Connect with us

RSS

Ted Deutch left Congress to head a Jewish organization. Can he find the ‘nuance’ that he seeks?

(JTA) — “Nonpartisan.” “Centrist.” The words seem quaint in an era of house-on-fire polarization, but Ted Deutch, marking one year as CEO of the American Jewish Committee, remains committed to what he calls “nuance” in fighting the community’s battles. 

“Having been a Democratic member of Congress, I don’t think there’s anyone who better understands the threat that extreme partisanship poses to the country and, frankly, to the issues that we in our community care deeply about,” Deutch told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency in an interview last week. “And someone’s got to stake out a loud position that says, ‘We’re not going to be pulled to the far right or the far left.’” 

Deutch succeeded David Harris as head of the 116-year-old AJC after 12 years representing South Florida in Congress, where he was an outspoken advocate for Israel and for combating antisemitism. One year into his new job, he’s carefully stoked AJC’s reputation as a sort of “State Department” of the organized Jewish community, with its citizen diplomacy on behalf of Jewish concerns and advocacy for Israel. 

At the same time, he was drawn into unforeseen crises, like the outrage that followed online antisemitic rants by the rapper formerly known as Kanye West and and the tumult over the right-wing Israeli government’s judicial overhaul plans

He’s also cultivated the AJC brand: temperate, somewhat patrician, more comfortable pulling together a task force or quietly meeting with a social media executive than issuing an angry press release or tweet. In a wide-ranging conversation, he discussed whether that approach remains viable — or even advisable — in the current political climate, why he thinks AJC speaks for a majority of American Jews and how he feels about reports that support for Israel is softening among his former Democratic colleagues.

Our conversation was edited for length and clarity. 

It’s been almost a year since you left Congress to take your position at the American Jewish Committee. Do you miss politics?

I’m grateful to have had the opportunity and proud of what I was able to do on Jewish issues as chair of the Middle East, North Africa, and Global Counterterrorism Subcommittee. I chaired the Ethics Committee, which, especially around the time of the High Holidays, feels like a Jewish part of my work as well, frankly. And it was really great work. It’s also, as everyone knows, a bitterly partisan place. It was different when I left than it was when I got there seven terms before. And to have had the opportunity to leave what is perhaps the single most partisan place in America to lead a Jewish organization that allows me to work on the issues that are central to who I am to and do it every day of the week (except for Shabbat) — and to do it in a space that is nonpartisan and nuanced, and that recognizes the importance of working together — that’s been fantastic.

I want to get back to the issue of partisanship, especially as it applies to the Jewish community. But first I want to ask: The Anti-Defamation League and dozens of other organizations fight antisemitism. AIPAC lobbies for Israel. A network of community relations councils advocates for a Jewish agenda in local government. Why do we need the American Jewish Committee? 

AJC is the global advocacy organization for the Jewish people. The mission is both straightforward and incredibly expansive. Our mission is to enhance the well-being of the Jewish people and advance democratic values. Yes, there are lots of organizations that work on various pieces of that, but we have for more than 116 years. We have been active in the United States and around the world now with 25 regional offices, and offices and representatives all across the globe, forging the kinds of relationships that are necessary in a nonpartisan way to advocate for the entirety of the Jewish people. There’s 16 million Jews in the world out of eight-and-a-half billion people and AJC’s role is to advocate on behalf of all of them — whether it’s working in Paris, to help ensure that the Macron government understands the challenges that Israel or the Jewish community faces, or our new regional office in San Diego or our regional office or in Atlanta that’s working on building relationships in the intergroup space.

The Jewish community may not be partisan in the sense that you are using the term, but it’s certainly polarized, with its own far right and far left. In recent years AJC has been seen as the ultimate “centrist” Jewish group, which to some is a compliment and to others a sign that it doesn’t take tough positions that could alienate those on either side of the political debate. Do you accept the label of “centrist” and if so why?

Proudly centrist. Yes, you’re right, in the Jewish community, like in the broader community, there are definitely extremes. But I absolutely believe that the vast majority of members of the Jewish community, like most people in America, don’t spend their time on the extremes. They don’t spend their time looking for ways to demonize one another. In the Jewish community that means finding opportunities to work together to strengthen the Jewish community, like giving voice to Jewish students or training the next generation of global Jewish leaders to stand and advocate for Jewish communities with governments around the world and here in our own country. 

The suggestion that being centrist is somehow more challenging, with the noise coming from the extremes, highlights exactly why AJC’s role is so necessary. We’re going to call out antisemitism wherever we see it on the far left or the far right. We’re going to work with whoever we need to to advance the Jewish community’s interests. 

“We’re not going to take positions that play into the hands of those whose interest is not in Israeli democracy, but whose interest is in finding ways to undermine Israel’s very right to exist,” said Ted Deutsch. (Courtesy AJC)

So let me give you a test case. AJC issued a statement on the judicial reform effort in Israel essentially criticizing the government’s rush to change the law, defending checks and balances, minority rights and civil liberties, and urging compromise. Other Jewish groups, alarmed by the government’s anti-democratic moves, have used much stronger language. Does AJC risk appearing out of step by in this case saying less? 

I would absolutely disagree. I took a group of AJC leaders to Israel in January. The protests had been going on for a couple of weeks, as I recall, and we were the first organization to lay out our position with respect to judicial reform. And we haven’t wavered from it. We’ve engaged with all of the parties and that I think is perhaps a difference. Our view, as we said in Israel at the time, is that it’s not up to us to decide whether Israel decides [to change] their judicial system. That’s not our call. However, if they’re going to do anything that dramatically impacts the institutions that are fundamental to Israeli democracy, given the importance of democracy in Israel and to the Jewish people, if they’re going to do anything that’s going to affect that, it ought to come as a result of a process that is thoughtful and deliberative and that ultimately seeks compromise and respects civil liberties and minority rights. I said it in my meetings with the Knesset. I said it in my meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu. And it’s why we’ve been so supportive of [Israeli] President [Isaac] Herzog’s efforts to reach a compromise. And when the “reasonableness” bill went through and it wasn’t the result of a deliberative process or compromise, we said so at the time

What we’re not going to do as an organization that is fiercely pro-Israel, is we’re not going to take positions that play into the hands of those whose interest is not in Israeli democracy, but whose interest is in finding ways to undermine Israel’s very right to exist. So I’m not going to declare that this government is illegitimate. I’m not going to take sides in political battles. We have a principled approach that respects the importance of Israeli democracy for Israel and for Diaspora Jewry. And we point out that the fact that these protests have gone on as long as they have, using as their symbol the Israeli flag, is a perfect example of what Israel represents. 

The fight against antisemitism has also become partisan, even within the Jewish community, with disagreement over whether the biggest threat is from a violent right or an anti-Israel left. Are you concerned about how it’s been made a partisan issue and a polarizing issue when it should be a consensus issue?

I don’t know how anyone who couldn’t have that concern. We do not have the luxury of picking and choosing which antisemites we’d like to focus on. It’s why we do so much in the Latino Jewish space, in the Black church space and why our Muslim Jewish Advisory Council matters so much. It’s why we’ve been so engaged with the Catholic Church. When I was in Congress, it was always easy to point out the antisemitism among those that you disagree with in partisan political terms. It’s a lot more challenging to call out the statements and behavior of those in your own party. That, unfortunately, is now something that we see beyond the halls of Congress. 

Take the U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism, for example. It looks a lot like the AJC’s Call to Action Against Antisemitism, which we published several years ago, and we worked hard with the White House to help inform them in drafting their society-wide approach. There are over 200 specific action items that will help keep the Jewish community safe, and yet there are those who immediately pivot to the things that they think undermine the effort to fight antisemitism. That’s the challenge. We have to be able to come together and call out the antisemites wherever they are, and it’s hard. But again, it’s what most people want us to do in the real world. 

Speaking of the National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism, which the Biden administration announced in May: I’m curious how you, as a former member of Congress, view the effectiveness of such strategies. Have you seen examples of an administration setting priorities like this that have a real effect in bringing about change, and do you worry that action plans like this sound great but won’t be enacted? 

That’s why we immediately formed a task force with over 50 of our professionals from around the country and from 14 different departments of AJC, all with a goal of identifying every one of the 200 action items and making sure that it’s carried out. This cannot be a document that sits on a shelf. It can’t be a document that is important in this administration, but then future administration’s may push it aside. I can tell you just from the work that we’ve done, there are parts of the federal government that never really think about antisemitism. That’s why his plan is so significant. It went out to the bureaucrats, the policy people who are doing the work.

Can you give me an example? When AJC follows up with bureaucrats in government to discuss the strategy against antisemitism, what’s the ask?

Sure. We entered into an agreement with the Small Business Administration. Administrator [Isabella Casillas] Guzman came down to South Florida and we did a roundtable with small business owners. Small businesses represent the heart and soul of our economy. They don’t spend a lot of time thinking about how to fight antisemitism. They’re trying to earn a profit. So this roundtable will be replicated around the country with the regional offices of the SBA, to help them understand how to respond if there’s antisemitism in local small businesses and better understand the challenges that Jewish small business owners face. This is the kind of thing that can make a real difference, if for no other reason than there are lots of people who don’t think about antisemitism who will now join in this fight with us. 

There’s one other quick example. We recently had a meeting with a number of mayors on Long Island. We’ve partnered with the Conference of Mayors to come up with a mayor’s guide to combating antisemitism, which these mayors are now committing to. So that when a national debate happens after Kanye decides to unload an antisemitic rant on the Jewish people online, there’s an opportunity to engage more allies with us than we’ve ever had before. 

When you raise Kanye, we’re talking about the toxic effect of social media and celebrity and how someone with antisemitic ideas can own a platform with a couple of rants. Tell me about your outreach to social media companies. You saw how Elon Musk went after the Anti-Defamation League for calling out antisemitism on X/Twitter. What does AJC do differently in this regard?

I can tell you what we have done for some time now. A few weeks ago, I had a meeting with Linda Yaccarino, the CEO of X. And we were very, very clear about what we wanted and steps that they could take to make their platform safer for the Jewish community. And she made clear to us that she’s the CEO and that she welcomed our input. We’ve continued the conversations where we’ve offered to be helpful in a whole variety of ways, including helping to identify blind spots. 

Such as?

We know that outside of the Jewish community, there are lots of antisemitic tropes that over millennia have led to really dire outcomes for the Jewish community, including violence and pogroms and expulsion from countries and and obviously, the worst case, the attempted annihilation of the Jewish people in the Holocaust. We understand that there are lots of people who need to be educated about why statements about Jews and power and conspiracy theories about Jewish control are so dangerous. That’s one of the ways that we’ve offered to be helpful. 

We’ve also suggested some steps that can be taken right now. For example, if there’s a post on X that is antisemitic in nature, there’s not a way to respond and raise the issue for X and specifically identify it as antisemitic. Well, that’s an easy step. And then big picture: What we want from all of the social media companies first and foremost is for them to enforce their own rules. These are private companies. They have rules about what is and what isn’t tolerated on their platforms. We want them to enforce those rules to prevent antisemitism that’s a threat to the Jewish people. 

And it was your takeaway that Yaccarino seemed amenable to these kinds of suggestions?

She was absolutely willing to continue to engage with us. We’ve continued to follow up and, and certainly my hope from that response is that we’ll see concrete actions. 

I want to pivot to talk about a survey AJC did last year about millennials’ attitude toward Israel, which confirmed that American Jewish millennials are distancing themselves from Israel more than their elders. AJC’s message at the time was that the numbers were not quite as bad as some people feared — nevertheless, the trends are clear. How worried are you about disaffection for and alienation from Israel for younger Jews — and if you had a solution, what would it be?

Well, first of all, the top line of the survey was that three-quarters of American Jewish millennials believe that it’s important for Jews to have close ties with Israel. So I think that’s significant. That’s something that we see in the work that we do every day. 

There are others who have questions about Israel’s policies, and I’m not writing off young Jews who come from a place of concern about Israel. It’s a serious issue. We engage in it. It’s why we devote so much attention through our our high school division, our Campus Global Board, our young leadership division, in ensuring that we’re addressing these issues that we’re discussing, but that we’re also capitalizing on the incredible energy and enthusiasm and passion of young people who absolutely want to join the effort with their fellow Jews from around the world in supporting one another and supporting Israel.

But it’s also a little more complex. We don’t shy away from the conversations that young people want to have. I don’t believe that the way to address concerns about millennials is simply to lecture them and tell them that if you simply understand this piece of history, then you’ll understand why this should all be so important to you. I was in France a few months ago and heard from a number of Jewish university students that when they went to parties, as soon as someone learned they were Jewish, they were bombarded with questions about Israel and the Palestinians. And so for some, [in terms of their distancing from Israel,] it’s more an issue of not wanting to define their Jewish identity [in relation to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict]. It doesn’t mean that they’re anti-Israel.

A delegation from the American Jewish Committee marches in the Celebrate Israel parade in New York City, June 4, 2023. (Philissa Cramer)

The anecdote about the French students reminds me of a critique, not just about AJC but many Jewish mainstream institutions, that by making Israel so integral to what it means to be an American Jew, it came at the expense of creating a distinct American Jewish identity. Do you think Jewish organizations somehow share in the blame for that, in the sense that they tied the two identities too closely together?

No, I don’t. Israel means a lot of things to a lot of different people. Some people engage in Israel because they care about Israel as a Jewish homeland. Some people recognize it as a refuge for Jews from around the world. For some it’s based purely on the importance of Israel in our prayers. 

I do think, however, that this gets to a broader point of what we should be advocating for. If the only thing that we’re doing as a community is responding to antisemitism, if we’re letting the people who hate Jews define the Jewish community’s mission, or that the only Jewish history that we’re really focused on is the Holocaust, then we’re failing our young people. The big question that I find myself asking, especially around the holidays, is what happens when we win the battle against antisemitism? That’s why it is so important for us to be not just a global organization, but a proudly Jewish organization. We have to understand who we are so that others can understand who we are and what we’ve contributed to the world and to America. And that requires us to learn a little more and be understandably proud of what it means to be a Jew in America.

Can you give me a specific example of AJC programming that’s about inculcating this sort of Jewish pride?

Our Leaders for Tomorrow program for high school teaches kids to not just be proud, proud Jews and and proudly pro-Israel but helps them understand what we’ve contributed throughout history. And our center for Contemporary Jewish Life does educational programs that lead the way on this whole Jewish-and-proud effort.

You succeeded David Harris, who led the organization for over 30 years. What goals did you set out for AJC when you took over and what have you achieved? What hasn’t been done and are you most anxious to get going?

First of all, AJC for over 116 years has been a trusted — I would argue, the most trusted — voice across the globe in representing the Jewish community. And I came in committed to expanding on that legacy. Right at the beginning I wanted to make sure that people know who we are. There’s no benefit when you’re a global NGO in being referred to as “the best kept secret,” which is something that I heard from time to time when I started. 

But in my first week Kanye went on his antisemitic rant against the Jews and suddenly, I found myself in front of cameras and talking to reporters about antisemitism because this is something that AJC had been dealing with for decades in Europe. It’s the reason that we worked so hard with the White House and in helping to inform the creation of the national strategy. 

When I first announced I was taking this job we were in a different place in Israel. The government was different. It was the most diverse government in the history of Israel, and now we have the most conservative government in the history of Israel. But that hasn’t stopped us from continuing to work hard to expand Israel’s place in the world and expand the Abraham Accords. So we’ve continued to meet with leaders from throughout the Gulf and to build out the work that we do in our offices in Jerusalem and in Abu Dhabi to really help propel the Abraham Accords forward. 

We also recognize the need to continue to expand, which is why we opened the new office in San Diego in my first year, deepening our relationship and our political activity in Denver and in the Mountain States and embarking on a major expansion in Florida.  

What haven’t I been able to do? For my first 12 months after leaving Congress, I’ve been barred [by House ethics rules] from engaging my former colleagues on any substantive issues. Come Oct. 1, as someone who has deep personal relationships with members of Congress across the aisle, I’ll be re-engaging with Democratic leaders and Republican leaders in ways that will strengthen our place in Washington and in turn, the Jewish community’s and Israel’s place in the world.

I want to ask about that. Within the Democratic Party, there has been some drift away from Israel, and there’s been some harsh criticism from certain lawmakers on the party’s left. Are you concerned that the party is not as forthrightly pro-Israel as it used to be? And are you worried about Israel itself becoming a partisan issue in Congress?

There have been people who have been trying to make Israel a partisan issue for a long time. I fought that when I was in Congress. Our role as a nonpartisan organization, as a centrist organization, is to call out those on both sides who try to weaponize the issue and engage in the use of antisemitic tropes. We work closely with those Republicans who are fiercely pro-Israel. And you also have to look at Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries, who recently led a group of Democratic lawmakers to Israel. His commitment to Israel is very strong and firm. Yeah, there’s a small minority who tried to politicize this issue. There’s a small minority who take positions that I think need to be called out. I did that when I was on the floor of the House. We’re going to work with leadership to advance the issues of the Jewish community. It’s something that I look forward to doing with people that I’ve known for a long time and based on relationships that I think will be really helpful.


The post Ted Deutch left Congress to head a Jewish organization. Can he find the ‘nuance’ that he seeks? appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.

Continue Reading

RSS

UNRWA Meets the Spanish Inquisition

View of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) building in Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip. Photo: Abed Rahim Khatib / Flash90.

JNS.orgThe collaboration between UNRWA, the U.N. agency solely dedicated to Palestinian refugees and their descendants, and the Hamas rulers of Gaza continues unabated.

Two episodes over the last week underscore that claim. On May 14, Israeli jets carried out a precision strike against a Hamas war room and weapons depot that was concealed beneath an UNRWA school in Nuseirat. Fifteen terrorists—10 of them members of Hamas’s elite Nukhba Force—were killed in the strike. Meanwhile, three days earlier, the Israelis released aerial surveillance footage of armed Palestinians in an UNRWA compound in the southern city of Rafah, where the IDF is facing off against four Hamas battalions. The video showed the gun-toting Palestinians milling inside the compound, from where they launched attacks on the gathering Israeli forces.

The intermingling of UNRWA facilities and personnel with Hamas and its nefarious aims has been a constant theme of Israeli messaging throughout the current war in the Gaza Strip. At the beginning of this year, it seemed as if other Western countries shared Israel’s concerns, with 18 of them, among them the United States, suspending funding to UNRWA. However, as the NGO UN Watch has documented, in the intervening period, nine of them have quietly restored their fiscal support. One of these countries was Germany, whose foreign ministry declared in an April 24 statement that UNRWA’s verbal willingness to implement the recommendations of an independent commission headed by former French Foreign Minister Catherine Colonna was enough to turn the money faucet back on. Israel’s vociferous objections—pointing out that Colonna had elided Jerusalem’s claim that more than 2,000 UNRWA staff members retain ties with Hamas—made no difference to the Germans, nor to the Japanese, or the Canadians or the other six nations who resumed financial assistance to the agency.

In the midst of all this, UNRWA received an award from the government of Spain—one of the countries that has maintained its funding throughout the conflict triggered by the Hamas pogrom in southern Israel on Oct. 7. The spectacle of a U.N. agency that indulges a terrorist group, whose tactics include the mass murder and rape of civilians for the crime of being Jews, being feted like this is, of course, deeply regrettable. But looked at from another angle, it is highly appropriate.

The award presented to UNRWA director general Philippe Lazzarini by Spanish Foreign Minister José Manuel Albares during his visit to New York on April 19 inducted him into the “Royal Order of Isabella the Catholic.” The “Isabella” referred to here is Queen Isabella I of Castile, who ruled Spain alongside her husband, King Ferdinand II, from 1474 until her death 30 years later. In 1492, at the height of the Spanish Inquisition, Isabella and Ferdinand issued an order for the ejection of Spain’s Jewish population, estimated to have been 300,000-strong.

The king and queen’s announcement of the expulsion—known as the Alhambra Decree—is on display, fittingly, at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C. Spanish Jews were given four months to pack up their belongings and settle their affairs, a chaotic and painful process that left Spain as a country economically and culturally impoverished. Sultan Bayezid II of the Ottoman Empire, who offered shelter to some of these Jews (among them my own family, who lived for centuries under Turkish rule in the Balkans), poked fun at the Spanish monarchs, questioning the judgment of those who would degrade their own kingdom only to “enrich ours.” In making that observation, Bayezid inadvertently grasped one of the more curious aspects of Jew-hatred—that its advocates will push for it relentlessly, even when it doesn’t suit their own interests to do so.

One of the more curious aspects of Jew-hatred is that its advocates will push for it relentlessly, even when it doesn’t suit their own interests.

Few institutions would be as receptive as UNRWA when it comes to Spain expressing pride in a monarch who deservedly has the reputation as one of the worst persecutors of Jews in their history. The history of antisemitism has been captured in a simple formula: You have no right to live among us as Jews; you have no right to live among us; you have no right to live. Queen Isabella’s place on this spectrum is evident and unarguable. Equally, Hamas belongs there no less. The Iranian-backed organization doesn’t like Jews, doesn’t like Jews living among Muslims and doesn’t like Jews being alive at all. They may be separated by seven centuries, but Isabella and UNRWA, which has actively promoted Hamas-style antisemitism in its schools, have a huge amount in common when it comes to the Jewish people.

Were Hamas to succeed in its goal of eliminating Israel as a sovereign state, we might well expect an announcement to that end not dissimilar to the Alhambra Declaration. Those Jews who survived the destruction of their only state would, if they were lucky, be given four months to liquidate their assets, hand over their properties to “returning” Palestinian refugees and make their way out of the country. No doubt some would figure out a way to stay—probably by hiding their Jewish identities and attempting to integrate with the rest of the population, as those Jews who remained in Spain after the expulsion did. UNRWA, by a twist of historical irony, might even offer to shepherd their exit within parameters set by Hamas that would prevent forever any possibility of returning. While such a scenario may seem improbable today, if history has taught us anything, it’s that it’s not improbable tomorrow.

The history of antisemitism has been captured in a simple formula: You have no right to live among us as Jews; you have no right to live among us; you have no right to live.

Fundamentally, the problem here is that too many states—not just Turkey, Iran, Russia, North Korea, China and other citadels of authoritarian rule, but democracies as well—believe that the way to convince the Palestinians to accept peace is by kowtowing to their jealously guarded victimhood status.

By the end of this month, it’s likely that several European Union member states, including Spain and also Ireland, Malta, Slovenia and Belgium, will have unilaterally recognized an independent Palestinian state. Albares is one of the foreign ministers actively promoting the fiction that such a move will bolster, rather than undermine, the prospects for the creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel that will coexist peacefully.

Deep down, you have to believe that Albares knows that’s simply not true—that most Palestinians, as successive opinion polls since Oct. 7 have borne out, regard a state alongside Israel not as a final settlement but a step towards conquering the entire land “from the river to the sea.” These are the stakes that Israel has to contend with when it deals with diplomats and other foreign officials quietly sympathetic to the idea that the Jewish state shouldn’t be there in the first place.

Isabella the Catholic would be proud.

The post UNRWA Meets the Spanish Inquisition first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

RSS

The UN’s World of the Absurd

Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian Authority, delivers a speech remotely at the UN General Assembly 76th session General Debate in UN General Assembly Hall at the United Nations Headquarters on Friday, September 24, 2021 in New York City. Photo by John Angelillo/UPI Pool via REUTERS

JNS.org – Only in the world of the absurd can a despicable purveyor of terror, Hamas, carry out a brutal massacre, killing over a thousand innocent people, torturing, murdering and carrying out sadistic mass rape, over a space of just a few hours, and then run home to Gaza taking with them hundreds of hostages.

Only in the world of the absurd can the Palestinian representative organization that encourages, finances, supports and represents such murderers be feted and upgraded by the majority of member states in the international community.

Only in the world of the absurd can a group of non-democratic, terror-supporting states oblige the United Nations General Assembly by proposing a resolution that indulges in pampering a terror-supporting entity in a misguided and surreal demonstration of naïveté, skewed political correctness and acute hypocrisy.

Only in the same world of the absurd can 143 states parrot their support for what they blindly proclaim to be a “two-state solution” without really understanding what they are talking about out of ignorance and stupidity.

Only in the world of the absurd can the majority of the international community deliberately ignore the openly declared genocidal intentions of Iran, Hamas and the Palestinian Liberation Organization in their efforts to eliminate the Jewish state and kill all Jews. And this, while at the same time upgrading the Palestinian representation in the United Nations.

Lastly, only in the world of the absurd can all this happen at the same time as incited and handsomely financed and organized groups of violent, hysterical, antisemitic demonstrators occupy campuses and town centers in U.S. and European cities, calling for the elimination of the only Jewish state.

Shooting blanks for statehood

Despite the artificial hype surrounding this resolution, the bottom line is that this upgrade does not grant the Palestinians the status of statehood or U.N. membership that they wished to receive. The U.N. General Assembly has neither authority nor jurisdiction to establish states and grant membership status without Security Council sanction.

The sad naïveté and hypocrisy of those states that proposed and voted in favor of this abnormal new General Assembly resolution are evident in their stated determination in the body of the resolution to the effect that “the State of Palestine is qualified for membership in the U.N. in accordance with article 4 of the U.N. Charter.”

But the U.N. Charter article 4 requires that United Nations membership be open to “all other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter.”

One may legitimately ask if the self-respecting states voting in favor of this resolution, including Russia, China, Norway, Japan, South Korea, and Australia, and E.U. member states Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, France Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg, Portugal, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain, genuinely believe that the Palestinians are, or could be a “peace-loving state,” or is this just self-delusion, artificial political correctness or naive wishful thinking?

International law requires the fulfillment of universally accepted criteria for statehood, including control of a defined population and territory and enforcement of the rule of law, none of which the Palestinian Authority has ever fulfilled. This is in addition to the Charter requirement of being a peace-loving state, assuming responsible governance and the capability of respecting international obligations. Therefore, it is clear that this resolution is nothing more than a sad and miserable fiction, a sham.

Clearly, no element of the Palestinian political existence—neither the infamous and brutal terror organization Hamas nor the terror-supporting PLO and its Palestinian Authority—can seriously claim to fulfill such criteria.

Like all General Assembly resolutions, the resolution is not binding, only recommendatory. It does not represent international law and only reflects the political views of those states that proposed and supported it.

The various modalities listed in the resolution for improving the seating, establishing a speaking order of the Palestinian delegates in the General Assembly’s chamber and other U.N. bodies, and upgrading their participation in meetings and conferences are cosmetic, symbolic lip-service.

Despite its call for full Palestinian membership, the resolution distinctly denies and negates any notion of full membership in the United Nations. As such, the Palestinian delegation remains nothing more than an observer delegation, wherever and however they may be seated.

The resolution stresses that they have no entitlement to vote and have no right to membership in U.N. organs, including the Security Council.

The violations inherent in the resolutions

However, in the context of the Palestinian obligations set out in the Oslo Accords, this attempted change of status constitutes a serious and fundamental violation of the agreed obligation not to change the status of the territories pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations.

The Palestinian leadership and Israel agreed that all outstanding issues, including the permanent status of the territories, must be resolved through negotiations and cannot be determined by unilateral action, whether in the United Nations or anywhere else.

Even the United Nations itself, in several resolutions, has given its endorsement to the Oslo Accords as the only agreed-upon means to resolve the Israel-Palestinian dispute.

Similarly, the European Union, Russia, Egypt and Norway, together with the United States, are signatories to the Oslo Accords as witnesses. A vote in favor of this new resolution by these witnesses undermines the Oslo Accords and is contrary to the accepted obligations of states and organizations that witness international agreements.

Indeed, by supporting this new resolution, they seek to bypass the requirements in the Oslo Accords for the negotiation of the permanent status of the territories and attempt to prejudge the outcome of any such negotiations unilaterally.

Despite this resolution’s artificial and ineffectual symbolic and cosmetic aspects, the overall result of the exercise is nevertheless grave and unfortunate. It will be seen by Hamas and the Palestinian leadership as a green light from the international community for them to continue to support and conduct terrorism.

The regrettable message emanating from this resolution is that the international community is not just ignoring Palestinian terror against a fellow U.N. member state; it is encouraging it.

Originally published by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.

The post The UN’s World of the Absurd first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

RSS

Is God Protecting Us?

Moses Breaking the Tables of the Law (1659), by Rembrandt. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.

JNS.orgIt’s been a tumultuous, emotional roller coaster of a week in Israel and around the Jewish world: Memorials, moments of silence and then celebrations, albeit muted and rather subdued under our current difficult circumstances.

In this week’s parsha, Emor, we read about the required standards of behavior of the Kohanim, the Priestly tribe. They are not permitted to come into contact with the dead and their marriage choices are more limited than the average Israelite.

We also find the commandment of Kiddush Hashem. Every Jew, not only a Kohen, is expected to sanctify the name of God. Sometimes, this means actually giving up one’s life for the faith, as millions of our brethren have done throughout the ages. For most of us, however, it means behaving in a way that will bring praise to the God of Israel. When we act morally, ethically and righteously, people generally respect us, and this brings credit to our God and our faith.

Way back at this very first revelation at the Burning Bush, Moses was told by God that we were expected to become a “kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” When we have lived up to that calling, we have indeed been a “light unto the nations.”

Today, Israel is confronted with a world in which hypocrisy has reached proportions unheard of in the annals of history. The whole planet seems to have lost its moral bearings, and frankly, its senses. Even our friends are pressuring us, and now threatening and extorting us, too.

Yet we must do what we must do. Will all the hundreds of precious, young lives snuffed out be in vain if we don’t finish the job in Gaza?

Things seem very confusing. On the one hand, we recently witnessed the incredibly miraculous hand of God protecting us from a 300-plus missile and drone attack by Iran. The 99.9% success rate of our defenses simply cannot be explained militarily or scientifically. On the other hand, we have lost hundreds of our best brave defenders. Where was God there? Is there a contradiction here?

This is shaping up to be nothing less than an existential war for our very survival. The question is: Are we safe or not? Is God protecting us or not?

My mind goes back to 1991 and the Gulf War. Saddam Hussein of unblessed memory was threatening Israel with his lethal Scud missiles and even chemical weapons. Israel was distributing gas masks to every citizen in case of a chemical attack by the vicious dictator.

Iraq had invaded Kuwait. The United States warned Iraq to get out and gave it a deadline. It was not our battle. Israel has no border with Iraq and the war had nothing to do with Israel. Yet Saddam was threatening us and America provided Israel with the Patriot missile-defense system and asked us to stay out of it. The United States would deal with Iraq.

So they did, but not before Iraq had fired dozens of Scud missiles at Israel. Miraculously, there was not a single fatality.

I remember clearly how the whole Jewish world was petrified at the time. There were prayer meetings and emergency fundraisers for Israel in Jewish communities around the world, including ours.

There was one lone voice in the wilderness, however, who declared that Israel was safe and would be safe from any such attacks. Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, the Lubavitcher Rebbe, went further and advised the Israeli government that gas masks would not be needed. How right he was.

Here in South Africa, the Zionist Federation was organizing a solidarity mission to Israel. The Rebbe encouraged us to join and several of my Chabad colleagues went with me, along with the late Chief Rabbi Cyril Harris. I even took along my 12-year-old daughter, Zeesy. She was the youngest member of the mission.

It is my personal belief that Israel was miraculously protected by God from the Iraqi Scuds because Israel was simply minding its own business. It was attacked for no reason whatsoever. We had done nothing to compromise our security. The heavenly Guardian of Israel responded accordingly.

Similarly, in the recent Iranian attack, we were completely innocent targets. We have no border with Iran and they have zero justification for being involved. So, we suffered not one fatality. Again, God watched over us miraculously.

But when we make strategic mistakes in our approach to Hamas; when we allow international pressure and public opinion to endanger the lives of our valiant young soldiers; when we refrain from bombing and instead send them into booby-trapped buildings; then, tragically, we suffer fatalities.

It’s one thing to boast about being the most moral army in the world (and we are), but is it wise to tell our enemies in advance when and where we are coming for them? We are damned if we do and damned if we don’t. Our unprecedented noble gestures have been completely ignored by the world, and we are still being accused of genocide. So shouldn’t we be sparing our innocent, precious boys from harm instead?

I am fond of quoting Israel’s founding father and first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, who once said, “It doesn’t matter what the world says. It matters what the Jews do.” How true.

I believe that when we do what we must do, then God does what He must do. May we merit His Divine protection now and always and may our defenders be completely safe and successful.

Please God, we will practice Kiddush Hashem by behaving as noble examples of humanity rather than as martyrs in a war in which, sometimes, we seem to be fighting with our hands tied behind our backs. Six million was enough martyrs. Not one more, please God.

The post Is God Protecting Us? first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News