×ä øãà ùãç ùàøã ×á February 20, 2015

News Reports and Commentary from and about

Israel and the Jewish World

ã×ñá

íåìù úáù äîåøú úùøô

Published by the b TORONTO ZIONIST COUNCIL b Tel: 416-781-3571- e-mail: [email protected]

“Palestine” The Jewish Homeland, The Awakening of Yehuda and Shomron The 40Ì-th Anniversary of the re-birth of Jewish Settlement in Judea and Samaria Sunday February 22, 7:30 PM , Toronto Zionist Centre 788 Marlee Ave Also screening the new 60 min. documentary, “The Awakening of Judea and Samaria” A $3 donation at the door is welcome COMMENTARY: Netanyahu’s True Electoral Rival Column One, By Caroline Glick Officially, the elections on March 17 are among Israelis. Depending on how we vote, either Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyhu will remain in office and form the next government led by his Likud party or Yitzhak Herzog and Tzipi Livni will form a government. But unofficially, a far greater electoral drama is unfolding. The choice is not between Netanyahu or Herzog/Livni. It is between Netanyahu and US President Barack Obama. As the W hite House sees it, if Herzog/Livni form the next government, then Jerusalem will dance to Obama’s tune. If Netanyahu is reelected, then the entire edifice of Obama’s Middle East policy may topple and fall. Secretary of State John Kerry made clear the administration’s desire to topple Netanyahu last spring during his remarks before the Trilateral Commission. It was during that m em orable speech that Kerry libeled Israel claim ing that we would autom atically and naturally becom e an apartheid state if we didn’t give Jerusalem and Judea and Sam aria to the PLO, Jew free, as quickly as possible. Despite Israel’s venality, Kerry held out hope. In his words, “if there is a change of governm ent [in Israel], or a change of heart, something will happen.” Shortly after Kerry gave his Israel apartheid speech, his Middle East mediator Martin Indyk attacked Israel, and the character of the Israeli people in an astounding interview to Yediot Ahronot. Among other things, Indyk hinted that to force Israel to m ake concessions dem anded by the PLO, the Palestinians may need to launch another terror war. Indyk also threatened that the Palestinians will get their state whether Israel agrees to their term s of not. In his words, “They will get their state in the end – whether through violence or by turning to international organizations.” [*] Indyk made his statements as an ‘unnamed US official’. W hen his identity was exposed, he was forced to resign his position. Following his departure from government service he returned to his previous position as vice president and director of the Brookings Institution and the director of its foreign

The Community is invited to Chai Lifeline’s Concert By Neil Sedaka

“Sing for the Children” at Roy Thomson Hall, Toronto On March 16, 2015 at 7:30 PM Chaiconcert.com. (to order tickets call 647-430-5933 or 647-300-3019, or e-mail: [email protected]

policy program. Last September the New York Times reported that the Brookings Institute received a $14.8 million four year donation from Qatar, the chief financier of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. This week, Indyk was back in Israel to speak at the annual conference of the Institute for National Security Studies. There he provided us with a picture of what we can expect from the Obama administration in its remaining two years in office if Netanyahu forms the next government. On the Palestinian front, Indyk warned that Israel shouldn’t be worried about the Palestinians getting an anti-Israel resolution passed in the UN Security Council. Rather, it can expect that the US will join with the other permanent members of the UN Security Council to pass a resolution “against Israel’s will” that will “lay out the principle of a two-state solution.” As Indyk intimated, Israel can avoid this fate if it elects a Herzog/Livni government. Such a government he indicated will preemptively give into all of the Palestinians demands and so avoid a confrontation with the US and its colleagues at the Security Council. Indyk explained, “If there is a government in Israel after these elections that decides to pursue a two-state solution, then there is a way forward. It begins with coordinating an initiative with the United States. And then, together with the US, looking to Egypt and Jordan and the resurrection of the Arab Peace Initiative.” As for Iran, Indyk shrugged at Israel’s concerns over the agreement that Obama is now seeking to conclude with the Iranian regime regarding its nuclear weapons

program. That agreement will leave Iran as a threshold nuclear state. Indyk suggested that the US could assuage Israel’s concerns by signing a bilateral treaty with Israel which would commit the US “to do som ething” if Iran passes some nuclear threshold. There are only three problems with such a deal. First, as former Israeli ambassador to the US Itamar Rabinovich noted, such a treaty would likely make Israel unable to take independent action against Iranian nuclear sites. Second, the US has a perfect track record of missing every major nuclear advance by every country. US intelligence agencies were taken by surprise when India, Pakistan and North Korea joined the nuclear club. They have always underestimated Iranian nuclear activities and were taken by surprise, repeatedly by Syria’s nuclear proliferation activities. In other words, it would be insane for Israel to trust that the US would act in a tim ely m anner to prevent Iran from crossing the nuclear threshold. [*] Third of course is the demonstrated lack of US will – particularly under the Obama administration – to take any action that could prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. So Israel has no reason whatsoever to believe that the US would honor its commitment. But then, since the Obama administration believes that Herzog and Livni will comply with its policies, the W hite House may expect the two will agree to forego Israel’s right to self-defense and place Israel’s national security in relation to Iran in Obama’s hands. And this brings us to the real contest unfolding in the lead up to March 17. W hen Speaker of the House of Representatives John Boehner announced last month that he had invited Netanyahu to address the joint houses of Congress on the threat emanating from Iran’s nuclear program and from radical Islam, he unintentionally transformed the Israeli elections from a local affair to a contest between Obama and Netanyahu. Obama’s response to Netanyahu’s speech has been astounding. His ad hominem attacks against Netanyahu, his open moves to coerce Dem ocratic lawm akers to boycott Netanyahu’s speech, and the adm inistration’s aggressive attem pts to dam age Israel’s reputation in the US have been without precedent.

More than anything, they expose a deep seated fear that Netanyahu will be successful in exposing the grave danger that Obama’s policies towards Iran and towards the Islamic world in general pose to the global security. [*] Those fears are reasonable for two reasons. First due to a significant degree to the administration’s unhinged response to the news of Netanyahu’s speech, Boehner’s invitation to Netanyahu sparked a long belated public debate in the US regarding Obama’s strategy of appeasing the Iranian regim e. G enerally consistent O b ama supporters like the W ashington Post editorial board have published stinging indictments of this policy in recent weeks. These analyses have noted for the first time that in pursuing Iran, Obama is alienating and weakening America’s allies, enabling Iran to expand its nuclear program, and empowering Iran regionally as the US does nothing to prevent Iran’s take of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen. Second, it is possible that in his remarks about Iran and radical Islam, Netanyahu will manage to discredit Obama’s approach to both issues. This is possible because Obama’s approach is difficult to understand. Last week, following the decapitation of 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians by Islamic State, the Obama administration stood alone in its refusal to note that the victims were murdered because they were Christians. W hen Egypt retaliated for the massacre with airstrikes against Islamic State training camps and other facilities in Libya, the Obama administration refused to support its ally. Instead it criticized Egypt for acting on its own and called for a political solution in Libya, which is now governed by two rival governments and has become a breeding ground for Islamic State terrorists who have transited Libya to the Sinai. Following IS’s massacre of the Christians, the group’s leaders threatened to invade neighboring Italy. Italy’s Prime Minister Matteo Renzi promised a strong response, and then called on the UN Security Council to do something. For its part, the Obama administration responded with coolness to a similar Egyptian call last week. Hamas, (which is supposedly much more moderate than IS despite its intense cooperation with Libya-trained IS forces in the Sinai), warned Italy not to attack IS in Libya, lest it be viewed in the words of Salah Bardawil as beginning “a new crusade against Arab and Muslim countries.” W hile all of this has been going on, Obama presided over his much touted international c o nfe re n c e o n C o n fro n tin g V io le n t E xtrem ism . R ep o rte d ly a tte n d e d b y representatives from 60 countries, and fe a turin g m a n y le a d e rs o f M u slim Brotherhood linked groups like the Council on American Islamic Relations, Obama’s c o nfe re n ce’s ap p arent go al was to de-emphasize and deny the link between terrorism and radical Islam. In his remarks on W ednesday, Obama gave a lengthy defense of his refusal to

acknowledge the link between Islam and IS, al Qaida and other Islamic terrorist groups. He insisted that these groups “have perverted Islam.” Obama indirectly argued that the W est is to blame for their behavior because of its supposed historical mistreatment of Muslims. In his words, the “reality… is that there’s a strain of thought that doesn’t embrace ISIL’s tactics, doesn’t embrace violence, but does buy into the notion that the Muslim world has suffered historic grievances, sometimes that’s accurate.” Obama’s insistence that IS and its ilk attack because of perceived Western misbehavior is completely at odds with observed reality. As the Atlantic’s Graeme W ood’s demonstrated this week in his in-depth report on IS’s ideology and goals, Islam is central to the group. IS is an apocalyptic m ovem ent rooted entirely in Islam . M ost of the coverage of Netanyahu’s scheduled speech before Congress has centered on his opposition to the deal Obama seeks to conclude with Iran. But it may be the second half of his speech – which will be devoted to the threat posed by radical Islam – will be no less devastating to Obama. Obama’s stubborn refusal to acknowledge the fact that the greatest looming threats to global security, including US national security today stem from radical Islam indicates that he is unable to contend with any evidence that jihadist Islam constitutes a unique threat unlike the threat posed by Western chauvinism and racism. It is hard to understand either Israel’s elections or Obama’s hysterical response to Netanyahu’s scheduled speech without recognizing that Obama clearly feels threatened by the message he will deliver. Surrounded by sycophantic aides and advisors, and until recently insulated from criticism by a supportive media, while free to ignore Congress due to his veto power, Obama has never had to seriously explain his policies regarding Iran and Islamic terrorists more generally. He has never endured a direct challenge to those policies. Today Obama believes that he is in a to-the-death struggle with Netanyahu. If Netanyahu’s speech is a success, Obama’s foreign policy will be indefensible. If Obam a is able to delegitim ize Netanyahu ahead of his arrival, and bring about his electoral defeat, then with a com pliant Israeli governm ent, he will face no obstacles to his plan to appease Iran and blam e Islamic terrorism on the West for the rem ainder of his tenure in office. ******** 1 st published in Jerusalem Post YW: [*] =Indicates my emphasis ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ENEM IES OF THE W EST FIND A FRIEND IN OBAM A By Quin Hillyer The president is not on the right side of the battle in his attempts to punish Israel, partner with Iran, and trim America’s role. At the risk of being m elodram atic, it m ust nonetheless be said: We are in a war for

civilization itself, and Barack Obam a is not on the right side. W e are in a battle for civilization because the Islamic State – which is darkness and evil personified – has declared war against us – and we in the W est and the modernized Orient (Japan, India, Taiwan, and the like) are – despite our flaws, the very repository of civilization. They are backwards; we are enlightened. They are warped; we are well-intentioned. They are inhuman; we are humane. They are soul-less; we are desirous – however imperfectly– of a grace beyond our ken. The Islam ic State, meanwhile, is aided in its anti-civilizational enterprise even by some of its nominal enemies. The Iran of the ayatollahs is a cancer on humanity, while Hamas and Hezbollah are its murderous allies, serving a “prophet” they make into a thug. Al-Qaeda and its affiliates still poison vast swaths of the Middle East and Africa. The Muslim Brotherhood bizarrely enjoys something approaching respectability in left-wing circles, although in reality it’s a vicious virus working toward death. North Korea is, of course, a black hole; Russia is led by a black-hearted villain. And in other places in the world, Marxists still peddle their poison. Against those antediluvian influences, in the very heart of the Middle East darkness, only one nation fully embraces W estern civilization. That nation is Israel. It is a representative republic. It guarantees civil rights and all the basic human rights. It is a land where commerce thrives, where faiths of all kinds are protected, where people walk free, and where W estern civilization is cherished. Israel merits support — not mostly because it is a haven for Jews in a hostile world — although history teaches that such a haven is necessary — but because it is a phalanx of liberty and decency behind enemy lines. Yet Barack Obama, despite his longstanding fakery to the contrary, is a deliberate adversary to the Jewish state. Obama bolsters Hamas, undermines Israel diplomatically on almost all fronts, pushes Israel to give up land for essentially no benefit to it, leaks intelligence about Israel’s self-defense, works to marginalize Israel’s American supporters, and puts roadblocks in the way of Israeli efforts to protect itself from Iran. The problem is not just that Obama detests Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. As W illiam Kristol describes in his most recent column, the real trouble is much more fundamental: The reason Netanyahu bothers Obama so much is that Netanyahu has the gall to fight for Israel’s just interests and for Israel’s survival. Even worse, from Obama’s perspective, is that Netanyahu believes in and defends not only Israel’s Jewishness but also its W estern-ness. Against Obama’s rather obvious belief that the W est has been, in world affairs, at least as much oppressor as liberator, Netanyahu fully embraces the values that animate the whole of W estern Civilization.

To keep Netanyahu from fighting for the West, Obama will try to destroy him politically, sending his minions to run a campaign in Israel against him. Yet that’s not the worst of it. After all, Netanyahu is more a master of Israeli politics than anything Obama can throw at him — besides, Israel will remain Israel even if Netanyahu loses the March elections. The worst way in which Obama works against the interests of the W est is that he does not merely appease Iran — he seeks to partner with it. Amazingly, Obama clearly sees Iran not as a mortal enemy but as a long-term force for stability in the region. Thus it is that Obama seems not only undisturbed by Iran’s continuing nuclear development but indeed welcoming of it, even though Iran is also developing missile capability with which it might launch the nukes. David Rothkopf — hardly a raving right-winger or war hawk, put it this way in Foreign Policy recently: “It is quite possible that, by the time Obama leaves office, no other country on Earth will have gained quite so much as Iran. . . . The United States is changing the terms of its relations with Iran and triggering a strengthening of that country economically and politically.” Yet anyone with sense knows that Iran cannot be tamed as long as the ayatollahs rule. Anyone who understands power knows that even if Israel ceased to exist, an Islamist regional hegemon in the Middle East would not then settle down quietly into peaceful coexistence with the world’s nations; it would use consolidated power to wage an even more devastating war on the W est. The ayatollahs feel no less strongly than the Islamic State does about the jihadist mandate to eradicate unbelievers who will not submit to sharia and Allah. Meanwhile, the Russians, the South American Marxists in Venezuela and Ecuador and elsewhere, the North Koreans, and possibly the Chinese will not feel not grateful for American forbearance but emboldened by our weakness. Victor Davis Hanson suggested on NRO this month that Obam a’s goal is a deliberately calibrated weakening of the United States. He aims to degrade American might, because he believes that “for America to quietly recede and give other nations a chance to direct their own affairs and become global actors would be far more equitable, leading to a world that far better represents heretofore unrepresented billions of people.” Hanson’s is a generous interpretation of Obama’s motives. Whatever Obam a’s intentions, his actions will serve not to strengthen civilization but to weaken it. If the United States recedes – as Obama seems to wish – those billions of people will not be “represented,” but even further subjugated. Those who behead peaceful journalists and even aid workers, or who use the power of the state to execute bloggers, will never be anything but hum an swine. By not putting America’s full might against the swine in every prudent way, Obama hurts the cause of

civilization itself. W e who care about our heritage must oppose his policies with every republican (small ‘r’) weapon in our arsenal. Ordered liberty is at risk. W e must defend it. — Quin Hillyer is a contributing editor for National Review O nline. — [nationalreview.com, February 16, 2015] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ “The New York Times Violates M y Protocol” The true rift between Netanyahu and Obam a is about policy, not politesse By Liel Leibovitz, February 12, 2015 Last week, I had some unkind words for the New York Times, whose account of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to Congress had to be amended to reflect the fact that Bibi accepted the invitation after the W hite House was informed, not before. No sooner had the piece run than friends, colleagues, and assorted observers began to frantically assail me with the idea that while the Times had issued a correction, the question of whether Bibi accepted the invitation before or after wasn’t important after all. The real issue, they scolded me, in increasingly exasperated and acrimonious language, was and remains Bibi’s flauting of the established rules of respectful behavior. In the Calvin and Hobbes comics, Calvin enjoyed playing a very special game called Calvinball , in which he made up the rules as he went along to make sure he was always winning. Reading the continuous coverage of Bibi’s visit in the last few days makes you feel that the W hite House and its supporters are now playing their own version of Calvinball; let’s call it “protocol,” which is the official-sounding scare-word they use to imply that Bibi’s behavior was thoroughly out-of-bounds. So, what precise point of “protocol” did Bibi outrageously violate? W ell – went the original version – he accepted an invitation to address Congress without the W hite House being informed that he was coming— which is certainly no way to behave. Once the New York Times admitted that this story – which it printed – was 100 percent wrong – and that the W hite House had in fact been properly informed – the conversation about protocol miraculously morphed. Keeping the all-important word “protocol” in play, the discussion now revolves around President Barack Obama’s statement that he would not meet with Bibi so close to the Israeli elections in March; that, Obama said, would be a violation of “protocol.” W hich is a fine point – except for the fact that Bibi never asked for such a meeting. Instead, he was invited to address Congress b y th e speaker of the H ouse o f Representatives, who is the leader of a coequal branch of government — just as he had been invited in 2011 by the very same man to address the very same branch of government without anyone mentioning the word “protocol.”

W hy all the fuss right now? There are two useful ways to approach the question. The first is to try and imagine what would not have been a violation of the shifting rules of “protocol.” Indulge me here. Imagine John Boehner coming up with the idea to invite the prime minister of Israel to speak. Singularly committed to the sanctity of bipartisanship — the idea, that is, that no decision in W ashington should be made without the benign approval of both parties — Boehner then calls the W hite House. “I have this crazy idea,” he says. “How about a speech from Bibi?” On the other end of the line, crickets. “The thing is, John,” – say the Democrats, – “we don’t really like Bibi, and his Iran policy is not really the one we’re trying to promote. Mind scrapping the whole thing?” Fighting back a tear, Boehner agrees. “Sure thing, guys,” he says. “Sorry for bringing it up. See you later at the congressional gym.” This scenario, of course, is idiotic — yet it’s precisely the one so many Obama supporters have been strongly promoting in tones of heavy outrage this past week. W hich leads me to the second, more useful way of thinking about the conflict, namely asking why Bibi is so intent on making a speech that was bound to piss off the W hite House and its itchy-fingered defenders. The theory that’s being floated around by c ustodians of political civility and nonpartisanship like the New York Times, Josh Marshall , Matt Duss, et al., is that Bibi’s desire to speak to Congress is a petty bit of electioneering whose real audience is back home in Israel.– If you believe that, you believe that Bibi and his men think that the best way to get Israelis to vote for him on March 17 is to make big-picture speeches in America two weeks earlier — while risking a very public pre-election row with your greatest ally and economic benefactor. You believe – bluntly put – that Bibi is a political moron in search of a blatant photo op that will allow him to bellow to a nation of his fellow troglodytes who will then vote for him. I don’t like Bibi very much, but I grew up with the man, and guess what: He’s smarter than that. And so is my toddler, who learned everything she knows about power dynamics and international politics from watching Frozen. As Michael Doran, a former U.S. deputy assistant secretary of defense and senior policy director in charge of the Middle East at the NationalSecurity Council, has shown in his factually grounded analysis of Obama’s Iran policy, when it comes to negotiating with the Isla m ic R e p u b lic , th e O b a m a Administration is committed to keeping everyone in the dark. Unaware that he was being recorded, Benjamin Rhodes, a key Obama national security adviser, told a gathering of Democratic activists last year that Obama is hoping to keep Congress out of the loop as much as possible. “W e’re already kind of thinking through, how do we structure a deal so we don’t necessarily require legislative action right away,” Rhodes said.

But there is another, much more serious explanation for Bibi’s eagerness to come to Washington in the middle of an election campaign that most polls show him winning handily: March 24 is the deadline for the framework agreement in the ongoing negotiations with Iran. Of course, Netanyahu may strongly disagree with Obama’s approach, especially now that it is controlled by the GOP. Which is why Congress can do many things to make sure the talks with Iran proceed with caution and some real degree of oversight, which Obama and his men are eager to avoid. As former Justice Department officials David Rivkin and Lee Casey wrote in a recent op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, “Congress should pass legislation now clearly stating the parameters of an acceptable nuclear deal with Iran, emphasizing the need to eliminate any Iranian breakout capability. It should also put the Iranians and our allies on notice that – absent congressional approval – the president cannot deliver comprehensive and permanent relief from the existing sanctions statutes.” As Congress is about to face off with the president over these crucial issues, it makes sense that they might want to hear from the leader of one of the nations most threatened by Iranian aggression — who has warned about the dangers of an Iranian nuclear break-out for years, and has also demonstrated a pragmatic commitment to disarming Iran by way of joint diplomatic efforts rather than a unilateral Israeli strike. The looming March deadline and the face-off between the president and Congress — including prominent congressional Democrats — provide eminently sane and reasonable explanations for the timing of Bibi’s speech; that so many of Obama’s sycophants so aggressively promote the idea that Bibi is a re-election-crazy nutcase who doesn’t actually care much about Iran is truly baffling. The Times’ insistence on sticking to the silly “protocol” storyline is truly maddening because there are real issues at stake here. The plain truth is that Obama and Bibi radically disagree on the direction that a joint Iran policy should take. Bibi forswore an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities because of the stated commitment of the past two U.S. administrations to U.N.-approved sanctions whose stated goal was to eliminate Iran’s capacity to build nuclear weapons. Now, it seems, American policy has swung 180 degrees in the opposite direction — toward embracing the idea of an unreconstructed Iran as a key U.S. ally in Iraq, Yemen, Syria, and beyond. Instead of eliminating Iran’s nuclear weapons capabilities, the Iranians will be able to retain a large proportion of their centrifuges and facilities, while sanctions will be lifted — strengthening the current regime, and allowing the Iranians to buy more of whatever they want to buy. Instead of finding new meanings for the word “protocol,” the Times might profitably spend its time on figuring out why the White House lied to them — and setting out the terms of a very real policy debate in a way that illuminates the administration’s choices. Those choices may be right, and they may be wrong. But it seems clear that Times readers would be better served by some real attention to what the administration is doing and why than by buying into a deceptive spin campaign designed to undercut the arguments of its most visible and vocal opponent. Alas, the nonsense keeps on coming. The most recent storyline – also promoted heavily by the Times – that Bibi’s speech has met with opposition

from a wide coalition including everyone from some Democrats to the ADL and the leader of the Reform movement somehow suggests he is empirically in the wrong. Reporters who cite the ADL’s opposition to Bibi’s speech might have noted that the man who will step in as the ADL’s head this summer – Jonathan Greenblatt – is currently employed as one of Obama’s advisers — which would make opposing Obama kind of sticky. Bibi surely has his detractors, and some of them have valid reasons for opposing his speech, even for loathing him, but the condemnation — in response to phone calls from reporters — is far from uniform. If it was, the story would not have generated so much attention for so long. So here, again, are the facts: John Boehner invited Bibi to speak on an issue of national importance to both the United States and to Israel, and Bibi accepted. The White House was informed of the invitation in advance, as is proper. Democrats were not consulted. Tzipi Livni, Buji Herzog, Jonathan Greenblatt, and the editorial board of the New York Times were not consulted either. This is all according to custom and according to precedent. Any other reading of this story is a violation of protocol. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The Writers at Haaretz Hate Israel – and Themselves February 18, 2015 — By Elder of Ziyon A poll in 2013 showed that Israelis were the 11th happiest people in the world. Another survey in 2014 showed that among the 10 countries with advanced economies polled, Israel ranked second in satisfaction with how things were going. Yet another survey last August showed that 86% of Israelis were satisfied (or very satisfied) with their lives. But not 100%. There are some Israelis – a tiny minority – who are miserable, and they spend every waking hour telling the world how awful things are. Arabs? Mizrahi Jews? Haredim? No, no, and no – their happiness numbers are all better than world averages. The most miserable people in Israel are the people who write for Ha’aretz. Every single day, Ha’aretz has multiple articles about how absolutely awful Israel is.[I’m not exaggerating]. Most are of course rabidly against the current government and obsessed with anything negative they can find there, but others are angry at pretty much everything and everyone, and they want the world to realize how terrible the country that they live in is. Here is one of today’s articles in Ha’aretz – By Zvi Bar’el – in its entirety: European Jews Moving to Israel Are Trading Anti-semitism for Racism French and Danish immigrants will find that Israel swallows its immigrants, but it doesn’t digest them. – February 18, 2015 Dusty old plans stored at the Immigrant Absorption Ministry and the Jewish Agency and its affiliates are being revived. Everyone is ready to welcome the big wave of immigrants expected to move to Israel following the terrorist attacks in France and Denmark. No country in Europe is safe for Jews anymore – Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says – not forgetting of course to remind these future refugees that the continent remains “that same old Europe.” Actually, not only the Jews of Europe aren’t safe.

The Jews of Israel have a hard time being convinced that their haven can face up to the threats in the region that Netanyahu warns them of daily. But let’s assume that thousands of Jews do decide to abandon their businesses, studies, homes and livelihoods and board rescue flights to Ben-Gurion International Airport. What will they find here? They’ll see right-wing videos portraying the Israeli left as Nazi collaborators out to destroy the country. They’ll learn how fortunate they are not to have come here as refugees from Eritrea or Sudan, or even as Jewish immigrants from Ethiopia. Jews who have suffered European anti-Semitism will trade it in for Israeli racism. They’ll discover they’ve become citizens of an “occupying country”, the occupation that has contributed to that same anti-Semitism that made them pack their bags in the first place. And here are two other facts that European Jews should be aware of. Israel’s murder rate is 1.8 per 100,000 people, while in France it’s 1 per 100,000 and in Denmark 0.8. Last year, 27 people were killed in terror attacks here. In France and Denmark not a single person was. The situation in Europe could worsen, but in Israel the risk that the situation could worsen is far greater. If European Jews come to Israel immediately, they can vote in the March 17 election and support the person who promised them a safe haven and invited them to immigrate – or more accurately ordered them to. True – quickly enough – they’ll discover that their safety isn’t subject to the whims of the Islamic State or Al-Qaida, and they won’t suffer murderous manifestations of anti-Semitism. But to be real Israelis, they’ll have to adapt to the Israeli depression and the constant fear of war or mass destruction — or both. Of course, Jews from Europe can respond to all this with the question: “If things are so bad in Israel, why do you Israelis stay?” The answer is implied in the question: We are Israelis. Our identity is dictated to us. Hebrew isn’t only our language, it’s our culture. Our solidarity is limited to ourselves; our collective memory as Israelis isn’t shared. That is, there are Palestinians in Israel, but they’re the enemy at the moment. The anger that some of us feel isn’t directed at the country but rather at the country’s leaders, the ones who distort the national identity and dip it in racist-religious acid. We’re proudly surviving with the help of the saying “We survived Pharaoh and we’ll survive this also.” Survival rather than quality of life is the linchpin of our identity. You, the Jews of Europe, were taught to demand quality of life. In Israel, anyone seeking quality of life like that in Berlin is considered a traitor. And please don’t confuse Israeliness with Jewishness. Israelis don’t go crazy for foreigners even if they’re Jewish. Just ask the Russians. About 150,000 of the immigrants from the former Soviet Union have left. And ask the Ethiopians, the Bukharans and the Kurds, who decades after arriving are still identified by where they came from. Of course, you’re entitled to immigrate, and of course you’ll receive a warm welcome at the airport. But remember that Israel hastily swallows its immigrants. It doesn’t digest them. Elder of Ziyon; The amount of self-loathing shown here is off the charts. But at Ha’aretz, this is pretty much par for the course. [To be fair, the writers for +972 Magazine are also just as much filled with self-hate as those at Ha’aretz.] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~