Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Sunday, October 23, 2022

A small example of how academic Jewish studies has been taken over by anti-Zionist politics

Recently, Joshua Karlip wrote in Commentary about how Jewish studies in American academia have been taken over by a wokeism that marginalizes and denigrates Jews:

In December 2020, I participated in a Zoom panel at the annual Association for Jewish Studies Conference that discussed the state of the field of Jewish historiography over the past two decades. One participant noted that the first two decades of the 21st century have witnessed a rise in studies of the history of anti-Jewish violence. In response, I offered what I considered an innocuous explanation. Over the past two decades, I suggested, Jews have experienced an alarming rise in violent attacks. Between 2000 and 2005, the second intifada targeted the Jewish civilian population of Israel, leaving nearly 1,000 dead. Here in America, we have witnessed synagogue shootings in Pittsburgh and Poway, as well as a steady stream of attacks, some deadly, on Jews who “look” like Jews—Orthodox men.

This explanation did not sit well with a senior scholar in the audience. “What you said was exceedingly Jewishly focused,” she lectured me. She then went on to “enlighten” me that those who attack Jews are not primarily targeting Jews. Rather, the true targets of their hatred are African Americans. These hatemongers simply are angry at American Jews for promoting African-American rights. She ended her disquisition with a challenge. If I were really serious about fighting anti-Semitism, she told me, I would openly ally myself with Black Lives Matter.

His article is specifically about his field, Jewish historiography, but we've seen similar absurdities in other Jewish studies fields, as in an article last year in Religion Dispatches that accused anyone who wants to see Judaism survive of being racist.

Or when 200 Jewish Studies academics last year signed a petition condemning Israel for defending itself from Hamas rockets and saying that Israel was engaged in "Jewish supremacy."

Or even recently, when the Association for Jewish Studies decided to stop accepting ads from Tablet magazine, because some members objected to some of Tablet's articles. The critics aren't even slightly ashamed at preferring woke politics over free speech, noting that "much of the magazine’s content is focused on decrying liberal 'wokeness'" - clearly a major crime in today's Jewish Studies cliques.

I saw a small example last week, when I tweeted, "If Jews rejoicing during their holiday upsets you, you just may be an antisemite."

If Jews rejoicing during their holiday upsets you, you just may be an antisemite. https://t.co/xAjJUmYR0b
— Elder of Ziyon 🇮🇱 (@elderofziyon) October 19, 2022

Zachary Braiterman, professor of Jewish Thought and Culture at Syracuse University, responded, "it's a show of force and deliberate provocation of Palestinians living in the Old City."

This struck me as bizarre, since the video showed no indication of any deliberate provocation. Arabs pass by the singing Jews without harm. The song being sung has nothing offensive. the dancing Jews looked exactly like dancing Jews going outside their shuls on Simchat Torah worldwide.

The conversation went like this:

EoZ: You are a professor of Jewish culture and you never heard of Jews dancing on Simchat Torah outside their synagogues???

ZB: i know what a rightwing show of force by radical rightwing religious nationalists in Israel looks like

EoZ: Funny, because it looks exactly like a Simchat Torah celebration in Teaneck or Boca to me.
Please, let us ordinary people know exactly what you see in this video that shows you are right. The song? The color of the Torahs?
I await your expertise.

ZB: because the intention is a show of force over against Palestinian people under Israeli control

EoZ: No flags. No insults. No slogans. The Arabs can pass by without issue. No incitement. They are doing in the Old City exactly what Jews did everywhere else. If you think they do not have the right to do in Jerusalem what Jews do in America, that says something about you, not them.

ZB: you are omitting the entire political context of a military occupation and threats of dispossession in E. Jerusalem

EoZ: So according to you, Jews have the right to dance outside on Simchat Torah everywhere in the world - except for Jerusalem's Old City. Even if they have NOTHING to do with Ben Gvir.
Do I have that right?

ZB: why not at the Kotel?

EoZ: Why not outside where they pray?

Braiterman insisted, three times, that the video showed Jews deliberately provoking Arabs, yet never offered any evidence outside the pompous "I know it when I see it."

In short, he sees religious Jews dancing and he assumes that they are bigots. He cannot even imagine that Jews dancing outside in Jerusalem are celebrating the holiday the way Jews do worldwide, and nothing more.

He then attempted to claim that Jews who quietly visit the Temple Mount are also deliberately provoking Arabs: "the religious zionists regularly do not respect Arab residents of Jerusalem or the sanctity of Har Ha'Bayit." I responded that this was absurd, they show far more respect for the Temple Mount than Muslims do. But he has a consistent position - when Jews show a love of Jerusalem's holy places, he assumes that they are really trying to attack Muslims and Arabs.

Braiterman throws all religious Zionist Jews into one bucket, pretending that they are all racists, all fans of Itamar Ben Gvir, all support attacking Arabs for no reason.

Stereotyping isn't sober analysis. It is bigotry.

I've prayed on the Temple Mount and would happily have joined the Simchat Torah dancing, and I am no fan of Itamar Ben Gvir. An Israeli friend told me "my guess would be that not only is it true that most religious Zionists oppose [Ben Gvir], but also most of his supporters are not religious Zionists."

The professor is not an antisemite. No one who spends two years writing a post on the Sefat Emet would be. But throwing all religious Zionists in the same racist bucket is, in a small way, just as bigoted as throwing all Jews into the same bucket.

Jewish studies is in deep trouble.

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!

Lately, Palestinian media have been warning that Israel plans to convert the famous Qattanin (Cotton) market, adjacent to the Temple Mount, into a synagogue.

Apparently, Jews went to pray there during Sukkot and to avoid friction the Jerusalem authorities closed the stores in the market for several morning hours. (Arab media say that their lulavim and etrogim were "vegetable offerings.")

Different "experts" have come to the same conclusion, all without pointing to any evidence.

Palinfo says: "Al-Maqdisi researcher Radwan Amr said, in a press statement, that the occupation and settlement groups are working to transform the Qattanin Market into a roofed synagogue."

Felesteen says, "The occupation is trying to convert it into a synagogue, according to the head of the Jerusalem Committee against Judaization Nasser Al-Hidmi."

Masa News says, "The researcher in Jerusalem affairs, Fakhri Abu Diab, told Safa news agency that the occupation and the alleged temple groups are keeping their eyes on the Qattanin market, as it is the closest to Al-Aqsa Mosque and a main view of the Dome of the Rock."

Three different "experts" coming to the sane conclusion at the same time? It sounds like another orchestrated rumor meant to rile up Muslims.

There is an inexhaustible supply of both rumors to incite against Jews and an inexhaustible appetite for such rumors.

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!

10/22 Links: Yair Rosenberg: How to Learn About Jews From Jews, Rather Than the People Who Hate Them; Anne Bayefsky: The UN gives a master class in anti-Semitism

From Ian:

Yair Rosenberg: How to Learn About Jews From Jews, Rather Than the People Who Hate Them

Jews make up 2 percent of the American population, and just 0.2 percent of the world population. In practice, this means that most people have never met one. What the average person knows of Jews, they know from received cultural stereotypes, television, and the internet. The consequences of this are regularly evident in our public discourse, where ignorant and ill-intentioned ideas about Jews abound. That’s why this newsletter has spent the last three weeks covering anti-Semitism—from the Ivy League to Kanye West—and could easily continue doing so this week. But focusing on the negative ways that outsiders misrepresent Jews has the unfortunate effect of shrinking the Jewish experience to the hampered horizons of their haters. In actuality, Jews are a proud and diverse people who have thrived for millennia, and whose collective experience is far richer than simply surviving oppression. When we view Jewish existence through the lens of anti-Jewish prejudice, we lose the very elements of it that have enabled the tradition to repeatedly overcome efforts to stifle it.

So this week, instead of responding to the latest anti-Jewish outrage, I want to offer an eclectic introduction to Jews and Judaism through writings, art, and culture produced by Jews themselves. Of course, there is absolutely no way to reasonably reduce such a vast corpus into a single set of selections. My 10 brief recommendations here are meant to be suggestive, rather than comprehensive. You won’t find any “Intro to Judaism” books or yet another Holocaust movie, because you don’t need me to find those. Instead, my hope is to crack open a wider window into the Jewish experience than one can get through a cursory Google or Wikipedia search, and to introduce you to some of the texts and textures of Jewish life—a panoramic approach to a perennial people.

There are literally thousands of other things I could have included. If you’re Jewish, I’d love to hear from you about what would make your list. And if you’re not, I’d love to know what you’re curious about. Please send those ideas to deepshtetl@theatlantic.com, and hopefully we’ll dive into them in a future edition. Consider this the start of the conversation, not the end.

Anne Bayefsky: The UN gives a master class in anti-Semitism

Not mentioned: Palestinian rocket and mortar attacks, suicide bombings, incendiary kites, pipe bombs, small arms fire, arson, vehicular attacks, assaults, grenades, IEDs, sniper fire, anti-tank fire, anti-aircraft fire, kidnappings, stabbings, rape, torture, stoning and beheading.

In the only other throw-away line on Jewish victims, the report refers to the years 2000 to 2007 this way: “the Commission acknowledges the significant detrimental impact of armed attacks and security incidents.” “Detrimental impact” was how they described the Jews blown apart in the Palestinian suicide-bombing reign of terror. Not as a human rights violation.

The report ends with conclusions and recommendations that take the assault on human decency to the next level.

The inquisitors advocate that Israelis be hunted down, prosecuted and jailed for crimes against humanity by the International Criminal Court (ICC)—for the Nazi-like crimes of “persecution” and the “transfer of populations” (knowing full well that the latter meant transfer to the death camps).

On the other hand, they couldn’t name a single Palestinian crime worth prosecuting.

The list of recommendations is directed only at “the Government of Israel,” the ICC prosecutor, and various U.N. bodies and member states. And not one recommendation is made to Palestinian authorities.

And last but not least, Americans should be under no illusions that they are safe from this toxic international pogrom.

The report demands that the International Court of Justice, the U.N.’s “World Court,” be instrumentalized to manufacture duties “of third states” to chase after alleged criminal Israelis.

The final paragraph of this masterpiece of modern anti-Semitism announces just how far the spider is now casting the web. In kitchen-sink legalese, the inquiry demands that U.N. member states start “investigating and prosecuting persons suspected of committing or otherwise aiding and abetting or assisting in the commission or attempted commission of crimes.”

What crimes? Crimes in the eyes of the very men and women committing, aiding, abetting and assisting the criminal enterprise of destroying the Jewish state and decimating its inhabitants.

Pro-Israel advocates decry ‘one-sided’ apartheid panel at New York law conference

Pro-Israel advocates have decried a panel on apartheid law at a legal conference in New York this weekend as a “one-sided” assault against the Jewish state.

Saturday’s panel at the International Law Weekend conference, titled “Racism and the crime of apartheid in international law,” features several strident critics of Israel.

The talk is part of the American Branch of the International Law Association’s annual meeting at New York City’s Fordham University.

Among the panelists is Omar Shakir, the Israel and Palestine director of Human Rights Watch. Shakir and his organization have been vocal critics of Israel, and he was deported in 2019 for his alleged support for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Movement.

Close to 100 Jewish professionals and community leaders sent a letter to two prominent law firms sponsoring the conference urging them to withdraw from the event.

The apartheid law event “is slated to present a sharply one-sided, anti-Israel panel,” said the letter sent Thursday, while urging the firms to “separate your institutions from the egregiously biased event.”

“The panel was never intended to be a serious exploration of an unsettled area of law but was designed as an occasion to demonize the Jewish state,” added the letter, which was spearheaded by the advocacy group CAMERA.

The American Branch of the International Law Association, or ABILA, highlighted “the Israeli authorities’ systematic oppression of Palestinians” in an initial description of the event, along with Myanmar’s treatment of Rohingya Muslims and China’s persecution of the Uyghurs.

After ABILA came under criticism, the text was revised and all three references were removed. For balance, the group also added a speaker to the panel who is supportive of Israel, though the other four panelists have accused the country of apartheid or systematic oppression.

“It’s an insult to the intelligence of the public to suggest this late-hour change has created any semblance of balance,” the letter to the law firms said.

10/21 Links Pt2: Phillips: Antisemitism and Israel-bashing are one and the same; Hijacked: The Capture of America's Middle East Studies Centers

From Ian:

Melanie Phillips: Antisemitism and Israel-bashing are one and the same

Those trying to defend the Jewish people from the tsunami of Jew-hatred swamping the West often face an implacable refusal to acknowledge that anti-Israel or anti-Zionist attitudes are the modern iteration of antisemitism.

It's claimed instead that Israel's defenders are trying to silence criticism of what Israel does, just like any other country would be criticized.

But Israel isn't criticized like any other country. It is instead subjected to obsessive libels, double standards and scapegoating for crimes of which it is not only innocent but is in fact the victim – all unique characteristics of antisemitism.

This lethal myopia now stretches from Australia to a London theater.

Four years ago, a conservative Australian government announced that it recognized "West Jerusalem" as Israel's capital. This week, Australia's current Labor government reversed that decision – and declared that Israel's capital is Tel Aviv.

Despite the claims made to the contrary by foes and false friends alike, Israel is legally, historically and morally entitled to Jerusalem. What's more, the patent absurdity of declaring that Tel Aviv is Israel's capital was exceeded only by its arrogance.

A sovereign country decides for itself where to situate its capital. No one else can decide that its capital is actually another city altogether.

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese declared that "the status of West Jerusalem should be resolved by peace negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians."

But it's eastern Jerusalem that's the source of controversy. No one has ever suggested that the rest of Jerusalem, which has been part of Israel since the creation of the state, is up for negotiation.

Jerusalem, which had a Jewish majority from the mid-19th century, is the ancient capital of the Jews' homeland and is central to Jewish belief. Albanese's comment made it absolutely clear that Australia has singled out Israel for an act of gratuitous aggression aimed at the very core of Israeli and Jewish identity.

In doing so, Albanese's policy has met the definition of antisemitism. Yet his party, like so much of the Western left, holds that anti-Israel or anti-Zionist attitudes are a legitimate political position. They associate antisemitism solely with ancient, exterminatory stereotypes of Jewish money, power and demonic blood-lust.

Yet the Palestinian cause they champion is based on precisely such stereotypes. So, they tie themselves into knots to maintain their support for the Palestinian cause while distancing themselves from its antisemitism.

The academic boycott folly

The boycotters of South Africa did not support democratic initiatives in that country, according to Hyslop. Similarly, the BDS movement has no interest in compelling the Palestinian Authority or Hamas to change their authoritarian ways; the focus is solely on demonizing Israel.

Another resemblance is found in virtue signaling. “The culture of the boycott produced an imagined South Africa that was a theater of morality,” Hyslop says. “But the problem was that, too often, the ostensible topic of South Africa simply became the occasion for a kind of parading of the foreign scholar’s moral virtue…When traveling abroad in the 1980s, I was struck by the way in which many keen supporters of the boycott were uninterested in discussing the details of what was happening in South Africa. South Africa was merely the occasion for them to play a heroic (in reality, mock-heroic) role on the stage of the theater of morality.”

Hyslop wrote, “I can honestly say that, throughout the 1980s, I did not talk to a single South African scholar or university employee whose political views had been changed in any way by the academic boycott.” He added, “the academic boycott had little in the way of visible achievement.”

“In many ways, postapartheid South Africa is an exemplary democratic polity,” Hyslop says. “It has reasonably free and fair elections….There is no censorship, and vigorous political debate can be found in the print media and on the radio….scholars can teach and publish more or less what they wish. Nobody gets arrested for their political views.”

On the other hand, he observes that supporters of the new South Africa “are reluctant to acknowledge the persisting inequality, the corruption, and the incipient authoritarianism of the postapartheid polity.”

Supporters of the Palestinians do not acknowledge the existing corruption and denial of human rights by Hamas and the P.A. While there is every reason to expect those characteristics to remain, it is hard to imagine a Palestinian state with any of the attributes of the “exemplary democratic polity” that emerged in South Africa.

It was not sanctions that brought about change in South Africa, Hyslop says. “The mass revolts inside South Africa were the chief force making for the eventual democratization.” The academic boycott “had no important political effect in undermining apartheid and…may have had a minor negative impact on postapartheid society.”

Hyslop also suggests the South African case should be a cautionary tale for the BDS crowd. “The politics of the boycott engendered a situation where academics approached the South African question primarily as moralists. In doing so, they largely abandoned the contribution they could have made as intellectuals to the creation of South African democracy. To this day, it damages their ability to engage with the country.”

New poll reveals far left’s embrace of anti-Semitic tropes

Four-fifths of self-identified “progressive” and “very liberal” likely voters in the U.S. believe Jewish Americans have “unfair advantages” that need to be addressed, according to a new poll conducted by the Jewish Institute for Liberal Values (JILV) and OneMessage Public Strategies, which revealed the American far left’s embrace of a series of anti-Israel and anti-Semitic tropes.

In the nationwide survey of 1,600 likely voters, 17% of progressives and 20% of very liberal respondents agree that American Jews have too much power, while 21% of progressives and 25% of very liberals say Jews “benefit from privilege.” Forty-five percent of progressive respondents view Israel as an “occupier/colonizer,” and 47% of progressives think Israel has too much power.

Additionally, 67% of progressives and 54% of very liberals report that they have “cancelled” a friend or family member due to their political views.

“This poll confirms some of the worst fears of the Jewish community—that a dogmatic commitment to critical theory and a social justice lens can contribute significantly to anti-Semitism,” said David Bernstein, CEO of JILV. “While the majority of Americans support freedom of speech, oppose hyper-partisanship and support traditional liberal values, the far left continues to view politics as a zero-sum game—dividing the world into ‘oppressors’ and ‘oppressed,’ and willing to expel those they disagree with from their social circle—and the results aren’t good for Jews.”

Inspired by this.

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!

10/21 Links Pt1: Lapid: UN's CIO report is antisemitic and written by antisemites; Iran testing drones on Ukrainian civilians for future use on Israel

From Ian:

Caroline Glick: Yair Lapid, Authoritarian and Unafraid

Under Israel’s constitutional law Basic Law – Referendums, to come into force all international agreements that involve the concession of sovereign territory require the approval of two-thirds of the Knesset or must pass in a public referendum. Since Lapid’s deal involves the concession of Israel’s territorial waters, under both the spirit and letter of the law, Lapid is supposed to submit the deal to the Knesset for two-thirds approval. In the event, Lapid tried to avoid even presenting the agreement to the Knesset for review. Although Attorney General Gali Miara Baharav issued an opinion that the agreement doesn’t need to be considered under the Basic Law – Referendums (for reasons that aren’t clear), she still insisted that the Knesset must approve the deal by a simple majority.

Lapid, for his part, doesn’t care what his attorney general thinks or what the law says. In response to a reporter’s question at the press conference, Lapid explained how he justifies his decision to act in clear contempt of the law and his attorney general and suffice with government approval of his radical deal with Hezbollah’s stand-in government in Beirut.

As he put it, “In light of the opposition’s unrestrained behavior, we have decided not to bring the agreement before the Knesset for a vote.”

That is, given that his political opponents oppose a gas deal that cedes Israeli territory and natural resources to its sworn enemy, under the gun, and just weeks before a national election, Lapid has decided that the Knesset is unworthy of the honor of approving his deal.

Several commentators have noted that Lapid’s statement demonstrated a contempt for his opposition. But the real problem with his statement, and the sentiment it expressed, is that it demonstrated an utter contempt for the most basic institution in Israel’s parliamentary democracy—the parliament, and for democratic norms.

Probably the worst thing about Lapid’s anti-democratic behavior is that his supportive press is letting him get away with it. While the CEC made Yesh Atid pay Channel 14’s legal costs, it didn’t require Lapid’s party to reimburse the television station for the fortune it paid to run a public campaign against Lapid’s efforts to shutter it. Channel 14 felt compelled to launch its campaign because for the most part, it received no support from its counterparts in the progressive, Lapid-supporting media. Israel Hayom, which changed its editorial line to support the Bennett-Lapid government was the only newspaper to express opposition to Lapid’s campaign against Channel 14. And it did it in a house ad, on page 20 of the paper. With the exception of two or three journalists on the right that broadcast for the other stations, Channel 14’s competitors either said nothing, or expressed support for Lapid’s effort to shut it down.

As for the deal with Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon, most of the media coverage has played down Lapid’s apparent breach of a Basic Law to ram his deal through on the eve of elections. Opposition to the deal has been painted in partisan colors, effecting the sense that the controversy over an agreement which requires Israel to make massive concessions in response to Hezbollah threats is nothing but electioneering.

It is impossible to know how the elections will pan out. There are always last-minute surprises. Netanyahu’s right-wing bloc is consistently polling between 59-62 seats, which makes it far from certain that Netanyahu will be able to form a coalition without making a deal with members of Lapid’s left-Arab bloc. But Lapid’s behavior since taking over the caretaker government makes one thing clear. If he forms the next government, the foundations of Israel’s democratic system and the basic freedoms that citizens of a free society expect, including freedom of the press and representative government, will be imperiled.

David Singer: Roth confounds UN, USA & Australia: Two-State solution “is gone” Kenneth Roth – recently retired Executive Director of Human Rights Watch – has undermined the continuation of the policy espoused by the UN, USA and Australia for the last 20 years supporting the the creation of a new Palestinian Arab State between Israel and Jordan for the first time in recorded history (two-state solution).

Addressing a recent discussion hosted by the Washington-based think-tank - Arab Center - Roth declared:
“The two-state solution is great but it's gone”

Roth’s bombshell admission was followed by this statement made by Hady Amr - US deputy assistant secretary for Israeli and Palestinian affairs:

"We remain committed to rebuilding our bilateral relationship with the Palestinian people, with the US president's goal of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict along the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps,"

In reversing Australia’s decision to recognise western Jerusalem, later revoked, as the capital of Israel – Australia’s Foreign Minister Penny Wong said:
“Australia is committed to a two-state solution in which Israel and a future Palestinian state coexist, in peace and security, within internationally recognised borders. We will not support an approach that undermines this prospect.”

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has been repeating a similar mantra since 2017:

“A two-state solution that will end the occupation and, with the creation of conditions, also the suffering even to the Palestinian people, is in my opinion the only way to guarantee that peace is established and, at the same time, that two states can live together in security and in mutual recognition,”

This blinkered approach by the UN, USA and Australia has seen each of them refusing to acknowledge – let alone discuss – the merits of a new alternative solution emanating from Saudi Arabia in June : Shredding the failed two-state solution and calling for the merger of Jordan, Gaza and part of the 'West Bank' into one territorial entity to be called The Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine whose capital will be Amman – not Jerusalem (Saudi Solution).

The Dutch ambassador to Jordan tweeted, "Pleasure meeting HE Minister of Media AlShubol. An opportunity to discuss issues of common concern, including the media scene in Jordan. Stressed our strong bilateral relationship, and I shared our concerns on Jordan’s declining international ranking on freedom of speech. Netherlands ready for cooperation."

Jordan ranks 129th out of 180 nations in press freedom, and as I have noted often, even though it has control over the media it allows virulently antisemitic material to be published daily.

Jordan and Jordanians are very unhappy at this very mild rebuke.

Jordan's government has criticised the Dutch ambassador to Amman after he made comments about media freedom in the kingdom.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates said that Harry Verweij had weighed into domestic affairs during a courtesy meeting with a senior official.

His comments included the licensing of a local radio station and who ran it, according to the ministry, which did not elaborate further.

The ambassador's actions were “incomprehensible” according to a statement.

"Jordan is always open to frank dialogue that approaches all issues with all partners and friendly countries through diplomatic channels and direct contact, in accordance with diplomatic norms, but that it does not accept interference in its internal affairs," a statement on the Petra news agency said.

The responses on Twitter are no less strident:

I reject any interference by you in Jordan's internal affairs.
You must respect your position and shut your mouth Our internal affairs are none of your business.
This is a blatant interference in the affairs of our country and we do not allow you. You have to respect the sovereignty of this country. And not to interfere in his affairs
I advise you to go back to Holland, you need to collect a lot of firewood this winter because of the Russian war. This is none of your business.
Unacceptable intervention in our country's business. Read your job description again and stick to it..
Our freedom of speech is our concern, and its not yours whatsoever.
No State or group of States has the right to intervene or interfere in any form or for any reason whatsoever in the internal and external affairs of others..

I wonder if this robust defense of Jordan from criticism and outside interference applies to Israel too?

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!

It happens again and again. A major institution, whether the UN, Amnesty or HRW, issues a report that asserts what it considers facts, it refers to a footnoted publication, and the footnote proves that they are lying.

Here is an example from the latest UN Commission of Inquiry report. It finds that Israel's "occupation" is unlawful under international law. It says:

The occupation of territory in wartime is, under international humanitarian law, a temporary situation, which deprives the occupied Power of neither its statehood nor its sovereignty. Occupation as a result of war cannot imply any right whatsoever to dispose of territory.

The footnote to this points to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), commentary of 1958 on article 47 of the Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.

The wording of that commentary makes it clear that Israel is not occupying "Palestinian territory" which is the linchpin of the entire argument.

It says:

This provision of the Hague Regulations is not applicable only to the inhabitants of the occupied territory; it also protects the separate existence of the State, its institutions and its laws. ...As was emphasized in the commentary on Article 4, the occupation of territory in wartime is essentially a temporary, de facto situation, which deprives the occupied Power of neither its statehood nor its sovereignty.

What state is Israel occupying? If there was no state there, there is no occupation. The UN report's own footnote betrays that the assumptions behind the entire report itself is false.

The commentary emphasizes that the purpose of the Convention is to protect the people, not the State. Israel agrees with this and its High Court rulings have always upheld the humanitarian aspects of the Geneva Conventions even without the existence of a Palestinian state in the territories it controls.

However, the text itself makes it clear that there is no occupation if there is no previously existing State that had legal title to the land - and there wasn't one. It sure isn't Jordan, whose annexation of the West Bank was illegal by virtually every yardstick. It cannot be the "State of Palestine" because we are told - by the UN - that the territories have been occupied since 1967 and no one claims that the "State of Palestine" existed before 1988 at the earliest.

I have yet to find an international law expert say the exact date that "occupied territories" of 1967 became "occupied Palestinian territories." But the UN retroactively says that the territories that Israel won in a defensive war have been "Palestinian" since 1967 - they even have had a "Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967."

Israel also has the absolute right to protect its own soldiers and citizens from harm that comes from the territories, under the same Geneva Conventions. As always at the UN and with other modern antisemites, a question of competing rights is being treated as if only one side has human rights, and they assume that Jews simply do not have such rights.

The UN's fast and loose definition of "occupation" is made clear in footnote 10:

For the purposes of the present report, “the territories that Israel occupies” and equivalent terms are a reference to East Jerusalem, the Syrian Golan, Gaza and the West Bank outside East Jerusalem.

Israel doesn't occupy Gaza by any definition of the term that existed in any legal manual or article before Israel's withdrawal from the territory in 2005. Those who claim that Israel occupies Gaza without having a single soldier there have literally made up a new definition of occupation to apply to Israel only. Essentially, the UN is admitting - not for the first time - that it doesn't care about the legal definition of occupation to begin with; it applies the label to Israel without any regard to what it means.

Which is this entire report in a nutshell. If Israel is not occupying "Palestinian territory" under the legal definition of occupation then there is no "occupation" that can be declared illegal. The UN decided to make the declaration of illegality first, and tried to justify it afterwards, all while pretending to give an impartial legal analysis.

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!

This video showing the death of terrorist Uday al-Tamimi, who killed IDF soldier Noa Lazar, has gone viral on Palestinian social media, making him into a hero as he keeps shooting before being finally killed.

Yes, he's dead, but Palestinians are proud that he managed to evade Israeli intelligence for ten days. Tamimi himself left a will where he hoped that he would be an inspiration for hundreds of young people to take up guns in copying him.

Sure enough, his death is being re-enacted by Palestinian kids:

Toy guns today, real guns tomorrow - thanks to a culture of glorifying terror, death and "martyrdom."

(h/t Abu Ali Express)

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!

10/20 Links Pt2: For Israel’s 75th Birthday, Hollywood Should Raise a Toast; Shapiro says Kanye West is spouting anti-Semitism that resembles Nazi propaganda

From Ian:

Gil Troy: For Israel’s 75th Birthday, Hollywood Should Raise a Toast

Now that the High Holy Days are over, let’s start planning what should be the most hyped holiday of this year: Israel’s 75th birthday. Although Israel was founded on May 14, 1948, its diamond jubilee celebration will be, by the Hebrew calendar, on April 26, 2023, 189 days from today. Although only six months remain to figure out how to celebrate the greatest modern Jewish miracle, few Jewish organizations or Israeli leaders seem to have noticed or started planning.

Last May, I tried triggering some brainstorming about how to celebrate this culmination of the arc of Zionist triumph: starting last August with the Zionist Congress’s 125th anniversary, building through this November 29, with the 75th anniversary of the United Nations’ 1947 recognition of Israel and culminating with Israel’s 75th birthday. Celebrating those three moments toasts the idea of a Jewish state, the world’s recognition of that idea and Israel’s realization of that noble, liberating idea.

As the date approaches, I become more dismayed by the organizational and political torpor, and as anti-Israel and anti-Jewish attacks metastasize, it’s clear that we need our friends in Hollywood to help make this moment.

The war against Israel and the Jewish people is now a cultural war. When there is so much hatred against what Israel is, not just what Israel does, when bash-Israel-first has become an instinctive posture, an obsessive pursuit and a shorthand for proving yourself to others, the battleground must shift. I still advocate the Zionist salons, Israeli historical exhibitions, Diamond Jubilee Presidential medals, Zionized haggadot and ice-cream-for-breakfast-eating initiatives I championed last spring.

But in our wired world, where American adults average 11 hours of interacting with media daily and four and a half of those hours being entertained, the pro-Israel entertainment community must mobilize. It may be wise, as in baseball to hit ‘em where they ain’t, in celebrating Israel. We’ve got to reach them where they are.

In that spirit, I offer two suggestions modeled on two successful initiatives. We need 75 Israel jubilee minutes in Hebrew, English, French, and Spanish, modeled on America’s Bicentennial Minutes and the Charles R. Bronfman Foundation’s (CRB) Canadian Heritage Moments. These Israeli history snippets should culminate in a big, brassy, schmaltzy celebration of Israel, modeled on the Saturday Night Seder thrown together in two weeks during 2020’s COVID lockdown, which attracted over a million viewers when streamed on its own website and on YouTube that Passover.

Demand for probe into BBC coverage of Jews and Israel

The JC is launching a public online petition today demanding a parliamentary inquiry into the BBC’s coverage of Jews and Israel.

The move comes after a string of controversial stories by the BBC caused concern in the Jewish community — followed by BBC responses that only deepened that concern.

This week, the BBC admitted unfairly criticising Israel in a report on the beheading of a gay Palestinian by other Palestinians. And six weeks ago, an open letter to BBC Director-General Tim Davie demanding impartiality on Jewish issues was ignored.

Delivered in September, the landmark letter was signed by politicians from both Labour and the Conservatives, from both houses of Parliament, with Jewish groups and public figures.

It also requested the corporation to stop repeatedly hosting Abdel Bari Atwan, an Islamist pundit who has frequently praised terrorism.

Its 36 signatories included former Tory leader Lord (Michael) Howard, the government’s former terror czar Lord (Alex) Carlile and former BBC governor Baroness (Ruth) Deech, as well as historians Simon Sebag Montefiore and the newly-ennobled Andrew Roberts and playwright Steven Berkoff.

“We urge you urgently to take cogent and coherent steps to rectify this worrying trend across your platforms as a matter of the utmost urgency, and look forward to your swift confirmation that this is being done,” the message said.

But the BBC has not replied. At the beginning of September, a BBC spokesperson told the JC: “We’ll get something to you in due course.” There has been no further communication.

It followed the BBC’s contested coverage of an attack on Jewish youngsters on Oxford Street last Chanukah, which reported as fact the disputed allegation that the victims had used a racial slur. The BBC’s reaction to complaints triggered an ongoing probe by Ofcom.

£30,000 reward offered to catch Oxford Street attackers

Jewish groups in Britain are offering a reward of £30,000 (nearly $34,000) to find those responsible for an attack on a busload of Jewish teenagers in Central London during Chanukah last year.

The move comes after the Metropolitan Police Service closed its investigation without identifying any suspects.

The young passengers, a Chabad group of British Jews and Israelis from northwest London, were on the bus on Oxford Street during holiday celebrations in November 2021 when a group of Arab men began yelling and banging on the vehicles. As video of the incident showed, the men even tried breaking the windows and gave a Nazi salute.

No one was injured in the attack and police began an investigation, calling the incident a hate crime.

In a statement given to the Jewish News in the U.K. earlier this month, the Metropolitan Police said they had received tips as to who the assailants were, however, “the only names provided in response to those appeals have been eliminated from our inquiries. The identity of those involved is still unknown. A decision was taken in July to close the case.

“Hate crime of any kind is unacceptable,” the police said in the statement. “Should new information come to light that provides a realistic line of inquiry, we will of course be willing to carry out further investigation.”

Britain Needs To Apologize To The Jews for What They Did During The Mandate, More Than To The Arabs (Tomer Ilan)

By Tomer Ilan

Recently, there’s a wave of demands from Palestinian Arabs to the United Kingdom to apologize for alleged abuses during the British Mandate period.

Munib al-Masri, a rich Palestinian businessman submitted a dossier of evidence alleging abuses by the British between 1917 and 1948. Masri is planning to present the file to the UK government later this year and is reportedly demanding a formal acknowledgement and apology.

Separately, a Palestinian Arab is seeking an apology from the Royal Ulster Rifles for a 1938 incident in Mandatory Palestine in which he alleged the British troops forced civilians to drive over a landmine after a roadside bomb placed by Arabs killed two British troops.

The Jews have a right to demand an apology from Britain as well.

The Jews deserve an apology from the British for systematically discriminating against the Jews, in terms of official policy against Jewish immigration and Jewish land purchase and settlement in contradiction to international law, namely the Mandate of Palestine. The British government was also deeply involved in the illegal Arab invasion of Israel in the 1948 war.

The first major anti-Jewish move by the British government came in 1922, when The League of Nations, at Britain’s request, modified the mandate by withdrawing Transjordan from the area intended to provide a national home for the Jews. With a stroke of a pen, the Jews lost 78% of the national home promised to them by Britain and the League of Nations.

Then, as a response to Arab violence, including the 1920 Nebi Musa riots and the 1921 Jaffa riots, Britain published a series of White Papers with new anti-Jewish policies that contradicted the legally-binding League of Nations Mandate for Palestine that Britain was supposed to follow.

The Mandate resolution (Article 6) requires Britain to “facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes”. The Mandate states that this shall be done “while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced”.

However, in a series of White Papers published between 1922 and 1939, the British Administration restricted Jewish immigration and settlement rather than “facilitate” and “encourage” it as required in the Mandate resolution.

Initially, the 1922 White Paper vaguely stated that Britain would limit future immigration to "the economic capacity of the country". The 1930 White Paper called for stricter controls to be placed on Jewish immigration and land purchase.

The worst White Paper was published in 1939, on the eve of World War 2, with millions of Jews trying to escape from the Nazi threat in Europe, the paper severely limited Jewish immigration to just 15,000 a year for 5 years and made subsequent immigration to require Arab approval. Jewish purchase of land from Arabs was forbidden in 95% of Palestine.

In effect, the White Paper prevented the escape of millions of Jews from Europe before and during WW2. Six million of those Jews were murdered by the Nazis in the Holocaust. If the British had not imposed the 1939 White Paper immigration restrictions, many of those Jews could have been saved.

The McDonald White Paper of 1939 was explicitly racist and openly discriminated against Jews. Jewish immigration was severely restricted, while Arab immigration was not. Jewish land purchase was forbidden in 95% of the land, while Arab land purchase was allowed in 100% of it. The language of the White Paper was explicit and racist: “Transfer of land save to a Palestinian Arab prohibited” (see map).

In today’s terms, it would be called an “apartheid” White Paper. Anti-Jewish apartheid.

British Land transfer Regulations of 1940 based on the White Paper of 1939

Starting from 1939, the British Authorities also restricted Jewish settlement on Jewish-owned land in direct contradiction to the Mandate resolution requiring them to “encourage close settlement by Jews on the land”. The Jews, however, found a way to establish new settlements anyway, the famous “Tower and Stockade” method.

In the 1948 War of Independence, Britain was deeply involved in favor of the Arab side. The Arab Army of Transjordan, more commonly known as the Arab Legion, was financed by Britain and commanded by British officers. The Legion was armed, trained and commanded by British officers and was considered the most effective Arab force in the 1948 war.

The British-backed Arab Legion illegally invaded Palestine in 1948 and helped Jordan illegally occupy eastern Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria between 1948 and 1967.

In 1948, Britain had dominant influence over Egypt, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon as well. Those countries would not invade Palestine to fight the Jews, without British involvement.

This is confirmed by Dr. Ezra Nishry’s research. His 2016 doctoral thesis (English Abstract – p. 510) based mainly on the documents of the British National Archives (as well as Israeli and American documents and previous research literature) confirms that the British organized, armed and pushed the Arab countries to invade Israel in the War of Independence.

Nishry shows that the British government used covert action and pushed for the Arab invasion that was actually carried out on May 15, 1948. According to British sources quoted in the research, the senior British leadership in London determined the end date for the evacuation of the British forces from Palestine, brought it forward, and returned to the original date according to the changing needs of the invasion plans which changed according to the circumstances on the ground. There was a direct connection between planning the timing of the Arab invasion and planning the timing of the British evacuation.

His findings were published in a book “The British Trojan horse in the Israeli War of liberation : 1947-1948”.

In many cases during the 1948 war, the British troops themselves helped the Arabs.

One of the worst incidents was at Radar Hill (near Jerusalem) on 23 April 1948. A Jewish force who tried to evacuate wounded Jewish troops in the Many Jewish fighters were killed and wounded in the Nebi Samuel battle, encountered British fire from Radar Hill which killed and wounded a number of Jews. The wounded Jews were collected by the British and handed over to the Arabs who murdered them.

A sign at Radar Hill mentions the battle on 23 April 1948 in which British troops handed wounded Jewish troops to the Arabs who murdered them.

Another example of British involvement against the Jews was in the Etzion Bloc. On 4 May 1948, the Arab Legion aided by the British and by a large number of local Arabs launched a major attack on the Etzion Bloc in which 12 Jewish defenders were killed. A few days later, the Kfar Etzion Massacre was committed and the Bloc was ethnically cleansed from Jews until it was resettled in 1967.

Great Britain should apologize to the Jews for:

· Giving 78% of the Jewish National Home to the Arabs in 1922
· Restricting Jewish immigration just before WW2, preventing the escape of millions of Jews from the Holocaust
· Imposing anti-Jewish “apartheid” laws restricting land purchase by Jews in most of Palestine
· Opposing the establishment of new Jewish settlements on Jewish-owned land.
· Britain backing the Arab Legion in 1948 leading to the illegal Jordanian occupation the Old City of Jerusalem and Judea & Samaria until 1967.
· Britain pushing other Arab states to invade Israel an attempt to annihilate her in 1948.
· British troops fighting against the Jews in the 1948 war.

These British policies and actions went against their commitment to the League of Nations and against the Mandate for Palestine, i.e. against international law.

The British have more reasons to apologize to the Jews than they do to the Arabs.

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!

Egyptian scientists: ‘Mosquitos’ Just Israeli DNA-Harvesting Tech To Make New Pathogens, Weapons (PreOccupied Territory)

Our weekly column from the humor site PreOccupied Territory.

Check out their Facebook page.

mosquito Cairo, October 20 - Egyptian scientists claimed today to have blown the lid off a longtime operation through which Zionists have conducted a clandestine project to gather, process, and exploit Arab genetic material in the development and manufacture of terrible warfare methods to use against Palestinians and other enemies: miniature drones that look and act like a stinging insect but no such insect exists in nature.

Entomologists at the University of Cairo announced today that they have confirmed a hypothesis several researchers posited years ago, namely that the Anopheles mosquito, the most common variety that collects blood from humans, emerged not millions of years ago through natural evolution, but at most several centuries ago through the vile machinations of a Jewish laboratory cabal bent on suppressing, controlling, and eliminating the native Arab population of the Levant in an effort to displace them.

"We've finally been able to confirm one of our leading theories," declared lead researcher Dr. Daoud Trustmi. "It turns out that there are literally hundreds of species of mosquito, almost none of which take blood from humans. But we're supposed to believe there's this tiny handful of them that just happens to like human blood, when literally hundreds of millions of other animals are out there, and in much greater numbers? Sus."

"We knew there was something wrong with the way everyone just assumed human-attracted mosquitos were a natural thing," he continued. "So we applied one of the tried-and-true methods of virtuous crusaders - pardon the loaded term - for truth that most people dismiss as crackpots: qui bono? Who stands to benefit? Since Zionists stand to benefit from such a scheme, that must be proof of its existence. the same flawless logic stands at the foundation of everything we know about 9-11, for example."

Dr. Trustmi acknowledged the clever propaganda move by Zionists of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in planting trees to drain the malaria-infested swamps of Palestine. "They got everyone thinking they were opposed to mosquito-borne diseases and such," he explained. "But the whole time it was all a ruse to get us all to let our guard down. Who would suspect the very people who eliminated so many mosquito-borne pathogens of using mosquitos to further their imperialistic designs?"

The research team offered a hat tip to American activists fighting an uphill battle to convince the public that birds do not exist anymore, having been replaced over the last century by government drones to spy on the populace.

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!

10/20 Links Pt1: When Terrorists Hail Australia's Diplomacy, Call It a Dangerous Blunder; Netanyahu: This is a denial of history and reality; The Beginning of the End of the Islamic Republic

From Ian:

Biden's Iranian Nuclear Obsession

If US President Joe Biden really is "gravely concerned" about the plight of Iranian schoolgirls being attacked and killed by Iran's authoritarian regime, then the best way to help them would be to abandon his ill-considered attempt to broker a new nuclear deal with Tehran.

The death toll is now said to have passed the 200 mark, with many of the fatalities reported to be children as young as 11 years old.

Consequently, Mr Biden's response is being seen as little more than a token gesture....

Rather than holding the Iranian regime to account for its atrocious conduct, Mr Biden's priority remains to secure another flawed nuclear deal with Tehran, one that would result in enabling Iran to have nuclear weapons with no prohibition on the missiles to deliver them, as well as the lifting of punitive economic sanctions and up to a trillion dollars in additional revenues to "export the revolution."

If, as now seems increasingly likely, the White House commits to a new nuclear deal once next month's midterm elections are out of the way, the US Congress will be in Christmas recess and therefore unable to block it.

Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), designated by the US as a Foreign Terrorist Organization, together with all the other instruments of state-sponsored oppression in Iran, would receive extra funding dollars once the sanctions are lifted that will enable them to further develop their hostile activities.

Iran has already destroyed four Arab countries in addition to its own: Lebanon, Yemen, Syria and Iraq.

Former Prime Minister Netanyahu: "Iran Cheats, You Can Sign 100 Agreements with Them, It Doesn't Mean Anything"

Former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in an interview on Wednesday: "Do you want Iran to have nuclear weapons and threaten the entire world, chanting 'Death to America' and 'America the Great Satan'? Not a good idea. The [proposed Iran] deal doesn't stop it."

"I sent the Mossad to the heart of Tehran to pilfer the secret atomic archives of Iran....And when we looked at it, we could see that they were cheating. They had, as early as 2003, a secret plan to build...five atomic bombs, Hiroshima-style bombs....Iran cheats. And, look, there is no way to stop them. You can sign 100 agreements with them....It doesn't mean anything."

"Iran is...a radical Islamic regime that is fundamentally opposed to our free way of life, our free societies....that's only going to be stopped not by any agreement. It's going to be stopped by the combination of crippling economic sanctions and a credible military option."

"The agreements...merely pave Iran's path to the bomb with gold, with hundreds of billions of dollars that they use both to accelerate their nuclear program and also to foment terrorism and aggression throughout the Middle East and the world. You want to stop Iran, stop it now. Stop it before they have nuclear weapons, because, once they do, you're not going to be able to."

The Beginning of the End of the Islamic Republic

The current protests in Iran sound the death knell of the Islamic Republic. A wave of angry and bloody demonstrations, boycotts, work stoppages, and wildcat strikes have exhausted the country's security forces and spread to more than 100 cities.

The government endured major protests in 2009, 2017, and 2019, but these demonstrations are different. They embody the anger that Iranian women and young Iranians feel toward a regime that seeks to stifle their desires. And they promise to upend Iran's establishment.

It is said that revolutions devour their children, but in Iran the grandchildren are devouring the revolution.

Despite widespread censorship, Iran's Internet penetration rate (the percentage of the country's population that have access to the Internet) at the beginning of 2022 was 84%. Iranians have found ways to bypass censorship through the use of virtual private networks, or VPNs. Almost 80% of Iranians with Internet access have installed anti-filter and VPN software to evade censorship.

The U.S. government and its western European allies involved in the nuclear deal should halt negotiations with the Islamic Republic as long as Iranian authorities are suppressing the protests and throttling the Internet. The U.S. should introduce respect for human rights as a condition for continuing any negotiations. Congress should also refuse to release frozen Iranian funds in foreign banks, conditioning doing so on tangible improvement in Iran's treatment of its citizens.

If the U.S. were to revive the nuclear deal with Iran at this moment, it would strengthen an unpopular regime that is savagely crushing peaceful protests.

This morning, 16 year old Palestinian Muhammad Fadi Nuri died after being shot by IDF forces in Al-Bireh last month during clashes.

Hamas' press release about it shows that Palestinians know very well that these youths are not innocent victims but active participants in fighting, saying that Nuri was participating in "ribat" - guarding the frontiers of Islam - and "defending the sanctities."

Beyond that, Hamas called on other children to join and die for the cause:

We in the Hamas movement, as we mourn the convoys of our people’s righteous martyrs, who sacrifice their lives and provide the most wonderful examples in the field of engagement with the enemy, and advance the ranks on behalf of all our people and our nation, in the defense of Jerusalem and Al-Aqsa, to call upon the masses of our people and our revolting youth to escalate the confrontation with the enemy, and to continue the path of resistance and heroism, in anger for the blood of our martyrs, as a victory for our lands, and as an end to the occupation of our land and our sanctities. It is jihad, victory or martyrdom.

Palestinian children are brainwashed daily to emulate the "martyrs," both in the media and in their schools. In the case of Nuri and dozens of others this year, this incitement leads them to attack IDF soldiers with firebombs and other deadly weapons.

As we see from Hamas, this is being encouraged and applauded.

Meanwhile, the Western "anti-Zionists," instead of being horrified at the explicit weaponization of children, eagerly seize on each death as fuel for their own excuses for spreading modern antisemitism and blood libels against the Jewish state.

Israel doesn't want to kill kids - but Hamas and "human rights" defenders sure love when they are forced to.

(h/t Ibn Boutros)

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!