Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Thursday, April 04, 2019

Not understanding the differences between cultures can be a deadly mistake

EU High Representative/Vice-President Federica Mogherini spoke at the Arab Summit in Tunis over the weekend, and she started off by saying something very troubling:

She said, "nous sommes si proches d’un point de vue géographique et culturel," meaning that Europeans and Arabs "are so close from the geographic and cultural point of view."

Really? European and Arab culture are that close?

No, they are not. The single biggest difference between the two cultures, which cannot be overemphasized, is that Arabs have an honor/shame culture and Europeans have a guilt culture.

When a Westerner does something wrong, he or she generally feels guilty and wants to set things right, whether other people notice it or not. Western guilt isn't ameliorated by people thinking the wrong thing about someone - it is made worse.

When an Arab does something wrong, it is only shameful when others find out about it. Shame must be eradicated by any and all means, including to the point of murder in the most extreme cases of "honor killings."

These are fundamentally different cultures and they lead to fundamentally different ways of normal daily interaction. Westerners, including journalists and diplomats, are reluctant to say the truth about Arab human rights abuses and other outrages because it causes the Arabs to react strongly - because it offends their honor, and if Arabs can manipulate the West to ignore their crimes, then their honor is intact since honor depends on what other think of you, not on what you actually do.

The honor/shame culture implies hiding the truth. Western guilt culture rewards uncovering the truth and doing the right thing.

To say that Western and Middle East cultures are "close" is not only flatly wrong, but it rewards Arabs for hiding their own significant social problems. It encourages Arabs to push off responsibility for their own shortcomings and avoid shame.

In recent years "honor killings" of women in the Arab world seem to have been reduced. What changed? Are there fewer Arab women having affairs or choosing their own husbands that families disapprove of?

No. The reason seems to be that the Western world became aware of "honor killings" and publicized how bad they were. Which means that the "honor killings" themselves have become a source of shame - and therefore there are fewer of them!

This is the key for how the West needs to deal with the Arab world and its honor/shame culture. Rather than recoiling at Arab anger when human rights issues are uncovered, the West must redouble publicizing them - because that shames the Arabs into acting with responsibility! Muslims especially are taught that Islam is the most humane and fair religion, and when their actions are exposed as less moral than Western mores, they are deeply embarrassed - and they have incentive to improve.

I don't think there is a question that guilt culture is superior to shame culture. One encourages personal responsibility and truth telling and the other encourages hiding the truth when it is a source of shame. The main way to improve Arab and Muslim culture is to shine a bright light on their shortcomings - to expect them to act as moral creatures who must take responsibility for their actions - and the Arab world can change for the better.

Saying that we are the same is wrong and destructive. Knowing our differences is the key to improving the world.

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.

Yes, Palestinian identity is only meant as a weapon against Israel

I sometimes see endless Twitter discussions on whether Palestinians are a people, or whether pre-Israel Palestinian Arabs were a people.

Some note that it is hard to deny that Palestinians are a people today, regardless of history, so therefore the history of whether they were a separate people beforehand doesn't matter too much.

However, history matters. Knowing the history of how they became "Palestinian" is key to understanding today's Middle East.

Up until 1947, Arabs in Palestine were simply Arabs, for the most part. The word "Palestinian" referred almost exclusively to Jewish residents of Palestine.

Even the 1964 PLO Charter used the phrase "Palestinian Arab" repeatedly to distinguish from Palestinian Jew, which is what people still thought of when they heard the word "Palestinian" in 1964.

So how did they become "Palestinians?" How did they become a people?

A group becomes a people when they have something in common with each other. The arbitrary boundaries of the British Mandate, which lasted less than three decades, was not enough to make Arabs of Palestine feel "Palestinian."

They identified with their clans, with their villages, with their religion and with their Arab identity, but being "Palestinian" was not an important part of their identity at all (with rare exceptions.) For the most part, Arabs moved freely throughout the Arab world as droughts or wars or economic incentives impelled them to. Arab clans tenaciously held onto their origins, usually in Arabia or Yemen, and their tribes often stayed together as they moved from one Arab land to another.

Even today, if you pick a popular Palestinian surname and look up their family history in Arabic, you will see where they originally came from. You will not find very many who say they originated in Palestine. Usually they trace their history back to Arabia or Yemen, although there are plenty whose names originate in North Africa.

Only in 1948 did Palestinian Arabs start to have something in common with each other - and that was because of how they were treated by their fellow Arabs, not Jews.

As mentioned, Arabs often came to Palestine for economic reasons. Tens of thousands of Syrians moved in during the 1920s because of a drought in the Hauran region. Demographic studies show that the biggest increase in Arab populations during the years before 1948 were invariably in Jewish areas, where the industry and jobs were. But many would travel back to Lebanon or Syria as needed.

During the 1936-9 riots, many wealthier Arabs moved to Lebanon to escape the troubles with their extended families.

In short, since Arabs in Palestine felt that they were simply Arabs and not Palestinian, it was relatively easy for most to make the decision to leave during the 1948 war to be with their fellow Arabs they assumed would take them in the way they have throughout history as they migrated across the Arab world. The ones who stayed and fought for their homes were not unified as Palestinian Arabs but simply because they had ties to their villages, and there was no central command to speak of because Arabs in villages in Palestine didn't feel much affinity with Arabs of other villages.

But this time, for the first time as far as I can tell, the Arab migration was not welcomed by their fellow Arabs.

The reason is simple. Arabs were deeply shamed by losing the war to the hated, lowly Jews who had been second class citizens in Arab societies forever. Palestinian Arabs reminded the rest of the Arab world of their shame. Instead of integrating the refugees, they kept them separate. They blamed the West for allowing Israel to be born and they insisted that the West - i. e., the UN - pay for the Palestinian Arabs to be housed and educated.

Most importantly, the Arab League recognized that the refugees could be a huge weapon against Israel, because if they would return there would be no more Jewish state.

Every Arab from Palestine became a pawn.

There was another important reason why the Arab nations wanted to use Palestinians as cannon fodder against Israel. They knew that they had a restless, homeless and stateless population in their midst and they didn't want them to blame their hosts for their problems. They created a myth of a Palestinian people displaced by Jews in order to direct their hate towards Jews and Israel - and away from the Arab leaders who refused to naturalize them (except for Jordan.)

Thus began the Palestinian people. Their leaders and Arab leaders agreed that they needed an identity, and they insisted that by being kept separate, they would keep the Palestinian Arab identity intact. Becoming citizens of Arab countries would mean that this nascent Palestinian identity would disappear and a major weapon against Israel would disappear along with it. As PLO leader Ahmed Shukairy said in 1966, when Palestinian identity was still in a nascent stage:

“The Arab states will not integrate the Palestine refugees because integration would be a slow process of liquidating the Palestine problem." Ahmed Shukairy. chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization. declared in an interview today.

“Consequently. the refugees don’t want to be integrated.” he continued. “If there are no Palestinian people. there is no Palestinian cause. We can't conceive of a Babylonian cause today because there are no Babylonians. But we start from the premise that we will achieve the liberation of Palestine soon."

The Arab record towards Palestinians is pretty bad. Palestinian Arabs have been slaughtered, deported, and given few rights. But they have been taught that they are loyal Arabs and the only people they must blame for their predicament is Jews.

UNRWA is a big part of this. In the beginning, UNRWA tried to relocate Palestinian Arabs in countries like Iraq and it worked to have them become productive citizens of their host countries. Arab nations resisted and soon UNRWA used its own money to hire thousands of Palestinian Arabs themselves - who then imposed their own agenda on UNRWA, its mission and its textbooks. This is why Palestinians, and only Palestinians, are still considered "refugees" decades after all other of the millions of WWII-era refugees have been resettled elsewhere.

Even if you want to blame Israel for the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Arabs, the only people to blame for their continued misery for seventy years are the Arab nations themselves. The world refuses to recognize this or even demand that Arab nations take care of their "guests" the way every other nation is expected to.

Palestinians themselves want to become citizens of their host countries. When Egypt and Lebanon briefly changed the rules of citizenship allowing many Palestinians to become naturalized, tens of thousands of Palestinians jumped at the opportunity. Even Hamas leaders became Egyptian citizens!

There can never be peace without the Arabs taking responsibility for the Palestinians in their midst. The myth of an ancient Palestinian people is one roadblock in the way of treating them like every other refugee population. This is why the truth matters - the truth is essential to getting everyone closer to a real peace.

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.

Israel's Foreign Affairs Ministry Arabic Twitter account sent out this message about a huge $5 million mosque built in Abu Ghosh, Israel that can accommodate 3000 worshipers. It was completed in 2014.

تتجلى حرية العبادة في إسرائيل بمنح الأقليات حرية ممارسة أديانها وشعائرها وطقوسها. تم بناء هذا المسجد الفخم الذي يسع 3000 مُصلِ وبكلفة 5 ملايين دولار في قرية أبو غوش العربية
medialine pic.twitter.com/lc2elSljbF
— إسرائيل بالعربية (@IsraelArabic) April 1, 2019

The land for the mosque was donated by the Israel Lands Authority.

Someone tweeted this to the PLO's Saeb Erekat, sarcastically asking if there were any synagogues in Palestinian Arab ruled areas. Erekat responded back:

Shalom synagogue in my home town jericho . Stop this attitude . Judaism to Palestinians is not a threat will never be a threat , Judaism is one of God’s great religions. The real threT on both of us is the continuation of the Israeli occupation. https://t.co/2duN1Ne916
— Dr. Saeb Erakat الدكتور صائب عريقات (@ErakatSaeb) April 2, 2019

It is funny that Erekat called it the "Shalom synagogue" because the Palestinians call it the "Shahwan synagogue" after the Arab family whose land it was discovered in. the actual name, "Shalom al Yisrael," literally "Peace unto Israel," is apparently too controversial.

More importantly, the Jericho synagogue is a 6th century CE ruin. If Jews want to worship there, they have to go on special protected tours so they won't be attacked by Palestinians - just as they have to do when they visit Joseph's Tomb in Shechem (Nablus) or a number of other important Jewish historic and religious sites under Palestinian Arab control.

A Jew, or a quorum of Jews, who want to worship in any Jewish holy place under Palestinian Authority control can't simply go without endangering their life. Non-Jewish tourists can and do visit, but Jews praying need IDF protection.

Erekat's example doesn't show that Palestinians respect Judaism. Quite the opposite. He proves the point - that they hate Jews practicing their religion and do not protect those tourists from harm the way they protect non-Jewish tourists.

The contrast between Israel giving land to Muslims to allow them to worship, today, and the Palestinian Authority not protecting Jews who want to pray in ancient holy sites, is as stark as can be.

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.

04/03 Links Pt2: Sorry You’re Offended, But ‘Palestine’ Does Not Exist; Trump exposes United Nations as world's epicentre for Jew-hatred; 3 liberal US Jewish groups back anti-BDS congressional resolution

From Ian:

Sorry You’re Offended, But ‘Palestine’ Does Not Exist

In progressive America, an official elected in a predominantly Jewish district in the country’s largest city can be punished for asserting an indisputable historical fact if it happens to offend the sensibilities of hard-left activists. In this case, Kalman Yeger, a councilman from Brooklyn, in a back-and-forth about Rep. Ilhan Omar, tweeted that, “Palestine does not exist. There, I said it again. Also, Congresswoman Omar is an antisemite. Said that too.”

Mayor Bill de Blasio quickly issued an ultimatum to Yeger demanding he apologize, or else. After he refused, NYC Council Speaker Corey Johnson booted Yeger from—what I assume is a wholly useless—city immigration committee. “I found Council Member Yeger’s comments completely unacceptable…” Johnson explained. “They were dehumanizing to Palestinians and divisive, and have no place in New York City.”

Yeger’s statements might be debatable—perhaps some of you don’t find Omar’s numerous attacks on American Jews anti-Semitic—but the other contention is a historical and present-day reality. Despite this, nearly every media story covering the kerfuffle frames the councilman’s contention about the status of the West Bank and Gaza as some kind of appalling attack on decency. What other Howard Zinn-like historical fantasies must we adopt to participate in debate?

“Now, if he comes out and he apologizes, and says, ‘Look, I was wrong and I realize what I did was hurtful and I’ve got to change,’ different discussion,” de Blasio said. Pointing out that there’s no nation called Palestine might be provocative and argumentative, but the contention is no less accurate because of the emotional reaction it provokes. The American left’s censorship mission creep already deems numerous words and ideas off limits if enough people act insulted. Now, they’re trying to impose limits on speaking out about incontestable geopolitical truths.

Where exactly is your ‘Palestine,’ Mayor de Blasio?

He did not play by the rules, as dictated by the Democrats, so New York City Councilman Kalman Yeger has been bounced off the council’s immigration committee.

That’s his punishment for saying “there is no Palestine,” and then refusing to apologize, and if they could send him to a Soviet-Mao style “re-education camp,” they would.

We don’t have reorientation gulags here yet, but it’s coming, and already exists on campus. Free speech for me, but not for thee.

One man speaks up and it’s like he disturbed a wasps-nest.

Mayor de Blasio and other Democrats felt that Yeger’s tweet was an insult to Palestinians everywhere – though in real life there are Palestinians nowhere.

We touched on this a while back in the column, “Even the Beatles preceded the Palestinians,” and here is part of what we wrote:

“Say this for Arafat, he knew how to put one over. He knighted himself and the rest of his gang ‘Palestinian’ and the world said, sure, why not?

“Anything that antagonizes the Jews is a sale.

“Since then…since 1964…the ‘Palestinians’ have been the world’s number one concern, even though they have been nothing but a headache and exist in no history books. Nothing to be found about them before June 2, 1964. That’s when the Arab League certified them as the PLO.

Twitchy: Manhole cover proves that Palestine’s sewage system is older than the ‘Zionist terrorist illegal occupation’

All we know about Abbas Hamideh is what we learned from his Twitter bio, which states that he doesn’t compromise on one inch of Palestinian land, and also apparently lives in Cleveland.

If that’s true, we’re guessing someone else took this picture proving that Palestine’s sewage system predates the illegal Israeli occupation of the land.

The Jerusalem Post’s Lahav Harkov looked into the history on display here and found some inconvenient truths.

Is the point you’re trying to make that the British are the true natives of Haifa? https://t.co/ghmMKIkC0R
— Lahav Harkov (@LahavHarkov) April 2, 2019

Our next exhibit: that Post-it Note that says “Palestine” stuck on a world map in Rep. Rashida Tlaib’s office.

Israeli elections are less than a week away. For those of us on the right, the choice is between four parties. There's the Likud, HaYamin HaChadash (New Right), Ichud Mifleget HaYamin (United Right), and Zehut.

Some of my friends have decided long ago who will be getting their votes. They are the ones with dogma. Start a conversation and you will not only get to hear how they’ll vote, but why, with finely honed and memorized talking points. (It’s better not to do more than nod in response, lest you extend the lecture and risk things getting heated, too.)

Other friends seem to be no closer to making a decision. Here and there, people will ask me, “Who are you voting for,” hoping that I’ll say something inspired that will sway them toward one candidate or another. But I’m as clueless as they are.

Choosing Between Drawbacks

One friend put it well, “Unfortunately, I am not choosing between who has the BEST platform. Instead, I find that each party has a significant drawback, and I just have to consider, in a ‘chess-master’ fashion, which will result in the least damage to the country I love.”

That is my conundrum, too. I run down the list of parties in my head thinking, “I can’t vote for this one because ____,” and “I can’t vote for that one because ____,” and it’s endless. With each party, there is something in the platform, or something about someone on the list that is so fundamentally opposed to my own ideological beliefs that I can’t even stomach the idea of voting for any of them.

Not voting is something I have thought about, too. But if I don’t vote for the right, it’s a vote for Blue and White. The thought of Gantz/Lapid at the helm, scares the living daylights out of me.

Blue And White Means Concessions

We know the left’s playbook by heart. They will make concessions. Concessions that get lots of people killed for years on end. They will pander to the West and to the enemy. They will set precedents that are not only contrary to Israel’s interests but will prove difficult to roll back, long after their leaders are gone from office.

Also, these people have a bad track record in terms of letting soldiers do their job. I have two sons in uniform. I have to think which side is more likely to let them do what they have to do, the right or the left, which includes Moshe Yaalon, A/K/A Bogie, and Gabi Ashkenazi. I have to consider that it could be my child who becomes the next Elor Azaria, or another kind of human sacrifice, the kind that God forbid requires a military burial. I don’t want a child of mine to hesitate, to be too afraid to shoot his gun for fear of what will happen next. The last thing I want is for these people: Gantz, Lapid, Bogie, and Ashkenazi to win the election.

Stepping back a bit, to me, Gantz and Lapid are nobodies. They are pretty faces, not politicians. Their candidacy is a way to test the waters, and perhaps a way for them to amass power. It would be very dangerous to hand them a win. A friend referred to the Blue and White camp as “fragile and inexperienced.” I concur.

The Likud: Is It Really Right Wing?

That leaves me with the right, beginning with the Likud, the political home of Benjamin Netanyahu. There’s a problem here, and I don’t mean those frivolous lawsuits the left drummed up to try and oust him. That’s just silly stuff. Here’s the real problem: a vote for the Likud is supposed to be a vote for the right, but it doesn’t really feel that way.

Now there is probably no one in Israel who has as commanding a political presence as Netanyahu. No one as smart, either. But while he heads the party associated with Jabotinsky and the Greater Israel philosophy, I see him as not doing enough to further those ideals. I don’t really see Netanyahu as right wing at all, actually.

There are others in the Likud party whom I admire. But King Bibi rules over all, making policy almost by fiat. It is his will that carries the day, every time. If I had to choose between Blue and White and Likud, however, Likud it definitely would be.

Strengthen A Smaller Right-Wing Party?

What about voting for a smaller right wing party, to strengthen Likud’s hand in effecting right wing policy? That works, to a point. We see how much good Ayelet Shaked did as a Bayit Yehudi MK within the coalition, working hard to fix the judiciary.

But the things I care about most won’t happen with Bibi at the helm, no matter who sits in the Knesset. I want to see a stronger response to terror instead of this bombing empty buildings in Gaza crap. I want to see the implementation of the Edmond Levy report. I want to see the state of martial law in Judea and Samaria ended, our sovereignty effectively declared. I want to see us leave the UN with its blatant antisemitism, a continuous slap in the face. I want to see lots of homes being built all over Israel and especially in disputed territory. I don’t see that happening while Bibi yet reigns, no matter which faction I strengthen.

Zehut: The Problem With Feiglin

Zehut’s Feiglin has good strong words, and the right sort of politics, but he is kind of a beige personality. I can’t see him ever becoming a commanding presence fit to take the world stage alongside important international leaders (though I can see him possibly alienating them). In short, he’s no Bibi, and has no potential to be a Bibi.

It is not only Feiglin’s personality that is beige, but his willingness to join either side, right or left. He says this is about remaining relevant if the worst happens and Blue and White wins. He says it is about having a remaining voice from the right inside the government. From the outside looking in, however, it seems more about his inability to take a firm stand, despite his strongly expressed political convictions. It makes him sound like a whore, willing to go to the highest bidder.

Then there are his libertarian views. When extended to non-interference with regard to vaccination, Feiglin is equivalent to an anti-vaxxer. That can’t be countenanced. It’s just evil. Plus, there’s a guy on his list who is anti-circumcision. Some claim the guy has reversed his stance on the issue, but I’m too much of a cynic to believe that this is anything more than campaign lies.

Everything else aside, Feiglin’s platform is endless. I couldn’t get through the whole thing. I was thinking, “Terrible SEO. TLDR.”

United Right: A Fractured Party

What about Ichud Mifleget HaYamin? I am hearing both good and bad things about head of the party, Rafi Peretz. They say he lives in the Gaza Envelope and “won’t shut up” until something is done about Gaza. They say he’s a doer.

But this is the same guy who danced with the soldiers who expelled him from his home in Atzmona, in Gush Katif. Ew. I hate it when Jews suck up to those bent on their destruction.

I like Bezalel Smotrich, second to Peretz, a lot. He speaks up for building in Judea and Samaria. He comes to protests. (I’ve seen him, there.) But like Feiglin, he is bound to alienate Western leaders. He is unapologetic with his Torah values. He is so not PC (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bezalel_Smotrich).

Beyond looking at the individuals in the party, Ichud Mifleget HaYamin feels way splintered. Peretz said he agreed to join with other parties in the camp only out of necessity and the way he said this was demeaning and grated on the ears. "It should be clear: Otzma Yehudit do not share my beliefs. They are not from my school [of thought]. We have different, sometimes opposing, worldviews. So I have refused, and still refuse, to unite with them, but I accept them as guests. This is a technical, short-term agreement and after the election, we will go our separate ways."

Peretz held his nose. His party entered into an agreement with Ichud HaLeumi, Otzma Yehudit, and Netanyahu as the only chance that any of the three might have influence and remain relevant.

The New Right: The Problem With Bennett's Peace Plan

As for HaYamin HaChadash, I really like Ayelet Shaked. Truth be told, I haven’t a single friend who isn’t crazy about her. Her work as justice minister stands speaks for itself. But it is Naftali Bennett who heads the party and I don’t like Naftali Bennett’s plan to annex Area C. I think the plan, in effect, cedes areas A & B. I also think it’s wrong to speak of annexing territory that can legitimately be seen, according to many jurists, as already belonging to Israel under international law.

I worry that Ayelet Shaked has made a mistake in hitching her wagon to Bennett’s star. I think a lot of people don’t like Naftali Bennett for a lot of reasons. I think Yamin HaChadash brought in everyone’s favorite right wing columnist Caroline Glick to sweeten the pot and bring more voters on board, but I think Bennett will be like Bibi, and everyone will have to jump when he says “jump.” I don’t think Glick will have any real power or even much of a voice. As it is, Bennett’s peace plan would seem to run counter to her own, though she has tried to explain away the seeming contradiction. From the Jerusalem Post:

Glick’s 2014 book, “The Israeli Solution,” advocates for the annexation of the entire West Bank, whereas New Right leader Bennett has called for annexing Area C – under total Israeli military and civilian control – with solutions for the rest of the West Bank to be determined later.

She said that there is no contradiction between the two plans, and supports efforts backed by Bennett and Shaked – as well as by their old party Bayit Yehudi and many Likud MKs – to start making moves toward applying Israeli law in the West Bank and freeing Area C from military government.

“It’s imperative that [this] be done immediately – and in the Knesset, you have a wide scope of operations” in that area, Glick explained.

Here is Bennett’s video explaining his peace plan. It seems clear to me that he is not talking about dealing with A & B at a later date: he’s giving them up for good:

It Ain't Over 'Til It's Over

So here I come to a crossroad: I can’t vote for Likud because they aren’t really right. I can’t vote for Feiglin because he’s beige and an anti-vaxxer, to boot. I can’t vote for Ichud Mifleget HaYamin because it’s a fractured party that’s hanging on by the skin of its teeth. I sure can’t vote for HaYamin HaChadash because of Bennett’s peace plan.

Where does that leave me?

I have no clue. I may not know the answer until I’m standing in a booth behind a curtain. And even then, my hand may hesitate.

But for now, I’ll be listening and watching, hoping that something will happen that will persuade me one way or the other, to vote for someone, anyone, on the right.

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.

Egyptian Professor Causes Furor With Claim Jews Not Behind Everything (PreOccupied Territory)

Our weekly column from the humor site PreOccupied Territory.

Check out their Facebook page.

Cairo, April 3 - An academic at Cairo University has sparked a tumult in national media and political circles this week following a televised interview in which he made the brazen argument that not all negative phenomena have origins in Zionist conspiracy.

Public and governmental figures from across Egyptian society called for the firing of Dr. Ziabad Bakri, whose appearance on a prime-time talk show on state-run media Monday featured his repeated claims that some unfortunate events and developments come from sources other than Jews. His incredulous host challenged Dr. Bakri to substantiate his contentions, but the producers felt compelled to cut the program short before the doctor could answer, fearing public and official backlash for airing such controversial assertions.

"Not all of society's ills, even Islamic society's ills, come from the Jews," stated Dr. Bakri, to gasps and shouts from studio personnel. "What if I told you there are some problems that predate the Jews?" The bemused host sat in stunned silence for a moment before asking his guest to repeat the statement.

"War has been with us since long before the Jews were even an idea," elaborated Dr. Bakri. "So has famine. Disease. Even greed, that most Jewish of traits, is attested to in sources that date from hundreds, even thousands, of years before anyone heard of a Jew. Argue all you want about the extent to which Jews exacerbate or exploit these and other phenomena to sow discord, but we must not fool ourselves into thinking that without the Jew we wouldn't have problems."

Calls to sack the professor came from figures in and out of the government. "Such irresponsible rhetoric has no place in Egyptian society," fumed a Ministry of Cultural Affairs official. "No one who espouses such radical views, which have the potential to spark no violence toward minorities, can be permitted to spew his unacceptable filth on our airwaves. At the very least the network must ban this so-called scholar from ever appearing on its shows again, and I understand the Minister of Education will demand that the university revoke his academic degrees."

"I've never heard anything that ridiculous," stated commentator Subhi Nasser. "Only a fool would accept that Jews aren't behind every evil. to believe otherwise would undermine one of the political, not to mention theological, axioms of our society. You can't just disregard the danger that undermining those axioms poses for Egyptian society, and for the Middle East at large. Which should already tell you who must behind any attempt to undermine them."

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.

04/03 Links Pt1: After 37 years, the body of Sgt. Zachary Baumel has returned to Israel; Palestinian Attacker Shot Dead After Trying to Stab Israeli Man; With Turkish loss of the F-35, Israel keeps its aerial superiority

From Ian:

After 37 years, the body of Sgt. Zachary Baumel has returned to Israel

Close to 40 years after he was went missing in action following the Battle of Sultan Yacoub, the body of Sgt. Zachary Baumel has been returned to Israel for burial.

Baumel’s body was repatriated to Israel via a third country several days ago aboard an El Al flight following an operation by Israeli intelligence agencies. He was identified by his DNA at the Abu Kabir Forensic Institute, as well as by the Chief Military Rabbi Brig.-Gen. Eyal Karim, IDF Spokesperson Brig.-Gen. Ronen Manelis said on Wednesday.Manpower directorate head Maj.-Gen.Moti Almoz personally informed the Baumel family that he had been identified.

The battle of Sultan Yacoub, a skirmish between the IDF and the Syrian army, took place on the sixth day of the First Lebanon War in June 1982 in the Bekaa Valley.

At the end of the battle, the battalion and additional forces had suffered 20 dead and more than 30 wounded. Eight IDF tanks also remained in Syrian hands, two of which had three missing IDF soldiers who had been involved in two separate incidents about three kilometers apart: Sgt. Yehuda Katz, a gunner in one tank crew, and Baumel and Sgt. Zvi Feldman in another tank.

“This was a long-term effort by the intelligence community and the Missing Persons Division during which various operational activities were carried out to locate the missing soldiers, "the military said, adding that the military is “committed to continuing the efforts to locate Sergeant Yehuda Katz, Sergeant Tzvika Feldman and all the missing soldiers and captives, and all fallen IDF soldiers whose burial places are unknown.”

Manelis wouldn’t say where Baumel had been buried for all these years, but in September, Russia claimed that its military worked with Israel on an operation to locate the remains of the fallen IDF soldiers that were in Syrian territory, which had been under the control of Islamic State.

After 37 years, Sgt. 1st Class Zachary Baumel has returned home to Israel. pic.twitter.com/9Mroebhz41
— Israel Defense Forces (@IDF) April 3, 2019

Palestinian Attacker Shot Dead After Trying to Stab Israeli Man

A Palestinian tried to stab Israelis with a knife in the West Bank on Wednesday and was shot dead by one of them, the Israeli military and a witness said.

A Palestinian official, however, questioned the Israeli account of the incident at Hawara junction, near Nablus.

The West Bank, among territories where Palestinians seek statehood, has seen surges of street attacks on Israeli residents and soldiers since US-backed peace talks stalled in 2014. Palestinians claim Israel’s armed response has been excessive.

Yehoshua Sherman, a West Bank resident, told Israel Radio that he was driving slowly through the intersection with his daughter when a Palestinian charged at their car.

“He jumped at me with a knife, trying to open the doors,” Sherman said. “I drew my handgun…wound down the window and shot at him from inside the car.”

A second motorist also fired at the Palestinian, hitting him, Sherman added.

The Israeli military said in a statement: “A terrorist was shot by a civilian and neutralized after he tried to carry out a stabbing attack.”

You forgot to mention he’s a Hamas terrorist, he entered a family’s car (father & children) and started to fire his gun hurting the father, before he was shot dead!

Thank god he was killed!!! https://t.co/Hyq2bruKtU
— Mark Halawa - مارك حلاوه (@HalawaMark) April 3, 2019

Background:

Advocates of intersectionality are increasingly, publicly, rejecting Jewish participation in their dialogues and activities. The idea that rejecting Jews based on their Jewish identity is becoming socially acceptable is highly disturbing.

Much has been written on this subject, particularly following examples where groups advocating for intersectional solidarity rejected Jewish participation.

One of the better-known examples of this is Linda Sarsour’s declaration that “Zionists cannot be feminists.” In another case, Jewish women waving were asked to leave a gay pride march because they waved the Jewish LGBTQ flag (which is emblazoned with the Star of David). There have been numerous other examples that are not necessary to repeat here.

What is intersectionality anyway?

Intersectionality is a theory, first conceptualized in relation to the feminist movement, in response to the exclusion of black women from the movement. The idea was that the forms of oppression experienced by white middle-class women were different from those experienced by black, poor, or disabled women. While intersectionality works to unite women with the goal of liberating all women, in practice, the combatting identities (black vs white) form an exclusionary space.

Intersectionality defines groups of people by their race, gender or other physical characteristics and measures each based on how oppressed the group is. Different groups are expected to unite to fight oppression based on the solidarity of mutual victimhood.

Ejecting Jews from the intersectional equation

Various progressive Jewish groups and individuals strive to be included in the activities of their counterparts from other elements of society. We, who have suffered, perhaps more than any other nation on earth, have empathy and are always willing to help other oppressed people. Why then, is it that other oppressed groups rarely stand in solidarity with us? What should we do about this?

For many, the answer to this question is that it is necessary to combat the lies used to eject Jews from the intersectional equation so that we can claim our rightful “place at the table.”

The most common of these lies are:

1. Jews are white colonialists (i.e oppressors) who must be fought to create justice for the oppressed (“Palestinians”).

2. Jews may have once been oppressed but now Jews have become oppressors (of “Palestinians”) and as such, must be fought

3. Rejecting Jews based on their Jewish identity is acceptable because Jews belong to the privileged class and intersectionality is for the oppressed

It shouldn’t be necessary to say this but just in case, I will clarify:

· The Jewish People originate from Judea and as people of Middle Eastern descent, we are not white.

· You can’t colonize your own land

· We are not oppressing anyone (the terrorist organizations ruling over Gaza and the PA territories ARE oppressors)

· It is unacceptable to discriminate against any group based on their racial, religious or gender identity

When these lies are accepted as fact, it is easy to eject Jews from intersectional discourse. That’s why many Jewish organizations speak about combating the lies and creating a “more nuanced discussion.”

The word “nuanced” makes my skin crawl…

Diametrically opposed identities

Intersectionality is about identities. It divides people according to individual identifying factors (skin color, gender etc) rather than their individuality (content of character). Moreover, it identifies people according to their victim status.

Identifying one’s self as a victim is diametrically opposed to Jewish identity.

Our history is one of being victimized and yet our survival has been a result of refusal to become victims. Ask any Holocaust survivor and they will tell you that they are not a victim of the Holocaust they are a survivor.

When our oppressors made it impossible to be publicly Jewish, we found ways to be Jewish in secret, to continue studying and continue fulfilling the rituals of our religion. That happened under the oppression of the ancient Greek Empire, the Spanish Inquisition and even in the concentration camps.

When our oppressors refused us certain jobs, we became excellent at other professions (which led, for example, to the anti-Semitic stereotype of the Jewish moneylender).

Without money, status or privilege of any kind, Jews worked hard and rose to positions of status and privilege (relative to what was allowed at the time). This was true in ancient times, even under Islamic rule and is true today – Jews, children of WW2 survivors who had nothing, can now be found in prominent positions in every field and industry imaginable.

Israel is, of course, the most stunning example of refusing to give up or give in. No other people survived 2000 years of exile to return and regain sovereignty in their ancestral homeland. All other peoples who were exiled, scattered and torn apart have disappeared. Only the Jews did not.

We have been victimized but we are not victims.

We are survivors. More than that – we are thrivers.

Of course, we have no place in the intersectionality discussion. Our identity is diametrically opposed to anyone who holds on to victimhood.

We have empathy for those who are suffering because we know what suffering is. It is right and good that we are willing to invest effort to help raise up others. It’s part of our “job” as Jews - being a “light unto the nations” means (among other things) serving as proof that anyone can step out of victimhood, if they so choose.

But it is a choice.

We choose life. We choose building a thriving, happy future. THAT is our identity. Others choose victimhood, anger and stewing in past offenses against them. These two positions are diametrically opposed. THAT is why we can never take part in the intersectionality equation, no matter how “nuanced” it is.

It is no wonder that Jew-haters understand this. What’s sad is that so many Jews don’t.

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.

Geostorm is a very forgettable 2017 disaster movie where satellites that control the weather on Earth are hacked and evil people use them to attack cities. Or something like that.

Iranian media thinks it is a blueprint for what the Jews and the US are doing to Iran.

Iran's Tasnim News Agency has an article asking "is the recent flooding (in Iran) intentional?" It starts off with:

Recently, on the advice of a friend, we have finished thoroughly examining the 2017 American GeoStorm movie. The movie is the product of Warner Bros. The company, founded 101 years ago, was founded in 1918 by four Polish- born and Jewish brothers in the United States named Harry, Sam, Albert and Jack; and many of its products have a "futuristic" look, or better, a "predictive" look. Analysts and film makers are aware that the vast majority of US programs and agenda are behind the scenes, and are aligned with these programs, and they make films for specific purposes....Apart from form and content, the Geostorm film gives us a special message: "The United States has a specific program for manipulating the climate."

Yes, the Jewish Hollywood industry is making movies to broadcast to the world their nefarious plans of world domination. What fun would it be if they kept those plans secret?

The article notes that Iranians had previously accused Israel of causing a drought in Iran by sending special non-rain clouds, and when world media ridiculed them a top Iranian meteorologist said that no one can control the weather.

But the authors of this news agency article insist that the chances of 7 consecutive days of rain on the dates that the rain occurred are an astronomical 1 in 160 trillion. So you do the math!

The author reluctantly admits that there is a tiny chance that the floods come from Mother Nature, but he says it is foolhardy not to research the probability that Israel and the US ("foreigners") are behind Iran's flooding disaster. He even shows his calculations so they must be true.

Tasnim is associated with Iran's Revolutionary Guards, which were criticized by Iran's government for not doing enough to prepare for national disasters..

Interestingly, the floods came only days after Iran's president urged all Iranians to "put all your curses" on the US and Israel.

Allah has a wicked sense of humor.

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.

Jordanian tour guides demonize ancient Israel as "Jewish oppression"

Historian Adam Sacks went on a tour of Jordan's archaeological sites and saw that the Arab enmity towards a Jewish state even extends to the original Jewish political entities.

The only mention he found of the word "Jewish" in any of the many Jordanian sites that used to be part of the Judean kingdom was this reference to "Jewish oppression:"

A map (found in a hotel in Amman) of the ancient area replaces Judah and Israel with Palestine and doesn't mention that any part of Jordan was actually part of Jewish "Palestine", artificially using the Jordan River to delineate the two areas:

Sacks goes on:

At the renovated museum at Petra, one can find another depiction of Judea as a ruthless, imperialist state:

Aretas II first minted coins, during his reign Alexander Janneus was King of Judah and he was a ruthless ruler who sought to expand and strengthen the territories of Judah. Around 100 BC he took control of Gaza and though the people of Gaza asked for Aretas help it came too late.

Thus the Jewish kingdom of Judah is described not just as oppressive but also as led by a "ruthless" ruler. The echo of a beleaguered and besieged Gaza is hard to not to cross-reference against contemporary events. It would be surprising if the effect were entirely unintentional.

Describing the peaceful, wealthy and diplomatic regime of the proto-Arabic Nabatean trading peoples (who spoke a Semitic language and migrated from the Arabian peninsula over centuries) in contrast to the warlike, expansionist Herodians, the permanent exhibit at Petra goes on to recount:

King Herod the great invaded twice second time taking control of large parts of the country… Aretas IV whose daughter married Herod Antipas, son of Herod the Great. Herod Antipas later divorced Phasaelis in order to marry his brother’s wife Herodias, mother of the famed Salome, who danced for Herod and in return asked for the head of John the Baptist on a platter. The shamed Phasaelis fled back home to Petra, escorted by Nabatean guard. Aretas, IV angered by the snub, sent an army to invade Herod’s territory and captured large parts of it along the west bank of the Jordan river.

So it appears that duplicity and decadence can be added to the cycle of war, revenge and retribution between the Judeans and the proto-Arabs in the last century BCE. Added to this is a reference to the infamous tale of Salome and John the Baptist, which could plausibly be considered one of the foundational narratives of Christian and global anti-Semitism.

Jordan's peace treaty with Israel is now almost 25 years old.

Some "peace."

(h/t Yoel)

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.

04/02 Links Pt2: Jew-hatred poses as anti-racism in ‘The New York Times’; Former British PM Gordon Brown says Labour has ‘let the Jewish community down’

From Ian:

Jew-hatred poses as anti-racism in ‘The New York Times’

This week’s New York Times Magazine features an essay by the veteran Israel-hater Nathan Thrall titled “How the Battle over Israel and Anti-Semitism Is Fracturing American Politics.” Employing a variety of lies, half-truths, illogical deductions, and insinuations, it draws a contrast between wealthy Jewish donors to the Democratic party who are sympathetic to Israel and minority, primarily black, activists who are anti-Israel. Jonathan Tobin comments:

Thrall’s object is to justify [boycott-Israel] campaigns that anchor the debate about the subject in “Black-Palestinian solidarity” and the effort to view the war on Israel through the “racial-justice prism.” The result is an 11,000-word essay that seeks to . . . paint Zionism as inherently racist and efforts to destroy Israel as idealistic attempts to defend human rights, [while also seeking] to portray the pro-Israel movement’s effort to push back at anti-Semitic attacks as tainted by prejudice against African-Americans and fueled primarily by the heavy-handed efforts of Jewish donors to manipulate the Democratic party.

One of Thrall’s primary sources is the former deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes. . . . The article . . . amplifies Rhodes’s specious claim that President Obama’s inability to persuade Israel’s supporters to back him on the [Israel-Palestinian] issue was due to racial prejudice. He claims that supporters of Israel assumed that Barack Obama was pro-Palestinian because he was black. Rhodes’s thesis, which Thrall endorses, is that this alleged fear of Obama was the result of the pro-Israel community’s understanding that the Jewish state really was “an oppressor.” According to Rhodes, Obama’s critics were “acknowledging, through [their] own fears, that Israel treats the Palestinians like black people had been treated in the United States.”

This argument has it backward. Jewish Democrats [went to enormous lengths] to maintain their faith that Obama had been sincere in his professions of support for Israel when he ran for president in 2008, in spite of evidence to the contrary, both then and later. Far from being prejudiced against him, most American Jews stuck loyally to Obama, despite his belief that more “daylight” was needed between Israel and the United States. They even supported his efforts to appease an Iranian regime that was bent on genocide.

The assumption that Palestinians and Israeli Arabs are treated the same way as the African-American victims of Jim Crow in the pre-civil-rights-era South is a big lie. . . . The standoff about the future of the West Bank exists because the Palestinians have repeatedly rejected offers of peace and statehood. They would have attained independence long ago had they been willing to recognize the legitimacy of a Jewish state, no matter where its borders might be drawn.

Former British PM Gordon Brown says Labour has ‘let the Jewish community down’

Former British prime minister Gordon Brown announced Monday he has joined the Jewish Labour Movement (JLM) as an affiliate member, in a bid to combat rising anti-Semitism within the opposition party.

In a video released by the Hope not Hate organization, which works to challenge racism, the former Labour leader says the party has “let the Jewish community and itself down” over the past two years, in a reference to the anti-Semitism accusations that have dogged the party and its leadership.

The clip was filmed at London’s Liverpool Street Station, where there is a statue to commemorate the nearly 10,000 predominantly Jewish children who were rescued in the Kindertransport during World War II. The children were taken out of Europe and fostered in Britain and as a result were often the only members of their families to survive the Holocaust.

In the video, Brown speaks passionately of “the promises we made following the unspeakable horrors of the Holocaust to the Jewish community: that you will never walk alone and we will never walk by on the other side.”

He also notes that the party “should never have allowed legitimate criticism — that I share — of the current Israeli government to act as a cover for the demonization of the entire Jewish people.”

This is genuine solidarity.
I’d heard rumours that Gordon Brown was releasing a video.
No one asked him to stand up to antisemitism and to stand by @JewishLabour
He just did.
pic.twitter.com/wGUPj3dg7A
— Peter Mason (@_petermason) April 1, 2019

When the UK’s left-wing prime minister was one of Israel’s closest friends

Harold Wilson may be less well-known internationally than Margaret Thatcher or Tony Blair, but he dominated British politics for much of the 1960s and 1970s — and remains the only modern-day prime minister to win four general elections.

His return to office 45 years ago this month was as unexpected as his defeat had been four years previously when, having rewarded him with a landslide victory in 1966, the voters unceremoniously ejected his Labour government in June 1970.

But, in many regards, Wilson’s roller-coaster ride in the decade between 1964 and 1974, from victory to defeat and back again, was completely predictable.

Famously pragmatic — critics claimed unprincipled — the former prime minister’s name became for a time synonymous with the wheeler-dealing and political game-playing in which he undoubtedly reveled.

As one contemporary newspaper columnist suggested, Wilson’s image was “a dark serpentine crawling trimmer, shifty and shuffling, devious, untrustworthy, constant only in the pursuit of self-preservation and narrow party advantage.” For the historian Dominic Sandbrook, Wilson was “a brilliant opportunist.”

There was, however, a limit to Wilson’s alleged opportunism. As the left wing and veteran Zionist Labour MP, Ian Mikardo, once argued: “I don’t think Harold … [had] any doctrinal beliefs at all. Except for one, which I find utterly incomprehensible, which is his devotion to the cause of Israel.”

Wilson’s leadership arguably marked the high point of the relationship between Labour and British Jews, a bond which has today been strained by Jeremy Corbyn’s strident anti-Zionism and the allegations of anti-Semitism which continue to rock the party. It is a reminder not simply of happier times, but of the staunch support that the left once offered to Israel and the rather more ambivalent stance adopted by British conservatives.

Cartoon of the Day: How wonderful to meet one of you people

I was going to caption the man "The Forward" but that was too obvious....

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.