Must see: Colonel Richard Kemp on Operation Protective Edge
Invited by UN Watch, Col. Kemp, former commander of British forces in
Afghanistan, speaks on self-defense and war crimes. Tel Aviv, Aug. 3,
2014. Co-sponsors: Tel Aviv Int'l Salon and StandWithUS.
BDS threatens L'Oreal division over product donations to female soldiers
The BDS movement is threatening to boycott the Garnier division of L'Oreal because its products were included in packages distributed for free to female IDF soldiers.
Garnier, owned by L’Oreal, has faced a backlash after their donated
products were distributed in care packages by the StandWithUs Israel
advocacy group. The products were donated by Garnier Israel. The care
packages were publicized on the StandWithUs Facebook page, with a “shoutout” to Garnier for its contribution.
The company on Thursday tried to head off criticism with a statement on its Facebook page, in which it disassociated itself from the donation to the IDF.
“Garnier
USA is aware of recent activity in social media. It is very important
to us that our fans know that Garnier worldwide promotes peace and
harmony and has a strict policy of not getting involved in any conflict
or political matter. Garnier was astonished to discover this in social
media. After investigation, the hand-out of about 500 products appeared
to be part of a one-time local retailer initiative. Garnier disapproves
of this initiative managed strictly at local level and is very sorry to
have offended some of its fans.”
I would say that if you're in Israel, you should buy Garnier, but if you're anyplace else don't go out of your way. What a bunch of wimps.
Earlier today a major new social media campaign was launched. The campaign is a project of AICE, and major partners include Hillel, StandWithUs, ICC and WZO. Other partners include AZM, Honest Reporting, ROI, NGO Monitor and others. The campaign is aimed at college students in North America. The Pitch video (below) gives an overview, a more detailed briefing for potential partner organisations can be downloaded from here.
Let's go to the videotape.
Okay.... I wish he had kept the towel on, even if it's only a cartoon.
Here's Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler for Monday, July 30.
1) Written on the subway walls
A few weeks ago posters depicting the purported loss of Palestinian territory to Israel were put up at Metro North stations in the New York area.
The signs appear in commercial space atop recycling bins at train station entrances and on train platforms at 50 Metro-North stations. They were paid for by ex-Wall Street financier Henry Clifford, 84, who now resides in Essex, Conn. He said he financed month-long campaign with $25,000 of his own money. "I am very critical of what Israel has done to the Palestinian people," said Hill, who chairs the 10-member Committee for Peace in Israel and Palestine, which also has Jewish members. "I'm very critical of our government for supporting Israel and enabling it."
I suppose you may say I'm quibbling, and that in a territory which had a minority of Jews 150 years ago, there has emerged a state of foreigners which has thwarted the emergence of a state of the original population. This, of course, is true. The tragedy of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is that both sides are right, and both have legitimate claims on the same tiny piece of land. Most of us think that the only way to resolve the conflict is for each side to reconcile itself to the loss of important parts of the territory so that the other side will have room for their national state. As to why this hasn't yet happened, you and I probably disagree. We may also not agree on the details of how the partition ought to be done. Yet those are legitimate issues which need to be resolved in negotiations. The maps you've published, on the other hand, tell a different story: that Israel is purposefully pushing out the Palestinians so as to have the entire land for itself. This is not true, which explains why in order to make the claim the maps need to be so sloppy with the facts. Finally, a note on projection. I never cease to be surprised by Americans, Canadians, Australians or New Zealanders who feel they have a moral right to condemn the Jews for migrating to another land and pushing aside the natives. Surely the Jewish case for moving to the land of their history is vastly better than the case of Europeans moving to continents they had no history in. Over time, however, I've begun to notice that such critics of the Jews assume, perhaps subconsciously, that the behavior of the Jews must by necessity follow the pattern of their own forebears: total dismissal of their common humanity with the natives they're pushing aside, followed by near-total dispossession. This, however, is a complex of the critics, and has very little to do with the Jews.
1. I sympathize with the arguments that the government, acting as service provider, should be able to exclude material that is likely to greatly alienate or offend some of its customers, while still making money from material that won’t have that effect. But the Court has indeed held that viewpoint-based restrictions, even on government property that isn’t a “traditional public forum,” are unconstitutional; and this also makes some sense, given just how much money and property the government owns (especially once one goes beyond just access to physical property, and gets to access to broadly available government benefit programs, such as charitable tax exemptions). Under this doctrine, I think a ban on “demean[ing]” speech about religions, races, and the like is unconstitutionally viewpoint-based, given that positive speech about various groups — or about tolerance, equality, and so on — is allowed. 2. I’m not sure that advertising space should be consider a “designated public forum,” in which strict scrutiny applies to all content-based restrictions, as opposed to a “limited public forum,” in which the government can impose content-based but viewpoint-neutral restrictions. This having been said, the district court points out that Second Circuit precedent (which is binding on federal district courts in New York) treats this very program as a designated public forum. 3. If the space is indeed a designated public forum, then I think even a ban on all disparaging speech would be content-based — when we say that speech is disparaging, we are making a statement about the content of its message, and its communicative impact. What’s more, I think such a ban would even be viewpoint-based, since it targets negative viewpoints about people or groups and not positive viewpoints. So while I think a ban on particular vulgarities would be content-based but viewpoint-neutral, so the government could ban them in a limited public forum, a ban on disparaging speech would be viewpoint-based. ... I therefore think that, both under the district court’s view that the ad program was a designated public forum, and under the view that the ad program was a limited public forum, even the broad ban on demeaning speech about anyone would be unconstitutional.
A few days ago I wrote about some speculation about last week's explosion in Damascus. I quoted an article that cited Mordechai Kedar expressing concern that it was a Jihadist group that was responsible for the attack. Kedar has a critic, who tweeted that the video was made in advance of the event. (h/t Challah Hu Akbar)
FP: What is the significance, apart of the psychological effect, of the assassination of top Syrian security officials last week? Did it really damage the regime's operational capabilities? AY: The assassinations were substantial. Four senior officials were killed. This had a psychological effect, but also a serious operational one. Still, history proves regimes can survive even after stronger strategic setbacks.
Like Yadlin's other answers this is short and to the point. If Yadlin thought that someone other than the rebels were responsible, I'd guess that he'd have mentioned it.
Military experts have long speculated that President Assad’s army, which has been scrambling to crush rebel resistance in urban areas like Homs, Hama and more recently central and southern neighborhoods of Damascus during the uprising, lacked the military resources to take on an armed rebellion in all major cities at once. That seemed to explain the delay in Aleppo, where anticipation of an attack has been building for days. ... But Ms. Nuland also indicated that the United States was not reconsidering its stance against military intervention, saying, “We do not think pouring more fuel onto the fire is going to save lives.” And she drew a sharp distinction between Aleppo and the Libyan city of Benghazi, where fears of a slaughter by government troops led to a NATO bombing campaign that proved decisive in toppling Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi last year. “The kind of groundswell call for external support that we’ve seen elsewhere is not there,” Ms. Nuland said.
William Tucker believes that the outcome if Aleppo will say something about the balance of power between Assad's troops and the rebels. (h/t Aaron Mannes)
The ground assault by Assad’s forces is imminent, but it should tell us a great deal about the capabilities of both the loyalists and the opposition military forces. Additionally, it will reveal some of the tactics the opposition may employ in other major cities. Keep in mind that opposition forces may withdraw from Aleppo, but that shouldn’t be construed as a defeat for the rebel movements. Rather, it would be a sign that the opposition is continuing to engage regime forces only in battles that can be won. With the Assad regime on the back foot time is favoring the opposition. Each successful strike increases the doubt of the regime loyalists about the viability of the current government and may induce them to defect. For now, the opposition seems content to set the time and place of each engagement with the regime. Aleppo may be a turning point, but it is also likely that the opposition is simply distracting the regime while preparing an assault elsewhere.
3) The bigger schlep
The electoral battle for the pro-Israel vote continues. This week's Mishpacha magazine had an item about the extensive voter registration drive in Israel by Republicans. (The article notes that Obama won about 25 percent of the Israeli American vote in 2008, so this likely has less to do with increasing the percentage of voters, but the number of voters.)
With Gov. Romney's trip to Israel this weekend coverage of the two candidates' views on Israel have received extensive coverage.
“People here feel that [Obama] has not had the level of warmth toward Israel that most presidents have had,” said Abe Katsman, a Jerusalem attorney who serves as counsel to Republicans Abroad Israel. The complaints of Romney backers here center on positions that have put Washington at odds with Netanyahu: an insistence early in Obama’s term on a freeze on Israeli settlement building in the West Bank and East Jerusalem; a statement that a peace agreement with the Palestinians should be based on Israel’s 1967 boundaries, with “mutually agreed” land swaps; and an approach to Iran that is seen as not tough enough, engaging in protracted diplomacy while warning Israel against a unilateral military strike. “This idea of putting daylight between the U.S. government and Israel — who does that to an ally?” Katsman said. “And why make the disagreement public?”
“The whole point of this trip is Romney has to be here,” said Carl Sherer, a U.S. citizen who has been living in Israel for two decades. “He’s got to be here for us, and Obama just hasn’t been here for us the last three years.” Israel Shonek, 22, an American studying in Israel, said Romney’s visit on the Tisha B’av fasting holiday was “very poignant.” “It’s a very special thing,” Shonek said. “It sends a statement that Obama hasn’t sent to the Jewish people. They haven’t felt this kind of warmth from Obama.”
Of course, there was also a business aspect to the Israeli trip for Romney who held a fundraiser in Jerusalem this morning. Last night, Romney met with Prime Minister Netanyahu.
The scene was more like a campaign rally than a solemn place of prayer. Women stood on chairs to peer over the fence that divides them from the men, many of whom clapped and waved as the candidate and his entourage snaked through; people actually praying were pushed to the back as security officers cordoned off a space for the candidate. ... Shepherding Mr. Romney at the wall was J. Philip Rosen, a Manhattan lawyer who owns a home in Jerusalem and helped organize a $50,000-per-couple fund-raiser scheduled for Monday morning. Mr. Rosen said Sunday he expected up to 80 people for the breakfast, up from his estimate on Friday of 20 to 30, because of the influx of Americans. Among those who flew here for the event were the casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, who has vowed to spend $100 million this political season to defeat Mr. Obama and wore a pin that said “Romney” in Hebrew letters; Cheryl Halpern, a New Jersey Republican and advocate for Israel; Woody Johnson, owner of the New York Jets; John Miller, chief executive of the National Beef Packing Company; John Rakolta, a Detroit real estate developer who led the finance committee for Mr. Romney’s 2008 presidential bid; L. E. Simmons, the owner of a private-equity firm in Texas with ties to the oil industry; Paul Singer, founder of a $20 billion hedge fund; and Eric Tanenblatt, a Romney fund-raiser in Atlanta who had never visited Israel. Scott Romney, the governor’s brother, and Spencer Zwick, his national finance chairman, also were on hand.
Mr. Romney discussed the Arab Spring revolts as a problem rather than progress. He asserted against some evidence that the Obama administration had abandoned an agenda of pushing for democratic reform pursued by George W. Bush, and he characterized even the most moderate and Western-friendly Islamists – those in the political parties leading legislatures in Tunisia and Morocco – as political opponents. The last runs counter to the Obama administration’s strategy, endorsed by some Republicans in Congress, of building alliances with moderate Islamists where possible.
In other words Kirkpatrick's critique consists of arguing that Romney views the Arab spring differently from the way he does. Kirkpatrick views "moderate" Islamists - such as the Muslim Brotherhood - are pragmatic politicians who need to be embraced by the West. Call it the Lord Hylton view, if you will.
In Romney Captures Jerusalem, Barry Rubin highlighted a number of key lines made by Romney in his Jerusalem speech.
Of tremendous importance was Romney’s hint that the weakness of the Obama administration has encouraged extremists to become more aggressive and Iran to be bolder. He never said this directly but mentioned “the ayatollahs in Tehran testing our moral defenses” to see if the West would abandon Israel. Perhaps the speech’s most important line was this one: “We cannot stand silent as those who seek to undermine Israel, voice their criticisms. And we certainly should not join in that criticism.” This is a critique of Obama’s argument that he would persuade the Arabs to end the conflict by distancing the United States from Israel.
Earlier Rubin had noted:
Not allergic to Israel’s center-right. Romney quoted former Prime Minister Menahem Begin twice and referred to “my friend, Bibi Netanyahu.” Obama wouldn’t have cited either man and is known to loathe Netanyahu. Romney and Netanyahu have known each other for years. The Begin quotes were significant: that Israel will never again let its independence be destroyed (a reference perhaps to Israel’s need not to be completely subservient to America’s current president) and that if people say they want to destroy you then believe them (an explicit reference to Iran’s drive for nuclear weapons).
"I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt a unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel that you're anti-Israel and that can't be the measure of our friendship with Israel".
First of all that line betrayed an ignorance of Israeli politics. Worse, given that it was foreseeable that a future President Obama might well find himself having to deal with a Likud government, it was unbelievably shortsighted for him to say publicly that he would be opposed to such a government.
And then there is Israel, the most egregious example of Obama’s disregard for traditional allies. Obama came into office explicitly intent on creating “daylight” between himself and Israel, believing that by tilting toward the Arabs, they would be more accommodating. The opposite happened. (Surprise!) When Obama insisted on a building freeze in Jerusalem that no U.S. government had ever demanded and no Israeli government would ever accept, the Palestinian Authority saw clear to become utterly recalcitrant. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas openly told The Post that he would just sit on his hands and wait for America to deliver Israel. Result? Abbas refused to negotiate. Worse, he tried to undermine the fundamental principle of U.S. Middle East diplomacy — a negotiated two-state solution — by seeking unilateral U.N. recognition of Palestinian statehood, without talks or bilateral agreements.
The Abbas statement Krauthammer quoted,was from Jackson Diehl interview that foretold Abbas's refusal to negotiate for the bulk of Obama's term. No doubt that the "pro-Likud" statement emboldened Abbas.
“Ambassador Ross was obviously the No. 1 pro-Israel surrogate for the Obama campaign in 2008,” said Josh Block, a former press aide for the Clinton administration and former top spokesman for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. “The fact that after three years of working on Mideast policy side-by-side with the president, Ambassador Ross has decided to sit out this campaign, unlike other former top officials now at nonpartisan think tanks, will certainly be understood as a message of its own, intentionally or unintentionally.” Ross himself said, “I can give substantive advice to the administration, the president’s campaign, or any campaign that would ask for it. And, of course, when I speak I can talk about my views on policy and I have been supportive of the president’s policy on leading foreign-policy issues.” That’s a departure from Ross’s hands-on work with the Obama administration over the past four years.
Consider what has happened to Israel's strategic position during the course of the Bush administration. In 2001, Iran was not a nuclear power, but it is today. It could not enrich uranium then but it does so now and has already stockpiled several-hundred kilos of low-enriched uranium -- about half of what it would need for its first nuclear bomb. The Bush policy on Iran has failed, and unless the next president can change Iranian behavior, Israel will face an existential threat. It already faces a dramatically different threat from what it faced seven years ago from both Hezbollah and Hamas. Hezbollah now has a veto power over any decision the Lebanese government can make and possesses 40,000 rockets -- and those rockets are not only three times as many as it had only two years ago but are more accurate and have longer range than the ones that hit Israel in the summer of 2006. Hamas has taken over Gaza, creating a miniterror state there and today has over 2,000 rockets. Israel cannot afford four more years of seeing the threats grow against it. It cannot afford four more years of U.S. policies that are tough rhetorically but soft practically. It cannot afford four more years of America being on the sidelines diplomatically.
The cynic in me thinks that George W. Bush was the first president not to employ Ross in some capacity in twenty years and that Ross was looking for a position in the Obama administration. Even so, can Ross say that he's seen anything in the Obama administration has been anything more than "tough rhetorically but soft practically?" My guess is that Ross didn't feel he could sell the Obama administration a second time.
Mondoweiss's headline: Dennis Ross's neutrality shows lobby is with Romney. (I won't link but you can look it up if you wish.) Unfortunately, that doesn't sound a whole lot different from what was reported by the Washington Post early in Ross's tenure, Dennis Ross Faces Big Task on Iran Policy, Including Overcoming Pro-Israel Label.
Here's another StandWithUs poster that will be going up at Metro North stations on Monday.
Those of you who are Jews and Christians should keep in mind that any time the 'Palestinians' and their supporters deny the right of Jews to the land of Israel, they are denying the Bible.
I was half asleep when I posted about this last night, but I want to show you some of the posters that are going up at Metro North stations in New York's suburbs starting Monday morning (July 30). This one, which is appropriate to the season, is one of my personal favorites:
I'm going to put more of them up during the course of the day. Judging by my Twitter feed, they have really ticked off the Left. Heh.
Some of you may recall that I reported last week on some anti-Israel posters that were placed in MetroNorth stations in suburban New York. When you go back to work on Monday,
StandWithUS will be countering those ads. The StandWithUs billboard campaign will highlight Israel's history, its gifts to the world, and underscore the Palestinians' refusal to say yes to peace.
One StandWithUs billboard informs viewers that the land of Israel, renamed Palestine by the conquering Romans in 135 CE, has been the Jewish homeland for over 3,000 years. A second billboard features a picture of the Bible along with the tagline, "According to this 3,000-year-old best seller, Israel is the Jewish homeland." The third visually details how Palestinians have said no to territorial compromise and peace repeatedly since 1937. A fourth billboard underlines the fact that Israel saves water through cutting-edge water conservation technology that is being exported around the world. The fifth shows how Israeli technology helps Americans, in part by creating American jobs. The sixth shows a Palestinian and Israeli boy hugging, reminding viewers that Israel Needs a Partner for Peace and urging the Palestinian leaders to accept Israel as its Jewish neighbor. Viewers will be directed to learn more at either www.sayyestopeace.org or www.onlyisrael.org.
"We cannot allow the public to be misled by the factual distortions in yet another anti-Israel campaign. We are committed to countering anti-Israel campaigns whenever they appear," stated Roz Rothstein, CEO of StandWithUs.
“Anti-Israel activists continuously try to undermine American support for Israel with campaigns that misrepresent Israel and its history. The anti-Israel ads are a shocking distortion of history. The message presumes there once was an Arab Palestine, when in fact no such country ever existed. As two of our billboards point out, this region has been recognized as the Jewish homeland for over 3,000 years. Our billboards will show some of the documentation to prove this fact-- the Arch of Titus in Rome, as well as the Bible. Our billboards will focus on the real Israel--its vibrancy, creativity, and humanitarianism--and underscore that Israel is on the forefront, working alongside the U.S., of making the world a better place," explained Rothstein.
"The founding of modern Israel was an act of historical justice. The injustice is that Palestinian Arabs have continued to reject all territorial compromises for peace. That’s why one of our billboards will detail the number of times that Palestinians have said no to territorial compromise and peace," stated Avi Posnick, regional coordinator of the New York chapter of StandWithUs. "Our billboard campaigns highlight how just Israel’s founding was, how MUCH it has sought peace with its neighbors, and how it is fulfilling its goal of helping people around the world."
Anti-Israel groups have repeatedly tried to undermine American support for Israel through misinformation campaigns like the NY/Westchester billboards, and StandWithUs has countered these anti-Israel billboards wherever they've appeared. In September 2011 SWU countered 25 anti-Israel billboards placed in New York's subway stations with 25 billboards that informed the public that "Israel Needs a Partner for Peace." StandWithUs billboards that displayed the message "Teach Peace, Not Hate" appeared in 2007 and 2009 in Washington, DC, Albuquerque, and Houston (in cooperation with the organization Bridge Houston). In 2010 SWU countered an anti-Israel billboard campaign in Chicago's transit system stations, and allied with other groups to successfully persuade Seattle's Metro Transit to reject proposed billboards with inflammatory, anti-Israel accusations. SWU countered anti-Israel billboards displayed in San Francisco and Berkeley BART stations four times in 2011-12, and placed billboards in Denver in April 2012 that promoted the story of "Baby Israela, delivered by Israeli medics in Haiti," and conveyed the message that "Israel saves lives." StandWithUs dropped plans to counter anti-Israel billboards in Los Angeles in June 2012 when the billboard company, CBS Outdoor, pulled the anti-Israel billboards after one week because the campaigners misused CBS Outdoor's name.
"Anti-Israel activists continue to display their typical negative billboards, which omit the Palestinian responsibility for the stalled peace process. We will continue to set the record straight, which we do in all our work, and we will inform the public about Israel's achievements in helping to make the world a better place," stated Posnick.
"We hope that those who publicize misinformation about Israel understand that every time they do, we will be there to inform the public," affirmed Rothstein.
StandWithUs to counter inflammatory Metro North ads
The billboard above appears at ten Metro North stations in New York City's northern suburbs. It's factually incorrect (of course). The first place it appeared was in Chappaqua, New York last week. There's an online poll (and more) here, which is fairly new. I made the score 2-3. You should all go and vote yes.
Assembly member Robert Castelli (R, C - Goldens Bridge) was quick to call the billboard "anti-Israeli" and asked Metro-North President Howard Permut to remove it immediately.
"I am a strong supporter of the First Amendment right of free speech in the Constitution, and certainly a proponent that the people of Israel and Palestine should live in harmony together," Castelli said. "However, the subliminal message that this particular billboard carries is an anti-Israeli message that I believe has just the opposite effect of creating peace and harmony between the Israeli and Palestinian people."
...
The billboard is sponsored by Henry Clifford, who co-chairs the Committee for Peace in Israel and Palestine (COPIP). The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) said the billboard is "deliberately misleading and biased."
...
Clifford, who paid $25,000 for the billboards, told Fox News that “there’s always room for discussion of different sides of every story, but there’s no room for discussion on fact. Anyone who challenges these maps and the content of these ads, it’s their obligation to show that they’re historically wrong. The ball is in their court.”
Commuters at the station have seemingly offered some "feedback" for the billboards. On Monday morning, foul language was hand-written and stamped onto the ad.
Resident Deb Raider Notis believes the advertisement should be removed: "It is insightful and could encourage hate crimes," she said.
StandWithUs, however, is set to combat this lie by placing at least 50 pro-Israel ads in similar locations. They organization is in the process of refining their messaging with CBS Outdoors and will soon release a photo of the billboards, according to a Scarsdale website.
The organization countered 25 anti-Israel ads in New York's subway system with 25 ads in September of last year that informed the public that “Israel Needs a Partner for Peace.”
In 2007 and 2009, SWU ads appeared in Washington, DC, Albuquerque and Houston, with the message, "Teach Peace, Not Hate."
In 2010 SWU, together with other groups, successfully persuaded Seattle's Metro to reject proposed ads with inflammatory, anti-Israel accusations.
Progressive first 'Jewish' organizations losing donations
YidWithLid writes that Jewish political organizations that place progressivism before Jewish values are experiencing a significant drop in donations.
Two Jewish Organizations that that put progressive politics before their mission, the ADL and The AJC have seen their donations plummet during the past five years. Apparently the money is shifting toward single-issue organizations especially Israel advocacy groups.
The Anti-Defamation League has lost more than $20 million in annual contributions over the past five years, going from more than $73 million in 2006 down to $51 million in 2010, according to its latest tax filings. That is a 30% fall-off, before taking inflation into account.
Similarly, the American Jewish Committee, which brought in $62 million in donations in 2005, raised only $38 million in 2010. In the last half of 2009 — the only part of that year the group reported due to a shift from fiscal to calendar year — the group raised $10.6 million in donations.
The excuse given by the the Institute for Jewish and Community research (based in San Francisco-'nuff said) is that younger donors want to have more control of their dollars so they are moving their cash to single issue-oriented organizations.
The organizations on the rise include AIPAC, The Israel Project, and Stand With Us all Israel advocacy groups.
Last week, the Forward published a scathing review of StandWithUs, one of the better Israel advocacy groups out there. StandWithUs sent a response to the article, and the Forward refused to publish it. So the letter has been sent to several bloggers (at least I assume it was several), including yours truly, with a request that we publish the letter. Here it is:
On November 27, the Jewish Daily Forward wrote an article about StandWithUs that contains many inaccuracies.
StandWithUs responded with a letter that the Forward has yet to publish. You are free to print the letter.
Here's the link to the Forward article: http://www.forward.com/articles/146821/
Here is the response that they would not print:
To The Forward,
StandWithUs appreciates your recent coverage of our dynamic growth, and of our multiple educational and advocacy efforts in cities around the world.
However, we were disturbed by the bizarre angle of your article, which tried to discredit us as “right wing,” and absurdly asked whether StandWithUs should register as an agent of a foreign government even though your own sources emphatically rejected this notion. You even tried to imply that there is something suspect about our funding sources though the Jewish Federation of Los Angeles and Birthright Israel can hardly be considered suspect.
Your readers deserve to know the facts.
StandWithUs does not and has never advocated specific policies for Israel. Our work and our respect for Israel’s democratically elected government is not contingent on which parties are in power. Instead, since our founding, our mission has been to counter the vicious anti-Israel, anti-Semitic propaganda campaign that was unleashed along with the Intifada in September, 2000. Our goal is to educate the public about Israel—and empower others to educate their communities—to counter the demonizing propaganda and to make it possible to have reasonable, informed conversations about Israel’s policies on campuses and in communities.
Your readers should be informed about the virulence of the anti-Israel propaganda campaign. Israel is the only modern state whose right to exist is still questioned. If you consider support for the existence of the Jewish State a right wing position, then indeed we are right wing. Yet you repeatedly confused anti-Israel propaganda with “reasonable criticism” of Israeli policies. But the boycott movement against Israel is not just critical of Israel’s occupation and settlements as you claimed. The movement opposes the very existence of the Jewish state. Read their literature and their websites which are biased screeds that ignore ongoing terrorism and falsify facts. We objected to the Israeli soldiers’ group speaking on campuses not because they are critical of the Israeli government but because they misrepresent the IDF to vilify it and contribute to the malicious misinformation about Israel on American campuses.
Similarly, your article misrepresented why we object to J Street. It is not because J Street “criticizes” Israel's government policies, but rather because it attempts to get the American government to strong arm Israel into adopting specific policies that Israeli voters clearly rejected in their democratic elections. It is an effort to bypass Israel’s democracy. Furthermore, J Street has often supported blatant demonization of Israel, as when it tried to facilitate bringing Richard Goldstone and the infamous UN Goldstone Report to Congressional members. Even Goldstone himself has admitted the inaccuracy and bias of that report.
Indeed, it seems you had to search hard to find some evidence that would justify your criticism of StandWithUs. Though you claimed that StandWithUs has many critics, the only one you cited by name is well-known for his extremist views. Your criticism of some specific facts in our educational materials is simply erroneous . Despite your claim, Israel’s founding in May, 1948, did not cause the Palestinian refugee problem. Indeed, no responsible historian, including Benny Morris, disputes the fact that had Palestinian leaders accepted the UN Partition plan instead of launching a war to destroy the newly declared state, there would have been no refugees and a Palestinian Arab state would exist today. The Danny Ayalon video simply laid out the historical facts about the West Bank. It is disputed territory, and both Palestinians and Israelis have legitimate claims to it. What policies Israel and the Palestinians choose in light of these facts is a political question that will hopefully be hammered out in negotiations. StandWithUs does not recommend any specific policies, but rather elucidates the facts and history so there can be reasonable discussions about different policy options.
It is a shame that The Forward, while seeming to congratulate our growth and achievements during the last ten years, nonetheless chose to malign our efforts.
These are difficult times for Israel. The Arab spring has created instability in the region and allowed the rise of Islamist forces that oppose Israel’s existence. Iran is racing to develop nuclear weapons and constantly reiterates that it wants to wipe Israel off the map. Hezbollah and Hamas continue amassing arms. The anti-Israel propaganda campaign, often called the “new anti-Semitism,” (for good reason) persistently tries to make inroads in liberal Western democracies. StandWithUs alerts and educates the public about these challenges, while the Forward minimizes them, doing a disservice to its readers.
Roz Rothstein, CEO
StandWithUs
So why won't the Forward publish this? Surely they are liberal and tolerant....
Political debate in Britain hits bottom, digs deeper
StandWithUs gets smeared as an 'extremist organization' and Conservative MP Louise Mensch (pictured) gets attacked for accepting a speaking engagement from them by Ben White, a frequent contributor to al-Guardian's Comment is Free feature. But what's most amazing about this piece is the infantile level of White's writing. In essence, his argument is "I disagree with them, therefore they are extremists, so how could you accept an invitation to speak to them?" Here are some examples.
The UK chair of StandWithUs disputes the international legal consensus that Settlements in the Occupied West Bank are illegal.
A 2009 investigation into StandWithUs’ donors accused the group of having “a web of funders who support organisations that have been accused of anti-Muslim propaganda and encouraging a militant Israeli and U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East”.
The group’s activists have also been accused of intimidating Palestine solidarity activists in the past.
A StandWithUs event of the same name happening in the US this month features Itamar Marcus, an Israeli settler who features in Islamophobic film ‘Obsession’.
Here in the UK, StandWithUs is working with religious fundamentalists, sending their national coordinator to speak at a conference promoted by those who believe that God will “curse those who curse Israel”.
Israel’s defenders are free to choose the allies they want – but should an MP be giving them support?
I purposely did not copy the links - no sense in giving them any more traffic.
Louise Mensch may be known to some of you as Louise Bagshawe, and she ought to be regarded as a hero in these parts. I'd be thrilled to hear her speak. Too bad Ben White won't listen.
Now there's a new word for the second decade of the 21st century: Docureality.
IS.REAL is a docu-reality web series which follows the lives of 4 young Israelis.
The project was initiated by students from the Tel Aviv University. The "Is.Real"series will cover the lives of four young Israelis from diverse social and ethnic backgrounds.
Through documenting their daily lives, their exposure will provide a fresh new insight into the "real Israel" that isn't shown in news stories.
StandWithUs has a new web page devoted to disseminating factual information about the flotilla of fools. It includes videos and other goodies. You can check it out here.
Why American Jewish organizations are defending Obama
Caroline Glick looks at the strange phenomenon that we've seen over the past week, in which the ADL and StandWithUs(!) both issued statements supporting President Barack Hussein Obama. You really have to read the whole thing - I didn't even know that StandWithUs had issued a statement supporting him. That's a huge disappointment. Here are Caroline's explanations for why the Jewish organizations are behaving this way:
It would seem that there are three possible explanations.
The first explanation is fear. Several American Jewish philanthropists have mentioned over the past two years that they fear Obama. If he is reelected, they worry that since he will no longer need Jewish political contributions, he might strike out at Jewish-owned businesses the way he struck out at Republican-owned General Motors car dealerships when he nationalized GM. If they attack Obama for his positions on Israel, they worry that they will give him further justification for going after them.
...
The second, perhaps more plausible, explanation is that Jewish leaders are concerned that their fellow American Jews are more attached to their identity as Democrats than they are to their identity as Jews. True, the overwhelming majority of American Jews express firm support for Israel. A poll carried out last week for the Committee for Accuracy in Middle Eastern Reporting in America (CAMERA) found that support for Israel is nearly unanimous among American Jews.
Yet neither the CAMERA poll nor previous surveys by the American Jewish Committee or Brandeis which had similar findings asked respondents to weigh their support for Israel against support for the Democratic Party. So it is possible that leaders are worried that if they oppose Obama's anti-Israel positions too strongly, they will lose some support.
...
The third reason why U.S. Jewish leaders may be defending Obama's positions on Israel is because the Israeli left defends his position on Israel. In the face of Obama's latest baiting of Netanyahu, opposition leader Tzipi Livni attacked Netanyahu and accused him of destroying Israel's relations with the U.S. She and her followers also defended Obama's policies. Many American Jewish leaders must certainly believe that they cannot be more pro-Israel than the Israeli left.
I would say that all three explanations - or a combination of them - are plausible. Or maybe it's just the poritz syndrome. But read the whole thing.
A pro-Israel activist at London's School of Oriental and African Studies was bitten on his cheek on Sunday by a pro-'Palestinian' protester at the school.
But suddenly, Mr Coren said, the atmosphere turned hostile. "About four or five people were standing around Gili, Ro'i Goldman, and the fourth member of our group, Dean Gold. One man began to say some extremely unpleasant things about Jews. He said that the best thing the Jews had ever done was to go into the gas chambers. Dean asked if he could film him. The man said yes, adding that 'these things should be heard.'"
Another man then came forward and told the abusive man that he did not have to be filmed or interviewed. Despite the abusive man agreeing to be filmed, Mr Coren said, the second man, who was "big and burly and of Middle East appearance," allegedly launched himself at Dean, grabbing at his camera, punching him and then biting him on the cheek."
"There was a struggle and the university security guards came out. A number of other people then began to say we shouldn't be there. The president of the union came out and said we had made our point. A policeman strongly advised us to leave."
Ro'i Goldman, who plans to study in the UK next year, said he was very shocked by the experience. But Tony Coren said he was not shocked, but was angry that the university authorities had indicated that by their very presence, the Stand With Us protesters had possibly provoked the attack.
Stand With Us is sponsoring a BIG day. That's Buy Israeli Goods day.
StandWithUs is urging schools, campuses, synagogues, community organizations, and individuals to celebrate Israel by designating March 30 as the day to buy up Israeli goods at local stores.
The date was chosen because the anti-Israel boycott campaign has planned a global boycott of Israeli products for the same day (March 30). Protestors will stand outside stores, asking shoppers not to buy Israeli products.
"We need to show the boycotters that their efforts are doomed. Let the boycotters know that when they call for boycotts of even one or two stores or products, they will face a much larger movement to buy Israeli goods," said StandWithUs co-founder and CEO Roz Rothstein. "We are telling people to go to their local stores, request the exact Israeli products being targeted, and buy them out. Let store managers know they should keep Israeli products well stocked on the shelves."
StandWithUs, in partnership with the American-Israel Chamber of Commerce, successfully countered a similar boycott day on November 30, 2010. They mobilized Israel supporters in every store that the boycotters had targeted worldwide. Shoppers bypassed the protesters and bought out entire Israeli product lines. Delighted store owners said it was their best shopping day and promised to keep their shelves stocked with the targeted products.
March 30 is an opportune day for Israeli products because the Jewish holiday of Passover is in April this year. Shoppers can choose presents from the wonderful array of Israeli-made items, from fine Israeli wines to the high-quality Ahava beauty products, Israeli-made jewelry, shoes, clothes, and food, including Sabra or Tribe hummus and Osem cookies
"We must defeat the boycotters who advocate destructive, instead of constructive, measures, who undermine hopes for peaceful coexistence, and whose only goal is to cripple and damage Israel," Rothstein emphasized. "We can only do this by joining together to be part of BIG."
Visit www.BuyIsraelGoods.org-The Web site includes a store locator so people can find stores in their area that carry Israeli products. The BIG campaign is a partnership between StandWithUs and the American-Israel Chamber of Commerce. StandWithUs is encouraging Israel's supporters to take videos and photos of themselves purchasing the products and submit them to big@standwithus.com.
StandWithUs created a flyer listing "Six Reasons You Should Oppose Boycotting Israel" at www.standwithus.com/flyers/pdfs/saynoboycottsflyer3.pdf. One reason, the flyer lists, is that boycotting Israel hurts the peace process by encouraging hard-liners and "does nothing to help the Palestinians improve their lives." Shoppers should buy both Israeli and Palestinian products as "an investment in peaceful coexistence."
StandWithUs has released an online button promoting the campaign for supporters to post to their Facebook walls. A physical button is also available to pin on your clothes, attach to your key chain, etc. Pick it up from www.standwithus.com
And StandWithUs doesn't support boycotts of the 'settlements' either.
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
