Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Friday, July 28, 2023

Remembering what happens when Jews rely on others (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

If there was ever a time that Jews needed the help of the West, it was against Hitler.

And we all know how that turned out.

Put aside the refusal to bomb railroad tracks in order to slow down the transportation of Jews to their death in the concentration camps. And put aside how long it took countries to get together to make a united effort to save Jewish refugees who needed destinations in order to escape the Holocaust.

What happened when countries did get together with the sole purpose to help Jewish refugees escape the danger and find a new home? The answer is Evian.

And the results were not pretty.

In his new book, And None Shall Make Them Afraid, Rick Richman describes "Eight Stories of the Modern State of Israel" -- the stories of 8 Jews whose lives and actions contributed to the success of Zionism and the establishment of the Modern State of Israel. The 1938 Evian Conference intersects with the life of Golda Meir, who attended the conference, and the life of playwright Ben Hecht, who dealt with the Jewish leadership that followed and relied too much on world leaders they thought actually wanted to help.

The problem with Evian became clear before it even convened, starting with the invitation itself, which defined the goal as to

consider what steps can be taken to facilitate the settlement in other countries of political refugees from Germany (including Austria).

Notice that there is no mention of the identity of the refugees that the conference was supposed to help--Jews. Merely political refugees.

This avoidance was pervasive.

Richman points out:

To read the speeches of the nine-day Evian Conference, which convened on July 6, 1938, in the Hotel Royal's Grand Ballroom with 140 representatives from thirty-two countries, is to see a cascade of euphemisms, all designed to avoid using the words "Jews" (who were the subject of the Conference) and "Hitler" (who had created the problem the Conference was called to address). (p. 141, emphasis added)

This included the lack of any condemnation of Hitler or even any "message" addressed to him (p. 144).

That use of euphemisms is reminiscent of the tendency of today's media which in their headlines reduce Palestinian terrorist attacks on Israelis into cars that on their own volition run down Israelis --

At the conclusion of the conference, only the Dominican Republic was willing to accept Jewish refugees.

A political cartoon that depicted the situation of the Jews before the Evian Conference served as an accurate description of its result:

But Nazi Germany knew that the purpose was to help the Jews and not just refugees in general. Hitler's Foreign Office publicly gloated in response to the refusal of the participants in the Conference to offer to help:

it appears astounding that [those] countries seem in no way anxious to make use of these elements [the Jews] themselves now that the opportunity offers. (p. 148)

Richman writes about the inaction of the Conference:

It sent a signal to Hitler that no nation in the world wanted the Jews, that Palestine had effectively been closed as a place of refuge, and that German could deal internally with the Jews as it wished, without fear of even a critical resolution from the West. (p.148-149)

He notes that some historians find a connection between the failure of the Evian Conference and the Kristallnacht pogrom that occurred 4 months later. (p.149)

World leaders today are not doing much better. A look at the UN gives a snapshot of where those countries stand today.

And what about Jewish leaders?

During Kristallnacht, more than a thousand synagogues were burned and more than 7,000 businesses were destroyed. Hundreds of Jews died and 30,000 were arrested and sent to concentration camps.

What was the response from Jewish organizations?

Three days after Kristallnacht, the major American Jewish organizations met and formally agreed that "there should be no parades, public demonstrations or protests by Jews." They adopted a strategy of silence, out of fear that Jewish protests might lead to accusations of special pleading. [p. 158, emphasis added]

When Roosevelt condemned the pogrom 5 days later, he made no reference to Jews. What he did make were some generalized platitudes, concluding that there would be no protests and no increase in immigration quotas. The Jewish leader Rabbi Stephen Wise wrote at the time, "At long last, America has spoken."

Someone less satisfied was the Jewish playwright Ben Hecht, who once wrote about himself, "Most of the Jews I know are, like myself, a little startled to find themselves Jews." Despite what was, up to then, a weak Jewish identification, seven months after Kristallnacht, Hecht wrote a collection of stories in a book called A Book of Miracles. It included The Little Candle, which vividly recounted an international pogrom in Germany in which half a million Jews were murdered. He became friends with Peter Bergson, a follower of Vladimir Jabotinsky, leading to Hecht becoming even more active.

He wrote about what was happening in Germany, getting the word out at a time when FDR was doing nothing and Jewish leadership was passive. In March 1943, he wrote a script for a pageant at Madison Square Garden entitled "We Will Never Die," highlighting the dangerous situation of Jews in Europe. It featured a number of famous Broadway stage personalities. In his autobiography, Hecht writes about a phone call he received from Rabbi Wise reaction:

I have read your pageant script and I disapprove of it. I must ask you to cancel this pageant and discontinue all your further activities on behalf of the Jews. If you wish hereafter to work for the Jewish Cause, you will please consult me and let me advise you. [p.170]

Hecht hung up on him.

There were 2 sold-out performances the first night and 40,000 saw the pageant, with thousands more listening outside on loudspeakers. It went on to be performed in DC, Philadelphia, Boston, Chicago and Los Angeles.

In September, Hecht wrote a poem entitled Ballad of the Doomed Jews of Europe, which the Bergson Group had published in an ad in The New York Times.

And again, Jewish organizations were opposed:

Both the American Jewish Committee and the American Jewish Congress opposed the ad's publication when Hecht had proposed it at the end of 1942, fearing it was too provocative. When it was ultimately published a year later, another 1 million Jews had been murdered.

During this period, the Roosevelt administration took no action whatsoever to save the European Jews. (p. 172)

Finally, in January 1944, Roosevelt took action on the advice of his Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgenthau Jr, who informed him that the State Department was blocking aid to Jewish refugees. According to Morgenthau, if FDR did not act quickly, he would risk an election-year scandal. This is what led to the creation of the War Refugee Board.

The Board was successful in saving the lives of tens of thousands of Jews, but it came into existence far too late, after more than 5 million Jews had been murdered.

Jewish organizations failed.

Today, Jewish organizations again suffer from a lack of confidence.

Betrayal: The Failure of American Jewish Leadership, is a collection of 22 essays assembled by Charles Jacobs and Avi Goldwasser. As established in the book's Acknowledgments, there is a need to address

The failure of the American Jewish establishment to counter the growing hostility toward the Jewish community [which] is endangering Jews across the country. This failure is scandalous.

...we have weak, politicized bureaucrats too often more concerned with their social status, the perks of power, and their organizations’ financial success than with their responsibility to defend the community. As can be seen in their priorities, staffing, and programs, they seem more loyal to a progressive ideology than to the safety of Jews.

Jews and Israel can no more rely today on the nations of the world to help them than it could when those same Western countries were needed the most. By the same token, Jewish organizations cannot afford to be complacent, valuing the connections with world leaders above the best interests of the Jewish people. At a time when there is growing friction between Israel and American Jews, it is even more important for Jewish organizations to put Jews and Israel before politics and progressive ideology

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!

I came across this story from JTA in 1930:

This would be the Standing Liberty quarter.

Doris Doscher had played the biblical Eve in a 1918 silent film, "Birth of a Race."

After she died in 1970, there were claims that another actress named Irene MacDowell was the model for the quarter and her role was hidden because her husband disapproved. Doscher's husband, who survived her, insisted that his wife was the real model.

No one disputes that Doscher was the model for the sculpture at a fountain outside the Plaza Hotel in New York.

So now the antisemites can spin new conspiracy theories about Jews controlling the US money supply.

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!

Sweden's SVT Nyheter reports:

Police have granted a public gathering outside the Israeli embassy in Stockholm on Friday. The woman behind the application states that she plans to "light the Torah with a lighter".

The demonstration is scheduled for 12 noon on Friday.

"We are conducting a dialogue with the organizer and other parties who may be affected, for example the Israeli embassy,"says Mats Eriksson, press spokesperson at the police.

The application is submitted by a woman in her 50s who states that it is a "manifestation for children's rights in Sweden which are systematically violated". She writes that the plan is to "light the Torah with a lighter".

What, exactly, does burning a Torah (more likely a printed Chumash) have to do with children's rights?

There are only two answers - both of which are profoundly antisemitic.

One is that they have nothing to do with each other, but the woman wants publicity, and she knows that attacking Jewish holy objects will get her the publicity she wants. Which means that every crank in Sweden will now seek to burn sacred Jewish objects to get their cause in the newspapers, and antisemitism has become a gimmick.

The other is that somehow she is associating Judaism with violating children's rights. Which is not so far fetched - "progressives" in Europe and the US always associate Israel with every social justice crime they can think of.

And as this incident shows, the modern antisemites don't distinguish between Judaism and Israel, as much as they claim to. Otherwise, why is she intending to do her stunt outside the Israeli embassy?

Either way, antisemitism is becoming cheapened and commoditized, which means that people are becoming less and less outraged at attacks on Jews and Judaism as more of these stunts get approved.

I support freedom of speech. Technically, what she wants to do is legal. Nazis in 1933 could also justify their book burnings as freedom of their own expression - yet everyone knows what it really meant.

History shows that book burners are the people who care the least about freedom of expression.

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!

07/27 Links Pt2: Fight Antisemites, Not Antisemitism; Palestinian Refugees Were Used as a Political Prop; 'Shut Up or Else!' The True Link between Islam and the Left

From Ian:

A List of Communities in Ashkenaz Obliterated by Violence During the Black Death

The Black Death, which erupted across Europe and lasted for about four years (1347-51), caused immense devastation, and it appears that the mortality rate among the European population was between 25% and 45%. The immediate consequences of that pandemic had a significant impact on the Jewish population, as the Jews were accused of poisoning the wells that led to the outbreak of the plague, which spread on a massive scale. Throughout Europe, severe persecutions against Jews began, resulting in the death of many Jews and the extinction of hundreds of communities. Various sources, both Hebrew and Christian, bear witness to these events, preserved in our hands, descendants of that time and later.

Knowledge of Jewish martyrology during the Middle Ages, specifically lists documenting Jews who were martyred for sanctifying the Name of God, has been preserved in the manuscript books of various communities, primarily in Germany, which were collected by Siegmund Salfeld, Das Martyrologium des Nürnberger Memorbuches. Information regarding the events of the Black Death is somewhat fragmented. Salfeld heavily relied on one of the manuscript books, but he also supplemented the lists with information from other sources, including individual prayers and elegies that address those persecutions. Additional lists pertaining to martyrdom have been conserved in Hebrew manuscripts.

An unknown memory list has been preserved in a compilation of legal and liturgical texts from the 14th century, or possibly slightly thereafter, which were bound together and written on parchment in various Ashkenazi scripts. This compilation is housed in the library of the University of Gießen in Germany, and it includes: (a) a prayer book following the Ashkenazi custom, (b) laws of prayers according to Rabbi Elazar ben Nathan (Rabbanite), (c) Sha’arei Dura by Rabbi Yitzchak ben Meir Dura, (d) a collection of prayer customs following the “Würzburg” and “Mainz” traditions, (e) Tashbetz by Rabbi Shimson ben Tzadok.

In Hebrew manuscripts, it is common for the owner to add something from a source that is at their disposal in an empty space in the manuscript. Here, someone added a list of communities during the outbreaks of the Black Death in Germany. They undoubtedly saw a need for it, as it would serve them in the prayer of “Yizkor” (Remembrance). In this compilation, a prayer book according to the Ashkenazi custom can also be found, and through this addition, they sought to express the devastation that befell German Jewry during these difficult events. It is unclear whether the individual recorded the names of the communities from memory or copied an existing list. The exact date of its composition is also unclear. I estimate that it was written in the second half of the 14th century or shortly thereafter. Indeed, a similar list is not recognized in our records. It should be noted that there is no direct connection between this list and the accompanying text. A digital photograph of the manuscript was provided to me by Mr. Olof Schneider of the mentioned library in Gießen, and for that, I am grateful.

MEMRI: Fight Antisemites, Not Antisemitism

The rise in violent antisemitism in the West is so significant that the White House, the European Union, and the United Nations have all taken action to devise strategies to counter this phenomenon. This document will address historic and modern antisemitism, will analyze recent national and global strategies for combating it, and will suggest an effective strategy and plan of action.

It is critical to understand that there is no such thing as "combating antisemitism" without combating antisemites themselves, in the same way that one cannot fight crime without fighting criminals or fight terrorism without fighting terrorists. As will be explained below, any strategy that deviates from this principle constitutes an evasion on the part of governments from their responsibility to protect targeted minorities.

Antisemitism – A Historical Perspective
Antisemitism is a multifaceted millennial phenomenon with deep roots in Christian[1] and Islamic traditions, and it would be presumptuous to suggest that antisemitism can be eradicated. Every era has had its own distinct expression of antisemitism, including blood libels, the Black Plague, accusations that the Jews were poisoning wells, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion conspiracy, and accusations that the Jews foment revolutions throughout the world.[2] Today, one of the most prominent antisemitic conspiracy theories in the West is that the Jews are implementing a plot to replace whites in America and Europe with minorities.[3]

Antisemitism and Israel
Over the past century, the Israeli-Arab conflict (and later the Israeli-Palestinian conflict) has been serving as a catalyst for antisemitism aimed at Jews outside of Israel, even though these Jews have little or no connection to the conflict or to the State of Israel.[4]

In modern history, two solutions to antisemitism arose among Jews: The first was to assimilate, and the second – Zionism – was to establish a Jewish state and bring to it all the Jews from the diaspora, thus transforming the Jews into a nation among the nations and ending antisemitism. Neither answer appears to have solved the problem of pervasive antisemitism.

Palestinian Refugees Were Used as a Political Prop

In "Palestinians Deserve a Passport" (op-ed, July 20), Abdullah Ektileh justly focuses on the abominable treatment Palestinians have been given by Arab governments. Where, in the great population exchanges of the 1940s, Muslims were absorbed into Pakistan, Hindus into India, Silesian Germans into West Germany and Jews from Arab lands into Israel, the Palestinians were an exception.

Rejected by their fellow Arabs, who largely kept them cooped up in camps and fed a diet of hatred and revenge from birth, Palestinians were meant to be a tool for a war of total destruction against the Jewish state. Eventually, the plan backfired and, after the (barely) failed attempt of radicalized Palestinians to overthrow the Jordanian monarchy, they became too dangerous to absorb. To this day, they suffer from their exclusion by their fellow Arabs, while directing their passionate hatred toward Israel.

The Oslo agreement intended for them to become citizens of a Palestinian state, one offered by Israel in 2000, 2001 and 2008. During what was supposed to be a transition period, Oslo granted them autonomy under the Palestinian Authority. But the PA has flatly refused all those offers of statehood and promoted terrorism, even making payments to Palestinians who kill Jews. By their policies, the Arab states created a monster that terrifies them and also has made the two-state solution, one perfectly sensible in theory, a practical impossibility.

The Palestinian leadership's last card has been posing as victims. While that has succeeded in whipping up a worldwide wave of Jew-hate, it has done nothing to help the Palestinians themselves.

From the Jerusalem Post:

The United States slammed as “unacceptable” National Security Minister Ben-Gvir’s visit to the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound on the Temple Mount on Thursday, to mark the annual Tisha Be’av fast.

“We reaffirm our long-standing US position in support of the historic status quo at Jerusalem’s holy sites,” State Department deputy spokesperson Vedant Patel told reporters in Washington.

“Any unilateral action or rhetoric that deviates or jeopardizes the status quo is completely unacceptable,” Patel emphasized.

The US Embassy in Jerusalem issued a similar statement and US Ambassador Robert Wood echoed his country’s displeasure in a speech he delivered to the United Nations Security Council.

“This holy place should not be used for political purposes. We call on all parties to respect its sanctity,” he said.

No matter what one thinks of Ben Gvir, what is unacceptable is for the US to say that some Jews have a very limited right to visit their holiest spot, which is bad enough, and then to make it worse by saying that some Jews should have no rights to visit it at all.

From a Jewish perspective, it is the Muslims who visit the Dome of the Rock and the areas around it who are desecrating the holy spot. Every single day.

Jewish sensitivities towards the most sacred spot in Judaism are meaningless to the State Department.

But for some reason, Muslim sensitivities to make the entire area Judenrein is not something to be condemned by the US government..

Even when they give antisemitic speeches there.

Even when they wave Hamas flags.

Even when they stockpile projectiles and fireworks.

When those things happen, the State Department never issues sanctimonious statements urging Muslims to "respect its sanctity."

Anything and everything that Muslims do on the Temple Mount is somehow part of the mythical "status quo" while anything Jews do is a threat and a potential powder keg.

There is something very wrong here.

Ben Gvir did nothing provocative and said nothing that is offensive, certainly when compared to the Jew-hatred being spouted regularly on Al Aqsa. But the State Department feels that they can attack him without repercussions from the Jewish community, because he is so reviled by so many.

What Jews need to realize is that this attack on him was couched in terms of an attack on all Jews who want to assert historic rights to our most sacred place, and that is what is "completely unacceptable."

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

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

The Al Quds Brigades of Islamic Jihad - Jenin Brigade today issued a warning, and a not so veiled threat, to any media that reports things it doesn't like:

In the name of God, the most gracious, the most merciful

* Notice issued by the Jenin Battalion - Military Media *

Media brothers, institutions and individuals,

We note to you that it is forbidden to carry out any media activity such as photographing people or places or otherwise inside the camp, specifically with regard to the capabilities and connections of resistance work, without permission from concerned brothers. Whoever disobeys bears responsibility for that. We note that the capabilities of the resistance and the sacrifices of the mujahideen are not a place for a press scoop.

I think they make themselves quite clear.

And it is almost a certainty that the international media will adhere to these rules.

Which is why you won't see photos of terrorists burying IEDs in their own streets, or booby-trapping houses of Jenin residents, or any of the other gross violations of human rights that the terror groups do daily in Jenin. And without photos, there will be no reporting. And without reporting, the only aggression being reported on is from the Israeli side.

Remember how reporters used to be brave and fearless in their commitment to telling the entire story no matter what the consequences?

Those days are long gone. Now we have reporters who stay in hotels in Tel Aviv and drive over to Ramallah and Jenin to parrot the terrorist talking points about how awful the Israelis are - and justify the lies by calling it a "narrative," before returning to their bars in Israel where they can boast about their "speaking truth to power."

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!

07/27 Links Pt1: Israel is America’s top ally outside English-speaking world; Cruz Moves to Block FTC From Penalizing Israeli Companies

From Ian:

Mark Regev: Netanyahu should have been in the room with Herzog and Biden

Over the last seven months, Biden has repeatedly expressed his discomfort with Netanyahu’s government, its “extremist” cabinet members, behavior in the West Bank, and judicial reform proposals. Although in his CNN interview with Fareed Zakaria, the president did offer some backhanded praise, saying: “Hopefully Bibi will continue to move toward moderation.”

Jerusalem-Washington ties have gone through periods of tension in the past, with numerous examples of American presidents adopting a confrontational approach towards an Israeli prime minister, to secure a policy change. But the White House tactic of involving Israel’s ceremonial president in such a dispute is a relatively new development.

New York Times columnist Tom Friedman recently reminded his readers of the March 1975 Israel-US “reassessment” crisis. Then, president Gerald Ford and his secretary of state Henry Kissinger got tough with Israel, believing that the government of prime minister Yitzhak Rabin was being intransigent in the negotiations over an Egypt-Israel interim agreement.

Kissinger abruptly ended his Cairo-Jerusalem shuttle diplomacy and returned to Washington, where the administration declared it was reconsidering its entire approach towards Israel – and in the meantime suspending arms deliveries, including the supply of new F-15 aircraft.

During the “reassessment,” Ford didn’t consider inviting Israeli president Ephraim Katzir to the White House for a president-to-president meeting to demonstrate that despite the administration’s troubles with Rabin, it really did have Israel’s back.

Another crisis in Israel-US ties erupted in June 1990 between the administration of president George H. W. Bush and the government of prime minister Yitzhak Shamir.

Differences over the composition of a Palestinian delegation for peace talks had secretary of state James Baker theatrically tell Israel that “the phone number [for the White House] is 202-456-1414. When you’re serious about this, call us.” Baker was threatening a US disengagement from Arab-Israel peacemaking.

Then, too, America’s 41st president did not invite his fellow head of state, Israeli president Chaim Herzog – the father of the incumbent – to the White House to parade his administration’s love for Israel and to demonstrate it only had a problem with the “hardline” and “inflexible” Shamir.

A precedent was broken in June 2012 when, for the first time, Israel’s president was inserted into some adroit American triangular diplomacy.

President Barack Obama had a testy relationship with Netanyahu, with their differences over Iran, the Palestinians, and settlements constantly creating friction.

But during his reelection campaign, Obama didn’t want to be seen as hostile to Israel. He decided to award the prestigious Presidential Medal of Freedom to president Shimon Peres in a White House ceremony; the photographs of the US president adorning a beaming Peres with the medal seemingly attesting to Obama’s heartfelt friendship for the Jewish state.

None of this is to say that Herzog should not have gone to Washington. It is almost impossible to reject a White House invitation and an opportunity to speak before Congress. Moreover, it appears that Herzog was working in tandem with Netanyahu – as indicated by their pre-visit coordination meeting.

It is even possible that Herzog’s imminent visit had something to do with the timing of the US president’s phone call to the Israeli prime minister, and the announcement that a Biden-Netanyahu meeting was finally being scheduled.

Israelis followed their president’s US visit with pride. Herzog excels as the nation’s chief diplomat, a picture of consummate statesmanship.

Although pleased with their president’s performance and delighted by Washington’s lauding of the Israel-US partnership, Israelis would do well to remember that the Biden White House is playing a very serious diplomatic game – hugging their ceremonial head of state, while snubbing their elected head of government.

Peter Baker: Biden Takes His Battle for Democracy Case by Case

With Mr. Netanyahu defying him, the question is whether Mr. Biden will go beyond jawboning. The United States provides billions of dollars a year in security aid to Israel, but Mr. Biden appears unlikely to use leverage beyond entreaties to pressure Mr. Netanyahu to back down.

“So far, Biden’s pressure has only been rhetorical, and not only is that insufficient to challenge Netanyahu’s expanding authoritarianism, it indicates how out of sync Biden is with his own voting base,” said Phyllis Bennis, a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies and a longtime critic of Israel’s handling of the Palestinians.

The president’s aides said his words were important. “I wouldn’t say it’s just rhetoric,” said Karine Jean-Pierre, the White House press secretary. “When the president speaks, it sends a message.”

To Mr. Netanyahu’s supporters, the president’s outrage over democratic erosion in Israel feels selective. For one thing, they argue the prime minister’s plan to limit the authority of the courts is not anti-democratic but instead puts more responsibility in the hands of elected leaders.

Moreover, Mr. Biden has advanced legislation on “the slimmest possible majority” plenty of times. Indeed, Vice President Kamala Harris just matched the record for most tiebreaking votes in the Senate in American history.

“There’s no question Israel is being treated differently,” said John Hannah, a senior fellow at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, a nonpartisan organization in Washington focused on advancing the U.S.-Israel strategic partnership.

He noted that in France, President Emmanuel Macron ran roughshod over parliament to enact unpopular pension changes without the broad consensus Mr. Biden has insisted Mr. Netanyahu seek, generating strikes, street demonstrations and sporadic violent protests. “Yet you’ll search in vain for even a single word from President Biden of real criticism against his French counterpart’s handling of these purely internal French matters,” Mr. Hannah said.

Richard Fontaine, chief executive of Center for a New American Security, said America’s approach to promoting democracy abroad “has always been a model of inconsistency.” Mr. Biden is right that the world currently faces a contest of democracy versus autocracy and that the United States should stand up for the former, he said, but he must balance it against other objectives.

“The inconsistency and whataboutism are inevitable byproducts of a foreign policy that seeks changes in other countries’ domestic situations,” he said. “That’s not ground for abandoning the effort to support democracy abroad — just for understanding that it’s no easy task.”

Poll: Israel is America’s top ally outside English-speaking world

Nearly all (94%) of those who named Israel as America's top ally said defense ties are very important to the relationship, higher than those who said so about the UK (86%) or Canada (78%).

More of those who named Israel also said that shared values (79%) are very important than those who named the UK (72%) or Canada (69%).

Asked who is the biggest threat to the US, China led with 50%, followed by Russia at 17%. North Korea was tied with the US itself at 2%.

The last time Pew asked the question, in 2019, China and Russia were tied. In 2014, Russia was considered the leading threat. In 2017, it was Iran, which no longer ranks among the top responses.

The poll was conducted among 10,329 American adults on May 30-June 4, 2023.

Have an easy and meaningful fast

Jews' Place of Wailing, Jerusalem, 1842, William Henry Bartlett

For those who mark Tisha B'Av, have an easy and meaningful fast.

I will not be posting until Thursday afternoon.

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!

07/26 Links Pt2: Lyn Julius: The distorted ‘nakba’ narrative; Can the Palestinian Authority survive?; The real Oppenheimer's complicated relationship with Judaism

From Ian:

Lyn Julius: The distorted ‘nakba’ narrative

Israeli Diaspora Minister Amichai Chikli is an angry man. Chikli, who has a history of being outspoken, has lately turned his sights on the German government. He has complained about inappropriate comparisons between the Holocaust and the Palestinian nakba—Arabic for “catastrophe.” Worse still, the German government has been sponsoring the dissemination of such comparisons.

Chikli’s complaint concerns a government-funded event in Potsdam at which German journalist Charlotte Wiedermann made the comparison in question. Wiedermann has denied doing so, but whether the allegation is true or false, the comparison has become increasingly common. It is now trendy to equate the industrialized murder of six million Jews to the displacement of Palestinian Arabs during Israel’s 1948 War of Independence.

This war was launched by seven Arab countries and resulted in the expulsion of every last Jew in eastern Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria. Arab League members then declared a second war against their own Jewish citizens, whom they branded “the Jewish minority of Palestine.” This resulted in the near-total destruction of ancient Jewish communities throughout the Middle East and North Africa. Ninety-nine percent of the regions’ Jews were forced to flee.

What angered Chikli the most was that the Potsdam event was officially sponsored by public institutions. Moreover, it was not the only event of its kind. It was part of a series of such events held in Berlin in recent months. These events included lectures with titles such as “Understanding the Pain of Others: The Holocaust and the Nakba,” “Hijacking the Memory of the Holocaust for the Benefit of Dehumanization in Palestine,” and “Zionism Can Also Motivate Antisemitism.”

This year, coinciding with Israel’s 75th anniversary, campaigners for the Palestinian cause have succeeded in moving the nakba from the margins to the mainstream. For the first time, the U.N. held a “Nakba Day” commemoration at its New York headquarters. Palestinian Authority chief Mahmoud Abbas, sporting a symbolic key affixed to his lapel, demanded permission to return to his native Safed, which is inside Israel proper.

Over 75 years, the meaning of the term nakba has evolved. It was popularized by the Syrian Christian journalist and historian Constantine Zureik. To him, the “catastrophe” in question was the Arab defeat in the 1948 war—that is, the Arab failure to destroy Israel.

Zureik wrote, “Seven Arab countries declare war on Zionism in Palestine. … Seven countries go to war to abolish the partition and to defeat Zionism, and quickly leave the battle after losing much of the land of Palestine—and even the part that was given to the Arabs in the Partition Plan.”

He concluded, “We must admit our mistakes … and recognize the extent of our responsibility for the disaster that is our lot.”

MEMRI: Kuwaiti Journalist: We Teach Our Children To Hate The Jews As Their Enemies, But In Fact We Are Our Own Worst Enemies

In his May 16, 2023 column in the Kuwaiti daily Al-Qabas, liberal Kuwaiti journalist Ahmad Al-Sarraf harshly criticized the curricula taught in Kuwaiti schools, which, he said, are replete with hostility for Jews and present them as enemies of Islam and the Muslims who must be eliminated. He decried the fact that the curricula focus on cursing the other instead of teaching critical thinking and promoting values of tolerance and freedom. The Arabs, he added, fail to realize that one of the reasons for the Jews' advantage over them is that the Jews focus on education and the acquisition of knowledge, rather than on cursing others, whereas the Arabs are their own worst enemies.

The following are translated excerpts from his column:[1]
"Reading some passages in one of the textbooks taught in our schools… I was reminded of the saying 'we showered [our enemies] with curses and they showered us with blows!' These passages show clearly that whoever writes [the Kuwaiti] curricula is completely out of touch with reality, or lives in an idealized world and is full of unlikely ambitions.

"Reading three of four pages of the textbook at random, we discover that, according to the educators who wrote it, the nation's major concern, which should be focused on, is hostility towards the Jews and the desire to eliminate them. But this is in fact rather embarrassing, for there are 400 million Arabs and a billion Muslims, and it is inconceivable that all of them should focus their energy and aspirations… on eliminating a state of six or seven million people.

"This is clearly a problem. Had the Education Ministry allowed to teach the subject of critical thinking in our schools, the students would have understood on their own how foolish this text is… In our present state of weakness, division and backwardness – medical, social, moral, industrial and financial -- our entire [Muslim] nation [together] would not be able to eliminate the state of Israel. [In fact,] some of the texts in our schoolbooks clarify [exactly] how our mentality differs from the mentality of those we wish to see as our enemies. Yet despite this, throughout the century they have spent in our midst, we have not managed to understand why they continue to beat us in every military and moral campaign!

"The texts our children learn in school teach them how to deal with the plots of the Jews, but we have forgotten that [we Arabs] plot against one another more than they [the Jews] plot against us. Our preoccupation with internal disputes is the greatest factor that strengthens them and weakens us, especially given that [our] curricula do not even address the issue of putting a stop to our disputes, accepting one another and ending our internal division and rifts… Without liberalism and freedoms we have no hope!

"Our curricula focus on the fact that the Jews' hostility towards Islam and the Muslims is ancient and deep-rooted, which is clearly a fallacy. And even if it is true, I do not believe for a moment that they devote as much attention as we do to this hostility, to thinking about it and teaching it in their curricula. Being wise, they devote their curricula to teaching progress in every domain, not to cursing the other…

"Our curricula focus on the narrative that the Jews are violators of treaties, which automatically implies that we are not. [But] that too is a lie that half our clever schoolboys and schoolgirls will find difficult to buy. The curricula also say that one of the Muslims' greatest duties is to defend Islam by observing its laws and boycotting the products of the enemy. That is the greatest irony and foolishness of all, as even a mediocre mind will realize. In short, we are our own enemies, far more than anyone else is our enemy…"

Putin Regime’s Actions ‘Made Rise of Antisemitism Inevitable,’ Russian Scholar Argues

Nearly eighteen months into Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, there is a “palpable presence of antisemitic overtones” across the country’s political life that builds upon the “fertile ground” of historic “Soviet antisemitic and anti-Western campaigns,” according to a new assessment by a scholar of Russian Jewish history.

In an extensive article published earlier this month by Germany’s Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Ksenia Krimer — a Russian citizen who is now a fellow at the Leibniz Center for Contemporary History in Potsdam, a research institute partially funded by the German government — traced the upsurge in antisemitic tropes inside Russia as President Vladimir Putin’s regime arrived on the cusp of open conflict with western nations as a result of the invasion.

Krimer, who obtained her PhD from the Central European University (CEU), argued that Putin’s “philosemitism” — his past expressions of support for both Israel and the Jewish community — was now an irrelevant consideration. In 2022, nearly 33,000 Russian Jews emigrated to Israel, a 400 percent increase on the previous year, according to the Israeli authorities.

“In 2023, it is no longer a question of whether Putin himself harbors antisemitic prejudices or not,” Krimer wrote. “The very logic of his regime and the forces it unleashed nationally and globally made the rise of antisemitism inevitable.”

There is now a “palpable presence of antisemitic overtones in political rhetoric, repressions, and everyday interactions,” Krimer added.

Among several examples she cited was a soldier’s manual published in 2022 with the approval of the Russian Ministry of Defense. Justifying Russia’s invasion of Ukraine to those tasked with carrying it out, the manual claimed that “all power [in Ukraine] is concentrated in the hands of citizens of Israel, the United States and the United Kingdom. They orchestrated the genocide of the native inhabitants…Today, all of us, Russian Orthodox and Muslims, Buddhists and shamanists, are fighting against Ukrainian nationalism and the global Satanism that supports it.”

RFK Jr. got into hot water on July 15, when the New York Post aired footage of a press event during which he said (emphasis added):

“COVID-19. There is an argument that it is ethnically targeted. COVID-19 attacks certain races disproportionately,” Kennedy said. “COVID-19 is targeted to attack Caucasians and black people. The people who are most immune are Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese.”

“We don’t know whether it was deliberately targeted or not but there are papers out there that show the racial or ethnic differential and impact,” Kennedy hedged . . .

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. says COVID was ethnically targeted to spare Jews
The Democratic presidential candidate "claims without proof": COVID-19 is a genetically engineered bioweapon which is “ethnically targeted” to spare Ashkenazi (European) Jews & Chinese https://t.co/kIyK2t7mRi
— Michael Weingardt (@Michael_Wgd) July 15, 2023

VIDEO:

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. claims coronavirus was an "ethnically targeted" bioweapon designed to be more deadly for caucasians and blacks — and spare Jews and Chinese https://t.co/xfAdovs0sY pic.twitter.com/og4xHdKs7x
— Jon Levine (@LevineJonathan) July 15, 2023

When called on the carpet for these antisemitic, racist, conspiracy theorist comments, RFK Jr. doubled down, tweeting:

“The U.S. and other governments are developing ethnically targeted bioweapons and that a 2021 study of the COVID-19 virus shows that COVID-19 appears to disproportionately affect certain races. The furin cleave docking site is most compatible with blacks and Caucasians and least compatible with ethnic Chinese, Finns, and Ashkenazi Jews. In that sense, it serves as a kind of proof of concept for ethnically targeted bioweapons.”

The @nypost story is mistaken. I have never, ever suggested that the COVID-19 virus was targeted to spare Jews. I accurately pointed out — during an off-the-record conversation — that the U.S. and other governments are developing ethnically targeted bioweapons and that a 2021…
— Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) July 15, 2023

Except that none of this is true. Jews had a higher mortality rate from COVID-19 compared to other ethnic groups in, for example, the UK. From the JPost (emphasis added):

Despite Kennedy’s claims that Ashkenazi Jews had a higher immunity to COVID-19, in June of 2020, the Office for National Statistics released data revealing Jews had a higher mortality rate from COVID-19 in the United Kingdom compared to other ethnic groups. At the peak of the pandemic, in April 2020, Jewish mortality from COVID-19 was twice that of non-Jews.

But perhaps we can’t altogether blame RFK Jr.’s hateful views about Jews, since it’s kind of a family
legacy going all the way back to Grandpa Joseph P. Kennedy, a known antisemite. From Joseph Kennedy and the Jews (emphasis added):

Arriving at London in early 1938, newly-appointed U.S. Ambassador Joseph P. Kennedy took up quickly with another transplanted American. Viscountess Nancy Witcher Langhorne Astor assured Kennedy early in their friendship that he should not be put off by her pronounced and proud anti-Catholicism.

"I'm glad you are smart enough not to take my [views] personally," she wrote. Astor pointed out that she had a number of Roman Catholic friends - G.K. Chesterton among them - with whom she shared, if nothing else, a profound hatred for the Jewish race. Joe Kennedy, in turn, had always detested Jews generally, although he claimed several as friends individually. Indeed, Kennedy seems to have tolerated the occasional Jew in the same way Astor tolerated the occasional Catholic.

The above article, by the way, is prefaced with a note:

“Note: Due to a number of anti-Semitic comments that have been posted, comments have been disabled for this article.”

Here is more from the same source in which Hitler is viewed as a solution to the Jewish question, and Communism, too (emphasis added):

As fiercely anti-Communist as they were anti-Semitic, Kennedy and Astor looked upon Adolf Hitler as a welcome solution to both of these "world problems" (Nancy's phrase). No member of the so-called "Cliveden Set" (the informal cabal of appeasers who met frequently at Nancy Astor's palatial home) seemed much concerned with the dilemma faced by Jews under the Reich. Astor wrote Kennedy that Hitler would have to do more than just "give a rough time" to "the killers of Christ" before she'd be in favor of launching "Armageddon to save them. The wheel of history swings round as the Lord would have it. Who are we to stand in the way of the future?" Kennedy replied that he expected the "Jew media" in the United States to become a problem, that "Jewish pundits in New York and Los Angeles" were already making noises contrived to "set a match to the fuse of the world."

During May of 1938, Kennedy engaged in extensive discussions with the new German Ambassador to the Court of St. James's, Herbert von Dirksen. In the midst of these conversations (held without approval from the U.S. State Department), Kennedy advised von Dirksen that President Roosevelt was the victim of "Jewish influence" and was poorly informed as to the philosophy, ambitions and ideals of Hitler's regime. (The Nazi ambassador subsequently told his bosses that Kennedy was "Germany's best friend" in London.)

Columnists back in the states condemned Kennedy's fraternizing. Kennedy later claimed that 75% of the attacks made on him during his Ambassadorship emanated from "a number of Jewish publishers and writers. ... Some of them in their zeal did not hesitate to resort to slander and falsehood to achieve their aims." He told his eldest son, Joe Jr., that he disliked having to put up with "Jewish columnists" who criticized him with no good reason.

RFK Jr. isn’t the only descendant of Joe Kennedy to become an ardent antisemite. Joe Jr. was apparently a chip off the old block. He thought Hitler was just the bee's knees (emphasis added):

Like his father, Joe Jr. admired Adolf Hitler. Young Joe had come away impressed by Nazi rhetoric after traveling in Germany as a student in 1934. Writing at the time, Joe applauded Hitler's insight in realizing the German people's "need of a common enemy, someone of whom to make the goat. Someone, by whose riddance the Germans would feel they had cast out the cause of their predicament. It was excellent psychology, and it was too bad that it had to be done to the Jews. The dislike of the Jews, however, was well-founded. They were at the heads of all big business, in law etc. It is all to their credit for them to get so far, but their methods had been quite unscrupulous ... the lawyers and prominent judges were Jews, and if you had a case against a Jew, you were nearly always sure to lose it. ... As far as the brutality is concerned, it must have been necessary to use some ...."

. . . Like his friend Charles Coughlin (an anti-Semitic broadcaster and Roman Catholic priest), Kennedy always remained convinced of what he believed to be the Jews' corrupt, malignant, and profound influence in American culture and politics. "The Democratic [party] policy of the United States is a Jewish production," Kennedy told a British reporter near the end of 1939, adding confidently that Roosevelt would "fall" in 1940.

On July 17, 1949, the JTA released a report that states in part (emphasis added):

Anti-Semitic views claimed to have been expressed by Joseph P. Kennedy — during the time when he was U.S. Ambassador in London — in his conversations with the German Ambassador there in 1938, were revealed here today in captured German diplomatic documents made public by the State Department.

The documents, which claim that Kennedy approved of the Nazi treatment of Jews in Germany, were discovered in the top secret archives of the German Foreign Ministry. One of them is a letter from the then German Ambassador to Great Britain, Dr. Herbert von Dirksen, to Baron Ernst von Weizsaecker, State Secretary of the German Foreign Ministry who was recently convicted on war crimes charges. In this report, von Dirksen wrote of Kennedy as follows:

“The Ambassador then touched upon the Jewish question and stated that it was naturally of great importance to German-American relations. In this connection it was not so much the fact that we wanted to get rid of the Jews that was so harmful to us, but rather the loud clamor with which we accompanied the purpose. He himself understood our Jewish policy completely; he was from Boston and there, in one golf club, and in other clubs, no Jews had been admitted in the past 50 years. In the United States, therefore, such pronounced attitudes were quite common, but people avoided making so much outward fuss about it.

In Joe Kennedy’s Answer to the ‘Jewish Question’: Ship Them to Africa, Clive Irving writes about Joe Kennedy's personal solution to "the Jewish problem." Send them to Africa (emphasis added):

In 1938 Joseph Kennedy had a solution to “the Jewish problem.” The New York Times reported that he had worked out with prime minister Chamberlain a plan to ship all German Jews to Africa and other places in the Western Hemisphere under the joint administration of Britain and the United States. That was news to the State Department, which Kennedy had not consulted, and to President Roosevelt for whom Kennedy had become an embarrassing loose cannon.

You might be tempted to say—considering the legacy of antisemitism that RFK Jr. inherited from Grandpa Joe—that all the Kennedys suffer from the same malady. Except that there is reason to believe that this is not so. For one thing, JFK's daughter Caroline, married a Jew. And in Bobby Kennedy’s Admiration for Israel, we learn that while RFK Jr.’s father Bobby at first tried not to choose sides in his coverage for the Boston Post of events leading up to Israel’s declaration of statehood. Then he changed his mind, and realized that Israel was in the right (emphasis added):

[In] “British Hatred by Both Sides,” RFK labored mightily to present the arguments of both Arabs and Jews. “There are such well-founded arguments on either side,” Kennedy wrote, “that each side grows more and more bitter toward the other. Confidence in their right increases in proportion to the hatred and mistrust for the other side not acknowledging it.”

Bobby Kennedy, father of RFK Jr., really seemed to get it. How brave the Jewish people were in fighting to create a Jewish state in Palestine, after thousands of years in exile. From the same source (emphasis added):

In the subsequent three articles, however, RFK and his Boston Post editors no longer attempted to convey an objective view of the competing claims of Jews and Arabs. As the headline on his June 4th article indicates, RFK chose a side: “Jews Have a Fine Fighting Force—Make Up for Lack of Arms With Undying Spirit, Unparalleled Courage—Impress the World.” The article gets directly to the point: “The Jewish people in Palestine who believe in and have been working toward this national state have become an immensely proud and determined people. It is already a truly great modern example of the birth of a nation with the primary ingredients of dignity and self-respect.” Many similar articles appeared in the American press of the day. The surprising thing about these Boston Post articles was not their pro-Zionist sentiments, but the fact that they had been written by Joseph P. Kennedy’s son.

After RFK Jr.'s latest remarks, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz gave him a talking to from the podium. It was a pretty good speech. But it's hard to take her seriously, considering she's on the wrong side of many issues that pose a danger to Israeli Jews.

RFK Jr.’s response to Wasserman Schultz carried more than a grain of truth, for which we must give him credit:

I won’t be lectured to about antisemitism from Democratic lawmakers like Wasserman Schultz @RepDWStweets who voted to give Iran $150b while that regime promises a new Holocaust against the Jews. #Kennedy24
— Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) July 22, 2023

Joseph P. Kennedy's grandson RFK Jr., looks to be a serious contender for the Democratic presidential nomination. As such, it is important to talk about his problem with Jews and Asians and to keep talking about it long and loud. Everyone should be well aware of the character of the candidate they choose for president. And that includes our current Democratic president.

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!

Two description of Tisha B'Av in 19th century newspapers

In the 19th century, apparently, Jews referred to Tisha B'Av as the "black fast" and Yom Kippur as the "white fast."

The earliest description I can find in English-language newspapers is from The Argus of Western America

25 Jun 1828. It was printed in Kentucky, which was "western America 'at the time.

The article is about the customs of Jews altogether.

Towards the end, it describes fast days, and then descends into bizarre claims and antisemitism.

A much more accurate description can be found in The Western Daily Press (Bristol, England) 13 Aug 1883:

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!

07/26 Links Pt1: Despite Widespread Protest and Controversy, Israeli Democracy Endures; PLO calls to disrupt Tisha B'Av services; The Malley Investigation, Explained

From Ian:

Despite Widespread Protest and Controversy, Israeli Democracy Endures

On Monday, the Knesset passed an amendment to Israel’s Basic Law stating that courts cannot countermand a ministerial decision or override a ministerial appointment on grounds of unreasonableness. The measure has set off intense protests in Israel, as well as condemnations and expressions of concern from Democratic politicians in the U.S. The editors of the New York Sun comment:

President Biden’s reaction—to lecture the Israeli leader that a measure of such magnitude shouldn’t be allowed to squeak by—is condescending nonsense, particularly from a president who gained passage of his own economic program by slim votes.

The most impressive thing about the drama unfolding in Israel, though, is Israel’s democracy itself. The protests have gone on, the press is at full tilt, and the scene in the Knesset was as raucous as could be.

In other words, democracy is functioning as it should. No mass arrests. No one is being “disappeared.” Democracy is often messy, and one could say the more turbulent, the more democratic. Yet, save for some isolated incidents, there has been little violence over this in Israel.

The truth is that what we’re seeing in Israel is what one would expect from any healthy democracy or any country of laws. And why not? This is a fight over laws that are being made or reformed. Those refusing to defend the county or those physicians who protest by betraying the Hippocratic oath will, if there are violations for civil disobedience, be held accountable by the laws of the country. They are unlikely to have a major impact on the outcome.

Alan Dershowitz: If you truly love Israel, it’s time to compromise

Protesters claim that this judicial reform, especially if followed by further weakening of the Supreme Court, will end Israeli democracy. They are categorically wrong. As President Isaac Herzog told a combined session of the US Congress, democracy is in Israel’s DNA, and it will remain there forever. The best proof that this is true is both the frequency of Israeli elections and the intensity of the recent protests on both sides. These are not symptoms of a weakening of democracy; they are evidences of a strong democracy at work.

Even if all of the so-called reforms were to be enacted— which I would strongly oppose — Israel would become more like Great Britain and the United States than like Hungary or Poland. Indeed, some European democracies have little or no judicial review of the decisions and actions of the elected branches, and they continue to be vibrant democracies.

The most disturbing aspect of this controversy is that it has become internationalised. Judicial reform is a domestic issue, whether in the United States, in India or in Israel. Other countries should butt out of this entirely domestic issue. It does not affect the United States, Great Britain, the European Union or the United Nations.

But Israel has always been subjected to a double standard of super-scrutiny with regard to its domestic concerns. This internationalisation of a purely domestic issue is partly a result of that double standard, but it is also the responsibility of some of the Israeli protesters who have sought help from outside the country. In doing so, they are deliberately weakening the Israeli economy, just as the refusal of soldiers to serve is weakening Israel’s military capacity.

The extremes on both sides of this debate are overreacting and harming Israel in the process. The controversy over judicial reform requires moderate compromises from both sides. This is not happening because extremists are benefiting from the controversy by pandering to their bases and exaggerating the implications of enacting or failing to enact judicial reform.

Those who love Israel, whether inside or outside the nation-state of the Jewish people, must pull back from extreme measures and advocacy and follow President Isaac Herzog’s lead in seeking a compromise that is acceptable even if not preferred, by the majority of Israelis who favour a middle ground.

Israel’s judicial reform of its courts’ unchecked power is not as radical as activists would have you believe

The new legislation is extremely modest.

It leaves reasonableness review intact except where used to second-guess the decision-making of elected officials.

Israel’s high court remains the most powerful administrative-law court in the Western world.

The importance of the reasonableness amendment right now is largely political.

It will prove significant only if Israel’s parliament adopts the remainder of the reform without excessive delay.

The new law brings the center of the debate over judicial reform from the streets back to where it ought to be — the chambers and hallways of the elected legislature.

The prime minister has asked opposition leaders to join him in hammering out a compromise version of judicial reform that can enjoy broader public support.

One can only hope opposition leaders rise to the occasion.

The fear now is that Israel’s Supreme Court will declare it can ignore the legislation and continue to exercise “reasonableness” review, enacted law be damned.

Israel, of course, has no constitution, and there is no legal precedent for such an action by the court.

It’s hard too to ignore the questions of legitimacy raised by a court declaring itself above the law to aggrandize its already-excessive authority.

Unfortunately, Israeli Supreme Court decisions, particularly in recent years, have exhibited neither moderation nor restraint.

The political chaos that will follow the court’s overreach could be devastating.

In 2019, the UN General Assembly passed Resolution 73/328, "Promoting interreligious and intercultural dialogue and tolerance in countering hate speech." It included this paragraph:

Strongly deploring all acts of violence against persons on the basis of their religion or belief, as well as any such acts directed against their homes, businesses, properties, schools, cultural centres or places of worship, as well as all attacks on and in religious places, sites and shrines that are in violation of international law,

A resolution voted on yesterday thas an identical title. But it has a paragraph that says this:

Strongly deploring all acts of violence against persons on the basis of their religion or belief, as well as any such acts directed against their religious symbols, holy books, homes, businesses, properties, schools, cultural centres or places of worship, as well as all attacks on and in religious places, sites and shrines in violation of international law,

It adds "religious symbols" and "holy books" to what cannot be attacked, and it changes "that are in violation of international law" to "in violation of international law."

In other words, Pakistan just managed to pass a UNGA resolution that states that burning Qurans is against international law.

There was, by all accounts, a major debate. Spain tried to take out the words "in violation of international law" from the text, but its attempt was voted down, 62-44 with 24 abstentions.

And then the entire resolution was adopted by consensus.

While burning the Quran is something to be condemned, it is not against international law, and this is on the slippery slope of adopting Islamic concepts of blasphemy as something the entire world must adopt.

The text is in the preamble, and UNGA resolution itself, has no legal effect, but this is still significant - people use the text of UN resolutions as evidence of what international law is.

Two weeks ago, the UN Human Rights Council passed its own resolution that "Calls upon States to adopt national laws, policies and law enforcement frameworks that address, prevent and prosecute acts and advocacy of religious hatred that constitute incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, and to take immediate steps to ensure accountability."

As one critic notes, "One only has to look at some of the 28 states that voted in favor of the (HRC) resolution to realize that the real purpose is not to counter hate speech or foster equality and tolerance, but to provide authoritarian governments cover and legitimacy when suppressing dissent."

There is a thin line between hate speech that could lead to violence - which is incitement - and legitimate criticism. Muslim-majority states are trying to blur that line to force the West to adopt their own bans on blasphemy as international law.

As we saw in the UN yesterday, the West caved. But free speech is not something to give up on.

I don't have the text of the UNGA resolution, but the UNHRC resolution has at least two other problematic elements.

One is that, as we've seen, any statements against antisemitism are always paired with condemnations of Islamophobia. But the UNHRC resolution, supposedly against religious hatred, mentioned Islamophobia - and not a word about antisemitism. Which makes it pretty obvious that people are not serious about combating antisemitism.

The other is that the UNHRC resolution refers to the Quran consistently as "the Holy Qur’an." The word "Holy" should not be there - the Quran is only holy to Muslims. The insistence of that language indicates again that these resolutions are not meant to fight religious hatred as much as they are to elevate Islam as a belief over others.

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!