RSS
In a Worst-Case Scenario, the Recent ICJ Legal Ruling Could Threaten the Existence of Israel
Judges, including Sarah Cleveland, arrive at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), during a ruling on South Africa’s request to order a halt to Israel’s Rafah offensive in Gaza, in The Hague, Netherlands, May 24, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Johanna Geron
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.
RSS
Shabbat Mikeytz: The Power of Dreams
A Torah scroll. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.
Dreams play a very important part in the Biblical narrative. We have read in recent weeks about Yaakov’s dream of angels going up and down a ladder. Yosef dreamt about his own future — as well as the dreams of the baker and the butcher and those of Pharaoh. The implication is that these dreams were all reliable messages, coming as Yosef says, from God.
The question we have to answer is to what extent dreams should be relied on. To this day, there are people who make a living out of interpreting dreams. Are they charlatans taking advantage of the credulous, or are they onto something?
When it comes to Yosef and Pharaoh, they both had dreams which came true. In the case of Yosef, it’s his turning from a victim in a pit to the ruler of Egypt. In the case of Pharaoh, it’s a premonition of seven years of plenty followed by seven years of famine. But later on, when the Torah talks about false prophets, it’s talking about dreamers who should not be relied on (Devarim 13).
It will come as no surprise that the Talmud has pages about how to react to dreams and interpret them. Most take dreams very seriously, but disagree over interpretations and their validity. Others do not. The variety and disagreements that you can find in the Talmud are proof of how controversial dreams were then — and indeed, remain so for many people now.
Rav Chisdah said a dream that’s not interpreted is like a letter that’s not read. So if you ignore it, you’re not going to get any message. He also said that neither a good nor a bad dream is entirely fulfilled. On the cynical side, Rav Yochanan said that there’s no such thing as a dream without idle information — which is about right for most of my dreams.
The Gemara deals with the charlatans who make a living out of interpreting dreams. Rav Akiva said that there were 24 interpreters of dreams in Jerusalem, and each one disagreed as to what the interpretation was. Bar Hadaya, a popular interpreter, would give a good interpretation of a dream to anybody who paid him money and a bad interpretation if they did not. One rabbi who had a bad interpretation because he wouldn’t pay the first time, came back with money and then got a good interpretation. Plenty of those are still around today.
Then you have what I might call the Freudians. Shmuel bar Nachmani said that a person is shown in his dream only the thoughts of his own heart (i.e., mind). In other words, dreams are a reflection of the subconscious, which sounds as though it was written by Sigmund Freud himself. Of course they didn’t use those terms at that time. Rava said that one is neither shown a golden palm tree nor an elephant going through the eye of a needle in a dream. Dreams only contain images that a person has actually seen.
Nevertheless, these pages are full of all kinds of attempts to interpret what one dreams. I have to say that after a year of almost constant nightmares, I’m at last beginning to have sweet dreams. And so I wish you all a very happy Hanukkah and may all your dreams be sweet and amusing.
The author is a writer and rabbi, currently based in New York.
The post Shabbat Mikeytz: The Power of Dreams first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
How the Media Blamed Israel for Ruining Bethlehem’s Christmas (Again)
Tourists walk in Manger Square outside the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, Dec. 2, 2019. Photo: Reuters / Mussa Qawasma.
Once again, it’s that time of the year. But we won’t repeat the obvious: the media love blaming Israel for ruining Christmas in Bethlehem.
We will, however, point at the strategy they use to achieve this.
Here is the issue: The media need to cover what they see. And in Bethlehem, they see a baby Jesus doll placed in rubble; no foreign tourists; and protests in solidarity with Gaza. It is undoubtedly a somber Christmas in Jesus’ traditional birthplace, and it should be reported.
But the media should and can apply critical thinking in their choice of interviewees and background material. And they are not doing so.
The Only Priest in Bethlehem?
The media star of the season, except for Jesus, was (again) Munther Isaac, a pastor at Bethlehem’s Lutheran Church.
Outlets like Reuters, BBC, ABC News, and NBC News were happy to quote Isaac for a simple reason: His church was responsible for the media stunt showing baby Jesus as a Palestinian child amid Gaza rubble.
Fair enough. But nowhere did these outlets mention that Isaac has also justified the October 7 massacre, and has been described as “the high priest of antisemitic Christianity.”
Respected news outlets should not fall prey to the manipulations of one priest. Professional coverage should have bothered to contrast his view with that of other voices in the local Christian community.
But the problem runs deeper. These media outlets rely on Palestinian producers in Bethlehem who would never undermine — out of fear or bias — this anti-Israeli narrative. And their foreign bosses would not dare question their work, because they need their connections.
Selective Background
More proof of the media’s seasonal bias against Israel can be gleaned from the background information provided in certain stories.
Instead of reminding news consumers about the Palestinian Authority’s responsibility for the dwindling numbers of local Christians, many outlets include lengthy background paragraphs about Israel’s occupation of the West Bank.
In Reuters‘ story, for example, a whole section is dedicated to Israel’s settlement activity. One exceptionally irrelevant passage reads:
Israel has built Jewish settlements, deemed illegal by most countries, across the territory. Israel disputes this, citing historical and biblical ties to the land. Several of its ministers live in settlements and favour their expansion.
Similarly, the AP’s “Christmas in Bethlehem” photo collection includes a picture of the security barrier that partially surrounds the city, as a man just happens to walk past graffiti that reads: “Walls are meant for bombing.” Never mind that this wall stood there when Bethlehem enjoyed crowded and celebratory holiday seasons.
And let’s not forget that this bias is not limited to the Christian holidays. Every holiday celebrated by Palestinians in the region — from Ramadan to Easter — gets automatically evaluated based on Israel’s actions.
It never works the other way around, making it seem that Palestinians bear no responsibility whatsoever. For example, the media never outright blamed Hamas for ruining the Jewish holiday of Simchat Torah, which was deliberately chosen as the date for the October 7 massacre.
For the media, it seems, the “oppressed” Palestinians are granted automatic virtue, while the Israeli “oppressors” are seen as innately evil. The holiday season is just another opportunity to show it.
The author is a contributor to HonestReporting, a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.
The post How the Media Blamed Israel for Ruining Bethlehem’s Christmas (Again) first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Hallmark’s Hanukkah Film Is No Miracle
Marc Summers and the stars of “Hanukkah on the Rocks.” Photo: Hallmark.
I have fond memories of watching Marc Summers host the show Double Dare.
Unfortunately, nobody dared the Hallmark Channel to write a good Hanukkah movie. To be sure, credit must go to the network for opting to make Hanukkah movies in the first place. I’ve seen them all in recent years, and some have had some panache and sizzle.
It’s painful, however, to watch the new film, Hanukkah on the Rocks. It is so riddled with cliches, that even if the writers were drunk, that wouldn’t be a good enough excuse.
Summers, who is Jewish, stars as a man living in Chicago. His grandson, a handsome radiologist named Jay, is trying to convince him to move to Florida to be with him and the rest of the family. When Jay’s love interest Tory is let go from her job as a lawyer, she says she used to bartend and she helps out at the local bar where they make Hanukkah drinks and celebrate there. (The film is shot in Canada for some reason, but whatever. Maybe Chicago was too expensive.)
The film’s strength is the two leads. Stacey Farber (Tory) and Daren Kagasoff (Jay) both bring charm to their roles, and there’s some chemistry between the two. And there’s a good obligatory kiss at the end.
The problem is the script is dreadful to the point of being offensive. Throwing Yiddish words out randomly doesn’t make a good film. Characters say “bubbie” a few times, and the word “shmendrick” is said by someone who isn’t religious. That would never happen in real life. It would be nice to see an Orthodox person or even a yarmulke on somebody, but I get that the makers of these films don’t want it to be *too* Jewish. I wonder if the makers of Christmas movies are afraid of making it too Christian.
I also get that the film doesn’t care about the food being kosher, but is it necessary to have crème fresh (dairy) on the same plate as short rib? That’s slightly better than lighting the menorah over cheeseburgers.
Jay is supposedly awesome because he helps a young Jewish boy named Parker, who is about eight, with how to pronounce the word “Maccabee.” Of course, there is no explanation of what the word means for the viewing audience. I almost cried at this part of the film, not only because it was so terrible, but because I realized that many Jewish children likely don’t know what the word Maccabee refers to.
Farber and Kagasoff have talent, but even Judah Macabee couldn’t do anything with this script. There is one cute scene where the two play cornhole and are verbally feisty. Why not more scenes like that?
A character says a drink should be called “He-Brew.” Get it? So original, if not for the fact that it already exists, made by Schmaltz Brewing Company. He’Brew is the flagship brand.
It’s nice that they show the blessings over the candles. But that should be the floor of what we expect, not the ceiling.
There was not a single funny line of dialogue in the entire film. I did laugh at one part that was unintentionally funny. How long was Tory out of work? She almost cries as she says she hasn’t been working — for one week. One week! But she says she has a good severance package. I can’t imagine what viewers who have family members who have been unemployed for a year or more think of someone about to shed tears from being out of work for seven days.
Then there’s the big “twist” at the end, which ends up being meaningless.
With movies this bad, Hanukkah is indeed on the rocks.
The author is a writer based in New York.
The post Hallmark’s Hanukkah Film Is No Miracle first appeared on Algemeiner.com.