Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Friday, January 08, 2021

The EU publishes an excellent handbook on how to interpret and use the IHRA working definition of antisemitism

The EU just published an excellent guide to using the IHRA Working Definition of antisemitism. It includes detailed descriptions of when anti-Israel rhetoric is antisemitic:

In certain forms of antisemitic expression, Israel may be used as a substitute for a conceived Jewish collectivity. Rather than “criticising” Israel as one might any other state, some forms of antisemitism express direct hatred exclusively against Israel or seek to apply double standards in criticising that country.

It goes through each IHRA example and then shows specific incidents, both from the Right and the Left, that happened in Europe that were antisemitic even though they were ostensibly anti-Israel:

Antisemitic incidents:
Online (Denmark), May 2018: An individual sent an e-mail entitled “Holocaust is a giant lie!” to individual scholars and the entire Danish Parliament. The man, who had been expelled from a right-wing party due to racist statements, wrote: “Do you really believe in the grotesque history of the Holocaust?... [T]he truth is that it never happened... Israel and the Jews have completely occupied the United States and are completely draining it of money and other resources. The Jews are the eternal enemy of the white people.”

Barcelona (Spain), May 2016: Addressing the Catalonian Parliament a politician called the head of the Barcelona Jewish Community a “foreign agent” from an alleged “Zionist lobby” that defines the Parliament’s agenda.

Paris (France), February 2019: A prominent French Jewish philosopher was verbally attacked as he walked past a protest on the Montparnasse Boulevard. Protesters shouted abuses at him, among them “dirty Zionist” and “go back to Tel Aviv”. The attack was condemned by the French President, and the Paris prosecutor’s office launched an investigation into the “public insult based on origin, ethnicity, nationality, race or religion.”

Berlin (Germany), July 2020: An antisemitic caricature of a Jew in a crossed-out red circle was printed on a laminated card. Additionally, Israel was demonised and delegitimised and Judaism was equated with racism: “Stop Israhell Apartheid! Judaism is Racism!”

London (UK), 6 September 2018: Following the adoption of the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism by the UK Labour Party, advertisements claiming “Israel is a racist endeavour” appeared at bus stops around London. A spokesperson for the London mayor stated: “These offensive adverts are not authorized and are acts of vandalism which Transport for London and its advertising partner take extremely seriously. They have instructed their contractors to remove any posters found on their network immediately.”

London (UK), 4 August 2014: A Member of Parliament posted a cartoon online of Israel’s outline superimposed on a map of the US under the headline “Solution for Israel-Palestine Conflict – relocate Israel into United States”. To this, the MP appended the comment, “Problem solved”. She subsequently admitted her postings were antisemitic and apologised.

Benicàssim (Spain), August 2015: After pressure from activists, a Spanish Reggae festival cancelled the performance of an American Jewish singer because he declined to make a declaration condemning actions of the State of Israel. No other artist was asked to condemn a countries’ policies in order to perform. After a public outcry, the decision was reversed. However, during his performance, the artist was the subject of verbal attacks.

Media (Germany), May 2018: A German newspaper published a cartoon that uses classic antisemitic clichés, such as oversized nose, ears and lips, to depict the prime minister of Israel. The cartoon showed the prime minister in the attire of the Israeli Eurovision song contest winner 2018, while holding a rocket with the Star of David on it. Germany’s commissioner on combatting antisemitism stated that the cartoon recalled “the intolerable depictions of Nazi propaganda.” The newspaper apologised for the cartoon’s use of antisemitic clichés, fired the cartoonist and reviewed its internal editorial procedures for the publication of caricatures.

Warsaw (Poland), November 2019: Manifesting multiple forms of antisemitism, autonomous nationalists carried a banner at a large march with the words “We want our country back now! This is Poland not ‘Polin (Jewish museum in Warsaw)’ – Polish Intifada – No more apologies. No more Zionism.” They chanted, “This is Poland, not Israel!” and “White Poland!”

Berlin (Germany), May 2020: Property damage was discovered at a Holocaust memorial on the Putlitz Bridge in Moabit. The memorial, which commemorates the deportation of Berlin Jews from the Moabit train station to the extermination camps in 1942, was covered with a homemade sticker that read: “Free Gaza” and “I support a free Palestine”. This created an antisemitic connection between the Holocaust and the situation in the Middle East.

Media (Belgium), January 2020: Released to coincide with the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, a Dutch-language daily published an article titled “How the Zionists ‘Discovered’ the Holocaust”. This piece argued that the millions of Jews exterminated by the Nazis cannot “protest if they are used to justify another injustice: a regime [Israel] that has imposed discrimination and apartheid in law.”

Gothenburg (Sweden), December 2017: After the US government’s decision to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, individuals threw firebombs at the synagogue in Gothenburg. Three people were arrested and sentenced for hate crime violations, committing gross unlawful threats and attempting to damage property.

Graz (Austria), August 2020: The synagogue and a communal building of the Jewish community of Graz were vandalised with graffiti carrying the following slogans: “Palestinian is free” and “Our language and our country are red lines”.

The handbook emphasizes that the IHRA definition is not legally binding, but it also describes how the working definition can be used in the judiciary to help identify when a crime is antisemitic in nature:

The judiciary has a critical role in determining the antisemitic character of crimes as well as effectively trying and sanctioning them. Delivering justice is essential for the recovery of Jews, their families and the wider community from antisemitic attacks.

Forms of antisemitism related to the Holocaust are more easily recognised than some contemporary forms, such as present-day conspiracy myths or Israel-related antisemitism. A challenge might occur when the perpetrator’s antisemitic motivation is neither explicit nor apparent but is expressed through antisemitic codes or otherwise camouflaged.

Some ministries of justice have recommended that public prosecutors use the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism to help identify antisemitism, alongside other indicators such as the victim’s perception, as well as the date and location of a crime. Recognition of antisemitic motivation at any stage of a trial (e.g. within the prosecutor’s indictment or the judges’ ruling) is important for the recovery of the victim and for the preventive effect it can have in society. While it is often difficult to identify motivation, the definition allows prosecutors and/or judges to assess the antisemitic character of particular statements or acts.

This is a very important document, not least because it is created by the liberal-leaning EU. The socialist Left who camouflage their antisemitism as liberal anti-Zionism would have a hard time dismissing this handbook that directly calls them out for their hate.

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 latest date for a Palestinian election is now rumored to be in May:

A member of the Fatah Revolutionary Council, Abdullah Abdullah, spoke about expectations regarding the date of President Mahmoud Abbas issuing the presidential decree to hold the Palestinian elections.

Abdullah expected, in a radio interview with Sawt al-Watan, that President Mahmoud Abbas will issue a presidential decree, before the end of this month, and thus the elections will be held in the middle of next May, that is, after the next Ramadan.

Abdullah indicated that after the presidential decree is issued for the elections, there will be a meeting of the secretaries-general again, to discuss the roadmap during the next phase.

This happened after the Hamas leader sent a letter to Abbas saying he agreed to have elections.

I am a bit skeptical.

In March 2009, the PLO announced elections by January 2010. They never happened.

In February 2011, the PLO announced elections before September of that year. They never happened.

In November 2011, elections were announced for the following May. They never happened.

In April 2014, Hamas and Fatah announced a unity government that would then arrange elections within six months. They never happened.

In November 2019, reports came out of likely Palestinian elections in February 2020. Never happened.

Last September, there were news headlines about Hamas and Fatah holding elections, scheduled for February or March 2021. That fell apart.

Just like Fatah and Hamas unity, elections are one of those things that are in the news fairly often, and so far nothing can be shown for it.

So if you bet against Palestinian elections or Fatah/Hamas unity, you will probably win.

Even this supposed May election is unclear - are they legislative? Are they for president? Are they going to be held in Gaza at the same time as the West Bank?

The track record of two warring groups, each of whom do not want to lose their hold on power, makes any new elections or unification highly unlikely.

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.

01/07 Links Pt2: Sometimes, the Palestinians are just an excuse; Whom the Jewish Left chooses to mourn is sadly revealing; PA Spreads Corona Libel Even as Israel Secretly Vaccinates Abbas’s Inner Circle

From Ian:

Sometimes, the Palestinians are just an excuse

Unfortunately, though, there's such a thing as the truth, and the truth is that the body responsible for public health both in routine times and in times of crisis in the Palestinian Authority is the PA itself. Throughout the coronavirus outbreak, Israel has assisted the PA, for humanitarian reasons but also our own interests, providing coronavirus tests, medical equipment, as well as training medical staff. Of course, none of this is mentioned in the article. Nor is there any mention of the fact that the PA prided itself on having ordered millions of vaccines from China and Russia. Nor is there any mention that the PA, which claims to be financially strapped, consistently pays salaries to murders, prioritizing them over the sick. This year, it went even further and paid them three months in advance. Nor is there any mention of the Israeli government's efforts to encourage vaccination among Arab Israelis. Indeed anything that might put a hole in the theory is left out. The article, by the way, is accompanied by an image of a Haredi man being inoculated in Ashdod. If you're promoting an anti-Semitic blood libel, you might as well take it all the way.

This phenomenon is nothing new. It is part of an effort to prove the moral decay of the Jewish state, and it sometimes seems that the Palestinians are just an excuse for the slander. The article in question does not provide a comparative overview or describe the levels of the outbreaks in either the PA or the Gaza Strip, both of which are from catastrophic levels. In fact, the situation in the Palestinian territories is much better than in the UK, where The Guardian is published, and even Israel, which is now experiencing the third wave of the outbreak. No, the author does not seem to care much about the Palestinians, much less the truth. There is only one objective: to vilify Israel.

The ritual goes something like this: "Human rights" organizations that are usually funded by European governments publish lies about Israel. A journalist reports these lies without challenging them at all, and the lie goes on to defame. The article in question is still on The Guardian's website and has already gained traction among those who celebrate Israel's defamation. The far-left Jewish group J Street, which claims to be pro-Israel, rushed to echo the sentiments of the piece but was later forced to take them down following criticism of the move. The Israeli public needs to be more aware of these lies, even when they are made in English, and not accept them as a mandate from heaven. This happens all the time, and it is our obligation to speak up and protest when we are trampled on.

ⓘ 𝗢𝗳𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝘀𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗰𝗲𝘀 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗳𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 https://t.co/bLos3etyx8
— Rɪᴄʜᴀʀᴅ Kᴇᴍᴘ ⋁ (@COLRICHARDKEMP) January 6, 2021

Stephen Pollard: How anti-Semitism is being fostered on campus Academics set the tone and agenda for much of university life

However awful 2020 was, there was at least one upside: the end of Jeremy Corbyn’s tenure as Labour leader. Not that this means the party’s anti-Semitism crisis is over. If only.

The new leader does seem sincere in his desire to decontaminate the party. But however committed Keir Starmer and his allies may be to expelling members, it’s a bit like painting the Forth Bridge. Kick one out and another will emerge.

The problem runs deep. But the problem isn’t Labour per se. The party was never the origin of anti-Semitism in British politics. Members didn’t wake up one morning and decide that because Jeremy Corbyn was leader they would start to hate Jews. The anti-Semitism was latent. It was within them, inculcated and maturing over years. Mr Corbyn gave them a feeling that it was ok to say certain things publicly, but the real issue is why they harboured such anti-Semitism ideas in the first place. And the blame for that lies with academia.

Campus anti-Semitism is the hidden story of the past few years. A Community Security Trust report published last month recorded 123 university incidents in the past two years. Indeed, such is the scale of the problem that, as editor of the Jewish Chronicle, I constantly hear parents and prospective students saying that they will not consider some universities because of their reputation for anti-Semitism.

This is anti-Semitism that hides in plain sight; it is recorded and is a major topic of discussion within the Jewish community. But there has, until very recently, been little focus on it from elsewhere — as if somehow those responsible are merely overgrown kids getting a bit too overheated in debates over the Middle East.

But this is a complete misunderstanding of the real problem. Far from it being the preserve of students, campus anti-Semitism often emanates from, is propagated by and is defended by academics and the university authorities themselves. When examining problems on campus the focus should be primarily on academics, not students.

Take what happened at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS). It was reported last week that the university has agreed to pay £15,000 — the cost of his tuition fees — to Noah Lewis, a former student who had to withdraw from his course because of what he called a “toxic, antisemitic environment on campus”.

SOAS’s first ‘investigation’ recommended that Mr Lewis be paid £500 to cover a few expenses. Mr Lewis appealed, and the independent panel set up to consider his appeal was withering in its judgment, arguing that the first panel had simply ignored the student’s broader complaint about the environment at SOAS.

Whom the Jewish Left chooses to mourn is sadly revealing

Whom a Jewish organization chooses to publicly mourn can be very revealing.

On December 20, Esther Horgan, mother of six, went out for a jog in the forest adjacent to her home town of Tal Menashe. Early the next morning, she was found dead. Based on the circumstances of her death, the Israeli police immediately said they suspected it was a case of Palestinian Arab terrorism.

But the police weren’t yet certain. So I didn’t expect any American Jewish organizations to start issuing statements.

On December 24, the police announced they had arrested a suspect in Esther’s murder. He is a Palestinian Arab who was previously imprisoned for terrorist activity.

I checked the web sites of the most prominent leftwing Jewish organizations in the United States—J Street, American for Peace Now, Partners for Progressive Israel, Ameinu (Labor Zionists), and the Association of Reform Zionists of America. No comment on the murder. Perhaps they thought that the police got the wrong man.

Two days later, the Israeli police announced that the suspect had confessed. And reenacted the crime. And described in great detail how he used a large rock to murder Esther. And it turns out she fought back.

Now, surely, there was no excuse for the American Jewish left to remain silent. Yet none of the above-mentioned groups took the few minutes necessary to issue a press release mourning this horrific murder. None of them.

Which is not to say that none of these groups haven’t publicly expressed their grief over any recent deaths. They have.

On November 28, for example, J Street publicly denounced the assassination of the Iranian war criminal-scientist who is in charge of developing nuclear weapons with which to annihilate Israel.

Cartoon of the Day: Benefits of NGO work

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.

IDF Critics Note That Nazis Also Used Weapons, Helmets (PreOccupied Territory)

Our weekly column from the humor site PreOccupied Territory.

Check out their Facebook page.

helmet Geneva, January 7 - Human rights groups and international organizations drew dark parallels today between Israel's military and Germany under Adolph Hitler, noting that the soldiers of both states carried guns, wore protective gear, operated armored vehicles, and engaged in logistics.

Six human rights organizations, among them Amnesty International, B'tselem, and Human Rights Watch, submitted a report today to the United Nations Human Rights Council, urging action against Israel, specifically the Israel Defense Force, for engaging in activities that the Nazi military also did, such as march to music and prepare field rations.

"We regret to inform the Council that once again, the Israeli military engages in constant emulation of the vilest armed force in history, known for its atrocities and perpetration of war crimes and crimes against humanity," the report read. "Among the practices that the IDF and the Wehrmacht - including the notorious Waffen SS divisions - share are drafting, training, operating an air force, maintaining naval facilities, and wearing uniforms."

"It's actually kind of frustrating to have to point these things out again and again," lamented Dean Issacharoff of Breaking the Silence. "During my own service with the IDF, I engaged in numerous behaviors that you would find just as easily among the soldiers of Nazi Germany: learning to clean a weapon; maintaining certain standards of dress and neatness; digging trenches and foxholes; handling armaments; safety procedures; salute protocols; and that's just the basics. I could spend all day detailing the eerie parallels between the Israeli military and the Wehrmacht, but seldom is there anything that anyone does about it. I hope this report to the UN shifts things in the right direction." In 2020, the Human Rights Council denounced Israel seventeen times, and other countries a total of six.

Observers questioned the rhetorical wisdom of the move. "OK, fine, the Jews are the new Nazis, I get it," shrugged pro-Palestinian activist Ali Abunimah. "We've known that since we were allying ourselves with the actual Nazis in the 1930's and 40's. Old news. But the same analogies haven't gotten us very far, so you have to wonder whether it makes sense to keep beating the same stupid drum. There has got to be a better approach to constantly reminding everyone we think of Jews as the epitome of evil who should never be allowed to live peacefully. Few of these useless reports to the UN have resulted in anything more than a mere apologia for violence against Jews, and that's a far cry from rallying the entire world to destroy them."

From TOI:

The Israeli military has deployed air defense batteries around the southern city of Eilat in recent days amid concerns of an attack from the Iran-backed Houthi militia in Yemen.

The move came around the first anniversary of the United States killing of Qassem Soleimani, the influential head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ expeditionary Quds Force, in an airstrike in Iraq and a month and a half after Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, the head of Iran’s military nuclear program, was killed, allegedly by Israel.

Iran has indicated plans to exact revenge for these two high profile killings. The Israeli military assessed that such retaliation was likely to come from an Iranian proxy, potentially from the Houthis, a Yemeni group that has conducted a number of attacks over the years against Tehran’s other rival in the region, Saudi Arabia.

Last month, IDF Spokesperson Hidai Zilberman told a Saudi news outlet that Israel had information indicating Iran was developing unmanned aerial vehicles and “smart missiles” in Iraq and Yemen, and that the weapons could have the ability to strike Israel.

In light of this threat, Iron Dome and Patriot missile defense batteries have been deployed near Israel’s southern tip of Eilat in recent days. The Iron Dome is generally used against rockets and mortar shells, but can also intercept small drones and cruise missiles. The Patriot system is used primarily to defend against ballistic missiles and larger aircraft like fighter jets and unmanned aerial vehicles.

The Patriot batteries can be seen in this video:

Israeli Patriot air defence battery deployed near Eilat, via @OrHeller pic.twitter.com/uDG8hv1xsj
— ELINT News (@ELINTNews) January 7, 2021

Israel should make clear that retaliation for any missile attack wouldn't be against Yemen but Iran. It doesn't have to be a military attack - perhaps cyber or espionage - but it should be clear that Israel holds Iran responsible.

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.

01/07 Links Pt1: After the Abraham Accords, the Palestinians Have Lost the Arab Street; Palestinian ideology is the biggest obstacle to peace

From Ian:

After the Abraham Accords, the Palestinians Have Lost the Arab Street

The support of the “Arab street” for the Palestinian cause was supposed (at the very least) to intimidate the leaders of the Arabic-speaking states from making peace with Israel. With regard to the two states that dared defy the purported threat of the Arab street and sign formal peace treaties with Israel, Egypt and Jordan, maintenance of popular support for the Palestinian cause was meant to prevent cold peace from growing warm.

One can hardly deny the intimidating and chilling effect Arab popular opinion, whether real or imagined, has had on Arab state leaders. Though Jordan’s King Abdullah, like his father before him, has held numerous secret and not so secret meetings with Israeli leaders, received military aid from the Jewish state, and maintained excellent security relations with Israeli security personnel in a common and successful effort to quell terrorism on both sides of the border, he has never challenged the cultural and educational boycott of Israel that prevails in Jordanian society and the anti-Jewish themes that pervade the local media.

Other Arab states, which have at times maintained consular activity, permitted Israelis with foreign passports to engage in business and commerce, and, in the case of Morocco, facilitated extensive tourism from Israel, followed the same path of cultural and educational boycott.

But three months into the Abraham Accords process, there is no doubt that Palestinian leaders on both sides of the PA-Hamas divide are deeply disappointed by, and worried about, the passivity of the Arab street.

And so they should be. If the passivity of the citizens of the very wealthy UAE and comparatively wealthy Bahrain could be explained away by the ability of its leadership to buy the support of the citizenry for unpopular policies like normalization, the argument wears thin regarding Sudan, one of the poorest Arabic-speaking countries, as well as the populous and relatively poor state of Morocco. This fear might explain why the Abraham Accords process began with the UAE as an initial test case: it was the richest of the states that were likely to normalize relations with Israel.

Contrary to the views of Israel’s many detractors — a prominent example of whom is Jamal Zahalka, former member of the Knesset, former head of the Balad party, and soon-to-be recipient of a lavish Israeli government pension — the growing indifference of the Arab street to the Palestinian issue is a long-term phenomenon. It displays occasional spikes of interest, but they are always short-lived.

A Google Trends graph of searches for the phrase “normalization with Israel” in Arabic — a phrase with a derogatory connotation in much of the Arab world — dating from 2004 shows that interest spiked more in the first decade of the new century than in the second. The graph is characterized by rigid rather than curved lines, which reflects the relatively small number of searches on the subject.

Palestinian ideology is the biggest obstacle to peace - opinion

The problem for Palestinianism is not “the occupation” in 1967, but Israel’s existence. In this view, Palestine is the exclusive Arab homeland, and Zionists are colonialists; Palestine is an integral part of the Arab world, completely under Arab sovereignty. This is axiomatic. There are no exceptions and no compromises.

Palestinianism – promoted in the media, mosques and schools to include anti-Jewish incitement, denial of the Holocaust and Jewish history, and rejection of the right of Jewish national self-determination – is the greatest obstacle to peace.

The alternative is a true Palestinianism liberation movement dedicated to meaningful human values and creativity, free of the destructive and self-destructive agenda of terrorist organizations.

A new Palestinianism can promote peace. For those who seek to express a Palestinian national identity and self-determination, they can move to Jordan and make it an economic, social and political oasis. The Hashemite rulers of Jordan claim to be descendants of Muhammad, the founder of Islam; Mecca and Medina are Muslim spiritual centers in Saudi Arabia with which Jordan shares a boundary. Jordan also shares a boundary with Iraq, ancient Mesopotamia.

This represents a potential cultural and spiritual link that can provide an ideology based on peace and reconciliation with Israel. Mount Nebo, in Jordan, the place where Moses (whom Muslims consider a prophet) died, can become a symbol for a Mosaic Accord, a bridge of understanding between countries and people.

Bank of Palestine to freeze terrorists' payments

The Bank of Palestine has recently discontinued its work with the accounts of terrorists who receive benefits from the Palestinian Authority.

According to official statements from the terrorist organizations, the bank has informed terrorists and their family members that they must withdraw all funds and close their accounts.

The decision stems from the warning the Bank of Palestine received from the Palestinian Media Watch, a non-profit Israeli institute that researches the Palestinian society.

The institute warned the bank about a year ago that according to the 2016 Counter-Terrorism Law, financial entities involved in the pay for slay system will be viewed as supporting terrorists – and will therefore be exposed to enormous legal and economic risks.

Israel's Military Advocate General had been delaying the application of the Counter-Terrorism Law in Judea and Samaria for years. Only after the murder of 17-year-old Rina Shnerb and following a demand by Palestinian Media Watch attorney Maurice Hirsch, who also represents the family, was Israel forced to clarify that the law does indeed apply to Judea and Samaria.

The Palestinian Authority prepared for the shift in advance. It paid a large part of terrorists' salaries several months in advance and is looking for new ways to continue the payments despite international pressure to stop doing so.

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.