In any type of conflict, an ideal strategy is one that
places your opponent in a lose-lose situation.
In military combat, this might involve trapping your enemy
so that his army has only two choices: advance and be decimated, or retreat and
get cut down while racing away in disordered flight. In the first Gulf War, General Norman
Schwarzkopf successfully shattered the Iraqi army not just through superior
firepower, but through maneuvers that left his opponent no choice that did not
involve annihilation.
Tactics that place your foe in a lose-lose situation are
also common in other sorts of combat, such as the propaganda warfare carried
out daily against Israel. For example, a
rhetorical maneuver proponents of BDS like to use is the claim that the fight
against them demonstrate their own success, leading to questions like “Why
would Israel’s supporters put so much effort into fighting BDS is it wasn’t
effective?”
The brilliance of this maneuver is that it places Israel’s
friends in a lose-lose situation: either fight against BDS and be used as
evidence of enemy strength, or ignore it – which effectively hands the field
over to that enemy to do as they like.
The recent flare-up over two BDS-supporting Congresswomen
visiting Israel put the Jewish state into a similar lose-lose situation: either
bar the pair and have condemnations rain down or say “Yes” to the visit and
allow your foes to travel the region ginning up hatred. While many pro-Israel activists helped blunt
the effectiveness of this propaganda attack (by, for example, exposing the
anti-Semitic nature of the organization that was sponsoring their Israel trip),
that represented after-the-fact repair work in a situation where the enemy had
already set the terms of engagement.
Unfortunately, I can’t think of many situations when Israel
and her friends were able to perform this same trick. Perhaps this is because our opponents can
count on a pliant media to parrot their messages while treating anything our
side says with skepticism. Or maybe we lack
the cynicism reflected in the other side’s willingness to use the suffering of
others (including one Congresswoman’s own grandmother) to further their
cause.
Israel’s limited options also reflects the power dynamic of
the war against the Jews. While huge
investment has been made in portraying Israel as powerful (and privileged), that
has been done to mask the fact that the world’s sole Jewish state has had to do
battle with 20+ Arab states allied with several dozen more Muslim ones who
control not just half the world’s oil reserves, but also major international
organizations like the UN. Given this, the majority of Israel’s energies must
be invested in manning the siege walls, a
defensive strategy that limits offensive choices that could pin down our foes
in a lose-lose situation.
And then there is the reality that while Israel’s enemies
are at war with the Jewish state, the reverse is not true. As mentioned previously,
the dream come true for nearly every Israeli (and every Israeli supporter) is
to see the nation living at peace with her neighbors. This is a worthy goal, but does not lend
itself to the sorts of propaganda tactics used by enemies who want to see
Israel become an object of hatred and ultimately destroyed.
That said, it is possible to isolate and brand an enemy
(such as the BDS “movement”) that doesn’t necessarily require us to ferment
hatred against those we ultimately want to live in peace with. The fact that most people on our side refer
to BDS as anti-Semitic has already gone a long way to freeze that project and
define it in our own terms. We might
also be able to do a little Jiu jitsu at their expense, insisting that the very
existence of their program demonstrates that Israel must be fabulously
successful and beloved (otherwise, why run boycotts and divestment campaigns against
it?).
The only trick with any techniques to place our opponents in
a lose-lose situation in a propaganda war of their own making is to repeat our
talking points incessantly, never replying to the other side’s charges and
ignoring anything the other side tries to say in their own defense. This is
obviously not the stuff of dialog, but dialog only takes place between people
playing the same game and if the BDSers want to continue their propaganda
warfare incessantly, our response should be an even more incessant
counterattack.
We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
In July, Israeli media reported that the Trump plan calls for a land corridor linking the Gaza Strip with the Palestinian Authority. It would be better called a terror corridor. Israel’s internal security services revealed recently that Hamas, more or less confined to the Gaza Strip, is pushing to create terror cells in the West Bank. An unrestricted land corridor, effectively cutting Israel in two, would make the job that much easier.
If Israel is nervous, Jordan is even more so. King Abdullah fears that the peace deal will make changes to Jordan’s status on the Temple Mount. Its control of the Muslim holy sites there is what gives the kingdom its religious legitimacy. Abdullah also fears the deal will propose some sort of confederation between the kingdom and the West Bank, which would undermine Hashemite rule and turn Jordan into a "de facto" Palestinian state.
In fact, when it comes to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, the only thing worse than trying for an agreement is succeeding in making one. The Oslo Accords were a catastrophe for Israel. Land was handed over to a terrorist entity that proceeded to kill nearly 2,000 Jews in attacks the likes of which Israel had never seen. The Oslo process eventually led to Israel’s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, which has exposed the country’s south to incessant rocket attack and the torching of thousands of acres of fields. With one such "peace agreement," can Israel survive two?
Trump could end this madness with a tweet. He isn’t overly invested.
Confronted with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s remarks that a deal may be "unexecutable," Trump responded quite simply that he "may be right." Just last week, on August 18, Trump said, "It is tough to make a deal when there is that much hate."
Such comments could swiftly lead to the exits. "Hey folks, we got it wrong. One side isn’t interested in peace." It would mean an end to the painful tradition of one administration after another jousting at the same peace windmills.
Lies can sow enormous suffering. But they’re also like balloons. Sometimes it just takes a pinprick.
A book titled Palestine: A Four-Thousand-Year History, which seeks to trace modern Palestinian identity back many centuries before the oldest parts of the Hebrew Bible were composed, might be dismissed out of hand as a work of quackery. But the author, Nur Masalha, has a doctorate from a British university and a post at London’s prestigious School of Oriental and African Studies. In a careful review, Alex Stein takes apart the book’s various distortions, half-truths, cherry-picking of evidence, insinuations, and logical leaps, of which a few examples suffice: On . . . the enduring use of the name Palestine itself, [one of the book’s core arguments], Masalha provides no evidence to back up this claim. Nor does he identify the people or peoples who [supposedly] used the name Palestine so habitually. . . . [O]f the four specific examples produced to link the term Palestine to the Late Bronze Age (3300 to 1200 BCE), three are taken from the 7th century CE onward. Despite its presentation as a 4,000-year history, Palestine has a distinct bias toward the era that followed the Islamic conquest of the Levant in 636 CE.
Even when he is writing about the Bronze Age, Masalha strives to emphasize the Arab connection:
Arabic-language epigraphic evidence from Palestine east of the Jordan River is extensive, with some Arabic inscriptions dating from the Roman era and as early as 150 CE. In fact, Palestine is extremely rich in Arabic inscriptions, most of which date from the early Islamic and Umayyad periods.
A more relevant observation, especially in a chapter dealing with the Late Bronze Age, [which ended by] 500 BCE, would clearly be the numerous Hebrew inscriptions discovered by archaeologists and dating from that period.
Likewise, despite repeatedly insisting that his goal is to “read the history of Palestine through the eyes of the indigenous” in order to create a “pluralist” version of history as opposed to the version shaped by colonialism, Masalha goes to great lengths to minimize Jewish history in the land of Israel. As Stein puts it, “there is no room for Jews in Masalha’s ‘pluralist’ reading of Palestine’s history, other than as passive members of a ‘faith community’ living under Arab Muslim hegemony.” And as a historian explicitly hostile to imperialism and colonialism, Masalha has a notable blind spot, as evidenced by his discussion of “indigenous” vs. “settler-colonist” place names:
THE ONLY way to prevent further decline in American capabilities, particularly in the Middle East, is to bolster deterrence. A withdrawal from the Middle East must be accompanied by steps that reduce the general impression of a weak US going home in defeat.
The place to make a stand is regarding Iran. Obama cut a deal with Iran that only encouraged its quest for hegemony and drive for nuclear weapons, while buying time in the hope that Iran will not harass the United States. In contrast, Trump understands that the Islamic Republic of Iran is an enemy of the US and that it is determined to acquire a nuclear weapon. But his hopes for forcing Iran to change its policies under diplomatic and economic pressure, while pursuing a policy of US disengagement from the Middle East, are unlikely to be realized.
The only way to leave the Middle East with as little as possible damage to US standing and security is to leave with a big bang. Washington must instill fear in the hearts of its enemies.
Despite the significant reduction in American military capabilities, the US still has enough punch to punish regional opponents and to generate fear. The US still possesses a strong enough air force to conduct a short campaign to destroy the critical Iranian nuclear installations.
Such military action would also delay nuclear proliferation, an important goal for the US, encourage US regional allies and discourage its opponents.
Indeed, action against a nuclear-aspiring Islamist Iran would reverberate beyond the Middle East and send a clear signal to anti-American forces all over the world.
Enhanced deterrence would prevent further Iranian provocations and would buy the US time to put its house in order and get serious about being a superpower.
Today, on a patch of land dreamed about for millennia, millions of Jews are living a different Jewish life. And they are doing it in a way that continues to preserve identity across generations. And increasingly, that unique approach to life and history and identity are exporting themselves—their cultural products, their innovation, their very life essence—to America.
But now it seems that Israeliness does not have to be exported in order to expand its impact.
In fact, the sense of identity offered by Israeliness may not even be limited to Jews.
In describing what he calls The Israelification of Israeli Arabs, Druze Israeli poet and essayist Salman Masalha points to a survey by Sicha Mekomit before the previous election. That survey found that
a deep process of Israelification is underway in Arab society. Forty-six percent of respondents defined themselves as Israeli Arabs, 22 percent as Arabs, 19 percent as Israeli Palestinians and only 14 percent as Palestinians. In other words, 65 percent affixed the term “Israeli” to the way they define themselves.
Contrary to prevailing conceptions, it turns out that the Arab public yearns to participate in determining the political and social agenda of this country.
Masalha wrote his article for Haaretz.
Another writer for Haaretz, Alexander Yakobson, continues that thought that Arab citizens seek ‘Israeliness’ and goes further, quoting from other findings from that same survey that Masalha didn't mention.
For instance:
76 percent of Arabs say relations between Jews and Arabs in Israel in everyday life are “mostly positive” and only 18 percent described them as negative (compared to 53 percent and 33 percent, respectively, among the Jewish respondents). And 94 percent of the Arabs surveyed agree there is a Jewish people as well as a Palestinian people (while 52 percent of the Jews surveyed said there is a Palestinian people and not just a Jewish people). [emphasis added]
This sense of Israeliness does not negate a Palestinian Arab identity.
Yakobson admits the need to be careful when evaluating surveys, especially when dealing with a single, individual one. After all, a lot depends on the way questions are phrased, and there are other surveys where the sense of a Palestinian identity is expressed more strongly. But despite those reservations, Yakobson believes the overall picture described by the survey Masalha cites does in fact correspond with dozens of surveys over the years.
He believes he can reconcile these 2 sides of an Arab identification with Israel while maintaining a Palestinian Arab identity as well:
My conjecture is that the Arab public votes as it does, first and foremost, because most of them accept the Palestinian national narrative that the Arab parties represent. However, in its attitude toward the state, most of this public does not draw the natural emotional conclusions from this narrative.
The implication is that there is a sense of pragmatism at work here.
Sure, there are good pragmatic reasons for Arabs to prefer living in an Israeli state rather than a Palestinian one, but Yakobson another poll, the 2018 Israeli Democracy Index, according to which 51 percent of the Arab respondents went so far as to say they are "proud to be an Israeli."
That is more than just pragmatism.
He concludes that on the one hand the Arabs accept the Palestinian narrative and will continue to vote for those who promote it, while at the same time these same Arabs do not represent what that Palestine narrative implies.
While, neither the Arab nor the Israeli leadership can make claim to total allegiance from the Israeli Arab population, the Israeli government has an opportunity "to make it easier for the majority of Arab citizens to realize their desire to integrate more fully into Israeliness without forgoing their distinct identity."
That is good news when it comes to the Arab Israelis.
But what about the Palestinian Arabs?
On that score, David Goldman suggests that The Palestinian Problem Is Dying of Natural Causes -- literally -- on account of the failure of the oft-threatened "demographic bomb" to go off, as predicted by those who advised Israel of the urgency of making peace before Jewish Israelis become a minority in their own country.
Instead, the opposite was true.
Goldman quotes an article he wrote for the Asia Times, where he suggested that instead of making peace with a Palestinian Arab population "heavily tilted towards hot-headed youngsters", Israel should instead wait and take advantage of the declining Palestinian fertility rate which would raise the average age of the West Bank population. Comparable to the situation in Northern Ireland, the militants "would find themselves married with mortgages."
As proof of that potential for integration and peace, Goldman writes about the 5,800 Palestinian Arabs working at technology companies on the West Bank. He describes the booming Israeli software sector outsourcing to the West Bank, with Palestinian software companies filling orders for Israeli firms. Ariel University, located in Samaria, is a the top school for Palestinian computer science students and he brings quotes of the positive experience of Arab students who find that politics and academic studies can be separated.
Combined with Masalha and Yakobson the picture Goldman paints of the potential for peace is an encouraging one -- let's just hope that it is more successful than last time.
Young Arabs, mostly boys, from the country’s north were invited to live, study and work on kibbutzim. They left their village homes alone and spent years in these communities – working, eating and sleeping alongside the Jewish kibbutzniks. In some cases they made the move with their family’s blessing, but others were rebelling against their parents and their society.
The Arab Pioneers learned Hebrew, danced the hora, raised the Israeli flag, sang “Hatikva,” the national anthem, and in some cases even took Hebrew names. Some began relationships with Jewish girls and aspired to assimilate into the kibbutz society. Others wanted to learn new agricultural methods with the aim of returning home and improving life in their villages. A few of them tried to realize a dream and establish an Arab kibbutz.
“The Jews we had met until then were part of the cruel suppression by the military government,” Mahmoud Younes recalls in a conversation at his elegant home in the town of Arara in the Triangle’s Wadi Ara area. Sitting next to an expressive painting of a dove of peace, he continues, “Suddenly we were sitting with Jews as equals. Eating with them in the [communal] dining room, working. A different Israel.”
The movement, which was an initiative of the left-wing Hashomer Hatzair youth movement, existed from 1951 until 1966, the same year that military rule over the country’s Arabs ended. At its height, around 1960, it had 1,800 members and 45 branches in Arab villages. The participants had a uniform – the standard dark blue Hashomer Hatzair shirt with a white string, along with a kaffiyeh and aqal (headband). They also had their own emblem, in the form of a proud youth movement member standing under an Arab-style arch, and they had a variation of the movement’s slogan: “hazak vene’eman” – be strong and loyal – instead of “hazak ve’amatz” – be strong and brave. The Arab movement members took part in hikes, in May Day parades, even in Independence Day folk dancing.
Members of the Pioneer Arab Youth movement, 1956. Credit: Hashomer Hatzair Archive
Jews and Arab youths dancing the debka on Kibbutz Yakum near Netanya, 1955. Hashomer Hatzair Archive / Yad Yaari Research & Documentation Center
According to Avraham Ben Tzur, one of the founders, "the intention was not to turn them into Jews, but into pioneers."
he had taught his wards about the fate of the Jewish people and their need for a state, and at the time saw no contradiction between the national aspirations of the Jews and the Arabs. “The intention was to educate for positive Arab nationalism, not aggressive nationalism that would turn against Zionism, but one espousing historical and literary values.”
Some of the members took what they learned on the kibbutz and brought that know-how back to their Arab villages:
o In 1956, a cooperative vegetable garden called “The Pioneer” was founded in Kafr Yasif. o In Taibeh, an agricultural cooperative called “The Hope” was established. It included a plan for setting up a cooperative movie theater, that never came to fruition. o In 1957, a water-drilling project that Younes established in Arara.
According to historian Shaul Paz, the leaders of Hashomer Hatzair “wanted to believe that, just as a new Jew was being created, so, too, a new Arab would be created, one who could be a socialist, a pioneer and a kibbutznik as well.
But in the end, despite the original promise and success, there was disillusionment.
According to one former member of the Pioneer Arab Youth:
“the coexistence was forced, not genuine. Coexistence is expressed in everyday life, in deeds, not in theories. It was hypocrisy per se, and I think that the same hypocrisy exists to this day. The kibbutzim believe above all that this is a Jewish state and that the Jews in it are more privileged than the Arabs and have priority in everything.
Though the Arabs interviewed did not see it, it may be, if the surveys are accurate, progress has been made since then.
Maybe in part because of the demographics that Goldman refers to.
Maybe it is a function of time -- and realizing that neither the Arabs nor the Jews are going anywhere.
At least it is a start.
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.
Arab media yesterday uniformly blamed Israel for the drone that exploded at a Hezbollah media office in Beirut. Al Jazeera's report was typical:
Lebanon's Prime Minister Saad Hariri has said two Israeli drones, which came down in the Hezbollah-dominated southern suburbs of Beirut, amounted to an open attack on the country's sovereignty and an attempt to foment regional tensions.
"The new aggression ... constitutes a threat to regional stability and an attempt to push the situation towards further tension," Hariri said on Sunday in a statement from his office.
Speaking later on Sunday, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah said the fall of the two Israeli drones marked a dangerous development.
"The latest Israeli development is very, very, very dangerous," he said in a pre-scheduled televised speech.
Earlier, Mohammed Afif, a Hezbollah spokesperson, said a small, unmanned reconnaissance drone fell on the roof of a building that was housing Hezbollah's media office in the Moawwad neighbourhood in Dahyeh suburb on Sunday.
He said a second drone, which appeared to have been sent by Israel to search for the first drone less than 45 minutes later, exploded in the air and crashed nearby.
"We did not shoot down or explode any of the drones," Afif told The Associated Press news agency.
The thing is, this does not sound like an Israeli attack in the least. Israel has nothing to gain by attacking as minor a target as a Hezbollah media office or to attack heavily populated Beirut altogether.
The release of photographs of a drone that crashed in the Lebanese capital Beirut early Sunday morning cast doubt on the claim by the Hezbollah terror group that the craft belonged to the Israeli military, with some Israeli analysts speculating that the unmanned aerial vehicle was in fact an Iranian model.
Several well-connected Israeli commentators, including a former IDF general, said the drones appeared to be of an Iranian origin.
Former head of Military Intelligence Amos Yadlin, who now heads the esteemed Institute for National Security Studies think tank, speculated that the drone may have been part of a plot by Tehran to send armed drones into northern Israel to bomb military installations and national infrastructure, an attack that the IDF said it foiled late Saturday night with a series of airstrikes in Syria.
The photo released by Hezbollah shows a quadcopter-style drone, more like one from a hobbyist than an army:
Quadcopter drones are used by Iranian-allied forces, and they can be used by professional armies in specific circumstances, but nothing about this situation makes it seem likely to be Israeli.
Typically, quadcopter drones can only be aloft for a half hour or so and require someone controlling it from relatively close by. If a professional army uses quadcopter style drones it would be more for a soldier to gain real time intelligence than to be a suicide mission. The best commercial drones have a range of less than 10 kilometers, but the distance from Israel's northern border to Beirut is over 60 km - and the chances that the IDF would put a soldier on the ground closer to Beirut for such a nebulous target seems very small.
Military drones meant to bomb a target are almost invariably fixed wing drones, which can go much longer distances and can carry a much larger payload.
Nothing about this attack points to Israel.
If it wasn't from Israel, than who sent it?
Yadlin's guess that this was an Iranian drone and meant to be part of the operation that was meant to be launched mostly from Syrian territory is possible but also seems unlikely. At the very least, the Israeli intelligence that uncovered the Iranian plot would (or should) have known about this one, but they wouldn't have the range to hit Israel from Beirut either. The Iranian drones that were hit by Israel in Syria looked like fixed-wing drones, not quadcopters. Houthi drones being used more recently are also fixed-wing.
Could an anti-Hezbollah Lebanese group have been testing a booby trapped commercial drone and they chose a time when everyone would blame Israel? Could it have been a Hezbollah drone that went bad?
It seems almost certain that this explosives' laden drone was launched from within a couple of kilometers of Beirut. This means that someone else is testing or using quadcopter drones for small scale attacks within Lebanon. Hezbollah (and Iran) might be blaming Israel to avoid thinking about a threat closer to home.
UPDATE: Times of London has a plausible scenario where there was an extremely high value target in that building, meaning that it would indeed be worth the risk for a precision quadcopter drone strike - either from Lebanon or the Mediterranean.
We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
In a first for North Africa, German nonprofit organization Pixelhelper is building a Holocaust memorial and education center in Morocco.
The monument is situated some 26 km. southeast of Marrakech on the road to the Ouarzazate Film Studios in the little town of Ait Faska, a n area that attracts thousands of tourists.
PixelHelper founder Oliver Bienkowski told The Jerusalem Post on Wednesday that the only other Holocaust memorial on the African continent is in South Africa.
“Between our place and this, there is no [other] remembrance to the Holocaust,” Bienkowski said.
The news of the project has sparked a wave of public and official anger and sharp criticism of the authorities in the media and a number of interested and anti-normalization jurists.
Ahmed Ihaman, head of the Observatory of Morocco the anti-normalization, said the construction of a memorial to the Holocaust monument Holocaust in Marrakech, Morocco is a Zionist breakthrough, expressing his strong condemnation of the Zionist penetration, which reached unprecedented levels with Morocco
Two Moroccan human rights activists called on the government on Sunday to clarify the alleged intention of a German organization to build a Holocaust memorial and educational center near the central city of Marrakech.
On Facebook, human rights activist Hamid El Wali urged the Moroccan government to show the truth in light of media reports of a Holocaust memorial.
Because obviously commemorating the Holocaust is something only "Zionists" do.
The Masarabia article quoted above describes the Holocaust this way:
The Holocaust is a term used to describe the campaigns of the Nazi German government and some of its allies to ethnically liquidate Jews in Europe during World War II (1939-1945), according to the Israeli occupying power, which subsequently received substantial compensation from European countries for this.
To Arabs, the Holocaust is an Israeli "narrative," not a fact.
UPDATE: Moroccan authorities demolished the memorial, and the person interviewed here has to be seen to be believed:
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 US State Department website has deleted the Palestinian Authority from the list of countries and areas on its website.
Until recently, 'Palestinians' appeared on the site under the name 'Palestinian Authority' and before that the 'Palestinian Territories'.
Over the past year there has been a significant devaluation of the Palestinian status on the US side, with the State Department ordering to remove any reference that included the word 'occupied territories' in reference to the Palestinian Arabs.
Now the very existence of a Palestinian Authority is not present on the official website representing the US State Department.
Even within the United Nations, a sprawling multinational bureaucracy linked by luxury dining, corruption and complicity in terrorism, the UNRWA stands out for waste, corruption and terror.
The UNRWA’s abbreviation leaves out its full title, United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, and its heavy focus on Gaza. The UNRWA classifies 1.4 million or 73% of the people living in Gaza as “refugees” even though it’s an independent territory run by Hamas.
There are really two UNRWA agencies. One is a UN agency run by a small number of international staffers. Another is an arm of Hamas which employs thousands of “Palestinians”. Many if not most of these are members of Hamas. Some, like Suhail al-Hindi, the former head of the UNRWA union, who was also a member of Hamas’ leadership, serve in the upper echelons of the terror group.
While a handful of European UN employees act as the public face of UNRWA, the actual agency is run by Hamas operatives who control its schools, using them to recruit and to store weapons. The union representing UNRWA employees is controlled by Hamas and its employees implement Hamas policies.
Hamas had announced as much when its newspaper responded to a call to fire UNRWA Hamas members by writing, “Laying off the agency employees because of their political affiliation means laying off all the employees of the aid agency, because…they are all members of the ‘resistance.’”
The power struggle between the UN employees and Hamas was tested before during clashes over the teaching of the Holocaust in UNRWA schools and the use of UNRWA schools to launch attacks on Israel.
The real crackup came when the Trump administration cut off all funding to UNRWA.
On a Rosh Hashana call, President Trump told Jewish leaders that the free ride for terrorists was over.
“I stopped massive amounts of money that we were paying to the Palestinians,” he announced. “The United States was paying them tremendous amounts of money.”
New Zealand has now joined the Swiss, Dutch, and Belgium governments in suspending donations to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) following an internal report that found “credible and corroborated” allegations of serious ethical abuses including “sexual misconduct, nepotism, retaliation, discrimination and other abuses of authority, for personal gain, to suppress legitimate dissent, and to otherwise achieve their personal objectives.”
Originally, Foreign Minister Peters and officials in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) said
“We are aware of recent media reports of allegations of ethical issues and mismanagement within UNRWA. We expect UNRWA to cooperate fully with any investigation and to report back on the investigation’s findings and recommendations.”Rt Hon Winston Peters
However, after seeing a draft report from The Israel Institute of New Zealand (IINZ) that shows MFAT officials did not brief Ministers on substantial failings within UNRWA, did not record meetings where concerns about UNRWA were raised, and took the word of UNRWA officials without any apparent attempts at independent corroboration, MFAT responded that
“the Ministry will review the findings of the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) report once the investigation is complete and provide advice to the New Zealand Government. New Zealand will not make any further payments to UNRWA until we have reviewed the report’s findings and assessed UNRWA’s response to any recommendations.”MFAT staff
This is the first time New Zealand has suspended donations to the UN agency.
In pondering the Tlaib / Omar Israel fiasco we learned that while the Democrats were throwing a fit because Netanyahu decided against allowing US Representatives Rashida Tlaib and Ilham Omer into the country, they seem to have forgotten that the US refused to issue a visa to Knesset member Michael Ben Ari in 2012 when he was part of the National Union coalition. This, of course, smacks of hypocrisy. Ben Ari -- a student of hard-right-wing rabbi and politician, Meir Kahane -- was denied a visa to the US on the grounds that he had been a member of Kach, Meir Kahane's now-defunct political party that was outlawed in Israel on the grounds of racism. At some point that same year he co-founded the Kahanist political party, Otzma Yehudit, which translates into English as "Jewish Power" or "Jewish Strength." (To an American ear, these have very distinct connotations. On their English-language Facebook page they go with "Jewish Strength.") Otzma Yehudit represents a break-away party from the National Union coalition of right-wing and nationalist political parties, Ben Ari's former political home and from which he first gained entrance into the Knesset in 2009. "Progressive-left," you can be sure, this guy is not. The Kahanists, after all, also gave us Baruch Goldstein who on February 25, 1994, entered the Cave of the Patriarchs in the heart of Hebron, wearing his army uniform, and opened fire on Arabs in worship, killing 29 people and wounding 125 others. The able-bodied survivors overcame him and beat him to death on the spot. Perhaps dragging Goldstein into this is a bit unfair to Ben Ari but the decision-makers in Washington, D.C. (with Joe Biden sitting in the Vice President's office) were not oblivious to the reputation of Kahanism from whatever political party it comes out of. This got me wondering just how heinous is Otzma Yehudit? Among liberal and progressive-left American Jews anything that smacks of Kahane brings to mind racism and violence if not terrorism and Otzma Yehudit is ultimately Kahane's baby. It is for this reason that the United States outlawed Kahane's Jewish Defense League as a domestic terrorist organization. Most liberal and progressive-left American Jews are ashamed of Kahane. I, therefore, decided to examine the political ideology of Otzma Yehudit in order to see what I could make of it from a personal political perspective. Before I proceed, however, I want it understood that none of my conclusions represent an endorsement of Meir Kahane and certainly not of Baruch Goldstein. All I am doing here is cross-referencing the Otzma Yehudit Wikipedia page with its English-language self-described platform (pdf) as hosted by the Jewish Community Relations Council located in the San Francisco Bay Area. The reason that I bother with Wikipedia is because, in truth, their description of the party's platform is concise and closely in line with Otzma Yehudit's stated principles. Wikipedia describes Otzma Yehudit as follows:
The party is considered to be Religious Zionist, Kahanist, ultra-nationalist, anti-Arab, and far-right, and has also been described as racist, though the party disputes this.
The English-language self-described platform is very close to this, although they would never describe themselves as anti-Arab. Speaking strictly for myself -- as I intend to do throughout the rest of this exercise -- this does not sound like a very pleasant platform. As someone who grew up in a Reform Jewish household in both New York and Connecticut, such an ideology is entirely alien to my political sensibilities. Wikipedia writes:
It calls for the annexation of the West Bank, and for complete Israeli rule between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.
The annexation of Judea and Samaria is not something that I have a problem with, in theory. The question is how to balance the demographic issue with the international reaction to such a move, which obviously would be considerable. There are ways of easing the demographic issue even under the circumstances of annexation. Thus, I do not necessarily have an issue with the party on this part of the platform. The devil, as always, is in the details.
The party is against the formation of a Palestinian state, and advocates for the cancellation of the Oslo accords, as well as for imposing Israeli sovereignty over the Temple Mount.
I tend to agree on all three counts. A Palestinian-Arab state directly in the heart of the Jewish homeland would be a disaster. It would simply continue the process of what I sometimes call The Long Arab-Muslim War against the Jews of the Middle East. It would be a giant launching-pad looking down from the hills upon Tel Aviv. The Oslo accords are, of course, dead in the water. In truth it was a chimera, to begin with. The reason for this is because the Palestinian-Arab leadership never accepted any offer for statehood. From the Peel Commission of 1937 to the offers from Ehud Barack to Yassir Arafat and Ehud Olmert to Mahmoud Abbas the answer was always an unequivocal "no." One begins to think that a free and democratic and peaceful Palestinian-Arab state next to Israel is not exactly what they had in mind. As for the Temple Mount, I sometimes feel bad for the reputation of Moshe Dayan. He was an excellent soldier and an icon of the Movement for Jewish Freedom which we call Zionism. But the Israelis should never have offered the Jordanian Waqf authority on the holiest site of Jewish heritage. Personally, I would like to see the Temple Mount democratized for worship among all faiths under Israeli sovereignty. So, I am good with the platform on this, as well, although with the caveat that such a move would be exceedingly sensitive and could easily cause Israel much blood and trouble, both internationally and at home. Nonetheless, the status quo is unacceptable because it is entirely unjust to everyone other than Muslims.
The party also advocates for increased teaching of Jewish history in all elementary schools to "deepen Jewish identity in students".
I find it difficult to believe that anyone who cares about the well-being, and ongoing existence, of the Jewish people, could possibly have any problem with such a proposition.
The party is against "freezing construction of Jewish settlements, releasing terrorists, or negotiating with the PA".
As I do not necessarily oppose the annexation of Judea and Samaria, why would I oppose Jewish people living anywhere within the home of our forefathers? Releasing terrorists, of course, is a wretched idea. It motivates Palestinian-Arab fighters to kidnap Jewish Israelis for the purpose of trading one or two of them for hundreds of terrorists who may go on to kill again. As for the Palestinian Authority, I find it regrettable that Israel even feels the need to negotiate with those who would see the Jewish population either dead or gone. My inclination, as enemies of the Jewish people and the Jewish state, would be to make them persona non grata, but I also understand that such a thing is easier said than done and the European Union, the United Nations, and the Democratic Party would have ugly things to say, and do, concerning the matter.
The party advocates for the deportation of "Arab extremists".
I agree with this proposition, but it represents a slippery-slope. The definition of "Arab extremist" must be sharp and tight. Such a proposition could easily slide into an authoritarian position wherein Israel starts deporting people who may not deserve it. So, while I am in broad agreement, I would also keep a sharp eye for the abuse of such a policy. Here, again, the EU, the UN, and the Democratic Party would scream from the hillsides.
On 24 February 2019, party member Itamar Ben Gvir called for the expulsion of Arab citizens of Israel who are not loyal to Israel.
I disagree with this entirely because it borders on the fascistic. The standard, in my opinion, should not be one of loyalty, but of actually promoting hatred or violence toward Israel or Jews.
The party advocates for what it calls "Jewish capitalism" as its economic system...
I do not know about "Jewish capitalism" but as a classical liberal who believes in regulatory capitalism, I agree.
The party also supports aiding the elderly and disabled.
Who could possibly disagree?
The party is also opposed to abortion.
I favor a woman's right to choose an abortion, within certain limitations around what is popularly known as "late-term" abortion. In the case of rape or the health of the mother, I would always stand with a woman's choice.
The party supports easing restrictions on the IDFs rules of engagement. The party is against price tag attacks.
I agree on both counts and the last thing that Israel needs is to employ soldiers afraid to fire their weaponry. There obviously needs to be rules of engagement, but none of us want to see Jewish soldiers dead or injured because they were paralyzed by concern over the court system. Overall, I think the party has much to recommend for Israel and for itself. However, there is a big distinction to be made between a party platform and the behavior of its members and leadership. I do not necessarily see much in the way of racism in the platform, but I am, nonetheless, distinctly uncomfortable with its association with Kahanism. If I was an Israeli, one thing that might keep me from voting for them would be the matter of trust, but I would give them the opportunity to earn it.
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.
New Zealand has now joined the Swiss, Dutch, and Belgium governments in suspending donations to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) following an internal report that found “credible and corroborated” allegations of serious ethical abuses including “sexual misconduct, nepotism, retaliation, discrimination and other abuses of authority, for personal gain, to suppress legitimate dissent, and to otherwise achieve their personal objectives.”
Originally, Foreign Minister Peters and officials in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) said
“We are aware of recent media reports of allegations of ethical issues and mismanagement within UNRWA. We expect UNRWA to cooperate fully with any investigation and to report back on the investigation’s findings and recommendations.”Rt Hon Winston Peters
However, after seeing a draft report from The Israel Institute of New Zealand (IINZ) that shows MFAT officials did not brief Ministers on substantial failings within UNRWA, did not record meetings where concerns about UNRWA were raised, and took the word of UNRWA officials without any apparent attempts at independent corroboration, MFAT responded that
“the Ministry will review the findings of the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) report once the investigation is complete and provide advice to the New Zealand Government. New Zealand will not make any further payments to UNRWA until we have reviewed the report’s findings and assessed UNRWA’s response to any recommendations.”MFAT staff
This is the first time New Zealand has suspended donations to the UN agency.
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.
It was a little too much for me (I try to be restrained in my use of language, but sometimes the situation does not call for restraint:)
Cut the crap. You are only speaking against white supremacist antisemitism, not the "progressive" type that denies Jews self determination. Or that says Jewish money controls Congress. Or that Jews have dual loyalties.
If you aren't against Leftist antisemitism, you aren't against antisemitism. https://t.co/lSucnBlU7Y
You chose to partner with a Palestinian group that honors terrorists who kill Jews. That published articles that claim the blood libel, Jews poisoning wells, Jews stealing organs.
And you defend these antisemitic assholes.
Don't give us your crap about caring about antisemitism.
Omar has proven time and time again that she is an unrepentant antisemite for her own words, and then the Miftah incident is just the icing on the cake. If a Republican had partnered with a white supremacist group, the Left would never let the Right get away with it, but Omar and Tlaib's willingness to partner with a group that not only supports terrorism but also publishes the most vile antisemitism from both the Left and the Right, and to defend them afterwards, proves beyond a doubt that anything they say about antisemitism is complete bull.
Yet her tweet gathered over 15,000 Likes on Twitter.
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.
For example, the Arab world contains around one-third of the world’s deserts. Most Arab countries have insufficient water resources, and poor water management, making the region especially vulnerable to desertification and drought. Israeli agricultural and water technology can resolve this problem.
However, the problem is that Arab hearts are full of conspiracy theories and Jew-hatred. According to the latest Pew research center study, 100% of Jordanian, 99% of Lebanese and 98% of Egyptians hate Jews.
This hatred is blinding Arabs to Israel’s contribution to the security of their countries and potential contribution to their economies. But then, the rest of the world has failed to see this as well.
Although Israel certainly needs to set out its case to the world, the world also needs to recognize the contribution Israel is already making in the Middle East, and open its eyes to the much larger potential. Israel on its own cannot do much to change Arab public opinion.
In conclusion, Israeli policy should not be defined by the narrow Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but mainly by the economic and security future of the wider Middle East, particularly Jordan, Syria, and Egypt.
What would the situation be today if the Golan Heights were under Syrian control? What would have happened to the security of Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, etc., if Iran had established proxy militias in the Syrian Golan Heights? Would we see the rise of another terrorist group like Hamas and Hezbollah?
Above all Israel needs to see and think, remain strong and make sure that the Jordan Valley remains part and parcel of the Jewish state, indeed becoming its economic center and stays highly populated. The Middle East needs a strong Israel.
Klavan's One-State Solution: Give the Middle East to the Jews (2011)
The controversy surrounding the crackdown on illegal workers and businesses, and the increased fear in Lebanon that the Palestinian protests could plunge the country into violence and anarchy, are likely to escalate in the coming days: the Lebanese authorities appear determined to continue.
Lebanon's discriminatory and apartheid laws and measures against Palestinians are not new. According to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), Palestinians in Lebanon are excluded from key facets of social, political and economic life. Palestinian refugees face legal restrictions that limit their rights, including the prohibition to work in 39 professions and to own property. Moreover, they have limited access to state-provided services such as health and education. Professions that remain prohibited for Palestinians include healthcare, engineering, transport, fishing, and the public sector and law.
It takes little imagination to predict the global uproar were, say, Israel to ban Arabs from working as engineers, can drivers, nurses or physicians. The international community and pro-Palestinian groups, however, seem distinctly indifferent about the plight of Palestinians in an Arab country.
While the Lebanese people's fear of Palestinian violence in their country is warranted, there is no reason why any Arab country should be subjecting Palestinians to discriminatory and apartheid regulations. The story of the mistreatment of Palestinians in Lebanon is a microcosm of a bigger problem: the Arab "betrayal" and "abandonment" of Palestinians.
It is time for the Arab countries to replace lip service to the Palestinians with deeds. It is also time for the international community and so-called pro-Palestinian groups to start reckoning with the real suffering of Palestinians, particularly in Lebanon.
There are many reasons why the Democrats and their Jewish supporters refuse to call out the anti-Jewish bigots on their own side and instead accuse President Trump, the most pro-Israel president in American history, of antisemitism.
As has also been demonstrated in Britain over the epidemic Jew-hatred within the Labour Party, there is an iron conviction on the left that they cannot be guilty of antisemitism because they are “anti-racists.” Their political identity is rooted in their belief that they are always on the side of virtue against evil-doers.
If they were ever to admit evil attitudes on their own side, their political and moral identity would collapse. So they turn reality inside out to defend the indefensible. And to protect themselves, they project their own evil onto their opponents. Thus, they falsely accuse President Trump of having the odious views of which their own side is guilty.
Nor can they admit that the Palestinian cause they support may be vile. The journalist Peter Beinart tweeted in defense of Miftah: “Frustrating to hear people who’d never heard of Miftah until today use its alleged sins to distract from deep injustice [Omar and Tlaib] were going to witness. As if an anti-white comment by SNCC (the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee which fought for black civil rights) justified segregation.”
Genocidal attitudes and attacks by Palestinians most certainly do justify the security measures Israel uses against them. Through this tweet, Beinart has not only supported a virulently antisemitic outfit, but also whitewashed the Jew-hatred and Israel-bashing of those it promotes — and promoted his own.
Such moral bankruptcy has become a pathology that is steady poisoning the Democratic Party against the Jewish people, towards which those American Jews who still support the Democrats are indeed displaying a most tragic disloyalty.
Given the context in which Trump made his remarks — that is, the Democratic Party’s open embrace of anti-Semites and anti-Semitic messaging — it is literally impossible for even a semi-literate person to misunderstand what he was saying.
Moreover, it is telling that the same people insisting that Trump’s statement was anti-Semitic are giving a pass to the Democrats for refusing to take any action to rein in their Jew hating members. It shows the disingenuousness of their sudden professed concern for anti-Jewish bigotry.
American Jews refuse to see what is happening to them while it is happening.
The likes of Tlaib and Omar are rendering them political non-entities. By attacking Trump, the main politician supporting them, while giving a free pass to the Democrats who are facilitating discrimination against them, American Jews are disenfranchising themselves. Democrats see they can abandon the Jews without consequence, and Republicans see that there is no point in sticking up for the Jews who will hate them no matter what they say and do.
This is a tragedy of epic proportions, first and foremost for the American Jewish community but really for America as a whole and for the Jewish people as a whole.
The mainstreaming of antisemitic rhetoric within Labour’s ranks ushered in a debate within the Jewish community and beyond on whether it was ethical, sensible and — yes — loyal for Jews to continue to support Labour.
The Conservative cabinet minister Sajid Javid angered some Jews when, in a Rosh Hashanah greeting last year, wrote that when British Jews are feeling under threat from Corbyn, “all decent people” must “stand together and celebrate our Jewish community.” To critics, the implication was that Jews who support Labour aren’t decent.
Others have been more explicit. Fred Dalah, a 64-year-old Jewish businessman from Edgware in northern London, wrote in 2018 in the Jewish News of London that, “Jews who vote Labour are lambs to the slaughter.”
In addition to Sacks, the president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews and three of the leading British Jewish newspapers have called Corbyn an existential threat to British Jewry. These warnings were designed to sound an alarm and prevent Corbyn from becoming prime minister. But they also emboldened British Jews and non-Jews to call out Jewish supporters of Corbyn as traitors.
At the same time, Corbyn’s supporters cite these loud warnings as a political attempt to weaponize antisemitism and sabotage a left-wing politician’s chances.
All this means that, in Britain, “Now you have the situation where there is good Jews, bad Jews, and good antisemites and bad antisemites,” said Dave Rich, head of policy at the Community Security Trust and author of a 2016 book, “The Left’s Jewish Problem: Jeremy Corbyn, Israel and antisemitism,” during a speech in 2018. “I don’t think this is really going to work.”
Contrary to the outcry on the part of his critics, Trump was not accusing Jews of being disloyal to America, but rather to themselves.
In his bull-in-a-china-shop way, he was inadvertently repeating the aphorism coined in the 1950s by social critic Milton Himmelfarb: “Jews earn like Episcopalians, and vote like Puerto Ricans.”
In other words, Trump was expressing shock and disappointment that Jews would willingly betray their own interests. In his eyes, this means that they must be ignorant of the direction in which the party they overwhelmingly support has been going. If not, they appear to be purposely sabotaging US relations with the single state established in their ancestral homeland to protect their people and serve as America’s buffer against hostile, anti-democratic forces in the volatile, strategically important region.
THOUGH TRUMP’S disillusionment may be understandable, it indicates that he doesn’t know much about Jews. This is peculiar, considering the massive amount of time he has spent around them throughout his life as a New York real estate guy and Hollywood reality TV star.
Here is what he doesn’t grasp: Only a handful of non-Orthodox Jews vote Republican; the rest pray at the altar of the Democratic Party, no matter what, even when the party turns against Israel.
This apparent oddity spurred my father, Norman Podhoretz – a lifelong liberal Democrat who became a conservative Republican – to write an entire book examining the phenomenon.
Pierre Rehov: Palestine - The Invention of a Nation
Was there a country called "Palestine" before 1948? Who really are the Palestinians? What was the connection between Nazism, communism, and Palestinian nationalism? Why do media always take Palestinians side against Israel? And so much more. Everything in this film is factual and can be checked. (h/t vwVwwVwv)
An Israeli teenage girl was killed and her father and older brother were wounded on Friday when a bomb was detonated at a natural spring near the West Bank settlement of Dolev.
The fatality was identified as 17-year-old Rina Shnerb, from the central Israeli city of Lod. Her father Eitan, 46, and brother Dvir, 21, were helicoptered to a hospital in Jerusalem for medical treatment. Neither is in life-threatening condition.
The late Rina Shnerb.
The IDF is conducting searches for the perpetrators of the attack.
The scene of the incident — the Bubin spring, a popular recreation spot — is located about halfway between Modi’in and Ramallah, adjacent to Dolev and the Palestinian village of Deir Ibzi.
It is believed that an improvised explosive device was planted on an access route to the site and later set off remotely when the Shnerb family was in its vicinity.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated, “On behalf of myself and the citizens of Israel, I send deep condolences to the family of young Rina Shnerb who was murdered in a harsh terrorist attack this morning, and wishes for a quick recovery to her father, Rabbi Eitan, and her brother Dvir.”
“We will continue to strengthen settlement,” Netanyahu added. “We will deepen our roots and strike at our enemies. The security arms are in pursuit after the abhorrent terrorists. We will apprehend them. The long arm of Israel reaches all those who seek our lives and will settle accounts with them.”
Security forces launched a large-scale manhunt throughout the central West Bank on Friday, after terrorists set off a bomb in a spring near the Dolev settlement, killing a teenage girl and seriously injuring her father and brother and the IDF chief said he believed they would apprehend the killers “quickly.”
“We are in the midst of a manhunt that is being led by troops from the Israel Defense Forces, Shin Bet security service and Israel Police. We are focusing our large operational intelligence effort to finding the perpetrators of this severe and deadly terror attack,” IDF chief Aviv Kohavi said at the site of the bombing on Friday afternoon.
At approximately 10:00 a.m., the explosive device was detonated at a natural spring, known as Ein Bubin, northwest of Ramallah, as three members of the Shnerb family from the central Israeli town of Lod were visiting.
The teenage daughter, Rina, 17, was pronounced dead at the scene. Her father, Eitan, a rabbi in Lod, and her brother Dvir, 19, were taken by military helicopter to a Jerusalem hospital in serious condition.
The army said an improvised explosive device was used in the attack. Police sappers determined that the bomb had been planted earlier at the spring and was triggered remotely when the family approached it.
Security services were reportedly tracking a car that fled the scene shortly after the explosion, believing it to have been used by the culprits.
Hundreds gathered Friday to bury Rina Shnerb, an Israeli teenager killed in a terrorist bombing in the West Bank earlier in the day. Her father, wounded in the attack along with her brother, was unable to attend but addressed mourners by telephone from his hospital bed.
“We are trying to be strong here in the Land of Israel, the people of Israel, Rina believed in that,” said Rabbi Eitan Shnerb. “Our response to the murderers is that we are here and we are strong and we will prevail.”
Shnerb, her father Eitan and 19-year-old brother Dvir were all wounded in the explosion at a natural spring outside the Dolev settlement. Shnerb was pronounced dead from her injuries, while her father and brother were hospitalized in serious condition.
“We’re in a war of love against hate and hope against despair. We came here in order to accompany our loved one,” said Eli Weissberg, Rina’s uncle, at the funeral in her home town of Lod.
Weissberg said Rabbi Shnerb had asked him to convey a message to the funeral: He “asked us only to deal with the strength and love we have and the wonderful nation we have here in this great land of ours,” said Weissberg.
Last November, UCLA hosted the National Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) conference, despite protests by those who don't want to see Israel destroyed.
There was something unusual to this conference, though: The organizers did not reveal the names of the speakers, for bogus "security" reasons:
Gurutam Thockchom, an SJP board member and third-year mathematics student, said they hoped the conference would promote discussion among student activists about human rights issues in Palestine.
Thockchom said SJP would not release the names of the speakers because of security concerns.
“The Israel and Zionist lobby have many ways to try to silence people who are speaking out in support of Palestine,” Thockchom said. “One of those ways is with blacklists and smear campaigns.”
One day, I'd love to know who has been silenced.
David Abrams, a lawyer who has gone after anti-Israel groups before, has filed a lawsuit against UCLA to reveal the names of the speakers.
Abrams told me, "My argument is that UCLA permitted the conference to go forward on the ground that there should be 'open debate.' In my view, 'open debate' does not mean that you get to make a public presentation on the campus of a public university in secret. "
"Moreover," he continued, "the public has a right to investigate UCLA's compliance with anti-terrorism laws."
Abrams is suing based on his information that UCLA has received grants from USAID and therefore
must regularly certify to the State Department that it does not provide material support to anyone associated with terrorism. Hosting a known terrorist speaker at a conference may be considered material support for terrorism. Abrams points out in the official complaint that SJP has previously hosted Khader Adnan, an admitted member of Islamic Jihad, a U.S.-designated terrorist organization.
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.
Elaph reports that a theatrical performance by the Cairo-based Commerce Faculty Theater Theater, entitled "Sobibor," has caused a storm of controversy among Egyptians, particularly in their cultural and artistic community.
There were brawls and clashes between the audience and some members of the theater team, which occurred during the National Theater Festival with the jury and critics looking on during the Wednesday performance.
During the show, there were verbal altercations between the audience and members of the theater group because of what members of the audience considered "bias in favor of Israel," and echoing the Jewish narrative about the Holocaust, "while the Israelis are practicing the same methods against the Palestinians."
The show defended Jewish victims of the Holocaust and called for sympathy for them regardless of their religious affiliation. This was apparently way too much for many in the audience.
If any more proof is needed that Arab anti-Zionism is antisemitism....
Critic Omnia Talaat accused the play of "defending Zionism, and trying to sabotage the minds of young people." She added that "Sobibor falsifies history and is begging for sympathy for the Jews of the Holocaust."
Awful, 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.
My blogging will be greatly reduced over the next week.
May we only have happy occasions.
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.
This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For over 19 years and 40,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.
Out of the Box
-
[image: Dry Bones cartoon,War, America, Gaza, Jews, Jewish, Israel, Donate,
Oct 7, Jews, Mexico, Gaza Pier,]
* Here's an even BETTER IDEA!*
Help Dry Bones...
Hamas planned for a future without Israel in 2021
-
In a Gaza conference held in September 2021, Hamas declared that ‘victory
was nigh’ and set out its vision for a future without Israel. The event
(picke...
What’s Eating Joe?
-
Ahead of a meeting between Prime Minister James Marape of Papua New Guinea
and Chinese Communist Foreign Minister Wang Yi, Joe decided to accuse Papua
...
The Palestinian “Two-State” Plan: Duping the West
-
One of the great unsolved mysteries of the 21st century is why, given what
a catastrophe it proved to be, anyone, much less a whole phalanx of
politicians,...
06-Feb-24: Obituary: Naftali Gordon
-
The obituary that follows was published yesterday by *Times of Israel* under
the headline "*Master Sgt. (res.) Naftali Gordon, 32: A man of ‘honesty and
...
Closing Jews Down Under Website
-
With a heavyish heart I am closing down the website after ten years.
It is and it isn’t an easy decision after 10 years of constant work. The
past...
‘Test & Trace’ is a mirage
-
Lockdown II thoughts: Day 1 Opposition politicians have been banging on
about the need for a ‘working’ Test & Trace system even more loudly than
the govern...
Monday, August 26, 2019
Elder of Ziyon
