Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Saturday, November 04, 2017

11/04 Links: Phillips: Britain's unfinished Balfour business; Lebanon’s PM resigns, slams Iran and Hezbollah

From Ian:

Melanie Phillips: Britain's unfinished Balfour business

There is indeed unfinished business arising from the Balfour declaration.

Unfinished is Britain’s pledge to create the Jewish homeland which it subverted and betrayed when it tore up the UK’s legally binding Mandate obligation to settle the Jews throughout Palestine, instead denying desperate Jews entry from Nazi Europe while turning a blind eye to illegal Arab immigration in order to block the Jewish homeland that Britain was legally bound to create.

Unfinished is the acknowledgement that Britain did indeed create a separate state for the Palestinian Arabs in 1921, when it hived off more than three quarters of Palestine to become Transjordan, now Jordan – the original two-state solution and national home for the Palestinians which everyone now ignores.

Unfinished is the Arabs never having been held to account for their unceasing attempts to destroy the State of Israel through war, terrorism or the “strategy of stages” – through which the Palestine state to which the FCO is so deeply committed is intended to serve as the geographical platform for Israel’s destruction.

Unfinished is the Palestinian Arabs’ incitement and glorification of terrorism and the indoctrination of their people into Nazi-style antisemitism and the historical lies which seek to write the Jewish people out of its own history.

If Sir Simon McDonald wishes finally to realise the “lasting peace” that he said would fulfil the whole of the Balfour Declaration, this is the real unfinished business Britain must no longer ignore.

Simon Schama at Balfour lecture: ‘The life of Israel is Hitler’s failure’

The historian Professor Simon Schama concluded a bravura Balfour Centenary Lecture on Wednesday night with an emotional belief that some of the hopes and fears of the makers of the Balfour Declaration were being realised in Israel, “a living, breathing, debating, thriving, rejoicing democracy.”

Israel’s six million Jews, Professor Schama said, “are the ultimate retort to the number that Adolf Hitler exterminated. The life of Israel is Hitler’s failure”.

And he took pleasure in celebrating the centenary of the Balfour Declaration, because, he said, “the dark pages of Jewish history have been lit by such impossibilities.”

His lecture, which took place in front of a 300-strong audience at the Royal Society in London, was live-streamed to sell-out events across the UK including at JW3 in London, and venues in Bournemouth, Leeds, Glasgow, Belfast, Brighton and Barnet. The Royal Society was chosen due to its reputation as the oldest scientific academy in continuous existence.

In his hour-long address Professor Schama sought to put Balfour in the context of what was happening globally — and also locally, by starting his remarks with warm memories of his father’s experience of dancing in the streets of Whitechapel as the Balfour Declaration was made public to the Jewish community. At the beginning of December 1917, Arthur Schama stood outside the Royal Opera House in Covent Garden as the audience rose to applaud the singing of Hatikvah.

Simon Schama’s Balfour Centenary Lecture

Before Balfour: The Labour Party’s War Aims memorandum

Ronnie Fraser tells the little-known story of the British Labour Party’s support for Zionism. Three months before the Balfour Declaration, its War Aims Memorandum made clear that ‘The British Labour Movement expresses the opinion that Palestine should be set free from the harsh and oppressive government of the Turk, in order that the country may form a Free State, under international guarantee, to which such of the Jewish People as desired to do so may return, and may work out their salvation’.

Contrary to popular belief, the Labour Party’s support for Zionism did not originate with the Balfour Declaration but with the Party’s own War Aims memorandum which was published in August 1917, three months before Balfour’s letter. The five thousand word memorandum set out a Socialist and Labour vision for the future, once peace had been achieved. It was divided into six sections; making the world safe for democracy, territorial questions, economic relations, the problems of peace, the restoration of the devastated areas and the reparation of wrongdoing, and a proposal to hold an international conference of labour and socialist organisations. Foremost in the Labour party’s plans was the establishment of the League of Nations. The section on territorial questions proposed solutions for Belgium, Alsace Lorraine, the Balkans, Italy, Poland and the Baltic provinces, the Jews and Palestine, and addressed the problem of the Turkish Empire, Austria-Hungary and the colonies and dependencies. Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann credited the Jewish socialist group, Poale Zion for the inclusion of Jewish rights in the memorandum.

Poale Zion (the Workers of Zion) was a Marxist–Zionist movement which was founded in Eastern Europe at the turn of the 20th century. The ideology of Poale Zion was a blend of socialism and Zionism aimed at persuading Jewish workers to support Palestine as a Jewish homeland as well as campaigning for Jewish equality in all countries. Poale Zion was active in Britain from 1905 onwards and established branches in London, Leeds, Manchester and Liverpool. Throughout the First World War, the organisation, under the leadership of J. Pomeranz and Morris Meyer, the editor of the Jewish Times, campaigned for the granting of political and civil rights for the Jewish people in all countries where they were denied. Their efforts were rewarded when both the 1915 and 1916 Congresses of the Trades Union Congress (TUC) adopted resolutions about the civil and political rights of Jews.

In August 1917, the Labour Party published its draft ‘War Aims Memorandum’ containing the following paragraph on the Jews and Palestine:
The British Labour Movement demands for the Jews in all countries the same elementary rights of tolerance, freedom of residence and trade, and equal citizenship that ought to be extended to all the inhabitants of every nation. It furthermore expresses the opinion that Palestine should be set free from the harsh and oppressive government of the Turk, in order that the country may form a Free State, under international guarantee, to which such of the Jewish People as desired to do so may return, and may work out their salvation free from interference by those of alien race or religion.

Petra Marquardt-Bigman: David Hirsh: Fighting anti-Semitism on the left from the left

A recently published book on “Contemporary Left Antisemitism” is an arguably long overdue study of “antisemitism amongst people who believe that they strongly oppose antisemitism.” That’s how the author David Hirsh, a sociologist at London’s Goldsmiths University, puts it in his Introduction, acknowledging that he is examining “a phenomenon whose very existence is angrily contested.” One reason Hirsh’s book is special is that he – a man of the left for all his life, and a veteran opponent of anti-Semitism – has experienced up close and personal just how angry reactions can get when a leftist insists on calling out left-wing anti-Semitism. Yet Hirsh’s analysis remains remarkably dispassionate, and the book has drawn well-deserved praise from leading intellectuals and scholars.

Israelis interested in contemporary anti-Semitism will have a chance to meet David Hirsh at a series of events in Haifa, Jerusalem, Netanya and Tel Aviv between November 5-8. On the evening of November 8, The Times of Israel will host Hirsh for a screening of the documentary “Whitewashed” that examines the efforts to ignore and downplay anti-Semitism in the British Labour Party under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn. (Ticket info for this event at the end of this post.)

While this documentary and much of the book focuses on anti-Semitism propagated by the British left, it is striking to see how easily Hirsh’s analysis can be applied to examples elsewhere.

Consider this observation that Hirsh offers at the very beginning of his book:
“If the Palestinians stand, in the antizionist imagination, as symbolic of all the victims of ‘the west’ or ‘imperialism’, then Israel is thrust into the centre of the world as being symbolic of oppression everywhere. Like antisemitism, antizionism imagines Jews as being central to all that is bad in the world.”

11/03 Links Pt2: Karsh: Turks, Arabs Welcomed the Balfour Declaration; Ayalon: The History of the Palestinian People

From Ian:

Efraim Karsh: Turks, Arabs Welcomed the Balfour Declaration

"100 years have passed since the notorious Balfour Declaration, by which Britain gave, without any right, authority or consent from anyone, the land of Palestine to another people. This paved the road for the Nakba of Palestinian people and their dispossession and displacement from their land."

So Mahmoud Abbas claimed at last year's annual meeting of the U.N. General Assembly in what constitutes the standard Palestinian indictment of the November 1917 British government's pledge to facilitate "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people" providing that "nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine."

It is an emotionally gripping claim, but it is also the inverse of truth. For one thing, Britain did consult its main war allies, notably U.S. president Woodrow Wilson, before issuing the declaration, which was quickly endorsed by the contemporary international community, including the leaders of the nascent pan-Arab movement. Furthermore, the declaration was used as a model by the Ottoman Empire for its own official communiqué.

Conclusion

Mahmoud Abbas's rejection of the Jewish right to national self-determination, which was acknowledged a hundred years ago by the international community, including the world's foremost Muslim power, leaders of the pan-Arab movement, and ordinary Palestinian Arabs, affords a sad testament to the unchanging nature of the Palestinian leadership's recalcitrance.

It was Hajj Amin Husseini's predication of Palestinian national identity on hatred of the "other" rather than on a distinct shared legacy that "paved the road for the Nakba of Palestinian people and their dispossession and displacement from their land." And it was Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas's persistence in this zero-sum approach, despite their feigned moderation in the Oslo peace charade, which ensured the perpetuation of Palestinian dispersal and statelessness to date. It is only by shedding their century-long revanchist dreams and opting for peace and reconciliation with their Israeli neighbors that Palestinian leaders can end their people's suffering. And what can be a better starting point for this sea change than endorsement of the Balfour Declaration rather than its atavistic denigration? (h/t Elder of Lobby)

PMW: PA historian: In 1917 “there was nothing called a Palestinian people”

To mark the 100th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration, Mahmoud Abbas, the President of the Palestinian Authority published an op-ed in the British Guardian newspaper. After castigating Lord Balfour for promising "a land that was not his to promise" he went on to describe the Palestinian people as "a proud nation with a rich heritage of ancient civilisations, and the cradle of the Abrahamic faiths."

Contradicting Abbas' historical revision, just a day before, PA official TV broadcast an interview with the historian Abd Al-Ghani Salameh, who explained that in 1917 there was no Palestinian people.

During the broadcast, the host of the program asked:

"There always was a historical struggle over Palestine, and many wanted to rule it. How did the aspirations to rule affect the Palestinian existence, the Palestinians' options, and the Palestinians' possibilities of development?"

Salameh responded:
"Before the Balfour Promise (i.e., Declaration) when the Ottoman rule ended, Palestine's political borders as we know them today did not exist, and there was nothing called a Palestinian people with a political identity as we know today, since Palestine's lines of administrative division stretched from east to west and included Jordan and southern Lebanon, and like all peoples of the region [the Palestinians] were liberated from the Turkish rule and immediately moved to colonial rule, without forming a Palestinian people's political identity. However, Palestine as a geographic area and the people dwelling within it enjoyed prosperity." [Official PA TV, Nov. 1, 2017]

Danny Ayalon: The History of the Palestinian People

Today we celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration. Why did Balfour only think to offer a nation-state to the Jewish people and not to the Palestinians?

11/03 Links Pt1: Israel will help Syrian Druze village fend off jihadists; Islamic Scholars Gather to Discuss Destroying Israel

From Ian:

Evelyn Gordon: Will Palestinian Reconciliation Reduce Hamas’ Cash Flow?

Of course, it will still have the money it gets from Iran, estimated at $60 million to $70 million this year, and that money will continue going straight to its military wing. But that’s still far below what it was spending on its military in 2014 when it was getting less money from a cash-strapped Tehran but had a steady stream of Gazan tax revenue to play with.

Hamas agreed to dismantle the checkpoints because both PA President Mahmoud Abbas and Egypt refused to accept a return to the status quo ante, demanding instead that the PA be given full control of Gaza. And they backed this demand with heavy financial pressure—the PA by ceasing its funding for Gaza, and Egypt by shuttering its border crossing for months on end.

The question is whether they have a plan for continuing to enforce this demand over the long term. After all, once Hamas is no longer responsible for Gaza’s civilian needs, it will no longer be vulnerable to that kind of financial pressure. And since the reconciliation didn’t require Hamas to disarm, it will continue to be the strongest military power in Gaza even after PA forces return to the borders. Thus, it’s not clear how anyone could stop it from using its guns to resume extorting taxes once it has gotten what it wants out of the deal, which is to stop being responsible for civilian affairs.

This matters because Hamas has shown no signs of losing its desire to fight Israel. Just last month, its new leader in Gaza, Yahya Sinwar, declared, “The discussion is no longer about recognizing Israel but about wiping Israel out.” What has stopped it for the last three years hasn’t been lack of desire, but lack of capacity: Its arsenal of rockets and cross-border attack tunnels was depleted in the last war, in 2014, and another war won’t be practical until that arsenal is rebuilt. Thus, the more money Hamas has to spend on its military build-up, the sooner it will reach the point where it feels it can afford to start another war.

Hence if the PA, Egypt, and the international community want to avoid such a war, they must start thinking now about how to keep Hamas away from Gazan revenues if and when the reconciliation deal is fully implemented. For if Hamas is allowed to resume milking Gaza for cash to pour into its military wing, the next Gaza war will certainly be just a matter of time.

Palestinians: Meet Abbas's New Partners

Hamas and Islamic Jihad leaders are strongly opposed to Mahmoud Abbas's political agenda and even see him as a collaborator with Israel.

Leaders of Hamas and Islamic Jihad announced at a rally on November 2 that they are determined to stick to their weapons "until the liberation of all of Palestine" -- or, in other words, until the total destruction of Israel and the elimination of Jews.

When Zahar says that only a "crazy person" thinks he can disarm Hamas and other armed groups in the Gaza Strip, he is clearly referring to Abbas. Zahar's statement should be seen as a direct threat to Abbas.

Abbas continues to tell the world that he is working to achieve a peaceful settlement with Israel. But will he be able to continue saying such things after he joins forces with his new partners in Hamas and Islamic Jihad? The answer is simple and clear: No.

Alan Baker: What goes for UNESCO goes also for the UN

The annual Israel-bashing parade of senseless resolutions undermines any credibility of the organization, and turns it into a willing tool for cynical manipulation and abuse by gangs of states plying their particular political interests – mostly against Israel.

Perhaps the straw that is breaking the camel’s back is an amazing, recent joint UN-Palestinian project for the years 2018-2022, the title of which conceals its true intentions: “UN Development Assistant Framework – State of Palestine.”

The UN has committed to channel no less than $1.3 billion into various UN agency signatories to the framework, in order to assist the Palestinian leadership in advancing its diplomatic warfare against Israel.

The project aims to finance “training, capacity-building and technical advice” with a view to assisting “Palestinian victims” to exploit international accountability mechanisms and to prosecute “Israeli violations of international law.”

In other words, the entire UN human-rights assistance machinery has now been formally and officially recruited and financed to streamline the harassment and persecution of Israel.

The question is when whether there are any serious and responsible states that, out of genuine concern for the organization, would be willing and prepared to demonstrate their frustration and disgust. This would entail taking the appropriate action of suspending their membership, their annual payments and substantive involvement until the organization corrects itself and returns to the original purposes and principles for which it was created.

Logic would assume that the US, Israel and the major European powers should now take decisive action to halt this deterioration.

First and foremost, they should each dock $1.3b. from their membership fees as a demonstration of their disgust at the UN’s official policy of Israel-bashing. What is good for UNESCO should be all the more relevant to the UN itself.

An Arabic-French news site in Morocco discusses the recent fashion trend of wearing purposefully ripped jeans, which apparently has hit the Arab world as well.

The author, Mohammed Sharkey, first goes through the history of jeans altogether, pointing out that they were designed and marketed originally by Jews Levi Strauss and Jacob Davis.

Sharkey goes on to describe how horrible the fashion trend is,where sometimes the rips make underwear visible. "There is no justification for this appearance in the land of Islam," he says.

And who is behind this new trend? Obviously, just as Jews invented jeans, it was Jews who are pushing this immoral fashion!

"Undoubtedly Jews were the first to create this jeans fashion in order to pour gasoline on the flames of moral decay generated by the depravity and pornography and homosexuality..." he writes.

Undoubtedly!

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Frightened Waqf confiscates a map of the Second Temple from Christian tour guide

On Thursday morning, the Muslim Waqf guards on the Temple Mount seized a map that was being used by am American Christian tour guide to explain where the Second Temple was on the Mount.

Palestinian media reports that the American was "explaining to some of the intruders of the mosque about the building of the alleged 'temple' there.".

A spokesman for the public relations and information department of the Waqf, Firas al-Debbs said that "one of the American guides was carrying a map in his hand to explain to a number of those intruders about the establishment of the 'temple' in the place of Al Aqsa, but the guards confiscated the map from him."

The Waqf is actually proud of this. Yet the seizure itself shows how well they know the truth that they are the ones who usurped a Jewish holy site.

Because if they were confident in their narrative, they wouldn't be threatened by a piece of paper.

It is a shame that the tour guide didn't go to the media. It was a golden opportunity to highlight the Muslim leaders' fright of the truth, and it would have put the Waqf on the defensive -- they would have to double down on their reasons that a map makes them go crazy, knowing that the western world would ridicule them, which would shame them.

Shame is the best weapon the West has to force the Waqf to treat visitors with basic respect. Otherwise they will continue to act like toddlers who don't want to hear the truth..

It is worth repeating that Muslims all freely admitted that the First and Second Temples were on the Temple Mount before 1967. Which is one more reason why people should be especially skeptical when they make claims today - lying in the service of the Umma is not only tolerated but expected.

This is a translation of a 15th century work by a Muslim scholar all about the Jewish Temples.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

A tweet from Forward editor Batya Ungar-Sargon:

The brilliant @Issaamro says: Israel: Take Note — The NYPD Didn’t Kill Manhattan Terrorist https://t.co/MWvZ5pjA5j via @jdforward
— Batya Ungar-Sargon (@bungarsargon) November 2, 2017

Let's bask in Issa Amro's "brilliance:"

[F]or me, a Palestinian watching from occupied Hebron, it felt almost impossible to comprehend. The [New York] terrorist wasn’t killed on the spot? They managed to apprehend him alive?

It was surprising because it feels so antithetical to Israel’s approach.

That's Amro's entire point. The rest of the article is about two cases where Israeli police fired on what appeared to be Palestinians who did not post an imminent threat and one where Amro was certain that they would have shot him dead had he not spoken Hebrew to them saying he wasn't armed.

Amro is writing in the Forward that Israel's policy is to shoot first even when it is not necessary, and that the NYPD cop who shot the truck terrorist is amazing for not continuing to shoot.

Nash shot at the terrorist 9 times. He missed 8 times. The shot that stopped him hit him in the abdomen, and the terrorist was in critical condition when brought to the hospital..

Police throughout the world are taught where to aim to shoot a suspect when warranted. they are not taught to aim at his or her knees or the arm, or to shoot the weapon out of their hand. They are always taught to aim at the midsection. That is the "center of mass" and the most likely to take the suspect down. The life of the suspect is the last thing they are taught to think about when they judge that it is a life-threatening situation.

Gunshots to the midsection are very often fatal. This was luck.

But...what about Israeli police? Don't they shoot dozens of times to make sure that the terrorist suspect is dead? Don't they have disregard for human life and choose to execute anyone they choose?

No.

The female terrorist who stabbed someone outside a hospital in July 2016 wasn't killed. The terrorist who went on a stabbing spree in Tel Aviv earlier this year wasn't killed. The terrorist who rammed his car into a Tel Aviv nightclub and started stabbing people wasn't killed. Even the two terrorist cousins who shot and murdered four people at a coffeehouse last year were not killed.

Yes, there may have been some Israeli police who went beyond their rules of engagement - just like officers all around the world. Amro is claiming that this is the rule, not the exception. Without a shred of evidence.

But there is another difference between Israel and New York: In Israel, the chances that the terrorist also has an explosive belt under his clothes is a major consideration. Knowing that someone can possibly blow up the entire area is part of the calculus that Israeli police need to routinely make and that New York police, thankfully, do not have to. (Yet.)

In Israel, a person who approaches the suspect who is apparently down to kick his weapons away from him, as a civilian did in New York, is actually placing himself and others in danger. If he hadn't done that, and the terrorist had made a move to shoot his (toy) gun, there is no doubt Nash would have shot the terrorist again.

Just like in Israel.

So Amro is wrong about how police treat suspects who have deadly weapons. He is wrong about how Israeli police act. He is wrong about the differences between Israeli police and Ryan Nash. In fact, he is wrong in essentially everything he wrote.

But Batya Ungar-Sargon, instead of acting like an editor should act and check out her writer's words with a critical eye, swoons over Amro's "brilliance." She betrayed her own job as an editor and instead became a cheerleader for a story that has literally no basis for its thesis.

If an article is written for the Forward that adhere's to the editor's anti-Israel bias, there is no reason to fact check.

This is The Forward today.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Six things you need to know about the Balfour Declaration (Forest Rain and Michal Behagen)

Six things you need to know about the Balfour Declaration
by Forest Rain Marcia & Michal Behagen

The Balfour Declaration was a milestone in the history of the Jewish people.

Today, those who object to the presence of Jewish people in the Land of Israel are attempting to rewrite history, creating “alternative facts,” claiming that this declaration gave the Jewish people Israel, at the expense of the “Palestinians.” There are demonstrations outside embassies and even a social media campaign with the hashtag #MakeItRight, implying that the Balfour Declaration was wrong and unjust. This narrative is getting traction in the conventional media and being legitimized by repetition.

In this atmosphere it is important to know a few things. Facts, not feelings. Historical, documented truth, not propaganda.

Here are the 6 things you need to know about the Balfour Declaration:

1. What is the Balfour Declaration?

Named after the United Kingdom's Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour, the Balfour Declaration was a public statement issued by the British government during World War I announcing support for the establishment of a "national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine (which at the time was part of the Ottoman empire).

The declaration was contained in a letter dated 2 November 1917 which Balfour sent to Lord Walter Rothschild, a leader of the British Jewish community. He requested Lord Rothschild transmit its message to the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland.

The text of the declaration was published in the press on 9 November 1917:

2. The right to settle in the Land of Israel

It is not the Balfour Declaration that granted Jews the right to settle in the Land of Israel. The document that gave us that right is the Bible. The Koran corroborates this, making Muslim objectors to our historical right not only ignorant but also blasphemers against their own religion.

3. 3. The impetus to immigrate to Israel
The Balfour Declaration did not cause Jews to immigrate to Israel. Would that it had!
There was a continuous (albeit small) Jewish presence in the Land of Israel from the time of the destruction of the second Jewish Temple. What is considered the first wave of immigration of Jews returning to Israel began in 1882 and still most of the world’s Jewish population remained in exile. Following the Balfour Declaration, the Land of Israel waited for the Nation of Israel who did not believe the cries of the leaders of the Zionist movement. Unlike the few who understood (Herzl, Jabotinsky, Uri Zvi Greenberg and others), they did not comprehend the gravity of their situation in exile and so they stayed there - until the furnaces.
(After the furnaces, it was the British themselves who prevented Jews from immigrating to Israel, in complete contradiction to their previous commitment and humanitarian and moral duty.

4. 4. League of Nations Mandate
The Balfour Declaration is the basis for the League of Nations decision regarding the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in our homeland.
This was one of the functions of the British Mandate (on both banks of the Jordan).

5. 5. International Law
The League of Nations decision is the only valid document in what is called "International Law" regarding the right of any people to this land.

6. 6. When does the Balfour Declaration matter?
The Balfour Declaration is important whenever someone lies, talking about "illegal settlements," "violations of international law," or "occupation".
THAT is the moment when we must raise the Balfour Declaration and say:
We are not here by virtue of international law but by virtue of historical truth.
We are ALSO here in accordance with international law - since the League of Nations adopted the Balfour Declaration - we are here by right. International law did not give us the right to this land, it recognized and reaffirmed our historical right to the land.

For that, Balfour, we thank you.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

11/02 Links Pt2: Prosor: A century of missed opportunities; The Plame Truth About Anti-Semitism in America

From Ian:

David Collier: Gilad Atzmon, solidarity in Reading and RISC – the anti-Israel hosts

Last week, Gilad Atzmon gave a talk at the Reading International Solidarity Centre (RISC).

This blog isn’t about free speech. You want a racist book? You want to subscribe to a white supremacist magazine that hates Jews, blacks and gays? Then go ahead, nobody is stopping you. But you shouldn’t expect the National Lottery fund to subsidise the product. The public purse can be legitimately discerning about where it provides funding. That is not an argument over free speech.

Which is why publicly funded Reading International Solidarity Centre were so outrageously ‘off the mark’ when they allowed this event to go ahead.

Gilad Atzmon the idiot
Gilad Atzmon is an idiot with a highly exaggerated sense of his own intelligence. Just as any functioning computer, Gilad Atzmon operates with the data he has to play with. If some founding pieces, have been contaminated, then the final output is likely to be an incoherent mess. Thus, Gilad Atzmon remains oblivious to the fact that his basic reasoning is badly flawed and his conclusions are askew. A consensus opinion held even by many of those who ‘hate’ Israel. Gilad Atzmon has been outed as an antisemite by many in the anti-Israel camp.

The event in Reading highlighted all this perfectly. In effect, you have to be unbelievably stupid or an antisemite yourself, not to see the antisemite in Gilad Atzmon. There is a working processor churning away behind Gilad Atzmon’s ideology. He correctly identifies some serious problems in society – discussing identity politics, political correctness, automation, and the related scary cliff we face over the possibility of a growing disenfranchised ‘underclass’. Gilad Atzmon’s problem is an infected operating system. Gilad Atzmon has a virus called antisemitism.

Grilli: Antisemitism is always cruel

Whether it’s the “blood libels” of early modern Europe, Germany in the 1930s, Charlottesville, Virginia in 2017, or even Occupy Wall Street, any person of good will should be able to detect the pattern: Jews are the canary in the coal mine. In a society with a large population of Jews, when things start to go wrong, that’s where we unfortunately point fingers. In American culture, it is certainly a disgrace on the right.

The work William F. Buckley Jr. did to rid the conservative movement of the John Birchers seems to have lost some of its power as the tiki-torch wielding Jacobins of Charlottesville rose together as to speak with one voice, chanting, “Jews will not replace us.” This would be enough of an embarrassment but it only gained steam when President Trump gave one of the more mealy mouthed denunciations when addressing the horror that took place in Charlottesville, which resulted in the death of an innocent woman. It seems, however, that this issue has gone under reported on the left, for it is certainly a problem on the political left as well.

When Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz went to the University of California, Berkeley recently to discuss the liberal case for Israel, the student newspaper, the Daily Californian, ran a cartoon that could have easily sprung from the mind of Joseph Goebbels. The cartoon depicted Dershowitz as all anti-Semites depict Jews: ugly, exaggerated features, while he propped up the murder of Palestinians by an IDF soldier.

This blatant anti-Semitism would no doubt be explained away in terms of anti-Zionism, not anti-Semitism. It is convenient how often the two intersect. The same conspiratorial language is often used and, as one can see here, the same horrifying stereotypes are often employed. In Charlottesville, hundreds of people felt comfortable enough in their anti-Semitism to march in one of the nation’s most prominent college towns. In Berkeley, the editorial board at the newspaper of one of the better respected universities in the country, felt comfortable enough to print an anti-Semitic cartoon. The comfort of both of these groups of people is quite disturbing.

The Plame Truth About Anti-Semitism in America

Having encountered only scattered social media reaction to like-minded tweets in the past, Plame’s initial reaction to angry responses on Twitter was to double down, insisting that “many neocon hawks ARE Jewish” and admonishing her followers to “read the entire article,” which she called “provocative, but thoughtful.”

Only when the backlash began to draw mainstream media inquiries did Plame begin to backtrack, first by implausibly feigning ignorance of both the article (claiming only to have skimmed it) and of UNZ.com, then with a more full-throated apology and letter of resignation from the board of Ploughshares Fund.

What’s astonishing about this affair is that Plame wasn’t drunk or distressed in any way (unless she found the Jewish holiday of Rosh Hashanah distressing), nor was she caught unawares on a hot mic. Her grotesque expressions of bigotry were premeditated, public and purposed, however clumsily, to advance a political agenda. And they were largely ignored until they reached the threshold of Zyklon B metaphors and forcing Jews to display outward identification.

Even then the reaction among liberal commentators was apologetic and circumspect.

The Washington Post columnist Molly Roberts bemoaned Plame’s “casual, careless anti-Semitism” not because it is deeply unsettling to Jews or encourages the worst instincts in the rest of us, but because it undermines critiques of Israel “that might otherwise hold merit” and does a “disservice to those who want to have a wider discussion about Israel’s influence” in Washington. Liberals tend to view rampant anti-Semitism in universities and other bastions of the far left in much the same way — if they acknowledge it at all.

The truth about anti-Semitism in America is that we are further away from dispelling it than we are other forms of bigotry. Those who peddle overtly racist dogma do not sit on the boards of reputable NGOs, do not land lucrative speaking gigs and certainly do not get admonished in The Washington Post for carelessly undermining more legitimate criticism of African-Americans. Liberals for whom Plame was, and will likely remain, a cause célèbre should ponder why the equivalent cannot be said of anti-Semites.

From "The New Zealanders in Sinai and Palestine," published in 1922 under the authority of the government of New Zealand:

For a very long time there had been a feeling of bitterness throughout the forces on account of the many acts of the natives and the manner in which they were protected against the troops. Claims for damage, alleged to have been done by our men were always supported and the men had to pay up. This began as far back as Sinai where regiments were made to pay for damage alleged to have been done to the date palms there. Later in Palestine our troops suffered very much from the thieving propensities of the Arab. Here again if any damage were done to crops or stock of a native the claim was upheld, but no redress was ever obtained against a native for theft. At Rafa some natives attacked two of our men severely wounding one and killing the other and also stealing his horse. Subsequently the dead on the Rafa battle-field were dug up and stripped. This happened again after the action at Ayun Kara which took place close by Surafend and there is not the slightest doubt that these villagers were responsible. All troops round Surafend had been suffering from the depredations of the Arabs and could get no redress. Many times our men suffered by being fired upon by the native inhabitants and it must be remembered also that the murder of this New Zealander was not the first that had been committed by the Arabs in this district. An Australian had been shot here only a short time before.

The regiment considered what to do about the Arabs who were stealing from them, killing some and robbing graves.

In the end, they burned the village to the ground and 30 Arabs were killed or injured. The book refers to this as a "disturbance."

[A]t the inquiry it was found impossible to get any evidence as to who took part in the disturbance. But such evidence as was obtained showed that parties from units outside the Division took part in the disturbance which was probably organised in the murdered man's unit. The evidence showed clearly that many small parties came over from Ramleh, Ludd and G.H.Q. at Bir Salim.

It appears that the murdered man's comrades feeling aggrieved that the murderer was not immediately brought to book went to the village and demanded his surrender. They were met by an insolent answer from the head man of the village so they determined to find him and the searching of the houses led to a collision with the natives which resulted in a riot.

There is only slight embarrassment in the book about this incident.

As a result of this disturbance the Commander-in-Chief did not forward names of officers or men of Anzac Units which were camped at Surafend at the time and who had been recommended by the Divisional Commander for inclusion in the Peace Despatch; but subsequently he relented out of consideration for the good work of the Division and forwarded most of the names in a supplementary despatch.

This is the sort of historical event that no one wants to remember. It shows that the Arabs were murderers and thieves, and that the New Zealand army took matters into their own hands to destroy the entire Arab community in retaliation.

The former wouldn't be reported today because it sounds like anti-Arab racism. The latter makes it sound like enlightened armies engaged in routine gross violations of human rights.

And who wants to talk about that unless the army is Jewish?

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Vic Rosenthal's Weekly Column

On Monday, the IDF blew up a tunnel that crossed under the border between Gaza and Israel, and reached a point approximately 2 km from Kibbutz Kissufim.

At least 7 terrorists were killed who were in the tunnel when it exploded, or who entered it afterwards to try to rescue survivors, and numerous others were injured (Israel radio reports this evening that Hamas claims as many as 14 dead). Some of them were members of the Iran-supported Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), while others were associated with Hamas. Two of the dead were identified as “senior commanders” of PIJ.

Although PIJ leaders claimed the purpose of the tunnel was to facilitate the capture of IDF soldiers that could then be held for ransom in order to release PIJ terrorists in Israeli jails, the location of the tunnel so close to a civilian kibbutz suggests that it could also have been a target.

IDF Spokesperson Brig. Gen. Ronen Manelis explained Monday that the operation had been defensive and that it had taken place in Israeli territory. He also said most of the fatalities were from smoke inhalation, dust and landslides, and not the detonation, itself.

"Only conventional measures were used," he said. "The IDF used the same measures it uses regularly. The secondary damage underground [apparently from explosives stored in the tunnel - vr] resulted in fatalities."

"There was no intent to target any specific individual. The operation took place in our territory. Their people were killed in their territory," he added.

Some right-wing politicians, like Jewish Home’s Naftali Bennett, found the tone of the statement less than satisfactory.

“We must not apologize for our success in eliminating terrorists,” Bennett, a member of the security cabinet, tweeted. “I will clarify: These are terrorists who were digging a tunnel of death – in Israeli territory – which was meant to kill Israeli women and children.”

I must admit that at first I agreed with Bennett. After all, the tunnel was a clear violation of Israeli sovereignty, an act of war if there ever was one. And I shudder to imagine the prospect of heavily armed, professional killers emerging from under the ground inside a kibbutz while the residents sleep. The job of the IDF is to defeat our enemies, which – perhaps to the consternation of some post-modern military analysts – requires killing them, even if some of the dead happen to be “senior commanders.” The apologetic tone of the statement suggests that it emanated from a university dean of diversity relations and not an army spokesperson.

But some research uncovered a little-known document that sheds light on the thinking behind the IDF Spokesperson’s statement. Apparently there is more historical precedent for his approach than I thought. I present the document here for your perusal:

Cheshvan 10, 1078 BCE
From: Office of the Israelite Army Spokesperson
To: Media
Subject: Destruction of Philistine Temple of Dagon

Today the Shimson unit of the Israelite Army destroyed the Temple of Dagon in Gaza by a controlled detonation. The operation was carried out using very old, but effective, technology. The Army wishes to stress that the unfortunate death of 3,000 Philistines was secondary damage caused by the roof falling in. At no time did we intend to kill any particular Philistine, even if he was King of Philistia.

As the great Jewish comedian Jack Benny liked to say, “but seriously, folks.” There is no historical precedent for a victorious army being apologetic for killing the enemy. Jewish tradition teaches that when someone comes to kill you, rise up and kill him first. Even Christian armies don’t follow Jesus’ injunction to turn the other cheek to the one that smites you. Stop trying to make us better Christians than the Christians.

The tunnel constituted an act of war, and using it as planned would have been a war crime. In this case Israel did not cower behind its Iron domes or high-tech barriers, but acted proactively according to the best military doctrine.

Hamas, Fatah, the EU, the UN, the BBC and others may complain, but what they are actually complaining about is Jews defending themselves, for once. We have nothing to explain, nothing to apologize or feel regret for. It doesn’t matter if they died from blast or smoke inhalation. It doesn’t matter if they were on their side of the fence or ours, or if we blew up part or all of the tunnel, or if there were explosives stored in it. It doesn’t matter what effect it has on “Hamas/Fatah reconciliation.” And especially, it is good thing, not a bad thing, that we killed “senior commanders.”

They came to kill us, but we rose early and killed them first.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

11/02 Links Pt1: Times of Israel Hacked by Turks; Radical leftists nearly lynched by Arab mob

From Ian:

What goes on under the surface of UNRWA schools is not the problem

UNRWA does indeed condemn Hamas activity underneath UNRWA schools.

Yet UNRWA says nothing about Hamas activity inside the UNRWA schools.

Hamas, defined as a terror group by the US, the UN, the EU, the UK, Canada and Australia, has won successive elections since 1999, to lead both the UNRWA workers union and the UNRWA teachers union.

Hamas influences generations of descendants of the 1948 war to engage in the 'right of return' through jihad - holy war - to take back Arab villages that existed before 1948.

New school books used by UNRWA teach that the Jewish presence in Palestine is “temporary.”

Since 2016, the name "Israel" has disappeared in all UNRWA texts, replaced by the expression "Zionist occupation."

UNRWA school books list thirty inflammatory accusations against Jews starting with its usurpation of Palestine and the expulsion of the original inhabitants, through massacres, murder of Palestinian children, assassination of Palestinian leaders, aggression against neighboring Arab states, destruction of Palestinian cities and villages, desecration of Muslim and Christian holy places, mass arrests, attempts at the elimination of Palestinian identity and cultural heritage, besieging the Palestinians by the separation fence, damaging Palestinian economy and harming Palestinian society, and ending in perpetuating the state of ignorance among Palestinians and responsibility for intra-family violence and drug abuse in Palestinian society.

Times of Israel Hacked by Turks

The Times of Israel has been hacked by a Turkish Islamist group calling itself ‘Gazzeye’ or ‘Akincilar’, on Thursday afternoon.

Visitors to the TOI home page found the Turkish flag and a symbol with the name Akincilar, which is also the name of a town and a district of Sivas Province of Turkey.

The Jewish Week online edition, a New York based newspaper, which merged into the Times of Israel site last year, was also hacked in the process.

Cyber-security expert Paul Goldenberg has previously told The New York Jewish Week, “the Jewish community is highly susceptible to these attacks; the threat cannot be underestimated.”

In 2015, Russel Neiss, a technology consultant, told The New York Jewish Week, “This sort of attack should be easily avoidable with only a small amount of prevention by a staff member of the organization with a moderate amount of technological knowledge or an attentive contractor.”

Sruli Shaffren, the sysadmin for JewishPress.com offered a different perspective, “Any site can be hacked. Any server can have hundreds if not thousands of holes. The system administrators and programmers try to close them all, but a hacker has to only find one in order to succeed. That said, there are steps that can be taken, and people should do whatever they can to keep their sites secure.”

Switzerland admits drone test bungle in Golan Heights

Switzerland's Defense Ministry has admitted sending staff to test reconnaissance drones in contested land held by Israel – an embarrassing blow for the neutral European country's status as an honest broker in the Middle East.

Swiss officials visited an airfield in the Golan Heights region on three occasions in 2012, 2013 and 2015 to monitor tests of the Israeli-built Hermes 900 aircraft that they are buying for $265 million.

The Hermes 900, produced by defense contractor Elbit Systems, is a medium-altitude, multi-payload, long-endurance unmanned aerial vehicle, designed for tactical missions. It has an endurance of over 30 hours and can fly at a maximum altitude of 30,000 feet, with a primary mission of reconnaissance, surveillance and communications relay.

The officials' visits, which lasted several days, took place in an area that Switzerland does not recognize as being part of Israel, as it was seized from Syria in the 1967 Six-Day War.

Following an internal review this year, the Swiss found the presence of their personnel at the airfield contradicted the Swiss position on the Middle East conflict, the ministry said.

The visits took place without the knowledge of the Swiss Foreign Ministry. No further visits have taken place since the affair came to light, it said in a statement.

Zionist Jews created modern Israel, not Balfour

The Balfour Declaration was in important document symbolically, but it was merely a step on the way of modern Jewish self-determination. It was preceded and succeeded by some amazing Zionist diplomatic accomplishments in the international arena. (The Martin Kramer essay from June is a must-read.)

When Great Britain essentially abrogated the intent of Balfour (and the League of Nations) with the Peel Commission and the White Paper, the Zionist Jews kept building up their nascent nation, not only creating a government-in-waiting but also building cultural and educational institutions as well as defense forces that would be necessary to build a state. They didn't get international funding for this - they just did it.

Too many articles about Balfour give Great Britain credit for creating Israel, just like articles at the end of this month will credit the UN partition plan 70 years ago with creating Israel. Neither is true. Israel was created through the sweat and blood and hard work and foresight of a group of Jews who saw how important it was to have a Jewish state. They used international instruments to help them but the entire enterprise was created, sustained and completed by Jews alone, to rebuild the Jewish state that Jews have yearned for over two millennia.

The contrast with Palestinianism is striking. Palestinians haven't been building institutions - they have been sitting back and letting the world community build them. They haven't been creating an effective government - they have been taking NGO money to create their plans. Their leaders aren't craving the responsibility behind building a real state - they are being dragged, kicking and screaming, into doing the bare minimum to be take seriously.

Most importantly, Palestinianism is not nationalism in the sense that they want to live free and independently. It is anti-nationalism. because its entire purpose is the destruction of the Jewish state, not the building of another Arab state. if it wasn't for Israel the Palestinians would happily have become Jordanians and Syrians and Egyptians, depending on how history would have played out. There was certainly no Palestinian government in waiting in 1947. All the major Palestinian leaders in the 1930s had been involved in violence and incitement, not nation-building like the Jewish leaders were.

The Balfour Declaration didn't create Israel and it didn't destroy "Palestine." Jewish genius and creativity and hard work created Israel, and Palestinian hate, rejectionism and antisemitism is what ensured - and continues to ensure - that there will never be a viable, independent Palestinian state.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

At the @NYTimes, car rammings in New York and Barcelona and London are terror - but not in Jerusalem

The New York Times immediately described the Manhattan truck attack as "terror" multiple times:

Readers complained about why this attack was considered "terror" and not the attacks in Las Vegas and elsewhere. The response pointed readers to an "Interpreter" column on that topic, where he doesn't specifically talk about the NYT editorial standards but a more general definition of terrorism:

On the surface, this could be considered a straightforward question of motive. Terrorism is defined as an attack on civilians meant to frighten a larger community for political purposes.
But the new generation of Islamist terrorism, conducted by individuals citing far-off inspiration, has blurred the distinctions between terrorist and disturbed loner. So have recent mass shooters who show signs of both mental illness and an attachment to vague ideological causes.

In tacitly defending the use of the word "terror" to describe the truck attack, the Times defines terror - accurately - as "an attack on civilians meant to frighten a larger community for political purposes." the Las Vegas attack does not neatly fit into that definition.

Attacks in Israel that are virtually identical to the vehicle attack in New York definitely fit exactly into the definition of terror that the Times gives. Yet - they were never called terror by that newspaper:

Two separate 2008 attacks by Palestinians plowing a construction vehicle into civilians was not called terror, except when quoting Israeli police.

A 2014 car ramming attack killing a baby in Jerusalem was not described as terror.

A 2015 car ramming attack at a Jerusalem bus stop was not described as terror.

Even an analysis of the string of car ramming attacks in Israel, with Palestinian social media being quoted as encouraging it, did not use the word "terror:"

One cartoon circulating on social networks on Thursday depicted a car as the barrel of an automatic weapon, captioned in Arabic, “Revolt and resist, even by your car.” Another showed an odometer with the slogan, “Oh, revolutionary, use more gasoline, so we can have Palestine back.” A third simply had a vehicle in the red, white and green of the Palestinian flag hitting two men with Jewish stars on their black hats.

These cartoons prove that the car ramming attacks in Israel were "meant to frighten a larger community for political purposes."

Yet the New York Times studiously avoided the word "terror" in reporting these attacks.

Was it only because the ramming was in New York and therefore closer to home? Not at all. The New York Times described the Barcelona attack as terror. It described the ramming attack in London as terror.

Only in Israel are vehicle ramming attacks dismissed as mere "attacks."

There is only one reason that this is the case. When there are Islamist terror attacks around the world, the editors of the New York Times are perplexed. The attacks are "senseless." The goals are nebulous - destroying the US or Europe? That's crazy!

But Palestinian attacks on Israel, they can understand. After all, they have reported extensively on Israeli actions that make Palestinians uncomfortable, like blockading a territory from where thousands of rockets have been fired. To them, these attacks aren't "senseless" - there is some justification that they can understand. Killing Israeli Jews is normalized, understandable, routine. But killing British or American citizens is outrageous.

The attacks are identical. The motives - to destroy the host country - are identical. The underlying religious justifications of martyrdom are identical. But in Israel's case, the Jewish victims have an amount of culpability that European and American victims do not.

This is clear, direct anti-Israel bias. And while the NYT bends over backwards to explain the difference between attacks Las Vegas and New York, they don't want to tell the world why they see a difference between attacks in Jerusalem and New York, It would reveal their hypocrisy.virtu

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Haaretz has an article by Mya Guarnieri Jaradat, an Israeli who married a Palestinian Muslim and who supports BDS and dismantling the Jewish state, who is now upset that the American Jewish community doesn't make her feel comfortable.

If my husband and I had stayed in Israel-Palestine, we would have never sent our daughter to a preschool of any religious orientation. We probably would have remained in the West Bank, where his family would have helped with childcare. She would have been raised a Muslim Palestinian.

But I likely would have brought her in to Israel with me for the holidays and the occasional Shabbat on the beach in Tel Aviv. There, she would have absorbed my brand of secular Judaism - chagim and Hebrew.

Guarnieri Jaradat wants her child to have Jewishness without Judaism, Israeliness without Israel, and for good measure to be Muslim without Islam.

And she's whining that she cannot find this mythical community - in America.

... I needed to find childcare. Fast. None of the secular preschools I visited were a fit; the JCC was certainly out of question. I remembered the place where my friend’s son had his brit milah. I dropped by. There was no Israeli flag out front but there was Hebrew inside.

What’s the harm in a little religion? I asked myself. I signed my daughter up.

While I initially felt encouraged by the place’s welcoming attitude. I told them about our unique family situation and they seemed accepting. But I became concerned about the content. However silly, I was disappointed that their sort of Hebrew wasn’t the Hebrew I’d learned in Israel. Sukkot isn’t "Sukkot" but, rather, “Sukkos.” It’s not shabbat shalom but "gut shabbos." The kids don’t study the alef-bet. No, it’s the alef-beis.

Something else wasn’t sitting right with me. On Rosh Hashanah when I accompanied my daughter to the children’s program, I figured out what it was: . When they did a mock tashlikh, the children fished "good" and "bad" things out of a bag, tossing the "bad" into a large piece of paper, painted blue, decorated with fish, representing a body of water, and receiving candy for the "good."

"Good" and "bad"? I didn’t want her internalizing the labels and feeling the guilt or shame common to religious people of all the Abrahamic faiths. I was uncomfortable with how black and white it all was, I was uncomfortable with the moralizing.

Someone who has written dozens of articles for +972 and other sites, who literally hates Zionism, is upset at the "moralizing" of teaching children that some behaviors are good and some are bad???

One of the blurb-writers for Mya's anti-Israel book, Neve Gordon, refers to the Israeli government as representing "the intricate webs of evil." Mya doesn't object to that kind of moralizing. Only the kind that tells children that listening to parents is good and hurting others is bad.

What a thoroughly messed-up person. She wants to teach her daughter that there is no such thing as good and bad - except if course for the twin evils of Israel and the Jewish religion.

How terrible that she cannot find a community of like-minded people that trash their religion and their nationality while listening to Hebrew popular music.

We already knew that Guarnieri Jaradat was a hypocrite. But this is such self-absorbed crap - trying to damn the American Jewish community but unwittingly telling the world what a twisted and sick person she is.

No wonder that Haaretz considers it worthy of publication.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

11/01 Links Pt2: Palestinian leaders need to have ‘that’ Santa conversation with their people; Judo Shame

From Ian:

Britain’s Hard Left Has Come to Resemble a Religion, in Which “Zionists” Are among the Devils

Secularization has dramatically reduced the autonomy of this social sphere, as whole areas of social life have become the business of the state to police. The state is fast becoming a secular church, the fount of moral legislation, and is busy imposing a uniformity of belief on its citizens every bit as intrusive as the theocratic states of the past, where the distinction between church and state was likewise unknown.

From this development, it has followed that politicians have been only too willing to step into the role of prophets or high priests; and it is not surprising, therefore, that someone like Corbyn, who appears to offer a coherent worldview and gives clear guidance as to what people should believe, should be able to acquire a following.

That is one part of the story. The other major trend is simply the wholesale abandonment of the moral teaching associated with the Bible. For it is the first rule of Judeo-Christian morality that evil is to be found within us. . . . It is a prescription for humility which may be considered to be the very foundation of a gentle and harmonious social life.

The strength of this moral teaching is that it inoculates us against the self-righteousness that sees the world in dualistic terms, as divided between us and them, between the children of light and the children of darkness. For in the . . . vision of the Corbynistas, we are wholly virtuous, wholly pure, and wholly innocent; evil has nothing to do with us, but wholly to do with them, those wicked bankers, capitalists, neo-imperialists, Zionists, Tories, and racists, who must in due time be punished for their sins.

Alan Dershowitz: The Forward’s Defense of an Antisemitic Cartoon Is Unacceptable

When the official newspaper of Berkeley published a color caricature of me as a spider-like creature with one leg stomping on a Palestinian child and another holding an IDF soldier spilling the blood of an unarmed Palestinian, there was universal condemnation of what was widely seen as a throwback to the antisemitic imagery of the Nazi era. The chancellor condemned the cartoon, stating that, “its antisemitic imagery connects directly to the centuries-old ‘blood libel’ that falsely accused Jews of engaging in ritual murder.”

Writing in the Daily Cal, students from a pro-Israel organization at Berkeley debunked the claim that the cartoonist and the student paper editors at the Daily Cal could not have known that this cartoon was seeped in traditional antisemitic stereotyping, when considering its deep roots in European, and even American, publications.

In the cartoon, Dershowitz is depicted with a hooked nose and a body of a large amorphous black sphere. His exaggerated head and contorted legs and hands evoke images of a spider. The rhetoric of Jews as ‘invasive’ insects in society, trying to take over resources and power, has long been used to justify violence, persecution and murder. The two elements of the cartoon, with Dershowitz’s face in the front and the black body in the back, plays into the antisemitic trope of Jews as shape-shifting, sub-human entities using deception and trickery in order to advance their own agendas. This rhetoric is nowhere more common than in Nazi propaganda, and can be traced far beyond WWII in European and American media.

The students also wrote about the “pain” the antisemitic cartoon had caused them:
To a Jewish student on this campus, seeing this cartoon in the Daily Cal is a reminder that we are not always welcome in the spaces we call home…

Telling Jews that we can or cannot define what is offensive to us, because of our status as privileged minority in the United States, is antisemitic.
Some students also pointed to the swastika that had defaced my picture on a poster outside Berkeley Law School, as evidence of a pervasive antisemitism disguised as anti-Zionism on that campus.

Not surprisingly, it was only an op-ed writer for the Forward who not only denied that the imagery was antisemitic, but actually justified it:
The mere appearance of blood near a Jew is not a blood libel. The State of Israel has an army, and that army sometimes kills Palestinians, including women and children. When you prick those people, I am told, they bleed. It is perverse to demand of artists that they represent actual, real Israeli violence without blood, just because European Christians invented a fake accusation.

Palestinian leaders need to have ‘that’ Santa conversation with their people

It can’t be easy for a parent to tell their child, after years of excitement, that in fact there’s no rotund, white-bearded man who lives at the North Pole, flies around the world on a sleigh with supersonic reindeer, comes down chimneys, drinks milk, eats a cookie then leaves you presents. The news must be devastating, and at least for a while, there must be a distinct lack of trust between parent and child. That’s presumably why most parents put off telling their children for as long as possible.

I’m not comparing the Palestinian population to children, but certainly their leadership is selling their own version of the Santa story to them.

“The problem for Palestinians is that we are surrounded by Israel” said a Palestinian commentator on radio this week. This throwaway remark, amid a series of rehearsed and anodyne platitudes about Palestinian national unity flowing from the rapprochement of Hamas and Fatah in Gaza and the West Bank, revealed the real motives of this entente.

Let’s think about that opening sentence for a minute. That’s a bit like saying that the problem with the Czech Republic is that it is “surrounded by Germany and Poland.” Does the Palestinian commentator regard a future Palestinian State as an island like Tristan de Cunha, devoid of neighbors? A blissfully isolated utopia? Sadly, the answer is much less fanciful, but just as absurd.

The Palestinian leadership, and by proxy the population as a whole, cannot get their heads around the fact that the “Nakba” (the disaster, as they refer to the creation of the State of Israel) is not a flash in the pan, and that some 70 years later, Israel exists, is flourishing and isn’t going anywhere.