Europe's Hypocrisy: Leaders Ignore International Law to Condemn Israel (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

European leaders are still tripping over each other to muster the most indignation at Israel. The heads of France, Canada, Britain, Australia, and Belgium have loudly proclaimed their support for rewarding Hamas with a Palestinian state. But their latest fury is reserved for Israel's strike against the Hamas leadership in Doha, the capital of Qatar, a leading funder of Islamist terrorism.

This public outrage demonstrates a profound ignorance and disregard for their own obligations under international law.

During a press conference the day before Israel's strike against Hamas in Doha, the Spanish Prime Minister, Pedro Sanchez, declared:

Spain, as you know, doesn’t have nuclear bombs, nor aircraft carriers, nor large oil reserves. We alone can’t stop the Israeli offensive. But that doesn’t mean we won’t stop trying...

Spanish politicians were quick to mock Sanchez. The leader of the far-right Vox party, Santiago Abascal, said Sanchez “would like to have nuclear weapons…but not to defend Spain. To defend Hamas.” A spokesman for the center-right Popular Party asked, “A nuclear bomb on Tel Aviv? Is that what he intends to do?”

Netanyahu countered that Sanchez was the one with genocidal tendencies:

While Sanchez's comments preceded the strike, other leaders were quick to condemn the subsequent action. Canadian PM Mark Carney called the attack “an intolerable expansion of violence and an affront to Qatar’s sovereignty.” The EU issued a statement that the attack “breaches international law.” The EU Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, suspended bilateral support to Israel “without affecting our work with Israeli civil society or Yad Vashem.” As the Wall Street Journal put it, "In other words, commemorate the Holocaust, but don’t dare touch the leaders who tried to carry out another one."

In their eagerness to condemn Israel, these leaders made a big show of supporting a "rules-based international order." But what international law do they claim to support? The rules they are obligated to follow directly contradict their outrage.

On September 28, 2001, just two weeks after 9/11, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1373 (2001). Adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, it is legally binding on all UN members. This resolution obligates states to:

• Prevent and Suppress Financing: All member states must prevent and suppress the financing of terrorism, criminalize such activities, and freeze the assets of terrorists.

• Deny Safe Haven: States must deny safe haven and support to terrorists, and prevent their movement across borders.

• Improve Cooperation: Governments must cooperate on investigations, extraditions, and mutual legal assistance.

• Strengthen Domestic Laws: States must strengthen border controls, asylum/refugee screening, and ensure terrorism is prosecutable under national laws.

The bottom line is that Resolution 1373 obligates all UN member states to take concrete steps to deny terrorists financial support, safe havens, and freedom of movement. By giving a pass to a country that hosts and funds the leaders of a designated terrorist organization, these European nations are themselves in breach of international law.

This double standard is also apparent in the United States, even among those who support Israel. In July of last year, Congress recommended in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2025 that the Secretary of Defense submit a report on the operational status of the U.S. Al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar, “taking into account [Qatar's] relationship with Hamas and other terrorist organizations.” The committee noted that:

[Qatar] continues to host Hamas, a designated foreign terrorist organization responsible for the deaths of more than 33 Americans and the kidnapping of 12 Americans on October 7, 2023.

Recognition of the problem with Qatar is not a new phenomenon. A 2009 brief for Admiral Olson on his visit to Qatar noted, "Vast wealth has bolstered political ambitions, leading to Qatari foreign policy initiatives that are often at odds with U.S. objectives, notably Qatar's relationships with Hamas and Syria."

Qatari money and political influence have clearly warped the understanding of international law among many world leaders. In their rush to publicly condemn Israel, these European politicians have not only demonstrated a profound ignorance of their own binding obligations under UN Resolution 1373, but have also shown a troubling willingness to grant terrorists safe haven. When leaders boast of upholding a "rules-based international order" while simultaneously rewarding the very entities that seek to destroy it, their words ring hollow. The true measure of a nation's commitment to international law isn't in its public statements of indignation, but in its willingness to enforce the actual laws against all who break them, without exception.

---

---

Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon! "He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

 

Read More

Qatar: Mediator or Sponsor? The Contradiction in Plain Sight (Daled Amos)

Israel's strike against Hamas terrorists living in Qatar brings attention again to that country's ambiguous position as both a mediator with terrorists--and a key financial supporter of them. 

The very nature of Qatari mediation between Israel and Hamas would seem to violate not only common sense but also Arab cultural values. Raphael Patai writes in The Arab Mind on the topic of conflict resolution:

It goes without saying that the mediator must be a person whose impartiality is beyond question, and this means that he must not be more closely related to one side in the dispute than to the other...In sum, the ideal mediator is a man who is in a position, because of his personality, status, respect, wealth influence, and so on to create in the litigants the desire to conform with his wishes. (p. 242-243)

Qatar's partiality is beyond question, and in a purely Arab dispute, such a level of partisanship would be cause for rejecting such a mediator. It is from a Western viewpoint that bringing Qatar in, in place of Egypt, might make sense. The idea would be that Qatar, as the sponsor of the Hamas terrorists, would be the one most able to apply pressure on Hamas and wring the necessary concessions.

Not that there has been any indication of Qatar's willingness or ability to do so.

Two weeks ago, Amichai Chikli, Israeli Minister of Diaspora and Combating Antisemitism, posted a deleted tweet from the editor-in-chief of Qatar's Al-Shark:

The full translation of Al-Harmi's post is:

If the heroes of the Qassam Brigades fail to capture Zionist soldiers this time, the second, third, and fourth attempts will succeed, God willing, by adding new rats to the tally already held by the Brigades' heroes. In today's attempt, during a unique operation, the Qassam heroes stormed a newly constructed military site in Rafah and sent a number of Zionist soldiers to hell and a miserable fate. Others were sent to earthly torment with permanent disabilities and impairments, while others were sent to mental and psychological institutions.

In Qatar, al-Harmi would not have posted this if he didn't think he had the support of the ruling family or at least that they would not oppose it. But under the circumstances, it did seem odd for the "impartial" mediators to publicly delight in the death of the soldiers on one side of the "dispute." Does Qatar really want this war to end?

It was this incongruity in the acceptance of Qatar's role that was supposed to have been emphasized by Israel's strike. Actually, this is the second strike inside Qatar--the first one being Iran's retaliation against the US military base, Al Udeid Air Base, not far from the attack on Hamas. The discordance of an attack on terrorists living freely in the country that both supports Hamas terrorism and is supposedly negotiating with them should make people uncomfortable with the contradiction.

But Qatar's billions have effectively smoothed that over.

There are many reports on the billions of dollars Qatar spends on furthering its influence and polishing its image. Last year, Bloomberg's annual Qatar Economic Forum in Doha featured Donald Trump Jr., among others. Dow Jones, the parent company of the Wall Street Journal, is planning a WSJ Tech Live event in Qatar in December.

Ira Stoll writes that Dow Jones did not respond to questions about its event:

Dow Jones did not reply to questions from The Editors about why it was having an event in a country that Kirchick’s own Wall Street Journal-published piece described as “a theocratic monarchy that is Hamas’s main financial and diplomatic sponsor.” It also didn’t reply to other questions I sent: “Will Israeli companies and businessmen be welcome at the event or will they be banned? Can Dow Jones assure prospective participants that there will be no Hamas terrorist representatives staying at the hotel where the Dow Jones event is taking place? Do you have any concerns about the Qatar-Hamas ties?”

What does it take for the US to become uncomfortable with Qatar?

The Israeli strike on Qatar highlights that country's dual role as both a mediator and a financier of Hamas, exposing a deep contradiction in international diplomacy. While the country positions itself as a neutral broker in negotiations, its support for terrorism—and the public celebrations of violence by media under its aegis—reveal that its impartiality is more performative than real. Israel’s strike underscores the uncomfortable truth: a nation cannot credibly mediate a conflict it is actively fueling. Yet billions in influence and strategic partnerships have allowed Qatar to continue this balancing act largely unchecked. For the US and the international community, the question remains: how long can these contradictions go unchallenged before diplomatic convenience gives way to hard reality?

---

---

Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon! "He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

 

Read More

The Israeli Strike On Qatar: Trump Bends Over Backwards To Placate Qatari "Allies" (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

When news of Israel's strike on the Hamas leadership in Qatar first came out, the immediate question, of course, was whether the strike was successful: were Hamas leaders killed, and if so, how many? The follow-up question is what effect this strike will have on Hamas, the ceasefire talks, and the attempt to remove the terrorist group from Gaza.

Natalie Ecanow, a Qatar expert at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), was interviewed yesterday on I24 News, and went beyond the immediate repercussions of the strike.

She pointed out how this was a wake-up call for Hamas, warning them that their leaders were no longer safe outside of Gaza. It was a wake-up for the Qataris as well. Today, they were called to account for their double game, where they host a US military base while hosting terrorists not far from there. It could be that today's operation "opened the door for a long overdue reset in the U.S.-Qatar relationship." The first step could be Trump using US leverage to convince Qatar to kick out any remaining Hamas leaders from Qatar.

But any hope for a reset in US-Qatari relationship were apparently quashed by White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt at today's Press Conference:

Unilaterally bombing inside Qatar, a sovereign nation and close ally of the United States that is working very hard in bravely taking risks with us to broker peace, does not advance Israel or America’s goals.

 

Initial assumptions that the Israeli attack, which apparently the US had foreknowledge of, might disrupt the relationship between the US and Qatar now seem to be wishful thinking.

A further question, raised by Jonathan Schanzer on X, however, might still have legs. He wonders aloud whether Turkey, which also hosts Hamas figures, and Oman, which hosts a Houthi headquarters, might consider themselves on notice.

Meanwhile, Mariam Wahba, another member of FDD, suggested that the attack on Qatar could open the door for Egypt to resume its position as chief negotiator between Israel and Hamas--not that Egypt's record on mediation is so fantastic.

But based on Leavitt's comments, Trump clearly wants Qatar to continue in its role as mediator and closed the door on any possibility of Egypt resuming its role as mediator.

It appears that the US is doing its best to contain any fallout from the attack.

If in fact Israel has failed to eliminate any of the Hamas leadership, what in fact has Israel gained?

---

---

Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon! "He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

 

Read More

Genocide Scholars or Activists? The Sham Vote That Targets Israel (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

Last weekend brought another strike in the propaganda war against Israel—this time from an association of genocide scholars accusing Israel of the ultimate crime.

On August 31, the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) passed a three-page resolution condemning Israel for genocide:

Recognising that, since the horrific Hamas-led attack of 7 October 2023, which itself constitutes international crimes, the government of Israel has engaged in systematic and widespread crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide, including indiscriminate and deliberate attacks against the civilians and civilian infrastructure (hospitals, homes, commercial buildings, etc.) of Gaza, which, according to official UN estimates, at the date of this resolution, has killed more than 59,000 adults and children in Gaza;

The media ran with it. The Washington Post declared: Israel Is Committing Genocide in Gaza, Leading Scholars’ Association Says  The Guardian proclaimed Israel committing genocide in Gaza, world’s top scholars on the crime say, and the BBC echoed the same line with  Israel committing genocide in Gaza, world's leading experts say. ABC News featured IAGS president Melanie O’Brien, who proudly claimed that 90% of those voting supported the resolution.

Elder of Ziyon was among the first to expose the resolution's flaws. (The "Genocide Scholars" Who Cannot Define Genocide). He noted IAGS's lack of scholarship:

o  IAGS offered no original, independent analysis of its own. Instead, they "outsourced their scholarship on the very subject that they claim to own."

o  They did no fact-checking, accepting Hamas's number for casualties at face value, even though the number does not distinguish between terrorists and civilians.
o  They gave no recognition to serious scholars from the other side of the issue who dismissed the genocide allegations.

Meanwhile, the only IAGS brief addressing Hamas’s own genocidal attack,  Hamas's Genocidal Violence by Sara E. Brown, came with a disclaimer: “The views expressed herein are the authors’ alone and do not represent the views of IAGS.” Apparently, condemning Hamas required distance—unlike condemning Israel.

Then came a bombshell. Writing in The Forward (In the rush to vilify Israel, genocide scholars ignored the truth), Sara Brown revealed how the resolution was rammed through: of 500 members, only 129 voted. Just 108 supported it. That’s 28% of the membership—barely meeting the group’s minimal quorum of 20% plus one.

Compare these lackluster numbers with O'Brien's public boast:

This resolution declaring what is happening in Gaza as genocide passed by an overwhelming majority far beyond the two thirds majority required. Our membership is global. We also have members who are from survivor communities, so this is a really representative opinion of people who work as experts in the field of genocide studies.

The @GenocideStudies president claims a resolution that Israel is committing genocide "passed by an overwhelming majority" and is a "really representative opinion" of experts.

It's not. Only 28% of the membership actually voted.

Melanie O'Brien, your resolution is a sham. pic.twitter.com/LL33WH6HcV

— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) September 2, 2025

Really? Twenty-eight percent of members voted. That’s not overwhelming—that’s embarrassing. No wonder The Guardian needed to hedge their article with the sub-headline: "International Association of Genocide Scholars resolution backed by 86% of members who voted." 

Brown also exposed the secrecy: no transparency, no debate, no town hall. Leadership even refused to name the resolution’s authors. Meanwhile, IAGS amplified headlines suggesting a massive consensus. This wasn’t scholarship; it was spin. The deliberate blockage of criticism is just one more indication of the lack of real scholarship and professionalism plaguing IAGS. 

Why such sloppy work? Maybe because IAGS isn’t just scholars. As Jewish Insider notes, anyone can join—artists, activists, “others interested in genocide.” In other words: not exactly a panel of legal experts.

This is why the resolution contains a blatant error on international law:

Acknowledging that the International Court of Justice found in three provisional measures order in the case of South Africa v. Israel — January, March, and May 2024 — that it is plausible that Israel is committing genocide in its attack in Gaza and ordered Israel to take all measures within its power to prevent and punish the direct and public incitement of genocide and to ensure the provision of humanitarian assistance to civilians in Gaza;

The president of the ICJ has already publicly debunked that claim:

[The ICJ] did not decide--and this is something where I'm correcting what's often said in the media--it didn't decide that the claim of genocide was plausible. It did emphasize in the order that there was a risk of irreparable harm to the Palestinian right to be protected from genocide, but the shorthand that often appears, which is that there's a plausible case of genocide, isn't what the court decided.

The International Association of Genocide Scholars wants the world to believe its resolution reflects a united, scholarly consensus. It doesn’t. The vote was driven by a small, activist minority relying on Hamas-supplied numbers and misrepresenting international law. When an academic body trades rigor for politics, it doesn’t just fail—it erodes trust in the entire field. 

And the backlash has already begun. Scholars for Truth about Genocide issued a public letter condemning IAGS and demanding a retraction of what they call a “resolution accusing Israel of genocide amid a clear misapplication of law and history.” 

---

---

Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon! "He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

 

Read More

Jordan Is Still Harboring a Terrorist While America Is Paying the Bill (Daled Amos)

by Daled Amos

(Part of this article originally appeared on JNS.org)

Jordan’s defiance in protecting Ahlam Tamimi—the terrorist who masterminded the 2001 Sbarro Massacre—may be even more appalling than the attack itself. For more than two decades, Jordan has celebrated Tamimi as a hero while rejecting U.S. demands to honor its 1995 extradition treaty and surrender her to face justice. In July 2021, Arnold Roth, whose 15-year-old daughter Malki was murdered in the bombing, posed a painful question in The Free Press: Will Joe Biden Grant My Daughter Justice?

The lives of three U.S. nationals and one unborn American child ended in the Sbarro conflagration. One was a newly married young woman, herself an only child, visiting from New Jersey. She was pregnant with her first baby. Next, a young mother was catastrophically brain-damaged, alive but in a vegetative coma to this day. (The toddler daughter she was eating pizza with survived unharmed and grew up motherless.) And finally, our Malki, an American citizen because her mother is a native New Yorker.

The mother succumbed to her injuries and passed away in 2023.

Jordan defends its refusal to extradite Tamimi to the US, claiming the treaty is not valid and was never ratified. Jordan's claim is bogus.

Roth points out that for more than 20 years, Jordan never denied the validity of the treaty. On the contrary, Jordan has extradited 3 Jordanian terrorists to the US in accordance with the agreement:

In 1995, Eyad Ismoil was extradited to the US for his involvement in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

In 2006, Mohammad Zaki Amawi was extradited for plotting attacks against US targets. 

In 2015, Nader Saadeh was extradited for conspiracy to provide material support to ISIS. Saadeh, along with others, allegedly planned to travel to Syria to join ISIS and engage in terrorist activities.

The treaty's validity was further established in 2021, when Roth and his wife sued the US government for documents related to the extradition treaty under the Freedom of Information Act. Among the documents was the declaration by King Hussein to the US government on July 13, 1995, giving his personal guarantee on the treaty:

With the help of God and His guidance, 

We, Hussein I, King of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, having reviewed the Extradition Treaty signed in Washington on March 28, 1995 between the Government of the Hashemite [Kingdom] of Jordan and the Government of the United States of America, do hereby declare our agreement to and ratification of that Treaty in whole and in part. We further pledge to carry out its provisions and abide by its Articles, and We, God willing, shall not allow its violation. 

Accordingly, we have ordered that Our Seal be affixed to it, and We have signed it properly. 

Issued on this day the Fifteenth of Safar, 1416 H, corresponding to July 13, 1995, by the Hashemite Court. 

The Roths received the State Department's authorized Arabic-to-English translation:

 

It was accompanied by a copy of the Arabic original:

In past years, there has been political pressure in Washington for extradition, or at least for an explanation of the government's timid acceptance of Jordan's refusal to take action. On March 19, 2019, twenty Congressmen sent a letter to then-Secretary of State Pompeo, requesting the US State Department maintain the extradition of Al-Tamimi as a high priority with the Government of Jordan." On August 22, 2019, Jerry Nadler, then Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, sent a letter to Attorney General William P. Barr, asking that he "provide information regarding the current status of the DOJ's effort to overcome [Jordan's] objections" and that he "resolve this case swiftly." The series of Congressional letters culminated with a letter in April 30, 2020, addressed to the Jordanian ambassador, concluding that "seeing Jordan provide a professed bomber with legal impunity...amounts to a deeply troubling scenario."

There have been some indications of results from that pressure. On October 1, 2020, Nizar Tamimi, the husband of Ahlam Tamimi, was forced to leave the country when the government refused to renew his residency permit. He currently resides in Qatar, while his wife stays in Jordan.

Pressure on the Trump Administration was also evident last month, during the State Department Press Briefing on July 22nd. Mike Wagenheim, the senior US correspondent for I24 News, asked:

Number one, Justice Department officials held a discussion on Thursday with the parents of Malki Roth, the American citizen who was murdered with two others in the Sbarro bombing in Jerusalem back in 2001. The discussion centered around the possible extradition of Jordanian national Ahlam Tamimi. The Jordanians get a billion and a half dollars a year in foreign aid. Democratic and Republican administrations have skated by on this extradition issue for a decade and a half now at least. What’s preventing Secretary Rubio from pushing the Jordanians to finally go through with this extradition?

Spokesperson Tammy Bruce promised to get more information. Two days later, Wagenheim was back:

Last question for you. Hopefully I’ll drag an answer out of you on this one. I asked in Tuesday’s briefing about why Secretary Rubio is not pushing harder for the extradition of Ahlam al-Tamimi from Jordan. I was given a written answer by the State Department on that yesterday, after you guys took it back. It basically said we continue to impress upon the Government of Jordan to bring her to justice.

President Trump said on day one – his executive order – American citizens come first in American foreign policy, America and American citizens. Secretary Rubio put out his three questions. Every dollar spent, every program has to answer in the affirmative one of three questions: Does it make America safer? Does it make America stronger? Does it make America more prosperous? I’m sure you have these memorized by heart. A billion and a half dollars of foreign aid to Jordan – how is it conceivable that Tamimi is still there and any of that falls under these dictates of what American foreign policy is supposed to be, with three dead Americans at Tamimi’s hands?

Deputy spokesperson Thomas Pigott responded that the US "has continually emphasized" to Jordan that Tamimi has to be held accountable and that the US "continues to impress" upon them that she should be brought to justice--not the kind of pressure Wagenheim was asking about.

But more concrete steps are being discussed. On July 17, the Roths met with Jeanine Pirro, the US Attorney for the District of Columbia, who plays a key role in extraditions, in a video conference. They have yet to meet with the Secretary of State in their pursuit of justice, though they did meet with US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee on May 13 during a private meeting at the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem on May 13, when they presented him with a petition with over 30,000 signatures urging more pressure on Jordan. 

August 9th marked the 24th anniversary of the Sbarro Massacre.

For years, Tamimi’s continued freedom has been a blatant symbol of impunity and a painful affront to the victims’ families. Lately, we are again seeing signs of pressure being applied to the Trump Administration. The recent involvement of the U.S. Attorney’s office, continued high-level meetings, and public pressure signal a possible shift and a re-energizing of the push to finally hold Jordan accountable for its obligations. It’s time to put aid on the line and force Jordan to choose between Tamimi and $1.5 billion.

---

---

Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon! "He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

 

Read More

How Western Leaders Twist International Law to Invent a Palestinian State (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

As if to illustrate the saying "fools rush in..." Australia announced this week that it will join France, Great Britain, and Canada in recognizing a Palestinian state during the UN General Assembly’s annual session next month:

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese of Australia said on Monday that the move was “part of a coordinated global effort building momentum for a two-state solution.”

He said Australia’s recognition would be “predicated” on “detailed and significant” commitments he had received from the Palestinian Authority’s leader, Mahmoud Abbas, to demilitarize, hold general elections and ensure that Hamas plays no role in a future Palestinian state.

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese

Like the others, Albanese also claimed that he had the commitment and support of Abbas to make this work, or--in the case of Great Britain's prime minister--an outright ultimatum to Israel:

* Australia's Albanese claims to have commitments from Abbas to demilitarize, hold general elections, and ensure that Hamas plays no role in a future Palestinian state. (As if Abbas has the wherewithal to remove Hamas from the equation in Gaza.)

* Canada's Carney conditions recognition on Palestinian political reform, Hamas’s exclusion from Palestinian elections, and a demilitarized state. (But who is he expecting to guarantee that Hamas has no further role in Gaza--let alone in the West Bank, where Hamas has significant influence?)

*  France's Macron promises recognition, with a mere reminder to Abbas of his commitments to reform. (Not surprisingly, Secretary of State Rubio revealed last Friday that “Talks with Hamas fell apart on the day Macron made the unilateral decision that he’s going to recognize the Palestinian state.")

* Great Britain's Starmer frames the recognition of a Palestinian state as an outright threat--against Israel. He claims he will withdraw that recognition if Israel takes “substantive steps” to remedy Gaza’s “appalling situation,” agrees to a cease-fire, and commits to peace. (He demands none of these things of Hamas.) 

Recently, international lawyer Natasha Hausdorff critiqued Starmer's decision in an interview with Patrick Christy on GBNews Online. She debunked Starmer's claim that Palestinian Arabs have an "inalienable right" to a state. It is a criticism that applies to Starmer's buddies as well:

You cannot will a state into existence. And it's important to state that Keir Starmer is wrong, absolutely wrong on the international law when he talks about a supposed "inalienable right" of the Palestinians to a state. There is no such thing. If there was a right to statehood under international law, the Kurds would have a state. There'd be many hundreds more states.

In a second interview, Hausdorff addressed two legal problems that are less often discussed. First of all, granting a state to the Palestinian Arabs is, by its very nature, an attack on Israel's sovereignty. Both Gaza and "Yehuda & Shomron" were initially part of the British Mandate. Their conquest by Egypt and Jordan was not accepted as legal by the international community. (Keep in mind that the off-handed way Starmer and others suggest acknowledging a Palestinian state leaves the status of East Jerusalem--and by extension the Kotel--in doubt.)

She adds:

[I]t would also fly completely in the face of the Oslo accords, which the United Kingdom endorsed, as did many other international players. [It] provided very clearly that after certain territory was given to the Palestinian authority to have an autonomy given by Israel, that any change to borders or any change to the status of the territory would only arise from a bilateral negotiated final status settlement. That piece of paper that the UK endorsed is simply being torn up as a result of these proposals for recognition. And it leaves us with a very difficult position where Israel's not going to be in a position to trust any agreement it enters with international backing and international guarantees if it can be so readily thrown out of the window. 

Hausdorff is not alone in pointing out how the decision to recognize a Palestinian state violates international law. The British jurist Malcolm Shaw KC points out that the 1933 Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States identifies the four basic requirements for statehood:

o  A permanent population.
o  A defined territory.
o  A government.
o  The capacity to enter into relations with other states. 

Of these four requirements, the proposed Palestinian state only meets the first requirement. In their rush to recognize a state, world leaders are ignoring the failure of 3 basic conditions necessary for a sovereign state. Shaw notes:

o  “its territorial extent is undetermined”
o  “there is no effective single government authority over the whole of the territory”
o  “the capacity of the [Palestinian Authority] to conduct formal legal relations with other entities, including States, is hampered by the terms of the Oslo Accords, which [are] still binding upon the parties.” 

The Executive Council of Australian Jewry put it another way, noting that these leaders are advocating the recognition of “an entity with no agreed borders, no single government in effective control of its territory, and no demonstrated capacity to live in peace with its neighbors.”

One can understand how Great Britain and France cannot help themselves. Not so long ago, they were significant colonial powers that saw the Middle East as their playground. But one would have thought that Canada and Australia, with their history, would understand the folly of playing games with other people's states.

But who knows, maybe this call for recognition is a con?

Maybe these politicians calling for a state actually understand that their calls for a Palestinian state are filled with legal hot air--and are patting themselves on the back on how they are cleverly mollifying their citizens. But in the process, they are encouraging Hamas terrorists and delaying the very resolution of this war they loudly claim to be working for. 

---

---

Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon! "He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

 

Read More

From Katrina to Gaza: When the Media Gets Stuck on Stupid (Daled Amos)

Every time the media seems to have achieved a new high in media bias, it just turns around and climbs to ever greater heights. People are still talking about The New York Times and its outsized photo of an emaciated Gaza child that the paper assured its readers owed his condition to an Israel-instigated famine.

They squeezed this picture for all it was worth, and as noted by Elder of Ziyon, the size and placement of the New York Times picture of "Gaza starving child" was virtually unprecedented:

Only a few days later did The New York Times unapologetically point out the boy had "pre-existing health problems":

Editors’ Note: July 29, 2025
This article has been updated to include information about Mohammed Zakaria al-Mutawaq, a child in Gaza suffering from severe malnutrition. After publication of the article, The Times learned from his doctor that Mohammed also had pre-existing health problems.

This is all the more malicious considering that The Times chose a photo that omitted context:

Add to this the media's perpetual claim of impending famine, casualty figures so often quoted from Hamas terrorist sources that reports no longer even mention that fact, and accusations of genocide based on questionable premises.

The controversy over media impartiality and objectivity gets worse during a military conflict. The confusion we associate with the fog of war applies not only to military battles but also to journalistic battles.

In response to these journalistic battles, Ralph Pulitzer created the role of newspaper ombudsman in 1913. On the one hand, the competition to get the story first led to the muckraking that uncovered corruption in the establishment, such as Ida M. Tarbell's The History of The Standard Oil Company, which pioneered the idea of investigative reporting. On the other hand, it also produced the yellow journalism of the 19th century, specializing in scandal-mongering and sensationalist reporting. Less than 20 years later, the need for some kind of oversight became clear. One of these incentives was not fake stories about famine or misleading pictures of emaciated children.

The problem was fictional stories about cats:

According to a 1916 issue of American Magazine, Pulitzer had become concerned about the increasing blurriness between "that which is true and that which is false" in the paper. He had reason for concern. One of the questionable practices uncovered by the bureau's first director, Isaac D. White, was the routine embellishment of stories about shipwrecks with fictional reports about the rescue of a ship's cat. After asking the maritime reporter why a cat had been rescued in each of a half-dozen accounts of shipwrecks, White was told, "One of those wrecked ships had a cat, and the crew went back to save it. I made the cat the feature of my story, while the other reporters failed to mention the cat, and were called down by their city editors for being beaten. The next time there was a shipwreck there was no cat but the other ship news reporters did not wish to take chances, and put the cat in. I wrote the report, leaving out the cat, and then I was severely chided for being beaten. Now when there is a shipwreck all of us always put in a cat."

It is not always easy to distinguish between yellow journalism and muckraking, between sensationalism and investigative reporting. Back in the day, Superman's pal, Jimmy Olsen, was a cub reporter, not a journalist. Are reporters the same thing as journalists? That apparently depends. According to Dictionary.com, journalism can be synonymous with good old-fashioned reporting. But not necessarily:

Journalism can also be:

4. writing that reflects superficial thought and research, a popular slant, and hurried composition, conceived of as exemplifying topical newspaper or popular magazine writing as distinguished from scholarly writing.

The distinction between muckraking and yellow journalism is not always a purely theoretical question. Take Hurricane Katrina, for example.

In August 2005, Hurricane Katrina struck the US, causing catastrophic damage, especially in New Orleans. It was a powerful Category 5 storm that overpowered the levee system and flooded nearly 80% of the city. Over 1,300 people died, and hundreds of thousands were displaced. The storm’s destruction resulted in $125 billion in damages, making it one of the costliest natural disasters in US history. The storm exposed serious flaws in emergency preparedness, infrastructure, and government response, sparking national outrage and debate.

In addition to harsh criticism of the government's lack of preparation, discrepancies in the number of casualties, and inaccurate descriptions of the dire situation in New Orleans, the media coverage of Katrina was also open to debate.

The mayor at the time, Ray Nagin, said the death toll could reach as high as 10,000 casualties. Based on a simulation, FEMA estimated there would be more than 60,000 casualties and ordered 25,000 body bags. The National Hurricane Center finally adjusted Katrina's death toll downward to 1,392, from an earlier estimated 1,833 deaths.

The Guardian reported that media accounts of violence and looting were exaggerated and interfered with rescue attempts. It quoted Lieutenant General Russel Honoré, who coordinated around 300 National Guardsmen to keep order. He complained that he had to deal with “a constant reaction to misinformation...Some of the [media] were giving information that wasn’t correct...Much of it was uncorroborated information, probably given with the best of intentions.” The governor of Louisiana at the time, Kathleen Blanco, had similar complaints:

Blanco said the media amplified stories of widespread violence it could not verify, which impacted rescue operations. For example, she said school bus drivers refused to drive their vehicles into New Orleans to help in the evacuation because of the dangerous situation they heard about on television. Blanco enlisted the national guard to drive the buses instead.

Honore famously told journalists at the time:

Don't get stuck on stupid, reporters. We are moving forward. And don't confuse the people please. You are part of the public message. So help us get the message straight. And if you don't understand, maybe you'll confuse it to the people. That's why we like follow-up questions.

That didn't prevent journalists from patting themselves on the back for a job well done.

The PBS NewsHour had a special feature on Katrina Media Coverage a month later. Keith Woods, then dean at a school for journalists in Florida, gave his impression. It was favorable, and he explained why:

KEITH WOODS: Well, I did like the aggressiveness of the journalists throughout, I liked the fact that for a good part of this reporting the journalists brought themselves to the reporting a sense of passion, a sense of empathy, a sense of understanding that they were not telling an ordinary story any more than the Sept. 11 attacks were an ordinary story. So I like the fact that journalism understood the size of this story from the very beginning and brought to bear the kinds of resources and the kind of passion in the coverage that we saw.

Hugh Hewitt, a host of a nationally syndicated radio talk show and a blogger, confronted Woods on exactly those points -- aggressiveness and passion -- that Woods saw as the media's strong points. He attacked the media's inaccurate descriptions of the dire situation in New Orleans:

HUGH HEWITT: Well, Keith just said they did not report an ordinary story; in fact they were reporting lies. The central part of this story, what went on at the convention center and the Superdome was wrong. American media threw everything they had at this story, all the bureaus, all the networks, all the newspapers, everything went to New Orleans, and yet they could not get inside the convention center, they could not get inside the Superdome to dispel the lurid, the hysterical, the salaciousness of the reporting.

I have in mind especially the throat-slashed seven-year-old girl who had been gang-raped at the convention center — didn't happen. In fact, there were no rapes at the convention center or the Superdome that have yet been corroborated in any way.

There weren't stacks of bodies in the freezer. But America was riveted by this reporting, wholesale collapse of the media's own levees they let in all the rumors, and all the innuendo, all the first-person story because they were caught up in this own emotionalism. Exactly what Keith was praising I think led to one of the worst weeks of reporting in the history of American media, and it raises this question: If all of that amount of resources was given over to this story and they got it wrong, how can we trust American media in a place far away like Iraq where they don't speak the language, where there is an insurgency, and I think the question comes back we really can't. [emphasis added]

The response that Woods gives to Hewitt's critique of the media reporting of Katrina does not inspire confidence. For one thing, he does not push back on anything Hewitt said. Instead:

KEITH WOODS: Well, remember that we thought 5,000 people died in the twin towers in New York originally — more than 5,000. We thought the White House had been attacked in the early reporting of that story. The kind of reporting that journalists have to do during this time is revisionist. You have to keep telling the story until you get it right.[emphasis added]

It is unclear how many chances Woods felt the media was entitled to get its facts straight.

The media's misreporting of Hurricane Katrina impeded rescue efforts.
The media's misreporting on Gaza inflames antisemitism and attacks on Jews around the world.

The media coverage of disasters is difficult and taxes their resources, but that is no excuse for them to get stuck on stupid.

---

---

Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon! "He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

 

Read More

When Antisemitism Turns Its Sights on the Druze—And the Media Yawns (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

Last week, Elder of Ziyon reported on a disturbing scene that unfolded in Berlin: Islamist Syrian protesters openly called for the rape and murder of Druze—right in front of Berlin’s Red City Hall.

Around 300–400 supporters of Syrian ruler Ahmed al-Sharaa (also known as al-Jolani) gathered in front of Berlin's Red City Hall on Saturday, July 19, 2025. They chanted slogans against Israel, Druze, and Alawites—including open calls for murder and rape.

The German group democ.—a coalition of journalists, academics, and media professionals—documented the protest in a video published on YouTube. 

They noted that slogans included explicit calls for rape and murder.

This wasn’t a fringe rumor. It was covered in the mainstream German press.

Der Tagesspiegel quoted Berlin’s Mayor Kai Wegner (CDU), who condemned the rally unequivocally:

“Anyone who calls for murder and violence has no place in our city. I want these people to leave our country.”
— Der Tagesspiegel, July 24, 2025

The article also noted that demonstrators shouted antisemitic slogans like “Bring us the Israeli flag so we can burn it.” The spark for this display of hatred was the ongoing violence in Syria’s Suweida province, where Druze and Alawite minorities are being targeted by radical groups. According to democ., the calls for violence spread widely on social media.

Further reports revealed that in Düsseldorf, 50 Syrian and Turkish extremists attacked a Kurdish-Druze solidarity rally. Meanwhile, Focus Online provided context: Germany has taken in over 1.2 million Syrians since 2015—including unvetted members of jihadist and sectarian militias. The Berliner Zeitung pointed out a disturbing failure: police failed to bring the usual Arabic-language interpreters, allowing hate speech to go unchecked.

So where were the New York Times and the Washington Post on this story?

Nowhere. A search of their websites for the terms “Berlin” and “Druze” yields nothing. When I asked Grok AI about the coverage in the mainstream media, it responded:

“As of today, Monday, July 28, 2025, there is no direct coverage in major English-language mainstream media outlets (e.g., Reuters, BBC, The Guardian, The Washington Post, AP News) of the specific anti-Druze protests by Syrians in Berlin on July 19, 2025.”

This is editorial bias by omission. When the Times claims “All The News That’s Fit To Print,” you have to wonder: fit by whose standards? Too often, their “What to Know” articles really mean “What We’ve Decided You Should Know.”

But this protest is not just another disturbing rally. It’s a case study in how antisemitism metastasizes—turning its venom toward any group perceived as aligned with Jews or Israel.

The organization CyberWell, which tracks antisemitic content across social media, has been sounding the alarm for months. In May—before the recent Suweida violence—they tweeted:

The Druze community is paying the price for their relationship with Israel — facing targeted hate online and offline, including violent attacks on communities in southern Syria. It's a clear example of how Jew-hatred can impact non-Jews who are perceived as allies. pic.twitter.com/XMTVptlAT6

— CyberWell (@CyberWell_org) May 19, 2025

On Monday, CyberWell released a full report titled Southern Syria’s Sectarian Violence: A Digital Reflection of Antisemitic Narratives Targeting the Druze.

They documented a massive spike in hate speech that blends antisemitic tropes with anti-Druze incitement, including 3 key categories:

I. “Greater Israel” Conspiracy Theory

Druze self-defense or humanitarian aid is twisted into “proof” of an Israeli plot.

• Posts combining “Greater Israel” + “Druze” surged by 3,529% from July 13–20, peaking at 3,700 posts in a single day.

 II. “Jewlani” Puppet Allegation

Al-Julani (al-Sharaa) is smeared as a “Jewish puppet”—with Druze as his collaborators.

• The slur “Jewlani” appeared in 900 posts, reaching 40.7 million users. That’s a 5,500% increase over the prior six months.

 III. “The Druze Deserve It”

Druze are accused of “betrayal” simply for holding Israeli citizenship, serving in the IDF, or not opposing Israel.

• The Arabic slur “Zionist dogs” directed at Druze appeared over 300 times.

• The hashtag “#إسرائيل_عملاء_الدروز” (“The Druze are Israeli spies”) had over 5,700 posts and 4.2 million reach.

CyberWell notes that under the IHRA definition of antisemitism, these narratives remain antisemitic even when targeting non-Jews—because they rely on classic anti-Jewish conspiracy theories.

The anti-Druze protest in Berlin is not just a story about "sectarian" hate—it’s about how online antisemitism bleeds into real-world violence, targeting both Jews and those associated with them.

And yet, the New York Times, Washington Post, and other major English-language outlets are silent. They just couldn't be bothered.

---

---

Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon! "He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

 

Read More

Israel Honors Its Debt To The Druze--Even in Syria (Daled Amos)

 By Daled Amos

For me, Salim symbolized the living partnership between us, certainly the covenant of blood. He was with me when I was in mourning and I was with him when he was in mourning – but a great living partnership. Salim Shufi was a great moral force. He was a splendid man – modest, deep and imbued with values; I loved him very much.

PM Netanyahu on Salim Shufi, the Druze who saved his life

There are times when the media appear incredibly fickle in focusing their coverage of the news, especially in the Middle East. Even with their constant coverage of the region, we are all aware of what they will emphasize and where the media biases lie. 

Here is Reuters briefly describing the current situation in Syria:

The fighting began a week ago with clashes between Bedouin and fighters of the Druze community, which like some other minorities distrusts Sharaa's new Islamist government. Damascus sent troops to quell the fighting, but they were drawn into the violence and accused of widespread violations.

Interim President al-Sharaa has blamed the violence on "outlaw groups", promising to protect the rights of Druze and hold to account those who committed violations against them.

The article frames the conflict as sectarian violence between Druze and Bedouin. Later, it goes on to bring up Israeli measures to protect the Druze and mentions in passing Israel's justification for their bombings in Damascus, namely "the goal of protecting the Druze and keeping southern Syria demilitarized."

There is no explanation of why Israel is protecting the Druze in particular.

The Druze are a relatively small ethno-religious group whose beliefs and practices are relatively unknown. Their bond with Israel is partly explained by their loyalty to the state in which they reside. Those who live in Lebanon are loyal to Lebanon, those in Syria are loyal to Syria, and those in Israel are devoted to Israel. The Druze loyalty to Israel goes back to 1948 and even before that, to the Haganah.

And even earlier.

The bond between Jews and Druze goes back as early as the 12th century:

Benjamin of Tudela, the Jewish traveller who passed through Lebanon in 1165, was one of the first European writers to refer to the Druze by name. Even then, they were known as mountain-dwellers, and Benjamin described them as fearless warriors who favoured the Jews.

Although the Druze are Arabs, they have a historically strong connection not only with Israel, but with Jews in general, even back when Jews were neither strong nor a nation. This history helps explain the reason why Israel has actively defended the Druze, including those living in Syria.

And what exactly is Israel defending the Syrian Druze against?

John Spencer, author and researcher of urban warfare, posted on X on June 19:

The perpetrators include radical Islamist militants, Bedouin gangs, and regime-backed elements, all empowered by years of state collapse and lawlessness.

The carnage has been captured on video and is now spreading across social media. These are not vague reports or unverifiable claims. There is footage of Druze civilians being hunted down and executed. 

Elders are dragged into the streets. Their mustaches shaved in acts of humiliation. For the Druze, this is not just an insult, it is desecration. In Druze culture, facial hair, especially the mustache, is a powerful symbol of dignity, piety, and manhood. Elder men are traditionally known for their modest appearance, religious devotion, and strict adherence to tradition, including the wearing of facial hair as a sign of spiritual discipline. Forcing a Druze elder to be shaved is meant to strip him of identity, honor, and religious status in front of his community. It is not just abuse. It is psychological warfare. It is a calculated act of degradation meant to erase who they are.

Women are stripped and assaulted. Men are beaten, tortured, and forced to leap from rooftops as militants cheer. More than one video shows Druze men being driven to the edge of their balconies, their homes surely quiet moments before. Balconies once filled with carefully nourished plants are suddenly overrun by screaming men with AK-47s. The peaceful stillness of domestic life is shattered by terror. The Druze men are forced to climb over the railings. As they leap, they are shot multiple times as they are leaping to their deaths. It is a special kind of evil. Deliberate. Performative. Proud.

All of it is filmed. All of it is shared online for the enjoyment of the killers...

The New York Times takes the same understated approach as Reuters:

The clashes, between armed groups from Bedouin tribes and the Druse religious minority, erupted earlier this month and renewed fears of widespread sectarian violence and attacks against religious minorities.

In a world where terrorists are "freedom fighters" or "militants," we see "massacres" melt away, to be replaced by "sectarian violence". If only these minority groups could get their act together and learn to live with one another so al-Sharaa and his government didn't have to step in and keep the peace!

But Reuters and The New York Times are not framing an accurate narrative.

In a recent edition of Ask Haviv Anything, Haviv Rettig Gur spoke with Rania Fadel Dean, who comes from a prominent Israeli Druze family. Her organization, Covenant, teaches Americans about the Druze community. Dean criticized the prevailing media narrative:

[T]he basic narrative in the international press is that there's this sectarian violence there, you know, this one Middle Eastern tribe and this other Middle Eastern tribe, and you know how it is with Middle Eastern tribes. And so there's a bunch of violence and the Syrian government is coming in to sort it out, and the Israelis are, again, bombing somebody.

The reality is something different. There is a pattern at work that the media fails to explore. She describes Shaara's pattern, referring to him as Julani--his name when he led Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham, a terrorist branch of al-Qaeda:

Julani always does that. He sends this HTS forces, or as they call them Kouwa al-Amn al-Aam, which is the security forces. They send them, they do the massacre, and after that he comes. He speaks to the Western media or the Western leaders, and he whispers this: "I can't control them; I have to open a real investigation and everyone who did that will be punished, and we will pay for that."

This pattern was also pointed out in Israel by Gideon Saar:

Hiba Zayadin, a senior researcher at Human Rights Watch, responded to the Syrian government's investigation of the massacres--which has been criticized as not going far enough--as showing a pattern:

These are not isolated incidents, but part of a recurring pattern of abuse tolerated, and at times facilitated, by the authorities. We are now seeing that same pattern extend to violations against Druse communities.

The Wall Street Journal gives some concrete details on the extent to which al-Shaara's government exacerbated and facilitated the massacres:

o  Hundreds of the armed Arab Bedouin tribesmen who entered Sweida on July 13 successfully passed through dozens of government checkpoints, mostly run by Sunni Muslim forces.

o  On July 14th, Syria’s Defense Ministry announced the death of at least six of its soldiers after an ambush by “unlawful groups,” a term they use to refer to Druze militias.

o  On July 19th, Sharaa described the Bedouin tribes in a televised address as “a symbol of noble values and principles,” and went so far as to praise their nationwide mobilization to defend their community. By contrast, in the same speech, he referred to Druze militias as “outlaws.”

o  Last Friday, Volker Türk, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, said that his office had documented an attack where “Armed individuals affiliated with the interim authorities deliberately opened fire at a family gathering.”

Not surprisingly, there has been some open support for Israel's attacks on Syrian military headquarters in Damascus.

And some Syrian Druze are even carrying Israeli flags:

It is not clear how long and how far Israel can go to defend the Druze in Syria. Leaders in the West may still be giddy after having visited Syria and shaking al-Shaara's hand. They may be too vested in his taking control and dealing with the various factions and instability--too vested to raise questions on just how much sense it made to give the "former" jihadi leader free rein, and financial support, in war-torn Syria.

But they will always have Israel to criticize.

---

---

Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon! "He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

 

Read More