May 26, 2017

Its Arabs that are Occupying Jewish Land in Israel

Why we should celebrate 50 years since the Six-Day War



There are three basic facts about the 1967 Six Day War. Knowing these politically incorrect, inconvenient truths will banish any ambivalence a reasonable person might have, and will encourage the celebration the 50th anniversary of this great Israeli victory.
First, the threats to annihilate Israel were loud and numerous. Egyptian dictator Gamal Abdul Nasser had united the military commands of his army with those of Syria and Jordan. He and those around him were repeatedly threatening to throw the Jews into the sea, to destroy the Jewish state. This was 22 years after the liberated concentration camps showed that Adolf Hitler’s rantings should have been taken seriously; because they were ignored, six million Jews died.
This was 19 years after an additional 6,000 Jews died because Palestinian Arabs rejected the 1947 UN Partition Plan, which would have created a peaceful transition in the Middle East. An Israeli leader who ignored those threats would have been guilty not just of stupidity, but of criminal negligence.
Second, beyond the bellicose calls to annihilate their neighbour, the Egyptians gave Israel a casus belli when Nasser banished the UN army serving as a buffer between Israel and Egypt in the Sinai, and a second justification for war when Egypt blocked the Straits of Tiran, the international waterways going to Eilat.
International law defines blocking a neighbour’s waterways as an act of war. Thus, Israel’s pre-emptive strike on the Egyptian and Syrian air forces in June 1967 was justified legally, morally and existentially. The 1967 war was an ein breira (no choice) war of self-defence.
Third, the most controversial piece of territory Israel secured from that conflict – the West Bank, including Jerusalem – was already in legal limbo. To call that territory “occupied” is wrong legally, historically and, again, existentially. Legally, the Jordanian army, rejecting the 1947 Partition Plan, invaded Israel, a state the United Nations had authorized.
In that 1948 war, Jordan seized the West Bank – what Jews call Judea and Samaria – and part of Jerusalem. The United Nations never recognized Jordan’s occupation of the territory. Thus, when Israel, in self-defence, won that territory in 1967, it wasn’t occupying Jordanian territory, it wasn’t occupying Palestinian territory – something no one would have said back then – it was seizing legally ambiguous territory.
Historically, Israel has longstanding claims to that territory, the biblical heartland of the ancient Jewish state. More recently, the British Mandate and the San Remo Conference allowed Jews to settle in that area west of the Jordan River, i.e. the West Bank.
Finally, existentially, the writer Yossi Klein Halevi acknowledges the demographic realities – there are over a million Palestinians living in that territory – and notes their legal limbo due to security and diplomatic complications. He therefore says that while he acknowledges the Palestinians in that area are an occupied people, controlled without full democratic rights, he (and I) cannot say this land – the Jewish people’s inheritance – is occupied by the Jewish People. We returned to our land, observing the legal and historical rules of warfare, in self-defence.
These three facts explain the Jewish euphoria from left to right in 1967, as well as why we should celebrate the victory, which saved Israel, from left to right. Let’s argue the next day.
These three facts – and genuine celebrations – do not mean demographic realities might not compel a compromise. Israel can consider relinquishing some territory, but never Jewish rights to that territory. A politician can compromise on borders but cannot rewrite history or legacy.
Shame on us for not knowing our history. Those who don’t know their history cannot grow. But those imprisoned by that history haven’t grown. Let’s learn the facts, then discern the best way to make new realities that bring us closer to the peace we all deserve. 

Netanyahu’s challenge with Trump – CarolineGlick.com

Netanyahu’s challenge with Trump – CarolineGlick.com

'Netanyahu should have told the truth' - Israel National News

'Netanyahu should have told the truth' - Israel National News

Just a Few of the Arab Murders of Jews before the Modern State of Israel

Battle of Tel Hai March 1, 1920 Arabs 13 8 Jews killed;[1] 5 Arabs killed.
Nebi Musa riots April 4–7, 1920 Arabs 9 5 Jews, 4 Arabs killed; 216 Jews, 18 Arabs, 7 Britons wounded[1][2][3]
Jaffa riots May 1–7, 1921 Arabs 95 48 Arabs, 47 Jews killed; 140 Jews, 73 Arabs wounded.
NA November 2, 1921 Arabs 5 5 Jews killed in Jerusalem in stabbing attack. Multiple wounded, including women and children.[4]
Palestine Riots August 23–29, 1929 Arabs 249 133 Jews, 116 Arabs killed; 339 Jews, 232 Arabs wounded[1][2][3][5][6]
Hebron massacre August 24, 1929 Arabs 67 67 Jews killed; 58 Jews wounded (included in "Palestine riots" above)
Safed massacre August 29, 1929 Arabs 20 18–20 Jews killed; 80 Jews wounded (included in "Palestine riots" above)[6]
1933 Palestine riots October 28, 1933 Arabs 20 
1936 Anabta shooting April 15, 1936 Arabs 2 2 Jews killed, 1 shot but survived in road block with Jewish drivers selected out and shot [7][8][9]
The Bloody Day in Jaffa (Hebrew: יום הדמים ביפו) April 19–20, 1936 Arabs 21 9 Jews killed, 40 Jews wounded (11 critically) in Arab attack in Jaffa. Police killed two attackers. Further 7 Jews and 3 Arabs killed the next day[10][11][12]
Labor Strike Revolt April 20 – October 12, 1936 Arabs, Jews, British authorities 314 197 Arabs killed and 823 wounded, 80 Jews killed and 300 wounded, 37 military and police killed and 95 wounded.[13]
NA August 13, 1937 Arabs 4 4 members of a Jewish family, 3 children, shot dead by Arabs who broke into their home in Safed[14]
NA November 9, 1937 Arabs 5 5 Jewish Keren Kayemet workers killed near Har Haruach by an Arab ambush. Ma'ale HaHamisha was named in their honor.[15]
N/A 28 March 1938 Arabs 6 6 Jewish passengers killed by Arabs while traveling from Haifa to Safed.[18]
N/A September 14, 1938 Arabs 3 3 Jews killed in a bomb attack and ambush on a private vehicle near Nir David then: Tel Amal)[25] Several attackers killed by Britons.
1938 Tiberias pogrom October 2, 1938 Arabs 19 19 Jews were killed.[26]
1947 Jerusalem riots December 2, 1947 Arabs 14 8 Jews Reported Killed[40][41]
al-Tira December 12, 1947 Jews 13 13 Arabs killed, 10 wounded[42][43]
Haifa Oil Refinery massacre December 30, 1947 Arabs beat 39 Jews to death and injured 49.

May 03, 2017

An Open Letter to Nick Estes: Honor the Indigenous Rights Movement and Support Israel | Israellycool

An Open Letter to Nick Estes: Honor the Indigenous Rights Movement and Support Israel | Israellycool





Dear Nick Estes,
In an open letter published in Indian Country Today, you urged Professor S. James Anaya, UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous People, to “honour” the goals of the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement and cancel his trip to Israel on the grounds that it is a “settler colonial” state.
I understand that Mr. Anaya did not heed your calls, and I believe that I can shed some light as to why.
Since you are a doctoral candidate in American Studies, I was surprised to find your letter filled to the brim with inaccurate details and lies. Rather than argue in support of any tangible principles, you present falsehoods as facts, repeat the same misleading and ambiguous talking points you’ve made in previous articles, and hide behind the appeal to authority argumentation that comes from being a descendant of the Lakota tribe. May I remind you, Mr. Estes, that while the Lakota do have experience in regards to colonization, that does not grant them expertise on Middle Eastern history.
I will also remind you that BDS is actually antithetical to the goals of indigenous peoples everywhere, as it seeks to take away the self-determination that Jewish people have reclaimed on their ancestral lands. As it stands, the Jewish people are the only indigenous people to have accomplished this.
In a bid to illustrate your real agenda (which appears to be synonymous with that of the BDS movement: to delegitimize and eliminate the State of Israel), I will simply go through your letter point by point and refute it.
Point 1: BDS
The only part of your first argument that has any validity is that the BDS movement began in 2005. The other points you attempt to get across are built on the false claim that Jews are not indigenous to the State of Israel, and are therefore “occupying colonists.”
I wonder, if you are indeed a human rights “activist,” why you are so invested in the rights of Palestinian refugees who left Israel following 1948, but have nothing to say of the nearly one million Jewish refugees who were forced from their homes from across Arab lands and Iran? What about the rights of these refugees? Why are Jews so undeserving of your support and others who claim to seek justice for marginalized communities? Is it because Israel, then a new state that could barely stand by herself, absorbed hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees following her creation, while most Arab states (meanwhile) continue to refuse entry to Palestinian refugees? Surely, if this is the case, I can see why you hold such a grudge against Israel… Not.
You claim that Israel must “ends its occupation of Arab-Palestinian” lands but this statement in itself is paradoxical. You see, Jews can trace their presence in Israel for almost three thousand years, far before the first Arabs left the Arabian Peninsula in the 7th century to conquer surrounding lands. If you claim that Palestinians are also Arab, you’ve made my point for me: that the Palestinians of today are descendents of Arabs from Arabia, while the Jews of today are descendents of the Levant.
If we were to follow the logic associated with BDS, then the U.S. government did indeed have the right to carve the faces of its presidents into the Paha Sapa, just as Arabs had the right to build a mosque atop the Temple Mount – a Jewish historical and biblical site – in Jerusalem. Let me ask you, Mr. Estes, who are the colonizers and who are the indigenous peoples here?
Point 2: Colonialism
In your letter, you write that the UN was “founded partly to end colonialism,” and that Israel “practices a form of settler colonialism, very much aligned with what the U.S., Canada, New Zealand and Australia practice against indigenous peoples.” The UN, however, was founded to provide a governmental body for the world, and one could argue that, with it being controlled by colonial governments, it actually perpetuates colonialism. And it has.
For example, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has officially granted titles to indigenous sacred sites to those who colonized them – sites like the Temple Mount and Western Wall. Since you are a doctoral candidate in historical studies, I will ask you, Mr. Estes, how the Arabs (who conquered the Levant in the 7th century) can be indigenous to it, particularly when Jewish people had already resided there for thousands of years? If the goal of “settler colonialism” is indeed to “seize native lands (often by force) and replace them with a settler population,” then wasn’t the Arabs’ conquest of the Levant and its surrounding area a form of settler colonialism? And then, wasn’t the return of the Jews in the 1800s a return of an indigenous people from exile?
As someone who supposedly struggles against settler colonialism, it would be incumbent upon you to not only study all forms of it, but to side with the actual indigenous people rather than those who colonized it and forced their language, religion and customs on indigenous peoples across the Middle East, including Israel. As you say, Mr. Estes, colonialism is indeed a crime. But it was committed against the Jews, not by them.
Point 3: The United Nations
Though you refer to the UN as some sort of unbiased arbiter, it’s important to note that it has actually been categorically biased against Israel from its inception. In fact, you admit yourself that the UN labelled Zionism as “racist” early on, something no other liberation movement has ever been defined as. Zionism, in its simplest definition, is the belief that Jews should have the right to self-determination on their ancestral lands. When the UN makes defamatory statements against Israel on behest of its many Arab member states but refuses to condemn any other actual abuser of human rights, it’s safe to say that it has an agenda. Why else would it put Saudi Arabia and Iran (a nation that executed roughly 437 innocent civilians in 2016) on its human rights councils? How is it that, during the genocide in Rwanda in 1994, the UN denounced Rwanda only once, but managed to condemn Israel a startling 13 times?
Point 4: Apartheid
In a recent speech that has since been etched into the memories of some three million viewers, UN Watch Executive Director Hillel Neuer asked Arab member states of the UN, after launching yet another anti-Israel resolution, “Where are your Jews? How many Jews live in your countries?” How, Mr Neuer asked, does Israel face accusations of “apartheid” when in the entire Middle East, not only has the Jewish population been essentially eradicated, but there are countries that explicitly have separate sets of laws for different peoples?
Muslim-majority countries currently count for 99 per cent of the landmass of the entire Middle East. The world’s only Jewish state (and the only state in the Middle East where Muslims, Christians and Jews can live harmoniously) counts for one. So where, again, is the apartheid?
Point 5: Academia
While there are indeed Palestinian scholars, it seems that those who are involved in the Israel-Palestinian conflict forsake their academia in lieu of promoting a political agenda. In the Palestinian Territories (and in UNRWA-affiliated schools), students are taught revisionist history where there is no trace of the Jewish people’s connection to Jerusalem or Israel. Palestinian “teachers” ignore archaeology, genealogy and even history in order to promote the facade that Palestinians are indigenous to the land.
Mr. Estes, I am calling on you as an actual indigenous rights activist to stop supporting the inversion of history and stop advocating for academic and cultural boycotts of the world’s only Jewish – and first indigenous – state. It is paramount to the indigenous rights movement that we identify BDS as what it is: cold, calculated, antisemitism.

April 25, 2017

OU Kosher Advisory Arnold's Bread - Kosher

OU Kosher Advisory Arnold's Bread - Kosher: The Following OU Kosher Advisories and Alerts were released by the Orthodox Union's Kosher Division on the date indicated.

March 20, 2017

Democrats Turn Against Israel - WSJ

Democrats Turn Against Israel - WSJ



Democrats Turn Against Israel

In 1972 ours was the first party to back moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem.

Rep. Keith Ellison on Capitol Hill, Feb. 1.
Rep. Keith Ellison on Capitol Hill, Feb. 1. PHOTO: GETTY IMAGES
Rep. Keith Ellison’s selection as deputy chairman of the Democratic National Committee is the latest ratification of our party’s turn away from Israel. Mr. Ellison, who complained in 2010 that “United States foreign policy in the Middle East is governed by what is good or bad through a country of seven million people,” narrowly lost a bid for DNC chairman, then was chosen by acclamation as deputy.
The Democrats used to be the pro-Israel party. President Truman recognized the Jewish state within minutes of its independence in 1948. In 1972 the convention that nominated George McGovern ratified the first major-party platform to support moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem. The Republicans didn’t follow until 1996.
A lot has changed for the Democrats in 45 years. President Obama created an atmosphere of outright hostility between the U.S. and Israel. He made a nuclear deal with Iran and refused to veto the United Nations Security Council resolution in December that condemned settlements in the disputed West Bank.
–– ADVERTISEMENT ––


Hillary Clinton might have been an improvement, but her commitment to Israel has long been questioned. As secretary of state, she referred to Israeli settlements as “illegitimate.” In 2015 she had to reassure donors to her presidential campaign that she still supported Israel. Even during Bill Clinton’s administration, pro-Israel Democrats worried that Mrs. Clinton would influence her husband in the wrong direction.
Then there’s Sen. Bernie Sanders, who as a presidential candidate in April 2016 accused Israel of being “indiscriminate” in “attacks against civilian areas” when defending itself against rockets fired by terrorists from Gaza. Mr. Sanders received 43% of Democratic primary votes.
How did this happen? There was once an inexorable link between support for Israel and for the civil-rights movement. Both were responses to invidious discrimination—anti-Semitism and racism. Starting in the mid-1960s, however, an anti-Israel minority emerged in the form of the New Left. These groups—such as the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, Students for a Democratic Society, and the Black Panthers—saw Israelis as oppressors and Palestinians as engaged in a “just struggle for liberation” as Panthers founder Huey P. Newton put it.
In the 1970s elements of the left became steadily more hostile to Israel. A turning point came in 1975, when the U.N. passed a resolution equating Zionism with racism. That provided an intellectual and political opening for those who wanted to drive a wedge between supporters of Israel and of civil rights.
An organization called Basic—Black Americans to Support Israel Committee—was formed to condemn the resolution. “We seek to defend democracy in the Mideast, and therefore we support Israel,” the civil-rights leader Bayard Rustin declared. Unfortunately, that was the last time the organized Jewish and black communities worked together.
In 1979 President Carter fired U.N. Ambassador Andrew Young, the first African-American to hold that position, for violating U.S. policy by meeting with a representative of the Palestine Liberation Organization. Mr. Young’s dismissal led several black leaders to break with their Jewish allies on Israel.
In 1984 Jesse Jackson, who’d publicly embraced PLO head Yasser Arafat five years earlier, ran for the Democratic presidential nomination. A Washington Post story about his difficult relationship with Jews quoted him as using the slur “Hymie” and calling New York City “Hymietown.” Mr. Jackson won 3.3 million votes in the primaries. He ran again in 1988 and more than doubled the total, to 6.9 million—another sign of the party’s slow shift.
There are still pro-Israel Democrats, but they are beleaguered and equivocal. New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, now the minority leader, described himself in 2010 as the Senate’s protector of Israel: “My name . . . comes from a Hebrew word. It comes from the word shomer, which mean guardian.” But how effectively has he played that role?
In 2015 Mr. Schumer was one of four Senate Democrats to vote against Mr. Obama’s Iran deal. But killing it would have taken 13 Democrats, and Politico reported Mr. Schumer phoned Democratic colleagues to “assure them he would not be whipping opposition to the deal.” Mr. Schumer—whose Brooklyn apartment building has been protested by leftist opponents of President Trump—was also an early backer of Mr. Ellison for the party chairmanship.
One reason Democrats have continued the move away from Israel is that Jewish voters haven’t exacted a price for it. Exit polls in 2016 found they supported Mrs. Clinton over Mr. Trump, 71% to 23%, in line with their historic levels of Democratic support.
There’s still an opportunity here for the GOP. Especially if Mr. Trump delivers on his promise to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, the Jewish vote could start trending Republican. Unless Democrats reaffirm their support for Israel, many lifelong party members—ourselves included—may decide that the time has come to find new political affiliations.
Mr. Stein, who held elective office in New York between 1969 and 1994, is now a business consultant. Mr. Schoen served as a political adviser and pollster for President Clinton, 1994-2000.

March 14, 2017

David Friedman Right Man for US Ambassador to Israel

David Friedman Right Man for US Ambassador to Israel: If most Democrats are not more sympathetic to a nation that shares American values than one that does not, what exactly is the Democratic Party about?

On Hating the Jews | commentary

On Hating the Jews | commentary

February 12, 2017

The Ninth Circuit Ignores Precedent and Threatens National Security - WSJ

The Ninth Circuit Ignores Precedent and Threatens National Security - WSJ





The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals violated both judicial precedent and the Constitution’s separation of powers in its ruling against President Trump’s executive order on immigration. If the ruling stands, it will pose a danger to national security.
Under normal rules of standing, the states of Washington and Minnesota should never have been allowed to bring this suit. All litigants, including states, must meet fundamental standing requirements: an injury to a legally protected interest, caused by the challenged action, that can be remedied by a federal court acting within its constitutional power. This suit fails on every count.
The plaintiff states assert that their public universities are injured because the order affects travel by certain foreign students and faculty. But that claim involved no legally protected interest. The granting of visas and the decision to admit aliens into the country are discretionary powers of the federal government. Unadmitted aliens have no constitutional right to enter the U.S. In hiring or admitting foreigners, universities were essentially gambling that these noncitizens could make it to America and be admitted. Under the theory of standing applied in this case, universities would be able to sponsor any alien, anywhere in the world, then go to court to challenge a decision to exclude him.

Opinion Journal Video

0:00 / 0:00
U.C. Berkeley Law School Professor John Yoo on the Ninth Circuit’s ruling. Photo credit: AFP/Getty Images.
It is also settled law that a state can seek to vindicate only its own rights, not those of third parties, against the national government. The U.S. Supreme Court held in Massachusetts v. Mellon (1923) that it is not within a state’s duty or power to protect its citizens’ “rights in respect of their relations with the Federal Government.” Thus the plaintiffs’ claims that the executive order violates various constitutional rights, such as equal protection, due process and religious freedom, are insufficient because these are individual and not states’ rights.
Even if states could articulate a concrete injury, this is not a case in which the courts ultimately can offer redress. The Constitution grants Congress plenary power over immigration, and Congress has vested the president by statute with broad, nonreviewable discretionary authority to “suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens . . . he may deem to be appropriate” to protect “the interest of the United States.” Numerous presidents have used this authority to suspend entry of aliens from specific countries.
Further, as the Supreme Court explained in Knauff v. Shaughnessy (1950), the authority to exclude aliens “stems not alone from the legislative power but is inherent in the executive power to control the foreign affairs of the nation.” In issuing the order, the president was acting at the apex of his authority. As Justice Robert Jackson noted in Youngstown v. Sawyer (1952): “When the President acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress, his authority is at its maximum, for it includes all that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate.” That point the Ninth Circuit ignored entirely.
The order, frequently mischaracterized as a “Muslim ban,” is actually directed at seven countries that the president believes present a particular threat to U.S. security—a view with which Congress agreed in 2015. All are beset by terrorists and so uncertain and chaotic that proper vetting of potential refugees and immigrants is virtually impossible.
President Obama chose to toughen vetting standards for these countries’ nationals rather than bar their entry completely. But if Mr. Trump has a different view of the threat, it is not up to the courts to decide who is right. This is a classic example of a nonjusticiable “political question,” involving matters constitutionally vested in the president and Congress.
Judges—were they adjudicating a suit brought by a party with standing—could overturn the president’s order if it entailed clear violations of due process or equal protection. But attempting to discern Mr. Trump’s motivation in selecting these countries exceeds the judiciary’s proper constitutional role. Judges scrutinize government motives in the domestic context, if presented with allegations that facially neutral governmental action is motivated by invidious discrimination. That inquiry is inappropriate in the foreign-policy sphere.
Under the Constitution and the Supreme Court’s precedent, the judiciary is institutionally incapable of analyzing the complicated matrix for foreign-policy determinations that support such actions. Judges lack access—or any right to demand access—to the full range of information, classified and otherwise, available to the president. They also lack the political accountability that would support taking risks with the security of the American people.
The Ninth Circuit’s decision represents an unprecedented judicial intrusion into the foreign-affairs authority of Congress and the president. The stakes transcend this particular executive order and even immigration issues generally. By removing restrictions on standing and other limitations on the exercise of judicial power, the Ninth Circuit would make the courts the ultimate arbiters of American foreign policy. The ruling risks creating both a constitutional and a security crisis. It must be reversed.
Messrs. Rivkin and Casey practice constitutional and appellate law in Washington and served in the White House Counsel’s Office and U.S. Justice Department during the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations.