Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Tuesday, March 24, 2015

The two-state straw men

From J-Street to Haaretz to Washington, you keep hearing the same refrain: Israel's right wing does not want a two state solution, and without a two-state solution Israel is doomed.

A recent example comes from Amos Oz in Haaretz:

We’ll begin with the most important thing, with a matter of life-and-death for the State of Israel: If there will not be two states here, and fast, there will be one state here. If there will be one state here, it will be an Arab state, from the sea to the Jordan River. If there will be an Arab state here, I don’t envy my children and my grandchildren.

I said an Arab state, from the sea to the Jordan River. I did not say a binational state: With the exception of Switzerland, all the existing binational and multinational states are creaking badly (Belgium, Spain) or have already collapsed into a bloodbath (Lebanon, Cyprus, Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union).

If there are not two states here, and fast, it’s very possible that, in order to avert the emergence of an Arab state from the sea to the Jordan River, a dictatorship of fanatic Jews will rule here temporarily, a dictatorship with racist features, a dictatorship that will suppress both the Arabs and its own Jewish opponents with an iron hand.

Such a dictatorship will be short-lived. Hardly any dictatorship of a minority that suppresses the majority has survived long in the modern era. At the end of that road, too, an Arab state, from the sea to the Jordan River awaits us, and before that perhaps also an international boycott, or a bloodbath, or both.

I have news for Mr. Oz and J-Street and President Obama: Practically everyone on the right wants to divide the land into Israeli and Palestinian parts. Practically everyone wants the Arab side to have the fullest autonomy possible, and many if not most even would accept statehood under the right circumstances.

The only differences are the exact borders and the ability of the Palestinian Arab state to wreak havoc on the Jewish state..

Pretending that the ultra-right is the only component of Israel's Right is a straw man, and one that it is way past its due date. But Amoz Oz fully subscribes to it with his frankly absurd yarn of "a dictatorship of fanatic Jews will rule here temporarily, a dictatorship with racist features, a dictatorship that will suppress both the Arabs and its own Jewish opponents with an iron hand." I know he is a novelist, but I didn't know that adding fiction to one's argument augments it.

Oz' article is filled with similar straw men that have no basis in reality:

A great many Israelis, too many Israelis, believe – or are being brainwashed into believing – that if we only take a very big stick and beat the Arabs with it just one more time, very hard, they will take fright and once and for all let us be, and everything will be fine.

Really? What major figure, with a serious following, says this? Perhaps Oz gets his impression of the right wing from anonymous Facebook posts..

The right wing and the settlers tell us that we have a right to the whole Land of Israel. That we have a right to the Temple Mount. But what, actually, do they mean by the word “right”? A right is not what I want badly and also feel very strongly that I deserve: It is what others recognize as my right. If others do not recognize my right, or if only some of them recognize my right, then what I have is not a right but a demand.

That is precisely the difference between Ramle and Ramallah, between Haifa and Nablus, between Be’er Sheva and Hebron: The whole world, including most of the Arab and Muslim world (apart from Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran), recognizes today that Haifa and Be’er Sheva are ours. But no one in the world, other than the settlers and their supporters in the American far right, recognizes that Nablus and Ramallah belong to us. And that is the difference between a right and a demand.

What? American Jews want to take over Ramallah and Nablus? Outside of the right to worship at Josephs' Tomb, I certainly haven't heard anyone say they want to take over those areas again.

It is just another straw man.

But let's look at what Oz says about rights.

Perhaps in his narrow viewpoint, Jews do not have the "right" to the Temple Mount or to live in Gush Etzion. But neither do Palestinians.

Their demands for the holy places of Jerusalem and the rest of Judea and Samaria are not rights either - but demands. Oz doesn't explain how Palestinian demands are any more valid than Jewish demands, except for "the whole world says so so it must be true."

If there are competing demands on these areas, then the Israeli side must do its utmost to ensure that traditional holy sites and existing Jewish communities are protected and kept as part of Israel. That is not an option - that is what states do. They assert their claims vigorously to protect their heritage and their people.

But to people like Amoz Oz and the rest of the Haaretz crowd and the J-Streeters getting high on their hate of Likud this past weekend and the Peter Beinarts of the world believe that Palestinian demands are the same as a Palestinian veto on what the final borders would be.

All these people who claim to be "pro-Israel" are in fact doing everything they can to sabotage Israel's bargaining position and to tell the enemy (and, yes, they are and will remain the enemy) that they only have to wait long enough for these supposedly pro-Israel Jews to give them everything they demand eventually.

This isn't about having two states. It is about abject surrender to the enemy's maximal demands. It is the height of stupidity.

If you want straw men, here's one for you: A Palestinian state whose borders are exactly in Areas A and B.

But, I hear everyone sputter, that's impossible! They'd never accept that!

And here is the difference between the leftists who pretend that they are the only ones who accept the concept of two states and reality. The leftists are willing to accept all Palestinian Arab demands as if they are rights. But this minimal Palestine solution also solves the demography problem that everyone says is the biggest issue and a sure-fire bet for future Israeli apartheid.

If both solutions solve the demographic problem, which is apparently the key concern of Israelis worried about their future as a Jewish state, then why are so many of them demanding the maximal Palestine solution?

The reason is, very simply, because the Palestinians would never accept that solution.

Let's go beyond that glib answer, though. Why won't they accept that solution? Mostly because so many Israelis like Oz already are willing to give them so much more for free! If all Israeli Jews were as adamant about the lands of their ancestors as Palestinians are about wresting them from Jews, then the two-state solution would be much closer to reality.

If these supposed lovers of Israel really cared about the Jewish state as much as they pretend, they they would be in the forefront of fighting for the best possible outcome, not the worst.

You don't hear anyone from J-Street or Haaretz lamenting that Palestinians rejected previous peace offers - offers that would have solved the demographic problem very well, thank you. No, they still blame Israel for not going far enough. Which proves that, for these hypocrites, they don't give a damn about "apartheid" or the population issue - if they really did, they'd be the first ones to be writing articles about how Palestinian Arabs have blown their opportunities for peace, not how right-wing Jews are the bogeymen. They would be the first to insist that Palestinians for once make historic compromises, not that Jews keep doing that over and over under the everlasting threat of another Palestinian veto.

That is how people who are truly pro-Israel would act.

Instead, they cling to their straw men and hate.

One must wonder why that is.

03/24 Links Pt1: PA libel: Israel spreads drugs; WH official calls for end to ‘50-year occupation’

From Ian:

PA libel: Israel spreads drugs to Palestinian youth

As policy, the Palestinian Authority demonizes Israel, libeling Jews and Israelis as evil whose goal is to harm Palestinians, destroy the Al-Aqsa Mosque, abuse Palestinian prisoners and rule the world by allying themselves with terror organizations like Islamic State and the Muslim Brotherhood.
Earlier this month, a newsreader on official PA TV News reiterated one of the libels used by the PA to slander Israel, accusing Israel of intentionally spreading drugs among Palestinians to destroy the young generation:
PA TV newsreader: “PA TV has exposed that the occupation is using all means to destroy our people and perhaps the most striking one is the drowning of our youth in the swamp of [drug] addiction, after facilitating the entry of all kinds of drugs for our youth.” [Official PA TV, March 1, 2015]
Last year, on an official PA TV program for youth that discussed the drug problem in Palestinian society, the Commander of the Narcotics Division in the Jerusalem District Yasser Izzat denied any Palestinian responsibility, instead blaming Israel for causing the drug problem, stating that “the occupation has stolen the people... it is stealing the people by destroying them with drugs”:

PA TV libel: Israel causes drug addiction among Palestinian youth

Top White House official calls for end to ‘50-year occupation’

White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough called for the end of Israel’s “50-year occupation” and doubled down on the Obama administration’s critique of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in a warmly received speech to the lobbying group J Street in Washington Monday.
Speaking to the dovish group’s national conference, McDonough became the latest in a series of Washington officials to highlight the administration’s displeasure with Netanyahu, while also talking up the permanence of US-Israel ties, repeating Washington’s commitment to continued military, security and intelligence cooperation.
“No matter who leads Israel, America’s commitment to Israel’s security will never waiver,” McDonough said.
At the same time, McDonough said later, “an occupation that has lasted for 50 years must end,” referring to Israel’s 48-year hold on the West Bank. (h/t Yenta Press)

J Street Delegation Defaces Hillel International Headquarters

A delegation of college students attending J Street’s annual conference held a demonstration this afternoon outside the headquarters of Hillel International, the largest organization devoted to Jewish life on university campuses, to protest the decision by Eric Fingerhut, Hillel International’s CEO and President, to decline attending the conference.
Fingerhut withdrew from participating in the J Street convention because of “concerns regarding [his] participation amongst other speakers who have made highly inflammatory statements against the Jewish state,” as he said in a statement on March 9. Among those controversial figures named by Hillel International include Saeb Erekat, the Palestinian chief negotiator who has compared Israel to ISIS.
More than 1,000 students are attending the conference; around 200 of them attended the protest. The students listened as leaders from J Street U, J Street’s campus arm, spoke on a megaphone about the “massive failure of Jewish communal leadership” that Fingerhut’s declined attendance symbolized. Benjy Cannon, the president of J Street U, alleged that “right-wing donors” are constraining student voices. Cannon has been published in Haaretz and The Forward.
Cannon concluded his speech by demanding that the Hillel International board of directors hold an on-the-record meeting with J Street U representatives to explain their decision not to attend the J Street conference.

Here are some statistics that most "pro-Palestinian" groups won't bother to mention, from the Action Group of Palestinians in Syria's Facebook page:

At least 45 Palestinians were recently tortured to death, the number who have been tortured to death in Syrian prisons is now at 333.

Jordan had as many as 15,000 Palestinian refugees from Syria but that number has declined to a little over 10,000; many of them had been deported back to the country that they were fleeing. Many of the refugees go to Jordan pretending to be native Syrians so they won't be treated as badly as Jordan treats Palestinians.

At least 27,933 Syrian Palestinians have managed to sneak into Europe since the war started. I don't have the numbers of the scores who have drowned trying to reach Europe.

51,000 are in Lebanon and 6,000 in Egypt, where they are also in danger of being detained and deported.

172 have died so far from the siege of the Yarmouk camp in Syria, where there is no water or electricity.

ISM? Silent.

Free Gaza? Silent.

SJP? Silent.

Fatah's homepage? Silent.

An "analysis" from AP:

Is Israel a democracy? The answer is not so straightforward, and it increasingly matters given the diplomatic fallout over hardliner Benjamin Netanyahu's re-election last week.

The displeasure felt in some quarters over his win has placed front and center the world community's unwritten obligation to accept the results of a truly democratic vote.

In other words, the people who can't stand that Israelis democratically elected a party they loathe want to pretend that the votes don't matter.

For Israel, the argument is especially piquant, because its claim to be the only true democracy in the Middle East has been key to its branding and its vitally important claim on U.S. military, diplomatic and financial support. Israel's elections, from campaign rules to vote counts, are indeed not suspect.

Gee, thanks.

But with the occupation of the West Bank grinding on toward the half-century mark, and with Netanyahu's election-week suggestion that no change is imminent, hard questions arise.

But among Israelis themselves, there is increasing angst over the fact that their country of 8 million people also controls some 2.5 million West Bank Palestinians who have no voting rights for its parliament.

Who are these Israelis? The Ha'aretz crowd who are in a distinct minority! "

If the 2 million Palestinians of Gaza — a territory dominated indirectly by Israel — were added to the equation, then together with the 2 million Arab citizens of "Israel proper" the Holy Land would be home to a population of some 12 million, equally divided between Arabs and Jews.

Of the Arabs, only a third have voting rights. These are the "Israeli Arabs" who live in the areas that became Israel in the 1948-49 war, which established the country's borders.

OK, now we know the AP's rules of democracy: anyone who is "occupied" and anyone who is "dominated indirectly" must have voting rights or else the democracy is suspect.

Obviously, these new criteria for democracy apply to Israel and only Israel. Because in the past century the US has occupied Japan, the Philippines, parts of Germany and Austria, much of Iraq, Haiti and many other territories. That's over a hundred million people who were disenfranchised from voting in American elections at one time or another.

The US economically dominates Canada.

How come none of those countries were allowed to vote in US elections?

It is even worse, because as I have shown, some 10 million US citizens are not allowed to vote in national elections. In Israel, every citizen can vote.

If we apply consistent rules to AP's formulation of "democracy" then the US is anything but a democracy.

But the point of AP's "analysis" is not to define democracy. it is to delegitimize Israel. And as with so many criticisms of Israel, it applies rules to Israel that simply don't apply anywhere else in the world. Unsuspecting readers do not know enough to compare Israel with other democracies who have controlled unincorporated territories and AP sure isn't going to mention it, because it is not interested in "analysis."

The double standard towards the Jewish state is blatant. Too bad no AP reporters will analyze their own racism.

(h/t Anne, Bob K)

From the WSJ's Bret Stephens:

The humiliating denouement to America’s involvement in Yemen came over the weekend, when U.S. Special Forces were forced to evacuate a base from which they had operated against the local branch of al Qaeda. This is the same branch that claimed responsibility for the January attack on Charlie Hebdo and has long been considered to pose the most direct threat to Europe and the United States.

So who should Barack Obama be declaring war on in the Middle East other than the state of Israel?

There is an upside-down quality to this president’s world view. His administration is now on better terms with Iran—whose Houthi proxies, with the slogan “God is great, death to America, death to Israel, damn the Jews, power to Islam,” just deposed Yemen’s legitimate president—than it is with Israel. He claims we are winning the war against Islamic State even as the group continues to extend its reach into Libya, Yemen and Nigeria.

He treats Republicans in the Senate as an enemy when it comes to the Iranian nuclear negotiations, while treating the Russian foreign ministry as a diplomatic partner. He favors the moral legitimacy of the United Nations Security Council to that of the U.S. Congress. He is facilitating Bashar Assad’s war on his own people by targeting ISIS so the Syrian dictator can train his fire on our ostensible allies in the Free Syrian Army.

He was prepared to embrace a Muslim Brother as president of Egypt but maintains an arm’s-length relationship with his popular pro-American successor. He has no problem keeping company with Al Sharpton and tagging an American police department as comprehensively racist but is nothing if not adamant that the words “Islamic” and “terrorism” must on no account ever be conjoined. The deeper that Russian forces advance into Ukraine, the more they violate cease-fires, the weaker the Kiev government becomes, the more insistent he is that his response to Russia is working.

To adapt George Orwell’s motto for Oceania: Under Mr. Obama, friends are enemies, denial is wisdom, capitulation is victory.

The current victim of Mr. Obama’s moral inversions is the recently re-elected Israeli prime minister. Normally a sweeping democratic mandate reflects legitimacy, but not for Mr. Obama. Now we are treated to the astonishing spectacle in which Benjamin Netanyahu has become persona non grata for his comments doubting the current feasibility of a two-state solution. This, while his Palestinian counterpart Mahmoud Abbas is in the 11th year of his four-year term, without a murmur of protest from the White House.

It is true that Mr. Netanyahu made an ugly election-day remark about Israeli-Arab voters “coming out in droves to the polls,” thereby putting “the right-wing government in danger.” For this he has apologized, in person, to leaders of the Israeli-Arab community.

That’s more than can be said for Mr. Abbas, who last year threatened Israel with a global religious war if Jews were allowed to pray in the Temple Mount’s Al Aqsa mosque. “We will not allow our holy places to be contaminated,” the Palestinian Authority president said. The Obama administration insists that Mr. Abbas is “the best interlocutor Israel is ever going to have.”

Maybe that’s true, but if so it only underscores the point Mr. Netanyahu was making in the first place—and for which Mr. Obama now threatens a fundamental reassessment of U.S. relations with Israel. In 2014 Mr. Abbas agreed to a power-sharing agreement with Hamas, a deal breaker for any Israeli interested in peace. In 2010 he used the expiration of a 10-month Israeli settlement freeze as an excuse to abandon bilateral peace efforts. In 2008 he walked away from a statehood offer from then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. In 2000 he was with Yasser Arafat at Camp David when the Palestinians turned down a deal from Israel’s Ehud Barak.

And so on. For continuously rejecting good-faith Israeli offers, Mr. Abbas may be about to get his wish: a U.S. vote for Palestinian statehood at the United Nations. For tiring of constant Palestinian bad faith—and noting the fact—Israel will now be treated to pariah-nation status by Mr. Obama.
***

Here is my advice to the Israeli government, along with every other country being treated disdainfully by this crass administration: Repay contempt with contempt. Mr. Obama plays to classic bully type. He is abusive and surly only toward those he feels are either too weak, or too polite, to hit back.

The Saudis figured that out in 2013, after Mr. Obama failed to honor his promises on Syria; they turned down a seat on the Security Council, spoke openly about acquiring nuclear weapons from Pakistan and tanked the price of oil, mainly as a weapon against Iran. Now Mr. Obama is nothing if not solicitous of the Saudi highnesses.

The Israelis will need to chart their own path of resistance. On the Iranian nuclear deal, they may have to go rogue: Let’s hope their warnings have not been mere bluffs. Israel survived its first 19 years without meaningful U.S. patronage. For now, all it has to do is get through the next 22, admittedly long, months.

Jew-hating Arabs freak out over hasidim dancing in Jordan's airport (video)

This video, taken at Jordan's Queen Alia Airport, is causing an uproar in the Arab world:

Al Jazeera (Arabic) reports that this video has raised the ire of Arabs on social media. Some are saying that they are performing "Talmudic rituals."

Many Arabs attacked the airport management and the Jordanian government on Twitter for not taking punitive action against what they call a "settler group" which had been waiting for their plane to take-off.

Others asked if Israel would allow "Palestinian resistance activists" to dance in Ben Gurion airport.

Yet others expressed their general disgust at this video of celebrating Jews. One said "Jordanians support Hamas, and the Zionists are dancing on our dignity."

Another wrote, "They did not carry knives and a weapon, they are only carrying the blood of the Palestinian people." Another said, "The Al-Aqsa Mosque is desecrated every day, the while the Arabs are asleep." One more said "they killed our beloved and then danced on our land."

Airport officials were more sanguine. Queen Alia airport management downplayed the video, saying, "The video was very short, and no travelers complained.,...the management of the airport has not received a single complaint from any passenger on the Incident that took place." It also denied that the dances mentioned are "an expression of Jewish religious ritual." Because, of course, that would be terrible.

The spokeswoman stressed that the authorities asked them not to dance or create chaos inside the airport.

Many Breslov hasidim travel to Uman, Ukraine through Jordan's airport for pilgrimages to the gravesite of Rabbi Nachman of Breslov.

Every single song being sung is a wedding song, indicating that one of the passengers recently became engaged or married. There was nothing remotely Zionist or Israeli in these dances. But the idea of Jews dancing in Jordan is nothing less than horrible to many Arabs.

No black MKs from Meretz or the Zionist Union or Kulanu.

Only Likud.

Who are the racists again?

Spring appeal: Donate to EoZ!

(This post will be pasted on the top of the page for the day, scroll down to see newer articles.)

Throughout the quarter I received appeals for funds from other organizations.

One of them asked for money because they had helped to get people to complain to Amazon and Google to remove a violent anti-Israel videogame from their app stores.

I was the first one to report about that video game.

Similarly, I saw an appeal based on an organization debunking the Hamas lie that an Israeli dam had been opened to flood Gaza.

I was not only the first to debunk that myth this year, but I had debunked similar stories years ago.

When you read EoZ, you get many of these stories first, way before the mainstream media - stories that, in some ways, end up making a real difference.

This quarter was no exception:

EoZ was a major factor in the Jim Clancy meltdown that led to his being let go from CNN.
I prompted a New York Times (silent) correction where they used the nonsensical phrase "Israel's 1967 borders with Palestine."
I exposed some truly idiotic BDSers who thought that Sabra hummus was named after the Sabra and Shatila massacres in Lebanon, forcing them to remove their accusations.
I embarrassed left-wing NGO Gisha into reluctantly mentioning for the first time that Hamas was stopping people from leaving Gaza - supposedly the raison d'etre of the organization.
I exposed Fatah's poster that showed a pile of skulls with Stars of David, a story that did reach the mainstream media and forced Fatah to distance itself from the image - not very convincingly.

If you can find a paid reporter that has done that much in three months, please let me know.

But that isn't all.

I made posters:

I made cartoons:

I critiqued the media. I wrote original analyses, I pointed out hypocrisy, I exposed NGO bias. I explored history. My articles appeared or were linked to from Algemeiner, Jewish Press, TheBlaze and elsewhere. I was interviewed on Voice of Israel. My twitter follower count went past 14,000.

In three months I posted about 500 articles.

And this was a typical quarter for me.

This is besides the daily linkdumps by Ian, which are, hands down, the best daily round-up of stories about Israel and the Arab world that you can find anywhere.

EoZ is also now blessed with three regular weekly columnists: Mike Lumish, Vic Rosenthal and PreOccupied Territory.

If you think that this work is valuable, please consider donating - or, better yet, becoming a monthly subscriber - , using the PayPal buttons on the top-right column of my main webpage. Or, if you prefer, you can help by sending me an Amazon gift card.

Thanks again for your readership and for your support through the years. I do appreciate it.

03/23 Links Pt2: Red Cross at Hamas Uni; Ryan Bellerose: Why I Am Pro-Palestinian; LATMA Ep7

From Ian:

Ryan Bellerose: Why I Am Pro-Palestinian

We need more people to start using their brains. If there was a Palestinian state declared tomorrow, do you honestly believe the PEOPLE in “Palestine” would gain anything? Has the PA ever done anything that suggest competent governance? Do you think Hamas has? If they were to be GIVEN a State without being held to some accountability, we would be looking at a corrupt inept state for decades, with no chance at representative government, and damn sure no chance of real peace without violence. This is fact not opinion. Fact based on careful analysis of previous situations like this one.
There is hope. There are now Palestinans who are speaking up and while they may not be “Pro-Israel,” they are not ANTI Israel which until now has been the truth behind this pro-Palestinian movement. By speaking up they risk a lot of persecution and even murder. The thing is, without them speaking up, I would assume that Palestinians are OK with Hamas and Fatah speaking for them, OK with the rife corruption that is endemic in the Palestinian government and OK with trying to kill Jews constantly.
I believe that Palestinians will eventually find a leader who doesn’t want to perpetuate the conflict to fatten his own wallet with the skimming of aid money. Just because it hasn’t happened yet doesn’t mean we cannot hope. But my support of the PEOPLE in Palestine is based on what I think is best for them long term and I believe that they will need to be part of Israel eventually, but must show that they belong and they understand they belong before that can even be discussed.
Israel is a singular place, a place where people are allowed to worship God as they see fit, where women are respected and where gay rights are not just words but actions. It is the only true democracy in the Middle East and most importantly the people have demonstrated their moral clarity on several occasions. That alone should be enough for us to be very careful about lecturing Israelis on doing what we want them to do. Most of them understand that what’s best for the Arabs in Judeah and Samaria will also be what’s best for Israel and that’s not just giving it up but building it up, making it into a thriving region that is part of a vibrant and peaceful nation. Most Arabs seem to want that, at least the ones not living outside of those borders who just want to see dead Jews.

Ryan Bellerose discusses the parallels between the indigenous struggles in North America and Israel.
Video: Ryan Bellerose at CIJR full discussion 110min

Ryan Bellerose CIJR Highlights

Red Cross Cooperating with Hamas-Affiliated University

The faculty of Sharia (Islamic law) at the Hamas-affiliated Islamic University in Gaza is preparing to hold an international conference in cooperation with the International Committee of the Red Cross on the subject of international humanitarian law in light of Islamic Sharia.
The conference is scheduled to take place on October 13 and 14 this year, according to a joint ad of the Red Cross and the Islamic University, which appeared in the Hamas-affiliated Palestine newspaper on Sunday.
According to the ad, the first session of the conference will deal with humanitarian issues. The second session will discuss the basic principles in the management of armed conflicts, the third session will deal with victims’ rights and measures for their protection during armed conflict, and the fourth session will deal with guarantees for the implementation of the principles of the management of armed conflict and modern challenges.
All the sessions will examine these issues according to Sharia law and international humanitarian law, the ad states.
The cooperation with the Red Cross is puzzling given that the Islamic University is considered a stronghold of Hamas and, according to Israeli intelligence, Hamas uses it to develop its rocket arsenal.

LATMA: We'll be the Judge, Episode 7

The Seven episode of the Israeli satire program "We'll be the Judge," from the creators of Latma's Tribal Update, Israel Channel 1, March 19, 2015.

JTA has a very interesting article today about how traditional Christian sculptures, still visible in Europe, show antisemitic motifs.

One of the examples they give is very instructive:

Notre Dame Cathedral in the heart of Paris is among the most visited sites on the planet and a splendid example of Gothic architecture

Each year, millions flock to admire and photograph its flying buttresses and statuary, yet few take any real notice of two prominent female statues on either side of the main entrance. The one on the left is dressed in fine clothing and bathed in light, while the one on the right is disheveled, with a large snake draped over her eyes like a blindfold.

The statues, known as Ecclesia and Sinagoga, respectively, and generally found in juxtaposition, are a common motif in medieval art and represent the Christian theological concept known as supercessionism, whereby the Church is triumphant and the Synagogue defeated.

Sinagoga is depicted here with head bowed, broken staff, the tablets of the law slipping from her hand and a fallen crown at her feet. Ecclesia stands upright with crowned head and carries a chalice and a staff adorned with the cross.

Wikipedia adds:

The figures reflect the Christian belief, sometimes called Supersessionism, that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, and that Judaism as a religion was therefore made unnecessary, by its own tenets, once Christianity was established, and that all Jews should convert. Today opposed by dual-covenant theology, this belief was universal in the medieval church. Synagoga's blindfold reflected the refusal of medieval Jews to "see" this point, which was regarded as stubborn.

The sculpted portal figures are generally found on the cathedrals of larger cities in northern Europe that had significant Jewish communities, especially in Germany, and apart from their theological significance, were certainly also intended to remind Jews of their place in a Christian society, by projecting "an ideal of Jewish submission within an ideally ordered Christian realm.

The point of Synagoga is not to assert the Church's superiority - its presence in cities with large Jewish populations prove that the intent is to prove Judaism's inferiority, to humiliate Jews.

Humiliating others is certain indicator of low self-esteem.

Supersessionism holds that the continued existence of Jews is an anomaly. Jews were already second class citizens, but that wasn't enough. This artwork indicates not only that Jews should be subjugated, but that they are mentally ill for not embracing the obvious truth that their belief system has no legitimacy.

The very existence of vibrant Jewish communities in Christian Europe disproved the basis of supersessionism, and these elaborate sculptures and paintings and stained glass windows were meant to make Christians feel better by putting down Jews who somehow managed not to disappear as supersessionism would predict.

It is hardly surprising that the most antisemitic and anti-Zionist churches of today are the ones who still cling to supercessionism. Nor is it surprising that supersessionism is a keystone of the Palestinian Christian community, which embraced this philosophy in the Kairos document.

This attitude is more extreme than traditional dhimmitude. Muslims think that Jews have a place in society, but that society is run by Muslims and Jews must mind their second-class status. It isn't that they don't belong in society, they just have to know their place.

The proper analogy isn't between Christian xupersessionist theology and dhimmitude; it is between supersessionist attitudes towards Jews and Muslim attitudes towards Israel.

The existence of a Jewish state is the same challenge to the Muslim worldview that the existence of Jews is to Christian supersessionists. In both cases the very sight of the offending entity - Israel or Jews - is an intense source of shame, because it cuts to the heart of the belief systems. In both cases, they must be defeated in order to restore self-esteem and prove that their beliefs have validity.

One can say the same about how the existence of the Jewish people is a challenge to universalist ideology that cannot abide that different groups of people are really different, and no one symbolizes that better than the Jews.

Greater minds than mine have spent countless years pondering the nature of Jew-hatred. I think that the inability to reconcile one's own belief system with the very existence of Jews, or the existence of a Jewish nation, is a very good first step.to understanding the roots of antisemitism.

Walking down J-Street, part 1 (guest post)

EoZ reader Messy57 is at the J-Street conference in Washington. Here is his report from Saturday night:

I got an email a couple of weeks back informing me that the J Street “Progressive Zionist” organization, sort of like AIPAC’s evil twin (or good, depending on how you view things) was having it’s annual jamboree at the Walter Washington convention center in DC, and would I like to pay a ton of money to go?

I would not.( Pay the ton of money that is.)
.
So, as I do on occasion, I filled out the press form and sent a bunch of digital clippings. They gave me a ticket. Even better, KAYAK was able to get me a $150 round trip flight to DC. Another sixty bucks for two nights at the youth hostel next to the Convention center and off I went….

Day One

“Do you have a card” she asked.

“No,” I replied, “why?”

“If you’re a journalist I need to see your business card in order to talk to you.”

She was a student, you see. She had taken a training course before she came here and was told to be suspicious of skeevy old men with press badges and was told to get the business card and give it to the secret police (or whatever J street calls them). I said there was no reason, because I was only making conversation.

She gave me a very dirty look. I could understand, sort of. Netanyahu had just won the election and everyone was to some extent angry and depressed. However they did try to look cheerful. The opening ceremonies were starting soon and I headed up to take my seat.

The first two rows of seats in the grand ballroom were in fact circular tables. I searched around for a while and got a seat with a decent view. The rest of the people around my table were middle aged, behind us were the kids, allegedly there were about a thousand of them from all around the country, and Toronto, Canada, and tonight, they were the stars of the show. Lights! Music!!!!! Here we go….

Onstage comes J-Street Morton Halperin, who gets a standing ovation. He thanks the crowd, and starts on a short and forgettable speech. He then starts talking about “J Street U”, which is their version of Hillel. There’s a fanfare and football music, a bunch of squeaky clean college students enter stage right looking like something out of the Brady Bunch, and in their peppiest voices they start the roll call of the universities. I’m not sure if it’s more of a high school pep rally or a political convention. Clearly this was the latter and goes on and on and on. . Then they announce the Hillels who decided to attend. Apparently the BDSers have somehow managed to split the movement, and the two organizations are actively feuding.

J Street, no matter what else you may have heard, is currently anti-BDS, they think it makes Bibi and his ilk look like victims and it leads to anti-Semitism., both of which are true.

There’s more football music and cheering as President Jeremy Ben Ami is introduced. He’s a thin and wiry gent, with a crooked smile and glasses, kind of nerdy. He starts thanking people like in an awards show, all the kids in general, and the senior staff in particular before he sheds his kindly persona and starts attacking Bibi before going after the rest of Likud, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and a whole bunch of other people and organizations.

The crowd loved it.

Then there was the “Kumbaya” story of two grandmas, one Jewish and one Palestinian, and how they called each other by phone as their governments bombed each other. Very sweet.

Finally there was Rabbi Rick Jacobs, President of the Union Reform Judaism. who gave an astoundingly good speech. He hit all the right points, wasn’t radical at all, and was almost thrilling. The crowd loved that too. Then came the cake.

We’d get to the really important stuff the following day.

03/23 Links Pt1: Vindictive Obama punishing Israel for reelecting Netanyahu; US boycotts UNHRC

From Ian:

Isi Leibler: Vindictive Obama punishing Israel for reelecting Netanyahu

Prior to the election, US President Barack Obama had already signaled his malicious intent by appointing Robert Malley, known for his hostility to Israel, as White House coordinator for the Middle East, and designated White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough as keynote speaker at the anti-Israel J Street Conference. Still smarting over Netanyahu’s address to Congress and having failed to bring about his downfall, Obama was clearly devastated by his spectacular electoral victory.
But in light of the fact that the electorate in the only democratic country in the region extended a clear vote of confidence in Netanyahu, it is anticipated that Israel’s long-standing ally – which purports to support democracy – will accept the will of the people in good faith.
Besides, an analysis of the votes indicates Netanyahu’s victory was anything but a lurch to the far Right. It was a vindication of the center-right, with the most radical party failing to meet the threshold and the other two more conservative parties being reduced from 25 to 13 seats.
Nevertheless, the US administration effectively declared war against Netanyahu. Obama grasped two remarks made by Netanyahu, somewhat out of context at the height of the election fever, to justify a veiled threat that the US would “reassess” relations with Israel, hinting that the US would punish Israel by failing to exercise its veto to protect Israel at the UN Security Council.
Netanyahu was condemned as a racist because, in an effort to jolt his supporters to vote, he drew attention to the massive effort funded from overseas to transport Arab voters to vote for the Joint Arab List, which includes supporters of Hamas and terrorism.

The Religious Dogma of Palestinian Statehood

In an unintentional but significant slip of the tongue, White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters that “it has been the policy of the United States for more than 20 years that a two-state solution is the goal…”
Actually, the first U.S. president to endorse a Palestinian state was George W. Bush, in 2002 -that is, thirteen years ago. So what does Earnest have in mind when he says “more than 20 years”? Apparently he’s referring to the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993, which was 22 years ago.
But wait a minute – the Oslo Accords said nothing about a Palestinian state. In fact, Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin went out of his way at the time to emphasize that the accords did not create a Palestinian state, but rather would create an experimental period in which we would see whether or not the Palestinians were genuinely ready to live in peace with Israel.
Now Josh Earnest appears to be confirming what many of us suspected all along: that the White House and the State Department were never really interested in testing the Palestinian Arabs, but wanted to use the Oslo process as a way to bring about a Palestinian state no matter what.
The Oslo process proved to be a complete failure, because the Palestinian Authority violated it with impunity. The PA sponsored mass violence against Israel (anybody remember the Second Intifada?). The PA organized massive arms smuggling operations (anybody remember the tons of weapons aboard the Palestinian ship, the Karine A, that Israel captured in 2002?). The PA sheltered fugitive terrorists, failed to disarm or outlaw terrorist groups, and refused to extradite terrorists to Israel. It educated an entire generation of Palestinian school children to hate Israel and glorify terrorism, and it relentlessly promoted anti-Israel and anti-Jewish incitement.

UN Palestinian Diplomat Refuses to Renounce Hamas

While at the same time not recognizing Israel as a Jewish state, Mansour pushed for a two-state solution.
"We are seeking peaceful, legal methods to seek accountability, to address these issues, and to fight for the right for the causes of the Palestinian people," Mansour insisted. He added, "Whether through the security council, which we have been blocked often, or through legitimate International Criminal Court or the International Court of Justice."
Mansour believes that Palestine is being "punished" for seeking a resolution and feels the message received is "go and fight." But, he assures, "We don't want to fight."
"We don't want to be like other states around us," Mansour charged.
Todd interjected, "If you don't want to do that, then are you going to renounce your partnership with Hamas?" Here is the rest of the conversation:

UN Palestinian Diplomat Refuses to Renounce Hamas

"The Pharaohs discovered Australia"

Never ending amusement in Muslim media.

During a recent TV debate on the destruction of antiquities by ISIS, Syrian political analyst Yahya Badr said that the Egyptian people was entitled to claim legal rights in Australia, since inscriptions in ancient hieroglyphics had been found near Sydney, indicating that the grandson of a pharoah had landed there. On the show, which aired on the Turkish TRT TV channel on March 6, Badr was introduced as owning the patent to mummy technology.

It sounds like Egyptians discovered America, too.

Australian media describe the hieroglyphics as fake.

ACADEMICS, archaeologists and other authorities believe Dr Hans-Dieter von Senff crosses the line from fact to fantasy in claiming Egyptians lived in the hills overlooking Woy Woy about 5000 years ago.

Despite precious little scholarly or government support from anywhere between Cairo and Sydney, the self-described ‘‘amateur Egyptologist’’ from Swansea is sticking to his theory.

The 72-year-old issued a media release nationally this week announcing the discovery of a mysterious stone chamber in a bushland setting at Kariong.

The site is already notorious due to about 100 hieroglyphic-style carvings on two sandstone walls.

About 15 metres long, the parallel walls feature depictions of owls, chickens, dogs, boats and stick men, among other things.

The NSW government doesn’t subscribe to any walk or talk like Egyptians.

Taking advice from Professor Nageeb Kanawati of Macquarie University and rock art conservation specialist David Lambert, the National Parks and Wildlife Service ‘‘believes that the hieroglyphs are not genuine and were constructed in the early 1980s’’.

Dr von Senff, a bus driver, graduated from the University of Newcastle with a PhD in 2006.

His doctoral thesis dealt with the problems of German reunification from a historical and literary perspective.

#WordsMatter: White House equally skeptical of Bibi's and Khamenei's words

As we've mentioned, the White House press secretary Josh Earnest expressed skepticism about Netanyahu's desire for a two-state solution by misunderstanding his remarks during his campaign and then dismissing his statement afterwards in favor of a two-state solution that ensures Israel's security as not being believable. "Words matter," the White House lectured Bibi.

It is often good advice to be skeptical of statements by politicians when they seem to contradict themselves, although in this case Bibi's words did not.

But is it wise to be skeptical when the dictator of a nation building nuclear weapons and ICBM's say "Death to America"?

In an address in Tehran on March 21, Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei responded to the crowds' chants of "Death to America" by saying: "Death to America, of course, because America is the principal element behind this pressure [i.e., the economic sanctions]." Khamenei said that Obama had said "some dishonest things" in his Nowruz address and that the American goal was "to turn the [Iranian] people against the system." The address was broadcast on the Iranian news channel IRINN.

It is not even worth mentioning when Khamenei's top aide says "We shall not rest until we raise the flag of Islam over the White House.”

The White House is skeptical of a democratic ally's peaceful intentions but equally skeptical of an avowed enemy's vow to destroy America.

In other words, the White House only believes that "words matter" when the skepticism fits their agenda. In this case, their viewpoint is that peaceful statements from Israel must be insulted and warmongering from Iran must be coddled.

(Bibi explained his words, and why they weren't contradictory, on NPR.)

How progressive!

A Sydney theatre has refused to rent its premises to a Jewish group on the grounds that their policy “does not support colonialism/Zionism”.

redrattler400In a brief email response to Shailee Mendelevich who wrote requesting to book the Red Rattler Theatre in Marrickville, ‘Red Rattler Team’ responded: “Our policy does not support colonialism/Zionism. Therefore we do not host groups that support the colonisation and occupation of Palestine.”

Mendelevich wrote to the theatre in her capacity as assistant director of Hillel at Sydney’s Shalom Institute. She told them in her letter that Hillel is not for profit organisation telling them “we have created a live storytelling series that features poetry, musicians and actors on stage, creating meaningful performances to educate the audience on the theme of the evening”.

She explained that Hillel “supports Jewish students and young adults.”

The matter was referred to The New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies whose CEO Vic Alhadeff wrote to Red Rattler.

Alhadeff told J-Wire: ” I wrote a respectful letter to the theatre, saying I would like to discuss the matter in order to resolve misconceptions on the part of their team – about the organisation which had approached them and about the position of the Jewish community in regard to Palestine and about Israel itself. ”

He added in his communication to the theatre: “To categorically reject an approach by a Jewish organisation to hire your premises because of a political position that your team holds in relation to an overseas conflict is at best ill-informed and at worst racist and discriminatory.

Alhadeff told J-Wire: ” Despite several calls to the theatre with a request to discuss and resolve the matter and explain Hillel’s and the community’s position on these issues, I have received no response either to my letter or to several calls to the theatre.”

He added: “It’s sad to see an artistic group practise outright discrimination and worse, importing divisiveness based on conflicts taking place far from Australia. We ought to be able to get along and work with each respectfully, despite political views or differences of opinion.”

Nowhere in that Hillel's vision or mission statement is Israel even mentioned.

The subject of the performance was to understand what it means to be a third generation Holocaust survivor and how it impacts future generations.

Here is The Red Rattler's performer policy:

The Red Rattler was set up as a space where racism, homophobia, transphobia and sexism are not welcome on stage, in the audience, at the door, and at the bar.

We ask you to join us in efforts to make this space welcoming, stimulating, and happiness producing to people regardless of their ethnicity, sexuality or gender.

Sadly, it has become apparent that we need to be more explicit about what it means not to be racist.

Racism includes things such as blackface performance or being derogatory towards people on the basis of their race. Blackface performance is not permitted at The Red Rattler.

Taking a self reflexive approach to our own practices is part of anti-racist strategy. One way of testing our performances can be to ask ourselves - if the room is all persons of that ethnicity, am I confident that my show is not racist?

There you go! Since Palestinians are largely Holocaust-deniers, and Hamas sympathizers are very upset at the very mention of the murder of millions of Jewish people, they would be uncomfortable sitting in the audience of such a performance and therefore it violates the Red Rattler's expansive definition of racism!

It all makes perfect sense if you are a sickening, disgusting Jew-hater pretending to be liberal.

The people behind the theatre are proud to describe themselves as "rats." That moniker is richly deserved.

UPDATE: Of course, after this story hit the world media, the Rats decided that this didn't look good and now say they have no problem with Jews.