Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Tuesday, February 09, 2021

02/09 Links Pt1: Anti-Zionist Left Rallies to Defense of Controversial Biden State Dept Pick; UAE halts funding to UN Palestinian agency in 'reset' of aid programme

From Ian:

Christine Rosen: ‘Neo-Racism’ in the Justice Department

Clarke clearly had no problem with Martin’s trafficking of Nation of Islam-fomented conspiracy theories, even though his “scholarship” was so egregiously anti-Semitic that it prompted the American Historical Association to issue a policy resolution in 1995 about Jews and the slave trade. “The Association therefore condemns as false any statement alleging that Jews played a disproportionate role in the exploitation of slave labor or in the Atlantic slave trade,” that rebuke read.

And Clarke hasn’t distanced herself from those views, either. In 2019, she signed a letter supporting Women’s March co-founder Tamika Mallory after Mallory told white Jewish women to check their privilege and, according to an exhaustive investigation by Tablet, “asserted that Jewish people bore a special collective responsibility as exploiters of black and brown people—and even, according to a close secondhand source, claimed that Jews were proven to have been leaders of the American slave trade.” Like Clarke, Mallory seems both familiar and comfortable with some of the most egregious anti-Semitic conspiracy theories promoted by the Nation of Islam and “scholars” like Tony Martin.

When asked recently about her support for such views, Clarke told The Forward that it had been a “mistake” to invite Martin to campus, but also claimed her words had been “twisted.” She added, “I unequivocally denounce anti-Semitism.”

But this is disingenuous—as Clarke herself perhaps inadvertently revealed when she refused to extend her condemnation of anti-Semitism to the anti-Semitic statements of Tamika Mallory. As Clarke sees it, there is a clear hierarchy of victimization, and she and Mallory rest atop it: “The marginalization of women of color is a threat to disrupt democracy, and what led me to join that letter was a grave concern about seeing another woman of color marginalized and silenced,” she said. “Let me be clear, I denounce anti-Semitism wherever and whenever it shows up.”

But one can’t defend Mallory while denouncing anti-Semitism, given that Mallory is an unapologetic anti-Semite (she once referred to Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan as “the greatest of all time”). After all, Mallory is only promoting the same vile conspiracy theories that Clarke’s favorite Afrocentric scholar, Tony Martin, legitimized when Clarke gave him a platform to do so.

This does not inspire confidence in Clarke’s ability to deal with serious issues of civil rights and justice. The group most often targeted and victimized by hate crimes in the U.S. are Jews. If Clarke is happy to overlook the hateful views of someone like Tamika Mallory merely because Mallory is black, then what will she do when tasked with enforcing civil rights law under the aegis of the Justice Department?

Anti-Zionist Left Rallies to Defense of Controversial Biden State Dept Pick

Some of the country’s most prominent, self-described "anti-Zionists" are rushing to defend the Biden administration’s possible selection of a top Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) aide to serve at the State Department.

Following a Washington Free Beacon report last week on Matt Duss’s anti-Israel history, anti-Zionists including Peter Beinart, the Jewish writer beloved by anti-Israel activists, are coming to his defense. Beinart wrote in a self-published piece on Monday that Duss is being unfairly maligned by the pro-Israel community and Republican leaders because he is a Christian who cares "about the powerless and the abused, whatever their race, religion, or nationality."

Beinart, the former editor of the New Republic and an Iraq war supporter, called for an end to the Jewish state of Israel, and American support for it, in an essay last year.

The possible selection of Duss, like Beinart a defender of the anti-Semitic Israel boycott movement, has become a flashpoint between pro- and anti-Israel activists. Both groups see Duss's potential elevation as a signal about what direction the Biden administration's foreign policy will take. The prospect of Duss appointment is being cheered by the Democratic Party’s far-left flank, which is pressuring the Biden administration to hire nearly 100 people, including Duss, who are hostile to the U.S.-Israel alliance and want to see an end to the close cooperation between the two. Critics, including the former U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley and freshman Rep. Ronny Jackson (R., Texas), a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, say Duss’s "disdain for the Jewish people and the American-Israel alliance would be a cancer on the U.S. State Department."

It is unclear what position Duss is under consideration for, but he would join a growing roster of Biden administration hires who have displayed animus toward Israel, promoted boycotts of the Jewish state, and advocated for a Palestinian "right of return" that would destroy the country's Jewish composition. This includes Robert Malley, the administration's new Iran envoy who once held unauthorized talks with Hamas, and Maher Bitar, a White House National Security Council member who spent his youth organizing in the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement.

Beinart's praise for the Sanders aide was well-received by Trita Parsi, vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, an isolationist think tank bankrolled by billionaires George Soros and Charles Koch. Parsi, who has faced accusations of acting as an unregistered lobbyist for the Iranian regime, said Duss’s critics are being led by war "hawks trying to prevent the best in Washington from getting into the Biden administration." Parsi also was included on the far-left's list of 100 foreign policy hands they hope to see hired by the Biden administration.

UAE halts funding to UN Palestinian agency in 'reset' of aid programme

The United Arab Emirates does not plan to resume funding to the United Nations agency for Palestinian refugees, which was halted last year, until steps are taken to manage funds more efficiently, a UAE government official said.

The Gulf state, current chair of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) advisory committee, provided the agency with $50 million in 2019 and $20 million in 2018, but made no contributions last year, although the official said UAE charitable groups donated $1 million.

“We are in dialogue with UNRWA’s leadership on how to enhance effectiveness of aid,” Minister of State for International Cooperation Reem al-Hashimy told Reuters this week.

She said the decision to halt funding was taken when the oil producing country revised its aid programme at the end of 2019 and was not related to the UAE establishing ties with Israel under a U.S.-brokered deal in September.

“COVID was a revealing time and led us to push the reset button. We believe that we have a moral responsibility but not under the same mechanism,” she said. “We want to see how international organisations are revising their approach - we are looking for more efficacy, and a wiser way of utilizing funds.”

HonestReporting: Webinar, Deconstructed: 'Palestinians Exposed: Hate in the Classroom'

In case you missed it, HonestReporting recently hosted an eye-opening webinar – Palestinians Exposed: Hate in the Classroom – that answered a fundamental question: How is it that Palestinian children born generations after Israel’s establishment are still being educated to envision themselves as residents of cities stolen by Jews, and as refugees temporarily living in the West Bank and Gaza Strip?

The webinar featured Itamar Marcus, Founder and Director of Palestinian Media Watch, who analyzed the disturbing world of the Palestinian child – spanning sports, culture, music and education. As a result of their exposure to blatantly antisemitic and anti-Israel tropes, Palestinian youth grow up believing that in the future they will “liberate” modern-day Israel, effectively ending Jewish self-determination.

Peter Beinart writes in his Substack blog:

Christian hostility to Jews draws more attention than Jewish hostility to Christians. And for good reason. Christian hostility has produced millennia of persecution. Jewish hostility, for the most part, hasn’t produced much more than the occasional nasty line in a prayerbook (sometimes accompanied by spitting).

Still, Jewish misgivings about Christians go way back. When Christianity was still in its infancy, the rabbis of the Talmud taught that if Jews saw Christian religious texts burning on Shabbat, they should let them burn (Shabbat 116a). And as Christian anti-Semitism grew, Jewish animosity intensified. To grasp the intense anger toward Christianity carried by even highly enlightened Eastern European Jews, listen to this curious vignette by Professor Moshe Halbertal about the great Israeli intellectual and social critic Yeshayahu Leibowitz (It starts around minute nine and ends around minute twelve). Growing up, I encountered the residue of this hostility myself. I remember being reprimanded for calling Mary a pretty name and for proposing Christmas colors for a school costume. (Call me self-hating: I still like red and green).

This is only a preface to his main point, which we will get to. But what exactly is the purpose of Beinart bringing examples of supposed Jewish hate for Christians?

The "nasty line in the prayerbook" is in the original Aleinu prayer, composed according to most scholars by Rav in 3rd century CE Babylonia. It had some early Christians but it seems unlikely that he was referring to them when he composed " For they worship vanity and emptiness, and pray to a god who cannot save."

Similarly, when the Talmud says which texts should not be saved on the Sabbath, it is indeed referring to early Christians, but they are not the same as today's Christians. The word that the Talmud uses is "heretics" and it is their heresy that is offensive, not their Christian beliefs. They pretended that they were still Jews and tried to convert real Jews. This is referring to scrolls with the sacred name of God in Hebrew which can normally never be allowed to be erased (or burned) but the consensus is that it must be burned when written by a heretic.

It has nothing to do with modern Christianity.

Of course there is some antipathy towards Christianity among Jews -nearly 2000 years of persecution in the name of Jesus leaves a mark. But Beinart is going out of his way to cherry pick instances, real or imagined, of what he characterizes as irrational Jewish hate for Christians.

Why does he want to do this? To lead up to this crazy theory:

I mention all this because my friend Matt Duss, who currently serves as Bernie Sanders’ foreign policy advisor, is reportedly being considered for a job in Joe Biden’s State Department. As in the case of Rob Malley, hawks are calling Matt anti-Israel. As in the case of Rob Malley, they’re attacking Matt’s father. But Matt has a vulnerability that Rob didn’t: He’s a Christian, and his faith is central to his views on foreign policy, including Israel-Palestine. That’s a good thing—because Matt is a Christian in the tradition of Reverend William Sloane Coffin and Reverend William Barber. His Christianity makes him care about the powerless and the abused, whatever their race, religion or nationality. And yet, in Washington today, it’s more perilous for Matt to talk about how his Christian faith compels him to care about human rights in Israel-Palestine than it is for Mike Pompeo to talk about how his Christian faith compels him not to. The ancient Jewish anxiety about Christians has become morally warped. In the hands of the Israeli government and its American Jewish allies, it has become an anxiety directed solely toward those Christians who care about justice.

Who knew that Matt Duss was Christian? He barely mentions it on his Twitter feed. Not once have I seen criticism of Duss - and there is plenty of it, quite deserved - mention his religion.

Beinart creates an entire prologue of Jewish hate for Christians to lead up to a theory that Zionist Jews don't have any serious issues with Duss' opinions, and anything they say about him comes from irrational anti-Christian bigotry!

How can you read this as anything but incitement to get Christians to hate Jews?

Secretary of State Antony Blinken held a wide ranging interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN yesterday. Blitzer touched on every issue that is important to Israel, and Blinken's answers were mostly encouraging - within the framework of the conventional wisdom of the Democratic party.

The problem is the framework itself.

QUESTION: A State Department spokesperson has given the Trump administration credit for what’s called the Abraham Accords, the normalization deals that Israel worked on thanks to the Trump administration, with the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, Sudan, but at the same time you’re saying it can’t be a substitute for Israeli-Palestinian peace. So how exactly are you going to revive the Israeli-Palestinian peace process?

SECRETARY BLINKEN: Well, first, Wolf, yes, we applauded the Abraham Accords. This is an important step forward. Whenever we see Israel and its neighbors normalizing relations, improving relations, that’s good for Israel, it’s good for the other countries in question, it’s good for overall peace and security, and I think it offers new prospects to people throughout the region through travel, through trade, through other work that they can do together to actually materially improve their lives. So that’s a good thing. But as you said rightly, that doesn’t mean that the challenges of the relationship between Israel and the Palestinians go away. They don’t. They’re still there. They’re not going to miraculously disappear. And so we need to engage on that. But in the first instance, the parties in question need to engage on that.

Look, the hard truth is we are a long way I think from seeing peace break out and seeing a final resolution of the problems between Israel and the Palestinians and the creation of a Palestinian state. In the first instance now, it’s do no harm. We’re looking to make sure that neither side takes unilateral actions that make the prospects for moving toward peace and a resolution even more challenging than they already are. And then hopefully we’ll see both sides take steps that create a better environment in which actual negotiations can take place.

The State Department is leaning back towards the failed idea that Israel/Palestinian peace is the most important concept. The Abraham Accords destroyed that paradigm - the old thinking said that peace with the Arab world was linked to peace with Palestinians, the "linkage" myth, and the Accords shows that this isn't true. By definition, peace between Israel and Palestinians has been shown to be less important.

Blinken now sees no relationship between Israeli-Arab peace and Israeli-Palestinian peace. But that's not true either. Palestinian intransigence is fueled by their conviction that world pressure will bring Israel to its knees, and now that Trump is gone they are waiting for the Biden administration to pressure Israel like Obama did, and for it to partner with Western European states to push the Palestinian demands - 1967 "borders" being only the first demand.

When Blinken says that neither side should take unilateral actions against peace, he is almost certainly not talking about Palestinian land grabs that happen every day - only Israel asserting its rights in Judea and Samaria. It is a troubling reversion to old thinking.

QUESTION: I know that you, the Biden administration still supports what’s called a two-state solution —

SECRETARY BLINKEN: That’s right.

QUESTION: — Israel, a new state of Palestine. But I understand that President Biden still hasn’t even spoken with Prime Minister Netanyahu; is that right?

SECRETARY BLINKEN: Well, they spoke actually during the transition. I think one of the first calls that the President had was with the prime minister. I’ve talked to my Israeli counterparts on multiple occasions already. And you’re exactly right about the two-state solution: The President strongly supports it. It is the only way to ensure Israel’s future as a Jewish and democratic state, and the only way to give the Palestinians a state to which they’re entitled.

QUESTION: But is there a reason as President he still hasn’t spoken with Netanyahu? He’s spoken with so many other world leaders.

SECRETARY BLINKEN: Oh, I’m sure that they’ll have occasion to speak in the near future.

Some think that the symbolism of Biden not calling Netanyahu is important. I don't. Unless he calls Abbas first, this is not something to waste time on.

QUESTION: Anxious to get your yes or no on some specifics, very sensitive issues. You’ve said the United States will keep the U.S. embassy in Jerusalem. It used to be in Tel Aviv. Do you regard Jerusalem as Israel’s capital?

SECRETARY BLINKEN: I do, yes. And more importantly, we do.

QUESTION: As part of an Israeli-Palestinian agreement, would you support a Palestine having its capital in East Jerusalem?

SECRETARY BLINKEN: Look, the – what we have to see happen is for the parties to get together directly and negotiate these so-called final status issues. That’s the objective. And as I said, we’re unfortunately a ways away from that at this point in time.

This is the correct answer. The Europeans also say they don't want unilateral moves - and then they unilaterally say what the final agreement should look like. Trump destroyed the lie that Israel's capital is not Jerusalem and Biden is not going to go back to the fiction that every previous administration had that Jerusalem would become an international city.

QUESTION: The Trump administration, as you know, also recognized Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, which Israel captured from Syria back in 1967. Will your administration, the Biden administration, continue to see the Golan Heights as part of Israel?

SECRETARY BLINKEN: Look, leaving aside the legalities of that question, as a practical matter, the Golan is very important to Israel’s security. As long as Assad is in power in Syria, as long as Iran is present in Syria, militia groups backed by Iran, the Assad regime itself – all of these pose a significant security threat to Israel, and as a practical matter, the control of the Golan in that situation I think remains of real importance to Israel’s security. Legal questions are something else. And over time, if the situation were to change in Syria, that’s something we’d look at. But we are nowhere near as that.

Here's another example of using the wrong framework. The Biden administration is not going to recognize Israel's sovereignty over the Golan, but they will not prioritize Israel giving the strategic area back to Syria. But this is problematic.

Blinken claims that human rights is now a centerpiece of foreign policy. This statement undermines the human rights of the Arabs who live in the Golan. As long as they are concerned that they could revert to living under Syrian rule, they are not free. They are worried about being executed as traitors or spies under Syrian rule. They will remain in this limbo until the world recognizes that Israel's control of the Golan is not only legal but just.

Of course, all of this is trivial next to the question of Iran.

QUESTION: You’re facing a stalemate apparently when it comes to Iran, the Iran nuclear deal. Iran’s ayatollah says the U.S. needs to lift sanctions before it returns to the deal. President Biden says he won’t lift sanctions first. So what happens now?

SECRETARY BLINKEN: Well, look, the President’s been very clear about this. If Iran returns to compliance with its obligations under the nuclear agreement, we would do the same thing, and then we would work with our allies and partners to try to build a longer and stronger agreement, and also bring in some of these other issues, like Iran’s missile program, like its destabilizing actions in the region that need to be addressed as well.

The problem we face now, Wolf, is that in recent months Iran has lifted one restraint after another that was – they were being held in check by the agreement. We got out of the agreement, Iran started to lift the various restraints in the agreement, and the result is they are closer than they’ve been to having the capacity on short order to produce fissile material for a nuclear weapon. The agreement had pushed that past a year. According to public reports now, it’s down to three or four months and heading in the wrong direction.

So the first thing that’s so critical is for Iran to come back into compliance with its obligations. They’re a ways from that. But if they do that, the path of diplomacy is there, and we’re willing to walk it.

QUESTION: So they’ve got to take the first step, and then the U.S. will respond. Is that right?

SECRETARY BLINKEN: That’s – the President’s been clear about that. They need to come back to compliance, and if they do, we will look to do the same thing.

This is much, much better than Biden's campaign promises to return to the JCPOA. But it is not nearly enough.

The Biden administration needs to enroll the European signatories to the JCPOA to do their job. They haven't left the agreement that Iran is proudly violating. They have not invoked the sanctions that were supposed to be automatic with Iranian violations. Their cringing acceptance of Iranian violations is the reason Iran feels that it has the upper hand.

The West needs to renegotiate the Iran agreement from a position of strength. That means getting the western Europeans on board and having a united front on sanctioning Iran for its violations.

The US is now saying the right things but it sure looks like one day soon Iran and the US will announce the simultaneous removal of sanctions and the US returning to negotiate what would be an identical agreement with Iran that Obama did - and then gaslighting Americans into believing that it is an ironclad agreement that stops Iranian nuclear weapons development.

Also, while it is hard to prove 100%, Iran's cash crunch has hurt Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other terror groups. Lifting sanctions without addressing those issues, and others like Iranian development of nuclear-capable ballistic missiles, is the opposite of promoting peace.

The old frameworks about Iran and the Middle East kept peace further away. The return to the failed frameworks is the real danger, and saying the right things in the wrong framework is putting lipstick on a pig.

A Muslim woman who doesn't hate Israel enrages Marc Lamont Hill, Linda Sarsour

On Sunday, Marc Lamont Hill did his usual apologetics for BDS and pretending that BDS is against all forms of oppression and racism. But a committed American Muslim woman who is heavily involved in the Democratic Party called him out.

Hill absurdly responded that Palestinians support boycotting working for Israelis - by quoting their trade unions, who of course are threatened by the existence of any jobs they cannot control!

Anila then challenged Hill to a debate, which he of course declined, because he wants the entire world to be focused on hating Israel and nothing else that affects Muslims.

Even funnier was Linda Sarsour's response to Hill.

Sarsour is telling Hill that Ali cannot possibly speak for Palestinians.

This is the person who pretends to know what Jews think about antisemitism.

This is the person who thinks that a Black professor from Philadelphia can speak for Palestinians because he has visited there, but a Muslim woman from Pakistan who has also visited there must be silenced.

This is the person whose entire life revolves around building platforms to promote her own political career.

We see how much Sarsour and Hill cherish the opinion of others. How much they care about what Muslim women think.

They want to silence any other opinions, to portray Muslims as being monolithic and having only one point of view. Their power comes from that myth - "this is what the Muslims demand." The lack of media attention for alternative viewpoints like those of Anila Ali helps promote this myth.

Unlike Sarsour and Hill, Anila Ali actually cares about oppressed Muslims everywhere. While I am sure I disagree with her on many, many topics, she is worthy of respect because she actually cares about people - not supporting those who want to use Palestinians as props for their own book sales.

As far as whether Palestinians are against working for Israelis: Palestinians are falling over themselves to work for Israelis, both inside the Green Line and in settlements. Over 13% have jobs for Israelis. A significant part of the Palestinian GDP comes from those workers. Their salaries are more than double those who work domestically. While some do get taken advantage of, they have the same rights as any Israeli worker.

Back in 2010, the PA tried to pass a law to ban Palestinians from working in communities in Judea and Samaria. The PA backed down, because so many were getting paid so well and there was no comparable work for them in Palestinian controlled areas.

When Hill and Palestinian political figures say what Palestinians want - they are lying. The Palestinians' own actions prove it, every single day.

(h/t kweansmom)

02/08 Links Pt2: Will the Boycott-Israel Clique Co-opt the Scientific Community?; Vaccinated people less likely to transmit coronavirus, Israeli study suggests

From Ian:

Will the Boycott-Israel Clique Co-opt the Scientific Community?

Higgs is among the most important figures in the world of physics, but he eluded the media and popular culture. Doing the opposite arguably made Stephen Hawking the world’s most famous physicist, perhaps even its most famous scientist. In May 2013, when he pulled out of a conference in Jerusalem, the New York Times headline blared, “Stephen Hawking Joins the Boycott Against Israel.” He was reportedly persuaded to do so by MIT linguist and anti-Israel activist Noam Chomsky and members of the British Committee for Universities of Palestine (BRICUP), which effectively functions as the U.K.’s arm of the BDS movement.

BRICUP founding members Hilary (a sociologist) and Steven (a neuroscientist) Rose wrote in The Guardian that Hawking’s decision “threatens to open a floodgate with more and more scientists coming to regard Israel as a pariah state.” While not quite a floodgate, certainly a door was opened by Hawking’s example, and gradually a number of physicists, chemists, and biologists began to distort history, repeat the rhetoric of Palestinian terrorist groups, and call for a boycott of Israel. In 2015 a group of physicists founded Scientists for Palestine “to raise awareness among scientists . . . about the challenges of science under military occupation.”

Malcolm Levitt, a British professor of chemistry, made headlines in 2017 by urging his colleagues to boycott the Federation of European Biochemical Societies’ annual convention being held in Jerusalem. In 2019, George P. Smith, a Nobel Prize–winning professor of biological sciences at the University of Missouri, endorsed a boycott of Israel while receiving an award at Westminster College. Both Levitt and Smith played a role in the initial Molecules decision to oust Levine as guest editor.

By 2018, the Electronic Intifada, sensing a trend, published an article titled “Why Scientists Should Boycott Israel.” It predicted a propaganda victory when more scientists join the BDS movement by disrupting Israel’s “projection of itself as a modern, hi-tech, Western-style liberal democracy.”

In the history of physicists and chemists boycotting Israel, there is both irony and hypocrisy. Some have detected irony in Hawking’s boycott of the country that produced the technology that extended his life, and a whiff of hypocrisy in his collaboration with Israeli physicist Jacob Bekenstein (as in the theory of Bekenstein-Hawking entropy). After the then-theoretical Higgs boson was confirmed in 2012, David Shamah wrote that while Higgs was the father of the so-called God particle, “researchers at the Weizmann Institute in Rehovot, Hebrew University, and the Technion” played such a crucial role that “Israeli scientists were uncles.” In the last decade four Nobel Prizes in chemistry have gone to Israelis, so future boycotters of Israel harm themselves by precluding collaboration with Israeli scientists.

The BDS movement is at a crossroads, sinking in the wake of Donald Trump’s Abraham Accords but likely to be buoyed by the Biden-Harris administration, which has already named BDS activist Maher Bitar as senior director for intelligence programs at the National Security Council. The big question is: If the Electronic Intifada gets its wish and scientists become as common as Middle East studies professors in the BDS movement, will it matter? Do people, unwittingly or otherwise, privilege science and therefore the opinions of scientists, or do most people see scientists (physicists especially) as savants, brilliant in their fields but only humored, certainly not emulated, outside of them? In short, are people more likely to trust and believe the opinions of scientists than those of other academics?

The evidence is mixed. Pew Research and other polls indicate that “public confidence in the scientific community has remained stable for decades” and that scientists are far more trusted than journalists, educators, and politicians. This suggests that a major influx of scientists could strengthen the BDS movement.

Others believe that public faith in scientists amounts to only “soft support,” and that the more people know about science, the more likely they are to be “concerned about biases that may cloud scientists’ thinking.” If so, then scientists are no more likely than anthropologists, historians, or English professors to salvage the dying cause.

Vaccinated people less likely to transmit coronavirus, Israeli study suggests

Israel’s largest COVID-19 testing lab says it has found evidence indicating that the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine significantly reduces the transmissibility of the coronavirus, offering a tentative answer to one of the world’s most burning questions.

A paper published online Monday claims that positive test results of patients age 60 and over had up to 60 percent smaller viral loads on the test swab than the 40-59 age group, starting in mid-January, when most of Israel’s population age 60-plus had already been vaccinated with at least one dose.

The results were published by the MyHeritage lab, which handles more than 10,000 tests a day, in a study co-authored by several prominent scholars, including leading COVID-19 statistician Eran Segal of the Weizmann Institute of Science.

The results are only based on partial data, because MyHeritage did not know if individual samples came from patients who had been vaccinated or not. But overall, the results appear to show that once someone is vaccinated, even if they have the virus in their system, they are less likely to pass it on because they have fewer infectious SARS-CoV-2 droplets hanging around their noses and throats.

“Our result reflects great data, because it gives exactly what we want from a vaccine, namely that it reduces transmission,” Prof. Yaniv Erlich, head of the MyHeritage lab, told The Times of Israel on Monday. “It shows, to some extent, that this reduces viral load in the nose and throat, which is the main channel for transmission of the virus.”

While the lab found a 60% reduction in viral load for those 60 and over, Ehrlich postulated that it could drop further once more people in the cohort are vaccinated. He emphasized that his research is at an early stage, and the topic needs more investigation.

The family we didn't know we had

Israeli travel to the UAE picked up at lightning speed with the country listed 'green' up until recently, allowing Israelis to travel back home without the need to quarantine. During the month of December alone, over 65,000 Israelis visited the UAE according to Ben Gurion airport spokesman. Among them were Israeli delegations participating in GITEX, Israeli singer/songwriter Idan Raichel's who performed at Dubai Opera, a delegation of Israeli Mayors, Peres Center for Peace officials, Israel's ice hockey team who arrived for a friendly match against Dubai, and many tourists driven by intense curiosity to see and experience the intriguing destination.

Thousands of Israelis and diaspora Jews who arrived to the UAE to celebrate Hanukkah described the occasion as historic. For the small Jewish community living in Dubai and Abu Dhabi, the festival of lights marked the first time in which a Jewish holiday was publicly celebrated and recognised. Hotel lobbies displayed signs wishing visitors a Happy Hanukkah as the sound of Hebrew filled large parts of the city. Emirati guests who joined the candle lighting ceremony were also amazed to see the giant menorah at the base of Burj Khalifa - a site that neither side imagined possible before the signing of the Abraham Accords.

Ever since UAE tourism opened up for Israelis, several new Kosher restaurants and services have been added to the city landscape, and the site of kippa-wearing-visitors in Dubai easily outnumber Tel Aviv during high holidays.

The effects of the Abraham Accords don't stop with Israel-Jewish communities around the world are expressing great interest in visiting and learning about the UAE. Observant Jews who already visited the Emirates say they feel safer walking around with their prayer shawls here, than they do in Europe and even New York.

While Covid-19 has slowed down travel between the two destinations, excitement levels remain high. Israeli tourists are eager to get back in the air and look forward to introducing Emiratis to Israeli culture, cuisine, history, and the family they never knew they had.

Moroccan TV programme celebrates Jewish culture

On 3 February 2021 the Moroccan TV channel MED1tv broadcast a 'culturathon' - a two-hour long programme vaunting Moroccan-Jewish culture. The programme featured performers, a Judaica collector, a film-maker and academics, all speaking of their memories, nostalgia and affection for Morocco. It ended with the Moroccan national anthem being played in Israel.

The programme was clearly aimed at an external audience. It began with the glamorous French-speaking presenter quoting from the 2011 Constitution, which recognised Jews and Berbers as integral components of Moroccan 'pluralism'. Kamal Hachkar, a French-Moroccan with Berber roots, took part. He had made a documentary about Israeli Jews homesick for their mutual home town of Tinghir in the Berber Atlas, and a sequel following an Israeli singer, Neta Elkayam, who has returned to live in Morocco.

Interspersed with blessings for the welfare of King Mohamed VI, the programme bore the unmistakable stamp of royal adviser Andre Azoulay, who for years has been pushing Jewish heritage into the Moroccan mainstream. A 19th century synagogue in Essaouira has been converted into Beit Dakira, a House of Memory, opened by the King in 2020 to great fanfare.

Now that Azoulay has fulfilled his foreign policy objective of US recognition of Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara as part of the Abraham Accords (one interviewee called it the US-Morocco accords') what is he trying to achieve next? The programme ended with a call to the young generation of Jews, now mostly settled in Israel, to return to Morocco.

Egyptian site El Nabaa has a bizarre conspiracy theory that they somehow think shows that Israel has every intention to steal water from the Nile River.

I cannot say I understand it, but they seem to be saying that Binyamin Netanyahu is using Judaism as an excuse to steal water, and that somehow the Ethiopian Jews who immigrated to Israel is part of the plot for Israel to grab or redirect the water from Ethiopia.

Here is some of the craziness in the article:

Israel's dream to grab the Nile water is not spur of the moment, as Dr. Zubaida Muhammad Atta, Dean of the Faculty of Arts of Heloun and a professor of history and expert on the Jewish issue, says. Her study "Israel in the Nile" provides documents and conclusive evidence of Tel Aviv Satanic scenarios to block Egypt water inside the Nile Basin countries, pointing out that the basin countries are not witnessing a breakthrough as much as they are witnessing an organized Israeli invasion.

Zubaida indicated that the Egyptian people have the right to know the fate of its eternal river and the evil Zionist conspiracy being hatched for it, explaining that Israeli engineers flocked to Addis Ababa to study the implementation of dams there for more than 30 years, and that President Sadat announced at the time that he would fight a fierce war against Israel and Ethiopia for the waters of the Nile.

Zubaida indicated that Israel's ambitions in the waters of the Nile date back to 1903, that is, before the Balfour Declaration and the establishment of the State of Israel itself, and that the waters that it stole from Sinai, Palestine and Jordan after the 1967 setback did not stop them, stressing that Israel dreams of delivering the Nile water to Israel through water channels in Egypt, and that the "New Middle East" project is the one that world Zionism has been seeking since the days of Herzl.

Of course, part of the theory comes from the Biblical description of Israel as stretching "from the Nile to the Euphrates."

The article also highlights that the former assistant to David Friedman, Aryeh Lightstone, is a rabbi. There is no small amount of antisemitism in this article.

The funniest part is that, because of extensive desalination, Israel has had a water surplus for several years now. It would cost more to transport fresh water from Africa than to create it from the Mediterranean.

02/08 Links Pt1: Only an Israel victory over Palestinian Lawfare will stop the ICC process; US rejoins UN Human Rights Council, reversing Trump's withdrawal

From Ian:

Only an Israel victory over Palestinian Lawfare will stop the ICC process

Israel should see this as just another front in the over-100-year war against Jewish sovereignty in its ancestral and indigenous homeland, and respond accordingly.

It should use all of its tools available to defeat the Palestinian Arabs on this and every front.

The Palestinians have taken off their gloves, if they ever even had them on. Israel should do likewise.

Bringing Israel or Israelis into the international dock is more than a declaration of war, it is an aim to defeat Israel by other means. It is an attack on those who protect us. Its chilling aim is to weaken our defenses and make every Israeli more vulnerable.

We can not sit idly by, merely condemning and talking about hypocrisy.

We must act, and act now.

We must break the Palestinian Authority leaders’ will to continue this process. They can stop it at any time, and they should be pressured intensely and ruthlessly to do so.

Only overwhelming strength will win the day on this battlefield that the Palestinians have chosen for us and achieve an Israel victory.

The ball is now in the court of Israel’s decision-makers. Harshly worded press releases and empty threats will not protect our soldiers.

Only an Israel victory will.

Eugene Kontorovich: The ICC's unique approach to Israel

US rejoins UN Human Rights Council, reversing Trump's withdrawal

The Biden administration has reestablished ties with the United Nations Human Rights Council three years after former United States president Donald Trump exited the contentious body over its anti-Israel bias.

“The United States will engage with the Council as an observer,” US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said in a statement he issued Monday. When the Trump administration left the UNHRC, it had been one of 47-member states with that held three years terms on the council, which gave it voting power.

It not only gave up its seat, but severed all ties and refused to publicly engage in meetings.

Blinken clarified that the US is now reestablishing those ties, but in an observer capacity, and not as a member state, a move that can happen only when annual elections are held by the UN General Assembly.

The US “will have the opportunity to speak in the Council, participate in negotiations, and partner with others to introduce resolutions,” Blinken said.

“It is our view that the best way to improve the Council is to engage with it and its members in a principled fashion,” he added.

“We strongly believe that when the US engages constructively with the Council, in concert with our allies and friends positive change is within reach,” Blinken said.

“We recognize that the Human Rights Council is a flawed body, in need of reform to its agenda, membership, and focus, including its disproportionate focus on Israel,” Blinken said.

“However, our withdrawal in June 2018 did nothing to encourage meaningful change, but instead created a vacuum of US leadership, which countries with authoritarian agendas have used to their advantage,” he added.

US pendulum swings back into the UN Human Rights Council - analysis

Ever since the United Nations Human Rights Council was established 15 years ago, the American position on it has swung back and forth like a pendulum, staying out, joining, leaving, and now rejoining.

The problems at the UNHRC run deep. UN Watch, an NGO promoting UN reforms and transparency, has a database that shows just how badly the UNHRC has failed to do its stated job.

The UNHRC’s Executive Board is currently made up mostly of non-democratic countries, including notorious human rights violators like Venezuela and Pakistan, among others. At the UNHRC dictatorships are allowed to take leading positions.

Israel remains the only country about which the UNHRC has a permanent agenda item. Since the council was established, it condemned Israel 90 times, Syria 35 times, North Korea 13 times, Iran 10 times and Venezuela twice. Among the countries that have never been condemned by the UNHRC are China, Cuba, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Zimbabwe.

The UNHRC has held eight special sessions on Israel, as opposed to one on Libya, two on Myanmar and five on Syria, and has had eight commissions of inquiry on Israel, as opposed to one on North Korea and two each on Libya, Myanmar and Syria.

And the number of inquiries and special sessions is not the only issue; it’s their content. The UN’s expert on “Palestine” is only supposed to investigate Israel’s supposed violations, and not the Palestinian Authority and Hamas abuses of Palestinians and Israelis.

Every US administration since the UNHRC’s establishment in 2006 has admitted that it is a deeply problematic institution. The question is, in what way should the US use its considerable influence and budget in relation to the Council.

The UN Human Rights Council doesn’t improve human rights. It covers for dictators & human rights abusers like Russia, China, & Venezuela. Sad to see the Biden admin legitimize an org that has become a farce to human rights advocates around the world. https://t.co/1tsJTG0oix
— Nikki Haley (@NikkiHaley) February 8, 2021

UNRWA spokesman Sami Masha’a announced that the UAE has slashed its annual payments to UNRWA from $51.8 million in 2019 to only $1 million in 2020, a reduction of over 98%.

Palestinian media is claiming that this came as a result of pressure from the Trump administration. Perhaps, but the Abraham Accords were announced in August and the UAE didn't pay anything beyond the token amount all year.

It isn't only the UAE, though. The entire Arab world pledges very little to UNRWA - and pays even less. According to an expert in UNRWA, Essam Adwan, the Arab world pledges to pay only 7.8% of UNRWA's budget yet pays less than 5%.

Notably, "experts" keep insisting that the Arab world wholeheartedly supports Palestinians yet they always seem to overlook how little they actually do.

It is widely expected that the Biden administration will restore much or all of the $360 million that was cut from annual US payments to UNRWA but the bulk of aid now comes from European states.

Two weeks ago, Palestinian and anti-Israel media were filled with reports like this one:

A Palestinian worker died Sunday after suffocating from tear gas when the Israeli army attacked workers near the occupied West Bank city of Tulkarem.

50-year-old Fouad Joudeh from the city of Nabulus along with other workers were trying to pass through a separation fence in the village of Faroun to reach their jobs in Jaffa.

Fouad attempted to reach his workplace after more than 20 days of unemployment since Israel imposed a new lockdown as a protective measure to control the spread of COVID-19.

Doctors at Rafidia Hospital in Nablus said the autopsy confirmed that Fouad died as a result of inhaling large amounts of toxic tear gas and heart failure.

The story is strange. Unless someone has a previous medical condition, it is extraordinarily rare for people to die from tear gas inhalation - and next to impossible for this to happen outdoors.

Apparently, Joudeh did not die from anything that Israel did, despite what the Rafidia Hospital says.

The death is not mentioned by the Palestinian Center for Human Rights, which counts every Palestinian death that can be blamed on Israel.

It is not mentioned by the Al Mezan Center for Human Rights.

It is not mentioned by the UN's OCHA-OPT unit, which likewise keeps a running count of all Palestinian casualties by Israel, both deaths and injuries.

B'Tselem likewise does not have this case in their own database of all Palestinian casualties.

If none of these groups who have every incentive to count all Palestinians killed by Israel list Joudeh, you can be certain that Joudeh was not killed by Israel. He probably had a heart attack and his relatives are making up a story about tear gas killing him, perhaps to get benefits due to the family of "martyrs."

Note that the Rafidia hospital the was reported to say he was killed by tear gas is a Palestinian government hospital. Assuming the report is correct, it means one cannot trust Palestinians to report accurate death information when they can make Israel look bad.

Just another Palestinian lie.

But this is important for another reason. The four NGOs listed must have researched the circumstances of the death of Fouad Joudeh before determining that he was not killed by Israel. This means that they are aware of the lie. How many other times has the media blindly reported lies falsely blaming Israel for killing Palestinians? They know the answer - but they will never publish it, because they have a vested interest in keeping the world ignorant to the extent of the mendacity of the Palestinian authorities and official media.

We know about some of these cases, but only the NGOs attacking Israel know the true extent of the deceit of the Palestinians. Only they know how little one can trust official Palestinian news and government statements. But these organizations, which are supposedly founded on moral principles and fact checking, won't ever report on these lies - because they support the goals of those lies.

The ICC considers “Palestine” a state–but Palestinian leaders explicitly say it isn’t one

The International Criminal Court decided that it had jurisdiction to charge Israel with crimes. As the NYT notes, one of the reasons was that Palestine was legally a state :

Dealing a severe diplomatic blow to Israel, the court ruled that for its purposes, Palestine qualified as the state on the territory where the events in question occurred and defined the territorial jurisdiction as extending to the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. The ruling was not unanimous, with one of the three judges, Péter Kovács, presenting a dissenting opinion, disputing the notion that the court has jurisdiction in this case.

Péter Kovács’ dissent includes an interesting annex that shows, quite clearly, that Palestinian leaders themselves do not consider Palestine to be an independent state.

The name of the annex is “Public Annex 1: Recent statements of leading Palestinian personalities on the ‘State of Palestine’ as an ‘aim to achieve’ but not as an existing, sovereign and independent State.”

Here are only a few of the quotes he brings – all within the past year.

Who	Date	Where	Quote
Mahmoud Abbas	11 February 2020	United Nations Security Council	‘Mr. Trump’s plan [...] will not lead to the implementation of the vision of two independent sovereign States, Israel and Palestine.’
Mahmoud Abbas	19 May 2020	Ramallah	‘that the peace process will then be held under the auspices of the United Nations through holding an international conference [...] to end the occupation and establish an independent Palestinian state.’
Mahmoud Abbas	1 December 2020	United Nations with Secretary- General, General Assembly, Security Council	‘to convene an international conference [...] leading to an end of the occupation and the achievement by the Palestinian people of their freedom and independence within their State’
Mohammad Shtayyeh	10 December 2020	Meeting with Spanish Foreign Minister	‘For the Palestinian side, any political path must aim to end the [Israeli] occupation and establish a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders’
Foreign Minister Riad Malki	26 January 2021	United Nations Security Council	‘While we pursue our long journey to freedom and peace, we call for immediate protection for our people, who are equally entitled to security, until such time where we can ensure their protection as a sovereign State.’
Riad Malki	30 April 2020	Ramallah	‘if the annexation plan is implemented, the possibility of an independent, sovereign, viable and geographically contiguous Palestinian state will be undermined’

It is an interesting state where its own leaders don’t consider it as such. One would think they would know.

Which makes the ICC decision that Palestine is a state, contradicting its own leaders, most curious.

It calls into question the entire ICC methodology.

(h/t Irene)

Cartoons of the Day: How Israel haters watch the Super Bowl and Boycotting the Buccaneers

Super Bowl edition.

The Bucs' Ali Marpet did indeed go to Israel on Birthright.

02/07 Links: This flawed decision turns the ICC itself into just one more Israel-basher; Some Western leaders are ‘divorced from reality’ with regard to Palestinians, Iran

From Ian:

Amb. Alan Baker: This flawed decision turns the ICC itself into just one more Israel-basher

It is both tragic and ironic that the State of Israel, one of the founding fathers of the vision of creating an independent International Criminal Court after the unimaginable atrocities committed against the Jewish People during the Holocaust, has now become the target of that very International Criminal Court.

As one of the leading countries actively involved, from the start, in the negotiation and drafting of the founding document, the Statute of the ICC, it is all the more ironic that Israel now finds itself being accused by the Court based on Palestinian political manipulation.

What was intended to be an independent juridical body devoted to preventing impunity enjoyed by the most serious and atrocious war criminals, by bringing them to justice, is now being politically manipulated against the one state that since the early 1950s has consistently advocated the establishment of such a body, the State of Israel.

The irony is all the more evident given the legal acrobatics by the politically oriented and politically influenced prosecutor of the Court and the majority of judges of the Pre-Trial Chamber, in their obstinate and flawed insistence on attributing elements of statehood and sovereignty to a Palestinian entity that is distinctly, and by all international standards, not a state.

Nor does such entity have any sovereign territory, and thus, even according to the Statute of the ICC, cannot be the subject of the Court’s jurisdiction. The Palestinians have absolutely no standing in the court.

This ironic situation is not surprising given the prevailing international atmosphere of incitement and hostility towards Israel throughout the UN system.

However, what is shocking is the fact that the one international juridical institution that was hoped and intended by its founders, and stated in its founding document, to be “an independent, permanent International Criminal Court…with jurisdiction over the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole,” has allowed itself to be politically manipulated and abused.

Six actions Biden should take to hold the ICC and Palestinian leaders accountable

Though the Biden administration also condemned the ICC decision, there are indications that it wants to reverse the strong policies against the ICC adopted by its predecessor, the administration of former U.S. President Donald Trump.

Instead, however, Washington should take the following actions to impose consequences on the ICC and the Palestinian leadership:

First, it should implement Trump’s Executive Order 13928 to impose additional sanctions, such as the blocking of property and revoking of visas of “ICC officials, employees, and agents, as well as their immediate family members” who are part of this decision against Israel.

Trump firmly asserted that “any attempt by the ICC to investigate, arrest, detain or prosecute any United States personnel without the consent of the United States, or of personnel of countries that are United States allies and who are not parties to the Rome Statute or have not otherwise consented to ICC jurisdiction, constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, and I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat.”

His administration then imposed sanctions on ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda and her aide, Phakiso Mochochoko, for launching an illegitimate investigation into alleged “war crimes” by U.S. forces in Afghanistan. Israel expressed support for the U.S. sanctions. But the European Union, along with more than 70 countries, announced opposition to them.

Unfortunately, the Biden administration is now reviewing those sanctions, and may acquiesce to the pressure campaign to lift them as part of a softer approach to the ICC. This would be a big mistake.

Second, the Biden administration should use Trump’s E.O. 13938 to impose sanctions on individual P.A. leaders who have been materially assisting or providing support for this charade against Israel. After acceding to the 2015 Rome Statute, P.A. leader Mahmoud Abbas appointed a 45-member “higher national supervising committee,” chaired by the late PLO Executive Committee Secretary General Saeb Erekat, to pursue legal action against Israel in the ICC.

Erekat told Palestine TV that the committee was made up of the “the complete spectrum of Palestinian political factions,” including Hamas, the PFLP and DFLP—and that P.A. Foreign Minister Riyadh al-Maliki served as its official liaison to the ICC.

In other words, the P.A. has been collaborating with members of State Department-designated foreign terrorist organizations that seek the destruction of Israel to provide material against it to the ICC. This is in addition to public statements by Abbas, al-Maliki, P.A. Prime Minister Mohammad Shtayyeh and Hamas encouraging and lauding ICC actions against Israel.

ICC, ICJ push Joe Biden into Donald Trump’s shoes - analysis

In less than a week, the International Criminal Court and International Court of Justice have shockingly put US President Joe Biden into former president Donald Trump’s shoes on the international law scene.

Last week, the ICJ issued a jurisdiction ruling against the US sanctions program on Iran. Then, over the weekend, the ICC issued a jurisdiction ruling against Israel in the six-year running war crimes controversy.

US reactions from the State Department to both rulings were highly critical.

To the layperson, the criticism might have sounded the same for the ICJ and the ICC as what would have come from the Trump administration. Israel would be happy if the US does not get too chummy with the ICC and the ICJ, since Jerusalem also supports US sanctions on Iran.

That is not all.

True, the Biden administration has reaped global praise for signing a range of executive orders re-joining the Paris climate treaty, erasing Trump-era prohibitions on immigration and travel from certain Muslim countries and a more positive tone toward the UN and the EU.

But 17 days into his administration, Biden has neither rescinded Trump-era financial and visa sanctions against the ICC nor has he rescinded the executive order that could allow him to use such sanctions further in the future.

Kamala Harris signed letter in May against ICC's ‘dangerous politicization'

The bipartisan letter Harris signed last May when she was a senator, urged then-secretary of state Mike Pompeo to “stand in full force against any biased investigation of Israel” by the ICC. The leading signatories were Senators Ben Cardin of Maryland, a Democrat, and Rob Portman of Ohio, a Republican. Close to 70 more senators, including Harris, joined them.

The letter came six months after ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda announced that she thought there was “a reasonable basis to proceed with an investigation” into crimes by Israelis and Palestinians.

That announcement “constitutes a dangerous politicization of the Court and distorts the purposes for which the court was established,” the Senators wrote, pointing out that it was meant to be a court of last resort for prosecuting serious international crimes.

“ICC actions currently underway could lead to the prosecution of Israeli nationals despite the fact the ICC does not enjoy legitimate jurisdiction in this case,” the letter reads. “Both Democratic and Republican administrations have refused to join the Court in part because they feared its politicization and misuse.”

The Senators pointed out that “Palestine” does not meet the criteria for statehood and that Israel – as well as the US – are not members of the court, and that the court’s own rules “prohibit it from prosecuting cases against a country that has a robust judicial system willing and able to prosecute war crimes of its personnel,” which Israel has.

“By accepting Palestinian territorial claims over the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza, the Prosecutor is making a political judgment that biases any subsequent investigation or trial,” the letter states. “Establishing the boundaries of any future Palestinian state is a political decision that must be determined through negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. Any ICC determination regarding its jurisdiction over the disputed territories or investigation of Israel would further hinder the path to peace.”

US President Joe Biden has used executive orders to overturn dozens of former US president Donald Trump’s policies, but lifting sanctions on ICC officials is not one of them.

While conservative Zionists fret that a Democratic-leaning Congress is turning anti-Israel, the anti-Israel Washington Report on Middle East Affairs - the magazine of the anti-Israel American Educational Trust - is upset that most of the new representatives are Zionist:

TRADITIONAL PRO-ISRAEL TALKING POINTS ARE ALIVE AND WELL. For decades, pro-Israel politicians have uttered the same basic talking points propagated by the lobby: Israel and the U.S. share the same values, Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East, Israel has the right to defend itself from threats, etc. Unsurprisingly, the congressional freshman class has by and large regurgitated these talking points in unison, with very few dissenters. Below are a few examples of the talking points recycled by Congress’ newest members.

“Israel is the one standing country that comports with our values as Americans,” Rep. Byron Donalds (R-FL) told the Jewish News Syndicate (JNS).

“I support Israel’s right to self-defense, and believe that Israelis, like citizens of all countries, have the right to live in safety and peace, free from terrorist threats and attacks,” Rep. Carolyn Bourdeaux (D-GA) said in a position paper.

“It is critically important for the state of Israel to always maintain a qualitative military edge,” Rep. Kathy Manning (D-NC) told Jewish Insider.

The freshman class also has its fair share of Christian Zionists, who claim that their faith demands unconditional support for Israel. Echoing this line of thinking, Rep. Barry Moore (R-AL) told the JNS, “The Bible is very clear—those who bless Israel will be blessed. That’s one of the things that’s fundamental to my faith.”

BDS IS PORTRAYED AS THE EPICENTER OF ANTI-SEMITISM. While pro-Israel, anti-BDS organizations, such as the Anti-Defamation League, have produced studies showing that anti-Semitism is much more pervasive among the political right than the left, most new members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans alike, discussed anti-Semitism almost exclusively through the lens of the non-violent BDS movement. Time and again, BDS was depicted as a progressive anti-Semitic plot to undermine Israel.

“Anti-Semitism has become an all-too-common occurrence in politics among the Democrat base and the far left who see Israel as nothing more than an extension of fantom corruption and colonialism,” Sen. Roger Marshall (R-KS) said in 2019, when he was a member of the House of Representatives. “It is that type of loose, cheap, anti-Semitic rhetoric that led to the rise of the Third Reich,” he added.

Rep. Lisa McClain (R-MI) told the JNS that BDS stands for “bigotry and hatred,” a pithy, provocative, and yet common sentiment expressed by many of her peers.

Perhaps the most predominant supporter of Israel among freshman Democrats, Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY), described BDS as “beyond the pale” in an interview with Israel’s i24NEWS television network. BDS, he maintained, inappropriately singles-out Israel. “That’s not criticism, that’s extremism, that’s hate, and we as a Democratic Party should be against hatred and extremism,” he said. He also told Jewish Insider, “There is a deep rot of anti-Semitism at the core of BDS…I am concerned about the normalization of BDS within the progressive movement, and I worry deeply that BDS has the potential to poison progressivism.”

Many of the new members support legislation to criminalize BDS, with a few having worked to pass such laws during their time in state government. Even new members who pledged not to target BDS legally—on the basis that it is protected First Amendment speech—nonetheless accused BDS of anti-Semitism or otherwise expressed their opposition to the movement.

Members taking this position include Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-GA). “I strongly oppose the BDS movement and its anti-Semitic underpinnings, including its supporters’ refusal to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist,” he wrote in a widely distributed op-ed. His counterpart, Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA) said in his position paper, “I oppose the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which seeks to isolate and delegitimize Israel. I want Israel’s economy to thrive and I want U.S.-Israel trade to grow.”

While the media spends a lot of time on Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar and Cori Bush for their support of BDS, the WRMEA sees the youngest members of Congress as the most Zionist:

Of the 70 new members of Congress, 11 are in their 30s, and one, Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-NC), is 25 years old. While polls show that younger Americans (including young Jews, conservatives and evangelical Christians) tend to be more critical of Israel than their elders, this congressional freshman class does not match this trend.

Of the 12 new members in their 20s or 30s, this analysis determined eight to be “diehard Zionists,” two to be “liberal Zionists,” and two to have strong, but not outspoken, pro-Israel views.

The author has a bitter conclusion for his fellow haters:

The newest members of Congress are, on average, just as zealous about their support for Israel as their seasoned peers. While much has been made about growing support for Palestine within the Democratic Party, manifestations of this grassroots reality are scarce among this freshman class.

Sometimes we need to listen to our enemies to see that the sky isn't falling - although that doesn't mean that Zionists should be complacent.

History Today asked four anti-Israel historians or other supposed experts whether the peace/normalization treaties between Israel and Bahrain, the UAE, Sudan and Morocco are considered "historic."

They unanimously say that these agreements are more or less meaningless. The reason? Because they do not address the real problem in the Middle East: peace between Israel and Palestinians.

Check out this groupthink:

Fawaz Gerges says, "Far from a turning point, this top-down Israeli-Arab partnering overlooks the fundamental question of Palestinian rights and Israel’s place in the region."

Ilan Pappe says, "It has very little to do with the real issue in Israel and Palestine."

James Rodgers, a former BBC correspondent, says, "They are not a historic turning point in Arab-Israeli relations because they do not directly address the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. "

Avi Shlaim says, "In my opinion the Abraham Accords do not merit the grand epithet of ‘historic’ because they do not touch the root cause of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The Palestinian problem is the core of this conflict and has been the central issue in Arab politics since 1945."

The amount of denial here is hilarious. These people's hate for Israel is so great that they look at the entire world through an anti-Israel lens, and therefore come up with anti-Israel conclusions.

First of all, the Palestinian conflict was never the core of the conflict nor was it the "central issue in Arab politics since 1945." It was an excuse for the conflict which was based on antisemitism and, after Israel was reborn, shame at mighty Muslims having lost to weak dhimmi Jews. The proof is obvious: the Arabs never actually helped the Palestinians. They didn't give them independence in 1949, they didn't give them equal rights, and except for Jordan they didn't give any of them citizenship. They used them as cannon fodder and they kept them miserable for public relations purposes. The idea of an independent Palestinian state was not even considered until after 1967.

The Abraham Accords revealed the truth that has been obvious to observers for over a decade: Arab nations were sick of the Palestinian issue. They are disgusted that Palestinians didn't accept any peace offers and they are aghast that Palestinians cannot even unify the Hamas and Fatah factions.

This is not a secret. Any historian worth the name would know these basic facts. It is written in the Arabic media and it is obvious from the actions of the Arab leaders - promising billions of dollars and paying only a tiny fraction.

Secondly, the Abraham Accords are momentous not only because of peace but because of normalization. The UAE-Israel agreement, and the Bahrain agreement, explicitly changes Israel from an pariah state into a state that has historic and permanent ties to the region:

Recognizing that the Arab and Jewish peoples are descendant of a common ancestor, Abraham, and inspired, in that spirit, to foster in the Middle East a reality in which Muslims, Jews, Christians and peoples of all faiths, denominations, beliefs and nationalities live in, and are committed to, a spirit of coexistence, mutual understanding and mutual respect;

Anyone who says that this isn't historic doesn't know history as well as they pretend.

Third, the open trade relations between Israel and the Gulf states will not only cement Israel as a permanent economic partner for Bahrain and the UAE, but to all other Gulf states as well who might not be interested in publicly trading with Israel but who will happily trade through those two countries. Israel already had clandestine trading with other Arab states - expect this to skyrocket.

Fourth, the accords have destroyed the anti-Israel unanimity of the Arab League.

Fifth, these accords have ushered in more cooperation between Israel and other Arab states who have not yet signed their own agreements. Saudi Arabia now allows Israeli planes to fly over its territory and Saudi leaders have met Israeli leaders. Israel has improved ties with Oman, which welcomed the accords. Many Arab states may not officially recognize Israel, but very few are officially enemies any more.

That is a sea change in how the Arab world looks at Israel. To minimize that is, frankly, delusional.

The accords have proven the exact opposite of the History Today critics' main assumption - that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the core issue. It never was. Arab states have had much more important issues to deal with, chiefly the Iranian threat, and Israel is a far better partner for them than Palestinians could ever be. Even the cold peace between Israel and Jordan/Egypt is stronger than ever, as they are purchasing much needed natural gas from Israel now and they could not afford to shut that off.

These historians might not like it, but 2020 was the year that Israel became largely integrated into the Middle East, something that has been fought against for over seven decades.

The History Today article is not sober analysis. After all, most of the people interviewed have become famous because of their books on the Israel/Palestinian conflict, and their fame is dependent on that conflict being considered important. This article is sour grapes at being shown to be so spectacularly wrong for so long.

(h/t Charlie in NY)