RSS
Our Own Worst Enemies
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.
RSS
Change in the Middle East? Don’t Hold Your Breath
One year after Hamas’ October 7 massacre, I noticed a cluster of articles in various sources referring to strategic realignments among some of the players in the Middle East.
For example, Zvika Klein interprets the muted responses from Egypt, the UAE and Saudi Arabia to Israel’s latest bombing of military sites in Iran as indicating that, while each country continues to give lip service to the Palestinian cause, their primary attention has shifted to restraining Iran.
Maria Abi-Habib and Ismaeel Naar come to the opposite conclusion. Noting what appears to be a possible rapprochement between Iran and rival Saudi Arabia, they see a Middle East shift in which Saudi Arabia’s interest in a normalization deal has passed, and Israel’s profile as a regional player is diminished.
An article by Aida Chávez reports that after the killing of Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar, US Congressional leaders such as Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) discussed wide-ranging Middle East scenarios, including US guarantees of Saudi security along with Saudi and Gulf State help in reconstruction and governance of Gaza.
Meanwhile, Neville Berman reminds us of the success of the Marshall Plan in rebuilding Europe after World War II, suggesting something similar for Gaza — but only after the release of the Israeli hostages and after the people of Gaza reject Hamas and the “pyromaniacal aims of Iran.”
Finally, Fahad Almasri, President of the National Salvation Front in Syria, a group opposed to the Assad government, believes that Israel’s battles with Hezbollah and Iran have won the hearts of a majority of the Lebanese and Syrian people. Almasri argues that an Arab version of NATO, led by Saudi Arabia, would reduce foreign involvement in the area (especially Iran’s) and support peaceful relations with Israel.
While these proposals may be well intentioned, I am skeptical. We have seen this movie before. Previous starring roles, for example, involved Egypt under Nasser and Syria. Who remembers the late United Arab Republic?
In 1958, when John F. Kennedy was a senator, the world was dealing with the aftermath of the Suez Crisis. America was not Israel’s close ally. In fact, the US continued to enforce an embargo on arms sales to Israel. That year Kennedy wrote the following:
Even by the coldest calculations, the removal of Israel would not alter the basic crisis in the area. For, if there is any lesson which the melancholy events of the last two years and more taught us, it is that, though Arab states are generally united in opposition to Israel, their political unities do not rise above this negative position. The basic rivalries within the Arab world, the quarrels over boundaries, the tensions involved in lifting their economies from stagnation, the cross pressures of nationalism — all of these factors would still be there, even if there were no Israel.
What was true 66 years ago is still true today.
The prominent actors in the region are the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia, all authoritarian regimes that rank far down on The Economist’s democracy index. Their influence is due to oil and gas revenues. Only 12 percent of the three million people living in Qatar, for example, are Qataris. (The same percentage applies to the UAE.) The vast majority are support workers from abroad. Qatar has been compared to a good airport terminal: pleasantly air-conditioned, lots of shopping, a wide selection of food, and people from around the world.
The Abraham Accords may yet lead to peace between Israel and all her neighbors, and adding Saudi Arabia to the Accords is laudable, but don’t get your hopes up.
Jacob Sivak, a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, is a retired professor, University of Waterloo.
The post Change in the Middle East? Don’t Hold Your Breath first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
NYT’s ‘65 Doctors’ Essay Crumbles as Evidence of Embellished Testimony Mounts
The New York Times recently defended its guest essay, in which 65 medical professionals recounted their experiences working in Gaza.
The essay included graphic accounts suggesting that the IDF deliberately targets civilians, including women and children. It also featured X-ray images that were later scrutinized by medical experts for inconsistencies, casting doubt on their authenticity.
Six days after publication, amid growing questions about the credibility of these accounts and the evidence provided, The New York Times issued a statement asserting that the essay had been “rigorously edited” and standing by the contributors’ credentials. The statement further insisted, “Any implication that its images are fabricated is simply false.”
Despite this defense, more evidence soon surfaced, challenging the essay’s claims.
In The Jurist, two physicians and medical ethicists described allegations that Israeli forces intentionally targeted children’s heads in Gaza as “highly implausible,” citing ballistic evidence, medical imaging analysis, and the realities of combat. They emphasized the ethical imperative for healthcare workers to provide impartial, fact-based accounts in conflict zones.
In addition to concerns about the X-rays, HonestReporting can now reveal inconsistencies in at least one of the accounts given by a doctor featured in the essay.
Dr. Khawaja Ikram, an orthopedic surgeon from Dallas, Texas, describes treating two children, aged three and five, who he alleges were shot in the head by an Israeli sniper as they returned with their father to survey their home in Khan Younis:
However, this is not the first time Ikram has spoken to a media outlet about his experience in Gaza.
In a February interview with NBC Dallas-Fort Worth, more than six months before the New York Times essay, Ikram recounted a strikingly similar story — though with several key differences.
He described treating a man who arrived at the hospital carrying his five-year-old daughter, claiming she had sustained a “single bullet wound to the head.” According to Ikram, the father said, “We thought the troops were pulling back, so we went to check on our home. There were snipers waiting. My five-year-old daughter was shot. She’s my only daughter, please save her.”
The narrative is nearly identical to the one Ikram later gave to The New York Times, but in his earlier account, no mention was made of the additional three-year-old child who was allegedly shot. If his later testimony is accurate, we must ask why this significant detail was omitted in the earlier interview.
Despite The New York Times’ vigorous defense of the essay, mounting evidence continues to discredit both the accounts and the purported evidence within the piece.
It raises serious questions about how thoroughly the Times vetted the doctors involved. Did they even check if these individuals had shared their stories before, and whether there were discrepancies in the details?
As the credibility of the 65 doctors’ essay unravels, The New York Times cannot continue to ignore the cracks.
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 NYT’s ‘65 Doctors’ Essay Crumbles as Evidence of Embellished Testimony Mounts first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Actress Ellen Barkin Calls for Nazi Persecution of MSG Owners, Death of Trump Supporters After New York Rally
Actress Ellen Barkin said on Sunday she wants the owners of Madison Square Garden (MSG) to face the same persecution Jews experienced from the Nazis during the Holocaust because the famous New York City venue held a rally for Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump during which several racist insults were made.
The “Ocean’s Thirteen” actress, whose parents are Russian Jews, also called Trump a “Nazi” and called for the death of those who attended what she called the “Nazi rally” in several posts on X, formerly know as Twitter.
“Madison Square Garden is owned by James Dolan,” Barkin, 70, wrote. “A major supporter of Nazi trump. His accomplice is one Irving Azoff. A Jew. A shonda for the goyim if ever one lived. May they suffer the pain of all who suffered at the hands of the Nazi regime.” Shonda means disgrace in Yiddish while goyim means non-Jews.
In separate posts on X, the former “Animal Kingdom” star advocated for a boycott of MSG. “Justice would be served if athletes and artists refused to play the Garden,” she wrote.
The actress compared Trump’s Sunday night event to a Nazi rally held in MSG in 1939 and also wrote, “I don’t wish death on anyone … except pedophiles and Nazis. The gangs all here at MSG.”
“I’m thinking biblical,” she added. “May the good earth beneath MSG open its fiery jaws and hurl them all straight into the burning cauldron of the 9 circles. Going down maggots?”
Dolan is the executive chairman and chief executive officer (CEO) of Madison Square Garden Entertainment Corp. (MSG Entertainment). In 2018, MSG and Azoff, a music industry tycoon, signed a joint agreement that led to the formation of The Azoff Company, which helps run the media and music venue in New York City. MSG has previously hosted both the Democratic National Convention and the Republican National Convention. US President Joe Biden held an event in March at Radio City Music Hall, which is owned by the Dolan family.
Dolan, who is reportedly a registered Democrat, is a longtime friend of Trump’s and got married at the latter’s Mar-A-Lago resort in Florida. During his speech at the rally on Sunday, Trump thanked Dolan, saying: “He’s been incredible. He’s been just incredible. The job they’ve done. The job they’ve done. Thank you.”
During the Trump rally in MSG on Sunday, stand-up comedian Tony Hinchcliffe made racist and offensive comments about Latinos, Jews, and Black people, just a little over a week away from the US presidential election. Hinchcliffe, who hosts the podcast Kill Tony, joked about a Black person in the audience, saying he had “carved watermelons” with the audience member instead of pumpkins for Halloween.
He additionally said during the rally: “I don’t know if you guys know this, but there’s literally a floating island of garbage in the middle of the ocean right now. I think it’s called Puerto Rico.” That comment sparked backlash from several Puerto Ricans in the entertainment industry, including singers Jennifer Lopez, Marc Anthony, Ricky Martin and Bad Bunny, and “The View” co-host Sunny Hostin.
Also while on stage, he said of Latinos: “[They] love making babies. They do. There’s no pulling out. They don’t do that. They come inside. Just like they did to our country.”
Trump campaign adviser Danielle Alvarez said in a statement reported by The Hill that Hinchcliffe’s joke about Puerto Rico “does not reflect the views of President Trump or the campaign.” An MSG Entertainment spokesperson told The Hollywood Reporter on Monday: “As a business we are neutral in political matters. We rent to either side. We don’t censor artists, performers, or speakers.”
Hinchcliffe took to social media to defend his joke about Puerto Rico. He responded to a clip on X of Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) criticizing his remark, and wrote that his joke was “taken out of context to make it seem racist.”
“These people have no sense of humor,” he said. “I love Puerto Rico and vacation there. I made fun of everyone … watch the whole set. I’m a comedian Tim … might be time to change your tampon.”
The post Actress Ellen Barkin Calls for Nazi Persecution of MSG Owners, Death of Trump Supporters After New York Rally first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login