"New York Times Speak" first cousin to "Newspeak", the language created by George Orwell for the nightmarish world of his novel 1984….. NYT Poisoning the Cup of Consolation By Mordechai Schiller After being shocked, a  journalist is reminded why he religiously avoids reading the "newspaper of record"   I can't search the hills in Hebron for Gilad Shaar, Naftali Frankel and Eyal Yifrach. All I can do is pray. That, and obsessively follow news stories. Which led me to an article in The New York Times: "Missing Israeli Teenagers Revive a Mother's Hard-Earned Intimacy With Loss," by Jodi Rudoren. The first few paragraphs were so poignant, I let down my guard. It started out at an egagmement party for Rabbi Seth and Mrs. Sherri Mandell's daughter. In middle of the celebration the groom-to-be put down his toast and said, "I'm sorry, but we have to stop the party. Something terrible has happened." Mrs. Mandell immediately started searching for information. She Googled "Israeli teenagers kidnapped," but the search results turned up stories about the capture and savage murder of her 13-year-old son, Koby, 14 years ago, near their home in Tekoa. "She spent much of the next day — what would have been Koby's 27th birthday — in bed, crying. 'It was just too unbearable," Mrs. Mandell said. … For weeks … Mandell did not leave the house. "It was like razor blades cutting my body up," she recalled. Besides my obsession with Gilad, Naftali and Eyal, I took this story personally. I know Rabbi Seth Mandell since 1978. My brother, Rabbi Nota Schiller, dean of Ohr Somayach College of Jewish Studies in Jerusalem, gave the eulogy at little Koby's funeral. He told me it was the hardest thing he ever had to do. Soon, as I read on, I started choking on my tears. I should have known better. The dateline should have been the first tipoff: "TEKOA, West Bank." There is no such place as "West Bank." It's Judea and Samaria. Then, as Yisrael Medad wrote in a blog post "The language thieves," on Arutz Sheva news network, Ruderon goes on to write: "If only these three boys had not hitchhiked in occupied Palestinian territory — if only Koby and his friend, Yosef Ishran, had not ditched school to go hiking in the canyon behind their West Bank homes." Medad pointed out, "Actually, the Gush Etzion Bloc was pre-1948 Israel so it cannot be 'occupied Palestinian territory,' well, maybe it could be 'occupied illegally occupied Jordanian territory.' … Always blame the Jews." Then, in an "et tu, Brute" backstabbing (at least Brutus stabbed Julius Caesar face-to-face), Ruderson writes: "For all her bereavement work … Mandell has never involved herself in a Palestinian-Israeli group of people who lost loved ones in the conflict — 'that's more political,' she said. But she, too, is political, exploiting the emotion of her trauma to make the case against Israel's prisoner releases as part of peace negotiations." Exploiting? Frankly, I was shocked that even The New York Times could stoop to poisoning the cup of consolation. Again, I shoudn't have been surprised. Before Mrs. Jodi Rudoren became N.Y. Times Jerusalem Bureau Chief, she tweeted about a Times review of a new book: @NYTCohen on new book by @PeterBeinart. Book is terrific: provocative, readable, full of reporting and reflection. That book review begins: "Peter Beinart's The Crisis of Zionism is an important new book that rejects the manipulation of Jewish victimhood in the name of Israel's domination of the Palestinians and asserts that the real issue for Jews today is not the challenge of weakness but the demands of power." The New York Times is highly professional at what it does. The question is, though, what does The Times do? A phrase that comes to mind is "social engineering." In The Art of Deception, Kevin Mitnick, the legendary hacker turned computer security expert (who would know better?), says: "Social Engineering uses influence and persuasion to deceive people by convincing them that the social engineer is someone he is not, or by manipulation. As a result, the social engineer is able to take advantage of people to obtain information with or without the use of technology." As far as I know, The Times isn't in the business of information mining. But they use similar techniques of deception to spread disinformation. That is a cousin to newspeak, the language created by George Orwell for the nightmarish world of his novel 1984. Newspeak is "…any corrupt form of English; esp. ambiguous or euphemistic language as used in official pronouncements or political propaganda" (Oxford English Dictionary). As Orwell put it, "Newspeak was designed not to extend but to diminish the range of thought." And The New York Times publishes all the newspeak that's fit to print.

FEAR IRAN, NOT ISIS …The United States needs to be less worried about ISIS and more about Iran.   ( Ideas from Boaz Bismuth  and others- 6-30-14) The Middle East is changing. The concept of the Arab state is crumbling, and something else will rise in its place. The Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916, which gave birth to the Middle East as we have known it, has come to its final station. Something new will be born out of the churning mayhem.  Terrorism is today an important element of our Middle East, but it (still) does not have the power to fill the vacuum that has been created. Jihadist terrorism can do damage, but it cannot lead. Jordan is still far from falling into the hands of the extremist Sunni group, comprising 10,000 members, which recent reports have warned could happen. . Officials in the Hashemite Kingdom are concerned. However, the Jordanians can  depend on their small but disciplined and trained army and their effective air force, which can inflict severe damage on the Sunni terrorist group. They can also count on the loyalty of the local population to the kingdom on both sides of the two main border crossings with Iraq.. The United States needs to be less worried about ISIS and more about Iran. The success of the Sunni organization in western Iraq is a direct result of the changes in the region, and of the fact that Iraq and Syria do not have strong leaders like they once had, who could impose order in their domains.   The Iranian nuclear race should still  be the US's main concern. However,suddenly  some  in Washington perceive Sunni terror as being more dangerous than a Shiite nuclear bomb and are loudly advocating  that  Iran be partnered with as a stabilizing force. This is precisely the change the West needs to be wary about….. Or the West will enable the Iranians to achieve  their major goals: successful completion of their nuclear development/weapons delivery program; domination of the world's petroleum delivery sea channels and political  domination of the  enter Middle East.

Plus ca change, plus la meme chose  

By Ted Belman 6-28-14

As a result of the ’67 War Israel came into possession of the “territories” which included Judea and Samaria, Sinai including Gaza and the Golan.  UNSC Res 242 provided that Israel should withdraw from territories, SPECIFICALLY NOT THE TERRITORIES OR ALL TERRITORIES, AT SUCH TIME AS SHE HAD SECURE AND RECOGNIZED BORDERS.

Israel accepted (ACTIVELY PARTICIPATED IN THE FORMULATION AND THE DOCUMENTATION OF THE MEANING OF}this resolution because she didn’t want to keep all the land with its Arab inhabitants, preferring to keep only some of the land. The Arab countries rejected the Resolution because they wanted 100% of the land to be returned to them, i.e.  Egypt, Jordan and Syria. No one contemplated the creation of another Arab state in Judea and Samaria.

In 1970 the US abandoned this resolution and embraced the Arab demand that Israel retreat from 100% of the territories. This was reflected in the Rogers Plan that Nixon authorized. Nevertheless Israel began to build settlements on these lands for security purposes. One such settlement was Yamit which was set up just south of Gaza in the Sinai. I remember when Yamit was being promoted to potential Olim. I was attracted to the idea and though it would be fun to participate in the development of this town.  Other considerations kept me rooted in Toronto.

Pamela Schrieber , was not deterred by other considerations and made aliya from the U.S. and was among the first to sign up. She loved being part of this growing community and felt betrayed when, as part of the Camp David Accords in 1978, PM Begin agreed to vacate every inch of the land including Yamit.  She was devastated and, when the time came to evacuate, returned  to the U.S.

I just finished reading her book, Love and Betrayal, about her experience and enjoyed it thoroughly.

In it she quotes a speech from PM Begin to the residents of Yamit:

“I believe that the Jewish people have the inalienable right (CERTAINLY THE RIGHT TO “CLOSE SETTLEMENT”)to our land which includes Judea, Samaria and the Sinai.  But the leader of the free world believes differently.  He is convinced that in order to have peace with Egypt, Israel must return every centimeter of the land gained in 1967 no matter how important it is to our defense and religious beliefs. Since there was no possibility of our returning Judea and Samaria which would usher in negotiations for Jerusalem, the only bargaining chip we had was Sinai.

“My partner in peace, President Sadat, was adamant on the return of the Sinai, including the evacuation of all our settlements. President Carter was in absolute agreement. Since I entered negotiations knowing that Pres. Carter had made the statement that the Palestinian refugees needed a homeland, I was not shocked at the intransigence of the American president.

“[..] Although I cannot prove it, at the time of negotiations, I had the distinct impression that there was collusion between the Americans and Egypt. If not collusion, then a bias towards the Egyptian demands. For though I bared my soul to the American President, Mr Carter was intractable…..This was a man who clearly had his mind made up before he went into negotiations. This was a man who clearly cares nothing about the survival of our state.”

Plus ca change, plus la meme chose. I couldn’t help but see a parallel in President Obama’s position on the current peace process; but more about this below.

I remember thinking at the time, that though Israel giving up all this land and the oil that she had discovered there, that it was worth it as Sadat was breaking the mold of Arab rejectionism and that others would follow. Little did I realize how cold the peace would be.

I remember also that Sadat and Carter pressed Begin to sign a second agreement in which Israel would agree to create a Palestinian State within five years in Judea and Samaria. Begin was adamant in his refusal and would agree only to giving them autonomy. That agreement was never signed. Begin was wrong in his belief that there was no “possibility of our returning Judea and Samaria”. The US thought otherwise.

When the Oslo Accords were signed in 1993 and 1995, Israel didn’t commit to creating a Palestinian state or giving over 100% or the land or stopping settlement construction. She felt she could enter these agreements because she was in the driver’s seat and could press her demands.  Arafat, on the other hand, accepted these terms because he was not in a strong bargaining position and besides, he and many of his fellow terrorists were to be admitted into Judea and Samaria as part of the deal. What Israel didn’t anticipate was that America and Europe would side with Arafat, strengthening his position as they did with Sadat. In hindsight this was a grave mistake. They also didn’t anticipate that Arafat would never abide by the Accords.

Ever since the oil embargo in the seventies, the Saudis made it clear to successive US administrations that they required  that  “the political struggle [between Israel and the Arabs] is [be] settled in [a] manner satisfactory to [the] Arabs.” By the time Pres George Bush was inaugurated in 2000, this meant the creation of a Palestinian state.

Prince Bandar told Bush a week or two before  9-11, “Starting today, you go your way and we will go our way. From then on, the Saudis would look out for their own national interests.”  It seemed the United States had made a strategic decision to adopt Sharon’s policy as American policy.

Within thirty-six hours, Bandar was on his way to Riyadh with a conciliatory response from Bush.

Because of this pressure, Bush agreed to do it but 9-11 intervened.  It wasn’t until 2002 that he made his speech in which he envisaged a Palestinian state.  Saudi Arabia announced the Saudi Plan, which I believe the State Department drew up, requiring 100% withdrawal.  Bush, in subservience to the Saudis put it into the Roadmap which was being drafted in 2002 and 2003. It was tabled a week after the invasion of Iraq. Sharon objected to its inclusion to no avail.

In 2004, PM Sharon announce his Disengagement Plan from 100% of Gaza. The best he could get out of Bush was a letter which said “In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949…”. This was far from a commitment.(THIS WAS HELD UP TO ISRAEL AS AN IRONCLAD COMMITMENT)   Even so the Saudis screamed blue murder and Bush backed off.

What makes this cow towing all the more shocking was that Bush knew that Saudis were very much  behind the 9-11 attacks due to the report he commissioned.  He chose to cover up their culpability and conduct business with them as usual.(ON THIS ENTIRE POINT , I DISAGREE.)

I did not know all this when the Disengagement Plan was being debated.  While I liked the idea that Israel was getting rid of the responsibility for 1.4 million Gazans, I was against giving up every inch.  It was a continuation of the Camp David Accords precedent.  I favoured keeping the northern 5 miles of the strip where the Jewish settlements of Gush Katif were for two reasons, 1) it would set a new precedent and 2) we would not have to uproot 8,000 Israelis.  I also favoured staying in the Philadelphi Corridor to prevent smuggling into Gaza. Secretary Rice intervened and forced Israel out of the corridor.

President Obama, on taking office rejected the Bush letter( 1ST, THEY DENIED IT EXISTED AND THEN WHEN TO THEIR  PUBLIC EMBARRASSMENT IT WAS PRODUCED) saying it was not binding. He particularly wanted to void this commitment contained in it, “The United States will do its utmost to prevent any attempt by anyone to impose any other plan” than the Roadmap. He wanted to impose a solution if necessary.  Like Carter he supported the Arab position requiring negotiations to be based on ’67 lines plus swaps. Obama also rejected our security demands. Like Carter, he is “a man who clearly cares nothing about the survival of our state.”

After writing this article I wrote to the author about the speech and she said “That was creative license.  I used my own research to construct something to what I think he should have said or could have said.”  Nevertheless Carter and Obama have much in common and in my opinion, the alleged speech nails it.

Four Facts That Everyone Should Know About the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Lee S. Bender and Jerome R. Verlin 6-26-14

Most Westerners, including many Jews, are unaware of four fundamental facts about the Jewish homeland of Israel that would greatly increase their support for the Jewish State. The burden is on us to make these facts more widely known in the West.

#1 – The Jews Never Left:  Although most in the West accept that Jewish biblical history happened, most believe that upon vanquishing the Bar Kochba revolt in 135 CE, the victorious Romans “exiled” Judaea’s surviving Jews – and that Jews did not return to Israel in meaningful numbers until the late 19th ‎century Zionist movement.

Wrong. Solid evidence – Roman-Byzantine era synagogues, the Mishnah and Palestinian Talmud, Roman recognition of the Patriarch as head of the homeland’s Jews, and Jewish military and other aid to the 7th‎ century Persian and then Muslim invaders – establishes that no such “exile” occurred. Archeologists have constructed a map of 9th century Jewish communities of which we have knowledge today. The Crusaders also acknowledged the month-long courageous Jewish defense of Haifa and the fact of Jews defending Jerusalem. We have much evidence of the Jews’ vibrant presence in their four holy cities - Jerusalem, Safed, Tiberias, and Hebron – and elsewhere in Israel through the ensuing six centuries of non-Arab Mamluk and Turk foreign rule. According to scholars, this gave the Zionists’ “real title deeds.”

#2 – Who Are The Palestinians? Us:  Today’s Palestinian Arabs, whom everyone calls “The Palestinians,” claim descent from the pre-Israelite Canaanites, but if either side has Canaanite blood it’s the Jews. Archeologists trace Israelite presence back to the 12th c‎entury BCE, but are divided into “conquest” and “indigenous origin” camps. The latter believe that the Israelites populating the original Judean-Samarian hills were themselves Canaanites who began a new religion and lifestyle, not outside invaders.

The 7th century CE Arab invasion, which came storming out of the Arabian Peninsula, came 18 centuries later. Modern Israel in 1948 became the land’s next native state after the Jews’ ancient Judaea. Without exception, every ruler in between – Romans-Byzantines, briefly Persians, foreign Muslim dynasties that began as Arab but progressively fell under control of the Turks, Crusaders, Mamluks, and Ottoman Turks – was a foreign invader, and mostly non-Arab at that. During the post-Ottoman League of Nations’ Mandate, all of the land’s residents – Muslims, Christians, and Jews – were called “Palestinian.”

Indeed, the term “Palestinian” – e.g., the Palestine Electric Company, the Palestine Symphony, the Palestine Post (today’s Jerusalem Post), Jewish institutions all – usually referred to Palestine’s Jews. In fact, Arabs at the time disdained being called “Palestinians” and thought of themselves instead as southern Syrians.The UN in 1947 did not partition Palestine into Jewish and “Palestinian” states, but rather into a “Jewish State” and an “Arab State,” terms that it used over and over. And the partition resolution refers to Palestine’s Jews and Arabs as “the two Palestinian peoples.”

#3 – There are No Such Places as “the West Bank” and “East Jerusalem:” Though the Arab side, the Western media, and even, foolishly, we Jews constantly refer to “the West Bank” and “East Jerusalem,” these are not historic but recently invented terms to disassociate these historic centerpieces of the Jewish homeland from Jews. “Judea and Samaria” are not what the media has called “the biblical names for “the West Bank,” but are the actual Hebrew-origin names by which the homeland’s hill country has been known throughout history into the mid-20th ‎century. In attempting to partition the remaining western Palestine in 1947 (the all-Arab created country named Transjordan, which were the lands of the Palestine Mandate east of the Jordan River, had already been lopped off from the Mandate in 1922), the UN did not refer to “the West Bank,” but to “the hill country of Samaria and Judea.”

Jordan invented the term “West Bank” in 1950 to disassociate it from Jews, after it illegally annexed the West Bank in 1948. In the past 3,000 years, Jerusalem has been the capital of three homeland states – Judah, Judaea, and Israel, all of them Jewish. Palestinian Arabs have not ruled Jerusalem for one day in history, and foreign Arab dynasties only for part of the time between the Arab invasion of 638 and Crusader conquest of 1099. Jerusalem’s present day renewed Jewish majority dates not from 1967, or 1948, or the First Zionist Congress of 1897. Jews again became Jerusalem’s plurality population in pre-Zionist mid-19th century times, and its never-relinquished majority well before the 19th century’s end – still during foreign Ottoman rule.

#4 – The Arab-Jewish Conflict Created More Jewish Than Arab Refugees:  According to the British themselves,Palestine’s population at the end of the Mandate consisted of 1.2 million Arabs (Jewish sources claim only 1 million Arabs) and 600,000 Jews. Not all of those Arabs lived in the part that became Israel, and not all of them left. Estimates of the Arabs during the 1948 War who were told by their leaders to leave their homes to make way for the invading Arab armies range from less than 472,000 to 650,000. The vast majority never even saw one Israeli soldier. During the 1948 war and its aftermath, some 800,000-850,000 indigenous Middle Eastern Jews, some with roots going back to biblical times, fled vast Arab and other Muslim lands, forced to leave behind property and businesses for which they have never been compensated.

The fledgling Jewish state happily absorbed them. The Arab-Jewish conflict generated a two-sided refugee issue, not a “Palestinian refugee issue.”

If more people in the West understood and appreciated these four largely unknown fundamental facts, there would be much greater appreciation of the bona fides of the Jewish people’s deep homeland claim, and less talk about “Israel’s founding in 1948” and “Israeli occupation of East Jerusalem and the Palestinian West Bank.”  In essence, if we forfeit the language, we forfeit our heritage and our history.

Lee Bender is the co-President, and Jerome Verlin is the co-Vice Present of the Zionist Organization of America-Greater Philadelphia District, and they are the co-authors of the book “Pressing Israel: Media Bias Exposed From A-Z” (Pavilion Press).

Majority of Palestinians now oppose two-state solution, new poll finds   Michael  Wilner   6-25-14

Sixty percent of those polled, including 55 percent in West Bank and 68 percent in Gaza, reject permanent acceptance of Israel's existence.

WASHINGTON – A clear majority of Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip oppose a two-state solution to end their struggle with Israel, according to a poll released on Wednesday.

Sixty percent of those polled, including 55% in the West Bank and 68% in Gaza, reject permanently accepting Israel’s existence and instead suggest their leaders “work toward reclaiming all of historic Palestine, from the river to the sea.”

Two-thirds of those polled support continued “resistance” against the Jewish state. Consequentially, those who say they support a two-state solution view such a move as “part of a ‘program of stages’ to liberate all of historic Palestine later.”

The survey, conducted throughout the Palestinian territories, was commissioned by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and was conducted by a leading Palestinian pollster from June 15 to June 17.

The Washington Institute characterized the poll’s results as a sudden, hardline shift within the Palestinian community. It also presented the pragmatism revealed in the minutia of the survey: 80% of Palestinians would “definitely” or “probably” be in favor of greater job opportunities in Israel, and 70% of Gazans strongly favor Hamas maintaining its cease-fire with the IDF – despite generally favoring resistance.

The institute’s scholars concluded from the report that “US policy should seriously consider abandoning all hope for now of a permanent Israeli-Palestinian peace deal,” and instead should “focus on immediate steps to lower tensions” and on improving conditions on the ground.

Direct talks between Israel and the Palestinians, brokered the United States, broke down in April after nine months of negotiations.

The State Department’s special envoy to that effort was Martin Indyk, founder of the Washington Institute

As Europe slides into a Dark Age, Jews must review their future

Isi Leibler 6-25-14

Recent developments signal that the prospect of Europe sliding into a new Dark Age is now a horrifying reality. It is as though all the elements negating the open society have been blended into a witches’ brew to undermine Europe’s liberal cultural ethos.

First in line to suffer are the Jews, attacked from all sides, isolated, friendless and unable to adequately defend themselves. Their greatest threat is the rabidly anti-Semitic Muslims supported by anti-Semites from the far Left. This unholy alliance of religious and secular extremists employs radical anti-Israelism as a surrogate for traditional anti-Semitism and is now a fixture at Hezbollah and anti-Israeli demonstrations, where they wave placards and shamelessly accuse Israelis of emulating Nazis.

In contrast to the post-Vatican ll Catholics, most Protestant denominations (other than the evangelicals) have revived their vicious efforts to demonize and delegitimize the Jewish state. Spearheaded by the radical World Council of Churches, many are vigorously pressing charges of deicide against the Jewish people and resurrecting replacement theology asserting that by rejecting Christ, Jews are no longer the Chosen People. They also collaborate with the Palestinians in promoting Jesus as a Palestinian rather than a Jew. Some even deny the historical link of Jews with the land of Israel, claiming that Jews are descendants of the Eurasian Khazars who converted to Judaism in the eighth century C.E., and that Palestinians are the truly indigenous people of the region.

Even non-governmental organizations promoting human rights have been hijacked by the radicals to demonize and delegitimize Israel, focusing far more attention on the construction of homes in exclusively Jewish suburbs of east Jerusalem than on the carnage and murder of tens of thousands in Syria and other Muslim-ruled countries.

Officially, most European governments condemn anti-Semitism but, because of a combination of cowardice in facing Islamic violence and fear of losing Muslim electoral support, they abstain from taking the tough action required to turn the tide.

Multiculturalism and diversity are admirable qualities for a democracy but can only apply if all parties are committed to an open society.

European governments failed to integrate Muslim migrants, enabling radical Islamists to create separatist educational and religious institutions. Their schools and mosques are directed by jihadists and frequently financed by Saudi Wahhabi fanatics who brainwash the second generation of migrants into becoming more radical in Europe than their parents had been in their countries of origin.

It is from such incubators that children raised in Europe become engaged in hate crimes, with some graduating into jihadi terrorists.

Now there is a frightening additional development with the massive infusion of youngsters volunteering to fight in Syria with al-Qaida and who return to their countries as hardened killers. It is estimated that thousands of European Muslims are, or at one time were, engaged in the fighting in Syria. Most will return home as seasoned killers imbued with jihadi hatred and seeking new targets, primarily Jews.

Mohamed Merah, who killed seven people, including three Jewish children and their teacher, in Toulouse in 2012 and Mehdi Nemmouche, who murdered four people at the Brussels Jewish Museum, both had jihadi experience.

Regrettably, the culture of political correctness and fear of accusations of Islamophobia for criticizing any aspect of Islam or Muslim behavior prevents appropriate response. Neither the EU nor individual European governments are willing to take tough decisive action, which must include closing extremist Islamic schools, ruthlessly excluding jihadi mullahs from the mosques and aggressively prosecuting Muslim elements engaged in hate crimes, riots or law infringement.

An example of the pernicious extent of Islamic influence was the speech delivered by EU Middle East policy chief Catherine Ashton on International Holocaust Remembrance Day, when, to avoid offending Muslims, she omitted any mention of the Jews – the primary victims of the Nazi genocide.

The recent mushrooming of popular support for radical right political parties has intensified the problem.

Some Jews instinctively feel that the strengthening of the enemies of our enemies is to our benefit. They are wrong. The far Right has indeed been galvanized by those who feel threatened by Muslims. But many (not all) are equally anti-Semitic. Yet, while most individual Jewish voters are likely to avoid extremist parties – both Left and Right – Jewish community policy should be highly selective before officially confronting Right-wing parties.

These range from the British U.K. Independence Party, which shuns anti-Semitism, to France’s National Front, which ”softly” distances itself from its anti-Semitic past, to Greece’s blatantly neo-Nazi Golden Dawn, the Hungarian Jobbik party, and the National Democratic Party of Germany, whose anti-Jewish paranoia Hitler would have eagerly endorsed.

Golden Dawn and Jobbik must be confronted. However, Jews should be officially neutral about the U.K. Independence Party which has assiduously dissociated itself from any anti-Semitism and refused to associate with parties tainted with Jew-hatred.

The National Front is more problematic. Officially, Marine Le Pen has dissociated her party from its former anti-Semitic past and condemned Holocaust denial. Although most of the party’s supporters are not hostile to Jews it still carries some of its former anti-Semitic baggage and Le Pen’s father, a notorious and unrepentant Holocaust denier, remains the honorary chairman and an EU parliamentarian.

So long as leadership elements genuinely strive to discard former anti-Semitic associations and unless the party formally adopts anti-Jewish policies, it would be counterproductive to officially designate the largest political party in France as anti-Semitic. The challenge for Jewish leaders is to identify and expose the anti-Semites who are obsessed with insane theories about a global American–Zionist conspiracy, such as Aymeric Chauprade, one of Marine Le Pen’s foreign policy advisers.

It should also be noted that although 70 percent of the French population fear Islamic domination, that has not stemmed the tide of traditional anti-Semitism, as evidenced by the popular support enjoyed by comedian Dieudonné M’bala M’bala with his “quenelle,” the inverted Nazi salute.

The writing is clearly on the wall. Hostility is intensifying with renewed efforts to ban circumcision and shechita (kosher slaughter) by hypocritical societies that respect hunting as a sport.

In a sense, it is even worse for Jews today than during the 1930s when at least the liberals and the Left combatted anti-Semitism. What is more depressing is that, as a rule, the public is even more anti-Semitic than the government and perceives Israel as the principal source of global evil – no different to the Middle Ages when the Jews were regarded as the source of all natural disasters such as plagues and famine.

Despite the hullaballoo surrounding Islamophobia, it is Jews and not Muslims, who require armed guards at their schools and houses of worship. And the hate crimes, now including murder, perpetrated against Jews are infinitely more acute than those suffered by Muslim minorities. Indeed it is preponderantly Muslims who are engaged in violence against Jews.

The two major European Jewish communities react differently. The vast majority of French Jews are under no illusion about their future and many are planning to leave. Their leaders speak out, courageously protest against anti-Semitism and defend Israel.

In contrast, much of Anglo Jewry remains in denial, deluding themselves that their lives are unaffected by anti-Semitism despite what they read and see in the media and what their children endure at the university campus. Their leaders, the traditional “trembling Israelites,” believe primarily in “silent diplomacy” and seem to have only marginal influence in the corridors of power.

Most Jews cannot be expected to live like pariahs. To continue to live a Jewish life in which anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism occupy such dominant roles is soul-destroying, especially for youngsters.

There are today about 1.5 million Jews in Europe – just one-seventh of the prewar numbers. There will always be Jews in Europe, but the communities will shrink to tiny enclaves unless the tide is turned. Those in a financial position to do so will voluntarily leave or at least encourage their children to leave. Many will come to Israel.

In this highly depressing European environment, we can begin to visualize how Jews felt in the 1930s, unable to obtain entry visas from any country to escape the Nazis as the Holocaust approached. It should make us appreciate more than ever how blessed we are to have a Jewish state powerful enough to defend us from the barbarians at our gates and able to provide a haven and assistance to Jews in need.

Facts on the Ground

Inside Israel's Settlement Slowdown

By Elliott Abrams and Uri Sadot  JUNE 18, 2014

These days, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is facing strong criticism from an unlikely corner. In a private meeting this past May, the leaders of several settlements accused him of stymieing the settlement enterprise. His response, that Israel had to “consider international constraints," was not well received.

Soon after the meeting, on May 29, Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics issued a report that supported the settlers' claims. In the first quarter of 2014, the bureau reported, the Israeli government had approved only 232 residential units for construction in the area that Israelis commonly call Judea and Samaria and most people know as the West Bank. That rate is roughly half that of the last decade, which saw an average of 1,687 units built each year. And given that existing settlements currently house roughly 350,000 Israeli citizens -- who have an annual birthrate of about four percent -- this slower rate of construction can hardly sustain even natural population growth. The community leaders who met with Netanyahu last week know that better than anyone.

A geographic analysis of the data, moreover, suggests that the settlers have an additional reason to worry: under Netanyahu's current government, construction outside the so-called major settlement blocs -- the areas most likely to remain part of Israel in a final peace settlement -- has steadily decreased. Over the past five years, the number of homes approved for construction in the smaller settlements has amounted to half of what it was during Netanyahu's first premiership in 1996–99. Moreover, the homes the government is now approving for construction are positioned further west, mostly in the major blocs or in areas adjacent to the so-called Green Line, the de facto border separating Israel from the West Bank. The 1,500 units that Israel announced plans for earlier this month were also in the major blocs and in East Jerusalem, continuing the pattern. 

Although there is no agreement between Israel and the Palestinians on precisely which settlements constitute Israeli blocs, a clearer definition is coming into focus. Both Israeli and Palestinian negotiators have accepted the principle of equitable land swaps, as have Riyadh and Washington. Israel's most expansive definition of the blocs is drawn by its security barrier, and Israelis generally do not refer to anything east of the fence as being permanently Israeli. Using that demarcation as a border would count 12 percent of the West Bank and 80 percent of the settlements as Israeli territory. Most Israelis would accept everything east of that -- 88 percent of the land -- as part of a future Palestinian state.

The Palestinian definition of what can be swapped is more difficult to determine, and the best proxy is a leaked map from Palestinian–Israeli negotiations in 2008. According to that document, which was never officially renounced, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas offered Israel some two percent of the West Bank, which included 70 percent of the Israeli settler population. To be sure, then, the gap between the Israeli and Palestinian definitions of the blocs remains significant. But more worthy of attention is the fact that Israeli construction is now concentrated in Jerusalem and the major blocs -- in the two percent of the West Bank territory that the Palestinian leadership was apparently willing to accept as Israeli in 2008. 

The Israelis are still constructing beyond the security fence and in areas inside the fence that will undoubtedly be hotly contested in any future negotiation over a final agreement. But there is a paradox in the increasingly frequent denunciations of Israeli construction in the United States and Europe: they are coming at the same time as Israeli construction has become increasingly limited to areas that even Palestinians acknowledge will ultimately remain part of Israel.

All this underscores why the Obama administration's approach to the peace process during its first five years has resoundingly failed. By demanding a total settlement freeze, Washington wasted precious diplomatic capital trying to halt construction in areas where settlement building did little to change the status quo. Seeking a quick but comprehensive peace agreement under these conditions was foolish policy. Moving forward, a more sensible approach would be to stop obsessing about construction and aim for tangible achievements, especially given the apparent shift in Israeli activity. 

Accusations that Netanyahu is reluctant to negotiate for peace bury the true headline: that his government has unilaterally reduced Israeli settlement construction and largely constrained it to a narrow segment of territory. This might well be the signal that Israel's historical settlement enterprise is nearing its end, and whatever its reasons -- international pressures, demographic fears, or a shift in public opinion -- it is a trend that deserves U.S. attention. At the very least, American and European condemnations of Israeli settlement activity should be replaced with comments that reflect this new reality. Israel is still constructing, but not in a way that will prevent a realistic peace settlement.

THE THREAT IS BLOWBACK

By CAROLINE B. GLICK  6-19-14

It only took the Taliban six months to move from the Bamiyan Buddhas to the World Trade Center. Al-Qaida is stronger now than ever before. And Iran is on the threshold of a nuclear arsenal.

Watching the undoing, in a week, of victories that US forces won in Iraq at great cost over many years, Americans are asking themselves what, if anything, should be done.

What can prevent the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) – the al-Qaida offshoot that President Barack Obama derided just months ago as a bunch of amateurs – from taking over Iraq? And what is at stake for America – other than national pride – if it does? Muddying the waters is the fact that the main actor that seems interested in fighting ISIS on the ground in Iraq is Iran. Following ISIS’s takeover of Mosul and Tikrit last week, the Iranian regime deployed elite troops in Iraq from the Quds Force, its foreign operations division.

The Obama administration, along with Republican Sen. Lindsay Graham, views Iran’s deployment of forces in Iraq as an opportunity for the US. The US, they argue should work with Iran to defeat ISIS.

The idea is that since the US and Iran both oppose al-Qaida, Iranian gains against it will redound to the US’s benefit.

There are two basic, fundamental problems with this idea.

First, there is a mountain of evidence that Iran has no beef with al-Qaida and is happy to work with it.

According to the 9/11 Commission’s report, between eight and 10 of the September 11 hijackers traveled through Iran before going to the US. And this was apparently no coincidence.

According to the report, Iran had been providing military training and logistical support for al-Qaida since at least the early 1990s.

After the battle of Tora Bora in December 2001, al-Qaida’s leadership scattered. Many senior commanders – including bin Laden’s son Said, al-Qaida’s chief strategist Saif al-Adel and Suleiman Abu Ghaith – decamped to Iran, where they set up a command center.

From Iran, these men directed the operations of al-Qaida forces in Iraq led by Abu Musab Zarqawi. Zarqawi entered Iraq from Iran and returned to Iran several times during the years he led al-Qaida operations in Iraq.

Iran’s cooperation with al-Qaida continues today in Syria.

According to The Wall Street Journal, in directing the defense of Bashar Assad’s regime in Syria, Iran has opted to leave ISIS and its al-Qaida brethren in the Nusra Front alone. That is why they have been able to expand their power in northern Syria.

Iran and its allies have concentrated their attacks against the more moderate Free Syrian Army, which they view as a threat.

Given Iran’s 20-year record of cooperation with al-Qaida, it is reasonable to assume that it is deploying forces into Iraq to tighten its control over Shi’ite areas, not to fight al-Qaida. The record shows that Iran doesn’t believe that its victories and al-Qaida’s victories are mutually exclusive.

The second problem with the idea of subcontracting America’s fight against al-Qaida to Iran is that it assumes that Iranian success in such a war would benefit America. But again, experience tells a different tale.

The US killed Zarqawi in an air strike in 2006.

Reports in the Arab media at the time alleged that Iran had disclosed Zarqawi’s location to the US. While the reports were speculative, shortly after Zarqawi was killed, then-secretary of state Condoleezza Rice floated the idea of opening nuclear talks with Iran for the first time.

The Iranians contemptuously rejected her offer. But Rice’s willingness to discuss Iran’s nuclear weapons program with the regime, even as it was actively engaged in killing US forces in Iraq, ended any serious prospect that the Bush administration would develop a coherent plan for dealing with Iran in a strategic and comprehensive way.

Moreover, Zarqawi was immediately replaced by one of his deputies. And the fight went on.

So if Iran did help the US find Zarqawi, the price the US paid for Iran’s assistance was far higher than the benefit it derived from killing Zarqawi.

This brings us to the real threat that the rise of ISIS – and Iran – in Iraq poses to the US. That threat is blowback.

Both Iran and al-Qaida are sworn enemies of the United States, and both have been empowered by events of the past week.

Because they view the US as their mortal foe, their empowerment poses a danger to the US.

But it is hard for people to recognize how events in distant lands can directly impact their lives.

In March 2001, when the Taliban blew up the Bamiyan Buddhas statues in Afghanistan, the world condemned the act. But no one realized that the same destruction would be brought to the US six months later when al-Qaida destroyed the World Trade Center and attacked the Pentagon.

The September 11 attacks were the blowback from the US doing nothing to contain the Taliban and al-Qaida.

North Korea’s nuclear and ballistic-missile tests, as well as North Korean proliferation of both nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles to rogue regimes, like Iran, that threaten the US, are the beginnings of the blowback from the US decision to reach a nuclear deal with Pyongyang in the 1990s that allowed the regime to keep its nuclear installations.

The blowback from Iran’s emergence as a nuclear power is certain to dwarf what the world has seen from North Korea so far.

Yet rather than act in a manner that would reduce the threat of blowback from Iraq’s disintegration and takeover by America’s worst enemies, the Obama administration gives every indication that it is doubling down on the disastrous policies that led the US to this precarious juncture.

The only strategy that the US can safely adopt today is one of double containment. The aim of double containment is to minimize the capacity of Iran and al-Qaida to harm the US and its interests.

But to contain your enemies, you need to understand them. You need to understand their nature, their aims, their support networks and their capabilities.

Unfortunately, in keeping with what has been the general practice of the US government since the September 11 attacks, the US today continues to ignore or misunderstand all of these critical considerations.

Regarding al-Qaida specifically, the US has failed to understand that al-Qaida is a natural progression from the political/religious milieu of Salafist/Wahabist or Islamist Islam, from whence it sprang. As a consequence, anyone who identifies with Islamist religious and political organizations is a potential supporter and recruit for al-Qaida and its sister organizations.

There were two reasons that George W. Bush refused to base US strategy for combating al-Qaida on any cultural context broader than the Taliban.

Bush didn’t want to sacrifice the US’s close ties with Saudi Arabia, which finances the propagation and spread of Islamism. And he feared being attacked as a bigot by Islamist organizations in the US like the Council on American Islamic Relations and its supporters on the Left.

As for Obama, his speech in Cairo to the Muslim world in June 2009 and his subsequent apology tour through Islamic capitals indicated that, unlike Bush, Obama understands that al-Qaida is not a deviation from otherwise peaceful Islamist culture.

But unlike Bush, Obama blames America for its hostility. Obama’s radical sensibilities tell him that America pushed the Islamists to oppose it. As he sees it, he can appease the Islamists into ending their war against America.

To this end, Obama has prohibited federal employees from conducting any discussion or investigation of Islamist doctrine, terrorism, strategy and methods and the threat all pose to the US.

These prohibitions were directly responsible for the FBI’s failure to question or arrest the Tsarnaev brothers in 2012 despite the fact that Russian intelligence tipped it off to the fact that the 2013 Boston Marathon bombers were jihadists.

They were also responsible for the army’s refusal to notice any of the black flags that Maj. Nidal Hassan raised in the months before his massacre of his fellow soldiers at Fort Hood, or to take any remedial action after the massacre to prevent such atrocities from recurring.

The Muslim Brotherhood is the progenitor of Islamism. It is the organizational, social, political and religious swamp from whence the likes of al-Qaida, Hamas and other terror groups emerged. Whereas Bush pretended the Brotherhood away, Obama embraced it as a strategic partner.

Then there is Iran.

Bush opted to ignore the 9/11 Commission’s revelations regarding Iranian collaboration with al-Qaida. Instead, particularly in the later years of his administration, Bush sought to appease Iran both in Iraq and in relation to its illicit nuclear weapons program.

In large part, Bush did not acknowledge, or act on the sure knowledge, that Iran was the man behind the curtain in Iraq, because he believed that the American people would oppose the expansion of the US operations in the war against terror.

Obama’s actions toward Iran indicate that he knows that Iran stands behind al-Qaida and that the greatest threat the US faces is Iran’s nuclear weapons program. But here as well, Obama opted to follow a policy of appeasement. Rather than prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, or stem its advance in Syria and Iraq, Obama treats Iran as though it poses no threat and is indeed a natural ally. He blames Iran’s belligerence on the supposedly unjust policies of his predecessors and the US’s regional allies.

For a dual-containment strategy to have any chance of working, the US needs to reverse course. No, it needn’t deploy troops to Iraq. But it does need to seal its border to minimize the chance that jihadists will cross over from Mexico.

It doesn’t need to clamp down on Muslims in America. But it needs to investigate and take action where necessary against al-Qaida’s ideological fellow travelers in Islamist mosques, organizations and the US government. To this end, it needs to end the prohibition on discussion of the Islamist threat by federal government employees.

As for Iran, according to The New York Times, Iran is signaling that the price of cooperation with the Americans in Iraq is American acquiescence to Iran’s conditions for signing a nuclear deal. In other words, the Iranians will fight al-Qaida in Iraq in exchange for American facilitation of its nuclear weapons program.

The first step the US must take to minimize the Iranian threat is to walk away from the table and renounce the talks. The next step is to take active measures to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power.

Unfortunately, the Obama administration appears prepared to do none of these things. To the contrary, its pursuit of an alliance with Iran in Iraq indicates that it is doubling down on the most dangerous aspects of its policy of empowering America’s worst enemies.

It only took the Taliban six months to move from the Bamiyan Buddhas to the World Trade Center. Al-Qaida is stronger now than ever before. And Iran is on the threshold of a nuclear arsenal.

Our Islamic Fundamentalist Adversaries are Inhuman Barbarians 

 Isi Leibler 6-19-14

Fears for the well-being of the abducted teenagers dominate our minds and prayers and we share the pain of their parents and families. And the nation as a whole is displaying the unity that has always been the hallmark of the Jewish people when confronted with such situations.

However there are a few demented Israelis, exemplified by Yedioth Ahronoth journalist Raanan Shaked who blames the tragedy on “these nut jobs [who] take the kids with them to live in the territories.” The Alice in Wonderland nature of our democracy also enables Balad MK Hanin Zoabi to deny that the abductors were terrorists and shamelessly justify the kidnapping as an act of resistance to “Palestinian suffering”. She was supported by Avram Burg who, in Haaretz, attributed the abduction to “the suffering of a society, its cry, and the future of an entire nation that has been kidnapped by us”.

But the overwhelming majority of our politicians, whose despicable behavior reached an all-time low during the course of the presidential elections, are united and compassionate in their handling of this ongoing crisis.

Since the creation of the state, we have endured endless terrorist acts targeting innocent Israelis of all ages.

The global media has portrayed the kidnapping as an attack on “settlers.” This is especially ironic given the history of Gush Etzion – from where the teenagers were abducted – a settlement bloc founded by the children and survivors of a community destroyed and razed to the ground during the 1948 War of Independence.

In this context, we must come to terms with the reality that the world is indifferent to what happens to Israel, as exemplified yet again by the EU failing to make a formal statement for five days. When it did, the statement was not signed by foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, who never misses an opportunity to release immediate statements in her own name condemning Israel for construction in east Jerusalem Jewish suburbs.

Ironically, as this kidnapping saga is unfolding in Israel, in New York there has been furious debate surrounding the Metropolitan Opera production of “Death of Klinghoffer,” a vile drama based on the callous murder of a crippled Jew on a cruise ship by Palestinian terrorists which seeks to rationalize and humanize the terrorists and rationalize their motivations.

The major problem today is that the international community denies the barbaric nature of Islamic fundamentalism. Surely the carnage taking place in Syria and now Iraq, which matches the worst examples of medieval butchery, should have served as a wakeup call. The behavior of the Sunni jihadists in the capture of Mosul, in which hundreds, if not thousands, of soldiers and policemen were decapitated and their heads placed on display, explains why over half a million of the city’s inhabitants fled. Likewise the 185,000 butchered by both sides in the Syrian civil war and the 300 Nigerian schoolgirls kidnapped and apparently sold as slaves. The jihadists — Sunnis and Shiites alike — are barbaric monsters.

But in relation to Israel and its neighbors, the international community finds it far more convenient to portray the conflict in terms of Palestinians seeking national independence from their Israeli “occupiers.” The fact that the Palestinians were offered 95% of the territories over the Green Line and spurned statehood on numerous occasions, underlines their true aspiration — which is not real estate but the elimination of Jewish sovereignty.

The whole region is a scorpions’ den of barbaric activity. Hamas and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade — the military wing of Fatah, a component of the PA — are birds of a feather, akin to their cruel and murderous Syrian and Iraqi counterparts. The Shiites, whom they seek to exterminate, are equally brutal toward the Sunnis when they are in control. Thus it is impossible to differentiate between the cruel brutality of the Hezbollah Shiites and the Hamas Sunnis. If these barbarians have the capacity to behave so cruelly toward their own kinsmen, one can only shudder at what they would do to Jews if they had the opportunity.

Israel represents an oasis of relative tranquility in this tumultuous region. It is ironic that in recent months Israel has even been treating casualties from the civil war in Syria. We unhesitatingly provide medical services to Palestinians, including two years ago, the granddaughter of Ismael Haniyeh, the Gaza-based head of Hamas who continues calling for the slaughter of Jews. Incredibly, during the same week as the abduction, Mahmoud Abbas had no inhibitions about having his wife treated at Assuta Medical Center in Tel Aviv.

Yet when Israeli civilians are targeted by missiles from Gaza, all that the U.S. and the international community requires of Abbas is his statement that it is not in the interests of the Palestinians at that time to launch rockets against Israel. Only after four days did Abbas respond and condemn the abduction — but it was subsumed with a protest against the Israelis for disrupting of Palestinian life as they searched for the perpetrators.

In the meantime, the Palestinians publicly rejoiced, both in PA areas and in Gaza. Revolting cartoons were published in the official Palestinian Authority daily and Fatah publications celebrating the abduction. This is consistent with the statement made on PA TV earlier this year by leading PA official Jibril Rajoub, stating that “if Hamas wants to kidnap soldiers … we encourage them. When they kidnapped [Gilad] Schalit, we congratulated them.” It is worth noting that there is no distinction between the incitement to hatred by the PA and that promoted by the openly genocidal Hamas.

Yet last month, the Obama administration effectively sanctioned the union of the PA with Hamas, which subsequently publicly reaffirmed its genocidal objectives and calls on its followers to contribute to the destruction of Israel. And our “peace partner” merely shrugs his shoulders when members of his coalition call for our annihilation.

U.S. President Barack Obama may boast that he oversaw the targeted killing of bin Laden, but the reality is that today, Islamic fundamentalism is stronger than ever. In fact, unless firmly repulsed in the coming weeks, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Afghanistan and a number of other potential regional hotspots could well establish caliphates which will emerge as launching pads for exporting terror to all parts of the world. They will of course also be able to utilize as terrorists those returning citizens from Europe and North America who fought with them against Shiites. These will be in addition to Iranian Shiite terrorists like Hezbollah who are already engaged in global terror and who will be enormously empowered if Iran becomes a nuclear power.

If global leaders continue burying heads in the sand and refuse to urgently confront the nightmarish reality of Islamic fundamentalism with its messianic global overtones, it will be far more costly to oppose these forces when they have become further entrenched.

Israel is at the frontlines of this battle against global jihad. It must react harshly if those abducted are not released. Failure to do so will further embolden the barbarians and incentivize them to kidnap more Israelis and perpetrate further acts of terror.

Past mistakes must not be repeated. The mass release of 1,027 prisoners in return for the release of Schalit in 2011 was compounded with the government’s abysmal decision last year – under US pressure – to release over 100 murderers in order to induce the PA to come to the negotiating table. The army has already been forced to arrest a number of those released. It is imperative that we review all procedures relating to the incarceration of terrorists and ensure that imprisonment will no longer be regarded by them as a paid vacation with an optional university education — to be employed after release in a hostage exchange.

Finally, despite our fears, we can only continue praying for the safe rescue of the teenagers with whom the entire nation identifies. But we should brace ourselves for tough times ahead and seek to retain the current sense of unity in which the nation and its leaders display compassion and tolerance and avoid reverting to the hostility and extremism that polarizes us.

Israel Advocacy, African American Style

6-12-14

How does an African-American pastor come to be a leading advocate for Israel on American college campuses? • And what does it have to do with Martin Luther King and the countries of sub-Saharan Africa? • Dumisani Washington explains it all in a revealing and in-depth interview with 'Mida' • A tale of a multifaceted love for Zion.

Putting things back into proper proportion; Pastor Dumisani Washington

 

Please tell us about the IBSI. 

IBSI was formed in July 2013 as a pro-Israel group that focused on cultural issues not always addressed in other organizations.

This includes emphasizing:

Israel’s ethnic diversity: The fact that the Jewish people are ethnically diverse, and that some 90 nations are represented in Israel (Jew and non-Jew) is important to many Black people.  Diversity and inclusion are signs of a healthily pluralistic society.  Seeing people living, working, thriving in Israel that look like people from all over the world helps combat the Israel racism/apartheid lie.

Israel’s historical work in African nations: People aware of Israel’s history (or the history of Zionism) are aware of Theodor Herzl’s vision to help realize the “redemption of the African”.  That vision has been a major part of Israel’s history since her rebirth in 1948.  Long before she was Israel’s first female Prime Minister, Foreign Minister Golda Meir was so active on the Continent that Tanzania’s president, Julius Nyerer called her, “the mother of Africa.”

As my friend and colleague, Professor Gil Troy said in his book “Moynihan’s Moment”, "by the early 1970s, Israel had diplomatic ties with thirty-two African countries, more African embassies than any country other than the United States.”  To this day, Israeli organizations continue to partner with African nations bringing technologies of every kind, while empowering the people to build strong infrastructures.

The oppression of the Palestinian people by their own leaders: One of the greatest tragedies of anti-Israel propaganda is the focus that is removed from the true plight of the Palestinian people.  The people of Gaza and the West Bank are suffering human rights abuses replete throughout the Islamist world, yet the media is dominated by story after story of Israel’s “crimes against humanity”.  Since the 1960s, no weapon has been used more frequently in bludgeoning Israel than racism; and no people have been more exploited in the campaign than Africans or African-Americans.

I wrote an article in Times of Israel entitled, “7 reasons why the Palestinian crisis & the Black struggle for freedom are absolutely nothing alike”.  I will expound on it in my upcoming book, “Zionism & the Black Church: Why Standing With Israel Will be a Defining Issue for Christians of Color in the 21st Century.”

We have colleagues and associates across the US as well as in Israel, Kenya and Nigeria. In Nigeria, we are very proud to be working with author, attorney and leader within the Igbo community, Remy Ilona.  Remy is doing a wonderful work among the Igbo Jews that have been discussed more and more in the news.  His seminal work "The Igbos and Israel: An Inter-cultural Study of the Oldest and Largest Jewish Diaspora” is a must read for anyone interested in the topic.

IBSI has no official membership numbers as we have not begun formal enrollment.  We plan to open our first American field offices this fall.

Could you give us some examples of IBSI accomplishments?

IBSI’s first social media campaign was entitled “Diverse by Choice”, in which we highlighted the multiethnic Jewish diaspora living in the Jewish State. The campaign made many people aware of IBSI’s presence, and our message resonated with many who were unaware that the Jewish people were not only immigrants from Europe. We began to understand our effectiveness as anti-Israel groups began mocking our ads - the highest form of flattery. #Diversebychoice is an oft-used hashtag that IBSI started.

It was shortly after the ‘Diverse by Choice’ campaign began that people began contacting us wanting more information; and scheduling me for speaking engagements.

What made you such an enthusiastic supporter of Israel? Did you grow up in a pro-Israel household?

I grew up as a Christian (Baptist) and there was no particular pro-Israel teaching. From a young age I was always drawn to the Christian Old Testament (Tanakh), which made me fascinated with Israel, the Jewish people and the Diaspora. As I got older I wanted to know about the Hebrew roots of my Christian faith.  I knew nothing of the Church’s horrific history with the Jewish people.  That’s something I learned much later in life.

My affinity for all things Israel led me to independently research the current state of the Diaspora, especially the Jews of Ethiopia, India/Burma, and the Igbo of Nigeria. Finally, as I followed the current events of the Jewish state, I became aware of the political realities of advocacy as well as anti-Zionist propaganda. My speaking out initially involved sharing what I had learned about Israel and dispelling the myths surrounding her.

Why do you spend so much time supporting Israel, as opposed to many other worthy causes?

As one raised as an active Christian and socially conscious person, I have had various causes to which I’ve lent my voice. Advocating for the State of Israel was a natural development, as much as a divine call. The combination of Israel’s enemies pilfering the Black struggle for civil freedom, along with my connection to the cause of Zionism became my impetus.

Another motivation for me was my upbringing.  I was born in the segregated south (Little Rock, Arkansas) where both my parents grew up.  They instilled great honor and gratitude in me for the history of my people who endured so much, yet survived and thrived.  As a young adult, I came to understand that the language of the civil rights struggle of my people was being used to attack a free, democratic nation that had no stain of legacy of slavery, Jim Crow, apartheid or legalized for of racism - I was appalled.  I had to speak out.

A unique voice; Dumisani Washington's musical initiative "The Hebrew Project"

 

You have been lecturing recently in campuses around the USA about "Dr. King's pro-Israel Legacy, and Israel's Multiethnic Society". Can you say a few words about Dr. King's and his followers' support to Israel?

Dr. King was a staunch supporter of the State of Israel and a friend of the Jewish people. Many who know of his legacy know of his close relationship with Rabbi [Avraham] Joshua Heschel as well as the Jewish support for the Black civil rights struggle. Many are unaware, however, of the negative push back Dr. King got from some people. Particularly after the 1967 war in Israel, international criticism against the Jewish State began to rise.  Dr. King remained a loyal friend, and made his most powerful case for Israel almost 1 year after the Six Day War - and 10 days before his death.

Continuing his tradition, Dr. King’s close friends - Bayard Rustin and A. Philip Randolph - formed BASIC (Black Americans to Support Israel Committee) in 1975. BASIC was formed in large part to combat the “Zionism is Racism” resolution being debated in the UN at the time.  Some 300 African-Americans signed a statement in the Sunday, November 23, 1975  edition of the New York Times condemning the Resolution.  I have a reproduction of the document on my blog.  Though the organization is no longer active, it definitely spoke to the strong pro-Israel stance within the Black American community.  That sentiment still exists, though it has more dormant in recent years.  IBSI’s goal is to give voice to it once again.

What kind of difficulties do your activists in universities face? Can you tell us about any opponent you had and how you faced him or her?

Our opponents are still trying to figure out how to respond to us. We have not gotten any of the type of antagonism many of our Jewish friends have faced on campus.  But we have had many interesting conversations.

In Southern California earlier this spring I had the opportunity to have a long debate/discussion with a leader with Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP). I challenged the SJP member to truly evaluate the Palestinian human rights abuses perpetrated by their own people. At the end of what was about a 2-hour talk, I finally asked the student if there was truly anything Israel could do that would make its enemies allow her to live in peace.  The student quietly admitted, “No. There’s nothing Israel can do.” It was an enlightening moment for the student, who thanked me and shook my hand as we parted. The student also took my contact information, and wanted to know more.

Avraham Joshua Heschel (right) and Martin Luther King at a Civil Rights march. youtube screencap.

 

What is your opinion of the BDS movement calling to boycott Israel? Is it successful in the USA? 

Ironically, this was one of the questions the SJP member asked me. I told the student that I didn’t see BDS going anywhere. Israel’s dominant position in technology, agriculture, medicine, and more will ensure that no country or business who wants to be competitive will ever distance themselves from her. Also, academic boycotts by organizations like the ASA reveal the type of elitism and disconnectedness we often see in academia.  This is not to say that America’s college professors (as a whole) are anti-Israel.  But some are, and their campaigning for BDS is evidence.  I don’t have national stats on the BDS, but there was a recent article inthetower.org that stated Americans overwhelmingly (66% to 34%) blame the Palestinian (leaders) for breakdowns in the peace talks.

There is a feeling in Israel that we are losing the support of the American people. From your many visits to campuses around the US, is your impression that the support to Israel in the US is decreasing?  What about the support to Israel specifically in the Afro-American community?

Again, this is a complex question. Clearly the vast majority of Americans remain decidedly pro-Israel, even if they have much sympathy for the plight of the Palestinian people.  What groups like IBSI are primarily concerned with is the younger generation.  We believe the tactics like BDS are not necessarily designed to cripple Israel’s economy (Omar Barghouti has publicly stated that his ultimate goal is a Palestine next to a Palestine).  But BDS is designed to make Israel a pariah in the hearts and minds of the college students.

As for the African-American community, like any group, we are not a monolith. That said, we are generally placed into one of three camps:

1) The majority of Black Americans do not view the Middle East as a priority. The Israeli-Palestinian issue is not on their radar.

2) There is (and will continue to be) a fringe, anti-Israel subsection. They are the second generation Israel-haters from the 1960s who completely embrace the Palestinian narrative.  Most have never visited Israel.

3) There remains a strong, pro-Israel base who are mostly evangelical Christians. They see support for Israel - if not all of its policies - as a biblical mandate, and are represented in organizations like CUFI and AIPAC.

In your activity you stress very much Israel being Diverse by choice. What is your respond to the recent quotes of John Kerry saying Israel might become an apartheid state and Thomas freedman saying Israel is the  most active colonial power on the planet today"?

My response to both of those gentlemen is that, in democracies like the US and Israel, everyone is entitled to their opinion, for which I am grateful. I would also say that words like “apartheid” and “colonialism” have historical and cultural definitions. Applying them to a free, multiethnic nation that has cultivated that diversity while fending off a long line of enemies attempting to destroy it is not how I would spend my time.  But again - this is a free country.

Can you tell us about your musical project "The Hebrew Project"? What makes it unique? Are you planning to perform in Israel?

I am a musician by profession. It is my passion, though not a major part of my life at the moment.  But THP is very dear to me.  It is a group of some 24 singers and musicians who perform a jazz/gospel version of Hebrew songs.  We released our debut album last spring.  It’s entitled “Volume 1: From Beyond the Rivers” based on Zephaniah 3.10. We are discussing a trip to Israel with our manager, Dave Creel of Up B Management.  We hope to go some time in 2015.

Is there any further message you would like to pass on to "Mida" readers?

I just want to thank you for the opportunity to connect with your readers.  I also want to tell everyone to be on the lookout for our new media campaign.  We will be releasing a series of short videos that focus on various parts of our Israel advocacy.