Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Monday, March 27, 2023

Once Upon A Time, Palestinian Arabs Did Consider Peace With Israel (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

So just how did Gazans feel about Israel in 2006?

Earlier this year, I posted about an odd statement by former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in 2006, when she claimed that

you can look at any opinion poll in the Palestinian territories and 70 percent of the people will say they're perfectly ready to live side by side with Israel because they just want to live in peace.

The problem was that she could not point to an actual poll that supported her claim and if anything, it seemed that polls indicated the opposite.

The year 2006 is an interesting point in the Middle East timeline, because the Palestinian legislative elections were held on January 25 of that year and Hamas won a decisive victory in Gaza over Fatah.

Gallup published a poll on January 27, 2006 based on interviews conducted in "the West Bank", the Gaza Strip, and "East Jerusalem" from December 6, 2005 through January 8, 2006. According to Gallup, the Hamas victory did not indicate a rejection of the peace process, nor did it reflect a desire to attack Israel. Hamas won because of Palestinian Arabs were tired of Fatah corruption.

This analysis was based in part on the following findings:

o The majority of Palestinians think the cease-fire with Israel should be extended in 2006 if both sides agree to it (51%). Only 34% would not extend it.

o Nearly two-thirds of Palestinians say they support the peace process with the Israelis: 26% strongly support it and 39% moderately support it; only 30% oppose it. Current views on this are similar to where they stood six years ago.

o When asked which approach to achieving self-determination for their people they prefer, the majority (54%) favors "mostly nonviolent forms of resistance and negotiation"; only half as many (28%) favor "mostly armed struggle and military solutions." [emphasis added]

This corroborates an article by the Palestinian human rights activist Bassem Eid, who recently wrote about the general, albeit declining, Palestinian support for peace with Israel:

As recently as 2006, polling showed that the majority of Palestinians support peace with Israel and recognize the Jewish state. Even after the violence of the last few years, 39% of Palestinians support a two-state solution as of 2022. Tens of thousands of Palestinians work in Israel and suffer economic harm when BDS radicals implement broad boycotts.

Eid is referring to a 2006 poll by the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion (PCPO), referenced in an article in AsiaNews. PCPO's last poll was done last year in April and the site does not seem to have its polls going back to 2006. However, IMRA does have the text of the poll in its entirety.

AsiaNews summarizes the findings vis-a-vis Israel:

The survey indicates that 50.8 per cent of Palestinians agree to the recognition of the State of Israel, 69.8 per cent are in favour of the resumption of the negotiations with Israel, 62.2 per cent want rocket attacks against Israeli territory to stop, and 80.4 per cent want the truce to continue. [emphasis added]

Clearly, at the very start of Hamas rule, there were indications of a desire for peace both in Gaza and in the West Bank.

This seems to be further supported by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PSR) in a poll they conducted from March 16 to March 18, 2006. The poll notes that Western opposition to Hamas and its victory in the election has not lessened its support among Palestinians -- but the key point is that the increased support for Hamas did not translate into an increased support for the terrorist groups views on the peace process.

On the contrary:

o Despite Hamas’ electoral victory and its increased popularity after the elections, public support for the peace process rose. Public willingness to compromise increased significantly with about three quarters of the Palestinians wanting Hamas to conduct peace negotiations with Israel and only 22% opposing it.
o  A majority of 64% says it supports the peace process while only 14% says it is opposed to it. These percentages stood at 59% and 17% respectively in our exit poll on the day of elections last January.
o  66% said they would support, and 32% would oppose, the recognition of Israel as the state for the Jewish people in the context of peace based on a two-state solution and an Israeli recognition of Palestine as the state for the Palestinian people. Support for this solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict stood at 57% and opposition at 41% last December. On the day of elections, only 49% supported this solution and 48% opposed it.
o  As in the December poll, three quarters would support reconciliation between the two peoples under conditions of peace and the establishment of a Palestinian state recognized by Israel.

But in their very next survey, conducted from June 15 - 18, 2006, PSR already noted a change:

Findings also indicate a decline in the level of short term and long term optimism and an increase in threat perception. Support for armed attacks against Israeli civilians continues to rise. In fact, findings show that support for bombing attacks has more than doubled compared to the situation nine months ago. This development is also reflected in the continued decrease in the level of support for a permanent status agreement along the lines of the Clinton Parameters and the Geneva Initiative. This decrease was first detected in the aftermath of the Sharon’s unilateral disengagement from the Gaza Strip. [emphasis added]

By September, their poll found that

despite the criticism of the performance of the government, two thirds of the public does not believe that Hamas should recognize Israel as required by the international donor community. This view does not reflect a hardening of public attitude toward the two-state solution. Rather it reflects public rejection of recognition of Israel as a precondition for negotiations.

2006 was also the year of the Lebanese War between Hezbollah and Israel, and Palestinian Arabs learned a lesson from that too. According to the PSR poll in September, a majority saw Hezbollah as the victors. This led to the conclusion:

63% agree that Palestinians should use the same methods as Hezbollah such as the launching of rockets at Israeli cities

Hamas leaders in particular took this lesson to heart.

Over time, whatever opportunities may have existed for peace were lost, due in large part by Palestinian leaders that clearly did not share the attitudes, regardless how wary, of their people.

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!

Palestinian propaganda for the win

On Sunday, the official spokesman for the Palestinian president, Nabil Abu Rudeineh, claimed "the extremist Israeli government" is "fully responsible for the dangerous escalation against the Palestinian people, their land and sanctities."

He gave two examples.

One was "the burning of the house of citizen Ahmed Maher from the town of Sinjel in Ramallah by extremist settlers," and the other was "the Israeli occupation forces stormed the Al-Qibli prayer hall in the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque and assaulted those who were in i'tikaaf (staying in the mosque all day and night, usually done in the last days of Ramadan.)

Both of them are lies.

The house fire was almost certainly the result of a short circuit. There is literally zero evidence of any arson. No gas-soaked rags, no petrol bottles, no broken glass from Molotov cocktails, not a single burnt match. The only "proof" given was that one resident of Sinjil claims that he saw some settlers in a car nearby at roughly the same time - not even at the home.

The baseless, evidence-free accusation was enough for Arab media to repeat the lie as truth and for a government recognized by most of the world to make this baseless claim publicly.

The other incident has a grain of truth - Israeli forces did remove, without violence or incident, a number of Muslims who were staying in the Al Aqsa Mosque over night Saturday night. But what the anti-Israel media isn't reporting is that the people were breaking a long-negotiated deal between Israel and the Waqf:

According to police, the stay of Palestinians overnight in the mosque went against agreements made with the Waqf, adding that mosques outside the Temple Mount had been prepared for those wanting to stay overnight. Police attempted to get those barricaded inside to leave on their own accord, but most refused to leave.

Police stated that they removed the Palestinians as some of them were planning to conduct riots on Sunday morning during the dawn (Fajr) prayers and during visits by Jewish visitors.

Arabic language media confirms that Palestinian religious leaders called publicly for all Palestinians to perform i'tikaaf at Al Aqsa, specifically to confront and stop Jews from visiting the Temple Mount through the entire month of Ramadan.

Since 1967, there has only been one time that Palestinians attempted to spend the entire Ramadan in Al Aqsa - that was in 2015, and then the reason again had nothing to do with religious devotion but to attempt to stop Jews from ascending to Judaism's holiest site.

This attempt to have i'tikaaf for all of Ramadan is a violation of the status quo, which Jordan and the Palestinians pledged to keep during Ramadan this year in the joint communique issued at the Sharm el-Sheikh conference.

We also know there was a deal between Israel and the Waqf not to allow the i'tikaaf in Al Aqsa because there was no objection by the Jordanian government, which controls the Waqf, when Israeli forces removed the worshippers. Normally, the Jordanians are in the forefront of accusing Israel of violating Al Aqsa's sanctity, but here the police walked inside the mosque itself and removed people without a word from Jordan.

Even though Jordan knows about the deal to not allow i'tikaaf, it didn't say this publicly. Jordan wants to be known as the defender of Al Aqsa and admitting that they made this deal to tamp down violence would make them look weak to Palestinian and Jordanian Islamists. What this means, in effect, is that the most violent and extremist Muslims set the agenda and the Palestinian and Jordanian "moderates" follow the lead of the crazies to stay in power.

Here is yet more evidence that the Palestinian Authority, including Mahmoud Abbas' own office, regularly lies in their own press releases and statements, multiple times in a single day.

The Palestinian leaders have no disincentive to lie, because the world media doesn't call them on it. At best, the media might do a "he said, she said" version of events, and not bother to spend the slightest amount of time refuting the lying side.

These lies turn into incitement, the incitement turns into violence, and the violence turns into deaths. If the media would do its job, the Palestinians would be shamed to stop their lies and lives would be saved.

However, deep down, the reporters think that showing that the Palestinians are lying would be somehow "Islamophobic" or a demeaning of their culture. And they are complicit in the resulting violence.

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 was a ceremony Sunday afternoon at the Al Aqsa University in Gaza, honoring female students, organized by the Islamic League there.

Islamists giving honor to outstanding female students - sounds very woke, right?

One of the speakers at the ceremony was Walid Al-Qatati, a member of the political bureau of the Islamic Jihad terrorist group.

Here is how he complimented the woman scholars.

He said that Islamic Jihad believes that "writing with a pen equals pressing the trigger of a gun, reading from a book is equivalent to igniting the fuse of a missile, and advancing one's studies is like nearing martyrdom."

The only way such a twisted message makes sense is if the young women have already internalized the message the the ultimate yardstick by which all other achievements are measured is dying while trying to kill Jews.

A student who achieves great intellectual heights is only comparable to an illiterate teen with a gun who is killed while shooting at Jewish civilians. Studying and writing for years is equated with the brainwashed people who steer their cars into crowds of Jews.

And this is the most liberal message Palestinians are ever likely to hear.

Qatati ended off saying, "A salutation full of success, excellence and creativity to the outstanding female students, hoping for liberation, independence and building the future of our homeland, Palestine, as we walk on the path of the martyrs, leaders and heroic resistance fighters ."

Earlier this month, Qatati spoke to another group about the importance of poetry - and he specifically praised a Palestinian poem called "Pull the Trigger Twice."

Give me a quiver and gunpowder
Respond to gunpowder with gunpowder
My weapon came out of my wounds,
Kalashnikov, keep your bullets high,
oh my guerrilla, keep your bullets right
... and pull the trigger twice."

Pull the trigger twice on the chest of the enemy..
pull the trigger.. and come with the revolution, and unite with the revolution..
pull the trigger.. this is our revolution and this is our path..
...Come on, organize and arm, O our people..
Struggle, O our people, and escalate..
Leave the two bullets tight to the enemy's chest.

This is an example of the kind of culture and writing that Palestinians encourage.

This is a twisted and perverted society.

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!

More "Apartheid:" Israel helps free Israeli Arab anti-Zionist activist from UAE prison

From Times of Israel:

An Israeli woman was released from prison in the United Arab Emirates on Saturday night and was flown back to Israel early Sunday, after UAE President Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan granted her amnesty as a personal gesture to President Isaac Herzog.

Fidaa Kiwan was serving life in prison for drug smuggling. She was originally sentenced to death in April 2022, but the Abu Dhabi Federal Appeal Court canceled the punishment and sentenced her to life behind bars in July.

Kiwan, a 44-year-old Haifa resident who owns a photography studio, reportedly came to Dubai for work at the invitation of a Palestinian acquaintance. She was arrested a short while later, on March 17, 2021, after a search of her apartment turned up the drugs. She claimed that the cocaine was not hers.

World Israel News fills in some details:

Kiwan, a staunch anti-Zionist, previously made headlines in 2010 for refusing to serve a uniformed IDF soldier in a café she once owned. The café eventually closed.

According to Hebrew language media reports, her brother, a one-time employee of public broadcasting station Kan, trashed a room at his workplace in which Israeli flags were displayed.

After her Kiwan’s arrest in Dubai, she initially resisted help from Israeli officials because of her political views. However, she eventually reached out to Israeli authorities for assistance.

Her family vocally accused the Israeli government of racism, claiming in a press conference that officials weren’t doing enough to help her case because of her Arab ethnicity.

President Isaac Herzog personally asked UAE President Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan to pardon Kiwan and he agreed, according to a statement from Herzog’s office.

Kiwan’s release came on the first day of Ramadan.

The president of the Jewish state put a great deal of his own political capital on the line to save the life of an anti-Zionist Arab - because she is a citizen of Israel and that is the government's job.

(h/t iTiIL972)

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!

03/26 Links: Jewish leaders say only 16% of European nations have lived up to pledges to fight antisemitism; The Israeli defense minister’s shameful retreat

From Ian:

Jewish leaders say only 16% of European nations have lived up to pledges to fight antisemitism

A year and a half after representatives of 37 European nations made commitments to combat antisemitism, only 16% of European Jewish leaders said they felt their countries had fully implemented those promises, a report released by the World Jewish Congress revealed on Tuesday.

The pledges were made at the Malmö International Forum on Holocaust Remembrance and Combating Antisemitism in October 2021, during which “states committed to supporting many initiatives dealing with combating antisemitism, fostering Jewish life, and promoting Holocaust remembrance.”

Just under half of the “Jewish leaders and professionals” surveyed, or 49%, said that their governments have at least partially implemented the plans they committed to during the Swedish forum.

“We have seen too many times throughout history that people will come together, say all the right things, make the right commitments, but fall short on the follow-through,” WJC President Ronald Lauder said in a statement. “The truly hard work is the actual implementation of good ideas.”

According to a report released by the Swedish government in February, “60 delegations made around 150 pledges in relation to the Forum themes and related areas.” The pledges included everything from improving educational resources on the Holocaust and modern antisemitism to establishing unique legal frameworks to address hate crimes and antisemitic attacks as separate from other forms of crime. Some addressed broad topics, while some country’s pledges were as focused as the establishment of specific monuments.

A delegation from the WJC presented their study to Spain’s Monarch, King Filipe VI, on Tuesday, as the group’s leadership was in Madrid for an annual summit. Spain takes the helm of the European Union’s Presidency next year.

Ruthie Blum: The Israeli defense minister’s shameful retreat

Let’s begin with the former. Faced with the phenomenon of mainly Air Force and Cyber Division reservists threatening and refusing to turn up for military exercises, on the grounds that they wouldn’t serve in a “dictatorship,” Gallant got frightened.

Rather than nipping the subordination in the bud, he met with the men and women in uniform to let them vent their concerns. The cream of the crop of the Israel Defense Forces said that without an end to the “coup d’état” (the protest movement’s misnomer for judicial reforms), the powers that be in Jerusalem can forget about confronting Iran. You know, since there won’t be any pilots or computer geniuses to carry out the operations.

Instead of demanding that the IDF chief of staff warn them that such blackmail will result in their ouster from the IDF, or at least in a stripping of their ranks, Gallant not only conveyed their complaints to Netanyahu; he began, apparently, to see the merits of their point of view.

In other words, he didn’t make it crystal clear that political positions have no place in the army. Nor did he hit home the very points about judicial reform on which he based his campaign in the Likud Party primary—the very ones that earned him a top spot on the Knesset candidates list and subsequently the ministry he coveted.

He was simply too intimidated by the unprecedented situation to know how to handle it. Such gutlessness hardly inspires confidence about his ability to deal with Tehran and its tentacles in Lebanon, Syria and the Palestinian Authority.

Now for the latter attribute Gallant exhibited that makes him unsuitable: extreme disloyalty. Indeed, he took the opportunity of Netanyahu’s trip to London to undermine the arduous efforts of his party and coalition partners in one fell swoop.

That he pulled the stunt a mere 48 hours after the prime minister’s carefully crafted address aimed at calming tensions was particularly egregious. Netanyahu took pains to articulate the purpose of the reforms—to enhance, not harm, Israeli democracy—and assure that all civil and minority rights would be guaranteed in the law.

What the prime minister didn’t do was capitulate. When the opposition responded by stepping up its war, Gallant opted for retreat.

His move was not only dismissive of Netanyahu. It dealt a blow to all the soldiers who shun the mere suggestion of laying down their weapons in protest over policy.

Worse, it sent a disheartening message to the sector of the public that’s been under political, cultural and social assault for electing and continuing to support the Netanyahu-led government. “Shame” doesn’t begin to describe what Gallant should be feeling at the moment.

Here is an editorial in the magazine "Civic and Social Problems," April 1, 1900:

Partisanship is narrow minded unreasonable adherence to a party or faction. That is its general significance. The man who clings to a party because it has a certain name, is, in these days, justly counted small minded and unthinking. He is not only unthinking and unprogressive. he is a dangerous man. There is no class in this country so dangerous as the partisan class. The partisan is the man who follows and fights for his party, "right or wrong." What safety has liberty in any land dominated by men of that stamp? Knaves and tyrants are wont to gain their ends by covertly substituting for partisanship the sacred name of patriotism. "Our country right or wrong", is as vicious as my "party right or wrong." What wars and endless infamies may not a people be led into under such a satanic slogan.

And yet there is such a thing as proper partisanship. There is what may be called partisanship for a principle. Such partisanship is the emphatic need of our time. We need men who are honest enough and brave enough to rally around a cause that is just and to stand together for that cause till it be won. Give such men a party name if you will, but when the principle is gained the party Ind the name should vanish together. While it lives the principle should rule the party. If the name and organization be perpetuated after their initial object is obtained they become a bond by which men are duped and led and ruled. Party then becomes a tyrant, its members tools and subjects. What power in the way of progress to-day is so potent as the power of party name that stands simply for party. The "party in power" arrogates to itself ownership of the nation. "Our country right or wrong" means in most cases but "our party right or wrong. ....

If not partisanship what then should we have? Each day, each year, brings its own rallying cry for concerted, organized action by the people. Evils that should be eradicated, good that should be attained, these furnish continually new questions of public concern that call for discussion and decision at the ballot-box. For the time being two parties will arise, one for, one against the question at issue. When the vote is cast the issue is settled. The opposing parties have no longer a reason for existence. Their occupation is gone. Their names should also go.

The partisan has always been the blind tool of despotism. He followed the king because be was the king, his king; followed him as a willing slave, even to the killing and plundering of his fellow-men, and the sacrificing of his own life. Today his king is the party name he swears by. Fortunately the number grows of those who have brains enough and manhood enough to cast off the shackles of partisanship.

I think that things have gotten worse - because the animating emotion does not seem to be "my party, right or wrong" but "opposing the other party, wrong or right."

The positions of the opposing camps in both the US and Israel seem to make decisions more on disgust for their political opponents than on their own deeply held beliefs. Slogans replace respectful debate, prejudices are justified as patriotism, words like "democracy" are used to justify undemocratic positions, political philosophies are subverted for petty politics, and the desire for power subsumes the what is best for the nation.

If anything is going to destroy either the United States or Israel, it is division and partisanship. And there aren't enough people sounding this alarm.

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!

Palestinians who eat publicly during Ramadan can go to prison

There has been a kerfuffle in Israel over a proposed law that would allow Israeli hospitals latitude to ban visitors from bringing items that are not kosher for Passover into their facilities during the seven day holiday.

It plays out in the media as a typical battle between the religious and the secular in Israel on basic rights, of religious coercion versus freedom of religion, even though the number of hospitals that are likely to post guards to check visitor bags for chametz is probably roughly zero.

But meanwhile, Palestinian laws are quite explicitly coercive against Christians and non-practicing Muslims. And no one seems too concerned about them.

Article 274 of Penal Code 16, originally Jordanian law from 1960, impose a fine and imprisonment of one month for any Palestinian who publicly eats during Ramadan: "Whoever publicly breaks the fast during Ramadan shall be punished with imprisonment up to one month or a fine of up to fifteen dinars."

According to Palestinian media, "this penalty is applied in all the cities of the West Bank, taking into account the areas where Christians reside, such as Bethlehem and some areas in Ramallah." But that only means that the enforcement of the law is more lax in Christian areas - but the law itself still applies.

About ten people are arrested every year for violating the ban on public eating during Ramadan.

There are other laws to protect Muslim feelings. Article 278 is the more draconian:

A penalty of imprisonment for a period not exceeding three months or a fine not exceeding twenty dinars shall be imposed on whoever:
1- Publishes something printed, written, picture, drawing or symbol that may offend the religious feeling of other people or insult their religious belief. or
2- uttering, in a public place and within earshot of another person, a word or sound that would offend the religious feeling or belief of that other person.

Even though this and other laws do not mention Islam or Muslims explicitly, they are only only meant to protect Muslims. This is obvious because Article 276 punishes anyone who intentionally disturbs any religious rites - but Palestinians attack any Jews who worship at Joseph's Tomb in Nablus, forcing the Israeli army to protect them.

The people and media who pretend to care about human rights of Palestinians go silent about Palestinian laws that violate basic human rights of non-Muslim or non-religious Palestinians.

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!

The official Palestinian Wafa news agency reported that thousands of Muslims jammed the Tomb of the Patriarchs and the surrounding streets on Friday, the first Friday of Ramadan.

It is one of the ten days of the year that Jews are banned from the sacred site, the second holiest site in Judaism.

Wafa interviewed one of the worshipers, who explained why she came. "It is our duty, we, the people of Hebron in particular, and Palestine in general, to stay in it by praying in it, because our presence here enrages the occupation and its settlers who are trying to Judaize the Haram, and we must protect it through our permanent presence and prayer in it."

The main reason to go to the site is apparently not for prayer, but to send a message to Jews and enrage them.

This point was repeated by Palestinian officials as well.

The Director General of the Hebron Endowment, Nidal al-Ja’bari, told Wafa, “Today, thousands of worshipers came the first Friday of Ramadan in all the Ibrahimi Mosque's corridors, squares, and internal and external courtyards. The sanctuary will remain purely Islamic, and the Jews have no right to it."

He added, "Jerusalem, Hebron, and Palestine, along with the unified Arab and Palestinian sanctities in them, will remain, and will not be the legacy of the abhorrent Israeli occupation."

The preacher of the sanctuary, Sheikh Atta al-Muhtaseb, urged during his Friday sermon that Palestinians flock and pray in the building, to protect it and provide for it in light of the arrogance of the occupation and its settlers.

The language is never how holy or sacred the site is. It is never about the importance of Abraham to the Islamic religion. Invariably, when Palestinian are talking about the holy sites in the land, it is is terms not of their importance to Islam but their desire to rid those sites of Jews.

The Tomb of the Patriarchs and the Temple Mount were off-limits to Jews altogether when Muslims controlled the region. They make no secret that they want things to return to the way they were - a status quo from the 19th century.

And much of the world agrees with this official antisemitism of the Palestinians.

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!

03/25 Links: Sham and shame at Sharm el-Sheikh; Don’t believe the Jimmy Carter revisionists; Two soldiers wounded in shooting in Huwara

From Ian:

Sham and shame at Sharm el-Sheikh

Earlier this week, I made the mistake of reading the communiqué published at the end of the March 19 Sharm el-Sheikh multilateral conference.

I say “mistake” because the document, which sums up various points agreed upon by Israeli, Palestinian, American, Egyptian and Jordanian political and security leaders, is so one-sided and infuriating that it is difficult to comprehend how the government could have agreed to such shameful terms.

Thankfully, the decisions published in such communiqués are usually worth little more than the cost of the ink used to print them. But that does not take away from just how deplorable the summit’s statement is.

Israel gives concessions, the Palestinians give nothing
Over the course of two pages, one will not find a single Palestinian concession – not one! – while in exchange, Israel offered up several overly generous gestures regarding important issues.

After an initial standard boilerplate text invoking the usual vacuous diplomatic phrases such as “enhancing mutual trust,” the second paragraph states that both Israel and the Palestinians “reaffirmed their joint readiness and commitment to immediately work to end unilateral measures for a period of three to six months.”

This is followed immediately by the declaration that Israel has made a “commitment to stop discussion of any new settlement units for four months and to stop authorization of any outposts for six months.” In other words, the Jewish state has agreed to a wholesale freeze on Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria through at least the summer.

By contrast, the document fails to list any concrete steps to be taken by the Palestinians, such as halting their massive land grab and spate of illegal building throughout Judea and Samaria.

Jonathan Tobin: Don’t believe the Jimmy Carter revisionists

Carter is also given credit by his apologists for helping to broker peace between Israel and Egypt at the 1978 Camp David Summit. That’s true, but it must also be remembered that the peace process was begun by Egyptian President Anwar Sadat with his historic 1977 flight to Jerusalem took place in spite of Carter, not because of him. Carter had tried initially to involve the Soviets in Mideast peace efforts, something the Egyptians rightly feared.

Carter despised Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin for his tenacious defense of Jewish rights and unwillingness to bow to U.S. pressure. He always blamed Begin for somehow deceiving him about Israel’s intention to defend the right of Jews to settle in Judea and Samaria, which the president wanted to end. But that was not true since, if anything, Carter deceived himself about what Begin’s promise of limited autonomy for Palestinian Arabs in the territories really meant.

Carter’s hostility to Israel was no secret, and it played a part in the failure of his bid for re-election in 1980. Reagan achieved a modern record of 40% of the Jewish vote not so much because of his appeal but because of Carter’s unpopularity—something that Republicans have failed to remember as they’ve sought in vain to replicate that feat.

Carter blamed the Jews for his defeat; it colored his post-presidency as he began a decades-long effort to promote Palestinian statehood and to smear Israel. He was not the only person to be wrong about the necessity for a two-state solution, but few matched the virulence with which he assailed Israel, and especially its American supporters, for their refusal to listen to his bad advice.

That culminated in the publication of his 2006 book—Palestine, Peace Not Apartheid, which in no small measure began the effort, at least in the United States, to mainstream the big lie that the Middle East’s only democracy was in some ways morally equivalent to apartheid-era South Africa.

For all of the applause he has received for his life as an ex-president, Carter’s animus against the Jewish state and willingness to use his moral standing and influence to besmirch it and aid the efforts of antisemitic hate-mongers and terrorists to undermine its existence is also part of his legacy.

So, when assessing his life, how do we weigh that against the many good things that can be said for Jimmy Carter as an individual? There is no calculus by which these competing arguments can be measured exactly. Like everyone, his life was a mixture of good and bad. It is entirely possible to acknowledge his outstanding personal qualities and even his undoubted positive intentions, but to also judge his presidency to be a disaster and his post-presidential efforts to have also done as much harm as good.

We should all wish him and his family well and, whenever it does happen, his passing should be acknowledged with the solemnity and respect due to a former president of the United States. But we should not let that desire to think well of a historic figure color the verdict of contemporary public opinion or history. Jimmy Carter may have been a very decent man in many respects, but he was still a bad president and someone whose unfair attacks on the Jewish state deserve to be held against him.

US, UN officials use ‘puzzling’ language equating tensions with Ramadan, Passover and Easter

Briefing the U.N. Security Council from Jerusalem on March 22, Tor Wennesland, U.N. special coordinator for the Middle East peace process, urged “all sides to refrain from unilateral steps that escalate tensions” ahead of Ramadan, Passover and Easter. “This should be a period for safe and peaceful religious reflection and celebration for all,” he said.

Twice the day before, on March 21, U.S. State Department officials issued similar calls for calm ahead of the three overlapping holidays.

When Wendy Sherman, U.S. deputy secretary of state, summoned Michael Herzog, Israel’s ambassador to the United States, the two discussed the disengagement law. Sherman stressed “the importance of all parties refraining from actions or rhetoric that could further inflame tensions leading into the Ramadan, Passover and Easter holidays,” per Vedant Patel, principal deputy spokesman at the State Department.

And at the podium during the department’s daily press briefing, Patel said the Knesset vote came “at a time of heightened tensions” and was “particularly provocative and counterproductive to efforts to restore some measures of calm as we head into the Ramadan, Passover and the Easter holidays.”

Violence from terrorists who self-identify as Muslim during Ramadan is documented, but suggesting that Jewish and Christian extremists act more violently during Passover and Easter respectively appears to be Foggy Bottom’s religious holiday adaptation of “all lives matter.” Subscribe to The JNS Daily Syndicate by email and never miss our top stories

“This formulation is puzzling, and that’s being generous,” Jonathan Schanzer, senior vice president for research at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told JNS. “In fact, there is nothing inherently violent about Ramadan, Easter or Passover. With this statement, the State Department has effectively given Palestinian groups a green light to attack Israel.”

Officials, who lump the holidays together, also imply that Jews, Christians and Muslims “wield their holidays as tools of political violence,” added Schanzer. “So much for diplomacy.”

03/24 Links Pt2: David Friedman: The battle for Israel’s soul: If either side wins, everyone loses; New report slams CUNY as 'most systemically antisemitic US university'

From Ian:

David Friedman: The battle for Israel’s soul: If either side wins, everyone loses

To all my friends in Israel, Right, Center and Left, religious and secular, the first thing I need to say is that “I love you all.” The State of Israel, which you have created, has sustained me and countless other Jews in the Diaspora for generations.

Most of us see no future in Judaism without Israel and, whether you realize it or not, we are all deeply invested, in ways far more important than financially, in Israel’s future. Israel has done much for the Diaspora, but now it’s time for Israel to learn something from the Diaspora.

We in the Diaspora see the value of all Israel’s citizens. We think the Israel Defense Force is holy; it is not only one of the most powerful, but also one of the most moral, armies on earth. A Jew risking his life in the military defending the Jewish state, even if entirely secular, is performing a great mitzvah, perhaps equal in magnitude to all others.

And a Jew committing his life to the study of the Torah, accepting the poverty and self-sacrifice that accompanies such a choice, is performing a great mitzvah as well. Indeed, the midrash on the Book of Genesis speaks approvingly of the relationship between Jacob’s fifth and sixth sons, Issachar and Zevulun, by which the latter went to work to provide support for his brother’s Torah study.

Perhaps you in Israel are too close to the trees to see the entire forest. But in the Diaspora, we can see the entirety of Israel and it is a glorious, diverse, proud and miraculous manifestation of the Jewish people.

We need you all to keep Israeli society together; to keep things from boiling over. To the leaders of Israel, whether in the coalition or the opposition, this is your sacred task. The entire Jewish world is depending upon you, not to win your side of the internal conflict, but rather to find a solution in keeping with the dignity and holiness of every Israeli. If either side wins, we all lose.

I understand politics well, having lived in that world for several years. I understand campaign promises and the expectations of one’s political base. But in the end, the unity of Israeli society within its diverse population is its greatest asset. Any government that jeopardizes such unity cannot succeed, no matter how much it believes in the righteousness of its cause.

I suspect that I speak for the vast majority of Jews in the Diaspora and probably an equal amount in Israel when I say, please work harder to find a consensual resolution. End the vile rhetoric on both sides.

There are no dictators and there are no anarchists, there are only Jews trying in good faith to address a highly complex situation as best they can. Please lower the volume and give the process time to succeed. May God bless you all.

Netanyahu violated High Court ruling in judicial reform speech - A-G

The Incapacitation Law, which was passed Late Wednesday night, altered a Basic Law: The Government provision on determining a prime minister's incapability to serve to clarify that it only pertained to medical issues. The amendment also afforded the decision of incapacitation to the government and Knesset.

In late January, Israeli media had reported that Baharav-Miara had been considering declaring Netanyahu unfit for the prime minister's office due to his conflict of interest, though her office denied these reports.

Netanyahu referred to attempts to remove him through incapacitation on Thursday night, and said that until then "my hands were tied."

Baharav-Miara reminded Netanyahu that the High Court of Justice ruled in two 2020 cases, that his forming of a government was conditioned by requirements to avoid reasonable concern about abuse of power impacting his three corruption trials and his binding to a conflict of interest agreement.

The conflict of interest agreement, organized by her predecessor Avichai Mandelblit, forbade Netanyahu from involvement in law official appointments. A chief component of the judicial reforms would alter the manner in which judgeships were awarded. Mandelblit sought a situation in which a judge appointed by Netanyahu's government would not hear appeals on his corruption case, the Likud said on Friday.

Baharav-Miara announced the conflict of interest agreement still in effect in late January. She said in her Friday letter that she had sent Netanyahu a missive on February 1 notifying him that involvement in the judicial reform was against the Mandelblit agreement. Netanyahu's speech violated the conflict of interest agreement.

The Likud countered on Friday saying that Netanyahu did not and would not deal personally with the reform, judges, or systems. He was merely attempting to stem the unfolding chaos and protests and understand what legislation could be passed in the Knesset.

National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir also issued support for Netanyahu, saying the Attorney-General's threatening and ordering of the prime minister in public constituted a "coup." Ben-Gvir also insisted that it was in fact Baharav-Miara that was in conflict of interest by interfering in the matter.

"The Attorney-General's letter is more proof of why she should be fired," said Ben-Gvir.

The Movement for Quality Government in Israel, which had filed the petitions that led to the two cases referenced in Baharav-Miara's Friday letter, said that it would soon be filing a motion for contempt of court.

The petition would "demand that the sanctions prescribed by law be imposed on the prime minister, including heavy fines and imprisonment."

Lapid rebuffs call to halt protests on Independence Day: ‘We’re not celebrating together’

Israeli opposition leader Yair Lapid refused on Thursday to sign a joint statement with Israeli Minister of Transportation, National Infrastructure and Road Safety Miri Regev calling for a halt to anti-judicial reform protests on Yom Ha’aztmaut, Israel’s Independence Day.

“We will not pretend that we are celebrating together and that everything is fine while the government is tearing apart the people of Israel and erasing democracy,” said Lapid in a statement.

The move comes after Knesset member Chili Tropper, a member of Benny Gantz’s National Unity Party, called on Wednesday for a pause to the demonstrations on Israel’s Memorial Day, held annually the day before Independence Day.

Gantz reportedly signed the agreement; however, Regev, a member of the ruling Likud Party, refused to sign unless the deal was extended to Independence Day as well.

Israel again braced for major disruptions across the country on Thursday as thousands of demonstrators took to the streets in opposition to the government’s judicial reform push.

With more than 150 demonstrations scheduled, the “Day of Paralysis” began in the morning with a protest at the Airport City business park adjacent to the eastern entrance to Ben-Gurion International Airport. The protesters were blocking the roads ahead of a conference featuring the participation of Agriculture Minister Avi Dichter and Economy Minister Nir Barkat. Israeli media reported that the protesters broke into the conference complex, shouting “shame.”

A reporter from conservative Israeli news station Channel 14 was harassed by protesters at the Airport City complex and was unable to finish her live report.

Israel, earlier today: One side is dancing peacefully, the other engaging in the ancient anti-Semitic practice of throwing money at Jews. This struggle isn't about judicial reform; it's about the soul of this nation and its future. https://t.co/6nBOMeZnp6
— liel leibovitz (@liel) March 23, 2023

This is the most beautiful moment in Bnei Brak ??

A secular man entered the Haredi neighborhood wearing a helmet expecting to be pelted with eggs,but instead broke down in tears as he was greeted by residents with warm chulent and the heartwarming music of “shalom aleichem.” ?? pic.twitter.com/U6RjFzS9kZ
— Ittay Flescher (@ittay78) March 23, 2023

Richard A,. Posner

In 2007, The New Republic published an article by Richard A. Posner reviewing The Judge in a Democracy by Israel's former chief justice Aharon Barak, who had spearheaded the judicial revolution that many in Israel now want to turn back.

Posner is one of the most influential legal scholars in the United States and the most-cited legal scholar of the 20th century.

It is worth reading his pretty scathing critique from 16 years ago, as the issues being wrestled with in Israel as the same that Barak justified in his book.

Enlightened Despot

Aharon Barak, a long-serving justice (eventually the chief justice) of the Supreme Court of Israel, who recently reached mandatory retirement age, is a prolific writer, and this is his most recent book. It is an important document, less for its intrinsic merits than for its aptness to be considered Exhibit A for why American judges should be extremely wary about citing foreign judicial decisions. Barak is a world-famous judge who dominated his court as completely as John Marshall dominated our Supreme Court. If there were a Nobel Prize for law, Barak would probably be an early recipient. But although he is familiar with the American legal system and supposes himself to be in some sort of sync with liberal American judges, he actually inhabits a completely different--and,to an American, a weirdly different--juristic universe. I have my differences with Robert Bork, but when he remarked, in a review of The Judge in a Democracy, that Barak "establishes a world record for judicial hubris," he came very near the truth.

Barak is John Marshall without a constitution to expound--or to "expand," as Barak once revealingly misquoted a famous phrase of Marshall's ("we must never forget it is a constitution that we are expounding"). Israel does not have a constitution. It has "Basic Laws" passed by the Knesset, Israel's parliament, which Barak has equated to a constitution by holding that the Knesset cannot repeal them. That is an amazing idea: could our Congress pass a law authorizing every American to carry a concealed weapon, and the Supreme Court declare that the law could never be repealed? And only one-quarter of the Knesset's members voted for those laws!

What Barak created out of whole cloth was a degree of judicial power undreamed of even by our most aggressive Supreme Court justices. He puts Marshall, who did less with more, in the shade. Among the rules of law that Barak's judicial opinions have been instrumental in creating that have no counterpart in American law are that judges cannot be removed by the legislature, but only by other judges; that any citizen can ask a court to block illegal action by a government official, even if the citizen is not personally affected by it (or lacks "standing" to sue, in the American sense); that any government action that is "unreasonable" is illegal ("put simply, the executive must act reasonably, for an unreasonable act is an unlawful act"); that a court can forbid the government to appoint an official who had committed a crime (even though he had been pardoned) or is otherwise ethically challenged, and can order the dismissal of a cabinet minister because he faces criminal proceedings; that in the name of "human dignity" a court can compel the government to alleviate homelessness and poverty; and that a court can countermand military orders, decide "whether to prevent the release of a terrorist within the framework of apolitical 'package deal,'" and direct the government to move the security wall that keeps suicide bombers from entering Israel from the West Bank.

These are powers that a nation could grant its judges. For example, many European nations and even some states in the United States authorize "abstract" constitutional review--that is, judicial determination of a statute's constitutionality without waiting for a suit by someone actually harmed by the statute. But only in Israel (as far as I know) do judges confer the power of abstract review on themselves, without benefit of a constitutional or legislative provision. One is reminded of Napoleon's taking the crown out of the pope's hands and putting it on his own head.

Barak does not attempt to defend his judicial practice by reference to orthodox legal materials; even the "Basic Laws" are mentioned only in passing. His method, lacking as it does any but incidental references to enacted provisions, may seem the method of the common law (the judge-made law that continues to dominate many areas of Anglo-American law, such as contracts and torts), except that common-law rules are subject to legislative override, and his rules are not. The significance of this point seems to elude him. He takes for granted that judges have inherent authority to override statutes. Such an approach can accurately be described as usurpative.

Barak bases his conception of judicial authority on abstract principles that in his hands are plays on words. The leading abstraction is "democracy." Political democracy in the modern sense means a system of government in which the key officials stand for election at relatively short intervals and thus are accountable to the citizenry. A judiciary that is free to override the decisions of those officials curtails democracy. For Barak, however, democracy has a "substantive" component, namely a set of rights ("human rights" not limited to political rights, such as the right to criticize public officials, that support democracy), enforced by the judiciary, that clips the wings of the elected officials. That is not a justification for a hyperactive judiciary, it is merely a definition of it.

Another portmanteau word that Barak abuses is "interpretation," which for him is remote from a search for the meaning intended by the authors of legislation. He says that the task of a legislature in passing statutes is "to bridge the gap between law and society, "and that the task of the judge in interpreting a statute is to "ensure that the law in fact bridges the gap between law and society." This is very odd--isn't the statute the law, rather than the intermediary between the law and the society? What he seems to mean, as further suggested by his statement that "whoever enforces a statute enforces the whole legal system," is that a statute should be interpreted so that it is harmonious with the spirit or values of the legal system as a whole, which as a practical matter means with the judge's ideal system, since no real legal system has a unitary spirit or common set of values.

This understanding of Barak's approach is further suggested by his statement that a judge, in addition to considering the language and background and apparent purpose of a statute, should consider its "objective purpose ... to realize the fundamental values of democracy." This opens up a vast realm for discretionary judgment (the antithesis of "objective"); and when a judge has discretion in interpreting a statute, Barak's "advice is that ... the judge should aspire to achieve justice." So a regulation that authorizes military censorship of publications that the censor "deems likely to harm state security, public security, or the public peace" was interpreted by Barak's court to mean "would create a near certainty of grave harm to state security, public security, or public peace." It is thus the court that makes Israel's statutory law, using the statutes themselves as first drafts that the court is free to rewrite.

Barak invokes the "separation of powers" as further support for his aggressive conception of the judicial role. What he means by separation of powers is that the executive and legislative branches are to have no degree of control over the judicial branch. What we mean by separation of powers, so far as judicial authority is concerned, is that something called the judicial power of the United States has been consigned to the judicial branch. That doesn't mean the branch is independent of the other branches. If each of the powers (executive, legislative, and judicial) were administered by a branch that was wholly independent and thus could ignore the others, the result would be chaos. The branches have to be mutually dependent, in order to force cooperation. So "separation of powers" implies "checks and balances," and the judicial branch has to be checked by the other branches, and not just do the checking. And so rather than our judiciary being a self-perpetuating oligarchy, the president nominates and the Senate confirms (or rejects) federal judges, and Congress fixes their salaries, regulates the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction, decides whether to create other federal courts, determines the federal judiciary's budget, and can remove judges by means of the impeachment process. Moreover, the judicial power of the United States can be exercised only in suits brought by persons who have standing to sue in the sense of having a tangible grievance that can be remedied by the court. And because the judicial power is not the only federal power--there are executive and legislative powers of constitutional dignity as well--the judiciary cannot tell the president whom to appoint to his cabinet.

In Barak's conception of the separation of powers, the judicial power is unlimited and the legislature cannot remove judges. (And in Israel, judges participate in the selection of judges.) Outfitted with such abstractions as "democracy," "interpretation," "separation of powers," "objectivity," "reasonableness" (it is "the concept of reasonableness" that Barak would have used to adjudicate the "package deal" for the release of the terrorist), and of course "justice" ("I try to be guided by my North Star, which is justice. I try to make law and justice converge, so that the Justice will do justice"), a judge is a law unto himself.

None of this means that the judicial reform being pushed by the Israeli government is the correct response, but at the same time no one can argue that the status quo that gives unlimited power to the unelected Israeli judiciary is not in serious need of reform.

(h/t Alex)

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!

03/24 Links Pt1: Caroline Glick: The Biden Administration's Sinister Turn Against Israel; Israel offered PA full security duties over city as pilot, Ramallah refused

From Ian:

Caroline Glick: The Biden Administration's Sinister Turn Against Israel

On Tuesday, the State Department summoned Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Michael Herzog to demand an explanation for the Knesset's abrogation of the 2005 law banning Jews from living in four communities in northern Samaria. That law was passed in the framework of Israel's failed plan to disengage from the Gaza Strip and northern Samaria.

In August 2005, Israel expelled 10,000 Jewish citizens from Gaza and northern Samaria in the hopes that the Palestinians would take the areas and build a mini-Singapore. Instead, they built a mini-Afghanistan.

The Knesset's decision to abrogate the law was a rare example of a democracy acting to correct its prior mistake. But that's not how the Biden administration saw it.

Around the same time Ambassador Herzog was summoned, the White House said the law was a breach of Israel's 2004 agreement with the Bush administration. That agreement, which was given expression in an April 2004 letter then-President George W. Bush sent to then-Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, essentially said that in exchange for Israel's forcible uprooting of the Jewish communities in Gaza and northern Samaria, the Bush administration would accept the permanence of major Jewish communities in the rest of Judea and Samaria.

What is notable about the Biden administration's accusation is that not only did the Obama administration breach the 2004 deal—it denied the deal existed, in the first place. In June 2009, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, "in looking at the history of the Bush administration, there were no informal or...enforceable agreements."

Merely denying documented history would be bad enough. But the broader policy framework that informed the Biden administration's outburst is much worse than a dispute about whether northern Samaria should be Judenrein or not.

On March 13, the Office of Palestinian Affairs in the U.S. embassy in Jerusalem posted on Twitter photos of its director, George Noll, visiting the Tomb of Lazarus north of Jerusalem. The post referred to the tomb as "an important religious site...maintained by the Palestinian Authority's (PA's) Ministry of Tourism." It praised the PA's "work preserving beautiful historical and religious sites like this throughout the West Bank."

Many Israelis were shocked by the post because far from "preserving beautiful historical and religious sites" throughout Judea and Samaria, the PA is deliberately destroying them.

Caroline Glick: America, Israel and the era of false messiahs

On the eve of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq 20 years ago this month, the anticipated war was accompanied by a sense of idealistic triumphalism. It was fueled by a still-righteous rage following the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and empowered by the U.S.’s recent early victories over the Taliban in Afghanistan.

The overriding sense of U.S. troops as they gathered in force across the border in the Kuwaiti desert was that they were the great liberators who would free the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein just as their grandfathers liberated Paris from the Nazis.

As an embedded reporter with the U.S. Army’s 3rd Infantry Division at the time, I can attest that the enthusiasm was infectious and, frankly, inspiring.

But there was a bug in the system that, over time, devoured the system itself. That bug was reality. Americans had told themselves a story about Iraq and Iraqis that had nothing to do with Iraq or Iraqis.

Then-President George W. Bush and his top advisors were guided by an ideology of American messianism. By their lights, all men were latent Americans. Everyone aspired to the same freedoms that Americans enjoyed. Release the people of Iraq from the bondage of Saddam’s tyranny, so the thinking went, and freedom would reign from Nasiriya to Baghdad, Tikrit to Kirkuk, as Shi’ites, Sunnis, Kurds, Christians, Yazidis—Iraqis all—would join together and build a new American-style free Iraq.

After the initial exhilaration of being welcomed with smiles by Shiites at the sides of the highways, the brutal reality of the real Iraq and the non-universality of American ideals became ever clearer with each passing day. In the end, that reality consumed the American war effort.

Report: Israel offered PA full security duties over city as pilot, Ramallah refused

Israel and Jordan recently offered the Palestinian Authority a pilot program that would leave security responsibility over a single West Bank city entirely in the hands of the PA, in an attempt to reduce tensions caused by recent deadly Israeli raids, according to a Thursday report.

According to an unsourced Channel 12 news report, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Jordan’s King Abdullah II secretly discussed the proposal in their meeting in January. The plan would reportedly see Palestinian security forces given sole responsibility for conducting arrests of suspected terror operatives and maintaining law and order in either the city of Tulkarem or Qalqilya, thereby avoiding violent, often deadly clashes between locals and Israeli troops.

If the pilot were successful, it could then be expanded to other cities, the report said.

According to Channel 12, the PA was uninterested in the offer, believing that it would weaken its already-dire status in the eyes of many Palestinians, as they would be seen as fully cooperating with Jerusalem on arrests.

Although Tulkarem and Qalqilya are part of Area A — West Bank land under PA civilian and security control — the IDF regularly enters the territory to conduct arrests.

Such incursions have increased significantly over the past year as Israel has sought to combat an ongoing terror wave stemming largely from the northern West Bank, where the PA has lost significant control.

On Thursday, a wanted Palestinian gunman behind a series of shooting attacks in the West Bank was shot dead during a raid by Israeli forces near Tulkarem.

The purported pilot program was not included in a communiqué released after a summit between Israel and the PA at Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt on Sunday. However, the document highlighted the “legal right” of the PA to exercise its security responsibility over Area A of the West Bank.

That territory with predominantly Palestinian contiguity makes up roughly 20 percent of the West Bank and was placed under PA security and civilian control in the 1995 Oslo II Agreement.

Israeli and Jewish media reported on Monday:

Israel is the fourth happiest country in the world, according to the 2023 World Happiness Report (WHR), which was released on Monday.

The publication ranks happiness on a national level each year. This year, Israel earned the fourth spot out of 109 ranked countries, an improvement over last year’s ranking of ninth.

Well, most of Israeli and Jewish media, that is.

Haaretz, which pretends to be Israel's leading newspaper to Western audiences, ignored the story.

You can argue that the World Happiness Report is a meaningless index, but surely a jump from ninth to fourth place is newsworthy, isn't it?

In previous years, Haaretz did cover the release of the report. And more than once it would go out of its way to disparage and ridicule the results - for example, this insane 2018 article by Rogel Alpher:

The only op-ed I could find that said anything positive about Israel's rankings in the annual poll was written in the wake of the Israeli election that Netanyahu lost, listing it as one of the positive signs that things are looking up in Israel. And that year, Israel was in 12th place!

Haaretz' pages are filled with how terrible Israel is and how miserable its far-Left bubble is. From just this week:

When Secular Israelis Stand Up to Their ultra-Orthodox Overlords
Is Germany and Israel's 'Special Relationship' About to Blow Up?
Netanyahu’s Insane Government Faces Crises on All Fronts
Israelis Know That True Democracy Will Spell the End of Zionism
Israel's Democracy Commandos Stand Up to the Despicable Destroyers in Power
Will Netanyahu Destroy the Israel I Left America For?
Israelis Who Moved to the UAE: 'The Smartest Decision I’ve Made'

Obviously, Haaretz can stress the bad and write op-eds about its perspective that Israel is unparalleled evil - bad news sells newspapers, after all. But to withhold news that contradicts its editorial policy is an entirely different matter.

Not reporting a story that Haaretz considered newsworthy every other year is trying to shape the news, not report it.

This is one reason why Haaretz cannot be considered a newspaper anymore. It is a propaganda outlet.

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!

The Detroit Free Press, July 13, 1919, writes about the Arab reactions to Zionism.

The article is very negative towards the Zionist movement and it describes it as a "peril" to the Arab population. It describes in detail how the Zionists are buying up land at 500% of its value, how Tel Aviv and Haifa have become beautiful Jewish communities - and how resentful the Arabs are about this.

The reporter spoke to a new group of Muslim and Christian anti-Zionists in Palestine where they describe why they believe Zionism is a peril to them. Some of their arguments can be seen today to be proving the opposite of what they intend.

"If the Jews have a right to Palestine, then...the Indians have a right to New York," went one argument, that unwittingly conceded that Jews were there first.

The most interesting argument was this one:

'If a Jewish army had beaten us in battle and had taken our land away from us by force of arms, we would have no word to say against Zionism. While our Jewish conquerors occupied our country, we would bow our heads and remain silent."

Somehow, between 1919 and 1949, that attitude changed dramatically. And what became clear is that there was no issue with living under the rule of non-Arabs, as they had for centuries, but living under the rule of Jews.

The article, and others from the region in the years immediately following the end of World War I, also shows that what little Palestinian nationalism that existed was purely a reaction to Zionism. And this article says that explicitly: that Zionism has managed to awaken Arabs in Palestine to "such a degree of national consciousness that they have never known before."

Many critics of Bezalel Smotrich's assertion that there was no such thing as a Palestinian people a century ago say, quite reasonably, that this is irrelevant: there are a Palestinian people today and that is all that matters. But if Palestinian nationalism and peoplehood are completely or even mostly an angry response to Zionism, and if their main goal is not the creation of a nation but rather the destruction of another, then it is not a nationalism at all.

It is a weaponization of an entire population against Jewish self-determination.

That is not nationalism. That is sabotage pretending to be nationalism.

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!