You are here
Middle East
The Levels of Hypocrisy in BDS - And Will You Have Fries With That?
In a recent post, Elder of Ziyon pointed out an ignored truth about the campaign to boycott Israel: BDS isn't about boycotts. It is about turning Israel into a pariah state.
Even BDSers admit that they choose their targets of boycott for maximum leverage and publicity, even as they use Israeli products themselves. The boycotts are indeed a sideshow to their real aim - to have average people associate Israel with racism and apartheid.
By repeating the lies that Zionism is racism, Israel is an apartheid state, Israel must be boycotted for human rights abuses, and so on - over and over again - it makes an impression on college students and people who don't follow Israel closely.
When an artist boycotts Israel, it makes a huge impression on people who want to identify as supporting social justice.
When an academic group calls to boycott Israel, it puts an aura of respectability on hating Israel.BDS is a tactic, it is not a movement whose goal is to remake Israel as the previous boycott movement was capable of forcing change on the level it did with South Africa.
And the strategy behind that tactic is publicity.
Now more than ever, especially in the age of social media, it is possible to reach people without having to engage the mainstream media, who in the past were the gatekeepers who could to a larger degree control who got access to the public audience.
When small groups like If Not Now want attention, they stand outside and say Kaddish for Hamas terrorists -- not Jews who were murdered by terrorists -- because that is what gets attention, and it is that attention that is the crucial oxygen to breathe life into the membership and create the attention that such movements need.
Recently on Twitter, it was pointed out that both Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar -- vocal supporters for boycotting Israel -- used Israeli technology, Wix, for their website:
But the fact that Tlaib uses Wix for her website was already pointed out back in February. This fact made the rounds back then, and to a lesser degree it has been pointed out now. But the fact that Tlaib has not bothered to redo the website means that other than perhaps metaphorically tweaking her nose, this apparent hypocrisy means nothing to her.
She has not bothered to comment.
But back in November 2015, the Times of Israel reported that when it was pointed out that the Students for Justice in Palestine at the University of Denver used Wix for their website -- the students defended their actions and claimed to explain why this was not hypocritical
By combining the power of many around the world, boycotts shine a harsh light on Israeli settler-colonialism. Whereas Israel wishes these networks to remain inconspicuous, the BDS campaign uses the power of an organized consumer boycott to expose them, forcing the recognition of our different forms of connection with oppression and the oppressed. When we participate in an organized boycott of Israeli consumer goods, such as Sabra and Tribe hummus (whose owners financially support Israeli institutions of occupation and dispossession) or SodaStream kitchen appliances (made in illegal settlements under conditions of hyperexploitation), we choose to make visible the connections between Palestinians living directly under Israeli occupation and people living elsewhere. With these organized boycotts, this global economic structure, a largely hidden network of financial pipes and tunnels, acts as unwitting accomplice to members of Palestinian civil society in their call for self-determination. Boycotts therefore form a limited but necessary component of the BDS campaign. For supporters of the Palestinian call for BDS, boycotts serve as a tactic within a wider strategy to pressure Israel to change its policies and end its oppression. [emphasis added]The reference to SodaStream reminds us that this same logic that allows the BDS movement to use Israeli products while boycotting them -- also allows them to put Palestinians out of work for 'the cause' as well.
Putting Palestinians into financial distress through BDS boycotts is only for their own good.
How widespread is this use of Israeli products by members of BDS?
Consider Omar Barghouti, one of the BDS leaders.
He has a degree from Tel Aviv University, a blatant and rather public contradiction for someone supposedly embodying the BDS movement. He has been confronted with this on a number of occasions, and while Barghouti has offered a variety of excuses, he never quit the university -- or burned his degree in public.
But the BDS movement has given Barghouti lots of publicity, and any occasional questions about his hypocrisy have not slowed him down.
He falsely claims that he could not have gotten a degree any other way.
Tlaib could have used any number of other products to make her website.
Neither has confronted the contradiction head-on as the SJP students in Denver - and while that article in Times of Israel reports the students' use of Wix in November 2015, the group's explanation is dated November 2013.
Still, it is not hard to figure out that Wix is an Israeli product.
And it is not as if there are not lots of other products that could make a website just as well.
These days, that SJP site uses WordPress.
Maybe that hypocrisy finally caught up with them.
An article in Haaretz earlier this year addresses the larger hypocrisy in the BDS movement:
When push comes to shove, its activists prefer that others do the boycotting and make the sacrifices. Thus Caterpillar and in the past the security company G4s have been popular targets because, after all, how many ordinary people are going to ever be buying a earthmover or employ a security guard? It’s likewise painless to ask a university’s trustees or a big pension fund to divest Israeli shares from their portfolios because that’s someone else’s money.
The requirement to fight the good fight against Israeli oppression is supposed to be borne by others whether they are big, anonymous institutions or useful idiots who take the boycott call seriously. Meanwhile, a boycott campaign is being managed using Israeli website building tools. In the words of SJP Cornell, “BDS is not abstention, nor an absolute moral principle … it is a tactic.”And again, it is not just that the fight is borne by others, the effects have been borne by the actual people the BDS movement claims to be helping -- as in the case of the Palestinian employees of SodaStream.
These boycotts are not limited to big companies either. Boycotts of performers going to Israel are always guaranteed to draw attention -- and are sometimes successful.
Sometimes the boycotts are local: Dearborn burger franchise founded in Israel delays opening after backlash, threats:
A franchisee has delayed the scheduled opening of his Burgerim restaurant in Dearborn amid backlash from the Arab-American community over the popular burger company’s Israeli roots.
Sam Zahr, a Lebanese-American who lives in Dearborn, said he was too worried to open the restaurant on Greenfield Road after his kids were bullied and he received threatening messages from those opposed to the burger chain founded in Israel.
...A Burgerim location in Royal Oak also owned by Zahr has not experienced as much opposition, he said.
It's not clear if the issue is only boycotting or maybe also a desire to squelch any hint of normalization.
Based on Zahr's success in Royal Oak, maybe an Arab-Israeli business can make it in the US.
Burgerim seems to think so:
BDS can go ahead and make their claim to success.
Israel is opening up new battlefields.
Those SJP students say that BDS is more than a tactic; it sheds a light and sends a message.
Burgerim, an Israeli company, is sending a message too:
Burger
Dill pickle
Soda
-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!
Even BDSers admit that they choose their targets of boycott for maximum leverage and publicity, even as they use Israeli products themselves. The boycotts are indeed a sideshow to their real aim - to have average people associate Israel with racism and apartheid.
By repeating the lies that Zionism is racism, Israel is an apartheid state, Israel must be boycotted for human rights abuses, and so on - over and over again - it makes an impression on college students and people who don't follow Israel closely.
When an artist boycotts Israel, it makes a huge impression on people who want to identify as supporting social justice.
When an academic group calls to boycott Israel, it puts an aura of respectability on hating Israel.BDS is a tactic, it is not a movement whose goal is to remake Israel as the previous boycott movement was capable of forcing change on the level it did with South Africa.
And the strategy behind that tactic is publicity.
Now more than ever, especially in the age of social media, it is possible to reach people without having to engage the mainstream media, who in the past were the gatekeepers who could to a larger degree control who got access to the public audience.
When small groups like If Not Now want attention, they stand outside and say Kaddish for Hamas terrorists -- not Jews who were murdered by terrorists -- because that is what gets attention, and it is that attention that is the crucial oxygen to breathe life into the membership and create the attention that such movements need.
Recently on Twitter, it was pointed out that both Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar -- vocal supporters for boycotting Israel -- used Israeli technology, Wix, for their website:
But the fact that Tlaib uses Wix for her website was already pointed out back in February. This fact made the rounds back then, and to a lesser degree it has been pointed out now. But the fact that Tlaib has not bothered to redo the website means that other than perhaps metaphorically tweaking her nose, this apparent hypocrisy means nothing to her.
She has not bothered to comment.
But back in November 2015, the Times of Israel reported that when it was pointed out that the Students for Justice in Palestine at the University of Denver used Wix for their website -- the students defended their actions and claimed to explain why this was not hypocritical
By combining the power of many around the world, boycotts shine a harsh light on Israeli settler-colonialism. Whereas Israel wishes these networks to remain inconspicuous, the BDS campaign uses the power of an organized consumer boycott to expose them, forcing the recognition of our different forms of connection with oppression and the oppressed. When we participate in an organized boycott of Israeli consumer goods, such as Sabra and Tribe hummus (whose owners financially support Israeli institutions of occupation and dispossession) or SodaStream kitchen appliances (made in illegal settlements under conditions of hyperexploitation), we choose to make visible the connections between Palestinians living directly under Israeli occupation and people living elsewhere. With these organized boycotts, this global economic structure, a largely hidden network of financial pipes and tunnels, acts as unwitting accomplice to members of Palestinian civil society in their call for self-determination. Boycotts therefore form a limited but necessary component of the BDS campaign. For supporters of the Palestinian call for BDS, boycotts serve as a tactic within a wider strategy to pressure Israel to change its policies and end its oppression. [emphasis added]The reference to SodaStream reminds us that this same logic that allows the BDS movement to use Israeli products while boycotting them -- also allows them to put Palestinians out of work for 'the cause' as well.
Putting Palestinians into financial distress through BDS boycotts is only for their own good.
How widespread is this use of Israeli products by members of BDS?
Consider Omar Barghouti, one of the BDS leaders.
He has a degree from Tel Aviv University, a blatant and rather public contradiction for someone supposedly embodying the BDS movement. He has been confronted with this on a number of occasions, and while Barghouti has offered a variety of excuses, he never quit the university -- or burned his degree in public.
But the BDS movement has given Barghouti lots of publicity, and any occasional questions about his hypocrisy have not slowed him down.
He falsely claims that he could not have gotten a degree any other way.
Tlaib could have used any number of other products to make her website.
Neither has confronted the contradiction head-on as the SJP students in Denver - and while that article in Times of Israel reports the students' use of Wix in November 2015, the group's explanation is dated November 2013.
Still, it is not hard to figure out that Wix is an Israeli product.
And it is not as if there are not lots of other products that could make a website just as well.
These days, that SJP site uses WordPress.
Maybe that hypocrisy finally caught up with them.
An article in Haaretz earlier this year addresses the larger hypocrisy in the BDS movement:
When push comes to shove, its activists prefer that others do the boycotting and make the sacrifices. Thus Caterpillar and in the past the security company G4s have been popular targets because, after all, how many ordinary people are going to ever be buying a earthmover or employ a security guard? It’s likewise painless to ask a university’s trustees or a big pension fund to divest Israeli shares from their portfolios because that’s someone else’s money.
The requirement to fight the good fight against Israeli oppression is supposed to be borne by others whether they are big, anonymous institutions or useful idiots who take the boycott call seriously. Meanwhile, a boycott campaign is being managed using Israeli website building tools. In the words of SJP Cornell, “BDS is not abstention, nor an absolute moral principle … it is a tactic.”And again, it is not just that the fight is borne by others, the effects have been borne by the actual people the BDS movement claims to be helping -- as in the case of the Palestinian employees of SodaStream.
These boycotts are not limited to big companies either. Boycotts of performers going to Israel are always guaranteed to draw attention -- and are sometimes successful.
Sometimes the boycotts are local: Dearborn burger franchise founded in Israel delays opening after backlash, threats:
A franchisee has delayed the scheduled opening of his Burgerim restaurant in Dearborn amid backlash from the Arab-American community over the popular burger company’s Israeli roots.
Sam Zahr, a Lebanese-American who lives in Dearborn, said he was too worried to open the restaurant on Greenfield Road after his kids were bullied and he received threatening messages from those opposed to the burger chain founded in Israel.
...A Burgerim location in Royal Oak also owned by Zahr has not experienced as much opposition, he said.
It's not clear if the issue is only boycotting or maybe also a desire to squelch any hint of normalization.
Based on Zahr's success in Royal Oak, maybe an Arab-Israeli business can make it in the US.
Burgerim seems to think so:
BDS can go ahead and make their claim to success.
Israel is opening up new battlefields.
Those SJP students say that BDS is more than a tactic; it sheds a light and sends a message.
Burgerim, an Israeli company, is sending a message too:
Burger
Dill pickle
Soda
-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!
Categories: Middle East
Is There Anyone From J Street Who ISN'T A Co-Founder of If Not Now?
Just asking.
It seems there are various former members of J Street, some who served in leadership positions, who are now involved in If Not Now -- and some of them are apparently founding members.
For example:
Max Berger
Canary Mission lists Sarah Beth Alcabes as leading an INN disruption, in partnership with Taher Herzallah of American Muslims for Palestine (AMP), and also being an activist with J Street U at the University of California, Berkeley (Berkeley) from 2012-2014.
Times of Israel mentions Elianna Fishman, who was "heavily involved with J Street U Dartmouth" and who confirms "I interned for J Street, and helped set up a chapter on campus” before graduating and joining IfNotNow -- to which the article adds
In fact, many of IfNotNow’s leaders are alumni of J Street U.An article in Haaretz echoes this when it says:
[If Not Now] remains small, attracting several dozen participants, some of whom are leaders of J Street U, the group’s student-organizing arm.But the question remains: why have these, and other members of J Street, made the switch?
According to a Haaretz article from 2014, Gaza War Pushes Some to the Left of J Street. The logic, according to Haaretz, is that over time, J Street, even back in 2014, was becoming larger and more moderate, with the result that there were the beginnings of a limited exodus that benefited smaller more radical groups. One of those groups was If Not Now, described in the article as "an ad hoc group."
Of course, what the Haaretz article claims is a sign of J Street's moderation can also be seen as the failure in the eyes of some of its members, to become increasingly radical.
A similar theme to Haaretz is taken by Nathan-Kazis in the Forward also in an article from 2014, that in contrast to the more "moderate" tone taken by J Street, some members felt J Street was not doing enough:
Former high-ranking J Street staff members were among the organizers of a July 28 protest in New York City against Israel’s invasion of Gaza. They acted under the name #ifnotnow and made no mention of their former J Street affiliations.He writes about another protest just a few days earlier, launched by 4 activists that included high-ranking members Carinne Luck who had left J Street in 2012 and Daniel May, director of J Street U from 2010 to 2013 as well as Max Berger.
Other participants in one or both of those #ifnotnow protests included Isaac Luria, J Street’s vice president of communications and new media from 2008 until 2011 and Tamara Shapiro.
Some of that former J Street staff said they were not opposed to J Street’s long-term strategy -- but felt limited by its tactics. Others, like Luck, said they did not share J Street's "patience" with the "Jewish institutional community."
That is the narrative.
Daniel Greenfield of FrontPageMag.org isn't buying it.
He is cynical of claims that If Not Now was simply born of a break with J Street. In If Not Now, J Street's Latest Anti-Israel Front Group, he writes:
The official narrative is that If Not Now parted ways with J Street because the group was insufficiently opposed to the Jewish State and insufficiently supportive of Hamas. As a practical matter though this is how radical groups have always operated, with a front group that makes efforts to appear moderate while incubating radical organizations within itself that "split off" but still pursue the same agenda.
Despite claims of a split, If Not Now is just pursuing the exact same agenda as J Street U, protesting Jewish charities for supporting Israel, while claiming to be the voice of a new generation.
It's the same scam with a new brand and slightly less of a paper trail.
If Not Now is J Street...
...New organizations are constantly being created and destroyed. But they all share one agenda. The destruction of the Jewish State.If there is indeed an element of dramatic effect at work here, then this alleged break would be no more authentic than the recent break of Jesse Steshenko, who claimed to have been "a very ardent Zionist" who as a result of his recent J Street trip to Israel became "disgusted" with Israel.
Elder of Ziyon revealed that in fact as recently as 2016 as a member of Junior States of America, a mock Congress, he introduced a resolution calling Israel an apartheid state and demanding the recognition of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza as defined by the 1949 Armistice -- effectively depriving Israel of the Western Wall and the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem.
Actually, J Street itself has a history of being less than straightforward.
Here is a 2012 video of Luck explaining J Street's job:
The main takeaway from what Luck says:
We have seen there is a failure of J Street to live up to what it claims it does.
Should we be surprised that there are doubts about what If Not Now claims as well?
-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!
It seems there are various former members of J Street, some who served in leadership positions, who are now involved in If Not Now -- and some of them are apparently founding members.
For example:
Max Berger
- He is identified as a co-founder of If Not Now in his 'bio' on Haaretz
- JTA article notes that before If Not Now, Max Berger worked for J Street as a new media assistant
- Yonah Lieberman has a twitter account that identifies him as a co-founder of If Not Now
- Lieberman was very heavily involved in J Street. According to his LinkedIn page, from January 2010 on he was a member of the National Student Board, the Midwest Regional Co-Chair, and Campus Chapter Chair.
- Times of Israel identifies Carinne Luck as a co-founder of If Not Now.
- Luck's website notes she was a founding staff member and Vice President for Field and Campaigns at J Street.
- Simone Zimmerman identifies herself as a co-founder of If Not Now on her Twitter page.
- In an article for The Forward, Josh Nathan-Kazis writes that Simone Zimmerman was the national president of J Street U’s student board in the 2012-2013 school year
- Kara Segal's LinkedIn account lists her as an If Not Now co-founder.
- She appears in this YouTube video at a 2009 J Street conference.
- Emily Mayer identifies herself as an If Not Now organizer on her Twitter page
- Daniel Greenfield notes that Emily Mayer was with J Street U at Haverford
Canary Mission lists Sarah Beth Alcabes as leading an INN disruption, in partnership with Taher Herzallah of American Muslims for Palestine (AMP), and also being an activist with J Street U at the University of California, Berkeley (Berkeley) from 2012-2014.
Times of Israel mentions Elianna Fishman, who was "heavily involved with J Street U Dartmouth" and who confirms "I interned for J Street, and helped set up a chapter on campus” before graduating and joining IfNotNow -- to which the article adds
In fact, many of IfNotNow’s leaders are alumni of J Street U.An article in Haaretz echoes this when it says:
[If Not Now] remains small, attracting several dozen participants, some of whom are leaders of J Street U, the group’s student-organizing arm.But the question remains: why have these, and other members of J Street, made the switch?
According to a Haaretz article from 2014, Gaza War Pushes Some to the Left of J Street. The logic, according to Haaretz, is that over time, J Street, even back in 2014, was becoming larger and more moderate, with the result that there were the beginnings of a limited exodus that benefited smaller more radical groups. One of those groups was If Not Now, described in the article as "an ad hoc group."
Of course, what the Haaretz article claims is a sign of J Street's moderation can also be seen as the failure in the eyes of some of its members, to become increasingly radical.
A similar theme to Haaretz is taken by Nathan-Kazis in the Forward also in an article from 2014, that in contrast to the more "moderate" tone taken by J Street, some members felt J Street was not doing enough:
Former high-ranking J Street staff members were among the organizers of a July 28 protest in New York City against Israel’s invasion of Gaza. They acted under the name #ifnotnow and made no mention of their former J Street affiliations.He writes about another protest just a few days earlier, launched by 4 activists that included high-ranking members Carinne Luck who had left J Street in 2012 and Daniel May, director of J Street U from 2010 to 2013 as well as Max Berger.
Other participants in one or both of those #ifnotnow protests included Isaac Luria, J Street’s vice president of communications and new media from 2008 until 2011 and Tamara Shapiro.
Some of that former J Street staff said they were not opposed to J Street’s long-term strategy -- but felt limited by its tactics. Others, like Luck, said they did not share J Street's "patience" with the "Jewish institutional community."
That is the narrative.
Daniel Greenfield of FrontPageMag.org isn't buying it.
He is cynical of claims that If Not Now was simply born of a break with J Street. In If Not Now, J Street's Latest Anti-Israel Front Group, he writes:
The official narrative is that If Not Now parted ways with J Street because the group was insufficiently opposed to the Jewish State and insufficiently supportive of Hamas. As a practical matter though this is how radical groups have always operated, with a front group that makes efforts to appear moderate while incubating radical organizations within itself that "split off" but still pursue the same agenda.
Despite claims of a split, If Not Now is just pursuing the exact same agenda as J Street U, protesting Jewish charities for supporting Israel, while claiming to be the voice of a new generation.
It's the same scam with a new brand and slightly less of a paper trail.
If Not Now is J Street...
...New organizations are constantly being created and destroyed. But they all share one agenda. The destruction of the Jewish State.If there is indeed an element of dramatic effect at work here, then this alleged break would be no more authentic than the recent break of Jesse Steshenko, who claimed to have been "a very ardent Zionist" who as a result of his recent J Street trip to Israel became "disgusted" with Israel.
Elder of Ziyon revealed that in fact as recently as 2016 as a member of Junior States of America, a mock Congress, he introduced a resolution calling Israel an apartheid state and demanding the recognition of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza as defined by the 1949 Armistice -- effectively depriving Israel of the Western Wall and the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem.
Actually, J Street itself has a history of being less than straightforward.
- It is a group that claims that it is pro-Israel, yet only supports Democrats, going so far as to support candidates it claims support Israel such as Representative Mark Pocan, who anonymously reserved official Capitol Hill space for an anti-Israel forum organized by organizations that support boycotts
- J Street was perfectly willing to support Rashida Tlaib, until it withdrew it only because she backed out of support of a 2-state solution
- Despite denials, J Street not only supported the Goldstone Report - it actively facilitated Goldstone's attempt to defend it
- Despite their repeated denials to the contrary, in 2008 and 2009 J Street received funding from George Soros.
- J Street's co-founder Daniel Levy called the creation of Israel ‘an act that was wrong’
Here is a 2012 video of Luck explaining J Street's job:
The main takeaway from what Luck says:
- A sizable percentage of J Street is not Jewish
- J Street responds to the wishes "the Hill, the (Obama) Administration" which wants J Street to "move Jews"
- The bulk of J Street resources are dedicated to this
- There is an uneasiness about those in J Street leadership who are not Jewish who may present themselves as Jews
We have seen there is a failure of J Street to live up to what it claims it does.
Should we be surprised that there are doubts about what If Not Now claims as well?
-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!
Categories: Middle East
IfNotNow Plans To "Bird Dog" US Presidential Candidates
This post originally appeared on Elder of Ziyon on July 10, 2019
With the presidential campaign heating up and Democratic support for Israel apparently ebbing, the radical left-wing group IfNotNow has now reformed itself as a 501(c)(4) and is out raising money.
More importantly, IfNotNow has a new goal:
“Our focus is going to be trying to push the candidates past giving lip-service to a two-state solution,” said IfNotNow co-founder Emily Mayer, “without recognizing the underlying dynamics and explicit moves by the Israel government that are creating a one-state reality where Palestinians are denied basic rights.”
The organization is also taking a page out of the playbook of groups such as Black Lives Matter and the American Civil Liberties Union: It plans to “bird-dog” presidential candidates at public events to create viral moments and prod the Democratic Party leftward on the issue of Israel.In a MoveOn.org PDF on how to do bird-dogging, MoveOn.org describes it as
a great tactic used to directly engage or confront candidates and MoCs [Members of Congress] on our issues at their public events. It lets them know how important these issues are to everyday constituents. The goal of bird-dogging is to put tough questions to MoCs and force them to answer when they are in front of their constituents, voters, and the media.
Bird-dogging can be used to make sure MoCs can’t escape answering questions about important issues and to ensure that we are setting the terms of the debate.MoveOn.org's playbook provides a checklist on how to prepare for bird-dogging.
For example:
Craft your question.
Ask a yes-or-no question, not an open-ended question. Your goal is to get your member of Congress on the record about a critical issue. Here are some example questions:
■ “Do you understand that by voting to take away the Affordable Care Act, you are taking away my health care?”
■ “Can my fellow constituents and I count on you to vigorously oppose any cut to Medicare, including privatization, which would threaten my ability to retire?”These are manipulative questions that are meant more to put the person in a corner and pin them down
The goal is supposed to be to push the Democratic candidates to take more left-wing positions against Israel, clarify their stands and draw public attention to the changing attitudes of the Democratic Party. In the Politico article, Emily Mayer -- a co-founder of IfNotNow -- considered Biden and Booker out of sync with the Democratic base on Israel.
IfNotNow started off with an easy one.
They caught up with Bernie Sanders while he was campaigning in New Hampshire. Considering the fact that Sanders has called Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government “racist,” getting the candidate to back their cause in condemning Israel was not going to be a problem
Not much of a challenge.
Last year in August, Corey Booker got caught doing something similar:
At the time, Booker claimed that he misunderstood the sign and thought it just had to do with Mexico. Since that time, Booker has continued to support Israel.
In Sanders' case, he didn't have to say a word. So the "confrontation" with Sanders was actually nothing more than a photo-op.
But their next target was Elizabeth Warren.
Here are some snapshot excerpts of the 73-second polished video that went on Twitter, with the headline that
Sen. @eWarren says she’d push Israel to end its occupation of Gaza and the West Bank
If you do a search online, you'll find there are all kinds of headlines now proclaiming that Warren has promised to end the "Israeli occupation."
But is that really what happened?
They did not pin Warren down with a yes-no question.
All they did was gush all over her and say "We'd really love it if you also pushed the Israeli government to end the occupation"
What they got in return was "Yes. Yes. So I'm there."
Whatever that means.
IfNotNow tried to capitalize on all this with a press release:
In the past, Warren has regularly spoken of Israel as a strong ally in a tough neighborhood and has appeared at AIPAC events and used right-wing talking points. But as her career has gone on, her views on the issue have grown to be farther in line with her progressive values: She was one of the 60 Democrats to boycott Netanyahu’s speech in Congress, she supported the Iran Deal, spoke out against the Embassy move, and opposes efforts to criminalize the BDS movement.Down the road, they may try to pin Warren down to specifics, but it's not clear what she said in the first place. Considering all the billion-dollar plans Warren is going around promising, saying yes to a vague question is not likely to cause her problems down the road.
Did Warren even pay serious attention to what they were saying?
Here is what happened, without the window dressing from the original 16-second video:
Two kids gushed about how much they admired Elizabeth Warren and she shepherded them into a photo op and quickly sent them on their way.
Considering the Democratic presidential field, IfNotNow is not likely to corner anyone who is not more than willing to agree on the issue of occupation.
On the other hand, if they instead ask more pointed questions that address other more controversial issues like the Gaza "protests", then we may see sparks fly.
The candidates are unlikely to be prepared for the simplistic one-sided questions that IfNotNow may soon be throwing at them.
While the media has made a point of not pinning down the candidates on how they plan to pay for the numerous plans they are proposing, the candidates may soon find themselves being held responsible for the stands they claim to take on Israel.
That may not be such a bad thing.
-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!
With the presidential campaign heating up and Democratic support for Israel apparently ebbing, the radical left-wing group IfNotNow has now reformed itself as a 501(c)(4) and is out raising money.
More importantly, IfNotNow has a new goal:
“Our focus is going to be trying to push the candidates past giving lip-service to a two-state solution,” said IfNotNow co-founder Emily Mayer, “without recognizing the underlying dynamics and explicit moves by the Israel government that are creating a one-state reality where Palestinians are denied basic rights.”
The organization is also taking a page out of the playbook of groups such as Black Lives Matter and the American Civil Liberties Union: It plans to “bird-dog” presidential candidates at public events to create viral moments and prod the Democratic Party leftward on the issue of Israel.In a MoveOn.org PDF on how to do bird-dogging, MoveOn.org describes it as
a great tactic used to directly engage or confront candidates and MoCs [Members of Congress] on our issues at their public events. It lets them know how important these issues are to everyday constituents. The goal of bird-dogging is to put tough questions to MoCs and force them to answer when they are in front of their constituents, voters, and the media.
Bird-dogging can be used to make sure MoCs can’t escape answering questions about important issues and to ensure that we are setting the terms of the debate.MoveOn.org's playbook provides a checklist on how to prepare for bird-dogging.
For example:
Craft your question.
Ask a yes-or-no question, not an open-ended question. Your goal is to get your member of Congress on the record about a critical issue. Here are some example questions:
■ “Do you understand that by voting to take away the Affordable Care Act, you are taking away my health care?”
■ “Can my fellow constituents and I count on you to vigorously oppose any cut to Medicare, including privatization, which would threaten my ability to retire?”These are manipulative questions that are meant more to put the person in a corner and pin them down
The goal is supposed to be to push the Democratic candidates to take more left-wing positions against Israel, clarify their stands and draw public attention to the changing attitudes of the Democratic Party. In the Politico article, Emily Mayer -- a co-founder of IfNotNow -- considered Biden and Booker out of sync with the Democratic base on Israel.
IfNotNow started off with an easy one.
They caught up with Bernie Sanders while he was campaigning in New Hampshire. Considering the fact that Sanders has called Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government “racist,” getting the candidate to back their cause in condemning Israel was not going to be a problem
Not much of a challenge.
Last year in August, Corey Booker got caught doing something similar:
At the time, Booker claimed that he misunderstood the sign and thought it just had to do with Mexico. Since that time, Booker has continued to support Israel.
In Sanders' case, he didn't have to say a word. So the "confrontation" with Sanders was actually nothing more than a photo-op.
But their next target was Elizabeth Warren.
Here are some snapshot excerpts of the 73-second polished video that went on Twitter, with the headline that
Sen. @eWarren says she’d push Israel to end its occupation of Gaza and the West Bank
If you do a search online, you'll find there are all kinds of headlines now proclaiming that Warren has promised to end the "Israeli occupation."
But is that really what happened?
They did not pin Warren down with a yes-no question.
All they did was gush all over her and say "We'd really love it if you also pushed the Israeli government to end the occupation"
What they got in return was "Yes. Yes. So I'm there."
Whatever that means.
IfNotNow tried to capitalize on all this with a press release:
In the past, Warren has regularly spoken of Israel as a strong ally in a tough neighborhood and has appeared at AIPAC events and used right-wing talking points. But as her career has gone on, her views on the issue have grown to be farther in line with her progressive values: She was one of the 60 Democrats to boycott Netanyahu’s speech in Congress, she supported the Iran Deal, spoke out against the Embassy move, and opposes efforts to criminalize the BDS movement.Down the road, they may try to pin Warren down to specifics, but it's not clear what she said in the first place. Considering all the billion-dollar plans Warren is going around promising, saying yes to a vague question is not likely to cause her problems down the road.
Did Warren even pay serious attention to what they were saying?
Here is what happened, without the window dressing from the original 16-second video:
Two kids gushed about how much they admired Elizabeth Warren and she shepherded them into a photo op and quickly sent them on their way.
Considering the Democratic presidential field, IfNotNow is not likely to corner anyone who is not more than willing to agree on the issue of occupation.
On the other hand, if they instead ask more pointed questions that address other more controversial issues like the Gaza "protests", then we may see sparks fly.
The candidates are unlikely to be prepared for the simplistic one-sided questions that IfNotNow may soon be throwing at them.
While the media has made a point of not pinning down the candidates on how they plan to pay for the numerous plans they are proposing, the candidates may soon find themselves being held responsible for the stands they claim to take on Israel.
That may not be such a bad thing.
-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!
Categories: Middle East
Its Another Round of Omar-Tlaib vs Trump -- And Jews Are Caught In The Middle
We've seen that Trump is determined to paint the Democratic party as the party of AOC, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib.
With the latest blowup over Israel banning Omar and Tlaib from entering the country -- Trump, Omar and Tlaib are at it again, but this time with not only Israel, but also the American Jewish community itself caught in the middle.
Yet some of the themes and some of the accusations being cast back and forth seemed oddly familiar, with a certain double standard being applied.
This is especially apparent on Twitter.
Deflecting Criticism With ImpunityIn the current situation, we see Omar deflecting criticism of her support of BDS and her and Tlaib's reliance on the viciously antisemitic Miftah, by claiming the criticism is really all about her and Tlaib being Muslim:
But oddly enough, we have seen that when there is even a hint that criticism of Israel is being deflected by claiming it is antisemitic -- there is an uproar that this is proof that defenders of Israel are evading the issue.
Do We Want Netanyahu To Have a Good Relationship With The US President?David Hazony points out that not so long ago we were told about the importance of Netanyahu having proper respect for the President of the United States:
That is an idea that Herb Keinon dwells on:
Netanyahu, and by extension Israel, were damned when they had a difficult relationship with the US president, and now Netanyahu, and by extension Israel, is damned for enjoying a good relationship with the US president.At Powerline Blog, Paul Mirengoff expands on this idea:
When Barack Obama was in office, Benjamin Netanyahu had a terrible relationship with the American president. Back then, as Herb Keinon reminds us, liberals and their media pals insisted it was crucial that the Israeli prime minister have a strong relationship with the president of the U.S.
These days, Netanyahu’s relationship with the American president could hardly be stronger. So what’s the liberal/media line now? Netanyahu is too close to President Trump.
Exhibit A is Netanyahu’s decision to cancel a visit to Israel by Reps. Omar and Tlaib — a visit that apparently was going to take place until Trump tweeted that it shouldn’t. But if the relationship between the U.S. president and the Israeli prime minister is so important, why shouldn’t Netanyahu take Trump’s opinion into account when making what probably was a close call?Well, actually, strong relations with the president would be considered a good thing -- even with a Republican president -- but in this case, where Trump has been so thoroughly demonized by the Left and the Media, it really is no surprise to see Netanyahu criticized for having a good working relationship with him. After all, the ban is carefully framed as an example of Netanyahu giving in to Trump and being manipulated by him, which makes matters seem even worse.
Calling Jewish Loyalty Into Question Yet Again
Just when it seemed that the uproar over Israel refusing entry to Omar and Tlaib was beginning to wane, Trump stirred things up again:
Not that we haven't seen other politicians in Washington recently accuse Jews of disloyalty:
If there is a difference, it would be that Omar was accusing Jews of being disloyal to the US and being guilty of dual loyalty.
Trump, on the other hand, in his own sloppy way, seemed to be saying that Jews voting for Democrats were being disloyal to the Jewish community as a whole.
But as far as his opponents were concerned, it was a difference without a distinction and they are playing it up for all it was worth.
Lost in this kerfuffle, was the fact that another Democrat was throwing around accusations of disloyalty as well
Congressman Ted Lieu accused US Ambassador David Friedman of being disloyal to the US by defending Israel's decision to ban Omar and Tlaib.
It was a sharp attack and Lieu later deleted the tweet and gave an unapologetic apology:
But as pointed out on Legal Insurrection, Lieu's excuse in pleading ignorance was not altogether honest.
Just last month, Lieu indicated he understood full well the impact of being accused of having dual loyalties, both in general and to Jews:
The suspicion that immigrants are not to be trusted or are unpatriotic is not just wrong, it is un-American. And dangerous. Yet it has marred America's past, including with the 19th-century "Yellow Peril" hysteria, the internment during World War II of more than 110,000 people who happened to be of Japanese descent and accusations against Jewish Americans of harboring dual loyalties. [emphasis added]Even now, there are reports that as a result of the anger of Democrats, Israel’s ambassador to the US is done in the House, and the US ambassador to Israel may not be far behind.
Lost in all this is that Friedman, as ambassador, represents Trump -- not the American people.
When Cartoons Become Antisemitic Weapons
Remember when the Trump came out with this tweet, which he later deleted:
All that uproar over a star of David being used -- and Trump was again being accused of antisemitism.
But that kind of outrage is very selective.
As much as the media loves to jump at the chance to accuse Trump of antisemitism, that same media takes care to mute their criticism of Omar-Tlaib when they do something similar:
Batya Bungar-Sargon pointed out the problem:Oof. Looks like both Rep. Omar and Rep. Tlaib shared this awful Carlos Latuff cartoon in Instagram stories yesterday. In 2006, Latuff came in second in Iran's International Holocaust Cartoon Contest, which is a thing that exists, in case you thought the TL couldn't get any worse.Putting aside Latuff's history of antisemitic cartoons and his mocking of the Holocaust, this cartoon -- which Omar and Tlaib eagerly shared -- shows the arms of Trump and Netanyahu forming the stripes of the Israeli flag, with a Jewish star in the middle, implying a conspiratorial connection between Trump and Netanyahu, something we haven't seen in a cartoon since The New York Times graced its pages with this:
Not that The New York Times has learned its lesson and would call out the antisemitism of the Latuff cartoon:
The Times, after publishing an antisemitic cartoon in its international edition a few months ago, editorialized it is a “dangerous mistake“ to dismiss antisemitism as a fringe element in society, but on Miftah, Tlaib, and Omar the paper continues to fall painfully short of “unblinking journalism and the clear editorial expression of its values.” Or its values seem to require a certain amount of blinking.
Jews and/or Israel are accused of
o Hiding behind claims of antisemitism to avoid criticism
o Allowing Trump to dictate Israeli policy
o Trying to influence US policy
o Being accused of dual loyalty
o Trying to control MuslimsAnd through it all, Jews are becoming ever more aware that the hatred of Jews that we read about happening in Europe has reached the US and is getting worse.
-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!
With the latest blowup over Israel banning Omar and Tlaib from entering the country -- Trump, Omar and Tlaib are at it again, but this time with not only Israel, but also the American Jewish community itself caught in the middle.
Yet some of the themes and some of the accusations being cast back and forth seemed oddly familiar, with a certain double standard being applied.
This is especially apparent on Twitter.
Deflecting Criticism With ImpunityIn the current situation, we see Omar deflecting criticism of her support of BDS and her and Tlaib's reliance on the viciously antisemitic Miftah, by claiming the criticism is really all about her and Tlaib being Muslim:
But oddly enough, we have seen that when there is even a hint that criticism of Israel is being deflected by claiming it is antisemitic -- there is an uproar that this is proof that defenders of Israel are evading the issue.
Do We Want Netanyahu To Have a Good Relationship With The US President?David Hazony points out that not so long ago we were told about the importance of Netanyahu having proper respect for the President of the United States:
That is an idea that Herb Keinon dwells on:
Netanyahu, and by extension Israel, were damned when they had a difficult relationship with the US president, and now Netanyahu, and by extension Israel, is damned for enjoying a good relationship with the US president.At Powerline Blog, Paul Mirengoff expands on this idea:
When Barack Obama was in office, Benjamin Netanyahu had a terrible relationship with the American president. Back then, as Herb Keinon reminds us, liberals and their media pals insisted it was crucial that the Israeli prime minister have a strong relationship with the president of the U.S.
These days, Netanyahu’s relationship with the American president could hardly be stronger. So what’s the liberal/media line now? Netanyahu is too close to President Trump.
Exhibit A is Netanyahu’s decision to cancel a visit to Israel by Reps. Omar and Tlaib — a visit that apparently was going to take place until Trump tweeted that it shouldn’t. But if the relationship between the U.S. president and the Israeli prime minister is so important, why shouldn’t Netanyahu take Trump’s opinion into account when making what probably was a close call?Well, actually, strong relations with the president would be considered a good thing -- even with a Republican president -- but in this case, where Trump has been so thoroughly demonized by the Left and the Media, it really is no surprise to see Netanyahu criticized for having a good working relationship with him. After all, the ban is carefully framed as an example of Netanyahu giving in to Trump and being manipulated by him, which makes matters seem even worse.
Calling Jewish Loyalty Into Question Yet Again
Just when it seemed that the uproar over Israel refusing entry to Omar and Tlaib was beginning to wane, Trump stirred things up again:
Not that we haven't seen other politicians in Washington recently accuse Jews of disloyalty:
If there is a difference, it would be that Omar was accusing Jews of being disloyal to the US and being guilty of dual loyalty.
Trump, on the other hand, in his own sloppy way, seemed to be saying that Jews voting for Democrats were being disloyal to the Jewish community as a whole.
But as far as his opponents were concerned, it was a difference without a distinction and they are playing it up for all it was worth.
Lost in this kerfuffle, was the fact that another Democrat was throwing around accusations of disloyalty as well
Congressman Ted Lieu accused US Ambassador David Friedman of being disloyal to the US by defending Israel's decision to ban Omar and Tlaib.
It was a sharp attack and Lieu later deleted the tweet and gave an unapologetic apology:
But as pointed out on Legal Insurrection, Lieu's excuse in pleading ignorance was not altogether honest.
Just last month, Lieu indicated he understood full well the impact of being accused of having dual loyalties, both in general and to Jews:
The suspicion that immigrants are not to be trusted or are unpatriotic is not just wrong, it is un-American. And dangerous. Yet it has marred America's past, including with the 19th-century "Yellow Peril" hysteria, the internment during World War II of more than 110,000 people who happened to be of Japanese descent and accusations against Jewish Americans of harboring dual loyalties. [emphasis added]Even now, there are reports that as a result of the anger of Democrats, Israel’s ambassador to the US is done in the House, and the US ambassador to Israel may not be far behind.
Lost in all this is that Friedman, as ambassador, represents Trump -- not the American people.
When Cartoons Become Antisemitic Weapons
Remember when the Trump came out with this tweet, which he later deleted:
All that uproar over a star of David being used -- and Trump was again being accused of antisemitism.
But that kind of outrage is very selective.
As much as the media loves to jump at the chance to accuse Trump of antisemitism, that same media takes care to mute their criticism of Omar-Tlaib when they do something similar:
Batya Bungar-Sargon pointed out the problem:Oof. Looks like both Rep. Omar and Rep. Tlaib shared this awful Carlos Latuff cartoon in Instagram stories yesterday. In 2006, Latuff came in second in Iran's International Holocaust Cartoon Contest, which is a thing that exists, in case you thought the TL couldn't get any worse.Putting aside Latuff's history of antisemitic cartoons and his mocking of the Holocaust, this cartoon -- which Omar and Tlaib eagerly shared -- shows the arms of Trump and Netanyahu forming the stripes of the Israeli flag, with a Jewish star in the middle, implying a conspiratorial connection between Trump and Netanyahu, something we haven't seen in a cartoon since The New York Times graced its pages with this:
Not that The New York Times has learned its lesson and would call out the antisemitism of the Latuff cartoon:
The Times, after publishing an antisemitic cartoon in its international edition a few months ago, editorialized it is a “dangerous mistake“ to dismiss antisemitism as a fringe element in society, but on Miftah, Tlaib, and Omar the paper continues to fall painfully short of “unblinking journalism and the clear editorial expression of its values.” Or its values seem to require a certain amount of blinking.
Jews and/or Israel are accused of
o Hiding behind claims of antisemitism to avoid criticism
o Allowing Trump to dictate Israeli policy
o Trying to influence US policy
o Being accused of dual loyalty
o Trying to control MuslimsAnd through it all, Jews are becoming ever more aware that the hatred of Jews that we read about happening in Europe has reached the US and is getting worse.
-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!
Categories: Middle East
What You Need To Know About J-Street's "Birthright" Style Trip
This post originally appeared on Elder of Ziyon on July 4, 2019
The Birthright program is often in the news, mainly because of the tremendous work it does to strengthen the Jewish sense of identity of young Jews by creating the opportunity for them to visit Israel for free.
The Birthright trips have expanded over the years and now you can choose your own theme/itinerary:
Birthright Israel seeks to ensure the future of the Jewish people by strengthening Jewish identity, Jewish communities, and connection with Israel via a trip to Israel for the majority of Jewish young adults from around the world.
Our hope is that our trips motivate young people to continue to explore their Jewish identity and support for Israel and maintain long-lasting connections with the Israelis they meet on their trip. We encourage our alumni to take active roles in Jewish organizations and to participate in follow-up activities worldwide. But Birthright also gets into the news because of the attempt by left-wing groups to politicize what the program does. These groups offer suggestions -- if not outright demands -- that the Birthright 10-day program includes a 'balanced' introduction to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
J Street is among those left-wing Jewish groups, under J Street U, that want to tinker with the program
The J Street U campaign emphasizes that it is important for American Jewish students to be well-informed and to receive a full and nuanced picture of the challenges facing Israel today, including the threat that the occupation presents to its long-term future as a democratic homeland for the Jewish people. The petitions warn against the damaging consequences of excluding and omitting Palestinian voices and narratives from the conversation.So now J Street has started its own alternative to Birthright trips.
Why is this a concern?
Because of J Street's controversial agenda to use the US to impose its politics on Israel.
As J Street puts it:
Israel’s supporters have the right and the obligation to speak out when the policies or the actions of the Israeli government are hurting the long-term interests of Israel and the Jewish people.J Street presents itself as a more liberal alternative to AIPAC. But it is more than that. Unlike AIPAC, which advocates for Israeli policy independent of politics and who leads the Israeli government, J Street actively pushes its own agenda in the US in order to influence the policy in Israel. For example, unlike AIPAC, J Street actively involves itself in US elections and supports only Democratic candidates. Considering how Democratic candidates are moving the left and are less supportive of Israel, that is a major concern that needs to be addressed.
As the J StreetPAC site puts it on their About Us page:
While J Street notes the overwhelming Jewish support for the Democratic party, that does not explain J Street support for anti-Israel Democrats.
While J Street U has put together its own "Birthright trip, this is not the first time J Street has tried this.
The blog Mystical Politics has a copy of the original press release from J-Street posted by J Street U director Daniel May on January 25, 2011, announcing a trip in conjunction with Birthright. (The press release has been removed from the J Street site):
J Street U is very happy to announce that we will be leading a free, ten-day Taglit-Birthright trip this summer titled, "Explore Israel: Progressive Zionism and Social Justice."
This trip is an incredible opportunity to connect with the Israel that isn't on the front page or in the guide books. Move beyond the headlines, and see what's really happening on the ground.
If you're Jewish, age 18 - 25, and have yet to take a peer group trip to Israel, we strongly encourage you to sign up and be the first to know when registration opens.
The trip is a chance to appreciate the vibrancy of Israel's history, culture and landscape from a perspective that acknowledges your Jewish and progressive values.
The best way to discover the richness of Israeli society and the full contours of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is to travel around Israel and meet people from the diverse groups of the region. There is simply no substitute for seeing the land and connecting with the people.
On the trip, we'll speak with members of Israeli civil society working to advance the goals of democracy and human rights. Our itinerary will provide a cross-section of Israeli opinion.
This trip is a gift of Taglit-Birthright Israel and will be provided by The Israel Experience, Ltd. [emphasis added]The intended focus of the trip was political -- from a 'progressive' perspective, focusing on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and meeting representatives of human rights groups -- as opposed to Jewish identity and connection to Israel. That was, and is, their prerogative. However, the description does not seem like it would mesh with the Birthright goals of identity and connection
And mesh it didn't.
The blog FresnoZionism sounded the alarm: Action alert: Don’t let J Street exploit Birthright:
In other words, the phony ‘pro-Israel’ organization J Street, a group that takes money from people associated with Saudi Arabia, the Arab-American institute, Iranian interests, anti-Israel billionaire George Soros, a mysterious woman associated with the guy who beat the Hong Kong horse-racing track, and the Turkish producer of anti-Israel propaganda films; whose co-founder [Daniel Levy] called the creation of Israel ‘an act that was wrong’; and which facilitated meetings between members of Congress and Judge Richard Goldstone, author of the notorious Goldstone report that accused Israel of deliberately murdering civilians in the Gaza war — this organization has the chutzpah to use funds provided by Taglit-Birthright to sabotage its purpose!He contacted Birthright and encouraged others to as well, and in the end, the Birthright trip was canceled.
Moriel Rothman, President of the J Street U student board, issued a statement which read in part:
J Street U had planned our trip in order to forge an avenue through which liberal-minded college students – who may otherwise not engage – could develop a deep and lasting relationship with the Jewish homeland. The trip was to include the traditional highlights of a Taglit-Birthright experience – visits to Masada, the Kotel, and Yad Va’Shem – as well as opportunities for students to engage with Israeli human rights advocates, journalists, and politicians involved in the struggle to preserve the democratic future of the Jewish homeland.
...Despite their initial approval for a trip that would provide just such an experience, Birthright’s leadership has now decided that it is inappropriate for JStreetU to organize a trip because we are politically oriented. Nonetheless, comparable organizations with different politics than ours participate and help organize trips every year. For instance, AIPAC’s “Capital to Capital” Birthright trip is designed for Jewish political activists who are “significantly involved in the American political process.” Given that other such trips are regularly offered, we were surprised and saddened that our trip was suddenly deemed inappropriate. [emphasis added]Again, there are politics and there are politics. FresnoZionism in the same post makes reference to the politics of Moriel Rothman:
What is J Street U? Its National Board President U is a Middlebury College student named Moriel Rothman. Here is how he explains the controversy around the Sheik Jarrah / Shimon haTzadik neighborhood in East Jerusalem. Pay attention not only to his words, but his tone:
…the Jerusalem municipality has been bending to the will of fanatic Jewish settlers, and producing - based on archaic documents from the Ottoman period and manufactured Israeli law - eviction notices to a number of Palestinian families, and in some cases - such as with three families in Sheikh Jarrah- acting on those eviction notices by force and removing those Palestinian families from their homes. The municipality’s actions are hugely problematic from a moral standpoint: not only are Jews buying up and/or stealing Arab land in East Jerusalem, but Arabs are moreover unable to buy land in the primarily Jewish West Jerusalem… These policies are also hugely problematic from the standpoint of peace, as East Jerusalem must be the capital of the future Palestinian state, and the Clinton Parameters, which state that Palestine will get control of Arab neighborhoods and Israel will control Jewish neighborhoods, are made harder and harder to implement with each infiltration of Jewish settlers into Arab neighborhoods like Silwan and Sheikh Jarrah. [emphasis in the original]This is the example set by a head of J Street U at the time.
In the end, it appeared that the provider J Street U was working with, Israel Experience, did not clear the arrangement with Birthright in advance.
J Street U's statement gave a hint of things to come:
J Street U students are petitioning Birthright CEO Gidi Mark to “provide more Birthright trips that speak to the values of social justice, democracy, and peace that are so important to young, progressive Jews. [emphasis added]An article from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency at the time explained the Birthright position on politically oriented trips and why trips coordinated with AIPAC are different from what J Street proposed:
“We said such a trip, as described in a brief conversation with the Israel Experience, would likely be out of keeping with our longstanding policy of not conducting trips with a political orientation,” Birthright said in a statement.
A spokesperson for Birthright subsequently confirmed that the policy was adopted in 2009, when the organization decided not to partner any longer with groups that are “overtly political.”
Prior to 2009, Birthright trips were run in conjunction with the Zionist Organization of America and the Union for Progressive Zionists, the precursor to J Street U.
Birthright continues to partner with AIPAC, though references to the pro-Israel lobby group were scrubbed recently from the website of the Israel Experience. Birthright said AIPAC did not fall under the 2009 policy change because the organization does not generally seek to influence Israeli policy. [emphasis added]Birthright further explained the
For years, we have run a Capital-to-Capital trip through another trip provider, which focuses on the Israeli political system. The provider has been running this trip, with input from AIPAC, a mainstream Israel advocacy group, long before JStreet was established. It focuses on Israel’s political structure, with an approach similar to a political science class; the trip has never been tilted to one side of the political spectrum. [emphasis added]In the end, J Street went on the trip on their own.
How did it go?
In a J-Street U mailing no longer online, Daniel May, Director, J Street U, wrote on June 21, 201:1
I can tell that these two weeks are making a life-long impact on the participants. And amidst the painful stories of this conflict, that fact is giving me tremendous hope. But I don't want you to hear it from me. I want you to hear it directly from the students...
Simone Zimmerman, Berkeley ‘13 – Read her whole post here.
As aspiring peacebuilders, we have already been given so much to challenge us, and we have barely chipped the surface. I feel a tremendous amount of responsibility already, and a tremendous amount of privilege for being able to participate in this journey with J Street U. I’ve been to Israel many times in many different capacities, but this is my first trip where I am finding that I can, without contradiction, bring together my deep love for this country with my deep commitment to exploring the toughest challenges facing Israel today. [emphasis added]Here is a picture of Simone Zimmerman from during the J Street U trip
From J Street U Facebook Page
Zimmerman has since made a name for herself in expressing that "deep love" and "commitment":
Bernie Sanders staffer fired for anti-Netanyahu rant hired to run B’Tselem USA
After Zimmerman, a former J Street student activist, was hired by the Sanders campaign, it was discovered she previously wrote on Facebook, “Bibi Netanyahu is an arrogant, deceptive, cynical, manipulative asshole,” according to the Washington-based Free Beacon.
She continued: “F-- you, Bibi, for daring to insist that you legitimately represent even a fraction of the Jews in this world, for your consistent fear-mongering, for pushing Israel in word and deed, farther and farther away from the international community, and most importantly, for trying to derail a potentially historic diplomatic deal with Iran and thus trying to distract the world from the fact that you sanctioned the murder of over 2,000 people this summer.”
She edited the post on March 3, 2015, changing asshole to “politician” and the second expletive to “shame on you.” She was dismissed by the Sanders campaign after being its Jewish outreach coordinator for only two days.
Simone Zimmerman. Screengrab from Haaretz video on YouTube
Considering the example of J Street's past activities against Israel, the attitude demonstrated in the past by J Street U leaders like Moriel Rothman and the activities of the products of J Street U leadership such as Simone Zimmerman -- who is one of the founders of the virulently anti-Israel If Not Now -- suspicions of J Street "Birthright-style" trips are natural.
According to the itinerary of the current 9-day J Street trip:
Day 6: The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict and the Occupation 101
Morning: Settlement Tour and Palestinian Village
Afternoon: Hebron
Evening: Group conversation
Overnight: Jerusalem
Day 7: Israel and Palestinian Perspectives Over the Green Line
Morning: Ramallah–Palestinian self-rule under occupation.
Afternoon: Conversation with Settlers
Evening: Israeli and Palestinian Peace Activists
Overnight: Ein GediThere is nothing wrong with criticism of Israel.
The issue is not criticism but rather J Street's record of undercutting Israel and its subversion of support for it.
J Street is a special interest group with its own agenda.
It is a political agenda that contrasts with AIPAC, just as its politicized idea of an Israel trip contrasts with Birthright trips that encourage Jewish identity and connection with Israel.
Neither AIPAC nor Birthright have a particular agenda that it imposes or politics it is trying to push onto others.
The same is not true of J Street.
The goal of its trip is just one more way for J Street to push its agenda.
-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!
The Birthright program is often in the news, mainly because of the tremendous work it does to strengthen the Jewish sense of identity of young Jews by creating the opportunity for them to visit Israel for free.
The Birthright trips have expanded over the years and now you can choose your own theme/itinerary:
- Active: Dive-in to the ultimate outdoor adventure and get ready to hike, bike, and climb your way through Israel
- Professional: Delve deeper into your professional industry by experiencing the best of Israel through an occupational lens
- Culinary: Savor the flavor of Mediterranean cuisine and develop your palate and culinary skills alongside some of Israel's finest chefs
- Spiritual: Embark on a meaningful quest through mystical Israel. Connect with the land, the people and yourself
- Cultural: Get lost in Israel's thriving city centers and explore music, theatre and award-winning film
- LGBTQ: Join like-minded peers on a curated tour of Israel's thriving LGBTQ culture
- Study Abroad: Make the country your classroom and travel Israel for 12-14 days. You will experience all the best parts of our Classic trip and master a topic of your choosing earning 3 credits in the process
Birthright Israel seeks to ensure the future of the Jewish people by strengthening Jewish identity, Jewish communities, and connection with Israel via a trip to Israel for the majority of Jewish young adults from around the world.
Our hope is that our trips motivate young people to continue to explore their Jewish identity and support for Israel and maintain long-lasting connections with the Israelis they meet on their trip. We encourage our alumni to take active roles in Jewish organizations and to participate in follow-up activities worldwide. But Birthright also gets into the news because of the attempt by left-wing groups to politicize what the program does. These groups offer suggestions -- if not outright demands -- that the Birthright 10-day program includes a 'balanced' introduction to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
J Street is among those left-wing Jewish groups, under J Street U, that want to tinker with the program
The J Street U campaign emphasizes that it is important for American Jewish students to be well-informed and to receive a full and nuanced picture of the challenges facing Israel today, including the threat that the occupation presents to its long-term future as a democratic homeland for the Jewish people. The petitions warn against the damaging consequences of excluding and omitting Palestinian voices and narratives from the conversation.So now J Street has started its own alternative to Birthright trips.
Why is this a concern?
Because of J Street's controversial agenda to use the US to impose its politics on Israel.
As J Street puts it:
Israel’s supporters have the right and the obligation to speak out when the policies or the actions of the Israeli government are hurting the long-term interests of Israel and the Jewish people.J Street presents itself as a more liberal alternative to AIPAC. But it is more than that. Unlike AIPAC, which advocates for Israeli policy independent of politics and who leads the Israeli government, J Street actively pushes its own agenda in the US in order to influence the policy in Israel. For example, unlike AIPAC, J Street actively involves itself in US elections and supports only Democratic candidates. Considering how Democratic candidates are moving the left and are less supportive of Israel, that is a major concern that needs to be addressed.
As the J StreetPAC site puts it on their About Us page:
While J Street notes the overwhelming Jewish support for the Democratic party, that does not explain J Street support for anti-Israel Democrats.
- On its website, J Street supports Representative Mark Pocan, who in 2017 anonymously reserved official Capitol Hill space for an anti-Israel forum organized by pro-BDS groups.
- J Street supports Representative Hank Johnson, who referred to Israelis living in Judea and Samaria as 'termites'.
- J Street also supports Dan Kildee, who along with Pocan and Johnson met with Shawan Jabarin, a member of the terrorist group PFLP.
- Just last year, J Street endorsed Rashida Tlaib, despite her support for Palestinian terrorist Rasmea Odeh and criticism of Kamala Harris for discussing cooperation between California and Israel on water management, agriculture, and cyber security. J Street did eventually withdraw its support for Tlaib -- but only because Tlaib withdrew her support for a two-state solution.
While J Street U has put together its own "Birthright trip, this is not the first time J Street has tried this.
The blog Mystical Politics has a copy of the original press release from J-Street posted by J Street U director Daniel May on January 25, 2011, announcing a trip in conjunction with Birthright. (The press release has been removed from the J Street site):
J Street U is very happy to announce that we will be leading a free, ten-day Taglit-Birthright trip this summer titled, "Explore Israel: Progressive Zionism and Social Justice."
This trip is an incredible opportunity to connect with the Israel that isn't on the front page or in the guide books. Move beyond the headlines, and see what's really happening on the ground.
If you're Jewish, age 18 - 25, and have yet to take a peer group trip to Israel, we strongly encourage you to sign up and be the first to know when registration opens.
The trip is a chance to appreciate the vibrancy of Israel's history, culture and landscape from a perspective that acknowledges your Jewish and progressive values.
The best way to discover the richness of Israeli society and the full contours of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is to travel around Israel and meet people from the diverse groups of the region. There is simply no substitute for seeing the land and connecting with the people.
On the trip, we'll speak with members of Israeli civil society working to advance the goals of democracy and human rights. Our itinerary will provide a cross-section of Israeli opinion.
This trip is a gift of Taglit-Birthright Israel and will be provided by The Israel Experience, Ltd. [emphasis added]The intended focus of the trip was political -- from a 'progressive' perspective, focusing on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and meeting representatives of human rights groups -- as opposed to Jewish identity and connection to Israel. That was, and is, their prerogative. However, the description does not seem like it would mesh with the Birthright goals of identity and connection
And mesh it didn't.
The blog FresnoZionism sounded the alarm: Action alert: Don’t let J Street exploit Birthright:
In other words, the phony ‘pro-Israel’ organization J Street, a group that takes money from people associated with Saudi Arabia, the Arab-American institute, Iranian interests, anti-Israel billionaire George Soros, a mysterious woman associated with the guy who beat the Hong Kong horse-racing track, and the Turkish producer of anti-Israel propaganda films; whose co-founder [Daniel Levy] called the creation of Israel ‘an act that was wrong’; and which facilitated meetings between members of Congress and Judge Richard Goldstone, author of the notorious Goldstone report that accused Israel of deliberately murdering civilians in the Gaza war — this organization has the chutzpah to use funds provided by Taglit-Birthright to sabotage its purpose!He contacted Birthright and encouraged others to as well, and in the end, the Birthright trip was canceled.
Moriel Rothman, President of the J Street U student board, issued a statement which read in part:
J Street U had planned our trip in order to forge an avenue through which liberal-minded college students – who may otherwise not engage – could develop a deep and lasting relationship with the Jewish homeland. The trip was to include the traditional highlights of a Taglit-Birthright experience – visits to Masada, the Kotel, and Yad Va’Shem – as well as opportunities for students to engage with Israeli human rights advocates, journalists, and politicians involved in the struggle to preserve the democratic future of the Jewish homeland.
...Despite their initial approval for a trip that would provide just such an experience, Birthright’s leadership has now decided that it is inappropriate for JStreetU to organize a trip because we are politically oriented. Nonetheless, comparable organizations with different politics than ours participate and help organize trips every year. For instance, AIPAC’s “Capital to Capital” Birthright trip is designed for Jewish political activists who are “significantly involved in the American political process.” Given that other such trips are regularly offered, we were surprised and saddened that our trip was suddenly deemed inappropriate. [emphasis added]Again, there are politics and there are politics. FresnoZionism in the same post makes reference to the politics of Moriel Rothman:
What is J Street U? Its National Board President U is a Middlebury College student named Moriel Rothman. Here is how he explains the controversy around the Sheik Jarrah / Shimon haTzadik neighborhood in East Jerusalem. Pay attention not only to his words, but his tone:
…the Jerusalem municipality has been bending to the will of fanatic Jewish settlers, and producing - based on archaic documents from the Ottoman period and manufactured Israeli law - eviction notices to a number of Palestinian families, and in some cases - such as with three families in Sheikh Jarrah- acting on those eviction notices by force and removing those Palestinian families from their homes. The municipality’s actions are hugely problematic from a moral standpoint: not only are Jews buying up and/or stealing Arab land in East Jerusalem, but Arabs are moreover unable to buy land in the primarily Jewish West Jerusalem… These policies are also hugely problematic from the standpoint of peace, as East Jerusalem must be the capital of the future Palestinian state, and the Clinton Parameters, which state that Palestine will get control of Arab neighborhoods and Israel will control Jewish neighborhoods, are made harder and harder to implement with each infiltration of Jewish settlers into Arab neighborhoods like Silwan and Sheikh Jarrah. [emphasis in the original]This is the example set by a head of J Street U at the time.
In the end, it appeared that the provider J Street U was working with, Israel Experience, did not clear the arrangement with Birthright in advance.
J Street U's statement gave a hint of things to come:
J Street U students are petitioning Birthright CEO Gidi Mark to “provide more Birthright trips that speak to the values of social justice, democracy, and peace that are so important to young, progressive Jews. [emphasis added]An article from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency at the time explained the Birthright position on politically oriented trips and why trips coordinated with AIPAC are different from what J Street proposed:
“We said such a trip, as described in a brief conversation with the Israel Experience, would likely be out of keeping with our longstanding policy of not conducting trips with a political orientation,” Birthright said in a statement.
A spokesperson for Birthright subsequently confirmed that the policy was adopted in 2009, when the organization decided not to partner any longer with groups that are “overtly political.”
Prior to 2009, Birthright trips were run in conjunction with the Zionist Organization of America and the Union for Progressive Zionists, the precursor to J Street U.
Birthright continues to partner with AIPAC, though references to the pro-Israel lobby group were scrubbed recently from the website of the Israel Experience. Birthright said AIPAC did not fall under the 2009 policy change because the organization does not generally seek to influence Israeli policy. [emphasis added]Birthright further explained the
For years, we have run a Capital-to-Capital trip through another trip provider, which focuses on the Israeli political system. The provider has been running this trip, with input from AIPAC, a mainstream Israel advocacy group, long before JStreet was established. It focuses on Israel’s political structure, with an approach similar to a political science class; the trip has never been tilted to one side of the political spectrum. [emphasis added]In the end, J Street went on the trip on their own.
How did it go?
In a J-Street U mailing no longer online, Daniel May, Director, J Street U, wrote on June 21, 201:1
I can tell that these two weeks are making a life-long impact on the participants. And amidst the painful stories of this conflict, that fact is giving me tremendous hope. But I don't want you to hear it from me. I want you to hear it directly from the students...
Simone Zimmerman, Berkeley ‘13 – Read her whole post here.
As aspiring peacebuilders, we have already been given so much to challenge us, and we have barely chipped the surface. I feel a tremendous amount of responsibility already, and a tremendous amount of privilege for being able to participate in this journey with J Street U. I’ve been to Israel many times in many different capacities, but this is my first trip where I am finding that I can, without contradiction, bring together my deep love for this country with my deep commitment to exploring the toughest challenges facing Israel today. [emphasis added]Here is a picture of Simone Zimmerman from during the J Street U trip
From J Street U Facebook Page
Zimmerman has since made a name for herself in expressing that "deep love" and "commitment":
Bernie Sanders staffer fired for anti-Netanyahu rant hired to run B’Tselem USA
After Zimmerman, a former J Street student activist, was hired by the Sanders campaign, it was discovered she previously wrote on Facebook, “Bibi Netanyahu is an arrogant, deceptive, cynical, manipulative asshole,” according to the Washington-based Free Beacon.
She continued: “F-- you, Bibi, for daring to insist that you legitimately represent even a fraction of the Jews in this world, for your consistent fear-mongering, for pushing Israel in word and deed, farther and farther away from the international community, and most importantly, for trying to derail a potentially historic diplomatic deal with Iran and thus trying to distract the world from the fact that you sanctioned the murder of over 2,000 people this summer.”
She edited the post on March 3, 2015, changing asshole to “politician” and the second expletive to “shame on you.” She was dismissed by the Sanders campaign after being its Jewish outreach coordinator for only two days.
Simone Zimmerman. Screengrab from Haaretz video on YouTube
Considering the example of J Street's past activities against Israel, the attitude demonstrated in the past by J Street U leaders like Moriel Rothman and the activities of the products of J Street U leadership such as Simone Zimmerman -- who is one of the founders of the virulently anti-Israel If Not Now -- suspicions of J Street "Birthright-style" trips are natural.
According to the itinerary of the current 9-day J Street trip:
Day 6: The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict and the Occupation 101
Morning: Settlement Tour and Palestinian Village
Afternoon: Hebron
Evening: Group conversation
Overnight: Jerusalem
Day 7: Israel and Palestinian Perspectives Over the Green Line
Morning: Ramallah–Palestinian self-rule under occupation.
Afternoon: Conversation with Settlers
Evening: Israeli and Palestinian Peace Activists
Overnight: Ein GediThere is nothing wrong with criticism of Israel.
The issue is not criticism but rather J Street's record of undercutting Israel and its subversion of support for it.
- We see it reflected in J Street statements
- We see it reflected in J Street's actions.
- We see it reflected in J Street's support for anti-Israel Democratic candidates
- We see it reflected in J Street 'graduates'
J Street is a special interest group with its own agenda.
It is a political agenda that contrasts with AIPAC, just as its politicized idea of an Israel trip contrasts with Birthright trips that encourage Jewish identity and connection with Israel.
Neither AIPAC nor Birthright have a particular agenda that it imposes or politics it is trying to push onto others.
The same is not true of J Street.
The goal of its trip is just one more way for J Street to push its agenda.
-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!
Categories: Middle East
What Do Ordinary Palestinians Think About The Bahrain Economic Vision?
Inon Dan Kehati leads a group known as The Home, a grassroots organization promoting peace between Israelis and Palestinian Arabs, working on the inside, with the people who are directly and personally affected. They see the problems blocking efforts towards peace created by outside interference of self-appointed peace envoys and promises of money coming from the United States and the European Union -- money that ends up lining the pockets of the Palestinian Authority.
And now they see Jared Kushner's peace plan, or at least the economic part of it: Peace To Prosperity
Kushner claims that the Palestinian Arabs have no reason not to trust Trump.
But is that true?
I asked Kehati about how, from his perspective, the Palestinian Arabs feel about the plan.
Q: what do you make of what is going on in Bahrain, especially the idea of dealing with the economic part and working from the ground up instead of trying to create a state first?
Kehati: I don't think it can bring any momentum or any progress to the (peace) process. Any foreign involvement here, especially western involvement, is just interfering.
Q: Among the people you work with, both Jews and Arabs, do they share a similar pessimism that Trump (and especially Kushner) are getting involved in things that are beyond their ability (and right) to try to control?
Kehati: Most Palestinians that I know, they want prosperity and definitely what Kushner says, that the Palestinian people want prosperity and want better conditions and economic grown and stuff is very true. But the way that it comes from the US -- most likely the PA will make an obstacle so that it will fail eventually. I don't see how it can work.
As long as the PA is there, nothing is going to change. The PA is also playing a double game because they are the Israeli arm regarding managing security in Judea and Samaria -- but it is a dictatorship at the end of the day.
Q: So the Palestinian Arabs actually are siding with Abbas against Kushner's "Peace To Prosperity" plan?
Kehati: Yes, the Palestinians, I am afraid, do agree with Abbas on this issue. Simply to speak about economic prosperity and about money that basically will not go downward to the people is something that does not appeal to Palestinians.
I think that Abbas might take advantage of this conference, and the fact that its basically speaking about economic issues that will definitely not go down to the people -- and abuse it to gain more support from the Palestinians, even though 9 out of 10 Palestinians don't see Abbas as their president or as their leader.
That is the western thinking that does not speak to the emotions and the basic needs of the Palestinian people, but speaks from a western financial perspective about something that is more complex. Again, a total failure to understand the deep motives behind the Palestinians.
The thing is about human rights -- we are not talking about political rights. Freedom of movement, freedom to travel and easing of the military rule: these are the things that speak more to the Palestinians. This is money that basically would go most likely to corrupt leaders or dictators or just corrupt people. This money will not flow downwards.Mordechai Kedar, an Israeli scholar of Arabic culture who works with Kehati and his group, has written about the conference in Bahrain along similar lines.
He addresses the question Why are the Palestinians so opposed to the 'Deal of the Century'?.
On the one hand, whether coming from the nationalistic claims of the Palestinian Authority or the religious perspective espoused by Hamas, neither group will recognize the validity of a Jewish presence in the land. Add to that the actions the Trump administration has taken in recognizing Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem and removing support for the "Palestinian refugees."
Palestinian resistance to western involvement is more than just a rejection of foreign involvement per se. Echoing Kehati, Kedar also sees a rejection of the western approach to solving these kinds of problems:
PLO spokesmen are up in arms because, in their opinion, dealing with the economic issues before solving all the other problems – Jerusalem, the refugees, borders, Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria, water, sovereignty – are a result of the American conception that money, work and economic development can solve everything. [emphasis added]Involving other Arab countries would seem to be the way around that problem. But according to Kedar, there is more to the Palestinian rejection than just opposition to the involvement of the West:
Another serious flaw in the "Deal of the Century" is that it involves additional Arab countries such as Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the Emirates. This is totally unacceptable to Palestinian Arab spokesmen because years ago, Arafat established the rule that "independence is a Palestinian decision," meaning that the Palestinians are the only ones allowed to decide on their own destiny and future. Palestinian pollster Khalil Shikaki also believes that that Trump administration doesn't get it and that the offer of economic aid is not going to work:
The administration makes a big mistake. It shows lack of understanding of the psyche of the Palestinians when it starts with material benefits as a carrot, so that Palestinians can see what they would be missing if they reject the political part of the plan.
This is something that is likely to create the exact opposite reaction among the Palestinian public that the administration hopes it will elicit.Not every analyst is as pessimistic.
Yoni ben Menachem, an Arab affairs and diplomatic commentator for Israel Radio and Television, and a senior Middle East analyst for the Jerusalem Center, thinks that Palestinian opposition to Abbas outweighs their opposition to the Bahrain Conference.
He has been commenting on his Twitter account, where he has expressed his belief that the Palestinian protests opposing the conference have been minimal:
Reporting on the protests have not been so clearcut. According to The Times of Israel, hundreds protested on Monday. On Tuesday several thousand took to the streets in Nablus to protest against the conference, but around Ramallah there were only about 30 who showed up. Similarly, in Bethlehem, the protesters numbered only in the dozens.
Ben Menachem believes that the corruption and incompetence of Abbas have in fact undercut his ability to disrupt the conference and the steps that will follow. In an article about The Palestinian Failure in Bahrain, he notes that Abbas originally called for a general strike, then instead called for 3 days of demonstrations instead, perhaps recognizing how little influence he really has.
The failure of Mahmoud Abbas has become the street talk in the territories, and he may give the Trump government the impetus to begin unilaterally implementing parts of the economic plan discussed at the Bahrain conference. Mahmoud Abbas did not go out of his way to thwart the Bahrain conference and acted as if he understood that the game was over and that he could not stop the gathering. The PA has not formulated a national plan to deal with President Trump's "bargain of the century" and is content to make do with denunciations and threats. [Translated from the Hebrew with Google Translate]Whether this is an overly optimistic view remains to be seen, with various factors in play along with the established traditional Palestinian suspicions outlined above. And as Kehati points out, Abbas and the Palestinian Authority will not make things easy.
Besides, there still remains the Arabs in Gaza, where Hamas -- which is no less corrupt and incompetent than the PA -- rules with a stronger hand.
I corresponded with someone who told me about a friend, a simple Palestinian Arab who doesn't care about Bahrain. The PA and the Ramallah NGOs do not speak for him, and he doesn't know what the Bahrain peace plan is. All he wants is a job and to bring home food for his family. These are the people, not the officials and those who join their protests in the streets, who will ultimately decide the fate of Trump's deal.
-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!
And now they see Jared Kushner's peace plan, or at least the economic part of it: Peace To Prosperity
Kushner claims that the Palestinian Arabs have no reason not to trust Trump.
But is that true?
I asked Kehati about how, from his perspective, the Palestinian Arabs feel about the plan.
Q: what do you make of what is going on in Bahrain, especially the idea of dealing with the economic part and working from the ground up instead of trying to create a state first?
Kehati: I don't think it can bring any momentum or any progress to the (peace) process. Any foreign involvement here, especially western involvement, is just interfering.
Q: Among the people you work with, both Jews and Arabs, do they share a similar pessimism that Trump (and especially Kushner) are getting involved in things that are beyond their ability (and right) to try to control?
Kehati: Most Palestinians that I know, they want prosperity and definitely what Kushner says, that the Palestinian people want prosperity and want better conditions and economic grown and stuff is very true. But the way that it comes from the US -- most likely the PA will make an obstacle so that it will fail eventually. I don't see how it can work.
As long as the PA is there, nothing is going to change. The PA is also playing a double game because they are the Israeli arm regarding managing security in Judea and Samaria -- but it is a dictatorship at the end of the day.
Q: So the Palestinian Arabs actually are siding with Abbas against Kushner's "Peace To Prosperity" plan?
Kehati: Yes, the Palestinians, I am afraid, do agree with Abbas on this issue. Simply to speak about economic prosperity and about money that basically will not go downward to the people is something that does not appeal to Palestinians.
I think that Abbas might take advantage of this conference, and the fact that its basically speaking about economic issues that will definitely not go down to the people -- and abuse it to gain more support from the Palestinians, even though 9 out of 10 Palestinians don't see Abbas as their president or as their leader.
That is the western thinking that does not speak to the emotions and the basic needs of the Palestinian people, but speaks from a western financial perspective about something that is more complex. Again, a total failure to understand the deep motives behind the Palestinians.
The thing is about human rights -- we are not talking about political rights. Freedom of movement, freedom to travel and easing of the military rule: these are the things that speak more to the Palestinians. This is money that basically would go most likely to corrupt leaders or dictators or just corrupt people. This money will not flow downwards.Mordechai Kedar, an Israeli scholar of Arabic culture who works with Kehati and his group, has written about the conference in Bahrain along similar lines.
He addresses the question Why are the Palestinians so opposed to the 'Deal of the Century'?.
On the one hand, whether coming from the nationalistic claims of the Palestinian Authority or the religious perspective espoused by Hamas, neither group will recognize the validity of a Jewish presence in the land. Add to that the actions the Trump administration has taken in recognizing Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem and removing support for the "Palestinian refugees."
Palestinian resistance to western involvement is more than just a rejection of foreign involvement per se. Echoing Kehati, Kedar also sees a rejection of the western approach to solving these kinds of problems:
PLO spokesmen are up in arms because, in their opinion, dealing with the economic issues before solving all the other problems – Jerusalem, the refugees, borders, Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria, water, sovereignty – are a result of the American conception that money, work and economic development can solve everything. [emphasis added]Involving other Arab countries would seem to be the way around that problem. But according to Kedar, there is more to the Palestinian rejection than just opposition to the involvement of the West:
Another serious flaw in the "Deal of the Century" is that it involves additional Arab countries such as Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the Emirates. This is totally unacceptable to Palestinian Arab spokesmen because years ago, Arafat established the rule that "independence is a Palestinian decision," meaning that the Palestinians are the only ones allowed to decide on their own destiny and future. Palestinian pollster Khalil Shikaki also believes that that Trump administration doesn't get it and that the offer of economic aid is not going to work:
The administration makes a big mistake. It shows lack of understanding of the psyche of the Palestinians when it starts with material benefits as a carrot, so that Palestinians can see what they would be missing if they reject the political part of the plan.
This is something that is likely to create the exact opposite reaction among the Palestinian public that the administration hopes it will elicit.Not every analyst is as pessimistic.
Yoni ben Menachem, an Arab affairs and diplomatic commentator for Israel Radio and Television, and a senior Middle East analyst for the Jerusalem Center, thinks that Palestinian opposition to Abbas outweighs their opposition to the Bahrain Conference.
He has been commenting on his Twitter account, where he has expressed his belief that the Palestinian protests opposing the conference have been minimal:
Reporting on the protests have not been so clearcut. According to The Times of Israel, hundreds protested on Monday. On Tuesday several thousand took to the streets in Nablus to protest against the conference, but around Ramallah there were only about 30 who showed up. Similarly, in Bethlehem, the protesters numbered only in the dozens.
Ben Menachem believes that the corruption and incompetence of Abbas have in fact undercut his ability to disrupt the conference and the steps that will follow. In an article about The Palestinian Failure in Bahrain, he notes that Abbas originally called for a general strike, then instead called for 3 days of demonstrations instead, perhaps recognizing how little influence he really has.
The failure of Mahmoud Abbas has become the street talk in the territories, and he may give the Trump government the impetus to begin unilaterally implementing parts of the economic plan discussed at the Bahrain conference. Mahmoud Abbas did not go out of his way to thwart the Bahrain conference and acted as if he understood that the game was over and that he could not stop the gathering. The PA has not formulated a national plan to deal with President Trump's "bargain of the century" and is content to make do with denunciations and threats. [Translated from the Hebrew with Google Translate]Whether this is an overly optimistic view remains to be seen, with various factors in play along with the established traditional Palestinian suspicions outlined above. And as Kehati points out, Abbas and the Palestinian Authority will not make things easy.
Besides, there still remains the Arabs in Gaza, where Hamas -- which is no less corrupt and incompetent than the PA -- rules with a stronger hand.
I corresponded with someone who told me about a friend, a simple Palestinian Arab who doesn't care about Bahrain. The PA and the Ramallah NGOs do not speak for him, and he doesn't know what the Bahrain peace plan is. All he wants is a job and to bring home food for his family. These are the people, not the officials and those who join their protests in the streets, who will ultimately decide the fate of Trump's deal.
-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!
Categories: Middle East
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Doing Her Part For Holocaust Education
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez certainly isn't the only one jumping at the chance to make absurd comparisons to the Holocaust:
But then again, this is not the first time Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has done this.
Last November, she compared the migrant caravan crossing the border from Mexico with Jewish refugees that the United States turned away before World War II:
“Asking to be considered a refugee & applying for status isn’t a crime,” Ocasio Cortez said Sunday on Twitter after US border agents repelled Central American migrants with tear gas. “It wasn’t for Jewish families fleeing Germany. It wasn’t for targeted families fleeing Rwanda. It wasn’t for communities fleeing war-torn Syria. And it isn’t for those fleeing violence in Central America.”And just 2 months ago in April, AOC used a Holocaust reference in defense of Ilhan Omar:
[AOC] also shared an image of the words of "First they came...," the famous poem by German theologian Martin Niemöller that was inspired by the tragedies of the Holocaust. (The words are mounted on a wall at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington.)
The poem reads:
“First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.
"Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.
"Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
"Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”
Ocasio-Cortez's tweet sparked major backlash, with critics accusing her of trivializing the Holocaust and slamming her for doing so in defense of Omar, who has repeatedly fought off claims of anti-Semitism.And now AOC is at it again.
She is trying to create this equivalency in people's minds in order to score political points.
And with the competition between Democrats for the presidential nomination heating up, the comparison may be catching on, as Beto O'Rourke has made the comparison back in April ("2020 Democratic presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke compares Trump's immigration rhetoric to Nazi Germany")
Republicans have criticized AOC's manipulation of the Holocaust, all along the way -- as have some Jewish organizations.
But this time around -- the third time was not the charm.
Many people defended Cortez and attacked those who criticized her.
But some of her defenders were more cautious. Democratic Rep. Henry Cuellar tried to apply Pelosi's defense of Omar in defending AOC -- she just uses words differently.
Bernie Sanders, who could use her support as Elizabeth Warren closes the gap in the polls, nevertheless distanced himself from the comment:
Jewish 2020 presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez’s fellow progressive, distanced himself from her reference to concentration camps in a CNN interview Tuesday evening. “I didn’t use that terminology,” noted Sanders, subsequently repeating twice in the interview that he had “not used that word.”But others who you'd expect to defend Cortez, were more willing to criticize -- like mi
College students weigh in on Ocasio-Cortez’s concentration camp remarks:
“Owes a major apology to the American people”
“A bit extreme”
“A reach”
“Inflammatory…not good for public discourse”
“Embarrassment to Democratic Party”
“A little extreme”
Video via @Cabot_Phillips pic.twitter.com/tjON3CmwlO— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) June 21, 2019
NBC's Chuck Todd criticized not only Ocasia-Cortez -- he lambasted the Democratic Party as a whole:
NBC's Joe Scarborough agreed:
Democratic campaign consultant Doug Schoen came out even more strongly:
#AOC DOUBLING-DOWN on her comparison of U.S. migrant detention centers to concentration camps. Jewish Democrat @DouglasESchoen says it’s an OBSCENITY and she’s being REPREHENSIBLE! #TrishRegan pic.twitter.com/aSeglHafhj— Trish Regan (@trish_regan) June 20, 2019Not surprisingly, the Wiesenthal Center and Yad VaShem to come out with criticism of what Cortez said -- after all, that is to be expected.
What was not expected is that Poland, which has its own problems with the Holocaust and Poland's place in it, got into the act too:
With this letter, I am formally inviting @AOC to come to Poland,where Adolf Hitler set up the worst chain of concentration camps the world has ever seen, so that she may see that scoring political points with enflamed rhetoric is unacceptable in our contemporary Western societies pic.twitter.com/ivOTfmiCfo— TARCZYŃSKI Dominik (@D_Tarczynski) June 20, 2019You couldn't get a larger public discussion of the Holocaust if you tried - and discussion may end up bringing out more information, and more knowledge, of the Holocaust than any enforced book learning.
Bottom line, at a time that ignorance of the Holocaust is growing among millenials, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is not only proving that point -- she is unintentionally helping to draw attention to the problem.
Thank you?
-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!
But then again, this is not the first time Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has done this.
Last November, she compared the migrant caravan crossing the border from Mexico with Jewish refugees that the United States turned away before World War II:
“Asking to be considered a refugee & applying for status isn’t a crime,” Ocasio Cortez said Sunday on Twitter after US border agents repelled Central American migrants with tear gas. “It wasn’t for Jewish families fleeing Germany. It wasn’t for targeted families fleeing Rwanda. It wasn’t for communities fleeing war-torn Syria. And it isn’t for those fleeing violence in Central America.”And just 2 months ago in April, AOC used a Holocaust reference in defense of Ilhan Omar:
[AOC] also shared an image of the words of "First they came...," the famous poem by German theologian Martin Niemöller that was inspired by the tragedies of the Holocaust. (The words are mounted on a wall at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington.)
The poem reads:
“First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.
"Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.
"Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
"Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”
Ocasio-Cortez's tweet sparked major backlash, with critics accusing her of trivializing the Holocaust and slamming her for doing so in defense of Omar, who has repeatedly fought off claims of anti-Semitism.And now AOC is at it again.
She is trying to create this equivalency in people's minds in order to score political points.
And with the competition between Democrats for the presidential nomination heating up, the comparison may be catching on, as Beto O'Rourke has made the comparison back in April ("2020 Democratic presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke compares Trump's immigration rhetoric to Nazi Germany")
Republicans have criticized AOC's manipulation of the Holocaust, all along the way -- as have some Jewish organizations.
But this time around -- the third time was not the charm.
Many people defended Cortez and attacked those who criticized her.
But some of her defenders were more cautious. Democratic Rep. Henry Cuellar tried to apply Pelosi's defense of Omar in defending AOC -- she just uses words differently.
Bernie Sanders, who could use her support as Elizabeth Warren closes the gap in the polls, nevertheless distanced himself from the comment:
Jewish 2020 presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez’s fellow progressive, distanced himself from her reference to concentration camps in a CNN interview Tuesday evening. “I didn’t use that terminology,” noted Sanders, subsequently repeating twice in the interview that he had “not used that word.”But others who you'd expect to defend Cortez, were more willing to criticize -- like mi
College students weigh in on Ocasio-Cortez’s concentration camp remarks:
“Owes a major apology to the American people”
“A bit extreme”
“A reach”
“Inflammatory…not good for public discourse”
“Embarrassment to Democratic Party”
“A little extreme”
Video via @Cabot_Phillips pic.twitter.com/tjON3CmwlO— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) June 21, 2019
NBC's Chuck Todd criticized not only Ocasia-Cortez -- he lambasted the Democratic Party as a whole:
NBC's Joe Scarborough agreed:
Democratic campaign consultant Doug Schoen came out even more strongly:
#AOC DOUBLING-DOWN on her comparison of U.S. migrant detention centers to concentration camps. Jewish Democrat @DouglasESchoen says it’s an OBSCENITY and she’s being REPREHENSIBLE! #TrishRegan pic.twitter.com/aSeglHafhj— Trish Regan (@trish_regan) June 20, 2019Not surprisingly, the Wiesenthal Center and Yad VaShem to come out with criticism of what Cortez said -- after all, that is to be expected.
What was not expected is that Poland, which has its own problems with the Holocaust and Poland's place in it, got into the act too:
With this letter, I am formally inviting @AOC to come to Poland,where Adolf Hitler set up the worst chain of concentration camps the world has ever seen, so that she may see that scoring political points with enflamed rhetoric is unacceptable in our contemporary Western societies pic.twitter.com/ivOTfmiCfo— TARCZYŃSKI Dominik (@D_Tarczynski) June 20, 2019You couldn't get a larger public discussion of the Holocaust if you tried - and discussion may end up bringing out more information, and more knowledge, of the Holocaust than any enforced book learning.
Bottom line, at a time that ignorance of the Holocaust is growing among millenials, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is not only proving that point -- she is unintentionally helping to draw attention to the problem.
Thank you?
-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!
Categories: Middle East
Sure, Joe Biden Is Friendly, But Is He A Friend of Israel?
How do we judge if someone -- especially a politician -- is a friend of Israel?
Putting aside the political exclamations, a key component is the actual support for Israel, beyond just words. After all, Nixon -- who is recognized as having been an antisemite -- nevertheless came to Israel's aid during the Yom Kippur War. He is arguably the US president who first articulated the policy of seeing Israel as a key ally in the Middle East, a policy that continues till today.
Nixon wasn't particularly friendly to Jews, but he was a friend of Israel.
Compare him with Donald Trump, whom Democrats accuse of trafficking in antisemitic tropes.
Better yet, compare Nixon to Joe Biden.
Joe Biden. Public Domain
Is there any politician, especially among the Democrats in the running for their party's presidential nomination, who is more highly regarded as a friend of Israel than Joe Biden?
In his list of 5 Jewish things to know about Joe Biden, Ron Kampeas points out:
From the start, we understand that this is not an issue of backing every decision Israel has made or every action it has taken -- but has Biden consistently supported Israel?
For example, in June 1982, upon his return from the US, Menachem Begin gave a press conference on his experience there. He recounted that when he appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
a young senator rose and delivered a very impassioned speech - I must say that it's been a while since I've heard such a talented speaker - and he actually supported Operation "Peace for the Galilee" [The Lebanon War]. He even went further, and said that if someone from Canada were to infiltrate into the United States, and kill its citizens all of us (and thus he indicated a circle) would demand attacking them, and we wouldn't pay attention as to whether men, women or children were killed. That's what he said. Begin distanced himself on the spot from what were ostensibly supportive remarks, noting that "according to our values, it is forbidden to hurt women and children, even in war...We did not want to hurt civilians under any circumstances...we never approved a plan knowing that civilians would be hurt directly or on purpose. Unintentionally, that can happen. It must not be denied."
We know that "young senator" was Joe Biden because Begin went on to recount the famous clash between the two that immediately followed. After overplaying his hand in what was supposed to be a supportive comment, Biden went beyond criticizing Israel. He not only voiced his opposition to the Israeli settlements (a criticism which Begin did not begrudge him), but went on to suggest that he would propose cutting financial aid to Israel because of them. Begin's rebuke of Biden is famous:
Don't threaten us with slashing aid. Do you think that because the US lends us money it is entitled to impose on us what we must do? We are grateful for the assistance we have received, but we are not to be threatened. I am a proud Jew. Three thousand years of culture are behind me, and you will not frighten me with threats. Take note: we do not want a single soldier of yours to die for us.The account, identifying Biden, was carried both by the New York Times and Time Magazine.
Biden's first comment was an attempt to be 'friendly.'
Biden's second comment, however, was not the type made by a friend.
Kampeas notes that similarly, Biden made 2 different kinds of statements depending on whether speaking to AIPAC or J Street.
During his speech at AIPAC in 2013, Biden stressed that Netanyahu wanted peace, and the Arabs needed to step up. In fact, if you read the actual speech, Biden -- who once threatened Begin he would cut off aid on account of the settlements -- not only mentions the settlements, but goes so far as to brag:As recently as last year, the only country on the United Nations Human Rights Council to vote against — I think it’s 36 countries, don’t hold me to the exact number — but the only country on the Human Rights Council of the United Nations to vote against the establishment of a fact-finding mission on settlements was the United States of America. [emphasis added]Did Biden change his mind about the settlements?
Not really.
When speaking before a J Street crowd in 2016, the day after the bus bombing that wounded 21 Israelis and following months of stabbing attacks, Biden felt perfectly comfortable telling the crowd that in fact, the settlements prove that Netanyahu is taking Israel in the “wrong direction”:
“I firmly believe that the actions that Israel’s government has taken over the past several years — the steady and systematic expansion of settlements, the legalization of outposts, land seizures — they’re moving us and, more importantly, they’re moving Israel in the wrong direction,” he said.At AIPAC he proudly claimed that the US is the sole defender of Israel's settlement policy, but at J Street Biden turns around and condemns Israel over that very same policy.
There is nothing wrong with Biden criticizing Israel over the settlements.
In the absence of an Israeli leader like Menachem Begin, Biden feels free to openly speak of what Israel must do, ignoring the changing Israeli electorate that even 3 years ago was showing signs of moving to the right and an unwillingness to unilaterally make concessions to a non-existent peace partner.
Yet, during a conference call with members of the Jewish media in 2008, 2 months before the presidential election, Biden sang a different tune, saying it was up to the Israelis to make decisions about war and peace, especially the question of whether to launch a strike aimed at disrupting Iran’s nuclear program.
“This is not a question for us to tell the Israelis what they can and cannot do,” said the Democratic vice presidential candidate. ”I have faith in the democracy of Israel. They will arrive at the right decision that they view as being in their own interests.”That is a far cry from what Biden told that J Street crowd, where he went so far as to claim
We have an overwhelming obligation — notwithstanding our sometimes overwhelming frustration with the Israeli government — we have an obligation to push them as hard as we can toward what they know in their gut is the only solution: a two-state solution.Which of these two stands will Biden adopt during the months leading up to next years election?
More importantly, which of these 2 stands would Biden adopt if he should be elected president?
Gaffes Or Errors of Fact?Some of Biden's statements over the years have been problematic, where he has made a gaffe -- for instance, when Biden confused Prime Minister May and former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.
There are statements Biden has made in connection with Israel too which are either gaffes or errors of fact.
Who cares?
Biden once boasted in 2008
I’ve spent 35 years of my career dealing with issues relating to Israel. My support for Israel begins in my stomach, goes to my heart and ends up in my head.”Part of Biden's claim as a "friend of Israel" is that he knows Israel so well, so let's just skip the first 2 parts and see what's there.
Jonathan PollardBack in 2011, Biden took credit for preventing the release of Jonathan Pollard:
President Obama was considering clemency, but I told him, ‘Over my dead body are we going to let him out before his time. If it were up to me, he would stay in jail for life. [emphasis added]One question is whether his claim was accurate, or whether Biden was trying to protect Obama from the ire of the rabbis.
But it is not completely clear from what he said if Biden realized that Pollard was in fact sentenced to life and "his time" would never be up. It simply was not "up to Biden" for Pollard to stay in jail for life, since that was, in fact, his sentence, despite the plea deal he had made and the US government had violated.
Giving Obama Credit For Bush's AgreementAnother example of Biden's misstatement of fact is when he told AIPAC in 2013:
President Obama last year requested $3.1 billion in military assistance for Israel — the most in history. According to FactCheck.org -- Biden was wrong on 2 counts.
At the time, the actual record was held by the Clinton administration, which in 2000 gave Israel $3.12 billion "which is not only slightly more in nominal dollars but much more in inflation-adjusted dollars"
More to the point, Biden was crediting Obama for something that Bush had done:
Biden is also taking credit for a level of spending that was set by the Bush administration as part of a 10-year, $30 billion agreement reached with Israel in 2007. In requesting $3.1 billion in his fiscal 2013 budget last February, Obama was honoring that agreement.Hamas and HezbollahHere's another double error made by Biden during his 2008 debate with Palin where he was supposed to show his obvious superior knowledge of foreign affairs:
Here's what the president [Bush] said when we said no. He insisted on elections on the West Bank, when I said, and others said, and Barack Obama said, "Big mistake. Hamas will win. You'll legitimize them." What happened? Hamas won.
When we kicked -- along with France, we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, I said and Barack said, "Move NATO forces in there. Fill the vacuum, because if you don't know -- if you don't, Hezbollah will control it."
Now what's happened? Hezbollah is a legitimate part of the government in the country immediately to the north of Israel.First, as Israel Medad points out in his blog My Right Word -- Biden confused the West Bank and Gaza:
Another absurdly wrong statement from Joe “Foreign Policy Expert” Biden, who very obviously does not know the difference between the Gaza Strip [where Hamas rules] and the West Bank [where the PA rules]But Biden didn't get Hezbollah quite right either --
The demographic realities make it difficult for Israel to be a Jewish homeland and a democratic country. The status quo is not sustainable.Biden claims that the larger birthrate of the Arabs as opposed to the Jews, is a potent argument for Israel to "make peace" -- i.e., retreat from the "West Bank" as soon as possible.
The problem is that the demographic argument just does not hold water. For example, an op-ed in Haaretz from 2009, the previous year, notes how easy it is to exploit demographics and the fears generated by it to further an agenda and justify or attack policies in Israel.
In 2001, there were around 95,000 Jewish births in Israel and 41,000 Arab births. Just seven years later, in 2008, Jewish births had risen to over 117,000, but Arab births had declined to less than 40,000. In a period that constitutes barely a quarter of a generation, Arab births had fallen from around 30 percent of the total to around 25 percent. This has been a steady trend and, should it continue, it will only be a very short time before Jewish and Arab births each year are broadly proportionate to the overall balance of Jews and Arabs in the population as whole - that is, 4:1, or 80 percent and 20 percent, respectively.But the problem with Joe Biden goes beyond his misstatements and insistence he knows better than Israel what is best for it.
The issue is not that Biden does not support Israeli policy, but rather the kinds of actions Biden has actively taken that are directly against Israeli interests
Does Joe Biden Really Support Putting The Western Wall Under Palestinian Control?Biden took an active part in US support for the UN vote on Resolution 2334, which was passed at the end of Obama's term in office thanks to the US abstention. That resolution did more than just condemn Israeli settlements.
According to Tablet Magazine, Biden was actively involved in pushing the UN vote condemning settlements
A wealth of evidence is now emerging that, far from simply abstaining from a UN vote, which is how the Administration and its press circle at first sought to characterize its actions, the anti-Israel resolution was actively vetted at the highest levels of the U.S. Administration, which then led a pressure campaign—both directly and through Great Britain—to convince other countries to vote in favor of it.
Tablet has confirmed that one tangible consequence of the high-level U.S. campaign was a phone call from Vice President Joseph Biden to Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, which succeeded in changing Ukraine’s vote from an expected abstention to a “yes.” According to one U.S. national security source, the Obama Administration needed a 14-0 vote to justify what the source called “the optics” of its own abstention.As Danny Danon, Israel's representative to the UN makes clear:
Among its many “biased and false” clauses, he recalled, the resolution designated Israel’s presence in parts of Jerusalem liberated in 1967 as a flagrant violation under international law. That included Jerusalem’s Old City and Jewish Quarter, as well as the Western Wall, the last remnant of the temple first built by King Solomon some 3,000 years agoA pity that in this case, Biden went along instead of telling Obama "over my dead body." But the question is whether Biden has actually thought through the ramifications of his position on the settlements.
Biden Opposed Sanctions on Iran Even Before Becoming Obama's Running MateOn the issue of Iran, Biden already voted against pressuring them back in 2007, before being nominated as Obama's running mate:
The Senate approved a resolution on Wednesday urging the Bush administration to designate Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a foreign terrorist organization, and lawmakers briefly set aside partisan differences to approve a measure calling for stepped-up diplomacy to forge a political solution in Iraq.
Also called for economic sanctions.
Among those voting against it was Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., Democrat of Delaware, and chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, who said he feared that the administration could use the measure to justify military action against Iran.It would be a good idea to hear Biden articulate just what he would be prepared to do to counteract Iran's support of global terrorism in general and support of Hezbollah and Hamas in particular.
Biden vs. AIPAC?In 2009, Biden spoke out against AIPAC:AIPAC does not speak for the entire American Jewish community. There’s other organizations as strong and as consequential.What other organizations?
Was he referring to J Street -- which had only just been founded the year before?
Biden also claimed that despite any occasional claims to the contrary, AIPAC does not speak for Israel. He did not elaborate on that one.
In any case, Biden and AIPAC patched things up, but it is obvious that it is J Street and not AIPAC that he is listening to.
Biden & SharptonOn the other hand, Biden has apparently had no problems with Al Sharpton, whose anti-Jewish incitement played a role in both the Crown Heights Riots and the Freddie's Fashion Mart Massacre.
Sharpton and Biden. Screengrab from FacebookIt was in part as a result of his many visits to Obama at the White House that Sharpton's image was rehabilitated, and Biden is far from being the only one of the Democratic candidates to seek Sharpton's endorsement.
But this serves as a reminder that Biden's claim to friendship with Israel does not outweigh certain political considerations.
The bottom line is that Biden is a staunch opponent of the Israeli settlements. If elected, he would not be the first president to oppose them. The issue is what policies he might pursue, based on actions he has taken and the statements he has made. Biden was willing to actively support UN Resolution 2334. That raises the question of where he stands on the real-world implications of that stand.
Biden told an appreciative J Street that "we have an obligation to push them as hard as we can toward what they know in their gut is the only solution: a two-state solution." It is not hard to imagine Biden ignoring the implications of Netanyahu's re-election for what Israelis actually do know "in their gut" and instead pushing what he "knows" is the only solution -- with the aid of the same J Street that once bragged about being the "blocking back" for Obama.
That is not to say that none of the other Democratic candidates might try the same thing, but Biden has the reputation of being a "friend" of Israel that would shield him from a lot of the resultant criticism.
It is the fact that so many seem to buy into Biden's "friend of Israel" shtick that can be so disconcerting.
-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!
Putting aside the political exclamations, a key component is the actual support for Israel, beyond just words. After all, Nixon -- who is recognized as having been an antisemite -- nevertheless came to Israel's aid during the Yom Kippur War. He is arguably the US president who first articulated the policy of seeing Israel as a key ally in the Middle East, a policy that continues till today.
Nixon wasn't particularly friendly to Jews, but he was a friend of Israel.
Compare him with Donald Trump, whom Democrats accuse of trafficking in antisemitic tropes.
Better yet, compare Nixon to Joe Biden.
Joe Biden. Public Domain
Is there any politician, especially among the Democrats in the running for their party's presidential nomination, who is more highly regarded as a friend of Israel than Joe Biden?
In his list of 5 Jewish things to know about Joe Biden, Ron Kampeas points out:
- Biden's ties to the Jewish state go back almost 50 years, to his visit to Israel on the eve of the Yom Kippur War
- Biden has personally known every Prime Minister since Golda Meir
- Biden talks about his large collection of yarmulkes he has accumulated from attending Jewish functions over the years
- One of Biden's favorite anecdotes retells his conversation with Golda Meir, where she confided in him "We have a secret weapon in our conflict with the Arabs. You see, we have no place else to go."
- Biden's friendliness comes in spite of the fact that his state, Delaware, has a Jewish population of only 15,000.
From the start, we understand that this is not an issue of backing every decision Israel has made or every action it has taken -- but has Biden consistently supported Israel?
For example, in June 1982, upon his return from the US, Menachem Begin gave a press conference on his experience there. He recounted that when he appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
a young senator rose and delivered a very impassioned speech - I must say that it's been a while since I've heard such a talented speaker - and he actually supported Operation "Peace for the Galilee" [The Lebanon War]. He even went further, and said that if someone from Canada were to infiltrate into the United States, and kill its citizens all of us (and thus he indicated a circle) would demand attacking them, and we wouldn't pay attention as to whether men, women or children were killed. That's what he said. Begin distanced himself on the spot from what were ostensibly supportive remarks, noting that "according to our values, it is forbidden to hurt women and children, even in war...We did not want to hurt civilians under any circumstances...we never approved a plan knowing that civilians would be hurt directly or on purpose. Unintentionally, that can happen. It must not be denied."
We know that "young senator" was Joe Biden because Begin went on to recount the famous clash between the two that immediately followed. After overplaying his hand in what was supposed to be a supportive comment, Biden went beyond criticizing Israel. He not only voiced his opposition to the Israeli settlements (a criticism which Begin did not begrudge him), but went on to suggest that he would propose cutting financial aid to Israel because of them. Begin's rebuke of Biden is famous:
Don't threaten us with slashing aid. Do you think that because the US lends us money it is entitled to impose on us what we must do? We are grateful for the assistance we have received, but we are not to be threatened. I am a proud Jew. Three thousand years of culture are behind me, and you will not frighten me with threats. Take note: we do not want a single soldier of yours to die for us.The account, identifying Biden, was carried both by the New York Times and Time Magazine.
Biden's first comment was an attempt to be 'friendly.'
Biden's second comment, however, was not the type made by a friend.
Kampeas notes that similarly, Biden made 2 different kinds of statements depending on whether speaking to AIPAC or J Street.
During his speech at AIPAC in 2013, Biden stressed that Netanyahu wanted peace, and the Arabs needed to step up. In fact, if you read the actual speech, Biden -- who once threatened Begin he would cut off aid on account of the settlements -- not only mentions the settlements, but goes so far as to brag:As recently as last year, the only country on the United Nations Human Rights Council to vote against — I think it’s 36 countries, don’t hold me to the exact number — but the only country on the Human Rights Council of the United Nations to vote against the establishment of a fact-finding mission on settlements was the United States of America. [emphasis added]Did Biden change his mind about the settlements?
Not really.
When speaking before a J Street crowd in 2016, the day after the bus bombing that wounded 21 Israelis and following months of stabbing attacks, Biden felt perfectly comfortable telling the crowd that in fact, the settlements prove that Netanyahu is taking Israel in the “wrong direction”:
“I firmly believe that the actions that Israel’s government has taken over the past several years — the steady and systematic expansion of settlements, the legalization of outposts, land seizures — they’re moving us and, more importantly, they’re moving Israel in the wrong direction,” he said.At AIPAC he proudly claimed that the US is the sole defender of Israel's settlement policy, but at J Street Biden turns around and condemns Israel over that very same policy.
There is nothing wrong with Biden criticizing Israel over the settlements.
- But it was presumptuous of him to publicly threaten the leader of a sovereign country.
- As a "friend" of Israel, Biden should be consistent in his position and not flip-flop in order to curry favor with the current crowd he is speaking to. US policy has been to refrain from approving of the settlements.
- Furthermore, Biden - as a friend of Israel - should not be going around exaggerating the "systematic expansion" of the settlements. In 2012, Peace Now noted on their website For the First Time Since 1990 – the Government is to Approve the Establishment of New Settlements. That number of settlements was 3. If Biden wants to criticize Israel, at the very least he should have gotten his facts straight.
In the absence of an Israeli leader like Menachem Begin, Biden feels free to openly speak of what Israel must do, ignoring the changing Israeli electorate that even 3 years ago was showing signs of moving to the right and an unwillingness to unilaterally make concessions to a non-existent peace partner.
Yet, during a conference call with members of the Jewish media in 2008, 2 months before the presidential election, Biden sang a different tune, saying it was up to the Israelis to make decisions about war and peace, especially the question of whether to launch a strike aimed at disrupting Iran’s nuclear program.
“This is not a question for us to tell the Israelis what they can and cannot do,” said the Democratic vice presidential candidate. ”I have faith in the democracy of Israel. They will arrive at the right decision that they view as being in their own interests.”That is a far cry from what Biden told that J Street crowd, where he went so far as to claim
We have an overwhelming obligation — notwithstanding our sometimes overwhelming frustration with the Israeli government — we have an obligation to push them as hard as we can toward what they know in their gut is the only solution: a two-state solution.Which of these two stands will Biden adopt during the months leading up to next years election?
More importantly, which of these 2 stands would Biden adopt if he should be elected president?
Gaffes Or Errors of Fact?Some of Biden's statements over the years have been problematic, where he has made a gaffe -- for instance, when Biden confused Prime Minister May and former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.
There are statements Biden has made in connection with Israel too which are either gaffes or errors of fact.
Who cares?
Biden once boasted in 2008
I’ve spent 35 years of my career dealing with issues relating to Israel. My support for Israel begins in my stomach, goes to my heart and ends up in my head.”Part of Biden's claim as a "friend of Israel" is that he knows Israel so well, so let's just skip the first 2 parts and see what's there.
Jonathan PollardBack in 2011, Biden took credit for preventing the release of Jonathan Pollard:
President Obama was considering clemency, but I told him, ‘Over my dead body are we going to let him out before his time. If it were up to me, he would stay in jail for life. [emphasis added]One question is whether his claim was accurate, or whether Biden was trying to protect Obama from the ire of the rabbis.
But it is not completely clear from what he said if Biden realized that Pollard was in fact sentenced to life and "his time" would never be up. It simply was not "up to Biden" for Pollard to stay in jail for life, since that was, in fact, his sentence, despite the plea deal he had made and the US government had violated.
Giving Obama Credit For Bush's AgreementAnother example of Biden's misstatement of fact is when he told AIPAC in 2013:
President Obama last year requested $3.1 billion in military assistance for Israel — the most in history. According to FactCheck.org -- Biden was wrong on 2 counts.
At the time, the actual record was held by the Clinton administration, which in 2000 gave Israel $3.12 billion "which is not only slightly more in nominal dollars but much more in inflation-adjusted dollars"
More to the point, Biden was crediting Obama for something that Bush had done:
Biden is also taking credit for a level of spending that was set by the Bush administration as part of a 10-year, $30 billion agreement reached with Israel in 2007. In requesting $3.1 billion in his fiscal 2013 budget last February, Obama was honoring that agreement.Hamas and HezbollahHere's another double error made by Biden during his 2008 debate with Palin where he was supposed to show his obvious superior knowledge of foreign affairs:
Here's what the president [Bush] said when we said no. He insisted on elections on the West Bank, when I said, and others said, and Barack Obama said, "Big mistake. Hamas will win. You'll legitimize them." What happened? Hamas won.
When we kicked -- along with France, we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, I said and Barack said, "Move NATO forces in there. Fill the vacuum, because if you don't know -- if you don't, Hezbollah will control it."
Now what's happened? Hezbollah is a legitimate part of the government in the country immediately to the north of Israel.First, as Israel Medad points out in his blog My Right Word -- Biden confused the West Bank and Gaza:
Another absurdly wrong statement from Joe “Foreign Policy Expert” Biden, who very obviously does not know the difference between the Gaza Strip [where Hamas rules] and the West Bank [where the PA rules]But Biden didn't get Hezbollah quite right either --
- First, the US did not kick Hezbollah out of Lebanon.
- Second, if Hezbollah was kicked out, how would it be able to fill that vacuum Biden warns about?
The demographic realities make it difficult for Israel to be a Jewish homeland and a democratic country. The status quo is not sustainable.Biden claims that the larger birthrate of the Arabs as opposed to the Jews, is a potent argument for Israel to "make peace" -- i.e., retreat from the "West Bank" as soon as possible.
The problem is that the demographic argument just does not hold water. For example, an op-ed in Haaretz from 2009, the previous year, notes how easy it is to exploit demographics and the fears generated by it to further an agenda and justify or attack policies in Israel.
In 2001, there were around 95,000 Jewish births in Israel and 41,000 Arab births. Just seven years later, in 2008, Jewish births had risen to over 117,000, but Arab births had declined to less than 40,000. In a period that constitutes barely a quarter of a generation, Arab births had fallen from around 30 percent of the total to around 25 percent. This has been a steady trend and, should it continue, it will only be a very short time before Jewish and Arab births each year are broadly proportionate to the overall balance of Jews and Arabs in the population as whole - that is, 4:1, or 80 percent and 20 percent, respectively.But the problem with Joe Biden goes beyond his misstatements and insistence he knows better than Israel what is best for it.
The issue is not that Biden does not support Israeli policy, but rather the kinds of actions Biden has actively taken that are directly against Israeli interests
Does Joe Biden Really Support Putting The Western Wall Under Palestinian Control?Biden took an active part in US support for the UN vote on Resolution 2334, which was passed at the end of Obama's term in office thanks to the US abstention. That resolution did more than just condemn Israeli settlements.
According to Tablet Magazine, Biden was actively involved in pushing the UN vote condemning settlements
A wealth of evidence is now emerging that, far from simply abstaining from a UN vote, which is how the Administration and its press circle at first sought to characterize its actions, the anti-Israel resolution was actively vetted at the highest levels of the U.S. Administration, which then led a pressure campaign—both directly and through Great Britain—to convince other countries to vote in favor of it.
Tablet has confirmed that one tangible consequence of the high-level U.S. campaign was a phone call from Vice President Joseph Biden to Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, which succeeded in changing Ukraine’s vote from an expected abstention to a “yes.” According to one U.S. national security source, the Obama Administration needed a 14-0 vote to justify what the source called “the optics” of its own abstention.As Danny Danon, Israel's representative to the UN makes clear:
Among its many “biased and false” clauses, he recalled, the resolution designated Israel’s presence in parts of Jerusalem liberated in 1967 as a flagrant violation under international law. That included Jerusalem’s Old City and Jewish Quarter, as well as the Western Wall, the last remnant of the temple first built by King Solomon some 3,000 years agoA pity that in this case, Biden went along instead of telling Obama "over my dead body." But the question is whether Biden has actually thought through the ramifications of his position on the settlements.
Biden Opposed Sanctions on Iran Even Before Becoming Obama's Running MateOn the issue of Iran, Biden already voted against pressuring them back in 2007, before being nominated as Obama's running mate:
The Senate approved a resolution on Wednesday urging the Bush administration to designate Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a foreign terrorist organization, and lawmakers briefly set aside partisan differences to approve a measure calling for stepped-up diplomacy to forge a political solution in Iraq.
Also called for economic sanctions.
Among those voting against it was Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., Democrat of Delaware, and chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, who said he feared that the administration could use the measure to justify military action against Iran.It would be a good idea to hear Biden articulate just what he would be prepared to do to counteract Iran's support of global terrorism in general and support of Hezbollah and Hamas in particular.
Biden vs. AIPAC?In 2009, Biden spoke out against AIPAC:AIPAC does not speak for the entire American Jewish community. There’s other organizations as strong and as consequential.What other organizations?
Was he referring to J Street -- which had only just been founded the year before?
Biden also claimed that despite any occasional claims to the contrary, AIPAC does not speak for Israel. He did not elaborate on that one.
In any case, Biden and AIPAC patched things up, but it is obvious that it is J Street and not AIPAC that he is listening to.
Biden & SharptonOn the other hand, Biden has apparently had no problems with Al Sharpton, whose anti-Jewish incitement played a role in both the Crown Heights Riots and the Freddie's Fashion Mart Massacre.
Sharpton and Biden. Screengrab from FacebookIt was in part as a result of his many visits to Obama at the White House that Sharpton's image was rehabilitated, and Biden is far from being the only one of the Democratic candidates to seek Sharpton's endorsement.
But this serves as a reminder that Biden's claim to friendship with Israel does not outweigh certain political considerations.
The bottom line is that Biden is a staunch opponent of the Israeli settlements. If elected, he would not be the first president to oppose them. The issue is what policies he might pursue, based on actions he has taken and the statements he has made. Biden was willing to actively support UN Resolution 2334. That raises the question of where he stands on the real-world implications of that stand.
Biden told an appreciative J Street that "we have an obligation to push them as hard as we can toward what they know in their gut is the only solution: a two-state solution." It is not hard to imagine Biden ignoring the implications of Netanyahu's re-election for what Israelis actually do know "in their gut" and instead pushing what he "knows" is the only solution -- with the aid of the same J Street that once bragged about being the "blocking back" for Obama.
That is not to say that none of the other Democratic candidates might try the same thing, but Biden has the reputation of being a "friend" of Israel that would shield him from a lot of the resultant criticism.
It is the fact that so many seem to buy into Biden's "friend of Israel" shtick that can be so disconcerting.
-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!
Categories: Middle East
Who won the weekend mini-war in Gaza?
When wars -- and even battles -- are over, we naturally ask: who won?
Normally, victory brings with it the acquisition of advantages like increased power and land, while losing brings not only a certain degree of humiliation, but also surrendering land and control.
And stalemates -- those often bring recriminations and political headaches, especially when you are more powerful and are expected to win.
Over the years, wars between Israel and Hamas have brought a series of ceasefires with each side claiming victory:
At The Jerusalem Post, Anna Ahronheim describes it as A Deadly Weekend Which Wasn't Even A War. She describes it as a case of terrorism and retribution where "both sides upped the ante to a deadly level not seen since 2014’s Operation Protective Edge." After snipers wounded an IDF officer and a female soldier, Israel responded with an Air Force to strike on a Hamas target in Gaza, killing two terrorists.
But matters did not end there.
Hamas responded with almost 700 rockets, during which 4 Israeli civilians were killed:
Moshe Agadi, the first Israeli civilian killed since 2014, was killed outside his Ashkelon home by shrapnel to his stomach and chest; Moshe Feder, 68, from Kfar Saba, was killed after a Kornet anti-tank guided missile struck a car near the Gaza border between Yad Mordechai and Sderot; Ziad Alhamamda was critically injured in his chest by shrapnel from a direct strike on an Ashkelon factory; and Pinchas Menachem Prezuasman was killed after he suffered severe shrapnel injuries to his chest while running to a shelter in Ashdod.Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad tried new tactics:
Apparently, Hamas tried to get a ceasefire early on, and Israel refused, wanting to make sure that this time around the ceasefire would be on Israel's terms.
Even then, Netanyahu made a point of stressing that Israel was not necessarily finished with Hamas:
Netanyahu was under pressure to preserve some semblance of deterrence against Hamas terrorist attacks, if not an outright victory.
Was he successful?
On Twitter, Elijah J. Magnier, who writes for Kuwait's Al Rai Media Group claimed that Hamas was the clear winner:
On the other hand, at Ynet, Ron ben Yishai writes that Israel preserved that deterrence:
Israel stood strong in the face of Hamas pressure, and resisted a ceasefire, under adverse conditions; a lesson Hamas will remember before renewing fire the next time its demands are not immediately metHe contends that Israel accomplished its objectives, and that "Hamas begged for a ceasefire, for a full 24 hours, before Israel agreed to one."
According to Yishai:
In this round of fighting, the IDF came prepared with a list of high-quality targets. It also had a planned schedule of escalation, to respond to the militants' actions, including attacking their cyber capabilities and hitting their attack drones. Some of IDF's actions are still under wraps.This time around, the IDF was not limited to bombing empty buildings and bases.
But Yishai does have a major criticism. Lives could have been saved if Israel had evacuated residents from the border and if more Iron Dome batteries had been deployed.
And of course, the ultimate goal must be to remove Hamas.
Finally, there is retired general Amos Yadlin, who wrote on Twitter that "the balance sheet...with Hamas is mixed" because Israel still follows the strategic goal of "quiet for quiet" instead of actually restoring deterrence.
On the positive side:
Most of his negative criticism is not focused on the conduct of the battle, but rather Israel's overall policy towards Hamas. And unlike Yishai, Yadlin does not think deterrence has been restored at all.
Also, Yadlin believes that Hamas in fact, did dictate when the fighting ended.
Just 10 years ago, during Operation Cast Lead, Netanyahu was in the opposition, and clear in his criticism of how the government was conducting the war with Hamas.
Back then Netanyahu insisted:
And putting aside who would replace them, removing Hamas once and for all will require more than just sending in the airforce and using targeted attacks. It will mean sending in troops -- and incurring loss of life.
Netanyahu has tried that before, in Operation Protective Edge.
Is he willing to do it again?
Yaacov Lozowick wrote in 2014, when he was the state archivist, about bringing Netanyahu a commemorative volume of documents dedicated to Menachem Begin. Professor Arye Naor, Begin’s Cabinet Secretary, came too and discussed with Netanyahu how Begin managed the war in Lebanon compared with Netanyahu's own methods in Protective Edge.
The discussion turned to Begin’s agony at the deaths of IDF soldiers, and Netanyahu's own difficulties in sending men to die.
It proved harder than he had expected. “I thought a lot about Begin this summer, and I understood him better”
“I spoke to each of the parents [of fallen soldiers]. If there were divorced, I spoke to each of them separately. It was very hard”.
There is a profound difference between hearing about bereaved families, and actually being in one: he knows about that difference, and understands it from personal experience. But to his surprise – this was my impression – sending soldiers to their death turned out also to be hard to a degree that one cannot appreciate in advance.
We had expected to spend ten minutes in his office. The ten minutes became fifteen, then twenty; the twenty minutes became thirty, and the prime minister spoke of the horrible price of war, and of the difficulty in deciding to pay it.
“The soldiers fear death. They try to strengthen each other, and try together to be strong as a group, but they are afraid.” He knows they are afraid, and that some of them will be killed, and he sends them. A ground operation, he knows what awaits them, what preparations the enemy has made: “Some of them will die. It is inevitable.”
“They must be sent only when there is no other choice left. They must be brought back at the very first possible moment, as soon as the immediate goal has been achieved. Later, once they’re out, we’ll see what happens, but first, get them out, out, out.”
“And every night I’d get home in the wee hours, and my wife would be awake, waiting for me. She spent the days visiting the bereaved families. I only spoke to them on the phone, with each and every one of them, but she sat at their side, and at night she would tell me about them. We must send them, and we must bring them back, and I didn’t appreciate how hard it would be. A leader who loses the understanding of how difficult it is, ought to lose his job.”We say that one of the reasons for the existence of Israel is that it serves as a refuge and defense for Jews. We say that if only Israel existed during WWII, Jewish lives would have been saved. The pressure now on Netanyahu must be enormous for him to show that he and IDF are up to their task.
-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!
Normally, victory brings with it the acquisition of advantages like increased power and land, while losing brings not only a certain degree of humiliation, but also surrendering land and control.
And stalemates -- those often bring recriminations and political headaches, especially when you are more powerful and are expected to win.
Over the years, wars between Israel and Hamas have brought a series of ceasefires with each side claiming victory:
- Operation Summer Rains / Operation Autumn Clouds (2006)
- Operation Cast Lead (2008–2009)
- Operation Pillar of Defense (2012)
- Operation Protective Edge (2014)
At The Jerusalem Post, Anna Ahronheim describes it as A Deadly Weekend Which Wasn't Even A War. She describes it as a case of terrorism and retribution where "both sides upped the ante to a deadly level not seen since 2014’s Operation Protective Edge." After snipers wounded an IDF officer and a female soldier, Israel responded with an Air Force to strike on a Hamas target in Gaza, killing two terrorists.
But matters did not end there.
Hamas responded with almost 700 rockets, during which 4 Israeli civilians were killed:
Moshe Agadi, the first Israeli civilian killed since 2014, was killed outside his Ashkelon home by shrapnel to his stomach and chest; Moshe Feder, 68, from Kfar Saba, was killed after a Kornet anti-tank guided missile struck a car near the Gaza border between Yad Mordechai and Sderot; Ziad Alhamamda was critically injured in his chest by shrapnel from a direct strike on an Ashkelon factory; and Pinchas Menachem Prezuasman was killed after he suffered severe shrapnel injuries to his chest while running to a shelter in Ashdod.Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad tried new tactics:
- Overwhelming Iron Dome with massive, simultaneous firings. (They claim they were successful. Israel denies this.)
- Aiming an explosive-laden drone at an Iron Dome battery.
- Launching a Kornet anti-tank missile into a civilian van (Hamas tried this last year, but fired on the bus only after IDF troops had gotten off.)
Apparently, Hamas tried to get a ceasefire early on, and Israel refused, wanting to make sure that this time around the ceasefire would be on Israel's terms.
Even then, Netanyahu made a point of stressing that Israel was not necessarily finished with Hamas:
Netanyahu was under pressure to preserve some semblance of deterrence against Hamas terrorist attacks, if not an outright victory.
Was he successful?
On Twitter, Elijah J. Magnier, who writes for Kuwait's Al Rai Media Group claimed that Hamas was the clear winner:
On the other hand, at Ynet, Ron ben Yishai writes that Israel preserved that deterrence:
Israel stood strong in the face of Hamas pressure, and resisted a ceasefire, under adverse conditions; a lesson Hamas will remember before renewing fire the next time its demands are not immediately metHe contends that Israel accomplished its objectives, and that "Hamas begged for a ceasefire, for a full 24 hours, before Israel agreed to one."
According to Yishai:
- It was Hamas that needed a ceasefire before Ramadan, more than Israel needed it in order to be able to hold the Eurovision song festival
- By targeting military targets, even when those were the homes of Hamas and Islamic Jihad commanders, Israel was able to defend the legitimacy of their operations in Gaza
- Unlike in other operations against Hamas in Gaza, leaks to the media were prevented
In this round of fighting, the IDF came prepared with a list of high-quality targets. It also had a planned schedule of escalation, to respond to the militants' actions, including attacking their cyber capabilities and hitting their attack drones. Some of IDF's actions are still under wraps.This time around, the IDF was not limited to bombing empty buildings and bases.
But Yishai does have a major criticism. Lives could have been saved if Israel had evacuated residents from the border and if more Iron Dome batteries had been deployed.
And of course, the ultimate goal must be to remove Hamas.
Finally, there is retired general Amos Yadlin, who wrote on Twitter that "the balance sheet...with Hamas is mixed" because Israel still follows the strategic goal of "quiet for quiet" instead of actually restoring deterrence.
On the positive side:
- The IDF was more aggressive
- The policy of targeted killings was restored
- Weapons production and storage facilities in Gaza were struck
- Rocket launching terrorists were hit
- Key military buildings were brought down
- The international community blamed Hamas for firing heavily at civilians
- Criticism of Israel was minimal.
- 4 Israelis were killed and dozens were wounded
- Daily life was disrupted in a significant portion of Israel
- Hamas determined the start and -- according to Yadlin -- the end of the fighting, making Israel hostage to Hamas demands
- Israelis don't know the contents of the previous ceasefire agreement, nor of this one
- Israel may still have deterrence against all-out war, but not against these sporadic conflicts
- Israel is still allowing payments to the terrorist groups, while not speaking with more moderate groups of Palestinian Arabs
- The issue of disarming the Palestinian-controlled territory has apparently been forgotten
- There seems to be no effort to deal with Hamas' military build up
- These battles send the message that using terror is more successful than preventing it in achieving goals
Most of his negative criticism is not focused on the conduct of the battle, but rather Israel's overall policy towards Hamas. And unlike Yishai, Yadlin does not think deterrence has been restored at all.
Also, Yadlin believes that Hamas in fact, did dictate when the fighting ended.
Just 10 years ago, during Operation Cast Lead, Netanyahu was in the opposition, and clear in his criticism of how the government was conducting the war with Hamas.
Back then Netanyahu insisted:
- Hamas was controlled by Iran and it should “ultimately be removed”
- "Hamas is at the service of Iran and militant Islam...Israel cannot tolerate an Iranian base next to its cities."
- “If Iran has nuclear weapons then a forward base like 'Hamastan’ in Gaza becomes 10 times more dangerous."
- Toppling Hamas from power should be a long-term goal, and “if the government also decides to adopt this goal, we will back it.”
And putting aside who would replace them, removing Hamas once and for all will require more than just sending in the airforce and using targeted attacks. It will mean sending in troops -- and incurring loss of life.
Netanyahu has tried that before, in Operation Protective Edge.
Is he willing to do it again?
Yaacov Lozowick wrote in 2014, when he was the state archivist, about bringing Netanyahu a commemorative volume of documents dedicated to Menachem Begin. Professor Arye Naor, Begin’s Cabinet Secretary, came too and discussed with Netanyahu how Begin managed the war in Lebanon compared with Netanyahu's own methods in Protective Edge.
The discussion turned to Begin’s agony at the deaths of IDF soldiers, and Netanyahu's own difficulties in sending men to die.
It proved harder than he had expected. “I thought a lot about Begin this summer, and I understood him better”
“I spoke to each of the parents [of fallen soldiers]. If there were divorced, I spoke to each of them separately. It was very hard”.
There is a profound difference between hearing about bereaved families, and actually being in one: he knows about that difference, and understands it from personal experience. But to his surprise – this was my impression – sending soldiers to their death turned out also to be hard to a degree that one cannot appreciate in advance.
We had expected to spend ten minutes in his office. The ten minutes became fifteen, then twenty; the twenty minutes became thirty, and the prime minister spoke of the horrible price of war, and of the difficulty in deciding to pay it.
“The soldiers fear death. They try to strengthen each other, and try together to be strong as a group, but they are afraid.” He knows they are afraid, and that some of them will be killed, and he sends them. A ground operation, he knows what awaits them, what preparations the enemy has made: “Some of them will die. It is inevitable.”
“They must be sent only when there is no other choice left. They must be brought back at the very first possible moment, as soon as the immediate goal has been achieved. Later, once they’re out, we’ll see what happens, but first, get them out, out, out.”
“And every night I’d get home in the wee hours, and my wife would be awake, waiting for me. She spent the days visiting the bereaved families. I only spoke to them on the phone, with each and every one of them, but she sat at their side, and at night she would tell me about them. We must send them, and we must bring them back, and I didn’t appreciate how hard it would be. A leader who loses the understanding of how difficult it is, ought to lose his job.”We say that one of the reasons for the existence of Israel is that it serves as a refuge and defense for Jews. We say that if only Israel existed during WWII, Jewish lives would have been saved. The pressure now on Netanyahu must be enormous for him to show that he and IDF are up to their task.
-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!
Categories: Middle East
The ADL Opposes Racism, But Meets With a Racist
On Sunday, The ADL's Jonathan Greenblatt joined in the furor over The New York Times' antisemitic cartoon -- and Greenblatt didn't hold back.
Greenblatt warned against normalizing vile antisemitism
Greenblatt went further, calling out The New York Times for "a moral failing of major proportions" -- and the need for accountability and action
He concluded with recommendations, including that a review of policy is necessary:
The fact that Greenblatt and the ADL stepped in is important. It shows that at a time when accusations are flying back and forth accusing either the left or the right of being the main cause of the rise of antisemitism in the US, the ADL takes a balanced approach and rises above the fray, addressing the incitement of hate wherever it sees it.
If only Greenblatt could spot racism when he encounters it face to face.
Hat tip: Mark Jacobs
On the one hand, who better to go to for pointers on hate crimes than Al Sharpton - After all, Sharpton has a history of inciting hatred.
Putting aside Sharpton's central role in the Tawana Brawley hoax, Sharpton's history of deliberately inciting hatred against Jews is well established.
In 1991, after a Hasidic Jewish driver in Crown Heights accidentally killed Gavin Cato, a 7-year-old black child, antisemitic riots erupted. At the funeral, Sharpton made a point of inflaming the crowd, blaming the "diamond merchants" (Jews) with "the blood of innocent babies" on their hands. Going further, Sharpton then mobilized hundreds of demonstrators on a march through the Jewish neighborhood, chanting, "No justice, no peace." There, Yankel Rosenbaum, a rabbinical student, was surrounded by a mob shouting "Kill the Jews!" and was stabbed to death.
The Forward quotes comments by Sharpton at the time that could easily be mistaken for the racism spewed by Farrakhan:
The world will tell us [Cato] was killed by accident. Yes, it was a social accident...It’s an accident to allow an apartheid ambulance service in the middle of Crown Heights...Talk about how Oppenheimer in South Africa sends diamonds straight to Tel Aviv and deals with the diamond merchants right here in Crown Heights. The issue is not anti-Semitism; the issue is apartheid...All we want to say is what Jesus said: if you offend one of these little ones, you got to pay for it. No compromise, no meetings, no kaffe klatsch, no skinnin’ and grinnin’. Pay for your deeds...It’s no accident that we know we should not be run over. We are the royal family on the planet. We’re the original man. We gazed into the stars and wrote astrology. We had a conversation and that became philosophy. We are the ones who created mathematics. We’re not anybody to be left to die waiting on an ambulance. We are the alpha and omega of creation itself. [emphasis added]A few years later, in 1995, Sharpton got involved in the protests against Freddy's Fashion Mart and again raised tempers, warning "we will not stand by and allow them to move this brother so that some white interloper can expand his business." Sharpton's organization, National Action Network, set up picket lines. Customers who entered the store were spat on, cursed and accused of being "traitors" and "Uncle Toms." Some protesters starting shouting, "Burn down the Jew store!" while simulating striking a match and Sharpton's colleague Morris Powell saying "We're going to see that this cracker suffers". On December 8, one of the protestors entered Freddy's, shot 4 of the employees and set the store on fire, killing 7 employees.
And it's not as if Sharpton has lost his touch. More recently, Sharpton involved himself in the 2012 shooting of Trayvon Martin. Without verifying the facts, Sharpton publicly made a statement "that racial language was used" -- a claim that an investigation proved false. Sharpton also exacerbated tensions by deliberately referring to Zimmerman as "white," despite the fact that his mother is Peruvian.
But during their chummy get-together, Greenblatt doesn't say a word about Sharpton's background. These are just two activists fighting the good fight for human rights.
So despite Greenblatt's lecture to The New York Times on Twitter -
Whatever the reason, the impunity Sharpton enjoys has spread to a new generation that includes Sarsour, Mallory (a disciple of Sharpton), Omar and Tlaib. Their immunity to criticism and ability to claim they are instead victims of smears and incitement are all part of a growing trend in the incitement of racism and antisemitism in the US.
And the ADL is no longer the champion it used to be in this fight.
-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!
Greenblatt warned against normalizing vile antisemitism
Greenblatt went further, calling out The New York Times for "a moral failing of major proportions" -- and the need for accountability and action
He concluded with recommendations, including that a review of policy is necessary:
The fact that Greenblatt and the ADL stepped in is important. It shows that at a time when accusations are flying back and forth accusing either the left or the right of being the main cause of the rise of antisemitism in the US, the ADL takes a balanced approach and rises above the fray, addressing the incitement of hate wherever it sees it.
If only Greenblatt could spot racism when he encounters it face to face.
Hat tip: Mark Jacobs
On the one hand, who better to go to for pointers on hate crimes than Al Sharpton - After all, Sharpton has a history of inciting hatred.
Putting aside Sharpton's central role in the Tawana Brawley hoax, Sharpton's history of deliberately inciting hatred against Jews is well established.
In 1991, after a Hasidic Jewish driver in Crown Heights accidentally killed Gavin Cato, a 7-year-old black child, antisemitic riots erupted. At the funeral, Sharpton made a point of inflaming the crowd, blaming the "diamond merchants" (Jews) with "the blood of innocent babies" on their hands. Going further, Sharpton then mobilized hundreds of demonstrators on a march through the Jewish neighborhood, chanting, "No justice, no peace." There, Yankel Rosenbaum, a rabbinical student, was surrounded by a mob shouting "Kill the Jews!" and was stabbed to death.
The Forward quotes comments by Sharpton at the time that could easily be mistaken for the racism spewed by Farrakhan:
The world will tell us [Cato] was killed by accident. Yes, it was a social accident...It’s an accident to allow an apartheid ambulance service in the middle of Crown Heights...Talk about how Oppenheimer in South Africa sends diamonds straight to Tel Aviv and deals with the diamond merchants right here in Crown Heights. The issue is not anti-Semitism; the issue is apartheid...All we want to say is what Jesus said: if you offend one of these little ones, you got to pay for it. No compromise, no meetings, no kaffe klatsch, no skinnin’ and grinnin’. Pay for your deeds...It’s no accident that we know we should not be run over. We are the royal family on the planet. We’re the original man. We gazed into the stars and wrote astrology. We had a conversation and that became philosophy. We are the ones who created mathematics. We’re not anybody to be left to die waiting on an ambulance. We are the alpha and omega of creation itself. [emphasis added]A few years later, in 1995, Sharpton got involved in the protests against Freddy's Fashion Mart and again raised tempers, warning "we will not stand by and allow them to move this brother so that some white interloper can expand his business." Sharpton's organization, National Action Network, set up picket lines. Customers who entered the store were spat on, cursed and accused of being "traitors" and "Uncle Toms." Some protesters starting shouting, "Burn down the Jew store!" while simulating striking a match and Sharpton's colleague Morris Powell saying "We're going to see that this cracker suffers". On December 8, one of the protestors entered Freddy's, shot 4 of the employees and set the store on fire, killing 7 employees.
And it's not as if Sharpton has lost his touch. More recently, Sharpton involved himself in the 2012 shooting of Trayvon Martin. Without verifying the facts, Sharpton publicly made a statement "that racial language was used" -- a claim that an investigation proved false. Sharpton also exacerbated tensions by deliberately referring to Zimmerman as "white," despite the fact that his mother is Peruvian.
But during their chummy get-together, Greenblatt doesn't say a word about Sharpton's background. These are just two activists fighting the good fight for human rights.
So despite Greenblatt's lecture to The New York Times on Twitter -
- Here we have the ADL normalizing the vile antisemitism of Al Sharpton
- It is the ADL, under Greenblatt's leadership, that demonstrates "a moral failing of major proportions"
- It is Greenblatt who should "commit to reviewing policies"
Whatever the reason, the impunity Sharpton enjoys has spread to a new generation that includes Sarsour, Mallory (a disciple of Sharpton), Omar and Tlaib. Their immunity to criticism and ability to claim they are instead victims of smears and incitement are all part of a growing trend in the incitement of racism and antisemitism in the US.
And the ADL is no longer the champion it used to be in this fight.
-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!
Categories: Middle East
Bernie Sanders: A Jewish Progressive Without A Lock On Either The Jewish Or The Progressive Vote
The 2020 Presidential elections are still well over a year away, but the field of candidates on the Democratic side rivals the size of the field of Republican candidates running for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination.
And one of the leading candidates is Bernie Sanders.
Bernie Sanders. (Public Domain)
He has the name recognition.
He has the war chest.
He has the experience that comes from campaigning in 2016.
For our purposes, the question is where does Sanders stand on the issue of Israel?
This question is all the more important in light of the growing strength of the progressive Democrats, especially in light of their support of the antisemitic statements made by Ilhan Omar and the way those statements were defended by the Democratic party -- including by Bernie Sanders himself.
When it comes to his support of Israel, does Sanders face a conflict between his being Jewish and being a progressive?
Can Sanders Get The Jewish Vote?When Joe Lieberman ran as Al Gore's running mate in the 2004 presidential election, it was big news -- and Jews were enthusiastic about Gore's choice for his vice-presidential running mate.
Joe Lieberman. (Public Domain)
That enthusiasm was lacking in 2016.
One reason is that, unlike Lieberman, Judaism is not part of Sanders' public persona:
The Jewish Vermonters who know Sanders say his reluctance to make his Judaism central to his public persona is a function of his preference for the economic over the esoteric, as well as a libertarianism typical both of the state and its Jewish community – one that embraces expressions of faith and the lack of them.That may go towards understanding that while Sanders' first wife was Jewish, his current spouse, Jane O'Meara, is not.
That lack of enthusiasm may explain why, as the LA Times reported in April 2016, Bernie Sanders fares poorly against Hillary Clinton with fellow Jews, polls indicate. It quoted the Sienna College Poll, which found Clinton leading Sanders among Jewish voters by a margin of 60%-38%, while the NBC/Wall St. Journal/Marist poll found an even larger gap, with Clinton leading among Jews by 65%-32%.
The article goes on to suggest some reasons for his failure to capture the Jewish vote:
And he is not comfortable when he is pinned down on either his Judaism or his Zionism.
In a Vox interview in 2015, Sanders was asked about his Zionism:
Ezra Klein: Do you view yourself as a Zionist?
Bernie Sanders: A Zionist? What does that mean? Want to define what the word is? Do I think Israel has the right to exist, yeah, I do. Do I believe that the United States should be playing an even-handed role in terms of its dealings with the Palestinian community in Israel? Absolutely I do.He sidestepped the issue and turned a question on his personal belief into a question on policy. Interestingly, AlterNet claimed in an October 2015 article that Sanders had never appeared at AIPAC, had never appeared at a pro-Israel rally and had not traveled to the Middle East in decades.
There is another occasion, one where Sanders sidestepped a personal question about his Jewishness, again diverting it to a question of Israel policy. At an event at the Apollo Theater in New York in April 2016, Sanders faced an antisemitic question:
“As you know,” opened the questioner, “the Zionist Jews–and I don’t mean to offend anybody–they run the Federal Reserve, they run Wall Street, they run every campaign.” As this unfolded, Sanders began wagging his finger in dissent, and interjected to deem “Zionist Jews” a “bad phrase.” His interlocutor, pressed to articulate a question, concluded by saying, “What is your affiliation to your Jewish community? That’s all I’m asking.”
“No, no, no, that’s not what you’re asking,” Sanders quickly replied, in a nod to the question’s underlying prejudice. “I am proud to be Jewish,” he declared, to cheers from the audience. But then Sanders did something odd. Rather than using the question as a teaching moment to address and rebuke its anti-Semitic underpinnings, Sanders instead immediately pivoted to his stump speech on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. “Talking about Zionism and Israel,” he said, “I am a strong defender of Israel, but I also believe that we have got to pay attention to the needs of the Palestinian people.” He never challenged the actual contents of the question, let alone labeled it anti-Semitic. [emphasis added]
There was, however, one particular time that Sanders' feelings about Israel were forced into the spotlight.
In June 2015, he was interviewed by Diane Rehm, a WAMU radio host whose show is heard on NPR. During the interview, Rehm broadsided Sanders with a question of his alleged "dual citizenship":
"Senator, you have dual citizenship with Israel," Rehm began, before Sanders interrupted.
"Well, no I do not have dual citizenship with Israel. I'm an American. I don't know where that question came from. I am an American citizen, and I have visited Israel on a couple of occasions. No, I'm an American citizen, period," Sanders said.
"I understand from a list we have gotten that you were on that list, forgive me if that is..." Rehm said.
As the site Jewish Journal noted, the list Rehm may be referring to seems to be one that has circulated on the Internet for several years concerning U.S. government officials and members of Congress who allegedly hold dual citizenship with Israel.
"That's some of the nonsense that goes on in the Internet. But that is absolutely not true," Sanders said.
Rehm then asked Sanders if there are other members of Congress who do have dual citizenship, or if it is "part of the fable."
Sanders said he did not know but that he was offended by her comment.
"I honestly don't know but I have read that on the Internet. You know, my dad came to this country from Poland at the age of 17 without a nickel in his pocket. He loved this country. I am, you know, I got offended a little bit by that comment, and I know it's been on the Internet. I am obviously an American citizen, and I do not have any dual citizenship," he said.Here is a recording of that part of the interview.
How important was it to deny any impression that Bernie Sanders is a dual citizen?
The website FeelTheBern.org has a page on Sanders and his position on Israel and the Palestinian Arabs. Here is an excerpt:
The idea that someone might think Sanders has dual citizenship was enough of a concern to someone that this page, denying dual citizenship, was created. According to The Wayback Machine, their earliest copy of this page is from August 20, about 2 months after the interview with Rehm on June 10.
From the recording, it is clear that Sanders was upset by the implication of dual citizenship.
Now, fast forward to 2019 and see how Sanders has come out in defense of Ilhan Omar, who now makes the "dual loyalty" accusation against Jews and supporters of Israel. Sanders uses the same tactic as Omar's other defenders, sidestepping the issue of Omar's antisemitism by claiming opponents were trying to stop her from tweeting criticism of Israel: "We must not, however, equate anti-Semitism with legitimate criticism of the right-wing, Netanyahu government in Israel."
Does Sanders Have A Progressive Problem?But just as Sanders has a problem in attracting the Jewish vote, he has an even bigger with his progressive base. They have some questions about his overall progressive creds -- but they have many more questions about Sanders progressive creds on Israel, especially after Operation Protective Edge in 2014.
Overall, Sanders' problem with progressives is historically in the area of foreign policy. Vox has a piece on Sanders' "surprisingly mainstream foreign policy"
o In 1999, Sanders voted for a resolution supporting the 1999 US air campaign in Yugoslavia. A Nation editorial asked him to reconsider and a member of his staff, Jeremy Brecher wrote a public resignation letter: "Is there a moral limit to the military violence you are willing to participate in or support? Where does that limit lie?"
o He voted for the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Force in Afghanistan, though he did oppose Obama's 2009 troop surge there.
o Though he opposed both the Gulf War and the 2003 invasion of Iraq and had "reservations" about the 2011 war in Libya, Sanders came out in support of drone strikes on suspected terrorists "in a very selective way."Vox summed it up:
On this issue, then, Sanders isn't far off from your average liberal Democrat. He's generally skeptical of the use of force, but willing to endorse it in very narrow and limited cases where he thinks it could save lives or advance American interests. That doesn't make him a warmonger who is "to the right of many liberal Democrats," but it is a notable divergence in his reputation as a champion of the left and challenger of the Washington status quo.Others feel the same way. Already in 2006, SocialistWorker.org, questioned A socialist in the Senate?
Sanders' election to the Senate doesn't represent a radical departure from politics as usual. He may have a portrait of Eugene Debs hanging in his office, but his politics have little in common with that great American socialist.And then we have the progressive pushback on Sanders' stand on Israel (emphases added):
Washington Post, August 20, 2014: Answering question on Israel, Bernie Sanders tells townhall hecklers to ‘shut up!’
Progressives have wanted Sanders to be more forceful in condemning Israel. Before Congress’ August recess, the Senate passed a resolution unanimously reaffirming its support for Israel. Sanders did not object, but he also did not sign on as a co-sponsor. As the Daily Beast writes, Israel puts left-wing politicians like Sanders in a tough spot because their base can be critical of Israel, but not taking a pro-Israel position is politically risky.
Washington Post, August 4, 2015: Bernie Sanders’s 27 years of Israel answers
Sanders's criticism of Benjamin Netanyahu and his support for the two-state solution and Iran nuclear deal are all firmly in the liberal mainstream. On the left, the discussion has moved on to whether people and institutions should boycott and divest from Israel so long as it occupies Palestinian land.
AlterNet, October 10, 2015: The Backstory on Bernie Sanders and Israel-Palestine: Why Is He So Quiet About the Mideast Tragedy?
Since that town hall [in 2014], questions about Palestine have dogged him...There is some evidence that these criticisms have started to make an impact on Sanders' approach. In the last month, his campaign finally started to roll out foreign policy platforms on his website. The platform repeats much of the same U.S. foreign policy mantras about the need for a two-state solution and Israel's right to defend itself, but also condemns “disproportionate” violence by Israel and killings of civilians by the Israeli army. Most notably, the platform calls for Israel to end its blockade of Gaza, a topic all but forgotten in U.S. discourse.
AlterNet, March 14, 2016: Thousands Call on Bernie Sanders to Reject AIPAC’s Invitation to Speak Alongside Trump and Clinton
“As the main arm of the pro-Israel lobby in the United States, AIPAC has sworn to promote the racist, militaristic, and anti-democratic policies of the most right-wing government in Israel's history,” states a petition, which was created by AlterNet senior editor Max Blumenthal and has garnered 4,000 signatures in just four days. “Its conference this year will feature Islamophobes, anti-immigrant activists, and religious extremists.”
The Nation, April 15, 2016: Bernie Is Speaking the Truth About Israel-Palestine: Why did he suspend his staffer for doing the same?
During last night’s heated Democratic debate in Brooklyn, Senator Bernie Sanders came out firing on Israel. A candidate who initially sought, seemingly at all costs, to avoid foreign policy altogether finally spoke out on the most politically charged issue of global affairs in Washington—the Israeli-Palestinian conflict—and he took it by the horns.
That’s why it was so disappointing that, only a few hours earlier, the Sanders campaign suspended one of its young staffers, Simone Zimmerman, who served only briefly as its Jewish outreach coordinator. Zimmerman’s sin was to call the right-wing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu an “a**hole,” adding “F**k you, Bibi,” using his nickname, for good measure, in a Facebook post last winter, when she was all of 24 years old.
Vox, June 18, 2016: Bernie Sanders versus the left: the socialist’s surprisingly mainstream foreign policy
Sanders supports a two-state solution, one for Israelis and another for Palestinians. While he can be critical of Israel, he does not refrain from criticizing Palestinians as well...That's a stark contrast to the socialist left, which generally sees Israel as a racist, colonial aggressor. Increasingly, leftists advocate a one-state solution to the conflict.
The Nation, July 28, 2016: How Bernie Sanders Lost the Platform Fight Over Israel
James Zogby, the head of the Arab American Institute and a longtime party activist, read aloud a proposed amendment in an unmistakably Midwest accent. Zogby wanted to add language that would explicitly mention Israel’s occupation and strip out the platform’s condemnation of the movement to boycott, divest from, and sanction Israel (BDS)...Zogby mentioned several times that the proposed changes had come from Bernie Sanders himself. Sanders began his campaign avoiding foreign policy altogether, but eventually became more outspoken on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, taking Netanyahu to task not only for the Israeli settlement project and continued occupation but also for Israel’s conduct of the 2014 war against the besieged Gaza Strip.
sanders.senate.gov, December 19, 2018: Sanders, Feinstein Oppose Inclusion of Israel Anti-Boycott Act in Appropriations Bill
“While we do not support the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, we remain resolved to our constitutional oath to defend the right of every American to express their views peacefully without fear of or actual punishment by the government,” the senators continued.
In his memoir "Outsider in The House", Sanders writes about his years as mayor in Burlington, Vermont, “[H]ow many cities of 40,000 have a foreign policy? Well we did...I saw no magic line separating local, state, national and international issues.” But what was a novelty as mayor became expected when Sanders declared his intention to go to Washington. Caught between being pro-Israel and critical, he tries to walk a fine line, being critical of Israel while adopting a pro-Israel stance and standing up for Palestinian Arab rights. That position puts him to the right of his base, which accuses Israel of Apartheid, racism and occupation.
That position does not always go over well. Here is an excerpt from a town hall meeting in August 2014, when Sanders was heckled for supporting Israel.
Once he regains control of the discussion, Sanders sidesteps the issue by changing the topic of the discussion to ISIS, just as he avoids answering the question as to whether he is a Zionist.
In recent years, the argument has become even fiercer as discussion has moved from general questions of Israel's right to exist, to the pointed debate over BDS and the occupation. Again, Sanders takes the middle road -- not supporting the BDS movement outright, but still opposing anti-BDS legislation.
But not surprisingly, his criticism of Israel does become sharper, as AlterNet claimed above in the quote from October 2015.
By the end of 2015, Sanders was in fact saying on his campaign site that Israel was using disproportionate force in Gaza. The page no longer exists, but according to The Wayback Machine, the following appeared on his site as early as November 15, 2015:
The most recent violence in Gaza represented a particularly ugly and violent time in the dispute. Senator Sanders strongly condemned indiscriminate rocket fire by Hamas into Israeli territory, and Hamas’ use of civilian neighborhoods to launch those attacks. However, while recognizing that Israel has the right to defend itself, he also strongly condemned Israeli attacks on Gaza as disproportionate and the widespread killing of civilians as completely unacceptable.In April 2016 Sanders made the claim in an interview on CNN:
"Was Israel's response disproportionate? I think it was," he told CNN's Jake Tapper in an interview that aired Sunday on "State of the Union."The previous month, in March, Sanders gave a talk in Utah where he condemned the Israeli blockade of Gaza:
Peace will also mean ending the economic blockade of Gaza. And it will mean a sustainable and equitable distribution of precious water resources so that Israel and Palestine can both thrive as neighbors.That leads to a question over which Sanders received a lot of criticism. During an interview with the Daily News on April 1, 2016, Sanders appeared to have no idea of how many casualties there were in Gaza during Operation Protective Edge:
Sanders: I think it is fair to say that the level of [Israeli] attacks against civilian areas…and I do know that the Palestinians, some of them, were using civilian areas to launch missiles. Makes it very difficult. But I think most international observers would say that the attacks against Gaza were indiscriminate and that a lot of innocent people were killed who should not have been killed. Look, we are living, for better or worse, in a world of high technology, whether it’s drones out there that could, you know, take your nose off, and Israel has that technology. And I think there is a general belief that, with that technology, they could have been more discriminate in terms of taking out weapons that were threatening them.
I’m just telling you that I happen to believe … anybody help me out here, because I don’t remember the figures, but my recollection is over 10,000 innocent people were killed in Gaza. Does that sound right?
Daily News: I think it’s probably high, but we can look at that.
Sanders: I don’t have it in my number…but I think it’s over 10,000. My understanding is that a whole lot of apartment houses were leveled. Hospitals, I think, were bombed. So yeah, I do believe and I don’t think I’m alone in believing that Israel’s force was more indiscriminate than it should have been.10,000 killed is a massive exaggeration, far more than even Hamas terrorists claimed.
But in the interests of accuracy, in the previous month, on March 21, 2016, during that talk in Utah, Sanders got the number right.
Of course, I strongly object to Hamas’ long held position that Israel does not have the right to exist – that is unacceptable. Of course, I strongly condemn indiscriminate rocket fire by Hamas into Israeli territory, and Hamas’ use of civilian neighborhoods to launch those attacks. I condemn the fact that Hamas diverted funds and materials for much-needed construction projects designed to improve the quality of life of the Palestinian people, and instead used those funds to construct a network of tunnels for military purposes.
However, let me also be very clear: I – along with many supporters of Israel – spoke out strongly against the Israeli counter attacks that killed nearly 1,500 civilians and wounded thousands more. I condemned the bombing of hospitals, schools and refugee camps.Here is the video:
According to a later press release on the interview:
The United Nations has estimated that 2,104 were killed, including 1,462 civilians. Understanding that his recollection was about the total number of casualties, not the death toll, the senator immediately accepted that correction and the discussion moved on to other topics.Bernie Sanders is consistent in trying to walk a middle line:
For that matter, Sanders also accepts at face value the claims that the ongoing Gaza riots are actually peaceful, unarmed protests and that Israel is deliberately shooting unarmed protesters:
"Innocent people are being killed,” said Sanders, after roughly 60 rioters were shot dead on Monday during clashes next to Israel’s security fence on the Gaza border.
"Those are terrible actions," Sanders said. "Instead of applauding Israel for its actions, Israel should be condemned. Israel has a right to security, but shooting unarmed protesters is not what it is about."Again, there is no mention of Israel taking measures to avoid casualties, nor any mention of rioters being anything but peaceful, of their having weapons or of their attempts -- sometimes successful -- of breaking through the barrier into Israel.
Nor is there mention of Hamas terrorists being among the "unarmed protesters."
By May 16, 2018, admissions from Hamas about the riots during the previous 2 days were already coming out: Hamas official: 50 of the 62 Gazans killed in border violence were our members:
“In the last rounds of confrontations, if 62 people were martyred, Fifty of the martyrs were Hamas and 12 from the people. How can Hamas reap the fruits if it pays such an expensive price?” said Hamas official Salah Bardawil in an interview with the Palestinian Baladna news outlet.Not only did the IDF say that 24 of those killed were identified as terrorists,
https://twitter.com/bjoernstritzel/status/996378101029404673
Years earlier, Sanders suggested applying pressure not only on the Arab countries in the Middle East to make peace with Israel, but to apply that pressure on Israel as well. This was in 1988, when while mayor of Burlington he came out in support of Jesse Jackson's bid for the Democratic nomination for the president. Sanders suggested withholding arms from Israel as well as the Arabs:
We are pouring billions of dollars in arms into Arab countries. We have the clout to demand they and Israel, who we’re also heavily financing, to begin to sit down and work out a sensible solution to the problem which would guarantee the existence of the State of Israel and which would also protect Palestinian rights...“Or else you begin to cut off arms. If I am supplying someone with a significant amount of money, I can then begin to call the tune.”Here is the video:
According to The Vermont Cynic, the University of Vermont's newspaper, Sanders came out even stronger against US arms support for Israel, saying "It is wrong that the United States provides arms to Israel. We are not going to be the arms merchant for Middle Eastern nations."
According to the same article in the Cynic, the Sanders campaign said the paper misquoted Sanders:
"The quote does not support [the assertion that] Sanders wanted to end all military aid to Israel, and doing so is a misinterpretation of old quotes,” Sanders campaign spokesman Michael Briggs said in a Sept. 3 email to the Cynic.
“He didn’t call military aid to Israel wrong,” Briggs said.
“Bernie does not and has not ever supported cutting off arms to Israel and that has never been his position,” he said.The fact remains that the video above does show Sanders suggesting withholding arms, even from Israel, as an option.
So who is advising Sanders on Israel?
In 2006, SocialistWorker.org was furious at Sanders for having advisors associated with AIPAC:
Unsurprisingly, some Sanders staffers have also worked with the American Israeli Political Action Committee (AIPAC)--including David Sirota, now a Democratic Party strategist, and Sanders' former communications director Joel Barkin.Putting aside their error in claiming that AIPAC is a "Political Action Committee" when it is, in fact, a "Political Affairs Committee" and does not directly fund politicians as J Street does -- it's not clear what the fuss was all about. David Sirota was with AIPAC for all of 4 months (from about the end of 1998 to 1999), when he joined Sanders, according to his tweet in December. As for Barkin, according to his LinkedIn profile, he was with Sanders for 3 years, ending in 2005, a year before that post.
But now, Sanders' choice of advisors seems to be going in the other direction, with 2 of his advisors holding distinctly anti-Israel views.
Last week, The Washington Free Beacon reported Sanders Fills Ranks With Anti-Israel Advocates Tied to Anti-Semitism Scandal
Sanders' current foreign policy adviser is Matt Duss and his campaign manager is Faiz Shakir. The Beacon story involves ThinkProgress, an American news website and project of the Center for American Progress [CAP] Action Fund, a progressive public policy research and advocacy organization. In 2012, Matt Duss was CAP's Middle East director and Faiz Shakir served as the editor-in-chief of the group's Think Progress blog:
During their tenure at CAP, Duss and Shakir emerged at the forefront of a scandal involving several Think Progress bloggers who accused pro-Israel Jews and members of Congress of being "Israel firsters," a term implying that those who support the Jewish state have dual loyalties.
The scandal rocked CAP for several months and drew condemnation across the board, including from the Obama administration, which distanced itself from Duss, Shakir, and the rest of Think Progress's former staff.
Shakir—who initially remained silent as controversy swirled around Think Progress's use of anti-Semitic language—later said in a leaked internal email that his employees used "terrible, anti-Semitic language" when invoking the "Israel firster" term.
Duss also stood on the sidelines at the time, declining to condemn the anti-Semitic language. Numerous articles penned by Duss and other CAP Action Fund bloggers were said "to be infected with Jew-hatred and discriminatory policy positions toward Israel," according to the Simon Wiesenthal Center, which combats anti-Semitism.
...Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, was a vocal critic of both Duss and Shakir during their time at CAP. He told the Free Beacon during a Tuesday interview that Sanders's decision to elevate the two staffers to the top of his political organization is "troubling."These 2 advisors are no improvement over Simone Zimmerman, Sanders' Jewish outreach coordinator, who was let go after a profanity-filled attack on Netanyahu.
But again this calls into question Sanders' support of Ilhan Omar who, like Duss and Shakir during their time with CAP and Think Progress, accused Israel supporters of having dual loyalty.
And now, while finishing up this post, another member of Sanders' staff -- his national deputy press secretary, Belén Sisa -- has raised the issue of Jewish dual loyalty:
A spokeswoman for Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign apologized Tuesday after questioning whether the “American-Jewish community has a dual allegiance to the state of Israel” — a comment condemned by Jewish leaders across the political spectrum as having anti-Semitic overtones.What's in store for Bernie Sanders?
It is tempting to look at Sanders' record on Israel and say it is more ambivalent than balanced, and will weaken his draw of the Jewish vote, even without Clinton in the picture. But the Jewish vote is not a matter of logic. Predicting that Sanders will fail to attract the Jewish vote is like predicting that Jews will run from the Democrats and turn to the Republicans because they show more support for Israel and did not join the Democrats in whitewashing antisemitism in the recent House vote.
But Jewish political support is not based on hard facts and political math, and long-term political habits can be hard to break. Of course, just because Jews are likely to continue to vote Democratic, doesn't mean they will vote for Sanders. Jews were enthusiastic for Lieberman, not because he was a religious Jew, but because he was a public Jew and proud Jew.
Sanders, on the other hand, does not seem to come across as a proud Jew in the same way when he deals with public situations that come up. Of course, the onus is still on his opponents to draw the Jewish vote away from him and it does not seem as if any of them have the history and connection that Clinton had with the Jewish community to will enable them to do that.
When it comes to the progressive vote, Sanders may have stronger ties by virtue of a longer history of being very public in his progressive persona. Some may have questioned his overall progressive creds, but the main flashpoint in questioning his progressivism could be Sanders' stand on Israel.
The Democratic left is getting increasingly loud on the issue and is successfully undermining support for Israel in the Democratic party. For decades he has said that he has no magic solution for the conflict, that supports Israel though he supports it and that he supports a Palestinian state though he condemns Hamas terrorist attacks. Till recently, that has been enough. But over the past few years, Sanders himself seems to have moved further to the left, adding accusations of Israel of using "disproportionate" force, that Israel should stop blockading Gaza, and opposing measures to fight BDS, (though he has come out publicly that he does not support it) to his repertoire.
But despite his overall stronger progressive creds, Sanders' opposition consists of younger candidates who arguably are more in tune with the left. The Democrats running for president could mimic Sanders on Israel or choose to move to the left of him to make him appear more establishment. He could be especially vulnerable in this regard if Sarsour, Omar and Tlaib can continue to push the goalposts of what is acceptable discourse when it comes to socialism as well as Israel.
Just wait till the Democratic platform at the convention.
With over a year and a half till the election things are wide open, especially when it comes to increasing visibility of antisemitism --
It is a Jewish issue.
It is also a progressive issue.
And it may play a part in the upcoming election.
-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!
And one of the leading candidates is Bernie Sanders.
Bernie Sanders. (Public Domain)
He has the name recognition.
He has the war chest.
He has the experience that comes from campaigning in 2016.
For our purposes, the question is where does Sanders stand on the issue of Israel?
This question is all the more important in light of the growing strength of the progressive Democrats, especially in light of their support of the antisemitic statements made by Ilhan Omar and the way those statements were defended by the Democratic party -- including by Bernie Sanders himself.
When it comes to his support of Israel, does Sanders face a conflict between his being Jewish and being a progressive?
Can Sanders Get The Jewish Vote?When Joe Lieberman ran as Al Gore's running mate in the 2004 presidential election, it was big news -- and Jews were enthusiastic about Gore's choice for his vice-presidential running mate.
Joe Lieberman. (Public Domain)
That enthusiasm was lacking in 2016.
One reason is that, unlike Lieberman, Judaism is not part of Sanders' public persona:
The Jewish Vermonters who know Sanders say his reluctance to make his Judaism central to his public persona is a function of his preference for the economic over the esoteric, as well as a libertarianism typical both of the state and its Jewish community – one that embraces expressions of faith and the lack of them.That may go towards understanding that while Sanders' first wife was Jewish, his current spouse, Jane O'Meara, is not.
That lack of enthusiasm may explain why, as the LA Times reported in April 2016, Bernie Sanders fares poorly against Hillary Clinton with fellow Jews, polls indicate. It quoted the Sienna College Poll, which found Clinton leading Sanders among Jewish voters by a margin of 60%-38%, while the NBC/Wall St. Journal/Marist poll found an even larger gap, with Clinton leading among Jews by 65%-32%.
The article goes on to suggest some reasons for his failure to capture the Jewish vote:
- Sanders is not actively engaged in Jewish life.
- He has also been critical of Israel
- He appears more committed to liberal concepts of social justice than to any specific Jewish ideals of equality.
- While Sanders has a strong following among young Jews, young Americans are not as reliable in coming to the polls. (That may have been true then; don't expect that to continue.)
- This is a Clinton-specific problem because Hillary had a history of nurturing close ties with the Jewish community and actively showcasing her support for Israel, in contrast to Sanders
And he is not comfortable when he is pinned down on either his Judaism or his Zionism.
In a Vox interview in 2015, Sanders was asked about his Zionism:
Ezra Klein: Do you view yourself as a Zionist?
Bernie Sanders: A Zionist? What does that mean? Want to define what the word is? Do I think Israel has the right to exist, yeah, I do. Do I believe that the United States should be playing an even-handed role in terms of its dealings with the Palestinian community in Israel? Absolutely I do.He sidestepped the issue and turned a question on his personal belief into a question on policy. Interestingly, AlterNet claimed in an October 2015 article that Sanders had never appeared at AIPAC, had never appeared at a pro-Israel rally and had not traveled to the Middle East in decades.
There is another occasion, one where Sanders sidestepped a personal question about his Jewishness, again diverting it to a question of Israel policy. At an event at the Apollo Theater in New York in April 2016, Sanders faced an antisemitic question:
“As you know,” opened the questioner, “the Zionist Jews–and I don’t mean to offend anybody–they run the Federal Reserve, they run Wall Street, they run every campaign.” As this unfolded, Sanders began wagging his finger in dissent, and interjected to deem “Zionist Jews” a “bad phrase.” His interlocutor, pressed to articulate a question, concluded by saying, “What is your affiliation to your Jewish community? That’s all I’m asking.”
“No, no, no, that’s not what you’re asking,” Sanders quickly replied, in a nod to the question’s underlying prejudice. “I am proud to be Jewish,” he declared, to cheers from the audience. But then Sanders did something odd. Rather than using the question as a teaching moment to address and rebuke its anti-Semitic underpinnings, Sanders instead immediately pivoted to his stump speech on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. “Talking about Zionism and Israel,” he said, “I am a strong defender of Israel, but I also believe that we have got to pay attention to the needs of the Palestinian people.” He never challenged the actual contents of the question, let alone labeled it anti-Semitic. [emphasis added]
There was, however, one particular time that Sanders' feelings about Israel were forced into the spotlight.
In June 2015, he was interviewed by Diane Rehm, a WAMU radio host whose show is heard on NPR. During the interview, Rehm broadsided Sanders with a question of his alleged "dual citizenship":
"Senator, you have dual citizenship with Israel," Rehm began, before Sanders interrupted.
"Well, no I do not have dual citizenship with Israel. I'm an American. I don't know where that question came from. I am an American citizen, and I have visited Israel on a couple of occasions. No, I'm an American citizen, period," Sanders said.
"I understand from a list we have gotten that you were on that list, forgive me if that is..." Rehm said.
As the site Jewish Journal noted, the list Rehm may be referring to seems to be one that has circulated on the Internet for several years concerning U.S. government officials and members of Congress who allegedly hold dual citizenship with Israel.
"That's some of the nonsense that goes on in the Internet. But that is absolutely not true," Sanders said.
Rehm then asked Sanders if there are other members of Congress who do have dual citizenship, or if it is "part of the fable."
Sanders said he did not know but that he was offended by her comment.
"I honestly don't know but I have read that on the Internet. You know, my dad came to this country from Poland at the age of 17 without a nickel in his pocket. He loved this country. I am, you know, I got offended a little bit by that comment, and I know it's been on the Internet. I am obviously an American citizen, and I do not have any dual citizenship," he said.Here is a recording of that part of the interview.
How important was it to deny any impression that Bernie Sanders is a dual citizen?
The website FeelTheBern.org has a page on Sanders and his position on Israel and the Palestinian Arabs. Here is an excerpt:
The idea that someone might think Sanders has dual citizenship was enough of a concern to someone that this page, denying dual citizenship, was created. According to The Wayback Machine, their earliest copy of this page is from August 20, about 2 months after the interview with Rehm on June 10.
From the recording, it is clear that Sanders was upset by the implication of dual citizenship.
Now, fast forward to 2019 and see how Sanders has come out in defense of Ilhan Omar, who now makes the "dual loyalty" accusation against Jews and supporters of Israel. Sanders uses the same tactic as Omar's other defenders, sidestepping the issue of Omar's antisemitism by claiming opponents were trying to stop her from tweeting criticism of Israel: "We must not, however, equate anti-Semitism with legitimate criticism of the right-wing, Netanyahu government in Israel."
Does Sanders Have A Progressive Problem?But just as Sanders has a problem in attracting the Jewish vote, he has an even bigger with his progressive base. They have some questions about his overall progressive creds -- but they have many more questions about Sanders progressive creds on Israel, especially after Operation Protective Edge in 2014.
Overall, Sanders' problem with progressives is historically in the area of foreign policy. Vox has a piece on Sanders' "surprisingly mainstream foreign policy"
o In 1999, Sanders voted for a resolution supporting the 1999 US air campaign in Yugoslavia. A Nation editorial asked him to reconsider and a member of his staff, Jeremy Brecher wrote a public resignation letter: "Is there a moral limit to the military violence you are willing to participate in or support? Where does that limit lie?"
o He voted for the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Force in Afghanistan, though he did oppose Obama's 2009 troop surge there.
o Though he opposed both the Gulf War and the 2003 invasion of Iraq and had "reservations" about the 2011 war in Libya, Sanders came out in support of drone strikes on suspected terrorists "in a very selective way."Vox summed it up:
On this issue, then, Sanders isn't far off from your average liberal Democrat. He's generally skeptical of the use of force, but willing to endorse it in very narrow and limited cases where he thinks it could save lives or advance American interests. That doesn't make him a warmonger who is "to the right of many liberal Democrats," but it is a notable divergence in his reputation as a champion of the left and challenger of the Washington status quo.Others feel the same way. Already in 2006, SocialistWorker.org, questioned A socialist in the Senate?
Sanders' election to the Senate doesn't represent a radical departure from politics as usual. He may have a portrait of Eugene Debs hanging in his office, but his politics have little in common with that great American socialist.And then we have the progressive pushback on Sanders' stand on Israel (emphases added):
Washington Post, August 20, 2014: Answering question on Israel, Bernie Sanders tells townhall hecklers to ‘shut up!’
Progressives have wanted Sanders to be more forceful in condemning Israel. Before Congress’ August recess, the Senate passed a resolution unanimously reaffirming its support for Israel. Sanders did not object, but he also did not sign on as a co-sponsor. As the Daily Beast writes, Israel puts left-wing politicians like Sanders in a tough spot because their base can be critical of Israel, but not taking a pro-Israel position is politically risky.
Washington Post, August 4, 2015: Bernie Sanders’s 27 years of Israel answers
Sanders's criticism of Benjamin Netanyahu and his support for the two-state solution and Iran nuclear deal are all firmly in the liberal mainstream. On the left, the discussion has moved on to whether people and institutions should boycott and divest from Israel so long as it occupies Palestinian land.
AlterNet, October 10, 2015: The Backstory on Bernie Sanders and Israel-Palestine: Why Is He So Quiet About the Mideast Tragedy?
Since that town hall [in 2014], questions about Palestine have dogged him...There is some evidence that these criticisms have started to make an impact on Sanders' approach. In the last month, his campaign finally started to roll out foreign policy platforms on his website. The platform repeats much of the same U.S. foreign policy mantras about the need for a two-state solution and Israel's right to defend itself, but also condemns “disproportionate” violence by Israel and killings of civilians by the Israeli army. Most notably, the platform calls for Israel to end its blockade of Gaza, a topic all but forgotten in U.S. discourse.
AlterNet, March 14, 2016: Thousands Call on Bernie Sanders to Reject AIPAC’s Invitation to Speak Alongside Trump and Clinton
“As the main arm of the pro-Israel lobby in the United States, AIPAC has sworn to promote the racist, militaristic, and anti-democratic policies of the most right-wing government in Israel's history,” states a petition, which was created by AlterNet senior editor Max Blumenthal and has garnered 4,000 signatures in just four days. “Its conference this year will feature Islamophobes, anti-immigrant activists, and religious extremists.”
The Nation, April 15, 2016: Bernie Is Speaking the Truth About Israel-Palestine: Why did he suspend his staffer for doing the same?
During last night’s heated Democratic debate in Brooklyn, Senator Bernie Sanders came out firing on Israel. A candidate who initially sought, seemingly at all costs, to avoid foreign policy altogether finally spoke out on the most politically charged issue of global affairs in Washington—the Israeli-Palestinian conflict—and he took it by the horns.
That’s why it was so disappointing that, only a few hours earlier, the Sanders campaign suspended one of its young staffers, Simone Zimmerman, who served only briefly as its Jewish outreach coordinator. Zimmerman’s sin was to call the right-wing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu an “a**hole,” adding “F**k you, Bibi,” using his nickname, for good measure, in a Facebook post last winter, when she was all of 24 years old.
Vox, June 18, 2016: Bernie Sanders versus the left: the socialist’s surprisingly mainstream foreign policy
Sanders supports a two-state solution, one for Israelis and another for Palestinians. While he can be critical of Israel, he does not refrain from criticizing Palestinians as well...That's a stark contrast to the socialist left, which generally sees Israel as a racist, colonial aggressor. Increasingly, leftists advocate a one-state solution to the conflict.
The Nation, July 28, 2016: How Bernie Sanders Lost the Platform Fight Over Israel
James Zogby, the head of the Arab American Institute and a longtime party activist, read aloud a proposed amendment in an unmistakably Midwest accent. Zogby wanted to add language that would explicitly mention Israel’s occupation and strip out the platform’s condemnation of the movement to boycott, divest from, and sanction Israel (BDS)...Zogby mentioned several times that the proposed changes had come from Bernie Sanders himself. Sanders began his campaign avoiding foreign policy altogether, but eventually became more outspoken on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, taking Netanyahu to task not only for the Israeli settlement project and continued occupation but also for Israel’s conduct of the 2014 war against the besieged Gaza Strip.
sanders.senate.gov, December 19, 2018: Sanders, Feinstein Oppose Inclusion of Israel Anti-Boycott Act in Appropriations Bill
“While we do not support the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, we remain resolved to our constitutional oath to defend the right of every American to express their views peacefully without fear of or actual punishment by the government,” the senators continued.
In his memoir "Outsider in The House", Sanders writes about his years as mayor in Burlington, Vermont, “[H]ow many cities of 40,000 have a foreign policy? Well we did...I saw no magic line separating local, state, national and international issues.” But what was a novelty as mayor became expected when Sanders declared his intention to go to Washington. Caught between being pro-Israel and critical, he tries to walk a fine line, being critical of Israel while adopting a pro-Israel stance and standing up for Palestinian Arab rights. That position puts him to the right of his base, which accuses Israel of Apartheid, racism and occupation.
That position does not always go over well. Here is an excerpt from a town hall meeting in August 2014, when Sanders was heckled for supporting Israel.
Once he regains control of the discussion, Sanders sidesteps the issue by changing the topic of the discussion to ISIS, just as he avoids answering the question as to whether he is a Zionist.
In recent years, the argument has become even fiercer as discussion has moved from general questions of Israel's right to exist, to the pointed debate over BDS and the occupation. Again, Sanders takes the middle road -- not supporting the BDS movement outright, but still opposing anti-BDS legislation.
But not surprisingly, his criticism of Israel does become sharper, as AlterNet claimed above in the quote from October 2015.
By the end of 2015, Sanders was in fact saying on his campaign site that Israel was using disproportionate force in Gaza. The page no longer exists, but according to The Wayback Machine, the following appeared on his site as early as November 15, 2015:
The most recent violence in Gaza represented a particularly ugly and violent time in the dispute. Senator Sanders strongly condemned indiscriminate rocket fire by Hamas into Israeli territory, and Hamas’ use of civilian neighborhoods to launch those attacks. However, while recognizing that Israel has the right to defend itself, he also strongly condemned Israeli attacks on Gaza as disproportionate and the widespread killing of civilians as completely unacceptable.In April 2016 Sanders made the claim in an interview on CNN:
"Was Israel's response disproportionate? I think it was," he told CNN's Jake Tapper in an interview that aired Sunday on "State of the Union."The previous month, in March, Sanders gave a talk in Utah where he condemned the Israeli blockade of Gaza:
Peace will also mean ending the economic blockade of Gaza. And it will mean a sustainable and equitable distribution of precious water resources so that Israel and Palestine can both thrive as neighbors.That leads to a question over which Sanders received a lot of criticism. During an interview with the Daily News on April 1, 2016, Sanders appeared to have no idea of how many casualties there were in Gaza during Operation Protective Edge:
Sanders: I think it is fair to say that the level of [Israeli] attacks against civilian areas…and I do know that the Palestinians, some of them, were using civilian areas to launch missiles. Makes it very difficult. But I think most international observers would say that the attacks against Gaza were indiscriminate and that a lot of innocent people were killed who should not have been killed. Look, we are living, for better or worse, in a world of high technology, whether it’s drones out there that could, you know, take your nose off, and Israel has that technology. And I think there is a general belief that, with that technology, they could have been more discriminate in terms of taking out weapons that were threatening them.
I’m just telling you that I happen to believe … anybody help me out here, because I don’t remember the figures, but my recollection is over 10,000 innocent people were killed in Gaza. Does that sound right?
Daily News: I think it’s probably high, but we can look at that.
Sanders: I don’t have it in my number…but I think it’s over 10,000. My understanding is that a whole lot of apartment houses were leveled. Hospitals, I think, were bombed. So yeah, I do believe and I don’t think I’m alone in believing that Israel’s force was more indiscriminate than it should have been.10,000 killed is a massive exaggeration, far more than even Hamas terrorists claimed.
But in the interests of accuracy, in the previous month, on March 21, 2016, during that talk in Utah, Sanders got the number right.
Of course, I strongly object to Hamas’ long held position that Israel does not have the right to exist – that is unacceptable. Of course, I strongly condemn indiscriminate rocket fire by Hamas into Israeli territory, and Hamas’ use of civilian neighborhoods to launch those attacks. I condemn the fact that Hamas diverted funds and materials for much-needed construction projects designed to improve the quality of life of the Palestinian people, and instead used those funds to construct a network of tunnels for military purposes.
However, let me also be very clear: I – along with many supporters of Israel – spoke out strongly against the Israeli counter attacks that killed nearly 1,500 civilians and wounded thousands more. I condemned the bombing of hospitals, schools and refugee camps.Here is the video:
According to a later press release on the interview:
The United Nations has estimated that 2,104 were killed, including 1,462 civilians. Understanding that his recollection was about the total number of casualties, not the death toll, the senator immediately accepted that correction and the discussion moved on to other topics.Bernie Sanders is consistent in trying to walk a middle line:
- He contrasts his pro-Israel position with his criticisms of Israel -- and his support for the Palestinian Arabs
- He supports a 2 state solution
- He balances criticism of Israeli attacks on Gaza with mention of Hamas use of populated areas for launching rockets
- He says up front that he has no "magic" solutions
For that matter, Sanders also accepts at face value the claims that the ongoing Gaza riots are actually peaceful, unarmed protests and that Israel is deliberately shooting unarmed protesters:
"Innocent people are being killed,” said Sanders, after roughly 60 rioters were shot dead on Monday during clashes next to Israel’s security fence on the Gaza border.
"Those are terrible actions," Sanders said. "Instead of applauding Israel for its actions, Israel should be condemned. Israel has a right to security, but shooting unarmed protesters is not what it is about."Again, there is no mention of Israel taking measures to avoid casualties, nor any mention of rioters being anything but peaceful, of their having weapons or of their attempts -- sometimes successful -- of breaking through the barrier into Israel.
Nor is there mention of Hamas terrorists being among the "unarmed protesters."
By May 16, 2018, admissions from Hamas about the riots during the previous 2 days were already coming out: Hamas official: 50 of the 62 Gazans killed in border violence were our members:
“In the last rounds of confrontations, if 62 people were martyred, Fifty of the martyrs were Hamas and 12 from the people. How can Hamas reap the fruits if it pays such an expensive price?” said Hamas official Salah Bardawil in an interview with the Palestinian Baladna news outlet.Not only did the IDF say that 24 of those killed were identified as terrorists,
https://twitter.com/bjoernstritzel/status/996378101029404673
Years earlier, Sanders suggested applying pressure not only on the Arab countries in the Middle East to make peace with Israel, but to apply that pressure on Israel as well. This was in 1988, when while mayor of Burlington he came out in support of Jesse Jackson's bid for the Democratic nomination for the president. Sanders suggested withholding arms from Israel as well as the Arabs:
We are pouring billions of dollars in arms into Arab countries. We have the clout to demand they and Israel, who we’re also heavily financing, to begin to sit down and work out a sensible solution to the problem which would guarantee the existence of the State of Israel and which would also protect Palestinian rights...“Or else you begin to cut off arms. If I am supplying someone with a significant amount of money, I can then begin to call the tune.”Here is the video:
According to The Vermont Cynic, the University of Vermont's newspaper, Sanders came out even stronger against US arms support for Israel, saying "It is wrong that the United States provides arms to Israel. We are not going to be the arms merchant for Middle Eastern nations."
According to the same article in the Cynic, the Sanders campaign said the paper misquoted Sanders:
"The quote does not support [the assertion that] Sanders wanted to end all military aid to Israel, and doing so is a misinterpretation of old quotes,” Sanders campaign spokesman Michael Briggs said in a Sept. 3 email to the Cynic.
“He didn’t call military aid to Israel wrong,” Briggs said.
“Bernie does not and has not ever supported cutting off arms to Israel and that has never been his position,” he said.The fact remains that the video above does show Sanders suggesting withholding arms, even from Israel, as an option.
So who is advising Sanders on Israel?
In 2006, SocialistWorker.org was furious at Sanders for having advisors associated with AIPAC:
Unsurprisingly, some Sanders staffers have also worked with the American Israeli Political Action Committee (AIPAC)--including David Sirota, now a Democratic Party strategist, and Sanders' former communications director Joel Barkin.Putting aside their error in claiming that AIPAC is a "Political Action Committee" when it is, in fact, a "Political Affairs Committee" and does not directly fund politicians as J Street does -- it's not clear what the fuss was all about. David Sirota was with AIPAC for all of 4 months (from about the end of 1998 to 1999), when he joined Sanders, according to his tweet in December. As for Barkin, according to his LinkedIn profile, he was with Sanders for 3 years, ending in 2005, a year before that post.
But now, Sanders' choice of advisors seems to be going in the other direction, with 2 of his advisors holding distinctly anti-Israel views.
Last week, The Washington Free Beacon reported Sanders Fills Ranks With Anti-Israel Advocates Tied to Anti-Semitism Scandal
Sanders' current foreign policy adviser is Matt Duss and his campaign manager is Faiz Shakir. The Beacon story involves ThinkProgress, an American news website and project of the Center for American Progress [CAP] Action Fund, a progressive public policy research and advocacy organization. In 2012, Matt Duss was CAP's Middle East director and Faiz Shakir served as the editor-in-chief of the group's Think Progress blog:
During their tenure at CAP, Duss and Shakir emerged at the forefront of a scandal involving several Think Progress bloggers who accused pro-Israel Jews and members of Congress of being "Israel firsters," a term implying that those who support the Jewish state have dual loyalties.
The scandal rocked CAP for several months and drew condemnation across the board, including from the Obama administration, which distanced itself from Duss, Shakir, and the rest of Think Progress's former staff.
Shakir—who initially remained silent as controversy swirled around Think Progress's use of anti-Semitic language—later said in a leaked internal email that his employees used "terrible, anti-Semitic language" when invoking the "Israel firster" term.
Duss also stood on the sidelines at the time, declining to condemn the anti-Semitic language. Numerous articles penned by Duss and other CAP Action Fund bloggers were said "to be infected with Jew-hatred and discriminatory policy positions toward Israel," according to the Simon Wiesenthal Center, which combats anti-Semitism.
...Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, was a vocal critic of both Duss and Shakir during their time at CAP. He told the Free Beacon during a Tuesday interview that Sanders's decision to elevate the two staffers to the top of his political organization is "troubling."These 2 advisors are no improvement over Simone Zimmerman, Sanders' Jewish outreach coordinator, who was let go after a profanity-filled attack on Netanyahu.
But again this calls into question Sanders' support of Ilhan Omar who, like Duss and Shakir during their time with CAP and Think Progress, accused Israel supporters of having dual loyalty.
And now, while finishing up this post, another member of Sanders' staff -- his national deputy press secretary, Belén Sisa -- has raised the issue of Jewish dual loyalty:
A spokeswoman for Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign apologized Tuesday after questioning whether the “American-Jewish community has a dual allegiance to the state of Israel” — a comment condemned by Jewish leaders across the political spectrum as having anti-Semitic overtones.What's in store for Bernie Sanders?
It is tempting to look at Sanders' record on Israel and say it is more ambivalent than balanced, and will weaken his draw of the Jewish vote, even without Clinton in the picture. But the Jewish vote is not a matter of logic. Predicting that Sanders will fail to attract the Jewish vote is like predicting that Jews will run from the Democrats and turn to the Republicans because they show more support for Israel and did not join the Democrats in whitewashing antisemitism in the recent House vote.
But Jewish political support is not based on hard facts and political math, and long-term political habits can be hard to break. Of course, just because Jews are likely to continue to vote Democratic, doesn't mean they will vote for Sanders. Jews were enthusiastic for Lieberman, not because he was a religious Jew, but because he was a public Jew and proud Jew.
Sanders, on the other hand, does not seem to come across as a proud Jew in the same way when he deals with public situations that come up. Of course, the onus is still on his opponents to draw the Jewish vote away from him and it does not seem as if any of them have the history and connection that Clinton had with the Jewish community to will enable them to do that.
When it comes to the progressive vote, Sanders may have stronger ties by virtue of a longer history of being very public in his progressive persona. Some may have questioned his overall progressive creds, but the main flashpoint in questioning his progressivism could be Sanders' stand on Israel.
The Democratic left is getting increasingly loud on the issue and is successfully undermining support for Israel in the Democratic party. For decades he has said that he has no magic solution for the conflict, that supports Israel though he supports it and that he supports a Palestinian state though he condemns Hamas terrorist attacks. Till recently, that has been enough. But over the past few years, Sanders himself seems to have moved further to the left, adding accusations of Israel of using "disproportionate" force, that Israel should stop blockading Gaza, and opposing measures to fight BDS, (though he has come out publicly that he does not support it) to his repertoire.
But despite his overall stronger progressive creds, Sanders' opposition consists of younger candidates who arguably are more in tune with the left. The Democrats running for president could mimic Sanders on Israel or choose to move to the left of him to make him appear more establishment. He could be especially vulnerable in this regard if Sarsour, Omar and Tlaib can continue to push the goalposts of what is acceptable discourse when it comes to socialism as well as Israel.
Just wait till the Democratic platform at the convention.
With over a year and a half till the election things are wide open, especially when it comes to increasing visibility of antisemitism --
It is a Jewish issue.
It is also a progressive issue.
And it may play a part in the upcoming election.
-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!
Categories: Middle East
How Arafat Helped Establish Israel As The Major US Ally In The Middle East That It Is Today
Richard Nixon's antisemitism did not prevent him from coming to Israel's aid in 1973 and resupplying it with the weapons that enabled it to win the war.
But beyond that, Nixon may be responsible for the enduring US foreign policy that sees
In a recent article on The Top Four Reasons Why Rep. Ilhan Omar Is Wrong About AIPAC, Israel and the Palestinians, CAMERA notes that historically, US support for Israel was actually minimal before 1970 -- despite the combined alleged influence of the Jewish vote, Jewish political contributions, and the activities of the pro-Israel lobby. After all, just 3 years earlier, in 1967, Israel's main source of weapons was not the US; it was the British and the French. Yet after 1970, US support for Israel began to grow rapidly.
The turning point was President Richard Nixon -- and Arafat.
As Alex Safian puts it in the article:
The US president in 1970 was Richard Nixon, a Republican who knew very well that overwhelmingly Democratic and left-leaning American Jews had already voted against him in large numbers and would do so again in 1972. What happened in 1970 that convinced Nixon, the arch practitioner of realpolitik, to press for increased support for Israel?Safian quotes the late Harvard professor, Nadav Safran, who in his book "Israel: The Embattled Ally," notes that the turning point in US/Israel relations was not any kind of Jewish influence. That influence was consistent and yet had failed to improve US-Israel relations. Instead, the turning point was the crisis of Black September, when Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization, with the assistance of invading Syrian tanks, attempted to overthrow and assassinate Jordan’s King Hussein, who was an ally of the US. If successful, they would have posed a threat to western oil supplies.
According to Safran, when the Syrian army captured Irbid, a city in northern Jordan which contained a junction of roads linking Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Israel -- King Hussein appealed for American and British help. The British refused and advised the US to do the same. Other European allies also advised against helping. Nixon had Kissinger work out a plan for a joint American-Israeli intervention. Kissinger and Israeli Ambassador Rabin put together a plan for a combined Israeli air strike and armored assault on the Syrian forces in conjunction with an American airborne descent on Amman airport. If necessary, Israeli armored columns would advance in a pincer movement from the Golan and the Jordan Valley and cut off the Syrian intervention forces and destroy them.
Because of the American and Israeli support, King Hussein was able to commit all his forces to fighting Arafat's forces. The Syrians, on the other hand, wary of that support, and of a flanking attack by columns of Israeli tank columns, withdrew -- saving Jordan, and making direct Israeli intervention unnecessary.
King Hussein. Source: US Government. Public Domain
According to Safran this affair had a profound impact on U.S/Israel relations:
The Jordanian episode had a far-reaching effect on the American attitude toward Israel and the Arab-Israeli conflict… [T]he President … was deeply impressed by the determination shown by the Israelis at a time when America’s formal allies had quit on him. He also appreciated the speed, efficiency, discretion and trust with which the Israelis acted through their gifted ambassador, Yitzhak Rabin…
Apart from its effect on Nixon’s personal attitude towards Israel, the Jordanian episode drove home to the President and some of his advisers a crucial point which they previously saw only in the abstract. The crisis and its denouement demonstrated to them in a concrete and dramatic fashion the value for the United States of a strong Israel. At a time when the regional balance among the Arab states, between the United States and the Soviet Union, as well as between Israel and the Arabs states was seen to be imperiled and when the entire American position in the Middle East appeared, as a result, to be jeopardy, the United States was able to retrieve the situation and turn it around only through the effective cooperation of a powerful Israel….
The American action in the Jordanian crisis was therefore seen by Nixon as the first successful attempt to call a halt to the Soviet drive and begin to reverse it by forcing the Soviets to back down in view of their friends, and the key role of Israel in that action was particularly appreciated. (emphasis in the original)It wasn't AIPAC or Jewish influence that brought about this change in support for Israel. Instead, it was the threat, brought about by Arafat's PLO that led Nixon to appreciate the strategic importance of Israel.
Safian concludes:
There is no doubt that AIPAC plays a key role in shaping the debate in Congress and in the details of legislation, military aid packages, etc., but none of these details would matter were it not for the strategic realities of the US-Israel alliance.In an article in the New York Post back in 2001, Israeli journalist Uri Dan wrote about the release of sensitive British government documents which provided the first public confirmation that an Arab country once requested an Israeli military attack on a fellow Arab nation:
British documents, sealed for 30 years, now reveal that Hussein sent “a series of messages” to the British Embassy in Amman “reflecting the extreme anxiety with which he now regarded the situation.”
The report said that Hussein “not only appealed for the moral and diplomatic support of the United Kingdom and the United States, coupled with the threat of international action, but had also asked for an air strike by Israel against Syrian troops." [emphasis added]According to the report, Prime Minister Edward Heath is quoted as doubting whether it was worth “prolonging, possibly only for a short time, [Hussein’s] increasingly precarious regime.”
Donald Neff, in an article "Nixon's Middle East Policy: From Balance to Bias," quotes from Rabin's memoirs where he tells about Kissinger's description of the president's appreciation:
The President will never forget Israel's role in preventing the deterioration in Jordan and in blocking the attempt to overturn the regime there. He said that the United States is fortunate in having an ally like Israel in the Middle East. These events will be taken into account in all future developments.Neff goes on to describe how Israel benefited. While US aid to Israel totaled $93.6 million in 1970, by 1971 it jumped to $634.3 million and then reached $2.6 billion in 1974 after the war in 1973. He concludes: "The Nixon-Kissinger years set a dramatic new benchmark for aid to Israel. Levels continued to climb until 1985 when they settled at $3 billion, where they remain today (1990)."
None of this would have happened if Arafat had not tried to take over Jordan.
He single-handedly created a destabilizing situation that allowed Nixon to see the strategic asset Israel represented in the Middle East. Nixon was developing the Nixon Doctrine, allowing the US to rely on military and economic aid and on allies instead of committing US troops.
And Israel continues to serve as a key ally of the US to this day.
-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!
But beyond that, Nixon may be responsible for the enduring US foreign policy that sees
- The value of a strong Israel
- Israel as solid US ally in Mideast
- Israel as important for Mideast stability
In a recent article on The Top Four Reasons Why Rep. Ilhan Omar Is Wrong About AIPAC, Israel and the Palestinians, CAMERA notes that historically, US support for Israel was actually minimal before 1970 -- despite the combined alleged influence of the Jewish vote, Jewish political contributions, and the activities of the pro-Israel lobby. After all, just 3 years earlier, in 1967, Israel's main source of weapons was not the US; it was the British and the French. Yet after 1970, US support for Israel began to grow rapidly.
The turning point was President Richard Nixon -- and Arafat.
As Alex Safian puts it in the article:
The US president in 1970 was Richard Nixon, a Republican who knew very well that overwhelmingly Democratic and left-leaning American Jews had already voted against him in large numbers and would do so again in 1972. What happened in 1970 that convinced Nixon, the arch practitioner of realpolitik, to press for increased support for Israel?Safian quotes the late Harvard professor, Nadav Safran, who in his book "Israel: The Embattled Ally," notes that the turning point in US/Israel relations was not any kind of Jewish influence. That influence was consistent and yet had failed to improve US-Israel relations. Instead, the turning point was the crisis of Black September, when Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization, with the assistance of invading Syrian tanks, attempted to overthrow and assassinate Jordan’s King Hussein, who was an ally of the US. If successful, they would have posed a threat to western oil supplies.
According to Safran, when the Syrian army captured Irbid, a city in northern Jordan which contained a junction of roads linking Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Israel -- King Hussein appealed for American and British help. The British refused and advised the US to do the same. Other European allies also advised against helping. Nixon had Kissinger work out a plan for a joint American-Israeli intervention. Kissinger and Israeli Ambassador Rabin put together a plan for a combined Israeli air strike and armored assault on the Syrian forces in conjunction with an American airborne descent on Amman airport. If necessary, Israeli armored columns would advance in a pincer movement from the Golan and the Jordan Valley and cut off the Syrian intervention forces and destroy them.
Because of the American and Israeli support, King Hussein was able to commit all his forces to fighting Arafat's forces. The Syrians, on the other hand, wary of that support, and of a flanking attack by columns of Israeli tank columns, withdrew -- saving Jordan, and making direct Israeli intervention unnecessary.
King Hussein. Source: US Government. Public Domain
According to Safran this affair had a profound impact on U.S/Israel relations:
The Jordanian episode had a far-reaching effect on the American attitude toward Israel and the Arab-Israeli conflict… [T]he President … was deeply impressed by the determination shown by the Israelis at a time when America’s formal allies had quit on him. He also appreciated the speed, efficiency, discretion and trust with which the Israelis acted through their gifted ambassador, Yitzhak Rabin…
Apart from its effect on Nixon’s personal attitude towards Israel, the Jordanian episode drove home to the President and some of his advisers a crucial point which they previously saw only in the abstract. The crisis and its denouement demonstrated to them in a concrete and dramatic fashion the value for the United States of a strong Israel. At a time when the regional balance among the Arab states, between the United States and the Soviet Union, as well as between Israel and the Arabs states was seen to be imperiled and when the entire American position in the Middle East appeared, as a result, to be jeopardy, the United States was able to retrieve the situation and turn it around only through the effective cooperation of a powerful Israel….
The American action in the Jordanian crisis was therefore seen by Nixon as the first successful attempt to call a halt to the Soviet drive and begin to reverse it by forcing the Soviets to back down in view of their friends, and the key role of Israel in that action was particularly appreciated. (emphasis in the original)It wasn't AIPAC or Jewish influence that brought about this change in support for Israel. Instead, it was the threat, brought about by Arafat's PLO that led Nixon to appreciate the strategic importance of Israel.
Safian concludes:
There is no doubt that AIPAC plays a key role in shaping the debate in Congress and in the details of legislation, military aid packages, etc., but none of these details would matter were it not for the strategic realities of the US-Israel alliance.In an article in the New York Post back in 2001, Israeli journalist Uri Dan wrote about the release of sensitive British government documents which provided the first public confirmation that an Arab country once requested an Israeli military attack on a fellow Arab nation:
British documents, sealed for 30 years, now reveal that Hussein sent “a series of messages” to the British Embassy in Amman “reflecting the extreme anxiety with which he now regarded the situation.”
The report said that Hussein “not only appealed for the moral and diplomatic support of the United Kingdom and the United States, coupled with the threat of international action, but had also asked for an air strike by Israel against Syrian troops." [emphasis added]According to the report, Prime Minister Edward Heath is quoted as doubting whether it was worth “prolonging, possibly only for a short time, [Hussein’s] increasingly precarious regime.”
Donald Neff, in an article "Nixon's Middle East Policy: From Balance to Bias," quotes from Rabin's memoirs where he tells about Kissinger's description of the president's appreciation:
The President will never forget Israel's role in preventing the deterioration in Jordan and in blocking the attempt to overturn the regime there. He said that the United States is fortunate in having an ally like Israel in the Middle East. These events will be taken into account in all future developments.Neff goes on to describe how Israel benefited. While US aid to Israel totaled $93.6 million in 1970, by 1971 it jumped to $634.3 million and then reached $2.6 billion in 1974 after the war in 1973. He concludes: "The Nixon-Kissinger years set a dramatic new benchmark for aid to Israel. Levels continued to climb until 1985 when they settled at $3 billion, where they remain today (1990)."
None of this would have happened if Arafat had not tried to take over Jordan.
He single-handedly created a destabilizing situation that allowed Nixon to see the strategic asset Israel represented in the Middle East. Nixon was developing the Nixon Doctrine, allowing the US to rely on military and economic aid and on allies instead of committing US troops.
And Israel continues to serve as a key ally of the US to this day.
-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!
Categories: Middle East
Ilhan Omar Has A History Of Breaking Rules On Donations of "Benjamins"
Ilhan Omar was at the center of the news last week, amidst her antisemitic tweets and her attack on Elliott Abrams.
Yet despite what her tweets condemning AIPAC and her false claim that it pays off government officials, Omar's own history of violating and abusing the rules governing receiving money -- and having to return it -- has received scant attention.
In July last year, The Daily Caller reported, Democratic Congressional Hopeful Forced To Return College Speaking Fees
Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor congressional candidate Ilhan Omar said Monday that she will return $2,500 in college speaking fees that she accepted in violation of Minnesota House of Representatives rules.
Minnesota state lawmaker Omar was paid $2,000 in February 2017 to speak at Normandale Community College in Bloomington, Minnesota. She was paid $500 in April 2017 to speak at Inver Hills Community College in Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota, according to a press release issued by Republican state Rep. Steve Drazkowski.
Omar was elected to the Minnesota House of Representatives in November 2016. She had agreed to speak at the events before she was sworn into office in January 2017 and did not know the rules for an elected official would apply to her, she said, according the Star Tribune. [emphasis added]AP confirms that Omar did in fact return the money.
Omar claims she did not know the rules, but if so, it wasn't for lack of being told that it was against the rules. The website from the Minnesota State House website reports on State Representative Steve Drazkowski (Republican), who revealed Omar's violation:
Drazkowski said Omar clearly violated rules that are in place to prevent payment to a member from an organization that has business before the Legislature. According to Minnesota House Rule 9.20, Acceptance of an Honorarium by a Member: A member must not accept an honorarium for a service performed for an individual or organization that has a direct interest in the business of the House, including, but not limited to, a registered lobbyist or an organization a lobbyist represents.
Rep. Omar voted to adopt the Permanent Rules of the Minnesota House – which includes Rule 9.20 - on February 16, 2017, 12 days before her first paid MNSCU speaking engagement.
In addition, Drazkowski noted every newly-elected member attends an orientation where non-partisan House research staff explains potential conflicts of interest to incoming lawmakers, including gifts, travel and lodging, and honoraria.And there were other issues with Omar's less than stellar transparency on her finances:
Omar was able to avoid a potential House Ethics Committee hearing into her financial misdeeds because the Legislature had adjourned sine die (with no appointed date for resumption). The late filing also prevented bad publicity or any other conflicts that could have arisen during the DFL endorsement to replace outgoing Congressman Keith Ellison.Fast-forward to now.
How did Ilhan Omar conduct her successful campaign for the US House of Representatives?
Sunday, August 5, 2018: Hussam Ayloush, Executive Director of CAIR-California posts on Facebook that Ilhan Omar, campaigning for Democratic Representative of Minnesota, will attend 3 CAIR sponsored events -- in California. It's just like the lady said: "It's all about the Benjamins, baby."
Ilhan Omar standing next to CAIR-CA executive director Hussam Ayloush (to her right)
From Hussam Ayloush's Facebook page
Thursday, August 9, 2018: Omar gets a donation from CAIR-CA
But something funny happened in between Omar speaking at 3 CAIR events and then receiving a $5,000 donation from CAIR...
Monday, August 6, 2018: Omar attended a special JCRC event
But while Omar claimed she would "share our vision" as it turned out, Omar's "vision" was a little bit blurry that day. According to Haaretz, the reaction was that Omar was less than straightforward, in light of her later public support for BDS:
This seemed like a bait-and-switch to many Jewish Minnesotans: When she was asked at an August primary debate held in a synagogue to specify “exactly where you stand” on BDS, Omar said that BDS was “not helpful in getting that two-state solution” — never explaining that she in fact supported the policy. [emphasis added]Does anyone think that Omar was equally evasive in her 3 CAIR-arranged appearances in California to collect donations?
In an article in the Algemeiner, Morton Klein, national president of the Zionist Organization of America, describes the degree to which Ilhan Omar Is Funded by Israel-Hating BDS Promoters and PACs in the 2018 election:
Representative Omar’s willingness to accept money from institutions that are dependent on her committee and her vote for their funding is the textbook definition of unethicalOmar's antisemitic comments last week come from someone with a record for violating both the rules and the trust of her constituents.
But in terms of real consequences, Ilhan Omar has so far received nothing more than a slap on the wrist -- and an appointment to the House Foreign Affairs Committee, where she behaved exactly as we would expect.
-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!
Yet despite what her tweets condemning AIPAC and her false claim that it pays off government officials, Omar's own history of violating and abusing the rules governing receiving money -- and having to return it -- has received scant attention.
In July last year, The Daily Caller reported, Democratic Congressional Hopeful Forced To Return College Speaking Fees
Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor congressional candidate Ilhan Omar said Monday that she will return $2,500 in college speaking fees that she accepted in violation of Minnesota House of Representatives rules.
Minnesota state lawmaker Omar was paid $2,000 in February 2017 to speak at Normandale Community College in Bloomington, Minnesota. She was paid $500 in April 2017 to speak at Inver Hills Community College in Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota, according to a press release issued by Republican state Rep. Steve Drazkowski.
Omar was elected to the Minnesota House of Representatives in November 2016. She had agreed to speak at the events before she was sworn into office in January 2017 and did not know the rules for an elected official would apply to her, she said, according the Star Tribune. [emphasis added]AP confirms that Omar did in fact return the money.
Omar claims she did not know the rules, but if so, it wasn't for lack of being told that it was against the rules. The website from the Minnesota State House website reports on State Representative Steve Drazkowski (Republican), who revealed Omar's violation:
Drazkowski said Omar clearly violated rules that are in place to prevent payment to a member from an organization that has business before the Legislature. According to Minnesota House Rule 9.20, Acceptance of an Honorarium by a Member: A member must not accept an honorarium for a service performed for an individual or organization that has a direct interest in the business of the House, including, but not limited to, a registered lobbyist or an organization a lobbyist represents.
Rep. Omar voted to adopt the Permanent Rules of the Minnesota House – which includes Rule 9.20 - on February 16, 2017, 12 days before her first paid MNSCU speaking engagement.
In addition, Drazkowski noted every newly-elected member attends an orientation where non-partisan House research staff explains potential conflicts of interest to incoming lawmakers, including gifts, travel and lodging, and honoraria.And there were other issues with Omar's less than stellar transparency on her finances:
- On May 17, 2017, Rep. Omar was fined $1,000 due to the late filing of her 24-hour notice reports.
- On November 30, 2017, Rep. Omar was fined $150 due to the late filing of her campaign finance report. That 2016 report listed a non-campaign disbursement in the amount of $2,250 in legal fees to the Kjellberg Law Office, which specializes in divorce law, and is listed as her representative during her 2017 divorce case. It also noted that she paid her now current husband $3,100 for unspecified campaign services.
- On June 20, 2018, Rep. Omar was fined the maximum $1,100 due to the late filing of her Statement of Economic Interest.
Omar was able to avoid a potential House Ethics Committee hearing into her financial misdeeds because the Legislature had adjourned sine die (with no appointed date for resumption). The late filing also prevented bad publicity or any other conflicts that could have arisen during the DFL endorsement to replace outgoing Congressman Keith Ellison.Fast-forward to now.
How did Ilhan Omar conduct her successful campaign for the US House of Representatives?
Sunday, August 5, 2018: Hussam Ayloush, Executive Director of CAIR-California posts on Facebook that Ilhan Omar, campaigning for Democratic Representative of Minnesota, will attend 3 CAIR sponsored events -- in California. It's just like the lady said: "It's all about the Benjamins, baby."
Ilhan Omar standing next to CAIR-CA executive director Hussam Ayloush (to her right)
From Hussam Ayloush's Facebook page
Thursday, August 9, 2018: Omar gets a donation from CAIR-CA
But something funny happened in between Omar speaking at 3 CAIR events and then receiving a $5,000 donation from CAIR...
Monday, August 6, 2018: Omar attended a special JCRC event
But while Omar claimed she would "share our vision" as it turned out, Omar's "vision" was a little bit blurry that day. According to Haaretz, the reaction was that Omar was less than straightforward, in light of her later public support for BDS:
This seemed like a bait-and-switch to many Jewish Minnesotans: When she was asked at an August primary debate held in a synagogue to specify “exactly where you stand” on BDS, Omar said that BDS was “not helpful in getting that two-state solution” — never explaining that she in fact supported the policy. [emphasis added]Does anyone think that Omar was equally evasive in her 3 CAIR-arranged appearances in California to collect donations?
In an article in the Algemeiner, Morton Klein, national president of the Zionist Organization of America, describes the degree to which Ilhan Omar Is Funded by Israel-Hating BDS Promoters and PACs in the 2018 election:
- CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) is one of Rep. Omar’s top 20 contributors. CAIR was an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror financing trial for funneling money to Hamas. FBI testimony reportedly indicated that CAIR has been a Hamas front group.
- In addition, CAIR-CA’s executive director Hussam Ayloush, who called for Israel’s “termination,” gave Ilhan Omar $1,200.
- James Zogby, president of the anti-Israel Arab-American Institute (AAI), chairman of the anti-Israel Palestine Human Rights Campaign, and a major anti-Israel propagandist, gave Rep. Omar $2,700. Zogby falsely accused Israel of committing a “Holocaust” against Palestinians, called Israelis “Nazis,” campaigned to prevent the extradition to Israel of a Fatah terrorist who killed two Israeli teenagers and wounded 36 other Israelis, called Cuban-American Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen an “Israel-firster” (an antisemitic trope implying dual loyalty), praised the intifada as a “good story,” and was a leading architect of propaganda themes used to pry progressive Jews away from supporting Israel.
- The Soros-funded MoveOn.org, which attempted to kill the pro-Israel anti-BDS bill in Congress, gave Omar $5,000. MoveOn.org also co-founded Avaaz, which initiates extremely offensive, falsehood-filled anti-Israel campaigns, including movements to release Palestinian Arab terrorist Ahed Tamimi and in support of Ireland’s dangerous BDS Bill.
- A $500 donor to Rep. Omar showed his wife wearing Hamas scarves and put on his Facebook profile in Arabic: “Jerusalem is ours, WE ARE COMING!”
- Debbie (Dhabah) Almontaser, who defended an Arab women’s group for hawking “Intifada NYC” T-shirts that glorify Palestinian-Arab terror, gave Omar $500.
- Despite campaigning out of state at 3 events for CAIR, just one day later, Omar sidestepped a direct question on BDS that she knew was important to the people who invited her to talk -- and took $5,000 from CAIR
- Omar was less than transparent in reporting money she received
- Omar agreed to return money she received in violation of Minnesota House laws that she herself voted on and was informed about at an orientation.
- Omar donations from people and organizations that strongly support the BDS movement and oppose the existence of Israel.
Representative Omar’s willingness to accept money from institutions that are dependent on her committee and her vote for their funding is the textbook definition of unethicalOmar's antisemitic comments last week come from someone with a record for violating both the rules and the trust of her constituents.
But in terms of real consequences, Ilhan Omar has so far received nothing more than a slap on the wrist -- and an appointment to the House Foreign Affairs Committee, where she behaved exactly as we would expect.
-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!
Categories: Middle East
Is 'Democratic Majority for Israel' Intended To Clean Up J Street's Mess?
Get the popcorn: J Street is getting some competition.
The Democratic Majority for Israel (DMFI) is a new group, presenting itself as "the pro-Israel voice of Democrats."
How new is DMFI?
So new, that when I did a search by name to find their website -- it showed up at the bottom of the first page of hits -- and that was a paid advertised link.
Here is their introductory video:
According to the Democratic Majority for Israel website, their mission is to:
Mark Mellman, CEO of Democratic Majority for Israel, and Jeremy Ben-Ami of J Street recently addressed this question with the JTA.
Mellman stated that “a central thrust for us is making sure the Democratic Party remains pro-Israel” at a time when Israel is facing increasing attacks by some within the Democratic party.
Mark Mellman, President and CEO, Democratic Majority for Israel. Screen capture from YouTube video
In his response, Jeremy Ben-Ami did not claim to be defending Israel form these attacks. Instead, he charged that the DMFI website lacked substance and asked, "would they have supported the Iran deal, do they support two states, would they support Democrats who want to reinstate funding for UNRWA."
But the group does support the 2 state solution, and as far as the Iran deal goes, Mellman responded that the deal was "old news".
It's hard not to think that to some extent, the apparent need for The Democratic Majority for Israel is an indictment of the failure of J Street.
Gregg Roman, Director of Middle East Forum, wrote in a piece for The Hill already in 2017 about J Street's Dead End:
For eight years J Street supported Obama's destructive policies toward Israel like the unilateral settlement freeze, nuclear détente with Iran, and his allowance for international condemnation of Israeli communities in the West Bank.Roman goes so far as to say that considering the influence they had during the Obama years, J Street shares some of the responsibility for the failure to get peace talks off the ground during those 8 years.
Last year, David M. Weinberg , vice president of the Jerusalem Institute for Strategic Studies, went a step further - asking the question: Is J Street Still Pro-Israel?
J Street has become something else altogether: an organization that spends almost all its time and money besmirching Israel, smearing the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and other leading American Jewish organizations, boosting US-Iran relations, and backing political candidates for whom promoting the boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement is a badge of honor.Even granting that J Street endorses Democratic candidates for Congress, as DMFI will do, the question remains: which Democrats has J Street been supporting?
J Street has supported allegedly "pro-Israel" Democrats such as Representative Mark Pocan, who in 2017 anonymously reserved official Capitol Hill space for an anti-Israel forum put together by organizations that support boycotts and Representative Hank Johnson, who referred to Israelis living in Judea and Samaria as 'termites.'
J Street has endorsed Keith Ellison, despite his ties to Farrakhan - and has defended Ellison, claiming that criticism of Ellison was actually "a concerted and transparent smear campaign driven by those whose true objections may be to the Congressman’s religion, strong support for the two-state solution or concern for Palestinian rights."
This past year, J Street endorsed Rashida Tlaib, who
The video itself uses articles dating back to the last few months of 2003. But an article written by Ron Kampeas for JTA in 2006 paints a different picture, noting the involvement of Soros in the early meetings that year that led to the start of J Street. A meeting in September included, in addition to Morton Halperin, a director of Soros’ Open Society Institute and Ben-Ami, members of Israel Policy Forum, Americans For Peace Now and Brit Tzedek. Those 3 groups are credited with the lobbying efforts at the time that derailed the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act, legislation that would have cut off US aid to the Palestinian Authority unless it renounced terrorism and recognized Israel. One can already see the source of J Street's current agenda. The article noted that a second meeting was scheduled for the following month, but the goals were not clear:
Some participants speak of wrapping together a number of the existing groups at some future date; others speak of a support structure that would back the groups as they continue to operate separately.But there are hints of other groups secretly supporting The Democratic Majority for Israel as well. J Street claims that it opposes the new group because they see DMFI as an ally of AIPAC and the pro-Israel mainstream, and The Forward quotes an unnamed source that goes one step further, claiming that AIPAC is behind DMFI:
For years, even before this last election, AIPAC has been discussing credibility problems with progressives at the highest level,” a pro-Israel Democrat familiar with AIPAC’s works, who asked not to be named so they could speak freely, told the Forward. “And they have been exploring the possibility of creating a Democratic group that would push AIPAC policy and fight the pro-Israel fight within the Democratic Party. That’s something they’ve been discussing for years.Out of DMFI's 15 board members, 11 of them have either worked or volunteered for AIPAC, or have donated to it or spoken at its events. Also, the company that made DMFI’s announcement video has a long working relationship with AIPAC, and designed their Policy Conference app. Whether there is any truth to a direct connection between the 2 groups or not, there seem to be forces at work that may be trying to create an anti-J Street, just as J Street was conceived as an anti-AIPAC. 2019 will not be a boring year.
-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!
The Democratic Majority for Israel (DMFI) is a new group, presenting itself as "the pro-Israel voice of Democrats."
How new is DMFI?
So new, that when I did a search by name to find their website -- it showed up at the bottom of the first page of hits -- and that was a paid advertised link.
Here is their introductory video:
According to the Democratic Majority for Israel website, their mission is to:
- Maintain and Strengthen Support for Israel Among Grassroots Progressives and Democratic Leaders
- Advance Policies to Ensure a Peaceful and Secure Israel
- Defend Israel’s Legitimacy
- Promote a Two-State Solution and Arab-Israeli Peace through Diplomacy and Partnership
- Encourage American Global Leadership
- Promote Progressive Values
- Educate and Support Democratic Leaders
Mark Mellman, CEO of Democratic Majority for Israel, and Jeremy Ben-Ami of J Street recently addressed this question with the JTA.
Mellman stated that “a central thrust for us is making sure the Democratic Party remains pro-Israel” at a time when Israel is facing increasing attacks by some within the Democratic party.
Mark Mellman, President and CEO, Democratic Majority for Israel. Screen capture from YouTube video
In his response, Jeremy Ben-Ami did not claim to be defending Israel form these attacks. Instead, he charged that the DMFI website lacked substance and asked, "would they have supported the Iran deal, do they support two states, would they support Democrats who want to reinstate funding for UNRWA."
But the group does support the 2 state solution, and as far as the Iran deal goes, Mellman responded that the deal was "old news".
It's hard not to think that to some extent, the apparent need for The Democratic Majority for Israel is an indictment of the failure of J Street.
Gregg Roman, Director of Middle East Forum, wrote in a piece for The Hill already in 2017 about J Street's Dead End:
For eight years J Street supported Obama's destructive policies toward Israel like the unilateral settlement freeze, nuclear détente with Iran, and his allowance for international condemnation of Israeli communities in the West Bank.Roman goes so far as to say that considering the influence they had during the Obama years, J Street shares some of the responsibility for the failure to get peace talks off the ground during those 8 years.
Last year, David M. Weinberg , vice president of the Jerusalem Institute for Strategic Studies, went a step further - asking the question: Is J Street Still Pro-Israel?
J Street has become something else altogether: an organization that spends almost all its time and money besmirching Israel, smearing the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and other leading American Jewish organizations, boosting US-Iran relations, and backing political candidates for whom promoting the boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement is a badge of honor.Even granting that J Street endorses Democratic candidates for Congress, as DMFI will do, the question remains: which Democrats has J Street been supporting?
J Street has supported allegedly "pro-Israel" Democrats such as Representative Mark Pocan, who in 2017 anonymously reserved official Capitol Hill space for an anti-Israel forum put together by organizations that support boycotts and Representative Hank Johnson, who referred to Israelis living in Judea and Samaria as 'termites.'
J Street has endorsed Keith Ellison, despite his ties to Farrakhan - and has defended Ellison, claiming that criticism of Ellison was actually "a concerted and transparent smear campaign driven by those whose true objections may be to the Congressman’s religion, strong support for the two-state solution or concern for Palestinian rights."
This past year, J Street endorsed Rashida Tlaib, who
- supported Palestinian terrorist Rasmea Odeh
- supported Islamic Relief, which has links to the Muslim Brotherhood.
- retweeted a post from Linda Sarsour supporting Ahed Tamimi, who was jailed for incitement and assaulting an IDF soldier -- and upon release voiced support for suicide bombing.
Later, J Street withdraw their endorsement -- but only because Tlaib reneged on her support of J Street's precious 2 state solution.
The video itself uses articles dating back to the last few months of 2003. But an article written by Ron Kampeas for JTA in 2006 paints a different picture, noting the involvement of Soros in the early meetings that year that led to the start of J Street. A meeting in September included, in addition to Morton Halperin, a director of Soros’ Open Society Institute and Ben-Ami, members of Israel Policy Forum, Americans For Peace Now and Brit Tzedek. Those 3 groups are credited with the lobbying efforts at the time that derailed the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act, legislation that would have cut off US aid to the Palestinian Authority unless it renounced terrorism and recognized Israel. One can already see the source of J Street's current agenda. The article noted that a second meeting was scheduled for the following month, but the goals were not clear:
Some participants speak of wrapping together a number of the existing groups at some future date; others speak of a support structure that would back the groups as they continue to operate separately.But there are hints of other groups secretly supporting The Democratic Majority for Israel as well. J Street claims that it opposes the new group because they see DMFI as an ally of AIPAC and the pro-Israel mainstream, and The Forward quotes an unnamed source that goes one step further, claiming that AIPAC is behind DMFI:
For years, even before this last election, AIPAC has been discussing credibility problems with progressives at the highest level,” a pro-Israel Democrat familiar with AIPAC’s works, who asked not to be named so they could speak freely, told the Forward. “And they have been exploring the possibility of creating a Democratic group that would push AIPAC policy and fight the pro-Israel fight within the Democratic Party. That’s something they’ve been discussing for years.Out of DMFI's 15 board members, 11 of them have either worked or volunteered for AIPAC, or have donated to it or spoken at its events. Also, the company that made DMFI’s announcement video has a long working relationship with AIPAC, and designed their Policy Conference app. Whether there is any truth to a direct connection between the 2 groups or not, there seem to be forces at work that may be trying to create an anti-J Street, just as J Street was conceived as an anti-AIPAC. 2019 will not be a boring year.
-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!
Categories: Middle East
UNRWA Has No Basis For Creating Generations of Palestinian Arab Refugees
One of the most controversial issues surrounding how UNRWA does business is its fast-and-loose definition of refugees, which has kept expanding over the years.
When UN General Assembly Resolution 393 was passed on December 2, 1950, endorsing UNRWA's purpose, it clearly stated:
[T]he reintegration of the refugees into the economic life of the Near East, either by repatriation or resettlement, is essential in preparation for the time when international assistance is no longer available, and for the realization of conditions of peace and stability in the areaUNRWA's job was to either repatriate refugees, where possible -- or to resettle them elsewhere, with the realization and acknowledgment that the money was not going to last forever.
But that goal was only good for about 10 years.
These days, UNRWA is no longer in the business of resettling refugees.
And they seem to think the money can, and should, keep flowing forever.
UNRWA Logo
UNRWA's Self-Declared Flexibility
On the issue of finding homes for refugees, Lance Bartholomeusz, former head of the International Law Division of UNRWA admits that "this part of the mandate probably ended by 1960 when reference to 'reintegration' was dropped from General Assembly resolutions relating to UNRWA, reflecting some acknowledgment that this objective had been defeated."
Considering how integral the job of finding homes for the refugees was to the mandate of UNRWA, one might have thought that UNRWA would disappear at that point.
But in The Mandate of UNRWA at Sixty, Bartholomeusz described how UNRWA has continued to change its focus:
For almost sixty years, in response to developments in the region, the General Assembly has mandated the Agency to engage in a rich and evolving variety of activities, for many purposes and for several classes of beneficiaries. The Assembly has provided UNRWA with a flexible mandate designed to facilitate, rather than restrict, the Agency's ability to act as and when the Commissioner-General [of UNRWA], in consultation with the Advisory Commission as appropriate, sees fit. [emphasis added]As we know, over the years, UNRWA has defined those "classes of beneficiaries" rather loosely, to the extent that UNRWA has taken upon itself the ability to extend refugee status from one generation to the next, significantly multiplying the number of refugees it claims to be responsible for. Also, UNRWA has been criticized for the 'stickiness' of the refugee status, which is retained even when the refugee becomes a citizen in another country.
Citizen or Refugee -- But Not Both
James G. Lindsay, who served as lawyer and general counsel with UNRWA from 2000 to 2007, criticizes UNRWA for the ease with which it doles out and retains refugee status.
In 2012, Lindsay wrote about Reforming UNRWA in an article that appeared on Middle East Forum. He takes issue with the UNRWA unique position that Palestinian Arab refugees who become citizens of another country, retain their refugee status on the UNRWA rolls:
Under UNRWA's operational definition, Palestine refugees are people whose normal place of residence was Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948, who lost both their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict.
The UNRWA definition makes no mention of citizenship, and UNRWA makes no effort to de-register persons who were formerly refugees but are now citizens of a state. As such, UNRWA is the only refugee organization in the world that considers citizens of a state to be refugees, and there are many of these oxymoronic "citizen-refugees" on UNRWA rolls. [emphasis]Lindsay is consistent in this critique of UNRWA.
Two years later in the Winter 2014-2015 edition of Justice, the magazine of the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists, Lindsay writes UNRWA: Still UN-Fixed, and he is damning in pointing out UNRWA's failure:
[UNRWA] never addresses the fact that there is no basis whatsoever in international law for its practice of “referring to” persons who have acquired a new nationality as “refugees.” This indefensible practice is not an oversight on UNRWA’s part—even some commentators sympathetic to UNRWA have admitted that citizens under the protection of their state of citizenship are not refugees. Instead, knowing that it is impossible to make a credible argument that citizens are “refugees,” UNRWA simply does not address the issue. [page 18]Generations of Refugees
However, Lindsay has tempered his critique of UNRWA when it comes to refugee status passing on from generation to generation. He is willing to compare UNRWA with UNHCR, the UN refugee agency which looks after all of the other refugees.
UNHCR Logo
Back in his 2012 article, Lindsay wrote that UNRWA's refugee definition includes all the descendants of male refugees and takes this liberty despite the fact that the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees is silent on the matter of refugees' descendants.
But not everyone is silent.
Lindsay himself points out that standards for refugee status are laid out in the UNHCR publication, "Procedural Standards for Refugee Status Determination under UNHCR's Mandate." There, family members of a refugee are eligible for "Derivative Refugee Status." In other words, family members of refugees may be entitled to derive benefits by virtue of their familial connection to a refugee. However -- as Lindsay himself writes:
"they are not refugees themselves, through whom derivative refugee status may be claimed".Here Lindsay makes clear that one derivative refugee cannot generate another derivative refugee -- which means that there is no basis for the UNRWA policy to allow refugee status to be passed on from generation to generation has no basis.
But fast forward 2 years later.
Does the UNHCR Standard of Refugee Status Support UNRWA Policy?
In the later 2014 article in Justice, on page 18, in the section "Descendants of Refugees," Lindsay refers to critics such as himself who have argued that UNRWA's policy of granting refugee status to grandchildren and later descendants is contrary to the standard applied by UNHCR.
But then he argues that the UNRWA definition of refugee status is comparable to UNHCR's, based on Unit 5 of the UNHCR's above-mentioned "Procedural Standards":
However, as UNRWA and its supporters argue, UNHCR does refer to the dependents of a refugee as being eligible for “derivative refugee status” and does state that persons with derivative refugee status enjoy “the same rights and entitlements as other recognized refugees .”
Based on the concept of persons with derivative refugee status having the same rights and entitlements as other refugees, one could argue, as UNRWA does, that a person with derivative refugee status has the right to have his or her own dependents receive derivative refugee status.
In that case, the differences between UNRWA and UNHCR in the matter of refugee status passing to descendants would not be as great as the critics have suggested.So according to Lindsay, based on UNHCR standards, UNRWA has a basis for its policy based on 2 claims:
In addressing the second claim, it is helpful to take a look at the arguments offered by Uri Akavia, a researcher at Kohelet Policy Forum, whose background paper "Is UNRWA’s hereditary refugee status for Palestinians unique?" came out just last month. Akavia counters Lindsay's claim of similarity between UNRWA and UNHCR definition of refugees and posits that there is a distinction: while UNHCR grants refugee services to derivative refugees, refugee status is another matter entirely:
It is not automatic - it is based on a case-by-case review of whether the actual situation merits it. When it does, UNHCR gives certain services to the children of refugees. UNHCR does not automatically add the children and grandchildren of refugees to the count of refugees and does not automatically define them as refugees. Even if a child of refugees is given refugee services, the grandchild will not be eligible for status or services. UNRWA, on the other hand, automatically grants such children refugee status, resulting in exponential growth of refugee numbers.I emailed Uri Akavia for more background for the basis of what he wrote. In his response, he pointed to the same section 5 of UNHRC's "Procedural Standards" that Lindsay refers to.
First of all, any comparison between refugees and derivative refugees has to deal with the implications of the word "derivative," which clearly set the two apart.
According to Section 5.2.1 General Principles (of Derivative Refugee Status):
Recognition of refugee status in their own right affords family members/dependants better protection as their status will not automatically be affected by a subsequent cancellation, revocation or cessation of the refugee status of the individual from whom they derive refugee status (hereinafter “Refugee Status Applicant”). [emphasis added]In other words, the two kinds of refugee status are not the same. Actual refugee status gives "better protection" by its very nature because derivative refugee status by definition depends on maintaining the ties to the refugee from whose status the derivative status is derived.
What happens if that tie is dissolved?
The end of that section does make clear that despite that dependence on the status of the original refugee, the breakup of the family does not automatically dissolve the status of the derivative refugee:
While, as a general rule, family members should retain their derivative refugee status notwithstanding the dissolution of the family through divorce, separation or death or the fact that a child reaches the age of majority [age 18], careful consideration should be given to the personal circumstances of the family members to determine whether retention of status is appropriate in a particular case or whether retention of status would be merely for reasons of personal convenience. [emphasis added]Each refugee is evaluated on a case by case basis. The derivative status is not automatically voided, but neither does it automatically continue either.
The very fact that reaching the age of 18 triggers re-consideration of the status of a derivative refugee by itself raises doubts about the whole idea of automatically passing along refugee status from generation to generation.
So it is not surprising that the limit on perpetuating derivative refugee status is clearly spelled out on the same page of this UNHCR document:
As a general rule, a person cannot acquire derivative refugee status solely on the basis of a family/ dependency relationship with a person who has derivative refugee status.According to UNHCR itself, a person who is a 'derivative refugee' himself cannot pass this status to other family members who are in turn dependent on him.
And that is why there are no 3rd generation refugees treated by UNHCR.
This contradicts James Lindsay's claim of a close correlation between UNHCR and UNRWA definition of refugees. It shows that just as in UNRWA's policy of continuing refugee status for citizens, here in the case of perpetuating refugee status from generation to generation we are dealing with a fabrication that has no basis in international law.
Here's a thought.
If UNRWA really wants to base policy on UNHCR, it could take a look at Article 1, F of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. There, it touches on when not to apply refugee status:
The provisions of this Convention shall not apply to any person with respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that:
(a) he has committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, as defined in the international instruments drawn up to make provision in respect of such crimes;Now that would be a good place to start.
-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!
When UN General Assembly Resolution 393 was passed on December 2, 1950, endorsing UNRWA's purpose, it clearly stated:
[T]he reintegration of the refugees into the economic life of the Near East, either by repatriation or resettlement, is essential in preparation for the time when international assistance is no longer available, and for the realization of conditions of peace and stability in the areaUNRWA's job was to either repatriate refugees, where possible -- or to resettle them elsewhere, with the realization and acknowledgment that the money was not going to last forever.
But that goal was only good for about 10 years.
These days, UNRWA is no longer in the business of resettling refugees.
And they seem to think the money can, and should, keep flowing forever.
UNRWA Logo
UNRWA's Self-Declared Flexibility
On the issue of finding homes for refugees, Lance Bartholomeusz, former head of the International Law Division of UNRWA admits that "this part of the mandate probably ended by 1960 when reference to 'reintegration' was dropped from General Assembly resolutions relating to UNRWA, reflecting some acknowledgment that this objective had been defeated."
Considering how integral the job of finding homes for the refugees was to the mandate of UNRWA, one might have thought that UNRWA would disappear at that point.
But in The Mandate of UNRWA at Sixty, Bartholomeusz described how UNRWA has continued to change its focus:
For almost sixty years, in response to developments in the region, the General Assembly has mandated the Agency to engage in a rich and evolving variety of activities, for many purposes and for several classes of beneficiaries. The Assembly has provided UNRWA with a flexible mandate designed to facilitate, rather than restrict, the Agency's ability to act as and when the Commissioner-General [of UNRWA], in consultation with the Advisory Commission as appropriate, sees fit. [emphasis added]As we know, over the years, UNRWA has defined those "classes of beneficiaries" rather loosely, to the extent that UNRWA has taken upon itself the ability to extend refugee status from one generation to the next, significantly multiplying the number of refugees it claims to be responsible for. Also, UNRWA has been criticized for the 'stickiness' of the refugee status, which is retained even when the refugee becomes a citizen in another country.
Citizen or Refugee -- But Not Both
James G. Lindsay, who served as lawyer and general counsel with UNRWA from 2000 to 2007, criticizes UNRWA for the ease with which it doles out and retains refugee status.
In 2012, Lindsay wrote about Reforming UNRWA in an article that appeared on Middle East Forum. He takes issue with the UNRWA unique position that Palestinian Arab refugees who become citizens of another country, retain their refugee status on the UNRWA rolls:
Under UNRWA's operational definition, Palestine refugees are people whose normal place of residence was Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948, who lost both their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict.
The UNRWA definition makes no mention of citizenship, and UNRWA makes no effort to de-register persons who were formerly refugees but are now citizens of a state. As such, UNRWA is the only refugee organization in the world that considers citizens of a state to be refugees, and there are many of these oxymoronic "citizen-refugees" on UNRWA rolls. [emphasis]Lindsay is consistent in this critique of UNRWA.
Two years later in the Winter 2014-2015 edition of Justice, the magazine of the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists, Lindsay writes UNRWA: Still UN-Fixed, and he is damning in pointing out UNRWA's failure:
[UNRWA] never addresses the fact that there is no basis whatsoever in international law for its practice of “referring to” persons who have acquired a new nationality as “refugees.” This indefensible practice is not an oversight on UNRWA’s part—even some commentators sympathetic to UNRWA have admitted that citizens under the protection of their state of citizenship are not refugees. Instead, knowing that it is impossible to make a credible argument that citizens are “refugees,” UNRWA simply does not address the issue. [page 18]Generations of Refugees
However, Lindsay has tempered his critique of UNRWA when it comes to refugee status passing on from generation to generation. He is willing to compare UNRWA with UNHCR, the UN refugee agency which looks after all of the other refugees.
UNHCR Logo
Back in his 2012 article, Lindsay wrote that UNRWA's refugee definition includes all the descendants of male refugees and takes this liberty despite the fact that the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees is silent on the matter of refugees' descendants.
But not everyone is silent.
Lindsay himself points out that standards for refugee status are laid out in the UNHCR publication, "Procedural Standards for Refugee Status Determination under UNHCR's Mandate." There, family members of a refugee are eligible for "Derivative Refugee Status." In other words, family members of refugees may be entitled to derive benefits by virtue of their familial connection to a refugee. However -- as Lindsay himself writes:
"they are not refugees themselves, through whom derivative refugee status may be claimed".Here Lindsay makes clear that one derivative refugee cannot generate another derivative refugee -- which means that there is no basis for the UNRWA policy to allow refugee status to be passed on from generation to generation has no basis.
But fast forward 2 years later.
Does the UNHCR Standard of Refugee Status Support UNRWA Policy?
In the later 2014 article in Justice, on page 18, in the section "Descendants of Refugees," Lindsay refers to critics such as himself who have argued that UNRWA's policy of granting refugee status to grandchildren and later descendants is contrary to the standard applied by UNHCR.
But then he argues that the UNRWA definition of refugee status is comparable to UNHCR's, based on Unit 5 of the UNHCR's above-mentioned "Procedural Standards":
However, as UNRWA and its supporters argue, UNHCR does refer to the dependents of a refugee as being eligible for “derivative refugee status” and does state that persons with derivative refugee status enjoy “the same rights and entitlements as other recognized refugees .”
Based on the concept of persons with derivative refugee status having the same rights and entitlements as other refugees, one could argue, as UNRWA does, that a person with derivative refugee status has the right to have his or her own dependents receive derivative refugee status.
In that case, the differences between UNRWA and UNHCR in the matter of refugee status passing to descendants would not be as great as the critics have suggested.So according to Lindsay, based on UNHCR standards, UNRWA has a basis for its policy based on 2 claims:
- Derivative refugees have the same rights as actual refugees
- Derivative refugees, like actual refugees, can pass that status on to their descendants
In addressing the second claim, it is helpful to take a look at the arguments offered by Uri Akavia, a researcher at Kohelet Policy Forum, whose background paper "Is UNRWA’s hereditary refugee status for Palestinians unique?" came out just last month. Akavia counters Lindsay's claim of similarity between UNRWA and UNHCR definition of refugees and posits that there is a distinction: while UNHCR grants refugee services to derivative refugees, refugee status is another matter entirely:
It is not automatic - it is based on a case-by-case review of whether the actual situation merits it. When it does, UNHCR gives certain services to the children of refugees. UNHCR does not automatically add the children and grandchildren of refugees to the count of refugees and does not automatically define them as refugees. Even if a child of refugees is given refugee services, the grandchild will not be eligible for status or services. UNRWA, on the other hand, automatically grants such children refugee status, resulting in exponential growth of refugee numbers.I emailed Uri Akavia for more background for the basis of what he wrote. In his response, he pointed to the same section 5 of UNHRC's "Procedural Standards" that Lindsay refers to.
First of all, any comparison between refugees and derivative refugees has to deal with the implications of the word "derivative," which clearly set the two apart.
According to Section 5.2.1 General Principles (of Derivative Refugee Status):
Recognition of refugee status in their own right affords family members/dependants better protection as their status will not automatically be affected by a subsequent cancellation, revocation or cessation of the refugee status of the individual from whom they derive refugee status (hereinafter “Refugee Status Applicant”). [emphasis added]In other words, the two kinds of refugee status are not the same. Actual refugee status gives "better protection" by its very nature because derivative refugee status by definition depends on maintaining the ties to the refugee from whose status the derivative status is derived.
What happens if that tie is dissolved?
The end of that section does make clear that despite that dependence on the status of the original refugee, the breakup of the family does not automatically dissolve the status of the derivative refugee:
While, as a general rule, family members should retain their derivative refugee status notwithstanding the dissolution of the family through divorce, separation or death or the fact that a child reaches the age of majority [age 18], careful consideration should be given to the personal circumstances of the family members to determine whether retention of status is appropriate in a particular case or whether retention of status would be merely for reasons of personal convenience. [emphasis added]Each refugee is evaluated on a case by case basis. The derivative status is not automatically voided, but neither does it automatically continue either.
The very fact that reaching the age of 18 triggers re-consideration of the status of a derivative refugee by itself raises doubts about the whole idea of automatically passing along refugee status from generation to generation.
So it is not surprising that the limit on perpetuating derivative refugee status is clearly spelled out on the same page of this UNHCR document:
As a general rule, a person cannot acquire derivative refugee status solely on the basis of a family/ dependency relationship with a person who has derivative refugee status.According to UNHCR itself, a person who is a 'derivative refugee' himself cannot pass this status to other family members who are in turn dependent on him.
And that is why there are no 3rd generation refugees treated by UNHCR.
This contradicts James Lindsay's claim of a close correlation between UNHCR and UNRWA definition of refugees. It shows that just as in UNRWA's policy of continuing refugee status for citizens, here in the case of perpetuating refugee status from generation to generation we are dealing with a fabrication that has no basis in international law.
Here's a thought.
If UNRWA really wants to base policy on UNHCR, it could take a look at Article 1, F of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. There, it touches on when not to apply refugee status:
The provisions of this Convention shall not apply to any person with respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that:
(a) he has committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, as defined in the international instruments drawn up to make provision in respect of such crimes;Now that would be a good place to start.
-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!
Categories: Middle East
The Women's March Is Not The First To Be Hurt By Its Association With Farrakhan
It's common to think that Farrakhan's poisonous Antisemitic rhetoric carries no consequences with it.
Apart from the Antisemitism of the Women's March leadership itself, as documented by Tablet Magazine and The New York Times, their ties to Louis Farrakhan and their refusal to condemn his ongoing Antisemitic attacks have been a stain on that movement.
But historically, the Women's March is not alone in bearing the consequences of the albatross that is Louis Farrakhan.
Edwin Black, the author of "IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance between Nazi Germany and America's Most Powerful Corporation," wrote a background article in 1986 about Louis Farrakhan.
Black reveals Farrakhan's plan in the 1980's for a project known as POWER, People Organized and Working for Economic Rebirth, which included a plan for selling toiletries and personal products to African Americans:
Black toiletry manufacturers would be subcontracted for production. POWER consumers would commit to a minimum monthly purchase of $20, ordering via an 800 telephone number. Merchandise would be delivered from POWER directly to the consumer's door. Distributors and retailers would be eliminated, doubling POWER's sales income. By this brilliant strategy—combining the best capitalistic experience of Avon, Proctor & Gamble, Fuller Brush, and the Book-of-the-Month Club—the Nation of Islam would make money every time a black customer gargled or went to the bathroom.POWER had the potential to be the biggest African American enterprise in the country, capable of sales of over $150 million within its first 5 years and $1 billion within its first 10 years.
The Nation of Islam sought support in Chicago of Johnson Products, which manufactured cosmetics and household products. Farrakhan suggested raising the necessary capital to start production by selling tapes of his speeches at $10 each at various rallies he would hold around the country, with the expectations of drawing 6,000-10,000 people at each rally, in order to raise the necessary millions.
So in 1985, Farrakhan launched a well-publicized speaking tour, starting in Detroit on January 19. But between cold weather and technical difficulties, sales were less than expected.
That is when Farrakhan turned elsewhere for the help raising the money: Muammar Khaddafi.
This is the same Khaddafi who, in 1975, gave NOI leader Elijah Muhammad a $3 million interest-free loan to build a national mosque. Now, on February 24, 1985, Khaddafi had a special address beamed by satellite to a Chicago meeting hall as the climax to the Nation of Islam's annual "Savior's Day" convention. The Libyan leader, who financed terrorist groups around the world, did what came naturally. On a large TV screen, Khaddafi
called upon American black servicemen to desert from the military and engage in wide-spread sabotage and rebellion with weapons he would provide.A few days later, Farrakhan held a Washington press conference, where he formally renounced the offer of weapons. As Farrakhan put it, the offer "was appreciated but unacceptable unless [Khaddafi] wanted to offer monetary weapons to get the proposed program off the ground."
In the end, Farrakhan got a $5 million interest-free loan from Khaddafi. Khaddafi, of course, was not Farrakhan's only favorite Arab despot. During a 1985 tour of the Middle East:
In fact, when he returned home, Farrakhan's attacks increased, targeting the US, Christians and Jews which had the effect of increasing the size of his audiences among Black Americans even further.
And that is when the problems started:
It was one thing to enter a pro-black business venture. It was quite another to participate in an enterprise conceived and advertised as anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-white, and anti-Semitic.Eventually, word got out about Khaddafi's involvement in the POWER project and that Johnson Products was involved, tying the company with an Arab despot who was an enemy of the US.
And Farrakhan just kept digging:
Farrakhan began publicly mentioning Johnson as a courageous black manufacturer willing to stand up to white society and the Jews. The Minister even asked blacks to increase their purchases of Ultra Sheen as a gesture of thanks. Johnson's Jewish business associates were shocked at his involvement, and soon the heat was on.Farrakhan's Antisemitic statements combined with pressure from Jews who helped Johnson start his business and invested in it forced him to call Farrakhan and tell him that his company could not be associated with Farrakhan in any way. Farrakhan took the news badly and insisted Johnson was backing out because Jews wanted POWER to fail because it would do something to help black people.
Farrakhan should not have been surprised nor upset by the Jewish reaction to his anti-Jewish comments, since he himself advocated the use of economic pressure to defend one's community.
Black writes:
The Minister added that it was right for the black community to fight the Jews with whatever economic influence they had because it was in their self-interest. Asked, "Do you not agree that Jews likewise should use any economic influence that they have to protect their interests as well?" Farrakhan smiled and said, "Certainly...Each of us as a people have a right to use whatever we have at our disposal to protect our interests. But," he qualified, "if those interests lie in...robbing others of that precious right that is given by God...keeping us suppressed and oppressed, then that's not legitimate."But Farrakhan didn't see it that way, and rather than take responsibility for the chilling effect of his own Antisemitism, doubled down on the excuse that Jews were out to get blacks.
At a rally at Madison Square Garden a little later, Farrakhan publicly lashed out at Jews, whom he accused of being "bloodsuckers of the poor." Soon after, George Johnson issued a formal written statement disassociating himself from Farrakhan and POWER. He gave Farrakhan's Antisemitism as the main reason.
The problem didn't stop there.
Farrakhan's connection with Khaddafi became a headache for the small black-owned Independence Bank in Chicago, where Farrakhan deposited the $5 million he received from him. Black notes in his article that Khaddafi's $5 million, provided $50,000 in annual profit, about 5% of the bank's total. At the time of the article, the bank had canceled the lock-box service for contributions to POWER and from tape purchases. A bank source indicated that in any case, very few checks had come in since the bank had terminated the service -- and it was considering further measures.
Black points out that Farrakhan mixed his personal politics with the product line that formed the basis of POWER, undermining the project.
Farrakhan's friends in the Women's March leadership seem to be doing the same. Phyllis Chesler, a feminist leader starting in the 1960's, writes "The Women’s March is a Con Job":
Most concerning, though, is that the Women’s March leadership appears to have no particular interest in the independent women’s liberation movements. I have read their literature extensively and all I can find are issues, which, however worthy they may be, are not, strictly speaking, feminist issues. The Women’s March addresses things like “immigration reform” and “police violence against black men.” They say they are “anti-racists,” more than they are “anti-sexists.” And they prioritize “queer and transgender” politics, but never plain old garden variety women’s issues.
Women’s issues — even those that are impacted by race, class, religion, and ethnicity — are still woman-specific: sexual harassment on the job; rape; incest; domestic violence; economic, social, and legal discrimination; and of course reproductive rights, including access to birth control, abortion, and prenatal care.
...Sex trafficking? Child marriage? FGM? Forced face veiling? Honor Killing? None of these issues are being addressed by the American Women’s March leadership.
What is going on?Back in 1985, Farrakhan made his product line for POWER secondary to his politics and the rhetoric of hate that he is dependent on to energize his base. The leadership of Women's March, with its admitted admiration for Farrakhan, has sublimated women's issues to their own politics.
Both are strident in their anti-Jewish and anti-Israel rhetoric.
In the end, a project that had the potential to benefit the black community fell apart.
Whether the same fate will befall The Women's March remains to be seen.
-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!
- There are no condemnations from African American leaders.
- Politicians show no reluctance to appear with him
- Community leaders in general do not condemn his Anti-Jewish attacks
- Farrakhan is a popular leader among African Americans
Apart from the Antisemitism of the Women's March leadership itself, as documented by Tablet Magazine and The New York Times, their ties to Louis Farrakhan and their refusal to condemn his ongoing Antisemitic attacks have been a stain on that movement.
But historically, the Women's March is not alone in bearing the consequences of the albatross that is Louis Farrakhan.
Edwin Black, the author of "IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance between Nazi Germany and America's Most Powerful Corporation," wrote a background article in 1986 about Louis Farrakhan.
Black reveals Farrakhan's plan in the 1980's for a project known as POWER, People Organized and Working for Economic Rebirth, which included a plan for selling toiletries and personal products to African Americans:
Black toiletry manufacturers would be subcontracted for production. POWER consumers would commit to a minimum monthly purchase of $20, ordering via an 800 telephone number. Merchandise would be delivered from POWER directly to the consumer's door. Distributors and retailers would be eliminated, doubling POWER's sales income. By this brilliant strategy—combining the best capitalistic experience of Avon, Proctor & Gamble, Fuller Brush, and the Book-of-the-Month Club—the Nation of Islam would make money every time a black customer gargled or went to the bathroom.POWER had the potential to be the biggest African American enterprise in the country, capable of sales of over $150 million within its first 5 years and $1 billion within its first 10 years.
The Nation of Islam sought support in Chicago of Johnson Products, which manufactured cosmetics and household products. Farrakhan suggested raising the necessary capital to start production by selling tapes of his speeches at $10 each at various rallies he would hold around the country, with the expectations of drawing 6,000-10,000 people at each rally, in order to raise the necessary millions.
So in 1985, Farrakhan launched a well-publicized speaking tour, starting in Detroit on January 19. But between cold weather and technical difficulties, sales were less than expected.
That is when Farrakhan turned elsewhere for the help raising the money: Muammar Khaddafi.
This is the same Khaddafi who, in 1975, gave NOI leader Elijah Muhammad a $3 million interest-free loan to build a national mosque. Now, on February 24, 1985, Khaddafi had a special address beamed by satellite to a Chicago meeting hall as the climax to the Nation of Islam's annual "Savior's Day" convention. The Libyan leader, who financed terrorist groups around the world, did what came naturally. On a large TV screen, Khaddafi
called upon American black servicemen to desert from the military and engage in wide-spread sabotage and rebellion with weapons he would provide.A few days later, Farrakhan held a Washington press conference, where he formally renounced the offer of weapons. As Farrakhan put it, the offer "was appreciated but unacceptable unless [Khaddafi] wanted to offer monetary weapons to get the proposed program off the ground."
In the end, Farrakhan got a $5 million interest-free loan from Khaddafi. Khaddafi, of course, was not Farrakhan's only favorite Arab despot. During a 1985 tour of the Middle East:
- He visited Syria, where he had visited earlier with Jesse Jackson to win the release of downed pilot Robert Goodman
- In the UAE, Farrakhan met with Dr. Ibrahim Ezzadine, an adviser to the leading Emirate sheiks
- He visited Saudi Arabia, where he located and spoke with Idi Amin, who he claimed was a great man
- In Sudan, he met with Omar al-Bashir who had recently come to power as a result of a coup and would later be accused of war crimes
In fact, when he returned home, Farrakhan's attacks increased, targeting the US, Christians and Jews which had the effect of increasing the size of his audiences among Black Americans even further.
And that is when the problems started:
It was one thing to enter a pro-black business venture. It was quite another to participate in an enterprise conceived and advertised as anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-white, and anti-Semitic.Eventually, word got out about Khaddafi's involvement in the POWER project and that Johnson Products was involved, tying the company with an Arab despot who was an enemy of the US.
And Farrakhan just kept digging:
Farrakhan began publicly mentioning Johnson as a courageous black manufacturer willing to stand up to white society and the Jews. The Minister even asked blacks to increase their purchases of Ultra Sheen as a gesture of thanks. Johnson's Jewish business associates were shocked at his involvement, and soon the heat was on.Farrakhan's Antisemitic statements combined with pressure from Jews who helped Johnson start his business and invested in it forced him to call Farrakhan and tell him that his company could not be associated with Farrakhan in any way. Farrakhan took the news badly and insisted Johnson was backing out because Jews wanted POWER to fail because it would do something to help black people.
Farrakhan should not have been surprised nor upset by the Jewish reaction to his anti-Jewish comments, since he himself advocated the use of economic pressure to defend one's community.
Black writes:
The Minister added that it was right for the black community to fight the Jews with whatever economic influence they had because it was in their self-interest. Asked, "Do you not agree that Jews likewise should use any economic influence that they have to protect their interests as well?" Farrakhan smiled and said, "Certainly...Each of us as a people have a right to use whatever we have at our disposal to protect our interests. But," he qualified, "if those interests lie in...robbing others of that precious right that is given by God...keeping us suppressed and oppressed, then that's not legitimate."But Farrakhan didn't see it that way, and rather than take responsibility for the chilling effect of his own Antisemitism, doubled down on the excuse that Jews were out to get blacks.
At a rally at Madison Square Garden a little later, Farrakhan publicly lashed out at Jews, whom he accused of being "bloodsuckers of the poor." Soon after, George Johnson issued a formal written statement disassociating himself from Farrakhan and POWER. He gave Farrakhan's Antisemitism as the main reason.
The problem didn't stop there.
Farrakhan's connection with Khaddafi became a headache for the small black-owned Independence Bank in Chicago, where Farrakhan deposited the $5 million he received from him. Black notes in his article that Khaddafi's $5 million, provided $50,000 in annual profit, about 5% of the bank's total. At the time of the article, the bank had canceled the lock-box service for contributions to POWER and from tape purchases. A bank source indicated that in any case, very few checks had come in since the bank had terminated the service -- and it was considering further measures.
Black points out that Farrakhan mixed his personal politics with the product line that formed the basis of POWER, undermining the project.
Farrakhan's friends in the Women's March leadership seem to be doing the same. Phyllis Chesler, a feminist leader starting in the 1960's, writes "The Women’s March is a Con Job":
Most concerning, though, is that the Women’s March leadership appears to have no particular interest in the independent women’s liberation movements. I have read their literature extensively and all I can find are issues, which, however worthy they may be, are not, strictly speaking, feminist issues. The Women’s March addresses things like “immigration reform” and “police violence against black men.” They say they are “anti-racists,” more than they are “anti-sexists.” And they prioritize “queer and transgender” politics, but never plain old garden variety women’s issues.
Women’s issues — even those that are impacted by race, class, religion, and ethnicity — are still woman-specific: sexual harassment on the job; rape; incest; domestic violence; economic, social, and legal discrimination; and of course reproductive rights, including access to birth control, abortion, and prenatal care.
...Sex trafficking? Child marriage? FGM? Forced face veiling? Honor Killing? None of these issues are being addressed by the American Women’s March leadership.
What is going on?Back in 1985, Farrakhan made his product line for POWER secondary to his politics and the rhetoric of hate that he is dependent on to energize his base. The leadership of Women's March, with its admitted admiration for Farrakhan, has sublimated women's issues to their own politics.
Both are strident in their anti-Jewish and anti-Israel rhetoric.
In the end, a project that had the potential to benefit the black community fell apart.
Whether the same fate will befall The Women's March remains to be seen.
-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!
Categories: Middle East
Tamika Mallory Is A Disciple of Sharpton As Well As Farrakhan -- And It Shows
Since Tamika Mallory's connection to, and adoration of, Antisemite Louis Farrakhan is well known, her Antisemitic attacks on Jews and Israel -- and her recent refusal to address those concerns -- are not surprising.
But she is also a disciple of Al Sharpton. Mallory joined the staff of Sharpton's National Action Network when she was 15 and later became its youngest-ever executive director.
Mallory with Sharpton in 2010. Politico. Credit: Colby Hamilton Fair Use.
Like Farrakhan, Sharpton also has a history of inciting hatred.
“Tamika told us that the problem was that there were five white women in the room and only three women of color, and that she didn’t trust white women. Especially white women from the South. At that point, I kind of tuned out because I was so used to hearing this type of talk from Tamika. But then I noticed the energy in the room changed. I suddenly realized that Tamika and Carmen were facing Vanessa [Wruble, another leader], who was sitting on a couch, and berating her — but it wasn’t about her being white. It was about her being Jewish. ‘Your people this, your people that.’… They even said to her ‘your people hold all the wealth.’ You could hear a pin drop. It was awful.” [emphasis added]For her part, while Mallory refuses to condemn her mentors, she claims
“I don’t agree with everything that Minister Farrakhan said about Jews or women or gay people,” said Mallory. “I study in a tradition, the Kingian nonviolent tradition. [emphasis added]Actually, she agrees with Farrakhan quite a bit, claiming that "white Jews" contribute to white supremacy.
Mallory has openly expressed her distrust white women as well:
“We’re not really interested in hearing white women talk about how much they want to work with us, and how much they want to be allies, and how much they appreciate us, and all those great things. We don’t want to hear that, because we continue to see — in places like Alabama — and as we approach the State of the Union, we’re dealing with a megalomaniac as president of this country and white women are largely to blame for that. They are largely the cause of it. White women have been voting the wrong way.”And on the other hand, contrary to her claim of following the Kingian tradition -- Mallory seems to fall short. In 1968, Reverend King condemned the identity politics Mallory advocates:
The response of some of the so-called young militants does not represent the position of the vast majority of Negroes. There are some who are color-consumed and they see a kind of mystique in blackness or in being colored, and anything non-colored is condemned. We do not follow that course. [emphasis added]
Putting aside Martin Luther King's well known positive feelings about Israel, we can only wish that Mallory was capable of emulating Reverend King's refusal to sink to identity politics that fuel the hate and divisiveness we see today.
-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!
But she is also a disciple of Al Sharpton. Mallory joined the staff of Sharpton's National Action Network when she was 15 and later became its youngest-ever executive director.
Mallory with Sharpton in 2010. Politico. Credit: Colby Hamilton Fair Use.
Like Farrakhan, Sharpton also has a history of inciting hatred.
- 1987 Sharpton pushed the Tawana Brawley hoax, where a 15-year-old black girl claimed she was abducted and raped by a group of white men. Sharpton deliberately singled out Dutchess County prosecutor Steve Pagones, a young prosecutor and accused him of racism and of having participated in the attack on Brawley. Pagones sued and won a $345,000 verdict for defamation against Sharpton, Alton H. Maddox and C. Vernon Mason. Sharpton refused to pay and Johnnie Cochran paid for him.
- In 1991: When a Hasidic Jewish driver in Crown Heights accidentally killed Gavin Cato, a 7-year-old black child, antisemitic riots erupted. At the funeral Sharpton blamed the "diamond merchants" (Jews) with "the blood of innocent babies" on their hands. Sharpton went further, mobilizing hundreds of demonstrators marching through the Jewish neighborhood, chanting, "No justice, no peace." Rabbinical student, Yankel Rosenbaum, was surrounded by a mob shouting "Kill the Jews!" and was stabbed to death.
But Sharpton's comments go further than that. The Forward quotes comments by Sharpton that would rival Farrakhan in their racism and history revisionism:
The world will tell us he was killed by accident. Yes, it was a social accident...It’s an accident to allow an apartheid ambulance service in the middle of Crown Heights...Talk about how Oppenheimer in South Africa sends diamonds straight to Tel Aviv and deals with the diamond merchants right here in Crown Heights. The issue is not anti-Semitism; the issue is apartheid...All we want to say is what Jesus said: if you offend one of these little ones, you got to pay for it. No compromise, no meetings, no kaffe klatsch, no skinnin’ and grinnin’. Pay for your deeds...It’s no accident that we know we should not be run over. We are the royal family on the planet. We’re the original man. We gazed into the stars and wrote astrology. We had a conversation and that became philosophy. We are the ones who created mathematics. We’re not anybody to be left to die waiting on an ambulance. We are the alpha and omega of creation itself...We will win because we’re right. We will win because we’re strong. God is on our side. [emphasis added] - In 1995, the United House of Prayer, a large black landlord in Harlem, raised the rent on Freddy's Fashion Mart, owned by a white Jewish owner who was forced to raise the rent on his subtenant, a black-owned music store. Following the ensuing dispute, Sharpton got involved and raised tempers, warning "we will not stand by and allow them to move this brother so that some white interloper can expand his business." Sharpton's organization, National Action Network, set up picket lines. Customers who entered the store were spat on, cursed and accused of being "traitors" and "Uncle Toms." Going further, some protesters shouted,"Burn down the Jew store!" while simulating striking a match with Sharpton's colleague Morris Powell saying "We're going to see that this cracker suffers". On December 8, one of the protestors entered Freddy's, shot 4 of the employees and set the store on fire, killing 7 employees. [emphasis added]Like Farrakhan, Sharpton acted the demagogue, picking a target and focusing on it relentlessly, whether it was Pagones or the Jews. Sharpton fabricated accusations against Pagones and the Jews with no basis in reality -- but the hatred deliberately generated by those accusations did its job, energizing his followers and victimizing his targets.
“Tamika told us that the problem was that there were five white women in the room and only three women of color, and that she didn’t trust white women. Especially white women from the South. At that point, I kind of tuned out because I was so used to hearing this type of talk from Tamika. But then I noticed the energy in the room changed. I suddenly realized that Tamika and Carmen were facing Vanessa [Wruble, another leader], who was sitting on a couch, and berating her — but it wasn’t about her being white. It was about her being Jewish. ‘Your people this, your people that.’… They even said to her ‘your people hold all the wealth.’ You could hear a pin drop. It was awful.” [emphasis added]For her part, while Mallory refuses to condemn her mentors, she claims
“I don’t agree with everything that Minister Farrakhan said about Jews or women or gay people,” said Mallory. “I study in a tradition, the Kingian nonviolent tradition. [emphasis added]Actually, she agrees with Farrakhan quite a bit, claiming that "white Jews" contribute to white supremacy.
Mallory has openly expressed her distrust white women as well:
“We’re not really interested in hearing white women talk about how much they want to work with us, and how much they want to be allies, and how much they appreciate us, and all those great things. We don’t want to hear that, because we continue to see — in places like Alabama — and as we approach the State of the Union, we’re dealing with a megalomaniac as president of this country and white women are largely to blame for that. They are largely the cause of it. White women have been voting the wrong way.”And on the other hand, contrary to her claim of following the Kingian tradition -- Mallory seems to fall short. In 1968, Reverend King condemned the identity politics Mallory advocates:
The response of some of the so-called young militants does not represent the position of the vast majority of Negroes. There are some who are color-consumed and they see a kind of mystique in blackness or in being colored, and anything non-colored is condemned. We do not follow that course. [emphasis added]
Putting aside Martin Luther King's well known positive feelings about Israel, we can only wish that Mallory was capable of emulating Reverend King's refusal to sink to identity politics that fuel the hate and divisiveness we see today.
-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!
Categories: Middle East
Tell The Leaders of The Women's March: Jews Were Not Always Considered "White" In The US
Finally, the media has begun to take the issue of Antisemitism in The Women's March seriously.
A turning point was the article Is The Women's March Melting Down featured on Tablet. In one of the key passages, a conflict during a meeting of some of the leaders is described:
“Tamika [Mallory] told us that the problem was that there were five white women in the room and only three women of color, and that she didn’t trust white women. Especially white women from the South. At that point, I kind of tuned out because I was so used to hearing this type of talk from Tamika. But then I noticed the energy in the room changed. I suddenly realized that Tamika and Carmen were facing Vanessa [Wruble], who was sitting on a couch, and berating her—but it wasn’t about her being white. It was about her being Jewish. ‘Your people this, your people that.’ I was raised in the South and the language that was used is language that I’m very used to hearing in rural South Carolina. Just instead of against black people, against Jewish people. They even said to her ‘your people hold all the wealth.’ You could hear a pin drop. It was awful.”
Later, in an interview with The New York Times, Mallory is quoted patting herself on the back for how she has become more educated about Jews since that meeting:
“Since that conversation, we’ve all learned a lot about how while white Jews, as white people, uphold white supremacy, ALL Jews are targeted by it.”Apparently, we are supposed to be impressed by her new level of enlightenment.
Tamika Mallory with Farrakhan (Cropped from screenshot)
Mallory is one of many whose fixation on 'white people' dictates her statements and politics. But preoccupation with race has a history.
On the PBS program "The Origin of Everything," one episode covered "The Origin of Race in the USA," and makes the point that Jews were not always considered to be "White":
The non-White categorization of Jews predominated from between the mid to late-19th century into the first couple of decades of the 20th century and is a distinction that no longer is used today:
According to the beginning of the program, the change in categorization of Jews from the "Hebrew" race to the "White" race was in part one of convenience, shoring up a "white" racial majority against immigrants.
More importantly, the idea of categorization by race is itself a matter of convenience -- and manipulation. The concept of race was used to support colonialization and slavery in the 17th and 18th centuries and then the Enlightenment provided the rationalization to justify it.
Eric Goldstein, author of the book "The Price of Whiteness: Jews, Race, and American Identity" gave further background on the issue of Jews and race in a lecture last year entitled "Jews and the Science of 'Race' in America"
In that lecture, Goldstein explains that Jews during the late 19th century and early 20th century wanted to preserve the possibility of Jewish assimilability, something that was far from being a given.
For example, Goldstein showed the following during his talk:
This is not some caricature from Der Sturmer -- it was published in New York in 1902 and illustrates the kind of images of Jews that circulated in popular culture in the US at the time. Jews were perceived as being different both physically and racially.
They were hardly white supremacists.
Ships passenger lists around that time used the European designation for Jews, where the nationality would be given as Russian, while the race was registered as Hebrew -- as opposed to the US designation that defined race along white/black lines.
In 1909, the Commerce Department, which was in charge of the census at the time, suggested using the European system to better track and understand the new immigrants, a move that would promote Jews as being separate. The American Jewish Committee and Union of American Hebrew Congregations saw this as a liability and successfully lobbied against using the European designation.
Also around that time, there were some courts that denied naturalization to Syrian immigrants, based on the understanding that they were not "white" -- which again caused concern among the Jewish committee because of the fear they could have the same problem.
In his book, "Whiteness of a Different Color: European Immigrants and the Alchemy of Race," Matthew Frye Jacobson notes that Jews were not unique in being considered as non-white. The Irish, Armenians, Italians, Poles, Syrians, Greeks, Sicilians, Finns and others were also not considered "white" and in fact only became considered white over time.
Jacobson writes that "whiteness" itself is a fiction:
As races are invented categories--designations coined for the sake of grouping and separating peoples along lines of presumed difference--Caucasians are made and not born. White privilege in various forms has been a constant in American political culture since colonial times, but whiteness itself has been subject to all kinds of contests and has gone through a series of historical vicissitudes.But while "whiteness" is a fiction, it is a very useful fiction.
The concept of race is malleable and "whiteness" was used in the past by colonialists to enable and justify the subjugation of others.
Today, there are those who share Mallory's obsession with race and manipulate the concept of "whiteness" to ostracize Jews.
-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!
A turning point was the article Is The Women's March Melting Down featured on Tablet. In one of the key passages, a conflict during a meeting of some of the leaders is described:
“Tamika [Mallory] told us that the problem was that there were five white women in the room and only three women of color, and that she didn’t trust white women. Especially white women from the South. At that point, I kind of tuned out because I was so used to hearing this type of talk from Tamika. But then I noticed the energy in the room changed. I suddenly realized that Tamika and Carmen were facing Vanessa [Wruble], who was sitting on a couch, and berating her—but it wasn’t about her being white. It was about her being Jewish. ‘Your people this, your people that.’ I was raised in the South and the language that was used is language that I’m very used to hearing in rural South Carolina. Just instead of against black people, against Jewish people. They even said to her ‘your people hold all the wealth.’ You could hear a pin drop. It was awful.”
Later, in an interview with The New York Times, Mallory is quoted patting herself on the back for how she has become more educated about Jews since that meeting:
“Since that conversation, we’ve all learned a lot about how while white Jews, as white people, uphold white supremacy, ALL Jews are targeted by it.”Apparently, we are supposed to be impressed by her new level of enlightenment.
Tamika Mallory with Farrakhan (Cropped from screenshot)
Mallory is one of many whose fixation on 'white people' dictates her statements and politics. But preoccupation with race has a history.
On the PBS program "The Origin of Everything," one episode covered "The Origin of Race in the USA," and makes the point that Jews were not always considered to be "White":
The non-White categorization of Jews predominated from between the mid to late-19th century into the first couple of decades of the 20th century and is a distinction that no longer is used today:
According to the beginning of the program, the change in categorization of Jews from the "Hebrew" race to the "White" race was in part one of convenience, shoring up a "white" racial majority against immigrants.
More importantly, the idea of categorization by race is itself a matter of convenience -- and manipulation. The concept of race was used to support colonialization and slavery in the 17th and 18th centuries and then the Enlightenment provided the rationalization to justify it.
Eric Goldstein, author of the book "The Price of Whiteness: Jews, Race, and American Identity" gave further background on the issue of Jews and race in a lecture last year entitled "Jews and the Science of 'Race' in America"
In that lecture, Goldstein explains that Jews during the late 19th century and early 20th century wanted to preserve the possibility of Jewish assimilability, something that was far from being a given.
For example, Goldstein showed the following during his talk:
This is not some caricature from Der Sturmer -- it was published in New York in 1902 and illustrates the kind of images of Jews that circulated in popular culture in the US at the time. Jews were perceived as being different both physically and racially.
They were hardly white supremacists.
Ships passenger lists around that time used the European designation for Jews, where the nationality would be given as Russian, while the race was registered as Hebrew -- as opposed to the US designation that defined race along white/black lines.
In 1909, the Commerce Department, which was in charge of the census at the time, suggested using the European system to better track and understand the new immigrants, a move that would promote Jews as being separate. The American Jewish Committee and Union of American Hebrew Congregations saw this as a liability and successfully lobbied against using the European designation.
Also around that time, there were some courts that denied naturalization to Syrian immigrants, based on the understanding that they were not "white" -- which again caused concern among the Jewish committee because of the fear they could have the same problem.
In his book, "Whiteness of a Different Color: European Immigrants and the Alchemy of Race," Matthew Frye Jacobson notes that Jews were not unique in being considered as non-white. The Irish, Armenians, Italians, Poles, Syrians, Greeks, Sicilians, Finns and others were also not considered "white" and in fact only became considered white over time.
Jacobson writes that "whiteness" itself is a fiction:
As races are invented categories--designations coined for the sake of grouping and separating peoples along lines of presumed difference--Caucasians are made and not born. White privilege in various forms has been a constant in American political culture since colonial times, but whiteness itself has been subject to all kinds of contests and has gone through a series of historical vicissitudes.But while "whiteness" is a fiction, it is a very useful fiction.
The concept of race is malleable and "whiteness" was used in the past by colonialists to enable and justify the subjugation of others.
Today, there are those who share Mallory's obsession with race and manipulate the concept of "whiteness" to ostracize Jews.
-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!
Categories: Middle East
Abbasonomics: Terrorism Beats Drug Running Hands Down
In the book Freakonomics, one chapter deals with the question "Why do Drug Dealers Still Live With Their Moms?" In providing an answer, the book touches on the sensitive relationship between drug gangs and the communities they live in. One particularly sensitive area is the murder of gang members and how it affects the expenses of drug gangs:
The miscellaneous expenses also include the costs associated with a gang member's murder. The gang not only paid for the funeral but often gave a stipend of up to three years' wages to the victim's family. Venkatesh had once asked why the gang was so generous in this regard. "That's a f****** stupid question," he was told, "'cause as long as you been with us, you still don't understand that their families is our families. We can't just leave 'em out. We been knowing these folks our whole lives, man so we grieve when they grieve. You got to respect the family." There was another reason for the death benefits: the gang reared community backlash (its enterprise was plainly a destructive one) and figured it could buy some goodwill for a few hundred dollars here and there. [pp 101-2]
We can argue about just how much respect drug gangs actually have for the communities they live in considering the destruction they caused.
But there is no denying that paying stipends to the surviving families is good politics.
Just ask Abbas.
If there is one thing - and perhaps there is only one thing - that Abbas does for the Arabs who live in the West Bank, it is to pay stipends to the surviving families of Palestinian terrorists who are killed as well as to the terrorists who survive. It is a good public relations move that shows that he and the PA is good for something.
But it also gives an incentive to Arabs to stay loyal to Fatah and not join Hamas. Is it any wonder that Abbas won't give in to the pressure to stop the payments to terrorists? Does anyone honestly believe Abbas insists on these payments out of altruism? That money helps to keep Fatah intact.
This second motivation for the stipends goes back to when they were first started, in 1964, under Arafat. According to the book, Humanitarian Rackets and their Moral Hazards: The Case of the Palestinian Refugee Camps in Lebanon,
Fatah had originally established what was known as the Palestine Mujahidin and Martyrs Fund in September 1964 to financially recompense families of martyred, disabled or captured Fatah guerrillas. It was later transferred to the PLO, where it became know as SAMED. The fund was providing pensions and social assistance to more than 20,000 families by 1980. But this was a reflection of Arafat's extension of his patronage network to incorporate families allied to PLO guerrilla groups The Martyrs Fund provided financial assistance only to those dying either of combat or natural causes, so long as it was during their active member hip in the PLO groups. This forced family members of non-PLO combatants to reclassify their dead in order to receive the stipend Today in the camps of Lebanon a significant portion of families who have sons or fathers who were guerrillas are still in receipt of such PLO paymentsGangs, whether of drug dealers or terrorists, know how to keep their people loyal.
Maybe that explains the Israeli tactic of destroying the homes of the families of terrorists. It provides a contrary motivation to those families, that maybe the money is not worth it. It is debatable whether the strategy has been successful enough to justify it, especially considering the bad optics it generates.
But terrorists have a major advantage over drug gangs.
According to the quote above from Freakonomics, the pensions received by the families of the murdered gangsters was for only 3 years, and the amount paid was equal to their salary at the time of their deaths. While the leader of a drug gang could make in the area of $8,500 each month, for a total of about $100,000 a year, the 3 officers working just under the boss (in this case) made about $7.00 per hour [$14,560.00 per year] -- and the rank and file made around $3.30 per hour [$6,864.00 per year]. Also, the money for these stipends came from within the organization (see here)
Compare that with the largesse of Palestinian terrorist organizations.
According to a Washington Post article in 2017, a man serving a 17-year sentence for shooting at Israeli forces during the second Palestinian intifada is receiving a Palestinian stipend of about $800 a month - $9,600 per year. But Palestinian terrorists who are sentenced to 30 years in Israeli jails get $3,000 a month - $36,000 per year. In the case comparable to ours, the families of Palestinians who are killed by Israeli forces get about $800 - $1,000 a month - $9,600 - $12,000 per year.
The drug gangs are paying their stipend out-of-pocket and - for a maximum of 3 years.
Abbas is paying the Fatah stipend out of funding provided by the EU - for life.
And according to the excerpt from the article "Humanitarian Rackets and their Moral Hazards" quoted above, a significant number of families in Lebanon who have sons or fathers who were terrorists are still receiving PLO payments.
Compared to the drug lords, Abbas is clearly running the better racket.
-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!
The miscellaneous expenses also include the costs associated with a gang member's murder. The gang not only paid for the funeral but often gave a stipend of up to three years' wages to the victim's family. Venkatesh had once asked why the gang was so generous in this regard. "That's a f****** stupid question," he was told, "'cause as long as you been with us, you still don't understand that their families is our families. We can't just leave 'em out. We been knowing these folks our whole lives, man so we grieve when they grieve. You got to respect the family." There was another reason for the death benefits: the gang reared community backlash (its enterprise was plainly a destructive one) and figured it could buy some goodwill for a few hundred dollars here and there. [pp 101-2]
We can argue about just how much respect drug gangs actually have for the communities they live in considering the destruction they caused.
But there is no denying that paying stipends to the surviving families is good politics.
Just ask Abbas.
If there is one thing - and perhaps there is only one thing - that Abbas does for the Arabs who live in the West Bank, it is to pay stipends to the surviving families of Palestinian terrorists who are killed as well as to the terrorists who survive. It is a good public relations move that shows that he and the PA is good for something.
But it also gives an incentive to Arabs to stay loyal to Fatah and not join Hamas. Is it any wonder that Abbas won't give in to the pressure to stop the payments to terrorists? Does anyone honestly believe Abbas insists on these payments out of altruism? That money helps to keep Fatah intact.
This second motivation for the stipends goes back to when they were first started, in 1964, under Arafat. According to the book, Humanitarian Rackets and their Moral Hazards: The Case of the Palestinian Refugee Camps in Lebanon,
Fatah had originally established what was known as the Palestine Mujahidin and Martyrs Fund in September 1964 to financially recompense families of martyred, disabled or captured Fatah guerrillas. It was later transferred to the PLO, where it became know as SAMED. The fund was providing pensions and social assistance to more than 20,000 families by 1980. But this was a reflection of Arafat's extension of his patronage network to incorporate families allied to PLO guerrilla groups The Martyrs Fund provided financial assistance only to those dying either of combat or natural causes, so long as it was during their active member hip in the PLO groups. This forced family members of non-PLO combatants to reclassify their dead in order to receive the stipend Today in the camps of Lebanon a significant portion of families who have sons or fathers who were guerrillas are still in receipt of such PLO paymentsGangs, whether of drug dealers or terrorists, know how to keep their people loyal.
Maybe that explains the Israeli tactic of destroying the homes of the families of terrorists. It provides a contrary motivation to those families, that maybe the money is not worth it. It is debatable whether the strategy has been successful enough to justify it, especially considering the bad optics it generates.
But terrorists have a major advantage over drug gangs.
According to the quote above from Freakonomics, the pensions received by the families of the murdered gangsters was for only 3 years, and the amount paid was equal to their salary at the time of their deaths. While the leader of a drug gang could make in the area of $8,500 each month, for a total of about $100,000 a year, the 3 officers working just under the boss (in this case) made about $7.00 per hour [$14,560.00 per year] -- and the rank and file made around $3.30 per hour [$6,864.00 per year]. Also, the money for these stipends came from within the organization (see here)
Compare that with the largesse of Palestinian terrorist organizations.
According to a Washington Post article in 2017, a man serving a 17-year sentence for shooting at Israeli forces during the second Palestinian intifada is receiving a Palestinian stipend of about $800 a month - $9,600 per year. But Palestinian terrorists who are sentenced to 30 years in Israeli jails get $3,000 a month - $36,000 per year. In the case comparable to ours, the families of Palestinians who are killed by Israeli forces get about $800 - $1,000 a month - $9,600 - $12,000 per year.
The drug gangs are paying their stipend out-of-pocket and - for a maximum of 3 years.
Abbas is paying the Fatah stipend out of funding provided by the EU - for life.
And according to the excerpt from the article "Humanitarian Rackets and their Moral Hazards" quoted above, a significant number of families in Lebanon who have sons or fathers who were terrorists are still receiving PLO payments.
Compared to the drug lords, Abbas is clearly running the better racket.
-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!
Categories: Middle East
Jewish Voice for Peace: Sloppy With Facts, But Adept With Fabrications
Controversy is the bread and butter of radical left-wing anti-Israel groups. The key is to grab the headlines, whether it is by preventing pro-Israel speakers from speaking, attacking groups like Hillel and Birthright for an alleged lack of balance, or saying Kaddish for terrorists.
So it is really not all that surprising that often facts they claim to give are full of sloppiness and outright fabrications.
Take for instance Jewish Voice for Peace and their Jews From The Middle East Fact Sheet, which adopts both anti-Israel and pro-Arab narratives.
Trifecta
In the second paragraph of this sheet, JVP claims:
Middle Eastern Jews were generally indifferent or opposed to secular Zionism coming from Europe (Zvi Ben Dror, Invisible Exile: Iraqi Jews in Exile: 149).That's 3 errors in just one sentence.
Just look online at a copy of the actual article and you will find:
Other questionable claims by JVP in this "fact sheet" are not as blatant, but do offer an opportunity for setting the record straight:
ApologeticsAccording to the fact sheet, life for dhimmis under Islam wasn't so bad:
Prior to World War I, much of the Middle East was under Ottoman control, and Jews lived as Ottoman subjects with dhimmi status (people of the book). Under the Ottoman system, ethnic and religious groups had their own leadership and some autonomy over community affairs; they were protected through jizya, a poll tax. Depending on where in the region, violence against Jews was not a usual occurrence.To claim that Jews were "protected through jizya" is the equivalent of euphemistically saying that store owners pay "protection money" to guard against theft -- without mentioning the 'protection' is from the very gangsters who are coercing the payments. The word 'dhimmi' itself is translated as 'protected' -- not "people of the book," but according to the Quran, the Jizya tax is not about protection, but humiliation:
“Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.” [9:29]How much was the Jizya? Estimates vary.
The 2014 Wikipedia article on Jizya quotes scholars saying that the rate of jizya (head tax) and Kharaj tax (land tax) was more than 20% for all non-Muslim dhimmis. In the western Islamic states of Egypt and Morocco, these taxes had a minimum rate of 20% of all estimated assets and sales, while the highest rates averaged between 33% to 80% of all annual farm produce.
But according to the current Wikipedia article on Jizya, though the rate paid was not uniform, the jiyza tax was one dinar per year during the time of Mohammed, while the maximum was twelve dirhams. Muhammad Hamidullah is quoted as saying that the rate of ten dirhams per year was equivalent to the expenses of an average family for ten days. Old habits die hard, and 5 years ago, a Muslim cleric in Egypt claimed that US aid to Egypt was Jizya and that Egypt must "impose on America to pay aid as jizya, before we allow it to realize its own interests, the ones which we agree to."
What both versions do agree there are Muslim sources that advise humiliation, whether it means walking instead of riding a horse on the way to make payment or grabbing the beard of the dhimmi and hitting him in the face.
As for the claim "violence against Jews was not a usual occurrence," there is a long history of Muslim violence against Jews in then-Palestine, as there was in the rest of the Middle East.
Ethnic Cleansing?
JVP mirrors the Arab claim about "the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and the making of over 700,000 Palestinians refugees," but the role of the Arab world in encouraging Palestinian Arabs to flee is documented by the Jewish Virtual Library:
o The Economist, a frequent critic of the Zionists, reported on October 2, 1948: “Of the 62,000 Arabs who formerly lived in Haifa not more than 5,000 or 6,000 remained. Various factors influenced their decision to seek safety in flight. There is but little doubt that the most potent of the factors were the announcements made over the air by the Higher Arab Executive, urging the Arabs to quit..It was clearly intimated that those Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as renegades.”
o Time's report of the battle for Haifa (May 3, 1948) was similar: “The mass evacuation, prompted partly by fear, partly by orders of Arab leaders, left the Arab quarter of Haifa a ghost city...By withdrawing Arab workers their leaders hoped to paralyze Haifa.”
o The Secretary of the Arab League Office in London, Edward Atiyah, wrote in his book, The Arabs: “This wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, encouraged by the boastings of an unrealistic Arabic press and the irresponsible utterances of some of the Arab leaders that it could be only a matter of weeks before the Jews were defeated by the armies of the Arab States and the Palestinian Arabs enabled to reenter and retake possession of their country.”
o In his memoirs, Haled al Azm, the Syrian Prime Minister in 1948-49, also admitted the Arab role in persuading the refugees to leave:
Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homes. But we ourselves are the ones who encouraged them to leave. Only a few months separated our call to them to leave and our appeal to the United Nations to resolve on their return.o “The Secretary-General of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, assured the Arab peoples that the occupation of Palestine and Tel Aviv would be as simple as a military promenade,” said Habib Issa in the New York Lebanese paper, Al Hoda (June 8, 1951). “He pointed out that they were already on the frontiers and that all the millions the Jews had spent on land and economic development would be easy booty, for it would be a simple matter to throw Jews into the Mediterranean....Brotherly advice was given to the Arabs of Palestine to leave their land, homes and property and to stay temporarily in neighboring fraternal states, lest the guns of the invading Arab armies mow them down.”Jewish Virtual Library also notes the flip side, that in select strategic cases -- as described by Palmach Commander Yigal Allon -- Israel did encourage Arabs to leave from the Galilee, and from Ramle-Lod to relieve pressure on besieged Jerusalem.
The Jews in Iraq
JVP tendency to adopt the pro-Arab narrative is also apparent in their description of Iraq's treatments of its Jews:
The Iraqi Denaturalization Law was enacted in March of 1950 when Iraqi Jews were allowed to immigrate legally to Israel if they gave up their Iraqi citizenship. In 1951, when the government realized that Iraqi Jewish registration increased after violent incidents, the government also froze Jewish assets, keeping Jewish resources in Iraq.But according to Edwin Black, author of "IBM and the Holocaust," Iraq was not quite so generous to its Jews. He gives the missing context JVP fails to provide that already in October 1948, over a year before that law was passed, approximately 1,500 Jews were fired from their government positions, followed by the boycott and systematic expulsion of Jews from positions in commerce:
Now Jews began fleeing, mainly to neighboring Iran. They smuggled out whatever valuables they could to rebuild their lives. On March 3, 1950, to halt the uncontrolled flight of assets and people, Iraq passed a one-year amendment to Law 1, the Denaturalization Act. This statute revoked the citizenship of any Jew who willingly left the country. Upon exit, their assets were frozen but were still available to the emigrants for use within Iraq.
Thousands of Jews seized the opportunity to leave, believing at least that their assets, while frozen, would still be viable within Iraq until a better day. But when the one-year law expired, a successor anti-Jewish statute was enacted secretly on March 10, 1951. Law 5, known as the Law for the Control and Administration of Property of Jews Who Have Forfeited Nationality, permanently seized all the assets of Jews who had been denaturalized by the previous law and any others that would be pressured to leave the country.Black addes that when the law was passed, the phones in Baghdad went down to keep Jews from transferring their assets to safety and the banks themselves were closed for three days.
Mizrachi Jews
The fact sheet emphasizes the treatment of Mizrahi Jews by Israel -- a controversial issue that has a painful history. Some of the points raised have a factual basis: the disappearance of Yeminite children - many of whom were adopted by Ashkenazi Jews and the thousands of eastern Jews who were given dangerous doses of radiation for ringworm, resulting in death or permanent medical problems. There is nothing to be gained in splitting hairs over the degree of the tragedy or over whom to assign blame.
But there are still false claims made by JVP:
Despite being the majority Jewish population in Israel, Mizrahim are represented in small numbers in the Israeli Parliament and in elite positions such as professorships.While it is undeniable that Mizrahi Jews have battled for equal recognition and representation, the JVP claim again is incorrect.
A 2015 article in Haaretz reported that Mizrahi Jews already gained equality in representation in 1999:
"Various studies have also shown a significant reduction in the gap between the political representation of ethnic groups,” added Dahan. “The first Knesset had a negligible percentage of Mizrahi Knesset members. But this proportion grew until the 15th Knesset, elected in 1999, in which the proportion of Mizrahim was about the same as their representation in the population. The gap also decreased in the representation of Mizrahim in senior army ranks,” Dahan added."As for other positions, Wikipedia has an article on Mizrahim with lists of prominent Mizrahi Jews in business, science, politics, the military and writing/academia.
Who's Indigenous?
Jewish Voice for Peace also tries to manipulate the issue of Mizrahi Jews to counter the indigenous ties of Jews to the land:
By defining Mizrahim as “indigenous” some political groups attempt to turn Mizrahim into a political tool to counter Palestinian claims to rights and redress from Israel. While there were Sephardi Jews living in Palestine for generations prior to modern Zionism, their relationships to the land, to their Arab and Ottoman neighbors, and to the surrounding cultures were entirely different than those of the European Zionists. The advent of Zionism rendered these longstanding relationships largely irrelevant, as power passed from the hands of European colonizers to those of European Jewish Zionists.The meaning of the vague reference to the earlier relationships of Jews to the land and the Arabs is unclear -- and as already pointed out above, there is a long history of Arab discrimination and attacks against Jews in then-Palestine itself. The existence of Arabs on the land is a result of either being descended from the Muslims who invaded and conquered the land, having immigrated from other areas in search of better opportunities, or having converted from Judaism to Islam. In none of those scenarios do Arabs have cultural/historical ties to the land that come anywhere near the ties of Jews to the land. There is a reason why people with ties to Arabia are called Arabs and those with ties to Judea are called Jews.
Reverse TransferJVP wants us to take invitations to return to Arab countries seriously -- and reciprocate:
It is interesting to ask, given that some Arab countries have invited Jews to return and regain citizenship, would Israel make the same offer to PalestiniansMore interesting is how one can compare inviting Arabs back to Israel where they may be a potential terrorist threat, with Jews returning to Arab countries where they would live in danger in response to an invitation that is likely less than sincere.
Bottom line, Jewish Voice for Peace consistently takes on narratives that are either anti-Israel or pro-Arab. Nothing wrong with that -- if in fact those narratives were based in fact.
The problem is that JVP's fact sheet, isn't.
-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!
So it is really not all that surprising that often facts they claim to give are full of sloppiness and outright fabrications.
Take for instance Jewish Voice for Peace and their Jews From The Middle East Fact Sheet, which adopts both anti-Israel and pro-Arab narratives.
Trifecta
In the second paragraph of this sheet, JVP claims:
Middle Eastern Jews were generally indifferent or opposed to secular Zionism coming from Europe (Zvi Ben Dror, Invisible Exile: Iraqi Jews in Exile: 149).That's 3 errors in just one sentence.
Just look online at a copy of the actual article and you will find:
- Instead of "Zvi Ben Dror" -- the actual name of the author is Zvi A Ben-Dor Benite
- Instead of "Invisible Exile: Iraqi Jews in Exile" -- the actual name of the article is "Invisible Exile: Iraqi Jews in Israel"
- Instead of saying "Middle Eastern Jews were generally indifferent or opposed to secular Zionism coming from Europe" -- the article's claim is actually much more limited: "However, what seemed very logical in Palestine did not make much sense in Iraq, where Jews remained by and large indifferent to Zionism."
Other questionable claims by JVP in this "fact sheet" are not as blatant, but do offer an opportunity for setting the record straight:
ApologeticsAccording to the fact sheet, life for dhimmis under Islam wasn't so bad:
Prior to World War I, much of the Middle East was under Ottoman control, and Jews lived as Ottoman subjects with dhimmi status (people of the book). Under the Ottoman system, ethnic and religious groups had their own leadership and some autonomy over community affairs; they were protected through jizya, a poll tax. Depending on where in the region, violence against Jews was not a usual occurrence.To claim that Jews were "protected through jizya" is the equivalent of euphemistically saying that store owners pay "protection money" to guard against theft -- without mentioning the 'protection' is from the very gangsters who are coercing the payments. The word 'dhimmi' itself is translated as 'protected' -- not "people of the book," but according to the Quran, the Jizya tax is not about protection, but humiliation:
“Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.” [9:29]How much was the Jizya? Estimates vary.
The 2014 Wikipedia article on Jizya quotes scholars saying that the rate of jizya (head tax) and Kharaj tax (land tax) was more than 20% for all non-Muslim dhimmis. In the western Islamic states of Egypt and Morocco, these taxes had a minimum rate of 20% of all estimated assets and sales, while the highest rates averaged between 33% to 80% of all annual farm produce.
But according to the current Wikipedia article on Jizya, though the rate paid was not uniform, the jiyza tax was one dinar per year during the time of Mohammed, while the maximum was twelve dirhams. Muhammad Hamidullah is quoted as saying that the rate of ten dirhams per year was equivalent to the expenses of an average family for ten days. Old habits die hard, and 5 years ago, a Muslim cleric in Egypt claimed that US aid to Egypt was Jizya and that Egypt must "impose on America to pay aid as jizya, before we allow it to realize its own interests, the ones which we agree to."
What both versions do agree there are Muslim sources that advise humiliation, whether it means walking instead of riding a horse on the way to make payment or grabbing the beard of the dhimmi and hitting him in the face.
As for the claim "violence against Jews was not a usual occurrence," there is a long history of Muslim violence against Jews in then-Palestine, as there was in the rest of the Middle East.
Ethnic Cleansing?
JVP mirrors the Arab claim about "the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and the making of over 700,000 Palestinians refugees," but the role of the Arab world in encouraging Palestinian Arabs to flee is documented by the Jewish Virtual Library:
o The Economist, a frequent critic of the Zionists, reported on October 2, 1948: “Of the 62,000 Arabs who formerly lived in Haifa not more than 5,000 or 6,000 remained. Various factors influenced their decision to seek safety in flight. There is but little doubt that the most potent of the factors were the announcements made over the air by the Higher Arab Executive, urging the Arabs to quit..It was clearly intimated that those Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as renegades.”
o Time's report of the battle for Haifa (May 3, 1948) was similar: “The mass evacuation, prompted partly by fear, partly by orders of Arab leaders, left the Arab quarter of Haifa a ghost city...By withdrawing Arab workers their leaders hoped to paralyze Haifa.”
o The Secretary of the Arab League Office in London, Edward Atiyah, wrote in his book, The Arabs: “This wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, encouraged by the boastings of an unrealistic Arabic press and the irresponsible utterances of some of the Arab leaders that it could be only a matter of weeks before the Jews were defeated by the armies of the Arab States and the Palestinian Arabs enabled to reenter and retake possession of their country.”
o In his memoirs, Haled al Azm, the Syrian Prime Minister in 1948-49, also admitted the Arab role in persuading the refugees to leave:
Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homes. But we ourselves are the ones who encouraged them to leave. Only a few months separated our call to them to leave and our appeal to the United Nations to resolve on their return.o “The Secretary-General of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, assured the Arab peoples that the occupation of Palestine and Tel Aviv would be as simple as a military promenade,” said Habib Issa in the New York Lebanese paper, Al Hoda (June 8, 1951). “He pointed out that they were already on the frontiers and that all the millions the Jews had spent on land and economic development would be easy booty, for it would be a simple matter to throw Jews into the Mediterranean....Brotherly advice was given to the Arabs of Palestine to leave their land, homes and property and to stay temporarily in neighboring fraternal states, lest the guns of the invading Arab armies mow them down.”Jewish Virtual Library also notes the flip side, that in select strategic cases -- as described by Palmach Commander Yigal Allon -- Israel did encourage Arabs to leave from the Galilee, and from Ramle-Lod to relieve pressure on besieged Jerusalem.
The Jews in Iraq
JVP tendency to adopt the pro-Arab narrative is also apparent in their description of Iraq's treatments of its Jews:
The Iraqi Denaturalization Law was enacted in March of 1950 when Iraqi Jews were allowed to immigrate legally to Israel if they gave up their Iraqi citizenship. In 1951, when the government realized that Iraqi Jewish registration increased after violent incidents, the government also froze Jewish assets, keeping Jewish resources in Iraq.But according to Edwin Black, author of "IBM and the Holocaust," Iraq was not quite so generous to its Jews. He gives the missing context JVP fails to provide that already in October 1948, over a year before that law was passed, approximately 1,500 Jews were fired from their government positions, followed by the boycott and systematic expulsion of Jews from positions in commerce:
Now Jews began fleeing, mainly to neighboring Iran. They smuggled out whatever valuables they could to rebuild their lives. On March 3, 1950, to halt the uncontrolled flight of assets and people, Iraq passed a one-year amendment to Law 1, the Denaturalization Act. This statute revoked the citizenship of any Jew who willingly left the country. Upon exit, their assets were frozen but were still available to the emigrants for use within Iraq.
Thousands of Jews seized the opportunity to leave, believing at least that their assets, while frozen, would still be viable within Iraq until a better day. But when the one-year law expired, a successor anti-Jewish statute was enacted secretly on March 10, 1951. Law 5, known as the Law for the Control and Administration of Property of Jews Who Have Forfeited Nationality, permanently seized all the assets of Jews who had been denaturalized by the previous law and any others that would be pressured to leave the country.Black addes that when the law was passed, the phones in Baghdad went down to keep Jews from transferring their assets to safety and the banks themselves were closed for three days.
Mizrachi Jews
The fact sheet emphasizes the treatment of Mizrahi Jews by Israel -- a controversial issue that has a painful history. Some of the points raised have a factual basis: the disappearance of Yeminite children - many of whom were adopted by Ashkenazi Jews and the thousands of eastern Jews who were given dangerous doses of radiation for ringworm, resulting in death or permanent medical problems. There is nothing to be gained in splitting hairs over the degree of the tragedy or over whom to assign blame.
But there are still false claims made by JVP:
Despite being the majority Jewish population in Israel, Mizrahim are represented in small numbers in the Israeli Parliament and in elite positions such as professorships.While it is undeniable that Mizrahi Jews have battled for equal recognition and representation, the JVP claim again is incorrect.
A 2015 article in Haaretz reported that Mizrahi Jews already gained equality in representation in 1999:
"Various studies have also shown a significant reduction in the gap between the political representation of ethnic groups,” added Dahan. “The first Knesset had a negligible percentage of Mizrahi Knesset members. But this proportion grew until the 15th Knesset, elected in 1999, in which the proportion of Mizrahim was about the same as their representation in the population. The gap also decreased in the representation of Mizrahim in senior army ranks,” Dahan added."As for other positions, Wikipedia has an article on Mizrahim with lists of prominent Mizrahi Jews in business, science, politics, the military and writing/academia.
Who's Indigenous?
Jewish Voice for Peace also tries to manipulate the issue of Mizrahi Jews to counter the indigenous ties of Jews to the land:
By defining Mizrahim as “indigenous” some political groups attempt to turn Mizrahim into a political tool to counter Palestinian claims to rights and redress from Israel. While there were Sephardi Jews living in Palestine for generations prior to modern Zionism, their relationships to the land, to their Arab and Ottoman neighbors, and to the surrounding cultures were entirely different than those of the European Zionists. The advent of Zionism rendered these longstanding relationships largely irrelevant, as power passed from the hands of European colonizers to those of European Jewish Zionists.The meaning of the vague reference to the earlier relationships of Jews to the land and the Arabs is unclear -- and as already pointed out above, there is a long history of Arab discrimination and attacks against Jews in then-Palestine itself. The existence of Arabs on the land is a result of either being descended from the Muslims who invaded and conquered the land, having immigrated from other areas in search of better opportunities, or having converted from Judaism to Islam. In none of those scenarios do Arabs have cultural/historical ties to the land that come anywhere near the ties of Jews to the land. There is a reason why people with ties to Arabia are called Arabs and those with ties to Judea are called Jews.
Reverse TransferJVP wants us to take invitations to return to Arab countries seriously -- and reciprocate:
It is interesting to ask, given that some Arab countries have invited Jews to return and regain citizenship, would Israel make the same offer to PalestiniansMore interesting is how one can compare inviting Arabs back to Israel where they may be a potential terrorist threat, with Jews returning to Arab countries where they would live in danger in response to an invitation that is likely less than sincere.
Bottom line, Jewish Voice for Peace consistently takes on narratives that are either anti-Israel or pro-Arab. Nothing wrong with that -- if in fact those narratives were based in fact.
The problem is that JVP's fact sheet, isn't.
-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!
Categories: Middle East
Pages
© 2012-2018 Europa Varietas Foundation © 2015-2018 Europa Varietas Association
www.europavarietas.org | info(@)europavarietas(dot)org | Switzerland
We are looking for sponsors for the English translation of these books, please contact turkeandras(at)gmail(dot)com