Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Thursday, November 05, 2020

11/05 Links Pt2: The Guardian newspaper goes full Electronic Intifada; Trump's legacy is guaranteed regardless of election outcome; Israel’s Bobsled Athletes Aim to Go Where No Israeli Has Gone Before

From Ian:

David Collier: The Guardian newspaper goes full Electronic Intifada

The Guardian just ran an article that could have been penned by activists at the propaganda rag Electronic Intifada. The piece heartbreakingly describes 41 children who have been left homeless by the Israeli army after their ‘village’ was razed.

The article tells us that 73 villagers lost their homes and that this is the ‘largest demolition in the past decade’. There are post demolition pictures of a bed (and a cot for good measure) lying homeless in the desert along with footage of villagers ‘rifling through their wrecked belongings’ as the ‘first rains’ fall. The Guardian piece quickly went viral, receiving 1000s of shares in just a few hours. And with every propaganda piece that only tells part of the story and dehumanises Israel, comes the vile responses. There is a clear correlation. Lies about Israel – a demonisation of the Jewish state – logically creates hate against Zionists.

This is not about whether you agree with Israeli policy vis-a-vis the Beduin in the Jordan Valley or not. It is about newspapers having a duty to tell the truth. The Guardian knowingly pushed out an anti-Israel propaganda piece.

The Guardian and Khirbet Humsa The village name is given as ‘Khirbet Humsa’. There is even a link to a B’tselem video inside the article that shows vehicles on a road approaching with menace – before the footage swiftly cuts to an after image of a bed and some other objects lying around after the destruction. What there isn’t – is an image of the village itself being destroyed. Why doesn’t the B’tselem video show it?

Exercise 1 – Google “Khirbet Humsa” and click on images. You soon realise why nobody is showing images of the village prior to the demolition. There aren’t any. You’ll be lucky to see pictures of a tent. And publishing images of a couple of tents would greatly reduce the impact of the propaganda story. Which raises a question. In researching this story, the journalist Oliver Holmes MUST have looked for images of the village. Yet sorely lacking from the article is ANY suggestion, this village is no more than a few make-shift tents.

If you do a quick historic search of ‘Khirbet Humsa’, you soon realise this small gathering of tents has been a politicised battleground for decades. There is nothing on this ‘village’ at all – outside of the context of this conflict. It is a fairly basic conclusion that the Guardian reporter MUST have done this ABC research. Yet his article holds back all this information from the reader.

We're debating "Is Anti-Semitism Anti-Zionism?" on Facebook now: https://t.co/6cufXMUZTZ
— Israel Advocacy Movement (@israel_advocacy) November 4, 2020

Trump raised the bar on Israel

Should Biden enter the Oval Office, US ties with Israel will undoubtedly shift in a heartbeat. Biden will, of course, first be required to deal with domestic issues, first and foremost the coronavirus. On the international front, too, there are other more pressing issues to contend with, chief among them, tensions with China. Yet sooner or later, the Middle East will be on the table. Biden may have a soft spot for us, but he will aspire to reach a new agreement with Iran on the nuclear issue. He won't, however, necessarily succeed given that the ayatollahs in Tehran are not exactly thrilled with the changes he hopes to make to the original agreement.

But with or without these amendments, Israel will likely find itself once again in a contrarian positions, and then, simple as that, our first confrontation with Washington is upon us. The next unavoidable disputes will concern the Palestinian issue. In order to please the anti-Israel wing of his party, Biden will walk rescind many of the steps Trump carried out as president. The PLO office in Washington will reopen, the funds for UNRWA, the UN agency for Palestinian refugees will be reinstated, and perhaps a US consulate will be opened in east Jerusalem. There will also likely be a demand to halt construction in Judea, Samaria, and Jerusalem. After all, it was Biden who caused an uproar over a negligible statutory approval of a construction project in the capital's east Jerusalem neighborhood of Ramat Shlomo. The bottom line is that should the Democrats take control of both the White House and the Senate, Israel will once again be walking on eggshells with the US.

The long-established principle of not arguing in public with Israel will likely change under Biden. Too many on the Democratic side are too blind to see how the sanctification of the alliance between Washington and Jerusalem has done only good for one of the most volatile regions in the world. On the grounds of working toward peace, the radical wing of the party, as in the days of former President Barack Obama, will push Israel into a corner. But we've been there before, and this will most definitely not bring peace; if anything, it will likely bring war. Of course, we will be spared these conflicts should Trump somehow succeed in ensuring himself a second term in office. In this case, we should expect to see the continuation of the intimate alliance between the two countries. It is highly likely that there will be more peace accords to come and that the United States, together with Israel, will continue to exert heavy pressure on Iran. Of one thing we can be certain, Trump has raised the bar on US-Israel ties so high, it would be difficult for any successor to outdo him.

Trump's legacy is guaranteed regardless of election outcome

During the US election campaign, President Donald Trump boasted the fact that he moved the US Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, recognized Israeli sovereignty in the Golan Heights, the peace agreements he brokered between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, Sudan, and Bahrain – and at least five other deals that are in the works, according to the US administration.

Trump was also planning to endorse sovereignty in Judea and Samaria, but to realize that he had to have been elected for another term in office.

This is why, as an Israeli, one can be concerned about the results at this point, or at least contemplate what could have been achieved by the US and Israel during a second Trump term. This does not mean to imply that former Vice President Joe Biden is anti-Israel – not at all. But a pro-Israel president like Trump, one who has made his support for the Jewish state such an essential and prominent component of his legacy, has never before walked the halls of the White House.

Even if Trump is defeated, the legacy he carved out in his four years in office is guaranteed. The Republicans will make sure to preserve his achievements and the United States will make sure to hold on to the assets he procured for it, some of which are very important to Israel, too.

Houthis look a bit like....Nazis

I came across this tweet that is a video of Iran-aligned Houthi soldiers in Yemen.

Looks like a colorized World War II film from Germany

זו אינה הפעם הראשונה שהחות'ים בתימן מתועדים מצדיעים במועל יד אולם בסרטון הזה הם הלכו עד הקצה לכיוון הנאציזם. pic.twitter.com/bQcBDzK0iZ
— אינטלי טיימס - מודיעין חדשותי (@IntelliTimes) November 5, 2020

(h/t Yoel)

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.

Despite Industry's Failures In 2016, 2020, Abbas Trusts Polls Showing He Better Not Call Elections Ever (PreOccupied Territory)

Our weekly column from the humor site PreOccupied Territory.

Check out their Facebook page.

ballot box Ramallah, November 5 - The President of the Palestinian Authority believes public opinion surveys showing the deep unpopularity of him personally and of his governing faction among Palestinians, even though the field demonstrated serious shortcomings in the last two US presidential contests, failing to paint an accurate picture of the situation. As such, aides disclosed, he will not announce a vote anytime soon, if at all, as his administration approaches the seventeenth year of its four-year term.

Nabil Sha'ath, adviser to Mahmoud Abbas, informed journalists Thursday that while the polling industry has it problems, the president nevertheless gives surveys of Palestinians enough credence to refrain from allowing his constituency any say in who gets to lead them, for the foreseeable future.

"Nate Silver, Qunnipiac, and all the others certainly need to get their houses in order," acknowledged Sha'ath in a series of telephone interviews. "It's unacceptable that both this year and four years ago, the so-called experts got so much wrong. Relying on them going forward will prove a shaky proposition. The thing is, while the accuracy of the art and science of polling might fall into question, they haven't been off by such an order of magnitude that we can disregard their findings altogether. Bottom line, no elections for the time being. In that respect the will of the people is dangerous to our careers, so we can't afford to let the will of the people be expressed at the moment. Or ever again."

Abbas won election as President of the Palestinian Authority in January 2005, following the death of the previous officeholder, his mentor the iconic Yasser Arafat. Parliamentary elections occurred the following year; neither type of contest has been held since. Abbas's popularity has never approached that of his predecessor, and his Fatah faction also faces a surging Islamist rival in the Hamas movement, which favors armed conflict, not compromise, with Israel. Presidential confidant and former peace negotiator Saeb Erekat cautioned that expert analysis has often proved wide of the mark, but that does not mean ignoring the experts is a wise move.

"The experts also predicted the Arab street would explode in response to every move Trump made in the Middle East," he observed. "They explained that no progress in this region could occur, no normalization with Israel, without resolution of the Palestinian issue. The events of the last several years - the Jerusalem embassy move, the pronouncement on the legality of Israeli settlements, the recognition of Israeli Golan annexation, the hard line on Iran, the Abraham Accords, you name it - the collective Arab shrug, even endorsement, in response to all those things gave the lie to the experts' learned opinions. But we're still not going to tempt fate on this one.

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.

11/05 Links Pt1: A New Understanding Dawns in the Middle East; Israeli Minister Warns Potential Biden Policy Change on Iran Could Lead to War; Blaming the victim: Theo van Gogh, and the end of Free Speech

From Ian:

A New Understanding Dawns in the Middle East

In the aftermath of the new peace treaties between Israel and the UAE, Bahrain, and Sudan, important Arab public figures - from political officials to clerics to intellectuals - are now openly proclaiming that the Arab world has been the primary author of its own pain. These admissions may signal the beginnings of a new sensibility among Arabs and Sunni Muslims about their political and social situation. Their error was the notion that Israel was the most crucial enemy of Arabs, Muslims, and their states, an enemy that had to be not only defeated but utterly eradicated because it disrupted the harmony and progress of the Arab and Muslim world. Until recently, this view was central to Arab and Muslim sensibility.

As Israeli Arab journalist Khaled Abu Toameh has observed: "For most Arabs the terms peace and normalization with Israel were associated with extremely negative connotations: humiliation, submission, defeat, and shame." To the question of what ailed Arab and Muslim politics and society, there was always this widely-accepted answer: the state of Israel. If only it could be eliminated, all would be well.

The new deals have now shattered that discourse, declaring that Israel is not the enemy it was alleged to be, and promising a "warm peace" with broad economic and cultural exchanges. They acknowledge that Israel is not the problem, but rather a partner on the path toward solving Middle Eastern woes.

Most crucially, the changes in Arab discourse regarding Israel have not unleashed the vehement and widespread explosions of opposition throughout the Sunni world which would have been expected in decades past. Rather, they seem to bespeak views that were developing over some time, waiting for the opportunity to be let out.

Who is responsible for the Abraham Accords? – opinion

Last week, Sudan agreed to the normalization of relations with Israel in exchange for its removal from the list of state sponsors of terrorism, joining Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates and a growing chorus of nations that have seemingly put an end to decades of Arab-Israeli conflict. The Trump and Netanyahu administrations have heralded these achievements as byproducts of their diplomatic efforts, and President Trump has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Despite these claims, such an assessment would be a poor interpretation of events. Although the Abraham Accords are encouraging and historically significant developments, they are more a byproduct of tectonic changes that have transformed the region over decades than the result of diplomatic work of the parties involved. Most responsible for the accords is the restructuring of the Middle East regional balance of power as well as massive domestic transformations across the Arab world.

For three decades, the two Iraq wars and their aftershocks have restructured the power dynamic of the Middle East, producing what scholars term the phenomenon of balancing, when countries shift alliances to collectively meet the challenges of a rising power. States that have little in common and few incentives to form partnerships band together against what they perceive to be a common and larger foe. Here, the decline of Iraq and the rise of Iran have led countries across the region to reassess their regional and international partnerships.

Such a change in circumstance did not occur overnight. America’s two wars with Iraq, Desert Storm in 1991 and Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003, militarily emasculated Iraq, which had long been considered Iran’s regional counterbalance. Iraq’s armed forces, which in 1990 were the fifth largest in the world, now cannot even provide domestic security.

PMW: For the PA, “Peace” means a judenfrei state ethnically cleansed of all Jews

While the middle eastern winds of change have brought about peace agreements between Israel, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Sudan, the Palestinian leadership is still as intransigent as ever. For the Palestinian leadership it appears that peace with Israel can only be achieved in a “judenfrei” Palestinian state – a state free of Jews, ethnically cleansed of the over 800,000 Jews who now live in West Bank and Jerusalem.

This point was recently reiterated by PA Deputy Prime Minister and PA Presidential Spokesman Nabil Abu Rudeina, who said:

“The [Israeli] settlement[s] will disappear in the end. There will be no peace as long as there is one settlement on the Palestinian lands. Just as the settlements were removed from Gaza, they will be removed from the West Bank. Either a peace that is based on an independent, fully sovereign [Palestinian] state with East Jerusalem as its capital and without settlers or settlements, or else there will be no security, no stability, and no peace.” [Official PA TV News, Oct. 14, 2020]

In order to understand the PA approach, it is important to point out two critical points.

The pillar of the PA demand is based on the Palestinian narrative which defines the “West Bank” and “East Jerusalem” as “Palestinian lands”.

While Abu Rudeina’s definition of the “Palestinian lands” is reflective of the often-repeated PA narrative, it lacks any historical veracity.

At no period in time were the “West Bank” and “East Jerusalem” under “Palestinian” control or part of an independent “Palestinian” State.

This is what Palestinians consider an "achievement"

The Euro-Mediterranean Regional and Local Assembly (ARLEM) is an EU-affiliated group of local and regional representatives from the European Union and its Mediterranean partners to maintain political dialogue and promote interregional cooperation on a local level, between municipalities.

Both Israel and "Palestine" are represented.

Earlier this year the mayor of Ramallah, Hadid Musa, was promoted to be a member of ARLEM's Bureau. Members of Ramallah's city council promptly resigned - because one of the other members of ARLEM is the mayor of Modi'in, Haim Bibas, and the Palestinians Modi'in call a settlement.

A small part of Modi'in is in the no-man's land of the 1949 armistice lines.

Because of this, the city of Ramallah and the Al Haq NGO filed a complaint against ARLEM demanding that the EU exclude Modi'in (and presumably its mayor) from being a part of the organization.

According to Palestinian media, they succeeded. This is considered a major achievement.

As usual, when Palestinians join any international organization, the first and only thing they concern themselves with is how to use that position to attack Israel. And every other member of these organizations have to tolerate their intolerance.

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.

One way that international bodies and the media show their anti-Israel bias, and indeed at least latent antisemitism, is by adopting Muslim and Arab terminology for historically Jewish places.

One of the most obvious is the near universal references to the "West Bank," a Jordanian term, instead of what was universally referred to as Judea and Samaria before 1948.

UN Watch noted that there was a slew of UN General Assembly resolutions yesterday, one of which referred to the Temple Mount, Judaism's holiest site, solely by its Muslim name.

This has been going on for a while. Previous resolutions this year also referred solely to "Haram al-Sharif" without saying the Temple Mount.

Not only that, but even discussions and debates at the UN do not find the term "Temple Mount" used any more.

A year ago, the Israeli representative complained: (A/C.4/74/SR.25)

Mr. Bourgel (Israel), speaking in explanation of vote before the voting, said that the confusing and redundant text of the draft resolutions was intended solely to entrench a Manichean outlook in which the Palestinians were always in the right and Israel was always in the wrong. There were two sides to the story; the aspirations and concerns of Israel also deserved to be heard. For instance, the draft resolutions referred to the Haram al-Sharif complex, but the very idea that the term “Temple Mount” might be included appeared virtually inconceivable.

On December 3, 2019 the representative from Brazil seemed to take note of Israel's concerns when he remarked immediately before the near-unanimous adoption of another bunch of anti-Israel resolutions (A/74/PV.38):

Brazil also wishes to reiterate the importance of the city of Jerusalem to the three main monotheistic religions. With regard to terminology, we especially want to recall the need to duly reflect that significance when referring to the Temple Mount or Haram Al-Sharif.

That was the last time the term "Temple Mount" was used at the UN, according to the UN Documents Database.

In 2020, it has been referred to exclusively as "Haram al Sharif" in both resolutions and in discussions. (Sometimes the discussions are not published for several months, so it is possible the Israeli delegation mentioned the Temple Mount when responding to this month's anti-Israel resolutions.)

This is the deliberate erasure of Jewish history and Jewish claims, which pre-date Arab and Muslim claims by millennia. Such decisions cannot be considered anything but 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.

Even though UNRWA claims to be a non-political organization, it always has been nothing but political, teaching generations of Palestinians that they will "return" to the long-gone homes of their ancestors in Israel. For example, in 2015 UNRWA launched a "#JustSolution" campaign centered around the "right to return" without even mentioning the possibility of Palestinians moving to a Palestinian state or becoming citizens of their host countries as potential "just solutions."

But in a lengthy interview with UNRWA Commissioner-General Philippe Lazzarini at Executive Magazine, he seemed to actively avoid mentioning "return" as the solution to the "refugees" - and he contradicted the PLO by saying that they should ultimately move to a Palestinian state, not Israel:

It is not a goal in itself of UNRWA to celebrate the 80th or 100th anniversary. The ultimate goal is to have a fair and lasting peace whereby Palestinian refugees can have a state that they can live in and do not rely on UNRWA anymore. That is the ultimate goal.

This seems like a change at UNRWA, at least at the top.

Notable also was that Lazzarini didn't blame Israel or even mention Israel at all in the interview. He did properly note how Palestinians in Lebanon cannot access many jobs, a problem made much worse during Lebanon's own crises and COVID-19.

Lazzarini discussed UNRWA's budget problems at length. Yet roughly a quarter of the people it provides services to live in "Palestine" already. There is no legal reason they would be considered refugees, and no real reason why they cannot be treated exactly as other Palestinians under PA and Hamas control. Any UNRWA funds earmarked to the dozens of camps and scores of schools in the territories could be redirected to the PA and the international community would be happy to help build permanent homes for the minority that still live in camps.

Actually doing this would cause an uproar among Palestinians who freely admit they use "return" as a means to destroy Israel. But UNRWA cannot survive forever with its ever-growing population of fake refugees. Continuing to provide services that should be the responsibility of the PA is diverting funds that are needed for the Palestinians in Syria and Lebanon.

Maybe, just maybe, Lazzarini - who succeeded the corrupt Pierre Krähenbühl - is trying to set the stage for changing the focus of UNRWA away from "return" towards something more realistic.

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 Day After Election Day (Vic Rosenthal)

Vic Rosenthal's weekly column

It’s a rainy Wednesday morning in Rehovot, and the US election is undecided.

I have made my preference for Donald Trump clear. I understand the reasons that many Americans oppose him, but they are focusing on the media-amplified and distorted trees and ignoring the forest that is the worldwide struggle between competing hegemonies: the West (which mostly means the US today, when much of Europe is in decline), Islam, and China.

Yes, despite his sometimes ignorant pronouncements about scientific issues that he doesn’t understand, despite everything they don’t like about his personality, and even despite his undeniable dishonesty (not that his opponents are better in this respect), Trump is on the right side in the game that will determine how history will look for the next century or so.

What will be important in the very near future will be to stand against the Iranian attempt to establish a Shiite caliphate across the Middle East, against the further expansion of Chinese influence in East Asia and its extension into the rest of the world, against the Islamization of the US, and against the creation of a new Ottoman Empire. Trump has made his positions clear on the first three, although the jury is still out with respect to the last.

The pronouncements made by Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, as well as their choice of advisors, have indicated that they would return to the Mideast policy of the Obama Administration, including its tilt toward Iran, away from Israel and the Sunni Arab states. This would weaken the developing Israel-Sunni alliance, which represents the best hope for stability in the region.

Trump would be more likely to oppose immigration of unassimilable Muslims to the US, the phenomenon that has brought Western Europe to its knees. His determination to control America’s borders is laudable.

I devoutly hope the decision will be quick and unambiguous, but ultimately someone will win this election. So here is my advice to Americans about the aftermath:

Understand that there is a Constitution and there was an election. There will be a winner and a loser. Understand that your political opponents aren’t monsters. Mostly they are human beings who see things differently.

If Trump wins, deal with it. Don’t style yourselves “the resistance” and don’t try to remove him with extra-democratic measures. I would hope, but can’t imagine, that the mainstream media would stop the exaggerated attacks on him, the false accusations of racism, fascism, even antisemitism, and the repetition of outright lies like the “fine people” hoax. Unfortunately there is a real possibility of civil disturbances if Trump wins and widespread “Trump Derangement Syndrome” prevails.

If Biden wins – well, if Biden wins, I and others will continue our efforts to politely explain why the Obama-style foreign policy that he will doubtless adopt is dangerous to peace and liberty throughout the world. We will argue that America has real enemies that should be confronted and not appeased. Please listen.

There are those who think that red or blue states and regions should consider secession from the US if the wrong side wins. This is a terrible idea, which could only increase extremism on both sides, and weaken the nation in the face of its external enemies. In the worst case it could lead to civil war.

American Jews will be facing a difficult situation in the future, especially if Biden wins. Expressions of Jew-hatred have recently been increasing, from “traditional” antisemites like neo-Nazis, from Farrakhanists and Black Hebrews, from Muslim antisemites, and from the misozionists of the intersectional Left, whose hatred of Israel seamlessly flows into hatred of individual Jews. Biden and the Democrats seem to recognize only the traditional types, rendering invisible the black, Muslim, and extreme leftist Jew-haters (who vote Democratic). Moving closer to the Left is not a good survival strategy for Jews, who will find little sympathy there, no matter how loudly they curse Israel.

It’s interesting that while most British Jews dropped Labour like a hot potato thanks to Jeremy Corbyn, American Jews have stuck with the Democratic party despite the antisemitism of some of its members, and the decision by the leadership to pretend it doesn’t exist. The so-called squad of four BDS-supporting members of Congress have all been re-elected, and another BDS proponent, Cori Bush of Missouri, has joined them.

Trump – contrary to a determined misinformation campaign by his opponents – is not sympathetic to “right-wing” antisemitism, even if he doesn’t denounce it loudly and often enough to satisfy Democrats. And he has certainly demonstrated his pro-Israel credentials. A Trump win would be better for American Jews, despite what they think.

Just one more observation, this one for Israelis, including our General Staff:

With a Biden administration, Israel can expect that any military campaign – be it against Hezbollah, Hamas, or Iranian nuclear installations – will be much more difficult. The US, under the Obama administration, was quick to intervene diplomatically to pressure Israel to accept disadvantageous cease-fires, or even to prevent Israel from taking action at all. It is a reasonable assumption that Biden’s policy would be similar, especially in the case of Iran, with whom he wants to deal.

If Biden wins, the rational thing for Israel to do would be to take out the Iranian nuclear capability before it’s too late.

Capiche?

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.

11/04 Links Pt2: The New York Times: 128 Years of Blaming Jews for Spreading Deadly Disease; UAE Official Says Hamas, PA are ‘Corrupt’ and ‘Murderers’

From Ian:

Clifford D. May: From prison to politics to an exodus from Africa

In the Soviet Union of the 1970s, it wasn’t hard to meet Russians who knew the Communist system was incorrigibly corrupt, dysfunctional and oppressive. But it was one thing to whisper such truths to trusted friends, quite another to speak openly, to make oneself a target of the police state.

A member of the intelligentsia who kept his head down asked me this question: “What do you call a man of integrity in the Soviet Union?” When I shook my head, he dolefully provided the answer: “An inmate.”

Natan Sharansky was born Anatoly Borisovich Shcharansky in 1948 in Stalino, a grimy Ukrainian coal town renamed Donetsk following the death of the second Soviet dictator in 1953. He showed enormous aptitude for mathematics and chess—useful pursuits for those who did not want to risk being “cancelled” (to borrow a contemporary expression) by the KGB. But he was not such a person.

In his 20s, he became a vocal Zionist (i.e. a believer in the right of the Jewish people to self-determination in part of their ancient homeland), refusenik (a Soviet citizen denied the right to emigrate) and human rights activist (not just for Soviet Jews but also for dispossessed Tartars, oppressed Pentecostalists, Armenian nationalists and others).

Before long, he was arrested, tried by a kangaroo court and, in 1978, sentenced to the Gulag. Released nine years later, he went to Israel where he spent nine years in politics, followed by nine years as head of the Jewish Agency, an organization that links Israelis with the remaining (or surviving) Jewish communities abroad.

He tells the stories of his life—along with large sprinklings of history, philosophy and polemics—in “Never Alone: Prison, Politics and My People,” written in tandem with Gil Troy, the eminent historian.

I had the opportunity to speak with Sharansky last week. I mentioned that I had attempted to report on his trial but, because it was closed to the press and public, the best I could do was hang around outside the courthouse with his supporters.

One day, a van arrived and backed up to the building’s exit. The van’s rear doors opened and then closed. The van drove away. We knew he was in it and where he was being taken.

Plaintively, his supporters called out what was then his nickname: “Tolya! Tolya! Tolya!” For more than 40 years, I’ve wondered: Had he heard them?

The New York Times: 128 Years of Blaming Jews for Spreading Deadly Disease

A year before the coronavirus hit, the Times was blaming Jews for the spread of measles. But it goes back even further than that.

A 1921 Times editorial headlined “Typhus Still a Menace” declared, “the immigration danger has been obvious for decades,” complaining about “the problems of infectious disease brought here by immigrants.” What was that a reference to? A Times editorial from 1892, headlined “Typhus and Immigration,” holds an answer: “Two weeks ago the steamship Massilia brought to this city 248 Russian Hebrews, and within the last two days it has been discovered that about one-third of these immigrants are suffering from typhus fever, one of the most virulent and menacing of the diseases which test the powers of sanitary officers. …Typhus fever is a disease caused by filth, overcrowding, destitution, and neglect of the fundamental laws of sanitation… This outbreak of dreaded disease must bring forcibly to the attention of all intelligent citizens the evils of unrestricted immigration. The Times has made the sufferings of the persecuted Hebrews in Russia the subject of a notable investigation, the results of which our readers are familiar. No one will accuse this journal of having failed to appreciate the hardships of these unfortunate persons… But it is the duty of the people of this country to protect themselves against the importation of such persons as these whom the Massilia brought to this port. Especially it is the duty of the people of New-York to protest against the admission of those whose habits and condition invite deadly infectious diseases and who carry with them the seeds of a plague that can be stamped out only by the most energetic measures of a large body of sanitary officers. Such immigrants are not wanted either in this city or in any other part of the United States. They should excluded. The doors should be shut against them.”

The 1892 editorial is still available on the Times website with no correction, apology, or retraction appended, not even a trigger warning.

What’s remarkable here is the continuity. The New York Times has been blaming Jews for the spread of deadly diseases in New York City for 128 years. The newspaper did not want us here in America to begin with. It would have preferred that we perished in Europe. Shmuel Rosner writing on the Times op-ed page in 2020 with the absurd claim that “Ultra-Orthodox Jews tend to be poor by design” and the assertion that they “live in densely populated areas” sounds like an echo of the 1892 Times editorial about “destitution” and “overcrowding.”

If the New York Times had been publishing in Europe between 1348 and 1350, it would be blaming the Jews for the Black Death.

But enough looking backward. What about the future?

With any luck, the Jews will be around in another 100 years. As to whether the Times will be around then to blame us for the latest pandemic—well, that’s a different question. One hopes that the market for this sort of scapegoating is diminishing over time.

Jonathan Tobin: A Conformist Media Is No Friend to Freedom

He’s exactly the sort of person conservatives and some of Israel’s most ardent supporters despised. Yet today he’s being lionized by supporters of the most pro-Israel president in history and attacked by left-wingers who once idolized him. Perhaps more than anyone else, Glenn Greenwald embodies the contradictions and the ironies that abound in politics and the press in 2020. As such, the sympathy or scorn that he is now generating for his refusal to play by the contemporary rules of a tribal media culture has broad implications not just for the future of journalism but for democracy.

Greenwald led the team at The Guardian that won the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service for writing about the massive leak of US intelligence information by Edward Snowden, a former US National Security Agency contractor. Snowden had provided the material directly to Greenwald, who had already made a name for himself writing scathing critiques of the tactics used by the Bush administration’s war on Islamist terror, as well as for vitriolic attacks on Israel in its efforts to defend itself against Palestinian terrorists.

Born to Jewish parents in New York, Greenwald is the sort of polemicist that defended the use of antisemitic slurs like “Israel-firster” to denigrate Jews who support Israel as disloyal to the United States. That demonstrated his antipathy for the right of the one Jewish state on the planet to exist or to defend itself against Hamas terrorists whose actions he justified. But it was also rich since, as his aiding and abetting of Snowden indicated, he didn’t seem to have much loyalty to the United States in its struggles against foreign enemies like Al-Qaeda and Iran.

Nevertheless, Greenwald’s undeniably intrepid reporting on US security issues, including his documenting the way Americans were being spied on by the agencies that were tasked with defending their freedoms, earned him a lot of respect among journalists as well as political liberals who shared his distrust of the intelligence establishment.

It happens every election: celebrities—and just generally spoiled people (cough cough)—swear that if their candidate doesn’t win, they’re leaving. But author Lauren Ariel Hoffman decided to write about leaving America from a Jewish perspective. Hoffman describes her own Orange Man trauma and exit plan, comparing it all to an escape from the Nazis. She then quotes a few Jewish friends on their own plans for fleeing the country. The odd thing is, not one of them considers Israel as a viable option for relocation, and in fact, Israel is not mentioned in this article at all.

Hoffman’s article was featured in Alma, which—no surprise—also includes articles on such subjects as, “Why Does My Interfaith Relationship Disqualify Me From Rabbinical School?” and “Now’s the Perfect Time to Teach Your Non-Jewish Partner All About Judaism." So perhaps it's not quite the right place to discover love and loyalty for the one Jewish State. You'd think, nonetheless, that in an article about fleeing the country, a Yid might consider Israel.

Never heard of Lauren Ariel Hoffman and her epigenetic intergenerational trauma? Neither had I, but her byline was linked to this handy dandy author’s blurb:

Lauren Ariel Hoffman (she/her) is a photojournalist from Royersford, Pennsylvania. Her coverage includes stories relating to chronic illness, medical injustice, and human interest.

Well there you have it. Perhaps Israel, as a subject for liberal Jews, is somewhat beyond human interest.

But back to the article: Hoffman, it is clear, wants to celebrate her distress in a Jewish way. But the closest thing she can get to kosher-style anguish is by referencing the Holocaust and her family roots in the Ukraine:

It is not 1939, and yet the police are still slaughtering unarmed Black men and women in the name of “justice,” still separating refugee families at the border and putting their children in cages, still performing medical experiments on female-bodied prisoners.

Sound familiar?

My recurring nightmare of Nazis breaking into my house and capturing me is becoming more tangible, but now it’s informed and comprehensive and absolutely terrifying. And while I’m a fan of Quentin Tarantino’s Inglorious Basterds, I don’t think I’ll be knocking Nazi skulls anytime soon. I’m more prepared to find myself in a police-state wherein me and my loved one’s basic liberties will be stripped and some of our lives taken, along with members of every other oppressed group in America.

I am not going to back down from this fight, mainly because I have nowhere else to go — as a descendant of Ukrainian Jews, my ancestor’s recent homeland does not exist anymore.

Which is odd, because last I looked, the Ukraine still exists. Or so Google says:

Ukraine is a large country in Eastern Europe known for its Orthodox churches, Black Sea coastline and forested mountains. Its capital, Kiev, features the gold-domed St. Sophia's Cathedral, with 11th-century mosaics and frescoes. Overlooking the Dnieper River is the Kiev Pechersk Lavra monastery complex, a Christian pilgrimage site housing Scythian tomb relics and catacombs containing mummified Orthodox monks.

But I don’t blame Lauren for not wanting to go back to the Ukraine. I wouldn’t want to go back there, either. It was bad enough the first time.

Still, to say she has nowhere else to go—why not go back to the place her family came from in the first place—before they were expelled and forced to wander? Why not go back to Israel, where today there is a flourishing Jewish State? But no, it’s not on Hoffman's radar. Nor was it apparently on the radar of her Sephardic friend Rebecca Brier:

Rebecca Brier, 37, who asked to use an alias, feels differently. She and her husband are in the process of getting Portuguese citizenship for themselves and their two young children.

“If there’s one thing I’ve learned from my family, it’s that it’s okay to be the first one to go,” she said. “It’s harder with kids. We speak Spanish, but Spanish is not Portuguese.”

Brier said she is mainly torn between leaving her family behind in the Bronx or figuring out how to get them all to Portugal.

“We’ve set up our lives around our support system, our family. If we left, would we be that anchor again? At some point, flight becomes easier, because if I fly, at least I still have my family.”

On the other hand, if she would only make Aliyah to Israel, the Briers would have new family everywhere they turned. As new immigrants they would be embraced and surrounded by fellow Jews, living proud and free in their indigenous territory. But no, Brier instead prefers to return to the land of the Inquisition, where Jews were tortured for their beliefs, forced to go underground with their observance, and slaughtered if they refused to convert. Somehow this is, to Brier, infinitely preferable to moving to the Jewish State.

“But not everyone has the luxury of leaving,” continues Hoffman:

Aviva Davis, 21, is a biracial Jew whose ancestry is more closely linked to slavery than the Holocaust. They feel it is a luxury that white Jews are able to consider leaving at all.

“I would love to have an escape plan, but it’s not a viable option for me,” they said. “Where would I go? My ancestors were carted over here as slaves — white Jews can trace citizenship back to their ancestors. It’s very frustrating for me to feel like I have nowhere to go.”

Leaving aside the odd use of the pronoun "they," um. Where would "they" go? To ISRAEL. Where Jews of every color of the rainbow live full, satisfying, Jewish lives.

But no. These people are stuck in a time warp of pogroms, auto-da-fé, and slavery:

As Brier said, “Do we become Jews lighting candles in the closet in Spain? Or do we flee to the Ottoman Empire? I’m not sure who did it right. But the trauma is still there.”

As I write this piece, no one knows who will win the 2020 presidential election. But one thing I know for sure: Israeli Jews did it right. They left the trauma and the ghettos behind to build a beautiful, shining new world, where anything is possible, and dreams can come true.

H/T Ardie Geldman

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 Iran International:

Given the coronavirus pandemic, the traditional Student Day march marking the anniversary of the Tehran United States embassy seizure will not be held for the first time in four decades. But an official of the student section of the Basij militia has said students should instead set fire to the US flag at home and circulate video clips to commemorate the occasion.

Speaking on a television news program on Sunday [November 1], Mojtaba Bastan, Acting Head of the Student Basij Organization, announced a campaign called ‘Everyone Together [Says] Down with the USA.’ Bastan said that at nine o'clock on Tuesday students and their parents should “trample on and set fire” to the flags of the US, Israel and France on their rooftops or courtyards while shouting ‘Down with America.’

Bastan asked students to make one-minute video clips and post them to a specially-created website, while adding their names to a statement ‘US Must Exit [Middle East] Region.’ The website features the competitions ‘Why Down with the USA?’ and ‘Message to American Soldiers,’ for which students can enter drawings, essays, voice recordings and video clips.

I can only imagine the emotional trauma that these students had at not being able to gather together to burn American flags, and their joy at finding out that they could do it in their own homes (or maybe outside, for the smarter ones.)

Unfortunately, I could not find the website where students uploaded their ecstatic flag-burning videos yesterday. It didn't seem to be linked from the main Student Basij Organization site.

I did see this:

The statement of the student mobilization of Payame Noor University of Ilam province states: "We do not trade our independence and freedom with anything from the yoke of arrogance and we note the endurance and spirit of jihad and resistance and martyrdom in the revolutionary and provincial youth until the complete destruction of global arrogance. The freedom of the oppressed of the world from the yoke of arrogance continues."

It sounds very spontaneous and heartfelt.

(h/t Ben R)

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.

11/04 Links Pt1: Micahel Oren: A fateful election for Israel; Europe battles Islamists, Jews remain canary in the coal mine; France’s War on Islamism Isn’t Populism. It’s Reality.

From Ian:

Micahel Oren: A fateful election for Israel

Nevertheless, a Biden administration would challenge Israel on two core issues: The first is a diplomatic process that would see the government shirk US President Donald Trump's "deal of the century" and return to the framework adopted by former Presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton, meaning a two-state solution based upon the 1967 borders and a Palestinian capital in east Jerusalem.

The government would reopen the Palestinian Embassy in Washington, closed by Trump as well as the American Consulate in east Jerusalem, which prior to Trump served as the de-facto US Embassy to the Palestinians. The administration would further renew American aid to the UN agency for Palestinian refugees, UNRWA, as well as other Palestinian institutions cut off by Trump. The administration would also revert to opposing Israeli construction in Judea and Samaria, as well as in unified Jerusalem, which it considers to be an "obstacle to peace."

From our perspective, however, it is Biden's stated intention of bringing the US back into the Iran nuclear deal and rolling back sanctions on the Tehran regime that is more problematic. Such a move would spare the Iranian regime from financial ruin and aid Tehran in once again conquering significant portions of the Middle East to be used as outposts against Israel. This would present a real strategic threat.

In contrast, should US President Donald Trump win a second term in office, he will certainly adhere to his current policy, which has been the most pro-Israeli of any American president since the founding of the Jewish State. These are not just gestures, like the transfer of the US Embassy to Jerusalem and the recognition of Israeli sovereignty in the Golan Heights, but significant steps, like standing with Israel at the UN and other international organizations.

For the first time in history, there has not been one American condemnation of any Israeli military of political activity in the four years of Trump's tenure. Nevertheless, Trump has made no secret of his intentions of entering negotiations with Iran. Should he win re-election, Israel should be prepared for such a scenario.

A steadfast partnership

The pervasive view of these shared interests throughout the world, and even in the US and in Israel, stems from either deep ignorance or deliberate distortion. This view seeks to present US-Israel ties as the fruit of American affinity for Israel, US Jewish support, or the work of the pro-Israel lobby, all of which go against the "genuine" American interest in support for the "Arabs."

Yet almost all of the Arabs that matter to the US act on the advice of Israel and trust Israel. In addition, even those presidents who were less sympathetic to Israel, and even anti-Semitic like Richard Nixon, implemented policies that assisted Israel. Presidents, like Barack Obama, who saw themselves as supporters of Israel, sought to "save" the country from itself. And while the American Israel Public Affairs Committee is a dedicated and savvy sales agent for the State of Israel, if the "goods" Israel was selling were flawed, not even the most talented agent could continue to sell the country as well as it has for the past three generations. It is also worth noting that Jews make up less than two percent of the American electorate. A majority of them do not see Israel as a top issue and cast their vote automatically for Democrats.

Israeli "goods" are sought after because of the afore-mentioned ethos but largely due to American interests. From the US standpoint, Israel, situated in the one of the most important regions in the world, encompasses important virtues that no other ally does: Israel is strong, stable, responsible, determined, and always pro-American. Israel is the only US ally that does not ask American soldiers to fight its wars. It is militarily, economically, and technologically strong. It is a democracy that has proven its stability even in times of crisis. Its responsibility is reflected in its restraint in the face of the ongoing threats it has faced for generations, the likes of which no democratic country has ever experienced, and in the extreme caution it has exerted in relation to the strategic capabilities attributed to it.

Among democratic countries, it is difficult to find a comparable determination to act in times of crisis. At no point in time has Israel ever not stood with the American camp. While Israel is still the junior partner of the US superpower, it is not a negligible one. The US has been forced to downsize its physical presence in the Middle East in order to focus its attention on Asia, and the South China Sea in particular. But it can only allow itself to pivot this way if it knows it is leaving a coalition of pro-American countries interested in maintaining relative stability in the region behind. Strong, stable, loyal Israel is a vital tier in this coalition.

Presidents come and go. Some act in consultation with Israel, while others are for less receptive to its needs. Beyond these important differences, we must remember there exists a strong ethical and strategic framework for deep partnership, one that has survived unfriendly governments in the past.

Suggestion to Israel: Forget about the Jews of America

No matter who wins the American elections, I have a suggestion for the State of Israel – forget about the Jews of America.

Election surveys reveal that 72-75 percent of the Jews in America are voting for Biden, turning their backs on the Jewish State, which clearly favored the re-election of President Donald Trump. In effect, they voted against Israel, against Judaism, and against G-d.

Who needs them?

In contrast, the 25% who, it is predicted, voted for Trump, by and large support the State of Israel and cherish the values of Judaism. They are true friends of Israel.

True, when it comes to making Aliyah, they balk, for whatever reason. If they choose to join us, great, they are more than welcome. If not, they will perish with the Jews for Biden.

So why should Israel continue to waste a fortune of money on programs of Diaspora education and aliyah? With the expensive programs or without them, roughly the same number of idealistic Jews would make Aliyah each year.

US Election and Ramifications on Iran Nuclear Deal

Palestinian killed after pulling gun at checkpoint, Arab media calling it an 'execution" (UPDATES)

This morning, the IDF killed an Arab terrorist who tried to carry out a shooting attack in the Huwarra checkpoint in Samaria.

The terrorist, Bilal Adnan Rawajba, pulled out a gun, aimed it at IDF fighters, possibly fired, and then they responded by firing and neutralizing him.

Video shows that cars would be routinely waved through the checkpoint until Rawajba's car where security forces quickly ran to deal with an issue; one cannot tell more from the video. A second video from a nearby car, appended above, captures gunshots after they had started.

However, on his Facebook page he seemed to say goodbye very shortly before the attack.

The official Palestinian Wafa "news" agency, however, reported the facts a bit differently, saying the IDF "executed" him for no reason at the checkpoint.

Rawajba worked for the Palestinian security forces. His wife had a baby just three months ago.

UPDATES:

New video footage shows that there were two gunshots from Rawajba's car. You can see the dust kicked up from his bullets on the sidewalk and then on the concrete barrier:

Also, two more photos of Rawajba from his Facebook page.

(h/t David K, Tomer Ilan)

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 wonderful Einat Wilf summarized Donald Trump's accomplishments in bringing peace to the region:

[Trump] understood that at the core of the conflict, the Arab and Islamic world view Israel as a foreign implant in the region. He understood that in order to bring peace, it must be understood by the Arab world that Israel is here to stay, that Israel is an indigenous, permanent presence in the region. He did everything to demonstrate that America has Israel's back, and America will not have any more of the indulgence towards the decades long Palestinian intransigence. This is why we are beginning now to reap the fruits of that policy.

This is the most succinct and accurate summary I have seen.

Biden is not anti-Israel. He is an old time pro-Israel Democrat, where there is faith in the UN, where the Western European opinions are respected, where the two state solution is almost a religion. None of these old-time Democrats want Israel to disappear as a Jewish state and there is a fervent belief that a Palestinian state will save Israel from becoming an apartheid state.

But Democrats, and Republicans before Trump, have shown no interest in how the Arab world has looked at Israel.

The honor/shame society of the Arab world is based on perceptions, not facts. Honor comes from how one is viewed, not how one actually is. This is almost hardwired into the Arab psyche and one cannot understand the Middle East without understanding this.

Every time the West would say that they support a Palestinian state, every time they said Jerusalem is negotiable, every time they said the Golan is occupied, every time they paid lip service to even symbolic "return" of "refugees," the Arab world interpreted this as world pressure on Israel that would likely result in the eventual end of Israel as a Jewish state. The idea that Israel would give back land it won in war, or that Israel would allow Palestinians to "return," or that Israel would willingly give up Jewish holy sites is perceived not as peacemaking but as weakness.

Weak countries don't last in a region where strength is respected.

Pro-Israel speeches by any American politician of any party are considered meaningless by Arabs. After all, Arab leaders themselves mouthed support for Palestinians that they didn't follow through with. In the Middle East, only actions are respected.

Trump did actions.

Jerusalem. The Golan. Closing the PLO mission. Leaving the UNHRC in support of Israel. All of these showed that the US support for Israel was not just rhetoric but was backed up with action to send a message: Israel is here to stay and a superpower is solidly on its side against its enemies.

That message has been heard loud and clear by the Arab nations. And once Israel is seen as permanent and powerful, they change their mindset from "how do we make Israel disappear?" to "how can we use Israel to our advantage?"

The old mentality leads to war. The new thinking leads to peace.

This is not entirely Trump, of course. Netanyahu's brilliant foreign policy in establishing relationships with nations worldwide, his emphasis on Israel's economic growth, the Internet giving Arabs another perspective besides their state-run propaganda media, Arabs getting Western educations where they learn win/win thinking, the looming Iranian threat - all of these contribute to a change in how Arabs look at Israel. But Trump's moves accelerated that change.

It is inconceivable that the UAE, Bahrain and Sudan would have made peace with Israel under any other administration.

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.

Saudi preacher Ali Al-Maliki sparked controversy on social networking sites after a video clip was circulated where he says that the the purpose of a wife is not to serve her husband, but as a "tool for enjoyment."

In the video he said, "I will stipulate that whoever marries my daughter should bring her a maid, and my daughter should not serve him at all."

Al-Maliki framed this in terms of women's rights, saying that in some marriages the wife is forced to jeopardize her health to serve her husband and this is not good.

At first, women thought he was saying something good, until they realized that Al Maliki was still saying that a woman is a servant of her husband, whether it is a servant of labor or a servant of what he euphemistically calls "pleasure."

The human rights of the maid are not discussed by anyone.

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.