RUTHFULLY YOURS

If I had a shekel for every threat I’ve heard from disgruntled citizens to “leave the country” if a certain politician rises to power or a particular policy is implemented, I’d be rich.

Having just returned from a trip to the United States, where Trump-o-mania has some people in a frenzy over the possibility that the real estate mogul might win the presidential election in November, I thought I could escape some of this type of hysteria by returning home to Israel, where such hyperbole is so commonplace that it is barely noticeable.

But there is no rest for the weary, as I would discover on the day of my flight to Tel Aviv, when the announcement was made that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had entered into a coalition deal with former foreign minister and nemesis, Yisrael Beytenu leader Avigdor Lieberman.

That this deal entailed the replacement of Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon was of no source of concern to me. Though Ya’alon has an illustrious history and a reputation for being both a serious military man and levelheaded think-tank member, I gave up on him when he started preaching morality to Israeli society. At a time when both radical Islamists and Western professors, as well as huge swaths of the British Labour Party, are waging a frontal assault on the Jewish state, accusing it of atrocities it does not commit, the last thing Israel needs is a cabinet member adding fuel to the anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic fire.

I therefore say goodbye to Ya’alon without a heavy heart. Though Lieberman leaves much to be desired, at least he believes in meting out the death penalty to terrorists. Nor is he even as “right-wing” as his detractors claim. Like the positions of Trump, Lieberman’s are often indistinguishable from those of his left-wing counterparts. It’s the “take no prisoners” rhetoric and associations with dubious characters that make both men controversial.

Something is going on in the climate-change wars. Man’s role in our changing climate, according to Mr. Obama, is “settled” science, much as eugenics was once “settled” science. The latter was based on Darwin’s theory of natural selection. Among its consequences: it made phrenology an accepted study, it abetted discrimination, and it fostered the concept that the less fit should not over-breed. Steven Levitt’s claim in Freakonomics, that abortions reduce crime rates, has its origins in eugenics.

Anti-intellectualism is not confined to climate. The rationalization for transgender bathrooms is based on identity politics, not science. When Curt Schilling said that “a man is a man no matter what they call themselves,” he was fired. He may have been politically incorrect, but, x and y chromosomes say he was factually correct. As William McGurn recently noted in The Wall Street Journal, Schilling was “…Galileo, with ESPN filling in for the Holy Office.” Science is, as Mr. Obama should know, a process of discovery. When “science” strays beyond the limits of what has been established as scientifically true, it begins to resemble pseudo-science.

For years, debate has swirled around the role of man’s impact on climate. Those on the left claim that he bears principal responsibility, while those on the right question the degree of man’s effect. Both acknowledge that the earth’s climate has never stood still, and both parties recognize man has played a role. The debate: Where on the spectrum should man’s responsibility lie and what should be done to alleviate harm, while allowing economies to grow? Should we spend time assigning blame, or should we look for solutions to problems caused by climate, regardless of man’s role?

Both sides have become mulish in defense of their turf. The right receives donations from the oil, gas and coal industries – all of which have been critical to the standards of living we enjoy. The left gets support from environmental and green-energy groups, which have abetted our quality of life. Society has benefitted from both. Both richer and poorer nations require the former, but it is only developed nations that can afford “green energy.” When the battle is joined, it is society that suffers.

“Why do so many Israelis hate Breaking the Silence?” asks Haggai Matar, an Israeli journalist and political activist, who focuses on the Israeli “occupation.” According to the group’s website, Breaking the Silence (BtS) “is an organization of veteran combatants who have served in the Israeli military since the start of the Second Intifada and have taken it upon themselves to expose the Israeli public to the reality of everyday life in the Occupied Territories. We endeavor to stimulate public debate about the price paid for a reality in which young soldiers face a civilian population on a daily basis, and are engaged in the control of that population’s everyday life. Our work aims to bring an end to the occupation.” [1]
Matar sees BtS as a legitimate way to force Israelis to examine their country’s role in Judea and Samaria. For that reason, BtS should not be under relentless attack from the Israeli Right, since the organization does not support BDS, advocate Israeli officers be tried for war crimes, urge Israelis to refuse army service, or excuse Arab violence. Only Israeli political leaders should be held accountable, he opines. [2]
When BtS published a 242 page report in May 2015 entitled “This is How We Fought in Gaza, Soldiers testimonies and photographs from Operation Protective Edge ̋ (2014),” it generated major headlines in Britain, the U.S. and much of Europe. The headline in The Washington Post set the negative tone against Israel: “New report details how Israeli soldiers killed civilians in Gaza: “There were no rules.” [3]
The report contained testimonies from more than 60 IDF active and reserve soldiers who participated in Operation “Protective Edge” in the Gaza Strip, approximately a quarter of whom are officers ranging up to the rank of major.
A key allegation:
“The guiding military principle of ‘minimum risk to our forces, even at the cost of harming innocent civilians,’alongside efforts to deter and intimidate the Palestinians, led to massive and unprecedented harm to the population and the civilian infrastructure in the Gaza Strip. Policymakers could have predicted these results prior to the operation and were surely aware of them throughout.” [4]
Questions about BtS tactics, methodology, motivations, funding, disproportionate media attention, and the certainty of future clashes with Hamas, ensures continued scrutiny and discussion.
Gerald M. Steinberg, the founder and president of NGO Monitor, that documents questionable funding and actions of many NGO’s that support Israel-based reporters, explained how BtS operates. With approximately 10 staff members, BtS issues unnamed and unsubstantiated testimonies from Israeli soldiers claiming to have witnessed fellow soldiers committing war crimes. BtS representatives repeat these false allegations in European parliaments, before UN agencies, on university campuses and in the media. [5] They even met with members of the White House National Security Council at the offices of an American nonprofit in the capital. A separate meeting was held with senior officials at the State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. [6]

A few years ago, the Syrian American Council sponsored a tour by Sheik Mohammad Rateb al-Nabulsi who had called for the murder of all the Jews.

“Allah has made it a duty to fight them and wage Jihad against them,” he had declared. It was not “permissible under Sharia” to make peace with the Jews. Instead the Muslims were obligated to “fight them, to shed their blood, and wage perpetual Jihad.”

“All the Jewish people are combatant,” he ranted. They could all be killed.

The chairman of the SAC, Hussam Ayloush described Jews as “Zionazis” and refused to condemn Hamas.

Despite that, HIAS allied with the Syrian American Council in its push for the migration of Syrian Muslims. And the ADL chose to invite Omar Hossino of the SAC to speak at its National Leadership Summit.

The ADL is no stranger to strange alliances with Islamist groups through its Interfaith Coalition on Mosques which harasses local communities into acceding to the construction of Islamist institutions. But under its new leader Jonathan Greenblatt, an Obama associate, the organization has also been opening doors to anti-Israel groups across the spectrum.

When radical anti-Israel hate group If Not Now targeted Jewish charities for harassment, the ADL told the stealth BDS group, which has ties to open BDS group JVP, that “there’s more we agree on than disagree on.” A follow up ADL tweet was openly directed at a JVP member. Greenblatt’s press release described members of the anti-Israel hate group as “part of our community” and claimed once again that If Not Now and ADL shared the “same goal”. No less a figure on the left than Eric Yoffie, a persistent critic of Israel, had written that, “IfNotNow is not a pro-Israel organization. It does not deserve the support of left-leaning American Jews.” And that was coming from a J Street supporter.

“I call on the Palestinian people to elect new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror. I call upon them to build a practicing democracy, based on tolerance and liberty. If the Palestinian people meet these goals, they will be able to reach agreements with Israel, Egypt and Jordan on security and other arrangements for independence.” — President George W. Bush, 2002.

The Palestinians do not have “a practicing democracy based on tolerance and liberty,” but erasing Israel evidently remains their goal.

Rather than offering the Palestinians no-cost recognition, the French should demand a few changes first.

The French government seems to be falling over itself to undo its craven vote in favor of a UNESCO resolution accusing Israel — referred to as the “Occupying Power” in Jerusalem — of destroying historic structures on the Temple Mount:

Prime Minister Manuel Valls apologized. “This UNESCO resolution contains unfortunate, clumsy wording that offends and unquestionably should have been avoided, as should the vote.”
Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve apologized. [I do] “not take a supportive view of the text.” The resolution “should not have been adopted” and “was not written as it should have been.”
President François Hollande apologized. [The vote was] “unfortunate,” and, “I would like to guarantee that the French position on the question of Jerusalem has not changed… I also wish to reiterate France’s commitment to the status quo in the holy places in Jerusalem… As per my request, the foreign minister will personally and closely follow the details of the next decision on this subject. France will not sign a text that will distance her from the same principles I mentioned.”
Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault did not quite apologize: “France has no vested interest but is deeply convinced that if we do not want to let the ideas of the Islamic State group prosper in this region, we must do something.”

It sounds as if they thought they had made a mistake. But the vote was not a mistake. Underestimating the depth of Israel’s anger about it might have been a mistake, but not the vote. The French — who, according to their foreign minister, have “no vested interest” but need to “do something” about Islamic State — could not have thought that a UNESCO resolution that offended Israel would do anything to slow ISIS “in the region” or in Europe. There is no way it could; the two are not connected.