Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Saturday, December 29, 2018

12/29 Links: The elephants of antisemitism in the European room; Why do prominent black anti-Semites get a pass?; IDF strikes Hamas post following rocket fire

From Ian:

Melanie Phillips: The elephants of antisemitism in the European room

These progressives overwhelmingly link antisemitism to attitudes they consider to be “right-wing”, anti-Muslim or anti-immigrant. Accordingly, their chief European bogeyman is Hungary’s prime minister Viktor Orban. He is widely deemed to be antisemitic, largely because of his campaign against the Hungarian Jewish financier and proponent of open borders, George Soros, and Islamophobic because of his policy of keeping Muslims out of Hungary.

Yet the countries where the survey’s respondents said antisemitism had increased “a little” or “a lot” were the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy and Sweden (increases of 24, 21, 14 and 11 percentage points respectively over the past six years). By contrast, in Hungary the share of respondents actually decreased (by 21 percentage points).

In Germany, Sweden and the United Kingdom, the share of respondents who said they had considered leaving the country due to antisemitism increased by 19, 17 and 11 percentage points respectively. In Hungary, the share went down by eight percentage points.

More than 70 per cent of respondents in France, Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands considered expressions of hostility to Jews in the street and other public spaces a “very big” or “fairly big” problem; but fewer than half of Jews in Poland, Hungary and Denmark expressed such concern.

These three countries have all taken harsh measures to restrict Muslim immigration and activity. Coincidence?

The resurgence of antisemitism in the west is a symptom that it is in existential trouble. The evidence of just how much trouble it is in is that so many in the west fail correctly to diagnose it.

At a time when anti-Semitism is on the rise, why do prominent black anti-Semites get a pass?

If anything, you’d think that black Americans might choose to walk a mile in Jews’ shoes. The two ethnicities, after all, share a common bond of persecution.

Yet, as conservative commentator Larry Elder, himself a black man, pointed out in 2002, a survey commissioned by the Anti-Defamation League “found blacks three to four times more likely than non-blacks to be anti-Semitic.” He continued:

Black Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, D-Ga., urges America to rethink its support of Israel. Reverend Jesse Jackson, who once called Jews “Hymie” and New York City “Hymie-town,” now demands that George Bush ensure the safety of Palestinian Authority leader Yasser Arafat.
[…]
Trending: The first liberal vulture circles, slams Ruth Bader Ginsburg for not resigning before now

The Nation of Islam’s Louis Farrakhan recently likened the “plight” of black Americans to that of the Palestinians, noting blacks “were in the same position.” Farrakhan also exaggerates the Jewish role in slavery, and once called Hitler a “great man” and Judaism a “gutter religion.”

This was before anyone had heard of Barack Obama, a student of critical race theory whose admitted mentor was a devoutly anti-Semitic preacher. None of this of course prevented him from being sworn in as the nation’s forty-fourth president.

All of which leads back to the title question of this post, which arose for me following the recent publication in the the New York Times’s Sunday Book Review of an interview with Pulitzer Prize-winning author Alice Walker.

Douglas Murray: UK Welcomes Extremists, Bans Critics of Extremists

In November, it was reported that the Pakistani Christian mother of five, Asia Bibi, was unlikely to be offered asylum by the British government due to concerns about "community" relations in the UK. What this means is that the UK government was worried that Muslims of Pakistani origin in Britain may object to the presence in the UK of a Christian woman who has spent most of the last decade on death row in Pakistan, before being officially declared innocent of a trumped-up charge of "blasphemy".

One person who has had no trouble being in London is Dr Ataollah Mohajerani, Iran's former Minister of Culture and Islamic Guidance. Mohajerani is best known for his book-length defence of the Ayatollah Khomeini's fatwa against the British novelist Salman Rushdie.

This week we learned that the UK government has allowed in a man called Brahim Belkaid, a 41-year old of German origin, believed to have inspired up to 140 people to join al-Qaeda and ISIS. His Facebook messages have included messages with bullets and a sword on them saying, "Jihad: the Only Solution".

It is almost as though the UK government has decided that while extremist clerics can only rarely be banned, critics of such clerics can be banned with ease. The problem is that the trend for taking a laxer view of extremists than of their critics keeps on happening.

Jordanians upset their prime minister DIDN'T step on an Israeli flag

Arutz-7 reports:

Israel's Foreign Ministry lodged a protest after Jordan's Information Minister and Government Spokeswoman Jumana Ghunaimat was seen stepping on an Israeli flag.

Ghunaimat had trampled on the Israeli flag during a visit to Amman's trade union headquarters, where a Jordanian government meeting was held.

The trade union headquarters in Jordan stuck an Israeli flag at the entrance to its offices, inviting passersby to step on it on their way inside, a deep insult in the Arab world.

Prime Minister Omar al-Razaz entered the road through a side entrance, thus avoiding the Israeli flag.

More than one minister, as well as the mayor of Amman, deliberately stepped on the Israeli flag painted on the floor.

Al-Razaz's decision to avoid stepping on the Israeli flag has angered Jordanians. Here he is going in through the side door.

Members of the trade union and Jordanian media were upset at their leaders that allowed Al-Razaz to enter through the side door, wanting them to force him to publicly renounce Jordan's ties with Israel.

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.

12/28 Links Pt2: What if the Six-Day War never took place?; What Bret Stephens Missed About Trump and Israel; Pallywood Rears Its Ugly Head Again

From Ian:

Dr. Martin Sherman: Palestine: What if the Six-Day War never took place?

If the “West Bank” was part of the “Hashemite Kingdom” up to 1967, how did it suddenly become the Palestinian Arabs’ long-yearned-for homeland which, up until then, they were submissively willing to cede to an alien potentate?

Not since the time of Dr. Goebels [Head of the Nazi Propaganda Machine] has there ever been a case in which continual repetition of a lie has born such great fruits...Of all the Palestinian lies, there is no lie greater or more crushing than that which calls for the establishment of a separate Palestinian Arab state in the 'West Bank'... - From “Palestinian Lies” in Ha’aretz, 30-7-76, by former far-Left Meretz Education Minister, Prof. Amnon Rubinstein.

As the new elections approach, the “Palestinian problem” is once again likely to dominate much of the inter-(and intra-) party debate. In many ways this debate is entirely superfluous. After all, a simple mental experiment will suffice to strip away the veil of mendacity shrouding the Palestinian Arab grievances against Israel.

Imagine for a moment…

To demonstrate this, imagine for a moment that the 1967 Six Day War, in which several Arab armies marshalled their forces with the undisguised intention to annihilate Israel, never took place. Imagine that Israel had not been compelled to launch a preemptive strike in self-defense to thwart the Arabs’ openly proclaimed aim of total genocide that resulted in it taking over Judea-Samaria (a.k.a. the “West Bank”)—which the Palestinian Arabs now contend is their long-yearned for homeland.

Then ask yourself: If that war had not occurred, where would “Palestine” be?

What Bret Stephens Missed About Trump and Israel

Trump, Stephens complains, “shows no interest in pushing Russia out of Syria. He has neither articulated nor pursued any coherent strategy for pushing Iran out of Syria. He has all but invited Turkey to interfere in Syria. He has done nothing to prevent Iran from continuing to arm Hezbollah. He shows no regard for the Kurds. His fatuous response to Saudi Arabia’s murder of Jamal Khashoggi is that we’re getting a lot of money from the Saudis.”

Then Stephens asks, “Is any of this good for Israel?” And answers, “if you think that the ultimate long-term threat to Israel is the resurgence of isolationism in the U.S. and a return to the geopolitics of every nation for itself, the answer is more emphatically no.”

Stephens could be right that Trump’s limited pullback, if not full retreat, from the liberal internationalism or “Democratic realism” of some prior administration could be bad for Israel. But there’s a counterargument that Stephens doesn’t mention, let alone rebut, and that is worth considering.

That counterargument is two-pronged.

First, one of the original, profound, and inspiring ideas of Zionism had to do with Jewish self-reliance. The Jewish state would defend itself with its own foreign policy and armed forces, rather than existing at the mercy of, or under the protection of, some foreign colonial power. This is better for the Jews, in part because no matter how closely allied or powerful some foreign country, even America, may seem, in the end those powers have other interests that rank higher than the survival of the Jews. Better for Israel to realize that and act accordingly than to operate under some illusion — a delusion, really — of an American security umbrella. Those of us who have opposed the idea, raised from time to time, of American troops on the Golan Heights or in the Jordan Valley should be similarly skeptical of deploying American troops in Syria for the sake of Israel’s security.

Caroline Glick: Why should Israelis vote if their vote is meaningless?

If, as widely anticipated, Netanyahu and the Likud win in April, he will need to form a coalition with several smaller parties. Although Likud’s natural coalition partners in the right-wing and religious parties have stated that they will join a coalition with Likud even if Netanyahu is indicted, those parties together are polling fewer than 61 mandates out of a total of 120.

If this remains the case after the elections, then to form a government, Netanyahu will need to bring in populist or left-leaning parties. And the leaders of populist parties and center-left parties have signaled or stated outright that they will not join a coalition with Netanyahu if he is indicted.

In other words, by dangling the Netanyahu probes over the heads of politicians like a sword of Damocles, Mandelblit is effectively threatening to nullify the results of the elections if the public doesn’t vote as he and his fellow attorneys wish.

And so we return to the European ambassador’s dim assessment of the European parliament. It works out that European voters agree with him. Since 1999, voter turnout has never reached 50% and it has dwindled from election to election. A mere 42% of voters showed up in 2014.

The Europeans are right. Why vote if your vote is meaningless?

In April, Israelis will choose which party to vote for based on any number of considerations. But in the end, only one central question will be decided on April 9.

Do we want for our votes to matter, or are we prepared to have all aspects of governance dictated to us by unelected bureaucrats governed by unelected lawyers?

Peter Lerner: Election season brings out the anti-Israel trolls

This week the Knesset convened and decided to disperse. It was a decision based on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s understanding that his government would be a lame duck and the looming societal and security challenges requires to restart the system and regain faith in government.

Since the announcement, anti-Israel supporters have come out and claimed that as Israel once again heads for elections, millions of Palestinians ruled by it cannot vote.

This is a claim that is false.

It is a frequent talking point by the supporters of BDS and is raised by anti-Israel online activists as they dub Israel a masquerading democracy. This is a simplistic, populist way of framing the reality on the ground and it is used mostly by those who desire a one-state solution.

Looking carefully at the narrative they are trying to envisage it is important to realize the facts on the ground contradict their own premise. The claim of “occupation,” is not enough to discount the actual Palestinian institutions, functions and representatives, even though their internal Palestinian legitimacy is undoubtedly disputed. Those activists love to ignore the achievements and foundations already laid down for the future Palestinian state.

The Palestinians, as a result of the Oslo Accords, have a self-rule system. They have a Palestinian Legislative Council with 132 elected officials. The legislative council is the Palestinian equivalent to the Knesset. The PLC was established as a provisional parliament with the responsibility of enacting legislations, and oversight over the executive authority. This is the body the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza are supposed to vote for, not for the Knesset. The last election took place in 2006, with Hamas winning the election that caused the violent rift between the leadership, peoples and territories, which remains unbridgeable until today.

In the PLC they receive foreign lawmakers and the Palestinian Legislative Council is a member, observer, or partner in different international parliamentary organizations such as the Inter-Parliamentary Union, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and many others. These platforms serve as staging grounds to bash Israel by the Palestinian representatives.

12/28 Links Pt1: Hizbullah's Tunnels Are a Clear Threat to Israel - and the UN Doesn't Care; Phillips: Who are the real isolationists in America?; Thanks for the Memories, Nikki

From Ian:

NYPost Editorial: Hizbullah's Tunnels Are a Clear Threat to Israel - and the UN Doesn't Care

Israel will not “accept the Iranian military entrenchment in Syria,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Wednesday.

Yet it’s the tunnels, all of which were later destroyed, that are of special concern. Built in urban areas, they were surprisingly large and equipped with ventilation shafts and electricity, and they reached at least 80 feet underground. All of them terminated near Israeli population centers.

They appeared designed for use in a future war, when Hezbollah fighters smuggled underground would join operatives infiltrating above ground, backed by missile fire from Syria and Lebanon.

That, as Netanyahu noted, constitutes “a double war crime: It’s targeting Israeli civilians while hiding behind Lebanese civilians.” It also violates a 2006 UN resolution requiring Hezbollah to remain north of Lebanon’s Litani River.

This week the Security Council debated the tunnels but took no punitive action. Leaving Israel to counter the menace alone.

Jason Greenblatt: The UN must do better to condemn terrorism

On Dec. 6, the United Nations failed to pass a resolution condemning Hamas’s terrorist activities. On Dec. 9, Hamas praised a terror attack that critically injured a pregnant woman Shira Ish-Ran and six other Israelis, calling it “heroic.” On Dec. 12, Shira’s baby, Amiad Yisrael, died as a result of the attack.

The UN General Assembly claims to want peace between Israelis and Palestinians, but it seems to think it can achieve it by defending terrorists. Given the choice between peace and terrorism, the General Assembly has chosen to defend terrorism.

The UN has condemned Israel — a UN member state — hundreds of times. But it has never condemned Hamas, the terrorist group that controls Gaza and terrorizes the people of Israel.

Just a month ago, Hamas fired over four hundred rockets into Israel. It has released hundreds of burning kites and encouraged violent demonstrations. These wanton acts of violence, which have risked the lives of untold numbers of civilians and caused millions of dollars worth of damage, clearly deserve the strongest of condemnations.

On Dec. 6, the United States sponsored a resolution that gave the UN the opportunity to express its condemnation of Hamas for its terrorist activities. The U.S. resolution blames Hamas for firing rockets into Israel — a clear and blatant act of terrorism.

But instead of welcoming the opportunity to denounce terrorism as an indispensable step toward peace, allies of Hamas maneuvered to ensure that the General Assembly maintained its perfect record of silence on Hamas terrorism and chose to side with those who use violence against civilians

Opponents of the resolution altered the rules to require a two-thirds majority — rather than a simple majority — for the resolution to pass. When it came time to vote, a majority of countries voted to condemn Hamas. But 57 countries were willing to stand in support of terrorism and that was enough for the resolution to fail.

Run or block it? IDF film shows Lebanese reactions as cement pours out of tunnel

The IDF on Friday released footage of what it said were people in the southern Lebanese village of Kafr Kila reacting when an unspecified “liquid,” pumped by the Israeli military into a Hezbollah attack tunnel, flowed out of the opening and into the street.

Hebrew-language media reported that the IDF used cement to block the tunnels, and that some of the individuals seen in the footage responding to its flow at their end of the tunnel were members of the Hezbollah terrorist organization.

In the film, some people can be seen fleeing from the thick substance, while others try to remove it using a bulldozer or stop the spread of the viscous material by dumping rocks to seal the area.

The IDF on Thursday said it had destroyed all of the attack tunnels dug by Hezbollah from Kafr Kila into the northern Israeli border town of Metulla, but was still tackling such tunnels in other border areas.

The army released photos and video footage that it said proved “without a doubt” that the tunnels were dug from Lebanon into Israel. It also revealed some of its methods to seal the passages — including pumping the “liquid” into the tunnels, which, in some cases, gave away the location of the tunnels’ openings in civilian areas of southern Lebanon.

🤭 The reaction of what appears to be Hezbollah terrorists when they see the cement we poured into the attack tunnel that they had been digging from Lebanon into Israel, spilling out on the Lebanese side.

Song: Runaway, @kanyewest pic.twitter.com/vio6mU6uwB
— Israel Defense Forces (@IDF) December 28, 2018

Egypt denies mistreating Jews in the 50s and 60s. They are lying.

Egypt remains riled up at the article written by Fatima Naoot on December 10 that blames the nation for expelling its Jews.

Historians, politicians and journalists are falling over themselves to "prove" that when tens of thousands of Jews left the country in the 1950s and 1960s, they all left voluntarily or were spies. But Egypt loved its Jews.

This is a lie. Under Nasser, Egypt systematically reduced and eliminated the rights of Jews.

Here is a small part of M. M. Laskier, , Egyptian Jewry under the Nasser regime, 1956–70, published in Middle Eastern Studies, 1995. These sections only deal with expulsions in 1956.

According to official Egyptian documents, four specific kinds of measure directly and radically affected the rights, status and very existence of many Jews in Egypt. These were: police detention; sequestration of businesses and property; explusion from the country; and promulgation of a new statute under which Jews were deprived of citizenship.

Regarding the first category, Article 3, Paragraph 7, and Article 7 of Emergency Law No.5333 of 1954, on the Proclamation of a State of Siege in Egypt, authorized the Military Government of Egypt 'to order the arrest and apprehension of suspects and those who prejudice public order and security'. Under these provisions, hundreds of Jews, without charges against them, were detained, imprisoned or otherwise deprived of their liberty.

According to representatives in Egypt of an important international relief organization, at least 900 Jews had been arrested as of 7 December 1956. Five hundred were interned in the Jewish school at Abbasiyya in Cairo. As of 3 December, 261 of these 500 were stateless; the rest were Egyptian citizens. At the Abraham Batesh Jewish school in Heliopolis, another 42 Jews were detained, most of them women, many of them aged. This group included 19 stateless persons and 23 others. At Les Barrages prison north of Cairo, 300 Jews were detained, half of them stateless; the other half British and French subjects. Limited to the Cairo area, and excluding Alexandria and the smaller, dwindling communities of the Nile Delta, these figures cannot represent the total number of Jews then imprisoned in Egypt. Furthermore, there was absolutely reliable information to the effect that almost all Jewish families in Cairo and Alexandria had been held in confinement at their homes for considerable lengths of time, often without funds, food or other supplies, under surveillance by building concierges invested with police authority to control Jewish tenants under confinement, and supplied with firearms to render this control more effective.

Sequestration and economic strangulation: under the authority of Military Proclamation No.4 'relative to commerce with British and French subjects and to measures affecting their properties' (Journal Officiel, No.88, bis A of 1 November 1956), 19 directives appeared in the Journal Officiel of Egypt. Eleven (Nos. 170-177 and 186-188) overwhelmingly affected the property of Jews. Military Proclamation No.4 appeared under the heading of 'Regime of Sequestration'.

A number of persons living in the United States, thoroughly familiar with the economic structure of Egypt, examined the published lists of 486 persons and firms whose properties were seized under Military Proclamation No.4. They attested that at least 95 per cent of them were Jews.

All in all, it is estimated that between November 1956 and March 1957 assets of at least 500 Jewish-owned firms were sequestered and their bank accounts frozen; 800 more enterprises under Jewish proprietorship were placed on an economic blacklist and their assets frozen. The persons and firms affected by this measure represented the bulk of the economic substance of Egyptian Jewry, the largest and most important enterprises, and the main sustenance, through voluntary contributions, of the Jewish religious, educational, social and welfare institutions in Egypt. The resulting paralysis of these institutions substantially aggravated the uprooting effect of the government's anti-Jewish policies and greatly intensified the pressure for Jews to leave the country.

In addition to depriving owners of their properties and income, the sequestration measures indirectly affected the livelihood of a much broader circle of Jews, those employed by firms placed under custodianship. It was reliably reported that all sequestered firms received instructions to discharge all employees of the Jewish faith and acted accordingly. Nor was the elimination of Jews from Egyptian economic life confined to sequestered firms and assets. There were other measures, mostly unofficial, which prevented a large, additional group of Jews from earning a living. For example, most Jews had already lost their positions in public companies and many private firms which were not subject to sequestration. At the same time, many Jews in independent private enterprises were prevented from doing business by the denial of trade permits, export and import licenses, foreign currency allocations, and other administrative facilities essential to the continuation of business. As a result, Jews were either forcibly excluded or voluntarily withdrawing from business. Likewise, a steadily growing number of Jewish physicians, lawyers and engineers were, by various means, prevented from practising their professions.

...Egypt's policy of getting rid of its Jewish population was implemented through both expulsion and 'voluntary' emigration. But the two methods were not entirely distinct. It is estimated that as early as the end of November 1956 at least 500 Egyptian and stateless Jews had been expelled from Egypt, not including a considerable number of Jewish citizens of Britain and France. Most of the expellees were heads of families. They were ordered to leave the country within two to seven days. Whereas, in most cases, the individual served with a deportation order was responsible for supporting his family, all members of the family had to leave the country. Thus, this measure indirectly forced out of Egypt several times the number of those who received expulsion orders. However, official deportation orders were by no means the most effective instruments for thorough forced emigration. In fact, around the end of November 1956, direct, individual expulsion orders ceased, only to be replaced by the more subtle, potent techniques of intimidation and psychological warfare against the Jewish population as a whole. Under these pressures and the simultaneous economic harassment of Jews, a much larger and steadily growing emigration movement began. Jews 'voluntarily' obliged themselves, in formal declarations to the authorities, to leave the country and, in the case of Egyptian nationals, to relinquish their citizenship.

Both the formal expulsion orders and the 'voluntary' pledges to expatriate oneself struck Jews of every status - citizens, stateless persons, and foreign subjects alike. All laissez-passer documents issued to them expressly stated that the person leaving Egypt would not be permitted to return, and that they voluntarily renounced all claims against Egypt. More than 20,200 Jews emigrated between 22 November 1956 and 30 June 1957. In all, between 23,000 and 25,000 out of the 45,000 Jews were estimated to have left Egypt. These included more than 6,000 (until June 1957) who left on ships chartered by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) whose headquarters were in Geneva, with funds provided by the United Jewish Appeal. The ICRC, as we shall see, rendered invaluable service in evacuating Jews unable to pay for their passage as well as in assisting needy Jews still in Egypt.

The emigration, expulsion and flight began on a large scale with thousands of people flocking to the offices of the Rabbinate, consulates, and embassies seeking advice, assistance and means of escape. The port of Alexandria and the airfield at Cairo were jammed with refugees leaving the country. Initially, government officials showed little leniency in customs inspections, arbitrarily confiscating any items which were believed to be of value. The pressure at points of embarkation was so great that there was no time for individual treatment. In the bedlam of this situation, thousands of people left with hardly more than the clothes on their backs.

...Denaturalization (deprivation of citizenship) also affected Egyptian Jews. A long-standing device to achieve 'national homogeneity' had been the Egyptian nationality law of 13 September 1950. On 22 November 1956 this law was amended by a decree-law promulgated by the President of the Republic (i.e. Nasser). Article 1 proclaimed that:

Only individuals resident on Egyptian territory before 1 January 1900, who maintained their residence until the date of promulgation of the present decree and who are not under the jurisdiction of a foreign state, are Egyptians.

The legally incapacitating intent and effect of this provision was quite manifest in spite of the camouflaging formulation. First of all, the law could easily be interpreted to mean that if an 'undesirable' individual left the country, even for a brief stay abroad, he thereby automatically failed to 'maintain his residence' until the date of the new law. Through this device, Egyptian citizens of the Jewish faith were easily deprived retroactively of their acquired citizenship.

Second, an even more dangerous loophole was hidden behind the stipulation of the cut-off date of 1 January 1900. According to informed sources familiar with conditions in Egypt, there was simply no officially valid documentation in existence there which could attest to the residence of persons in Egypt at that remote point in time. Through this loophole, not only were new certificates of nationality denied to undesired applicants, but it was now possible for the authorities to annul existing certificates retroactively.

But the 1956 Law did not stop at these stipulations. It went on to impose special disabilities expressly upon Jews alone. Article 1 further stipulated that: Neither Zionists nor those against whom a judgement has been handed down for crimes of disloyalty to the country or for treason, shall be covered by this provision.
To make the intent of this provision clear beyond doubt, Article 1 added that:
No request for the delivery of a certificate of Egyptian nationality will be accepted from persons known as Zionists . . .

To the best of our knowledge, this was the first instance in the history of law where the concept of Zionism was applied in a nationality statute as a criterion of citizenship and as an indirect basis for denaturalization. Since the law furnished no definition whatsoever of the term 'Zionist', it was obvious that the Egyptian authorities could apply this provision at will to any person of the Jewish faith.

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 only Jews with "white privilege" are the ones who hide their Jewishness. That isn't privilege - that's living with oppression.

I have been looking at a lot of Twitter threads about whether "white Jews" have "white privilege" or not. People are arguing back and forth but they are missing the point. They'll say that since Jews can pass as white, they have "white privilege."

Yet in all those threads, I didn't see anything about Jews who are identifiably Jewish.

The closest I saw was this:

Mmhm. My grandma shared with me this maxim from her childhood: “Look British, think Yiddish.” The idea was that Jews can outwardly assimilate into white Americanness while maintaining our unique culture. This is white privilege. https://t.co/iD0RaGZVum
— Dana Goldstein (@DanaGoldstein) December 26, 2018

No, being forced to hide your Jewishness to make it in American or European society is not white privilege. On the contrary, it is a demand to deny your own heritage to avoid being attacked.

No one would demand that light skinned Muslims take off their headgear in order to avoid discrimination - but the maxim "Look British, think Yiddish" demands that Jews do the equivalent.

And if Jews are walking around in fear of random non-Jews treating them differently because they act or look Jewish, then there is no "white privilege" going on.

There is not much difference between the fear that Jews wearing yarmulkas have outside Israel or heavily Jewish areas and the fear black people have walking around certain neighborhoods. And the same applies to Jews who change their names to sound less Jewish, or who hide away their Star of David jewelry in certain situations.

If Jews are living in fear of being outed as Jews, then they aren't privileged - they are oppressed.

Here are some stories of daily antisemitism I collected on Twitter yesterday. Anyone who claims that Jews have "white privilege" is referring only to Jews who nobody knows is Jewish.

@52joan

I've been spit on by Muslim shopkeepers in liberal San Francisco. And refused service when they noticed my Star of David necklace. Twice.

@SeanDurns

My cousin was denied a job in Oregon when the restaurant manager noticed that her last name was Schwartz and said “I don’t hire kikes.” In 2015. Luckily we have esteemed “experts” on antisemitism @nytimes to tell us what is and isn’t antisemitic.

PhiL Haggardy @ZealouslyQuoted

San Francisco where they love to hate Jews. Lived there for 5 years wore a Yarmulcha. I've been harassed and attacked, openly on the street no one gave a shit. AT SFSU a friend was attacked by a student for being a jew, the cops didn't care the school didnt care... standard

As one of SFSU's few graduates with a degree in Jewish studies from there (and the only one who wore a yarmulcha and tzittzit) I saw plenty. No one gave a shit. The only ally on the whole campus was the republican club.

💎 Donna 💎@DonnaAinMN

Once a tourist was in town, saw my 🇮🇱 flag in my backpack and screamed at me "free Palestine" in the store!

On the bus they were talking about deer hunting & unclean meat. They asked me how I cooked deer. I replied "I'm #Jewish I don't eat that meat"

For the next 6 months total Silence as soon as I got on the bus. This gossip lady told everyone I was Jewish.

-the Jews here (in Minnesota) hide, cut their hair, pretend they're not Jewish because of threats even in their workplace. Most moved away after #Pittsburgh

Susan @SammdSusan
I wrote about being pulled over for "driving while Jewish" and falsely accused of talking on my cell phone because "you all do that." My phone was in my back pocket. I am orthodox, cover my hair, clearly identifiable. Cop "let me off" after I offered to show him call logs.

ElderOfZiyon @elderofziyon
For me:
People throwing pennies at me and friends when I was a kid
Someone throwing my kipah on the ground
Campus sukkah I built was torn down
Random guy screaming "Christ-killer" as I walked to shul
Arab from Jaffa accelerating as Mrs. Elder was crossing street

(((Israel🇮🇱))) @Ashdod_
I used to go to a private Jewish school and annually, anti semites would threaten my school via bomb threats

Rachel Yadin 🔥🐑🇮🇱راشيل يادين @27kislev5719
Kids fake sneezing the words "Ah jew!"
Being followed in Frankfort Germany by a guy muttering "Juden raus."
Having a young girl in car car opposite our bus draw her finger across her throat.
A guy doing the "Islamic finger" and shouting "Allahuachbar".

Taylor King @89tailormade
My father legally changed his Jewish last name in his 20’s to the generic “King” to avoid being known as a Jew.
I don’t wear a Star of David necklace. My college was sued for Antisemitism.

(((Thrill Science))) @ThrillScience
Walking on shabbos In #Sunnyvale California the son of the minister at Peninsula Bible Church Cupertino pelted me with a sandwich thrown out of his car window. Police caught him.

(((Nik))) @Nickunfiltered
Having to frequently hear the phrase “Jew me down,” being called a Zionist fuck or Zionist thug on the bus and street for having an Israeli flag on my backpack. Having a first date end abruptly after I reveal I’m Jewish, etc. And I think I’ve gotten off lightly.

Olivia Gordon @OliviaGordon
Given Magen David necklace age 12 but was always too afraid to wear it. Accused at school ‘the Jews killed Jesus’. Friend posted on FB Jews had to expect hatred bc of what Israel has done, and defriended me. ‘Little’ stuff, growing up in v liberal circles in Oxford / London.

Bill Miner, the Gentleman Bandit @OrneryOnion
Fireworks being thrown at my family as we walked to shul.
One synagogue firebombed, one just vandalized (stained glass windows broken)
Having to work on Jewish holidays because I ran out of vacation
Teachers accusing me of "making up holidays"
Hearing the phrase Jewish lightning
(Jewish lightning is insurance arson)
Friends saying they were insulted because they couldn't bring nonkosher meat into house
Cars that have been egged, scratched, and tires deflated.
Asked about horns, called "cheap"/"dirty" Jew
Had to write pro Christian essay in school (sent to principal when I refused)
Missed school to take SAT test (offered ok Saturday, took it on a Tuesday)
"Go back to where you belong" (meaning outside my home country)
I could go on, but I think you get the picture.

We could also include efforts to block Orthodox Jews from moving into areas, as we saw in Mahwah, New Jersey.

(((LPSchulman))) @LauraPSchulman
Just the other day, a woman I met in Deming, NM treated me to a diatribe about how Jews "take care of their own" by siphoning off public funds in order to, in this case, make sure that Jewish nursing homes have necessities in case of disaster.

This doesn't sound too privileged to me.

It should be emphasized that the entire discussion of "white privilege" is based on the flawed assumption that everyone is either an oppressor or oppressed. That is obviously not true - there are Jewish racists, there are black antisemites and black racists like Louis Farrakhan, and every group has bigots even if that group is also victimized by others. Which means that every group must grapple with its own prejudices, and not lean back and say "I'm only a victim, nothing can be expected from me."

The false binary of "oppressor/oppressed" is ruining the very valuable discourse of how everyone needs to notice and uproot their own biases. To put Jews in the "oppressor" category is simply a modern form of antisemitism, and just like Jews need to confront their own biases, so do those who are so keen to insist on the fiction of "white Jewish privilege."

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: Answering IfNotNow

A longish podcast but it really gets going in the second half.

I'll try to summarize:

IfNotNow's example questions are:

The first question presupposes that there is a capital O "Occupation." From the perspective of international law, this is not true.

The definition of “occupation” comes from Hague Convention of 1907:

Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.

The Fourth Geneva Conventions do not define “occupation” but set up rules to protect civilians under occupation.

Israel's position is that the land isn’t “occupied” but “disputed." The reason it isn’t occupied is that it had no recognized sovereign before 1967, as Jordan’s annexation of Judea and Samaria was not recognized by most nations.

The Hague definition only applies to parties of the Convention, meaning states.

Hans Kelsen wrote in Principles of International Law in 1952 (before international law was twisted specifically to attack Israel:)

If the territory is not to be considered a stateless territory, it must be considered to be under the sovereignty of the occupant belligerent, which—in such a case—ceases to be restricted by the rules concerning belligerent occupation.

Moreover, Israel has the best legal claim to Judea and Samaria, based on the terms of the British Mandate approved by the League of Nations of the Jewish people’s right to settle in Palestine:

“The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home….”

The League of Nations decisions remain legal under the UN. Since Jordan’s claim from 1949-1967 was illegal, the only valid claim on the land is that of the Jews under the terms of the League of Nations.

Now, this might seem like a cop-out. The Geneva Conventions describes how to treat civilians humanely under occupation, and saying that the areas aren't occupied in a strictly legal sense should not give Israel carte blanche to treat Palestinian Arabs badly.

But Israel has voluntarily enforced the Geneva Convention humanitarian rules in the territories, but never accepted the idea that they are legally occupied – it always maintained they were disputed. This is why Israel feels that building Jewish communities in the territories is legal - with the exception of Hebron, where Jews lived continuously before 1929, all Jewish settlements are in areas that Arabs didn't live, on public lands (sometimes mistakes are made and either those buildings are demolished or the Arabs are compensated, based on Israeli Supreme Court rulings.)

By the way, no one who is serious accuses Israel's Supreme Court of ignoring international law. Their opinions are sober, detailed and publicly available. I have yet to see anyone show how their opinions that allow Israel to act in the territories are in violation of international law.

Beyond these points, parts of the territories aren't occupied for a completely different reason.

In an occupation, the hostile army has complete control over the territory - it is required to set up court systems and enforce existing laws.

By Geneva’s definition: [T]he Occupying Power shall be bound, for the duration of the occupation, to the extent that such Power exercises the functions of government in such territory

By the Hague’s definition, it requires “boots on the ground”

A good definition of whether territory is occupied is whether the “occupier” can replace the mayors of the cities. Or fire the sanitation workers.

Gaza is certainly not occupied now since there is not a single Israeli soldier there. Neither is Area A, since the PA has military control over those areas. Israel is not acting and cannot act as the government in those areas.

(People who say that controlling the borders is “occupation” have zero legal basis for their opinion.)

IfNotNow asks about the effect of the Israeli presence in the territories on Palestinian (and Israeli) lives. They only care about Palestinian human rights - but they ignore Israeli human rights.

Before the first intifada, there were no (or few?) checkpoints. Palestinian Arabs and Israeli Jews were able to simply drive all over Israel and the territories with few restrictions. I once spoke to someone who used to Israeli kosher challah bread in Ramallah, imported Friday mornings to allow settlers to not have to drive to Jerusalem.

All of that changed because of the first and second intifadas, the waves of Arab terror and suicide bombings and bus bombings from 1988, through the 1990s when there were many terror attacks during the Oslo peace process, and then the major wave of terror that happened after the Palestinians rejected two serious peace offers in 2000 and 2001, pushed by Bill Clinton.

All restrictions on Palestinian mobility is a direct result of terror. Israel isn't trying to restrict anyone's human rights, but Israel's main job as a sovereign nation is to protect its citizens. The rights of Israelis to live without being blown up are certainly more important than the rights of Palestinian Arabs not to wait for minutes at checkpoints to ensure they aren't bringing bombs or guns.

No one talks about Israeli human rights. But human rights are human rights to all, and Israel has to find a balance that allows the maximum of human rights for Palestinians without compromising in the security of Israelis. The line is fine, and it moves, based on Palestinian Arab actions.

The Oslo peace process is now 25 years old. Palestinian Arabs have had 25 years to teach an entire generation to live in peace with Israel, and they have done the opposite. Terrorists are heroes, and they and their families are paid salaries by the PLO. Not all Palestinians are terrorists, but polls show that after major terror attacks on Israeli civilians, a vast majority support those attacks. And polls have also consistently shown that even the Palestinians who say they support a two state solution only look at that as a stage before taking over all of Israel. This is the major reason there is no peace today.

Every Israeli government, including the current one, wants to live side by side in peace and security with a Palestinian state (or entity, if you will) that doesn't threaten Israel. No one wants to control millions of potentially hostile people. But right now that is impossible - a hostile independent Palestine in the territories could easily acquire shoulder mounted missiles to threaten all Israeli air traffic, for example. This is not acceptable to any nation.

So the current situation, as bad as it is for Palestinian Arabs, is the least bad situation if you value Israeli lives as well. And when the PA does take security seriously, restrictions on Palestinians are lifted (there used to be far more checkpoints than today.)

IfNotNow hates it when Zionists say "it's complicated." That's because they are invested in a simplistic viewpoint where Israelis are evil and Palestinians are good. That is highly inaccurate, borderline racist and betrays an agenda where Israeli lives are worthless. If Birthright participants want to know the facts, they need to invest the time into understanding both sides of the story.

And Birthright guides must be more than tour guides. Understanding Israeli and Jewish history is not enough preparation to handle loaded questions that presuppose the answers. They need to understand the talking points of Israel's enemies like IfNotNow and know how to counter those arguments.

I'm willing to help.

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.

12/27 Links Pt2: Now they call us ‘White Jews’: A new American antisemitism; Daniel Pipes: Tectonic Shifts in Attitudes toward Israel; Harry Potter and the Half-Wit Dunces

From Ian:

Seth Frantzman: Now they call us ‘White Jews’: A new American antisemitism

A recent controversy about anti-Jewish views in the Women’s March has lifted the curtain on a new antisemitism that is percolating in American circles.

“Now Women’s March activists are grappling with how they treat Jews, and whether they should be counted as privileged white Americans or ‘marginalized’ minorities,” The New York Times noted in a recent piece. The labeling of Jews as “white” and debates on how to “treat Jews,” as if Jews are packages in a supermarket is a form of dehumanizing rhetoric designed to force Jewish people into a binary of “white/non-white” that is currently trendy in US discussions.

The new toxic discussion taking place primarily in the United States is designed to label Jews as “white supremacists.” For instance, Tamika Mallory, the Women’s March leader, told the Times that this issue was raised at an early meeting of the marchers.

“Since that conversation, we’ve all learned a lot about how while white Jews, as white people, uphold white supremacy, ALL Jews are targeted by it,” she said. Some groups on the far Left have even embraced this concept. Rebecca Vilkomerson tweeted about it on December 24.

“We white Jews especially need to recognize that centering out own status as victims here is a power move, as well as a way to avoid self-reflection on our relative status in a white supremacist world,” Vilkomerson tweeted.

It is particularly interesting, given the history of antisemitism, how Jews are now considered not only recipients of white privilege, due to their often passing as white, but are seen as emblematic of whiteness and a part of white supremacy. The concept of antisemitism was coined by anti-Jewish activist Wilhelm Marr, who objected to the idea that Jews would assimilate into Germany. Antisemitism became entwined with the idea that Jews were a separate “race” from white Europeans, particularly Germans and northern Europeans. Today that has come full circle and Jews are portrayed as not just passing as white, but of being an example of white supremacy.

How can this be, only 70 years after the Holocaust that the people genocided for being non-white and non-European are now called white supremacists? It is part of a carefully managed agenda in the United States to not permit Jews to be part of discussions about “people of color” or racism. The reason for this is that hatred of Jews has always been about creating an all-encompassing other that is dehumanized and then defining that as “the Jews.” Therefore in European history, Jews were hated for not being Christian, accused of blood libels and forced to live in ghettos or enter cities through the gate where the swine and sewage was. Then came the era when Jews were assimilating and becoming less religiously observant so they were labeled not as a religious problem, but an ethnic-racial problem. Oriental “wandering Jews,” who were foreigners. Today in the US where the popular view in some left-leaning circles is that being “white” is a kind of slander, Jews are “white Jews.”

Daniel Pipes: Tectonic Shifts in Attitudes toward Israel

As Arabs and Muslims warm to Israel, the Left grows colder. These shifts imply one great imperative for the Jewish state.

On the first shift: Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently pointed out "a great change" in the Arab world which has a growing connection to Israeli companies because it needs Israeli "technology and innovation, ... water, electricity, medical care, and high-tech." Explaining this normalization as a result of Arab states "looking for links with the strong," Netanyahu was too tactful of American liberals to add another factor: Barack Obama's policy of appeasing Tehran jolted the Arab states to get serious about the real threats facing them.

It is striking to note that full-scale Arab state warfare versus Israel lasted a mere 25 years (1948-73) and ended 45 long years ago; and that Turkey and Iran have since picked up the anti-Zionist torch.

Nor is it just Israeli companies making inroads into Arab countries. The Israeli minister of sports broke into tears as Hatikvah, Israel's anthem, was played in Abu Dhabi upon the victory of an Israeli athlete. Rumors are swirling about a handshake to come between Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman (MbS) and Israel's prime minister.

That Arab and Muslim enmity has fractured, probably never to be reconstituted, amounts to one tectonic shift in the Arab-Israeli conflict. The second, no less important, involves the global Left's growing hostility to Israel.

This pattern can be found consistently from South Korea to Thailand to South Africa to Sweden to Brazil. The Durban conference of 2001 initially brought this phenomenon to light. Among many other examples, the Black Lives Matter platform accuses Israel of "apartheid" and "genocide." A communist labor union in India representing 16 million farmers, apparently joined the boycott, divestment, and sanction (BDS) movement.

Attitudes toward the Jewish state follow an almost linear progression of growing negativity as one goes from right to left. A 2012 Pew Research Center survey of American adults found 75 percent of conservative Republicans sympathize more with Israel than with the Palestinians, followed by 60 percent of moderate and liberal Republicans, 47 percent of Independents, 46 percent of conservative and moderate Democrats, and 33 percent of liberal Democrats. (h/t MtTB)

Harry Potter and the Half-Wit Dunces

Measured by its impact, the BDS campaign to isolate Israel has been about as successful as the Charge of the Light Brigade, say, or the theatrical run of Michael Cimino’s Heaven’s Gate, or any other cataclysmic failure that still inspires us, decades later, to ponder the bottomless depths of human ineptitude. And now, not content with their floundering boycotts, the champions of the anti-Israeli left have found a new villain: J.K. Rowling.

Why? Because Rowling is an outspoken critic of the anti-Semitic Jeremy Corbyn and his anti-Semitic Labour Party, a thought crime among those moral and intellectual degenerates who refuse to condemn hatred of Jews when it comes, as it so frequently does these days, from their side of the aisle.

Steven Salaita—the disgraced academic whose muddle-minded attempts at thinking got him jettisoned from a host of universities worldwide and who now spends his days theorizing on why Israeli hummus leads to genocide—entered the anti-Rowling fray, asking if it was possible to hide Harry Potter from his children, because, truly, there’s no better mark of an open and curious mind than attempting to censure your children’s reading list based on your political beliefs.

Not to be outdone, Rafael Shimunov, of the radical group Jews for Racial and Economic Justice, accused Rowling of depicting “viciously antisemetic [sic] scenes in Harry Potter that destroyed Jewish kids who loved you and now they’re grown up and you think you can make it up by using right wing Netanyahu talking points about Corbyn. But that’s also antisemetic [sic].”

Just what sort of wicked deeds did the beloved author commit to warrant the accusation of destroying Jewish children, a charge previously limited to, say, the Einsatzgruppen? In a flurry of tweets, the studious Shimunov goes on to explain: In the Harry Potter universe, the banks are controlled by Goblins, and the chief Goblin is called Griphook. Get it? Grip, because he has a tight grip on money, and hook because he has a hooked nose! Which means he’s a Jew! Which makes J.K. Rowling some sort of slightly more feminine Goebbels!

The hatred is revealing. In their well-scrubbed moments, the boycotters insist that singling out the world’s only Jewish state for opprobrium even though—or even because—it’s a pluralistic democracy has nothing to do with Jews. You can, they insist, be an anti-Zionist and not an anti-Semite. L’affaire Rowling proves yet again that you can’t: The author had nothing to say about Israel. Her concern was the hatred of Jews in Britain, a hatred the community itself had unanimously and unequivocally characterized as a clear and present threat. And for that the BDS lowlifes pounced, arguing that anyone who bravely stands with Jews and speaks out against anti-Semitism must be some sort of bigoted emissary of the dark King Bibi himself.

Vic Rosenthal's Weekly Column

Tuesday night Israel hit several locations in Syria, assumed to be weapons depots which possibly contained a shipment of Fajr-5 rockets from Iran. But it’s also being reported that “senior Hezbollah personnel” were hit, shortly after boarding a plane for Tehran, where they were planning to attend a funeral for an Iranian ayatollah. There is even a rumor – probably not true – that Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard’s “Quds Force,” was present and was killed in the attack. If only!

Soleimani is a legendary figure in Iran, and the Quds Force is responsible for extraterritorial activities of the IRGC, including aiding terrorist groups like Hezbollah and various Iraqi militias, as well as carrying out terrorist operations all over the world. The Quds Force has been accused of providing the explosively formed penetrators used in IEDs with deadly effectiveness against US troops in Iraq. As a strategist and commander, he is highly competent and dangerous, and should be a prime target in an Israel-Iran war.

The beginning stages of the war are already underway. The Iranian regime’s strategy seems to be to first improve its strategic position as much as possible without triggering open hostilities: it has built up Hezbollah’s rocket arsenal – and continues to try to improve it by retrofitting accurate guidance systems. It is preparing to manufacture guidance systems and/or rockets on Lebanese soil. It dug attack tunnels under the Lebanese border with Israel, which the IDF is exploding or filling with concrete as I write. It is working to improve its supply systems to Hezbollah via its newly secured land bridge through Iraq and Syria (the small American force that Trump has promised to withdraw served as a partial deterrent to the use of this route, which is one reason Israel sees the withdrawal as a problem). The regime supports Hamas and other terrorist groups in the territories. And it is continuing to prepare for the day that it can openly deploy nuclear weapons. Ultimately, its goal is to see Israel destroyed by its proxies, underneath its own nuclear umbrella.

Israel’s approach so far has been to try to interdict the shipment of advanced weapons, destroy attack tunnels, and to keep up pressure on Iranian attempts to establish herself militarily in Syria. Israel is aggressively collecting intelligence on the location of Iran’s and Hezbollah’s assets in Lebanon and Syria, so that in the event of war she could quickly destroy rocket launchers and other targets. Probably there are also targets in Iran herself, such as nuclear facilities.

I hope so. Iran would like to see the next war fought on Israel’s territory. It would like to see the casualties on its side being Lebanese, Palestinian, and Iraqi, not Iranian. It would like to see Israel wounded, but itself come out unscathed. It is up to Israel to ensure that this doesn’t happen.

Israel’s greatest weakness is her lack of strategic depth. There is nowhere to fall back to, and an invasion from Lebanon or Syria would quickly reach populated areas. Israel is no Russia, which on several occasions has been able to count her enormous size and bitter winters as her greatest allies.

This is one reason why “2-state solutions” are unacceptable, even if the Palestinian Arabs were trustworthy (which they are not). I have a relief map on my wall that I point to when anyone talks about the various 2-state ideas. It shows how the Golan Heights and the Jordan Valley (more precisely, the hills on our side of it) are natural barriers to invasion, and provide a strategic advantage to whoever controls them. It also shows the importance of the hills in Judea and Samaria, which overlook the most heavily populated parts of Israel.

The Golan Heights are particularly important. Had Israel not been in possession of them at the start of the Yom Kippur War, Syrian tanks would have rolled through Israeli cities and towns, with murderous results. More recently we would have had to deal with raids by ISIS and similar groups.

There is currently talk of a Munich-like Syrian peace deal in which part of the arrangement would include the return of the Golan to Assad’s Syria! In order to prevent this, Israel and some American politicians would like to see the US recognize Israel’s permanent ownership of the Golan. In the final analysis, only Israel’s steadfastness and willingness to fight can protect her, but it would certainly help to have the diplomatic backing of the US.

When the war finally does heat up, Israel must bring it to Iran’s homeland. But Iran is a big and populous country, and Israel does not have the ground forces to invade it. We are certainly capable of launching a full-scale nuclear assault, but this would contradict our strategic doctrine, which calls for the use of nuclear weapons only in retaliation for an attack against Israel with nuclear or other WMD, or as a last resort when the country is in danger of being overrun. There would be moral concerns about killing 28 million Iranians. One can also guess the likely response of the international community.

However there is another option, which is an attack aimed to destroy infrastructure, such as electrical grids, industrial plants, government offices, financial centers, oil fields, pipelines, refineries, transportation and communications facilities, and so on. Bombing of key targets could be combined with cyberattacks and an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack. If done carefully, such a campaign would directly kill few people, but could create chaos and effectively destroy the Iranian economy to the extent that it would take decades to recover. I believe that Iraq is still suffering the effects of infrastructure bombing carried out in the first days of the US-Iraq war in 2003.

Israel is quite capable of carrying out such an attack, and this capability could serve as an effective deterrent, one which is much more likely to be employed than a massive nuclear attack. Iran directly controls Hezbollah, and the regime must be made to understand that an attack by its proxy against our homeland would result in an immediate response against its own.

In the meantime, I hope we are carefully tracking the movements of Qassem Soleimani. He has plenty of American, Israeli, and other blood on his hands. It would be a shame (for the regime) if anything happened to 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.

Palestinian PM: Arab countries reneging on their promises to give us money

Palestinian Authority prime minister Rami Hamdallah said on Wednesday night that Arab countries promised billions of dollars in support of Jerusalem but only millions have arrived. “If the Arab summit decisions on Jerusalem were implemented, we would not be in need of anything else,” he said.

Hamdallah also said donor aid to the Palestinians for 2019 has declined by 71 percent.

Arab nations have been reneging on pledges to the Palestinians for many years now. They attend summits where they promise their full support and then usually do not follow through. Yet the conferences still happen - Hamdallah presided over one today, called the "Jerusalem Victory Conference," in Ramallah.

Absurdly, Hamdallah also claimed that there were no sanctions by the PA against Gaza. Since April 2017, the PA has limited salaries, fuel, medicines and many other items, all of which are well documented. Even Hamdallah admitted to these moves in August but he denied that they were sanctions even then, calling them "temporary measures." (Abbas gave a speech in March where he said he would increase "financial measures" against Gaza.)

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.

12/27 Links Pt1: Photos said to show Iranian warehouse flattened by Israeli strike in Syria; U.S., Israel work to block unilateral Palestinian statehood drive at U.N.

From Ian:

Photos said to show Iranian warehouse flattened by Israeli strike in Syria

Satellite images show the extent of damage from an alleged Israeli strike in Syria this week, with one photo indicating that a large storage facility was completely destroyed, an Israeli satellite imaging company said Thursday.

The photos, taken December 26 and published by ImageSat International, were of the remains of an Iranian warehouse at a base belonging to the Syrian army’s 4th division and located west of the capital Damascus, the company said. The 900-square-meter (8,000 square foot) structure appeared to have been obliterated by the attack, it said.

However, by contrast, the images showed no evidence of an attack at Damascus airport. Initial media reports of the airstrike had speculated that a 747 cargo jet, belonging to Iran’s Fars Air Qeshm, had been targeted after it landed at the airport.

The civilian company has been accused on multiple occasions of smuggling Iranian arms to Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed Lebanese terror group that fought Israel in a 2006 war, and media speculated that its cargo had been the target of the strikes.

An Israeli security official confirmed to the Associated Press on Wednesday that Israel carried out the overnight airstrike in Syria, saying a series of Iranian targets were hit.

Jerusalem official confirms Israel struck Iranian arms depot in Syria

An Israeli security official confirmed Wednesday that Israel carried out an overnight airstrike in Syria, saying a series of Iranian targets were hit.

The Israeli official said the air force had attacked several Iranian targets in three main locations late Tuesday and early Wednesday. He said the targets were primarily storage and logistics facilities used by archenemy Iran to ship weapons to Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed Lebanese terror group that fought Israel in a 2006 war.

He said Israel also destroyed a Syrian anti-aircraft battery that fired at the Israeli planes, and claimed that Iranian forces are operating less than 80 kilometers (50 miles) from the Israeli border, contrary to Russian assurances.

The official spoke on condition of anonymity under standard security protocols. The Israeli military has not commented on the incident.

Earlier Wednesday, Russia criticized the airstrikes, saying they had endangered civilian flights. The Israeli official said, however, that Israel alerted Russia about the airstrikes ahead of time and the flights were endangered by Syrian anti-aircraft fire.

IDF Hezbollah tunnel-destroying material discovered in Lebanese homes

Twenty-three days after Israel launched Operation Northern Shield and found the first tunnel dug into northern Israel from southern Lebanon by Hezbollah, the military has completed the destruction of a number of tunnels which infiltrated close to the community of Metula.

According to IDF Spokesman Brig.-Gen. Ronen Manelis the military destroyed the tunnels by filling them with material which would prevent the Shiite terror group from every using them again.

The material he said, has come out of the tunnel in several places in the southern Lebanese village of Kafr Kila where the tunnel was dug from, including in a residential building next to the border fence which was used to make bricks.

“This fact indicates Hezbollah's use of civilian structures in the heart of an urban area in southern Lebanon, in flagrant violation of Resolution 1701 and endangering its citizens by using them as human shields,” the military said in a statement.

“It is clear that this factory belongs to Hezbollah and was used to build tunnels,” Manelis said, adding that there were other locations in Kafr Kila which were connected to tunnels and therefore the IDF saw material come out in several locations, including into residential homes.

“Whoever decides to live above a terror tunnel endangers his life, just like someone who decides to live above a weapons storehouse,” Manelis said.

The operation which began on December 4 to find and destroy the tunnels dug by the Shiite terror group has so far found five cross-border attack tunnels and last week the military began the process of destroying them.

On Wednesday, the military announced that it had destroyed a fifth cross-border attack tunnel crossing into northern Israel from the southern Lebanese village of Ayta as-Shab. It was discovered several days ago and destroyed by an explosion Wednesday night.

WATCH: We neutralized this attack tunnel dug from Lebanon into Israel by Hezbollah and poured cement into the openings on the Israeli side. The cement spilled out of the opening on the Lebanese side - revealing it was dug between homes and a factory. pic.twitter.com/KKXGIsqxW3
— Israel Defense Forces (@IDF) December 27, 2018

Israeli Democracy Defies Being Pigeonholed (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

With the passing of its Nation-State Law this year, the issue of Israel as a democracy continues to be a topic of debate, and at times becomes even more pointed.

But this week we were reminded that for all the debate and the claims that Israel was revealing its fascist colors, Israeli democracy is alive and well:

The Economist Intelligence Unit's Democracy Index measures the categories of Electoral process and pluralism, Functioning of government, Political participation, Political culture and Civil liberties. -- and taking all of that into account, Israel maintained its 2016 ranking of 30 in a field of 167 countries:

Israel rated 30th as a democracy, among 167 countries - tied with Estonia

Interestingly, with the perpetual accusations each year that Israel under Netanyahu is descending into the depths of fascism, this same Democracy Index indicates the opposite. During Netanyahu's second stint as Prime Minister from 2009 to date, (his first term being from 1996-1999), Israel's democracy rating has been on an upswing -- at least until 2017:

Who knows what rating Israel will get for 2018 in light of the Nation-State Law?

Israel had a mediocre score for both Function of government (which is understandable to anyone who has watched the Knesset in action) and Political culture.

"Function of government" is determined by such things as partisanship, corruption, accountability, checks & balances, levels of political engagement and confidence in government.

"Political culture" is based on levels of popular confidence in democracy, and environment where "the losing parties and their supporters accept the judgment of the voters and allow for the peaceful transfer of power."

The biggest drag on Israel's score was in the area of civil liberties. It is the reason Haaretz's Anshel Pfeffer rails against Israel's "High-functioning Illiberal Democracy," noting that "the country’s strong showing is marred by the Chief Rabbinate’s hegemony and the way Israel treats the Palestinians and other minorities."

On the issue of religion in Israel, one can argue the point.

In their book, #IsraeliJudaism: A Portrait of a Cultural Revolution, based on extensive surveys with more than 3,000 respondents in Israel, one of findings of Shmuel Rosner and Camil Fuchs is that

you get a new picture of Israel’s Jewish society and of Israel’s Jewish culture. It is a society that moves away from religion and from religious coercion, but does not move away from Jewish traditions. It moves away from the control of rabbis and the mandatory observance of certain practices, but does not move away from voluntary, relaxed, widespread Jewish practice.

According to Rosner and Fuchs, the claim that Israel is becoming a theocracy is a myth.

For that matter, one can ask how Pfeffer derives an implied condemnation of the Chief Rabbinate from the Democracy Index to begin with.

On the more pressing issue of the rights of the Arab minority, according to a report issued this month by the Israel Democracy Institute:

More than two-thirds of the Arab respondents (67 percent) said they did not think that the Israeli government treats its Arab citizens democratically. Among Jewish respondents, however, only 23 percent thought that Arab citizens suffer from discrimination. Still, more than half the Arab respondents (51 percent) said they were proud to be Israeli (compared with 88 percent of Jewish respondents), even though this was lower than in recent years. About two-thirds of both Jewish and Arab respondents said that they believed that Arab citizens want to integrate into Israeli society.

There is potential there for improvement, but obviously with a lot of work ahead. According to that same report by the Israel Democracy Institute, respondents this year rank tensions between left and right as being a greater problem than Jewish-Arab relations, though whether that means that Jewish-Arab relations have improved slightly or left-right tensions are worse is unclear.

Writer Zev Chafets takes a different view of the Democracy Index, writing that Israel’s Version of Democracy Is in Good Health. He quotes from a 2002 decision by former Israeli chief justice of the Israeli Supreme Court Aharon Barak regarding, on the one hand, the minimum definition of Israel as a Jewish state:

“At their center stands the right of every Jew to immigrate to the State of Israel, where the Jews will constitute a majority; Hebrew is the official and principal language of the State, and most of its fests and symbols reflect the national revival of the Jewish People; the heritage of the Jewish People is a central component of its religious and cultural legacy.”

and on the other hand, the minimal requirements for Israel as a democratic state, consisting of:

recognition of the sovereignty of the people manifested in free and egalitarian elections; recognition of the nucleus of human rights, among them dignity and equality, the existence of separations of powers, the rule of law, and an independent judiciary system. [emphasis is Chafets']

According to Chafets, Israel fulfills all of Barak’s requirements for a Jewish state -- and lacks one of his criteria for a democratic state: full equality for its Arab citizens. That is because while the Arabs are guaranteed the same civil rights as all other Israelis by Israel’s Basic Law, only Jews have the right to immigration and citizenship.

He explains:

This discrimination is foundational. Israel was created to be the one place where the Jewish people have self-determination, and the chance to rebuild its culture after a hiatus of two millennia. Israel is for the Jews. The great majority of Jewish Israelis, including many champions of egalitarian civil liberties, understand and accept this. Roughly 90 percent vote for political parties that regard the Law of Return as sacrosanct. [emphasis is Chafets']

We have already seen, from the reaction to Israel's Nation-State Law, that many in the West (and in Israel) see things differently.

With elections scheduled for April, we don't have long to wait before getting an idea of what Israelis really do think about Israeli democracy.

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.