Dan Raviv interviews Sarah Stern, Founder, and President of EMET
Tuesday, March 19th, 2019
Anti-Semitism on our nation’s college campuses, in the international arena, and even within the halls of the US Congress is on the rise. While criticism of Israeli policies is completely legitimate, it is important to note when such criticism crosses the line and becomes anti-Semitic. The definition of anti-Semitism used by the U.S. State Department includes examples of the ways in which anti-Semitism manifests itself with regards to the State of Israel, including: the demonization of Israel, applying a double standard on Israel, and the delegitimization of Israel.
The Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which demonizes and delegitimizes Israel, and opposes Israel’s right to exist, is essentially an anti-Semitic movement that masks itself under the guise of anti-Zionism. BDS activity on college campuses, including anti-Israel divestment resolutions, and painting Israel as a “Nazi-like” State, is also contributing to the rise of anti-Semitic activity on campuses, reports show. The radical student group Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), which has more than 100 chapters across the U.S., is the most active voice in support of the BDS movement on campuses. SJP regularly introduces resolutions within student governments that call for a divestment from companies that “profit from” the “apartheid” State of Israel. In 2016, Congressional Testimony detailed SJP’s and the BDS movement’s ties to the terrorist organization Hamas.
What tools can be employed to identify when criticism of Israel has crossed the line into anti-Semitism? What can Universities and student groups do to combat the radical SJP movement and BDS activity? And what should the US Congress do to combat the BDS movement? Listen in as Dan Diker from the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, explores these questions, and discusses his new policy book, “Students for Justice in Palestine Unmasked.”Read More →
January 23, 2019
On December 19, 2018, President Donald Trump announced by tweet that he was withdrawing most of the American troops currently in Syria. The President wrote, “We have defeated ISIS in Syria, my only reason for being there during the Trump Presidency.” Trump also promised in a video message on Twitter that “Our boys, our young women, our men, they’re all coming back and they’re coming back now. We won.”
There are about 2200 U.S. soldiers in Syria. 2000 of these troops are in the northeast, where they direct the air and land war against the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), in coordination with the Syrian Defense Forces (SDF). The remaining 200 are at al-Tanf, a crucial base at the Syrian-Iraqi border which blocks Iran from completing its land bridge to Lebanon, Israel, and Jordan. In both areas, the U.S. troops have very rarely been exposed to combat situations. Four Americans were killed on Wednesday in an attack by ISIS in Syria, and six U.S. soldiers have died in combat since 2014.
Since his initial announcement, the President and his aides have somewhat walked back these tweets. Although some U.S. troops have begun to leave, it is unclear exactly how long it will take, and whether the 200 troops in al-Tanf are to be included.
What are the ramifications of a U.S. withdrawal from Syria? And what are the national security interests that favor the U.S. staying the course there? To explore these questions and more, EMET is honored to host Professor Efraim Inbar from Jerusalem for a phone seminar.Read More →
EMET Founder and President Sarah Stern on i24News December 18th, 2018 regarding Trump’s peace plan, and encouraging a U.S. recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. Please see instructions below to view the video:
October 5th, 2018
September 13th marked a quarter of a century since the signing of the Oslo Accords on the White House Lawn. When the accords were signed, Israel agreed to the “land for peace” formulation, wherein the Israelis were to give up something very real and tangible – strategic territory – in exchange for empty words and promises.
The “land for peace” paradigm has sorely failed. Israel’s efforts towards peace since Olso, including the Hebron Agreement, the Wye River Accords, Taba, the Camp David Summit, and the painful, unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in 2005, were only met with increased terrorism. The Palestinian Authority (PA) regularly incites its people to violence, glorifies “martyrs,” and financially rewards Palestinian terrorists and their families. The PA still continues to refuse to recognize Israel’s right to exist and encourages its people to kill Jews.
After 25 years, it is finally time to re-examine the premises of Oslo and the “land for peace” formula, as well as explore alternative solutions for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with guest speakers Dr. Daniel Pipes and Professor Efraim Inbar.Read More →