Education in Israel (Forest Rain)

Last week I attended the graduation ceremony at Tiltan, one of Haifa's two art schools.

It is stunning to consider that, in a city with a population of approximately 300,000 residents, we have two universities, including the world renowned Technion Institute, two art colleges and a teacher's training college. Haifa also has one of the most famous high-schools in the country - which was founded 103 years ago, before Israel became a State. We have one of the best grade-schools in the country as well.

Education has always been important to Jews. We are, after all, the People of the Book.

Tiltan is a school of design and visual media. The student population, like at all the institutes of higher education in Haifa, is mixed Jewish and Arab.

The graduation ceremony I attended took place on the roof of the school. It was packed. The sheer amount of creative people all together was amazing to consider and doubly so after learning that the ceremony was split in to two sections, according to what the students studied. There were simply too many students to include in a single event. When considering that this is just one of two art schools in Haifa it becomes even more remarkable.

There was an exhibition of student projects on each floor of the school. The projects are made available for public viewing so that, in addition to displaying the students' achievements for friends and family, business people can come scout out fresh talent they would like to work with.

The building itself is interesting. The funky interior design is what could be expected of any art school, anywhere in the world. It is in the basement where visitors can see the building's past – under the British Mandate it was used as a bank and it still has safe-rooms, where the money was once stored, fortified doors and all.

The ceremony was uniquely Israeli; very simply arranged and ultra-casual but it was the content that made it unlike anything you would find anywhere else in the world.

The ceremony started acknowledging students who had been killed in terror attacks over the years, people whose families donated scholarships in memory of their loved ones. These scholarships were given to exceptional students: men and women, Jews and Arabs.

First, second and third year students who were outstanding in their field of study received certificates of excellence. More than one student was honored for their kindness towards others, for going out of their way to assist people in need.

From the beginning of the ceremony a woman sat at the side of the stage, translating everything in to sign language. Who was she translating for? Simultaneous sign language translation is done for prime time news on tv but is not something one would normally see at a graduation ceremony. It wasn't long before I discovered the explanation. The student deemed the overall most outstanding in her studies also happens to be deaf. This translator had attended every class with her throughout her three years of study! Many of students, her friends, surrounded her, also speaking in sign language.

Everyone in the audience quickly learned that raising your arms and shaking your hands signifies applause which was given with great enthusiasm.
In an aside, the Master of Ceremonies, noted that this student would also be participating in the upcoming Olympics though he did not say in what capacity.

At one point a certain student was invited to the stage. I wondered how he would mount the stage as he was in a wheelchair and there were a few steps to reach the stage. Out of nowhere a few students unfolded a mobile ramp, set it in place and made sure it was safe for the young man to roll up and take center stage. To my surprise music began playing and the young man began singing.

Did you know it's possible to dance in a wheelchair?

His song was about hopes, dreams and achievement. The crowd was moved by the strength of his performance, the uplifting music (not by his handicap).

For those attending, not already familiar with the story, we were given an explanation. This young man had not been wheelchair-bound all his life. It was in 2009 that his life changed. He was one of the victims of an attack that horrified the nation: a psychopathic nut shot up a youth LGBT nightclub, murdering two and injuring others. This was one of the injured.

He will never be able to walk again but he soars on his music, proving to us all that it is possible to skip walking and move straight to flying…

As the ceremony continued, the ramp was moved aside just as swiftly as it had been put down. A representative of the bereaved families stood up to speak and present the scholarships. He spoke of his daughter who had been blown up in a suicide attack in Haifa. He spoke of her creativity and how he was happy that other students could expand on her ideas, how the students should grasp on to even the most fleeting of ideas, never dismissing them, because it is impossible to know what something that began small could eventually grow to be...

I watched as the graduating students received their certificates. Jews, Arabs, new immigrants, young and older students. People of all shapes and sizes. One mother received her diploma with a baby in her arm and her older children by her side. The ramp was again brought out to accommodate a different student in a motorized wheelchair. It seemed like he was born with cerebral palsy which weakens and can, as in his case, deform the body but does not affect the quality of the mind inside the head.

After the ceremony was over, the exhibition of student projects was officially opened. Some were not that great. Most were really interesting, thought provoking and unusual.

It was a night celebrating academic achievement, education and accomplishment.

Education is important but the real education isn't in books.

In a ceremony honoring so many talented people and so much obvious academic achievement, the real accomplishment, the real education was in being a better human being: someone who knows that value is in content of character, not the way a person looks, their background or anything else.

The real education was in the understanding that if you allow your spirit to soar and you try hard enough nothing can ever hold you back: "If you can dream it, you can make it real."

How very Israeli.

---

---

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

Read More

Herr Augstein sees no reason to criticize Turkey (Petra Marquardt-Bigman)

By Petra Marquardt-Bigman

It was already four years ago that the Simon Wiesenthal Center included the fairly prominent left-wing German journalist and publisher Jakob Augstein in its annual list [pdf] of people and groups responsible for the “Top 10 Anti-Semitic/Anti-Israel Slurs.” The ensuing controversy was explained in an excellent Tablet articleby James Kirchick.

A few days ago, it became clear that this controversy still reverberates: when Augstein reacted to news about the massive crack-down that followed the recent coup attempt in Turkey by declaring nonchalantly on Twitter that “Turkey’s democracy is none of our business; it’s up to the Turkish people,” Many people noted that his attitude to Israel (and the US) was markedly different. There was also astonishment that the staunch leftist would use the term “the Turkish people;” many noted in response that Augstein seems to feel no concern for Turkey’s minorities, particularly the Kurds. Unfazed by all this criticism, Augstein doubled down with another tweet asking: “What if the Turks have different requirements for their democracy than we for ours?” Again, this was an attitude that Augstein apparently reserves for Islamist governments mercilessly cracking down on their real or perceived opponents.

A sarcastic comment by the always brilliant Walter Russell Mead could serve as an excellent rejoinder to Augstein’s eagerness to overlook the alarming developments in Turkey: reacting to the news that the crack-down extended to universities, schools, hospitals, associations, foundations and unions, Mead mocked the argument that these measures were the prerogative of Turkey’s democratically elected government by tweeting“Thank goodness the forces of democracy broke the coup, or terrible news would be coming out of Turkey today.”

Quite obviously, Augstein’s stance doesn’t make sense, because what is going on in Turkey is very consequential for Europe, and it is arguably particularly important for Germany, where Turks form the largest ethnic minority and the largest group of non-citizens. Then there is the little matter of the endless debates and negotiations about Turkey’s accessionto the European Union (EU), which has meant that Turkey’s democracy and its policies have long been seen as issues that are very much also the EU’s business. Moreover, given that Turkey is a NATO member, concernsabout the current crack-down are all the more warranted.

To be sure, German media are full of critical commentaries about the developments in Turkey. One report, entitled “Alarm in Germany over Turkey” even notes that a prominent German history professor argued that the measures taken by Erdogan “amounted to a ‘total seizure of power’” as described in history textbooks “and exemplified in 1933 when democracy was eliminated in Germany by the National Socialists (Nazis) under Adolf Hitler.”

Since this history professor is known as a strong supporter of Israel, Augstein is likely to disagree with him on principle.

Augstein’s eagerness to shield Turkey’s repressive Islamist government from criticism throws his eagerness to criticize Israel into stark relief. In this context it is worthwhile to revisit and update the controversy that ensued in the wake of the Wiesenthal Center’s attempt to name and shame Augstein. In the already cited article from January 2013, James Kirchick summarized the case against Augstein as follows [emphasis added]:

“To prove its case against Augstein, the Wiesenthal Center highlighted five excerpts from his articles over the past year. In one April column, Augstein alleged that “the president [of the United States] must secure the support of Jewish lobby groups” in order to stay in office. In the same column, he wrote that “the Netanyahu government keeps the world on a leash with an ever-swelling war chant.” In another column from November, Augstein wrotethat, “the Jews also have their fundamentalists, the ultra-orthodox Haredim,” who are “cut from the same cloth as their Islamic fundamentalist opponents. They follow the law of revenge.” In that same piece he referred to the Gaza Strip as a “lager,” a German word meaning “prison camp” which is redolent of the Nazi era. And then, in a piece endorsing Grass, he wrote that “Israel’s nuclear power is a danger to the already fragile peace of the world.”

Kirchick rightly notes that Augstein’s views are fairly common “in the world of anti-Israel polemicism.” However, according to him, “arguably the worst of Augstein’s columns was one from Septemberthat initially garnered the Center’s attention. The subject was the riots that erupted in response to the crude video lampooning the prophet Muhammed.” Augstein wrote there [emphasis added]:

“The fire is burning in Libya, Sudan, Yemen, in countries that are among the poorest in the world. But the arsonists sit elsewhere. The angry young men, who burn the American—and more recently, German—flags are as much victims as the dead of Benghazi and Sana’a. Who benefits from such violence? Only the madmen and the unscrupulous. And this time also—as an aside—the U.S. Republicans and the Israeli government.”

As Kirchick went on to explain:

“Arguments resorting to “Cui bono?” usually have a conspiratorial odor, and this one was no exception. Once again, the lazy moral equivalence characteristic of Augstein’s writing was apparent in his comparing the murdered American Ambassador Chris Stephens with the rent-a-mobs, who regularly ignite American flags at an imam’s whim, as analogous “victims.” Augstein’s rant also displayed an astonishing unfamiliarity with regional politics, for if he knew the first thing about the Israeli government he so despises, he would be aware that it is hardly made up of people enthusiastic about the changes the so-called Arab Spring has wrought.”

Last December, Augstein again attracted criticismwhen he noted in a column about far-right groups in France and Germany that “fascism was not just a phenomenon of the past,” while asserting at the same time that it was not surprising that the German far-right “had no problem with Israel” because the Israeli government was equally far-right. And while Augstein was worried about fascist tendencies on the far-right, he saw no reason to worry about antisemitism.

Now Herr Augstein sees no reason to criticize Turkey’s repressive Islamist government. He probably regards Erdogan and his AKP as “moderate” Islamists – very different from Israel’s terrible “ultra-orthodox Haredim,” who, as Herr Augstein sees it, are “cut from the same cloth as their Islamic fundamentalist opponents. They follow the law of revenge.” Incidentally, “Law of Revenge” was the title of the column where Augstein not only asserted that Israel’s ultra-orthodox were the equivalent of Hamas, but where he also insinuated that Israel was fighting against Hamas only because – just like Hamas – Israel was motivated by the “law of revenge.”

Let’s conclude with a few recent headlines:

“Erdogan’s revenge: Turkey’s president is destroying the democracy that Turks risked their lives to defend.” (The Economist)

“Mr. Erdogan’s Reckless Revenge” (NYTeditorial)

“The Revenge of Turkey’s Erdogan” (WSJ)

“Live updates: Erdogan vows revenge after Turkey coup attempt” (itv)

Looks like someone is following “the law of revenge” – if only there was a way to blame Israel for it...

---

---

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

Read More

The Parameters of the Discussion (Michael Lumish)

Most Westerners - left, right, and center - think of the never-ending conflict between Israel and the "Palestinians" as one between a country with one of the most prestigious and effective armed forces in the world versus a small and hapless, but plucky, indigenous population.

What we need to do is change the parameters of the discussion.

So long as people put the discussion within the context of a large military power versus a small indigenous population, we can never possibly win the argument. So long as the Arabs within the Land of Israel are seen as "Davids" with slingshots and the Jews of the Middle East are perceived as a "Goliath" than western sympathies will always go to feisty little David.

Thankfully, unlike the Palestinian Narrative of Perpetual Victim-hood, we actually have history and demographic reality on our side in terms of the discussion from an ethical standpoint.

History: the Jew as Dhimmi

The first thing that pro-Israel / pro-Jewish advocates need to do is put the conflict within historical context. An old pro-Israel acquaintance of mine used to say "history did not begin in 1967." 

That is, in order to understand the Long Arab War Against the Jews, we need to place it within the long history of Jewish people living under Arab and Muslim imperial rule from the seventh-century until the demise of the Ottoman Empire with the conclusion of World War I.

From the time of Muhammad, until Islam ran head-first into modernity and the twentieth-century, the Jews of the Middle East were second and third-class non-citizens under the boot of Arab and Muslim imperial rule. However bad African-Americans had it in the United States under the vile rules of Jim Crow, it was never worse than Jewish people had it as dhimmis and what we call "dhimmitude" lasted one heck of a lot longer.

As dhimmis in Arab and Muslim lands, Jews (and Christians) could ride donkeys but horses were forbidden.

As dhimmis in Arab and Muslim lands, Jews (and Christians) were forbidden from building housing for themselves taller than Muslim housing.

As dhimmis in Arab and Muslim lands, Jews (and Christians) had no rights of self-defense.

As dhimmis in Arab and Muslim lands, Jews (and Christians) had no recourse to courts of law.

As dhimmis in Arab and Muslim lands, Jews (and Christians) had to pay protection money to keep their families safe from violence.

And this is one of my favorites, in certain times and places under Arab-Muslim imperial rule Jews were not even allowed to go outside during rainstorms lest their Jewish filth run into the street and infect their pure Muslim neighbors.

The point, however, is that just as we would never discuss African-American history without reference to both Jim Crow and slavery, so we must not discuss the Long Arab War against the Jews without reference to thirteen-centuries of Arab and Muslim oppression against all non-Muslims in the Middle East, including Christians and Jews.

This is not merely a political tactic. It is a matter of framing the conversation within something that resembles an historical context. The historical context is vital because without it the conflict is incomprehensible outside of the prominent western notion of mindless Jewish malice toward Arabs, presumably as unjust payback for the Shoah.

Demographic Reality: the Scope of the Conflict

Westerners think that this is a fight between big, strong, mean Israel against the innocent, thumb-sucking "indigenous Palestinians" over land.

It isn't.

What the struggle actually is is an ongoing attempt by the Arab peoples to force Jews back into dhimmitude out of a Koranic religious imperative. 

This is a struggle not between Jews and "Palestinians" but between Jews and Arabs because of Arab-Muslim religious reasons. It is due to al-Sharia. If Israel were a 23rd Arab-Muslim country it would, indeed, be hailed the world over as a "light unto the nations."

The reason that the Arab peoples generally despise Israel has nothing to do with Jewish treatment of Arabs and Muslims within Israel. Arabs and Muslims within Israel are treated better than are Arabs and Muslims throughout the entire Middle East. The reason that Arabs and Muslims despise Israel is not due to Israeli behavior. They hate Israel because it is Jewish, a nation of infidels, who dare to hold land that was once part of the Umma.

And not just any infidels, but the very worst of the infidels, we children of orangutans and swine.

But the fact of the matter is that there are somewhere around 300 to 400 million Arabs within the Middle East. They outnumber the Jews by a factor of 60 to 70 to 1 and, for the most part, want those Jews either dead or gone.

This is not a war between a Jewish Goliath and a Palestinian David, as left-wing anti-Semitic anti-Zionists would have you believe.

This is a war against the Jews of the Middle East by the much larger and highly aggressive Arab and Muslim population in that part of the world. As far as Hamas and Hezbollah are concerned this is explicitly an Arab war of Jewish extermination.

But the demographics in the region are not with the Jews, not by a long-shot.

The Jews of the Middle East have been forced to create Fortress Israel, because the Arabs would not have it any other way. It is easy for the Arabs. Given the fact that they so outnumber the Jews it only takes a small percentage of their resources to put terrible pressure on the small Jewish population in the Middle East so that those Jews are forced to militarize.

And, needless to say, the local Arabs, the Palestinian-Arabs, are nothing but cannon fodder as far as their brothers and sisters throughout the rest of the region are concerned.

The Jews of Israel want peace more than anyone, because they are under constant threat and harassment in every single venue imaginable, from international sports to academia to the UN, the EU, and a continuing wave of little Arab kids with hand-axes.

Those of us who wish to stand up for the Jews of the Middle East, the Jews of Israel, need to frame the conversation in a manner that comports with history and the actual demographics of the fight.

We need to place our end of the conversation within an expanded context that includes centuries of Jewish history under Arab and Muslim imperial rule and that appreciates the actual geographic scope of the war against the Jews in the Middle East.

Michael Lumish is a blogger at the Israel Thrives blog as well as a regular contributor/blogger at Times of Israel and Jews Down Under.

---

---

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

Read More

The Economist unwittingly predicts the Palestinian future

The Economist writes what we've been saying for several years now, that the Arab world has far higher priorities than the Palestinian issue.

This has contributed to a more general sense of unease among the Palestinians. Officials in other parts of the Arab world talk more about Iran’s meddling, the wars in Syria, Iraq and Yemen, and their own domestic economic and political troubles. Such issues seem more pressing to their people. And besides, many Arabs are resigned to the stalemate in the peace process. Mr Netanyahu appears intransigent; Palestinian leaders are seen as divided, ineffective and corrupt.

Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, still makes the rounds in Arab capitals—and foreign leaders still profess their support. But the Palestinians are aware of their diminished status. In a recent poll 78% of them said their cause was no longer the top Arab priority, and 59% accused Arab states of allying themselves with Israel against Iran. The amount of aid flowing from Arab countries to the PA has fallen by well over half in recent years. Funds from the West have also declined.

The most telling part of the article is the very end:

What really stirs Arab emotions are scenes of Israelis killing Palestinians. Violence over the past year has left dozens of Israelis and more than 200 Palestinians dead. Most Palestinians, according to polls, back a return to an armed intifada (uprising). With the Arab world focused elsewhere, America in the throes of a presidential race and progress towards a two-state solution halted, they may see no other way to capture the world’s attention.

I don't think that The Economist quite realizes the truth of that last sentence.

The Palestinians are faced with declining support from their fellow Arabs, who are increasingly impatient with their lack of unity and apparent lack of caring about their own people, not to mention their complaints about how terrible their situation is when much of the Arab world that doesn't get the headlines has it far worse.

But instead of getting the message that they had better start to think seriously about peace while they can, the Palestinians always act as if the goal isn't a state - but to get themselves back on top of the news cycle.

The Economist has unwittingly revealed that Palestinians prefer war and terrorism to peace - because violence is where they gain sympathy. The price of hundreds or thousands dead is small compared to Palestinian Arab priorities, which are completely opposite what a real people who want a real state would assert.

This article shows that it is not only the Arab world that sees the truth about the selfish, forever entitled, whining Palestinians. The West knows this about them deep down as well. But the West is too heavily invested in the discredited memes that Abbas is a moderate, that Israel is intransigent, that "occupation" is what causes terrorism, and a litany of other Palestinian lies that have gained a foothold in the media, NGOs and academia. It is too good a story - a David and Goliath fantasy - to throw out based on mere facts.

Amazingly, the Arab world has woken up to the illusion of eternal Palestinian victimhood faster than the supposedly enlightened West. This is largely because the Arab world feels the consequences when attention and funding is diverted from places they are truly needed, like Syria and Iraq and Yemen, and instead wasted on yet more Palestinian gimmicks that only put a real solution further out of reach.

The Arab world shares with Israel the desire for stability, for a peace that can be counted on (whether official or not,) for war against terror and for a united front against the true regional villain, Iran. Compared to that, Palestinian demands before even talking with Israel are so obviously petty that Arab patience has worn very thin.

Palestinians see that they are losing support but instead of seeing what the real problems are, they are focused on how to make themselves appear relevant again. And they only have two tricks.

One is to gain more international recognition in world bodies that they then burn by placing themselves at the center at the expense of whatever good the organization had previously done. Everyone sees that for what it is, and you just know that UNESCO's leaders (for example) are fuming at how that organization has been subverted. Every cause from women's issues to children's issues to even cancer is simply another opportunity to bash Israel, and every one of those causes then loses support as a result of Palestinian selfishness.

The second trick is violence, whether it is the threat of another intifada or another war in Gaza.

One day very soon, a prominent Arab leader - probably from the Gulf - will say out loud what they have been saying privately for years, that Palestinians have been hijacking the world's attention to the detriment of everyone, not least the Palestinian Arabs themselves.

The Palestinians will respond by resorting to the gimmicks that have worked in the past - such as "Jerusalem is under attack" or "our children are being killed."

And the Arabs will simply respond that there are far more Muslims worshipping at Al Aqsa Mosque today than at any time it was under Jordanian control. That fewer Palestinians have been killed in 70 years than the number of Arabs killed by other Arabs in any given year. That the "genocide" that they claim they are suffering is somehow going in reverse.

The public solidarity with the puerile Palestinians is ending. The question is whether the Palestinians can learn to grow up before their cause disappears from Arab radar, and then from Western priorities as well.

---

---

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

Read More

The Republican platform gets Israel right (Vic Rosenthal)

 

 Vic Rosenthal's Weekly Column

---

---

Everyone knows that party platforms are just for atmosphere. They bind nobody to anything, and are quickly forgotten after the election. But I must say that the Republican platform plank on Israel – regardless of what one thinks of the candidate – is remarkable, including the very fundamental statement that “[w]e reject the false notion that Israel is an occupier…” as well as recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (and not, as in theDemocratic platform “a matter for final status negotiations.”)

And then there is what is not there. What has especially been noted is the absence of any mention of the so-called “two-state solution” (TSS), a consistent part of US policy since 1993.

Leaving it out today is not unreasonable. For the past 23 years we have been trying and failing to come up with a TSS acceptable to both sides, and as we shall see, there are good reasons for this. A partition of the land between the Jordan and the Mediterranean to create a sovereign Palestinian state is only one of numerous possible solutions to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs. Why should the platform of an American political party insist on one particular solution to a foreign conflict that ultimately can only be solved by the parties involved?

But Rabbi Rick Jacobs, president of the Union for Reform Judaism, who is himself neither a Republican, an Israeli nor a Palestinian, finds it ‘ominous’, a “dangerous turning point.”

Jacobs’ arguments are surprisingly weak. For example, he says,

But a one-state solution, the only alternative anyone has ever offered, allows the settlers to stay in place in their entirety, which perhaps is the intent of [David] Friedman [an adviser to Donald Trump involved in the platform drafting process], a strong backer of the settlements. This would subject Israel and the Palestinians to an endless cycle of violence.

I presume he is referring to the idea popularized by Caroline Glick and others that Israel should extend Israeli law to all of Judea and Samaria. One of the points in its favor is that one of the main causes of violence is precisely the Palestinian Authority, which incites murder on a daily basis in its media, official mosques, schools, and so forth. If it were removed there would be less violence, not more.

There is also the argument that the PA’s massive corruption is one of the main reasons for Palestinian unhappiness and frustration, and that the cause of peace would best be served by improving the daily lives of the Arab residents.

But in any event, this is not the “only” solution anyone has proposed. For example, Naftali Bennett, who presently holds the Education and Diaspora Affairs portfolios in Israel’s cabinet, suggested that Israel annex that part of the territories that are under full Israeli control under the Oslo accord (Area C), and leave the PA in control of Arabs living in the other areas. Area C contains the great majority of the Jewish communities and only a small number of Arabs.

There are still other possibilities. But Jacobs is stuck on this idée fixe that has held the Israeli Left and the American government in its grip for the last several decades, the TSS. 

Let’s look at some of the reasons that a TSS is unacceptable, even if such an agreement could be reached (don’t forget that far-reaching TSS proposals by Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert were rejected by the Arabs as not giving them enough).

1.       Security, security, security. The topography of the region is such that the only way to protect Israel’s center from rocket attacks and to defend the country from invasion from the east is to control the high ground in Judea and Samaria and the Jordan Valley. This is a matter of brute geological fact, not politics. Recent history in Lebanon and elsewhere shows that no international force or guarantee can replace the IDF.

2.       Land for Paper. Nothing that is agreed upon with one regime, the PA, would be binding on any future entity that might take control of the area, such as Hamas or even Da’esh. As a matter of fact, the PA itself has systematically violated the Oslo accords that it signed, so even without a regime change there is no reason to trust signed agreements.

3.       National Aspirations. Mahmoud Abbas himself made it clear that in the event of the establishment of a Palestinian state in the territories, he would immediately press claims against Israel “at the United Nations, human rights treaty bodies and the International Court of Justice.” The PLO, which runs the PA, does not aspire to live alongside Israel, it wants to redress Palestinian grievances from 1948, including ‘return’ of millions of descendents of Arab refugees to Israel, not the Palestinian state. This is why Abbas has always vehemently refused to agree that Israel is the state of the Jewish people or agree to a formula of “two states for two peoples.”

Jacobs also reruns the demographic argument, that 

It seems axiomatic that the alternative to two states is one state, since the demographics indicate that in the near future, the majority of that one state would not be Jewish. Such a state would then either be a Jewish state that would cease to be a democracy and disenfranchise millions of Palestinian souls, or it would be a democracy and cease to be Jewish. 

There are several reasons this isn’t true. First, nobody is including the 1.8 million Gazans in any “one-state” plan. Second, the number of Arabs in Judea and Samaria is overstated by at least one million by Palestinian sources. And third, the Arab birthrate is dropping and the Jewish one is rising, so there will not be a demographic ‘time bomb’. If Israel were to annex all of Judea and Samaria today, the population of the combined state would be 66% Jewish (the current percentage within the Green Line is about 80%). I am not arguing that Israel should do this, just pointing out that it would not change the fact of the Jewish majority.

Finally, Rabbi Jacobs refers several times to “extremists on both sides.” I presume the Palestinian extremists are the countless terrorists who stab, shoot, blow up and run down Jews every day because they are Jews. And the Jewish extremists? They write slogans on walls and build illegal shacks on hilltops in Judea and Samaria. Yes, there is one in an Israeli jail now accused of firebombing a Palestinian house and killing three family members. Even if it turns out that he is guilty – and I am still doubtful about that – it will be one person, rejected by almost all of Jewish Israel and punished by its justice system, alongside hundreds of Arab terrorists incited by the PA, encouraged and, afterwards, venerated by their society.

Rabbi Jacobs is for coexistence. So am I, which is why I oppose creating a base for terrorism on our doorstep, and why I see the Republican platform as a breath of fresh air.

---

---

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

Read More

The Arab world has an empathy problem (Forest Rain)

The Arab world has an empathy problem.

Yes. I said it.

Don't jump on me, hear me out. This is not about being derogatory to an entire culture, this is about a little discussed but very dangerous trend that is effecting the entire world.

Yes. This is a generalization. Again - this is NOT about individuals, it's about a culture.

To clarify (because many people find this confusing):
Not all Arabs are Muslim, there are Arab Christians too. In addition, not all Muslims are Arabs; for example the Muslims in Iran, Indonesia and Africa (who are converts to Islam). Arab culture stems from Islamic domination but is not consigned only to people of Muslim faith. There is an empathy problem in the Arab world. People of Arab decent raised in Western cultures will have more difficulty identifying with what I am writing. Looking to the Middle East (and ideology exported from the Middle East) things become more clear.

Empathy: the ability to understand and share the feelings of another. To be moved by the joy of another, to feel someone else's pain. A word seldom used, an idea seldom discussed... where does empathy come from? What happens when it is missing?

Nature abhors a vacuum. Where there is a lack of empathy, something else will enter the void and take its place.

In recent years it has become impossible to ignore the violence that seems to permeate the Arab world. 9/11, 7/7 and an ever increasing list of terror attacks have brought Arab violence in to focus: violence against women, animals, gays and the handicapped – violence against anyone weak. 'Honor killings,' fathers killing their own daughters, sons killing their own mothers in the name of 'honor'. Violence against Christians, Jews… Muslims killing Muslims that are not the right kind of Muslim. Muslims killing Muslims, killing their own neighbors. Trading in slaves. Terrorism: Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Al Qaeda, ISIS, Jabat Al Nusra, Boko Haram, Al Shabab, Hezbollah, Hizbut Tahrir… Did I miss anyone?

Even the most politically correct amongst us have difficulty explaining it away: "its workplace violence," "because poverty," "because Israel." None of these often postulated "reasons" stand up under scrutiny. Others, knowing there is no excusing the inexcusable, often go to the other extreme, saying that the solution is to ban all Arabs (i.e. all Muslims). There are those who add all kinds of unhelpful descriptions, the most popular being "monsters" and "in-human animals".

None of this does any good. In fact it is exactly the opposite: BOTH attitudes create a lot of damage. Turning a blind eye to atrocities does not make them go away. Defining people as monsters is equally damaging. Monsters can only be expected to behave in a monstrous fashion.

The true horror is that we are talking about people. It is people that are hurting other people (and animals) in atrocious, sickening ways.

The real question is: how can people commit acts of unspeakable violence and cruelty?

And the very politically incorrect but oh so crucial question: Why are atrocious acts so common in Arab society?

How could 17 year old, Muhammad Tarayra, sneak in to Hallel Yaffa Ariel's bedroom, look at the sleeping 13 year old and think it reasonable, even honorable, to slit her throat? How could his mother declare that she is proud that her son is a murderer?

How? Why?

It is not enough to say: "hatred flamed by incitement". There is something sacred about the life of a person. It takes an enormous void, a deep darkness inside to get to the point where it feels right to take the life of a child. Something is terribly wrong with the mother that rejoices in the death of her son, rejoices that he ripped away the life of someone else's child.

Neither saw Hallel as a person. To them, no life is sacred. Not hers or their own. There is no horror in slaughtering a child in her own bed. That was only a means to an end and thus both justifiable and praiseworthy.

This is not the existence of hatred for hatred burns itself out. Hatred can be transformed in to love – both are strong emotions, passions that are flipsides of the same coin. This is the lack of emotion, the inability to identify with emotions – not Hallel's, nor those of the people who loved her or even their own.

Empathy starts with small things. Early in life.

I have Arab friends (does that surprise you?). They are good, decent people. They aren't terrorist or violent, they are just normal people trying to live normal lives. With all that, it was in their home that I recognized the empathy problem.

A small incident connected the dots for me, something most people would probably overlook. It happened when they were playing with their grandson.

Their first grandson, a boy named after the grandfather, is a source of extreme pride and joy. They love the boy very much, spoil him rotten and would do practically anything for him.

I watched the grandmother take the grandson, a toddler about one year old, lift him high in the air and then roll him down her chest in a kind of summersault. The grandmother was laughing at the game she invented. The baby, frightened by the height and being turned upside-down began to cry. She knew it was just a game, nothing bad would happen so she continued – up in the air, flip upside-down, laughing while he cried.

The grandmother, did not feel the fear of her beloved grandson. A woman who would never purposely hurt this child in any way, scared him and laughed while he cried. She could not feel his pain. She had no empathy for him.

This is just a tiny incident but it is one amongst countless incidents in a life. A message from the people closest to this child, the people who will be the most influential in forming his personality.

If the people closest to him do not recognize his pain, if they laugh when he cries, what will he learn?

If, when he grows a bit older, he hurts an animal and it cries out in pain, will it be so strange for him to respond by laughing? (This too, I have seen far too many times.)

When he grows up and gets married, if he hurts his wife, emotionally or physically and she cries, how will he respond? Will it be strange if he does not see a reason to reach out in compassion?

Remember, this is a good family. A kind and decent family. What happens in families that are cruel and violent? In families that pro-actively support violent activities?

Most people are focusing on the manifestations of violence. I think we should take a good hard look at their source. Understanding the cause is the beginning of the solution.

It's all about empathy.

It begins with small incidents, very early in life. The void created by the lack of empathy is an open door, beckoning for violence to enter. The problem begins small but it is like a vacuum in space that pulls everything in to it. Light does not shine in the vacuum, everything implodes inwards.

The Arab world has an empathy problem. A big problem. And we are all suffering from the consequences.  

---

---

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

Read More

“The Jews are our misfortune” – 21st century edition (Petra Marquardt-Bigman)

By Petra Marquardt-Bigman

The slogan “Die Juden sind unser Unglück“ – i.e. “The Jews are our misfortune“ was popular in Nazi propaganda. It appeared prominently on displays of the weekly magazine “Der Stürmer” and was regularly printed at the bottom of the publication’s title page.

Quite obviously, this slogan could also serve as a concise summary of the antisemitic world view: whatever is wrong or bad in your life and in your world must somehow be the fault of the Jews. The Hamas Charter reflects this view perfectly in Article 22, illustrating at the same time how the Nazi slogan was adapted for contemporary politics with an updated version: “The Jewish state/Zionism is our misfortune.” While the relevant paragraphs clearly echo popular anti-Jewish stereotypes about scheming Jews with lots of money and monstrously evil designs, they are also a bit evasive about who exactly “the enemies” are, though the parts I emphasized (bold & underlined) are clear enough:

“For a long time, the enemies have been planning, skillfully and with precision, for the achievement of what they have attained. They took into consideration the causes affecting the current of events. They strived to amass great and substantive material wealth which they devoted to the realisation of their dream. With their money, they took control of the world media, news agencies, the press, publishing houses, broadcasting stations, and others. With their money they stirred revolutions in various parts of the world with the purpose of achieving their interests and reaping the fruit therein. They were behind the French Revolution, the Communist revolution and most of the revolutions we heard and hear about, here and there. With their money they formed secret societies, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, the Lions and others in different parts of the world for the purpose of sabotaging societies and achieving Zionist interests. With their money they were able to control imperialistic countries and instigate them to colonize many countries in order to enable them to exploit their resources and spread corruption there.

You may speak as much as you want about regional and world wars. They were behind World War I, when they were able to destroy the Islamic Caliphate, making financial gains and controlling resources. They obtained the Balfour Declaration, formed the League of Nations through which they could rule the world. They were behind World War II, through which they made huge financial gains by trading in armaments, and paved the way for the establishment of their state. It was they who instigated the replacement of the League of Nations with the United Nations and the Security Council to enable them to rule the world through them. There is no war going on anywhere, without having their finger in it.”

Indeed, a “Stürmer” cover from May 1934 that features a story about a murderous Jewish plan targeting all non-Jews would make a good illustration for this section of the Hamas Charter.

Even though it should be obvious enough that the Nazi slogan has been updated to “The Jewish state/Zionism is our misfortune,” there are endless debates about how to define contemporary antisemitism, and the question what, if any, anti-Israel activism should be regarded as antisemitic remains particularly contentious. But as I have argued elsewhere, there are countless examples that illustrate “that antisemitism is not a bug, but a feature of BDS: if your mission is to mobilize public opinion against the world’s only Jewish state in order to bring about its elimination, you will inevitably end up producing new versions of the Nazi slogan ‘The Jews are our misfortune.’”

Indeed, if one had to describe the output of professional anti-Israel activists like Ali Abunimah or Max Blumenthal and the sites they are associated with in one sentence, the most fitting one would be: “The Jewish state/Zionism is our misfortune.” And their audiences are certainly getting the message, as illustrated nicely in one minor recent example: in the wake of the coup attempt in Turkey, Twitter user Hadi Syed saw an article in Ha’aretz that emphasized that one of the suspected coup leaders had served as Military Attaché to Israel from 1998 to 2000. So Syed promptly tweetedthe article and tagged Max Blumenthal and Ali Abunimah, because he apparently knows full well that they are always interested in an Israeli angle if anything untoward is going on anywhere in the world.

Syed made a good bet: even though he has only 166 followers, his tweet got 95 re-tweets and 39 “Likes,” doubtlessly boosted by a retweet from Max Blumenthal as well as Ali Abunimah’s posting of the tweet together with the remark “Interesting.”

While Blumenthal and Abunimah may not find it worthwhile to promote this particular conspiracy theory now that the Hamas-friendly Islamist government in Turkey is mercilessly wiping out its opponents, they have often been determined to promote even the most absurd conspiracy theories in order to demonize Israel as the cause of everyone’s misfortune. One notable example is their promotion of utterly baseless claims that US police forces are brutal and abusive because they are inspired and trained by Israel. This particular subject is the specialty of their esteemed colleagueRania Khalek, who has produced numerous articles for Abunimah’s Electronic Intifada and other outlets implying that if it wasn’t for the world’s only Jewish state, the US and the world at large could be a much better place. The underlying message is indeed always the same: “The Jewish state is our misfortune.” And this lasting legacy of the “Stürmer” is by no means confined to the far-right.

---

---

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

Read More

Jews, Cops, and Black Lives Matter (Mike Lumish)

---

Writing in the Algemeiner, Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) president Morton Klein tells us:

#BlackLivesMatter co-founder Patrisse Cullors, and over 1,000 black “social justice” activists, including other leading #BlackLivesMatter activists and allies, signed a vicious antisemitic, anti-Israel manifesto called the “2015 Black Solidarity Statement with Palestine,” falsely accusing Israel of “ethnic cleansing,” “brutality,” “massacres,” “apartheid,” “theft,” and “one-sided slaughter.” The “Black Solidarity with Palestine statement” also “wholeheartedly endorsed” BDS. The statement also touted international trips by “representatives of Black Lives Matter, Ferguson and other racial justice groups to Palestine” to strengthen their “joint struggle.”

JEWS 

It is clear that the Black Lives Matter movement, whatever else it may be, is definitely no friend to the Jewish State of Israel and, therefore, no friend to the Jewish people, in general.

No other ethnic group in the United States, outside of black people, themselves, supported the Civil Rights Movement more than Jewish people.

Yet the Black Lives Matter movement supports BDS which means seeking to undermine Israel as the national homeland of the Jewish people. What this means, of course, is subjecting the tiny Jewish minority in the Middle East to the tender mercies of their not-so welcoming neighbors who just happen to outnumber them in that part of the world by a factor of 60 or 70 to 1.

The bottom line, however, is that any group that supports BDS - or defames Israel by flinging around hate-filled propaganda like it is confetti - should not get the support of any self-respecting Jew.

"Ethnic Cleansing"!

“Brutality”!

“Massacres”!

“Apartheid”! 

“Theft”!

“One-sided slaughter."!

There is something absolutely Medieval about all this.

This constant harping on the alleged misdeeds of the Jews has a very long and ignoble lineage. They might as well accuse us of killing Jesus or rolling non-Jewish babies around in barrels filled with spikes for the purpose of gathering the delicious goyisha blood to be employed in the ancient art of matzoh-making.

Every generation they tell one another just why it is that the Jews deserve a good beating. I mean, what kind of human beings would support one-sided slaughter? What does it say about the Jews of Israel that they practice land theft and apartheid? What does it say about them that they seemingly delight in the massacre of innocent children?

And what does it say about diaspora Jewry that they support such evil crimes against the innocent indigenous population?

Thus, what BlackLivesMatter is screeching to the world is that the very people who stood with African-Americans in solidarity, as they were breaking the shackles of Jim Crow. are, if not as oppressive as Nazis, at least as oppressive as Afrikaners during the period of South African apartheid.

{Thanks, guys. Much appreciated.}

Another question to ask, obviously, is where does all this leave American Jewish liberals?

BlackLivesMatter has the support of the president of the United States and, therefore, pretty much by definition, has the support of the Democratic Party.

This means that American Jews have the choice of either supporting a domestic political party that provides venues and financial assistance to anti-Semitic anti-Zionists or not supporting a domestic political party that provides venues and financial assistance to anti-Semitic anti-Zionists.

I, you will be shocked to learn, am going with the latter.

COPS

Morton Klein writes:

The #BlackLivesMatter movement’s incitement of anti-police violence helped create the environment that led to the Dallas massacre of police officers, according to experts including former New York City Police Commissioner Howard Safir; US CENTCOM official Colonel Derek Harvey, and National Association of Police Organizations Executive Director William Johnson. Johnson stated:

“It’s a war on cops. . . . I think their [the Obama administration’s] continued appeasement at the federal level with the Department of Justice, their appeasement of violent criminals, their refusal to condemn movements like Black Lives Matter actively calling for the death of police officers, that type of thing, all the while blaming police for the problems of this country has directly led to the climate that has made Dallas possible.”

I agree.

In just the same way that unjust anti-Semitic anti-Zionist rhetoric tends to result in the murder of Jews, so anti-cop rhetoric from Left organizations like BlackLivesMatter tends to result in dead cops.

This notion that white officers are running around the streets of America shooting up young black guys strictly for the hell of it is pernicious, wrong, entirely unjust, and results in violence against those who risk their necks on a daily basis to protect the American citizenry... including black people.

Black Lives Matter

According to a recent study by The National Bureau of Economic Research in a piece entitled, "An Empirical Analysis of Racial Differences in Police Use of Force", by Roland G. Fryer, Jr, the assumptions of BlackLivesMatter and their progressive-left allies are false.

The study did show some differentiation on how police around the country tended to deal with black people versus how they dealt with white people. So, for example, black people were 16 percent more likely to be placed in hand-cuffs upon arrest and 18 percent more likely to be pushed into a wall in the event of resistance.

However we also read this in the New York Times piece examining the story:

But when it comes to the most lethal form of force — police shootings — the study finds no racial bias. (My emphasis.)

“It is the most surprising result of my career,” said Roland G. Fryer Jr., the author of the study and a professor of economics at Harvard. The study examined more than 1,000 shootings in 10 major police departments, in Texas, Florida and California.

All this national chaos and mayhem and marching and rioting and, now, in Dallas, the murder of five innocent cops and for what?

What we are seeing in terms of this vile anti-Semitic anti-Cop movement is not grounded in anything that resembles reality.

What it really is is a chimera; it is the last gasp of 60s radicalism seeking to remain relevant... and innocent people, like those officers in Dallas, will die to feed this hungry ghost from the past.

Michael Lumish is a blogger at the Israel Thrives blog as well as a regular contributor/blogger at Times of Israel and Jews Down Under.

---

---

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

Read More