Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Monday, February 01, 2016

02/01 Links Pt2: Natan Sharansky: Breaking the Silence Is No Human Rights Organization

From Ian:

Natan Sharansky: Breaking the Silence Is No Human Rights Organization - and I Should Know

Members and supporters of Breaking the Silence—the group of former Israeli soldiers who accuse the IDF of committing immoral and illegal acts in the West Bank—have on several occasions likened their campaign to that of the dissidents who fought for human rights in the Soviet Union. In 2010, for example, Breaking the Silence was on a short-list of three finalists for the European Parliament’s Sakharov Prize, which recognizes leading human-rights activists around the world, and defenders of the controversial nomination hailed the group as an heir to Andrei Sakharov’s legacy.
In this view, the struggle to end Israel’s military presence in the territories by bringing international pressure to bear on the Jewish state is analogous to the struggle to bring down the Iron Curtain by calling the world’s attention to Soviet repression.
Unfortunately, the comparison is deeply flawed. For one thing, it completely ignores the distinction—so clear and so important to Soviet dissidents—between dictatorship and democracy, and with it the fundamental differences between the Soviet Union and Israel. Soviet dissidents set out to democratize a dictatorial regime, to create the kind of representative institution with which Israel is already blessed. Because such institutions were entirely absent in the USSR, we had no choice but to rely on external forces to induce the regime to respond to our claims.
Breaking the Silence, by contrast, sets out to bypass an existing democratic government and resolve a controversial political issue by means of international pressure. It is of course legitimate to believe that Israel’s military presence in the West Bank should be ended immediately. But it is equally legitimate to believe that such a withdrawal would be dangerous and even catastrophic for the state. This is a political question that should be decided by Israel’s citizens through their elected representatives, not by a small group of self-appointed prophets and their chorus of foreign supporters.

Sharansky Breasts a Protest Against His Talk at Brown On Jewish Identity

Anyone who doubts the gravity of the threat to Israel and Jewish students on American college campuses could have stopped by the Brown University campus here on Thursday night.
Students and community members attempting to listen to a conversation about Jewish identity between actor Michael Douglas and Soviet dissident turned Israeli political figure Natan Sharansky had their event intruded on by loud chants of “free, free, Palestine” from protesters outside.
Don’t blame Brown. The event was crawling with university and city police, along with Mr. Sharansky’s formidable security detail. The protesters have as much right to speak on campus as Mr. Sharansky, 68, and Mr. Douglas, 71, do. Though they do not necessarily have the right to speak so loudly and closely as to drown out the Jewish identity event, or to distribute inside the lecture hall, as they did, a slickly worded handout accusing Israel of “ethnic cleansing” and libeling Mr. Sharansky as “an infamous anti-African racist” while falsely representing the flier as a “program addition.”
The protesters failed to stop Mr. Sharansky from delivering his message, though the noise they generated outside could be heard inside the lecture hall for what seemed like a long while.
But it’s nonetheless a sad moment for American higher education, for Israel, and for world Jewry when a campus conversation between an American actor with a Jewish identity and a human rights hero known for surviving nine years in the Soviet gulag is greeted — before it even happens — by an op-ed in the student newspaper summoning a rally “to speak out against this justification of Israeli crimes.” It’s a measure of the movement’s virulence that it targeted not an appearance by an Israeli general or a foreign policy talk but rather a discussion about Jewish identity.

JPost Editorial: French recognition

Neither the government in Ramallah nor the government in Gaza City has democratic legitimacy. Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority, has just entered the 11th year of a four-year term. Parliamentary elections have not been held in the West Bank or Gaza since 2006. And this deadlock has nothing to do with Israel.
The question arises: Why does France assume a lack of progress in hypothetical talks between Israel and the Palestinians would be Israel’s fault? Yes, there are partners in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s coalition who are adamantly opposed to a two-state solution, such as Bayit Yehudi. But Netanyahu has repeatedly stated his support for the idea and offered to meet with Abbas.
The world know what Israel is able to offer, based on the history of the Wye and Camp David negotiations. And it is a generous, reasonable proposal. If the Palestinians turned it down yet again, then wouldn’t France’s natural response be to condemn Palestinian intransigence? By threatening to unilaterally recognize a Palestinian state, the French announcement only ensures the Palestinians will dig their heels in further in their rejectionist stance.
No people has an unalienable right to statehood, particularly when this state would quickly become yet another of the many failed Arab states of the Middle East. National self-determination is a privilege that must be earned.
Palestinians have a lot of work to do before they are ready.
France should know this. Then again they should also know better than to provide a state welcome full of pomp and ceremony to the president of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

French Set Up Obama-Israel Fight

That’s where the lame duck Obama administration comes in.
The Palestinians presume that after more talks fail and the French join the chorus of nations recognizing their aspirations, the next step will be another battle at the United Nations. Up until now every attempt to force either Palestinian statehood or a requirement for an Israeli pullout from the West Bank and Jerusalem has been vetoed by the United States. But if Security Council were to declare Israel’s continued presence in the territories illegal — something that would make a travesty of international law as well as ensuring even more Palestinian terrorism rather than peace — that would be a serious escalation of the conflict. The fact that France, a permanent Security Council member, would be behind the effort might persuade Obama that the time would be ripe for an abandonment of the Israelis at the UN.
Despite the lip service he pays the relationship, Obama has been clearly itching for a chance to force Israel out of the territories in the vain expectation that this would encourage Palestinians to make peace. The administration’s endorsement of a European Union effort to label Israeli goods made in the West Bank and Jerusalem is not only hypocritical but also brings the West one crucial step closer to a boycott of Israel. A UNSC resolution on the West Bank would be the logical — if damaging — conclusion to be drawn from everything Obama has done and said about the Middle East.
Pundits may think the president would refrain from any move that could antagonize Jewish voters during the fall election campaign. But if such a resolution were to come up for a vote after Election Day in November there would be no political impediment to a U.S. move that would be the logical conclusion to an eight-year effort to delegitimize Israel’s negotiating stance and to create more “daylight” between the U.S. and Israel. That’s a scenario Israel and its friends ought to be worried about far more than a meaningless gesture by the French.

Misoziony in academia

Back in 2007, I coined the term "misoziony":

While the irrational hatred of Israel and Zionism is often a good indicator of a hatred of Jews as well, use of "anti-semitism" is often a distraction from the argument being made, and overuse of that term waters it down over time.
Misoziony , although I'm not sure how it is pronounced, is a word that may solve this problem. Miso- is a prefix, based on the Greek misos, that means "hatred." Misoziony - the hatred of Israel and Zionism - is a fundamentally irrational loathing that is just as disgusting as anti-semitism but without the baggage.
Misozionists like to say, for example, that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not anti-semitic because he allows a number of Jews to live in relative peace in Iran, as long as they keep in their place. Arguing that this is but a more subtle form of anti-semitism - which it is - takes away from the prime argument that Ahmadinejad singlemindedly wants to see the Israel utterly destroyed. Arab and Islamic anti-semitism is generally more subtle nowadays than their naked misoziony.
Hating Israel in grossly disproportionate ways compared to the behavior of any other nation is a sickness that is closely related to anti-semitism but it is not identical. Misoziony shows itself to be no less reprehensible than pure anti-semitism, because the desire to see the destruction of Israel is as disgusting as any bigotry.
Israel-bashers like to claim that Zionists use the term "anti-semitism" as a club to crush all criticism of Israel. The problem is, of course, that the same crowd uses the claim of Zionist use of anti-semitism as a means to avoid discussing real issues. The word misoziony can neatly solve that problem and can help re-focus the arguments back on their fundamentally untenable bases. Pointing out misoziony can help to sharpen the debate and point out the basic irrationality of the Israel-bashers.

It didn't catch on, of course, but I think it is still useful to describe things like this AP article:

Israeli anthropologist Dan Rabinowitz is a leader in his field, heading a prestigious school of environmental studies at Tel Aviv University, authoring dozens of publications and holding visiting teaching positions over the years at leading North American universities.
But the British-educated Rabinowitz fears that his younger counterparts may not enjoy the same professional opportunities for a very personal reason: They are Israeli.

As a global boycott movement against Israeli universities gains steam, Israeli professors say they are feeling the pressure from their colleagues overseas. Although the movement ostensibly targets universities, not individuals, Israeli academics say they are often shunned at the personal level. They experience snubs at academic conferences, struggle to get recommendations and can experience difficulty publishing their work in professional journals.

"This is highly personal and personalized," said Rabinowitz.

Peretz Lavie, president of the Technion, Israel's premier science and technology university, said the effect of such decisions has so far been minimal.

Nonetheless, Lavie said the boycott movement has become a top concern for Israeli university leaders, particularly as it gains support at the "ground level" from U.S. student unions and academic associations.
"There may be a domino effect," he said. "If we do not deal with it, it will be a major problem."
Lavie is now leading a battle against the boycott. While acknowledging that Israeli government policies are open to criticism, he said that holding universities responsible for them is unfair and asked why countries with abysmal human rights records, such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, have been spared.
"We have the feeling that these movements treat Israel differently than any other country in the world," he said.

Ya think?

Rabinowitz counts the November vote by the anthropological association as one of the most painful chapters of his career. He said he personally tried to alter the boycott resolution twice — only to be rejected with little or no debate. He said the rejection by his colleagues was a "defining moment" for him. In a statement, the association confirmed Rabinowitz's account, noting that the meeting was "highly charged."

Ed Liebow, the association's executive director, said the organization felt "a strong commitment" to take some sort of action. "The one thing we can't do is nothing," he said. The measure goes to the association's more than 10,000 members for a vote this spring.

Although the American anthropologists have never before proposed a boycott of academic institutions, the association said it commonly takes public stands against governments accused of restricting academic freedom. It recently sent a letter to leaders of Turkey, criticizing them for allegedly curbing scholars there.

Ilana Feldman, a professor of anthropology at George Washington University and a boycott supporter, said the proposal, if passed, would not impede professors "in any way" from working with Israeli scholars.

Rabinowitz, however, said it is impossible to distinguish between a person and his institution, which becomes part of one's professional identity.

Israeli academics say such feelings are increasingly common.

Rachelle Alterman, a professor emeritus of urban planning at the Technion, said she still has strong working relationships with colleagues around the world, but the pro-boycott camp is a "rising minority" in academia.

Alterman said she has begun to feel a "coldness" from some colleagues at conferences that was not there in the past. She said some colleagues refuse to attend conferences in Israel, and editors at professional journals tell her it is difficult to find people willing to review papers by Israeli academics.

"I call it the dark matter. It's there all the time, but elusive, hard to spot," she said.

In one recent case, a British colleague coolly rejected a request to assist one of her graduate students.

"I am afraid that as part of the institutional boycott being observed by some academics in relation to Israeli organisations I am unable to help with your request," the British professor wrote in an email.

And then, of course, everyone agrees who is the real evil in Israel:

Rabinowitz said the boycott efforts will backfire by undermining Israeli moderates and playing into the hands of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's hard-line government.
"It is the best present they can give Netanyahu and the radical right in Israel," he said.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

We've written in the past about Magda Haroun, the 63-year old head of Egypt's almost extinct Jewish community.

In an interview late last year, she shows again that no matter how much she is hated, she will always be loyal to Egypt:

With the growing nationalism in 1956, the situation became more difficult for the Egyptian Jews. President Jamal Abdel Nasser started a mass expulsion of Egyptian Jews in which some Jews were issued one-way travel documents, while others were stripped of their property and pressured to leave the country. Several Jews were arrested and Jewish businesses were seized by the government. Jewish bank accounts were confiscated and many Jews lost their jobs.

The few hundred that stayed after this campaign were subjugated to a serious crackdown in 1967. They were given the choice of leaving Egypt or remaining in prison. Most of them went straight to the airport, but Madga Haroun’s family was one of those very few who decided to stay. She was 15 in 1967, and her father was arrested along with all Jewish males between the ages of 18 and 60. “My father was Egyptian, and he did not do anything wrong. He shouldn’t have left and I am happy we stayed.”

She is happy that she stayed in a country that arrested her father for the crime of being Jewish. And she is now considered a leader of the community!

Haroun, her sisters and a few other women in the community ended up marrying non-Jews. “There were no male Jews left to marry,” Haroun says with a cynical smile, but, she continues “my first husband was a Muslim, and so are my daughters. My current husband is a Catholic, so in a way, we are the only house in Egypt where the three religions are living under one roof.”

Haroun herself is not particularly religious and she did not raise her daughters to be religious but she did ensure they learned about all three religions equally. They didn’t really have problems growing up with a Jewish mother, except when Haroun’s father died. “My daughters went to a French school, and nobody asked any questions until my father died. People started reading about it in media, so the parents of the students at school were aware that my daughter’s mom is Jewish. One day, she came to me and told me she hates me. I asked her why. She said, because you’re a Jewish whore.” ...

Many Egyptians are not aware that there is a Jewish community in Egypt, or that there ever was. “Sometimes when I say ‘our – or my – country’ during media interviews, the host will ask which country I mean. Can you believe it?” Haroun said that she is always faced with people thinking that she is Israeli, although she speaks Egyptian and has lived in Egypt all her life.

But Haroun recognizes this as mere ignorance, not antagonism.

Haroun has done everything that a good dhimmi should do: married a Muslim, raised daughters as Muslim, shown loyalty to the Muslim rulers even when they arrest her (anti-Zionist) father for being Jewish. And then there was this incident that I wrote about in 2013:

In 1954, Magda's older sister Mona became sick with leukemia. Mona was 4 years old at the time. Magda says that her father, Chehata, was crazy about Mona; the only treatment available in Egypt for the disease was blood transfusions and Chehata gave as much blood as he could.

Things got worse, and doctors told him that the only way tosave Mona's life was to travel to France to receive treatment there.

Egyptian authorities told Chehata that, as a Jew, he would not be allowed to return to Egypt if he took Mona out of the country.

He refused to accept that he could never go home again. And Mona died.

This is the country she is loyal to. To the end.

And her love of her Jewish heritage? Well, it has limits:

Her biggest concern is their heritage. There are 12 Synagogues in Egypt, 10 of which are under the umbrella of the Ministry of Antiquities, in addition to a vast amount of Torah scrolls and records. “We cannot practice our religion because there are no rabbis,” she says. When her sister died last year, Haroun had to invite a rabbi from France. “During holidays, we get together, cook and invite friends over. I am 63 years old and I am the youngest. We are seven old women, who are not very demanding, but we do not want to lose our heritage.”

Haroun has asked for help many times, and many International Jewish organizations have offered help, “but help always came with a price,” she says with a note of desperation. Most of the organizations wanted to take the scrolls and records. “These scrolls are Egyptian heritage and should stay in Egypt, as part of its diverse history. There is no way I am going to let them out of my country.”

One nation did offer to help. I mentioned in another 2013 article about Haroun, where she said that she will refuse Israeli offers of financial help for the renovation of Egypt's ancient Jewish synagogues.

The only nation in the region that would accept her as a full and equal citizen, and the only one that could adequately safeguard Egypt's extinct Jewish heritage, is the one that she refuses to accept help from, instead begging Egyptians who have abused her family for decades for help.

Jews need to realize that the only way to get respect from Arabs is by respecting themselves. We can see the results of Magdy Haroun's opposite approach, even if she is blind to it herself.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

02/01 Links Pt1: The U.S. Spies While Hamas Digs; Stop pretending terror attacks don’t target Jews

From Ian:

The U.S. Spies While Hamas Digs

What conclusions should we draw from this?
First, no one should be shocked. All nations spy on each other, including allies. Israel is still getting over the Jonathan Pollard scandal even though it took place over 30 years ago. Given the damage that foolish operation caused both for the U.S.-Israel alliance, it’s likely that the Jewish state hasn’t repeated the blunder and is keeping its word about not spying on the Americans. But although the White House continues to say that the U.S. doesn’t spy on everyone without a “specific, validated national security reason” for the effort, thanks to Snowden’s illegal leaking, we know that the U.S. devotes quite a lot of effort to spying on Israel. In particular, reports have told of the expenditure of a great deal of U.S. effort seeking to snoop on Prime Minister Netanyahu during his long argument with Obama over the Iran nuclear deal.
Second, from an Israeli frame of reference, there ought to be a hue and cry about the failures of its vaunted spooks. For decades, Israeli intelligence has had a legendary reputation that gave it enormous prestige abroad and its leaders tremendous influence at home. This persisted despite a history of intelligence catastrophes that often left the country surprised by technological advances on the part of its enemies. That doesn’t make them unique but it ought to remind Israelis that there is a reason why civilians should have the ultimate decision-making power over operations, not spies or generals.
This is especially relevant because a number of former heads of Israeli intelligence have taken on a political role in recent years, seeking changes in policy regarding the Palestinians and opposing even the idea of a strike on Iran despite support from elected leaders. History will tell whether or not they or Netanyahu was right. But this fiasco ought to put their claims to omniscience in perspective. Israeli intelligence is no more infallible or in possession of unique insight than the CIA. And no one, even those of us that greatly admire the work of the people who toil bravely for U.S. intelligence would like them to be in charge of American policymaking. Israel’s “Gatekeepers” need to account for their own failures (along with what are, no doubt, their many successes) before
Last, there is the question of how much effort the U.S. is expending on seeking to restrain Israeli measures of self-defense while largely ignoring the efforts of both Hezbollah and Hamas to prepare for a new war against the Jewish state.

PMW: Torture in Palestinian detention centers exposed by Palestinian human rights organization

Last month, the Palestinian organization the Independent Commission for Human Rights exposed that torture is being used in Palestinian Authority and Hamas detention centers in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip to make suspects confess during interrogations, the independent Palestinian news agency Ma'an reported.
General Director of the Independent Commission for Human Rights Dr. Ammar Dwaik explained that torture like "whippings, hanging a person from his hands while they are tied behind his back, verbal abuse, sleep deprivation and whipping the soles of feet" is being carried out in Palestinian detention centers by individuals despite the fact that it is against the law. The report stated that this happens with the knowledge of PA security forces. There were more complaints in the Gaza Strip than in the PA:
"The Independent Commission for Human Rights received 292 complaints from citizens regarding torture, maltreatment, and physical assault in the West Bank, and 928 in the Gaza Strip this year [2015]... most of the types of torture and physical assaults take place during demonstrations, detention, and interrogations in detention centers in order to extract confessions." [Ma'an, independent Palestinian news agency, Dec. 16, 2015]

PMW: Swedish MP questions aid to PA after PMW presentation

Following Palestinian Media Watch director Itamar Marcus' presentation of PMW findings on Palestinian Authority and Fatah hate incitement and terror promotion to opposition MPs, Swedish MP Mikael Oscarsson (Christian Democrats) called to reconsider Sweden's aid to the PA:
"The [Swedish] government has decided to double its aid to Palestine after the recognition [as a state], but we cannot just continue to give money without taking this hate propaganda into account."
[Världen Idag (Swedish daily),Jan. 20, 2016]
MP Oscarsson had invited Itamar Marcus to Swedish Parliament to inform Swedish MPs about the content of Palestinian messaging and its impact on terror and peace. MP Oscarsson suggested that because of Sweden's role as a major donor to the PA, it is also Sweden's obligation to question PA policies and conduct in light of PMW's "important information":
"The purpose of the meeting [with PMW's Itamar Marcus] was for the MPs to receive important information. Sweden is a large contributor to Palestine and therefore we must also present counterclaims [to the PA]." [Dagen (Swedish daily), Jan. 22, 2016]

From Egypt Independent:

Popular political cartoonist Islam Gawish was arrested and remanded in custody on Sunday, with officials saying it is because he ran an unlicesnced website and fans claiming it is because his political cartoons were critical of President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi.

Gawish, who is widely known for his cartoons published on al-Wara’a, was arrested at the office of a news website where he works. The Interior Ministry said in a statement the arrest was ordered because his website and Facebook page do not have licenses. Routers and processors belonging to the website were confiscated from the office.

Social network users attributed the action to Gawish’s popular, politically-critical cartoons on his Facebook page.

A co-admin for Gawish’s Facebook page quoted prosecutors as accusing him of using “counterfeit Windows copies” for his work and “running an unlicensed Facebook page”, an accusation that has been received with sarcasm by his fans.

If you take Egyptian officials' claims at face value, this means that every single Egyptian citizen must obtain a license before creating a Facebook account???

Egypt had 16 million Facebook users in 2014, and that ballooned to 27 million as of last November.

It seems unlikely that every one of them has applied for a license.

It does seem likely that Egypt uses this law, if it really exists, as a convenient reason to arrest people who say things it doesn't like.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Kevin Hart, comedian and actor, tweeted and Instagrammed this message on January 21 on the day that his latest movie opened in several markets including Israel. Here's the Instagram, which included a video (also saved here):

I found a fan who quoted the tweet:

Israel haters reacted negatively:

Apparently, Hart took this to heart. The tweet and Instagram post are now gone.

The haters are happy:

Did Hart cave to pressure from the haters? Unless he was hugely embarrassed at misspelling "Hungary," it sure appears that way.

(h/t E)

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

UN secretary General Ban Ki Moon wrote an op-ed in the New York Times, striking back at critics who said he was justifying terror - by justifying terror:

IN Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories, 2016 has begun much as 2015 ended — with unacceptable levels of violence and a polarized public discourse. That polarization showed itself in the halls of the United Nations last week when I pointed out a simple truth: History proves that people will always resist occupation.

Some sought to shoot the messenger — twisting my words into a misguided justification for violence. The stabbings, vehicle rammings and other attacks by Palestinians targeting Israeli civilians are reprehensible. So, too, are the incitement of violence and the glorification of killers.

Nothing excuses terrorism. I condemn it categorically. It is inconceivable, though, that security measures alone will stop the violence. As I warned the Security Council last week, Palestinian frustration and grievances are growing under the weight of nearly a half-century of occupation. Ignoring this won’t make it disappear. No one can deny that the everyday reality of occupation provokes anger and despair, which are major drivers of violence and extremism and undermine any hope of a negotiated two-state solution.

Time to play the substitution game and see if it also sounds like something Ban Ki Moon would say:

History proves that people will always resist being terrorized. No one can deny that the everyday reality of being targeted by knives, car rammings and shootings, not to mention bus bombings and other attacks on Israelis, provokes anger and despair, which are major drivers of violence and extremism and undermine any hope of a negotiated two-state solution.
History proves that people will always resist being unfairly blamed for double standards. No one can deny that the everyday reality of being vilified by the UN and Europe for things that are often not true, and always far out of proportion compared to every other nation, provokes anger and despair, which are major drivers of violence and extremism and undermine any hope of a negotiated two-state solution.
History proves that Jews will always resist antisemitism. No one can deny that the everyday reality of being the victim of pogroms, gas chambers and blood libels provokes anger and despair, which are major drivers of violence and extremism and undermine any hope of peace.

It doesn't quite flow, does it?

There are two underlying bigotries that even the Secretary General of the United Nations has deep down, despite a lifetime of studiously avoiding the public appearance of bias. One is that only Muslims are "understood" when they are violent - it is considered part of their culture. The other is that only violence against the Jewish state is justified, even if it is to be condemned - you will not hear Ban Ki Moon make the same kinds of statements about any Arab on Arab violence blaming the victims for forcing them to act this way.

In fact, this op-ed itself is in a way incitement to violence iitself. Let me explain

Israeli settlements keep expanding. The government has approved plans for over 150 new homes in illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank. Last month, 370 acres in the West Bank were declared “state land,” a status that typically leads to exclusive Israeli settler use.

At the same time, thousands of Palestinian homes in the West Bank risk demolition because of obstacles that may be legal on paper but are discriminatory in practice. Palestinians — especially young people — are losing hope over what seems a harsh, humiliating and endless occupation.

As we've recently learned, there had been a de facto building freeze in the settlements for nearly two years that the UN never acknowledged. But let's set that aside for now. Let's assume that Ban Ki Moon's description of the hopeless life of Palestinians is 100% accurate. He is saying that violence is understandable when you are the victim of:

Houses being built a few miles from your home.
Land being taken a few miles from your home.
Your illegally built home being at risk of being demolished.

Now compare these awful conditions with the everyday life of practically everyone in Africa, much of the Far East and essentially every citizen of an Arab state. Compare it to nations where you can be arrested and tortured for a Facebook post. Would Ban Ki Moon ever, in his wildest dreams, say that violence from people whose lives are immeasurably worse than that of Palestinians is understandable?

When the UN and EU say that Jews building homes in their ancestral lands is a reason for people to naturally turn to violence, it is causing those people to consider terrorism to be their right. By not expressing outright and unconditional outrage over Palestinian terrorism and incitement, the message that Ban Ki Moon is expressing is that, among all the conflicts in the world, this is the only one where violence can be blamed on the victims.

In light of that, Ban's "condemnation" rings hollow.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

EoZTV: Amnesty can't fight antisemitism but can buy an ad for the Terror Clown

Last year, at Amnesty International's annual conference, the only resolution to be voted down was one calling to fight antisemitism.

Yet Amnesty had no problem spending an estimated $10,000 to buy an ad to support a Palestinian clown in administrative detention - a clown who happens to feature terrorists and support for ethnically cleansing Jews on his Facebook page.

This story is discussed in the latest edition of EoZTV, along with the rallies supporting the Terror Clown throughout Europe.

(There were some sound problems with my microphone, so a few of my words are lost. Not sure why.)

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Hasby Awards - Best Speech

The Hasby Award for Best Speech of 2015 goes to....

Poster: Why does the media ignore Pal support for terror? (poster)

A poster I posted on Twitter last week that got shared fairly widely:

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

01/31 Links: Ban Ki-moon is Justifying terrorism; Where Providing Water Is a Crime

From Ian:

JPost Editorial: Justifying terrorism

The Anti-Defamation League demanded a clarification from Ban of his remarks, which it called “highly disturbing.”
CEO Jonathan Greenblatt said Ban’s remarks were “incredibly short-sighted.”
Like Lauder, Greenblatt warned of the likely consequences of Ban’s statement: “These comments will not only serve to further embolden Palestinians seeking to attack Israeli civilians, but also undermine the global struggle against terrorism by making inappropriate distinctions and rationalizations.”
Ban did not speak in his own defense, but his spokesman, Stéphane Dujarric, briefed reporters in New York on Wednesday. “Anyone is free to choose what they like or dislike from the secretary-general’s speeches. Words can continue to be twisted, but the grave reality cannot be obstructed,” he announced.
Moreover, Dujarric added, Ban “stands by every word” in his address to the Security Council. “He condemns the stabbings, vehicle attacks and shootings by Palestinians targeting Israeli civilians,” Dujarric said, repeating that dubious restriction about “targeting Israeli civilians.”
He added, apparently in Ban’s name, that “nothing justifies terrorism.” But this is precisely what his boss attempted to do. Since his spokesman has invited us “to work together to fight the sources and the causes that fuel that terrorism,” we should join the UN in the worldwide campaign it should launch to wipe out anti-Semitism.

David Collier: A letter to the University of Kent – antisemitism on campus

I wish to register a formal complaint against the university of Kent for allowing and promoting antisemitism within campus. In your university I heard mention of the ‘Elders of Zion’. A 100-year-old fake text that details the minutes of a non-existent meeting where Jewish leaders discussed their goal of global Jewish hegemony. It is a forgery responsible for spreading the disease of antisemitism and played a pivotal role everywhere that Jews were persecuted or slaughtered.
Hitler referenced the ‘Elders’ in Mein Kampf and it was taught as a factual document in Nazi schools. It has been claimed that the forgery served as the Nazis’ “warrant for genocide”. You can no more wave the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in my face than you can wave a swastika. There is no ‘context’ that allows for it. What I heard at an event on your campus was raw antisemitism.
Amira Hass said was that what we see today is the result of deliberate planning by a hidden group of Jews called the ‘Elders of Zion’. It was all planned. In a liberal democracy that bends to the will of the elected government, the idea of hidden plans and puppet masters is the stuff of conspiracy theorists. This is a conspiracy about Jews and secret plans for domination. You can listen to the comment itself here:

Richard Millett: I ask my question to Israeli Arab MK visiting London through a torrent of abuse.

So with two minutes left I rose and spoke. I just about managed to ask Dr. Yousef T. Jabareen how could he accuse Israel of oppressing its Arab citizens, of being undemocratic and of so underfunding the Israeli Arab education system when he himself was a Member of Parliament, a lecturer at the University of Haifa and Tel-Hai Academic College, had studied in Washington and was now here in London verbally attacking Israel?
I received such loud boos, hisses and abuse as I stood there that I swiftly took my seat. Needless to say I would have asked the same of Dr Durgham Saif, Professor at Al-Quds University in Abu-Dis, who also studied and lectured in Washington and who is a member of the Israeli Bar Association.
But by then I had already been shouted at by the Baroness for “disrespecting the meeting”.
In fairness to Dr Jabareen he listened to my question and answered, albeit unsatisfactorily. He simply complained that he was not allowed to visit the Al Aqsa Mosque and that many Israeli Arab leaders were banned from leaving Israel.
Meanwhile P21 itself is quickly becoming a hub of hate with constant anti-Israel lectures to the wider public. During the Q&A a young Romanian woman said she loved Jewish culture but not what Israel was doing to the Palestinians and she asked what she could do to help. Malia Bouattia said she should join the BDS movement.
One audience member did ask why we don’t hear from the other side to which Ben White, laughably, responded that Israel’s message is dominant in the media so there is no need to have any balance at events like today’s.

One of the most hysterical aspects of this political moment in the West is the phenomenon of blatant left-leaning racists who self-righteously claim to stand against racism.

The hypocrisy is both obvious and rich.

The most racist political movement in the West today, aside from political Islam, is western-progressivism, a political movement allegedly, and ironically, grounded in anti-racism. The western-progressive variety of racism, however, is not the old-timey, outright racism of the early-middle twentieth-century. It is not your grandfather's racism. It is not the racism of the Klan or the Nazis, but of what Dr. Manfred Gerstenfeld dubbed in 2012 "Humanitarian racism."

Contemporary humanitarian racism is something akin to late nineteenth-century imperial racism wherein the American elite, and others of the wealthy and white-skinned persuasion, told themselves that they had a moral obligation to take care of their "little brown brothers." They called it "white man's burden," Lloyd.

Gerstenfeld writes:

The basic views of humanitarian racists are very similar to those of the ugly type. They may claim, for example, that most contemporary problems of African states result from the colonial period, even if these countries have been independent for many decades. This in fact means that Africans cannot be responsible for their actions. The humanitarian racist’s worldview is as distorted as that of the ugly racist. It is not stated explicitly, but only implicitly in his words.

The humanitarian racist’s conclusion differs, however, from that of the ugly racist. He or she considers that as the non-white or weak cannot be held responsible for their acts, one should look away as often as possible even if they commit major crimes. Ugly racists fortunately can no longer get articles published in mainstream media, but humanitarian racists unfortunately are welcomed by them.

Not only are humanitarian racists welcome in western publishing houses, they are also welcome at the highest levels of western governments, including the White House. The Obama administration, for example, is determinedly racist. Not only is Barack Obama deeply skeptical of Jewish self-determination and self-defense on historically Jewish land, but he also considers people "of color," aside from Jews, to be mere victims of white colonial oppression and, therefore, like small children, not really responsible for their words and behavior.

How else to explain the fact that Obama pats the Iranians on the head, while giving them hundreds of billions of dollars, even as their leadership screeches for the death of America and the genocide of the Jews? How else does one explain the fact that the Obama administration supported the Muslim Brotherhood economically, militarily, and diplomatically, despite the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood not only called for the conquest of Jerusalem, but is the parent organization of al-Qaeda, and thus the grandparent of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS)?

And now we have the ongoing spectacle of one of the most anti-Semitic presidents since the UN's recognition of the State of Israel in 1948 constantly telling Jewish people how much he appreciates us and cares for us even as he perpetually kicks Israel in the teeth. This is a president of the United States who, much like Italian princes during the Medieval period, honestly believes that he has every right to tell Jewish people where we may, or may not, be allowed to live.

It is entirely outrageous, obviously anti-Semitic, and almost never commented upon.

And now this racist president of the United States has the temerity to stand up before the international Jewish community, at the Israeli embassy in Washington, D.C., on a day set aside for commemoration of the Holocaust, no less, and declares that "we are all Jews."

Well, that is very sweet, but not everyone seems to agree. Writing at Israellycool Varda Epstein tells us:

He was there to commemorate the Holocaust on a day the UN chose to be International Holocaust Day. Just as the President throws Israel under the bus but proves his love for the Jews by giving a speech at a place associated with the Jewish State, so too, the UN created a day to prove its empathy for Jewish victims, while thumbing its nose at Israel, by way of ignoring Israel’s chosen date for this celebration, Yom HaShoah.

And of course, the President’s speech on this day said one thing and meant another. He said:

“We are all Jews, because anti-Semitism is a distillation, an expression of an evil that runs through so much of human history, and if we do not answer that, we do not answer any other form of evil.”

To those who defend the President, these words mean that he identifies with the plight of Jews and is staunch in the fight against antisemitism.

But to people whose critical thinking skills remain intact, the president is saying, “Jews are nothing special. They are no different than anyone else. Antisemitism is not special or unique. It’s just another kind of racism, just a garden variety evil, no different than any other.”

The fact of the matter is that Barack Obama is neither a friend to the Jewish people nor a friend to the Jewish State of Israel. He is, in fact, a racist, but not merely toward Jews, but also toward non-white people, particularly those of the African or Middle Eastern varieties.

Toward us his racism is more traditional and what Gerstenfeld refers to as the "ugly variety." Toward other groups Obama's racism, like western-left racism, more generally, is of the "humanitarian" variety. There is, however, one thing that Obama's racism toward Jews and toward non-Jewish people "of color" have in common.

They are both characterized by treacly condescension.

Michael Lumish is a blogger at the Israel Thrives blog as well as a regular contributor/blogger at Times of Israel and Jews Down Under.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.