel do not, of course, need the Muslim sources – which, for more than 1,350 years, have identified the Temple Mount as the site of the Temple – to prove their connection to the place. Given, however, the dispute on this issue and the resolutions hostile to Israel in the international arena, which espouse the new Muslim narrative, it is worth presenting the primary Muslim documentation and sources for the Jewish connection to Jerusalem, the Temple Mount, and the Temple. Today, many Muslims erase this reliable documentation from memory. From such forgetfulness, the path is short to denial, and this gives rise to a lie. On this lie now rests the libel from which the “Al-Aqsa is in danger” terror derives its inspiration and legitimacy to murder Jews.

MEMRI: Al-Jazeera Unmasked: Political Islam As A Media Arm Of The Qatari State

Al-Jazeera Arabic channel's promotion of a very tangible and identifiable editorial line is patently obvious to anyone who has watched it over time. Being pro-Islamist (particularly in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood) and anti-West have been benchmarks of its programming and its news coverage from the beginning. That is not to say that these are the only causes the network has trumpeted through the years, but these have been the building blocks for everything else. Both Islamism and anti-West sentiment featured on the channel are often rife with antisemitism. Many strands of this Islamism embrace openly hostile attitudes regarding "the Other," a category that can include all sorts of people, from non-Muslims, to Middle East secularists to gays.

Al-Jazeera's basic affinity for Islamist groups spills over repeatedly over time into giving other groups along the Islamist spectrum, up to and including Al-Qaeda and ISIS – a sympathetic hearing beyond what its regional rivals at Al-Arabiyya and Sky News Arabia would ever do.

While Qatar has at times gone on the record to try to distance itself a bit from the network it created, over secondary issues such as the hiring of Qatari citizens,[58] it has demonstrated its constant support by spending hundreds of millions of dollars over more than two decades faithfully bankrolling a media outlet that has been remarkably consistent in its editorial line. This is eminently logical, given the channel's dogged support in hammering daily Qatari foreign policy points, from North Africa to Pakistan.

The fact that Al-Jazeera became, not surprisingly, one of the points of contention in the ongoing struggle between Qatar and its rivals in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, that exploded in 2017, means that the network is here to stay. Al-Jazeera will remain what it has always been, even though it has lost some of its luster over the past three years. The network that has been so influential for so long has become a bit predictable, not just on Islamism but because of the relentless focus on the ongoing blood feud with Riyadh, Abu Dhabi, and Cairo.

Without radically transforming Al-Jazeera or its editorial line, Qatar has tried to hedge its bets by funding and creating Al-Araby Television out of London since 2015.[59] Al-Araby seeks to propagate a more secular, pan-Arab voice than Al-Jazeera, still nationalist and broadly aligned with overall Qatari foreign policy goals but without the well-worn Islamist baggage. The idea is akin to the creation of leftist/secular Palestinian liberation groups in addition to Islamist ones. If Al-Jazeera is in a way a vision of Hamas on TV, then Al-Araby is Qatar's version of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Different approach, same ultimate goal.

But historically, on issues that Qatar seems to care the most about – political Islam across the world, support for Hamas, for Erdogan's Turkey, and most importantly, for not criticizing Qatar, its rulers, and its policies – there is no daylight between Al-Jazeera and the government in Doha. That is the surest way of gauging the steadfast and enduring official connection between the goals of the network and the goals of the state of Qatar. The convergence of a documented state funding stream and a broad policy direction between the state and the broadcaster is indisputable.

Tel Aviv Municipality lit up with UAE, Israeli flags following deal

Following the announcement of a peace deal between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, the Tel Aviv Municipality was lit on Thursday evening with the colors of the UAE and Israeli flags.

Earlier, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's son, Yair Netanyahu, published a message on Twitter, referring to Huldai's decision to light up the municipality with the Lebanese flag following the devastating explosion that shook Lebanon a few days ago.

"If Ron Huldai doesn't light up the municipality building with the UAE flag tonight or tomorrow night, then you can understand just how much the Left cares about peace," Yair wrote.

Huldai, in turn, did decide to light up the building on Thursday evening with the UAE flag.

"I congratulate the prime minister for the double accomplishment of reaching peace with the United Arab Emirates and canceling the plan of annexation. Both actions are important for the security of the State of Israel," Tel Aviv Mayor Ron Huldai said in a statement.

Judenrat Candidate Insists He Most Qualified To Provide Futile Cushion Against Nazi Brutality (PreOccupied Territory)

Our weekly column from the humor site PreOccupied Territory.

Check out their Facebook page.

Bialystock Ghetto, August 13 - Authorities mandated this week that the Jews of this city elect delegates to a council that will represent the community in its dealings with the German occupation administration, sparking a campaign by several dozen prominent Jewish figures to serve on the council, with one ambitious man boasting that he possesses unparalleled abilities in pointless efforts to delay, soften, or otherwise thwart in some measure the inevitable genocide on the horizon.
Mojsze Ufnik, 30, sought today to launch his candidacy for the Judenrat, the Nazi-approved local Jewish leadership council, the body that in the ensuing months and years will play a key role in the rigged game of making vain attempt after vain attempt to shield at least some of the Jews under its aegis from falling victim to Nazi policies of slave labor, summary execution, mass rape, deportation, and other depravities. Ufnik, scion of a prosperous textile manufacturing family, aims to wield his considerable influence in the community to cushion them from their inescapable doom.
"I'm excited for this opportunity for public service," he pronounced to an unenthusiastic crowd of Six Warszawska Street, four of whom bear some family relation to him. "We all hold my fellow candidates in high esteem, and I share our collective confidence in their willingness to do their best, but my best will be the best best. I guarantee that. No one will achieve better results than I in failing to prevent the wholesale isolation, dehumanization, exploitation, oppression, degradation, and eventual massacre of our community in the coming months and years."
"If the Judenrat will toil in vain," he chanted, "it might as well be led by someone vain!"
Nazi intentions called for the existing Jewish community leaders to gain positions on the Judenrat, to lend the council authority among Jews in might not otherwise enjoy, but here, as in many other locales under SS control, the rabbis and other leaders have for the most part refused to grant the Judenrat the legitimacy that such participation would command; they have recognized that the council's role and capacity, as conceived and constructed by the Nazis, is to smooth, not disrupt or delay, the enslavement and extermination of the Jews under Third Reich rule. Others, such as Mr. Ufnik, see opportunity for social or political advancement, however short-lived it might prove.
"Might as well be on the right side of the nepotism, cronyism, favoritism, and corruption that always goes along with scarcity," he explained.

Historic peace treaty proves what hypocrites the socialist Leftists are

It’s unanimous: the socialist Left hates peace.

They spent months talking about how awful “annexation” would be but they are not celebrating it getting off the table – because the price to be paid is a peace agreement between Israel and a major Arab country.

They talk about how important negotiations and diplomacy are for Iran but they are dead-set agaist negotiations and diplomacy between Israel and the UAE.

They say they are anti-war, but an agreement that makes another Arab-Israeli war virtually unthinkable gets nothing but condemnation.

They say that this agreement will hurt Palestinians, but they cannot quite say exactly why.

The true agenda of the far Left is revealed: anything that is good for Israel must be opposed. Anything that makes the Jewish State more secure as a permanent part of the Middle East is anathema.

Their goal was never peace, or justice, or a Palestinian state, or morality, or an end to “occupation,” or any of the other myriad excuses they give to justify their hate. Their goal was always, and remains, the destruction of Israel – perhaps in phases, perhaps in one nuclear blast, but that it all these hypocrites really want.

That is the only consistent position they have. All the other stuff they say is to justify their crazed hate for the Jewish state, pretending that it is a moral position.

They have proven themselves to be immoral. All it takes to see this is to open one’s eyes.

08/13 Links Pt1: Israel and UAE reach historic peace deal, Israel to suspend annexation; Caroline Glick: Lebanon: Hezbollah's Potemkin Village

From Ian:

Israel and UAE reach historic peace deal, Israel to suspend annexation

Israel and the United Arab Emirates reached a historic peace deal on Thursday that will lead to a full normalization of diplomatic relations between the two Middle Eastern nations in an agreement that US President Donald Trump helped broker.

Under the agreement, Israel has agreed to suspend applying sovereignty to areas of the West Bank that it has been discussing annexing, senior White House officials told Reuters.

The peace deal was the product of lengthy discussions between Israel, the UAE and the United States that accelerated recently, White House officials said.

The agreement was sealed in a phone call on Thursday between Trump, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Sheikh Mohammed Bin Zayed, crown prince of Abu Dhabi, who said in a statement that Israel had agreed to stop annexation and that in exchange the UAE and Israel "agreed to cooperation and setting a roadmap towards establishing a bilateral relationship."

US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman, who was in the White House on Thursday, said that "the normalization of relations between Israel and the UAE will make Israel stronger and safer and will likely lead to additional exciting opportunities and incremental prosperity for Israel, its neighbors and the entire region."
Full text: Joint statement on ‘normalization of relations’ between Israel, UAE

Likud MK: We are still going to annex West Bank land

Likud MK: We are still going to annex West Bank land

Likud MK Shlomo Karhi tells Channel 12 news that Israel did not agree to any retreat from its position on annexation.

“We didn’t give up on anything. Sovereignty is still on the table, and it will happen, and we are just waiting for the US,” he says.

“This is a peace deal born of strength, not of retreat,” he adds.

Joint Statement of the United States, the State of Israel, and the United Arab Emirates pic.twitter.com/oVyjLxf0jd
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 13, 2020

A great day for peace! Israel commends the courage of MBZ for the historic decision of the UAE to join Egypt (1979) and Jordan (1994) in making peace with Israel. Israel deeply appreciates all @POTUS Trump has done to make this breakthrough possible. More to come!
— Amb. Ron Dermer (@AmbDermer) August 13, 2020

Know this: my friends here at the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva have over many years done everything in their power for this kind of peace breakthrough NOT to happen, and they will be a sad, sulking, sorrowful lot today. https://t.co/P7QJg7rDcO
— Hillel Neuer (@HillelNeuer) August 13, 2020

Hamas condemns UAE for dealing with Israel

Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum says “The US-Israeli-Emirati agreement is dangerous and represents a ‘free reward’ for the Israeli occupation for its crimes and violations of the Palestinian people’s human rights.”

“We condemn every form of normalization with the occupation, which we consider a stab in the back of the Palestinian cause. The Israeli enemy benefits from it. [Normalization] will encourage it to commit more crimes and violations of our people’s rights and their holy places,” he says.

He says the UAE and others should not “normalize with the occupation, beautify its face and integrate it in the region.”

There has been no official response from Palestinian Authority leadership.

Muslim Brotherhood's Grand Mufti of Libya Sadiq Al-Ghariani: Severing Relations with the UAE Is Not Enough; We Must Fight It and Strike It on Its Own Turf pic.twitter.com/faWLD7mkmh
— MEMRI (@MEMRIReports) August 13, 2020

There Was A Time Zionism Was Attacked Because It WAS a Part of Judaism (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

You don't have to be on social media long before you notice that it is full of people who refuse to let their lack of knowledge get in the way of their self-proclaimed expertise.

One of those topics everyone seems to enjoy sharing their opinion on, is Jews.

Lots of people on social media are only too happy to tell you that Jews are white, and not only benefit from "White Privilege," but aren't the 'real' Jews anyway.

Then there are the people on social media who will eagerly explain to you what antisemitism is -- and isn't, claiming that the term is overused and that it is not nearly as "systemic" as Islamophobia.

So it is not surprising to find people who will knowingly inform you not only that Zionism is racism -- they will go even further, offering to enlighten you that Zionism has no real connection with Judaism anyway

Recently on Twitter, for example, you could find tweets informing you that

o   my problem is that too many equate Judaism = Zionism
that’s where you get problems such as Louis Farrakhan and his supporters
o   im not against Judaism,im with judaism against zionism
o   If you think Zionism=Judaism you clearly know nothing about Judaism

and so on.

But there was a time when Arabs made it clear that Zionism is part of Judaism.

In his book Emdat HaAravim B'SichSuch Yisrael-Arav, translated on the inside flyleaf as The Arabs' Position In Their Conflict With Israel, Yehosofat Harkabi uses sources from political works, periodicals and broadcasts to get the Arab attitude towards Israel. It is based on his doctoral thesis, and was published in 1968, though he wrote the book the previous year, months before the Six-Day War broke out.

An English translation was published in 1972, and that is where translations in this post of the Hebrew are from, unless noted otherwise. (The translation abridges the original -- and still manages to come out at over 500 pages.)

Chapter 4 of his book is dedicated to the Arab attitude towards Zionism -- and Harkabi devotes section 5 of that chapter to Arab writers who saw an "Identification of Zionism and Judaism."

He writes:

Arab writers and leaders repeatedly emphasize that they bear no hostility to the Jews but only oppose the Zionists. However, this distinction is not maintained, and Zionism and Judaism are often used as synonyms, a denunciation of Zionism leading naturally to a denunciation of the Jews. It is not a matter of confusing "Jew," Zionist" and Israeli" in the flow of speech or writing, in the same way as even Israelis do not always preserve the distinction; the identification is deliberate.

One expression of this tendency is the identification of Israeli and Jew as a figure in Arab caricatures, The Arabs draw the Israeli like a Jew in the anti-Semitic caricatures--a bearded figure with a large hooked nose. This image was already in existence before World War II ane was not created merely under Nazi influence.

Here is a typical example, from Al-Watan (Qatar), May 13, 2003, from the Tom Gross Media website:

The U.S. and Israel are shown eating from two sides of an apple that represents “the Arab states”.

But this identification of Zionism and Jews -- which is often exploited to disparage Israel -- was not always done on a purely derogatory level.

In section 2, "Judaism Was Always Zionist", Harkabi describes a recognition by some Arab writers that

The prolonged ties of Jews with Palestine and the place of that country in the Jewish faith show that there is an organic bond between Zionism and Judaism.

For example:

Rushdi explains that Judaism is not only a faith like others, but "also a political movement":

The bond between Judaism and Zionism is primordial, ever since Judaism and Zionism became coupled in the sense that one cannot be separated from the other, representing two sides of the one coin (1965, p. 19)

Obviously, Rushdi did his homework, because he goes on to write that the connection between Judaism and Zionism

...is clearly expressed in many provisions of Jewish law. In the Talmud it is stated that a Jew who leaves the Land of Israel cannot compel his wife to accompany him, and one who emigrates to the Land is entitled to divorce his wife if she refuses to come with him. There is also a similar doctrine in the Jewish faith which says that he who lives in the Land of Israel is forgiven by God for all his sins. (p. 20)

To illustrate the bond between Zionism and Judaism, Rushdi gives quotes from Solomon Schecter ("Wherever Zionists are active, there you will find Judaism alive and active" and "Judaism and Zionism cannot be separated from each other" [my translations]) and from Theodor Herzl ("The return to Zion must be preceded by the return to Judaism")

Harkabi notes that Abdallah Al-Tal, an officer of the Arab Legion during the 1948 War, also sees that Zionism predates Herzl. He did his homework too, giving examples of earlier Zionists such as the Maccabees, Bar Kochba, David HaReuveni, Solomon Molcho, Shabtai Tzvi, the Sanhedrin during the time of Napoleon, Moses Montefiore, Baron Edmond de Rothschild and others.

Another Arab writer, a Dr. Nasr, doesn't find Zionism 'primordial,' but doesn't think it is recent and unrelated to Judaism either. He writes:

Zionism is really nothing but the national behavior of the Jew in his reaction to the nations throughout history as it has taken shape under the pressure of modern Western civilization.

Of course, some Arab writers see a conspiracy -- not that Zionism is unrelated to Judaism, but rather the opposite: Jews have been trying to hide the connection between Judaism and Zionism, by deluding the world that Zionism is merely the actions of a small group.

According to Ahmad Shukeiri, the first Chairman of the PLO, the Zionist plan to rule over Israel is actually part of an old Jewish agenda. Originally, the Jewish infiltration of Israel was accomplished under the veil of religion, with the goal of establishing a religious center --

When the Zionist movement arose, under the direction of Dr. Herzl, they described it as a unique movement limited to a group of Jews, the Zionists. This was a well thought-out act to lead the nations opposed to them astray, a deception against the Arab world, so that they would not think the Zionist movement was a general Jewish movement. This is the source of the idle belief of many that the Zionist and the Jew are separate things when they are a single danger. [My translation]

Just don't tell those experts on Twitter that they have fallen for the Zionist trap.

The Soviet precursor to modern Leftist antisemitism pretended it wasn’t antisemitic, too

This 1968 article from The Sentinel features the anti-Zionist rhetoric that we are all familiar with from the Left – but it adds an extra insistence that it is in no way antisemitic.

Which is really funny, because the Soviet article quoted also says that “the religious morality of Judaism isolates religious Jews from other nations and justifies any crimes against the gentiles.”
They also accused Jews of being a fifth column in any nation they are in.

Yet they continued to say that “both Zionism and antisemitism are alien to Soviet society since they are equally a product of the bourgeois class system.”

This all sounds exactly like the writers of Jewish Currents and other socialist publications today. The idea that Zionism is antisemitism is a staple of Electronic Intifada and other outlets. It all came from the Soviets.

And just like the antisemitism of the Soviets is obvious nowadays, so is the antisemitism of today’s socialist Left – and they deny it just as vehemently as the Soviets did.

The haters just keep throwing stuff at the wall and hoping something sticks.

From The Inside Palestine and many other Palestinian news sites:

Palestinian detainee Mahmoud al-Ghalidh, 17, who has tested positive for coronavirus, is subjected to psychological torture in Israeli jails, al-Dameer Association for Human Rights said on Tuesday.

Al-Dammeer called for the immediate release of al-Ghalidh who is staying at an isolated room in Raymond Prison where he is denied basic necessities, such as clothing.

Israeli occupation forces arrested al-Ghalidh from his home in Jalazone refugee camp in Ramallah on 23 July, and on 3 August, the Israel Prison Service announced that he has coronavirus.

At the exact same time:

The head of the Prisoners and Editor s' Affairs Authority, Major General Qadri, said that the Government of Israel is practicing the policy of deliberate medical killing against prisoners, which is a crime that amounts to serious violations against sick detainees.

So if Israel would take al-Ghalidh out of quarantine, they would be deliberately killing other prisoners. Keeping him in quarantine is psychological torture.

This“child” was 18 when he was arrested. But “incarcerated children” get more headlines so a year was taken off of his age since he was found to have been infected with the coronavirus.

UPDATE: Now he is 15.