Israeli Historian Benny Morris: The Palestinians Don’t Want to Share the Country with the Jews
In the wake of the failed Camp David and Oslo Accord, and following the brutality of the second intifada, Morris has grown pessimistic about the prospects for peace between Israelis and Palestinians, and his views have taken a rightward turn. Citing the belief that Palestinians will never support a two-state solution, he has called himself a “Cosmic Pessimist.”
J. spoke with Morris ahead of his upcoming book tour to the Bay Area. His latest book, his first on a subject other than Israel, Palestine or Zionism, is titled “The Thirty-Year Genocide: Turkey’s Destruction of Its Christian Minorities.” Co-authored with Dror Ze’evi, it tells the history of atrocities, including the Armenian genocide, by the Ottoman regime from 1894 to 1924.
Did you support his strike against Qassem Soleimani, the Iranian military leader?
Yeah, sure, no problem killing Soleimani. Soleimani was a killer, a man who organized killings, and a soldier in a war. And soldiers in a war are open to being killed. That’s what war is about.
What is your view on the Iran nuclear deal?
I think the Americans should have held out. The Americans had all the cards. The Iranians were better negotiators and the Americans should have held out for a much better deal.
But the deal was signed. It was a mistake, but it helped, maybe, slow down the Iranian nuclear project. I fear that withdrawing from the deal may lead to a quickening of the Iranian nuclear project, which will again confront Israel with a choice: either attacking the Iranian nuclear facilities, or the Americans attacking the nuclear facilities, or just allowing the Iranians to develop a nuclear weapon, as America has allowed North Korea to do. Once they have nuclear weapons, just like North Korea, they will become invulnerable. That’s the problem. And then they will do what they like in the Middle East.
With the Trump peace plan, it seemed like the administration was trying to strong-arm the Palestinians in some way. What did you make of the proposal?
Well, the Palestinians can’t agree to it. Look, I don’t think the Palestinian leadership, and Palestinians, basically, in their hearts, I don’t think they want to share Palestine with the Jews. That’s the basic thing. So it doesn’t really matter what plan they’re offered. Trump’s plan, Clinton’s plan in 2000. They say no. They don’t want to divide the country with the Jews. This is the basic thing.
If you don’t accept what I’m saying, and believe that they are willing to reach some sort of two-state deal, then this is a two-state deal they can’t accept, because it doesn’t really offer them a state. So even at minimum, what he’s offering is a long shot. But as I say, it doesn’t really matter that much because I don’t think they’ll agree to a two-state solution of any sort.
Ben-Dror Yemini: How did Western media become Gaza’s useful idiot?
Israel granted work permits to Gaza Palestinians, expanded the fishing zone, and allowed the cash to flow from Qatar – all to no avail. The rocket fire from Gaza continues.
Defeating Islamic terror is considered legitimate anywhere else in the world, but what the U.S. and NATO can do, Israel cannot – even when fighting a jihadist group that controls Gaza.
Jerusalem simply cannot ignore international pressure. As soon as images depicting the aftermath of Israeli raids appear on media outlets, demands for a cessation of hostilities begin.
The West is ignorant of the true face of Hamas. It is an anti-Semitic organization that calls for the destruction of Jews; its official media outlet teaches children about the need to kill Jews.
Meanwhile, its religious leaders call for Rome to be captured in the interest of Islamic hegemony, much as the Islamic State ideology prescribed.
Israel isn’t going anywhere, and Jerusalem will always be its capital. Period.
Every head of state that visits Israel meets the prime minister in Jerusalem, not Tel Aviv, and has always done so. And while most of these world leaders won’t acknowledge as much publicly, Jerusalem has been the recognized capital of Israel for 3,000 years, since the time of King David. Nor is there one scrap of archaeological evidence to suggest otherwise.
During American presidential campaigns, candidates always acknowledge that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, but until President Trump broke that mold in 2017, they had never acted on that conviction upon winning the White House.
Trump’s decision to finally fulfill the promise of his predecessors to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital was, as he himself stated, merely a recog
In between the Trump peace plan’s release on January 28 and Israel’s March 2 election, new survey data shows that most Palestinian respondents now say they prefer “regaining all of historical Palestine” over permanent peace with Israel. Yet majorities in both the West Bank and Gaza voice much more pragmatic views about the impracticality of a one-state solution, the return of refugees, or armed struggle against Israel.
This tension and seeming contradiction between relatively moderate short-term popular attitudes and maximalist long-term attitudes should be a foundation for a more effective policy. Such a policy would emphasize current openings for compromise and practical cooperation, while guarding against—and perhaps gradually moderating—future temptations to violence or irredentism. Given these very mixed Palestinian views, it is reasonable to project that a hasty push for a “two-state solution” might not actually produce lasting peace. At the same time, preventing provocative Israeli moves toward annexation would reduce the risk of the popular backlash foreshadowed in these survey findings.
Few still support a two-state solution. Ironically, while some attribute Palestinian rejection of Trump’s plan to its new limits on the traditional two-state paradigm, most Palestinian respondents now reject that model as well. Asked to choose “the top Palestinian national priority during the coming five years,” two-thirds (66%) of West Bankers in this poll pick “regaining all of historical Palestine for the Palestinians”; a mere 14% choose “ending the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, to achieve a two-state solution.” Gazan respondents, surprisingly, are a bit more moderate: 56% want all of Palestine, while 31% opt for the two-state solution.
These maximalist long-term aspirations are also reflected in responses to other survey questions. For example, when asked about next steps “if the Palestinian leadership is able to negotiate a two-state solution,” just 26% of West Bank respondents say that it “should end the conflict with Israel.” In Gaza, that figure climbs to 40%. Around 60% in both areas say “the conflict should not end, and resistance should continue until all of historic Palestine is liberated.”
Yet no groundswell for one-state solution. At the same time, contrary to common misconception, the idea of a binational state, or a civil struggle for equality, does not seem to be gaining much popular Palestinian support. Only around 10% of respondents in either the West Bank or Gaza say their priority is “achieving a one-state solution, in which Arabs and Jews would have equal rights in one state from the river to the sea.” And only around 10% in either place would prefer to become “a citizen of Israel, with equal rights and responsibilities,” rather than a citizen of a Palestinian state.
If there’s one group you can count on, it’s the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC). Their members are not terribly concerned about human rights, particularly within their own borders, but they sure are consumed by hatred for Israel.
In March 2016, UNHRC decided the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights should release a blacklist of companies “conducting activities in or related to Israel’s settlements,” a move cheered on by supporters of the movement to boycott Israel. However, there were various delays, and that database did not materialize until this month.
In what certainly looks like a clap-back at the Trump administration’s Peace to Prosperity plan for Israelis and Palestinians timing-wise, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet released a list of 112 companies that operate beyond Israel’s Green Line. Not so coincidentally, 94 of the named companies are based in Israel. Six are American companies, including Airbnb and General Mills.
As with the Arab Boycott, this is about stigmatizing Israel and raising the cost of doing business with Israeli Jews. Eugene Kontorovich, director of the Center for International Law in the Middle East at George Mason University Scalia Law School, emailed, “Many of the American firms being targeted have no presence there, but simply do business with companies that do business there. They are simply being blacklisted for refusing to discriminate against Israeli Jews in the provision of their goods and services.”
Unlike the European high court’s recent discriminatory labeling decision, this blacklist doesn’t start with the force of law behind it. However, it can still do real economic damage. As The Jerusalem Post noted, “UNHRC documents have no standing in and of themselves, but are often used as the basis for UN decisions elsewhere.”
Several of the nongovernmental organizations that the Council relied on to compile the list, groups that support the boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement, employ convicted terrorists. They also maintain ties with U.S.-designated terrorist groups, including the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and Hamas.
U.S. federal anti-terrorism statutes outlaw providing material support or services to certain designated terrorist organizations. The Supreme Court in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project found that “a person of ordinary intelligence would understand the term ‘service’ to cover advocacy performed in coordination with, or at the direction of, a foreign terrorist organization.” (Emphasis added.)
The Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights should be investigated by U.S. authorities for violating this law. First, building upon the suggestion of Senator Ted Cruz, the United States should withhold funds from the U.N. equivalent to the funding provided to the Human Rights Council and the Office of the High Commissioner for whatever period the blacklist remains in effect. Those funds are set aside and earmarked for entities that can demonstrate a negative effect caused by the blacklist.
Second, because this action is ultra vires — that is, beyond the legal scope and authority of the Human Rights Council — its members are not entitled to hide behind the immunity customarily afforded to the U.N. and its agencies under applicable treaties. As such, they can and should be sued or prosecuted for any damage they cause. At a minimum, the companies on the list should send cease and desist orders threatening to hold the council and its officers responsible for their actions.
Finally, the State Department should impose visa and travel restrictions on the officials responsible for this campaign, including High Commissioner for Human Rights and former Chilean President Michelle Bachelet. President Trump’s recent executive order on combating anti-Semitism incorporated the international definition of anti-Semitism, and it states that his administration is committed to “combating the rise of anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic incidents in the United States and around the world.”
What better way to implement that policy than to stand up for our allies and to state that anti-Semites are not welcome on our shores?
Israel cut its ties with the OHCHR in response to the report, which it calls a blacklist. No such list has been compiled of companies doing business with countries suspected of human rights abuses.
The US withdrew from the council in 2018 to protest its anti-Israeli bias.
Danish Foreign Minister Jeppe Kofod spoke on Monday against the UNHRC’s biased treatment of Israel, particularly its practice of holding a mandatory debate on alleged Israeli human rights abuses at every session, known as Agenda Item 7.
All other alleged human rights abuses by any of the UN’s member states are debated under Agenda Item 4. Israel is the only country that has a permanent agenda item of its own.
Kofod said Israeli actions should also be debated under Agenda Item 4. “Singling out one country with its own Agenda Item 7 is unbalanced and does not lend legitimacy to the working of the council,” Kofod said.
Ireland’s Foreign Minister Simon Coveney spoke out against the pending Israeli annexation of West Bank settlements at the UNHRC’s opening session.
“Annexation is clearly prohibited under international law and can not and should not be accepted,” he said.
Coveney said he supports a two-state resolution to the conflict, but that “obstacles to this grow” including settlement construction and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
Israel’s and America’s upcoming elections are fateful for both countries and will determine who will conduct the negotiations moving forward. If no clear message is conveyed by Israel — immediately — negotiations after the elections could take this silence as tacit agreement.
The political situation in the United States is no less crucial a factor. American presidents are elected to protect American interests — and these often shift. It is therefore important that Israel not do a deal based on oral understandings of how Israel will be at liberty to respond if and when the Palestinians violate the terms of the agreement (right now, oral understandings are all that exist), as we do not know how those oral understandings will be transmitted or accepted by the next US Congress and administration.
There is a world of difference between the approaches of the candidates from the two major US parties… Israel could easily find itself again having traded tangible facts on the ground for intangible, unenforceable promises.
If Trump is re-elected, the version of his plan eventually ratified by Israel will serve as the basis for negotiations. It is therefore crucial that the threats to Israel’s security are corrected before Israel embraces the “conceptual maps.” If, on the other hand, President Trump is not re-elected, the “Peace to Prosperity” vision may prove to be yet another Oslo Accord — a dangerous hole into which Israel will fall without a safety net. If Israel were to approve the plan now, essentially agreeing to the potential creation, at the end of four years, of a Palestinian state, the overwhelming temptation is for a future US president to begin the conversation from there, and not necessarily hold the Palestinian side to its obligations — which is precisely what happened under the Oslo framework.
President Reuven Rivlin on Wednesday met with Prime Minister Scott Morrison at Parliament House in Canberra, and expressed his appreciation for Australia’s determined position regarding the decision of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) to charge Israel with war crimes in Gaza, Judea and Samaria.
“It is important to that other countries also express their opposition to this dangerous move to politicize the ICC,” the president said to the prime minister. “Our army, the IDF, is our children and our grandchildren and we are proud of them and of the ability of our army to act as necessary to protect the citizens of the State of Israel.”
“I am delighted to welcome you here,” said the Australian prime minister, adding “This is a great honor, not only because of your current position but because of your work in the Knesset over the years and your contribution in many other fields. We have many things to discuss today, and I am looking forward to our meeting. Australia is happy to stand with Israel in the international arena and the diplomatic relations between the countries are no less important than the relations between the peoples, which are excellent and will remain so.”
During their meeting the president also noted the dangers of growing Iranian influence in our region and stressed that we take the threats made by the Iranian leadership from every platform very seriously, and that we have no intention of standing by in the face of such threats.
Meeting this morning with Australian PM @ScottMorrisonMP. We deeply appreciate Australia’s support for Israel in the international arena, its clear position on the ICC and its contribution to the stability of the Middle East. @pmc_gov_au pic.twitter.com/htUPx9ERsI
— Reuven Rivlin (@PresidentRuvi) February 26, 2020
en & Jerry’s is giving voters in Israel a reason to cast their ballots in the country’s third election in less than a year, and it involves about as many flavors as there are political parties on the ballot.
“A reason to vote” is the tagline for the company’s limited-edition flavor created especially for the unprecedented election.
One Sweet Vote boasts vanilla ice cream filled with peace symbol-shaped chocolates and chocolate-covered almonds, and chocolate ice cream packed with white chocolate chunks and pieces of blondie brownies.
The announcement comes two months after Ben & Jerry’s Israel asked its fans on Instagram to suggest the ingredients for an election-themed flavor that the company said would be called Third Time Ice Cream. That’s an expression used by Israelis when they run into someone twice in a short period after not seeing them for a long time, and a way that Israelis have jokingly been referring to next week’s elections.
Rabbi Asher Weiss, continues teaching in Sderot, Israel, even while a rocket lands 10 meters outside the (bomb shelter) study hall where he is delivering his lecture. #IsraelStrong #YoucantstoptheJewishpeople#Torahstrong pic.twitter.com/Zo2n4aSEvb
— Uri Pilichowski (@RationalSettler) February 25, 2020
— Im Tirtzu (@IMTIzionism) February 25, 2020
The true order of events begins with the violence committed by Islamic Jihad terrorists in Gaza who tried planting bombs on Israel’s border. Israel defended its border, and Islamic Jihad rockets ensued.
Shamefully, it’s only in six paragraphs in that writer Bel Trew discloses the reason why the man was killed in the first place. By this point, the article has given a platform to rights groups who call the act “a likely war crime” in the first paragraph, referred to Israeli aircraft having “bombed targets in the besieged strip” in the third paragraph, and graphically describing the incident in the fifth paragraph.
Why is all of this mentioned before the simple fact that this was a man who had been planting explosives on the Israeli border? Why is this crucial context not mentioned in the headline, subheadline, or lead paragraph?
By neglecting to mention the act of violence perpetrated by the Islamic Jihad terrorists until deep into the article, many readers are left unaware of the context, and unable to comprehend why Israel acted the way it did.
— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) February 26, 2020
Israel will reopen the Erez and Kerem Shalom border crossings with the Gaza Strip as of Thursday if the calm continues, the Defense Ministry’s Office of the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT) announced on Wednesday afternoon.
The decision to open the pedestrian and the commercial crossings between Israel and Gaza was taken in the aftermath of a meeting between COGAT head Major General Kamil Abu Rukun and Qatari envoy Mohammed Al-Emadi in Jerusalem on Tuesday.
The meeting was also attended by UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process, Nickolay Mladenov.
Al-Emadi and Mladenov, together with the Egyptians, are said to have played a major role in ending the latest round of violence between Israel and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), which erupted on Sunday after the IDF killed a PIJ member as he tried to plant an explosive device near the border between the Gaza Strip and Israel.
At a public rally, Abbas’ Fatah Movement played a song calling for terror while presenting the conflict as a religious war against Israel/Jews: “Allah is with us. He is stronger and greater than the Children of Zion.” The song also promotes Martyrdom-death – “My red blood will water the greenery”:
“Allah is with us. He is stronger and greater than the Children of Zion
Even if they hang, kill and bury [me], my land will not be humiliated
My red blood waters the greenery with lemon flavor
The fire of revolution is getting stronger and flaring up.
We are the victors…
My chest is a machine gun’s magazine, where are you, my brothers?…
W here are the millions?
Where is the Arab people?
Where is the Arab rage?
Where is the Arab blood?
Where is the Arab honor?
Where are the millions? Where?”
[Official PA TV, Feb. 11, 2020]
This song is famous for being used by the PA to motivate Palestinians to take to the streets and wage “intifada,” i.e., violence and terror against Israelis. Fatah played this song at a public event protesting US President Trump’s Middle East peace deal, which he revealed on Jan. 28, 2020.
— (((David Lange))) (@Israellycool) February 26, 2020
— (((David Lange))) (@Israellycool) February 26, 2020
Given President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s penchant for political gamesmanship, it is hard to know how seriously to take Turkey’s request for U.S. Patriot missile-defense batteries to be deployed on its southern border with Syria. The request was relayed last week to James Jeffrey, the American envoy for Syria engagement.
Ostensibly, the Patriots are meant to deter — or punish — the Russian air force, which has been providing cover for the forces of the dictator Bashar al-Assad in the intensifying battle for Idlib.
But there is a strong possibility that the request is a ruse, and that the message is meant for Moscow, not Washington. Erdogan may be signaling to President Vladimir Putin that the new Turkish-Russian relationship is at peril over Idlib.
The symbolism is hardly subtle. Erdogan’s decision last year to buy Russian S-400 missile-defense systems instead of the Patriots offered by the U.S. marked Turkey’s turn away from its allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and toward their adversary. He may want Moscow to believe that Russia’s actions in Idlib could force Turkey back into the Western fold.
If it is indeed a bluff, Putin is unlikely to be taken in — and the U.S. should call it.
A large part of this rationale is that Hezbollah does not want to get drawn into a regional conflict at this juncture due to the domestic political situation in Lebanon. Since October 2019, the country has been rocked by large-scale anti-government protests, with activists demonstrating against a corrupt political elite and spiraling economic crisis (Arab News, January 19). Nasrallah has spoken of his concern of an impending economic collapse, an event that could heavily impact Hezbollah’s domestic standing. While Hezbollah’s military strength stems from Iranian assistance, its political strength depends on domestic support.
Hezbollah leaders have agreed to be part of a technocratic government, after resisting the move for numerous months as it limits its own power within the governing coalition. The need to stabilize the domestic political situation has taken precedence over any military response to the death of Soleimani. Despite huge rallies denouncing the death of the Iranian commander, the majority of the Lebanese population favors the resurrection of a functioning government and economy over military engagements; any action by Hezbollah would be perceived as further threatening internal stability. The group has to secure its own position in Lebanon before pursuing external activities.
Internationally, Hezbollah has to balance its ideological commitment to Iran without provoking a reaction from the United States. A military response to Solemani’s death would risk inciting a response from the United States; the imposition of punitive sanctions would have a devastating impact on the Lebanese economy. Nasrallah’s promises of retaliation included no firm commitments to military engagement, with the Hezbollah leader likely deliberately keeping his rhetoric vague to avoid drawing U.S. ire. The new technocratic Lebanese administration has reiterated its pledge that the government will have no confrontational position towards the West.
In the short term, Soleimani’s death will have limited impact on the overall direction of Hezbollah. Nasrallah’s position as an influential Shia leader will likely expand in the region, and the secretary general will continue to take tactical and material direction from Tehran. The structure of coordination between the axis of resistance will continue unabated, although an immediate military response targeting U.S. assets appears highly unlikely.
Once stability has been regained domestically, Hezbollah might begin to pursue a military response and escalate hostilities between itself and the United States and Israel. Troop movement near the border with Israel is commonplace, and the resumption of reciprocal attacks targeting the Israel Defence Force (IDF) is highly likely. Hezbollah remains committed to the removal of all U.S. bases in the Middle East and limiting U.S. influence in the region, in line with the strategy dictated by Tehran. These long-term goals are highly unachievable without military intervention and it is possible there will be a drift toward conflict with the United States. The death of Soleimani will likely act to harden Hezbollah’s anti-U.S. resolve, but in the short term, any military response is unlikely as Hezbollah attempts to regain domestic stability.
The United States on Wednesday added a host of Lebanese individuals and entities it said were linked to the Martyrs Foundation to its designated “global terrorists” lists, according to a notice on the US Treasury Department’s website.
US officials have previously targeted the Lebanon-based Martyrs Foundation, an organization the department has said channels financial support to several militant groups, including Hezbollah.
The US Treasury Department said in a statement that its Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) had blacklisted Atlas Holding for being owned or controlled by the Martyrs Foundation, as well as senior Atlas official Kassem Mohamad Ali Bazzi, and 10 Atlas-affiliated companies.
Jawad Nur-al-Din and Sheikh Yusuf Aasi were also designated for being leaders or officials of the Martyrs Foundation, which was designated for supporting terrorism in July 2007.
Mirath S.A.L., which is owned or controlled by Jawad Nur-al-Din, was also designated.
As a result, all property of those targeted that fall under US jurisdiction must be blocked and reported to OFAC, whose rules generally bar all US persons from dealing with them.
Further, those blacklisted are subject to secondary sanctions under which OFAC can penalize foreign financial institutions which deal with them.
Despite the spread of the virus in Iran, Mahan Airlines continues to fly to China despite the calls from the vice president and several ministers for an end to flights to and from China. Mahan Air is associated with the Revolutionary Guards and flies Shi’ite combatants to the front in Syria. It even flies Chinese civilians to and from Turkey.
Meanwhile, with the virus spreading in the city of Qom, a center for Shiite pilgrimages from the Gulf, several Gulf States (UAE, Oman) have suspended flights to Iran because of the coronavirus. They have also banned their citizens from visiting Iran. The Dubai Airport, a key transit point for continuing flights to Iran, decided to suspend incoming flights after Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Oman announced that they were suspending flights to Iran.5 The Prime Minister of Armenia announced his country will close its borders with Iran for at least two weeks in order to prevent the virus’ spread in Armenia.
“Defeating the Coronavirus”
In Iran, in the shadow of increased criticism of the regime for failing to contain the coronavirus’s spread and the continued concealment of the virus’ magnitude, President Rouhani stated that Iran’s Ministry of Health will succeed to cope with the virus. He called on the citizens of Iran not to be caught in a panic and to obey the provisions of the Ministry of Health. He said he hoped for better news towards the beginning of the Iranian year, next month (March 20). The regime is trying to reduce damage to its image, among other things, through the Hashtag (#کرونا_را_شکست_میدهیم) #DefeatingtheCorona.”6. Social network users mocked Rouhani’s statements and criticized his government’s inefficiency in controlling and containing the coronavirus.
The coronavirus and the institutional failure to cope with it may spark the next wave of protest against the regime, given its policy of concealing the truth. This, after the last two protests – after the downing of the Ukrainian passenger plane, shortly after the assassination of Qasem Soleimani, and following new taxes on fuel prices. The Iranian regime continues to deal with the increasing distrust by Iranian civilians in all matters relating to the conduct of the regime in economic, internal, and external matters. Social networks are loaded with cartoons mocking Supreme Leader Khamenei, such as this one portraying his turban as the coronavirus.7
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Tuesday said the US was “deeply concerned” Iran may have covered up details about the spread of coronavirus, and he called on all nations to “tell the truth” about the epidemic.
“The United States is deeply concerned by information indicating the Iranian regime may have suppressed vital details about the outbreak in that country,” Pompeo told reporters, as he also criticized Beijing for what he characterized as the censorship of media and medical professionals.
“All nations, including Iran, should tell the truth about the coronavirus and cooperate with international aid organizations,” he said.
Iran’s coronavirus death toll rose to 16 on Tuesday, the highest outside China, increasing its international isolation as nations from South Korea to Italy accelerated emergency measures to curb the epidemic’s global spread.
Believed to come from wildlife in Wuhan city late last year, the flu-like disease has infected 80,000 people and killed 2,663 in China. But the World Health Organization (WHO) says the epidemic there has peaked and has been declining since Feb. 2.
Beijing last week revoked the credentials of three Wall Street Journal correspondents over a column China said was racist, and the US has said it was considering a range of responses to their expulsion.
.@SecPompeo on the #IranElections: This weekend, the Islamic Republic held another rigged parliamentary election. The United States stands with the Iranian people, who are desperately eager to be heard in a free and fair election. pic.twitter.com/wyiEmNHCPj
— Department of State (@StateDept) February 25, 2020
The Iranian theocracy is a complete joke. How many people has this guy – meant to be the Deputy Health Minister – gone on to infect? https://t.co/3TzpcP7UDe
— أبو عمّار (@MaajidNawaz) February 25, 2020
Israel’s Ministry of Health has imposed a strict entry ban on Iranian ayatollah regime officials contemplating visiting Israel. The dramatic move comes after Iran’s supreme leader ayatollah Ali Khamenei and most of his regime officials were tested positive for the anti-Semitism virus – also known as AsV-2020– believed to be even more lethal than the rapidly-spreading coronavirus throughout the Middle East
Bernie Sanders swiftly condemned Israel’s “racist” entry ban on ayatollah officials in an interview with The Mideast Beast.
“As an adherent of Socialist post-Judaism, I condemn Israel’s racist travel entry restrictions on peace-loving Iranian Jihadi officials. Iran’s supreme leader reassured me that the ayatollah regime is not anti-Semitic. Just like anti-Zionist progressives, Iran’s regime is merely critical of Israel’s racist policies, especially those policies that keep the Jewish state safe.”
David Cohen, a senior official from Israel’s Ministry of Health responded to Sanders. “The anti-Semitism virus is the world’s oldest and most lethal disease. It is also highly contagious. While concerns run high with roughly 80,000 confirmed cases of coronavirus worldwide, by contrast, roughly 80,000 confirmed cases of coronavirus worldwide. By contrast, more than one billion people around the world have reportedly contracted AsV-2020, including allegedly infecting at least one squad of US Congresspeople.
A #Syrian girl who drew the Israeli #flag and dedicated it to the Israeli officer (Me) who saved her life as part of operation #GoodNeighbor – The #humanitarian aid provided by #Israel and the #IDF to the Syrian civilians … Would you believe it?#noborder pic.twitter.com/GVwqUsoUwl
— Eyal Dror (@EyalDror4) February 26, 2020
We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.