Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Wednesday, March 29, 2023

In October, the Palestinians enacted their own draconian judicial reforms. The West ignored it.

Abbas with members of the Supreme Constitutional Court that he appointed

During these tumultuous times of anger and angst over the future of Israel's judiciary, it is worth looking at recent changes to the judicial system under the Palestinian Authority that received next to no Western coverage.

On October 28, Mahmoud Abbas issued a presidential decree creating the Supreme Council of Judicial Bodies and Authorities.

This Council has full control over the the Palestinian Authority‘s judicial system - the Supreme Constitutional Court, the Supreme Judicial Council, the Court of Cassation, the Supreme Administrative Court, the judicial authority of the security forces, the Shariah Judicial Council, the ministry of justice and the attorney general.

The head of this council? Mahmoud Abbas, himself!

Abbas has complete and direct control over the entire Palestinian judiciary.

A few years ago he created the Supreme Constitutional Court and handpicked all the members, he then used that court to dissolve the Palestinian Legislative Council so he could be the head of the legislative branch of the government as well as the executive. And he uses his power to create hundreds of laws by presidential decree using the excuse that there is no legislative branch to do the job.

The media is silent. NGOs are nearly silent (Amnesty gave this a brief mention in their annual report, Human Rights Watch didn't mention it at all.)

A website by the European Council on Foreign Relations, called Mapping Palestinian Politics, describes in detail how Mahmoud Abbas has complete control of nearly every important Palestinian institution.

Since succeeding Yasser Arafat as Palestinian leader in 2004, Abbas has consolidated his grip on power within the Palestinian Authority (PA), the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), and Fatah. Over the years, Abbas has steadily purged or constrained his political rivals, monopolised the various Palestinian decision-making processes, and pursued increasingly authoritarian measures to stifle dissent and shrink the space for Palestinian democracy and popular participation.

Why is there so much global criticism of Israel considering changes to the judiciary, and near complete silence when the Palestinian president rips up any pretense of a division of powers and installs himself as the head jurist as well as dictator? More importantly, how can anyone look at the Palestinian Authority and think that this should become an independent state when it its current state it runs roughshod over the rights of its citizens?

The bigotry of low expectations hurts Palestinians. And it is ingrained in the world's psyche - mostly because the Palestinian leaders have encouraged this bigotry by blaming all of their problems on the Jews.

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

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

Israel has slowed down its raids in Palestinian towns recently.

It may be because of Ramadan - or it may be because the PA agreed to do its job and assert control.

The Palestinian security forces arrested a number of fugitives wanted by Israel, including a leader in the Al-Quds Brigades of Islamic Jihad. Members of terror groups fired heavily towards the police district headquarters in Jenin and young men targeted the building with Molotov cocktails in response

Video clips on social media documented showed heavy shooting.

While the PA has claimed that they have stopped security coordination with Israel, it looks like they realized they have no choice but to assert authority in the West Bank or lose it.

Then again, we haven't seen them arrest any members of the Al Aqsa Brigades, which is linked to the ruling Fatah party. If we see that, then we'll know that the PA is somewhat serious about fighting terror, and not just trying to ensure that armed militias don't take over.

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!

Passover fundraiser - Donate to EoZ!

This week, EoZ reached another milestone - 50,000 Twitter followers!

This is just one way that my message of cutting straight to the truth about Israel and the Jewish world has been spreading around the world.

It is not unusual for my tweets to get hundreds of responses. They receive well over a million views every month. And the responses show that the haters are frustrated when they see my memes, cartoons, infographics and regular text tweets go viral.

EoZ isn't only tweets, though. I write long form articles with perspectives and research that you cannot find anywhere else. I am honored that so many of my readers are well-known professors, authors, and intellectuals who come to EoZ to learn things they didn't know.

This year I have also been featuring many posts showing what happened in Israel 75 years ago, in the months before Israel was reborn.

My book PROTOCOLS continues to sell, which is very cool considering I cannot easily promote it while maintaining my anonymity. It has a perfect five star rating! I also released the audiobook version this year. More is planned!

My Instagram page, where I have been saving my graphics, has been steadily growing as well.

I also have my stalwart writers Daled Amos, Varda Epstein and PreOccupied Territory. Not to mention Ian, who always does an amazing job with his twice-daily linkdumps, ensuring that EoZ is a one-stop shop for all the important news and commentary from all over. I can't pay them much but I do give them some payments from my donations to show I appreciate them.

The blog does cost a great deal of time and money (databases for research, subscriptions, Internet expenses, domain names, flowers for Mrs. Elder and so forth).

So please donate to help defend Israel!

To donate with PayPal you can click here, or you can set up a monthly payment schedule with the form on my right sidebar.

You can buy me an iced tea. (I never liked coffee!)

If you prefer, you can become a patron with Patreon here.

You can buy my book - or audiobook.

You can also send me an Amazon gift card to my email elder@elderofziyon.com .

If you want to make a large donation but wish it to be tax-deductible, there are a couple of ways to do that. Contact me and we can see what can be done.

Thank you as always, and have a wonderful Passover!

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 Pt2: Why critical race theory could be dangerous for America's faith-based communities; Meet the Starbucks Union Activist Who Called a Palestinian Terrorist a 'Freedom Fighter'

From Ian:

Lauder to Biden: ‘This is Not Germany in 1938; This is the United States in 2023’

Back in 2016, Ronald S. Lauder, president of the World Jewish Congress, presented the Theodor Herzl Award—the organization’s highest honor—to then-Vice President Joe Biden. On March 26, he penned a letter to the now US president, whom he called “a friend of the Jewish people,” about the need to curb rising antisemitism.

“Today, America is witnessing the most frightening increase in antisemitism since the end of World War II,” Lauder wrote in the letter appearing as an ad in the New York Post. “Jews make up just 2% of the US population, but are the target of more than half of all religious hate crimes.”

“Jews have been murdered, beaten and spat upon—especially Orthodox Jews—with almost complete silence from political leaders and the media,” added Lauder.

He noted that it is common for celebrities, athletes and even members of Congress to say “the most outrageous anti-Jewish slurs,” and Jewish students are “singled out” on campuses for their Jewish names or defense of Israel’s right to exist.

“Jewish enrollment at elite schools has plummeted. Jewish students are excluded from clubs and denied positions,” he wrote. “This is not Germany in 1938; this is the United States in 2023. Mr. President, only you can stop this rising tide of hatred against the Jewish people.”

Lauder urged Biden to state “in the strongest language” that hating Jews is dangerous and un-American. He also called on the US president to do three things.

Why critical race theory could be dangerous for America's faith-based communities - Opinion

CRT demonizes success, arguing that achievement is the product of exploitation and also undermines free speech and enforces ideological conformity by forcefully shutting down views and opinions that put the individual in the center, and encourages individual accountability and responsibility.

One of the core tenets of CRT and intersectionality is that a society based on “meritocracy” is inherently white supremacist. For America to continue to flourish, excellence should be rewarded, not used as ammo in cultural wars and ideological debates.

AP classes are being eliminated, grades are disappearing from schools, and SAT scores for college admission are going extinct. For decades these metrics have helped assess students’ individual abilities and tailor programs for their specific needs and talents. Meritocratic excellence, familiar to faith-based communities, is being systematically replaced with Marxist-inspired equity.

CRT pits group against group and foments hatred for the “other”.

Understanding that all people have the power and resources to fulfill their potential, regardless of their ethnic background, is imperative for a diverse society to flourish. Individuals are capable of great evil, great courage, and everything in between. An oppressor/oppressed binary pits people against people, without distinction.

Efforts by radical left activists in shaping California’s ethnic studies curriculum demonstrates how CRT/intersectionality functions in the school system. Jews and Asians, although minorities and regardless of their individual achievements and life circumstances, are considered “white adjacent” and are therefore beneficiaries of the white power structure and contribute to the oppression of people of color. This framework disallows merit, the complexity of American society, and causes bigotry and ignorance.

Americans who choose to prioritize traditional values, are seen as “oppressor adjacent” and promoters of a “white supremacist” ideal. The result is that instead of leading to a more equal and better society under CRT/intersectionality the oppressors become oppressed, and the cycle of hate continues.

America is too diverse, complex, and open-hearted to be pitting fellow Americans against each other. It goes against the ethos of America’s “Golden Rule” of interpersonal respect and tolerance.

America was founded by people fleeing religious persecution. We built a society rooted in religious tolerance. The spread of CRT is a danger to every person of faith. We need to build alliances between Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, and everyone who believes in objective right and wrong, and the traditional values on which this country is built.

Meet the Starbucks Union Activist Who Called a Palestinian Terrorist a 'Freedom Fighter'

The activist helming the Starbucks union drive has praised a convicted Palestinian terrorist as a "freedom fighter," called for replacing Israel with Palestine, and urged labor federations to reject police unions.

Jaz Brisack, a former Rhodes Scholar who began unionizing Starbucks while on the payroll of the Service Employees International Union, catapulted into far-left politics as a full-scholarship student at Ole Miss. While there, she defended Palestinian terrorist Rasmea Odeh as a "political prisoner" in a 2017 op-ed letter published by the student newspaper. Brisack wanted to repudiate a story by a fellow student who referred to Odeh as a terrorist with communist ties—a description Brisack called an "ad hominem attack."

"Odeh has been targeted in an attempt to undermine her advocacy for Palestinian liberation," Brisack wrote. Odeh was convicted of coordinating two bombings, including one at an Israeli supermarket that killed two students and injured seven—including an Auschwitz survivor—and admitted her involvement to a Lebanese journalist.

"She has called attention to the fact that Israel, guilty of the crime of apartheid, illegally occupies Palestinian land and subjects the Arab population to countless indignities," Brisack continued.

These declarations could hurt 25-year-old Brisack’s star turn as the U.S. Senate spotlights her organizing efforts this week. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) on Wednesday will convene a committee hearing to grill former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz over allegations the company retaliated against Brisack and other union organizers. Schultz, who got his start as a Starbucks employee before transforming the company into a global conglomerate, recently stepped down from his interim leadership post.

Brisack’s praise for the Palestinian terrorist Odeh aligns with the progressive and anti-Israel bent of her other political beliefs, which include support for defunding police and boycotting and sanctioning Israel. Odeh became a celebrity cause for American progressives when the Trump administration deported her in 2017 for lying to obtain a fraudulent visa.

Cool Jewish unity posters from the '70s

I have been quite disturbed by the partisanship and division happening in Israel, and while I have some opinions, I have been mostly reluctant to discuss them because I try to be more about what every Zionist can agree upon, not division.

So I enjoyed this 1974 poster from the Joint Israel Appeal.

(I had tweeted it and Ian put it in the earlier linkdump.)

Apparently I'm not the only one who likes it. It was the cover of a 2013 book.

Here's another on the same theme from 1975.

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

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

Today, 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!