Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Sunday, November 19, 2017

11/19 Links: Nick Cave: BDS Movement is Responsible for My Coming to Israel; Iran’s Immoderate ‘Moderate’

From Ian:

IsraellyCool: Nick Cave: “In Certain Way, BDS Movement is Responsible for My Coming to Israel”

We are seeing more and more artists come to Israel and speak out strongly against BDS. But I have to admit – Nick Cave’s rejection of BDS is particularly satisfying, and not just because he’s a fellow Aussie.

He has actually thanked BDS for making him more determined to come perform herel!

Nick Cave decided to perform in Israel this week as a direct result of the attempt by the BDS movement to silence artists, the performer said on Sunday.

“In a certain way, the BDS movement is responsible for my coming to Israel,” Cave said at a press conference Sunday in Tel Aviv ahead of his two sold-out shows Sunday and Monday nights at the Menorah Mivtachim Arena.

The acclaimed Australian singer/songwriter said that a few years ago, British musician Brian Eno approached him about signing a pro-Palestinian petition that called for boycotting performances in Israel.

“I didn’t want to sign that petition. I didn’t connect to it, I don’t like lists,” said Cave, adding that he’s had a bad feeling, because despite not signing the petition, he hadn’t appeared in Israel for some 20 years.

“That made me feel like a coward, so as soon as I planned this tour, it was important for me to come out against this silencing of artists.

I like Israel and Israelis and it was important for me to do something.” Cave’s current tour in support of his latest album Skeleton Tree, the first since the accidental death of his 15-year-old son, has been meet with superlatives around the world.

That Nick Cave, he’s no bad seed.

Needless to say, Roger is going to be pissed!

JPost Editorial: Bigotry’s leader: Linda Sarsour to speak at antisemitism discussion

The New School, a Manhattan-based university, has aroused controversy over its choice of speakers to appear on a panel discussion about antisemitism given by a group that self-identifies as anti-Zionist and features BDS poster girl Linda Sarsour.

The event, titled “Antisemitism and the Struggle for Justice,” is scheduled for the end of this month and is sponsored in cooperation with the Jewish Voice for Peace and Jacobin Magazine, both of which promote the misguided causes of the alt-Left, one of which is its pretense that anti-Zionism is not antisemitism.

Sarsour is a well-known Muslim and Palestinian activist who supports a Palestinian state but denies Jews the right to national self-determination. Moreover, she has appeared alongside a convicted Palestinian terrorist murderer whom she has lauded for her “resistance” to the Zionist occupation.

Sarsour told an audience recently that she was “honored to be on this stage with Rasmea Odeh,” a member of the PFLP convicted in 1969 for her involvement in the bombing of a Jerusalem supermarket that murdered two university students and maimed nine more.

Jonathan Greenblatt, national director and CEO of the Anti-Defamation League, slammed the New School for agreeing to host Sarsour. “Having Linda Sarsour & head of JVP leading a panel on #antisemitism is like Oscar Meyer leading a panel on vegetarianism,” he wrote on Twitter. “These panelists know the issue, but unfortunately, from the perspective of fomenting it rather than fighting it.”

'A Palestinian state is a deathtrap for Israel'

The Sovereignty Movement founded by Women in Green is publishing a protest following the publication of the alleged principles of the Trump outline for a political settlement between Israel and the PA.

"Anyone who has forgotten: A Palestinian state between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River endangers the State of Israel. We are shocked by the weak memory that characterizes the planners of the deathtrap of the State of Israel."

"For all those who have forgotten the fundamental principles of Zionism, we will recall that the Land of Israel is our land, and the only way to lead to true peace is to apply Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria," say the leaders of the Sovereignty movement.

“An Israeli concession to the Zionist-historical principle that this land belongs to the people of Israel alone, will lead to further concessions as has been proven in the past. Israel is once again asked to continue to pay in the currency of territory for insignificant signatures of the Arab side on pieces of paper" says the Sovereignty movement "and reminds “ that there is no country in the world that desires to live that gives up its achievements in a war that was forced on it."

"Israel will not be able to exist in a reality where an Arab terror state is established in its heart, a state that will lead to the Hamas takeover of the territory, the massive emigration of millions of Arab refugees to that country that will arise out of nowhere with the end result that the Jewish demographic majority is lost between the sea and the Jordan. In addition such a state would be a security threat to the entrance to Israel, to the Ben-Gurion Airport that will be shut down, Arab missiles will be launched towards the center of Israel and and Iron Domes will become an integral part of the entire of the landscape.

Did the Sultan tell Herzl that he would rather die than give Palestine to Jews?

From Wikipedia:

During his rule, [Ottoman sultan] Abdul Hamid refused Theodor Herzl's offers to pay down a substantial portion of the Ottoman debt (150 million pounds sterling in gold) in exchange for a charter allowing the Zionists to settle in Palestine. He is famously quoted as telling Herzl's Emissary "as long as I am alive, I will not have our body divided, only our corpse they can divide."

Muslim sites have a variant of the story of the Sultan's valourous turning down money. Here is a fairly complete mythology from "The London Post:"

A little peak [sic] in the history shows how honorable people lived and die for truth and justice. In 1901 the Jewish banker Mizray Qrasow and two other Jewish influential leaders came to visit Sultan Abdul Hamid II(Turkish Sultan), they offered to give him :
1) Paying ALL the debts of the Uthmani Khilafah.
2) Building the Navy of the Ottoman state.
3) 35 Million Golden Leeras without interest to support the prosperity of the Uthmani Khilafah.

In Exchange for
1) Allowing Jews to visit Palestine anytime they please, and to stay as long as they want “to visit the holy sites.”
2) Allowing the Jews to build settlements where they live, and they wanted them to be located near Jerusalem.

Sultan Abdul Hamid II refused to even meet them, he sent his answer to them through Tahsin Pasha, and the answer was

“Tell those impolite Jews that the debts of the Uthmani state are not a shame, France has debts and that doesn’t effect it.Jerusalem became a part of the Islamic land when Khalifah Omar Bin Alkhattab took the city and I am not going to carry the historical shame of selling the holy lands to the Jews and betraying the responsibility and trust of my people. May the Jews keep their money, the Uthamani’s will not hide in castles built with the money of the enemies of Islam.”

He also told them to leave and never come back to meet him again.

The Jews did not give up on Abdul Hameed, later in the same year, 1901, the founder of the Zionist movement, Theodor Hertzl, visited Istanbul and tried to meet the Sultan. Sultan Abdul Hamid II refused to meet him and he told his Head Of The Ministers Council “Advise Dr. Hertzl not to take any further steps in his project. I can not give away a handful of the soil of this land for it is not my own, it is for all the Islamic ummah. The Islamic ummah that fought Jihad for the sake of this land and they have watered it with their blood. The Jews may keep their money and millions. If the Islamic Khilafah State is one day destroyed then they will be able to take Palestine without a price! But while I am alive, I would rather push a sword into my body than see the land of Palestine cut and given away from the Islamic State. This is something that will not be, I will not start cutting our bodies while we are alive.”

This entire story, especially the Sultan's supposed response to Herzl, is a complete myth.

Herzl did meet the Sultan, in May 1901. And I can find no record of anything close to what the Sultan supposedly said. The earliest mention I can find of this story is from a message board in 2000.

I cannot find a single book that mentions this story.

The American Jewish Yearbook at the time summarized Herzl's meeting this way:

The Jewish Encyclopedia, published in 1907, says the Sultan even gave a medal to Herzl!

A number of reasons are given for the failure of the negotiations, but the Sultan's undying love for Palestine is not one of them..

Interestingly, Hamas dramatized a TV version of the fake Sultan story in 2010.

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.

In a 2013 speech about the US air wars in the Middle East, President Obama said, "Before any strike is taken, there must be near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured -- the highest standard we can set."

Jeffrey Goldberg once interviewed CIA director John Brennan about President Obama's philosophy on airstrikes and drone strikes in various warsa and he echoed Obama's words. "The president requires near-certainty of no collateral damage. But if he believes it is necessary to act, he doesn’t hesitate.”

Indeed, when the US released reports of people killed by airstrikes in July 2016 it claimed an amazing ratio of 2581 combatants and only 116 non-combatants killed in Pakistan, Yemen and Africa, although it did not release figures from Iraq, Syria or Afghanistan.

These numbers, if true, would be an astonishing ratio of combatants to non-combatants.

Too bad that the US military is lying and Obama was responsible for thousands of civilian deaths that were never admitted.

The New York Times had a major story last week about civilian casualties in the war against ISIS, and it found over a lengthy investigation that showed:

We found that one in five of the coalition strikes we identified resulted in civilian death, a rate more than 31 times that acknowledged by the coalition. It is at such a distance from official claims that, in terms of civilian deaths, this may be the least transparent war in recent American history.

And in Afghanistan? Another report from 2015 found:

Drone strikes conducted by the United States during a 5-month-long campaign in Afghanistan caused the deaths of unintended targets nearly nine out of ten times, leaked intelligence documents suggest.

A Guardian report once found 1,147 people killed as the US was targeting only 41 men.

The New York Times in 2015 reported "Every independent investigation of the strikes has found far more civilian casualties than administration officials admit. Gradually, it has become clear that when operators in Nevada fire missiles into remote tribal territories on the other side of the world, they often do not know who they are killing, but are making an imperfect best guess."

The Military Times once found that there were thousands of US airstrikes that were never even reported to begin with, let alone their casualty counts!

The Intercept, examining a major document leak last year, said (as quoted in The Atlantic):

The documents show that the military designated people it killed in targeted strikes as EKIA—“enemy killed in action”—even if they were not the intended targets of the strike. Unless evidence posthumously emerged to prove the males killed were not terrorists or “unlawful enemy combatants,” EKIA remained their designation, according to the source. That process, he said, “is insane. But we’ve made ourselves comfortable with that. The intelligence community, JSOC, the CIA, and everybody that helps support and prop up these programs, they’re comfortable with that idea.”
The source described official U.S. government statements minimizing the number of civilian casualties inflicted by drone strikes as “exaggerating at best, if not outright lies.”

There are major takeaways from this.

One is that the US claims under the Obama administration of exceedingly few civilian casualties from airstrikes are simply lies.

Two is that the administration, which promised transparency, is anything but transparent on this topic.

When John Kerry derided Israel's performance in the last Gaza war by sarcastically calling Israeli airstrikes that killed civilians "a helluva pinpoint operation," he probably knew quite well that Israel's ratio of terrorist to civilian dead was at least as good as the US ratio. Which tells you about the intellectual honesty of John Kerry.

It is abundantly clear that the quality of Israel's transparency and investigations after each airstrike far exceeds that of the US even under Obama's restrictive rules on airstrikes. And it looks like the actual ratios of combatants to non-combatants is far better for Israel, since Israel never counts the families of terrorists killed in each airstrike as being combatants - and the US does!

Keep in mind that there is no evidence that the US is breaking international law guidelines in these cases. One is allowed to use the best intelligence one has in determining a target and likely collateral damage.

But isn't it funny that there is so much less attention paid on US airstrikes over years of fighting in multiple theatres than there has been on relatively short wars in Gaza? How there aren't any major noisy campaigns about US "war crimes" from NGOs?

The hypocrisy and double standards are, as usual, stunning. And they can only be explained if one considers the Jewish state to be uniquely evil before the first investigation is even started.

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.

Ma'an reports that Majed Faraj, head of the Palestinian intelligence service and a close confidant of Mahmoud Abbas, met with Hamas leadership in Gaza on Friday.

And they both reiterated their support for terror.

Both sides emphasized that the "weapons of the resistance are the right of the Palestinian people as long as the independent Palestinian state does not exist."

"Weapons of the resistance" are things like Qassam rockets, suicide bomb belts, bus bombs, and anti-tank weapons aimed at schoolbuses.

And this is the "peaceful, moderate" PA that is saying this.

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.

11/18 Links: Is Anti-Semitism the Only Bigotry That’s Subject to Debate?; Abrams: Riyadh Realpolitik

From Ian:

Is Anti-Semitism the Only Bigotry That’s Subject to Debate?

Earlier this week, Shiri Moshe of the Algemeiner reported that the president of the student group J Street U said that it is “unfair and unhelpful overreach” to describe those advocating for the destruction of Israel as anti-Semites as that would ignore “the nuances and sensitivities of a complicated political debate.” It isn’t clear what nuances there are when discussing the destruction of the world’s only Jewish nation.

Reporting on last month’s Grand Slam Judo Tournament hosted by the United Arab Emirates, The Washington Post reported that the UAE defied the International Judo Federation and refused to allow the Israeli athletes to identify their national team on their uniforms. Though the UAE asserted that it didn’t allow the display of Israeli symbols in order to protect the athletes, the Post noted that UAE maintains “no diplomatic ties with Israel.” Overall though, the Post characterized the banning of Israeli symbols to “international politics.” Really? Is any other nation in the world treated this way?

In August, The New York Times reported that two Iranian soccer players were banned for life from the national team, because the Greek team they played for had competed against an Israeli team. Critics of the move, according to the Times, “say the ban on competing against Israel has hurt the development of Iranian athletes.” And while the report acknowledges that Iran doesn’t recognize Israel, it failed to mention that its leaders regularly call for Israel’s destruction, a sign not of a diplomatic dispute but of deep-seated hatred.

The problem with the New School’s call for debate is that it obfuscates the issue. It allows individuals whose views are abhorrent to obtain a cover of respectability.

What we need is clarity, not debate.

When an individual, entity, or nation singles out Israel for criticism that it applies to no one else, or denies that Israel has a right to exist, they are anti-Semitic and are deserving of censure.

Holding anti-Semites accountable may not be nuanced, but there’s no reason that anti-Semitism should continue to be excused.

Richard Millet: Anti-Israel meeting at SOAS stopped by peaceful pro-Israel protest.

Whenever I ask a question at SOAS it’s usually accompanied by abuse coming my way. For example, after asking a perfectly reasonable question in 2012 SOAS lecturer Gilbert Achcar accused me of being a “professional disruptor” and then falsely accused me of leaving insulting messages on his phone.

On Tuesday night at SOAS it was completely different and uplifting.

The members of the panel were Tony Lerman and ex-teacher Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi. Chairing was academic Mike Cushman who has more than a touch of Larry David about him in both look and mannerism. The subject of the evening was a new book they had contributed to called On Antisemitism.

The room of 50 sat relatively quiet listening to Lerman explain how “non-violent activism” like boycott, divestment and sanctions againt Israel (BDS) are under attack in America. And he quoted Judith Butler who claims that accusations of antisemitism, like those against BDS and anti-Zionists, “are meant to cause pain.”

Lerman went on to claim that “supremacist Zionism” attacks Israel’s internal critics like B’tselem and Breaking The Silence and he attacked the “notorious definition of antisemitism” adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance which he felt was “an attack on pro-Palestinian activism”.

Wimborne-Idrissi read out her favourite parts of the book one of which was about how American Jews have now placed themselves within the “tent of whiteness” due to their identifying with a “white supremacist Israel dominated by white Ashkenazi Jews”.

Cushman allowed me to ask a question and so I put it to Lerman how it could be that BDS, which calls for the right of return of some five million so-called Palestinian refugees, can be considered anything other than violently antisemitic when such a return would result in the demographic demise of the only Jewish state.

British Activist Shows Ignorance of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
Top Pro-Palestinian activist explains why he's against Israel

We interview one of the UK's most prolific pro-Palestinian activists... the gaps in his knowledge will shock you. Meet Damian (@cockneyactivist), a left wing Englishman that has organised countless anti-Israel protests. After speaking to Damian at several demonstrations, we genuinely believe he means well and this comes across in the interview. However, we were shocked at the reasons he gave for his opposition to Israel and were alarmed at his lack of knowledge about the conflict. For someone that has spent years and years campaigning against Israel, he comes across as absolutely oblivious to much of the history of the Middle East, the suffering of the Jewish people, the arguments for Jewish statehood and the current reality in Israel. We can't help but think had he been exposed to less biased information, he could have become an ambassador for peace rather than fighting imaginary European colonisers.
To set the record straight:

- Very few Christians in the Middle East were originally Jewish.
- Very few Muslims were originally Jewish.
- Almost all Jews trace their roots back to Israel (according to most DNA studies)
- Jews are not white European colonisers.
- In contrast the Arabs were colonisers, they replaced the indigenous cultures and religions with Islam
- Israel is not a colony of Europe, it is an independent, multi-cultural democracy.
- The Jews that fled Europe were not white colonisers
- they were fleeing persecution.
- The majority (57%) of Jews in Israel are not Ashkenazi.

Archbishop Abdallah Julio Brunella of the Melkite Catholic Church in Jerusalem was interviewed by Al Quds. And true to form of all Christian leaders who count Palestinian Arabs as their subjects, he is unrelentingly anti-Israel.

We've seen this phenomenon before with the Palestinian Catholic leaders of various stripes.

Brunella said:

Christians have been subjected to widespread persecution in Palestine. In Jerusalem today the occupation threatens the Christian presence and the migrations do not stop because of the lack of opportunities for life.
We must support the elements of steadfastness for Christians in Palestine. They are an integral part of the Ummah. The Christian belongs to his Arabism before his church and he is facing the struggle of existence as is the situation of the Arab citizen. There is a systematic Israeli policy aimed at emptying the land of Palestine from all its components. The suffering of Christians in Palestine is no less than the suffering of Muslims and is the main reason behind their growing emigration.

No, the reason Christians are fleeing is Muslims, but Brunella is too frightened to say so. So he blames Jews.

• Palestine is the cradle of Christ, the place of Christ's crucifixion and resurrection, and the origin of the Christian religion to the world. The Christian roots in Palestine are as old as history, our Lord Christ was born in Bethlehem Palestine, and this blessed land is the land of all religions, and Christianity also has its roots in Palestine and on Arab land and authentic as Islam is authentic.
Hence, the relationship between Arab Christian and Arab Muslim is very important to the importance of history, and it is united under one slogan, to be or not to be.
Christianity is a dogma as it is Islam. It is very important to distinguish between religious affiliation and national belonging. There is a common past, a present and a future that is also common to us. Arab Christianity has its own destination and concepts. There is a malicious plan that targets all the Arab nation and aims to destroy the one nation.

Muslims hate Christians just as much as they hate Jews, but Brunella will never, ever admit it - because they own him.

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.

11/17 Links Pt2: German court rules Kuwaiti airline may ban Israeli passengers; The film that speaks truth to terror

From Ian:

'Watching the moon at night': The film that speaks truth to terror

A documentary about terror, especially if you have come perilously close to experiencing it in your own life or have lost people you love to it, as I have, can have you biting your lips, pressing your hand against your mouth or shutting your eyes to avoid horrific sights. None of those reactions are applicable to "Watching the Moon at Night: On terrorism and anti-Semitism," a film which instead, has you wiping unexpected tears of empathy from your eyes, feeling your heart break or taking deep breaths to overcome the despair brought on by thiinking too much about the state of the human race.

This unforgettable movie is not out to show you gory details of terror attacks, although, of course, it cannot avoid them completely. The film is meant to make you think, to stay with you after you leave the theater. And it does.

"Watching the Moon at Night" is filled with ordinary people, not terrorists, people whose world has alternated for years between shock and resignation at the senselessness, the uselessness, of what befell them on what should have been an ordinary day. Swedish filmmakers Bo Persson and Joanna Helander have, with great sensitivity, given those bereft by terror the opportunity to describe the indescribable, and the effect is much more powerful than scenes of actual terrorist attacks.

Unadorned narratives of loss and the geographic range in which it has been experienced, the cultural diversity the speakers display contrasted with the commonality of their sadness, make for a gripping way to expose the spreading scourge of terror permeating the period in which we live and the political attempts to justify it. For me, a neighbor of sunny Malki Roth whose Australian-born father Arnold speaks in the film, his words about the feeling of isolation since her murder in Jerusalem's Sbarro pizzeria at the age of 15, were particularly devastating.

Learn How to Make the Case for Israel, with Professor Alan Dershowitz

WATCH: SJWs Protesting 'Nazi' Ben Shapiro's Speech Are Confronted By Reporter. They're Totally Clueless.

On Monday, about 200 SJW protesters took to the campus of UCLA in an attempt to silence conservative writer and commentator Ben Shapiro. The protest was unsuccessful and Shapiro gave his speech, which was, ironically, about creeping fascism on campus.

The protesters engaging in the sort of behavior that Shapiro was warning against inside the lecture hall were confronted by right-wing journalist Austen Fletcher, known as Fleccas. They were about as incoherent and clueless as you might imagine.

Flooding the venue, protesters chanted loudly, "Nazis go home!" — (Shapiro is an Orthodox Jew) — "Right-wing bigots go away!" and "It isn't a debate when you're just spreading hate!"

"I don't think he should be able to speak. Ben Shapiro incites hate speech, he does not incite free speech," explained one clueless female protester.

"Donald Trump is worse than Hitler!" screamed another anti-free-speech college student. As noted by Fleccas, this chant, like the rest of them, seems misplaced (and insultingly inaccurate) considering Shapiro did not even vote for Trump.

"Just because somebody is wearing a suit, just because he looks like Richard Spencer, is wearing a haircut like the Hitler youth, doesn't mean they're right," said one male protester.

Yeah, apparently there's a strong stereotype that a person who has a "Hitler youth" haircut is always "right." Shapiro doesn't even have that haircut. The protester was also completely ignoring Shapiro's consistent condemnation of the alt-right, which has consistently targeted him.

"F*** Ben Shapiro and f*** Milo Yiannopoulos," screamed another protester, apparently totally ignorant of Shapiro's take on Yiannopoulos.

Other protesters trying to shut down Shapiro were confronted by pro-free-speech counter-protesters. When the protesters were asked what their beef was with Shapiro, they deflected to President Trump, gave no specific answer, and then fled the interaction.

Free Speech Protesters Can't Compete with Ben Shapiro Supporters at UCLA

11/17 Links Pt1: Two Wounded in in Gush Etzion Ramming Attack; Breaking the Silence and the EUs industry of lies

From Ian:

Two injured, one seriously, in West Bank car ramming; terrorist shot

A Palestinian terrorist rammed his car into two people, seriously injuring one of them, before getting shot while trying to stab soldiers in the central West Bank on Friday morning, the army said.

The driver of the vehicle, a 17-year-old who was not immediately named, rammed his car into the first victim, a 70-year-old man, who sustained a light head wound, at the Efrat South junction, medics said.

He continued down the road to the nearby Gush Etzion Junction where he hit another Israeli man, 35, according to the Magen David Adom ambulance service.

The second victim was initially said to have been lightly-to-moderately wounded, but the hospital later said his condition was serious, with a brain injury.

The army said the driver then got out of his car with a knife and tried to stab soldiers.

“The soldiers responded by firing towards the attacker, resulting in his injury,” the Israel Defense Forces said in a statement.

Palestinian Terrorist Had 'Big Smile on His Face,' Israeli Wounded in Gush Etzion Ramming Attack Recalls

Two Israeli civilians were wounded — one seriously — in a vehicular-ramming attack carried out by a Palestinian terrorist in the West Bank on Friday morning.

The assailant — a 17-year-old male from the city of Halhul, north of Hebron — was shot and detained by IDF soldiers at the Gush Etzion Junction after he left the van he was driving and tried to stab them.

The seriously wounded Israeli — 35-year-old Evven Ezer Holhering, a married father of six from Kiryat Arba — was transported to the Hadassah Ein Kerem Hospital in Jerusalem with a head injury. His wife, Miriam, has asked the people of Israel to pray for her husband.

Holhering is a member of the Bnei Menashe community, a group of Indian Jews who believe they are descendants of one of the ancient ten lost tribes of Israel.

David Ramati — a 70-year-old Israeli man who was lightly wounded in the attack — told reporters the terrorist “had a big smile on his face” before running into to him on the side of Route 60, the main north-south thoroughfare in the West Bank.

IDF enforces closure on West Bank hometown of car-rammer

The Israeli army on Friday set up checkpoints around the West Bank town of Halhul, the home of a Palestinian terrorist who earlier in the day rammed his car into two people, seriously injuring one of them, the military said.

The family of the terrorist was also detained for questioning, the army said.

Just after 6:30 a.m., the 17-year-old barreled his car into the first victim, a 70-year-old man, who sustained a light head wound, at the Efrat South Junction.

From his hospital bed, the first victim, David Ramati, described seeing the Palestinian terrorist, “with a big smile on his face,” driving toward him at some 100 kilometers (60 miles) an hour. Ramati said he had a pistol and tried to shoot the 17-year-old driver, but he was hit by the car before he could.

The terrorist continued down the road to the nearby Gush Etzion Junction where he hit and seriously injured another Israeli man, 35, according to the Magen David Adom ambulance service.

Wife of seriously wounded terror victim urges prayers for his life

The seriously injured victim of Friday’s car-ramming terror attack was named as Even Ezer Holaring, 35, from the Bnei Menashe community, and his wife urged people to pray for the father of five.

Holaring was seriously wounded when he was hit by a car driven by a Palestinian terrorist early in the morning as he stood at the Gush Etzion Junction south of Jerusalem in the West Bank.

“I am the wife of Even Ezer who was wounded in the attack this morning,” his wife said in a short video from the hospital. “His condition is very serious and I am asking every one to pray for him, Even Ezer, the son of Malka,” she said.

Holaring was taken for surgery with a head wound, surgeons at the Hadassah Hospital Ein Kerem in Jerusalem said.

“He suffered a head wound. He has an intracranial hemorrhage and will require brain surgery,” his doctor said. “He’s in serious condition, but he is stable.

"Defending" Palestinian children by turning them into martyrdom-seekers

Palestinian Media Watch reported last week:

For almost a decade, the Palestinian NGO Defence for Children International - Palestine (DCI-P) has unjustifiably been accusing Israel of breaching the rights of Palestinian minors who are arrested on suspicion of committing terror attacks. Most recently, DCI-P launched a campaign in the US and in Canada under the title "No Way to Treat a Child", whose goal is "to challenge and end Israel's prolonged military occupation of Palestinians by exposing widespread and systematic ill-treatment of Palestinian children in the Israeli military detention system."

Among other baseless claims, DCI-P argues that the Palestinian minors are arrested, interrogated in breach of all of their rights, prosecuted and sentenced to prison terms.

A recent interview with DCI-P's Accountability Program Director Ayed Abu Qteish on official PA TV, shows that the claims made by his own organization are false. Abu Qteish explained that Palestinian minors do in fact commit terror attacks, and they do it, not necessarily because they want to attack Israelis, but in order to enhance or maintain their status in Palestinian society.

Ayed Abu Qteish: "There are children who, when they were in prison, told the lawyer: 'I want to be imprisoned.' The first time [the child] was imprisoned, he didn't confess, and they released him because there was no evidence to convict him in the Israeli military court. The second time, there was no evidence either. The third time, he wanted to be imprisoned so that his image won't be hurt in the eyes of his friends, even though he is actually innocent... In several cases [Palestinian children] carried out stabbing operations because of the way the public looks at them. They realized 'the best way to clear myself of this image [of helping Israel] is to participate in resistance operations.'"

[Official PA TV, Personal Encounter, Oct. 11, 2017]

PMW correctly points out that this interview shows that, contrary to DCI-P's claims, Israel does not unjustly convict kids.

But I think the most important part of this is the sheer hypocrisy of DCI-P. They claim to "defend" Palestinian children's rights, but they have nothing to say about a society where the kids are brought up to hate. To lionize stabbers and suicide bombers. To aspire to martyrdom. To gain social status by becoming terrorists and criminals.

One would think that the defense of children would include a mention of these actual things that can incarcerate, injure or kill children. But DCI-P is not an organization that cares about helping children, it is only meant to attack Israel under the pretext of helping children.

It is a shame that most people cannot tell the difference.

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.

Israeli academic: "Israelis loving pizza proves they hate Arabs"

Yesterday I wrote about an absurd article in Arab America about how Arabs feel that Israeli Jews are engaging in cultural theft by incorporating "Palestinian" foods in their cuisine. For some reason, Polish or Russian or Moroccan foods are not "cultural theft" when Israelis eat them - but "Palestinian" foods are.

Now, I read that there was a conference on “Israeli Cuisine as a Reflection of Israeli Society” in Washington yesterday - and the same absurd accusations, and more, were made by moronic Israeli leftists who participated.

From JTA:

[A]ppropriation was very much the theme of the next panel, “Israeli-Arab Food Politics.”

“There is a lot of politics behind the food you eat,” said the moderator, Johanna Mendelson Forman, who teaches a course at American called Conflict Cuisine: An Introduction to War and Peace Around the Dinner Table. “The kitchen has become the venue of new foreign policy.”

The three social scientists on the panel — Nir Avieli, Ronald Ranta and Ronit Vered, all Israeli Jews — advanced the theme that there was an original sin to Israeli cuisine: the repression of its origins among Palestinians.

Some of their arguments were salient and recognizable to anyone who has lived in Israel. For instance, there’s the tendency for Israelis to refer to “Arab cuisine” — and not Palestinian — although there are dishes adopted by Israelis that are specifically indigenous to Palestinians, such as maqloubeh, a meat, rice and vegetable concoction. (Solomonov is an adamant exception and refers to an indigenous Palestinian cuisine that he has incorporated into his repertoire.)

It is hard to research the origins of certain foods. Maqloubeh is generally regarded nowadays as "Palestinian" but not universally - some people say it is Iraqi. Some say it is Jordanian. A version of the dish (same name which means "upside-down," , different recipe) was in a 13th century Baghdad cookbook. Is it such a crime to refer to dishes like these as "Arab?" It seems far more accurate, not an attempt to "erase" a culture.

On the contrary, the impression I get is that giving the "Palestinian" label to foods nowadays is far more of a political statement than Israelis referring to them as "Arab."

Other arguments from the academics, however, seemed a tad overeager to make a point about Israel and colonialism. Ranta, a lecturer on international relations at Kingston University in London, decried the “denial of an Arab Palestinian contribution” among Israelis to their cuisine, saying that the argument that many Jews of Middle East origin were likely to already be acquainted with the dishes was a “glaring example” of this denial.

Um....half of Israelis come from Sephardic parents. Going back to maqloubeh - they certainly ate it before Israeli chefs incorporated it in their menus.

These guys are nuts.

But the self-hating Israelis reach the height of absurdity here:

Avieli, the president of the Israeli Anthropological Association, said that pizza was the most popular food in Israel, suggesting it was because Israelis despise their neighbors and long to be European.
“They are in the Middle East, what can you do? Where they would like to be is southern Italy,” he said.

Yes, the president of the Israeli Anthropological Association claims that Israelis liking pizza means they long to be in Italy and despise where they live.

It takes an academic to say something so breathtakingly stupid.

And notice how the deranged hate of Israel manifests itself: When Israelis like Arab food, it is to culturally appropriate/steal it. When Israelis like non-Arab foods, it is because they hate Arabs.

The only hate that is evident at conferences like this is the hate against Israeli Jews.

The idea that people eat foods because they taste good is apparently way too difficult to digest for self-hating Israeli "scholars."

How these halfwits manage to draw salaries for their scholarship is truly a mystery.

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.

The 2016 FBI hate crime statistics are out, and as in every year, anti-Jewish incidents dwarf all other anti-religious incidents - combined.

684 of the 1273 anti-religion incidents were against Jews.

Anti-Muslim incidents have gone up significantly in the past few years, though. 381 of the incidents were anti-Muslim. That number is more than double the 154 in 2014. (The antisemitic incident number in 2014 was 609.)

Breaking down the incidents further, anti-Muslim incidents tended to be much more violent than anti-Jewish incidents. 127 of the anti-Muslim incidents were assault (aggravated or simple), as opposed to 73 of the anti-Jewish incidents.

On the flip side, the antisemitic incidents were concentrated in destruction/damage/vandalism (489) and intimidation (238).

I read this to mean that Muslims are more likely to become the victims of sudden rage when someone sees a recognizably Muslim person in the street, while Jews are much more likely to be the victims of those who want to target the larger Jewish community by targeting synagogues and Jewish cemeteries.

The FBI doesn't look at the religion of the offender, only the race, so it is not clear how much of the anti-Jewish crime is done by Christians or Muslims or anyone else.

It is interesting that the relative uptick of anti-Muslim crimes follows the warnings of "Islamophobia" we were hearing about in years past when such crimes were far less prevalent. Cause and effect are not easy to distinguish, but it is almost like the warnings of Islamophobia are becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.

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.

11/16 Links Pt2: U.S. Jews and Israel’s Right to Be Heard; Ben Shapiro: BDS is Antisemitism

From Ian:

Evelyn Gordon: U.S. Jews and Israel’s Right to Be Heard

The growing divide between Israeli and American Jews was a major topic of conversation at this week’s annual meeting of the Jewish Federations of North America. It was also the topic of a lengthy feature in Haaretz, which largely blamed the Israeli government. Inter alia, it quoted former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Daniel Shapiro as saying, in reference to that majority of American Jews who identify as non-Orthodox and politically liberal, “There is an idea that has some currency in certain circles around the Israeli government that says, ‘You know what, we can write off that segment of American Jewry because in a couple of generations their children or grandchildren will assimilate.’”

I agree that the idea of writing off this segment of American Jewry has some currency in Israel. But in most cases, it’s due less to fantasies about liberal Jews disappearing than to a belief that Israel will have to do without them whether it wants to or not, because liberal Jews can no longer be depended on for even the most minimal level of support. And by that, I don’t mean support for any specific Israeli policy, but for something far more basic: Israel’s right to be heard, by both Jewish and non-Jewish audiences.

Nothing better illustrates this than recent decisions by two campus Hillels to bar mainstream Israeli speakers from addressing Jewish students. At Princeton, it was Israel’s deputy foreign minister, Tzipi Hotovely, and at Stanford, it was a group of Israeli Arab veterans of the Israel Defense Forces. I can understand Hillel refusing to host speakers from the radical fringes. But how are Jewish students supposed to learn anything about Israel if campus Hillels won’t even let them hear from representatives of two of the country’s most mainstream institutions – its elected government and its army?

Both Hillels later termed their decisions a “mistake” – most likely under pressure from Hillel International, whose CEO, Eric Fingerhut, was the lead author on Princeton Hillel’s apology. But that doesn’t change the fact that at two leading universities on opposite sides of the country, the Hillel directors, both non-Orthodox rabbis, initially thought canceling the speeches in response to progressive students’ objections was a reasonable decision. Princeton’s Julie Roth thought it completely reasonable to deny her students the chance to hear an official Israeli government representative try to explain the government’s policies. And Stanford’s Jessica Kirschner – backed, incredibly, by the university’s “pro-Israel” association – thought it completely reasonable to deny her students the chance to hear from non-Jewish Israelis who don’t agree that Israel is an apartheid state.

Ben Shapiro: BDS is Antisemitism

A Leftist Crank on Fox News

There was no pushback from Carlson, usually known for his spunky, combative style. Nor did he bother to present a charitable version of the opposing argument. In the Washington Post, Brookings fellow and COMMENTARY contributor James Kirchick has written a strong brief for why the U.S. should make it harder for RT to access American airwaves. Yet I’m not quite persuaded of the wisdom of such restrictions. I worry about opening the door, even an inch, to government regulation of broadcast speech, even if that speech comes from an adversarial, autocratic regime. Perhaps such moves make sense in small, fragile, Kremlin-endangered states that lack a robust indigenous media. But in the U.S., with its large and diverse media market, the best antidote to Moscow’s lies is truthful reporting.

But never mind all that. What Blumenthal wanted to talk about were the real sources of malign foreign influence in Washington: the Jews. Or as Blumenthal put it to Carlson, “the Israel lobby and organizations like [the American Israel Public Affairs Committee], which have been promoting a humanitarian catastrophe in the Gaza Strip, war on Lebanon, war on Iran, which is [sic] not required for some reason to register as a foreign agent, and I don’t why that is.”

Carlson didn’t offer a single critical note in response to any of this. Instead, he went on to underscore Blumenthal’s points, raising a knowing eyebrow here and there as his guest cast the pro-Israel lobby–a domestic, small-“d” democratic movement reflecting a broad opinion consensus among U.S. voters–as equally if not more malign than Putin’s infowar operations. And Blumenthal said all this, unchallenged, not on Amy Goodman’s Democracy Now–but on Fox News.

The Blumenthal interview followed an earlier segment, in which Carlson approvingly quoted Noam Chomsky to the effect that American democracy represents a form of “manufactured consent”–i.e., that it is merely a more subtle form of dictatorship than those found in obviously unfree societies. I wonder: Which icon of leftist crankery will Carlson elevate next? Naomi Klein? Slavoj Zizek? The ghost of Howard Zinn? Tune in to Fox to find out.