Showing posts with label anti-Israel Left. Show all posts
Showing posts with label anti-Israel Left. Show all posts

Friday, April 10, 2020

Israel Policy Forum: Neither defending chances for peace or a realistic plan to achieve it - by Jonathan S. Tobin

Nostalgia for the illusions of the past should never be confused with activism that actually helps Israel.

Jonathan S. Tobin..
JNS.org..
08 April '20..

The list of signatories to a new letter organized by the Israel Policy Forum protesting the possibility of Israel passing legislation in the upcoming months to annex parts of the West Bank is full of familiar names to those who have followed American Jewish organizational life in the last few decades. Some on the list—like current Reform movement leader Rabbi Rick Jacobs—are still important players in contemporary Jewish life. But many of the big donors and veteran activists mentioned could have been recycled from a host of similar efforts by liberal groups in the distant past.

The letter is a direct response to the latest news about the terms of a still not finalized coalition agreement to form a unity government led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his chief rival, Benny Gantz. But the tone and the language used seem straight out of the early 1990s, when some of the same people were speaking up in favor of the Oslo Accords and its promise of land for peace, or later in the decade when they were disingenuously protesting Netanyahu’s policies during his first term as prime minister for being too slow to make concessions to PLO leader Yasser Arafat. Then, too, they were admonishing Israelis not to defend their rights because doing so would alienate the tender sensibilities of Americans.

Indeed, if a Jewish Rip Van Winkle were to have dozed off during the Clinton administration and awakened in the last week, he would feel right at home with the rhetoric admonishing Israelis not to alienate Americans or to sabotage hopes of peace with the Palestinians.

The push to annex parts of the West Bank, where hundreds of thousands of Jews currently live in settlement blocs, as well as the strategic Jordan Valley divides Israelis. Yet the notion that formalizing Israel’s control over these lands is an obstacle to peace is as much a relic of the past as some of the IPF letter’s signatories.

(Continue to Full Column)

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook which has additional pieces of interest besides that which is posted on the blog. Also check-out This Ongoing War by Frimet and Arnold Roth. An excellent blog, very important work. 
.

Tuesday, March 19, 2019

Question. Does Ofer Cassif belong in the Knesset? - by Victor Rosenthal

...Does Cassif meet the criteria for disqualification? It seems incontrovertible. He explicitly opposes the Jewish nature of the state, and the implications of his support of a right of return for Arab “refugees” cannot be imagined as anything but a call for the “negation of the existence” of the state. He supports terrorism directed at soldiers in the territories, which certainly counts as “armed struggle” by an enemy of the state. And yet, the Supreme Court – by a majority of 8 to 1 – does not feel that there is sufficient evidence to keep him out of the Knesset!

Victor Rosenthal..
Abu Yehuda..
18 March '19..
Link: http://abuyehuda.com/2019/03/does-ofer-cassif-belong-in-the-knesset/

You shall do no injustice in judgment: you shall not be partial to the poor, nor show favoritism to the great; but you shall judge your neighbor in righteousness. – Lev. 19:15

From Israel’s Basic Law: The Knesset,

1. A candidates’ list shall not participate in elections to the Knesset, and a person shall not be a candidate for election to the Knesset, if the objects or actions of the list or the actions of the person, expressly or by implication, include one of the following: 
2. negation of the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state; 
3. incitement to racism;  
4. support of armed struggle, by a hostile state or a terrorist organization, against the State of Israel.

a1. For the purposes of this section, a candidate that was at a hostile state unlawfully within the seven years preceding the date for submitting the candidates’ list, is deemed a person whose actions express support of armed struggle against the State of Israel, as long as he has not proven otherwise.

b. The decision of the Central Elections Committee that a candidate is prevented from participating in the elections requires the affirmation of the Supreme Court of Israel. …


The Elections Committee ruled on several petitions prior to the upcoming election. It rejected a petition against the Otzma Yehudit (Jewish Power) party which accused its members of anti-Arab racism, and it disqualified the Balad-Ra’am party, a joint list composed of the Balad (land) party and several other Arab parties. It also ruled against the candidacy of Ofer Cassif, a Jewish member of the mostly Arab Hadash (Communist) party.

To nobody’s surprise, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the committee. It decided to disqualify Michael Ben Ari of Otzma Yehudit, and to reinstate Balad-Ra’am and Cassif.

The Supreme Court has always been loath to allow the disqualification of candidates, and has always reversed such decisions, with only a few exceptions. In 1988, Meir Kahane’s Kach party was disqualified for racism (as well as its successor, Kahane Chai in 1992), and in 1965 a far-left Arab party was ruled out for negating the State of Israel. On several other occasions, the Election Committee tried to disqualify various Arab or right-wing Jewish parties, but it was always overruled.

I’m not going to discuss the case of Michael Ben Ari in detail. He has certainly made anti-Arab statements, as Arabs often make anti-Jewish ones. But I believe the concept of “racism” is vague and unclear, especially in the context of the conflict between Israel and the Arabs (and I would have said the same about Meir Kahane, whose ideas Ben Ari embraces), and it’s unfortunate that it is included in the law.

I am also going to leave aside the case of the Arab parties, which do their best to skirt the letter of the law while at the same time vying with each other to present themselves to the Arab public as the most anti-Zionist. Balad, in my opinion, has crossed very far over the line, including having members of the Knesset who engaged in criminally subversive activities (and have even been imprisoned for it).

But I do want to talk about the Jewish communist, Ofer Cassif.

Cassif is a teacher at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, who also lectures at several other Israeli colleges and universities. He enjoys insulting his political enemies:

Cassif, who was one of the first Israeli soldiers to refuse to serve in the territories, in 1987, gained fame thanks to a number of provocative statements. The best known is his branding of Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked as “neo-Nazi scum.” On another occasion, he characterized Jews who visit the Temple Mount as “cancer with metastases that have to be eradicated.”

On his alternate Facebook page, launched after repeated blockages of his original account by a blitz of posts from right-wing activists, he asserted that Culture Minister Miri Regev is “repulsive gutter contamination,” that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is an “arch-murderer” and that the new Israel Defense Forces chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Aviv Kochavi, is a “war criminal.”

His insults may rise to the level of incitement to violence, which warrants criminal prosecution.

Wednesday, December 5, 2018

As expected, the New York Times and Hanukkah - by Jerold Auerbach

...“We have neither taken other men’s land, nor have we possession of that which [belongs] to others. … But we, having the opportunity, hold fast the inheritance of our fathers.” That inheritance is of little value to Lukas, and even less to The New York Times, ever eager to display its assimilationist identity and assert its patriotic loyalty.

Jerold Auerbach..
Algemeiner..
04 December '18..

Ever since Adolph Ochs purchased The New York Times in 1896, launching what eventually became the Sulzberger family dynasty that still presides over the newspaper, it has embraced Jewish assimilation. Judaism, for Ochs, was a religion only. Zionism was anathema to the Times, threatening to compromise the loyalty of American Jews to the United States. The restoration of Jewish statehood, two millennia after the destruction of Jewish national sovereignty in the Land of Israel, increased Times discomfort for publisher Arthur Hays Sulzberger, Ochs’s son-in-law and successor. During most of the past seventy years, the Times has reflected the palpable uneasiness of the Sulzberger dynasty with the State of Israel.

As difficult as it might be to select the most obnoxious example of this distress, a recent Times opinion article surely deserves consideration. Entitled “The Hypocrisy of Hanukkah” (December 2), it was written by journalist Michael David Lukas, who had previously authored “A Skeptic’s Guide to Passover.” Clearly distressed by Zionism and Israel, he seems to find little value in Judaism other than as a target of his scorn.

(Continue to Full Column)

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook which has additional pieces of interest besides that which is posted on the blog. Also check-out This Ongoing War by Frimet and Arnold Roth. An excellent blog, very important work. 
.

Monday, December 3, 2018

Hating Jews and Israel: Where David Duke agrees with Marc Lamont Hill, Linda Sarsour and Louis Farrakhan - by Petra Marquadt-Bigman

...The left likes to pretend antisemitism is an exclusively right-wing phenomenon. But every time the left makes statements about the world’s only Jewish state that appeal to the likes of David Duke, it proves that contemporary left-wing antisemitism masquerades as “anti-Zionism” while faithfully reflecting “the tropes, images and ideas of classical antisemitism.

Petra Marquadt-Bigman..
The Warped Mirror..
03 December '18..

It’s often said that Israel is a divisive issue – but Israel-haters from the far-right and the far-left actually find a lot of common ground when it comes to the world’s only Jewish state.

So David Duke – described by the ADL as “perhaps America’s most well-known racist and anti-Semite” – has decreed that “no decent person can disagree” with Marc Lamont Hill’s views on Israel. Hill is a far-left anti-Israel activist who thinks the Jewish state too evil to exist and wants it eliminated in favor of a “free Palestine from the river to the sea.”




And while Duke doesn’t think too much of Women’s March leader and prominent activist Linda Sarsour, he does think she’s absolutely right to believe Israel exerts undue influence on US politicians…

(Continue to Full Post)

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook which has additional pieces of interest besides that which is posted on the blog. Also check-out This Ongoing War by Frimet and Arnold Roth. An excellent blog, very important work. 
.

Friday, March 9, 2018

AIPAC, Israel and the poisonously ambiguous concept of “two states” - by Vic Rosenthal

...AIPAC hoped to fend off attacks from J Street and similar groups without weakening its support from pro-Israel elements, by employing the time honored method of political triangulation. By adopting some of the ideas of its opponents on the Left, it hopes to bring them into the fold, while its supporters on the Right will have nowhere else to go. But this is a poor strategy because the progressives among the Democrats no longer accept AIPAC’s primary objective, which is support for Israel. It’s not that they think, as the Israeli Left does, that “ending the occupation” will be likely to lead to peace, or that their vision of Israel will be more democratic, or that another partition of the Land of Israel will prevent a demographic crisis. They have absorbed the narratives of the international Left and are simply anti-Israel. They are not coming back to AIPAC.

Vic Rosenthal..
Abu Yehuda..
08 March '18..
Link: http://abuyehuda.com/2018/03/the-poisonously-ambiguous-concept-of-two-states/

AIPAC CEO Howard Kohr created a stir Sunday when he called for “two states for two peoples: one Jewish with secure and defensible borders and one Palestinian with its own flag and its own future.”

Kohr deliberately echoed the words of Benjamin Netanyahu at Bar-Ilan University in 2009. Netanyahu said then,

In my vision of peace, in this small land of ours, two peoples live freely, side-by-side, in amity and mutual respect. Each will have its own flag, its own national anthem, its own government. Neither will threaten the security or survival of the other. …

I have already stressed the first principle – recognition. Palestinians must clearly and unambiguously recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people.

The second principle is: demilitarization. The territory under Palestinian control must be demilitarized with ironclad security provisions for Israel. …

Regarding the remaining important issues that will be discussed as part of the final settlement, my positions are known: Israel needs defensible borders, and Jerusalem must remain the united capital of Israel with continued religious freedom for all faiths.

Bibi’s statement was a mistake. His enemies on the right pounced on him for giving up his historical opposition to a Palestinian state, while the Arabs and the Left derided him as insincere. He got nothing in return from Obama and lost whatever reputation he still had for principled opposition to concessions for the PLO. Most damaging to Israel was the fact that the Americans and the PLO “pocketed” his statement, making it almost impossible for him or any subsequent Israeli Prime Minister to walk it back. From then on, anyone could say “Israel officially supports a Palestinian state.”

The root of the problem is that the concept of “two states” is poisonously ambiguous. Everyone can understand it to mean something different, up to embracing diametrically opposite ideas.

Friday, September 16, 2016

Breezy Hypocrisy, the Academic Left, and Their Fashionable Acceptance of Calls for Judeocide

...So, why wouldn't university administrators have empathy for, as they see it, Palestinian students standing up for justice for their own people through a popular uprising? But as my dear old friend Dan Bielak used to say, "Just tell the truth." That may not be quite so easy as it sounds, but we have it on our side and we should not be shy about using it. Here's a truth: The Jews, along with the Christians, lived as persecuted minorities under Arab-Muslim Qur'anic rule for 13 fun-filled centuries. Why don't we start the discussion there?

Michael Lumish..
Israel Thrives..
15 September '16..
Link: http://israel-thrives.blogspot.co.il/2016/09/the-breezy-hypocrisy-of-academic-left.html

Imagine, if you will, a fictional organization called Students for Justice in the United States that focuses on African-American urban crime. Imagine that this organization suggested that black misbehavior is undermining the United States economically and educationally, socially and culturally.

What if thirty, or so, of such students were to gather outside the Cesar Chavez Student Center at San Francisco State University (SFSU) and literally call for the murder of black people.

How do you suppose the university would respond?

What would President Wong do under such circumstances?

I think that we can all agree that those students would not remain students at SFSU for very long, if, in fact, they did not end up in prison. There is not the slightest doubt in my mind, however, that the university would expel those students and rightly so.

Yet, somehow, against all common human decency, the General Union of Palestine Students (GUPS) is allowed to call for the murder of Jews (at least, those in Israel) via calls for "intifada" on university property. Furthermore, the university seems to have no problem with such behavior, presumably on the grounds of free speech.

There is a clear and obvious double-standard wherein SFSU, and virtually all other universities around the country, have created two classes of students. There are those whose people must be protected as a matter of conscience and of social justice and those who can be thrown to the wolves, also allegedly as a matter of conscience and social justice.

Black people, as an historically persecuted minority in the United States and in the lineage of African-American slaves, are a protected minority within US academia. No one would ever think it appropriate on an American campus to call for harm to black people and any student who did so would be forthrightly expelled, and rightly so.

Yet, for some reason, calling for the murder of Jewish people, via calls for intifada, is just fine as far as virtually every university administration in this country is concerned.

How is this possible?

Tuesday, April 12, 2016

Where Israel Bashing Pays Off - by Jonathan Tobin

...While Clinton and the Republicans seek to show that they are Israel’s friends, Sanders understands a crucial New York voting block wants something different. For the Jewish left, Sanders’ refusal to understand the reality of Palestinian intransigence or to acknowledge the facts about rejected Israeli efforts to make peace isn’t dumb politics. Whether or not, they can help the Vermont senator win New York they believe their views will ultimately prevail among Democrats. It is that possibility, more than the negligible possibility that Sanders will become president that should worry friends of Israel.

Jonathan S. Tobin..
Commentary Magazine..
11 April '16..

For casual political observers, it may have seemed counter-intuitive. As the campaign for the New York primary heats up, presidential candidates usually go into full pander protocol when it comes to Jewish voters in the only state where this group may actually have a real impact on the outcome. For most of them that usually consists of eating food, paying homage to religion (Ted Cruz went through the motion of trying to learn how to bake matzah) and, of course, reminding voters of their undying friendship for the state of Israel. But Bernie Sanders isn’t reciting the usual script about the Jewish state. After delivering a Middle East policy speech last month that was highly critical of Israel that he chose not to give at the AIPAC conference (the only presidential candidate to avoid their annual event this year) and then making a staggering exaggeration about the 2014 Gaza war that amounted to an accusation of a massive war crime during an interview with the New York Daily News, Sanders walked part of it back but actually doubled down on the underlying attack on Israel during another interview yesterday on CNN’s “State of the Nation.”

Asked by Jake Tapper about his claim that Israel had killed “10,000 innocent civilians” — a number that was five times the inaccurate claims made by Hamas and more than ten times the actual toll of those used as human shields by the Islamist terror group — Sanders admitted the number was inaccurate (something he seemed to want to blame on his interviewer rather than himself) but then insisted that the basic premise of his critique of Israel was correct.

Sanders again said that Israel’s counter-attack on the terrorist group, which was raining down thousands of rockets on Israeli towns and cities and sending killers through tunnels to kidnap and murder, was “disproportionate.” Though he coupled this assertion with a claim of supporting Israel’s right to exist and to defend itself against terror, he failed to explain why a weaker response to an active threat would have either worked or been more appropriate. Instead, he again shifted the conversation from what the Palestinians are doing to what he believes is Israel’s responsibility for the conflict. He said Israel must “treat Palestinians with dignity and respect” and address the poverty in Gaza. His point was that to be really pro-Israel you have to do more than be concerned about the Jewish state’s security.

This is the sort of thinking that is common on the American left, including left-wing Jews, who cling to their preconceptions about Israeli perfidy and ignore the reality of the Middle East. Sanders doesn’t bother to consider that poverty in Gaza is the result of Hamas misrule, especially since Israel withdrew from the strip in 2005. If their poverty is to be blamed on the partial blockade of the area enforced by Israel and Egypt (though Israeli convoys of food and medicine kept flowing into Gaza even while Hamas was firing at Israel), it is because that independent Palestinian state in all but name is a terrorist enclave.

Though he is right to say Palestinians are deserving of respect and dignity, but if they think the lack of a state and the continuing Israeli presence in the West Bank is the problem, then why doesn’t Sanders ponder why they have repeatedly refused Israeli offers of statehood and independence? Even now, Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas refuses to recognize the legitimacy of a Jewish state no matter where its borders are drawn and speaks (when addressing Palestinians in Arabic as opposed to speaking to Westerners in English) of all of Israel as being “occupied” territory.

Sanders’ distortions about Israel would not have earned him cheers from a pro-Israel audience like that at the AIPAC conference and they aren’t likely to do so from similar Jewish audiences in New York. Why then is Sanders doubling down on a controversial approach to the Middle East just as the largest number of Jewish primary voters are about to have their say about the Democratic race?

Monday, March 21, 2016

America, Israel and the Moral Bankruptcy of the Progressive-Left - by Michael Lumish

...On the progressive-left, Israel is the Jew among nations. Just as prior to establishment of the state of Israel Europeans tended to ascribe a host of negative characteristics to the Jewish people, so today they ascribe those same specific characteristics to the Jewish state and they do so... gallingly enough, hypocritically enough... under the banner of social justice. For 2,000 years we lived in diaspora, that is, we lived or died according to the pleasure of non-Jews. For 1,300 years we lived as second and third-class non-citizens under the imperialist boot of Muslim rule, i.e., as dhimmis. And today, directly after the historical moment in which we re-took our freedom, progressives tell us that the institution within which we manifest that freedom, the state of Israel, is a racist, colonialist, imperialist, apartheid country which, if it should not be dismantled as the national homeland for the Jewish people, must jump through whatever hoops they lay down.

Michael Lumish..
Israel Thrives..
19 March '16..

(Also published at the Elder of Ziyon)

{Author's note - this is a slightly edited retread from a few years ago. I thought that it was worth revisiting.}

The progressive movement's main claim to political legitimacy is a moral claim. The movement claims to stand for social justice and equality of rights throughout the world. Any legitimacy the left has as a political movement is grounded in the notion of universal human rights. But if the left has quietly abandoned that ideal, which it has, then it loses both moral and political legitimacy. After all, if the left does not stand for universal human rights, then just what in this world does it stand for?

The sad truth is that the left has abandoned its core reason to be. By holding different people, and different countries, to different moral standards it has effectively abandoned its alleged core values. One cannot claim to stand for social justice, after all, if you only care about social justice for some people, but not others. If you constantly speak out against supposed Israeli human rights abuses but remain silent about the truly horrific situations in Darfur or Congo or Syria... circumstances that make the Arab-Israel conflict look like a picnic on a summer Sunday afternoon... then you cannot claim to stand for universal human rights and, therefore, any claims you may have for moral or political leadership, as a member of the left, are entirely unfounded.

This is the situation that we find ourselves in, currently, and it probably represents at least part of the reason why many Jews are becoming more and more dissatisfied with the Democratic Party and the progressive movement. Most diaspora Jewish supporters of Israel are people who at one time, if not currently, considered themselves on the progressive-left. Certainly, I did. As someone who grew up in the political aftermath of the counterculture and the New Left, I was impressed with the ideals of those movements. I was impressed with the counterculture for its apparent spontaneity, its anti-authoritarian values, and its sense of community. I was impressed with the New Left for standing against jingoism, for its anti-war agenda, and for its championing of the human rights of women and Gay people and other minorities.

Today, looking back on the movement that was for decades my political home, what I see are the ruins of what was and the rank hypocrisy of what is. The left has essentially broken itself on Israel's back and they don't even know it, yet. The reason for this is that if, as a movement, the progressive-left intends to constantly fire-off Katyushas of Hatred and Qassams of Malice toward Tel Aviv, while snuggying up to Iran, then they lose all moral legitimacy. This is particularly true given the fact that the left could hardly care less about the 5.5 million dead in the Congo, about Tibetans living under Chinese occupation, about rape as a tactic of war in Darfur, about the hanging of Gay people from cranes in Tehran, or about an Arab and Muslim world rife with anti-Semitism, homophobia, and gender apartheid.

In this way the left, which claims to be both moral and anti-racist proves itself to be, in fact, neither.

On the progressive-left, Israel is the Jew among nations. Just as prior to establishment of the state of Israel Europeans tended to ascribe a host of negative characteristics to the Jewish people, so today they ascribe those same specific characteristics to the Jewish state and they do so... gallingly enough, hypocritically enough... under the banner of social justice. For 2,000 years we lived in diaspora, that is, we lived or died according to the pleasure of non-Jews. For 1,300 years we lived as second and third-class non-citizens under the imperialist boot of Muslim rule, i.e., as dhimmis. And today, directly after the historical moment in which we re-took our freedom, progressives tell us that the institution within which we manifest that freedom, the state of Israel, is a racist, colonialist, imperialist, apartheid country which, if it should not be dismantled as the national homeland for the Jewish people, must jump through whatever hoops they lay down. If Israel fails to jump through each and every one of those hoops then clearly they do not want peace and thus deserve whatever they get.

Well, some of us have definitely had enough of this nonsense.

Thursday, March 17, 2016

Who Would've Thought? Defending Anti-Semitism at Jewish Voice for Peace

...Working hard to undo the catastrophe of having a tiny piece of the Middle East that is not ruled by Arab Muslims, JVP has acquired a reputation for using “its Jewish identity to shield the anti-Israel movement from allegations of anti-Semitism.” Some recent events have provided JVP with the opportunity to demonstrate that this reputation is well-earned.

Petra Marquadt-Bigman..
Times of Israel..
16 March '16..

No, you don’t have to be Jewish to join the Orwellian-named Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) – it’s enough if you agree that ever since the world’s only Jewish state has been re-established, it has been causing an ongoing “Nakba,” i.e. catastrophe, to the Palestinians. Obviously, without this ongoing Nakba, the Palestinians would live in one of those thriving modern and democratic Arab-Muslim countries that are so typical for the region…

Working hard to undo the catastrophe of having a tiny piece of the Middle East that is not ruled by Arab Muslims, JVP has acquired a reputation for using “its Jewish identity to shield the anti-Israel movement from allegations of anti-Semitism.” Some recent events have provided JVP with the opportunity to demonstrate that this reputation is well-earned.

In January, after a group of hundreds of Oberlin College alums and students argued in an open letter that the aggressive demonization of Israel by so-called “pro-Palestinian” activists created a hostile campus climate for Jewish students who wouldn’t denounce Israel, JVP urged their followers on social media to support efforts to reject such “false” accusations of anti-Semitism. It is noteworthy in this context that a new study indicates that there is indeed a strong correlation between anti-Israel activism and anti-Semitism.

Just a few weeks after the controversy about anti-Semitism at Oberlin, virulently anti-Semitic social media posts by Oberlin professor Joy Karega – an ardent supporter of “pro-Palestinian” campus activism – triggered widespread outrage. Some on the left, such as Ha’aretz columnist Bradley Burston, were quick to condemn Karega’s “vile, high-octane, Klan-grade anti-Semitism;” however, as Burston rightly noted, Karega’s fellow “pro-Palestinian” activists remained conspicuously silent.


Wednesday, January 27, 2016

Six examples of Israel derangement syndrome that envelops the far left - by David Bernstein

(#6 of 6) Many Black Lives Matters groups, through a combination of infiltration by pro-Palestinian activists and acceptance of the mumbo-jumbo idiocies of “intersectionality,” have been persuaded to make hostility to Israel a part of their platform. The fact that Israel is the only nation, ever, to airlift tens of thousands of poor black Africans into its country from a war zone and give them immediate, full citizenship doesn’t give these groups pause. Black lives may matter, but hostility to Israel matters more, apparently.

David Bernstein..
The Volokh Conspiracy/Washington Post..
26 January '16..

Consider the following incidents described below that have reached my inbox or social media accounts over the past two weeks or so:

1. In the wake of a controversy over whether French Jews should wear kippot (male religious headcoverings) in public after the stabbing of an observant, kippah-wearing Jew in Marseille, Rony Brauman, a “human rights activist” and former president of Doctors Without Borders, stated that wearing a kippah signifies support not just for Israel but also for Israel’s policies. This is not only wildly inaccurate, but Brauman also implied that because the kippah signifies such support, kippah-wearers are an understandable target.

2. Anti-Israel sentiment at that most progressive of colleges, Oberlin, is bleeding into anti-Semitism (or maybe anti-Israel sentiment is simply providing a cover for latent anti-Semitism). Professor William Jacobson has the details here, but even if you don’t read the whole post, read the end of it, where he quotes a lengthy Facebook post from a recent alumna about anti-Semitic incidents she experienced or witnessed as a left-wing, but pro-Israel Jewish student there. I won’t endorse the claim that every one of these incidents was anti-Semitic, as such, but, assuming they are all true, they paint a very disturbing picture. I was particularly struck by her claim that multiple times she heard Oberlin students dismiss the Holocaust as “white on white violence.” How narrowminded, historically unaware and just plain oblivious to any experiences outside the modern American context can one be to dismissively describe the Holocaust that way? Multicultural education apparently doesn’t include understanding historical events in context, nor even having empathy for the experiences of victims of racism who don’t fit politically correct American paradigms of such victims. Or maybe it’s just about the Jews, who can’t be seen as victims so long as Israel exists. Or both. [Update: I just noticed that the Post covered the controversy at Oberlin today. If you are interested in what’s going on at Oberlin, you really must read the Facebook post noted above; it strongly suggests that problems at Oberlin complained of by Jewish students go well beyond mere controversy over Israeli policy.]

3. An Israeli leftist activist, Ezra Nawi of the anti-occupation group Ta’ayush, aided by an activist with the “human rights” group B’tselem, was caught trying to entrap someone into selling land on the West Bank to a Jewish buyer. Nawi was quoted as follows: ” ‘Straight away I give their [land-sellers’] pictures and phone numbers to the Preventive Security Force,’ Nawi is heard saying in reference to the Palestinian Authority’s counterintelligence arm. ‘The Palestinian Authority catches them and kills them. But before it kills them, they get beat up a lot.’ ” B’tselem responded primarily with agitprop, by attacking the messenger and making excuses for the miscreants (link is in Hebrew).

Thursday, October 29, 2015

Foolish professors, intellectual pretensions and empty declarations

...The final words in the professors’ commentary speak again of love: While some people boycott Israel out of hatred, they will do it out of “love for Israel and the desire to save it.” In taking this position, they reject the views of the vast majority of “progressive” Israelis they claim to support and align themselves with every enemy of the Jewish state. They are of course free to do this, but they should be more candid with us — and with themselves. They are trying to destroy Israel to save it, from Cambridge and Chicago, while Israelis face dangers every day. One such danger is terrorism. Another, we can see, is foolish professors whose intellectual pretensions lead them to ignore history and infantilize Palestinians.

Elliott Abrams..
Washington Post..
27 October '15..

We love Israel. We love it more than we love other nations. That’s why we must do all we can to destroy its economy.

That is the message of the bizarre Oct. 25 Sunday Opinion column by professors Steven Levitsky and Glen Weyl. Their argument is simple: Israel’s “occupation” of the West Bank and Gaza is now “permanent,” unless sufficient economic damage is done to force Israel to change course.

What’s missing here? Two things: history and Palestinians.

History reveals two recent attempts by Israeli leaders to negotiate a comprehensive peace with the Palestinians — by prime ministers Ehud Barak in 2000 and Ehud Olmert in 2008 — which were rejected by Palestine Liberation Organization leaders Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas. Of this, Levitsky and Weyl say nothing. They also do not mention Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza, seeming to regard it as “occupied” even though not a single Israeli soldier or civilian lives there.

Instead, they simply claim that “domestic movements” in Israel to avoid “making the occupation permanent” have “withered.” Now, it is obvious that the Israeli left, and the “peace movement” there, have been weakened. Why might that be? The professors, self-styled “progressives,” tell us it is “thanks to an economic boom and the temporary security provided by the West Bank barrier and the Iron Dome missile defense system.” This shows a deep lack of understanding of Israel and Israelis, for the “peace movement” has “withered,” all right — but for a very different reason.

This reason is the conduct of Palestinians, a factor that is almost entirely absent from the professors’ account. This is remarkable. The Palestinian refusal of negotiations is not mentioned. The waves of terror — from Arafat’s intifadas to today’s stabbings — are barely mentioned. The only mention of the Palestinians’ rationale is this: “the occupation itself . . . crucially, remains the principal motive behind Palestinian violence.”

Really? The “occupation” began in 1967. Was there no Palestinian violence before that? What of the decades of Palestinian terrorism meant to stop Jews from coming to Israel and from establishing their state, and then continuing from 1948 to 1967? Sadly, Palestinian “violence,” which the professors scrupulously avoid calling terrorism, long predated the “occupation.” The fundamental problem is the widespread Palestinian rejection not of Israeli settlements but of the existence of the state of Israel.

Wednesday, October 21, 2015

Why Israeli citizens deserve to be murdered according to the left

...stabbings in Israel haven’t only exposed an ugly new Islamism in the Middle East. They have also exposed the moral disarray of those in the West who pose as progressive. The universalist, tolerant left that was sensitive to the scapegoating of Jews for the world’s problems is no more. And so it is left to Jews to defend Jews, bereft of left solidarity, the West merely shrugging its shoulders.

A protester tells Israelis to “go home to Poland”
 in central London on Saturday.
Brendan O'Neill..
Editor of Spiked-Online.com..
JewishNews.co.uk..
20 October '15..

It’s been clear for years that the left has been losing the moral plot. But I never thought I would see it apologise for, even defend, the stabbing to death of Jews. The silver lining for the left is that it’s impossible for it to sink any lower. This is as low as it gets.

The response in the West to the spate of foul murders by car, knife and meat cleaver in Israel has been almost as shocking as the killings themselves. Many have stayed silent, a global version of “bystander culture”, where people look awkwardly at the ground as someone is battered in front of them. The Western media is currently a shameless shuffling bystander to murders in Israel.

Others have asked, “Well, what do Israelis expect?” The crashing of cars into rabbis waiting for a bus and the hacking at Israeli citizens doing their weekly shop is treated as a normal response by Palestinians to their woes.

When the Guardian glorifies these killings as a “knife intifada”, and radical writers describe them as a natural kickback against Palestinians’ “ongoing humiliation”, they’re really saying Israeli citizens deserve to be murdered.

It’s understandable. It makes sense. These offerers of chin-stroking explanations for why a rabbi just had to be rammed with a car actually dehumanise both Israelis and Palestinians. They treat Israelis as collectively guilty for what their government does, meaning the old woman on a bus is a legitimate target.

And with their handwringing over “Palestinian despair”, with one writer claiming Palestinians are lashing out with knives because it’s “the only option left to them”, they infantilise Palestinians, reducing them to robotic knife-wielders who aren’t responsible for what they do. They heap contempt on both sides, demonising Israeli citizens and pitying Palestinians so much that they end up seeing them as mentally deficient, with no choice but to hack at the nearest Jew.

Worst of all, some in the West are supporting, implicitly, the killing of Jews with screwdrivers.

This week in New York, I saw what can only be described as a pro-stabbing demo: hundreds of anti-Israel activists hollering about Palestine being free “from the river to the sea, by any means necessary”. “Bombs, guns, knives — resistance is resistance”, said one.

In London, the keffiyeh-wearing, self-hating middle classes of the pro-Palestine lobby gathered to condemn, not the stabbings — don’t be silly! — but their bete noire, the thing they get out of bed every morning to rail against: Israel.

Tuesday, September 22, 2015

The Modern Left’s Moral Rot by Evelyn Gordon

...Since we can’t rate suffering, it’s completely reasonable for millions of Europeans to demonstrate against a war that killed 2,000 people in Gaza last summer but not against a war that has killed 250,000 in Syria. Since we can’t rate suffering, it’s completely reasonable for the Reykjavik municipality to decide last week that it will boycott Israel but not Syria or its Russian and Iranian enablers. Since we can’t rate suffering, it’s completely reasonable that when the EU’s top foreign policy official addressed the European parliament last week, her office’s website billed the Israeli-Palestinian peace process as her top agenda item while the Syrian conflict didn’t even make the list. And on, and on.

Evelyn Gordon..
Analysis from Israel..
21 September '15..

Israeli journalist Amira Hass has finally explained a mystery that long puzzled me: how the European Union manages to reconcile its policy on the Middle East with its self-image as a champion of morality, human rights, and compassion. In one short sentence, she neatly encapsulates the moral rot at the heart of the modern multicultural left: “We don’t rate suffering.”

The great European mystery is the fact that the Syrian conflict remains far below the Palestinian-Israeli one on Europe’s foreign policy agenda, even though on both moral and practical grounds, the Syrian crisis clearly deserves precedence. Not only has it killed more than 10 times as many people in four years as the Palestinian-Israeli conflict has in seven decades, but it’s currently flooding Europe with refugees and creating, as German Chancellor Angela Merkel noted, an even greater threat to European unity than the euro crisis. Nor can this order of priorities be excused by claiming Western helplessness in Syria: Pundits as ideologically diverse as COMMENTARY’s Max Boot and the New York TimesNicholas Kristof agree that no-fly zones could enable most Syrians to remain safely in their homeland. Enter Hass, a Haaretz columnist, red-diaper baby, and disciple of hard-left theory who is best known for her radical pro-Palestinian/anti-Israel views. Two weeks ago, she published a column that compares and contrasts the Holocaust and the Palestinian Nakba, a term she uses to mean everything Palestinians have suffered due to their conflict with Israel for the last 70 years. She graciously acknowledges that the two aren’t equivalent, inter alia because the Nazis perpetrated genocide while Israel has done no such thing. But then she explains why this non-equivalence doesn’t really matter:

No one has the right to compare in any way the suffering of peoples and human beings, or to quantify it, rank it, calculate it … We don’t quantify. We don’t rate suffering.

This, in a nutshell, is the moral abdication at the heart of today’s multicultural left: In its ostensibly noble desire to ensure that no suffering goes unnoticed or unattended, it has abandoned the very essence of morality – the ability to draw distinctions, which is essential to make moral choices.

Tuesday, March 17, 2015

Some Thoughts Concerning Post-Colonial Hangover and the Jihadi Bomb

...They despise Benjamin Netanyahu for warning about the bomb, but they do not despise Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi for the joyous head-chopping of infidels of any color. They despise Benhamin Netanyahu for an alleged breech of protocol, but they do not despise Barack Obama for lying to the American public concerning the administration's lack of intentions toward an Iranian nuclear bomb. The western liberal instinct has become self-flagellating and corrosive to the safety and well-being of people all around the world. The Obama administration has signaled that the West, including the United States, is in decline and is thereby leaving the very worst actors to fill the void.

Michael Lumish..
Israel Thrives..
16 March '15..

One thing that is striking about this political moment is the fact that the western Left seems entirely complacent with the idea of a nuclear bomb controlled by the ayatollahs.

This is rather odd since the Left, in general, opposes nuclear proliferation. Yet few seem disturbed at the idea of a theocratic-authoritarian regime, grounded in al-Sharia, that hangs Gay people from cranes, and that has incessantly called for the destruction of Israel, gaining a nuclear arsenal that could devastate anything on the planet.

When Barack Obama told the world that it was US policy to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb, he was lying. Without ever being explicit about it, the Obama administration changed its stated, if not actual, policy from preventing an Iranian bomb to enabling an Iranian bomb within a few years, presumably sometime shortly after Obama's departure from the White House.

Democrats still complain about Netanyahu's speech as a violation of protocol. This is transparent nonsense. The problem that Obama has with Netanyahu's speech has nothing to do with protocol and everything to do with the fact that Netanyahu alerted the world that Obama's "deal" enables a Jihadi bomb in the not too distant future.

That is it. That is all. And although The Speech was well-received by Congress, the Obama administration has done a lovely job of sicking the hounds on the Israeli Prime Minister who is up for reelection tomorrow. Obama has done everything short of literally spitting at Netanyahu in order to delegitimize the guy.

How anyone can seriously yammer about protocol when the real issue is a nuclear holocaust, is beyond me. Politically-inclined people often tend to have issues of proportionality. That is, we often have a tendency to blow up small issues at the expense of much more important issues because doing so fits our political predispositions. Thus, when we lambaste Netanyahu about protocol or about "playing politics" versus discussing the possibility of Iranian bomb, this is what we are indulging in.

Disproportionality.

Monday, January 19, 2015

Good Question - How Does it Feel to be Targeted for Genocide?

...Not only do many of our supposed allies actually think that the Jewish people deserve whatever beating we get, but they even refuse to acknowledge the reality and vitality of the political movement doing the genocidal threatening and beating. It is truly a remarkable thing to see the leadership of many tens or hundreds of millions of people literally screech for the blood of the Jews and then see our western "friends" either blame Israel or simply turn their backs.

Michael Lumish..
Israel Thrives..
18 January '15..






I think that this is not an unreasonable question.

The Jews are targeted for genocide by millions of Muslims the world over and our western allies often think that we have it coming.

None of this, of course, is socially acceptable to say, but it also happens to be the truth.

One thing that is interesting to me, however, is the Jewish reaction which, much like in the early part of the twentieth-century in Europe, is practically non-existent. The Jews - if I may stereotype my own people - can be the most reactionary people on the planet when it comes to threats to others and the most passive when it comes to threats to themselves.

In terms of the recent slaughter by Muslims against non-Muslims, liberal free speech practitioners, and Jews, the typical reaction among westerners has been to question the limits of free speech. The "Jewish" part of the attack is often white-washed and the question of the rise of political Islam is generally ignored in favor of an almost neurotic western political self-reflection - which they probably learned from the Jews - to be frank.

{Oh, my! What can we do to be better people so that they won't kill us? Are we failing to be quite as supine as we need to be? Perhaps if all the Jews in Israel stood together in a line and hopped up and down on one foot while facing Mecca and playing the kazoo, that would placate Islamic wrath.}

What we should be doing is strategizing over ways to defeat political Islam. Instead we are picking lint out of our collective navel and wondering how we can be better people so as not to upset Jihadis.

It's actually kind of pathetic and it makes me wonder how it is that we are the children and grandchildren of the "Greatest Generation."

When I take a gander at a place like Daily Kos, which simply represents typical left-leaning blog space, it indicates a disinclination to actually focus on the murderers in favor of focusing on the crimes of the murdered. They cannot very well blame the Jews at the kosher grocery for being Jewish, so they generally ignore that aspect, or twist it into something to do with Israel in order to place blame on the victims. Generally, however, they simply leave the Jews out of it and place the blame for Jihadi aggression on western "racism" of the type allegedly published in Charlie Hebdo.

Monday, December 15, 2014

The Scholars Who Would Like to Ban Disagreement

Nothing will come of this ludicrous idea, but it worth noting and thinking through. Here is a group of intellectuals who wish to apply this test to one single country on the face of the earth, Israel, a democracy– but think themselves are in the “middle” and are “protective” of Israel. As the saying goes, with friends like these….


Gershon Shafir, the professor
who proposed the concept
of 'personal sanctions.'
Elliott Abrams..
Pressure Points..
14 December '14..

Here’s a thought: when American scholars disagree with foreign officials, they should join together to try and ban those officials from entering the United States or any country in the European Union. Moreover, they should seek a freeze on any assets those officials may have–a bank account in the United States, for example.

Of course, those scholars would likely start with Iranian officials–right? They would seek to bar entry to Iranian Revolutionary Guard officers complicit in murder, torture, and terrorism, and responsible for the lack of free speech or academic freedom in Iran. They would seek to bar officials from China who crush the Tibetans, and the Uyghur Muslims of Xinjiang, and who run the gigantic system of Chinese prisons. They would try to act against officials of the Assad regime in Syria, of course, barring any of them from coming to the United States or Western Europe. They would certainly want to move against the Russian officials responsible for the invasion of the Ukraine. They would seek out repressive regimes all around the world, and apply their new approach. Right?

Wrong, of course. This new idea is to be applied only to Israel. Here’s part of the account in the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz:

A nascent group of well-known academics is calling on the U.S. government and European Union to impose personal sanctions on four prominent Israelis “who lead efforts to insure permanent Israeli occupation of the West Bank and to annex all or parts of it unilaterally in violation of international law….” “We chose four Israeli leaders and public figures to start with because they stand out by working to make the occupation permanent and irreversible,” said Gershon Shafir, a professor of sociology at University of California San Diego, who came up with the concept. These four “were particularly dismissive of Secretary of State Kerry’s peace-making efforts….The call’s 20 signatories include several well-known academics from UCLA to Boston College and Columbia University, including renowned political theorist Michael Walzer, professor emeritus of social science at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, N.J. All the signatories to SIP’s call are Zionists, Walzer said in an interview, and are deeply opposed to academic boycotts.

They are opposed to academic boycotts, but surely we can all agree that those who commit the crime of being dismissive of the Kerry efforts must be barred from setting foot in America. Who could disagree with that?

Sunday, October 26, 2014

The Left's craven love for tyranny, for grand empires built on race and religion

...Their greatest effort has been set not on resolving the stateless problems of the Kurdish minority, on the national borders of Armenia or ending the Turkish occupation and settlement of Cyprus-- but on adding yet another Arab-Muslim state to the region. Palestine, the cynical project of Pan-Arabist and Pan-Islamist thugs, is the great obsession of the left. Because if there's one thing that the Middle East doesn't have enough of, it's totalitarian regimes built on Arab and Islamist identity. And the one thing it has too much of is democratic state with a non-Arab and non-Muslim majority. And that one thing is what they are committed to destroying.

Daniel Greenfield..
Sultan Knish..
25 October '14..

The left's worst crime in the Middle East has been its support for the region's Arab-Muslim majority at the expense of its minorities. It has supported the majority's terrorism, atrocities, ethnic cleansing and repression of the region's minorities. Very rarely has it raised a voice in their support, and when it has done so, it was in muted tones completely different from their vigorous defenses of the nationalism of the Arab Muslim majority.

The left backed the Arab Spring which rewarded the ambitions of Arabist and Islamist activists at the expense of Coptic, African and other minorities. Its great regional obsession is statehood for the Arab Muslims of Israel, (better known by their local Palestinian brand), but has little to say about the Kurds in Turkey or the Azeri in Iran. The million Jewish refugees and the vanishing Christians of the region never come up in conversation. They certainly don't get their own lefty protest rallies.

The Africans of Sudan could have used an entire UN organization dedicated to their welfare, which the Arab Muslims who had failed to wipe out the region's Jewish minority are the beneficiaries of. But they had to make do with third tier aid.

Unlike the Arab nationalists and Islamists of Libya, the French, English and American air force did not come to their rescue. It came to the rescue of the Libyans who showed their gratitude in the time honored way of the Arab majority by massacring the African minority and then killing some Americans. But what's a little genocide between friends?

The left embraced Pan-Arabism, a race based nationalism, in line with the Soviet Union's expansionist foreign policy. Pan-Arabism's socialism made it easy for the left to ignore its overt racism along with the admiration of many of its leading lights for Nazi Germany. The same left which refused to see the Gulags and the ethnic cleansing under the red flag, turned an equally blind eye to the contradiction of condemning Zionism for its ethnic basis, while supporting Pan-Arabism, which was ethnically based.

Under Zionism, Israel retained a sizable Arab minority. The Pan-Arabists however drove their Jews out with mob violence, political repression, prisons and public executions. The left's criticisms of Zionism are rendered moot by their own support for Pan-Arabism, and their own longstanding hostility to Jewish national identity, insisting that socialism demands that Jews assimilate into the dominant race, whether in Russia or Western Europe. In the Middle East and North Africa, Arabization has led to repression of non-Arab minorities and the destruction of other cultures through the insistence on unity through race.

As the sun of Pan-Arabism sets, the left has turned its attention to Pan-Islamism with equal enthusiasm. While Pan-Arabism allowed Christian Arabs some representation, Pan-Islamism excludes based on religion. Having endorsed a racial tyranny, the left has fallen so low that it now champions majority theocracies.

The left's fledgling support for Kurdish nationalism has faded as Turkey has gone from a secular ally of the Western powers, to an Islamist tyranny dreaming of empire. This perverse twist of affairs has the left abandoning the national struggles of an oppressed people when their rulers align themselves more closely with the bigoted regional majority.

(Continue)

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook which has additional pieces of interest besides that which is posted on the blog. Check-it out!
.

Monday, July 7, 2014

Israel, the Left and the Making of David Into Goliath

...Mr. Muravchik provides a nuanced and illuminating guide to the ideological developments that have led many on the left to detest Israel. Yet those developments, without more, don't fully account for why many progressives turned against the Middle East's only liberal democracy while embracing Islamist terror groups as "social movements that are progressive," as the feminist theorist Judith Butler described Hamas and Hezbollah in 2006. The other main factor was a pathological self-hatred.

Sohrab Ahmari..
Wall Street Journal..
06 July '14..

The abduction in June of three Israeli teenagers by West Bank Islamists placed the world's top two human-rights organizations, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, in an awkward spot. Both groups are committed partisans of the anti-Israel cause, yet the kidnapping of minors called for some form of condemnation.

Amnesty on June 17 released a statement running to 19 paragraphs. Of these, only four could reasonably be construed as expressions of concern for the fate of the three teenagers, whose bodies Israeli authorities eventually discovered buried in shallow graves. The rest of the statement was devoted to castigating Israel for a litany abuses and to discouraging the Jewish state from defending itself.

HRW's response was more coldblooded. "Attending school at illegal settlement doesn't legitimize apparent kidnapping of #Israel teens," Kenneth Roth, HRW's executive director, tweeted on June 14. "They should be freed."

Tuesday, February 18, 2014

The Shameless Promotion of Colonialism of the Anti-Israel Left

...Judis pretends that his book is an anti-colonial work when it is really a lament for the colonial intervention that should have taken place under Truman and a plea to Obama to engage in a final colonial intervention to displace an oppressed indigenous minority from its land.

Daniel Greenfield..
frontpagemag.com..
18 February '14..

The first error in John Judis’ book “Genesis: Truman, American Jews, and the Origins of the Arab/Israeli Conflict” is in its title. The genesis of this conflict took place thousands of years before Truman when the Roman Empire imposed its colonial rule on the Jewish population using Arab mercenaries and when the Muslim Arab conquerors colonized Israel.

Judis describes the Roman ethnic cleansing of Israel’s Jewish population as the land going “through different religious incarnations after the pagan Romans ousted the Maccabee.” This is akin to another type of revisionist historian describing the Holocaust as Europe going through a new religious incarnation after the pagan National Socialists ousted Jewish communal leaders.

All the familiar myths of anti-Israel revisionist historians are present in Judis’ Genesis making it the least original book on Israel in some time. There are the European Jewish colonists seizing Arab land and powerful American Jewish lobbies intimidating politicians concerned about the “Palestinians” who would not spring into existence until after the failed invasions of Israel by the Arab colonial powers.

The Arabs are treated as a majority when it comes to their claim on the land and as a minority when it comes to soliciting liberal sympathy on their behalf. Judis justifies this political juggling act by rewriting history so that the Jews of Israel are reduced to European colonists rather than an indigenous minority.

Middle Eastern Jews are largely absent in his Eurocentric narrative because their existence upends his depiction of the Jewish resettlement as a Western colonial assault against a hapless native population. The Middle Eastern Jews, whose existence the left denies or minimizes, demonstrate that Zionism was no different than the national liberation movements of minorities like the Kurds or the Armenians.

Most Israeli Jews are Middle Eastern. Middle Eastern Jews were and are an oppressed minority under Arab Muslim rule. Their situation only improved under European colonialism. Instead of addressing that oppression; Judis pretends that Jews were better off as an oppressed minority under Muslim rule.

Like most champions of the Palestinian cause, Judis adopts the narrative of the Muslim conquerors, accepting its often imaginary and inconsistent history while disdaining the extensive history of the conquered and oppressed indigenous populations who suffered and suffer under their rule.