Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Sunday, February 06, 2022

It's 2022, and antisemites are still saying "Jews are poisoning the wells"

Qaryout

Arab and Iranian media are claiming that Jews poisoned a spring in Qaryut, near Shiloh.

Israeli settlers on Friday intentionally polluted the water of a spring in the West Bank village of Qaryout, north of Nablus, Anadolu Agency reported.

“The settlers raided the area, broke the lock of the water spring, damaged the fence around it and poured unknown material with a dirty smell in the water,” activist Bashar Al-Qaryouti confirmed.

He added: “They did so to turn the water unsafe for drinking or farming.”

I couldn't find the Anadolu Agency article.

And there is no original reporting of this in Palestinian media. They are all quoting Turkish media about something that supposedly happened in their backyard.

No photos of the damaged fence or broken lock. No interviews of any witnesses. No mention in Haaretz. Just quotes of an anti-Israel activist talking, for some reason, to a Turkish news agency instead of the local media.

They say there are only seven basic plots of stories and everything is a variation. I have a feeling that there are only seven basic antisemitic libels as well (Jews spreading disease, Jews secretly controlling institutions, Jews faking history, Jews being guilty of the worst possible crime in any age...), but the world is as insatiable in wanting to hear the variants of the Jew-hate story as they are for all other fiction.

The exact same playbook @Amnesty and @HRW took on "apartheid" can be used to accuse Israel of "genocide"

The path that Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch took to declare Israel guilty of "apartheid" can be used to claim that Israel is guilty of the crime of "genocide" against Palestinians.

Sounds absurd? It isn't.

The "apartheid" charge began in earnest at the NGO Forum of the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance held at Durban in September 2001. Amnesty and Human RIghts Watch were there among the 3000 delegates and did nothing to stop the final declaration, which repeatedly accused Israel of apartheid, racism, and genocide.

In the preamble:

Recognizing further that a basic “root cause” of Israel’s on going and systematic human rights violations, including its grave breaches of the fourth Geneva convention 1949 (i.e. war crimes), acts of genocide and practices of ethnic cleansing is a racist system, which is Israel’s brand of apartheid.

In the main body:

We declare and call for an immediate end to the Israeli systematic perpetration of racist crimes including war crimes, acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing (as defined in the Statute of the International Criminal Court), ... and state terrorism against the Palestinian people, recognizing that all of these methods are designed to ensure the continuation of an exclusively Jewish state with a Jewish majority and the expansion of its borders to gain more land, driving out the indigenous Palestinian population.

We declare Israel as a racist, apartheid state in which Israels [sic] brand of apartheid as a crime against humanity has been characterized by separation and segregation, dispossession, restricted land access, denationalization, ¨bantustanization¨ and inhumane acts.

And in the recommendations, which sound a great deal like the recommendations at the end of the Amnesty and HRW reports:

Call for the establishment of a war crimes tribunal to investigate and bring to justice those who may be guilty of war crimes, acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing and the crime of Apartheid which amount to crimes against humanity that have been or continue to be perpetrated in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

Condemnation of those states who are supporting, aiding and abetting the Israeli Apartheid state and its perpetration of racist crimes against humanity including ethnic cleansing, acts of genocide.

At Durban, the absurd accusations against Israel of apartheid was accompanied by the equally absurd accusations of racism, ethnic cleansing and genocide.

And just as with apartheid, the NGOs at Durban twisted international law to justify their accusations of genocide.

Note that they mentioned the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Antisemites can read that as if Israel is guilty of genocide just as the antisemites of HRW and Amnesty read the various legal definitions of "apartheid" to damn Israel alone.

Article 6
Genocide
For the purpose of this Statute, "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

Amnesty and HRW already laid the groundwork to prove that Israel does all of those things! Their tendentious reports try to prove a Jewish attempt at supremacy or domination, to prove Jewish racism, and especially to prove Jewish intent to destroy "in whole or in part" Palestinians.

The accusation of "intent" was the major part of the discredited Goldstone Report and they are key parts of the newer NGO "apartheid" reports.

Amnesty and HRW regularly pretend to know Israel's intent in all their anti-Israel reports - Israel intended to attack civilians, the IDF intended to cause disproportionate damage to Gaza, and now Israeli Jews intend to dominate the non-Jewish minority in Israel as well as the Palestinians in territories.

Intent is the entire underlying structure of their reports. The very first sentence in Amnesty's report is a quote from Benjamin Netanyahu saying that Israel was the nation/state of the Jewish people alone, while they didn't quote his next sentence that Arabs have the same rights as all. It doesn't fit their "intent" narrative so therefore it must be ignored.

In real life, proving intent is difficult, because no one can read minds. The bar to prove intent in international law is very high for that reason - one must have a preponderance of evidence of statements and actions that indicate that the criminal had intent to persecute people because they were of a different race or ethnic group.

That is what HRW and Amnesty have been pretending to do in their 200+ page reports.

That's the pattern in all these reports: only quoting bits and pieces of Israeli officials' statements to prove Israeli Jewish racism and ignoring all statements and actions that prove Israeli liberalism and intent to ensure equal rights for all.

The half-truths meant to prove Israeli racism are a direct result of antisemitism. The NGOs only look for evidence that proves their pre-judged verdict of Jewish racism and anything that disproves it is considered hasbara, or purposeful misdirection by the evil Jews to throw the righteous NGOs off the trail. Amnesty's Philip Luther pretty much said that in his dumpster fire of an interview at Times of Israel:

It’s because the Israeli state has made it so difficult to penetrate. They have tried to create a smokescreen around, and of course there is a democratic system, and there are judicial institutions that of course then call the state to account, or at least challenge their decisions. But that’s what makes it so challenging in some ways then to disentangle them when you put it all together.
So I would put it back on the Israeli state. In some ways, it ends up being a driver of complexity and a driver of resources unnecessarily spent on investigations by anybody, because it’s made so damn complicated.

Amnesty's job to accuse Israel of racism and apartheid is made difficult by the "smokescreen" of a fair legal system, freedom, democracy, laws, practices and facts that prove the exact opposite.

In a nutshell, that is the proof of Amnesty's antisemitism - they must work really hard to ignore any evidence that Israel is not as evil as they always intended to prove it is. They know the Jews are up to no good, and it is their job to uncover it.

So what's the difference between accusing Israel of apartheid and accusing it of genocide? Nothing. Luther alluded to years of modern antisemites accusing Israel of apartheid - i.e., "Israel apartheid weeks" on campus - to say that this was the opening to Amnesty writing this paper now:

...Part of the reason for that on Israel/Palestine is because there is a growing debate on the subject. We thought it was absolutely right and proper that we brought up….When you’re looking at the question of whether you’re going to be looking at any particular place, well, is there a debate on it? There are external factors, that’s part of the strategic landscape. Do we have something to say on it, is it something that we might have a contribution.
... To my knowledge, the Chinese activists are not currently using the [apartheid] term.

Here, Amnesty is admitting that it bases its research on what "activists" accuse a country of doing, and not any objective factors. Since no one is accusing Lebanon of apartheid with their anti-Palestinian laws, there is no reason for Amnesty to do so . Objective truth is not the goal: Amnesty is choosing what it will call apartheid "strategically," by following the lead of the antisemites and allowing them to define the "debate."

In Durban, Amnesty official Claudio Cordone slightly distanced the group from the genocide charge: "We are not ready to make the assertion that Israel is engaged in genocide," he said. He didn't say it wasn't true, just that Amnesty wasn't yet "ready" to pursue that avenue of attack.

It is twenty years later. Amnesty has already shown what it needs to be "ready" to accuse Israel of genocide - a "debate" created by Jew-haters.

If today's antisemites change their annual "apartheid weeks" to "genocide weeks," that it what would create the "debate" that would give Amnesty and HRW the opening to write their next generation of reports accusing Israel of the worst crimes against humanity possible.

The apartheid charge is just as absurd and antisemitic as the genocide charge. Anyone who has visited a mall in Jerusalem see there is no apartheid. Anyone who sees that the current Israeli government has an Arab coalition partner knows that the charge is a blatant lie. But both the apartheid and genocide/ethnic cleansing charges were given legitimacy in Durban where major NGOs signed on to the final statement, both of those accusations are regularly hurled at Israel by "activists" and Palestinians, both of them have legal definitions that can be twisted by the lawyers at the NGOs against Israel. All that is missing is the "debate," and today's antisemites could create that "debate" over the next few years.

HRW and Amnesty already have the "genocide" reports half-written.

For many years, Iranian media has used a stable of antisemitic American commentators to spread hate but pretend that they are just quoting an "American analyst."

Mark Glenn has been a rabid antisemite for a long time now, and he is a frequent columnist and "interviewee" on Iranian media which gobbles up his Jew-hating conspiracy theories.

Here's 'the latest from Iran's AhlulBayt News Agency:

In order to best understand the role that the 1979 Revolution played in the changing of ‘regional equations’ in the Middle East, it is first important to understand what was and is the ultimate goal that Zionism, organized Jewish interests and the West intended to see take place as a result of creating this monster simply known as ‘The Jewish State’.

This ultimate goal, this ‘New World Order’ as it is called can be summed up and understood very simply by examining critically and rationally the ‘blueprint’ for this ‘Great Reset’ which Zionism Judaism seeks to create, just a few details of which are quoted below.

'On that day the LORD made a covenant, saying 'To your descendants, I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river Euphrates'…--Genesis, 15:18

'Every place whereon the sole of your foot shall tread shall be yours, from the wilderness, and Lebanon, from the river Euphrates, even unto the hinder sea shall be your border…' Deuteronomy 11:24

'The Gentiles and their kings shall minister to you, as your gates remain open, day and night, so that the wealth of the foreigners may be placed at your feet while their kings are led in humble procession before you, for the nation which will not bow down and serve you shall perish, it shall be utterly destroyed… –Book of Isaiah

These represent just a few of the many, many ‘prophecies’ which those following the diabolical, anti-God and anti-human Zionism Judaism have in mind–creating a totalitarian empire stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates and headquartered in Jerusalem from where all decisions that affect all nations will be decided and made by those claiming membership in the tribe of Judah. Those nations that refuse to bow down before these precepts will be utterly destroyed, just as the world witnessed with the nation of Palestine, Iraq, Libya, and which the diabolically-demented and deranged followers of the Zionism Judaism cult are planning to inflict upon the great nation of Iran, for indeed, had Iran not succeeded in its1979 Revolution, the diabolical plans which these elements have been striving to achieve now for thousands of years would be immeasurably closer than they already are.

Apparently, "Zionism Judaism" has been plotting for thousands of years to take over the world.

02/05 Links: Amnesty, the Media, and Waving Narratives in the Air; US waives sanctions on Iran’s civil atomic program in bid to advance nuke talks

From Ian:

The apartheid libel is a nuclear weapon

The Amnesty International report released this week seeks to harness the diplomatic equivalent of a nuclear weapon against the State of Israel: the apartheid libel.

The accusation is a lie, without any foundation in truth. It is a desecration of the memory of the victims of the real apartheid, and it is a cynical abuse of the term in the cause of another form of bigotry – antisemitism. But its immorality and falsehood make it no less dangerous.

The intent of those who apply the apartheid label to Israel is the same as the Iranian regime: to destroy the Jewish state. They are merely using another weapon – equally lethal.

I say this having grown up in South Africa through the 1980s, experiencing the effects of global sanctions against the apartheid government. It was a noble campaign to bring the evil National Party regime to its knees and cause the demise of the injustice of a real apartheid system. And it was devastatingly successful.

It made being a South African citizen shameful. It completely broke the will of white South Africans to continue the apartheid policies. The economic sanctions hurt the pockets of the people, while the symbolically powerful sporting and cultural boycotts made white South Africans feel like pariahs. International travel with a South African passport was like walking around with a badge of shame.

The intention behind this Amnesty International report, like all those who falsely accuse Israel of apartheid, is to destroy the Jewish state by breaking the resolve of its brave citizens by making them ashamed of their country, reluctant to serve in its army or pay its taxes; instead looking to emigrate to avoid the disgrace and pain of sanctions and international ostracism.

Amnesty, the Media, and Waving Narratives in the Air

Anyone who actually managed to read through Amnesty’s 280-page report accusing Israel of the crime of apartheid will tell you that it is not particularly well-written or convincing. It’s a confusing, disorganized mess that would make any self-respecting lawyer want to abandon the practice of law, lest they be a part of a professional industry that has been so degraded by such amateurish rubbish.

But Amnesty knows almost no one will actually read the report.

As law professor Avi Bell explained regarding Human Rights Watch’s report in 2021 (but which equally applies to Amnesty’s report this week), “the length of the report is an important part of HRW’s strategy of marketing its propaganda as ‘research.’”

Amnesty is counting on lazy journalists and politicians to pick up the report and wave it around, picking out a random quote a staffer found that suggests Israel is a racist endeavor. They also know too few journalists these days are willing and able to perform serious journalism and ask the tough questions (with very notable exceptions such as Lazar Berman’s outstanding interview of two top Amnesty officials).

As a consequence of Amnesty’s deliberate exploitation of media bias and unprofessionalism, too many are hearing the false, slanderous narratives of “Israeli apartheid” instead of the actual reality on the ground, in which the Arabs of Jerusalem prefer Israeli rule to Palestinian rule.

Those who would support the truth, and those who recognize the creeping danger of the mainstreaming of antisemitism being fueled by this dynamic, must be prepared to push back. There have already been many outstanding responses to Amnesty’s libels, such as those of my colleagues at CAMERA as well as many other lawyers and researchers. There is also good journalism out there, such as The Algemeiner’s coverage of the poll of Arab Jerusalemites. It’s time to start picking up these articles and responses and start waving them back.

02/04 Links Pt2: Daniel Pearl was brutally murdered 20 years ago, but the key lesson wasn’t learned; Encyclopedia Britannica: Arab, Semitic people can't be called antisemitic

From Ian:

Daniel Pearl was brutally murdered 20 years ago, but the key lesson wasn’t learned

Judah Pearl mentioned the Al-Dura case. The American media rushed to make that story a lead story in the mainstream media. It was a cause of the second intifada leading to the deaths of Israelis and Arab Palestinians. But the hatred went beyond the Middle East. Antisemitism rose across the Western World, leading to attacks and murders of Jews such as Daniel Pearl. The MSM kept showing the pictures of the boy hiding behind his father as they were supposedly shot by the IDF.

The media didn’t investigate the Al Dura story as they would do with other stories. Eventually, the whole tape was found. It showed that the entire incident was a set-up, a false slander of the Jewish nation using Israel as their excuse.

The UN recognizes that anti-Zionism is Antisemitism because they use the term interchangeably. The 2001 UN World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Related Intolerance in Durban quickly became a disgusting display of Antisemitism and anti-Israel Propaganda. It is there that the “Durban Strategy” was formulated, delegitimizing the Jewish State via branding it as a racist entity. Copies of the anti-Semitic work The Protocols of the Elders of Zion were sold on conference grounds; fliers depicting Hitler with the question, “What if I had won?” were circulated among conference attendees.

“Durban simultaneously hosted a UN conference of non-governmental organizations (NGOs). According to the UN, the NGO conference aimed to publicize the “voices of the victims.” In this forum, the Jewish Caucus proposed that Holocaust denial and anti-Jewish violence caused by Jewish support for Israel be labeled forms of Antisemitism. The proposal was almost unanimously defeated. Anne Bayefsky, an NGO participant and a representative of the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists, commented. “

“The only group that voted for it was the Jews. Of all the ‘voices of the victims’ put into the resolution, only one voice was deleted – the Jewish voice.”

Rep Ilhan Omar (D-MN) made statements displaying her belief that there was no difference between Antisemitism and hate of Israel. For example, before she was elected, she tweeted that Israel had “hypnotized” the world. That’s an age-old anti-Semitic claim that Jews had the power of mind control. She used it against Israel.

In 2019 Omar used another anti-Semitic canard that Jews were rich. But she didn’t use it about Jews, her words were slander against Zionism, the belief that the Jewish nation should have a state in its eternal homeland (Israel). Omar described the Congressional support of Israel by tweeting, “It’s all about the Benjamins baby.” Some Congressional Jews refused to believe that Omar’s statements about Israel were anti-Semitic. For example, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) blamed the GOP, and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) was silent as he usually is about anti-Semitic acts.

There are too many other examples to list here. But the key lesson which is still ignored is that most people don’t understand that haters of Israel are really expressing their Antisemitism.

May God continue to comfort Daniel Pearl’s bereaved family, and may his memory always be for a blessing.

And may people remember what God said to Abraham. The Jewish people are a nation. Israel is every Jew's land. The hatred of Israel or Zionism is Antisemitism

Mark Regev: Being a diplomatic team player, not just Israel's president

Herein lies the paradox: Israel’s president enjoys high visibility and much prestige, but has no serious decision-making responsibilities, not in determining government policy, not in allocating budgets, not in legislating laws. Moreover, the position, while supposedly above the day-to-day political fray, is usually held by a former politician who is free from the worries of reelection, the law limiting the president to one single seven-year term.

This fusion of high stature with the absence of any real authority can make for a challenging combination, the constraints and contradictions of the presidency at times overly burdensome for a relevancy-seeking public official.

An example: Israel’s eighth president, Moshe Katsav (later jailed for rape) represented the Jewish state at the Rome funeral of Pope John Paul II in 2005, exactly the sort of task a ceremonial head of state should perform. Vatican protocol seated Katsav nearby Iranian president Mohammad Khatami who, like Katsav, was born in the Iranian province of Yazd. Katsav told the press afterwards that he shook Khatami’s hand and spoke with him in Farsi, though Khatami denied the exchange.

Needless to say, Katsav’s initiative was spontaneous, uncoordinated with the Prime Minister’s Office and the Foreign Ministry. Officials with responsibility for Israel’s national security were critical of the president’s behavior, believing his actions overly motivated by a desire for headlines.

Although in a very different league: At a White House ceremony in 2012, Barack Obama bestowed upon Shimon Peres the Presidential Medal of Freedom. At the time, Obama was running for reelection, and although having a testy relationship with the government of Netanyahu over differences on Iran and the Palestinians, the American president was eager to exhibit his pro-Israel credentials.

By honoring Israel’s president in a high-profile ceremony, Obama could display friendship for the Jewish state while avoiding contentious policy issues, with Peres in return receiving precious Oval Office access and a very prestigious decoration. While Peres undoubtedly believed his actions genuinely served Israel’s national interests, he was still ostensibly enabling a strategy to circumvent the elected government in Jerusalem.

So far, Isaac Herzog has demonstrated consummate presidential behavior. Instead of rushing to accept Erdogan’s invitation to visit Turkey, which would be the first of its kind since Peres visited in 2007 prior to the crisis in Jerusalem-Ankara relations, Herzog chose to coordinate his steps with the prime minister and foreign minister, understanding that the diplomatic delicacy of the matter demands such a visit – which appears likely – reflects the considered approach of the government. Unlike some of his predecessors, Herzog rightly appreciates that even Israel’s exalted First Citizen should not have his own independent foreign policy.

Itamar Marcus: The Palestinian Authority's child soldier strategy against Israel

The PA’s child recruitment was a great success. Many Palestinian teenagers participated, and sixteen 12th graders died in that terror wave. The PA’s response to their deaths was horrifying, as the official PA news agency, presented their deaths as a “great victory”:

“Sixteen [12th grade students] succeeded [achieving] the Martyrdom of the homeland… for death as a Martyr is the path to excellence and greatness and the path of those who know how to reach the great victory.” (WAFA, July 11, 2016)

Finally, after sending its children to die, the PA uses them for political profit. Internally, the deaths are used to create hatred of Israel, as the PA routinely presents child terrorists as innocent victims murdered by Israel.

Internationally, the PA publicizes the numbers of killed teenagers and calls on the world to punish Israel. As the frequency grows of members of parliaments and anti-Israel NGOs condemning Israel for the deaths of Palestinian children, increasing the number of dead Palestinian children has become a fundamental component of the PA propaganda strategy.

Years ago, the first time this writer presented this evidence at a hearing in the US Senate it drew outrage. Then-senator Hillary Clinton attacked the PA for its “horrific child abuse,” and former senator Arlen Specter denounced it as “civilization abuse.” But the American and other international condemnations have remained empty words because politicians come and go, while the PA’s use of child soldiers remains at the forefront of its strategy.

Years of PA indoctrination have been alarmingly effective. Palestinian children know they are expected to be child soldiers, and regularly another one seeks a moment of fulfillment and fame, hoping to kill and be killed. Palestinian children have already mastered what they are being taught. Perhaps it is the rest of us who need to stay after school.

02/04 Links Pt1: Caroline Glick: The Anti-Defamation League and Amnesty International; David Collier: Where are the real journalists? 15 questions for Amnesty

From Ian:

Caroline Glick: The Anti-Defamation League and Amnesty International

In October 2020, then Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced his plan to list Amnesty, Human Rights Watch and Oxfam as anti-Semitic organizations due to their efforts to advance the anti-Semitic boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign against Israel. Pompeo’s plan was in keeping with the Trump administration’s overall policy for fighting anti-Semitism. In December 2019, then President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order that provided civil rights protection to Jewish students persecuted by BDS campaigns on their campuses.

Given the central role Amnesty and other phony human rights groups play in the political war for the destruction of the largest Jewish community in the world, Pompeo’s planned move was not just reasonable, it was imperative. But rather than applaud him for his resolve, the ADL attacked Pompeo and his plan.

When word broke that Pompeo was about the designate the three groups as anti-Semitic, the ADL released a statement aimed at undermining and blocking his move. The statement declared, “We oppose broadly applying the anti-Semitism label to these human rights organizations; doing so is neither accurate nor helpful to the fight against anti-Semitism. Rather, this move would politicize the fight against anti-Semitism.”

A month later Pompeo made it the official policy of the State Department to treat organizations that support BDS as anti-Semitic groups. But by that time, Trump had lost his reelection bid, and the wind had come out of the sails. Pompeo’s statement did not mention which specific groups were anti-Semitic. So thanks in large part to the ADL, Amnesty and its anti-Semitic comrades dodged the bullet.

On the surface, the ADL’s condemnation of the Amnesty report could have been written by the Zionist Organization of America. But a close look at the ADL’s response makes clear that the organization which is supposed to lead the struggle against anti-Semitism, hasn’t changed its position since it defended Amnesty from Pompeo’s charge of anti-Semitism.

The ADL had a great deal of criticism over Amnesty’s report, but it engaged in circus-style contortionism to avoid saying the plain truth: Amnesty’s report was anti-Semitic.

As the ADL put it, Amnesty’s report was “an effort to demonize Israel and undermine its legitimacy as a Jewish and democratic state. In an environment of rising anti-Jewish hate, this type of report is not only inaccurate but also irresponsible and likely will lead to intensified anti-Semitism around the world.”

So the report wasn’t anti-Semitic per se. It was simply irresponsible. Amnesty didn’t factor in how its blood libels might be interpreted by people who (unlike Amnesty) actually hate Jews.

The ADL statement maintained its line – that Amnesty was irresponsible, not bigoted against Jews — through to the end. The statement concluded, “Amnesty International’s rhetoric is irresponsible. These are not simply abstract words but the kind of spurious charges that, time and again, have placed Jews in danger around the world.”

David Collier: Where are the real journalists? 15 questions for Amnesty

1. One of the key figures behind your attacks on Israel – and indeed one of those leading the press conference on the report – used to have Facebook profile pictures of PFLP and Islamic Jihad terrorists. How can you possibly believe he is fit for purpose when it comes to reporting on Israel?

2. Your Deputy Director for the MENA region, which covers dozens of states, is a Palestinian who spends over 99% of his time only talking about Israel. Given the state of human rights in the Middle East and North Africa – how can this be justified?

3. We have seen Amnesty employees support terrorist attacks or give advice to terrorists. Looking through who you employ, there is a distinct pattern. Amnesty has chosen to employ several people who were visibly active anti-Israel careerists. They promoted full BDS, believed Israel is an Apartheid state, worked on campaigns to delegitmise Israel, often spread fake news and so on – long before they started working for Amnesty. All this must have been on their CVs. If you deliberately employ anti-Israel activists such as this – and send them out to write your reports on Israel – what do you expect the result to be?

4. A clear example. In 2017 Amnesty employed an anti-Israel activist named Alli Jarrar (McCracken). Jarrar came from Codepink, an extremist group that has even supported Iran’s weapons program. Before she arrived at Amnesty, Jarrar worked on a Code Pink campaign to boycott Airbnb. Shortly after her arrival – Amnesty engaged in a well-funded campaign to boycott Airbnb. How much of your activity is driven by the obsessions of those you employ?

5. Going back in time – we often see names of authors on Amnesty reports. The authors are anonmyous in your Apartheid report. Why – is there something you are trying to hide?

6. In your latest report you called Israel an Apartheid state. It obviously isn’t. Can you explain why Amnesty wasted enormous resources, changing every definition of all the words neccessary – in order to try to squeeze Israel into a box it clearly does not belong inside?

2/5 On her left is director of @alhaq_org Shawan Jabarin. Jabarin has been arrested multiple times and has been convicted on terror charges. Israel’s Supreme Court labeled him “Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde” for hiding his terror connections behind “human rights” activism.
— NGO Monitor (@NGOmonitor) February 4, 2022

Abe Foxman: Amnesty's Lies About Israel Only Hurt Its Own Credibility

It is a mark of Amnesty's incredible shrinking credibility that the anti-Israel narrative it peddles, seeming to want to divert attention from the internal dissension that has recently come to light inside the organization, has less and less traction in the Middle East itself, where Amnesty appears to have "lost the room." In the last two years, a series of Arab nations have moved to normalize relations with Israel, among them the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Morocco. More are close behind.

And it isn't only Israel's Arab neighbors who are telling Amnesty "No thanks." Last year, Israel's Arab party joined the most diverse government Israel has ever had, and is part of the coalition governing the country. "We have two hats," said the party's leader, Mansour Abbas. "On the one side we are Arab Palestinians. But we are also Arab citizens of Israel."

Mansour's significant role in leading the Middle East's only democracy, one which protects workers, women, members of the LGBT community and religious minorities, is unhelpful to Amnesty's line that Israel is an apartheid state. The same is true of the role that Israeli Arabs play on the country's Supreme Court, where an Arab justice presided over a trial adjudicating a national Israeli election.

Buffeted by an array of grave and downright existential challenges that no other country on the planet faces, beset by an over-abundance of complexity, Israel is no more perfect than the United States is. But the kind of over-the-top proclamations by agenda-driven organizations like Amnesty do less damage to Israel's reputation than to their own.

An activist group in Jordan is calling on citizens to refuse to work in Eilat.

Between two and three thousand Jordanians have day jobs in hotels and other tourist spots in Eilat.

The "Move.Boycott Committee" issued a statement to Jordanians warning them, "Do not go to work in the Zionist entity."

The statement first claims that brokers in Jordan are taking advantage of workers by contracting them out to Eilat hotels but that the workers do not get benefits. This is possible, there are similar problems reported about Palestinian workers in Israel.

The statement goes on to accuse the brokers and workers of "normalization," saying that they are taking advantage of the unemployed and engaging in human trafficking.

But the real issue isn't protection of the workers. The end of the statement calls on Jordan to actively block any workers from Israel because it helps the Israeli economy, and it then calls on Jordan to cancel its peace agreement ("shame agreements") and natural gas deals with Israel.

Palestine Today has an article about the strawberry crop from Gaza and how prices are expected to be reduced this year as there is a glut.

It quotes Ibrahim Ghabin, director of the Agricultural Association in Beit Lahia, Gaza, who says that there will be an increase of exports of strawberries to the West Bank.

In the middle of the article comes this sentence:

Ghabin stated that the Ministry of Agriculture in Gaza contacted Agriculture in Ramallah several times in order to export strawberries abroad, but to no avail.

All Gaza exports need to go through Israel, but Israel isn't stopping these exports. The Palestinian Authority is.

Gaza farmers are held hostage by the PA, which hates Hamas and therefore collectively punishes Gazans with arbitrary decisions like this. It happens all the time.

This is one of the many stories of how Palestinians are suffering at the hands of their own leaders that "human rights organizations" and news media actively refuse to cover. Because they have a narrative of Jewish oppression of Palestinians, and especially Gazans, and any story that doesn't follow that formula is simply not reported.

Ironically, if the media and NGOs would simply write letters to the PA or call them up asking them why they are blocking exports from Gaza, that would shame the PA into changing its policies and help Gaza farmers and Gaza's economy.

Which means that the hate and bias that the NGOs and media have against Israel ends up hurting Palestinians - the very people they claim they are trying to protect.

I have noted before that the word "Justice" when used in context of "Palestinians demand justice" or "No justice, no peace" or Students for Justice in Palestine," is a dog-whistle that means the end of Israel.

It turns out that this is not a recent phenomenon.

Yehoshafat Harkabi, in his 1974 work "Arab Attitudes to Israel," has a short section on this very topic.

He describes many genocidal phrases popular in the Arab world throughout the 1960s that sound innocuous to those who are not on the inside, such as "liberation": Here is what he writes about how the word "justice" is used:

"JUST SOLUTION FOR THE PALESTINE PROBLEM," "JUST PEACE," "PEACE ON THE BASIS OF JUSTICE," "NON-ACCEPTANCE OF THE FAIT ACCOMPLI," "SETTLEMENT ACCORDING TO LEGAL RIGHTS," "SOLUTION ACCORDING TO UN PRINCIPLES"

The Arabs emphasize that they seek a "just solution" or a "just peace," which constitutes the opposite pole to a peace or solution founded on the status quo, on the fact of Israel's existence. The just solution, according to this view, is the annulment of the wrong involved in the very existence of Israel and the restoration of Israel to its legal owners. Justice is a denial of Israel's existence. Thus Nasser says:

"We talk peace, but we do not accept peace that is based on the usurpation of rights and on the fait accompli. That is why we work for peace, but we want peace based on justice." (Speech at Alexandria University, July 28, 1963).
In other words, a just peace, according to this view, means the peace that will reign after the disappearance of Israel.

Joint statements after visits by distinguished personalities and resolutions passed at conferences often include a demand for "a just solution," "a solution according to the UN Charter" or "the principles of the UN," or "a settlement according to natural rights" or "legal rights." The visitor or the delegates to the conference understand this as a "minimal obligation" and it contains no apparent hint that the aim is the destruction of a State. These expressions have quite a different connotation for the Arabs, who are convinced that Israel's existence is an injustice and a violation of the legal rights of the Palestinian Arabs. The National Covenant of the Palestine Liberation Organization refers in the preamble to:

"... the complete restoration of our lost homeland—a right that has been recognized by international covenants and common practices including the Charter of the United Nations ."
The Arabs therefore regard the agreement of foreigners to the formula of "a just solution" as support for their rejection of the "fait accompli" of Israel's existence.

Nasir al-DIn al-Nashashibl, the editor of al-Jumhuriyya, comments in his paper on a statement by Khrushchev, in a speech at Port Said, supporting "a just solution" of the Palestine problem:

"The people of Port Said listened to the speech of the illustrious visitor from the Soviet Union, in which he said that Russia recognizes the necessity for a logical and just solution to the problem of Palestine. The people of Port Said are well aware that a just solution to the problem of Palestine means the restoration of Palestine to the Arabs and the resettlement of all the refugees in their plundered homeland. The just solution is the liquidation of imperialism represented by Israel, which serves it as a base and bridgehead." (al-Jumhuriyya, May 20, 1964)

02/03 Links Pt2: Why Palestinians Dream of a Genocidal Victory; When Israel Can’t Be Blamed, No One Cares About ‘Human Rights’; Drop the Goldberg Name You Co-opted, Whoopi — You Don’t Deserve It

From Ian:

The Jewish people alone created Israel, not the Holocaust and not the UN

In the course of a few days in January 1942—80 years ago—Hitler’s henchmen, including SS chieftain Reinhard Heydrich, as well as Adolf Eichmann and other top members of the Third Reich, conferred at a villa in Wannsee, Germany to engineer the “Final Solution” to the “Jewish problem.”

The notorious Wannsee Conference succeeded in creating an efficient, industrial-scale approach to the Holocaust. Its extensive chain of death camps and gas chambers accomplished ultimately—unimaginably—the murder of 6 million Jews.

But this horror neither prevented the birth of the Jewish state nor did it—contrary to the narrative of many Israel haters—provide an excuse for Israel’s formation.

Ironically, many of those who oppose the State of Israel today blame its existence on the success of the murderous plans drawn up at Wannsee. Israel’s enemies minimize the righteousness of its birth in 1948 by attributing the Zionists’ achievement to global sympathy over the loss of Europe’s Jews, as if the most devastating genocide in world history would not justify the formation of the first Jewish state.

This objection to Israel conjures up the image of the United Nations and a few Western nations imposing a Jewish nation on native Arabs living in Palestine. This version has Israel created in a fit of guilt by the world’s nations because they stood by as the Holocaust unfolded. Israel is, according to the myth, a guilt-offering to compensate for the world’s indifference to the slaughter.

Indeed, one of the most pernicious lies about Israel’s creation is that it was born due to the Holocaust, a result of the United Nations Partition Plan of 1947.

The truth is, Israel was created by the Jews themselves as a result of more than a half-century of organizing.

Why Palestinians Dream of a Genocidal Victory

These are not mere fighting words; they express an intention and a fantasy that need to come to fruition. Every attack against the Jewish state should be seen through the prism of this fantasy, whether n the form of rockets from Gaza or terrorists from Judea and Samaria.

These violent actions are not just part of an ongoing conflict; they are integral to a war against the Jews, in the hope that the State of Israel can be destroyed by the death of 1,000 cuts.

The appropriation of history is a vital weapon in this battle, because, like the Nazis, the Palestinian paint their war as good and righteous and the Jews as undeserving of safety or protection. Victory will be theirs, they contend, because history has shown that they will ultimately win, regardless of time and the strength of the opponent.

This conflict will not be won by Israel, because it barely knows it is fighting such a battle, and because it does not appear to have the same capacity to imagine ultimate victory. Imagination and ultimate military aims are significant tools for the victorious.

Israel has no conceptualization of what its own version of ultimate victory looks like.

While Israel has the firepower and the might, it has no clear plan or strategy to end the conflict through the defeat of its enemies. While its enemies might lack the weaponry, they possess the motivation to continue fighting.

The Palestinians hold their collective gaze on ultimate victory through a deconstruction and appropriation of history, which means the end of the Jewish state, whereas Israel has no conceptualization of what its own version of ultimate victory looks like.

This is one of the central reasons why the conflict continues.

Brooke Goldstein: A Holocaust reenactment in a D.C. school should remind us that antisemitism is a severe threat

The history of modern Jew-hatred is littered with photographs of children, including Jewish children, forced to march to death camps and Hitler Youth being indoctrinated in the arts of terror, bullying, violence and death. Captured for posterity, these abused children remain a lasting image of what those so filled with ugliness and hate are capable of in their black hearts.

Add to that collection a photograph of the third-graders of Watkins Elementary School in D.C.

An educator entrusted by D.C. Public Schools with hundreds of innocent minds instructed a class of 8-year-olds at Watkins to reenact scenes from the Holocaust — digging mass graves, shooting victims, riding a train to a concentration camp, playacting gas chamber deaths and even assigning one Jewish student to play the role of Adolf Hitler, complete with a simulated suicide at the end of the lesson.

The instructor, library media specialist Kimberlynn Jurkowski, was placed on paid administrative leave for what the school’s principal called a “poor instructional decision.” Jurkowski had taught her class that the Holocaust and its atrocities happened “because the Jews ruined Christmas.”

There are no words to describe this horrific incident.

There are also no words to describe the irreparable damage Jurkowski has done to her students.

Without Antisemitism, Presbyterian Church Unsure How To Attract Members (PreOccupied Territory)

Our weekly column from the humor site PreOccupied Territory.

Check out their Facebook page.

Louisville, February 3 - An American Christian movement constituting part of the mainline Protestant demographic in the United States would not have the first clue how to go about filling its pews if it did not wallow in Judaeophobia thinly-veiled as support for Palestinian rights, leaders of the movement acknowledged today.

Senior figures in the Presbyterian Church (USA) voiced their anxiety at having to pull back from a staunch anti-Israel ideological and political line in the face of economic and social pressures, a line to which the affiliation has hewed in explicit terms for more than fifteen years, but stemming from decades of progressive activism with is ranks that often placed the church at odds with mainstream, pro-Israel Americans. Specifically, they fear the lack of a compelling message that will attract worshipers and adherents if they cannot channel venomous Jew-hate into anti-Israel policy and rhetoric. The membership crisis has seen membership tumble from over 3 million in 1984 to just over 1.2 million in 2020.

"I'm flummoxed as to how other churches do it," confessed Juan Tricponi, an Elder of the Synod of Boriquen, Puerto Rico. "I'm not just talking about other Presbyterians, most of whom are neutral or even pro-Israel. I mean American Protestants in general, and not only evangelicals. Without harnessing the grievance culture and the powerlessness that feeds the conspiratorial mindset behind antisemitism, what's a church supposed to do to appeal to the populace? Tout faith in God and His salvation? Please. This isn't the fourth century anymore."

"OK, that's not a fair comparison," he reconsidered. "Plenty of antisemitism in fourth-century theology and rhetoric, as well. Whatever, the point is I'd be hard-pressed to find a Christian vision and platform that will appeal to enough people unless we also incorporate the deicide charge against the Jews but dressed up as ani-Zionism. Who can even do that?"

"It might pay to have a look at non-Presbyterian churches to see what they do, since I understand they seldom have to face this dilemma," acknowledged Rev. Gregory J. Bentley, a moderator at the 224th General Assembly of the church in Baltimore. "It must be fascinating to have a theology and praxis that doesn't revolve around demonizing Jewish sovereignty and treating it with all the vehemence once reserved for Satan himself. Speaking for myself, I'm not sure I could stomach an approach to Godliness that doesn't incorporate a visceral intolerance for the Jew, or the Jewish State. I do hope it never comes to that."

02/03 Links Pt1: Amnesty’s ‘apartheid Israel’ calumny; Israel signs security memorandum with Bahrain, its 2nd with an Arab nation

From Ian:

Amnesty to ToI: No double standard in accusing Israel, but not China, of apartheid

Immediately after Amnesty International held a press conference in Jerusalem’s Bab A-Zahara neighborhood on Tuesday, The Times of Israel sat down with the group’s secretary general, Agnes Callamard, and Middle East and North Africa research and advocacy director, Philip Luther, to discuss the 278-page report they had released accusing Israel of apartheid.

The Amnesty International report alleged that Israel has maintained “a system of oppression and domination” over the Palestinians going all the way back to the establishment of the state in 1948, and it meets the international definition of apartheid. The accusation was leveled against Israel both within its borders and in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

In addition to demanding an end to arms sales to the Jewish state, Amnesty called on Israel’s allies in the West and in the Arab world to “use all political and diplomatic tools to ensure Israeli authorities implement the recommendations outlined in this report and review any cooperation and activities with Israel to ensure that these do not contribute to maintaining the system of apartheid.”

Ahead of the report’s release, Israel called it “false, biased, and antisemitic” and accused the organization of endangering the safety of Jews around the world. “Come on, this is absurd,” US Ambassador to Israel Tom Nides tweeted in response to the report.

There are other things singular about Israel too. It’s singular that you have other countries calling for its destruction at the UN. It’s singular that it’s the only Jewish state.

Luther: Correct.

So these are singular things which might explain the obsessive focus on Israel. You say it’s the occupation that is the most pressing issue for UN human rights bodies.

Luther: No, no, it’s not the most pressing, but the thing is, it is a singular issue. Normally, when people go to the UN, they’re reporting on violations that they’re committing within their recognized borders. That is very particular, and therefore you will see mechanisms that will be set up in order to deal with that. And that, I would suggest in terms of the report, its intention, in terms of the Israeli state, is the complexity of laws, policies and practices that is difficult to disentangle.

Therefore, to go back to your question on resources, it is the Israeli state that forces everyone to spend time disentangling it. The Syrian regime is absolutely abhorrent, in all its ways, and you will see far more reports over recent years on Syria and the crimes against humanity there. And it’s chillingly simple. It’s massacres. It’s bombs being dropped on residential areas.

Now that takes less time to disentangle. You still need to get the evidence, but it explains partly why. It’s because the Israeli state has made it so difficult to penetrate. They have tried to create a smokescreen around, and of course there is a democratic system, and there are judicial institutions that of course then call the state to account, or at least challenge their decisions. But that’s what makes it so challenging in some ways then to disentangle them when you put it all together.

So I would put it back on the Israeli state. In some ways, it ends up being a driver of complexity and a driver of resources unnecessarily spent on investigations by anybody, because it’s made so damn complicated.

David Horovitz: Amnesty’s ‘apartheid Israel’ calumny

Yet it is the destruction of Israel that Amnesty International transparently seeks and encourages — by demanding a “right of return” of potentially millions of Palestinians to Israel, rather than their inclusion in their own future state once they’ve come to terms with ours; by calling on the international community to deny Israel the arms it unfortunately requires to defend itself against the region’s aggressors; and by misrepresenting the reality on the ground here in a report designed to weaken international support for and identity with our small nation, surviving and flourishing against all odds.

For those who make the effort to look deeply at our complex reality and its context, Tuesday’s report will only discredit Amnesty International. In those many quarters where people do not make that effort, unfortunately, the selection of Israel as only the second country, after Myanmar, to be branded by Amnesty International as a practitioner of apartheid will do great harm.

Doubtless our critics won’t take his word for it, but it might give them pause were they to learn the identity of that prominent and knowledgeable Israeli whose tweet I quoted above, acknowledging our “many problems” but dismissing the apartheid calumny.

It was Issawi Frej, a Muslim Arab whose grandfather was killed in the Kafr Qasim massacre, and who currently serves as the minister of regional cooperation… in the government of the “apartheid” State of Israel.

Commentary Magazine Podcast: Shamnesty International

Tablet Magazine’s senior writer, Liel Leibovitz, joins the podcast to dismantle Amnesty International’s report alleging that Israel is an apartheid state.

Last year, the UN issued about 40 anti-Israel reports. (This does not include bodies like the UN Human Rights Council.)

One of them, A/76/289, is based on previous UN resolutions calling for Israel to compensate Palestinians for properties they abandoned in 1948. It refers to this one from 2018 but virtually identical resolutions have been put forth regularly for decades.

These resolutions "Calls upon all the parties concerned to provide the Secretary-General with any pertinent information in their possession concerning Arab property, assets and property rights in Israel that would assist him in the implementation of the present resolution."

Who responds to these resolutions?

In 2021, four countries responded. Not one of them responded with "pertinent information in their possession concerning Arab property, assets and property rights in Israel."

The responses were from Bahrain, Ecuador, Japan and "the State of Palestine."

Ecuador wrote a couple of paragraphs about the importance of the resolution. Japan wrote a long, irrelevant submission about how it is trying to help Palestinians and promote peace. The "State of Palestine" used this as an opportunity to write an Israel-bashing essay and support for UNRWA.

Bahrain's submission is the most problematic:

• We affirm that the Palestinian refugee issue is at the heart of the Palestinian cause. We uphold the inherent and inalienable right of generations of Palestinian refugees and their descendants to return to the homes from which they wer e displaced, in accordance with international resolutions, and in particular General Assembly resolution 194 (III) and the Arab Peace Initiative.
• We condemn and reject any attempts by any party to nullify Palestinian refugees’ right of return or to distort the refugee issue by attempting to resettle them, dismantle the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), stop its funding or deprive future generations of their right of return through a so-called redefinition of their legal status.

Like the others, this has nothing to do with the resolution. It is a call for Israel to allow itself to be destroyed with an influx of millions of fake refugees.

Bahrain did not have to submit anything. But it chose to emphasize the false "right of return."

I can imagine that this was a response to Palestinian rage at their normalization agreement with Israel, a message that "hey, we are still on your side." Even so, given that they are now at peace with Israel, this is concerning.