The Question of Israeli Settlements: Calamity or Fulfillment? - by Jerold Auerbach

...Kerstein’s “messianic fanatics” turned out to be passionate Israelis who — like secular Zionists — were determined to return to the Biblical homeland of the Jewish people. They neither rejected Israeli democracy, as he writes, nor did they advocate “a theocratic state.” Their “apocalyptic messianism,” in translation, was devotion to the restoration of Jewish national sovereignty — also known as Zionism.

Jerold Auerbach..
Algemeiner..
30 August '20..

Benjamin Kerstein has been commended as “one of the finest American-Israeli authors of his generation.” But his recent Algemeiner critique — “Zionism, Messianism and the Question of the Settlements” — is unpersuasive.

Kerstein understands that Israeli settlers are not monolithic: they “represent a diverse and complex society-within-a-society.” They range from ordinary Israelis who, like generations of Zionists before them, have built communities in the Biblical Land of Israel, to “true believers” who are “often terrifyingly sure of themselves.” Their “remarkable success story” might best be understood as the fulfillment of the Zionist dream. Yet he identifies with those “who view the movement with skepticism at best and open hostility at worst.”

Kerstein knows that Judea and Samaria (Jordan’s “West Bank” until the Six-Day War) comprised “the heartland of the ancient Jewish kingdoms; it is integral to the Jewish people’s biblical inheritance … and our presence there is as indigenous as one could possibly imagine.” He recognizes settlers as “people of considerable integrity” who “are willing to put their lives in danger for what they believe in.” That seems like a compelling argument for an embrace of the historic Land of Israel and its bold and courageous Jewish residents.

Yet for Kerstein there are “very legitimate reasons to be skeptical of and even hostile toward the settlement movement.” Least persuasive is his discomfort that “essentially the entire world considers the settlements illegal.” (Who cares?) But “the most troubling aspect of the settlement movement” is its “ferociously messianic passion” of the kind that has sprinkled Jewish history with “horrifically destructive” consequences. Among the “terrible horrors,” he rightly identifies “Baruch Goldstein’s slaughter of 29 innocent Muslims” in the Machpelah shrine (1994), reinforced by “the Kahanist ideologues of Hebron” who “reject Israeli democracy.”

But Kerstein ignores the reality that the overwhelming majority of the nearly 450,000 settlers are normal Israelis who, as Zionists have always done, built communities in the Biblical homeland of the Jewish people. The settlement blocs with the largest number of Israeli residents feature universities, yeshivas, scientific laboratories, high-rise apartments and shopping centers. It is inconceivable that they would be ever be abandoned by their residents or evicted by the Israeli government.

That leaves Kerstein’s primary targets: the “messianic fanatics” of Hebron and neighboring Kiryat Arba (Biblical Hebron) who reject democracy and advocate “a theocratic state.” But Baruch Goldstein’s horrific massacre of Muslims at prayer in Me’arat ha’Machpelah — the ancient burial site of Jewish patriarchs and matriarchs — remains the tragic exception. Hebron Jews, numbering fewer than 1,000, have far more often been the targets of Palestinian terrorism than perpetrators of violence.

(Continue to Full Column)

Jerold S. Auerbach is the author of Hebron Jews: Memory and Conflict in the Land of Israel (2009).

Taking the necessary steps to surmount Palestinian rejectionism - by David M. Weinberg

For European and other diplomats to continue to scurry about the region without pressing inevitable truths on the Palestinians is mischievous, at best. To be overly solicitous of the Palestinians, a long-time mistake of professional peace processors, is similarly unhelpful. Dishing out some tough love and dialing down Palestinian expectations would be much more constructive.

David M. Weinberg..
A Citadel Defending Zion..
28 August '20..
Link: https://davidmweinberg.com/2020/08/28/surmounting-palestinian-rejectionism/

British Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab showed up in Jerusalem this week to pressure Israel and the Palestinians (“both sides”) to renew negotiations towards a two-state solution “based on international parameters.”

Translation: Raab was here to pressure Israel to yield to a stale formula based on maximal Palestinian demands alongside minimal regard for Israeli security needs and national-historic claims; a discredited formula involving the uprooting of settlements, withdrawals from most of Judea and Samaria, and a division of Jerusalem.

Raab’s mission was blast from the irrelevant past. As if Palestinian rejectionism and Iranian-backed jihadism of the past decade had not made such proposals passé. As if the Trump administration’s wiser peace initiative had not been launched. As if the UAE had not recently announced its intention to develop full diplomatic relations with Israel; an obvious dismissal of the Palestinian Authority’s strategy of boycotting and criminalizing Israel. As if Israel needed to be prodded to engage in serious and realistic negotiations with the Palestinians.

Raab showed no inclination to take advantage of recent developments to put pressure where it belongs: on the side that began the conflict and that can end it. On the Palestinians.

Remember: It was Palestinian Authority dictator Mahmoud Abbas walked away from negotiations with Prime Minister Olmert in 2008; Abbas who refused peace talks with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu even after Netanyahu froze settlement construction in 2009; and Abbas who left US Secretary of State John Kerry out in the cold in 2014. Earlier this year, Abbas declared “one thousand no’s” to the new American peace plan.

Now the PA ferociously has rejected the historic agreement between Israel and the UAE, which Abbas and his spokesman have called “a knife in the back of Palestine and treason against Jerusalem.” The PA’s Grand Mufti issued a fatwa forbidding Muslims who come via the UAE to pray at the Al-Aqsa Mosque.

Abbas has called for popular resistance, a code word for violence, in coordination with the Iranian-backed Hamas movement, which does not hide its genocidal plans for Israel. Other senior Palestinian leaders talk about “a return to armed struggle,” meaning orchestrated suicide bombings and other naked terrorism. (Israel must act determinedly to deter Abbas from making such a gargantuan mistake).

Abbas and his associates have no problem acting against the interests of their own people - by Khaled Abu Toameh

By arresting and threatening Palestinians who dare publicly to promote the Israel-UAE deal, the Palestinian leaders are again demonstrating that they, like all other Arab dictators, evidently consider basic human rights a privilege they reserve for themselves alone.

Khaled Abu Toameh..
Gatestone Institute..
27 August '20..

As Palestinian leaders continue to wage a massive campaign of incitement against the United Arab Emirates (UAE) because of its normalization agreement with Israel, some Palestinians have come out in support of the deal and accused the Palestinian leadership of harming Palestinians' relations with the Arab states.

In the past two weeks, Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas and leaders of his ruling Fatah faction have repeatedly accused the UAE and its de facto leader, Crown Prince Mohammed Ben Zayed, of "stabbing the Palestinians in the back with a poisonous dagger" and betraying Al-Aqsa Mosque, Jerusalem, and the Palestinian cause.

They have also accused the Gulf state of acting in violation of the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, which states that the Arab countries would normalize their relations with Israel only after a full Israeli withdrawal to the pre-1967 armistice lines and the establishment of an independent Palestinian state with east Jerusalem as its capital.

The accusations have prompted Palestinians to stage protests in Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza Strip, during which they burned UAE flags and pictures of Ben Zayed.

Some Palestinians, however, do not share their leaders' rage toward the UAE. These Palestinians say they are worried that the Palestinian leadership's overreaction to the UAE-Israel deal is counterproductive and will cause further harm to the Palestinian cause.

The Palestinian leadership, nonetheless, does not seem to care about the voices expressing concern over the damage caused to Palestinian-Arab relations as a result of the incitement against the UAE and its leader.

By ignoring these voices, Abbas and his associates are again showing that they have no problem acting against the interests of their own people. Worse, by condemning the Israel-UAE deal on a daily basis, the leaders of the Palestinians have made it clear that they prefer to side with Iran and its Palestinian and Lebanese proxies -- Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah -- in rejecting any compromise with Israel.

(Continue to Full Post)

Anyone Surprised at Erdoğan’s Schoolboy Response to the Israel-UAE Deal? - by Burak Bekdil

Turkey is protesting the UAE for establishing diplomatic relations with Israel—even though Ankara has had diplomatic relations with Israel for the past 71 years. If the UAE, as Ankara argues, has betrayed the “Palestinian cause” just by having diplomatic relations with Israel, then Turkey has been betraying the “Palestinian cause” since 1949.

Burak Bekdil..
BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 1,712..
27 August '20..
Link: https://besacenter.org/perspectives-papers/erdogan-israel-uae-turkey/

These days, Turkey’s foreign policy calculus, especially when it involves matters surrounding Israel, appears to reflect the thinking of a fifth-grade schoolboy. I don’t like David anymore and you, Bassam, want to play with him. So I don’t like you anymore either.

That is exactly how the 97-year-old Turkish republic behaved when Israel and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) announced they are normalizing diplomatic relations. Not a word has been uttered to explain how a country that has had diplomatic relations with Israel for 71 years could logically protest another country’s decision to establish diplomatic relations with the Jewish state.

Turkey remained neutral during the Arab-Israeli war of 1948. At its conclusion, the then young Turkish republic became the first Muslim country to recognize the infant state of Israel on March 28, 1949.

In January 1950, Ankara sent a career diplomat, Seyfullah Esin, to Tel Aviv as the first Turkish chargé d’affaires in Israel. In 1951, Turkey joined the Western bloc of countries that protested Cairo’s decision to deny Israeli ships passage through the Suez Canal. The Mossad opened a station on Turkish soil in the early 1950s. In 1954, Turkish PM Adnan Menderes, while on a visit to the US, called on Arab states to recognize Israel.

In 1958, an El Al airliner requested an emergency landing at Istanbul’s Yeşilköy Airport due to mechanical problems. As it transpired, the passengers aboard were David Ben-Gurion, Golda Meir, and the IDF Chief of Staff, who were on a secret mission. The purpose of the visit, which was welcomed by the Turkish government, was to establish and enhance cultural and intelligence cooperation.

From 1949 until the 1979 Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty, Turkey remained the only Muslim country to have diplomatic ties with Israel. After the Oslo Accords in 1993, Jordan joined the club of Muslim nations recognizing the Jewish state. And on August 13 of this year, the UAE agreed to establish diplomatic relations with Israel. Other Muslim-majority states are making signs that they would like to follow suit.

What’s wrong with Arab nations making peace with Israel? A lot, according to Iran, Hamas, and Turkey, a trio that is offended by steps toward peace in the Middle East. Among these three peace-haters, however, Turkey is unique.

Inexcusable Palestinian Terror: A Philosophy of Articulated Hate - by R. Uri Pilichowski

...I have written a great deal of my empathy for the Palestinian situation. But my empathy doesn’t excuse the deep-seated hate found in Palestinian communities, its schools, and the general support for terror found among the people.

R. Uri Pilichowski..
TOI Blog..
25 August '20..

Israeli reporter Carmel Dangor tweeted that the past 365 days is the first time since 1964 where no civilians in Israel were killed by a terrorist.

This is an incredible statistic that should make us all breathe a sigh of relief. Yet, there are two important caveats to this statistic that should give us pause; First, this statistic speaks to zero Israeli deaths, but does not speak to Israeli injuries, of which there were too many due to Palestinian terrorism. Second, this statistic doesn’t address the amount of Palestinian terrorist attacks. One might be misled and think that Palestinians have stopped their attacks. Palestinians attempt more than three terrorist attacks a day against Israelis.

This statistic merely speaks to how many Israelis have died. If the amount of Palestinian terror attacks haven’t decreased, what has caused fewer Jewish deaths?

I’d suggest two causes have led to less Jewish deaths this past year than any year since 1964. First, God’s protection. When a Palestinian terrorist aims his car at Israelis and hits the gas pedal and the car malfunctions or a group of Palestinians working on a bomb trigger it too early and blow themselves up (as happened yesterday to four intelligence challenged Palestinian terrorists) that’s God’s Providence defending His people. Second, Israeli security forces have gotten better and better every year. From the horrible years of the second Palestinian intifada when over 1,000 Israelis were dying each year to this year with zero deaths, the security forces have done a better and better job each year.

It is important to note that there is never any excuse for Palestinian Arab terror. Often excused by Palestinian sympathizers as “resistance,” terrorism isn’t political activism, it is hate based violence. 67% of Palestinian Arabs support violence against Israelis. That is a nauseatingly high number of people who support violence.

Where does Palestinian hate come from? Many will argue it doesn’t matter. They maintain that we should call terror wrong and leave it at that. I maintain that the only way to stop hate is to understand it. Hate isn’t just a terrorist attack. Violence is hate put into action, but hate is a philosophy. When you hear West Bank Palestinians call for an end to the state of Israel, and when Gazan Palestinians call for the death of Jews, you’re witnessing a philosophy of hate being articulated.

(Continue to Full Post)

Almost humorous - PCHR tries to counter “Terrorists in Suits”–and can’t - by Elder of Ziyon

PCHR’s response is meant to give the impression that “Terrorists in Suits” is filled with inaccuracies, but in the end they cannot find anything specific that was incorrect! The entire purpose of the PCHR report is to make it look like they have a substantive response, knowing that most people will not actually read it and hoping that EU funders of these NGOs – who often look for any excuse to continue to fund these organizations to pretend they care about human rights - -will feel better about funding terrorist-infested organizations since they seemingly responded.

Elder of Ziyon..
25 August '20..

Last year Israeli’s Ministry of Strategic Affairs released “Terrorists in Suits,” which showed how many top members of anti-Israel NGOs were linked to terror groups, most often the PFLP but also Hamas.

Now, PCHR – one of the organizations targeted – has written a rebuttal report.

However, it doesn’t point out any inaccuracies!

For example, PCHR writes:

On February 2019, the Israeli Ministry of Strategic Affairs released a report titled “Terrorists in Suits”, accusing several Palestinian NGO’s, especially the human rights organizations, that attempting to eradicate the State of Israel. And they also posted about the directors of these institutions as they have relations with Palestinian organizations as “terrorists”, so they published Photoshopped pictures for some of them such as the Lawyer Raji al-Sourani, the director of PCHR, and Sha’wan Jabarin, general director of al-Haq.

The report alleges that it exhibits the connections between dozens of the human rights organizations and the so-called “terrorists” groups. It also attempted to create a connection between human rights organizations, BDS, Hamas Movement, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). The report is based on fake information in a misrepresented context regarding the former and decades old activities of human rights activists with Palestinian political parties. The report also claims that BDS and human rights organizations are attempting to deceive the world and hide behind a humanitarian and human rights facade to destroy the State of Israel, as it alleges that those organizations do not recognize “Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state”, and they aim to eradicate the State of Israel. The report used the membership of the Palestinian National and Islamic Forces, a political coalition of 15 Palestinian factions, in the BDS National Committee (BNC), which includes the Palestinian NGO Network (PNGO) , to paint its allegations as truths.

Note that PCHR doesn’t say that the report isn’t true. Because they can’t. Here is the Terrorists in Suits page they are referring to:

(Continue to Full Post)

Why does Israel's leader savoring a milestone achievement unhinge the Times? - by Andrea Levin

Notably, no other Middle East leader, however brutal to his own people or menacing to the region, is subjected to this kind of personal assault by the Times.

Andrea Levin..
CAMERA..
21 August '20..

Good news for Israel seems to prompt teeth-gnashing for some at the New York Times. The announced intention of the United Arab Emirates to normalize peaceful relations with the Jewish state was a diplomatic breakthrough cheered far and wide. But it triggered Jerusalem bureau chief David Halbfinger to let loose a fusillade of ad hominem smears of Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu. (August 13, 2020, “Netanyahu Drops Troubled Plan for Economic Gain”)

The reporter’s coverage notes, reasonably enough, the switch in national priorities from extending Israeli sovereignty in areas of the West Bank to, instead, suspending that effort in favor of opening relations with an Arab nation that had been an adversary. But the thrust of the story is not just that Netanyahu made a politically expedient shift or, less cynically, that he seeks a positive outcome for Israel and the region. Halbfinger attacks the leader’s demeanor, conduct and even his alleged inner feelings.

He insists to readers that Netanyahu is focused on himself and his legacy, saying the leader “craved a historic achievement to cap his tenure,” that he “exulted in a potential legacy,” and that he “saw as securing his legacy” the “annexing [of] West Bank territory.”

Undisclosed is how the reporter reads the mind and heart of the leader and distinguishes between exhilaration over this important breakthrough making Israel stronger and safer and the narcissistic, narrow motives Halbfinger discerns.

(Continue to Full Post)

EUBAM - Europe’s failed (and forgotten) Gaza monitors - by Gerald M. Steinberg

Forgotten in this historical reckoning is the European Union’s role in this process, and the failure of the EU to provide the guarantees they had pledged to fulfill in 2005.

Gerald M. Steinberg..
JPost/Opinion..
20 August '20..
Link: https://www.jpost.com/opinion/europes-failed-and-forgotten-gaza-monitors-opinion-639383

The 15-year anniversary of Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza has been accompanied by a wave of painful personal and political memoirs, amid a difficult debate on the wisdom of Ariel Sharon’s sudden policy shift.

The latest round of “balloon terrorism” from Gaza that is torching the fields and trees of southern Israel, and the periodic rocket attacks, sending thousands of Israelis into shelters in the middle of the night, are reminders that the hoped-for quiet was an illusion.

Instead of using the withdrawal as an opportunity for economic development to lift the people of Gaza out of poverty, the Palestinian leaders have diverted international aid into cross-border attack tunnels and rocket brigades.

Largely forgotten in this historical reckoning is the European Union’s role in this process, and the failure of the EU to provide the guarantees they had pledged to fulfill in 2005.

After Israel’s withdrawal, the EUBAM (European Union Border Assistance Mission) was deployed at the Rafah crossing point between Gaza and Egypt. The mission consisted of some 60 police and customs officials “to help bring peace to the area,” ostensibly by monitoring traffic in order to deter smuggling of weapons into Gaza.

According to the agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, EUBAM would monitor the performance of the PA in operating the crossing and had the authority to order the re-examination of persons and goods that passed through the crossing if PA examinations proved unsatisfactory.
From the beginning, this EU monitoring presence was a failure, and far from demonstrating Europe’s potential contribution to peace, it demonstrated the chasm between high-minded talk and the reality of conflict and terrorism on the ground.

Weapons smuggling continued, and on December 30, 2005, a few weeks after their initial deployment, EUBAM monitors fled Rafah to the safety of an Israeli military base when Palestinian police officers stormed the crossing, in what was described for media and diplomatic consumption as a “protest demonstration”.

Three months later, the monitors fled once again following a wave of foreigner kidnappings in Gaza.

Fourth Estate Privilege: The Washington Post and Vox award land to the Palestinians - by Sean Durns

The media actively works to erase the Jewish people's historical and legal claims to the land of Israel. Recent articles by The Washington Post and Vox offer examples as to how. CAMERA takes a look at why.


Sean Durns..
CAMERA..
20 August '20..

“Who can challenge the rights of the Jews in Palestine?” Yusuf al-Khalidi wrote to the chief rabbi of France on March 1, 1899. “Good Lord, historically it really is your country.” Yet, more than a century after Khalidi’s admission, the Jewish people’s connection to their ancestral homeland is often forgotten. Indeed, many news outlets and analysts not only ignore it—they often attempt to erase it.

Take, for example, the Washington Post. The newspaper’s Aug. 13, 2020 report, “Trump announces historic peace agreement between Israel and the United Arab Emirates,” asserted that “Arab leaders had privately warned Trump that they could not agree to future economic or diplomatic ties with Israel if Israel took over land now considered Palestinian.” But the article, by reporter Anne Gearan and Jerusalem bureau chief Steve Hendrix, doesn’t say why the land is “now considered Palestinian.”

In fact, a sovereign Palestinian Arab state has never existed.

(Continue to Full Post)

A long time coming, but the center of gravity has shifted under the Palestinians’ feet - by Sarah N. Stern

My Muslim and Arab dissident friends tell me that the deep-seated preoccupation with the Palestinian cause that has united the Arab world until this day is being examined internally as an obsession that has held its own people back in their development as individuals and as nations. This obsession was best described by Egyptian Gen. Gamal Abdel Nasser when he called Arab children “bullets in the war machine.”

Sarah N. Stern..
JNS.org..
19 August '20..

The deal between Israel and the United Arab Emirates radically shook the ground in the Middle East and begrudgingly awakened the stale, tired, conventional wisdom of the policy establishment. For far too long, the Palestinian Authority has seen itself as the center of gravity and the final arbitrator of independent Arab governments who have wanted to open up to the public their “under the table,” warm relations with the Jewish state but have been held back by the stubborn, maximalist demands of the Palestinian Authority.

This has given far too much power over the years to the Palestinians to reject overtures of peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors, and has stood in the way of a great deal of progress that this region could have benefited from by partaking in what Israel has to offer.

Far too many in the Washington political establishment and the European Union have bought into the mistaken notion that the Palestinian issue is the lynchpin upon which peace between Israel and their Arab neighbors rests. This is surprising considering our long history of involvement in various wars in the Middle East, as well as our education about the myriad, tribal, internecine conflicts in the region.

Even prior to Israel’s birth in 1948, the Arab League rejected any presence of a Jewish state in the Middle East. After the Six-Day War in June 1967, when Israel was victorious in its defensive war on all sides, it had attempted to trade the land it conquered for peace. It brought that notion to a meeting with the Arab League in Khartoum, Sudan, several months later in August, and its response was the famous “Three No’s”: “No peace, no recognition and no negotiations with Israel.”

Meanwhile, the Palestinians have consistently proven that they have not negotiated in good faith.

I was in the audience of a Washington think tank on July 25, 2000—the day the Camp David talks between U.S. President Bill Clinton, Israel Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat broke up. Elyakim Rubenstein, who had been the Attorney General of the State of Israel, came to address the group. His words were: “There are people crying on the way to Ronald Reagan Airport right now because they felt if we just offered Arafat everything that he wanted, he simply could not refuse it. I can tell you that what we offered was as far as any responsible government could possibly go. In fact, some would argue that we were not being responsible. What we offered was: shared sovereignty over Jerusalem, with the Palestinian control of the Harem al Sharif (the “Temple Mount”), and Israel of the Western Wall; a land mass equal to 95 percent of the West Bank, plus Gaza, (which was still in Israel’s hands); and a ‘right of return’ for thousands of Palestinian refugees, with a monetary package to compensate for those Palestinians that did not want to return. Arafat did not say yes, and he did not say no. He simply walked away from the table.”

His response came a few months later in the form of a renewed intifada, in which more than 1,000 Israeli civilians lost their lives.

(Continue to Full Column)

Sarah N. Stern is founder and president of the Endowment for Middle East Truth (EMET), a pro-Israel and pro-American think tank and policy institute in Washington, D.C.

Who would've thought? Palestinians Join Iran-led Anti-Peace Camp - by Khaled Abu Toameh

By holding a political protest at the compound of the Al-Aqsa Mosque, Palestinians are not only desecrating the sanctity of the site, but also sending a warning to citizens of UAE not to visit Jerusalem or the mosque, as many apparently hoped to do....This warning shows that the Palestinians believe they have exclusive control over Islam's third-holiest site and are free to decide who can visit the site and who cannot. It is therefore the right time for Arabs and Muslims to step in to demand an end to Palestinian hegemony over the Al-Aqsa Mosque and other holy sites in Jerusalem.

Khaled Abu Toameh..
Gatestone Institute..
18 August '20..

The Palestinians have spent the past few months trying to persuade the international community, including Arab countries, to help prevent Israel from applying its sovereignty to portions of the West Bank.

Now that one of these countries – the United Arab Emirates – succeeded in striking a deal with Israel, according to which the Israeli plan to extend Israeli law to more land would be suspended, the Palestinians are waging an unprecedented campaign of defamation against the UAE and its de facto leader, Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Zayed.

Instead of thanking the UAE for managing to suspend the Israeli plan, Palestinians are protesting against the UAE because of its decision to normalize its relations with Israel. Palestinians have been burning UAE flags and photos of Bin Zayed and denouncing him as a "traitor," as well as accusing him of "stabbing the Palestinians and Arabs in the back" and "betraying Al-Aqsa Mosque, Jerusalem and the Palestinian cause."

The anti-UAE campaign, spearheaded by the Palestinian Authority (PA) and its president, Mahmoud Abbas, is being waged under the banner "Normalization [with Israel] is Treason."

This is the same Palestinian Authority whose leaders signed the Oslo Accord with Israel in 1993, engaged in peace talks with Israelis for nearly 20 years, ostensibly recognized Israel's right to exist and, until recently, even conducted security coordination with the Israeli security forces in the West Bank.

(Continue to Full Post)

While Palestinians reject every overture for peace, they are still the darlings of the international system - by Jonathan Schachter and Jonathan Schanzer

Countless Zoom calls will undoubtedly focus on ways to pressure Israel, even with annexation tabled. It's a safe bet that few, if any, will propose putting pressure where it belongs, on the side that began the conflict and that can end it.

Jonathan Schachter/Jonathan Schanzer..
Pundicity/JPost..
16 August '20..
Link: http://schanzer.pundicity.com/24470/palestinians-part-of-intl-system-despite

Last week's announcement about the normalization of relations between Israel and the UAE appears to have put annexation plans on ice. But the debate was revealing. The hand-wringing in America about annexation struck a stark contrast to Israelis and Palestinians, who have been more concerned about the second wave of COVID-19. When they do discuss the conflict, few if any believe renewed negotiations right now would bear fruit. The two sides are simply too far apart.

Most Israelis, including the prime minister, seek a negotiated end to the conflict, with an end to all claims. This is the outcome to which both sides committed in the Oslo Accords.

Yet, nearly 27 years after the iconic handshake on the White House lawn, many Palestinian leaders still dream of Israel's demise. Official clergy, Palestinian Authority media, government-issued textbooks, and diplomats all speak of Israel's destruction. The Palestinian Authority's strategy over the last decade has been to try imposing a solution on Israel without negotiating, compromising, or ending historic claims, which extend beyond the vaunted 1967 lines. Even the Palestinians' repeated calls for international conferences and the establishment of a state through UN resolutions are intended to perpetuate the conflict, not end it.

Of course, it would be poor form to adopt such a belligerent position explicitly. In English (and French), the Palestinians' spokespeople speak primarily and passionately of ending Israel's "occupation" of the West Bank. Sympathetic Western audiences have earnestly adopted and parroted this message to the point that it now holds little meaning.

Weaponizing Lies Like ‘Apartheid’ Against Israel Won’t Get You Peace - by Cade Spivey

To be clear, matters of Israeli-Palestinian sovereignty are not beyond debate. There are political, religious, and human rights issues that should be debated and considered very deliberately. But reducing one side or the other to terms that are the very embodiment of evil through ad hominem labels or inappropriately applied legal definitions is not helpful, and does not produce meaningful outcomes for people living these truths daily.

Cade Spivey..
Algemeiner..
17 August '20..

On a long drive from my native Indiana to to the state of Virginia, I listened to a podcast wherein the interview subject began with a fairly benign truism: “Words matter.”

The program, produced by Americans For Peace Now, began by stating that not every murder is a genocide and not all discrimination is apartheid. The interview then continued for another 30 minutes laying out a “legal” framework of apartheid, in order to shoehorn Israel into that definition, vis-à-vis Palestinian Arabs living in the West Bank.

I agree that words matter. The words we use to describe an issue directly influence the substance of a debate.

I further contend that facts matter, and that merely using legal terms to describe a legal framework does not establish facts independently. Law was not meant to be argued in the abstract.

The arguments made to establish Israel as an “apartheid state” on the podcast were irresponsible and unwarranted, and promoted key assertions that have become commonplace in the misinformed effort to establish Israel as an apartheid state.

The UN defines apartheid as “inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.”

The term was derived from the system of racial segregation imposed in South Africa from the late 1940s until 1994. Separation of the races was strictly enforced in public accommodation, trade, education, marriage, and even sexual acts. The purpose was to cement the power structures that existed at the end of the British colonization of the region.

The cynical invocation of the term is used in the hopes of eliciting a sympathetic response to the alleged victims — in this case, the Palestinian Arabs. When the term is used to describe Israel, it is as inappropriate an analogy as comparing apples to hand grenades.

(Continue to Full Column)

BTW, Remember the Arab boycott of Israel? It is still the official policy of the Arab League - by Elder of Ziyon

The Arab League is a living example of the Arab honor/shame mentality. It cannot officially accept that the world has changed since the days of the Arab oil embargo. Dismantling the Boycott Office would be an admission of “defeat.” And no one wants to show any cracks in Arab unity which would undermine the entire purpose of the Arab League. Since Syria prioritizes the BDS agenda, and no one opposes a paper committee that does nothing in reality, they continue to meet, twice a year, unwilling to say out loud that they are wasting their time.

Elder of Ziyon..
14 August '20..

This week was the 94th conference for the liaison officers of the regional offices of the Arab boycott of Israel that started before Israel was reborn.

The Arab League boycott of Israel has been in place since 1945, when the brand new organization said, “Products of Palestinian Jews are to be considered undesirable in Arab countries. They should be prohibited and refused as long as their production in Palestine might lead to the realization of Zionist political aims.”

Even though most Arab countries have stopped enforcing the boycott – the only exceptions now being Syria and Lebanon – the Central Boycott Office remains.

(Continue to Full Post)

Hoping they will kick their addiction to the war on Zionism - by Jonathan S. Tobin

After the Israel-UAE normalization deal, will the Palestinians or the Jewish left realize that events require them to change their thinking? Don’t bet on it.

Jonathan S. Tobin..
JNS.org..
13 August '20..

On a day when something historic and obviously positive happens, it’s always instructive to listen to those who aren’t joining in the cheering. While even many critics of President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had to applaud the U.S.-sponsored diplomatic deal struck between Israel and the United Arab Emirates for “full normalization of relations,” there were still some who were decrying it.

Both the Palestinian Authority and their Hamas rivals were united in describing the agreement as a “betrayal” and a “black day in the history of Palestine.” They are angry about an Arab state deciding that they will no longer remain hostages to the Palestinians’ century-old war on Zionism.

Equally upset were some on the Jewish left. Anti-Zionist groups like Jewish Voice for Peace and IfNotNow proclaimed their solidarity with the Palestinian rejectionists. Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), a congressional supporter of the anti-Semitic BDS movement, tweeted that it was a “sweetheart business deal,” and using language that seemed similar to the statement issued by Hamas said it would merely prolong Israeli “apartheid” and “land stealing.”

But even those on the left who approve of the UAE’s willingness to normalize ties with Israel couldn’t do so wholeheartedly. J Street said that while it welcomed Netanyahu’s decision to suspend plans to extend sovereignty over parts of the West Bank, it was wrong to “leave Palestinians on the outside looking in.” Elsewhere on the left, the same rhetoric about “occupation” and “apartheid” continued, coming, for example, from Obama-administration Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes.

(Continue to Full Column)

Welcome to the Palestinian War on History - by Bassam Tawil

For Palestinian leaders, denying Jewish history and heritage is far more important than combating a range of domestic crime that runs wide and deep. As Palestinians bury the victims of violent crime week after week, Abbas and his officials take step after step to bury their own credibility. The winners? The Iran-backed Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, who dream of extending their control from the Gaza Strip to the West Bank. This dream, thanks to the lawless and lethal regime of the Palestinian Authority -- funded by the West -- appears closer than ever.

Bassam Tawil..
Gatestone Institute..
11 August '20..

Palestinian leaders seem more worried about an Israeli plan to install an elevator for disabled people at the Tomb of the Patriarchs and Matriarchs in the West Bank city of Hebron than about a Palestinian upsurge in violent crime.

The Israeli government recently approved the construction of a handicapped access elevator at the holy site. "Every person, irrespective of whether or not they are disabled, should have the opportunity to visit the tomb, which is an important Jewish heritage site," said former Israeli Defense Minister Naftali Bennett. "The tomb belongs to us after Abraham bought it with his own money 3,800 years ago."

The 2,000-year-old structure was built by King Herod the Great to house the Cave of Machpela, burial site of the Biblical founding fathers and mothers. The site, divided into separate Muslim and Jewish prayer areas, has only steep staircases for entrances.

The decision to build the elevator came in response to the Israeli Equal Rights for People with Disabilities Law that requires every public structure to be fully accessible to the disabled.

Palestinian leaders, however, do not seem to care about the rights of people with disabilities, particularly when it comes to providing access to Jews who want to pray at one of their holiest sites. These Palestinian leaders continue to deny any Jewish connection to the holy site on the pretext that it belongs exclusively to Muslims.

Palestinian Authority Foreign Minister Riad Malki has condemned the elevator plan as an Israeli "war crime" and a "violation of international law." In his opinion, enabling handicapped Jewish worshippers to enter the holy site is part of an Israeli scheme to "forge Palestinian history and heritage."

(Continue to Full Post)

The Daily Mirror: Where a Palestinian Terror Supporter is Called a Human Rights Defender - by Adam Levick

The fact that Electronic Intifada provides more information about the charges against Nawajaa than the Daily Mirror is extraordinary.

Adam Levick..
CAMERA UK..
10 August '20..

Here’s the text of a short article in the Aug. 7th Ireland print edition of the Daily Mirror titled “Protest over Palestinian man’s arrest”:

PALESTINIAN rights campaigners gathered at Leinster House yesterday to call for the release of a human rights defender.

Mahmoud Nawajaa is general coordinator of the international movement the Palestinian National Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Committee.

Campaigners called on the Irish government to condemn the arrest and push for his release.

Ireland-Palestine Solidarity Campaign chair Fatin Al Tamimi said the arrest is “yet another attack by the apartheid state of Israel on those who speak out and organise against its crimes.”

Note that the piece, which reads more like a press release from a pro-Palestinian organisation than a news article in a British media outlet, informs readers that Mahmoud Nawajaa, who was arrested by the IDF last week, is a “human rights defender”.

In addition to the fact that referring to a BDS activist as a “human rights defender” is itself extremely misleading, the Daily Mirror fails to mention that his work as an activist appears to have had nothing to do with his arrest.

In fact, even pro-Palestinian outlets (like Electronic Intifada) and NGO’s have conceded that the Sin Bet “alleged that Nawajaa belonged to a “proscribed” organization, had provided services to it, and had communicated with others in order to carry out attacks”. “Proscribed” groups typically refer to outright terror groups, or NGO’s which, in some way, are believed to provide material support for terror groups. The fact that Electronic Intifada provides more information about the charges against Nawajaa than the Daily Mirror is extraordinary.

(Continue to Full Post)

Longing for my daughter Malkie: Sbarro bombing, August 9, 2001 - by Frimet Roth

Why is my daughter's terrorist murderer still free in Jordan despite its extradition treaty with the US and our American citizenship?

Frimet Roth..
israelnationalnews.com..
08 August '20..
Link: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/284901

Nineteen years ago, our angel Malki was snatched from us in the Sbarro terror bombing.

Some may wonder how a pain can linger, oppress, ache and resist comfort for so long. Well, let me assure you, it can. And it does.

Sometimes, it feels more heart-wrenching to remember her life than it did when she was first murdered. There are so many family experiences and events that she has missed out on.

The bombing that took her life and those of 16 other innocent Jews was uniquely horrific. It has spawned numerous "miracle" legends about lucky people who came eerily close to being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It has even inspired a minor writer to fabricate an entire interview with me which he included in his published memoir as well as in a Los Angeles Times op ed.

It is often the only one of many bloody attacks mentioned when the Second Intifada is revisited. Photographs of the site minutes after the explosion - it is the busiest intersection in Jerusalem's city center - are often reprinted. The sight of baby carriages and strewn body parts is emphasized.

But for some reason what doesn't attract press coverage is the travesty of justice that ensued.

To the bafflement of my husband and me, despite our years of effort to achieve justice for our Malki and the other victims, there’s remarkably little concern about how the mastermind, the main perpetrator of the Sbarro terror attack, is today a free woman.

Jordanian Ahlam Tamimi scouted Jerusalem's streets during the summer of 2001 for a target that would offer the greatest possible number of Orthodox Jewish children. Having traveled with him by public transport from Ramallah, she escorted her "weapon", a suicide bomber called Al Masri, on foot from East Jerusalem to the Sbarro location.

She boasts of how she spoke English to him during their walk in order to pass as tourists. Police were at that very hour combing the city's streets for a terrorist about whom they had been alerted.

After instructing him to wait ten minutes before detonating so that she could escape unharmed, she fled back to Ramallah. There she calmly reported the attack on the nightly Arab language news program where she worked as the on-camera presenter.

In front of cameras, Tamimi has smiled to learn how many children she murdered and expressed dismay that the number wasn't higher. She has urged audiences on Hamas TV and on social media to emulate her deeds. The depths of her evil are apparent to all.

My husband and I are astounded. Why is it that she is still free? Why does this not disturb people more than it appears to?

The Beinart-like binational “solution”, that collapsed under the weight of Jewish blood and Arab intransigence - by Sean Durns

“The study of history,” British author Paul Johnson once wrote, “is a powerful antidote to contemporary arrogance. It is humbling to discover how many of our glib assumptions, which seem to us novel and plausible, have been tested before, not once but many times and in innumerable guises; and discovered to be, at great human cost, wholly false.”

Sean Durns..
JPost/Opinion..
06 August '20..
Link: https://www.jpost.com/opinion/brit-shalom-and-peter-beinart-analyzing-jewish-palestinian-land-solution-637784

From his home in New York City, the American pundit Peter Beinart has recently called to dismantle the Jewish state of Israel, advocating instead for a “one-state solution” – a binational Jewish-Palestinian Arab state. Beinart’s proposal was hailed as “a monumental, agenda-setting piece” by Washington Post foreign affairs columnist Ishaan Tharoor, among other analysts, many of whom live far from Israel. But it is nothing of the sort. Indeed, arguments for a binational “solution” are a century old – and they collapsed under the weight of Jewish blood and Arab intransigence.

Ninety-five years ago this past May, a group of philosophers, academics and theologians announced the formation of Brit Shalom (the Covenant of Peace) in British-ruled Mandate Palestine. Brit Shalom “sought to promote peace between Jews and Arabs, primarily by arguing that Jews should give up their quest for statehood,” historian Daniel Gordis noted in his 2016 Israel: A Concise History of a Nation Reborn.

The movement, Gordis documented, “never had more than a hundred members, but its influence far outstripped its members.” This was largely due to its composition. Brit Shalom members would, over time, include prominent and well-known Jewish figures like Judah Magnes, an American Reform rabbi and the future president of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and Arthur Ruppin, a famous economist and high-ranking Jewish Agency official, as well as well-known philosophers like Gershom Scholem and Martin Buber. Other future members would include then attorney general of Mandate Palestine, Norman Bentwich, and Edwin Samuel, the son of the first High Commissioner to Palestine Herbert Samuel. Brit Shalom even counted Albert Einstein as a supporter. The movement was, in every sense, confined to a small number of the elite and intelligentsia.

Initially, Brit Shalom conceived of itself less as a political party than as a “study circle” which hoped to influence debates about the future of Jewish self-determination. Brit Shalom’s foundational charter articulated the movement’s objective: “to arrive at an understanding between Jews and Arabs as to the form of their mutual social relations in Palestine on the basis of absolute political equality of two culturally autonomous peoples, and to determine the lines of their cooperation for the development of the country.”

The group founded a newspaper, She’ifoteinu (Our Aspirations), authored editorials and made public speeches advocating for the adoption of a binational state. But problems soon arose.

How will the application of Israeli law to Jewish communities affect regular people living there? - by Naomi Kahn

Thus far, the debate has failed to explain how sovereignty—or a lack thereof—impacts the lives of the people living in Judea and Samaria, no matter who they are.

Naomi Kahn..
JNS.org..
05 August '20..

The debate surrounding the application of Israeli law to Judea and Samaria—all, part or none of Area C—has taken up quite a lot of the airwaves, columns of print, seemingly endless hours of public discussion and debate and international diplomatic energy.

Thus far, the debate has been high-brow, focusing on geopolitical scenarios, legal rights and wrongs, ethics and history, but has failed to explain how sovereignty—or a lack thereof—impacts the lives of the people living in Judea and Samaria, no matter who they are. When it comes down to it, how will the application of Israeli law to Jewish communities in what is known as Area C, the portion of the disputed territory designated for full Israeli jurisdiction under the Oslo Accords, affect regular people living there?

To sharpen the focus on this seemingly simple question, we must first understand the current reality—the “temporary” situation that has existed since June 1967, and the mechanisms through which Israel continues to administer this territory and to oversee the lives of its residents.

After Israel’s crushing victory in the 1967 Six-Day War, the Israeli government was apparently frightened by its own success. Rather than taking the natural, normal, standard steps that have always been taken by governments to secure their own borders after a war of self-defense, Israel did not restore the originally intended and internationally recognized borders of the Jewish State by reinstating its sovereignty over the liberated territory of Judea and Samaria—which had been occupied illegally by Jordan for 19 years. Instead, Israel voluntarily placed this territory in a state of limbo, relegating its status to “disputed territory” and placing it under military rule. The law that would be enforced in these areas regarding property rights, it was decided, would revert to the system enacted by the last known sovereign—in this case, the Ottoman Empire.

Unbelievable as this may seem, Ottoman Land Law continues to be the law of the land in Judea and Samaria. Contrary to what far too many journalists and foreign “Middle East experts” whom I have met believe, the Ottoman legal system is enforced by the State of Israel across the board; it applies to both Jewish and Arab residents of Area C.

This anomalous situation is, in a nutshell, what makes the application of Israeli sovereignty in these areas so important, so logical and so beneficial for everyone who lives there, and for the State of Israel and its neighbors, as well. Simply put, Ottoman Land Law makes no sense in today’s world, and the situation as it stands is untenable.

(Continue to Full Column)

Who among our elected Knesset representatives are fighting against the pay-for-supporting-the-slay? by Sheri Oz

First, Israeli taxpayers have to, against our will, participate in pay-for-supporting-the-slay. Even when the Knesset election committee disqualified such terror supporters from running for office, our very own Supreme Court put them back on the ballots. And we will be paying their retirement as well. Second, our mainstream media refrain from informing us about what is going on under our noses in our own country.

Sheri Oz..
Israel Diaries..
03 August '20..

We criticize the Palestinian Authority (PA) for giving life-time salaries to terrorists, the amount determined by how many Jews they killed. And if the terrorist was killed in action, then his or her family gets the pension. We protest to foreigners to stop what has come to be called pay-for-slay. Our government even legislated against it in 2018 and since then has withheld transfer to PA banks of tax payments collected by Israel on behalf of the PA equal to the amount the PA pays terrorists. However, when the Corona pandemic seriously affected the general economy of the PA, payment transfers resumed, much to the dissatisfaction of a number of members of the Knesset who claim the law does not allow for freedom of choice in this matter. Mohammad Massad, former Palestinian terrorist and current Israeli citizen who saved the life of an IDF soldier even petitioned the Israeli Supreme Court requesting a stop-payment order.

But who among our elected representatives is fighting against the pay-for-supporting-the-slay that we see in some of those sitting alongside them in the very same Knesset hall?

Something horrifying (but not surprising, unfortunately) just happened in Shfaram this past Saturday (1 August 2020).

(Continue to Full Post)

There is another Israel out there - by Herb Keinon

They met as commentators were bewailing the seemingly irreparable split in the country and talking about the possibility of political violence, if not civil war. They met as Facebook, Twitter, the radio, television and newspapers were describing – and creating – an atmosphere of deep enmity and hatred everywhere. And they felt none of it.

Herb Keinon..
JPost/Opinion..
03 August '20..
Link: https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/israelis-have-more-in-common-than-not-with-one-another-opinion-637234

On Thursday evening, the night after Tisha Be’av, a group of about 20 reservists gathered in an apartment rented for one night in a moshav in the Beit Shemesh area to celebrate the upcoming weddings of two of their comrades.

This tight-knit group served together for three years in an elite army unit and fought together in one of the campaigns in Gaza. They include right-wingers and those on the Left, religious and secular, the wealthy and the struggling, Jews and non-Jews. They met at the same time a protest was taking place near the Prime Minister’s Residence on Balfour Street in Jerusalem.

They met after the media throughout Tisha Be’av was full of comments about how close Israel is to repeating the mistakes of the past and letting baseless hatred tear the country apart.

They met as commentators were bewailing the seemingly irreparable split in the country and talking about the possibility of political violence, if not civil war.

They met as Facebook, Twitter, the radio, television and newspapers were describing – and creating – an atmosphere of deep enmity and hatred everywhere.

And they felt none of it.

Some of those gathered agreed with the protests; some did not. Some abhor Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu; some do not. Some were suffering financially from the coronavirus; others had better luck. But there was no hatred in that group.

They all came from different places; they all had a different ideal of a perfect Israel. But there was no hatred. On the contrary, there was genuine respect and affection one for the other because of the path they traveled together. They told war stories, they joked, they drank, they caught up with each other.
They put into practice what Abraham Lincoln preached in his first inaugural address in 1861: “We are not enemies, but friends… Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory will swell when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.”

That, too, is Israel in the summer of 2020.

The land belonged to the State of Israel in 1967, and indeed in 1948. It belongs to us today. - by Victor Rosenthal

To answer the question posed by Elder of Ziyon, the land belonged to the State of Israel in 1967, and indeed in 1948. It belongs to us today. We are the aboriginal inhabitants of the land, we have never lost our connection to it, we have the imprimatur of international law, and we have (so far) successfully defended it. One of our greatest mistakes in the struggle for world opinion is not stressing this strongly or frequently enough.

Victor Rosenthal..
Abu Yehuda..
02 August '20..
Link: http://abuyehuda.com/2020/08/who-owns-the-land/

It never stops: Europeans complain about Israel building things, or rather, about Israelis planning to build things. Such activities, they claim are illegal, because according to them nothing east of the 1949 armistice line belongs to Israel.

But to whom does it really belong? A starting point is the question that the blogger who calls himself Elder of Ziyon asked in a tweet the other day: “what country was legitimately sovereign in Judea and Samaria on the day prior to the start of the 1967 war?”

Jordan illegally occupied the territory in 1948, when it was one of five Arab countries that invaded the area of the former British Mandate in order to try to prevent the Jews from creating a sovereign state there (and indeed, to try to kill and drive out the Jews from the land). In 1950 it (again illegally) annexed the area and named it the “West Bank.”

This aggression clearly violated the UN charter, and in the 19 years that Jordan held it, only two nations (Britain and Pakistan) recognized its purported ownership. Incidentally, the Jordanians committed numerous war crimes during their conquest and occupation, starting with the violent ethnic cleansing of its Jewish inhabitants, and including the deliberate destruction of synagogues and the refusal to allow Jews and Christians to visit their holy sites in Jerusalem – something Jordan had agreed to in the cease-fire agreements.

For several reasons, Israel’s claim in 1967 was stronger than that of Jordan’s. One is that the beneficiary of the Mandate is the Jewish people; it refers to the creation of a “Jewish Home” and not an Arab one. It is also reasonable to understand the “home” as being a state, although probably the British envisioned it as more like a protectorate within their empire. And an Arab state (Jordan) had already been created in part of it.

Another argument is the doctrine of uti possidetis juris, which holds that new sovereign states resulting from decolonization get the same boundaries as the former colonial entities (an article explaining the application to Israel is here). The doctrine is intended to prevent the creation of “no-man’s lands” which could become the source of conflict – as indeed this area has!

I haven’t mentioned the 1947 UN partition resolution for an important reason: it is irrelevant to international law. As a General Assembly resolution, it was only a recommendation; and since the Arabs immediately rejected it, it was never implemented. It did express the will of the majority of UN members at the time that a Jewish (and Arab) state could be created in the area between the Jordan and the Mediterranean, but it had no binding force.

Finally, there is the argument for the rights of the oldest extant indigenous people – the aboriginal inhabitants.

Israel's Nation State Law: Arab IDF Commander-in-Chief? Arab Prime Minister? - by Sheri Oz

...Ironically, however, the very fact that Balad actually proposed a bill directly challenging the existence of Israel as a Jewish state may have been the impetus that led to the passage of the law in record time.

Sheri Oz..
Israel Diaries..
02 August '20..

In his article in Yisrael Hayom, law professor Dr Shaul Sharf asks an interesting question against the background of the Knesset vote last Wednesday (July 29) rejecting a bill to amend the two-year-old Law. Sharf asks: does the existence on the books of Israel’s Nation State Law make having an Arab IDF Commander-in-Chief a good thing or a bad thing? I would like to expand that question and ask if it makes it possible to envision the situation in which we have an Arab Prime Minister. Neither of these are against any law in Israel, and both are currently equally unfathomable.

This is a long article and I hope you will bear with me to the end.

There seem to be two major groups in Israel opposed to the Nation State Law. One group has nefarious motives and the other group is made up of naive Jews and emotion-driven non-Jews who apparently do not understand the nature of legislation even though some of them are Members of Knesset and others journalists.

It is clear that the the motive behind attempts to modify the Nation State Law on the part of the first group is, ideally, to get it deleted from the law books entirely — much as they would like to wipe the entire Jewish state off the map. This group includes the Joint Arab List and their partners outside the Knesset, such as the NGO Adalah. Since the Nation State Law is a Basic Law, however, rescinding it may prove to be next to impossible. Therefore, the best they can do right now is try to have it watered down or at least to keep the Law in the headlines as part of anti-Israeli propaganda campaigns within Israel and around the world.

The second group is made up of naive do-gooders, such as Yair Lapid, and supposed innocent victims of the Law. They think they are acting from a humanitarian civil rights position. They believe the rhetoric that the Nation State Law turns the non-Jewish citizens of Israel into second-class citizens. Why? Because that is how some, such as respected Druze journalist Riad Ali, say the Law makes them feel. And hurt feelings make an impression on Jews who cannot bear the thought that something we do for ourselves might be experienced negatively by someone else. It was heartbreaking to see Ali cry on a national television news broadcast when talking about the impact of the Nation State Law on him, personally, yet I wonder if he even read the law before deciding to feel insulted.

(Continue to Full Post)