What's Wrong with Israel's Annexation Plans?

What's Wrong with Israel's Annexation Plans?
By Alan Stein

Variations of this column have been published in the MetroWest Daily News and the Manchester Journal Inquirer.

The first problem with Israel's "annexation" plans is that they have nothing to do with annexation." Annexation applies to the acquisition of territory belonging to another country, which is not the case here. The territory in question, part of what historically was called Judea (in the south) and Samaria (in the north) but was renamed the "West Bank" when it was occupied by Jordan after invading Israel in 1948 and capturing it. Indeed, a strong argument can and has been made by experts in international law that the disputed territory has been sovereign Israeli territory all along.

So, what is actually being considered?

Rather than immediately applying Israeli law to the territory it regained after being attacked again by Jordan in 1967, the Israeli government viewed it as a bargaining chip, offering to give it to Jordan in exchange for peace. Israel set up a military government there and in Gaza, anticipating this artificial arrangement would be short term.

Unfortunately, the Arabs then, like the Palestinian Arabs of today, weren't interested in peace with Israel. Less than three months after the 1967 war, the Arab League met in Khartoum and infamously issued what became known as the "three no's:" no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel and no peace with Israel.

Some of the Jewish families which had been kicked out of their homes by Jordan and Egypt rebuilt them and some Jewish communities returned to Judea and Samaria. A new people, the Palestinians, were created and King Hussein of Jordan renounced any claim to Judea and Samaria. More than a quarter century ago, Israel turned over governance of roughly 95 percent of the Arabs in the disputed territories to the Palestinian Authority and in 2000, 2001 and 2008 offered to give the PA virtually all the disputed territory. Instead of establishing the state the Palestinian Arabs claim they want, the PA effectively revived the infamous three no's of the Arab League and has declared it will never again negotiate directly with Israel.

Meanwhile, the Israeli communities in the disputed territories continue to exist in limbo, subject to the military rule set up in 1967.

All that Israel is really planning is to belatedly end that artificial, temporary situation by applying Israeli law, so that Israelis living in places they'd been kicked out of by Jordan will finally be subject to the laws passed by the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, rather than to military decrees. This is certainly more democratic and cuts down on bureaucracy, since the Israelis living under military rule have double the red tape when dealing with the government.

Concerns have been expressed that if Israel follows through with these changes it will preclude the so-called "two-state solution,"  which has not just been repeatedly rejected by the Palestinian Arabs whom it's designed to benefit, but whose very core concept - two states for two peoples - is something to which Mahmoud Abbas has insisted he will never agree. However, the reality is that nothing Israel does would preclude giving away some of that territory - most of which almost every knowledgeable observer recognizes will remain with Israel under any conceivable peace agreement.

Look at the record.

Israel "annexed" the previously Jordanian-occupied portions of Jerusalem, Israel's capital. Yet that didn't stop at least two prime ministers, Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert, from offering parts of Jerusalem to the Palestinian Authority.

Israel "annexed" its portion of the Golan Heights. Yet that didn't prevent at least two prime ministers, Yitzhak Rabin and Benjamin Netanyahu, from offering all of the Golan Heights to Syria. 

And, of course, Jordan "annexed" the entire West Bank when it captured it from Israel. Yet King Hussein subsequently renounced all claims to it.

The Trump peace plan envisions Israel giving away other territory that has indisputably been part of Israel since 1948. Yet that plan has been embraced both by Israel's current and future prime ministers, Benjamin Netanyahu and Benny Gantz.

If the Palestinian Arabs ever seriously negotiate with Israel, having portions of the disputed territory being governed by Israeli civilian law will be a non-issue.

In fact, Judea and Samaria have been sovereign Israeli territory since 1948. This is based on at least two separate provisions of international law.

At the San Remo Conference following World War I, the boundaries for territories captured by allies in the war were determined.  The pledges in Britain's Balfour Declaration, calling for a Jewish state in Palestine, were confirmed and later approved by the League of Nations, turning them into international law. They were also incorporated into the founding documents of the United Nations, as successor to the League of Nations. Israel is that Jewish state and the boundaries confirmed at San Remo include all the currently disputed territories and have never been superseded under international law.

Additionally, there is the sacrosanct principle of international law known as uti possidetis juris. Under this principle, when a new state is formed, it retains the internal borders of its previous administrative region. Before Israel was reestablished in 1948, it had been administered by Britain under its League of Nations mandate, all of the western portion of Palestine, including Judea and Samaria, had been treated as a single administrative region, and thus that entire territory legally belonged to Israel.

Regardless of having international law on its side, Israel doesn't want responsibility for the Arabs in the disputed territories. That's why it offered to give them all to Egypt and Jordan in 1967, turned over governance to the Palestinian Authority in 1994 and has repeatedly offered to give the Palestinian Arabs almost all the disputed territory. Any application of Israeli civilian law will not change that and should be treated by others as a non-issue. We should not give the rejectionist Palestinian Authority a veto power over the normalization of life for Israelis living in the disputed territories. Indeed, catering to that intransigence encourages their continued rejection of peace, whether through the so-called "two-state solution" or some other path.

Another way of putting it: the knee-jerk criticism we keep hearing is an obstacle to peace.

Response by Steve Kramer to Criticism of Israeli Sovereignty in Judea and Samaria

Response to Criticism of Israeli Sovereignty in Judea and Samaria - Steve Kramer

I found Ilan Goldenberg’s Washington Post op-ed (7/2/20) posted on Facebook by J Street, an organization representing itself as pro-Israel (it isn’t). The article’s publication by the Washington Post and dissemination by J Street tells me that Goldenberg’s opinions will almost certainly contradict what I and many others profess regarding Israel’s extension of sovereignty in its heartland, Judea and Samaria (J&S).

Because both the Washington Post and Facebook are influential opinion-makers for many American Jews, I must point out where I think Goldenberg goes wrong. How much, if any, sovereignty Israel will apply is not yet known. But I believe that replacing Israeli military law with civil law in J&S (tantamount to sovereignty), in whole or in part, is absolutely crucial at this time. Below are excerpts from Goldenberg’s article, with my retort following. 

Ilan Goldenberg is the director of the Middle East Security Program at the Center for a New American Security; he served on the State Department negotiating team on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and his impressive credentials.

“Recognizing the state of Palestine is the only appropriate response to Israeli annexation”

G: The Israeli government may begin taking steps toward unilaterally annexing portions of the West Bank soon. 

K: Israel is not annexing portions of the West Bank (J&S). Annexation refers to taking territory from another country. The defeat of the Ottoman Empire in WWI created a vacuum with no country sovereign in J&S. Jordan briefly and illegally ruled the area from 1948 to 1967, when Israel pushed the Jordanian Legion back across the Jordan River. 

According to international law (which is always and at all times equivocal and not precise), Israel’s authority in J&S coincides with the boundaries of the British Mandate for Palestine. That paradigm was the model for establishing the borders of Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq, all of which were also League of Nations’ Mandates. Therefore, Israel has the legal right to extend sovereignty throughout the former Mandate, if it wishes to do so. 

G: This move [what Goldenberg terms annexation] would present a grave threat to any possibility of a future two-state outcome that allows Israelis and Palestinians to live in freedom and security, each in a state of their own. It would also shatter the paradigm that has governed resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for decades. Annexation would be an unmistakable sign that Israelis are moving away from two states.

K: On the contrary, extending Israeli civil law - replacing Israel military law for its citizens in J&S - is not a threat to the two-state outcome; it’s the only way such an outcome could come about. It sets a more realistic paradigm for “peace” than exists now. The Palestinian Authority (PA) would recognize that the more it remains  intransigent, the worse off its position becomes. The maximalist demand of the Palestinian Arabs that Israel cease to exist has preempted PA-Israel negotiations for the last decade. 

G: Israeli annexation would herald a new era of unilateralism, the consequences of which would be a policy shift on the Palestinian side of the equation as well.

K: Unilateral acts by Israel is not new. In 1949, Prime Minister Ben-Gurion proclaimed Jerusalem to be Israel’s eternal capital, which was finally validated by the Trump administration. In 1981, Prime Minister Begin extended Israeli sovereignty to the Golan Heights. Today, no one would want it to be under Syrian sovereignty. In 2005, Israel unilaterally pulled all Israeli soldiers and civilians from the Gaza Strip, naively thinking that the PA would allow a government there to benefit its people. That didn’t happen. Instead, the Hamas movement ousted the PA and begin it terroristic rule over Gaza.

G: Unilateral Israeli annexation, designed to demonstrate to Palestinians that Israel will not be held hostage to a Palestinian veto over its borders and territory, would have a far more expansive effect. It would hasten the process of deterioration of Palestinian institutions toward further dysfunction and authoritarianism, as they would be increasingly be seen by Palestinians as tools for Israeli occupation, not preparation for statehood. Eventually, this lack of legitimacy would cause the Palestinian Authority to collapse.

K: Not all PA residents favor the government’s policies, making questionable how much legitimacy the PA has to begin with. The PA has never seriously tried to prepare to be an independent nation. It falls back on its ultimate goal of eliminating Israel, taking over its territory, and proclaiming all of Palestine “from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.”

G: Recognition of a Palestinian state [by the US after Israeli “annexation”] would be a huge political boost to Palestinian supporters of two states by providing symbolic achievement of a long-desired national aspiration. U.S. recognition should make clear that while the final borders of Israel and Palestine must be negotiated between the parties, they should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed on land swaps, grounding U.S. policy in 50 years of precedent.

K: The West’s dream of an Israel contained within the 1967 ceasefire lines (NEVER borders) is a fantasy that will not occur. Israelis now account for more than 20% of the population of J&S and will not be ethnically cleansed from their heartland. (Arab Israelis are more than 20% of Israel’s population.)

G: U.S. recognition [of a State of Palestine] would almost certainly cause most partners in Europe, who have thus far refrained from recognizing a Palestinian state, to follow. But even if a U.S. administration chose not to recognize Palestine, simply signaling to European countries that the United States would not oppose them taking this action could trigger a wave of international recognition that would boost Palestinians at a moment of despondency.

K: Many European states have already recognized the State of Palestine, despite the fact that it possesses none of the most important attributes of statehood. It is also recognized as tantamount to a state by global organizations such as the UN, ICC, and others.

Ilan Goldenberg possesses all of the requisites to be a Middle East pundit. But he lacks common sense. The Palestinian Arabs were not even in the running to have a state when the British Mandate for Palestine was established in 1922. In 1948, when Israel declared its independence, the Egyptians, Jordanians, and Syrians coveted its territory. Not until 1964, with the emergence of the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization), did a call for a statehood begin to emerge. 

The Palestinian Arabs have refused every opportunity to build a real state for themselves, even turning down overly generous offers by two Israeli prime ministers after the Oslo Accords of 1993, which envisaged some kind of status for the Palestinian Arabs within five years. 

Will the PA acknowledge that it’s no longer a central factor in Arab politics, especially for Egypt and the Gulf Arabs? Even Jordan’s King Abdullah favors (and requires) Israel to be sovereign on the western side of the Jordan River, though he is unable to say it. Abdullah’s tenuous hold on power over Jordan’s mostly Palestinian Arab population depends on Israel’s backing, as does the viability of the PA. Without Israel’s backing, both would be overthrown.

The Washington Post is an influential paper which today has a leftist agenda which it disguises as “objective.” It shares that direction with The New York Times. Don’t be fooled by barely hidden attempts to emasculate Israel and elevate another Palestinian terror entity, such as Gaza, alongside of Israel.

Yale Zussman's Latest Recommendations May 28, 2020

Hi Folks,

Here are my latest recommendations for following the issues of the Middle East.  There is no coverage of Israel's internal politics, which can require daily updates.  Rather, the focus is on looking back and looking forward, and some clues that the future may look better than the present.

Israel-China Ties: The ‘Sticking Point’ with the US?
BY TYLER KOTLER
JULY 11, 2019

https://honestreporting.com/israel-china-ties-the-sticking-point-with-the-us/

Note the date.  SARS-COV-2 will complicate this situation even further because Chinese aid includes large numbers of Chinese nationals coming and going on a fairly regular basis. It is believed that this is how the virus came to Iran.
----------
San Remo: The original ‘deal of the century’
YISHAI FLEISHER
April 26, 2020

https://www.jns.org/opinion/san-remo-the-original-deal-of-the-century/

Contrasts the visions of the San Remo agreement, the 1947 Partition resolution, and current discussion about a "Two-state" solution.
----------
Saudi Opposition to a Palestinian State
Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger
May 17, 2020
https://bit.ly/2ZnY231

The Saudi leadership and public are largely fed up with the Palestinians, and have moved on.
----------
Israel’s Control of Judea & Samaria -- a Prerequisite for Security
Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger
May 21, 2020
https://bit.ly/2LPFZKZ

Provides a strategic rationale for Israeli annexation of certain parts of Judea and Samaria.
----------
Israel: The Settlements Are Not Illegal
The annexation of lands in Judea and Samaria is not contrary to international law
by Michael Calvo
May 19, 2020

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/16032/israel-settlements-not-illegal

Focuses on the political and propagandistic claims about settlements rather than the actual legal issues.  (The article of the Geneva Convention generally cited as prohibiting the settlements actually addresses establishing concentration camps in occupied territories.  Also included in the Convention are sections seeking to enable commerce to continue during wartime.  There is no section addressing real estate deals, which is basically what the settlement issue is about, i.e., international law doesn't address the issue at all.)
----------
Video on life in Gaza

https://unitedwithisrael.org/life-in-gaza-the-video-israels-haters-tried-to-hide/

It's not a ZOOM, thank G-d, but may be useful as background material.

Moadim L'Simcha to my Jewish readers,

Until next time, stay safe, stay well,

Yales

Do people really support the "two-state solution?"

Do people really support the "two-state solution?"

The Forward recently published an op-ed by Brad Brooks-Rubin with the title "If Israel proceeds with annexation, American Jews will socially distance - from Israel."  It contained the commonly made but actually meaningless assertion "American Jews overwhelmingly support a two-state solution." Meaningless for many reasons, only one of which is that what's called a "two-state solution" isn't actually a two-state solution. I responded with the following letter. If The Forward actually publishes it, I will modify this post to so indicate.

Re If Israel proceeds with annexation, American Jews will socially distance - from Israel

As an introductory observation, any Jews who "socially distance" from Israel because the Jewish state annexes some of the disputed territory did not have any strong connection to Israel in the first place and their action is more a reflection of the failure of the organized American Jewish community than of any reasoned, informed reaction to what Israel may have done.

It should also be noted that, although it's commonly used even by its proponents, the term annexation is inappropriate, since under the principle of international law known as "uti possidetis juris," all the currently disputed territory fell within Israel's legal borders when Ben Gurion proclaimed Israel's independence in 1948.

The assertion in Brad Brooks-Rubin's op-ed that what he calls annexation would "end any prospects for peace" is patently absurd.

Currently, there are no prospects for peace, because not only does the Palestinian Arab leadership show no interest, but it has asserted it will never again negotiate directly with Israel. Obviously, there can't be peace without such negotiations. One can't end prospects for peace when none exist.

If the Palestinian Arabs reverse themselves and, for the first time in their short history, decide to seriously consider making peace, "annexation" won't be a serious issue. Israel "annexed" Jerusalem, but that didn't stop Israeli prime ministers Barak and Olmert from offering much of it to the Palestinian Arabs. Similarly, Israel "annexed" its portion of the Golan Heights, but that didn't stop several prime ministers from offering all of it to Syria. And, of course, Jordan annexed Judea and Samaria during the period it occupied it and that obviously made no difference.

Finally, I must comment on the absurdity of the meaningless statement "American Jews overwhelmingly support a two-state solution."

American Jews, like Israeli Jews, overwhelmingly support peace.

To the best of my knowledge, no reliable survey has ever been taken asking whether American Jews, or Israeli Jews, want a Palestinian Arab state or under what conditions they would agree to a Palestinian Arab state.

To even speak of a "two-state solution" is an exercise in taking advantage of ignorance, given that there are already two states in historic Palestine, with the Arab state, now called Jordan, comprising more than three-quarters of it. Thus, taken literally, a "two-state solution" would not include the creation of an additional Arab state; it would really entail a partition of the disputed territories, including Judea, Samaria and Gaza, into Israel, Jordan and Egypt.

Put another way, those who literally support a "two-state solution" actually oppose what's usually but incorrectly called a "two-state solution."

What Brooks-Rubin really means when he writes "American Jews overwhelmingly support a two-state solution" is that American Jews overwhelmingly support the establishment of second Arab state in Palestine, in part or all of the disputed territories. But even that is nonsensical, since there's a huge difference between supporting the establishment of such a state under current conditions, which would create a state dedicated to the destruction of Israel, or under reasonable conditions at some future time under the assumption the Arabs will be willing to live peacefully. Support would obviously also depend on the division of the disputed territory. How many would support Israel giving up the Old City, including the Temple Mount, the holiest site in Judaism? How many would support withdrawing from the settlement blocs, either forcing hundreds of thousands of Jews from their homes or forcing them to live under a Palestinian Arab government which would turn them into dhimmis?

Even among those who might say they would support such a solution, is it one they would support enthusiastically, or is it one they would reluctantly accept while believing a far better outcome should have been achieved?

Brooks-Rubin begins by explaining he "recently participated in a conversation about Israel with a group of five very thoughtful 20-something Jews."

If these obvious questions, and others, such as is there anything Israel can do to help bring about the revolutionary change in Palestinian Arab society needed before any peace becomes possible, weren't discussed, then that conversation wasn't a very thoughtful one.

Sincerely,

Alan Stein

Netanya, Israel and Natick, Massachusetts

What doesn't it mean to be pro-Israel?

On March 6, the Jerusalem Post published an article by Hillel Schenker entitled "What does being 'pro-Israel' actually mean?" That naturally brings to mind the question "What doesn't it mean to be pro-Israel?" The following is a partial answer. - Alan Stein

Being pro-Israel doesn't mean blaming Israel for the lack of negotiations when it was Mahmoud Abbas who walked away in 2008 and it was Abbas' foreign minister who more than three years ago proudly announced the Palestinian Arabs would never again negotiate directly with Israel.

Being pro-Israel doesn't mean criticizing the American president for acknowledging Israel's capital is Israel's capital and ending the perverse situation where only in Israel was the American embassy not in the host country's capital.

Being pro-Israel doesn't mean insisting Israel make even more one-sided, unreciprocated and counterproductive concessions to the Palestinian Arabs.

Being pro-Israel doesn't mean criticizing an American peace plan as unrealistic because it doesn't recycle all the others that have so dismally failed over the last quarter century.

Being pro-Israel doesn't mean welcoming and giving a platform to those supporting the BDS movement aimed at destroying Israel.

Being pro-Israel doesn't mean pretending boycotting Israel is a matter of free speech rather than malicious action.

Being pro-Israel doesn't mean reserving almost all your criticism for Israel while giving the Palestinian Arabs a free pass even as they blatantly violate almost all their commitments under the Oslo accords, continue to refuse to negotiate, incite against Israel and reward terrorists for murdering Israelis.

Jewish Students Receive Protection from Aggression

Jewish Students Receive Protection from Aggression

by Steve Kramer

The BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) movement began on N. American college campuses during the previous administration. It’s just one of a number of campus campaigns aimed against Israel and Jewish students (others include Jewish Voice for Peace and Students for Justice in Palestine). They poison the minds of impressionable college students against Israel, Jews, and non-Jewish supporters of Israel. It uses programs and spectacles like the infamous campus “Apartheid week,” events which flood college campuses with Jew/Israel-hating propaganda. On a regular basis proponents of campus BDS disrupt or manage to prohibit “controversial” pro-Israel speakers, paradoxically using the 1st Amendment as justification. 

Among those whose speeches were disrupted or canceled are former ambassador to the US, Michael Oren; well-known lawyer and Constitutional scholar, Alan Dershowitz; and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Somali-born Dutch American activist, writer, and politician.

Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act protects people from discrimination based on race, color or national origin in programs or activities that receive Federal financial assistance - but it left a loophole by not mentioning religion. As such, Jews and supporters of Israel were not protected. On December 11, President Trump signed an Executive Order which includes Jews under existing Title VI protections against increasingly rampant campus aggression.

The President’s legally grounded declaration instantly received many condemnations, including from Jewish individuals and organizations. It has even been termed “racist.” In his succinct directive, Mr. Trump said antisemitism would henceforth be covered by the Civil Rights Ac, which “prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color and national origin.” (Trump’s action doesn’t define Judaism as a nationality.)

Antisemitism (Jew/Israel-hatred) on campuses has become so prolific that Jewish students feel threatened, are threatened, or hide their Jewishness. A recent example: “Indiana University (IU) announced on Dec. 15 that the Pi Kappa Phi fraternity has been suspended after video footage emerged over the weekend of their members beating three Jewish students. The video footage shows 11 men beating up the three Jewish students — all of whom are members of IU’s Alpha Epsilon Pi (AEPi) chapter — in front of a house on the evening of Dec. 13. The students suffered concussions from  the incident.” 

(https://jewishjournal.com/)

Immediately after the President’s initiative was announced, critics pounced: “Today, anti-Zionist Jewish and Palestinian groups hostile to Israel have mobilized to fight the White House’s expanded protections against anti-Semitism. It will now be more difficult for these groups to hide behind the ‘shield’ of human rights and free speech. That is why there is a long list lining up to denounce the Trump action and the IHRA (The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) definition of anti- Semitism. They include far-Left groups such as Jewish Voice for Peace, If Not Now, J Street, campus groups such as Students for Justice in Palestine, the Palestine Solidarity Committee, Palestinian BDS Apartheid networks incited by the online Electronic Intifada, Palestinian expat academics, and student BDS warfare leaders.” (Dan Diker, 12/15/19, https://jcpa.org/president-trumps-executive-order-on-anti-semitism/) 

There are also many examples of liberal Jewish criticism, many resulting, in my opinion, from the deep-seated rejection of anything promoted by President Trump. 

A few examples: 

“This is deeply objectionable, going back centuries in anti-Semitic thinking,” said Rabbi Daniel G. Zemel, who leads Temple Micah, a Reform congregation in Washington. (https://www.viportal.co/) … in Chicago, Rabbi Hara Person, the chief executive of the Central Conference of American Rabbis [Reform Rabbinic leadership organization], said, “I’ve heard people say this feels like the first step toward us wearing yellow stars.” (https://www.enmnews.com)

…the left-leaning J Street lobby group said in a statement that, “Trump’s executive order is a cynical, harmful measure designed to suppress free speech on college campuses, not fight anti-Semitism. This executive order, like the stalled congressional legislation it is based on, appears designed less to combat anti-Semitism than to have a chilling effect on free speech and to crack down on campus critics of Israel.”(https://jstreet.org/press-releases/trumps-executive-order )

Other critics complain that coverage by Title VI implies that Jews are not American. This is rubbish. Are African Americans not American? If born to an American parent, a  black person is automatically an American too. The same can be said of any others born to an American parent. Therefore, if a Jewish person has an American parent, then American citizenship automatically applies, without reference to race, religion, or nationality. 

In its Twitter feed, the New York Times reported Trump’s action thus: "President Trump will sign an executive order defining Judaism as a nationality [sic], not just a religion, thus bolstering the Education Department's efforts to stamp out ‘Boycott Israel’ movements on college campuses."

Israeli columnist Carolyn Glick says that the New York Times’ tweet is, “… so off-base that it is impossible to view it as a mere misunderstanding by the paper of record for the liberal establishment. The assertion that Trump’s move "defined Judaism" smacks of cultural appropriation, and as such, it sounds like an act of aggression against Jews. By falsely claiming Trump defined Judaism as a nationality, the Times made it sound like Trump was saying that Jews aren’t American.”

https://wwwisraelhayom.com/opinions/why-american-jews-slander-president.-trump/

In the Times of Israel’s summary article of the protection afforded to Jewish students by Trump’s declaration, it’s stated that in too many instances Jewish Americans, especially college students, are compelled to keep their heads down, or face abuse and harassment due to intimidation of Israelis, Israel, and by extension, Jews.

The most direct way to handle the problem is by applying the protections of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to Jews, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of color, race and national origin in programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance - which is almost every American college or university.

“Over the past several years, Congress made several attempts to amend Title VI to include anti-Jewish discrimination. These efforts enjoyed broad bipartisan support. But they were all blocked by members of the progressive camp inside the Democratic congressional caucus. Like the anti-Semitic boycott activists ostracizing Jews on campuses, the progressive lawmakers claimed that expansion of the protections of Title VI to include anti-Jewish discrimination would undermine the free speech rights of anti-Israel activists on campuses. That is, they said the rights of anti-Semites to preach anti-Semitism superseded the rights of Jewish students not to be harassed.”

Trump’s order makes it clear that Title VI applies to anti-Semitism as defined by the IHRA. That definition says anti-Semitism may include “targeting of the state of Israel conceived as a Jewish collectivity.” (https://www.timesofisrael.com/jewish-groups-divided-)

Shmuel Rosner, an editor at the Jewish Journal and a senior fellow at the Jewish People Policy Institute, insists: “Jews were never merely the followers of a certain religion, they were always – both in their consciousness and the eyes of others – a people, which some would describe as a nation. Jewishness was always a combination of many things – religion, culture, and a sense of peoplehood and nationhood that binds them together.”

https://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/

Jews are a people who identify with the religious and/or moral percepts of Judaism. Some Jews are secular, considering themselves “Jewish” only in the cultural sense. Regardless, today any Jew may be subject to harassment, especially during college years. The inclusion of Jews under Title VI’s protective umbrella is a welcome event, not some sort of calamity.

Op-Ed: The Rabbis of Silence

This op-ed was published in the Connecticut Jewish Ledger's September 20 issue. It may also be found on the Jewish Ledger's website at https://www.jewishledger.com/2019/09/the-rabbis-of-silence/.

The Rabbis of Silence

By Alan Stein

During the 26 years since the start of the Oslo process, Israel has gone to lengths previously unimaginable to reach a peaceful resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Warrior turned peacemaker Yitzhak Rabin was emphatic about never accepting a Palestinian Arab state, but every prime minister since has crossed that and other red lines.

Oslo required the PLO to renounce and fight against terrorism and settle all disagreements by negotiations. Israel turned over to the PLO the governance of 40% of Judea and Samaria (renamed the "West Bank" by Jordan) and almost all of Gaza. 95% of the Arabs in the disputed territories established their own government and, for most practical purposes, ended the so-called "occupation."

Regrettably, the PLO didn't change its stripes. Israel has faced several waves of Palestinian terrorism, including the epidemic of bus bombings in 1995-6, the terror offensive Arafat launched after torpedoing the Camp David talks in 2000, the knife intifada Mahmoud Abbas encouraged by asserting Jews have no right to "desecrate" the Temple Mount with their "filthy feet," and, since 2017, the weekly Hamas-organized riots in Gaza featuring attempts to breach the border fence along with explosive-laden balloons, kites and condoms.

A rational world would be standing strongly with Israel because it is both the moral and smart thing to do. When Palestinian Arab terrorists gain from attacking Israel, other terrorists are encouraged. This has led to atrocities in London, Paris, Madrid, Berlin, New York and elsewhere, even in capitals, such as Istanbul, Moscow and Tehran, of countries that themselves sponsor terror groups.

A healthy Jewish community would proudly stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel, its support stronger than ever.

Perversely, precisely the opposite is the case.

Every time the Palestinians have said no to peace, support for them has grown and Israel criticized.

Every time the Palestinians have started another terror offensive, support for them has grown and Israel maligned.

Every time terrorists from Gaza launch another volley of rockets at Sderot, Ashkelon, Beersheva or Tel Aviv and Israel defends its people, our people, our Jewish brethren, Israel gets blamed and demonized.

Our Jewish community, rather than standing resolutely with Israel, now contains groups like J Street, which claims to be pro-Israel but seeks to undercut AIPAC and reserves almost all its criticism for Israel, giving not just succor but ammunition to those trying to destroy the Jewish state. It also contains openly anti-Israel groups such as IfNotNow and the diabolically named "Jewish Voice for Peace."

Psychiatrist and historian Kenneth Levin coined the term "Oslo Syndrome" to describe this phenomenon, which is related to "Stockholm Syndrome," where brutalized kidnap victims identify with their kidnapers.

As terrorism continues, Israel is increasingly demonized and the Oslo Syndrome is spreading. Some relatively new organizations, such as Stand With Us, have tried to step up to the plate. Christians United for Israel stands more strongly with the Jewish state than much of the Jewish community. In Connecticut, PRIMER (Promoting Responsibility in Middle East Reporting) does its best to counter anti-Israel bias in the media, but it's a small, targeted, completely volunteer organization without the resources of national and international organizations.

Unfortunately, many of those older organizations have been reluctant to strongly support Israel. In 2006, the president and executive director of my own Jewish Federation adamantly opposed and defeated community efforts to hold a rally supporting Israel at the time Hezbollah was raining rockets on Israel's north.

For years, PRIMER has been trying to get our religious leaders to speak up publicly. We've tried to find rabbis willing to write articles, including op-eds, for newspapers on various Jewish holidays, educating the public and helping people understand the intimate connection between Judaism, the Jewish people and the Land of Israel. The number of willing rabbis we've recently found could be counted on one hand, with fingers left over.

Thus, I was surprised to see a letter published in the New Haven Register and Connecticut Post over the signatures of no fewer than 18 Connecticut rabbis. The rabbis slammed President Trump for his criticism of the Congresswomen comprising "The Squad," Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley and Rashida Tlaib.

Trump deserved rebuke, particularly for saying they should "go back where they came from." Yet I wonder why it was so important for those rabbis, so reticent about defending Israel from obsessive and unfair criticism, to en masse jump on Trump.

I wonder why those rabbis have been silent as Omar has insinuated Jews have dual loyalty and were buying off support of Congress with "Benjamins."

I wonder why those rabbis have been silent as Tlaib compared the antisemitic boycott of Israel to Americans boycotting Nazi Germany, rather than pointing out the appropriate analogy was to the Nazi boycott of Jews.

It takes no courage to criticize Trump, even though often deserved. He's a popular target. One more voice, or 18 more voices, makes little or no difference.

These days, it does take courage to defend Israel against the plethora of defamation directed at it. When it comes to defending Israel, every voice is needed and makes a difference.

I hope our rabbis are now finding their voices. With the High Holidays on the horizon, I hope to read rabbinical wisdom and support for Israel in every Connecticut newspaper. Respectfully, I submit that support for the Jewish people and the Jewish state is a rabbinic responsibility.

Alan Stein, Ph.D., is president emeritus of PRIMER-Connecticut, founder of PRIMER-Mass. and PRIMER-Israel, and former president of the Jewish Federation of Waterbury (now Jewish Federation of Western CT). He currently lives in Natick, Mass. and Netanya, Israel.

Alan Stein will discuss "Opportunities, Challenges and Revelations: A Journey from Waterbury, CT to a Life in Israel" on Wednesday, Sept. 25, 6:30 - 8:30 p.m., at the Jewish Federation of Western CT, 444 Main Street North in Southbury. For information: (203) 267-3177

How Has Iran Been Violating the JCPOA? Let Me Count the Ways

This list of seven ways is courtesy of Peter Goodman. If we've missed any, let us know.

1. Iran exceeded the limits on heavy water at least twice. See, for example the Radio Free Europe article
https://www.rferl.org/a/iran-iaea-heavy-water-exceeds-level/28106860.html.


2. Iran never came clean about its prior work on nuclear weapons. See, for example, PM Netanyahu presents conclusive proof of Iranian secret nuclear weapons program. https://mfa.gov.il/MFA/PressRoom/2018/Pages/PM-Netanyahu-presents-conclusive-proof-of-Iranian-secret-nuclear-weapons-program-30-April-2018.aspx


3. Even after the implementation of the JCPOA, Iran continued to try, and in some cases succeeded, in procuring illicit nuclear technology. See, for example, German
Intelligence: Iran Still Seeking Illicit Nuclear Technology. http://www.thetower.org/5181-german-intelligence-iran-still-seeking-illicit-nuclear-technology/


4. Iran stored tons of illegal radioactive material in Tehran and then, when revealed by Israel, denied doing so and spread the material around to avoid detection. Despite being given the evidence by the Israeli government, the IAEA first refused to investigate and then delayed, apparently in the hope the evidence would be gone by the time they looked. However, that didn't work and the IAEA recently found evidence it could not cover up. See, for example, the July 11 Jerusalem Post article Material at Iran site, proving it broke deal - Report. https://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/Mossad-leads-IAEA-to-find-radioactive-material-in-violation-of-nuke-deal-report-595375


5. Iran, in direct violation of the JCPOA, procured replacements parts for the Arak reactor. Iran's Nuclear Chief Salehi: We Had Secretly Purchased Replacements for Nuclear Equipment That the JCPOA Had Required Us to Destroy; Yellowcake Production Facilities are Operational; We Are Advancing in Nuclear Propulsion. Watch the twitter video. https://mobile.twitter.com/memrireports/status/1089192238515654667

6. Iran failed to file reports to the IAEA based on their own SELF-INSPECTED data of their own sites. (Can you believe that the JCPOA allowed them to self-inspect?)

7. The head of Iran’s nuclear agency told lawmakers that Iran has enriched 24 metric tons of uranium since the 2015 nuclear deal was reached in clear violation of its terms. https://en.radiofarda.com/amp/30080066.html
and 
https://m.jpost.com/Middle-East/Iran-enriched-24-tons-of-enriched-uranium-since-signing-nuclear-deal-597039/amp

Open letter to Needham Patch about Amnesty International's fanatical Zionophobia

The Needham Patch on July 10 published an article "TripAdvisor Criticized For Palestine Listings" without correcting any of Amnesty International's factual errors or balancing any of its virtually insupportable and biased assertions.

The article may be found at https://patch.com/massachusetts/needham/tripadvisor-profits-war-crimes-palestine-listings-group. I sent the following letter to the Needham Patch at Needham@Patch.com with a copy to the reporter, Jimmy Bentley, at jimmy.bentley@patch.com.

Dear Needham Patch and Jimmy Bentley:

I have long been disappointed by the way Amnesty International, an organization I used to admire, has lost its moral compass when it comes to the Arab-Israeli conflict and has, in effect if not intent, crossed the line into antisemitism. I was thus not surprised by one of AI's latest outrages, but am disappointed that it was reported empathetically in the Needham Patch with no corrections of the factual errors or caution about the bias or absurdity of AI's action and assertions.

I urge you to publish a followup in which you educate readers about those errors, absurdities and misrepresentations. I include below an analysis of some of those and, since my summer home is nearby, in Natick, I would be happy to meet with you and explain and discuss some of these issues in person.

Sincerely,

Alan Stein
Natick, Massachusetts and Netanya, Israel
Founder, PRIMER-Massachusetts
Promoting Responsibility in Middle East Reporting

Analysis:

The errors begin with the headline, "TripAdvisor Criticized For Palestine Listings," referring to "Palestine" as if it were a state. Even Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, clearly recognizes there is no such state, notwithstanding the way he has applied for and, incredibly received, recognition of status as a "non-member state" from the United Nations General Assembly. He often demands the establishment of the "state of Palestine" with a capital in "East Jerusalem," itself a non-existent "city;" obviously, there would be no need to establish "Palestine" if it already existed.

The article begins: "The world's largest human rights organization accused a local online travel company of 'profiting off war crimes' by listing hotels and other businesses at Israeli settlements in Palestine on its website." This once again refers to "Palestine" as if it were a state and ups the ante by referring to alleged but non-existent "war crimes," which it refers to again in the next paragraph when it quotes AI claiming TripAdvisor is "profiting off war crimes by listing tourist attractions and properties in illegal Israeli settlements."

While some claim the Jewish communities in the disputed territories, pejoratively referred to as "settlements," are "illegal," this is highly questionable and even if they were it they would hardly constitute "war crimes."

The San Remo Conference following World War I called for "close settlement" by Jews in what was then called Palestine; this resolution was approved by the League of Nations, giving it the status of international law, was incorporated into the founding documents of the United Nations, and has never been revoked. It would thus appear that Jewish settlement in the currently disputed territories is not only not illegal, but encouraged under international law. This should have been noted along with AI's questionable claim.

The absurdity of claiming that Jewish building in Jerusalem (inaccurately referred to as "occupied" by many) and the disputed territories is illegal is obvious if one considers the following.

The portions of Jerusalem militarily captured by Jordan in the 1948 war included the Jewish Quarter. Jordan kicked out all the Jews and destroyed all the synagogues. After Jerusalem was reunited in 1967, Jews moved back into the Jewish Quarter and many of the synagogues were rebuilt. To call that building in the Jewish Quarter "illegal" and a "war crime" is effectively sanitizing the violent ethnic cleansing carried out by Jordan and is patently absurd.

The same is true of the Etzion Bloc. In fact, many of those who moved to the Etzion Bloc after 1967 were members of some of the very families that were kicked out by Jordan, some being the very people who had been kicked out.

According to AI, returning to one's family's property and running a hotel or restaurant or renting an apartment there constitutes a "war crime" and when TripAdvisor lists one of those family businesses it is "profiting off war crimes."

Can you think of anything more absurd? Yet AI's claims were reported not just as if they weren't absurd, but relatively favorably.

The article, without comment, quotes Amnesty International's letter saying "The settlements have had a devastating impact on Palestinian communities over the past five decades, ... "

According to the World Health Organization, in 2015, life expectancy in the disputed territories was 72 years for males and 75 years for females. In 1967, it was 49 years.

Infant mortality is now 14.1 deaths per 1,000 live births, compared to 152 in the West Bank and 162 in Gaza in 1967. This hardly constitutes a "devastating impact."

AI continues: "To make way for their construction, Israel has demolished tens of thousands of Palestinian homes, forcibly displaced large portions of the population and diverted water and other Palestinian natural resources for settlement use."

Almost all Israeli construction has been on previously uninhabited land and takes up a miniscule portion, in the neighborhood of 1-2% of the disputed territories. There is rampant illegal construction by Arabs in the disputed territories, only a small portion of which has been demolished by the Israeli government. Hypocritically, the same people who criticize the destruction of illegal structures built by Arabs demand the destruction of structures built by Jews. I personally have Jewish friends who were forced by the Israeli government to demolish a home they had built because they hadn't obtained the required permits.

Israel also created important infrastructure, including roads, schools, hospitals and water resources, which had been neglected or was non-existent during the 19 years of Arab occupation. During the Oslo period, Israel has actually provided more water to the Palestinian Authority than called for by the accords, while the Palestinian Authority has not only declined to cooperate with Israel on the management of water resources but allowed activities, such as illegal drilling of wells, that has sabotaged the scarce shared resources.

AI continues: "By promoting tourism in these illegal settlements, TripAdvisor is boosting their economy, helping them to expand and contributing to the mass suffering they've caused."

Not only does AI once again incorrectly call the Jewish communities "illegal," but falsely claims they contribute to "mass suffering." In actuality, the Israeli recapture of the disputed territories was a boon to the Palestinian Arabs. I noted the amazing improvements  in life expectancy and infant mortality. The Jewish communities also provide employment opportunities that have been a godsend to many Arab workers and their families, with salaries paid on the Israeli scale, far higher than those paid by Arab companies or the Palestinian Authority.

Rather than "expanding," the Israeli government has authorized the construction of just one single new Jewish "settlement" since the Oslo process began a quarter century ago; the footprint of the Jewish communities has remained essentially unchanged.


According to the article, "Amnesty International argued TripAdvisor could be the leading voice against human rights violations if it drops the travel listings."

There are hundreds of territorial disputes in the world today; by ignoring others singling out the world's only Jewish state, one which has a strong claim to the disputed territory, which is in the Biblical Jewish homeland and was designated by the League of Nations to be part of the reestablished, sovereign Jewish state, AI is acting in a discriminatory, indeed antisemitic manner. It also effectively rewards the Palestinian Arabs for their refusal to make peace and their pathological commitment to terrorism; in this way, AI is actually encouraging human rights violations by other terror groups.

It is reasonable to report Amnesty International's actions, but it is not responsible or balanced to fail to note the factual errors or the strong counterarguments.

Israel-Gaza Conflict: Is There Hope segment on All Things Considered

The following comments were sent to NPR about the All Things Considered segment "Israel-Gaza Conflict: Is There Hope," broadcast on May 9, 2019. The transcript of the segment may be found at
https://www.npr.org/2019/05/09/721828940/israel-gaza-conflict-is-there-hope.

From: Alan Stein
To: All Things Considered

Re: Israel-Gaza Conflict: Is There Hope (May 9, 2019, 4:07 PM)

I have some comments and questions about this segment.

• You repeatedly refer to "Palestinian militants." Both Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad are terror organizations. Why do you not point that out? Firing 690 missiles into civilian areas constitutes 690 acts of terrorism? Why do you not use that word?

• Ari Shapiro uses the inaccurate term "cycle of violence," as if there is an equivalence between terrorist attacks (but Gaza terrorists) and the defense against terror attacks. It's not a "cycle of violence;" it's a cycle of terror attacks followed by reactions to the terror attacks.

• Daniel Estrin says "Israel considers Hamas to be an enemy out to destroy it." Why the insinuation that this is an opinion rather than an undisputed fact, declared by Hamas itself in its charter? Why did Ari Shapiro not point this out?

• Estrin also says "Hamas fires rockets to pressure Israel to lift its restrictions on Gaza." But Hamas started firing rockets long before there was the so-called "blockade." (Traditionally, blockades do not involve the blockader transferring massive amounts of humanitarian assistance, building materials, fuel and power to the enemy they are blockading.) Hamas also calls its weekly (and often more often) violent riots its "Great March of Return," meaning the "return" of millions of descendants of refugees to a place they've never lived, Israel, in order to destroy it.

Why do you not at least speculate that the reason Hamas wants the various restrictions eased is to make it easier to launch even more rockets at Israel?

• Estrin refers to allegedly banned items and notes "Israel's worried Hamas might use [them] to build military infrastructure." Why is it not pointed out that Hamas has already used those items to build not just military infrastructure like terror tunnels but weapons, like missiles?

• Estrin remarks that with border controls, "people can't go to work in Israel like they used to." There's irony in that remark, given that people in Gaza couldn't go to work in Israel before 1967 and it became hard for people from Gaza to work in Israel only after Gaza was taken over by the Palestinian Authority and terrorism became a massive problem. One wonders why a creative observer doesn't express the obvious inference that things were best in Gaza when it was governed by Israel.

• When will All Things Consider start considering the obvious question: why do so many in the world - sometimes it seems like virtually everyone in the world - expect Israel to provide for an entity from which it's continually attacked, governed by a terror organization dedicated to the destruction of Israel? Can you even find any similar situation in history?