J Street Can’t Stand That Israel is a Jewish and Democratic State: Bradley Martin, The Hill, July 24, 2018 —On the day of Israel’s passing the “Jewish Nation-State Law”, J Street tweeted that the bill “was born in sin.”
The Discriminatory Attacks on Israel’s Nation-State Law: Judith Bergman, New York Daily News, July 24, 2018 —Is the international outrage against Israel’s nation-state law really about the law itself, or is it actually about the problem the international community has with accepting the reality of a Jewish state?
The Perils Facing Anglo Jewry: Isi Leibler, Jerusalem Post, July 16, 2018— Over 10 years ago, I warned that the passivity of the Anglo-Jewish leadership would likely lead to disastrous political consequences and negatively impact the younger generation, which was being inadequately educated to face its challenges.
Time for the Democratic Party to Recognize its Antisemitism Problem: Ari Liberman, Front Page Magazine, July 16, 2018— Jewish constituents who had previously been loyal to Labour to a fault, defected en masse to conservatives, and Labour’s leader, Jeremy Corbyn gave them virtually no choice.
On Topic Links
Boycott Israel Founder Confirms BDS Is About Ending the Jewish State: Paul Miller, American Spectator, July 12, 2018
Skewed focus in study of German anti-Semitism: Dr. Manfred Gerstenfeld, Arutz Sheva, July 3, 2018
Facing Chorus of Criticism Over UK Labour Antisemitism, Party Leader Jeremy Corbyn Announces ‘Disciplinary Action’ Against Prominent Jewish Critic: Ben Cohen, Algemeiner, July 19, 2018
Ireland’s Anti-Israel Bill and the Muslim Brotherhood: Lawrence A. Franklin, Gatestone Institute, July 23, 2018
J STREET CAN’T STAND THAT ISRAEL
IS A JEWISH AND DEMOCRATIC STATE
Bradley Martin
The Hill, July 24, 2018
The Israeli Knesset passed a landmark piece of legislation that enshrines the State of Israel as “the national home of the Jewish people.” The “Jewish Nation-State Law” officially declares that Israel is both a Jewish and democratic state, protecting the right of the Jewish people to exercise self-determination. On the day of its passage, J Street tweeted that the bill “was born in sin.” The so-called “progressive” lobbying group would go on to claim that “its only purpose is to send a message to the Arab community, the LGBT community and other minorities in Israel, that they are not and never will be equal citizens.”
Contrary to J Street’s assertions, this law does not violate the civil rights of non-Jewish Israeli citizens. Prof. Eugene Kontorovich of the Kohelet Policy Forum explains that there is nothing undemocratic about this legislation and that it is quite commonplace among Western democracies. “The law does not infringe on the individual rights of any Israeli citizen, including Arabs; nor does it create individual privileges,” writes Prof. Kontorovich. “The illiberalism here lies with the law’s critics, who would deny the Jewish state the freedom to legislate like a normal country.” In the European Union alone, at least seven countries have similar constitutional provisions that define nationhood as it applies to their respective contexts. A major difference is that Israel’s Declaration of Independence ensures complete social and political rights “to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex.”
Israel is undoubtedly the best place in the region for its Arab citizens to practice their religion and lead prosperous lives. The Jewish state is home to over 400 mosques, a fivefold increase since 1988. The Israeli government also provides the salaries of approximately 300 imams and muezzins, as well as funding for Islamic schools and colleges throughout the country. In Israel’s capital city of Jerusalem, only Muslims are legally allowed to pray on the Temple Mount in order not to offend Islamic sensibilities. Despite the Temple Mount being Judaism’s holiest place, the site is managed by an Islamic religious committee (waqf) with a history of destroying priceless Jewish artifacts unearthed at the site.
The Jewish state displays more respect for the civil rights of its Muslim citizens than they receive in Saudi Arabia, the most Islamic country in the world. According to the U.K.-based Islamic Heritage Research Foundation, over 90 percent of Saudi Arabia’s historical and religious sites have been destroyed since 1985. A Hilton hotel now stands on the site of Islam’s first caliph, while the house of Muhammad’s first wife has been turned into a block of toilets.
Throughout the Middle East, Islamic persecution against Christians has resulted in the population plunging from 14 percent in 1910 to less than 4 percent today. Yet since Israel declared independence in 1948, its Christian population increased over five-fold. Compared to any other religious group in Israel, the Christian minority fares the best in terms of education and can be found in every facet of Israeli life. Yet in the neighboring Palestinian-controlled territories, ethnic cleansing and persecution have reduced the Christian population from 15 percent of the population to less than 1.3 percent today. It is also absurd for J Street to accuse Israel of marginalizing its LGBT minority when Israel grants asylum and permanent residency to hundreds of gay Palestinians fleeing persecution.
On university campuses across the U.S., J Street supports groups that promote BDS, the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, some of which openly call for Israel’s destruction. J Street co-founder Daniel Levy put it this way: “There’s no reason a Palestinian should think there was justice in the creation of Israel.” Unless a cure is found for J Street’s anti-Israel derangement syndrome, this organization cannot possibly be considered pro-Israel, pro-peace… or even pro-progressive.
THE DISCRIMINATORY ATTACKS ON ISRAEL’S
NATION-STATE LAW
Judith Bergman
New York Daily News, July 24, 2018
Israel’s nation-state law has been widely condemned — with the European Union, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and a number of American Jewish organizations leading the denunciations. But is the international outrage really about the law itself, or is it actually about the problem the international community has with accepting the reality of a Jewish state?
The EU expressed concern that the law would “complicate or prevent” the two-state solution, whereas the OIC called the law “racist, void and illegitimate.” The ADL said that elements in the law “could undermine Israel’s cherished democratic character,” whereas the Union for Reform Judaism declared that the law would do “enormous damage… to the values of the state of Israel as a democratic and Jewish nation.”
The denunciations of the law have centered on two elements: The first is section 4 of the law, which says, “The state’s language is Hebrew.” This is no different from the French constitution, which provides that French is the language of France, or the Spanish constitution stipulating that Castilian is the official language of Spain.
The concern that the law will lead to discrimination of the Arab minority in Israel flies in the face of the guarantee contained within the law that the status given to the Arabic language before the law came into effect will not be harmed and that Arabic has a special status within the state. The international hysteria surrounding the provision is not based on facts, but on suppositions fueled by political agendas, which lead us to the second point of criticism.
The second point centers on the unique right to the exercise of self-determination in the state of Israel that the law bestows on the Jewish people. It is, again, completely uncontroversial under international law that the majority nationality of a nation-state enjoys the unique right to exercise its self-determination and the national sovereignty that flows from it.
It simply means that Israel is the sovereign state of the Jewish people — hardly a legal innovation. In Spain, for example, the constitution specifies that national sovereignty belongs to the Spanish people, and this principle — whether codified or not — is generally followed by European nation-states, which do not, as a rule, grant self-determination to the various minorities, even large ones, who are living in their territories. The international community, however, is outraged that the Jews would apply to themselves the same principle that is considered perfectly acceptable for the rest of the world.
Crucially, Arabs enjoy full state sovereignty in 21 Arab states, covering the territory of more than 13 million square kilometers (5 million square miles). In contrast, there is one Jewish state covering a territory of 22,000 square kilometers (8500 square miles). The international community, evidently, is finding it hard to stomach the existence of that minuscule Jewish state as an equal sovereign state.
The problem, therefore, is not that the nation-state law is discriminatory, or unique to Israel, but that large segments of the international community are determined to treat Israel in a unique and discriminatory manner, compared to how it treats all other nation-states. The uproar over the nation-state law, in this sense, is no different from the constant singling out of Israel for condemnation at the United Nations, especially at the UN Human Rights Council, a discriminatory practice that contributed to the decision of the U.S. to withdraw from the organization. The Palestinian Authority, with PLO Secretary General Saeb Erekat at the forefront, has seized the momentum of the international condemnations and is reportedly planning to take the law to the UN, claiming it violates the UN charter, and planning to petition the International Court of Justice for an opinion on it. The international community has once again done what it does best, when it comes to Israel: Fueled the conflict.
THE PERILS FACING ANGLO JEWRY
Isi Leibler
Jerusalem Post, July 16, 2018
Over 10 years ago, I warned that the passivity of the Anglo-Jewish leadership would likely lead to disastrous political consequences and negatively impact the younger generation, which was being inadequately educated to face its challenges. I described Anglo-Jewish leaders as “trembling Israelites, whose uppermost objective was to lie low and, above all, avoid rocking the boat.” The policy for confronting anti-Israel or antisemitic adversaries was summed up by then-president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews Henry Grunwald as the “softly softly” approach, generally opposing demonstrations and urging “not to shout when a whisper can be heard.” It was a classic case of shtadlanut – avoiding any public display and attempting to resolve problems by silent intercession.
Despite dissent from Jews at a grassroots level, the prevailing tendency of the leadership was also to ignore the fierce waves of antisemitism and hostility rising from both Muslim immigrants and the Left. At the time, Ken Livingstone, a 21st-century Oswald Mosley, was the mayor of London, ranting his anti-Israel and antisemitic utterances. The Jewish leadership sought to ignore him. When the Muslim leadership called for the abolition of Holocaust Memorial Day, the cowardly Board of Deputies leaders responded with an apologetic press campaign claiming that Holocaust Memorial Day was no longer restricted to Jews but also “covers Cambodia, Rwanda, the Balkans and elsewhere.” To enhance their social acceptability and approval ratings in the anti-Israel media, some Jewish leaders also publicly condemned Israel. Tycoon Mick Davis, then chairman of Anglo Jewry’s United Jewish Israel Appeal, made comments at the time unprecedented for a mainstream Jewish leader. Davis proclaimed that Israel was in danger of becoming an “apartheid” state and warned the Israeli government that its “bad” actions directly impinged on him in London. The Jewish leadership failed to condemn Davis for his remarks or request him to withdraw them.
In 2006, Melanie Phillips wrote Londonistan, a book predicting the growth of Islam in the UK and the consequent dangers facing society. She was immediately assailed by the Jewish leadership, which publicly condemned her as a mad extremist. Yet less than a decade later, the reality proved to be even worse than her nightmarish prophecies had predicted. The community was stunned when the Labour Party elected as its leader Jeremy Corbyn, who would qualify as a modern Trotskyist. He was a staunch supporter of the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement and made no secret of his hatred of Zionism. On various occasions, he associated with a variety of antisemites and even Holocaust deniers. He also supported terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah, which he maintained were committed to peace.
British Jews, the majority of whom were longtime Labour supporters, were shocked. More so after many Labour MPs uttered antisemitic remarks, leading to a pseudo-investigation by the party, after which a few of the most extreme were suspended but the majority were considered kosher on the tenuous basis that their comments were anti-Zionist rather than antisemitic. More recently, the party diluted the internationally accepted definition of antisemitism by removing references such as accusing Jews of being more loyal to Israel than to their own country; claiming that Israel’s existence is a racist endeavor; applying a double standard to Israel; and comparing contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
As a consequence, Jews have defected from Labour in droves, and in the last election the clear majority voted for the Conservative Party, whose leaders, especially David Cameron, were all highly supportive of the Jewish community. In 2015, Jonathan Arkush was elected president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews. After a series of cowardly leaders, who refused to speak out or protest against those promoting antisemitism, Arkush proved to be a courageous leader and boldly confronted antisemites, especially Corbyn. Since his assuming the position, the Board of Deputies has emerged as a true representative of the community. This, hopefully, will be maintained by his recently elected successor, Marie van der Zyl.
But the current situation is seriously worrying. Anglo Jewry faces grave threats. If an election were held today, there is every possibility that the next prime minister would be an outright antisemite. However, aside from that, an additional serious peril facing the community is the atmosphere from within. I refer to fringe groups like Yachad that publicly criticize Israel. Over 500 Jews signed a petition condemning the Board of Deputies for chastising Hamas and failing to deplore the Israeli killings of those attempting to penetrate Israel’s borders and engage in terrorist attacks. But the most worrisome development is the status of the younger generation, whose members have been influenced by leaders over the years to accept their fate and remain silent. Antisemitism at the universities has risen to record levels, and many, if not most, Jewish students simply lie low and try to avoid confrontations with anti-Israel Muslims and radicals. Moreover, even many committed Jews seeking social acceptability feel the need to be publicly critical of Israel.
Last month, there was an extreme display of this when a group of over 50 youngsters protested Israeli policy outside Parliament and then, emulating their American counterparts, named the individual Hamas terrorists killed trying to breach Israel’s border and recited kaddish for them. They also chided the Jewish community for not condemning “the Israeli occupation and the disproportionate force of the Israeli regime,” and expressed anger at Jewish leaders “for refusing to speak about the Nakba and refusing to listen to Palestinian initiatives.” Their behavior, which received national and even global exposure, shocked and embarrassed most Jews, but what occurred subsequently was even worse. Most of the youngsters involved were members of the Reform youth group Netzer, which purports to be Zionist. One of them, Nina Morris-Evans, had been appointed as a leader of a youth tour of Israel, but she was informed that her actions made her ineligible for this position. This led to a petition addressed to the Jewish leadership from over 100 signatories describing themselves as “past and present leaders from a range of Zionist youth movements.” They conveyed outrage at being “abused, harassed and bullied online – particularly in a violent, misogynistic manner extending even to death threats.” They pledged not to bow to intimidation and, as “Zionists,” would insist on supporting a plurality of narratives, including those critical of Israel.
What was significant about this petition was that all the participants were either former or current Zionist activists, including a small number from Habonim, the Labor Zionist youth movement, who were apparently unaware that their own party in Israel would have condemned them. But the majority were from Netzer, who obviously had the imprimatur of their rabbis, which accounted for the large number who signed such a hostile anti-Israel petition.
For the record, Reform Rabbi Laura Janner-Klausner and Geoffrey Marks, the chairman of Reform Jewry, described the abuse of Morris-Evans as “misogynistic and violent,” condemning the critics as “bullies,” stressing that Reform Judaism would encourage young people to express their views publicly. The reality is that today, most Reform rabbis are non-Zionist, and though paying lip service to love of Israel, they are in many cases outrightly critical and even anti-Israel. These elements are supported by Davis, now chief executive of the Conservative Party, who condemned those “seeking to hound kaddish participants from their jobs.” He added that there was an absence of Zionist leadership for which one turns “to Israel but finds little to inspire.” The response from the leadership was muted, and there is yet to be heard a reprimand by the Zionist Federation pointing out that such behavior is incompatible with purporting to be a Zionist. The Jewish Chronicle editorial adopted a neutral position, conceding that most Jews would consider the kaddish for Hamas warped, but claimed that the open letter reflected “a potentially seismic change in the community” and called for “goodwill on all sides.” Anglo Jewry is confronting painful challenges. The fact that “Zionist” youth can publicly express such hostility toward Israel reflects a breakdown in education.
While most British Jews remain committed to Israel, in most cases, the leadership fails to publicly confront and dissociate itself from anti-Israel Jews. It legitimizes them when applying the policy that the community must tolerate the presence of extremists within the “big tent.” There will be disastrous long-term consequences if demented fanatics like the Jewish deviants reciting kaddish for Hamas or those who, in the name of pluralism, demand toleration of such views are enabled to remain within the Jewish or Zionist mainstream. In this climate of overt antisemitism in the Labour Party, coupled with the inadequate education of its Zionist youth, the Jewish leadership faces its greatest challenge. If it fails, all that will ultimately remain of Anglo Jewry will be clusters of haredi communities.
TIME FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY TO RECOGNIZE ITS ANTISEMITISM PROBLEM
Ari Lieberman
FrontPage Magazine, July 13, 2018
In early May 2017, Britain’s Labour Party suffered humiliating reversals in local elections and failed in their bid to wrest control of the council of Barnet from conservatives. Labour candidates campaigning in areas with substantial Jewish constituencies were handed stinging defeats. In West Hendon, which is an area of Barnet, all three candidates fielded by the Labour Party lost. West Hendon was thought to be a safe Labour bastion. The Party had retained these seats for nearly 40 years.
The reason for Labour’s defeat was obvious. Jewish constituents who had previously been loyal to Labour to a fault, defected en masse to conservatives, and Labour’s leader, Jeremy Corbyn gave them virtually no choice. Corbyn has referred to Hezbollah as his “friends,” and has spoken of Hamas in glowing terms. He defended a rabidly anti-Semitic mural depicting Jewish bankers counting money and playing monopoly on the backs of people with dark complexions. He joined Facebook groups dedicated to propagating anti-Semitic conspiracy theories and was dismissive of claims that members of his own party engaged in Holocaust revisionism.
Britain’s Labour Party membership, taking cue from Corbyn, is rife with antisemitism and this deleterious trend shows no sign of abating. If anything, it is intensifying. Labour MP Naz Shah, who previously espoused anti-Semitic memes and complained on social media about “Jews” skewing online polls, was recently appointed Labour’s shadow equalities minister. Even more disquieting is the fact that the Labour Party recently adopted a very watered down definition of antisemitism which omits critical defining elements of Jew-hatred.
There are worrying signs that America’s Democratic Party is following in the footsteps of its Labour Party cousin across the Atlantic. Radical elements within the Party are increasingly pulling Democrats farther to the Left. They are calling for open borders, the dismantling of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement bureau, an end to free enterprise and single payer healthcare. Radical Intersectionalists have also latched themselves on to the Palestinians, viewing them as victims of Israeli and Jewish aggression, colonialism and imperialism.
Israel still enjoys widespread bipartisan support from both parties but there are worrying trends occurring within the Democratic Party demonstrating an erosion of support, and often, that erosion is accompanied by anti-Semitic rhetoric grounded in hate and conspiracy. […]
[To Read the Full Article Click the Following Link—Ed.]
CIJR Wishes All Our Friends & Supporters: Shabbat Shalom!
On Topic Links
Boycott Israel Founder Confirms BDS Is About Ending the Jewish State: Paul Miller, American Spectator, July 12, 2018—Supporters of the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement claim that BDS is about a two-state solution and bettering the lives of the Palestinian people. But if you take the word of BDS founder Omar Barghouti, peaceful coexistence is the last thing BDS is about.
Skewed focus in study of German anti-Semitism: Dr. Manfred Gerstenfeld, Arutz Sheva, July 3, 2018—Any realistic study on anti-Semitism in Germany should conclude that migrants from Muslim countries have more anti-Semitic attitudes and disproportionately to their size in the population commit more extreme anti-Semitic acts than native Germans.
Facing Chorus of Criticism Over UK Labour Antisemitism, Party Leader Jeremy Corbyn Announces ‘Disciplinary Action’ Against Prominent Jewish Critic: Ben Cohen, Algemeiner, July 19, 2018— As the antisemitism scandal that has engulfed Britain’s opposition Labour Party for the last three years reached a fever pitch on Thursday, party leader Jeremy Corbyn remained defiant, threatening disciplinary action against one of his Jewish critics after she called him an “antisemite and a racist.”
Ireland’s Anti-Israel Bill and the Muslim Brotherhood: Lawrence A. Franklin, Gatestone Institute, July 23, 2018—On July 11, the Irish Senate approved a bill criminalizing local companies that engage in commerce with Israeli firms based in Judea and Samaria. Introduced in the body’s Upper Chamber by independent member Senator Frances Black, the bill passed initial muster, in a 25-20 vote with 14 abstentions.
