Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Thursday, December 16, 2021

Not only Miss Universe: Israel hosted the Flag Football World Championships (RealJerusalemStreets)

By RealJerusalemStreets

Elder wrote his opinion after watching Miss Universe's final competition broadcast from Eilat with its positive imagery projected to world audiences.

However, while the international beauty contestants were arriving in Israel, another world championship competition was taking place in Jerusalem.

The 10th Flag Football World Championship games took place in Jerusalem, Israel, from December 6 to 8th. Due to a change in the weather, the finals were held at Teddy Stadium, instead of the entire games at the Kraft Family Sports Complex. A record of 39 teams from 23 countries competed. The USA men and women won the first place trophies again as expected, but Mexico gave them serious competition coming in second in both men's and women's flag football.

The opening night event was held at the Ramada Renaissance Hotel for an estimated 900 participants, players, coaches, and managers. The program held on the last night of Hanukah started with the lighting of the large Hanukah menorah by Rabbi Aharon Katz, head of the Derech Etz Chaim.

For many of the players from Austria, Belarus, Brazil, Chile, Finland, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Panama, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, South Korea, Team Neutral, Thailand, and the United States it was not only the first time in Israel and but also experiencing a Hanukah celebration, perhaps even having interaction with Jews.

The program started EXACTLY on time. I arrived a minute late!

A short video of Jerusalem highlights was shown as the crowd waited for Jerusalem Mayor Moshe Lion to arrive. He was very late to welcome the visitors, but they gave him a hero's welcome as he made his entrance.

Because of the coronavirus restrictions, the teams were not able to do any of the usual tourist stops and photo ops similar to the Miss Universe contestants. The footballers were restricted to the sports fields and back to their hotel.

But the buzz and talk in the hotel ballroom were already of returning visits to Israel. The energy of the teams, seated by their country's flag was exhilarating, their behavior praiseworthy.

The world was hesitant to host due to the situation of the variants of coronavirus. However, Steve Leibowitz the President of AFI American Football in Israel was a driving force behind the games coming to Israel. Winners qualified for July 2022 World Games in Birmingham, AL when flag football is to be included for the first time.

Tournament sponsors included NFL Patriots owner Robert Kraft, a long-time supporter of American football in Israel and donor of the Kraft Family Sports Campus. Kraft was not able to attend in person but sent a video message shown at the opening event.

Hundreds of young international sportspeople arrived in Israel for the first time, learned about Hanukah, and saw Israeli footballers wearing a kippah.

Not as glamorous and sexy as a world beauty competition, but thousands watched their international teams playing flag football live from Jerusalem as the broadcast went around the world to fans.

I saw less BDS pressure on these world championship games than the Miss Universe pageant, maybe the sport was lucky to get less attention.

But the World Championship Flag Football games were a great success. Even the last game ending in cold and rain could not ruin the event. After all, what's a little mud in when we are talking about football.

The final men's game is here, the others can be found on YouTube.

Hating the Jewish state elevated into an art form

Former Jewish Voice for Peace director Rebecca Vilkomerson tweeted:

Think about the phrase "visionary heart-opening anti-Zionist book."

Try to imagine the phrase "visionary heart-opening anti-"anything else.

Anti-communist? Anti-white supremacist? Anti-terrorist? Anti-gay? Anti-Chinese? Anti-global warming? Anti-abortion? Anti-Muslim?

There are lots of people and groups against a lot of things, and hate is an appropriate response to many outrages. But how many people who hate anything try to elevate that hate into art and poetry?

I can only think of two examples.

Nazi Germany turned Jew-hatred into poetry. Here is a poem "If All People Were Jews:"

If all people were Jews,
What would become of the world?
No corn would grow,
No plow would move through the fields,

No forester would tend the woods,
No miner would start his shift.
Jews don’t even like
To sail the seas.
The steamboat would never have been invented,
Nor would the train.
No dirigible would rise
Shining into the sky.
We wouldn’t have gunpowder,
Nor electric lights.
For the Jew can barter,
But he cannot invent.

... What can the Jew give,
He who has nothing,
Yet presumes to
Call himself “elect”?
Only the devil knows,
For the devil loves pride and arrogance.
Thank God there are still
People other than Jews on earth!

And now the "anti-Zionist" community, with books and songs and chants dedicated to hate..

Like the KKK, the modern haters used to pretend that their movement was not negative but positive. They pretended to be "pro-Palestinian." But that façade has faded as it became increasingly clear that these groups were doing nothing to help Palestinians and as their philosophy developed around the theme of hating Israel and everything it stands for. They only support Palestinian initiatives that align with that goal. (How many "pro-Palestinians" make solidarity visits to Lebanese or Jordanian UNRWA camps? It's very rare.)

Here is an entire book of "personal stories, history, poetry and art" that is based on a negative: "confronting Zionism." These people define themselves by what they hate. And now like their antisemitic forebears they are trying to use their hate as a springboard build an entire artistic community.

This idea of elevating antisemitism as anti-Israel art has been building for years. Belgium's poet laureate Charles Ducal and poet Alice Walker both wrote poems that compared Jews to Nazis under the guise of "anti-Zionism." So did the acclaimed play "Seven Jewish Children."

The modern haters are all strengthened by finding comrades who share their hate, and since they look at themselves as being cultured, they are now in the forefront of integrating hate into art.

Jordan's Prime Minister Bisher Khasawneh responded to those who are against getting desalinated water from Israel, with a stark warning that Jordan will run out of water if it does not immediately look for alternative sources.

"The water poverty we have reached is unprecedented and threatens the level and quality of life for our current and future generations," he told a Lower House of Parliament session on Wednesday.

Khasawneh said that the annual per capita share of water in Jordan is about 90 cubic meters, while the global water poverty line is 500 cubic meters annually. He warned that if things don't change, the annual per capita share will drop to 60 cubic meters by 2040.

The prime minister defended the deal with Israel, but said it is still in the early stages.

Parliamentarians continued to squabble over the issue after one said that Israel might poison the water for Jordan.

Representative Najeh Al-Adwan said that Jordan is going through a great water crisis. he defended the agreement with Israel with Quarnic precedents of Muslims buying things from Jews,

Al-Adwan said, “The Muslim woman used to buy from the Jewish market, and Uthman bin Affan bought a well of water from a Jew, and the Prophet acknowledged to the Jews what was in their hands."

Uthman bin Affan was a companion and second cousin of Mohammed. The story of his well, which is still an active well in Saudi Arabia, happens to be about a greedy Jew trying to take advantage of Muslims, and how the Jew was defeated.

In the past, about 1,400 years ago, this well was the only source of sweet water in Madina city and it belonged to a Jew named Rummat Al Giffari who charged Muslims and other inhabitants of the city with the excessive amount if they wish to fetch water. When the Prophet of Allah knew about this incident, he assured great reward for those who will buy the Rummat well and endow it free to the inhabitants of Madina.

On hearing this, Uthman bin Affan offered the Jew to sell him his well but he refused. He again offered him to buy half of the well. The Jew accepted the offer of the clever businessman Uthman thinking that this will help him to get some money and the agreement was settled that both will fetch water from the well but on alternate days.

Uthman, after buying half of the well, opened it for Allah’s sake and offered everyone to fetch water from the well and this cause great loss to the Jew as no one ever bought water from well paying a large amount to the Jew. The people would fetch their two days’ water supply from the well on Uthman day and ignore fetching water on Jew’s day.

Hopelessly he broke down and offered Uthman to buy the other half of the well for 20,000 dirhams because it was left for no use to him. The kind Companion accepted this offer and bought the well from the Jew.

Other parliamentarians rejected Al-Aswan's argument for getting water from a Jew.

One thing is obvious: if they are arguing over Muslim stories about Jews, then the people who don't want to get the water from Israel are antisemites, not merely "anti-Zionists."

(h/t Yoel)

A Message to our Arab Citizens (Vic Rosenthal)

Weekly column by Vic Rosenthal

A recent editorial in the Jerusalem Post views with alarm recent statements by some media and political personalities that the Post sees as advocating “ethnic cleansing.” For example, journalist/political consultant Itamar Fleischman remarked on the anti-Jewish riots that took place in several mixed Arab-Jewish cities in May, saying
The bottom line is that we have a situation in which Arabs forgot the Nakba. … And the solution is to remind them of the Nakba. We should tell them as soon as now that if they don’t start to come to their senses, and if they keep trying to murder our children, their next stop is beyond the Jordan River or in al-Yarmuk [refugee] camp in Syria.
Radio host and former MK Yinon Magal said something similar: “if you’ll keep killing Jews, we will exile you again.” And Betzalel Smotrich, MK and leader of the Religious Zionist party, spoke bluntly in response to anti-Zionist comments by Arab members of the Knesset:
I am not holding any conversations with you, you anti-Zionists. You are supporters of terror, enemies. You are [here] due to a mistake because [Israel’s first prime minister David] Ben-Gurion didn’t finish the job and throw you out in 1948.
The Post’s editorial writer said that such public statements “raised a red flag,” and that
The Jewish people should be particularly sensitive to such racist remarks. People who know firsthand the outcome of extreme racism should be the first to cry out when they witness or hear a form of institutionalized racism.

Arabs in Israel should not have to live in fear of possible expulsion. They are not terrorists, and the vast majority of them are ordinary law-abiding citizens who hate violence.

He added that “[t]he best way to quell Palestinian nationalism within Israel is to make Arab citizens feel that they belong.”

While I agree that the vast majority of Arab citizens of Israel are “ordinary law-abiding citizens who hate violence,” I disagree that the comments of Fleischman, Magal, and Smotrich were inappropriate. There is a real issue with the Arabs of Israel – leaving aside the Arabs of Judea/Samaria and Gaza – which is not going away, and can’t be made to go away by telling the Jews not to be “racist.”

What is the issue? First, it has nothing to do with “race,” and accusations of “racism” do not illuminate the problem. In a nutshell the conflict is a national one, over the historical question of to whom the Land of Israel belongs, and over who gets to determine the character of the state that is established here.

I’ve written enough about the competing narratives and I don’t want to go into them here. Obviously I believe that the existence of the Jewish state as the nation-state of the Jewish people is justified. That implies that Jews get to choose the flag, the national anthem, and other symbols of the state. And more practically, they can also choose immigration and citizenship policies that will lead to a continued Jewish majority.

Is this situation entirely “democratic?” That depends on your point of view. Yes, there is a Jewish majority which supports the continuation of the Law of Return for Jews, and does not want to change it to include the descendants of Arab refugees from 1948. But isn’t that law in itself anti-democratic? The Zionist answer to that question is that the Jewishness of the state takes priority over its other characteristics. The state strives to provide equal rights for all its citizens, but not at the cost of giving up its identity as a Jewish state. As a result, Jews in Israel have a different status than non-Jews: they are the owners of the state.

It’s impossible to finesse this issue. I myself wrote that there is no contradiction inherent in the formulation “a Jewish and democratic state,” because all citizens, Jews and Arabs, have full civil and political rights. That is true, as far as it goes. But it’s our country, not theirs.

The Arabs – and I think this includes virtually all Arab citizens of Israel – vehemently reject this, because in their historical narrative, they are the owners, and the Jews “stole” the land from them. Statements to this effect are regularly made by Arab members of the Knesset. So while most Arabs do not take part in violent attacks on Jews and Jewish property as happened in May, the idea that we can prevent such occurrences by “mak[ing] Arab citizens feel that they belong” is fantasy. They will not “belong” unless they are given ownership, and we are not going to do that.

Asking the Arabs to give up their narrative is a fool’s errand, and it would be wrong to try to brainwash them with our version of history, even if as a matter of fact it is correct. And if Israel’s Jews should give up their Zionism – as some on the Left would like – then the Jewish state will have failed, and will soon disappear into the mass of Arab states surrounding it.

What we should say to our Arab citizens is something like this: this is a Jewish state and you are a national and religious minority in it. You have all the civil and political rights of any citizen and will not be discriminated against. This is a free society with a free-market economy where you can live better than in any other country in the region. We will treat you with respect, and we appreciate your contribution to Israeli cultural and economic life.

But we insist that you do not try to subvert our state, help its enemies, or engage in insurrections. There are many other states in the world; some of them are defined as Arab-Muslim states, and some are “states of their citizens.” If you can’t accept the minority status that is available here, then go somewhere else.

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.