Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Thursday, February 19, 2026

Israel called a Hezbollah terrorist visiting relatives: "Do you want to die alone or with your family?"

On February 16, an Israeli airstrike killed Hezbollah operative Ahmad Hussein Termos in the southern Lebanese town of Tallousa. Termos was trying to rebuild Hezbollah infrastructure in southern Lebanon after Israel destroyed it.

Unlike most assassinations, the IDF gave Termos a warning.

Lebanese journalist Radwan Mortada tells the amazing story of what happened, even as he tries to twist it as Israeli evil and a terrorist's "heroism."

When reality is harsher than fiction.

Yesterday, in the town of Tallouseh, the martyr Ahmad Termos (62) was on a family visit. He was sitting with his wife in her brother's house. The sound of a drone overhead, then another. He had barely stepped inside to sit when his phone rang.

Ahmad answered.

The voice on the line was cold and clear:
"Is this Ahmad Termos?"
"Yes", he replied.
"This is the Israeli army, Ahmad. You either die with those around you… or alone."

Without hesitation, he answered: "Alone."

He hung up. His face changed. His brother-in-law, Salim, looked at him and asked, "What happened, Ahmad?"
Calmly and decisively, he said: "The Israelis. Get up and leave. They say either you die with me… or I die alone."

He did not beg. He did not shout. He asked them to leave, to survive, to let him face his fate alone. They refused at first, insisting they would not leave him, that they would die with him. He steadied them, then convinced them to go.

For a moment, he forgot he wasn't in his own home. Then he realized it. He did not want death to come in a house that was not his. He chose to take death away from them. He asked them to stay while he left. He said goodbye. He got into his car, started the engine, drove away from the house, then parked.

Seconds passed. The drone fired two missiles.

The car burned. Ahmad's body was torn apart. He burned… but his story remains. He is one of the heroes of our time.

Take away the rhetoric, and the story is clear: Israel wanted to eliminate one of the key people breaking the ceasefire agreement, and went through great pains to ensure that no civilians would be hurt.

Calling Termos a hero for choosing not to let his family die and his brother-in-law's house be destroyed is a very low bar for heroism.

Apparently, this happens often. Mortada adds:

Before Ahmad, another young man was driving with his wife beside him. He received the same call. He stopped the car. He helped his wife out. He moved her away. Then he drove on alone, toward the missile.

These are scenes that repeat themselves in the South [of Lebanon].

It never occurs to these Hezbollah groupies that if the terror group would have followed the ceasefire agreement and dismantled its military infrastructure in southern Lebanon, even their own terrorists wouldn't be killed today.

One commenter realized that the story was not quite the story if sadistic psychological torture of innocent Lebanese as it was written:

Your statement contradicts the claim that the occupation army targets civilians. May God have mercy on the martyrs and accept them, but be careful when phrasing news so that you do not serve their enemy.

In fact, this is a story of heroism - Israeli heroism in saving innocent Lebanese lives while eliminating those who are trying to murder Jews. No amount of flowery language around how "heroic" Hezbollah terrorists are takes that away.

(h/t Ali)

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Part 4 of a series on the 2026 Palestinian draft constitution

The 2026 Palestinian draft constitution contains a clause that most Western observers will read past without a second thought. Article 4, under "General Provisions," states: "The principles of Islamic Sharia are a primary source for legislation."

That sounds moderate and pluralistic. It doesn't say "the primary source," just "a primary source." Many constitutions name religion as a source among others. The phrase suggests balance — Sharia alongside secular law, democratic norms, international obligations.

But that is not how the Palestinian Authority has ever interpreted the identical language in its 2003 Basic Law. And one of the men who drafted this constitution has said so explicitly.

In 2020, Mahmoud al-Habbash, the Chief Justice of the Palestinian Authority's Sharia Court, addressed the question directly. Although the PA had signed the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), he stated:

The Palestinian Constitution expressly states that Islamic Sharia is the primary source of legislation and that everything must be in harmony therewith. There is also a decision by the Constitutional Court whereby international agreements prevail over local laws, provided these are consistent with the Palestinian religious and cultural legacy.

The State of Palestine may not be an Islamic state, but none of its laws may contradict Islamic religious law.

This was not the opinion of an outside critic or a religious hardliner operating at the margins. Al-Habbash is the most senior Sharia judicial official in the Palestinian Authority. He is also member number six on the committee that drafted the 2026 constitution.

The man who articulated the operative doctrine — that Sharia functions not as a source but as a supreme veto over all other legal obligations — is one of the document's authors. The constitution is not ambiguous on this point. It is telling you exactly what it means through the person who helped write it.

The gap between Palestinian signature and Palestinian implementation is not speculation. It is a documented pattern spanning more than a decade.

In April 2014, the State of Palestine acceded to seven of the nine core UN human rights treaties — notably, without entering a single reservation. This was widely praised. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights called it a "significant step." International human rights organizations celebrated Palestine as the only state in the Middle East and North Africa to sign CEDAW (for women's rights) without carve-outs.

The seven treaties were: CEDAW, the ICCPR (civil and political rights), the ICESCR (economic and social rights), CAT (convention against torture), CERD (racial discrimination), the CRC (rights of the child), and the CRPD (rights of persons with disabilities). All were signed "without reservations."

Under Palestinian law, a treaty gains binding domestic legal force only when published in the Official Gazette. Only CRC and CERD were published and are actual law under the Palestinian Authority. The rest of the treaties were signed, but never implemented in law.

The pattern requires no elaborate interpretation. The two treaties published are the two with the least direct conflict with Sharia. The five treaties that remain legal dead letters are precisely the five that most directly challenge Sharia-grounded practices: the prohibition on torture and cruel punishment, equal rights for women in marriage and inheritance, freedom of religion including the right to change one's faith, and equal civil and political rights regardless of sex.

The 2026 constitution enshrines this hierarchy as supreme law.

Article 82(2) establishes the legal order explicitly: ratified treaties sit above domestic legislation but below the constitution. Sharia, as Article 4, sits within the constitution itself. Therefore Sharia permanently outranks every international treaty obligation the PA has ever signed or will sign.

Article 16, the constitution's gesture toward international law more broadly, says only that the state "respects international law and the UN Charter." The language of "respects" has no legal force. It doesn't say that the state "is bound by," or "incorporates," or "applies." This is diplomatic language dressed as a legal commitment. It gives international law no enforceable domestic status whatsoever.

The PA's own Supreme Constitutional Court closed any remaining gaps in 2017 with two rulings that built a second layer of filtration. Decision No. 5 held that international conventions must be actively incorporated into national law to have any domestic force — effectively giving the PA permanent discretion over which obligations to activate. Signing treaties by itself is legally meaningless. Decision No. 4 held that implementation of conventions depends on consistency with "the national, religious, and cultural identity of the Palestinian people" — a formulation that is, in practice, a Sharia filter with additional steps.

The architecture is complete. Treaties sit below the constitution. Customary international law is something the state merely "respects." The courts have reserved a religious identity veto over whatever survives. And the man who articulated the doctrine governing all of this helped draft the document.

The practical consequences of Sharia supremacy over all legal obligations are not theoretical. They are visible in existing Palestinian law.

Under the personal status laws that govern Muslim Palestinians, inheritance follows Sharia rules: women receive half the share of male relatives. Polygamy is permitted for Muslim men. Marital rape is not a crime — the 1960 Penal Code that applies in the West Bank defines rape as applying only to a woman who is not the perpetrator's wife. The Family Protection Bill, which would have addressed domestic violence, was blocked on the grounds that it conflicted with Sharia. None of this has been amended.

Non-Muslim citizens exist within a legal framework whose primary source is explicitly not their faith. Article 37 guarantees freedom of religious practice for "followers of monotheistic religions" — but the legislation their rights depend on is shaped by Sharia. The constitution provides no mechanism by which this changes.

And for anyone who might leave Islam: the ICCPR — the treaty the PA signed and never published — guarantees the right to change one's religion. Under classical Sharia jurisprudence, apostasy is a capital offense. The PA has not published the ICCPR. It has not abolished the death penalty. The Second Optional Protocol committing it to do so was also never published.

The constitution's treatment of genocide crystallizes the entire problem in its starkest form.

Most states prohibit genocide as part of customary international humanitarian law that they automatically support in their constitutions. The Palestinian constitution only says that it "respects" international law, which is legally meaningless. So any prohibition of genocide must fit with Sharia law.

The word "genocide" does appear throughout the document, but only to accuse Israel. The preamble declares as constitutional fact that genocide is being committed against Palestinians. Article 24 mandates prosecution of the perpetrators. Article 69 states that genocide is a crime not subject to a statute of limitations. The constitution is constructed, from its preamble through its criminal law provisions, as a legal instrument for prosecuting genocide committed by others.

Nowhere in the document is there a legal path to prohibit Palestinians from performing genocide against Jews.

A constitution that weaponizes the accusation of genocide as its foundational premise — while blocking the legal mechanisms that would make the prohibition on genocide binding on itself — tells you that it understands international law as only applicable on others.

This is Part 4 of a series on the 2026 Palestinian draft constitution. Part 1 examined how the constitution makes peace illegal. Part 2 analyzed "pay for slay" under the constitution, Part 3 explored how it deals with armed groups.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

An interactive map of Hezbollah human shields

The Alma Research and Education Center has released an interactive map that shows, using open sources, many of the weapons found in civilian buildings in Lebanon by the IDF.

So for example, click on a spot in the map and you can find a video of weapons stored in a mosque.

The wooden crate contains 12 rounds of large caliber PGТ-AP2 Russian armor-piercing (AP) projectiles.

Those must be some explosive sermons given in those mosques.

Hamas' strategy of using human shields is well known and documented, but Hezbollah is ususally characterized more as a professional militia. Obviously, they are just as guilty of war crimes as Hamas is in endangering their own people.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

02/18 Links Pt2: US likely to attack Iran, but Trump has not yet decided to do so; Jesse Jackson and the betrayal of the civil-rights movement; Eli Sharabi’s ‘Hostage’ memoir named Jewish book of the year

From Ian:

Seth Mandel: Two Cases Demonstrate How Anti-Zionist Propaganda Undermines Liberal Democracy

The significance of the Palestine Action case, in fact, threatens to obscure the importance of the fight over the hostage posters. But the hostage posters arguably represent the problem at the root of all this activism.

The Palestine Action non-convictions were made possible by a campaign for what activists called “jury equity.” The defendants’ own lawyer argued that they should be treated like suffragettes, not criminals. But how does a society—in a democratic country, with a free press—come to embrace that idea widely enough to nullify the law? And to apply it only when the motivating factor is Jew-hatred?

To answer that, we only have to listen to the people who tear down hostage posters. In the case cited above, here’s how the defendant, Fiona Monro, explained her destructive actions:

“The board was clearly there to justify the genocide that was happening. A large laminated board with a photograph of a hostage was highly inflammatory to many people in that community clearly found it very upsetting to have that constantly thrust in our face daily.”

This is genuinely insane. The central claim of hers is that “a photograph of a hostage was highly inflammatory” and that people understandably “found it very upsetting.”

It is a picture of a Jewish person who was kidnapped during a pogrom and then murdered by his kidnappers.

You cannot get to the Palestine Action acquittals until your society produces enough people like Fiona Monro and those she claims to represent.

The people who tear down hostage posters represent a genuine threat to the functioning of a free society. They are an indication that the virus of anti-Semitism has metastasized to the point at which self-government becomes imperiled. As Britain is the first to belatedly realize.

NGO Monitor: Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor

Introduction
Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor’s current and former Board Chairs appear on a 2013 list, published by Israel, of Hamas’ “main operatives and institutions” in Europe.

Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor appears in the European Union’s transparency register, a “database listing ‘interest representatives’ (organisations, associations, groups and self-employed individuals) who carry out activities to influence the EU policy and decision-making process.”

In their own words “youth-led independent, nonprofit organization that advocates for the human rights of all persons across Europe and the MENA region, particularly those who live under occupation, in the throes of war or political unrest and/ or have been displaced due to persecution or armed conflict.”

Funding
Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor does not publish any financial date on its website, reflecting a complete lack of transparency and accountability.

According to its website, “Since the establishment of the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor, we have completely refused all offers of funding, sponsorship or support from government and faction bodies to protect our vision and narrative, to ensure an unbiased perspective and to resist external influences and pressures. We, however, rely on individual donations, project funding by independent international organizations, as well as crowdfunding campaigns, which are launched by our crowdfunding team several times a year.”

Euro-Med Monitor’s program “We are not Numbers,” which provides “training to developing storyteller–journalists in Palestine,” is fiscally sponsored by Nonviolence International.
Nonviolence International co-founder Jonathan Kuttab is also co-founder of Palestinian NGO Al-Haq. On October 22, 2021, the Israeli Ministry of Defense declared Al-Haq a “terror organization” because it is part of “a network of organizations” that operates “on behalf of the ‘Popular Front’.”

Ties to Terror
Ramy Abdu, Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor Founder and Chairman
In November 2020, Israel Minister of Defense Benjamin Gantz signed an administrative seizure order against Ramy Abdu under Israel’s anti-terrorism law. The order was issued “in relation to his work with the [Israeli]-designated terrorist organization ‘IPalestine- International Platform of NGOs Working for Palestine…that belongs to and acts on behalf of…Hamas” Abdu served as a Board member.
The order was in effect until August 1, 2022.

Ramy Abdu appeared on a 2013 list, published by Israel, of Hamas’ “main operatives and institutions” in Europe. The institutions included The European Campaign to End the Siege on Gaza (ECESG), European NGOs Empowerment Services (ENES), and the Council for European Palestinian Relations (CEPR).
A 2011 publication by Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center described Ramy Abdu as ECESG’s coordinator.

In 2013, Council for European Palestinian Relations (CEPR) and PALThink organized an event, “Hamas Movement within the International Context,” featuring Hamas leader Osama Hamdan. At the event, Ramy Abdu, then CEPR’s Palestine Office Manager in Gaza, sat next to Hamdan and was a keynote speaker.

Mazen Awni Issa Kahel (Mazen Kahel), Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor chair 2015–2019 Mazen Kahel appeared on a 2013 list, published by Israel, of Hamas’ “main operatives and institutions” in Europe. The institutions included The European Campaign to End the Siege on Gaza (ECESG), European NGOs Empowerment Services (ENES), and the Council for European Palestinian Relations (CEPR).

02/18 Links Pt1: Israeli soldier killed by friendly fire in Gaza; Israel, US envoy reject Tucker Carlson’s claim he was detained and interrogated at airport; Spike Lee’s ‘Upper Class Habits’

From Ian:

Pierre Rehov: The 'Other Side' Turns Against the Jews

This chill is often dressed up as "just asking questions" or "anti-globalism". How come there never seem to be similar "questions" about Qatar, China, Turkey, Nigeria or Pakistan?

The problem is not about failing to tolerate "free speech." The problem is about failing to examine what is said with follow-up questions. The great Edward R. Murrow invited Senator Joseph McCarthy on CBS television's See It Now not to give him the run of the corral but to challenge his remarks. The problem is a pattern of tolerating an intolerance that would not be accepted if it were aimed at any ethnic group other than Jews.

There is a gulf between arguing to cut foreign aid and amplifying blood-libel smears.

Criticism is not censorship, decency is not "consensus" and the Jewish people are not "clicks."

Contrast the fringe to actual governance. Under President Donald J. Trump, the U.S. moved its Embassy to Jerusalem (2018), recognized Israeli sovereignty on the Golan Heights (2019), and brokered the Abraham Accords — historic normalization agreements reshaping the strategic map. These facts remain the gold standard for a pro-ally foreign policy grounded in U.S. interests.

Whenever Washington projected resolve rather than courting applause in European salons, anti-terror alignment, economic growth and Western values have advanced.

The newly vocal antisemitic "Right" seems to represent regress masquerading as rebellion. They do not actually speak for the "Right;" they speak for themselves and for the social media algorithms that reward outrage and sounding outrageous.

Many – maybe most -- prominent members of the "Right" — from Trump to Pastor John Hagee, Thomas Sowell and Marco Rubio — stand with Israel because they stand with the West, with victims of jihad, and with a commitment to preserve the values of individual freedom, economic opportunity, quality education, freedom of expression and equal justice under the law. The "Right" would do well say so — clearly, repeatedly, and without apology — and should quarantine the grifters who would trade civilization for "clicks."

Melanie Phillips: The plot against the British mind

The British government is determined to introduce a measure outlawing “Islamophobia”. Since this nonsensical neologism was coined by the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood to suppress any criticism of Islam or the Muslim world, this is causing justifiable alarm in many quarters.

Last week, three Muslims were jailed for a planned terrorist attack that would have killed hundreds of Jews in Manchester in what would have been one of the worst ever such atrocities on British soil.

Despite the potential enormity of this attack and its chilling implications about the nature and extent of Islamist extremism in Britain, it’s given rise to virtually no anxious analysis or impassioned commentary in the mainstream media following the ending of the trial last December. That relative silence would be muted even further by the proposed outlawing of “Islamophobia”.

Prejudice against any group is to be condemned. But the informal use of “Islamophobia” as a smear inflicting reputational damage has long acted as an effective tool to stifle essential public discourse.

Defining it and formalising it as a form of banned speech would censor vital information and comment about political jihadi Islam — the attempt by Islamists to conquer the west by terrorism, an expanding birthrate and cultural encroachment through weaponising the democratic process. It would also silence all-too necessary discussion about the Jew-hatred that’s a staple of the Islamic world.

In February last year, the Labour government set up a working group to deliver a definition of “anti-Muslim hatred/Islamophobia”. As the Free Speech Union (FSU) has noted, the group is believed to have reached a conclusion in October, although its report hasn’t seen the light of day.

Leaks confirmed by one group member suggest that, instead of using the term “Islamophobia,” it’s trying to deflect the hostility against that word by defining instead “anti-Muslim hostility”. Since that would capture in the same trap much if not most of the necessary discourse about the Islamic world, it would scarcely represent any improvement.

Alarm is also being generated by the attempt to use the definition to invest Muslims with the status of a people in order to provide them with even more impunity, even though Islam is merely a religion and not an ethnicity or a nation.

New York Times Columnist Tom Friedman Plays His Readers for Fools—Again

"Netanyahu Plays Trump and American Jews for Fools—Again" is the headline over Thomas Friedman's latest column in the New York Times. I read the "again" part as an admission by Friedman that he's been writing the same column for decades. It's been consistently wrong, so the real "fools" are any remaining readers who take what he says seriously.

A decade or so ago, when Friedman was less washed-up than he is now, someone built a computer program that would auto-generate a Tom Friedman column. This latest one reads like Friedman had his news assistant train an artificial intelligence model on a bunch of old Tom Friedman columns, then fed in the latest Times front-page headlines and Harvard-PLO-Al Jazeera-Rockefeller Brothers press releases to generate a new column so that Friedman could spend his time golfing or giving honorarium-generating speeches.

Friedman begins the column by saying, "I cannot put it any more succinctly than Ehud Olmert, the former Israeli prime minister, did." That could have been a good signal to Friedman's editors to spike the Friedman column and ask for a piece from Olmert instead. Or to tell Friedman, "Hey, you already quoted Olmert in a Nov. 13, 2024, column, in a May 27, 2025, column, and mentioned him, describing him as one of 'two friends of mine,' in a Sept. 24, 2025, column. Maybe give Olmert a rest?" The May 27, 2025, Friedman column includes a correction: "A correction was made on June 12, 2025: An earlier version of this article misquoted an opinion essay by Ehud Olmert in Haaretz. It reads, 'What we are doing in Gaza now is a war of devastation: indiscriminate, limitless, cruel and criminal killing of civilians,' not 'What we are doing in Gaza now is a war of extermination.'"

In not a single one of the columns reliant on Olmert does Friedman mention that his source spent 16 months in prison after being convicted in a bribery and corruption scandal in which he pocketed cash to promote a Jerusalem construction project. Olmert's cash-strapped brother got in on the bonanza too. Tom Friedman is serving as a one-man prisoner-reentry rehabilitation program for Ehud Olmert, and the Times is all-in, or at least reluctant to exercise any editorial control over Friedman that would involve asking him to disclose to readers that Friedman's "friend" is a discredited figure in Israel.

The column proceeds to another hoary Friedman move, the comparison of Israel and apartheid-era South Africa. He warns that Israel's government will "make today's Israel permanently indistinguishable from apartheid South Africa," writing of "an apartheidlike Israel" and asserting, "Israel is becoming an apartheid state."

Disclaimer: the views expressed here are the sole responsibility of the author, weekly Judean Rose columnist Varda Meyers Epstein.

On February 15, 2026, readers of the New York Post encountered a story that captured a peculiar moment in contemporary identity politics: the Coalition of National Racial and Ethnic Psychological Associations (CONREPA) firmly opposed the creation of an Association of Jewish Psychologists as an official Ethnic Psychological Association within the American Psychological Association. Their reasoning was straightforward and revealing. Jews, they argued, are not underrepresented in the field—the majority of Jewish Americans identify as white, and Jewish psychologists of color already have representation in existing ethnic associations. Conflating religion, race, and ethnicity would blur the focus on racism and white supremacy as harms directed at people of color.

Just one day later, on February 16, The Algemeiner published a starkly different account. Beejhy Barhany, the Ethiopian-Israeli owner of Tsion Cafe in Harlem—a restaurant celebrating Ethiopian Jewish cuisine that had recently gone fully kosher and vegan—detailed years of escalating harassment that forced its closure on February 12. Swastikas scrawled on the building, threatening phone calls (“We’re going to come and shoot you all”), and intensified attacks after October 7, 2023, when Barhany embraced her Jewish heritage more openly by making the restaurant kosher. The focus of the hostility was three-fold: Barhany's Jewish identity, her Israeli background, and the restaurant’s kosher certification; her Ethiopian heritage and the color of her skin offered no insulation—meant absolutely nothing to them. “It became unbearable,” she said, citing safety and mental health concerns after repeated, unaddressed complaints to authorities.

These two stories, separated by a mere 24 hours, form a chilling juxtaposition that exposes the fickle, convenience-driven way Jewish identity is racialized in today's discourse. Call it Schrödinger's Jew—a status that shifts depending on the observer's agenda. On one day, Jews are deemed "white" enough to be excluded from minority protections and coalitions, too privileged and overrepresented to warrant their own space in professional bodies addressing oppression. On the next, a black Jewish woman (Ethiopian-born, Israeli-raised) is marked as unmistakably "other" and Jewish—threatened, vandalized, and driven out of business precisely because of that Jewishness, her choice to make her restaurant kosher, and her cultural expression of heritage.

Jewish identity is fluid in the eyes of others: white and assimilated when it serves to block access or deny solidarity, alien and threatening when it manifests in visible traditions, pride, or connection to Israel. Historical echoes abound—Jews were racialized as non-white outsiders in early 20th-century America (facing discrimination, quotas, and violence like the lynching of Leo Frank), then granted conditional "whiteness" post-World War II through socioeconomic assimilation and suburban integration. That status, however, has always been revocable, especially amid rising antisemitism. Today, in progressive spaces, the label snaps back to "white" to justify exclusion from intersectional frameworks, even as real-world threats ignore skin color or background.

The timing of these articles—published one right after the other—serves as a mirror to this societal volatility. In academia and professional guilds, Jews are too white to be minorities. In the streets of Harlem, or online, or anywhere hatred flares, Jewishness overrides any perceived racial assimilation, rendering even Jews of color targets. Barhany's experience highlights the harm embedded in such shifting perceptions.

As indigenous rights activist Ryan Bellerose, a Métis from the Paddle Prairie Metis settlement in Alberta, Canada, and a Zionist, has long argued, Jews should reject this imposed "whiteness" framework altogether. He frames Jewish peoplehood through an indigenous lens: rooted in ancient ties to the land of Israel, shared history, culture, and continuity—not Western racial categories. Regarding the opposition of CONREPA to the formation of an association for Jewish psychiatrists, Bellerose put it succinctly: "If we accept that only a group has the right to decide who is a member of that group, then you gotta ask yourself if white people ever accepted Jews as white. The answer is clearly no."

Ryan is right (he usually is). By accepting conditional whiteness, Jews remain trapped in a binary that others control, always vulnerable to redefinition and exclusion.

The back-to-back headlines that were striking in their irony and juxtaposition, reveal a pattern where Jewish minority status is granted or revoked based upon convenience—denied when seeking inclusion, weaponized when expressing distinct identity. Until Jews reclaim a narrative beyond these shifting labels—as an indigenous people with a resilient, multifaceted identity—the threats, whether professional gatekeeping or death threats over a plate of injera, are likely to continue unchecked.

The “who is a Jew” question was settled well before those headlines existed, in biblical times, by God. Our Jewish identity is not predicated on the color of our skin and never was. And Jewish identity is not subject to reassignment, either by committee or mob. News cycles change quickly. The headlines will be forgotten, and the Chosen People will endure—as they always have.

The haters are jealous of us. Because they weren’t chosen. But perhaps instead of being green with envy and seething with resentment, they should try to be more like us and less like themselves.

That would certainly go a long way toward making our world a better place.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Throughout 2024, I reported on the UN admitting there was sexual abuse by aid workers in Gaza but how it admits that it does not want to publicize the issue.

A year later, on September 30, 2025, AP published its own investigation confirming everything — and going further. Buried deep in the story are details that should have been an international scandal.

Two UNRWA workers are directly implicated.

A 35-year-old widow gave her number to a man in a UNRWA uniform while standing in an aid line. He made sexually explicit late-night calls. When she refused him, she got no aid. She complained to UNRWA — and was told she needed a recording as proof in order to report it. Her phone couldn't record, so she could not file a formal complaint. (UNRWA headquarters told AP they don't require proof.)

Sounds like something worth investigating, no?

But the second case is worse. A 38-year-old mother of six was promised a job by a man who drove her in a UN-marked vehicle — not to an office, but to an empty apartment. He told her to remove her hijab. He said she couldn't leave until she had sex with him. She complied out of fear.

The "job" materialized as a six-month UNRWA contract. He also gave her 100 shekels ($30) and a box of food. He was still contacting her with sexual demands as recently as summer 2025.

She never reported it: "I told myself that no one would believe it. Maybe they would say I am only saying this so that they would give me a job."

UNRWA's response was boilerplate deflection: "zero-tolerance policy," can't comment on individual cases, will "seek more information." Meanwhile their own PSEA network acknowledged 18 formal allegations of sexual exploitation linked to Gaza aid in 2024 — which their coordinator called "the tip of the iceberg." Four psychologists told AP they'd heard from dozens of women, some of whom became pregnant.

No major news organization - The New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, BBC, Guardian - ran the story. No feminist organizations issued statements. No "pro-Palestinian" groups amplified it. No academics studied it - I cannot find any academic papers on sexual abuse in Gaza by aid workers.

AP deserves credit for at least reporting it, but even so, it buried the lede. Its headline was "Women in Gaza say they were promised food, money or work in exchange for sexual interactions" That implies the threats came from random men - not UNRWA and other aid workers.

And AP never followed up, probably because so few of its affiliates decided the storywas important enough to run in the first place.

Even worse is other people quoted in the story, the very people who should be protecting women in Gaza. A Palestinian women's activist told AP, "Most of us prefer to keep the focus on the violence and violations committed by the Israeli occupation."

The director of the same organization went further: "Israel's siege on the Gaza Strip and the restrictions on humanitarian aid are what's forcing women to resort to this."

A UNRWA worker drives a woman to an empty apartment in a UN vehicle, tells her she can't leave until she has sex with him — and this is Israel's fault according to Gaza women activists. If this is support for Gaza women, I hate to know what reckless disregard looks like.

The contrast with how news media report on allegations of sexual abuse by Israel is striking. When allegations emerged from Sde Teiman detention, CNN produced seven investigations, the UN issued a dedicated report, academics published papers, Wikipedia created an article, and legal institutes published analyses.

But when UN and other aid workers sexually abuse women in Gaza - virtual silence, or blaming Israel.

These women are being failed three times — by the men who exploited them, by the UN and other Gaza NGOs, and by every international NGO and news media that decided their stories weren't worth telling. And it is hard to escape the conclusion that the reason for this suppression of coverage is exactly what the Gaza aid worker said - everyone prefers to keep the focus on Israel, and helping these women is seen as supporting Israel's case.

Which is how antisemitism hurts even the women of Gaza.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Part 3 of my analysis of the 2026 Draft Palestinian Constitution

Hamas senior official Bassem Naim denounced the new Palestinian draft constitution as "a violation of the noble rights of our Palestinian people" and "a failed attempt by the PA to save itself from the developments of history."

Why does Hamas object to a constitution that is designed to destroy Israel? Because its structure bans Hamas from having weapons - but allows terror groups under the PLO umbrella to continue to murder Jews.

And to Hamas, that's not fair.

Article 154 of the constitution states: "It is prohibited to establish any military or security formations or organizations or military or semi-military groups outside the scope of the security forces, whether they are individuals or units."

At first glance, this sounds comprehensive and reasonable - the state must have a monopoly on arms. This is pretty standard. (Let's ignore that Abbas promised European leaders that his state would be demilitarized altogether.)

But Article 154 is a state law. It binds entities operating within the state framework. And the constitution allows an entire tier of authority that operates above the state: the PLO.

Article 11 declares that the establishment of the state "does not diminish" the PLO's status (until Israel is destroyed via "right of return") The preamble specifies that the PLO "continues to perform its national responsibilities according to the National Covenant." The PLO operates under its own charter, not under the constitution. The state has no authority over it.

This distinction determines which armed groups the constitution can touch — and which it can't.

The PLO is an umbrella organization made up of constituent factions. The major ones with active armed wings include:

Fatah (Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades) — Abbas's own movement
PFLP (Abu Ali Mustafa Brigades) — a Marxist-Leninist organization designated as a terrorist group by the US, EU, Canada, Japan, and others
DFLP (National Resistance Brigades)
Various smaller factions

But these groups are not PLO members:

Hamas (Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades)
Palestinian Islamic Jihad (Al-Quds Brigades)

The constitutional logic is straightforward. Fatah's Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades can be characterized as a PLO faction activity. The PLO operates above the state, under its own charter. Article 154 doesn't reach it. The same applies to the PFLP — an organization that has carried out airplane hijackings, assassinations, and suicide bombings, and whose armed wing continues to operate. Under this constitution, its militia enjoys the same PLO shelter as Fatah's. The DFLP is not a designated terror organization under the US and EU, but it participated in the October 7 attacks. But - it's legal.

Hamas and Islamic Jihad have no such shelter. They are not PLO members. Their only legal existence is within the state framework, where Article 154 explicitly prohibits their armed wings. Hamas is a political party, Islamic Jihad is not. They can be disarmed, disbanded, and prosecuted — constitutionally.

Abbas told Macron he would ensure that Hamas disarms. The constitution delivers on that promise — and only that promise. It provides a constitutional basis for suppressing Hamas and Islamic Jihad while preserving the armed capacity of Fatah and every other PLO faction through a loophole the size of the PLO charter.

This isn't an accident or an oversight. It allows the Palestinian leaders to say that the constitution "prohibits militias." It provides a legal framework for disarming Hamas, which is what the US, France, and Israel all demanded. It checks those boxes.

But it also preserves Fatah's and the PFLP's armed capability entirely. The Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades and Abu Ali Mustafa Brigades have carried out shootings, bombings, and rocket attacks against Israeli civilians — yet they operate under PLO authority, not state authority, and are constitutionally untouchable.

And it ensures that if Hamas ever tried to join the PLO — as various reconciliation talks have proposed over the years — its armed wing would suddenly acquire the same constitutional protection as Fatah's. The door isn't closed; it's a mechanism for future leverage.

The irony is that Hamas's objection — that the constitution was "written under French supervision" to meet the demands of outsiders — accidentally highlights the real problem. The constitution was written to appear to meet French demands while actually doing the opposite. France wanted demilitarization; it got selective disarmament of Abbas's rivals. France wanted democratic reform; it got a democratic mirage under a PLO dictatorship. France wanted an end to pay-for-slay; it got pay-for-slay as an unamendable constitutional right.

The PFLP hijacked an Air France plane and separated Jews from non-Jews at Entebbe in 1976. A PFLP operativ, Carlos the Jackal, bombed Paris in the 1980s. . The PFLP participated in the October 7 massacre that killed 42 French citizens. And France helped draft a constitution that gives the PFLP's armed wing a constitutional safe harbor.

Someone should ask Macron how he feels about that.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

02/17 Links Pt2: The West's Suicidal Empathy; Emmanuel Macron: France Needs Jews in Order to Remain Itself; Trial of man accused of killing Paul Kessler in 2023 to begin

From Ian:

The West's Suicidal Empathy

Professor Gad Saad, 61, born in Lebanon to a Jewish family that fled during the civil war, is the author of The Parasitic Mind - How Infectious Ideas Are Killing Common Sense. In it, he uses the imagery of viruses and parasites to describe how harmful cultural ideas can hijack public discourse, academia, and social institutions, damaging freedom of expression, critical thinking, and basic logic of ostensibly rational human beings.

"Those who want to control us try to control both our cognitive system and our emotional system," Prof. Saad explained. "In my new book, Suicidal Empathy,...I focus on the way they try to manipulate our emotions."

"Empathy is a wonderful thing that every social creature needs. But like everything else in life, empathy must be applied in the right amount, in the right situation, and toward the right objects. When it's applied incorrectly, it harms the person possessing it to the point of threatening their existence. In my book, I examine a long series of domestic and foreign policy issues where the West adopts approaches that endanger its existence, and I show how they all stem from suicidal empathy."

Suicidal empathy works overtime when it comes to Israel. "If you go to study in Middle Eastern studies programs at any institution of higher learning in the West, they teach you that Israelis are white colonialists, devoid of any ancestral rights to the land they conquered, that they're evil exploiters oppressing the noble and peaceful Palestinians, who opened the door to white Jews from Austria and Russia, and the Jews exploited the opportunity to steal the land from its owners."

"Islamist groups don't hide that they intend to conquer the West through three methods - the womb, immigration, and exploiting the West's freedoms against it. Why does the West refuse to see this clearly?...The West tries to be understanding, compassionate, considerate, and generous toward other cultures, assuming they'll reciprocate in kind, while other cultures interpret the West's behavior as a sign of weakness....Blind Westerners mistakenly think that the values embedded in their culture are also dear to other cultures' hearts - and nothing could be further from the truth."

Two years ago, Prof. Saad was pushed out of Concordia University, which had been his academic home for many years. His presence on campus became too dangerous, literally. The same Jew-hatred he knew in Lebanon caught up with him even in distant Canada. Now he teaches at the University of Mississippi.

Emmanuel Macron: France Needs Jews in Order to Remain Itself

Too often, sentences handed down for antisemitic offenses and crimes seem derisory. Too often, the antisemitic nature of such acts struggles to be recognized. We will strengthen training for magistrates in this area. And to ensure transparency and truth, I want precise monitoring of sentences and sanctions to be established. On this basis, the Government and Parliament will work to strengthen penalties for antisemitic and racist acts.

Our elected officials are the sentinels of the Republic and must remain so. Justice has been seized regarding statements made by some of them, and the judiciary is doing its work independently. For the future, I wish to see the establishment of mandatory ineligibility penalties for antisemitic, racist, and discriminatory acts or statements.

School, justice, elected officials—the mobilization must be general: that of the State, the Government, all public services, and everyone in the Republic. Ladies and gentlemen, there have been too many words; there have been too many deaths. The time has come for action and for an uncompromising patriotic and republican mobilization.

The mobilization that follows in the footsteps of Zola, Jaurès, Clemenceau, and Picquart, who defended Dreyfus. And on July 12 next year, for the first time, we will hold a national day of commemoration for Alfred Dreyfus.

The mobilization that honors Robert Badinter, his humanism, and his love of freedom.

That honors Marc Bloch—who will be inducted into the Panthéon on June 23—who liked to say that he claimed to be Jewish only in the face of an antisemite.

That recognizes itself in de Gaulle, who carried the Republic with him, far from the state antisemitism of Vichy, Pétain, and Laval.

The mobilization of all our contemporary struggles, from which we will yield nothing.

Ilan Halimi had his whole life ahead of him. The oak tree we plant here at the Élysée will not restore the years taken nor fill the void left behind. But through it, Ilan’s memory will live in the hearts and minds of all who pass through these halls—as a reminder and as a demand.

What does this tree tell us above all—ilan, meaning “tree” in Hebrew? That the place of this fight against antisemitism is here, because this fight is existential for France and for the Republic. For as Abbé Grégoire proclaimed when he affirmed the entry of Jews into French citizenship, “France without Jews is a tree without branches.”

And the Republic is unrootable, just like Ilan’s memory now rooted here. They may try to uproot them all; they will never exhaust the republican sap or the French spirit. In the end, there will always be one left—and one is enough. And let every French woman and every French man say it to themselves: They are that last person who carries the honor of all and must take up every fight.

To Ilan Halimi, to his family, to all victims of antisemitism, to all of you—I swear that in this struggle, the Republic will prevail. Because the Republic is you. It is us. It is, at every second, the person who fights for the dignity of another.

Yes—we will prevail.

Long live the Republic. Long live France.

Trial of man accused of killing 69-year-old Jew in LA area in 2023 to begin

Loay Abdel Fattah Alnaji, who is accused of killing a 69-year-old Jewish man at nearby pro-Israel and anti-Israel rallies on Nov. 5, 2023, is scheduled to go on trial on Feb. 18 in Ventura County Superior Court in California.

Alnaji, 52, allegedly killed Paul Kessler less than a month after the Hamas-led terrorist attacks in Israel on Oct. 7. He has pleaded not guilty to multiple felonies, including involuntary manslaughter by an unlawful act, per the court docket. He was released on $50,000 bail.

The district attorney’s office alleges that an altercation between Alnaji, a computer science professor at Moorpark College, and Kessler resulted in the latter’s death. Alnaji was among the anti-Israel protesters, and Kessler was part of a smaller contingent of pro-Israel protesters that day in Thousand Oaks, Calif., near Los Angeles.

Alnaji allegedly hit Kessler with a megaphone. The county medical examiner’s office determined that he died from blunt force trauma from the megaphone and then hitting his head on the pavement.

Ron Bamieh, Alnaji’s attorney, said on Oct. 16, 2025, that Kessler “put his cell phone in my client’s face and said, ‘Baby killer. Baby killer. Baby killer.’”

“My client, with his left hand, swiped at the cell phone to knock it out of his face; the bullhorn hit Mr. Kessler on the face and the head, and Mr. Kessler turned, stood for two to three seconds, and then collapsed to the ground,” he said.

A few months before that, Bamieh said that Kessler, whom he called an “Israel advocate,” had a brain tumor that caused him to have balance issues, so “we’re saying it’s just as reasonable that he fell because of the tumor.”

The lawyer also said it is “reasonable” for someone to attempt to swipe away a cell phone put in their face and that Alnaji hit Kessler in the face accidentally.

The district attorney’s office stated on May 15, 2024, that “while antisemitic hate speech was heard at the Nov. 5, 2023 rally, there is no evidence those words were said by Alnaji.”

Alnaji faces up to four years if convicted on all charges, the office said.

02/17 Links Pt1: The End of the Palestinian Authority; BHL: Francesca Albanese Must Go; Melanie Phillips: The Unholy Alliance - Why the Left Loves Jihad; The Child Soldiers of Gaza

From Ian:

Netanyahu: "Gaza Will Not Pose a Threat Ever Again to the State of Israel"

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations in Jerusalem on Sunday:
In his recent meeting with President Trump, "I expressed my skepticism of any deal with Iran, because, frankly, Iran is reliable on one thing, they lie and they cheat. But I said that if a deal is to be reached, it should have several components that we believe are important."

"The first is that all enriched material has to leave Iran. The second is that there shall be no enrichment capability - not stopping the enrichment process, but dismantling the equipment and the infrastructure that allows you to enrich in the first place. And the third is to deal also with the questions of ballistic missiles....The fourth is, dismantle the axis of terror that Iran has built....The last thing is...distrust and always verify. So there has to be real inspections, substantive inspections."

"We also spoke about Gaza....Hamas must first be disarmed and then Gaza must be demilitarized. Disarmed means that it must give up weapons....They did the worst massacre of the Jewish people since the Holocaust with AK-47 [assault rifles], 60,000 of them. They have to go....Gaza will not pose a threat ever again to the State of Israel."

"The first requirement to defeat antisemitism is to fight antisemitism. It's the only way. There's no other way....In front of these vilifications, do not cower. Do not bend. Do not bow your head. Fight back, because people respect those who respect themselves....Silence will not help. Looking askance will not help, fight back."

Seth Mandel: The End of the Palestinian Authority

Every so often, Israel takes actions that the Palestinians object to on specious grounds. Recently, for example, Israel repealed a Jordanian regulation that prohibited Jews from buying private land in Judea and Samaria, and proposed an extension of Jerusalem-adjacent construction. These, we are told, endanger the possibility of a contiguous Palestinian state. But since the Palestinians have repeatedly rejected an offer of sovereignty over that land, we know that objection is a lie meant for public consumption.

Whatever the Palestinian leadership is after, it sure isn’t statehood on the West Bank. And that is why Bandar wanted to cry. That is why Clinton never forgave Arafat and never wavered from the truth of Camp David, despite the fact that his party became so hostile to hearing it.

What the spurned leaders realized at Camp David was not that the Palestinian leadership drives a hard bargain, but that the Palestinian leadership isn’t bargaining. It isn’t negotiating at all. It’s for show.

Looking back, among the most ridiculous excuses for Arafat’s rejection of the deal is that the deal itself was lacking. It wasn’t, but once Israel signed on, Arafat would’ve been in the driver’s seat until his dying day anyway. The world would consider Israel to be locked in, and there is no way the deal would be allowed to collapse over a square kilometer here or there. Not single person on earth believes otherwise.

The reason the Palestinian leadership turned down the offer was not because the offer was worth turning down statehood for. It was because the Palestinians would not sign a permanent record that said they had agreed to end the conflict and live in peace with Israel.

The Palestinian leadership doesn’t want a little more land here and there. It wants to be in a state of perpetual conflict in which Israel’s erasure remains on the table. Which means not only that, yes, Oslo is dead. It also means the Palestinian Authority exists in name only.

NYPost: Trump’s Board of Peace and Hamas cannot co-exist

One huge question hangs over Thursday’s meeting of President Donald Trump’s Board of Peace: What’s the plan to de-Hamas-ify Gaza?

The president tells The Post the gathering will focus on how to direct the $5 billion that board members have so far committed to spend to rebuild the war-torn strip, with the full bill estimated to hit $70 billion.

Gaza is just the first test; Trump hopes the Board of Peace can play a role in resolving all manner of global crises where the United Nations simply flounders.

But first it’ll have to succeed in moving the prez’s Gaza peace plan to its next stage.

Nickolay Mladenov, the board’s director-general, cites three priorities: effective government, weapons decommissioned and Israeli withdrawal.

None of that’s possible if armed and organized terrorists remain; all Hamas’ fighters (and those of smaller terror groups) must disarm in exchange for amnesty, or accept exile.

Right now, they’re not just sticking around, they’re controlling the half of Gaza that Israel has pulled out of, and regularly attacking the IDF across the yellow line.

If they’re not defanged, the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza will be a thin fiction, unable to stop the terrorists from continuing to call the shots.

And diverting much, maybe most, “rebuilding” money to re-arming for a larger assault on Israelis, as ever with a preference for raping, killing and otherwise terrorizing civilians.

Last night I published an analysis of the new Palestinian draft constitution showing how its interlocking provisions make peace with Israel not just unlikely but unconstitutional. The response has been significant already.

Several readers and journalists pointed out that the constitution also appears to enshrine the "pay for slay" system — payments to terrorists and their families. They're right. But they're missing the deeper story.

Article 44 of the draft constitution states: "The law organizes the provision of comprehensive care for the families of martyrs, the wounded, and prisoners, and those released, in preservation of their national dignity and their humanitarian and living needs."

That's pay for slay written into constitutional law. "Martyrs" is the Palestinian term for those who died carrying out attacks. "Prisoners" includes those convicted of murdering Israeli civilians. The constitution doesn't just permit these payments — it mandates "comprehensive care" as a matter of constitutional obligation.

But here's what most of the reporting has missed.

On June 9, 2025, Mahmoud Abbas sent a letter to Emmanuel Macron and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman making a series of commitments designed to secure European recognition of Palestinian statehood. Among them, according to France's own official statement: "He confirmed the end of allowances for the families of prisoners convicted of terrorism offences."

France cited this promise — on its own government website — as one of the specific commitments justifying recognition. Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot repeated it at the UN conference on July 28. In November, when Abbas visited Paris, Macron announced that France would join an audit authority to verify that the pay-for-slay system was being dismantled. Abbas even fired his finance minister, Omar Bitar, for authorizing payments through the old mechanism — a gesture designed to show Macron he was serious.

Then Abbas drafted a constitution that makes payments to prisoners and martyrs' families a fundamental constitutional right.

Normally, constitutions can be amended. But significant parts of this one cannot.

Article 44 sits within Chapter II of the constitution — "Public Rights and Freedoms." Article 156 states: "It is not permissible to conduct any constitutional amendment to any of the following: 1. The provisions related to the guarantees of fundamental rights and freedoms provided for in this Constitution."

Pay for slay is not just constitutional law. It is unamendable constitutional law. No future Palestinian government, no matter how reform-minded, no matter what it promises Western donors, can constitutionally eliminate these payments. A Palestinian president who tried to end the system as part of a peace deal could be challenged in the Constitutional Court — and the Court would be legally obligated to rule against him.

Abbas promised Macron he would end pay for slay. Then he drafted a constitution that makes it permanent and irrevocable. France helped him write it.

The "right of return" is similarly unamendable. Article 40 says ""No Palestinian may be deported from the territory of the homeland, prevented from entering it or returning to it." The constitution does not define "homeland" but Palestinian rhetoric, the PLO logo, schoolbook maps and logic itself shows that Palestinians regard all of Israel as its "homeland" - that is exactly what "right of return" means. Article 12, which is not the unamendable part, can be shown to help with the definition: "ensuring the right of return for refugees according to international legitimacy resolutions" uses the same word, "return," and clearly refers to all of British Mandate Palestine.

Western diplomats have spent decades treating Palestinian maximalist positions as opening bids — things that would naturally be compromised in negotiations. This constitution shows that their maximalist positions are also their minimalist positions - the 2026 constitution prohibits amending the "right of return," paying terrorists, and even recognizing Israel itself because it is a genocidal state according to the document.

The pattern is always the same. A Palestinian leader tells a Western audience what it wants to hear: we want peace, we want democracy, we'll reform, we'll demilitarize. The Western leader announces a breakthrough. Recognition follows, or funding, or diplomatic support. Then the Palestinian leader goes home and does exactly what he was always going to do.

Abbas told Macron he would:

Condemn October 7 ✓ (in the letter — but the constitution celebrates "the continuous Palestinian struggle that has never ceased")
End pay for slay ✗ (the constitution makes it an unamendable right)
Reform textbooks to remove hate speech ✗ (the constitution embeds "genocide" as foundational fact)
Demilitarize ✗ (the constitution never mentions demilitarization and places the PLO, which has never renounced armed resistance, permanently above the state)
Hold elections ✓ (within a constitutional framework that makes peace illegal)
Accept the two-state solution ✗ (the constitution claims all the land and defines no borders)

Macron got two checkmarks out of six. And even those two are hollow — condemning October 7 in a private letter while drafting a constitution that celebrates perpetual struggle, and promising elections within a constitution that enshrines that the real entity that controls all decisions is the PLO, not the "State of Palestine," and the PLO self-appoints its leaders regardless of what the people want.

This isn't a failure of Palestinian reform. It's a success of Palestinian strategy. Abbas extracted recognition, funding, and diplomatic support from the most powerful nations in Europe, and in exchange he delivered a constitution that enshrines everything those nations claimed they were working to change.

For thirty years, the international community has operated on the assumption that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a territorial dispute that can be resolved through negotiation, compromise, and mutual recognition. The 2026 constitution is a definitive statement that the Palestinian leadership does not share this assumption and never has.

Every nation that recognized Palestine in September 2025 did so in the name of the two-state solution. The state they recognized has now produced a constitution that makes the two-state solution unconstitutional. They need to decide which commitment they take seriously — because they cannot honor both.

The 60-day public comment period on the constitution closes around April 11. Every government that recognized Palestine should be demanding answers. Starting with France, which didn't just recognize the state but helped draft the document that makes peace impossible and pay for slay permanent.

Part 1 of this analysis, covering the full constitutional framework, is here. The full text of the Draft Constitution of the State of Palestine (February 2026), in unofficial English translation, is available here.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)