My Solution to the Israeli-Arab Conflict

Over and over again, I hear that “Israel isn’t doing enough to advance the cause of peace between Israel and the Palestinians”. Some blame PM Netanyahu and claim that he is “intransigent”, others scream that “Bibi is against the two state solution”, or that he is unwilling to negotiate with the Palestinian Authority and that is why there is no peace agreement.

When I hear these things, I typically question those saying them, asking fairly straightforward questions, and I almost never get any kind of rational answer.

Recently, someone plaintively told me that “we cannot maintain the status quo” between us and the Palestinians.

Actually I agree with that, although certainly, not in the way my friend meant it. My friend intended to castigate Bibi for “not doing enough” and for not negotiating with the Palestinians. When pressed, her answer was that Bibi should negotiate with “whoever is in power on the Palestinian side”.

The following was my response:

With whom, SPECIFICALLY, should Israel negotiate? The “stock” answer of “well, they should negotiate with the Palestinian leadership, whoever it is” is ridiculous.

They CAN’T. How many times, and in how many ways, should EVERY Israeli PM since Ben Gurion say that they are willing to sit down anytime, anyplace, with no preconditions, and try to work out a deal for peace? EVERY single PM has said this, including Bibi. In recent years, we have even seen Israeli Prime Ministers say they are quite open to the creation of a Palestinian state. Even Bibi has said this.

What response have they gotten? What do you think they can or should do to get the PA to actually agree to sit down and negotiate?

The PA’s demands for “Pre-Conditions” grow all the time. Now, they want a stop to ALL building in the West Bank and Jerusalem (even in places where it is absolutely clear that those places would remain part of Israel in any agreement), they want all murderers released from Israeli jails, and they want Israel to agree to the “1967 borders” – all before agreeing to even sit down and talk? Are you kidding me? Who would, should, or could agree to that? You think the leaders of any Israeli political party would agree to that if they ran the government? Their government would fall the same day.

As I’ve said MANY times, my belief is that maintaining the “status quo” is NOT the right thing to do anymore. It is a zero sum game Israel simply cannot win.  I think Israel should take control of the situation away from the Palestinians and issue them an ultimatum, backed up by the original UN resolutions, League of Nation resolutions, and declarations citing international law (which, despite the world’s ignorant blathering, IS on Israel’s side in this dispute), telling them that if they don’t sit down and negotiate within a set period of time, Israel will unilaterally declare permanent borders. Once that is done, they will move the separation barrier to accommodate it. They will grant Israeli citizenship to all Arabs living within those borders, and any Israeli Arabs whose villages or towns end up outside those borders, if they are currently Israeli citizens, will have the option of moving back inside the borders, or giving up their Israeli citizenship, JUST LIKE JEWISH SETTLERS in towns that end up outside the border – or, they can live under the PA (I suspect that VERY few will want to do that!).

If the PA and the world don’t like it, too bad.

But, begging them to come to the table, whining about it, letting the EU dictate where Israelis (JEWS!!!!!) can and can’t live? No. Not acceptable. Jews should be able to live ANYWHERE they want, whether it’s controlled by Israel or the PA (or anyone else, for that matter).

I’m sick to death of hearing so-called “wise” people, “pundits”, the UN, the EU, etc. telling me that it’s acceptable for the PA to say “no Jews allowed” and somehow, that’s ok.

Israel does not want to control a hostile Arab population, nor should they. The ultimate answer is to either absorb (some of) them as Israeli citizens, or put them outside the borders of Israel.

Once the borders are set, CLOSE THEM. No Palestinian workers, no “shopping trips”, no entry to Israel without a visa. Nothing. Treat them like any other country. If they want to declare a country, great. If not, let them be absorbed into Jordan. It’s not Israel’s problem or responsibility. The Palestinians claim they want self-determination – let them prove it.

Give them some period of time to develop their own electrical grid and generation, sell them water (and insist on getting paid for it), and treat them like any other, independent country.  Scrap the idea of Israeli security control over the Jordan Valley – if it’s part of the Palestinian State, Israel has no right to control it. BUT, make it clear that the PA will be responsible for any security violations. AND, take away control of the holy sites within the new borders from the WAQF – allow free access to all at all holy sites. If the WAQF or the new Israeli Arabs don’t like it, they are free to go worship in the new state of Palestine.

The bottom line is that no matter what Israel does or says, it’s going to be vilified, denigrated, and attacked, both verbally, politically, economically, and physically.

Since that is the case, and the reality is that nothing Israel does will change that, it’s time for Israel to act in its own best interests, outright, and let the world accept or not accept it. But, Israel would be out of the business of policing a non-Israeli Arab population and would be back in the business of protecting its borders and citizens from threats from without.

Did Israel Employ “Disproportionate Force” in 2014 in Gaza?

Did Israel Employ “Disproportionate Force” in 2014 in Gaza?

Recently, in the wake of U. S. presidential candidate Bernie Sanders’ insistence that Israel used “Disproportionate Force” against Gaza in 2014, the debate about whether or not Israel did, in fact, act “disproportionately” has resurged.

It is important to understand the background leading up to Israel’s 2014 incursion into Gaza. Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and other militant/terrorist groups in Gaza had been bombarding Southern Israel for years, with increasing frequency.

Israel had warned Hamas that it would be held responsible if the rockets did not stop. They didn’t, and Israel eventually mounted a large-scale attack on military targets in Gaza after a major escalation on Hamas’ part, which fired over 40 rockets into Israel on July 7, 2014. Israel’s operation (“Protective Edge”) began the next day, July 8..

Casualties in Gaza were estimated by the UN Human Rights Council, Hamas, and Israel, with the number of killed ranging between 2,125 to 2,310. Hamas and the UNHRC claimed that 1,617 (70%) and 1,462 (65%) respectively were civilians, while Israel claimed that 761 (36%) were civilians. There were 66 Israeli soldiers killed, along with 5 Israeli civilians and 1 Thai civilian.

Israel’s goal in the campaign, which lasted approximately seven weeks (July 8 to August 26), was to stop the rocket fire. An additional goal, which became more critical as the campaign unfolded, was to find and destroy as many Hamas tunnels as possible. These tunnels were constructed with the aim of infiltrating and attacking Israeli civilians inside Israel proper.

Much of the world has criticized Israel for what it calls “disproportionate force”, or, in other words, they claim that Israel responded with WAY more force than was necessary, resulting in an excessive number of civilians killed and wounded, and much more property damage than was necessary.

But, is that true?

The IDF stated that it attacked 5,263 targets in Gaza, including:

  • 1,814 rocket and mortar launch or otherwise related sites
  • 191 weapon factories and warehouses
  • 1,914 command and control centers
  • 237 government institutions supporting the militant activity
  • hundreds of military outposts inside buildings

In addition, Israel found and destroyed some 34 tunnels leading out of Gaza and into (or toward) Israel.

In Gaza, Hamas (and other “militant” groups) bases its facilities in predominantly residential areas, as well as inside mosques, schools, and hospitals. There are many first-hand accounts substantiating this. This makes it almost impossible to avoid civilian casualties, but, Israel went to unprecedented lengths to warn civilians of impending strikes, including telephone calls, emails, text messages, radio broadcasts, leaflets dropped from the air, and “roof knocking”, wherein objects are dropped on roofs to warn residents that they need to evacuate. Still, Israel aborted many attacks when they determined that civilians were present in the target areas.


The concept of “proportionality” in warfare is well-established, and is part of most national legal systems.

Generally, it states that nations must not deliberately attack civilians, but if civilians are killed or wounded in attacks on legitimate military targets, that is “proportional”. The caveat is that the incidental loss of civilian lives cannot be “excessive” in relation to the anticipated “concrete” results of the attack.

What that means, in essence, is that if an army is attacking a military force’s capabilities and forces, with the objective of denying the enemy the ability to wage war, or of “convincing” him that it is not in his interests to continue fighting, without the intention to harm civilians, those civilian deaths are “proportionate”. In World War II, the Allies bombed several German cities, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians, with the aim of forcing the Axis forces to surrender. The Americans detonated two atomic bombs over Japan with the same aim, vastly increasing the number of enemy civilians killed while vastly reducing the number of Allied soldiers killed.

The principle of proportionality does not require that roughly equal numbers of combatants on both sides of a conflict will be killed. The principle refers strictly to the use of force necessary to defeat the enemy and render him unable to continue.

It would appear silly, in my opinion, to expect that wars would produce the same number of casualties on both sides. In order for a conflict to end, one side must be defeated, or, both sides must arrive at the realization that continuing would be so horrible as to be impossible.

In the case of Israel vs. Gaza/Hamas, the hostilities ended when Hamas decided it had had enough and agreed to a cease-fire. Had they not agreed, Israel would have continued their campaign.

One might argue that because Hamas did not surrender unconditionally (as did the Japanese and Germans in WWII), it is highly likely that this conflict will “flare up” in the future, especially given that Hamas is rebuilding its capabilities with the express objective of attacking Israel. But, for the most part, the rockets are not flying.

For a more detailed discussion of specific laws about proportionality, see or do a Google search. There is a plethora of material defining “proportionality”.

That brings us to a discussion of whether or not Israel employed “disproportionate force”.

Israel continued its bombardments and ground attacks until Hamas agreed to and abided by a cease-fire.

Prior to that point, Israel had proposed several cease-fires, but Hamas either breached them or rejected them, indicating that further attacks on their capabilities were necessary.

Once Hamas agreed to a cease-fire and honored it, Israel stopped firing.

It is important to note that following the final cease-fire, there have been almost no rockets fired from Gaza right up to present time, indicating that Israel’s application of force was both necessary and justified.

Israel’s elaborate and widespread efforts to avoid casualties have been widely acknowledged as going well beyond any measures taken by ANY army in ANY war to date, and in fact, the ratio of civilian casualties to “fighters” is the lowest of any major conflict in history.  This alone would indicate that Israel did not inflict “disproportionate” damage on Gaza.

The incidence of civilian casualties is tragic, but entirely expected, especially in an urban warfare environment in a densely populated area. It is impossible to avoid, particularly when, as was the case in Gaza, the ruling party (Hamas) forcibly prevented civilians from evacuating areas that were to be attacked. This, in itself, constitutes a war crime on Hamas’ part.

In summary, I have to disagree vehemently with candidate Sanders’ position that Israel employed disproportionate force. There simply is no evidence to support that contention, and there is ample evidence to suggest precisely the opposite – Israel employed the necessary amount of force to compel Hamas and its associated organizations to stop firing rockets at civilians inside Israel. That was the objective of the Israeli forces, and it was attained. That is, by any legal definition of the proportionality principle, “proportionate”.




How To Beat The BDS Movement

NOTE: This article was originally published in The Algemeiner.

In recent years, the BDS (Boycott, Divest, Sanctions) movement has gained significant ground in their war against Israel.

They have a strong presence on many university campuses across the world, including in the United States. Many of the groups most actively involved in anti-Israel activities are offshoots of radical Muslim organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah, and Hamas, and even though these groups are officially considered terrorist groups by the US government, they are allowed to function nonetheless.

These groups are typified by student organizations such as “Students for Justice in Palestine” (SJP), Muslim Student Associations on many campuses, and even “Jewish Voices for Peace” (JVP). They work hard to include more “leftist” Jewish students in hopes of appearing to be inclusive and to refute claims that they are, at heart, anti-semitic.

Their more well-known activities include “actions” such as placing fake eviction notices on and under student dormitory doors, holding annual “Israel Apartheid Week” activities complete with “die-in’s”, checkpoints, and propaganda walls, organizing very loud and vocal protests, working to pass divestment resolutions in student governments, pushing to exclude Jewish and pro-Israel students from any discussion, posting billboards and posters equating Israel with Nazi Germany or as an “Apartheid” nation, and preventing speakers trying to present objective or pro-Israel perspectives from speaking on campuses. This activity has spilled over to other “leftist” oriented groups such as “Black Lives Matter”, LGBT networks, and women’s rights groups, as well as the more “traditional” leftist groups and organizations such as the Communist party, Socialist groups, etc.

Their “claim to fame”, so to speak, is that they are loud, vocal, reject civil discourse with holders of any oppositional views, and work very hard to prevent presentation of any objective facts, since those conflict drastically with their own versions of “truth”, most of which are quite easily controverted, since objective history does not support their contentions in the least.

To date, opposition to these tactics has been scattered, disorganized, and largely ineffective, in spite of some successes such as the recent passage at University of California of a somewhat watered-down anti-semitism policy.

I believe that we, as a community that supports a strong, democratic, tolerant Israel, must do a much better job of combating the BDS movement.

The short version of what we need to do is:

  1. Promote the hell out of Israel through advertising campaigns, public relations, free trips to Israel, movies and television shows showing positive images of Israel. Show positive images of Israel at every opportunity. Put up billboards advertising travel to Israel, showing as often as possible the multi-cultural and multi-ethnic nature of Israel. Enlist prominent advertising and public relations firms to assist in any way possible. They are experts at this, let them help

  2. Organize strong and large rallies in every major city in support of Israel. Utilize existing organizations, recruit on campuses, bus in participants from other cities in order to make rallies LARGE, march on Washington DC in mass numbers, making sure to have great pro-Israel signs and slogans, based 100% on incontrovertible truth.

  3. Mount large and very vocal, well-organized counter-demonstrations to EVERY BDS-related event, whether on campus or anywhere else. When a BDS-related or anti-Israel event is announced, show up en masse outside with protest signs, loudspeakers, signs, banners, and provide the truth. Don’t let them get away with simply presenting their lies without opposition, which is largely what happens now. When they have prominent BDS and anti-Israel speakers, make sure to have large “anti” demonstrations with huge numbers of people. Always obey the law, don’t prevent the speaker from speaking, but ask pointed, probing questions during Q&A sessions, and, if possible, set up speakers directly opposite to present truths to counter their lies.

  4. Lawfare – sue them for slander, have them arrested for disturbing the peace when they invade and disrupt speakers at events, and pressure university administrations to shut them down when they violate campus policies on both anti-semitism and free speech. Enlist the help of “The Lawfare Project” ( in understanding what is possible and how to start the process. If, as frequently occurs, BDS groups break campus rules or laws, use EVERY possible measure to go after them with campus authorities and have them prosecuted by local law enforcement. If they initiate physical contact (assault), file complaints with both campus and local police. Make sure to have video of EVERYTHING, and provide it as evidence as well as publicizing it on social media.

  5. Go after (legally) primary supporters of BDS. Find out who they are, expose them, and encourage supporters of Israel to avoid doing business with these people and their companies. Some of the supporters of BDS are very wealthy people with vast business interests. We need to learn about them and understand where their vulnerabilities lie, then exploit those vulnerabilities.

  6. Support organizations such as Amcha, Stand With Us, Canary Mission, Stop BDS on Campus, Fighting BDS, Stop BDS Now, and others, while at the same time pushing them to coordinate activities more effectively.

  7. Involve the Israeli government to a much larger extent in support of these activities. Utilize the resources of the Israeli Intelligence community to expose the backers of BDS. So far, Israel has not seemed to take BDS as seriously as it I think it should. While I’m sure there are “behind the scenes” activities going on, they are clearly not as effective as they need to be. Israel needs to be a key player in this fight.

The bottom line is that we need to shine a light on the lies promulgated by the BDS movement. Their entire movement is based on untruths, and the voices raised in opposition are, so far, largely ineffective.

While it is unlikely that we can win in organizations like the UN Human Rights Council, where Israel is excoriated on a daily basis, or in the UN General Assembly, the support of the masses, including politicians on the right AND on the left, is critical. The support of the major churches is critical, and the support of university faculties, especially in the Middle East Studies departments, many of which are now hotbeds of anti-Israel activity and anti-Israel “education” funded by Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations, is also critical.

The atmosphere on many campuses across America is toxic to Jewish students, many of whom cannot even identify themselves as Jewish without feeling threatened. This must stop, and the only way to do it is to be organized along the lines of the civil rights movement of the 1960’s in the United States.

Pro-Israel groups should study the Civil Rights movement and work to promote an understanding that it is no more acceptable to discriminate against Jews than it is to discriminate against Blacks. The tactics of Martin Luther King and other civil rights leaders have been largely effective, and we need to emulate them.

This is, effectively, a war. It is a war for the survival of Israel as an independent nation accepted by the majority of the nations of the world. Just like any war, we have to have an effective strategy to defeat the enemy. Our tactics need to line up with our strategy, and we need to fight to win. Winning is crucial in this war, and so far, our strategy and tactics are unclear and ineffective, as can be seen by the successes of the BDS movement.

The worst thing we can do is to underestimate the capabilities and resolve of our enemies, or believe that this will just “blow over”. It won’t. It’s time to fight strongly, smartly, and effectively, and to mobilize all the resources at our disposal.

Are Jewish Organizations Obligated To Host Jewish, Anti-Israel Groups?

NOTE: This article was originally published by The Algemeiner

Last month (March, 2016), the university campus organization, Hillel, was roundly criticized for its decision to host the group “Breaking the Silence” at Brown and Columbia universities.  Hillel’s defense of their decision to host the group was essentially that (a) Hillel’s Jewish students seek to invite these groups, not Hillel itself, and (b) by agreeing to host them, Hillel can try to provide clarifying context for the programs.

A recent article in The Algemeiner discusses Hillel’s decision to host this group despite its apparent conflict with Hillel’s “Standards of Partnership,” which call for Hillel to reject interactions with “organizations, groups, or speakers that as a matter of policy of practice: Delegitimize, demonize, or apply a double standard to Israel… or support boycott of, divestment from, or sanctions (BDS) against the State of Israel.”.

To many of us, it is clear that “Breaking the Silence” is antagonistic to the State of Israel, regardless of their protestation that they are just trying to make Israel “better.” While the group claims not to support the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, they are currently under investigation for spying against the state by illegally obtaining military information, and their members routinely demonize the IDF by making unsubstantiated claims of brutality, torture, and murder. The group also refuses to share with the state any evidence of these allegations, making it impossible for the state to investigate them.

Israel, as a matter of course, takes very seriously allegations of misdeeds by soldiers, and frequently arrests and tries soldiers accused of such actions. But, when Breaking the Silence makes its accusations, there is no way for Israel to investigate or counter them, since there is no official record or complaint about whatever crimes were allegedly committed. Breaking the Silence categorically refuses to provide any information on the grounds that their members’ privacy and safety might be compromised. But, just as certainly, their actions place them squarely in the camp of those who are determined to smear Israel and damage it.

Anonymous, unsubstantiated accusations are the equivalent of an electronic lynch mob.

In this case, Hillel apparently believes that it is acting as an “educational organization,” and as such, allowing Breaking the Silence to present its perspective is a good thing.

To some degree, this is, of course true. We should always look at conflicts and events from multiple perspectives.

However, letting Breaking the Silence present its perspective without providing solid, clear, counter-arguments and context at exactly the same time does not serve any educational agenda, it is simply providing Breaking the Silence with a platform. It’s not much different than if Hillel were to provide a platform for explicitly pro-BDS groups like Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) or Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), which are virulently anti-Israel and frequently veer into antisemitism. These organizations themselves are not interested in “hearing the other side,” as both are known for disrupting pro-Israel speakers and preventing them from speaking. They are both also diametrically opposed to “dialogue” in any form with supporters of Israel.

One should no more give Breaking the Silence a free platform at Hillel than one would SJP or JVP, or Electronic Intifada, for that matter.

Considering that Hillel’s vision is “to inspire Jewish students to build an enduring commitment to Jewish life, learning and Israel,” it is clearly counter-productive to bring groups like Breaking the Silence to Hillel or to support, in any way, this type of group.

I believe that Hillel has an obligation to first and foremost present the best of Israel. Build up the knowledge of Jewish students about what is good and beautiful about Israel. Make sure students have a connection to Israel before exposing them to less beautiful aspects of Israel.

By all means, present information about ALL aspects of Israel. Discuss the pros and cons of settlements, legal issues related to territories conquered in 1948 and 1967, discrimination against non-Ashkenazi immigrants and Arab citizens, but always with the aim to promote a love for Israel. Israel DOES work very hard to eliminate these issues, and that should always be clear.

Sometimes, we worry too much about the perceived “underdog” at the expense of our love for Israel. It is when we bend over backward to give a platform to those who are willing to lie that we surrender ourselves to the passivity for which Jews were characterized for centuries, and which led, in no small measure, to our march into the concentration camps. “Don’t rock the boat. Maybe there’s some truth in what they say. We should listen.” No, we should NOT listen. We should present the truth, always, and reject the lies. We should demand protection under the law, and we should expose exactly HOW our enemies lie about us.

Breaking the Silence has proven that they do not have the best interests of Israel at heart. They should not be given a platform by any Jewish organization, nor should Jewish organizations like Hillel give space to any anti-Israel organization.


Combating BDS

For a long time now, I have seen arguments within the Jewish community about how to deal with BDS.

Should we ignore them and hope that others will see the light?

Should we “get in their faces”?

Should we use their tactics against them?

Lately, these arguments seem to be coming to a head. A recent article “On Israel Apartheid Week, some pro-Israel students find silence is best response” By Uriel Heilman prompted me to join a discussion on Facebook about strategy and tactics.

While some, indeed believe that protests just draw attention to BDS and that any attention is favorable (similar to the old thought that “any media attention is good”, I disagree.

Frankly, I’m amazed at Jewish leaders who counsel ignoring BDS events like the so-called “Apartheid Week”.

Had the black community simply kept their heads down, there would have been no civil rights movement. Martin Luther King and other civil rights movement leaders brought about change by shining the light of day on extreme and pervasive racism, and the country has changed radically as a result. Today, there is not a single person in this country who doesn’t understand that negative comments or stereotypes about people of color are unacceptable, and doesn’t know that such comments will draw a rain of criticism down on them.

Jews and supporters of Israel are in a similar situation today with respect to BDS and bashing of Israel. There are basic, actual facts about Israel that have been distorted, hidden, or forgotten, while at the same time, a vast network of Israel-haters has sprung up, ready, willing, and eager to take any opportunity to portray Israel negatively, even in the face of a plethora of available, objective evidence that contradicts their claims. They have managed to tarnish Israel’s reputation around the globe, and today, on college campuses in particular, they are succeeding in turning those who should be supporters of Israel – young, smart, progressive, liberal, humanitarian students – into haters of Israel by using false narratives that pull at the heartstrings of these students.

The only way to beat BDS is to shine a very bright light on it. We need to expose their lies for what they are, at every possible opportunity. We need to expose their tight connections with Hamas, Hezbollah, and whatever highly objectionable organizations finance and support the BDS movement. We need to expose their funding and support mechanisms, and we need to create a strong awareness of, and disgust for these organizations, which are based on the desire to destroy Israel, kill Jews worldwide, and promote a version of Islam that should be anathema to any thinking, rational person in the Western world, in particular students concerned with human rights, LBQT rights, women’s rights, free speech, etc. etc. etc.

We need to prevent them from “disrupting” pro-Israel events, and we need to be proactive and aggressive about getting the truth in front of people, with incontrovertible proofs that our claims are true, and proofs that the claims of the BDS movement are based on complete and utter lies.

What this means is that there need to be protests (non-violent) with massive turnout of Israel supporters, displays countering BDS assertions whenever and wherever the BDS movement is showing their anti-semitic faces, there need to be positive articles about Israel in the mainstream media, billboards highlighting Israeli contributions to the world and even to the Palestinians, and most of all, there needs to be engagement on campuses to the point of “getting in their faces” and exposing their lies, every single day.

It means being organized and passionate, bringing pro-Israel and anti-antisemitism resolutions to student government, over and over again, if necessary. It means condemning BDS, anti-semitism,  and discrimination against Jewish students in school newspapers, on social media, and in campus demonstrations. It means demanding that Jews on campus receive protections guaranteed to all students.  And, it means demanding action from college administrations and security (and police, if applicable) when BDS “disrupts” meetings, classes, and lectures, violating both the first amendment rights of pro-Israel groups and campus and public laws. Find legal methods of making their “disruptions” painful and costly. And, it is crucial to make sure there is adequate security at events to quickly and effectively remove these jerks when they initiate their “disruptions”. Letting them strut, parade, and disrupt only makes them stronger and more confident that “The Jews” will just sit back and take it, since that’s what we’ve done for centuries.

While Jews are not as rich, and don’t have as much influence as the BDS movement would have people believe, there ARE any number of wealthy, influential Jews who should be solicited for support of these initiatives by donations, public statements, threats to end funding of universities that are “hostile” to Israel and Jewish students, and frankly, the state of Israel should be on the hook for supporting this – they have a lot to lose and it frequently appears as if they are unaware of the extent of BDS outside Israel.

Sitting back and hoping it will all just go away is insane. It won’t. We need to stand up and fight this insane movement before it poisons all the future leaders of this country and others.

Response to “Israel turns off power to hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in the dead of winter” by Annie Robbins of Mondoweiss

I ran across this article this morning, and after reading it, thought it needed comment. While there are many similar articles out there, this one has any number of falsehoods, inaccuracies, and lies and caught my eye. Maybe it was the pretty picture at the top of the article…

The article can be found here:

Go ahead, read it, I’ll wait.

OK. Got it?

Let’s go point by point. This may take a while.

  1. Re-read the first paragraph. That’s quite a first paragraph. Israel has withheld $240 Million in tax revenues to the PA as punishment for joining the ICC. I wonder if the fact that the PA owes the Israeli electric company (IEC) over $500 million and refuses to pay for their electricity has anything to do with it?

    The electricity was turned off for a whopping 45 minutes. Wow! That’s a serious hardship for the people essentially stealing electricity, especially as Robbins has highlighted that “BLIZZARDS SWEEP ACROSS THE MIDDLE EAST”. “Blizzards”?  I had to laugh. They got a little bit of snow, but “blizzard”?  Not so much. But, ok, let Robbins have her hyperbole, it makes for better copy.  Here’s a link describing winter weather in Ramallah:  As you can see, they sometimes get a little snow, but it’s usually gone with 24 hours, just like Jerusalem. “Blizzards”, LMAO.

    Bottom line, though, is the IEC cut off the juice for 45 minutes to two cities as a warning that they need to get paid.

  2. I REALLY liked Robbins’ comment that “The irony here, of withholding the months of  tax revenue while demanding payment of a debt, on top of occupation policy preventing Palestinians from being self sufficient, is not lost on anyone.”
  3. Clearly, Robbins believes that the IEC has no right to expect payment for services contracted by and rendered to the PA, for which the PA has promised payment. She makes it seem as if it’s SO unfair to expect the PA to live up to a contract they signed, because the “occupation” prevents them from being self-sufficient. This, in spite of the many billions of dollars the PA gets in aid money and their “self-sufficience” in Area A of the West Bank where 90% or so of Palestinians live and are governed 100% by the PA.

    As I understand what she’s saying, she fully believes it’s Israel’s obligation to pay the PA’s electric bill. Really?

  4. Further in the article, Robbins repeats the same, tired lie that “Israel opened dams near the border of Gaza”, causing massive flooding in the Gaza strip. And, she calls this a “punitive measure”.

    There’s only one problem – there ARE NO DAMS. NONE.  If Robbins ever reads this, I would challenge her to name the dams that were opened. Show us where they are on a map. Show a picture of them. Of course, she can’t, since they don’t exist, as has been proven over and over and over again last year when this stupid claim was floated.

    Gaza is flooding because they have inadequate drainage systems, exacerbated by war damage. It has nothing to do with dams.

  5. Then, the kicker. Her very last line is “Remember last year when Israel caged Palestinian children in outdoor holding pens during freezing winter storms? ” She provides a link to another of her “articles” claiming this, with statements that it’s “widely known” that Israel tortures children.

    Sigh. What a load of horse manure.

    Yet another possibly well-meaning person sucked into believing everything bad about Israel and nothing bad about the PA, who thinks it’s her duty to inform the world that Israel is the most evil empire the world has ever seen.

    She claims to be a “human rights activist”, but frankly, I don’t think she would know a human right if it bit her…..

    Bottom line – this article is full of outright inaccuracies (I’m being kind) and worse. Robbins should get out of her ceramics studio and go see for herself. While I understand the use of hyperbole, her exaggerations are unconscionable, as words create images, and her images are pure, unadulterated crap.

Commentary on “The Political Nature of Today’s Middle East Studies” by Andrew C. McCarthy

A friend sent me an article by Andrew McCarthy. I found it quite interesting and, to me, relevant.
For those who may not know, my first bachelor’s degree (I have two, plus two master’s degrees) was in Near Eastern Studies, and was earned at the University of Michigan. The NE Studies department at UM was, at the time (I really have no idea about today) quite prestigious, respected, and well-known.
As part of the degree program, I learned Hebrew, Arabic, and studied Islamic history, Islamic/Arab and Israeli literature, and much more. My major concentration was in Hebrew, and my minor in Arabic.
I had professors from all over the world – British, American, Arab, Israeli, and others. Some clearly had their own biases, but generally, the curriculum was focused on a relatively even-handed, objective view of history, even when taught by those who exhibited bias outside of class. It was important to deal in actual FACT. The interpretation of the impact of those facts and events might change, depending on who the professor was, and what his views were, but the facts didn’t change.
We studied actual documents of the Near (Middle) East, and in fact, I still have some of the books we used. They document very clearly the treaties, wars, aggressions, coups, controls of territories, etc. up through about 1976 (I graduated in 1977, so my school texts stopped then).
What bothers me immensely today is that many universities have abandoned an objective teaching of history, and have greatly politicized it. Much of this is due, I believe, to both the immense “donations” to Middle East Studies departments by rich Arab nations, such as Saudi Arabia, who have caused these departments to develop quite obvious “slants” or biases in favor of the views of their benefactors, and, the gradual “infiltration” of extremely partisan faculty sponsored by these donors.
It was a very slick way to guarantee that only one side of things would be presented. In some ways, it’s very similar to how things are done in politics, Hillary Clinton’s and Jimmy Carter’s protestations that they owe nothing to people who gave them millions of dollars notwithstanding.
When I see or hear what passes today for “history”, it makes me sick to my stomach, as much of it is diametrically opposed to actual facts that are readily available and accessible in any good university library. The deliberate distortion of history is astonishing and horrendous, as it presents current events in the Middle East as occurring in a vacuum, or worse, denies absolutely provable historical facts with “garbage” evidence – usually nothing substantive at all. This should be unacceptable to ANY scholar or historian, but instead, we have students eagerly absorbing absolute falsehood presented as absolute truth by professors with tremendous, partisan agendas in place.
While one can certainly argue causation of events, including the impacts of various historical events, what we see today is distortion of the actual facts. This is unforgivable.
Some of what I see presented as “fact” is, to me, the equivalent of professors teaching that the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor didn’t really happen – it was an imperialist plot hatched up by the Russians and Germans to blame the Japanese and drag the USA into the war. Really, it was just mines and IED’s placed onto ships. Never mind the newsreel footage, eyewitness accounts, and vast body of evidence, just believe me because I’m the professor (nod nod, wink wink).
Based on what I’ve seen and read in recent years, I have to concur wholeheartedly with Andrew McCarthy’s article (reproduced below).
John Poris
The text of the original article, with attribution, is below:
Campus Watch Research


National Review Online
August 10, 2015
[NRO title: “Modern Middle East Studies vs. Scholarship”]
Andrew McCarthy
It would be a mistake to say Middle East Studies have been corrupted. For the program’s very purpose has been to serve as a corrupting agent. Specifically, it puts the essence of study — the objective pursuit of knowledge — in disrepute.
Here, of course, I am referring to the modern incarnation of Middle East Studies: an amalgam of leftist and Islamist political dogma that masquerades as an academic discipline. By contrast, the actual study of Middle Eastern history, like the intimately related study of Islamic civilization, is a venerable and vital pursuit — and is still pursued as such by, to take the best example, ASMEA, the Association for the Study of the Middle East and Africa. Alas, in our hyper-politicized society, the traditional notion of study seems quaint: a vestige of a bygone time when the designations “Orientalist” and “Islamist” referred to subject-matter expertise, not political activism, much less radicalism.
Yet, for Edward Said, the seminal figure in modern Middle East Studies, the object of the game was to slander knowledge itself. Joshua Muravchik nailed it in a 2013 profile of the renowned academic. Said’s animating theory held that “knowledge” was the key that enabled the West to dominate Orientals: The point of pursuing knowledge about “the languages, culture, history, and sociology of societies of the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent,” Said elaborated, was to gain more control over the “subject races” by making “their management easy and profitable.” With real study caricatured as the engine of colonial exploitation, the way was paved for a competing construction of “study” — political agitation to empower the have-nots in the struggle against the haves.
Said was a fitting pioneer for such a fraud. To begin with, he was a professor not of Middle East Studies but of comparative literature. Moreover, the personal history he touted to paper over his want of credentials was sheer fiction: Far from what he purported to be (a Palestinian victim exiled by Jews from his Jerusalem home at age twelve), Said was actually a child of privilege, raised in Cairo and educated in top British and American schools. His Palestinian tie of note was membership in the PLO’s governing council. Like Rashid Khalidi — his protégé, who was later awarded the chair in Modern Arab Studies that Columbia University named in Said’s honor — Said was a reliable apologist of Yassir Arafat, the indefatigable terrorist who infused Palestinian identity with a Soviet-backed Arab nationalism.
To thrive in an Islamic culture, it was not only useful but necessary for Palestinian militancy to accommodate the Islamist sense of divine injunction to wage jihad. From its roots, then, modern Middle East Studies is a political movement aligning leftism and Islamism under the guise of an academic discipline. It is not an objective quest for learning guided by a rich corpus of history and culture; it is a project to impose its pieties as incontestable truth — and to discredit dispassionate analysis in order to achieve that end.
The embrace of Islamism usefully advances this project because Islamist ideology similarly stigmatizes the pursuit of knowledge. Where the leftist frames the West’s reverence for reason as imperialism, the Islamist attacks it on theological grounds.
Sharia, they maintain, is the complete and perfect societal framework and legal code, the path to human life lived in conformity with Allah’s design. Thus, what the West calls “reason” or “the objective pursuit of knowledge” is merely a rationalization for supplanting Allah’s design with the corrupting preferences of Western civilization.
We see how this teaching plays out in practice. Muslim countries that supplement sharia with other legislation add the caveat that no man-made law may contradict Islamic principles. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation — a group of Islamic governments that form a large bloc in the United Nations — even found it necessary in 1990 to promulgate a Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, because Islamists could not accept the Universal Declaration of Human Rights spearheaded by non-Muslim governments after World War II.
The Muslim Brotherhood, the world’s most influential Islamist organization, refers to this enterprise as “the Islamicization of knowledge,” the weaving of historical events and cultural developments into Islamist narratives that confirm sharia-supremacist tenets. The “Islamicization of knowledge” is the express and unapologetic mandate of the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), the Virginia-based think tank established by the Brotherhood in 1981.
There are two pertinent observations to be made about the IIIT. First, it has provided an enthusiastic endorsement of Reliance of the Traveller, the English translation of Umdat al-Salik, a classic Arabic sharia manual. The publisher found this seal of approval sufficiently significant to be included in the manual’s preface, along with an endorsement from scholars at the ancient al-Azhar University in Cairo.
The manual is an eye-opener. In addition to detailing sharia’s gruesome hudud penalties (e.g., scourging and death for such offenses as extramarital or homosexual relations), it provides instruction on Islam’s brutally enforced proscriptions against blasphemy and apostasy. These are salient to our consideration: They include prohibitions not only against renunciation and ridicule of Islam but even against objectively true statements that contradict sharia, promote other belief systems, or might otherwise sow discord in the Islamic community.
Obviously, the animating purpose of these principles is to discourage severely the robust exchange of ideas, and even more the scholarly examination of Islamic doctrine and culture. The Islamicization of knowledge is possible only if the objective pursuit of knowledge is not permitted to compete.
That brings us to the second noteworthy observation about the IIIT: It has longstanding ties to the Middle East Studies Association (MESA). Several of these were traced by Cinnamon Stillwell in a 2014 American Thinker essay.
This alliance, the sponsorship by the IIIT of Middle East Studies programs throughout North America, the collaborations between the IIIT and MESA scholars — these are easy to understand. Modern Middle East Studies is a counter-scholarship enterprise that subverts truth to the ends of leftist and Islamist politics. To be clear, it is not an alternative interpretation of reality competing in the marketplace of ideas; it is an anti-Western program that is oblivious to reality and seeks to shut down the marketplace.
We do ourselves and the search for truth great harm by indulging the fiction that anti-American power politics is credible American scholarship.
— Andrew C. McCarthy, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, thanks the Middle East Forum for its sponsorship of this column.