The Abraham Accords are inflaming the Arab BDSers.
Yesterday, I reported about Kuwaiti singer Basma al-Kuwaiti who announced that she was embracing Judaism and rejecting the Kuwaiti ruling family. Now, prominent Kuwaiti Sheikh Ahmed Al-Qattan called for the application of the penalty of apostasy for her - which means death.
This week also brought the news of Moroccan singer Sanaa Mohamed, who sang a duet with Israeli singer Elkana Marziano:
Even worse, there are reports that she has been arrested or detained by Kuwaiti authorities under some sort of anti-normalization law.
In November, Egyptian singer Mohamed Ramadan was threatened and sued in Egyptian courts for posing for a photo with an Israeli footballer.
In December, Tunisian musician Noamane Chaari was also subject to death threats and reportedly fired from his job after collaborating on a song with Israeli artist Ziv Yehezkel.
The title of the song was "Peace Between Neighbors."
If you think that these death threats are part of Arab culture and enlightened Westerners wouldn't do that, think again. People who support the BDS movement act exactly the same way.
There is no world government based on international law, and there should not be one. That seems like something that should be understood and agreed to by everyone, but apparently it is not.
Today, Israelis, from the Prime Minister to almost any IDF soldier, are in legal jeopardy as a result of the overreach of arrogant international institutions and an overly-expansive idea of international law.
In its simplest form, international law is based on the (supposedly) universal acceptance of the principle that a nation should honor its agreements with other nations. If, for example, Iran signs the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and then develops nuclear weapons, it is in violation of international law. When a country joins the UN, it agrees to be bound by the UN Charter (which, for example, forbids the “threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state”), and by certain kinds of Security Council resolutions. In these contexts, international law depends on consent: a nation is not bound to follow any laws that it hasn’t agreed to.
There is also something called “customary international law.” That refers to principles that are not covered by treaties, but are unwritten rules based on the customary behavior of states and a subjective opinion of obligation. One area in which it is applicable is where non-state actors are concerned, who are not members of the UN and have not signed any treaties. So Hamas’ use of human shields can be considered a violation of customary international law even though Hamas is not a member of the UN and has not signed any of the protocols of the Geneva Conventions. Here there is no consent. But even when customary international law is applied to states the question of consent can become murky, since there are no agreed-to treaties to refer to.
The difference between the laws of states and international law is most pronounced when you consider interpretation and enforcement. States establish domestic courts that interpret their laws and determine when someone is in violation of them. They have jurisdiction over all the residents of a country and their decisions are binding. A state can use force to enforce them. For international law, jurisdiction is limited by the principle of consent and enforcement is more complicated.
There are international courts. The UN has established an International Court of Justice (ICJ), which can adjudicate disputes between nations in the framework of international law. In order for the ICJ to do so, either the nations involved must explicitly consent, or they must have signed treaties that include clauses that require such adjudication of disputes. The ICJ can also give advisory opinions to various UN agencies when asked to do so. Such opinions are not binding on the nations involved. For example, in 2004, the ICJ produced a highly politicized advisory opinion for the UN General Assembly, holding that Israel’s security barrier violated international law and construction of it should stop. Israel cooperated with the court by providing testimony, but was not required to do so or to accept its judgment.
There is also an International Criminal Court (ICC). The ICC is not a part of the UN; it was established in 2002 by a multilateral treaty called the Rome Statute and is financed by contributions from its member states. The ICC can try individuals (not states) who are accused of serious crimes like genocide, crimes against humanity, or war crimes. The ICCs jurisdiction is limited to crimes committed within the territorial area of states that have adopted the Rome Statute or declared their acceptance of its jurisdiction; or crimes committed by nationals of those states; or in special cases referred by the UN Security Council. 123 states have signed on to it and 42 (including the US and Israel) have not.
Note that the criterion for jurisdiction seriously undermines the principle of consent. The court can prosecute a citizen of a particular country whether or not that country is a member of the Rome Statute, as long as the offense was committed in a country that is a member.
The ICC can prosecute someone only if it decides that “national justice systems do not carry out proceedings or when they claim to do so but in reality are unwilling or unable to carry out such proceedings genuinely.” It can prosecute anyone, even if they are a head of state or a soldier who is required to follow orders. So far it has indicted 44 people, mostly for crimes committed in several African conflicts.
The ICC can issue arrest warrants which may be executed by member states, or any state that cooperates with it. Arrested persons can be tried at the Court’s headquarters in The Hague, Netherlands. If convicted, they can be sentenced to prison terms up to and including life imprisonment, which can be served in cooperating countries.
As you probably know, the ICC’s head prosecutor has announced that the Court would initiate a criminal investigation against Israelis and (presumably) Hamas members for war crimes committed during 2014’s Operation Protective Edge and the defense of the Gaza border, as well as Israel’s settlement policy. The prosecutor claims that the Court has jurisdiction over Gaza and Judea/Samaria, even though “Palestine” is not a sovereign state and Israel is not a party to the Rome Statute.
A pre-trial panel of judges decided that “The State of Palestine” had joined the Rome Statute in 2015, and that therefore – although the Court didn’t wish to decide the question of whether “Palestine” is a state – the very fact that it had joined the statute implies that it can be treated as a “state party” to the Statute. Once a “state party,” it would be unfair to deny it any of the rights and privileges accruing to one! (See pars. 89-113 of the decision linked above). Sometimes an argument is so bad, it’s hard to even restate it.
But since “Palestine” isn’t actually a state with borders, how do we know that the “crimes” were committed within its borders? Easy, say the ICC judges: UN General Assembly Resolution 67/19, which admitted “Palestine” to the UN as a “Non-member Observer State” in 2012 says that “Palestine” includes the Gaza Strip and the “West Bank.” QED.
Regarding the UNGA, I don’t think I have to add anything to Abba Eban’s well-known comment, “If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions.”
The Kafkaesque ICC decision, 60 pages of mumbo-jumbo intended to obscure the intention to pillory Israel and punish Israelis, proves that the ICC is “nothing but a pack of cards,” in the words of Lewis Carroll’s Alice.
And this illustrates how, at least in the realm of nations, politics trumps law. It illustrates why the expansion of international law beyond the principle of consent is dangerous. And – as if any more such illustrations are needed – it shows how important international institutions are viciously biased against one particular country, which just happens to be the one Jewish state.
In Mr. Ben Hamozeg’s office near Tel Aviv, the chief executive opened the sensor app on his cellphone and showed me an orchard in a Gulf country that doesn’t have open ties with Israel. He zoomed in with a finger and a thumb: A farmer there has a weevil infestation in four trees in the northwest corner of his orchard. It was even more striking to see, in a nearby Arab power that also has no official relations with Israel, 100 sensors showing a nine-tree infestation just a few miles from one of Islam’s holiest sites.
Last year, a few hundred Agrint sensors sold by a third party were drilled into trees in the North African kingdom of Morocco, and a few thousand more are going in now.
Morocco’s normalization announcement is of special significance to Israeli Jews, about a sixth of whom are of Moroccan descent — including Mr. Ben Hamozeg. His parents are from the city of Fez and lived there until the Jewish population of the Arab world left or was driven out after the creation of Israel. In recent years, Morocco has allowed Israelis to visit with special permission, and when Mr. Ben Hamozeg arrived and had to request a visa, he told me, he joked with the clerk that he shouldn’t need one. He should be a citizen. The clerk, it turned out, was also from Fez, and he waved Mr. Ben Hamozeg through.
In that personal anecdote is a story of reconnection, one that’s missed if these new accords are analyzed solely through the lens of American policy and the Iranian threat. Jews have always been around this region, farming and trading like everyone else, and it’s not the past few months of renewed contact that are the anomaly, but the past seven decades of isolation.
David Ibn Maimon, brother of Maimonides, the great medieval Jewish philosopher who lived in Cairo, was on a business trip not far from Dubai when he was lost at sea in the 12th century. Some of the sixth-century Jews around Arabia in the time of Muhammad were date farmers. The capital city of another date-palm power, Iraq, was about one-third Jewish into the 1940s. Most of those people’s descendants are now Israelis.
The sensor is a feature of the present moment, as are the normalization agreements, but much about this story seems Ottoman: A Jew from the Levant with roots in North Africa is doing date business with Arabs on the Persian Gulf. They agree about some things and disagree about others. They have a complicated past.
The United Arab Emirates’ mission to Mars is a major achievement for the Gulf country and comes seven months after the country launched its first interplanetary mission.
The Hope spacecraft made its way to Mars amid important developments in the region. The Abraham Accords were announced and signed, and more than 100,000 Israelis traveled to Dubai. The UAE and Israel have become leaders in vaccinating their publics. Both countries also face challenges ahead, but in general they represent leading technology sectors in the region.
Back in July the Hope spacecraft took off at dawn from Japan and made its way to Mars. It was reported at the time that the concept dated back to 2014 and was intended to inspire a new generation while celebrating the country’s 50th anniversary. This was a big deal for the UAE, the Gulf and the region. Yousef al-Otaiba, the UAE ambassador to the US, praised the effort last year. He harkened back to the years of hard work and dedication it took.
Israel’s SpaceIL successfully launched the Beresheet spacecraft in February 2019 but failed when it landed on the moon in August 2019. Israel will try again. Israel is a leader in putting satellites into space, and the UAE is now the fifth country to reach Mars. Both countries are now major space powers. China and America’s NASA also have spacecraft on the way to Mars this year.
Dubai’s Burj Khalifa, the giant skyscraper, lit up in celebration when it was announced the mission was successful on Tuesday evening. The team members behind the mission have an average age of 27, and the team is 35% women, CNN reported.
Meanwhile, in Israel the satellite program also showcases Israel’s abilities. The Ofek launch in 1988 made Israel the eighth country in the world with a launch capability. Ofek-16 was launched in July 2020 from Palmahim.
Veteran NBA player Amare Stoudemire talked to students of Yeshiva University in New York about his career, his life as an observant Jew, and maintaining a close connection to God.
Stoudemire, who is the assistant player development coach for the Brooklyn Nets, participated in a virtual Q&A event on Feb. 3 in which he began by discussing the start of his basketball career, and his experiences playing for both the NBA and the Israel Premier League.
The 38-year-old played for Hapoel Jerusalem (which he now co-owns) in 2016 and 2017, then returned for the 2018-19 season. He played for Maccabi Tel Aviv in 2020 and led both teams to victory in the Israeli basketball championships.
Stoudemire was “looking forward” to moving back to Israel and playing again for Maccabi Tel Aviv after one season with the team, but when Steve Nash took over as head coach for the Nets in December 2020, “I figured this might be a nice opportunity to get back involved with the NBA,” he told YU students.
The dual American-Israeli citizen recently made headlines for announcing that he will not work on Shabbat.
Talking about his path to Judaism, Stoudemire said his interest in the Jewish religion began when he was a young teen and his mother said their family should “keep the laws of Moses.” He completed his conversion to Judaism a year ago in Israel, where he studied in a yeshiva in Jerusalem and Bnei Brak, and on the advice of his “rebbe” he took on the Hebrew name “Yehoshafat.” He also said that moving permanently to Israel is a possibility in the future.
“American Jews voted for this,” is something I’ve taken to
writing as a preface to every article I share on social media detailing the
ways in which the Biden administration is bad for America, for Israel, and for
the free world at large. I do this, in part, because I am angry. Angry at this
betrayal of brother for brother, prioritizing hatred of the Orange Man over the
welfare of the Jewish State. Angry at this very large subset of Jews who care more
about criminals who enter their country illegally than they care about the Jews
of far-off Israel. Most of all, I am angry at American Jews for being blind to
the threat of Iran that looms over us all, choosing fluffy social
justice issues over this major existential threat.
I am angry and I want them to know it. So I tell them, at every chance I get, “American Jews voted for this.”
I’ve pointed my finger and said “American Jews voted for
this,” when the Biden administration announced its intention to restore aid to UNRWA, whose schools are hotbeds of incitement that teach Arab children to hate
and kill Israeli Jews. UNRWA schools have even been used to house the missile
launchers that fire rockets at the one million Jewish civilians of Southern
Israel, which includes my children and grandchildren. UNRWA is thoroughly disreputable with serious
allegations of corruption at the highest level. But that didn’t stop Biden from
appointing former UNRWA official and “Palestinian-American” Maher
al-Bitar to be director of the NSC intelligence service.
American Jews
voted for this.
“American Jews voted for this,” I said when Biden
predictably appointed Robert Malley as US envoy for Iranian affairs. Malley wants to end the sanctions and return to the JCPOA. This wrongheaded policy of appeasement—of making funds available to the cash-strapped mullahs—only hastens Iranian nuclear breakout time. The appointment
of Malley undoes everything the Trump administration did to contain Iran. Yet American Jews voted for Biden even while he promised to reinstate
this self-destructive policy—a policy that empowers an enemy sworn to the goal
of first obliterating Israel and then the United States.
When the Biden
administration rejoined the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC), something he
had promised to do during his campaign, I said it again: American Jews voted
for this. The UNHRC is a body made up of representatives from some of the worst
human rights-abusing countries, for instance Pakistan, Cuba, Saudi Arabia,
China, Indonesia, Venezuela, and Russia. The main purpose of this body of evil
is to censure Israel for imaginary infractions, which was the reason President
Trump pulled the US out of the council: the UNHRC is clearly antisemitic in its
singular focus on and hostility toward the Jewish State.
Last year in fact, the UNHRC published a blacklist of
companies it said raised “particular human rights concerns” due only to the location of these businesses in Judea and Samaria, indigenous Jewish territory for thousands of
years. A vote for Biden was, in reality, a vote for a return to the UNHRC, an antisemitic
body purporting to care about human rights as it looks daily for new ways to punish
Israel. American Jews looked the other way, if they looked at all. American
Jews voted for this.
The Matter of the Houthis
Then there’s the matter of the Houthis. While the Trump
administration imposed sanctions on the Houthis, the Biden administration
has already moved to suspend some of these sanctions. That’s because Iran is sending lots of sophisticated weaponry to this Yemen-based militia group and training Houthi militants in their use. And Biden, you see, is loath to upset Iran.
The Trump administration designated the Houthis a
terrorist organization. Biden, on the other hand, is reviewing this
designation. Antony Blinken, Biden’s secretary of state, said he has “deep
concern about the designation” of the Houthis as a terrorist organization. The
Biden administration's “review” is part and parcel of a return to the bad old
days of the Obama administration and the JCPOA
appeasement policy in which America pretends it can mollify the mullahs by
funding their nuclear ambitions. American Jews voted for
this and it literally makes no sense. It’s suicide.
The Biden administration is, in fact, an extension of the Obama administration’s “abnormal
Middle East strategy,” in which enemies are strengthened, and friends are punished. In voting for Biden, American Jews voted for strengthening Iran and
punishing Israel. Because that is how much they hate Donald Trump. For hatred
of this one man, they threw the Jews of Israel under the bus. They empowered an
Iran that promises to wipe out both Israel and America.
To Iran, Israel is only the "Little Satan." The USA is the "Great Satan."
When rumors emerged that Bernie Sander’s top aide, Matt
Duss, was to be hired by the State Department, I said it again: “American
Jews voted for this.”
“Duss,” said the Free
Beacon, “will join a growing roster of Biden administration hires who have
displayed a deep 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.”
No less than the Simon Wiesenthal Center described Duss as"infected
with Jew-hatred.” But American Jews voted for Biden, knowing that Joe would
need to placate the influential, far left, Israel-hating wing of the Democratic
Party. What better way to do this than to hire far left, Israel-hating hacks to
serve in the Biden administration? American Jews voted for this, as well.
Iran's New Rocket: The Zuljanah
When Iran
tested a new rocket on February 1, a rocket capable of hitting Britain, I
gritted my teeth and thought (and said), “American Jews voted for this.” The rocket
launch was an Iranian threat timed to coincide with Biden’s assumption to power.
The intent was clear: Iran is telling Biden to lift the sanctions and reinstate
the JCPOA. In effect, the mullahs are saying, “Give us money or we will blow
some country—Britain or perhaps Israel—to smithereens.”
Iran's newest rocket, the Zuljanah
And of course, Iran knows that Biden is rehiring all the
Obama appointees so intimately involved in appeasing Iran the last time around.
Iran knows that Biden coming to power is the same as Obama assuming power. The
mullahs have already played this game. They know the rules, and how to win—how
to get more money to make more weapons. American Jews voted for this, as well.
During the election campaign, Biden promised he would open
the PLO mission in Washington. Already, the PA is in talks with the State
Department on how to make that happen without the PA having to pay the $650 million
it owes after being found guilty in 2015 by a New York jury, for no less than
seven terror attacks. A survivor of one of these attacks, Alan
Joseph Bauer, described his personal connection to the lawsuit, “In March
of 2002, a Palestinian policeman, Muhammed Hasheikah, detonated himself on King
George Street in downtown Jerusalem. I had two screws pass through my
left arm, and our son, then aged 7, had the head of a Philips screw pass fully
through his right brain.”
Biden intends to empower the terrorists responsible for this and countless other abhorrent antisemitic attacks, by reopening the PLO mission. He is,
moreover, trying to find a way to do so without making the PLO pay the monies
it owes to its victims. American Jews voted for this.
"Amcha"
When I met first Dr. Elana Heideman, of the Israel Forever Foundation, she talked to me about the possibility of writing a story for her website. She mentioned that she didn't care whether I was religious, or what my politics might be, all she cared about was whether I had something positive to say about Israel. It was such a simple concept, so sweet and clean.
She explained that the one thing we all shared was a love of Israel. And she told me that once upon a time, Jews in the Old Country had a way of identifying each other. They'd come up to a person and whisper, "Amcha."*
Amcha. A hidden way of asking: "I'm Jewish. Are you? Is it safe to speak?"
By asking, you were declaring your Judaism. And that was a bit of a risk. But it was a good feeling to find others like you in a world that hated your people. You felt warm and safe in the knowledge of that.
What happened to that simple way of showing up for each other, of caring for each other in a world that hates and wants to kill Jews, just because they are Jewish? When did we stop being a part of each others' lives, each others' worlds?
This is what angers me most of all about the American Jewish vote. This lack of connection, the lack of being there for their own kind in a time of crisis. It makes me think that maybe they aren't really Jewish after all, for all their talk about "tikkun olam."
Did Hatred Overrule Their Common Sense?
There is much more to say on this subject than can be contained in a single
article. But there is enough here to ask the obvious questions: Did American
Jews know the full import of what they were voting for, when they voted for Joe Biden? Did they care? Or did their
hatred for the Orange Man and his difficult personality overrule their common sense?
Where did that feeling of connection to their people go? What happened to the concept that we are your people, and you are ours? What happened to common cause?
Did American Jews know, when they voted for Biden, that they
were prioritizing animus for a single person over being actually complicit in the institutionalized hatred of an entire people: their own, "amcha?" Were they the victims of a media colluding with the left to hide the truth of what all of what a Biden administration would mean to Israel and the Jewish people? I don't see it,
because ultimately I believe that every voter is responsible for learning all the facts--for digging
deep and discerning the truth. Especially when it affects your people, "amcha."
And so, in order to make things entirely clear to them, I will
say it often, and I will say it aloud, “American Jews voted for this. You threw us under the bus, and with us, yourselves."
I couldn’t make them see it then, and I couldn’t make them
see it back when they voted for Obama, twice. I couldn’t make them see the
wrongness of their vote, how it hurts us, how it hurts them and divorces them from their own people, their nation, and
the world.
But maybe I can make them see it now, after the fact. Which is why I will keep saying this mantra and writing these words. “American Jews voted
for this."
And I promise you, I will not stop.
*Lit. "Your Nation" as in: "I'm part of your nation, I'm Jewish."
Israelis and Palestinians want to separate from one another, but the major political solutions to the conflict do not appeal to them, according to an in-depth study by the RAND Corporation released to The Jerusalem Post.
The research found that, overall, “mistrust, broadly defined, is likely the greatest impediment to peace.”
RAND, a leading global policy think tank, conducted the peer-reviewed research via 33 focus groups from 2018 to 2020, before the COVID-19 pandemic, collecting detailed views of over 270 individuals. This widely used research approach combines quantitative data and qualitative insights, and is meant to complement the many random-sample polls taken on these topics.
Seeking “to assess whether there were any viable alternatives to the current status quo” between Israel and the Palestinians, the researchers found that Israeli Jews, Israeli Arabs, West Bank Palestinians and Gazan Palestinians were more likely to be uncertain about any of the five alternative solutions to the conflict offered – two-state solution, confederation, one-state solution, Israeli annexation of area C, or the status quo – than they were to support them.
The questions allowed for uncertainty and support at the same time, yet the only option a majority of Israeli Jews found to be acceptable was the status quo, and none were supported by a majority of any of the other populations.
“There is widespread skepticism that any alternative would be feasible,” the report states. “There was widespread distrust among Israelis and Palestinians of their own leadership, the leadership of the other side, and the people from the other side. As a consequence, there was great skepticism that a deal could be reached and that either side would abide by the terms of the deal.
“In addition, the majority of Israelis and Palestinians in our focus groups indicated that none of the alternatives would end the conflict,” the researchers wrote.
Dear Liberal American Jews,
Congratulations. Many of us democracy-loving Israelis cheered America’s political resilience as power transferred peacefully on January 20, defying Donald Trump’s rantings. And many of us join you in wishing President Joe Biden good luck. But we’re nervous too. We’re not sure Biden has Israel’s back regarding our greatest enemy: Iran. Heck – we’re not sure if you have our back regarding Iran either.
It’s confusing. Much of Biden’s foreign policy team boasts about having crafted the shameful, dangerous Iran deal Biden vows to restore. Yet he said “no” to lifting sanctions to woo Iran to negotiate. Biden’s persuadable. So why are you, our key allies, American Jews AWOL? Why are you still fighting the now-blessedly-less-relevant Trump wars, dodging this nuclear-powered battle between democracy and dictatorship, which could determine the future of the Jewish state, the Jewish people, the West itself?
Clearly, Iran isn’t on your mattering map. You refuse to acknowledge how dangerous the Iranian regime is – to America not just Israel; how urgent the issue is; and how harmful – not just useless – Barack Obama’s 2015 JCPOA agreement with Iran was.
I know I am being too Israeli; inconvenient and impolite. Trump’s polarizing presidency has made everything Obama did above criticism and any position Trump took beneath contempt. But in recovering from Trump’s assault on democracy, America needs nuanced thinking, not partisan cheerleading. Restoring a commitment to truth in all its messiness requires some self-criticism and intense debate among the “good guys” too. The Republicans have proven what constant toadying to a president does to your party, your country, your soul. Why be Biden’s lapdogs – especially when he may appreciate lobbyists demanding a hard line with the mullahs?
So ask yourself two questions: 1) Israelis are crazily polarized too – isn’t Israel’s left-to-right military and political consensus rejecting the Iran agreement striking? 2) Isn’t it even more striking that so many Middle Eastern enemies, including Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the UAE so feared Obama’s softness toward Iran that they buried decades-old hatchets and started cooperating?
From the start, the "pro-Palestinian" movement has not been pro-Palestinian at all. It has been anti-Israel. And its supporters, no matter how educated or articulate, are so consumed with hate for the Jewish state that they literally cannot tell the difference between the two concepts.
Noura Erakat, the "human rights attorney" and assistant professor at Rutgers University, wrote an op-ed for NBC News that crystallizes this basic fact - and thereby reveals a major reason why the Palestinians have remained stuck in limbo for so long.
Notwithstanding several early steps that distinguish him from his predecessor, President Joe Biden promises to continue [Trump’s] legacy. It’s true that the new administration intends to reinstate critical U.S. humanitarian aid to Palestinian refugees and will reopen the PLO mission office in Washington, D.C. Just Monday, it announced that it will rejoin the U.N. Human Rights Council, from which the Trump administration withdrew mostly in protest of its scrutiny of Israel.
But none of these policies, welcome though they are, will challenge the oppressive status quo sustained by the United States. Worse still, the Biden administration will uphold several of the Trump administration’s most damning precedents.
These examples are most revealing:
The new secretary of state, Antony Blinken, has made clear that the administration will not move the U.S. Embassy from Jerusalem back to Tel Aviv; it will maintain, and celebrate, Israel’s normalization agreements with the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan without ensuring a single enduring concession for the Palestinians; and it will continue to provide Israel with unconditional military support in the amount of $3.8 billion annually — a precedent established by Biden’s former boss, President Barack Obama.
Late last week, the Biden administration also expressed “serious concerns” over the International Criminal Court’s effort to exercise jurisdiction over Israeli officials to prosecute them for war crimes, and is even considering maintaining the Trump administration’s sanctions on the court’s leading personnel.
She brings three examples of what she considers anti-Palestinian policies: keeping the embassy in Jerusalem, supporting peace between Israel and Arab states, and maintaining military aid that gets spent in the US.
None of these policies hurt Palestinians. None of them affect Palestinian lives at all, except for Gaza terrorists who want to murder Israeli civilians with rockets. None of them are speedbumps towards a Palestinian state.
They do support Israel as a sovereign nation – which this “human rights lawyer” considers “damning.”
The rest of the article is more of the same, complaining that a definition of antisemitism that includes demonizing the Jewish state’s very existence is somehow anti-Palestinian.
Erakat is so filled with hate for Israel that she literally cannot tell the difference between “pro-Israel” and “anti-Palestinian,” nor the difference between “pro-Palestinian” and “anti-Israel.” She fully subscribes to a zero-sum mentality that what is good for Israel is automatically bad for Palestinians – and, worse, that nothing can be considered good for Palestinians unless it is also bad for Israel.
The UAE and Bahrain (and to an extent Morocco and Sudan) have abandoned the zero-sum mentality. No one can call them “anti-Palestinian” although the Gulf Arabs are justifiably critical of the current Palestinian leaderships. They see Israel not as an enemy but as a partner that can help them thrive; not as a open Jewish wound in the Arab Middle East but as a permanent feature that improves the region and that can lift up Arab states. Instead of zero-sum, they seek a win-win. The zero-sum mentality that they maintained for so many decades did not help them – or the Palestinians – one bit.
The zero-sum mindset is childish and counterproductive. If there is one lasting change from the Abraham Accords, it is that this puerile way of thinking is finally on the wane in the Middle East.
As long as the Palestinians – including their Western “defenders” – cannot grasp that basic concept, they will never get anywhere.
Ibtisam Al-Hamid a singer who uses the stage name Basma Al-Kuwaiti, has stunned the Arab world by declaring that she has left Islam and converted to Judaism.
She says, “I am Ibtisam Hamid, who is called the Kuwaiti singer Basma....I proudly announce my conversion to Judaism.”
Hamid is also quoted as saying that Islam does not give women their full rights. Reports say she added, "I also declare my opposition and my non-affiliation with the Al-Sabah [Kuwaiti ruling] family, which rejects normalization, freedom of religion and freedom of opinion."
Newspapers are reporting that she was never a Kuwaiti citizen, even though her mother is Kuwaiti and she was born in Kuwait. She is said to have sought Kuwaiti citizenship and was rejected. Reports also say she no longer lives in Kuwait.
A few years ago Hamid announced that she won a Quran memorization competition in high school.
Conversion to Judaism is far more involved and time consuming than conversion to Islam, and it is unclear where and when she converted, and which rabbi supervised the conversion.
The reactions have been furious, with people accusing her of wanting to exhibit her nude body or of never being a proper Muslim to begin with. Some say that this is an attempt to make more money, because, Jews. They are especially stunned because a popular Kuwaiti broadcaster announced his conversion to Christianity last month. He looked notably worse not long afterwards, apparently not prepared for the vicious reactions he received.
Across the Arab world there have been other reactions. Dr. Amna Naseer, a professor of faith and philosophy at Al-Azhar University in Egypt, said that deviating from Islam is a “psychological disease: and blamed Islamic extremism for misrepresenting Islam. (She has previously blamed Islamic extremism on...Jews.)
Another artist, Ahmed Fluks, after saying that she knows nothing about Islam, added, “The religion of Judaism is that they are scattered on the ground and they are lost in the earth. The Jews are the ones that crucified Jesus and tortured him. The Jews are the ones who kill in the babies of Palestine - and you claim that Islam is terrorist?"
Every year since 2015, the House appropriations bill has included this language that bars the US from sending economic support to the Palestinian Authority.
A)(i) None of the funds appropriated under the heading ‘‘Economic Support Fund’’ in this Act may be made available for assistance for the Palestinian Authority, if after the date of enactment of this Act—
(I) the Palestinians obtain the same standing as member states or full membership as a state in the United Nations or any specialized agency thereof outside an agreement negotiated between Israel and the Palestinians; or
(II) the Palestinians initiate an International Criminal Court (ICC) judicially authorized investigation, or actively support such an investigation, that subjects Israeli nationals to an investigation for alleged crimes against Palestinians.
Did the ICC ruling this week trigger this law?
The ruling made it possible for the ICC to investigate Israel, but that investigation hasn't happened yet. The chief prosecutor must decide whether to start an investigation or let her successor decide - she is due to step down in June.
If the prosecutor decides to open an investigation, are the Biden administration's hands tied concerning their promise to resume maid to the Palestinian Authority?
There is an "out" for subparagraph I where the secretary of state can overrule the law, but there is no such override for subparagraph II.
I cannot find much wiggle room to avoid the law withholding funding. In 2015, when the PLO joined the ICC, one could argue that the Palestinians did not actively request an investigation of Israel, but the current ruling says that they did do so. It says: "On 22 May 2018, Palestine referred the Situation in the State of Palestine to the Prosecutor pursuant to articles 13(a) and 14 of the Statute."
Article 14 means that the Palestinians formally requested an investigation of Israel. I don't see how that can be interpreted in any way other than that they are "actively supporting" an investigation.
So unless the Biden administration blatantly ignores the law, if the ICC goes ahead with the investigation the US must ensure that no funds go towards the Palestinian Authority.
The inventor of a new Israeli coronavirus medicine has secured the prime minister’s help to advance testing — and says the drug could provide hope to poor countries that don’t yet have access to vaccines.
Tel Aviv’s Ichilov Medical Center claimed a “huge breakthrough” on Friday, saying that Prof. Nadir Arber’s EXO-CD24 inhaled medicine had been administered to 30 patients whose conditions were moderate or worse, and all 30 recovered — 29 of them within three to five days.
On Monday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu invited Arber to his office and asked him about the “miracle drug.” During the briefing, Netanyahu said: “If this succeeds, it will be huge, simply huge. This is of global significance. This is amazing.
“I wish you success. If you need anything, say it and we will help you. This little thing could change the fate of humanity. This is amazing. Good luck.”
Arber told The Times of Israel on Tuesday that, with the Phase 1 trial just completed, he has applied to the Health Ministry to start a Phase 2 trial. This will give a more reliable picture of efficacy, as Phase 1 is small, largely concerned with checking safety, and lacking a placebo group.
Netanyahu has already helped to pave the way to a multi-country trial. After meeting with Arber, he hosted Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis, who offered to have a leading Greek hospital take part in testing in the framework of bilateral cooperation.
“I asked Professor Arber to come to my office today. He did. Two hours later my friend Prime Minister Mitsotakis comes to my office and more or less the first question he asked me was, ‘Can you tell me about this miracle drug?'” said Netanyahu.
“We called Professor Arber and Prime Minister Mitsotakis volunteered that Greece, their leading hospital, would partake in the clinical trials and I hope that we can approve this because I think this is an example of our cooperation in forging ahead to new areas.”
A group of Israeli researchers have launched a Phase II study of a drug that they believe could keep patients off mechanical ventilation and speed their recovery.
The trial, which is being collectively run by Ziv and Rambam medical centers with researchers from Bar-Ilan University and Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, is examining the use of a drug based on a naturally occurring peptide called angiotensin 1-7 to help counter the impact of COVID-19 on the lungs.
A peptide is a set of amino acids.
Coronavirus enters a person’s cells through angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptors. These same receptors produce angiotensin 1-7, explained Dr. Karl Skorecki, dean of the Azrieli Faculty of Medicine of Bar-Ilan University in the Galilee. Angiotensin 1-7 is a protein that is naturally produced in the body and is responsible for preventing cell proliferation and inflammation.
“When the enzyme is busy acting as a receptor, it can no longer do what it is supposed to do, which is make angiotensin 1-7,” Skorecki said. “The hope is that by replenishing this peptide, their lungs will get back what the virus nefariously took away from them.”
Around 3% of all people who contract coronavirus in Israel are hospitalized, and many do not respond to what have become traditional steroid or antiviral drug treatments.
Sir, – The Palestinian people deserve better (Jilan Wahba Abdalmajid, “Israel’s obligations as an occupying power under the Geneva Convention still stand”, Opinion & Analysis, February 4th).
They deserve leaders who truly care about their people, and not those who consider Palestinian people as pawns to be used in endless political posturing. Under the Oslo Accords, which are the existing applicable legal framework between Israel and the Palestinians, all civic powers and responsibilities – including in the sphere of health – in the West Bank and Gaza are under the mandate of the Palestinians. This includes responsibility for the administration of vaccinations to the Palestinian population.
In the past year, governments around the world have taken decisive measures to protect their populations from the ravages of the Covid-19 pandemic. These measures have had tremendous societal and economic impacts but were taken with the understanding that there was simply no other choice. In Israel, like other places around the world, the welfare and health of citizens is the first priority. Israel devoted huge efforts and resources into finding ways to fight the pandemic. Israeli scientists, engineers and entrepreneurs pioneered innovative ways to deal with various aspects of Covid-19, including the development of an Israeli vaccine (now in trial phases), development of a cure for the disease (also in trials), and more. Securing early vaccination of the entire population became the top priority of the Israeli government, who managed to secure that by swift negotiation of agreements with major suppliers, in particular Pfizer. Israel became a world leader in vaccinating its population while providing real-time data about the effectiveness of the vaccines to the rest of the world.
Meanwhile, in a politically motivated galaxy far far away, Palestinian leaders, and some of their supporters, have been engaged in weaponising the pandemic against Israel and hijacking the Covid agenda for their narrow political goal.
OPHIR KARIV, Ambassador of Israel to Ireland
Jabir ibn Abdullah used to say that a woman from the inhabitants of Khaybar poisoned a roasted sheep and presented it to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) who took its foreleg and ate from it. A group of his companions also ate with him. The Messenger of Allah then said: Take your hands away (from the food). The Messenger of Allah then sent someone to the woman and he called her. He said to her: Have you poisoned this sheep? The woman replied: Who has informed you? He said: This I foreleg which I have in my hand has informed me. She said: Yes. He said: What did you intend by it? She said: I thought if you were a prophet, it would not harm you; if you were not a prophet, we should rid ourselves of him (i.e. the Prophet). The Messenger of Allah then forgave her, and did not punish her. But some of his companions who ate it, died. The Messenger of Allah had himself cupped on his shoulder on account of that which he had eaten from the sheep. It has been a Jewish knowledge that there will be a prophet at the end. He will not be killed and will die natural death. Banu Nadhir's Jews made many attempts to kill Prophet Muhammad to prove that he is not a true prophet but failed. This attempt was perhaps last one. Abu Hind cupped him with the horn and knife. He was a client of Banu Bayadah from the Ansar.
Sunan Abu Dawud 39:4495
As with any legend, there are variants in the stories. The Youm7 article emphasizes that this was an initiative of the "Jews" and not of one woman - in fact, it doesn't even mention her name, Zaynab bint Al-Harith.
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?
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.
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.
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.
This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For 20 years and 40,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.
Z-Grade Actor Harry Cook’s Escalating Rhetoric
-
[image: Z-Grade Actor Harry Cook’s Escalating Rhetoric]
Harry Cook escalates his anti-Zionist rhetoric, invoking blood libel tropes
and calling for change ...
Turkish blood libel display gets no condemnation
-
There has been no public condemnation from local authorities in Antalya to
an antisemitic public installation in Antalaya, Turkey. The absence of a
clear...
A Simple Truth
-
Shabbat Shalom. Here is a Dry Bones Cartoon by Yaakov Kirschen from 2015.
Shabbat Shalom!Wishes for health and happiness and prosperity and peace to
a...
Jabotinsky's 1935 'Band Wagon'
-
This is the first of a series of three articles by Vladimir Jabotinsky,
the Revisionist leader, written specially for the Jewish Daily Bulletin.
The secon...
Now What?
-
Today, Jews cannot walk down the street in North America, Europe, or even
Australia without the possibility of being spat on, beaten, or even
murdered. Cou...
Closing Jews Down Under Website
-
With a heavyish heart I am closing down the website after ten years.
It is and it isn’t an easy decision after 10 years of constant work. The
past...
‘Test & Trace’ is a mirage
-
Lockdown II thoughts: Day 1 Opposition politicians have been banging on
about the need for a ‘working’ Test & Trace system even more loudly than
the govern...
Thursday, February 11, 2021
Elder of Ziyon
