Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Monday, January 16, 2023

What happens when they call a boycott and nobody cares?

Friends of Al Aqsa started a campaign to convince Pret a Manger not to open up stores in Israel.

It looks like they started their campaign on January 9, asking people to use the hashtag "#PretAPartheid."

It isn't exactly trending on Twitter on Facebook.

But they are trying to make it sound HUGE. So they have enlisted their fellow propaganda "news" sites, Middle East Monitor and Palestine Chronicle, to claim that "pressure is mounting" on Pret a Manger.

They claim that they have sent 350 emails to the company's president so far, which for a week-old campaign is not very impressive. And their social media hashtags are going nowhere.

They aren't giving up, trying to get Israel-haters to hand out leaflets at the store locations on January 28 (naturally, a Saturday.)

This isn't the only boycott that FOA has attempted that went nowhere. They are actually pretending to boycott Coca Cola for having a plant in Atarot - while Coke is enjoyed by Palestinians.

Perception is everything, and over the next couple of weeks you will see Israel haters pretend that this campaign is successful. But in the end it is all a means to get more people for Friends of Al Aqsa's mailing list.

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!

To understand today's antisemitism disguised as anti-Zionism, look to the past

An independent report was released last week looking at allegations of pervasive antisemitism at the National Union of Students (NUS) in the United Kingdom.

The antisemitism is closely linked with anti-Zionism, where Jewish students are lightning rods for students' hate against Israel.

As Spiked Online summarizes the report:

Written by barrister Rebecca Tuck, the report depicts an NUS that views anti-Semitism as a second-order problem, the scale of which is exaggerated by Jewish students. Too many NUS leaders seem to believe that anti-Semitism is far less important than other forms of discrimination.

Tuck’s report is damning. ‘For at least the last decade’, she argues, ‘Jewish students have not felt welcome or included in NUS spaces or elected roles’. Indeed, many Jewish students feel that the NUS treats them as pariahs. In numerous instances, leading NUS members have consciously downplayed the significance of instances of anti-Jewish hate.

Typically, complaints of racism are taken very seriously by the NUS, and in higher education more broadly. The mere hint of racial harassment on campus causes universities to denounce themselves as ‘institutionally racist’. That is, unless the complaint is about an incident of anti-Semitism. Often, the report shows, Jewish students were told that what they saw as anti-Semitism was merely legitimate criticism of Israel. When Jewish students pointed out, to the contrary, that they had been vilified for being Jewish, not their political beliefs, their complaints were downplayed or dismissed.

As Tuck persuasively argues, the NUS has persistently deflected these complaints because of its pro-Palestine stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Indeed, in recent years, it has seemed that some leaders of the NUS hold Jewish students answerable for the actions of Israel. This has resulted in an environment that is deeply hostile to Jews.

The offenders always argue back that they are simply pro-Palestinian, not antisemitic (and the Jews should stop being so touchy.)

Once again, history provides us with the answer to that charge.

75 years ago, on January 15, 1948, the Palestine Post had these three small articles on page 3 out of 4.

Just as in the UK today, the objects of attack are all Jews - Jews assumed to be guilty by association with Zionism. It is obvious antisemitism.

Yet also just as in the UK today, all of these episodes would have been dismissed by the anti-Zionists of the time as a normal reaction to the evils of Zionism and having nothing to do with Jews as Jews.

From the perspective of 75 years later, no one can seriously argue that the episodes in Mexico, Syria and Beirut were not pure antisemitism. The attackers at the time didn't even to pretend to distinguish Zionists from Jews - only their apologists did that.

But can anyone doubt that the "anti-Zionist" aggression we see today on campus and elsewhere doesn't have the exact same sources, the same motivations and the same mental processes behind them as those in these three articles?

The only thing that has changed in 75 years is that the modern antisemites try to be more careful in their language to avoid explicitly saying that Jews are their target. (The Soviets turned that into a science.) But the vitriol is the same, the boycotts and marginalization are the same, the threats are the same, and the hysterical hate against a minority is the same.

Sadly, the reactions from the authorities in charge (the President of AUB willing to discuss the demands of antisemites as if they had validity) are the same, too.

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!

01/16 Links Pt1: Bipartisan US Bill to Sanction Hamas Backers; Iranian Imam Paid Secret Visit to Israel, Met with Netanyahu Officials; What’s life like under Hamas? ‘Whispered in Gaza’ offers unique, courageous testimony

From Ian:

Bipartisan Bill Introduced to Sanction Hamas Backers

There’s a reason why we call Israel our strongest ally. We share the same ideals of freedom, democracy, and mutual respect for all people. That’s why I fight for policies in Congress that will strengthen Israel and, in turn, bolster our own national security.

One of the biggest threats to Israel - and to those shared values - is Hamas.

Hamas has launched tens of thousands of missiles into Israel, indiscriminately killing hundreds of men, women, and children. The continued aggression has rightly earned Hamas a global terrorist organization designation from the United States.

That, however, does not go far enough to neutralize the threat these Islamic extremists pose to Israel. That is why today, I introduced a bipartisan bill that would sanction all financial backers of Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, or their affiliates: the Hamas International Financing Prevention Act. Any person, group, or government who supports Hamas is complicit, and the U.S. should not reward them with aid or access to our economy.

This bill, cosponsored by Congressman Josh Gottheimer, passed the House in the previous Congress as a part of the National Defense Authorization Act, but was unfortunately removed from the bill by the Senate. However, the bipartisan support it has received in the House shows us that we have the momentum to get it to the President’s desk to become law.

The Hamas International Financing Prevention Act sends a strong message that the United States will not tolerate anybody who supports these terrorists. It’s about confronting hate and standing with our allies. Period.

Jews have indigenous rights to the Temple Mount - opinion

In what parallel universe could the visit of a Jewish politician to Judaism’s most holy site be considered controversial?

To those uninitiated in the Orwellian fantasy world of Palestinian politicking, a Jew praying at the site of Israel’s ancient temples seems as natural and unremarkable as the wetness of water or the Catholicness of the Pope. But to those indoctrinated into the Palestinian narrative, the visit of an Israeli politician to the holiest site in Judaism is seen as highly provocative, risking a violent Palestinian reaction and deserving of a special meeting of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) – the world body tasked with monitoring the world’s sensitive hotspots.

UNSC meets over Ben-Gvir's Temple Mount visit over other important issues
While the violent uprising did not occur, the UNSC did indeed meet. Never mind the Russia-Ukraine War, the deteriorating human rights situation in Iran or nuclear weapons development by Iran and North Korea. All these were apparently trumped by an Israeli politician having the audacity to visit Judaism’s most holy site.

Israel’s new right-wing National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir’s 13-minute peaceful visit to the Temple Mount was described by Arab states as ‘“storming the Al-Aqsa Mosque courtyard.” The false accusation that the visit was an attempt to change the status quo and the general outrage directed toward the incident ignores the fact that Jews have a right to visit the Temple Mount according to the agreement between Israel and Jordan following the 1967 war.

Israel had gained control of the Temple Mount but her leaders chose to preserve the status quo regarding Al-Aqsa compound, thus giving custodianship responsibilities for administration and religious arrangements to Jordan, while retaining responsibility for security and public order. Many now regard this concession, offered in the hope of alleviating the conflict, as a mistake.

Jews are only allowed to visit the Temple Mount at specified times, taking a predetermined route. They must be accompanied by security. Jews are prohibited from praying at the site considered the center of Judaism. These restrictions are not only absurd but highlight the fact that an outdated, discriminatory system is being imposed on Jews in a way that can only be seen as antisemitic.

Ambassador Alan Baker, director of the Institute for Contemporary Affairs at the Jerusalem Center and the head of the Global Law Forum, points out, “A status quo that perpetuates an ancient and outdated social structure that no longer exists, that practices religious discrimination and denies or restricts rights of worship, is blatantly incompatible with accepted international norms and concepts of equality, human rights, freedom of religion and worship, interreligious and intercultural dialogue, tolerance, understanding and cooperation.”

Netanyahu: Israel Cannot be Swept Away by ‘Inflammatory’ Slogans

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday defended his government’s judicial reform plan and called on opposition leaders to stop threatening “civil war” and speaking of “the destruction of the state.”

Netanyahu began his remarks to Sunday’s Security Cabinet meeting by noting that in November “there was a huge demonstration, the mother of all demonstrations. Millions of people went into the streets in order to vote in the elections. One of the main topics that they voted on was reforming the judicial system.

“In recent days, I have heard about an attempt to claim that the public did not know what it was voting for. Then here is a quote, one of many, from me and my colleagues during the election campaign. This is my quote: ‘We will make the necessary changes in the judicial system, prudently and responsibly. We are going to change the system, to save it and not destroy it.’”

Words to this effect had been uttered in the past by both right- and left-wing governments, he continued, “and nobody thought then that it was the ‘end of democracy.’”

The true aim of the reforms is to “restore the balance between the authorities that existed in Israel for 50 years, and which is maintained today in all western democracies,” he continued.

“I must say that when we were in the opposition, we did not call for civil war and did not speak about the destruction of the state, even when the government made decisions that we vociferously opposed. I expect the leaders of the opposition to do the same,” he added.

Netanyahu urged opposition leaders to instead engage in “in-depth and serious dialogue” on the proposals in the Knesset and its associated committees, while urging the public to not “be swept away by inflammatory slogans about civil war and the destruction of the state.”

From famed journalist and historian Jon Kimche, writing for the Palestine Post, January 14, 1948:

A leading Arab personality, close to leaders of the [Arab] Higher Executive, who has just returned from a tour of most of the Arab capitals, yesterday gave me a picture of the Palestine situation as top Arab leaders see it.

... Conflict in Palestine was unavoidable, he thought , and it would be accompanied by the close economic blockade of thc Jewish State , which would go on until one side or the other was prepared to surrender unconditionally.

The Arabs would call off the fight, he said, if the Jews abandoned the Jewish State and immigration. No other terms would be acceptable.

The Husseinis, he said , were confident that in the long run - perhaps three or four years—they could break the Jewish State and force the submission of Palestine Jewry though this might cost the Palestine Arabs an enormous number of casualties. The Arabs had a great advantage, as they held life cheaply and had little to lose in Palestine in contrast to the Jews.

Discussing the military line-up inside Palestine, he estimated that in the opening phases, the Jews would have an actual striking force of about 10,000 men, and that the striking force available for the Arabs would be about 5,000 active guerrillas . He calculated that the incidence of fighting and terrorist actions against nonparticipating Arabs will gradually draw into the conflict Arabs who at present are opposed and unwilling to join in the battle, and this wonkl become a constant source for the reinforcement of Arab strength.

He also banked on changes in the international situation which would create great difficulties in the long run for the Jewish State, which would have to draw its resources and food supplies largely from overseas.

"This is how we see it," concluded this Arab personality. "We do not underrate the strength of the Jews, and we think that the issue will be decided not so much by pure weapon power, but ultimately on the decision of who will crack first politically, psychologically and morally. On that we place all our cards. It will be a long struggle and it will require taut nerves."

The highlighted text is more telling than it seems. He is saying that Palestinian Arabs did not have as emotional a tie to the land as the Jews do, so they had "little to lose" - they could go elsewhere in the Arab world if necessary. The Jews don't have that luxury.

The Arab thinking is that the Jewish regard for human life would demoralize them and force them to flee, but they had nowhere else to go. That is why this analyst had it exactly backward - the Arab fighters had little incentive to risk their lives, while the Jews had no choice but to stand and defend their land.

An analogy could be made to Ukraine today - one side is fighting for their homeland, and while the other side also claims the same land, its fighters don't care much about it, even though they seem to have far more military assets available. And just like the Arab world at the time, the Russian side is happy to play the long game, thinking that they will force the other side to surrender by running out of resources and food.

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!

The era of self-righteous indignation - and politically correct antisemitism

As the story of classified papers being discovered in Joe Biden's private residences snowballs, it is fun to watch the hypocrisy on both sides of the aisle. The people who are filled with anger at Biden were nonchalant when Donald Trump was found to have done the exact same thing, and those who were in the forefront of being angry at Trump are muted now.

It is fairly obvious that neither side really believes that national secrets that jeopardize the security of the United States were revealed in either case. Both episodes are excuses to score political points, to attack and injure the hated enemy.

The classified papers are a prop, an excuse to act morally righteous. But there is no morality involved here - if there was, then there should be an identical response to both episodes.

How many people have responded the same in both cases? I haven't seen any. (I don't want to downplay the seriousness of either situation - the laws are there for a reason - but it seems highly unlikely that in either case there was a malicious intent.)

The partisan nature of the responses to both episodes is proof that morality isn't the driver, but smugness. It isn't righteous indignation, it is self-righteous indignation. It isn't virtuous, it is virtue signaling. It is a message to the world - my political enemy is beneath contempt while I am morally superior. He does despicable things that my side would never do (and if it does, it is completely different.)

The self-righteous indignation allows me to hate my opponent without the opprobrium normally associated with the emotion of hate.

It occurs to me that this same psyche is the norm for anti-Zionists. They claim to be righteous; they claim to be moral, they claim that their outrage is a reflection of their pristine values. But when it comes to Israel, the posturing is not merely to feel morally superior - it is to actively attack "Israelis" (meaning, today's eternal Jews) while wearing the mantle of morality.

It is politically acceptable antisemitism.

The proof is clear to those who care to open their eyes. The people who claim to be defending Palestinian rights do nothing to help Palestinian attain those rights. These moral posers don't support peace; they justify the most heinous terror attacks against Jews, they don't say a word about Palestinians being attacked or discriminated against in other Arab countries, they were silent when Palestinians were expelled from Kuwait and Iraq and Libya. Palestinian lives matter - but only when Jews can be blamed. Otherwise, they are just cannon fodder to be placed in limbo until the final battle to destroy the Jewish state.

Antisemitism has always had a measure of self-righteousness - attacking Jews was the most principled thing anyone could do. Martin Luther told his followers to burn synagogues and Jewish schools, calling it "sharp mercy." Hitler framed Jews as a cancerous danger to Germany that must be excised - and that philosophy became part of mainstream German medical ethics.

Morally sanctioned hate has an almost irresistible attraction. Imagine the psychic rewards of being not only allowed to but encouraged to express and act upon your worst instincts, assured that it is for the greater good!

Jews become the focal point of hate for everything the self-righteous find reprehensible. Climate change? US police brutality? Ocean pollution? Domestic abuse of women? Your favorite antisemite not getting the job he wanted? Anything and everything can and has been blamed on the Jews and Israel - and always couched in moral terms.

The more vicious your attacks, the more you are elevated within your circle. That's how Leila Khaled and Rasmea Odeh become heroes in the West.

Today, when more people act smugly virtuous than ever before, Jews are again the target. As they have been for centuries.

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!

The Second IDF International Conference on Laws of Armed Conflict (LOAC) took place in Tel Aviv in April, 2017. The keynote address delivered by Emeritus Professor Yoram Dinstein, former Tel Aviv University president who is recognized as one of the world's leading experts on the laws of armed conflict.

His speech is an excellent overview of the topic. It was published in the Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law.

Here are some excerpts where he describes how "human rights" NGOs and the media do not understand the functions and importance of the laws of armed conflict.

Here he discusses the differences between the laws of war and human rights law.

Another pernicious confusion is spawned by the dual existence in armed conflict of human rights law and LOAC. Naturally, there is some synergy and even a degree of overlap between the two branches of law. The prohibition of torture, which is reiterated in both bodies of law, is a leading example of such overlap. But human rights law and LOAC do collide head-on in certain critical areas. The archetypical case in point relates to recourse to force. Put in a nutshell, the pivotal question is whether lethal force can be used as a first resort or only as a last resort. In ordinary law enforcement (police) action in peacetime, lethal force can be employed against law-breakers only as a last resort. Conversely, in the course of hostilities forming part of an armed conflict, lethal force can be used against enemy combatants as a first resort on a 24/7 basis. When human rights law and LOAC clash - as they do in this respect - LOAC must prevail over human rights law because - as recognized by the International Court of Justice and other tribunals - it is the lex specialis.

The trouble is that zealous advocates of human rights law are not willing to yield the moral high ground. They behave like the high priests of a Holy Gospel who regard any deviation from their received dogma as apostasy. They fail to appreciate the special nature of armed conflict and therefore contest the overriding force of LOAC. They ignore the fact that LOAC - which is directly responsive to the unique features of warfare - is a product of a pragmatic compromise between military necessity and humanitarian considerations. They think that, by rejecting military necessity, they will lead us to utopia. But what they are liable to bring about is dystopia. If international law were to ignore military necessity, military necessity would ignore international law. Belligerent Parties would simply shed off any inhibitions in the conduct of hostilities.

Similarly, here he talks about how theoreticians and human rights law experts do not understand the purpose and use of LOAC - and indeed how their theories are not only wrong but ultimately destructive.

Frequently, there are passionate debates as to whether what we are doing in war is in full harmony with LOAC. As a rule, when the law is equivocal or controversial, the legal literature can become a useful tool in identifying and interpreting normative obligations. I myself regularly contribute to that literature, and I am not inclined to trivialize its potential import as a roadmap for practitioners. All the same, it is necessary to acknowledge the existence of a cottage industry of law review articles trying to recast LOAC, reconciling it with conditions of some fantasy land in which war can be conducted without putting any civilian in harm's way. These writings are produced not only by preachers of human rights ascendancy but also by LOAC theorists who are constantly citing each other without much concern for battleground realities (of which they seem to know very little). For persons familiar with general state practice, this is a matter of bemusement or perhaps even amusement. It is accordingly advisable to keep in mind that LOAC - just like other branches of international law - is created solely by states, in treaties or in custom. The legal chatter of armchair quarterbacks is no different from static in a telecommunications system. It must be separated from the genuine sound of law.

How many times have we seen the media claim that what Israel does is "disproportionate" without knowing what that actually means in a legal sense?

Whereas a lot is being done by all modern armed forces to train soldiers, sailors, and aviators-especially officers of all ranks-in the intricacies LOAC, not enough is being done to instruct journalists as to what is permissible and impermissible in military engagements. Media reports are therefore frequently predicated on false assumptions as to the "do"s and "don't"s of warfare.

Dinstein talks a bit about how every new conflict spawns new areas of LOAC, with which Israel is unfortunately one of the leaders. Here he challenges the ICRC for not understanding that there is no clear distinction within armed groups between "civilian" and "militant."

[There is a] broader challenge to LOAC presented by civilians directly participating in hostilities. The failure of an ICRC endeavor to engender a consensus on the range and repercussions of this omnipresent phenomenon has left much of the relevant law shrouded in doubt. Suffice it to mention the controversial ICRC advocated requirement of continuous combat function against three different backgrounds:
(a) The incidence of the so-called revolving door of "farmers-byday, fighters-by-night" and their susceptibility to attack at a time slot in between engagements in hostilities. The ICRC looks at every fraction of DPIH [direct participating in hostilities] activity separately. I (and others like me) highlight the continuum.
(b) The DPIH standing of members of organized armed groups who serve as cooks, drivers, administrative assistants, legal advisers, etc. In my opinion, it is wrong to discriminate between legal advisers in the government armed forces (like many present here)-who are categorized as combatants and are susceptible to attack-and those who are members of organized armed groups and are consequently exempt from attack according to the ICRC. For sure, organized armed groups are not inclined to issue membership cards. But for that very reason, the expectation that in the thick of battle a distinction can be made between actual fighters and accompanying support staff is illusionary.
(c) The DPIH status of those who orchestrate behind the scenes the combat activities of others through military planning, training, and recruiting of personnel. Those who fire arms are often pawns manipulated by others who are literally calling the shots while purportedly belonging to a political rather than military wing of the organized armed group. The problematics of these and other outstanding DPIH issues is fraught with battlefield dilemmas that refuse to go away.

Dinstein is hardly a hawk. Even in this speech, he criticizes Israel's policy of demolishing terrorist houses as a violation of LOAC, although he understands that one must find disincentives for suicide attackers; he prefers sealing up the houses of their families instead.

Living in Israel, he knows how LOAC must evolve to handle new situations and that Israeli rights in war are no less than the rights of Palestinians or Hezbollah - something that eludes "human rights experts" like Ken Roth.

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!

Elder Comix: The brave As-a-Jews

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!

01/15 Links: ‘Imam of Peace’ calls on Arabs, Muslims to embrace Israel; The Nation’s antisemitic spin on Kenneth Roth; 82% of Israelis believe diaspora Jews should make aliyah

From Ian:

‘Imam of Peace’ calls on Arabs, Muslims to embrace Israel

Born in Tunisia in 1972, Hassen Chalghoumi received his undergraduate degree from a university in Damascus before studying theology in Pakistan.

The father of five children, he arrived in 1996 in France, where he became the imam of the Drancy mosque in the northeastern suburbs of Paris. He has served as president of the Conference of Imams in France for almost 20 years, during which time he developed close ties to the Jewish community.

Chalghoumi’s work has in some circles earned him the moniker “Imam of the Jews,” in others as the “Imam of Peace.”

His mission: To bring people closer together in order to fight antisemitism and also Islamism, more specifically political Islam.

We sat down with Chalghoumi during his recent visit to Israel.

JNS: What brought you here?
A: In 2004-2005, I often had encounters with the members of the Jewish community and also went to Holocaust memorials since I am the imam of Drancy, a city known for its relationship to the Shoah. I have friends who spoke to me about Israel but initially I said, we are French Muslims, you are French Jews, it’s unnecessary to speak about Israel because we are neither Palestinians nor Israelis.

I had this tendency to avoid speaking about politics or international affairs and instead focus on France. But whenever I attended events that were related to the Shoah and getting closer to the Jewish community, and in relation to the [Conseil Représentatif des Institutions Juives de France, the umbrella group representing Jews in France], I was brought back to Israel and the Palestinians and Gaza.

In 2009, I made the decision to come to Israel, to get to know the Israeli population and the geopolitical situation first-hand.

JNS: Do you believe that additional Arab and Islamic countries will make peace with Israel?
A: Years ago, nobody believed that Arab countries would do so. And I would like to recognize four people, the first being Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed, the president of the United Arab Emirates, a courageous man who deserves respect. He helped bring the UAE into the modern world and he made history. Second is the king of Bahrain, I know him very well, I have great relations with him, Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa. Also, the king of Morocco, his majesty Mohammed VI. Finally, Vice President of Sudan Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo.

They had the courage to forge peace with Israel.

Khaled Abu Toameh: Palestinians slam Biden administration for failing to stop Israeli ‘escalation’

Palestinian officials have expressed disappointment with the US administration for its alleged failure to exert pressure on the Israeli government to halt the IDF security crackdown on Palestinians in the West Bank.

The officials also voiced disappointment over Washington’s failure to fulfill its promises to the Palestinians, including the reopening of the US Consulate in Jerusalem and the PLO diplomatic mission in Washington, which were closed by the administration of former US president Donald Trump.

Azzam al-Ahmed, a senior official with the ruling Fatah faction headed by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, was quoted on Saturday as saying the US administration “is not any better than the Right in Israel.

Ahmed spoke at a conference in Ramallah
Ahmed, who was speaking during a conference organized in Ramallah by the Palestinian National Initiative, a political party headed by activist Mustafa Barghouti, denounced the US administration for being “hesitant” and for making promises without fulfilling them.

Ahmed was referring to US President Joe Biden’s pledge to reopen the US Consulate in Jerusalem, which served as an unofficial diplomatic mission to the Palestinians before it was closed in 2019. He was also referring to a promise by US officials to reopen the PLO diplomatic mission in Washington, which was closed by the Trump administration in 2018.

PA presidential spokesman Nabil Abu Rudeineh warned that the “ambiguity” of the US administration’s stance toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would prompt the Palestinians to react in a different manner.

By Daled Amos

Numbers don’t lie, but what diplomats sometimes do with numbers is another story.
Stephen M. Flatow

On January 4, Hamodia posted an interview with Thomas Nides, the US Ambassador to Israel, an interview initially conducted via Zoom during Chanukah. Nides makes a point of emphasizing US support for Israel and for its security while talking about US support for Palestinian Arabs as well.

As Nides puts it, "I fundamentally believe that if we give hope and opportunity to the Palestinian people, that will hopefully over time benefit the State of Israel, limit the amount of terrorist attacks, and keep this place a strong democratic Jewish state."

When last month's interview by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research is brought up, showing that 72% of Palestinian Arabs support the creation of new terrorist groups like Lion's Den, Nides does not skip a beat:

I firmly believe, and you might disagree with me, but the vast, vast majority among the average Palestinians doesn’t wake up in the morning wanting to kill someone who happens to be Jewish. They want to live just like you and I do.

[We need to do everything we can] regarding the small percentage of people who exist who do want to harm Israel... [emphasis added]

His proof?

He doesn't give any. Nor have there been any polls indicating the existence of this moderate group of the "vast, vast majority" of peace-seeking Palestinians.

Stephen Flatow takes Nides at his word, that he honestly believes what he says -- but he also makes the key point that the Biden administration has adopted a pro-Palestinian policy that depends on this existence of peace-loving Palestinian Arabs:

The administration can’t give the Palestinians hundreds of millions of dollars every year if it believes they support terrorism. It can’t advocate giving them a sovereign state along Israel’s old nine-mile-wide borders if it believes that they support terrorism.

So, the Biden administration has its party line, and Ambassador Nides’s job is to stick to it and articulate it as best as he can. Maybe he even believes it. Maybe he really thinks, despite all evidence to the contrary, that the “vast, vast majority” of Palestinians oppose terrorism.

So when Nides assures his interviewer that he is not an ideologue, he might not realize that there is a degree of bias.

Condoleezza Rice, a former Secretary of State in the George W. Bush administration, had a similar problem.

In 2006, Rice was interviewed by Cal Thomas, who asked her about prospects for Middle East peace, specifically, "what evidence do you have out there that if they had an independent state that they would lay down their arms and not complete the mission of killing the Jews and throwing them out?"

Rice responded:

Well, you can look at any opinion poll in the Palestinian territories and 70 percent of the people will say they're perfectly ready to live side by side with Israel because they just want to live in peace. And when it comes right down to it, yeah, there are plenty of extremists in the Palestinian territories who are not going to be easily dealt with. They have to be dealt with — Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in the Palestinian territories — they're terrorists and they have to be dealt with as terrorists.

But the great majority of Palestinian people — this is — I've been with these people. The great majority of people, they just want a better life. [emphasis added]

She did not point to any polls that backed up her claim. Writing in The Washington Times, Joel Mowbray criticized Rice's assertion, noting then too that polls of Palestinian Arabs indicated that a majority supported suicide bombings.

That same month, Rice gave the keynote address at the American Task Force on Palestine Inaugural Gala, where she defended the US support for including Hamas in the Palestinian elections:

And now look at how things are changing. For decades, Hamas dwelled in the shadows, able to hijack the future of all Palestinians at will, without ever having to answer for its actions. Today, however, the Palestinian people and the international community can hold Hamas accountable. And Hamas now faces a hard choice that it has always sought to avoid: Either you are a peaceful political party, or a violent terrorist group – but you cannot be both. [emphasis added]

In fact, as we have seen, Hamas did make a choice, and has found that it could continue to be a terrorist group not only without being held accountable, but also gaining traction with progressives in the West.

It is not just a question of staying dedicated to the idea of a two-state solution, come what may. As Flatow points out, the insistence on supporting the idea of a Palestinian state requires a particular mindset about how receptive Palestinian Arabs are to peace -- a mindset that flies in the face of reality.

Yet the experts seem to believe that this approach is the only game in town.

Another example of being blinded by the prevalent ideology is of course John Kerry, who with great satisfaction assured his audience in 2016 that there could not be peace between Israel and the Arab world until there was first peace between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs.

The complete and total dedication to the understanding of the Middle East that Kerry articulated postponed what became known as the Abraham Accords, when Trump and those other "amateurs" had the opportunity to try what the experts laughed at.

The same attitude that inspired the Biden administration to restart the JCPOA with Iran is at work in its approach with Israel, using the same tried and failed policies. Considering the new coalition that Netanyahu has put together, Biden may not be any more successful than Obama was.

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!

Meanwhile,. Arab states send billions to US universities. Who believes they aren't trying to influence academia?

While Ken Roth and The Nation are trying to stoke outrage that Roth was not hired for a fellowship at Harvard University, blaming rich Jewish donors for the decision without any actual evidence, foreign money pours into US universities with the obvious intention of influencing academia - and more.

Here's a long forgotten incident. In 1989, then-governor Bill Clinton lobbied Saudis to donate to the University of Arkansas. He even met with the Saudi ambassador to the US in 1991. But the Saudis didn't give any money to the university - until Clinton became the Democratic nominee for President in 1992. And only weeks after he became president, the Saudis gave the university $20 million to establish the King Fahd Middle East Studies Center.

Early efforts by oil-rich Arab kingdoms to donate to prestigious universities in the US were heavy handed, and most universities rejected them because of their demands that the money be used in specific, illegal ways. Over time, they moderated their demands - but the attempt to influence is still quite obvious. As Mitchell Bard writes in a detailed article on the topic:

In 1975, Saudi Arabia was asked to finance a $5.5 million teacher-training program, but several schools, including Harvard, would not participate after the Saudis banned Jewish faculty from participating. MIT also lost a $2 million contract to train Saudi teachers because it insisted that Jewish faculty be allowed to participate.

Georgetown and Harvard accepted $20 million gifts in 2005 from Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, whose offer of money to victims of 9/11 was rejected by then mayor Giuliani because of the prince’s suggestion that America rethink its support of Israel. Georgetown’s funding was used to support a center for Muslim-Christian understanding, which was subsequently renamed the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding (the center was originally created in 1993 with $6.5 million from a foundation of Arab businessmen led by an Arab Christian, Hasib Sabbagh).As I noted in The Arab Lobby, “Prospective Jewish donors to Georgetown might ask why it is not a center for Muslim-Christian-Jewish understanding, but Jews aside, other donors might wonder why a Jesuit university is accepting funding for such a center from a government that does not allow the practice of Christianity.”

Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) asked in February 2008 whether “the center has produced any analysis critical of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, for example in the fields of human rights, religious freedom, freedom of expression, women’s rights, minority rights, protection for foreign workers, due process and the rule of law.”...

Georgetown president John DeGioia responded by extolling the virtues of Prince Talal as “a global business leader and philanthropist.” Without answering Wolf’s questions directly, DeGioia simply pointed out that the center had experts who had written about the extremism of Wahhabism and human rights issues. He also lauded the center’s director, John Esposito, the man who had said before 9/11, “Bin Laden is the best thing to come along, if you are an intelligence officer, if you are an authoritarian regime, or if you want to paint Islamist activism as a threat.”

To bolster the credibility of the center, DeGioia revealed the real reason for the Saudis’ interest in Georgetown, and the ultimate threat it poses: “Our scholars have been called upon not only by the State Department, as you note, but also by Defense, Homeland Security and FBI officials as well as governments and their agencies in Europe and Asia. In fact, several high-ranking U.S. military officials, prior to assuming roles with the Multi-National Force in Iraq, have sought out faculty with the Center for their expertise on the region.”

In its investigation of institutional compliance with reporting requirements, the DoE noted that “Prince Alwaleed’s agreement with Georgetown exemplifies how foreign money can advance a particular country’s worldview within U.S. academic institutions.”

The Department of Education began to crack down on universities not properly reporting their foreign donations in 2020, under the Trump administration. It created a website where universities must report the country sources of such donations, although it doesn't publicize the specific donors due to privacy issues.

Although it is unclear now what percentage of total donations have been reported (many retroactively to the early 2000s), the website currently lists these donation totals to Harvard alone:

Egypt - $44M
Iran(!) - $22K
Jordan - $622K
Kuwait - $22M
Lebanon - $2.5M
Malaysia - $21M
Morocco - $335K
Oman - $1.7M
Pakistan - $1.5M
"State of Palestine"[!] - $1.6M
Qatar - $16M
Saudi Arabia - $61M
Tunisia - $700K
Turkey - $28M
UAE - $80M

The database details some $10 billion in donations from Arab Gulf countries to US universities, many of them earmarked for specific projects. And, as the article I quoted above details, there is plenty that is not reported here.

Harvard, Yale, Georgetown and other schools are awash in Arab funds. The DoE database lists that Qatari donors alone gave Cornell nearly $1.8 billion!

Who can even pretend that the purpose of these funds is not to influence the universities, their faculties, their students and politicians that have these institutions in their districts?

To be fair, much of the Arab money is earmarked to departments with no political focus, with much being spent for science nd medicine. But a significant amount does go towards Arab studies which are almost reflexively anti-Israel. And sometimes the Arab money is not used to create an anti-Israel chair or department, but to lavishly fund an existing anti-Israel department - after all, there are plenty of anti-Israel academics who don't need Arab money to fund their hate, but they welcome that money to promote it further.

The people screaming about "academic freedom" to force a university to hire a specific person known for his bias seem very unconcerned about the billions that are being sent to universities with the obvious intent to influence the academic direction of the university.

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!

The timing of the current torrent of articles and posts about Harvard's Kennedy School denying a fellowship to Ken Roth is most curious.

According to the initial article that started this all off in The Nation, Roth was denied his fellowship in the end of July 2022.

It took nearly six months for this news to hit the media.

What happened during those six months? Why didn't Roth lash out at the time - why was he silent for so long?

The answer can be seen in his history at Human Rights Watch.

HRW would issue many reports about human rights abuses worldwide. But only a subset of them would be turned into media events - with much longer reports, behind-the-scenes partnerships with other organizations, embargoed reports to be released on specific days to coincide with their splashy press conferences, and lining up sympathetic reporters and media outlets to publish their articles at the times that would maximize the impact of the campaign.

A large proportion of these campaigns would be against Israel. Relatively minor issues with questionable human rights dimensions, such as the fact that Booking.com and AirBnB listed Jewish-owned properties in the territories, would be promoted far more than actual deadly attacks in Syria or elsewhere.

In short, Ken Roth has a lot of experience creating campaigns that greatly exaggerate what he considers Zionist crimes.

A real victim of a real injustice does not have the luxury of creating a campaign to gain maximum publicity. They need to cry out and hope that a sympathetic person of prominence will help them get the message out to the world. Most of them fail, and real victims of real crimes are almost never heard from.

Every employer can choose not to hire any person for any (legally valid) reason, and they don't have to explain themselves to the world. And a university choosing not to hire someone is in no way "violating academic freedom" - that would mean that they have to hire everyone, no matter how toxic their ideas or methods. Academic freedom applies to faculty members and students, no one else.

Here is an extensive definition of academic freedom. In no universe did Harvard's dean violate it.

In this case, all we know is the second-hand report that the reason for the decision was "anti-Israel bias" and "Roth’s tweets on Israel were of particular concern" - which no one can argue with! Any analysis of his own tweets, in his own words, proves Roth's bias beyond a doubt. This is why Roth and his defenders falsely claim that he wasn't chosen because he is a "critic of Israel," an absurd lie - there are plenty of critics of Israel at Harvard, including Stephen Walt himself, co-writer of the infamous Israel Lobby book, whose position includes the name of the supposed Harvard donor who (Massing guesses) didn't want Roth - yet he still holds that position 15 years after the book controversy.

If the rich Jews who fund Harvard have any say on the contents of Harvard's academic program, it sure isn't obvious how.

Contrast this with the billions of dollars that pour into US universities from Saudi Arabia and especially Qatar, specifically to influence them politically.

For a wealthy, connected and privileged man like Ken Roth, it is not enough to just move on when he doesn't get a job and find the next one (which he did, at another Ivy League school.) He has to use all of his expertise to get revenge at the people who insulted him: the dean at Harvard and the rich Zionist Jews whom he believes (with zero proof!) were behind the decision.

Campaigns take time. Roth had to find a reporter and a media outlet that would maximize the impact of his newest attack on Zionist Jews. And he found both with Michael Massey, a reporter who defended Walt and Mearsheimer's "Israel Lobby" book, and The Nation, which publishes outrageously anti-Israel articles that include boldfaced lies.

Roth made sure not only that they would promote his new jihad against the few Zionists left in academia - but that it would be a cover story.

Now the six month gap makes sense. Front page stories take time.

Note the irony of the illustration - Roth is the little guy, a victim of a God-like thumbs-down from Harvard. A little guy who has the connections to build a months-long campaign that gets him on the cover of The Nation!

The follow-on stories, some probably planted and the others naturally following what looks like news, were a fait accompli. So was his own account of the episode for The Guardian, where he again falsely claims that he didn't get the job "because of my criticism of Israel." That is not what The Nation reported.

He can't stop lying when it comes to Israel.

Roth, with half a million Twitter followers, has plenty of clout to do his own direct promotion as well. And he is tweeting about this as much as he used to tweet his monomaniacal anti-Israel campaigns.

And now he claims that this carefully choreographed campaign has created an "uproar." He's trying to make it self-fulfilling prophecy.

As with the AirBnB campaign, the Harvard story is based on an inversion of reality. Boycotting only Jewish-owned businesses really is discrimination, and not allowing universities full latitude in hiring staff is itself a violation of academic freedom.

Ken Roth is not the victim of an all-powerful Zionist lobby. He is a vindictive, pathetic yet extraordinarily privileged antisemite who has carefully plotted his revenge at the rich Jews whom he thinks sabotaged the only job in the world he felt was worthy of him.

And his actions today prove that Harvard was quite right in rejecting him.

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!

01/14 Links: Israel must prepare for collapse of Palestinian Authority; 'Unacceptable': Biden Administration Opposes Jewish Prayer at Jerusalem Holy Site

From Ian:

Israel must prepare for collapse of Palestinian Authority

After months of tension and violence between Israel and the Palestinians, a new political reality is threatening to push the Palestinian Authority (PA) to the brink of collapse.

Both sides have been warning of an impending collapse for some time now. While these warnings are not new, circumstances have changed and may pose a significant threat to the stability of the already fragile Palestinian entity.

“Such threats have been heard for years, but have yet to materialize,” said Dr. Nimrod Goren, president of Mitvim – The Israeli Institute for Regional Foreign Policies and senior fellow for Israeli Affairs at the Middle East Institute. “Therefore, people might not believe them anymore and become indifferent toward dramatic events that may be looming.”

The PA was established in 1994 and is controlled by the Fatah Party after a split from Hamas in 2007. Led by President Mahmoud Abbas, the PA has full control of West Bank territory referred to as Area A and partial civil control over areas B and C, in which Israel maintains most of the control. Hamas controls the Gaza Strip.

Over time, Abbas’ power has eroded. A policy led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has consistently weakened the PA while strengthening Hamas in Gaza. Abbas’ legitimacy among the Palestinian people gradually decreased. His continuous postponement of elections in the PA has significantly damaged his standing.

Hence, the threats to the PA are numerous and its collapse could come as a result of several different scenarios. An escalation in violence with Israel or a decision by Abbas to announce the dissolution of the PA as he has so often threatened, could both signal the end. Meanwhile, internal chaos due to a power struggle following Abbas’ departure could topple the PA. This could happen before or after the death of the 87-year-old leader.

“As long as Abbas is alive, the PA will survive. Once he is no longer in power, the PA will be on the brink of collapse,” according to Mkhaimar Abusada, an associate professor and chairman of the department of political science at Al-Azhar University in Gaza. “We could see Palestinian infighting and Israeli intervention. This is the scary point, where concern for the future of the PA would be very real.”

It is not only Israeli actions, but also the internal Palestinian rift between Fatah and Hamas that have chewed away at the power and legitimacy of the PA.

In addition, after a lengthy period of violence between the sides, a new right-wing Israeli government is threatening stability in the area. Last week’s decision by the new government to sanction the PA over its referral to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the legality of Israel’s presence in the West Bank could further weaken the PA.

All the while, security coordination between Israel and the PA has been largely unhindered. For Abbas, it helps to maintain his power and, for Israel, it allows access to the territories and the terror infrastructure. These mutual interests have thus far provided a solid guarantee of their continuation, as well as a critical lifeline for the PA.

Yet after a deadly year of violence in the West Bank, the outlook is grim.

“At some point, when the number of incidents will amass, the security coordination will no longer be effective and then the gradual collapse we are seeing now could lead to a full collapse,” Dr. Ely Karmon, a senior research scholar at the International Policy Institute for Counter Terrorism at Reichman University, told The Media Line.

Khaled Abu Toameh: Does Netanyahu want a weakening, or a total collapse, of the PA?

IT’S HARD to assess the extent of the damage the Israeli sanctions will cause the PA. In the past, withholding tax revenues did not result in the collapse of the PA. Nor did the former Donald Trump administration’s decision to cut off financial aid to the Palestinians bring about the downfall of the PA or force it to change its policies.

Admittedly, the Israeli and US measures aggravated the financial crisis for the Palestinians, but the PA managed to weather the storm, thanks primarily to the Biden administration’s decision to resume financial aid to the Palestinians. The Palestinian leadership also benefited from the relatively moderate approach of the Israeli security and political establishment under the previous government headed by Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid.

Abbas and his entourage are now beginning to realize that the honeymoon with Israel has ended. Nevertheless, they are still pinning hope on the Biden administration and other international parties to exert pressure on Israel to prevent it from crossing the redlines.

The feeling in Ramallah is that the presence of Ben-Gvir and Smotrich in the government will actually facilitate the Palestinians’ mission to alienate Israel in the media and increase the pressure from the international community on the Netanyahu government.

The Israeli decision to seize and withhold Palestinian funds appears, for now, to be the most painful of the current punishments for Ramallah. The Palestinians, naturally, are significantly less worried about the confiscation of VIP cards from a number of officials or even the decision to freeze construction in Area C, where they are anyway not waiting for Israeli permission to build homes.

A number of Palestinian officials who spoke to The Jerusalem Post in the past few days confided that they are still trying to ascertain the Israeli government’s ultimate goal.

They admitted that they are uncertain whether the government is seeking to undermine the PA or to bring about its total collapse.

But the officials were all in agreement that the actions and rhetoric of the Netanyahu government will exacerbate tensions between Israel and the Palestinians, and most likely lead to an outburst of large-scale violence in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. They also agreed that the Palestinians’ diplomatic and legal campaign against Israel has a greater chance of success given the nature of the right-wing coalition in Israel.

“The actions of the extremist government in Israel are a clear indication that we are headed toward an explosion,” said a senior official with the Palestinian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. “Of course, the sanctions will hurt us, but on the other hand they will increase our chances of winning worldwide support and sympathy.”

The Israelis, the official added, “need to understand that weakening the Palestinian Authority is the biggest gift to Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Iran. They need to understand that getting rid of the Palestinian Authority means that Israel will have to return to the Palestinian cities and towns and run the schools and hospitals and collect the garbage there. They also need to understand that halting the security coordination would be bad for both the Palestinian Authority and Israel.”

'Unacceptable': Biden Administration Opposes Jewish Prayer at Jerusalem Holy Site

The Biden administration says it would be "unacceptable" for Israel to end the restriction on Jewish prayer at the Temple Mount and it would oppose any effort to disrupt the "historic status quo" that only allows Muslims to pray at the site. The stance is a blow to diplomatic relations between the United States and the newly installed Israeli government and signals the Biden administration intends to call out the Jewish state on issues other administrations might address behind closed doors.

When asked by the Washington Free Beacon this week if the Biden administration would back changes proposed by conservative Israeli leaders that would allow Jews to pray at the holy site revered by both Muslims and Jews, a State Department spokesman said it is "unacceptable" for Israel to depart from longstanding policies.

"The United States stands firmly for preservation of the historic status quo with respect to the holy sites in Jerusalem," the spokesman said. "Any unilateral actions that depart from the historic status quo is unacceptable."

The Biden administration’s tough diplomatic stance is leading to concerns about a growing rift between the United States and Israel. President Joe Biden sparked criticism last year when he did not immediately phone Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu to congratulate him on his election win, which observers saw as a sign of chilly relations between the world leaders. The Biden administration also launched an FBI investigation into the death of a Palestinian-American journalist, despite Israel and the State Department determining the killing was accidental. Secretary of State Antony Blinken was also dispatched in early December to headline a conference organized by J Street, a leading anti-Israel group working to oppose Netanyahu’s government.

The Biden administration’s willingness to join the international chorus of Israel bashers has sparked outrage among pro-Israel lawmakers in Congress and former U.S. officials who see the United States as distancing itself from the Jewish state.

"Should it really be this difficult for the U.S. government to publicly affirm that Jews have a right to visit the holiest site in their religion?" said Richard Goldberg, a former White House National Security Council official who serves as a senior adviser to the Foundation for Defense of Democracies think tank. "Is the policy of the State Department: Freedom of religion for all except Jews?"

01/13 Links Pt2: Amnesty International’s latest excuse to accuse Israel of ‘apartheid’; Harvard didn’t cancel Kenneth Roth; it decided not to honor an antisemite

From Ian:

Ruthie Blum: Amnesty International’s latest excuse to accuse Israel of ‘apartheid’

Protests against new government bolster Amnesty and its friends
Israeli demonstrations in which participants compare the new government to the rise of the Third Reich do Amnesty and ilk proud, particularly when Palestinian flags dot the scenery. Those in attendance may profess to be protesting Team Netanyahu’s judicial-reform plan and other policies, but what they’re actually doing is discrediting the essence of the country.

This was evident a few weeks ago at a conference in Damascus, organized by the Hamas-affiliated Al-Quds International Institute. According to the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), the event brought together Syria-based Palestinian activists and Iranian dignitaries to discuss Israel’s demise.

One noteworthy speech reported on by MEMRI was that of Syrian researcher Shadi Diab. He presented “data” on the “demographic problem facing the [Israeli] entity, and its failure to achieve harmony among its [Jewish] residents, who immigrated [to it] from different parts of the world and have different identities, cultures and languages, different circumstances and widely differing goals.”

This “entity,” he argued, “never managed to achieve a consensus among these sectors, who came from all over the world, and this disparity is evident in the struggle and fierce competition that currently prevail in the political arena and in the government of this entity, between the various political, ethnic and religious sectors, such as the Ashkenazi, Sephardi and haredi [Jews], between Right and Left, between religious and secular people, between the civilian and military sectors, etc.”

It sounds as though his “research” consisted of reading the Israeli press. He couldn’t admit to this, though, since he proceeded to claim that the “Zionist media conceals these struggles and disagreements and prevents [the publication of] any information about them inside and outside the [Zionist] entity.”

This contention is even more hilarious than Amnesty’s definition of free speech. But neither is a laughing matter when seen in a broader context: the holistic effort to annihilate Israel through external means, such as weapons and delegitimization, and contribute to its self-implosion. Due to ongoing Palestinian terrorism against innocent Israelis, the “peace process” was barely mentioned, even by the Left, during the election campaign. The Right emerged victorious by emphasizing Zionism and Jewish sovereignty as values whose positive connotations need to be restored and nurtured.

It’s a shame that the disgruntled losers aren’t open to the possibility that this will be to their benefit, as well. It’s far worse that they’re offering both fodder and hope to those who don’t distinguish between Ben-Gvir and Ben-Gurion.

MEMRI: Empty Vessels Looking To Belong

Sometimes the search for identity can go from bad to worse, whether it be children lamenting having mutilated themselves in bouts of sexual experimentation, the bleak nihilism of American teenage mass shooters, or Westerners desperately shopping for new racial or religious identities. California teen detransitioner Chloe Cole, who had her breasts removed at the age of 15, compares the transition surgery of minors to Nazi medical experiments.[8] There are apparently at least 72 genders to choose from, as well as more than a few cases of white people in America seeking to reinvent themselves into higher-status Black or Indigenous personae.[9]

The challenges are not limited to the West. Urbanization and modernity have been major social challenges in the developing world for decades, and particularly destructive to traditional societies uprooted by rapid change. In Israel, the country's Bedouin population has experienced massive upheaval as they are settled in new towns built in the Negev. Faced with a disruption in their traditional lifestyle, poverty, and crime, many have embraced political Islam as a safe haven in times of uncertainty and upheaval. Proof of this is the large number of mosques that have been built during this accelerated process of urbanization. The Bedouin, who historically have not been characterized by devout Islamism, are mentally crushed by this process, during which they are losing their way of life and their identity. As a result, they cleave to Islam to hold them together from within.

Where it can maintain any sort of real vitality and solidity in the face of our liquid future, traditional religion (or new faiths) will remain somewhat of a refuge from such nihilistic darkness. Ours is a metaphysical dilemma and it requires metaphysical responses. It seems hard to be a centrist when the center does not hold, when the middle ground of supposed liberal reason is excavated out from under you. But one of the risks of opposing the zeitgeist by finding supposed refuges that seem the furthest removed or most intransigent from the spirit of the age is that of extremism.

The controversial, resolutely anti-modern former kickboxer turned misogynist influencer Andrew Tate, now under arrest for human trafficking in Romania, recently described Islam , to which he recently converted, as "the last religion, the last one, because no other religion has boundaries which they will enforce. If you will tolerate everything, then you stand for nothing."[10] Europe-based Islamic reformer Hamed Abdel-Samad, in contrast to Tate, sees contemporary conservative Islam as increasingly "dwindling."[11] Tate seems to have taken a faith journey, if you can call it that in such a singular personality, that went from nominal Christian to Romanian Orthodox to Islam.[12] Still, to be Amish or Benedictine or Chasidic is also to be in clear contradistinction to an unmoored world. But then so is being a white supremacist or a jihadist.[13]

In the United Kingdom, Gen X (she was born in 1968) Sally-Anne Jones went from nominal Christian to punk rock to witchcraft and alternative lifestyles to not just converting to Islam but to becoming a highly successful recruiter for the Islamic State.[14] Less than a decade ago, tens of thousands of other Westerners, both converts and cradle Muslims, were motivated to leave the West and seek to emigrate to ISIS territory, where their lives were in constant danger.

More recently, in 2018, 17-year-old Corey Johnson of Jupiter, Florida decided to become a Muslim by watching ISIS videos and reading the Quran, though he seems never to have actually interacted with a live Muslim. Johnson seems like a Generation Z poster boy for our time – no father, "above-average intelligence but delayed maturity, autism, and severe mental illness," depression, prescription medications, stalking on social media.[15] For the supposed sake of Islam, he stabbed a 13-year-old boy to death and attempted to kill two other people one night during a sleepover. Before Islam, he had been infatuated with Hitler and Stalin, with white supremacists. He supported the Oklahoma City bombing (which took place five years before he was born). He had a swastika on his Facebook profile. During his trial in November 2021 in Florida, his defense attorneys described him as an "empty vessel looking to belong."[16] Despite expressing remorse, he was sentenced to life in prison at the age of 21.

In this new age of fervid identity seeking, the state in the West and many legacy institutions, their own foundations shaken, are mostly either absent or, in many ways, seeking to be relevant by promoting the latest thing. Many will be swept along with the latest enthusiasm, the last mirage, which will constantly need to be reinvented and repackaged to give the impression of progress. The Cult of the New will be regularly appeased. Others will often feel that they are on their own, redundant or alienated, alone before the winds of rapidly accelerating change, alone before the darkness. In them will remain the spark of authentic rebellion. Instead of seeking utopia, the imperative will be a search for communities which seem to offer safe harbor – or the illusion of a safe harbor.

Jonathan Tobin: Harvard didn’t cancel Kenneth Roth; it decided not to honor an antisemite

Roth is a prodigious fundraiser. HRW was rewarded for his calumnies against Israel with a $100 million grant from left-wing billionaire George Soros’s Open Society Foundation. Though some on the left treat any criticism of Soros as evidence of Jew hatred, his support for anti-Israel and even antisemitic activism aimed at supporting the Jewish state’s destruction renders their claims risible.

But Roth is also a terrible hypocrite when it comes to raising money. He solicited a $470 million donation from a Saudi billionaire, and in return promised not to advocate for LGBTQ rights in Muslim countries. Many on the left consider those who cite the fact that Israel is the one country in the Middle East where gays have equal rights (Amir Ohana, the new speaker of Israel’s Knesset, is gay) to be “pinkwashing.” But Roth was prepared to sacrifice the rights of Muslim gays in order to get more cash with which to attack the Jewish state’s existence.

An honest assessment of Roth’s record must lead to the conclusion that he isn’t a “critic” of Israel’s, but rather someone who regards its existence as a crime that must be atoned for by its destruction. His lies about Israel and willingness to deny Jews rights he wouldn’t deny to anyone else isn’t merely a controversial opinion; it’s a virulent variant of antisemitism.

He wouldn’t be the only one with such vile opinions to be given a prestigious perch at an elite university. But it is to the credit of Harvard’s Kennedy School that it drew the line at giving him the kind of honor he clearly doesn’t deserve.

Contrary to the arguments of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), a group that has stood up in the past for conservatives, the issue at Harvard isn’t the defense of academic freedom, but normalizing Jew-hatred.

In a saner environment than the one that currently exists in academia and the establishment media, it would be the University of Pennsylvania under fire from faculty, students, alumni and the public for honoring an antisemite like Roth. Instead, it is Harvard’s Elmendorf who is under intolerable pressure to reverse his stand and give Roth yet another platform to advance his campaign to treat Zionism, the national liberation movement of the Jewish people, as racism.

That the organized Jewish community has had little to say about Roth and the attacks on Harvard’s stand against antisemitism also provides more proof of the failure of American-Jewish leaders and their preference for liberal causes that do nothing to protect the rights or the security of the community they purport to represent.

Rather than meekly accept his claims of martyrdom, those who profess to care about fighting Jew-hatred need to put aside political differences and join in an effort to call him out for his lies. If Harvard is ultimately forced to surrender on this issue, it will be a triumph for Roth’s brand of left-wing antisemitism that is a growing threat to the ability of Jews to speak up for Israel and Zionism in the public square, and especially in academia.

Indeed, it isn’t Kenneth Roth who’s being canceled, but all those who are willing to tell the truth about the leftist war on Israel and the Jews.

Shot - Chaser @BostonGlobe @thecrimson @Harvard @Kennedy_School @CarrCenter pic.twitter.com/E7tiXqaAga
— Faith Quintero (@FaithQuintero7) January 12, 2023