Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Tuesday, March 28, 2023

How Palestinian laws are made. Step 1: Mahmoud Abbas declares them. (There is no step 2.)

Today, a new law is on the Palestinian books.

The General Intelligence Law No. 17 of 2005 said said that the head of Palestinian general intelligence must be less than 60 years old and can only remain in the job for three years, perhaps extending to four. (Oh, and he also is not allowed to be married to a non-Arab woman.)

But Mahmoud Abbas likes his loyal intelligence chief, "Major General" Majed Faraj, who has been in office for well over three year now, so Abbas changed the law as an early 60th birthday present to him.

Faraj now can stay in office forever, or until Abbas removes him. He is also now promoted to the rank of minister.

That's it.

No legislative meetings, no committees to discuss the law, no input from the the PLO Executive Committee or Palestinian National Council or Palestinian Central Council or Palestinian cabinet.

Mahmoud Abbas decided to change a law, he wrote it, he implemented it and that's it.

At a time that Israel is struggling over balancing powers between the legislative and judicial branches, there are no such problems in the Palestinian territories.

Because they have a dictator who decides everything.

And no one - media, politicians, pundits, diplomats - seems to be gnashing their teeth over this.

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

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

03/28 Links Pt1: A ‘resistance’ coup just defeated Israeli democracy; Greece thwarts terrorist network planning attacks on Jews; Jordan offers 'sins of the Nakba' tours in west Jerusalem

From Ian:

Jonathan Tobin: A ‘resistance’ coup just defeated Israeli democracy

Implications for the future
Will that happen every time the right wins an election from now on? Probably. That means not only will the juristocracy defend its power, but its supporters are permanently committed to thwarting the will of voters who may continue to outnumber them in the future.

And how will a theoretical government of the left—assuming, as many now do, that Lapid and his allies can win the next election—react if large numbers of right-wing opponents try to play the same game? If the debate over the disastrous Oslo Accords and the 2005 Gaza withdrawal are any gauge of their behavior, they will crack down on their opponents in ways that Netanyahu hesitated to do this year with widespread jailing of dissidents. Dismissals from the army of those who refuse orders rather than the gentle lectures the anti-Bibi refuseniks got will also be likely.

While the left threatened violence against their opponents and even civil war if they didn’t get their way about judicial reform, who really believes they will hesitate to initiate one if they are in power and the right rises up in the streets the way we’ve just witnessed?

Similarly, the implications for Israel’s foreign relations are equally ominous. The opposition has essentially legitimized American involvement in Israel’s domestic politics even on an issue that had nothing to do with the questions of territory and peace. That weakens the country’s independence at a dangerous time when, as Netanyahu has been trying to point out, the threat from Iran is growing.

What’s more, Netanyahu’s opponents have (whether they realize it or not) also legitimized arguments aimed at denying that Israel is a democracy. While his foes think that this will only apply to times when the right wins elections, they may come to realize that to the antisemites who assail the Jewish state in international forums and in American politics where the intersectional left is increasingly influential, that will also apply to governments led by parties not named Likud.

Ultimately, Israel’s citizens—whether through democratic elections or mob actions that break governments and Knesset majorities—will determine their own fate. And those who look on from abroad must accept the outcome of these struggles and continue to support the Jewish state against its enemies.

Yet far from defending Israel from authoritarian forces, the protesters have established a precedent that will haunt future governments of all kinds and shake the foundation of its democracy. Whether that damage can be undone remains an open question.

Ruthie Blum: Benjamin Netanyahu’s risky leadership move

Members of Israel’s national camp waited anxiously throughout Monday for the speech that Prime Minister Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu was slated to deliver in the morning. The announcement that he was going to address the nation followed the previous night’s “spontaneous” anti-government demonstrations over the firing of Defense Minister Yoav Gallant.

It also virtually coincided with the declaration by the head of the Histadrut labor federation of a general strike. This imposition of an illegal shutdown of the economy, which included the closing of banks, minimizing of hospital care and even the halt to all departures at Ben-Gurion Airport, was given a voluntary tailwind by the private sector.

Though the protest movement had already proclaimed that it was launching a full “week of paralysis” to step up its campaign to cause the ruling coalition to collapse, the entry of the Histadrut into the fray was an additional twist to the carefully plotted and meticulously executed coup.

The initial excuse used by protest leaders to rile up frightened fellow travelers was judicial reform. The latest pretext for their heavily funded hate-fests was Gallant’s dismissal.

Despite the fact that his successful showing in the Likud Party primary (ultimately earning him the coveted defense portfolio) was due largely to his stance on judicial reform, he was intimidated by insubordinate IDF reservists threatening not to serve in a “dictatorship-in-the-making.”

‘There can be no civil war’: Full text of Netanyahu’s announcement on overhaul pause

Following is the full English translation of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s televised address on March 27, 2023, as provided by the Government Press Office, in which he announced he was delaying his government’s planned far-reaching overhaul of the judiciary.

Citizens of Israel,

Three thousand years ago, here in Jerusalem, the judgement of Solomon took place. Two women came before King Solomon. Each one claimed that she was the real mother of the infant. King Solomon commanded that a sword be brought and that the baby be cut in half. One woman was prepared to rend the baby in two while the other woman absolutely refused and insisted that the infant stay alive and whole.

Today as well, both sides in the national controversy claim to love the infant, to love our country. I am aware of the enormous tension that is building between the two sides, between two parts of the nation, and I am attentive to the desire of many citizens to dispel this tension.

However, there is one thing that I cannot accept. There is an extremist minority that is prepared to tear our country to pieces. It is using violence and incitement, it is threatening to harm elected officials, it is stoking civil war, and it is calling for refusal to serve, which is a terrible crime.

The State of Israel cannot exist without the IDF and the IDF cannot exist with refusal to serve. Refusal to serve by one side will lead to refusal to serve by the other. Refusal to serve is the end of our country. Therefore, I demand that the heads of the security services and of the army vigorously oppose the phenomenon of refusal to serve, not contain it, not understand it, not accept it – but put a stop to it.

Those who call for refusal to serve, those who call for anarchy and violence, are knowingly cutting the baby in two. But the overwhelming majority of Israeli citizens on both sides of the divide do not want to rend the infant. They are unwilling to cut the nation in two.

Journalist Rula Jebreal tweeted about the large rallies in Tel Aviv, "This reminds me of the 1st intifada/popular uprising of 1987... Palestinians gathered under the banner: ”End the occupation, No annexation...yes to PEACE.” Then she added that "I was 15 during the First Intifada. We protested daily & peacefully in Jerusalem."

This has been a theme among Israel haters, that the first intifada was peaceful. They never mention that about 200 Israelis were killed in these "peaceful" times. Middle East Monitor, an anti-Israel English language publication, says, "It involved many forms of civil disobedience, including: massive demonstrations, general strikes, refusal to pay taxes, boycotts of Israeli products, graffiti and underground 'freedom schools', as well as unarmed forms of resistance such as stone-throwing and Molotov cocktails."

Not exactly what one would call "peaceful."

What about the slogans Jebreal claims they chanted?

It seems unlikely that they chanted "no to annexation," since that wasn't a talking point then. But did they say "yes to PEACE"?

I found a fairly comprehensive list of slogans chanted by Arabs in the first intifada. The very few that mentioned peace were veiled threats, such as "before we touch the trigger, we raise the call of peace

....Raise the flag of peace and cheer for freedom, and adhere to the gunpowder."

But there were lots of slogans that called for violence.

- Khaybar, Khaybar, O Jews, Muhammad's army will prevail

- Say Allahu Akbar, Muslim, say Allahu Akbar, the head of the Zionist is destroyed

- Say takbeer, O Muslim, say takbeer, the throne of the Zionist was destroyed

Glory and eternity to the holy martyrs

O martyr, relax, relax, and we will continue the struggle

With the spirit and blood we will sacrifice you, O martyr

With soul and blood, we will sacrifice you, O Palestine

The only good thing you can say about the first intifada is that it wasn't nearly as violent as the second intifada. But it wasn't peaceful and it wasn't in any way equivalent to the massive demonstrations in Israel over the past two months.

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!

From AP:

New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft faced the camera during a video call, pointing to a small, sky-blue lapel pin on his blazer.

The pin is the symbol of a $25 million “Stand Up to Jewish Hate” campaign launched Monday by the 81-year-old billionaire through his Foundation to Combat Antisemitism, aiming to raise awareness nationwide about soaring incidents of antisemitism online and in person. The campaign will feature emotive ads to be introduced by stars of top television shows such as NBC’s “The Voice,” and the “Kelly Clarkson Show,” and Bravo’s “Watch What Happens Live with Andy Cohen.”

“This little blue square represents the Jewish population in the United States – 2.4%,” said Kraft, who was raised in Brookline, Massachusetts, in an observant Orthodox Jewish family. “But we’re the victims of 55% of the hate crimes in this country.”

"Jewish hate"??? That sounds like a campaign against Jewish bigots! It is not a synonym for antisemitism - it is a phrase antisemites would say!

The American Jewish Committee, which has joined this campaign, talks about "combating anti-Jewish hate" on its own webpage. So which is it - are we fighting Jewish hate or anti-Jewish hate?

Why couldn't the slogan be "stand up to Jew-hatred" or even "stand up to antisemitism"?

How could a $25 million campaign allow its key message to be so muddled?

The blue square is likewise not the clearest message. If someone has to explain what the logo means, it is not a good logo.

I'm all for fighting antisemitism, but any campaign needs a clear theme that is easy to understand without any need for explanation. This isn't it.

A campaign against antisemitism certainly shouldn't choose a slogan that could easily be written on the front page of Stormfront without irony.

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!

Anti-Israel organizations have been organizing boycotts of Israeli dates every Ramadan for years.

Here's a campaign from 2008.

This year there are anti-Israel date campaigns from CAIR, American Muslims for Palestine, Inminds and many other Muslim organizations.

Let's see how effective these campaigns have been.

In 2008, when these campaigns began, Israel was the fourth-largest exporter of dates in the world, behind Tunisia, the UAE and Saudi Arabia. It had exports of 19 million kilograms with a value of some $50 million.

By 2021, Israel was the top exporter of dates worldwide, exporting nearly 120 million kilograms with a value of $332 million! It maintained that position in 2022.

While Israel does not export as many dates as some other countries, the dollar value is much higher - because the popular Mejdool dates are more expensive and Israel dominates that market.

Here are some charts of the top date exporters in recent years from another source:

It seems that Israel's date industry - which is now Israel's second biggest export crop after citrus - has thrived under the Muslim boycott of Israeli dates.

This is not just a BDS fail - it is a BDS nakba!

For Israeli date growers, it definitely is a Ramadan Mubarak!

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!

03/27 Links Pt2: The Real Meaning Of 'Pro-Palestinian'; BBC’s ‘The Holy Land and Us’ chooses narrative over history; FIFA U-20 World Cup Draw in Indonesia Postponed Amid Issues Over Israel’s Participation

From Ian:

Bassam Tawil: The Real Meaning Of 'Pro-Palestinian'

Inviting Hamas and PIJ officials to participate in such events shows that the real aim of the so-called pro-Palestinian groups is not to help the Palestinians, but to incite and spread hate and libels against the only democracy in the Middle East: Israel.

[I]t sends a message to the Palestinians that the students and professors at the universities around the world support terrorism as a means to kill Jews and destroy Israel.

The participation of the terror leaders in the "Israel Apartheid Week" shows that the real intention of the anti-Israel groups on campus is not to criticize Israel, but to eliminate it.

If the "pro-Palestinian" groups really cared about the Palestinians, they would be speaking out against the repressive measures and human rights violations perpetrated by Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

It is hard to see how support for a mass murderer such as Soleimani and Iran's proxy terror groups – Hamas, PIJ and Hezbollah – does anything good for the Palestinians. On the contrary, those who are empowering these terrorists are doing a massive disservice to the Palestinians, especially those who continue to suffer under the rule of Hamas and PIJ in the Gaza Strip.

Instead of building schools and hospitals for their people, Hamas and PIJ are investing millions of dollars in smuggling and manufacturing weapons and digging tunnels that would be used to infiltrate Israel and kill Jews. Instead of improving the living conditions of their people, Hamas and PIJ leaders are imposing new taxes and leading comfortable lives in Qatar, Lebanon and other countries. Instead of bringing democracy and freedom of speech to their people, the terror groups are arresting and intimidating journalists, human rights activists and political opponents.

All these violations are, needless to say, of no concern to the so-called "pro-Palestinian" students on the campuses. Have these students ever denounced Hamas for suppressing public freedoms and depriving its people of a good life? No. Will these students ever call out the Palestinian leadership for the financial corruption and persecution of political opponents and critics? No.

The "pro-Palestinian" individuals and groups might also understand that by siding with Hamas and PIJ, they are harming, not helping, the same people -- the Palestinians -- they claim to support.

The silence of the "pro-Palestinian" students towards these arrests actually causes harm to Palestinians: it allows Hamas to continue its brutality without having to worry about negative reactions from the international community.

The real "pro-Palestinian" advocates are those who want to see a good life for the Palestinians, not those who encourage them to embrace terror groups.

Guardian blames Amercian Jews for...fill in the blank

First, regarding McGreal’s claims that the Tikvah Fund is influencing efforts at overhauling the judiciary, we were unable to find any evidence of their involvement in judicial reform, so we reached out to Amiad Cohen, CEO of the Israeli-based Tikvah Fund, who flatly denied the claim. He told CAMERA UK in a phone call earlier that the Israeli and US wings of the organisation “are not involved in any way, politically or financially, with the legislation to reform Israel’s judiciary”. (We’ve complained to Guardian editors asking for a correction.)

However, in addition to getting his facts about the Tikvah Fund and judcial reform wrong, McGreal’s characterisation of Elliott Abrams as “one of the intellectual architects of the invasion of Iraq” is inaccurate.

It also evokes antisemitic tropes poular at the time of the US-led 2003 invasion which blamed the Israel lobby and/or Jews within the US government for the war, despite the fact that all the major players in the administration of George W. Bush were non-Jews. This includes Bush himself, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice.

Abrams, who is Jewish, was not – unlike Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld and Rice – one of the principle decision makers in the White House in 2003, working as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director of the National Security Council for Near East and North African affairs at the time. Though Abrams strongly supported the war, McGreal’s characterisation of him as the war’s “intellectual architect” erroneously suggests a level of influence similar, for instance, to George F. Kennan’s role in formulating the Cold War policy known as “containment” which was adopted by President Harry Truman.

Abrams’ influence, by contrast, within Bush’s administration in the decision to launch the Iraq war was, by nearly all accounts, close to non-existent.

The Guardian, as our readers of course know, has a history of depicting Jews has having ‘too much’ power, including the power to control, or apply outsized influence on, non-Jewish political leaders – getting them to make putatively destructive decisisons they wouldn’t normally have made. McGreal’s farcical depiction of Abrams as the brains behind the most contentious US military adventure since Vietnam is another example of the outlet’s embrace of this toxic narrative.

BBC Two’s ‘The Holy Land and Us’ chooses narrative over history

While Agha tells viewers that part of her family moved to a place called Dalhamiya in the mid to late nineteenth century, no mention is made of the history of that village of tenant farmers in the Jordan Valley. Following the First Egyptian-Ottoman War (1831 – 1833), the conquering Egyptians established four villages in the Jordan Valley with the aim of settling their own countrymen there, one of which was Dalhamiya. After the Ottomans retook power in 1840, those villages were abandoned by their Egyptian settler inhabitants. At least part of Dalahamiya’s lands were sold to the Palestine Jewish Colonisation Association (PICA) and Kibbutz Ashdot Ya’akov was established there in the 1930s.

When Sarah Agha visits the site of Dalhamiya in episode two of the series she speculates that her ancestors may have left their homes due to the evacuation of the Arab population of Tiberias in April 1948 by British forces after the Haganah “seized control” of the town. Agha’s account of course does not include any mention of the Arab attacks which preceded the evacuation that was requested by the Arab forces themselves.

Although Agha’s local guide tells her that “the Jordanian army asked the people of Dalhamiya to move” ahead of the invasions in that area by Iraqi and Syrian forces, Agha declares herself “sceptical” and goes on to object to the fact that people who evacuated themselves to an enemy country were “not allowed to come back”.

That motif of passive Palestinians ‘forced out’ – with remarkably very little explanation of the invasions by Arab forces before and after May 1948 or the part played by Palestinian fighters – is repeated in the two additional stories from the Palestinian side.

The BBC’s original press release promoting this series stated:
“Rather than presenting a comprehensive history, the series lets the human stories of the time speak for themselves, enabling viewers to reach a richer understanding of the divisions that have lasted to this day.”

Indeed, no effort was made to present the comprehensive history which includes the fact that during Ottoman and British rule over the region, people such as Sarah Agha’s ancestors moved from other countries and regions to settle in the area. Barely any mention is made of the ancient Jewish communities in places such as Jerusalem, Tsfat, Tiberias and Hebron which predated Jewish immigration from elsewhere.

Hence, the overall result of the framing presented in this series portrays Palestinians as wronged and passive victims who lost land, homes, money and status (while ignoring the topic of the Arabs who did not leave), whereas Jews are presented as immigrants (rather than refugees), however unfortunate, who came from elsewhere to seek “sanctuary” and “build something new”.

By employing that selective framing, the BBC taps into the narrative of “competing stories” which in fact actively hinders audience understanding of the history and “the divisions that have lasted to this day”.

More Muslims visit Al Aqsa under Israeli rule - EVERY WEEK - than EVER did under 1000 years of Muslim rule

Last Friday, some 100,000 Muslims visited and prayed in the courtyards of the Temple Mount.

That's not even close to a record - in previous Ramadans, some crowds were estimated at 250,000.

From all accounts, these numbers are far, far higher than the number of Muslims who visited the Temple Mount on any day from the dawn of Islam to 1967.

I cannot find any news articles about more than several thousand Muslims going to the Haram al Sharif on any occasion before 1967. None I can find any that say "tens of thousands," certainly none say "hundreds of thousands" of Muslims making a pilgrimage there.

It seems that more Muslims visit the site every week under the supposedly draconian Israeli limitations - between 40,000 and 70,000 - than ever did under Jordanian, British or Ottoman rule

That has only happened under Jewish rule.

Before Jews returned to the Land, Muslims really didn't make a big deal over the Al Aqsa Mosque. There were certainly some pilgrims, and to many Muslims in Jerusalem it was important, but it wasn't a major symbol. Only once the Mufti started baseless rumors that the Jews planned to take over Al Aqsa did the Muslim masses start to pay attention.

And even today, when we see Palestinian leaders exhorting the faithful to visit Al Aqsa, they are calling on them to "defend" it from a few dozen Jews taking strolls there and the police who are there to avoid the Jews getting lynched. The Palestinians don't say to visit it for its inherent importance.

The huge crowds that visit under Jewish rule - especially considering that according to Jewish law, every one of them is desecrating the holy site - proves beyond a doubt that if one cares about freedom of access of holy sites to all, Israel must maintain control over where those sites are.

It is only one example of hundreds that prove that all the accusations hurled against Israel are not just lies, but the exact opposite of the truth.

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 site Qastal posted footage from the outside of the Al Aqsa mosque this morning during the time that non-Muslims can visit - 70 minutes of live coverage.

The fact that it it boring is the news.

I was surprised to see that there were not too many Muslims there. There are enough to know that Israeli forces haven't cleared them out. (I've seen other Ramadan footage showing fairly sparse crowds when it is not prayer time.)

There are far more Christians than Jews shown here. When the Jews come, that's when the videographer decides to zoom in.

The headline from Al Qastal is "On the morning of the fifth of Ramadan, Numbers of settlers storm Al-Aqsa Mosque."

This is not the Al Aqsa you see on the news. When Muslim complain about Jews "storming" they are talking about only a few visiting when there are hardly any Muslims around the site anyway. They, and the Christian tourists,. don't disturb anyone.

Unless the very existence of Jews disturbs you to begin with.

Based on the comments, that is exactly the case. Most commenters resignedly say that Allah knows best, but some are angry that there are no protests, no stones being thrown, no fighting to stop the Jews from walking quietly on the mostly empty site. (And if you think that the front of Al Aqsa is mostly empty, I can assure you that most of the areas on the perimeter that the Jews walk around have very few Muslims who ever go there.)

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!

03/27 Links Pt1: Netanyahu to announce halt to judicial reforms until after Knesset recess; Piers Morgan vs Benjamin Netanyahu; Fatah: “led 1,500” terror attacks while Hamas led none

From Ian:

Elliott Abrams: Obama Administration Disavowed Agreement that Biden Administration Claims Israel Violated

On March 21, the Biden administration denounced a recent move in the Israeli Knesset as "a clear contradiction of undertakings the Israeli government made to the United States." This statement is astonishing and Americans should understand why.

Between 2002 and early 2004, the George W. Bush administration found that all progress on Israeli-Palestinian issues was stopped dead by Yasser Arafat's corruption and his support of terrorism. I was serving at the time as the National Security Council's senior director for the Near East.

In an exchange of letters on April 14, 2004, President Bush gave Prime Minister Sharon the support he needed to complete the Gaza withdrawal. Bush's letter made several important statements: that the U.S. would impose no new peace plan on Israel beyond what was already agreed; that the U.S. would "preserve and strengthen Israel's capability to deter and defend itself, by itself, against any threat or possible combination of threats"; and that the Palestinian refugee problem would not be solved by moving Palestinians to Israel.

Bush also said that "in light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949." In other words, Israeli settlements were realities, and the U.S. understood that in any final status agreement, Israeli borders would reflect their location. This formal exchange of letters was endorsed by the Senate by a vote of 95-3 and by the House by 407-9.

Yet in 2009, the U.S., under the Obama-Biden administration, claimed that the 2004 exchange of letters and commitments was absolutely of no consequence and not binding. For the Biden administration to denounce Israeli action on the ground that it violates a commitment made by Israel to the U.S. is remarkably hypocritical. The Obama administration had already torn up any such commitment and turned the Bush-Sharon exchange into a pair of dead letters.

The Biden administration should not be free to bash Israel for breaking commitments that the U.S. itself dismissed years ago.

Alan Dershowitz: Bibi left out the most important part

It was an honor to be quoted by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during his statement about the proposed judicial reforms. He quoted my words accurately, but he omitted the thrust of my central message: That further compromise is absolutely necessary.

I remain opposed to both the original and revised proposals because they cross two red lines: 1) they permit the Knesset by a simple majority to override Supreme Court decisions guaranteeing fundamental minority rights, freedom of speech and due process; and 2) they empower a majority of politicians, rather than professionals, to select future justices.

The Prime Minister correctly quoted me as denying that, if enacted, these wrong-headed reforms would not turn Israel into an anti-Democratic authoritarian state. Israel will remain democratic as long as a majority of its citizens can elect its leaders in a fair vote. Israeli voters would never tolerate an autocracy. They are for too argumentative and opinionated to take orders from a dictator.

Although Israel will remain a vibrant democracy, it would be a far better democracy if the Supreme Court had the power to check and balance the majority regarding often unpopular basic rights. Recall that many of the most basic rights – such as freedom of speech and due process for hated people – are unpopular with a majority of voters, but essential to the rule of law.

It is important to remember that many western democracies do not have checks and balances based on the separation of powers. Nor do they authorize judicial review of legislative decisions. Parliamentary supremacy is the rule rather than the exception.

But Israel has had a better democracy than most, precisely because the Supreme Court has enforced basic minority rights even when a temporary majority has sought to violate them. So, it is important to try to maintain the benefits of the current Israeli system, while not exaggerating the likely implications of a negative change. Unfortunately, each side has overstated the dangers of the other side’s positions being accepted.

The IDF Must Be Kept Out of the Political Debate

Soldiers in uniform should not abuse their position to take a particular ideological stance. Reservists should not use their annual service as leverage in service of a political agenda.

If they do, then we will end up with half an army, its ideological makeup dependent on who is in political power at any given time.

Of course, this is an extreme scenario, but there are ominous signs that we could be heading in such a direction.

If even a fraction of soldiers or reservists make their service dependent on whether they are happy with government policy or not, it could severely weaken Israel militarily.

We need to create a new social contract among all citizens of Israel that ensures there will be no more refusal to serve, or even the threat of refusal to serve, on ideological grounds. That there will be no more mass petitions calling on people to boycott their annual military service. That there will be no more calls for the IDF to solve political problems.

The IDF must remain above the debate, however vehement it may be.

Soldiers have one job: To achieve the goals set by those above them. Military leaders and strategists have one job: To win wars and ensure safety and security for all Israelis.

Everything the IDF does should be in service of these goals. Anything else is an unnecessary and potentially dangerous distraction.

Even when tempers are frayed, and anger and resentment come from every direction, we need to commit to creating a broad consensus that, above all, the IDF must be kept out of the political debate.

Commentary Podcast: Protests in Israel Come to a Head

Dan Senor joins the podcast to talk about the protests in Israel, how we got here, the firing of Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, and the choices now facing Benjamin Netanyahu and the government.

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!