As nuclear talks between Iran and world powers continue in Vienna, Iran appears to be already eying its next moves.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

On Jan. 14, Iran's Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian visited China to discuss the 25-year cooperation agreement signed by the two countries earlier this year. That agreement aims to boost economic and political relations at the very same time the United States is looking to reduce its presence in the Middle East.

"At the beginning of the new year in 2022, I am very happy to start my first visit to China since taking office," Amir-Abdollahian wrote on Twitter in Chinese. "I exchanged views with Chinese State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi on a wide range of issues, such as the comprehensive cooperation plan and the Vienna negotiations, and reached important consensus," he said without elaborating.

The visit by the Iranian foreign minister is part of an ongoing effort by Tehran to cozy up to the Chinese. For its part, China, which is taking part in negotiations in Vienna as a member of the P5+1 (the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, China and Germany), appears keen on expanding ties in the Middle East, and that could undermine the ability of the Biden administration to successfully pressure Iran into dropping its nuclear ambitions.

"China's economic investment in Iran decreases US leverage in the nuclear negotiations in Vienna by undercutting the effectiveness of sanctions," Ari Cicurel, a senior policy analyst with the Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA), told JNS.

"The Biden administration has expressed a desire to shift focus towards strategic competition with China in the Indo-Pacific, but Beijing is actively strengthening its position in the Middle East. While the official China-Iran partnership agreement remains a secret, a leaked document calls for increased military, weapons development and intelligence cooperation that should alarm the United States, Israel and the Gulf states," he said.

While the Biden administration hopes to salvage the 2015 nuclear deal, Iran has been ramping up conditions for its return, which would include removing all sanctions imposed since 2018, as well as a guarantee that a future US president would not withdraw from the deal. It has also been ramping up its nuclear program, increasing its uranium enrichment with more advanced centrifuges.

In an interview with NPR, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said that the world is running out of time to stop a nuclear Iran.

"We're very, very short on time. The runway is very short," he said. "Iran is getting closer and closer to the point where they could produce on very, very short order enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon."

Blinken said that that the United States has "a few weeks left to see if we can get back to mutual compliance."

With Chinese support, Iran could become even more problematic for Washington and its allies, like Israel.

"China could significantly enhance Iran's ballistic missile and drone technologies, which Iranian proxies use to target American service members and partners in the region," said Cicurel.

"An Iran with greater military support and weapons capabilities from China could undermine Israel's campaign between the wars in Syria and Lebanon, and potentially make Tehran more willing and able to strike Israel by evading or overwhelming its air defenses."

Similarly, the Chinese could provide cover for Iran to continue to ramp up its nuclear program and protect it from US or Israeli strikes.

Cicurel said "Chinese cooperation that improves Iran's anti-access/area-denial capabilities could encourage Tehran's confidence that breaking out to a nuclear weapon would be successful and make it more challenging for the United States or Israel to stop it."

'US sanctions enforcement has been lax'

China has also become an important lifeline for the Iranian economy after the United States reimposed sanctions on Iran following its withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear agreement. At the same time, Iran has become a key energy resource for China. Last year, China important at least 590,000 barrels of oil per day from Iran, according to Kpler, a Paris-based commodity-data provider.

Jason Brodsky, policy director at United Against Nuclear Iran, told JNS that US sanctions enforcement on Iran has been lax.

"According to United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI)'s assessment, from January to September 2021, Iran exported almost 300 million barrels of crude oil and gas condensates. That is almost 100 million barrels more than the equivalent period in 2020," he said. "In our calculations, comparing all of 2020 to 2021, Iran increased its export total by 123 million barrels – an increase of more than 40 percent. China is a big part of that increase."

Iran's President Ebrahim Raisi, a hardliner who took office in August, appears intent on expanding Iran's ties with non-Western countries like China in a bid to evade US sanctions. Raisi is expected to visit Russia soon, and Iran has recently struck bartering-style deals with Pakistan and Sri Lanka to sell oil and gas, reported The Wall Street Journal.

"This is, in part, why Tehran has been moving like a turtle in Vienna and has not exhibited the degree of urgency in negotiations with the P5+1. The Biden administration has said it has been tackling this influx diplomatically, but that is not the same thing as actual enforcement of US sanctions," said Brodsky.

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

"The Iranian system thus far has calculated it could sustain its current stalling posture by using the Vienna negotiations to advance its nuclear program, build a resistance economy, and pivot to China and Russia," he added.

Although Brodsky cautioned reading too much into Iran and China's budding relationship, he noted that China is also courting partnerships with Arab states in the Middle East. In recent days, China hosted a number of Arab Gulf officials from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman and Bahrain. China's Foreign Minister Wang Yi also spoke last week with his counterpart in the United Arab Emirates, Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan.

"Beijing will continue to carefully calibrate and balance its relations between Iran and the Gulf Arab states," he said. "We see this in the separate trips this week of foreign ministers from the Gulf Arab states and Iran to China. However, in doing so, it is throwing Tehran a lifeline."

Reprinted with permission from JNS.org.

The post Edging closer to Iran, China emerges as latest key player in nuclear negotiations appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The United States voted last week to abstain on a resolution concerning the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), the UN's agency that handles Palestinian refugees – part of several resolutions put forth in the UN General Assembly concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that largely targeted Israel for its treatment of Palestinians.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

The text, called "Assistance to Palestinian Refugees," demands "compensation" for descendants of Palestinian refugees who lost property when they fled their homes, as well as an unlimited "right of return" for Palestinian refugees to a sovereign Israel.

Israel was the sole country that opposed the text, which passed the General Assembly on Nov. 9 with a vote of 160-1, including nine abstentions from the United States, Canada, Cameroon, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Papa New Guinea and Uruguay.

Nevertheless, the decision by the Biden administration to switch to abstention on the UNRWA vote marked a shift from the Trump administration, which had uniformly voted against such anti-Israel votes at the United Nations.

"This is basically a regression going back to the Obama administration's policies," Asaf Romirowsky, executive director for Scholars for Peace in the Middle East and UNRWA expert, told JNS. "UNRWA hasn't changed any of their policies or behaviors; in fact, since the Gaza conflict in May, their terrorist activity and incitement to violence has increased."

Romirowsky said he believes this is part of the Biden administration's goal to undo many of the previous policies of the Trump administration without any thought to the ramifications of such moves.

"I believe this in tandem tied to push to reopen the consulate to the Palestinians in Jerusalem, appease the Palestinian Authority and reverse [former President Donald] Trump's policies," he said.

Former US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley slammed the Biden administration's decision to abstain.

"[US President] Joe Biden has no opinion about the only Jewish state in the world ceasing to exist. This is not how you treat your friends," she said.

"We are watching a dangerous backslide of American policy and principle at the United Nations," Jonathan Schanzer, senior vice president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told JNS. "From rejoining and legitimizing the UN.Human Rights Council to this latest punt on UNRWA, it would appear that the Biden administration has chosen the path of least resistance at Turtle Bay. And that path is most easily described as appeasement."

'Continuing to single out Israel'

Political leaders and watchdog groups have long accused UNRWA of promoting educational material that contains anti-Semitism and incitement to violence. In July, Republican lawmakers introduced a bill to block taxpayer money from being sent to the agency unless certain requirements are met, such as verifying no employees are members of terror organizations or promoting anti-American or anti-Israel rhetoric.

The Trump administration had previously cut all aid to UNRWA over these concerns. The United Kingdom recently announced that it would cut funding to UNRWA by half as well. UNRWA chief Philippe Lazzarini warned last month that the group is facing a "severe funding crisis" as a result of these cuts.

Nevertheless, the Biden administration has pushed to restore funding and reform the organization.

Speaking before a congressional committee last June, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said the United States was "determined that UNRWA pursue very necessary reforms in terms of some of the abuses of the system that have taken place in the past, particularly the challenge that we've seen in disseminating in its educational products antisemitic or anti-Israel information."

In his address to the United Nations this week, Ambassador Richard Mills, US.Deputy Representatives to the United Nations, explained the decision but criticized the world body for "continuing to single out Israel" through a series of resolutions targeting the Jewish state.

"For this reason, the United States strongly opposes the annual submission of a package of resolutions biased against Israel. And while we do appreciate the modest efforts that have been taken to reduce the numbers of these resolutions, if the problematic and biased language remains, this effort is, well, moot," he said.

However, regarding the resolution pertaining to UNRWA, Mills explained that America is returning to the position of abstention, which had previously been done during the Obama administration.

"As many members know, under President Biden, the United States announced it would restore its financial support to UNRWA, which we do believe is a vital lifeline to millions of Palestinians across the region," he said, noting that the United States has provided $318 million to UNRWA since April.

"We were pleased to see language included in several of the resolutions that reflect our priorities in line with strengthening UNRWA," he said. "The United States will continue to work with UNRWA; work to strengthen the agency's accountability, its transparency and its consistency with UN principles."

Romirowsky dismissed claims that the Biden administration can reform UNRWA.

He said agency officials "haven't done anything on their end to prove trustworthiness or prove they are ready for the money. In fact, they have actually become worse, and the Gaza war in May only proves that."

Reprinted with permission from JNS.org.

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

The post US abstention on UNRWA vote a 'regression to Obama-era policy,' pro-Israel officials warn appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Google Maps has announced that it has removed the label "Apartheid Wall" from a road adjacent to the security barrier on the outskirts of eastern Jerusalem.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

While it is unclear how it came about, the company called it "inappropriate" and removed the label after being alerted by Jewish News Syndicate.

"We have taken swift action to update this inappropriate error," a Google spokesperson told JNS.

The unnamed road appears to be a military route that runs alongside the security barrier not far from the Bethphage church on the eastern slopes of the Mount of Olives and the Tomb of Lazarus east of Jerusalem.

Erected after the wave of Palestinian suicide bombings during the years of the Second Intifada from 2000 to 2005, the security barrier has been seen as an effective tool in order to prevent infiltrations from the West Bank by terror groups, with the number of such bombings dropping dramatically following its construction.

Still, it has drawn criticism from the international community, which sees the barrier as evidence of Israel's intent to annex land and undermine the Mideast peace process.

As a result, critics have accused Israel of being an "apartheid state" to describe its policies towards Palestinians in the West Bank and east Jerusalem, also applying the term to the barrier.

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

Jewish groups, including the Anti-Defamation League, say that the "apartheid label would seem to question the legitimacy of the world's only Jewish state and its continued existence."

 Reprinted with permission from JNS.org.

The post Google Maps removes 'Apartheid Wall' from J'lem security barrier label appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Jewish groups in Massachusetts are raising concerns about a bill being proposed by state lawmakers that would facilitate the teaching of ethnic studies in schools.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

The legislation, known as S.365 "An Act relative to anti-racism, equity and justice in education" has been proposed by State Sen. Jason Lewis (5th Middlesex District). The bill, citing the Jan. 6 "insurrection" and the "imminent danger" posed by "disinformation and white supremacy," says that it would be in the best interest of Massachusetts students "that education in dismantling racism be taught to all students."

It calls for the establishment of a fund and a "Commission for Anti-Racism and Equity in Education," which would "develop curriculum materials with a social-justice perspective of dismantling racism" and "ensure that ethnic studies, racial justice, decolonizing history and unlearning racism are taught at all grade levels."

The bill was introduced earlier this year and has been referred to the committee on education. In September, a virtual hearing was held where Jewish groups submitted testimony raising concerns over the language.

Robert Leikind, director of the American Jewish Committee's New England regional office, wrote that while they support efforts to educate students on racial justice, the "terms used are undefined and vague, leaving the proposed commission broad discretion to interpret their meaning and shape policy accordingly."

Similarly, in a letter to Lewis and other lawmakers, the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Boston expressed concern over the legislation.

In particular, it noted issues related to the oversight of the "commission (in the bills' current form, the commission has no members from the legislature or the administration, for example), transparency, definitions of vague terms in the commission's enumerated goals and the fiscal power of the commission to disburse funds without requiring legislative or administrative oversight."

The JCRC said that it looks forward to future opportunities to work with lawmakers to have more in-depth conversations on the bill and its current language.

'Part of a political movement'

Andrea Levin, executive director of the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis (CAMERA), which is based in Boston, told Jewish News Syndicate that the ethnic-studies curriculum as it stands now is infested with antisemitism.

"There is now overwhelming evidence that critical ethnic studies and the 'anti-racist' pedagogy are not genuinely concerned with combating the evil of bigotry and prejudice, but are instead part of a political movement that's shot through with antisemitism and rank anti-Zionist propaganda. To mandate this pernicious ideology in public schools is a violation of public trust, brainwashes children of all backgrounds and will ultimately put a target on the backs of every Jewish child," she said.

The concern over the bill comes as California is close to enacting mandatory ethnic-studies curriculum as a high school graduation requirement.

The debate over ethnic studies in California has been ongoing for several years. The first draft of the state-approved Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum (ESMC) was criticized by pro-Israel groups and others for promoting the BDS movement against Israel and not including lessons about antisemitism.

While a revised version did address some issues, groups fear that the law mandating ethnic studies, known as AB 101, could lead to some school districts using portions of the first draft.

As such, a number of pro-Israel groups and individuals had been pressuring California Gov. Gavin Newsom to veto the bill. However, Newsom signed the bill into law on Oct. 8.

Charles Jacobs, president of Americans for Peace and Tolerance, told JNS that ethnic studies and racial-justice curricula as now constructed are "poisonous to American society, as they promote tribalism and racism."

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

"They also follow the woke-ist formula that casts Jews as privileged white-adjacents whose very accomplishments and success become the very proof points that we are 'exploiters and oppressors' here and illegitimate rulers over 'people of color' in Israel," he said.

He also cast doubt on whether the established Jewish community can have an impact on improving the curriculum, such as in the case of California, where major concerns still linger. "Jewish efforts to 'improve' these curricula will likely backfire because any 'improved versions' will make the entire effort seem kosher, when it is not. And in any case, it will be hard or impossible to monitor radical-minded teachers who will use the cover of an approved 'racial-justice' curriculum to treat Israel and Jews here as they wish," he said.

Jacobs concluded by saying that "the Jewish community's mainstream leadership, already paralyzed by its embrace of the very minority groups which are openly hostile to our interests, will likely be able to 'make improvements' and brag about it, but they will have only put lipstick on the pig."

Reprinted with permission from JNS.org.

The post Jewish groups alarmed by ethnic-studies bill in Massachusetts appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Ben & Jerry's board chair Anuradha Mittal spoke out for the first time since the ice-cream company announced that it would no longer sell its product in "occupied Palestinian territory," rejecting calls that the move was antisemitic.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

"I am proud of @benandjerrys for taking a stance to end the sale of its ice cream in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. This action is not anti-Semitic. I am not anti-Semitic. The vile hate that has been thrown at me does not intimidate me," she wrote on Twitter.

"[Please] work for peace-not hatred," she added.

"The vile hate that has been thrown at me does not intimidate me. Pls work for peace – not hatred!" https://t.co/ySzioevIr6

— Anuradha Mittal (@Mittaloak) July 27, 2021

Foreign Minister Yair Lapid called Ben & Jerry's move "a shameful surrender to antisemitism." President Isaac Herzog called it "economic terrorism."

Mittal has a history of supporting anti-Israel causes and publishing anti-Israel reports. In addition to her role at Ben & Jerry's, she is the founder and executive director of the Oakland Institute, which has a history of anti-Israel stances. She helped author the Oakland Institute's "Palestine for Land & Life," a series containing nine different reports accusing Israel of apartheid, colonialism and land-grabbing.

Mittal has used her role at Ben & Jerry's Foundation to fund the Oakland Institute and its projects, including anti-Israel organizations. For example, in 2017, the Ben & Jerry's Foundation donated $3,000 to the Oakland Institute earmarked for Badil, a Palestinian organization dedicated to the Palestinian "right of return."

Mittal has also posted anti-Israel content and support for the BDS movement on her personal Twitter account, including calling for the US government to end aid to Israel and supporting Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and her antisemitic rhetoric.

On Tuesday, Mittal also tweeted a statement of support from progressive Jewish groups, as well as a portion of a statement from Unilever, Ben & Jerry's parent company, emphasizing a "clear distinction" between Israel and the disputed territories.

Unilever CEO Alan Jope sent a letter to several Jewish groups on Tuesday, including the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and the Anti-Defamation League, saying that the company "rejects completely and repudiates unequivocally any forms of discrimination or intolerance. Anti-Semitism has no place in any society. We have never expressed any support for the BDS movement and have no intention of changing that position."

He added that Unilever remains "fully committed" to its colleagues and customers in Israel.

Still, the Conference of Presidents said Unilever's response does not go "far enough."

Our CEO @Daroff received a letter from @Unilever confirming their commitment to continue doing business in Israel. Their response does not go nearly far enough. They should rescind the Ben & Jerry's decision, as boycotts of Israel are discriminatory + further inflame tensions. pic.twitter.com/Jxgb3J8wh8

— Conf Of Presidents (@Conf_of_Pres) July 27, 2021

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

"Unilever reportedly has the legal ability to override the recommendation of Ben & Jerry's board to boycott Israel. We again strongly encourage them to do so, as boycotts of Israel are discriminatory and further inflame tensions," said the Conference of Presidents.

Ben & Jerry's has been owned by Unilever since 2000. However, under a unique arrangement, the company has the right to make independent decisions regarding branding and social justice.

Reprinted with permission from JNS.org.

The post Ben & Jerry's board chair speaks out: I am not an antisemite appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The recent announcement that Ben & Jerry's plans to end its sale of ice cream in "occupied Palestinian territory," primarily Judea and Samaria as well as eastern Jerusalem, has stirred a fierce reaction, including potential legal and financial repercussions for the ice cream maker and its parent company Unilever.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter 

Brooke Goldstein, executive director of the Lawfare Project and co-founder of the End Jew Hatred movement, told JNS that the sheer size of Unilever opens it up to possible significant financial penalties.

"By virtue of its wayward subsidiary, Unilever – a massive international conglomerate – risks potentially crushing financial consequences in terms of its ability to receive investments from, or do business with, the majority of US states," she said.

Just hours after the announcement, Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations Gilad Erdan, in coordination with Israeli Foreign Minister Yair Lapid, sent a letter to 35 governors of American states that have laws against the BDS movement targeting Israel.

Alyza Lewin, president of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, said that anti-BDS laws could certainly impact Unilever.

"Enforcement of those laws will depend on the cooperation of government authorities in those jurisdictions," she said.

Lewin, who has represented cases of religious discrimination in the past and argued before the US Supreme Court, also said that the anti-BDS laws are not the only route available.

"Unilever might also experience consequences if legal action is instituted by private parties in US courts. And, of course, private boycotts in the United States by upset consumers can impact Unilever's business as well."

Some states have already begun to look into the issue. Texas Comptroller Glenn Hegar has directed his staff to see if the actions taken by Ben & Jerry's or Unilever would trigger a listing under Chapter 808 of the Texas Government Code, which prohibits investment in companies that boycott Israel.

"Texans have made it very clear that they stand with Israel and its people. We are against all those wishing to undermine Israel's economy and its people," Hegar said in a statement.

Christians United for Israel, which is headquartered in Texas, said that it supports Hegar's investigation.

"This ensures that the voice of millions of pro-Israel Texans will be heard loud and clear should Texas be forced to divest its current holdings of Unilever as required by law," said Pastor John Hagee and Sandra Hagee Parker.

Meanwhile, Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) has called on his state to immediately block the sale of all Ben & Jerry's products in his state. Local governments have also taken action, with Hempstead, N.Y. declaring that will sever all ties with Ben & Jerry's and Unilever on Thursday.

Marc Greendorfer, president of the Zachor Legal Institute, told JNS that there are actually two types of anti-BDS laws that come into play. "Some of the laws only relate to the state entering into contracts with those who boycott Israel while other laws prohibit the state from holding investments in companies that boycott Israel," he said.

He noted that some states have two types of laws, while other states only have one – either the no-contract or no-investing law.

While he doubts that the no-contract law will apply in most cases (since it would be unusual for states to enter into a contract for ice cream) it could impact the parent company, Unilever.

"Unilever could easily be banned from state contracts and since Unilever has many lines of business, they might also have state contracts that would be impacted," he said.

Greendorfer explained that "the more likely scenario is that states with the no-investing law will add Unilever to their prohibited investment lists and ultimately have to divest from Unilever stock" since Ben & Jerry's is a subsidiary of Unilever.

Unilever, a British multinational company headquartered in London, has annual revenues of $61 billion, and its products are sold in some 190 countries.

Unilever CEO Alan Jope has attempted to distance the company from the move by Ben & Jerry's board, which operates independently from its parent company on issues like social justice, saying that he remains "fully committed" to doing business in Israel.

"Obviously, it's a complex and sensitive matter that elicits very strong feelings," he said in a call with investors, reported The Washington Post. "If there is one message I want to underscore in this call, it's that Unilever remains fully committed to our business in Israel."

While Ben & Jerry's said that it would continue to produce ice cream inside of Israel through a "different arrangement," it remains unclear how the company could differentiate between Israel and its settlements. Israeli law prevents local companies from boycotting settlements and the country's supermarket chains, which are a main distribution channel for Ben & Jerry's, all operate in settlements.

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

In 2018, Airbnb announced that it would no longer list properties in Israeli settlements, which the company later reversed after several lawsuits filed in the United States and Israel.

It will likely take several months, said Greendorfer, for states to go through the process of divesting from a prohibited investment, so it is unlikely that Unilever will see any immediate consequences.

"But in the end," he assured, "the boycotters will be boycotted, and Unilever will find that the cost of engaging in discriminatory boycotts is high."

Reprinted with permission from JNS.org.

The post Will US anti-BDS laws cause financial meltdown for Ben & Jerry's? appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Several top evangelical Christian leaders reiterated their steadfast support for Israel in the wake of an open letter from a prominent evangelical Christian leader who castigated Yamina Party leader Naftali Bennett over his support for a government to replace Benjamin Netanyahu.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

"Christian Zionists have had a relationship with every Prime Minister since [David] Ben-Gurion. That will not change," Christians United for Israel spokesman Ari Morgenstern told JNS.

In an expletive-laden open letter, evangelical leader Mike Evans, the founder of the Friends of Zion Heritage Center in Jerusalem and the Jerusalem Prayer Team, berated Bennett for "betraying" Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and threatened to withhold evangelical Christian support for Israel.

"Don't ever call yourself a defender of Zion. You're not," wrote Evans. "You betrayed the very principles that a generation gave their blood for and died for. You want to be in bed with the Muslim Brotherhood and leftists. God have mercy on your soul. You're a pathetic, bitter little man so obsessed on murdering Netanyahu that you're willing to damage the State of Israel for your worthless cause."

He went on to say that he will "fight" Bennett on every step, saying "we gave you four years of miracles under [former President] Donald Trump and this is how you show your appreciation- shitting on our face. How dare you!"

"To say I'm disgusted with you is an understatement. You should hang your head in shame," said Evans.

'Evangelical Christians stand in solidarity with them'

His was far from the only opinion on the subject.

Laurie Cardoza-Moore, the host of "Focus on Israel" Christian television program and president of Proclaiming Justice to the Nations, said "evangelical Christian support for Israel is eternal. The Bible does not change. PJTN will stand on what is biblically expedient, not what is politically correct."

However, she added, "while we do not involve ourselves with internal Israeli politics, it is of great concern that any government in the Jewish state would be reliant on the Muslim Brotherhood. It is of great concern to the future of the Land that G-d calls His!"

In a press release, the International Christian Embassy Jerusalem said that its support for Israel remains "steadfast and anchored in timeless biblical principles," and is not contingent on who is leading Israel at any particular time.

"After going through four divisive elections, the year-long corona crisis, the recent conflict with Hamas, rising global anti-Semitism, the latest denigration of Israel in UN forums and the ever-looming threat of a nuclear Iran, the Israeli public right now needs to be hearing that evangelical Christians stand in solidarity with them, regardless of who is leading their nation," said ICEJ President Dr. Jürgen Bühler.

"No one should doubt that pro-Israel Christians around the world have great respect for Benjamin Netanyahu and his many accomplishments as Israel's longest-serving prime minister. But we do not detect any widespread move among evangelicals, in America or worldwide, to stop supporting Israel if he is replaced," he emphasized. "In fact, Israel has been gaining millions of new Christian friends around the globe over the past decade, and we fully expect that trend to continue."

Meanwhile, in response to Evan's open letter, Rabbi Tuly Weisz, who runs the website Israel365, called for a new relationship between evangelical Christians and Jews in the background of a new Israeli government.

In his letter, Weisz expressed the sense of shock and horror he felt when reading Evans' harsh and vulgar letter, unbefitting a self-defined friend of Zion.

"A defender of Zion is someone who puts his life on the line for the Jewish people … someone who thinks day and night about Israel's security, as Naftali Bennett has done. And let me tell you who is not a friend of Zion. Someone who literally takes out ads and billboards, calling himself the 'largest evangelical leader in the world,' and then publicly attacks, threatens and delegitimizes Israel's democratically elected prime minister," he wrote.

Weisz assured that Christian Zionists remain firmly behind Israel: "The Christian Zionists with whom I am in daily contact are unconditional in their love and support for Israel, based on the biblical commandment to bless Israel and love the Jewish people. It is inconceivable that Mike Evans would defy the word of God in the name of the 100 million Christians he purports to represent and threaten to revoke that support."

"The time has come for us to forge a new, meaningful rabbi-pastor relationship, where we work together as true friends of Zion to support Israel in a multitude of ways," he said, calling on "every pro-Israel pastor in the world to contact me personally because I want to work directly with you to create a new form of Christian support for Israel, built on real relationships with real Jews."

Reprinted with permission from JNS.org

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

The post Evangelical leaders say support for Israel remains 'steadfast' appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

With antisemitism on the uptick, the role of the next US Special Envoy to Combat antisemitism will take on more importance than ever. However, fault lines have been emerging within the Democratic Party over how to define and combat Jew-hatred.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter 

According to reports, a number of names have been floated for the next antisemitism envoy, including the former longtime head of the anti-Defamation League Abraham Foxman, Holocaust historian and Emory University Professor Deborah Lipstadt, ADL vice president Sharon Nazarian, National Coalition Supporting Eurasian Jewry CEO Mark Levin and former National Council of Jewish Women CEO Nancy Kaufman, among others.

While Foxman and Lipstadt have the backing of mainstream pro-Israel Democrats, Kaufman has been touted by progressives as their favored choice. The anti-Israel group IfNotNow, which supports the BDS movement, has endorsed Kaufman's nomination.

Ellie Cohanim, who served as deputy special envoy to monitor and combat antisemitism during the Trump administration, said that the names being floated for the next envoy reflect the emerging split within the Democratic Party over the issue of antisemitism.

"I would suggest that candidates like Abe Foxman, Deborah Lipstadt and Sharon Nazarian would take a more centrist approach to combat antisemitism;,while Nancy Kaufman has made statements that would put her on the left of the Democrat Party," said Cohanim.

Indeed, Kaufman stated in an interview with The Forward that she finds the IHRA definition an "interesting tool," but opposes codifying it into law. Kaufman herself has drawn criticism in the past as the head of the National Council of Jewish Women for supporting and working alongside the Women's March, whose co-founders had ties to anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan, head of the Nation of Islam. In 2017, she signed a letter in defense of political activist Linda Sarsour, who has been known for her anti-Israel stances and support for BDS.

'Global antisemitism stems from major three sources'

The split over the next Envoy reflects a larger gap emerging between progressives and the Jewish establishment over how to best define and fight antisemitism.

In particular, Cohanim noted that a major emerging fault line is over the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IRHA) working definition of antisemitism.

"Nowhere is this split more evident," she said, noting that it was a key priority when she and Special Envoy Elan Carr were in office. "Where I believe the other candidates would all support more countries and institutions adopting the IHRA working definition, Kaufman has stated that it should not be codified into law."

The United States, a member of the IHRA, has used the definition since it was adopted in 2016. The Trump administration expanded its use to the US Department of Education and in 2019 formally directed federal agencies to consider using the definition.

Shortly after taking office, the Biden administration also adopted the IHRA definition.

However, progressives have become increasingly critical of the IHRA definition, which they accuse of silencing criticism of Israeli government policy. In particular, they have singled out the IHRA definition over its assertion that anti-Zionism is antisemitism.

In January, 51 members of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations voted to endorse the IHRA definition, but notably, a couple of the umbrella group's more progressive organizations, Americans for Peace Now and the Workers Circle, did not. These groups were part of a number of other progressive groups that also include J Street, the New Israel Fund and T'ruah, which also spoke out against the IHRA definition.

In recent weeks, progressives have introduced two other definitions as alternatives to the IHRA: the Nexus document and the Jerusalem Declaration. Critics contend, however, that these definitions would allow anti-Zionists to advocate for the elimination of Israel without being accused of antisemitism.

At the same time, some Democratic lawmakers are pushing the Biden administration to adopt the alternative definitions.

Cohanim said that it's important for the next Envoy to understand the sources of antisemitism.

"I would hope that the next antisemitism Envoy would acknowledge that global antisemitism today stems from three major sources: radical-right white supremacists; radical-left anti-Zionists; and radical Islamists. In our administration, we addressed all of these sources of Jew-hatred and refrained from politicizing what should be a sacred subject – that is, antisemitism," she said.

"Too often in Democrat and leftist circles, we witness a singular focus on white supremacy to the exclusion of radical leftist anti-Zionism and radical Islamist Jew-hatred. This politicization of antisemitism ultimately puts Jewish lives at risk."

'The struggle against antisemitism is increasing politicized'

Holly Huffnagle, US Director for Combating Antisemitism at the American Jewish Committee, said that while the IHRA definition is not the only tool in their global kitbag, it is a "necessary and important" one that was embraced by the Obama administration, and now, the Biden administration.

"While we have witnessed some pushback from progressives in the US, it is important to remember that Spain, Sweden and other left-wing governments critical of Israel have adopted the definition in full and understand that it does not restrict their criticism of Israeli policies," she said.

Huffnagle explained that the working definition of antisemitism, which even predates the IHRA itself, came about out of genuine need, especially in Europe.

"In the early 2000s, there was a resurgence of antisemitism in Europe, where Jews were targeted as 'agents of Israel,' and it was not called 'antisemitism,' as though anger towards Israel somehow explained harassing Jewish worshippers or threatening Jewish schoolchildren – killing them even, as we horrifically witnessed in Toulouse in 2012," she said.

As such, data collectors and monitors, law enforcement, prosecutors and judges did not have a universal definition to use to understand all forms of antisemitism, noted Huffnagle.

"The Special Envoy's office, whose mandate is to combat acts of antisemitism and anti-Semitic incitement that occur in foreign countries, witnessed firsthand the utility of the definition," she said, adding that today is used by nearly 30 countries, in addition to hundreds of public and private institutions.

"The Special Envoy should continue to work to ensure the definition is used judiciously as an educational tool to raise awareness of the multifaceted nature of antisemitism," she said.

With the Biden administration recently marking its 100 days in office, there is a growing push for the President to fill the position. In fact, a bipartisan group of senators urged him last week to quickly nominate the next Envoy, citing the uptick in anti-Semitic attacks worldwide.

The next antisemitism Envoy will also have an expanded role in the US State Department.

Congress passed a bill at the end of last year that elevated the Special Envoy position to the rank of a Presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed ambassador who reports directly to the Secretary of State.

"The new Special Envoy will be the first to serve in an ambassador rank position, requiring Senate confirmaation. We strongly believe that in order to effectively combat all forms of antisemitism, it must be fought on a nonpartisan basis, addressing manifestations across the political and ideological spectrum," Sacha Roytman Dratwa, Executive Director of Combat antisemitism Movement, said.

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

"In a polarized world, the struggle against antisemitism is increasingly politicized, not just in the United States. The next Special Envoy will have to navigate the political intricacies in allied and hostile countries alike," he added.

antisemitism in Europe, for example, has taken on many different forms, depending on the country. On Sunday, thousands took the streets across the world to voice their outrage over the French judicial system's decision on the case of Sarah Halimi, a 65-year-old Orthodox Jewish woman who was murdered by her Muslim neighbor in 2017.

"In the United Kingdom, systemic antisemitism has primarily emanated from the far-left. In France, murderous antisemitism has primarily been carried out by individuals with a radical Islamist viewpoint, and in Germany, the attack on the Halle synagogue was carried out by a far-right Neo-Nazi," said Roytman-Dratwa. "This is why the IHRA definition as it stands is such an important tool for the incoming special envoy."

Reprinted with permission from JNS.org.

The post Will next antisemitism envoy address progressive push to sideline IHRA definition? appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

In letter to California governor, Lawfare Project argues against the implementation of recently approved ethnic studies curriculum it says "remains highly problematic" due to a "repeated emphasis on supposed Jewish experiences of 'conditional whiteness' and 'racial privilege.'"

The Lawfare Project is urging California Governor Gavin Newsom to prevent the implementation of its recently approved Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum over concerns it could violate federal and state civil rights laws.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

In a letter, it said that the current version of the curriculum "remains highly problematic with respect to education about the Jewish people, an ethnoreligious minority."

Specifically, the letter notes that the curriculum's "repeated emphasis on supposed Jewish experiences of 'conditional whiteness' and 'racial privilege' enables—and may encourage—school districts throughout California to implement the ESMC in a manner that violates state and federal civil rights law," in particular, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The Lawfare Project has urged Newsom to direct the state board of education to refrain from implementing the curriculum until the problematic portions are removed.

"The California State Board of Education and Governor Newsom received the Lawfare Project's letters warning of the likelihood that the ethnic-studies model curriculum, if implemented, would violate federal and state civil rights laws," Brooke Goldstein, executive director of the Lawfare Project told JNS.

"The board recklessly approved this curriculum anyway, and [we] will consider all legal options to keep the Jew-hatred it contains out of our children's classrooms."

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

Last week, the California State Board of Education approved the Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum. Its approval was the culmination of nearly two years of debate and concern from the Jewish community about anti-Semitism and anti-Israel bias in the curriculum.

While many Jewish groups cautiously welcomed the version passed last week by California,noting that concerning portions about Israel and anti-Semitism had been removed, other groups took issue with its overall adoption and its divisiveness at a time of increasing anti-Semitism nationwide.

The ethnic-studies curriculum approved by California remains optional at this time. Last year, Newsom

vetoed a bill that would have made ethnic studies mandatory for California high school students. However, new legislation is being considered to make the curriculum mandatory.

Reprinted with permission from JNS.org

The post Lawfare Project: California curriculum violates civil rights laws appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Israel is not the only one headed to elections this spring. Palestinians made headlines across the news media recently for an unexpected reason: the announcement of new elections for the first time in 15 years. Rival Palestinian factions Hamas and Fatah agreed to an election timetable this spring that will see the first elections held in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in nearly a generation.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter 

Jonathan Schanzer, senior vice president for research at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said that he remains skeptical of the Palestinian announcement.

"Cynics will say that this is another episode of 'Lucy and the football,' with the Palestinians gesturing yet again that they are willing to end their internecine conflict, only to later renege," said Schanzer, referring to the "football gag" in the well-known Charles Shultz "Peanuts" cartoon.

"Optimists will look at this as an opportunity to finally end the Palestinian civil war and return to political unity. I tend to be more of a cynic about this, having observed that the rift has only widened over the years," he said. "But one can never be sure. It's the Middle East, after all."

After a two-day meeting in Cairo, Palestinian factions agreed to an election timetable, and to "respect and accept" the results of the election. Palestinian parliamentary elections are scheduled for May 22, with a presidential vote set to be held on July 31.

In a joint statement issued by Fatah, Hamas and 12 other Palestinian factions, the parties promised to "abide by the timetable" of the elections, allow unrestricted campaigning and establish an "election court" to adjudicate any disputes.

The move by the Palestinians to hold elections this year comes just weeks after US President Joe Biden was sworn in. The Palestinians have pinned their hopes on a more friendly Biden administration after boycotting the Trump administration since December 2017, when Jerusalem was recognized Israel's capital, with the US embassy moved there nearly six months later in May 2018.

Biden and his top officials have signaled a friendlier approach, promising to reopen the PLO's mission in Washington and to restore humanitarian-aid cuts by Trump. Yet Biden himself has paid scant attention to the Middle East, particularly the Israeli-Palestinian arena, in the weeks since taking office. Neither Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu nor Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas has received a phone call from the new US president.

However, it appears that with elections moving forward, the Palestinians may be attempting to force the Biden administration to contend with their affairs, especially since it appears that Hamas – a US-designated terror group – will likely make gains in the election.

"The Biden administration will undoubtedly welcome elections. Israel will also likely be cautiously supportive," said Schanzer. "The problem for both is that Hamas could win. "This would bring us right back to where we started. It was the concern about a Hamas government that prompted the protracted crisis we have been in for more than a decade."

'The same obstacles remain'

Indeed, the last Palestinian elections were held on Jan. 29, 2006. In that election, Hamas won 74 out of 132 parliamentary seats, with Fatah winning 45. Voter turnout was reported to be nearly 75 percent in Gaza and 73 percent in the PA-controlled areas of the West Bank.

A Hamas-controlled government, which Fatah refused to join, was sworn in two months later on March 29. The following month, the United States and the European Union suspended aid to the newly installed government due to Hamas's victory.

By September of that year, Fatah and Hamas announced they would form a unity government, though failed to agree on its terms. By the end of November, talks were at a dead end. A call by Abbas in December 2006 for early elections triggered fighting between the factions, and by June 2007, Hamas had ousted Fatah officials from the Gaza Strip and taken control of the area, where they remain the de facto government today.

Since then, there have been several attempts to forge unity agreements between Hamas and Fatah, as well as hold elections. However, both sides have not only kept their distance but become bitter enemies, with Fatah cracking down on Hamas activity in the West Bank and Hamas similarly viewing Fatah-aligned factions in Gaza with suspicion.

More importantly, Hamas is still very much engaged in a bitter struggle against Israel with a number of deadly conflicts over the last several years and periodic flare-ups of rocket fire that threaten to escalate into a wider war.

"The same obstacles faced by previous attempts of reconciliations remain," Hussein Aboubakr Mansour, director for Emerging Democratic Voice in the Middle East for EMET, said.

"There is a set of whole new pressures from the bottom – Palestinian discontent – and from above – regional and international. Egypt also seems to be throwing all its weight behind this," he explained. "But the obstacles remain. Hamas is the Islamic Resistance Movement. Armed resistance is its identity. All parties are willing to stand behind the unity of people, the unity of law, and perhaps even the unity of governance, but not the unity of the gun."

Schanzer remains skeptical of this newfound unity between Hamas and Fatah, which may be more of a product of their attempt to take advantage of the new Biden administration than any heartfelt change among their leadership.

"I have seen no indication that this time will be different other than to note that this move has come after four difficult years of US-Palestinian relations under [former President Donald] Trump. There could be an effort to take advantage of a new administration and its apparent willingness to engage in more friendly ties with the Palestinians," said Schanzer.

Additionally, there are questions about the future of the Palestinian leadership. Abbas is 85 and reportedly in failing health. His largely secular Fatah movement, which has controlled the PA since the mid-2000s, has become increasingly autocratic and unpopular among Palestinians in the West Bank.

He also has no clear successor within Fatah. He could face a leadership challenge from Marwan Barghouti, who is currently facing five life sentences in an Israeli prison for planning terror attacks during the Second Intifada; or Mohammed Dahlan, a former Fatah security chief in Gaza who now lives in exile in the United Arab Emirates after facing charges in absentia by the PA On top of that, a December 2020 poll by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research indicates that Hamas's Ismail Haniyeh – who briefly served as PA prime minister in 2006-07 and is the de facto political chief in Gaza – would handily defeat Abbas in the presidential election.

"There is the question of whether Abbas is doing this because of health issues," added Schanzer. "There is a chance that he is allowing this to move forward because he has little choice in the matter."

'Regional actors are watching carefully'

Hamas also faces its own internal challenges as well.

In the 15 years that Hamas has ruled Gaza, it has faced economic devastation as a result of its three wars with Israel and the Israeli-Egyptian blockade of the coastal territory.

One consideration is that Hamas – the de facto ruling government in Gaza for more than a decade – now faces many of the same pressures as the Fatah-controlled PA has faced as the governing political body over the Palestinians. In the last round of elections in 2006, Hamas was still a novice to politics and could criticize Fatah without having a record of its own. However, in the Gaza Strip today, Hamas faces an array of challenges from other terror factions, such as the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and even Salafi extremist groups tied to ISIS, who have criticized Hamas's rule in Gaza and even threatened it at times.

While on the surface they are all terror organizations, Hamas is held responsible for the security situation in Gaza, according to Israel's government, and has been and will be blamed for any rocket fire or terrorism coming from the coastal territory. Similarly, Gazans hold Hamas responsible for civilian affairs in Gaza from social services like trash pick-up to education and health care. There have also been complaints about corruption leveled against Hamas and its top officials. Qatar pours hundreds of millions in aid to the Gaza Strip, helping Hamas to stay in power and pay its civil servants, while the terror group imposes high taxes on imports, exports and businesses, which has hurt every day Gazans. Hamas has cracked down forcefully against protests against the taxes. Additionally, well-connected Hamas officials in Gaza have also been able to travel more freely outside of the coastal territory.

"Hamas now has to deal with as much popular frustration as the PA does and it is unclear how much did the support of Hamas change from 2005 till today. A lot has happened domestically, regionally, and internationally since then," said Aboubakr Mansour.

"If elections are to be held freely, this will be the first electoral test for Sunni political Islam since the Arab Spring, which means that many regional actors are watching carefully. But an even more difficult question is what will happen if Hamas loses the elections. The likely answer to all these questions is that nothing will happen either way," he said.

If Hamas does replicate its success in the last Palestinian elections in the mid-2000s, then the outcome could cause even more uncertainty.

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

"This is the million-dollar question. If Hamas wins, a new mess will emerge," said Schanzer, arguing that there needs to be an emergence of new Palestinian leadership if unity and peace are ever to be achieved.

"The key to solving this is for the international community to pressure the Palestinians for political reform," he emphasized. "There needs to be new parties in both the West Bank and Gaza Strip to challenge the terrorist Hamas faction and the corrupt Fatah faction. Right now, there are no alternatives to these terrible options."

Reprinted with permission from JNS.org.

The post Could Palestinian elections spell bad news for US and Israel? appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.