Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Tuesday, December 07, 2021

The "Jewish Faculty Network" - Canadian group formed specifically to fight the IHRA

Last March, 140 faculty members in Canada signed a statement against the IHRA definition of antisemitism.

As with literally every other criticism of the IHRA Working Definition, they do not mention that it explicitly contradicts what they claim it says.

We write as Jewish faculty from across Canadian universities and colleges with deep concern regarding recent interventions on our campuses relating to Israel and Palestine. Addressing all forms of racism and discrimination, including antisemitism, is imperative at this historical moment. Among the signatories, many share family histories profoundly and intimately shaped by the Holocaust. We write out of a strong commitment to justice, which for some of us is vital to an ethical Jewish life.

We add our voices to a growing international movement of Jewish scholars to insist that university policies to combat antisemitism are not used to stifle legitimate criticisms of the Israeli state, or the right to stand in solidarity with the Palestinian people. We recognize that the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement is a legitimate, non-violent form of protest. While not all of us endorse the BDS movement we oppose equating its support with antisemitism. We also are deeply disturbed by the upsurge of antisemitic acts in recent years which display painfully familiar forms of antisemitism.

We are specifically concerned with recent lobbying on our campuses for the adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism. This definition offers a vague and worrisome framing of antisemitism as “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews” and that may be “directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property.” The most serious problem however is that the definition is tied to a series of examples of which many are criticisms of the Israeli state.

Notice that these people who claim to be mainstream Jews have a hard time saying the word "Israel," instead making up something called "the Israeli state."

The IHRA working definition says as clearly as possible that "criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic." It also says that the examples given are dependent on context. Beyond that, it states that the definition is non-legally binding.

These signatories knowingly lie about it.

If this group, and the many critics of the IHRA, really cared about antisemitism and freedom to criticize Israel, they would highlight the parts of the definition that support their views if - as they claim - it is used to silence them. But they support the idea that one should be allowed to criticize Israel out of proportion to criticism of every other state. They deny that left-wing antisemitism even exists. They deny that Arab antisemitism exists.

To them, antisemitism is the Holocaust, Nazis, the KKK - and not much else.

It takes a great deal of hate to create an organization dedicated to minimizing the definition of antisemitism.

The ironic part is that IHRA could support legitimate criticism of Israel. These efforts to quash it show that legitimate criticism is the last thing they are interested in.

People who really care about antisemitism don't try to minimize the definition of antisemitism, just as people who really care about racism wouldn't exert effort to limit what is considered racist. These Jews want to enable most types of modern antisemitism, not fight it.

The letter came and went with little notice but the faculty members' hate of Israel didn't disappear. So they now decided to create an entire organization dedicated to telling the world that they aren't that kind of Jew who supports the existence of a state that is a safe haven for Jews.

So they are relaunching their "network" that was already launched in March, and scheduled a press conference for Thursday.

Notice that they chose a name, "Jewish Faculty Network," to make it appear like they have the support of most Jewish faculty. This is especially ironic since they say as one of their principles, "we oppose the intervention on campuses that level spurious charges of antisemitism from organizations claiming to represent a singular 'Jewish community.' Not in our name. " Yet they are doing the same thing! Their claim to represent Jews is their very claim to legitimacy.

JFN is just another group of hypocrites who hide their hate behind claims of caring about justice, peace, academic freedom and fighting antisemitism.

12/07 Links Pt1: Does the UN have a moral compass?; Netherlands Court Rejects Lawsuit Against Israel’s Gantz Over 2014 Gaza Strike; Why an airstrike on Syria's Latakia Port matters

From Ian:

David Singer: Does the UN have a moral compass?

The term “West Bank” was coined in 1950 to designate 4% of the territory of former Palestine west of the Jordan River - called “Judea and Samaria” for the previous 3000 years - which was unified with an additional 78% of the territory of former Palestine east of the Jordan River - called Transjordan - to form a new territorial entity renamed “Jordan”.

Wennesland’s use of the stand-alone term “West Bank” without any reference to its 3000 years old historic name indicates the immoral depths to which the UN and its officials have sunk.

After all - the UN itself had used the term “Judea and Samaria” in Resolution 181 (II) on 29 November 1947:
“The boundary of the hill country of Samaria and Judea starts on the Jordan River at the Wadi Malih south-east of Beisan”

The UN Special Commission on Palestine also used the term “Judea and Samaria” in its 1947 Report:
“...the interior of the country is very mountainous with the hills of Judea and Samaria in the centre”

Removing any possible identification with Jews and Jewish history by expunging any reference to “Judea and Samaria” – the Jewish People’s ancient and biblical heartland – exposes the UN’s anti-Jewish bias in papering over Jewish claims to this disputed territory in favour of an invented fake pro-Arab claim made for the first time in history in the 1964 PLO Charter.

“The Palestinian Authority”
On January 3, 2013 - the term “Palestinian Authority” was replaced by the term “State of Palestine” - when Mahmoud Abbas, acting in his capacities as President of the State of Palestine and Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization, signed “Decree No. 1 for the year 2013.”

Article 1 of the decree states:
“Official documents, seals, signs and letterheads of the Palestinian National Authority official and national institutions shall be amended by replacing the name ‘Palestinian National Authority’ whenever it appears by the name ‘State of Palestine’ and by adopting the emblem of the State of Palestine.”

Article 4 states:
“All competent authorities, each in their respective area, shall implement this Decree starting from its date.”

What motivates the UN and its officials to still turn a blind eye to this official name change after almost 9 years?

The UN continues to lose its credibility, neutrality and impartiality as it and its officials use language and terminology which is antithetical to seeking an end to the Arab-Jewish conflict.

Sticks and stones won’t break the UN’s bones– but waging semantic warfare against Israel is certainly doing just that.

Czech FM: We changed our UN vote on Jerusalem to say no to antisemitism

The Czech Republic took a stand against antisemitism when it changed its voting pattern and for the first time rejected the United Nations General Assembly’s Jerusalem resolution, the country’s Foreign Minister Jakub Kulhánek told The Jerusalem Post.

“There is a rising tide of antisemitism around the world,” said Kulhánek, who, during his seven months in office, has been a staunch ally of the Jewish state.

He was one of a small number of European foreign ministers who made a solidarity trip to Israel during the Gaza war in May.

Last week at the UN he took another important step in Israel’s defense when it came to the Jerusalem resolution, which refers to the Temple Mount solely by its Muslim name of al-Haram al-Sharif.

Already back in 2016, Kulhánek said, “The EU foreign ministers agreed on using both terms when referring to the holy sites in Jerusalem.” This includes the Temple Mount, which, as the location of the ancient Jewish Temple, is the most holy site in Judaism. As the place from where Muhammad ascended to heaven on his night journey, it is the third holiest site in Islam.

The holy site should be referred in UN documents as “Temple Mount/al-Haram al-Sharif,” Kulhánek explained. The EU has attempted to push for the site to be referenced this way, but “needless to say, we have not been very successful,” Kulhánek said.

In 2018, the Czech Republic, along with the entire 28-member European Union bloc, supported the UNGA text, which was approved 148-11 with 14 abstentions.

By Daled Amos

When Holocaust deniers are not going around denying that the Holocaust ever happened or claiming that it is exaggerated, they like to make comparisons between Israel and Nazis.

In an interview in 2011 with Haaretz, the Holocaust historian Deborah Lipstadt called these sorts of comparisons "Holocaust abuse":

Renowned Holocaust historian Deborah Lipstadt says that American and Israeli politicians who invoke the Holocaust for contemporary political purposes are engaging in “Holocaust abuse”, which is similar to “soft-core denial” of the Holocaust...

“When you take these terrible moments in our history, and you use it for contemporary purposes, in order to fulfill your political objectives, you mangle history, you trample on it,” she said. [emphasis added]

Strong words.
And Lipstadt knows what she is talking about.

After all, this past July Biden nominated Lipstadt as Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism.

So how did Lipstadt react a little over a month later, when Biden was on the presidential campaign and said about Trump:

He’s sort of like Goebbels. You say the lie long enough, keep repeating it, repeating it, repeating it, it becomes common knowledge

Lipstadt supported the comparison to Goebbels:

Goebbels was very successful at what he did, and I think the comparison by Vice President Biden was a very apt comparison because we’re seeing a lot of this now.

In a tweet that she later deleted, Lipstadt went further, claiming that

had VP Biden — or anyone else — compared him to what Hitler, Himmler, Heydrich, or Eichmann did, she/he would have been wrong. But a comparison to the master of the big lie, Josef Goebbels? That's historically apt. It's all about historical nuance.

Goebbels was more than a master propagandist. He was a supporter of the Final Solution.
Nuance only goes so far.

As Melanie Phillips notes:

But it wasn’t apt at all. The comparison was indefensible. Not only was it an egregiously unjustified smear against Trump; more importantly, it downplayed the evil of Goebbels and grossly disrespected the memory of those who were slaughtered in the Holocaust.

For it wasn’t simply that Goebbels was a lying propagandist. It was that he was a Nazi committed to the extermination of the Jews. To compare Trump to such an individual was ridiculous and shameful, and should have been robustly condemned.

And 3 days after Biden's comment, when the Jewish Democratic Council of America released a video comparing the Trump presidency to the Nazi era...

Unlike the ADL, The American Jewish Committee and The Simon Wiesenthal Center -- who all called for the JDC ad to be taken down -- Lipstadt again supported the use of Nazi images for political purposes:

But in the current era, Lipstadt said, the key to acceptable Holocaust comparisons is precision and nuance. Is it the Holocaust? No. But does the current era presage an authoritarian takeover? Maybe.

“People ask me, is this Kristallnacht?” she said. “Is this the beginning of pogroms, etc.? I don’t think those comparisons are correct. “However, I do think certain comparisons are fitting … it’s certainly not 1938,” when Nazis led the Kristallnacht pogroms throughout Germany. “It’s not even September 1935, and the Nuremberg Laws” institutionalizing racist policies.

“What it well might be is December 1932, Hitler comes to power on Jan. 30, 1933 — it might be Jan. 15, 1933.” [emphasis added]

So contrary to her comment in the tweet she deleted, Lipstadt actually does draw a connection between Trump and Hitler.

Nuance, indeed.

Now that Lipstadt has helpfully established that Holocaust comparisons are permitted when they adhere to "precision and nuance," are the people most likely to exploit Holocaust comparisons really going to care -- and how would Lipstadt as Antisemitism Envoy condemn Holocaust comparisons without those doing it laughing at her for her double standard?

For example -- just this week: European Jewish group outraged by use of yellow star during demonstration in Brussels against corona measures:

The European Jewish Association (EJA) reacted with outrage to the image of a yellow star, symbol of Nazi persecution of Jews, used by protestors during a demonstration in Brussels against the governmental corona measures on Sunday.

In a statement, EJA Chairman Rabbi Menachem Margolin said: “It is hard to know where to begin with how wrong this is.’’

Rabbi Margolin goes on to point out how comparisons with the Holocaust demonstrate a lack of understanding for the magnitude of what the Holocaust was:

It makes me sick to think how little people understand the hurt that such banners cause, and how little people have a true understanding and appreciation of the sheer scale and magnitude of the Holocaust. To those who marched today with a huge Yellow star, I say this: “just don’t. No matter how you feel about covid restrictions, nobody is tattooing your arms, nobody is herding you onto cattle trucks, and nobody wants you, your families and all your loved ones to die. Above all, educate yourselves and learn what this yellow star truly represents.”

Would Lipstadt echo Rabbi Margolin's words? Probably.

But how does someone who compares a president of the United States with the Nazi Goebbels ("60 percent of [the Jews] will have to be liquidated, while only 40 percent can be put to work...A judgment is being carried out on the Jews that is barbaric but thoroughly deserved") go on to lecture others who use a yellow star to describe what they consider draconian corona measures?

Another question is: what about Democrats -- has Lipstadt been as critical of them?

According to Fox News:

President Biden’s nominee to serve as U.S. Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism once blasted Rep. Ilhan Omar’s controversial statements criticizing Israel.

And The New York Post reports:

President Biden’s pick to serve as special envoy to monitor and combat anti-Semitism has previously slammed Rep. Ilhan Omar for criticizing Israel.

But actually, in contrast to her comments on Trump that were made in public, Lipstadt's comments about Omar were made in response to a question during an interview:

Adam Rubenstein: As you begin to define antisemitism in your new book, Antisemitism: Here and Now, you write that “Antisemitism is not simply the hatred of something ‘foreign’ but the hatred of a perpetual evil in this world.” So on Rep. Ilhan Omar’s recent comment about “foreign allegiance” in the context of pro-Israel Americans, and in discussion of her Jewish colleagues; what do you make of it? Is this textbook antisemitism?

Deborah Lipstadt: Sadly, I believe it is. Dual loyalties is part of the textbook accusations against Jews. They are cosmopolitans, globalists, not loyal to their country or fellow citizens.

Further on in the interview, it becomes clear that Lipstadt neither "blasts" nor "smashes" Omar's comments. Instead, she manages to criticize the statements, without condemning the person -- a far more judicious approach -- unlike in her comments about Trump.

But she bent over backward to excuse Omar:

AR: In your view, are Rep. Omar’s statements antisemitic or are they simply anti-Israel? Antisemitism and anti-Zionism aren’t in theory the same thing, but they often have connection points. Is what Rep. Omar says, her “foreign allegiance” comment, her support for BDS, and that support for Israel in Congress is “about the Benjamins,” i.e. Jewish money, simply “critical of Israel” or does it cross the line into antisemitism?

DL: This is such a nuanced topic and I deal with it in depth in the book. But simply put, (and giving her the benefit of the doubt… which is harder to do each time she engages in one of these attacks), she may think she is only criticizing Israel and its policies but one cannot ignore the fact that she is relying on traditional antisemitic tropes to do so...

Lipstadt goes even further in this comment, putting Omar in a select category of antisemitism:

What it suggests to me is that, at best, these people exist in a place where antisemitism is out in the ethosphere; they hear it, breath it in, and don’t even recognize it as antisemitism.

Similarly, in the case of Rev. Raphael Warnock, during the special election for senator of Georgia -- despite the anti-Israel sermon he gave in 2018, Lipstadt defended Warnock's later claim 2 years later in 2020 that he was pro-Israel.

Here is the key excerpt of the sermon:

As described by Jewish Insider:

Warnock’s 2018 sermon was delivered shortly after the opening of the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem. “It’s been a tough week,” Warnock noted. “The administration opened up the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem. Standing there [were] the president’s family and a few mealy-mouthed evangelical preachers who are responsible for the mess that we found ourselves in, both there and here — misquoting and misinterpreting the Scripture, talking about peace.”

Warnock went on to compare the struggle for Palestinian rights with the Black Lives Matter movement. “Meanwhile, young Palestinian sisters and brothers, who are struggling for their very lives, struggling for water and struggling for their human dignity stood up in a non-violent protest, saying, ‘If we’re going to die, we’re going to die struggling.’ And yes, there may have been some folk who were violent, but we oughta know how that works out,” Warnock said. “We know what it’s like to stand up and have a peaceful demonstration and have the media focus on a few violent uprisings. But you have to look at those Palestinian sisters and brothers, who are struggling for their human dignity and they have a right to self-determination, they have a right to breathe free.”

“We need a two-state solution where all of God’s children can live together,” Warnock proclaimed in the 2018 video before proceeding to charge Israel with shooting innocent Palestinians. “We saw the government of Israel shoot down unarmed Palestinian sisters and brothers like birds of prey. And I don’t care who does it, it is wrong. It is wrong to shoot down God’s children like they don’t matter at all. And it’s no more antisemitic for me to say that than it is anti-white for me to say that Black lives matter. Palestinian lives matter.” [emphasis added]

Faced with his past remarks accusing Israel of killing peaceful Palestinian Arabs, Warnock's campaign gave an evasive response that posting the video showed that the other campaign was rummaging around videos to 'misrepresent' his actual views.

But just one year before the Georgia election, in March 2019, Warnock signed onto the Group Pilgrimage Statement on Israel and Palestine, which featured common distortions about Israel, including associating it with apartheid:

j. We saw the patterns that seem to have been borrowed and perfected from other previous oppressive regimes:

i. The ever-present physical walls that wall in Palestinians in a political wall reminiscent of the Berlin Wall.
ii. Roads built through occupied Palestinian villages, on which Palestinians are not permitted to drive; and homes and families divided by walls and barriers.
iii. The heavy militarization of the West Bank, reminiscent of the military occupation of Namibia by apartheid South Africa.
iv. The laws of segregation that allow one thing for the Jewish people and another for the Palestinians; we saw evidence of forced removals; homes abandoned, olive trees uprooted or confiscated and taken over, shops and businesses bolted with doors welded to close out any commercial activities. [emphasis added]

Yet Warnock's stand on Israel just a year after that is supposed to show that he did an about-face, now supporting Israel.

He even appeared at AIPAC. Lipstadt writes:

How, I wondered, could someone who had said that, show up at AIPAC? To answer this question, I read his policy paper on Israel. In it, he expressed unequivocal support for Israel, for a strong U.S.-Israel relationship, for a two-state solution, and for the $38 billion Memorandum of Understanding, which when signed in 2016 constituted the largest pledge of bilateral military assistance in U.S. history. He also unequivocally opposed conditioning aid to Israel, as some have proposed.

Lipstadt says that Warnock's new support for Israel answers the question of how he could appear at AIPAC. One might argue that such an abrupt change just one year later only deepens the questions.

In a piece for The Washington Examiner, Jackson Richman includes Lipstadt's support for Warnock as one of the reasons that Deborah Lipstadt should be voted down by the Senate:

Lipstadt said Warnock had come around on Israel-related issues — never mind that he did not apologize or repudiate his past statements and activities on that issue — such as opposing conditioning U.S. assistance to the Jewish state. She argued, "It would be hard for Warnock to repudiate his most recent views as expressed in his Israel policy paper and numerous interviews."
Except it would not have been hard to offer a sincere apology.

It's an odd argument for Lipstadt to make -- vote for Warnock, because even if he is not sincere in his current pro-Israel position, at least he won't be able to easily go back to his previously anti-Israel position.

But all this talk about Lipstadt being Antisemitism Envoy may be for naught, anyway.

Not because her nomination has stalled in the Senate.
But who's to say that Biden will pay any attention to Lipstadt anyway when it is politically inconvenient?

When Fox News wanted to report on the White House reaction to Lipstadt's criticism of Omar -- there wasn't any:

However; when asked if the administration agreed with its nominee’s views on Omar’s comments, the White House was silent, not responding to Fox News’ request for comment.

The Squad can rest easy.

Tweeter Sarahoftheworld has a brilliant thread of positions that "anti-Zionists" have which contradict each other.

She starts off asking, "Are Jews European colonizers or are Arabs semites too and therefore can’t be antisemitic?"

She goes on:

- Judaism is just a religion but Israel is an ethnostate.

- Mizrahim are 'Arab Jews' but Israelis are appropriating Arab cuisine.

- Judaism have nothing to do with Zionism but Zionists base their claims on Jewish scripture.

- Ashkenazim are fake jews but the Neturei Karta are invited to every anti-Israel rally because they’re the "real Jews."

- Jews are violating human rights when praying at ancient sites but there should be a one-state solution with religious freedom for all.

- It is antisemitic to identify all Jews with Israel but it is ok to ask all Jews their thoughts on Israel/Palestine before they are allowed in your spaces.

Others added more:

- UN resolutions prove that Israel is evil, but the resolution that called for the creation of a Jewish state has no validity.

- Jewish ties to the Temple Mount are an obstacle to peace but Muslim ties to Al Aqsa is an essential part of Palestinian statehood.

- Welcoming refugees is a moral duty and opposing immigration is immoral, but Jews had no right to immigrate to Palestine and Israel because it went against what the Arabs wanted.

- The Arab world has one unified identity but the Palestinians are a distinct and ancient people.

- Israel is a colonial outpost of the West but the West slavishly follows what the Zionists tell them to do.

- It is wrong to conflate anti-Zionism and antisemitism, but antisemitic attacks are often justifiable because of Israeli actions.

- Jewish history is irrelevant to justify Israel's existence but Palestinians are descended from ancient Canaanites.

- The territories are part of Palestine but most Palestinians who live there are refugees.

- Israel is guilty of ethnically cleansing Arabs but a Palestinian state should be Judenrein.

- Israel brought in Ethiopian Jews for demographic reasons - and then sterilized the women.

- Antisemitism is wrong but Jews are privileged and cannot be victims of racism.

I can add some:

- A Jewish state is immoral but another Arab state is essential for peace.

- Everyone deserves human rights, but Jews must be forcibly removed from their homes.

- The Holocaust is a myth but the Jews deserved it (and Zionists were complicit.)

- International law that is meant to protect civilians supports Arabs murdering Jews.

One can argue that some of these contradictions are really from different people - the socialist anti-Zionists don't necessarily agree with the Islamist anti-Zionism arguments. But note that they hardly ever publicly disagree. No Leftist "anti-Zionist" is condemning Hamas or the PA for saying they want a state based on Sharia law. None of them call out Arab antisemitism. Supposed "human rights activists" are silent about Arab terror yet scream about Israelis defending themselves from that terror. The main complaints about the Palestinian Authority is that they are too Zionist, not that they glorify killing Jews.

The only common thread among the "anti-Zionist" crowd is that all these contradictory arguments are meant to cleanse the Middle East of Jews, or at the very least to strip Jews of any political power in the region.

Yes, that is antisemitism.

(h/t Barbara Mazor)

Mahmoud Abbas is on a three day visit to Algeria, meeting with Algerian president Abdelmadjid Tebboune.

One reason for the visit appears to be to beg for money, and that has been successful: Tebboune pledged $100 million to the PA. (Whether he will follow through is a different question.)

But the other reason for the visit was because of the upcoming Arab League summit to be held in Algeria in March.

Palestinian minister of foreign affairs Riyad Al-Maliki told Algerian public radio, "This visit takes place to consolidate coordination between the State of Palestine and Algeria, in order to inscribe the Palestinian cause as the central point on the agenda of the Arab League meeting."

Tebboune again pledged to do Abbas' wishes. He said Monday that Algeria will “put the Palestinian cause at the center of this important event.”

Not too long ago, the Palestinians could count on unanimous support in every Arab League meeting. The Palestinian issue and calling Israel names was practically the only unifying theme that the Arab states could agree on, and since they wanted to project an illusion of unity, the Palestinians got lots of resolutions in their favor.

But now the Arab world is divided. Out of the 22 member states of the Arab League, six have relations with Israel (Egypt, Jordan, the UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, Morocco) and others have softened their tone towards Israel significantly (Saudi Arabia, Oman.)

Mahmoud Abbas needs to shore up his Arab allies who used to be in his pocket.

Algeria is a neighbor of its regional rival, Morocco, which has been normalizing relations with Israel. Abbas' trip is partially meant to keep the rejectionist Arab nations in his camp. The states that have peace treaties with Israel are in better political shape, by and large, compared to the others. AfrigateNews describes them as "failed states that are going through a very critical phase of transformation."

The summit will try to bridge the gap between the two camps and keep the appearance of being on the same page.

Israel remains the biggest issue in the Arab world, but now it is a point of disagreement instead of a point of unity.

12/06 Links Pt2: David Collier: What type of Jews do we want to be?; BBC demonised our children, parents of Oxford street victims say

From Ian:

David Collier: What type of Jews do we want to be?

We do not help ourselves
Antisemitism is undoubtedly on the rise, yet what we witness in Europe and the United States are only the events that explode into violence, and it is only these we seem to be willing to deal with. The undercurrent – the atmosphere that is being created which leads to the explosion of violence is something we do not want to address.

And far too many of us are even willing to point the finger of blame at Israel, as if somehow if Israel just ended the ‘occupation,’ all the antisemitism would just go away. It is as if 3,000+ years of history have taught us nothing.

I had two exchanges this week with parents about their children who go to Jewish schools in London. The first was a parent who told me that during a discussion about Judaism, one of their teachers compared the Maccabees to the Taliban.

The second parent told me that their child had been approached at school by a teacher who told them they had seen them at a street demonstration about Israel. The student replied in a surprised fashion that they hadn’t seen the teacher – to which the teacher responded – ‘no – I was on the other side.’

If this is the message they are receiving from their teachers in Jewish schools, what on earth will the next generation of Jews in the diaspora end up believing? In truth we are failing ourselves, our children, and our community, and when in the future the angry mob come knocking on our children’s door, they may even believe they deserve it. We are teaching our children to be victims without pride.

Time to change
There is no reward for remaining passive and believing it will all blow over. It won’t. Whether we are active (Israel) or passive (London) – they will still demonize us. It is what antisemites do.

Corbynism was just a warning sign. U. of Bristol professor David Miller? There are 100 Millers out there teaching the next generation of leaders. Wikipedia? I’ve lost count of the number of antisemitic editors that are butchering the online encyclopedia. Amnesty? Amnesty actually employs anti-Israel activists to write their reports. Journalists? May well have been taught at university by one of the David Millers’. And we live in a world today where everyone is too scared to address the elephant in the room: the level of extremism and antisemitism in parts of the Muslim community.

It really is time to wake up. We need to decide just what type of Jews we want to be. Those that sit and wait and cross their fingers, or those that stand up to take action. Because next time, when enough of us are angry enough to turn up at Parliament Square, it might just be too late.

BBC demonised our children, parents of Oxford street victims say

Parents of the Jewish victims of last week’s antisemitic incident on Oxford Street have accused the BBC of "demonising" their children, as outrage continues to mount in the community over the corporation’s reporting of the story.

A line in the BBC’s coverage read: “A slur about Muslims can also be heard from inside the bus. The Met Police has said the incident will be looked at ‘in its entirety’.”

“BBC News has demonised my son, who was on that bus, to serve their anti-Jewish agenda,” said Yechiel Wilhelm in a tweet. It also came to light that a packing crate was thrown at the children as they fled.

Rabbi Schneur Glitzenshtein, who organised the original bus trip, confirmed that none of the victims had used Islamophobic language. “Not one word,” he said.

"Only good things. Happy words, happy songs. We came with the light, with happiness.”

He added: “Everyone can see we just came, we danced and were happy.”

Last Monday, a bus of Jewish children who had gone to watch the Chanukah lights were accosted by a group of thugs as they danced on Oxford Street.

The BBC originally claimed that several "racial slurs” were expressed by the Jewish children. On being contacted by the JC, the corporation rowed back, saying that one person inside the vehicle had said “dirty Muslims”, and the article was amended to reflect that.

But the GnasherJew Twitter account said on Friday that it had investigated the clip and found the phrase “Tikra lemishehu, ze dachuf” translated into English as "call someone, it's urgent" could be heard rather than a slur.

The Board of Deputies called on the BBC to apologise, saying: “The BBC thought that they heard a slur in English. What they were actually hearing was a distressed Jewish man speaking in Hebrew appealing for help.”

22 stormings in November!

I've mentioned that literally every Sunday through Thursday, Jews visit the Temple Mount and each time where are headlines in the Arab world about how the "stormed Al Aqsa Mosque."

On Sunday, PA religious affairs ministry published statistics of how many times Jews "stormed" the Temple Mount in November.

They said it happened 22 times.

Let's look at a calendar of November:

22 days between Sunday and Thursday!

Remarkable!

Maybe I can make a prediction for December...

12/06 Links Pt1: Here’s Why Israel Designated Six Palestinian Charities as Terror Groups; Israel's UN envoy: 'Does the UN see the murder of some Israeli citizens as justified?'

From Ian:

DOCUMENT: Here’s Why Israel Designated Six Palestinian Charities as Terror Groups

When Israel designated six Palestinian charities as part of a terrorism network in October, critics slammed the move, pointing to the fact that Israel had not produced evidence to support the decision. But a confidential dossier produced in May and circulated within the top echelons of the Israeli government makes the case that the charities have been effectively hijacked by a radical terrorist group responsible for dozens of hijackings and murders.

The 74-page dossier (PDF), obtained and reviewed by the Washington Free Beacon, is marked confidential and for Israeli government use only. The Israeli government would not confirm its authenticity. The dossier, which bears the logo of the Shin Bet, Israel’s national security agency, provides the firmest evidence to date that the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), a U.S.- and E.U.-designated terrorist group responsible for several airplane hijackings throughout the 1960s and '70s, among other atrocities, operates a network of nonprofit groups to embezzle millions of dollars in funding from the European Union and international nongovernmental organizations (NGOs).

The dossier exposes an alleged network of PFLP members and associates with senior roles at the organizations, which claim to provide humanitarian services to the Palestinian people. Israel maintains these organizations have forged official documents and misled donors about where their money is going, and the dossier details how funds were channeled to the PFLP to fund terror attacks, including a 2019 strike in the West Bank that killed one Israeli and prompted a government-wide crackdown on the PFLP. In one case, Israel provides evidence that the NGO Al-Haq, a human-rights group based in Ramallah, prohibits "anyone who is not a PFLP member … from working there."

Anti-Israel activists in Europe and the United States, including the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the George Soros-funded Open Society Institute, have poured money into these alleged terrorist fronts for years. Donations have also come from the governments of Denmark, France, Sweden, Italy, and Norway, as well as the international charity group UNICEF.

"The EU and European governments have provided more than $200 million to these groups during this time without conducting proper due diligence or adherence to counter-terror regulations," Anne Herzberg, legal adviser for NGO Monitor, which tracks charitable donations, told the Free Beacon. "We hope these new designations will lead these governments to do the right thing and end this destructive funding."

Israel did not release the dossier to the public because the country is locked in a court case centered on terrorism financing, according to one source who has been briefed by the Israeli government on the situation. The evidence Israel gathered about these Palestinian nonprofits is connected to the litigation, barring Israel from publicly releasing the information until the case has concluded.

The Response to Hamas & Hezbollah Terror Designations Exposes Middle East Fault Lines

From Saudi Arabia, the government-backed newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat published an article titled, Saudi Arabia Welcomes Australia’s Designation of Hezbollah as Terrorist Group. “The Saudi Foreign Ministry stressed on Saturday the importance of this step in strengthening international peace and security,” the report said, “and urged the international community to take a similar stance to confront terrorism and terrorist groups around the world.”

In a 19 November article, Asharq Al-Awsat reported that the UK “had banned the Palestinian group Hamas in a move that brings the UK’s stance on Gaza’s rulers in line with the United States and the European Union.” It also quoted a British official as stating that “Hamas has significant terrorist capability, including access to extensive and sophisticated weaponry, as well as terrorist training facilities.”

Saudi Arabia is a key US ally and relations between Riyadh and Jerusalem have noticeably warmed since the onset of the Trump administration-brokered Abraham Accords between Israel and other Arab nations. Saudi Arabia is also one side of an ongoing proxy war against Iran that is mostly centered in Yemen.

As for the United Arab Emirates, the state-owned Khaleej Times recently published a report on Australia’s decision against Hezbollah. The newspaper quoted Home Affairs Minister Karen Andrews as saying that the Iran-backed Shi’ite group “continues to threaten terrorist attacks and provide support to terrorist organizations” and poses a real and credible threat to Australia.

“Hezbollah has been designated as a terrorist group by parts of the West, although some countries have been reluctant to sanction the group’s political wing, fearing it could destabilize Lebanon and hamper contacts with authorities,” the Khaleej Times added.

The Dubai-based Gulf News outlet, which is owned by a UAE government minister and cabinet member, published a report on 19 November summarizing the UK’s move to ban Hamas. The article quotes British Home Secretary Priti Patel as calling Hamas “fundamentally and rabidly anti-Semitic,” and adding her decision was required “to protect the Jewish community.”

The Gulf News emphasized that “politically, [the decision] could force Britain’s main opposition to take a position on Hamas, given strong pro-Palestinian support on the hard left of the Labour party.”

Dubai signed a peace deal with Israel in 2020 under the Abraham Accords and news continues to emerge from top officials from both countries about the success of negotiations and the potential of increased cooperation.

MEMRI: Lebanese Journalist Defends Morocco's Hosting Of Israeli Defense Minister Benny Gantz, Purchase Of Israeli Weapons

The historic visit to Morocco by Israeli Defense Minister Benny Gantz in November 2021, and the signing of a security cooperation agreement between the two countries, sparked considerable criticism against Morocco in the Arab world, in particular from Palestinians. A statement issued by Fatah denounced the "normalization" agreements between the "Israeli occupation" and Morocco, and accused Morocco of "stabbing Jerusalem in the back," especially given that this country has headed the Jerusalem Committee of the Organization for Islamic Cooperation since 1975. The statement added that "these moves pave the way to Morocco's relinquishment of its national and religious duty towards Palestine."[1] Hamas too issued a statement "harshly condemning" the agreement, and stating that "Morocco's retreat in the direction of the enemy" only "contaminates the sovereignty" of this Arab country.[2]

In response to the criticism, Lebanese journalist Khairallah Khairallah published an article in the London-based Emirati daily Al-Arab in which he defended Morocco's hosting of Gantz and signing of the security agreement with Israel. He wrote that the critics, spewing "populist slogans and trapped in the defeats and complexes of the past," do not understand that Morocco is merely looking out for its interests and seeking to benefit its people. He also accused the critics of exploiting the Palestinian cause, noting that even Yasser Arafat signed the Oslo Accords with Israel, which meant mutual recognition between the two sides. Morocco's enemies, he said, are disappointed that President Biden has not revoked his predecessor's recognition of Morocco's sovereignty over the Western Sahara. But Morocco, he concluded, is entitled to purchase Israeli weapons to defend itself against Algeria, which is seeking to escalate the conflict between them.

The following are translated excerpts from Khairallah's article:[3]
"The populist slogans brandished by Arab or Palestinian elements against the visit of Israeli Foreign Minister Benny Gantz to Morocco are amusing, but loathsome. As if Morocco ever kept anyone from liberating Palestine. Morocco is [simply] putting its own interests above anything else. It wants [to promote] the good and wellbeing of the Moroccan people, and it has [indeed] become an advanced country with infrastructures at the level of any respectable European state. Morocco respects itself and does not need lessons from anyone – especially from chronically ill people who are still impressed with defeats, of from the ones who plan these defeats.

"The brandishing of these populist slogans stems first of all from ignorance, which exists at every level, regarding Morocco, [a country] that has a special status but at the same time has different ambitions. [The chief of these ambitions] is to belong to the 21st century and continue to combat poverty and backwardness, so as to strengthen the kingdom in light of the challenges it faces.

"The brandishing of populist slogans against Morocco these days proves that there are two Arab worlds: one that seeks to embrace the future and the technological revolution, and another that is trapped in the past and in every kind of backwardness. Those who brandish populist slogans against Morocco remember nothing, not even the fact that Egypt – the greatest Arab country – signed a peace agreement with Israel in March 1979, and that Jordan signed a similar agreement in October 1994, but only after Yasser Arafat, executive council head of the PLO, signed the Oslo Accords… Abu Amar [i.e., Arafat] did not sign this agreement with ghosts, but with Yitzhak Rabin, Israel's prime minister at the time. The only real significance of the Oslo Accords… was mutual recognition between the Israeli government and the PLO. So what is the problem with Morocco welcoming an Israeli official or obtaining Israeli technology, given that [even] the PLO recognizes Israel, and when every Palestinian official in the West Bank needs Israeli permission to leave it and special permission to return?

"These populists forget that the PLO was recognized as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people at a 1974 Arab summit that was held in in the Moroccan capital of Rabat, not anywhere else.

Tunnel collapse! Another terrorist dead

Hamas is mourning another "martyr:"

Al-Qassam Brigades, the military wing of the Hamas movement, mourned the mujahid Hani Sami Salah (28), from the Ard al-Rabat mosque in the Al-Tuffah neighborhood, east of Gaza City, who died on Monday.

He rose after the collapse of a resistance tunnel, to go to his Lord after a life full of giving. Jihad, and sacrifice for the sake of God.

The brigades said in a press statement: "We ask God to accept him among the martyrs, to dwell in his spacious gardens, and to provide his family with beautiful patience and consolation. We belong to God and to Him we shall return."

Luckily, Hamas photographs all their future martyrs ahead of time for just such an occasion.

May more "resistance tunnels" collapse and cause more martyrs.

(h/t Tomer)

Emma Gometz

Teen Vogue has published yet another anti-Israel piece from yet another 22-year old who is convinced she knows what she is talking about.

The day I moved into my first college dorm room in New York City, my grandparents surprised me with a gift. They lovingly placed a large book into my hands: Myths and Facts: A Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict, by Mitchell Bard. I’m no historian, but I recognized Bard as the author of several other books, with titles such as The Arab Lobby and Death to the Infidels: Radical Islam’s War Against the Jews.

I understood why they gifted me this particular book. My college has a reputation among Zionists for being antisemitic because of the strong campus presence of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS)-supporting organizations, including Students for Justice in Palestine. My grandparents urged me to consider the literature, in case anyone wanted to try me on Israel.

What they didn’t know was I am a supporter of the fight against the further destruction of Palestinian lives and borders, and have been deeply critical of Israeli military choices for some time. I left my Jewish youth group at 15 because I was already beginning to have different views on Israel (among other things), but I never told my grandparents. I took the book from their hands, and thanked them for the gift. The next morning, I dropped it off at a public book-donation center.

Notice what author Emma Gometz didn't do: read the book and counter its arguments.

Because she couldn't. And if she tried, and was intellectually honest, she would be forced to modify her opinion of Israel that she reached when she was a wizened 15 year old.

After all, what do her grandparents know?

My grandparents are lifelong educators. My grandmother was a grade school teacher and my grandfather was an active rabbi for 36 years.

Obviously, not as much as their granddaughter:

I love being Jewish. I love Hanukkah. I love the prayers L’chah Dodi and Avinu Malkeinu. I love my rabbi, I loved my bat mitzvah, I love gefilte fish and horseradish, I love playwright Paula Vogel, I love Adam Sandler, and I love my family.

Clearly, Emma has much better credentials to talk about Israel and Judaism than her grandparents.

Gometz pretends that she doesn't want to speak about Israel with her grandparents because she loves them and it might hurt them. But Emma is the fragile one - refusing to even have a conversation with, or read the books of, knowledgeable Zionists.

Who is afraid of the truth?

Gometz ends off by saying that this Chanukah she plans to bring up her concerns about Israel, if the topic comes up:

This Hanukkah, while we celebrate the festival of lights and give our thanks for the miracles G-d has given us, my relatives might offer me their opinions on Israel. I will be lovingly disagreeing.

Notice that she doesn't say that she will be listening. Gometz wants to lovingly lecture, but she doesn't want to have a real conversation.

If this was just one article in Teen Vogue, it would be easy to make fun of it and move on. But Teen Vogue has had a series of articles, aimed at girls as young as 12, all with a similarly one-sided and false view of Israel from clueless Jews:

Jewish Teens Protested to Support Palestinian Activist Ahed Tamimi on Her 17th Birthday
I Am a Jewish Teen and I Support the Palestinian Cause
How Policing in the U.S. and Security in Israel Are Connected
The Israeli Government’s Violence Doesn’t Represent My Judaism

Teens, by and large, have poor critical thinking skills. So do adults. But teens are more likely to assimilate the first thing they read on a topic and never let go. Emotions solidify their opinions more than facts. The net result is a generation of girls who run away from actually learning about Israel and instead arrogantly assume that they know more than the old fogeys who write books on the topic.

Teen Vogue is purposefully indoctrinating young girls to hate Israel while they read about fashion and pop culture.

To be sure, Teen Vogue's gross irresponsibility towards teens doesn't end with this topic. The magazine's politics is uniformly far-Left. They have articles promoting sexting and anal sex - to twelve year olds!

Yet the magazine positions these articles as being part of a nationwide lesson plan for junior high and high schools to teach teens the right Left way to think. Yes, Conde Nast makes millions by publishing articles about the evils of capitalism. It isn't editorial filler - it is a conscious effort to brainwash teens at an age where they have no aptitude to disagree. The articles do not even allow comments so the magazine can ensure that the information that the kids read is not polluted with other viewpoints.

This goes beyond being irresponsible. This is an active, conscious attempt to propagandize children who have no tools to think critically.

(h/t JW)

German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung reported last week on an investigation it performed on social media posts of some Arab editorial staff of state-owned broadcaster Deutsche Welle.

In response, Deutsche Welle announced it will have an independent, external investigation of the charges.

Antisemitic posts on social media would violate DW's Code of Conduct.

The original article at Süddeutsche Zeitung detailing its findings is behind a paywall, but here's a summary of some of the findings from DWDL:

The allegations are serious: According to the report, several members of the Arab editorial staff have made anti-Semitic comments on social networks in the past. An editor, for example, expressed condolences for a deceased German Holocaust denier, describing the mass murder of the Jews as an "artificial product". It is only one of several derailments that the "SZ" reports.

Some of the allegations have apparently been known for years. In the case of an employee, there should have been a conversation as early as 2017. Since then, "according to our knowledge", the man has been observing the principles that DW stands for in private comments on social media, a spokesman for the German international broadcaster told the "Süddeutsche Zeitung". However, SZ claims to have found out that the employee wrote afterwards, among other things, that Jews "controlled people's brains through art, media and music".

DW announced on Friday that it had suspended the accused employees during the duration of the investigation.

Meanwhile, DW also announced that it ended its business relationship with Jordan's Roya TV, when it found out that it had also posted antisemitic and pro-terror cartoons and other material.

"We are truly sorry that we did not notice these disgusting images," DW's managing director in charge of distribution, Guido Baumhauer, said. "We will now even more critically review our partner selection internally, especially with regard to antisemitism and racism."

DW also said it regretted its previous assessment that Roya TV was not anti-Israel.

According to SD, Roya TV called Israeli citizens who were killed by Hamas rockets as "settlers of the occupation", it refers to Palestinians killed as martyrs, and it never refers to Israel by name, instead calling it the “Israeli occupation,” and it glorifies terror attacks.

Nearly every Arab publication does that.

Chanukah video night 8: The Hey Song (TheBiblePlayers) plus Kerry Bar-Cohn on Israel's Got Talent

Plus, this bonus of a religious American immigrant to Israel performing a Chanukah song on Israel's Got Talent this week:

To understand how immoral and depraved the pro-Palestinian Left is, watch this movie trailer

This is the trailer for a 2019 documentary, Feyadin, that is being shown in Austin tomorrow and is recommended by the Austin Film Society.

Watch the whole thing.

Based on the five minutes from this trailer, why do you think Georges Abdallah is in prison? It sounds like it is because he is a Leftist, a communist, a Palestinian nationalist, a Lebanese hero, a purely political imprisonment.

Not once does the trailer mention the actual crimes he committed.

Abdallah was the leader of the Lebanese Armed Revolutionary Factions, one of many PFLP offshoots, which was responsible for a string of terror attacks across Europe in the 1980s.

On January 18, 1982, Georges Abdullah murdered US Army Lieutenant Colonel Charles R. Ray, shooting him in the head at point blank range in as he was walking to his car in Paris.

On March 31, 1982, Yaacov Bar-Simantov, second secretary of Israel's embassy in France, was shot in the head three times by a young woman as Yaacov was with his wife and 8-year old daughter in the lobby of his apartment house. Abdullah helped mastermind that murder.

On March 24, 1984, Robert O. Homme, American Consul General in Strasbourg, France, was shot five times at point blank range. He survived. Georges Abdullah was convicted of that attempted murder.

LARF's activities pretty much ended after Abdallah was sentenced to life imprisonment.

Abdallah's supporters claim that there is no evidence linking him directly to the murders, but Paris police discovered explosives and weapons, including the gun used to kill Ray and Bar-Simantov, in an apartment that Abdallah was renting.

Georges Abdallah is an unrepentant murderer and terrorist. The people agitating for his release support murder and terror of Americans and Israelis. These are the same Leftists who pretend to care so much about human rights when they defend Palestinian NGOs founded and run by the same types of radical socialist terrorists.

The people who made this documentary are master propagandists. They want the viewers to think that France is following the demands of World ~~Jewry~~ Zionism in keeping him imprisoned and denying him parole. The heinousness of his crimes are not mentioned. Abdallah's supporters know the attacks quite well, though - they support the murder of innocents for the Palestinian cause.

They know that a film that celebrates murder won't win awards at film festivals, though. At least not yet. But they know that the filmgoers will not question the quotes provided by so many people who are insisting that Abdallah is a Leftist saint who only cares about improving the world.

12/05 Links: Publishers against the People of the Book; PM: Iran can’t both negotiate and enrich uranium, must pay price for violating deal

From Ian:

11 Days in May

For 11 days, beginning May 10, "Hamas fired nearly 400 projectiles a day" for a total of "approximately 4,350" (680 of those rockets landed in Gaza, killing an estimated 91 Palestinians). The airstrikes marked the largest—in terms of number—ever lobbed toward the Jewish state in its young history. The tactic was by design.

Because while Hamas has grown in strength, so has Israel. It has the Iron Dome missile defense system that can, at this moment, effectively counter Hamas's rockets. It has more technologically advanced drones (air and sea) to counter Hamas's and a tunnel detection system in place to minimize the threat Israel faces in its own territories.

But by firing as many missiles as it could—including a five-minute salvo that included a "remarkable 137 rockets"—Hamas was testing to see whether it could overpower and confuse Israel's Iron Dome. It didn't work. At no point in the 11-day battle did Israel incur significant destruction. Hamas, however, came close with a "lucky strike" near the Eilat-Ashkelon pipeline that could have crippled the oil supply and attempted strikes at the secretive Dimona nuclear facility that could have ended even worse.

"The Gaza war of 2021 truly provided a glimpse of future warfare," says Schanzer. "But even the best technology and intelligence are no guarantee against the unforeseen events of war."

Fortunately, the fighting earlier this year did not get worse. And that's, surprisingly, thanks to the Egyptians, who brokered peace between Israel and Hamas to get back into the good graces of the newly sworn-in Biden administration. "On the one hand, it was a thankless job with little prospect of success," Schanzer says. "On the other hand, Egypt was now viewed as a friend of the White House again."

The most recent conflict between Hamas and Israel is just the latest in a decades-long war—and sadly won't be the last. So where should things go from here? Schanzer has some productive thoughts.

"Under the current circumstances, a three-state solution (Israel, the West Bank under the PA, and Hamas-controlled Gaza) appears to be the only path forward." Yes, that would mean the only prospect for peace is between the Israelis and the Palestinians in the West Bank—but the Gaza solution is not so simple.

To do that, the Iran problem must be solved. "Gaza is now ground zero in a proxy conflict. It is part of a bigger battle between Israel and Iran," says Schanzer. But that's a larger problem for perhaps his next book.

Gaza Conflict 2021: Hamas, Israel and Eleven Days of War
by Jonathan Schanzer
Foundation for Defense of Democracies, 284 pp., $29.95

Publishers against the People of the Book

Kestin was already a journalist and the published author of well-received fiction when his 2019 novel, The Siege of Tel Aviv , blurbed by Stephen King, was canceled. Even though it “was seen as a first best-seller for the publisher,” it was pulled after 13 Twitter accounts protested alleged Islamophobia. Kestin notes that none of the 13 had advance reader copies, and he doubts any of them read it after Kestin later self-published it.

Kestin describes these critics as “in the main neither Muslims nor Palestinians but American left-wing enemies of Israel.” The Islamophobia charge stemmed from the cover using the word “Moslem,” which Kestin says was his publisher’s doing; he wrote “Muslim” in the text. Critics also objected “to the story, which describes the conquest of Israel by a pan-Islamist alliance led by Iran.”

Pointing to the history of Arab-Israeli wars and the Iranian government’s perpetual saber-rattling, Kestin observed that the plot “is hardly something the author made up out of whole cloth.” He also added, “There are at least four heroic Arab/Muslim characters in Siege, while the Israeli establishment is painted as naively complicit in its own destruction.” None of this mattered, though.

Kestin emailed: “Once Siege was accused of racism and Islamophobia, the dozens of critics who had praised my earlier work ... simply disappeared. (American journalism found nothing of interest in a publisher pulping its own popular book because of a handful of anonymous complaints.) As a result, Siege received only six reviews, all glowing, including one from a Palestinian-American novelist and one from a prominent British Muslim media personality. ... Sadly, my most prominent fan, Stephen King, who for over a decade had provided ecstatic blurbs for all my novels ... in the process becoming one of my closest friends, simply turned his back, explaining that he, America’s most popular writer, the writer to whom Siege was dedicated, did not wish to risk standing up to the raging mob.”

Reflecting on his experience, Kestin observed, “Certainly what is judged to be pro-Israel material is no longer in fashion. A generation of Jews has grown up with little to no affection for the Jewish state, not least because it sees in Israel not David but Goliath.”

Kestin added, “Jews have been replaced by other minorities, possibly because Jews have convinced themselves they are not a minority at all, and so are hardly in need of speaking out as a group.” And yet, anyone who’s been paying attention is aware that Jews are not only a minority group, but an increasingly vulnerable one in the West, as the postwar taboo against open antisemitism has receded.

Yossi Klein Halevi observed, “There's an irony that is increasingly haunting me, that even as large parts of the Arab world begin to dismantle the 70-year boycott of Israel, that boycott is now being taken up by parts of the progressive West, and it’s infiltrating the publishing world as well. It’s unfair to say you can’t publish an Israel book in a mainstream [publishing] house today ... but I worry we’re heading in that direction.”

US Taxpayers to Fund Revisionist, Anti-Zionist History

No one is questioning that Jews lived and could prosper in the Middle East and North Africa. Indeed they did so for a lot longer than Arabs, who conquered the region 1,000 years after Jews had settled there. No serious scholar would argue that life for Jews was one, continuous chronicle of misfortune. Jews interacted with the society around them, especially in trade and business. Arabic was the most widely spoken Jewish language for centuries.

But Jews were always a vulnerable minority, suffering from institutionalized discrimination as dhimmis under Islam. As one pundit has observed: “The NEH would never fund revisionist history that denied that black people were discriminated against during segregation. Why is it funding the same sort of revisionism against Israel?”

Sternfeld elides the pre-colonial condition of dhimmi status—where unquestionably, Jews suffered restrictions and a precarious existence—and their situation during the colonial era, when Jews benefited from education and greater security. The good life many enjoyed under the British and French protectorates and mandates was fatally threatened by the rise of Arab nationalism and Islamism, resulting in their forced exodus.

There is a deeper problem here. The prominence given by post-modern academics to cultural and socioeconomic factors over people, historical events and politics has served to falsify the history of Jews from Arab countries. Take for example the work of Bashkin, whose “New Babylonians” was reviewed by professor Norman A. Stillman.

Stillman says Bashkin is at “her insightful best” in describing the intellectual and cultural ferment in the Iraq of the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s. However, her chronicling of the watershed events of the 1940s leading up to the mass exodus of 1951 “lacks the same degree of analytical insight,” he writes.

“This is due, I suggest, to her basic approach as a cultural studies scholar who interprets texts, but does not fully take into account the actual events, people, and politics. It is also due to a priori ideological assumptions. Bashkin from the very outset acknowledges her intellectual debt to contrarians such Sami Zubaida, Ella Shohat, and Gilbert Achcar, and the ghost of Edward Said often lurks in the background un-named. Previous historical work on the Jews of the Islamic world is reduced to an oversimplified caricature: ‘a model of harmonious coexistence’ or ‘a tale of perpetual persecution,’ and ‘alongside these ideas, an orientalist interpretation.’

“More seriously, there is an element of naïve wishful thinking which constantly views positive examples of Jewish acculturation and patriotism, on the one hand, and the openness of some Arab liberal intellectuals and politicians, on the other, as proving that the dark forces of radical Arab nationalism were not really as powerful as they appeared in retrospect.”

A shared culture and language with Arabs did not save the Jews of Iraq, any more than the Jewish contribution to German culture, or their love of Mendelssohn and Goethe, saved German Jews from Nazism. All MENA Jews, including anti-Zionists, Communists and the most Arabized, were forced to take the road to exile. And thus a study of how groups interacted before the great exodus becomes irrelevant, because it does not take into account actual events, political factors and actors such as Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Arab League, Nasser and Saddam, leading to the exclusion and persecution of Jews and other minorities.