Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Wednesday, December 15, 2021

12/15 Links Pt2: Anti-Zionists rob US Jews of their Zionist dreams; UK to outlaw BDS in the 'following months'; Anti-Zionists rob US Jews of their Zionist dreams

From Ian:

Gil Troy: Anti-Zionists rob US Jews of their Zionist dreams

Our enemies try making Zionism a dirty word; in Israel, Zionism is a blessed blueprint, helping the Jewish people flourish. Our enemies try making Israel the world’s greatest problem; here, Israel is the greatest platform for finding meaning – and building a good life. Our enemies try unraveling Judaism, falsely distinguishing the religion’s “good” spiritual dimensions from the “bad” peoplehood and statehood parts; Israel – at this wedding and every day – brings alive the Jewish Oreo cookie, the natural integration between our religious and national identities, cemented by culture, history, fate and faith.

Our enemies try making every Israel-oriented conversation about the Palestinians and “the” Arab-Israeli conflict; but Israel is a multidimensional country with so much more to it than its Palestinian enemies. Prime Minister Naftali Bennett’s trip to the UAE proves that “the” Arab-Israeli conflict should be rebranded as the Arab-Israeli conflicts, wherein we emphasize “Peace More” – the growing peace we have with Egypt, Jordan, the UAE, Morocco and Sudan.

Sun Tzu taught 2,500 years ago: “If you know the enemy and yourself, you need not fear the results of a hundred battles. But if you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will lose every battle. Most Israelis know themselves, their enemies, our identities – fewer American Jews do.

It’s easy to get mired in day-to-day problems. But anyone with any historical perspective should realize we all won the historical lottery. The young Jews marrying today, establishing homes in Israel, are far better off than their parents and grandparents were as they struggled to establish themselves in a war-torn, impoverished Israel, or their ancestors were in benighted, undemocratic, antisemitic countries, be they Tunisia, Yemen, Russia or Poland.

We should continue dreaming up solutions to our problems, while always appreciating how lucky we are to be living the dream, as a free people, with secure identities, in our homeland, the land of Zion, Jerusalem.

Hussain Abdul-Hussain: Introducing How to Fight Anti-Semitism in Arabic

Ideas Beyond Borders asked me to write a forward to Bari Weiss’s book How to Fight Anti-Semitism, which the organization is translating to Arabic. The lines below are a rough translation to English of the forward that I wrote to address an Arabic-speaking audience.

Arabs never experienced freedom. Islam, the religion of the majority of the Arabs, imagines a relationship between the individual and his Creator, and promises reward and punishment on the Day of Judgment, which — in theory — gives the believers a lifetime for experimenting with ideas and ideals that are at odds with the established norms. The majority of Muslims, however, violate such Islamic teaching by elevating the opinion of the group, often the ruling group, over the opinion of minority groups and individuals. The ruling Arab group therefore designs public space in its image, imposes its tastes, customs and traditions, and punishes dissenters, often accusing them of blasphemy and, at times, even practicing violence against them. This is the same tyranny against which Islam originally revolted, when the Messenger of Muslims rebelled against prevailing beliefs and customs.

The majority of Muslims are not aware of their tyranny, but rather perceive of their social code as being tolerant and merciful. Ask any Muslim about the situation of minorities in his country, and he will answer that their situation has been always excellent, and that the exodus of minorities has been for their own nefarious reasons, and because of foreign instigation and conspiracies against Islam and Muslims. Such Islamic perception falls short of understanding the meaning of equality.

The Islamic system of dhimma, reserved for the People of the Book (Jews and Christians), denies non-Muslims the rights that it grants to Muslims. The system was designed to encourage the conversion of non-Muslims, with lesser rights, to Islam, in order to allow them to enjoy full rights. Islam’s two-tier dhimma system entrenches inequality.

Synagogue group helps Afghan family flee Taliban, reunite with relatives in New York

The family had been on the run for weeks already, since the Afghan government fell and the Taliban took Kabul.

They had fled the capital along with others in a convoy of buses, arriving in the northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif under the cover of night and taking cover in a wedding hall.

Taliban fighters prowled outside, carrying lists of names and photographs, and the furtive organizers of their group did not allow the family outdoors.

Eventually, some of the children in hiding got sick and needed medical attention, so the family ventured out.

“Anything could happen,” the father said. “Their checkpoints were increasing by the passing of each day. We didn’t know whose name was on their list or whose picture they used to carry.

“We did not go out until we had to.”

‘Chaos, like our country’
Months after fleeing Kabul, the family has reached safety and freedom in New York, with the help of organizations, relatives and individuals on the ground in the United States and Afghanistan.

Their journey illustrates the widespread, ongoing fallout from the messy American withdrawal from Afghanistan and the improvised networks used to extricate and support some refugees from the war-torn nation.

“Palestine” is an important topic for most liberals. As such, there is no reason to think that it is any different for liberal Jews. Perhaps even more so, and that is why an item in the latest edition of the American Friends of the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra (IPO) newsletter, piqued my interest. “Celebrates 85 Years of Magnificent Music!” blared the headline, referring to the IPO.

My brain saw “85” and spat out “pre-state,” meaning “pre-state Israel.” “If the IPO was founded in pre-state Israel,” I mused, “then it would have been called something like the ‘Palestine Philharmonic Orchestra.’”

The newsletter said nothing about a name change and I was curious. Not just about the name, but about the history of the IPO. Anything pre-state is my gig. Besides, I remembered something about the Philharmonic being founded by Bronislaw Huberman to save Jewish musicians from the Holocaust. Cool stuff. I wanted to refresh my memory.

Sure enough, when I clicked on the newsletter to navigate to the website, I found a timeline with a short introductory paragraph headlined: “Marching To A New Drum: The IPO Origin Story.”

The paragraph begins:

The Israel Philharmonic Orchestra was founded in 1936 by Bronislaw Huberman to save the lives of Europe’s Jewish musicians from the Holocaust.

“Hmmm,” I thought. “Well, it wouldn’t have been called ‘Israel’ in 1936, so the orchestra could not have been founded under that name.”

More properly, that sentence should have read, “The Israel Philharmonic Orchestra was founded as the [original name here] in 1936 . . .” and etc.

But maybe I was being too sensitive, too picayune. Tempest in a teapot and all that.

I finished the intro and moved on to the timeline. In 1934, the IPO is referred to only as the “Orchestra.” But in 1936, the reader is informed that:

Albert Einstein hosted the IPO’s first fundraiser at the Waldorf Astoria New York.

‘Okay,’ I thought. ‘This is now officially ridiculous. It’s supposed to be a history!’

The name change should have been documented, even in a simple timeline. I scanned the rest of the timeline, and it wasn’t there. I scanned the rest of the website, and it wasn’t there. The website had been scrubbed clean of any reference to “Palestine.”

After some research, I figured it out. The newsletter and the website it led me to, were products of the American Friends of the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra, an organization based in America that raises funds on behalf of the IPO. It is this fundraising arm’s website that refuses to say the “P” word.

The regular IPO website, on the other hand, said it in the very first sentence under “Our History”:

On 26 December 1936, The Palestine Orchestra was born.

It didn’t feel like an oversight that the American Friends of the IPO had left out the original name, which as it turns out, was not “Palestine Philharmonic Orchestra,” but “The Palestine Orchestra.” The omission had to be intentional. It had to be about not wanting to cause offense. The AFIPO was taking great care not to use the word “Palestine” in a Jewish context. It might affect their funding. Because their liberal Jewish donor base, they must have thought, would have apoplexy. “Palestine” must be thought of as something that belongs by rights to Arabs, the past erased.

Think of it this way: if one is a liberal, giving a state to “Palestinians” within Israel’s borders is part of one’s froufrou social justice credo and absolutely essential. All the more so the liberal Jew who feels an overwhelming need, almost a pathology, to bring about an Arab state of Palestine on Jewish land. They are impelled to draw a moral equivalence where none exists: “We have a state. They deserve to have one, too,” they will insist, happy to sacrifice Jewish land to make kosher their image in the eyes of the goyim.

The first concert, December 26, 1936. Conductor Arturo Toscanini shakes the hand of Bronislaw Huberman (photo from the Central Zionist Archives).

Perhaps they think that if they only seem fair-minded about the division of their/our land, the world will know that they are good Jews. It would come to them as a relief, for they feel this heavy burden, a yoke that makes them slaves to public opinion. They are always weighing things: how much do we need to protest against Israel—to give whatever we have—to get that yoke removed—in order to belong to normative, non-Jewish society?

Their agonized deliberation is, however, an empty exercise. The yoke will always be there, sitting heavy on their shoulders, the yoke that ties them to their identity as Jews. It will never be lifted. If they forget the yoke is there, the goyim will remind them.

And as long as the yoke is there, tying them to their history from the center of their being, they will peddle the idea of Palestinian statehood like it is candy for children, or drugs for addicts. They hold it out on a platter, even though the decision is not theirs to make, even though they have no right to give away what God gave the Sons of Israel for all time. Even though they have no right to demean what is the sovereign State of Israel. Some of them, deep down, still know this. But they just want to be liked and accepted (poor things). Even if it means omitting or erasing the truth.

Because everyone knows that pre-state Israel was called “Palestine,” and that all its institutions were referred to as Palestine this, and Palestine that. The British Mandate-issued identity card of my cousin who served in the Palmach listed his nationality as “Palestinian.” Another cousin worked for the Anglo-Palestine Bank. The Jerusalem Post was formerly called the “Palestine” Post.

Today, however, it is forbidden for the liberal Jew to say these things, or as in the case of the AFIPO web content, to read them. Making use of the word “Palestine” in a Jewish, pre-state context, might (God forbid) lend legitimacy to the idea that Palestine never belonged to the Arabs, was never a state, and certainly never an Arab state. This is not something that liberal Jews will countenance and if you try to show them the facts, they will show you the hand. They will not be confronted with the truth.

The façade is everything. The thin veneer of social acceptance overlaid on Jewish blood is all they seek, though that blood is more and more diluted and diversified with other bloodlines untainted by thousands of years of tormented history.

They want to be free. They believe they are free.

They can almost taste it.

(It makes a great condiment for pork.)

Looking at Iran's "target map"

Today's Tehran Times included a map of potential targets for Iranian (and Hamas and Hezbollah) rockets in Israel:

They also included a map of a close-up around Gaza so that Hamas wouldn't be upset at being a potential target.

There are a lot of "targets" along the Egyptian border.

Google Maps shows that in many of the places they mark there is nothing but desert.

So I guess there are three possibilities:

1. Israel is placing lots of military installations along the Egyptian border and hiding them for unknown reasons.

2. Iran plans to bomb the border fence in many spots to allow Sinai ISIS members (whom Iran professes as their enemies) to come across the border.

3. Iran has so many rockets that it can afford to aim them at random desert locations just for fun.

4. This target map is completely made up.

The headline, "Just One Wrong Move!," is also interesting. Because by now Iran has admitted that Israel has successfully sabotaged Iran's crucial nuclear facilities multiple times. Were they not the "wrong moves"?

12/15 Links Pt1: The Left should end its Iran hypocrisy; The US promised, Israel carried through; Why Does the UN Celebrate Palestinian Terrorism and Rejectionism?

From Ian:

The Left should end its Iran hypocrisy

The core of the Biden administration’s strategy on Iran appears simply to do the opposite of former President Donald Trump.

Trump walked away from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action? Then the goal must be to rejoin it rather than address its fundamental flaws.

Trump embraced "maximum pressure" to compel behavioral change in Tehran? Then step one for the Biden team must be to flood Iran with sanctions relief. Never mind the inconvenient truth that, in the Islamic Republic, there is a direct correlation between trade and terrorism thanks to the Revolutionary Guards’ stranglehold over most industries.

If liberals want to be successful on Iran issues, they should change their tack. Rather than define themselves as doing the opposite of the Republicans, they should instead be true to their stated principles of supporting labor, protecting the environment, and defending human rights.

It has now been more than 15 years since President George W. Bush missed Iran’s Lech Walesa moment when bus drivers defied their government to form the Islamic Republic’s first independent trade union. Today, unionism is a growing force in Iran, one that leader Ali Khamenei, Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi, and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps chief Hossein Salami each fear.

On Monday, teachers went on strike across Iran to demand basic rights. From a nuclear strategy standpoint, encouraging unionization should be a no-brainer, for every dollar that the Revolutionary Guards must pay textile factory or sugar cane workers is a dollar they cannot invest in ballistic missiles or nuclear centrifuges. If a general strike paralyzes Iran’s oil fields where workers face unsafe conditions and poor living standards, then there is no oil for Tehran to sell to Beijing or Pyongyang. That American and European labor organizations support workers everywhere except for Iran should lead to some liberal soul-searching.

US, Palestinians see eye to eye on settlements - PA officials

The PA Foreign Ministry on Wednesday called on the Biden administration to “translate United Nations resolutions pertaining to the Palestinian cause into practical steps in order to oblige Israel to end its occupation of the lands of the State of Palestine, with its capital East Jerusalem.”

The ministry accused the Israeli government of “practicing various forms of illegal and illegitimate settlements that are directly hostile to peace.”

The ministry claimed that assaults by settlers on Palestinians have significantly increased.

“The Biden administration sees eye to eye with the Palestinian Authority about the settlements and settler violence,” said a PA ministry official.

“The Americans understand that the settlements aim to destroy the two-state solution. They also understand that daily assaults [by settlers] on farmers and villagers pose a serious threat to security and stability.”

However, despite Ramallah’s satisfaction with the Biden administration’s attitude towards settlements, the Palestinians are hoping that the Americans “will move from words to deeds and force Israel to halt all settlement activities and rein in violent settlers,” the official added.

Additionally, the Palestinians are satisfied with the Biden administration’s policy of strengthening the PA and its urging of Israel to follow suit.

“The Trump administration treated the Palestinians as if they were an enemy,” the PA ministry official noted. “The current administration has adopted a completely different approach. They are talking to us with respect.”

Meanwhile, 56% of the Palestinians said they oppose a return to dialogue with the Biden administration, according to a public opinion poll conducted by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research.

Yet, when asked about the country or party that is most influential in convincing the Palestinians and Israelis to return to the peace process, 46% of respondents said the US.

US, Palestinian officials relaunch economic dialogue after 5-year, Trump-era hiatus

US and Palestinian officials met virtually Tuesday for the relaunching of the “US-Palestinian Economic Dialogue,” which failed to meet during the Trump administration when relations between Washington and Ramallah deteriorated to an all-time low.

The officials from a wide range of government offices on both sides discussed “infrastructure development, access to US markets, US regulations, free trade, financial issues, renewable energy and environmental initiatives, connecting Palestinian and American businesses, and addressing obstacles to Palestinian economic development,” a statement from the State Department said.

It marked the latest step by the Biden administration to boost ties with the Palestinians. Since entering office last January, US President Joe Biden has renewed hundreds of millions of dollars in humanitarian aid to the West Bank, Gaza Strip and the UN agency for Palestinian refugees UNRWA. It has also re-established official ties with Ramallah, which all but severed relations with Washington after former president Donald Trump recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital in late 2017.

Biden officials have been holding regular meetings with their Palestinian counterparts, and the Palestinian Authority has even begun engaging with the US Embassy in Jerusalem following an announcement by the Biden administration that it would reopen the US consulate in the city, which long served as the de-facto mission to the Palestinians before it was shuttered by Trump in 2019.

Israel has pushed back on the plan and the White House has yet to present a timeline of when it hopes to see it through. Vice President Kamala Harris also pledged during the campaign that the administration would reopen the PLO diplomatic office in Washington. That too has yet to be actualized though.

34 years of violence, terror and hate. This is what Hamas is celebrating in Gaza.

Last month, Israel and Jordan signed a declaration of intent for a water-for-energy deal, where Jordan would build export 600 megawatts of power generated by new solar generators in the desert, and Israel providing 200 million cubic meters of desalinated water.

Today, the deal was debated in the Jordanian parliament, where it was opposed by many. There were complaints that Jordan should investigate other alternatives rather than deal with Israel.

The most insane comment came from representative Suleiman Abu Yahya, who said: "There are two reasons for announcing this treaty, the first is the announced lack of water, and the second is our possession of a power source, and the enemy's possession of a water source. But the occupation does not have any energy problem, and it is possible that they put poison in the water coming to us. We cannot trust the water coming from the occupation.”

Jews poisoning the wells? Sounds familiar.

It sounds like Mr. Abu Yahya does not trust his own government to test the water that its people would drink. If a member of Parliament doesn't trust his own water authority with something so basic, it would probably be a good idea to only drink bottled water when visiting Jordan.

Arab fighters with a burning Jewish supply truck on the way to Jerusalem, 1948

Mondoweiss publishes a pro-BDS article by Donna Nevel who is frustrated that South Florida Jewish newspapers. won't publish her anti-Israel op-eds.

Seventy-three years ago this week, on December 11, 1948, U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194 made clear that Palestinians had the right to return to their homes and lands from which they had been expelled. Resolution 194 stated that “refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date.”

Let's summarize the reasons why there is no "right to return."

UN General Assembly Resolution 194, paragraph 11 states:

Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible;

Instructs the Conciliation Commission to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees and the payment of compensation, and to maintain close relations with the Director of the United Nations Relief for Palestine Refugees and, through him, with the appropriate organs and agencies of the United Nations;

Does Resolution 194 gives a legal basis for the “right of return”?

Firstly, this is a General Assembly resolution, and as such is not international law. It includes many other paragraphs, such as protection and free access to holy places (which Jordan did not respect.)

Secondly, notice that the wording does not use the word “right.” This was a deliberate decision made as the resolution was being drafted– because no such right exists.

Thirdly, the Arabs rejected the resolution at the time. It is a little disingenuous to have them claim that what they strenuously opposed then is international law now.

Fourthly, as Israel argued at the time, the paragraph gives conditions for any return – the Arabs would have to agree to live in peace with their Jewish neighbors, and that has never happened.

Fifthly, the original British draft of the resolution specified Arab refugees. That language was removed, meaning that it refers to both Jewish and Arab refugees being able to return to their homes. That is one reason every Arab nation rejected it. Yet no one who supports “return” says Jews have the right to return to the places they lived across the Green Line.

Finally, according to the International Court of Justice, “international law leaves it to each State to lay down the rules governing the grant of its own nationality.”[1]

Yet even without these points, the document cannot be interpreted to support the mass return of Arabs to Israel. And the proof comes from the UN itself.

In 1950, the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine, which was created by this very same resolution, issued a working paper on interpreting paragraph 11 of UNGA 194.

When interpreting the phrase “to their homes” in “The General Assembly . . . resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date,” the UNCCP wrote [emphasis mine]:

There is no doubt that in using this term the General Assembly meant the home of each refugee, i.e. his house or lodging and not his homeland. This is indicated by the fact that two amendments using the term "the areas from which they have come" were rejected. Furthermore by implication it would appear that if the refugees not returning are to be compensated for their property, those returning would reoccupy their homes and be compensated only for losses and damages.[2]

This means that even for the people who insist that UNGA 194 gives the descendants of Palestinian refugees the “right of return,” they still cannot just move to Israel en masse. Even in 1950, the most generous reading of UNGA 194 said that it only is for those whose original house was still intact. Everyone else would, according to 194, be entitled only to compensation - if 194 had legal validity to begin with. (Israel had offered allowing up to 100,000 Arabs to return to their homes in the 1950s but the Arabs rejected the offer.)

The people claiming that UNGA 194 gives the right for millions of descendants of refugees the right to overrun Israel demographically have no legal leg to stand on.

There is a bigger point, though. The demand for "return" was never based on legality of morality or justice. It was always intended to destroy Israel.

From the start, the Arab world privately admitted that the insistence on this “right of return” was a smokescreen to put a humanitarian sheen on the real purpose.

As early as October, 1949, Egypt’s foreign minister Muhammad Salah al-Din said, “…in demanding the return of the Palestinian refugees, the Arabs mean their return as masters, not slaves; or to put it quite clearly – the intention is the extermination of Israel.”[3]

Similarly, in 1960 Egypt’s Nasser said, “If the refugees return to Israel, Israel will cease to exist.”[4]

In 1950, Lebanese weekly As Sayyad suggested that Arab states should recognize Israel in order to ensure the return of the refugees. That way, it added, “we should create a large Arab majority that would serve as the most effective means of reviving the Arab character of Palestine while forming a fifth column for the day of revenge and reckoning.”[5]

Prime Minister of Lebanon Abdullah el-Yafi, stated in 1966, “The day on which the Arabs’ hope for the return of the refugees to Palestine is realized will be the day of Israel’s extermination.”[6]

The people who claim they care about “return” have an agenda which is the opposite of humanitarian. It is an agenda to destroy. And there is no difference in the goals of the Arab leaders then and the BDSers today.

[1] International Court of Justice, Nottebohm Case, Second Phase, Judgement of April 6, 1955

[2] UN Document A/AC.25/W/45, “Analysis of paragraph 11 of the General Assembly's Resolution of 11 December 1948,” May 15, 1950

[3] Egyptian Foreign Minister, Salah-el-Din, The Egyptian daily newspaper Al-Misri, Cairo (11 October 1949), quoted from N. Feinberg, Studies in International Law, with a Special Reference to the Arab-Israel Conflict (Jerusalem: Hebrew University, Magnes Press, 1979) 506

[4] Neue Zuercher Zeitung, September 1, 1960, quoted by Terence Prittie in “Curtis, M. Neyer, C. Waxman and A. Pollack (ed.),"The Palestinians: People, History, Politics," 1975.

[5] “Israel Gives Plan on Arab Refugees,” New York Times, November 12, 1953, quoting an Israeli white paper.

[6] Abdullah el-Yafi, Prime Minister of Lebanon, the Lebanese daily newspaper El-Hayat, Beirut (29 April 1966), quoted from N. Feinberg, op. cit.

In 2001, a Palestinian sniper took aim, targeted and shot ten month old Shalhevet Pass in the head, as she sat next to her father in a Hebron playground.

The reason? Because she was Jewish.

Two weeks ago, Amos Schocken, publisher of Haaretz, wrote a shockingly disgusting tweet:

Shalhevet Pass was killed due to the irresponsibility of her parents, who thought it possible to bring up children in an embattled environment, and of the Welfare Ministry, which in a normal country would have removed children from war zones.

Don't mention the Fatah sniper that killed her. No, the enlightened Left expect Palestinians to be targeting babies. To them, Palestinians can't help themselves - these arbiters of morality consider Palestinians animals and if they attack children, it is the fault of the parents for allowing them to live near the animals.

To make the accusation even more grotesque, the Palestinian Authority originally denied that Shalhevet was murdered by a Palestinian. They claimed that her mother murdered her. Now the publisher of an Israeli newspaper is pretty much saying the same thing, redoubling the pain of a bereaved mother. But it's OK - he's on the side of morality and enlightenment, unlike the primitive Jews who still care about their second holiest city.

How about the parents of children who live in Sderot or Ashkelon, within range of Hamas rockets? Are they irresponsible too? Oh, yes, all of Israel is now in range of Hamas and Hezbollah rockets - so all parents must leave, right?

Schocken has come under deserved criticism and fired back with an entire column in Haaretz where he defends himself, badly.

Schocken says that there is a difference between Hebron and Sderot. His proof? "The UN Security Council, with the participation of Israel’s best friends, determined in December 2016 that any Israeli civilian presence beyond the 1967 Green Line, in the occupied territories, is illegal."

Notice how he moves the goalposts. Originally his criteria for bad parenting was raising kids in an "embattled environment" which has nothing to do with national borders. Now he says that it has to do with whether they live somewhere legally. And even then he is wrong - people moving voluntarily to the territories do not violate any laws. The people who attack them, do.

This also means that according to this moral arbiter, Jewish parents who live across the Green Line in Jerusalem are also irresponsible. That visiting the Kotel is a violation of international law. The rebuilding the Hurva synagogue in the Old City was an act of illegal settlement. Jews should remain in Tel Aviv and Haifa, and all Jewish holy places properly belong to those who would ban Jews from visiting.

Schocken, sensing that his main argument has no merit, then tries to change the subject and says that anyone who thinks that Jews should be allowed to live across the Green Line supports apartheid. He adds that all of Israel is an apartheid state anyway, guaranteeing adulation from the Israel haters.

And then Schocken claims that he is the real Zionist, he who is willing to give away everything Jewish about Israel. Jews who want to ensure access to historic Jewish sites are criminals who support racism and apartheid.

He's so Zionist that he is proudly parroting the "apartheid" arguments that were created by those who want to destroy Israel.

This is the immorality of the Left.

12/14 Links Pt2: The BBC Proves That It’s ‘News You Can’t Trust’; Jewish antisemitism denial; NYTs Whitewash of Gaza Poetry Professor Was ‘Inaccurate,’ an Editors’ Note Now Concedes

From Ian:

The BBC Proves That It’s ‘News You Can’t Trust’

When asked to provide proof of that alleged “racial slur,” the BBC journalist whose name appears on the written report replied, “This was actually something picked up by my editors not me and they wanted to reflect that briefly in the piece.”

Analysis of the same footage carried out by the Jewish Chronicle and others presents a different picture to the one promoted by the BBC — saying there was no slur uttered.

The BBC was challenged on its claim by members of the British Jewish community, including the Board of Deputies, as well as by two members of the House of Lords, Ian Austin and Michael Grade.

On December 13, the Jewish Chronicle reported that the Metropolitan Police “has found no evidence of the BBC’s claim that an anti-Muslim slur was voiced by one of the victims of the antisemitic abuse incident on Oxford Street two weeks ago.”

Nevertheless, nearly two weeks after its reports promoting the notion of such a slur having been used, complaints from members of the public and community organizations have yet to be answered by the BBC.

Bizarrely, the BBC appears to so far have elected to dig in on this issue rather than responding appropriately to criticism of obviously highly problematic reporting that raises many questions beyond those of accuracy.

That chosen course of action clearly indicates to BBC audiences just how committed the corporation actually is to earning and keeping their trust.

Hundreds Rally Against Anti-Jewish Coverage By BBC Following Bus Incident

As many as 250 Britons stood outside of the headquarters of the publicly funded British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) in London on Monday night to demand that it take accountability for anti-Jewish coverage on the network.

The crowd chanted “BBC, where the proof? BBC, tell the truth” in response to an on-air report during Hanukkah about an attack on a bus full of Jewish teens in Central London. In its coverage of the event, according to Campaign Against Antisemitism, the BCC reported that racial slurs against Muslims were made by young riders.

“This incident is one of many in which the BBC has victim-blamed Jewish people for antisemitism, downplayed racism towards Jews, platformed antisemites and fueled antisemitism in Britain,” the group said in announcing the event.

“We don’t want to be here, but we have to be here because we have to say: ‘BBC news, stop blaming Jews,’ ” said Gideon Falter, chief executive of the Campaign Against Antisemitism, during the rally.

He went on to note that “we see no evidence for the @BBC’s claim, which is a distraction from the real story, which is that Jewish teenagers were prevented by racist thugs from celebrating Hanukkah.”

HonestReporting Lodges Complaints Following London Police’s Dismissal of Anti-Muslim Slur Claims Against Jews

In our complaint to the BBC, we note that, contrary to the BBC’s allegations, “the Metropolitan police have examined the evidence and heard no such slur,” before making clear that the “claim is an utter sham and deeply offensive to the Jewish community. There are no ‘two sides’ here. Jews were being abused. They did not do any abusing of their own. Insinuating that they did is outrageous.”

We also note the BBC’s failure to adequately address the problem, despite widespread condemnation from Britain’s Jewish community:
The BBC has repeatedly parried complaints about this false accusation instead of doing the decent thing and admitting that the claim simply has no basis. It’s outrageous and deeply offensive. It’s bad enough when Jews are attacked on the streets of London, but for them to then be falsely accused of hurling abuse themselves constitutes a total failure to meet basic journalistic standards.”

The message ends with the simple call: “Apologize already.”

Now that the Met Police has announced that it has examined the evidence and found no proof of any anti-Muslim slur, why has the BBC still failed to respond?

With the corporation so far unwilling to admit any wrongdoing, HonestReporting has also lodged a formal complaint with the regulatory body, Ofcom. In our complaint to the independent industry regulator, we note that:
The issue is so severe and so outrageous, with the BBC refusing to apologise for over 10 days now, that Ofcom’s intervention is clearly necessitated.”

BBC Repeatedly Tarred by Antisemitism
This episode is just the latest in a string of incidents that call into question the BBC’s impartiality regarding Israel and Jewish people. In May, HonestReporting helped expose the antisemitic tweets of reporter Tala Halawa, following a lead by GnasherJew. After an HonestReporting tweet went viral, the issue received widespread media coverage, and the BBC eventually fired Halawa some weeks later.

And just last month, an HonestReporting investigation uncovered numerous antisemitic social posts by another BBC employee, Nasima Begum.

Hardly surprising for an organization that has suppressed an allegedly damning report which would have exposed its deep-seated anti-Israel bias.

It is now abundantly clear that the BBC has a serious problem that must be urgently addressed.

Someone named Alex V. Green, who normally writes about LGBTQ identity issues, has suddenly become an expert on Israel. They wrote on Gawker about the "social justice Zionists" who are horrible for claiming to be indigenous to the land of Israel and for a host of other modern sins.

As is always the case, the anti-Israel arguments are based on lies.

Here's one example. Green says, "the IDF posts affirmations-style memes calling Arabs terrorists." The link goes to this graphic:

Does this graphic call Arabs terrorists, or does it point out - accurately - that shooting rockets at civilians is terrorism?

From this one example, we learn that Alex V. Green is: 1) a liar, 2) guilty of the crime they accuse the IDF of: saying that all Palestinians are terrorists.

Green then goes on to say this oh-so-woke piece of antisemitism:

But the notion that Jews are “indigenous” to Palestine, specifically to the Biblical kingdom of Judea, is new to me....But here were all these kids, pointing to their curly hair or dark eyes as evidence of Semitic nativity (you know, like fascists do!), citing genetic studies and calling themselves “decolonized.”

Accusing Jews who are proud of their ancestry originating in the Land of Israel of fascism is the key pull-quote in the article:

Gee, what fun to accuse people of fascism based on their pride in their appearance, heritage and DNA!

Anyone else on the planet who is proud of their genetic ties to their homelands are wonderful examples of self-respect; when Jews do it they are aping the Aryans who wanted to murder them. What a fun juxtaposition!

Now that we see that Alex V Green is a lying piece of antisemitic (but Jewish!) trash, what more do you need to know?

12/14 Links Pt1: ‘Obsessed’ Biden administration put settlements on par with Iran nukes; Palestinian struggle has no leg to stand on; UN CEIRPP Hosts Event Supporting Terrorist Organizations

From Ian:

‘Obsessed’ Biden administration put settlements on par with Iran nukes

The Biden administration has put the issue of settlements on the same level as the Iranian nuclear threat in its discussions with Israeli officials, multiple Israeli diplomatic sources said in recent days.

“The Americans bring up ‘settler violence’ all the time, obsessively,” a senior diplomatic source in Jerusalem lamented.

When Defense Minister Benny Gantz was in Washington last week to implore the Americans to take a tougher stance against the Iranian nuclear threat, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken insisted they devote equal time to discussing settlements as they did to Iran, which Israeli diplomatic sources found baffling.

Blinken told Gantz that the Israeli government’s settlement activity is “destroying the chance of a two-state solution.”

Gantz’s meetings with US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan – who is coming to Israel next Wednesday to continue to discuss Iran – went more smoothly, the sources said.

Talk of the American “obsession” came after Public Security Minister Omer Bar Lev came under fire from Prime Minister Naftali Bennett and others on the Right for speaking of settler violence with Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland, making no mention of Palestinian attacks on Israelis.

David Singer: The UN can deter an Iran-Israel conflict

Iranian Armed Forces spokesman - Brig.-Gen. Abolfazl Shekarchi - recently told the Iranian Students News Agency:

“We will not back off from the annihilation of Israel, even one millimetre. We want to destroy Zionism in the world”

Rather than:
- condemning Iran’s threats to destroy another UN member state and
- defending Israel’s right to exist in secure and recognised boundaries as stipulated in UN Security Council Resolution 242

– the General Assembly has been engaging in its own demonisation of the Jewish People – recycling a Security Council Press Statement dated 17 September 2015 (Press Statement ) which only referred to the Temple Mount by its Arabic name “Haram al-Sharif” and not its Hebrew name “Har HaBayit”.

General Assembly Resolution A/76/L.16 (Resolution) - passed on 1 December – repeated this highly-offensive canard:
“Recalling the Security Council press statement on Jerusalem of 17 September 2015, in which the Council called, inter alia, for the exercise of restraint, refraining from provocative actions and rhetoric and upholding unchanged the historic status quo at the Haram al-Sharif – in word and in practice, as well as for full respect for international law, including international human rights law and international humanitarian law, as may be applicable in Jerusalem”

The Press Statement and Resolution both failed to acknowledge the special role of Jordan – not Israel - as custodian of all the Muslim holy shrines in Jerusalem - recognized in the 1994 Jordan-Israel Washington Declaration and Jordan-Israel Peace Treaty.

If the Security Council and General Assembly can both brazenly ignore these two highly-significant binding international commitments whilst simultaneously denying the Jewish People’s connection with Judaism’s holiest religious site in Jerusalem – what message does this send to Israel, Jordan and Iran?

Israel’s President Herzog has provided Israel’s response:
“Israel will welcome a comprehensive, diplomatic solution which permanently solves the Iranian nuclear threat.”

“In the case of a failure to achieve such a solution, Israel is keeping all options on the table and it must be said that if the international community does not take a vigorous stance on this issue — Israel will do so. Israel will protect itself”

Overt UN bias against Israel and the Jewish People should not preclude the UN from embracing Trump’s Plan to end the 100 years-old Jewish-Arab conflict and avert conflict between Iran and Israel.

UN CEIRPP Hosts Event Supporting Designated Terrorist Organizations

On December 7, 2021, the UN Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (CEIRPP) held an event titled “Supporting Human Rights Defenders in the Occupied Palestinian Territory: Reality, Challenges, and Obligations” to discuss the October 2021 decision by the Israeli Ministry of Defense to designate six Palestinian NGOs as terrorist organizations. According to the Israeli Ministry of Defense, Defense for Children International-Palestine (DCI-P), Union of Agricultural Work Committees (UAWC), Al-Haq, Addameer, Union of Palestinian Women’s Committees (UPWC), and Bisan were included on Israel’s list of terrorist organizations because they are operated by and for the benefit of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), designated as a terrorist organization by the US, EU, Canada, and Israel.

The event, which featured speakers from one of the designated NGOs, Al-Haq, as well as from Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, included calls for BDS (boycott, divestment, and sanctions). NGOs also advanced their long-standing campaign to pressure the International Criminal Court (ICC) to open an investigation of against Israelis.

As shown in the quotes below, speakers defended the six NGOs, without addressing the extensive evidence of NGO-PFLP links. Instead, they framed the designations as “an attack on human rights defenders,” without explaining how an NGO tied to a terror group could be considered to be defending “human rights.”

Quotes by Panelists Condemning the Decision and Supporting BDS and Lawfare

Wesam Ahmad (Al-Haq)
- “Israel’s latest attempt to silence Palestinian civil society is just another tactical move in its colonial strategy.”
- “The international community must respond with a systemic counter response that addresses Israel’s actions in various levels. For example, the EU Horizon agreement and its cooperation with Israel with regards to research and development. This is one of the things that needs to be addressed and challenged and suspended.”
- “We have to show that everything is connected. Supporting the process at the ICC, taking measures to ban settlement products, supports of the UN database on business enterprises involved in the settlement enterprise. These are all actions we have been calling for. The response to attempts to silence us should be met with the implementation of these calls.”
- “Israel’s membership in the ECOSOC committee is something that needs to be challenged…Israel cannot be allowed to conduct business as usual in other parts of the UN while it completely disregards the work of UN human rights defenders on the floor of the General Assembly.”

Another Arab op-ed that starts off anti-Israel, ends up hating Jews

Dr. Hani El Akkad writes in Al Watan Voice a hysterical piece (in both senses of the word:)

The Jewish Hanukkah candelabra was lit in Dubai to celebrate the Hebrew festival. It is a holiday in which the Jews celebrate to commemorate the inauguration of the alleged Second Temple in Jerusalem in 164 BC.

I do not know if the Jewish menorah igniters [in the UAE] knew that this was their recognition of the right of the Jews in Jerusalem and therefore their right to destroy the Al-Aqsa Mosque and demolish the honorable Dome of the Rock and establish their alleged temple. The calamity if they knew and considered this religious tolerance and the biggest calamity if they consider this as a matter of Arab generosity and a kind of authenticity of the people of the Emirates. The truth is that I am trying to find approaches for reasons that are logical through which I can justify this heinous act of the Emiratis, but I cannot not find it. I do not think that there are reasons under any logic that would allow something forbidden, which is erecting the eight candle Jewish menorah on Arab land or on any building on Arab land, even if the Jews recognized the right of the Palestinians to a state with Jerusalem as its capital.

And a blue color covering the Burj Khalifa, which we thought was the Burj Al Arab, but after it was defiled by the feet of the Jews and their blue flag, it needs rain for a hundred years to be cleansed...!!, What is left of your Arabness, O Arabs in the Emirates...? To speak the Hebrew language, take off the headband and the keffiyeh, and wear the Jewish kippah...!! You mumble on deaf stones and insert messages to the gods in the holes in the walls, and claim that God heard your prayers and answered you, and you became God’s chosen people.

Dr. Al Akkad saw this Photoshopped picture created last year and believed it. Burj al Khalifa was never lit up with the Israeli flag.

He also thinks that a movie that Arabs have flipped out over that was originally meant to be Jordan's Oscar entry was really written by the Mossad.

Hate is a bizarre thing to monitor.

Human Rights Watch again starts with the assumption that Jews are racists and writes their Lod report around that

Human Rights Watch issued a report on the riots in Lod in May, accusing Israel of "abusive policing" against Arabs and of treating Jewish attackers with more deference than Arabs.

“Israeli authorities responded to the May events in Lod by forcibly dispersing Palestinians protesting peacefully, while using inflammatory rhetoric and failing to act even-handedly as Jewish ultra-nationalists attacked Palestinians,” said Omar Shakir, Israel and Palestine director at Human Rights Watch. “This apparent discriminatory response underscores the reality that the Israeli state apparatus privileges Jewish Israelis at the expense of Palestinians, wherever they live and irrespective of their legal status.”

As always with HRW, the conclusions were reached before any research was done. (Shakir made a career of being anti-Israel before he was hired by HRW.) The bias is clear with HRW referring to Arab Israelis as Palestinians, a term that most of them do not use.

In this case, this isn't even anti-Israel bias. The main responses to the Arab rioting were from local authorities, not the Israeli government. It is anti-Jewish bias.

A good indication of HRW's hate for Jews comes in its background information:

Lod, a mixed Jewish and Palestinian city in central Israel, has experienced the rising influence of an ultra-nationalist group, the Garin Torani, which has sought to promote the city’s Jewish identity amid longstanding discrimination against the country’s Palestinian citizens. In 2013, an alleged Garin Torani sympathizer, Yair Revivo of the Likud Party, was elected mayor and has served continuously since then.

Garin Torani is not a violent group. They work to strengthen the Jewish communities in mixed cities but they serve Arab residents as well. They have been in Lod for decades without causing any clashes with Arabs. They opened up a community center for all, and it includes help for people with special needs - Jew and Arab.

But HRW's link to Garin Torani is not to its webpage or Wikipedia page. No, it is to a Haaretz article that takes as a given that Garin Torani is a racist, anti-Arab group and then uses that as a springboard to say that all of Zionism is "arrogant, insensitive, condescending and blinded by racist ideology."

That by itself shows that HRW is not interested in facts but in using the May events as a springboard to push its antisemitic agenda.

Here is how HRW describes the events of the Monday night of May 10:

Around 9:30 p.m. on May 10, a group of Palestinian residents of Lod organized a protest outside the al-Omari mosque against the anticipated takeover of Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem. Two civil society lawyers and a city council member said that the police had approved the protest following requests made around noon. Witnesses said that protesters demonstrated peacefully when police used teargas, rubber bullets, and a stun grenade to disperse the crowd after a protester replaced an Israeli flag on an electric pole with a Palestinian one.

The link to the words "demonstrated peacefully" shows a person putting up the Palestinian flag while the crowd chants. However, you can see that members of this "peaceful protest" had set a large fire; the flames and smoke is seen behind him.

Maybe setting fires is considered "peaceful protest" to HRW, but it seems pretty violent to me. And it is consistent with the chanting you can hear, "We will liberate Al Aqsa with blood and fire."

HRW continues to soft-pedal Arab violence in Lod:

Later that night, some Palestinian demonstrators set trash cans, cars, and tires alight near the al-Omari mosque and tensions flared in other parts of the city.

That is their entire description of Arab violence that night.

Compare with Times of Israel:

Jewish religious items store trashed

The violent protest, during which Arab participants raised Palestinian and Hamas flags, called to “liberate Palestine,” and attacked a school, a synagogue, a pre-army military academy and city hall, according to Israel Radio, was one of several large demonstrations in Arab communities.

“It was like Kristallnacht… in a city in central Israel,” a local Jewish resident, Hadar Miller, told Army Radio on Tuesday. She said she and her family have lived in Lod for 12 years and were “proud of the co-existence” in the Jewish-Arab city. But the situation had been deteriorating for months, “and yesterday all the lines were crossed… Now a friend of mine is in detention for defending himself.”

The mob of local Arab residents also attacked medical staff at Assaf Harofeh, Israel Radio reported, targeting Arab medical staff and castigating them for working there. Medical staff had to evacuate some patients to keep them from the mob, the radio report said.

Shlomo Lahyani, a local Jewish resident, said an Arab mob attacked a synagogue and a school, and threw slabs and rocks at Jewish locals during hours of rioting. “They came with murder in their eyes,” he told Israel Radio on Tuesday morning. “They called out, in Hebrew, ‘We are terrorists.'”

He said locals Jews called the police, who did not come to the scene for over an hour. In the meantime, Jewish residents fired shots in the air to try to keep the Arab rioters at bay.

HRW purposefully omits the context of Jewish residents in fear for their lives, and of police not protecting them.

Throughout the week of violence, the bulk of the violence was done by Arabs. Several synagogues were torched along with Jewish-owned shops.

All of this happened in the context of Hamas firing thousands of rockets at Israel and of Arabs attacking Jews in other mixed cities. HRW doesn't mention that the Arab rioters were chanting pro-Hamas slogans, and as such could be seen as a fifth column during a war that HRW barely mentions (except to say that Israel committed human rights violations!)

HRW ignores all of this context. While it is logical that police would spend more effort going after the group that was responsible for the majority of the rioting, HRW positions it as a "both sides" story. The "human rights group" even is angry at the Lod mayor's characterization of the attacks on Jewish-owned shops and synagogues as being like Kristallnacht, saying "This statement was neither accurate nor balanced, given that both Jews and Palestinians were attacking one another."

The Arabs were attacking. The Jews of Lod were largely defending themselves.

Later, some more violent Jews did come from the outside into Lod and made things worse. On Thursday night, a Muslim cemetery was attacked (as another synagogue was torched.) Those attackers were not from Garin Torani, as HRW implies. The mayor tried to close off the city from outsiders coming in to stoke the flames. HRW doesn't mention any of this.

As usual, HRW wrote the narrative first, and then did their "research" to confirm their bias, highlighting anything that seems to support their story and ignoring anything that contradicts it.

Peter Beinart writes in his Substack:

The evidence suggests not only that anti-Zionism doesn’t equal antisemitism but that while some anti-Zionists are indeed antisemites, Jew-hatred in the United States and Europe is more prevalent among supporters of the Jewish state.

Let's look at his evidence:

In the US, the data suggests that—contrary to what you hear from politicians and Jewish leaders—Zionists are probably more likely than anti-Zionists to hate Jews. Poll after poll shows that, in the US today, hostility to Israel is far greater on the left than the right. And while surveys generally ask for people’s views on Israel, not Zionism, it stands to reason that if leftists are more likely to condemn Israel, they’re more likely to oppose Zionism. Studies of antisemitism, however, suggest that it’s far stronger on the American right. Earlier this year, the political scientists Eitan Hersh and Laura Royden asked Americans a series of questions traditionally used to measure antisemitic attitudes—for instance, “Jews in the United States have too much power” and “Jews are more loyal to Israel than to America.” They found that, “While antisemitism in the U.S. is often written about through a “both sides” lens, our evidence — the first of its kind in testing hypotheses through experiments on a large representative sample — suggests the problem of antisemitism is much more serious on the right than the left.” Unless you define anti-Zionism as antisemitism, in which case you’ve created a tautology, the Americans most likely to dislike Jews and the Americans most likely dislike Zionism are different people.

Beinart's logic is:

A. The American Left is more likely to be anti-Israel.

B. The American Right, who are mostly Zionist, is more likely to be antisemitic.

Conclusion: Zionists are more likely to be antisemitic.

This is quite false.

Let's say that 70% of the Right - an overwhelming majority - are pro-Israel and 30% are anti-Israel. It makes sense that most of those 30% also have anti-Jewish attitudes. (Think Pat Buchanan or Ron Unz, both prominent conservative haters of Israel and purveyors of antisemitism.)

Now, what percentage of Americans altogether have antisemitic attitudes? A 2019 ADL survey says that 24% of Americans say that Jews are more loyal to Israel than America and 15% say Jews have too much influence in business. If most of the anti-Israel Right agree with those statements, that would mean that the majority of those with overtly antisemitic attitudes are right wing anti-Zionists - and not one right-wing Zionist!

The only conclusion you can draw is that members of the Right are more likely to be overtly antisemitic than the Left - but it even imply that Zionists are antisemitic! Very few Zionists would answer those survey questions in the affirmative. The relatively small number of Americans who harbor explicit antisemitic attitudes mean that a minority of the Right - the anti-Zionists - can easily be the majority of the proud Jew-haters.

Beinart flunks Logic 101.

To claim that Zionists are more likely to be antisemitic is purely Beinart's bias. It's part of the fantasy among socialist Jews that Christian Zionists are really antisemites, even though they cannot point to a poll that shows that.

Beinart chooses the surveys that support his thesis both in the US and Europe. But the American Left is going in the direction of the British Left, and the British Left is actually attracting overt antisemites. In a 2019 survey that Beinart would never quote, 58% of those who strongly liked Jeremy Corbyn held two or more overtly antisemitic views, and 35% held four or more such views - a huge amount that was not seen in other politicians. Will the American Left go in that direction? Do Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib attract overt antisemites? It is not a far fetched concern. And it is not one that concerns Peter Beinart.

Not to say that there are no antisemitic idiots who admire Israel. Of course there are. Israel haters love to point to white supremacist Richard Spencer as if he represents the Zionism of the Right (and often they make the even more egregious logical error that if a hater says he loves Israel, Zionists must support hate.)

I wouldn't call those antisemites Zionists. They are just bigots who look at Israel as an ally in their own xenophobia against Muslims. Saying that you want Jews you hate to leave your country and go to Israel is not Zionism. Saying that you want to treat minorities horribly and falsely using Israel as a model is not Zionism. But Beinart pretends that it is, redefining the meaning of the word "Zionist" itself to prove his points.

One more point: Beinart says that defining anti-Zionism as antisemitism is creating a tautology. Indeed it is. But what if it isn't a definition - but an observation? What if, in reality, saying that Jews do not deserve self-determination, and other peoples do, is prima facie proof of antisemitism? What if holding Jews to standards that are way beyond those that other peoples are expected to adhere to is actual antisemitism? What if obsessive criticism of only one state, the only one with a Jewish majority, indicates antisemitism? What if boycotting only the one Jewish state indicates that there is something going on beyond legitimate criticism? Beinart and his crowd brush aside these questions, coming up with elaborate excuses why Israel deserves to be singled out.

But there is only one thing in history that is remotely comparable to today's obsessive hate of Israel - and that is the age-old obsessive hate of Jews.