Anyone who is familiar with the Elder of Ziyon website can attest to the
breadth of information available there and the clarity with which it is
presented. The same is true as well in this new book, based on articles he has
written. But make no mistake -- this is more than a collection of "Elder of
Ziyon's Greatest Hits." The 51 articles in the 350-plus pages form a coherent
whole which delve into five distinct areas:
Once you read the first article, you see that beyond having a breadth of
knowledge and clarity of presentation, Elder of Ziyon is innovative too.
And then he offers his own definition:
Why bother with another definition of antisemitism?
For one thing, his definition makes clear that "denigration" -- i.e. unfair
criticism -- as opposed to legitimate criticism, is antisemitic. This
clearly counters those who claim that antisemitism is being defined in order
to prevent all criticism of Israel.
But more than that:
The "malicious lies" clause is crucial. This covers not only Holocaust
denial but all sorts of clearly antisemitic lies about Jewish history,
such as the Khazar origin myth that Ashkenazic Jews are not really Jewish;
that Jews have no historic ties to Jerusalem; or that Zionists
collaborated with the Nazis. The other definitions do not cover these
lies...This is perhaps the biggest shortcoming of the other definitions.
Innovative.
Elder of Ziyon's fresh insights are evident throughout his book. For
example, in the section on international law.
Let's face it. Not everyone has the time or the patience to investigate
claims that Israel is in breach of international law or to plow through the
lengthy legal reports that purport to prove that Israel is guilty of major
violations. The articles in this section are not only typically clear and
concise, but along the way they also point out aspects of international law
that are not commonly brought up.
In his introduction to the chapter, Elder of Ziyon points out:
The Fourth Geneva Convention protects civilians in times of war --
but it balances those protections with protections for armies, too.
Anti-Zionists pretend the conflict is about Palestinian human rights. It
isn't. It is about everybody's human rights and balancing competing
rights. [emphasis added]
When was the last time anyone pointed out that the Geneva Convention
protects the armies as well as the civilians?
How does this insight play out in this chapter? Check out some of the
articles:
The article on The principle of distinction notes that the Convention clearly states that military attacks must
be limited to military targets. This we know. We also know that this issue
is brought up against Israel whenever there is collateral damage when Israel
responds to Hamas terrorist attacks.
What might not be generally known is that when this particular article in
the Geneva Convention was ratified, a number of countries made a point to
clarify that the limitation on military attacks did not make an army
responsible for collateral damage. In other words, international law allows
an army to attack a military target even if there are some civilians there.
Elder of Ziyon quotes both the Military Manual of the Netherlands and
Sweden's International Humanitarian Law manual that agree the decision on
what constitutes a valid military target is up the military commander. And
the US Naval Handbook makes clear:
the commander must also consider the safety of his or her own troops.
But what about human rights in this equation?
The chapter on The principle of proportionality quotes the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the
former Yugoslavia that states the obvious, that a human rights lawyer and an
experienced military commander would not value a military advantage and the
injury to non-combatants in the same way -- and then concludes that the
decision to evaluate those values and weigh them against each other is up to
the military commander.
When Israel is put under a microscope, the validity of such an approach is
usually ignored.
The chapter
Human shields, hostage-taking, and Human Rights Watch provides an opportunity to debunk both The New York Times and Ken
Roth of HRW.
Regarding the Hamas use of human shields, the New York Times claims that the
legal definition of a human shield under international law only
applies when civilians are forced to stay in the area under
attack. The International Committee of the Red Cross proves The New York
Times wrong, defining even the exploitation of an area of civilians as a
breach of international law. The New York Times is basing itself on Ken
Roth's error, but examples of other condemnations of human shields by HRW
are given to illustrate that the normal definition is used for other
countries and the application of force to define humans shields is only
required when Israel is defending itself.
Speaking of Hamas, the chapter
Hamas violations of international law points out that Hamas rockets into Israel are more than rockets aimed
at civilians. Because there is no military advantage to be gained, those
attacks are by definition disproportionate -- a fact never raised by HRW,
which limits its criticisms of Hamas to mentioning rockets in general,
ignoring 19 other kinds of violations of international law that Elder of
Ziyon suggests Hamas terrorists are guilty of.
The chapter on The "right of return" myth quotes General Assembly resolution 194 which supposedly supports the
right of Palestinian Arabs to return to their homes. In the course of making
various points in debunking this claim, Elder of Ziyon notes a double
standard, in that the resolution does not single out Arabs as the sole
beneficiaries of this right:
Yet no one who supports "return" says Jews have the right to return to the
places they lived across the Green Line, whether in Jerusalem or Gush
Etzion.
Among the points he makes in
Amnesty, HRW and the "right of return" for descendants, he notes that despite their apparent concern for Palestinian Arab
refugees,
Amnesty and HRW have never called on Arab nations to naturalize Palestinians
who have lived in their countries for over seven decades.
Terrorism is not legal "resistance" debunks in just 4 and a
half pages the Hamas claim that their acts of terrorism are permitted under
international law, quoting both a UN Security Council resolution -- binding
under Chapter 7 -- and a clear statement by the UN Secretary General that
the occupation does not justify targeting and killing civilians.
The section on The experts get it wrong has a timely article
on
Linkage turned on its head: the Abraham Accords addressing the long-held theory that once Israel gives into
Palestinian demands and there will be peace in the region. Elder of Ziyon
points out:
The discredited linkage theory has been turned on its head. Instead of
claiming the Palestinian issue is the key to solving all Middle East
problems, now the problem is in solving other Middle East problems without
giving the Palestinians veto power over what Israel does with other Muslim
states.
To see the accuracy of this observation, one need only to read about
NY Rep. Jamaal Bowman's recent announcement that he was withdrawing his
support for the Abraham Accords
because he claims they "isolate" Palestinian Arabs.
The section on
The dishonesty of Israel's demonizers has articles taking on Peter Beinart's propaganda that denies to Israel
rights while extending them to Palestinian Arabs, Edward Said's admitted
revulsion at Eleanor Roosevelt and Martin Luther King, Jr, Judith Butler's
claim that Moses was Egyptian and therefore an Arab, and Joseph Massad's
demand that Arab countries given Palestinian Arabs unlimited and
unconditional support.
The last section, The NGO jihad against Israel, has an article on Oxfam's errors in math and basic agriculture in its
claim that Israel is destroying Palestinian Arab olive trees. There are
articles on Amnesty International's lack of expertise in military matters in
minimizing Hamas terrorism, its annoyance at Israeli pride in its 3,000 year
history and its support for a children's book that is supposed to illustrate
freedom of religion but seems instead to teach children to hate Jews.
Then there is HRW.
In one article, Elder of Ziyon takes apart their report on last years war
between Israel and Hamas. He gives examples not only of HRW bias, but also
outright mistakes in their evaluations and conclusions.
In the other article, he tackles their report claiming that Israel is guilty
of apartheid. He looks at 3 legal definitions of apartheid, shows how HRW is
forced to cobble together its own brand new definition, and notes a part of
one of those definitions which HRW omitted that casts doubt on the
definition itself.
The HRW report attempts to strengthen its argument with graphic examples,
using drawings of Israelis and Arabs to illustrate what it claims are
differences in basic rights. After giving counter examples to debunk those
arguments, Elder of Ziyon notes something odd about the pictures HRW uses:
The Jews all have lighter skin. The Jews have light, straight hair. The
Palestinians have darker skin and wavy/curly hair.
He points out that Israelis are portrayed as 'white,' which in today's
volatile age of reaction against 'white supremacy' sends a distinct, if
subliminal message.
In his conclusion, Elder of Ziyon writes that modern antisemitism is more
than just an issue with the Right:
Not all antisemitism involves violence. Most antisemitism manifests as
insults, stereotyping, derogatory language, incitement and demonization.
And nowadays, the bulk of that kind of antisemitism comes from the
socialist Left.
...The same hate that animates the physical attacks on Jews lies behind
the op-eds, NGO reports, and demonstrations that paint the Jewish state as
uniquely evil.
Elder of Ziyon's book is one of the tools that enable us to see these attacks
for what they are -- and what they aren't.
Wednesday, March 02, 2022
Elder of Ziyon
