Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

Israel Tag

Posted by William A. Jacobson on May 26, 2014 6 Comments
Because of the time difference, I was not able to watch the Pope's visits in Israel today to the Temple Mount, Western Wall, memorial to terror victims and the Yad Vashem. Here are some tweets and video of the events: The Pope's stop at the memorial to terror victims is a good contrast to the Pallywooded stop at the security barrier in Bethelehem yesterday:
“The Vatican officials explained to us that the pope didn’t pray against the separation barrier, but he prayed against the situation that forces such a wall to be built,” diplomat Lior Haiat said. “Therefore, we thought we need to show him why we built the wall. It’s obvious that the barrier is a result of something, it is not the reason.”
It also was significant that this was the first time a Pope has visited the grave of Theodor Herzl, the founder of modern Zionism:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on May 25, 2014 5 Comments
Pope Francis is in Israel this afternoon (Israel time) and tomorrow. The itinerary today, after a trip to Bethlehem, included arrival at Ben Gurion Airport and a trip to the Church of the Holy Sepulcre in Jerusalem. Tomorrow will be visits to the Temple Mount and Western Wall, meetings with Israeli political and religious leaders, and a visit to Yad Vashem. Here are some images I grabbed from the live video feed: [caption id="attachment_87188" align="alignnone" width="609"](Pope Francis speaking at Ben Gurion Airport) (Pope Francis speaking at Ben Gurion Airport)[/caption]

Posted by CampusClimatologist on May 22, 2014 3 Comments
We have covered extensively the attempt by the UCLA branch of Students for Justice in Palestine to keep pro-Israel students off the student council by claiming that taking sponsored trips to Israel (and only Israel) creates a conflict of interest, UCLA testing ground for next generation of anti-Israel campus tactics. The hypocrisy was dripping, as theSJP-backed UCLA Student President-elect took sponsored trip to Israel, yet won by 31 votes slamming such trips. After a trial conducted by students, the Judicial Board of UCLA's student government found  by a 4-0-2 vote that former council members Sunny Singh and Lauren Rogers did not violate conflict of interest bylaws by accepting subsidized trips to Israel from the Anti-Defamation League and Project Interchange, and that their votes against BDS were "valid and legitimate." The decision is at the bottom of this post. While this is was a show trial in which no remedy was available, this sets an important precedent:  pro-Israel students at UCLA who associate with pro-Israel organizations need not fear being legally barred from holding office or voting on Israel-related issues.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on May 21, 2014 5 Comments
Two days ago we asked, Did Indian election eviscerate BDS?, noting that election of a pro-Israel party and leader made likely vastly expanded business for Israel in India.  We noted also a massive joint academic research deal signed with China. It has just been announced that Israel had signed massive trade deals with various Chinese provinces, and 350 Chinese entrepreneurs attended a tech conference in Israel, as reported by The Jerusalem Post, Israel inks tech pacts with China’s Silicon Valley
Israel signed a bilateral industrial R&D cooperation agreement on Tuesday with China’s Zhejiang Province, known as the Silicon Valley of China, as 350 delegates from the Asian giant attended MIXiii, the Israel Innovation Conference. It also inked agreements with Jiangsu Province’s Science and Technology Department to promote Israeli companies’ participation in Chinese innovation parks and a first-of-its kind pilot program to encourage Israeli companies participation in the Changzhou Innovation Park in Jiangsu (population 79 million). “The science and technology of Israel need market potential and also market rules, and Zhejiang is a great partner,” Zhou Guohni, director- general of Zhejiang Province (population 55 million), told The Jerusalem Post at the signing in Tel Aviv. “We are facing a transformation and upgrade of the industry, and we need Israel’s technology to help transform and upgrade it.” The Economy Ministry’s Chief Scientist Avi Hasson said the agreement “will help many Israeli companies expand into the Chinese market and marks the next stage in the economic and technological relationship between our two countries.”
Read on, the expansion of ties is even wider than described above. Meanwhile, on campuses like UCLA, U. Michigan, Wesleyan and a dozen or two more, naive students are trying to get their student governments to call for divestment from selected companies doing business in Israel. The student governments have no power to effect divestment of university endowments, it's all symbolic. Sure, we're going to fight BDS vigorously, to the end, because it's malicious. Witness what happened at Vassar, where SJP actually posted a Nazi cartoon and cited white supremacists for their anti-Zionist theories.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on May 19, 2014 10 Comments
I don't know much about Indian politics, so I haven't written about the election sweep which threw out the long-dominant Congress Party. I do know that successive Indian governments have had at times contradictory relations with with Israel; not as crazed anti-Israel as many, but not solidly on Israel's side either. Indian-born writer Vijeta Uniyal believes that the election signals a sea change both politically and economically, with India looking to Israel for technology and investment to jump start the moribund Indian economy, India’s PM-elect Narendra Modi: a friend of Israel:
Narendra Modi is the next Prime Minister of India. Modi’s NDA-Alliance won 336 out of 543 seats in the Indian parliament. He has routed the ruling Congress Party led by Rahul Gandhi, the 4th generation member of Nehru-Gandhi dynasty Modi is arguably one of the most capable administrators in India. As Chief Minister of Gujarat State (2002-14) he turned around the economy, created infrastructure and improved public services. With a population of 60 million, Gujarat’s per-capita GDP today is much higher than India’s average. A lot of ink has been spilled in the international press over this relatively unknown man now at the helm in New Delhi. However there is one story readers in Israel need to hear: Modi is a friend of Israel, the like of whom India has not seen before. This fact can be stated without any exaggeration or wishful thinking. All one needs to do is to look at Modi’s track record. Modi is the first Indian leader to have actually visited Israel. He has often expressed admiration for Israel’s achievements in research, technology and innovation; espacially in the field of agriculture and water resources. Every year more than 2000 farmers from Gujarat visit Israel to get trained in advance farming techniques – at their own expense. He welcomed Israeli Companies to enter water management and recycling sector in 50 cities of Gujarat; and invited Israel to be the guest country at Gujarat state’s flagship Agricultural Fair (Vibrant Gujarat Agro Tech Global Fair 2014).

Posted by CampusClimatologist on May 18, 2014 6 Comments
On Thursday night, UCLA's student government judicial board heard Students for Justice in Palestine v. Singh and Students for Justice in Palestine v. Rogers, both alleging that members of UCLA's  student government (USAC) who are against the Boycott Sanction and Divest (BDS) movement  took inappropriate gifts from pro-Israel organizations and should have recused themselves from the anti-Israel Divestment vote, which lost 7-5. While on its face, this hearing concerned ethics rules, this case is the start of a national movement to make support for Israel costly or prohibited on college campuses, UCLA testing ground for next generation of anti-Israel campus tactics. Jared Sichel, a reporter for the Jewish Journal, Los Angeles' local Jewish newspaper, comments (as both Professor Jacobson and I have also noted in the past) that however the board rules, SJP has succeeded in  "making it costly to be pro-Israel at UCLA." Screenshot 2014-05-18 13.33.58 Now, everyone seeking office who goes on a trip to Israel or is associated with a pro-Israel organization may be accused of having a conflict of interest boxing them out of key positions that vote on divestment matters. SJP is building a chilling effect, showing that those who stand in their way will be subject to long hours of debate, protest, and even "legal" hearings.  Some may not agree with SJP, but consider it not worth the trouble to stand in their way.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on May 16, 2014 13 Comments
On April 28, 2014, I wrote about how J Street issues media Fatwa against its toughest pro-Israel student opponent:
[Daniel] Mael has been a relentless critic of J Street and its college chapters.... One of Mael’s articles even is featured in the trailer for the J Street Challenge....  Considering that The J Street Challenge is one of the biggest thorns in J Street’s side, it’s not much of a guess to believe that Mael’s affiliation with the movie is not popular at J Street...
I noted that J Street had issued a press statement requesting that media and bloggers "distance themselves" from Mael after an incident at Brandeis University, where Mael is a student.  Mael alleged that a J Street U member verbally abused him, a claim which was denied. For whatever its reason, J Street corporate headquarters through its communications team got involved in this local dispute (emphasis added):
...  we ask that others in the Jewish community and media – even those who don’t agree with us politically – will distance themselves from this blogger and others with a history of conduct driven by malice and deceit. While J Street and J Street U remain deeply committed to a vibrant and respectful campus conversation, there is a line that cannot be crossed. Unfortunately, some questionable bloggers and campus figures have consistently and consciously crossed that line. We will not tolerate harassment of our student leaders, and we see no reason for us to have any further interaction — on the Brandeis campus, online or in other venues — with those peddling in slander. We hope others will make the same determination.
Since then, two things have happened.

Posted by David Gerstman on May 15, 2014 8 Comments
On May 14, 1948 David Ben Gurion declared Israel's independence and the modern state of Israel was born. And every year at this time the Palestinians commemorate Nakba. Not surprisingly, Jodi Rudoren, Jerusalem bureau chief of the New York Times spent May 14, writing about the iNakba app which was launched by the Israeli NGO, Zochrot. In Rudoren's account:
Zochrot, Hebrew for “remembering,” has for 13 years been leading tours of destroyed villages, collecting testimony from aging Arabs, and advocating the right of return for millions of Palestinian refugees and their descendants. But it preaches almost exclusively to the converted. Israel is a country where government-funded organizations can be fined for mourning on Independence Day, and where the foreign minister denounced as a “fifth column” thousands of Arab-Israeli citizens who marked the Nakba last week by marching in support of refugee return.
The disconnect in this paragraph is unbelievable. Rudoren writes blithely about the Palestinian "right of return" and suggests the lack of Israeli acceptance of the right of return is due to the close-mindedness of Israeli society. But there is nothing benign about the right of return. It means the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state. In fact a founder of Zochrot is rather explicit about his intent. (Strangely Rudoren hasn't reported that a Palestinian professor who took his student to Auschwitz was ostracized by the union at his university.) People aren't usually receptive to ideas that involve their own destruction. This is the New York Times so I hardly expect to read a corrective article. Maybe the paper will deign to publish a few dissents in the letters sections, but the case that Israel's war of independence is an ongoing disaster will remain the prevalent view at the New York Times.

Posted by David Gerstman on May 12, 2014 12 Comments
The Los Angeles Times just published The Mideast peace gap: Why Kerry has failed by Aaron David Miller. Miller, a long time peace processor (he served under both Presidents George H. W. Bush and BillClinton) nails the essential problem with the Kerry's peace process.
Simply put, the maximum that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is prepared to give on the core issues that drive the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can't be aligned, let alone reconciled, with the minimum that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is prepared to accept. You want to know why every effort in the last decade has failed? That's why.
If Miller had left it at that he would have been correct. Obvious. But correct. The problem with the op-ed is that he continued. For example:
The idea that Netanyahu is ready to pay the price and could be persuaded to do so was a fundamental misunderstanding of the man and his times. Now the longest continuously serving prime minister in Israel's history, Bibi never envisioned himself as the midwife or father of a Palestinian state. That's not who he is. Ideology, family, politics and his fears of the Arabs all drive him in a different direction. His self-image is as the Israeli leader who is to lead Israel out of the shadow of the Iranian nuclear bomb and to guide it through the challenges of a dangerously broken, angry and dysfunctional Arab world. And he reflects the mood of an Israeli public that sees almost no reason or urgency — regardless of U.S. doom-and-gloom threats of violence, third intifadas, apartheid state or demography — to grapple with the problem. Governing is about choosing. And for now, Netanyahu has made his choice.
This is not a serious appraisal of Netanyahu, but psychoanalysis by an unlicensed psychiatrist. Instead of looking at Netanyahu's record, Miller strung together a series of cliches that every right thinking peace processor would believe. I would agree that Netanyahu "never envisioned himself as the midwife or father of a Palestinian state." But he also understands that as a leader of a democratic country he is bound by the obligations of his predecessors. Netanyahu would not have been elected in 1996 if the peace process had been successful. He was elected in the wake of ten days of terror in February and March of 1996. Though he was elected because of his critique of the peace process, he continued it. Backed by assurances of the Clinton administration (later betrayed), Netanyahu withdrew Israel from most of Hebron, and as Charles Krauthammer pointed out, "With Hebron, Netanyahu managed to bring most of the nationalist camp of Israel to recognize that Oslo is a fact." Has Miller, who now demeans Netanyahu at a distance, ever done as much for the peace process?

Posted by David Gerstman on May 09, 2014 14 Comments
Why is it so hard to achieve peace between Israel and the Palestinians? Look at the final scorecard of the latest round of Middle East peace talks. Israel allowed three groups of prisoners - a total of 78 - to go free in exchange for talks. These prisoners were murderers. When they went to their homes their actions were celebrated. Put aside why Israel didn't release the final group of prisoners. Put aside the spectacle of a society that honors killers and what that implies for peaceful coexistence. Israel paid a price for negotiations that led nowhere. This isn't the first time either. In 2010, the administration pressured Israel to agree to a "settlement" freeze in order to coax Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to negotiate. Abbas dragged his heels and in the last few weeks of the freeze. When the Palestinians finally started to negotiate the freeze was set to expire. The United States tried to encourage Israel to extend the freeze but Israel refused and the Palestinians walked away from the negotiations at the end of the freeze. Earlier too, Israel paid a price just to get the Palestinians to negotiate. A commenter on an earlier post of mine made a great point:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on May 08, 2014 22 Comments
Soon after the defeat of anti-Israel divestment resolutions at U. Michigan and UCLA, I began to see anti-Israel advocates single out pro-Israel students who had gone on trips to Israel sponsored by pro-Israel groups, or had received advocacy training from pro-Israel groups. These trips and advocacy training are critical because some campuses have become openly hostile to pro-Israel students as a result of "direct action" and other intimidation by relatively small but highly coordinated anti-Israel groups like Students for Justice in Palestine. Professors actively participate in demonizing pro-Israel students.     So I was not completely surprised when I learned from reader emails over the past several days that there is an attempt at UCLA to disqualify any student who received pro-Israel training or trips from being on the Student Council. Because of my trip to Vassar and follow up, I didn't have time to write it up. So I'm glad that two others have done so. Jonathan Tobin at Commentary writes, The Next Step in the Campus War on Jews:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on May 05, 2014 25 Comments
It wasn't planned this way. It's just a coincidence. Really. By the time you read this, I'll probably be in the car driving to Poughkeepsie, NY, where I will appear tonight at 7 p.m. to give a speech in support of Israel and academic freedom. And against the Open Letter signed by 39 Vassar faculty members -- none of whom took up my debate challenge -- who support the American Studies Association boycott of Israel. Maybe I'll play this recording of David Ben-Gurion reading the Israeli Declaration of Independence: Things have been tense lately at Vassar when it comes to Israel. While I'm not expecting "trouble," I thought you might like to see what trouble for pro-Israel speakers on campuses looks like, in the video below taken at UC Davis in February 2012:

Posted by David Gerstman on May 04, 2014 7 Comments
It is hard to believe that it has been three months since Barry Rubin passed away. With all going on in the world, and especially in the Middle East, Barry's absence is pronounced as there are few who saw things as clearly as he did. Barry's essays and columns are not disposable, like those of some other columnists and analysts. He wasn't looking for some pithy phrase to describe a complex problem or looking for new evidence to support his ideology. He looked at events and facts and drew his conclusions. Consequently something Barry wrote could still be relevant or true, months or years later. Two recent stories illustrate this point. Barry had been a critic of the Obama administration's handling of Syria's civil war. The Times of Israel last week featured an interview with a Syrian dissident Kamal Al-Labwani, Israel is our last hope, indicates Syrian dissident. The point referred to in the headline is Labwani's belief that Israel could win over the moderate rebels in Syria and much of the population if it helped protect civilians.
“If you only helped us intercept low-flying [regime] helicopters by providing a limited amount of antiaircraft weapons, with American approval, it would have a huge effect, morally and militarily,” Labwani said. “There are a million ways such weapons can be given to recognized people [in the opposition]. These weapons have ‘fingerprints’ and deactivation modes.” Alternatively, he said, Israel could declare a no-fly zone in southern Syria, as NATO did in Libya in its bid to topple Muammar Gaddafi. Such a move would immediately cause a large segment of Syrian society to support peace and normalization with Israel.
But there's more to the interview. Labwani is not currently among the Western backed rebels. He explained why:
Accessibility by WAH