What the Media Gets Wrong About Israel

Israel has an identity problem. Is it a Jewish state that provides legal and material preferences for citizens of Jewish ancestry? Or is it a secular nationstate, but one that happens to be rooted in Jewish culture and the Hebrew language? For more than six decades Israeli politicians have maintained a useful ambiguity about this deeply existential question. But no longer. In elections in March, Israel’s voters will be forced to confront stark choices about the country’s national identity. In the absence of a formal, written constitution, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has embraced a game­changing “nation­state” bill that would award “national rights” only to Jewish citizens. The outcome of this crossroads election is by no means certain. Initially, polls suggested that Mr. Netanyahu might well cement his hold on power and accelerate Israel’s rightward drift. But the recent forging of a new political coalition between Isaac Herzog, leader of the left­center Labor Party, and Tzipi Livni, leader of the Hatnua, a small center­right party — who was sacked from the cabinet earlier this month, as Mr. Netanyahu called for new elections — suggests that there may be a viable electoral alternative. Mr. Herzog and Ms. Livni oppose the Jewish nation­state bill. They are old­fashioned Zionists, wedded to the notion that all of Israel’s citizens, Jewish or otherwise, are entitled to equal democratic rights. And unlike Mr. Netanyahu, they both understand that Israel’s continued control over the post­ 1967 occupied territories threatens its democratic character. Israel’s 1948 declaration of independence guarantees “complete equality12/26/2014 Israel, a Jewish Republic? ­ NYTimes.com http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/26/opinion/israel­a­jewish­republic.html?_r=0 2/4 of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex.” So Israel may be a “Jewish state” in a cultural sense, but at least no more so than America can be called a “Christian state.” Israel was never intended to be a theocracy. It is also home to less than half of the world’s people who claim Jewish ancestry. Twenty percent of its citizens are not Jewish, but rather Muslim, Christian and Druze. And this minority is growing. Furthermore, most of Israel’s citizens who do claim Jewish ancestry are in fact secular, nonpracticing Jews. A large majority of its million­plus Russian immigrants are not even recognized as Jewish by the Orthodox rabbinical courts. A Jewish nation­state law would discriminate against these non­Jewish citizens — but it could also provide the quasi­judicial pretext for denying Palestinians citizenship if the ultraright get their way and Israel someday annexes the occupied territories. This is a bad idea in every conceivable way. In reality, Israel is a multiethnic, vibrant and largely secular society. This is clearly not a tragedy. It is actually what most of the country’s original Zionist founding fathers envisioned — a new, modern state in ancient Palestine where those Jews who so desired could become citizens of a nation like any other modern nation­state. “Israelis” would be seen not as members of the Jewish Diaspora, but citizens of their own state. Hillel Kook (1915­2001), an early Zionist leader from the Revisionist wing, thought of the new Israeli state as a “Hebrew Republic” — a place where Jews could leave behind the Diaspora. Instead of being Jewish Americans or Jewish Frenchmen, their identity would be defined in the first instance by their chosen citizenship in the new Israeli state — and not their Jewishness. They would be Israelis first — and would choose or choose not to practice their ancestral religion, just as most Frenchmen are Catholics who never attend Mass. Over more than six decades Israelis have created a distinct national culture, largely based on their language — always a key ingredient to any national identity. And this cultural identity is wholly separate from a Jewish Republic? ­ This definition of Israeli identity — one based on the Hebrew language and culture rather than religion — is a very good thing for the prospects of peace. The Palestine Liberation Organization and most Arab leaders already recognize the reality of the Israeli state. So why would Israeli leaders now want to define their identity from their neighbors’ in religious terms? Why does Mr. Netanyahu want to define his nation­state with precisely the same phrases used by Hamas, a nonsecular, fundamentalist party dedicated to the formation of an Islamic republic? Mr. Netanyahu himself is a secular politician. His insistence on a “Jewish state” seems to be only a prescription for endless conflict with his “Muslim” neighbors — and perhaps today a tactic to postpone further negotiations on the creation of a Palestinian state. The notion of a Jewish state is ultimately political poison for the Jewish Diaspora, and specifically for American Jews. If Israel is seen as a Jewish state, then the implication exists that some or all of America’s seven million Jewish Americans “belong” in Israel. They do not. They belong in the United States, and they’re not going anywhere. American Jews have thrived over the last hundred years, and in doing so they have enriched the secular and multi­cultural ethos of the United States. They can practice their faith as well or better in America than anywhere else. Their relation to the state of Israel is precisely the same as that of IrishAmericans to Ireland, or Italian­Americans to Italy. For all these reasons, talking about a “Jewish state” destroys a useful and wise ambiguity. Instead, Israelis need to celebrate their “Israeli” national identity. They should talk about Israel’s cultural and technological achievements. And talk about Israel’s security, too, and where its borders should be drawn so that the endless conflict between Arabs and Israelis can finally come to an end. Kai Bird is the author, most recently, of “The Good Spy: The Life and Death of Robert Ames.”12/26/2014 Israel, a Jewish Republic? ­ NYTimes.com http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/26/opinion/israel­a­jewish­republic.html?_r=0 4/4 Correction: December 25, 2014 An earlier version of this article incorrectly described Isaac Herzog, leader of the left­center Labor Party. He was not sacked from the cabinet of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. A version of this op­ed appears in print on December 26, 2014, in The International New York Time

The new Euro-Muslim states

Op-ed: The Westernization of the Arab world has been replaced with the Islamization of Europe. The Arab League boycotted Israel from its very first day, and the 'European Union' with its new Muslim masters may now follow in its footsteps.

Published:  12.22.14, 00:33 / Israel Opinion

Once again, the "European Union" is forgetting about everything and dealing only with Israel and the Jews – a well-known and popular habit in Europe for hundreds (the Jews) and dozens (Israel) of years.

• Follow Ynetnews on Facebook and Twitter  

But this time it's different: The distance between the continent and the Muslim world is becoming increasingly shorter, and a new historical term can be coined: "Euro-Muslim states."

Just like the Arab world did all in its power to harm the young Israel, the same trend is taking shape in the European Union as well. While in the past we talked about the Westernization of the Arab world, we are now talking about the Arabization of Europe. The Arab League boycotted Israel from its very first day, and the "European Union" may now follow in its footsteps.

This may surprise many people, but there are already large citiesin Europe which will have a Muslim majority within five to seven years. Not just a huge minority, but an actual Muslim majority. And because cities determine reality these days, the coming years are expected to bring an extensive demographic and political change in the Euro-Muslim states.

The first European city which will have a Muslim majority by the end of the decade is Marseilles, the second largest city in France, where Muslims already make up 30% to 40% of the population. In 2016, the city will inaugurate a huge mosque with a 25-meter minaret and a prayer hall for 14,000 worshippers, fitting the huge community. This city has such a high crime rate that it's almost dangerous to live there.
Demographic censuses are banned in France, but according to estimates, the percentage of Muslims in the country has already crossed 13%.

A Muslim praying in Germany. 'If I were European, I would be very anxious right now. It's possible that the continent's Islamization is already an irreversible process' (Photo: Reuters)

By the end of the decade, a Muslim majority is also expected in Barcelona, Spain, where about 30% of residents are Muslims and there is a huge demand for more and more mosques.

There are smaller Spanish towns like Salt, where 40% of resident are already Muslims. The Muslim immigration rate to Spain is huge, and so is the birthrate, which leans on the welfare policy of the clumsy, suicidal giant called the "European Union."

Another city where a Muslim majority is expected very soon is Brussels, which is ironically the capital of the "European Union" and where 25-30% of residents today are Muslim. Islam is more powerful than the Catholic Church in Brussels.

In Malmo, the third largest city in Sweden, 25-30% of residents are Muslims and 40% are foreigners. The city has an alarming crime rate. In the capital of Stockholm, "only" 20% of residents are Muslim.

The same applies to Rotterdam and Amsterdam – in both cities, 25% of residents are Muslims – and Luton, which is located 50 kilometers north of London. Luton is the third largest city in England, and its white residents are already a minority – only 45%. The rest are Muslims and Asians.

The socialist parties are trying to gain support among these new huge communities, knowing that attacking Israel will be seen very favorably there. But the socialist rule marks an even quicker increase in the percentage of Muslims in the continent, as the socialist are in favor of continuing the crazy, legal and illegal, immigration of Muslims to the continent.

If I were European, I would be very anxious right now. That's the reason why right-wing parties are beginning to rise in Europe, seeing this transformation in the face of the continent as an eternal disaster.

These parties will increasingly take over the continent in the coming years, and that will cause greater shocks to the point of future civil wars. And it's also possible that the continent's Islamization is already an irreversible process.

It's a shame that little Israel is unwillingly inserted into the internal shocks in the continent (why is Israel the European Parliament's business anyway?), but punching the Jews and gaining legitimacy has always been a European game, whether among the Christians or, now, with the new masters – the Muslims.

EU Backs Palestinian Dictatorship

These European parliaments are also turning a blind eye to the fact that, under the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Hamas in the Gaza Strip, there is no respect for the rule of law, free speech, transparency or accountability.
These Western parliamentarians are in fact acting against the interests of the Palestinians, who are clearly not hoping for another corrupt dictatorship in the Arab world.
"The situation in Palestine does not conform at all with democracy or the rule of law... Wake up and see the loss of rights, law and security." — Freih Abu Medein, former Palestinian Authority Justice Minister.
"Abu Mazen [Mahmoud Abbas] wants to concentrate all authorities in his hands and the hand of his loyalists. He's acting in a dictatorial way and wants to be in control of everything, especially the finances." — Yasser Abed Rabbo, Secretary General of the PLO.
By turning a blind eye to human rights violations, as well as assaults on freedom of expression, the judiciary and the parliamentary system in the Palestinian territories, Western parliaments are paving the way for a creation of a rogue state called Palestine.

European parliaments that are rushing to recognize a Palestinian state are ignoring the fact that the Palestinians have been without a functioning parliament for the past seven years.

The Palestinian parliament, known as the Palestinian Legislative Council [PLC], has been paralyzed since 2007, when Hamas violently seized control over the Gaza Strip and expelled the Palestinian Authority [PA].

These European parliaments are also turning a blind eye to the fact that, under the PA in the West Bank and Hamas in the Gaza Strip, there is no respect for the rule of law, free speech, transparency or accountability.

This week, the European Parliament also adopted a resolution recognizing Palestinian statehood in principle. A total of 489 MEP's voted in favor, while 88 were against.

Ironically, the EU Parliament vote coincided with an unprecedented crackdown by the Palestinian Authority leadership on the Palestinian Legislative Council and its secretary-general, Ibrahim Khraisheh, in Ramallah.

PA President Mahmoud Abbas ordered the arrest of Khraisheh for allegedly criticizing PA Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah. Following strong protests by leaders of various Palestinian factions, who described the decision as a flagrant breach of freedom of expression, Abbas was forced to backtrack.

But for Abbas, this was not the end of the story. After canceling the arrest order against Khraisheh, Abbas dispatched policemen to the parliament building in Ramallah to prevent the top official from entering the compound. The presence of the policemen at the main entrance to the parliament building drew sharp denunciations from many Palestinians.

The Palestinian Legislative Council building in Ramallah. (Image source: Alaraby)

Khraisheh was removed from his job because he dared to criticize the Palestinian government for arresting Bassam Zakarneh, head of the public employees' union in the West Bank. Many Palestinians have also denounced the arrest of Zakarneh as an assault on workers' rights and an attempt to intimidate them.

But the EU Parliament and other parliaments that voted in favor of recognizing Palestinian statehood did not see a need to comment on Abbas's measures against the PLC and one of its senior officials.

EU parliamentarians who voted in favor of Palestinian statehood are most likely unaware of what the former PA Justice Minister, Freih Abu Medein, had to say about the rule of law and order in the Palestinian Authority.

Abu Medein drew a bleak picture of what the future Palestinian state would look like. In a damning article he published last week, Abu Medein wrote: "The situation in Palestine does not conform at all with democracy or the rule of law, because the Palestinian mentality is too coarse to cope with transparency of the law and its regulators and provisions."

Abu Medein's scathing attack, which is directed first and foremost against Abbas, ended with an appeal to Palestinians to "wake up and see the loss of law, rights and security" in the areas controlled by the PA and Hamas.

The former Palestinian Authority justice minister is not the only prominent Palestinian who seems to understand that a Palestinian state under the current circumstances would be anything but democratic.

Yasser Abed Rabbo, the secretary-general of the PLO who until recently was considered one of Abbas's top confidants, was quoted last week as strongly condemning the Palestinian Authority president's "dictatorial" rule.

Referring to Abbas by his nom de guerre, Abed Rabbo said: "Abu Mazen wants to concentrate all authorities in his hands and the hands of his loyalists. He's acting in a dictatorial way and wants to be in control of everything, especially the finances. I don't know what this man wants and why he's behaving in this way. What will happen after Abu Mazen's departure?"

The parliament members of Sweden, Britain, France and Portugal who voted in favor of recognizing Palestinian statehood do not seem to care about their Palestinian colleagues, who have been deprived of carrying out their parliamentary obligations as a result of the power struggle between Hamas and Abbas's Fatah faction.

Nor do they seem to care if the Palestinian state would be another corrupt dictatorship where there is no room for the rule of law, transparency or freedom of speech.

Obviously, Western parliamentarians see no wrongdoing or evil in the actions of the Palestinian leadership and Hamas. They are prepared to vote in favor of a Palestinian state even if it does not appear to be headed toward democracy and transparency.

These Western parliamentarians are in fact acting against the interests of the Palestinians, who are clearly not hoping for another corrupt dictatorship in the Arab world. By turning a blind eye to human rights violations, as well as assaults on freedom of expression, the judiciary and the parliamentary system in the Palestinian territories, Western parliaments are paving the way for the creation of a rogue state called Palestine.

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4965/eu-palestinian-dictatorship

Related Topics:  Palestinian Authority  |  Khaled Abu Toameh

To Destroy ISIS Emulate Israel

What Happened the Day Michael Brown was Shot

By Matt Lewis

We’re only now starting to learn what happened the day Michael Brown was shot. But how much will the truth really matter at this point? It’s time we admit something: Increasingly, it’s starting to look like Officer Darren Wilson acted appropriately that fateful day in Ferguson. Now, until now, I have not weighed in on the Michael Brown shooting—except peripherally. I wrote about how it made conservatives lose faith in the police, discussed the temptation for journalists to become part of the story they are covering, and suggested the media’s incessant coverage might have fanned the Ferguson flames. But even for someone like me—a commentator whose job description includes prematurely weighing in on any issue that captures the nation’s attention—the fundamental question of culpability was never an easy one. It always felt like a “he said he said” situation—with ideological tribalism, not evidence, guiding us to assume our positions on our respective sides. So I avoided it. Frankly, we still don’t know enough to say conclusively what happened the day Brown was shot. But it’s no longer absurd to speculate. As the official autopsy report obtained by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch demonstrates, Brown was shot in the hand at close range—with gunpowder residue in the wound. Both findings seem to buttresses Wilson’s contention that there was a struggle over the officer’s pistol. Additionally, a forensic pathologist interviewed by the paper noted that “the autopsy did not support witnesses who have claimed Brown was shot while running away from Wilson, or with his hands up.” And there’s more: The Washington Post is now reporting that “more than a half-dozen unnamed black witnesses have provided testimony to a St. Louis County grand jury that largely supports Wilson’s account of events of Aug. 9,” according to “several people familiar with the investigation.” Again, there are lingering questions, to be sure, but mounting evidence suggests this this case is much more complex than many previously thought. But let me get this straight: Two and a half months after the shooting and the protests and the rioting, we are just now starting to find out what really happened? And the only reason we’re finding this out now is that it was leaked? There were always a few poking holes in the image of a Brown as a “gentle giant," but the dominant media narrative—which, in fairness, was buttressed by witness accounts—seemed to be that he was murdered in cold blood, with his hands up, for the crime of being black. There were, of course, attempts to debunk this—and leaks to tarnish his image—but those voices were mostly overshadowed by a media that was in many cases had already admittedly sided with the protesters. Once people believe something, they are disinclined to change their minds—even when overwhelming evidence suggests they should. Now, the obvious thing for me to do here is to go all Shep Smith on you and shame the media for hyping and prejudging this case—for prematurely reporting on rumor and innuendo and helping stoke unrest. And that would be a valid, if pointless, thing for me to do. But perhaps we can find a way to avoid this from happening again. I think the first obvious thing we can do is videotape every police interaction—body cams, in-car cameras—you name it. And declassify them. Video solves a lot of mysteries. We don’t know what happened to Bristol Palin, but we do know what happened to Ray Rice’s wife. And rather than viewing it as a violation of privacy, police officers should welcome this development. Because, here’s the thing: There are a lot of good ethical and practical reasons why the police can’t really defend themselves in the court of public opinion—at least, not adequately. First, since they should always ostensibly be on the side of finding the truth, police PR campaigns create an obvious conflict of interest, making it look like they are engaged in the Blue Code of Silence. Additionally, any information they release could potentially poison a jury pool. I could go on… This puts the police at an obvious disadvantage. Maybe in the old days, you could afford to wait a few months and let the process take care of itself—allow the slow wheels of justice grind on. But one gets the sense that this is impractical in the era of Twitter and 24-7 news coverage. Shutting up is a bad idea. You see this a lot when individuals who are accused of something decide to clam up, often under the advice of their attorney. When people accused of something make smart legal decisions, they are often also making very unwise public relations decisions. And I think the same thing applies to this situation. The truth is that first impressions matter. In politics, once one candidate “defines’ the other candidate (before he can define himself) it’s nearly impossible to change the narrative. It’s game over. Once people believe something, they are disinclined to change their minds—even when overwhelming evidence suggests they should. But in the court of law these, initial perceptions matter little. Darren Wilson might have been convicted in the court of public opinion, but all that matters to the law is that—if he’s innocent—he should be be exonerated (or, in this case, simply not prosecuted) once the evidence is shown. In the real world, however, public opinion does matter—and not just for Officer Wilson. People who believe the original narrative that was repeated ad nauseam back in August might not trust the newly-revealed evidence—or (and this speaks to the media’s culpability) might not even learn about the recent findings, which haven’t garnered nearly as much attention as the story was getting back in August and September. And how will the people who still believe Brown was murdered in cold blood react if Wilson gets off scot-free? Keep in mind that retroactive facts and evidence arguably matter less than first impressions—especially if we don’t vigorously push back on false narratives. And so, as Jonah Goldberg notes, the story we were originally told about Brown’s shooting “will live on for decades to come. That’s in no small part because many decent Americans have locked themselves into the belief that the heroic chapter of the civil-rights movement can never end. The story must go on so they can continue to cast themselves as the heroes.” Regardless of whether or not officer Wilson is cleared, the original narrative will likely shape the context regarding how the next incident—and there’s always a next incident—is framed and perceived. And many—if not most minds—Michael Brown will always be a gentle giant. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/25/untruth-and-consequences-in-ferguson.html 