At the beginning of 2021, Human Rights Watch (HRW) and B’Tselem published reports alleging Israel to be responsible for, and Israeli officials to be guilty of committing, the crime against humanity of apartheid. These publications were accompanied by an extensive PR campaign. Concurrently, NGOs were influential in the establishment of two UN bodies where the claim of apartheid will prominently feature, and these same groups are vigorously lobbying the International Criminal Court to include allegations of apartheid in its investigation into Israel.
However, the definition of apartheid used by HRW, B’Tselem, and other NGOs is not legally substantiated. Instead, these groups promote artificial and manufactured definitions designed to extend the ongoing campaigns that seek to delegitimize and demonize Israel.
Beyond its pejorative colloquial meaning (“apartheid state,” “vaccine apartheid”), apartheid is also criminalized in some treaties as a crime against humanity and/or a war crime, establishing individual criminal responsibility. In addition, states are prohibited from practicing apartheid in other treaties and by customary international law.
Apartheid is a grave allegation both for the individuals accused as well as the country they represent. A conviction comes with long terms of imprisonment, while the accusation alone can result in severe penalties including sanctions and international isolation. It is not a claim to be made casually, and the crime itself must be precisely defined. However, the definition of apartheid is untested in international law as no courts have yet examined the crime, and there is little detailed analysis available. As a result, central actors in the delegitimization campaign have exploited this gap to advance narrow, and destructive, political agendas.
This report presents a corrective. First, it analyzes the policy and practices of apartheid as pursued historically in South Africa. Second, it examines the nature and evolution of the apartheid allegation levelled against Israeli officials. Third, it addresses the legal vacuum and provides a full analysis grounded in international law of apartheid’s definition as a crime against humanity.
In early 2022, NGO Monitor will issue a companion report, assessing whether apartheid, as defined here, is applicable to Israel and territories under its administration.
Although the League of Nations was superseded by the United Nations following WWII, Article 80 of the UN Charter stipulated that the UN would not alter existing states, peoples or mandates. This meant that the UN preserved and recognized the legal right for the establishment of a Jewish state from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, which was the boundary of the Mandate for Palestine.
Additionally, this boundary delineated Israel’s borders; under the customary international law doctrine of uti possidetis juris, newly forming countries acquire their pre-independence administrative borders.
In 1947, Britain resigned as the “mandatory” and gave control over to the United Nations. The UNGA passed Resolution 181 in November of that year, recommending the partition of the land into separate Jewish and Arab states, with Jerusalem and the areas surrounding it placed under international control.
However, Resolution 181 did not declare statehood, as all UN General Assembly resolutions are non-binding recommendations that carry no force of law. Instead, Resolution 181, as former Israeli ambassador to the UN Dore Gold stated, “provided international legitimacy for the Jewish claim to statehood.” Gold stated that what establishes countries is declarations of independence as opposed to actions in the UN. Israel would declare its independence on May 14, 1948.
As of today, the Mandate for Palestine also provides legal rights for any claims Israel has to the disputed West Bank. Eugene Rostow, former US under secretary of state and Yale Law School dean, commented that the West Bank is an “unallocated part of the British Mandate.”
As an unallocated part of the British Mandate, the terms of document are still binding today even though the British resigned as the mandatory 74 years ago.
Rostow confirmed this by explaining, “Many believe that the Palestine Mandate was somehow terminated in 1947, when the British government resigned as the mandatory power. This is incorrect. A trust never terminates when a trustee dies, resigns, embezzles the trust property, or is dismissed. The authority responsible for the trust appoints a new trustee, or otherwise arranges for the fulfillment of its purpose.” Therefore, the international community is obligated in implementing the terms of the mandate.
In summation, it was the Balfour Declaration and the documents that enshrined it as a binding part of international law that created Israel, as opposed to the United Nations. These documents still apply today when it comes to Israel’s rights to the West Bank.
December 9 marks 104 years since the Ottoman surrender at the Battle of Jerusalem, winning major morale and strategic victory in a key city in this important World War I battle.
The battle itself was the culmination of a long, bloody campaign in the Middle East by the British against the Turks, something that had been up to a rough start for a while.
Throughout World War I, British forces suffered multiple humiliating and costly losses against the Turks. This included the disastrous Gallipoli campaign, the Battle of Kut in modern-day Iraq and two losses in Gaza.
Taking the holy city was important, not just because of the religious symbolism for the largely-Christian UK, but because it was vital for Ottoman supply routes and for the British to establish a stronger position.
Fortune began to change when, after a second loss at Gaza, the commanding general of what had been dubbed the "Egyptian Expeditionary Force," Gen. Sir Archibald Murray, was replaced with Gen. Edmund Allenby, who had been given instructions by the prime minister: Capture Jerusalem by Christmas.
This was easier said than done. The Ottoman front line dominated the South with trenches, redoubts and fortifications, as well as key roads and railway lines.
But at the end of October, Allenby finally led the British to victory over the Ottomans in the Battle of Beersheba, beginning the British Army's advance into the region, pushing back the Ottomans.
I just found this description of Jerusalem written in 1909 that described an incident earlier that year.
The author was Frederic J. Haskin, who was a prominent journalist and author, well known for a newspaper feature where people would ask him questions and he and his staff would find the answers.
I find it hard to believe this story is true, but if it is, it is remarkable. (Notice the antisemitism alongside the sympathy for Jews.)
From the Salt Lake Herald-Republican, December 26, 1909:
Within the year since last Christmas the light of freedom has broken upon this distressed Holy Land and for the first time in all the centuries its people have known the spirit of the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man.
For eighteen centuries it has been death for a Jew to enter the court yard of the Church the Holy Sepulchre. For twelve hundred years no Jew has stood upon the site of the Temple of Solomon. Blood-thirsty Christians, forgetting the words of the Master upon the cross, have murdered Jews who so much as dared to approach the grave of Jesus. Cruel believers upon Mohammed have cut the throats of pious Jews who sought to lift up their voices in prayer 'upon the hill where Melchesidek and Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, David and Solomon, Hesekiah and the Maccabees. invoked the succor of Jehovah. Treacherous and vindictive Jews, suffering under the persecutions of centuries, have dealt death to their enemies of other creeds. ever since Jesus died on the cross of Calvary has Jerusalem and all this Holy Land been drenched with blood shed by murderers who slew their victims in the name of religion.
Then came this year 1909 of the Christian era, 5669 of the Jewish era and 1327 of the Mohammedan era, and the light of liberty for the first time broke through the clouds of religious intolerance and illumined the churches and synagogues and mosques of the city of Jerusalem. It was the Young Turks' revolution.
The despotic Sultan Abdul Hamid was overthrown, and the constitution became a realty in benighted Turkey, of which Palestine is a part. What a great celebration it was in Jerusalem! Young men of every creed united in the demonstration of joy. Christians, arm in arm with Jews and Mohammedans, went boldly into the holiest of all 'holy Christian churches, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and gave thanks for their new found liberty. Mohammedans took with them Jews and Christians to the platform of the temple, surrounding the Mosque of Omar, and gave vent to their joyous feelings. Jews took Christians and Turkish political allies into the sacred precincts of their synagogues. Every difference of faith was forgotten In the common joy.
Of course this religious union lasted only for a day and now the old lines are drawn again, but they are not as taut as they used to be, and never again will they mean death to the trespasser. Turkey is free and the Holy Land is delivered from the curse of despotism.
I cannot find any record of this in Jewish media of 1909. I cannot believe that the Muslims of Jerusalem, whose opposition to Jews visiting the Temple Mount were based on their own antisemitism, would have changed their policies even for a day without being instructed to.
But there might be some grain of truth in this story, as Haskin was a legitimate journalist.
Ofer Prison, north of Jerusalem, December 9 - Human Rights groups accused Israel's military today of inhumane treatment of Palestinian detainees, including such unnecessarily harsh measures as simply presuming that prisoners who talk, dress, act, and have anatomy in the manner of males are in fact males.
Amnesty International, Btselem, and Human Rights Watch, among others, issued a joint statement Thursday charging that the Israel Defense Forces, in violation of all things sacred and acceptable, assume the gender of every single inmate or detainee, a policy that underscores the cruel nature of the occupation and the urgent need to end it.
"This sadistic practice continues despite robust public awareness of the need to accommodate non-cisgender people," the statement read, in part. "We acknowledge our disappointment, but not our surprise, given Israel's established reputation for mistreatment of Palestinians." The document also cited the IDF's practice of not allowing Palestinians to stab Israelis, and even of applying lethal force in thwarting Palestinian attempts to kill Jews.
Progressive organizations followed up the letter with an online drive to get activists outside Israel to convey to their governments the importance of addressing the crucial issue of misgendered Israeli prisons, perhaps conditioning military aid to the beleaguered Jewish State on the implementation of a robust, independently-verified gender inclusiveness program in all military detainment facilities.
Palestinian activists embraced the statement and its overseas ripples. "Uh, yeah, that's uh, terrible," objected a spokesman for the Palestinian Ministry of Prisoner Affairs. "Truly horrifying. Can't believe they'd be so, uh, evil. I can't imagine the horror our brave martyrs-to-be face day in, day out in those prisons. Sounds like pure torture. Somebody ought to do something."
A Hamas representative told reporters the movement would probably wait to declare another Day of Rage over the issue. "It's just that our schedule is so full of Days of Rage in the next few months," he lamented. "We wouldn't want to dilute the power of each Day of Rage, and its impact on the occupier, by holding another one in so short a time. An issue of this, er, importance deserves its own discrete... treatment."
The spokesman then requested more specifics about the phenomenon of "misgendering," and, upon receiving explanation, wondered aloud why the supposedly cruel IDF didn't do what he and his movement would have done, namely to hurl the identifying-as-female detainee from the nearest ten-story rooftop. "Something doesn't add up here," he cautioned.
The IDF is alarmed by the imitation phenomenon of lone terrorists, mainly the mimicking of knife and vehicular attacks. Moreover, in recent weeks, the incitement on social media has increased, which has the most significant impact on the younger Palestinian generation, especially when they view the live action in east Jerusalem and the Temple Mount.
In November, there were three terrorist attacks: a stabbing attack in the Old City of Jerusalem in which two Border Police soldiers were wounded; a shooting attack by Hamas terrorist and cleric Fadi Abu Shahidam in which an Israeli civilian was murdered; and a stabbing attack in Jaffa in which a civilian was seriously wounded.
So far, in the early days of December, there were two attacks: a stabbing at the Damascus Gate in Jerusalem in which an Israeli civilian was seriously injured and another vehicular attack at the Te’enim crossing in Samaria in which an Israeli security guard was seriously injured. In all cases, the terrorists were killed.
Hamas is trying to re-launch terror inside Israel and the West Bank after it suffered a severe blow: in recent months, the Israel Security Agency arrested an extensive network of dozens of Hamas terrorists who planned a series of attacks in Israel and the Judea and Samaria area. Weapons and explosive belts intended for suicide bombings were captured.
This terrorist activity in Jerusalem and the West Bank is directed from the Gaza Strip, Turkey, and Lebanon through Hamas’ “West Bank headquarters.” The mastermind is Saleh al-Arouri, the head of Hamas’ military-terrorist wing in the West Bank.
Hamas is attempting to carry out a “showcase” assault that will serve as a role model and fuel for the fire that has already begun in east Jerusalem.
Hamas estimates that Israel is struggling to cope with the phenomenon of lone terrorists. Their attacks occur spontaneously and often in seemingly undirected waves. Hamas, therefore, tries to ride each wave as soon as it is detected and before it fades. For Hamas and other terrorist groups, the main “enemy” of the spectacle of a handful of terrorists is the security coordination between Israel’s security forces and the PA security services.
PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas knows that he holds a double-edged sword that could undermine his rule. So, while his prime minister, Mohammad Shtayyeh, attacks Israel for killing the young terrorists (“cold-blooded murder”), Abbas, in recent days, has changed direction and ordered his security forces to stop the stabbings and end the incitement.
The phenomenon of lone terrorists is attributed mainly to young Palestinians who continue to feed on the incitement on Palestinian social networks and media.
Many of the young terrorists are frustrated. They come from families living in difficult economic situations. They seek to become “heroes” in the Palestinian society that nurtures the legend of “martyrs.”
The coordination with the PA and the weakening of Hamas's incitement: The security coordination with the PA is better than it's been in a while. An example of that is the rescue of the two members of the Breslov Hassidic movement, who accidentally entered the city of Ramallah last week. In addition, the Palestinians make arrests of instigators, terror operatives, and issue warnings to their relatives. In one such case last week, an alert was received about a lone attacker who intended to throw an explosive device at IDF soldiers, as a result, his family was located, warned, and he was questioned.
Furthermore, the Shin Bet along with the IDF is preparing for next Tuesday, November 14, the anniversary of Hamas' establishment. For weeks arrests have been made and every activity of Hamas in West Bank has been monitored. The concern is that a sequence of terror attacks may be carried out by Hamas operatives on that day, with the terror group's incitement campaign already in full swing.
Deterring the family of the assailant: One of the things that were proven as very useful, and prevented dozens of attacks, is actions taken against the family of the attacker. These acts include the demolition of their houses, prevention of entry to Israel in order to work, and arrests of family members.
This is done in an effort to force family members of potential attackers to alert the security forces if they notice any changes in his behavior, or his patterns of action. It has already happened in the past and it is proven to be a very useful tool against lone assailants.
And the last step is operational professionalism: The first seconds of any attack are crucial for the outcome. An attack that ends with a rapid, sharp response, and the neutralization of the attacker - without casualties among civilians or security forces -would make a potential terrorist think twice, and such an event won't be used as an example to incite others.
The State Prosecutor’s Office said Thursday it had closed an investigation into two Border Police officers who shot dead a Palestinian assailant after he stabbed a Jewish civilian in a Jerusalem terror attack, saying there was legal justification for the shooting.
The officers were questioned after video of the Saturday incident showed them firing at Muhammad Salima once he was already lying on the ground.
Police video of the entire incident that was later released showed Salima stabbed one civilian and then also tried to attack the officers. The video showed that the officers did not immediately fire the fatal shot at the assailant as he lay on the ground, but did so only after he moved, apparently trying to get up.
State Prosecutor Amit Aisman on Thursday adopted the recommendations of the Justice Ministry’s internal investigations unit, and decided to close the probe into the two officers.
The State Prosecutor’s office said in a statement that the Police Internal Investigations Department (PIID) had “thoroughly, professionally and efficiently” investigated the officers’ actions.
“The Border Police officers’ explanations that they acted in self-defense were consistent with the rest of the investigation’s findings, including a video documenting the incident in its entirety,” the statement read.
“An examination of all the circumstances found that this was an incident that lasted only a few seconds, in circumstances where there was a real and tangible danger to the lives of the officers and civilians in the area,” the statement read.
The expression "Funny, you don't look Jewish" has been around for a long time. It was even lampooned in the Beatles' cartoon movie Yellow Submarine which was released in 1968.
It is clearly the punchline for a joke - a joke that was so well known that the punchline itself could be re-used for other jokes and the listener would get it.
But what was the original joke?
I finally found it in an article about Jewish humor written for the Zionist magazine Midstream in the 1950s.
A lady approaches a very dignified man on the subway and asks him, "Pardon me for asking, but are you Jewish?" He coldly replies, "No."
She returns in a moment and apologetically asks again, "Are you sure you're not Jewish?" Yes, he is sure.
Still not convinced, she asks a final time, "Are you absolutely sure you're not Jewish?"
The man breaks down and admits it, "All right, all right, I am Jewish." To which she makes the rejoinder, "That's funny. You don't look Jewish."
The article includes some really good jokes that reflect the Jewish American mindset of the time: Jews were still discriminated against, but in the aftermath of the Holocaust, complaining about it seemed petty. Jews were assimilating, but still felt guilty about it and struggled between being Jewish and wanting to be accepted to be as American as a WASP. Jews could be self-deprecating but if non-Jews would make the same jokes it was obviously antisemitic.
The article itself is very serious, but the jokes are funny (and many would be considered politically incorrect today.) Here are some of them that I had never heard before.
A Jew is discussing the Jewish problem with a Gentile in the Old Country. The Gentile contends that Jews cheat and lie. The Jew replies that they really are smarter than Goyim and sets out to prove it. He brings his companion to a Gentile store and asks for some matches, but refuses them when they are offered saying, "These matches light at the wrong end. I want the kind \ that light at the other end." Proprietor: "I'm sorry these are the only kind we have." They then proceed to a Jewish establishment, where the same transaction takes place. This time however, the Jewish businessman shouts to his helper, "Moishe, bring me those matches from the new consignment." He hands over the matches, turning them around. Outside the store, the Jew triumphantly faces the Gentile, exclaiming, "See!" The latter protests, "But maybe the first store didn't get that new consignment."
An aged Jew, dressed in traditional East European garb, black gabardine, white socks, kaftan, with long payes, appears in a Deep Southern town. He is an immediate object of curiosity. A crowd assembles and follows him. After a few moments his patience is tried. He turns on the crowd and says in a thick Yiddish accent, "What's the matter? Didn't you ever see a Yankee before?"
Maxie was a terrible soldier: In basic training lie never cleaned his rifle. When he marched with the troops he seemed to have two left feet. He was always getting commands wrong. His company commander had little hope for him when they went into battle, but was surprised to find Maxie receiving the Congressional Medal of Honor for holding off an entire German regiment single-handed while his platoon moved to a safer position, saving, thereby, many lives and an important military position. The company commander demanded of Maxie's platoon leader how he had managed this superhuman feat of leadership. Replied the lieutenant, "Why I just handed Maxie a machine gun, patted him on the shoulder, and announced, 'Now, Maxie, you're in business for yourself!' "
A Jewish gangster has been in a gun fight with police. As he staggers into his mother's East Side apartment, nearly in extremis, his hands on a big bloody wound, he gasps, "Ma, ma, I-I've been hit. . . ." Mama says, "Eat. Eat. Later we'll talk."
Some missionizing Quakers make great inroads in a Long Island Synagogue, converting a sizeable number of its members. This prompts the Rabbi to say, "Some of my best Jews are Friends."
The government of Israel is worried about its unpopularity in foreign countries. So Ben-Gurion hires a market research company in New York to find out why people don't like Israel. The company does an exhaustive study and boils it down to this, "The reason you are unpopular is because Israel is identified with Jews. We therefore recommend that you change your name from Israel to Irving."
A Jewish girl calls up her mother, and the following conversation ensues:
"Mama, I'm married."
"Mazel Too! That's wonderful."
"But, mama, my husband is a Catholic."
"So? Not everyone is a Jew."
"But, mama, he's a Negro."
"What of it? The world has all kinds. We gotta be tolerant."
"But mama, he has no job."
"Nu? That's all right."
"But, mama, we have no place to stay."
"Oh, you'll stay right here in this house."
"Where, mama? There's no room."
"Well, you and your husband can sleep in our bedroom. Papa will sleep on the sofa."
"Yes, but, mama, where will you sleep?"
"Oh, don't worry about me, darling. As soon as I hang up I'm going to drop dead."
Three Reform Rabbis are arguing about which of them is the most thoroughly Reform.
The first one remarks, "My temple is so Reform that there are ashtrays in every pew. The congregation can smoke while it prays."
"You think that's Reform?" asks the second Rabbi. "In my temple there is a snack bar. The congregation can eat while it prays—especially on Yom Kippur."
"Gentlemen," says the third Rabbi, "as far as I am concerned, you are practically Orthodox. In my temple, every Rosh Hashonah and Yom Kippur, there are signs on the doors saying, 'Closed for the Holidays.' "
Hamas issued a press release yesterday where they praised the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet, for her remarks at a virtual UN session held by the Committee for the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People on Tuesday.
Hamas said that Bachelet's remarks were "important and pivotal", as they "shed light on the continued Israeli occupation's violations against the Palestinian people and holy places."
When a terror group praises the UN's top human rights official, that indicates that something is wrong. And indeed, something is very wrong with Michelle Bachelet.
Her statement can be seen on video here. She speaks for about ten minutes, of which about nine and a half are about how terrible Israel is - starting with the May war in Gaza, which she claims was "directly linked to protests and violent responses by Israeli security forces — first in East Jerusalem, then spreading to the entire Occupied Palestinian Territory and to Israel."
She doesn't mention that Hamas and other groups shot 150 rockets into Israel on May 10, including Jerusalem, and Israeli airstrikes were responses to those attacks. Instead, Bachelet fully adopts the Hamas narrative that somehow Israeli actions in Sheikh Jarrah and Jerusalem were what caused the war to start - implying that Hamas rockets were meant to defend Palestinians, not attack Israeli civilians.
Bachelet has nothing bad to say about Hamas at all. She doesn't even mention the terror group's name.
The other thirty seconds that don't obsess over Israel (starting at 10:50) are almost all directed at Hamas' rival Palestinian Authority, where she quickly lists "assaults of journalists and human rights defenders, as well as intimidation; gender-based violence and harassment; excessive use of force; arbitrary arrests and censorship." She then briefly mentions that "the de facto authorities have also restricted Palestinians’ rights."
Unlike her allegations against Israel, she goes into no detail on these human rights abuses against Palestinians. Palestinian women are victims of gender-based violence? Who cares? Certainly not the UN's chief human rights defender.
The video is even more striking. When Bachelet accuses Israel of abuses, she speaks deliberately and looks up from her prepared notes and tries to make eye contact with the viewer. But when she talks about Palestinian abuses, she turns into a robot - she speeds up her delivery and barely looks up from her text. It is a checkbox for her - she doesn't want to be accused of bias so she throws in a little about Palestinian human rights abuses, burying it in her litany of impassioned criticism of Israel.
There is essentially no daylight between the positions of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and those of the Hamas terror group. No wonder Hamas praised her.
Like Hamas, the UN's own human rights chief proves that she doesn't care at all about the human rights of Jews. Like Hamas, Michelle Bachelet proves that the only time she pretends to care about the human rights of Palestinians is when she can blame the Jews.
In recent years, American universities have been appointing large numbers of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) staff with the intention of creating more tolerant environments on campus for students from all backgrounds.
The Heritage Foundation did a study of the tweets from over 700 DEI staff, and found that when it comes to Zionism and Israel, they are quite intolerant.
The analysis is somewhat predictable but still shocking:
To measure antisemitism among university DEI staff, we searched the Twitter feeds of 741 DEI personnel at 65 universities to find their public communications regarding Israel and, for comparison purposes, China. Those DEI staff tweeted, retweeted, or liked almost three times as many tweets about Israel as tweets about China. Of the tweets about Israel, 96 percent were critical of the Jewish state, while 62 percent of the tweets about China were favorable. There were more tweets narrowly referencing “apartheid” in Israel than tweets indicating anything favorable about Israel whatsoever. The overwhelming pattern is that DEI staff at universities pay a disproportionately high amount of attention to Israel and nearly always attack Israel.
While criticism of Israel is not necessarily antisemitic, the inordinate amount of attention given to Israel and the excessive criticism directed at that one country is evidence of a double-standard with respect to the Jewish state, which is a central feature of a widely accepted definition of antisemitism.
Frequently accusing Israel of engaging in genocide, apartheid, settler colonialism, ethnic cleansing, and other extreme crimes while rarely leveling similar criticisms toward China indicates an irrational hatred that is particularly directed toward Jews and not merely a concern for human rights.
The evidence presented in this Backgrounder demonstrates that university DEI staff are better understood as political activists with a narrow and often radical political agenda rather than promoters of welcoming and inclusive environments.
Rather than promoting diversity and inclusion, universities may be contributing to an increase in anti-Jewish hatred by expanding DEI staff and power.
This chart summarizes the main findings.
Anyone who thinks that Israel is a worse violator of human rights than China is pretty much guaranteed to be an antisemite.
Continuing a historic trend, in 2020-2021 a segment of campus anti-Israel groups and activists engaged in rhetoric that incorporated antisemitic tropes, including those related to alleged Jewish power and control over the media or political affairs. While major anti-Israel groups state their opposition to antisemitism on their websites, they repeatedly appear unaware, ambivalent or defiant when their own rhetoric about Israel and Zionism becomes offensive or plays into antisemitic themes. More often, they deny that it is even possible for anti-Israel or anti-Zionist rhetoric to be antisemitic. While only a minority of anti-Israel activity on campus explicitly references antisemitic tropes, the large volume of anti-Israel activity ensures many Jewish students will encounter bigotry.
In addition to the use of antisemitic tropes and themes, anti-Israel rhetoric can become antisemitic when opposition to Zionism turns into the active maligning, exclusion and denigration of Zionism and Zionists. During the 2020-2021 academic year such a pattern was evident, in particular during the May 2021 Israel-Hamas conflagration. Viewing Zionists as inherently nefarious and undeserving of certain rights can lead to many Jewish students feeling isolated and under siege. Moreover, the vitriol aimed at Jews who support Israel’s existence is rarely matched with energy targeting non-Jews, most of whom also recognize and support Israel’s existence.
Despite the swanky setting and the (mostly) maskless crowd in bespoke suits and dresses, UJA-Federation of New York’s Wall Street Dinner Monday night made very clear that the city – and even its most affluent denizens – still lived in the shadow of the pandemic.
There was an atmosphere of relief in the room, with the usual scenes of hugging, smiling and schmoozing that typify fundraising dinners. Hors d’oeuvres were eaten, awards were given and speeches were made.
But the ongoing effects of COVID pervaded the event Monday night at the Marriott Marquis in midtown Manhattan, and lent it an air of guardedness. Former mayor Michael Bloomberg received the night’s main award, and Stephanie Cohen, an executive at Goldman Sachs, was also honored.
But in the first speech, former Goldman Sachs CEO and current chairman Lloyd Blankfein made a point of reminding attendees how the pandemic has bared their privilege.
“The lesson of COVID that’s most pertinent to tonight’s purpose is just how bifurcated our society is,” said Blankfein, who emceed the event.
“So let me say, at the risk of being provocative and sounding tone-deaf, I had a pretty good pandemic, and most of my friends who live in the same bubble as me had a pretty good pandemic too,” he continued. “The market went up and we even made money. That is our bubble. But what about the rest of the world, the 99%? People in service jobs who had to show up or whose jobs didn’t survive the pandemic?”
I realize that standing up to your friends is not easy — and that’s especially true for young people. They have their antenna up against injustice, and that’s great to see. But on campuses across the country, if they want to be involved in social justice issues, they often feel forced to make a terrible choice. They can either defend their Zionism and be excluded from groups that claim to be progressive, or they can join these groups and turn a blind eye to them when they single out for attack the only democratic country in the Middle East and the only Jewish state in the world.
That is wrong.
We cannot allow a new generation of Jews to be intimidated from supporting the very existence of Israel — or to feel shame about their heritage, rather than pride.
So to everyone here, whatever your party, I hope you will recognize that as a people — and as a country — we cannot afford to let prejudice live within partisanship. We must call it out wherever it exists, and no matter who is involved — whether we hear it from Marjorie Taylor Greene or Rashida Tlaib or anyone else.
And as we do this, we should remind our allies of something Rabbi Jonathan Sacks of Great Britain once said: “The hate that starts with the Jews never ends there.” And of course, as the quotation on the wall of the Holocaust Museum reminds us, the hate that starts with others can end with us.
We have always believed that in America, “It can’t happen here.” But when lies are widely accepted as truth, when verbal and physical attacks on marginalized groups pass without condemnation, when wild conspiracy theories run rampant, when election results are dismissed as fraudulent, and when leaders in government downplay an assault on the U.S. Capitol and the peaceful transfer of power, we must recognize that, tragically, it could happen here.
America is increasingly becoming a tinderbox. And we know from history that small fires — if they are not extinguished — can grow more dangerous and deadly, and can even lead to the unthinkable.
Tonight, as the holiday ends, let us resolve to find inspiration in the unity Hanukkah celebrates — all year long. Let us shine a light on anti-Semitism, whenever it appears and whoever it comes from. And as we do, may God’s light shine on all of us, of all faiths, working to repair the world.
We can't afford to let prejudice live within partisanship.
Sen. Bob Dole of Kansas, who died on Sunday at 98, had a complex record on Israel but a much more clear-cut one on Soviet Jews, whose cause he championed as a senator and Senate leader.
“The freedom of enslaved people is America’s business, and freedom is a task we must apply,” Dole, a Republican and Senate minority leader at the time, said in remarks at the 1987 mass rally at the U.S. Capitol on behalf of some 400,000 Jewish refuseniks. “I will not rest, and you will not rest, America will not rest, until they are all free.”
Dole told the crowd that in his close to three decades in Congress, he had dealt with many requests from people who wanted help for family members seeking to immigrate to the U.S. “I’ve never had one ask for help to leave America.” The list of Soviet Jews who were aided by Dole includes the dissident-turned-Israeli politician Natan Sharansky and Evgeny Yakir.
He implored Gorbachev, who was scheduled to arrive soon after for bilateral talks in the U.S., “Let every last woman and child, who wants to sleep under the same roof with their children and their family, or say a prayer in the synagogue, whether it be in Washington or Jerusalem; who only wants the chance of medical treatment — let them go, Mr. Gorbachev, let them go.”
In 1985, when he was Senate majority leader, Dole introduced a resolution that called for an end to harassment and for the release of refuseniks. It read in part: “Americans are a people who have strong compassion for the oppressed, undying love for freedom and an unwavering intolerance of the deprivation of basic God-given rights.”
A few years earlier, in 1982, Dole and former Congressman Jack Kemp — donning yarmulkes — presided over a Jewish long-distance wedding between a dissident in Washington, D.C., and a woman seeking to escape from the Soviet Union.
This morning I sat down with my newspaper, my coffee, and my cat, to read that the IDF held a ceremony on Tuesday to mark the completion of the massive and sophisticated barrier on the border (or whatever it is) with the Gaza Strip.
They call it an “iron wall,” 65 km long, with a fence that rises to a height of 6m above the ground and a concrete barrier below it whose depth is not specified, but is said to go deep enough to stop the tunnels that Hamas loves to dig. There is also a barrier that extends into the sea at its northern end. The whole system is rich in various kinds of sensors, radar, cameras, and even remotely controlled weapons. The IDF reports that numerous tunnels were discovered and destroyed during the construction of the underground barrier.
The system took three and half years to build at a cost of 3.5 billion shekels, or more than US$ 1.1 billion. That is a lot of money that could be used for many other purposes, but given the situation it was necessary.
There is nothing quite as frightening for civilians living near Gaza or on the northern border near Lebanon than the prospect of a terror tunnel opening up a few meters from their homes. In some cases, residents heard sounds of digging and voices speaking Arabic before a tunnel was discovered. Hamas had plans to kidnap civilians and execute mass casualty attacks through these tunnels, and during Operation Protective Edge in 2014, some 14 tunnels that crossed the border into Israel were destroyed, plus several more inside the strip.
You may recall that Hamas terrorists infiltrated through a tunnel back in 2006, attacked an IDF post near Kerem Shalom at the southern end of the strip, killed two IDF soldiers and wounded several others including Gilad Shalit, who was carried back through the tunnel to Gaza, where he was held for more than six years. He was ultimately released in exchange for 1,027 prisoners in Israeli prisons, many of them murderers serving long sentences. These prisoners represented both Hamas and other terrorist factions, and many returned to terror activities.
But barriers in general have not proven effective deterrents to attack, because ways are almost always found to bypass or neutralize them, as happened with the Maginot and Bar-Lev lines. And while Hamas may not be able to go over or through the new barrier, they can still launch rockets and fire mortar shells over it, as well as release incendiary and explosive balloons to be carried by the prevailing winds into nearby fields and Jewish communities. The inexpensive rockets, even when most of them are intercepted by Iron Dome, comprise an effective form of economic warfare, with each Iron Dome launch costing some $40,000 (usually at least two interceptors are fired at each incoming rocket at a cost of $40,000 each).
Just as the mounted cavalry was neutralized by the machine gun, and the machine gun made less effective by the tank, Hamas rockets are presently neutralized (except economically) by Iron Dome. But the advent of precision-guided rockets and drones can change the equation. Today we know that Hezbollah has some quantity of them, and probably Hamas has some or will get some soon.
The new barrier also doesn’t prevent Hamas from exporting subversion to sympathetic Arabs in Judea/Samaria and even among Arab citizens of Israel.
Those of you who regularly read my columns know what’s coming. Pure defensive measures, building the ghetto walls higher and stronger, can only hold an enemy at bay, not defeat him. And technological advances by the aggressor, like precision-guided rockets, can tip the balance quickly. The only way to defeat an enemy is by moving from defense to offense. So while defensive technology, like the barrier, may be necessary for survival, it is not sufficient for victory.
Everything I’ve said so far deals only with the tangible or kinetic aspects of the conflict. The psychological aspect is another story entirely. The message that we send to ourselves, our friends, and our enemies, by our reliance on defensive technology and tactics, is that it is if not acceptable, it is still understandable that savage Jew-haters will continue to bombard our country with the intent to kill as many of us as possible. And soon – this, actually, has already happened – many people begin to think that it is acceptable after all. We become the guy at the carnival who sticks his head through a canvas sheet and dodges balls thrown by the patrons.
For the sake of our national honor as well as to maintain deterrence, such a situation cannot be allowed to stand.
Hamas is a deadly infection, and it has turned Gaza into a pocket of pus on the side of our country. Walling it off is only a temporary expedient; curing the disease will require wiping out the bacteria that cause it. The danger to our citizens in the south and ultimately in the entire country can only be ended by crushing Hamas as a military and political force, which calls for an intensive campaign, including a ground incursion.
It’s sometimes suggested that if Israel destroys Hamas, then what will arise in its place will be worse. The answer is that in that case, we’ll need to destroy the replacement as well. It is also said that the expense and difficulty of ruling the strip in the event that there is no acceptable autonomous leadership will be too great.
But keep this in mind: in January of 2009 Israel was poised for a ground invasion of Gaza, which was called off after Tzipi Livni was summoned to the US and apparently given an ultimatum by officials of the incoming Obama Administration (the same one that supported Hamas’ parent group, the Muslim Brotherhood, in Egypt). Since then, we have found it necessary to have four small but costly wars, and to spend 3.5 billion shekels on a barrier – and the threat remains. What if we had gone ahead and conquered Gaza and killed the war criminals leading Hamas?
Or go back further, to 2005, before Hamas had control of the strip. What if Israel had not withdrawn, if we had not destroyed numerous successful Jewish communities and displaced 8,000 people? What would the situation look like today? Would it be better or worse? Would it have been more “costly and difficult” than a series of wars and the building of a massive barrier?
I think the answer is clear. Cowering behind the walls of the ghetto is a poor idea both practically and psychologically. Rather, we must bring Hamas to total defeat, like Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.
The Boy in the Striped
Pajamas, a Holocaust film from 2008, is one I’d never seen before. I didn’t
really want to watch it. I’ve seen enough Holocaust movies to last a lifetime,
if you’ll excuse the inappropriate idiom. But like vegetables you eat for your
health and not your palate, I figured I was due for a serving.
Anyway, it’s not like one can really shy away from learning
about and remembering the Holocaust. Or maybe you can, if you are a non-Jew.
You can just choose to stick your head in historical sand and live your life
blind to the implications of so many millions of Jews hunted down, herded into
gas chambers, and incinerated into ash.
But not only non-Jews become ostriches when faced with the
catastrophe that is the Holocaust. Jews worldwide say, “Never again,” and then
do very little when actually faced with a huge spike in antisemitic incidents
and attacks as is currently the case. For this reason alone, the rest of us are
tasked with the heavy responsibility of refreshing our collective memories, and
continuing to educate ourselves on this subject. This work will never be over.
Watching The Boy in
Striped Pajamas is a part of this work, only because it teaches a lie. Which
is why it is unsurprising that The Boy in
the Striped Pajamas is on Netflix. After all, Michelle and Barak “randomly
shoot a bunch of folks in a deli” Obama, are hard
at work destroying long-accepted societal norms. They are getting the big
bucks to teach us that whites have privilege, America is not exceptional,
and the Jews are nothing special:
Back in 2018, the [Obamas] first signed a groundbreaking
multi-year deal with Netflix through their production company, Higher Ground
Productions. "We created Higher Ground to harness the power of
storytelling," President Obama told The Hollywood Reporter. "That’s why
we couldn’t be more excited about these projects. Touching on issues of race
and class, democracy and civil rights, and much more, we believe each of these
productions won’t just entertain, but will educate, connect and inspire us
all."
Of course, I wasn’t really thinking of any of this when I
clicked play. Netflix had shown me the preview; I had some free time; and I
realized that I had never watched this movie and thought I probably should. I
steeled myself for the “lesson” I was about to absorb.
The first thing I noticed was the lush cinematography. The
scenery and clothing are realistic, the colors rich. As time went on, I
realized that beautiful colors and fine film work can be as deceptive as it is
effective in strengthening the message a movie is intended to impart. In the
case of The Boy in the Striped Pajamas,
that message is: Not all Germans are bad and not all Jews are good.
The Boy in the Striped
Pajamas then, is one more in the pantheon of Holocaust movies calculated to
show good Germans where few to none would have or could have existed. The
movies are well made and full of pathos. The main purpose of these films,
however, is not to teach the Holocaust but to suggest that there were the same
number of good Germans as bad—and as many Germans who refused to serve in the
Nazi army as those who served, an outlandish and shocking fiction.
Watching these movies, anyone ignorant of what really
happened will be waiting for it: the moment where a good Nazi does a kindness
for or saves a Jew. Because that is what filmgoers like best. That is what
moves them. This is not, however, what happened in the Holocaust. For the
approximately 7 million (and still counting) Jews who were murdered, there were
no good Nazis, no good Germans waiting in the wings to save a Jew just so viewers
could pass around that box of tissues as they delicately dab their eyes (and
eat popcorn).
The Jews had no Saviors
The Jews had no saviors. They were murdered, their lives and
future generations lost forever. It is as coldly horrible as that.
But inversion of truth is a theme that is evident throughout
The Boy in the Striped Pajamas. The roles
are reversed, and a little German boy and his family are the victims. This is
what students are meant to absorb as they watch this “educational” film.
This is actually no different from the message imparted by the
BBC today about Jewish victims of Arab terror. The BBC works hard at skewing
the truth for its audiences. Typical consumers of BBC fare have no idea that
many Arabs are terrorists and that they specifically target Jews. The BBC has
told them, and they believe, that the Jews have no right to any territory
within the borders of the modern State of Israel. BBC viewers believe that the
terrorists are victims, and the victims, evildoers, because the BBC has told
them so.
Humanizing Nazis
“Humanizing Nazis echoes the trend of humanizing terrorists.
It serves the purpose of diminishing the brutality of their intentions by
claiming a justifiable ‘cause,’ says Dr. Elana Heideman, Holocaust scholar and
Executive Director of The Israel Forever Foundation. “As a result, one who
feels the humanity of the Nazi can examine the victims of that brutality with
increasing callousness, disregard and, specifically for Jews, increased
dehumanization.”
This kind of disregard for and even dismissal of the plight of the Jews is evident in The Boy in the Striped
Pajamas. The movie does not teach the Holocaust—instead it whitewashes genocide for an
audience so ignorant of history, it doesn’t even know it is watching a lie. Or
perhaps it simply doesn’t want to know, and prefers fiction to reality.
As I watched The Boy in
Striped Pajamas, I came to understand that I was not so much getting a
lesson on the Holocaust, as on the futility of war. This is galling, and a
misdirection. The Holocaust is about Jewish genocide. Look at it straight on, I
angrily told the screen. Stop co-opting it for your flavor of the month ideology.
Not that anyone would listen. Just as they wouldn't listen in my Facebook meme group when I asked them not to use Holocaust and Nazi terminology or imagery in reference to vaccination mandates and programs, or anything and anyone they do not like.
A Joking Reference
“Nazi, now a word used to refer to anyone who may
demonstrate some version of stringency in their behavior or attitude, has
become a form of a joking reference, removing the severity of the murderous
truth behind the name,” says Dr. Heideman. “The potential benefit of humanizing
Nazis would be if it were to teach others how easy it is for any individual to
give in to their basest human tendencies for evil and cruelty when the matter
of responsibility is taken away.
“Unfortunately, this is not the result as more and more
become enamored with the idea of power, strength, pride that the humanized Nazi
represents,” says Heideman.
Perhaps that is why we find Bruno so sympathetic. The little German boy, son of a Nazi commandant, is
the main characterin The Boy in the Striped Pajamas. His grandmother is against Nazism and war in general. Her punishment for speaking out is that she is
killed—though we are told she died in an Allied bombing. We know, however, that
she was killed, because her husband, a Nazi sympathizer, was there with her and was left completely
unscathed. This is one of many pointed revelations that Bruno and his mother confront
as they wrestle with understanding what is actually happening.
It is a very slow reveal. And no one who really knows the
history of the Holocaust would believe that everyday Germans learned only with
time that evil that was all around them. Even little boys like Bruno would have
known full well that the Jews were being hunted down and killed like rats. But
in the context of the fiction that is this movie, Bruno remains clueless
throughout the movie. Which is why *SPOILER ALERT* he blundered into a gas
chamber and died.
Bruno isn’t the only character who doesn’t get it. His
mother, too, seems to have little awareness of the Holocaust until it is waved
under her nose. His father, of course, is a prototypical Nazi brute. There
needed to be at least one. (Ralf is there to represent!)
The Real Drama Begins
It’s when Bruno’s family moves next door to a fictional
Auschwitz that the real drama begins. There’s a terrible smell. We see the
chimney of the crematorium belching Jewish smoke. Bruno’s mom figures it out
and has a nervous breakdown. The subtle message here is that “not every German”
took part in the atrocities. Some, like Bruno’s fictional mom, were either
married to Nazis, making it complicated for them to leave, or were simply
unaware of what was happening all around them. Which is simply not possible.
We learn that the maid and a handsome blond Nazi
soldier named Kotler are probably Jews under cover. They overact the part of “Good
Germans” and Nazis, in order to save their skins. One of them is unsuccessful.
Bruno, against his mother’s directive, goes to explore
what he thinks is a farm next door. He comes to an electric fence where he
meets Shmuel, a little Jewish boy imprisoned in the camp who is stealing a few
precious minutes of leisure. After they spend a few minutes getting acquainted,
Shmuel takes up a wheelbarrow and goes back to work. Which makes no sense. In a real concentration camp, he
would have had no ability to take a break to play at a fence. He would have had
no will of his own to resume work at his leisure.
The friendship between the two deepens on Bruno’s daily
visits to the fence, sometimes with food that is subsequently wolfed down by the Jewish boy.
The storyline as presented made me angry. What Jewish boy, in such a scenario, would have had the energy
to play?
Equal Danger
Also: instead of worrying about Nazi brutality, the viewer spends most of the movie terrified that one of the little boys will make a mistake and be electrocuted
at the fence. This is part of the lie that the producers shove down our
throats: Jew or German, it matters not. Both are in equal danger, both boys are willing to sacrifice everything--their very lives--for friendship (as if the Jewish boy had a choice or anything to say in the matter).
Eventually, Bruno risks his life to go under the fence. We
are made to believe this makes him brave. The little boy is not a Nazi, just a
regular German hero. But in actual fact, there was no such thing.
Bruno’s characterisation perpetuates the belief that most
German civilians were ignorant of what was happening around them. In fact the
general public in Germany and in occupied Europe were well aware that Jewish
people were being persecuted, forced to emigrate and eventually deported. There
were also many who knew that Jewish people were being killed. Many Germans
profited from the Holocaust as Jewish properties and belongings were
‘Aryanised’, which meant they were taken from their Jewish owners and given
instead to ‘ethnic’ Germans. A minority of German civilians resisted Nazi
ideology. Nazi authorities stamped out resistance to the regime quickly and
brutally . . .
As an audience we learn a lot about Bruno, so he becomes a
real little boy in our imaginations. However, Shmuel is only ever depicted as a
one-dimensional victim. Shmuel has no personality or individuality, so
the audience doesn’t build an emotional connection with him. This means it is
harder for the reader to empathise with Shmuel and his situation. . .
Shmuel’s story is also historically inaccurate. For readers
of the book it is clear that the camp is probably the Auschwitz concentration
camp complex as Bruno calls it ‘Out-With’. If a young boy like Shmuel had
entered Auschwitz-Birkenau then it is very likely he would have been sent
straight to the gas chambers on arrival, just like the majority of children who
arrived there, as the Nazis didn’t consider them useful as forced labour. A
small number of children were chosen for medical experimentation but these
children were kept away from the main camp. Even if Shmuel had been selected
for forced labour he would not have had the opportunity to spend most of his
days sitting on the outskirts of the camp.
The story’s conclusion leaves many readers upset. Bruno digs
a tunnel under the wire, crawls into the camp, then he and Shmuel go looking
for Shmuel’s missing father. Both boys are swept up in a group of prisoners
being taken to the gas chamber, where all of them are murdered. The emotional
focus of the story is on Bruno’s family and their distress as they realise what
has happened to their son. The reader’s attention remains with the experience
of the concentration camp commandant and his wife whose son has been killed in
what is portrayed as a tragic accident.
Because the focus of the story remains on Bruno’s family,
the book does not engage with the main tragedy of the Holocaust: that none of
the people in the gas chamber should have been there. Due to the way in which
Shmuel’s character is portrayed in the novel, his character doesn’t engage the
reader’s sympathy in the way that Bruno does. Shmuel represents the 1.5 million
children murdered by the Nazi regime in Auschwitz-Birkenau, in the death camps
of occupied Europe and in the killing fields where millions of civilians were
shot into mass graves, yet the reader’s sympathy is directed towards a Nazi
concentration camp commandant and his family.
A British
study on student reactions to Holocaust films including The Boy in the Striped Pajamas,
illustrates some of the main takeaways from the film:
"[The movie] made me feel more compassionate towards
both sides in this kind of issue between maybe Jews and Germans, although I'm
only using those kind of terms to, to categorise ... if anything, I've taken
away ... a grander understanding of not just the Jewish people and the problems
they faced but the German people and the problems that they faced, too, and
then these things coming together" (Peter, 26, dance practitioner).
"Yeah, pretty much, erm, don't let your kids climb
under fences ... I suppose, try to explain these things, like kind of bad
things in the world to your children, don't keep them in a complete innocence
... He didn't know what was wrong with going ... to the other side ... if he
had known, maybe he would have been a bit more standoffish but then you kind of
think, well, the fence, that, that whole thing shouldn't have existed anyway,
the concentration camps, so it's, it shouldn't have existed and he, like as a
child, shouldn't have to know about it, shouldn't have to burdened with these
kind of terrible, terrible events and emotions and stuff, so it's, it's, I
don't know, it's very hard to reconcile what I think towards the movie, I
think” (Sam, 19, student, when asked if he thought that the film held a "message for today").
The study author writes:
The arguably loaded question that I asked him, which
presupposed that the film does indeed have a "message", did not surprise
Sam. His response was immediate and detailed. It reflects what [some have] warned
of in relation to The Boy in the
Striped Pyjamas: that Bruno's death "becomes less a consequence of
prejudice and more a bizarre health and safety incident. If Bruno had been
properly instructed about the camp (as would have been the case in reality) he
would not have gone inside.”
Sam realised that this "message" is flawed as the
concentration camps "shouldn't have existed", but his concern is,
nonetheless, reserved for Bruno (as the one that should not be burdened) rather
than Shmuel. [Other experts have argued that "we are supposed to be
somehow devastated, along with the Nazi commandant that the wrong boy died.”
Among the English pupils interviewed . . . we similarly find
"a perspective of widespread German ignorance of the Holocaust" and
"a marked tendency to shift their locus of concern from the victims of the
Holocaust onto the bystanders and even, to some extent, to the perpetrators.”
It is an awful thing that the book on which this movie is
based and the movie itself are considered Holocaust "classics" and are used as
educational materials in classrooms all over the world. As more and more states
mandate Holocaust education, we must have proper oversight to ensure that what
is taught reflects the actual horror of the Holocaust. It is critical to ensure that children
understand that there were no good people saving the Jews.
The enormity of the
catastrophe deserves to be seen head on without historical embellishments or distortions. No one has the right to exploit and abscond with the Holocaust for their own purposes. No
one has the right to minimize or distort the truth.
AP has an article about Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan chiding Israel by saying that it should show more "sensitivity" towards Palestinians, by - for example - not letting Jews pray in their holiest place.
A few paragraphs down, it mentions:
Israel, for its part, is upset by Erdogan’s warm relations with Hamas, the militant group that controls the Gaza Strip. Israel considers Hamas a terror group.
The implication is that only Israel considers Hamas a terror group.
However, much of the free world considers Hamas to be a terrorist organization. Canada, the European Union, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States all agree with Israel that Hamas is a terror group, and Australia, New Zealand and Paraguay have designated its Al Qassam Brigades only as a terrorist organization.
Why would AP imply that it is only Israel that makes this designation?
There is really no way to look at this and not conclude that AP wants to downplay Hamas terrorism and subtly make Israel look paranoid for calling out Hamas for what it is.
And when a major wire service shills for Hamas, that should set off alarm bells for everyone.
A group of Republican senators led by Tom Cotton on Monday introduced a bill that would allow the US government to sanction foreign banks using the American financial system to facilitate so-called “martyr payments” to families of Palestinian terrorists.
“Radical Islamic terrorists shouldn’t be rewarded for killing innocent people, and banks should be held responsible for processing any sort of ‘martyr payments,’ Cotton stated at a press conference Monday introducing the new bill.
The bill, named the “Taylor Force Martyr Payment Prevention Act of 2021,” seeks to ensure “Palestinian terrorists don’t benefit financially for committing these senseless murders,” Cotton added.
The legislation builds on the Taylor Force Act, which was passed with bipartisan support in 2018 to restrict non-humanitarian US aid to the Palestinian Authority if it continues to make payments to security prisoners and their families.
The Act was named in memory of a former American army officer stabbed to death in 2016 by a Palestinian terrorist in Tel Aviv.
“The legislation has made a difference, but our work is not yet finished. Reporting has revealed that foreign banks in the Middle East in the Mediterranean, continue to process the so-called martyr payments, sometimes in US dollar-denominated transactions,” Cotton said. “They have escaped sanctions by avoiding an official US presence, while maintaining correspondent accounts in the United States.”
There is no set date or event for when the Second Intifada ended, with some saying the unilateral disengagement from the Gaza Strip was the ‘end date’ while others say that the death of Yasser Arafat led Palestinians to stop the violence.
Ten years later, the 2015 “stabbing intifada” began with Palestinians – mainly youth – stabbing, running over and shooting Israeli soldiers, civilians and even tourists in a wave of violence in the West Bank and Israel. There were almost daily attacks in the winter of 2015-16 before the violence decreased.
There have been sporadic waves of violence since and all, if not most of them, were carried out by lone-wolf Palestinian youths.
Unlike during the first two intifadas, the challenges that the army faces during the current wave of violence in the West Bank and Israel are completely different.
The Palestinians who were involved in the violence during the first and second intifadas were much older than the average attacker that the army currently faces. The IDF’s intelligence-gathering capabilities have also increased dramatically since the prior two intifadas.
Another change that’s less apparent but just as important is the increased communications between the two sides which did not exist before.
But while the IDF does not consider the recent attacks as a significant rise in violence, or another “wave” of attacks, the military must admit that the lone-wolf attacker is a threat that they have yet to control.
Jonathan Schanzer: US Media Coverage on Israel is 'insane'
Author and Middle East analyst Jonathan Schanzer joins JNS editor-in-chief Jonathan Tobin to discuss his new book "Gaza Conflict 2021: Hamas, Israel and Eleven Days of War."
The two discuss how the myths about the conflict spread by Palestinian terror groups and picked up by the media have impacted opinion about Israel and how the conflict between Fatah and Hamas and their opposition to peace with the Jewish state is ignored by the Jewish state’s critics.
An op-ed in Kuwait's Al Rai Media by columnist Sultan Ibrahim Khalaf starts off with:
Zionists are inherently prone to be blackmailers. Perhaps the famous play "The Merchant of Venice," written by Shakespeare, gives the best examples of this bad quality that was represented by the Jewish merchant Shylock in the play.
This characteristic still accompanies the Zionists in their relations with the countries of the world.
Yes, Shylock is the ultimate blackmailing Zionist.
Khalaf goes on to use Israel's dispute with Poland over Holocaust restitutions as proof of the "Zionist" blackmailing nature, and then he says, "The accusation of anti-Semitism is used by the Zionists at any time and for any reason."
"Zionists" are genetically disposed to be blackmailers as is proven from a piece of antisemitic fiction. Even worse, they falsely accuse righteous people like this author of antisemitism!
This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For 20 years and 40,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.
The Miserable Left
-
1 in 3 Americans feel lonely every week and 1 in 5 feel lonely every day.
Less than half of households are headed by married couples and the marriage
r...
Official Names
-
Dry Bones Golden Oldies in the fond memory of Yaakov Kirschen (Dry Bones)
by Sali, the LSW. (Long Suffering Wife) (But happy in the role💜). This
carto...
One Choice: Fight to Win
-
Yesterday Israel preempted a potentially disastrous attack by Hezbollah on
the center of the country. Thirty minutes before launch time, our aircraft
destr...
Closing Jews Down Under Website
-
With a heavyish heart I am closing down the website after ten years.
It is and it isn’t an easy decision after 10 years of constant work. The
past...
‘Test & Trace’ is a mirage
-
Lockdown II thoughts: Day 1 Opposition politicians have been banging on
about the need for a ‘working’ Test & Trace system even more loudly than
the govern...
Thursday, December 09, 2021
Ofer Prison, north of Jerusalem, December 9 - Human Rights groups accused Israel's military today of inhumane treatment of Palestinian detainees, including such unnecessarily harsh measures as simply presuming that prisoners who talk, dress, act, and have anatomy in the manner of males are in fact males.
