Wednesday, December 06, 2023

12/06 Links Pt2: UN head invokes rare article calling on UNSC to act on Gaza war; Why Ivy League universities are so blasé about genocide

From Ian:

Gerald M. Steinberg: Bias and Betrayal
Human Rights Watch (HRW) is routinely described as one of the world’s most powerful non-governmental organisations (NGOs), but it is tainted by a biased political agenda and troubling questions about the ethics of its fundraising. The salience of these problems has only increased in the wake of a high-visibility campaign following the October 7th Hamas massacre, during which 1,200 Israelis were brutally murdered and 240 more were taken hostage.

In response to the October 7th atrocities, HRW officials rushed to condemn Israel’s military campaign with repeated accusations of war crimes, apartheid, collective punishment, and similar terms. For a senior employee, who had worked at HRW for 13 years, this response crossed a moral red line, and she circulated a bitter email, confirming the pervasive bias and lack of credibility that have previously been detailed by the organisation’s critics (including this author). In parallel, the publication of a leaked document appeared to show that HRW received $3.75 million from Qatar in 2018, a conflict of interest that casts further doubt on the organisation’s commitment to its stated mission.

These developments raise a number of important questions: How did this organisation, established to promote the principles of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, become a world leader in political propaganda, apparently willing to accept donations from some of the world’s most oppressive and brutal regimes? How did an initial emphasis on detailed and verifiable research reports on global human-rights issues degenerate into narrow political advocacy tracts?

A Changed Mission
In order to understand HRW’s transformation, we should begin with its founding in 1978. The NGO was established by Robert Bernstein, the CEO of a major publishing company, after he returned from a trip to the Soviet Union where he met with prominent dissidents. Three years earlier, Washington and Moscow had signed the Helsinki Accords, which included a commitment to “respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms,” and Bernstein’s new NGO (initially called Helsinki Watch) began by documenting compliance from Moscow. It quickly grew into an influential watchdog, and its reports and other activities brought international pressure to bear first on the Kremlin, and then on dictatorial regimes worldwide as its remit and operations expanded. Unlike other NGOs such as Amnesty International, which relied on claims by activists, HRW produced detailed academic-style research reports based on verifiable information.

Bernstein served as the organisation’s chair until 1998, when he retired from active involvement. Five years earlier, executive director Aryeh Neier had left and Ken Roth was appointed to take his place—a position he would hold until 2022. Following the collapse of the USSR and the end of the Cold War, Roth began to pursue a very different agenda, anchored in an anti-Western, anti-American, and postcolonial ideology that was and remains popular on university campuses. This simplistic perspective divides the world—subjectively and a priori—into opposing groups: aggressor states that are presumptively guilty of aggression and war crimes, and victims who cannot be held accountable for even the most egregious acts of brutality and terror. Under the pretext of promoting human rights, Israel went from being a parliamentary democracy to a neocolonialist oppressor, while Palestinian terrorists—including Hamas—became decolonial activists exercising their legitimate “right of resistance” by murdering hundreds of Israeli citizens.

This ideological shift was only amplified by indications that Roth harbored personal animus toward Zionism, regardless of Israel’s borders or policies, and he repeatedly attacked its use of military power in self-defense. Roth frequently refers to his father’s experience as a child in Nazi Germany (until 1938) to justify these obsessive condemnations, and makes frequent use of his social-media accounts to attack Israel. At times, he even employs a distorted text from the Jewish Bible in an effort to provide his hostility with some Jewish authenticity. In a 2006 letter to the New York Sun, Roth described Israel’s response to a lethal Hezbollah attack as “an eye for an eye” and “the morality of some more primitive moment.” In response, the Sun ran an editorial calling this “a slur on the Jewish religion itself that is breathtaking in its ignorance. ... To suggest that Judaism is a "primitive" religion incompatible with contemporary morality is to engage in supersessionism, the de-legitimization of Judaism, the basis of much anti-Semitism.”
Gadi Taub: Why Israel Is Target #1 of the Global Left
Antisemitism has evolved through a breathtaking dialectical leap: It is now conveyed through the lingo of human rights. This is how a host of liberals and progressives—many of them Jews—have been seduced into supporting NGOs that claim to promote human rights, but are in fact promoting a racist view of the Jewish people. They do so by singling out the Jews as the one people not partaking in the universal right to self-determination, and Israel alone among the nations as the one state which has no right to exist. Singling out the Jews for special hostile treatment is, of course, the very definition of antisemitism.

How has this old-new antisemitism become a legitimate, even respectable position once again? And how did the idea of human rights, which purports to serve as a universal standard, get distorted so badly as to yield an argument for the targeting and exclusion of Jews?

One part of the answer is that academia and the media have created an Industry of Lies, as the title of Israeli leftist journalist Ben-Dror Yemini’s book accurately called it. By using gross double standards, this industry portrays Israel as a uniquely monstrous violator of human rights. The world’s actual egregious violators of human rights—such as China, North Korea, Cuba, Iran, and most of Israel’s neighbors—don’t receive a fraction of the moralizing attention that Israel gets.

But that is not the whole story. Another part of the answer lies in the way the human rights agenda has been channeled globally into undermining national democracies in general. This trend usually presents itself as a critique of nationalism, understood by the global left as proto-fascism permanently poised to break into actual fascism at any moment. The argument is admittedly catchy: If nationalism is particularistic and exclusive, then human rights, which are universal, are the answer. Catchy, that is, only if you conceive of nationalism as a “negation of others,” as opposed to the particular manifestation of a universal right to national self-determination.

What is more troubling is that behind the declared critique of nationalism lies the undeclared attack on democracy. Because to “transcend” nationalism is to “transcend” the nation-state. When those nation-states are democracies, that means “transcending” democracy too. It means undermining the one effective framework by which citizens exercise political control over their common fate. Imposing a universal regime of human rights from above, through international institutions, is therefore a direct attack on the right to elect the government under which one lives—a right which is the single most effective check against tyranny, and therefore the linchpin of liberty and all other human and civil rights.

Both parts of the answer—the demonization of Israel and the attack on democracy—were clearly manifest in the Durban conference of 2001, beginning with its Orwellian title: World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance. The conference turned into a festival of blood libels against the Jewish nation-state—in the name of tolerance, of course. But it also exhibited the rising trend of using the idea of human rights to undermine democracy.

John Fonte was the first to point out, a year after the conference, that the new transnational globalist agenda was utilizing the United Nations and the conference to undermine the principle of government by the consent of the governed. Forty-seven American human rights activists, Fonte noted, sent a petition to the UN’s high commissioner for human rights, under the title “A Call to Action to the United Nations.” The petition demanded that the U.N. impose on the U.S. an agenda that the U.S. government rejected. Fonte went on to write a landmark book, Sovereignty or Submission: Will Americans Rule Themselves or Be Ruled by Others?, detailing the many ways in which new globalist elites are bypassing democratic sovereignty in pursuit of policies that the citizens of democratic nation-states have not consented to.

The case of Israel is most instructive because the general trend of anti-democratic liberalism acquires special poignancy in the one instance where a nation-state’s very right to exist is being questioned. The effort to undermine the Jewish nation-state does not therefore need to camouflage itself. It can be explicit about both its aim and its means: the destruction of Israel in the name of human rights.
Brendan O'Neill: Why Ivy League universities are so blasé about genocide
Yet it seems clear to me that our shuffling, nervous Ivy League heads have very little in common with yesteryear’s valiant warriors for the liberty to speak. Witness their entirely administrative attitude to the question of genocide-speak. These doyennes of the Byzantine bureaucracy of the 21st-century campus seem obsessed with ‘the rules’. The only way they can understand the profound question of whether genocide advocacy is permissible speech is by referring to their universities’ carefully drawn speech codes. They avoid the immense moral challenge thrown up by a question like ‘Should genocide advocacy enjoy freedom?’ in preference for citing the rulebook. Where liberals of the past thought in deep moral terms, this lot thinks only technically. They end up defending the right to call for genocide for the wrong reasons – not because, in Aryeh Neier’s view, we must defend freedom even for speech we hate, but because they’ve memorised that dusty document in HR’s top drawer that sets out exactly when words become ‘violence’.

Worse, there’s the double standards. To many observers of yesterday’s hearing, it will have felt nothing short of horrifying that the representatives of campuses overrun by petty and insane forms of censorship should be so chilled about the most racist speech imaginable. What the layman knows of the Anglo-American campus in 2023 is that you can be mobbed and reprimanded and disinvited for the slightest transgressions against correct-think. That students, often with the blessing of administrators, have constructed ‘safe spaces’ in which to hide from the horror of a disagreeable idea. That trigger warnings have been whacked on works of literature to shield students from scary storylines and adult themes. And yet now we see Ivy League presidents essentially saying: ‘Yeah, it’s okay to call for the murder of all Jews.’

Jews, clearly, are not covered by the new moral order in the academy. They do not enjoy the same security from offence that is offered to other identity groups. All of us have the right to a ‘safe space’, ‘a refuge’, where we might feel ‘insulated from pressures, insults and impositions’, says the Penn website. Not Jews, though? They might have to run the gamut of genocidal hate? A ‘sense of belonging’ is ‘critical for students’, says MIT, which is why we ‘strive to create an environment that is welcoming’. But not for Jewish students? They might have to suck up hearing people call for the gassing of their race? Harvard promises to be a ‘safe environment’ for everyone regardless of their ‘race and ethnicity, gender, LGBTQ+ [status]’, etc. And yet Jewish students might hypothetically have to listen to some Goebbels fanboy with blue hair and a Palestinian scarf praying for Jewish extermination? Make it make sense.

Clearly, the safe-space system that now pertains on campuses does not extend to Jews. No safe space for you. No sense of belonging. No shield from triggering. Let’s be clear: Jews are second-class citizens in the modern academy. Where racist regimes of old forbade Jews from entering certain professions or marrying gentiles, the new woke regime denies them access to the new moral conventions – good and ill – of campus life. This is identity politics in action, in all its wickedness and bigotry. This new hyper-racial regime brutally organises people according to their ‘oppression’ or ‘privilege’, offering safety to the former while exposing the latter to ridicule, judgement and, we now know, open calls for their mass slaughter. So where some students are protected from the microaggression of being asked ‘Where are you from?’, Jewish students can be exposed to people calling for Jews to be killed. Thus anti-Semitism is re-institutionalised, under the cover of woke.

What should Jewish students do about their blatantly racist exclusion from campus convention? I agree with Batya Ungar-Sargon: instead of fighting for inclusion in the safe space, they should fight against the safe space. Instead of agitating for their fragility to be respected alongside that of other minority groups, they should revolt against the entire cult of fragility. The hypocrisy, illiberalism and outright racism of the new campus ideologies of ‘safety’ and ‘inclusion’ have been starkly exposed in the aftermath of 7 October, and such a poisonous moral order deserves dismantling, not expansion. It was the academy’s turn against reason and enlightenment that landed us in the horrendous situation where students are not allowed to say a man is not a woman but they can call for every Jew on Earth to be murdered – only with the restoration of reason and enlightenment might sense finally return.
Why the young are falling for Hamas propaganda
Throughout the Anglo-American world, many young people seem to have thrown in their lot with Hamas. Indeed, a recent poll carried out by More in Common shows that 24 per cent of 18- to 24-year-olds would characterise Hamas as freedom fighters.

That nearly a quarter of Zoomers have chosen to see Hamas, a vicious Islamist terror group, as liberatory heroes is all too telling. It suggests that millions of young people throughout the West identify with a movement that is unambiguously hostile to their society and way of life. Many of those who regard Hamas as freedom fighters are also likely to give more credence to Hamas propaganda than to mainstream news sources. As a result, over 30 per cent of Zoomers now believe the atrocities committed by Hamas on 7 October are a fiction invented by Israel or the West.

There is considerable evidence that even before 7 October young people tended to be more supportive of Palestine than of Israel. After 7 October, Zoomers stood out for being the generation most likely to support anti-Israel protests. These sentiments are particularly prevalent among university students where the caricature of Israel as a ‘settler colony’ holds sway.

So what is it about Gen Z that has encouraged so many of that cohort to sympathise with or even support Hamas? And why are so many young people excusing the atrocities Hamas committed on 7 October or even denying they ever happened?

Many commentators have found a familiar scapegoat. They are blaming Gen Z’s pro-Hamas views on social media, noting the role played by influencers on TikTok and Instagram, or pointing to the huge amounts of pro-Hamas videos and propaganda on these platforms. They also claim that young people are afraid of saying the ‘wrong’ thing about the conflict, in case it leads to being singled out by the vocal pro-Hamas mob.

Social media’s role is no doubt significant. Unlike older members of society, who still get most of their news from mainstream outlets, the younger generation relies on social media to inform themselves about current events. They are thus much more likely to encounter sceptical takes on mainstream reporting. But it’s important not to overstate social media’s influence. A TikTok influencer does not have magical powers that can automatically make young people perceive an atrocity as a blow for freedom.

To understand properly why many young people are so uncritically anti-Israel, we need to look instead at the influence of identity politics. Make no mistake: identitarianism suffuses Gen Z’s worldview. It dominates Anglo-American popular culture. And it has become institutionalised in schools and universities.


As UN chief uses rare clause to urge truce, Israeli envoy says he ‘reached a new moral low’
Israeli Ambassador to the UN Gilad Erdan castigates UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, calling on him to resign, after Guterres invoked a rare clause and prompted the Security Council to discuss the humanitarian situation in Gaza and call for a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas.

Guterres wrote the letter invoking Article 99 of the UN’s charter, which states that “the secretary-general may bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security.”

It is the first time the UN chief has invoked the article since taking office in 2017, and the first time any secretary-general has made use of it since 1989.

“Today, the Secretary-General has reached a new moral low,” writes Erdan in a tweet. “The Secretary-General decided to activate this rare clause only when it allows him to put pressure on Israel, which is fighting the Nazi Hamas terrorists. This is more proof of the Secretary-General’s moral distortion and his bias against Israel.

“The Secretary-General’s call for a ceasefire is actually a call to keep Hamas’s reign of terror in Gaza. Instead of the Secretary-General explicitly pointing to Hamas’s responsibility for the situation and calling on the terrorist leaders to turn themselves in and return the hostages, thus ending the war, the Secretary-General chooses to continue playing into Hamas’ hands,” Erdan says.

“I again call on the Secretary-General to resign immediately — the UN needs a Secretary-General who supports the war on terror, not a Secretary-General who acts according to the script written by Hamas.”


UN Palestine envoy: Demands that Hamas release hostages 'unacceptable'
United Nations Special Rapporteur on Palestinian Territories Francesca Albanese, who previously claimed that Israel does not have the right to protect itself from the Hamas terrorist organization, stated that calls for Hamas to release the hostages it kidnapped on October 7 are "unacceptable."

Albanese responded to a tweet by former State Department official Dennis Ross, who wrote: "The suffering of Palestinians in Gaza is real. Why not call on Hamas to release all hostages and agree to have its leaders leave Gaza. They could save Palestinians from paying a further price. Real support for Palestinians should produce such a call. Isn’t it time for that?"

The Special Rapporteur wrote in response: "Regrettably, this sounds like: - putting the onus to end the carnage in Gaza on the Palestinians, including those being slaughtered in Gaza; - justifying and deflecting the attention from the atrocities committed by the Israeli army in Gaza. Unacceptable."

In another tweet yesterday, Albanese stated: "Fellow Europeans, Italians, Germans: after the Holocaust, we should instinctively know that Genocide starts with dehumanizing the Other. If Israel's current attack agst Palestinians doesnt prompt our strong reaction, the darkest page of our recent history has taught us nothing."

Albanese has consistently defended Hamas in the aftermath of the massacre of over 1,200 people in southern Israel and the taking of about 240 hostages on October 7.

In November, during a speech to the National Press Club in Canberra, Australia, Albanese claimed that Israel had no right to engage in a war in response to the massacre, saying: “Israel cannot claim the right of self-defence against a threat that emanates from a territory it occupies, from a territory that is under belligerent occupation."
Israel booting top UN humanitarian official Hastings
Foreign Minister Eli Cohen says on X that he has canceled a visa for Lynn Hastings, the UN’s humanitarian coordinator in the Palestinian territories, over her refusal to speak out against Hamas.

Hastings has been a vocal critic of Israel’s offensive in Gaza and has led appeals for increased humanitarian aid in Gaza.

Israel has consistently panned the UN for its response to Hamas’s atrocities on October 7, further straining an already frayed relationship.

According to Ynet, Cohen has given Hastings, who is based in East Jerusalem, two weeks to leave the country.

“Whoever does not condemn Hamas over the massacre of 1,200 Israelis, kidnapping of old people and babies, horific torture and rape, and the use of Gazans as human shields, but does condemn Israel, a democratic country that defends its citizens, cannot serve the UN and will not enter Israel,” Cohen writes on X.

The UN said last week that it was informed by Israel that Hastings’s visa would not be renewed when it expires later this month, according to Reuters.
Freed Thai hostages: 'Israelis had it worse'
One of them was Manee Jirachat, who's been back in Thailand for just a few short days. He's happy to be home, but also pained by the memories of what he witnessed in the past seven weeks. He was kidnapped, held hostage, and saw friends being murdered.

"Physically, I'm fine," the 29-year-old told DW on his farm in Udon Thani. "My neck still hurts a bit."

The dull pain is from a rifle stock that one of his kidnappers rammed into his neck while driving him and other kidnapped laborers on to the back of a pickup.

"Once the truck was full, they shot two of my companions in the head," the young man recounted, head lowered. "Just because there was no room left for more hostages. I'll never forget the sight."

As the overcrowded pickup crossed the border into Gaza, Manee was sure he was headed into certain death. He and four other Thais, as well as two Israelis, were lead into a tunnel. They spent their first days in captivity tied up on a plastic sheet. Only after it was established that they were Thai citizens were they untied so they could walk through the tunnels a bit each day.

"The Israeli hostages had it worse," he said, recounting how guards would shout at them while the Thai hostages received medication.

The group of hostages was relocated within the tunnel network three times. After weeks of living in fear, the first glimmer of hope appeared. "The guards said we would be released during the ceasefire."

After 50 days underground, he was finally allowed to return home.
Spielberg speaks out against ‘unspeakable barbarity against Jews’ in Oct. 7 attacks
After two months of silence, Steven Spielberg made his first public remarks about the deadly October 7 Hamas attacks in Israel, calling them “unspeakable barbarity.”

“I never imagined I would see such unspeakable barbarity against Jews in my lifetime,” Spielberg said in a written feature published on Friday by the USC Shoah Foundation, an organization he founded in 1994 to record and preserve interviews with Holocaust survivors and other witnesses.

The foundation has begun collecting testimonies and accounts from survivors of the October 7 attacks as part of their Countering Antisemitism Through Testimony Collection initiative, a project that documents post-Holocaust antisemitism.

Countering antisemitism
Spielberg said the initiative is “an effort that will ensure that the voices of survivors will act as a powerful tool to counter the dangerous rise of antisemitism and hate.”

“Both initiatives – recording interviews with survivors of the October 7 attacks and the ongoing collection of Holocaust testimony – seek to fulfill our promise to survivors: that their stories would be recorded and shared in the effort to preserve history and to work toward a world without antisemitism or hate of any kind,” he said. “We must remain united and steadfast in these efforts.”

Some three weeks ago, Holocaust Survivors’ Foundation-USA published an open letter by its president, 94-year-old David Schaecter, calling on the Schindler’s List director to make a statement condemning the massacre.

Schaecter began the letter by expressing his admiration for Spielberg, especially for documenting the horrors of the Holocaust in Schindler’s List. He went on to describe how most of his family members were murdered in the Holocaust, and how he survived four years in Nazi camps, Auschwitz and Buchenwald, where he watched his brother die.
Islamic Antisemitism and its Leftist Twin

A Possible Future For Hamas Depends On One Thing
The question of the possible future of Hamas in Gaza is one that, tragically, now must be asked since the late November ceasefire has given Hamas the chance to refortify and resupply in their terrorist tunnels.

Dennis Ross, a U.S. envoy to the Middle East, admitted in an op-ed in the Washington Post in August 2014 that he put pressure on Israel to allow Hamas to import cement into Gaza.Ross acknowledged that he knew the cement might be misused. “At times, I argued with Israeli leaders and security officials, telling them they needed to allow more construction materials, including cement, into Gaza so that housing, schools and basic infrastructure could be built,” Ross wrote. “They countered that Hamas would misuse it, and they were right.”

We will never know if that cement was used to build the particular tunnel where Moshe Leiter was murdered. What we do know is that the cement was used to build thousands of terror tunnels in Gaza. And it is because of those tunnels that these Israeli soldiers had to go into Gaza and target the tunnels, one by one. That is what put them all in harm’s way and, it also must be said, allowed the terrorists to carry out October 7 in the first place. That is why Major Leiter and his fellow soldiers lost their lives on November 10.

But Ross is far from the only American to blame. Back in 2010, the Obama Administration began pressuring Israel to ease up on its blockade of cement and other building material to Gaza. Then Vice President Joe Biden told interviewer Charlie Rose, on Bloomberg TV: “We have put as much pressure and as much cajoling on Israel as we can to allow them to get building materials” into Gaza.

The international pressure on Israel intensified until finally, in 2013, the Israeli government caved in. The New York Times reported on September 17 that Israel had agreed “to allow building materials meant for private projects into the Gaza Strip for the first time in six years…Gaza has been struggling with a shortage of building materials…[An] Israeli official said that 350 trucks of cement, steel and concrete would cross into Gaza weekly.”

But thanks to all that pressure from the Obama-Biden Administration and the United Nations, Gaza received plenty of concrete for “humanitarian” purposes. And now we can see why Hamas was so anxious to get those building materials – in order to build its vast network of underground terror tunnels so it could murder Israelis more easily, culminating on October 7.

Giving “humanitarian aid” and “dual use” items to the people of Gaza will never bring peace and will only allow the terrorists to build more and better tunnels. Peace will only come when Hamas is eradicated along with their tunnels.


National Review The Editors: Kamala Harris’s Performative Scolding of Israel

Senate Democrats Foreign Aid Plan Could Put Taxpayer Dollars in Terrorists' Pockets

House Passes Resolution Equating Antisemitism with Anti-Zionism
The U.S. House of Representatives approved a resolution saying that anti-Zionism is antisemitism by 311 to 14.

95 Democrats voted in favor of the resolution, introduced by Jewish Republicans Max Miller of Ohio and David Kustoff of Tennessee, while 92 voted "present."

They introduced the resolution to affirm U.S. support for Jews in the wake of the spike in antisemitic rhetoric and actions spurred by the Israel-Hamas war.

Kustoff said, "We have seen an explosion, an absolute explosion, of antisemitic incidents, attacks, and harassment, in Israel, here in our own nation, and across the world."




With 92 Democrats voting ‘present,’ House calls anti-Zionism Jew-hatred

Seth Madel: Why Is Jerry Nadler Legitimizing Anti-Zionism?

Daniel Greenfield: Rep. Nadler, Rep. Raskin Defend ‘Anti-Zionism’

'Blinking Lights Everywhere': FBI Director Raises Alarm Over Terror Threat to US

Republican Rep. Thomas Massie is accused of anti-Semitism for sharing Drake meme suggesting Zionism controls Congress: Chuck Schumer calls it 'disgusting' and White House demands GOP leadership condemn him

Despite drop in incidents, US announces blacklisting of settlers

Trudeau's woke agenda fails to curb antisemitic outbreak

Canada lectures Israel on killing civilians? That's chutzpa

Poll: Israeli Optimism about the Future on the Rise despite War
Since the beginning of the war in Gaza, the Israeli Voice survey has found a rise in public optimism regarding the future of Israel's security.

In a Nov. 27-30 survey released Tuesday, 49.5% of Israeli Jews said they are optimistic about the future of national security, compared with 39% in September.

Among Israeli Arabs, 32% were optimistic about national security, compared with 15% in September.

87% of Jewish Israelis supported the resumption of the fighting in Gaza after the ceasefire.
Nearly half of Arab Israelis support Israel’s military response to Hamas, survey reveals

Israeli expert, regulator cast doubt on Oct. 7 insider trading report

IDF issues rare apology after strike kills Lebanese soldier

From Which River to Which Sea?
250 college students were asked if they sympathize with Palestinians' chant "From the river to the sea." Most said they supported the chant, 32.8% enthusiastically and 53.2% to a lesser extent.

But only 47% of the students who embrace the slogan were able to name the river and the sea.

Less than a quarter knew who Yasser Arafat was (10% thought he was the first prime minister of Israel).

There's no shame in being ignorant - unless one is screaming for the extermination of millions.

When 80 students who were shown on a map that a Palestinian state stretching from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea left no room for Israel, 75% changed their view.

Many students reduced their support for the slogan when they learned it would entail the subjugation, expulsion or annihilation of seven million Jewish and two million Arab Israelis.

In all, after learning a handful of basic facts, 67.8% of students went from supporting "from the river to sea" to rejecting the mantra.


iPolitics Commentator Whitewashes Anti-Israel Rallies, Dismisses Their Antisemitic Intentions

Israel-Hamas War 2023

Susan Sarandon is dropped by production company after her anti-Jewish rant at pro-Palestine rally in NYC

'Anti-Semite' who hurled abuse at Israeli tourist and said 'Hamas should kill more of you' before hitting him in NYC's Times Square is hit with hate crime charges

EXCLUSIVE Popular Sydney restaurant owner tells 'narcissistic' Jewish 'pigs' to stay away from his venue in abusive Instagram rant that has divided customers

Belgian city cancels plans for Black female Santa Claus draped in the Palestinean flag to hand out presents to children as critics slam 'woker than woke' event

PreOccupiedTerritory: Europe To Take Refugees From Anywhere But Palestine (satire)

Kassy Dillon: Jewish Students Encounter Anti-Israel Mob Calling For ‘Global Intifada’ Outside Campus Shabbat Dinner

Controversial academic Dr Shola Mos-Shogbamimu is handed an honorary award for 'combating discrimination' by top university just days after sparking backlash by comparing Israel to Nazi Germany

Meet Yara Shoufani, PhD Researcher At York University Who Defended Hamas Terrorism And Recently Received $105,000 In Taxpayer Grants

Ben & Jerry’s chair: ‘When people are occupied resistance is justified!’

5 major Jewish groups team up to advocate for Israel and push for ‘accurate’ coverage of Israel-Hamas war

Media Legitimize Hamas As Peace Partner Despite October 7 Atrocities

Can The BBC Ever Be Trusted Again After Israel-Hamas War?

BBC REPORTING ON HAMAS SEXUAL VIOLENCE OMITS CRUCIAL CONTEXT

CTV News Edmonton Reports On “Why People Are Boycotting Starbucks In Solidarity With Palestine,” Yet Manages To Produce Only A Single Boycotter

CTV sparks outrage, reporting peaceful pro-Israel rally supported war

The Walrus Claims It’s “Questionable” Whether Israel Has Any Right To Self-Defence

After HRC Complaint, Toronto Star Amends Article Mentioning That Palestinian Teen Killed By IDF Was A Hamas Terrorist

A View from Cairo: Hamas Are Nothing but Terrorists
My family fought in Egypt's many wars against Israel. My grandfather, an infantry officer, fought in 1956, 1967, and 1973. My uncle, a fighter pilot, fought in 1967 and 1973.

On Oct. 7, Hamas launched an attack against Israel from Gaza, killing more than a thousand innocent civilians and taking more than 200 hostages back to Gaza. In response, Israel declared war against Hamas.

Around the world, pan-Islamist organizations mobilized large demonstrations to erode public support for Israel's right to defend itself. Their talking points are not about defending the Palestinian right to self-determination. They have descended into an outright defense of Hamas, including rampant justifications of the atrocities of Oct. 7.

As someone whose family fought Israel valiantly on the battlefield, this cannot stand. It is not a defense of Palestinian rights to justify atrocities.


MEMRI: Palestinian Officials Justify Hamas' October 7 Massacre: It Was Not Terror But A Natural Reaction To Occupation; 'The Next Explosion, Even More Violent, Will Be In The West Bank'; Hamas Is And Will Remain Part Of The Palestinian Fabric

PMW: Oct. 7 Hamas terrorists were “summarily executed” by Israel, as per Al-Haq “human rights” organization’s wild accusation Hamas’ Oct. 7 terrorists were “summarily executed” by Israel

Neighbors ‘stunned’ after ex-SS soldier found living in sleepy English suburb

Wrestling star's 'likes' of antisemitic posts causes firestorm – but no sanctions from WWE

Sylvan Adams donates $100M to Ben-Gurion U after Hamas attack



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!
 

 



AddToAny

EoZ Book:"Protocols: Exposing Modern Antisemitism"

 Buy EoZ's book, PROTOCOLS: EXPOSING MODERN ANTISEMITISM


Stellar reviews from:
Algemeiner
Jewish Press
Times of Israel/Jewish Link


Printfriendly

EoZTV Podcast

Podcast URL

Subscribe in podnovaSubscribe with FeedlyAdd to netvibes
addtomyyahoo4Subscribe with SubToMe

search eoz

comments

Speaking

Speaking

translate

E-Book

For $18 donation








Sample Text

EoZ's Most Popular Posts in recent years

Hasbys!

Hasbys!

2019 Nobel Peace Prize nominee

Elder of Ziyon - حـكـيـم صـهـيـون



This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For 20 years and 40,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.

Donate!

Donate to fight for Israel!

Monthly subscription:
Payment options


One time donation:

Follow EoZ on Twitter!

Interesting Blogs

Show All

Blog Archive

Copyright © Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News | Powered by Blogger
Blogger Templates