As soon as the Jews set foot on the ground [in Algeria], they tried to desecrate and distort its heritage, and on a journey that wandered around the globe, they immigrated to Algeria, dissolving into society, learning its language, and wreaking havoc in it ... We open the archive of history, in search of Jewish profane linguists during their presence in guarded Algeria.
A number of examples are given of phrases that apparently are common in Algerian dialects of Arabic that they say are actually from Jews trying to destroy Algerian culture through language.
One is the word "makalah" which apparently means in colloquial Algerian "something that is not necessary." This article, and apparently many others, claim that the origin of the word is that Jewish traders in the market used to tell the Muslim traders with whom they traded that "ma kan ilah" which means "there is no Allah (in the market)." In other words, the Jews told the Muslim traders that they do not need to swear by Allah's name.
Another example - which may actually be true - is the Algerian word "haylula" which means tumult. They claim that it came from the Hebrew word "hilula," the celebration on the anniversary of the death of a major Jewish rabbinic figure.
They give a couple of examples where Jews apparently referred to Aisha, Mohammed's very young wife, in a derogatory manner - although they are not sure if that is of Shiite origin rather than Jewish.
Another example of "bakbuk," which means "bottle" in Hebrew as well as some Algerian dialects.
Why this is considered a desecration of language is anyone's guess.
(h/t Ibn Boutros)
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.
WE ALL AGREE that a crucial part of Zionism is maintaining a clear majority of Jews in the Jewish state; yet CIS [Commanders for Israel’s Security] insists on claiming that any act of applying sovereignty over areas that are inhabited by Jews and don’t include the Palestinian Authority necessarily mean that we must “annex” the Palestinians and endanger our Jewish majority. This is simply not true.
CIS completely ignores that the “Deal of the Century” suggests Israel can apply sovereignty over Jewish communities, have full security responsibility over the whole of the Land of Israel, and that there will still be an option for a Palestinian state to be formed, in a format similar to San Marino, Lesotho or Luxembourg. A demilitarized Palestinian state was also Yitzhak Rabin’s vision when he initiated the Oslo Accords. The original two-state solution was far from what it became later on.
We all aspire to have a Jewish state that will be secured for generations to come. Knowing that we can’t afford a third exile from the land of our forefathers, we understand we can’t afford to lose even one war. However, the plan CIS is aggressively promoting, while falsely claiming that the Jewish majority is in danger, is devastating for Israel’s security.
CIS’s suggestion means that in the long-term, our security should be placed in the hands of the Arabs and international forces. This suggestion is coherent with former president Barack Obama’s plan, which CIS has endorsed since its very foundation. While they talk about “security arrangements,” we know there is no sustainable option other than all aspects of security being solely in the hands of the IDF, along with defensible borders and a strong civil infrastructure. Without Judea and Samaria, Israel simply cannot defend itself from the narrow nine mile-wide coastal plain. This isn’t an ideological opinion; it’s a military fact.
When Zionists came to the Land of Israel in the 19th century, they realized they must acquire three abilities: to establish a Jewish entity in the largest territory possible; to become farmers and grow their livelihood from the land; and to be able to defend themselves without dependence on the good will of the Arabs or the international community. A core value of Zionism is that Israel will never place its citizens’ lives and in someone else’s hands. The Jewish people must be able to defend itself in our homeland and defend every Jewish community around the world when called upon.
In summary, the Zionist movement and the State of Israel have fought from the very beginning against all the odds, and won. Trying to find practical solutions to our complex situation with the Palestinians cannot be done by rejecting our core values and spirit.
Leading French intellectual Bernard-Henri Lévy has called for a renewal of the Zionist vision, arguing that the notion that the Jewish national liberation movement had already fulfilled its mission was sorely mistaken.
“Zionism is only at the beginning of its history,” Lévy declared in a virtual address to the 38th World Zionist Congress in Jerusalem last week.
“Israel is such a young nation,” he noted. “And in another way, it is ancient, as old as the history of the world. What we call Zionism today must continue to maintain its spirit as long as we are alive. Let us not say today that Zionism has exhausted its message, that’s completely untrue.”
Lévy also argued that Diaspora Jewish communities had to remain at the core of the Zionist movement’s vision.
“The Diaspora is not some kind of remainder or remnant, cast away by history,” the philosopher said. “On the contrary, it is something that should be integrated quickly into the mainstream of Zionism.”
Lévy continued: “In Diaspora life, Jewish existence, let’s say someone who’s Romanian, Italian, American or French, there is something very noble in the existence of these Jews, something that cannot be reduced to the expectation of going to Jerusalem. I don’t think that existence in the Diaspora, in exile, is somehow less-than.”
Nearly half of Americans don’t know what the phrase “antisemitism” means.
That’s one takeaway from two surveys published Monday by the American Jewish Committee. The surveys asked Jews and the general American public about antisemitism in the United States.
The Jewish survey found that a large majority of Jews consider antisemitism a problem, and that most see it as a problem on the right and in the Republican Party. Those findings were in line with what the AJC, a nonpartisan advocacy organization, found when it surveyed American Jews last year.
The new surveys found that, in a year when 88% of American Jews say antisemitism remains a problem in the United States, 21% of Americans overall — more than one in five — say they’ve never even heard of the term. An additional 25% of Americans overall have heard the term but are unsure of what it means.
But nearly half of Americans overall say they have seen antagonism against Jews either online or in person during the past five years, suggesting that respondents may be familiar with the reality of anti-Jewish bigotry but unfamiliar with the term “antisemitism.”
A new survey shows that more than 8 in 10 American Jews believe antisemitism has risen in the US over the past five years.
The State of Antisemitism in America 2020 survey — conducted by the American Jewish Committee (AJC) — also found that 85% of American Jews viewed the statement, “Israel has no right to exist,” as antisemitic, with 84% feeling the same about the statement, “The US government only supports Israel because of Jewish money.”
Another 76% considered the idea, “American Jews are more loyal to Israel than to America,” as antisemitic.
Furthermore, a combined 80% said the BDS movement was “mostly antisemitic” or had “some antisemitic supporters,” with only 15% saying it was “not antisemitic.”
Asked how much of a problem antisemitism was in the US today, 88% said it was a “very serious problem” or “somewhat of a problem.”
However, 97% said they had not suffered a physical antisemitic attack, 75% said they had not been the target of an antisemitic remark and 77% had not been targeted over their religion on social media.
Of those who were targets of such abuse, however, 76% said they had not reported the incidents.
Occurrences of antisemitism on social media were overwhelmingly clustered on Facebook, at 62%; with Twitter at 33%.
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.
We last saw Palestinian newspaper Ma'an editor Nassar Lahham with an antisemitic rant about racist rabbis.
His latest editorial is an astonishing example of lies and psychological projection.
Why does the Israeli public not show interest in the news of Sudanese, Saudi or Gulf normalization?
Because the Zionist movement raised Israeli Jews and most of the world's Jews to hate Arabs, with or without reason. In a strange equation, the Jews love Europe that expelled them and threw them into the sea, and they always demand to travel to it and admire it, even though Europe is the one that burned them in ovens... You see the Israeli entering European airports, meek and humiliated.
As for the Israeli, when he lands in the airports of the capitals of normalization, you see him bullying the Arabs, raising his ideology and boasting. - even though the Arab capitals never hurt the Jews and gave them equal rights and correct citizenship through the ages !!
I follow the news pretty closely and this is the first time I've heard that Israel teaches all Jews to hate Arabs, Israelis aren't interested in normalization, that they act meek and humiliated in European capitals (that IDF flyover of Auschwitz must be an example), that they are humiliating Arabs in Arab airports, and that they had equal rights under Arab rule.
As far as the hating Arabs part, Ma'an has a story that Israel opened a new pedestrian bridge at the Qalqilya Crossing so Palestinian Arabs crossing into Israel don't have to dodge cars on the street and parking lot. Israel is investing 300 million shekels to upgrade all the crossings.
If Israel hated Arabs, why would they care if they had to cross a street to get to the crossing? Why would they spend so much money to improve the Arab experience at the crossings?
Ma'an also reports that Israel allowed Qatari funds to enter Gaza for poor people there. Why would these hateful Jews allow that to happen?
Ma'an also reports that Israel is working with the UAE to find a way to have Israeli Muslims travel to Mecca on Hajj using boats that would travel from Eilat to Jeddah, which would shorten their trip significantly. Why would Israel care about that? What's wrong with keeping them traveling through Jordan and then taking long bus rides to Mecca?
Lahham's own paper proves that Israel doesn't hate Arabs and is willing to help them as much as possible. It is Nasser Lahham who hates Jews, not Jews who hate Arabs.
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.
"...In the two months since I arrived in New York, I have witnessed a jarring dissonance between what this council chooses to focus on and what is actually happening in the Middle East. During this short period, I witnessed the council ignoring opportunities to promote peace while simultaneously choosing not to act in the face of grave threats...
In a debate titled 'The Situation in the Middle East, Including the Palestinian Question,' one would expect the council to focus on the most important issues facing the Middle East.
However, once a month, for 20 years – over hundreds of debates – members of this council routinely overlook critical issues and focus only on the 'Palestinian Question'.
Today's debate is a perfect example. Shouldn't we be discussing the momentum of peace between four countries in a turbulent region?...
Now everyone can see that the Palestinians incite against any country that seeks peace in the region, even its fellow Arab League members. The fact that the Palestinians attack those who make peace with Israel, demonstrates that, for years, the council has been applying pressure to the wrong side....
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is also, of course, an important issue and should be a part of the debate. Yet, while discussing it every month for the last 20 years, key elements have been neglected. If you are looking for the real obstacle to peace, look at the Palestinian's long record of incitement and hate. PA textbooks incite to violence and promote terrorism and antisemitism. Through its "Pay to Slay" program, the PA rewards terror attacks against Israeli civilians. Maybe part of the answer to the Palestinian question can be found here.
The PA spends hundreds of millions of dollars a year on its 'pay to slay' program. Just think how that money could have been spent this year fighting COVID-19.
The United Nations Security Council must embrace the Abraham Accords if it wants peace and stability in the Middle East, both Israeli and US envoys urged the international body on Monday.
“This council should embrace the Accords and use them as a catalyst to promote peace and security in the region,” Israel’s Ambassador to the UN Gilad Erdan said. His speech marked the first time he has addressed the UNSC since his arrival in New York to replace former ambassador Danny Danon.
“For decades, many in the international community have fixated on a single solution to the conflict. They vote for the same anti-Israel resolutions, recycle old talking points and ignore issues that are crucial for ending the conflict. They also ignore the fact that this approach has only emboldened Palestinian rejectionism,” Erdan said, during the UNSC monthly meeting on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
US Ambassador to the UN Kelly Craft said, “History will judge how this Council responds to this historic moment – it can either shrink from the challenge or rise to the occasion.”
Both envoys spoke in the aftermath of the historic weekend announcement that the US had brokered an agreement between Sudan and Israel to establish ties, under the auspices of the Trump Administration’s Abraham Accords. It follows Israel’s ratification this month of a peace deal with the United Arab Emirates and its pending ratification of a normalization deal with Bahrain.
The new-look Middle East—Sunni Arabs and Jews against Shiite Iran and its many proxies—is rooted in both of those Obama and Trump policies, but in the region, there are fears worse is to come. The election is weeks away, but Arab leaders are already fretting about what a Biden presidency could mean for them. More than the Biden-Harris campaign promises to “reassess our relationship with the Kingdom, end U.S. support for Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen, and make sure America does not check its values at the door to sell arms or buy oil,” the greater fear is of the pendulum swinging back to the pre-Trump status quo, and a rebalancing of American policy in the region to favor Iran. As much as anything else, the fear of a renewed American-Iran alliance is driving Sunni Arabs to Israel. Could they be wrong?
Team Biden has made it clear that if Iran comes back into compliance with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or Iran deal, they will rejoin. But it seems unlikely that anyone from a Biden administration would conduct the aggressive lobbying campaign for Iran that Obama’s hapless Secretary of State John Kerry embraced. Indeed, the more serious risk is not that Biden’s Middle East advisers fall hopelessly in love with the Islamic Republic, as too many of Obama’s negotiators did. It is that they will do nothing in the face of Iranian efforts to dominate the Middle East and that America’s erstwhile allies take their security into their own hands, to dangerous effect.
With an America that ignores both Iranian predations against its own people and turns it back on supporting Washington’s traditional allies among Israel and the Sunnis, the odds are that regional powers will take it upon themselves to protect their interests in the best way they know how. That began with a new alliance with Jerusalem, but where it could end is anyone’s guess. The last time such fears were in the air, the Saudis escalated their conflict with Yemen, and began dabbling in opposition politics and worse in the neighborhood. This time they may well turn to other interested global players—Saudi Arabia is now China’s top oil supplier—for weapons and more.
In short, while a rekindling of the Democratic love affair with Tehran promises rough seas ahead in the Middle East, the larger problem may be that both a Trump second term or a Biden administration will likely wash their hands of the region, feeling that the mission as they defined it has been accomplished.
Because of MEMRI, the ADL and others, most of Israel's Arab neighbors learned long ago that their media should replace attacks on Jews and Judaism with purported attacks on "Zionists" and "Zionism."
Further away, however, the original antisemitism is still around.
In Sudan's case, it is so ingrained that even articles that are supportive of peace with Israel have antisemitic themes.
Here are some recent ones, all from Sudanile which publishes a large variety of opinion pieces, both pro and anti-normalization..
Abu Hurairah Abdul Rahman, a "writer and human rights defender," writes in Sudanile that it is of practical benefit to Sudan to make peace with Israel to help its economy. After all, he says,
The total number of Jews in the world is 15 million. Within America, they number 6 million, or less than 3% of the total American population. In a study on the wealth of the Jews in America in (2016-2017) that the wealth of the rich in the United States is estimated at 84 trillion dollars, and that 3 million Jews out of 6 million Jews Americans own 75% of the American wealth, according to the estimation of Credit Suisse.
Needless to say, there was no such study by Credit Suisse of Jewish wealth.
This article is similar - Jews are so rich and powerful so Sudan might as well be on their side:
The Jews own 75% of the total wealth of America. The Belza Ryan Report stated that 80% of the major positions in America are occupied by the Jews, just as the Jews have a great influence in the world. So, what is our interest to antagonize an entity with this strength and for whom? Why? Have we sacrificed our souls and our interests to support the oppressed in the world so much we have forgotten our interests? The cause of the Palestinians may be just, so why do they not fight for their cause on their own? And why do we fight on their behalf? We have seen them in the media enjoying quality hospitals and high-end schools, and they do not stand in line for bread for 4 hours, nor do they have petrol or gas rations, so why should we sacrifice for them ??! Do we have any possibility to sacrifice for others ?? A large part of what we suffer today and in the past is the product of our hostility to Israel, our funding and our arming of Hamas, and if we sacrifice ourselves for the support of the oppressed Muslims in the world, why should I not support the Rohingya in Myanmar? Or the people of Kashmir against India? Why are we facing this burden? There are 57 Muslim countries in the world, of which we are the weakest.
Dr. Farrag Sheikh Fazari, writing in the same site, also is OK with Jews, as he describes how prominent Jewish families used to live in Sudan. But his article starts off this way:
Before normalization with the Jewish state, we were safe and secure, far away from the deception of the Jews and the ambitions of the Jewish moneylender, who the English writer Shakespeare was able with great ingenuity to draw the features of his character and his bloody desire for revenge against anyone who stands before his limitless ambitions, as stated in the play "The Merchant of Venice."
This antisemitism is completely subconscious - the writers are sure that they are being complimentary towards Jews.
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, France's president Emmanuel Macron said, during a memorial ceremony for beheaded teacher Samuel Paty, that France "will not give up cartoons" that depict Mohammed.
This statement has angered much of the Muslim world, who are now calling to boycott French goods.
The battle lines can be seen in two statements, one from the Organization of Islamic Coordination and the other from Emmanuel Macron himself.
The General Secretariat of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has been following the ongoing practice of running satirical caricatures depicting the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), being struck with astonishment at so unexpected a discourse from certain French politicians, which it deems to be harmful to the Muslim-French relations, hatemongering and only serving partisan political interests.
The General Secretariat says it will always condemn practices of blasphemy and of insulting Prophets of Islam, Christianity and Judaism.
Taking an unequivocal condemning stance against all acts of terror in the name of religion, the General Secretariat had earlier condemned the brutal murder of French citizen Samuel Paty.
While dissociating this horrendous crime from Islam and its magnanimous values, blaming it as an individual or collective terrorist enterprise punishable by law, the General Secretariat continues to decry justification for blasphemy-based harassment of any religion in the name of freedom of expression.Furthermore, the General Secretariat deplores pairing Islam and Muslims with terrorism, urging for a review of anti-Muslim discriminatory policies, unjustifiably provocative to the feelings of a billion and a half Muslims across the world.
We respect all differences in a spirit of peace. We do not accept hate speech and defend reasonable debate. We will always be on the side of human dignity and universal values.
Taking both at face value, we see both commonalities and differences. It is worthwhile to examine the exact differences between the positions.
The OIC and Macron seem to agree that hate speech should not be accepted. The both agree that terrorism is unacceptable, even terrorism that is ostensibly defending religious figures from attack.
The difference is in what speech is acceptable.
Macron is against "hate speech." The OIC, representing Muslims, is against "blasphemy-based" speech.
That is the key.
The Muslims are insisting that the West accept Sharia law in determining what is acceptable. Macron rejects that.
Muslim anger is centered on the cartoon depiction of Mohammed far more than on the words or context of those images. Macron is concentrating on the context - if it is based on hate it is unacceptable, if it is based on debate it must be defended.
Charlie Hebdo's cartoons, offensive to all religions and groups, are not motivated by hate. Even though this cover that equates Israel's treatment of Palestinians with Nazi treatment of Jews is inarguably offensive, in the context of Charlie Hebdo which delights in offending literally everyone, this is not hate speech. Whether it is funny is another question - offense for the sake of offense is puerile, not witty. In practically every other context, that equation of Jews to Nazis is unquestionably antisemitic and hate speech, meant to hurt Jews. For Charlie Hebdo, it is "look at us and how edgy we are," the equivalent to dead baby jokes.
The OIC is pretending to care about insults to Judaism and Christianity but it is really saying that since Islamic law prohibits the depiction of any prophets, the entire world must adhere to those standards. After all, no Jew or Christian would be insulted by this cartoon, which is prohibited in Islam because it depicts Moses:
Macron is saying that the intent is the key for determining what is hate speech and what is allowed. The OIC is saying that the intent is irrelevant - things are objectively offensive if they violate Islamic law.
Macron is saying that all groups must be treated equally. The OIC is saying that Muslims must be treated with kid gloves because they get offended by more things than other groups do.
When you examine their positions, it is apparent that Macron is correct. One may and should choose to respect others and their beliefs, but this is out of courtesy and kindness rather than compulsion, as the Muslim groups are insisting. The line is crossed at incitement and hate, and the evidence of that is often based on looking at the entire history of the words of the alleged inciter.
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.
The NYU - American Association of University Professors issued a statement about Zoom denying PFLP terrorist Leila Khaled on their platform.
10/23/2020
Today, Zoom unilaterally shut down a webinar hosted by the NYU chapter of the AAUP, and co-sponsored by several NYU departments and institutes. The webinar was scheduled to discuss the censorship, by Zoom and other big tech platforms, of an open classroom session last month at SFSU, featuring the Palestinian rights advocate Leila Khaled.
Of course, we recognize that it is an act of sick comedy to censor an event about censorship, but it raises serious questions about the capacity of a corporate, third-party vendor to decide what is acceptable academic speech and what is not.
The shutdown of a campus event is a clear violation of the principle of academic freedom that universities are obliged to observe. Allowing Zoom to override this bedrock principle, at the behest of organized, politically motivated groups, is a grave error for any university administration to make, and it should not escape censure from faculty and students.
The NYU administration has told us they knew nothing about Zoom’s decision, and that they have taken up the issue with the company’s representatives. We urge the administration to issue a strong statement denouncing this act, and to revisit the terms of its contract with Zoom.
If Zoom will not walk back its policy of canceling webinars featuring Palestinian speech and advocacy, college presidents should break their agreements with the company.
The AAUP chapter is committed to organizing an event for the NYU community to discuss this appalling breach of academic norms.
Back in ancient times of a couple of decades ago, university professors were expected to tell the truth. It seems to be a minimum requirement for the job. But at NYU, the AAUP seems to be allergic to veracity.
Nowhere in this letter does it say the reason Zoom does not allow Leila Khaled on its platform. This is strange because anyone can read Zoom's Prohibited Use policy:
Prohibited Use. You agree that You will not use, and will not permit any End User to use, the Services to: ... use the Services in violation of any Zoom policy or in a manner that violates applicable law, including but not limited to ...anti-terrorism laws and regulations...
Hosting and promoting a terrorists violates anti-terrorism laws.
The reason is because Khaled is a member of a terror group, not because she is an advocate for Palestinians.
When the NYU-AAUP says Zoom has a policy of "canceling webinars featuring Palestinian speech and advocacy," they are not only lying - they are knowingly lying. There are plenty of pro-Palestinian Zoom meetings, every single day.
Almost as bad is saying that Zoom is "censoring" anything by adhering to its own rules against using the platform for terrorism that it has had in place since 2012.
The AAUP, with this statement, has destroyed its credibility - in support of an unrepentant terrorist and current member of an active terror group.
Not to mention that the AAUP has not, to my knowledge, ever said a word in support of academic freedom when gangs of Israel-haters who disrupt lectures and speeches by Zionists or Israelis. This only becomes a "bedrock principle" when a terrorist is affected. Which is its own kind of sickness.
(h/t Andrew P)
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.
Over a thousand mostly Orthodox Jews gathered for a rally in support of Donald Trump in Brooklyn on Sunday, using the opportunity to loudly air their grievances against Democratic leadership in New York while calling for four more years of the Republican US president.
The demonstration in Brooklyn’s Marine Park came after weeks of tensions in many of the borough’s Orthodox neighborhoods over new restrictions imposed by New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio in response to rising COVID-19 cases in those areas.
Some ultra-Orthodox communities in Brooklyn have found themselves in national headlines due to accusations that their refusal to adhere to coronavirus guidelines led to a spike of new cases in September. Orthodox leaders accuse Cuomo and de Blasio of unfairly singling out their communities and adopting punitive measures rather than engaging with them.
While the infection rate has since waned and restrictions have begun to be lifted in some places, they still mostly remain in Brooklyn, along with tensions between the Jewish community and the city and state leadership.
“Hey Cuomo, you probably wouldn’t have allowed this [gathering]… Come get me!” said the rally’s emcee Nachman Mostofsky, the executive director of the right-wing, pro-Israel policy group Chovevei Zion.
The rally was the final destination of a parade convoy that chugged through the streets of Rockland County’s Monsey, Long Island’s Five Towns, Manhattan, and a number of pre-dominantly Orthodox neighborhoods in Brooklyn.
Hundreds of New York Ultra-Orthodox Jews Hold Pro-Trump Rally
Skirmishes broke out between supporters and opponents of US President Donald Trump as a Jews For Trump convoy of hundreds of cars draped with American flags and Trump 2020 banners rolled slowly through Manhattan and Brooklyn on Sunday afternoon.
The demonstration was planned as part pre-election rally for the Republican president and part protest against coronavirus restrictions in some heavily Jewish areas of New York where spiking infection rates have been recorded.
The caravan traveled from Coney Island to the Trump Tower in Manhattan before heading to a rally in a Brooklyn park. Cars in the procession blasted remix versions of the president’s speeches, festive Jewish music and soundtracked campaign slogans.
Videos shared on Twitter showed several protesters pelting the vehicles with eggs or stones, snatching flags and shouting insults.
In one video showing physical fights between several people, police officers detain an unidentified man and protesters chant “let him go.” Another video showed a small group of people throwing objects from a Brooklyn highway overpass at vehicles bedecked with Trump flags.
Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani briefly greeted supporters from the passenger seat of a car driving near Trump Tower during the parade, videos showed.
A family of seven ‒ including four kids ‒ were pepper-sprayed by violent rioters on Sunday while participating in a “Jews For Trump” rally in New York City.
placeholder
A spokesperson for the New York Police Department said 11 people were taken into custody after the rally descended into chaos and violence Sunday afternoon. Six people were charged with disorderly conduct, obstruction of government administration and harassment, while a seventh person was charged with assaulting a police officer and resisting arrest, the NYPD said Monday.
A convoy of hundreds of cars draped with American flags and "Trump 2020" banners rolled slowly through Manhattan and Brooklyn on Sunday afternoon. The caravan traveled from Coney Island to the Trump Tower in Manhattan before heading to a rally in a Brooklyn park.
At some point, skirmishes broke out between supporters and opponents of the president.
A member of the family that was pepper-sprayed told Fox News that the unprovoked attack happened while the family was driving down Fifth Avenue with the car windows down and Trump flags displayed.
The man, who wished to remain anonymous fearing his family could be targeted, said a car pulled up next to them and unleashed pepper spray into their vehicle.
"Immediately the kids started crying and screaming and I jumped out of the car after I was peppered [sic] sprayed as well," the man said.
The man said the attacker chased him down the avenue trying to pepper-spray him again. His mother flagged down an officer and the suspect was arrested.
At the heart of a University of Toronto hiring scandal is an academic whose critique of Israeli settlements in Palestine is not what most people would call radical.
At York University, a professor is facing death threats and a campaign to stop him from teaching human rights courses — a campaign that accuses him of anti-Semitism after he debated the definition of anti-Semitism.
While the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has long been a flashpoint on campuses across Canada, legal experts and advocacy groups are raising concerns that these recent incidents suggest an escalation of silencing even moderate critiques of Israel, and not just in the halls of academia, but in the media, the political sphere and social interactions.
Are the two academics pictured here "moderate critics" of Israel?
The professor on the left, York University Law Professor Faisal Bhabha, said during a June 10 webcast that Zionism is just “Jewish supremacy.” He later said “I am equating Zionism with white supremacy” and then added for good measure that it was possible that Israel is “exaggerating the Holocaust.”
This isn't moderate criticism. This is demonizing Israel and Jewish Zionists as being bigots, and his suggestion that Israel exaggerates the Holocaust is pure antisemitism.
These "one staters" never call for India, Pakistan and Bangladesh to become one state to ensure equal rights. They never propose nations in the Balkans of different ethnicities to merge together. Only the Jewish State is expected to be destroyed in the name of equal rights - with no regard to the human rights of Jews who would, in their world, inevitably become a minority in a majority hostile Palestinian Arab nation.
It is possible to criticize Israel without calling it an apartheid state, or a Nazi state, or calling for its destruction. No one demands Syria's destruction, or China's.
No one is calling actual legitimate criticism antisemitism. But invariably, the people who complain that they are being "silenced" by accusations of antisemitism are proven to have a crazed obsession with insisting that Israel follow rules that they do not demand of any other nation.
That's double standards, and that is antisemitism.
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.
Peter Beinart writes in the socialist Jewish Currents site:
ON OCTOBER 23RD, Donald Trump announced that Sudan would begin the process of normalizing relations with Israel. The declaration, which was part of a deal to remove Sudan from the US list of state sponsors of terror, follows last month’s pledges by the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain to recognize the Jewish state. Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu have claimed that those peace deals—dubbed “The Abraham Accords”—will promote “human dignity and freedom” in the Middle East.
Twelve days after the Abraham Accords were signed, a poet named Dhabiya Khamis tried to exercise her freedom to leave the UAE. Her government barred her from boarding the plane. “The ban is probably because of my announced opinion against Zionism and normalization,” Khamis declared. “I fear for my freedom and life from being threatened and arrested.” Those fears were well-founded. According to a report in Middle East Monitor, “scores of Emiratis, Palestinians and Jordanians living in the UAE” had already been jailed “for opposing Abu-Dhabi’s peace deal with Israel.”
I'm not going to defend the human rights record of any Muslim country, but there is absolutely no evidence that Khamis was blocked from leaving because of her political positions. She made that claim; it was eagerly repeated by Iranian media and skeptically quoted by BBC Arabic.
What is the proof that the UAE arrested opponents of the deal? Tracing back the source, it came from a very sketchy NGO called the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor, which mentioned that some people from the UAE, Bahrain and Mauritania were arrested during protests against the Abraham Accords. Not one person arrested was named - the NGO stated that it received "complaints."
Based on these tenuous reports, Beinart reaches some conclusions:
Khamis’s experience illustrates a harsh truth: Although Israel’s diplomatic breakthroughs in the Persian Gulf have elicited bipartisan praise in Washington, they rely on—and contribute to—brutal repression. In Sudan, which is undergoing a fragile transition after three decades of dictatorial rule, normalization imperils democracy too. The reason is simple. In a region where sympathy for the Palestinian cause still runs deep, recognizing Israel elicits fierce popular opposition. To implement normalization agreements, therefore, Netanyahu and Trump need their Arab partners to quash domestic dissent. For years, Israel’s boosters have bemoaned the lack of democracy in the Middle East. Ironically, it is that lack of democracy on which Israel’s peace diplomacy largely depends.
And he uses curious logic. He says that since the UAE has used software from Israel's private NSO Group to spy on citizens, that means Israel is culpable for that use. He says that since Bahrain has previously banned Shiite parties from its parliament, Israel is benefitting from the king's repression. As always, to the Left, Arabs aren't responsible for their own actions - Israel is pulling the strings.
As far as Sudan goes, Beinart goes further out on a limb:
In a country where—according to an Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies poll—almost 80% of people oppose normalization, rapidly establishing diplomatic ties to Israel could destabilize the fragile transitional government. The announcement has already sparked public protests. And the leader of Sudan’s largest political party, which has close ties to the protest movement that overthrew Bashir, claims that the normalization agreement “contradicts the Sudanese national law” and could mean “the ignition of a new war.” Sarah Leah Whitson, executive director of Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN), told me she fears Sudan’s generals may use the resulting instability as the pretext for a “full military takeover and end to the democratic transition.” In which case Sudan would be on its way to resembling the UAE and Bahrain.
So many bad things could happen - and people who are against normalization are saying it - so, to Beinart, we can assume they will, which makes normalization awful!
Unlike Beinart, I spend time reading primary sources. Bahrain, the UAE and Sudan are all different nations with different priorities and aspirations. But none of them - government or opposition - are going to risk a civil war over the Palestinian issue. Nobody cares that deeply about it. The doomsday scenarios on Sudan are ridiculous.
Not to say there isn't opposition to the deal. There is. But Sudan's main desire is to get off the terror list and to help its economy. The Palestinian issue is barely line noise. If the price to get what they so desperately need is peace with Israel, that is a relatively small price to pay. The opposition will complain, like oppositions everywhere. But no one is going to start a war or a coup because of their love of Palestinians.
No matter how much the Beinarts of the world hope that will happen.
Another major point that Beinart chooses to ignore: the entire reason for wall-to-wall historic opposition to Israel is a combination of antisemitism - which the socialist Left pretends does not exist in the Arab world - and decades of non-stop anti-Israel propaganda. In the UAE and in Bahrain this propaganda has ended. In Sudan, there are articles in the media that are pro-normalization, some antisemitic articles against it, and many that are pragmatic about the idea.
This is why the idea of normalization is gaining currency in so many Arab countries - for the first time, ordinary people are reading both sides of the story in their own local media.
To the Peter Beinarts of the world, this is a catastrophe. They need Arabs to be anti-Israel and antisemitic to justify their arguments that the Middle East will explode if Israel bypasses the intransigent Palestinians. But support for Palestinians was always ankle-deep at best, and the Western Left never understood that basic fact - mostly because every Arab diplomat, for honor reasons, would parrot the anti-Israel line whenever they spoke to their Western counterparts.
In the end, every Arab nation will act in their self-interest.
The UAE aspires to be a modern, high tech state whose economy is no longer dependent on vanishing oil supply and demand. Israel is a natural partner for this enterprise.
Bahrain wants to be known as the most tolerant Muslim country. Embracing Jews is the most visible and public means to reach that goal.
Sudan wants to end its long nightmare of the last decade and become a respectable nation. Peace with Israel helps them in that direction far more than continued slogans for Palestinians.
And one more thing Beinart chooses to ignore. As much as he wants to paint Israel as a brutal dictatorship, he knows that Israel has the most concern for human rights and free speech of any nation in the region, and is among the best in the world. Israel will influence Arab nations to be more open, not less. It is Israel's concern for equal rights, for education, for scientific research and development, for innovation and for the free market that gives it a competitive advantage - and these are all things that will bring Arab nations out of the backwardness they have been in for so long.
In literally every argument Beinart gives for his thesis, he shows not only that he is wrong, but that he has turned into a hater. Because in the end, his thesis rests on the assumption that Israel is evil, and therefore whatever it does will be evil. It is bigotry.
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.
Intelligence Minister Eli Cohen added that a peace accord with Sudan strikes a blow to Iran’s aspirations of regional hegemony. “Sudan is an important country in the region, having previously served as a way station for weapons between Iran and Gaza,” Cohen said. “Taking it off the US list of state sponsors of terrorism enables us to sign another agreement and to develop several important tracks of cooperation that will greatly contribute to Israel.”
From Israel’s point of view, this is also an opportunity to discuss the repatriation of thousands of Sudanese migrants who have sought refuge here in recent years. But the two countries are also expected to negotiate several mutually beneficial cooperation agreements, including in agriculture and technology.
The US and Israel have pledged to help bring both investment and debt relief to Sudan. Washington is offering a billion-dollar aid package, while Israel will provide agritech to help boost its dire economic situation. For its part, Sudan – Africa’s third-largest country – has huge swaths of arable land.
But on the flip side, there is concern that such a major foreign policy move at a time of deep economic crisis in Sudan could upset the delicate balance between the military and civilian authority, which is why Sudanese Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok is expected to push for his country’s transitional parliament to approve the deal first. The chairman of Sudan’s Sovereignty Council, Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, is scheduled to hand over control of the council to Hamdok in 2022.
We should not ignore recent protests that have taken place in Khartoum against the normalization agreement with Israel, that have included the burning of Israeli flags. According to the Sudanese newspaper, Al-Intibaha, demonstrators chanted slogans against establishing relations and demanded that political parties who supported the step revise their position. At least two political factions in Sudan – the Popular Congress Party and the Sudanese Baath Party – issued statements condemning the decision to forge ties with Israel.
As the US heads to a critical election next week, we urge the new administration – whether under Trump or Biden – to continue pursuing the path of peace between Israel and Arab states. Perhaps the UAE, Bahrain and now Sudan can help to get the Palestinian leadership back to the negotiating table with Israel.
"For some odd reason, prior administrations decided to indulge Palestinian fantasies about what could happen that were totally out of touch with reality."
"I spent most of yesterday in closed door meetings, with [U.S. Treasury] Secretary Mnuchin, Prime Minister Netanyahu, [and] the finance minister of the United Arab Emirates....I'm in the room and I'm seeing people that really, really want to advance the ball as far as it will go.....They were almost...tripping over each other to come up with more and more ideas about what could be done. The sky is truly the limit, and it's fun to watch, because...we don't need to police this or oversee it; they're doing that on their own."
"I think the Palestinians are sort of in one of those final stages of denial. It's hard to watch. It's completely self-defeating. There was a leadership problem. There was significant corruption at the top....I've traveled with Prime Minister Netanyahu to the United States. I've been on his plane a few times....He flies like a regular commercial passenger. And Mahmoud Abbas, where the Palestinian GDP per capita is maybe 1/15th that of Israel, he flies around in a $75 million Boeing business jet....You've got a lot of concentration of wealth among the upper elite and a lot of people are really unhappy about it."
"America has provided the Palestinians with more financial, humanitarian assistance per capita than any other place in the world by far. And we have given more money to the Palestinians compared to any other nation by a power of at least five compared to every other country. So, we've got nothing to apologize for in terms of our assistance to the Palestinians....It is a bridge to nowhere. The Palestinians want to take, but they're not willing to really engage in a serious way."
"We want to help the Palestinian people. By the way, the State of Israel wants to help the Palestinian people. It is in Israel's interest for the Palestinian people to be healthy, to be prosperous, to have hope and optimism about their lives....Enough of the histrionics. Enough of the tantrums. Just sit down and have civilized discussions on serious issues and there'll be progress."
Secretary-General of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) Yousef Al-Othaimeen told Sky News on Monday that Palestinians need to "think outside the box" in their search for an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
"One is required to think outside the box in search for peace. I do not think a reasonable person - whether Palestinian, Arab or Muslim - would refuse any initiative to resolve the [Palestinian] cause in any way," he said.
"The [Palestinian] cause has been going on for 70 years. We have tried wars, we have tried to throw Israel into the sea and we have tried many other things," the former Saudi Arabian minister said.
Othaimeen said that the goal of the Palestinian cause is a two-state solution, with east Jerusalem as its capital, and that a younger generation should not be afraid to try new approaches to get there.
Sec.-Gen. of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation Yousef Al-Othaimeen: The Palestinians Need to Think Outside the Box, Try Different Ways to Achieve Peace with Israel, Two-State Solution pic.twitter.com/8GLK0GvFAX
One interesting feature is a "word cloud" showing the relative frequency of bias crimes by type, sizing each type by how frequent they are.
As we have seen in the past, anti-Jewish crimes are by far the most prevalent in New York, although for the first half of the year they were not more than half of all the bias crimes. Still, the word cloud is startling:
If the United States is structurally racist, then perhaps it is endemically antisemitic. (I don't believe that.)
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.
Almost lost among the flurry of announcements around Israel's peace with Bahrain was this Memorandum of Understanding between the US State Department Office of the Special Envoy To Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism and Bahrain's King Hamad Global Centre for Peaceful Coexistence.
Here it is:
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE KING HAMAD GLOBAL CENTRE FOR PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE AND THE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES SPECIAL ENVOY TO MONITOR AND COMBAT ANTI-SEMITISM
WHEREAS Arabs and Jews are both Semitic peoples that are threatened by hatred or intolerance toward Semitic peoples;
WHEREAS all peoples of the Middle East should aspire to coexist in tolerance and mutual respect;
WHEREAS the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) has adopted a widely accepted definition of anti-Semitism that incorporates examples of its various manifestations;
WHEREAS anti-Semitism is a vile poison that must be eradicated from the world;
WHEREAS purveyors of anti-Semitism in the Middle East seek to spread this evil as a political tool to manipulate the Arab and Muslim world;
WHEREAS His Majesty King Hamad bin Issa Al-Khalifa has made it a top priority for Bahrain to lead the Middle East toward a future of tolerance, mutual respect, and cooperation between Muslims and Jews; and
WHEREAS President Donald J. Trump and Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo have made it a top priority for the United States to combat all forms of anti-Semitism in all parts of the world;
THEREFORE, the King Hamad Global Centre for Peaceful Coexistence (the King Hamad Centre) and the Office of the United States Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism (SEAS), hereinafter the Participants, hereby set forth the following understandings:
(1) The King Hamad Centre and SEAS intend to work together to develop and implement programs to promote mutual respect, appreciation, and peaceful coexistence between the Arab and Jewish peoples and their respective nation-states, and between all faiths in the Middle East; The spirit of this cooperation is intended to be guided by the principles of The Kingdom of Bahrain Declaration of July 3, 2017;
(2) The King Hamad Centre and SEAS intend to work together to develop and implement programs to recognize and celebrate the periods of good will and harmony that existed between Jews and Arabs living side-by-side throughout the Middle East;
(3) The King Hamad Centre and SEAS intend to cooperate in developing educational programs aimed at teaching all children of the Middle East the values of mutual respect, appreciation, and peaceful coexistence; such programs are intended to build upon the King Hamad Faith in Leadership Fellows Programme, The King Hamad Cyber Peace Academy, and other related programs;
(4) The King Hamad Centre and SEAS intend to work together to share and promote best practices for combating all forms of anti-Semitism, including anti-Zionism and the delegitimization of the State of Israel;
(5) The King Hamad Centre and SEAS intend to work together to share and promote best practices for combating other kinds of intolerance and hatred;
(6) The King Hamad Centre and SEAS each intends to bear its own costs for any cooperation and activities taken in furtherance of this Memorandum of Understanding (MoU);
(7) The King Hamad Centre and SEAS intend to develop the activities and areas of cooperation under this MoU through a periodic work plan and intend to develop the first work plan within six months of signature of this MoU;
(8) As used herein, the term "anti-Semitism" is defined by reference to and in accordance with the Working Definition of Antisemitism as adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) in its Bucharest plenary on May 26, 2016, including the examples set forth as part of the definition;
(9) Cooperation under this MoU is intended to commence upon signature and is intended to be operative for three years, subject to written renewal for a similar period. Either the King Hamad Centre or SEAS may unilaterally discontinue this MoU at any time, with written notice given to the other Participant.
SIGNED at Washington, DC, this 22nd day of October, 2020, in duplicate in the English language.
For the first time, an Arab nation has accepted that anti-Zionism is a form of antisemitism. Arabs of course know this well - while they have been arguing since the 1940s that the two are separate, they know quite well that antisemitism has been used to fuel anti-Zionism in the Arab world and that opposition to Israel has always been based on antisemitic theories, theories which we have documented here many times from Arab media.
That is not even the most astonishing part!
This MOU calls for "peaceful coexistence between the Arab and Jewish peoples and their respective nation-states," meaning that Bahrain accepts Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people.
Note that the text says "Arabs and Jews are both Semitic peoples." This shows that Bahrain accepts Jews as a people, not merely members of a religion as the Palestinians insist. (Yes, the agreement is with the King Hamas Center and not the government, but the King Hamad Center represents the King.)
Not only that, but it accepts Jews as a Semitic people, meaning that that are an indigenous people of the region that belong there every bit as much as Arabs.
Even beyond that, this MOU says that Bahrain will work to establish peace between Israel and all Arab states to establish peace in the entire region. Peace between Israel and Bahrain is not looked upon as a narrow bilateral agreement but as a springboard to establishing Israel as a permanent part of the Middle East.
Elan S. Carr, the US Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism, has been working on this for quite a while. First news of an MOU came in February and it is unclear if they waited for Israel/Bahrain peace for issue the text (I could find no stories of an actual signing of the MOU as planned in March), since it would have been awkward for Bahrain to accept Israel as the Jewish state before the normalization agreement.
In some ways, this is even more amazing and groundbreaking than the Israel/UAE agreements announced so far.
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.
173. If a person does any of the following, then he is liable to one year imprisonment:
(1) he publishes a publication that is liable crudely to offend the religious faith or sentiment of others;
(2) he voices in a public place and in the hearing of another person any word or sound that is liable crudely to offend the religious faith or sentiment of others.
There is obviously tension between this law and freedom of expression, and the LOC lists various examples where freedom of expression won out - allowing the showing of the film The Last Temptation of Christ, or allowing the distribution of the Charlie Hebdo cover that showed Mohammed saying "I am Charlie."
The document lists only a single case where this law was invoked:
In a 1998 decision the Supreme Court rejected an appeal from a conviction of attempting to injure religious sentiments by trying to post flyers in Hebron, a city with a majority of Muslims that had experienced a high level of tension between Jews and Arabs in recent years. The flyers depicted a pig wearing an Arab head cover and labeled “Muhammad” stepping on an open book titled “Quran.” The Court noted that, considering that freedom of speech constitutes a basic principle of a democratic state, indictments under section 173 of the Penal Law were rare. In the circumstances of the case, however, there was no need for expert opinions to prove that the flyers could cause injury to the feelings of Muslims in Hebron and crossed the line of what was permitted as free speech.
This means that, as far as I can tell, the only time this law meant to protect members of a religion from being offended in Israel was invoked was when the offended people were Muslims.
This is also a case where the situation where Israeli residents of the territories have different laws than the Palestinian citizens is to the Palestinians' advantage. The Jews of Hebron have to adhere to Israeli law not to crudely offend their Muslim neighbors, but the Israeli courts cannot force the Muslims there to act the same way towards Jews.
(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.
This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For 20 years and 40,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.
Swedes celebrate Jewish culture in Cairo
-
The Swedish Embassy in Cairo recently held an event advertising an
exhibition on Egyptian Jews at the Medelhavsmuseet in Stockholm. (With
thanks: Sos) T...
A Three-Way
-
Taking out the Islamofacist Iranian dictatorship is the key to peace in the
region.
* * * *Please support Dry Bones*
(through PayPal or your Credit Car...
The Pope's Genocide Cowardice
-
Pope Francis recently implied that Israel was committing “genocide” in its
campaign against Hamas. While the pope was eager to apply the term to
Muslims...
An open letter to the police and CPS
-
To the police and CPS. With reference to complaints made by Gabriel
Kanter-Webber about Rupert Nathan. I understand that the matter has now
been referred...
7 Biggest Dungeons In Elder Scrolls Games
-
Please verify your email address. Labyrinthian in Skyrim is a maze of
Nordic ruins with fiends to battle and treasures to find. Sundercliff Watch
in Oblivi...
Gaza: A Brief Modern History Outline
-
Pre-1917 - Gaza part of the Ottoman Empire
1917 - Gaza conquered by British Army and subsequently becomes part of
Mandate Palestine
1948 - Gaza conquere...
One Choice: Fight to Win
-
Yesterday Israel preempted a potentially disastrous attack by Hezbollah on
the center of the country. Thirty minutes before launch time, our aircraft
destr...
Yom Hashoah 5784 – 2024
-
Israel’s Yom Hashoah began at sundown this evening with the annual ceremony
at Yad Vashem with torches lit in memory of the 6 million Jewish victims of
the...
Closing Jews Down Under Website
-
With a heavyish heart I am closing down the website after ten years.
It is and it isn’t an easy decision after 10 years of constant work. The
past...
‘Test & Trace’ is a mirage
-
Lockdown II thoughts: Day 1 Opposition politicians have been banging on
about the need for a ‘working’ Test & Trace system even more loudly than
the govern...
Wednesday, October 28, 2020
Elder of Ziyon
