06/17 Links Pt1: Why the ICC Prosecutor Is Wrong on Oslo; EU pulls funding for Palestinian NGO refusing to disavow terror; Whistleblower Exposes PA Corruption

From Ian:

---

David Collier: On the matter of Jewish sovereignty, everybody should settle down

Lies and more lies
These groups are now all sharing the same material. I have seen some people share Yachad or Na’amod posts who really should know better. Much of what is being said in this content is just lies based on illogical nonsense.

The starting point of the logical fallacy is the absolutism of the ‘negotiated two state solution’. In this paradigm, Israel cannot make unilateral moves. I hate to point out that I cannot remember these people complaining when Israel unilaterally left Sth Lebanon or Gaza. Making this an absolute simply puts Israeli peace prospects in the hands of Hamas. What if there is no partner? Are those pushing the absolutism of the negotiated settlement condemning Israelis to a perpetual conflict where they can be held hostage by whichever radical Islamic faction is holding up negotiations at the time. Sadly, unilateralism may be the only way to break the impasse, and absolutisms are a really stupid way to approach any difficult problem.

Then there are the comments in the articles and videos about ‘annexation’ being a ‘fatal blow to Israeli democracy’. Except they have no evidence that it would be. These people twist Netanyahu’s words spoken about citizenship even though they should know other statements have contradicted these declarations. They are selecting which elements to believe to suit what it is they want to say. That’s propaganda.

The articles all act as if we face doomsday. An ‘end of Israel’s democracy’ and a ‘fatal blow to British Zionism’. Unsubstantiated, illogical, non-factual poppycock.

Ugly subtext
The subtext to these Diaspora discussions is truly shameful. Israel is a highly functioning democracy. Every dinner table in Israel is a political arena. Almost every Israeli citizen can reel off the political positions of a myriad of parties across the spectrum and name the key figures in each. Israeli diplomacy is probably more convoluted and complex than that of almost any other nation. Front line Israeli politicians have spent decades trying to build ties or sustain them in hostile circumstances. Netanyahu has spent the last decade massaging new relationships into life with the gulf states.

The critical Diaspora narrative is basically suggesting Israel does not know what it is doing. It labels Israelis as incompetent voters. The state as irrational and led by extremists. This is a precise copy of the anti-Israel narrative. The fact that this government contains LESS right-wing forces than it has done for some time is ignored. We have liberal Jews sitting in their comfortable London homes trying to save Israel from the Israelis. Talk about supremacist thought. Are we really to believe that only those such as Hannah Weisfeld can save Israel from itself?

As always I suggest that if you want to engage in Israeli politics and make a difference – make Aliyah. In the meantime I suggest everyone waits to see what exactly, if anything is on the table. And for now everyone should stop wandering around the dark room looking for their black cat. Especially as it may not even be there.

Dennis Ross: Why the ICC Prosecutor Is Wrong on Oslo

Having served as the lead American negotiator on Middle East peace and a participant or mediator in Oslo talks and other Israeli-Palestinian discussions from 1993 to 2001, I know the inside history and content of the accords intimately. In response to an invitation by the International Criminal Court (ICC) Pre-Trial Chamber, I submitted an amicus curiae brief explaining that the ICC Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) has misrepresented the terms and meaning of these agreements in a number of ways.

The OTP asserts that Oslo's "object and purpose" was "to give effect to the Palestinians' right to self-determination." But that is inaccurate; the accords had several equally important goals, including Israeli security, peaceful coexistence, education for peace, and the development of effective Palestinian governance. Self-determination could not be fully advanced beyond Oslo's interim self-governance arrangements unless these other goals were fulfilled.

The agreements explicitly made any Israeli transfers of additional territory and authority contingent on Palestinian progress toward ensuring security, combating terrorism, and preventing incitement. These and numerous other obligations were never sufficiently fulfilled.

When the OTP mentions a key provision regarding Oslo's legal significance - that neither side would be "deemed, by virtue of having entered into [the accords], to have renounced or waived any of its existing rights, claims, or positions" - the Prosecutor strikingly interprets this as applying only to Palestinian positions and not to Israel's longstanding claims. Moreover, the OTP does not mention the role that Palestinian terrorism and rejection have played in preventing the emergence of a state.

Any analysis that gives weight to only one side's wrongdoing comes across as politically motivated rather than legally credible. Making political arguments is not the OTP's role. Doing so discredits the ICC, undermines its effectiveness, and threatens to undo the principle that international law is driven by legal standards and canons rather than political ideology and preferences.

Travesty of Justice at the International Criminal Court?

The Prosecutor's Response seems to create new international law where non-binding resolutions can change legally binding agreements in order to prosecute Israeli leaders and Israeli Jews for war crimes....

The limitations of the Palestinian Authority's jurisdiction in the Oslo Accords do not permit transferring jurisdiction to the ICC. Those limitations cannot be changed or disregarded.

There is no crime and no case for the Prosecutor to investigate those who returned to their ancestral land, who are the indigenous people. Judea and Samaria are not occupied territories.

"Palestine", according to the International Court of Justice (ICL), is not a state.

There is no occupation by Israel of the territory of another state. There was no "Palestinian" state before 1967. Israel liberated Judea Samaria from Jordan after a war of aggression, in which Jordan attacked Israel in 1967 – for the second time (the first time being in 1948). Jordan finally abandoned all claims to the territory in 1988.

The Jews were expelled or killed during Jordan's 1948 aggression. Their houses were taken by Arabs...."Palestine" is the Jewish Home as codified in international law. It is not a terra nullius ["nobody's land"]. It belongs to the Jewish people. The "Arabs" of Judea and Samaria are the settlers, colonizers, who invaded the land.

The Jews hold the right to that land from the Bible, the Qur'an, and from several international instruments: the Balfour Declaration (1917), the Treaty of Lausanne (1923), the British Mandate (1922), the San Remo Resolution (1920), and the Treaty of Sèvres (1920) created International law, recognized and re-established the historical indigenous rights of the Jews to their Land.... Moreover, the Jewish people is entitled to its land under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples....

Contrary to the Jewish people being the indigenous people, the "Palestinian people" has been invented to oppose the Jewish people.

The ICC cannot be a forum for the diversion of international law and for a travesty of justice.... The Response of the Prosecutor follows a political agenda and is based on law created by the Prosecutor to enable the prosecution of Israeli Jews/leaders for crimes they never committed. Ms. Fatou Bensouda's impartiality can reasonably be doubted and she should be disqualified pursuant to article 42-7 of the Rome Statute and Rule 34 (d) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.

PMW: PA intentionally submits falsified document to the International Criminal Court

Text of Abbas speech submitted by PA to ICC was incomplete; it was missing the section in which he admitted to committing crimes against humanity

The latest submission by the Palestinian Authority to the International Criminal Court (ICC) is a prime example of how the PA tailors and changes the content of the speeches of its leaders, and its positions in general, depending on the identity and perceived naïveté of the target audience.

In this instance, while speaking in Arabic to the Palestinian audience PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, in his May 19, 2020 speech, declared that as of that day, the PA no longer sees itself obligated by the accords and agreements signed with Israel. In contrast, in the PA submission to the ICC, Abbas’ declaration suddenly became conditional on a future event.

These contradictory claims were, however, merely the tip of the iceberg, with the PA’s submission.

While the PA claims to have attached to its submission a translation of Abbas’ speech, Palestinian Media Watch has found that the document attached is not a transcription of the speech. Rather it is a falsified version, intentionally edited by the PA to mislead the court. The falsified document also conveniently omits Abbas’ confession to committing crimes.

The PA double-speak and submission of a falsified document to the ICC, should result in the court rejecting all the different arguments put forward by the PA, simply because it is impossible to rely on any of their statements and ascertain their true position on any given subject.

Read More

Today, Will The King Of Jordan Finally Be Challenged on Protecting Terrorist Ahlam Tamimi? (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

 

 

The Associated Press reports that today, King Abdullah II of Jordan is scheduled to speak with Congressional committees, via video, about his opposition to Israel extending Israeli law to parts of the "West Bank."

But there are reports that the discussion between the king and Congress is likely to cover a topic even more controversial than that.

At issue is the extradition of Hamas terrorist Ahlam Tamimi, who masterminded the 2001 Sbarro massacre in Israel, which killed 7 children from the ages of 2 to 16 years old. As part of a deal for the release of hostage Gilad Shalit, Hamas demanded that Tamimi be included among the over 1,000 terrorists freed.

Israel acquiesced to the ransom demand.

Tamimi ended up in Jordan, where she was not only welcomed with open arms -- she became a celebrity and had her own TV show for a number of years.

But 2 of the people Tamimi killed were American citizens, and in 2013 she was indicted in the US on the charge of conspiring to use a weapon of mass destruction against American nationals. Despite the fact that there is an extradition treaty between the US and Jordan, and that in 1995 it was used to extradite Jordanian national Eyad Ismoil to the US for his part in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center -- Jordan has refused to extradite, and has questioned the validity of the treaty itself.

Pressure has been steadily building as Jordan's refusal has been covered in the media and members of Congress have begun asking questions.

Today may be the day that King Abdullah can no longer avoid facing the issue of extradition.

And there are indications that the US may be backing up their request with a threat.

Henry Wooster is Trump's nominee to be the next US ambassador to Jordan. While being questioned by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee during confirmation hearings, Wooster responded to a question by Senator Ted Cruz on what leverage is available for getting Jordan to extradite Tamimi:

The United States has multiple options and different types of leverage to secure Ahlam Aref Ahmad Al-Tamimi’s extradition. We will continue to engage Jordanian officials at all levels not only on this issue, but also on the extradition treaty more broadly. U.S. generosity to Jordan in Foreign Military Financing as well as economic support and other assistance is carefully calibrated to protect and advance the range of U.S. interests in Jordan and in the region...If confirmed, I would explore all options to bring Ahlam Aref Ahmad Al-Tamimi to justice, secure her extradition, and address the broader issues associated with the extradition treaty.”

Henry Wooster. (Public Domain)

Wooster’s responses to the questions were obtained by The Associated Press.

The AP's Matt Lee notes that Wooster's comments are in contrast to US policy up to this point, which has been to try to address these issues with Jordan quietly, behind the scenes, and avoid making this disagreement public.

It is because Wooster spoke so openly about this, that there are expectations that King Abdullah will be asked directly about Tamimi today.

Wooster himself is currently the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for the Maghreb and Egypt and has served also as the Deputy Chief of Mission, and then Charge d’Affaires, at the U.S. Embassy, Amman, Jordan -- so he appreciates the delicacy of the situation.

In his opening statement to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee before taking questions, there is no reference to the US taking a strong stand against Jordan on the extradition issue. Wooster toes the public line, quoting Secretary of State Pompeo that “Jordan is one of the United States’ enduring strategic partners,” and emphasizing the US priority to ensure Jordan's security and stability. Wooster goes so far as to say that Jordan has been "an invaluable ally in our joint work to counter terrorism, support international peacekeeping, and provide humanitarian assistance throughout the region."

Keep in mind that Wooster's opening statement was made on May 13 -- over a month ago. The questions posed to Wooster and his responses should have all taken place last month. And while his opening statement appears on the websites of the US embassy in Jordan, Roya News in Jordan and Jordan Daily -- none of them have the followup questions or answers, though Roya News quotes from the AP article, without any official government response.

So why are Wooster's responses appearing now, a month later?

The timing implies there may have been a leak to the Associated Press, at a time when Wooster's answers will have the most impact.

It looks like things may be getting interesting.

Read More

Social media reactions to an Israeli flag show how disgustingly antisemitic “anti-Zionists” are

The most obvious proof that anti-Zionism is just a new form of antisemitism is the pure hate that animates it.

I generally don’t like to take social media posts as evidence of anything but some of the responses to this thread need to be seen.

It started off this this facetious question:

 

The original poster got some very positive Zionist responses to the question, which she clearly didn’t want to see:

 

The responses that she “liked” were a bit more hateful:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This isn’t “anti-Zionism.” This is a hate cult – but a cult that has literally hundreds of millions of members. A cult where members congratulate themselves on how creative  and extreme they can be in their hate.  A mass psychotic phenomenon.

Anyone who wonders how Nazi Germany could have possibly had popular support for the Final Solution needs only to read this thread to understand that Third Reich-level hate has never gone away. The people “joking” about mutilating Jews today are the ones who would happily do it if it was legal.

Of course, there was no criticism from the leftist “anti-Zionist” crowd. They might object to how bad this makes their side look - but they are on the same side.

(h/t Claire Voltaire)

Read More

Jordan’s absurd denial that they annexed the West Bank

The word “annexation” is being batted around – incorrectly – a lot lately, but people don’t like to speak about Jordan’s illegal annexation of the West bank in 1950.\

Jordan eagerly took over the West Bank in 1948 and it fully intended to make it all part of Jordan; in fact King Abdullah I made no secret since 1920 that he wanted to be the ruler of Greater Syria, which would include today’s Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Israel with Judea and Samaria.

Everyone knew that Abdullah wanted to expand the borders of Transjordan, and this was a major reason why the Arab League opposed his annexation of the West Bank.

When Abdullah made the annexation official, the entire world saw it as an annexation, and nearly everyone considered it illegal (Great Britain being the most notable exception, and the US was not opposed to it.) 

 

In the embarrassing AJC hosting of Jordanian ambassador to the US Dina Kawar, any questions about Ahlam Tamimi were not allowed to be asked. But a fairly good question was asked by someone who said he was from Bulgaria.

Q: As a frequent visitor and friend of Jordan I'd like to ask whether an effort was made between 1949 and 1967 when Jordan officially annexed the West Bank and Eastern Jerusalem for the creation of a Palestinian state which you describe as a goal of Jordan’s policy. If so, please help us understand the history and what happened; if not, why not?

This is a reasonable question – if Jordan wanted a Palestinian state so much, why didn’t it facilitate the creation of one when it controlled the West Bank?

Kawar’s bizarre answer was that Jordan never considered the annexation to be an annexation!

A: The word “annexation” is is not the word that we use.  What happened is that many of the notables in Palestine at the time requested from our family and from His Majesty to come and go into what was, what is, the West Bank and to sort of help maintain this area of the West Bank and East Jerusalem until the clarity comes to a Palestinian state.  It was never meant to be for Jordan to be there; it was always kept in mind and up to today for the West Bank and East Jerusalem.  This is also the case for the patronage that we have over East Jerusalem.

This is of course not even close to true. Jordan had no intention to keep the West Bank in limbo. Here is a 1964 stamp that shows that Jordan considered not only the West Bank but also Israel as part of Jordan itself!

 

The official Jordanian government website has a slightly different story about what happened, although it still avoids the word “annexation.”

As a result of the war, many Palestinian Arabs from the Jordanian-controlled areas found that union with Jordan was of vital importance to the preservation of Arab control over the “West Bank” territories which had not fallen to the Israelis. Consequently, in December 1948, a group of Palestinian leaders and notables from the West Bank convened a historic conference in Jericho, where they called for King Abdullah to take immediate steps to unite the two banks of the Jordan into a single state under his leadership.

On April 11, 1950, elections were held for a new Jordanian parliament in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented. Thirteen days later, Parliament unanimously approved a motion to unite the two banks of the Jordan River, constitutionally expanding the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in order to safeguard what was left of the Arab territory of Palestine from further Zionist expansion.

They aren’t claiming that they are safeguarding the territory for a future Palestinian state as Kawar now says, only that they wanted to safeguard it from Israel to keep it in Arab hands. (Which makes their decision to attack Israel in 1967 that much more ironic.)

The remaining question is – did the Palestinians really prefer to become part of Jordan rather than have their own state? The December 1948 conference seems to have been attended by most of the major leaders in the West Bank including the mayors of Hebron, Bethlehem, and Ramallah and military governors of all districts. Any opposition to annexation from the West Bank was muted. (The mufti of Jerusalem was against this, but he was in Gaza.)

The Palestinians weren't interested in a state - only in weakening and ultimately ending Israel. Which is just as true today. 

The Foreign Relations of the United States document from the State Department in 1948 summarized the Jericho conference, and quoted the very first resolution as saying that the “Palestine Arabs” desired that Jordan annex the West Bank, using that word.

Of course, the 1964 PLO Charter explicitly excluded the West Bank (and Gaza) as parts of the allegedly desired Palestinian state, only claiming the areas that the Jews controlled - and proving that statehood was never the goal. Their rejection of every peace plan that would result in a state shows that nothing has changed. 

(h/t Arnold Roth)

Read More

06/16 Links Pt2: Anti-Semitism and the Intellectuals; Melanie Phillips: The barbarians inside the gates; Chelsea Handler Calls Farrakhan Video 'Powerful'

From Ian:

---

Anti-Semitism and the Intellectuals

George Eliot was at the peak of her renown in 1874 when John Blackwood, her publisher, learned that she was at work on “Daniel Deronda, ” a new novel. As a literary man, he was in thrall to her genius. As a businessman with an instinct for the market, he valued her passionately dedicated readership. But an early look at portions of her manuscript astonished and appalled him: Too much of it was steeped in sympathetic evocations of Jews, Judaism and what was beginning to be known as Zionism.

All this off-putting alien erudition struck him as certain to be more than merely unpopular. It was personally tasteless, it went against the grain of English sensibility, it was an offense to the reigning political temperament. It was, in our notorious idiom, politically incorrect. Blackwood was unquestionably a member of England’s gentlemanly intellectual elite. In recoiling from Eliot’s theme, he showed himself to be that historically commonplace figure: an intellectual anti-Semite.

Anti-Semitism is generally thought of as brutish, the mentality of mobs, the work of the ignorant, the poorly schooled, the gutter roughnecks, the torch carriers. But these are only the servants, not the savants, of anti-Semitism. Mobs execute, intellectuals promulgate. Thugs have furies, intellectuals have causes.

The Inquisition was the brainchild not of illiterates, but of the most lettered and lofty prelates. Goebbels had a degree in philology. Hitler fancied himself a painter and doubtless knew something of Dürer and da Vinci. Pogroms aroused the murderous rampage of peasants, but they were instigated by the cream of Russian officialdom. The hounding and ultimate expulsion of Jewish students from German universities was abetted by the violence of their Aryan classmates, but it was the rectors who decreed that only full-blooded Germans could occupy the front seats. Martin Heidegger, the celebrated philosopher of being and non-being, was quick to join the Nazi Party, and as himself a rector promptly oversaw the summary ejection of Jewish colleagues.

Stupid mobs are spurred by clever goaders: The book burners were inspired by the temperamentally bookish—who else could know which books to burn? Even invidious folk myths have intellectual roots, as when early biblical linguists mistranslated as horns the rays of light emanating from Moses’ brow.

Historic Video Unearthed: The Arab American Plan to Defeat America’s Jews

Around 1990, James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute, traveled to Jordan to raise interest in his plan to undermine the Jewish community in America by organizing the Left here against Israel’s “oppression” of Palestinians.

Zogby saw the power of framing Israelis as “white oppressors” of innocent, indigenous, darker-skinned Palestinians. And he saw the possibilities of mobilizing left-leaning ethnic, racial, and religious groups against “Israeli oppression.”

The prescient Zogby understood how the Jewish left could easily become the willing lynchpin of his strategy.

Zogby’s initiatives, which were likely funded with petro-dollars, promoted Jews as privileged “whites.”

Today, 30 years later, one sees the power of this concept: Jews in the United States, like those in Israel, are now viewed by a generation of progressives as “oppressors.” Indeed, radicals today are erroneously connecting American police officers being trained by Israeli police to American officers’ treatment of black Americans — as Jewish leaders sit paralyzed and bewildered.

Watch Zogby pitch his plan to a skeptical Jordanian TV interviewer, who doubts him: “But please, Mr. Zobgy! How can you possibly defeat the Jews in America? They control the media, the cultural institutions, the academy, and the politicians?” Zogby tells him exactly how it will be done. He understood that demonization along racial lines would provide cover for anti-Semitism, while it would morally confuse progressive Jews.

Daniel Pipes put it this way: “Who, a hundred years ago, would have believed that the Jews would make the best soldiers and the Arabs the best publicists?”

Melanie Phillips: The barbarians inside the gates

And in The World Turned Upside Down (2010), I wrote about the “totalitarianism of virtue” which in certain respects had put modernity itself into reverse.

None of this analysis has made any difference. The barbarians are inside the gates and have been camped there for years.

Enough.

The philosopher Sir Roger Scruton, himself a direct victim of this cultural auto-da-fé, said shortly before he died that, while university science departments should remain, the humanities departments should be shut down as the source of this civilisational rot.

In Tablet, Liel Liebowitz sharpens the point. He asks what could have motivated the two lawyers who were arrested last month for throwing a Molotov cocktail at a police car in Brooklyn during the protests in the aftermath of George Floyd’s death. After all, they were “poster children for all that is right in America” who “worked hard, overcame adversity, and reaped the kinds of rewards that most of us can only dream of”. So why, then, did they “harbor such hate for the very same system that elevated them so quickly and so high?”

He gives a one-word answer. College.

“At Princeton and NYU, at Harvard and Columbia and Brown, no subject is worth studying unless it somehow leads to the inevitable conclusion that the land of the free is nothing more than a cruel colonialist cabal of exploiters and profiteers, happily raping the people and the land. Steep in such fetid ideological waters for four or six or eight years, and you, too, may eye a cop car and immediately reach for a bottle of Bud Light and a gasoline-soaked rag.

“Here, then, is a modest proposal: Stop hiring college grads”.

There’s now a direct correlation between those with higher education and ideas that are amoral, illiberal and socially destructive. Whether by defunding humanities departments or hiring for preference those who have not had their minds twisted by a university education, the west must now put cultural distance between itself and the source of this contagion.

Read More

Slave-owner statues are terrible. Statues of Jews having sex with pigs are historic.

From TheJC:

A German medieval church has reinstated an antisemitic sculpture depicting a Jewish male in an obscene pose with a pig after a local authority ruled that the object had protected status.

The church, in the town of Calbe, 45 miles northwest of Leipzig, is one of 30 religious buildings in Germany to have a Judensau – ‘Jew-sow’ – sculpture which dates back to the Middle Ages, when antisemitism was rife in the country.

After the carving was taken down to be restored, the parish decided in March that it was too offensive to return to the buttress and should be hung elsewhere.

But this move has been shelved after the listed buildings authority in the Salzland district decided the sculpture was part of  the history of St Stephen’s church history.

In a compromise, the sculpture was restored to its perch, but will remain covered up until the authority decides what to do with it.

Alfred Reichenberger of the Saxony Anhalt office for monument protection said: “Of course everyone involved is entirely clear that this is an abusive caricature that needs to be dealt with critically.

“There just seems to be disagreement about how to do that.”

Here is the Kalbe Judensau, showing the Jew and the pig in a sexual act.

 

For hundreds of years, this – and dozens more – of these obscene sculptures have been publicly visible in Europe.

This one, in Bad Wimpfen Ritterstiftskirche St. Peter, has spikes on it – to protect it from being defecated on by birds. Because, after all, that would be terrible.

 

Here’s the thing: None of the people who swear up and down that they are disgusted by antisemitism and racism and bigotry are taking hammers and ladders to smash these statues to bits.

They are taking down and defacing statues of people who might have owned slaves or represented a political ideology that people oppose, but these statues and sculptures are specifically meant to send a message that Jews are subhuman, disgusting people. The other statues are not inherently offensive, but they remind people of offensive things; these sculptures were created for only one purpose – to offend Jews and to tell Christians how terrible Jews are.

Where are the social justice warriors who are so offended by Winston Churchill? Where are the people with ropes and sledgehammers and ladders who are so eager to take down other statues but who have no problem living with pure antisemitic images in their midst?

The answer is that even the people who claim to be disgusted by antisemitism, aren’t. Jews are expected to be too civilized to take a sledgehammer to these statues and people who claim to love Jews don’t love Jews that much.

That is the lesson that Jews can take from this. It is easy to say one is offended by antisemitism, but there are very few that are willing to act on it.

Read More

“Breaking the Silence” lies about Jewish history in Hebron

 

 

“Breaking the Silence” held a “virtual tour” of Hebron on Facebook Live on Sunday.

This short excerpt shows how little this NGO cares about the truth.

 

Jews first settled in Hebron during the Ottoman Empire? No, Jews have been there almost continuously since Biblical times, except during Byzantine rule and the time between the 1929 riots and 1968. 

Jews lived peacefully in Hebron with the Arabs? Just based on Wikipedia, we see:

Jews were banned from visiting the Tomb of the Patriarchs, and Jewish women disguised themselves as Muslim women in order to visit, at much risk to their lives, in the 15th century.

Turkish pashas extorted funds from only the Jews in the 18th century, almost crushing the community.

Not long after, Arabs falsely  accused Jews of Hebron of having murdered the son of a local sheikh and they had to pay another exorbitant amount to not be slaughtered.

Hebron had a “strong tradition of hostility to Jews.”

Were Jews a small minority in Hebron? According to the 1837 Union Bible Dictionary, there were 400 Arab families and 120 Jewish families, "the latter having been reduced greatly in number by a bloody battle in 1834, between them and the troops of Ibrahim Pasha."

Did the Jews speak Arabic? Some did, but as this 1825 account says, “Many of them speak a little Arabic, but badly, and there is not one who can read it.” In other words, they learned just enough to survive in an Arab-majority town but they weren't friends with the Arabs.  

Another story from that same 1825 book indicates the truth: Christian visitors came to visit a sheikh, who was enraged at how small their gift to him was, so they took it back and left. But the Jews begged them to return and give him a better gift because they were worried that he would make some heavy demand on them after they left.

Breaking the Silence is purposefully twisting history to make Hebron look like it has always been an Arab town that was friendly to Jews before Zionism.  This is not true at all….which gives one an idea of how truthful their other stories are.

(h/t iTi)

Read More

06/16 Links Pt1: US mulls withholding aid to Jordan to force extradition of Palestinian terrorist; Groups behind ICC suits against Israel, US have terrorist ties

From Ian:

---

US mulls withholding aid to Jordan to force extradition of Palestinian terrorist

The United States is considering withholding aid from one of its closest Arab partners, Jordan, in a bid to secure the extradition of a woman convicted in Israel of a 2001 terror bombing that killed 15 people, including two American citizens.

The family of one of those US citizens, 15-year-old Malki Roth, has been leading a campaign to extradite the terrorist to the US, after Israel imprisoned and then freed her.

The Trump administration says it’s weighing “all options” to press Jordan to extradite Ahlam Aref Ahmad Al-Tamimi, who is wanted by the US on a charge of conspiring to use a weapon of mass destruction against American nationals. The charge was filed under seal in 2013 and announced by the Justice Department four years later.

The extradition issue is likely to be raised this week when Jordan’s King Abdullah II speaks to several congressional committees to voice his opposition to Israel’s plans to annex portions of the West Bank.

Malki Roth’s father Arnold on Tuesday said the new “reports of US officials challenging the Jordanians over their sheltering of Ahlam Tamimi are encouraging” and “a meaningful step forward.” He told The Times of Israel: “We long for the day she faces justice in a US court.”

The office of Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who approved the 2011 Shalit prisoner deal in which Tamimi was released from 16 life terms, declined to comment.

Related: Failed by Israel, Malki Roth’s parents hope US can extradite her gloating killer

Tamimi is on the FBI’s list of “most wanted terrorists” for her role in escorting the suicide bomber from Ramallah to the crowded Jerusalem pizzeria where he struck. It was one of the deadliest terror attacks during the second Palestinian Intifada, or uprising. She has expressed no remorse and has been seen gloating that she managed to kill Israeli children.

'Groups behind ICC suits against Israel, US have terrorist ties'

The organizations that have sued Israel and the US in the International Criminal Court for alleged war ‎crimes against the Palestinians and in Afghanistan, respectively, have ties to each other, as well as to ‎terrorist organizations, new research from the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs reveals. ‎

According to the JCPA's work, prominent activists in the campaign to delegitimize Israel, who are also ‎connected to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – which is listed as a terrorist ‎organization in the US and the European Union – play a key role in the cooperation between all these ‎entities. ‎

The research also reveals that ICC Chief Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda has close ties to one of these ‎organizations. ‎

The groups that sued the US in the ICC in 2017 include the Paris-based International Federation for ‎Human Rights, and the Center for Constitutional Rights, whose headquarters is in New York. In 2019, a ‎panel of ICC judges rejected a request by Bensouda to launch an investigation against the US based on ‎the suits that had been filed. The organizations behind the lawsuits increased pressure on the ICC, and ‎a month ago, the court gave Bensouda the green light to launch an investigation against the US, which ‎prompted the US to step of its sanctions against ICC functionaries involved in that investigation.

The organizations that have tried to bring suits against Israel in the ICC include Al Haq, the Palestinian ‎Centre for Human Rights (PCHR), Al-Mezan Center for Human Rights, and Al-Dameer. The JCPA ‎research states that these groups have links to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and ‎that "they are far from being human rights group, as they falsely represent themselves." ‎

Al-Haq, the PCHR, and Al-Mezan are members of the International Federation for Human Rights, of ‎which Al-Haq director Shawan Jabarin is the general secretary. In the past, Jabarin held a senior ‎position in the PFLP and was sentenced to prison terms in Israel a number of times. Israel's Supreme ‎Court defined Jabarin as "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" because he disguises his terrorist activity as human ‎rights work. ‎

Raji Surani, director general of the PCHR, formerly served as deputy director of the International ‎Federation for Human Rights. Nada Kiswanson, a Swedish lawyer of Palestinian descent, and Katherine ‎Gallagher, who represented the plaintiffs in the ICC suit against the US, helped the Palestinians reach ‎out to the ICC against Israel. Kiswanson is the former director of Al-Haq office in The Hague, and in that ‎role filed complaints against Israel with the ICC.

Trump Must Hold Hamas' Terror Proxies Accountable

The balloons near an Israeli playground in February should have been a welcome sight. Instead, they were carrying bombs intended to kill, maim, and terrify. Panicked teachers hurried their students inside.

The explosives were part of a Palestinian campaign to attack Israeli population centers with bombs and incendiary devices that float to their targets with the aid of balloons, inflated latex gloves, and even condoms. One group responsible for such attacks is Humat al Aqsa (HAA), or the Defenders of al Aqsa. This small but violent organization is a proxy of the Hamas terrorist group, which itself is a proxy of the Islamic Republic of Iran. HAA is not yet sanctioned by the U.S. government, but it should be.

Humat al Aqsa was reportedly founded in April 2006. According to Israel’s Shin Bet security agency, Fathi Hamad, a senior Hamas official who is subject to U.S. sanctions, established and funded the group. HAA has identified Muhammad Naji, also known as “Abu Naji,” as its secretary-general.

By employing HAA as a proxy, Hamas can carry out terrorist attacks while maintaining plausible deniability. Hamas seeks deniability because it has sought to rebrand itself as a pragmatic, moderate force despite its oppressive rule in the Gaza Strip and its commitment to destroying Israel. HAA lets Hamas pursue its genocidal aspirations without being held to account.

No one should be fooled by Hamas’ ruse, however. HAA’s most famous terrorist attack demonstrated the close ties it enjoys with Hamas. In 2008, HAA attacked the convoy of Israeli Minister of Internal Security Avi Dichter. Ahmed Jabari, then-commander of the Qassam Brigades, Hamas’ military arm, advised HAA on this attack. Though Dichter escaped unscathed, HAA and the Qassam Brigades published videos glorifying the assault.

HAA’s depredations didn’t stop there. The group has repeatedly threatened Israelis with violence and carried out numerous attacks. HAA also disseminated several videos of its fighters prepping and launching rockets and mortars against Israel. In one video, a fighter in a ghillie suit aims his .50 caliber sniper rifle at Israeli soldiers. In May 2019, HAA published martyrdom posters for Imad Muhammad Nasir, who was killed by the Israel Defense Forces in the northern Gaza strip as he was firing mortars at Israel. And in January 2020, HAA posted a banner of thirteen “martyred” fighters on its social media.

As disturbing as the videos are, the clips are even more sinister because HAA is operating out of civilian areas. This effectively turns nearby Palestinians into human shields. The use of human shields is a war crime and is sanctionable pursuant to the Sanctioning the Use of Civilians as Defenseless Shields Act of 2018.

Read More

Israel police training for US cops is the exact opposite of what the haters claim it is

Atlanta Police Department Chief Erika Shields has resigned after an APD officer shot and killed Rayshard Brooks.

The interim police chief is Rodney Bryant, a 30 year veteran of the Atlanta police.

 

But already the modern antisemites are going after him – because, among his 2800 hours of professional training and certifications,  he went to Israel and attended a seminar on policing. The bigots are assuming that this black man has been brainwashed by Israel to kill…..black men, as someone whose Twitter handle is the Hebrew transliteration of “Antifa” and Jewish Voice for Peace – people who tirelessly lie about Israel’s cooperation with US and other police – are saying:

 

The haters aren’t actually reading what Bryant said about what he learned in Israel. Everyone should, though:

Rodney Bryant, Major, Atlanta Police Department (2014)

“One of our greatest challenges in American policing is serving a community that is vastly more diverse than the local police department. Comparatively, the Israeli police are responsible for serving a variety of demographics. I was impressed by the level of community policing efforts employed by the Israeli Police to build relationships and maintain peace among such diverse populations. The mentor shadowing was considerably inimitable and having the opportunity to observe the daily operation of a station and its command staff was enlightening. Although generally ensuring public safety was important, understanding the concerns of the community was equally significant. While we share similar roles and duties as leaders, it was invaluable to witness and learn of methods other leaders have adopted to address policing issues.  As a result of the training, I was able to successfully incorporate several of the strategies that I learned from the exchange to help improve my leadership and efforts in the communities where I serve as a police executive. GILEE provides a formidable degree of leadership training that cannot be matched. As proclaimed so often by other GILEE Alums, it is indeed “a training of a life time.”

Contrary to how the haters represent Israeli (and US) police, there is a keen interest in working together with the community and to understand its diversity – the exact kind of things that most thoughtful  people who want police reform are demanding. In fact, the last training between Israeli and Georgia police in 2019 concentrated on community policing in the best possible way:

Community policing, “a policy and a strategy aimed at achieving more effective and efficient crime control, reduced fear of crime, improved quality of life, improved police services and police legitimacy, through a proactive reliance on community resources that seeks to change crime-causing conditions,” was the focus again this year.

Community policing assumes a need for greater accountability of police, a greater public share in decision-making and a greater concern for civil rights and liberties, according to Robbie Friedmann, who formulated the definition. A professor emeritus at Georgia State University and GILEE’s founding director, he led this year’s delegation.

The haters pretend – with no evidence – that Israel is teaching US cops to be violent racists. The actual training is quite the opposite. In fact, if all US police would be trained in Israel instead of a few dozen every year, there were be far fewer incidents of police brutality than we have been seeing.

In fact, after the brutal murder of Michael Brown Jr. by a white Ferguson police officer in 2014, there was pressure for Ferguson police to reform and learn to embrace diversity. After turnover of police chiefs, in 2019 they hired Jason Armstrong as their chief. He himself has marched with protesters in George Floyd demonstrations. He can hardly be accused of being a racist police officer.

And he attended training in Israel as well where he learned about – diversity:

What I was most impressed with about the program was learning how the Israeli Police force was trying new ways to bring diversity to their police force and their police leadership. Diversity and representation is one of the main points of contention in American law enforcement. Communities are speaking out about police departments having a balanced representation of the communities they serve. It was eye opening to see those same sentiments were holding true in Israel. We got to visit and meet with police academy recruits who were taking advantage of a program to assist people from the Arab communities in Israel with passing the entrance test into the police academy. We learned about leadership training programs specifically for female officers so they could flourish as leaders in the organization.

The only hate in this story is the antisemitism of the “anti-racists” who try to smear upstanding, respected, black police officers and leaders  based only on the fact that they attended a seminar in Israel. These white bigots are trying to defame respected, black police leaders as racists (and liars who are not accurately portraying what they learned in Israel.)

Who are the real racists?

Read More

Celebrities call themselves “anti-racist” yet praise proud antisemite (and anti-LGBTQ) Louis Farrakhan

In the past day, some major celebrities have posted a video of Louis Farrakhan on their social media, using him as a kind of symbol of anti-racism.

Actress and model Jameela Jamil wrote to her 3 million Instagram followers that Farrakhan was an “extraordinary man.”

 

 

TV star Chelsea Handler told her 4 million Instagram followers that Farrakhan taught her a lot.

 

 

Actress Jessica Chastain told her 3.2 million Instagram followers that Farrakhan’s video was “so powerful.”

 

These airhead celebrities claim to be anti-racist. (Jamil’s Twitter profile says “Bigotry will get you blocked.”) Yet Farrakhan is an unrepentant antisemite . He is anti-gay and anti-transsexual. he says that the very Hollywood that made them famous as a Jewish-controlled pit of sexual depravity. Yet they look to this vile bigot as an authority on racism!

Some of Farrakhan’s quotes:

“The Jews were responsible for all of this filth and degenerate behavior that Hollywood is putting out: turning men into women, and women into men.” — Saviours’ Day speech, 2/25/18

“Those who call themselves ‘Jews,” who are not really Jews, but are in fact Satan: You should learn to call them by their real name, ‘Satan;’ you are coming face-to-face with Satan, the Arch Deceiver, the enemy of God and the enemy of the Righteous.” — Saviours’ Day speech (part 2), 2/26/17

“To my Jewish friends, I shouldn’t use the word ‘friends’ so lightly, you have been a great and master deceiver, but God is going to pull the covers all off of you.” — Saviours’ Day speech (part 2), 2/26/17

“The Jewish media has normalized sexual degeneracy, profanity, and all kinds of sin.” — The Time and What Must Be Done, Part 20: Making Satan Known, 5/25/13

In Washington right next to the Holocaust Museum is the Federal Reserve where they print the money. Is that an accident?” — Holy Day of Atonement Keynote Address (part 2) Mosque Maryam, Chicago, Illinois, 10/21/12

“Pedophilia and sexual perversion institutionalized in Hollywood and the entertainment industries can be traced to Talmudic principles and Jewish influence. Not Jewish influence, Satanic influence under the name of Jew.” --Saviours’ Day speech, Chicago, Feb. 17, 2019

“The Jewish people have said that Hollywood is theirs. Can any of you deny that they are the masters of Hollywood, where sex, lesbianism, homosexuality and violence are promoted?” —Speech at Mosque Maryam, Chicago, Illinois, 3/7/10

“These false Jews promote the filth of Hollywood that is seeding the American people and the people of the world and bringing you down in moral strength. It's the wicked Jews the false Jews that are promoting Lesbianism, homosexuality. It's wicked Jews, false Jews that make it a crime for you to preach the word of God, then they call you homophobic.” — Saviours' Day speech, Chicago, Illinois, 2/26/06

There are literally hundreds of these quotes.

if these celebrities had the slightest bit of integrity, they would not only apologize for pushing Farrakhan’s message, but they would be in the forefront of denouncing him as the bigot he is. But they are cowards and hypocrites.

Handler is even defending Farrakhan’s hate!

There is nothing more hypocritical than a self-defined moral authority on racism defending a bigot purely because he is black. Imagine anyone from Hollywood defending a white person who says the exact same words!

The others may have taken down the video, but they are silent about his hate – because they are frightened that their own brands would be hurt by speaking out against a bigot whose skin color happens to be darker than theirs.

(h/t John Paul Pagano)

Read More

The lie that “Palestine is an Islamic Waqf”

A headline in a Palestinian news site says “Historic Palestine is an Islamic endowment (waqf).”

A waqf is a concept in Islamic law where someone can give land, a building or other assets to a Muslim charity forever. It is roughly analogous to the Jewish concept of hekdesh. It is virtually impossible for land that is declared a waqf to ever leave that status.

When Muslims say that Israel is a waqf, they are making an Islamic legal statement that it is forever forbidden for the land to belong to anyone but Muslims.

The concept that Palestine is an Islamic waqf is quite new, though. it was made up by Hamas in its charter in 1988. The idea didn’t exist beforehand.

And it has no basis historically as well, as scholar Yitzhak Reiter shows.

 

While there is a thread in Islamic law that any land conquered by Muslims remain Muslim forever, historically they were not treated as waqf. The “grand mufti” of Jerusalem, al-Husseini, who was no legal scholar, made the argument that lands conquered by Muslims remain Muslim forever but he did not use the language of waqf.  In fact, he appealed to Arabs to specifically endow their lands as waqfs to prevent them from being sold to Jews (and to give himself the rights to control the land.) This shows that even the Mufti did not consider all of Palestine to be waqf and he understood that there was a concept of private property in Palestine.

Within a few years after Hamas created the concept of Palestine as a waqf, however, the Palestinian Authority adopted the concept as well. The PA’s own Mufti Ikrima Sabri wrote a legal opinion in 2000 that took Hamas’ idea and tried to use it to help Arafat politically against Hamas’ claim that Arafat was willing to concede the right of return.

Historically, the land in Palestine was considered “fay’,” not waqf, land which could be bought and sold, as it of course was during the occupation of the Ottoman Empire.

The waqf myth shows how both Hamas and the Palestinian Authority are willing to twist Islamic law for their own political purposes.

Read More

06/15 Links Pt2: Rocket fired at Israel from Gaza Strip, IDF responds; The New Iconoclasm: Down With Jefferson, Up With Sharpton; Latma Eps 10 & 11

From Ian:

---

The New Iconoclasm: Down With Jefferson, Up With Sharpton

Rarely a week passes without dramatic pictures on TV and in the press of sledgehammers taken to heroes of the Old Confederacy, along with new “replacement” sculpture and statuary to Black Lives Matter (like the formidable slab within full view of the White House itself) and already on the list of Places to See in Washington, DC. We will, no doubt, soon see statues of Rev. Al Sharpton alongside of, or even replacing, those of Martin Luther King, Jr. The Reverend Sharpton is the titular and also unchallenged leader of Black Lives Matter, now turning the country upside down to express its indignation over the murder in Minneapolis and its (supposed) epitome of police brutality towards black Americans.

The Rev. Sharpton was a constant presence in the White House during the presidency of Barack Obama, and has been treated with oily sycophancy by every major Democratic candidate for that party’s nomination. (When Sharpton’s acolytes in Black Lives Matter shouted down Bernie Sanders at a Seattle rally, the candidate reacted with instant compliance, and surrendered the microphone to them.) He has taught leading Democrats, at nearly all levels of the party, to view crime as a problem of prejudiced and brutal police, not of ruthless and pitiless criminals.

Do Americans know much about Sharpton, the unquestioned leader of Black Lives Matter, an organization now carrying all before it, including governors of states and mayors of cities? He first came to prominence for his central role in the assaults on Jews in 1991 in the Crown Heights section of Brooklyn. It has been called by historian Edward Shapiro “the only antisemitic riot in American history.” This has not prevented Senator Elizabeth Warren from calling Sharpton a paragon who has “dedicated his life to the fight for justice for all” or ex-candidate Kamala Harris from exuding about how much he “has done … for our country.” And so on ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

How different are these Democrats from the ones we once knew! I recall how, as a young boy, I went every four years to the polling booths of Brooklyn where my parents voted for Roosevelt while I stood nearby, distributing FDR leaflets. How different are the current crop from the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who excoriated Sharpton’s thugs in 1991 as a “lynch mob” identical to the white unionists who had assaulted blacks in Detroit for “stealing” their jobs. That same Sharpton is today the darling of progressive America, Moynihan a distant memory.

Nazi Headstones and Confederate Statues Should Be Treated the Same

Now, you might object that one cannot in decency compare the officers and soldiers of the Confederacy with the external enemy that was Nazi Germany. After all, many leading Confederates, including Braxton Bragg, for whom the famous base in North Carolina is named, and Jefferson Davis, the president of the Confederacy, were honored veterans of the Mexican-American war of 1846-48, and considered to be great and sage patriots. The Civil War they helped initiate a little more than a decade later was not the result of outside aggression, according to this argument, but a tragic conflict within the American family that politics alone was not able to resolve.

This interpretation of history is one of the factors behind Trump’s vocal rejection of the removal of Confederate memorials. It might seem patriotic, but in reality, it isn’t — not least because the values and the vision of American society that the Confederacy represented had eventually to be defeated on the battlefield at what was, especially by the standards of that time, a staggering human cost.

In institutional terms, some current signs can be seen of a move against the commemoration of the Confederacy. Defense Secretary Mark Esper has mooted a “bipartisan discussion” on the renaming of military bases, while the US Navy has outlawed the display of Confederate flags aboard its ships and in other facilities. But as the Jewish experience reminds us only too well, changes in institutional behavior aren’t necessarily mirrored in public opinion. Especially with Trump in the White House, the segment of opinion that twists its perverse regard for the Confederacy into an American value will continue to assert itself aggressively.

The only response to this misrepresentation is to point to the historical record. “These bases are, after all, federal installations, home to soldiers who swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States,” the former head of the CIA, Gen. David Petraeus, wrote recently in The Atlantic. “The irony of training at bases named for those who took up arms against the United States, and for the right to enslave others, is inescapable to anyone paying attention.”

If we are no longer prepared to tolerate Nazi symbols as an ongoing presence in our military cemeteries, then we should treat the symbols of the Confederate betrayal of the United States in a similar manner.

How an old Yiddish song became a symbol of racial equality

"Eli, Eli" is a Yiddish song composed by Jacob Koppel Sandler in 1896 that describes the plight of a Jewish girl singing a song of despair while being crucified for her faith. In the following decades, it was adopted by African-American artists and singers who were drawn to the tragic melody and images of oppression that its lyrics evoked.

Sandler drew the song's lyrics from King David's lamentation in the Book of Pslams (22:2): “Eli, Eli, why hast Thou forsaken me?” This phrase appears twice in the New Testament, while one of the instances marks Jesus’ last words as he’s crucified. This exclamation of despair is thus recognized and revered by both Christians and Jews.

A portion of the song says:
"In fire and flame have men been tortured
And everywhere we went we were shamed and ridiculed
No one could make us turn away from our faith
From you, my god, from your holy Torah, your law!"

People have always been drawn to music; some might even say that as human beings, we are hard-wired to respond to music. It has the power to change our moods, stimulate our senses and bring back memories. Music can provoke many things within us, including strong negative emotions at times.

Sandler's composition was adopted by various Jewish artists and slowly gained popularity, but it wasn't until black Jewish musician Willie “The Lion” Smith covered the song in the 1920s that it became a widespread phenomenon and a shared symbol for Jewish and African-American jazz singers.

Shortly after Smith's cover, George Dewey Washington published a version of his own, followed by actress and singer Ethel Waters who said that the song "tells the tragic history of the Jews as much as one song can," while noting that "that history of their age-old grief and despair is so similar to that of my own people that I felt I was telling the story of my own race, too.”

The song did not lose its popularity over the years, with a rendition of the original song being performed by iconic Black jazz musician Lionel Hampton in 1951.

Read More

How can a Palestinian state be contiguous and include Gaza?

 

Today was the weekly meeting of the Palestinian Authority cabinet. Prime Minister Shtayyeh said some nonsensical stuff, including this puzzling statement: “The territory of our Palestinian state is one contiguous unit on the entire borders of June 4, 1967, with Jerusalem as its capital, and that any solution, settlement, or political project must guarantee a just solution to the refugee issue. “

How can the borders be the “borders” of 1967 and contiguous, when the area was split before 1967 between the West Bank and Gaza?

As far as a “just solution to the refugee issue” – who decides what is “just”? Because if it is Palestinians, the only solution they could agree on is one that erases Israel.

He also added this head-scratcher:

Shtayyeh also confirmed the government's solidarity with all who are subject to discrimination in all its forms, whether it is racial discrimination based on color, religion, nationalism or gender, and that our people are against injustice and with freedom, equality and justice for the rest of the people of the world.

This is amusing because if a Jew – even one who lived in Gush Etzion, across the Green Line, before 1948 – would want to buy land in Palestine he or she couldn’t. And the person who wants to sell to the Jew would be arrested. Not exactly equal rights.

Also, I documented quite a few Palestinian laws that discriminate against women – today.

Could the respected prime minister of the Palestinian Authority not be telling the truth? Perish the thought!

Read More

The antisemitic poem that caused a storm when recited on WBAI in New York in 1968

Tensions between blacks and Jews in New York City increased dramatically during 1968.

The city started an experiment of a community-controlled school board in the largely black Ocean Hill/Brownsville neighborhood. That school board immediately fired 18 white, unionized  teachers, almost all Jewish (a 19th, who was black, was reinstated when the board realized they accidentally fired a black person.) Even though the teachers had no problems on their record, the new school superintendent said “Not one of these teachers will be allowed to teach anywhere in the city. The black community will see to that.”

The heavily Jewish United Federation of Teachers, while liberal and sympathetic to the idea of having more black teachers, could not allow its teachers to be arbitrarily fired. So a teachers’ strike was called and for 36 days there was no school before an agreement was reached.

There was a lot of ugliness that happened during the strike, with the UFT accusing the black leaders of antisemitism in their lessons in Brownsville. Before the strike, one of the militant black leaders, Sonny Carson, and a group of blacks would go into schools and tell the Jewish teachers, “The Germans did not do a good enough job with the Jews.”

The strike ended on November 17, 1968, when the New York State Education Commissioner asserted state control over the Ocean Hill–Brownsville district. The dismissed teachers were reinstated. But the distrust and hate remained.

On December 26, the Julius Lester program which focused on black issues on user-supported WBAI radio had as a guest Lester Campbell,  one of the black teachers who was considered militant. He brought along an antisemitic poem that he said was written by a 14 year old black student of his. Lester thought it was important for him to read it, because he felt that the white community should know the feelings that the black community had about the episode. (Campbell thought Lester was crazy for wanting him to read it, knowing how incendiary it was.)

It is not easy to find the full text of this poem online nowadays, but here it is:

Hey, Jew boy, with that yamulka on your head

You pale faced Jew boy -- I wish you were dead

I can see you Jew boy -- no you can't hide

I got a scoop on you -- yeh, you gonna die

I'm sick of your stuff

Every time I turn 'round -- your pushin' my head deeper into the ground

I'm sick of hearing about your suffering in Germany

I'm sick about your escape from tyranny

I'm sick of seeing in everything I do

About the murder of 6 million Jews

Hitler's reign lasted for only 15 years

For that period of time you shed crocodile tears

My suffering lasted for over 400 years, Jew boy

And the white man only let me play with his toys

Jew boy, you took my religion and adopted it for you

But you know that black people were the original Hebrews

When the U.N. made Israel a free independent State

Little 4-and 5-year-old boys threw handgrenades

They hated the black Arabs with all their might

And you, Jew boy, said it was all right

Then you came to America, land of the free

And took over the school system to perpetrate white supremacy

Guess you know, Jew boy, there's only one reason you made it

You had a clean white face, colorless, and faded

I hated you Jew boy, because your hangup was the Torah

And my only hangup was my color.

Lester admitted that this was an ugly poem, but felt that if blacks and Jews should communicate, it should be based on honesty. He also felt that the hate expressed in the poem was not a fraction of the hate that black students experienced from their Jewish, white teachers (I saw accusations that teachers called black pupils the N-word, which seems unlikely.)

Notice how easily the poem moves from pure Jew hatred to libels against Israel, with obvious influences by the radical blacks who attempted in the 1960s to align with the Arabs against Israel.

The poem was discussed in the next couple of episodes of Lester’s show, with guests admitting that some blacks agreed with the sentiments of the poem but disagreeing on the extent of those feelings. Things got even uglier when a black parent leader said, “As far as I am concerned more power to Hitler. Hitler didn't make enough lampshades out of them. He didn't make enough belts out of them.”

Then the UFT issued a complaint against WBAI, demanding that its license be revoked, and the media jumped on the story that they weren’t aware of beforehand (showing how few blacks were in the media at the time.) This was the height of black and Jewish tensions in the city.

I don’t think that Julius Lester was antisemitic, and I take him at his word that he felt it was important that people hear the hate uncensored. But he did have some problematic justifications for black antisemitism:

I'm willing to admit that anti-Semitism is a vile phenomenon. It's a phenomenon which I don't totally understand as it has existed in the world. It's a phenomenon which has caused millions upon millions of people to lose their lives. However, I think that it's a mistake to equate black anti-Semitism with the anti-Semitism which exists in Germany, in Eastern Europe, and in the Middle East. If black people had the capability of organizing and carrying out a pogrom against the Jews, then there would be quite a bit to fear. Black people do not have that capability. Not only do blacks not have the capability, I doubt very seriously if blacks even have the desire. Part of the present controversy is coming about because no one has bothered to try and see that black anti-Semitism, if it can be called that, and I'm not sure it can, is a much different phenomenon. It is a different phenomenon because the power relationships which exist in this country are different. In Germany, the Jews were the minority surrounded by a majority which carried out against them rather heinous crimes. In America, it is we who are the Jews. It is we who are surrounded by a hostile majority. It is we who are constantly under attack. There is no need for black people to wear yellow Stars of David on their sleeves; that Star of David is all over us. In the city of New York a situation exists where black people, being powerless, are seeking to gain a degree of power over their lives and in the institutions which affect their lives. It so happens that in many of those institutions, the people who hold the power are Jews. Now in the attempt to gain power, if there is resistance by Jews to that, then of course blacks are going to respond.

When a powerless people begin to fight for the power to control, and have some say over their own lives, then the first thing they will do is to verbally hurt the most immediate enemy. In this particular instance, that hurt, the articulation, the demand that the colonizer listen, is accomplished in a violent manner, like the language of the poem. In this particular instance, the language sets off a historical response which has no relationship to what black people are talking about.

Lester’s attempt to downplay black antisemitism as merely a subset of blacks responding to being oppressed by whites is disingenuous. Black antisemites were attacking Jews as Jews, glorifying Hitler as a hero, deliberately choosing to find things to say that would maximize hurting Jews. Whether they had the ability to start a pogrom is hardly the issue – and, as we saw in Crown Heights years later, they gained that ability.

I do agree that I would rather see antisemitism and racism in all its ugliness, not sanitized by the media. The poem and quote indicate real hate for Jews (despite Lester’s apologetics) and it doesn’t help anyone to softpedal or minimize it, as news stories of the day did by only quoting the first two lines.

I don’t think that there was any reason to pull WBAI’s license, and the FCC agreed.

The most interesting postscript: Julius Lester had a Jewish great-grandfather who married a former slave in the US. And Lester himself converted to Judaism in 1982.

Read More

06/15 Links Pt1: How Russia saved Israel from a Palestinian state based on the '48 borders; America Erases its Past as Israel Resurrects 3000-years-old History;

From Ian:

---

How Russia saved Israel from a Palestinian state based on the '48 borders

New details about some drama involving Israel, Russia, and the US that played out behind the scenes at the United Nations Security Council some four years ago are coming to light.

It appears that Russia demonstrated a rare willingness to use its UNSC veto on Israel's behalf to block a resolution led by then-US President Barack Obama, which would have compelled Israel to set up a Palestinian state based on the 1948 borders.

Approximately six months ago, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said at an election rally in Maaleh Adumim that he had asked a "friend," whom he referred to as "the leader of one of the superpowers who holds veto power in the UN Security Counci," to vote against the resolution. Netanyahu credited that leader, whom he did not name, with stopping the resolution.

In a recent closed-door meeting, Netanyahu revealed more details about the unusual event.

Toward the end of Obama's second term in office, the US spearheaded UNSC Resolution 2334, which states that Israel is in violation of international law by its presence in the territories captured in the 1967 Six-Day War. Israel realized at the time that the US administration was coordinating the resolution with the Palestinians and Europeans, but had no way of blocking it without support from the US.

On Nov. 24, 2016, Netanyahu called Russian President Vladimir Putin and explained that the resolution Obama was working to pass would disrupt regional stability and harm Israel. Netanyahu asked Putin to state that he intended to use his UNSC veto to scupper the resolution. But Putin refused. On Dec. 23, 2016, the UNSC passed Resolution 2334, although then-US Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power ultimately abstained.

However, Obama had additional plans, even though he had less than a month left in the White House. He and his staff began working on another UNSC resolution, which would have forced Israel to agree to a Palestinian state based on the 1948 borders. Israel's UN ambassador at the time, Danny Danon, sounded the alarm.

Harry Truman and the cause of Jewish statehood

Eli Kavon in his May 31 column, “President Truman was not a saint,” laments the fact that Harry S. Truman was not a saint in his complaints against Jews pressuring him on the question of Palestine.

Truman was a politician, and since when does anyone expect a politician to conduct himself like a saint? The main point is that he acted on behalf of the Jews in the creation of the State of Israel decisively at critical moments when his action made all the difference.

The story began with his demand after the Second World War for the British government to allow 100,000 Jewish refugees in the camps in Europe to enter Palestine. This did not spring doors open, but it became a basic plank in the 1946 Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry on Palestine, which recommended the immediate entry of the 100,000 Jews. It also seems that Truman personally worked hard to obtain a majority for the UN Partition Plan in the 1947 General Assembly.

Above all, however, his recognition of Israel, 11 minutes after it was proclaimed in Tel Aviv, was a very fateful turning point in the survival of the Jewish state. He did this even against the strong advice of his secretary of state, George Marshall, who charged that it was all politics, and threatened not to vote for Truman in the forthcoming presidential elections. Truman regarded Marshall as the greatest living American, yet he defied him on this critical issue because he had promised Chaim Weizmann that he would immediately recognize the Jewish state if it proclaimed its independence.

The background to this promise to Weizmann is not well known, and should be repeated here. In January 1948, the State Department had reached a decision to abandon partition, for which it had fought in November 1947. The Jewish Agency got wind of the State Department’s move, and realized there was only one person who could move Truman to counter the State Department scheme, namely, Weizmann.

However, every attempt to get Truman to agree to meet with Weizmann was met with a flat refusal. Truman was hopping mad at the American Jews for supporting the Republicans and charging Truman with deserting partition. This applied especially to Abba Hillel Silver, who supported senator Robert Taft as the Republican candidate for the presidency. (Both Silver and Taft were from Ohio.)

It was at this moment that the Jewish Agency contacted Truman’s old Jewish partner, Eddie Jacobson, who had free entry into the White House. The agency asked Jacobson to travel immediately by the midnight train from Missouri to see Truman. Jacobson agreed, and upon arrival in Washington the next morning went straight to the White House.

David Singer: America Erases its Past as Israel Resurrects 3000-years-old History

It is amazing that in the midst of an unprecedented global economic shutdown some Americans are presently hell-bent on erasing America’s past by pulling down statues of controversial persons in America’s deeply-troubled history and engaging in cultural cancelling – whilst Israelis are simultaneously planning to resurrect Jewish history by restoring Israeli sovereignty in the Jewish people’s biblical heartland – Judea and Samaria – after 3000 years.

Trashing America’s past is violent and unlawful – whilst Israel’s democratically elected Government is reinstating the Jewish People’s past in tandem with President Trump’s Peace Plan published on 28 January 2020.

Many American mayors and governors have watched on – restraining their police forces from doing anything to halt these monuments to history being torn down by chanting mobs. Residents and businesses located in the affected cities will continue to pay a high price for these elected officials failing to allow the police to take back control of the streets and restore safety and security for all.

Alarmingly many of these mayors and governors are now considering defunding or replacing their police forces in what can only be described as abject surrender in the face of extreme provocation by rampaging and looting protestors out of control and oblivious to maintaining any semblance of complying with the laws of social distancing that the majority populations in these cities under attack follow, respect and obey.

As this epidemic of unbridled lawlessness spreads worldwide – the international community’s response to Israel’s intended application of sovereignty in 1697km2 of Judea and Samaria’s 5655km2 is deeply troubling.

An avalanche of international opposition – led by the United Nations and European Union – falsely claims that Israel is acting “in flagrant violation of international law” – ignoring:
The San Remo Resolution and the Treaty of Sevres 1920
The League of Nations Mandate for Palestine 1922
Article 80 of the United Nations Charter 1945
President Bush’s written commitment to Israeli Prime Minister Sharon on 14 April 2004 overwhelmingly approved by the Congress by 502 votes to 12 (America’s Commitment) – promising that Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza would not require Israel to withdraw from all of Judea and Samaria.
The Quartet – Russia, United Nations, European Union and America – endorsing America’s Commitment on 4 May 2004
Israeli Prime Minister Olmert acknowledging Israel’s reliance on America’s Commitment at the Annapolis Conference on 27 November 2007:

“The negotiations [with the PLO] will be based on previous agreements between us, UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, the Roadmap and the April 14th 2004 letter of President Bush to the Prime Minister of Israel.”

Read More

France once again a hotspot for antisemitism in Europe (Daled Amos)

by Daled Amos

Protests against police brutality are not limited to Minnesota -- nor to the US, for that matter. This past Saturday, there was a “Justice for Adama” rally in Paris. Adama Traore was a black man who died while in police custody in Paris in 2016. His death continues to fuel protests of what is perceived as police racism and brutality, especially after the 3 officers who detained him were cleared of wrongdoing. There were multiple reviews carried out -- and the last one was just last month, on May 29, a few days after George Floyd was killed by a police officer in Minneapolis. But just as the protests that have spread across the US have been exploited to incite antisemitism, the same happened during the Paris protest as well. And these protests are all supposed to be anti-racist. Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch, tweeted a video of the protesters in Paris yelling "Dirty Jews"

 

Anti-racism protesters in Paris today shout "Dirty Jews!" pic.twitter.com/APQCep0da0

— Hillel Neuer (@HillelNeuer) June 13, 2020

Nor did the attack on Jews appear to be completely spontaneous

Back in 2004, then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon urged French Jews to immediately leave France and make Aliyah to Israel in order to escape "the wildest anti-Semitism." Just how bad was it?

According to the French interior ministry, in the first 6 months of 2004 alone there were 510 attacks or threats against Jews -- compared with 593 in all of the previous year. While that number has fluctuated since then, and at times has gone down, the number went up again in 2019. The Associated Press reported in the beginning of this year on the increased number of acts last year against Jews in France:

A total of 687 anti-Semitic acts were counted in 2019, compared to 541 the previous year. The account by the interior ministry showed that 151 of the acts were of the most severe category, “actions,” meaning attacks on people or their possessions, theft or physical acts. There were 536 threats.

That is an increase of 27%. More recently, Netanyahu also called for Aliyah -- this time by European Jews in 2015, following an attack by a lone gunman on a synagogue in Copenhagen. Netanyahu went Sharon one better. His Cabinet approved a plan for $46 million to be used for encouraging immigration and helping Jews from France, Belgium and Ukraine go through the immigration process:

“Of course, Jews deserve protection in every country but we say to Jews, to our brothers and sisters: Israel is your home,” Netanyahu said. “We are preparing and calling for the absorption of mass immigration from Europe. I would like to tell all European Jews and all Jews wherever they are: Israel is the home of every Jew. … To the Jews of Europe and to the Jews of the world I say that Israel is waiting for you with open arms.”

At the time, not only did French officials take offense at Sharon's comments, but also Jewish leaders in France said that Sharon should have stayed quiet. They likely did not appreciate being put on the spot and having attention drawn to their situation. Just as French Jews were not happy with Sharon's comment, the response to Netanyahu's offer also drew criticism. Denmark's chief rabbi responded: “Terror is not a reason to move to Israel," (?) and Great Britain's former Middle East envoy, Lord Levy, said in an interview:

Look at the incidence of terror in Israel and I think it's a gross exaggeration to say that it is the only safe place for Jews.

But if the increase in antisemitism becomes more clearly a left-wing phenomenon and not associated only with white supremacists and other right-wing groups, will attitudes to Aliyah then change? The right-wing and left-wing are viewed very differently:

Left-wing antisemitism not only continues under the radar, unchallenged, it also makes the rounds with a certain level of acceptability. We may find out just how acceptable is it as we work our way to the November elections.

Read More

Palestinians hate Mahmoud Abbas, would love to have Israeli IDs (video)

 

 

Here is a remarkable hidden camera video where an Israeli reporter went to ordinary Palestinians in the West Bank and asked them how they felt about the Palestinian Authority and Israel.

They were generally very frank in admitting that Mahmoud Abbas has not helped them at all, and that his attempts to get them to protest (for example, the Deal of the Century) were failures.

One said that if elections were held between Bibi and Mahmoud Abbas, Bibi would win.

 

In one telling section, a Palestinian police officer says that “For example, if they [the PA] would tell me ‘go shoot on Rachel’s Tomb,’ I would say ‘Let the son of Majid Faraj, Chief of Intelligence, go first.’” Given that PA TV has lately been playing videos meant to incite people to terror attacks, this example given is not so far fetched.

 

 

(h/t iTi)

Read More

Obama tried to push a UNSC resolution to create a Palestinian state

Israel Hayom has a bombshell report that in the waning days of the Obama administration, there was an attempt to stab Israel in the back even more than the infamous UNSC  2334 that said that settlements violated international law.

According to the report, Israeli prime minister Netanyahu asked Vladimir Putin to veto 2334, and he refused. But Obama, in the waning days of his administration,  tried to push a much worse resolution to force Israel to establish a Palestinian state on the basis of the 1948 lines.

Netanyahu tried his luck again with the Russian president. he called up Putin and explained that such a move would severely hurt regional stability.

This time, Putin was convinced and informed Netanyahu that if the resolution goes to a vote, Russia will stop it.

According to what Netanyahu has said  recently , the Russian intention to veto the US move against Israel became known to Obama. The outgoing president understood that if Russia were to veto this resolution in the Security Council, it would severely undermine the credibility of the United States as an ally of Israel and its own image in the Jewish community - and so he decided to shelve the initiative.

If the story is true, it is another example of Bibi’s brilliance at foreign policy.

Read More