At 71 Israel as a Jewish State is Justified

Nigel Woodley

This is the text of a full page advertisement placed in every major daily of New Zealand by For the Protection of Zion Trust.

At 71 ISRAEL as a Jewish State is JUSTIFIED

A JEWISH STATE WAS NEEDED

On 14 May 1948 the first Prime Minister of the modern State of Israel, David Ben-Gurion, proclaimed these words in Israel’s declaration of Independence:

“The catastrophe which recently befell the Jewish people – massacre of millions of Jews in Europe was another clear demonstration of the urgency of solving the problem of homelessness by reason-establishing arrests-Israel the Jewish state.

The State of Israel will be open for Jewish immigration and for the ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants respectable religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the holy places of all religions…”

The State of Israel has been faithful to the words expressed by Ben-Gurion. It has taken in millions of Jews from around the globe – hundreds of thousands who were refugees from war-ravaged Europe were among the first to arrive in 1948. Within months of the birth of the state, the Displaced Persons camps in Europe that housed devastated Jews were closed down as their occupants had gone home to Israel. Many more who were forced out of Arab states in the Middle East and North Africa in the first few years of independence arrived back home too. Israel has dealt with Jewish “homelessness” and continues to do so because Israel is the indigenous Jewish homeland.

All sectors of Israeli society – Jewish, Arab, Muslim, Christian, Druze et cetera share equality in the benefits of the nation in education and culture, politics and religion, business and employment. All have the same equal opportunities you would find in any other genuine democracy. Of course, there are problems being worked out within that democracy but there is not one democratic State in the world which is still not ‘a work in progress’ – New Zealand included. In his speech as Israeli Foreign Minister to the United Nations commemorating the Holocaust in 2005 Silvan Shalom said:

“Since its establishment Israel has provided a haven for Jews facing persecution anywhere in the world. At the same time, it has built a society based on the values of democracy and freedom for all its citizens, where Jewish life and culture and literature and religion and learning – all those things which the Nazis thought to destroy – can flourish and thrive.”

Recent history proves that there needed to be a Jewish State and it must remain a Jewish state. Nazi Germany has long gone but anti-Semites are still found in every nook and cranny and they are increasing rapidly. Sometimes it is blatant and directed against the Jewish people simply because they are Jews. In other times it is veiled and directed against the State of the Jewish people in the form of anti-Israel policies at the UN. Anti-Zionist sentiment is another manifestation of anti-Semitism. Zionism is simply the ideal of the Jew to live on his natural, historical and ancestral homeland. Anti-Semitism is unjustified persecution against the Jewish people. Its political companion is espoused as anti-Zionist sentiments and anti-Israel conduct in international affairs. The Basic (Nation State) Law passed by Israel’s lawmakers in 2018 which was decried by its opponents as apartheid and racist, is a clarification of what Ben-Gurion declared at Israel’s independence. It is not anti-Arab or anti- any race or religion. It simply enshrines the need to preserve the State of Israel as a Jewish State that will always remain just that, while at the same time giving respect and room to non-Jews who live within that state.

A JEWISH STATE MUST REMAIN

The nations who gathered at Evian and in France in July 1938 just prior to the Second World War offered the Jews of Europe little hope of sanctuary or a salvation. After gathering there to discuss the Jewish refugee crisis which was growing because of Hitler’s policies, many of the 32 representatives seem to be more absorbed by the luxuries and pleasures the holiday resort afforded than the refugee problem they had gathered to discuss. To the shame of the international community they offered little to the Jews of Europe at a time when the fires of extermination were being kindled. Had there existed by this time the Jewish State that the League of Nations had promised years earlier then millions of European Jews could have been saved. Both Canada and Australia have recently made official apologies to the Jewish people for their callousness toward desperate European Jewish refugees. New Zealand had an affirmative part in the League of Nations decision in 1922 to grant Palestine to the Jewish people as their national homeland.

Our nation also was part of the Evian discussion in 1938 and although Jewish refugees were taken in by New Zealand our quota was far too small. Everything changed with the re-establishment of Jewish statehood.

When the Jews of North Africa and the Middle East were being persecuted after the war it was the reinstated State of Israel which came to their rescue. More Jewish refugees were taken in by Israel in its formative years of existence because of Arab persecution and the displacement of Palestinian refugees as a result of Israel’s War of Independence which was forced upon Israel by the Arab nations.

In 1967 as strong Arab armies began to mobilise and converge upon Israel’s vulnerable borders with the express aim of destroying the 19-year-old Jewish state, the United Nations abandoned the responsibility to step in and chastise the Arab nations for their threat to a sovereign democracy. Even France who at the time was Israel’s closest ally abandoned her at her time of need. In desperation the Israelis were forced to act with a pre-emptive strike against the Arab air forces which were threatening them. Within six days, adding to the Arab shame for their aggression against Israel, was the Arab humiliation of a resounding defeat. The rest is history.

When an airliner of innocent Jews was taken hostage and ended up at Entebbe airport in Uganda in 1976 it was the State of Israel who came to their rescue. The Jews of Ethiopia were rescued from great peril in dramatic air lifts and operations that took place in 1984 and 1991. These air lifts would rival any of the Bible stories that have made the people of Israel famous from antiquity. With the demise of the Soviet Union in 1989 it was the State of Israel that offered many of the Jews of that crumbling empire a real refuge and hope. Over a million came from the former Soviet Union in just 10 years. Without the State of Israel the Jews would have been at the mercy of non-democratic regimes which were cruel, ruthless and anti-Semitic.

There needs to remain an independent Jewish State that can function with or without the cooperation of other nations. The horror of all horrors – the Holocaust – just 75 years ago, as well as blatant and increasing anti-Semitism everywhere, demands the continuation of Jewish statehood. The Jewish people are justified in having their own sovereign state. They have learned from centuries of experience at the hands of merciless persecutors. Now amid threats from Iran and others who have stated that their aim is to completely destroy them; when it comes to the security of their very existence “we will defend ourselves by ourselves.” This is the lesson they have learned after millennia of Jew-hatred.

NEW ZEALAND MUST BACK THE JEWISH STATE

The anti-Semitic movement which is trying to disguise itself as a humanitarian cause for the Palestinian Arabs – BDS (for boycotts, divestments and sanctions against the State of Israel) – is primarily a political weapon in the hands of Israel’s enemies to try and discredit and delegitimise the Jewish people in their quest to maintain their self-determination. The chance of the BDS activists which correlates with their maps of Palestine (showing no room for a Jewish state) is “From the River to the Sea Palestine will be free!” This really is the intent and purpose behind BDS – not just to legitimise Israel but to damn the State altogether. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau summed it up when he said of BDS in January, “we need to understand that anti-Semitism has also manifested itself not just as in targeting of individuals but it is also targeting a new condemnation of anti-Semitism against the very State of Israel… which can be characterised by the three D’s – demonisation of Israel, a double standard around Israel and a de-legitimisation of the State of Israel… I will continue to condemn the BDS movement.”

There is indeed a double standard in the UN when it comes to Israel. We saw that at the end of 2016 and the UN Security Council Resolution 2334 when Israeli settlements were condemned out right, without respect to secure borders or to the historic connection the Jews have to the land. The ratio of condemnations dished out by the UN against Israel as compared to the rest of the world is usually at least four condemnations to Israel for every one condemnation to all the other nations combined. That’s a DOUBLE STANDARD. When despotic and un-democratic nations are bypassed and the one true democracy in the Middle East is ostracised unjustly then it’s time for New Zealand to stand aside from the crowd and vote against these anti-Israel resolutions. National party leaders who were in government at the time UNSC Resolution 2334 was passed have since admitted that the resolution was “wrong”. In a more recent case, on 6 December 2018 under the Labour-led government, New Zealand voted in favour of a UN resolution condemning the terrorism of Hamas but immediately prior to this abstained on another resolution to require a two thirds majority for the Hamas condemnation to be passed. New Zealand honourably condemned Hamas terrorism in one vote but first dishonourably killed that vote by sitting on the fence. Why require a two thirds majority to condemn terrorism? Again it seems truth was sacrificed for appeasement to Arab pressure. The elusive Middle East peace deal, if ever realised, will never produce a lasting peace as long as historical truth is its sacrificial lamb – a sacrifice the UN seemed eager to make but a deal Israel should never accept.

The best chance of the real deal will only be achieved if the United Nations step aside and allow honest negotiations to go ahead between the Israelis and the Palestinians. At present the Israelis are being coerced into giving up land that is theirs historically. The Palestinians are demanding that territory as if it is theirs. The historical record backs the Jewish people. Any deal is going to require cooperation from both sides. The Israelis have shown their willingness to placate the Palestinians on this but the Palestinians have not returned the favour. Let’s be clear: the Israelis hold land they have a right to hold. The Palestinians want that land. The best chance for a peaceful outcome is NEGOTIATION and respect between the two parties. The best way to botch this is by continued unfair and one-sided UN resolutions against Israel which New Zealand often supports. Despite his domestic challenges in Canada recently, New Zealand government could still learn from Justin Trudeau.

Pastor Nigel Woodley

FOR THE PROTECTION OF ZION TRUST
PO Box 15058 Flaxmere, Hastings 4154
Released for publication 29 March 2019.

Nigel Woodley is Senior Pastor of the Flaxmere Christian Fellowship Church in Hastings and is an advocate for the rights of the Jewish People to live on their historical and indigenous homeland in the land of Israel.

%MCEPASTEBIN%

TEL AVIV: Eurovision 2019 is underway | BBC

Like it or not, Eurovision 2019 is underway in Tel Aviv despite the BDS movement’s best efforts to put a stop to it.

Here, the BBC surveys the contest and picks out their songs to watch.

Remarkably the Australian contestant is their first pick. Who knew they were even competing?

Icelandic punk? Polish folk? Norwegian… joik? It can only be Eurovision, back again to bring another musical smorgasbord into our living rooms.

Forty-one nations are competing in Tel Aviv, though after two semi-finals that will be whittled down to 26 in time for Saturday’s grand final.

This year has not been without controversy, what with Ukraine withdrawing from the competition and questions being raised over Israel’s suitability as host.

Yet that will not stop millions of fans gathering in front of their televisions this weekend for their annual fix of glamour, kitsch and spectacle.

We’ve had a listen to this year’s selected songs and chosen 20 that stand out from the pack.

Read more

CHRISTCHURCH, Sunday 2pm: “Denial”

Deborah Liptstadt

On Sunday in Christchurch we will be screening the movie “Denial”, the fascinating story of how a British court found David Irving guilty of being a fraudulent Holocaust denier after accusing historian Deborah Lipstadt of libel after she called him out.

Here’s an article by Lipstadt commenting on Anti-Semitism in the US today.  However, there are themes here that should resonate with New Zealand readers. 

The NZ government’s silence regarding the recent Gaza rocket attacks, and not calling out BDS actions in New Zealand as anti-Semitism show how conflicted our government’s attitudes are in relation to Israel.

The screening will be on Sunday, May 19, 2pm, Northwood Villa Clubrooms, Northwood Villa Crescent, Northwood, Christchurch 8051. Please bring a plate of finger food for afternoon tea.  We’d be grateful if you refrained from bringing any pork and/or seafood products.  

Read more

Seeing Inside the Israeli Ultra-Orthodox Community on the Netflix Series “Shtisel” | New Yorker

At the end of 2018, Netflix picked up the Israeli sitcom “Shtisel”.  The NY Times said it was “binge-worthy” viewing.  Here’s the New Yorker’s review of this popular show.  Shtisel can be seen on Netflix NZ.  

I’ve been fascinated by the Haredi, or ultra-Orthodox, community in Israel for as long as I can remember. I grew up in a Jerusalem neighborhood a short car ride away from their most insular enclave, in Mea Shearim, and on trips that required passing through that part of town—to the dentist, to a friend’s father’s house—I used to watch their large families with envy: packs of children running side by side on cobbled streets, the girls in velvety dresses that appeared to have been cut from a single fabric, in what struck me then as an elaborate show of sisterhood.

Read more

A Terrorist Tried to Kill Me Because I Am a Jew. I Will Never Back Down | NY Times

Rabbi Goldstein

Inspiring…

Today should have been my funeral.

I was preparing to give my sermon Shabbat morning, Saturday, which was also the last day of Passover, the festival of our freedom, when I heard a loud bang in the lobby of my synagogue.

I thought a table had fallen down or maybe even that, God forbid, my dear friend Lori Gilbert Kaye had tripped and fallen. Only a few moments earlier I had greeted Lori there; she had come to services to say Yizkor, the mourning prayer, for her late mother.

I went to the lobby to check on her. What I saw in those seconds will haunt me for the rest of my days.

Read more

An Expert on Anti-Semitism Fears for the Future in Britain | Tablet Mag

Dr David Hirsh

As a young boy growing up in the affluent North London suburb of Highgate, the writer and academic David Hirsh was always dimly aware that something was different.  An uneasy family history lay behind his pleasant existence. Behind the joy there was trauma. He could sense it. Now, over forty years later, he worries that for young Jewish children, the type of idyllic childhood he enjoyed may one day be impossible.

Hirsh is one of the UK’s leading Jewish intellectuals and he is speaking out on the growing problem of anti-Semitism in this country. Above all, he fighting a strain of Western history’s oldest hatred coming from the unlikeliest of sources. Britain’s Labour Party, once the political home of much of the country’s Jewish population, is now led by the far-left, anti-Semite Jeremy Corbyn, and an inner circle dominated by extremists.

And, Hirsh, a true and lifelong a man of the left, is very, very worried.

Read more

New Zealand needs to learn from Israel’s MMP disaster | NZ Herald

It’s always good to look at others and potentially learn.

What I have learned out of the Israeli election is their threshold is too low. They run a system like ours. We are looking to adjust our threshold down. This is a mistake.

I thought it was a mistake before I looked at Israel. Having looked at Israel, I am even more convinced it’s a mistake. Israel’s threshold is 3.25 per cent.

They have 10 parties that cross it. The two main parties barely get half of what they need by way of seats to win government.

Compare that to our last result: the Nats got 56, just short of the 61. Labour got 46. Short (you could argue too short) given they needed two parties to prop them up.

But nowhere near as short as say the Likud party with about 33. Being that short requires a lot of deals with a lot of small parties to get you across the line. The more parties, the more deals, the more reasons to have it fall apart.

Our example, our current government, has held together well. Whatever differences there have been, have been kept behind closed doors.

There has been the odd sense that things might be tense, and Lord knows what has been hashed out with the capital gain tax, but at some point New Zealand First, for example, are going to have to distance themselves from Labour. Otherwise, they’re going to get swallowed up.

But imagine if this lot was made up of six parties? And they weren’t all compliant and they weren’t all mates? And that’s what you get in Israel.

And it’s what you get with low thresholds – the sort of thresholds Labour want to implement here. They want 4 per cent.

Now back to Israel: what do we learn from them? Well not just that 3.25 per cent is too low and it produces too many parties and too many multi-party deals. But, and this is the critical part, the 3.25 per cent is the latest move up. They’re increasing the threshold.

From 1949-1992 it was 1 per cent. From 1992-2003 it was 1.5 per cent. From 2003-2014 it was 2 per cent. From 2014: 3.25 per cent.

Now why do you think they’ve done that? And why have they done it with increasing regularity? Because a low threshold is dangerous, the lower it is, the more nutters get to cross the line.

Even at 5 per cent, all we require of a party is to find five people out of 100 to back an idea or a concept – 95 people can think you’re mad, and still you can get to run the country.

Quality is critical in any government, in terms of experience and discipline and professionalism and some form of representation of the wider populace. If you’re allowing any form of radicalism or craziness or minority extremism in through a low bar, you will pay the price.

Israel clearly did, and they’re fixing it. How can we look at that example and still want to lower the bar and move towards what they’re busy rejecting?

Source

Ilhan Omar, Harbinger of Democratic Decline? | NY Times

Congresswomen Ilhan Omar, D-Minn

Spot the problem with the quoted remarks:

(1) The Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 was “something some people did.”

(2) Last month’s attack on two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, was “something someone did.”

(3) The 2015 massacre at a black church in Charleston, S.C., was “something someone did.”

Now imagine that a public figure with a history of making racially inflammatory remarks — someone like Representative Steve King of Iowa or, better yet, President Trump — had said any of this. (Neither of them did.) Would you not be appalled?

Of course you would. You’d be insulted by the evasiveness of the something and someone. You’d be revolted that a right-wing politician would fail to speak forcefully against the bigotries too often found among his followers and fellow travelers. You’d be disgusted by the deliberate attempt to conceal the scale of the horror, the identity of the perpetrators, and the racist ideology that motivated them.

And you’d make no allowances for the possibility that the politician in question might have merely misspoken, especially if he failed to apologize, clarify or correct himself. With political power comes rhetorical responsibility.

 

The bulk of Omar’s speech was devoted to preaching political empowerment for American Muslims and denouncing Islamophobia. That’s fine as far as it goes.

But contrary to claims by some of her apologists, the remark is not taken out of context, it is not contradicted by anything else she says in the speech, and it is not marred merely because it is factually mistaken. (CAIR was founded seven years before 9/11.) Nor is the problem a matter of inapt phrasing: Omar is a confident public speaker with a precise command of language and a knack for turning a phrase.

The problem is that the remark is foul, in exactly the same way that the hypothetical remarks listed above are foul. I live in lower Manhattan, near the 9/11 memorial and museum. No decent person can look at the portraits of the 2,983 victims of Islamist terrorists and say, by-the-by, that this was “something” that “some people did.”

The problem is also that the remarks didn’t come from just anyone. Just as Trump has repeatedly made his ethnic prejudices plain, so has Omar. She has demonized Israel, and American supporters of Israel, in terms that are unmistakably anti-Semitic. She has been reproached by fellow Democrats, claimed ignorance by way of apology, and then slurred Jews again without apology. And despite claiming to be a champion of human rights, she has been oddly selective about the human-rights issues that elicit her outrage.

Now Omar’s defenders are keen to paint her as a victim of Islamophobia, which no doubt she is. In this case, however, a victim of bigotry is also a major and unflinching bigot in her own right. That the president has chosen to target Omar may smack of rank hypocrisy, but it would be political malpractice for him not to pick the fight. Her views as a public figure, and what they signify for the party she represents, are fair game.

All the more so as progressives rush to her defense. Omar is not a significant figure in her own right. And the House of Representatives has never lacked for cranks, knaves, fools and bigots.

What is significant is that Omar’s defenders don’t consider her prejudices about Jews as particularly disqualifying, morally or politically, at least not when weighed against the things they like about her (and hate about her enemies). As for her views about Israel, she’s practically mainstream for her segment of the Democratic Party — a harbinger of what’s to come as the old guard of pro-Israel liberals like Majority Leader Steny Hoyer gives way to the anti-Israel wokesters typified by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

What is all this reminiscent of?

Oh, right: the early days of Trump, when millions of Republican primary voters heard the candidate denounce Mexicans as drug dealers, criminals and rapists, and said to themselves, “We like that.” The central lesson of the moral collapse that followed for the G.O.P. isn’t that conservatives are a uniquely perfidious bunch. It’s that partisans of any stripe are always susceptible to demagoguery, particularly when the demagogue refuses to back down in the face of outrage. Shamelessness has a way of inspiring a following, and Omar is in the process of cornering the market on the left.

Still, let’s not be entirely negative about the congresswoman. Toward the end of her speech, she said it was vital “to make sure that we are not only holding people that we don’t like accountable: We must also hold those that we love, have shared values with, accountable.”

Those words, at least, are wise. The best thing Democrats could do now is apply them to Omar herself.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

Israel Allows Arab Citizens to Vote — Arab Leaders Do Not | Algemeiner

This weekend, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, himself in the 14th year of a four-year term, installed a new unelected cabinet. This news was met with little fanfare from the international community, which has grown indifferent to the absence of democracy in the West Bank.

Meanwhile, the muted response from Western commentators over this development stands in stark contrast to the immense scrutiny of Israel’s election last Tuesday, in which some of Israel’s detractors falsely claimed that Israel “denies Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza the right to vote.”

This double standard is glaring, and the accusation is misinformed. Often missing from the narrative of those quick to blame Israel for Palestinian disenfranchisement is that when Israel came into being, it offered citizenship to all Palestinian Arabs within its borders.

Read more

The consequences of online hate | AIJAC

In November 2000, AIJAC, together with the Australian National University’s Freilich Foundation, co-sponsored the first conference in Australia on the potential danger of the nascent internet fuelling hate speech and empowering terrorist groups. What was then a potential concern has long since become a deadly reality. 

In Christchurch, we have now seen yet another example of how hateful online extremism can foster horrific violence against innocent people. The world was rightly appalled by the white supremacist terrorist attack on March 15 against innocent Muslim worshippers in two different mosques during Friday prayers, resulting in 50 fatalities, with scores more seriously injured. 

While most people and organisations swiftly and unequivocally condemned the atrocity and pledged sympathy and solidarity with its victims, their families, and the broader Muslim community, some, like independent Senator Fraser Anning, outrageously rationalised the attack with anti-Islam and anti-immigration rhetoric, while others politicised the moment to besmirch partisan opponents.

This heinous massacre and its aftermath recall many other terrorist attacks including the murder of 11 Jews at the Tree of Life Synagogue by a white supremacist in Pittsburgh last October.

The motivations in both these attacks revolved around the same conspiracy of “white genocide” or, as the Christchurch attacker dubbed his manifesto, “The Great Replacement,” in which immigrants, and especially Muslim immigrants, are viewed as an existential threat to some imagined “white collective.” 

Read more