It's become a cliché to say that Jews are our own worst enemies. Nowhere is that truer than in academia, where Jewish professors – often from the field of Jewish and Middle East studies – have become some of Israel's most vitriolic critics. Several decided to write an anti-Israel screed and solicit signatures from colleagues and, later, anyone happy to sign their name.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

The text was originally written by Lior Sternfeld, professor of history and Jewish studies at Penn State (and associate editor of Palestine/Israel Review, whose editorial board also features some of Israel's most vehement critics); Omer Bartov, professor of Holocaust and genocide studies at Brown University; Shira Klein, associate professor of history at Chapman University; and Meir Amor, a retired associate professor of sociology and anthropology from Concordia University.

The petition they've labeled "The Elephant in the Room" is directed at leaders of North American Jewry who they want to support the Israeli protest movement; equality for Jews and Palestinians; human rights organizations that defend Palestinians; and reforming Jewish education "to provide a more honest appraisal of Israel's past and present." They also ask them to "demand from elected leaders in the United States that they help end the occupation, restrict American military aid from being used in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and end Israeli impunity in the UN and other international organizations."

The document asserts a link between judicial reform and what they inaccurately refer to as the "illegal occupation." It also says, "Palestinian people lack almost all basic rights, including the right to vote and protest." They imply this is Israel's fault; however, Israeli Arabs have equal rights, and Palestinians lack them in the territories because Hamas and the Palestinian Authority deny them.

Specifically, the petition mentions the right to vote and protest. Who has stayed in power for 17 years past the end of their term and refused to hold elections? Netanyahu? No, it's Mahmoud Abbas. And it is also Abbas (and Hamas) who jails and tortures protesters. So, why doesn't the petition call for any action against him? Why not call for cutting US aid to the PA and UN bodies created to propagandize for the Palestinians?

Further demonstrating the lack of balance, context or accuracy, the statement says "Israeli forces have killed over 190 Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza and demolished over 590 structures." Why have many of those Palestinians been killed? Could it have anything to do with their involvement in terror? And how many demolitions were due to illegal construction or to punish the supporters of terrorists? Is there any concern for the destruction of homes by Palestinians?

Showing the shocking ignorance that has come to dominate the campus discourse about Israel, the petition makes the specious comparison with Afrikaner South Africa – not once but twice – and falsely claims the judicial reforms are directed at Palestinians. They make the additional spurious assertion that the Nation-State Law enshrined "Jewish supremacism." A critic of the law, Israel Democracy Institute president Yohanan Plesner acknowledged that the practical impact of the bill was merely "symbolic and educational." He said it "won't have immediate concrete implications." IDI's vice president Yuval Shani echoed this view: "It is not a game-changer and has very little problematic implications. … It won't change how the country is run."

Another of the statement's venomous smears is that reforms are meant to "ethnically cleanse all territories under Israeli rule of their Palestinian population." Palestinians and Israel's detractors have repeated this baseless calumny long before the debate about the judiciary. Just as they've turned the definition of Afrikaner discrimination on its head to fit their arguments, they've redefined ethnic cleansing to ignore the growth of the Palestinian population and improvement in its welfare (which far exceeds their plight in Arab countries).

In another indication of how far-left the document is, the authors gratuitously throw in that "American Jewish billionaire funders help support the Israeli far-right" as if there are no such funders on the far-left (have they heard of George Soros?)

More than 2,600 people have signed the document (some say their names appear without having signed). The page where it appears features a cartoon that says "Jews Fight for Justice" with an elephant whose skin says "Israeli occupation" standing in the middle of a protest where people are holding signs saying "Black Lives Matter," "Pride," "Gun Central" and "Go Green."

Sternfeld told me: "The idea is that we want everyone who can drive a conversation to join the statement: academics, intellectuals and leaders in the communities."

Though it was initially meant for academics (people interested in signing are directed to an academics.speak.out email address), it was opened to the "broader community." Hence, the list of signatories includes anti-Israel activists, Palestinians, a Buddhist monk, primary-school teachers, lawyers, psychologists, artists, 179 rabbis and an official from the antisemitic Council on American-Islamic Relations (better known as CAIR). Some are, if not antisemites, people who have never had a positive word to say about Israel.

After weeding out the non-academics and retired faculty, there were fewer than 800 professors on the list, more than half from the United States (19 from Harvard, 15 from Yale, 34 from the University of California system), more than 160 from Israel, four from the Palestinian Authority and representatives of more than 20 other countries. Nearly 50 are from Jewish-related fields, including antisemitism, Holocaust, Israel studies and Jewish history.

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

Some of the usual suspects you'd expect to be associated with such excrement include Ian Lustick, Juan Cole and Joel Beinin. There are post-Zionists like Oren Yiftachel. Seeing names like Derek Penslar, Steven Zipperstein and Benny Morris was more surprising.

The faculty signers perpetuate the practice of using their university affiliations to give themselves credibility. You would think that universities would prohibit using their names to avoid the embarrassment of being associated with political statements such as this. Their failure to do so is another reason for the public's loss of confidence in higher education and the belief that these institutions have become politicized.

No one in the Israeli government seems to care what these academics or the other signatories think, but we should be concerned about how much of the bias reflected in this statement is interjected into the professors' classrooms for the sake of their students – and the Jewish future.

  Reprinted with permission from JNS.org.

The post The elephant outside the room appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

In a previous column, I wrote about how to make the case for Israel. The approach was broad and did not fully consider two issues: the generational changes in the Jewish community and the priorities of younger Jews. It's partly the difference between the macro approach to hasbara (or public relations) that has been the principal focus of advocates for decades and the need for seeking opportunities to engage young people on a micro level.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

The generational issue is this: Many Jews today have never known a time when Israel was in grave danger. Roughly one-fifth of American Jews were born after 1989. For them, the Holocaust is about as relevant as the Peloponnesian War. For the oldest of that group, the last Israeli war ended while they were still teenagers, and the Second Lebanon War did not involve a threat to Israel's existence. Terrorism has been incessant, but are they conscious of it? They're more likely to read and hear about Israelis killing Palestinians than Israeli victims of terror. Even when Israel was bombarded with rockets, the casualty toll was low, especially compared to the Palestinians, and didn't pose a danger to the state. Those of us who pay close attention know the Iranian nuclear program could pose an existential threat, but there is no Islamic bomb yet. Most young Jews probably assume, correctly, that it is Israel that has nuclear weapons.

One of the implications of the perception of Israel as invulnerable is the belief that Israel can and should make concessions for peace. Palestinians are human beings like the rest of us who simply yearn for normal lives. What's the harm in giving Palestinians their independence?

This brings me to the macro/micro issue.

Younger Jews tend to look at the conflict at the micro level. This wasn't entirely new to me, but I'm not sure I fully appreciated it until I had a conversation with a passionate Zionist student from Brandeis University who had just returned from a program at the Arava Institute that included Palestinian participants from the West Bank. She had her identity rocked by the experience of interacting with Palestinians her age, going to their homes and getting a small taste of what their lives are like under "occupation."

When she talked about the humiliation they experience at checkpoints, I raised the macro issue of terrorism and why such barriers were necessary. When she mentioned how the Palestinians were like her, I said they might want to live peacefully, but their leaders didn't. When she talked about their deserving a state, I referred her to the repeated offers of independence the Palestinians had rejected. She didn't back down, but I could see she was deflated.

When I got home, my wife chastised me for trying to burst her bubble. I was looking at the conflict from a macro level, but the student was more interested in the micro level – the one-to-one, not the strategic. More seriously, my wife didn't want my cynicism to rub off on her. I may have a good argument for why there cannot be a Palestinian state, but why should I discourage a young person from wanting to make a difference? I replied that there have been many kumbaya programs, and none have changed the reality that Palestinian leaders have no interest in peace, and continue to incite and educate their people against the Jews.

But that's not what young Jews want to hear; they are tuning us out.

This reinforced my belief that Israel and the organized Jewish community need to give young Jews more opportunities to feel like they are making a difference. When it became popular for college students to help communities rebuild after disasters like Hurricane Katrina, I proposed that programs be created where students could help address problems in Israel. There may not be hurricanes there, but many issues – poverty, domestic abuse, drug addiction – exist. So why not create volunteer opportunities with organizations involved in these issues?

It's expensive to go to Israel, but a second-best option would be creating projects in the United States or elsewhere where Israelis and American Jews could work side by side and get to know each other.

ADVERTISEMENT
Also, instead of trying to convince young Jews why they should support Israel, we should be making a greater effort to connect them to the country based on their specific interests. Whether it's the environment, social justice, mental health – even sports – there are similar organizations in Israel.

Supporting the protests in Israel offers an opportunity for young Jews to feel like they are part of a fight for democracy. At the macro level, one could argue that they should first educate themselves about judicial reform and that it is not for American Jews to oppose the democratically elected government, but at the micro level, the protests are happening, and, for better or worse, American Jews are involved. Standing with thousands of Jews their age holding Israeli flags can give them a greater sense of belonging to the Jewish people and identifying with their Israeli cousins.

Similarly, if students want to feel like they are making a difference by participating in programs to promote coexistence with the Palestinians, kol hakavod. Whether I think they can alter the macro reality is irrelevant. What is important is to allow them to be participants rather than just onlookers.

There is a danger, however, due to the Jewish community's failure to provide the aleph-bet of Israeli history to their children and students. For years, to the extent students were taught anything about Israel, it was through rose-colored glasses. So, they can be easily disenchanted when they encounter Israel's flaws. We often hear about how students feel like they were lied to by pretending that the Jewish state lacked warts. The problem is that too often they discover the imperfections out of context. Without exposure to the macro perspective, it is too easy for young people to be seduced by those less interested in seeing Israel become a better place than hoping it will disappear.

Reprinted with permission from JNS.org.

The post Engaging with Israel at the micro and macro levels appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

In September 1993, I was visiting Israel when news of the Oslo talks broke. I knew the decision to recognize the PLO would be controversial, but I hoped that American Jews would adhere to the tradition of supporting Israel's democratically elected government on issues related to security. Unfortunately, that convention had been broken earlier by the Labor Party and its allies during Menachem Begin's time and, rather than revert to tradition, the critics from the right adopted a similar approach of encouraging American Jews to oppose Israel's government.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

Many of those now caterwauling about American Jews protesting judicial reform can blame themselves for having no qualms about interfering in Israeli politics during the Oslo period.

There's a lot of revisionist history about Oslo.

Many people warned from the start that it was a Trojan Horse; Palestinians had no interest in peace and saw negotiations for a state as the first stage toward their goal of liberating all "Palestine."

Yitzhak Rabin knew the Palestinian agenda as well as anyone. Oslo was a calculated risk. After 26 years of being vilified by the world for controlling the lives of millions of Palestinians, Rabin adopted an incremental approach that had been successful with Egypt. Even after signing the peace treaty with Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, there was never any guarantee he would fulfill its terms. He was tested, however, years before Camp David when Israel agreed to disengage from part of the Sinai Desert it captured in 1973. Israelis were reassured by the fact that Egypt kept the peace. In 1977, Sadat broke the psychological barrier that made it difficult for Israelis to believe he was sincere by coming to Jerusalem. People remember him speaking to the Knesset but not the substance of what was an uncompromising speech.

Naively, many people believed PLO chief Yasser Arafat's recognition of Israel represented a similar breakthrough.

Though a man more knowledgeable about Israeli security than almost any other has been reviled for Oslo, I've always contended that Rabin was motivated less by a gullible belief that Arafat was interested in peace than a desire to save Israel from the burden of governing every aspect of Palestinians' lives. That was coupled with the demographic dilemma of annexation, which would force Israel to choose between denying Palestinians the right to vote and ceasing to be a democracy or absorbing them and changing the Jewish character of the nation. That is why he essentially withdrew unilaterally from territory despite Palestinian violations of the agreements.

The dilemma is the main reason that all the right-wing prime ministers – from Begin to Benjamin Netanyahu – have talked about Greater Israel, and none have annexed the territories. Just two years ago, Netanyahu promised to apply Israeli sovereignty to the communities in Judea and Samaria without annexing the West Bank but reneged to secure the Abraham Accords.

Also, despite their vitriol against concessions, two of those right-wingers ceded more territory.

'Jewish blood on his hands'

In his otherwise well-researched critique of the Oslo process and what followed, historian Efraim Karsh skipped over Netanyahu's tenure during that period (Karsh also criticizes Rabin and Ehud Barak for negotiating with Syria and ignores Netanyahu's talks). After the opposition leader incited opposition to Oslo and vowed never to shake Arafat's hand, newly elected Prime Minister Netanyahu pledged to respect the terms of the agreement he found so dangerous during his campaign, and, only three months into his term and less than a year after Rabin's assassination, grasped the hand of the man with "Jewish blood on his hands." Netanyahu, who spoke at a rally where the crowd chanted "Rabin is a traitor," now heard some Likud Party activists call him a traitor, prompting him to threaten to fire any cabinet minister who didn't accept his decision to talk to the Palestinians.

Karsh and other critics ignore that it was Netanyahu who made concessions on the holiest place in the territories: Hebron. Furthermore, Netanyahu complained that the Labor government had given up 27% of Judea and Samaria, but he agreed to cede more territory. At the 1998 Wye River talks, Netanyahu pledged to withdraw from another 13%, and he negotiated even as terrorism continued. He also acknowledged the Palestinians would ultimately control 40% of the West Bank.

Twenty-two years later, Netanyahu would call the Trump peace plan, which would have created a Palestinian state (something Rabin specifically ruled out) in 70% of the West Bank, a "historic breakthrough."

Critics of Oslo talk approvingly about how 98% of the Palestinians are now governed by their leaders but ignore that without the agreements Israel would still be responsible for all of them.

Netanyahu's concessions alienated supporters on the right, and the lack of greater progress in talks angered the left. This, combined with the rising death toll in Lebanon, where Israeli troops remained deployed, contributed to him being crushed by Ehud Barak 56% to 44% in the 1999 election.

Barak abandoned the incremental Oslo approach and tried to resolve the conflict in one step at Camp David in 2000. He called Arafat's bluff by offering him a state in 97% of the West Bank and all of Gaza with East Jerusalem as a capital.

When Arafat rejected the deal, it should have proved the Palestinians had no interest in peace with Israel under any circumstances. Alas, the world – led by the US State Department – has chosen to ignore reality and maintain the fiction that Israel can satisfy Palestinian demands without committing suicide.

Israeli voters were not fooled, and Ariel Sharon defeated Barak in a landslide in 2001.

Despite being regarded as the father of the settlements, Ariel Sharon also understood the demographic dilemma. Like Rabin, he had impeccable security credentials but has been similarly castigated for the disengagement from the Gaza Strip. He recognized that, unlike Judea and Samaria, Gaza was an albatross for Israel with little Jewish historical significance. Governing more than 1 million additional Palestinians would exacerbate the demographic quandary, and therefore, Gaza could never be annexed. Israel had a greater capacity to deter terrorism controlling Gaza but also would be responsible for the Palestinians' well-being and the attendant international opprobrium. This was a test of the land for peace formula, and the Palestinians again failed. The consequence has been incessant terror and barrages of rockets; nevertheless, you don't hear Netanyahu calling for its reoccupation.

Was Oslo a mistake?

Not if you believe Israel must explore every opportunity for peace.

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

The problem is that whenever Israel makes concessions, the Palestinians use them as a new baseline to demand more. Meanwhile, terror against Israelis and their own people (to ensure they don't contemplate a change of leadership that might want peace) has been unremitting. The Palestinian leadership remains committed to the goal of liberating all of "Palestine" (the PLO) and a jihad against the Jews (Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad).

Though still technically in effect, the Palestinians have violated their obligations almost from the day Oslo was signed. The cost has included 1,674 Israeli lives.

Sadly, the global desperation to make the Palestinian issue disappear has blinded the world to the reality that Palestinian leaders are not interested in coexisting with Israel.

Reprinted with permission from JNS.org.

The post History and revisionism about the Oslo Accords appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Unless you work for the government of Israel, you are not obligated to defend every Israeli action. You are entitled to your own beliefs. However, Jews, especially, must understand that the opinions they express in public are often misconstrued as reflecting the attitude of "the Jews." Many of Israel's detractors use their Jewish identity to misrepresent their views as reflecting a consensus in the Jewish community or of Israeli Jews.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

When expressing a personal stance, it is essential to consider the objective. If you want to gain notoriety, be the Jew who publicly criticizes Israel. In journalistic parlance, this is a "man bites dog" story and, therefore, newsworthy, whereas a Jew who supports Israel is as enjoyable as a report of a dog biting a person.

The argument is often made that since Israelis are openly critical of their government and society, American Jews should feel equally free to express their views. But America is not Israel. Most Israelis have had a similar education, experienced the nation's tragedies and triumphs, and served in the military. They have a common narrative, and, with rare exceptions, their expressions of disapproval are in the spirit of improving their nation rather than delegitimizing it.

When speaking in a group that shares your love of Israel, it is acceptable to bring up qualms and concerns about Israeli politics and society. The audience probably has a similar background in terms of knowledge about Israel and shares your desire that Israel becomes a better place. We need to give people the opportunity to "wrestle with Israel."

However, when speaking to a general audience, you cannot assume that people are well-informed. Some listeners may be only interested in hearing Israel's flaws and using them to demonize it rather than comprehend the nation's complexity and hope for its advancement. If you criticize Israel in this environment, your message is more likely to be misinterpreted, and you may unintentionally reinforce negative attitudes about Israel. The audience may be unaware of Israel's positive attributes and will walk away with the idea that "even the Jews" believe that Israel is underserving of support.

In those general audiences, the goal should be to contextualize issues. It doesn't matter if you think settlements are an obstacle or a stimulus to peace, that judicial reform is needed or a threat to democracy or that a two-state solution is possible or impossible. You should be able to explain why Israelis have the views that they do on these issues so your peers will have a better understanding.

No matter how convincing you are, remember that you cannot convince everyone, and it is sometimes not worth trying. As George Orwell said about antisemites: "To attempt to counter them with facts and statistics is useless and may sometimes be worse than useless."

But we can target our approach.

On campus, the student body is divided roughly into four groups: ardent supporters of Israel; ardent opponents of Israel; uninformed/disinterested students; and liberal/progressives.

Which of these groups should you concentrate on?

Focusing on supporters of Israel is preaching to the choir. Sometimes, it is good to energize the base, but this is not the group that needs to be educated or convinced.

Debating opponents of Israel is typically a waste of time and energy. No matter how persuasive your arguments are, you are not likely to change their minds. So, unless you are a masochist who enjoys verbal jousting, the only reason to engage this group is if other students – open to your arguments – are within earshot.

Most attention should be focused on the uninformed/disinterested and liberal/progressive students. The former will likely be more open to discussing the issues and hearing your perspective. The latter is a more challenging group that may start with a more critical attitude towards Israel but may be convinced to be more supportive of Israel if they are better informed and approached from a social-justice/human-rights perspective.

One other general comment about advocacy: Persuasiveness is not synonymous with volume. Many of Israel's detractors believe that shouting is a substitute for an argument. Try not to be drawn into shouting matches; the best response to someone yelling is often to speak more softly. Be the voice of reason, not bombast.

When making the case for Israel, consider using the P.E.E.R technique:

Peace: In most debates, the side that comes across most for peace wins. Every other word out of your mouth should be peace. Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip in the hope that this would bring about peace. Israel built the security fence to protect the lives of Jews and Arabs so they could live in peace. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu froze settlement construction for 10 months at President Barack Obama's request, hoping the Palestinians would enter peace negotiations. Peace, peace, peace. This is not propaganda; it is what every Israeli craves.

Empathy: For many years, pro-Israel advocates would focus on the evils of the Arabs. This turns off most students who dislike hearing negative attacks on others and reject generalities about, for example, "the Palestinians." It is more effective and accurate to acknowledge the other side has valid points and to express sympathy for the plight of the Palestinians. This, too, should be in context. For example, the Palestinians in the territories certainly have difficult lives and part of that is due to Israeli actions, but it is also because the Palestinian Authority does not permit freedom of speech, religion or press, or recognize women's rights or gay rights. Most Palestinians might wish to live in peace, but unfortunately, they have not had a leader with the vision and courage to negotiate an agreement to coexist with Israel. While I understand the suffering of Palestinians, can you acknowledge the pain of Israeli terror victims?

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

Emotion: Too often those making the case for Israel recite historical facts and dry statistics that may be accurate but do not have an emotional punch that conveys to the listener what it is like to be an Israeli. For example, you can talk about the thousands of rockets fired from Gaza, which sounds severe and may win some sympathy but is not as powerful as case studies of the impact of those rockets. For example, ask your audience to imagine hearing a siren and having just 15 seconds to find shelter to hide from an incoming missile. What if you have an elderly parent or a sibling in a wheelchair? How do you get them to safety? Nine-year-old Tzahar is a resident of Sderot. He is deaf and cannot hear the Code Red alarm; as a result, he has been injured twice by rocket fire.

Rhetoric: Israelis often face impossible choices, and it is easy for outsiders to criticize their actions. Force people to put themselves in Israel's position and ask what they would do differently. You have a problem with Israel's reaction to Hamas firing rockets into Israeli homes, parks and kindergartens? What would you do if someone shot bullets through your window daily? You say few Israelis have been hurt by the rockets; what if the shots didn't hit anyone in your house? Would you sit back and let your neighbor keep shooting at you, or would try to stop them?

Using the P.E.E.R. method might not convince everyone to agree, but you will persuade some people and become a more effective advocate for Israel.

Reprinted with permission from JNS.org.

The post How to make the case for Israel appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

In all the coverage of Israel's operation to root out terrorists from the Jenin refugee camp, did anyone ask the question: Why is there a refugee camp in an area controlled by the Palestinians?

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

The refugee camp has been a nest of terrorism for years but should not exist. The Jordanians first established it in 1953 to accommodate Palestinian refugees from the 1948 war after the government annexed the West Bank. Jordan's 19-year occupation of the area, which generated none of the uproar associated with Israel's "occupation," was recognized by only two countries – Great Britain (which had aided in Jordan conquering the area the United Nations had allotted for an Arab state in its partition resolution of 1947) and Pakistan.

During those years, Jordan could have created an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank but had gone to war to expand its territory. The Palestinians, falsely portrayed as having always dreamed of statehood, never demanded independence. The international community, including the United States, did not propose a two-state solution, partitioning Jordan to create Palestine, which might have spared the world the subsequent decades of debating the Palestinians' fate and making Israel the scapegoat for their statelessness.

The Oslo Accords gave the responsibility for Jenin to the Palestinian Authority, which might have been expected to ameliorate the suffering of the residents by dismantling the camp and moving the "refugees" into permanent housing. Neither Yasser Arafat, head of the PLO, nor Mahmoud Abbas, current head of the Palestinian Authority, had any interest in helping them. It was not for lack of money, as the international community showered billions of dollars on the PA over the years, much of which has been lost to corruption. Even today, instead of allocating funds to eliminate the camp, Abbas pays hundreds of millions of dollars to terrorists in Israeli jails and the families of suicide bombers.

The PA, not Israel, keeps more than 12,000 people in the Jenin camp and nearly 1.4 million in 25 others under its control. Why? Because it allows them to be portrayed as victims of Israeli "occupation" as part of the broader propaganda campaign to demonize Israel. Confining them in wretched conditions also serves the interests of the PA and Hamas in maintaining breeding grounds for terrorists.

Recent events have demonstrated the effectiveness of this strategy. Terrorists from the Jenin camp were responsible for more than 50 terror attacks, prompting Israel's counterterror operation. Though it was conducted with textbook efficiency, Israel unsurprisingly attracted international condemnation, and journalists found no shortage of Palestinians with tales of woe to obscure the justification for the actions of the Israel Defense Forces.

Israel would have no reason to take action if the Palestinians dismantled the camp or if the PA security forces created by the Oslo Accords to prevent terrorism did their jobs. Those who continue fantasizing about the mythical two-state solution need to look no further than Jenin to understand why Israel has shifted politically to the right and the last five elections ignored the Palestinian issue. The Israeli public does not believe their neighbors have given up their goal of destroying the Jewish state.

The United Nations and international supporters of the Palestinians don't care about the people in Jenin or any other refugee camp unless Israel can be blamed for the hardships. During the years it controlled Gaza, Israel wanted to move the people out of camps. However, the Arabs would sponsor UN resolutions demanding that Israel "desist from the removal and resettlement of Palestine refugees." After Israel withdrew from Gaza, the PA received billions of dollars in aid, and I do not believe it was used to build a single house to allow even one family to move out of a refugee camp.

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

The PA is responsible for doing away with Jenin and the other refugee camps. Instead of insisting that it acts, the United States and other supporters of the Palestinians serve as enablers, parroting the PA's propaganda about "refugees" and providing funds to UNRWA to perpetuate their misery.

For those in the administration and elsewhere who claim to be interested in the Palestinians' welfare, a good place to start would be to demand that the PA dismantle the refugee camps and move the residents into permanent housing where they can begin to live normal lives. Incidentally, the same demand should be made on Arab countries that maintain camps and refuse Palestinians citizenship.

Reprinted with permission from JNS.org

The post The real reason why there is still a refugee camp in Jenin appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The US State Department was determined to prevent the establishment of a Jewish state, opposing both partition and recognition. After it failed, diplomats spent decades trying to prevent the development of an alliance. Before the Trump administration, much of its effort was devoted to forcing Israel back to the 1949 armistice lines. Now, State wants to return to the partition idea, fantasizing about creating a Palestinian state that it knows will seek to replace the Jewish state.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

Initially, the State Department's policy towards the Zionists was influenced by the British Foreign Office's hostility. Like the FO, State was inhabited by antisemites whose animus towards the Jews shaped their views. They were complemented by Arabists who saw a Jewish state as an impediment to their vision of the Middle East and, most importantly, access to oil. For both, Israel has always been the root of most evil in the region.

The antisemites were mostly gone by the time George Schultz finished his term as Secretary of State in 1989, but the Arabists and their influence have remained, though it has waxed and waned depending on the occupant of the Oval Office. They were dominant in the Obama administration and silenced in former President Donald Trump's, and now have returned with a vengeance under President Joe Biden.

The most fundamental error in Arabist thinking is that US-Arab relations would suffer the closer America became with Israel. That did not happen because most Arab nations want and need good relations with the United States, regardless of our ties with Israel.

Since 1967, State has been searching for a formula to achieve a comprehensive peace in the Middle East. It has failed because it underestimates Arab antisemitism and intransigence, refuses to acknowledge the role of radical Islam, and believes that Israel must be coerced to accept American terms.

Daniel Pipes recently wrote about specific instances where Arab leaders made their true opinions known, as in the case of Egyptian President Gamal Nasser, who told a CIA operative that he considered the Palestinian issue "unimportant." Even Carter admitted, "I have never met an Arab leader that in private professed the desire for an independent Palestinian state." Egyptian President Anwar Sadat opposed the creation of a Palestinian state and made peace with Israel without getting any concessions for the Palestinians.

Yes, Arab leaders would rant about Israel, but after getting it out of their system, they would get down to what they really cared about, which was typically the real threats they saw to their regimes: Iran and their fellow Arabs.

The State Department was aware of these views and ignored them. Former Secretary of State John Kerry spoke for many of the self-deluding Arabists when he insisted Arab states would not make peace with Israel unless the Palestinian issue was resolved years after Egypt and Jordan had signed treaties. (The 2020 Abraham Accords further proved they were out of touch with Middle East reality.)

After years of it being unthinkable, presidents, starting with Bill Clinton's appointment of Martin Indyk, appointed Jews to serve as ambassadors to Israel (five of the last seven). Most, however, either started as Arabists or adopted their worldview. The pull of the Messianic possibility of being THE ONE to negotiate lasting peace draws them like a moth to a flame.

The good news from Israel's perspective is that ambassadors' influence is limited because the most important bilateral relations are conducted between the prime minister and president.

Still, US ambassadors have often managed to offend their hosts, as the current ambassador Thomas Nides did when he spoke out against the proposed judicial reforms. Of course, he was doing his job in reflecting the administration position, which was made clear by Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken.

Meanwhile, having lost nearly every battle since partition, the Arabists remain unbowed. Their Alamo may now be Jerusalem. Even after Trump recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital and moved the embassy, the State Department has remained determined to undermine the decision and reignite Palestinian hopes to establish a capital there as part of the mythical two-state solution. This fantasy should have been extinguished.

To that end, State wants to reopen the Jerusalem consulate – the de facto US embassy to "Palestine" – rather than establish one where it belongs in Ramallah, the seat of the Palestinian Authority. Unable to overcome Israeli objections, State has made an end-run by returning to the pre-Trump policy of having the official responsible for Palestinian affairs report directly to State rather than the ambassador to Israel. Though it is not called a consulate, the Office of Palestinian Affairs conducts consular activities in the exact location of the old consulate.

Nides announced plans to leave his post and, reflecting on his two years of service, what was most striking was his statement: "I probably spend more time on Palestinian-related issues. I would say 60 percent of my time is spent on Palestinian [issues]." This is the ambassador to Israel.

Given his focus, it is less surprising that even the embassy caters more to Palestinians than Israelis. If you go to its website and look at the Business, Education & Culture, News & Events, and Embassy pages, you will find the pages written in English with a translation only in Arabic. In recent years, the Charge d'Affaires and Deputy Chief of Mission positions were listed as speaking multiple languages other than Hebrew.

State fought tooth and nail to prevent American citizens born in Jerusalem from listing Israel as their country of birth even after Congress passed a law requiring it to do so. The Obama administration took the case to the Supreme Court, which ruled that only the president could recognize foreign governments. Unfortunately for State, this meant that Trump could decide to issue passports with Israel as the place of birth, and in 2020, the man whose case went to the Supreme Court, Menachem Zivotofsky, received the first such passport.

However, even Trump's State Department would not fully recognize that Jerusalem is in Israel. Citizens born in Jerusalem can also list the city as their place of birth, which is also the designation for citizens who do not specify their place of birth. Similarly, if you go to the State Department's appointment system, you are asked to select a Consulate/Embassy Country, and one of the choices is Jerusalem. Thus, State maintains the illusion that Jerusalem is floating in the ether, unattached to any country.

Amazingly, even after 75 years, the State Department hasn't completely abandoned the fight against the Jewish state.

Reprinted with permission from JNS.org.

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

The post The State Department's problem with Israel appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

In addition to the West Bank and Gaza Strip, many Palestinians live in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan. Roughly 98% of Palestinians in the disputed territories are ruled by the Palestinian Authority and Hamas. Palestinian human-rights advocates, NGOs, international bodies, the media and campus activists focus on Israeli policies. The principal abusers of Palestinians, however, are their fellow Palestinians and other Arabs.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

For example, Bassam Tawil noted in just the last week, the media widely reported on the death of a senior member of the Iranian-backed Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorist organization who essentially committed suicide by starving himself to death in an Israeli prison but paid no attention to two men who recently died in Hamas custody. "No one cares about the two men who died in Hamas custody, apparently because Israel is not associated with their deaths," Tawil observed. "Had Al-Sufi and Al-Louh died in an Israeli prison, they would have made headlines in The New York Times, the BBC and CNN."

The US State Department Human Rights report on Israel was quoted in the press, but did you hear anything about what it said about Palestinian behavior in the disputed territories?

Here's a summary of what it found in the Palestinian Authority and Gaza that had nothing to do with Israel:

Credible reports of unlawful or arbitrary killings by Palestinian Authority officials and Hamas personnel; torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishments by Palestinian Authority officials and Hamas personnel; arbitrary arrest or detention; political prisoners and detainees; significant problems with the independence of the judiciary; arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy; serious restrictions on freedom of expression and media, including violence, threats of violence, unjustified detentions and prosecutions of journalists, and censorship; serious restrictions on Internet freedom; substantial interference with the freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association, including harassment of nongovernmental organizations; serious and unreasonable restrictions on political participation, including no national elections since 2006; serious government corruption; lack of investigation of and accountability for gender-based violence; crimes, violence and threats of violence motivated by antisemitism; crimes involving violence and threats of violence targeting lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or intersex persons; and reports of the worst forms of child labor. In Gaza, the designated terrorist organization Hamas "utilized its military wing to crack down on internal dissent" and "there were reports that members of Hamas security forces committed numerous abuses."

Similarly, Amnesty International's reports on Israel receive banner headlines in the press and are parroted unquestioningly. Because it is obsessed with Israel, many people may not realize it also has information on the non-existent state of "Palestine." It is also skewed to focus on Israel. Still, it mentions that "Palestinian armed groups in the Gaza Strip committed apparent war crimes during three days of military confrontations with Israel in August, using unguided rockets in populated civilian areas." It also states that errant rockets killed seven Palestinians, including four children. The report acknowledges that "attacks by armed Palestinian individuals killed 18 people in cities and towns across Israel."

In addition, authorities "restrict freedom of expression, association, and assembly, at times using excessive force to disperse peaceful gatherings," and "a brutal crackdown on peaceful protests" by Hamas "effectively deterred dissent, often leading to self-censorship." Hundreds of Palestinians were arbitrarily detained, and "torture and other ill-treatment remained rife in detention and interrogation centers."

Twenty-nine women "were killed by their family members in apparent cases of domestic violence," and "authorities failed to prevent and investigate homophobic and transphobic threats and attacks." Authorities also "failed to investigate unlawful killings and attacks, including against Israeli civilians."

Human Rights Watch (HRW) also regularly pillories Israel and devotes scant attention to the abuses by Palestinians. It did report that "Hamas authorities executed five Palestinians, including two men accused of 'collaboration' with Israel, following trials marred by due process violations." HRW noted that no one has been held accountable for the 2021 murder by P.A. security forces of Abbas critic Nizar Banat. It also mentions discrimination against women and the P.A.'s failure to "prevent abuse and protect survivors."

That's about it from the two best-known human-rights organizations. Not a word about terrorism.

Neither Amnesty nor HRW mentioned the treatment of Palestinians in their profiles of Lebanon and Syria.

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

The State Department report on Lebanon does mention that "nonstate armed groups, including Hizballah and Palestinian militias, operated with relative impunity, using intimidation, harassment and occasionally violence against perceived critics and opponents." Palestinian refugees cannot obtain Lebanese citizenship, are prohibited from purchasing or inheriting property, and are barred from working in 39 skilled professions, including medicine, law and engineering. It does not elaborate on how Palestinians are treated as second-class residents, such as being denied free treatment at hospitals and barred from most public schools. Al Jazeera headlined a story on the situation: "Palestinians in Lebanon: 'It's like living in a prison.' "

State's report on Syria said that "regime and opposition forces reportedly besieged, shelled and otherwise made inaccessible some Palestinian refugee camps, neighborhoods and sites, which resulted in severe malnutrition, lack of access to medical care and humanitarian assistance, and civilian deaths." It said that "the Action Group of Palestinians of Syria reported that regime forces tortured 638 Palestinians, including children." It does not mention the hundreds of Palestinians detained by Assad's security forces, tortured in regime prisons or killed while incarcerated.

Yes, it is possible to be pro-Israel and want to see an end to human rights abuses against Palestinians. It is more common, however, that people concerned with these abuses are anti-Israel and not interested in any abuse they cannot blame, accurately or not, on Israel.

Reprinted with permission from JNS.org.

The post Who actually abuses Palestinian human rights appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The United States has adopted many Israeli shows; perhaps it is time for Israel to pick up one of America's. It could be part of Dick Wolf's "Law & Order" franchise called "Law & Disorder: Israel."

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

Ironically, the government is trying to ram through legislation to improve the legal system while seemingly losing control of the country, with lawlessness growing in the West Bank and tumult inside Israel. All that's missing is Jeff Goldblum to explain chaos theory.

The government makes the case that it is acting democratically in seeking to reform the Supreme Court. On the one hand, it is indeed democratic for elected representatives to make laws as they see fit; on the other, it is not the case that their proposals have a mandate from the people. Netanyahu may claim he was elected to make these changes, but public opinion polls have shown that the people disagree with his proposed overhaul. Furthermore, he is in power because of the support of religious parties whose constituents care more about avoiding conscription, funding for yeshivahs, and keeping secular studies out of the schools.

Some reform supporters refuse to acknowledge that a single Israeli, legal scholar, or world leader has any valid objections to the proposed changes. Perhaps Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's greatest political success was as finance minister. Now, he oversees the shekel's loss in value while economists inside and outside Israel, including his economy minister, warn of the potential economic damage if the judiciary loses its independence.

The demonization of critics as just a minority of leftists funded by outsiders has lost credibility now that Likud Knesset members Danny Danon, Yuli Edelstein, Nir Barkat, and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, together with National Unity Party MKs Chili Tropper and former IDF Chief of Staff Gadi Eizenkot, have expressed reservations about the reforms and called for a pause in the legislative process to engage in negotiations.

In the West Bank, the situation shows signs of spiraling out of control. The violence, despite what the media says, is not new. Not only does it predate Netanyahu; its origins also preceded the establishment of the state. Hardly a day goes by without a terrorist attack. Fortunately, most are thwarted, so they don't make the news. Too many people use this as an excuse for the misbehavior of Jewish residents.

On occasions such as the rampage (the word "pogrom," used by some, is inappropriate) by settlers in Huwara, however, it seems the authorities are failing in their mission. It typically takes a few hours or days for Palestinian terrorists to be caught. It should take no more to identify the Jewish lawbreakers. A marauder allegedly killed a Palestinian. If true, whoever was responsible should face charges. Sadly, the show's "order" part rarely applies to Jews in the West Bank. There would be no "hilltop youth," illegal outposts or attacks on soldiers if settlers were treated with the same severity as Palestinian lawbreakers. Two men suspected of involvement in the Huwara incident were arrested, then released by court order. In a rare use of a practice regularly employed against Palestinians, Israeli Defense Minister Gallant placed them in administrative detention over the objections of National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir.

Meanwhile, excessive measures are being used against Israelis exercising their freedom of expression. Enforcing order applies to Israeli protesters who block roads or engage in illegal activities. However, some Israelis, including police officers, have questioned the use of stun grenades at demonstrations. "Stun guns are only used in extreme cases of violence on the protesters' part against the police troops. There was no trace of this in today's demonstration," a senior officer told Haaretz.

One police officer is being investigated for throwing a stun grenade into a crowd of demonstrators in Tel Aviv. Ben Gvir's response? "I give full backing to the officer who dispersed rioting anarchists with a stun grenade."

The situation is likely to get worse and less equitable with Bezalel Smotrich and Ben-Gvir in positions of power. These two should never have been in the government in the first place, and Smotrich should have been fired after he said Huwara should be "wiped out." Now Ben-Gvir reportedly has the genius idea of demolishing illegally built homes in eastern Jerusalem during Ramadan.

Demonstrators may seek regime change, but that is also part of democracy when pursued peacefully. Netanyahu's labeling them "anarchists" and comparing demonstrators in Tel Aviv to the rioters in Huwara is incendiary.

Let's be clear. The disorder in the West Bank is a result of the incitement against Jews by the Palestinian Authority – from the indoctrination of hatred in its youth to its rewards for martyrdom. Mahmoud Abbas has lost his grip as Palestinians have become contemptuous of his corrupt and autocratic regime. The fight for succession when he dies will only bring greater turmoil and violence.

If all this is not enough, consider the chaos likely to follow if Netanyahu is convicted of a crime. He refused to give up the premiership after being indicted. Will he do the same if he is convicted? His supporters hope to pass legislation to preempt such an outcome. How will this be received if adopted? A bill has already been approved in its initial reading to prevent the Supreme Court from suspending the prime minister.

Even more disturbing is the battle royale that will take place if the government passes judicial reforms that the Supreme Court invalidates. Who will be obeyed – the government or the court? What will the military do? Already, there is a movement by a still small number of reservists to refuse to report for service.

Since Goldblum isn't available, let me suggest that Israelis of all political persuasions keep chaos theory in mind: "When you deal with very complicated situations, unexpected things are going to happen."

 Reprinted with permission from JNS.org.

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

The post 'Law & Disorder: Israel' appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Seven Jewish souls were massacred by a Palestinian as they left their synagogue in Jerusalem on Shabbat. An act of terror? Not according to the media.

How unimportant does the media consider those lives?

Our friends at the New York Times, for one, found it more important to interview the father of the murderer than the families of the victims. Jerusalem bureau chief Patrick Kingsley mentioned that grieving Israeli families sat shiva while the family of their Palestinian killer expressed pride. "He's a legend and hero," the terrorist's father told Kingsley. "I raised him well."

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

Kingsley regurgitated the usual Palestinian justification for the murder of Jews – the Palestinians are being mistreated. Like other apologists for the Palestinians, it would never dawn on Kingsley that murder is not the only possible response to "occupation." Nor does it occur to him that decades of terror have not brought the Palestinians any closer to statehood.

The word "terrorism" did appear once in Kingsley's story. The context: Israeli officials admitting that the killer's grandfather was killed in "an act of Jewish terrorism" (emphasis added). Kingsley acknowledged only that there are "armed Palestinian groups." To him, Hamas is "the Islamist group."

"All humanity should recognize the difference between a preventative assault on a terrorist cell and the massacre of civilians in a house of worship," Palestinian activist Bassem Eid wrote in The Forward. Alas, journalists and other critics of Israel can't make such elementary distinctions.

Kingsley and others who mentioned the Israeli operation in Jenin that preceded the Jerusalem attack omitted that all but one of those killed were terrorists. Journalists, for some reason, never ask why Palestinians allow terrorists to live in their midst, knowing they could be caught in the crossfire when Israeli forces act to prevent terror attacks. They also never ask why the Palestinian security forces do not prevent terrorism as the Oslo Accords require.

It's easier for the media to talk about a "cycle of violence," which suggests terrorism and counterterrorism are identical. But the media never suggests that a US drone strike on a terrorist (never a "militant") perpetuates a cycle of violence.

The "cycle" idea also implies there was no first shot that required a response. Journalists who believe history begins with their arrival on assignment don't know that the murder of Jews in the Land of Israel did not begin with the "occupation." It can be traced back to the religiously inspired murders instigated by the Mufti of Jerusalem in the 1920s.

Tellingly, the media glossed over the Palestinian celebrations of the Shabbat massacre. The headline of Kingsley's story said only "some Palestinians exult." Neither journalists nor diplomats appear to understand that Israelis have no interest in conceding anything to people who consider Jew-killers heroes and rejoice at their "martyrdom."

Bassem Eid is the rare Palestinian activist who speaks the truth about his society.

"There is something deeply broken in a Palestinian street culture that honors violence against innocents, a culture in which some were filmed dancing in the streets and handing out candies after the 9/11 terror attacks," Eid wrote in The Forward. "Multiple generations of Palestinian young people have been taught to hate Jews and Israel's allies. Too much of the Western world has coddled this perverse cycle. Enough is enough. Palestinians and all those who truly support us must stand for humanity."

One person who doesn't seem to agree with Eid is US Secretary of State Antony Blinken. In an all-too-familiar example of Arabist chutzpah, he stood next to the democratically elected prime minister of Israel and lectured Benjamin Netanyahu about democracy. He also implied that he knows better than the people of Israel what is best for Israel's security – the two-state solution. You know, the one opposed by most Israelis and Palestinians.

Blinken embarrassed himself even more when he gripped and grinned with Palestinian Authority chieftain Mahmoud Abbas. Consistent with his morally vapid policy of evenhandedness, Blinken had the gall to equate Israeli and Palestinian feelings of insecurity while the latter seeks the destruction of the former.

After pontificating about democracy in Jerusalem, he said nothing in Ramallah about the PA's complete lack of it. He treated Abbas like a legitimate leader rather than an autocrat who clings to power 19 years after his presidential term ended. While expressing concern about Israeli proposals for judicial reform, Blinken was silent about the legal system Abbas uses to punish his critics.

Blinken also said nothing about Abbas's insistence on continuing to pay Palestinians to murder Israelis. Two such killers, recently released from prison, collected nearly $100,000 each from the "pay-to-slay" program. Instead of demanding an end to the policy and placing conditions on aid to the PA, as required by the Taylor Force Act, Blinken boasted about the money the Biden administration has given the Palestinians – a US taxpayer subsidy for the family of the perpetrator of the Shabbat massacre.

Following his meeting with Abbas, Blinken said the US was giving UNRWA another $50 million on top of the $890 million already allocated. In the grand American tradition of pouring good money after bad, the administration is guaranteeing the Palestinian refugee issue will persist, the number of refugees will continue to increase exponentially, refugee camps will remain incubators for terrorism and the organization's facilities will provide cover for Hamas.

I'm left with two questions: 1) Does any act of mayhem or murder committed against Israeli Jews qualify as terrorism? 2) Is there nothing that can convince the State Department that the Palestinians are interested in the destruction of Israel, not a two-state solution?

Reprinted with permission from JNS.org.

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

The post For some, not even an attack on a synagogue is terror appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

It seems that every Jewish organization claims it is fighting antisemitism. Yet, it is clear that they are failing. Many reasons account for the spread of this cancer. One is that some Jews are antisemites or have taken positions that are antisemitic. Others are enablers of antisemitism. Jew-versus-Jew is not a new story, but usually, we have managed to unite to fight a common enemy. Now we are proving the adage that we are our own worst enemies.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

While it is true that antisemitism is a disease of both the far-right and the far-left, what is especially alarming is that it has infected even the moderate left. This is especially apparent in the Democratic Party's normalization of antisemitism through, among other missteps, its defense of Reps. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan and Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, and its insistence on equating Jew-hatred with other forms of bigotry, most absurdly "Islamophobia." The overwhelmingly liberal Jewish community has spoken up in the immediate aftermath of outrages but then retreats to its sha shtil tradition.

About the only people on the Jewish right who associate with antisemitic views are the lunatics of Neturei Karta. Orthodox Jews, who are the most frequent targets of hatred, have been leaders in the fight against antisemitism. However, many also fell silent regarding Donald Trump's behavior until he finally crossed a line by dining with Ye (formerly known as Kanye West) and Holocaust denier Nick Fuentes – though it's unlikely to stop them from voting for Trump again.

On the left, Jews who fancy themselves mainstream have increasingly become part of the problem. Today, the most obvious are those who support the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement. The worst is Jewish Voice for Peace (everyone thinks if "peace" is in their name, they are on the side of righteousness), whose positions are consistent with the worst anti-Israel propagandists and whose work on campus is particularly insidious.

On the comparatively moderate side of the Jews who undermine the fight against antisemitism are groups like J Street, the New Israel Fund and Americans for Peace Now. They were joined by Ameinu, Bend the Arc: Jewish Action, Habonim Dror North America, the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism and T'ruah in publishing a statement protesting Republican House Speaker Kevin McCarthy's pledge to strip Ilhan Omar of her House Foreign Affairs Committee assignment.According to these groups, the not-yet House Majority Leader was acting "based on false accusations that [Omar] is antisemitic or anti-Israel." What makes this defense of Omar astonishing is not just that she is unabashedly both, but that even spineless Democrats in Congress condemned her most outrageous remarks.

This is not to excuse McCarthy's removal of Reps. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) from their intelligence committee seats in an act of blatant political revenge or his failure to act against Republican antisemites like Marjorie Taylor Greene, who is being allowed back on a committee after Democrats threw her off.

The GOP's failings have nothing to do with the Jewish groups, some claiming to be "pro-Israel," who have chosen to defend someone who is not just another critic of Israeli policy but a public official promoting antisemitic views with a congressional megaphone.

Jews are also among those who oppose the definition of antisemitism promulgated by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), which has been adopted by 39 countries, including the United States, the European Union, the Organization of American States, the Council of Europe, the US Departments of State and Education, 26 US states, more than 400 academics and intellectuals, some 314 institutions of higher education worldwide and more than 865 international entities. A group of more than 200 professors, for example, rejected the IHRA and wrote a definition that would exclude anything any of them might say, including comparing Israeli policies to those of the Nazis.

As is too often the case, Jews are giving cover to the antisemites, who can then say, "Even the Jews disagree on the definition." A useful Jewish idiot can always be found to provide the haters with an excuse for persecuting their brethren.

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

On campus, Jewish professors and administrators who ought to be setting an example for their students of how to fight antisemitism are often the problem. Take the current case of the Jewish dean of UC Berkeley's law school, who is going to the mat to defend student law groups that pledged not to invite speakers who support Zionism or Israel, and support the antisemitic BDS movement. Antisemites are accorded free speech rights that would never be granted to bigots targeting other minorities. I'd love to see what the dean would do if law students called for a boycott of "N***ers" ("Zionist" is the antisemites' equivalent). In the unlikely event he stuck to an absolutist free speech argument, you can be sure students and faculty would be ready to burn the law school down if no action was taken.

How can antisemitism be successfully fought when there are Jews who refuse to accept the definition of the word, defend antisemites and engage in activities that are antisemitic?

 Reprinted with permission from JNS.org.

The post Jews who defend antisemites appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.