Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Friday, March 26, 2021

Biden's Middle East pendulum has swung halfway towards Obama's

We can learn a lot about the Biden administration position in Palestinian issue from what US Ambassador to the UN Linda Thomas-Greenfield said at the UN Security Council yesterday.

From the UN summary:

The representative of the United States, Council President for March, spoke in her national capacity, expressing Washington, D.C.’s, support for Israel. The Biden Administration stands by Israel, particularly when that country was singled out. Each month the Security Council meets to discuss this issue, but there are other issues of threats to international peace and security that deserve the organ’s attention. Warning against anti-Semitic rhetoric, she said her delegation will vigorously oppose one-sided arguments. Her country is also committed to finding a mutually agreed two-State solution to the conflict, with Israelis living in safety and security and Palestinians establishing a viable, independent State. Both sides should take concrete steps towards the two-State formula and avoid unilateral actions, including settlement, demolition, violence and incitement. The United States is taking steps to reopen diplomatic channels that were halted during the country’s previous administration. On economic and humanitarian assistance, she said Israel’s vaccination of Palestinian workers is encouraging, urging it to continue such cooperation, announcing her country’s contribution of $15 million in humanitarian aid to the West Bank and Gaza. “This aid is one piece of our renewed commitment to the Palestinian people,” she said.

The Jerusalem Post has some direct quotes and details. The humanitarian aid will come through USAID to Catholic Relief Services and other NGOs.

The US would “take steps to re-open diplomatic channels of communication that were halted during the last administration,” Thomas-Greenfield said.
Any “progress toward peace must be based on active consultations with both sides.”
Thomas-Greenfield called on both Israel and the PA to refrain from unilateral action, including settlement activity and IDF demolitions of Palestinian structures. She also spoke against the PA policy of providing monthly financial stipends to terrorists jailed by Israel as well as to their families.
“We call for an end to all acts of violence, including acts of terrorism, as well as incitement to violence and acts of provocation and destruction,” Thomas-Greenfield said.
In her brief speech Thomas-Greenfield said that her country would stand by Israel, “especially when it is unfairly singled out by one-sided resolutions and actions in international bodies.”
To often, she said, criticism of Israel “veers dangerously into antisemitism. Antisemitism, as with all forms of hate, works directly against the cause of peace,” Thomas-Greenfield said.

The good:

- She essentially said that the UN's focus on Israel is effectively antisemitic. This is an important message when the anti-Israel nations and groups insist that their hate has nothing to do with antisemitism.

- She called out Pay for Slay.

The interesting:

- USAID has generally been good in ensuring that its aid is audited and cannot go towards terrorism. The aid is not being paid to the Palestinian Authority. I have no problem with USAID support for needy Palestinians in line with what the organization does worldwide.

The not-so-good:

- The US push for a Palestinian state has traditionally come at the expense of Israel's security. The one viable plan that does not is Trump's Peace to Prosperity plan, but the US seems to have dropped that and gone back to the failed Oslo formula.

- Practically all "settlement" activity is in existing blocs that would become part of Israel in any theoretical peace plan. Lumping all of them together means that the US doesn't want any natural growth in existing settlements, which is the kind of unrealistic expectation that the Trump administration jettisoned.

- The idea that some areas of the world are off limits to Jews is abhorrent.

At first blush, the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism does not seem very different from the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism that its framers want to replace.

Both of them stress that their examples of antisemitism depend entirely on context.

IHRA introduces its examples by saying, "Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:..."

JDA expands on this but in no way contradicts IHRA: "In general, when applying the guidelines each should be read in the light of the others and always with a view to context. Context can include the intention behind an utterance, or a pattern of speech over time, or even the identity of the speaker, especially when the subject is Israel or Zionism. So, for example, hostility to Israel could be an expression of an antisemitic animus, or it could be a reaction to a human rights violation, or it could be the emotion that a Palestinian person feels on account of their experience at the hands of the State."

This is all perfectly true.

The problem with JDA is precisely its context, namely, the reasons it was written. And the deeper you look, the worse it is.

The IHRA working definition was not written as a political document. It was not written by "right wing Zionists." It was meant to be the most accurate definition of antisemitism with an eye to identify all kinds of antisemitism, no matter the source. It covers far Right antisemitism, far Left antisemitism, Arab antisemitism, Farrakhan-style antisemitism - there is nothing the least bit slanted about it, no matter what its critics claim.

JDA, on the other hand, is supremely political. As the authors wrote in The Forward, "Though we do not underestimate the perniciousness of antisemitism from the left, it is clear that the most dangerous threat to Jews today comes from the extreme right and populist groups." A definition of antisemitism should not distinguish between the sources of antisemitism.

Context is indeed critical to determining whether a statement or action is antisemitic or not. IHRA says that "applying double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation" is a good indication of antisemitism, although not necessarily always. JDA says, "Criticism that some may see as excessive or contentious, or as reflecting a 'double standard,' is not, in and of itself, antisemitic." Again, they do not contradict each other - both definitions say that context is crucial to determining antisemitic intent.

The difference is that IHRA is trying to be as inclusive as possible in its definition, and JDA is trying to be as exclusive as possible. In all other contexts - when defining racism or misogyny or any other bigotry - the Left is as inclusive as possible, and the victim group is believed when they say that they were attacked. But in the case of antisemitism the JDA authors deliberately narrow the definition to exclude anyone they cannot associate with the Right.

Let's run a couple of examples through both definitions.

If someone who has no history of antisemitic statements comes out of the blue and says that Israel is acting like Nazi Germany towards Palestinians, is this antisemitic?

IHRA says "Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis" is an example of antisemitism.

JDA says, " Even if contentious, it is not antisemitic, in and of itself, to compare Israel with other historical cases, including settler-colonialism or apartheid." Nazism is a historical case and would presumably fall under this definition.

What about context? It is clear that any comparison between Israel and Nazi Germany is not meant to illuminate anything, but it is meant to hurt Jews by comparing them to their murderers. If Israel wasn't a Jewish state, the comparison wouldn't be made. Of course it is antisemitic. The fact that this example was excluded from the JDA definition, even though it is explicit in the IHRA, shows that the omission was deliberate - the JDA did not want to say that comparing the Jewish state to Nazi Germany is assumed to be antisemitic, which shows how far the authors would go in defending anti-Zionism as legitimate.

The "double standards" come into play with calling Israel racist or an apartheid state, or creating massive campaigns to boycott Israel when no remotely similar campaigns exist for any other state today. JDA descends into farce on this topic, saying, "Boycott, divestment and sanctions are commonplace, non-violent forms of political protest against states. In the Israeli case they are not, in and of themselves, antisemitic."

Commonplace? What other states are people boycotting with the amount of publicity that BDS has? And why is Israel singled out when by any calculation, even if you believe the most insane lies about Israel, it still doesn't approach the levels of human rights violations done by most states, including Western nations?

Similarly, the Left will discuss how to dismantle the Jewish state and replace it with another Arab state (falsely called "binational.") What other state based on a national group of people is ever told to destroy itself? What other state is constantly told it has no right to exist?

This JDA's subtext is that it is only a huge coincidence that the only nation on the planet that is boycotted, considered illegitimate, compared to South Africa, and told that its national ethos is racist, is also the only nation filled with Jews. Perhaps some people buy that argument, but most people don't - and there is a very good reason why the IHRA has been accepted or endorsed by 29 nations so far.

Anti-Zionism is obviously akin to antisemitism, simply because there is simply no comparable "anti" in the world. Plus, those two "antis" are very, very similar - the things that Jews have been accused of historically are now what the Jewish state is accused of, such as undue influence over governments. murdering children for sport and deliberately spreading disease. There is no difference between those who accuse Israel of poisoning Palestinian water, or of stealing Palestinian organs, and those who have historically accused Jews of poisoning the wells to cause a plague or the blood libel.

Another point that needs to be made: Antisemitism has historically seen Jews being accused the most heinous crimes of the age. Israel is accused of the most heinous crimes of this age - racism, colonialism, indiscriminate killing and imprisonment of children, apartheid, ethnic cleansing. The parallels are obvious to anyone with a passing knowledge of history, but the JDA doesn't acknowledge this aspect of modern antisemitism.

A definition that deliberately excludes most examples of what is claims to define is not a definition at all. It is propaganda.

Sure there might be rare outlier cases where rabid anti-Zionism is not antisemitic, but they are the exception. To exclude an entire category of antisemitism because of some theoretical exception is not fighting antisemitism, but enabling it. And notice how people who would never dream of limiting the definition of racism and finding boundary cases where racism is OK are spending so much effort finding ways to justify the irrational, deranged hatred of the Jewish state.

And when you look at the signatories of the JDA, you see someone like Richard Falk, whose antisemitic pedigree is long and varied, He likes this definition because, he believes, it takes him off the hook. And JDA proudly sought out and displays his signature, without even a hint of fear that it discredits the entire document.

JDA is not a serious definition. It is misdirection to ignore today's major manifestation of antisemitism. Leftist antisemitism may not be as deadly as that of the Right, but it is considered mainstream - and that makes it, in many ways, far more dangerous.

03/25 Links Pt2: Why Israel’s ‘Critics’ Can’t Help Being Antisemitic, and How They Can Stop; NGOs ask court to force Israel to provide vaccines for all Palestinians

From Ian:

Why Israel’s ‘Critics’ Can’t Help Being Antisemitic, and How They Can Stop

The problem that all anti-Israel liberals and progressives must face, however, is that Palestinian nationalism is not and has never been liberal or progressive. It has always been a racist movement that fundamentally dehumanizes the Jews. From the 1920s on, it has employed the pogrom and the slaughter of men, women, and children by knife, gun, and suicide bomber in order to achieve its aims. It glorifies war crimes and atrocities. It openly and enthusiastically collaborated with Nazism, to the point of encouraging and approving of the Holocaust. It spawned the PLO and Hamas, two of the most effective terror groups in history, both of which advocate ethnic cleansing. And it regularly engages in a crude antisemitism that is difficult if not impossible to distinguish from the right-wing antisemitism the left supposedly despises.

The Palestinian national movement, in other words, violates and has always violated liberal and progressive values, something that many leftists, however much they may advocate an end to the occupation and a Palestinian state, have always noted and thus opposed — which is much to their credit.

It presents the anti-Israel left, however, with a terrible dilemma: how can they support a movement that is contrary to all their professed principles?

The answer is a simple one: by embracing antisemitism. They have no other choice. They need to declare that Israel, Zionism, and the Jews are so evil that nothing is off limits. It is not so much that anti-Israel leftists are antisemitic, but that there is no way they cannot be antisemitic. There is simply no other way they can rationalize their adoption of Palestinian nationalism. Without antisemitism, they would be instantly revealed as hypocrites, racists, and genocidaires.

If anti-Israel antisemitism is to be overcome, then, anti-Israel leftists must at long last confront it within themselves. They must admit that it is perfectly possible to advocate a two-state solution or Palestinian self-determination without embracing a specific reactionary nationalism that rejects their most passionately held convictions.

Ironically, the best way for them to do so is by adopting the IHRA definition, which might prompt a moral struggle that could purge the left of the moral bankruptcy that has made criticism of Israel a racist endeavor.

Modified Definition of Anti-Semitism Sets a Dangerous Precedent

A new working definition of anti-Semitism unveiled last week by the Nexus Task Force is meant to challenge the 2016 International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition as it relates to criticism of Israel. Nexus concludes that treating Israel differently than other countries is not in itself an act of anti-Semitism.

Before IHRA and before Nexus, the U.S. State Department's Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Antisemitism released in 2010 its own working definition of anti-Semitism. What was conceptualized in 2003 by famed Israeli refusenik Natan Sharansky - demonizing, delegitimizing and holding Israel to a double standard - is defined as anti-Semitic.

Holding Israel - and only Israel - to a higher moral, behavioral and political standard not required by any other nation is plain wrong. Why is it OK for the only Jewish country to be disproportionally singled out and vilified for its actions? How is it not anti-Semitic to tell Jews to act differently than any other peoples because the world is watching their every move? History has taught us that giving others the authority to tell Jews how to think and behave has never ended well. The Nexus definition sets a dangerous precedent.

This ‘declaration’, signed by racists like Peter Beinart & Richard Falk, obscenely claims calls of ‘River to the Sea’, ‘One State Solution’, Rejection of Zionism, Double Standards against Israel, apartheid slurs and BDS are not Antisemitic. https://t.co/Ic35pPm9RM
— Arsen Ostrovsky (@Ostrov_A) March 25, 2021

Racists supporting racists 👇👇👇 https://t.co/cVDQpqSpvw
— Arsen Ostrovsky (@Ostrov_A) March 24, 2021

Palestinian law specifically excludes Israelis from voting. Apartheid!!!!!!

We've been told countless times this year that Israel is a racist, apartheid state because it doesn't allow Palestinians to vote, even though Israel has great influence over their lives.

It turns out that Palestinian law has a specific provision that anyone with Israeli citizenship cannot vote.

Israeli lives are very much affected by whomever is running the Palestinian Authority. If Hamas wins, it could mean rockets being shot from the West Bank that could reach every Israeli citizen. It could mean a new intifada, with terrorists streaming into Israel across sections where the security fence was never finished.

Yet Israelis have no say in who is elected to lead the PA.

By the standards of Israel's critics, isn't this apartheid?

It is actually worse. The law doesn't say that those with, say, Jordanian citizenship or Canadian citizenship are not allowed to vote. Palestinians in the US who want to travel back to Ramallah to vote seem to be, according to these laws, allowed to vote.

Only Israeli citizens aren't allowed to vote. The law is explicitly against Israelis and no others.

If Israeli laws saying that no non-citizens may vote is "apartheid," then what do you call a law where the only people who cannot vote are Israelis?

Woman Discovers Amulets Containing Heretical Text Just As Effective As Ones Containing Psalms (PreOccupied Territory)

Our weekly column from the humor site PreOccupied Territory.

Check out their Facebook page.

mini tehillim Jerusalem, March 25 - A customer at a cut-price chain retailer voiced her consternation today upon discovering not only that the miniature books of Psalms she had purchased as spiritual devices to ward off misfortune contained not the Hebrew poetry of King David and others, but portions of the Christian bible, but also that the idolatrous items offer the same level of protection against evil as do those with Psalms.

Haviva Azoulay, 30, came upon a clip making the rounds on social media last week, which showed that a package of small books of Psalms, each one about an inch in height, sold as amulets for good fortune or protection against mishaps and maladies, in fact contained small New Testament books - but even more disturbing, she discovered that, having bought the items and placed them in what she had deemed auspicious locations around her, in retrospect she had enjoyed the same level of protection as during a previous time in her life when she had used authentic Psalms amulets.

"I... I don't know what to think," confessed Ms. Azoulay, who sells artisanal candles and soaps, and who insists herbs and proper spiritual thoughts can boost the body's immune system to prevent COVID and other illness. "My first thought is I did something wrong in placing the charms, so that they are actually having no effect. No other explanation has occurred to me yet."

Azoulay has confided the situation to others in her meditation group, one of whom volunteered to remove the offending amulets and "detoxify" the apartment with "cleansing herbs" to "negate the long-term effects" the heretical texts might have on the atmosphere there. Medieval Jewish sources disagree on whether Christianity constitutes a form of idolatry considered a capital sin even for non-Jews, or whether the system has room for a "shared" godhead that at least some forms of the faith accept. For Jews, however, the sources remain unanimous that the fundamental tenets of Christianity render it a grave violation.

The Torah similarly forbids the use of magic, necromancy, divining, and other superstitious practices.

"I know I've been spared coronavirus because of my spiritual routine," insisted Azoulay. "Of course I'm not getting vaccinated when I have divine protection! Or so I thought, anyway. Could be I just got lucky. Or it could be my vegan diet. One neighbor mocked my situation and even implied the authentic items don't offer protection either! I can't deal with that kind of person."

03/25 Links Pt1: With near-final results in, Netanyahu appears once again short of majority; Iran fired missile at Israeli ship in Arabian Sea

From Ian:

With near-final results in, Netanyahu appears once again short of majority

With 4,429,518 total votes tallied — more than the original estimated turnout, which appears to have been an undercount — there are no changes in the results, and no candidate has an obvious path to the premiership.

According to statements from today by the Central Elections Committee, it appears that there are no more than 10,000 votes left to count, meaning further changes in the Knesset makeup are highly unlikely.

The only possible change is Meretz losing a seat to Labor, which wouldn’t change the blocs — but even that change would require a swing of over 900 votes.

Bibi on the Brink

Once embarked on his political career, Netanyahu was submerged in the relentless intrigues of Likud and coalition politics, but for his years as finance minister under Sharon. In that role his performance was downright phenomenal, as even his most bitter opponents readily concede. He inherited stalled growth, high cyclical unemployment, and much institutionalized underemployment in the overgrown, almost Soviet-style public sector.

Everything he did was predictably MIT Business School and Boston Consulting, everything he did from deregulation to privatization was bitterly criticized as the abandonment of the founding fathers’ socialism. It certainly did increase inequality. But Israel’s economy was launched on a boom of high-quality growth that continues still after 17 years, drastically reducing unemployment, eliminating most “socialist underemployment,” sharply improving the debt-to-GDP ratio, and allowing the country to pay for a health care system that takes care of all Arabs and Jews within its borders (that is, not Gaza or the West Bank), and that competes with the world’s best. Israel now ranks ahead of Sweden, France, Germany, and the U.K. in overall longevity, even as it invests heavily in education, science, technology, and of course, in very expensive armed forces. The country’s high-tech sector that now carries the rest of the economy could never have boomed and kept booming without Netanyahu’s reforms.

That is actually the ultimate irony of Netanyahu’s career. In contrast to his great managerial effectiveness as a reforming finance minister, his political performance as prime minister has consisted of a very long sequence of mediocre compromises, but for a few brilliant exploits: His commando raid on Pfizer has made Israel the most vaccinated country in the world; just before that, he was a protagonist—along with the oh-so-easy to underestimate Jared Kushner—of the “Abrahamic” diplomacy that diminished the Arab encirclement of Israel that began in 1947 to a few irrelevant holdouts, and the two fractured states of Iraq and Syria. It was not even by Netanyahu’s own decision that the Palestinians were never really on his agenda but for brief bouts of fighting to tame Hamas, and for constant jockeying with the Palestine Liberation Organization to preserve its security cooperation. It was automatically mandated by the only coalitions that would support him. As for Iran, Netanyahu was not the sole author of Israeli policy. It really was an institutional team effort with the Mossad at the center, but Netanyahu was certainly its eloquent advocate, at least most of the time.

All Israelis I know are sick and tired of Netanyahu, who is now bitterly opposed on the right as well as by the left, while centrists support the ex-officials and ex-generals who function as midstream “institutional” candidates. Even his core support among the least educated Israelis has shrunk. Last time, he pulled off a Houdini act to remain prime minister even after essentially losing the election. But a repetition is unlikely: Last time, his rival believed his promise to take turns in heading the government, a mistake no one will repeat. ’Tis a pity that Israel’s economy is not in crisis, for otherwise Netanyahu and his supporters might be seen off with the offer of the Finance Ministry once again.

Securing Peace in the Middle East

The Abraham Accords reversed the order of the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002: then, ending occupation came first and in return Israel got diplomatic recognition. Now, normalization comes first. Arab states have always put their interests first before the Palestinians, even if they elevated the Palestinian cause rhetorically.

What is different now is there is a loss of fear about the Palestinian ability to mobilize a threatening reaction against those Arab leaders who make the decision to normalize with Israel because it serves their interests. Israel offers not just security benefits but can help when it comes to health, water, and agriculture.

Building on the Abraham Accords won't just happen, it will require some active brokering by the Biden Administration. Passive support won't add to the accords.

What has stood in the way of Palestinian self-rule is not the fervor of Palestinian claims for which they had no realistic capacity of achieving, but rather the conceptual unwillingness to agree to anything that might involve genuine reconciliation with the existence of Israel. A struggle for liberation wouldn't have this problem, and indeed others haven't. But a struggle for elimination of another people does. The Palestinians have had to bear the burden of the Arab struggle against a cosmically evil Israel whose very existence was seen as a monumental crime that needed to somehow be reversed. The widening circle of normalization with Israel reduces the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from a cosmic one to a territorial one, where the difference in the competing territorial claims is actually quite minimal.

Did Israel Expel Palestinian Arabs? | The Israeli-Palestinian Context

What’s the true story of the hundreds of thousands of displaced people in the Middle East? One of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict’s biggest hot potatoes is the idea that ethnic cleansing transpired against Palestinian Arabs in 1948. This week, we are zooming out to give you a wider perspective of the events that caused the removal of both Arabs and Jews from their homes in pre-and-post state Israel.

Israeli-American company developing COVID-19 vaccine - in a pill. Will BDSers boycott it?

From Medscape:

A coronavirus vaccine that could be taken as a pill may enter clinical trials in the second quarter of 2021.

The oral vaccine is being developed by Oravax Medical, a new joint venture of the Israeli-American company Oramed and the Indian company Premas Biotech, Business Insider reported.

So far, all vaccines in use are delivered by injection. One advantage of an oral vaccine is that people could take it at home instead of having the vaccine administered by medical personnel at a central location.

In a news release, Oramed said the vaccine being developed would also be easier to distribute because it could be shipped in a normal refrigerator and stored at room temperature.

"An oral COVID-19 vaccine would eliminate several barriers to rapid, widescale distribution, potentially enabling people to take the vaccine themselves at home," Nadav Kidron, CEO of Oramed, said in the news release. "While ease of administration is critical today to accelerate inoculation rates, an oral vaccine could become even more valuable in the case that a COVID-19 vaccine may be recommended annually like the standard flu shot."

The Oravax vaccine "targets three structural proteins of the novel coronavirus, as opposed to the single spike protein targeted via the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines," Kidron told The Jerusalem Post. That would make the vaccine more resistant to COVID-19 variants, he said.

The vaccine is yeast-based, which would make it cheaper to manufacture, the newspaper said.

The company said a pilot animal study proved promising. It's not known how long clinical trials on humans would take.

That would be a huge game-changer.

And something else for BDSers to boycott.

(h/t Irene)

Back in 2009, I took some religious Zionist commentary and made my own Haggadah. You can print it out and use it for the Seder (and I have indeed done that!)

Elder of Ziyon Haggadah 5769 by Eldad Tzioni

Last year, an EoZ reader asked if I could add transliteration on key parts of the Haggadah so his family could use it. Here is the result:

Please download and enjoy!

You can even find Jews to support David Miller

A group of over 200 Jews have signed a letter to support Bristol University professor David Miller.

This came as the House of Lords debated his antisemitic actions, including his accusing Jewish students of being part of an anti-Islamic, pro-Israel lobby group. Excerpts of the debate:

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con) (responding for the Government)

Universities are independent and autonomous organisations. Accordingly, the Government have not intervened directly in this case, but we consider that the University of Bristol could do more to make its condemnation of Professor Miller’s conduct clear to current and future students. Students also can and should inform the police if they believe that the law has been broken. Professor Miller has expressed some ill-founded and reprehensible views and the Government wholeheartedly reject them.

Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)

Academics do have freedom of speech, including to criticise Israel, but Professor Miller does not have the right to attack Jewish students as being part of an Israel lobby group that makes Arab and Muslim students unsafe. Bristol should not be employing someone to teach students wild conspiracy theories about Jewish people. His behaviour has resulted in Jewish students being subjected to weeks of harassment and abuse. Bristol must support its students and take this much more seriously.

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)

The noble Lord gets to the nub of the issue with his questions. Academics of course have the right to espouse views that many might find offensive, perhaps even idiotic, and universities should be places where such views can be rigorously and vigorously debated. What makes this case concerning is Professor Miller’s comments about his own students, suggesting that their disagreement with his views is because they are political pawns of a foreign Government or part of a Zionist enemy, which has no place in any society. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of anti-Semitism draws the important distinction between legitimate criticism of the Government of Israel and their policies and holding Jews collectively responsible for them. We are glad that the University of Bristol has adopted that definition and we hope that it will consider it carefully.

Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)

Miller's supposed anti-Zionism is indistinguishable from antisemitism. The most famous example is this chart created by his Spinwatch group that purports to show relationships between disparate Zionist and Jewish organizations in Britain, all allegedly controlled by Israel, all to give the false impression that they are all part of a massive unified front - in Miller's case, to attack Muslims and support Israeli racism.

This the exact same logic that the antisemites when they enumerate all the Jews who are involved in the media or government, pretending that of course all Jews have the same underlying motivations to take over the world.

Miller has another database of prominent Jewish and Zionist organizations that he considers part of the Israel lobby. Included in the list is Peter Beinart (where he is accused of promoting the Iraq war and is associated with AIPAC) and J-Street (whose crime is supposedly supporting sanctions on Iran in 2010.)

Sadly, I am not on the list.

Even the rabidly anti-Israel Jewdas noted how absurd Miller's Jewish conspiracy web is, noting, "The first thing to note is that David Miller is, to use the academic term, bad vibes. He is Director of the Organisation for Propaganda Studies, which has been accused of spreading conspiracy theories about the white helmets. His website Neocon Europe uncritically published the writings of a neo-Nazi. Miller’s writings on Jewish institutions contain few outright falsehoods, but they are embarrassingly conspiratorial, significantly overstating the influence and aims of various organisations."

The response from Miller's supporters was to assume that Jewdas has now joined the enemy:

This is as much proof as you need of the underlying antisemitism behind the defenders of Miller. If even the most anti-Israel Jewish group is uncomfortable with Miller, instead of thinking that perhaps there may be something to these accusations, the socialist Jews are all thrown into the same bucket as the most right-wing Kahanist.

It is embarrassing that there are so many Jews who are willing to loudly and openly support Jew-hatred. Unfortunately, nowadays it is not surprising.

Jews supporting David Miller doesn't make Miller look good. It only makes his craven Jewish supporters look very bad.

In August, 1776, Benjamin Franklin suggested this scene to be on the Great Seal of the United States:

Moses standing on the Shore, and extending his Hand over the Sea, thereby causing the same to overwhelm Pharaoh who is sitting in an open Chariot, a Crown on his Head and a Sword in his Hand. Rays from a Pillar of Fire in the Clouds reaching to Moses, to express that he acts by Command of the Deity. Motto, Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God.

Thomas Jefferson modified the idea somewhat:

Pharaoh sitting in an open Chariot, a Crown on his head and a Sword in his hand, passing through the divided Waters of the Red Sea in Pursuit of the Israelites: Rays from a Pillar of Fire in the Cloud, expressive of the divine Presence and Command, beaming on Moses who stands on the shore and extending his hand over the Sea causes it to overwhelm Pharaoh. Motto: Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God.

The American story is the story of the Israelites. A people fleeing persecution, going through the wilderness and journeying across a body of water, to build a new nation of a type never built before, based on a covenant and ideals, utterly unlike every other nation that existed in their respective eras.

Even the thirteen colonies uniting to become one nation, but maintaining their own distinct laws and customs, echo the twelve tribes of Israel.

The American idea was described by Governor John Winthrop in 1630, as he was en route to Massachusetts, with purely Hebrew Scripture quotes and sensibilities:

[F]ollow the counsel of Micah, to do justly, to love mercy, to walk humbly with our God. For this end, we must be knit together, in this work, as one man. We must entertain each other in brotherly affection. We must be willing to abridge ourselves of our superfluities, for the supply of others’ necessities. We must uphold a familiar commerce together in all meekness, gentleness, patience and liberality. We must delight in each other; make others’ conditions our own; rejoice together, mourn together, labor and suffer together, always having before our eyes our commission and community in the work, as members of the same body. So shall we keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace. The Lord will be our God, and delight to dwell among us, as His own people, and will command a blessing upon us in all our ways, so that we shall see much more of His wisdom, power, goodness and truth, than formerly we have been acquainted with. We shall find that the God of Israel is among us, when ten of us shall be able to resist a thousand of our enemies; when He shall make us a praise and glory...And to shut this discourse with that exhortation of Moses, that faithful servant of the Lord, in his last farewell to Israel, Deut. 30. "Beloved, there is now set before us life and death, good and evil," in that we are commanded this day to love the Lord our God, and to love one another, to walk in his ways and to keep his Commandments and his ordinance and his laws, and the articles of our Covenant with Him, that we may live and be multiplied, and that the Lord our God may bless us in the land whither we go to possess it.

Thomas Jefferson, in 1805: "I shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our forefathers, as Israel of old, from their native land, and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessaries and comforts of life..."

Abraham Lincoln once referred to Americans as God's "almost chosen people."

This idea is renewed again and again in America. Bill Clinton said in the introduction of his second Inaugural address, "Guided by the ancient vision of a promised land, let us set our sights upon a land of new promise."

The story of America is the story of the Exodus. It is the story of Passover, taught to children generation after generation. It is the story of a people with a mission to spread universal ideas of freedom, liberty, justice and equality around the world.

This is one major reason why America has always been good to its Jews, and why the United States is always going to be a friend of Israel's.

It also explains another interesting phenomenon.

Antisemites, on both the right and the left, hate America as much as they hate Jews. American exceptionalism and the American dream are abhorrent to them, just as the idea of the Chosen People and a successful Israel enrages them.

Antisemites want to destroy America, because they see in America the things they hate about Jews.

The far-Right antisemites claim to be patriotic, but they want to tear apart the nation, as we've seen recently, throwing out the Constitution and all American ideals when they disliked how an election turned out. Waving the flag is not the same as loving America.

The far-Left antisemites use old Soviet socialist tropes and methods to sow discord among Americans. They spend countless hours publishing screeds about how terrible America is. They are trying to divide Americans into classes and races and saying that these artificial divisions are not reparable, when the American dream is precisely the opposite - that anyone can succeed no matter what their social standing and these divisions are abhorrent. They want to destroy the American story and recast it as horror; they want to change the American dream into a nightmare.

Those who want to fight antisemitism must also fight for America, because if America turns into the type of nation that the far-Left or far-Right want it to be, it will not be a welcome place for Jews.

The American story is the Jewish story. Our fates are intertwined. In this age of custom Haggadot where any political or social position overtakes Passover's message of freedom, American Jews could add a prayer of thanks for living in a great nation that shares so many ideals with the Jewish people.

When “Equality” is not Everything (Vic Rosenthal)

Weekly column by Vic Rosenthal

Avraham Burg (b. 1955) today is best described as a post-Zionist, or even an extreme anti-Zionist. But he was not always thus. The son of long-time religious Zionist politician Yosef Burg, he served as an officer in the IDF, became Speaker of the Knesset on behalf of the Labor Party, was Chairman of the Jewish Agency, and even served as interim President of the State of Israel for ten days. Always left-leaning, he became more and more extreme, and in 2015 renounced Zionism and joined Hadash, the Israeli communist party. More recently, he responded to the passage of Israel’s Nation State Law by announcing his resignation from the Jewish people.

Burg’s psychological story may or may not be interesting, but he is not lacking in intelligence, and so I feel obliged to consider his arguments carefully. They appear in this interview, by Ravit Hecht in Ha’aretz.

Burg’s objections to the [Nation-State] law itself begin with its very first article, which defines the Land of Israel as the historical homeland of the Jewish people. “The patriarch Abraham discovered God outside the boundaries of the Land of Israel, the tribes became a people outside the Land of Israel, the Torah was given outside the Land of Israel, and the Babylonian Talmud, which is more important than the Jerusalem Talmud, was written outside the Land of Israel,” he asserts. “The past 2,000 years, which shaped the Judaism of this generation, happened outside Israel. The present Jewish people was not born in Israel.”

He is correct in detail, but he ignores the content of the Torah itself, which – whether or not one is an observant Jew – must be seen as the “charter” of the Jewish people. The narrative of the Torah, which describes the entry of the people into the land of Israel and the conditions under which they earn (or lose) the right to stay there, is nothing if not an assertion of the connection of the people to the land. And the 2000 years of diaspora was characterized by the combination of Jewish alienation from alien surroundings with a yearning to return. Religious Jews prayed every day for the rebuilding of a Jewish Jerusalem.

Unsaid but implied is that the Palestinian Arabs are the true owners of the land. But their historical connection to it is much shorter than that of the Jews, since almost all of the population is descended from migrants who arrived in it no earlier than 1830; the majority only goes back to the early 20^th century. Most did not even identify as “Palestinians” until the 1960s. The Palestinians are aware that their claim to being long-time “natives” that were dispossessed by colonialist European Jews who had no connection to the land is tenuous. That’s why they go to such lengths to try to destroy evidence of ancient Jewish habitation here, and why they make fanciful claims of descent from Canaanites or Philistines.

Burg is committed to the idea that the most important (and the most Jewish) of political principles is that of equality. The simplest way to understand it is that the rights and obligations of a citizen are invariant over ethnicity, religion, race, sex, and numerous other characteristics, the number of which has been increasing recently in Western societies. There is no doubt that any definition of a Jewish state must violate the principle.

In a recent article, Burg argues that the demand for equality invalidates the concept of a Jewish state, which the Nation-State Law explicates:

Every supporter of [Israel’s political] parties is prepared to swear that their issue is the most important in the world: Gender, ethnic background, orientation and religious beliefs – everyone seeks equality for themselves and are committed to preferential treatment for their community and its interests. Just theirs. They aren’t capable of rising above, of uniting and running together in this election for the greatest idea of all: a state of all its citizens, committed to true and meaningful equality for all Israelis. The real, profound election campaign is one that is pitting the secular perception of the civilian State of Israel against the zealots of Jewish supremacy, who are prepared to sanctify discrimination, distinction and exclusion to preserve this tribal power.

Burg is wrong about “Jewish supremacy,” which is not essential to the idea of a Jewish state. One is not required to believe that Jews are superior to anyone else in order to understand the need for a state that – admittedly – must practice some form of “discrimination, distinction and exclusion” in order to guarantee the continued existence of the Jewish people.

There are numerous “states of all of their citizens” in the world, mostly Western democracies, although there are none in the Middle East. The USA is a an example of one that was founded on the very principle of being such a state, although it took some years and a civil war for full citizenship to be granted to former slaves, and even longer for female citizens to obtain full rights. But Israel is different, and the reason is that Israel was founded according to the principles of Zionism, and not on the Enlightenment concept of the Rights of Man.

The Jews of the West expected that the principles of the Enlightenment would apply to them. It seemed at the end of the 18^th century and the beginning of the 19^th, that they might. But as time passed it became clear that the promise of equality would not be extended to the Jewish people. Herzl and other Zionists realized that the only way to ensure that Jews would be able to live normal lives without needing to choose between persecution or assimilation would be in a state in which Jews were the sovereign power. And for Jews outside of the West, in the empires of Eastern Christianity and Islam, there was not even the glimmer of the Enlightenment.

The fundamental idea of Zionism is that there must be at least one state in the world that is not a state of its citizens, but which is defined as the state of the Jewish people. This is why there is a Law of Return for Jews to Israel, and not one for descendants of Palestinian refugees. This is why the state’s holidays, and calendar are Jewish, and why the Hebrew language has a special status. Although the state can and does have a commitment to providing equal political rights to all of its citizens, it does not pretend to treat them all equally in every respect. One way to express this is to say, as the Nation-State Law does, that “the exercise of the right to national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish People.”

This means that non-Jewish citizens of Israel must compromise. Like Jews throughout diasporic history – although with more rights and privileges – they must come to terms with living as an ethnic minority in someone else’s nation. In return, they have the advantages that come with living in a stable, prosperous, and democratic country in the midst of failed states and vicious dictatorships.

Most Arab citizens of Israel understand this, even if Avraham Burg doesn’t.

***

One final word: yes, I know we have just had an election. It looks like there will be some form of coalition led by Bibi. But the results aren’t clear as I write this, and small movements one way or another could result in a big change. Tune in next week for more. Meanwhile, have a happy and kosher Pesach.

03/24 Links Pt2: Why “academic freedom” is no defence of the Bristol University professor David Miller; The Grammy Awards Illustrate The Cultural Mainstreaming of Antisemitism

From Ian:

Why “academic freedom” is no defence of the Bristol University professor David Miller

The University of Bristol is investigating one of its own professors, David Miller, for comments he made about Jewish students that attracted widespread protest, including from hundreds of other academics and from parliamentarians. Many of Miller’s critics have defended his academic freedom while condemning his depiction of Bristol’s Jewish Society as local agents of a foreign power trying to subvert British freedoms. This is a convenient distinction that sidesteps a crucial fact: Miller’s conflicts with Jewish students flow from the same analysis of “Zionist” power that he teaches in class. They are inseparable in a way that tests the limits of both academic freedom and a university’s duty of care towards its students.

Professor Miller has said that there is “an all-out onslaught by the Israeli government” to “impose their will all over the world”, and that all university Jewish societies (including Bristol’s), plus the Union of Jewish Students, are “directed by Israel” as part of this effort. More broadly, he says that Bristol Jewish Society belongs to a “Zionist movement” that he has characterised as “the enemy of the left, the enemy of world peace, and they must be directly targeted”. Miller says the goal is to “defeat the ideology of Zionism in practice” and “to end Zionism… as a functioning ideology of the world”. While many consider Miller’s comments to be so inflammatory as to endanger Jewish students, he claims it is university Jewish societies that render Muslim and Arab students unsafe.

At the heart of all this is Miller’s belief that Islamophobia is generated and encouraged by “parts of the Zionist movement”, and that it is “fundamental to Zionism to encourage Islamophobia and anti-Arab racism”. In February 2019 he taught this theory to undergraduates at Bristol using a PowerPoint slide with a network map of Jewish, Israeli and pro-Israel organisations and individuals that he had first drawn up in 2013 under the title of “the British Zionist scene”. As the sociologist Keith Kahn-Harris has pointed out, this map was a meaningless mass of names and arrows with no real academic or analytical value. Even worse, by the time Miller taught it to students in 2019, most of the individuals named on the map had either left their posts or died. Jewish students in Miller’s lecture complained and the slide has come to represent, for Miller’s critics, the anti-Semitic nature of his work.

Bristol University was familiar with this aspect of Miller’s research, and even with this specific image, when it hired him in 2018, because Miller had used this same PowerPoint slide in a talk at an academic seminar held by the university’s Centre for the Study of Ethnicity and Citizenship three years earlier. Speaking to an audience of Bristol academics, Miller described it as showing “the transnational Zionist movement”, which he said connected Israeli state institutions and UK Jewish organisations such as the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Jewish Leadership Council. “It’s important to see this as a transnational affair”, he told his academic audience, which is not limited to supporting Israel but is also a “social movement” that engages in “domestic politics”, including “ultra-Zionist funders” who are “active in Islamophobia”; while the Israeli government, he claimed, “is directly involved in trying to sabotage and undermine the role of Muslims in public life”.

@LordIanAustin opening today's debate in the House of Lords on the comments of David Miller and the response by @BristolUni.

"His behaviour has led to Jewish students being subjected to weeks of harassment and abuse"

Lord Parkinson calls Miller's comments 'idiotic' in response pic.twitter.com/8uYH9qspPt
— SussexFriendsofIsrael (@SussexFriends) March 24, 2021

Warwick University blames “unauthorised access” after its verified Twitter account ‘likes’ a tweet that says “Jewish students are agents of a Foreign Power”

The official Twitter account of the University of Warwick ‘liked’ a tweet endorsing recent inflammatory comments by the academic and conspiracy theorist David Miller, with the University subsequently deleted the ‘like’ and blaming “unauthorised access” to the account.

The tweet, which was part of a thread from an account called Socialist Campaign Group Highgate, read: “We agree with Dr Simon Behrman, @Warwick_Law and @Warwickuni of @RussellGroup that David Miller @Tracking_Power is right to say that Jewish students are agents of a Foreign Power and would like to male a job offer. Name your price.”

A spokesperson for the University said: “The tweet in question was ‘liked’ following unauthorised access to the account. The unauthorised access and ‘like’ was quickly spotted by the social media team and the tweet was soon ‘unliked’, and the matter has been referred to Twitter.”

The University of Warwick has had problems with addressing antisemitism on its campus in the recent past, and was reluctant to adopt the International Definition of Antisemitism, which it ultimately did under pressure on 12th October 2020.

Campaign Against Antisemitism monitors the adoption of the International Definition of Antisemitism by universities.

Labour urged to suspend councillor who posted that Priti Patel was ‘hatched’ in Israel

Labour is facing calls to suspend a councillor who posted a message claiming Priti Patel, now Home Secretary, was “hatched” in Israel.

He also shared a post of a highly offensive cartoon branding Israel a “blood-thirsty racist Zionist war machine”.

Newham Borough Councillor Suga Thekkeppurayil shared the “war machine” post from the Let’s Save Palestine account which includes a cartoon of headless corpses and dismembered bodies in Gaza.

The cartoon also shows UK and US broadcasters ignoring the butchered bodies and focusing their cameras on a crying baby in Israel.

The 2014 post says: “This is still how Western media routinely cover Operation Genocidal Edge, committed by the blood-thirsty racists Zionist war machine”.

Cllr Thekkeppurayil also shared a Guardian opinion piece in March, 2019, that said Jeremy Corbyn had “nothing to apologise for being the first Labour leader to oppose Zionism on moral grounds”.

The former Labour leader was suspended from Labour in October last year after refusing to apologise in the wake of damning findings from the EHRC that the party acted unlawfully in its handling of the antisemitism crisis.

He was readmitted just two weeks later but has still not had Labour’s parliamentary party whip restored.

Now let's take a look at Ahmad Al-Issa's Trump hating, Christian hating, Jew hating, white hating daddy's Facebook posts. Curiously he was not banned by Facebook. Wonder why. pic.twitter.com/lnOYcTpn9B
— Carmine Sabia (@CarmineSabia) March 23, 2021

Palestine, the Israel-Palestine conflict, Palestinians. All day long, it seems, there is a merciless barrage of agitprop to brainwash us into believing that “Palestine” is an actual Arab country peopled with “Palestinian” nationals. This, despite the fact that there has never been a sovereign state known as “Palestine” and certainly not a sovereign Arab state known as “Palestine.”

Many writers, commentators, and just plain regular folks have long given up trying to call the Arabs of the PA and Gaza anything but “Palestinian.” It’s just become too hard for people to go against that overwhelming tide of propaganda. And what should one call them instead? Calling them “Arabs,” just generically, sounds wrong, and almost racist, being that the term has no connection to any specific location.

So where do we go from here, when you want to be accurate, without sounding racist, in describing what is essentially a group of ragtag migrants who found a good place to settle and dug in their heels? I figured the best person to ask would be my late friend Robert Werdine. Robert grew up in Michigan, but his mother’s family was Lebanese. “What do you call them?” I asked.

“I call them ‘Arabs,’” he said.

And that was good enough for me.

It makes sense: the Arabs of the PA and Hamas, along with the Arabs who left Israel in 1948, have no single nationality, as they originate from not one but several Arab countries in the Middle East. That means that the best we can do is identify them as “Arabs,” just as you might more broadly identify someone as Asian or Native American. When you don’t know a person’s country of origin or their tribe, you’ve got to go broad. That’s not racist. It’s inclusive, and even respectful.

What’s not respectful is calling indigenous Jewish land “Palestine” and pretending that Arabs, and not Jews, are native to the territory. And still, every day, people are out there, ramming the lie down our throats, incessantly. I’m a stubborn cuss, however, and so I continue to fight this dishonest nomenclature. I fight it on Twitter.

If you are an Arab, you are from ARABIA. Just as Jews come from JUDEA.
— (((Varda Epstein))) (@VardaEpstein) March 10, 2021

But mostly I fight the lie of this fictitious Arab nation and its people on Quora. The people who pose questions on this topic are disingenuous. They are uninterested in my answers. They only want to assert the premise of the question—the lie—as fact.

I see them and what they are doing, but I answer them over and over again, mostly the same way. They are tireless in trying to get us to swallow the lie, just by saying “Palestine, Palestine, Palestine,” and “Palestinian, Palestinian, Palestinian” at us all day long, and they have been all too successful in training us to repeat after them. To my mind, the best way to deal with this is to counter them all day long, by telling the truth.

By way of example, here are several “questions” along with my answers, on the topic of the imaginary country of Palestine and its pretend nationals:

If the Balfour Declaration of 1917 had been kept, how different would the history of Israel and Palestine have been?

Varda: Israel would still exist and Palestine would still be nonexistent.

With Israel and Palestine having elections, are either of the candidates in either country likely to work towards a peace agreement together or is that not going to happen?

Varda: Of the two, only Israel exists.

Is it likely a two-state solution will happen in the next century now that the Palestinians have committed to one? Can biden create a two state solution in four-eight years?

Varda: I assume that when you say “Palestinians” you mean the Arabs who live under the Palestinian Authority or Hamas, as there is no such place called “Palestine” and therefore there cannot exist such a nationality as “Palestinian.”

There will never be a two-state solution because neither side desires one. This is something that Trump understood, and for some reason others refuse to understand, even when the writing on the wall is plain to see. Hamas and the PA pretend they want this, in order to accrue maximum benefits from the American and Israeli governments, meantime, they tell the truth in Arabic, to their people. See:

Biden administration and even Israeli media are fooled by Palestinian doubletalk: No, Hamas didn't commit to a two state solution

Why doesn't Quora show posts related to the Israel and Palestinian conflict?

Varda: If this were the case, I would not be able to see your question.

Is a two state solution likely to take Isreal and Palestine 4-8 years to agree to or would it take many more years than that to come to an agreement? Do you think it will happen within 50 years?

Varda: Your question is a contradiction in terms. If there were a place called “Palestine” there would already be two states. If that is the case, what is meant by the “two-state solution” and why has it not brought peace?

There is no reason for the Jewish people to give up any of their land, and especially not to those who threaten to annihilate them.

Why does Israel want to annex lands in the West Bank? What will happen to the Palestinians living there?

Varda: Israel has no desire to annex land. Not in Judea and Samaria, and not anywhere else.

“West Bank” is propaganda term that people substitute for the geographical area known as Judea and Samaria, part of indigenous Jewish territory. The term is used to suggest that this land sits on the west bank of the Jordan River, hence belongs to Jordan. The territory is nowhere near any body of water except for the body of water known as the Dead Sea.

Judea and Samaria was returned to the Jewish people by dint of a defensive war imposed on the Jewish State. There is no need to annex land that already belongs to you. There is, however, a need to exercise sovereignty, because at present, the territory is under martial law, and it is necessary to bring law and order to the area. Also, Israel has a right to declare its sovereignty over all its land, including Judea and Samaria, which was returned to its rightful owners, the Jewish people, in 1967.

What makes up Palestine?

Varda: That’s a very good question. There is no state called Palestine. If there were such a state, there would be no clamor for a two-state solution, as such a “solution” would already exist, there being two states: Israel and “Palestine.”

The other reason this is a good question is that those who speak of “Palestine,” cannot name its borders unless it is to say that the borders of “Palestine” are exactly the borders of the Jewish State.

What are some Palestinian building archetypes?

Varda: There is no such thing, as there is no state of Palestine, hence no such nationality.

How should President Biden approach the Israel/Palestine issue considering the Middle East seems more preoccupied by Iran now?

Varda: There is no Israel/Palestine issue, because one of these countries does not exist. Biden has already sworn to restore aid to the PA and Hamas which will no doubt go toward their terror-incentivizing pay-to-slay program, so he is not as uninvolved as you suggest in the move to rid the Middle East of its Jewish presence.

What are your thoughts on Jared Kushner calling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict a ‘real estate dispute’?

Varda: I wouldn’t call it an “Israeli-Palestinian conflict” to begin with, because there is no sovereign Arab country called “Palestine” and as such, there can be no such nationality as “Palestinian.”

Also, it’s not a conflict if one side wants to live and the other side doesn’t want them to live.

All in all, I guess I’d have to say I disagree with Jared Kushner, because it’s not just about real estate, but about the fact that the PA and Hamas want this real estate to be “judenfrei” or free of a Jewish presence.

Aside from the land, and who may and may not live there, the PA and Hamas want to destroy the Jewish people and are working toward that eventuality (God Forbid) by inciting the people under their rule to commit terror attacks. The PA even pays stipends to the families of those who murder Jews to incentivize others to follow suit.

If Israel and the Palestinians did manage to cease hostilities and both agree to a resolution which would lead to peaceful relations, how exactly could that occur in your opinion?

Varda: Presumably, you refer to the Arabs who settled in what is the State of Israel. A resolution to the state of war will occur when the Arabs lay down their arms, as they are the belligerent party.

What is the focus of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict? Which of them has the right to the land of Palestine?

Varda: No such conflict exists as there is no such thing as a “Palestinian” being that there is no such place as “Palestine.” There was never an independent state called by this name, and there was never an independent sovereign Arab state by this name, either. As such, there can be no nationality called “Palestinian.”

There is, however, a state called “Israel” that is indigenous Jewish territory and has been for thousands of years. Presumably, you would like to take this land from the indigenous Jewish people and give it to the Arabs and pretend it is called “Palestine.”

Perhaps that is your conflict, in a nutshell: that the Jewish people have a tiny sliver of land and you would like to take it away from them and give it to the Arabs. Perhaps you are not aware that even the Quran refers to the Jews as the Bani Isra’il, the “sons of Israel.”

Do you think the conflict between Israel and Palestine will ever end?

Varda: There’s no such conflict, as only one of these countries exists.

***
Anti-Israel, hence antisemitic Quorans, will continue to bombard me with these stupid questions, and I’ll keep coming back with the same honest answers. Will it help? Maybe, maybe not. At least not unless everyone else who knows the truth makes an effort to stop using the language of “Palestine,” the country that doesn’t exist and never has.