Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Thursday, July 22, 2021

07/22 Links Pt1: Kontorovich: Ben & Jerry’s Israel Boycott Could Cost Unilever; 'Insider' links Ben & Jerry's to HRW activist kicked out of Israel; Texas looking into divestment from Unilever over Ben & Jerry’s boycott

From Ian:

Eugene Kontorovich (WSJ, link via tweet): Ben & Jerry’s Israel Boycott Could Cost Unilever

Ben & Jerry’s knew this was an offer the licensee had to refuse. Parts of what the company calls “occupied Palestinian territory” Israel (as well as the U.S.) considers sovereign Israeli territory. Israeli law bars boycotts of Israeli citizens, Jewish or Arab, based on their location. So Unilever cancelled the Israeli Ben & Jerry’s entirely because it wouldn’t engage in a secondary boycott.

Because Ben & Jerry’s is a wholly owned subsidiary of Unilever, the latter is responsible for its boycott. In the past eight years, 33 American states have passed laws that restrict government contracting or investing in companies that boycott Israeli people or businesses. These laws are modeled on similar restrictions on companies that discriminate on other grounds, such as sexual orientation.

This means that, in about a dozen states, state employees’ pension funds will be barred from investment in Unilever. In many other states, government entities will be barred from buying goods or services from Unilever. Moreover, since the 1970s, federal law has banned U.S. companies from participating in foreign boycotts of any country. If it turns out that the Palestinian Authority contacted Ben & Jerry’s or its officers and asked them to boycott, criminal penalties would be available against Unilever.

Ben & Jerry’s suggests that its action is motivated by the Israeli “occupation.” But the company seems to have decided to end its Israel business in May, when Hamas unleashed a 10-day rocket barrage on Israeli civilians. Ben & Jerry’s has not boycotted anyone but the Jewish state. And that is what the state and federal boycott laws recognize—that refusals to deal with Israelis are most often a form of bigotry.

My op-ed in the @WSJ on legal consequences of attempt by @unilever @benandjerry to pressure Israeli business into participating in a secondary boycott: https://t.co/6cYD95WoOU
— Eugene Kontorovich (@EVKontorovich) July 21, 2021

I'm guessing that as we speak, far-left groups are trying to talk @benandjerrys in to being their guinea pigs in litigation to challenge state anti-BDS laws. But B&J lawyers unlikely to risk discovery that would show how the social justice sausage gets made.
— Eugene Kontorovich (@EVKontorovich) July 22, 2021

Legal Fallout: Is Ben & Jerry’s Israel Boycott Only a Free Speech Issue?

'Insider' links Ben & Jerry's to activist kicked out of Israel

Ben & Jerry’s announcement on Monday that it would stop selling its ice cream in Judea and Samaria, caving in to pressure from BDS, had many people wondering who was advising the Vermont-based company.

Constitutional & international law professor Eugene Kontorovich, who is an expert on legal issues in the Israeli-Arab conflict, said on Twitter that he had a “scoop” on the company’s decision.

“SCOOP (on Ben & Jerry’s): I’ve been told by (a Ben & Jerry’s) insider that company's board invited Omar Shakir, a professional BDS activist, to advise them, rejected calls to hear experts on other side. This ain't about the settlements,” he tweeted.

In a response to Kontorovich’s tweet, NGO Monitor said, “Not surprising since Omar Shakir was kicked out of Israel for being a BDS activist. First he pressured FIFA, then airbnb, and now Ben & Jerry’s. His entire ‘human rights’ career has been devoted to pressuring companies to boycott Israel.”

In 2019, Shakir, who was the regional director of Human Rights Watch in Israel, was deported from Israel after a court ruled he had promoted the BDS movement’s agenda.

Not surprising since @OmarSShakir was kicked out of Israel for being a BDS activist.

First he pressured FIFA, then airbnb, and now @benandjerrys.

His entire "human rights" career has been devoted to pressuring companies to boycott Israel.

Read more: https://t.co/DUoyu534Yl https://t.co/UzaDongpIg
— NGO Monitor (@NGOmonitor) July 22, 2021

96.9% believe Ken Roth is antisemitic.

76.3% believe Ken Roth is a big antisemite.

Only 3.1% do not believe Ken Roth is antisemitic.

More than a thousand people worldwide participated in the poll.https://t.co/2tezcNQKe9 pic.twitter.com/CnLQyv8F05
— Hillel Neuer (@HillelNeuer) July 21, 2021

Richard Goldberg: Double Scoops and Double Standards Courtesy of Ben & Jerry's

In addition to its classic double scoops, Vermont-based ice cream producer Ben & Jerry's is now offering a calorie-rich serving of double standards, too. The Ben & Jerry's brand, owned and operated by Unilever, announced on July 19 that it would terminate its license agreement with an Israeli-based manufacturer to ensure its products "will no longer be sold" in the "Occupied Palestinian Territory." Unilever cut off the longstanding licensee after it refused to halt sales in the disputed territories, which reportedly would violate Israeli law. In short, Unilever engaged in a boycott of Israel as defined by state and federal law, which means the company may soon be facing penalties that eat into its profits.

Unilever is a British multinational consumer goods company headquartered in London, U.K. It has annual revenues of $61 billion (£45 billion) and its products are available in over 190 countries. It also maintains corporate offices in numerous human rights-abusing countries, including China, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Venezuela, Vietnam and Zimbabwe. Unilever is reportedly a major purchaser of tomato paste from state-owned factories in China's Xinjiang region, where the U.S. State Department says China is engaged in "horrific abuses." In January 2021, the U.S. government halted the import of all such tomato paste into the U.S., citing the use of forced labor that amounted to "exploiting modern slavery." Yet neither Unilever nor Ben & Jerry's appears to have ever taken action against China's massive human rights violations in Xinjiang.

It is difficult to say why Unilever shows greater concern for the sale of ice cream in West Bank settlements than it does for the exploitation of forced labor in Xinjiang, yet the company's board members and senior executives have a lengthy record of criticizing the Jewish state. Jeff Furman, the president of the Ben & Jerry's Foundation's board and former chair of the corporate board, visited the West Bank in 2012 on a tour organized by an activist group that advocated for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against Israel. Furman also signed a letter that condemned Israeli military operations in Gaza, but conspicuously never mentioned Hamas—the terrorist outfit that runs Gaza. Furthermore, he has called for the end of U.S. aid to Israel and has falsely claimed that Palestinians endure "apartheid living conditions."

Anuradha Mittal, Furman's replacement as corporate board chair, has similarly demonstrated her selective emphasis on the Israeli government's actions. The Oakland Institute, which she directs, produced a series of nine reports condemning Israel in 2017. Mittal announced that she deleted her Airbnb account in May 2019 after Airbnb reversed its own short-lived boycott of Israel. Moreover, she publicly opposed a congressional resolution condemning anti-Semitism and signed a petition in June 2021 calling to end U.S. arms sales to Israel.

The Ben & Jerry's independent board distanced itself from the brand's July 19 announcement—objecting to a clause stating that Ben & Jerry's would continue operating in "pre-1967" Israel and reasserting its autonomy to make "social justice" decisions under its 2000 merger agreement. This underscores that Unilever does indeed share responsibility for the boycott decision. Unilever's release of the boycott announcement under the Ben & Jerry's brand—and its admission that Unilever, not Ben & Jerry's, will be the corporate entity that cuts off the Israeli licensee—demonstrates that the parent company has ultimate control over Ben & Jerry's operations.

The Al Mezan Center for Human Rights issued a press release:

Al Mezan Center for Human Rights condemns Israel’s decision to withhold 597 million shekels (ca. US$182 million) in tax revenue collected last year and owed to the Palestinian Authority (PA). The decision, approved by the Israeli cabinet on 11 July 2021, allows the Israeli government to withhold up to 50 million shekels (ca. US$15 million) per month as of August.

(from the Arabic version) Al Mezan Center for Human Rights condemns the Israeli decision. At the same time, it affirms that the Palestinian Authority’s financial allocations for the families of martyrs, wounded and detainees, which are provided in the form of monthly salaries to these families, are considered a form of social security for families who have lost their main breadwinner, and that the deduction’s decision constitutes Piracy in broad daylight, harming the livelihood of these families, and collective punishment against the civilian population, which in turn contributes to the deterioration of the already deteriorated humanitarian and economic conditions in the occupied Palestinian territories in general, especially in light of the continuation of Israeli violations, especially the comprehensive siege imposed on the Gaza Strip.

This "social security" argument is specious. If that is true, then why is this program only for people classified as fighters? Why are the payments higher for those who killed more Jews? Why do the payments increase the more time the prisoner is behind bars? Why are their salaries higher than those of regular Palestinian workers, both while in prison and even after they are released and could work again?

If it was really a social security issue, it should be equally available to every family where the breadwinner dies or is incapacitated - Fatah or Hamas, male or female, "militant" or someone with a shoe store in Nablus. No one would object, and all the tax revenues would be restored.

Every Palestinian knows that these payments are meant to reward terrorists. They say this openly and they defend this proudly . Al Mezan, a supposed "human rights' organization, knows this as well and is trying to gaslight the West with this nonsense of social security payments.

Their defense of the "pay for slay" program proves that they are not interested in human rights at all.

Either that, or they do not consider the Jews who were attacked by these terrorists to be humans deserving of rights.

The entire "human rights" industry is a sham where outrages like this are accepted and supported. There is a huge cleavage between "human rights organizations" and actual human rights. And international human rights organizations like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty are complicit because they condone these immoral payments with their silence.

From The Hill:

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and other Democratic lawmakers have signed onto a letter to Secretary of State Antony Blinken urging him to appoint a special envoy tasked with monitoring and combatting Islamophobia.

In the letter sent Tuesday, Omar and two dozen other lawmakers cited the spike in Islamophobia seen in recent years as well as the “persecution of Muslims manifesting itself around the world.”

The lawmakers also pointed to a recent annual report released by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), in which the office identified multiple countries with “patterns of mistreatment and human rights violations against either their entire Muslim populations or particular sects of Muslims.”

“In addition to state-sponsored policies of Islamophobia, we have seen a disturbing rise in incidents of Islamophobic violence committed by individuals connected to larger transnational white supremacist networks, including but by no means limited to the mosque shooting in Christchurch, New Zealand in 2019 and the recent murder of a Muslim Canadian family in London, Ontario,” the lawmakers wrote.

The lawmakers went on to strongly urge Blinken to establish the new role dedicated to combatting Islamophobia, calling it “a genuinely global problem that the United States should tackle globally.”

This would make worldwide bigotry worse, not better.

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom report that these members of Congress reference describes various issues of religious intolerance, including antisemitism and intolerance towards Muslims. It also describes bigotry against Sikhs, Hindus, Yazidis, Christians and specific Christian sects like Copts and Jehovah's Witnesses.

Crucially, however, it also describes discrimination against Muslims in Muslim countries - Shiite countries persecuting Sufi Muslims and Baha'i, Sunni countries persecuting Shiites and Ahmadiyya Muslims. There is arguably more religious persecution of Muslims by other Muslims than by non-Muslims.

If the State Department would appoint an Islamophobia envoy with the parameters suggested by Omar and others, these cases of Muslim discrimination against other Muslims would be swept under the rug. Indeed, the only persecutors mentioned in the press conference about this initiative were white supremacists as the major threat to Muslims worldwide, which is clearly not true.

An Islamophobia envoy (especially one whose remit is to concentrate on white supremacism) would downplay Muslim intolerance towards Muslima, and redirect attention and resources away from such persecution.

In addition, many Muslim countries persecute non-Muslims besides the "other" Muslims. This envoy would also take away from existing, vital efforts to fight these other examples of discrimination.

There are other problems with Omar's initiative. If you read her statement announcing the call for an envoy, she speaks about her own experiences with Islamophobia as she was growing up in the US and in Congress. A State Department envoy would do nothing to fight that.

Moreover, if Islamophobia deserves its own envoy, then why not one to fight anti-Hindu or anti-Christian discrimination and bigotry? Why not one to protect Sikhs and Kurds? And why limit it to religion - why not an envoy against anti-Asian hate?

The best way to fight anti-Muslim discrimination is to fight discrimination altogether. Countries that hate their Muslim minorities generally hate all their religious or racial minorities, and the efforts to fight that bigotry should address all of them. Dedicating an envoy to Islamophobia would dilute and hurt efforts to fight all the other cases of discrimination.

The other problem with this initiative is more fundamental.

It is clearly modeled on the existing (and unfilled) position of an ambassador-level position to monitor and combat antisemitism. Omar, who has already proven multiple times her antipathy towards Jews, wants to water down the antisemitism envoy's power by equating Islamophobia with antisemitism.

They are vastly different.

Islamophobia is just like other bigotries - people hate the "other" and discriminate against them. That is why the best way to fight Islamophobia is to fight racism and bigotry as a whole. China hates Uyghur Muslims because they are there. Burma hates Rohingya Muslims because they are there. Neither of them hate Muslims in Europe or in the Middle East.

Antisemites hate the Jews no matter where they are. The most antisemitic countries are the ones with the fewest Jews.

Antisemitism is fundamentally different from Islamophobia and other discrimination because it is the manifestation of pure hate, not just bigotry. Leftists call Jews "white supremacists" and "racists," neo-Nazis accuse Jews of being anti-racist and supporting immigration. Both of them attribute to Jews that which they hate. Both of them passionately hate the Jewish state.

Antisemitism occurs within all political contexts, and it is justified by people of every belief system where Jews represent everything people loathe. It is the only bigotry where the hated group is said to have almost supernatural power over the haters.

People like Omar who claim that they fight antisemitism along with all other hatreds are knowingly diminishing antisemitism and encouraging it by pretending that it is just a specific form of white supremacism. They want to dissociate themselves from their own part in modern antisemitism.

Because antisemitism is so different from other bigotries it cannot be fought using the same methods that one fights other types of discrimination.

That is why it makes sense to have an antisemitism envoy - and why it makes no sense to have a special envoy for other kinds of bigotries.

Palestinians expelled from Jordan in 1971

Here is a forgotten detail from the Jordanian war against Palestinians in 1970-71.

From JTA, July 19, 1971:

Heavily armed Palestinian terrorists, fleeing the troops of Jordan’s King Hussein, are surrendering en-masse to Israeli forces, it was disclosed today. At least 55 terrorists have laid down their arms during the past 24 hours, apparently preferring to become prisoners of the Israelis than to face death or capture at the hands of the Jordan Arab Legion. Hussein, though he vowed in Zerqa, Jordan, yesterday to support Arab commando activities against Israel, has mounted a new drive aimed at ousting the fedayeen from north Jordan. Jordanian infantry was rooting terrorists out of hiding places in fields and orange groves, according to Israeli sources.

The mass surrenders–yesterday, last night and this morning–were on the agenda of today’s Cabinet meeting, an extra long session that heard reports from Defense Minister Moshe Dayan and Army Chief of Staff Haim Bar Lev. It is clear to observers here nevertheless that this latest development along the Jordanian frontier has created a headache and potential embarrassment for Israeli authorities. The surrendering terrorists pose problems. They must be quartered, fed and heavily guarded since most are highly trained in terrorist and sabotage techniques. Yet denying them entry to Israel would mean delivering them to almost certain death at the hands of Hussein’s troops. Reports from Amman reaching here today told of mass executions of guerrillas, many of whom were reportedly flushed out of hiding places with gas bombs. The Israeli Government wants to avoid any act that might be interpreted as interfering in Jordan’s internecine fighting.

Yesterday, an Israeli patrol encircled a band of 16 terrorists crossing the Jordan River and ordered them to surrender. The terrorists laid down their arms which included automatic rifles, hand grenades and a machine gun and became willing captives. The fact that they carried no food or explosives satisfied the Israeli commander that they were not on a sabotage mission but were fleeing Hussein’s troops. Two more groups of similar size surrendered to Israeli forces during the night and eight more laid down their arms this morning.

On July 20, 1971, JTA added:

Seventeen more armed Arab terrorists fleeing Jordan surrendered to Israeli forces today bringing to 72 the number that have laid down their arms and begged asylum in Israel since Saturday.

Israeli sources said today that most of the surrendered terrorists were members of El Fatah. the largest of the Palestinian guerrilla groups and that some belonged to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a more extreme group headed by Dr. George Habash. The sources said all were being interrogated to determine their background. Defense Minister Moshe Dayan asked several of the captives yesterday why they fled to Israel and not to Syria. The reply was that the Syrian border was blocked and, anyway it was “safer in Israel.” The commandos reportedly pleaded with Dayan to let them stay, promising to “do everything we are told, even join the Israel Army.”

Somehow, I don't think this is being taught in Palestinian schools.

07/21 Links Pt2: Biden Passes Up Chance To Press Jordan’s King for Terrorist’s Extradition; Biden's reward to UNRWA for bad behavior; Antisemitism in America: what would Émile Zola say?

From Ian:

Biden Passes Up Chance To Press Jordan’s King for Terrorist’s Extradition

In the face of emotional pleas from a young terror victim's family, President Joe Biden on Monday passed up an opportunity to press Jordan's King Abdullah II on the Palestinian terrorist who remains a free woman in the Middle Eastern kingdom.

Although the White House maintains it is working to extradite Hamas terrorist Ahlam Tamimi from Jordan, Biden neglected the issue entirely during his Monday afternoon meeting with King Abdullah. Neither the public meeting nor the White House readout of what the leaders discussed privately included any mention of Tamimi.

Arnold Roth, whose 15-year-old daughter was killed in the 2001 bombing of an Israeli restaurant carried out by Tamimi, said the United States is "betraying its own values" by not raising the issue.

"The United States is betraying its own values, its own commitment to justice, and this I find to be inexplicable," Roth told the Washington Free Beacon following Biden’s meeting with Jordan’s king. "There’s always a price when you trash core values."

Ahead of Biden's meeting with the Jordanian king, Roth and his wife Frimet took to the pages of the Wall Street Journal, urging Biden to press for Tamimi's extradition. "The president, a grieving parent himself, pledged during his inauguration speech to write ‘an American story of decency and dignity,'" the parents wrote last week. "Is anything more dignified than doing justice?"

After Jordan's king visited the State Department yesterday

At the end of yesterday's well-publicized meeting between the Jordanian delegation and the State Department people, there was a press briefing, presided over by State's spokesperson, Ned Price.

As important as the Tamimi case is, and as much as we have tried to create media and pubic awareness of the open deception by two governments over what is and is not being done to bring Tamimi to her long overdue appointment with a federal court, here is the only official public comment made by the American side. It comes from the official transcript of the State Department Press Briefing (July 20, 2021)

NED PRICE, DEPARTMENT SPOKESPERSON JULY 20, 2021

QUESTION: Can I ask you very quickly about Jordan, the meeting with the king this morning and the Secretary? I just want to know if the Tamimi extradition issue came up. As you’re aware, last year the then-ambassador nominee but now the ambassador told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that withholding aid or aid could be used as leverage to secure her extradition to the States to face murder charges.

MR PRICE: Well, I expect we’ll have a readout of the Secretary’s meeting with His Majesty the King later today. When it comes to Ms. al-Tamimi, she is on the FBI’s most wanted list for her role in the 2001 Hamas attack in Jerusalem. We continue to seek her extradition. We’ll continue to work to ensure that she faces justice.

QUESTION: Yeah. Well, did it come up?

MR PRICE: I’m not in a position to speak to the meeting, but we’ll have a readout —

QUESTION: Well, are you – I mean, are you – has this administration yet raised it with – raised the matter with Jordanian authorities, the King or not? Or is this something that would have just come up for the first time today?

MR PRICE: This issue has been raised with our Jordanian partners.

What did the Jordanians say when it was raised? How did the US respond to King Abdullah's response? Does he know about the Tamimi case? Does he know about the 1995 Extradition Treaty proudly signed by his father?

Imagine getting answers like this from your doctor, your lawyer, your spouse, your child, your work colleague. We all have some sense of when we're being treated like idiots. This was one of those moments for us.

Let us hope Lapid-Bennett consensus buries Biden’s renewed two-state solution bid

The likelihood of President Biden being the American President finally overseeing an end to the 100 years old conflict between Arabs and Jews - promisingly advanced by President Trump’s Abraham Accords - was dashed this week when Israel’s Foreign Minister – and its next Prime Minister in 26 months’ time - Yair Lapid - told the EU Foreign Affairs Council:

"A future Palestinian state must be a democracy that seeks peace with Israel"

Israel’s current Prime Minister – Naftali Bennett – shares Lapid’s opinion:
“Self-determination also depends on democracy so that the people are able to determine what they want. Almost none of our neighbours enjoy democracy and if they did they would cease to be.”

Bennett and Lapid’s consensus democracy-demand is also supported by two former American Presidents:

President Bush on 30 April 2003:
“A two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will only be achieved through an end to violence and terrorism, when the Palestinian people have a leadership acting decisively against terror and willing and able to build a practicing democracy based on tolerance and liberty, and through Israel's readiness to do what is necessary for a democratic Palestinian state to be established”

President Trump in his 2020 Peace Plan:
“The following criteria are a predicate to the formation of a Palestinian State and must be determined to have occurred by the State of Israel and the United States, jointly, acting in good faith, after consultation with the Palestinian Authority:

-The Palestinians shall have implemented a governing system with a constitution or another system for establishing the rule of law that provides for freedom of the press, free and fair elections, respect for human rights for its citizens, protection for religious freedom and for religious minorities to observe their faith, uniform and fair enforcement of law and contractual rights, due process under law, and an independent judiciary with appropriate legal consequences and punishment established for violations of the law.

-The Palestinians shall have ended all programs, including curricula and textbooks, that serve to incite or promote hatred or antagonism against its neighbours, or which compensate or incentivize criminal or violent activity.

ICYMI, here was tonight’s @newzionists debate between me and @PeterBeinart on Israel and the Palestinians. https://t.co/OpmkUqrRcg
— Josh Hammer (@josh_hammer) July 21, 2021

Israel’s Second Struggle for Independence (Vic Rosenthal)

(Judean Rose will be taking off for several weeks.)

Weekly column by Vic Rosenthal

Israel’s Second Struggle for Independence

The USA has been Israel’s greatest friend and supporter in recent years.

It is also Israel’s biggest problem.

Our dependence on American military aid has sharply limited our freedom of action, distorted our decisions about procurement of weapons, crippled the development of our own military industries, corrupted our decision-makers, and damaged our standing as a sovereign state.

It is true that on some occasions Israel has acted against America’s wishes, such as the bombing of the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981. It is also true that far more frequently, Israel has been forced to bow to US demands, even when they are not in her best interests. In several wars and smaller operations, cease-fires have been dictated by American pressure, although Israel would have preferred to continue fighting longer in order to achieve a decisive victory. During the Gulf War, the US prevented Israel from retaliating for Iraqi Scud attacks. In peacetime, US pressure has prevented Israel from building in Judea and Samaria, and forced Israel to accept Palestinian demands for the release of prisoners. American opposition was a major factor in the decision not to attack Iranian nuclear facilities in the 2010-2012 period.

Israel’s relationship with the US has been better or worse depending on the direction of political winds there, but pressure to reverse the outcome of the 1967 war has been a constant ever since – with the notable exception of the Trump administration, which for the first time recognized Israeli rights to Jerusalem and the Golan heights. But now it seems that the US is taking a turn in the other direction; and this time – thanks to Israel’s conclusive loss of the cognitive war for the consciousness of American elites, the partisan division of attitudes toward Israel, and the new strength of the radical Left in American politics – our time in the wilderness may turn out to be much longer than before.

The inroads being made by elements hostile to Israel into the American educational system, previously limited to higher education, but now reaching into high school and even grade school levels, are troubling. The “intersectional” connections being made between every progressive cause, and the politicization of almost every field of endeavor, have injected the issue of Israel vs. the Palestinians into places where it was not found before.

This is a problem, because our enemies – particularly Iran – are taking advantage of the less pro-Israel climate in the US. The Biden Administration, which has already significantly released the pressure on Iran, appears to be galloping toward a full removal of sanctions, whether or not it will gain significant leverage over their nuclear weapons program. Trump’s sanctions had sent the Iranian economy into a tailspin, which helped energize the Iranian opposition to the repressive and backward regime of the Ayatollahs. Even today, Iranians are in the streets protesting against the regime. But the removal of sanctions will not help them; the regime will funnel cash into its nuclear program, into the pro-Iranian militias in Iraq, Yemen, and Syria, and to build up Israel’s most dangerous enemy, Hezbollah.

At the same time, the Biden Administration, which has staffed its echelons dealing with the Middle East with people less than friendly to Israel – including some with a history of anti-Israel activism (see here, here, and here) – has already restored funding to the Palestinian Authority and UNRWA, plans to re-open the Jerusalem consulate, the unofficial “US Embassy to the State of Palestine” in Jerusalem, and to allow the PLO to restore its embassy in Washington.

A recent poll shows that the Democratic Party, which now controls the House, Senate and the Presidency, has moved significantly away from its formerly solid support for Israel in recent years, with sympathy for Israel among Democrats maintaining a slight edge of only 3 percentage points over sympathy for the Palestinians. The “liberal” wing of the party is far worse, with the Palestinians holding a 15% margin over Israel. Younger respondents also were more likely to favor the Palestinians, which argues for a continuation of the trend. And there is a very vocal contingent in the US Congress that is strongly anti-Israel, and not at all constrained from giving voice to the most extreme anti-Israel propaganda.

The Israeli leadership must come to understand that the continued expectation that Israel will receive military and diplomatic support from the US is unrealistic and dangerous. Israel needs to take action now, to reduce its dependence on the US, to increase its freedom of action, and to build up its own resources in important areas.

There is only one way for a small country in a strategic area to obtain independence from the various empires that wish to make it a satellite, and it is difficult and precarious. That is to play the empires off against one another, and to make alliances with other unaligned nations. I believe that Binyamin Netanyahu understood this, and made small but steady progress in this direction. It remains to be seen if the present government, whose foreign policy appears to be in the hands of the obsequious Yair Lapid, can pull this off.

From the military standpoint, Israel needs to be its own main source of supply. That has implications for the kind of military forces it can field. For example, it may be unrealistic to try to maintain a large fleet of the most sophisticated manned combat aircraft. Drones and precision-guided missiles are far less expensive than F-35s, and while they can’t entirely replace conventional aircraft, a small country will find it more practical to produce and maintain them.

There are also economic considerations. Iron Dome is a wonderful thing, but if it costs $100,000 to intercept a $500 rocket, then massive-scale use of it will bankrupt us. It is much less expensive to deter rocket attacks with the threat of forceful reprisals than to depend on antimissile systems to ward them off. The former strategy is more appropriate for a smaller country whose defense budget is not bottomless. I don’t suggest doing away with antimissile systems entirely, just changing our strategy so that we will not need so many of them.

I recommend that we start moving in this direction now, by agreeing with the US to a gradual phase-out of military aid. At the same time, we will have to revitalize our domestic military industries. Barack Obama very cleverly did not decrease the level of military aid we received, to maintain the maximum leverage over our actions. But the percentage of that aid that could be spent outside of the US was set to gradually drop to zero over the next few years. This had the effect of increasing the subsidy that aid to Israel provided to US defense contractors, and weakening Israel’s home-grown industry. This made us more dependent and at the same time reduced the competition to American weapons suppliers in the world market. A win-win-win for the US, but a loss for us.

America is changing in ways that are not good for America, and not good for us. I hope that the political/cultural pendulum in the US will swing the other way. Probably it will, if the nation survives the present storm intact. But here on the other side of the world, Israel’s enemies are not waiting with their hands folded. She will either adapt to the new situation or find herself in deep trouble

I'm continuing on with my reading of the journey of Israel Joseph Benjamin in the middle of the 19th century.

Here is what he encountered in Erbil, in what is now the Kurdistan portion of Iraq:

Erbil is divided into two parts ; of which the one lying on the mountain is the city, the other, in the vast plain is the seat of trade and industry. One hundred and fifty Jewish families dwell here whose Nassi is Mailum Mordecai; they are however mueh oppressed by the fanatic, rude and half civilized sects of Allah, of which I will relate some examples.

A short time before my arrival a Jewish girl emptying some dirty water into the street, accidentally besprinkled with it a Mussulman who happened to be passing by. Im- mediately a crowd assembled before the house, broke open the door, seized the girl, and heaped upon her all kinds of threatening abuse; asking her how she, the daughter of an accursed race, dare presume to insult a true believer. The girl defended herself to the best of her ability, but the leader of the uproar cried out to her: "There is only one way for thy escape, embrace our faith, and thou shalt marry one of our people, who is young, handsome, rich, and of a good family." But the girl refused and answered: "I am a Jewess, born so, and as such I will die; never will I deny my God, my people and my faith. If you kill me, God will demand of you my blood, and the Lord will avenge me." — After that they seized her, killed her before the eyes of her parents by stabbing her with their knives, and in tore her in pieces. —

The community desired at first prefer a complaint before the Pacha of Baghdad and afterwards at Constantinople, but they refrained from doing so for fear of other persecutions and of a general massacre.

In the same year Rabbi Perachia, a deputy of the Portuguese Jews at Jerusalem, who was commissioned to receive the charitable alms for the poor Jews of Jerusalem, died at Erbil, and was buried with all the honours belonging to his sacred office. The night following the burial the Musselmans tore the body out of the grave, cut off a hand, and threw the remains into an open ditch, without even a covering. The Jews repaired to the burial ground, and filled up the empty grave; that was all they ventured to do. The daily occurrence of such oppression has crushed them to such a degree, and the fear of still greater misfortune is so great, that they submit to anything without a murmur...

Another proof of religious oppression causes especial astonishment, because the intolerance of the Mussulmans does not otherwise cross the threshold of the house of God. The Jews of the lower part of the town had erected a new Synagogue and wished to convey solemnly into it according to custom, the manuscripts of the Law. On the road they were attacked by Musselmans, several of them killed, others wounded and the new Synagogue pulled down. Since then a second Temple has been built; but at the solemn conveyance of the Pentateuch into it the same scenes have been repeated.

I myself was a witness to the last disturbance, and can with justice proclaim the State of my brethren in Erbil to be a most unbearable one.

07/21 Links Pt1: State Dept. Rejects BDS After Ben & Jerry’s Joins Anti-Semitic Movement; B&J's board chaired by anti-Zionist; B&J’s Targets Anti-Semite Demographic With Audacious New Ice Cream Flavors

From Ian:

State Department Rejects BDS After Ben & Jerry’s Joins Anti-Semitic Movement

The State Department on Tuesday said it "firmly rejects" the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, just a day after ice cream giant Ben & Jerry's announced that it would stop selling its products in what it called "occupied Palestinian territory."

The left-wing ice cream company announced its support for the BDS movement, which seeks to wage economic warfare on Israel, by stating that its products will no longer be sold in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Supporters of the BDS movement, which is widely seen as anti-Semitic, say that these contested territories are Palestinian lands and that Israel is occupying them.

When asked to clarify the Biden administration's stance on the BDS movement in light of Ben & Jerry's decision, a State Department spokesman told the Washington Free Beacon, "The United States firmly rejects the BDS movement, which unfairly singles out Israel." The statement is likely to rankle far-left elements of the Democratic Party that have sought to push the Biden administration into endorsing BDS.

"While the Biden-Harris Administration will fully and always respect the American people's First Amendment rights, the United States will be a strong partner in fighting efforts to delegitimize Israel, and we will work tirelessly to support Israel's further integration into the international community," the spokesman said.

The ice cream company explained in a Monday statement on its decision that "it is inconsistent with our values for Ben & Jerry's ice-cream to be sold in the Occupied Palestinian Territory." The company will not renew its contract with the Israeli manufacturer that distributes its ice cream in Israel after it expires later this year.

Recently elected Israeli prime minister Naftali Bennett said Ben & Jerry's has "decided to brand itself as anti-Israel ice-cream."

Rep. Lee Zeldin (R., N.Y.), a leading pro-Israel lawmaker, accused the company of catering to anti-Semites and discriminating against Jews.

The decision "to target hundreds of thousands of Jewish customers abroad with this discriminatory boycott is a disgrace and a direct embrace of the anti-Israel BDS movement," Zeldin said, adding that he will pressure New York state to cut ties with the company under laws prohibiting the government from partnering with companies that back the BDS movement.

US State Department on @benandjerrys: We firmly reject the BDS movement, which unfairly singles out Israel.”

pic.twitter.com/wPZlu04aYt
— Emily Schrader - ????? ?????? (@emilykschrader) July 20, 2021

How US laws against Israel boycotts could hit Ben & Jerry’s

The board’s chairwoman, Anuradha Mittal, was furious with Unilever’s response, telling NBC that Unilever was “trying to destroy the soul of the company. We want this company to be led by values and not be dictated by the parent company.”

Mittal, an outspoken critic of Israel on social media, is the founder of the Oakland Institute, a progressive think tank that advocates on issues including trade and land rights.

Even though the current Ben & Jerry’s pledge says it will keep selling in the rest of Israel that it does not consider “occupied,” that may not protect the company from legal repercussions.

Among the 33 states with anti-BDS laws, 21 have measures that target boycotts that include areas controlled by Israel — meaning the West Bank. The language usually reads as it did in the Illinois law passed in 2015: “‘Boycott Israel’ means engaging in actions that are politically motivated and are intended to penalize, inflict economic harm on, or otherwise limit commercial relations with the State of Israel or companies based in the State of Israel or in territories controlled by the State of Israel.”

Ben & Jerry’s could not credibly claim that it does not understand that boycotting settlements would effectively lead to a boycott of all of Israel, argues Eugene Kontorovich, the director of the Center for the Middle East and International Law at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School.

Kontorovich, who is widely seen as an “intellectual architect” of the anti-BDS legislative push, noted that Israel’s laws effectively ban boycotts of the West Bank and that the term “Occupied Palestinian Territory” likely includes eastern Jerusalem, which Israel regards as its sovereign territory. (The company’s statement did not specify from which territories it was seeking to extract its ice cream.) “Ben & Jerry’s is doing this in full awareness that this will basically end their business with Israel,” Kontorovich said.

“Under Israeli law, a business can’t discriminate amongst Israeli citizens, regardless of where they live, and certainly in Israeli sovereign territory,” he added. “The licensee, in this case, understands this full well, and has explained to Ben & Jerry’s that [the licensee] really has no choice but to end its association with Ben & Jerry’s.”

@NYCMayor joins the #BoycottBenAndJerry movement. pic.twitter.com/zexRWw2nqv
— Rabbi Yisroel Kahan ???? (@ykahan) July 20, 2021

Ben & Jerry’s Targets Anti-Semite Demographic With Audacious New Ice Cream Flavors

Left-wing dessert has slaughtered millions through its contributions to the global obesity epidemic

Ben & Jerry's, a left-wing ice cream company owned by Unilever, announced Monday that it will stop selling its products in the so-called Occupied Palestinian Territory, more commonly known as the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

The company, which is at least partially responsible for the nearly three million annual deaths from obesity, argued that selling ice cream in those areas was "inconsistent with our values." Others argued the move was merely a performative display of anti-Semitism designed to appeal to journalists and other radical liberals.

New information exclusively obtained by the Washington Free Beacon suggests the company's commitment to anti-Semitism was the driving force behind the decision. Documents obtained by the Free Beacon reveal that Ben & Jerry's plans to target the anti-Semite demographic with an extensive ad campaign touting the release of at least five new ice cream flavors.

Ilhan Omar's All About The Benjalmonds

The Women's March Presents: FarraCone Fudge Factory

Yasser Arafat's First Mintifada

Rothschild's Raspberry Conspiracy

Moodolf's Final TiramiSolution

How can Israel overcome the pervasive lies about it? (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

After Israel's miraculous victory in the Six-Day War -- has Israel ever not had a problem with its image?

Israel's image problem got so bad that in April 2007, Newsweek described the quandary the Jewish State found itself in as Girls: Israel's racy new PR strategy:

The Israeli consular official based in New York approached Maxim six months ago. His proposal: the government and other pro-Israeli groups would fly a camera crew across the Atlantic in an effort to remake the Jewish state's public image. Israel's reputation had suffered after last summer's war with Lebanon; in a recent BBC poll taken in 27 countries, 56 percent of respondents considered Israel a "negative influence" in the world, higher than both Iran and the United States. But Israel's real PR problem, according to [the Israeli official], is that Americans—particularly men aged 18 to 35—either associate the country with war or holy relics, or don't think of it at all. "We have to find the right hook," he says. "And what's relevant to men under 35? Good-looking women." [emphasis added]

Newsweek goes on to quote Benny Elon, a former tourism minister and then a settler leader, who described Israel's marketing strength as being "the only state where you can take the Bible as your tourism guide." Based on that, Elon was open to a recommendation by the consulting firm Ernst & Young to target American evangelical Christian tourists, though focusing on attracting Christian tourists could alienate secular liberals.

Which brings us to 2008, and a new approach.

That was the year that Nefesh B'Nefesh's hosted an International Jewish Bloggers Convention. Zavi Apfelbaum, Director of Brand Management of the Foreign Ministry was a featured speaker and described the problem of Israel's negative image. She illustrated the issue with the results of focus groups where small groups of Americans were asked to imagine themselves invited to different homes, each one inhabited by people from a different country, and to describe what they expected to see and experience at each home.

The houses were described as warm, welcoming and colorful, filled with good food, talk and laughter.

But not Israel.

As opposed to all the other homes, the Israeli home was dominated with cement and did not have a grass lawn. The man of the house answers the door and the woman of the home is not even seen. One participant said that it would be uncomfortable to enter, because the home would be 'Orthodox' and the people living there would probably not even want guests.

These are the impressions people had, from Apfelbaum's presentation:

Hat tip: Mystical Paths

Here were intelligent Americans, people who tended to support Israel -- and yet they had no clue as to what Israel and Israelis were really like. Americans supported Israel, but not because they actually understood or could really identify with her.

Apfelbaum described the solution to the problem as "Nation Branding" or "Country Positioning," which would be a departure from the traditional Hasbarah approach, which assumed that Israel's image problem was due to a lack of knowledge, and that the goal was to gain political support.

As described earlier that year by Ido Aharoni, founder of the ministry’s Brand Israel concept, the problem was that

Israel is viewed solely through the narrow prism of the Arab-Israeli conflict…Israel’s personality is 90 per cent dominated by conflict-related images and some religious connotations. Those of us who know the brand intimately are disturbed by the divergence of brand and the perception. [emphasis added]

The new approach would take into account that

aspects of Israel are worthy of promotion, including its culture and arts; its accomplishments on environmental matters such as water desalination, solar energy and clean technology; its high-tech successes and achievements in higher education; and its involvement in international aid, he added.

This was not an entirely new approach to Israel advocacy. An article in The Forward from 2005 describes the competition between the old approach -- presenting Israel's side in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict -- and the new approach:

The new approach to Israeli image control first began to take on institutional form about four years ago with the founding of Israel21c, a small California-based group that has worked with public relations experts to place news stories about Israel that do not focus on the conflict with the Palestinians. The organization has a Web site where it posts articles about, among other things, medical and technological advances in Israeli laboratories.

...The battle of old approach versus new has been crystallized in the competition between Israeli21c and The Israel Project, another American group formed at about the same time. The Israel Project has followed the more traditional path of presenting Israel’s side of the conflict with the Palestinians. Among other things, The Israel Project has paid to air ads in influential markets touting Israel’s commitment to peace and democracy.

Larry Weinberg, executive vice president of Israel 21c, called The Israel Project’s work “crisis management” and said that such efforts frequently end up reinforcing Israel’s image as a conflict-ridden place. [emphasis added]

Comparing the goals then with the way Israel is perceived today, it would seem that the new approach has been a success: Israel today is in fact identified with hi-tech and international aid.

The question is: has this new approach actually helped Israel's image?

According to a 2017 article from JTA, via Haaretz -- not so much, claiming that, The more Americans learn about Israel, the less they like it, study suggests. Those studies are by the Brand Israel Group, which was launched by Ido Aharoni in 2002. In addition to focus groups in 2005, it also commissioned surveys in 2010 and 2016.

Those surveys found that across every demographic group except college students, knowledge of Israel increased: while 23% of Americans claimed they knew a fair amount about Israel in 2010, in 2016 that number had increased to 37%.

And at first glance, that sounds encouraging:

Israel’s touting of its tech industry, warm climate and Mediterranean food may have worked a bit on Americans, who view Israel as innovative (78 percent) and cool (63 percent).

Israel's image, however, did not change in the process:

But around three-quarters of Americans still see Israel as dominated by conflict. And though only 10 percent of Israeli Jews are Haredi Orthodox, 73 percent of Americans view Israel as ultra-religious. [emphasis added]

And when it comes to viewing Israel favorably, things are not getting any better:

The groups with relatively high levels of favorability toward Israel, according to the study, included men, Republicans and older Americans. The groups that like Israel less are the mirror image: women, Democrats and millennials, along with African-Americans and Latinos. And those population groups are all growing.

A majority of all of these groups still sees Israel favorably, but the numbers are falling. Favorability among Democrats dropped 13 points, from 73 percent to 60 percent. Among women, it dropped from 74 percent to 57 percent.

Among African-Americans and Latinos, favorability toward Israel fell 20 points each, from about three-quarters each to just over half. Fewer than half of African Americans and Latinos believe “Israel shares my values.”

That was in 2017.
And we all know that 4 years later, things have only gotten worse.

But wait.

How can Americans say they know more about Israel if they still think that Israel consists of fundamentalist, religious fanatics?

The JTA article doesn't address this, but the answer may be that when people claim they are more knowledgeable about Israel, they are in fact confusing their knowledge of Israel with the added exposure they get to Israel on social media.

And that is something that the marketing gurus and branding experts might not have anticipated 16 years ago.

A 2005 article on the Israel21c website quotes a marketing CEO who explained that the fact that Americans see Israel as a war-torn country as opposed to a hi-tech wonder

doesn’t mean Americans are anti-Israel or pro-Palestinian. They just find Israel to be totally irrelevant to their lives, and they are tuning out, and that is particularly true for 18- to 34-year-old males, the most significant target in such studies. [emphasis added]

And according to Aharoni, part of that tuning out is because of “media fatigue,” and that the longer the Israeli-Palestinian conflict goes on, the less interested Americans become and the more they blame both sides for not ending the violence.

Larry Weinberg, executive vice president of ISRAEL21c chimes in that, "When it comes to Israel, 98 percent of what the media focuses on is the war with the Palestinians and 98 percent of pro-Israel advocacy is going to waste because it’s all about the crisis.” --

Proving that Israel is right and the Palestinians are wrong may be emotionally satisfying for advocates, said the former New York public relations expert, but not necessarily effective in changing people's way of thinking about Israel.
“We’re not saying there should be no more discussion of political policy,” he said, “only that we have to change the mix. Let’s not spend almost all of our time on it. We need a strategy that includes more positive imaging.”

The thing is, people are not tuning out to news about Israel.
There does not appear to be media fatigue or less interest.
And defending Israel on social media is not as emotionally satisfying as Weinberg makes it out to be.
In fact, it takes a toll.

This month, a poll came out finding that 25% of American Jews consider Israel to be an Apartheid state and 22% thought Israel was guilty of genocide. Despite questions on the objectivity of the poll, the results point to a major failure in the Jewish leadership in the US.

And a failure by Israel.

David Horovitz writes in the Times of Israel:

A multitude of factors, some of them far beyond Israel’s control, have led to poll findings such as these. But self-evidently, Israel would help its standing if it explained itself more effectively.

Yet Israel has a long history of failure in doing this.
According to Horovitz, just this past May, during Operation Guardian of the Walls:

o There was no experienced English-language spokesperson to regularly present Israel’s point of view to the media

o  Instead, the job of explaining the war was left to the IDF and to its Spokesperson’s Unit

o  But instead of presenting the context of the war for an international audience, the IDF’s prime focus was on Hamas and Gaza’s other terror groups, to impress upon them the IDF’s strength and capabilities.

o  Among the IDF's "diplomatic" failures were its attempts to deceive world media -- and Hamas -- with false information about a ground offensive and its inability to quickly produce compelling evidence to the public of why it was necessary to destroy a Gaza high-rise that it claimed was a Hamas military asset where the Associated Press had its offices.

o  In the US, Israel’s demanding diplomatic posts of ambassador to the US and ambassador to the UN were filled by one man, Gilad Erdan, who, according to Horovitz "avoided almost all of an avalanche of interview requests, apparently because he was concerned that his English, though serviceable, is not entirely up to the task."

o  The office of consul general in New York was unfilled at the time

o  Major international diplomatic posts, including the ambassadors to Canada, France and Australia, were vacant.

o  Prime Minister Bennet has no English-language spokesperson yet.

o  Erdan has stepped down as ambassador to the United States but has not been replaced

Let the experts argue about the best approach to improving Israel's image.

But first, Israel must finally address the bread-and-butter need for hasbara, to clearly present its case -- not just to its allies, but to Jews around the world inundated with the overwhelming flood of hate in social media, and threatened by the spike in antisemitic attacks that result from it.

From Notes from Poland:

At an anti-vaccine protest in Poland [Sunday,] participants chanted that “Jews are behind the pandemic” and “rule the world”.

In Głogów, a town of 70,000 in western Poland, followers of the local football team on Sunday held the latest in a series of protests against restrictions and vaccines. They called on people to join “the fight for our common future” against “the globalists”.

At [Sunday's] event, a man leading chanting through a megaphone asked the crowd: “We know who is behind this whole ‘plandemic’ and who rules the world, right?” In response, someone shouted “Jews”, and the man replied, “Of course it’s the Jews”.

The crowd then chanted together: “Every Pole can see today that behind the ‘plandemic’ are the Jews” (Dzisiaj każdy Polak widzi, że za plandemią stoją Żydzi).

Over 100 people attended the march, according to NaszeMiasto. Among them were families with children. Many carried white-and-red Polish flags or wore other patriotic symbols. Some also lit flares.

Separately, the far-right Confederation (Konfederacja) party – which has also been involved in protests against coronavirus restrictions – shared a video of one of its supporters saying that she “does not want Jewry” in Poland.

Confederation’s social media profiles shared a video of one of its supporters explaining why she likes the party. “Because I don’t want Jewry, I don’t want LGBT,” she said. “Only Confederation can ensure such normality.”

Following publication of the video, several firms cancelled contracts with the woman shown in it, Samuela Górska, who is a professional model, reports Wirtualne Media.

Górska has been deleting critical comments on her Instagram and Facebook pages.

Between Monday and Tuesday evenings HRW head Ken Roth posted no fewer than ten tweets blaming Israel or Jews for something or another.

This is clearly in response to the criticism he weathered when he essentially blamed antisemitism on Jews on Sunday, showing that in the face of adversity he will redouble his public campaign against Israel and Jews.

He deleted that tweet but didn't apologize - in fact, he instead said that his critics are all idiots for not understanding what he meant, rather they reacted to what he actually wrote.

Really.

He originally wrote, "Antisemitism is always wrong, and it long preceded the creation of Israel, but the surge in UK antisemitic incidents during the recent Gaza conflict gives the lie to those who pretend that the Israeli government's conduct doesn't affect antisemitism. "

On Tuesday, he wrote, "I deleted an earlier tweet because people misinterpreted its wording. " Not "I worded it wrong" but "I'm right, everyone else doesn't understand my English."

He also wrote no less than six tweets about the NSO Group, which makes spyware purchased by many governments, and which was reportedly used for spying on journalists and political opponents. There are many companies that provide tools that governments (and others) can use to illegally spy on citizens, and there is no evidence that the government of Israel knew what NSO was doing - in fact, after the story, the government said that it will investigate the claims. Yet Roth invariably emphasizes "the Israeli NSO group" as if the fact that it is in Israel is what is so damning about it.

(I am not convinced about the story altogether. It is based wholly on a list of 50,000 supposed targets that were "leaked" but no one says where it was leaked from. NSO denies that the list came from them, and there is no reason a company like that would maintain a list of targets from its disparate clients. The investigators are not saying where this list came from. This mystery list is a pretty big hole in the story. It is quite likely that governments that bought NSO Pegasus spyware misused it - any weapon can and will be misused - but the evidence that NSO is culpable for that is thinner than being reported, and there is even less evidence that Israel knew about it.)

Roth- human rights activist - then weighed in on the Ben and Jerry's story, twice. He claimed, incredibly, that anyone selling ice cream to Jews who live in Judea and Samaria are complicit in war crimes. Just like genocide.

But that wasn't enough for Roth. He also tweeted this:

As American Jews turn on the Israeli government for its repression of Palestinians, the government increasingly relies on American evangelical Christians for support, even though their support is based on beliefs that ultimately leave no room for Jews.

The article is behind a paywall. but based on the subhead and Roth's penchant for adding his own opinion as if they are in the link, Roth's comments on evangelicals are probably mostly his.

Even if evangelical teachings say that Jews will eventually be destroyed or converted, unless they are doing the destroying themselves, who cares? Jews don't believe in it! It is better to have allies who support you than as-a-Jew enemies like Roth who actively work to destroy you!

And if Jews should be concerned about working together with members of a religion whose teachings include antisemitism, then that means that Roth would advise Israeli Jews to never work with Muslims!

Roth is obsessed with Israel and Jews.