Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Thursday, June 24, 2021

06/24 Links Pt1: 20 Years after the UN’s Durban event, the antisemitism continues to grow; Pressure on Europe about Palestinian textbooks is working

From Ian:

Gerald Steinberg: 20 Years after the UN’s Durban event, the antisemitism continues to grow

We now stand 20 years later, and the Durban NGO strategy is being implemented through attacks on different fronts. Poisonous “apartheid weeks,” featuring the same NGOs and their anti-Israel slogans, are annual events on university campuses, inciting attacks on Jewish students who identify with Israel. Human Rights Watch and their allies, such as Al Haq, as well as some radical Israeli NGOs generously funded by European governments to act as political sub-contractors, continue to market the “apartheid” slogan, including a recent campaign and report that used the term 200 times, and received widespread media coverage, with no justification. Now, they have combined under the false banners of intersectionality and solidarity, adding the term “Jewish supremacy” to the poisonous agenda. Antisemitic attacks are at the highest levels since the end of the Holocaust. And in parallel, the NGO network is pushing a well-funded propaganda campaign to dismantle the IHRA working definition, disguised as an alternative “Jerusalem definition” without the Israel-related examples, precisely because it is the most effective mechanism for defeating the Durban strategy.

As if the current plague of antisemitism is insufficient, the UN Human Rights Council is planning a conference to revive and “celebrate” Durban, likely to be held in September 2021. In 2009, the major democracies stayed away from Durban 2 in Geneva, and under the leadership of NGO Monitor and like-minded groups, the NGO Forum was cancelled. Durban 3 in 2011 was also a non-event, but now, the anti-Israel majority of the UN Human Rights Council, under the leadership of Michelle Bachelet, is trying again. While the US, Canada, Australia and the UK have announced a boycott, others, particularly in Europe have not.

For the Jewish people, the scars of the original Durban events remain very painful, and the powerful UN and NGO network that hijacked the human rights agenda in order to demonize Israel continues to spread its poison. For world leaders who claim to oppose antisemitism, their complicity and silence in the wake of the virulent targeting of Israel and the Jewish people has already gone too far. Saying no to another Durban hate fest is the least they can do.

Pressure on Europe about Palestinian textbooks is working

In December, speaking at the opening of the weekly Cabinet meeting held in Ramallah, P.A. Prime Minister Mohammed Shtayyeh told his colleagues: “The Palestinian curriculum is the product of our history, culture, struggle, religion and contribution to civilization, which we held on to at the negotiating table and which we will not give up.”

He added, according to the Palestinian news agency WAFA: “Those who link their assistance to us to this, then we will finance our curriculum from our budget.”

Last year, following a vote by parliamentarians to withhold some funding if the curriculum wasn’t changed to become more inclusive, the P.A. made noises that it would instigate some changes. But when the education minister addressed his colleagues, he made it clear that the narrative of Palestinian armed resistance to Israel would be amplified, not reduced.

This means that education could well become the issue that breaks the Mephistophelian pact between the E.U. and the P.A.

It is clear to any sensible person that teaching Palestinian children to fear and hate Israelis, and to engage in the violent destruction of Israel, is no basis on which to build a two-state solution. Not only is it detrimental to Israel, but it is deeply wounding to the children themselves, who are given no hope of a bright future within their own state. The E.C., whose commitment to the Palestinian cause is ideological, has nowhere to hide on this issue.

Meanwhile, the P.A.—whose senior members have grown fabulously wealthy from all the funding poured into their coffers—is trapped between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, if they give in to demands to deliver a fit-for-purpose curriculum, the drive behind their Palestinian nationalist narrative will quickly falter, leading eventually to normalization with Israel and to their rule being toppled in favor of true moderate rule. On the other, if they brazen it out and have funding pulled, they risk an impoverished Palestinian population turning on them.

Either way, the true winners in both scenarios would be the children of Palestine, who might, at last, have a chance of receiving a reasonable education, setting them up for a prosperous life. Which is precisely why the pressure on the E.C. must not let up at any cost.

The Joshua and Caleb Network: Can Israel Take the Pressure of Iran's New Butcher?

Israel has a new government in place, and it’s confusing! Is the new prime minister liberal or conservative? The answer….is yes! Find out all the details on today’s program.

At the same time, the United States is attempting to install an anti-Israel Consulate General in Jerusalem. And they are attempting to re-negotiate a deal with Iran, who just elected a “butcher” for their president.

Can Israel stand up to all of this pressure, and do what is necessary to keep their nation safe?

Last year I wrote a post about David Bar-Illan and his 1993 book, Eye on the Media: A Look At World News Coverage of Israel and the Arab-Israeli Conflict. The book was based on a column he regularly wrote for the Jerusalem Post. Skimming through his book, I realized how little has changed over the past 30 years.

Sheikh Jarrah

The issue of Sheikh Jarrah concerns the case in the Israeli courts involving documented Jewish property rights dating back to Jewish land purchases made in 1875. Following Jordan's participation in the 1948 war, it claimed Yehudah and Shomron (the "West Bank") as its own, expelling the Jewish residents and seizing their property. During the Six Day War in 1967, Israel recaptured that territory. In the cases where Jordan officially transferred title of the formerly Jewish-owned property to Palestinian Arabs, Israel allowed the Arab owner to remain -- despite the fact that the Arab ownership was based on the forcible taking of land in a war of aggression followed by the ethnic cleansing of Jews. In other cases, where there was a dispute over the title of ownership but Jordan never gave legal title to the Arabs, the Israeli courts followed the unbroken rights of Jewish plaintiffs and returned their property to them.

Now rewind back to July 5, 1991, when Bar-Ilan wrote a post entitled Raw Diehl (p. 187-190). The title refers to Jackson Diehl, now the deputy editorial page editor of The Washington Post. Back. Back then, he was a journalist for the paper.

Bar-Ilan writes:

On May 14, the Washington Post published a story he filed from "Artas, the West Bank," headlined "Israel boosts land seizures--takes over land that West Bank Arabs have long farmed," and subtitled "Rush of confiscations appear linked to new Jewish settlements." It makes 14 highly damaging allegations against the State of Israel.

Since Mr. Diehl did not find it necessary to investigate these allegation, they are repeated below--with the truth thrown in as a public service.

Here are some examples:

To Diehl's claim that "Israel had decided to seize 360 acres of traditional village land"

Bar-Ilan responds that no confiscations were made in Artas -- "The only exception: two hills, more than 30km from Artas, from which shots were fired which killed travelers on the highway"

Diehl: Israel's justification of confiscation is based on the failure of the Arabs to provide documentation of 10 consecutive years of cultivation.

BI: Uncultivated and unregistered land is not confiscated. It belongs to the state by law. "This law has been in effect in Judea and Samaria under Turkish, British and Jordanian law since 1858"

Diehl quotes an Arab claiming that 8 acres of almonds, olives and apricots were confiscated.

BI: Such land is cultivated, and thus could not and was not confiscated.

Diehl: Land seizures are used by Israel to claim more than half of the West Bank

BI:

State-owned land, including land claimed as such by British and Jordanian authorities, is 40 to 50 percent of the total acreage of Judea and Samaria. If this around 10 percent was declared government-owned by Israel.

There is more, but the similarity between then and now is clear. History is deliberately avoided and established law is ignored. Instead, a land dispute is framed as a state plot to confiscate Arab land and the Arab onus to provide legal proof of ownership is ignored in favor of a one-sided journalistic attack on Israel.

Some things never change.

California’s Proposed Curriculum Guide In Ethnic Studies

A proposed curriculum guide in ethnic studies caused an uproar in 2019. A letter from the California legislature’s Jewish caucus (which includes both Jewish and non-Jewish members) complained of “anti-Jewish bias”:

Despite a rash of recent anti-Jewish hate crimes, including shootings at temples in Pittsburgh in 2018 and near San Diego, Calif., in April, the curriculum omits “any meaningful discussion” of anti-Semitism, the letter said. It omits Jewish contributions to American culture, even as it includes such contributions from Americans of African, Native, Arab, and Latin descent, it said.

“We cannot support a curriculum that erases the American Jewish experience, fails to discuss antisemitism, reinforces negative stereotypes about Jews, singles out Israel for criticism, and would institutionalize the teaching of antisemitic stereotypes in our public schools,” the caucus’ letter said.

...The Jewish Caucus, and Jewish organizations, also took issue with the way the curriculum depicts Israel and the Palestinian-led “boycott, divestment, and sanctions” movement that’s designed to pressure the country to change its approach to Palestinians. Likening BDS to movements such as BlackLivesMatter and #MeToo, the curriculum says it is a “global social movement that currently aims to establish freedom for Palestinians living under apartheid conditions.”

“The glossary ... parrots more BDS talking points while offering no critical perspectives about this campaign of hate, which seeks to end Israel’s existence,” Batsheva Kasdan of Los Angeles said in remarks submitted through the state’s public-comment portal. [emphasis added]

By March 2021, the final, revised draft of the controversial curriculum was approved -- unanimously, though there are still those in the Jewish community who are wary.

These days, curriculums seem to be pretty popular.

The New York Times has its widely criticized 1619 Project Curriculum, redefining that year -- when the first African slaves were brought here -- as the founding of America and claiming that the real reason the American Revolution was fought was to preserve slavery.

There is also Critical Race Theory.

According to psychologist Pamela Paresky, writing about Critical Race Theory and the ‘Hyper-White’ Jew:

At a time when the moral imperative is to “be less white,” there is no identity more pernicious than that of a once powerless minority group that, rather than joining the struggle to dismantle whiteness, opted into it.

In the critical social justice paradigm, that is how Jews are viewed. Jews, who have never been seen as white by those for whom being white is a moral good, are now seen as white by those for whom whiteness is an unmitigated evil. This reflects the nature of antisemitism: No matter the grievance or the identity of the aggrieved, Jews are held responsible. Critical race theory does not merely make it easy to demonize Jews using the language of social justice; it makes it difficult not to. [emphasis added]

But making curriculums, including by the media, is nothing new.

According to an article Bar-Ilan wrote September 20, 1991, entitled Useful Idiots (p.226-229):

What makes the media particularly effective is that they do not restrict their Israel-bashing to news channels. Newsweek, for example, which has portrayed Israelis as drug-addicted wife-beaters who spend American aid money ($1,000 a year for every Israeli!) on Jacuzzis, also provides a social studies program for American schools. With characteristic even-handedness, its The Middle East: Tug of War, used in schools throughout the U.S., flatly states, "Yasser Arafat has made tremendous concessions in hopes of bringing Israel to the negotiating table."

In the June issue of the excellent American Jewish bimonthly Moment, Charles Jacobs exposes the extent of blatant anti-Israel and antisemitic propaganda in American teaching materials, some of which are produced by the media. The Public Broadcasting Service (producers of the McNeil-Lehrer Show seen on Israel's Channel 2) distributes a teachers' guide for a study unit titled Arab and Jew: Wounded Spirits in a Promised Land.

Among its many gems there is the contention, a favorite of Israeli leftists, that Arabs and Jews are equally guilty of terrorism. Arab operations against civilians, the only kind that truly meet the definition of terrorism, cost the lives of thousands of Jews and Arabs in the riots of 1920, 1929, 1936-1939, and thousands more in PLO operations and the current intifada. It is never mentioned.

But far more dangerous than these gross historical distortions is the assertion in the PBS guide that "In Jewish eyes, the Arab is dirty, lazy, thieving, incompetent and uppity." In short, Jews are racists. As Jacobs puts it, "it is not difficult to see how a black child in an American classroom would react to these hateful words -- dirty, lazy thieving, incompetent and uppity --words often unfairly aimed at blacks. How could any minority student not be enraged at such hateful people?"

To make sure that the racism charge and the analogy to American racism sink in, the guide includes a study question: "What are some of the patterns of discrimination between Jews and Arabs that exist between groups in other countries, including blacks and whites in the U.S.?" [emphasis added]

The groundwork for associating anti-black racism with Israel was already laid 30 years ago.

The attempt to associate BLM with BDS is not new.

It is merely gaining steam.

IfNotNow

Jewish anti-Israel groups drawing attention to themselves by exploiting their 'Jewish identity' is nothing new, though publicly making havdalah in the middle of a Saturday afternoon may be a uniquely IfNotNow stunt.

But Michael Lerner is way ahead of them.

By about 50 years.

And some of his early slanders against the Jewish community itself make IfNotNow look tame by comparison.

From Michael Lerner's Masquerade, June 28, 1991 (p. 180-183)

...it is doubtful a bona fide politician would last long in the Jewish world after writing, "The Jewish community is racist, internally corrupt, and an apologist for the worst aspects of American capitalism and imperialism." Or "Black antisemitism is...a tremendous disgrace to Jews; for this is not an antisemitism rooted in...hatred of the Christ-killers but rather one rooted in the concrete fact of oppression by Jews of blacks in the ghetto...an earned antisemitism" Or, "The synagogue as currently established will have to be smashed." [emphasis added]

These are not quotes by Farrakhan -- these are Michael Lerner's own words from back in 1969. When Edward Alexander quoted Lerner in an article in 1989, Lerner first threatened to sue, but in the end claimed to have been influenced by the model of the prophet Isaiah in criticizing Jews.

According to another account of Lerner's reaction:

In response to Alexander’s article, Lerner said that he was sorry he had made those statements, but they were part of his “adolescent rebellion,” although he was 27 at the time.

By 1988, Lerner had turned his attention to Israel:

...he organized advertisements in American newspapers calling on Israel to 'end the occupation.' He also likes to tell plain Jews how to pray. Tikkun publishes its own Haggada, in which a prayer has been added before the Kiddush: "This year the Jewish people itself has become the symbol of oppression," it asserts. And in another addition to the Pessah service it says "The Land of Israel, which gives bread to two peoples, must be divided in two."

In an interview in The Washington Post Lerner stated that on Yom Kippur the Jews had "a great deal to repent for in light of the action of the State of Israel." [emphasis added]

(How prescient of Lerner to see the benefit of blaming Jews for the actions of Israel, showing the way for the antisemites of today, who use the occasion of Israeli self-defense as an excuse to attack Jews.)

...In a May 23, 1991, article in The Los Angeles Times he wrote, "Israeli activists privately tell me that should Israeli intransigence block the progress of the impending peace conference, American peace activists should do everything in our power to convince Secretary of State Baker to pull out all the stops and pressure Israel.

...Rabbi Bernard Mandelbaum, president emeritus of the Jewish Theological Seminary, where Lerner studied in the 1960s, brands Lerner's writing "vicious, antisemitic and anti-Israel. He has come as close to anyone in the Jewish community to comparing Israel's treatment of Arabs to the Nazi treatment of Jews. Tikkun produces a steady stream of ant-Israel bias and poison." [emphasis added]

IfNotNow, and other, similar, anti-Israel groups who claim to identify as Jews, today follow in the footsteps of Lerner.

Thirty years of anti-Israel bias.

You can't blame it all on Netanyahu.

He was prime minister for only 15 of those 30 years.

And now Bibi is no longer in charge.

Will that make any difference?

As Mark Goldfeder, director of the National Jewish Advocacy Center points out, the parade for flag day -- described by the media as "ultranationalist," "far-right," "inflammatory," "contentious," and "provocative" --was authorized by a new government (minus Netanyahu) consisting of not only Jews from Ethiopia, Morocco and Russia, but also Druze and Muslims.

Nothing is going to change.

Chilean presidential candidate proves "anti-Zionism" is antisemitism

Daniel Jadue, a grandson of Palestinian immigrants, is the frontrunner to become Chile’s next president.

He is an outspoken critic of Israel, but more importantly, he has been recognized as an antisemite since he was in high school. For Jadue, there is no distinction.

The Simon Wiesenthal Center wrote about Jadue last year:

He charges Jews control of the media and dual loyalty: “It is an insult that the State of Israel through its agents here in Chile wants to import the strife” ... “they have to learn and define if they are Chilean citizens.”

Last year, Recoleta’s Municipal Council passed a resolution stating, “Palestinian people have been the victim of a deliberate plan of violence and terror by armed Zionist groups ...”

Jadue insists, “... The leaders of the Jewish community in Chile act on behalf of the State of Israel in Chile …,” adding, “I get along very well with the Jews, with the Zionist I have certain problems.”

Jadue is always referring to Chile’s Jews as the “Zionist” community of Chile.

At a time of soaring global anti-Semitism and Islamist terrorism striking from France to the Philippines, Jadue insults three Abrahamic Faiths: “If you are born into a Jewish family, you can legitimately believe that you are part of the Chosen People and you can kill the Palestinians to stay with their lands’ possession…

Recently, Jadue's 1983 high school yearbook entry surfaced. His fellow students joked about his well-known hatred of Jews in his biography.

The bio says that "this antisemite was seen in all coastal waters," that he will become the leader of the PLO "to cleanse the city of Jews," that "he sings manifestos against his beloved and esteemed neighbors 'the Jews'" and that a proper gift for him would be "a Jew he can aim at."

(It is also notable that his high school classmates felt that Jew-hatred was a joke.)

His antisemitism pre-dates his current claim of being merely "anti-Zionist."

Understandably, the Jewish community in Chile is very concerned about an antisemite becoming president.

Tunisia denies participating in international naval exercise with Israel

From the US Navy:

U.S. Sixth Fleet formally announces participation in the upcoming annually held Exercise Sea Breeze 2021 (SB21) cohosted with the Ukrainian Navy, June 21, 2021.

The exercise is taking place from June 28 to July 10 in the Black Sea region and will focus on multiple warfare areas including amphibious warfare, land maneuver warfare, diving operations, maritime interdiction operations, air defense, special operations integration, anti-submarine warfare, and search and rescue operations.

This year’s iteration has the largest number of participating nations in the exercise’s history with 32 countries from six continents providing 5,000 troops, 32 ships, 40 aircraft, and 18 special operations and dive teams scheduled to participate.

Ukraine and U.S. are cohosting the exercise in the Black Sea with participation and support coming from 32 countries in total: Albania, Australia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Denmark, Egypt, Estonia, France, Georgia, Greece, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Morocco, Norway, Pakistan, Poland, Romania, Senegal, Spain, South Korea, Sweden, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, and the United States.

There is even a graphic showing the history of every country that participated every year:

Israel participated in 2012 and will again this year.

When Tunisians found out that their country planned to participate this year - along with Israel - there was a large pushback.

So the Tunisian Defense Ministry issued a statement denying that they were ever going to participate, and claiming that they were invited but never accepted:

A spokesman for the Ministry of National Defense stated that Tunisia had received an invitation to participate in a major naval maneuver led by the Sixth Fleet, and that Tunisia had not accepted this invitation and that the national army could not participate in these maneuvers.

The ministry confirmed that what is being circulated, quoting foreign media, regarding the participation of an element of the Tunisian Navy in the maneuver, is unfounded.

The Secretary-General of the Tunisian Republican Party, Issam Chebbi, sent a letter to President Kais Saied earlier today, asking him to clarify the Tunisian army's participation in joint maneuvers in the Black Sea with the Israeli army.

It seems highly unlikely that Sea Breeze would announce Tunisia's participation without confirming it.

My guess is that Tunisia accepted not as a participant but as an observer, which some nations do. This allows them to deny that their navy is participating while still supporting the exercise.

Now they may be forced to stay home out of fear of embarrassment.

There could also be issues beyond Israel involved. Sea Breeze is aimed at showing NATO strength against Russia, and both NATO and Russia are competing for Tunisia's favor especially with regard to who should control neighboring Libya. The kerfuffle over Israel might have given cover for Russian pressure for Tunisia to withdraw from the exercise.

The UAE, Morocco and Egypt are the other Arab countries that will be represented at Sea Breeze.

06/23 Links Pt2: Has Hatred of Jews Morphed into Mania/Mass Hysteria?; Glenn Loury: Antiracism and Antisemitism with Bari Weiss; Gender Studies and Hamas - a contradiction in terms

From Ian:

Has Hatred of Jews Morphed into Mania/Mass Hysteria?

I think Jew hatred has now reached a worldwide case of hate-based insanity. Here is the definition of insanity: madness, and craziness characterized by certain abnormal mental or behavioral patterns. And we can add mass hysteria, culturally acquired psychosis, and the internalization of a Jew hating cultural meme. It could even be a dissociative disorder; a mental disorder that involves experiencing a disconnection and lack of continuity between thoughts, memories, surroundings, actions and identity. People with dissociative disorders escape reality in ways that are involuntary and unhealthy and cause problems with functioning in everyday life. Or perhaps it is collective obsessional behavior or a “phenomenon of collective suggestion” or “moral panic.” This is a sociological concept that refers to the phenomenon of masses of people becoming distressed about a perceived — usually unreal or exaggerated — threat portrayed in catastrophizing terms by the media.

Social media has allowed this “mental illness” to spread everywhere; right into your living room and bed room. No corner left untouched.

After two hours of speeches and prayers at the vigil for the Muslim family that was killed, Imam Munir El-Kassem of London’s Islamic Centre of Southwest Ontario was invited to the stage to give closing remarks, in front of PM Justin Trudeau, Jagmeet Singh and other elected officials and went on to attack the JEWS.

“There’s a reason why they say the world is a small village. Every country has a foreign policy. I just want to say, whatever is happening in Jerusalem and Gaza is related to whatever happened in London, Ontario. Period.”

The crowd could be heard cheering following El-Kassem’s remarks. No stone left unturned when it comes to the Jews.

Does that mean If Israel did not exist – this Muslim family would be alive?

This has to be a case of hate-based insanity. Right? Because if it is not insanity then it is brazen, pure, unedited, unadulterated hate for Jews for the crime of being Jewish.

Jew hatred has been with us for as long as the Jews have been a people – about 3500 years. Today, it’s different. Because today we have social media and the hate is at your fingertips 24/7.

One would have thought that after the Holocaust Jew hatred would go away – or at least move underground. But, no. It is everywhere. There is no shame in Jew hatred-no calls of racist. No doxing or canceling. No naming and shaming. It must be mental.

Antiracism and Antisemitism

Last month, the Manhattan Institute invited Bari Weiss and me to participate in an online discussion about the relationship between two growing trends in the U.S.: antiracism and antisemitism. It was a productive and at times provocative conversation. We ranged from midcentury antisemitism in Chicago to the recent conflict in Gaza, from Gayle King and Michelle Obama to Alice Walker’s regrettable antisemitic statements.

In other words, we had a lot to talk about. You’ll find a video of the conversation below, as well as a short transcript where we address the uncomfortable issue of antisemitic and anti-Asian acts perpetrated by Black people.

Israel Advocacy Movement: Fighting antisemitism with Arsen Ostrovsky, David Collier, Sussex Friends of Israel and IAM

Former US Antisemitism Envoy: US Lawmakers Need to Call Out Antisemitism

What are things really like between the Jews and Arabs who live in the territories? Divided into Areas A, B, and C, under the Oslo Accords, you'd think there wouldn't be much congress between the respective populations of these areas. Jews, for example, are forbidden entry into Area A under Israeli law. But there is more interaction between the sectors than one might expect. A short drive from my apartment in Efrat to the highway that connects us to Hebron or Jerusalem, offers evidence that Oslo or no Oslo, the two populations mix in everyday ways.

Just outside the northern gate of Efrat, lies the Arab city of Dheisheh, in Area A. Area A is under the exclusive rule of the Palestinian Authority with entry to Jews forbidden. Efrat is in Area C, under Israeli rule. Arabs may enter Efrat to work or conduct business, and to shop. But Jews can never enter Dheisheh.

But the Arabs of Dheisheh are enterprising. They see opportunities for commerce with the Jews of Efrat.

This is expressed by, for instance, this pop-up car parts concern, just outside the north gate of Efrat. It looks as though it was built on a shoulder, but not too long ago, there was no shoulder. The owner created one, specifically to court Efrat patrons. As far as I know, he is not paying for the privilege of using this invented space, and no zoning czars prevented this space from coming into existence. He's for sure not paying taxes, and no one is kicking him out.

In the distance, you can see illegal Arab homes that have been built up right against the Jewish homes of the Dagan neighborhood of Efrat, where one can see a communications tower.

On the other side of the road is Sarafindi, a hardware store. The Jews of Efrat are happy to buy from Sarafindi, an Arab-owned and run establishment. The store is clean and well set-up. The prices are good. The service is superb and polite.

Not to be outdone, we next we come to the Elyaakubi hardware store. Note the prominent signs that are mostly in Hebrew, with a bit of small font text in Arabic, at bottom. The signs tell the story: Elyaakubi, an Arab of Dheisheh, wants the Jews of Efrat to come and buy his wares. Hence the nice big friendly Hebrew signage.

Just before the bend in the road that leads to highway 60, we see an impromptu Arab garbage dump next to a small guard house, where IDF soldiers are sometimes posted on patrol. The Arabs find it very convenient to dump their garbage at the bottom of this hill. This did not make Efrat very happy. We attempted to offer a solution in the form of the green garbage "frog" you see here, now overflowing with trash. Our "solution" appeared to worsen the situation. There is now more garbage than ever before. I guess the trash receptacle sanctioned the area as a place to offload domestic refuse.

Next up, a car wash. Again, the prominent Hebrew signage. The conclusion is obvious: who says they don't want to have anything to do with their Jewish neighbors? They definitely want our patronage.

This young boy came out, as I was snapping photos. He was concerned, a bit suspicious. He asked me in Hebrew, "What's wrong? Is everything okay?"

I did my best to reassure him. His eyes followed our car as my husband drove us away.

As we near the intersection of Efrat, Dheisheh, and highway 60, to the right is the red sign warning us that we are at the entrance to Area A, and that it is forbidden for Israelis to enter. The larger sign is a municipal welcome sign, all in Arabic.

Past the red sign, you can see the highway that leads to Jerusalem. Both Arabs and Jews drive on the road in either direction, freely.

On the other side of the road is an auto-body shop, Arab-owned, again with prominent signage in Hebrew. The sign says:

Mercaz HaShalom [Peace Center]
Body-Shop and Paint
Under Management by Maher

All indications are that the Arabs of Area A are happy to do business with the Jews of Area C. And the reality is that the Jews on the hilltops of Efrat can't come to Mohammed in Dheisheh, so Mohammed is coming to Efrat.

Some Efratians are naïve. They see the local Arab desire for Jewish custom as tiny seeds of peace.

Other Efratians are more like me. We think: They're happy to take our money, as long as we're here. They take pains to encourage our business. But they would, of course, much prefer we Jews would sink into the earth, disappear, and be gone for good, their giant Hebrew-lettered "Peace Center" signs notwithstanding. And they wouldn't mind lending a hand to making that happen, when push comes to shove.

What is the State of Israel for? (Vic Rosenthal)

Weekly column by Vic Rosenthal

It’s not a silly question. There are serious disagreements about the answer. But there is only one answer that justifies the sacrifices that have been made to re-establish the Jewish state in its historical homeland, and those that will be required in the future to keep it.

That answer is given by Zionism, which holds that a sovereign state in the Land of Israel is a necessity to protect and preserve the Jewish people – and that their preservation is an objective worth attaining.

The Zionist view implies certain things about the nature of the state, things that logically follow from its function as a refuge for persecuted Jews, a source of strength for the Jewish people, and a place where it is possible to live a fully Jewish life, according to whatever combination of religious and cultural elements are important to the individual.

It is a place where the Hebrew language is dominant, the majority religion is Judaism, the holidays are the traditional Jewish ones (religious and national), and most of the population are Jews. It is (or should be) a place where antisemitism is not tolerated, indeed, where it is unthinkable. Because there are forces that work against these principles, it can’t be expected that they will appear by themselves. They must be woven into the legal fabric of the state and they must be affirmed by its leaders. The Law of Return and the Nation State Law are not accidental; they are essential.

The Zionist state can share some characteristics of a liberal, secular, democratic state such as the USA aspires to be (although recently this conception has come under attack from the anti-rational Left in America), but it cannot be such a state. It will unavoidably need to distinguish between Jews, for whom the state exists, and non-Jewish citizens, in very specific ways that relate to the character of the state – e.g., the language and symbols of the state, the official holidays, etc. – and to the maintenance of its Jewish majority.

Israel is special. It is the only Jewish state, the only one with that specific purpose. It is not a smaller version of the USA. Its socialist founders, despite their emphasis on democratic principles and guaranteeing rights to all citizens, nevertheless were Zionists and proclaimed that they were declaring a Jewish state. Those weren’t just words.

The state may try to provide every possible civil right and protection against discrimination to its minorities, but when there are conflicts between liberal-democratic ideals and Zionist principles, Zionism must prevail. Otherwise the state will ultimately lose its function as a Jewish state. It will lose its ability to protect and preserve the Jewish people as a people, against persecution and assimilation.

Zionism is unpopular throughout the world. The majority of those who have thought about it do not approve of Zionism for one reason or another. Either they don’t see the importance of there being a Jewish people, they actively dislike them, or they think that the cost to others of the existence of the Jewish state is not justified (I suspect that most of those in this group also fit in the second).

Ever since the founding of the state, there have been Jews who are uncomfortable with Zionism. They correctly note that Zionism can conflict with liberal democratic principles, and for this reason they bitterly oppose it and want to “dezionize” Israel. Sometimes they have even made common cause with enemies of the state.

This issue has come up now in the dispute over the “family unification law” which since 2002 has made it difficult for residents of the Palestinian Authority who marry Israeli citizens to move to Israel in order to live with their spouses. I won’t get into the interesting politics of it now, with Bennet’s coalition trying to extend the existing law despite opposition from some of its Arab members, while Bibi’s opposition tries to embarrass them by proposing an even stronger Basic Law on the subject of immigration in general (something that I favor, although not as a tactic to overthrow the coalition). I mention it to note how the opponents of the law, like the publisher of Ha’aretz Amos Schocken and his antisemitic writer Gideon Levy, scream “racism, apartheid, Jewish supremacism!”

This law has nothing to do with “race,” which is essentially meaningless where Arabs and Jews are concerned. It is not “apartheid” which means enforced separation of racial groups, which would not apply to Israel even if Arabs and Jews were different racially. And it certainly doesn’t imply that Jews are superior to Arabs or believe that they ought to dominate them. Although the original purpose of the law was to reduce terrorism (a disproportionate number of terrorists were the product of “unified” families), it is not embarrassing to admit that it helps maintain Israel’s Jewish majority. It is a Zionist law that is unfair to non-Jews. So be it.

Post-Zionists Schocken and Levy also oppose the Law of Return (or would like to see it apply equally to Palestinian Arabs) as well as the Nation-State Law. They also oppose efforts to repatriate the tens of thousands of African migrants that entered the country via the Egyptian border, before an effective fence was built. These things are “undemocratic.” Perhaps, but they are necessary.

The post-Zionist vision is remarkably empty. The right-wing Jabotinsky and the left-wing Ben Gurion had very different ideas of what the Jewish state should be like. Schocken and Levy do not think there should be a Jewish state. In their monumental stupidity and arrogance, they wish for a soulless techno-state built on “equality” and “democracy” for peoples that would have nothing in common except geographic proximity, and a great deal of resentment for each other.

Imagine an Israel without its Zionist purpose (and very quickly, without its Jewish majority). How long would it survive? Why would anyone want to fight for it? Would Jews and Arabs make common cause in support of a liberal, democratic state? It’s hard to imagine. We saw last month what happened in mixed cities like Lod and Acco, where there are about half as many Arabs as Jews.

Most likely, Jews with money and foreign passports would flee. After the initial bloodbath, the ones who were left would face a descent into the tenuous, contingent existence that characterized the Middle Eastern diaspora for more than a millennium. Of course, it’s doubtful that the “lucky” ones in Europe, America, Australia, and other places would fare much better.

Just as a Jewish state is essential to the survival of the Jewish people, Zionism is essential to the survival of the Jewish state.

06/23 Links Pt1: US Seizes Numerous Terrorist-sponsored Anti-Israel Media Outlets; Top EU official backs tougher action against PA over textbooks report

From Ian:

US Seizes Numerous Terrorist-sponsored Anti-Israel Media Outlets

The US Department of Justice on Tuesday announced that it had seized 33 websites operated by the Iranian Islamic Radio and Television Union (IRTVU). Included in the seizure order were PressTV.com, one of Tehran’s English-language mouthpieces, and Gaza Strip-based Islamic Jihad‘s Palestine Today website. According to a statement, Tehran’s so-called propaganda channels “targeted the United States with disinformation campaigns and malign influence operations.”

Washington sanctioned the IRTVU because of its close ties with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), a US-designated terrorist group. These sanctions bar IRGC-controlled organizations like Press TV from receiving services from US companies, including web hosting, without special permission.

Tehran tries to brand Press TV as a credible news agency. In reality, it merely echoes the propaganda line of a genocidal regime that calls for the destruction of America and Israel. In 2012, then-Iranian foreign minister Ali Akbar Salehi stated that media have the “power to shape the global public opinion, a capability that military power lacks.” To this end, the IRGC this year hired nearly 12,000 “cultural activists” to engage in its operations.

In 2012, the United Kingdom revoked Press TV’s broadcasting license for breaching the Communications Act. The ban came just months after the channel aired an alarming interview with imprisoned journalist Maziar Bahari. The Newsweek reporter revealed he was tortured by the regime and then was ordered to make an on-air confession, under threat of execution.

Press TV’s UK bank account was also closed. EU sanctions against the Islamic Republic in 2012 halted the Iranian state-owned news network’s activities in the rest of Europe. Moreover, in 2019, Google shut down Press TV’s YouTube channel, likely because it had shared a video that promoted the antisemitic canard that Israel conducts medical experiments on Palestinian prisoners. Twitter and Facebook followed suit, but thereafter, without specific reason, reinstated Press TV’s ability to spew Jew-hatred.

Indeed, Press TV’s channel has given a platform to a wide array of Neonazis, white supremacists, and Holocaust deniers over the years. Its website also published an article titled “Palestinian suffrage in Israel worse than WWII Jewish plight.” The seeming leitmotif in Press TV’s reporting is that “Zionists” and the “Jewish Banking Cartel” control US politics. The media outlet also ran a poll implying that the “9/11 incident” was staged by the US to “tarnish the image of Islam” and wage wars in the Middle East.

Why is US seizing Iran Press TV, other websites? - analysis

Further, long before these website seizures, the Biden administration has made it clear that it will maintain all nonnuclear sanctions on Iran related to its terrorist behavior, just as the Obama administration did.

And Iran Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei signed the 2015 deal not because he liked giving up enough enriched uranium for around 10 nuclear bombs, but because of the economic pressure. With all of his threats and hatred for the “big Satan” US long before the website seizures, all signs are he will make the same businesslike calculation this time.

So there will still likely be a nuclear deal by, before or not long after the new Ebrahim Raisi administration takes over Iran in August. Whether the timing of the websites’ seizure was meant to send a message to Raisi, to get it in under the wire before the deal is signed, or whether this was just when the Biden administration got around to lining up all of its cards to obtain warrants in court to do so, is a separate and interesting question.

This does not end free speech, and it will not end interference by Iran or other foreign countries with the US or Israel’s democratic processes or social fault lines.

But it is a new sign that the Biden administration has started to act with more intolerance for cyber and social media interference from the Islamic Republic and others.

Among several prominent sites taken down by the United States government for its links to terrorism, Palestine Today's website was also seized. pic.twitter.com/VjS5i2AiSK
— Joe Truzman (@Jtruzmah) June 22, 2021

Top EU official backs tougher action against PA over textbooks report

A top EU official backed tougher action against the Palestinian Authority on Monday after a report from Brussels found evidence of incitement and antisemitism in Palestinian textbooks.

The intervention from Oliver Varhelyi – EU Commissioner for Neighbourhood and Enlargement - came after the delayed release of a damning EU-funded study into the contents of more than 170 Palestinian textbooks and teacher guides published between 2017 and 2019.

“The conditionality of our financial assistance in the educational sector needs to be duly considered,” the European commissioner for neighbourhood and enlargement said on Twitter.

He also backed a “firm commitment to fight antisemitism and engage with Palestinian Authority” and the UN agency for Palestinian refugees and their descendants.

The UK and EU have faced renewed pressure over wages paid to PA teachers since the report's publication.

Daniel Schwammenthal, director of the American Jewish Committee’s Brussels office, called for “immediate action.”

“The textbooks must be immediately replaced and should the Palestinian Authority refuse to do so, the [European Commission] will have no other choice but to follow the Norwegian example and withhold some funding to bring about the necessary change,” he said.

The Conservative Friends of Israel parliamentary group said the UK should “act decisively to end its facilitation” of the PA’s “extreme curriculum”.

EU commissioner calls to condition support for UNRWA schools on “full adherence” to UNESCO principles on antisemitism & violence, after EU-sponsored report finds antisemitism & incitement in Palestinian textbooks.

UNRWA donors:
???? $210 million
???? $157
???? $64
???? $60
???? $29
???? $28 https://t.co/eC8xRwWqlZ
— Hillel Neuer (@HillelNeuer) June 23, 2021

A Moroccan reporter who covers Hollywood, Simo Benbachir. has been getting death threats and lost 100,000 Instagram followers for this fawning January interview with Israeli actress Gal Gadot.

Gadot thinks he is an Israeli and starts the interview in Hebrew, but Benbachir says he is Moroccan but would love to learn Hebrew.

He described Gadot as "one of the most exciting actresses he has ever met," saying during the interview that she was "amazing in every sense of the word."

As a result, some of his followers called him “a friend of Zionist Israel,” “a traitor to the Palestinian cause,” and “a supporter of normalization with Israel.”

During an interview with Al-Quds Al-Arabi, Benbachir said he was subjected to "profanity that should not be mentioned."

The journalist said that he supports Morocco's normalization with Israel, saying it is in the interest of the Moroccan people.

He said that he does not regret his statements and praise of the Israeli actress and he looks forward to another interview with her, saying that he is the only Arab journalist to have met Gadot after the Wonder Woman 1984 movie.

Benbachir said, “All of my childhood was in Italy, but during my primary studies in Morocco, most of my friends and colleagues were Moroccan Jews."

Human Rights Watch article on antisemitism ENCOURAGES left wing antisemitism

Human Rights Watch finally addressed the increase in antisemitic attacks in the US that became visible last month from anti-Israel activists - yet its very article on the topic encourages and excuses the very antisemitism it claims to be against.

The post on US antisemitism was written by Eric Goldstein, Acting Executive Director, Middle East and North Africa Division. He is one of the key members of HRW who decided to accuse Israel of being guilty of the crime of apartheid - a highly publicized report that was released only weeks before the rise in attacks on Jews.

Why was a report on US antisemitism written by someone whose career demands demonization of Israel? Why wasn't it written by an expert on US hate groups?

Because this article is not meant to reduce antisemitism. It is meant to excuse the most prevalent kinds of antisemitism today.

The problem starts with the headline:

The headline mentions a spate of attacks on Jews, and the subhead's recommendation is not to address that very antisemitism which was committed under the cover of "Israeli criticism" [sic]!

The purpose of the article is to undermine its own supposed opposition to antisemitism.

And that continues in the article itself, which is more about the right to demonize Israel than it is about actually addressing antisemitism:

On May 18, a group waving the Palestinian flag assaulted diners seated outside a Los Angeles restaurant after reportedly asking if they were Jewish. In New York City two days later, assailants pummeled a young man wearing a skullcap on the street, a few blocks from where pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian demonstrators clashed that day.

The May 2021 fighting in Israel and Palestine coincided with a spike of antisemitic incidents in the US, as has happened before. What seems new this time is these incidents included a rash of physical assaults on Jews, a spokesperson of the Anti-Defamation League told Human Rights Watch.

Just months after the departure of a US president who did little to condemn groups like the marchers in 2017 in Charlottesville, Virginia, who chanted, “Jews will not replace us,” these assaults remind us that the far right has no monopoly on antisemitism.

If these attacks are all done in the name of supporting the anti-Israel cause that HRW espouses, then why bring up Charlottesville (which Trump did indeed condemn)?

HRW reluctantly says that the far Right has no monopoly on antisemitism - yet it does not want to address which other groups might be antisemitic. It will never name any group besides the far Right as being antisemitic.

Because it does not want to criticize its allies.

There is nothing antisemitic in itself about denouncing Israeli human rights violations or supporting boycotts against Israel. But it is antisemitic to reflexively treat Jews as complicit in the harm that the Israeli government inflicts on Palestinians – just as it is a hate crime to attack an Asian-American for how China’s authoritarian rulers may have handled Covid. Claiming that most American Jews support the Israeli government – a claim that a recent poll calls into doubt – is no excuse.

That last sentence is unbelievable.

The vast majority of Jews support Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, and those who oppose it are a tiny minority. This is a fundamental reason why opposing Israel itself - not its government, but the existence of the state - is antisemitic. Whether Jews support the Israeli government is not relevant at all and bringing up a poll that deals with that rather than with Jewish support of Israel itself is meant to subtly justify antisemitic attacks as somehow being against the government of Israel.

These anti-Israel demonstrations that prompted violence were opposed to the Jewish state itself. HRW is trying to imply that the broad Jewish consensus of support for Israel as a Jewish state is really fractured - because HRW holds the same political position as the antisemitic attackers that Israel itself is illegitimate.

The Biden administration has condemned these antisemitic attacks as “despicable” but has yet to nominate a new Special Envoy on Antisemitism (SEAS) at the State Department. Filling that post would provide a focal point for calling out and combatting antisemitism in the US and worldwide.

Biden should ensure the envoy he nominates is also committed to rolling back the efforts of the Trump administration to brand vast swaths of Israel criticism as antisemitic, which ill-served the cause of combatting actual antisemitism.

HRW, in an article supposedly about combating antisemitism, spends more time defending attacking Israel than actually condemning the antisemites who want to start a new Holocaust and ethnically cleanse the Middle East of Jews.

Two coalitions of analysts and scholars this year have tried to define judiciously when Israel criticism crosses the line. This includes painting Israel “as being part of a sinister world conspiracy of Jewish control of the media, economy, government or other financial, cultural or societal institutions,” or applying to it other clear-cut, classically antisemitic stereotypes, images, or symbols. The coalitions concur that “evidence-based criticism of Israel,” even when “contentious,” is not, on its face, antisemitic. Biden’s SEAS, by publicly defending such distinctions, would bring into relief when Israel criticism does in fact betray hatred of Jews, and when it does not.

HRW is here saying that it opposes the IHRA working definition of antisemitism that accurately described when attacks on Israel are antisemitic and when criticism of Israel is not.

IHRA says "criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic." Human Rights Watch's criticism of Israel holds Israel to standards that no other nation is expected to adhere to. Its definition of "apartheid" would declare many nations, including the US, as being guilty of the same crime. Yet only Israel is given that appellation.

It just so happens that calling Israel a racist endeavor - which HRW did with its "apartheid" report - is antisemitic under IHRA. HRW's "apartheid" report opposes the very existence of a Jewish state as racist, when it has never opposed any other state that defines itself in ethnic or religious terms.

No wonder HRW opposes the IHRA working definition.

The Obama administration supported the IHRA definition. Some 30 countries and many international organizations support the IHRA definition.

Human Rights Watch might oppose attacking random Jews because of the assumption that they are Zionist, but it fully supports the hate that animates such attacks while denying the undeniable fact that most Jews indeed support Zionism.

HRW provides an ideological justification for attacking Jews. It is in no small part responsible for these recent attacks. If Zionism is racist as HRW claims, it is righteous to attack the racists.

Today's antisemitism hides behind obsessive hatred of Israel to justify itself. HRW's similarly obsessive focus on Israel proves that it shares the same hate that the attackers in Los Angeles and New York have.

An article supposedly opposing antisemitism is actually an ideological justification for antisemitism.

HRW is telling its antisemitic allies that there is nothing wrong with their hate. It is justified as "evidence-based criticism of Israel" with HRW providing the doctored "evidence."

Sure, they shouldn't attack a few random Jews on the streets of New York. Instead, they should join HRW is demanding Israel be replaced by another Arab state that would oppress and attack every Jew in the Middle East.

This is a bit unusual:

Khaled Salem, a naturalized American Arab running in the Democrat primary to unseat Sen. Chuck Schumer, has a simple message for President Biden: Israel is a “vital” ally protecting NATO’s “southeastern flank.”

While congratulating the new Israeli Government, Salem makes clear that Israel is in terrible danger from Iran. The release states that Salem “has repeatedly implored the US government to ‘open its eyes and admit the real danger’ of Iran’s role in trying to annihilate Israel.”

Salem goes on to quote the famed Holocaust survivor Eli Wiesel, by stating “If we’ve learned anything from the Nazi Holocaust and the late Eli Wiesel, if someone says they are going to kill you, believe it.”

In closing, Salem states he fully backs “the new Israel government and hopes that Israel protects its Jewish citizens and continues to protect the entire Middle East. Israel offers an infrastructure of defense for the USA and its allies to protect western values and Arab nations themselves.”

Salem is a Muslim who was born in Egypt and raised in Kuwait. He came to the US in 1992.

His platform is strange - free university tuition for all without the government reimbursing the universities, a big emphasis on helping US citizens being held in prisons abroad, and allowing US Muslim men to marry a second wife if the first wife agrees.

His chances of winning in 2022 seem quite remote.

It is hard to know if his pro-Israel platform is opportunistic or sincere. While he speaks against Iran, I cannot find anything negative he has to say about the Iranian nuclear deal.

Either way, an Arab Muslim with a strong pro-Israel position is something that would upset the normal anti-Israel crowd.

(h/t Soccer Dad)