Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Saturday, October 27, 2018

Jew-hatred is different from other hates

I'm reading various account and commentaries of the horrific shooting and massacre of Jews in synagogue in Pittsburgh today, and everyone is putting up their own political spin on the event. It is expected - and disgusting.

The suspect didn't target Jews because of "occupation" or because he was a Trump supporter (he wasn't) or because he had access to guns or because any Jews did anything to him personally. He is just an antisemite who is not sophisticated enough to couch his hate in terms like "anti-Zionist" or "anti-capitalist" or "pro-justice" or any other of the dozens of terms used nowadays to make Jew-hatred a little more palatable.

There are more crimes targeting Jews in America than crimes targeting all other religions combined. There is no common thread - the far-Left hates Jews, the far-Right hates Jews. Muslim Jew-hatred is "understood" and downpedaled by the Left. And people will be gleeful that today's murderer identifies with the far-Right, just as the Right will disavow their role in emboldening the hate on their side.

Antisemitism is not like other hates. There is no logic behind it, no justification for it. Jews aren't allowed to be in "our country" but are not allowed to be in their own country either. Assimilated Jews are as much targeted as religious Jews. Jews are vilified by extremists of all stripes.

Stop using this massacre as an excuse to pin this on ideological and political enemies. Every group has Jew-hatred associated with them in one way or another. If you truly care about Jew-hatred, root out antisemitism from among the groups that you identify with.

Don't pretend it isn't there....because it is.

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.

10/26 Links Pt2: Phillips: How the West has created antisemitism denial; Glick: What was Rabin’s legacy?; Liberation, Not Colonization, Motivated the Creation of the Jewish State

From Ian:

Melanie Phillips: How the West has created antisemitism denial

Among Democrats, it is commonplace to compare US President Donald Trump to Hitler and the Republicans to Nazis.

Dallas County Commissioner John Wiley Price produced an ad for the mid-term Congressional elections next month in which he compared Trump to Hitler.

On International Holocaust Remembrance Day, Democratic Representative Yvette Clarke stood in front of the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement office in Manhattan and declared: “We are standing in front of a building that has become the headquarters for the Gestapo of the United States of America.”

Even Jewish Democrats are guilty of this. Democratic Representative Stephen Cohen was forced to apologize after he likened the Republicans’ promotion of healthcare policy to the propaganda of Hitler’s henchman Joseph Goebbels.

If everyone’s a Nazi, the real Nazis stop being uniquely evil. They become instead Everyman. Thus the Holocaust is traduced, bad people get a free pass and the innocent are demonized.

The impulse behind Holocaust education and memorializing was noble and understandable. But it missed something crucial.

This was the need to teach the world about Jewish history in both the land of Israel and the Diaspora; to teach the world what it has done to the Jews over the course of recorded time; to teach the world how Judaism itself embodies a unique and unbreakable connection between the people, the religion and the land.

Judaism lies at the heart of western values. Yet it has been misrepresented and demonized by Christianity, Islam and secularism. It is that continuing ignorance and bigotry over Judaism itself which fuels the demonization of Israel, the misreading of the Holocaust and the return of open antisemitism.

In a culture framed by Holocaust memorializing, the West has itself become the avatar of antisemitism denial.

Caroline Glick: What was Rabin’s legacy?

In his speech before the Knesset, Rabin detailed his view of where things would lead. He did not believe that the end result of the Oslo process would be the establishment of a Palestinian state, much less a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital in control of all or the vast majority of the land in Judea, Samaria and Gaza.

Rabin not only opposed any compromise on sole Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem: He called for extending Israeli sovereignty to Ma’aleh Adumim and Givat Ze’ev, two major Israeli communities in Judea just north of the city.

He also called for extending Israeli sovereignty to Gush Etzion and other major Israeli communities south of Jerusalem, and for building settlement blocs throughout Judea and Samaria. He committed to take no action to curtail the expansion of Israeli communities, and specifically ruled out any construction freeze in those communities throughout the interim period. He also praised the Israeli communities in Gaza, signaling strongly that they would never be forsaken.

Rabin said that Israel’s eastern border would remain the Jordan Valley in perpetuity and defined the frontier in the broadest possible terms.

In short, depending on how you interpret his phrasing, Rabin was either expressing his support for Netanyahu’s vision of a demilitarized Palestinian state, or for Education Minister Naftali Bennett’s plan to apply Israeli sovereignty to all of Area C.

Either way, Rabin’s actual vision tells us something important about how the Left’s draconian restrictions on freedom of speech have harmed Israel. By shunting aside what Rabin actually stood for, and reinventing him as a leftist ideologue, the Left has cheapened and distorted the true significance of what he stood for while preventing Israel from correcting his mistakes and building on his successes.

Liberation, Not Colonization, Motivated the Creation of the Jewish State

If your child came home from college and said she was challenged by a classmate who claimed that Palestine is Arab land stolen by the Jews, could you provide her with a response?

For the 400 years before World War I, Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire, so it was owned by the Turks, not by the Arabs, let alone by the Arabs of Palestine. There was never a country called Palestine ruled by its own Arab inhabitants.

The original Zionists came to Palestine without the backing of any imperialist or colonialist power. They bought the land on which they settled.

Colonialism didn't bring Britain to Palestine. It conquered the land in World War I not from the Arabs but from Turkey, which had joined Britain's enemies in the war. The Arabs in Palestine fought for Turkey against Britain. The land was enemy territory.

Supporting Zionism appealed to Prime Minister David Lloyd George, Lord Balfour and other officials not just on strategic grounds, but also for moral reasons. They sympathized with the Jewish national cause. Zionism was an answer to the historical Jewish question, a way to remedy some of the harm shamefully done to the Jewish people over history.

And it would give Jews an opportunity to normalize their place in the world, by building up a national center and a refuge, a country in their ancient homeland where they could become the majority and enjoy self-determination as a people.

In 1919, the first Palestinian Congress declared that Palestine had never been divided from Syria and that Palestinians and Syrians were one people. Palestine's Arabs were not viewed by their own leaders as a separate nation.

Today, Israel announced that PM Netanyahu had made a "secret visit" to Oman to meet Sultan Qaboos and discuss regional issues.

It was covered pretty extensively in Oman's media:

Notably, Mahmoud Abbas also visited the Sultan earlier this week.

Oman released a statement about the two visits, saying "The visit of Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas to the Sultanate (October 21-23) and the visit of the Israeli Prime Minister, and His Majesty the Sultan’s audience to both of them have many positive implications about the role of the Sultanate in serving peace through dialogue, whether in the case of the Palestinian issue or in the case of Yemen, Libya and other Arab and regional issues. It reflects a deep faith in peace and efforts for stability and prosperity in all countries and people of the region and their aspiration for a better future."

But Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah party doesn't see it that way.

Mohamed Shtayyeh, Fatah Central Committee spokesman, said sadly, "Normalization has begun and the Arab peace initiative ended. The system of values and Arab political and social contracts also collapsed. And we have no one but ourselves. "

At the same time, Fatah also condemned the UAE and Qatar for hosting Israeli athletes at international competitions.

The Arab world is changing, yet the Palestinian leaders are still acting as if the Arab world is still fully behind them and will be ashamed to be within a hundred miles of an Israeli.

They are more afraid of the Trump peace plan than ever.

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.

10/26 Links Pt1: Netanyahu makes secret visit to Oman; The “Moderate Sunni Camp” – Does it Really Exist?; Jordan Renews Its Request to Build a Fifth Minaret on the Temple Mount

From Ian:

In dramatic sign of warming ties, Netanyahu makes secret visit to Oman

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made a secret visit to the Gulf nation of Oman on Friday — the first by an Israeli leader in over two decades, and a sign of warming ties between the Jewish state and the Sunni Arab world.

On Friday afternoon, his office surprisingly announced that Netanyahu and his wife Sara had just returned from an “official diplomatic visit” to Muscat, during which they met with Sultan Qaboos bin Said al Said.

“The Prime Minister’s visit is a significant step in implementing the policy outlined by Prime Minister Netanyahu on deepening relations with the states of the region while leveraging Israel’s advantages in security, technology and economic matters,” his office said in a statement.

The last visit by an Israeli leader to Oman took place in 1996, when Shimon Peres visited.

The Netanyahus were invited to Oman by the sultan, who has been ruling the Gulf state since 1970, “after lengthy contacts between the two countries,” the statement said.

A joint statement issued by Jerusalem and Muscat said the two leaders discussed “ways to advance the peace process in the Middle East as well as several matters of joint interest regarding the achievement of peace and stability in the Middle East.”

Netanyahu and his wife were accompanied to Muscat by Mossad Director Yossi Cohen, National Security Adviser Meir Ben-Shabbat, Foreign Ministry Director-General Yuval Rotem, the head of the Prime Minister’s staff, Yigal Horowitz, and the Prime Minister’s Military Secretary, Brig.-Gen. Avi Bluth.

PM Netanyahu returned from an official diplomatic visit to Oman where he met with Sultan Qaboos bin Said.
This visit is a significant step in implementing the policy outlined by PM Netanyahu on deepening relations with the states of the region while leveraging Israel's advantages pic.twitter.com/basy7da7JS
— PM of Israel (@IsraeliPM) October 26, 2018

This is a conflict over narratives. Israel needs to tell ours to Palestinians.

Yossi Klein Halevi is senior fellow at the Shalom Hartman Institute in Jerusalem and the author of the recent New York Times bestseller, ‘Letters to my Palestinian Neighbour’. In conversation with Fathom deputy editor Calev Ben-Dor, he sets out the main themes of his book: the need for both sides need to stop the war on the legitimacy of each other’s narrative, and the need for a radically new kind of Israeli-Palestinian conversation about the conflict based on respect and deep mutual recognition.

Telling our story

My book originated in the 1990s when I undertook a year-long journey into Palestinian society, specifically into its religious life, going to mosques and monasteries looking for shared devotional language with my neighbours. I was exposed to the Palestinian narrative and to Palestinian stories which deeply moved me and helped shape my thinking about the conflict. And in this book I’m asking my neighbours to hear my story – not through a tit-for-tat argument, but because minimal respect of the right of each side to tell its story is, I believe, a prerequisite for peace. This isn’t primarily a conflict over tangible issues like borders and settlements – those are the consequences of a deeper conflict over narratives. We’ve been fighting a hundred-year war of clashing narratives.

I felt the time had come for someone on the Israeli side to try to explain our story to our neighbours, to tell a story about who we are. So I told my own story – an American-born Jew who moved to Israel as part of a people returning home to a land that has been at the centre of its identity for 4000 years.

The book also came out of the realisation that the other side doesn’t know our story. The Palestinian media and school system overwhelmingly convey the message that Israelis and the Jewish people are not only thieves but also liars. They say we’ve invented our story, or that we have no story. That’s the message Palestinians receive on a daily basis. A young man in Hebron, the city with the longest Jewish history of any city anywhere, once told me that there were no Jews in the city until after 1967. But he was simply repeating what he’d been told his whole life.

One part of the Jewish community defends the Israeli, Zionist narrative which is under growing assault. Another part of the Jewish community defends the two-state solution and the hope for peace. The implicit premise of my book is that both these approaches are necessary and, more, they are complementary. If we don’t defend the integrity of the Israeli story and the legitimacy of the Jewish presence here, we’ll never reach peace. If the other side is convinced we have no story or roots here – which is what they hear over and over – peace will not be possible. How do you make peace with a non-existent illegitimate people?

A court ruling from the European Court of Human Rights today has very troubling implications.

I will try to keep as much context as I can from their press release:

Principal facts

The applicant, E.S., is an Austrian national who was born in 1971 and lives in Vienna (Austria). In October and November 2009, Mrs S. held two seminars entitled “Basic Information on Islam”, in which she discussed the marriage between the Prophet Muhammad and a six-year old girl, Aisha, which allegedly was consummated when she was nine. Inter alia, the applicant stated that Muhammad “liked to do it with children” and “... A 56-year-old and a six-year-old? ... What do we call it, if it is not paedophilia?”.

On 15 February 2011 the Vienna Regional Criminal Court found that these statements implied that Muhammad had had paedophilic tendencies, and convicted Mrs S. for disparaging religious doctrines. She was ordered to pay a fine of 480 euros and the costs of the proceedings. Mrs S. appealed but the Vienna Court of Appeal upheld the decision in December 2011, confirming in essence the lower court’s findings.

Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), Mrs S. complained that the domestic courts failed to address the substance of the impugned statements in the light of her right to freedom of expression....Lastly, Mrs S. submitted that religious groups had to tolerate even severe criticism.

The ruling is a little nuanced, and requires analysis:

The Court noted that those who choose to exercise the freedom to manifest their religion under Article 9 of the Convention could not expect to be exempt from criticism. They must tolerate and accept the denial by others of their religious beliefs. Only where expressions under Article 10 went beyond the limits of a critical denial, and certainly where they were likely to incite religious intolerance, might a State legitimately consider them to be incompatible with respect for the freedom of thought, conscience and religion and take proportionate restrictive measures.

In general, I agree with this. I don't like the "certainly" being in there because the only case where criticism goes beyond the limits of criticism is when it is incitement - without qualifying that the definition can become subject to political and not objective measures. Which is apparently what happened:

The Court observed also that the subject matter of the instant case was of a particularly sensitive nature, and that the (potential) effects of the impugned statements, to a certain degree, depended on the situation in the respective country where the statements were made, at the time and in the context they were made. Accordingly, it considered that the domestic authorities had a wide margin of appreciation in the instant case, as they were in a better position to evaluate which statements were likely to disturb the religious peace in their country.

Here's the crux of the question: Would the statements cause people to hate Islam and therefore be incited to violence, or would the statements upset Muslims and cause them to become violent?

If it is the latter, then the court is ruling that Muslims are unable to control themselves and to stop themselves from being violent, and they have special protection against people saying things that upset them.

The Court reiterated that it has distinguished in its case-law between statements of fact and value judgments. It emphasised that the truth of value judgments was not susceptible to proof. However, a value judgment without any factual basis to support it might be excessive.

Whatever the context, Muslims themselves admit that Mohammed had sex with a nine year old girl. No one should be precluded from talking about that and criticizing it unless they say "Attack Muslims because they support pedophilia." Nowhere does it appear that E.S. said anything close to that. She pointed out that his actions would be considered unacceptable today - and one can say the same about many things in the sacred texts of major religions.

The Court noted that the domestic courts comprehensively explained why they considered that the applicant’s statements had been capable of arousing justified indignation; specifically, they had not been made in an objective manner contributing to a debate of public interest (e.g. on child marriage), but could only be understood as having been aimed at demonstrating that Muhammad was not worthy of worship.

Here the formula for "statements were likely to disturb the religious peace in their country" is more clearly defined, and indeed it is protecting the feelings of the victims that is the deciding factor in whether speech is allowed.

This is a terrible mistake. Free speech is not free if one does not have the right to offend. I can find lots of web pages and cartoons ridiculing many organized religions; the court seems to say that freedom of expression is not defined by the speech itself but by the people who might be offended. This is discriminatory.

If someone would call Isaac a pedophile because of a Jewish midrashic story that he married Rebecca at the age of 3 - a direct analogy to the Mohammed story - there is no way that the ECHR would have said that the person should be fined. Because Jews wouldn't riot over that!

The Court found in conclusion that in the instant case the domestic courts carefully balanced the applicant’s right to freedom of expression with the rights of others to have their religious feelings protected, and to have religious peace preserved in Austrian society.

If people who are offended can quash speech, then it is not free speech. I do not know if there is a human right to have one's religious feelings protected; if there is then Muslims violate Jewish human rights every day that they worship in Jewish holy places that pre-date Islam.

This is a fundamentally flawed, and dangerous, decision that gives any religious group the right to limit their opponent's free speech rights by claiming that their feelings are being hurt. No, that is not what free speech means.

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.

Sadly, many shirtless Gaza protesters never get famous

Today, there is a new set of victims in Gaza.

As I mentioned yesterday, this photo of a "heroic" Gaza protester has gone viral.

The young man, improbably trying to use his sling when he has a flag in the other hand (how does he put the stone in while holding the flag? How can he avoid the sling hitting the flag? Why is he facing towards the sea, where the wind comes from, instead of towards Israel?) has become famous.

But what about the poor bare-chested protesters who did not get the viral treatment? How do you think they feel?

"Why didn't I think of having a sling?"

"The photographer could have waited until I stopped coughing"

Guy on right: "Teach me how to gain muscle tone."

"I thought the helmet made me look macho."

"I stepped on a nail!"

"Maybe the executioner look didn't work."

But at least the protesters have a good time:

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.

A member of the Revolutionary Council of Fatah movement and its spokesman Osama al-Qawasmi issued a press release saying that those who "smuggle" land to Israelis, directly or indirectly, are "spies and traitors to the religion, the land, the people, to the blood of the martyrs and to our brave families," and they will be "pursued by the curse of fate and become vile outcasts who will be haunted by their treachery everywhere they go until they reach a stage where they die."

On the other hand, those who resist the temptation to sell land to Jews instead purchase pride and dignity of his land and religion and reputation.

Al-Qawasmi also called on families of those who sold land to "repudiate the traitors who sold their consciences and who stand by the Israeli occupation against their people."

Just in case you think that he is only talking about Israelis, just imagine what would happen if an Arab in Jerusalem sold his house to an Israeli Arab.

Nothing.

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.

10/25 Links Pt2: The worst chapter in Palestinian schoolbooks; New Israel Fund Director: Grantees That Call Israel Colonial, Apartheid State Don’t Violate Red Lines

From Ian:

PMW: The worst chapter in Palestinian schoolbooks

If you want to know why Palestinian children believe that killing Israelis is model behavior, all you have to do is look at a chapter in one of their schoolbooks.

PA schoolbooks have been criticized ever since Palestinian Media Watch wrote the first report on them in 1998, and the newest books in some respects are the worst ever. However, one chapter stands out in its overt promotion of terrorism. This chapter, appearing in the fifth-grade Arabic Language book published in 2017, serves as a window to understanding the PA leadership’s profoundly twisted values.

The chapter starts innocently by stressing the importance of heroes to national identity and national pride: “Heroes have an important position in every nation… the people – even if they are divided over many things – they all agree regarding the pride in their heroes…”

The schoolbook continues and teaches students that feeling pride is not enough. Society takes numerous active steps to honor its heroes: “[We] sing their praise, learn the history of their lives, name our children after them, and name streets, squares, and prominent cultural sites after them…”

In short, society assures that heroes are never forgotten. They might have lived in earlier times, but by naming streets and squares after them and singing their praise, these heroes remain in Palestinian consciousness.

The next message is most important: The children are taught that these heroes are not merely memories of the past they are the role models for the future: “Every one of us wishes to be like them.”

PMW: “Zionist Christians” do “not belong to Christianity” according to Palestinian Christian leader

A Palestinian Christian leader has demonized Evangelical Christians as being "pulpits in the service of the Zionist enterprise." In fact, the Head of the Sebastia Diocese of the Greek Orthodox Church in Jerusalem Archbishop Atallah Hanna stated that "Evangelical Christians" or "Zionist Christians" do "not belong to Christianity," and that they "have no connection to the values of Christianity":

"Head of the Sebastia Diocese of the Greek Orthodox Church in Jerusalem Archbishop Atallah Hanna said that neither the Christian nor the church dictionary contain anything called 'Evangelical Christians' or 'Zionist Christians.' He added: 'The aforementioned do not belong to Christianity at all; they have no connection to the values of Christianity and to the evangelical principles that always prefer to identify with the deprived and ill-fated of the world. They are closer to Judaism and Zionism and have no connection to Christianity.'
Archbishop Hanna said: 'The Christian Evangelists are tantamount to pulpits in the service of the Zionist enterprise. They are enemies of the Christian values, and when they come to Palestine they do not visit the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and the Church of the Nativity, but rather the colonies located on the stolen lands of our people as a sign of solidarity with the occupation.'" [Official PA daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Sept. 24, 2018]

Palestinian Media Watch has reported on Hanna's activities in the past, among them visits to families of imprisoned terrorists and advocacy against "normalization" with Israel.

Yisrael Medad: A Jewish Polity

Who wrote:

1. Looking toward a land and a polity, our dispersed people in all the ends of the earth may share the dignity of a national life which has a voice among the peoples of the East and the West

2. There is store of wisdom among us to found a new Jewish polity, grand, simple, just, like the old--a republic where there is equality of protection, an equality which shone like a star on the forehead of our ancient community, and gave it more than the brightness of Western freedom amid the despotisms of the East. Then our race shall have an organic centre, a heart and brain to watch and guide and execute; the outraged Jew shall have a defense in the court of nations, as the outraged Englishmen of America. And the world will gain as Israel gains.

3. Let our wise and wealthy show themselves heroes. They have the memories of the East and West, and they have the full vision of a better...So will a new Judaea, poised between East and West--a covenant of reconciliation.

George Elliot in Daniel Deronda, 1876.

As if the British and the League of Nations didn't know what they were doing.

In a talk that former UN special rapporteur on human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories, Richard Falk, gave last February, he proved yet again that facts are not relevant to him.

He said that the Jewish state should still be destroyed demographically even if a Palestinian state were to be created today because of the "right of return."\

He also said that Palestinians have the "right to resist" and his context made it clear he meant with violence.

If that wasn't bad enough, afterwards he revealed how truly antisemitic he is:

Following Prof. Falk’s formal remarks, a questioner asked if in the case of Israel “apartheid” would be the correct term to apply, since the Jewish population of Israel it itself multi-ethnic and multi-racial, comprising not only Ashkenazic Jews from Northern and Eastern Europe, but Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews from the Mediterranean and Muslim lands, as well as Ethiopian and Indian Jews. Falk responded that Israeli law treats all these Jews the same, entitling them to the same rights and privileges that are denied to Palestinians, such as the sacred “right of return” to Israel by Jews, most of whose ancestors never inhabited Biblical Israel. “The whole rationale of Israel is to be a Jewish state, and they don’t fragment their own identity.”

Falk, by saying that most Jews do not descend from the Jews of the Bible, is apparently a believer of the discredited and ludicrous Khazar myth - the myth that is so convenient for other antisemites to delegitimize the right of Jews to define themselves as a people.

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.

Vic Rosenthal's Weekly Column

Author Naomi Ragen urges Diaspora Jews to “come home” to Israel, and describes her own feelings of the almost miraculous condition of being a Jew in the Jewish homeland:

I was walking down Prophets Street (Rehov Hanevi’im) in Jerusalem, thinking how lucky I was to be living my life in a place that has such a street. I was thinking how short life is, and how we live in such an incredibly special era, a time when miracles and prophecies are unfolding before our astonished eyes. You have only to read the Torah to see all that God predicted would happen to the Jewish people has happened and to realize that the time we are living in is when the good things that were promised are now coming true.

I too understand the feeling of experiencing the miraculous, even when I’m only in the somewhat decrepit shuk in Rehovot.

It’s not connected to religion, although it’s easier to observe the commandments in Israel where you are not always wondering where to find kosher food, and where people understand what Shabbat means, whether or not they keep it themselves.

From a religious point of view, the connection between the Jewish people and their land is obvious. The Torah is in large part a story about the relationship between, Hashem, the Jewish people, and the land of Israel. For secular people, especially those living in those parts of the diaspora where Jew-hatred is currently held at bay, it may not be evident. Some feel the connection and some don’t.

I have a good friend, who came to Israel from America close to 40 years ago. He is not observant. He will tell you that he is an atheist. We don’t talk about politics much, but I suspect he is significantly to the left of me. But he has a connection to the Jewish people, and for better or worse this is his home. He could have earned a good living in America or Europe, but he chose to be here. He feels the magic of living in a Jewish state, even if he wouldn’t express it like Ragen does. And he isn’t the only one that feels this way. The socialist kibbutzniks that played such a great role in the early days of the state also claimed to be atheists, but they loved the land of Israel and made great sacrifices for it.

But for some diaspora Jews, the Jewish homeland is not their homeland. There is something missing. It’s easy to find examples. Simone Zimmerman, the Jewish woman who leads the organization called “If Not Now,” accepts the Palestinian narrative of the conflict, calls Israel immoral and corrupt, and seemingly fails to notice the murderous behavior of Israel’s enemies. Jewish historian Hasia Diner feels “a sense of repulsion when [she enters] a synagogue in front of which the congregation has planted a sign reading, “We Stand With Israel.”

Zimmerman and Diner are strongly influenced by their progressive political perspective, but why did they choose it? And why did they choose to emphasize its anti-Israel aspects? I believe that it is impossible to adopt an ideology that is so one-sided, that so strongly condemns both the actions and the motives of a people, when you see yourself as a member of it. And they don’t, despite their public identification as Jews.

I greatly prefer someone like Adam Shapiro, co-founder of the International Solidarity Movement, the pro-Palestinian group that sent Rachel Corrie to her death under an IDF bulldozer. Shapiro believes that being Jewish is simply a matter of religion, and since he has no connection to Judaism, he is not a Jew. Hitler would have disagreed, but at least Shapiro is honest.

Zimmerman and Diner claim that they are acting in accordance with Jewish ethical principles. They are referring to the system of universalist ethics that underlies the social activism that has replaced ritual as Jewish observance for many liberal Jews. While it is certainly legitimate to practice a Judaism that emphasizes the prophetic tradition and deemphasizes ritual, it seems to me that when your ethical system elevates other groups over the Jewish people, then it can no longer be called a Jewish ethics.

And some diaspora Jews really do place the Jewish people at the bottom of their ladder of ethical priorities. Zimmerman says that “Jewish liberation is inextricably tied to the liberation of all people,” a statement which is clearly false. Is there a connection between the Jewish people and the persecuted Rohingya people of Myanmar, a country that has about 20 Jewish residents?

What she means is that in her eyes, the Jewish people are no more important than the Rohingya. Of course I agree with her that a Jewish life and a Rohingya life are equally valuable. But I care less about what happens to the Rohingya than the Jewish people, and I would expect them to feel the same about us. In any event, Zimmerman is a hypocrite: her activism is aimed primarily at opposing the state of the Jewish people, and she devotes little if any energy to helping the Rohingya.

For every Jew that supports the cause of the enemies of the Jewish people there are probably ten that are indifferent. Some just don’t think about it, some deny their Jewishness to escape antisemitism, and for some, the idea of being a part of a people that transcends politics doesn’t resonate, or is even abhorrent.

I think there is something – a spark or a gene, depending on the kind of language you prefer – that no matter where a Jew may be on the spectrum of observance, can act as a channel to the Jewish people and their homeland. You have it or you don’t. You are connected or you aren’t. And in the diaspora many people with Jewish parents, even synagogue members, simply aren’t. They are the ones who see Israel as “just another country.”

Moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt thinks that there are six inherent moral foundations that serve as the basis for our decisions about right and wrong, and good and evil: care, fairness, loyalty, authority, sanctity, and liberty. Cultures and individuals differ in their relative responses to these six triggers. For example, in affluent, educated Western circles, care is very important: morality is primarily about not hurting anybody. In more traditional groups issues of loyalty, authority, and sanctity take precedence.

Haidt thinks that part of the difference in attitudes of liberals and conservatives can be explained by the idea that liberals greatly emphasize the first two, care and fairness, while conservatives place more equal weight on all six. The feeling that one belongs to a people fits in the category of loyalty, which possibly explains why liberals find the universalist ethics of Reform Judaism attractive.

Naomi Ragen speaks in religious language, and she is politically conservative. But there are countless diaspora Jews who don’t fit into those categories but who still feel their connection with their people, their land, and their state.

If you feel that connection, then you should come home too.

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.

10/25 Links Pt1: New Evidence Shows That Iran Was Closer to Building a Nuclear Bomb Than Previously Thought; A Photo You Won’t See In the Mainstream Media

From Ian:

New Evidence Shows That Iran Was Closer to Building a Nuclear Bomb Than Previously Thought

In April, Benjamin Netanyahu announced that Israeli operatives had spirited a vast, secret archive relating to Iran’s nuclear-weapons program out of the country and brought it to Jerusalem. Having studied the documents that have been made public, David Albright, Sarah Burkhard, Olli Heinonen, and Frank Pabian conclude that Tehran has been carrying out research necessary for the development of a nuclear bomb at a military facility in Parchin, and that this research was more advanced than experts had believed. If so, the terms of the 2015 nuclear deal and the current regimen of inspections are not preventing the Islamic Republic from continuing on its path to the bomb:

Iran’s stark aim, in violation of its commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and contrary to its signing of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, contradicts the finding by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in December 2015 that Iran’s nuclear-weapons activities had not gone beyond feasibility and simple scientific studies. . . .

The archive provides the public its first look inside the Parchin nuclear weapons-development facility and at the type of nuclear weapons-related activities that took place at the site, [and it includes] confirmation that Iran was testing . . . a specialized, difficult-to-develop, neutron initiator to start the chain reaction in a nuclear explosion. The new information about Parchin . . . shows that Iran conducted far more high-explosive tests at the site than previously understood. It may have maintained some of the equipment for later use, and did in fact resume (elsewhere) some of those activities related to nuclear-weapons development under a new organizational structure. . . .

More broadly, at issue remains [the question of] whether Iran is simply preserving, curating, and improving its nuclear-weapons capabilities, awaiting a decision to reconstitute a full-blown nuclear-weapons program at a later date, if such a political decision is made. Its failure to destroy all of these documents, and purportedly, the equipment used in these activities, does not align with its commitment under the nuclear deal “that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop, or acquire nuclear weapons.”

Amb. Alan Baker: Why is the ICC prosecutor interfering in Khan al-Ahmar?

In a somewhat irregular statement by the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court published on October 17, Fatou Bensouda saw fit to criticize Israel and voice concern over the planned evacuation of the Bedouin village Khan al-Ahmar, as well as over the continued violence at the Gaza border.

She pointed out that extensive destruction of property without military necessity and population transfers in occupied territory constitute war crimes under the Rome Statute of the ICC.

Recalling the fact that the ICC is conducting a preliminary examination of Palestinian allegations of war crimes by Israel’s leaders and military commanders (at the behest of the Palestinian leadership), she threatened to “take appropriate action, within the confines of the independent and impartial exercise of my mandate under the Rome Statute.”

Curiously, she added that such action by her would respect the “principle of complementarity.”

This statement raises a number of issues reflecting an element of ignorance on the part of the prosecutor as to the legal situation in the case of Khan al-Ahmar and the highly publicized background of repeated appeals by the residents of the village to Israel’s Supreme Court. It perhaps reflects not only a deliberate omission on her part, but also an evident and even alarming lack of the very impartiality and independence she mentions in her statement and that should guide her in fulfilling her function as ICC prosecutor.

The “principle of complementarity” which she mentioned is the basic, underlying requirement of the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, as set out in its first article establishing the court. It determines that the exercise by the court of its jurisdiction regarding the most serious crimes of international concern “shall be complementary to national criminal jurisdiction.”

This means that the ICC may not take action on a complaint referred to it if the courts at the national level are dealing, or have dealt with, the particular case.

IsraellyCool: A Photo You Won’t See In the Mainstream Media

The below photo shows 7-year-old Israeli Yonatan Regev from Kibbutz Mefalsim on his bicycle pedaling away from a fire caused by an incendiary balloon from Gaza. It was taken by 13-year-old Uriya Kabir, who lives in the same kibbutz, and supposedly went viral on social media.

I did not see it, so if it did go viral, perhaps it did so in WhatsApp groups in Israel. And it sure hasn’t been picked up by any of the mainstream media, which is too preoccupied showing how palestinian “demonstrators” (read: rioters) are being injured and sometimes killed – of course without the context of the violent activities they are engaged in, or how they are putting themselves at risk.

We hear about the incendiary balloons, but the way it is reported, you’d think they are more of an annoyance than anything. Sure, some have reported how thousands of acres of Israeli land have been scorched, but those reports are mostly from Israeli media outlets.

This photo shows how the fires are affecting the lives of so many Israelis, even to the point of threatening their lives. And unlike the palestinian rioters, the Israelis – like young Yonatan Regev and Uriya Kabir – are just minding their business, trying to live their lives.

Please spread this post and photo so more people out there understand the reality of the situation, and not just the distorted mainstream media version.

Wafa: The Palestinian propaganda factory

While the recent Human Rights Watch report about torture and human rights violations under the PA and Hamas touches on the topic of intimidation of journalists, as far as I can tell no one has really reported on the depth of the problem, and what it means for any desired "State of Palestine."

As in many autocratic nations, there is an official Palestinian news agency, Wafa. The writers are anonymous but are certainly on the PA payroll - paid by the governments of the world.

They regularly write what they are paid to write, much of which are anti-Israel screeds.. They talk about "the occupation" and "Jewish extremists" and "Jewish fanatics" who want to visit holy sites and the articles fawn over the wonderful leadership of Mahmoud Abbas and his cronies.

There are no bylines. There is no way to write a letter to the editor. There are no means to correct errors.

No one would consider this to be journalism - it is pure naked propaganda.

To the tune of dozens of articles every day.

Palestinian newspapers and news sites regularly reprint Wafa articles verbatim. They treat the propaganda factory the way American newspapers treat Reuters. Everyone knows it is propaganda - except for the audience.

When real journalism is forbidden, something has to fill the vacuum - and that is the propaganda of the PA, paid for by your tax dollars. They don't only decide what stories to cover up by intimidating and jailing journalists, but they also decide what lies to propagate.

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.