Tuesday, December 01, 2020

  • Tuesday, December 01, 2020
  • Elder of Ziyon

Middle East Monitor reported:
The Palestinian Ministry of Agriculture in Gaza announced on Thursday that it will be importing [sic] Palestinian olive oil for the first time from the besieged enclave, to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

Speaking to the press, the ministry's Spokesman Adham Al-Basyouni disclosed: "44 tones of olive oil were exported to Arab countries after achieving self-sufficiency for the first time."

He stated that his ministry exerted efforts to export the surplus of Gaza's olive oil as part of its support for farmers.

 Speaking to Anadolu Agency, Palestinian businessman Hamdi al-Jerjawi said that "990 olive oil tins [15 tons] were exported to Saudi Arabia and 600 olive oil tins [9 tons] were exported to the United Arab Emirates."
This is the first time Gaza exported olive oil to Saudi Arabia and the UAE - right when Israel is cementing ties with those same Gulf countries.

Normally, Gaza produce for export outside the West Bank requires Israeli approval. The PA exports some West Bank produce straight to Jordan but I am not aware of them exporting Gaza goods.

Which means that although Arab and Turkish media are loathe to admit it, Israel almost certainly facilitated this export to help Gaza farmers. 

This is not the sort of thing that the media wants to report.




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.
From Ian:

Jonathan Tobin: Will Biden get the message he was just sent on Iran?
The Iranian regime has already repeatedly demonstrated that its goals are incompatible with those of Western fools, either in the United States or Europe, who think that diplomacy can somehow accommodate its ambitions. Iran’s use of terror, its nuclear ambitions are, like its ruthless and brutal suppression of dissent at home, integral to the identity of the Islamist government. Efforts to appease them like the nuclear pact are unsatisfactory and temporary solutions to a problem that requires a more realistic long-term approach.

It’s equally true that Iran’s leaders have also shown that, despite their bluster, the talk about waging war on Israel or the West is more of a bluff than a credible threat. While that could theoretically change, the talk of so-called experts on Iran about a conflict between “hardliners” and Tehran liberals is, like so much of the analysis of the Soviet Union a generation ago, utterly bogus.

That means that the problem facing Biden is not how to undo Trump’s withdrawal from the nuclear deal or to make a new Middle East where Israel and the Gulf states are working in unison to accept a return of Iran appeasement. Rather, it’s how long it will take his new foreign-policy team to understand that the Obama vision for a housetrained Iran that would do business with the West was never realistic and, even with the support of Europe, Russia and China, can’t be revived. If they’re serious about crafting an Iran policy that is anything more than an Obama nostalgia tour, they must acknowledge that the nuclear deal—whose sunset clauses ensured that Iran would eventually get a bomb and which ignored its terrorism and missile building—must be scrapped sooner or later.

The information about Iran’s nuclear problem that Israel published two years ago—showing they never really stopped working for a weapon, along with every act of terrorism and illegal missile-building they commit—contradicts the Obama-Biden hopes for curtailing, let alone ending the threat from the regime.

Former Secretary of State and future Biden climate change tsar John Kerry may have advised Iran to simply wait until a Democratic administration replaced Trump to resume good relations with the West. But even if Tehran is cheered by Trump’s defeat, they aren’t going to conform to Biden’s will any more than they did to Obama’s. Their violent and aggressive goals remain unchanged, and nothing short of the kind of economic isolation that Trump was seeking to impose will force them to change their behavior, if, indeed, even that would suffice.

As important as the transition to a new administration in Washington is, it changes nothing about Iran or its intentions or the responsibility of those who rightly understand the nature of the threat to act. As they showed with the assassination and with its strikes against Iranian targets in Syria, Israel won’t simply sit back and let Iran have its way. The only question about Biden’s policy is whether he will join that fight as Trump did, or if he will stand on the sidelines as the Jewish state continues to do the West’s dirty work.
Eli Lake: On the Iran Nuclear Deal, Israel Gets a Vote
In this sense, it’s mistaken to view Israel’s likely strike against Fakhrizadeh through the lens of its effect on President-elect Joe Biden’s goal of re-entering the Iran nuclear deal and negotiating a stronger follow-on agreement. Israel has already proved it has extraordinary intelligence capabilities inside Iran. But the opportunity to take out a high-value target such as Fakhrizadeh does not come along often. It’s more likely that the opportunity presented itself and Israel pounced.

More important, Israel has showed in the last three years that it is willing to use its intelligence capabilities to stymie Iran’s nuclear program. Israel killed some nuclear scientists inside Iran during negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program. Back then, most observers believed that Israel’s only chance to destroy Iran’s nuclear infrastructure was an overt action, such as a missile strike, drone attack or bombing run. The explosions at Iranian sites over the summer suggest Israel can accomplish much of this task through intelligence operations.

The upshot is that any future deal with Iran will have to address Israel’s security needs. That is not what happened five years ago. The tensions of the nuclear deal became so dramatic that in 2015, Netanyahu addressed a joint session of Congress to make the case against the deal Obama was negotiating. Netanyahu was willing to risk Israel’s most important alliance to oppose a deal that he believed imperiled his country’s future. So it’s highly unlikely that Israel would be willing to end its activities in Iran so the U.S. can rejoin that same deeply flawed nuclear agreement.

Israel may agree not to launch any strikes for a time, such as the first few months of the Biden administration. But it won’t give up the capability to strike inside Iran unless Iran agrees to abandon the aspects of its nuclear program suitable for building bombs. If Biden is smart, he will use this dynamic to his advantage as he tests Iran’s willingness to negotiate.

Israel’s sabotage and assassinations have not destroyed Iran’s nuclear program. But they have set it back. As the architect of that program, Fakhrizadeh will be hard to replace. What will be even harder for the regime, however, is persuading its other scientists that they will be safe if they continue the quest for a nuclear weapon.
Melanie Phillips: The warped reaction to the Fakhrizadeh assassination
Iran declared war against the west decades ago, and has committed numerous attacks and sponsored repeated acts of murderous terrorism against America, coalition forces in Iraq, Israel and diaspora Jews. Yet the western establishment, which has perversely refused to defend its interests against such attacks, continues to behave as if Iran is not responsible and that only a western military response would be an act of war.

Progressives say the regime will be contained by reaching out to it in negotiation. Once again, this is an example of the west’s ineffable arrogance in assuming that its own value-system is shared by the rest of the world. To the Iranian regime, attempts to negotiate are a sign of weakness and thus an incentive to further aggression. When the west extends its hand in conciliation, the regime views it as an opportunity to chop it off.

No-one in their right mind could be sanguine about the prospect of an all-out war with Iran. Equally, no-one in their right mind should be sanguine about enabling it to produce a nuclear bomb.

The assassination of Fakhrizadeh, along with all the other measures Israel and its allies have taken against the regime, shows how asymmetric warfare (or warfare by terrorists or rogue states outside the rules of war) need not mean that the bad guys always win. All it needs is the moral will to defend the free world against this novel form of aggressive warfare through novel ways of waging a just war.

Israel and the Trump administration possess that moral will. Obama and his retreads, along with the craven Europeans, do not.
  • Tuesday, December 01, 2020
  • Elder of Ziyon
UNRWA sends out emails about its dire financial straits, saying that there is no money left for its services.

But there is one simple way it can alleviate its problems: shut down the UNRWA school system in Jordan.

There is no reason whatsoever for the UN and UNRWA's donor countries to support a separate school system altogether. But in Jordan, it is completely unnecessary.

Nearly all Palestinian "refugees" in Jordan are citizens of Jordan. They can all attend Jordanian state schools, whose curriculum UNRWA uses. 

Already about one third of Palestinian "refugee" citizens of Jordan send their children to Jordanian public schools. Jordan does not ban them from its schools. In fact, Jordan also gives schooling to non-citizen refugees from Syria, so even the Palestinians who aren't citizens should be able to attend Jordanian schools.

Maintaining two parallel school systems is inefficient and wasteful. Jordan can take over the existing UNRWA school buildings and hire UNRWA teachers. The donors who fund UNRWA could divert some of their money for a few years to Jordan's education ministry until the transition is complete.

UNRWA in Jordan uses the Jordanian curriculum and schoolbooks, so there is no disruption there.

Most importantly, it is the state's responsibility to educate its young people, and Jordan shouldn't outsource this task to the international community.

How much would this save? Education is roughly half of UNRWA's billion dollar budget, and Jordan has some two million "Palestine refugees." Almost certainly cutting this wholly unnecessary program would save $100 million a year, or about 10% of UNRWA's budget - without impacting the lives of the children who would still attend the same schools with the same teachers using the same textbooks.

UNRWA tries to position itself as being crucial. In this one case alone, it is clear that it isn't, and it is just trying to get as much money from the international community while keeping Palestinians separate from the main population of the country they are citizens of.  It encourages Jordanians to consider Palestinians as not real Jordanians and to treat them as if they are only temporarily there, which makes it easier to take away other rights from them - something Jordan has done many times before.

You know....apartheid.





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.
  • Tuesday, December 01, 2020
  • Elder of Ziyon
Iran's Tasnim news agency is reporting that thge assassination of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh was done essentially by remote control.
No hit man was involved in the recent assassination of Iranian scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, the secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council said.
Speaking to reporters on the sidelines of burial of the late Iranian scientist on Monday, Ali Shamkhani said the distinguished figure was assassinated in a complicated operation that involved electronic equipment without any assassin at the scene.
Israel's Kan network correspondent Amichai Stein quotes the Iranian Fars news agency saying:
According to Fars - Mohsen Fakhrizadeh and his wife drove to their home in the suburbs of Tehran last Friday, accompanied by three security vehicles. In the middle of the trip, a remote control weapon opened fire, and Fakhrizadeh went out to check what had happened.  Fakhrizadeh thought that it was his car that had actually collided with something. From the moment he left, he was shot at by an automatic machine gun that was on top of a nearby Nissan vehicle. After he was hit, the Nissan vehicle with the machine gun on it exploded.....The owner of the vehicle on which the machine-gun was installed left Iran on October 29.
If this report is true, it means that both the Nissan truck and the machine gun were remotely controlled.

Is that possible?

Israel does have plenty of experience with remote controlled and autonomous vehicles. 

The Daily Mail reports that Israel designed a remotely controlled pickup truck with a machine gun:


The IDF showed off this technology in 2016, when it was fitted into Ford F-350 pickup trucks that were designed to conduct border patrols.

The trucks, dubbed Border Protector Unmanned Ground Vehicles, are equipped with an array of sensors and cameras that allowed people to drive them remotely.

At the time they were unveiled the trucks were unarmed, but the IDF said it was hoping to arm the vehicles some time in early 2017.

'We will get a machine gun on the vehicle that will be operated from a control room,' an IDF official told Fox News at the time.

The IDF said the vehicles have been operational since 2015, and would later incorporate driverless technology.
And remote controlled machine guns? Israeli arms developers have gone beyond that with Rafael's Samson Remote Controlled Weapons Station, known as Katlanit. One version of it, the Mini Samson  ROWS (shown here) can hold 12.7 mm and 14.5 mm machine guns as well as 40 mm grenade launcher, and the weapons weigh between 140–160 kg - which would easily fit on a Nissan pickup truck. 

If this hit was really done remotely, it looks like the nation that sponsored the assassination - presumably Israel - built special equipment just for the occasion. The technology is easily within Israel's capabilities but hiding that weaponry on a standard pickup truck and running it remotely via satellite adds quite a bit of complexity. Smuggling such a weapon to Iran is almost as impressive as the technology. 

I'm not sure why Tehran would lie about this, unless it is embarrassed that it couldn't find any shooters and is using this as a cover story. But to tell its own people that Israel was able to get such equipment into Iran and execute someone definitely makes any potential targets far more concerned about how easily they could get killed.

On the other hand, if Israel really decided to do the hit remotely, that is an enormous amount of trust in technology for eliminating such a target. Iranian claims that Fakhrizadeh went out of his car to check what happened and was then shot - and that he was in a bulletproof car - indicates that if he hadn't left is car he might still be alive, and it seems unlikely Israel would have taken such a chance. Also, the side of the car he was in shows that the small window in back was shattered, but one would expect the entire side of the car to be riddled with bullets if it was a machine gun, and there is no evidence of that. 




One other point: an operation like this would take probably years from conception through building the specialized equipment and smuggling it into Iran to appropriate agents, along with long-term surveillance of Fakhrizadeh's habits (or inside information about them.) Iran may claim that their nuclear program is peaceful, but Israel wouldn't spend that much time and money on a unique method of assassinating someone unless it was very sure that the target was extraordinarily valuable. This much effort indicates that the assassination set back Iran's nuclear weapons program significantly. 




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.
  • Tuesday, December 01, 2020
  • Elder of Ziyon


Thanks to you, Elder of Ziyon site continues to help Israel and the Jewish people.

It has been a difficult year for everyone, and EoZ has been doing our part to keep you informed and give you the tools to defend Israel.

This year in addition to the usual analysis, graphics, cartoons and videos, we added some live videocasts over the summer - and we plan to return to doing that.

Our Twitter influence remains strong. Politicians and reporters often ask us to promote their tweets and articles because EoZ is known for its influence.

Thousands of people continue to visit the website every day, and thousands more receive our daily digest via email.

Our exclusive content, scoops and analysis continue to make news, and our columnists have gained fans of their own. Our articles are regularly republished in Algemeiner and the Jewish Press.

Not to mention the best roundup of Israel-related news on the Internet in the daily linkdumps.

All of this takes lots of time and money. Columnists need to be paid, domain names and hosting space need to be paid for, research materials and computer hardware and cloud storage need to be purchased.

Please help keep EoZ the best place to see original Israel-related news and opinion.

You can donate via PayPal. Or you can send us an Amazon gift card (elder@elderofziyon.com.) Or you can ask your synagogue or organization to sponsor EoZ for a lecture or as a [virtual, for now] scholar in residence. Best of all, you can become a Patron of EoZ through Patreon.

Thanks again for your support! Let's hope that 2021 is a much better year!



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.
  • Tuesday, December 01, 2020
  • Elder of Ziyon


NPR reports on, and criticizes, Israel's advisory for citizens visiting the UAE and tourism operators in Israel:

Don't promote democracy, talk about the royal families or comment on treatment of foreign workers.

Israel is advising tourism professionals and businesspeople to avoid discussing those and other sensitive political topics with residents of the United Arab Emirates, as it protects its new peace deal with the Gulf Arab country and promotes new daily flights between Dubai and Tel Aviv, launched last week.

"United Arab Emirates: Do and Do Not," the tourism ministry's 29-page Hebrew-language advisory published Nov. 8, is the first public Israeli government comment on the issue of Emirati political freedoms, but it stops short of criticizing alleged abuses.

"The United Arab Emirates is not a democratic country and it is not acceptable to speak about democracies as a preferred model of government," the advisory says. It also recommends "not to speak to Emiratis about the royal families," "avoid speaking about local politics" and "avoid speaking about government or state policy towards foreign workers."

The ministry says the guidelines are not government policy but cultural sensitivity tips aimed primarily at Israeli tourism operators preparing to receive Emirati visitors, whenever Israel lifts its COVID-19 ban on incoming tourism.

... Analysts and activists in both Israel and the Gulf criticized the Israeli approach.

"Gulf citizens are worldly and engage in the topics that the Israeli government is steering its tourists from," says Bader Al-Saif, a Kuwait-based fellow with the Carnegie Middle East Center. "It's how one engages in these topics that would matter."

"The message is: be silent. If you want to go to the UAE, and have a collaboration with them, don't talk about anything that would light a fuse," says Eitay Mack, a left-wing Israeli human rights lawyer.
Every country has travel advisories. The US State Department warns visitors against making derogatory comments about the UAE. It adds, "The UAE has strict laws regarding use of the internet and social media. Individuals have been arrested and criminally convicted for posting information on social media sites that local authorities determined was disturbing to the order of the UAE. Users of social media should be cautious about online posting of information that might be deemed to insult or challenge the local or national government. Individuals should avoid posting insults or derogatory information about governments, institutions, or individuals."

The UK similarly has lots of travel warnings for the UAE: "Posting material (including videos and photographs) online that is critical of the UAE government, companies or individuals, or related to incidents in the UAE, or appearing to abuse/ridicule/criticise the country or its authorities, or that is culturally insensitive, may be considered a crime punishable under UAE law."

Canada: "It’s illegal to criticize or disrespect the UAE’s ruling families or political system."

So why is Israel singled out for criticism? NPR gives a laughable excuse: "The State Department's travel advisory for U.S. citizens in the UAE offers similar advice on behavior and dress, and warns travelers they could be arrested or deported for 'making derogatory statements about the UAE, the royal families, the local governments or other people.' But unlike Israel, the U.S. has also reported human rights concerns there."

The US is required to  monitor human rights issues in all countries to adhere to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and the Trade Act of 1974. That has nothing to do with giving advice on dealing with various local customs for travelers. Israel doesn't have that obligation. 

The UK issues a human rights report calling out abuses by specific countries - but doesn't say a negative word about the UAE. Canada doesn't even do that.

Where are the NPR stories about them?

The Israeli document is more comprehensive than a travel advisory, since it is also geared towards Israeli tourism professionals that will host UAE citizens. But this is advice on how to be polite with an expected influx of tourists with a culture that Israelis are not familiar with yet, not a warning not to discuss sensitive topics. NPR is framing this as if this pamphlet means that Israel is complicit with UAE's human rights abuses, and that is beyond dishonest.

This NPR report is a perfect example of media bias against Israel, blaming Israel for doing what every other Western nation does. 

(h/t Tomer Ilan)






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.

Monday, November 30, 2020

From Ian:

David Collier: ‘the wrong sort of Jew’ – the left’s latest antisemitic conspiracy theory
Last week one tweet by ‘Double Down News’ was shared 2000 times and received 3400 likes. It was an upload of a 9-minute video of Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi from Jewish Voice for Labour. On YouTube, the same video was watched over 120,000 times in 4 days.

Above the video ‘Double Down News‘ used the headline -‘Meet the Wrong Type of Jew, The Media Doesn’t Want You To Know Exists‘. Putting aside the fact that Idrissi and all of her JVL buddies have been given more than their fair share of mainstream media platforms, the underlying accusation here is stark. Zionists control the media. Why else would anti-Zionists not be given a platform? In other words, this is an antisemitic conspiracy theory.

The recent video even starts with Wimborne Idrissi saying she has been called the wrong sort of Jew. Except nowhere in any of the google searches was there any indication Idrissi and co regularly face such an accusation. All of the ‘wrong sort of Jew’ results were of Jews on hard-left websites batting away at an accusation that does not really exist.

They built the straw man and are now busy playing victims as they publicly demolish it.

The video by ‘the wrong sort of Jew.’ In just nine minutes, Naomi Wimborne Idrissi takes the viewer through most of the rancid arguments we have come to recognise in the fight against antisemitism. The pillars of hard-left antisemitic – anti-Zionist discourse.

That Jewish people are weaponising antisemitism and are harming the fight against real antisemitism. Idrissi distorts the truth by implying that the Jewish community is evenly divided. She is well aware that her opinion resides in a fringe minority group. She deals in historical distortion by decontextualising pre-Holocaust anti-Zionism. Raises the antisemitic idea that the treatment of the Palestinians by Israeli forces is comparable to the way Jews were treated by the Nazis. Touches on freedom of speech and truth – which is ludicrous hypocrisy coming from a spin artist who publicly calls for no platforming those she opposes. Tell viewers that media has ‘sidelined and ignored’ left wing Jews because they support Palestine. Which is a blatant lie. Takes ownership for the historical Jewish fights for justice. Finishes off by saying that her group are the decent ones – people who want justice and peace. Which means that 93% of Jews must be indecent and against justice and peace.

A vile cocktail of lies and distortion.
J’accuse: In the shadow of Dreyfus at the European Union
On August 21, it was announced that the employee would be fired on 1 September. She was left with the cancellation of her medical insurance amid the COVID -19 pandemic.

The Simon Wiesenthal Center for over a year has acted in support of a Spanish Jewish employee, tenured since 1996 and now a senior official of the European Commission. In 2013, she was transferred to the EU diplomatic service, European External Action Service (EEAS), to work in the Middle East (Israel and Palestinian Territories).

One of her colleagues informed her that their Division Head allegedly suspected her of spying for the Mossad. She was thus transferred to the Turkish Division, entrusted with counterterrorism files.

According to her lawyers, then began a “slanderous... defamatory... campaign with antisemitic overtones.” She was again suspected of passing information to Turkish representatives. In 2016, she was dismissed “in the interest of this service.” Thus a long and painful process began. The story appeared in last week’s Paris Match weekly (Belgian edition). The author, Frédéric Loore, gave the official an anonymous identity, the nom-de-plume of “Eva.” Loore suggested that his article was fit for the cover of a novel by John Le Carré.

He questioned: “Has the EEAS been infiltrated by a Mossad mole or have some of its managers engaged in harassment on the grounds of antisemitism? Was there a Mata Hari in the ranks of the service in charge of the European Union’s foreign and security policy? Or was it a fabricated plot to get rid of a cumbersome senior civil servant of Jewish descent?”

“Eva” had sought an investigation to find out on what these gratuitous accusations were based. “In the end, it was carried out only to harm me... After six years, they still refuse to tell me who accused me of these facts and on what basis,” the employee said.
Alan Baker: The Audacity of Belgium
In an official announcement by the “Belgian Federal Public Service Foreign Affairs” department, on Nov. 6 the Belgian government voiced its condemnation of the demolition by Israel of structures built illegally and without any planning and zoning approval in parts of the disputed territories administered by Israel. The buildings were constructed with Belgian funding.

According to this official announcement, “Belgium supports such infrastructure projects because they meet urgent needs. They are always carried out in accordance with international humanitarian law … the demolition of infrastructure and housing is contrary to international humanitarian law, in particular, the Fourth Geneva Convention, Israel’s obligations as occupying power, and UN Security Council resolutions.”

Belgium’s heavy involvement in illegal construction in violation of the planning, zoning, and construction regulations and requirements applicable in what the Palestinians and Israelis have denominated as “Area C” is made clear in the announcement:

“Since 2017, at the initiative of Belgium, a group of partner countries affected by similar actions has systematically intervened with the Israeli authorities to ask them to stop the demolitions and to repair the affected projects or to compensate for the damage suffered.”

Belgium’s audacity in demanding compensation is equaled by its blatant disregard of the legal infrastructure agreed upon between Israel and the Palestinians, applicable in the areas in which Belgium is so actively involved in illegal construction.


Israel Advocacy Movement: Israelis and Palestinian clash over Sheikh Jarrah
The pending eviction of the al-Kurd family from Shiekh Jarrah has made headlines for 40 years. In this video, we reveal the truth behind the headlines.
  • Monday, November 30, 2020
  • Elder of Ziyon

This one is entitled "The Zionist Lobby," showing the entire world is just an attachment to the Zionist keychain.



And this one is "Trump's Legacy," showing Donald Trump hypnotizing the Arab world while the evil religious Jew sneaks away stealing the Dome of the Rock.






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.
  • Monday, November 30, 2020
  • Elder of Ziyon
This is an except of a much longer speech by David Ben Gurion to the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine, at the YMCA in Jerusalem, on July 4, 1947.

And now I put the question to you: Who is prepared and able to guarantee that what happened to us in Europe will not happen again? Can human conscience, and we believe that there is a human conscience, free itself of all responsibility for that catastrophe? There is only one safeguard: a Homeland and Statehood! A Homeland, where a Jew can return freely as of right. Statehood, where he can be master of his own destiny. These two things are possible here, and here only. The Jewish people cannot give up, cannot renounce these two fundamental rights, whatever may happen.

The problem of Jewish-Arab relations is not merely the problem of Jews and Arabs in Palestine. It is the problem of the relations of the Jewish and Arab peoples as a whole. Their national aspirations in that broader sense are not only compatible but complementary.

Nobody can seriously claim that a Jewish Palestine could in any way endanger or harm the independence or unity of the Arab race. The area of Western Palestine is less than 1% of the vast territory occupied by the Arab States in the Near East, excluding Egypt. The number of Arabs in this country is less than 3% of the number of Arabs who have gained their political independence. The Arabs in Palestine, even if they were a minority, would still be a part of that large Arab majority in the Middle East. The existence of Arab States to the north, east, and south of Palestine is an automatic guarantee, not only of the civil, religious and political rights of the Arabs in Palestine, but also of their national aspirations.

But a Jewish Palestine, a populous, highly-developed Jewish State has something of great value and importance to offer, not only to the Arabs in Palestine, but to those in the neighbouring countries as well. Even the small beginnings of the Jewish State, where Jews have occupied and developed only a small fraction of the country, have already had a marked effect on the advancement of the population in Palestine. Even now the position of the Arab peasant and farmer in Palestine is superior to that of the Arab peasant and farmer in Arab States. Our national aim cannot be achieved without great constructive work, agricultural, industrial, material and cultural, and this must, by its nature, raise the economic and social standards of all the inhabitants of the country. We cannot fully utilize the water resources of Palestine, which are now being wasted, without providing larger irrigation possibilities for the Arab fellah as well. We cannot introduce modern methods of cultivation without the Arabs learning from that example. We cannot organize Jewish labour and improve conditions of work without similarly organizing the Arab worker and improving his conditions.

As long as the government is in foreign hands, the impact of our development on Arab advancement is small. The theory of holding the balance between Jews and Arabs, which in practice meant curbing and obstructing our work, was not only injurious to us but to the Arabs as well.

One may rightly ask: Why is it that a million Arabs can be safely left in a Jewish State and why should not a million Jews be left in an Arab State? If the Jews and the Arabs who are in Palestine ,were all the Jews and all the Arabs that exist in the world, this would be a very logical and conclusive argument. There would then be no reason whatsoever why one should prefer an Arab to a Jew or a Jew to an Arab, and only numbers would count. But one cannot ignore the fact that both communities living in Palestine are merely fragments of larger communities living outside, and both of them belong to these larger units and their fates are inextricably bound up with the larger units. By depriving the Jews in Palestine of a national home, by preventing them from becoming a majority and attaining statehood, you are depriving not only 600,000 Jews who are here, but also the millions of Jews who are still left in the world, of independence and statehood. In no other place can they have the desire or the prospect of attaining statehood.

In depriving the million Arabs of the same prospect, you do not affect the status of the Arab race at all. An Arab minority in a Jewish State would mean that only a certain number of individual Arabs would not enjoy the privilege of Arab statehood, but it would in no way diminish the independence and position of the free Arab race. The Arab minority in Palestine, being surrounded by Arab States, would remain safe in national association with their race. But a Jewish minority in an Arab State, even with the most ideal paper guarantee, would mean the final extinction of Jewish hope not in Palestine alone, but for the entire Jewish people, for national equality and independence, with all the disastrous consequences so familiar in Jewish history.

The conscience of humanity ought to weigh this: Where is the balance of justice, where is the greater need, where is the greater peril, where is the lesser evil and where is the lesser injustice?

The fate of the Jewish minority in Palestine will not differ from the fate of the Jewish minority in any other country, except that here it might be much worse.




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.
From Ian:

Lee Smith: Why Iran Is Getting the Bomb
Barack Obama will never forgive Benjamin Netanyahu for being right about the Iran nuclear deal. In his new memoir, Promised Land, Obama writes that the Israeli prime minister’s “vision of himself as the chief defender of the Jewish people against calamity allowed him to justify almost anything that would keep him in power.”

In fact, Netanyahu put his job on the line by doing something few Israeli voters support—he challenged an American president and potentially endangered the U.S.-Israel relationship. In March 2015, he went over Obama’s head to make his case to the representatives of the American people and told Congress that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) would give Iran a clear path to the bomb. Since many restrictions were due to expire by 2025—the so-called “sunset clauses”—Iran would have an industrial-scale nuclear weapons program in about a decade.

“We’re being told that the only alternative to this bad deal is war,” Netanyahu told Congress. “That’s just not true.”

Netanyahu was right. Donald Trump pulled out of the JCPOA in May 2017 and there was no war. Trump sanctioned the Tehran regime into penury and instead of war, Iranian demonstrators took to the streets to protest against those who’d squandered the country’s wealth by funding international terror.

In January, the president ordered the killing of Iranian commander Qassem Soleimani. Middle East experts warned that he’d woken a sleeping giant and the region would shortly go up in flames—but again, there was no war. In fact, the Trump White House’s clear stance against the world’s leading sponsor of terror made room for peace in the Middle East. In the summer, the Abraham Accords gave Israel new regional partners, with the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Sudan all agreeing to normalize relations.

Obama’s Iran deal was the costliest mistake of his presidency for the peoples of the Middle East. The premises on which it was based were proved false. And yet Joe Biden can’t wait to reenter the JCPOA, with Secretary of State-apparent Antony Blinken pledging to keep “non-nuclear sanctions” intact, signaling his clear intention to lift nuclear-related sanctions against Iran.

The only thing that could interfere with such wonderful plans, the press warns, is an impending Trump strike on Iran, which might come any day now. According to The New York Times, Trump asked his cabinet for military options after the U.N. reported that Iran had exceeded its limit of enriched uranium.

Does that mean Trump or Bibi is actually on the verge of attacking Iran? Of course not. On both the American and the Israeli fronts, Trump administration policy was to get American troops out of global hot spots as fast as possible—not start wars. What the war drums means is that the phony communications infrastructure that marketed the Iran deal from 2013-2016 is up and running again.
Richard Kemp: The Killing of a Nuclear Scientist May Save Countless Lives
Under the slogan "Death to America", Iran has been at war with the US, Israel and their Western allies since the Islamic Revolution of 1979, using proxy groups to kill hundreds of Americans in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and other places; and to launch terror attacks across the Middle East, Europe, the US and Latin America.

Mr Fakhrizadeh was a brigadier general in the IRGC and therefore not only a senior military commander in a country at war with the US and its allies but also a proscribed international terrorist.

Iran will never abandon what it considers its absolute right to become a nuclear-armed state, not under the current regime nor any future regime.... It has lied to the IAEA and the archive even sets out in detail the ways in which it has deceived the inspectors.

Despite claims to the contrary, the JCPOA was never going to prevent a nuclear armed Iran... Its sunset clauses meant that at best the deal might have delayed Tehran's acquisition of nuclear weapons for a few years.... Any return to the JCPOA by a Biden White House, as is being pushed by Mr Brennan and other prospective administration officials, will not see a strengthened deal but more likely an even weaker one.

Mr Brennan and the European supporters of his argument seem to believe that Iran can be contained by appeasement and negotiation rather than military strength and political will. The path advocated by the proponents of appeasement can only lead to infinitely greater bloodshed, violence and suffering than the death of a proscribed terrorist on the streets of Iran.
WSJ($): Another Bold Strike Against Iran
If Tehran's most prized personnel can be killed and its guarded facilities damaged, and it can do little in response, then the clerical regime's haybat, its unchallengeable awe, is degraded for all to see.

For a regime that knows the extent of popular anger against it, that is a perilous situation.

America's will to intervene in the Middle East is declining rapidly, and Israel's position is significantly stronger than it was in 2012, when President Obama began secret negotiations with Tehran in Oman.
  • Monday, November 30, 2020
  • Elder of Ziyon
As mentioned in my previous post, 122 Arab intellectuals wrote a letter to The Guardian opposing the IHRA working definition of antisemitism

Let's look at their arguments.

1. The fight against antisemitism must be deployed within the frame of international law and human rights. It should be part and parcel of the fight against all forms of racism and xenophobia, including Islamophobia, and anti-Arab and anti-Palestinian racism. The aim of this struggle is to guarantee freedom and emancipation for all oppressed groups. It is deeply distorted when geared towards the defence of an oppressive and predatory state.
This is doubletalk. The socialists who advance this argument divide the world into "oppressor" and "oppressed," and Jews end up on the "oppressor" side - both because of their perceived "whiteness" and because of how they look at Israel, as the "oppressive and predatory state." So the very framework that is supposed to protect Jews is being used by the Arabs and socialists to attack Jews who believe that Jews are a people and a nation. 

2. There is a huge difference between a condition where Jews are singled out, oppressed and suppressed as a minority by antisemitic regimes or groups, and a condition where the self-determination of a Jewish population in Palestine/Israel has been implemented in the form of an ethnic exclusivist and territorially expansionist state. As it currently exists, the state of Israel is based on uprooting the vast majority of the natives – what Palestinians and Arabs refer to as the Nakba – and on subjugating those natives who still live on the territory of historical Palestine as either second-class citizens or people under occupation, denying them their right to self-determination.
Arabs misdefining Zionism is as offensive as Arabs misdefining antisemitism. Zionism is not based on "subjugating" anyone, and Zionism views Jews as the natives of the land. Israel is not "an ethnic exclusivist and territorially expansionist state." 

If Arabs need to lie to justify their anti-Zionist arguments, that indicates that their arguments are based on a far more fundamental hate. Which itself shows that the IHRA working definition is quite accurate.

3. The IHRA definition of antisemitism and the related legal measures adopted in several countries have been deployed mostly against leftwing and human rights groups supporting Palestinian rights and the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign, sidelining the very real threat to Jews coming from rightwing white nationalist movements in Europe and the US. The portrayal of the BDS campaign as antisemitic is a gross distortion of what is fundamentally a legitimate non-violent means of struggle for Palestinian rights.
This is because one does not need an updated definition of antisemitism to fight against neo-Nazi and white supremacist antisemitism. The entire purpose is to identify and call out antisemitism that is hiding behind the facade of anti-Zionism - which is that this letter justifies.

4. The IHRA definition’s statement that an example of antisemitism is “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, eg, by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour” is quite odd. It does not bother to recognise that under international law, the current state of Israel has been an occupying power for over half a century, as recognised by the governments of countries where the IHRA definition is being upheld. It does not bother to consider whether this right includes the right to create a Jewish majority by way of ethnic cleansing and whether it should be balanced against the rights of the Palestinian people. Furthermore, the IHRA definition potentially discards as antisemitic all non-Zionist visions of the future of the Israeli state, such as the advocacy of a binational state or a secular democratic one that represents all its citizens equally. Genuine support for the principle of a people’s right to self-determination cannot exclude the Palestinian nation, nor any other.
There is nothing odd about saying that singling out the Jewish state as uniquely racist or evil is antisemitic. The assertion that Zionism is inherently racist, or that it demands ethnic cleansing, or that it excludes Palestinian rights is an absurd lie - yesterday was the anniversary of Palestinians rejecting a state that the UN suggested for them in 1947. 

This paragraph shows exactly why anti-Zionism is antisemitism - because it treats Jewish nationalism as uniquely exclusivist when it is exactly the same as any other nationalism.

5. We believe that no right to self-determination should include the right to uproot another people and prevent them from returning to their land, or any other means of securing a demographic majority within the state. The demand by Palestinians for their right of return to the land from which they themselves, their parents and grandparents were expelled cannot be construed as antisemitic. The fact that such a demand creates anxieties among Israelis does not prove that it is unjust, nor that it is antisemitic. It is a right recognised by international law as represented in United Nations general assembly resolution 194 of 1948.
The history of the "right to return" shows quite definitively that its purpose is to destroy the Jewish state, not to provide rights for Palestinians. As early as October, 1949, Egypt’s foreign minister Muhammad Salah al-Din said, “…in demanding the return of the Palestinian refugees, the Arabs mean their return as masters, not slaves; or to put it quite clearly – the intention is the extermination of Israel.” In 1960 Egypt’s Nasser said, “If the refugees return to Israel, Israel will cease to exist.” Prime Minister of Lebanon Abdullah el-Yafi stated in 1966, “The day on which the Arabs’ hope for the return of the refugees to Palestine is realized will be the day of Israel’s extermination.” If Arabs cared about Palestinian human rights they would insist that Palestinians be given full rights in their host countries while they are there - but these hypocrites writing this letter don't say that.  (The last sentence is a lie as well, as we have documented many times.)

There is one more point that applies to this and to the other arguments: the bizarre assumption that it is impossible to support Palestinian rights without calling the Jewish state racist or Nazi or evil. That is not only an insult to anyone's intelligence - it is an insult to the Palestinian Arab cause itself.

6. To level the charge of antisemitism against anyone who regards the existing state of Israel as racist, notwithstanding the actual institutional and constitutional discrimination upon which it is based, amounts to granting Israel absolute impunity. Israel can thus deport its Palestinian citizens, or revoke their citizenship or deny them the right to vote, and still be immune from the accusation of racism. The IHRA definition and the way it has been deployed prohibit any discussion of the Israeli state as based on ethno-religious discrimination. It thus contravenes elementary justice and basic norms of human rights and international law.
This is a straw man. Beyond that, the IHRA example was that "the State of Israel is a racist endeavor" which is much different from saying that some things it does can be construed as racist, since that would fall under the exception of "criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic." So, yes, if Israel would decide to deport Arabs for no reason, criticizing it is not antisemitic - and I would be the first to criticize it.

7. We believe that justice requires the full support of Palestinians’ right to self-determination, including the demand to end the internationally acknowledged occupation of their territories and the statelessness and deprivation of Palestinian refugees. The suppression of Palestinian rights in the IHRA definition betrays an attitude upholding Jewish privilege in Palestine instead of Jewish rights, and Jewish supremacy over Palestinians instead of Jewish safety. We believe that human values and rights are indivisible and that the fight against antisemitism should go hand in hand with the struggle on behalf of all oppressed peoples and groups for dignity, equality and emancipation.
"Jewish privilege"? "Jewish supremacy"? Wow - the argument against using the IHRA definition embraces antisemitic tropes! 

Which is hardly surprising. Because as this letter shows, Arab anti-Zionism is based on antisemitism, and the only argument they really have is to redefine antisemitism to exclude Arabs and Leftists from the charge. 




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.
  • Monday, November 30, 2020
  • Elder of Ziyon
The Guardian published a letter from 122 Arab academics, journalists and "intellectuals" arguing against using the IHRA working definition of antisemitism because they want to distinguish between anti-Zionism and antisemitism.

Instead of demolishing the letter point by point, let's look at the history of today's anti-Zionism and see how it is indistinguishable from antisemitism.

There are four main strains of anti-Zionism that have popped up ever since modern Zionism emerged. The only three that remain are based on antisemitism.

The four strains are traditional antisemitism extended to anti-Zionism, Jewish anti-Zionism, socialist anti-Zionism and Arab anti-Zionism.

Right-wing antisemites were, and are, naturally anti-Zionist. Hitler's Mein Kampf contained a number of anti-Zionist passages. Modern neo-Nazis liberally quote left-wing anti-Zionists. Their hate for Israel is animated by their hate for Jews.

Jewish anti-Zionism (outside the fringe Neturei Karta) really only existed before the establishment of the modern state of Israel. They opposed the establishment of a Jewish state for various political, philosophical, religious and practical reasons, but once Israel was reborn nearly all of their arguments became moot. 

Today's Jewish anti-Zionism is nearly all socialist anti-Zionism, which is the most prevalent kind in the West today. It's origins are purely antisemitic. I recently wrote about antisemitism behind the Iron Curtain in the 1970s, where the charges against "Zionism" were identical to Protocols of the Elders of Zion propaganda that the Nazis used. There is no difference between the socialist antisemitism of the 20th century and today's socialist "anti-Zionism" except that today's socialists hide it better and use antisemitism as a means to attack the Right. Still,  there is very little literature from the Left criticizing the more blatant antisemitism of their philosophical forebears, which shows that they really aren't against antisemitism as they claim - their core arguments against Zionism have not changed since the 1950s. 

The style of anti-Zionism relevant to this letter is Arab anti-Zionism. 

The Arab opposition to Zionism was based fully on the disgust at the idea of Jews who were looked upon as weak, pathetic second-class citizens and dhimmis in the Arab world rising and taking political power and controlling land in the Middle East. 

Arabs were not opposed to non-Arab Ottomans controlling the region, and they opposed European control but were generally able to accept it as a de facto admission that Christian Europe was too powerful to oppose. 

But Jews? That was wholly unacceptable. And it is because they were Jews not taking their proper place as obedient, controlled minorities who had little recourse when Arabs decided to attack as they did every once in a while. 

It is absurd to separate Arab anti-Zionism from antisemitism. I just wrote about how Jordan banned Jews - not Zionists, but Jews - from visiting any Jewish holy sites the entire time they were under Arab control. 

This is hardly the only example. Antisemitism was so entwined with Arab anti-Zionism in the 1950s and 1960s that no one took seriously the occasional Arab objections that they didn't hate Jews. 

Here is a summary of official antisemitic propaganda in the Arab world from Middle East Review in 1961.




Here's another example of how Arabs viewed the remaining Jews in their countries after the Six Day War as assumed to be ungrateful enemies and not regular citizens:



There was no distinction made or even attempted between Jews and Zionists. Only in response to Western distaste at the obvious Jew-hatred did Arab nations start to tone down that part of their hate in public.

But the history of Arab anti-Zionism is that it is based on Jew-hatred. 

So this letter to The Guardian is meant to whitewash the history of Arab Jew-hate as the motivating factor behind Arab antisemitism. It takes some of the socialist arguments that they have no problem with Jews, but it is rewriting history.

The proof is obvious: neither today's Arab anti-Zionists nor the socialist anti-Zionists are willing to condemn the antisemitism of their predecessors. Antisemitism is inherent to those philosophies. 

Today's apologetics don't change that. 




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.

AddToAny

EoZ Book:"Protocols: Exposing Modern Antisemitism"

Printfriendly

EoZTV Podcast

Podcast URL

Subscribe in podnovaSubscribe with FeedlyAdd to netvibes
addtomyyahoo4Subscribe with SubToMe

search eoz

comments

Speaking

translate

E-Book

For $18 donation








Sample Text

EoZ's Most Popular Posts in recent years

Hasbys!

Elder of Ziyon - حـكـيـم صـهـيـون



This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For over 19 years and 40,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.

Donate!

Donate to fight for Israel!

Monthly subscription:
Payment options


One time donation:

subscribe via email

Follow EoZ on Twitter!

Interesting Blogs

Blog Archive