Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Monday, February 27, 2023

Why doesn't James Abourezk's obituary mention he blamed Zionists for 9/11 and supported Hamas and Hezbollah?

James Abourezk, the first Arab American U.S. senator, died last week at 92.

AP wrote an obituary that mentions his positions, and says, "Abourezk also became an outspoken critic of Israel and U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East after touring the region and visiting his parents’ hometown in Lebanon as a senator. The position lost him many political allies, and he decided to retire from the Senate after a single term. Abourezk returned to practicing law in Washington and founded the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, where he passionately and colorfully denounced Israeli aggressions in the Middle East. "

Perhaps the obituary should be somewhat expanded.

In 2007, Abourezk went on Hezbollah's Al Manar TV for an interview, in English, where he expressed his support for terror groups:

Interviewer: You also called Hizbullah and Hamas "resistance fighters."
James Abourezk: They are.
Interviewer: While the U.S. administration brands them as "terrorist organizations"...
James Abourezk: That was done at the request of Israel. That name was done at the request of Israel – that the United States calls them terrorist organizations.

He also said that the Arab hijackers on 9/11 were cooperating with the "Zionists:"

Interviewer: Here I need to ask you something, which is growing and escalating in the Western world, and particularly in the U.S., which is this immense wave of anti-Arab, anti-Muslim sentiment, lumping all Arabs together as "terrorists." This was clearly manifest in movies and TV series, like "24." Why? Why now? Is it just after 9/11?

James Abourezk: No, it's after the Soviet Union collapsed. The Zionists were looking around for another enemy to have, because to them the Soviet Union was an enemy because they wouldn't allow Jewish emigration. So they used that as an organizing tool, basically, and when the Soviet Union collapsed, there was no more organizing about the Soviet Union. So they looked around, and they said: Well, the Muslims. Let's find the Arabs and the Muslims, and make them the boogeyman. And that's what they did.

Interviewer: But why did this sentiment of hatred increase after 9/11?

James Abourezk: Well, because the Arabs who were involved in 9/11 cooperated with the Zionists, actually. It was a cooperation. They gave them the perfect excuse to denounce all Arabs. It's a racist sort of thing, really racist – you know, picking out these 19 or 20 terrorists – they were terrorists – and saying all the Arabs are like them. So, you know, people in America don't really look at it that deeply, and they accept what the government and the press are saying.

These were not Abourezk's only outrageous comments. When Helen Thomas was fired from AP for her explicit antisemitism, Abourezk came to her defense - doubling down on her desire to ethnically cleanse Jews from the Middle East:

Helen was not necessarily done in by her statement about Israel. What she said is what I’ve been saying for years - the Zionists should get the hell out of Palestine.

Where they go when they leave there is not my concern, just as it is not the Zionists' concern where the Palestinians went when they were driven out of Palestine.

Of course, Thomas said the Jews should get out of Palestine. When she said they should go "back" to Poland and Germany it was clear whom she meant, and when the interviewer asked her to clarify that she wants the Jews to leave Israel she added other places for them to go.

Abourezk was a terror supporter, a 9/11 truther and an antisemite. An honest obituary would mention that.

(h/t Irene)

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!

02/27 Links Pt1: Brothers slain in terror attack laid to rest as parents call for unity amid the pain; PM urges 'not to take law into own hands'; Israeli shot in Jordan Valley terror attack

From Ian:

Orly Goldschmidt (Guardian-UK): Israel Was Hit by 5,000 Palestinian Terror Attacks in 2022. It Has to Defend Itself

An article published in the Guardian days after a Palestinian terrorist murdered seven innocent people near a synagogue in Jerusalem on Holocaust Memorial Day subordinates the value of Israeli lives. The article illustrates a problem in the wider discourse - the denial of, and refusal to accept, Israeli suffering.

In 2022, Israelis suffered from over 5,000 Palestinian terror attacks, including car-rammings, shootings, stabbings and bombings targeting innocent men, women and children on the streets of Israel. This is the reality on the ground.

On 10 February, for example, a Palestinian drove his car into a crowded bus stop, killing three people, including two brothers aged six and eight. Just imagine you or your loved ones falling victim to such abhorrent terror on your way to work.

This is precisely why Israel's counter-terrorism apparatus exists, because without it I dread to think how many more zeros would be added to that 5,000 total.

Israel has shown its desire for peace with the Palestinians throughout the years, including several attempts to sign peace agreements in 1993, 2000, 2008 and 2014, and we continue to reach out for peace.

For peace to happen, there must be recognition from the Palestinian leadership that incitement and violence must end.

The writer is Spokesperson of the Embassy of Israel to the UK.

Learning some painful Mideast history lessons

We have to ask ourselves: Is this experiment of “land for peace” really working?

Another important point: Are these territories “disputed territories” or “Palestinian-occupied territories?”

Alan Baker, former ambassador to Canada and former legal advisor to Israel’s foreign ministry, in a recent presentation by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs stated that although the phrase “Palestinian occupied territories” is accepted parlance, that has no basis in law.

However, it represents the majority of states that voted in favor of hundreds of resolutions, and further stated that “in the agreements between Israel and the Palestinians (the Oslo Accords and the 1995 Interim Agreement), the Palestinians themselves agreed that these are disputed territories that will be agreed upon during final status negotiations.”

Does the world remember the offers in 1936 from the Peel Commission, the November 1947 vote in the United Nations, the 1967 Khartoum Conference, and the offers by Israeli prime ministers Ehud Barak at Camp David in 2000 and Ehud Olmert at Sharm el-Sheik in 2008?

Each one was successively more and more generous, and all were summarily rejected by our Palestinian interlocutors. They didn’t want to share the pie; they wanted the entire thing.

Since the bar was set so high by Barak and PLO chief Yasser Arafat, and Olmert and Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas, it makes it very difficult for a Palestinian interlocular to accept less. And in all of the years of ensuring terrorism and violence, it makes it extremely hard for an Israeli interlocutor to offer as much or more.

Yet there are many powerful voices in the international community that refuse to learn the lessons of history. They want a precipitance withdrawal from Judea and Samaria, and try to delude themselves into thinking that Israel giving up land will bring peace. They are looking at the current impasse with the Palestinians and, as difficult as this situation is, many want to seize upon a solution—any solution—not realizing the lessons of the Gaza withdrawal or the stream of later rejected offers.

It has become a mantra, a quick and superficial solution that has really proven to be no solution at all—one that emboldens the terrorists and their Iranian sponsor.

Palestinians chose to willfully blind themselves to what their leaders say—of how their leadership from the P.A. on down is guilty of the very worst kind of child abuse by exhorting Muslim children to become shahids, or “martyrs.”

This has taken root within the Palestinian body politic for generations and has only served to radicalize the Palestinian population. It is no wonder that according to a recent poll by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research, a majority of the Palestinian population in both Gaza and the West Bank (72%) say they are in favor of forming armed groups, such as the Lion’s Den.

It is time we finally examine some of the premises behind our glib and superficial mantras and learn the painful lessons of history.

‘Long Overdue’: Jewish Advocacy Groups Throw Weight Behind Bill Defunding Agency Linked To ‘Antisemitic Propaganda’

Jewish advocacy organizations are backing a bill introduced a bill last earlier this month by Republican Rep. Chip Roy of Texas and Republican Sen. James Risch of Idaho that would pause funding for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) until steps are implemented to ensure that funds are not used to promote antisemitism or potential terrorism.

The bill, titled “The United Nations Relief and Works Agency Accountability and Transparency Act,” would “stop the flow of U.S. taxpayer dollars to this body with a rampant history of anti-Israel and antisemitic propaganda and activity,” according to a press release from Roy and Risch. Jewish groups have voiced support for the bill, arguing that the UNRWA is in dire need of accountability.

The UNRWA has been criticized for its social media having “glorified suicide bombers” in the past and its educational curriculum supporting the jihad, according to the Jewish News Syndicate. A non-public report from the State Department found that the department had issued UNRWA with multiple infractions for abetting “armed incursions,” along with “the use of weapons in or near facilities” as well two terrorist tunnels found under UNRWA schools, according to the Washington Free Beacon.

Roz Rothstein, co-founder and CEO StandWithUs, a non-partisan educational organization that supports Israel and opposes antisemitism, told the Daily Caller News Foundation that the bill must be a “bipartisan effort.”

Haaretz still sees itself as being more than just a newspaper that reports the news.

Under publisher Amos Schocken, Haaretz thinks of itself as a champion in shaping Israel, calling upon Israelis to follow its lead (after subscribing, of course).

For instance, last week, Elder of Ziyon tweeted about a "letter" from the publisher of Haaretz, Amos Schocken, insisting that Israelis have a responsibility to oppose the democratically elected government:

Elder of Ziyon noted what Shocken left out:

Schocken's call to arms against the Israeli government is not really unexpected. Haaretz's radicalism is part of the history of the newspaper under the Schocken family:

[Amos Schocken] had inherited it from his father and grandfather, and the legacy seems to have included an ambivalent relationship with the Jewish state. His grandfather, Salman, who had fled from Germany to Palestine, had been, according to Remnick, a supporter of Brit Shalom, an organization of Jews favoring a bi-national state rather than a Jewish one. The paper passed to Salman’s son, Gershom (née Gustav), who once wrote an essay about the need to remove the religious prohibition on intermarriage so as to encourage the emergence of a homogeneous Israeli nationality to supersede those of Jew and Arab...Gershom’s son, Amos, acquired the paper upon his father’s death in 1990 and has given it editorial direction since then. [emphasis added]

Haaretz's strong left-wing roots haven't stopped Schocken from speaking out from time to time, in fairly conservative terms, on what a newspaper in general is supposed to be. In 2008, The Jerusalem Post reported on a rumor of a "purge" at Haaretz, and a new "moderate" era at the paper. In response, Schocken told the media site The Seventh Eye:

I understand there are those readers who want Haaretz to look like a protest [manifesto] against the occupation - for example, Ashkenazi, secular and righteous, and focused on the occupation. But a newspaper is not a protest [manifesto]; it's a newspaper...If it were possible, then, I would be ready to be the publisher of a newspaper that solely campaigned against the occupation till its end. The problem is that some of those protesting against the occupation also want to know what is happening in the shops of Comme Il Faut [a clothing chain]. So we were concerned that they wouldn't take out a subscription to the newspaper that I am prepared to be the publisher of. [emphasis added]

Schocken is not actually averse per se to running Haaretz as a protest manifesto, its just that a newspaper has to be able to pay the bills and has to take into account the concerns of its readership. Here, he conjectures that a portion of his readership is concerned about what is happening "in the shops of Comme Il Faut," as opposed to what is happening in Israel.

He got closer to the mark a few years later. In 2011, Haaretz was criticized for its coverage of the Fogel family massacre, when it decided not to feature the story on the front page -- choosing instead to feature a report on the Japanese tsunami that occurred on the same day. In 2012 Schocken defended this choice to a Haredi audience, laying out the role of Haaret z as he saw it. He told them that, "with all due respect for the family at Itamar, when you compare that event, which was very grave – it was not the first time that Palestinians murdered Jews." Schocken tied this in with how he saw the responsibility of Haaretz:

The role of a newspaper as I understand it, and as Ha’aretz has understood throughout the years, even before I became responsible for the paper, even when my father was there...is not to give expression to emotionalism and feelings, but to give readers information about the important things. To set some sort of hierarchy of importance...

The role of Ha’aretz is also to provide a perspective of how important things are in the world we live in. What is the role of a newspaper, after all? To give the reader some kind of picture of reality that is as faithful to reality as is possible. [emphasis added]

That sounds like a fairly conservative approach. Yet just 2 years later, in 2014, Schocken published a call to Israelis, and in his manifesto described what Israelis could accomplish by subscribing to Haaretz:

By doing so, you will become a partner in the ongoing effort to shape Israel as a liberal and constitutional democracy that cherishes the values of pluralism and civil and human rights. You will become a partner in actively supporting the two-state solution and the right to Palestinian self-determination, which will enable Israel to rid itself of the burdens of territorial occupation and the control of another people.

Now, according to Schocken, this is all actually part of being a newspaper:

Influencing the way Israel evolves is a daily effort of news gathering, reporting developments and creating editorial positions and sometimes campaigns to prevent negative outcomes and encourage positive ones.

So the goal of Haaretz is "to give the reader some kind of picture of reality" while "influencing the way Israel evolves."

But if the picture of reality it tied to an agenda, what happens when reality does not cooperate?

David Landau, a former editor-in-chief of Haaretz and the founder of its English-language edition had his own way of dealing with the problem. In 2005, when CAMERA contacted the paper requesting a correction, an assistant editor accidentally responded with an email intended for internal circulation:

We have a quasi ‘policy,’ on orders of David [Landau], to ignore this organization and all of its complaints, including not responding to telephone messages and screening calls from [its] director.

According to an article by Joshua Muravchik in Commentary Magazine, Landau justified this by claiming CAMERA had a “vendetta,” a convenient way of avoiding having to deal with whether the criticisms from CAMERA were valid or not.

Like Landau, Schocken similarly defends his reporters. In the above Letter From The Editor last week, he wrote that, "at Haaretz, our dedicated journalists are on the ground every day working to defend a free and democratic Israel."

That includes Gideon Levy.

On October 23, 2012, an article by Levy carried the front-page headline, “Most Israelis Support Apartheid Regime in Israel.” But in fact the survey data did not support either the headline nor Levy’s own analysis. In the face of public criticism, Haaretz published an apology five days later.

Three years ago on Twitter, when this topic came up, Schocken defended Levy, claiming that "bringing this up only proves [Gideon Levy's] other work is beyond reproach. This led to a review of Levy's "other work," based on CAMERA analysis:

At that point, Schocken doubled down:

Here is the story, from Jerold Auerbach's book:

Wikipedia references a source indicating that Hass herself, instead of even attempting to dispute the other accounts, claimed she was not responsible because it was up to the newspaper editor's themselves to cross-reference sources from the IDF and Hebron community.

All Schocken's pontificating over the years about the role and responsibility of a newspaper means little if the journalists do not put his words into practice and he himself continues to support them and extol them as paragons of journalism anyway.

So much for:

Truth

Objectivity

Accuracy

Fairness

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!

Today's news has uncomfortable echoes in the events of 75 years ago.

On February 22, 1948, three trucks filled with explosives were exploded by Arabs in British Army uniforms on Ben Yehuda Street in Jerusalem. Over 50 people were killed, including several children.

The "Army of the Holy War" led by Abd al-Qadir al-Husayni took responsibility for the attack several days later. He was a relative of the Nazi-allied Mufti of Jerusalem. His group was essentially the Hamas of its day.

Two British Army deserters also participated in the attack. While the Mufti of Jerusalem denied any responsibility, and his Arab Higher Committee distanced itself from it, saying that the attack was "'depravity unfit for the Arab spirit," those British soldiers said that they had been promised a huge reward from the Mufti for their part of the plot. The story is that when they went to claim that reward, the Mufti laughed at them.

As with yesterday's murderous terror attack, Jewish leaders called for restraint - but many did not listen. The Irgun and Lehi groups, blaming the attack on the British, attacked and killed a number of British soldiers in revenge, while Arab snipers killed several Jews.

The real difference between then and now, of course, is that now the Jews can defend themselves. Then, the British were still responsible for security, and they didn't hold on to their end of the bargain. Even though they knew that their own vehicles had been stolen days before this attack, they didn't inform the Jewish guards in Jerusalem, who let the bomb-laden British trucks into the heart of the city assuming they were safe. (One heroic guard challenged the "British soldiers" and was immediately murdered by them.)

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 is rare to see a completely new antisemitic libel. Most of them are retreads of older ones. But thanks to a Houthi newspaper, we can see an entirely new accusation against Jews.

The main part of the article in the news site 26Sep rails against Emirati normalization with Israel and warns that Israel will turn the UAE into a Zionist satellite nation. This is all standard antisemitic conspiracy theory stuff.

Most of the other antisemitism is nothing special, such as the assertion that "the nature of the Jewish personality does not tend to harmonize and interact with others" or that a kosher restaurant in Dubai is a sign of an impending Jewish takeover of the emirates.

But then we see something news. The author, Mahmoud Al Hashemi, compares Israel's supposed manipulation of the UAE to how Jews supposedly manipulated Ferdinand and Isabella in Spain in 1492:

Jews persuaded the Spanish Queen Isabella at that time to finance the journey of discovering America, convincing her of gold, silver and minerals in this land. Five of the Jews accompanied the trip. After the discovery of America, the Jews deliberately exterminated the original people, so that everyone would be immigrants and no one would claim that this land belongs to his ancestors. Indeed the Jews dominated America, and they considered New York as the "promised land."

Jews have been blamed for every other awful thing in history, so of course they must be responsible for the native American genocide as well.

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!

02/26 Links: Israeli brothers killed in Samaria terror shooting; Israeli Ministers Approve Bill Allowing Death Penalty for Terrorists; PNG to open embassy in Jerusalem

From Ian:

Israeli brothers killed in Samaria terror shooting

Two Israelis were killed in a terrorist attack near the village of Huwara, south of Nablus, in Samaria on Sunday.

The IDF said a terrorist drove to the Einabus junction and opened fire on a passing Israeli vehicle on Highway 60. The gunfire hit two civilians who were evacuated to the hospital for medical treatment, where they were pronounced dead.

They were subsequently identified as brothers Hillel Menachem and Yigal Yaakov Yaniv, both from the nearby community of Har Bracha.

Israeli forces blocked roads in the area of the attack and initiated a manhunt for the perpetrator.

An initial IDF probe found the gunman took advantage of a traffic jam to carry out the attack.

“On behalf of all citizens of Israel, I send from the bottom of my heart condolences to the Yaniv family from Har Bracha over the murder of Hillel Menachem and Yigal Yaakov—may their memory be for a blessing,” said Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

“Our answer to terrorism is to strike at it with force and to strengthen our hold on our country,” he added.

Huwara terrorist still at large after killing two, manhunt underway

Two Israelis were murdered on Sunday in a terrorist shooting attack in the town of Huwara in the northern West Bank.

The terrorist used a car to ram into an Israeli vehicle that was driving through the town, before shooting and critically injuring the two passengers who later succumbed to their wounds. The terrorist escaped from the scene and the IDF is conducting searches in the area for the suspect.

The two victims were confirmed to be brothers Hillel Menachem and Yigal Yaakov Yaniv.

The brothers were residents of the Har Bracha settlement near Nablus and Hillel had just completed his service in the Israeli Navy.

The Yizhar Hagedola junction and the Tapuah junction were temporarily closed to traffic after the attack as security forces searched for the terrorist.

Magen David Adom paramedic Gil Bismuth who arrived at the scene stated that "When we arrived, we saw the two wounded lying near the vehicle as they were unconscious. Along with an IDF medical force, we gave them initial medical treatment in the field, we put them in military intensive care vehicles and they were evacuated to the hospital in severe condition."

2 Israelis killed in terror shooting in West Bank village near Nablus

Israeli Ministers Approve Bill Allowing Death Penalty for Terrorists

In the wake of the deadly terrorist attack earlier in the day, Israeli ministers on Sunday approved a bill allowing the capital punishment for terrorism offenses.

The proposal has to pass several votes in the Knesset (Israeli parliament) before it can be ratified into law. Currently, the Jewish state doesn’t have the death penalty.

Earlier on Sunday, a Palestinian gunman shot dead two Israelis driving in the West Bank town of Hawara. There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the attack, which came as Israeli and Palestinian security officials met in Jordan to discuss ways of lowering tensions. The victims’ identity was not made public at reporting time.

The Israeli military said it was pursuing the gunman.

Mufti of Oman is upset that they opened their airspace to Israeli flights

From Reuters:

Oman said all airlines could overfly its territory as of Thursday, joining neighboring Saudi Arabia in providing a corridor for the national carriers of Israel, which neither Gulf state formally recognizes.

While Saudi Arabia is staying out of the accords, the regional powerhouse has signalled tacit support by letting Israeli airlines overfly it en route to Abu Dhabi, Dubai or Manama.

In July, U.S. President Joe Biden announced that Riyadh would allow unfettered Israeli overflights. But implementation had been on hold pending the agreement of Oman, as the Saudi corridor extends over its territory for easterly routes.

I hadn't realized that Oman's permission was needed for all Israeli overflights of Saudi Arabia, which was announced to much fanfare last year. So this is indeed a big deal as it cuts the times for Israeli flights to India and further east significantly.

The Mufti of Oman is displeased, though:

The Grand Mufti of the Sultanate of Oman, Sheikh Ahmed bin Hamad al-Khalili, said, "We were surprised by the decision to open the airspace in a way that enables the Zionist entity's aviation to use it."

He added, “We never took that into account, but rather we hoped that the steadfast stance would continue, rejecting any relationship with that entity from our proud authority; How proud we were of that [stance].”

Sheikh Al-Khalili expressed his fear that “this step will be followed by other steps. Whoever retreats a step will soon take another step back.”

He continued, "We kindly request that you review the account in this matter, and it is a national demand that all the proud Omani people adhere to."

It appears that Oman may have been prompted to change its rules because it hosted a meeting last week of a Task Force of the 1944 Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation. It would look bad for them to host the meeting while they were violating one of the articles of that convention by barring flights from Israeli airlines, so this decision might have been a precondition for them to hold the meeting in Oman.

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!

In response to the Nablus operation last week that left 10 Palestinians dead, 7 of them terrorists killed by the IDF and the other three possibly killed by wildly firing Palestinian gunmen, Palestinian groups called for a "day of rage" on Friday.

It turns out that the "day of rage" had already been declared before the events in Nablus. Palestinian prisoner solidarity organizations had already called for "day of rage" protests for Friday because of Israeli actions against cushy prisoner benefits, like unlimited hot water for showers and the ability to bake their own bread.

The National newspaper (UAE) went to Jerusalem to cover these planned protests. They found - nothing.

A Day of Rage planned by Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and Jerusalem passed largely without incident on Friday.

The response to an Israeli military raid that killed 11 Palestinians a few days earlier was expected to flare up after Friday prayers at Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem.

But hundreds streamed out of Bab Al Silsilah, one of the compound’s main entrances, in the same quiet manner that they entered about an hour earlier.

In half an hour, just one worshipper remonstrated briefly with Israeli guards directly outside the entrance to the compound, perhaps the most historically contested site in the decades-long conflict between Palestinians and Israelis.

An owner of a nearby cafe told The National he still expected protests, “maybe in half an hour, maybe in a couple of days. We don’t know”.

The PFLP-linked Samidoun NGO managed to get one small protest going - in Berlin. It doesn't look like it attracted more than a 15 people. As of this writing, even the video of the protest has only been watched a couple dozen times.

You can see that Berlin residents pass right behind them without even a glance of curiosity. (Notice also that they routinely write their signs in English.)

Yet even this tiny demonstration seems to have been larger than anything the Palestinians themselves managed to put together.

As with the right-wing "day of hate" on Saturday that does not seem to have materialized, these events are, more often than not, duds.

They get more publicity from the announcements than from the actual protests.

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 no inoculation for the virus of Jew-hatred

My post about Jimmy Carter's antisemitism last week prompts a question: but what about all the wonderful things he has done?

One cannot argue that Carter has not been sincere when he works with Habitat for Humanity, for example. His Middle East work may be influenced by his antisemitism, but he has worked on many other worthy causes. How can those things fit together?

But one can ask the same thing about lots of other antisemites. Alice Walker is a gifted poet and storyteller, but that doesn't make her immune from antisemitic attitudes. Roger Waters was a good songwriter in the 1970s, but that doesn't mean he doesn't harbor antisemitic attitudes. Roald Dahl wrote fantastic children's books, but also hated Jews.

Then again, we can go back in history and ask the same questions. Voltaire was a groundbreaking philosopher, but he was also a racist and antisemite. Martin Luther was a brilliant theologian and an obsessed Jew-hater.

If theology can coexist with hate, perhaps that invalidates the theology. But pioneers in theology and philosophy and humanitarianism and progressivism and socialism and science and even medical ethics have been found to be antisemites - and these are all fields that, in theory, if you believe their self-definitions, should be immune to antisemitic thought.

Obviously, theory is very different from practice.

Some people say that antisemitism is a conspiracy theory. Or that it relegated to the Right. Or that is is a form of bigotry that is part of a larger group of discriminations against race or sexual preference or age.

Yet it fits in no clear category. It morphs into new forms every few decades.

It is a virus with new strains coming out all the time.

Viruses have only one imperative - survive by adaptation. Right now the most virulent strain of antisemitism spreads by pretending to be outraged at how Jews act in Israel - and it cloaks itself by insisting that this current hate of Jews in Israel has nothing in common with the previous instances, despite the obvious parallels.

This is hardly the first time antisemitism pretended to be the opposite. In 1873, the Southern Baptist Convention issued a resolution on antisemitism that pretends to be philosemitic - but ends up wishing that all Jews should convert to Christianity.

Is this any different than modern antisemites who wish just as fervently that the Jewish state be destroyed, that Jews should live as second class citizens in a Muslim majority state and most of them should be ethnically cleansed? Is the Southern Baptist desire that all Jews see the light different from those who want all Jews to be "good Jews" who shed all nationalism and all attachment to the land of their ancestors?

And both of them claim to be doing it because they care so much about Jews.

The other strains of the antisemitic virus didn't die out. The Middle Ages strain is still there, the Christian strain still thrives in many places, the Nazi strain stays stubbornly alive and spreading. Social media has been a huge boon to the virus, allowing it to spread at the speed of light. People can work very hard for years to come up with a way to minimize the threat of one strain but another one can emerge and propagate in days.

Today, we hear people arguing against accusations of antisemitism. How can Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch be antisemitic when their entire organizations are based on human rights? How can Jeremy Corbyn be antisemitic when he is an avowed anti-racist?

The virus doesn't care what philosophy you have. Whatever you hate most in life can be linked to Jews, and usually is.

Instead of reflecting on the history of antisemitism that shows that anyone can catch the virus of antisemitism, many pretend that they are immune. Worse, they pretend that their progressivism or humanitarianism or anti-racism inoculates them from antisemitism - that they aren't and cannot be antisemitic because their worldview does not allow it.

On the contrary, the virus can grow in any medium. The anti-racists become antisemites by accusing Jews/Israelis of racism. The humanitarians become antisemites by accusing Jews of inhumanity. The very ideas that people believe make them immune to infection are the ones that spread it.

Just like before, they justify their hate as being based on facts, unlike all of their predecessors. even though those predecessors said the exact same thing. They write their articles and posts and tweets that show the exact same kind of irrational, obsessive hate that previous centuries of antisemites had.

As we know from recent experience, viruses are hard to eradicate. We still need to try. But we need to understand that the virus does not avoid anyone because of their belief system. On the contrary, it often uses that very belief system as a means of spreading further.

Beware of anyone who says they cannot be antisemitic because of their worldview. Instead, teach them about the history of antisemitism, and show that they have very prominent Jew-hating forebears, who were the world's leaders in theology, the arts, philosophy, science and the Enlightenment.

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!

02/25 Links: How worrying is the far-right’s ‘Day of Hate’ stunt?; How Can Jews Support Ukraine After the Holocaust?; Israel Must Prepare to Save the World from a Nuclear Iran

From Ian:

Jonathan Tobin: How worrying is the far-right’s ‘Day of Hate’ stunt?

The proper response to this sort of Internet-inspired attempt at intimidation is for Jews to choose to gather on that day specifically to demonstrate their contempt for antisemites and solidarity in the face of threats. Like the national Jewish response after the Pittsburgh shooting, efforts like that of groups like StandWithUs to promote a “Shabbat of Love” or Club Z’s call for massive synagogue attendance on Feb. 25 demonstrate a healthy unwillingness to be terrorized by a tiny cadre of neo-Nazis. Equally significant (and well-timed) is a Times Square celebration on Saturday night for thousands of young people as part of the annual CTeen Shabbaton sponsored by the Chabad-Lubavitch movement.

Still, it is more than likely that such efforts won’t command the same kind of support as those organized by left-wing groups like the National Council of Jewish Women, who used the previous Shabbat to promote their stands in favor of abortion. That’s an issue that seems to generate far more fervor among most American Jews than those that revolve around efforts to defend Jews against attacks, either in the United States or Israel.

The hate groups aren’t really focused on what the organized Jewish community does. But should neo-Nazis or white supremacists attempt some sort of organized march to intimidate Jews, they know that it is unlikely that the community will respond with force or active measures of self-defense since the vast majority of them are still resolutely opposed to gun ownership or any form of counter-protest that could possibly lead to violence.

At the same time, the hysteria about unspecified threats from the neo-Nazis tends to distract the community away from forms of antisemitism that, while seemingly less scary, demonstrates the way hatred for Jews is legitimized in 21st-century America.

The demonization of Israel and its supporters in mainstream political discourse and in national publications and broadcast networks are so commonplace as to become routine. In academia or even in popular culture, the acceptance of toxic left-wing ideologies rooted in intersectional myths about Jews being the embodiment of “white privilege” who assist in the oppression of Palestinian people of color is rarely even challenged. Such charges have the support of many progressives with real political clout in a Biden administration that has embraced an “equity” agenda that is harmful to Jewish interests and ready to treat Israel unfairly. Neo-Nazis have no support anywhere in American politics.

Moreover, as worrisome as threats may be, it should not be forgotten that the epidemic of antisemitic violence against Orthodox Jews in Brooklyn, N.Y., has shown no signs of abating, as New York City hate-crime statistics have recently shown. That is an ongoing threat that has continued to generate little interest among the liberal majority of American Jewry, not least because the perpetrators of almost all of those attacks are African-Americans and perhaps inspired, at least in part, by the Nation of Islam’s Louis Farrakhan.

Legacy groups like the Anti-Defamation League are able to enjoy great fundraising success by sounding the alarm about neo-Nazis. But apparently, rallying to the defense of Jews who do not share the beliefs or politics of their donors isn’t as exciting.

At the same time, the publication that liberal Jews continue to venerate as a holy text—The New York Times—has stepped up its bizarre campaign to demonize ultra-Orthodox Jews. The latest entry in the series is an effort to depict them as deceitful looters of the public purse. While the initial point of the Times’ recent coverage of this community was a legitimate inquiry about the standards of secular education in haredi schools, fears that this massive effort by the so-called paper of record was not only fueling antisemitism but also an example of it have been proven correct.

So while Jews do well to take neo-Nazi threats seriously, the general apathy about the Times’ mainstreaming of anti-Zionist rhetoric and its own antisemitic campaign against the Orthodox illustrate the organized Jewish community’s upside-down priorities. A Jewish community that is petrified about vague threats from politically isolated extremists but is largely indifferent to antisemitism at the nation’s leading newspaper is one that no one can pretend has a rational or serious interest in defending Jews or Jewish rights.

Nikki Haley: I’ll cut the billions in foreign aid we send our enemies

America spent $46 billion on foreign aid last year. That’s more than any other country by far. Taxpayers deserve to know where that money is going and what it’s doing. They will be shocked to find that much of it goes to fund anti-American countries and causes. As president, I’ll put a stop to this fiasco.

Here are just a few examples.

We’ve given Iraq more than $1 billion over the last few years, even though its government is getting closer to the murderous thugs in Iran who shout “Death to America!” and launch attacks on our troops.

The Biden administration resumed military aid to Pakistan, though it’s home to at least a dozen terrorist organizations and its government is deeply in hock to China.

Team Biden restored half a billion dollars to a corrupt United Nations agency that’s supposed to help the Palestinian people but in fact covers for deeply anti-Semitic propaganda against our ally Israel.

Russia's President Vladimir Putin speaks with his Belarus counterpart Alexander Lukashenko.

The US gives money to Belarus, which is Russia’s strongest ally.

We give hundreds of millions of dollars to Zimbabwe, a country with one of the most anti-American voting records in the UN.

If those examples aren’t bad enough, it gets worse — almost comical if it weren’t true.

Amid Tensions, Israeli-Palestinian Summit in Jordan Set for Sunday

An Israeli delegation will participate on Sunday in a “political-security” meeting with the Palestinians, hosted in Jordan, to try and restore calm to the tensions after deadly violence, Jerusalem confirmed. The meeting to be held in the Red Sea resort of Aqaba will also be attended by American and Egyptian representatives.

It would be the first such official meeting between Israel and the Palestinian side with participating regional countries in years.

The talks will come after 11 Palestinians, mostly armed terrorists, were killed and many wounded in a gun battle on Wednesday when Israeli troops raided a terrorist hideout in the West Bank city of Nablus. It came after an uptick in Palestinian attacks against Israeli civilians and soldiers.

It also comes ahead of Ramadan, the Muslim faith’s holiest month, that routinely coincides with bouts of Palestinian violence in east Jerusalem.

Palestinian factions urge PA to boycott security summit with Israel in Jordan

A number of Palestinian factions, meanwhile, called on the PA to boycott the meeting in Jordan, dubbing it a “stab to the Palestinians and their sacrifices and a betrayal of the blood of the martyrs.”

The factions said in a statement that the meeting would only bring “shame” to the Palestinians and Arabs who are attending it. They warned that complying with American and Israeli “dictates would provide a cover for the continuation if Israeli crimes.”

The PLO’s Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) warned against the “dangerous repercussions” of the meeting, saying it aims to put pressure on the PA to stop the “popular resistance” against Israel. The DFLP warned that such a move would cause “serious internal strife” among the Palestinians.

The DFLP pointed out that the meeting did not receive the blessing of the PLO Executive Committee, but was rather taken unilaterally by the political leadership of the PA.

Saleh Ra’fat, member of the PLO Executive Committee and secretary-general of the Palestinian Democratic Union, said that it was impossible to reach understandings with the right-wing government in Israel “because it has violated all its commitments to the US administration to stop settlement activities and incursions into Palestinian cities and refugee camps.” Ra’fat urged the PA leadership not to participate in the meeting and to continue its push at the UN and other parties to impose sanctions on Israel and compel it to abide by international resolutions.

Mohammed al-Hindi, a senior official with the Palestinian Islamic Jihad organization, the second largest terror group in the Gaza Strip after Hamas, claimed that the meeting in Jordan was tantamount to “surrender to the unjust American understandings.” He also claimed the meeting aims to exert pressure on the PA to resume security coordination with Israel.

02/24 Links Pt2: The Invisible Victims of American Anti-Semitism; Douglas Murray: Netflix's ‘Farha’ and the Perils of Propagand; Frankfurt Cancels Roger Waters Concert

From Ian:

Yair Rosenberg: The Invisible Victims of American Anti-Semitism

In December 2019, two gunmen shot up a kosher supermarket in Jersey City, killing four people and injuring three. In the aftermath of the attack, Representative Rashida Tlaib posted a tweet alongside a picture of one of the Jewish victims, declaring simply, “This is heartbreaking. White supremacy kills.” When it became clear that the culprits were, in fact, tied to the Black Hebrew Israelite movement, the lawmaker deleted the tweet, and did not post a replacement. In this, Tlaib is not exceptional but representative. When Americans do not have a convenient partisan frame through which to process an anti-Semitic act, it is often met with silence or soon dropped from the agenda. We understand events by fitting them into established patterns, and without them, we can’t even see the event.

To be sure, anti-Semitic incidents elude our attention for other reasons as well. If an anti-Jewish attack leaves its victims bloodied but breathing, as happened in Los Angeles, it is less likely to make headlines. What’s more, if there is no explicit violence at all, as in the townships of New York and New Jersey, there is often no news. Without a body on the pavement to illustrate the impact, such discrimination remains abstract. There is also the uncomfortable question of the perpetrator’s identity. When the victimizer comes from a victimized community, like the Asian American assailant in Los Angeles or Black attackers in Brooklyn, many observers lack the vocabulary to address the complexity and opt to avoid the conversation entirely. Likewise, when the victims are visibly different, like Orthodox Jews, some have trouble identifying with them. On the flip side, the involvement of a celebrity—such as Kanye West and Mel Gibson—can lend a story greater popular appeal.

But although these considerations have some explanatory capacity, they cannot match the power of partisanship, which regularly enables some acts of anti-Semitism to achieve escape velocity, even as others do not. After all, nothing is able to elevate even the most abstruse anti-Semitism to our attention like a Trump tweet about Jews.

Partisan pull explains how Americans process the problem of anti-Semitism. It is also part of the problem. As long as the frames through which we view anti-Jewish prejudice are narrow and politicized, we will tend to misapprehend its nature and overlook incidents we should not. This has real-world consequences. Just because something goes unremarked doesn’t mean it doesn’t leave a mark. When we lack the language to discuss an anti-Semitic act, we cannot develop a strategy to counter it or find a way to protect and comfort its victims.

Anti-Jewish prejudice is as old as Judaism itself and predates our modern political categories and ideologies. Before there were Republicans and Democrats, progressives and conservatives, there were anti-Jewish bigots. Our response to the problem should acknowledge this fact, and make manifest the victims who have been rendered invisible by our own blinkered biases.

A Community on Edge

While the LA Jewish community may have been able to breathe a sigh of relief once Tran was arrested, some argue that anxiety remains high in the community. Rabbi Noah Farkas, who heads the Jewish Federation of Greater Los Angeles, told the Journal in a phone interview that “the community is still afraid and there’s also anger. And the anger, I believe, is that we know that no matter where antisemitism comes from — whether it’s from the left or the right — the victims of antisemitism are always the same, which is us Jews. And we know that we have been sounding the alarm since last year, since Colleyville, since the Kanye West and Kyrie Irving things. For a long time now, we’ve been sounding the alarm that when you normalize hate speech, and if you have more followers on Twitter and Instagram than there are Jews in the world and you normalize this kind of hate speech, we know historically, we know sociologically, that hate speech leads to hate crime … and that’s exactly what has happened.”

Dr. Hillel Newman, Consul General of Israel in Los Angeles, told the Journal that he addressed the Pinto Center on Pico Boulevard during Shabbat services on February 17 and that while congregants were “somewhat shaken” they were in “good spirit[s].” “Rabbi Pinto is a wonderful, kind and gentle spiritual authority who leads the community in a most noble way, enjoying great admiration,” Newman said.

In general, Newman’s sense is “that many in the community are on edge now, feeling uncertain about the future, but the majority are calm.” “There is increased interest in making Aliyah,” he added. “I feel that from the many questions I get in this regard. Of course, we will welcome anyone who wishes to immigrate to Israel, but we believe that first and foremost we must guarantee the safety and security of everyone and every community.”

Security remained a priority for the community over the weekend, as police increased patrols in Jewish community areas. Both Young Israel of Century City and Beth Jacob Congregation sent out emails to their members, both of which were obtained by the Journal, saying that they would be beefing up their security after the shootings.

“Everyone is increasing their security profiles,” Farkas said.

Evan Bernstein, who heads the Community Security Service (CSS), said in a statement to the Journal, “The Los Angeles Jewish community should be reassured that the CSS Western States office is closely monitoring and working with its trained security volunteer leadership and teams on the ground, local law enforcement, and national Jewish communal security partners, including the Jewish Federation of Greater Los Angeles. We stand ready to continue ensuring the utmost safety and physical security of Jewish institutions nationwide.”

“Jews shouldn’t have to be fearful of expressing their First Amendment rights that every other American can enjoy — our right to assemble and our right to pray — and this just isn’t right,” Farkas told the Journal, “and we have to keep working to make life safer and more enjoyable for Jews to live here in the city.”

Douglas Murray: Netflix's ‘Farha’ and the Perils of Propaganda

I started to make a list of things about which the viewer in this film will be left entirely ignorant. These include—but are not limited to—the fact that the war of independence of 1948 was not simply an ethnic genocide carried out by Jews against Palestinians but a war of very nearly all against all. Not only Palestinians against Israelis, but a war of all of the neighboring states on the newly created country. Although we get that one glimpse of Mandate-era British troops retreating, we have no sense of Egyptian, Jordanian, Syrian, and other troops advancing. We have no sign that Palestinians or other Arabs were involved in any atrocities or even fighting at this time.

The film fails as a work of entertainment because it is so un-entertaining. But it fails as a work of art because it is so artless. So what is it doing on Netflix?

My suspicion is that the platform has taken a certain amount of criticism because of the number of Israeli-made productions that have appeared on the platform. Dramas like Fauda have been among the most popular series of their kind on the platform—something that has drawn a certain amount of negative attention in the Arab press. Though just consider the difference between what Fauda does and what Farha does.

Does Fauda show all Palestinians to be evil child-killers? No, absolutely not. The series repeatedly shows Palestinians, Israeli Arabs, and others who want the best for their people and advocate and work for peace. Does Fauda show all Israelis as suffering, put-upon victims and people who are morally untainted? No, it shows people at all levels of society who are morally complex, torn, and self-questioning. Would Fauda even work as drama if it showed Israel without the Arabs as the sort of sepia-tinted Eden as Farha portrays the land without Jews as being? Absolutely not. And in that comparison you see the true ugliness of what Netflix has done here.

The platform has clearly fallen for the idea that it must balance out Israeli productions with Palestinian or Arab productions. In the process it has forgotten the fact that the Israeli-made productions just happen to be made by Israelis. The fact that they are Israeli-made is a production detail, not the point. Such productions are not propaganda films arguing a one-sided pro-Israeli case. They are not, for instance, one-dimensional cartoons depicting Arabs as evil, sadistic child-killers. Yet that is precisely the "balance" that Netflix has chosen to apply against Israel in the belief that this creates some kind of level-playing field. It doesn’t. It simply highlights the differences not just between one side in a conflict and the other but the difference between bigoted sermonizing and entertainment, between propaganda and art.

Is "Day of Hate" really different than "Day of Rage"? (plus cartoon)

From Times of Israel:

Law enforcement and Jewish groups in the US are urging vigilance ahead of an antisemitic “national day of hate” planned by white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups for Saturday.

The white supremacists have called for followers to distribute antisemitic messaging with banners, stickers, fliers and graffiti. There are no known threats of violence and a Jewish security group said it did not expect widespread participation.

“Take a stand, and expose the international clique of parasitic vermin that infest our nation,” said a statement attributed to the hate groups. “Make your voices heard loud and clear, that the one true enemy of the American people is the Jew.”

It is definitely getting American Jews spooked. But I can't help but think that "Day of Hate" is just a far-Right version of the many Palestinian "Days of Rage" we have seen dozens of times.

And it is not like the "Days of Rage" are only in the territories. Israel hating groups have organized plenty of them in the West:

In both cases, they are angry at Jews and only Jews. In both cases, they call for the masses to join and show their hate. The emotions are the same. The antisemitism is the same.

But the anti-Israel "Days of Rage" are far better organized, more professional and attract far more people.

Of course, the far-Right are more likely to engage in violence. I don't want to minimize the threat - Jewish communities across the nation are being told to be careful and watchful this Shabbat.

But don't pretend that the hateful Right and the hateful Left are all that much different.

When it comes to Jews, they are practically twins.

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!

02/24 Links Pt1: Melanie Phillips: Biden’s less than ironclad commitment to Israel; Congress Wants to Defund the U.N.’s Anti-Semitic Palestinian Refugee Agency

From Ian:

Melanie Phillips: Biden’s less than ironclad commitment to Israel

The Bidenites’ purported belief in being even-handed inevitably means they end up punishing the victim and empowering the aggressor.

Yet suddenly a fresh double standard has arisen over America’s newly tough policy of supporting Ukraine. Speaking in Warsaw, Biden said, “Autocrats only understand one word: no, no, no. No, you will not take my country. No, you will not take my freedom. No, you will not take my future. Ukraine will never be a victory for Russia. Never.”

Yet Biden doesn’t say no to the Palestinian Arab autocrats; he doesn’t tell them they will never take the Jews’ country; he doesn’t tell them that they will never have victory over Israel. Instead, he appeases them and subsidizes their murderous incitement.

Biden went on: “If Russia stopped invading Ukraine, it would end the war. If Ukraine stopped defending itself against Russia, it would be the end of Ukraine.”

But this merely appropriated the well-known saying: “If the Palestinians stopped attacking Israel, it would end the war; but if Israel stopped defending itself against the Palestinians, it would be the end of Israel.”

Yet while America believes this about Ukraine, it clearly doesn’t believe it about Israel.

Israel unfortunately needs America, not least to deal with Iran, which is now dangerously close to a nuclear breakout thanks to America’s lethal appeasement of Tehran.

Nides talks about America’s “ironclad commitment to Israel’s security.” After the betrayals and threats of the past few weeks, this can only elicit fury—and hollow laughter.

Melanie Phillips: Tiptoeing into Israel's judicial minefield

The proposals have ignited not just massive protests in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem but also repeated incitement to violence. This dangerously incendiary atmosphere has been incited by hysterical and misleading reporting and commentary. It is also astonishing that the Israeli government has failed to publish a comprehensive account of the details of this highly complex package of proposals in terms the public can understand.

It’s hard not to conclude, however, that this mass hysteria is in large measure the rage of the left — who have lost political power among the public — at losing the considerable power they have been able to wield through their ideological avatars in the judiciary.

But there is also deep concern about these proposals among many who are not on the left. They may agree that there’s a problem of judicial overreach, but they are frightened that the proposals will give unbridled power instead to the government of the day.

Certainly, Israel’s political system lacks necessary checks and balances. And certainly there’s a need for compromises on details of the reform package, such as the percentage of the Knesset needed to override court rulings and the need to bring an element of non-political independence into the composition of the panel that selects the judges.

It’s therefore beyond unfortunate that opponents of the judicial reforms have refused to take up offers of compromise. The reformers have repeatedly said they want to hear such proposals, but the opposition leader Yair Lapid has equally repeatedly turned down all offers of talks. On Tuesday evening he rejected the offer by prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu to negotiate without preconditions. JNS.org reports:
Lapid last month called on President Isaac Herzog, whose role is that of national figurehead, to set up a committee to recommend a “balanced” plan to reform the judiciary. In response, the president two weeks ago presented five principles as “a basis for immediate and decisive negotiations that will arrange the relations between the government branches.”The following day, Justice Minister Yariv Levin and Knesset Constitution, Law and Justice Committee chairman Simcha Rothman urged opposition leaders to meet at the President’s Residence in Jerusalem to discuss the reform program. Lapid rejected that overture as well.

However, it is for Israel alone to resolve all this. It is no-one else’s business. Lawyers and others abroad should stop interfering, lecturing and hectoring on basis of either ignorance, animus against Netanyahu or their deeply held ideological belief that the rule of law means rule by lawyers, and show some humility and respect for Israel’s right to govern itself.

Jewish Democratic Council of America Attacks Israeli Government

It’s seemingly inevitable that every Democrat Jewish operation will eventually turn into J Street.

After holding a session on democratic judicial reform in Israel that would restore vital checks and balances, and the rule of law, featuring Daniel Shapiro and Daniel Kurtzer, the messenger boys for the anti-Israel policies of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, the Jewish Democratic Council of America has announced that while “we respect Israel’s democracy, these bills would weaken Israel’s democratic institutions, undermining the independence of Israel’s judiciary and its system of checks and balances.”

Actually it’s the definition of upholding democratic institutions, like the Knesset, over undemocratic ones, like a Supreme Court which has veto power over the selection of its members and no constitutional safeguards, and claims the power to overrule any law or measure.

The JDCA press releases states that the group urges “the Israeli government to have meaningful deliberations about the serious implications of such actions. We also support President Herzog’s call for compromise to establish a broad consensus within Israeli society and with the opposition before moving forward.”

Those deliberations are ongoing. And since when were leftist governments, like the previous one, asked to deliberate with the opposition on anything, like giving away Israel’s energy resources to Hezbollah?

Or a deal with the PLO that has claimed thousands of lives and proved deadly to the existence of Israel.

The JDCA is attacking a democratically elected Israeli government on behalf of the Left.