web analytics
January 19, 2017 / 21 Tevet, 5777

Posts Tagged ‘policy’

Trump Names Close Adviser David Friedman As Israel Envoy; Move Likely Signals Sharp U.S. Policy Shift

Wednesday, December 21st, 2016

President-elect Donald Trump named one of his close advisers, attorney David Friedman, the next U.S. ambassador to Israel, in a move that likely signals a major shift in American policy on Jerusalem and Israeli settlements.

“The bond between Israel and the United States runs deep, and I will ensure there is no daylight between us when I’m president,” Trump said in a statement on the selection of Friedman.

Trump added that he believes Friedman will “maintain the special relationship between our two countries.”

“His strong relationships in Israel will form the foundation of his diplomatic mission and be a tremendous asset to our country as we strengthen the ties with our allies and strive for peace in the Middle East. Nothing is more critical than protecting the security of our citizens at home and abroad,” Trump said.

Friedman, 57, who specializes in litigation and bankruptcy law, had served as one of Trump’s advisers on Israel during the president-elect’s campaign.

In a statement, Friedman said he is “deeply honored and humbled” by the ambassadorship and intends “to work tirelessly to strengthen the unbreakable bond between our two countries and advance the cause of peace within the region.”

Friedman’s appointment appears to signals a sharp break from President Obama’s hard stance against Israeli settlement construction beyond the 1967 lines. Friedman has stated that he does not believe international law prohibits Israel from annexing the West Bank, and that he supports moving the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, a position opposed by Obama as well as by former presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton.

The appointment of Friedman was swiftly praised by Republican and conservative-leaning pro-Israel groups. Republican Jewish Coalition Executive Director Matt Brooks called the selection “a powerful signal to the Jewish community.”

Similarly, Morton Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America, said Friedman “has the potential to be the greatest U.S. ambassador to Israel ever.”

“He has a powerful grasp of Israel’s defense needs, the dangers they face, and the danger now of a Hamas-Palestinian Authority state,” said Klein. “No previous ambassador appreciates the political, historical, legal, and religious rights of the Jews to Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem like David.”

Laurie Cardoza-Moore, president of the evangelical Christian group Proclaiming Justice to the Nations and United Nations envoy for the World Council of Independent Christian Churches, said Friedman “represents a political and spiritual shift for Israel and America.”

“Having a strong man of faith who understands Israel’s biblical, historical, and legal right to the land of Israel is a huge achievement for our great nations and further illustrates Trump’s commitment to Israel,” she said.

In Israel, right-wing political leaders, including Jewish Home party leader Naftali Bennett, whose party supports the annexation of the West Bank, also praised the selection of Friedman,

“Good luck to David Friedman, the new U.S. ambassador to Israel. He is a great friend to Israel,” Bennett tweeted.

Friedman has been outspoken in his criticism of the liberal Jewish lobby group J Street, likening J Street supporters to “kapos” – Jews who assisted the Nazis during the Holocaust. J Street calls itself a “pro-Israel, pro-peace” organization, but often comes under scrutiny for partnering with anti-Israel organizations and disproportionately criticizing the Israeli government.

“The kapos faced extraordinary cruelty. But J Street? They are just smug advocates of Israel’s destruction delivered from the comfort of their secure American sofas – it’s hard to imagine anyone worse,” Friedman wrote last June.

J Street said in a statement that it is “vehemently opposed” to the appointment of Friedman as ambassador to Israel, calling him “beyond the pale” for the position because of his stance on settlements and lack of “any diplomatic or policy credentials.”

Sean Savage

U.S. Policy On Israel And The Obama-Trump Transition

Wednesday, December 14th, 2016

In a speech to the UN General Assembly on September 20, President Obama declared that Israel should recognize “it cannot permanently occupy and settle Palestinian land.”

If cast here by Obama in starker form than usual, seemingly to stake a legacy position, the statement is yet another rendering of a theme he has returned to on many occasions throughout the eight years of his presidency. But the essence of that theme is a lie: Israel has neither occupied nor settled “Palestinian land.”

In fact, for all the posturing on the subject by the Obama administration, by the EU and European states, by the UN, and by other nations and international bodies, there is no such thing as “Palestinian land” in international law, or at least there was not before the Oslo process, formally initiated in 1993.

To the contrary, international law supports Jewish claims to the so-called occupied territories. The League of Nations, in creating successor entities to portions of what was formally the Ottoman Empire, established the “Palestine Mandate” for the lands between the Jordan and the Mediterranean and the right of Jews to claim and settle in those lands.

Indeed, it called for “close settlement by Jews on the land, including state lands.” Article 80 of the United Nations charter subsequently preserved the application of the League of Nations Mandate’s stipulations.

One could argue that the Jews’ governmental body, by accepting the 1947 partition plan for Mandate Palestine, essentially gave up any claim to, including the right of settlement in, areas not allotted to it.

However, the Palestinian side rejected the plan and failed to establish a successor government in the areas that were to fall under its control. Subsequently, Judea and Samaria were occupied (with the killing or expulsion of all their Jewish residents) and annexed by Transjordan, which then renamed itself Jordan.

But only two nations, Britain and Pakistan, recognized Jordanian sovereignty in the territories. In 1967, Jordan – as King Hussein himself acknowledged – launched hostilities against Israel, and Israel, in its response, gained control of Judea and Samaria. In effect, whatever claims and rights Israel was prepared to give up in 1947 became irrelevant when no legitimate alternative government of Judea and Samaria emerged, and so the rights enshrined in the Mandate and in Article 80 of the UN charter remain in force.

Also relevant is UN Security Council Resolution 242, adopted unanimously in the wake of the 1967 war. It calls for peace talks between Israel and its neighbors and, rather than Israel’s return to the prewar armistice lines, for the negotiation of new “secure and recognized” boundaries.

Further, the authors of Resolution 242 explicitly stated that the prewar armistice lines made no sense as permanent borders, invited further aggression against Israel, were untenable, and ought to be replaced.

Resolution 242 does not in itself strengthen the already strong legitimacy in international law for Israel’s claim to the territories. But it is relevant in several respects.

First, Resolution 242 underscores the status of Judea and Samaria as disputed territory whose ultimate disposition is to be decided by negotiations between Israel and its neighbors.

In addition, with regard to settlements, most have been established with a view toward reinforcing Israeli claims to key strategic areas in Judea and Samaria – those most germane to providing Israel with defensible borders as envisioned in 242.

* * * * *

In fact, not all of Judea and Samaria are currently disputed territories, as Israel ceded parts of these areas to the Palestinians in the context of the Oslo process. The Oslo accords entailed a division of these territories into Areas A, B, and C. Area A was placed under full Palestinian Authority control; in Area B the Palestinians assumed full civil authority while Israel retained responsibility for security; and Area C remained under Israeli control.

Areas A and B comprise about 40 percent of Judea and Samaria and are home to well over 90 percent of the Palestinian population of the territories.

Some have argued that Israel is not obliged to maintain its relinquishment of these areas as the Palestinian Authority has never fulfilled its obligations under the relevant Oslo accords. In particular, it has never recognized Israel’s right to exist, has never ended incitement promoting the murder of Israelis and delegitimization and destruction of the state, and has never abandoned terror to advance its anti-Israel agenda. But no Israeli government has sought to reverse the ceding of Areas A and B.

Israel, of course, also unilaterally ceded all of Gaza to the Palestinians in 2005. Since then, particularly since Hamas seized control of Gaza in 2007, Israel has been subjected to recurrent, often incessant rocket bombardment and other assaults from the territory, as well as three wars initiated by Palestinian aggression. Yet Israel has never sought to reverse its ceding of Gaza.

These transfers of land to the Palestinians have reduced the disputed territories to Area C in Samaria and Judea and those parts of Jerusalem beyond the pre-1967 armistice line. As argued above, Israel has the strongest claim to these areas, and certainly nothing in international law justifies characterizing them as “Palestinian land.”

But Obama’s doing so is part of a broader agenda. Throughout his presidency, he and others in his administration have put the onus on Israel for breakdowns in negotiations and for the absence of any progress toward a resolution of the conflict, when it is patently obvious to any honest observer that it has been Abbas and the Palestinian Authority that have consistently scuttled talks.

Netanyahu has repeatedly offered to resume talks without preconditions; Abbas has invariably insisted on preconditions Israel must fulfill before he will agree to meet. Obama, though, has ignored Abbas’s intransigence throughout his time in office.

Obama and those around him have, more specifically, spoken most about Israel’s expanding settlements and establishing new settlements as the obstacle to progress and as potentially rendering an agreement impossible. But Israel has established no new settlements for decades, and construction in existing settlements has taken place on a far smaller scale under Netanyahu than under his predecessors, including Rabin during the Oslo years.

In the course of Obama’s presidency, Netanyahu agreed to a ten-month settlement freeze to help jump-start talks; no predecessor had ever imposed such a freeze. Abbas waited until a month before its expiration before engaging in a meeting, then insisted on extension of the freeze as a condition for continuing to meet. Yet Obama persisted in primarily blaming Israel for the lack of progress.

Another element in all this has been the administration’s ignoring or downplaying Abbas’s declarations that he will never recognize the legitimacy of a Jewish state within any borders; his insistence that the Jews have no historic roots in the land and are merely alien usurpers whose state must be extirpated; his incitement of his people to violence and murder; his praise of terrorists and financing of them; and his enlisting the schools, mosques, and media under his control to propagate the same history-distorting, defamatory, murderous messages.

Occasionally, when Abbas’s incitement would reach a particularly high pitch and unleash an increase in deadly attacks on Israelis, Obama would offer some low-key, anodyne criticism, most often without naming Abbas.

Kenneth Levin

Trump’s 6-Point Policy Action Plan for Day 1 at the Oval Office [video]

Tuesday, November 22nd, 2016

U.S. President-elect Donald Trump released a video message Monday updating Americans on the status of the transition process.

Trump sketched out an outline of his initial plans for the first 100 days in office upon entering the White House when he is inaugurated on January 20, 2017.

“My agenda will be based on a simple core principle: putting America first,” Trump stated.

“Whether it’s producing steel, building cars or curing disease, I want the next generation of production and innovation to happen right here in our great homeland, America, creating wealth and jobs for American workers.”

The six-point plan that Trump pledged to implement on Day One is as follows:

“On energy, I will cancel job-killing restrictions on the production of American energy — including shale energy and clean coal — creating many millions of high-paying jobs. That’s what we want, that’s what we’ve been waiting for.

“On regulation, I will formulate a rule which says that for every one new regulation, two old regulations must be eliminated, it’s so important.

“On national security, I will ask the Department of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to develop a comprehensive plan to protect America’s vital infrastructure from cyber-attacks, and all other form of attacks.

“On immigration, I will direct the Department of Labor to investigate all abuses of visa programs that undercut the American worker.

“On ethics reform, as part of our plan to ‘Drain the Swamp’ we will impose a five-year ban on executive officials becoming lobbyists after they leave the administration — and a lifetime ban on executive officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government.”

By last Friday, Trump had already spoken by phone with NATO Secretary-General Jens Stolzenberg, assuring him that America would fulfill its commitments to the organization and protect Europe’s security, although he reminded the NATO leader the U.S. would not cover the extra costs involved.

Hana Levi Julian

Why I’m Still Nervous About Trump’s Foreign Policy Rhetoric

Sunday, May 15th, 2016

Last fall, as the presidential primary season was about to begin, I was concerned about what the Middle East policy of a Trump administration might look like. Trump’s failure to address Iran’s hegemonic ambitions, along with his deference to Russian autocrat President Vladimir Putin, was perilously similar to the approach taken by President Obama.

Six months later, Trump has emerged as the Republican nominee but his achievement hasn’t altered my worries about how he would shape American foreign policy. Before explaining why, I think it’s worth making some general observations about Trump’s approach to politics, so as to put all this in context.

First, one has to distinguish between Trump’s sensibilities and Trump’s abilities. He is not a stupid man (far from it) and he flourishes when his rivals underestimate him. But he clearly distrusts intellectuals, cares little for history, and disdains the kinds of political speeches that are peppered with literary and philosophical references.

For all his bombast about making America great again, references to the Founding Fathers, the U.S. Constitution, and the endurance of the American republic across nearly three centuries all are conspicuous by their absence from his podium addresses. All we are told is that “it’s gonna be fabulous.” We just don’t know quite how.

Yet when it comes to the operational aspects of his campaign, Trump has shown himself to be a master communicator in terms of the timing of his messages. In every tussle and confrontation he has proved that whatever doesn’t kill him makes him stronger. Trump’s insertion of TV reality show values into the presidential contest is jarring and crude, but it has worked for him so far.

Season 1 of “Trump” just ended with his assumption of the GOP nomination. Season 2, his contest with Hillary Clinton, is just beginning. If we get to a Season 3, it’s because Trump is in the White House. Season 4? That means a further presidential term. We have to hope that Trump has enough respect for the two-term presidential limit for there not to be a Season 5.

I make that last point because, in studying Trump’s style and discussing his campaign with friends and political contacts, I’ve noted a couple of observations that are regularly made. First, that it is pretty much impossible to find a proto-Trump among the individuals who have already served as president of the world’s greatest democracy. Second, that therefore leads to comparisons with foreign leaders, none of them remotely encouraging.

I’ve seen or heard Trump invoked alongside Hugo Chavez, the late Venezuelan tyrant; Juan Peron, the former Argentine dictator; and Jean Marie Le Pen, the former leader of France’s National Front party and the most prominent of Europe’s postwar neo-fascists.

Indeed, the respected political analyst Daniel Pipes, a conservative, has made a persuasive case that Trump is deserving of the neo-fascist label.

Trump has done little to allay these anxieties. Even though some of his advisers want him to be more “presidential,” which in his case simply means not tossing out bizarre conspiracy theories and puerile insults, he is not at this point prepared to transform his rhetoric. Nor is he willing to disavow the ravings of his supporters on social media, many of whom have descended into open anti-Semitism in attacking the their guru’s critics.

One such target was Julia Ioffe, a Jewish journalist who recently penned an unflattering portrayal of Trump’s wife Melania for GQ magazine. Ioffe quickly found herself receiving threats in the form of Nazi imagery and anonymous phone calls consisting of recorded Hitler speeches. When CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asked Trump about the baiting of Ioffe by his supporters, his response was, “I don’t know about that. I don’t know anything about that…You’ll have to talk to them about it.… I don’t have a message to the fans.”

This is exactly the Trump many of us have come to know and dislike and even fear. In a purely abstract sense, it is conceivable that a President Trump could be more of an international statesman than seems possible at present; as in sports, nothing in politics should ever be discounted. Nevertheless, there is precious little evidence for the moment to back up such an assertion.

When it comes to relations with America’s allies, it is deeply troubling that the only foreign leader of whom he speaks with consistent respect is Putin. Trump is still smarting from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s rejection of his unconstitutional proposal to ban Muslims from entering the United States. Ditto for British Prime Minister David Cameron, who called Trump’s demand “stupid and wrong.”

Entering office with a record of contemptuous remarks about the leaders of our traditional allies is hardly a solid foundation on which to build the relationships a neophyte like Trump will need – and need them he will – in order to conduct foreign policy.

While I believe we need to prepare ourselves for the possibility of a Trump presidency, I cannot find even a grain of comfort when it comes to projecting what his foreign policy will involve. One of his advisers recently told the journalist Ruthie Blum, with regards to negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, “I can’t think of a better guy who can sit at the table and try to bring everybody together.”

This mantra from the Trump camp, and its underlying hubris, will be sorely tested should he be inaugurated in January.

(JNS)

Ben Cohen

Nazi Policy and Black Victims—Before, During, and After the Holocaust—from Africa to Berlin to North Carolina

Tuesday, May 10th, 2016

In recent years, too many in the African American community have expressed a disconnect to Holocaust topics, seeing the genocide of Jews as someone else’s nightmare. After all, African Americans are still struggling to achieve general recognition of the barbarity of the Middle Passage, the inhumanity of slavery, the oppression of Jim Crow, and the battle for modern civil rights. For many in that community, the murder of six million Jews and millions of other Europeans happened to other minorities in a faraway place where they had no involvement.

However, a deeper look shows that proto-Nazi ideology before the Third Reich, the wide net of Nazi-era policy, and Hitler’s post-war legacy deeply impacted Africans, Afro-Germans, and African Americans throughout the twentieth century. America’s Black community has a mighty stake in this topic. Understanding the German Reich and the Holocaust is important for Blacks just as it is for other communities, including Roma, eastern Europeans, people with disabilities, the gay community, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and many other groups in addition to Jews. The dots are well known to many scholars—but rarely connected to form a distinct historical nexus for either the Holocaust or the African American communities. This is understandable. The saga behind these connections started decades before the Third Reich came into existence, in a savage episode on another continent that targeted a completely different racial and ethnic group for death and destruction.

But the horrors visited on another defenseless group endured and became a template for the Final Solution. Students of the Holocaust are accustomed to looking backward long before the Third Reich and long after the demise of the Nazi war machine. African Americans should do the same.

It all begins the oft-overlooked first genocide of the twentieth century, Germany’s deliberate extermination in 1904 of the Herrero and Nama tribespeople in colonial Southwest Africa, now known as Namibia. The atrocities included explicit extermination orders, mass shootings, bonfires immolating wounded or starving Africans, the wearing of identification numbers, and organized transport in cattle cars to concentration camps. One of these camps, Shark Island, was considered a “death by labor” camp. In its campaign against the Africans, the German authorities introduced several words and concepts: Konzentrationslager or concentration camp, untermenschen or subhumans, Mischlinge or mixed race and anti-race mixing laws.

Many of the veterans of Germany’s Southwest Africa extermination campaign went on to become key Nazi activists or otherwise inspired major figures in the Third Reich. For example, Hermann Goering idolized his father, Heinrich, for his role as governor of Southwest Africa. Goering’s 1939 official Nazi biography records reveal that the young Goering “was even more thrilled by his [father’s] accounts of his pioneer work as Reichskommissar for South-West Africa … and his fights with the Herero.” Years later, Goering swore under oath that of the leading “points which are significant with relation to my later development,” he counted among the top four as “the position of my father as first Governor of Southwest Africa.”

In the 1920’s, former colonial Trooper Franz Ritter von Epp went on to hire Adolf Hitler, fund the purchase of the Nazi newspaper Völkische Beobachter, and, with Ernst Röhm, helped found the Storm Troopers. The Storm Troopers even adopted the desert sand-colored brown shirt uniforms worn by the troops deployed in Africa.

After the Treaty of Versailles stripped Germany of its African colonies, German citizens were shocked to see African soldiers patrolling their streets. It is not widely known that when France occupied post-Great War Germany, it deployed 20,000 to 40,000 colonial African troops. The Germans reacted with a bitter national protest movement, imbued with sexual imagery, called “Black Shame on the Rhine.” When a generation of Afro-Germans arose, denigrated by Hitler and the Nazis as “Rhineland Bastards,” they were among the first to be forcibly sterilized.

When the Nazis came to power, like throngs of other loyal Germans, some Afro-Germans tried to join the Nazi Party. Hans Massaquoi, son of a Liberian diplomat and a German woman, was among those who wanted to sign up with his local branch of the Hitler Youth, just like the rest of his schoolmates. Young Hans was astonished to discover that the 1935 Nuremburg Laws, defining German blood and racial status, applied to him—denying him admittance. His teacher reluctantly told him that joining the Hitler Youth was now impossible. “But I am German,” implored Hans, “my Mother says I’m German just like anybody else.” Nearly hysterical, he pressured his incredulous mother to take him to the nearest Hitler Youth recruitment home, where he was roundly told to leave.

From that moment on, Massaquoi learned to live with the twin fears that the Gestapo would knock on his door or that Allied bombs would rain down on the roof. After the war, Massaquoi was able to emigrate to the United States, where he became a paratrooper with the 82nd Airborne Division. Later, Hans became a marcher alongside Martin Luther King in Chicago. In Chicago, he took a job with Jet Magazine and then Ebony, where he rose to become the managing editor.

Ironically, African Americans were impacted beneficially by Nazi policy again in the thirties when refugee Jewish professors, ousted from their posts in Germany, immigrated to the United States. Some 50 such refugees accepted teaching positions in Historically Black Colleges and Universities, helping to mentor the generation that fought the civil rights struggle. Among the students who credit the inspiration of German-Jewish professors is Joyce Ladner, who went on to organize civil rights protests with Medgar Evers and who would later rise to the leadership of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee [SNCC] and the Congress on Racial Equality [CORE]. Ladner’s mentor was Ernst Borinski, a Jewish sociologist who arrived from Germany in 1938 and eventually taught at Tougaloo College in Mississippi. Others include Dr. Joycelyn Elders, who went from being mentored by a German-Jewish professor to a distinguished career in medicine. In 1993, she became Surgeon General of the United States. “The German-Jewish professors had a tremendous impact on young blacks in the South,” summed up African-American attorney Jim McWilliams, who attended Talladega College.

In the forties, when African American soldiers were deployed to Europe, Nazi soldiers who encountered them treated them mercilessly, often committing massacres and war crimes against POWs.

After the fall of Berlin, returning African American soldiers discovered Nazi racial policy was in force in some 27 U.S. states that had adopted forced sterilization laws based on corrupt German eugenic pseudoscience. Ironically, this race science had been nurtured in America first and then transplanted to Germany. In American state after state, eugenic boards quoted Nazi race theory and statutes as justification to sterilize Blacks, and even confine them in camps as a social protective measure. In Connecticut, one state program even sought to implement Nazi-style race-based expulsions and organized euthanasia of those deemed unworthy of life.

We have only begun to chart the impact of German policy on those of African descent. More would be known, but such research remains almost completely unfunded and indeed unsupported. However, this much is certain: all misery bleeds the same color blood. Any man’s persecution should inspire everyman’s crusade.

Edwin Black

Shiloh Musings: UNESCO’s Anti-Jewish Policy Due to Israel’s Ambivilance

Tuesday, April 19th, 2016

There has been a big hue and cry here in Israel about the UNESCO’s Anti-Jewish Statements re: Israeli/Jewish connection to our holy sites by the very same people who are complicit in perpetuating the problem.

UNESCO adopts resolution ignoring Jewish ties to Temple Mount
Resolution refers to Temple Mount area solely as Al-Aksa Mosque/Al-Haram Al Sharif, except for two references to the Western Wall Plaza that were put in parenthesis.

The hypocrisy really annoys me. The same people, such as Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu and MK Yair Lapid, who have no problem with the rulings forbidding Jewish worship and easy access to Har Habayit complain about the UNESCO resolution.

This terrible Israeli policy, and the handing to the Wakf “the keys” soon after our miraculous 1967 victory is the reason all sorts of foreign/international and even some Israeli groups have ‘de-judaized’ our holiest spot.

This anti-Jewish policy is supported by successive Israeli Governments. "Announcement and Warning According to Torah Law, entering the Temple Mount Area is strictly forbidden due to the holiness of the site."

This anti-Jewish policy is supported by successive Israeli Governments.
“Announcement and Warning
According to Torah Law, entering the Temple Mount Area is strictly forbidden due to the holiness of the site.”

In actuality, this is not entirely true. Only one tiny section is too holy to enter, and there are easy to accomplish purification tasks one can do beforehand. And if it is so holy, then why allow others to defile it with ease?

Since this Israeli Law has been in effect for decades, why should our politicians be so outraged? We’ve deserted our holiest site and given it to a bunch of dangerous anti-Israel terrorists!!

Batya Medad

Arab Media Salivate Over Jewish Squabbles About Israel

Monday, June 9th, 2014

Israel’s internal politics have finally become delicious gossip of the day for the Arab media.

‘Once a unifying cause for generations of American Jews, Israel is now bitterly dividing Jewish communities,” the Associated Press reported this morning (Monday) on the Al Arabiya website.

The report was one of the site’s top stories of the day. Worse, it happens to be true.

American college campuses are described as “ideological battle zones over Israeli policy in the Palestinian territories.” The “Open Hillel” movement of Jewish students is challenging speaker guidelines developed by the decades-old Hillel movement, according to the report, and planning its first national conference in October. Even the scuffle between J Street and the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations is covered.

Isn’t it lovely? All of the House of Israel’s dirty laundry out there for public review in living technicolor, to be examined minutely by all of her enemies one by one.

To be fair, the same article reported – albeit in the very last line – that a Pew Research Center survey found that only 12 percent of U.S. Jews believe Palestinian Authority leaders are making a sincere effort to resolve the conflict between the PA and Israel; 38 percent said the Israeli government is actively pursuing peace.

But more to the point, what is abundantly clear is that Jewish actions are news wherever we are, and Jewish news is of interest to Arabs, wherever they are. It’s an important point to remember; one hopes that Israel’s politicians bear it in mind when formulating policy and opening their mouths.

Rachel Levy

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/arab-media-salivate-over-jewish-squabbles-about-israel/2014/06/09/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: