Marilyn Garson promotes BDS with lies of omission

Marilyn Garson

I was intrigued to attend an address by Marilyn Garson as a guest of the NZ Institute of International Affairs on Tuesday, 25 February 2020 at the University of Canterbury. 

A number of our members had contacted me and drawn my attention to the event.  The invitation included a resume and she looked like she had had quite an extensive and lengthy experience as a foreign aid worker, in Cambodia, Afghanistan and more latterly Gaza, promoting micro-enterprise schemes to foster employment and self-sufficiency. 

I was not disappointed.  Her stories of suffering, deprivation, and trauma, especially during open warfare we’re harrowing and deeply saddening. 

She talked about the unsustainable pressure of living in one of the most densely populated societies in the world.  

Wikipedia says that there are over 5,000 people per square kilometre in Gaza.  Yet I note that there are at least five other countries with less than 10 million people, that have higher population densities and have significantly higher per capital GDPs.

In case you’re wondering who they are: Macau (20,000+ persons per sq km), Monaco (~19,000), Singapore (~7,800), and Hong Kong (~6,800).  All of them living and enjoying sustainably economic lives.

She talked about the fear and terror amongst families as they sheltered from bombardment during the 2014 Gaza War.

Yet even in such terrible circumstances, glimmers of kindness, courage and selflessness shine through under fire, as the community reaches out to one another to provide shelter and support in time of conflict. 

She talks with admiration about how they have established six universities and maintained one of the highest literacy rates in the Middle East.  “They may have displaced us, but we take our education with us,” she quotes.

Many study for computer-related qualifications yet over 75% are employed outside of the field they studied for.  “They graduate into the world’s highest youth unemployment rate.”  For a three month temporary job assignment, there were typically 180,000 names [of applicants].

After two years she became a consultant to UNRWA and set out to establish a technology social enterprise to provide employment to all these unemployed technologists.  Garson said, “Many are young parents now.  Most have never been outside the Gaza Strip, they have never seen a forest, boarded a train, never met an Israeli.”

“Gaza is a political problem that has been left to fester so long that it now manifests itself in a humanitarian, ecological, economic calamity,” she said.

Garson said, with horror, that some Israelis talk about bombing Gaza with a subhuman language.  They were “coming to mow the lawn,” “it’s time to cut the grass,” this time they say, “We’ll clean it out,” they talk about “finishing the job.” 

During the 2014 Gaza War, she says 270,000 people were shoe-horned into nine schools.  She was given the responsibility of advising the Israeli military where people were sheltering.  Yet Garson says, seven schools were hit, 44 Palestinians died and 220 were injured under United Nations flags.

While listening to her relate her account of the 2014 Gaza War, I noticed that she was omitting the events that led to the war, that Gazan protagonists were using schools as launch sites and munitions stores and that Israel’s bombing practices were incomparable to the widespread destruction and civilian mortality caused by the Russians in the neighbouring Syrian Civil War.  

Using schools to shelter military operations was so common that the UN was moved to make a public statement urging Gazan fighters to cease and desist from turning schools into legitimate targets.

I have no doubt that Gazan civilians are suffering and that her empathy and despair for them is genuine. 

On the face of it, she clearly reserves her blame for Israel alone, for its “inhumanity,” and for acting contrary to international law.

Her hope is in the rule of international law, and believes that Israel is guilty of breaching it despite the criticism of the international community. 

She acknowledges Israel’s legal defenses, such as its argument that Gaza is not occupied since Israel withdrew many years ago, and that Gaza is not a state and therefore many international laws do not apply, but they are all dismissed as word games.

The fact that laws,  even international laws, can be unjust and flawed is beyond her view.

The blockade is a tangible lightning rod for her resentment and frustration.  She rails against Israel’s “red line policy” that arbitrarily prevents cumin and coriander from being admitted through the border while each calorie through the border was counted.

To her, Israel’s military actions and the blockade are the source of Gazan suffering, and completely ignores Palestinian attacks on Israel’s own civilian population. 

Garson says that much needed machine parts are restricted from entry so water treatment machinery remain in disrepair.  Consequently, 70% of Gaza’s water is not drinkable. 

She says that the wall is de-humanising, creating caged lab rats for testing Israel’s military technologies.  Garson criticized New Zealand for proposing to purchase Israeli robots for $9m while only providing $1m of aid. 

She never once mentions that Egypt also enforces a blockade along its Gaza border.  Why the double standard? 

Garson repudiates the Trump Peace Plan as illegal, because she believes it is giving away land that is “rightfully” the Palestinians’.  She blames the international community of nation states for not enforcing international law.

In her eyes, only numbers and external pressure will change things. 

Therefore, boycotting Israel is the only option for world citizens, who care about justice, left that has any chance of success.

She urges New Zealanders to join her in the boycott, despite her misgivings of it as a tool.

She ends by reading aloud:

After the 2014 Gaza bombardment, she asked her team how they explain the bombs to their children.  They were small, they were pre-schoolers.  One team member replied, “We want our children to know that they have a right to live in their homeland, but we don’t want them to grow up feeling anger and hatred.  I say to my girls that Gaza is full of good people, but we have a very angry government.  Across the wall, there are good people in Israel too, but they have a very angry government.  When the angry governments fight, everyone is afraid.  But the angry governments will fall, then we must not hate, because we might forget how to live together, we are refugees but all humans deserve to live in peace and dignity, regardless of their religion.

It is not until Q&A time before it becomes clear that she is aware of other factors that would detract from her one-dimensional narrative. 

I asked, “Your quote about “angry governments” was intriguing:  To what extent can Hamas be held accountable for their actions by Gaza’s citizens?”

In reply, Garson said, “It’s the first place where I’ve worked where its citizens are afraid to even tell jokes about their government because they are so certain that they would be overheard.  The degree of control [exerted by Hamas] was often unpleasant.  The people don’t have a chance to state what their preferences are.  She ends by saying “Hamas is not very popular, but it is pretty effective.” 

“What do you mean by “effective?””

“At keeping control.”

“Hamas maintains the status quo,” said Garson.

QED.

One attendee, pointed out it was ironic that after suffering in the Warsaw Ghetto, Jews were now inflicting the same oppression on the Palestinians in Gaza.  An ignorant and false comment but disturbing because it further demonizes Jews.

Her testimony describing her genuine experiences in Gaza, witnessing the suffering of Gazans, and their hopelessness, is deeply moving.  But, her omissions and myopic framing of the problem turns their plight into cynical propaganda.

Tony Kan
President

NZ Friends of Israel Assoc Inc

Truly Beautiful

Wharariki Beach

Two years ago, I was standing at sunset overlooking Wharariki Beach, appreciating one of the most picturesque scenes that I have ever seen, if not the most, when a man approached me. “Beautiful, isn’t it?” he said. “Incredible,” I replied. I asked him where he was from and he said he was from a suburb of London. He had come to this part of the world with his wife for their anniversary, to see what he described as “heaven on earth” with his own eyes. He asked me where I was from, and when I replied Israel, his wife, who was standing next to him went, “Ohhh.” I asked her what she meant.

She said she had a friend, when they lived in Portugal, an Israeli, who used to talk about Israel all the time when they used to have dinner together. She told me about how he used to go on and on about his army experiences, the wars he fought in, and the smell of the Machaneh Yehuda market in Jerusalem. When she finished, her husband said, “We visited there once; a beautiful country you have.” “Yes, it is,” I responded, “but it’s different.” He asked why, and in that split second, I then understood why at moments like these, while appreciating God’s breathtaking creations, I had missed home more in the few days I had been on summer break in New Zealand than all the time I had been working on shlichut in Australia so far.

“It’s different because in Israel everything has meaning behind it. Sure, God created the entire world, the incredible beach here, the beautiful fjords in the south, and the amazing sunset we’re looking at right now. But in Israel, there’s something behind each view that’s much deeper.” He asked me to specify what I was talking about.

So I told him about where I live, and the view I have from my front porch. The biblical significance of my community, and the fact I used to live on a street named for the spring underneath it, that used to run all the way to the Temple in Jerusalem. I told him about the prophecies of Ezekiel that are coming to pass in my backyard, and the most mentioned prophecy in the entire Old Testament, which I experienced first-hand, live, four and a half years ago while getting off a plane and kissing the asphalt. I told him that I learned for two and a half years in a place where there’s a town square emblazoned with a 2,000-year-old prophecy from Zecharia, of old men and women returning to sit and children returning to play in that very spot, and how the local schools make sure that they time their recesses so that the square will never be empty of playing children.

I explained to him how when I prayed there, I prayed overlooking the place where the Temple once stood and will soon again stand, just needing to look up from my prayer book through the window to envision what I was praying for. I tried to convey to him how when my cousin in Israel finished a portion of the Bible relating to the story of our forefathers, he celebrated with his classmates in the very tomb of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

He was astounded by my response, and when saying farewell, commented to his wife “we must visit there again.”

When I returned from vacation back to Melbourne to start another year of trying to inspire all sorts of Jews from all different backgrounds to connect to Judaism and their homeland, many people in the community and friends asked me how my experience there was.

As I said to one of my friends who sarcastically joked based on my photos about me moving to New Zealand instead of coming back to Israel in August: There are two kinds of beauty in this world. Inner beauty and outer beauty, or in Hebrew יופי פנימי and יופי חיצוני. Many times over the trip I came to a viewpoint and saw something so incredibly beautiful that it caused me to just throw up my hands in the air and say “מה רבו מעשיך ה”, but even at those times I felt that something was missing when feeling the longing I had for Israel. Because the awe-inspiring forms of nature that I witnessed there may very well be some of the most beautiful scenes I will ever see, but the word “beautiful” here is only referring to the outer beauty, the יופי חיצוני. True beauty is composed of both inner and outer beauty. In other words, external beauty and meaning.

That doesn’t mean that I won’t travel to see the wonders of God, and try to witness landscapes that will increase my awe of heaven—spectacles so impressive that they will inspire me to spontaneously pray to God. But everything in life is perspective.

I may never see a more beautiful landscape of waterfalls running down the side of a mountain as I saw at the Rob Roy Glacier in Wanaka, but the mountain itself is empty. It’s a creation of God just like anything else in the world, but its holiness is limited.

And most of all, it isn’t mine. It wasn’t promised to my nation and myself by God.

It’s beautiful. But it isn’t truly beautiful.


Doni Cohen, 24, made aliyah from Bergenfield, NJ, to Efrat in July 2013. He did hesder in Yeshivat HaKotel, serving in Tzahal as a commander in the Military Rabbinate, did a year of shlichut through “Torah MiTzion” in Melbourne, Australia. He’s currently studying political science, Jewish history and contemporary Jewry in Hebrew University on Mount Scopus while working on various non-profit projects. He has written for and his aliyah story has been featured in various tri-state-area papers and he can be contacted at arbel67@gmail.com.

WHY SUCH A SURGE OF WORLDWIDE ANTI-SEMITISM | Israel Seen

Alan Dershowitz

Why are so many of the grandchildren of Nazis and Nazi collaborators who brought us the Holocaust once again declaring war on the Jews?

Why have we seen such an increase in anti-Semitism and irrationally virulent anti-Zionism in western Europe?

To answer these questions, a myth must first be exposed. That myth is the one perpetrated by the French, the Dutch, the Norwegians, the Swiss, the Belgians, the Austrians, and many other western Europeans: namely that the Holocaust was solely the work of German Nazis aided perhaps by some Polish, Ukrainian, Latvian, Lithuanian, and Estonian collaborators.

False.

Read more

I’m done passing as a matrilineal Jew | Jewish Telegraphic Agency

“Your Hebrew name?” the head of the yeshiva asked, pencil and paper poised to take it down for my aliyah, the honor of reciting Torah blessings. It was my third week at his school, a place where I’d reluctantly agreed to study for a semester in a city where fully welcoming options for Jews like me were almost nonexistent. 

“Erela,” I replied. My American tongue wrapped awkwardly around the “resh” — the Hebrew r that’s notoriously difficult for English speakers to manage. My parents hadn’t thought about that when choosing the name, nor the fact that “Erela” is an obscure variation on “Lion of God” that most people would hear as “Ariella” and I’d have to correct. But I digress.

“Bat?” he continued, referring to the Hebrew naming tradition of including one’s parents in the name.

“Ephraim v’Yehudit,” I answered.

My dad got his Hebrew name, Ephraim, the old-fashioned way, as a Jewish child born to two Jewish parents. My mom got hers from me a few years ago. I was starting rabbinical school and for the first time in my life was in an environment where people used their full Hebrew names with regularity. My mom happens to have an English name, Judith, that has a Hebrew equivalent: Yehudit. Ironically, it means “female Jew.” 

I say ironically because my mom is a Quaker. 

Read more

John Minto: Justice for Palestine is in our hands | NZ Herald

John Minto

NZFOI: Rob Berg’s reaction to Donald Trump’s “deal of the century” was published alongside a reaction from John Minto. Minto’s views are his own, and not ours, we re-publish this without any endorsement.

It would be easy to throw up our hands in horror at the announcement of the so-called “deal of the century” but that would be pointless. We’ve all known for a long time that this “deal” would be a boon to Israel and a kick in the guts for Palestinians.

The Trump administration has given the Israeli government the green light to: continue building Jewish-only settlements on Palestinian land; annex most of the occupied West Bank; continue its ongoing military occupation of Palestine and the siege of Gaza; refuse Palestinian refugees the right to return to their land and homes and to continue its religious and ethnic cleansing of Jerusalem.

For the Palestinian side there is nothing aside from a vague reference to a hollowed out Palestinian state that would resemble apartheid South Africa’s bantustans. As the Israeli human rights group B’Tselem says – “the deal is like Swiss Cheese – the Israelis get the cheese while the Palestinians get the holes.”

The US “deal” rewards the oppressor and abuses the oppressed. Politically Trump is making a strong play for the evangelical Christian vote in the coming US elections. These are Christians who confuse the Israel of the Old Testament in the Bible with the modern political state of Israel.

On the Israeli side the “deal” is a gift to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who faces a third election in early March after failing to get enough support in the previous two elections to form a government. Netanyahu hope the deal will get him over the line this time.

Meanwhile none of the issues of profound injustice and oppression by Israel of Palestinians will go away, irrespective of the political manoeuvrings of Trump or Netanyahu.

So what is the way forward for Palestine?

The answer is surprisingly simple and was contained in a report last October from the United Nations Human Rights Council Special Rapporteur for Palestine, Mr Michael Lynk. 

The Lynk report says the international community has a responsibility and legal obligation to compel Israel to end its 52 year-long “occu-annexation” of Palestinian territory and remove barriers preventing Palestinian self-determination. Lynk points out that this occupation is the longest in the modern world and says it is “endlessly sustainable without decisive international intervention because of the grossly asymmetrical balance of power on the ground”. 

He says “Accountability is the key to opening the titanium cage that is the permanent occupation. The international community has issued countless resolutions and declarations critical of the never-ending Israeli occupation. The time has long past to match these criticisms with effective consequences.” Well said.

To remedy this, Michael Lynk recommends that the international community should devise a list of effective countermeasures against Israel which would be “appropriate and proportional” to the circumstances. 

He suggests some modern examples of applying pressure, such as diplomatic public statements, trade sanctions, flight bans, travel restrictions and reduction or suspension of aid.

Most importantly he says that “should Israel remain unmoved, (the international community) should apply and escalate the range of its targeted countermeasures until compliance had been achieved.”

After the “deal of the century” this is the only viable way forward.

The world faced a similar situation in the 1970s and 1980s with regard to the racist South African regime. While the great mass of humanity supported the struggle for self-determination of black South Africans, white South Africa was strongly supported by the UK and the US with leaders Maggie Thatcher and Ronald Reagan respectively giving unwavering support to its brutal oppression of blacks.

Despite this iron-clad support from key Western governments a critical factor in forcing democratic change was the people and governments around the world implementing a wide range of boycotts against the regime – sporting, trade, investment and diplomatic boycotts were all part of the mix – which helped bring irresistible pressure for change.

Israel’s brutal military occupation and its racist apartheid policies towards Palestinians cannot and will not survive international boycott action. 

South African Archbishop and Nobel Peace Prize winner Desmond Tutu is clear on the importance of the approach proposed by Michael Lynk: 

“In South Africa, we could not have achieved our democracy without the help of people around the world, who through the use of non-violent means, such as boycotts and divestment, encouraged their governments and other corporate actors to reverse decades-long support for the apartheid regime.”

And Archbishop Tutu has a message for governments like New Zealand. 

“Those who turn a blind eye to injustice actually perpetuate injustice. If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.”

Michael Lynk’s report points the way. Our New Zealand government should be at the forefront in supporting this United Nations proposed approach.

Let’s do this!

Source

Rob Berg: Palestinians need to accept Israel as a nation | NZ Herald

Rob Berg, President of the Zionist Federation of New Zealand

On 29 January 2020, president Trump finally presented his long-awaited ‘Deal of the Century’, his vision to end the ongoing conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis, a conflict which has been going on in some form or another for over seventy years. Whilst the details of the plan may not have been previously known, the reactions from the Israeli and Palestinian sides could not have been more predictable.

As has been the case since the days of the British Mandate, the UN 1947 Partition Plan and many other opportunities, most latterly in 2000 and 2008, the Israelis have always agreed to what has been offered, even when the concessions have been painful, such as the division of Jerusalem, or withdrawal from Hebron. The Palestinians, and Arab nations before them, have never failed to say “no”. Most famous was the 3 no’s in Khartoum in September 1967. “No to peace with Israel. No to recognition with Israel. No to negotiations with Israel”. Fast forward to 2020 and the ‘Deal of the Century’, and we have almost exactly the same response from president Abbas, “We say 1,000 ‘no’s to this deal”.

The Palestinians may feel the ‘deal’ does not give them what they wanted, but even when offered a far greater deal by Prime Minister Barak in 2000 which included 92% of the West Bank, much to president Bill Clinton’s frustration and amazement, the Palestinians under Yasser Arafat said “no”. And then in 2008 they were offered an even better deal by then Prime Minister Olmert. This deal offered the Palestinians 98% of the West Bank with land swaps to account for the remaining 2%, East Jerusalem as their Capital, and the dismantling of Israeli settlements in the proposed Palestinian State. Again, this time by Mahmoud Abbas, the answer was “no”.

The Trump deal goes far short of the Olmert offer, and the Palestinians run the risk of losing everything if their intransigent approach to peace with the world’s only Jewish State continues in the same vein as it has for over 70 years.

Israel fits into New Zealand approximately 13 times and is roughly the size of Canterbury. Giving up any land has a significant impact on its size and ability to defend itself. To ask of Israel to put its existence at risk is something that no one or no country should expect. Yet Israel has continually offered the Palestinians land for peace, just as it did with both Egypt and Jordan before it. Israel also unilaterally withdrew from Gaza in 2005, which has now become a strong hold for terrorist activity heavily backed by the Iranians. The concerns of Israelis are more than justified.

Israel has no error for margin. The first war it loses, is its last. It is difficult to comprehend this reality from our relative safety here in New Zealand, yet Israel has shown continuous willing for compromise. Each time, the offer of compromise, the offer to agree on a peace deal through direct negotiations has ended up with Palestinian rejection. Yet, the Palestinians offer no viable alternatives. Instead they insist on all of pre-1967 East Jerusalem, including the Old City and Judaism’s most accessible Holy site, the Western Wall, being part of ‘Palestine’. And they insist on the ‘right of return’ to all Palestinian refugees and their descendants. A ‘right’ afforded to no other people in the world. Yet they insist on this because they know it will ultimately lead to the end of the Jewish State.

And here is the crux of the matter. Until the Palestinians accept that Israel as the Nation State of the Jewish people is not only here to stay, but has a right to exist in the spiritual and historical homeland of the Jewish people, peace will be as far away as ever. Yet, the Trump Plan, with all its flaws, presents both the Israelis and the Palestinians with an opportunity. An opportunity as a starting point for direct talks and negotiations with the aim of a real and lasting peace, one that recognises the rights and aspirations of both people.

This may or may not be the last opportunity for the two State Solution to come to fruition. Instead of a “thousand no’s” hopefully Abbas will see this as a chance to bring a life of peace and prosperity to both Israelis and Palestinians. His final legacy. Hopefully he will choose a path to peace rather than stay on the road of conflict.

Source

The Oslo blood libel is over | Israel Hayom

Caroline Glick

From 1994 through 1996, as a captain in the IDF, I served as a member of Israel’s negotiating team with the PLO. Those years were the heyday of the so-called peace process. As the coordinator of negotiations on civil affairs for the Coordinator of Government Activities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, I participated in all of the negotiating sessions with the Palestinians that led to a half a dozen or so of agreements, including the Interim or Oslo B agreement from September 28, 1995, which transferred civil and military authorities in Judea and Samaria to the PLO.

Throughout the period of my work, I never found any reason to believe the peace process I was a part of would lead to peace. The same Palestinian leaders who joked with us in fancy meeting rooms in Cairo and Taba breached every commitment they made to Israel the minute the sessions ended.

Beginning with the PLO’s failure to amend its covenant that called for Israel’s destruction in nearly every paragraph; through their refusal to abide by the limits they had accepted on the number of weapons and security forces they were permitted to field in the areas under their security control; their continuous breaches of zoning and building laws and regulations; to their constant Nazi-like anti-Semitic propaganda and incitement and solicitation of terrorism against Israel – it was self-evident they were negotiating in bad faith. They didn’t want peace with Israel. They were using the peace process to literally take Israel apart piece by piece.
Israel’s leaders shrugged it off. Instead of protesting and cutting off contact until Yasser Arafat and his henchmen ended their perfidious behavior, Israel’s leaders ignored what was happening before their faces. And in a way, they had no option of doing anything else.

When Israel embarked on the Oslo peace process it accepted Oslo’s foundational assumption that Israel is to blame for the Palestinian war against it. From the first Oslo agreement, signed on the White House lawn on September 13, 1993, through all its derivative deals, Israel was required to carry out “confidence-building measures,” to prove its good faith and peaceful intentions to Arafat and his deputies.

Time after time, Israel was required to release terrorists from prison as a precondition for negotiations with the PLO. The goal of those negotiations in turn was to force Israel to release more terrorists from prison, and give more land, more money, more international legitimacy and still more terrorists to the PLO.
On Tuesday, this state of affairs ended.

On Sunday morning, just before he flew to Washington, US Ambassador David Friedman briefed me on the details of President Donald Trump’s peace plan at his home in Herzliya.

Friedman told me that Trump was going to announce that the United States will support an Israeli decision to apply its laws to the Jordan Valley and the Israeli settlements in Judea and Samaria.

I asked what the boundaries of the settlements would be.

He said that they have a map, it isn’t precise, so it can be flexibly interpreted but it was developed in consultation with Israeli government experts.

Suspicious, I went granular. Khan al-Ahmar is an illegal, strategically located Beduin encampment built on the access road to Kfar Adumim, a community north of Jerusalem. Israel’s Supreme Court ordered its removal, but bowing to pressure from Germany and allegedly, the International Criminal Court, the government has failed to execute the court order.

I asked if Khan al-Ahmar is part of Kfar Adumim on the American map. Friedman answered in the affirmative.
What about the area called E1, which connects the city of Maaleh Adumim to Jerusalem?

Yes, it’s inside the map, he said.

How about the illegal building right outside the northern entrance to my community, Efrat, south of Jerusalem in Gush Etzion. The massive illegal building there threatens to turn Efrat’s highway access road into a gauntlet. Is that area going to be under Israeli jurisdiction?

He nodded.

How about the isolated communities – Yitzhar, Itamar, Har Bracha? Are they Israel?

Yes, yes, yes, he said. Our map foresees Israel applying its sovereignty to about half of Area C, he explained.

What about the other half? Without control of the surrounding areas, the communities in Judea and Samaria will be under constant threat. Their development will be stifled by limitations on the development of critical infrastructure.

For now, Friedman replied, everything in the rest of Area C will be governed as it has been up until now. Israel will have overriding civilian powers and sole security authority. In fact, in our plan, he explained, Israel will have permanent overriding security authority over all of Judea and Samaria, even after a peace agreement is concluded.

Friedman then turned to the nature of the agreement the Trump administration seeks to conclude.

The Palestinians have four years, he explained, to agree to the President’s plan. To reach a deal they have to agree to recognize Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people. They have to accept Israeli control over the airspace and the electromagnetic spectrum. They have agree to a demilitarized state and accept that there will be no Palestinian immigration to Israel from abroad. They have to agree to Israeli sovereignty over the border with Jordan. They have to disarm Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza and demilitarize Gaza.

If they do that, we will recognize them as a state and they will receive the rest of Area C.

What if they don’t agree to those terms? I asked.

If they don’t agree, he replied, then at the end of four years, Israel will no longer be bound by the terms of the deal and will be free to apply its law to all areas it requires.

You’re telling me that in four years we’ll be able to apply Israeli law on the rest of the territory? I asked, almost afraid to hear the answer.
Yes, that’s right.

My heart started thumping like a rabbit tail.
You mean the Palestinians lose if they don’t agree to peace? Does President Trump support this? I asked in stunned disbelief.
Yes, of course, he supports this. It’s his plan, after all, Friedman said, smiling and a bit surprised at my reaction.
Boom.
Unannounced, tears began flowing out of my eyes.

Are those tears of happiness or sadness, Friedman asked, concerned.
For several moments, I couldn’t speak. Finally, I said, I feel like I need to take off my shoes. I’m witnessing a miracle.

Shortly thereafter, after thanking him and wishing him well, (and washing my face), I left his home, got in my car and drove to the Kotel.

As I listened to his briefing, there in his study, I didn’t feel like I was alone. There with me were fifty generations of Jews in every corner of the globe mouthing the Psalmist’s verses, “And the nations of the world will say, God has greatly blessed them; God has greatly blessed us, we were like dreamers.”

And closely, more immediately, as I sat there listening, I felt 27 years of worry and frustration washing away. The 27-year Oslo nightmare was over. The blood libel that blamed Israel for the Palestinians’ war against it was rejected by the greatest nation in the world, finally.

When you read the Trump plan closely, you realize it is a mirror image of Oslo. Rather than Israel being required to prove its good will, the Palestinians are required to prove their commitment to peace.

Consider the issue of releasing Palestinian terrorists.

Like the Oslo deal and its derivatives, the Trump deal includes a section on releasing terrorists. But whereas under Oslo rules, Israel was supposed to release terrorists as a confidence building measure to facilitate the opening of negotiations, under the Trump deal the order is reversed.

Israel is expected to release terrorists only after the Palestinians have returned all of the Israeli prisoners and MIAs and only after a peace deal has been signed.

Whereas Israel was required under Oslo to release murderers, the Trump deal states explicitly that Israel will not release murderers or accessories to murder.

One of the PLO’s more appalling demands was that Israel release Arab Israel citizens convicted of terrorism charges. The subversive demand implied PLO jurisdiction over Arab Israelis. Israel strenuously objected, but all previous US administrations supported the PLO demand.

The Trump deal states explicitly that Israeli citizens will not be released in any future release of terrorists.

There are many problematic aspects to the Trump plan. For instance, it calls for Israel to transfer sovereign territory along the Gaza border to Palestinian control in the framework of the peace deal.

More immediately, the deal requires Israel to suspend building activities in the parts of Area C earmarked for the Palestinians in a future deal for the next four years. This requirement will pose a major burden to the Israeli communities adjacent to these areas. To develop, these communities require surrounding infrastructure – roads, sewage, and other systems – to develop with them.

On the other hand, the Trump plan places no restriction on construction inside of the Israeli communities. Residents of Shilo and Ariel will have the same property rights as residents of Tel Aviv and Beit Shean.

This then brings us to Israel and the leaders who accepted the Oslo rules for the past 27 years. The Trump plan is a test for Israel. Have we become addicted to the blood libel?

Will Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu keep his word and present a decision to apply Israeli law over the Jordan Valley and the Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria at the next government meeting or will he lose his nerve and hide behind “technical” issues?

Will Benny Gantz and his Blue and White party agree to abandon the Oslo blood libel most of its members embrace, and accept that Israel is capable of asserting its sovereign rights to these areas? Or will they hide behind the legal fraternity braying for Netanyahu’s head and preserve the anti-Semitic Oslo paradigm for their friends in the Democratic Party?

And will the legal fraternity, led by Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit act in accordance with the law, which empowers the government to determine national policies even before elections? Or will it continue to make up laws to block government action and so render the March 2 poll a referendum between democracy and Zionism and the legal fraternity and post-Zionism?

Under Oslo, Israel had no interest in taking the initiative. Every “step forward” was a set-up. Tuesday Trump ended the 27-year nightmare. Oslo is the past. Sovereignty is now. We were like dreamers.

The time has now come to give thanks for the miracle and get on with building our land.

Source: Glick, C (29 Jan 2020). The Oslo blood libel is over. Israel Hayom. www.hayom.com.

Trump and Netanyahu just unveiled a PR campaign, not a peace plan | Stuff

Trump and Netanyahu

NZFOI:  A rather cynical view of the peace plan…

Every president in political trouble looks to foreign policy for a distraction, and US President Donald Trump is no different.

January began with the killing of Iranian Major General Qasem Soleimani and ends with the release of a White House peace plan for Israelis and Palestinians. Surely it is no coincidence that all this is happening while the president is being impeached.

Trump is selling himself as both warmaker and peacemaker.

But while the president can undoubtedly order the killing of enemy leaders, he cannot snap his fingers and end a long-running conflict. Indeed, he is not seriously trying to do so. What was unveiled on Tuesday was a PR campaign, not a peace plan.

Read more

Why Holocaust Remembrance Day matters more than ever | Stuff.co.nz

BBC reporter Richard Dimbleby was the first broadcaster to enter the Bergen-Belsen death camp after it was liberated by the British on April 15, 1945. Overcome, he broke down several times while making his report. The BBC initially refused to play it, as they could not believe the scenes he had described, and it was broadcast only after Dimbleby threatened to resign.

Bergen-Belsen was only one of the thousands of killing sites during World War II. The Holocaust saw the murder and death of six million European and North African Jews in a deliberate genocide.

Millions of others were targeted for their race, religion, gender, disabilities or political views. As Nobel peace laureate and Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel put it: “Not all victims were Jews, but all Jews were victims.”

Why do we remember such horrifying and tragic events 75 years later? There are many different reasons.’I stayed alive to tell’: Auschwitz’s dwindling survivors recount the horrorAhead of the 75 anniversary of the liberation of the Nazi concentration camp at Auschwitz, survivors have been talking about their memories three quarters of a century on.Share

‘I stayed alive to tell’: Auschwitz’s dwindling survivors recount the horror

Ahead of the 75 anniversary of the liberation of the Nazi concentration camp at Auschwitz, survivors have been talking about their memories three quarters of a century on.

Current UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres​ says: “It would be a dangerous error to think of the Holocaust as simply the result of the insanity of a group of criminal Nazis. On the contrary, the Holocaust was the culmination of millennia of hatred, scapegoating and discrimination targeting the Jews, what we now call antisemitism.”

The UN General Assembly resolved in 2005 that UN International Holocaust Remembrance Day (UNIHRD) would be on January 27 – the anniversary of the day in 1945 when the Red Army liberated the Auschwitz-Birkenau Nazi German concentration and extermination camp.

Acknowledging 2020 as a milestone year, the UN Outreach Programme has chosen a theme for UNIHRD that “reflects the continued importance, 75 years after the Holocaust, of collective action against antisemitism and other forms of bias to ensure respect for the dignity and human rights of all people everywhere”.

Flowers at the gravestone of Margot Frank and Anne Frank after a ceremony to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the liberation of the Bergen-Belsen in 2015. An estimated 70,000 inmates died in the camp during World War II.
Alexander KoernerFlowers at the gravestone of Margot Frank and Anne Frank after a ceremony to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the liberation of the Bergen-Belsen in 2015. An estimated 70,000 inmates died in the camp during World War II.

Jews feel deep personal sadness and anger over the murder of members of their whānau, and the injustice of continuing antisemitism.

Some say that the Holocaust is a uniquely Jewish tragedy, and we undermine Holocaust remembrance unless we  concentrate on fighting antisemitism in all its different manifestations.

Other Jews, while not denying the uniqueness of the Holocaust, see antisemitism as a symptom of racism in whatever society or culture harbours it. They want to pursue a broader fight against racism, using the Jewish experience as a warning of what has happened in history, and can happen again to any minority ethnic and religious groups.

It is correct that antisemitism – “the longest hatred” – has been historically recorded for about 2500 years, and shows no sign of diminishing. It has mutated over the centuries through ethnic, religious and racial Jew-hatred to its contemporary, largely anti-Israel, versions. Present-day antisemitism, which is often violent and virulent, appears to be growing around the world – unchecked on social media in this country.

The Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp, which is now a museum and memorial. For many Jews, Holocaust remembrance is part of a broader fight against racism, using the Jewish experience as a warning of what has happened in history, and can happen again to any minority ethnic and religious groups, writes David Zwartz.
iSTOCKThe Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp, which is now a museum and memorial. For many Jews, Holocaust remembrance is part of a broader fight against racism, using the Jewish experience as a warning of what has happened in history, and can happen again to any minority ethnic and religious groups, writes David Zwartz.

A recent NZ Human Rights Commission publication, Kōrero Whakamauāhara: Hate speech, opens by quoting Holocaust historian Deborah Lipstadt (known for winning the libel case brought against her by a UK Holocaust denier, as portrayed in the film Denial).

Lipstadt said: “When expressions of contempt for one group become normative, it is virtually inevitable that similar hatred will be directed at other groups. Like a fire set by an arsonist, passionate hatred and conspiratorial worldviews reach well beyond their intended target.”

Many Jews promote Holocaust education because the Holocaust was a significant event in Western history, and understanding it helps combat the concerns expressed by Lipstadt.

In the same way that Anzac Day does for all Kiwis, Holocaust commemoration fulfils a deep human commitment by Jews and all people to remember death and suffering, at the same time as looking forward to improve humanity’s future by changing societal attitudes.

David Zwartz: "Present-day antisemitism, which is often violent and virulent, appears to be growing around the world – unchecked on social media in this country."
suppliedDavid Zwartz: “Present-day antisemitism, which is often violent and virulent, appears to be growing around the world – unchecked on social media in this country.”

Particularly since the March 15 massacre at the Christchurch mosques, Holocaust observance and education also promote well-being in New Zealand. They help the government, Human Rights Commission, major religious and interfaith groups and NGOs make this country fully aware of its endemic racism, and how to tackle it.

Since 2007, the Holocaust Centre of New Zealand (HCNZ) has been the country’s leading Holocaust education organisation. Its vision is “Through testimony, experience and advocacy, inspire and empower individuals to stand against prejudice, discrimination and apathy.”

HCNZ helped start the public commemoration of UNIHRD in Aotearoa New Zealand. UNIHRD is now observed annually in Auckland, Hamilton, Wellington and Christchurch, with civic and Unesco support.

While some Jews say bitterly, referring to continuing antisemitism, “What’s the use of remembering dead Jews when the world continues to behave so badly to living Jews?”, I think this is ungracious, and counter-productive; and invite everyone in the main centres who has good will and concern for our nation’s future to take part in the UNIHRD commemoration on Monday.

* David Zwartz is chairperson of the Wellington Regional Jewish Council. The Wellington UNIHRD ceremony will be at 1-2pm at the Holocaust Memorial, Makara Cemetery, on Monday, January 27. 

Source

US President Donald Trump called Iran’s bluff and won | Stuff

US President, Donald Trump

US President Donald Trump is not a strategy man. He has made clear he doesn’t like to think too far down the road; he likes to govern by instinct.

In short, he is a tactical leader, a Twitter president. Tactical leaders tend to make mistakes, largely because they cannot see the long-term implications of their decisions.

On Iran, however, President Donald Trump has not made a mistake.

His tactical game has worked, at least for the moment. He has called Iran’s bluff, taken out one of its most valuable leaders and, so far, made the correct calculation that Tehran will not risk a wider war with the United States.

Read more