Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Monday, December 26, 2016

The US abstention on UNSCR 2334 is Jimmy Carter déjà vu

CAMERA has an excellent analysis of the UNSC resolution that passed last week, and it notes an episode from 1980 that was very similar.

In 1980, the UNSC passed Resolution 465, which was in fact very close - and in some ways worse - than the current UNSC 2334. It said:

Determines that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity and that Israel's policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;
Strongly deplores the continuation and persistence of Israel in pursuing those policies and practices and calls upon the Government and people of Israel to rescind those measures, to dismantle the existing settlements and in particular to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem;
Calls upon all States not to provide Israel with any assistance to be used specifically in connexion with settlements in the occupied territories;

In that case Jimmy Carter's UN representative voted for the resolution - but then explained that it was a communications error, and the US meant to abstain, allowing the resolution to pass.

This sounds a lot like how Samantha Power justified the US abstention on the UN vote.

Carter did in fact believe that the settlements were illegal, a White House position that was changed by Ronald Reagan.

In many ways, Obama is simply copying the previous worst president of the United States.

However, there are some things that are worse with this resolution.

In 1980, there was no tacit agreement with Israel that the US would automatically veto anti-Israel resolutions relating to final status issues in exchange for Israeli concessions that led to the peace process. That has been a consistent position since Oslo (the other times that the US abstained from UNSC resolutions on Israel were about different topics, like a cease fire in Gaza that George W. Bush abstained on when he was a lame duck.)

This resolution, being post-Oslo, in many ways abrogates Oslo itself by having the UN position itself to impose a solution instead of having it come about as a result of negotiations. That's a huge departure from US policy over the past 20 years.

So while the US allowing this resolution to pass is not exactly unprecedented, but it is a departure from US policy - certainly since Oslo in 1993 and in reality since 1981.

It should be emphasized that the UN resolution was passed under Chapter 6 of the UN Charter, not Chapter 7, and therefore does not become international law.

Obama was always Carter-like. And just like Carter was succeeded by a president who radically changed US policy towards Israel, so is Obama.

You can also be certain that Obama will show his true anti-Israel venom even more after he is out of office, and he will use his prestige as a Nobel Prize winning former president to attack Israel for the rest of his life.

Exactly like Jimmy Carter.

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

Parts of these remarks were widely reported, but it is worth reading them in full.

At the start of the weekly Cabinet meeting on Sunday morning, Netanyahu said:

"I share ministers' feelings, anger and frustration vis-à-vis the unbalanced resolution that is very hostile to the State of Israel, and which the [UN] Security Council passed in an unworthy manner. From the information that we have, we have no doubt that the Obama administration initiated it, stood behind it, coordinated on the wording and demanded that it be passed. This is, of course, in complete contradiction of the traditional American policy that was committed to not trying to dictate terms for a permanent agreement, like any issue related to them in the Security Council, and, of course, the explicit commitment of President Obama himself, in 2011, to refrain from such steps.

We will do whatever is necessary so that Israel will not be damaged by this shameful resolution and I also tell the ministers here, we must act prudently, responsibly and calmly, in both actions and words. I ask ministers to act responsibly as per the directives that will be given today at the Security Cabinet meeting immediately following this meeting. I have also asked the Foreign Ministry to prepare an action plan regarding the UN and other international elements, which will be submitted to the Security Cabinet within one month. Until then, of course, we will consider our steps."

"Over decades, American administrations and Israeli governments had disagreed about settlements, but we agreed that the Security Council was not the place to resolve this issue. We knew that going there would make negotiations harder and drive peace further away.

And, as I told John Kerry on Thursday, friends don’t take friends to the Security Council. I'm encouraged by the statements of our friends in the United States, Republicans and Democrats alike. They understand how reckless and destructive this UN resolution was, they understand that the Western Wall isn't occupied territory.

I look forward to working with those friends and with the new administration when it takes office next month. And I take this opportunity to wish Israel's Christian citizens and our Christian friends around the world a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year."

Netanyahu added the following remarks on the second night of Chanukah on Sunday night at the Kotel:

"I did not plan to be here this evening but in light of the UN resolution I thought that there was no better place to light the second Chanukah candle than the Western Wall. According to the UN resolution, the Maccabees did not liberate Jerusalem, they occupied Palestinian territory. According to the UN resolution, the villages that they started out from in the Modi'in area, those villages and that area were 'occupied Palestinian territory'.

Of course the Palestinians arrived much later. We were in these places. We will return to these places and I ask those same countries that wish us a Happy Chanukah how they could vote for a UN resolution which says that this place, in which we are now celebrating Chanukah, is occupied territory.

The Western Wall is not occupied. The Jewish Quarter is not occupied. The other places are not occupied either. Therefore, we do not accept, nor can we accept, this resolution. We are certain of our future just as we are certain of our past. And here I would like to light Chanukah candles on behalf of the Glory of Israel. Happy Chanukah."

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

Uh-oh. Arabs freaking again over singing Jews.

In 2015, there was a viral video of chassidim dancing in an airport in Amman, presumably to celebrate an impending or recent marriage, based on the songs they were singing.

Members of Jordan's parliament were upset because, well, Jews. One said is was a disgusting display and another demanded that the songs be translated to they could tell if the Jews were mocking them.

History repeats itself, as farce.

The Jewish businessmen who are visiting Bahrain (in a story I broke and is now all over the place) were apparently videoed while dancing on their own somewhere in the kingdom.

"نبني البيت المُقَدَّس علي أنقاض الاقصى ونحن الان على الحائط الغربي"
👆
هذه ترجمة لبعض كلمات نشيد هؤلاء الصهاينة عند #باب_البحرين #ياللعار pic.twitter.com/of4no2ilXE
— ناصر الفضالة #الأقصى (@nsfadala) December 24, 2016

The Arabs tweeting about it and writing articles about it claim that the lyrics they are singing translate to, "We will build the Temple on the ruins of Al Aqsa, the Western Wall is already ours" adding the hashtag #shameful.

This is only 3/4 of a lie.

The lyrics of the song they are singing are:

יִבָּנֶה הַמִּקְדָּשׁ, עִיר צִיּוֹן תְּמַלֵּא,

וְשָׁם נָשִׁיר שִׁיר חָדָשׁ וּבִרְנָנָה נַעֲלֶה,

Which translate to

May the Temple be rebuilt, and Jerusalem repopulated.

We will sing a new song as we ascend [the Mount] in joy.

So the song is indeed about rebuilding the Temple, It says nothing about Al Aqsa or the kotel.

You just knew the antisemitism would pop up after the story broke. And these hateful Arabs, true to form, assume that Jews must be singing about them, when in Jewish liturgy and songs, Arabs are irrelevant.

The song itself is many centuries old, Here is a screenshot from a 1724 printing:

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

Chanukah Night 2: A Hamilton Hanukkah (Maccabeats)

On the second night of Chanukah, the Maccabeats gave to me....

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

1950s-era Chanukah album "Chanukah Song Parade"

If you want to play some good old fashioned, wholesome Chanukah music for the kids, here's Chanukah Song Parade, which looks like it was made in the mid-1950s.

Full audio here.

(h/t Daniel)

UPDATE: I originally thought the album looked like it was made in the 1960s, but further research indicates it was made in the 1950s. Corrected the title and post.

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

12/25 Links: The US Just Made Middle East Peace Harder; Glick: Obama will be Jimmy Carter on steroids

From Ian:

Alan M. Dershowitz: UN Resolution Lets Palestinians Think They Can Bypass Israel Talks

The Palestinian leadership has refused to accept Prime Minister Netanyahu's offer to negotiate without preconditions, and this refusal has now been rewarded. The resolution neglects to mention that Israel offered the Palestinians a state, an end to the occupation and settlements, and peace in 2000 - 2001 as well as in 2008, but the Palestinian leadership did not accept either of these offers. They will continue in this rejectionist mode, fortified by this one sided resolution.
Why then did President Obama, in his parting days, tie the hands of his successor? He was certainly not reflecting the will of the people or of congress. Both the Senate and the House are strongly opposed to this resolution, as are many people within the Obama administration.
Nor is this an issue on which Israelis are divided. There is no Israeli leader who supports this resolution.
President Obama would never have allowed it to go forward before the recent presidential election, but now that he has nothing at stake he can place his personal interests above those of the country, his party and peace. He may believe that this action (or inaction) will burnish his legacy, but he is wrong. It will only solidify his reputation as one of the worst foreign policy presidents in modern history. A president who bears significant responsibility for the tragedy of Syria, the empowerment of Russia and Iran, and the weakening of America's standing in the world.

Netanyahu's Chanukah Speech Blasts Obama, Salutes Soldiers

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made the following remarks on the first night of Chanukah this evening (Saturday, 24 December 2016) at an event in salute of wounded IDF and security forces veterans and victims of terrorism:
“Citizens of Israel, I would like to reassure you. The resolution that was adopted yesterday at the United Nations is distorted and shameful but we will overcome it. The resolution determines that the Jewish Quarter [in the Old City of Jerusalem] is ‘occupied territory’. This is delusional. The resolution determines that the Western Wall is ‘occupied territory’. This too is delusional. There is nothing more absurd than calling the Western Wall and the Jewish Quarter occupied territory. There is also an attempt here, which will not succeed, to impose permanent settlement terms on Israel. You might recall that the last one who tried to do this was Carter, an extremely hostile president to Israel, and who just recently said that Hamas is not a terrorist organization. Carter passed sweeping decisions against us at the UN of a similar kind, and this was also unsuccessful. We opposed this and nothing happened.
“All American presidents since Carter upheld the American commitment not to try to dictate permanent settlement terms to Israel at the Security Council. And yesterday, in complete contradiction of this commitment, including an explicit commitment by President Obama himself in 2011, the Obama administration carried out a shameful anti-Israel ploy at the UN. I would like to tell you that the resolution that was adopted, not only doesn’t bring peace closer, it drives it further away. It hurts justice; it hurts the truth. Think about this absurdity, half a million human beings are being slaughtered in Syria. Tens of thousands are being butchered in Sudan. The entire Middle East is going up in flames and the Obama administration and the Security Council choose to gang up on the only democracy in the Middle East – the State of Israel. What a disgrace.
My friends, I would like to tell you on the first night of Chanukah that this will not avail them. We reject this resolution outright, just as we rejected the UN resolution that determined that Zionism was racism. It took time but that resolution was rescinded; it will take time but this one will also be rescinded. Now I will tell you how it will be rescinded. It will be rescinded not because of our retreats but because of our steadfastness and that of our allies. I remind you that we withdrew from Gaza, uprooted communities and took people out of their graves. Did this help us at all at the UN? Did this improve our relations at the UN? We were hit with thousands of rockets and at the UN we were hit with the Goldstone report!

PMW: Fatah: UN vote means Fatah will kill Israelis

Three days ago Fatah’s official Facebook page posted a drawing of its map of “Palestine,” which includes all of Israel and painted like the Palestinian flag, being used to stab the word “settlement.” The text above the image: “#Palestine will defeat the settlement ” (Above left)
Yesterday in response to the UN Security Council resolution declaring Israeli settlements illegal, Fatah republished the identical image but added a pool of blood at the bottom, and the words “Thank You” above the image, and the names of the 14 countries that voted in favor of the UN resolution. (Above right)
Is Fatah thanking the 14 countries for their UN vote because they interpret the UN as granting Fatah permission to kill Israelis? Or is Fatah thanking them because now that the UN declared settlements “illegal” it sees itself free to kill more Israelis?
Either way Fatah is saying more Israelis will pay with their lives as a result of the UN vote.
The 14 countries thanked by Fatah are:
Russia, Angola, Ukraine, Japan, Spain, Egypt, Malaysia, Venezuela, New Zealand, Senegal, Uruguay, France, China, and Britain.
The United States, whose abstention actually enabled the resolution to pass, is not mentioned.

After UN vote, Kerry suggests Israel's West Bank foray spawning 'terrorism'

Kerry said Israel’s continued and stepped-up attempts to build more settlements, or communities, in the region, which includes East Jerusalem, risks the so-called “two-state” solution between Israelis and the Palestinians, who also lay claim to the region.
“The United States acted with one primary objective in mind: to preserve the possibility of the two state solution, which every U.S. administration for decades has agreed is the only way to achieve a just and lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians," Kerry said Friday. “Two states is the only way to ensure Israel's future as a Jewish and democratic state, living in peace and security with its neighbors, and freedom and dignity for the Palestinian people.”
He also said the administration does not agree with “every aspect” of the resolution but that it “rightly condemns violence” and calls on both sides to take constructive steps to reverse current trends and advance the prospects for a two-state solution.
The resolution was put forward by four nations a day after Egypt withdrew it Thursday under pressure from Israel and Trump.
The U.S. not vetoing the measure is being considered a snub to the country’s key Middle East ally and attributed to outgoing Democratic President Obama, who has had chilly relations with Israel throughout his eight-year tenure.
Reaction from U.S. Republicans and Jewish leaders around the world was swift and sharp.

The "status quo" of 60 years ago: "Old Jerusalem like a dead city" (1956 NYT) "Jews not allowed" (1955)

This is the status quo that the world wants to return Jerusalem to.

Here were Jordan's rules for tourists reported in the NYT in May 1955:

This is what the UN is trying to do, today.

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

The 1994 Israel-Jordan peace agreement shows that the UN resolution is based on fantasy, not law

The anti-Israel UN resolution passed on Friday refers to the "1967 lines" a number of times:

Condemning all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem,...

Expressing grave concern that continuing Israeli settlement activities are dangerously imperilling the viability of the two-State solution based on the 1967 lines...

Reaffirms that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity

Underlines that it will not recognize any changes to the 4 June 1967 lines. including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties through negotiations;

Calls upon all States, bearing in mind paragraph 1 of this resolution, to distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967;

Clearly the UN is putting legal weight on the so-called "1967 lines." It is basing its entire criticism of Israel on Israel's actions in "Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967."

But what is the actual legal status of those lines in international law?

There are two issues here.

-Is there any legal validity to the "1967 lines" today?

- Is there any legal basis to refer to the lands captured by Israel in 1967 as "Palestinian territory"?

If the answer to either of these questions is "no," then the resolution itself is literally based on nonsense.

What is the legal status of the so-called "1967 lines"?

Those lines are defined in the 1949 armistice agreement between Israel and Jordan, UN document S/1302/Rev.1 3 April 1949. The agreement includes these provisions:

It is also recognized that no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations.

No warlike act or act of hostility shall be conducted from territory controlled by one of the Parties to this Agreement against the other Party.

The provisions of this article shall not be interpreted as prejudicing, in any sense, an ultimate political settlement between the Parties to this Agreement.

The Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V and VI of this Agreement are agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto.

The lines were never meant to be political boundaries, they were meant to be temporary until a final peace agreement, and anyone who violated the cease fire would be violating and possibly abrogating this armistice agreement.

In 1967, Jordan attacked Israel across these armistice lines, and therefore abrogated the armistice agreement.

Thereafter, the border between Israel and Jordan was legally unclear. Israel didn't annex the territory, but it did control it. Jordan still claimed it (until 1988, as will be seen.)

The only legally binding definition of the border - not "lines," but border - between Israel and Jordan came in 1994 with the Israel -Jordan peace agreement.

Here's what it says:

The international boundary between Jordan and Israel is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I (a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and coordinates specified therein.
The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognized international boundary between Jordan and Israel, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.

While the agreement leaves open the possibility of a Palestinian state or entity on the Israeli side of the border, it says explicitly that the border between Israel and Jordan is essentially the border between the areas Israel controls in Judea and Samaria and Jordan - the Jordan River, the Dead Sea and so on. It is not the border between "Palestine" and Jordan.

In fact, the agreement between Israel and Jordan doesn't mention "Palestinian territory" at all.

Even if you believe that the 1949 armistice agreement was not abrogated by Jordan in 1967, this 1994 agreement completely supersedes the 1949 armistice agreement (and the concept of "1967 lines") in every legal sense. It is exactly what the 1949 agreement means when it refers to the "ultimate political settlement between the Parties."

So by any definition, the "1967 lines" has no legal validity.

What about the legal issues behind calling the territories "Palestinian territories"?

There is no legal basis for that as well, except for the areas that Israel agreed to cede as part of the Oslo process.

While Jordan claimed the territory of the west bank of the river for itself until 1988, it was basing that claim on territory that was never accepted by the world as Jordanian to begin with. The 1988 decision to eliminate all legal ties from those territories was ostensibly "to enhance Palestinian national orientation and highlight Palestinian identity" but it did not transfer any legal rights whatsoever to the Palestinians. In no way could these areas be considered "Palestinian territory" since that was a legally meaningless term in 1988 - there was no "Palestine" and the area called "Palestine" before 1948 was completely superseded by the legal claims of Israel and Jordan (and Egypt.) The PLO had no legal validity as a state in 1988 as well; even though it declared "independence" that year, it was simply an organization, not a state in any legal sense.

Israel, by signing the Oslo accords, gave the Palestinians their first legal standing in international law, and the subsequent agreements giving territory to the PLO are the only legal instruments that can give a portion of the area - specifically, Area A and to an extent, Area B - to the Palestinians.

The phrase "1967 lines" has zero legal validity. The phrase "Palestinian territories" only has validity in the portions of Judea and Samaria that Israel gave away for peace.

This UN resolution, like many others, is based on terms that are literally nonsense from a legal and semantic perspective.

Referring to "1967 lines" in this resolution holds as much legal meaning as referring to the route that Santa Claus flies.

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

The difference between anti-Israel Republicans and anti-Israel Democrats (posters)

I am finding that my anger at the betrayal of Israel by the world is easier expressed through graphics than essays.

(Baker's widely disseminated quote, usually cited as "they didn't vote for us," was never verified, but the sentiments were undoubtedly there during the first Bush presidency.)

I also tweeted this graphic:

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

The UN is consistent (cartoon)

I tweeted this cartoon on Friday, changing the caption from the original WWI-era version to one that seems highly appropriate today.

I didn't caption the pile of bodies "Syria" which would be highly appropriate, as it is conceivable that Israeli housing in "settlements" literally could be seen from a high enough vantage point in Syria.

But the fact is that the UN has minimized dozens of far deadlier conflicts while remaining fixated on Israel for decades, so Syria is perhaps the most egregious example of how the UN's priorities are screwed up, it is far from the only one.

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

12/24 Links: Trump on UN Anti-Israel Vote: 'Things Will Be Different After Jan. 20'; Five Ways Trump Could Avenge the Anti-Israel UN Vote

From Ian:

Obama’s Betrayal

Today’s resolution brands the Jewish presence in any part of the West Bank or in parts of Jerusalem that were occupied by Jordan from 1949 to 1967 as illegal. And it makes the hundreds of thousands of Jews who live in those parts of the ancient Jewish homeland international outlaws. The excuse given by the U.S. was that increased building in the territories and Jerusalem is endangering the chances of a two-state solution. But, as I noted yesterday when the vote on the resolution was postponed, this is a canard. The reason why a two-state solution has not been implemented to date is because the Palestinians have repeatedly refused offers of statehood even when such offers would put them in possession of almost all of the West Bank and a share of Jerusalem. The building of more homes in places even Obama admitted that Israel would keep in the event of a peace treaty is no obstacle to peace if the Palestinians wanted a state. Rather than encourage peace, this vote will merely encourage more Palestinian intransigence and their continued refusal to negotiate directly with Israel. It will also accelerate support for efforts to wage economic war on Israel via the BDS movement.
This lame duck stab in the back of America’s only democratic ally in the Middle East should only further encourage President-elect Donald Trump to make good on his promise to move the U.S. embassy to Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and let the world know that the new administration not only repudiates his predecessor’s betrayal but that the alliance is as strong as ever.
That will have to wait until January 20th and Obama’s exit from the White House. In the meantime, this is a moment for Democratic friends of Israel to apologize for eight years of excusing and rationalizing Obama’s growing hostility to the Jewish state. Though some will disingenuously argue that the president is trying to save Israel from itself, today’s vote must be seen for what it is. Freed of political constraints, the president finally showed his true colors by throwing Israel to the wolves at a United Nations where anti-Semitism and anti-Israel bias is integral to the culture of the world body.
This is a moment when those who have been in denial about the harm the president has done to the U.S.-Israel alliance should admit their mistake. But for the pro-Israel community as a whole, a bipartisan coalition of Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, this is a moment of anger that will hopefully be followed by a determination to work with the next president to repair the grave damage Obama has caused.

Trump on UN Anti-Israel Vote: 'Things Will Be Different After Jan. 20'

President-elect Donald Trump o the UN Security Council’s passage of an anti-Israel resolution Friday — thanks to U.S. abstention by President Barack Obama — by Tweeting: “As to the U.N., things will be different after Jan. 20th.”
It was not immediately apparent what Trump meant, but senior members of Congress — including several in the Senate — have called openly for defunding the United Nations in response to the vote, which declares Israeli settlements illegal.
The vote, which Israel argues mistakes both historical fact and international law, breaks with five decades of precedent in U.S. policy. The Obama administration had vetoed an earlier resolution substantially similar to the one that it allowed to pass.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) issued a statement in advance of the vote:
As the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I oversee the United States assistance to the United Nations. The United States is currently responsible for approximately 22 percent of the United Nations total budget.
If the United Nations moves forward with the ill-conceived resolution, I will work to form a bipartisan coalition to suspend or significantly reduce United States assistance to the United Nations.
Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) agreed, in a statement after the vote: “The United States provides considerable financial assistance to the United Nations and Security Council members. The UN and nations supporting this resolution have now imperiled all forms of U.S. assistance. I look forward to working with President-elect Trump and members of both parties in Congress to decide what the consequences for this action will be.”

YES: Trump BLASTS Obama's Anti-Israel Resolution: Change Is Coming To The UN

Late on Friday, the Obama administration demonstrated before the world just how morally perverse they are, and why so many Americans can’t wait for their benighted perspective on foreign policy to become a relic of the past. With Obama’s silent urging and acquiescence, the United Nations passed a resolution essentially declaring the holiest spot in Judaism, the Temple Mount, sovereign Muslim territory, and determining that all Jews living outside of pre-1967 lines are illegal residents on sovereign Muslim territory. Obama did this on behalf of a unity government comprised of three terrorist groups – Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the Palestinian Authority – and to the cheers of terror-sponsors like Iran.
Meanwhile, the Obama administration spoke words of empty nonsense as the Russian-backed Syrian regime continued its slaughter of hundreds of thousands just to Israel’s northeast.
Obama’s presidency has been a blot on the moral record of the United States with regard to world affairs, but his parting shot at Israel demonstrates his total animus for the Jewish state as a whole and his warmth toward the world’s leading terror-sponsors in Iran.
Thankfully, someone new arrives on January 20.
President-elect Donald Trump attempted stop the Obama UN atrocity before it began by publicly urging a veto, then working behind the scenes to scuttle Egypt’s sponsorship of the draft resolution. Obama then worked with the Palestinians to push it through with help from socialist dictatorship Venezuela and Senegal, which is currently threatening to invade Gambia.

Chanukah Night 1/Christmas Eve: The YidLife Crisis Guide to the Holiday Classics

Normally I wouldn't open the annual series of Chanukah videos with something like this, but the coincidence of Chanukah and Christmas makes this necessary for the first night.

The YidLife Crisis YouTube channel is hilarious, and quite profane. Do not watch if you are easily offended.

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

12/23 Links Pt2: Obama lets anti-settlement resolution pass at UN Security Council At the U.N., Only Israel Is an ‘Occupying Power’

From Ian:

Choosing not to veto, Obama lets anti-settlement resolution pass at UN Security Council

In a stunning departure from its policy over the last eight years, the Obama administration abstained from voting on a United Nations Security Council resolution Friday that demands an immediate halt to all Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, enabling the measure to pass.
The resolution was approved with 14 member states voting in favor, none voting against, and one abstention — the United States.
The text calls on all states “to distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967” — language that Israel fears will lead to a surge in boycott and sanctions efforts, and that an Israeli official warned would provide “a tailwind for terror.”
Speaking at the Security Council after the vote, US Ambassador Samantha Power said the vote underlined the Council’s long-standing position that “the settlements have no legality.” She claimed the US position was “fully in line with the bipartisan history” of how US presidents have approached the issue for decades.
Still, she said “this vote for us was not straightforward” because Israel “has been treated differently” by the United Nations.
Originally initiated by Egypt, the resolution was co-sponsored by New Zealand, Malaysia, Venezuela and Senegal, who stepped in a day after Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sissi withdrew the measure amid pressure from Israel and President-elect Donald Trump.

Full text of UNSC resolution, approved Dec. 23, demanding Israel stop all settlement activity

Alan M. Dershowitz: Trump was Right to Stop Obama from Tying his Hands on Israel

The reason for this is that a Security Council resolution declaring the 1967 border[sic] to be sacrosanct and any building behind those boarders to be illegal would make it impossible for Palestinian leaders to accept less in a negotiation. Moreover, the passage of such a resolution would disincentivize the Palestinians from accepting Israel Prime Minister Netanyahu's invitation to sit down and negotiate with no preconditions. Any such negotiations would require painful sacrifices on both sides if a resolution were to be reached. And a Security Council resolution siding with the Palestinians would give the Palestinians the false hope that they could get a state through the United Nations without having to make painful sacrifices.
President Obama's lame duck attempt to tie the hands of his successor is both counterproductive to peace and undemocratic in nature. The lame duck period of an outgoing president is a time when our system of checks and balances is effectively suspended. The outgoing president does not have to listen to Congress or the people. He can selfishly try to burnish his personal legacy at the expense of our national and international interests. He can try to even personal scores and act on pique. That is what seems to be happening here. Congress does not support this resolution; the American people do not support this resolution; no Israeli leader – from the left, to the center, to the right – supports this resolution. Even some members of Obama's own administration do not support this resolution. But Obama is determined – after 8 years of frustration and failure in bringing together the Israelis and Palestinians – to leave his mark on the mid-East peace process. But if he manages to push this resolution through, his mark may well be the end of any realistic prospect for a negotiated peace.
One would think that Obama would have learned from his past mistakes in the mid-East. He has alienated the Saudis, the Egyptians, the Jordanians, the Emirates and other allies by his actions and inactions with regard to Iran, Syria, Egypt and Iraq. Everything he has touched has turned to sand.
Now, in his waning days, he wants to make trouble for his successor. He should be stopped in the name of peace, democracy and basic decency.
But it now appears that Obama will not be stopped. Four temporary Security Council members have decided to push the resolution to a vote now. It is difficult to believe that they would have done so without the implicit support of the United States. Stay tuned.

Eugene Kontorovich and Penny Grunseid: At the U.N., Only Israel Is an ‘Occupying Power’

The United Nations began its annual session this week, and Israel will be prominent on the agenda. Many fear the Security Council may consider a resolution setting definite territorial parameters, and a deadline, for the creation of a Palestinian state.
President Obama has hinted that in the final months of his term, he may reverse the traditional U.S. policy of vetoing such resolutions. The General Assembly, meanwhile, is likely to act as the chorus in this drama, reciting its yearly litany of resolutions criticizing Israel.
If Mr. Obama is seeking to leave his mark on the Israeli-Arab conflict—and outside the negotiated peace process that began in Oslo—there is no worse place to do it than the U.N. New research we have conducted shows that the U.N.’s focus on Israel not only undermines the organization’s legitimacy regarding the Jewish state. It also has apparently made the U.N. blind to the world’s many situations of occupation and settlements.
Our research shows that the U.N. uses an entirely different rhetoric and set of legal concepts when dealing with Israel compared with situations of occupation or settlements world-wide. For example, Israel is referred to as the “Occupying Power” 530 times in General Assembly resolutions. Yet in seven major instances of past or present prolonged military occupation—Indonesia in East Timor, Turkey in northern Cyprus, Russia in areas of Georgia, Morocco in Western Sahara, Vietnam in Cambodia, Armenia in areas of Azerbaijan, and Russia in Ukraine’s Crimea—the number is zero. The U.N. has not called any of these countries an “Occupying Power.” Not even once.
It gets worse. Since 1967, General Assembly resolutions have referred to Israeli-held territories as “occupied” 2,342 times, while the territories mentioned above are referred to as “occupied” a mere 16 times combined. The term appears in 90% of resolutions dealing with Israel, and only in 14% of the much smaller number of resolutions dealing with the all the other situations, a difference that vastly surpasses the threshold of statistical significance. Similarly, Security Council resolutions refer to the disputed territories in the Israeli-Arab conflict as “occupied” 31 times, but only a total of five times in reference to all seven other conflicts combined.

6 Things You Need To Know About The UN's Israel-Hatred

A United Nations resolution drafted by Egypt and the Palestinians demanding that Israel end its development of settlements in "occupied territories" was postponed on Thursday after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanhahu joined by President-elect Donald Trump called on President Obama to veto the measure.
"Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi told Egypt's U.N. mission to postpone the vote, which would have forced U.S. President Barack Obama to decide whether to shield Israel with a veto or, by abstaining, to register criticism of the building on occupied land that the Palestinians want for a state, diplomats said," reports Reuters.
The postponed resolution is yet another example from a long list of UN measures targeting Israel. In fact, the UN Human Rights Council has attacked Israel more than any other country — and in its first eight years of existence, more than every other country combined. Below are six facts about the UN's biased campaign against Israel.
1. The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) dedicated 56 of its first 103 resolutions to criticizing Israel. Just how disproportionately and unfairly focused is the UN on Israel? The UNHRC aimed more than half of its first 103 resolutions at Israel. The reason for the obsession and gross bias against Israel is in large part because of the heavy influence of Islamist countries on the council committed to Israel's destruction.
2. Between 2006 and 2014, the UNHRC’s devoted 33% of its special sessions to condemning Israel. In the first eight years of its existence, the UNHRC spent far more time criticizing Israel than any other country. From 2006 to 2014, an egregious 33% of its special sessions supposedly addressing emergency human rights situations were aimed at Israel. During that time only the human rights atrocities in Sudan, Libya, and the Ivory Coast only received 4.7% of the UN's attention each.
3. In that same period, the UN never held a single session on Saudi Arabia, China, or Russia. While it repeatedly condemned Israel, devoting a third of its time to doing so, in the first 8 years after its founding the UN did not hold a single special session about the overt human rights violations occurring regularly in Saudi Arabia, China, or Russia.
4. In 2016, the UN issued more resolutions against Israel than North Korea and Syria combined. Another egregious example of the UN's failure to recognize true human rights atrocities while targeting Israel: In 2016, while the UN issued five resolutions against Israel, it only issued one such rebuke of North Korea and one against Syria, despite the Syrian government’s genocide of its own people resulting in thousands dead.
5. The UN has created committees specifically designed to target Israel. In a 2014 article, Touro Institute on Human Rights director Anne Bayefsky provided a few examples of the committees created by the UN that were effectively designed to decry Israel, including, "the UN Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People; the UN Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People; the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories; the UN Division for Palestinian Rights, and the UN Information System on the Question of Palestine."
6. Even the UN Secretary-General has admitted that the UN treats Israel with "bias" and "discrimination." During a meeting with students at a Model UN program in Jerusalem in 2013, Ban Ki-Moon, the current UN Secretary-General, admitted that Israel faces "bias" and "discrimination" at the UN.

The anti-Israel resolution passes. Here's what it says.

The US abstained on the latest UNSC anti-Israel resolution, allowing it to pass.

Here's what it says, highlighting some problematic sections:

The Security Council,

Reaffirming its relevant resolutions, including resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973), 446 (1979), 452 (1979), 465 (1980), 476 (1980), 478 (1980), 1397 (2002), 1515 (2003), and 1850 (2008),

Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and reaffirming, inter alia, the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force,
Except for Russia, and Turkey, and Morocco, and China, and....

Reaffirming the obligation of Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, and recalling the advisory opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice,

Condemning all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, including, inter alia, the construction and expansion of settlements, transfer of Israeli settlers, confiscation of land, demolition of homes and displacement of Palestinian civilians, in violation of international humanitarian law and relevant resolutions,
The human right to live in your ancestral lands is denied to only one people.

Expressing grave concern that continuing Israeli settlement activities are dangerously imperilling the viability of the two-State solution based on the 1967 lines,
Making the assumption that a two-state solution must be based on arbitrary lines and not through negotiations.

Recalling the obligation under the Quartet Roadmap, endorsed by its resolution 1515 (2003), for a freeze by Israel of all settlement activity, including “natural growth”, and the dismantlement of all settlement outposts erected since March 2001,
While Palestinians were free to send suicide bombers to all of Israel without a peep of protest by this august organization.

Recalling also the obligation under the Quartet roadmap for the Palestinian Authority Security Forces to maintain effective operations aimed at confronting all those engaged in terror and dismantling terrorist capabilities, including the confiscation of illegal weapons,
Even though they are the ones who encourage such actions.

Condemning all acts of violence against civilians, including acts of terror, as well as all acts of provocation, incitement and destruction,
This is what makes it "even handed" so the US could abstain.

Reiterating its vision of a region where two democratic States, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace within secure and recognized borders,
Which contradicts the "1967 lines" paragraph.

Stressing that the status quo is not sustainable and that significant steps, consistent with the transition contemplated by prior agreements, are urgently needed in order to (i) stabilize the situation and to reverse negative trends on the ground, which are steadily eroding the two-State solution and entrenching a one-State reality, and (ii) to create the conditions for successful final status negotiations and for advancing the two-State solution through those negotiations and on the ground,
There is literally nothing making a two-state solution any further today than it was in 2001, except the palestinian decision to stop negotiating and to let the UN impose what it wants by fiat.

1. Reaffirms that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes 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;
Except in 1967 not one person called it "Palestinian territory." An inconvenient fact.

2. Reiterates its demand that Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and that it fully respect all of its legal obligations in this regard;

The US is now acceding to the maximalist Arab demands that Judaism's holiest sites should be under Muslim control.

3. Underlines that it will not recognize any changes to the 4 June 1967 lines, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties through negotiations;
Lines that were meant to be temporary since 1949.

4. Stresses that the cessation of all Israeli settlement activities is essential for salvaging the two-State solution, and calls for affirmative steps to be taken immediately to reverse the negative trends on the ground that are imperilling the two-State solution;
How many lies can be piled on?

5. Calls upon all States, bearing in mind paragraph 1 of this resolution, to distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967;
In other words: Internationally imposed BDS.

6. Calls for immediate steps to prevent all acts of violence against civilians, including acts of terror, as well as all acts of provocation and destruction, calls for accountability in this regard, and calls for compliance with obligations under international law for the strengthening of ongoing efforts to combat terrorism, including through existing security coordination, and to clearly condemn all acts of terrorism;

The Arab states consider this to only apply to Israel, and the UN itself cannot define terrorism to include murdering Jews.

7. Calls upon both parties to act on the basis of international law, including international humanitarian law, and their previous agreements and obligations, to observe calm and restraint, and to refrain from provocative actions, incitement and inflammatory rhetoric, with the aim, inter alia, of de-escalating the situation on the ground, rebuilding trust and confidence, demonstrating through policies and actions a genuine commitment to the two-State solution, and creating the conditions necessary for promoting peace;

Yes, Hanan Ashrawi and Mahmoud Abbas, pretty please don't say that Jews drink the blood of Palestinians, or else...well, nothing. OK?

8. Calls upon all parties to continue, in the interest of the promotion of peace and security, to exert collective efforts to launch credible negotiations on all final status issues in the Middle East peace process and within the time frame specified by the Quartet in its statement of 21 September 2010;
What incentive does Abbas have to negotiate when the UN just handed him everything without his having to promise a thing?

9. Urges in this regard the intensification and acceleration of international and regional diplomatic efforts and support aimed at achieving, without delay a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East on the basis of the relevant United Nations resolutions, the Madrid terms of reference, including the principle of land for peace, the Arab Peace Initiative and the Quartet Roadmap and an end to the Israeli occupation that began in 1967; and underscores in this regard the importance of the ongoing efforts to advance the Arab Peace Initiative, the initiative of France for the convening of an international peace conference, the recent efforts of the Quartet, as well as the efforts of Egypt and the Russian Federation;

Yes, international efforts are so effective in pressuring "both sides" to compromise.

10. Confirms its determination to support the parties throughout the negotiations and in the implementation of an agreement;

Look how great this support is!

11. Reaffirms its determination to examine practical ways and means to secure the full implementation of its relevant resolutions;

12. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Council every three months on the implementation of the provisions of the present resolution;

13. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

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

Universities and Jews don't mix

From The Daily Telegraph:

Some of Britain's leading universities are becoming no-go zones for Jewish students because anti-Semitism is so rife, the first ever higher education adjudicator has warned.

Baroness Ruth Deech, a cross-bench peer who formerly held the highest office dealing with student complaints, said that institutions may be failing to combat hatred against Jews as they “afraid of offending” their potential benefactors from Gulf states.

Her comments come after a series of high profile incidents at top universities where Jewish students claim they were verbally abused or physically attacked. The academic community is at the forefront of calls to boycott Israel.

In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, Baroness Deech said that the extreme levels of hostility towards Israel at universities across the country can at times go so far as to equate to anti-Semitism.

“Many universities are in receipt of or are chasing very large donations from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states and so on, and maybe they are frightened of offending them,” she said. “I don’t know why they aren’t doing anything about it, it really is a bad situation.”

Baroness Deech, a former senior proctor at Oxford University and Principal of St Anne's College, said that a handful of universities are now gaining reputations as institutions where Jews are unwelcome.

“Amongst Jewish students, there is gradually a feeling that there are certain universities that you should avoid,” Baroness Deech said. “Definitely SOAS, Manchester I think is now not so popular because of things have happened there, Southampton, Exeter and so on.”

And not only in Great Britain.

The Algemeiner published a list of 40 US and Canadian campuses with the most hostile environments for Jews. The worst five were listed as Columbia, Vassar, University of Toronto, McGill and University of Chicago.

(h/t O)

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

12/23 Links Pt1: Fatah celebrates its murdering 116 Israelis; Israeli official accuses Obama of ‘abandoning Israel’

From Ian:

PMW: Fatah celebrates its murdering 116 Israelis

As Fatah continues to promote and celebrate terror on an almost daily basis, one questions why the international community is not categorizing Fatah as a terror organization.
On two consecutive days this month, Fatah celebrated on its Facebook page 10 different "most outstanding" terror attacks - in total 20 attacks that killed 78 adult civilians, 16 soldiers, and 22 children.
In the first post, Fatah celebrated "the 10 most outstanding operations" of all times - 10 terror attacks from Fatah's 52 years of existence. In the second post, Fatah took pride in its "10 most outstanding operations in the Al-Aqsa Intifada," - attacks the organization carried out during the PA terror campaign from 2000-2005 (the second Intifada). Some of the attacks were "outstanding" because of the numbers killed, like the bus hijacking that left 37 murdered. Others were "outstanding" even though they failed because they were milestones in Fatah history, such as Fatah's first terrorist attack which targeted the Israeli National Water Carrier ("The Eilabun operation"), and its first attack on civilians ("Kfar Hess operation").
The post celebrating Fatah terror since its founding was quickly removed, but fortunately Palestinian Media Watch had already saved a screenshot. The image shows the PA map of "Palestine" that includes all of Israel together with the PA areas as "Palestine." The Fatah logo with its grenade and rifles appears on the map in the center of the post. On both sides of the map are images representing terror attacks and murders - what Fatah calls its "outstanding operations," in chronological order from right to left (details of the attacks, including numbers killed, appear below):

Caroline Glick: Israel and the rising new West

In foreign affairs, Obama has Israel in his crosshairs.
It is now apparent that the lame duck president, bereft of any partisan restraints, intends to make good on his eight years of promises to use his last month in office to stick it to Israel at the UN.
The opening act of Obama’s onslaught on Israel came on Wednesday, with State Department Spokesman James Kirby’s fatuous and unprecedented claim that Israeli communities built beyond the 1949 armistice line – the so-called settlements – are illegal.
Late Wednesday, the UN suddenly announced it would hold a vote on an Egyptian resolution parroting that language, and calling for a complete halt on construction projects for Jews in the areas, including Jerusalem.
The draft resolution included a call for an international governmental embrace of economic warfare against Israel. It called upon member states “to distinguish in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967.”
An indication of the depth of Obama’s commitment to enabling the resolution to pass came amid reports that Secretary of State John Kerry was planning to address the Security Council ahead of the scheduled vote.
In any event, following massive pressure from Israel and a statement by President-elect Donald Trump calling for Obama to veto the resolution, Egypt postponed the vote on its resolution “indefinitely.”
But with or without the resolution – and there are at least two others also poised for a vote – Obama is using his remaining time to empower the anti-Israel boycott, divestment and sanctions operation aimed at destroying Israel’s economy and international position.
As Anne Bayevsky reported in the Washington Examiner on Wednesday, Obama is supporting the UN budget which allocates funding toward the implementation of a UN Human Rights Council resolution promoting BDS. The resolution requires the Human Rights Council to compile a blacklist of companies worldwide with direct or indirect business ties to Israeli communities built beyond the 1949 armistice lines. Since all businesses doing business with Israeli entities have indirect or direct ties to the areas where some 750,000 Israeli live, the resolution represents a bid to conduct total war against the Israeli economy.
And Obama is funding its implementation.

Dore Gold: Was U.S. Policy on Israel and the UN Changing?

Was the U.S. about to sharply break with its past policy on the use of the UN for dealing with Israeli-Palestinian differences on the issue of settlements? Back in 2011, Ambassador Susan Rice provided an “explanation of vote” as to why she vetoed a similar resolution on settlements at the time. She made three points: 1) a resolution would harden the positions of both sides, 2) it would also encourage the parties to stay out of negotiations, and 3) it would establish a pattern by which every time the parties reached an impasse, they would return to the UN Security Council. She was right. What she was essentially saying was that the UN and meaningful negotiations are a bad mix – like oil and water.
Israel has multiple reasons to oppose the latest draft resolution. While Mahmoud Abbas has refused to negotiate with Israel, Israelis have not lost hope that someday there will eventually be a negotiated settlement between the two sides that leads to a true compromise. But that requires firm international support for such an outcome. President Obama correctly concluded in September 2011 that “Peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the United Nations.” If it becomes the conventional wisdom that in 2016 the U.S. gave up on a future negotiation and preferred instead that the UN take the lead on the Israeli-Palestinian issue, then the peoples of the region will pay a price for years to come.

"Rabbis for Human Rights" excuses the rape of Dinah

It is always fun to read the commentaries on the weekly Torah portions published by the leftist "Rabbis for Human Rights" to see how they twist the Torah for their own purposes.

This week's commentary by anti-Israel tour guide Tamar Avraham has a parenthetical comment about an episode in last week's parasha:

Dina’s attempt to get close to the young women of the land failed in the light of her brothers’ refusal to agree to “mixed marriages.” (It is not here the place to expand on the thought that it is reasonable to assume that there had been a real romantic connection between her and Shechem and that the story of rape was added later to modify the seriousness of the massacre that Jacob’s sons had perpetrated on the residents of Nablus).

Was Dina raped or was she in love with Shechem?

The text in Genesis 34 says, in JPS translation, "And Dinah the daughter of Leah, whom she had borne unto Jacob, went out to see the daughters of the land. And Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, the prince of the land, saw her; and he took her, and lay with her, and humbled her."

The word that is translated as "humbled" has many other translations as well. But the same root word is used to refer to rape without question in Judges 20:5.

Even if the word וַיְעַנֶּהָ doesn't literally mean rape, it means something like to humiliate. Targum Yonatan translates it to Aramaic as וְסַגְפָהּ, which means to afflict or cause to suffer.

Realistically speaking, it seems very unlikely that Dinah could meet a powerful prince, fall in love and sleep with him in a single day. As the Torah makes clear with the episodes of Pharaoh and Abimelech, rulers routinely would forcibly take women as they pleased. It is unlikely that Tamar would be unaware of this pattern of how women were treated by foreign rulers.

Why would Rabbis for Human Rights want to minimize a rape? That isn't what you would expect human rights campaigners to do.

But, of course, Dinah represents Jews, and Shechem represents "Palestinians" (note how the writer says Shechem lives in Nablus, a name that was not to exist for centuries afterwards - the city was originally named after Shechem himself.) Therefore, the story cannot be of natives attacking a Jewess, but of Dinah's Israelite brothers slaughtering the residents of the town for no reason. Dinah cannot be a victim, because it would violate the anti-Israel narrative that "Rabbis for Human Rights" wants to promulgate.

Which brings up something about honor.

When an Arab or Muslim woman gets raped, to regain the family honor, either she is killed herself or she is forced to marry her rapist and pretend that her attacker is really a lover. Rabbis for Human Rights seems to agree with this solution in Dinah's case- it restores her honor.

But Dinah's brothers also acted out of honor. Instead of blaming their sister and rewarding the rapist, they attacked the rapist and saved their sister.

It is unclear whether the Torah condones the murder of the rest of the town - there are commentators on both sides of the issue - but there is a crystal clear difference in morality between one who punishes the rapist and one who punishes the victim.

And we see which side Rabbis for Human Rights is on.

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

Two letters to Santa from Jewish kids

Apparently, many public schools ask kids to write letters to Santa as writing assignments.

Here is one that I saw, although I have no details on who wrote it.

Another letter, written in 2014 for a class assignment, is equally droll:

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

Arab media is buzzing about a visit to Bahrain by a delegation of 28 religious American Jewish businessmen.

The visit was to explore opportunities from a free trade agreement between the US and Bahrain.

The delegation also is visiting Dubai, Oman, Qatar and Kuwait.

A Bahraini businessman said that the delegation's visit was an opportunity to introduce them to a tolerant kingdom, adding that "the visit opened the way for economic and trade opportunities."

Solomon Eisenberg, a member of the Jewish delegation, said that there was a need for direct dialogue, away from governments and media, between people of different faiths and origins

The visit included the Jews and Muslims singing and dancing together (which did not sit well with some Arabs on Twitter.)

وإن احتفلتم وإن رقصتم
وإن تمايلتم وإن ضحكتم
فخضوعكم لا يتجاوز رقابكم
وستبقى شعوب الخليج تقول لا #لا_للتطبيع #البحرين pic.twitter.com/2C3UkuFDcD
— محمد الشيب (@msalsheeb) December 22, 2016

The Jews had a minyan:

Here is a short talk by one of the businessmen at a meeting:

Who is the antisemite: Stephen Bannon or Hanan Ashrawi?

It's been four days since I publicized neo-Nazi material on Hanan Ashrawi's Miftah site. It was tweeted to Miftah by dozens of people.

It is still there.

Objectively speaking, the materials on this Western-funded NGO site are far worse than anything ever published on Breitbart. Yet publisher of that site Stephen Bannon came under withering criticism for antisemitism that is essentially non-existent on that site (and the many philosemitic articles on Breitbart have been ignored.)

Ashrawi's Miftah has hosted articles that featured the blood libel, adoring profiles of people who murdered Jews and neo-Nazi material. And the people who pretended to be so offended by Breitbart's supposed antisemitism have nothing to say. There is no outrage.

Is it because they only care about antisemitism when it is politically advantageous to them?

Is it because Arabs are given a pass for Jew-hatred?

Is it because Ashrawi is considered a "moderate"and they are afraid that exposing her responsibility might drive her to become an extremist?

Who knows? Either way, it stinks. If Bannon is responsible for the Jew-haters who love Breitbart despite its philosemitism (don't trust me - do your own search on every Breitbart article that mentions Jews), then Ashrawi is far more responsible for the hateful and bigoted articles that have been and remain on her website.

Anyone who claims they are offended by Bannon's purported antisemitism, and who does not have anything bad to say about media darling Ashrawi, is a hypocrite. Period.

By any yardstick, there are multiple outrages here: Miftah's habitual posting of antisemitic materials, Miftah's refusal to take it down, the Left's double-standards on antisemitism by those they support, and Miftah's funders willingly sweeping this under the rug as they continue to pour hundreds of thousands of dollars into an organization that hosts hate materials.

The double standards here are disgusting.

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