Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Saturday, July 10, 2021

07/10 Links: The Left Only Cares About Palestinians When It Can Blame Israel; Why journalists love reporting from Israel; The Rise of the Crypto-Islamists

From Ian:

The Left Only Cares About Palestinians When It Can Blame Israel

Israel is not beyond criticism. But this unhealthy obsession with an imagined Israel is not really about the conflict.

It's about a rather successful propaganda campaign by Palestinian leaders, their allies and multilateral institutions around the world. It's about an ideological shift on the political left in the West, in which race and other demographic categories have replaced class as the crucial axis.

And it has catastrophic consequences for Jews around the world who have become legitimate targets. They are the victims of what can only be called an anti-Zionist obsession, which demands total rejection of Israel of every Jew, lest they been seen as complicit in the "evil endeavors" of Israel.

This "Zio-centric" approach is one reason why the British Labour Party under former leader Jeremy Corbyn had become riddled with antisemitism, why we have seen this "new form" of antisemitism in Europe over the past twenty years, and why we recently saw antisemitic attacks in the streets of London, New York and Los Angeles.

But it also has terrible consequences for Palestinians, whose supporters are choosing to ignore the terrorism and tyranny that have wrecked Palestinian politics and have provided cover for a political structure in Palestine that they would never accept for themselves.

Jonathan A. Greenblatt: It's Time to Admit It: The Left Has an Antisemitism Problem

ADL made these points in recent years when leaders and pundits from the political right were spreading wild conspiracies and making unsubstantiated accusations about immigrants. The same is true now even when it is leaders on the political left who are doing the same about the Jewish state and the potential victims are Jewish people.

This is evident from ADL's data, which logged 251 antisemitic incidents from May 11—the official start of military action in response to the rocket attacks from Gaza —through the end of the month. This was an astounding increase of 115 percent over the same period in 2020. Such acts of hate included brutal assaults committed by people who had participated in pro-Palestinian protests in Los Angeles and New York, the vandalism of a local Jewish-owned eatery in San Francisco with the words "Zionist Pigz," and many, many more that I could choose from.

Vandalizing synagogues and attacking Jews to register dissatisfaction with Middle East affairs isn't activism; it's antisemitism.

Demonizing Zionism as a concept represents a kind of anti-Jewish racism. Delegitimizing the Jewish state with exaggerated claims and unhinged charges, then dismissing the connection between that level of inflammatory rhetoric and the violence perpetrated against Jewish people, is willfully ignorant at best, intentionally malign at worst. Excluding Jews from political coalitions or public activities is discrimination, plain and simple.

It has been heartening to see that some prominent progressive voices have spoken out against antisemitism or apologized for using overheated rhetoric. And there have been members of Congress who have made their problems with their colleagues' statements crystal clear. Last month, ADL and other leading Jewish organizations held an online rally against antisemitism that drew participation from the top leaders in Congress from both parties, as well as Muslim, Jewish and Christian clergy, and a number of prominent civil rights leaders. All of this was encouraging.

But we need all our allies to listen and others to engage authentically. This might not be easy. It may require some serious self-reflection on the part of some partisans in order to admit their biases and acknowledge their insensitivity. But it's imperative that leaders from all corners of society clearly, forcefully, unequivocally condemn antisemitism full stop.

And it's even more important and meaningful to do so when the hate happens to come from their own camp.

Why journalists love reporting from Israel

“Why does the Israeli-Palestinian conflict get so much more attention than any other conflict in the world?” Often, when Israelis ask this question, they are accused of “whataboutism”. However, I am constantly asked this by friends and colleagues who are genuinely puzzled.

As noted by Jonathan Freedland, this is certainly not the bloodiest conflict in the Middle East: hundreds of thousands have been murdered in Syria and Yemen recently. It is also not the only conflict that involves a democracy, though Nato involvement in Afghanistan has not received the same level of coverage.

While Former AP reporter Matti Freidman offered a plausible explanation in the Jewish component of the conflict, there are additional factors that might help us understand this media obsession.

Covering Israel is easy. As one journalist told me, people are so open and opinionated in Israel. all you need to do is pull out a microphone in the middle of the street, record five people who give five different opinions, wrap it up and send it back to your editor.

The liklihood of these opinions being unfiltered and therefore critical of the Israeli government is very high, while if you interview citizens of any other country in the region (as well as in the West Bank or Gaza), they know the lines they need to rehearse in front of journalists.

It is not easy to bring out nuances and critical voices in countries that are not open and free. In fact, unlike anywhere else in the Middle East, Israel’s press is so free, and human rights NGOs are so prolific and accessible, that you do not even need to go to Israel to cover the story.

Covering Israel is free of risks. Israel is an open society and there are no repercussions for those who criticise it. I have met many journalists in other countries in the Middle East. They have to operate in accordance with the government position or suffer severe consequences. While you take a personal risk in criticising Iran, Syria or Iraq, you take no personal or professional risk in criticising Israel.

Indeed, it is not only easier but also safer for a media outlet to send a reporter to Israel than to other conflict areas. Rather than undergo the risk and costs of sending a brave reporter to a hostile environment, you can send anyone to Israel instantly.

07/09 Links Pt2: No safe haven for Diaspora Jews but Israel; Melanie Phillips: Media malpractice in the West has caused permanent harm to Israel

From Ian:

No safe haven for Diaspora Jews but Israel

The phenomenon of antisemitism is revealed in the world as a natural response designed to remind the people of Israel why it exists in the world. Our only option and shield for defending ourselves against hatred is the implementation of our role as "light unto the nations."

Therefore, the solidarity we feel with the Jews of Belgium should not be expressed by rushing to invest our money in safeguarding their institutions – a move that would be futile – but by explaining, both to ourselves and to them, the cause of the animosity against Jews, and what we must do to fix the problem for the world and ourselves.

If we do not start moving towards carrying out our role, we will find ourselves with no place to hide. As it is written, "The Day of Judgment will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews, when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees and the stones and trees will say, 'O Muslim, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him." (First extract, The Victory of Muslims Over Jews, Hadiths)

Our Jewish sources say that eventually all the Jews, including the Ten Tribes we lost along the way, will return to the Land of Israel to unite. Although there seems to be no place to absorb them all, there is plenty of room. The Book of Daniel calls the Land of Israel the "land of the deer."

As the Talmud explains, "Just as the hide of the deer has the capacity to encompass its body, but shrinks when separated from its flesh, so too can the Land of Israel expand to encompass its rightful inhabitants but shrinks when we are exiled from it."

As in this allegory, in the same way that the deer can expand its skin, we can accordingly expand our hearts to be as one, a safety net for the Jewish people and for peace in the world.

Melanie Phillips: Media malpractice in the West has caused permanent harm to Israel

This media malevolence against Israel is expressed not only through sins of journalistic commission but also the omission of reports about Palestinian Authority oppression. Last month, P.A. security forces arrested and allegedly beat to death the outspoken Palestinian Arab critic Nizar Banat, which sparked widespread Palestinian protests.

But there had been a crackdown on dissidents before Banat’s death, with dozens of Palestinian Arabs rounded up by Palestinian Authority security forces following Mahmoud Abbas’s decision to call off the P.A. election because he feared he would lose to Hamas.

On the Gatestone site, the Israeli-Arab journalist Khaled abu Toameh writes that until Banat’s death the Western mainstream media almost entirely ignored this Palestinian crackdown—because, he says, the media couldn’t blame Israel for the harassment, intimidation and torture of Palestinians.

Had the Western media and NGOs paid attention to these Palestinian Authority abuses, says abu Toameh, Banat might still be alive, and activists protesting his death might not have been beaten.

The effect of the invidious role played by the mainstream media in helping foment murderous rage against Israel and the Jewish people, while sanitizing the behavior of the Palestinians, is incalculable.

Not only has this turned many people in Britain, America and elsewhere against Israel (including a growing proportion of the Jewish Diaspora), but it also fuels murderous Arab and Muslim hysteria against Israel and the West.

Martin Peretz: Schumer the Shomer

Americans’ lack of knowledge about the nuclear deal is not an accident. Years ago Ben Rhodes, Obama’s deputy national security adviser and the man in charge of selling the Iran deal to the public, admitted that, far from wanting Americans to know the details of it, “We created an echo chamber [in which the experts and reporters] were saying things that validated what we had given them to say … I mean, I’d prefer a sober, reasoned public debate, after which members of Congress reflect and take a vote. But that’s impossible.”

A “sober, reasoned public debate” on the Iran deal might have pointed to the mitigating factors that argued against it: Iran has been the main belligerent in the Middle East for 15 years; it funds violent Iraqi militias that bring disorder to the country; it backs both Hezbollah and Hamas, using the latter to attack Israel, the one democratic state in the region; it supports the genocidal dictator Bashar Assad in Syria; it receives support from Russia in exchange for helping disrupt American interests in the Middle East; it signs energy deals with an aggrandizing China; and it extends its support to repressive regimes like Venezuela, to which it tried sending weapons by boat only last month.

These are the facts, plain and simple. Still, facts have a habit of fading when put against ideology. So most Democrats will probably support the new deal, because in a soft ideological way, Democrats are, more or less, for “international obligations” of almost any type, which of course the Republicans are against, also more than a bit thoughtlessly.

If a treaty ever came before the Senate, it would almost certainly fail to secure a majority, so Biden’s deal will likely take the form of another nonbinding “political commitment.” In that event, Sen. Schumer could, if he has the courage of his convictions—and these are his convictions—stand up to the proliferation of nukes to the one Middle Eastern power that would actually use them, and bring a few Senate Democrats with him. After all, Schumer does not stand alone but has two self-determined senatorial colleagues, Democrats Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Joe Manchin of West Virginia. And who knows? Maybe there are others.

So, back to my Schumerania: The question will be, will Chuck be willing to risk the wrath of the squad and high-up Democratic donors and operatives deeply invested in the Iran deal’s success by taking a stand? After all these years of winning, will he show us what winning is for?

More Muslims visited the Temple Mount on this average Friday than ever did before 1967

Today, some 35,000 Muslims came for Friday prayers to the Al Aqsa Mosque and the surrounding courtyards of the Temple Mount.

This is pretty typical.

I think it is highly probable that when the Temple Mount was under Ottoman, British and Jordanian rule, the number of worshipers never or very rarely exceeded that number, even during major Muslim holidays.

When Israel recaptured Jerusalem in 1967, there were only 54,000 Muslims in the city - including the areas of Jerusalem that Israel expanded. In 1944, only 30,000 Muslims lived there - men, women and children.

While it is possible that on holidays there were tens of thousands who came from surrounding areas to visit, I still doubt that it reached 35,000. Accounts from newspapers in the first half of the 20th century would describe the crowds as being in the thousands, not tens or hundreds of thousands, for Muslim holidays, as in this April 1, 1934 NYT article.

There is no doubt that during holidays nowadays, when the crowds can reach well over 100,000, there are more Muslims at the Temple Mount than at any time in history.

More Muslims have more opportunities to see their third holiest site under Jewish rule than they ever did under Muslim or British rule.

07/09 Links Pt1: Israeli NGO urges UNICEF to probe Hamas, PIJ for using child soldiers; Austria joins Durban Conference boycott

From Ian:

Palestinian Conflict Won’t Change Arab-Israel Normalization

Normalization is here to stay, and Israel is no longer the enemy in many strategic circles across the wider Middle East. Predictions of the Abraham Accords’ demise were premature. Hamas and Iran, and a long list of right-wing parties, leftist nationalists, and populist leaders (like President Erdogan in Turkey and Prime Minister Imran Khan in Pakistan) find few buyers in the region for their anti-normalization pitch.

Perceptions about Israel changed between 2011 and 2020 in regional national security circles. Israel’s reputation in technology, its precision strikes in Syria, the role of its weaponry in the Nagorno-Karabakh war, and its alleged covert actions on Iran’s nuclear program have had the combined effect of forcing some policy planners in the region to see a robust Israeli role in collaborative regional security.

In interviews with two security officials in two countries neighboring Iran in January and May last year, they said that they indirectly rely on Israel to counter Iran’s influence, which they believe they cannot do alone. Officials in the region will not say this openly, but journalists have heard variations of this view from government, military, and intelligence officials in background briefings within the past five years.

But a word of caution: Israel should not stretch its luck.

While the dynamics have changed, a repeat of the Gaza conflict, renewed unrest in Jerusalem, and fresh images of Palestinian women and children scuffling with strong-looking, impressively attired Israeli soldiers will strain the luck of Israel’s many good friends in the region, empower hard-liners, and could slow new ties.

But if Israel shows its new friends that it can deftly handle the conflict with the Palestinians, then it can expect help from its new support network in the region to pressure Palestinian leaders to enact necessary reforms, focus on opportunities for young Palestinians, and shun violence. The idea that Arabs should nudge Palestinians toward moderation is another brewing trend in moderate Arab countries that has the potential to change the Arab approach toward the Palestinian issue, depending again on how Israel plays its cards.

Austria joins Durban Conference boycott

Austria is the eight country to announce it will not participate in the Durban IV conference in New York in September, marking the 20th anniversary of the World Conference on Racism in Durban, South Africa, which was rife with antisemitism.

“Austria supports efforts to combat racism worldwide, while rejecting the misuse of the Durban process to unfairly single out and target Israel,” the Austrian Embassy in Israel said on Friday.

“Therefore, Austria abstained on the vote to hold a high-level conference in New York to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the Durban conference. There will be no participation at the political level," the embassy stated.

Dutch Foreign Minister Steph Blok told the Dutch parliament on Tuesday that "the Netherlands does not intend to participate in the Durban-IV conference.”

"This decision was taken due to the history of the Durban-process, the risk that this platform will once again be misused for anti-Semitic expressions and because of the conference’ disproportionate, one-sided focus on Israel, as exemplified in the original Durban declaration." NGOs distributed rabidly anti-Jewish and anti-Israel material at the conference in Durban, South Africa in 2001, accusing Israel of genocide and questioning whether Hitler was right. Copies of the infamous antisemitic trope Protocols of the Elders of Zion were sold.

Jewish Groups Applaud the Netherlands for Skipping Durban IV Event ‘Tarnished by Antisemitism’

Leading Jewish groups welcomed Netherland’s decision to join the UK, US, Australia, Canada, Hungary and Israel in not attending the anniversary event. The European Jewish Congress praised the Dutch government for deciding to boycott the upcoming “antisemitic” Durban conference.

“We thank the Netherlands for announcing that it, like other key democracies, won’t participate in the UN’s commemoration of the 20th anniversary of the Durban conference tarnished by antisemitism,” B’nai B’rith International commented. “The UN and the fight against racism must never be used as cover for hate.”

Commenting on the Dutch pullout from the conference, the American Jewish Committee (AJC) said that “no country should attend an event tainted by a legacy of Jew-hatred.”

Kaag also pledged that the Netherlands would remain committed to combating bigotry, in the UN and beyond.

“This month, for example, the Netherlands will make a national declaration against all forms of racism and discrimination at the Human Rights Council meeting. Also at the forthcoming United Nations General Assembly, the Netherlands will focus in particular on combating racism, xenophobia, antisemitism and Islamophobia,” Kaag said.

The Caroline Glick Show: Ep13 - Israel's latest (happy-ish) political fight PLUS Iran laughs at Biden

In Episode 13 of the Caroline Glick Mideast News Hour with Gadi Taub, Caroline and Gadi discussed the fall of the government’s temporary immigration act in the early morning hours between July 5 and 6. The event exposed the anti-Zionist nature of the government and the stakes in bringing it down. Caroline and Gadi then shifted gears to discuss the Biden administration’s latest package of sanctions relief for Iran and how to look at Biden’s nuclear diplomacy in the face of Iranian dictator Khamenei’s decision to elevate Ebrahim Raisi a psychopathic mass murderer to serve as Iran’s next president beginning next month.It was all happiness and light as usual as our daring duo navigated a course in the dark world of progressive and jihadist business as usual.Watch, listen, subscribe to our channels and get the word out!

Azerbaijani site Trend.az has an interview with George Deek, the Arab Christian ambassador of Israel to Azerbaijan, discussing areas of cooperation and historic ties between the nations.

There are many Israeli companies in various fields that are ready to cooperate with Azerbaijan in the liberated territories, Ambassador of Israel to Azerbaijan George Deek told Trend.

As he said, Israel has expressed its readiness for cooperation in the liberated territories of Azerbaijan in the field of agriculture, water resources management, and mine clearance.

“So, these are the main fields, which I believe we can cooperate: de-mining, reconstruction, agriculture, water, but of course we also see the opportunities for cooperation and sharing the know-how in various fields, for example, it can be in healthcare,” added the ambassador.

In terms of overall cooperation between the countries’ the ambassador noted that Israel and Azerbaijan can develop relations in the agriculture and water management sectors.

“There’s no reason why we can't work together with Azerbaijan to help bring up the agricultural sector in Azerbaijan, using Israeli technologies from greenhouses to drip irrigation, to different spices and grains and the fertilizers that we use and have developed,” said the ambassador.

He also noted that the same applies to the field of water management.

In addition, he said Israel is capable of cooperating with Azerbaijan in any other areas as well.

“For example, the field of healthcare. We have a lot of humanitarian projects, we brought in the eye doctors a few months ago, we also contributed some medical equipment to hospitals, to the ministry of health and TABIB during the last war [second Karabakh war] and also afterward, but we believe that we can do a lot, for example training nurses, internship for doctors to go for a few months to Israel or have them work one year in Israel in a local hospital, to get experience and return back," Deek explained.

Also, the ambassador pointed out tourism, as one of the areas of development.

"In 2016 there were around 10,000 Israeli tourists coming to Azerbaijan, in 2019, only 3 years later we had 50,000 – 5 times higher in 3 years. Unfortunately, last year and even this year with the COVID-19, this has gone drastically down as everywhere, but hopefully when we 'open the gates again', then we will see the surge in tourism from 50,000 maybe to even 100,000," he concluded.

One statistic that Deek said surprised me: he says there are some 30,000 Jews in Azerbaijan, which would make it the Muslim-majority nation with the most Jews in the world. I couldn't verify that number - most sources I find show less than half of that - but even so, that would still mean it has more Jews than any Muslim majority country, with the possible exception of Turkey.

On Thursday, Hezbollah announced that it had provided Gaza terror groups with sensitive intelligence information during the May war.

This is the first time that Hezbollah ever made this claim.

Deputy head of Hezbollah, Sheikh Naim Qassem, told Al Mayadeen TV that Hezbollah had informed the Gaza groups that Israel's implying that it had started a ground offensive was a deception.

On May 28, the editor-in-chief of Hezbollah mouthpiece Al-Akhbar, Ibrahim Al-Amin, said during an interview with Al-Manar TV channel that Hezbollah, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, and Hamas established a military operations room in Beirut during the war.

Al-Amin added that the commander of the Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, Major General Ismail Qani, visited Lebanon twice to attend the meetings of the groups.

Al-Amin claimed that Hezbollah and the Iranians provided the Gaza groups with data on the movements of the IDF, which supposedly thwarted the ambush of terrorists near the Gaza border.

Whether or not these specific examples are true, it shows that Iran was intimately involved in helping Hamas and Islamic Jihad during the fighting and that Hamas has access to state-level intelligence.

Palestinians complaining about football match between Beitar Jerusalem and Barcelona, falsely claiming that it will be played in "occupied" east Jerusalem

The Beitar Jerusalem football club is scheduled to play a friendly match against Barcelona on August 4.

A lot of Palestinians are Barcelona fans, and they are upset. The main complaint is by Jibril Rajoub, president of the Palestinian Football Association and someone who has dedicated the past few years to using sports to attack Israel.

He wrote to the president of the Barcelona team:

I would have liked to send you happy news, but the fact that FC Barcelona - which enjoys the encouragement of millions of Palestinians - has unfortunately decided to disappoint millions of its fans by choosing to play the match against Beitar Club in East Jerusalem, to have a heavy impact on my heart and the heart of the millions who grew up respecting Barcelona for being more than just a club.

The Palestinian Football Association respects, as stipulated in the FIFA Statutes, your right as a club to hold friendly matches against any team of your choice.

However, this statute requires at the same time respect for the rights of other national associations. Jerusalem, according to international legitimacy, is a divided city, and its eastern part is considered occupied Palestinian land, and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Football Association.

Teddy Stadium, where the match will be played, is in the part of Jerusalem controlled by Israel since 1948.

You can see here that the stadium was built north of the 1949 armistice line.

Rajoub is lying.

There are other objections to them match. Beitar is known for its racist, anti-Arab fans. However, in December, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Nahyan of the UAE royal family bought 50% of the club, so it seems like that argument against the match is not very effective any more.

In 2018, before a similar friendly match between Argentina and Israel, Rajoub used a different argument altogether: that Teddy Stadium was built on the ruins of the Arab village of Mahla. As far as I can tell, the stadium was built on otherwise empty land in the early 1990s, near but not on top of Mahla, which was a strategic target in 1948 that hosted a Jordanian army contingent.

07/08 Links Pt2: Kontorovich: The Apartheid Accusation Against Israel Lacks is Baseless – and Agenda-Driven; Suspect Arrested in Firework Attack That Burned Jewish Woman at Manhattan Rally

From Ian:

Eugene Kontorovich: The Apartheid Accusation Against Israel Lacks is Baseless – and Agenda-Driven

Blacks in South Africa were deprived of their political rights. Israel Arabs have full voting rights for the Knesset, while Palestinians in the territories have voting rights for the Palestinian Legislative Council. Israeli citizens do not have voting rights in the Palestinian government, because it is a different and independent government. By the same token, Palestinians do not vote in the Knesset – not because it is apartheid, but because since the 1993 Oslo Accords, they have had their own government. The international community recognizes the independence of the Palestinian government, and there can be no denying that its decision-making is independent of, and antagonistic to, that of Israel. It would be hard to imagine the ICC admitting a Bantustan as a state party.

Unlike non-white South Africans, the Palestinians have been offered full statehood by Israel in numerous times – in internationally-backed and legitimized diplomatic processes. They have turned it down as many times. The repeated offers of full independence to the Palestinians themselves negate any intent of “maintaining domination” over them as required by the legal definitions of apartheid. The PA viewed the proposed diplomatic deals, which offered more than 97% of the West Bank as inadequate, in part because they required an end to the conflict. This is entirely unlike the South African model, where credible independence for a majority-black state was never on the table until the deal that ended the regime.

Another major methodological failing is that the report treats the Palestinian as silent objects, rather than as political actors who have shaped their own destiny. In particular, it ignores the reality of Palestinian self-government and systematic Palestinian efforts to murder Israeli Jews. Yet since 1993 the Palestinians have had their own government, which regulates almost every aspect of their lives. Unlike South African Bantustans, the PA government is recognized by most countries of the world, and functions outside of Israeli control. Unlike South Africa, Israel does not tax the Palestinians, draft them, or impose other legislation upon them.

Under the Oslo Agreements, the PA government and Israel agreed on a framework for dividing authority and jurisdiction in areas where their governments and populations are intertwined. The HRW cites those very features as evidence of apartheid – in effect saying that the internationally-backed Oslo Accords, for which several Nobel Peace Prizes were awarded, is equivalent to apartheid, for which Nobel Peace Prizes were awarded to those who ended it. Gaza has been entirely ruled by Hamas since Israel withdrew in 2005.

By pretending the Palestinian government does not exist, the report remarkably ignores actual apartheid-like policies. The Palestinian Authority pays generous salaries to people simply for murdering Jews – with bigger payments for bigger attacks. It prohibits Palestinians – with severe penalties – from selling land to Jews. It indoctrinates children with anti-Semitic textbooks. These policies resemble apartheid, and are not found anywhere in the HRW’s long report. Indeed, the report speaks of “Israeli Palestinians,” but it never speaks of Jewish Palestinians – because the PA has created a regime where it is impossible for Jews to live in its jurisdiction, and actively campaigns for the expulsion of all Jews from the West Bank.

All of the movement restrictions and the Separation Wall were established not as far of a policy of racial separation, but only in response to the murderous wave of terror unleashed by the PA in 2000, which killed over 1000 Israelis. It is undisputable that such restrictions did not previously exist. HRW tries to paint self-defense as subjugation, and thus makes no mention of the mass-murder of Israeli civilians.

Indeed, the report whitewashes terrorism against Jews while smearing Israel. It refers to terror organization Hamas as a “political party.” In 13 references to the organization that rules Gaza, it never once acknowledges that Hamas is listed as a terrorist organization by Israel, the United States, the European Union and others. At 217 pages, HRW can hardly claim space constraints for such omissions. This is not the approach of an intellectually serious report, but of a politically-motivated campaign.

Is Israel Really a Settler Colonial State?

When academics call Israel a "settler colonial" state, it is meant to isolate the Jewish state from the legitimate family of nations. Yet historically, colonies have related to a mother country. The Puritans saw themselves as English, Afrikaaners as Dutch, Muslim conquerors as Arabs. They spoke the mother country's language and attempted to transfer its culture to their new land.

The early, pre-state Zionists, however, sought to escape Europe, not to replicate it. They rejected Yiddish and adopted an old Middle East language - Hebrew - which they updated for modern purposes, while changing their German or Russian-sounding names.

Central to the Zionist enterprise was the conviction that they were returning home. No other transplanted society made such a claim. Jews had lived in the area continuously for thousands of years. The Hebrew language is Semitic, not Indo-European. Ancient Jewish artifacts could be found everywhere.

It is therefore more accurate to see Zionism as a form of nationalism - and Zionists as fulfilling a people's aspiration for self-determination in what they regard as their own land.

Ireland's Hostile Anti-Israeli Narrative Lacks Honesty

The Irish government and parliament's obsessive, selectively critical, hostile anti-Israeli narrative is economical with the truth. Its demonization and delegitimization of Israel lends international credibility to the malign narratives of Iran, Syria, Turkey, Hamas, Hizbullah, and Islamic Jihad. For the Irish government to make a truly beneficial contribution to peace, an entirely different approach should be adopted.

The Irish government ignores the inconvenient fact that the Israeli government has no party with whom to currently negotiate. For 14 years Gaza and the West Bank have been ruled as two separate Palestinian entities by acrimonious Palestinian factions (Hamas and Fatah) who are incapable of agreeing on the parameters of any resolution with Israel.

The Irish government also needs to address Palestinian violations of Israelis' and Palestinians' human rights, the murder by Palestinian factions of their Palestinian critics and opponents, the jailing and denigrating of Palestinian peace activists for engaging with Israeli peace activists, the military training and arming of children by Palestinian militant factions, and the use of Palestinian civilians, including children, as human shields when firing rockets from within civilian locations.

As other EU states have done, the Irish government should also address the Palestinian education system, partly financed by Ireland, which a recent EU report confirms encourages child martyrdom, glorifies terrorist atrocities, and teaches narratives designed to escalate division and conflict instead of encouraging greater understanding, peaceful engagement, and conflict resolution.

The Joshua and Caleb Network: Busting the Myth of Illegal Settlements in the West Bank

You have probably heard that the settlements in the West Bank are illegal under international law. The question is: which international law? Joshua and Luke break it down on today’s program.

Today’s program covers the latest eviction of the settlement of Evyatar in Samaria and why the left and right-wing political camps are happy about it. We also give a crash course on the history of Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, what the 1967 borders are, what international law says regarding the settlements, and why they are 100% not illegal.

Buckle up, this is a fact-filled, mythbusting program!

Some in the Mainstream Media are trying to figure out how to deal with the growing issue of violent antisemitic attacks against Jews.

Not that they are necessarily working on how to help bring such incidents to light and help fight antisemitism.

No.

Instead, there are those in the media trying to figure out how best to frame these attacks, or to omit altogether.

On July 5, The Guardian reported, ‘Torrent of abuse’: Jewish man targeted twice in an hour in London:

A Jewish man subjected to antisemitic abuse twice in an hour in central London was physically threatened because of his appearance, his family have said.

The man, named only as Yosef, was on his way home when he was subjected to a “torrent of abuse”, with threats made to his life.

Footage showed the researcher from north London travelling on a bus to Oxford Street just before midnight on 3 July when another passenger got up and began to verbally assault him.

Later the same evening while walking down an escalator at Oxford Circus tube station, he was subjected to further antisemitic abuse by another male.

The article goes on to note that according to the brother, Yosef received “ugly racist remarks and death threats” and that there British Jewish groups reported a "horrific surge" in antisemitic attacks:

The Community Security Trust (CST) recorded 351 antisemitic incidents between 8 and 31 May, more than for any single month since records began in 1986.

The CST said the rise was fuelled by antisemitic reactions to the escalation of violence in Israel and Gaza. It called the situation “utterly predictable and completely disgraceful”.

So from the article, we can tease out:

o A Jew was attacked verbally and almost physically

o There were death threats

o The attack followed the Israel-Hamas war the previous month

What did the journalist leave out of the story?

It refrained from connecting the dots.

According to CAMERA UK, the actual threats were not mentioned, nor how prevalent they were:

o One of the things the perpetrator yelled was “Free Palestine”
o According to the recording, this person threatened "I'll slit your throat for Palestine"

o The journalist mentioned the CST report without noting that CST pointed out that there were "several incidents of individuals shouting 'Free Palestine' with abusive or threatening language or gestures at random Jewish people, who are selected for abuse because they are Jewish"

The CAMERA article concludes:

So, the reporter had the information to properly contextualise the antisemitic incident in question by noting that it fits a pattern of racist behavior – as well as attitudes – towards Jews by pro-Palestinian activists in the UK. But, by omitting this crucial information about the perpetrator’s Palestine-related verbal abuse, she failed to do so.

While the media has not been shy to describe attacks on Jews when they can be tied to "right-wing" racists, when the perpetrators are left-wing or Muslim, the attackers are often faceless and vague.

Enter The New York Times, which has discovered an easy way to get around this problem!

Just don't report those kinds of attacks on Jews.

In The Algemeiner, Ira Stoll reported on Tuesday, Stabbing of Chabad Rabbi in Boston Is Not ‘Fit To Print’ in New York Times:

Rabbi Shlomo Noginski was stabbed repeatedly on July 1 outside a Jewish school building in Boston. A rally the next day organized by Boston Jewish community groups drew Boston’s acting mayor, the district attorney, and a member of Congress. An individual, Khaled Awad, was arrested in connection with the attack and pleaded not guilty to assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon and assault and battery on a police officer. People who knew Awad in Florida described him as violent and “antisemitic.”

A national, even international news story? Plenty of news organization thought so.

...But for the New York Times, the news wasn’t fit to print.

Stoll's claim that the Times has not covered the story is easy to check:

And the New York Times omission may be part of a growing pattern of the Times's blindness to Jew-hatred:

It’s at least the second time recently that the Times has skipped covering news of an attack on a Jewish target. In May, rock-throwing attacks against four synagogues in the Bronx attracted coverage from CNN, the Daily Mail, the Washington Post, the Arizona Republic, and the Wall Street Journal. Then, too, the Times apparently found the news not fit to print, and the metro editor failed to respond to an Algemeiner inquiry about why the Times thought the attacks weren’t newsworthy. [emphasis added]

In his May article on how The New York Times ignored the 4 rock-throwing attacks on Bronx synagogues, Stoll wrote:

Yet the New York Times — which has as part of its name “New York,” the city where the attacks happened — hasn’t found the news fit to print.

A search on the Times website for the name “Jordan Burnette,” the person arrested and charged on 42 counts, including hate crimes, for the attacks, produces no results from 2021. A search for “Riverdale,” the Bronx neighborhood where the synagogues were targeted, turns up no results about these synagogue attacks, either. [emphasis added]

Writing for The Washington Examiner, Melissa Langsam Braunstein notes the obvious spike in antisemitic attacks in New York City:

Since the NYPD regularly updates hate crime data, let’s review New York’s statistics. Of the 238 hate crimes reported in the nation’s largest city from Jan. 1 through May 30 of this year, 86 targeted Jews. This marked a 37% increase over January to May 2020.

So why is The New York Times burying these stories?

Stoll considers some possibilities.

One possibility is The New York Times's bias against Orthodox Jews, a pattern we have written about before.

Another possibility is that the Times does not want to consider its own role in the increase in antisemitism and anti-Jewish attacks:

Perhaps at least part of the reason the Times can’t bear to share the news of violent attacks on synagogues in New York or a rabbi in Boston is because a fair-minded, thorough investigation into such attacks might eventually force the newspaper to examine unflinchingly the role that the Times’ own coverage has played in inciting the violence. For anyone who makes the mistake of actually believing what the Times writes about the Jews — killing innocent children in Gaza in a possible war crime, spreading the coronavirus via skullcaps — attacking Jews might actually be a logical step. That’s not a legal or moral excuse for the perpetrators of violent antisemitic acts. But it is a call for the Times to reckon honestly with its own role in stoking hatred of Jews. Or, if that’s asking too much, at least to stop suppressing the news of such violent attacks from the newspaper’s readers. [emphasis added]

A final consideration, according to Stoll, is that while The New York Times was ready to report on antisemitic attacks and even saturate its pages with such stories while Trump was president (Trump’s Big Achievement: Making the New York Times Care About Antisemitism) -- now, "the Times has abandoned interest just as rapidly as it had acquired it."

While any or all of these possibilities may explain The New York Times's self-imposed editorial lobotomy, the merging of their anti-Jewish and anti-Israel bias into a full-fledged news blackout is a new development in its agenda.

The well-known motto of the Times -- All The News That's Fit To Print -- is a promise to the reader that the paper will be the go-to destination for reporting on everything that is going on in the world that people want to know about.

But it also implies a promise of honesty, that The New York Times will not hide important news from its readers -- news and information that its readers need to know and be aware of.

The New York Times has broken this promise.

Bennett Fails To Win Ra'am Approval To Turn Up A/C (PreOccupied Territory)

Our weekly column from the humor site PreOccupied Territory.

Check out their Facebook page.

Jerusalem, July 11 - Israel's prime minister suffered another political setback today when a chief partner in his governing coalition refused to support efforts to decrease the interior temperature in his workplace.

The Ra'am Party told Naftali Bennett they will vote against turning up the air conditioner in the Prime Minister's Office for the hotter summer months, dealing a blow to Mr. Bennett's ambitions to effect change after twelve years of Binyamin Netanyahu's controversial leadership. Observers believe the failure will harm the premier in his efforts to both keep the diverse, but fragile, coalition, together, and to prove to voters that the recent successful machinations to remove Netanyahu from office will provide any improvement in the country's political deadlock, economic prospects, or diplomatic fortunes.

Analysts called the opposition by Ra'am - the first Arab political party to join a governing coalition - a case of it flexing its muscles, secure in the knowledge that Bennett and other more conservative coalition members see greater danger in collapse of the delicate alliance than in forfeiting advancement of a conservative agenda - or even of agreeing to legislation or policies at odds with the right-wing electorate that constitutes a majority of voters.

"This shows you how far they will go, playing hardball even on theoretically small issues," remarked columnist Ehud Mishpahot. "Ra'am made all sorts of guarantees with [Yesh Atid chairman and current Minister of Foreign Affairs Yair] Lapid and Bennett going in, that they would stick to purely domestic and social issues, and not try to shape policy toward the Palestinians or other Arab states, but it's clear they can do pretty much what they want, even voice outright support for terrorism against Jews, because Bennett is more afraid of another round of elections, or of Netanyahu swooping back in with a majority, than anything else."

"That's why, for example, [the illegal Jewish outpost of] Evyatar is being cleared, while court-ordered evacuation of [Palestinian illegal settlement] Khan al-Amar isn't even on the horizon," he explained. "[Ra'am chairman Mansour] Abbas has Bennett by the short ones, and everyone knows it. It's not specifically about the air conditioning."

"The A/C is important symbolically, though," countered correspondent Guy Yiss-Hamishi. "By electing to deprive Bennett and his staff of the cooler environment they seek, Ra'am essentially states that since the Jews can't handle the hot Middle East summer, that's because they're foreign interlopers and colonists who belong elsewhere. We're going to see more and more of this kind of thing, for example, with Abbas barring the prime minister from getting catering that includes any 'Palestinian' food."

07/08 Links Pt1: Netherlands boycotting Durban IV conference; Israel, UAE economic ties falter as US freezes Abraham Fund; The Palestinian Vaccine Fiasco

From Ian:

The Palestinian Vaccine Fiasco

The July batch, as noted above, went to South Korea. The remaining doses, which reportedly expire in August, are still available. This means there is still a chance to get them to Palestinians in need should the Palestinian Authority—currently wracked by its own scandals—decide to reengage on the subject.

But that political failure is unlikely to be rectified anytime soon due to the failures of two other entities that might have pressured the Palestinian Authority to change course: the media and the human rights community.

In June, rather than rebuke the Palestinian Authority for caving to extremists, several prominent NGOs ranging from Human Rights Watch to Physicians for Human Rights went to bat for the vaccine rejection, credulously echoing the false claim that the doses were essentially expired and unusable. These organizations had the contacts and the expertise to understand that this was not the case, but chose not to employ them, instead reflexively putting forward partisan talking points. Had they instead called out the Palestinian Authority for placing politics ahead of public health, its leaders might have altered course.

Meanwhile, the international media did not do much better. Of all people, journalists should reasonably be expected to get to the bottom of whether Israel or the Palestinian Authority was telling the truth about the vaccines. But instead, too many outlets covered the entire affair in “he-said, she-said” terms, as though the truth was unknowable, rather than something that could be determined by careful reporting. The closing of the New York Times dispatch was emblematic of this approach:
Those who accepted Israel’s official position about the donations said the authority’s refusal to accept the vaccines had dented claims that Israel was to blame for the slow vaccination rate among Palestinians. But those who believed the Palestinian position said Israel had acted in bad faith by making the authority an offer that it had no choice but to refuse.

Had the Palestinian Authority originally agreed to accept the vaccines with these expiration dates? Could the doses be administered in time? Or was Israel’s leftist health minister, whose party includes an Arab minister, involved in a sinister scheme to foist unviable vaccines on the Palestinian population? If only there were some journalists around to find out.

Instead, because the international media and activist community largely punted on these questions, the Palestinian Authority was able to evade scrutiny for its decision, and has not renegotiated a new arrangement.

Even now, there is still time for the relevant actors to do the right thing and find a way to get the remaining Israeli doses to the Palestinian population. But that would require many people to admit their previous mistakes and put helping people ahead of partisan posturing, which in the Israeli-Palestinian context is, sadly, never a good bet.

In the meantime, as long as extremists have veto power over even the most uncontroversial cooperative policies, it will be very hard to make any serious progress on the Israeli-Palestinian impasse. Changing these dynamics—in both Israel and Palestine—must be the top task for political leaders who seek something better.

Netherlands boycotting Durban IV conference

The Netherlands will not be attending the Durban IV conference, Dutch Foreign Minister Sigrid Kaag said on Thursday, according to local media reports.

The September 2021 conference marks the 20th anniversary of the Durban declaration, which was adopted at the UN’s 2001 Durban Conference that was marred by anti-Semitism and hatred against Israel.

Kaag said there was an unacceptable risk that the September conference would be a repeat of the Jew hatred of the 2001 conference. She also said that her country would continue to fight against anti-Semitism, reported the Centrum Informatie En Documentatie Israel (CIDI), a Dutch Jewish advocacy organization.

“The Netherlands will not participate in the Durban IV meeting, in view of the historical burden of the Durban process, the risk of repetition of abuse of this platform for anti-Semitic expressions and the disproportionate and one-sided attention to Israel as reflected in the original Durban statement,” Kaag said.

UN Watch described Durban IV as "(endorsing) this perversion of the principles of anti-racism. As world leaders gather for the General Assembly’s annual opening, this one-day event plans to adopt a ‘political declaration’ calling for the ‘full and effective implementation’ of the Durban Declaration.”

???? @ministerBZ: “The Netherlands does not intend to participate in the Durban IV meeting, in view of the historical burden of the Durban process, the risk of repetition of abuse of this platform for antisemitic expressions... https://t.co/L9Erj2YVHS pic.twitter.com/DGpelpsSy2
— Hillel Neuer (@HillelNeuer) July 8, 2021

At 75, the UN is an embracing failure

All these actions, taken by the UN and its affiliates, are evidence that the UN has a worse human rights record than the League had. The UN's actions are so egregious, that if it were taken by the League, it would be tantamount to putting Hitler's Germany on the Human Rights Council, Mussolini's Italy on the Disarmament Conference, praise for Imperial Japan's conduct in (then) occupied China, and would likely include 75% of resolutions condemning Jewish settlement in the British Mandate of Palestine (it's worth noting that the earliest extra-biblical mention of the people of Israel in the region dates to 1207 BCE).

Yes, the UN has accomplished many good things too, but that will not be enough to render the UN a success if it collapses. After all, no one remembers the League's successes, which included addressing human trafficking; settling territorial disputes, thereby preventing numerous wars; gaining the emancipation of 219,000 slaves in Sierra Leone (Ironically, Mauritania, with a large slave population, is on the UNHRC), and repatriating 400,000 POW's of twenty-seven different nationalities after World War One.

If the UN collapses, people will only discuss its failures, not its successes. Moreover, we will have no excuse, as we have already been warned about this by one of the UN's architects, Winston Churchill. In his 1946 speech "The Tragedy of Europe," Churchill described why the League failed, with words that can also describe our contemporary UN: "The League of Nations did not fail because of its principles or conceptions. It failed because these principles were deserted by those States who had brought it into being. It failed because the governments of those days feared to face the facts, and act while time remained. This disaster must not be repeated. There is therefore much knowledge and material with which to build; and also bitter dear-bought experience."

Compared to the League, the UN's actions are egregious. The UN hardly even seems to care about its job anymore, and its founding states turn a blind eye to its behavior. Don't say we weren't warned about the consequences of allowing this to continue.

We have – by one of the UN's founders – and we are already beginning to reap the ills of the UN's current rot. This pandemic, and the detriment that the world is suffering partially due to the WHO running to do China's bidding at the beginning of the outbreak, is a warning to us of the dangers of continuing to allow the UN to betray its founding principles. We cannot afford to allow this to continue. The UN is now at seventy-five. Now is the time to push for reform.

Rashida Tlaib - a member of Congress - publicly shows her ignorance and hatred yet again.

Besides calling Israel an "apartheid regime" (lie #1), which is now a standard part of all Israel-haters' vocabulary thanks to Human Rights Watch, she makes this bizarre claim:

"Palestinians are some of the most surveilled people in the world living under Israel's government, which I believe is an apartheid regime. You know, facial recognition technology is found in every block in Gaza. "

Israel has magically installed cameras in every block in Gaza, without any Palestinians noticing or removing them! (lie #2) (And, they live under Israel's government lie #3!)

The lies in a 20 second clip don't end there. Her allegations that Israel uses Microsoft facial recognition technology seems to also be false, as she is probably referring to Microsoft's investment in an Israeli firm, AnyVision, which Microsoft then stopped even though its own investigation showed that Israel did not use AnyVision technology for face recognition of Palestinians.

That's a lot of lies in a short clip.

Palestinian leaders and officials lie all the time. But when Palestinians become politicians in America, one would expect that their lies wouldn't be as tolerated as they are in the Middle East.

Apparently, that expectation is wrong.

(h/t Ian)

Magnificent Second Temple-era building upsets critics of Israel

The Israel Antiquities Authority unveiled a hugely impressive building that seems to have been a place for important pilgrims to Jerusalem to dine and meet city officials 2000 years ago.

“This is, without doubt, one of the most magnificent public buildings from the Second Temple period that has ever been uncovered outside the Temple Mount walls in Jerusalem,” said excavation director Dr. Shlomit Weksler-Bdolach in an IAA press release on Thursday.

Built circa 20 CE, the Roman-era structure stood off a main drag leading to the Temple Mount and was used as a triclinium, or dining room, for notable members of society on their way to worship, according to the IAA release. Originally constructed with an ornate water fountain and decorative Corinthian capitals, the striking edifice underwent a series of structural changes in its 50 years of use prior to the 70 CE destruction of the Second Temple, Weksler-Bdolach told The Times of Israel.

The massive structure will soon be open to the public as part of the Western Wall Tunnels Tour, which has been rejigged to create different paths and experiences, based on several new routes that cut through thousands of years of history, through today’s modern use of part of the tunnels as prayer and event halls.

What archaeologists do know is that during its 50 years of occupation, said Weksler-Bdolach, the large public structure was separated into three different spaces, the fountain was taken out of use, and what appears to be a ritual bath or mikveh was added, just prior to the destruction of Jerusalem.

Despite the clear Roman influence in the structure’s architecture, Jerusalem at this time was still a culturally Jewish city, said Weksler-Bdolach. The decorations discovered in the spaces — a sculpted cornice bearing pilasters (flat supporting pillars) — didn’t include graven images, banned by the Torah.

She said the hall was likely used by city, versus Temple, officials who wanted to impress their guests.

“Visitors to the site can now envisage the opulence of the place: the two side chambers served as ornate reception rooms and between them was a magnificent fountain with water gushing out from lead pipes incorporated in the midst of the Corinthian capitals protruding from the wall,” said Weksler-Bdolach in the press release.

The photos are impressive.

And the ritual bath that is there proves that this was a Jewish building.

But one person isn't impressed.

Daniel Seidemann, critic of Israel who specializes in Jerusalem history, shrugs this off with a quote from former deputy mayor of Jerusalem Meron Benvenisti who himself wanted to replace the Jewish state with a binational state:

“Unplanned, and costing both human life and many millions of sheqels, a vast network of tunnels were created which allow for a visit to subterranean Jerusalem, that extends from what has become known as the City of David to the northern ramparts of the Old City. This underground city weaves a fabricated narrative – a Disneyland, really – that is designed to expunge thousands of years of non-Jewish history and create a purportedly direct link between the Second Temple Period until today. In this manner sewage ditches and moldy cellars are transformed into sacred sites and fabricated historical Jewish sites, with those who traverse it not encountering the embarrassing reality that reveals an Old City and Temple Mount teeming with Palestinians, in which the “city square” [as it appears in Naomi Shemer’s iconic song, “Jerusalem of Gold”] is once again devoid of Arabs.”
Meron Benvenisti, The Dream of the White Sabra, [Hebrew] Jerusalem,
2005, p. 253 (translation by the author – D.S)

Whatever the merits of Benvenisti's criticisms of these digs were in 2005, the sheer amount of findings since then done by eminent archaeologists prove many times over the Jewish history of the city. This finding in particular cannot be brushed aside as a "moldy cellar."

Also, it is clearly false to say that the Israel Antiquities Authority is trying to erase non-Jewish history. The number of Islamic sites preserved by the IAA and the State of Israel in Jerusalem proves this.

Any new findings that strengthen the link between today's Jews and our ancestors must be fought tooth and nail by today's Israel haters. Seidemann is no fool, and he knows Jerusalem history quite well, but his antipathy to the Government of Israel prompts him to tweet such nonsense.

In the end, it is hard to find much daylight between people like him who dismiss such an important site from Jewish history and the antisemites who deny Jewish history altogether.

The pro-terror IMEMC News reported on Monday:

Israeli soldiers invaded, on Monday at dawn, a mosque in Halhoul town, north of the southern West Bank city of Hebron, to accompany colonialist settlers into the holy site, and injured six Palestinians, in addition to causing dozens to suffer the effects of tear gas inhalation.

Media sources said several Israeli army jeeps invaded the town, at dawn, to accompany dozens of paramilitary colonialist settlers into Nabi Mousa Mosque to perform prayers, after forcing the Palestinians out.

They added that the Palestinians protested the invasion and hurled stones at the army, while the soldiers fired many rubber-coated steel bullets, gas bombs, and concussion grenades.

I was curious why Jews would want to visit Halhoul.

It turns out there are a lot of reasons.

Halhoul is mentioned in the Tanach - Joshua 15:58. It kept the same name all this time.

It has long been considered the burial place of Gad the Seer (2 Samuel 24:11) and Jews have made pilgrimages there for centuries. Rabbi Yitzchak Chelo*, of Aragon, visited Palestine in 1333, and wrote about Halhoul in his book The Ways of Jerusalem (quoted here from the French by Victor Guerin):

From there [from Tekoa '] we go to Halhul, place mentioned in Joshua. There are a number of Jews here, who lead you to an ancient sepulchral monument, attributed to Gad the Seer. This is the third tomb of the seven prophets.

It remained a place of pilgrimage for Jews in 1847, when John Wilson visited.

So we see that Jews lives in Halhoul in the Middle Ages, they venerated it for much longer as the burial place of a prophet, and it is clearly an important Biblical site.

Now we understand why Palestinians try to keep in Jew-free. That's what they try to do to every important historic Jewish place.

*UPDATE: Apparently, the Yitzchak Chelo pilgrimage story was a forgery. See here. But Halhoul was still a place of pilgrimage.

A hat tip goes to someone on Wikipedia who found this obscure mistake in one of my tens of thousands of articles in order to call me "garbage" in the Talk section. He or she could have just emailed or tweeted me with the terrible crime of not researching a 19th century French scholar's sources to see if they have not been debunked. I would have gladly fixed it. Apparently, calling me names is more important than correcting the record.