Just last week, the US House of Representatives passed a resolution that condemned the rise of antisemitism and called on elected officials and civil society leaders to combat any and all manifestations of it. Yet antisemitism has become more and more acceptable in many circles, including mainstream US politics itself.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

The latest wave of "acceptable" antisemitism involves left-wing politicians and liberal media pundits who demonize AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, for the heinous crime of participation in the American political process through its political action committee, the United Democracy Project. AIPAC supports candidates who are in favor of a strong US-Israel relationship and opposes candidates who are not. While the attacks on them have varied in form, the ultimate message is the same: everyone should feel free to lobby on issues they care about, unless they are Jewish and/or pro-Israel.

Some influential leaders, like "progressive" Senator Bernie Sanders, have gone full David Duke with their tropes about Jewish power. They spin stories about billionaire cabals that secretly pull strings to "buy elections and control this democracy." Sanders claims he is against all outside money involved in elections, but this appears to be the case only if the funds do not come from the Super PAC he founded or the one his acolyte founded, or any of the ones that support candidates he supports. Sanders has also called AIPAC and its supporters racist, sexist and anti-progressive – despite their clear history of support for candidates who are women, people of color and progressive, including in this very election cycle. None of these facts matter, because when it comes to groups that Sanders does not support, he doesn't care about accuracy in the least.

Other outlets have gone straight to the classic dual loyalty canard. They described AIPAC as an organization that works on behalf of a foreign country. To be clear: AIPAC is a registered American lobby with American supporters who advocate for American policies. It is funded by private donations, and receives no financial assistance from Israel or any other foreign party. There are many reasons why the vast majority of Americans in both political parties, not just American Jews, remain in favor of a strong US-Israel relationship. Perhaps first among them is the undeniable fact that supporting Israel in its struggle against Middle Eastern terrorist groups and expansionist potentates is crucial for America's own national security. To label anyone who works to protect the US-Israel relationship as the agent of a foreign state, and imply that they are disloyal citizens whose true allegiance is to the State of Israel over their own country, is just another form of classic antisemitism designed to cast Jews as the "other" or some kind of a fifth column that undermines the US from within.

Still other public figures, like former Democratic presidential candidate Marianne Williamson, were not satisfied to just describe AIPAC in anti-Semitic language. Instead, she went so far as to claim that AIPAC causes people to hate Jews. How exactly is AIPAC, a victim of anti-Semitic rhetoric, responsible for the rise in global antisemitism? Williamson explained that it is because of their "disgusting attempts to defeat candidates not in line with their right-wing policies regarding Israel." For those like Williamson who might not know which policies AIPAC supports, the lobby is in favor of "peace through a negotiated two-state agreement."

The overarching theme of the campaign against AIPAC has been the blatant use of a double standard to judge those who support the Jewish state. A prime example of how this plays out could be seen on MSNBC, where anchor Chris Hayes went on an all-out rant over how terrible it is for people who support a strong US-Israel relationship to spend money on campaigns against those who do not.

Hayes' basic argument is, more or less, that because AIPAC cares about one particular issue – i.e., the US-Israel relationship – it offends his sense of fairness for them to criticize candidates who oppose that relationship on other unrelated issues, even if the attacks are justified.

In the six-minute piece, Hayes claimed it was "insidious" for AIPAC to ask if congressional candidate Summer Lee is an authentic Democrat by using her own statements against her. In theory, that should be fair game, since Lee has gone public with her desire to dismantle the Democratic Party. Hayes also noted with admiration that Lee was endorsed by Justice Democrats, a progressive PAC founded by former Sanders' staffers, as if that should answer any questions about her record. Hayes also did not reveal that Justice Democrats revels in attacks on Democrats that it feels are not progressive enough. Nor did he take the opportunity to disclose that his own brother, Luke Hayes, works closely with the group, and has for quite some time.

It is, of course, legal and good strategy for advocacy groups to target candidates who disagree with them in any way that might be effective. That is why all of them do it and always have. Hayes and the others who attack AIPAC haven't had a problem with it until now.

Indeed, we can see this by an examination of the very group Hayes praised in his monologue – Justice Democrats. In 2020, a Justice Democrats affiliate spent half a million dollars on ads that targeted then-presidential candidates Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg. Those ads, like AIPAC's, were focused on whether or not the candidates were authentic Democrats. One, for instance, said that "Joe Biden agrees with Republicans that Social Security is too generous. Do you?" For the record, Biden has never called for his own party to be dismantled.

When it comes to tangential issues, again the Justice Democrats are instructive. They have a robust platform, but LGBT rights and abortion do not appear on it. Still, they took out ads that blasted Biden as anti-gay (he isn't) and anti-abortion (he isn't). They didn't do this because they believed that he was either of those things, or because they were issues their platform deemed a priority. They did it because they thought it could help them get their preferred candidate elected. Hayes, of course, had no problem with that, because it was done by a group he likes for a purpose he agrees with. That is the definition of a double standard.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

Moreover, after the Hayes piece aired, Justice Democrats put out their own wildly offensive and inaccurate video about AIPAC, complete with the naked tokenism of a vehement anti-Israel narrator who says "as a Jew" a few times, just to let us know that it was alright for him to say such horrible things. But what else can you expect when leading politicians and mainstream media networks feel free to engage in all kinds of anti-Semitic rhetoric whenever they think it might be helpful?

Congressional resolutions are nice, but it is more important for leaders to call out antisemitism when it happens. You can disagree with AIPAC and lobby against them, but to single them out for opprobrium is discrimination – and wrong.

Featured on JNS.org, this article was originally published by the Jewish Journal.

The post 'Acceptable' antisemitism now targets AIPAC appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Politicians are often asked to expressly condemn Nazis, and to disassociate themselves from any groups that might have Nazi sympathies. Usually this is not a problem, because everyone across the political spectrum worthy of support agrees that Nazis are bad.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

Apparently though, for a mega-conglomerate like Amazon, committing to that idea still remains a task unworthy of serious investment.

Amazon's official policy guidelines include an "Offensive Content" warning, which gives the website the right to remove any:

"Content that contains derogatory comments, hate speech, or threats specifically targeting any group or individuals; [or] Content that promotes hate speech, incites racial or gender hatred, or promotes groups or organizations that support such beliefs."

Why then, in 2022, is Amazon still "the world's largest purveyor of original Nazi propaganda films"? Why are movies that glorify Hitler's words and ideas readily available to watch, with nary a trigger warning or disclaimer in sight?

It's not because Amazon is unaware of the problem. In 2018, the Partnership for Working Families and the Action Center on Race & the Economy released a joint report titled, "Delivering Hate: How Amazon's Platforms Are Used to Spread White Supremacy, Anti-Semitism, and Islamophobia, and How Amazon Can Stop It." The report looked at Amazon's unprecedented and unparalleled reach and influence in the US online shopping market, and examined how its various platforms and services provide a number of channels through which hate groups can generate revenue, propagate their ideas, and grow their movements through new recruits.

Among other things, the report found that Amazon enables the celebration of ideologies that promote hate and violence by allowing the sale of hate symbols and imagery on its site (including products targeted at children), and facilitates the spread of hate ideologies, by publishing propaganda materials, including Nazi materials.

These findings caused enough of a stir that Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison sent a letter to Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos asking "whether Amazon is committed to ceasing the sale of all products that promote hateful and racist ideologies." Amazon responded by removing the items listed in the letter.

In their response Amazon also noted that they "have developed sophisticated, automated tools that use machine learning to scan listings on Amazon, automatically removing listings found to be in violation of our policies, before we are ever notified by an external party. These automated tools are supplemented by teams of investigators that conduct manual, human review of our listings on a regular basis."

But apparently, those tools and investigators still have not learned to identify Nazi propaganda.

In 2019, only after a wave of criticism, Amazon removed holiday ornaments featuring the Nazi concentration camp Auschwitz.

In 2020, The Auschwitz-Birkenau Memorial and Museum and the Holocaust Education Trust had to jointly call on Amazon to stop selling "The Poisonous Mushroom," an illustrated children's book with an antisemitic caricature on the cover. This particular book, which was used as evidence of crimes against humanity at the Nuremberg trials, was designed to brainwash children into hating and fearing Jews; it likens them to the devil, "warns" about how difficult they can be to identify (like poisonous mushrooms), and describes the dangers Jews allegedly pose to the children themselves and to society in general. Amazon responded by removing that book.

Just last year, the Nathan Cummings Foundation, a Jewish organization focused on social justice, introduced a shareholder proposal asking for a comprehensive report on Amazon's "efforts to address hate speech and the sale or promotion of offensive products throughout its businesses." Amazon responded by asking federal regulators to block that proposal, among others.

There is of course an argument to be made that a private marketplace like Amazon should not police ideas. Indeed, they have the First Amendment right to publish (or not publish) anything they want. But having decided that they will actively regulate hate speech and remove what they find to be societally dangerous, in the quest for equality, consistency is key. There should be bare minimums for what we can all agree is dangerous and offensive – and the danger of promoting Nazi propaganda is real.

In 1978, after a fatal school shooting in Lansing, Michigan, police searched the teen killer's bedroom and found a cache of Nazi propaganda, including a diary that the boy had titled "My Struggle," after Hilter's "Mein Kampf." Just two days before he shot his classmate, the boy wrote: "I almost abandoned Hitler last night – out of being pushed too far by my colleagues. I almost went to school without my Nazi pin in my jacket. But luckily again I had a burst of courage and never again will I think about abandoning Mein Fuhrer and Nazism."

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

A little over a month ago, a 15-year-old boy opened fire at a Michigan school, killing four students and injuring others. After the fact, people came forward to say that the warning signs were everywhere; among other things, the boy was obsessed with Nazi propaganda, which he kept in plain sight in his room. Who knows where he got it from, and while I am not implying that he got it from Amazon, it is also true that the vast majority of online shoppers in the United States do begin their product searches on Amazon.com, and so Amazon must be more careful and more proactive in taking down these dangerous materials before they have to be told to do so.

As the joint report found, whether they intend to or not, Amazon has enabled hate organizations and ideologues to spread their ideas, generate resources, and find new adherents – all while taking a cut of the revenue. Now another nonprofit organization, Americans Against Antisemitism, led by former Democratic New York State Assemblyman Dov Hikind, is leading a campaign to have, at the very least, over 30 films that glorify Nazism removed from Amazon's platforms. It is high time that Amazon invested some of that revenue back into updating their hate tools. And, if they don't have the time, they should immediately partner with an organization like Hikind's that is ready and willing to help.

After all, how hard should it be to disassociate from Nazis?

Featured on JNS.org, this article was first published by the Jewish Journal.

The post Dear Amazon: Nazis are bad appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Two weeks ago, the Israeli Defense Ministry designated six Palestinian NGOs as terrorist organizations. The Internet immediately exploded with articles and tweets accusing Israel of trying to criminalize Palestinian civil society, while anti-Semitic activists like Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn) and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich) called for "immediate consequences" for the Jewish state.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter 

Even the US State Department jumped on the virtue-signaling bandwagon, with spokesperson Ned Price claiming, "We believe respect for human rights, fundamental freedoms and a strong civil society are critically important for responsible and responsive governance," before adding that the United States will "be engaging our Israeli partners for more information regarding the basis for these designations."

For the record, Israel also believes in respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, which is why it made these designations in the first place.

The six NGOs were included on the list because of their strong ties to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, designated as a terrorist organization by the United States, European Union, Canada and Israel. Among the problematic ties, these organizations have employed PFLP terrorists, diverted humanitarian funds from European donors to the PFLP, recruited members to the terrorist group and hosted meetings for senior leadership, including convicted terrorists.

Far from being hidden or classified, much of the evidence is readily available, compiled over years by organizations like NGO Monitor, and it is important to note that the PFLP has not even bothered denying these connections.

Here is a small sample of that evidence: On Aug. 23, 2019, PFLP terrorists detonated a roadside bomb and murdered 17-year-old Rina Shnerb while she was hiking with her father and brother, who were also injured. Shortly thereafter, three PFLP members were arrested; all three were employed in senior financial roles at the Union of Agricultural Work Committees, one of the newly designated NGOs.

In an official statement, the PFLP referred to one of those terrorists, who had led the operation, as a "commander, comrade and hero."

The Bisan Center, another of the newly-designated NGOs, was headed by another one of the perpetrators of that very attack.

As to the other organizations: Three Addameer employees appeared on the PFLP's 2021 election slate; Defense for Children-Palestine is headed by two senior PFLP members; Al-Haq by a third (and a convicted terrorist to boot); and the Union of Palestinian Women's Committees Vice President openly refers to it as the PFLP's "feminist framework."

Israeli law allows the Defense Minister to declare an association a "terrorist organization" if it is: perpetrating or intentionally promoting the perpetration of terrorist acts; conducting training or providing guidance for executing terrorist acts; engaging in a transaction involving a weapon with the goal of perpetrating terrorist acts; or assisting or acting with the goal of advancing the activities of such a group.

It is hard to imagine that anyone is truly baffled by the idea that a humanitarian NGO – which may legitimately do some very good things­ – could also be engaged in providing material support for terrorists. It is especially surprising for the State Department to express confusion about such a determination, given the nature of their own obligations under US counterterrorism law.

Moreover, 8 USC. §1189 authorizes the Secretary of State to designate foreign terrorist organizations as such if they engage in terrorist activities. The statutory definition of "engage in terrorist activity" includes affording material support to a terrorist or terrorist organization even if such support is confined to non-terrorist activities. In addition, under 18 USC. §2339, it is a federal crime to "knowingly provide material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization" – even if you happen to be a human rights organization that also does some good.

Sadly, that happens not infrequently, and in 2014 the Financial Action Task Force, an inter-governmental money laundering and terror financing watchdog, issued a report specifically warning against the special risks posed by non-profit organizations in this context. In fact, the leading US case in this area, Holder v. Humanitarian Law, is literally and explicitly about human rights groups providing material support to terrorist groups.

Price also claimed that Israel did not give the United States advance warning of the changes, but Israeli officials dispute this, saying they did give the Biden administration notice and proof, and are happy to do so again, with Israeli officials preparing to fly to Washington with evidence including "footage and receipts."

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

To recap: The evidence that these six NGOs (at the very least) provided material support for terrorism is readily available and yet to be refuted; tellingly, none of the statements released by the various NGOs and activists condemning Israel bothered to actually address the underlying issue. Despite how it is being painted by reflexively anti-Israel groups and activists, including some members of Congress, the legal process Israel followed is not in any way unique. In fact, it is very similar to our own well-established practice. And if any of these organizations really do believe that a mistake has been made, there is an appellate procedure available, with claims to be submitted to the Advisory Committee regarding designations on Terror Organizations. Not surprisingly, none of the groups has yet appealed.

In the meantime, if all of those wringing their hands at the thought of these poor NGOs getting in trouble are really that concerned about their welfare, or even about human rights generally, there is one ready solution. The quickest way to solve this problem would be to stop focusing on how these groups ended up getting caught and start pressuring them to actually stop supporting terror.

The post Human rights activism does not reconcile with supporting terrorism appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Dave Chapelle may not really be an antisemite but his new Netflix special contains some very antisemitic material.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter 

What Chapelle may think are harmless jokes – about Jews coming from outer space to control the earth, about them taking land that is not rightfully theirs, and about them experiencing horrors and then perpetuating those same horrors on others – actually reinforce a number of dangerous anti-Jewish tropes.

To be fair, Chapelle makes fun of everyone, and part of what makes him special is that his humor often crosses lines. But jokes like these are different: The ideas behind them have led to innocent people getting killed throughout history, and as an influential public figure Chapelle needs to really be more careful.

Chapelle is probably not an avid student of Jewish suffering, and antisemitism is notoriously hard to define because it is a mutating virus whose focus can shift radically over time. But in terms of its perfidious process, one of the rare unifying themes that emerge from the annals of Jew-hatred is the antisemites' consistent attempt at the dehumanization of the Jewish people. Whether Jews are portrayed as malevolently superhuman, as in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, or as worthlessly subhuman, as in the Nazi ideology, antisemites throughout history have found that it is easier to despise and eventually kill that which they do not consider human.

Chapelle may not have known this, but pretending that Jews are aliens and not regular human beings has been one of the deadliest and most dangerous ideas in the history of the world.  In many ways, it contributed significantly to what Professor Dan Diner has described as a complete "rupture in civilization"- the Nazi genocide of some six million Jews during World War II. Which makes Chapelle's other Jewish "joke" even more painful to hear. Holocaust inversion, i.e. pretending that Israel behaves towards the Palestinians as Germany behaved towards the Jews in WWII- is a sickening lie that denies the severity of what happened by minimizing an unparalleled genocide, and delegitimizes the Jewish state by distorting and demonizing its actions.

To be clear – no matter where you stand on the issue there is no comparison whatsoever between the Holocaust and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The notion that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinians is nothing more than a baseless and unimaginative update on the blood libel. It is also definitionally ridiculous – the kind of thing that Chapelle himself might otherwise find funny: Per the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, genocidal acts are "committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such."

Since Israel's independence in 1948, the Palestinian population has actually grown at an average annual rate of 3.4% – much higher than the average world population growth. Since 1967, the Palestinian Arab population has increased by 387%. If Israel were attempting genocide, they would be historically, awfully, bad at it. But they aren't.

Chapelle may not have known this when he made his alien conquest joke, but Jewish people have also been consistently 'othered' in more insidious, subtle ways. For example, in America, Jews were considered non-white at times when whites were being privileged, and today they are often told that they are privileged whites when they demand recognition of their struggles. And, as James Wald has noted, "In the past Jews were rendered alien to the West by being orientalized. Today, Jews are rendered alien to the Middle East by being redefined as European."

Chapelle probably did not know that the Jewish people have actually had a continuous presence in their own ancestral homeland for almost 4,000 years. Maybe he is also unaware that despite their demonstrable historical and legal claims, Israel has consistently (over 30 times) tried to make peace and divide the land in an equitable fashion, only to be continuously rebuffed. But those are some serious topics, and he should have done just a little bit of research.

You can be all for Palestinian rights, and all for criticizing the Jewish State. But Jews are not from outer space; they are indigenous to Israel; and they are not committing genocide.

Chappelle may be the funniest human being on this planet. But with that power comes responsibility, and these new jokes are irresponsible. He can and should do better.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Dave Chapelle's antisemitism isn't funny appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

There is an antisemitism problem at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and it is high time for the school to actually, actively, address it. The fact that UNC continues to allow a graduate student-professor who has expressed vile antisemitic views to teach a course about "The Conflict Over Israel/Palestine" – despite the fact that she has said she is not capable of teaching this particular course fairly, denies Israel's right to exist, and calls those with different viewpoints on the subject matter "dirtbags"– is just the most recent manifestation of a sickening tolerance for this particular form of hate.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter 

Last week, UNC all but admitted that antisemitism remains a serious issue on their campus. In a statement from the Chancellor, the school acknowledged all the Jewish students and alumni who have been vocal about feeling marginalized and unwelcome and noted the concern from the broader community that the University has not done enough to recognize and combat antisemitism. UNC pledged to work harder at confronting antisemitism, but while actions speak louder than words even their words are unconvincing.

The statement came only after weeks and weeks of public backlash; not one but two separate federal Title VI antisemitism complaints that were filed with the Department of Education; and at least two concerned members of Congress, a Republican, and a Democrat, expressing their concerns to the school. The administrations' semi-contrition is even more suspect because this entire incident comes a mere two years after their last public antisemitism fiasco, when the University co-hosted an antisemitic conference and was forced to settle the ensuing Title VI complaint with the Department of Education. In their resolution agreement, the school agreed to "take all steps reasonably designed to ensure that students enrolled in the University are not subjected to a hostile environment." As the Chancellor now admits, they have clearly failed to do so.

Perhaps most telling, the University is still allowing that graduate student, Kylie Broderick, to teach her one-sided course, which is the equivalent of allowing a person with an openly racist agenda to teach a course about racism. The University's half-baked statement on antisemitism has only emboldened Broderick and her supporters, who have essentially now been given an affirmative pass, and they have started a new campaign to blame the victims and pretend that she is somehow the one being unfairly targeted for her views.

That position is ridiculous on its face: Broderick published and stands by her positions, and no one is calling for her to retract them. All they are asking is that she not be given a uniquely perfect opportunity to spread her discriminatory hatred and demonstrable lies at the expense of innocent students who are paying for an actual education and deserve to be given all the facts.

It is bad enough when radical left-wing publications allow nonsensical arguments about "academic freedom" to pollute their pages, but the problem is compounded when public figures lazily retweet these silly stories without bothering to do any background research.

Here then, is a response to the most recent Broderick offensive: Broderick and her supporters are apparently shocked that numerous concerned parties are opposed to her indoctrinating students with antisemitic blood libels. They claim that people exercising their right to criticize her stated views, and to criticize the University for giving her a platform to spread slander, somehow vaguely infringes on her academic freedom.

Broderick has a record of conflating issues and being imprecise (see her discussions of Israeli history, Sheikh Jarrah, BDS laws, etc.), but to put a fine point on the matter, academic freedom does not include the right to indoctrinate students with falsehoods by asserting propositions in ways that prevent students from expressing disagreement. It is quite understandable that a student would not feel comfortable challenging their professor's anti-Zionist perspectives, or even standing up for Israeli rights, when that professor has recently referred to Zionists as "dirtbags," or moderated an event that tried to legitimize violence against Israelis.

That is why some Jewish students decided not to register for this class, and that is why Broderick should not be allowed to teach this particular course. In fact, the only threat to academic freedom at play here at all is Broderick's violation of the students' academic freedom to be educated properly. Allowing professors to shut down the exploration of alternative viewpoints by effectively excluding those who disagree is to violate entirely everything UNC purports to hold sacred.

We cannot expect more from people like Broderick, who are willing to spread dangerous lies. But we can and should expect a school like UNC to do more than pay lip service to fighting antisemitism. The best way to fight antisemitism is to call it by its name and stop giving those who spread its dangerous falsehoods legitimization and cover.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post UNC failing to properly confront antisemitism appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Last month, in the aftermath of the most recent conflict in Israel, the general assembly of United Educators of San Francisco (UESF) became the first K-12 teacher's union in the United States to approve a resolution endorsing the antisemitic Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement. A similar resolution is now making its way through the United Teachers Los Angeles union.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter 

Aside from the fact that both resolutions are offensively antisemitic, rife with inaccuracies, and morally reprehensible in their defense of terrorism, they are also problematic from a legal perspective.

To be clear, the freedom of speech – even offensive speech – must be protected. But as the United States Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights has made clear, there are times when even speech can cross over into harassment and invidious discrimination. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in federally assisted programs and activities, on the basis of race, color, or national origin. A violation of Title VI may be found if discrimination is encouraged, tolerated, not adequately addressed, or ignored by administrators, and complaints alleging a violation of Title VI may be filed with the US Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights or in the federal district courts.

Under Executive Order 13899 (Combating Anti-Semitism), when evaluating potential Title VI claims, the government uses the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism. Per the IHRA definition, it is antisemitic to apply a double standard to the Jewish state. As it relates to these resolutions, perhaps the most telling aspect of the underlying hatred behind them is what they glaringly don't say. In the entire retelling of events, in both resolutions, there is not a single mention of Hamas, the terrorist organization that instigated the conflict by attacking Israeli civilian populations.

It is true, and tragic, that many Palestinians have been killed or wounded, and it is horrifying that some, as the resolutions point out, were mere children. But Israel does not target Palestinian civilians or children; in fact, Israel warns people in advance to evacuate the areas it plans to strike as it seeks to protect its citizens, both Jewish and Arab, from Hamas' indiscriminate attacks.

Meanwhile, it is Hamas that actually targets innocent civilians while at the same time using its own population as human shields and its civilian institutions, including schools, mosques, and hospitals, as places to hide weapons and stage military operations. The resolutions demand that Israel ceases striking Gaza, but not that Hamas cease striking Israel; that is definitionally antisemitic.

But if the narrative antisemitism was not clear enough, the resolutions also openly support the demonstrably dangerous and discriminatory BDS movement. There are thousands of readily available, easily accessible, examples of BDS leaders and activists crossing the line into unmitigated antisemitism without even the pretext of anti-Zionism, and there is also clear evidence that the antisemitic discrimination in the BDS movement disparately impacts Jewish people, leading to harassment and physical attacks. That is part of the reason why California, which is home to both of these unions, is among the majority of states that have passed anti-BDS bills- protective anti-discrimination laws which these resolutions call on people to ignore.

It is critical that these divisive resolutions do not find their way into any classroom, and that the school districts in San Francisco and Los Angeles not tolerate any resulting or connected discrimination or harassment on the part of their teachers who are members of these unions. It should be obvious that a school district that chooses to ignore an open call by its teachers to discriminate on the basis of national origin would be exposing itself to potential liability if students were to feel negatively affected, and according to reports, the resolutions are already contributing to Jewish students feeling unsafe and unwelcome at school.

Aside from the Title VI concerns, any negative repercussions against Jewish and/or Israeli students stemming from the resolutions could also well violate the anti-discrimination provisions of the state's Education Code (in particular section 220, which, among other things, forbids discrimination on the basis of nationality, race, ethnicity, and religion), and subject these districts to even further liability.

As the worldwide surge in antisemitic incidents continues, it is morally incumbent upon school officials to quickly and publicly distance themselves from the kind of hateful and inflammatory resolutions that these teachers' unions are promoting, and to make sure that their Jewish students feel supported. It should never have to come to this, but if there is any moral hesitation on the part of school officials to speaking out against antisemitic hate, then the administration should also be on notice that under Title VI they have an affirmative legal obligation to protect their Jewish students- even from their own teachers and their unions if need be.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post BDS has no place in schools appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

John Oliver's pompous and uneducated moral relativism is unacceptable and amounts to nothing short of antisemitic support for murderous terrorism. HBO should be utterly ashamed.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter 

In his segment Sunday night, Oliver presented a recounting of the events surrounding the current conflict in Israel that was either intentionally misleading or shockingly ill-informed. He repeatedly framed it as a struggle between the Palestinians and Israelis. Perhaps someone should tell him that this is not a battle between Palestinians and Israelis, it is between Hamas, a US designated terror organization, and Israel, a US ally.

Oliver claims that while some things are incredibly complex and require context, others are just wrong. He is right about that at least: Hamas is a terrorist organization that indiscriminately targets civilians, with a charter to kill every Jewish man, woman, and child. Israel is a democratic nation that did not start this fight, and with great restraint tries hard to avoid any civilian casualties.

But Oliver thinks that the story is simple because there is a severe power imbalance between Hamas and Israel, which has led to more casualties for Hamas. Oliver barely pays lip service to the idea that terrorists firing rockets at civilians is unacceptable, before shamefully giving them a pass because Israel, a country that invests in research and development instead of terror tunnels, has managed to intercept many, but not all of the deadly missiles.

In Oliver's antisemitic opinion, it is okay to shoot at innocent Jewish people as long as they are fast enough to run away, at least much of the time.

Of course, it matters little to Simple John that Hamas started this fight, by targeting innocent Israelis. Would Oliver be happier if more innocent Jews were dead? Would that make it more of a fair fight? In his little fantasy world is it ok to kill just a few innocent Jews, and then cry "stop it" when their country hits back?

Proportionality in wartime is not what Oliver thinks it is. Article 8(2)(b(4) of the Rome Statute recognizes that civilian casualties are a terrible but inevitable part of conflict, and forbids attacks in which the anticipated civilian casualties will be excessive in light of the anticipated military advantage gained. It has nothing to do with the relative number of people killed on both sides. The reason for this is simple: When you judge the appropriateness of an attack based on the number of people who died, you incentivize human shields, one of Hamas' favorite tactics.

Idiots like Oliver, who are impressed by dead body counts, are precisely why Hamas operatives continuously surround themselves with their own civilians, just to let them die. People like him are why terrorists now store weapons in schools and hospitals, and why they shoot their missiles from civilian structures in populated areas. Because the media, and shows like Last Week Tonight, reward them for it and make it doubly hard for Israel to dismantle terrorist infrastructure.

In an incredible display of hubristic contempt, Oliver notes that unlike Hamas, which openly targets civilians, Israel has only aimed at military targets, but vaguely implies, with not a shred of evidence, that Israel might be lying- despite the fact that Israel has shared much of the relevant intelligence with the US Oliver mentions the fact that, unlike any other army in history, Israel repeatedly warns people in the area in advance of their attacks and actively works to evacuate civilians. But he immediately dismisses that massive display of morality and restraint by saying that no matter the facts, it "sure seems like a war crime." Thank God he does not actually hold any position of real power.

In this one short segment, Oliver managed to become a full-fledged mouthpiece for Hamas. Aside from excusing murder and trying to muddy the waters on who does and does not target civilians, Oliver also weighed in on the Sheikh Jarrah situation, a private civil court case between two parties that did involve unpaid rent, but did not actually involve the state of Israel at all. Of course, he makes no mention of the details, including the fact that the owners of the four houses in question have acknowledged that they do in fact belong to the Jewish owners. Apparently, because the owners are Jewish, Oliver believes that they are not entitled to their rent. Set aside the facts though; regardless of what happened, in his infantilization of Hamas, Oliver believes that confusion on this topic is enough of an excuse to make murder understandable, if not acceptable.

He also called Israel an apartheid state. Forget that Israeli Arabs enjoy positions in the highest levels of every branch of government, including the legislative branch (the Knesset), the executive branch (the Israeli cabinet) and the judicial branch (the Supreme Court), a fact that of course Oliver did not mention and likely does not know, and ignoring the fact that Israeli Arabs have full and equal rights, apartheid involves an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups committed with the intention of maintaining that regime. For the record, Israel has repeatedly, over 30 times, offered plans for peace and division of the land. Some of them, including the Clinton Peace Parameters, were even supported by much of the Arab world.

Again, for Oliver's edification, Israel (legitimately) gained a total of 26,178 square miles of territory in 1967. To date, it has ceded sovereignty over 23,871 square miles or 87% of that territory. At various times in recent history (including deals proposed in 2000, 2008, and 2014), Israel has offered up to 99.3% of the remaining disputed territory in exchange for peace. Each time, the Palestinians refused. There cannot be apartheid when one side keeps trying to offer plans for peace.

In a mere five minutes, Oliver spread slander about Israeli policy and history, justified Hamas' use of violence, dismissed the deaths of innocent Israeli civilians as unimportant to the conversation, and discounted the fact that Israel works hard to prevent civilian casualties, while the other side works hard to inflict them.

If Oliver really cared about innocent Gazans he would work to hold Hamas accountable for their failed leadership and murderous schemes. In this case Simple John is simply wrong.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post All is (not) fair in late-night TV and war appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The Biden administration has quietly notified Congress that it intends to distribute $125 million in aid to Palestine, reportedly to "regain their 'trust and goodwill' after the Trump-era cuts." The assistance package is set to take effect on April 10.

 Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter 

That decision is shameful, illegal, and immoral, and Congress should not let it happen.

It is shameful to blame the Palestinians' loss of aid on former President Trump. It was Congress, not Trump, who set the conditions for Palestinian aid. And it was Palestine, not Trump, that violated those terms with impunity. Hiding behind fake partisan politics to call what happened "Trump-era cuts" is nothing more than revisionist history.

It is illegal for the Biden administration to restore that aid because every year since 2014 the United States has made clear in annual appropriation legislation – adopted by a massive bipartisan majority each time – that if the Palestinian Authority (PA) were to initiate an ICC investigation, and/or so long as they were actively supporting such an investigation, the US would cut funding for the PA.

This requirement was reaffirmed again very recently, by a strong bipartisan majority, in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021. Despite these clear and repeated warnings, the PA did initiate and does continue to openly and officially support, just such an investigation. By law, they must be held to account for the willful disrespect of and disregard of American laws, values and interests. Anything else reflects the soft bigotry of low expectations.

Finally, restoring aid is immoral because the Biden administration knows exactly what the PA does with its international aid money. In a recent non-public report to Congress, the administration confirmed that the PA has continued to use that money to pay stipends through its official Marty Fund to murderous terrorists and their families. The PA spent at least $151 million in 2019 on its "pay-to-slay" program and at least $155 million in 2020. The fact that this program is codified in PA law- including that deadlier attacks get more money which incentivizes bloodshed- is beyond sickening.

Congress was rightfully sickened, and in 2018 they passed an overwhelmingly bipartisan law called the Taylor Force Act, which prohibits the US government from resuming Palestinian aid until these payments to terrorists are stopped. Taylor Force was a US Military Academy graduate and veteran of both Afghanistan and Iraq. In 2016 he went on a school trip to Tel Aviv, and he was stabbed to death by a murderous terrorist. The PA labeled his killer a "heroic martyr" and the murderer's family began to receive their regular payments alongside all the other glorified killers. It is a disgrace to Taylor Force's memory, and a grave disrespect to the memories of all those who have been killed, to try and curry favor with a governmental authority that would and actually does, certifiably and admittedly, pay to have us murdered.

The Biden administration will likely try and skirt the law by supplying the aid to civic groups instead of the PA directly, but that is not an answer for two reasons: First, the law prohibits any funding that directly benefits the PA, and there is no question that this is the intention. Second, according to a recent report from the US. Government Accountability Office, between 2015 and 2019 the US Agency for International Development, which is the agency in charge of distributing this funding, did not ensure that the subawards from its allocations were not going to terrorists.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

That is why over a dozen organizations and over two dozen members of Congress sent letters to President Biden and Secretary of State Blinken last week, urging them not to let the American people down by rewarding those who disrespect our terms and devalue our very lives. It is not too late to change course, and Congress should make clear that the Palestinians need to regain our trust and goodwill before we send them support. At the very least, we must be absolutely sure that they will not use that very aid to glorify and pay the murderer of an innocent American soldier.

Dr. Mark Goldfeder is an international lawyer and the Director of the National Jewish Advocacy Center

The post Biden administration could be breaking the law appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Last week alone two different sets of liberal scholars published two separate new definitions of anti-Semitism that they each hope will replace the now standard International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition. Their respective projects, the Nexus Document (ND) and the Jerusalem Declaration on Anti-Semitism (JDA) are both unnecessary and dangerous.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter 

They are unnecessary because, despite the misinformation campaigns that have been waged against the IHRA definition by those who wish to cross its lines, IHRA remains an excellent tool that simply does not do the bad things people claim it does. And yet, echoing the concerns of would-be IHRA-anti-Semites, the Nexus website claims that "IHRA is vulnerable to abuse" while the JDA takes it a step further, affirmatively declaring that IHRA "is unclear in key respects and widely open to different interpretations." Neither group provide any examples of how IHRA is actually unclear, but both are explicitly responding to the claim that IHRA somehow conflates political criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism.

First, IHRA does not conflate political criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism. Indeed, it explicitly states that "criticism for Israel similar to that leveled against any other country" is not anti-Semitism- but holding Israel to a different standard than the rest of the world just might be.

Second, as to the groups' point that there could be non-anti-Semitic reasons for singling out Israel- that is true! That is why the IHRA definition also says that the examples given, "could, taking into account the overall context," be anti-Semitic.

The reason the specific Israel-related examples are provided in the IHRA definition (and are clearly so important) is explicitly not because all forms of criticism about Israel are anti-Semitic, but precisely because there are those who claim that no criticism of Israel can ever cross that line. Unfortunately, that is where you consistently find actual bad actors, who hide vile anti-Semitism behind the thinnest of anti-Zionistic veils.

The JDA notes that the number of IHRA's examples focusing on Israel 'puts undue emphasis on one arena," while the Nexus group is concerned that "Important aspects of contemporary anti-Semitism are insufficiently emphasized in IHRA, such as white supremacy and how anti-Semitism grows in a politically polarized environment." Both concerns are hard to understand.

IHRA does not raise one form of anti-Semitism over any other; all anti-Semitism is bad, wherever and whomever it comes from. The (non-exclusive) list of examples does not include "white supremacy" because no one in polite society thinks that white supremacy is acceptable.

The examples are meant to serve as a guide to applying IHRA in the kinds of situations that people like these groups tend to push back against, whether from ignorance or something more sinister. And while both groups are concerned about the danger of extremists on the 'far-right' they are wrong to think that the worst forms of anti-Semitism have nothing to do with anti-Israel sentiments, or excuses. For example, just a few years ago in Wuppertal Germany a synagogue was firebombed but the criminals were exempted from jail time because the judge accepted their claim that firebombing a Jewish prayer house was not anti-Semitic, it was just the way that they chose to express their anti-Israel politics.

That is what happens when you do not draw some lines in the sand. Of course, after that episode, Germany embraced the IHRA definition.

Predictably, IHRA's loudest critics have already embraced the parts of the new definitions that they see as providing extra cover for their tactics, while simultaneously criticizing them for the exact same reasons that they criticized IHRA: for "unjustifiably reinforcing attempts to couple anti-Jewish racism with the struggle for Palestinian liberation" and for still trying "to police some speech critical of Israel's policies and practices." For those who wish to hide anti-Semitism behind anti-Zionism, no line will ever be acceptable.

That is why anti-Semites should not get a say in defining anti-Semitism, and that is also why an excellent definition – one that does not assume anyone or any movement is inherently anti-Semitic, but rather distinguishes between problematic and non-problematic behaviors – should not be changed to make them feel more comfortable. There is nothing wrong with an unapologetic demand for equality.

There is a reason why the IHRA definition is used by our federal government; the thirty-one member countries of IHRA; all fifty countries (except Russia) that comprise the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe' the European Commission, Parliament, and all EU Member states; as well as Serbia, Bahrain and Albania. There is a reason why it has been endorsed by world leaders, and adopted by a growing number of universities at home and abroad. More importantly, there is a reason why hundreds of major Jewish organizations across the world, and across the political and religious spectrums, representing Jewish people of all ages and backgrounds, have all adopted the IHRA definition and urge others to as well. It is because they all agree that it best reflects their shared lived experience and the realities of how anti-Semitism actually manifests itself today.

IHRA's conduct-based, consensus-driven definition of what constitutes problematic and offensive anti-Semitism is the only internationally recognized definition that there is, or ever has been. If the JDA and Nexus groups are concerned about the misuse of IHRA, they should direct their time and energy towards explaining what the definition actually says and making sure that it is applied properly, rather than offering unnecessary adjustments that antisemites will use to dangerously undermine a near-universal understanding that is finally raising awareness of the problem's many manifestations.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post New definitions of anti-Semitism are dangerous appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

It came just two days after the United Nations special rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Ahmed Shaheed, released a report to the Human Rights Council noting with concern the claims that the objectives, activities, and effects of the BDS movement are fundamentally anti-Semitic. Both used an internationally accepted standard definition of anti-Semitism to make their case.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

All Americans, especially university students and administrators, should read these reports.

BDS works to disrupt the economic and financial stability of the State of Israel, and to cause direct harm to the economic interests of persons conducting business in and with Israel, or with people deemed to be affiliated with Israel in some way. Especially in its accompanying "cultural and academic boycotts," BDS targets people who are Jewish or who do business with Jewish people.

That is how the movement describes itself. Others will point out that it is not nonviolent, that it has been a significant factor in the recent trend of anti Semitic incidents, that its unambiguous goal is the elimination of the State of Israel, and that it has been repeatedly and demonstrably linked to radical terror groups, including in congressional testimony and state filings.

The special rapporteur correctly notes that "nonviolent expressions of support for boycotts are, as a general matter, legitimate speech that should be protected. However, … expression which draws upon anti-Semitic tropes or stereotypes, rejects the right of Israel to exist, or advocates discrimination against Jewish individuals because of their religion should be condemned."

It was these sentiments that led the German parliament to pass a resolution this year branding BDS anti-Semitic.

While there is no one definition of anti-Semitism, for the purpose of monitoring the phenomenon both reports utilized the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definition along with its illustrative examples. This is the definition used by the US federal government; the 31 governments that are members of IHRA; all 50 countries, except Russia, that comprise the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe; and the governments of the UK, Romania, Austria, Germany, and Bulgaria.  At the end of his report, the special rapporteur encouraged all UN member states to adopt this definition.

The Israeli report just walks through the definition while providing evidence that the BDS movement is anti-Semitic at its core.

Highlights include:

• The co-founder and leader of the movement repeatedly denying Israel's right to exist, the Jewish people's historic ties to its homeland, and, lest you think this is about settlements or borders, the Jewish right to self-determination in any part of Israel;
• BDS leaders using classic anti-Semitic motifs while attempting to spread various forms of surprisingly unoriginal medieval blood libels; and
• Leaders from around the world (including the leader of the American Muslims for Palestinian and Students for Justice in Palestine groups) calling for Israel to be, among other things, dismantled, buried, and erased.

These reports are important for two reasons.

First, because universities hesitate to admit that there has been a major spike in pro-Israel students being targeted for hate speech and violence, or that one of the strongest predictors of a hostile climate toward Jews on campus is the presence of a BDS organization. But the evidence that BDS is anti-Semitic and promotes violence is just too clear now, and administrators need to reckon with these facts. Hate speech may be protected but it is still hateful, and conduct codes that forbid student groups from engaging in discriminatory activities should be enforced across the board. That is why all universities, public and private, should adopt the IHRA definition, so that schools cannot simply shrug and say they don't know what anti-Semitism looks like.

Second, because not all BDS supporters are anti-Semitic. Many would be horrified to learn that the nonprofit umbrella group for US-based BDS organizations funnels money to terrorist organizations; that some of the leaders are actual violent terrorists; that BDS hurts the Palestinian people more than it hurts Israel, or that the rabid anti-Semitism at its core often breaks through the "nonviolent" veil, leading to people getting hurt. Supporters of BDS should know who and what they are dealing with.

As the IHRA definition makes clear, not all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic, and those who want to protest Israeli activity should feel free to do so.

Universities should still be aware of the difference between legitimate criticism and anti-Semitism, and students should still act responsibly. This includes not promoting a demonstrably anti-Semitic movement that is run by and supportive of terrorists and terrorism.

The post New reports on anti-Semitism shed light on BDS appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.