Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Wednesday, September 25, 2019

We Need a Government and We Need it Now (Vic Rosenthal)

Vic Rosenthal's Weekly Column

Start with this: Israelis really, really do not want a third round of elections.

The cost is astronomical, and the paralysis is dangerous. The Trump Administration, which has so far been in our corner, is showing frustration with our inability to establish a government that can respond to its much-vaunted “deal of the century,” and is itself under pressure as the American election draws closer. If there is any possibility for us to mitigate the threat in Gaza or to move closer to improving the situation in Judea and Samaria (for example, by annexing Area C), it will have to happen while we have a friendly administration in Washington.

The Iranian threat will not get any less urgent regardless of what the West does. If the sanctions are maintained or tightened, the regime may provoke military action against it that will drag us in; if they receive concessions, these will translate into increased pressure on us from their proxies in Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq. Despite Obama’s nuclear deal, Iran is progressing in the direction of nuclear capability. The actions of Western governments today can either speed this process up or slow it down, but it is very unlikely that it can be stopped by non-military means. It’s certain that we will be involved.

There are other issues that are less exciting but also important that are stalled by the present situation. Politicians like elections: they are exciting and put them in the spotlight. Advertising agencies and media elections also like them, for obvious reasons. Most ordinary citizens do not. It just brings home to us how much we are paying these prima donnas to strut around and not do the jobs that we have hired them to do.

We need a government, and we need it now. We cannot afford to wait months for another election, not to mention the additional time for coalition negotiations.

We also need a government that will understand and respond properly to the security challenges facing us. Many Israelis, especially younger ones, are tired of hearing about security all the time. But as Pericles said about politics and Trotsky about war, although you may not be interested in it, it is interested in you.

I think the politicians are smart enough to know that if they continue to stubbornly resist a solution, the people will rise up and burn down the Knesset. What can be done now to put our politicians to work?

There will certainly not be a narrow left-wing government unless Gantz is prepared to take the Arab parties into his coalition, which is very unlikely. There could be a narrow right-wing government if Avigdor Lieberman and the Haredi parties could reach agreement on drafting Haredim, which is slightly less unlikely. But probably there will be a unity government that includes at least the Likud and Gantz’ Blue and White party. Such a government would include a rotating Prime Ministership.

This will require that Gantz give up his condition that he will not sit with Netanyahu when he is under an actual or recommended [by the Attorney General] indictment, or unless the Likud puts someone other than Netanyahu at the head of its list. I am predicting that Gantz will find a way to climb down from his tree.

The next big problem will be deciding who will go first as PM under the rotation, Gantz or Netanyahu. Since a PM can continue in his position even if he is indicted, it is essential for Netanyahu that he go first. My guess is that Gantz will back down, simply because he can afford to do so and Netanyahu can’t.

Therefore, I conclude that when the smoke clears, we will have a unity government including at least Likud and Blue and White, and possibly a few others. Netanyahu and Gantz will take turns being PM, and the cabinet will be enlarged (today they are talking about an absurdly inflated cabinet of 32 ministers, 16 from each side).

Will it function? Probably. The differences between Gantz and Netanyahu are much smaller than they appear during the mud-slinging of an election. It would probably be possible for Netanyahu to bring along Ayelet Shaked and Naftali Bennett to his right, and for Gantz to include the vestigial Labor Party, led by Amir Peretz, to his left. Both sides could bypass Lieberman’s Israel Beitenu, as well as the more extreme parties on the right and the left if they wished.

Personally, I would very much like to see this happen. We need a strong ruling coalition to face the security challenge posed by Iran, as well as to be prepared for a possible American government that will be far less friendly to Israel than Trump’s has been. And a strong centrist government would not be hobbled by commitments made under pressure to the extreme Right or Left.

Can they do it? They'd better. Ordinary Israelis are stocking up on tar and feathers in case they can’t.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

09/25 Links Pt1: PMW's great success: Fatah’s terror promoting Facebook page closed; Trump at U.N.: We won’t tolerate Iran’s ‘monstrous antisemitism’; How Israel achieved the impossible at the UN

From Ian:

PMW's great success: Fatah’s terror promoting Facebook page closed

Following Palestinian Media Watch's two major reports and a two-week public pressure campaign, Fatah’s terror promoting Facebook page is closed as of this morning. PMW's campaign started in February this year when we released a detailed report about Fatah’s Facebook page documenting its terror glorification and incitement to violence during 2018. The report showed that Fatah’s content was in direct violation of Facebook’s guidelines. Inexplicably, Facebook refused to close the page at that time.

PMW followed up with a new report released earlier this month, documenting the terror promoting content on Fatah’s Facebook page during the first 6 months of 2019, which was likewise sent to Facebook. In addition, PMW also launched a public social media campaign with many partner organizations worldwide, developed by volunteers at ACT-IL, which was aimed at Facebook's directors, urging them to close down Fatah’s page. The campaign included daily tweets and Facebook posts showing Fatah’s terror promoting content on Facebook, and also included a public campaign through which individuals and organizations sent a pre-written letter of protest to Facebook. Thousands of ACT-IL activists from 74 countries and other PMW partner organizations sent thousands of emails to Facebook's policy directors, and made thousands of reports directly on the page through Facebook.

As of this morning Fatah's Facebook page is down.

PMW thanks ACT-IL and their thousands of volunteers and the many other partners, organizations, and individuals who joined PMW in this project to close down Fatah's Facebook page. With your help we eliminated the terror promotion, and saved lives.

Already yesterday, Fatah was alarmed by PMW’s campaign. Fatah posted three different items about the campaign against its Facebook page, refusing to refer to Palestinian Media Watch by name, preferring to call us "the occupation," a term it often uses to refer to Israel.

Fatah posted copies of PMW’s posts calling to close the Fatah page, in which they accused PMW of inciting against them and asked its followers to “support the page”:

David Singer: Netanyahu and Liberman Could Cut Deal if Rivlin Plan Fails

Liberman’s party did not form Government with 60 other members of the Right last April after Netanyahu refused to accept a bill drafted by Liberman calling for ultra-orthodox Jews to do military service. Netanyahu was captive to the ultra-orthodox Jews comprised in the Right bloc who threatened to bolt if he wavered. Liberman’s continuing insistence that his military service bill be legislated was countered by United Torah Judaism MK Yakov Asher declaring this the best possible get-out-the-vote campaign the religious parties could wish for.

The religious parties failed big time.

Netanyahu is now in an easier political position to agree to Liberman’s demand than he was in April – the latest voting results showing:
1. Liberman’s vote increased from 173004 to 309688 – an increase of 136684.
2. The combined votes of the religious parties – Shas and United Torah Judaism – increased from 507324 to 598522 – an increase of only 91198.
3. Likud’s vote decreased from 1140370 to 1111535 – a drop of 28835

The turnout of ultra-orthodox voters opposing Liberman’s bill did not match the turnout of new voters supporting Liberman’s bill and those Likud voters changing their votes for possibly the same reason. The religious parties are now on far weaker ground to oppose Liberman’s reform as they are locked in to a single negotiating bloc containing 55 members - presumably acting by majority vote.

Cutting a deal between Netanyahu and Liberman remains an option to prevent Israel going through this electoral agony for a third time if Rivlin’s call fails.

Columbia University Invites Malaysia's PM To Speak About The Rule of Law (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

Columbia University is facing criticism for inviting the controversial Malaysian Prime Minister to speak today at its World Leaders Conference.

Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad is scheduled to speak about the rule of law and multilateralism at the conference. The controversial part is his history of antisemitic remarks about both Jews and Israel. The Anti-Defamation League and American Jewish Committee are among those who came out and condemned Columbia University for the invitation.

Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad. Source: Youtube screencap

Mohamad’s long history of antisemitic comments is highlighted by his comment in a 2012 blog post where he announced that he’s “glad to be labeled anti-Semitic.”

His other attacks on Jews include:

o "Jews rule this world by proxy”
o “1.3 billion Muslims cannot be defeated by a few million Jews. There must be a way. And we can only find a way if we stop to think, to assess our weaknesses and our strength, to plan, to strategize and then to counterattack. We are actually very strong. 1.3 billion people cannot be simply wiped out. The Europeans killed six million Jews out of 12 million. ”
o “The Jews are not merely hook-nosed, but understand money instinctively.”

In June this year, at the Cambridge Union Society in Great Britain, Mohamad was asked: “Why do you say that the Jewish people in general are inclined towards money?” He responded:

I have some Jewish friends, very good friends. They are not like the other Jews, that’s why they are my friends.

The Malaysian leader has also gone beyond words.

In January, he banned Israeli athletes from participating in the 2019 Para Swimming World Championships being hosted by Malaysia. The tournament had to be moved elsewhere.

It should be noted that whatever one may say about preserving the right of free speech, there have been times that speakers who have been invited to Columbia University have in fact been disinvited.

Fire, whose mission is "to defend and sustain the individual rights of students and faculty members at America’s colleges and universities" keeps a database of speakers who have been disinvited by US universities.

According to that list:

In 2006, Columbia University invited Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak at its World Leaders Conference. There were objections due to Ahmadinejad's and Iran's human rights record. In addition, there were objections his speech was scheduled for the day before Rosh HaShannah, effectively impeding Jewish students who wanted to protest but would be unable to because of travel and preparations for the holiday. The speech was eventually canceled due to "logistical" issues.

In 2007, after his talk in 2006 was cut short by protesters, Minuteman Project founder Jim Gilchrist was invited back a year later -- and then disinvited. The group is a multi-ethnic civilian organization that patrols the Mexican border, looking for illegal immigrants to turn over to authorities. In the article Columbia Nixes Speech by Minuteman Project Founder, Instead Invites Holocaust Denier, FIRE notes that the Columbia Political Union, which was hosting the debate, bowed out with the excuse that because of the "complex issue, about which many people feel strongly, we felt that it was necessary to consult with other student groups and individuals on campus before making any decisions"

In 2009, Nonie Darwish was invited to speak at Columbia University, but it was canceled:

Darwish’s speech officially was sponsored by a faculty group, the Columbia Chapter of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East (SPME). SPME faculty members reserved a room holding about 50 people. Once [student Daniel] Hertz realized that there could be a security issue, he alerted campus security (about a week before the speech was to take place). On the Friday before the event, he was told that all he needed to do was reserve a larger room and all would be well. But by Monday morning, he was told that Columbia had cancelled the event because the SPME professors did not have authority to reserve rooms on campus. Apparently, they had been doing so in the past, but Columbia suddenly had decided to crack down. (I wonder why?) Not only that-Hertz was told that Columbia, miraculously, had already scheduled someone else for the original room, so he couldn’t have the event in that room even if he wanted to. (I encourage SPME faculty or Columbia administrators to contact me if they have a different version of events.) Hertz says that Campus Media Watch is now an official student organization and intends to bring Darwish to campus next semester. [Note: though this is mentioned on their site, FIRE does not mention this example on their database]

Among those who have spoken at Columbia University despite strong student objections are John McCain (too conservative), Alan Dershowitz (pro-Israel), Tommy Robinson (controversial anti-Islamist English Defence League) and Citigroup CEO Vikram Pandit -- the latter in 2010 because of his alleged role in the financial crisis at the time as a banker.

But in these days of spiraling antisemitism and violence against Jews, Columbia University and its students have no problem giving center stage to a proud and outspoken antisemite.

Then there is Paul Krugman.

Back in 2003, The New York Times columnist Paul Krugman excused the Malaysian Prime Minister's antisemitism this way:

So what's with the anti-Semitism? Almost surely it's part of Mr. Mahathir's domestic balancing act, something I learned about the last time he talked like this, during the Asian financial crisis of 1997-98.

Krugman's balancing act itself is no less impressive.

It cannot be easy to keep one's balance standing on one foot with your eyes closed and your hands over your ears.

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.

Hofstra professor excuses bias against Jews on campus. Perhaps because he has plenty of his own.

A couple of weeks ago, Leilah Abelman, a Hofstra University student who is also a religious Jew, listed some outrageous stories of how she was a victim of antisemitism both by students and by professors.

After telling a professor I would need to miss class for the Jewish high holidays, I was told I needed to re-evaluate my religious beliefs. That same professor told the class to imagine a world without Jews in it.

Later, a student compared the Jewish tradition of marrying within the religion to Nazi eugenics. When I approached the aforementioned professor after class to tell her how uncomfortable the comments had me feel, I was essentially told to be less sensitive.

Then, just three days after the Tree of Life Synagogue shooting in Pittsburgh in which 11 Jews were shot attending services, another professor asked the class to discuss whether the shooter was “truly evil.” Many students expressed the belief that the shooter, who murdered 11 innocent Jewish people, could not be considered evil as he did what he believed was right.

I confronted this professor too, and while he did apologize to me personally, he never brought the issue up with the class. Students left thinking they had said nothing wrong.

There were plenty of other anecdotes from just a single year on campus, mostly involving students. But these examples are from two professors on campus.

Now a Jewish professor at Hofstra, Alan Singer, has responded to this article as well as to Bari Weiss' book on antisemitism in a fashion that is almost too offensive to believe.

Like Bari Weiss, I consider myself a proud Jew who recognizes the need to combat anti-Semitism. However, I think she makes a serious mistake by conflating two different phenomena. Right-wing white nationalism abetted by the Trump administration is a grave threat to Jews and to democracy in the United States and must be vigorously challenged. Urban tension in gentrifying communities where racial and ethnic minorities are being displaced by gentrification and in Brooklyn, New York, by an expanding orthodox religious group has led to anti-Semitic slurs and physical assaults on religious Jews, but they are not an attack on Judaism as a religion and on the Jewish people as a whole. This behavior can best be addressed by building an inclusive community.

Yes, Singer is excusing blacks attacking Jews in Brooklyn - often with antisemitic slurs. The Jews of Borough Park or Crown Heights, who have been there for many decades, are "expanding" and other white people are gentrifying the areas so blacks attacking identifiable Jews is a natural response for frustration - nothing antisemitic about it! The attackers aren't screaming about their philosophical issues with Judaism, they are just hitting religious Jews with bricks while yelling "Jew! Jew! Jew!" That isn't antisemitism!

If only the religious Jews wouldn't be so insular, if they cared about the blacks more - if they were more inclusive - then there would be no problem. The attackers aren't at fault, but the victims are.

This is astonishing. But it gets worse:

The author cited a series of microaggressions by what she considered to be insensitive students and non-supportive faculty and administrators and called on the Hofstra community to “confront this issue now to curb the rise of anti-Semitism, before it’s too late.”

I don’t dispute the student’s feelings, but I disagree with her accusations of anti-Semitism on the Hofstra campus. As a teacher, I distinguish between bias and racism or anti-Semitism. Everyone has biases. They are products of culture, what we are taught and our understanding of experiences. But everyone does not act on biases to restrict or hurt other people. Biases can be examined based on evidence and new experiences and be dismissed, or at least controlled. Racism and anti-Semitism belong in a separate category. Racism and anti-Semitism mean acting on biases and even promoting biases to justify discrimination against and exploitation of groups of people to achieve economic, political or social advantages. It can be a slippery slope from bias to racism when groups are pitted against each other for political power or scarce resources, but the transition is not inevitable.

Would Singer be as indifferent if professors said to their students to imagine a world without black people? If they allowed students to compare black people to slave-owners? If they asked students whether the white supremacist murderer of nine black people in a Charleston church was "truly evil?"

Singer has the right to distinguish between bias and antisemitism if he wants. But he cannot define away that at least two Hofstra professors allowed or introduced anti-Jewish bias in their classrooms. Moreover, no matter how much Singer tries to excuse these incidents as mere "bias" that does not rise to the level of antisemitism, Hofstra has policy that says "Behavior, whether physical or verbal, or in-person or through the use of electronics or by any other means, ...that is motivated by bias based on actual or perceived race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or expression, age, national or ethnic origin, physical or mental disability, or marital or veteran status, that has the effect of intimidating, taunting, humiliating, or otherwise impeding on the rights of another individual" is grounds for disciplinary action.

Not coincidentally, Professor Singer is a fan of Jewish Voice for Peace.

Most worryingly, someone who is so obviously anti-Israel has written a book on how to teach global history. In his section on how to teach about the Middle East, he writes:

Notice how he frames the conflict as between Israel and "the occupied territory of Palestine," and not as the Arab-Israeli conflict. That is bias that ignores context - to the detriment of proud Zionist Jews.

He "sought out" Israeli sources that are critical of Israel, and of course Palestinian sources that are critical of Israel. He didn't seek out any Zionist perspectives, nor does he mention Benny Morris' revised positions - based on newer archival findings - that often justify Israeli actions. That is bias.

For the other side, he uses Khalidi's "The Iron Cage." But Singer will not ask his students to look critically at that book as he asks them to look critically at the Zionist perspective. That is bias.

Singer claims that mere bias doesn't hurt people. However, generations of students indoctrinated with his form of anti-Zionist teachings, where the Israeli perspective is ignored and critics amplified, does have lasting results. Students who learn such one-sided lessons bring them into the world - they become diplomats and politicians. These lessons affect actual human lives. Teachers have a responsibility to root out their biases, not to excuse them as something that everyone has.

Singer does seem to have a particular bias against not only Zionist Jews but also religious Jews. As mentioned, Abelman is religious and her concerns are downplayed. A couple of passages in his book about the Holocaust, where he argues that traditional German antisemitism is not adequate to explain why Jews were targeted in the Holocaust, betray similar anti-religious bias.

He shows that there were prominent Jews in Germany - and points out that they were assimilated, subtly excusing bias against Jews who were not assimilated:

This is more explicit in this passage where Singer seems to unconsciously argue that if just those Jews would stop being so obviously Jewish, they might have been saved:

I do not think even Singer quite realizes the depth of his own bias. He considers himself a proud Jew, and he lost relatives in the Holocaust as well. He is certainly aware that assimilation didn't save the Jews of Germany. But there is a pattern here, where Singer seems very uncomfortable with Jews - whether Orthodox or Zionist - who do not meekly fade into the larger society, and who stubbornly hang onto their beliefs that are at odds with the prevailing liberal orthodoxy. I do not know if he has the same issues with, say, native Americans, the Amish, devout Muslims, Sikhs or any other distinctive group that hangs onto its traditions. It appears that only proud Jews are the ones who make him uncomfortable.

Perhaps Singer is willing to excuse bias against religious and Zionist Jews because he has so much of it himself.

(h/t YMedad)

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

A photo essay of the British Labour Party conference filled with Palestinian - but no British - flags

This was projected on the building that hosted the Labour Party conference this week.

That's just the outside.

Here's what it looked like on the inside.

Dual-loyalty? No, it appears that the Labour Party is only loyal to one political entity, one that is 3500 km away.

Notice how many people are holding the Palestinian flag upside down. They pretend to care about Palestine but don't bother to actually learn much about their supposed cause.

Besides the utter lack of any British flag visible in the conference, one commenter on Twitter noted that if Labour really cared about a two state solution, shouldn't there be some Israeli flags as well?

Just for fun, I searched the UK Labour Party website to see if they ever said anything bad about Lebanon for their horrific treatment of Palestinians.

You already know the answer.

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.

Erdogan meets with Neturei Karta "rabbis" in New York - but keeps it low key

Turkish media are reporting that Turkey's president Recep Erdogan met with "Jewish rabbis" in New York, away from the eyes of journalists and the media - at his request.

The rabbis were the crazy fringe anti-Zionists of Neturei Karta, and evidently they took the photo shown here.

According to information obtained by the Zaman newspaper, Erdogan held his meeting with the nuts at the Hilton Hotel Midtown in New York City.

Why is Erdogan embarrassed? Because Muslim antisemites freak out when photos like this get out. Like this guy who says that Erdogan met with extremist Israelis, and then pretended to be anti-Israel at the UN.

العلج #اردوغان خلال 24ساعة:

اجتمع مع حاخامات اسرائيلين متشددين حيث استقبلهم في مقر اقامته وأكد استمرار دعمه للكيان الصهيوني #إسرائيل.

وبعد اجتماعه مع الحاخامات بـ24ساعة ظهر في الامم المتحدة يهاجم إسرائيل للضحك على السذج من قطيعه.

اخبث وانجس ما خلق ربي#اردوغان_يكذب_علي_العالم pic.twitter.com/TxZB5ddSgR
— سـهـم➹ (@s_hm2030) September 24, 2019

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.

09/24 Links Pt2: David Collier: The ‘Palestine’ obsession at the Labour Party conference; John Hagee: Why Israel’s Enemies Will Not Triumph; Ireland Ignores Palestinian Textbooks that Encourage Hatred of Israelis

From Ian:

John Hagee: Why Israel’s Enemies Will Not Triumph

Given recent events in the Middle East, our leaders would benefit from the wisdom shared in the Book of Esther. Despite the name of God never appearing in the book, Esther’s story shows us that He will always preserve the nation of Israel, no matter how grave the danger. And vitally, this history also reminds us that God calls ordinary people to help in this righteous calling.

In fact, the word of God is replete with examples of common and flawed individuals who are now immortalized as heroes of faith — all because of their willingness to be used by God for the benefit of His people. Abraham was disobedient, Moses was a murderer who stuttered, David was the youngest and the runt of the family, Esther was an orphan. All of these people changed the trajectory of the world not because they were perfect, but because they were brave and willing to go forward.

Unfortunately, the enemies of Israel did not disappear with Haman and his sons, or the Nazi cowards of World War II. The modern enemies of Israel take on more insidious forms than their predecessors, and some of them were recently granted visas to the United States in order to attend the UN General Assembly this week.

While the Book of Esther is set in ancient history, its principles remain true today. Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani and Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif are modern-day Hamans. Like Haman the Agagite, they have not been discreet about their plans for Israel and the Jewish people. In fact, Iran’s weapons are emblazoned with the words “death to Israel.” So, what are we willing to do about it?

Between Two Promised Lands

In his new book, ‘We Stand Divided,’ Daniel Gordis examines the deep roots of the growing rift between American and Israeli Jews

In the book’s most stimulating and provocative chapter, Gordis presents American and Israeli conceptions of democracy as being fundamentally at odds. In the U.S., politics have been organized around the right to free and equal exchange in the public square, Gordis argues, and American Jews acculturated into this system have come to idealize a form of “naked” democracy, utterly stripped of all cultural symbols. Such “hypercivility,” as Gordis describes it, is incompatible with the Jewish particularism that is a founding mission of Israel, a nation created, after all, not to enshrine universal values but to ensure the survival of a single people. “For long before there was a Jewish state, there was an implicit understanding in the yishuv that Jewish substance should pervade Israel’s ether,” Gordis writes. Accordingly, Shabbat sirens in Jerusalem, temporary halting of bus services, strict religious conversion standards, and even forbidding the public display of hametz during Passover are seen as legitimate, and necessary, infringements on individual rights to preserve Judaism’s national identity.

To uphold the divide between Israeli and American Jews as the result of incompatible visions of Judaism and democratic politics rather than a temporary, contingent rift, Gordis can, at times, reduce the internal complexity in both of these communities to a simple binary contrast. We Stand Divided sometimes skirts around the deep divisions emerging within the American and Israeli camps by granting the two groups singular voices where they are more often characterized by a cacophonous bickering that may be unhelpful for illustrating stark themes, but are instinctively recognizable background noise to Jews all over the world. For instance, Gordis’ suggestion of consensus among Israelis regarding their nation’s ethnic democracy threatens to suffocate the great national divisions within Israel over religion’s growing political prominence and the treatment of minority groups—divisions that have animated the last several Israeli elections and contributed to the country’s political gridlock.

We Stand Divided is a natural progression from Gordis’ previous work, Israel: A Concise History of a Nation Reborn, offering a broad spectrum of readers, from the unacquainted to the well informed, a constructive, digestible framework for interpreting recent developments in the American-Israeli relationship. Gordis succeeds in demonstrating the essential point of We Stand Divided in that today’s strained ties are neither new nor novel. “I argue that although most observers believe that the fraught relationship is due to what Israel does, a closer look at Jewish communities in Israel and the United States suggests that the real reason has to do with what Israel is,” Gordis writes. Locating the divisions over Israel as a matter of essence rather than particular actions, Gordis suggests that Israeli and American Jews are prone to misunderstand each other—but this doesn’t necessarily mean that they have to inevitably drift further apart. That remains to be seen and depends partly on whether they can look honestly at what divides them.

Ireland Ignores Palestinian Textbooks that Encourage Hatred of Israelis

I was surprised and genuinely shocked to learn that the Irish Department of Foreign Affairs has turned a blind eye to the toxic indoctrination of Palestinian children who are being fed a hate-filled version of their history. In 2010 a new initiative was launched between the Palestinian Authority and five European states to support the education sector. Ireland was to focus on curriculum development and basic education as the lead nation on textbook development. The result is that the bad old PA curriculum is now much worse.

The Institute for Monitoring Peace and Cultural Tolerance in School Education (IMPACT-SE) monitors school textbooks to see how they measure up to UNESCO and UN standards for peace and tolerance. What emerged from the Palestinian Ministry of Education was filled with violent wording and is openly anti-Semitic: Jews control the world and are corrupt, there is no possibility of peace with Israel, martyrdom and jihad are the most important things in life, and "dying is better than living." Killers classified by the UN as terrorists are glorified as role models and heroes to be emulated.

Marcus Sheff, chief executive officer of IMPACT-SE, has been astounded by the silence of Ireland. "The Irish Government is involved in these textbooks to a greater extent than any other donor government," he noted.

Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan spoke to the UN today and he used a prop - The Map That Lies.

🇹🇷 — NEWS: Erdogan During His UN Address Speaks About Israeli–Palestinian Conflict: "What is the role and point of the UN if it fails to implement its own resolutions against Israel...”

pic.twitter.com/wBDa31GNzm
— BELAAZ (@TheBelaaz) September 24, 2019

This is the map that Israel-haters love so much. The map that MSNBC publicly apologized for showing on the air because it does not tell the truth. The map that prompted McGraw-Hill to admit it was wrong and to destroy all textbooks that used it.

It is sort of amazing that world leaders can go to the UN, lie with impunity and most journalists don't call them on it.

(h/t Jose)

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

A new hospital is being completed in Gaza, near the Erez crossing. It will be called the American Hospital after the American NGO Friend Ships, staffed by volunteers who provide humanitarian assistance to people in dire need.

Most of the equipment comes from a field hospital in Syria that is no longer necessary. The medical equipment started arriving today, and the hospital is expected to begin operation within a couple of months.

Israel has approved the hospital, which is funded by Qatar. But the Palestinian Authority bitterly opposed it being built. Back in July, the Palestinian cabinet issued a statement saying “The hospital that Israel and the US are seeking to establish on the northern border of the Gaza Strip is part of ongoing attempts to separate the Gaza Strip and the West Bank under humanitarian pretexts."

I do not recall any condemnations of Mahmoud Abbas or his new prime minister in July for opposing a modern new hospital to help Palestinians.

One gets the impression that Palestinian leaders don't give a damn about their own people. This is hardly the first example - Abbas has limited medicines and medical equipment to Gaza, he has tried to stop Israel providing electricity to the enclave, he opposes Palestinians becoming citizens in Lebanon, he opposed allowing Palestinians in Syria to come to areas he controls unless they can maintain their mythical "right to return" - and thousands are dead as a result.

For decades, Palestinian (and other Arab) leaders have treated their own people as political pawns, usually against Israel or sometimes against other political enemies. If they cannot fulfill this objective, they are expendable.

The bitter irony is that Hamas, recognized worldwide as the terror group it is, cares far more about its actual people than the supposedly moderate Palestinian Authority does. Any news reports that put Mahmoud Abbas and his gang in a poor light get effectively censored by a media that has a narrative of him as a moderate peacemaker rather than the ruthless dictator he is.

This hospital proves once again that the PLO cannot be trusted to act responsibly towards its own people. It is impossible to negotiate with an entity that looks at its own people as nothing more than cannon fodder against their enemies.

(h/t Irene)

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.

09/24 Links Pt1: Daniel Pipes: Should Israel Invade Gaza?; "The machine gun and the bullet are the essence of the path" - song at PA university graduation ceremony for terrorist prisoners

From Ian:

Daniel Pipes: Should Israel Invade Gaza?

So, what should Israel’s goal in Gaza be?

The occasional show of force against Hamas interests has failed, as has destroying Gaza’s infrastructure; so too the opposite policy of good will and the prospect of economic prosperity. It’s time for something altogether different, a goal that transcends sending signals and punishing misdeeds, something far more ambitious.

Victory is such a goal. That is, aim to impose a sense of defeat on Gazans, from the head of Hamas to the lowliest street sweeper. Aiming for an Israel victory is entirely in keeping with historical war aims, but it is out of step with our times, when even the words victory and defeat have dropped from the Western war lexicon. The Israeli security establishment seeks just peace and quiet vis-a-vis the Palestinians; Mr. Inbar speaks for them in dismissing the goal of victory over Hamas as “naive.”

Negotiations, mediation, compromise, concessions and other gentle means have replaced victory. These sound good; but they have failed in the Palestinian-Israeli arena since 1993, and blindly persisting with them guarantees more destruction and death.

With imposing a sense of defeat on Gazans the goal, what are the strategy and tactics? These cannot be decided on in advance. They require a contemporaneous and detailed study of the Gazan population’s psychology. Questions to be answered might include:

• Does the deprivation of food, water, fuel and medicine in retaliation for attacks on Israel inspire a sense of resistance (muqawama) and steadfastness (sumud) among Gazans or does it break their will?

• Same question about the destruction of homes, buildings and infrastructure.

• Would knocking out the Hamas leadership paralyze the population or prompt an insurrection?

Israel’s security establishment needs to explore these and related issues to map out a sound strategy and to offer reliable counsel to the political leadership. That done, with victory as the goal, Israel finally can address the hitherto insoluble problem of Gaza.

David Horovitz: 7 things to know as Rivlin tries to impose unity coalition on Netanyahu, Gantz

3. Anonymous sources close to Rivlin told Channel 13 that the president has not made up his mind who to charge first with the task of building a coalition. “He does not have a name in his head,” the TV station quoted an unnamed source as saying.

The president has until Wednesday, October 2 to make a choice — which happens to be the same day as Netanyahu’s hearing pending indictment. Rivlin could choose one of the two to form a government as early as this Wednesday or Thursday, the TV report said, but would be perfectly prepared to wait another week, enabling them to reflect on his unity appeal during the two-day Rosh Hashanah holiday, which begins Sunday.

4. If Netanyahu and Gantz cannot agree between themselves on a process of coalition building, Rivlin will indeed face a complex choice. Neither would-be prime minister has majority support or a clear path to a coalition. Fifty-five MKs (from Likud, Shas, United Torah Judaism and Yemina) have recommended Netanyahu as prime minister, compared to 54 for Gantz (from Blue and White, Labor-Gesher, the Democratic Camp, and 10 of the 13 Arab MKs from the Joint List). By that measure, Rivlin could opt to give Netanyahu the first shot at mustering a majority. But Blue and White party has 33 seats, compared to 31 for Likud. So that favors Gantz.

In 1984, when elections also produced political deadlock, the Labor Alignment had 44 seats to Likud’s 41, and the Alignment’s leader Shimon Peres took the first two years as prime minister, before the role rotated to Likud’s Shamir.

Israel's top court hears appeal for activist expelled for boycott activity

Israel's Supreme Court on Tuesday heard the appeal of the local director of Human Rights Watch, who is seeking to block an attempt by the government to expel him for allegedly supporting the international boycott movement against Israel.

A lower court in April upheld a decision not to renew Omar Shakir's work visa and ordered him to leave the country, saying his advocacy against Israel's settlements in Judea and Samaria amounts to support for the Palestinian-led boycott movement.

"We want to be able to do the same work we do in nearly 100 countries across the world and here in Israel," Shakir said, speaking to reporters outside the courtroom.

"The kind of work we've been doing in Israel for three decades, the kind of work that we've done with Palestinian Authority, with Hamas, with every country in the Middle East and North Africa."

Human Rights Watch says neither it nor Shakir has called for an outright boycott of Israel. It says Shakir, who is a US citizen, is being targeted for the rights group's opposition to the settlements and its calls for companies to stop working with the settlements.

Tuesday's hearing had been delayed for months and an immediate ruling was not expected.

YESTERDAY: Human Rights Watch joins Iran, Syria, North Korea in demanding UNHRC blacklist "of companies working in settlements"—a form of anti-Israel BDS, per UNHRC reps like Leilani Farha.

TODAY: Human Rights Watch tells Israel Supreme Court it doesn’t support anti-Israel BDS. pic.twitter.com/VGWu8XbwWP
— Hillel Neuer - watching #UNGA #UNGA74 (@HillelNeuer) September 24, 2019

The Left's Love For Ferocity Is Getting 'Progressively' Worse (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

Last week, the controversial group Women's March informed us about a changing of the guard.

Gone were Bob Bland, Tamika Mallory and Linda Sarsour. While Carmen Perez remained, the other three were replaced on the group's board by an assortment of new names and faces:

But one name stood out from the rest: Zahra Billoo.

Billoo's vile tweets were soon plastered all over Twitter, with different people offering their own personal collection of the Worst of the Worst of her attacks on Israel, Zionism and Jews.

Billoo combined unhinged accusations against Israel with whatever conspiracy theories were available:

Nor did Billoo limit herself to Israel, attacking Jewish rights groups that fight antisemitism, such as the Anti-Defamation League:

As a big fan of the terrorist group Hamas, Billoo came up with various analogies to defend the murder of Israeli civilians:

Like this:

And this:

And when her brother, Ahmed ibn Aslam, publicly wished in a fit of pique at Ben Gurion Airport that all Jews in Israel be killed...

...Billoo responded with her support for her brother against the evil Customs and Border Protection:

The uproar on Twitter was so loud and angry that Women's March dropped Billoo from the board.

But not everyone was upset by Billoo's assorted vicious attacks.

Some saw Billoo's assault on Israel and Jews very differently.

Rebecca Vilkomerson, executive director of Jewish Voice for Peace was ecstatic over Women March's new board and saw them all as a natural continuation of Sarsour, Mallory and Bland:

Somehow, vile and vicious attacks on Israel, Zionism and Jews are all part of being impactful, fierce and even inspiring.

What's going on here?

Last week, writing about the short-lived second wave of accusations against Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Peggy Noonan examined Why They’ll Never Stop Targeting Kavanaugh. More than a specific attempt to delegitimize the Supreme Court in order to head off an anticipated attack on Roe vs. Wade or a fixation on finishing off what Christine Blasey Ford started -- Noonan found a more general and pervasive issue underlying last weeks witch hunt:

the crazier parts of the progressive left increasingly see politics as public theater, with heroes and villains, cheers and hisses from the audience, and costumes, such as outfits from “The Handmaid’s Tale.” Because modern politics is, for the lonely and strange on all sides, entertainment and diversion. And one’s people must be entertained. [emphasis added]

Based on the gusto with which the nasty comments were being tweeted and retweeted by the likes of Billoo, Sarsour, Tlaib and Omar it was clear that people were reveling in these attacks on twitter -- not just the people carrying out the attacks and perpetuating them, but also the people on Twitter who were merely following on Twitter, and cheering them on in the comments.

It's almost like a sport.

Here is a video from 3 years ago of political commentator Cenk Uyghur talking with John Iadarola in the days leading up to the 2016 Democratic National Convention, discussing picking representatives for drafting the Democratic Platform. Uyghur personifies the sports metaphor for politics taken to its logical conclusion, referring to Sanders' picks as "the aggressive progressives -- the change gang," and calling the choice of Cornel West "a bold pick." Uyghur refers to them as "a great crew...when you bring these all-stars."

Watch the first 2:30 of the video:

(As an aside, at one point, Uyghur worked for MSNBC, where he replaced Keith Olbermann, who actually switched off between sports broadcasting and news.)

On the progressive left, the value placed on the inspirational value of such attacks makes for the adoption of some unexpected heroes.

During a 2006 teach-in at UC Berkeley about the Israel-Hezbollah war, American philosopher Judith Butler was asked a "bundle" of 4 questions:

1. Since Israel is an imperialist, colonial project, should resistance be based on social movements or the nation-state?

2. What is the power of the Israel Lobby and is questioning it antisemitic?

3. Since the Left hesitates to support Hamas and Hezbollah “just” because of their use of violence, does this hurt Palestinian solidarity?

4. Do Hamas and Hezbollah actually threaten Israel’s existence, as portrayed in some media?

She started off by talking about "The Israel Lobby." Butler made no mention of AIPAC at all, but named instead the American Jewish Congress, the American Jewish Committee and the Anti-Defamation League -- the reference to that last organization being a precursor to the attacks to come a few years later by Billoo -- and Sarsour.

Butler's whitewash of Hamas and Hezbollah was just what the audience was looking for:

Yes, understanding Hamas, Hezbollah as social movements that are progressive, that are on the Left, that are part of a global Left, is extremely important. That does not stop us from being critical of certain dimensions of both movements. It doesn’t stop those of us who are interested in non-violent politics from raising the question of whether there are other options besides violence. [emphasis added]

The terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah do not feel limited to military targets and have deliberately killed civilians.

But according to Butler, these are not terrorist groups.
They are merely not "interested in non-violent politics"

According to the text of her answer, her response was met with applause.

This is not a 21st problem.
It is an enduring one.

In his 1987 book The Closing of the American Mind, Harvard professor Allan Bloom writes:

I have seen young people, and older people too who are good democratic liberals, lovers of peace and gentleness, struck dumb with admiration for individuals threatening or using the most terrible violence for the slightest and tawdriest of reasons. They have a sneaking suspicion that they are face to face with men of real commitment, which they themselves lack. And commitment, not truth, is believed to be what counts. [emphasis added]

Bloom is speaking to those like Vilkomerson who are enthralled by the ferocity of these attacks on Twitter, mistaking their attacks as a commitment worthy of emulation and adulation.

From Che Guevara and Yasir Arafat, the progressive left has now settled on Zahran Billoo, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib.

And Butler is no better, with her twisted excuses for terrorist groups as progressive social movements.

Like Bloom, the late Justice Antonin Scalia recognized the problem as well. In 2010, Scalia offered his advice during the commencement address at Langley High School, in Virginia, where his granddaughter was graduating:

And indeed, to thine ownself be true, depending upon who you think you are. It’s a belief that seems particularly to beset modern society, that believing deeply in something, and following that belief, is the most important thing a person could do. Get out there and picket, or boycott, or electioneer, or whatever. I am here to tell you that it is much less important how committed you are, than what you are committed to. If I had to choose, I would always take the less dynamic, indeed even the lazy person who knows what’s right, than the zealot in the cause of error. He may move slower, but he’s headed in the right direction.

...In short, it is your responsibility, men and women of the class of 2010, not just to be zealous in the pursuit of your ideals, but to be sure that your ideals are the right ones. That is perhaps the hardest part of being a good human being: Good intentions are not enough. Being a good person begins with being a wise person. Then, when you follow your conscience, will you be headed in the right direction. [emphasis added]

Social media in general, and perhaps Twitter in particular, is a petri dish of a society where passionate attacks have long replaced any semblance of normal discussion.

And in this age of intersectionalism where a whole gamut of causes are being interwoven and championed with unheard-of ferocity -- Israel, Zionism and Jews are increasingly being targeted, with a reemergence -- and acceptance -- of antisemitism that we thought we would never see again.

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.

Gideon Levy's fake olive trees in Haaretz

Gideon Levy in Haaretz writes about how cruel Israelis are destroying Palestinian olive trees, seemingly for no other reason but to persecute their owners:

Two days after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared, on Tuesday last week, his intention to annex the Jordan Valley after the election, forces of the Civil Administration carried out yet another brutal operation of destruction. The target this time was particularly remote: a rocky hillside adjacent to the village of Tamoun in the northern valley. The goal was singularly vicious: the uprooting of hundreds of olive trees that were about to yield their first fruit...

Four days later, on Monday, the groves’ owners stood next to their felled trees and their ruined cisterns, sadly rolling bits of olives from the felled trees between their fingers. The first crop of these seven-year-old trees was set to be harvested in another few days, but the Civil Administration’s terminators got here just before – as if to rub salt in the wound. The butchered trees are withering on the ground; their fruit is dying on the slashed branches.

Here is the photo of the uprooted trees from the story:

There's only one slight problem. These aren't olive trees.

To be certain, I asked people on Twitter who know trees better than me, and it was unanimous - not one person identified these as olive trees. The color and shape of the leaves, the thickness of the trunk - all show that these are not olive trees and Levy's claim that they were cut down right before they were ready to produce fruit is simply not true.

But if they are not olive trees, what are they, and why is Israel uprooting them?

According to the Regavim NGO - who have a much better track record than Haaretz for telling the truth - these trees are acacia saligna trees, known as coojong (and other names.) They are the tree equivalent of weeds - invasive, non-indigenous, fast growing trees that disrupt the ecosystem and destroy the water table.

Regavim says that the PA plants these trees, considered pests throughout the world, because they grow like wildfire and give the appearance of "old" agricultural work at the site. This way they can take advantage of a loophole in Ottoman Land Law that gives squatters rights if they have been using the land for several years without any objections having been registered against them. Young, fast growing coojongs look like much older trees for their age, so they are ideal as a means for a land grab.

Israel is destroying the trees not only because the land they are planted on is state land, but also because the trees themselves are a threat to the ecosystem. The Palestinians, who claim to love their land so much, prefer to plant invasive, non-indigenous trees that are close to unkillable (their seeds can survive fire) and that destroys other plants.

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 some reason, Jewish Currents chose rabid anti-Israel ideologue Judith Butler to review Bari Weiss' "How to Fight Anti-Semitism," a book that describes in detail why modern anti-Zionism is a new form of antisemitism just as toxic as white supremacism, a thesis with which Butler violently disagrees.

Butler's "gotcha" of Weiss is this:

Intersectionality theory does have much to say about the possibility of being oppressed in one respect and responsible for oppression in another respect—a part of that theory that Weiss does not address. The mechanics of the concept do not seem to elude her; in fact, we might describe her as arguing in an intersectional spirit when she claims, for instance, that Congresswoman Ilhan Omar is subject to racist attacks at the same time that, in Weiss’s view, she is guilty of antisemitism. “Two things can be true at once,” Weiss reminds us. Indeed they can. This situation is well-known by many Jews who vigilantly oppose antisemitism and yet also bear responsibility for a continuing and unjust occupation of Palestine.

But that tension remains oblique in this ahistorical text. Weiss regards Israel’s founding as a state based on Jewish political sovereignty as the end of a “clear line” that ran from biblical times through the aftermath of the Holocaust, spanning “two thousand years of history [which] have shown definitively that the Jewish people require a safe haven and an army.” The Holocaust, in other words, necessitated “the fulfillment of a biblical promise” to establish a homeland for the Jews in Palestine. And yet another line of history runs through and past the Naqba, a history that intersects with the story Weiss tells: state Zionism provided sanctuary for Jewish refugees even as it dispossessed more than 700,000 Palestinians from their homes, producing more refugees for whom there is no clear sanctuary. 1948 was a year in which multiple histories intersected. There is no one line of history. If we accept wholesale Weiss’s proposition that Israel exists and is therefore legitimate, then we are excused from asking too many historical questions about why it was established in the way that it was—on what legal terms, and at what price, and through the vanquishing of what alternative possibilities.

But if two things can both be true at once, shouldn’t we be able to think through the paradox of a dispossessed population gaining sanctuary only through the dispossession of another population? Shall we not name this as a founding contradiction, one that remains unsolved, and whose resolution could lead to less violence and more common life—cohabitation on equal grounds? Unfortunately, that order of complexity does not enter into this book and seems rather rigorously excluded.

OK, let's deal with the issues that Butler brings up that she says is excluded. (I haven't yet finished reading Weiss' 'book.)

Butler falsely claims that Weiss is referring only to the Holocaust when she says “two thousand years of history have shown definitively that the Jewish people require a safe haven and an army.” This is obviously wrong, since the Holocaust took place over only a tiny slice of the two thousand years of Jews being persecuted that Weiss refers to. Butler chooses to ignore that in implying that the Holocaust is the only reason for Israel to exist, to provide sanctuary for Holocaust victims and no one else, and therefore the Shoah is used as an excuse for dispossessing Palestinian Arabs. It isn't. Zionism came before the Holocaust and its arguments are based on Jews being treated as any other nation.

Butler then moves onto her next false assumption: that considering Israel to be a legitimate state somehow stops people from delving into the details of how it was established, a process that Butler clearly thinks was on the whole immoral. This is also obviously not true. The United States and Australia may have done immoral things to aboriginal peoples when they were founded, but no one questions the legitimacy of those and most other countries the way Israel's legitimacy is questioned daily, including in this very essay. No one says that one cannot question the historical details any state including Israel Yet to Butler, only Israel's very legitimacy is dependent on the moral "price" she claims it paid. Butler even seems to also be saying that Israel's legality is open to question - a Jewish state that the UN itself recommended be established, that the UN accepted as a full member, a Jewish homeland accepted by the League of Nations decades earlier - it is difficult to find a state that has more legitimacy in international law than Israel.

If the only state whose legitimacy is questioned is the only Jewish state, then we also have the right to ask questions: Why it Israel singled out to adhere to standards that no other state has ever reached? Why is the Jewish state the only one that is assumed to be illegitimate? Why are people like Butler obsessed over Israel and only Israel? The only answer that fully explains the visceral hate for Israel is indeed antisemitism. Weiss shows how the Soviets used Jews to spearhead antisemitic initiatives - and how those Jews ended up being persecuted themselves, despite their being as "good" as they could be. Butler fits exactly into that mold. It is not surprising she doesn't mention that part of the book.

Butler claims that Zionism necessitated the dispossession of Arabs from the land. This is nonsense; one has to truly cherry pick Zionist quotes from the first half of the 20th century to build that case (which is exactly what anti-Zionists like Butler do.) If one reads actual Zionist literature from the period - just peruse any random issue of the Palestine Post during the 1930s - the idea of ethnically cleansing Arabs not considered. On the contrary, it is assumed that Jews and Arabs would live together in harmony and that the influx of Jews would improve the lives of Arabs. One could argue whether that is true or even if that is a colonial mindset, but one cannot seriously argue that Zionism caused the flight of Arabs from the area. War is what caused the flight, and it was not a war that Zionists started.

Judith Butler has a different vision of a wonderful world where Jew and Arab live together in peace, one that necessitates dismantling the Jewish state and replacing it with a single state where Palestinians can "return" and make the Jews a minority. Instead of relying on Jewish ideas of equal rights for an Arab minority we should rely on the Arab majority to protect the rights for a Jewish minority. This will, she says, resolve the "founding contradiction" of Israel - by destroying the Jewish state.

But this is no longer 1948, and we have over seven decades of evidence of what these competing visions look like. On the one hand, we have an Israel that provides legal equal rights to its Arab minority and that, in fits and starts, has been trying to live up to that vision in all spheres. On the other hand, we have abundant evidence of how Arab nations treated their Jews both before and during Israel's establishment.

Egypt created nationality laws in the 1920s that defined as someone who was an Arab or Muslim, pointedly excluding Jews. Libya stripped Jews of the right to vote in 1951. In Iraq, Jewish history and Hebrew language instruction were prohibited in Jewish schools during the 1920s and Jews were expelled from public service and education in the 1930s. In Yemen, Jews were excluded from public service positions and the army during the 1920s. Jews could no longer purchase property in Syria in 1947. In 1948, Iraq prohibited Jews from leaving the country, and Yemen followed in 1949. In 1951, Libyan Jews were no longer allowed to have passports or Libyan nationality certificates.

These Arab laws were aimed at all Jews, citizens of their countries, not "Zionists." And today, Jews who venture into Arab areas controlled fully by the Palestinian Authority put their lives at risk. Israel was and remains the only country in the Middle East where Jews can live without fear. Pretending that a binational state would protect the Jews is to ignore a century of evidence that proves otherwise - Jews ostensibly had equal rights in Egypt and Libya and Algeria and Lebanon, and they were forced out. By any rational yardstick, Arabs are more protected under Jewish rule than Jews ever have been under Arab rule.

Considering Butler's kumbaya solution and comparing it with the reality of Israel today is indeed what gives Israel its moral legitimacy. The Holocaust was unique, but Jewish persecution is not. Israel is the refuge for Jews from Arab lands untouched by the Holocaust as well as from the Soviet Union, Ethiopia and other places they were persecuted or tolerated as not-quite full citizens. Weiss reminds us of the statement of the prime minister of France in 1980, Raymond Barre, after a synagogue bombing that killed two Jews and two non-Jews: ”They aimed at the Jews and they hit innocent Frenchmen.” With few exceptions, Jews have never been considered full citizens of the countries they lived in, and today's white nationalists as well as leftists who want to exclude Jews from student government on campus show that this thinking exists even in the US today.

No one is silencing anyone. All questions about Israel should be asked and forthrightly answered. But Butler isn't just asking questions - she is attacking the very idea of Jews as a people having the same rights as any other people to self-determination. She is disingenuous when she characterizes her criticisms as merely asking questions, since she is not interested in the answers, which an honest academic would welcome. She is singling out Israel for vitriol that is way out of proportion to its supposed crimes, to the point that it is the only state in the world that is assumed to be illegitimate. That isn't debate - that is hate. And it is hate that is identical to the hate that Jews have been subjected to throughout history, that also was justified as merely asking questions.

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.