Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Friday, February 12, 2021

02/12 Links Pt1: Caroline Glick: The ICC's European puppet masters; Phillips: The absurd malevolence of the International Criminal Court; The “State of Palestine” remains a United Nations mirage

From Ian:

Caroline Glick: The ICC's European puppet masters

More than 60% of the ICC's budget is funded by European governments. Germany is generally the ICC's largest or second largest funder. A German government representative quoted in a Reuters' report of Israel's request said that Germany "couldn't imagine" scaling back, much less defunding of the political court.

So without the actions of European governments like Germany, Holland, Switzerland, France, Norway, Britain and Sweden, and without the EU as a whole – the ICC would never have opened its bigoted proceedings against Israel, the purpose of which is to reject Israel's right to exist. At every point, the Europeans had the power to prevent or end the ICC's bigoted treatment of the Jewish state. And at every point, the Europeans took active steps to ensure that the targeting would continue. Indeed, by funding and directing the efforts of the likes of NGOs Breaking the Silence and Al-Dameer, (which is affiliated with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine terror group), the Europeans were the puppet masters directing the passion play.

German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas criticized the ICC's ruling move in a statement he put out shortly after it was announced. Maas didn't condemn the immorality of pursuing fake war crimes allegations against an innocent nation. Rather, Maas's criticism focused on the fact that despite the efforts of the ICC and the UN, the fact remains that "Palestine" is not a state. "The court has no jurisdiction," he tweeted, "because of the absence of the element of Palestinian statehood required by international law."

This is, to be sure, the key legal problem with the ICC's ruling. But the much larger problem with the judges' decision is that the investigation is a politically motivated effort to cause material harm to Israel, as the Jewish state. Israel abides scrupulously by the rules of war, and everyone knows that. The reason German politicians like Maas should oppose the ruling is because the court's behavior is part of a larger effort to undermine international acceptance of the Jewish people's right to their state. But then, as a major funder of both the ICC and the NGOs behind the fictitious, libelous allegations, and as a state that failed to oppose the Palestinians' legally groundless bids for the status of state at the ICC and the UN, Maas clearly doesn't have a problem with the immorality of the enterprise. To the contrary, he is playing a key role in moving it forward.

In a way, the ICC's efforts to harm the Jewish state is a modern-day version of the Dreyfus trial. The Dreyfus trial was an anti-Semitic reaction against France's decision to grant the full rights of citizenship to French Jews in the framework of the Emancipation. Anti-Semitic officers in the French General Staff needed a scapegoat to blame for acts of treason they had committed. By choosing Capt. Alfred Dreyfus, an Alsatian Jew, for the role, the officers enjoyed the cover and support of powerful anti-Semitic clerics, anti-Semitic intellectuals and newspaper publishers, and anti-Semitic politicians. All of the figures involved realized that by framing Dreyfus "the Jew," they advanced their efforts to discredit the idea that Jews could be full partners in French public life.

The big difference between the people that produced and directed the blood libel against Dreyfus 125 years ago and the people that are producing and directing the blood libel against Israel today is that in France at the turn of the 20th century, people were proud to attack Jews openly. Today, their contemporary successors prefer a passive aggressive approach. They pretend to oppose the efforts to delegitimize and criminalize the Jewish state while they pay for and direct them.

Melanie Phillips: The absurd malevolence of the International Criminal Court

Yet western liberals maintain that the Palestinian cause is a worthy one. That’s why the US Secretary of State Tony Blinken says the Palestinians are “entitled” to a state.

It is in fact hard to envisage any group that’s less entitled than the Palestinians, who are not only bent upon colonial occupation of Israel but support the murder of Israelis and preach deranged hatred against Jews.

Meanwhile, the British government continues to peddle the legal fiction that Israel is in illegal occupation of the “Palestinian” territories.

The west’s support of such falsehoods and injustice has incentivised the Palestinians’ rejectionism, terrorism and war against Israel. It has further encouraged them to try to bring about Israel’s destruction through “lawfare,” the strategy of deploying international law as a weapon of destruction and of which their case before the ICC is a major offensive front.

But there’s a deeper issue still which will make both the British and the Biden administration reluctant to admit the fundamental nature of the ICC’s flaws.

This is their commitment to the ideology behind its foundation — the belief that crystallised after the Holocaust that there had to be a way of bringing to justice human rights abusers who were immune from redress in their own countries. This impulse fuelled the post-war development of international law and trans-national legal tribunals.

But laws draw their legitimacy from being passed by nations rooted in specific institutions, history and culture. Without the anchor of national jurisdiction, laws can turn into instruments of capricious political power.

The ICC has no such national jurisdiction but is made up of many nations. That’s why, from its inception, it was in essence a political court.

That’s why it’s an existential foe of Israel — the principal target of some of the world’s many human rights abusers who have grasped that international law provides them with a potent weapon.

And these make common cause with American Democrats and the western political establishment through their belief in liberal universalism, the doctrine that trans-national institutions trump the authority of national ones.

The legal and moral illiteracy of the ICC’s ruling is not a temporary blip. It follows from the campaign that lies at the very core of liberal universalist beliefs: to negate the authority of the sovereign nation.

As early opponents of international law realised, however, only a sovereign nation can properly defend itself. That’s why Israel knows it must always rely only on itself. It’s a lesson that many liberal western politicians have yet to realise.

David Singer: The “State of Palestine” remains a United Nations mirage

The International Criminal Court (ICC) Pre-Trial Chamber 1 decision that the ICC has jurisdiction to investigate alleged war crimes committed in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem has infuriated Israel – but should bring no joy to Hamas, the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) or the United Nations which continues to support the PLO’s claim for the creation of a second Arab State in former Palestine – in addition to Jordan.

The ICC Prosecutor believes:
‘there is a reasonable basis to believe that members of Hamas and Palestinian armed groups […] committed the war crimes of: intentionally directing attacks against civilians and civilian objects (articles 8(2)(b)(i)-(ii), or 8(2)(e)(i)); using protected persons as shields (article 8(2)(b)(xxiii)); wilfully depriving protected persons of the rights of fair and regular trial (articles 8(2)(a)(vi) or 8(2)(c)(iv)) and wilful killing (articles 8(2)(a)(i), or 8(2)(c)(i)); and torture or inhuman treatment (article 8(2)(a)(ii), or 8(2)(c)(i)) and/or outrages upon personal dignity (articles 8(2)(b)(xxi), or 8(2)(c)(ii))’ (para 94)

The Prosecutor further concluded in para 94 that these potential cases would be currently admissible for prosecution once jurisdiction was established.

The Court noted:
“The identification of potential cases by the Prosecutor and her evolving investigation, which is likely to be protracted and resource-intensive, entails that the question of jurisdiction under consideration has concrete ramifications for the further conduct of the proceedings. The initiation of an investigation by the Prosecutor also means that States Parties are under the obligation to cooperate with the Court pursuant to part 9 of the Statute. It is, therefore, all the more necessary to place the present proceedings on a sound jurisdictional footing as early as possible.”(para 86)

The PLO and Hamas will be kept very busy answering the ICC Prosecutor’s enquiries regarding those Palestinian war crimes identified in para 94.

The Court further emphasised that:
“the present decision is strictly limited to the question of jurisdiction set forth in the Prosecutor’s Request and does not entail any determination on the border disputes between Palestine and Israel. The present decision shall thus not be construed as determining, prejudicing, impacting on, or otherwise affecting any other legal matter arising from the events in the Situation in Palestine either under the Statute or any other field of international law.”(para 60)

Any expectation Israel will return to the negotiating table after the PLO’s flirtation with the ICC is hard to visualise.

Ruth Wisse, a scholar of Jewish history and culture, writes about what she sees as The Dark Side of Holocaust Education, that teaching about the Holocaust might not be the cure for antisemitism that some think it is. One of the reasons for Wisse's skepticism is the way that the teaching of the Holocaust has been universalized to include all victims of persecution.

And that is a trend that took a giant leap forward when Jimmy Carter was president.

Wisse points to Carter's surprising support for the construction of the Holocaust Museum -- surprising on account of his support for a Palestinian state and the sale of F-15 fighter aircraft to Saudi Arabia. In fact, when the suggestion was first made to Carter, in 1977, to establish the museum, the idea went nowhere. It was not until the following year after the suggestion was made a second time that

Carter surprised a group of rabbis he was meeting in the Rose Garden by saying he had decided to appoint a commission to explore the construction of a Holocaust memorial.

A presidential aide suggested that the commission overseeing the project should not be composed only of Jews. It had to have members who represented all those who suffered at the hands of the Nazis. Otherwise, Congress wouldn't support it. For example, the aide insisted that the membership had to include Lithuanians because they were members of the resistance -- ignoring the fact that the Lithuanians had been a part of the problem.

Wisse comments:

One should have appreciated the leverage this gave him to steer its mission in the universalizing direction he preferred.

Eventually, Elie Weisel quit the committee because it became too politicized. And as it turned out, the only limit on universality was Carter's insistence that when it came to funding, that would have to come primarily from the Jewish community alone.

This universalization of Jewish persecution is still alive and well.

In January 2019, New York Democratic representative Carol Maloney introduced the "Never Again Education Act," which was passed near-unanimously by both the House and Senate. On May 29, 2020, the bill was signed into law by Trump, authorizing $2 million annually in support of Holocaust education for 5 years.

But just 3 months after Maloney introduced the bill, Democrats in Congress responded to antisemitic comments by Ilhan Omar by putting together a resolution condemning antisemitism generally, along with anti-Muslim discrimination and bigotry against other minorities as well.

Now, the generalizing of antisemitism is being taken one step further, that anyone can speak about and define antisemitism.

In 2017, The New School invited Linda Sarsour to be on its panel to discuss antisemitism. In case you may have forgotten, that would be --

Linda Sarsour, who opined that “nothing is creepier than Zionism,” praised Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, and believes one cannot support the right of Jews to a homeland of their own and still be a feminist.

Perhaps they were just looking for the voice of experience.

Of course, if you can advise Jews on what is and isn't antisemitism, there is no reason to stop there:

In fact, why should Sarsour be the only non-Jew who can lecture Jews on what is -- and isn't -- antisemitism:

Who could have picked a more qualified group:

Appearing on the panel will be Rep. Rashida Tlaib, who supports a “one-state solution” in which Israel is replaced by an Arab state; Peter Beinart, the only Jewish panelist, who has openly rejected the existence of Israel in its current form; Marc Lamont Hill, who has publicly recited the slogan “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”; and Barbara Ransby, an academic who supports the antisemitic BDS movement.

And when the topic was described as dismantling antisemitism, the goal is to dismantle the claim of antisemitism:

The panel, billed as “Dismantling Antisemitism, Winning Justice,” claims in the event description that, “Antisemitism is used to manufacture division and fear. While anyone can fuel it, antisemitism always benefits the politicians who rely on division and fear for their power.”

“We will explore how to fight back against antisemitism and against those that seek to wield charges of antisemitism to undermine progressive movements for justice,” it states.??

Normally, identity politics dictates that members of a targeted group have shared life experiences which provide them with a special insight and understanding that outsiders don't fully understand when it comes to the racism that group suffers.

But if that does not apply to Jews, maybe it is no longer a thing. If non-Jews can now define antisemitism, maybe in this progressive age of intersectionality now all persecuted groups fully understand and identify with all other persecuted groups.

Not according to Sarsour.

When Marc Lamont Hill started tweeting earlier this week about BDS, he went so far as to claim that even the Palestinian Arabs themselves who work for Israelis and enjoy superior wages favor boycotts against Israel.

Anila Ali, a Democratic activist and a Muslim, challenged him to debate the issue, a challenge Hill declined.

Elder of Ziyon notes that Sarsour piped in.

She's not Palestinian and she will never speak for us.

But Sarsour would have no problem with Ali speaking for Jews.

So according to identity politics, when minorities cry racism -- they are to be believed.

Yet when it comes to Jews, when they cry racism -- they are up to something.

And what could be more sneaky and underhanded than to describe what antisemitism looks like using the IHRA working definition of antisemitism?

Rejecting a formal definition of antisemitism are those -- not even necessarily non-Jewish -- who warn Jews to just cut it out, because unlike those minorities whose claims of racism are initially assumed to be true,

By contrast, the Livingstone Formulation, named in 2006 after the then Mayor of London Ken Livingstone, is the standard articulation of the opposite assumption. The Livingstone Formulation says that when people raise the issue of antisemitism, they are probably doing so in bad faith in a dishonest effort to silence legitimate criticism of Israel. It warns us to be suspicious of Jewish claims to have experienced antisemitism. It warns us to begin with the sceptical assumption that such claims are often sneaky tricks to gain the upper hand for Israel in debates with supporters of the Palestinians. And this is the substantial position of the ‘call to reject’ the IHRA definition of antisemitism. [emphasis added]

Jews just cannot win:

o Discussion of Jewish persecution must include all persecutions

o Anyone can discuss and define antisemitism

o When Jews insist they must define what antisemitism is, it's a trick

o Antisemitism is being used as a way to deflect criticism of Israel

o Anyone can define antisemitism, but not anyone can define how other minorities feel

o Intersectionality is universal and encompasses all races, classes and genders into common discrimination -- except for Jews.

Maybe not all progressives are as anti-racist as they think they are.

Times of Israel reports:

Security prisoner Marwan Barghouti, widely seen as a rival to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, is considering running in the scheduled Palestinian presidential elections, a close associate of his confirmed Thursday.

“Our comrade Marwan is considering the possibility, but he has not yet made a decision either way,” former Palestinian legislator Qaddura Fares said in a phone call.

Barghouti, who was a leader of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade terror group, has claimed that he is against killing Israeli civilians inside the Green Line, as if that makes him a moral person. However, he was convicted of doing exactly that - directing the shooting and grenade attack at the Tel Aviv Seafood Market that killed 3, as well as being behind the murders of Yoela Chen and Greek-Orthodox monk Georgios Tsibouktzakis.

He was also convicted of being behind a failed suicide bombing attack at the Malha Mall in Jerusalem.

There is no doubt that he is a terrorist, a murderer, and someone who targets civilians.

Yet according to the latest Palestinian polls, if he would run for president of the Palestinian Authority, he would win.

If Barghouti would form his own political party, more Palestinians would vote for his list than Fatah. If he ran against Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, he would win 61% to 37%. In a three way race, Barghouti would receive 41%, Haniyeh 32% and Abbas 25%.

The two most popular Palestinian politicians are best known as leaders of terror groups and the most popular one was convicted of five murders.

Western media is very reluctant to mention the popularity of terrorists among the Palestinian public. They don't want to paint Palestinians as terror supporters.

But the numbers are there - and they are. The two-state solution that moderate Americans and Europeans push would include one state that celebrates and supports terror. That inconvenient fact is swept under the rug by Western news media and politicians.

News articles claim Gaza gets far less electricity than it really does

There have been a spate of articles in different sites over the past week about a new solar energy project in Gaza, based on a press release by the University of Birmingham.

The articles include this quote:

Project leader Dr Raya Al-Dadah, Reader in Sustainable Energy Technologies at the University of Birmingham, comments, “Just 38% of Gaza’s electricity needs currently are met. People receive less than six hours of power per day, leaving hospitals providing only critical functions such as intensive care units. Coupled with continuous conflict, the energy crisis causes high levels of stress that affect physical, mental health and well-being.”

Forbes originally kept that quote in its article as well - and then edited the highlighted part out when it was pointed out to them.

Because it is a lie.

According to the UN OCHA-OPT, Gaza gets 14 hours of electricity a day, and that number has been continuously improving for years.

No one doubts that Gaza has a serious gap between its electricity needs and its supply. The bulk of Gaza's electricity still comes from Israeli power lines. NGOs will issue reports about how Israel is supposedly withholding electricity - B'Tselem wrote an article in October that implies that Gaza gets only four hours a day based on a small time period in the summer when Israel closed the Kerem Shalom crossing because of bomb attacks (and even then it received six hours according to OCHA, showing B'Tselem's eagerness to lie.)

But why would the head of the solar energy project lie so baldly about how much electricity Gaza gets?

No one can know for sure, but it is no surprise that she is a Palestinian herself..

(h/t Tomer Ilan)

Cartoon of the Day: No bias against Iranian nukes, please

02/11 Links Pt2: Natan Sharansky: The Doublethinkers; Black History Month: Dr. King, Black Lives Matter… and Israel; Steven Spielberg wins Israel’s Genesis Prize

From Ian:

Natan Sharansky with Gil Troy: The Doublethinkers

It was easy enough to remind myself and them who was really free and who is a scared doublethinker. All I had to do was tell some joke about the Soviet leader, Leonid Brezhnev. Thank God, there were plenty of yarns about his arrogance, his crudeness, his senility. One kidded about him forcing Soviet cosmonauts to outdo the American astronauts who landed on the moon by rocketing to the sun, then reassuring them they wouldn’t be incinerated because they’d be launched during the night. As I’d tell my interrogators a joke, I’d laugh. And, as normal Soviet doublethinkers themselves, they would want to laugh. But they couldn’t, especially if two of them were there together. Laughter would end their careers.

So they’d covered up that temporary glint in their eyes with a tantrum. They’d pound the table, shouting, “HOW DARE YOU?”

“Look,” I’d say to them calmly, “you can’t even smile when you want to smile. And you claim that I’m in prison and you’re free?”

I did this to irritate them, because they spent so much time trying to irritate me. But, mainly, I was reminding myself that I was free, as long as I could laugh or cry in accordance with my own feelings.

Over the last three decades in freedom, I have noticed that—with apologies to Tolstoy—every dictatorship is oppressive in its own way, but the doublethinkers’ mental gymnastics are all alike. The feeling of release from the fear and giddy relief when crossing the line from doublethink to democratic dissent is also universal across cultures. This understanding prompted the Town Square Test I use to distinguish between free societies and fear societies: Can you express your individual views loudly, in public, without fear of being punished legally, formally, in any way? If yes, you live in a free society; if not, you’re in a fear society.

In the West today, the pressure to conform doesn’t come from the totalitarian top—our political leaders are not Stalinist dictators. Instead, it comes from the fanatics around us, in our neighborhoods, at school, at work, often using the prospect of Twitter-shaming to bully people into silence—or a fake, politically-correct compliance. Recent polls suggest that nearly two-thirds of Americans report self-censoring about politics at least occasionally, essentially becoming a nation of doublethinkers despite the magnificent constitutional protections for free thought and expression enshrined in the Bill of Rights

To preserve our integrity and our souls, the quality of our political debate and the creativity so essential to our cultural life, we need a Twitter Test challenging bottom-up cultural totalitarianism that is spreading throughout free societies. That test asks: In the democratic society in which you live, can you express your individual views loudly, in public and in private, on social media and at rallies, without fear of being shamed, excommunicated, or cancelled? Ultimately, whether you will live as a democratic doublethinker doesn’t depend on the authorities or on the corporations that run social media platforms: it depends on you. Each of us individually decides whether we want to submit to the crippling indignity of doublethink, or break the chains that keep us from expressing our own thoughts, and becoming whole.

#OnThisDay 1986, 'Prisoner of Zion' @NatanSharansky became a free man upon his release from Soviet gulag, where he spent 9 years!

As a fellow ‘Refusenik’, Natan Sharansky is a tremendous source of inspiration & personal hero of mine, the very epitome of a modern proud Zionist. pic.twitter.com/q5IZkLXNHG
— Arsen Ostrovsky (@Ostrov_A) February 11, 2021

Coffin Problems

Luck was a defining factor in determining the fate of many in the Soviet Union, and it is the common vein that unites the subjects of this story. Yet the stories recounted here are not representative. Such stories can never be completely told because the Soviet system intentionally left much undocumented. Critical marks on examinations were often written in erasable pencil. Written exams were eschewed in favor of oral ones. Some who lived through the period do not feel they have anything to add; others may find the experience too painful to contemplate, much less talk about. Even among the small cohort described here, there is consensus on a few things but not on many others.

Kac quit his job in 1976 and applied for an exit visa to Israel. He received permission to leave quickly. He secured a position immediately at MIT where he remains today. Zelmanov eventually secured a role at Novosibirsk State and left in 1990. For his breakthrough work on a century-old problem, he was awarded a Fields Medal in 1994—the mathematical equivalent of a Nobel Prize.

Eliashberg was less lucky. He became a refusenik after his visa request was denied in 1979. He had returned to Leningrad before applying, and was forced to support himself at various temporary jobs. This promising mathematician found himself working as a night watchman at a car garage in the city. One of his friends put his own career on the line in order to secure for Eliashberg a job in an accounting software company. He remained there until 1987, when he was finally able to leave the Soviet Union. He was not sure if he would be able to rehabilitate himself as a mathematician. But he succeeded. In the decades since, he has won many of the most prestigious awards in mathematics including the Veblen, Crafoord, and Wolf prizes. Today, he is on the mathematics faculty at Stanford.

For her part, Julia Rashba recalled a poignant moment in the elevator with the MGU examiner who had failed her on the entrance exam. In many ways, she felt unprepared for what had just happened to her. She had experienced anti-Semitism in her childhood with bullies and cruel taunts. Once, as a little girl, she ran away from a day camp where the bullying was too much. She was not aware that the sorts of anti-Semitism that lived in adult institutions would be less benign. She was raised, however, to believe that even in such a discriminatory system, where her own father had experienced nearly insurmountable travails to rise to the top of the Soviet physics establishment—that she needed only to work hard and act with integrity and things should work out.

They had not. The examination she “failed” was not even for medical school, it was for a chemistry program that offered some biomedical tracks. She had hoped that she could contribute to medicine as a scientific researcher, even if she would not be allowed to be a clinician. The system would not even allow this tenuous finger hold on her dream. She recalls that the examiner, perhaps seeking absolution for the shame of what he had just done, quietly apologized and asked for her forgiveness. She refused.

Eli Lake: America in the World: Sheltering in Place

That exchange tells us a lot about the Quincy Institute. The think tank’s foreign policy agenda and arguments echo the anti-interventionism of the 1930s. Most of its scholars are more worried about the exaggeration of threats posed by America’s adversaries than the actual regimes doing the actual threatening. In May, for example, Rachel Esplin Odell, a Quincy fellow, complained that Senator Romney was overstating the threat of China’s military expansion and unfairly blaming the state for the outbreak of the coronavirus: “The great irony of China’s military modernization is that it was in large part a response to America’s own grand strategy of military domination after the Cold War.” In this, of course, it resembled most everything else.

The institute has hired staff that come out of the anti-neoconservative movement of the 2000s. Here we come to a delicate matter. The anti-neoconservatives of that era flirted with and at times embraced an IR sort of anti-Semitism: the obsession with Israel and its influence on American statecraft. Like the America Firsters, the anti-neoconservatives worry about the power of a special interest — the Jewish one — dragging the country into another war. A few examples will suffice. In 2018, Eli Clifton, the director of Quincy’s “democratizing foreign policy” program, wrote a post for the blog of Jim Lobe, the editor of the institute’s journal Responsible Statecraft, that three Jewish billionaires — Sheldon Adelson, Bernard Marcus, and Paul Singer — “paved the way” for Trump’s decision to withdraw from Obama’s Iran nuclear deal through their generous political donations. It is certainly fair to report on the influence of money in politics, but given Trump’s well-known contempt for the Iran deal, Clifton’s formulation had an odor of something darker.

Then there is Trita Parsi, the institute’s Swedish-Iranian vice president, who is best known as the founder of the National Iranian American Council, a group that purports to be a non-partisan advocacy group for Iranian-Americans but has largely focused on softening American policy towards Iran. In 2015, as the Obama administration was rushing to finish the nuclear deal with Iran, his organization took out an ad in the New York Times that asked, “Will Congress side with our president or a foreign leader?” a reference to an upcoming speech before Congress by the Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The National Iranian American Council’s foray into the dual loyalty canard is ironic considering that Parsi himself has been a go-between for journalists and members of Congress who seek access to Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran’s foreign minister.

This obsession with Israeli influence in American foreign policy is a long-standing concern for a segment of foreign policy realists, who believe that states get into trouble when the national interest is distorted by domestic politics — an affliction that is particularly acute in democratic societies which respect the rights of citizens to make their arguments to the public and to petition the government and to form lobbies. The most controversial of the realists’ scapegoating of the domestic determinants of foreign policy was an essay by Stephen Walt and John J. Mearsheimer (both Quincy fellows) that appeared in the London Review of Books in 2005. It argued that American foreign policy in the Middle East has been essentially captured by groups that seek to advance Israel’s national interest at the expense of America’s. “The thrust of US policy in the region derives almost entirely from domestic politics, and especially the activities of the ‘Israel Lobby,’” they wrote. “Other special-interest groups have managed to skew foreign policy, but no lobby has managed to divert it as far from what the national interest would suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that US interests and those of the other country — in this case, Israel — are essentially identical.”

Walt and Mearsheimer backed away from the most toxic elements of their essay in a subsequent book. The essay sought to explain the Iraq War as an outgrowth of the Israel lobby’s distortion of American foreign policy. The book made a more modest claim about the role it plays in increasing the annual military subsidy to Israel and stoking American bellicosity to Israel’s rivals like Iran. They also took pains to denounce anti-Semitism and acknowledge how Jewish Americans are particularly sensitive to arguments that present their organized political activity as undermining the national interest. Good for them. But the really important point is that events have discredited their claims. The all-powerful “Israel Lobby” was unable to wield its political influence to win the fight against Obama’s Iran deal. It was not able to stop Obama’s public pressuring of Israel to accept a settlement freeze. Decades earlier, it had not been able to thwart Reagan’s sale of AWACs to the Saudis. Anyone who believes in an omnipotent AIPAC is looking for conspiracies.

Impeachment, Matt Duss, what’s going on at the New York Times, the UN Human Rights Council, the ICC & Jerusalem. Our guest: ?@elianayjohnson?. Our best episode yet? You decide. Subscribe to ?@JIPodcast?. https://t.co/5JJ3Gln09D
— Richard Goldberg (@rich_goldberg) February 11, 2021

Gaza Belt Woman Always Has Cookies Baking In Case Of Hamas Tunnel Infiltrators (PreOccupied Territory)

Our weekly column from the humor site PreOccupied Territory.

Check out their Facebook page.

star cookies Kissufim, Southern Israel, February 11 - A resident of this pastoral community near the Islamist-controlled Gaza Strip boasted today that she maintains a stockpile of fresh cakes and pastries just to be prepared for the eventuality of being able to feed terrorists who clambered through underground passages from the neighboring coastal territory to weak mayhem.

Sophia Barnea, 60, told reporters yesterday that she takes pride in her ability to get all of her freelance and homemaking work done and still have time to bake almost every day, in case a terrorist shows up to slaughter civilians and wants a muffin and maybe a cup of tea.

"It's something I make a point of doing," she asserted, gesturing to a platter of still-warm chocolate chip cookies. "If no boys from Hamas or Islamic Jihad stop by that day, I'll eat a few, but I am watching my weight, so the rest go to the nice fellows at the guard booth and the soldiers patrolling between here and the border.

Mrs. Barnea explained that since Nimrod, her husband of 30 years, died three years ago, she has taken to finding other outlets for her nurturing instinct. "I'm allergic to cats, unfortunately," she lamented. "My friend Meira, a few doors down, she has seven or eight cats, but while I see the appeal, I just can't handle the sneezing and the teary eyes it would cause me. So I've chosen to show affection to those who might not get that kind of attention around here. I do hope they like my apple pie."

Her routine calls for a different kind of baked goodie each day. "I have a variety of things I like to make," she explained. "I cycle through them about once every ten or eleven days, but I mix it up a little, not always doing the same thing. Sometimes I switch out apples in the pie in favor of pears, or I'll make oatmeal raisin cookies on a lark if I'm running low on chocolate chips. And now and then I'll whip up a streusel-topped marble coffee cake. You never know when the bloodthirsty gang might show up!"

"If Ahmad or Mustafa or whoever prefers some chocolate chip muffins to whatever I have on hand," Mrs. Barnea continued, "I can ask them to put the massacre on hold until I whip up a batch of chocolate chip muffins real quick. Seriously, it takes more time for the oven to preheat for those than the combined preparation and baking time. And they are just heavenly right out of the oven. I hope the boys appreciate what I do for them. A simple 'thank you' will be enough when the time comes. Such nice terrorist boys."

Arabic media today are quoting an interview with Dr. Ahmed Fouad Anwar, an assistant professor at Alexandria University specializing in modern Hebrew literature, Israeli society and the history of Zionism.

Speaking about the story of the Kuwaiti singer who says she converted to Judaism, Anwar correctly says that conversion is a difficult and time consuming task.

Then he says something weird.

"[Jews] do not accept a person’s conversion to their religion except through very complicated and difficult procedures.

And Dr. Ahmad Anwar continued, saying: “The entry of the Kuwaiti actress Basma into Judaism will be rejected by the Jews themselves, because the Jews require that whoever enters Judaism be breastfed from the breast of a Jewish woman, 10 satisfying feeds.”

I admit, usually I can figure out what grain of truth these sorts of Arab rumors come from, but this one mystifies me.

What I can say is that some ten years ago, a Saudi cleric issued a fatwa that an unrelated man and woman can be secluded in a room together if he breastfeeds from her, (perhaps five times) making him a relative. Other clerics strongly disagreed and the idea was widely lampooned in the Saudi and Arab worlds.

That's the closest thing I can find.

One thing's for sure: if it was true, we'd have a lot more Jews.

(h/t Ibn Boutros)

02/11 Links Pt1: Truth behind killing of Iran nuclear scientist revealed; Col. Kemp: The ICC Threatens Middle East Peace; CC’s historic declaration: We are a political entity

From Ian:

Truth behind killing of Iran nuclear scientist revealed

The Iranian nuclear scientist who was shot dead near Tehran in November was killed by a one-ton automated gun that was smuggled into the country piece-by-piece by the Mossad, the JC can reveal.

The 20-plus spy team, which comprised both Israeli and Iranian nationals, carried out the high-tech hit after eight months of painstaking surveillance, intelligence sources disclosed.

The Tehran regime has secretly assessed that it will take six years before a replacement for top scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh is fully operational.

Meanwhile, Israeli analysts have concluded that his death has extended the period of time it would take Iran to achieve a bomb from about three-and-a-half months to two years — with senior intelligence figures privately putting it as high as five years.

The disclosures come as the JC gives the fullest account yet of the assassination that made headlines around the world and significantly degraded Tehran’s nuclear capabilities.

Richard Kemp: The International Criminal Court Threatens Middle East Peace

The International Criminal Court (ICC) has long had its sights on what it no doubt considers an unholy trinity: Israel, the US and Britain.... First, these are the three Western democracies most active in using legitimate military force to defend their interests. This is anathema to the left-liberal doctrine of ICC officials and their soul-mates in such morally dissipated places as the UN Human Rights Council. Second, they wish to virtue signal, deflecting criticism that the court is biased against African states....

Yet by its charter, dealing with countries that lack the will or capability to bring their own to justice is the sole purpose of the ICC. This does apply to some states in Africa and elsewhere but demonstrably does not apply to Israel, the US or Britain, each of which have long-established and globally respected legal systems.

The ICC's design against Israel is the latest in a long history of endeavours to subjugate and scourge unwilling Jewish people deemed incapable of regulating themselves. When you examine the unexampled contortions the court has gone through just to get to this point, you have no choice but to question whether antisemitism is the motive.

The effects of the ICC's decision will be profound. This is only the end of the beginning. Unless halted, investigations into spurious allegations of war crimes will go on for years, perhaps decades, creating a global bonanza for all who hate Israel, including at the UN, the European Union, various governments and in universities and so-called human rights groups.

But the most detrimental effect of the ICC's decision will be felt by Palestinian Arab people who, for decades, have been abused as political pawns by their leaders and who would be the greatest beneficiaries of any peace agreement with Israel. The ICC's ruling makes such a deal even more remote today.

In an unprecedented move early last year Germany, Austria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Australia, Canada, Uganda and Brazil petitioned the ICC, of which all are members, arguing that a formal investigation could not be launched as the Palestinian Authority does not meet the definition of a state under the Rome Statute that established and governs the court.

I had a very good conversation with my friend Australian FM @MarisePayne. I thanked her for Australia's clear & decisive stance that the decision of the ICC is fundamentally wrong. I congratulated her on Australia's success against Corona & updated her on our vaccination program. pic.twitter.com/PLztZkDKjG
— גבי אשכנזי - Gabi Ashkenazi (@Gabi_Ashkenazi) February 10, 2021

Morocco's popular Hespress news details Israel's record in recycling water and how important that is to Morocco and the Arab world.

The drinking water crisis has begun to present itself gradually in the Kingdom as a result of the climatic impacts on water resources in recent decades, especially in the southern and eastern regions, and this dilemma is exacerbated in the summer period with less rainfall.

The crisis has appeared in the Draa-Tafilalet region, especially in the city of Zagora, which witnessed what were called “thirst protests,” prompting the state to launch projects for water treatment plants. However, the projects are too little and too late compared to the presented environmental challenges.

In light of the resumption of diplomatic relations between Tel Aviv and Rabat, Moroccan officials can benefit from the Israeli experience in the field of water recycling, after it succeeded in overcoming drought, which made it a pioneer in the level of recycling and using wastewater in agriculture.

A news article published in the Israel Valley newspaper, which specializes in trade relations between France and Israel, indicated that Tel Aviv recycles more than 80 percent of the wastewater that is used to irrigate nearly 20,000 hectares, which represents 16 percent of Israel's water needs.

Israel, along with Kuwait and Singapore, is among the most advanced countries in the field of wastewater recycling.

The international scientific journal “Water” published a recent study alerting the great water shortages afflicting the Moroccan southeast, stressing the fragility of the water balance in the region, in addition to the challenges related to the quality of groundwater used for drinking and agricultural irrigation.

In this context, Abdel-Rahim Kassiri, the national coordinator of the Moroccan Coalition for Climate and Sustainable Development, said, "Israel is a world power in the development of water resources, as it invented water distillation and succeeded in greening dry desert spaces."

Al-Kusiri added, in a statement to Hespress: "The return of political relations would transfer Israeli technologies to Morocco, and from there to Africa."

This article is being widely quoted in other Arabic media outside Morocco.

The UAE has also expressed interest in Israeli water tech.

Can we call this...water-washing?

Film director Ken Loach has long ago proven that anti-Zionism and antisemitism are two sides of the same coin.

His first controversy with Jews came when he directed a play called Perdition that alleged Zionist collaboration with Nazis. it included lines like “To save your hides, you practically led them to the gas chambers of Auschwitz,” “Israel was founded on the pillars of Western guilt and American dollars” and “Israel was coined in the blood of Hungarian Jewry." Historians decried the play as wholly false and antisemitic.

This is of course patently offensive and false, but when Jews complained and the play was canceled, Loach whined about the "Zionist lobby" and its "extraordinary arrogance," adding that "they" want to suppress any discussion about clear lies.

Then he denied there was anything antisemitic about it.

Later, in 2009, Loach blamed antisemitism on Israel: “Nothing has been a greater instigator of antisemitism than the self-proclaimed Jewish state itself... Until we deal with that, until that is acknowledged, then racism, I’m afraid, will be with us.”

Is there any other bigotry on the planet that is blamed on its victims and excuses its perpetrators?

More recently, an actor was booted from his trade union after he denied the Holocaust. Loach came to his defense, giving him advice on making a film defending his bigotry.

Loach has also energetically defended Jeremy Corbyn and Ken Livingstone's tolerance of antisemitism.

When asked in 2019 whether it was unacceptable to debate whether the Holocaust happened or not, he said: "History is there for us all to discuss."

So it is not surprising that Jewish students at St. Peter's College protested at an invitation for Ken Loach to speak to the Master of the college, "Ken Loach in conversation with Professor Judith Buchanan".

When they met with Buchanan, she gave multiple excuses to ignore their concerns. Here is what they wrote to Rachel Riley:

During this meeting, she diminished [Jewish students'] concerns by claiming that "some Jews don't think it's offensive", said that she didn't know about his antisemitism because she hadn't read his Wikipedia page, refused to cancel the event because it would be bad for PR ("I don't want to create additional publicity [...] it would be huge to cancel an invitation at this point"), and put the burden on Jewish students to find a workable solution ("There isn't a way through this that you will be fully happy with - I'm not going to cancel it").

• This meeting left Jewish students at the college feeling hurt, ignored, and deeply uncomfortable with the ignorance about antisemitism and willingness to tolerate it displayed by the most senior individual in their college's administration, who represents the college to the outside world. Jewish students across the University of Oxford feel similarly frustrated with the lack of regard shown to the welfare of Jewish students, and the manner in which PR was prioritised over their concerns.

The college defended the event:

Ken Loach, an alumnus of St Peter's College, has been invited by the College and The Oxford Research Centre in the Humanities to speak about two of his films. These films form part of a distinguished filmmaking career. This is the latest in a run of occasions on which Ken Loach has been invited to speak in College, all of which have previously been very well received by students. The event will be respected as advertised and we look forward to a good conversation about the films on this occasion.
Significant concerns about the event have been brought clearly to the College's attention and we are committed to creating further opportunities for these concerns to be properly respected and discussed within College. St Peter's stands vigorously against all forms of discrimination and always seeks to support students who are discriminated against.
In the context of the current conversation, College affirms without reservation its very strong opposition to anti-semitism. It recognises the appalling atrocities that anti-semitism has wrought and can bring. While not believing that no-platforming is the way to pursue goals of a free and open academic community, it is committed to supporting students who find such decisions painful and to finding ways to address these questions within College as part of a broader, ongoing conversation.

As we have seen so many times before, people and institutions will loudly proclaim how much they are against antisemitism - but there are always other principles that are more important than that.

Since then, the controversy has blown up more.

So now, after days of negative publicity, and after the event already happened, Buchanan issued an apology saying she shouldn't have done it to begin with!

"I have no wish to defend myself against having caused hurt or made mistakes. I clearly have and I am sorry for this. I say this, and mean it.

"And I realise that it is our Jewish students who have been most hurt by what has unfolded, and by my part in that hurt, and so to them I apologise specifically."

She explained that she was unaware of the “intense controversy” surrounding Loach at the time the invitation was issued to him.

The Monday statement from the college shows that she was very aware about the controversy ("Significant concerns about the event have been brought clearly to the College's attention") and the Jewish students met with her before that statement, so she definitely could have canceled - and chose not to.

It is clear that Buchanan and St. Peters wasn't concerned over Loach's antisemitism before the event, and this apology is a reaction to the negative publicity and not a moral stance.

As always, Jews concerns are the last concern.

Arab artists who embrace Israelis or Jews get death threats from Arab BDSers

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:

As a result, Mohamed has received death threats as well and has been forced into hiding, according to reports.

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.

Israeli-Arab singer Mira Awad had to pull out of a planned concert in London in 2010 because of death threats there. Other Western artists who have performed in Israel - or planned to - are routinely subject to death threats.

The "non-violent" BDS movement never condemns these incidents.

Death threats aren't a cultural thing. They are an antisemitic, Israel hating thing.

The ICC is Nothing but a House of Cards (Vic Rosenthal)

Vic Rosenthal's weekly column

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.

02/10 Links Pt2: Matti Friedman: The New Alliance Shaping the Middle East Is Against a Tiny Bug; Former NBA Star Amare Stoudemire Talks to Yeshiva University Students About Judaism and Playing in Israel

From Ian:

Matti Friedman: The New Alliance Shaping the Middle East Is Against a Tiny Bug

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.

Seth Frantzman: UAE’s Mars mission is a gamechanger for MidEast, Israel - analysis

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.

Former NBA Star Amare Stoudemire Talks to Yeshiva University Students About Judaism and Playing in Israel

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.