The scourge of terrorism is still very much present around the world, especially in areas of concentration of Islamist militants.
In Pakistan, rivals have been blowing up crowds at rallies and in mosques. On July 30, at least 63 people were killed and over 130 injured when a suicide bomber set off explosives at a political rally in Pakistan’s northwestern Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province at a gathering of the conservative Jamiat Ulema Islam-Fazl (JUI-F) party, known for its links to hardline political Islam, in the former tribal area of Bajaur, which borders Afghanistan. ISIS claimed responsibility. Reuters added that “Pakistan has seen a resurgence of attacks by Islamist militants since last year when a ceasefire between the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) [also known as the Pakistani Taliban] and Islamabad broke down. A mosque bombing in Peshawar killed over 100 people earlier this year.”
Relatives and mourners gather around the caskets of victims who were killed in Sunday’s suicide bomber attack in the Bajur district of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan, Monday, July 31, 2023. (photo: Mohammad Sajjad/AP)
The United Nations Security Council quickly condemned the “heinous and cowardly suicide terrorist attack” and “expressed their deepest sympathy and condolences to the families of the victims and to the Government of Pakistan, and they wished a speedy and full recovery to those who were injured.” It continued:
“The members of the Security Council reaffirmed that terrorism in all its forms and manifestations constitutes one of the most serious threats to international peace and security.
“The members of the Security Council underlined the need to hold perpetrators, organizers, financiers and sponsors of these reprehensible acts of terrorism accountable and bring them to justice. They urged all States, in accordance with their obligations under international law and relevant Security Council resolutions, to cooperate actively with the Government of Pakistan, as well as all other relevant authorities in this regard.
“The members of the Security Council reiterated that any acts of terrorism are criminal and unjustifiable, regardless of their motivation, wherever, whenever and by whomsoever committed. They reaffirmed the need for all States to combat by all means, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and other obligations under international law, including international human rights law, international refugee law and international humanitarian law, threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts.”
These three paragraphs sound weighty but are pre-packaged, off-the-shelf statements used repeatedly. The UNSC used it in January 2023 in Pakistan and aired the same in December 2022, September 2022 and March 2018 in Iraq, Afghanistan and Nigeria, respectively.
But not for Israel. When Israel is confronted with Islamist militants slaughtering innocent civilians, the UNSC cannot recall how to “copy-paste.”
In January 2023, the UNSC condemned the slaughter of seven Jews at a synagogue during a session discussing the region but issued no canned statement. The UN Secretary General issued a terse statement which did not suggest that Israel “hold perpetrators, organizers, financiers and sponsors… to justice.” Instead, he expressed the opposite desire because he “is deeply worried about the current escalation of violence in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territory. This is the moment to exercise utmost restraint.“
This is an old, despicable story, in which the UN urges the world to fight terrorism while demanding Israel accept terrorism as a penance for existing.
Palestinians have violently opposed Jews living in Israel for a century. The occasional massacres of the 1920s gave way to multi-year pogroms in the late 1930s. When the British announced their intention to leave the region and terminate their mandate, the local Arabs rejected the 1947 United Nations Partition Plan and enlisted neighboring Arab countries to destroy the Jewish State.
The loss of part of the land to Israel was balanced by the capture of Gaza by Egypt and much of Judea and Samaria by Transjordan. The Arab armies assembled to destroy Israel again in 1967 and in 1973 on Judaism’s holiest Day, losing their wars again. On their own, the Stateless Arabs from Palestine (SAPs) continued the mayhem, killing Jewish Olympians, blowing up synagogues and hijacking planes in their persistent effort to eradicate the presence of Jews in the Jewish holy land.
The SAPs seemingly were willing to turn a new page in favor of coexistence with Jews in 1991 with the Madrid Conference which eventually developed into the 1993 Oslo I and 1995 Oslo II Accords. Despite ongoing Arab violence, Israel facilitated the creation of Palestinian governmental institutions and handed over significant sections of the area east of the 1949 Armistice Lines (E49) to Palestinian control. The goal was to finalize all matters by September 2000, at the five year anniversary of the Oslo II signing.
The SAPs chose to return to their violent ways instead of concluding an agreement.
In September 2000, under the command of Yasser Arafat, Arabs committed waves of terrorist attacks, blowing up men, women and children in pizza stores, parks, on buses and in synagogues. The Arab brutality was seemingly without end, and was only curtailed in 2004 when Israel erected a security barrier to stem the flow of Arab killers and the death of Arafat.
In an effort to reengage, Israel handed Gaza to the Palestinians in 2005, with assurances from the United States that it would support Israel’s positions on retaining some land in E49 and that all Palestinian refugees would be settled in a new Palestinian State.
The SAPs would fail to capitalize on this second chance at peace as well.
First, the Palestinians elected the terrorist group Hamas to 58% of the Palestinian parliament in 2006, and then had the political-terrorist group take over all of Gaza in 2007. The Palestinians used Gaza as a launching ground for missiles in the air and tunnels below ground to attack Israelis. Full blown battles from Gaza erupted in 2008, 2012 and 2014.
Rather than Gaza proving a model for coexistence of two states living side-by-side in peace, it showed that Palestinians will never accept the presence of Jews nor existence of a Jewish State.
There is an old adage “fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me” meant to convey that it’s not nice of the perpetrator to take advantage of someone one time, but by the second time, the fault lies with the victim who should have known better than to reengage.
There is no line for “fool me three times”, as no rational actor acting on free will would ever consider such preposterous notion.
Which is precisely why the anti-Israel community is calling for BDS resolutions against Israel and electing anti-Israel candidates like Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-NY), to force Israel to reengage yet again with Palestinians who have repeatedly shown they have no interest in coexistence.
Alt-Left anti-Israel members of Congress, Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar and Jamaal Bowman
“Fool me once or twice is a matter between parties; fool me thrice is a hostage situation” in which the victim is compelled to undermine their own well-being. Such is the situation today among those pressuring Israel to advance a DOA peace process.
Coercion is the polar opposite of freedom, and it is gaining strength while oblivious Israelis ponder how much power to leave in judiciary’s hands. Israel’s internal debate about democracy is shrouding the potential loss of freedom from external actors.
White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre issued a bizarre statement on behalf of President Joe Biden about Israel’s passing of a law to limit one method which the Supreme Court uses to block legislation. Her July 24 statement was:
“As a lifelong friend of Israel, President Biden has publicly and privately expressed his views that major changes in a democracy to be enduring must have as broad a consensus as possible. It is unfortunate that the vote today took place with the slimmest possible majority. We understand talks are ongoing and likely to continue over the coming weeks and months to forge a broader compromise even with the Knesset in recess. The United States will continue to support the efforts of President Herzog and other Israeli leaders as they seek to build a broader consensus through political dialogue.”
Let’s unpack the statement surrounding “the slimmest possible majority.”
The vote was 64-0. The opposition walked out, leaving the final tally a complete trouncing.
In the 120-seat Knesset, a majority is 61 seats. The vote passed with three votes over the slimmest majority.
Israelis voted 61-50 with 8 abstentions to support the Oslo Accords in September 1993. Should the Israelis have abandoned the effort to work out a peace agreement with the Stateless Arabs from Palestine (SAPs) at the outset with truly the “slimmest possible majority”?
If a “broad consensus” is desired for “major changes in a democracy,” the 6-3 U.S. Supreme Court ruling (66.7%) overturning Roe v. Wade looks to be the enduring preferred outcome for the Biden administration, so why all of the fuss?
Further, if everything should be decided by a broad consensus, why has Biden issued any executive orders, let alone nearly 120 of them, including forgiving over $66 billion in student loans?
The New York Democratic Committee plans on cooking up a wide margin of victory in 2024 by gerrymandering districts yet again to unseat Republicans, a dirty political game meant to stifle the opposition. Perhaps that’s the kind of circumvention of democracy that the Biden administration favors.
The White House’s comments about the Israeli vote was both foolish and insulting. For a president who took office amid riots at the Capital building and who passes orders completely bypassing Congress, to publicly berate Israel in such fashion is a vile combination of smugness and lack of self-awareness.
American Jews have a history of supporting Democrats. It remains to be seen if the party will even obtain the “slimmest possible majority” as it continues to insult the Jewish State.
The media has told you how to feel about the passage of an Israeli law to remove the Supreme Court’s ability to override the government’s decisions. No outlet has taken the effort to educate its readership about the issue, opting to broadcast emotions.
Left-wing articles describe “controversial changes” by the “far-right government to weaken the judiciary” which “pushes the country toward authoritarianism,” an action which will “transform Israel’s already flawed democracy into a kind of system that no longer deserves the name.” Such sentiments can be found in NPR, Vox and The New York Times.
Right-wing articles noted that Israeli “Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government was negotiating compromises” to the “judicial reform bill” and was “defying months of protests,” as it quoted Israeli lawmakers who celebrated that the new law “reducing the reasonableness standard shows governance.” These quotes come from Fox, The Wall Street Journal and Israel’s Arutz Sheva.
Below is an effort to inform people about the law so people can possibly arrive at their own conclusion about it, rather than follow their preferred horde, an action very much encouraged by traditional media, even as it slams social media of being the true instigator of group think in an echo chamber.
The Israeli Judiciary And British “Unreasonableness” Standard
Israel has a set of Basic Laws which includes one establishing the judiciary in 1984, 36 years after the country was founded. The Israeli courts had existed beforehand, with a significant basis of its system stemming from British law, as the region had been administered under the British Mandate from 1924 to 1948. Included within British law was the notion of “unreasonableness” as to whether legislation and regulations were compatible with constitutional rights.
In 1948, when Israel declared itself a new state, England was debating rules regulating children under fifteen years old being allowed to go to the movies on Sunday, with or without parents, an already controversial action as laws at that time generally prohibited the opening of cinemas on what was viewed as a holy day. The case of ASSOCIATED PROVINCIAL PICTURE HOUSES, LIMITED v. WEDNESBURY CORPORATION considered three main items regarding a court over-ruling a law: 1) was there authority to enact such law, especially for local courts; 2) did the governmental authority consider all relevant matters in arriving at such law; and 3) did the authority “nevertheless come to a conclusion so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it.”
In 1984, when Israel was passing its judicial basic law, the “Wednesbury unreasonableness” standard was equated with “irrationality,” in which a decision “is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it.”
In other words, the standard set an extremely high bar for overturning a ruling which was properly considered.
Israeli Court’s “Reasonableness Standard”
Israeli courts essentially followed the “extreme unreasonableness” standard of the British system and rarely overturned laws. That began to change in the 1990s under Aharon Barak, who served as a member of the court from 1978 to 1995 and as its president from 1995 to 2006. He took a more activist approach, writing in 2002 that “the judge of a supreme court is not a mirror. He is an artist, creating the picture with his or her own hands. He is “legislating”—engaging in “judicial legislation.” Judicial creativity—judicial legislation—is natural to law itself. Law without discretion is a body without a spirit. Judicial creativity is part of legal existence. Such creativity—“judicial lawmaking”—is the task of a supreme court.”
Judges fear that public confidence in the judiciary will be affected if the public discovers the truth…. The public has the right to know that we [judges] make law and how we do it; the public should not be deceived.
Israeli Supreme Court President Aharon Barak, 2002
In a country with no constitution, an activist court had and has watered down the “extreme unreasonableness” standard to a subjective personal “reasonableness approach.” While sometimes the two methods would reach the same conclusion (a politician jailed for tax fraud should not be the Finance Minister), in many other cases, the court could and has overreached and interfered with approved legislation.
the main question is not “if,”-it is not–“do judges of the supreme court make law”; the main question is “how.”
Israeli Supreme Court President Aharon Barak, 2002
The Controversy On “Reasonableness” Is About Values
The arguments against the Israeli court’s reasonableness standard are not new. Supreme Court Justice Noam Sohlberg wrote a lengthy article a few years ago suggesting that its usage needed moderation. Had some proposal been put forward at that time, there likely would have been no uproar about amending it back to something closer to the British extreme unreasonableness standard.
The current controversy of the Knesset’s Constitution, Law and Justice Committee move to change the situation stems from two main dynamics: Netanyahu being under criminal investigation, and the far-right nature of the today’s parliament.
There is a fear that if Netanyahu weakens the court, he will be able to escape prosecution. He will fortify his position in power with loyalists whom he buys off with feeding their passions, without an external check on his authority.
The anger about Netanyahu is exacerbated by the secular Israeli fear of the religious and nationalist blocks. Barak’s remaking of the Supreme Court was based on his liberal values which he saw in a liberal country. Two decades on, the 25th Knesset includes the Religious Zionist Party which won 14 seats and two other ultra-Orthodox parties which won 18 seats. Secular Israelis fear that the country’s values have turned more conservative, and that same court which Barak crafted to reflect liberal values in society, will now echo conservative values.
Courts are not representative bodies, and it will be a tragedy if they become representative. Courts are reflective bodies; they reflect the basic values of their system.
Israeli Supreme Court President Aharon Barak, 2002
The various protests for and against the law have much less to do with amending the provision which has long been viewed as too far-reaching for a polarized society, and about the changing composition of Israel.
Compromises And Next Steps
The Knesset passed a law on July 24 to get rid of the reasonableness doctrine, as the opposition walked out of the room screaming “shame!” and refused to vote. A natural compromise would have been to go back to the extreme unreasonableness standard which was the Israeli policy pre-Barak.
The Council of Foreign Relations wrote that the Kohelet Policy Forum, which drafted the initial version of the judicial reforms, suggested only using reasonableness for administrative rulings and not government decisions. Former MK Natan Sharansky said “I believe that on the question of human rights, the last word has to be with the judges, and on questions of policy the last word should be with the Knesset.”
The judge learns about the basic values of his or her legal system from the aggregate national experience, from the nature of the political system as a democracy, and from understanding the basic concepts of the nation.
Israeli Supreme Court President Aharon Barak, 2002
Another possible compromise could have been to have any override by the Supreme Court occur only with a super-majority opinion. There are countless other ideas which could be attempted.
A critical component of the reform is yet to come, and considers how Supreme Court judges are elected. The current system essentially allows sitting liberal judges to select their replacements, which is deeply flawed by any reasonableness standard. A credible court should have both liberal and conservative views represented and each should base their opinions on laws, not personal opinions.
Beyond the immediate judicial reforms, the brouhaha should lead all Israelis to conclude that the country must have a constitution. While Israel’s founders may have felt that the nascent state was too fragile to constrain certain actions, 75 years on, the nation is strong militarily and economically, and will be stronger socially if there are laws which represent and protect all its citizens.
Protests about judiciary reform in Tel Aviv, March 2023
Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-NY16) is a slick promoter who markets himself as an educator working for the working class who will not play games with Republican politicians.
In truth, he lives the game of politics, and it is well beyond a focus on Republicans as he plays games with antisemitism and anti-Zionism.
Reacting to his own insulting boycott of a bipartisan and bicameral invitation to Israeli President Isaac Herzog addressing a joint session of Congress, and fellow left-wing extremist Rep. Pramila Jaypal (D-WA07) calling Israel is a racist state, Bowman tweeted that he voted against a resolution condemning antisemitism because of Republican “idiotic games.”
Note that Jaypal herself posted a lengthy release about her poorly chosen words that Israel is a racist state. Her 414-word statement affirmed her belief that “words do matter and so it is important that I clarify my statement.“
Almost every Democrat joined all Republicans in backing the resolution, except for the radical left-wing fringe that is adamant about playing with the toxic hatred in the Middle East.
Almost every Democrat joined all Republicans to attend the speech by a liberal pro-peace leader in the Middle East.
The contingent that instead chose to play politics was Bowman and the Squad.
This is not new to Bowman.
Anti-Israel and Anti-Semitic
Bowman has a long history of voting against Jews and the Jewish State:
Would not sign letter to Department of Education to fight antisemitism at colleges (February 4, 2022)
Original sponsor of resolution calling the founding of Israel a “catastrophe” (May 17, 2022)
Does not recognize discrimination against Jews (March 9, 2023)
Authored letter to President Biden to condition aid to Israel (April 23, 2023)
Voted against the Abraham Accords (April 25, 2023)
Voted against condemning antisemitism, and that Israel isn’t a racist state (July 18, 2023)
Boycotted speech by the Israeli president to a joint session of Congress (July 19, 2023)
Bowman takes these positions because radicals fund him. They are his real constituents.
On September 20, 2021, Bowman thanked the radical anti-Israel group, IfNotNow for their “partnership.” His top donors in the 2021-2 election cycle were another anti-Israel group, J Street, and the powerful leaders controlling schools, the American Federation of Teachers and the City University of New York, which has become a hotbed of rampant antisemitism and anti-Zionism. He is also a top recipient of money from Justice Democrats, a radical group backing alt-left politicians.
Bowman believes that liberal Jews will look past his nods to antisemitism and insults to Israel if they value the embrace of intersectionality more than from fellow Jews and Zionists. He is leaning into the cleft opening among American Jews, betting he can divide the most persecuted minority in America.
It is an ugly game that not only fans the flames of Jew hatred globally but pits Jews against themselves.
And there’s a big pot of money at the end of the anti-Jewish rainbow, a trough from which Bowman plans to feed.
You decided to boycott liberal Israeli President Isaac Herzog’s speech to a joint session of congress, and tweeted about the need for a “true two-state solution” in the Middle East:
“A true two-state solution is the pathway towards peace and security for all in the region. It’s way past time that we stop using a two state solution as a talking point and actually get it done.“
You ignore the fact that Palestinians do not want a two state solution, do not support the Palestinian Authority, want to wage a violent jihad against Israel, and support terrorist groups. According to the latest June 2023 poll by the Palestinian Center of Policy and Survey Research (PCPSR):
Only 28% of Palestinians support a two state solution; opposition stands at 70%
53% support a return to an armed intifada
71% support the establishment of new armed groups such as Lion’s Den and Jenin Brigades
58% believe that armed groups will spread to the rest of the West Bank
86% say the Palestinian Authority (PA) does not have the right to arrest members of these armed groups
63% say the PA is a burden on the Palestinian people
Satisfaction with President Abbas stands at 17% and 80% want him to resign
In theoretical elections between Fatah’s President Abbas and the political-terrorist group Hamas’s Ismail Haniyeh, Haniyeh wins 56% to Abbas 33%
57% of Palestinian support armed attacks against Jewish civilians inside Israel
66% of Palestinians believe Israel will cease to exist in the next 25 years, and 51% believe that Arabs will be able to recover the entire land
That is the current reality.
Three of the ten Palestinian Arab terrorists recently killed in Jenin were under 18 years old and members of terrorist groups, a heinous war crime of indoctrinating and drafting children for terror. That is the dreadful reality.
The President of the PA wrote his doctoral thesis on Holocaust denial, and openly rewards terrorists with money. An astounding 58% of the current Palestinian parliament is from Hamas, a United States designated foreign terrorist organization. That’s the frightening reality.
PA President Abbas’s four-year term ran out in January 2009. He has no support from Palestinians. He doesn’t even control Gaza. There is no counterparty for Israel to negotiate with who can deliver on peace and stand up a new country. That’s the plain reality.
The majority of Palestinians are planning for, and looking forward to, the destruction of Israel. They are not interested in coexistence, peace talks or negotiations. That is the raw reality.
Punishing Israel for Arab extremism is blinding oneself to the unvarnished reality of Palestinian sentiments, and inviting jihadi violence on an enormous scale. Boycotting Israel and its leadership feeds the genocidal aspirations of radical Islamists and destroys the possibility of an enduring peace.
J Street, the Pro-Palestinian Jewish group which markets itself as pro-Israel, was the leading donor to Rep. Jamaal Bowman’s (D-NY16) 2022 race for congress. It proudly touted that it poured $100,000 into Bowman’s campaign in August 2022, even though he was a shoe-in as an incumbent in a primary race with multiple candidates. The extreme left-wing group had taken Bowman on a visit to Israel in 2021 and doubled down on its investment.
J Street’s activities with Bowman is seemingly worthless, as it cannot get the congressman to attend liberal Israeli President Isaac Herzog’s address to a joint session of congress next week.
Herzog is a J Street favorite. The group congratulated him on his appointment in 2021, writing “We have deeply appreciated our engagement and relationship with President-elect Herzog over the years, during his tenure as chairman of the Israeli Labor Party, as Knesset opposition leader and as Chairman of the Jewish Agency for Israel. It has been our honor to host him for addresses at several J Street conferences and to meet with him regularly with J Street delegations visiting Israel.” Herzog has shown his appreciation to J Street, giving televised addresses to the group’s large gatherings.
If J Street cannot get an alt-left congressman which it heavily supported to attend a speech by a liberal Israeli president, there is only one conclusion: Bowman’s anti-Israel sentiments are so profound that he cannot even accept talking to liberal Jews or Israelis. It remains to be seen if he will start to reject their money.
ACTION ITEM
EMAIL J STREET: “If you cannot get Rep. Jamaal Bowman to attend Israeli President Isaac Herzog’s address to a joint session of congress, we expect the organization to back his primary rival next year.”
EMAIL REP. JAMAAL BOWMAN: “Israeli President Isaac Herzog is a liberal pro-peace activist. Boycotting him along with radical colleagues is not a protest against Israel but against coexistence.”
CNN posted an article called “Palestinian leader calls on world to ‘protect us,’ and his people respond with bitter laughter,” which highlighted how much the Palestinian Arab street dislikes its acting President Mahmoud Abbas. It cited various media posts that mocked the old man and his visit to the UNRWA camp in Jenin which housed Arab terrorists killed by the Israel Defense Forces.
The article continued that Palestinian people had “frustrations and aspirations” that were not met by the unpopular leader, and referenced a poll conducted by PCPSR in September 2022 that showed how dissatisfied people were with his leadership.
There have been three polls since that time, so it is unclear why CNN chose to highlight the one from September 2022. In that poll, Palestinian support for another intifada was at 48% (Q46_5), 56% favored NOT engaging in peace talks under international sponsorship (Q55) and 45% supported killing Jewish civilians inside Israel (Q65). The June 2023 poll showed an even greater desire for violence, with 53% supporting an intifada (Q38_5) and 57% support violence against Israeli Jews (Q70).
CNN wrote an article that made Palestinian Arabs “aspirations” seem peaceful and “frustrated” by an inept leader who has not advanced their appeal for sovereignty. The reality is that Arabs’ aspiration is for a land free of Jews and their embrace of violent jihad to achieve such aims.
Israel successfully eliminated several terrorists in the United Nations-administered zone in Jenin and confiscated many weapons. Rather than consider why the UN harbors so many terrorists, the global body used the opportunity to fundraise.
Under the banner of “Jenin Emergency”, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) ran a series of advertisements appealing for funds for the “Jenin Palestine Refugee Camp.” It inverted reality and made the terrorist enclave the victim of Israeli aggression, rather than self-reflect as to why the UN is the mother hen of a terrorist training facility.
Other charities jumped into the circus and started spending money on promoting this false narrative to collect monies for their coffers, even a peaceful sounding group like “Save the Children.”
The “DONATE” and “DONATE NOW” buttons flooded the screens with appeals for “humanitarian aid” for the “suffering and hardship that the children in the Jenin refugee camp are enduring.” The sites relayed stories of an assault of the “Israel Armed Forces” on residents of Jenin. Nowhere was there a discussion of the Arab killers who live in their midst and the overwhelming support that the terrorists receive from their neighbors.
Today, 57% of Palestinians support terrorist attacks against Jewish civilians inside of Israel.
The Palestinians have already started their “intifada” and have gone on the offensive asking for donations to fund their terrorism against Jews. While the poorly named “Second Intifada” witnessed Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Iran being the main sponsors of the murderers, today, anti-Israel charities are asking the rest of the world to underwrite the spilling of Jewish blood.
Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-NY16) told left-wing Israeli media Haaretz that he will be boycotting Israeli President Isaac Herzog’s address to a joint session of Congress next week. He offered “I’ve been very outspoken regarding the treatment of Palestinians. The United States is important in ensuring accountability and uplifting the human rights of Palestinians.”
It is a remarkable statement in light of Palestinian polls showing the prevailing attitude pushing for violence rather than peace.
In June 2023, Palestinians said the two most positive Palestinian events since the “Nakba,” the creation of the State of Israel in 1948 were the creation of the terrorist groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and the first and second Intifadas. A majority support another intifada and 57% support or strongly support killing Jewish civilians inside of Israel.
Not only is Bowman ignoring Palestinian thirst for Jewish blood, he is choosing to boycott a left-wing leader Israeli leader, who speaks to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas frequently. Such action sets back the cause of peace and empowers the Islamic Republic of Iran.
ACTION ITEM
EMAIL REP. BOWMAN “Israeli President Isaac Herzog is in favor of peace and dialogue with Palestinians. A decision to boycott him is not just an insult to the Jewish State and to a future of peace with Palestinians but is a vote to empower the dangerous genocidal regime in Iran.”
First One Through 