The decision makers at Adidas are either suffering from mental decline, incompetence, or the virus of antisemitism.

The German shoe company fired Bella Hadid — an anti-Israel model and social media influencer who has more than 61.3 million Instagram followers — from a campaign marking the 52nd anniversary of the 1972 Munich Olympics, and their shoes from that year.

Forget Hadid for a second.

On September 5, 1972, eight Palestinian terrorists from the group Black September posed as athletes, and took 11 Israeli athletes and coaches hostage, killing two on the scene, and the remaining nine in helicopters by grenade and by shooting them.

German forces refused requests to have an Israeli special unit come to try to save them, and then bungled their own operation. Ultimately, some German police officers weren’t willing to go through with the operation. What a surprise that Germans didn’t want to risk their life to save Jews.

While none of the 200+ prisoners the terrorists demanded to be released from Israeli jails were freed, in a press conference, a Palestinian terrorist said it was a success because the whole world was talking about their cause.

To make matters worse, initial press reports claimed the hostages were saved, only to later be corrected, as ABC’s Jim McKay said, “They’re all gone.”

The Olympics continued anyway, and Israel buried Moshe Weinberg, Yossef Romano, Ze’ev Friedman, David Berger, Yacov Springer, Eliezer Halfin, Yosef Guttfreund, Kehat Shorr, Mark Slavin, and Andre Spitzer.

In addition, the International Olympic Committee long rejected Israel’s request for a moment of silence for the athletes at the games in an open display of antisemitism.

For more horrific details about the attack, which were only released in the early 1990s, click here. 

Why in the world is Adidas having any campaign to honor the 1972 Olympics, or the relaunch of its SL72 shoe line?

Furthermore, Hadid’s history of refusing to condemn Palestinian terrorism is disturbing.

She did not specially condemn Hamas for the massacre of October 7, but wrote that she condemned terrorist attacks on any civilians. Her father, Mohamed, was born in Nazareth in 1948, and the family is notorious for its anti-Israel activism.

Hadid has filed a lawsuit she may very well win against Adidas. The decision to hire Hadid (and fire her after complaints from Jews and others) is revolting, but the company, which cut ties with Kanye West after his antisemitic meltdown, has said it will in some way revamp the ad campaign.

Perhaps they will find Jamal al-Gashey, believed to be the only current surviving terrorist of the attack at the Munich Olympics, who appeared in the documentary One Day in September, to endorse the sneaker line.

The stupidity or malice of the ad with Hadid only causes more tension and hatred for Jews, if that is even possible at this point.

In 2022, Germany announced a payment of $28 million to families of the Israelis murdered in the 1972 attack, and last year, the government announced an international commission to “rigorously examine the period before and after” the attack — more than 50 years after it took place.

I guess Germans aren’t always punctual.

The author is a writer based in New York.

The post Adidas’ Olympics Campaign — With or Without Bella Hadid — Is a Disgrace to Israelis and Jews first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Is the Western Wall an “illegal settlement” built on “occupied Palestinian territory”?

Is Israel an “apartheid” state?

Is it possible that terrorism against Israelis simply doesn’t exist at all?

These are some of the extraordinary conclusions that stem from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) advisory opinion last week. (A summary of the opinion can be found here.)

Though much of the ICJ’s analysis flies in the face of international law, logic, and common sense, the body has reached a conclusion and it is not subject to appeal. Therefore, the only relevant question that remains is: what impact will this advisory opinion have, and what will happen next?

The ICJ came to several conclusions in its decision, which I will briefly review.

“Occupation”: The ICJ held that Israeli presence on “Palestinian territory” is an illegal occupation. The Court unilaterally adopted a definition of what constitutes “Palestinian territory,” which includes the eastern part of Jerusalem, that, in turn, includes the entire Old City and its ancient Jewish Quarter, the Western Wall, and the Temple Mount.

This means, in effect, that visiting or praying at the Western Wall would technically constitute a type of war crime, as would living anywhere in the region of Judea and Samaria.

Security Fence: The Court addressed Israel’s “wall” (which is actually a security fence for 95% of its length), declaring it illegal. The court made no mention of the Second Intifada, nor the fact that the fence reduced Israeli deaths from terrorism by 95%, nor that the conditions necessitating such life saving security measures — i.e., official Palestinian support for terrorism — have not changed.

The Oslo Accords: A well-established principle of international law is that mutual agreement of two or more parties supersedes international conventions. Since 1995, Israel’s security measures, settlement activities, humanitarian aid, and physical presence in Judea and Samaria have been performed in strict accordance with the Oslo Accords, by mutual agreement of both Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

The ICJ has ignored or overruled the Oslo Accords so many times, that it effectively dissolved the Accords as a functioning agreement.

Negotiations: The ICJ has effectively required an end to negotiations over peace or co-existence by mandating the results of such negotiations without regard for the input of the parties themselves.

A few notable statistics: In its 80 page opinion, the ICJ used the word “occupation” 121 times, “violating” international law or Palestinian rights 29 times, “apartheid” three times, and alluded to “genocide” twice.

The ICJ did not acknowledge terrorism against Israelis, incitement to terrorism, or the “Martyr’s Fund” (which pays Palestinians to kill Israelis) even once — not even in its passing reference to October 7, which made no mention of the word “terrorism” nor the astonishing death, destruction, and hostage-taking perpetrated upon the Israeli people.

The vote by the ICJ was not unanimous — the vote was either 11-4 or 12-3 on most of the nine issues that were decided.

The Court’s Vice-President, Julie Sebutinde of Uganda, consistently sided with Israel, and wrote an eloquent dissenting opinion which is well worth reading. Judge Sarah Cleveland of the United States (a long-time Biden nominee) voted consistently against Israel.

The President of the Court, who also voted consistently against Israel, is Nawaf Salam of Lebanon — a country controlled by the Iranian-backed terror organization Hezbollah, which is currently at war with Israel.

In order to understand the possible impact of this decision, one must understand the “diplomatic intifada.”

In 2001, the Palestinians and various allies held a UN-sponsored (but ultimately Palestinian-controlled) conference in Durban, South Africa. Misleadingly entitled a conference “against racism,” the Durban conference was riddled with antisemitism, including Nazi symbology and rhetoric, and early examples of the “Israel apartheid” claims.

This conference also marked the inception of the anti-Israel boycott movement (BDS), as well as what later came to be called the Palestinian “diplomatic intifada,” the stated goals of which include isolating Israel and having Israel removed from the United Nations.

Though merely an advisory opinion, this ICJ decision is a meaningful step in a Palestinian campaign that spans 23 years of work, and billions of dollars of investment, aimed at discrediting, isolating and harming the Jewish State.

In a theoretical worst case scenario, the United Nations Security Council could remove Israel from the United Nations entirely, making Israel effectively a rogue state, as well as order Israel to implement the ICJ recommendations, and then impose sanctions if Israel refuses.

These would not be “BDS-style” sanctions, which are largely rhetoric, but instead what are called “Chapter 7 Sanctions” — the kind that one sees in places like North Korea. Not only would such measures plunge Israel’s economy and civilians into utter poverty, but sanctions would also cut off the IDF from necessary resources and resupply. Within months, Israel would become effectively “army-less” and vulnerable to attacks by any number of neighboring enemies.

It is likely (though never 100% certain) that the United States would veto such a resolution. However, short of the “worst case scenario” there are many intermediate scenarios that could result.

For example, individual countries may choose to implement the terms of the ICJ recommendation by cutting off trade with Israel, removing Israel from international events (such as the Olympics or FIFA), or embargoing arms shipments to Israel. In fact, some countries have already implemented such measures. The ICJ opinion would give these measures the legitimacy of international law, making them more widespread and more difficult to combat.

Most critically, a resolution of this nature can impact how voters view Israel in democracies around the world, leading, over time, to decreased support by Israel’s critical allies. We are already seeing signs of this on campuses and in political parties throughout the US and Europe.

This should hardly be surprising.

Israel’s global isolation has been the openly stated goal of the Palestinian Authority for over two decades. While Israel has (understandably) focused its resources on military defense and economic growth, the diplomatic battlefield has been left largely undefended, and the ICJ decision is just the latest result.

Daniel Pomerantz is the CEO of RealityCheck, an organization dedicated to deepening public conversation through robust research studies and public speaking.

The post In a Worst-Case Scenario, the Recent ICJ Legal Ruling Could Threaten the Existence of Israel first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

It’s difficult to say what a U.S. presidential election will mean for the Jewish people when the identity of the candidates is not only in flux, but dramatically so. First there was Joe Biden, whose debate performance had him seeming quite possibly not up to running again, and like finishing the term upright would be […]

The post Could there now be room for Josh Shapiro in the White House? Phoebe Maltz Bovy wonders if American presidential ticket tumult is good for the Jews appeared first on The Canadian Jewish News.