Connect with us

RSS

Our Own Worst Enemies

PA President Mahmoud Abbas gestures during a meeting in Ramallah, in the West Bank August 18, 2020. Photo: REUTERS/Mohamad Torokman/Pool

JNS.org – It’s bad enough that we have real enemies who are attacking Israel; the last thing we need is “friends” who, perhaps with the best of intentions, are undermining Israel’s case in the United States. One example is an organization I have never heard of, the A-Mark Foundation, which erroneously believes “clear, concise and unbiased information on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is difficult to find.” Maybe, if you don’t bother to look. My publication, Myths and Facts, has only been around for 60-odd years (originally published by the founder of AIPAC), and the legacy Jewish organizations have produced plenty of material. My first impulse was to think, “Let a thousand flowers bloom,” but then I saw that the material is based on the work of UCLA professor Dov Waxman, a frequent critic of mainstream American Jewry and one of the signers of an anti-Israel screed published before Oct. 7 (another was Harvard University professor Derek Penslar, who Harvard naturally put on its antisemitism task force).

If the material A-Mark published, based on Waxman’s book, The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: What Everyone Needs to Know, is any indication of his scholarship, students at UCLA are in trouble, as are any readers of the A-Mark answers to the “10 Common Questions About the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.” Waxman exemplifies the worst of woke academia, where facts don’t matter as much as narratives, and their truthfulness or speciousness is irrelevant because everyone’s narrative is their truth. He says both sides dismiss the others’ narratives as myths. He doesn’t acknowledge that facts can be distinguished from myths. It’s a flypaper version of history where there are two sides, and it doesn’t matter which side the fly lands on.

The first paragraph in the “unbiased” answer to question one on what the conflict is about is misleading and inaccurate, reducing it to the two peoples fighting over one piece of land cliché. The religious dimension of the conflict is ignored completely; that is, the Islamic rejection of a Jewish presence on “Muslim land” from the days of the Mufti to Hamas today.

He dates Palestinian nationalism to the mid-19th century, which is untrue. People at that time identified themselves by clans and religion. In the 1920s, the Palestinians began to talk about wanting to be part of Greater Syria, not an independent state. The Jews wanted to return to their homeland and were willing to share it. Unhappily, they accepted the reduction of the size of the Jewish homeland.

Starting in 1937—and as recently as 2008—the Palestinians were offered opportunities for statehood nine times and rejected every one. The Palestinians’ disinterest in independence during the 19-year Jordanian/Egyptian occupation is not mentioned.

It is simply taken for granted that the Palestinians should get a state just because they want one. The Kurds and Basques have a greater claim to independence. Why are only Palestinians entitled to one?

Waxman gives equal weight to the Jewish and Palestinian claims to indigeneity. He acknowledges evidence of Jewish roots in the land dating to antiquity while Palestinians didn’t arrive until after the Muslim conquest, but then contradicts this inconvenient fact by claiming that “it is impossible to definitively know who was here first.” He then asserts a blatant falsehood, suggesting that Jews believe they descend from the Canaanites, and further insinuates that there is validity to the baseless Palestinian claim to be related to them.

The explanation of Zionism is facile and misleading, calling it “a diverse set of beliefs.” No, Zionism is the belief that the Jewish people are a nation entitled to self-determination in their homeland, which is Israel. There are different “flavors” of Zionism debating how this should be achieved and what the state should look like, but not the objective.

The Arabs believe the Zionists are colonialists, but Waxman shows they are the antithesis. He acknowledges that the Arabs are wrong but says their view “is completely understandable in the context of that time.” We are no longer in that time, however, so when Israel’s detractors say it now, it is simply a lie.

His version of how the Palestinians became refugees in the first place is mostly wrong, starting with the exaggerated number of 700,000.

Ephraim Karsh’s research has shown the number was no more than 609,000, and United Nations and CIA estimates were roughly half that. Waxman repeats the Arab canards about the Palestinians being expelled as part of a campaign of “ethnic cleansing,” but acknowledges most Palestinians “probably” were not expelled. The facts are well-documented that Palestinians were forced to leave in a handful of instances, and not for “ethnic cleansing” but to protect Israeli soldiers from being attacked from the rear. The Arab narrative further dissolves if you know thousands of Palestinians left before the war began, that Israel encouraged Arabs to stay, and 250,000 remained to become full citizens.

Most Palestinians left because they didn’t want to be caught in the crossfire of the war. He cites historian Benny Morris to discredit the idea that many Palestinians fled because their leaders encouraged them to make way for the invading armies and promised they’d be allowed to return to their homes—and those of the Jews. Morris, however, said that “Arab officers ordered the complete evacuation of specific villages” and that “there can be no exaggerating the importance of these early Arab-initiated evacuations in the demoralization, and eventual exodus, of the remaining rural and urban populations.”

There is plenty of documentation about the leaders’ role if Waxman bothered to look.

The discussion about the fate of the refugees is also inaccurate. Refusing to allow enemies who left their homes to return is not a violation of international law. Other refugee populations were resettled, but it was the Arab states that prevented the Palestinians from becoming citizens in their countries. Israel offered to allow some refugees to return in exchange for a peace agreement; the Arabs rejected the idea.

Waxman cites U.N. Resolution 194 as granting Palestinians a “right to return”; however, that is a selective reading of the resolution, which conditioned their return on a willingness to live at peace with their neighbors and called for their resettlement. Also omitted is the fact that the Arab states voted against the resolution because it was adopted when they still believed that they would drive the Jews into the sea. Like all General Assembly resolutions, 194 is not legally binding.

He also incorrectly states that Israeli leaders have not accepted any compromises regarding the Old City; former Israeli Prime Ministers Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert offered them. Omitted is the Palestinians’ rejection of those proposals.

On the borders of a future state, Waxman has accepted Palestinian propaganda that Palestinians have abandoned their claim to the majority of the land they believe should be theirs and are being asked to take only 22% of Palestine. It is Israel that is only 22% of historic Palestine, and if Israel withdrew from the disputed territories, it would possess only about 18%. Today, some 73% of Palestinians live in “Palestine.”

The evidence that the Palestinians have not abandoned their goal of destroying Israel and claiming the land from the river to the sea is clear from Palestinian Authority maps. Furthermore, Israel has already withdrawn from more than 90% of the territories it captured in 1967, including all of Gaza and 40% of the West Bank. It is not obligated to return any more land. Waxman also accepts that the territories are “occupied” when they are disputed. Israel cannot occupy land that was part of Israel but never a sovereign Palestinian state. Moreover, an occupier is a nation that attacks another and then retains the territory it conquers. One that gains territory while defending itself, like Israel, is not in the same category.

In another distortion of historical fact, Waxman says Netanyahu doesn’t want to negotiate. That is true during the war, but he was willing and did in the past. It is true that Netanyahu opposed Oslo, but he didn’t repudiate it and agreed to further withdrawals in negotiations with PLO head Yasser Arafat.

Waxman refers to current P.A. leader Mahmoud Abbas as “a staunch advocate of the peace process” even though he has refused to negotiate since 2008, to recognize Israel as a Jewish state or to stop incentivizing terrorism. He falsely equates religious Zionists and Islamists. Extremist Jews are a minority, with no say in policy towards the Palestinians and no charter calling for the murder of their neighbors. The Palestinian public elected Islamists, who took over the Gaza Strip, and immediately started acting on their desire to destroy Israel and kill Jews.

If you wonder why there is so much hostility towards Jews and Israel on campus, look no further than the professors who teach already ignorant students that facts don’t matter, only narratives. By disseminating misinformation about history, they hinder genuine understanding of the conflict. Worse still, they push a false equivalence between the positions of Israelis and Palestinians, distorting reality and perpetuating animosity.

The post Our Own Worst Enemies first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Post Views: 406
Related Topics:
Continue Reading

RSS

Marco Rubio Says US Denying Visas to Foreigners ‘Celebrating’ Assassination of Charlie Kirk

Marco Rubio speaks after he is sworn in as Secretary of State by US Vice President JD Vance at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building in Washington, DC, Jan. 21, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Monday that the US is denying visas to foreigners who publicly celebrate the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, a move he cast as part of a broader posture against extremist rhetoric.

While traveling in the Middle East, Rubio told reporters that the State Department has been denying visas to individuals glorifying Kirk’s murder online. He added that officials are also reviewing existing visas and that he expects some to be revoked.

“It isn’t just about Charlie Kirk. If you’re a foreigner and you’re out there celebrating the assassination of someone who was speaking somewhere, I mean, we don’t want you in the country,” Rubio said. “Why would we want to give a visa to someone who think it’s good that someone was murdered in the public square? That’s just common sense to me.”

When asked if the US has actually revoked any visas yet, Rubio responded, “We’ve revoked visas of people. I don’t know if we’ve revoked visas of people that are inside the country. We’ve most certainly been denying visas.”

Rubio also addressed the issue in a social media post on X while sharing a video from a Fox News interview during which he was asked if he planned to restrict visa access or revoke visas for those celebrating Kirk’s killing.

“America will not host foreigners who celebrate the death of our fellow citizens,” Rubio said in the post accompanying the video. “Visa revocations are under way. If you are here on a visa and cheering on the public assassination of a political figure, prepare to be deported. You are not welcome in this country.”

Kirk, a prominent conservative activist and founder of the influential Turning Point USA organization, was shot and killed last week while speaking at Utah Valley University. Authorities have formally charged 22‑year‑old Tyler Robinson of Utah with aggravated murder and several related offenses, including discharge of a firearm, obstruction of justice, and witness tampering.

Rubio’s announcement comes amid intensifying efforts by the Trump administration to expel foreigners who express support for violence or terrorism. The administration has launched an overhaul of the US visa system, part of what officials describe as an effort to root out individuals deemed a potential threat to the country. The sweeping measures include expanded social media vetting for new applicants, continuous monitoring of the 55 million current visa holders, and the revocation of thousands of student visas.

Several of the online posts praising Kirk’s assassination have emerged from the Middle East, with individuals condemning the slain political activist over his vocal support for Israel. During his life, Kirk repeatedly spoke in defense of the Jewish state and expressed support for its military campaign in Gaza.

Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau concurred with Rubio’s statement, calling on consular officials to prevent the distribution of visas to anyone “praising, rationalizing, or making light of” the murder of Kirk.

Rubio has not explained the standards the State Department is using to determine what qualifies as “celebrating” the assassination. Some critics have speculated that this ambiguity could set up legal challenges from advocacy groups, who are already warning about the First Amendment and due process implications.

Post Views: 6
Continue Reading

RSS

‘Down With Fascists’: Columbia Activist Who Said ‘Zionists Don’t Deserve to Live’ Celebrates Charlie Kirk’s Murder

Khymani James, Columbia University student who filmed himself saying Zionists should be murdered. Photo: Screenshot

A former leader of the anti-Israel movement at Columbia University expressed full support for the murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk last week.

Khymani James, who made the posts, was a “campus a leader in the pro-Palestinian student protest encampment” at Columbia, according to The New York Times.

In the aftermath of Kirk’s assassination, James posted on X, “More. MORE!!!,” referencing the killing. He followed up that post by saying, “Down with all the fascists 😍.” (He later also called California Gov. Gavin Newsom a fascist.)

In another post, James wrote, “‘Be careful what you post’ and it’s people rightfully celebrating the inevitable and just fate of fascists. anywho… NO ONE MOURNS THE WICKED 😩🤣.”

In addition to the posts he wrote, James also reposted statements such as “Thoughts and prayers for the bullet,” “rest in piss,” and “saw that s–t and started giggling and kicking my feet and shouting YOOOOOO.”

In James’s biography on the social platform X, he notes, “Anything I said, I meant it. DEATH TO EMPIRE.”

This is not the first time James has rhetorically supported violence. Last year, he was on video saying, “Zionists don’t deserve to live,” and proclaiming that people should “be grateful that I’m not just going out and murdering Zionists.”

He also said, “I don’t fight to injure or for there to be a winner or a loser. I fight to kill.”

The comments triggered widespread backlash, and James was suspended by Columbia. The incident also resulted in what was widely seen as an apology for James on behalf of Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD), one of the most notorious anti-Israel campus groups in the US. Months later, however, the group retracted its previous apology.

“All CUAD organizers were complicit in not maintaining our political line, keeping the statement public on our Instagram, and in neglecting the mental and physical safety of Khymani,” the post read. CUAD apologized for causing “irrevocable harm” to him.

Despite James’s comments about the possibility of murdering Zionists, CUAD’s post claimed that he was criticized and socially ostracized for “fight[ing] back against state violence.”

James also responded to this post, writing on X, “Thank you to my comrades for posting this beautiful, powerful letter. I never wrote the neo-liberal apology posted in late April, and I’m glad we’ve set the record straight once and for all. I will not allow anyone to shame me for my politics.”

“Anything I said, I meant it,” he concluded.

Kirk, 31, was shot and killed during a speaking event at Utah Valley University, where he was engaging in dialogue with students. He is survived by his wife and two young children. A young Utah man — Tyler Robinson, 22 — was taken into custody last week as the suspected shooter, about 33 hours after the assassination, according to state and federal law enforcement.

Kirk was an outspoken supporter of Israel and advocate against antisemitism. He regularly debated students on the subject of Israel and brought his ideas to young people at a time when, according to recent polling, that age group was turning decidedly against the Jewish state.

“There’s a dark Jew hate out there, and I see it,” Kirk told a student during a podcast episode which aired earlier this year. “Don’t get yourself involved in that. I’m telling you it will rot your brain. It’s bad for your soul. It’s bad. It’s evil. I think it’s demonic.”

Post Views: 11
Continue Reading

RSS

Spain’s PM Sánchez Faces Backlash for Fueling Anti-Israel Hostility Amid Surge in Antisemitic Incidents

Cycling – Vuelta a Espana – Stage 21 – Alalpardo to Madrid – Madrid, Spain – Sept. 14, 2025: Barriers are smashed by anti-Israel protesters during Stage 21. Photo: REUTERS/Ana Beltran

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez is facing backlash from his country’s political leaders and Jewish community, who accuse him of fueling antisemitic hostility after incidents at the Vuelta a España disrupted the prestigious cycling race.

Amid a sharp rise in anti-Jewish hate crimes and anti-Israel sentiment, Lorenzo Rodríguez, mayor of Castrillo Mota de Judíos in northern Spain, accused the country’s leader of “fueling a discourse of hatred” against Israel and the Jewish people.

“The government is fostering antisemitism that will prove deeply damaging for Spain,” Rodríguez said in an interview with the local outlet El Español.

“Sánchez’s moves are less about serious foreign policy and more about deflecting attention from his trials and failures in governance,” he continued. “Spain isn’t leading anything — it’s merely whitewashing Hamas and other terrorist groups.”

On Sunday, anti-Israel protests forced the finale of the Vuelta a España cycle race to be abandoned as police tried to quell demonstrations against the participation of an Israeli team.

In his interview, Rodríguez blamed Sánchez for fostering a hostile climate in Spain, saying the country is witnessing “hatred toward an entire people.”

He also criticized the Spanish leader for failing to take a strong stand on other international crises, including those in Russia and Venezuela.

“We all recognize that the Palestinian people are suffering, but the solution cannot be to blame the Jewish people,” Rodríguez said.

“People are afraid. There’s growing concern because our town was recently targeted,” he continued. “We are being singled out and threatened even though we have nothing to do with this war.”

Before the incidents on Sunday that led to the race’s cancellation, Sánchez expressed “admiration for the Spanish people mobilizing for just causes like Palestine” through their protests.

Madrid’s Mayor José Luis Martínez-Almeida strongly condemned Sánchez’s statement, accusing him of encouraging hostility and fueling tensions.

“The prime minister is directly responsible for this violence, as his statements this morning helped instigate the protests,” Martinez-Almeida said after the race was canceled.

“Today is the saddest day since I took office as mayor of this great city,” he continued.

Santiago Abascal, leader of the far-right Vox party, also criticized Sánchez’s remarks, accusing him of stoking division to maintain his hold on power.

“The psychopath has taken his militias to the streets,” Abascal wrote in a post on X. “He doesn’t care about Gaza. He doesn’t care about Spain. He doesn’t care about anything. But he wants violence in the streets to maintain power.”

Shortly after the incidents, the Federation of Jewish Communities of Spain (FCJE) publicly denounced the violence, urging authorities to respond quickly and decisively.

“Violence and intimidation have no place in a democratic society and cannot be excused under the guise of freedom of expression,” FCJE said in a statement.

“These violent demonstrations fuel hatred and contribute to a concerning rise in antisemitism in Spain, which we have been warning about over the past two years,” the statement read. “It is unacceptable that violence is justified on ideological grounds and hostility is directed toward the Jewish community”

Since the start of the war in Gaza, Spain has become one of Israel’s fiercest critics, a stance that has only intensified in recent months, coinciding with a shocking rise in antisemitic incidents targeting the local Jewish community — from violent assaults and vandalism to protests and legal actions.

On Monday, Sánchez called for Israel to be barred from international sports events after pro-Palestinian activists disrupted the finale of the Vuelta cycling race in chaotic scenes in Madrid.

“The sports organizations should ask whether it’s ethical for Israel to continue participating in international competitions. Why was Russia expelled after invading Ukraine, yet Israel is not expelled after the invasion of Gaza?” Sánchez said while speaking to members of his Socialist Party.

“Until the barbarity ends, neither Russia nor Israel should be allowed to participate in any international competition,” the Spanish leader continued.

Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar condemned Sánchez’s remarks, labeling him “an antisemite and a liar.”

“Did Israel invade Gaza on Oct. 7th or did the Hamas terror state invade Israel and commit the worst massacre against the Jews since the Holocaust?” the top Israeli diplomat wrote in a post on X.

The Palestinian terrorist group Hamas started the war in Gaza on Oct. 7, 2023, when it led an invasion of southern Israel, murdered 1,200 people, and kidnapped 251 hostages while perpetrating widespread sexual violence against the Israeli people.

Israel responded with an ongoing military campaign aimed at freeing the hostages and dismantling Hamas’s military capabilities and political rule in Gaza.

As part of its anti-Israel campaign, Spain announced on Tuesday that it will boycott next year’s Eurovision Song Contest if Israel participates, citing the country’s military offensive against Hamas in the war-torn enclave.

Last week, Sánchez also unveiled new policies targeting Israel over the war in Gaza, including an arms embargo and a ban on certain Israeli goods.

The Spanish government announced it would bar entry to individuals involved in what it called a “genocide against Palestinians,” block Israel-bound ships and aircraft carrying weapons from Spanish ports and airspace, and enforce an embargo on products from Israeli communities in the West Bank.

In one of its latest attempts to curb Israel’s defensive campaign in Gaza, Spain has canceled a €700 million ($825 million) deal for Israeli-designed rocket launchers, as the government conducts a broader review to systematically phase out Israeli weapons and technology from its armed forces.

Saar has denounced Sánchez’s latest actions, accusing the government in Madrid of antisemitism and of pursuing an escalating anti-Israel campaign aimed at undermining the Jewish state on the international stage.

“The government of Spain is leading a hostile, anti-Israel line, marked by wild, hate-filled rhetoric,” Saar wrote in a post on X, accusing Sánchez’s “corrupt” administration of trying to “divert attention from grave corruption scandals.”

“The obsessive activism of the current Spanish government against Israel stands out in light of its ties with dark, tyrannical regimes — from Iran’s ayatollahs to [Nicolás] Maduro’s government in Venezuela,” the Israeli diplomat continued.

Post Views: 17
Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News