Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Thursday, September 19, 2019

09/19 Links Pt2: David Collier: The Guardian – anti-Israel bias, more obsessive and vindictive than you think; Head of European Jewish Association: We're not wanted here

From Ian:

Is Israel Abandoning the Liberal Order? Robert Kagan Says Yes. He's Wrong about Israel, and Wrong about the Liberal Order

Considering Israel’s relationship to what he calls the liberal world order and the new anti-liberal world order peopled by nationalist and authoritarian leaders, Kagan poses the question, “Which side does Israel want to be on?” And he answers: “in recent years Israeli foreign policy has been trending in a decidedly anti-liberal direction,” thus showing that the country actively desires to join the anti-liberal camp.

In justification of this charge, Kagan notes that Israel has pursued and maintained relations with the new leaders around the world whose authoritarian power and politics are replacing, to his dismay, the old liberal international order created by the United States after World War II and again at the end of the cold war. Kagan cites many such leaders: Putin of Russia, Xi of China, Modi of India, Orban of Hungary, and others, including the authoritarian leaders of Middle Eastern countries.

Setting aside the question of whether there are any Middle Eastern leaders besides Netanyahu who are not and have not long been authoritarian, the burden of this account would seem to be completely vitiated by two elements that Kagan himself mentions: first, that the new anti-liberal order is a fact of life, however unfortunate; and second, that Israel, despite its present success, is a tiny country endangered in a truly existential way by truly mortal enemies from its founding 71 years ago down to the present day, most recently in the form of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Indeed, in the course of his essay Kagan goes out of his way to insist on how ultimately small, weak, and thus inconsequential Israel is. He describes it as essentially a burden to the U.S. ever since its founding. Even at present, on his reckoning, were it not for America’s concern for the Jewish state, neither Iran nor Israel’s efforts to defend itself and even others in the region from Iran’s predations would matter to the U.S. Iran itself, he reassures us, is “not yet” a threat to America.

If so, what’s the big deal? The obvious conclusion to be drawn from these facts is that Israel, in order to continue to survive, is adapting to a new order created by forces much greater than its own and very much beyond its control. In so doing, it is behaving the same way other small states must behave, now and always—as a historian like Kagan well knows. From time to time in his essay, he even seems to draw the same conclusion. How, then, does the behavior of this small and ultimately inconsequential state matter as anything more than another sign of our lamentable times? Why Kagan’s preoccupation with Israel, of all the small states faced with the same circumstances?

The Tikvah Podcast: Micah Goodman on Shrinking the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

If you follow Israeli politics, then you know that within the past year, the Jewish state has experienced two deadlocked elections. What explains this political stalemate?

According to Micah Goodman, one of Israel’s leading public intellectuals, Israeli politics is trapped in a Catch-67. Most Israelis have been persuaded by the Right that peace with the Palestinians isn’t feasible and that withdrawal from Judea and Samaria would be a security nightmare. But they are also persuaded by the Left’s argument that Israel’s control over the West Bank poses a demographic time-bomb that threatens the nation’s character as a Jewish and democratic state. They think that establishing a Palestinian state right now would be a disaster and that remaining in the territories would be a disaster.

How can Israel get out of this impossible situation? By abandoning comprehensive peace plans and messianic solutions, argues Goodman. Rather than solving the conflict or ignoring it, Israel ought to focus on shrinking the conflict by improving the day-to-day lives of Palestinians while maintaining an unwavering commitment to national security. In his Altantic essay, “Eight Steps to Shrink the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict,” Goodman describes how Israel can do just that. And in this week’s podcast, he joins Tikvah to explore his vital book and thought-provoking essay.

Better Relations with Israel Are in Pakistan’s Interests

In 2003, Pakistan’s then-dictator Pervez Musharraf floated the idea of establishing diplomatic ties with the Jewish state, a position he has also repeated even after stepping down—although little came of the suggestion. A few weeks ago, the country’s current government told reporters that it is considering an overture to Jerusalem. Ephraim Inbar explains what Islamabad would gain from doing so, and that Israel’s ever-closer friendship with India—Pakistan’s chief rival—is an inducement, not a hindrance, to a thaw between the two countries:

Pakistani national interests dictate better relations with Jerusalem. Israel’s new relationship with India was gradually transformed into what Prime Minister Narendra Modi termed “a strategic partnership.” Israeli technology and arms served the Indian military effort well in the 1999 Kargil war against Pakistan. Moreover, closer Indian-Israeli cooperation after the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks enhanced Delhi’s capacity to deal with Pakistan-sponsored terror. It can be argued that better relations with Israel might balance the intensified Indian-Israeli military ties. . . .

Iran is also a point of convergence. Pakistan fears Iran, its neighbor to the west, less than Israel does. Yet it’s hard to imagine that Islamabad is indifferent to the possibility of having another nuclear-armed neighbor on its western border. In addition, both countries play games with the Baluchi minorities beyond their borders and compete over influence in Afghanistan. Therefore, the Israeli campaign against Iran, which weakens an adversary, is not [inimical] to Pakistani interests. . . .

Israel, a state in quest of international legitimacy for many years, has always welcomed Pakistani overtures. Pakistan is a large Muslim state, and better relations with Islamabad could be useful in further diluting the religious dimension of Israel’s regional conflict. Israel desires a normalization in relations with all capitals of the world. Furthermore, the Pakistani-Saudi special relations could be leveraged to let both states overcome their inhibitions on relations with the Jewish state.

From Naharnet:

Lebanon's Central Bank announced Thursday it had agreed to the self-liquidation request it received from a bank hit by US sanctions last month over ties with Hizbullah.

"Central Bank Governor Riad Salameh announced today he approved the request made by Jammal Trust Bank SAL," the Lebanese state-run National News Agency reported.

On August 29, Washington slapped heavy financial sanctions on JTB, which was accused of acting as a key financial institution for Hizbullah.

The US Treasury said the bank was used for enabling several of the Shiite militant group's financial activities, "including sending payments to families of suicide bombers."

Iran-backed Hizbullah has been a US-designated terrorist group since 1997 and fights alongside the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in the neighbouring country's civil war.

One of a handful of Shiite-owned Lebanese banks, JTB had specialised in micro-credit in remote areas of the country's Shiite-majority south, which is also Hizbullah's heartland.

In only a few weeks, the US has managed to definitely hurt Hezbollah's ability to do terror. This is the way things should be done with terror groups.

Looking forward to the next bank in Lebanon to be similarly sanctioned. You can be sure that those banks are now looking very carefully at whether they want to keep all of their customers.

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.

Racketeer In Hell Despite Shas Promise Of Heaven To Its Voters (PreOccupied Territory)

Our weekly column (delayed) from the humor site PreOccupied Territory.

Check out their Facebook page.

Gehinnom, September 19 - A criminal who died this morning after casting his ballot on Tuesday for a party representing Jews of Mizrahi heritage found himself among the damned, even though the party leadership assured the public that supporting them in the election would guarantee a place in the Garden of Eden.

Shimon Levy, 54, perished Thursday in a car accident, just two days after voting for Shas in Israel's parliamentary elections. Shas leaders had repeated a campaign tactic from previous contests, telling their voters that voting for Shas guarantees the voter will enter the Coming World.

Nevertheless, Mr. Levy, who had served six years and paid numerous fines for various corruption and racketeering offenses, ended up in Hell.

"I don't understand," gasped the small-time organized crime associate as his flesh was raked from his body, only to regenerate so it could be raked off once again, over and over. "They said if I voted for Shas I'd go to Gan Eden! I did exactly what the Rabbi said! This isn't fair!"

Shas campaign tactics featured posters and images of the late Rabbi Ovadya Yosef, the party's leader and inspiration until his passing at age 93 in 2013. The campaign invoked the Rabbi's words and messages again and again, including statements that anyone who votes for Shas cements a place in paradise - though such statements run afoul of laws that bar inducements on the part of candidates to get voters to cast ballots in their favor. The party aims to appeal to ethnic solidarity on the part of Mizrahim who feel both proud of their heritage and marginalized by the dominant Ashkenazi cultural elite. That strategy results in the use of tropes that often fuse culture and religion, in a manner that stirs loyalty even from many Mizrahim whose lifestyle departs from religious strictures in significant ways.

Representatives of Shas declined to comment on the discrepancy between the campaign promise and Mr. Levy's posthumous fate, as well as on such promises violating electoral laws. Experts point to various Talmudic passages as possible sources of resolution, noting in particular a section toward the end of Tractate Yoma discussing the circumstances and combinations of repentance, Yom Kippur, and various forms of suffering that can atone for different types of sins.

"All the sources seem to agree that interpersonal sins require that the victim consent to forgive," observed Rabbi Mendel Luphol. "That may be what made the difference in this case, considering all those directly and indirectly affected by Mr. Levy's crimes over the years. I have to wonder, then, about the afterlife prospects of someone who promises people Heaven without disclosing the fine print governing the terms and conditions."

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.

09/19 Links Pt1: No Principles, No Dignity, No Power, No Deterrence; Updated tally shows Blue and White increase lead over Likud 33-31; Iran’s judo federation calls ban over Israel boycott policy ‘unfair’

From Ian:

MEMRI: No Principles, No Dignity, No Power, No Deterrence

The 9/14 attacks, correctly referred to by Secretary of State Michael Pompeo as "an act of war", is a harsh humiliating blow dealt to the U.S., signaling an American multilevel failure:

First, there was a failure of deterrence. The Iranians took a calculated risk and were proven correct. They view themselves the military regional equals of the US and via their proxies even beyond the region.

American military officials openly betray their fear of Iranian power and retaliatory capability on CENTCOM targets and they thus make Trump's boast that the US is the world's strongest military power, empty posturing In fact it is Iran that is actually deterring the U.S. from any retaliation. Iran relies on its proven ability to act in the local theater while its results have a global ripple effect.

Secondly, it was a failure of U.S. intelligence (military, NSA, CIA and others). Apparently, there was no early warning about an operation that must have had dozens of parties engaged in the decision process, the secret planning and the preparations. Since May 2019, MEMRI has issued several strategic warnings about the Iranian threats to carry out such attacks, based on open Iranian sources.

Thirdly, the successful Iranian attack represented an American technological failure, as not a single cruise missile or drone was intercepted. Iranian Foreign Minister Jawad Zarif ridiculed the U.S., tweeting "Perhaps [the US is] embarrassed that $100s of blns of its arms didn't intercept Yemeni fire".

Fourthly, and most disturbingly, it is a case of political failure - no one in the U.S. administration expected such a bold direct Iranian attack. True, Iran has resorted to proxies to afford it deniability, but now the Iranian leadership has realistically gauged American hesitancy and conflict aversion and believed that Iran could risk making a direct attack, discounting the possibility of strong American retaliation. Considering the global effect of this bold attack, so far, the calculated risk has proven to be a sound bet.

Noah Rothman: No, We Shouldn’t Let Saudi Arabia ‘Fight Its Own Wars’

The principle of reciprocity would logically limit Saudi strikes to the targets responsible for the attack on the Aramco plant in Abqaiq. A tailored response that would be seen as proportionate and, therefore, not worth risking a broader conflict over would be limited to the bases and infrastructure north of the Arabian Peninsula from which the cruise missiles and drones that struck the Saudi refinery over the weekend originated. But Riyadh’s options are not—and, perhaps, should not—be so limited.

Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps and Quds Force soldiers and brass are spread out across the Middle East, and their locations are reportedly known to American officials. Regular Iranian military outposts are in Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen, and Syria, too. Hitting these locations outside Iranian borders would rob Tehran of the claim that its territorial sovereignty was violated, but such an operation would also validate the claim that the Saudis are executing a region-wide strike on the sources of Shiite political authority. That claim could fast become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

These pitfalls are not unknown to American military planners, and the risk these scenarios present arguably outweigh the rewards. In the end, a mission designed to reestablish deterrence and restore balance to the relationship between the Middle East’s two competing regional hegemons could have the precise opposite effect. If such an option is being seriously considered by the president, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that there will be no U.S.-led military response, much less a U.S.-supported military response from one or more of its allies. And that could be disastrous.

Iran’s aggressive behavior follows a clear pattern of escalation. It has executed sophisticated covert operations targeting the global oil supply by disabling and hijacking ships in the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz. It has destroyed a $120 million American aerial surveillance drone operating above international waters. And now, it has executed an elaborate assault on a Saudi refinery. Iran is behaving rationally by testing the limits of provocation as a tool of statecraft. Its strategic objective is to stoke anxieties among America’s Middle Eastern and European allies and, ultimately, erode global will to maintain the present suffocating sanctions regime. Eventually, Iran is likely to miscalculate, executing a bloody attack that demands a disproportionate response from the United States. This is an outcome that American policymakers are right to avoid, but not at any cost.

It would be a shame to see Trump’s “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran derailed by a limited retaliatory strike on Iranian targets, but the alternatives are intolerable. Unfortunately, the Trump administration doesn’t seem to see it that way.

A U.S.-Israeli Defense Pact: How to Ensure That Its Advantages Outweigh Its Disadvantages

The idea of a defense pact between Israel and the U.S. has already been considered several times and rejected. Both sides are cautious about making commitments that would limit their freedom of action and require them to act militarily in contexts that are not viewed as vital by their respective populations.

Israel has reserved the right of nonintervention in conflicts that do not directly affect Israel, preserving its independent decision-making when it comes to using its power, and, above all, upholding the principle that Israel should be able to defend itself by itself.

To date, Israel's expectations of the U.S. in the security domain have gone unfulfilled in a number of cases. According to unwritten understandings, Israel is to deal with threats within its own immediate environment while relying on U.S. assistance in intelligence, equipment, and resources, and the U.S. is supposed to prevent, with Israeli help, the emergence of strategic threats to Israel and to the U.S. from the second and the third tier.

At several critical junctures the U.S. has decided to prefer other interests over Israel's security needs, allowed the threats to its security to intensify, and forced it to stretch its capabilities to the limit, with Israel devoting huge budgets to its defense.

Nevertheless, a U.S.-Israeli defense pact could help promote the common goal of deterring Iran and curbing its activity by making it clear that aggression against Israel is tantamount to aggression against the U.S. and would prompt harsh American countermeasures.

Such a pact must preserve both sides' independence of decision-making in case of disagreement about a joint action; reinforce the principle that Israel must continue to be capable of defending itself by itself, to the extent possible; and it must not put new limits on Israel's ability to develop ties with other important states such as China and Russia.

Zaid Al-Fadeel, writing in Akhbar Ten, decries the failures of the Arab world to destroy Israel thus far. He lists missed opportunities, and failures of Arabs to cooperate with each other.

His biggest regret, which he hopes it is not too late to fix, is that the Arabs in the 1920s and 30s did not try to get the Mizrahi Jews of Mandate Palestine to work with them to create a single Arab state that would exclude Ashkenazim, who he considers Zionist.

Our management of the conflict with the Zionist enemy failed during the previous stage, and we were led to that failure unconsciously. Our rhetoric of hatred and contempt was based on a naive nationalist content, followed by a similar religious rhetoric in a manner and method which cut all forms of emotional communication with the community of Arab Jews, who found before them no choice but to case their lots with the Zionist trend.

He concludes:

We need to weave practical lines of communication with the various Jewish Arab communities in occupied Palestine, who have been associated with us for centuries.

I can imagine that when we can achieve this, we will emerge from the deadly negative nature of the conflict to its positive and constructive form, and we will be able to create a common civil state, in which the loser is the Zionist mind in its abhorrent capitalist spirit.

While there were some very small and ultimately forgotten initiatives by some Mizrahi Jews to create a binational state during the British Mandate - now being magnified in importance by the academic Left as if these were more than a couple of individuals - the Jews from Muslim lands knew quite well how they were treated when they were under Islamic rule. Better than in Europe, for sure, but never treated as equals, and knowing they never could be treated as such. The pogroms and laws that immediately preceded and followed the declaration of the State of Israel proved that they were never considered full citizens to begin with, despite all the Arab rhetoric about how they were respected and equal.

This pie in the sky article shows that many Arabs never have, and never will, accept a Jewish state in the Middle East, and will always try to find ways to destroy it, irrespective of any peace deal.

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.

Jews desecrating Al Aqsa! As they always do!

Arab media never gets sick of showing Jews walking around peacefully on the Temple Mount and writing the most inflammatory text to accompany the pictures.

This is from Masralarabia:

Hours after the call of the "Temple Groups", Jews desecrate Al Aqsa

Hours after the so-called " Temple Groups " called to take over the Al-Aqsa Mosque, dozens of extremist settlers and Israeli intelligence agents stormed the Al-Aqsa Mosque from the Mugrabi Gate with heavy security.

The Israeli police provided full protection for these extremists, from entering through the Moroccan gate and wandering in the courtyards of Al-Aqsa to the exit of the Chain Gate.

According to the Islamic Endowments Department in occupied Jerusalem, 64 settlers stormed the Al-Aqsa Mosque, and wandered in the courtyards amid attempts to perform Talmudic rituals, in addition to 33 elements of the occupation intelligence storming the site.

Funny how no Western media ever calls this every day language in Arab media incitement against Jews. But how can anyone read it otherwise?

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 most recent poll from the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research shows that Palestinians consider their government corrupt, they do not trust Mahmoud Abbas as their president but they are fearful to say the truth out loud.

61% of Palestinians - including 55% in the West Bank - want Abbas to resign.

When asked if they believe that Abbas really will end all agreements with Israel, the vast majority thought it was laughable. 76% said that the idea was a media stunt. When asked about specific parts of the Oslo-era agreements that Abbas might revoke, 71% do not believe he will dissolve the PA, 69% do not believe he will end civil cooperation with Israel, 69% don't believe he will officially annul the PLO recognition of Israel, and 65% do not believe that he and his top officials will return their VIP cards given out by Israel to make travel easier.

A whopping 80% believe that the Palestinian Authority institutions are corrupt, and 65% believe the same about Hamas institutions.

60% of Palestinians, a majority in both Gaza and the West Bank, believe that they will not receive a fair trial if the end up in a Palestinian court. 72% of those in the West Bank say that the Palestinian judiciary is corrupt, lacks independence, or rules according to other whims and interests.

One reason we don't hear about any of this is because there is no free speech at all: Only 36% of the West Bankers say that people can criticize the PA where they live without fear while 59% say that they cannot. That is even worse than in Gaza, where 43% say they can criticize Hamas freely and 53% say they cannot.

This simple fact is ignored in reporting by the media and NGOs who have no idea that the people they interview will generally lie rather than admit their dissatisfaction with their government.

31% of all Palestinians, including 41% in Gaza, would like to emigrate.

Where is the coverage? This is a far more accurate representation of how Palestinians think than you will ever find in Reuters, CNN or the New York Times.

On another note, slightly more Palestinians, 48% believe that humans can be possessed by jinn (demons) than the number who thought that they were mere superstition (44%.).

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.

When Ilhan Omar told Face the Nation’s Margaret Brennan that Benjamin Netanyahu’s existence is contradictory to peace, it was a death threat, a call to murder the Israeli prime minister, an invitation to murder a Jew.

Let’s take a look at the transcript:

MARGARET BRENNAN: You were specifically banned by the prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu from visiting that country. He faces a very tough election in the next few days. If he doesn’t win, are you going to try to go back and do you stand by your call for a boycott of Israel?

REP. OMAR: I certainly hope that the people of Israel make a different decision. And my hope is that they recognize that his existence, his policies, his rhetoric really is contradictory to the peace that we are all hoping that that region receives and receives soon.

Omar did not say that Netanyahu’s reelection is contradictory to peace. She said his very existence prevents peace. That as long as Netanyahu is alive, peace is impossible.

Ergo, someone needs to kill him: Netanyahu must die.

The way Omar inserts this into the narrative may be sly and understated. But it is there, a question asked and answered: How can we bring peace? By eliminating Netanyahu.

Referring to Netanyahu's existence as something that goes against peace serves as the perfect bait to court any extremists who might be listening. Omar is saying, “Netanyahu needs to die. Who will kill him?”

It is a call to action, a call to arms.

It is not the first time we have seen a brazen call to kill one Jew or many, words nestled in a cunning manner like a coiled snake that makes itself small in the grass, words interwoven with enough other words to offer cover. The words are our warning. Typed words, spoken words, words recorded for posterity. Code words. Phrases. Manifestos, online or in books. Words to be interpreted, explicated.

Words then the weapons, and finally the murders, whether one or many, at Auschwitz, AMIA, or Tree of Life.

Words like “Jews don’t require peace” which really mean: “Jews need to die.”

It is obvious, out there in the open, yet hidden in plain sight like the snake in the grass you don’t see when you close your eyes because you’d rather not see it: rather not be a party to what could happen, what will happen, what always happens: Amalek rising up for the kill, poised to strike.

And after the fact, you can always say it wasn’t clear to you at all. You never suspected, never saw the snake in the grass, the threat that lurked behind the words, never read the meaning nor saw the signs. Never knew that when Omar said “Netanyahu’s existence is contradictory to peace,” she was calling for his death, because the opposite of his existence is his death.

Why say these things now? Because the brouhaha over the application of Israel's No Entry Law came and went. We had the outraged talking heads spouting off for a week or so. "Undemocratic" they called Israel. "Apartheid state," they said. And then the outrage ran dry. Because news cycles are nothing if not short.

This is the reason Omar needed this Face the Nation interview, now at this time. It was a chance to get airtime and talk about BDS: the acronym that gets everyone fuming, the perfect fuel to rekindle that age-old lust for the destruction of Israel.

Anti-Semitic Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) says she hopes Israel does not re-elect Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu because his “existence” is problematic

Omar also continued to champion the anti-Semitic Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement which is designed to destroy Israel pic.twitter.com/bIWvuPQHDx
— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) September 15, 2019

Also, BDS opposes a two state solution and openly advocates, as part of its founding aims and principles, the destruction of the Jewish state. So, lol: pic.twitter.com/EIfh9cmdKm
— Seth Mandel (@SethAMandel) September 15, 2019

In hindsight, we know the truth, that barring Ilhan Omar from entering the Jewish State was an act of supreme wisdom. Who cares about the word fallout, the slurs against our nation? Here is a person who wished harm to our prime minister in a televised interview.

At the very least we must stipulate that there are at least two ways to interpret Omar's words: that the prime minister should not be in office, or that he should be gone from this earth. Is it so far fetched to think she means the latter? Because all the really bad things in Jewish history began with words just like these. Words you look at, after the fact, and think, "How could I ever have thought 'Final Solution' didn't really mean 'final'?"

The world is predictable. It will ignore Omar’s sly, understated words and their meaning. And the Jews will continue to be reviled, even by their own, as they play limbo, slipping beneath the word arrows as they are slung, the calls to murder the head Jew, the prime minister of the Jewish State, inserted with care into the narrative during a public interview that everyone hears, even as fingers plug ears, and cognition fails.

It's an ancient story, an ancient call, a call we don't often hear in time.

We need to be paying attention.

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.

No, it is not 56-56 in Israeli elections

From JPost, looking at the latest numbers from the elections:

Based on these results, without Yisrael Beytenu's eight mandates, the Center-Left bloc would have counted on 56 seats and the Center-Right bloc 56.

I don't know the inside baseball of Israeli politics, but I do know arithmetic. There is no "Center-Left" bloc. Blue and White is not going to enter into a coalition with the (Arab) Joint List. Without those 12 seats, suddenly it is 56-44.

The only way I can see Gantz put together a razor thin coalition would be if he can convince the religious parties to join him and the Left, that would be 61. This would be difficult, since those parties campaigned as supporting Bibi. (And the religious parties won't be in a coalition with Liberman, so he is not part of the equation.)

So, yes, this election is not a victory for Netanyahu, but it is less of a victory for Gantz. For some reason - probably because they hate Netanyahu - no one in the media seems to be pointing this out.

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.

09/18 Links Pt2: Iran suspended from world judo federation over Israel boycott policy; UK Labour schedules anti-Semitism conference for Shabbat; One year later - Ari Fuld's brother recalls lost hero

From Ian:

Iran suspended from world judo federation over Israel boycott policy

Iran has been suspended from international judo competitions because of its policy of boycotting bouts with Israeli athletes.

Less than a month after Iranian athlete Saeid Mollaei walked off his national team in protest of the boycott policy, the International Judo Federation (IJF) said Wednesday that Iran was suspended ahead of a full hearing.

The Iranian judo star said he was afraid to return home after exposing and criticizing his government’s pressure on him to deliberately lose his semifinal bout in last month’s World Championships in Tokyo so as not to risk facing Israel’s Sagi Muki, the eventual winner, in the Tokyo final.

“Following what happened during the last World Judo Championships Tokyo 2019, the International Judo Federation pronounces against the Iran Judo Federation a protective suspension from all competitions, administrative and social activities organized or authorized by International Judo Federation and its Unions,” the IJF said in a statement on its website.

“The Commission has a strong reason to believe that the Iran Judo Federation will continue or repeatedly engage in misconduct or commit any other offence against the legitimate interests, principles or objectives of the IJF,” the statement said.

Iran’s judo federation is accused of discriminating against Israeli athletes and breaking rules over manipulating competition results.

The suspension went into force immediately, and is subject to an appeal that can be filed by the Iranian federation within 21 days.

UK Labour Party denounced over anti-Semitism conference scheduled for Shabbat

The British Labour Party’s latest attempt to shake long-standing allegations of anti-Jewish bias drew harsh criticism this week after it emerged that a planned meeting to discuss the issue was scheduled to be held on a Saturday, the Jewish day of rest.

On Tuesday, the Jewish Labour Movement issued a harsh statement condemning the party for effectively sidelining Jews from the debate, which will focus on streamlining the process of expelling members found guilty of anti-Semitism.

In a statement posted on Twitter, the JLM called the choice of date for the meeting an “institutional failing” and decried the party leadership’s “complete failure in both judgement and commitment to tackle anti-Semitism.”

“We have learnt tonight from press reports that the Party wishes to make sweeping changes to the disciplinary rules on anti-Semitism, without consulting us, its only Jewish affiliate, or any communal organization. To add insult to injury, they will debate these changes at conference on the Jewish Sabbath, when religiously observant Jewish Labor delegates will be silenced, unable to participate in the debate.”

The Jewish community “has zero confidence” that the measures being debated will solve the anti-Semitism crisis, the statement continued, accusing party leaders of “engaging in anti-Semitism or turning a blind eye to it.”

“It will simply streamline the process of letting anti-Semites off the hook.”

Gil Troy: American Jews should learn from Australia’s Zionist ‘Kanga-Jews’

Last month, I had a delightfully anachronistic experience. I met representatives of seven youth movements, from Right to Left. These smart, idealistic, passionately committed twentysomethings proudly call themselves “Zionist.”

That Friday night I sang and danced-in the Shabbat with dozens of students from one Jewish high school. Most are “nonreligious” – many drove there. Nevertheless, they welcomed the Sabbath Queen with a hassidic-level nuclear-powered intensity. They do this weekly, voluntarily, joyously!

Welcome to Australia, where I recently completed a 29-speech, 11-day, three-city tour with the Zionist Federation of Australia. It’s truly “down under,” charmingly upside down.

Unlike their American cousins, most Australian Jews attend Jewish day school, join youth movements, visit Israel – repeatedly – and cherish their Jewish traditions.

Ninety-two percent have visited Israel. In America it’s barely 50%, having doubled thanks to Birthright. In Australia, 33% intermarry, twice as many as did 20 years ago, but half the American rate. And, unlike many Americans, most Australian Jews still consider intermarriage a threat to the communal future, not an “opportunity.”

Many Australian students are “out” as Zionists. Considering themselves Jews “first,” they are proudly nationalist. Similarly, most communal leaders are passionate Zionists. They’re often to the community’s “Right,” religiously, politically. They’re modern Maccabees, not Social Justice Warriors in rabbinic robes. In America, many non-Orthodox rabbis and community leaders lead the charge against Israel, wasting precious Torah-teaching time sermonizing against Netanyahu, politicizing the relationship, then wondering why so many Jews seem fed up with Israel – and Judaism.

Vic Rosenthal's Weekly Column

I just finished Bari Weiss’ book, How to Fight Anti-Semitism. I suggest that you read it.

Not because I agree with everything in it, especially her answers to the question implied by its title. Be proud of being Jewish, she says, stay liberal, don’t hide your Jewishness, don’t let the Linda Sarsours push you around, live your life according to Jewish principles (by which she seems to mean the ones you learn about in a Reform synagogue, not the traditional mitzvot) and more. Even “support Israel.” All good things, but – with the exception of an injunction to take measures to protect the security of Jewish institutions – not much that you can use when they are banging at your door in the middle of the night.

I also think that she goes a bit far when she asserts that Donald Trump “trashed – gleefully and shamelessly – the unwritten rules of our society that have kept American Jews and, therefore, America safe.” His legacy is “a culture demolished, smashed, twisted beyond recognition,” according to Weiss.

No. A great deal has gone wrong in America in the last few decades, but there are plenty of villains to go around, including Trump’s recent predecessors and the over-the-top insanity of the Left’s reaction to Trump. If the culture is smashed, Trump is one of the fragments, not the one who smashed it.

And although Weiss’ historical chapters, including her analysis of the three directions from which Jews are being bombarded today – the Right, the Left, and “Radical Islam” (I think her editor stuck in the word “radical”) – are well written and very informative, they are also not why I am recommending the book.

I want people to read this book because there is no way you can do so and still maintain that there is no runaway antisemitism problem in North America. There is no way you can maintain that Jews in the last remaining safe diaspora stronghold will continue to be safe, and not just from a few heavily armed neo-Nazi wackos. If she does one thing exceptionally well in this book, it is to accurately convey the extent of the phenomenon. The neo-Nazis, the intersectional leftists smugly categorizing Jews as exploiters with no rights, the Farrakhanists on New York subways, the imams preaching about killing Jews – there are more of them every day.

Weiss talks a lot about Europe, where everyday life for Jews is rapidly becoming more difficult and dangerous, mostly because of the influx of Muslim migrants from places where, as she points out, Jew-hatred is normative. In other words, it’s part of almost everybody’s repertoire of common knowledge. Is the Pope Catholic? Does the bear defecate in the woods? Are the Jews a subhuman race descended from apes and pigs? Ask anyone in Iraq. In Somalia, when you stub your toe you curse the Jews. Muslim migrants from places like that do not leave their antisemitism at the airport along with any prohibited invasive plants.

Should French Jews proudly wear their kipot? She doesn’t know if, in their place, she would. But Europe provides a clue as to why her solutions won’t work in the US. France has the third largest population of Jews in the world (about half a million), after Israel and the US. But they comprise only about 0.7% of the French population. If the non-Jewish population and the government can’t protect them, then it doesn’t matter how proud they are of their Jewishness, how liberal they are, or how “out” they are about being Jewish. And many French Jews have already decided to either move to “safe” neighborhoods in large cities – you could call them ghettos – or to abandon careers or sell businesses and leave the country.

In the UK, there are fewer than 300,000 Jews, about 0.44% of the population. Weiss notes that a recent poll had some 40% of British Jews saying they would “seriously consider emigrating” if the antisemitic – there’s no arguing this point – Jeremy Corbyn were to become Prime Minister. They, too, are making the same calculation.

The US and Canada have larger percentages of Jews – 1.8% and 1.1% respectively. But that is still minuscule in comparison to the non-Jewish majority. If they lose the support of that majority, then their position becomes untenable. And as Corbyn has shown, shockingly, it is even possible for a major political party in a democratic country to take a turn toward antisemitism.

Weiss’ point of view is that of a liberal Jew living in the US, and why she wants to “fight anti-Semitism” is to try to bring back the golden age of American Jewry, which she sees as slipping away. She would like to reverse some of the trends, but – revealingly – she wants to do it by changing the Jews. As Kenneth Levin has pointed out in his book The Oslo Syndrome: Delusions of a People Under Siege, that can’t work. It isn’t up to the Jews. Antisemitism is irrational and the antisemites will hate them regardless of how they behave. And when you are less than 2% of the population (and getting smaller), you don’t have the leverage to move the country, despite what antisemites may believe about Jewish power.

I would like to look at the problem from a broader perspective: what do we need to do to preserve the Jewish people in the face of its enemies?

The first thing I notice is that much of the diaspora is already lost. There are almost no Jews left anywhere in the Muslim world, and Hitler and Stalin put an end to the Jews of the former Russian Empire and Central Europe. There is no future for Jews in France. The UK is on the cusp of a similar fate, dependent on the political whim of the 99.56% of the population that is not Jewish. Even if Corbyn is not elected, conditions for Jews in the UK are almost certain to be worse in the future than they are now.

That leaves the US and Canada. Perhaps, as Weiss suggests, if the Jews could be more unified they could resist antisemitic trends and personalities better. Perhaps; although it seems to me that the Jewish communities are just as polarized as the society as a whole. If – just for example – the left wing of the Democratic party in the US were to “Corbynize” the party, there would be little that the tiny minority of Jews could do.

Weiss wants to fight antisemitism by being honest, liberal, proud, and enlightened. All those qualities are useless against enemies that are precisely the opposite in all respects, and that is the case with antisemites. There is only one way to deter your enemies, and that is to be more powerful than them – and to demonstrate this whenever the occasion arises.

This can’t happen within a country where Jews are a tiny minority, but it may be possible on the world stage. Israel, as Weiss notes, has a powerful army and nuclear weapons. It also has less visible assets, like a very high level of technical competence. Israel is the heart and soul of the Jewish people, and the way to preserve the people and its culture, is for Israel to survive and thrive. Insofar as it does, it can be a place of refuge for the inhabitants of those diaspora communities that may not.

I don’t think that Weiss has the answers for North American Jews. But maybe her description of exactly how bad the situation is, and how it is likely to get worse, will impel some of them to think seriously about aliyah.

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.

09/18 Links Pt1: An Israeli Groundhog Day; With 90% of vote officially counted, Blue and White edging out Likud 32-31; Netanyahu and Trump Hatch Plan for a Jordan Exclave in West Bank

From Ian:

An Israeli Groundhog Day - analysis

It’s clear that a unity government is the only option to avoid another dreadful third round, but that would necessitate some major changes. Either Blue and White’s Benny Gantz reneges on his promise to voters to not sit in a coalition with Benjamin Netanyahu, or the Likud puts in process a motion to replace Netanyahu as leader. Neither of those is likely, even though President Reuven Rivlin could appeal to Gantz’s national pride and attempt to convince him to join a national-unity government out of obligation to the country.

Also improbable is the option of Liberman going back on his word to his constituents to not sit in a government with non-Zionist ultra-Orthodox parties, in order to join a right-wing coalition with the Likud, Yamina and the religious parties. That would be an even bigger jump than Gantz would have to make.

Both the Right and Left predictably spun the results for their own means, with the Likud touting the Right’s bigger bloc and the Left proclaiming “the end of the Netanyahu era.”

However, a declaration like that when dealing with Netanyahu is always premature. Given his legal woes and the groundswell of opinion that a change is needed for Israel’s leadership, the fact that Blue and White was unable to strike a clear-cut victory could also be seen as a considerable failure of its lackluster campaign.

The day after the election, all sides seemed to be digging into their well-worn trenches of “I’ll only join X if Y happens.” Even though, during the campaign, every candidate insisted that there was no way there would be a third round of voting, all indications point to another stalemate in the weeks ahead, as Rivlin attempts to convince the sides to compromise.

If he fails, it looks like we’ll be waking up to Groundhog Day again real soon.

JPost Editorial: After the vote

Whether Benjamin Netanyahu or Benny Gantz ends up forming the next coalition is immaterial. What is important is to realize that it’s time for the country to come together, and for our politicians to understand their place in history. They are not here just for the power and influence that comes with their roles, but to work on behalf of us, the people. They are supposed to work to improve our quality of life, to ensure that we are safe, and that the gap between those who have and those who do not closes and doesn’t widen.

A 61-member coalition should never be the goal. A razor-thin majority is never good for a country. Instead, the ideal should be 70 or 80, where fewer parties have the ability to pull out and bring down the government. This is not hard to achieve. Everyone has to compromise a little bit, and everyone can. Just think how many times it has been done over the 34 governments of Israel’s history. Can Israel’s politicians find a way to work together?

Putting aside the results, Israelis have to move forward today and pick up the pieces. First, our political leaders must ensure that there is not another stalemate, and that the country does not again go to an unnecessary third election. The country must come first, even it means that some parties will be forced to go back on some of their campaign promises of “I won’t sit with him” or “I won’t countenance them.”

It’s time for the parties to put the betterment of the country ahead of their own narrow interests.

And it’s time for the nation to heal. After two dirty elections during which entire sectors of society – the ultra-Orthodox and Arabs to name two – were delegitimized by candidates and political parties, we need to try to find a way to come back together, to stand on common ground and build a future that ensures no Israeli feels disenfranchised. That is the work that the next government must set out for itself. Failure is unacceptable.

With 90% of vote officially counted, Blue and White edging out Likud 32-31

With 89.8 percent of votes having been counted by the Central Elections Committee, Benny Gantz’s centrist Blue and White party on Wednesday was projected to secure 32 seats in the Knesset, edging ahead of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud, which stood at 31 seats.

In the official count, the Gantz-led center-left-Arab bloc has a slight advantage over the Netanyahu-led right-religious bloc with 56 seats versus 55. In the middle are the nine seats of Yisrael Beytenu, whose leader, MK Avigdor Liberman, has vowed to force Likud and Blue and White into a unity government.

The Joint List, an alliance of mostly Arab parties, stands at third with 13 seats, followed by the ultra-Orthodox Shas and Yisrael Beytenu, both with nine seats.

Bringing up the rear are the ultra-Orthodox United Torah Judaism (8), the nationalist alliance Yamina (7), center-left Labor-Gesher (6) and the leftist Democratic Camp (5).

The tally was announced at noon and was not final, with votes from Arab population centers expected to be finished shortly, followed by counts of the votes cast by soldiers, diplomats and patients in Israeli hospitals, among others.

The figures indicated that the deadlock from the previous elections on April 9 would continue. Netanyahu’s difficult situation was compounded by the fact that the right-wing bloc bled votes to Liberman.

Apparent Kingmaker Lieberman Says ‘Emergency Situation’ Requires Unity Government With Likud, Blue and White

Leader of the Yisrael Beiteinu party Avigdor Lieberman, who according to exit polls will play the kingmaker in the coalition negotiations following Israel’s Tuesday elections, said that he would accept only one outcome — a national unity government.

The exit polls show that Lieberman’s secular-nationalist party has won 8-10 seats in the next Knesset, with the right-wing Likud and centrist Blue and White parties essentially tied at around 30 seats and the right-religious and center-left blocs hovering around 55 seats, giving neither side a working majority without him.

Lieberman addressed his supporters Tuesday night and appeared to flex his muscles, saying, “There is only one option: a broad liberal government made up of the Likud, Blue and White and Yisrael Beiteinu.”

“We have always said that a unity government is possible only in an emergency situation, and I say to every citizen that is watching us now on television — the situation, security-wise and economically, is an emergency situation,” Lieberman said.

Lieberman called on President Reuven Rivlin not to wait for the final results to name someone to undertake coalition negotiations, saying the president should “invite Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Blue and White chairman Benny Gantz to an informal conversation as early as Friday.”

“The state needs a broad government,” Lieberman asserted, “even a unity government without us is preferable to dealing with endless negotiations.”

Israel, he said, did not need “a government fighting for its survival from week to week.”