We unequivocally condemn the horrific murder of Mohammed
Abu Khdeir. It was unjustifiable under any circumstances.
The killing was reprehensible and we hope that the criminals who
did this sickening act are found and prosecuted to the fullest
extent of the law.
Israel is a country run by the rule of law. There are reports that
Jews have been arrested for this crime. If a trial finds that Jews
are indeed guilty of this unconscionable killing, our condemnation
is redoubled. The idea that Jews could do such an act fills us with
shame and horror.
The people who murdered Mohammed do not represent us in any way.
It is not enough to dissociate ourselves from the dreadful act; we must
also ensure that crimes like this are never repeated.
Just as the appalling murders of Naftali Fraenkel, Eyal Yifrach and
Gilad Shaar do not in any way justify the hideous murder of
Mohammed Abu Khdeir, neither does Khdeir's murder justify the
violence, terrorism, destruction and incitement we have seen over
the past few days against Israelis and Jews.
We hope and pray that everyone, Arab and Jew, lives in peace and
security in the region.
See the full list of signatures at
This week in The Nation, Noam Chomsky has joined Norman Finkelstein and MJ Rosenberg in distancing himself from the BDS movement. All three are well known as harsh critics of Israel, with added legitimacy and fame (or infamy, depending on your viewpoint) granted to them by virtue of being Jewish. Yet, starting with the posting on YouTube of Finkelstein's 2012 interview with a BDS activist that became a must-watch for those involved in this issue, they have each called out BDS quite publicly.
Finkelstein was entirely clear about what BDS was about; referring to it as a "cult", he noted the implications of their demands: "We want the end of the occupation, the right of return, and we want equal rights for Arabs in Israel. And they think they are very clever because they know the result of implementing all three is what, what is the result?
You know and I know what the result is. There’s no Israel!"
Rosenberg, in a Huffington Post column a few months ago, gave his message away in the title of a column that, except for a few statements, I could have written myself:
"The BDS Movement Is About Dismantling Israel, Not The '67 Occupation". He stated "The demands make clear that the movement's goal is ending Israeli statehood, not just the post-1967 occupation......If the BDS goals were achieved, there would be no State of Israel at all. That is why so many proponents of BDS have such a hard time even referring to Israel as a country. It's often the "Zionist entity" or the "occupying regime." Rosenberg has also denounced one of the leaders of the BDS movement, Ali Abunimah, for open anti-Semitism-- and recognized that Jews on the left tolerate that far too easily: "There is a tendency among Jews on the left, including myself, to argue so vehemently that being anti-Israel does not make one an anti-Semite that we don’t notice when being anti-Israel coexists with anti-Semitism, that one just feeds the other. We should"
Now Chomsky has joined with his denunciation of BDS, but even in recognizing its errors, he continues to get the story wrong. He assesses the 3 demands of the BDS movement but doesn't accurately describe the first. Chomsky writes "The opening call of the BDS movement, by a group of Palestinian intellectuals in 2005, demanded that Israel fully comply with international law by "(1) Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands occupied in June 1967 and dismantling the Wall." . Time out for the referee's whistle. Let's check the actual web page of the BDS Call as of this moment. Here's the same demand there: "1. Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall".
Oops. No organization pushing BDS considers Haifa and Tel Aviv to be any less "occupied Arab lands" than Gush Etzion or Ariel, and none accepts the right of Israel to exist as the state of the Jewish people within the pre-1967 armistice lines. That's a yellow card for Noam. Like Rosenberg and Finkelstein, he does criticize the demand for the fictional "right of return" for descendants of Arab refugees from Israel's War of Independence (a war made necessary by Arab refusal to accept the establishment of the Jewish state). But unlike Rosenberg and Finkelstein, he fails to clearly point out that the goal of this demand is indeed the elimination of Jewish statehood. His criticism is solely that this demand lacks support, especially-- as he accurately points out--that it has no basis in international law (contrary to the loud insistence of those touting it as a "rights-based" effort). Presumably if there were more people around dedicated to the elimination of Israel, he would be willing to support it.
Chomsky also criticizes the United States for casting vetoes in the UN Security Council against biased anti-Israel resolutions. He refers to the veto of a January 1976 resolution backed by the Arab states which he alleges supported a two-state settlement within the international consensus. Wait, there's the ref again. Let's check the full operative text of that resolution:
(a) That the Palestinian people should be enabled to exercise its inalienable national right of self-determination, including the right to establish an independent state in Palestine in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations;
(b) The right of Palestinian refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours to do so and the right of those choosing not to return to receive compensation for their property;
(c) That Israel should withdraw from all the Arab territories occupied since June 1967;
(d) The appropriate arrangements should be established to guarantee, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of all states in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries;"
So we see a call for a Palestinian state (which was not part of the consensus of the US, Europe or Israel in 1976) and the attempt to give the fictional right of return a more solid standing than just the advisory nonbinding General Assembly Resolution 194 (which, itself, does not include the word "right" when discussing possible return of refugees). Two rather significant points that were not in the international consensus at all, and the second of which would result in an American veto of this resolution were it introduced today. That's a second yellow card and Noam is now off the pitch (at least for today). Even when he's right in finding fault with BDS, he still can't be intellectually honest about either its history or its goals.
It's good that even severe Jewish critics of Israel are waking up to the dogmatic anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism that is baked into the BDS movement. They may be a bit late, having failed to notice that these have been part of the DNA of the movement since its birth in the moral sewer of the 2001 Durban NGO conference, but at least they are now calling BDS and its hateful leaders out openly. It seems that Jewish Voice for Peace has now left itself out alone on the BDS island, as they still stubbornly refuse to see the anti-Semitic hate speech of those with whom they choose to stand.
The news broke about 12 hours ago that the body of an Arab teenager, Mohammed Abu Khdeir, was found in the Jerusalem Forest, while earlier in the day far-right extremist Israelis held a rally in Jerusalem chanting "Death to the Arabs." While nothing has been proven, it's hard to escape the fear that the reported kidnapping in Beit Hanina last night has led to the deliberate death of an Arab child at Jewish hands. The anger of many Israelis over the murders of Eyal Yifrach, Gilad Shaar and Naftali Frenkel is still a raw wound, just like the ground in which the boys have been laid to rest, side by side. And the anger is appropriately directed not just at those who killed the boys, and not just at the Hamas leadership that has relentlessly encouraged kidnap and murder of Jews, but also at those who cheered this act with the obscenities of cartoons and 3 fingered salutes posted on social media, and who handed out candy in celebration.
But this anger cannot translate into "an eye for an eye". It cannot-- wantonly and deliberately, with malice aforethought-- take the life of a Palestinian child who had nothing to do with the murder of our children. It cannot allow us to sink to the depravity of Hamas.
I'm not very learned in our texts; I wish I did know them well enough to cite the appropriate authorities here. But I do know that we must not take revenge for the deliberate, targeted attack on our children by a deliberate, targeted attack on theirs. I will not shed a single tear should I hear of the death of those who perpetrated the atrocity of killing Eyal, Gilad and Naftali-- or for any Hamas member involved in attacks on Israelis. I support the IDF acting against those firing rockets at civilians in southern Israel-- and if the rockets continue to be fired, then the IDF response is disproportionate only in the sense of being not as vigorous as it should be. But if the murder of this child indeed was the work of Jewish extremists, then this act-- and the sentiments that led to it, just as they led to the murders committed by Baruch Goldstein in 1994 -- must be denounced,
And, if so, it will without doubt be denounced. Not only the government of Israel, but Jewish community leaders the world over will condemn it. That's the difference between those on our side, and those on the other. We've seen outright cheerleading of the murder of our boys, and we've also seen the craven refusal to condemn it because they were standing on the wrong side of a line on a map-- a line behind which those who hate Israel don't even grant Jews the right to safety anyway!
It requires more than just denunciation, though. It requires that those responsible be brought to justice. It requires the end of tolerance for "price tag" attacks, which create a new normal of lawless racist behavior. It requires that the leaders of these extremists be held accountable for the consequences of their incitement, just as we hold the leaders of Hamas personally responsible for what happened on the road in Gush Etzion nearly 3 weeks ago.
We have to be better than this. Not just to avoid giving peddlers of hate and misinformation such as Ali Abunimah and Max Blumenthal more opportunity to slander Israel and the Jewish people-- though that's important. Not just to try to keep events from spiraling into open warfare in the streets-- though that's critically important. But because if we descend into the same depths of bloodlust and hatred as our enemies, then what have we become?
This is why there's a blockade of Gaza. Is this also in part why Jewish Voice for Peace, Free Gaza, ISM, and similar extremist groups want the blockade to be lifted?
I took this picture. I was in Israel with some American Admirals and Generals (retired) under JINSA sponsorship as the guests of their Ministry of Defense. At one point during a 9/10 day visit we got down to the Gaza border and this is one of the things we saw. A tunnel starting far back in Gaza - near a civilian area and extending nearly 3 miles long - 30 feet underground - and headed directly for a nearby kibbutz full of Israelis farmers - in Israel proper. The ultimate idea was for the tunnel to come up in the kibbutz where the civilian Israelis could be murdered or taken hostage. The reason for my sending you this picture is to show you what the Palestinians do when they do get the concrete they want (And, in fact, they get HUGE amounts of everything they claim they don’t. The ones currently imposing a real, serious, closure of Palestinian access to everything are the Egyptians, but neither the media nor the United Nations have a word to say about that since the tough guys aren’t Jews). We were told that with the amount of concrete used to build the ceiling and walls of this terror tunnel, the Palestinians could have built a multi-story home for many families or a hospital for their people. But they aren’t interested in their people or in building a real home/state for them, they’re interest in killing Jews and destroying Israel. Anyway, this is one picture I can vouch for. I took it myself with my very best camera. My iPhone. It is less than a month old.
In about 18 hours Tel Aviv will be treated to perhaps the mother of all BDS fails-- its first Rolling Stones concert. The Stones are even being considerate of observant Jewish fans by delaying the start of their concert until after the close of the Shavuot holiday.
In honor of this event, I took some liberties with one of their signature songs.
(to the tune of "Start Me Up")
Sod off BDS!
We’re in Israel though you told us “stop”.
Suck it BDS!
You don’t get to be a morals cop.
You’re just spewing rot
You’ve got nothing besides hateful thought
We’re not that naive
So we’re playing here in Tel Aviv,
Tel Aviv, Tel Aviv, Tel Aviv
So BDS bye-bye
So BDS bye-bye,
Am Yisrael Chai!
Spread out the hummus, and tahini,
We’re here in Israel, it’s an awesome scene!
More Recent Articles