Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Thursday, January 07, 2021

BDS is a threat to the entire free world (Richard Landes)

This is a guest post from Richard Landes, professor of history.

_____________________________

Every once in a while articles have been published by legacy media outlets like AP and Time, and newer ones like Vox, introducing the BDS Movement (which advocates boycotting Israel) to a larger public. They often take the form of a backgrounder (“what you need to know”), and do little more than rephrase a press release from the organization itself, with a modicum of disagreement from “the other side” which is then downplayed.

The uninformed come away from these articles with the impression that BDS is a group of Palestinian civil-society, non-violent, human rights NGOs and allies, defending Palestinian rights, and using the moral protest of a boycott to oppose Israel’s suppression of those rights. It’s not trying to destroy Israel, but to hold it to universally recognized moral standards. Zionists who complain about BDS as antisemitic are trying to silence legitimate criticism, and anyway, not all Jews are Zionists: progressive Jews don’t object to BDS. Some even join.

Then follows a predictable backlash from Zionists, complaining that this isn’t journalism and BDS is not a civil society group. And then they refute the BDS talking points: Palestinians didn’t start in 2005, it started in 2001 at the Durban hatefest as a weapon to destroy Israel; it’s a form of legal and informational warfare trying to destroy Israel; it behaves like a religious cult; it’s anti-intellectual; they’re not pro-Palestinian, they’re anti-Israel; they have extensive ties to openly terrorist groups; they’re anti-semitic; they use fake news and misinformation to mislead people; and wherever they’re active Jew-hatred increases.

On and on it goes, with both sides dredging up arguments that have been around for years. Both BDSers and Zionists seem to have inexhaustible energy, each accusing the other of elaborate schemes to dupe outsiders.

Why should you care?

Here’s why.

This isn’t a fight happening in a far off land. This is here, today, in America and Europe. It has been brought to your homes. Whether you like it or not, when your children go to college, they will find BDS among the most militant and dominant groups on campus. When they take classes or go to talks, BDSers will exercise significant influence on what they can read, hear or discuss. when you look at the most radical voices in American politics today, you’ll find BDSers and a large following of social mediaites who wish to launch an American Intifada (uprising.) When you look at the most extensive re-writes of high school curricula, and you’ll find the BDSer narrative. So, whether you like it or not, you have skin in this game.

I admit, I am one of their targets: an American-raised Zionist who moved to Israel. Even though it is a simple matter to demolish the BDS arguments, I advise you to pay attention not so much either to what BDS says, or to its impact is on its alleged target – Israel – and more closely on the impact it has on your own societies.

BDS is using the language of human rights to abrogate human rights. It uses the language of democracy to promote an anti-democratic agenda. BDS is using modern liberal concepts to push a very illiberal stance. And what the BDSers are attempting to do to Israel is what they want to do with all free, democratic societies.

BDS is not about justice. It is about wiping the most liberal, free society in the Middle East off the map. And to do so effectively, it needs to appeal to liberal, democratic societies with an argument that can and will be used against those cultures foolish enough to respond to their “moral appeal.”

That’s why it matters that the BDS goal of boycotting Israeli Jews is a virtual clone of the Nazi boycott of German Jews. That’s why it matters that BDS claims that Israel is guilty of ethnic cleansing is really a smokescreen for their own desire to ethnically cleanse all Jews from the Middle East – or to relegate them to the same legally inferior status they have had for 1400 years under Islam.

Noura Erekat, a US lawyer of Palestinian heritage, claims: “If you say anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism then you’re basically condemning all Palestinians as anti-Semites because they decide to exist.” It is important to understand what she means. Is she saying that all the Palestinians want to do is exist, and the Zionists call even that basic human right, antisemitism? Or is she saying that Palestinians define their existence in terms of not allowing Jews a state of their own? Not only do the answers matter, they have much larger significance for citizens of democracies the world over.

If Palestinian leaders define their existence as the elimination of the only Jewish state on the planet, the only one in the last two millennia, then they have no commitment to the kinds of Palestinian rights they demand Israel respect. Indeed, they offer the textbook case of a hypocritical strategy: demanding respect of Palestinian human rights from those whose rights they wish to deny.

Every meaningful and progressive change in history had, at its core, the rejection of this deceptive, retaliatory, authoritarian strategy. If BDS, or the Palestinian cause, deserves condemnation, it’s not for “wanting to exist,” but for insisting in that their national existence demands the non-existence of the Jewish nation. And if that is the kind of false, zero-sum moral claims BDSers make, what other extremist groups will follow their example if they are seen to succeed?

If there’s one thing over two millennia of experience with Jew-hatred have taught us, is that people who succumb to its blandishments do not prosper: compare 16^th century Spain and the later 20^th century Arab world. Indeed, spreading hatred is a sure-fire recipe for social failure, and the more widespread the hatred, the more extensive the damage. Because what starts with the Jews never ends with the Jews.
Once one shifts attention to what BDS actually does, one finds a strong and consistent legacy. Consider for example, academia, where the movement has had its most favorable and enduring reception. On campus, BDS wages a relentless campaign of slander and demonization, punctuated yearly by an orgy of misinformation and propaganda called “Israel Apartheid Week.” It de-platforms, sometimes violently, anyone who dares challenge their dogmas. They have managed, with these techniques, to politicize and polarize both campus and academic discussion, to make Western universities places of indoctrination rather than of learning. In the name of liberal values, they have created a deeply illiberal pedagogy.

Their lack of actual success against Israel is matched only by their success in their hostile occupation of Western academia, pressuring students, professors and administrators to either join or fall silent. As a result, our Middle East Studies departments, often heavily funded by Arab countries, offer problematic research, lopsided syllabi, propaganda-laden curricula for high schools and near-useless information and analysis about the Middle East and Islam.

Wherever BDS succeeds, whether on campus or in high schools, the scene becomes profoundly hostile to Jews, both students and faculty. This is not inclusive excellence; it’s exclusive mediocrity. If it succeeds, it will not only produce more tendentious, repetitive, and misguided research, but drive out a major source of modern and post-modern intellectual thought. The revolution, hijacked by bloody-minded zealots, eats its own, starting with the vast majority of Jews who are guilty of the modern crime of being Zionist.

BDS is not confined to the campus. It is influential in “human rights” organizations. It is making inroads in the halls of Congress and world parliaments. When BDS is ascendant, it is intolerant of any other opinions – and of the people who hold those opinions.

These are deeply troubling developments. Those who worried about Trump’s proto-fascism should understand that he has had only a fraction of the “will to dominate” that we find in both BDS and its allies. Whenever leaders use the language of liberalism to trample liberal principles, you need to ask yourself whether your own beliefs put you on their enemies list.

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 Palestinian Information Center and Felesteen both reported:

This morning, Thursday morning, armed settlers stormed the shrine and mosque of the Prophet Musa, between Jericho and occupied Jerusalem.

Eyewitnesses stated that settlers stormed the shrine of Prophet Musa, heavily armed, with full protection from the occupation soldiers.

The sources pointed out that settlers wandered around the shrine of the Prophet Musa and performed Talmudic rituals, and took pictures at the site.

This sounded strange because the shrine of Nebi Musa is one of the few Muslim holy places that aren't holy for Jews. Muslims believe that Moses was buried there, the Torah says Moses never crossed the Jordan to go to Israel. There is no reason for Jews to go there to pray.

So I found the video of the supposed storming.

These are tourists. They are not religious Jews at all - the men aren't wearing kippot, the women are dressed in slacks unlike religious Jewish women. No prayers. No evidence of armed police. Muslims are freely mixing with the tourists.

There were recent reports that the Palestinian Authority has been contacting and threatening to arrest people who have complained on social media about their allowing a dance party at the Nebi Musa site two weeks ago. Under Palestinian law, insulting political leaders on social media is a crime.

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 AP:

The unveiling of a large statue in Beirut of an Iranian commander killed by the U.S. last year has sparked indignation among many in Lebanon — the latest manifestation of a growing schism between supporters and opponents of the Iran-backed group Hezbollah.

The bronze bust of Gen. Qassem Soleimani was erected Tuesday by the Ghobeiry municipality in a Hezbollah stronghold near Beirut's airport to commemorate the slain general's supportive role in Lebanon's wars with Israel. Soleimani, the architect of Iran’s proxy militias in the Middle East, was killed in a U.S. drone strike near Baghdad airport a year ago.

Many Lebanese, mostly critics of Hezbollah, took to social media to lambast the celebration of a foreign military leader in Lebanon's capital. “Occupied Beirut,” tweeted one Lebanese, Amin Abou Mansour, who posted it with the hashtag #BeirutFree—IranOut.

One Lebanese media personality said she received death threats after her criticism on social media of the new statue.

The bronze bust about 3 meters (10 feet) high is located in a roundabout on a street named for the Iranian general and is linked to a highway named after Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini — a reflection of growing Iranian influence in Lebanon.

Giant posters of Soleimani were also installed along the airport highway and in streets and neighborhoods allied with Hezbollah, in some instances sparking angry reactions from locals.

In the eastern Bekaa highway to the Brital area, unidentified men torched a billboard of Soleimani on Sunday, according to the local LBC TV channel.

The following day, other portraits of Soleimani were burned north of Beirut in Nahr al-Kalb by men who brandished the portraits of Christian leader Bachir Gemayl, who was assassinated in 1982.

Meanwhile, also around the anniversary of Soleimani's death, Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar reminisced over how Soleimani gave Hamas millions in cash and weapons, upsetting some Iranians!

A senior leader of the Palestinian Hamas movement has offered an account of how in one tranche of cash aid, the Islamic Republic provided his group with $22 million back in 2006.

In an interview with the state-funded Arabic-language news network Al-Alam, Mahmoud al-Zahar said during a visit to Tehran as Gaza’s foreign minister, he and eight other members of his delegation received the nine suitcases before departure from an airport in Tehran. “In the meeting, I raised with him our problems with salary payments and social services in Gaza,” al-Zahar said of his discussions with the former commander of Iran’s Quds Force who was killed in a US airstrike in Baghdad Jan. 3.

“Soleimani was quick to respond to our demand. The day after, I saw $22 million in cash inside suitcases each weighing 40 kilos. Since it was only nine of us, we couldn’t carry any [more],” al-Zahar added, praising the Iranian commander as “a man of honesty and action.”

Abu Mujahid, spokesman for the Popular Resistance Committees, a Palestinian group closely allied to Iran, who will participate in the ceremonies honoring Soleimani’s death anniversary in Qom, also spoke of support given by the late Qods commander to the “Palestinian resistance.”
“Martyr Soleimani…provided them with missiles that can destroy targets in the heart of Tel Aviv, Haifa and other cities of the Zionist regime,” he told the Tasnim news agency “When Haj Qasem delivered Kornet missiles to the Palestinian Resistance, a huge change was made in the deterrence balance in regards to Zionist regime.”

But not all Iranians are happy about this support of Hamas.

The Islamic Republic claims that the policy is a popular demand from ordinary Iranians, who share religious convictions with the resistance cause. This idea, however, has been openly challenged by many Iranians, especially since the country’s 2009 post-election protests. “No to Gaza, no to Lebanon! I sacrifice my soul for the sake of Iran,” they chanted. The slogan is rooted in the argument that at a time when Iran is suffering from multiple economic crises and sanctions, its own people ought to be prioritized. The same slogan was chanted with greater vigor and deeper fury eight years later in the 2017 economic protests and most notably during the 2019 nationwide unrest against a controversial plan to hike fuel prices.

While the revelation by the Hamas official was no surprise to many Iranians, it renewed debates on how the Islamic Republic has over the decades increasingly sacrificed its people’s welfare for ideological ambitions and regional policies. “The suitcases that Soleimani offered to Hamas were filled with income from the very oil wells above which Omran Roshani Moghaddam hung himself due to poverty and his overdue salaries,” wrote human rights activist Dariush Zand in reference to a disillusioned oil field worker whose suicide scene back in June marked a moving paradox between Iran’s natural wealth and its citizens’ misery.

“Just how many children working as garbage scavengers could have been saved with the very cash gift Soleimani gave Hamas?” asked exiled journalist Masih Alinejad, highlighting the growing malady of child laborers in Iran. “We could have bought 110,000 tablets for schoolchildren during the pandemic. One of them could have been Mohammad Mousavizdeh. He wouldn’t have to take his own life,” another user wrote.

11-year-old Mohammad and several more Iranian children have committed suicide over their inability to purchase the required digital devices to join online classes.

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.

Iran Strategy and “Newer Jews” (Vic Rosenthal)

Vic Rosenthal's weekly column

I just watched an interview of the new Israeli Ambassador to the UK, Tzipi Hotovely. She was interviewed by Colin Shindler, a historian and professor at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London. Shindler, despite his qualifications as a specialist in the history of Israel, displayed the typical bias against that country of most British academics, but Hotovely did an excellent job, demonstrating that a former firebrand politician can become a diplomat.

I found one question in particular interesting. Do you think, Shindler asked, that Israel’s recent normalization of relations with several Arab states will make war with Iran more or less likely? Hotovely’s response was that this was a positive development, and that it showed that Israel wasn’t the only country in the Middle East that was worried about Iran. But she didn’t answer specifically whether it made war more or less likely.

I suspect Hotovely thought, as I did, that it was unnecessary to add that of course it reduced the chance of violent conflict. After all, Iran’s attempt to expand her sphere of influence in the region, especially by trying to encircle Israel with armed proxies, is the typical behavior of an aggressor that will lead to war unless the aggressor can be deterred. And certainly an alliance between the potential victims of aggression has a deterrent force. So what on earth was Schindler thinking?

Here is another example: a recent CNN “analysis” included this: “Even if Biden is willing to return to the terms of the Iran nuclear deal, the case for diplomacy has been weakened by the Trump-ordered US strike that killed [Iranian General Qassem] Soleimani.”

Weakened? By killing Soleimani, Trump took an action that reduced Iran’s ability to take extra-diplomatic actions (read: terrorism or war). That strengthened the American negotiating position, making it more likely that the Iranians would make concessions. But the writer seems to believe the opposite. It should be obvious that achieving agreement in negotiations is much more likely when one side sees no alternative but to agree. If Biden wants to negotiate over Iran’s nuclear program, Trump did him a big favor by killing Soleimani and by applying tough sanctions.

I suspect it is a particular kind of illogic that seems to be common among those with a certain kind of historical ignorance, and in the case of Jews like Shindler, a certain psychological syndrome.

What motivates regimes? For good regimes, it is primarily the national interests of their countries; for bad regimes, it is the personal and political interests of the leaders. Motivations almost never include moral considerations or ideas of fair play or justice. Regimes are sometimes slightly influenced by fellow-feeling for their linguistic and religious fellows, as in the “special relationship” between the US and the UK, the Russian connection to other Slavic peoples, or the support for the Palestinians by fellow Muslims. But interests still predominate, and presidents, dictators, and kings get up in the morning and think about how they can promote them, and what might stand in their way. When an enemy backs down or shows weakness, they push forward. It would be irrational to follow suit in backing down, and usually they don’t.
A national leader has to play both offense and defense, in American football terms. They need to move their interests forward, while frustrating the designs of their enemies. Direct conflict is expensive and risky, so their offensive actions are usually incremental, and in proportion to what they can get away with. Defensive actions take two forms: direct defense, like antimissile systems; and deterrence, which is calculated to make the enemy’s possible offensive actions so expensive that they will not be justified in terms of interests. Both kinds of defense are necessary.
The Trump Administration’s strategy against Iran is classically rational. The high-level goal is to prevent Iran from taking control of the Middle East and its natural resources, and in particular to prevent the regime from getting nuclear weapons which would facilitate that takeover. This is accomplished by wielding the massive economic power of the US. The powerful American military functions as a deterrent against Iran’s using its favored weapon, proxy terrorism, in response. I have little doubt that if the Trump policy were continued, Iran could be forced to back down without open conflict.

The Obama Administration acted differently, either because it did not understand Iranian goals, or because its own objectives were not to frustrate Iranian expansionism, or because it was incompetent (or perhaps a bit of all three). Despite America’s enormous economic and military advantages over Iran, it negotiated as if from a position of weakness.

Israel today does not act with complete rationality for various reasons. For one thing, there is widespread disagreement about national goals. For example, as a “right-winger” I believe that it should be a national goal to achieve Jewish sovereignty over all the land of Israel, and that Israel should be the nation-state of the Jewish people. There are also Israelis that believe that Judea and Samaria should be under Arab sovereignty, and that Israel should be a “state of all its citizens” like the US; and there are Israelis who would take intermediate positions.

As a result, the (very democratic) Israeli regime has difficulty in implementing policy consistently, because it is pulled back and forth by various constituencies. From a military point of view, it relies too much on direct defense, like Iron dome and sophisticated barriers, and not enough on deterrence, which must be exercised from time to time in order to maintain credibility. But for various reasons, in part the fear of interference from outside powers, it is loath to do so.

There is also another issue, more of a spiritual problem: because Israeli Jews have lived so long in an antisemitic world, they are unsure of the legitimacy of their very existence. As Kenneth Levin explained in his book, The Oslo Syndrome: Delusions of a People Under Siege, Jews have come to accept the antisemitic judgment that their persecution is their own fault, and believe that they can influence their enemies by becoming “better” people. The effect is to prevent them from taking strong action when needed. Oslo Syndrome sufferers often echo the complaints of antisemitic Europeans and the “human rights industry.”

Ben Gurion and Jabotinsky hoped for a “new Jew” to replace the ones that cowered in the ghettos of Europe. Although they created a generation of Jews that were capable of fighting for their lives and to establish a state, it has been hard to repair all of the damage from the millennia of diaspora existence. Ben Gurion’s New Jews believed that they didn’t need religion, which they saw as part of the weakness of the old Jews. But the danger was that without it, once they succeeded in establishing a state and securing the Jewish people against persecution, they would forget why the Jewish people needed a Jewish state. And this has to a certain extent happened.
But there is also a new generation that represents a synthesis, Jews that are both strong enough to fight and spiritual enough to know why they need to. Call them “Newer Jews.” And the interview that prompted this post, which pits a member of this new generation of Jewish leaders, Tzipi Hotovely, against a Jew fatally stricken with Oslo Syndrome, Colin Shindler, is a good way to see the difference.

Should Twitter remove Trump's tweets?

As a publisher who has had my own materials removed from social media, I am very sensitive to freedom of speech issues.

And I'm sensitive from both sides of the issue, since I am certainly against antisemitic and other hate speech.

The topic is fraught with emotion, as it should be. We should get emotional both about defending our freedoms and also against those who abuse their speech to harm others.

Twitter wrote:

As a result of the unprecedented and ongoing violent situation in Washington, D.C., we have required the removal of three @realDonaldTrump Tweets that were posted earlier today for repeated and severe violations of our Civic Integrity policy.

This means that the account of @realDonaldTrump will be locked for 12 hours following the removal of these Tweets. If the Tweets are not removed, the account will remain locked.

Future violations of the Twitter Rules, including our Civic Integrity or Violent Threats policies, will result in permanent suspension of the @realDonaldTrump account.

Our public interest policy — which has guided our enforcement action in this area for years — ends where we believe the risk of harm is higher and/or more severe.

Was this the correct thing to do?

This explanation is a little misleading. Twitter's Civic Integrity Policy is mostly concerned with manipulating elections or other civic processes, and while I suppose one can say that the violence at the Capitol on Wednesday was a version of manipulating a civic process. But if anything encouraged that mob, it sure wasn't Twitter - it was the President himself speaking directly to them and telling them to march to the Capitol, which was also covered by national cable TV news networks live.

So what benefit to society was there for Twitter to take away those tweets when his message was freely available elsewhere?

I want to be clear - I'm not discussing the law here. Twitter has every right to censor whomever it wants, as long as it sets up its rules ahead of time and enforces the rules consistently (which often does not appear to be the case.) I have no problem with Zoom censoring terrorist Leila Khaled from speaking on its platform when she is in the US but allowing her to speak when she is in the UK, because Zoom is only following its own policies that are different in each country.

In general, my opinion is that freedom of speech should be close to absolute unless it is inciting to violence. Unfortunately, that kicks the can down the road - what is considered incitement? Is saying that Jews control the world incitement to attack Jews? What about claiming that Jews abuse infants when they circumcise them? Do racist comments make it more likely for people to attack people of color?

Or do we draw the line at direct specific threats? That sounds like a reasonable policy, but we've already seen how white supremacists and neo-Nazis have adapted to that - by treating everything they say as a joke, jokes that are taken seriously by their audience who understand the game they are playing.

There are two conflicting principles, between freedom of speech and prohibiting incitement, and going too far in either direction can result in either criminalizing independent thought or creating an environment where people can get murdered. There is a third complicating principle as well - that providers of communications platforms treat all speech with a consistent policy, not favoring one political stance over another.

These are difficult questions.

In the specific case here, Twitter is clearly trying to tamp down violence, which is of course a good thing. I think that this can easily backfire, though.

The people who were marching in Washington feel that they are not being heard, that they are marginalized by the mainstream, that their issues with the election are not being taken seriously. They are being censored by YouTube and Facebook and Twitter and they are frustrated - convinced that this is a huge conspiracy against their viewpoints. This drives them underground to other sites that still have plenty of viewers but no alternative points of view.

And that fuels extremism.

I didn't see the mainstream media give much of a warning that this demonstration could be as big or unruly as it was. There are demonstrations in Washington every day. But most of the media ignores the underground sites, where people have been planning this demonstration for at least a month. Obviously, tens of thousands came to Washington from all over and just as obviously, the Capitol police and DC police were not close to prepared.

If the protesters had been allowed to speak freely about their issues with the election on mainstream social media, perhaps they would not be as paranoid. Perhaps they could have been exposed to other points of view as people would argue with them in the open. Perhaps the mainstream media and the police could have been following the situation more closely and defended the Capitol better (and that is a scandal in itself - if there had been a proper defense, there would have been no riots.)

This is only one example of how a more liberal approach to free speech could actually make violence less likely.

As I said, I get it. I am frustrated by prominent people using social media not only to mislead but to outright lie, and I fight it every day. Skilled people use social media for propaganda that can have very bad real world effects. I am very sensitive to the possibility of violence resulting from irresponsible conspiracy theories.

But I still believe that shining a light on the crazy, the paranoid and the hate is a far better approach than to force it underground, where it can become much, much worse - as we saw today.

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.

01/06 Links Pt2: Pizza-sized boxes and paying a premium: Israel's COVID-19 vaccine rollout; Will Christian Peacemakers Condemn the PA Prime Minister for His Blasphemy?

From Ian:

Pizza-sized boxes and paying a premium: Israel's COVID-19 vaccine rollout

A universal public healthcare system, which requires every resident to be covered by a healthcare maintenance organisation (HMO) and connected to a nationwide digital network, then kicks in.

Ran Balicer, chief innovation officer for HMO Clalit, said Israel has integrated infrastructures of digital data with “full coverage of the entire population, cradle to grave.”

“So it is easy both to identify the right target population and to create data-driven ‘outreach’ because this is something that is done as our everyday care routine,” said Balicer, who also chairs the government’s expert advisory coronavirus panel.

Administering about 150,000 shots a day at clinics and special facilities, Israel has prioritised over-60s, health workers and people with medical conditions. The city of Haifa offers drive-through vaccinations.

“I have been waiting to be liberated from this pressure, from the anxiety that’s there in the background all the time, to be free, to finally stop worrying,” said 76-year-old psychologist Tamar Shachnai. A week into the campaign she had already received a text message with instructions from her HMO, scheduled an appointment and got her first shot.

Shachnai was vaccinated at a centre in a Jerusalem sports arena where about 500 people had passed through by lunchtime. Towards the end of the day, about 20 younger people gathered outside the arena, hoping to receive the vaccine.

Israel has also added vaccination centres in Arab towns, said Aiman Saif, the health ministry’s coronavirus coordinator for the Arab community, following concerns about the low rate of vaccination among Israeli Arabs.

He said some Israeli Arabs initially appeared reluctant to be vaccinated and may have been put off by misinformation on social media, prompting Israel to accelerate a public campaign to combat “fake news” about alleged side effects.

Palestinian health official Yasser Bozyeh estimated that Palestinians would begin receiving doses in February through the World Health Organization’s vaccine scheme for poor and middle-income countries.

The Palestinian Authority, which exercises limited self-rule in the West Bank and has its own health system, has also contacted private drugmakers.

Edelstein said it was in Israel’s interest to make sure the Palestinian population was also vaccinated and that he was open to discussing passing on any extra vaccines once Israel meets its own demand. Netanyahu’s office declined to comment.

CAMERA Op-Ed More False Attacks Against Israel on COVID-19 Vaccines

“Palestinians,” the former Associated Press journalist and author Matti Friedman wrote in 2014, “are not taken seriously as agents of their own fate.” A December 19, 2020 Washington Post report, entitled, “Israel is starting to vaccinate, but Palestinians may have to wait months,” proves Friedman correct. The newspaper’s Jerusalem bureau chief Steve Hendrix and new correspondent Shira Rubi unfairly — and inaccurately — blame Israel for the failures of the Palestinian Authority (PA).

Hendrix and Rubin write that “Israel, like many high-income countries, is moving quickly to roll out newly approved coronavirus vaccines,” but “next door in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, the prospects for vaccinating almost 5 million Palestinians are far less certain, as financial, political and logistical hurdles could delay inoculations against the raging pandemic for months.” This “split,” the Post employees claim, “highlights the tense disparities between Israel and the Palestinian populations it effectively controls.”

“Few places,” they add, “offer a starker side-by-side example of the gap than Israel and the Palestinian territories.”

Yet, Israel doesn’t “effectively control” populations in either the Palestinian Authority-ruled West Bank or the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip. Nor is Israel responsible for their healthcare. In fact — although neither Post reporter mentions it in their 981-word article — the PA itself is responsible, per a signed agreement with Israel, for the healthcare of those living under the Authority’s rule.

Article 17 of the Oslo II agreement explicitly states that “powers and responsibilities in the sphere of Health in the West Bank and Gaza Strip will be transferred to the Palestinian side.” Further, the Oslo Accords specify that “the Palestinian side shall continue to apply the present standard of vaccination of Palestinians and shall improve them according to internationally accepted standards in the field, taking into account WHO recommendations.” For nearly three decades, this has been the case — including with other vaccines.

It doesn’t get clearer than that.

The same group that always cites the Palestinian Ministry of Health now wants you not to know that it exists, is responsible for vaccinating its population & has rejected Israeli help. See this thread for key facts: https://t.co/GmnBe20xrs

Amnesty just wants you to hate Jews. https://t.co/7YulTFjAPn
— Hillel Neuer (@HillelNeuer) January 6, 2021

The Guardian Criticized for Vaccine Article about Israel

The British newspaper The Guardian was criticized for a headline stating that Palestinians have been “excluded” from Israel’s COVID-19 vaccination rollout. The January 3 headline states in full: “Palestinians excluded from Israeli Covid vaccine rollout as jabs go to settlers,” which was tweeted out from The Guardian’s Twitter account.

American Jewish Committee CEO David Harris tweeted that the headline was “malicious.” “Palestinians aren’t ‘excluded from Israeli Covid vaccine rollout,’” Harris wrote. “They rejected Covid cooperation w/ Israel. They’re in charge of own health care under Oslo Accords. They spurned UAE’s [United Arab Emirates] Covid aid -They’re awaiting millions of doses of Russian vaccine. An apology?”
Malicious!

Palestinians aren’t “excluded from Israeli Covid vaccine rollout.”

-They rejected Covid cooperation w/ Israel

-They’re in charge of own health care under Oslo Accords

-They spurned UAE’s Covid aid

-They’re awaiting millions of doses of Russian vaccine

An apology? https://t.co/YouiU1gHA0
— David Harris (@DavidHarrisAJC) January 4, 2021
The Simon Wiesenthal Center similarly tweeted that the allegation that Israel is excluding Palestinians from obtaining COVID-19 vaccines is a “new anti-Israel libel.” “@guardian newspaper buries one inconvenient fact: Palestinian Authority is in charge of Palestinians in their territory,” they wrote. “It made NO request for #Israel for vaccine. Any doubt Israel would help if asked?”

In a subsequent tweet, the Wiesenthal Center added: “Corrupt PA’s [Palestinian Authority] official policy no cooperation with Jewish state ever – bars sick [Palestinians] from Israeli treatment except top sick PA and Hamas officials.”
Corrupt PA’s official policy no cooperation with Jewish state ever – bars sick Pals from Israeli treatment except top sick PA and Hamas officials.
— SimonWiesenthalCntr (@simonwiesenthal) January 4, 2021
International human rights lawyer Arsen Ostrovsky tweeted that those criticizing Israel for not giving COVID-19 vaccines to the Palestinians should know that the “PA specifically asked [Israel] not to, as they want to themselves” and noted that “perhaps if PA wasn’t paying hundreds of millions $$$ in terrorist salaries, they could do this faster.”
To all those parroting the 'why is #Israel not giving #Palestinians #COVID19 vaccines':

1. Israel not obliged.

2. PA specifically asked not to, as they want to themselves.

3. Perhaps if PA wasn't paying hundreds of millions $$$ in terrorist salaries, they could do this faster.
— Arsen Ostrovsky (@Ostrov_A) January 4, 2021
The Guardian article does state later on that the PA “has not officially asked for help from Israel. Coordination between the two sides halted last year after the Palestinian president cut off security ties for several months.” It continues to say that “Israeli officials have suggested they might provide surplus vaccines to Palestinians and claim they are not responsible for Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, pointing to 1990s-era interim agreements that required the authority to observe international vaccination standards.”

The article also quotes an Israeli human rights NGO named Gisha stating that Israel still has an “ultimate responsibility toward Palestinians under occupation.”

A spokesperson from The Guardian said in a statement to the Journal, “The story in question reported the concerns of human rights groups, including an Israeli human rights group.”

.@piersmorgan @GMB

Piers - Get your facts straight

Israel is NOT responsible for vaccinating the Gaza Strip

Hamas rules Gaza & the Pal Authority has ordered 4 MILLION Russian Sputnik doses for the West Bank & Gaza

Stop engaging in a modern day blood libel against Israel pic.twitter.com/TvnZv20url
— NW Friends of Israel (@NorthWestFOI) January 6, 2021

Anti-Israel vaccine narrative catches on with left-wing MPs

Legislators in parliaments of several countries have echoed the false reports that Israel is barring Palestinians from receiving the COVID-19 vaccine in recent days.

Charlie Angus and Leah Gazan of Canada's left-wing New Democratic Party both repeated the misleading reports, with the former calling Israel an apartheid state and the latter saying Israel was "excluding people from being vaccinated based on discriminatory decisions and a clear violation of human rights.”

The false accusations were spread mostly by activists in the past month, but an article published on Sunday in the UK's Guardian headlined "Palestinians excluded from COVID vaccines and jabs go to settlers" exposed them to a much larger audience. Other news outlets had also tied Israel’s world-leading coronavirus vaccine rollout to the Palestinians’ slower progress on that front.

Under article 17 of the Oslo Accords, the Palestinian Authority is responsible for healthcare, including vaccines, for Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. Israel has been vaccinating Palestinians in east Jerusalem. In addition, Health Minister Yuli Edelstein told The New York Times he had “no doubt” Israel would help the Palestinians, in an article published two days before the one in the Guardian. When the Guardian article was published, the Palestinians had not asked Israel to help.

The Palestinian Authority has ordered doses of Russia’s Sputnik V vaccines and the AstraZeneca vaccine, and is expected to begin vaccinations in February. The PA is also participating in the World Health Organization’s vaccine aid program.

B'nai Brith Canada accused Angus of promoting antisemitic conspiracy theories by sharing the Guardian article, a charge he rejected in a Facebook post on Monday.

Sovereignty is a dead issue in Israel for now, but maybe it always was. The issue of applying Israeli civil law over the Jordan Valley and Judea and Samaria comes up as regularly as Israeli elections, but never actually comes to fruition. On September 10, 2019, however, it seemed the stars had at last aligned to make sovereignty possible. That was when Prime Minister Netanyahu announced, with only one week to go before elections, his intention to apply Israeli sovereignty over all the settlements, beginning with the Jordan Valley and then moving on to settlements in Judea and Samaria.

“One place that can have sovereignty immediately applied to it after the elections is the Jordan Valley. The next government will apply Israeli sovereignty to the Jordan Valley.

“We haven’t had such an opportunity since the Six Day War, and I doubt we’ll have another opportunity in the next 50 years. Give me the power to guarantee Israel’s security. Give me the power to determine Israel’s borders,” said Netanyahu, who added that there was an “unprecedented opportunity to apply sovereignty to our settlements in the West Bank.”

We were to understand by this announcement that with Netanyahu secure in office in Israel, and the Israel-friendly President Trump in the White House, we would finally be free to do what we should have done in 1967: exercise Israeli sovereignty over all territory under Israeli control. After all, this territory is Jewish indigenous territory and has been for thousands of years. But the Jews had been dispossessed by one invading occupier after another and the land had slipped out of Jewish hands, the Jews, dispersed.

Back in 1967, however, when Israel was once again attacked by invading Arab armies, it looked like the end of the Jewish State. Instead, Israel ended up liberating much of its ancient territory, but left the disposition and administration of Judea and Samaria vague, in hopes that later, they might barter the land for peace, something that was never to happen. This has been a frustrating situation for many Israelis, in particular, those of us who actually live in Judea and Samaria.

Those of us who live in Judea and Samaria, never felt this part of Israel to be a commodity: something that could be traded away for something else. To the contrary, we felt it an imperative to settle and build on every part of our land: Jewish land. We never felt we had a partner for peace, moreover, but instead a murderous rabble, looking for opportunities to murder us, to murder Jews. Not that we thought it possible to give away our inheritance, but even if we had, we understood that giving them land would only encourage them in their bloodthirsty violence resulting in yet more dead Jews for us to bury and to mourn, God forbid.

So the horizon seemed a bit more exciting when it seemed as if, yes: this could finally happen: this thing called sovereignty. Netanyahu and Trump would make it happen. Israel would finally exercise sovereignty over this important part of our land and inheritance as Jews

But it never did happen. First, the idea that we were going to exercise sovereignty over all our territory was walked back. As I wrote in August 2019, (Peace for Peace or Sovereignty for Peace? Was Sovereignty Ever Really on the Table?) it turned out that the goal was only “to create a Palestinian state on 70 percent of Judea and Samaria through the application of Israeli sovereignty to just 30 percent of that land, effectively giving up another huge chunk of Jewish land to the Arabs for good.”

And even that partial plan got suspended, thanks to the Abraham Accords, when the United States promised the UAE not to support Israeli sovereignty until 2024. The signatories to the accords assumed that by then, Trump would be long gone from the White House. Anyone other than Trump in the Oval Office was bound to be against the idea of Israeli sovereignty in Judea and Samaria, effectively making the issue disappear off the table for good—though some still hold out hope Trump will be in the running for the 2024 presidential election.)

Still, it’s not fair and a little too facile, for Israel to pin its hopes and aspirations on an American president. It’s not right because the will to exercise Israeli sovereignty must come from the top: from strong Israeli leaders. But our current Israeli leadership doesn’t care about this issue and now and in the past, has had no will to discuss sovereignty except as a bargaining chip for the enemy, or for the sake of pushing an Israeli election toward this direction or that.

With this new Israeli election season upon us, some may be wondering if the tried and true false promise of sovereignty might once again be dangled before our eyes. But no, there are the Abraham Accords to tout, and the—disastrous for Israel–results of the American election which means that the White House will no longer be in Israel’s corner, plus the insistent need to prove stellar handling of the pandemic. All of these red letter events: the accords, the election, the pandemic, have shoved the issue of sovereignty into a faraway corner, and have rendered it obscure and practically irrelevant.

Sovereignty will not soon again be an issue to lure Israeli voters to the polls.

“I really doubt Bibi will push sovereignty. He didn't push it in the last elections except as a little teaser; but essentially, when he had the opportunity, he was not interested. And to the extent he dangled the idea in front of his supporters, it was only because Trump was in favor,” said Eugene Kontorovich who heads the International Law Department of the Kohelet Policy Forum, a Jerusalem think-tank.

But what of the changing of the guard? Why should it matter? Why doesn’t Netanyahu just do the right thing and exercise Jewish sovereignty over all of Israel’s rightful, legal, and holy land? “With Biden as president, I can't imagine Bibi opposing him on this,” said Kontorovich "He doesn't care much about sovereignty himself, and cares a lot about avoiding fights with POTUS. He likes things quiet, and does not fundamentally understand the need for sovereignty.

“I think the moment has been lost for at least four years.”

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.

Cartoon of the Day: Balancing the story

Continuing my series of recaptioning cartoons...

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.

01/06 Links Pt1: Sudan officially joins Abraham Accords to normalize Israel ties; 2021: The Year Israel and Iran Go to War?; Israeli NGO accuses UN agency of distorting data on terrorism

From Ian:

Sudan officially joins Abraham Accords to normalize Israel ties

Sudan signed the Abraham Accords, officially agreeing to peace and normalization with Israel on Wednesday.

Sudanese Justice Minister Nasredeen Abdulbari signed the document with US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin present. Mnuchin is expected to visit Israel on Thursday. Mnuchin continued to Israel for "important meetings," as he characterized them on Twitter.

Sudan became the third of four countries to agree to sign on to the Trump administration-brokered accords, following the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, and before Morocco.

Though Khartoum announced its willingness to join in late October, its government waited to proceed until the US removed Sudan from its list of state sponsors of terror last month, following the overthrow of dictator Omar al-Bashir in early 2019. Sudan paid $335 million in compensation for American victims of terror and their families as part of the removal process.

During Mnuchin’s visit, the countries also settled Sudan’s World Bank debt, a further step towards economic recovery for the African state, which has over $60 billion in foreign debt.

Mnuchin was in Khartoum “at a time when our bilateral relations are making historic leaps towards a better future. We plan to take concrete steps today to inaugurate the entry of our bilateral relations,” Sudanese Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok tweeted.

The path to Sudan joining the Abraham Accords began in February 2020, when Sudan’s transitional leader Abdel Fattah al-Burhan met with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Uganda.

The expansion of the Abraham Accords to include Sudan is a significant step that will further enhance regional security while creating opportunities for Sudan and Israel to deepen economic ties and improve the lives of their people. https://t.co/2OnazrKSJq pic.twitter.com/kecd1Diwod
— Department of State (@StateDept) January 5, 2021

Come for the peace accords, stay for the vaccinations! #AbrahamAccords #COVID19 #VacciNations 🇮🇱🇦🇪🇧🇭🇺🇸💉 pic.twitter.com/tUqob6TAbe
— Arsen Ostrovsky (@Ostrov_A) January 6, 2021

This, like the Abraham Accords, could not have happened without U.S. leadership, and in particular, Jared Kushner’s determination and diplomacy! https://t.co/3Y1noOnQ1R
— Arsen Ostrovsky (@Ostrov_A) January 6, 2021

Yesterday, Shomrim of London released this video taken Saturday of a man threatening and chasing religious Jews of Stamford Hill, London, with a large stick:

The people making the video are laughing at the attack.

Police were eventually called and arrested the 29-year old man:

According to the experts on antisemitism like Linda Sarsour and Marc Lamont Hill, this cannot be an case of antisemitism because - after all - it doesn't appear like this gentleman is a white supremacist, based on his voice.

Similarly, these twins from Gaza who decided to harass any religious Jews they could find in Antwerp are clearly not antisemitic, because they are from Gaza! They must be just anti-Zionist.

Adham & Amjad are twins from #Gaza. They are avid rollerbladers, currently in Belgium. Watch them visit the Jewish neighborhood in Antwerp during the night curfew.
Uploaded to YouTube on 31 Dec 2020 https://t.co/sLXefXyj20 pic.twitter.com/SZstZzL3h9
— Imshin (@imshin) January 5, 2021

The video has over 250,000 views on YouTube and over 28,000 Likes from Arabic-speaking people who cannot possibly be antisemitic.

It is interesting that the people who claim to care the most about antisemitism don't seem to be upset over most forms of 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.

Over the past four years, the US embarked an a completely new and novel strategy for peace in the Middle East, one that has had infinitely more success than any administration since the 1970s.

But that strategy has been hated by people who claim to want peace above all.

This is because the new policies contradicted the orthodoxy of the old model, which had become nothing less than a religion. Most politicians, pundits and professional "peacemakers" were emotionally invested in the fantasy that if only Israel gave Palestinians more land, they would be satisfied, terror and incitement would cease and only after that would other Arab nations join in.

This religion was created during the 1990s and, like all religions, the facts of what has happened since then cannot shake the true believers. A deadly intifada followed a decade later with a smaller terror spree, multiple Palestinian rejections of peace offers and frameworks, thousands of rockets from Gaza, an enduring political split between rival Palestinian groups, increased disenchantment with Palestinian actions in other Arab countries, the rise of Iran as a nuclear threat - none of these could disturb the absolute Truth that the Oslo process was the only one that could bring peace.

These true believers hate for anything that Donald Trump did buttressed their convictions that they were right. Israel's accords with four Arab countries were dismissed as some sort of anomaly.

And now that Trump is going away, they are anxious to return the US to the failed models of Trump's predecessors.

Haaretz reports that J-Street is salivating to reverse practically everything Trump and Kushner did: It wants to drop the "Peace to Prosperity" plan that is far more realistic than anything ever proposed beforehand, it wants to criminalize any Jews living in Judea and Samaria and even prohibit US funding of scientific research that is done by Jews across the Green Line, it wants to reward Palestinian intransigence by re-opening its diplomatic mission in Washington, it wants the US to open a separate consulate in Jerusalem just for Palestinians, it wants Biden to declare ahead of any negotiations that the US will recognize east Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state, it wants to end the US position that Palestinians shouldn't join international organizations (which has only served the purpose of using those platforms to attack Israel,) it wants the US to consider boycotting Israel as legitimate, it wants to have the US abandon the IHRA definition of antisemitism, and it wants to bring in the international community which is historically antipathetic towards Israel in to help create a peace plan that would force Israel to return to having only nine miles from its eastern border to the Mediterranean.

Yes, J-Street still claims it is "pro-Israel."

The problem is that Biden has supported J-Street. He seems to believe that the failed policies of every previous administration just needs to be tweaked a little while the massive successes of the Trump administration are anomalies or terrible mistakes.

Trump understood that appeasement doesn't work for Palestinians. They didn't only reject Israeli peace offers but also a framework from Obama and Kerry that went beyond Israel's flexible positions. he gave them a chance to restart talks with Israel, and when they said no, he didn't beg them as Obama/Kerry did - he said, fine, we will go on without you. This is the only way to act in the Middle East.

Speaking of faith, it isn't only J-Street that is anxious to party like it's 1999. This op-ed in Religion News Service by Rev. Elizabeth A. Eaton (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America) and Rev. Dr. Mae Elise Cannon (Churches for Middle East Peace) shows how widespread this way of thinking is:

Last year, Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian lands in East Jerusalem and the West Bank and its blockade of Gaza brought increased misery and property violations to the Palestinians: home demolitions, expansion of settlements, detention of Palestinian children, continued restrictions on movement and access and (particularly in Gaza) fears of annexation.

The recent agreements between Israel and Arab states benefit these countries’ respective economies, but little or no consultation took place with the Palestinians, and the agreements did little to help end the conflict.

A new year, a new Congress and a new administration, however, offer an opportunity for the U.S. to play a constructive role to reach a just peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

Mae Elise Cannon, had actually written an article opposing the accords between Israel and the UAE. Both the CMEP and the ELCA support the antisemitic and virulently anti-Israel Kairos Palestine document, which shows that their interest in "peace" is nil - they want a single Arab state and no Jewish state.

But they, like J-Street, hide their hatred of Israel behind the pretense of wanting "peace." And too many Westerners are blinded by the wonderful use of the word "peace" that they cannot see that the results of previous peace initiatives have resulted in anything but.

There is a real way to peace. The past four years proved that. The Trump peace plan is the most realistic way forward, providing Israel with the security it cannot compromise on while giving the Palestinians a path not only to a state but also to economic prosperity.

The only people who cannot see that are the ones blinded by their faith in a 27 year old process that has been rejected by Palestinians time and time again.

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 have been inundated the past couple of weeks with the claim that Israel must, under international law, provide vaccines to Palestinians at the same time it is providing them to Israelis.

One example is the new letter from 15 "human rights" NGOs which says, "Article 56 of the Fourth Geneva Convention specifically provides that an occupier has the duty of ensuring 'the adoption and application of the prophylactic and preventive measures necessary to combat the spread of contagious diseases and epidemics'. This duty includes providing support for the purchase and distribution of vaccines to the Palestinian population under its control."

If we assume that the Palestinian areas are occupied - something that I disagree with - the question is, are these critics accurate? What exactly does international law say?

The Fourth Geneva Conventions, Article 56, says:

To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring and maintaining, with the cooperation of national and local authorities, the medical and hospital establishments and services, public health and hygiene in the occupied territory, with particular reference to the adoption and application of the prophylactic and preventive measures necessary to combat the spread of contagious diseases and epidemics.

The bolded part is not in the NGO letter, and for good reason: it is critical and contradicts what Amnesty, B'Tselem and the others claim.

To understand why, here is the 1958 interpretation of that article from the ICRC, which is generally accepted as international law:

The reference in the Article to "the co-operation of national and local authorities" ...shows clearly that there can be no question of making the Occupying Power alone responsible for the whole burden of organizing hospitals and health services and taking measures to control epidemics. The task is above all one for the competent services of the occupied country itself.

This is crystal clear - even in cases of belligerent occupation, the primary responsibility of health care goes to the local medical professionals. In this case, obviously, that would be the Palestinian Authority.

It is possible that in certain cases the national authorities will be perfectly well able to look after the health of the population; in such cases the Occupying Power will not have to intervene; it will merely avoid hampering the work of the organizations responsible for the task.

Which is exactly what is happening. The Palestinian medical infrastructure is decent. If they need help from Israel, there is no reason to think that Israel wouldn't help out. Israel was praised even by the UN on how well it has cooperated with the PA during the pandemic even while the PA spread conspiracy theories, why would anyone besides antisemites think otherwise?

It will be remembered that Article 55 requires the Occupying Power to import the necessary medical supplies, such as medicaments, vaccines and sera, when the resources of the occupied territory are inadequate.

In this case, the local resources have been making arrangements to buy their own vaccines. They will probably have to wait until February, but in that sense they are no worse than most of the nations of the world. Israel paid double or triple the regular price of the vaccines it has procured specifically to get to the front of the line, any nation could have done the same, but practically the entire world has chosen to wait and purchase them at regular prices. (Plus, logistically, the PA couldn't use the Pfizer vaccine that Israel is vaccinating its citizens with anyway because they don't have the proper refrigeration equipment.)

If the Palestinians waiting for a few weeks for the Moderna or Astra Zeneca or Sputnik vaccines is a violation of human rights, then most of the world is having their human rights violated.

At any rate, claiming that Israel is somehow responsible for bringing the vaccines to Palestinians at the same time as Israelis is not supported at all in international law. Nor does any international law say that an occupier must prioritize taking care of the citizens in occupied territories before providing for its own citizens.

Obviously, if there is a major breakout of a much deadlier strain in the Palestinian territories, it is in Israel's self-interest to work with the Palestinian Authority to help them - just as they cooperated with them last spring, before Mahmoud Abbas decided to cut all ties - including medical! - with Israel.

The bottom line is that international law of belligerent occupation says that if Israel is the occupying power, it must act with the local authorities to ensure the health of the population. Which is exactly what Israel has been doing since the initial outbreak. The only party that refused cooperation was the Palestinian Authority from around June to November. If they ask for help, they will get it.

And anyone who implies otherwise is either ignorant or bigoted.

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.

01/05 Links Pt2: Jewish unity is the answer to the EU's kosher slaughter ban; How Germany tricked Jewish organizations worldwide

From Ian:

Jewish unity is the answer to the EU's kosher slaughter ban - opinion

Let’s not be fooled into thinking that banning kosher slaughter is the end of the story. In fact, many have noted that this decision represents a ‘slippery slope,’ bringing about the question of, ‘What next?’

Building a united strategy which combines effective use of the law, messaging, bottom-up and top-down activism, and local and global support will ensure that we do not have to find out what could have been next.

Israel’s Diaspora Affairs Ministry sees itself as a convener in this work. Jewish communal leaders, institutions, government officials and legal professionals – both in Europe and around the world – must work together under a shared plan of action, which includes:
• Calling out the hypocrisy of banning kosher slaughter – which shows mercy for the animal – while allowing hunting to continue
• Working effectively with governments
• Bringing together individual European countries and government leaders and offices from around the world, along with the Israeli government, to use diplomatic channels to engage with the European Union and other bodies
• Creating an effective media strategy
• Generating a shared voice to engage the public and leadership
Now is the time to join as a united Jewish coalition to ensure the strength and viability of European Jewry.

How Germany tricked Jewish organizations worldwide

When the German parliament labeled the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement as anti-Semitic, it garnered the praise of Jewish organizations worldwide.

But despite the importance of the move, which influenced more European countries to adopt similar decisions, what remained hidden was the fact that the resolution had no legal and practical validity. It was merely a recommendation.

Besides the fact that many left-wing parties in the Bundestag voted against the decision, the initiative's very purpose was to block a more radical right-wing proposal that demanded a complete ban on BDS activities in Germany.

The vote drew immediate public criticism from BDS supporters, including Israelis, Jews, journalists, and the former Israeli ambassador himself. They claimed the decision was a violation of the principle of freedom of expression. It was also alleged that Israel forced the German government to silence the critics of government policy in Jerusalem, an argument that is anti-Semitic at its very core.

A week later, the Bundestag's Research and Documentation Services issued an opinion that the parliament's decision is legally invalid.

And that is how German authorities pulled off an ingenious move: on the one hand, they presented themselves as pioneers in the fight against anti-Semitism and the de-legitimization of Israel; on the other hand, their decision is void of any practical capability to fight the anti-Semitic boycott movement.

This is how good-old Germany has always operated: its official policy states that the existence and security of Israel is part of the nation's national interest; at the same time, it supports anti-Israel organizations with known ties to terrorists and consistently votes against Israel at the United Nations.

The BBC’s ‘Black Christmas’ is the least of our problems

As the late Rabbi Lord Sacks warned in speeches in the House of Lords in 2018 and 2019 on British anti-Semitism and global anti-Semitism: when anti-Semitism moves from the political fringes to a mainstream party – and when anti-Semites don’t think they are anti-Semites – we are all in serious trouble.

Anti-Semitism starts with Jews, but it never ends with Jews. And I’m afraid to say the churches on the whole are returning to their anti-Semitic traditions, particularly those represented by the World Council of Churches. See this piece by Melanie Phillips on the anti-Semitism of the WCC, and the pusillanimity of the senior clergy of the Church of England – my own faith community – towards BLM. As I wrote in a piece for The Algemeiner, the Anglican Communion, in cahoots with the Jihadists, is now leading what it calls Palestinian ‘Liberation Theology’, a Marxist movement that Pope John Paul II had the good sense to proscribe when it first appeared in the Sandinista movement and Roman Catholics of Nicaragua. Communism/Socialism is not the Way.

In 2004, the BBC commissioned a formal report – the Balen Report – following persistent accusations of anti-Israel bias. To date the BBC has spent about £330,000 of public money in legal costs to hide the report from the public. This cover-up is itself scandalous. The reasons for the BBC’s anti-Israelism, like that of French state TV (France 2), are multifarious, but one reason is that Western institutions are easily duped by Islamist propagandists fluent in the old colonial languages, and expert in feeding the liberal egocentrism of the West. Hence the BBC and France 2 report what their Arab hosts tell them, but fail to report the commonplace preaching and incitement of genocidal antisemitism in Arabic and Persian by clerics, politicians and media. Similarly, Qatar state TV, Al Jazeera, broadcasts democracy in English, but gives a weekly perch to the intellectual head of the Muslim Brotherhood Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi to broadcast genocidal anti-Semitism in the form of fatwas against Israel, including advocating the use of Muslim children as suicide bombs.

I recently wrote a joint essay with the historian and Jerusalemite Dr Richard Landes partly on the dangers of this ‘lethal journalism’. Islamists are winning the cognitive war, and this results in an existential threat to us all, especially if the anticipated Farrakhan-loving Biden administration is lenient with Islamism and the nuclear ambitions of the Ayatollah. As it is, through its political proxy Hezbollah, Iran already has about 150,000 rockets hidden within the civilian populations in south Lebanon, all pointing at Israel to bring on the Shiite Apocalypse.

Richard Landes and I are frustrated that these really serious problems – the ticking time bombs – are being ignored by Western intellectuals and legacy media alike. Even many who claim to be battling anti-Semitism – including some Jewish leadership – get bogged down in pedantry and political correctness.

In sum, anachronisms and the colour of Jesus’s skin are not worth worrying about, rather we have some profoundly serious battles against anti-Israelism that we must take to BBC and the wider world. We must win, and we will.

Cartoon of the Day: Peace drives one to drink

Continuing my series of recaptioning cartoons....(I've been on a streak lately)

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.

Before the Trump administration changed the rules for what peace in the Middle East could look like, Obama also tried his hand at opening ties with problematic countries based on the invitation he made in his 2009 inaugural address that "we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.” This led to improving relations with Myanmar in 2012 and Cuba in 2014.

Unlike the Abraham Accord, there was not a lot of excitement and fanfare, and not much in the way of a ripple effect. But Obama did consider something more substantial in the Middle East during his last year in office.

In April 2016, he tried to play broker, but not between Israel and the Arab world. Instead, Obama tried to negotiate peace between Saudi Arabia and Iran:

The White House is pinning its hopes for a more stable Middle East in years to come on the uncertain prospect that it can encourage a working relationship—what Mr. Obama has called a “cold peace”—between Saudi Arabia and Iran

...“You need a different kind of relationship between the Gulf countries and Iran—one that’s less prone to proxy conflicts—and that’s something that would be good for the region as a whole,” the official said. “Promoting that kind of dialogue is something the president will want to speak to the leaders about.”

...But the strategy requires at least some buy-in from highly skeptical Saudi leaders and other Persian Gulf states

All you need do is substitute Israel for Iran and you have the basic outline for the Abraham Accords, based on the goal of a "warm peace" between Israel and those same Gulf states -- and other Arab states as well. But by focusing on Iran instead, not even a cold peace was achieved.

Obama's failure to bring Iran and the Saudi's is not surprising.

After all:

The Saudis are Sunni, Iran is Shia.

The Saudis are Arabs, Iran is Persian.

(The fact that Iran is a global sponsor of terrorism and working on making a nuclear bomb didn't help.)

Don't underestimate the rift between Sunnis and Shiites.

In his book, The Closed Circle, David Pryce-Jones writes about the turmoil following the death of Mohammad, whose only family heir was his daughter, Fatima. There was no agreement on how Mohammad's successor was to be chosen:

Leadership of the community might pass through her and her descent, or through the Prophet's companions who were best qualified. A majority, known as Sunni, preferred election. A minority, known as Shia, preferred the principle of heredity, devolving through Ali, the cousin and husband of the Prophet's daughter, and those descendants of his specifically designated for the succession by their own immediate predecessor. Disputed authority made for the fragmentation of Islam. Three of Muhammad's four immediate successors [including Mohammad's son-in-law, Ali], known as caliphs, were murdered. Turning upon legitimacy, the quarrel between Sunni and Shia became irreconcilable. [emphasis added; p. 28]

This fighting among Muslims has never stopped. The situation in Syria is just one example of many of how divided the Arab/Muslim world is against itself.

But in addition to the Sunni-Shiite rift, how does the Arab-Persian rift play out?

Back in June 2019, Mordechai Kedar -- who served for 25 years in IDF military intelligence -- gave a talk to
EMET, the Endowment for Middle East Truth on the Middle East.

One of the topics Kedar touched upon was the roots behind the hatred between the Saudis and the Iranians (starts at 36:05).

He traces this tension back to the 7th century, when the Arabs were spreading Islam from the area that is today Saudi Arabia -- starting with Syria, Lebanon and what is today Israel, spreading out to the east (to Iraq, Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan) and to the West (Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria Morocco and Northern Africa) and then up north (Spain).

In the year 636CE, the Arabs defeated the Persia army, despite the larger Persian army. Their forces were worn down both by wars with Byzantine as well as by moral and political corruption within.

But the differences between the two armies was more than a matter of size. Kedar points out the erudition of the Persians, many of whom were adept at mathematics, chemistry, physics and astronomy, having made great contributions in these areas -- but because of their corruption, they ended up being defeated by the Arabs, who in those days were illiterate.

Following their defeat, many of the Persians were sold into slavery, a degrading and humiliating procedure --
all the more so for academics being sold into slavery.

The Persian slaves freely converted to Islam, knowing this would get them out of slavery -- only to find that the Arabs put taxes on them, taxes they could not pay so that they were forced instead to work for the Arabs.

And so they were cheated a second time.

As Kedar puts it:

Till this very day, the Persians have not forgotten and did not forgive what the Arabs did to them. And this underlies the enmity between the Persians and the Saudis.

The Saudis are the descendants of those who did this to the Persians.

Mordechai Kedar also spoke about this in Hebrew at BESA in March of that same year, starting at about 15:45 (video will automatically start there.)

Jews are not the only ones with long memories.

Considering the nature of such enmity, it is no wonder that Obama's attempt to bring the Iranians and the Saudis together failed.

But by the same token, this hatred casts doubt on the wisdom of Obama's Iran Deal as a whole, on the direction it was taking prior to Trump taking office and on Biden's declared intention to resurrect the deal.

If anything, this background verifies the need for a Middle East coalition against Iran.