A few hours later, Islamic Jihad published photos of the areas around Gaza that they claim were taken by one of their drones.The Iron Dome missile defense system shot down a “suspicious” aircraft flying over the Gaza Strip on Thursday, the Israel Defense Forces said.According to the IDF, the device “was monitored throughout the entire incident” by the air force’s ground control. The military said the UAV did not enter Israeli airspace, adding that the interceptor missiles were fired at the device while it was over Gaza.
Friday, May 20, 2022
- Friday, May 20, 2022
- Elder of Ziyon
- drone, gaza, Iron Dome, Islamic Jihad, Israel, PIJ, propaganda, UAV
Thursday, May 19, 2022
Melanie Phillips: The Holocaust memorial laundry project
The Chief Rabbi and the rest of the Jewish leadership are falling over themselves to declare that the Labour party is once again an acceptable repository of the British Jewish vote. In their desperation to prove to themselves that there is no serious problem for Jews in Britain, these leaders have told themselves that siting the Holocaust memorial next to Parliament would send a message that the British state supports the Jewish people. This assumption speaks volumes for their troubling proclivity to stick their heads deep into the sand.Priti Patel slams BDS as 'racist', declares her 'unflinching and unequivocal' support of Israel
For in endorsing this flawed memorial to Jewish victimhood in the Shoah, the Jewish leadership is thereby sanitising deeply troubling attitudes by the British state to Jewish victims today.
Not only did Britain’s betrayal of its Mandate undertaking in the last century to settle Jews throughout Palestine, and its consequent appeasement of murderous Arabs determined to destroy the reborn Jewish homeland, create the century-old Arab and Muslim war of annihilation against Israel that continues to this day. The British state even now undermines Israel by insisting on a tendentious and misleading interpretation of the Geneva Conventions to maintain that Israel is in “illegal occupation” of “Palestinian” land.
Through this falsehood, the British state helps incite murderous hatred of Israel which foments hatred of Jews. Yet the Jewish leadership never campaigns against this lethal untruth. Nor does it ever draw attention to the prevalent antisemitism in the Muslim world which has done so much to promote antisemitism in the Labour party. Instead it demonises as “extremists” those who do call out these things.
What the Chief Rabbi should have told Starmer is this: that there can be no question of rapprochement with the Labour party unless and until the party as a whole stops demonising Israel and promoting a Palestinian cause which writes Jews out of their own national story; and until it stops supporting Palestinians who, day in, day out, write the Jews out of their own history and from whom pours an unstoppable torrent of rabid antisemitism complete with Nazi tropes.
Rabbi Mirvis said none of this. Instead, he has helped launder the Labour party. He has sucked up to a movement that remains consumed by a deranged hatred of Israel based upon thinly concealed antisemitism — while he himself has cold-shouldered those objecting to a project that risks doing more harm to the Jewish people than good.
It is beyond dismaying that Jewish leaders in Britain should be set upon a project which will so dishonour the Shoah and launder Britain’s shameful bigotry. Their support for the Victoria Tower Gardens memorial reveals a Jewish leadership that has lost its way.
Priti Patel has declared her “unflinching and unequivocal” support for Israel, describing her relationship to the country as “deeply personal” to her.NGO Monitor: After Ken Roth, Can Human Rights Watch Be Repaired?
Speaking at a Conservative Friends of Israel reception on Monday, the Home Secretary also said that she is “quite unapologetic” about the proscription of the Hamas terror group last year, saying that it was “not just the right thing to do, [it was] a moral imperative”.
Patel praised the Israeli Ambassador to the UK, Tzipi Hotovely, also in attendance, thanking her for “who you are and what you do” and for the “wider support” that Israel gives to the UK.
Speaking to an audience of 140 CFI supporters, including 50 parliamentarians, Patel spoke of the “shared values” between the UK and Israel, adding that “everything we have seen around the BDS movement is racist”.
She said that the UK and Israel have an “unwavering belief in freedom, democracy and security”, saying that they are “united in speaking out and standing up against racism and antisemitism”.
The Home Secretary expressed her concern that antisemitism has “infiltrated our politics, our political dialogue and discourse”, adding: “It is utterly appalling that antisemitism has been on the increase”.
These comments follow a report by Tel Aviv University last month that found that antisemitism was on the rise around the world in 2021, with the UK experiencing a significant rise compared to both 2020 and 2019.
Patel also expressed her “sympathies and condolences” to the families of the 19 Israelis murdered in the latest wave of terror attacks.
Roth also showed a strong animus towards Israel, repeatedly joining the shrill voices demanding an end to American support and repeating false accusations of “war crimes” and “crimes against humanity.” HRW, in concert with Amnesty International and Palestinian groups, was central in reviving the Soviet-led effort to equate Zionism with South African apartheid. In 2001, HRW was among the leaders of the blatantly antisemitic NGO Forum of the UN Durban conference, ostensibly called to celebrate the end of South African apartheid. In responding to critics, including from within HRW, he declared that “Israeli racist practices are an appropriate topic.”
To support this agenda, Roth filled HRW’s Middle East and North Africa division with people who joined in disproportionately attacking Israel, with only token publications on Syria, Libya, Iran and other authoritarian regimes. Roth lobbied the UN Human Rights Council to create one-sided “investigations,” and pressed the International Criminal Court to adopt invented versions of international law to use against Israel, including a fictitious version of apartheid. He used the term “primitive” in the context of Jewish religion and tradition (2006), and blamed Jews for antisemitism. HRW’s April 2021 “report” claiming that Israel had “crossed the line into apartheid” is a reiteration of this 20-year campaign.
These activities were noted by Robert Bernstein, the founder of HRW, and although he had retired, was strongly opposed to the direction that Roth was taking the organization, specifically in demonizing Israel. (Full disclosure: I discussed these issues in meetings with Bernstein beginning in 2004.) In 2009, Bernstein took the unprecedented and painful step of denouncing HRW in a New York Times column and in a series of speeches, and many of HRW’s donors ended their support.
However, Roth is a very skilled fundraiser, and after getting $100 million from George Soros, he added other secret donors, such as a Saudi billionaire whose 2012 “contribution” (the existence of which was denied for many years) was only revealed in 2020.
Finding a qualified successor devoted to universal human rights who is not inherently hostile to the West and to Israel, and will not sell out to corrupt donors, is a major challenge. If successful, the difficult process of repairing the damage and restoring the credibility and universality of human rights principles envisioned by HRW’s founders can begin.
- Thursday, May 19, 2022
- Varda Meyers Epstein (Judean Rose)
- interview, Judean Rose, Opinion, Varda
Interview with Arnold Roth
President
Joe Biden met with King Abdullah of Jordan last week. We know what they
talked about and what they didn’t talk about because the White House issued a statement
outlining the points of discussion. Omitted from that statement is any mention
of the failure of Jordan to honor its extradition treaty with the United States.
Also missing from the White House statement is any mention of Ahlam
al Tamimi, a terrorist, or of the American citizens in whose murder she
played an instrumental role. Tamimi chose the venue for the massacre, a central
Jerusalem pizzeria; the time the massacre would take place, lunch hour, when
the restaurant was sure to be at peak capacity; and she drove the bomber to the
location she had chosen, ensuring that all would go as planned.
Among the 15 civilians murdered that day in 2001 were Shoshana
Greenbaum, a pregnant woman, and Malki Roth, a 15-year-old girl. Joe Biden would
have been careful to refrain from mentioning their names to Abdullah, because the
subject of extraditing Tamimi is a touchy one. Tamimi is popular in Jordan,
famous for murdering Jewish children.
Tamimi enjoys celebrity status in Jordan. Here she brags on Jordanian television about the Sbarro terror attack in which she played an instrumental role |
Tamimi was nonetheless the mastermind of a massacre of
United States citizens, and it is clear that this should be the sitting US
president’s first, and ultimate concern. That it is not Joe Biden’s first or
ultimate concern, is a grave thing to contemplate. It is wrong. But not the
only wrong.
Far worse, perhaps, is the fact that Tamimi is only living
free in Jordan as a celebrity, because a prime minister of Israel arranged for
her release to that country, directly from an Israeli prison. That prime
minister was Benjamin Netanyahu.
In his 1995 book, “Fighting Terrorism,” Netanyahu wrote that
prisoner exchanges were "a mistake that Israel made over and over
again." and that refusing to release jailed terrorists was "among the
most important policies that must be adopted in the face of terrorism."
The release of convicted terrorists before they have served their full sentences seems like an easy and tempting way of defusing blackmailed situations in which innocent people may lose their lives, but its utility is momentary at best," said Netanyahu. "Prisoner releases only embolden terrorists by giving them the feeling that even if they are caught, their punishment will be brief. Worse, by leading terrorists to think such demands are likely to be met, they encourage precisely the terrorist blackmail they are supposed to defuse.
Rep. Greg Steube (R-FL 17th District) |
The former Israeli prime minister broke with his own
philosophy to release 1,027 Arab terrorists for a
single Israeli captive, Gilad
Shalit, in 2011. Ahlam Tamimi was one of the terrorists released on that black,
black day, 11 years ago. Until now, the parents of Malki Roth, Arnold and
Frimet Roth, have fought to get American officials and the mainstream media to
take note of this travesty, and to act. Someone finally did, Rep.
Greg Steube (R-FL 17th District), who has introduced a bill to
limit US assistance to Jordan until the validity of 1995 extradition treaty
between the two countries, is recognized.
Arnold Roth took the time to update us on efforts to
extradite Tamimi from Jordan, and the much-appreciated active role Congressman
Steube has taken in seeking #justiceforMalki:
Varda
Epstein: Netanyahu broke with his own philosophy as outlined in his 1995 book, “Fighting
Terrorism,” to release 1,027 Arab terrorists for a single Israeli captive in
2011. What do you know about what went into that decision? Is it possible that
pressure was brought to bear on Netanyahu by the Obama Administration?
Arnold Roth: Netanyahu happens to have been in Melbourne, where
both Malki and I were born, on that awful August day in 2001 when the Sbarro massacre
happened and we lost a child. Friends who saw this happen say he was asked by
Australian journalists to comment on a terror outrage since one of the victims,
according to the reports just then coming in, was a Melbourne girl, a lovely,
smiley teenager of 15 – my daughter.
I was told that when he responded, the former prime minister of
Israel (who became prime minister once again eight years later) used the
expression “my heart goes out to them”. He followed that with some reference to
visiting us when he was back in Jerusalem. He of course didn’t visit us but the
expression “my heart goes out to them” is etched into my memory because it
happens to be one of the things he said when he addressed the nation in October
2011. The occasion was his announcing that he had a done a deal with Hamas to
free an Israeli soldier held hostage by them for five years, Gilad Shalit.
It's worth dwelling for a moment on the key paragraph of a
best-selling book from the 1990s entitled “Fighting Terrorism: How Democracies
Can Defeat Domestic and International Terrorists”. In the edition I am looking
at as I answer you, Varda, the one published by Farrar Straus Giroux* in 1995
at page 144, the acclaimed author writes:
“A government that seeks the defeat of
the terrorists must refuse to release convicted terrorists from prisons…
Releasing imprisoned terrorists emboldens them and their colleagues… By
nurturing the belief that their demands are likely to be met in the future, you
encourage terrorist blackmail of the very kind that you want to stop. Only the
most unrelenting refusal to ever give in to such blackmail can prevent this.”
The words of that last sentence ring powerfully for me. But
actually the whole quote makes solid sense. The person who wrote them is of
course the Israeli leader did the deal with Hamas that served as my daughter’s
murderer’s incomprehensible ticket to freedom.
“I keep wondering if he ever read it"
His name is Benjamin Netanyahu and I keep wondering if he ever
read it. It’s disappeared of course, from bookstores everywhere now, and for
good reason.
I don’t know what motivated him to transact a massive swap of
1,027 terrorists for a captive Israeli soldier, and to market it so heavily to
the Israeli public that freeing Shalit at any price (“any price” is the term I
remember being used freely when this was happening) had enormous support for a
while.
It was of course, like so many things in political life, bogus, a
lie wrapped around a tiny grain of truth. There are many, many things Israel
would never have done to free Shalit. This one just seemed affordable to the
shameless insiders who cooked it up.
Terrible acts of terror against Israelis were executed in the
years after the deal was done, executed by people who were in prison right up until
the day Shalit walked free, with many of them sentenced to stay there for the
rest of their lives, like Ahlam Tamimi.
“His wife pressed him to do it”
But they were freed by Israel and have gone on to lead
high-profile lives as terrorists. Yahya Sinwar, for instance, who took over the
leadership of Hamas in the Gaza Strip in 2017 and has much blood on his hands.
Netanyahu once said publicly that he did the Shalit deal because
his wife pressed him to do it. For some people, let’s say politicians for
example, that’s as good a reason as any. I would feel a little less hostile to
the man if he had ever taken the trouble to speak with us in the years he was
prime minister, a job he lost in 2021. But he never did. And in fact his office
remained locked and impervious for years to our efforts to appeal for Israeli
help in the Tamimi extradition. Or more accurately, to stop interfering with it. [Emphasis added, V.E.]
Netanyahu won’t get invited to any of my family’s future
celebrations. My heart doesn’t go out to him.
The Roth family at Malki's Bat Mitzvah |
Varda
Epstein: Considering the lack of any meaningful effort by successive US
administrations to extradite Ahlam Tamimi from Jordan for the murder of two US
citizens, is it possible that the US is bowing to pressure from Israel? What
rationale would there be for Israel to quash these efforts?
Arnold Roth: I assume there are multiple factors at work but, yes,
I have heard from sources in Washington that there is a view among government
insiders that Israel is fine with Tamimi being left alone in Jordan. Whether or
not it’s true, the consecutive US administrations of Obama, Trump and Biden
have all praised good king Abdullah in ways that are hard for ordinary people
to understand. There are compelling reasons why the US ought to be very wary of
giving him the moral and political and – which may surprise some people – financial
backing that he gets.
Abdullah wields significant power as the owner and operator of the
family business – the Hashemite Kingdom. In the past two decades, this has been
a profitable undertaking for its shareholders, not so much for its subjects.
Jordan may be a basket-case economically, hugely dependent on handouts and with
a population suffering from a badly-run economy. But this hasn’t prevented its
free-cash flow from serving as the way its king has quietly (until this was
exposed in a series of major global news investigations) and surreptitiously
become a real estate tycoon in the United States.
“I know there are analysts and think-tank mavens far better informed than me who say it’s best not to endanger his or Jordan’s stability. But those are sentiments of the kind that make sense when they come with no price.”
He owns a much real estate and multiple private aircraft. A
well-trained, lavishly equipped military force serves his needs. And since his
country is now officially designated (in Freedom House’s most recent global
survey) as unfree, it’s obvious he has little fear of his country’s media,
parliament or mobs. The evidence is he has excellent connections in the US with
powerful friends in Washington and a major US military presence based inside
his kingdom’s borders. Less well known is that he spends a fortune on US
lawyers and lobbyists.
I know there are analysts and think-tank mavens far better informed
than me who say it’s best not to endanger his or Jordan’s stability. But those are
sentiments of the kind that make sense when they come with no price.
But the reality is that the hypocrisy and double-talk comes at a
high price. Jordan flagrantly breaches its most important treaty with the US
and communicates to its people that it stands firmly with the fugitive bomber.
It has never paid a price for its embrace of terror. That’s no way for foreign
relations to be conducted. It gets noticed by others and in the end, especially
in bad neighborhoods like the one where Jordan operates, it comes back to bite
you. The way we think about Jordan is long overdue for a reality check.
@SecBlinken,
— Arnold Roth (@arnoldroth) May 15, 2022
My wife and I are parents of a US-national Jewish child. Like the reporter, she was killed in Israel. Unlike the reporter, the murderer is known: a Jordanian whom @KingAbdullahII's gov't shamefully keeps free. You ignore our letters but praise the king. Let's speak. pic.twitter.com/EOoGQ5YGMd
Varda
Epstein: How did Congressman Greg Steube become aware of your situation and the
refusal of the US government to get tough with Jordan regarding the existing
extradition treaty? Can you outline for us the steps Rep. Steube has taken to
bring some justice to this situation? Why now?
Arnold Roth: To his credit, Congressman Steube, a Republican from
Florida, has stepped up to the plate several times to press Jordan on this important
matter of justice.
Two years ago, the excellent people of EMET Endowment for Middle
East Truth led by Sarah Stern suggested that he be the key signatory on a letter from
Congress about Tamimi directed at Jordan’s then and current ambassador to
Washington. You might be interested to know the ambassador never bothered to respond.
Then in March 2022, Rep. Steube led ten Congressional colleagues
in another letter, this one addressing Secretary
of State Blinken That too has so far gone unanswered.
As to why now, that would be a good question to ask Steube’s
staff. I could imagine him watching with rising fury as Jordan shows ever
greater signs of developing into a totalitarian society, having an unfree media
culture, providing a safe environment for hateful ideologies, educating its
children to think antisemitically and all the while pocketing more foreign aid
from US taxpayers than almost any other country – while trampling a strategic
treaty with its largest and most important ally.
When you view it that way, the real question might be this: where does the over-the-top warm reception extended last week to King Abdullah by Congressional lawmakers and the President of the United States come from?
Varda Epstein: There has to be a sense of betrayal that Israel released your daughter’s murderer from prison, especially since you threw in your lot with the Jewish State by making Aliyah. Your wife is American. Does she feel a sense of betrayal as an American citizen at the lack of will to push for extradition? How does it feel to be doubly betrayed, so to speak?
Arnold Roth: That’s a hard question to answer. Not because I don’t
feel those things but because complaining of being betrayed doesn’t go down
well or get you far in the court of public opinion. People have a hard enough
time with their own problems.
So first about Israel. Yes, we have certainly been betrayed.
That’s the right word: we had rights and they were and are being cruelly
trampled and with no regard to what this does to our values as a society. Or to
people like us.
“Watching as the convicts walked triumphantly free”
In this, we are not alone. The same thing can be said by all
the other families who experienced the murder or maiming of loved ones by
terrorists who were sentenced to long prison terms by judges applying very
respectable judicial criteria and then watching as the convicts walked
triumphantly free.
That should never have happened. Those who argue differently need
to review what they think they know about justice and Jewish values.
But it’s clear to us that Israel as a nation didn’t betray us. It
was politicians. There’s much more I would want to say about that aspect but
not now. We remain as Zionist as the day we arrived in Israel, passionate and
proud to be raising our children and grandchildren in the Jewish homeland.
“Did the US betray us? No, and this is a good moment to say that we get gratifying support from wide parts of American society.”
I’m not an American. But Malki was and so are my wife and children.
Did the US betray us? No, and this is a good moment to say that we
get gratifying support from wide parts of American society. But as with Israel,
the politicians – except for those who have shown a distinct sense of morality
and honor – do what politicians do and hurt us in heartless ways.
From conversations with US government officials, we have the sense
– never said to us in this way – that there’s more interest in seeing Ahlam
Tamimi slip away and somehow disappear into the desert than in having her stand
trial in Washington.
This is not a partisan political thing; we are almost, though not
quite, as infuriated by how the GOP has pushed past the Jordan/Tamimi issue as
we are by the Democrats. Again, this isn’t about which side of the US divide you
stand on.
Much of America’s Jewish community leadership has been unhelpful
and cold. Having said that, it’s an exceptionally painful subject that I don’t
want to address here. At some point we will because there’s much we have
learned on this that we would have preferred never to know. And people ought to
know.
Here’s what I want to say about the US government. Other than at
the political leadership level, the Justice Department and the FBI have always
given us the sense of being with us and wanting the same result we want –
Tamimi in a federal court on trial for her terrorism and the deaths she caused.
We sincerely appreciate the hard work that has kept the pursuit of the Sbarro
bomber going all these years.
“He/she skipped the briefing.”
This is relevant to something that happened some weeks ago when
Frimet and I met with a significant US government figure (hereafter SUSGF). And
here’s the only part of it worth raising in today’s interview. We were told
ahead of time by our own sources that SUSGF was going to receive a briefing
before our sit-down from well-connected officials in Washington. But in
speaking with us for an hour or so, SUSGF volunteered half-way through that
he/she skipped the briefing. Hence our mild hope of getting some insight into
why we have been treated as pariahs for so long by the government of which our
murdered child was a national was misplaced. We learned nothing. The experience
was a waste of everyone’s time.
There’s no point in sharing my feelings about the governments of
the past. But here’s a thought about the current administration.
Speaking in July 2021 during the first of the three official
visits to the US made by King Abdullah in the past ten months, President Biden
called Jordan “loyal and decent friend… We’ve been hanging out together for a
long time. It’s good to have him back in the White House.”
“What’s decent about an ally shirking a treaty to appease popular bigotry?”
The same day those comments were reported in the New York Times, Frimet
and I wrote an open letter to President Biden. It was published prominently in
the Wall Street Journal:
The president, a grieving parent
himself, pledged during his inauguration speech to write “an American story of
decency and dignity.” Is anything more dignified than doing justice? What’s
decent about an ally shirking a treaty to appease popular bigotry?
That question is still on my mind. And again, no response has ever
come from the White House.
We also wrote a private letter to Secretary of State Blinken six
weeks earlier, in July 2021. He has never answered.
Jordan was first notified of its treaty obligation to extradite #AhlamTamimi in 2013. Terrorism charges issued that summer were sealed to allow Jordan time to comply - and unsealed 5 failed years later.
— Arnold Roth (@arnoldroth) May 18, 2022
Result: @KingAbdullahII harbors her in Jordan as he keeps coming to Wash DC. pic.twitter.com/YhngQWFSMf
Varda
Epstein: On March 20, 2017, the Jordanian Court of Cassation ruled the
extradition treaty invalid. Yet we know the US has requested extradition and
received fugitive terrorists from Jordan on multiple occasions. Why does Jordan
not honor the treaty in practice, if not by law, in the case of Tamimi?
Arnold Roth: Though Abdullah has given various explanations for why Jordan cannot extradite Tamimi, these have all been behind closed doors. He has never publicly addressed the issue. But we do know that Tamimi is a popular Jordanian folk hero.
Varda Epstein: Why do you think that your family was not forewarned before Tamimi was released in the Shalit Deal? Was it an oversight?
Arnold Roth: Not an oversight in any sense. In the eyes of the Israeli government, the need was urgent and the relevant officials had no intention of letting messy citizen actions get in the way. I also think some of them, at least, were aware of how morally and strategically wrong the Shalit Deal was in every respect. So why take chances? Rush it through and let history work out who was right and who wrong.
Murdered Israelis did not get to vote.
What's the story? The story is about a child of fifteen, my daughter. And about her murderer, a woman who has emerged as one of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan's most influential individuals. You could start here:
— Arnold Roth (@arnoldroth) May 18, 2022
"09-May-22: No more excuses, Jordan"https://t.co/f3jZBF8kTE pic.twitter.com/xWtSAIawKp
Varda
Epstein: We know that President Biden met with King Abdullah on Friday. Have
you had any information regarding the contents of their conversation? Do you
know if the subject of Tamimi’s extradition was raised?
Arnold Roth: America gives tremendous influence to its appointed
spokespersons. We have fought to see US justice done since 2012 – a decade. We
have come up against spokespersons in the White House and the State Department
several times and been deeply embittered by how that process works. With a
handful of notable exceptions, there’s no one in the ranks of the media who
attend those briefings who has the interest or skill to go head-to-head with
them.
So the last time, a year ago, that King Abdullah paid official
calls in Washington, the spokespersons in both the White House and the State
Department were asked by, as it happens, Associated Press journalists in each
place whether the Tamimi issue had come up. The answers they got are a disgrace
to the White House and the State Department. They were evasive, unclear and
essentially meaningless. There is a serious game being played by these US
government employees and it doesn’t get exposed often enough.
An official
readout was issued by the White House after President Biden’s tête-à-tête
with Abdullah this past Friday. Here’s what it says about Tamimi:
[The two heads of state] reaffirmed
the close and enduring nature of the friendship between the United States and
Jordan. Jordan is a critical ally and
force for stability in the Middle East, and the President confirmed unwavering
U.S. support for Jordan and His Majesty’s leadership. The leaders consulted on recent events in the
region and discussed urgent mechanisms to stem violence, calm rhetoric and
reduce tensions in Israel and the West Bank. The President affirmed his strong
support for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and cited
the need to preserve the historic status quo at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple
Mount. The President also recognized the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan’s crucial
role as the custodian of Muslim holy places in Jerusalem. The leaders discussed
the political and economic benefits of further regional integration in
infrastructure, energy, water, and climate projects, with Jordan a critical hub
for such cooperation and investment.
They agreed to remain in regular touch and further enhance the historic
ties between our countries.
In other words, zero. [Emphasis
added. V.E.]
Jordan’s trampling of the 1995 treaty continues and America’s
chief executive is fine with it. That’s a showstopper in my opinion. And
completely at odds with what he declared in his inauguration speech.
Follow up: They didn't.
— This Ongoing War (@ThisOngoingWar) May 18, 2022
Sometimes injustice gets sharp editorial focus. Others, like our American Jewish child's murder, stay stuffed under the carpet for years with no sign the media ever noticed.
Except that this case happens to be about America's most wanted female fugitive. pic.twitter.com/sfnXXj2Aka
Varda
Epstein: Presumably Malki was also an Australian citizen? Australia appears to
have signed an extradition treaty with Jordan in 2017, but it is not yet enforced.
Can you tell us a bit about this? Why has the proposed extradition treaty not
yet been enforced? Are you in touch with authorities on this score? What
efforts are you making on the Australian front?
Arnold Roth: Not so. Yes, Malki was born in Australia. Australia
spent years negotiating an extradition treaty with Jordan but it pulled out of
the negotiations a year or two ago. Australia, for good historical reasons, has
warm relations with the Hashemite kingdom.
That's what brought me to write an op-ed in The Australian, five
years ago this week in fact. In it I called on then-prime minister Malcolm
Turnbull to in effect have a quiet word with his mate King Abdullah. Turnbull's
answer was a welcome one, but the follow up by others in his government was
not. The initiative ended up falling by the wayside.
For the past two years I made similar efforts with the current
Australian leadership via the prime minister's team and his foreign ministry -
with frustratingly disappointing outcomes. At this point, Frimet and I have
stopped knocking on their doors.
“Justice, Tamimi, Jordan cannot possibly be partisan issues. But there you are. It’s galling.”
Varda
Epstein: Is there any US official other than Rep. Steube who has taken an
interest in your plight? Is there something American citizens can do to get
their own representatives to act? What makes this a propitious time to press
for extradition?
Arnold Roth: There is a small handful of lawmakers who have
consistently given us their support. But rather than dwell on their identities,
the larger point is that we get far less support – almost none -- from the
Democrat side. Justice, Tamimi, Jordan cannot possibly be partisan issues. But
there you are. It’s galling.
Varda
Epstein: Has what happened affected you at the polls, and if so, how? Would
you, could you ever support the man who released Tamimi from an Israeli prison?
Arnold Roth: Well phrased. The Shalit Deal cured me of any
lingering confusion about politicians capable of doing what Netanyahu and the
many who followed him into the catastrophe did. I’m no zealot and am perfectly
aware that Bibi has a large following. I don’t preach against him but I have no
hesitation in sharing my views of the man and what in my opinion he represents.
Varda
Epstein: Let’s say your efforts are rewarded, that Tamimi is extradited to the
US and tried in an American court of law. Let’s imagine that she is found
guilty and punished. What would that mean for the world, for Jordan, and for
your family?
Arnold Roth: It will be an essential affirmation that terrorism is
outside the boundaries of what society can tolerate. The failure to adhere to
this principle is a catastrophe wherever it happens. And leaders who bring
catastrophes on their people ought to suffer rejection and marginalization.
Until that happens, it’s clear to us that in fighting for the
principle, we are the ones rejected and marginalized.
Thinking too of a long list of human rights, counter-terrorism/extremism and US Jewish organizations as well as activist lawmakers in the Congress who appear to have lost their voices/keyboards as the royal figure who keeps #AhlamTamimi safe in Jordan from the @FBI came and went. pic.twitter.com/Q69obvUhOI
— Arnold Roth (@arnoldroth) May 16, 2022
*Slightly different than the passage cited in my introduction to this interview, from Background: In book, PM warned not to release terrorists. I chose to include both excerpts for greater clarity of intent.
Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon! Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. Read all about it here! |
|
- Thursday, May 19, 2022
- Elder of Ziyon
What’s to become of the Palestinians? We need to talk about Khaybar.
What about the Palestinians’ friends in the west and elsewhere, who amplify all those same slurs? They do matter, but not because they can deliver Israel bound & gagged. They can’t. They matter because they bear a good share of responsibility for leading the Palestinians into the quicksand and keeping them there, prolonging everyone’s misery. By encouraging them to keep fighting a war they’ve long since lost and by adopting every malformed phantasm of Palestinian resentment, they’ve walked with them hand in hand. The difference of course, is that it’s the Palestinians that are paying the price. Israelis are often lectured that it’s the duty of a friend to put them straight when they are going wrong. Where was the tough love for the Palestinians?JPost Editorial: Israel cannot abandon the two state solution
When the army of the Prophet swept through the Khaybar oasis, hate put the spur to his horses and sharpened the edge on his swords, and set the relationship between Muslims and Jews for the next millennium and a half, but impotent hate only clarifies its target’s vision and hardens his resolve. The Palestinians can see that what power they have is trickling away, it’s obvious in their panicky response to the Abraham Accords and any other sign of Arab “betrayal”, and even their fury at the suggestion that UNRWA might outsource some of its activities to other agencies. Hate on top of powerlessness weakens their position, but in defeat they can’t give it up.
So what is the future for the Palestinians? Where does all this leave the two-state solution, first of all? It leaves it dead. Israel has been told endlessly that it mustn’t do certain things because they will destroy the prospects for two-states, but nobody thought to tell the Palestinians that they mustn’t hate for the same reason. People who want to will put the blame on Israel, but the end result will be the same: Nations don’t choose suicide willingly and while would-be murderers of Israel may be plenty their means are insufficient. Beyond that, predicting the future is for fools but there’s little sign that Palestinian dreams will come true. Israel has been getting stronger, not weaker. More and more Arab countries, quietly or in public, are deciding that they can’t subordinate their own interests to Palestinian ones forever. Even Arab-Israelis are gradually starting to integrate more, joining the economy and the army and embracing politics that aren’t zero-sum dead ends. If Israel responds thoughtfully those numbers will only grow. If the Arab world moves on without the Palestinians there’s little reason for Europe and America not to follow suit. Do the Palestinians understand their bind? I doubt it, but they can’t leave their cage by either possible exit and I can’t see how anyone else can get them out. I truly wish they could; I don’t enjoy their suffering and a perpetually bitter and hopeless Palestinian enclave is going to continue lashing out at Israel forever. But not all stories have happy endings.
In medicine there exists something known as a sequestrum. A piece of tissue dies and, instead of the usual process of breakdown and resorption, it mummifies in place. It has no future role in the surrounding body except as a source of inflammation and pain. Is that what the Palestinian people have to look forward to, to be a permanent, irreducible focus of inflammation and hurt in the Middle East? How do we spare them and the Israelis that?
POSTSCRIPT
This piece was written before the death of the Palestinian journalist Shireen Abu Akleh in Jenin, but if I’d started writing it today it would have come out exactly the same. From the shrieks of Murder! by everyone from Mahmoud Abbas to Rashida Tlaib to the right-on Susan Sarandon; from the forthright libels of Al Jazeera, the “news” source to which Abu Akleh lent her services for 25 years, to the more veiled insinuations of once-reputable outlets like the BBC and Associated Press, it’s the proof you didn’t need. The Palestinians demonstrate their enduring ability to bruise and blacken Israel, and they get … nowhere. It couldn’t be clearer that the PA, never mind Hamas, is not thinking about coexistence. For all their talk of fairness, justice and rights, the West’s thought leaders’ stampede toward verdict before trial shows again how flexible their principles are in service of their politics. In the process, they make any thinking Jew wonder what future there is for the diaspora. And so we go on, hate and pointless violence that serves only to take the Palestinians further from a future worth having. The pain they inflict and suffer has become their substitute.
Due to the loss of hope that there is a viable solution, some people on both the Israeli and the Palestinian sides are starting to believe that their side should be in control, while the other should be deported or eliminated.
It is true that it is not possible to make peace with the aging and intransigent Mahmoud Abbas, who barely controls the West Bank, and without Israel’s help would be toppled by Hamas that wishes to wipe out the State of Israel.
But one day, Abbas will depart from this world, and what then?
Does Israel want to maintain a situation in which millions of people live under the control of its military while being refused citizenship? Or does it want to make those people citizens and lose the Jewish majority?
For over a decade, Israel made great efforts to weaken the Palestinian Authority and to strengthen Hamas. At the same time, it allowed Hamas to develop military capabilities that could terrorize the country.
It is time for Israel to strengthen its ties with moderate Palestinians and keep cooperating with pragmatic Israeli-Arabs.
Having Ra’am in the coalition is a huge and historic step in that direction.
Its leader, Mansour Abbas, has said multiple times that he recognizes Israel as a Jewish State, and that “it will stay like this.”
It is time to start talking again about solutions to the ongoing conflict with the Palestinians. Ignoring it does not serve Israel’s interests of remaining a Jewish and democratic state.
- Thursday, May 19, 2022
- Elder of Ziyon
- Shireen Abu Akleh
The Israeli army's Military Police Criminal Investigation Division does not plan to investigate the fatal shooting of Shireen Abu Akleh. The Palestinian-American journalist for Al Jazeera was killed during clashes between Israel Defense Forces soldiers and Palestinian gunmen in Jenin on May 11.
At the end of the second intifada, then-Military Advocate General, Maj. Gen. Avichai Mendelblit, instituted a protocol whereby in most cases in which Palestinian civilians were killed in the West Bank and there was a suspicion that it was caused by Israeli gunfire, a probe by the Military Police Criminal Investigation Division – better known by its Hebrew acronym, Metzah – was opened.The nonprofit organization Yesh Din said the decision not to authorize the military police to investigate the incident showed that “the army law enforcement mechanisms no longer even bother to give the appearance of investigating. Eighty percent of the complaints that are submitted are dismissed without a criminal investigation. It appears that politics and image count for more than truth and justice. An army that investigates itself in such a serious case as this again proves that it is incapable or unwilling to undertake a fair and effective probe.”
The Israel Defense Forces spokesman said in response: “During arrests undertaken on the Jenin refugee camp, heavy and uncontrolled fire was directed at IDF forces, as were more accurate shooting and the detonation of explosives that damaged army vehicles and occurred close to troops. The circumstances in which the incident occurred will be studied in an operational investigation being conducted by the head of the commando unit."
In view of the nature of the operational activity, which included intense fighting and extensive exchanges of fire, it was decided that there was no need to open a Military Police investigation at this stage. The decision was made in accordance with the Judea and Samaria investigative policy, as approved by the Supreme Court, according to which it does [not] require the opening of a criminal investigation into the death of a Palestinian during operational activity with real combat, unless there is real suspicion of a criminal offence.
The Israeli military has identified a soldier’s rifle that may have killed Al Jazeera journalist Shireen Abu Akleh, but says it cannot be certain unless the Palestinians turn over the bullet for analysis, a military official says today.
Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon! Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. Read all about it here! |
|
- Thursday, May 19, 2022
- Elder of Ziyon
Home demolished in Ofra in 2017 |
Israel carried out eight times as many demolition orders in the West Bank against new structures built by Palestinians compared to settlers between May 2019 and the end of 2021.During that period, the Civil Administration – Israel's governing body in the West Bank – issued removal orders against 285 new Palestinian structures and razed 200. For settlers, by contrast, these figures were 84 and 25, respectively.The demolition orders were issued in accordance with the Removal of New Structures Order, which took effect in 2019 and was upheld by the High Court of Justice. It requires residents to present a building permit within 96 hours, after which Civil Administration inspectors are permitted to demolish the structure without holding a hearing.The order has attracted harsh criticism from both Palestinians and Jews, because unlike ordinary demolition orders, it provides a brief time frame until the demolition is carried out, and eliminates the hearing and appeal process entirely.The Civil Administration also gave Lasky data on the number of movable structures that Israel confiscated in Areas C, including mobile homes and other structures whose transportation within the West Bank requires a permit.Between 2017-2021, four times as many movable structures were confiscated from Palestinians (3,201) than from settlers (736).
- Thursday, May 19, 2022
- Elder of Ziyon
- 1946, Ahlam Tamimi, collaboration, double standards, foreign policy, France, Hypocrisy, Jordan, Malki Roth, media silence, Mufti of Jerusalem, Sbarro Pizza, USA
Malki Roth, z"l |
French Foreign Ministry documents unearthed by Herf explain why this was never going to happen. A diplomatic memo put the matter quite directly: If the French government complied with the extradition request from Yugoslavia, or indeed from any other allied government, “we would unleash a new wave of hostility against us in all the Arab countries, and would also deprive ourselves of the interesting and fruitful contacts that the Mufti maintains with important figures from the Arab world.”In June 1946, French security forces guarding the house where Husseini was detained conveniently left the door open and he “escaped” to Egypt. The Mufti was granted asylum by King Farouk and received a rapturous reception upon his return. In Cairo, he was greeted as a conquering hero by the founder of the islamofascist Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan al-Banna. The Mufti, al-Banna declared, was a great leader who “challenged an empire and fought Zionism with the help of Hitler and Germany. Germany and Hitler are gone, but Amin al-Husseini will continue the struggle.”
American progressives and leftists who later pushed for Israel’s independence first came together to launch a public campaign to bring the Mufti to justice for his collaboration with the Nazis and for possible war crimes. But Husseini was shielded from prosecution by high-level government officials in the US and France who were determined to protect Western influence in the Arab world. In Washington, the sudden concern for the Mufti’s safety came from the same anti-Zionist faction within the Truman administration that later tried to block the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine.
Wednesday, May 18, 2022
Denying Jewish Identity Is the Epitome of Anti-Semitism
The far-right nationalist tells me I’m not white. The progressive liberal tells me I am. The former explicitly wants me dead; the latter wants me to strip away any allegiance to myself as a Jew in favor of claiming a privilege that goes only so far.Double Standard Against Jews
So which is more sinister? In People Love Dead Jews, Dara Horn makes a distinction between two kinds of anti-Semitism, represented by two major Jewish holidays: Purim and Hanukkah. With Purim anti-Semitism, Horn explains, “the goal is openly stated and unambiguous: Kill all the Jews.” This is the anti-Semitism you can see clearly. It’s the anti-Semitism of Haman and is similar in content to what the Nazis advanced: “We want to kill you because you are Jewish.” That kind of anti-Semitism is indeed terrifying, and it has led to millennia-long trauma, including the Holocaust and numerous pogroms. More recently, we see it among the white nationalists and in the sharp rise in anti-Semitic violence, including the 2018 mass shooting at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh.
But the other type of Jew-hatred—“Hanukkah anti-Semitism”—is less overt and harder to parse. “The goal is still to eliminate Jewish civilization,” Horn writes. But it may be achieved “while leaving the warm, de-Jewed bodies of its former practitioners intact.” Today, Hanukkah anti-Semitism is couched in nominally noble pursuits such as social justice, civil rights, freedom of the oppressed, and the intersectional movement. This kind of anti-Semitism, promoted by the Hanukkah villain Antiochus, doesn’t outwardly encourage Jew-killing. Instead, it tells Jews to hide or erase their Jewishness by disavowing their practices, history, unique identity—and, especially in recent years, Israel—in favor of assimilating into a larger culture. It’s the anti-Semitism that says, “Go ahead and be Jewish, but don’t make a fuss about it.” As Hellenistic Jews tried to integrate elements of Greek culture into their lives, traditional Jews pushed back, leading to the eventual Maccabean revolt against the Seleucid Empire, from 167 to 160 B.C.E.
But the desire to blend into the surrounding population can be seen at various points in Jewish history. There is perhaps no example more illustrative of this than the practice of foreskin restoration—or epispasm. In ancient Greco-Roman culture, intact genitals were seen as beautiful, masculine, and ideal. In the first century C.E., under Roman rule, Jewish men in the gymnasia—where exercise was done in the nude—felt an enormous pressure to reverse their ritual circumcisions to avoid stigma in a society that viewed an exposed glans as vulgar and indecent. Roughly 2,000 years later, some European Jews sought foreskin restoration to avoid Nazi persecution. And in Russia during the Soviet Union, the practice of circumcision was forbidden—as were most religious practices—leading most Russian Jews at the time to forgo the tradition to avoid discrimination, or to risk the procedure by way of clandestine underground networks of mohels.
Hanukkah anti-Semitism continues to be problematic for today’s Jews, especially those living in the United States. While most American Jews espouse liberal values, their access to those circles where such values are championed has come at a cost. No longer do we feel pressured to reverse circumcisions, but we are more insistently being told to whitewash ourselves or be whitewashed by society without our consent. With progressives increasingly conflating the Jewish people with whiteness in their postmodern power rubric, American Jews find themselves stuck with nowhere to turn when faced with white supremacists who want them dead.
A controversy erupted in the White House earlier this year when it was reported that Vice President Kamala Harris’ newly-hired communications director, Jamal Simmons, had posted statements on social media several years earlier that were offensive to undocumented immigrants. After criticism from progressive and Latino activists about his decade-old tweets, Simmons offered a tepid apology and met with members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus to explain his thinking on immigration-related policy. The tempest blew over quickly because Simmons made it clear that he was a strong supporter of immigration reform and that his online comments did not reflect his true beliefs.Calling Obama administration ‘cowardly,’ Danny Danon releases book on UN tenure
Contrast Simmons’ situation with that of Karine Jean-Pierre, the new White House press secretary, who authored an article for Newsweek magazine a few years back in which she attacked the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) for what she calls “severely racist, Islamophobic rhetoric.” In the article, she accused Israel of potentially committing war crimes in its attacks on Gaza, and charged AIPAC with “trafficking in anti-Muslim and anti-Arab rhetoric while lifting up Islamophobic voices and attitudes.”
When Jean-Pierre assumed her new role as chief presidential spokesperson this week, there was no similar outcry such as that which Simmons had faced. Nor has she explained or apologized for her condemnations of both Israel and its primary advocacy group. Joe Biden is not an anti-Zionist or an antisemite, not in the least, any more than Kamala Harris is anti-immigrant. But the very different responses to their advisors’ transgressions is yet another reminder that denigration of the Jewish state and its people is more commonly accepted than equally bigoted attacks on other marginalized targets.
In the days after last weekend’s racist massacre in Buffalo, New York, we don’t need a reminder that anti-Jewish hatred thrives on both extreme ends of the political spectrum. The deranged gunman who cited abhorrent “replacement theory” as his motivation for killing ten people is a direct ideological descendant of the ultra-conservatives who caused such mayhem in Poway, Pittsburgh and Charlottesville. Nor is this column an attempt to equate Jean-Pierre’s noxious statements with much uglier acts of violence, bloodshed and murder.
But just as the new White House spokesperson accuses AIPAC of fomenting violence with language that she finds objectionable, her brand of anti-Zionist bias provides false comfort to those who engage in violence against Israel and Jews. Issue-based differences are an entirely legitimate and necessary part of political debate. But the vilification of an entire people has no place in the public square, and those who engage in such behavior should not be speaking on behalf of the leader of the free world. (Jean-Pierre’s defenders can argue that her disparagement of Israel is based on legitimate policy difference, but the fact that Simmons’ postings represented an opposing belief on U.S. immigration policy did not protect him from either criticism or from the need to apologize.)
In December 2016, less than a month before US president Barack Obama left the White House, the UN passed Security Council Resolution 2334. The resolution blasted Israel for building West Bank and East Jerusalem settlements, which, according to the resolution, have “no legal validity” and are “a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-state solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace.”
Washington stunned Israel by abstaining on the resolution, amid a nadir in ties between the countries under Obama and then-prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, allowing it to pass and drawing the ire of Israeli officials.
Danny Danon was Israel’s ambassador at the UN when the vote was passed, a job he calls “the most intense and demanding position in the Israeli diplomatic world” in his new book, “In the Lion’s Den: Israel and the World,” released on Tuesday.
Danon tells the story of the infamous resolution from his perch at the UN, lambasting Obama and then-US secretary of state John Kerry for “working diligently behind the scenes to make the resolution and its passage a reality before they left office.
“I had hoped [Obama’s] thinking would be stronger than his emotions, but it was not the case,” Danon writes. “He wanted to conclude his term with a UN resolution that would define the legacy of his Middle East policy.”
Danon also reveals the roles Ukraine and Russia, who are now fighting a bitter war in Europe, played in the lead-up to the vote. Kyiv wanted to abstain, according to Danon, and was under pressure from Israel and the incoming Donald Trump administration to do so.
“At the end, they decided to support the resolution,” writes Danon, “because they were afraid that President Obama would take measures, even at the eleventh hour of his administration, to hurt them.”
- Wednesday, May 18, 2022
- Varda Meyers Epstein (Judean Rose)
- interview, Judean Rose, Opinion, Richard Landes, Shireen Abu Akleh, Varda
Interview with
Richard Landes
Shireen Abu Aqleh died in the performance of her job as a
journalist. That is an undeniable fact. Just about everything else you’ve heard
from the mainstream media, however, is a lie.
The party responsible for Abu Aqleh’s death could not be
identified by the official PA coroner, yet the media (and Susan Sarandon) have unequivocally
pointed a finger at Israel.
None of this outrage and blame is about determining whether it was an Israeli or an Arab bullet that killed Abu Aqleh in a crossfire. The allegations are far worse: Israel is charged with the
deliberate execution of Abu Aqleh, though there is no evidence to back this claim and no reason to believe it is true.
All of which makes this a blood libel.
What is a blood libel, really? It is a false allegation, a
cynical use of dead people to smear and foment violence against the Jews. And
the media would not serve it up to you on a plate unless the public were hungry
for it—unless they themselves hated the Jews as a concept and a people.
In that sense, the Abu Aqleh story is not a fresh news
cycle, but an old story. The comparison to the Mohammed al Durah story, in
which the shooting death of young boy was falsely pinned on Israel, is obvious.
And there is no one better to weigh in on how these two news stories have been
handled than Professor Richard Landes.
Prof. Landes documented the blood libel that was the al Durah story. It was Landes who coined the term “Pallywood” to describe the theater put on for the media by so-called “Palestinian” Arabs in their cognitive war against the Jews. The media lapped up the al Durah fakery and more than that, helped to create it.
Pallywood I - According to Palestinian Sources from Israel on Vimeo.
Here, Richard Landes offers his insight on this newest example
of Pallywood in regard to the death of Shireen Abu Aqleh, and how the media is
helping to amplify this latest blood libel against the Jews.
Varda Epstein: It seems obvious to draw comparisons to the shooting death of Abu Aqleh and that of al Durah. The accusations that Al Durah’s death was at the hands of the IDF turned out not to be true. There was a longstanding attempt to cover up the truth not only by an Arab populace hostile to Israel, but by the media, and in fact, this was a collaborative effort between the two.
Some recent footage has been
aired showing gunmen gleefully stating that an IDF soldier had been shot, after
which they began to drag the victim out, presumably to confirm or ensure “his”
death, only to discover that the body was that of Abu Aqleh. If this short
footage is as it seems, what do the accusations against the IDF signify, and
how is this similar to what happened with al Durah? Is there a pattern here?
Richard Landes: The pattern is, above all, the successful accusation
of deliberate murder of an innocent civilian carried forward as completely
plausible, if not news, by Western news media. We heard immediately about a
sniper, and claims by the eyewitnesses of deliberate, cold-blooded murder.
There is no way they can know this; and now that we know the caliber of the
bullet, sniper fire is out. But the media relayed the accusation (who else
would kill her?).
In the case of al Durah, the details are very different. It was staged; and the body that was buried
was not
the boy who was allegedly shot. But the key accusation, what fuels the
blood libel that the IDF deliberately targeted the boy, was not only made by
the cameraman (Talal abu Rahmah) in a
signed affidavit – which he later withdrew in a private
fax – but more significantly by Charles Enderlin in his voiceover: “la
cible de tirs venus de la position israélienne” [the target of fire coming from
the Israeli position]. He thus became the first self-identified Jew (an Israeli
who served as IDF spokesperson!) to spread a blood libel against his people.
Asked later by an Israeli journalist why he spoke of the IDF
targeting them when he had no evidence, he replied, “If
I hadn’t… they’d say in Gaza ‘How come Enderlin does not say it’s the IDF?’”
The response was so damning (not clear that Enderlin even
realized that) that HaAretz removed it from their English version of the
article. What on earth is an Israeli (or any) journalist doing taking orders
from Gaza in a matter of assessing Israel’s “murderous intentions”?
Richard Landes holding his film, "Pallywood" |
Varda Epstein: Did
the al Durah episode set certain precedents in the “cogwar,” the term you have
coined for cognitive warfare? Can you elaborate on that for us?
Richard Landes: Above all, it confirmed what the
Palestinians had long claimed, but Western media was reluctant to believe
(given the IDF’s code and behavior), namely that Israel deliberately kills kids
and other civilians. From this point on, any claims Palestinians made of
Israelis killing kids got ready credulity from the press. More important even
than that, it meant that every time the Palestinians attacked Israel and Israel
responded, the press led with the Israeli response. So, for example, Jacques
Chirac told Ehud Barak on October 4, 2000, in what may be one of the stupider
comments of the day: “You will never
convince anyone that the Palestinians are the aggressors.”
He thus made it
impossible for the West to see the first round of a global jihad which would
soon target them as well, not just Israel.
As a result,
Palestinian terror became a measure of Israeli guilt – they have “no choice”
but to fight back. By 2003, at the height of the suicide terror war against
Israel, Ian Buruma commented (as a self-evident aside) that being
pro-Palestinian was a “litmus test of liberal credentials.” The very meme now
so powerfully embedded in current “progressive” discourse – IDF are
child-killers – starts with al Durah.
Varda Epstein: What
lessons have the enemy learned from what happened with al Durah? How are these
lessons applied today?
Richard Landes: They’ve learned that they can count on the media to promote their war propaganda as news (lethal war journalism), even when it’s against their own interest (promoting the enemy’s war propaganda as news = own-goal war journalism). I put together the eight basic principles of the Palestinian Media Protocols for Western journalists:
Palestinian Media Protocols
1. The Palestinians are the noble resistors - David. | 2. The Israelis are the cruel oppressors - Goliath. |
3. Thou shalt always portray Palestinians as victims, never as Aggressors. | 4. Thou shalt never portray the Israelis as victims, always as Aggressors. |
5. Thou shalt not portray Palestinians unsympathetically. | 6. Thou shalt not portray Israel sympathetically. |
7. Thou shalt not challenge or undermine Palestinian claims. | 8. Thou shalt challenge and undermine Israeli claims. |
journalist sets up the interviewee w leading question, he spikes it into an imaginary israeli side. fine ex of partisan journalism that shrinks our cognitive world daily.@richard_landes #Vimeo https://t.co/S9XSm9RXrI
— Richard Landes (@richard_landes) May 18, 2022
Varda Epstein: Has
Israel absorbed the full significance of the al Durah episode, and developed
any significant, responsive strategies going forward?
Richard Landes: Not really. First of all it took over a
decade for them to even challenge al Durah (as in not supporting Karsenty in
his court cases), until the Kuperwasser commission tackled it, but even that
was not promoted as it should have been. There was a brief moment when some
took the cogwar seriously, but rather than learn from the people who had been
fighting the cogwar for over a decade, they charged ahead without really
understanding the dynamics. More broadly – and this may be a hard-wired problem
for Israelis – they don’t understand the antisemitism underlining the appeal.
They think – as I did initially – that it’s about information. But that’s just
the most superficial level, and appeals to the empirical are limited. The
Palestinian appeal to the West (alas Western progressives), is the latter’s apparently
insatiable appetite for news of Jews behaving badly. Hard to fight that.
Thus, to take the most important issue in Abu Aqleh’s death,
the immediate accusations of a sniper deliberately killing her, of the IDF
opening fire on the journalists, wasn’t addressed. Instead, they tried to
suggest that the Palestinians shot her – very possible – but didn’t immediately
counter the “murder” charges (i.e. they focused on the empirical, not the question
of intention). And that’s what the media ran with. So, when the Palestinians
announced the caliber of the bullet, what should have been a major victory for
Israel – it was not a sniper, the “eyewitness” testimony was not honest –
became a fight over a joint forensic investigation. Huge opportunity lost.
Varda Epstein: How is
world response to Abu Aqleh’s death similar to that of al Durah’s?
Richard Landes: The immediate acceptance of the accusation
of deliberate murder, the ferocious attention to the event (as opposed to the 487
other journalists killed in war zones in the last two decades, none of whom
have received this kind of attention). And, of course, many on the Palestinian
side try to make the comparison. Certainly, in terms of how angered the Arab
world is at this news, it’s comparable. Vic Rosenthal, one of the most astute
bloggers on these issues put
it this way:
If the production called “the death of Muhammad al-Dura” is the Gone With the Wind of Pallywood,* then the recent extravaganza starring Shireen abu Akleh is on its way to becoming its Star Wars.
Acceptable "Resistance." According to Susan Sarandon, apparently. https://t.co/syMU7UWGWD
— (((Varda Epstein))) (@VardaEpstein) May 16, 2022
I count three M-16s among her pallbearers here, held by what appear to be Jenin gunmen rather than uniformed Palestinian officers. https://t.co/wLsJhwE2IL pic.twitter.com/Nirohe9wp2
— Dan Williams (@DanWilliams) May 11, 2022
Varda Epstein: Israel
has stepped up with an offer to work together on the investigation of Abu
Aqleh’s death, and the PA has refused to cooperate, yet world leaders are
condemning Israel. Why? Why is the Biden Administration taking sides, and
pretending that both sides are refusing to cooperate in an investigation, when
only one side is doing so, the PA?
Richard Landes: The Biden administration is in the hands of
people who have bought the Palestinian line. They don’t even have to be in the
radical pro-Palestinian camp (like Tlaib and Omar); they just don’t understand
the stakes and the rules of the game. So while supporting the Palestinian
“narrative” of suffering at the hands of Israel has them thinking they’re
siding with the underdog freedom fighters against the colonial oppressors,
they’re actually siding with the global imperialists trying to wipe out Israel
and subject the rest of the world to the Caliphate. The height of the folly
came two years later when Europeans, responding to their news media’s lethal
journalism about a “massacre” in Jenin, cheered on suicide terrorists
who would soon target them.
Varda Epstein: What
do you think of the police response to protesters trying to abscond with Abu
Aqleh’s casket, against the wishes of her family? Was the response appropriate?
Does it matter what the world thinks of what happened, or how they rush to
judgment based on the footage aired by those aiming to demonize Israel?
Richard Landes: Classic and typical. Assume that the Palestinians are a single unit and the Israelis are yahoos. The thought that the (Christian) family might object to jihadis hijacking their funeral doesn’t even enter their minds. The Israeli police was caught in an impossible catch 22 situation; whatever they did, they lost. This cartoon from the Arab side illustrates nicely how they won this round.
Varda Epstein: Why is
the Biden Administration seemingly so ready to weigh in on the Abu Aqleh
shooting while it refrains from pressuring King Abdullah to extradite
Ahlam al Tamimi? Abu Aqleh was an American citizen, but so were Malki Roth
and Shoshana Greenbaum. Shouldn’t Biden act on these much older murders of
American citizens before pointing a finger at Israel, America’s supposedly
greatest ally, for this new incident, especially since the investigation of Abu
Aqleh’s death is incomplete?
Richard Landes: The basic rules of the game have to do with
whom you want (or don’t want) to cross. No one in the West wants to cross Arab
Muslims. Say no to Israelis and at most they whine; say no to Arabs and there’s
no end to the problems that can ensue. Same thing with antisemitic cartoons
like the one Dave
Brown did of Sharon as Chronos devouring Palestinian babies which got an
award from the British Political Cartoon Society because it outraged the
Israelis and got so many hits. When Martin Himmel asked why not a cartoon of
Arafat eating Palestinian babies? the head of the BPCS said:
Maybe [because] Jews don’t issue
fatwas . . . if you offend a Muslim or Islamic group, as you know, fatwas can
be issued by ayatollahs and such like, and maybe it’s at the back of each
cartoonist’s mind that they could be in trouble if they do so . . . if they
depict an Arab leader in the same manner . . . they could suffer death,
couldn’t they? Which is rather different. [smiles disconcertingly].
With the Roths’ case, I think it’s not so much that the US
fears the king’s retaliation, but that the king will be fatally compromised by their
forcing him to side with Western infidels against a fellow Muslim considered a
“heroine” by so many. It says a lot about Jordanian society, not surprising,
but rarely stated: the “alliance” we have with our allies in this part of the
authoritarian world is not very deep (in contrast to Israel). If Westerners had
understood this better, rather than pretending all cultures are equal and the
same and the Arabs (according to the post-Orientalists) are on the verge of
democracy, we would not have named the events of 2010-11 the “Arab Spring.”
Varda Epstein: How
legitimate is it for the Arabs to claim Shireen Abu Aqleh as a martyr when she
was not even a Muslim?
Richard Landes: Not at all. But that’s only in a world where
real definitions and identities matter. Palestinians will say anything that
works. If calling her a martyr galvanizes their world, what’s the problem with
that?
They can easily make three radically different assertions
serially: 1) the holocaust never happened, 2) the Israelis are doing to the
Palestinians what the Nazis did to the Jews, 3) we want to finish Hitler’s job.
In the Arab Muslim world, each of these appeal for a different reason, and they
all have a great deal of power. The pathetic part of the story is that
Westerners don’t see through it, and so deplore them for saying 1), accept
their claim of 2), and ignore 3).
Same with their claims about the media. On the one hand they
can relish political cartoons like the one above, while on the other, claim that
Israel controls the media. If it feels good – builds “us” up, tears “them”
down – go for it.
Varda Epstein: Many
have said Israel should not be mourning the death of Abu Aqleh considering she
worked for Al Jazeera, and
independent of working for an antisemitic, anti-Israel outlet, had views in
line with those sentiments. Is this a relevant consideration, in your opinion?
Richard Landes: I don’t know her work, but clearly the Palestinians thought she was on their side (hardly surprising for someone who has worked for a propaganda outlet). I certainly understand Israelis who do not mourn the death of someone who regularly engaged in Palestinian lethal journalism. The irony of course, is that the Palestinians insist that the Israelis shot her because of her journalism, which is a perfect projection of what they’d do to any journalist who had the nerve not to comply with their protocols.
Varda Epstein: How
hard do the Palestinians have to fake it until they make it? Does the media
question the Pally side of things? Does the public? Is the death of Abu Aqleh
convenient as an opportunity for the media, kind of like a supply and demand
situation for material that demonizes Israel in the public eye? If so, why does
the public so desire this type of “news?”
Richard Landes: They don’t have to try too hard. The original
title of the book I’m publishing in October was They’re so Smart cause we’re
so Stupid. Partly it was inspired by how cheap the al Durah fake was, and
how eagerly the media and “progressive” public snatched it up. In the case of
Pallywood, for example, the Western news editors take obviously faked footage
and turn it into believable sight-bytes.
My friend David Deutsch has a theory about a kind of social
constant (he calls it “The
Pattern”) – the need to legitimate hurting Jews. This kind of lethal
journalism that feeds Palestinian propaganda into the Western (dis)information
stream serves that need.
Put in psychological terms, I think there’s a moral rivalry
here between the “progressive global left” (in USA, “woke”), who feel they’re
at the cutting edge of global morality, and their only serious competitors are
the first and oldest claimant to that moral title, namely the Jews. As a result
they’re involved (largely, I think unconsciously) in a
kind of supersessionism – we replace the Jews as moral leaders – and
therefore, like the Christian and Muslim supersessionists before them, they
revel in news that makes the Israelis look bad. As a result, the most
progressive nation – by far, by light years – in the Middle East appears on the
progressive screens as the worst violator of human rights, fascism and racism,
while the most right-wing, imperialist, misogynist, genocidal movement on the
planet appears on their screens as part of a global left anti-imperialist
alliance.
They then open the door to an even more insidious form of
replacement theory, the projection onto the Jews of a notion of chosenness
which is a) not Jewish, and b) often gentile supersessionist, namely that being
chosen gives the chosen the right to treat the non-chosen as subhuman (hence
the appeal of the blood libel). That of course, thrives on descriptions
of Israelis massacring Gazans and is impervious to any evidence that Hamas
is killing Gazans.
Varda Epstein: Did
Israel take the right steps, following the death of Shireen Abu Aqleh? What
more could Israel have done to respond to this event?
Richard Landes: As I said, the focus should have been
immediately to counter – nay ridicule – the accusations of deliberate murder. Even
if we did shoot her, we didn’t do it on purpose. By focusing on this issue, the
validity of Palestinian claims could have been undermined early on.
***
Richard Landes is a retired medieval history professor,
living in Jerusalem. His next book, entitled: Can “The Whole World” be
Wrong? A Medievalist’s Guide to the Troubled 21st Century, is due to be published in October
by Academic Studies Press.
Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon! Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. Read all about it here! |
|