בס״ד JNF-KKL decision עש"ק פרשת אחרי מות-קדושים 11 Iyar 5781 ISRAEL NEWS was made in a  April 23, 2021 A collection of the week’s news from Israel democratic vote by all the Issue number 1342 various groups, from left to right, From the Bet El Twinning / Israel Action Committee of Jerusalem 6:34 represented on its board. You Toronto 7:53 Beth Avraham Yoseph of Toronto Congregation have to accept votes that you lose just as you accept the ones that you win. Threatening to boycott Commentary… an organization when you lose a vote is the kind of approach that undermines civil discourse. The Threat to Boycott JNF Threatens American Jews Second, the boycott is a threat to the orderly functioning of the By Moshe Phillips Jewish community. None of the opponents claim that the policy In February 2021, the board of the Jewish National Fund (JNF) – violates any laws or agreed-upon principles. All they’re saying is that Keren Kayemet L’Israel, which has been developing the Land of Israel they don’t agree with it. If you boycott everybody you disagree with, for over a century, voted to authorize the purchase of private land in or balkanization ensues, in which each side seals itself off in its own adjacent to Jewish communities in Judea-Samaria (the West Bank). A camp, associating only with like-minded factions and refusing to final vote will be held next week. interact with those who differ. Such extreme disunity is not only In response, some liberal Jewish groups, such as J Street and the perilous for Jews, but also for the cause of Middle East peace. New Israel Fund, threatened to boycott the organization on the In one very important way, however, the boycott threat could grounds that Jews buying land there “sets back the chances of a clear away some of the smoke that has been clouding this whole peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and irrevocably debate. The organizations threatening to boycott the JNF include harms the credibility of the Jewish National Fund in Jewish American Friends of Peace Now, J Street, the Reform Zionist youth communities around the world.” movement and the New Israel Fund. In their literature and press These threats to boycott the JNF are deeply troubling on many releases, these groups deny that they favor dividing Jerusalem. levels. But they also present a welcome opportunity for some serious But when these groups say they will boycott JNF over buying clarification of the broader Jewish debate on these issues. land in the “West Bank,” they are, in fact, adopting language that the There is nothing improper about the policy of making such Palestinian Authority uses to refer to the “West Bank” and Jerusalem. purchases. As JNF-KKL chairman Avraham Duvdevani pointed out, To the PA, anything beyond the 1967 line is “occupied Palestinian the JNF has been buying land in those regions for more than a century. territory,” be it a Jerusalem neighborhood such as Gilo or a Jewish In fact, Duvdevani’s predecessor, Danny Atar of the Labor Party, town in the heart of Judea-Samaria. They don’t make any distinction approved and presided over such purchases on an even greater scale between the Western Wall Plaza and a Jewish settlement near Hebron than what the new authorization will cover. The only difference is that or Ramallah. It’s all the “West Bank.” (They also call Israel within the new authorization puts the ongoing policy officially on record. the 1967 lines “occupied Palestine” — but that’s a separate issue.) There’s nothing wrong with that. (Note: The JNF-USA raises funds in But Peace Now or J Street have not specifically announced if the United States for land development but is legally and operationally their boycott threat applies to purchases of land in parts of Jerusalem separate from the JNF-KKL.) that are past the 1967 line. As a result, we must assume that they are Jewish land purchases in Judea-Samaria weren’t always a point of boycotting those parts of Jerusalem, too. contention in the Jewish world. The last time a government attempted If the Jewish left intends to boycott Gilo or Ramot or other parts to restrict such purchases — in the British White Paper of 1939 — of Jerusalem, that’s their prerogative. But the Jewish public has a there was wall-to-wall opposition among world Jewry. right to know if that’s what their position is. Their threat to boycott After the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel’s Labor-led governments the JNF puts the ball in their court concerning Jerusalem. They have established the first Jewish communities in Judea-Samaria, creating 36 an obligation to tell us: How, exactly, do they define the “West such towns from 1967 to 1977. All the storied leaders of Labor Bank”? Where do they draw the line? Precisely which parts of the Zionism — some retired, some still active — supported those efforts. Land of Israel do they believe belong to the Palestinians and should David Ben-Gurion. Golda Meir. Yitzhak Rabin. Shimon Peres. Yigal be off-limits to Jewish development? Allon. Ultimately, it is Israelis, not American Jews, who will decide the There now seems to be some division of opinion within the Labor shape of the country’s borders. American friends of Israel can still movement over the issue of land purchases. For example, Habonim hope that our views will be taken into consideration by our Israeli Dror, a Labor Zionist youth movement, is one of the signatories on the brothers and sisters. But if we expect Israel to pay attention to our public letter threatening boycott. On the other hand, the Labor Zionist views, we need to clarify exactly where we stand. Israelis have a right women’s movement, Na’amat, was one of the groups that voted in to know where left-wing Jewish critics stand on Jerusalem. favor of the purchase. (Jewish Journal Apr 16) Another vocal opponent of the JNF-KKL policy is Rabbi Rick Jacobs, head of the Union for Reform Judaism. He released a statement asserting, “Especially at this moment when Israel is looking The Strategic Implications of the Damage at Natanz to forge a strong relationship with the Biden Administration this By Eran Lerman unilateral move could be inflammatory and harmful.” But that’s a self- The Iranian regime is eager to generate a sense of urgency in the fulfilling prophecy: If the Biden administration decides to harangue West, pushing the Biden administration to give up its sanctions Israel over these private land purchases, it will be, in part, because leverage and return to the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action Israel’s Jewish critics are leading the charge. U.S. officials always nuclear agreement. The recent damage caused to the Natanz keep an eye on what American Jewish leaders say on such issues and enrichment facility can change this equation. In any case, as Munich are sometimes influenced by them. 1938 taught, it is dangerous to try to buy time at the cost of Rabbi Jacobs could help head off that anticipated tension by mollifying an ambitious totalitarian regime. explaining to U.S. officials that it’s morally wrong to prevent Jews The Iranian regime blames Israel for the blast, that seriously from buying plots of land from Arabs. Jews should be free to live damaged the facility. It decided to “retaliate” by commencing anywhere in the Land of Israel; this is not a right-wing position, but enrichment to the level of 60 percent uranium 235. The IAEA has rather a sacred Zionist principle that has been at the center of the confirmed this, putting the Iranians one step closer to the goal of Zionist movement since its inception. Banning Jews from buying land enrichment to 93 percent (military-grade fissile material). The is not only morally wrong, but also a threat to several cherished decision was made in the context of ongoing “indirect” talks with the Jewish-American principles: United States, and direct talks in Vienna with the other five First, boycotting JNF is a threat to democracy in Jewish life. The signatories to the JCPOA. The talks seem headed toward an agreed mechanism for a return to the JCPOA and the removal of sanctions on Iran. World War II could have been avoided since the German High Iranian conduct reminds us of three basic realities: Command was ready to overthrow Hitler. The time supposedly 1. The Iranian nuclear project has one and only one purpose: the “bought” by Chamberlain’s weakness at Munich came at the cost of production of a nuclear bomb. Lame excuses aside, there is no other 60 million lives, the devastation of Europe and Asia, and the reason to enrich uranium to 60 percent (or even to 20 percent, given Holocaust. that Iran does not have and will not have nuclear-powered submarines The two cases are not quite similar, except for this one central or other vessels). Sixty percent is simply a declared way-station to the lesson. Once the wish to gain time drives a willingness to accept the stockpiling of military-grade fissile material. demands of a ruthless, totalitarian regime hell-bent on subversion and Iran also is working on tooling metallic uranium and has been in destruction, the tragic consequences are inevitable. It is this insight possession of basic bomb-making technologies for nearly two decades that should be imparted to friends in American politics and (as the captured Iranian nuclear archives prove). In effect, the false diplomacy. (JNS / Jerusalem Institute for Strategic Studies Apr 20) Iranian pretense of “civilian purposes” has been dropped. There never was a “fatwa,” or Islamic religious ruling, by the Supreme Leader against the acquisition of nuclear weapons. The world knows, and the Does America’s Afghanistan Pullout Bode Ill for Israel? Iranians hardly bother to hide, that this is a military project. By Jonathan S. Tobin Nevertheless, the JCPOA rests upon the bold assertion (as spelled out It turns out that there are some things on which President Joe on page one of the accord) that the Iranian nuclear project is civilian in Biden and his predecessor agree. Former President Donald Trump nature; an outright lie. endorsed Biden’s decision announced last week to set a firm 2. Accuracy and truth are not high priorities for the Iranian leadership. withdrawal date of U.S. troops from Afghanistan by Sept. 11 as “a Indeed, one of the ways in which they have contended with severe wonderful thing.” During his four years in office, Trump had setbacks—and in fact, this has served Israel well—is simply to invent continued to draw down American forces in Afghanistan and in his a major achievement where there was none, so as to soften the blow. last months spoke of wanting all Americans out of the country by the Thus, Iran falsely claimed to have inflicted heavy losses among Israeli end of his term. But he was restrained by the advice of his military soldiers in response to the massive Israeli airstrikes against Iranian advisers, who opposed a quick exit. While he is right to dislike the targets in Syria on May 10, 2018 (“Operation House of Cards”). This unfortunate symbolism of a U.S. bugout on the 9/11 anniversary and may well be the case now, too. Iran’s claim to enrichment at 60 said he would have preferred to have them out even sooner, Trump percent may be accurate, but it will not be easy to accumulate large was still clearly in agreement with his successor. amounts of fissile material in the next few months given the damage to This is remarkable not just because bipartisan agreement on Natanz. anything is rare these days. It also shows how far both parties and 3. The regime’s main goal at present is to generate a sense of urgency their leaders have come with respect to their views about the need to in the West (the Biden administration, specifically). Senior American stay in Afghanistan over the course of the last 20 years. The officials, including Secretary of State Antony Blinken, already have overwhelming majority of Republicans—and not just the neo- quoted alarmist assessments as to Iran’s breakout time to justify a conservatives who were blamed for the wars in both Afghanistan and quick return to the JCPOA as it was in 2015, and only then to Iraq—once viewed the need to fight until the Taliban and their Al- negotiate a “longer, stronger, broader” agreement. But with U.S. Qaeda allies were completely defeated as a foreign-policy imperative. leverage frittered away (following the easing of sanctions), what will In the 2006 and 2008 election campaigns, Democrats labeled motivate the Iranian regime to compromise? Should the United States Afghanistan as the “good war” in contrast to the “bad” one in Iraq succumb to the arguments of urgency, which are manipulated by Iran, from which they wished to withdraw. While some Democrats and the prospects of achieving the goals Biden himself has set will be next Republicans have been willing to speak up against the decision, they to nil. are noticeably in the minority. It’s clear that most Americans are sick This highlights the supreme importance of the serious damage of this “forever war,” and agree with Biden and Trump. inflicted upon the enrichment facility at Natanz. This facility has been Critics of the decision, like New York Times columnist Bret the target of several attacks in the past (including, as David Sanger Stephens, are arguing that the decision was a betrayal of the people of relates in his book Confront and Conceal: Obama’s Secret Wars and Afghanistan and indicate that Osama bin Laden was right to believe Surprising Use of American Power, systemic cyber-attacks planned that the United States doesn’t have the staying power to fight long, during the Bush years and carried out under Obama in close difficult wars in defense of its values and interests against utterly cooperation with Israel). If the battle is for time, then every moment is ruthless opponents willing to wait them out. of the essence. Therefore, the United States should be appreciative of It also begs the question of whether pulling the last Americans any significant delay in Iran’s ability to break out toward a bomb, and out of Afghanistan means that both parties are OK with the idea of certainly of a setback measured in months. The time gained should be ending involvement in the Middle East as a whole. If so, the prospect used to sustain the pressure on Iran toward a better agreement—one of a bipartisan consensus in favor of such an outcome might have without the current “sunset clauses.” ominous consequences for Israel. And when viewed in the context of The Biden administration may well resent independent Israeli the administration’s clear commitment to another round of actions and has made manifest its preference for diplomacy over the appeasement with Iran, such arguments seem persuasive. use of force. (See the Interim National Security Strategic Guidance Biden’s apparent willingness to empower and enrich an Islamist document). Events such as the blast at Natanz “muddy the waters” in regime in Iran seems to be consistent with a decision that could well Vienna and may disrupt the negotiations led by the State Department lead to the toppling of the pro-American government in Afghanistan and European allies. But at the end of the day, Israel’s right to “defend and its replacement by one dominated by the Taliban. But like the herself by herself”—a right formally recognized by former President rush to damn Trump for his move towards withdrawing American Barack Obama—is an asset for U.S. diplomacy, if used in the right forces from northern Syria in 2019 as a betrayal of American friends manner. Israel’s independence could provide American negotiators and interests, it would be a mistake to draw such firm conclusions and their European partners with key cards as the talks evolve. about what is unfolding in Afghanistan. In any case, the effort to “gain time” is legitimate and worthy. In Though Americans have learned this the hard way by paying a the face of a determined, ambitious and totalitarian Iranian regime, the high price in blood and treasure expended, there is a difference United States must not concede key principles or forfeit decisive tools between a foolish commitment to an unwinnable war in Afghanistan of leverage, nor should it abandon loyal allies. and a U.S. policy that seeks to essentially ditch Israel and moderate Alas, the European appeasement of Hitler is the historical analogy Arabs in favor of a tilt towards Iran. The question is not whether what that comes to mind. Chamberlain, who probably understood what sort is happening in Afghanistan is a portent of a future in which the of villain he was dealing with, wanted to gain time and was tempted to Jewish state is left alone to face Iran. Rather, it’s whether this believe that his concessions to Hitler in 1938 bought him a couple of president is capable of crafting a foreign policy that can be nimble crucial years. (They did not. War came within 11 months). The sad enough to avoid quagmires while also not abandoning the entire truth is that had Chamberlain been willing to fight Hitler right then, region to the tender mercies of Islamist foes. Stephens isn’t wrong when he says the U.S. retreat will likely about it. The Paper of Record also pointed out that if those unnamed usher in a new dark age for the people of Afghanistan. One of the officials were correct in their claim that the blast did so much damage largely unintended consequences of the American invasion was that it that it set back production at Natanz by at least nine months, “Iran’s helped secure the rights of Afghani women and others who were leverage in new talks sought by the Biden administration to restore subjugated by the country’s Islamist leaders. A U.S. retreat will end the nuclear agreement could be significantly compromised.” that progression and any hope for a future in which it might enjoy As though this were a bad thing. democracy. Meanwhile, upon emerging from a meeting with Israeli Defense While the neo-conservative belief that all peoples deserve Minister Benny Gantz last Sunday, Austin reiterated his democracy was a noble one, what Americans learned in both Iraq and government’s commitment to ensuring that Israel maintain its Afghanistan is that not everyone wants it. That was certainly true in Qualitative Military Edge in the Middle East. He made similar Iraq, where tribal and religious loyalties took precedence over any comments in a joint press conference with Prime Minister Benjamin desire for liberal democracy. It was more the case in Afghanistan, Netanyahu on Monday. where—no matter how odious America’s Islamist opponents might “The close and strong ties that we enjoy with Israel are central to be—they had a solid base of support that was never destroyed. regional stability and security in the Middle East, and we both agree Afghanistan has a history of laying waste to the ambitions of that we must continue to work closely together to enhance the US- foreign forces. That was true for the British in the 19th century and for Israel strategic partnership,” said Austin. “So, we discussed ways to the Soviet Union in the 1980s. And although America’s cause was deepen and expand our long-standing defense relationship in the face just, its hopes that the Taliban could be decisively defeated were futile. of regional threats and other security challenges.” Whether you put it down to geography or to a national tradition of Netanyahu agreed with Austin that the United States and Israel resistance, once the initial post-9/11 goal of expelling Al-Qaeda was are “family,” but stressed—as he has been doing for decades—that achieved, the desire to transform the country for the better was a pipe “there is no threat that is more serious, more dangerous, more dream. pressing than that posed by the fanatical regime in Iran.” It’s not unreasonable for Americans to ask whether 20 years isn’t a He further stated, “My policy as prime minister of Israel is clear: long enough time for those Afghanis who don’t want to live under the I will never allow Iran to obtain the nuclear capability to carry out its Taliban to get their act together. The notion of a perpetual U.S. genocidal goal of eliminating Israel. Israel will continue to defend garrison in the country isn’t viable or fair. itself against Iran’s aggression and terrorism.” While admitting defeat is a bitter pill to swallow, especially for the There is nothing new about this remark. It’s a mantra that many Americans who served their country so bravely there, both Netanyahu has been repeating throughout his career. Suddenly, Biden and Trump are right to acknowledge that it’s high time to face however, it is being treated by his foes as evidence that he’s been up to that unfortunate conclusion. bragging about, rather than keeping the country’s traditional lid on, The argument that abandoning Afghanistan means America’s Israeli actions against the Islamic Republic and its regional proxies. friends and foes will decide it can’t be relied upon is logical. But it’s These include alleged air, land and sea assaults on Iranian targets, not as simple as that. Afghanistan occupies a strategic position next to as well as the November 2020 assassination of top nuclear scientist the Indian subcontinent. Holding it has always been more trouble than Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, widely attributed to the Mossad. Oh, and let’s it was worth, as commanders from Alexander the Great to George W. not forget the 2018 seizure of thousands of documents from a Bush learned. warehouse in Tehran—a trove of material that helped former Cutting its losses after two decades of stalemate doesn’t President Donald Trump make his final decision to withdraw from necessarily mean that the United States can’t be relied upon to resist the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the nuclear deal that Iran aggression elsewhere, whether the culprit is an aggressive Communist had been violating from the get-go three years earlier. regime in China or a different Islamist opponent in Iran. While the war In each of the above cases, “foreign media,” including The New in Afghanistan was unwinnable, the same is not true of an American York Times, have pointed the finger at Israel. Following every such effort to restrain and isolate Iran via economic sanctions. Iran is far incident—other than the raid of the documents that Netanyahu later weaker than those who are eager to accommodate it understand. The purposely displayed—Israel has declined to comment. idea that the choice with respect to its leaders was only one between The absence of denial, justifiably, is viewed as tacit war and appeasement was always false. The same is true with respect acknowledgement. The latter serves Israel’s interests where to other American commitments. conveying crucial messages to Iran is concerned. Indeed, letting the The Kabul government is likely to prove to be an ally that cannot mullah-led regime know that the Jewish state is on the offensive is a defend itself on its own. That’s tragic. That is not true of Israel, which crucial element in the low-scale shadow war aimed at impairing is strong enough to defend itself. And, as coming events may prove, it Tehran’s race to nuclear bombs. is also strong enough to tell Washington that it will not back down on The ayatollahs and their puppets always fall for the trap, its justified and skillful efforts to stop Tehran’s march to a nuclear promptly accusing the “Zionist entity”—and its backers in weapon even if it doesn’t fit in with Biden’s appeasement agenda. Washington—of being behind all attempts to curb their atomic and What the United States needs is a foreign policy that can discern hegemonic intentions. They haven’t ever needed The New York between achievable goals, like the objective of using economic means Times’ “anonymous sources” to know a formidable foe when they to force Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions, and ones, like turning see one. Iraq and Afghanistan into democracies, that are sheer fantasy. It isn’t In fact, it was Alireza Zakani, head of the Iranian parliament’s wrong to leave Afghanistan’s fate in the hands of its people, even if Research Center, who said in an interview with state-run Ofoq TV what will follow may be awful. But it also means that belatedly doing that Israel had damaged or destroyed thousands of uranium- the right thing in one place doesn’t justify retreats from other far more enrichment centrifuges at Natanz. Nor was he the only Iranian necessary conflicts. (JNS Apr 20) official to bemoan Israel’s causing of a setback in centrifuge- spinning. To counteract the weakness that the regime must have believed Natanz and Anonymous Israeli ‘Chatter’ By Ruthie Blum that it was portraying to the world by “crediting” Israel with prowess, US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s visit to Jerusalem last week Iranian state television reported on Saturday that one Reza Karimi, coincided with an explosion at Iran’s Natanz nuclear facility. Shortly from the city of Kashan, was the prime suspect in the Natanz attack. after the attack on the uranium-enrichment site, The New York Times Also on Saturday, the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that though “Israel publicly declined to confirm or deny any confirmed Iran’s boast that it had begun enriching uranium to a purity responsibility” for the incident, “American and Israeli intelligence level of 60 percent, the closest yet to the 90 percent required to officials said there had been an Israeli role.” produce an atomic bomb, and well beyond the 20 percent that it was Continuing to cite anonymous sources, the Times went on not only enriching up until now—in any case, a violation of the 3.67 percent to assert that Israel was behind the sabotage, but to wonder “how much level spelled out in the JCPOA. advance word—if any—the Biden administration [had] received” This brings us to the latest anonymously sourced reports, according to which members of the Biden administration have been disputed territories, on the basis that she doesn’t understand the warning the Netanyahu government to stop its “dangerous, harmful difference. and embarrassing chatter” on the Natanz attack. Never mind that the It was a pity that Hotovely didn’t pick her up on this confusion ostensible loose lips in question originated in The New York Times, over who is and is not entitled to be an Israeli citizen. This elision is whose story was picked up by media outlets everywhere, including in perpetrated time and again to blame Israel for alleged discrimination Israel. against people who aren’t its citizens because they don’t live in Israel Nothing like a game of telephone to spark a major controversy, and to whom it therefore owes no duty of care. particularly one whose objective is to make Netanyahu look bad—a Nevertheless, Hotovely proceeded to hole other falsehoods below goal that Israel’s Channel 12, among others, takes very seriously. the waterline. She pointed out that the Palestinian Authority hadn’t Ironically, this took the form last week of the Hebrew broadcaster wanted Israel to provide the Palestinian Arabs with a vaccination highlighting President Joe Biden’s irritation with Israel for getting in programme. The PA had instead wanted to provide it for them itself, the way of a new nuclear accord. and had done just that by purchasing doses of the Russian Sputnik If any of the above is true, it warrants celebration, not mourning. vaccine. In other words, it’s not Israeli operations or “chatter” that are This unanswerable fact so wrong-footed Maitlis that she pulled “dangerous, harmful and embarrassing,” but rather the spectacle in out what she presumably believed was her killer point — that six Vienna, geared towards cajoling Iran into accepting a well-funded and Israeli ultra-leftist NGOs had said Israel had a “legal, moral and smooth path to completing its nuclear-weapons program. ethical” obligation to deliver Covid vaccinations to the Palestinians. (JNS Apr 20) Hotovely kept her cool and responded with the first of her two zingers of the evening. “Let me ask you, Emily,” she said, “would you actually impose getting vaccines [on] the leaders of the Rattling Israel's BBC Tormentors By Melanie Phillips Palestinians? Would you actually say [they had to] accept Israeli A reliable sign that someone has managed to puncture one of access and Israeli help? When they’re not interested?” the BBC’s doctrinal falsehoods is when an interviewer is sufficiently Presented with this unanswerable point, Maitlis started to talk rattled to keep interrupting that individual by intoning the same false over her by robotically intoning “legal, moral and ethical obligation”. accusation that has just been persuasively refuted, or unhappily and Hotoveley, however, wasn’t having any of it and proceeded to drive needlessly mumbling about “right of reply”. her point home. Patiently, she insisted: “But you’re not answering my These enlightening theatrics occurred last evening on BBC TV’s question. My question is very simple. Can you impose receiving the Newsnight, when anchor Emily Maitlis grilled Tzipi Hotovely, Israel’s vaccine on populations [whose] leadership wants to be in charge of new ambassador to the UK, in her first broadcast interview. You can the programme? You’re patronising the Palestinians.” watch it here on BBC iPlayer at about 35 minutes in. At this point, a very small lightbulb seemed to go on inside Hotovely, Israel’s former deputy foreign minister, is highly Maitlis’s head as a result of this unexpected line of response. controversial because of her profile as an Israeli religious nationalist. Incredulously, she asked: “You’re telling me that the Palestinians Lefties in both Israel and Britain therefore regard her as a far-right didn’t want to take up the vaccinations?” racist colonialist warmongering white supremacist (her parents were Oh dear. Replied Hotovely: “No no, they had their own actually immigrants from Soviet Georgia). Others may think she is programme, they bought the Russian vaccine, they had a agreement truthful, principled and direct. with the WHO and they wanted to run their own programme and I The Newsnight item was ostensibly about what Britain might learn think we need to respect that. And when they asked for Israel’s help, from Israel’s “green” vaccination passport. Maitlis, however, appeared we were there to help.” to be intent upon two other purposes: to skewer Hotovely personally Boom! With the collapse of that line of attack, Maitlis switched for her supposed extremism, and to skewer the State of Israel for its to safer ground: the presumed awfulness of both Hotovely herself and supposed extremism. the State of Israel that she represents. Thus much was predictable. Even so, the bare-faced falsehoods the So it was that an item on the issue of vaccination passports found BBC disseminates about Israel do take the breath away. it necessary to accuse Israel of having proposed last year to annex up In her introduction to the topic, Maitlis noted concerns that the to one-third of the “West Bank”; and to accuse Hotovely, a former introduction of a British vaccination passport might widen social “settlements minister”, of being such a right-wing religious extremist divisions. Then she said this: “But in Israel, where the Palestinian that her appointment as ambassador had provoked 2000 liberal population has not been inoculated at anywhere near the rate of the British Jews to petition against it. Did she or did she not, demanded Israeli population, there’s plenty of concern about the passport’s Maitlis, support the “two-state solution”? Another presumed ability to widen the gulf.” “gotcha!” moment. Subsequently noting Israel’s impressive achievement in getting To which Hotovely merely smiled, said how gratified she had nearly 60 per cent of its population fully vaccinated, she nevertheless been by the warm response to her arrival from the Jewish community, added: “…but the roll-out to Palestinian citizens has been much slower and calmly delivered her second zinger of the evening. More at 0.5 per cent.” pragmatic options were needed, she said, than the “two-state Woa! Stop right there! She appeared to be suggesting that Israel solution”: “You cannot speak about a formula when the Palestinians was discriminating against its own Arab citizens by vaccinating them aren’t willing to sit and negotiate with Israel. They’re not interested at a slower rate. This is totally untrue. Israeli Arabs have been offered in any two-state solution.” the vaccination in exactly the same way as every other Israeli citizen. Presented with this further unanswerable truth, Maitlis The 0.5 per cent figure presumably applies to the Palestinian Arabs desperately spluttered — again while Hotovely was speaking — living in the disputed territories outside Israel. something about needing to provide “the right of reply to that point”. Maitlis seemed to be conflating Israeli Arabs, who are Israeli From all of which we might make two observations. The first is citizens, with Palestinian Arabs who are not Israeli citizens but inhabit that this was an impressive debut appearance by Tzipi Hotovely in those disputed territories beyond Israel. Under the Oslo Accords, their front of Britain’s anti-Israel inquisition. Throughout this arraignment health needs are delivered by the Palestinian Authority. she remained calm, factual and pleasant while delivering facts that Possibly through sloppiness and ignorance, Maitlis proceeded to punctured the lies (and which many Brits will not have heard before). deepen this confusion. She told Hotovely that many Palestinians “right The second is that, as illustrated by this encounter, the BBC on your doorstep” hadn’t been vaccinated. This sounded like she was seems to be taking its talking points not just from the Guardian, as it referring to those living in the disputed territories outside Israel. But has done for many years, but also now from extreme-leftist NGOs then she went on to suggest that this would exacerbate “already who appear to be setting the BBC’s agenda. No wonder its poor existing inequalities” between vaccinated and non-vaccinated presenters seem to have had their brains scrambled. communities and that “in Israel that divide is profound”. Which Welcome to Britain, ambassador. (Substack Apr 21) seemed to reinforce the impression that she was actually referring to Israeli Arabs — or possibly to Israeli Arabs and the Palestinians in the