First, The Radical Left Defended Palestinian Terrorism; Now They Are Excusing The Murder Of A CEO (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

The world was horrified when it learned of the Hamas massacre. Palestinian terrorists invaded Israel, massacring over 1,200 men, women, and children, while taking hundreds hostage. World leaders condemned the murders and kidnappings.

But not everyone did. Some defended it.

According to the Anti-Defamation League, Students for Justice in Palestine "hailed and defended" the massacre, and "some, like the SJP chapter at Columbia University, have published social media posts that openly support acts of terror against Israel." The ADL points out that: 

many of the organization’s campus chapters have explicitly endorsed the actions of Hamas and their armed attacks on Israeli civilians and voiced an increasingly radical call for confronting and “dismantling” Zionism on U.S. college campuses.

The Democratic Socialists of America were no less enthusiastic in their defense of Hamas. The ADL writes that the DSA, Salt Lake City Chapter:

published a “Statement on Palestinian Liberation” on October 7, expressing their “unwavering solidarity with the people of Palestine in their decades long fight for national liberation” and urging Americans “to stand up against settler-colonial, Zionist apartheid.” The statement proclaimed the group’s full support for the attack on Israeli civilians, writing that “it is not terrorism or anti-semitism to fight against this injustice.”

The day after the attack, The Times of Israel reported how quickly anti-Israel groups jumped to endorse the massacre: 

In New York, the pro-Palestinian groups Within Our Lifetime, Samidoun, Decolonize This Place, Al-Awda and others announced rallies on Sunday in Times Square and on Monday at the Israeli consulate “to defend the heroic Palestinian resistance.”

WOL enthusiastically said that “supporting Palestinian liberation is supporting whatever means necessary it takes to get there. Freedom has only ever been achieved through resistance.”

Just three days after the massacre, The Harvard Undergraduate Palestine Solidarity Committee came out with a statement defending Hamas. The statement declared that they “hold the Israeli regime entirely responsible for all unfolding violence,” and excused the murders on the basis that “today’s events did not occur in a vacuum.”

The Secretary General of the UN, Antonio Guterres, also equivocated, in his remarks to the UN Security Council three weeks later, that "it is important to also recognize the attacks by Hamas did not happen in a vacuum." 

While radical anti-Israel groups did not hesitate to come out in support of the Palestinian terrorists and the atrocities that they committed, it did not take long for others to hedge on their condemnations and assign responsibility to Israel.

It is shocking to see how uninhibited anti-Israel groups were to excuse the attacks, and how others--whom we might have expected better of--were quick to fall in line with the message of the ongoing pro-Palestinian riots that defended the mass murders.

The question arises: just how far will some go to defend murder, outside of the events in the Middle East?

It sounds like a ridiculous question, especially in the context of Western values. Still, you have to wonder, especially when Americans came out in defense of the recent murder of Brian Thompson, the CEO of UnitedHealthcare. Luigi Mangione was charged with first-degree murder in furtherance of terrorism in Thompson’s death.

As shocking as Brian Thompson's murder is, the reaction to it is even more unnerving.

According to Emerson College Polling, 68% of voters said the murder was unacceptable, while 17% found the action acceptable. Digging deeper, the poll found:

“While 68% of voters overall reject the killer’s actions, younger voters and Democrats are more split — 41% of voters aged 18-29 find the killer’s actions acceptable (24% somewhat acceptable and 17% completely acceptable), while 40% find them unacceptable; 22% of Democrats find them acceptable, while 59% find them unacceptable, this compares to 12% of Republicans and 16% of independents who find the actions acceptable, underscoring shifting societal attitudes among the youngest electorate and within party lines,” Kimball said.

Of those in the 18-29 year old age group, 41% found Thompson's murder acceptable to some degree. To a large extent, these are the people protesting on college campuses and on the streets in defense of Hamas terrorists.

Social media was full of posts approving the murder. Alex Goldenberg, a senior adviser for The Network Contagion Research Institute at Rutgers noted that “the surge of social media posts praising and glorifying the killing of UnitedHealth CEO Brian Thompson is deeply concerning." But, according to Goldenberg, some people online went beyond approval:

“We’ve identified highly engaged posts circulating the names of other healthcare CEOs and others celebrating the shooter. The framing of this incident as some opening blow in a class war and not a brutal murder is especially alarming.”

The justification given for the murder was that insurance companies are primarily interested in making a profit, even if Americans are killed by denying them coverage.

Politicians and public figures chimed in.

“And people wonder why we want these executives dead,” Taylor Lorenz, a former New York Times and Washington Post journalist, wrote on Bluesky a few hours after the CEO, Brian Thompson, 50, was gunned down in Manhattan by a man with a silenced pistol. After a backlash, Lorenz later posted, “no, that doesn’t mean people should murder them.”

Senator Elizabeth Warren chimed in:

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., said in interviews this week that the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson was wrong but also served as a "warning" of sorts that "you can only push people so far."

"We'll say it over and over," Warren said on MSNBC. "Violence is never the answer. This guy [Luigi Mangione] gets a trial who's allegedly killed the CEO of UnitedHealth[care], but you can only push people so far, and then they start to take matters into their own hands."

And so did AOC:

“This is not to say that an act of violence is justified, but I think for anyone who is confused or shocked or appalled, they need to understand that people interpret and feel and experience denied claims as an act of violence against them,” the congresswoman told CBS News’ Jaala Brown on Thursday.

...AOC’s comments drew a slew of backlash from those who are fed up with those excusing the cold-blooded murder, lovers of the accused killer, Luigi Mangione, and posters across the Big Apple warning other CEOs that they’re next on the hit list.

And sure enough, if you do a search, you will find responses that echo the Secretary General's excuse for Hamas, applied now on social media to Luigi Mangione:

o  This act of violence did not occur in a vacuum. UnitedHealth Group, and its subsidiary UnitedHealthcare, are corporate behemoths on a scale the world has never seen.

o  You are trying to simplify it because it makes the situation easier in your head if you think of it in black and white, but as always, it did not happen in a vacuum.

o  It doesn’t mean that I endorse the assassination of Brian Thompson; it means that I empathize with John Quincy Archibald [reference to movie John Q.]. This murder didn’t happen in a vacuum.

o  Many people see Luigi Mangione as a hero because they understand, consciously or not, the fundamental violence of the system in which we live. Luigi didn’t act in a vacuum; his actions were born of desperation, anger, and a sense of moral reckoning. 

The point is that this attitude, this support for murder as acceptable, may be part of a trend.

Remember when Representative Maxine Waters egged people on to violence against people associated with the Trump Administration:

I have no sympathy for these people that are in this administration who know it’s wrong for what they’re doing on so many fronts. They tend to not want to confront this president or even leave, but they know what they’re doing is wrong. I want to tell you, these members of his cabinet who remain and try to defend him, they won’t be able to go to a restaurant, they won’t be able to stop at a gas station, they’re not going to be able to shop at a department store. The people are going to turn on them.

They’re going to protest. They’re absolutely going to harass them until they decide that they’re going to tell the president, ‘No, I can’t hang with you.’

 At the time, Legal Insurrection pointed out that Americans were responding to Waters and her call:

o  DC Socialist Group Chases DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen Out of a Restaurant Shouting, “Shame!”
o  “Justice-minded” Website Doxes Sr. White House Advisor Stephen Miller
o  #TheResistance crosses another line, confronts DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen at home
o  Sarah Sanders Kicked Out of Virginia Restaurant Because She Works For Trump
o  Florida AG Pam Bondi Accosted By Protestors At Tampa Movie Theater

Those incidents, and the provocations, have ceased. But with Trump starting his second term and the continued anti-Israel protests, there is no way to know if "moral indignation" will be used to excuse more violence.

As Erich Fromm wrote:

There is perhaps no phenomenon which contains so much destructive feeling as 'moral indignation,' which permits envy or hate to be acted out under the guise of virtue.

---

---

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 Dictators Fall: Iraq (Whack-a-mole) VS Syria (Dominoes) (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

Following the defeat of Saddam Hussein and his capture during the Iraq War in 2003, there were multiple reactions. Some saw it as freedom from oppression and an opportunity for democratic government. Sunni Arabs who benefited from Hussein's rule were afraid of being marginalized and thought what others saw as liberation was more of an occupation.

Western allies celebrated the removal of a vicious dictator as a victory for democracy and human rights, but critics were concerned about potential instability.

While it was not difficult to see that Iraq's defeat resulted in the removal of Iran's premier enemy, it is not clear if anyone actually predicted the degree to which Iran would gain influence and dominate the region.

The victory over Iraq was a game of whack-a-mole: Saddam's Iraq was replaced by Iran.

Now with the removal of Bashar al-Assad, the defeat of a brutal dictator again has consequences outside of the dictator's own country. This time the consequences play out with a cascading effect:

o  The Hamas massacre on October 7 led both to Israel's crippling of Hezbollah and the weakening of Iran.

o  The weakening of those two entities led to the fall of Syria since they could not lend the support they had given in the past. Similarly, Russia's involvement in Ukraine hampered its ability to defend Assad

o  The removal of Syria from the constellation of Iranian proxies further hurts Iran's ability  to act in the region and reveals its weakness

In addition, going forward:

o  Iran will have difficulty getting arms to Hezbollah.

o  Russia's naval base in Tartus and airbase at Khmeimim are in jeopardy, putting its only Mediterranean port at risk and weakening its ability to project military power in the region.

o  Turkey will increase its influence in the area and could pose a further threat to the Kurds

o  The weakening of Iran may hurt the Houthis too.

o  The fragility of Lebanon is further threatened by neighboring Syria

And then, of course, there is Israel.

A Times of Israel article on December 6 featured the headline, Syrian rebel commander urges Israel to support uprising, strike Iran-backed forces. The article quoted an anonymous rebel commander from the Free Syrian Army (FSA):

We are open to friendship with everyone in the region – including Israel. We don’t have enemies other than the Assad regime, Hezbollah and Iran. What Israel did against Hezbollah in Lebanon helped us a great deal. Now we are taking care of the rest.

The problem is that the FSA is not in charge. Instead, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a jihadi organization, is leading the overthrow of Assad. MEMRI reported on an HTS video that is much less reassuring:

After taking control of Damascus following the collapse of Bashar Al-Assad’s regime on December 8, 2024, HTS Islamist militants, in a video posted by Althawra Network Media on Facebook, declared that just as they entered the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus, they will enter the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, the Prophet's Mosque in Medina, and the Kaaba in Mecca. They also advised the people of Gaza to remain patient, suggesting they would soon come to Jerusalem.

This is why Israel not only fortified the buffer zone between it and Syria and extended it, but also struck chemical weapons caches and other missile and air-defense systems in Syria.

However, with such instability, there is no way to be sure what the vulnerabilities will drive the various concerned parties to do to secure their positions and react to real and perceived threats.

---

---

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

 

Read More

Book review of my new cartoon book "He's an Anti-Zionist, Too!" (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos, to be published in The Jewish Press

When I wrote a review in 2022 of Elder of Ziyon's first book Protocols: Exposing Modern Antisemitism, I noted that beyond his clarity and conciseness in debunking anti-Israel claims, there was an element of innovation in his blog. 

Anyone familiar with Elder of Ziyon's earlier articles is familiar with his "Apartheid" posters, debunking claims of Israeli apartheid by revealing the wide acceptance of Arabs in the Israeli army, judiciary, and news programs as well as across the spectrum of Israeli society. Before that, Elder of Ziyon often quoted old articles from the original Palestine Post (which later became the Jerusalem Post) to refute anti-Israel claims. He also searched through online Arabic websites and uncovered stories no one else was reporting, such as when he revealed that on their website, Hanan Ashrawi's group Independent Commission for Human Rights (Miftah) claimed that the Passover blood libels were actually true.

To defend Israel, we need to approach the lies and the hate from new and different angles. 

Now, Elder of Ziyon has been adding his own political cartoons to his blog to make his point. This month, he is coming out with a collection of those cartoons. He explains in the introduction to his new book, He's An Anti-Zionist Too!:

Let’s face it, in today’s world people want bite-sized information. Anything longer than a couple of paragraphs is only read by us old fogies.

He points out that in addition to being more concise than articles, another advantage of cartoons is their ability to ridicule their targets.

Many of the cartoons are re-drawings of the original copyrighted cartoons, others are taken from public domain comic books, and for the last couple of years, Elder of Ziyon has been using AI tools.

Elder of Ziyon's cartoons lampoon a variety of targets:

o Antizionism/antisemitism o  BDS
o  College Protests
o  Democratic Party
o  European Union
o  Human Rights Groups
o  Iran Deal
o  J Street 
o  Jewish Progressives
o  Jewish Voice for Peace
o  Media Bias
o  United Nations

There are 2 basic styles of political cartoons. One relies on visual metaphors and caricatures. Think of Thomas Nast, the famous political cartoonist who originated the donkey as the symbol of the Democratic Party and the elephant as the symbol of the Republican Party.

 Nast's cartoons were instrumental in the arrest and conviction of Boss Tweed.

The other cartoon style gets its point across with the addition of text. Think of Yaakov Kirschen's Dry Bones.

Elder of Ziyon's cartoons use text, not metaphor, to make his point. They are reminiscent of Ami Horowitz's films, showing up and mocking the worldview and claims of Israel's adversaries themselves.

An article on the history of editorial cartoons notes that political cartoons "have the power to deflate hubris, uncover deceit, incite revolution, dethrone a bully."

And Elder of Ziyon is just getting started. 

(Link to the book on Amazon)

---

---

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon! Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.  Read all about it here!

 

Read More

What's Old Is New Again in Antisemitism --And Much Worse (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

Going through old articles, I came across this:

The conflict also mobilized anti-Israel views around the world. Turkey and other forces opposing Israel consulted with Iran about a full-court diplomatic press against the Jewish state. Gangs of men in New York, California, London and across Europe attacked Jews and synagogues, threatening to “rape” Jewish women. Rabbis were attacked.

The unprecedented outpouring of far-right Palestinian nationalist hooligans driving around in convoys searching for Jews to attack in the US and Europe was a new phenomenon caused by this conflict.

Obviously, this is not something new.

But this article is talking about May 10-21, 2021, known as Operation Guardian of the Walls.

The ADL reported at the time that "outside of the [Middle East] region, there was a surge of antisemitic incidents targeting Jewish communities and individuals in the United States and around the world."

In the US

The ADL reported a 75% increase in antisemitic incidents, many blaming American Jews for the actions taken by Israel. There were approximately 200 anti-Israel rallies across the US. Many of the rallies were peaceful, but some speakers, signs, and chants used language that attacked Jews and Zionists.

o  May 23 (Redondo Beach, CA): A synagogue received an antisemitic and harassing email from an unknown sender who wrote: "Die fucking jew cockroaches! Israel = racism, apartheid, genocide."
o  May 22 (New York, NY): A Jewish man wearing a Star of David necklace was punched by a man who allegedly asked him, “What is that around your neck, does that make you a fucking Zionist?"
o  May 22 (Brooklyn, NY): Three men allegedly drove around Borough Park harassing and assaulting Jewish individuals, including teenagers. They yelled antisemitic slurs as well as, "Free Palestine." The men also kicked a synagogue's doors and broke a car mirror.
o  May 20 (New York, NY): A Jewish man was beaten by a group of anti-Israel protestors in Times Square. In another incident, anti-Zionist protestors shouted, "Fucking Zionists" and threw fireworks at passersby, injuring one, in midtown Manhattan's Diamond District, which is home to many Jewish-owned businesses.
o  May 18 (Los Angeles, CA): A group of Jewish diners at a kosher restaurant were allegedly assaulted by a group of individuals. The attackers reportedly arrived in cars carrying Palestinian flags and yelled antisemitic slurs.
o  May 18 (Bal Harbour, FL): A Jewish family was walking home from synagogue when they were harassed by a group of individuals in a car who allegedly yelled, “Free Palestine!” “F**k the Jews!” “Die Jew!”

In its 2021 report on the international reaction, ADL points out:

During the 2014 conflict between Israel and the terrorist group Hamas, dangerous incidents occurred in a similar context: attempts to breach synagogues while worshippers were inside; Molotov cocktails and other projectiles thrown at synagogues; and unprovoked assaults on Jews on the street with expressed linkage to the conflict. Jewish communities remember these incidents and worry about similar attacks.

The ADL mentions 2014, but not Operation Black Belt in 2019. In its 2019 report, the ADL reports that
Antisemitic Incidents Hit All-Time High in 2019, but does not mention the operation or of November, when the operation took place.

That 2014 ADL report, Violence And Vitriol: Anti-Semitism Around the World During Israel’s Operation Protective Edge – July-August 2014 begins:

Once again, “Death to Jews!” and “Jews to the gas!” are heard in Europe. Once again, Jewish communities around the world are paying for the perceived “sins” of Israel.

Going a step further, the 2014 ADL report notes that in response to antisemitic incidents during Operation Cast Lead during December 2008-2009:

As Israel defends her citizens from Hamas’ missiles, Jews around the world have also come under attack. Jews have been beaten on the street. Synagogues have been fire-bombed. “Jews to the gas” has been chanted at anti-Israel demonstrations. Newspapers in the Arab world and in Latin America have published pieces making blatant comparisons between Israel and the Nazis’ perpetration of the Holocaust.

The point is that public attacks on Jews in the streets today is not something new, nor should it have been unexpected. But we are seeing a change in degree as well as in kind. The groundwork has been laid for those taking advantage.

The ADL reported that during the one month between October 7 and November 7, 2023, there were 832 antisemitic incidents, including assault (30), vandalism (170), and harassment (632) in the US--an average of almost 28 incidents each day. That is a 316% increase over the 200 incidents during the same time in 2022. 

But now there are rallies showing admiration for the Hamas terrorists. Anti-Israel activists are coming out publicly in support of Hamas without fear of consequences. 

This is not an issue of spontaneous attacks on Jews and Jewish institutions. Nor is it just a problem of these attacks becoming more intense and widespread. And the protests are more public and in-your-face as we saw during the Thanksgiving Day Parade.

Screen grab of YouTube video

Now there are groups behind the protests, orchestrating for maximum effect. They are taking advantage of a phenomenon that has existed for many years. In the process, they go beyond free speech and deliberately disrupt both the US and Europe.

In the US, the Biden administration has not confronted the situation. One would like to think that the Trump administration will be more active in dealing both with antisemitism in general as well as with the threat to society in general. 

---

---

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon! Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.  Read all about it here!

 

Read More

American Jews Voters And American Arab-Muslim Voters Are Not So Different (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

The Jewish vote tends to be consistent.

The American Jewish Committee regularly releases its Survey of American Jewish Opinion. In 2007, for example, the AJC survey found that 58% of Jews in the US identified as Democrats, while only 15% saw themselves as Republicans (26% identified as Independent, and 2% were not sure).

No surprise there. Nor was there any surprise on how American Jews said they felt about Israel. According to that survey:

34. How important would you say being Jewish is in your own life?
Very important	61
Fairly important	29
Not very important	10

 

 

 

37. How close do you feel to Israel?
Very close	30
Fairly close	40
Fairly distant	21
Very distant	8
Not sure	1
38. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? “Caring about Israel is a very important part of my being a Jew.”
Agree	69
Disagree	28
Not Sure	3

So according to these results:

o  90% said being Jewish was important.
o  70% said they felt close to Israel.
o  69% said caring about Israel is very important to their being a Jew.

However, that same 2007 survey indicated that those numbers did not predict how Jews would vote on the issues.

19. In deciding who you would like to see elected president next year, which issue will be most important to you? Please select one of the following:
War in Iraq	16
Economy and jobs	23
Terrorism and national security	14
Health care	19
Support for Israel	6
Immigration	6
Education	4
Energy crisis	6
Not sure	5

Only 6% of American Jews said a politician's support for Israel would help them decide who they would vote for in the presidential election. On the plus side, those numbers serve as a rebuttal to those who accuse Jews of dual loyalty, yet it also calls into question to what degree Israel is a consideration when Jews vote.

So how did Jews view the issues in 2020?

According to the AJC's 2020 survey, nothing changed:

We have to assume that concern for Israel falls under the category of "Foreign Policy" for Israel to even show up on the radar of American Jews as an issue in the 2020 election.

In its 2024 survey, the AJC did not ask about the most important issues. Instead, it focused on Israel:

There is no question that Israel figured in how American Jews voted in 2024--unlike in past elections.

How about Arabs and Muslims in the US? How have they been voting?

According to the AI Perplexity, here are the issues most important to Muslims and Arabs in the 2020 election:

While foreign policy/Middle East was a major concern to Arab and Muslim voters, in 2020 it ranked behind healthcare, the economy, and civil rights.

And like the Jewish vote, the war in Gaza affected their vote as well in 2024:

This appears to indicate that the American Muslim/Arab voters might not be so different from American Jewish voters. Both are concerned and feel connected to the Middle East, but generally, both are more concerned with local issues such as the economy when things are relatively quiet. However, when things heat up, both groups focus on the Middle East when considering who to vote for in an election year.

Not surprisingly, some are framing the Muslim vote this year as a general warning to Democrats on how they should act in regards to the Middle East. Al Jazeera reports that ‘We warned you,’ Arab Americans in Michigan tell Kamala Harris, while The New Arab reports Muslim and Arab voters refuse to take the blame for Democrats' 2024 US election defeat.

Meanwhile, the Jewish vote is also being framed differently, depending on which side you are taking. J Street has a poll that assures us that Harris won the Jewish vote 71-26, with Halie Soifer--CEO of the Jewish Democratic Council of America--crowing, "Jewish voters are the only segment of the electorate where Trump did not make meaningful inroads." The poll claims that Harris won 75% of the vote in Pennsylvania. But according to the Orthodox Union-Honan Group, Harris beat Trump only by 48-41 among Jewish voters, and according to the Fox poll, Harris beat Trump nationally by a 66-32 margin with Jewish voters, indicating Harris underperformed previous Democrats.

Let's face it--whether we are talking about the Arab-Muslim vote or the Jewish vote, there is going to be a major effort to frame the results in a way that makes each group a king-maker.

---

---

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon! Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.  Read all about it here!

 

Read More

The cultural reason behind Israel's failures at explaining itself to the world (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

The current Gaza War highlights a point made in previous wars between Israel and Hamas: Israel is not very good at hasbara. It is not good at defending itself or presenting its own case.

Why is that?

If you ask ChatGPT, it will give you eight reasons Israel is bad at public diplomacy.

Complex and Controversial Policies: Israel’s policies, particularly in relation to the Palestinians, involve a complex mix of history, religion, and geopolitics. Issues like the Gaza blockade, West Bank settlements, and military operations against Hamas often draw criticism internationally. Explaining these policies in a way that aligns with Israel’s security concerns while resonating with global audiences—who may lack context or see these actions as overly aggressive—is a significant hurdle.

Reactive Rather than Proactive Messaging: Often, Israel’s hasbara efforts tend to be reactive, responding to crises as they occur rather than establishing a strong, proactive narrative. This reactive stance means Israel is frequently on the defensive, trying to counter criticisms or viral images that have already shaped public opinion, rather than setting the terms of the debate.

Media and Cultural Differences: The media landscape in the West, particularly in Europe and the U.S., can have biases, or they might frame issues in ways that amplify the Palestinian narrative. Furthermore, Israeli communication style—often direct and sometimes confrontational—doesn't always translate well in other cultures, where diplomacy and softer rhetoric might be preferred.

Lack of Unified Messaging: Israel’s messaging often lacks coordination. Various ministries and agencies in Israel, including the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Defense, and the Prime Minister’s Office, may put out different messages, leading to a lack of cohesion. This disunity can result in inconsistent narratives that dilute Israel’s main talking points.

Underestimating Social Media Impact: Social media has amplified global awareness and activism, making it easy for images and stories to go viral, often before Israel can issue an official response. Additionally, Palestinian activists have been more effective at creating emotionally resonant content that tends to resonate more powerfully on platforms like Twitter, TikTok, and Instagram. Israel’s response on these platforms can feel less impactful or, at times, unrelatable to the younger generation that dominates these spaces.

Changing Global Perceptions: Public opinion globally has become more sensitive to human rights issues, and there’s a growing skepticism of military power and occupation-style control over other peoples. This has made Israel’s security-driven messaging less effective over time, especially with younger audiences who may sympathize more with Palestinians as an oppressed group.

Language and Accessibility: Hebrew-centric narratives or content that presupposes knowledge of Jewish or Israeli culture may not always resonate with global audiences. Similarly, English-language messaging is critical, but without nuanced, culturally aware English-language communicators, messaging can feel disconnected or out of touch with international sentiments.

Perception of Overreach: Sometimes, efforts in hasbara can backfire, particularly if seen as propaganda rather than genuine engagement. International audiences may become distrustful if they perceive a heavy-handed or overly defensive communication style, potentially diminishing Israel’s credibility.

These are technical reasons, focusing on the nature of the message that Israel is trying to present, on the kind of audience, or on the nature of the medium. These reasons don't completely explain why it is that the Palestinian Arabs are so adept at overcoming these hurdles.

But, another perception of Israel's hasbara problem was expressed by Haviv Rettig Gur in an interview posted on YouTube. At one point he was asked about a lecture he gave where he contrasted the claim that early settlers were inspired by the Herzl and the Zionist ideology as opposed to the fact that the early settlers were refugees fleeing pogroms in Russia -- the difference being the greater sympathy garnered by the latter interpretation.

Haviv Rettig Gur (YouTube screencap)

Gur attributes the failure in Israeli hasbara to a basic Israeli attitude:

First of all, we don't tell it [that the early settlers were refugees] to the rest of the world because we don't talk to the rest of the world about these things. One of the hearts and soul of the center of our DNA and understanding of History, is the idea that we don't justify ourselves to the world...we don't justify ourselves because in the mind that is watching us, that is observing us, that is making demands of us. we're a moral cartoon serving, the needs of the cartoonist and that is not a fight you can win...

By the way, this creates a real cultural incapacity to explain ourselves seriously And you see it everywhere. I mean, you see it in Israelis literally having trouble on CNN explaining, you know, whether or not Israel is right or wrong because the feeling that you're justifying is something that is antithetical to their basic cultural identity.

It's why the Israeli government has established a Public Diplomacy Ministry five times and the last time it closed the public diplomacy ministry was I think October 16 or October 18. The public diplomacy minister of Israel got up on national television. She was a Likud appointee to the Knesset by an ally of Netanyahu and she said obviously this is a fake thing, public diplomacy...I'm an Israeli Patriot, she said and in wartime, I will not waste public funds on a fake ministry and so she resigned and she shut down her ministry on national television To me, that's astonishing because what's even more astonishing is nobody in the government blinked, there is nobody in Israeli government responsible for public diplomacy in any way responsible for synergizing, different branches, and everyone speaks their own mind...

The biggest drink company in Israel is Coca-Cola. Israel's marketing department is brilliant. It can hack the human brain stem like Coca-Cola everywhere. It's not that the Israelis are incapable of marketing, of telling stories of building out of selling ideas. It's that they can't do it for themselves because we don't justify ourselves...[transcribed and edited for clarity and conciseness]

Here is the Haviv Rettig Gur interview:

If Gur is correct, the solution to Israel's hasbara problem is even harder to address than the solutions to the technical issues in the ChatGPT list.

---

---

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon! Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.  Read all about it here!

 

Read More

It Took Only 150 Years To Revise The Reputation of General Sherman. How Long Will It Take For Israel? (Daled Amos)

 By Daled Amos

“Those people made war on us, defied and dared us to come south to their country, where they boasted they would kill us and do all manner of horrible things. We accepted their challenge, and now for them to whine and complain of the natural and necessary results is beneath contempt."
General William Tecumseh Sherman

General William Tecumseh Sherman was one of the most notable Union generals of the Civil War, famous for his "scorched earth" policy requiring destroying anything useful to the enemy. That was arguably Sherman's main claim to fame -- or infamy.

General Sherman's military career in the Civil War does seem to have some interesting parallels to the current Israel-Gaza War -- beyond the above quote about his view of the South's challenge to the North. His policy for conducting the war has been challenged over 150 years for being destructive and brutal. General Sherman was arguably responsible for committing war crimes:

Major General William Tecumseh Sherman’s actions after the capture of Atlanta and his subsequent March to the Sea are sometimes seen as anticipating the pattern of total war in the twentieth century. Some have claimed that Sherman was a war criminal, authorizing plunder and looting of civilian property. But the matter is more complex than either of these charges indicate. In fact, Sherman’s actions were the culmination of a Union policy toward civilians that evolved during the course of the war.

But his reputation appears to be going through a makeover. That redemption gained steam in 2014, as reflected by this marker:

The marker was erected by the Georgia Historical Society and the Georgia Battlefields Association:

On November 15, 1864, during the Civil War, U.S. forces under Gen. William T. Sherman set out from Atlanta on the March to the Sea, a military campaign designed to destroy the Confederacy’s ability to wage war and break the will of its people to resist. After destroying Atlanta’s industrial and business (but not residential) districts, Sherman’s 62,500 men marched over 250 miles, reaching Savannah in mid-December. Contrary to popular myth, Sherman’s troops primarily destroyed only property used for waging war – railroads, train depots, factories, cotton gins, and warehouses. Abandoning their supply base, they lived off the land, destroying food they could not consume. They also liberated thousands of enslaved African Americans in their path. Sherman’s “hard hand of war” demoralized Confederates, hastening the end of slavery and the reunification of the nation.

The media covering the marker at the time picked up on this revision of Sherman's reputation. We can only wonder if the analysis offered just 9 years ago would be made today:

Historians have increasingly written that Sherman’s plan for the systematic obliteration in late 1864 of the South’s war machine, including its transportation network and factories, was destructive but not gratuitously destructive. Instead, those experts contend, the strategy was an effective and legal application of the general’s authority and the hard-edged masterstroke necessary to break the Confederacy.

In other words: 

o  The force used by the general was proportionate. 

o  It targeted military -- not civilian -- infrastructure. 
o  And it did not contravene the law. 

This is not to deny the inevitable excesses one expects in war but focuses on the intent of Sherman and his troops.

And what about the accounts of the deliberate brutality of Sherman's troops?

[Experts] have described plenty of family accounts of cruelty as nothing more than fables that unfairly mar Sherman’s reputation.

“What is really happening is that over time, the views that are out there are being challenged by historical research,” said John F. Marszalek, a Sherman biographer and the executive director of the Mississippi-based Ulysses S. Grant Association. “The facts are coming out.”

Family accounts?

Apparently, Hamas terrorists are not the first to recognize the effectiveness of the use of civilian accounts for blackening the reputation of its enemies. 

But this is not to say that Sherman's redemption is complete. The South still is bitter over what they view as the war crimes of General Sherman.

Not surprisingly, the battle over Sherman can also be found on college campuses. A professor at the University of Georgia notes that there is a change in attitude where he is teaching:

“You all the time run into college kids who don’t know which side Sherman was on — and their parents and certainly their grandparents would be aghast to know that,” he said. “It’s not just a matter of education. It’s a matter of being the blank slate that younger generations present for revision or education that older generations don’t because they’re steeped in the mythology of their ancestors.”

Has there ever been a time when university students were not blank slates for those with an agenda?

Another interesting parallel appears in Wikipedia, quoting authors who believe that Sherman's conduct of the war influenced the Democratic Party and the elections:

Sherman's success caused the collapse of the once powerful "Copperhead" faction within the Democratic Party, which had advocated immediate peace negotiations with the Confederacy. It also dealt a major blow to the popularity of the Democratic presidential candidate, George B. McClellan, whose victory in the election had until then appeared likely to many, including Lincoln himself. According to Holden-Reid, "Sherman did more than any other man apart from the president in creating [the] climate of opinion" that afforded Lincoln a comfortable victory over McClellan at the polls.

 The "progressives" of that time who parallel today's "Ceasefire Now" advocates did not push for a definitive victory over the South. Similarly, McClellan's position on the war is reminiscent of Biden's position on the Israel-Gaza War and the problems that is causing him.

According to ChatGPT:

[McClellan's] platform, as adopted by the Democratic Party, called for an immediate cessation of hostilities and a negotiated peace with the Confederacy. However, McClellan personally distanced himself from the more extreme peace elements of his party, asserting that any peace settlement must include the restoration of the Union. Despite this, his campaign was seen as an attempt to end the war through compromise rather than military victory.

But none of this helps Israel.

General William Tecumseh Sherman died in 1891. There have been over 130 years for the dust to settle, for some degree of objectivity to set in, and for a re-examination of Sherman and his actions to begin to be re-evaluated.

It will be a long time before analysis of Israel and its modern history approaches anything near objectivity.

(Hat tip: PreOccupied Territory)

---

---

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon! Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.  Read all about it here!

 

Read More

Whose Ceasefire Is It Anyway? (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

On Friday, President Biden announced a ceasefire plan that would end the fighting in Gaza, release all the hostages, ensure Israel's security, and create a better Gaza after the war without Hamas. 

Biden's plan has three phases:

Problems With The Proposal

There are some potential sticking points in just in Phase One alone:

o  The release of Hamas hostages would be "in exchange for the release of hundreds of Palestinian prisoners" -- that alone could break the plan since these would likely be terrorists and Hamas would insist on the release of terrorists with blood on their hands.

o  Humanitarian assistance would surge with 600 trucks carrying aid into Gaza every single day -- no mention of the need for Hamas to stop interfering with the aid, but then again Biden is not going to point fingers.

o  According to Biden, "if the negotiations take longer than six weeks for phase one, the ceasefire will still continue as long as negotiations continue." On the one hand, this effectively ties Israel's hands as long as Hamas drags out negotiations, as Biden says, "There are a number of details to negotiate to move from phase one to phase two."

The Part Biden Leaves Out

The only thing that Biden leaves out is where Hamas gets to declare victory--after all, even though Biden claims at the outset that this proposal "creates a better 'day after' in Gaza without Hamas in power," he never addresses how that works. Instead, Biden claims that continuing the war "will not bring an enduring defeat of Hamas. That will not bring Israel lasting security." 

What will?

According to one US official:

We have to work to reform the PA in the West Bank, which is ongoing and to having an interim administration in Gaza that can help with stabilization and pathway forward th

What kind of "reform" he is talking about is anybody's guess. Is Hamas going to step aside and relinquish power? Like Hezbollah?

More likely Hamas will continue to have power in Gaza. Back in March, Hamas assassinated the head of the Doghmush clan, one of the most powerful in Gaza, to keep them from vying for power in a reconstructed Gaza.

Hamas is not going anywhere. So the best that Biden can offer in his public statement is to claim that Israel can go forward:

without any further risk to their own security because they’ve devastated Hamas forces over the past eight months. At this point, Hamas no longer is capable of carrying out another October 7th, — one of the Israelis’ main objective in this war and, quite frankly, a righteous one.

No longer "capable"? Isn't that what they once said about Al Qaeda and ISIS?

Biden cannot guarantee Israel's security with a proposal like this.

Whose Ceasefire Is It Anyway?

Can it be that Israel offered a plan that allows Hamas to likely stay in power and live to fight and kill and kidnap another day--as they have already promised?

It seems that though Biden talked about "my efforts," "my negotiators," "my team," and "my many conversations," he does admit that "Israel has offered a comprehensive new proposal."

But on Twitter, Obama supported Biden's plan:

Today, President Biden put forward a clear, realistic and just plan to establish an immediate ceasefire and end the war in Gaza - a plan that ensures Israel’s security, returns hostages taken on October 7th to their families, increases aid into Gaza and relieves the suffering of Palestinian civilians, and engages Israelis, Palestinians, Arab countries and the broader international community in the process of rebuilding Gaza...I am deeply encouraged by the steady, tireless efforts of President Biden, Secretary of State Tony Blinken and our diplomatic team to bring this awful war to an end.

Obama supports the plan and Biden's efforts. 
So it's Israel's plan and Biden gets to take a victory lap.

But maybe it's not really Israel's plan after all. CNN reports:

Israel’s four-and-a-halfpage proposal was submitted to Hamas on Thursday evening, a US senior administration official said, and matches closely a deal the group itself recently proposed. 

“It’s nearly identical to Hamas’ own proposals of only a few weeks ago. So if that’s what Hamas wants, they can take the deal,” the official said.

So maybe it's both of their plans? According to Nadav Eyal of Yediot Ahronot, it's Israel's plan, but with one major change:

So it is Israel's plan, or at least one they both agree to, except that Netanyahu never agreed to indefinite negotiations.

And that is why Netanyahu "reiterated that Israel would not agree to a permanent cease-fire in Gaza as long as Hamas still retains governing and military power."

So all the pressure is on Israel to allow for a ceasefire that likely keeps Hamas in power, while the terrorists who slaughtered and kidnapped Israelis and have promised to keep doing exactly that, make no promises, no concessions, and get to claim victory as they continue to rule in Gaza.

When you put it like that, it kind of sounds like Biden's deal after all.

---

---

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon! Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.  Read all about it here!

 

Read More