Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Thursday, October 06, 2022

Cartoon of the Day: Objective NGO reports to order

I was looking at the Amnesty YouTube channel, and saw one video that was quite anomalous.

It was a 2019 video, attempting to be snarky, attacking TripAdvisor for including Jewish-owned destinations in Judea and Samaria.

I couldn't find any other video on the site on any other topic that attempted to have that same sarcastic tone. And it didn't do a very good job. But it illustrates how, for Amnesty, Israel is uniquely evil - only Israel is treated that way. Only for Israel do they spend the money to try to reach audiences that might make their videos go viral.

On the other hand, they also prove how their obsession with Israel has nothing to do with the seriousness of the human rights abuses that they claim Israel is guilty of - because Amnesty would never attempt to make light of real human rights abuses in the same jokey way.

Anyway, this cartoon shows how "research" can be subverted: when the conclusions are decided before the research is done; everyone knows what the report will say and the researchers are tasked with reaching a specific conclusion ahead of time. That way they can only include the "evidence" that supports their thesis and ignore or downplay any counter-evidence.

That's what Amnesty, HRW and other "human rights" NGOs do, all the time.

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

10/06 Links Pt1: The Palestinian Authority cannot meet the most basic requirement for statehood; Lapid rejects Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine solution

From Ian:

The Palestinian Authority cannot meet the most basic requirement for statehood

The supreme test for a stable, sustainable and legitimate state is a monopoly on the use of force within the territories it controls. In the case of the P.A., this territory is currently composed of Areas A and B of Judea and Samaria—constituting around 40% of the area. The P.A. does not have the capability or willingness to confront the armed factions in these areas, never mind an expanded area provided for a Palestinian state. Moreover, the P.A. does not control an inch of the Gaza Strip, which is under the control of the terrorist entity Hamas, which sometimes appears to hate the P.A. and its chief Mahmoud Abbas even more than the Jews.

According to Melanne Civic and Michael Miklaucic in their book Monopoly of Force, “While no state has an absolute monopoly of force, to be accountable for actions taken within its borders, a state must have at least a preponderance of force; it must be able to prevent hostile acts toward other states. This is a minimum assumption of effective sovereignty.” The belief that the P.A. would be capable of this minimal level of sovereignty is wishful thinking.

The current unrest in Judea and Samaria is a perfect example of the P.A.’s ineptitude. The cities of Jenin and Nablus in Area A and B are lawless spaces controlled by a toxic mixture of armed elements of Abbas’ Fatah Party, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, among others. If Israel were not doing the P.A.’s dirty work, these groups would not only attack citizens of the Jewish state but, within a short time, overthrow the P.A. itself.

According to Efraim Inbar, the president of the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security, “To a significant extent, the P.A. is a failed state, defined by the lack of a monopoly on the use of force. … Abbas shied away from confronting the armed gangs and failed to centralize the security services. Indeed, the P.A. lost control of Gaza to Hamas and has continuous difficulties dismantling militias in the territory under its formal control.”

Ordinary Palestinian citizens are responding to this by arming themselves—a logical decision under the circumstances. As former U.S. Secretary of Defense James Mattis said, “We need to recognize that in an imperfect world, we cannot blame a man for wanting to maintain his arms for the protection of his family, land and community when all around him is chaos, lawlessness and corruption, with little or no opportunity.” This is the environment created by an impotent P.A. The vacuum is being filled by terrorists, thugs and Islamist fanatics.

The willful delusion that the P.A. would have a monopoly of force in any proposed state would be laughable if it were not so dangerous. Indeed, the most likely outcome of the creation of a Palestinian state is a Hamas coup. One can support the two-state solution, but refusing to acknowledge that there is no entity capable of a monopoly of force in a Palestinian state—except perhaps for Hamas—is a danger to Israel’s existence and undermines American interests, which depend on a stable Israel. For the foreseeable future, the only realistic option is the status quo.

Jordan Is the Reason There Is No Palestinian State and Minorities Are Threatened

Clearly, the Jordanians have a poor record when it comes to safeguarding the rights of non-Muslims. Thus, it is quite hypocritical for the current Jordanian monarch to criticize Israel’s policies on religious freedom, especially since the Jewish state lifted the aforementioned discriminatory laws imposed on non-Muslim religious minorities once it assumed control over the West Bank and reunified Jerusalem.

Unfortunately, King Abdullah II’s hypocrisy is not limited to the matter of protecting religious freedom. The Hashemite ruler also used his speech at the General Assembly to call for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, saying that the Palestinians “cannot be denied the right to self-determination.” But who has been denying the Palestinians their right to self-determination? Not Israel, whose leaders have offered the Palestinians statehood on several occasions, only to be turned down and met with terrorist violence at the urging of the Palestinian leadership. In fact, if anyone has been standing in the way of the Palestinians’ right to self-determination, it is King Abdullah II’s Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

The Palestinians could have had a country of their own as far back as 1921, when the British literally handed the territory of their Mandate of Palestine east of the Jordan River to King Abdullah II’s Hashemite clan, instead of giving it to the Palestinian Arab population for which it was originally intended. Then, during the 1948 war, the Jordanians captured what they labeled the West Bank, including eastern Jerusalem and all its holy places. But did they end up giving this territory to the Palestinians so that they would have a country of their own? Nope. Instead, the Jordanians annexed the newly-conquered territory — an annexation that was not even recognized by the other Arab states.

The bottom line is that King Abdullah II and his Hashemite clan have stood in the way of Palestinian statehood, not Israel. The king’s diatribe about a two-state solution is as hypocritical as his argument that the Jewish state threatens the rights of Christians. Besides, without Israeli support, the Jordanian monarch would probably not have his kingdom, so I think it’s time he stopped biting the hand that feeds him.

David Singer: Lapid rejects Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine solution

The emergence of the Saudi Solution offered these reticent politicians a real choice – yet not one of them has had the intestinal fortitude finally – if belatedly and unrealistically – displayed by Lapid.

The Saudi Solution – in distinct contrast to the United Nations Solution – offers Israel the following concessions before negotiations are even commenced on implementing the proposal:
· -Jerusalem will be the capital of Israel only
· - No new State will be created between Israel and Jordan
· - The right of return by Palestinian Arabs to Israel will be abandoned
· -Jewish sovereignty in part of Judea and Samaria ('West Bank') will be recognised for the first time in 3000 years
· -Saudi Peace proposals made in 1981 and 2002 that were unacceptable to Israel will be superseded.

The universal silence by Israeli politicians on the Saudi Solution since its publication almost four months ago is shameful.

One cannot expect every Israeli politician to embrace the Saudi Solution, but then they should publicly state their opposition.

But is there not one Israeli politician – Jew or Arab – other than Lapid - prepared to express his own opinion on conducting negotiations to determine if agreement can be reached on the Saudi Solutions’ groundbreaking proposals?

In particular why have the leaders of sixteen of the major Israeli political parties contesting the elections – Netanyahu, Gantz, Sa’ar, Smotrich, Ben-Gvir, Deri, Litzman, Gafni, Shehadeh,Odeh, Tibi, Michaeli, Galon, Abbas, Shaked, Liberman and Hendel - refused to comment on the Saudi Solution since its publication?

Hopefully these leaders - like Lapid – will break their silence on the Saudi Solution well before November 1.

Leaders lead from the front – not cower and huddle silently together behind the voters whose votes they seek.

The New York Post published on October 1:

Brooklyn College — which was recently ripped for campus anti-Semitism — scheduled “implicit bias training” for staffers on Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the Jewish year when many of the faithful do not work.

The training is mandated for those who serve on job search committees with one of the four Zoom sessions set for 11:30 a.m. Wednesday, the morning of Yom Kippur.

“This biases the process against observant Jews and secular Jews who typically attend services on this one day of the year. Such Jews are afforded only three meeting opportunities, while all others are afforded four,” one Jewish professor said. “That sounds like implicit bias to me. Imagine, if that was done to a group that is viewed as a disadvantaged minority.”

A Brooklyn College spokesman said an additional training session was being offered on Monday.

“While classes are not held on Yom Kippur, the college is open on that day. In addition to these dates, staff or faculty can request an individual training session,” said spokesman Richard Pietras.

Is this antisemitic, or tone deaf, or not even an issue?

I am unclear whether the mandated training is to attend one of the sessions, or to attend all of them. If it is only to attend one session, and Jews still have a choice of three sessions (now four) )to attend, this does not sound like a problem at all to me - that choice of sessions should be plenty and from the Jewish perspective, the college is simply offering an additional session for those who have a free day on Yom Kippur and want to take advantage.

If attendance at all sessions is mandated, however, then this is saying that any Jews who go to synagogue on Yom Kippur would have automatically failed the requirement. The Jewish Press makes that assumption but I am not sure where they got that from. If I'm right, though, this is an artificial issue.

This Brooklyn College page that mentions the training indicates to me that only one session is needed for the mandatory training and it is normally offered three times a semester, meaning the Yom Kippur session is simply taking advantage of a day that non-Jews are probably free.

Brooklyn College has lots of problems with antisemitism. But when the charge is made, let's make sure it is warranted.

Before the 1970s, Jewish students were routinely faced with mandatory exams on Saturdays or holidays. Those days seem to be mostly over. If the college offers a reasonable alternative for Jews, then that's all that should be required. In this case, Brooklyn College added the Monday session after the complaint, so Jews are not excluded at all even if they must attend all four sessions.

There is plenty of real antisemitism to be dealt with. If my interpretation is correct, this is not one of those cases. And publicizing trumped-up charges of antisemitism will cheapen the cases when real antisemitism occurs on campus.

I think that the bigger issue is that Brooklyn College mandates classes that appears to insist that all white people - and presumably all "white-passing" Jews - are inherently, unavoidably and perpetually biased.

Assuming that Jews are racist and oppressors really is antisemitic.

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

A photo of Hosam Salem from his Facebook page

Yesterday, Gaza photojournalist Hosam Salem tweeted that his contract with the New York Times had been terminated. Here's his thread:

After years of covering the Gaza Strip as a freelance photojournalist for the New York Times, I was informed via an abrupt phone call from the US outlet that they will no longer work with me in the future.
I began working with the newspaper in 2018, covering critical events in Gaza such as the weekly protests at the border fence with Israel, the investigation into the Israeli killing of field nurse Razan al-Najjar, and more recently, the May 2021 Israeli offensive on the Gaza strip
As I understood later, the decision was made based on a report prepared by a Dutch editor - who obtained Israeli citizenship two years ago - for a website called Honest Reporting.
The article, which the New York Times had based its decision for dismissing me, gives examples of posts I wrote on my social media accounts, namely Facebook, where I had expressed support for the Palestinian resistance against the Israeli occupation...
... My aforementioned posts also spoke of the resilience of my people and those who were killed by the Israeli army - my cousin included - which Honest Reporting described as “Palestinian terrorists”.
The editor later wrote an article stating that he had succeeded in sacking three Palestinian journalists working for the New York Times in the Gaza Strip, on the basis of us being "anti-Semitic”.
Not only has Honest Reporting succeeded in terminating my contract with The New York Times, it has also actively discouraged other international news agencies from collaborating with me and my two colleagues.
What is taking place is a systematic effort to distort the image of Palestinian journalists as being incapable of trustworthiness and integrity, simply because we cover the human rights violations that the Palestinian people undergo on a daily basis at hands of the Israeli army

He doesn't link to the Honest Reporting article that shows that he praised the massacre of four rabbis and a Druze policeman in 2014, that he has repeatedly praised suicide bombers that killed 10 in 2004, and he has continued to explicitly support terror attacks even after starting his work with the Times:

On November 18, 2014, Hosam Salem again used Facebook to express his joy over the massacre of four rabbis and an Israeli-Druze police officer in a synagogue in the Jerusalem neighborhood of Har Nof.
Citing the Quran, he encouraged his followers to “smite the necks” of unbelievers, adding: “[This is the] summary of the Jerusalem operation [sic] today.”
There’s more. In 2015, Salem applauded two acts of terror (see here and here); a shooting at the Gush Etzion Junction that killed an American teenager, an Israeli man, and a Palestinian bystander; and a Jerusalem stabbing that killed three.
Some three years later, after being hired by The New York Times, Salem called for more violence following an attack that killed two IDF recruits in the West Bank. “Shoot, kill, withdraw: three quick operational steps…to bring peace to the hearts of sad people like us,” the inciting post read.
Finally, he has repeatedly eulogized Mohammed Salem and Nabil Masoud. The two were responsible for a 2004 suicide bombing that killed ten workers at the Ashdod port, Israel’s second-busiest harbor (see here and here).

(It is possible that suicide bomber Mahmoud Salem was a relative.)

Now let's look at Salem's words defending himself again. "I had expressed support for the Palestinian resistance against the Israeli occupation..." That is an admission that he considers praising murdering innocent people to be "supporting Palestinian resistance."

And he concludes by saying that "What is taking place is a systematic effort to distort the image of Palestinian journalists as being incapable of trustworthiness and integrity..."

Salem is positioning his explicit support of terror as being a mainstream view among all Palestinian journalists. He says that exposing his praise of terror attacks is an attack on all Palestinian journalists.

In other words, he is saying that his opinions are mainstream, not anomalous.

If a Zionist would say that all Palestinian journalists cannot be trusted to be objective because they all support terror, the Zionist would properly be branded a bigot. Each journalist must be judged on their own merits and their own words. Stereotyping them is wrong.

But what does it mean when a Palestinian journalist insists that all Palestinian journalists like him support terror? When he claims that his noxious support for murdering rabbis and others is simply the same "covering human rights violations" that all reporters supposedly do? He isn't apologizing for his views - he is claiming that he, like all Palestinian journalists, is just covering the news. Praising the murders of Jews is indistinguishable from journalism.

He puts all Palestinian journalists in the same bucket as himself. (And so does Al Jazeera.) Does that make him a racist?

The reality is that support for terror is a mainstream Palestinian opinion, across multiple surveys for decades. Sometimes the majority support terror, other times is drops to less than 50%, but it is always an accepted, popular opinion. Assuming that all Palestinians support terror is indeed racist, but understanding that there is a high chance that a random Palestinian who is hired for a position at a major Western media outlet might indeed be a terror supporter is prudent. As the New York Times has learned, vetting one's social media posts before hiring anyone is essential.

As far as the many who are claiming that Salem is the victim of anti-Palestinian racism, they are the ones who are racist - because they are claiming that all Palestinians support murdering Jews.

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

Arab media says Yom Kippur curfew in Israel is meant to punish Arabs

Al-Akhbar says that Palestinians have to atone for Jewish sins on Yom Kippur, because the entire country virtually shuts down.

It claims that even in Arab cities, "it is prohibited to drive vehicles or motorbikes, smoke shisha, grill meat, and operate loudspeakers throughout the city.”

To Israel haters, Yom Kippur is all a malicious excuse to punish Arabs. "The enemy authorities do not miss the tenth day of the Hebrew year without tightening their noose around the Palestinians; On this occasion, it deliberately subjects their areas to a state of curfew, as well as imposing restrictions on their daily habits, such as the prohibition of barbecue or smoking water pipes in public, even preventing them from practicing their jobs, professions and jobs."

This appears to be a lie. In mixed Jewish-Arab cities there is a voluntary curfew but there is no legal restrictions on driving, as far as I can tell. And, as the New York Times reports: "In Arab-majority cities, life continues almost as normal." But it does appear that some restrictions were placed on the old city at Acre.

Here is a photo in that NYT article of an outdoor restaurant open in Israel on Yom Kippur.

Most bizarrely, Al Akhbar makes the claim that on Ramadan, "can anyone imagine a situation in which Muslims prevent Jews from eating and drinking out of respect for their feelings, or to close their restaurants to prevent violating the sanctity of the holy month?! Of course not!"

But in fact in most Muslim majority countries those are exactly the restrictions that non-Muslims have to adhere to during the entire month! The Egyptian government religious authority ruled in 2016, "Eating publicly during the day in Ramadan is not within the personal freedoms of a person. It's a type of anarchy and an attack on the sacredness of Islam. Eating publicly during the day in Ramadan is sinning in public. This is forbidden, as well as offending public taste and decency in Muslim countries. It's also a flagrant violation of the sanctity of society and the right of its sacred beliefs to be respected."

The official UAE site says:

Non-Muslims do not have to fast in Ramadan. However, they are prohibited from eating, drinking and smoking in public during the fasting hours. This includes chewing gum. Additionally, ensure that you do not:

engage in any aggressive behaviour
dance or play music in public although you may listen to music quietly with headphones
wear inappropriate clothing in public
swear as blasphemy is considered extra offensive during Ramadan
refuse a gift, or an invitation to join someone at Iftar.

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

10/05 Links: The Yom Kippur War: Fifty minus one; On Yom Kippur, Cornell Set to Host Professor Who Compared Jews to Nazis; Medics treat 2,741 for cycling injuries, Yom Kippur fasting effects, deliver 1 baby

From Ian:

The Yom Kippur War: Fifty minus one

Next year will mark fifty years. Fifty years ago, as a young, almost twenty-three-year-old, I had the experience of a lifetime.

Was I a foolish idealist? Perhaps. I had wanted to be “kravi,” a warrior soldier. I had wished for a combat unit. I excelled and had all of the recommendations that accompanied that excellence. Although assigned to guard an IDF intel unit and fully aware of what was happening “de facto” in front of my eyes, nothing prepared me for the brutality of what was to come a few months later, Yom Kippur, October 6th, 1973. Nothing.

The sounds, the deafening roar of low-flying fighter jets, the explosions of artillery and mortar shells all around, the firing of my own weapons. The smell, cordite and death, fire and destruction smoldering everywhere, along roads and fields. The sights, yes, those sights, leaving indelible imprints on my memory to this very day.

And yet, the war itself prepared me for my love of peace. After countless days in Syria, after a new call to duty to become a tank commander, after so many deployments to Israel’s southern front, the Sinai at first, later Egypt and the new border, and then the Gaza Strip and Gaza City itself, all that prepared me for the love of peace.

I served with farmers, kibbutzniks like myself, and like myself watched as we collectively allowed our idealism to slip away. I served with small-town entrepreneurs, small business owners, calculating their economic losses while they bravely defended the homeland. City dwellers, bankers and professionals, CEOs and police detectives, we all wore green and we all came when we were called. And with our own eyes, we saw the dire poverty within the Strip and the contrasting opulence of the villas in Gaza City.

And then Hebron, where some residents of Kiryat Arba went on nightly excursions to vandalize Palestinian property. And, the next morning it was our small two-jeep patrols who would pay the price, having rocks and Molotov cocktails hurled in our direction.

Yes, the Yom Kippur War, fifty years less one ago, prepared me for all that and prepared me for peace. Do not mistake my love of peace. I remain a hawk when it comes to dealing harshly with those who wish to harm the citizens of Israel. Do not mistake my love of peace for weakness in the face of terror. I have seen it. I have experienced it. I have lost dear friends to terror.

The trauma of Israel's Yom Kippur War was fully justified

One of the first decisions that Gen. David Elazar faced when he was appointed Israel Defense Forces (IDF) chief of staff in 1970 was whether to continue resting Israel’s front line on the Suez Canal. Gen. Ariel Sharon and others warned that such a deployment in an area dominated by massive Egyptian artillery and anti-tank weapons could become a trap – not just for the soldiers in scattered outposts along the 100-mile-long canal but for the tanks that would undoubtedly be sent to rescue them if war broke out. Sharon recommended establishing the front line well back from the canal, beyond Egyptian artillery range, to reduce the danger of a surprise attack. But Elazar decided to remain on the canal where – for political reasons – Israel could “show the flag.” Of the 500 Israeli soldiers manning the line, a third would be killed, a third taken prisoner and a third would manage to escape at night through the Egyptian encirclement.

THE SAGGER
The Armored Corps had been informed by AMAN that the Arab armies had acquired large stocks of a new Soviet anti-tank weapon, the Sagger. Unlike the ubiquitous RPG, which could kill a tank within 300 meters, the Sagger could be fired accurately by a soldier lying in the sand a mile away, virtually invisible to the Israeli tank crews. The armored corps was attempting to devise tactics to deal with the threat but meanwhile it had not informed the corps as a whole about the Sagger’s existence. When Israeli tanks attempted to reach the beleaguered Bar-Lev Line in the opening hours of the war many were knocked out by Saggers without the tank crews knowing what hit them. For several days, these weapons succeeded in keeping Israel’s formidable tank units at bay just as the air force was being kept at bay over the battlefields.

Despite the war’s nightmarish opening, the IDF succeeded, after the ground steadied under its feet, in staging one of the most dramatic turnarounds in military history, a feat too complex to be described here. The war ended with the Israeli army on the roads to Damascus and Cairo. It was a victory not only over Egypt and Syria but over the Arab world, from North Africa to Iraq, which sent fresh contingents to the battlefronts, even as Israeli troops were being steadily eroded. In Iraq’s case, two tank brigades blocked the Israelis who had reached artillery range of Damascus.

The cost of the fierce battles on both fronts would be high. Israel suffered three times more fatalities per capita in 18 days of combat than the Americans suffered in Vietnam in a decade.

It would be years before Israelis could view the war as anything but a disaster. Eventually, however, most would concede to themselves that it had been a military victory. In fact, Israel’s greatest. If the country could overcome the terrible hand it had dealt itself on Yom Kippur it would survive. The war was an extraordinary demonstration of Israel’s resilience and the Arab world would see it too. Six years later Israel would sign a peace treaty with its most formidable opponent, Egypt – the first with an Arab country but not the last.

Yom Kippur War: Why Israelis haven't made fictional films about it

Why have so many years gone by since the Yom Kippur War of 1973 and so few Israeli filmmakers have turned their hands to depicting it? There have been a plethora of television documentaries about bereavement and about the soldiers – those who survived and those who didn’t – but, not many feature films have been made about this important war in Israel’s history.

Why have our most successful filmmakers, all of whom have made serious (anti-)war films, not made fictional accounts of the Yom Kippur War?

The answer is certainly complicated, mostly dealing with the deep and long-lasting trauma of the war, which makes it so difficult to confront.

According to Aner Preminger, who teaches cinema studies at Hebrew University and is a well-known filmmaker, the Yom Kippur War is “the most traumatic war that Israel ever went through, for a number of reasons: its intensiveness; the number of deaths, wounded, and victims of shell shock during such a short period; the surprise; and the downfall after the euphoria of the Six Day War,” he says.

“In fact, we are still today in the post-traumatic period of this war,” Preminger says. “Dealing face-on with such a difficult wound of trauma is complex and complicated, psychologically speaking. It is more natural to hide from it and to deal with it only from afar.”

According to this view, the trauma of the surprise attack and the terrible losses on the battlefield of the Yom Kippur War remain very much with us, and therefore it is very difficult to portray it in fictional films.

Another reason that Israeli filmmakers have kept away from the difficult subject matter of this war has to do with the fact that this particular war was accepted – throughout Israeli society – as a war of defense, a war for which we had no choice, thereby making it difficult to look at it critically: cinematically, politically or militarily.

In contrast, the War in Lebanon from 1982-2000 lent itself to criticism from the very beginning. It was a war of choice, a war entered into recklessly and without forethought about the long-term implications, which provided excellent material that filmmakers could easily dig their teeth into.

G'mar Chatima Tovah 5783 -- גמר חתימה טובה

This is an update my Yom Kippur message of previous years.

I unconditionally forgive anyone who may have wronged me during this year, and I ask forgiveness for anyone I may have wronged as well.

Specifically:

-If you sent me email and I didn't reply, or didn't get back to you in a timely fashion -- I apologize.

-If you sent me a story and I decided not to publish it or worse, didn't give you a hat tip for the story -I'm sorry. I'm also sorry if I didn't acknowledge the tip. I cannot publish all the stories I am sent, although I try to place appropriate ones in the linkdumps, or tweet them.

-If you requested help from me and I wasn't able to provide it -- I'm sorry.

-I apologize if I posted without the proper attribution, with the wrong attribution, or without attribution at all.

-I'm sorry that I usually don't give hat tips on things I tweet.

-If I didn't thank you for a donation, I'm very, very sorry.

-I'm sorry if I didn't give the proper respect to my co-bloggers Ian, PreOccupied Territory, Varda, Daled Amos and the guest posters. Also to people who send me tons of tips.

-I'm sorry if any of my posts offended you personally.

- If I forgot to thank you in my book, I apologize.

- Please forgive me if I wrote disparaging things about you.

- I'm sorry if things got published in the comments that violated my comments policy but that I missed. I have not been able to monitor most comments for various technical reasons.

- I'm sorry that I never got back to doing regular video interviews as I hoped I would.

May this be a year of life, peace, prosperity, happiness, security and good health.

I wish all of my readers who observe Yom Kippur an easy and meaningful fast.

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

10/04 Links Pt2: Campus Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) Excludes and Targets Jews; Events at Berkeley Law Demonstrate a Campus Crisis on Antisemitism

From Ian:

Armin Rosen: Campus Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) Excludes and Targets Jews

In practical terms, a reversal of DEI regimes’ determined obliviousness toward Jew-hatred probably wouldn’t help much. New York University is one of the only institutions that Stop Antisemitism surveyed to include Jews in its DEI efforts; it is also one of three universities in the report to have received formal federal-level complaints from a Jewish student under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. The Heritage study examined student surveys on the state of campus life at schools with DEI bureaucracies of varying size and found that “there appears to be little relationship between DEI staffing and the diversity climate on campus.” In an April 2021 story, Tablet’s Sean Cooper reported that despite their newfound ubiquity and high cost, there is shockingly little proof that DEI programs result in more tolerant workplaces and college campuses or reduce racism.

The DEI regime is often framed as a brave and honest reckoning with structural racism, educational inequity, individual bigotry, and other abiding sources of establishment shame. In fact, the purpose of DEI, and perhaps of the ideological and quasi-spiritual project underlying DEI, is to delay or deflect hard conversations about how universities operate, or any awkwardly critical assessments of the value of the education they provide, or the kinds of spaces and citizens they now produce. If it had any other purpose but creating a false edifice of reassurance and moral rectitude, campus DEI would have a lot to say about the higher education system’s continuing role as a locus of American antisemitism, rather than nothing at all.

Campus DEI regimes’ total lack of interest in antisemitism makes it obvious that Jews are not seen as part of the social justice mission of the university. Then again, much of the organizational architecture and bureaucracy of the contemporary university, from the stringency of the admissions process, to the emphasis on “diversity” itself, originated with the institutions’ attempts to keep Jews out, as Tablet has been recounting in Gatecrashers, a podcast exploring the history of antisemitism within the Ivy League.

One key difference between now and the 1920s, when the last largescale movement to exclude Jews from American campus life happened, is that Jews now lead and hold prestigious tenured chairs at major American universities, which host entire academic departments devoted to Jewish life and learning. That thousands of Jewish faculty and administrators, as individuals and as scholars, have allowed this resurgence of academic scapegoating and exclusion of Jews from campus life to happen with only occassional bursts of dissent is striking, at least to anyone who doesn’t spend their life on campus.

The institutional world’s hesitation to examine or even acknowledge its antisemitism problem points to a larger academywide fear of confronting institutional sins of the type that have little to do with Harvard’s or Yale’s involvement in the slave trade 200 years ago. Today’s universities are content with being unaffordable behemoths and lifestyle brands for the same reason they remain uninterested in the antisemitism they have historically practiced and indulged. The academy’s flaws, and the literal and figurative costs they arrogantly impose on the rest of American society, fall outside the purview of institutions that are rushing to add thousands of administrators who are supposedly dedicated to making the world a more tolerant and equitable place. In truth, the goal of these universities in a moment of disorienting and unpredictable social and political change is to protect their cartel from the scrutiny it has earned through its glaring inability to productively educate millions of students, and its determination to saddle ordinary taxpayers with the cost of its failures.

The future of American Jews on campus

To today’s college students: You are not the first generation of Jews to endure anti-Jewish animosities. You will not be the last. Do not begrudge these years; they can make you better. Nothing inspires us more than the fight for principle. Moral sentiment and grim resolve lift the heart and stiffen the spine. We get better through moral struggle. Rediscover your Jewish pride. Fight back – and fight back hard. Fight as hard as our opponents. You will find many allies, both Jewish and non-Jewish. Do not ignore the outrages perpetrated against you and fellow Jews on American campuses. We have learned throughout Jewish history that if we allow these anti-Jewish mindsets to fester, eventually antisemitism worsens. To ignore antisemitism is to allow the culture of Jew-hatred to settle in institutions, rendering its eradication much more difficult. Antisemitism devastates not only Jews, but also the institutions and societies that allow or encourage it.

You are the future. My generation will continue for a while longer, but it is you who will determine the destiny of American Jewish life. Whether you are ready or not, whether you even want it or not, we will soon hand the Jewish torch to you, as we received it from our parents. The reason there are Jews in the world today is that the Jews of yesterday willed it and bequeathed Judaism to us. I feel blessed for the privilege of spending a few years in the sun, linking your generation with generations past in our eternal quest for meaning.

When you reach mid-life, Israel will be celebrating its centennial. I hope I will be there with you. In 2048, we expect that two-thirds of the world’s Jews will be living in Israel. There will still be plenty of anti-Zionists. Israel will still have enemies seeking to destroy it. But Jewish anti-Zionism will be an anachronism. The historians of tomorrow will view today’s anti-Zionist Jews as the historians of yesterday viewed past fringe Jewish movements: a streaking comet blazing through the skies of Jewish life, making a dramatic impression in the crazed intensity of these times, but soon disappearing into the vast nothingness of Jewish time.

This is the irony: the struggle against Israel waged by some American Jews, is not really about Israel at all. Israel will survive and prosper with or without them. It is about you. It is about the future of American Judaism. We cannot survive separated from the vast majority of our people. Jews who tell you otherwise are deluded.

Looking back through the centuries, it has been a long, hard, tragic march from Sinai. But the journey has also been filled with exhilarating accomplishment, transcendent meaning, and noble purpose. I hope you feel this, sense this, and are empowered by it. I hope that you, too, will do what our ancestors did: Walk the long and winding Jewish road with faith in the ultimate redemption of our people and all people.

University of Toronto Newspaper Column Refers to Israel’s Creation as “Nakba” – Catastrophe

In a column published on October 2 in the Arts & Culture section of The Varsity, the University of Toronto’s student newspaper, entitled: “Finding a voice through storytelling at the 15th annual Toronto Palestinian Film Festival,” Milena Pappalardo reviews the 2022 Toronto Palestinian Film Festival (TPFF), which ran in late September.

Pappalardo’s commentary was peppered with anti-Israel disinformation, beginning with her background of the TPFF creation in 2008, coinciding with the 60th anniversary of the Nakba, Arabic for the catastrophe, which Pappalardo explains “is a sombre day in Palestinian history that commemorates when Israeli militias terrorized and forcibly removed hundreds of thousands of Palestinian people from their homes during the establishment of Israel in 1948.”

This oft-repeated proclamation, made frequently by anti-Israel activists, is extraordinarily misleading.

On May 14, 1948, following the United Nations Partition Plan, Israel declared its independence, marking the rebirth of the Jewish nation-state for the first time in almost two thousand years.

Almost immediately, the tiny reborn country was invaded by surrounding Arab armies, attempting to destroy the nascent Jewish State before it had a chance to defend itself. Living inside the new state were hundreds of thousands of Arabs, as well as Jews, and while it is true that roughly 750,000 Arabs were displaced during this period – similar in number to the 800,000 Jews forcibly exiled from their homes in Islamic lands – Pappalardo has missed the true culprit.

Historian Benny Morris noted that Arab leaders actively encouraged their community members to leave the country as a strategic move. “Arab officers ordered the complete evacuation of specific villages in certain areas, lest their inhabitants ‘treacherously’ acquiesce in Israeli rule or hamper Arab military deployments,” he wrote in “The Birth of the Palestinian Problem Revisited.”

Rolling Stone has an interview with Roger Waters by an investigative journalist who actually knows his stuff - and he makes Waters look like an idiot.

The interviewer, James Ball, concludes:

Waters’ live show repeatedly flashes up one particular message that clearly compels him: “Control the narrative, rule the world.”

I leave the interview thinking it’s almost the opposite: Waters is an example of how we can construct our own narrative and twist the world to fit in, with no amount of mainstream media, propaganda, or even real-world facts and evidence able to let any light in. It leads us to a nihilistic place, where we are only able to feel compassion for victims that fit our personal narrative, minimising or even actively denying the suffering of others.

We've already shown how Roger Waters is a real antsemite - not just an "anti-Zionist" - because he applied neo-Nazi, fake Talmud translation conspiracy theories about Jews to Sheldon Adelson.

The text of the interview shows that Waters also adheres to the antisemitic Khazar myth.

Ball: Yes, but isn't settler quite offensive when there are Jewish people who have lived there for two millennia?

Waters: No, it's not. Those people are not from there.They are not the descendants of indigenous people who've ever lived there. They're all from northern Europe or America or somewhere else.

As with his Adelson ideas, this is muddled in his brain from the original, but the sources for both the Adelson quote and this one are quite clear - Roger Waters reads antisemitic literature and assimilates it into his worldview. He even goes beyond it, saying that even Sephardic Jews are not from the Middle East.

Yes, saying that all Jews are lying about their own origins to steal land from others is antisemitism. By any definition.

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

10/04 Links Pt1: If you want peace, reform the Palestinian Authority; Ukraine Military Chief Urges His Country to Learn From Israel; Glick: Israel’s devastating capitulation to Hezbollah

From Ian:

If you want peace, reform the Palestinian Authority

That is why, when Abbas is taken at his word by a senior American diplomat in terms of his commitment to non-violence and a negotiated compromise, serious questions need to be asked. In terms of bloodcurdling rhetoric targeting Israel, Abbas is not the worst Palestinian leader, but his willingness to promote some of the ugliest slanders against the Jewish state compels one to ask just how genuine his support for two states and non-violence actually is.

Like all Palestinian leaders, whether from nationalist or Islamist factions, Abbas was formed politically by the Arab world’s decision, following Israel’s creation in 1948, to live in a permanent state of conflict with the Jewish state as a step towards its eventual elimination. This fact alone marked out the Palestinian cause from other nationalist struggles around the world. In most other post-World War II conflicts—such as in Northern Ireland, where the Irish Republican Army (IRA) waged a bitter struggle for the expulsion of the British Army, but not the dissolution of the United Kingdom itself—the goals of the nationalist parties were limited to ridding their countries of the colonial presence without destroying the colonizing power. By contrast, for the Palestinians, the message was that their liberation would be incomplete as long as Israel remained on the map.

Abbas has never disavowed the notion that Israel is an interloper and a colonizer. In his most recent speech to the U.N. General Assembly, he denounced the Jewish state for its alleged “apartheid” policies. In Germany only last month, he caused a scandal when he stood alongside Chancellor Olaf Scholz and sullenly declared that Israel was guilty of perpetrating “50 holocausts” upon the Palestinians. This was in response to a journalist’s query about whether he would finally apologize to the families of the 11 Israeli athletes murdered in a Palestinian terrorist operation at the Munich Olympics in 1972.

What Thomas-Greenfield’s statement elides is that Abbas is far more wedded to these dubious ideas—the bedrock of the Palestinian eliminationist program—than he is to the diplomatic goals articulated at the Security Council. The rhetoric about two states can only be seen as lip service, unless one is prepared to accept the bizarre contention that having denounced Israel as a racist open-air prison for Palestinians, they would happily live alongside it. The rhetoric about Israel’s lack of legitimacy, however, is firmly in keeping with the Palestinians’ own ideology.

Yet there are many Israelis who, despite having no illusions about Abbas and his cohorts, rue the prospect of indefinitely ruling over three million Palestinians. Under certain circumstances, they might even be relieved to see the creation of a Palestinian state. For that to happen, the international community has to understand that while the emergence of a “strong and legitimate Palestinian Authority” might well be “in the interest of the entire region”—as Thomas-Greenfield put it—as long as Abbas and those like him are running the show, we are fated to remain with the present situation: Eliminationist rhetoric against Israel and attacks on Israeli civilians, widespread corruption within the P.A. and appalling abuse of human rights in P.A.-run prisons and detention centers.

A courageous diplomatic initiative would propose root and branch reform of the PA as the first necessary measure towards securing a permanent peace with Israel. Such reform would then be followed by fresh elections in a voting process that would be monitored by international organizations to ensure fairness and transparency. At the same time, the P.A.’s various departments, and particularly its Education Ministry, would undergo a fundamental reset, so that a lasting peace with Israel is the overarching goal to work towards.

There will be those who say this is all wishful thinking, and perhaps they are right. But the responsibility for testing the theory lies with the U.S. and indeed any state desirous of a final settlement. Because right now, the P.A. is not strong, nor legitimate, nor an entity whose continued existence is in “the interest of the entire region.” Thomas-Greenfield needs to grasp that the address for these vital changes is located in Ramallah, not Jerusalem.

Johnathan Tobin: Americans prefer Arab extremists to Jewish ones in Israeli governments

Whether or not that happens, the huffing and puffing about Ben-Gvir’s compromising Israel’s reputation needs to be placed in perspective. The idea of having a party like Ra’am join a government was in some ways a realization of the Zionist dream of the Arab minority making its peace with the reality of a Jewish state and fully participating in its politics, rather than standing to the side and hoping for its destruction.

Yet the agenda of Abbas’s party, which wants a state run according to Muslim religious law, is far more radical than anything Ben-Gvir advocates. If Abbas’s decision to join forces with Lapid and Bennett can be considered as proof that he has transcended his political origins, why can’t Ben-Gvir’s attempts to distance himself from Kahanist ideology be treated in the same manner?

The problem is not just hypocrisy. Articles like the one in Axios that broke the news about the confrontation with Menendez referred to Ben-Gvir as a “Jewish supremacist,” a not-so-subtle way to associate him with violent anti-Semitic, radical right-wingers in the United States.

The stands that are cited by those who think a coalition with him would be illegitimate include his support for construction in Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria, Jewish prayer on the Temple Mount and the right to live in Jewish-owned property in Jerusalem neighborhoods that Arabs demand be Jew-free. Yet those are entirely legitimate positions that a great many Israelis understandably consider to be very much in the mainstream.

Even if you think, as many understandably do, that the Knesset would be better off without Ben-Gvir in it, Israelis need not atone for the sin of voting for him in the expectation that he will be an uncompromising defender of Jewish rights. The message to American critics of Israel should be clear: If you thought the inclusion in Israel’s governing coalition of an Islamist party that openly advocates for the end of Zionism and the Jewish state in its platform was a good idea, then you have no business lecturing anyone about Ben-Gvir.

Ukraine Military Chief Urges His Country to Learn From Israel

The commander in chief of Ukraine’s armed forces has urged his country to adopt Israel’s strong emphasis on self-defense in the face of the ongoing Russian invasion, arguing that political conditions in the region require Ukraine to be a “military state.”

Following a meeting with Ukrainian Chief Rabbi Moshe Reuven Azman to mark the Jewish Rosh Hashanah holiday, Gen. Valerii Zaluzhny stated that “in the conditions of such a neighborhood, Ukraine should become, by analogy with Israel, a military state.”

Zaluzhny took the opportunity to recall the 81st anniversary of the Babyn Yar massacre of Sept.29-30 1941, when more than 33,000 Jews were executed by Nazi officers at a ravine just outside Kyiv.

“On the day of remembrance of the Babyn Yar tragedy, it is painfully difficult to talk about its repetition in Mariupol, Buchi, Irpin, Izyum and other cities,” Zaluzhny said, referring to the Russian onslaught on several major population centers.

“This war showed who is on the side of good and who is the personification of evil. Rebbe Moshe Reuven Azman clearly says that today it is Russia that is a fascist state. And his authoritative opinion carries a lot of weight in the modern world,” Zaluzhny said.

Zaluzhny added that he and Azman discussed the appointment of a Jewish military chaplain to serve Jewish soldiers fighting with Ukrainian forces. He also emphasized that he was “deeply grateful for the treatment of our wounded soldiers in Israel and the humanitarian aid provided.”

A popular Palestinian blogger, Jihad Helles, wrote on Twitter his reaction to seeing Jews singing and dancing in the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron:

In a chilling scene, herds of settlers have now stormed the Ibrahimi Mosque, the second most important and oldest Palestinian mosque after Al-Aqsa Mosque, and expelled the worshipers from it, desecrated it and danced in it to the sounds of loud music!!
Oh God, Muslims live in humiliation, weakness and humiliation that no one knows but You. Oh God, help them and cherish them!!

For ten days a year the shrine is exclusively for Jews, and for ten days it is for Muslims. This week, during the holidays, it was for Jews - and every time that happens Arab media makes it sound like this is a brand new thing.

Arabic media breathlessly reported about how terrible it is that Jews are singing and dancing in the "second most important mosque in Palestine" - not to mention how they were performing the ever-dangerous "Talmudic rituals."

But it wasn't only Muslims who were upset at Jews dancing and singing and praying.

Anti-Israel activist Miko Peled tweeted:

This barbaric act of desecration is part of the colonization by Israel

It is antithetical to Judaism and to the ancient traditions of tolerance that were part of Palestine before Zionism. Until 1948 Jews and Muslims worshiped side by side at this ancient holy site in Hebron

Peled not only apes the ridiculous charge of "desecration" - as if Jewish law does not allow celebrations in synagogues! - but he adds the insane lie that Hebron Muslims were tolerant of Jews before 1948, and prayed side by side in the shrine.

Um, Muslims slaughtered Jews in Hebron in 1929. And they weren't treated wonderfully before that, either. And Muslims did not allow Jews to enter the Tomb of the Patriarchs from the 13th century until Israel captured Hebron in 1967.

Peled is lying - and he almost certainly knows it. But, like many Jewish antisemites, he can post any lies he wants, and is guaranteed to get lots of attention from his fellow antisemites.

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

There is a new art exhibit in Gaza.

Sherine Abdel Karim uses technology to simulate the reality of the suffering of the people of the Gaza Strip as a result of the Israeli siege that has continued for more than 16 years.

Abdel Karim believes that virtual reality is the easiest way to convey the image of Gaza and the suffering of its people as a result of the strict siege on the Strip.

Karim displayed her project in an art exhibition organized by the International Committee of the Red Cross in Gaza a few days ago.

Here's what the exhibit looked like:

Gazans are suffering so much, they need to use VR technology to show each other how bad their lives are. Perhaps they forget?

In other news, poor besieged Gazans have art museums - and VR.

Abdel Karine has had many articles written and videos made about her in Arabic media.

Palestinian "suffering" is big business.

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

Israel giving up its maritime rights under pressure from Biden

Haaretz reports:

On August 31, Yair Lapid and Joe Biden held a phone call. Afterward, the offices of both men issued a press release, as is customary, but used different language. Hiding in the White House version was a story that was missing from the announcement of the Prime Minister’s Office: “The President also emphasized the importance of concluding the maritime boundary negotiations between Israel and Lebanon in the coming weeks.” In other words, Biden simply told Lapid he was fed up with the delays, and was sending his envoy Amos Hochstein to the region to complete the deal and enable the development of Israel’s Karish and Lebanon’s Qana natural-gas fields.

The specifics of the deal are still under wraps, but this comparison of two maps in Lebanese media show how Israel has been making concession after concession and the Lebanese keep gaining.

This map from June shows a curved border that would allow Lebanon to keep the entire Qana field but would give Israel other portions closer to its position of claiming Line 1.

Abu Ali Express publishes a map from Lebanese media today showing that not only does the border adhere to Lebanon's original claim of Line 23, but it even goes into what no one doubts is Israeli territory.

This isn't compromise - it is capitulation.

Moreover, while Lapid is claiming that Israel will share in the profits of the Qana field, the Lebanese are insisting that no such deal is possible.

Haaretz says that Hezbollah is not the reason Israel is compromising, but the Lebanese are saying that Hezbollah's threats are part of their "unified position" that helped them achieve pretty much everything they wanted.

Haaretz adds:

Biden wants to keep Western countries united on the side of Ukraine in its war with Russia. He fears his European allies will break under the Russian economic pressure, with Europeans freezing this winter without the gas from the crippled Nord Stream pipelines. Any addition of oil or natural gas to the global market will give the Americans more breathing room, which can be translated into military aid for Ukraine. It’s why Biden wanted a new nuclear accord that would have lifted sanctions and increased energy exports from Iran. It’s why Biden visited Israel and Saudi Arabia in July. It’s why Biden is under pressure to complete an accord that will allow for the production of gas in the eastern Mediterranean. It’s obvious that these gas fields will not satisfy the European demand for energy, certainly not immediately – but their development will send a positive signal to a nervous market.

Keep in mind that the US withdrew support for the EastMed gas pipeline that would allow Europe to access Mediterranean gas fields soon before Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Check out this press release from the American Energy Alliance from January 26:

If providing Europe with natural gas is such a high priority, one would think that this would be reconsidered - especially to compensate Israel for the lost land being imposed. But I haven't seen that.

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

10/03 Links Pt2: Doubling Australian aid to UNRWA, a vital perspective; AOC, Bowman, among 6 Democrats Attacking YU’s Religious Policy

From Ian:

Doubling Australian aid to UNRWA, a vital perspective

The Australian government has announced that it will double to its aid to UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, which the UN created as a “temporary” entity in the wake of the Israel War of Independence, to help half a million Arabs displaced as a result of these hostilities.

Seventy-three years later, in texts taught in the UNRWA schools, Israel does not exist and is replaced by an entity known as “Palestine.”

In its defense, UNRWA claims that it has a robust system in place to ensure that the education it delivers in its classroom, including through the use of textbooks, is in line with UN values and principles.

As a journalist who has commissioned experts to examine 1000 books used in UNRWA schools in the West Bank and Gaza since their first appearance in 2000, I beg to differ.

UNRWA “education” is instead based on:
-De-legitimization of both the existence of the State of Israel and the Jews’ very presence in the country. Israel does not appear on the map and is replaced by Palestine as the sovereign state in the region.
-The Jews are presented as colonialist settlers and their cities — including Tel Aviv — do not appear on the map as well.
-The Jews’ holy places in the country are not recognized as such but rather presented as Muslim holy places usurped by the Jews (the Western Wall in Jerusalem, the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron and Rachel’s Tomb in Bethlehem).
-Massive demonization of both Israel and the Jews is the norm, with the latter being presented as enemies of Islam since its very beginning. Israel is depicted as an entirely evil entity with exclusive responsibility for the conflict while the Palestinian Arabs are portrayed as the ultimate victim.
-No objective information is given by UNRWA about Israel and the Jews that would balance this picture even slightly. Nor is there any reference in the books to Jewish-Israeli individuals as ordinary human beings. Instead, they are dealt with as a group, with the accompanying connotations of alienation and existential threat to the Palestinian Arabs.
-Absent is any education for peace and coexistence with Israel. Instead, the books feature a call for a violent struggle for “the liberation of Palestine”.

AOC, Bowman, among 6 Democrats Attacking YU’s Religious Policy

“Why is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez telling Yeshiva University how to run its affairs?” asked Tal Fortgang in a Wall Street Journal op-ed on Sunday. Good question. It turns out that back on September 23, AOC and five other House Democrats interfered rudely in YU’s affairs, telling the school’s President Rabbi Dr. Ari Berman:
“We are disappointed with the University’s recent decision to suspend all student groups in order to avoid recognizing the YU Pride Alliance. This move pits students against each other and risks further isolating LGBTQ+ students at Yeshiva University. We also believe this action to be in tension with your recent statement that Yeshiva University’s ‘commitment and love for [its] LGBTQ students are unshakeable.’”

Here are the names of the six House Democrats: Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY-14), Rep. Jamaal Bowman (NY-16), Rep. Carolyn Maloney (NY-12), Rep. Adriano Espaillat (NY-13), Rep. Mondaire Jones (NY-17), and Rep. Paul D. Tonko (NY-20). They represent New York City, the Hudson Valley, and upstate New York. Maloney’s and Espaillat’s districts actually include YU’s Wilf and Beren Campuses, but, thank God, Maloney will be departing from Congress come January 2023, having been defeated in the primaries by Jerry Nadler.

Please don’t add your name to this letter, Congressman Nadler…

In 2020, a group of YU students calling itself the YU Pride Alliance asked the school to recognize their club. YU responded that having a club called “Pride Alliance” on campus would be consistent with Torah values. The Pride Alliance sued. The New York County Supreme Court denied Yeshiva University’s arguments and concluded that the school was not a “religious corporation” under city law and not protected by the US Constitution as such. The Court entered a permanent injunction ordering Yeshiva to “immediately” approve the club. YU appealed to the New York Appellate Division and the New York Court of Appeals (the state’s highest court), but both appeals were rejected on August 25, 2022. YU then filed an emergency request to the United States Supreme Court on August 29, 2022, requesting that the Court intervene to stay the violation of Yeshiva’s First Amendment rights pending appeal.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor on September 9 issued an order allowing YU to disregard New York Supreme Court Judge Lynn Kotler’s ruling that it had to immediately recognize an LGBTQ student club. But on September 14, the Supreme Court ruled that YU must continue to recognize the LGBTQ club while the school argues its case against it in state court. Four justices in the Supreme Court’s conservative bloc dissented with the majority opinion, claiming that New York was ignoring the religious rights of YU.

Now, many of us have held differing views on this issue, which is not only about the right of YU students to assemble in whatever club they see fit, but of the school’s inherent obligation to sponsor a club promoting homosexual relationships with a budget intended for a Torah-inspired learning institution. But no matter what conclusion we have reached, we’ve balanced the school’s religious heritage with the students’ right to assemble.

The six Democrats did not include even a single paragraph dealing with the dilemma faced by the Orthodox Jewish school. It was all about the demands of those LGBTQ+ students and the urgent need for the school to meet them.

NYT Promotes Apartheid Slur Against Israel in Film Review

The recent film, Foragers, is a partisan, political statement on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Palestinian artist and filmmaker Jumana Manna presents a story about agriculture as a metaphor for Israel’s “occupation” of what she suggests is indigenous Palestinian land.

It is the story of the foraging by Palestinians of the wild-growing “akkoub” (Gundelia tournefortii) plant, an endangered species that Israel’s Nature and Parks Authority has tried to manage agriculturally. To conserve its growth in the area, the Nature and Parks Authority declared the akkoub a protected plant and banned its gathering in the wild, promoting instead agricultural cultivation of the plant under more controlled conditions, to satisfy the demand. The ban was lifted two years ago, allowing foragers to gather the plant for personal use, while sparing the roots.

Isn’t such conservation a good thing?

Not according to Manna, who explains the message of her film:
Foragers is about the top-down violence of colonial laws around preservation practices.

As the filmmaker explained to interviewer Sophia Hoffinger, what she conveys in the film is that foraging by Palestinians is “an act of resistance” against an Israeli law that “represent[s] the occupation at large, the management of the land and its sovereignty.”

Is it any wonder then that the film has become a New York Times “Critic’s Pick”? Reviewer Will Heinrich not only accepts the filmmaker’s messaging as unvarnished truth, but bolsters and amplifies it in his own words. For example, Heinrich begins his review with:
We hear a lot about violence in Israel and the occupied territories. We don’t hear quite as much about the softer edges of living in what has been called an “apartheid state” — the absurdity, the insanity, the ever-present anxiety.

Perhaps the reviewer believes that appending “what has been called” to the epithet “apartheid state” absolves him of practicing inappropriate journalistic bias. But without noting that the false “apartheid” charge is a slur specifically designed by Israel’s enemies to delegitimize the Jewish state, Heinrich is following the pattern of other unethical journalists who present their own biased opinions and partisan positions under the guise of being widely accepted truths.