Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Sunday, October 18, 2020

Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians banned from going to Israeli hospitals - but Saeb Erakat is going to Israel to be treated for COVID-19

In 2010, 180,000 Palestinian patients were treated in Israeli hospitals.

But the Palestinian Authority has been reducing the number of permits of sick Palestinians to go to Israeli hospitals in recent years.

In 2017, it drastically reduced the number of Gazans given permission to travel to Israel for medical treatment.

Earlier this year, in order to fulfil a promise by Mahmoud Abbas to end all coordination with Israel, the Palestinian Authority stopped all transfers of patients to Israel - resulting in some deaths. Israeli NGOs scrambled to try to allow the most sick patients to come to Israel for treatment, while Palestinian NGOs angrily said that they would not try to help save Palestinian lives - the principle of non-cooperation was far more important than mere human life.

Well, that only applies to expendable Palestinians. But not the VIPs.

This morning, PLO Executive Committee secretary general Saeb Erakat was transferred to Hadassah Hospital in Jerusalem to treat his worsening COVID-19 symptoms. (UPDATE: Some say he is going to Tel Aviv.)

Apparently, the PLO rules of Palestinian honor only extend to allowing normal Palestinians to die for the cause, but not highly placed PLO officials.

A government that actively works against the interests of its own people does not deserve to exist to begin with. But when it distinguishes between the masses of its people it doesn't care about and its own top officials, it shows that it doesn't even adhere to its own stated principles to justify treating its citizens like dirt.

Palestinians deserve better leaders than this.

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.

On Friday, a jihadist in France beheaded a teacher, Samuel Paty, who showed his class the Mohammed cartoons that caused controversy (and murder) when published a few years back.

In Tunisia, a member of Parliament, Rached Khiari, wrote a post on Facebook seemingly agreeing with the murder.

He wrote, "Offending the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, is the greatest crime, and whoever performs it bears the consequences whether they are a state, group or individual."

Immediately, Khiari attracted critics - and supporters.

The spokesperson for the Tunis court of first instance, Mohsen Dali, announced that the prosecutor has launched an investigation into the post, saying that the post is comparable to a terrorist act, in accordance with the Tunisian anti-terrorist law, since it constitutes a justification for terrorism.

A TV channel canceled a planned appearance by Khiari on Sunday.

On the other hand, other prominent people and media came to Khiari's defense. Islamist media said that the critics were all trying to make themselves look good to the French.

Professor and lawyer Hanan Al-Khumairi denounced the media campaign against Khiari and supported his statements, claiming that they did not glorify the killing.

Khiari doubled down in Facebook, writing that "I may give up immunity and parliament, but I will not give up on my condemnation of the crime of offending the Messenger of Allah Muhammad peace and blessings be upon him. Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah more important and greater than glory, parliament, politics and the whole world."

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.

10/17 Links: Caroline Glick: American Jewry’s Fateful Hour; Jewish Congregations Challenge ‘Blatantly Antisemitic’ New York Coronavirus Restrictions

From Ian:

Caroline Glick: American Jewry’s Fateful Hour

If Trump wins an historic level of support among American Jews, it will be a testament to the wisdom of an unprecedented percentage of American Jews. For American Jewry this year's presidential election is without question the most critical one ever.

Over the past four years, anti-Semitism has become an undeniable, and central characteristic of the Democrat Party to which the vast majority of American Jews have pledged their loyalty for the better part of the past hundred years while anti-Semitism in the Republican Party has dropped to historic lows.

Democrat anti-Semitism has seemingly appeared out of the blue but in truth, the party has been on a largely one-lane road to radicalization for the past fifty years. It's just that the path turned into a highway over the past four years with the rise of open anti-Semites like Rashida Tlaib, Linda Sarsour, Andre Carson, Keith Ellison and Ilhan Omert to commanding positions in the party.

Anti-Semitism runs through Democrat politics, policies and behavior across a spectrum of issues. In foreign policy, hating Israel has become the most passionate position of the progressive grassroots.

Biden announced early on that if elected, he will restore the US's commitment to the Iran nuclear deal he forged with Barack Obama. That means that a Biden administration will cancel the economic sanctions on Iran, ensuring the survival of the regime. It means a Biden administration will enable the cessation of the UN arms embargo enabling Iran to purchase whatever advanced weapons systems it wants. It also means a regime pledged to annihilate the largest Jewish community in the world – Israel – will have an open path to a nuclear arsenal.

Biden has agreed to restore the Palestinians to center stage. This isn't a pro-peace position. After all, the Abraham accords are the result of Trump marginalizing the Palestinians. The purpose of a Palestinian-centric policy is it is to delegitimize Israel, justify a US foreign policy that is hostile to Israel and domestic policy that is hostile to Israel's supporters in America.

Then there is anti-Semitism itself. The good news is that like Trump, Biden can be expected to take on white supremacists. The bad news is that in stark contrast to Trump, Biden can be expected to turn a blind eye to the growing anti-Semitism in his own political camp.

Cynical Theories – a review

‘Cynical Theories – how universities made everything about race, gender, and identity and why this harms everybody.’ By Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay

The word cynical, in the title of the book, is deliberate; the authors assert that many of the ideas informing the theories are pessimistic, rejecting objective truth and modernity. Radical skepticism about modernity is a defining feature. There is a sense of hopelessness and a preoccupation with the superficial. The authors deem these key features ‘reactionary’. (The theories are also often characterised by obscurity of language. *)

The authors suggest that universities , and academia, are sites in which the theories are mainly located, and are significant generators of activism and intolerance. Scholarship and rigorous research are tainted by the cynical theories, open debate is stifled. This has affected a wide range of studies including STEM subjects. And ‘what happens in universities doesn’t stay in the universities’.

The book comprises 10 chapters dealing with interrelated topics such as CRT and Intersectionality, Postcolonial theory, Feminism and Gender studies, and explores what I call the heavy stuff originating in the 1960s – Foucault, Lyotard, Derrida, etc – whilst later chapters consider ways in which the theories have shaped the debate in subjects such as Queer theory and Fat studies.

Of particular interest are two chapters on Social Justice scholarship, thought, and action. Whilst a concern for justice in society is necessary, social class – previously considered an important topic – is rarely considered by the theory. Instead it ‘seeks to apply deconstructive methods and postmodern principles to the task of creating social change’. Theory and activism are based on the assumption that racism and bigotry are everywhere, consequently there is a preoccupation with, and elevation of, victimhood. There is no room for criticism: disagreement is interpreted as a sign of intellectual and moral failure. There is ‘little time for universal principles and individual intellectual diversity’. (h/t L King)

Religion, Science, and the Religion of Science

New York’s scapegoated Haredi communities appear to be the last Americans capable of maintaining a sane balance between science and faith

Like, say, the idea of science. If you believe in it—truly, deeply, and unequivocally—you understand that science isn’t a faith-based system. It cares little for politics or virtues. It’s a blissfully agnostic methodology that makes guesses, compares them with available evidence, and amends, alters, or rejects them based on results. So, if you’re being true to science, say, here’s how you should be thinking about public gatherings: Are they unsafe? Then they’re as unsafe for the proponents of Black Lives just as they are for the Satmars. Are they safe under some conditions? Then let us be clear about precisely what these conditions are.

Take, for example, Gov. Cuomo’s decree that no more than 10 people are allowed in a house of worship at any given time. If you possess even a modicum of common sense, you realize that this idea is, at its core, profoundly anti-scientific, as it has nothing to say about the size of the house of worship in question. Ten people in a small one-room shtiebel is a real risk; 10 people in a grand synagogue built to seat thousands is a real farce. A governor serious about science and public safety rather than about seizing power would’ve understood that and acted accordingly, offering guidelines that were sensible and measured and concrete. The only ones pointing out this travesty are the Haredim.

It’s of little surprise, then, that the main flag on view during the Haredi protests last week was the Gadsden flag. Don’t Tread on Me, that quintessentially American cri de coeur, is, these days, primarily the domain of the Haredi community. Everywhere else in the Jewish world, the slogans recited are the confused and exhausted and meaningless truisms of nice liberals who can’t or don’t care to explain the staggering contradictions, violations, hypocrisies, and usurpations committed with their tacit support.

Flatten the curve, wear a mask, close the shuls—all were accepted without too much attention to detail or rationale and without asking what, in effect, we’re risking when we sign away so many of our freedoms to officials who seem to have nothing but the vaguest grasp on science and democracy alike. There’s nothing less Jewish, or less American, than that. The Haredim understand that by succumbing to the tyranny of illogic, the sort that restricts attendance regardless of the size of the venue or deems one form of gathering acceptable but not another, all will be lost. To surrender thusly would be a total disruption of their Jewish and American way of life. Their critics, sadly, prefer instead to worship at a very different altar, sanctifying their leftist bona fides and reverence to leaders from the correct political party rather than asking hard but obvious questions. What we see in Brooklyn these days, then, is nothing less than a religious war, in which the Haredim, in a delicious twist of fate, have actual science on their side. Here’s hoping they prevail.

10/16 Links Pt2: Melanie Phillips: The BBC's problem is worse than "wokeish" bias; Rabbi Sacks, former chief rabbi of England, diagnosed with cancer

From Ian:

Melanie Phillips: The BBC's problem is worse than "wokeish" bias

Last month, the Jewish Chronicle reported that the City of David organisation had complained to BBC executives about Rosie Garthwaite, a senior BBC producer working on a new documentary about Israeli activities in eastern Jerusalem. Its vice president wrote she had “repeatedly presented us with one-sided and inaccurate statements” and that the program “intends to vilify Israel, Jewish history and Jewish charities and present a number of false and misleading claims.”

The paper also discovered that Garthwaite admitted sharing “inaccurate” pro-Palestinian propaganda on social media and had shared several other false or controversial claims about Israel, including attacking “British duplicity” over the signing of the Balfour Declaration, wrongly suggesting Gaza’s “one” border was controlled by Israel and retweeting an article from Middle East Eye describing the troublemaker Ahed Tamimi as an “icon for Palestinian resistance.”

These are but a tiny sample of the BBC’s institutionalised hostility towards Israel. For years, it has uncritically recycled Palestinian propaganda as innately credible and true, while treating demonstrably factual Israeli statements as mendacious propaganda.

It systematically downplays or disregards Palestinian attacks on Israelis and generally treats any eruption of violence as a story which only “kicks off” (as one BBC reporter said gleefully during an escalation of hostilities) when Israel retaliates with force. Israeli victimisation is simply not seen as a story at all.

When Israel is forced to defend itself, the BBC frequently portrays its armed forces —the most ethical and human rights-obsessed military in the world — as monstrous child-killers and aggressive destroyers.

The immediate and demonstrable effect on the British population is hatred of Israel and a spike in attacks on British Jews. It is no exaggeration to say that when it comes to Israel, the issue is not BBC bias. It is BBC incitement to baseless hatred.

The BBC is regarded around the world as a byword for objectivity and accuracy. That’s why its departure from those ideals is so pernicious.

Perhaps the most chilling thing about it, though, is this. BBC executives are genuinely, painfully aware of the news outlet’s unique power and reach, and of their duty under its founding charter to uphold objectivity and fairness and hold the line for the middle ground.

But they are simply unable to process the fact that they view Israel, among other issues, through a profoundly distorting ideological prism. And that’s because they believe implacably that the positions they hold are unarguably objective and fair, that they do represent the middle ground, and that therefore by definition those who claim the BBC is biased are themselves extremists and can be safely disregarded.

In other words, BBC group-think is a hermetically-sealed thought system. Which is why, if whoever takes over at the top wants to restore the once iconic BBC to elementary standards of objectivity, fairness and decency, they will have their work cut out for them.

BBC tells CAA it cannot disclose how it has dealt with employee embroiled in antisemitism controversy, but today it has emerged that he has resigned, leaving questions about Corporation’s handling of the controversy

Campaign Against Antisemitism contacted the BBC this week for an update on how it has dealt with an employee caught in a controversy over antisemitic and trolling tweets, but the BBC refused to disclose whether it has taken any action beyond launching an investigation. Today, however, The Times has learned that the journalist, Nimesh Thaker, has resigned, leaving questions about how seriously the BBC took the matter and why it refuses to divulge its actions.

Last month, Campaign Against Antisemitism and the JC revealed that Mr Thaker, who has been a BBC journalist for more than twenty years at BBC World News, used a Twitter account in his name and then an anonymous account to post controversial and even antisemitic tweets, in clear breach of the BBC’s guidelines.

Mr Thaker used both accounts to conduct official BBC business as well.

Using an account in his own name, Mr Thaker posted tweets describing antisemitism accusations against Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party as “smears” and trolled public figures who were campaigning against antisemitism. He also used the account to troll Campaign Against Antisemitism and to harass the editor of the JC and the actress and writer Tracy-Ann Oberman, tweeting at them dozens of times. He has also retweeted controversial political activists who themselves have come under fire for antisemitism, such as the notorious antisemite Jackie Walker, trolled Labour MPs over antisemitism, and defended Ken Livingstone and supported the disgraced former Labour MP, Chris Williamson. He also trolled his own BBC colleagues. The JC showed that he also behaved similarly with an anonymous account.

The Culture Secretary called the revelations “very concerning”, and the BBC launched an investigation, during which Mr Thaker reportedly resigned, thereby apparently escaping scrutiny.

Rabbi Sacks, former chief rabbi of England, diagnosed with cancer

Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks, the former chief rabbi of Great Britain, was recently diagnosed with cancer, a spokesperson for his office announced on Thursday.

"Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks has been recently diagnosed with cancer and is currently undergoing treatment to aid his recovery," a spokesperson for his office said.

Rabbi Sacks will be stepping back from his work for a short period of time to focus on his treatment. His office noted that he is looking to get back into the swing of things as soon as possible.

For those who wish include Rabbi Sacks in their prayers, his Hebrew name is Harav Ya’akov Zvi ben Liba.

10/16 Links Pt1: Knesset approves UAE normalization 80-13; mainly Arab party is sole opposition; The ICC vs. Israel: The fallout of a war crimes investigation

From Ian:

Seth Frantzman: Will there ever be peace?

WE HAVE discussed the decline of the Middle East ossifying dictatorial regimes since 2010 and the defeat of insurgencies and rise of Turkey, as well as Israel’s lessons from past wars. What is missing in this discussion?

First we need to acknowledge that with the new generation of leaders, such as the young Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) in Saudi Arabia and Mohammed Bin Zayed (MBZ) in the UAE, there is a new era. The era of jihad, embodied by Osama bin Laden, is largely over. Even the Hamas leaders who now meet with Turkey’s Erdogan are not the Islamic rabble-rousers of the 1980s.

It may be that the Islamist extremism which grew out of the region and led to ISIS is being reduced. It is being replaced by Turkey’s sponsorship of extremism, but this state sponsorship is quite different than the 1980s when Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and later the Taliban were dabbling in extremism. It is no longer as chaotic. The unstable areas of the Middle East, stretching from the Sahel to Somalia, Yemen and Iraq, may be more stable today.

Iran has largely entered the vacuum where there was chaos. That means the old jihadist lines that led via the Euphrates River Valley to Iraq are now being digested by an Iranian octopus with bases of Shi’ite militias where jihadists once roamed. Iran has its fingers in Yemen too. This means that much like the Soviets took over former Nazi properties in eastern Europe, Iran has taken over the property of Sunni insurgents in Iraq and elsewhere. Iraq is now Iran’s “near abroad,” as Ukraine and Poland were for imperial Russia.

This era of changing leadership in the Middle East is festooned with younger men trying to fill the shoes of fathers and grandfathers. Bashar Assad in Syria, Saad Hariri in Lebanon. The Emir of Qatar. The King of Jordan. Masrour and Nechirvan Barzani, as well as Qubad and Bafel Talibani in the Kurdistan region. The new leaders of Kuwait and Oman are similar, as is the King of Morocco. This is a region still rooted in monarchy, family, tribe. That has been challenged by revolution, whether Nasser’s Arab nationalism or Ba’athism, or the Islamic Revolution and Muslim Brotherhood. But not everything changes in the region.

What does change is the US administration. The American election in November could bring Joe Biden to the White House. Countries in the region are concerned about what that change could mean. Tehran hopes Trump will be removed. The Taliban, oddly, reportedly prefer Trump, as does Erdogan in Turkey and the Gulf allies of Israel. That’s a group of strange bedfellows, but it is brought about by the transactional nature of the Trump administration and its doctrine of combining pro-Israel support with the desire to end the US role in Syria and Afghanistan, and overturning the Iran Deal.

It’s unclear what a new US administration will bring. Most countries in the region assume the US is drawing down its role. This means larger regional and global powers such as Russia, China, Iran and Turkey will play a leading role in the Middle East. The West’s role is declining.

If we look back at that Sirte meeting 10 years ago, it represented the end of an era of powerful Arab leaders. Today the region is more about Erdogan and Iran, alongside an emerging Israel-Gulf-Greece alliance system. (h/t Zvi)

Knesset approves UAE normalization 80-13; mainly Arab party is sole opposition

The Knesset on Thursday approved Israel’s normalization deal with the United Arab Emirates with an overwhelming majority, all but ensuring that it will be ratified in the near future.

Eighty lawmakers voted in favor of the agreement, including many from the opposition.

Only 13 parliamentarians — all from the Arab-majority Joint List — voted against the agreement, criticizing it as a scheme to undermine the Palestinian people.

There were no abstentions, while 27 MKs did not participate in the vote.

The vote took place after nearly nine hours of an at times stormy debate, during which more than 100 ministers and MKs spoke. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the plenary twice — at its start at 11:00 a.m., and right before the vote after 8:00 p.m. — hailing the agreement as a paradigm shift in the Arab world’s approach to Israel, while touting his role in bringing many Sunni nations closer to Israel due to his vociferous public opposition to Iran.

“Since the start of Zionism, one of our hands has been holding a weapon in defense and the other hand was stretched out to everyone who wants peace,” he declared in his early speech. “They say peace is made with enemies. False. Peace is made with those who have stopped being enemies. Peace is made with those who desire peace and who no longer remain committed to your annihilation.”

Netanyahu said the agreement with the UAE was different from Israel’s peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan in that it does not require Israel to relinquish any territory. “It’s a warm peace, between peoples,” he said, recalling being moved at seeing social media footage of Emirati children draping themselves in an Israeli flag.

Dr. Nasser al Lahham, editor of the independent Ma'an news agency, wrote an explicitly antisemitic editorial today where he accused all rabbis in Israel of wanting to enslave Arabs and he predicted that Arabs will eventually take brutal revenge against Jews.

He started it off by claiming two alleged racist quotes from Israeli Jews. the first, which he attribute to a "settler" who had cut down olive trees speaking to Palestinian farmers, is that "we are the children of God and you serve us." The second was supposedly from a Tel Aviv restaurant owner who is claimed to have said, "I want Arabs and Arab girls to serve me, for Fatima to clean the bathrooms and Aisha to be work in the kitchen."

I cannot find either quote anywhere. I have never even seen any quote from any Jew who admitted to cutting down olive trees. I asked Dr. Lahham for the source but have not received an answer.

This doesn't mean that there aren't Jewish racists - of course there are - but like any bigot, Lahham extends the alleged racism of two random Jews based on probably fabricated quotes into all Jews in Israel.

He claims that "The rabbis of Israel have lost their mind - the rabbis of Safed issue rulings to enslave Arabs, steal olives and cut down trees." This is fiction.

He then ludicrously claims "we see Jewish settlers from Hebron and Yitzhar entering the Al-Aqsa Mosque and insulting the Prophet Muhammad inside the mosque." This is an absurd lie. Jews never even enter the mosque, and Jews visiting the Temple Mount are interested in the holiness of the site and its history, not in insulting any Muslim prophet.

Once Lahham incites his readers to hate Jews with lie after lie, he then goes on to issue a warning to American rabbis. Unless they do something to reign in the rogue Israeli racist Jews who want to enslave and murder all Arabs, Lahham warns, "no one, not even Facebook, Fox News, or a loud Trump will be able to prevent hundreds of millions of Arabs from taking revenge and tearing up Jewish flesh on the streets."

Ma'an claims to be a professional news organization with the highest standards of journalism. Its editor literally makes things up and reports them as fact - with the intent to incite violence. Then, like any mobster, he "warns" that unless people do what he wants, bad things will happen - which happen to be the bad things that he himself is encouraging with his bald-faced lies.

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.

Yesterday, a delegation of Gulf Arabs - there is disagreement as to whether they were from the UAE or Oman - visited the Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount.

Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah party issued a statement that they consider any Arabs who visit the Al Aqsa Mosque compound without coordinating the visit with them to be no more legitimate than the Jewish "settlers" visiting the site. They used to claim that Al Aqsa was the heritage of all Muslims; now they are saying that "sovereignty over the holy sites is Palestinian and only Palestinian."

Palestinian Muslims on the Mount were upset by the delegation, and some of them harassed and insulted them, which had to be protected by Israeli police. Here one says "may Allah's curse be upon your sheikh" and calls them "impure."

"لعنة الله على شيخكم وكبيركم يا أنجاس يا أنذال"

📸هكذا استقبل المقدسيون وفداً تطبيعياً إماراتياً وصل المسجد #الأقصى بحماية قوات الإحتلال الإسرائيلي . pic.twitter.com/43t0ZQvLgk
— وطن. يغرد خارج السرب (@watan_usa) October 15, 2020

Jews are protecting the right of Muslims to worship - in the holiest Jewish spot on Earth - and Palestinian Muslims are the ones trying to take away that right.

If Arabs are still on the fence about what to think about Palestinians, this should clinch it.

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.

Richard Falk, the fanatically anti-Israel former UN “Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, has found a place to publish his pseudo-scholarly screeds.

The Tehran Times.

After being interviewed by the mouthpiece of the Islamist, terror supporting regime numerous times, now Falk decided to cut out the middleman and write for the mullahs himself.

In his article there this week Falk says how evil AIPAC is and praises the BDS-supporting anti-Israel Jewish Voice for Peace.

Part of the effectiveness of AIPAC is due to money and tight organizational discipline, and part of its influence is due to the absence of countervailing Jewish organizations that speak for liberal Zionism and progressive Jews. J-Street has attempted to provide a voice for liberal Zionism in Washington, and has limited success at legislative levels, but not in relation to party platforms or the selection of national candidates. Jewish Voice for Peace is an admirably balanced NGO, but its influence is mainly felt in civil society, where it has created growing support for a just outcome of this struggle that has gone on for a century, which includes supported [sic] the realization of the Palestinian right of self-determination whether in the form of a viable separate sovereign state or a single state whose foundational principle is ethnic equality.

Falk is such a moral paragon that he chooses to publish for a regime that hangs gays.

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.

10/15 Links Pt2: Bari Weiss: American liberalism is in danger from a new ideology—one with dangerous implications for Jews; Was the French Enlightenment Anti-Semitic?; Twitter follows Facebook, bans posts denying Holocaust

From Ian:

Bari Weiss: Stop Being Shocked

American liberalism is in danger from a new ideology—one with dangerous implications for Jews

The dominoes are falling hard and fast. That’s how you get pulpit rabbis who argue that Jews should not claim ourselves to be indigenous to the land of Israel. Or an organization meant to fight anti-Semitism that aligns itself with Al Sharpton. Or a tinderbox in the city with the largest Jewish population in the country, whose communal outfits seem to care more about lending cover to politicians than ensuring the physical safety of Jews.

Last month, I participated in a Zoom event attended by several major Jewish philanthropists. After briefly talking about my experience at The New York Times, I noted that if they wanted to understand what happened to me, they needed to appreciate the power of that new, still-nameless creed that has hijacked the paper and so many other institutions essential to American life. I’ve been thinking about what happened next ever since.

One of the funders on the call launched into me, explaining that Ibram X. Kendi’s work was vital, and portrayed me as retrograde and uncool for opposing the ideology du jour. Because this person is prominent and powerful enough to send signals that others in the Jewish world follow, the comments managed to both sideline me and stun almost everyone else into silence.

These people may be the most enraging: those with the financial security to oppose this ideology and demur, so desperate to be seen as hip; for their children to keep their spots at the right prep schools; so that they can be seated at the right tables at the right benefits; so that they are honored at Brown or Harvard; so that business does well enough that they can renovate their house in Aspen or East Hampton. Desperate to remain in good odor with the right people, they are willing to close their eyes to what is coming for the rest of us.

Young Jews who grasp the scope of this problem and want to fight it thus find themselves up against two fronts: their ideological enemies and their own communal leadership. But it is among this group—people with no social or political capital to hoard, some of them not even out of college—that I find our community’s seers. The dynamic reminds me of the one Theodor Herzl faced: The communal establishment of his time was deeply opposed to his Zionist project. It was the poorer, younger Jews—especially those from Russia—who first saw the necessity of Zionism’s lifesaving vision.

Funders and communal leaders who are falling over themselves to make alliances with fashionable activists and ideas enjoy a decadent indulgence that these young proud Jews cannot afford. They live far from the violence that affects Jews in places like Crown Heights and Borough Park. If things go south in one city, they can take refuge in a second home. It may be cost-free for the wealthy to flirt with an ideology that suggests abolishing the police or the nuclear family or capitalism. But for most Jews and most Americans, losing those ideas comes with a heavy price. (h/t jzaik)

Was the French Enlightenment Anti-Semitic? Revisiting the Great Debate

Conclusion: Why the Jews are still being cast as getting in the way of universal redemption

Hertzberg’s argument also suggests, as we have already noted, reasons why we should expect antisemitism to recur as a disease of the radical, or fundamentalist versions of political or religious movements, including ones consciously ‘anti-racist’ in their own estimation. Hertzberg makes the point that Montesquieu was less hostile to Jewish demands for emancipation than Voltaire because he represented ‘a tradition of enlightened thinking that ran counter to all this intellectual absolutism in the name of an appreciation of the Jew and Judaism as one of the many valid forms of culture and religion.’ Trevor-Roper, in his review, fully grants this difference between the two. ‘Now that there is a profound difference between the philosophy of Montesquieu and the philosophy of Voltaire no one would deny; and it is equally undeniable that Montesquieu was the more liberal of the two. Montesquieu was a relativist: he believed that societies were formed by a plurality of forces, and that they differed from one another, and differed legitimately, in accordance with the differences of those forces. His attitude to minorities was logically the result of his general philosophy . . . On the other hand Voltaire, a far less subtle or consistent thinker, believed in the linear progress of mankind toward a unitary truth of ‘philosophy’, and tended to judge men by their willingness to move in that direction. He had little of Montesquieu’s respect for the non-intellectual pressures of tradition, custom, or social force. It was for this reason that Gibbon, a disciple of Montesquieu, ended by repudiating Voltaire as in some respects ‘a bigot, an intolerant bigot.’[19]

The fundamentalist wing, not only of the Enlightenment but of any radically reforming movement, political or religious, left or right, tends to be defined by its determination both to simplify the goals of the movement and to treat them as ‘unitary truths of ‘philosophy’‘ to which, if the movement is to succeed, everyone without exception must be brought to accord an equally unitary and comprehensive submission. It is the fundamentalist wing of any such movement, therefore, that has the most to fear from the obstinate facts of human diversity, not only in the shape of what Trevor-Roper terms ‘the non-intellectual pressures of tradition, custom, or social force,’ but in that of competing intellectual systems. Hence it is that wing of any such movement that will always stand in most need of a story that will somehow make it plausible to regard all such pressures and constructs as the work of alien forces endlessly striving to corrupt a social order otherwise ready and waiting to respond positively and without serious dissent to the proffered opportunity of universal redemption. That, it seems to me, is ultimately what Hertzberg’s book has to teach us concerning the enduring tendency to antisemitic delusion on the part of the more radical elements, not only of the French Enlightenment, but of more recent versions both of progressive and anti-progressive thought.

How we can create a new conflict-free Middle East

THE COMMON interests of the new allies will enable the creation of a new conflict-free Middle East.

Israel’s isolation is ending but its commitment toward its new allies has also become stronger. Israel today proves to the world that it has genuinely wanted peace; peace that will stabilize the region, create opportunities for Israeli youth, end its demonization by its neighbors, and allow it instead to be embraced. The opportunities that will be created will give the Palestinian youth political and economic stability, too, by enhancing cooperation between our countries on all levels.

In this process, we hope to also see a drastic change in the Palestinian leadership, and see leaders who can genuinely negotiate that which serves their people in an ethical manner.

Looking into the history of the Palestinian leaders, one cannot deny the lost opportunities to bring an end to the conflict with, Israel. February 2007, Palestinian leaders, representing Hamas and Fatah met King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, who wanted to resolve the differences between them.

After two days of negotiations, they presented Abdullah with a document that contained the agreements of all the assembled leaders. Everyone believed that this time the Palestinian leaders were serious. Abdullah asked them to honor their promise and had them swear on the Koran that the document was their final deal. Within 48 hours after their return, the Palestinian leaders broke their word.

Today, major players in the region will have a more crucial political role that will achieve peace and stability and enable the economies of all the countries involved to grow.

Today, a door has been opened to negotiations and alliances with new players in the region. The new players were always supportive of the Palestinian people and the UAE’s and Bahrain’s stance. Ethics and principles can never change.

Israel is officially a friend today, a friend we trust. And I truly believe that the moment those agreements were signed, all the parties involved had great intentions and will work closely together to make sure no one’s rights are violated and that the people of the region will eventually live in peace. A new dawn has finally begun.

Yet again, a tendentious article by a person who supposedly cares deeply about peace against Israel making peace with anyone until a highly specific set of arbitrary criteria are fulfilled.

This one is by Rev. Dr. Mae Elise Cannon, executive director of Churches for Middle East Peace, writing in The Forward. Her arguments against the Abraham Accords are the same as the others we have seen:

1. They aren't peace accords because Israel was never at war with the UAE or Bahrain.

Whatever nomenclature you use, up until now they didn't speak to Israel officially and now they are. Tourism is being set up, partnerships announced, Jews sending messages of peace in Arabic and Arabs sending messages of peace in Hebrew. Who could be against this?

"Peacemakers."

2. Bahrain is run by a Sunni minority over a Shiite majority; the UAE is involved in the Yemen war, so they violate human rights and Israel shouldn't make agreements with them.

By that logic, Israel shouldn't make peace with the Palestinians either, since they have no respect for human rights - for women, for gays, for their own prisoners, for political opponents.

For that matter, the US should never have made any agreement with Iran on the nuclear issue either.

These all make exactly the same amount of sense.

3. The agreements don't address "occupation" or Palestinian demands.

Does that make them bad? Seemingly so.

All of these arguments are grasping at straws, meant to obfuscate the real problem that these "peacemakers" have with the accords: they hate Israel and anything good for Israel must be opposed.

CMEP supports the thoroughly antisemitic Kairos Palestine document. They have supported the PFLP-infested "Defense for Children Palestine" that routinely makes up facts to demonize Israel. They have called Israel an "apartheid" state. It has routinely partnered with BDS advocates.

It is not a "peace" organization. It is an anti-Israel organization hiding behind a façade of "peace."

Every single person and organization that has come out against these agreements has been found to be against the existence of Israel as a Jewish state. All the arguments they are using are excuses to cover their real objection to the accords: they don't want Israel to have any legitimacy.

This article proves this perfectly.

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.

'BDS' Much Shorter Than 'Movement To Make Jews Feel Unsafe Anywhere' (PreOccupied Territory)

Our weekly column from the humor site PreOccupied Territory.

Check out their Facebook page.

: Credit: Takver, via Wikimedia Commons

Berkeley, October 15 - Activists campaigning for the economic, diplomatic, and cultural isolation of the world's only Jewish state disclosed today they prefer the three-letter shorthand term for their movement to any more honest name, which would require them to use a cumbersome moniker indicative of the real-world negative effect the movement has not on Israel, but on Jews everywhere else.

Local chapter leaders of several groups billing themselves as pro-Palestinian or focused on human rights, but who somehow muster their numbers and voices only against Israel, explained in interviews that the initials of "Boycott, Divest, Sanctions" lend themselves to punchier, more nimble rhetorical use than any name that would convey the actual outcome of the groups' activities, such as "The Movement to Make Jews Feel Unsafe Anywhere" or "The Committee for Thinly-Veiled Threats of Antisemitic Violence on Campus."

"Speaking out our actual aims, not to mention accomplishments, would be a real mouthful," lamented Bay Area Jewish Voice for Peace coordinator Timothy al-Masri. "Many of us would like to think that our campaigns have resulted in even a single instance of boycotting, divesting, or sanctioning Israel, and we can sometimes even glom onto an instance of someone canceling a concert there, or whatever, and claim our pressure did it, but we also know deep down no one actually cares what we think, and that Israel is far too powerful economically and politically for us to have any hope of real impact. The truth is most of us just really hate Jews and loathe the idea of Jewish sovereignty. Our real accomplishment isn't in the metrics of celebrity visits to Israel canceled, or corporate partnerships prevented, but in creating an environment here in Berkeley, or across the US and Europe, where Jews feel threatened. That's what happens as if my magic everywhere we do our thing. It just doesn't have a catchy set of initials to capture it, so we go with 'BDS' instead. That's a compromise we're all willing to accept."

Some activists have suggested rebranding with even shorter, catchier, terminology: several suggestions have emerged for various phrases whose initials spell out SS, such as Sanction the Shlomos and Sovereignty Struggle. These ideas have found little resonance among activists, most of whom view the nomenclature as a distraction from their chief mission: singling out Jewish sovereignty as a unique evil, the fight against which requires support for actions that demonstrate what happens to Jews in the absence of such sovereignty.

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.

10/15 Links Pt1: Sudan to normalize ties with Israel after US ultimatum; Israelis most want ties with Saudi Arabia next; Nearly 80% of Saudis in favor of normalization with Israel;

From Ian:

Sudan to normalize ties with Israel after US ultimatum - report

Sudan has reportedly decided to move forward with normalizing ties with Israel, after the US reportedly issued a 24-hour ultimatum to the country demanding that it recognize Israel in order to be removed from a US blacklist, a source close to Sudan's leadership told i24News.

The decision was made after a heated discussion on Wednesday, according to the news station.

The ultimatum reportedly included an offer to remove Sudan from the list of states that sponsor terrorism, work to remove Sudan from a list of travel ban countries, work to increase aid to Sudan, commitment to facilitate private investment in Sudan, arranging an investment conference in Sudan and forgiveness of billions of dollars of Sudanese debt to the US, among other benefits, according to a Sudanese journalist.

In September, Sudanese Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok said that the country does not want to link its removal from a US terrorism list, which is hindering access to foreign funding for the country’s economy, with a normalization of relations with Israel. However, Sudan’s leaders did not rule out establishing ties with Israel as part of a US offer of $300 million in economic aid, as well as $3 billion in debt relief and investments.

Earlier this month, deputy chairman of the Sudanese Sovereignty Council Gen. Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo told TV station Sudania 24 that his country ascribes great importance to establishing ties with Israel so that it can be removed from the United States’ terror list.

Sudanese Researcher: Our Normalization with Israel Will Lead to Normalization with the U.S.

Four ways the Abraham Accords dismantle the anti-Israel camp’s narrative

First, the Abraham Accords sound the death knell for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign. BDS was built on the foundations and legacy of the Arab Boycott of Israel, initiated as a boycott of the pre-state Yishuv by the Arab League in 1945. With key Arab states now formally embracing trade and diplomatic deals with Israel, it looks ridiculous and out of touch with the reality of the region or Arab opinion for radicals in Europe and North America to continue to pursue a boycott policy.

Secondly, the Abraham Accords demolish the narrative that Israel is engaged in a race-based and hence racist oppression of the Palestinians, and hence the apartheid smear and the BDS policies that flow from the false comparison with apartheid South Africa. Emiratis and Bahrainis are the same ethnicity as the Palestinians: Arab. If Israel is able to have normalised and mutually beneficial relations with other Arab states it stands to reason that the occupation is down to a political impasse with the Palestinians, not a race-based desire to subjugate them.

Thirdly, the Abraham Accords destroy the narrative that the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is based on an inevitable religious clash between Jews and Muslims. The UAE and Bahrain are predominantly Muslim societies just like Palestinian society. If anything, they are more monolithically Muslim than Palestinian society is. This deal proves Israel can have good relationships with Muslim countries. The way in which the deal uses language about the mutual heritage of the three Abrahamic religions acknowledges that Jews are indigenous to the Middle East.

This last point links to the fourth aspect, which is that the Abraham Accords draw a line under historic Arab delegitimisation of Israel and the narrative that saw it as a temporary, colonialist imposition that could be destroyed. The deal shows the rest of the Arab world is growing impatient with Palestinian intransigence, and has moved to seeing Israel in pragmatic rather than ideological terms, as a permanent feature in the region that doesn’t just have to be accepted but can actually be a useful trading partner and security ally against Iran and its proxies. The contrast between practical steps by other Arab nations and the Palestinian Authority’s history of rejecting Israeli offers, even when its people would be the main beneficiary, is very stark.

As well as opening the door to a better life for many people in the region, the Accords have just made it a lot easier for all of us who have always proudly defended Israel here in the UK to win the ideological arguments with the delegitimisers, who increasingly find themselves on the opposite side to much of the Arab World, let alone Israel and its traditional allies.

David Singer: Jordan and Saudis tighten screws on PLO and Hamas

Saudi Arabia and Jordan have engaged in a twin-pronged attack on the PLO and Hamas seemingly intended to get them to bury the hatchet and begin negotiations with Israel on allocating sovereignty in Gaza and Judea and Samaria ('West Bank') under President Trump’s 2020 Peace Plan.

Prince Bandar bin Sultan Al-Saud – Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States 1983 - 2005, secretary general of the National Security Council 2005-2019 and director general of the Saudi Intelligence Agency 2012 - 2014 - provides a fascinating insight into the many failures of the Palestinian Arab leadership he witnessed from 1978 to 2015 in an Arab News article headlined “Setting the record straight”.

Bandar is particularly critical of the PLO and Hamas - after Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah brought PLO Chairman Mahmoud Abbas and Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal to Mecca for crisis talks in February 2007 to end the deadly PLO-Hamas violence that had followed the January 2005 presidential election won by Abbas and the January 2006 legislative election won by Hamas:

“After (King Abdullah) checked what they had written and read it in front of everyone and asked them to vow before God and in front of everyone that they agree to this deal, he asked them to shake hands and congratulated them, saying, ‘God is our witness, and we are in his holy land. (Prince) Saud (bin Faisal), take the brothers to the Kaaba and let them pledge their word before God and before the Palestinian people.’ Only a few days after they left Saudi Arabia, we received news they had already gone back on their word and started conspiring and plotting against each other once again.”

No elections since 2006 and no reconciliation between the PLO and Hamas continues.

Bandar recalls the many times the Palestinian Arab leadership asked Saudi Arabia for advice and help – took the help but ignored the advice:

“Then they would fail and turn back to us again, and we would support them again, regardless of their mistakes,” he said. This nature of the relationship, he felt, might have convinced the Palestinian Arab leadership that “there is no price to pay for any mistakes they commit towards the Saudi leadership or the Saudi state, or the Gulf leaderships and states.”

Reconciling their differences is the price the PLO and Hamas have to pay for future Saudi help - following peace treaties signed by Israel with the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain whilst Saudi Arabia has granted Israel’s commercial airlines the right to fly in Saudi Arabian air space.

Arab media wondering if Iraq will normalize with Israel

Al-Arab, a pan-Arab newspaper published out of London, has two separate articles about the possibility of Iraq joining the Arab nations that normalize relations with Israel.

Ibrahim al-Zubaidi writes that the current Iraqi prime minister Mustafa Al-Kadhimi is seen as being pro-American and cautiously distancing himself from Iran, even though Iran supported his candidacy.

Kadhimi has spoken about creating a "new Mashreq" - a new Arab East coalition - that would include Iraq, Egypt and Jordan. It is notable that the other two countries already have treaties with Israel.

Zubaidi notes that if Iraq normalized relations with Israel, it could attract huge investments from multinational corporations and global investment companies because of its strategic location and resources.

The other article which openly advocates for Iraq normalizing relations with Israel is notable because it is written by an Israeli writer with Iraqi roots, Linda Mnouheen Abdulaziz. She lists all the benefits to Iraq from relations with Israel and notes the long history of Jews in Iraq.

Her position isn't what is interesting about the article. The interesting part is that Al Arab decided to publish an article by an Israeli Jew to begin with - and this is the second article by her this week, which makes it seem like she is now a regular columnist for the paper.

That by itself would not have been conceivable a short while ago.

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.

Last week, King Abdullah of Jordan appointed Bisher al-Khasawneh to be Jordan's new prime minister.

In 2007, Khasawneh wrote a book-length thesis for his PhD at The London School of Economics and Political Science, entitled "An Appraisal of the Right of Return and Compensation of Jordanian Nationals of Palestinian Refugee Origin and Jordan’s Right, Under International Law, to Bring Claims Relating Thereto, on Their Behalf to and Against Israel and to Seek Compensation as a Host State in Light of the Conclusion of the Jordan-Israel Peace Treaty of 1994."

The paper, predictably, doesn't even pretend to address whether international law considers descendants of refugees to have refugee status themselves, nor whether Jordanian citizens can be considered refugees and as such whether full citizens of a nation can have the "right of return." Instead, he selectively quotes from sources as irrelevant as the Magna Carta (purposefully omitting the exception written there "except in time of war.")

However poor his legal arguments are, this shows that Jordan's new prime minister has spent a great deal of time formulating arguments for lawfare against Israel on this topic.

Palestinian refugees have a right to return to their homes of origin in Israel and to the West Bank. They also have a right to compensation. The two rights, as indicated throughout this thesis are complementary and not mutually exclusive. The right of return and right to compensation naturally apply to Jordanian nationals who are of Palestinian refugee origin from the period of 1947-1949 and its aftermath or the 1967 war and its aftermath and their descendants. This right of return is clearly established in the context United Nations Resolutions, the law of nationality, human rights law and humanitarian law. It is also implied in certain provisions of the Jordan-Israel Treaty of Peace. The right of compensation for Palestinian refugees, including ones who are Jordanian nationals, is also well established in international law.

Interestingly, he also admits that Jews have the right of return and compensation from Arab countries:

Naturally, Jews who fled certain Arab countries and who were nationals of such countries in the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict have the right to return to their homes of origin in such countries and have a right to compensation, especially when the circumstances of their flight are similar to the ones in which Palestinian refugees were forced to leave predominantly under coercion

In the end, though, Khasawneh realizes that actual return is unlikely, so therefore he concentrates on compensation - and naturally he wants that compensation not only to go to the Palestinians in Jordan but to the Kingdom of Jordan itself!

While the right of return of Palestinian refugees, including those who are Jordanian nationals, is solidly established in international law, it is not likely that all or even the majority of Palestinian refugees would be allowed to return to what is today recognized Israeli territories. This is ascribed to the fact that there is general recognition that massive scale return of Palestinian refugees to Israel would in fact endanger and dilute the Jewish character of the State of Israel. It is unlikely, that any international tribunal would actually give effect to the right of return on a massive scale to Palestinian refugees to what is today recognized as Israeli territory.

Ultimately, the solution of the Palestinian refugee problem will predominantly be one that would allow the exercise of the right of return to a Palestinian State that emerges from the Peace Process when resumed subject to absorption capacity. Some refugees, in limited numbers, may be allowed to return to Israel.
The solution of the Problem of the overwhelming majority of Palestinian refugees who do not return to such a Palestinian state will most likely be through their settlement in countries in which they currently live or to third countries that are willing to resettle them. This would be coupled with paying compensation to those returning and non returning refugees.
Therefore, for realistic and practical purposes, Jordan would be advised to focus its claims to matters of compensation of its nationals of Palestinian refugee origin and compensation as a host country predominantly. Jordan should not wait until the Peace Process resumes before it initiates a process of negotiations with Israel and would indeed be better advised to delve into such a process without any further delay.

This could become a priority for Jordan's new government. Israel may want to prepare for any Jordanian legal maneuverings in this area.

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.

From The Guardian:

The UN security council has been called on to address whether the opening of what was once the fabled Varosha beachfront in breakaway Turkish northern Cyprus is admissible under international law.

The council is expected to review the controversial decision, which Ankara encouraged on the eve of presidential elections in the territory, as criticism mounts both internationally and on the island itself.

Few places have so graphically conveyed a crisis frozen in time as the sandy strip of beach and the sealed off area of Famagusta behind it.

Fenced off 46 years ago when Greek Cypriots were forced to flee invading Turkish forces sent in following an abortive attempt to unite Cyprus with Greece, it has remained a ghost town ever since. For its inhabitants at the time, what was once the island’s most cosmopolitan resort has become resonant of the pain and frustration associated with the failure of peacemakers to resolve the Cyprus problem.

“This is a terrible day,” said Anna Marangou, a prominent Greek Cypriot archaeologist and historian whose family had owned a beachfront villa from which she and her relatives fled.

Like Marangou, who was 22 at the time, most Greek Cypriots left with only the clothes on their back - and often in little more than T-shirts, swimsuits, and flip-flops – as heavily armed Turkish troops landed on the island’s northern coast. About 150,000 Greek Cypriots were displaced from their homes in the summer of 1974, never to return.

Nicos Anastasiades, the president of the island’s internationally recognised and Greek-administered south, said the move was illegal and in “flagrant violation” of UN resolutions.

This didn't exactly prompt screaming worldwde headlines about "occupation" or "annexation."

Unlike practically all the Jewish areas in Judea and Samaria, in this case Turkey is taking over private property and buildings that obviously belong to other people.

Yet the EU's response has not been the reflexive condemnation that it has for every new building in Efrat, but far more polite:

On Varosha and the most recent Navtex issued by Turkey, we have had a discussion, listening to our colleagues from Greece and Cyprus on the last events. We consider that the reopening of Varosha beach undermines mutual trust. Ministers [of Foreign Affairs] stressed that such actions increase tensions and should be reversed.

For us, it is of vital importance that the United Nations-led efforts on Cyprus settlement are relaunched as soon as possible. Yesterday was the first round of the elections in the Turkish-Cypriot community in the island and, as soon as these elections have been concluded, - I think there is going to be a second round, if my information is correct - next Sunday, we will support the United Nations to resume the Cyprus settlement as soon as possible, which is the framework to deal with many issues.

We consider that Turkey needs to engage actively in finding solutions and not to engage in negative behaviour.

The EU and double standards. Peas in a pod.

(h/t Irene)

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.