Friday, December 08, 2023

A new book, A Brief and Visual History of Antisemitism, was published last year. The over 500 pages of text are thorough and filled with photos, illustrations, cartoons, and maps. It is designed in a way that makes it easy to find information.

Like debunking antisemitic and anti-Israel myths.

Chapter Eight deals with The Current Landscape, and includes a section on Debunking the Myths. One of those myths is very prevalent now and is being used as an excuse by the terrorist apologists who defend the Hamas massacre --

Claim: "Terrorism (an indiscriminate attack on innocent civilians) is a legitimate response to Israel's [insert excuse here]"

Israel Bitton, the author of A Brief and Visual History of Antisemitism, points out: 

Intifada, jihad, "resistance" Khaybar, "from the river to the sea," and "free Palestine," are all euphemisms for the erasure of Israel and the annihilation of the Jewish state, including the Jews within. [p. 516]
He exposes the excuses.
Here is some of what he writes.

Unlike the apologists, Hamas leaders emerge from behind the euphemisms when making their case. In 2006, Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal candidly said, "Our enemies don't understand that a suicide operation is a natural right." On October 7, we saw just how far Hamas goes in its pursuit of these "natural rights" -- and how far their allies are willing to go to defend and excuse those attacks.

But back in 2003, Olara A. Otunnu, undersecretary-general and UN Special Representative for Children in Armed Conflict said in a statement before the Security Council: "The use of suicide bombing is entirely unacceptable. Nothing can justify this." 

And to prove the point, all you have to do is look at international law -- not read the self-serving statements by Francesca Albanese, but read the actual documents. Bitton points out:
Revenge isn't a right granted per international law, nor is it tolerated and justified in any human society, so murdering innocent people can never be equated with legitimately "resisting" oppression. [p. 517]

He supports that by quoting what international humanitarian law actually says as explained by the International Red Cross:

Contrary to what we are seeing presented as international humanitarian law, "by all means necessary" is an anti-Israel agenda dressed up as international law.

Protocol I, Article 51 clearly states, "Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited."
The first two examples are:
(a) those which are not directed at a specific military objective;
(b) those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective;

The Geneva Convention recognizes the difference between deliberately targeting civilians and targeting terrorists who exploit civilians as human shields.

This touches on another point that is particularly relevant in light of the intimidation, vandalism, and attacks on Jews and Jewish establishments by Hamas apologists and supporters. According to Article 33 of the Geneva Convention:

No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.

Pillage is prohibited.

Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.

Bitton explains this novel angle:

That means that Palestinian calls to violence, such as "globalize the intifada," which render all Jews around the world legitimate targets of reprisal are an incitement to war crimes and ought to be treated as such. [p. 518; emphasis added]

Today, these public calls for the collective punishment of Jews around the world are not only being made by Palestinian terrorists -- their apologists make these calls during their "protests" -- protests that often deteriorate into riots and attacks on both Jews and their property.

A Brief History, published a year ago, describes examples of war crimes we actually witnessed on October 7:

Taking Israelis (and Jews) hostage is a war crime and one with which Israel is, sadly, too experienced. Mutilating corpses is a war crime, but it's also the height of depravity and the essence of a crime against one's humanity to which Israelis have been repeated subjected. Finally, Hamas, for the most part, doesn't use willing human shields for protection but has been shown to force residents of Gaza to remain in their places even after Israel calls in advance for civilians to evacuate--to those who dare flee, Hamas eventually catches up. [p. 519]

The book goes further on the Geneva Conventions and international law:

International law is not written with the intent that it can be suspended when committing war crimes is the only option for reaching a political end

o  The fact that Hamas is limited to rockets that can only be fired in the direction of population centers in Israel and that Israel has the Iron Dome does not justify Palestinian terrorism

o  The fact that more Palestinian Arabs are killed in response to its terrorist attacks reveals nothing about the circumstances under which those deaths occurred. [p. 521]

The "experts" on international law, both individuals and organizations, seem to either be ignorant of the facts or use their positions to pursue their agenda instead of pursuing the facts.

Yet, sometimes the truth manages to stick its head out, even if only temporarily. In 2002, Amnesty International published its report: Without Distinction – Attacks on Civilians by Palestinian Armed Groups. While the report, true to form, accuses Israel of various violations, it also condemned Palestinian attacks on Israeli civilians and made clear those attacks had no basis under international law:
"The attacks against civilians by Palestinian armed groups are widespread, systematic and in pursuit of an explicit policy to attack civilians. They therefore constitute crimes against humanity under international law."

o  "Amnesty International condemns unreservedly direct attacks on civilians as well as indiscriminate attacks, whatever the cause for which the perpetrators are fighting, whatever justification they give for their actions."

o  "Targeting civilians and being reckless as to their fate are contrary to fundamental principles of humanity which should apply in all circumstances at all times."  
This was during the Second Intifada.

But these days, twenty years later, there is an attempt to legitimize October's Hamas massacre, whitewash
the rapes and kidnappings, and push for a ceasefire that will enable Hamas to survive and terrorize another day -- which is exactly what they have sworn to do.

International humanitarian law is easily misunderstood and distorted by the mobs blindly chanting slogans that hide their ignorance of the Middle East. The reality is very different.

Terrorism is not resistance 

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!



  • Friday, December 08, 2023
  • Elder of Ziyon

Axios reports, "Egypt warned the U.S. and Israel that if Palestinian refugees flee into the Sinai as a result of the Israeli military operation in southern Gaza, it could create 'a rupture' in relations between Egypt and Israel, according to four U.S. and Israeli officials."

The media has been reporting, non-judgmentally, about Egypt's 'refusal to accept any Palestinians attempting to flee from Gaza since the war began. But they refuse to say the simple truth: Egypt hates Palestinians and has treated them harshly since 1948. 

From the beginning, Egypt opposed taking in Palestinian refugees. In September 1948 It created the laughable "All Palestine Government" in Gaza as a pretend Palestinian state with no power. It used that as an excuse to forcibly transfer nearly all Palestinians who managed to get into Egypt into Gaza. 5,000 Palestinians who made it to a former British POW camp in Qantara were moved to Gaza. 

Egypt was the only Arab country that had a policy to close its borders to Palestinians in 1948. And even then it claimed that the decision was "principled" for the Palestinians' own good. It refused to allow UNRWA to operate in its borders in 1950, relegating it to Gaza.

Gaza was turned into an open-air prison, not by Israel but by Egypt. 

Then, as now, Egypt was in the forefront of wanting international aid to the Palestinians in Gaza - but the reason is not because they love Palestinians but because they want to keep them out of Egypt. 

Interestingly, one small group of Palestinians remained in Egypt, forgotten by everyone until a few years ago. The village of Gezirat Fadel. has no official status, no infrastructure, and its residents have no refugee or citizenship status in Egypt even after living there for 75 years. They are the exception that proves the rule: Egypt has always been anti-Palestinian. 

That hate, usually framed as concern, has been a constant feature of Egyptian attitudes towards Palestinian Arabs for over seven decades. In the 1950s, UNRWA tried to create a way for Palestinians to become self-sufficient in the Sinai, and Egypt (together with self-appointed Palestinian "leaders") scuttled those plans. In the 1970s, Egypt officially classified the Palestinians who were given limited rights by Nasser  as "foreigners" and took away basic rights for the few Palestinians who were in Egypt, barring them from universities and other benefits. 

 The main exception was during the one year that Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohamed Morsi was president of Egypt in 2012-2013, when he often opened the border to Hamas-run Gaza. As soon as he was deposed, Egypt went back to its anti-Gaza policy with a vengeance, clearing out large sections of Egyptian Rafah to get rid of smuggling tunnels and blaming Gaza for the ISIS insurgency in the Sinai. Anti-Palestinian rhetoric was all over Egyptian media. 

Even today, Gazans who want to travel abroad from Egypt are not allowed to stay overnight, making their travel plans difficult. 

It  isn't that Egypt has a policy against all refugees. There are plenty of non-Palestinian refugees in Egypt. UNHCR says:
Egypt hosts around 430,000 registered refugees and asylum-seekers from 59 nationalities. As of October 2023, the Sudanese nationality has become the top nationality, followed by Syrians. Other relevant countries of origin include South Sudan, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Yemen, Somalia and Iraq.

Following the outbreak of armed conflict in Sudan in April 2023, large numbers of civilians have been forced to flee to Egypt and other neighboring countries in search of safety. ...UNHCR also supports Syrian refugees who fled their war-torn land and started seeking asylum in Egypt in 2012. The number of Syrians registered with UNHCR Egypt rose dramatically from 12,800 at the end of 2012 to more than 145,000 people at the end of 2022. As a result of the Sudanese and Syrian crises, Egypt now hosts the largest number of registered refugees and asylum-seekers in its history.

At the same time, renewed conflicts and political instability in East Africa, and the Horn of Africa as well as the unrest in Iraq and Yemen, have driven thousands of South Sudanese, Ethiopian, Iraqi, and Yemeni individuals to seek refuge in Egypt. As of 19 November 2023, the refugee population registered with UNHCR comprised 169,000 Sudanese, 152,545 Syrians, 35,917 South Sudanese, 30,713 Eritreans, 17,277 Ethiopians, 8,034 Yemenis, 7,163 Somalis, 5,541 Iraqis, and refugees of more than 50 other nationalities.
Those are just the registered refugees.It is clear that Egypt does not have an anti-refugee policy - it only has an anti-Palestinian policy. 

In fact, while Egypt was welcoming Syrian refugees, there was an exception: Syrian Palestinians. Hundreds of them were placed not in refugee camps but in jail

Given this context, Egypt's  treatment of Gazans may be principled - but the principle is that Egypt hates Palestinians, and always has. 

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!



  • Friday, December 08, 2023
  • Elder of Ziyon
Egypt's El Watan News describes Chanukah: 

The headline says it all:
How do Jews celebrate Chanukah?..The "Festival of Lights" is the season of provoking the feelings of Palestinians..
The article continues:
Tomorrow, Friday, Jews will celebrate the season of Hanukkah or “Festival of Lights,” the last Jewish holiday of this year, which coincides annually with great restrictions on the entry of Palestinians into Al-Aqsa Mosque, in addition to practicing Talmudic prayers inside the Al-Aqsa campus, and holding provocative dances in the alleys of the Old City of the holy city. 

Every dance is a provocative dance. So we might as well dance.

Here's a Chanukah dance video in Jerusalem from 2009, a flash mob by Nefesh B'Nefesh.

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!



Thursday, December 07, 2023

  • Thursday, December 07, 2023
  • Elder of Ziyon
Continuing my tradition of posting new Chanukah videos every year....

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!



From Ian:

Seth Mandel: The Battlefield Is Now Set in Gaza
Every gesture of moderation, every period of calm, was simply part of Hamas’s war plan. It was all in the service of the most violent attack the terror group would ever pull off. And it only succeeded because Israeli officials took signs of peace at face value.

Those days are long gone. There will be no more periods in which Israel is lulled into a false sense of security. As long as Hamas is in Gaza, such a thing cannot possibly exist. The belief that its longtime enemy wanted anything less than the complete destruction of Israel cost the country dearly. Hamas has revealed that there is no constructive role it can or will play.

Such a status quo translates essentially into a freezing of any progress toward peace far beyond the Gaza border. The United States will be forced to build the last part of its intended regional peace agreement with Saudi Arabia on quicksand unless Hamas is crushed. The two-state solution is farther away today than it has been since the Second Intifada. Hamas’s pogrom disproportionately—and likely intentionally—murdered those in Israel most amenable to peaceful coexistence. And America’s deterrence of Iran will continue to be hampered by Hamas’s multifront troublemaking.

The Biden agenda is itself one of Hamas’s remaining hostages. Israel is in Khan Younis to set it free. There is no acceptable alternative to victory.
Bethany Mandel: Hamas tortured hostages. But the Pro-Palestine left won't admit it
In Gaza, as the first hostage releases of Israeli civilians began over a week ago, online comments rolled in about how happy they were with their captors; how well-treated they were by the militants that murdered their families and kidnapped them. Some even joked that over the course of their captivity, hostages fell in love with their captors, giving them looks of affection as they left their custody.

The reason why the hostages looked so sanguine has since emerged: they were drugged by Hamas before their release, and were explicitly told to smile and wave, all the while as other members of their families still held hostage were used to guarantee their cooperation.

There is a PR operation at work within the terrorist organisation, and western apologists are happy to pick up everything they are throwing down. That willingness, and in some corners, eagerness, to grant terrorists good press isn’t just what blurs to Holocaust revisionism, it also endangers Jews still trapped within Gaza. This indifference to, whitewashing and even cheerleading of the events of October 7 is a reflection of longstanding international hostility towards not just the Jewish state, but the Jewish people.

As further information about the events of October 7 emerges, the full picture of horrors becomes clear. On Monday the New York Times reported, “Hamas has denied that its fighters committed sex crimes, which it said would violate Islamic principles. But ample evidence has been collected, like the bodies of women found partially or fully naked, women with their pelvic bones broken, the accounts of medical examiners and first responders, videos taken by Hamas fighters themselves, and even a few firsthand witnesses like a woman, in a video made public last month by police officials, who said she had watched Hamas terrorists take turns raping a young woman they had captured at a music festival, mutilate her and then shoot her in the head.”

Also on Monday, at the United Nations headquarters former Meta executive Sheryl Sandberg hosted an event to spotlight the sexual crimes perpetrated on October 7. That meeting was necessary because it’s not just Hamas denying there were sexual crimes committed, but Western apologists, as well.
I am a Zionist because I am a leftist, not in spite of that commitment
What should the leftist make of all this? To be on the left means, in sophomoric terms but no less true for it, to be on the side of the underdog. I am thus a Zionist because I am a leftist, not in spite of it. In its affirmation of a viable Jewish peoplehood, and its sober and rational recipe for Jewish survival, Zionism demands leftist support for European civilisation’s ultimate underdog.

I am a pragmatist. I know how deep the rot goes on the left. At the exalted level of the academy, we have lost for the time being. What the German radical Rudi Dutschke called the ‘long march through the institutions’ of a certain type of leftism is largely complete.

No, the hope, as ever, and as Orwell so presciently noted, lies with the proles – in this context, ordinary, well-meaning leftists. I think much of the anti-Zionism amongst this group is, to use an American political formulation, a mile wide and an inch deep. It is reflexive and axiomatic, a kind of default anti-Zionism. It is not, I think, deeply held. Therefore, it is open to persuasion.

We know we will not eradicate anti-Zionist antisemitism: as writers from Jean Paul Sartre to Fathom’s Eve Garrard have shown, antisemitism is simply too pleasurable to too many people for that. We know too how protean, adaptable, and immune to its internal contradictions it is. It is what Albert Memmi described as ‘a living thing of multiple heads that speaks with a thousand grimacing faces.’

We know, too, that many of the newer movements of the left whose vibrancy and urgent questioning of racial injustice are understandably attractive to young people, have serious problems with antisemitism and are perpetrators of lazy, binary approaches to Israel-Palestine. But we cannot abandon these young people.

About the enemies of the state of Israel, the Jewish homeland, it says much about the moral degradation to which much of the left has sunk that we cannot recognise their reactionary and eliminationist character. My own damascene conversion, if I can identify one specific moment, came with Judith Butler’s notorious proclamation that Hamas and Hezbollah must be considered ‘part of the global left’.

We must encourage in young leftists the virtue of questioning orthodoxy, avoiding the left’s set menu and deciding their positions à la carte.
Fetterman says if we want peace, Israel needs to be able to destroy Hamas
Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) has emerged as one of the most reliable supporters of the Jewish community in his hometown, which is located a handful of miles from where the deadliest massacre of Jews happened in the Squirrel Hill neighborhood of Pittsburgh five years ago. This support is changing how many in the state see him.

David Knoll, a Pittsburgh-based businessman and Democrat who launched a last-minute quixotic challenge to local county councilwoman Bethany Hallam over her social media posts supporting antisemitism, said, “Fetterman has been better than anyone could have hoped, and honestly did not see that coming, but we welcome his support whole-heartedly."

Knoll, who lives in Squirrel Hill, said what he especially loves is Fetterman’s refusal to cower to either the members of the media or members of their own party who are at odds with his staunch support of Israel.

Fetterman, in an interview with the Washington Examiner, said he is not concerned about falling in or out of some sort of political categorization. “I am not worried about labels or what people want to label me, I am about being clear where I stand, and I always have been,” he said in an emailed interview.

“I am on what I believe is the right side of this issue, I'm not concerned about a label. Israel is our key, closest ally, and we need to support them in this fight,” he said, adding, “if we want peace and we want a two state solution, then Israel needs to be able to destroy Hamas.”

Fetterman said he fundamentally believes destroying Hamas is the only pathway to a real solution to this conflict, “And it’s not at all at odds with my other beliefs. Hamas has systematically used rape and murder as part of its war, brutalizing Israeli women. It’s horrifying. We cannot pretend that Hamas is a rational entity.”
  • Thursday, December 07, 2023
  • Elder of Ziyon

Only a few excerpts from an article in the Palestinian Amad news site:

The criminal Jews range from the killers of prophets and messengers to the killers of children and women in Palestine

Since creation began on the face of the earth with our master Adam, our mother Eve, and their descendants after them, the verses of the Wise Remembrance sent down from the Lord of the Worlds were written in letters from the light of all that will be in the universe, and they clearly stated without ambiguity the truth about the Jews. 

A divine miracle comes from one who knows what is secret, and what is hidden, to make clear to everyone who has insight the criminal, brutal reality of the Jews, and that they ignite discord among the people, and strive to spread corruption on earth. They are the killers of the prophets and messengers.

God Almighty made it clear that the Jews, and those who support them, are the most hostile of people to the believers.....Therefore, it is not strange for them to be the killers of prophets, messengers, women and children in the Gaza Strip in Palestine. How could they not, when they did worse than that and insulted the great Creator, God Almighty! 

 And the verse is clear and does not need explanation or interpretation, and because of their disbelief, their oppression, treachery, betrayal, breaking of covenants, and their repulsion about the path of God, and their corruption on earth, and their slander against the Lord of the worlds, and their claim that God Almighty has a son! Imitating the words of those who disbelieved before, God will kill them. 

How will they be defeated? So they incurred the wrath of the Lord of the Worlds upon them, and He made of them monkeys and pigs, and God Almighty said: "Say, “Shall I inform you of any evil other than that as a reward from God whom God has cursed and become angry with and made of them apes and swine? They are evil.” 

They tried to kill our Master Muhammad, the best of prayers and peace be upon him, more than once, and they broke their covenant with him. The Almighty said: "And because they broke their covenant, We cursed them, and made their hearts hard; they distorted words from their proper places

 Among the natures of the criminal, murderous Jews are envy, spreading corruption on earth, spreading immorality in it, and eagerness for life. 

 Among the characteristics of the criminal Jews are miserliness, miserliness, and humiliation. 

They crucified our master Jesus, peace be upon him, and tried to kill him!;

We are in our present conflict with the pig Zionist criminals, and with the immoral and infidel West that supports them

This has been their nature and their teaching since ancient times. They live in separate ghettoes and consider themselves above people  and the nations, and they falsely say that people were created only to be slaves and servants of the Jews!! 

Therefore, the impure Zionists, the earthly pigs, are deviant, and their hostility to humanity in general, and to the believers in particular, 

The Jews’ hostility to Islam is not born today, and is not only because of the Palestine issue, but rather it is a doctrinal hostility throughout history. The enmity of the Jews towards Muslims is very old, since the time of the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, as well as the days of the Rightly Guided Caliphs, and this Zionist hostility towards the Arabs, Islam, and Muslims still continues. 
But I thought that they had nothing against Jews! 

Interestingly, in the current wave of antisemitic articles in Palestinian and other news sites, only about 10% make the claim that Jews are really Khazars and therefore today's Jews aren't Jews. Instead, they embrace the idea that Israelis really are Jews, and Jews are incomparably evil people, as this article does. 

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!



Our weekly column from the humor site PreOccupied Territory.

Check out their Facebook page.

Israel Better Not Violate The Next Ceasefire By Returning Hamas Fire  
by Joseph R. Biden, President, United States of America

Washington, December 7 - The next precious, fragile pause in hostilities in Gaza to facilitate the release of hostages must continue. My administration will persist in its determined efforts to ensure that the calm prevails, when the time comes and that if Hamas does shoot, Israel does not shatter the ceasefire by retaliating.

Many lives are still at stake, and not just those of the hostages. Humanity cannot simply shrug at any resumption in hostilities. We must impress upon the parties to the conflict the critical need to resolve the difficult situation through non-violent means; we must encourage them to maintain the fragile calm, and, when Hamas or allied factions fire at Israel, not to violate that calm by firing back.

The innocent people of Gaza have suffered as well. I am proud to say that with American leadership, the international community has rallied to work toward their protection via the eventual implementation of a broader ceasefire arrangement, which must be inviolate even if Hamas violates it.

None of us are naïve about the mechanisms and inducements necessary to preserve a ceasefire. A ceasefire was in place until Israel fired back on October 7. Even the preemptive calls on Israel for a ceasefire before their retaliation began failed to stop it. A more lasting arrangement will have to better account for the factors that previous efforts failed to weigh properly. Only then can we prevent violations of that ceasefire when Israel fires back. Otherwise we simply repeat all the previous mistakes.

The parties to the proceedings, including our allies in the region, all understand that one of the keys to preventing the collapse of a ceasefire when Israel returns fire lies in identifying and implementing measures to keep Hamas from firing in the first place. That imposing challenge has long loomed over previous efforts to secure quiet on the Gaza front. The United States will continue to work with its partners in the region and beyond to find solutions, with whatever creativity becomes necessary, to induce Hamas not to fire when a ceasefire is in place, so that Israel is not prompted to break the ceasefire in retaliation.

Together, all the parties to this process can arrive at a workable, even durable, solution, provided we develop realistic, holistic incentive and oversight mechanisms, which our allies and I believe not just desirable, but possible. It may yet take some time, but I promise to work hard to ensure that the next time Hamas fires rockets at Israel or shoots at Israeli soldiers during a ceasefire, Israel will refrain from shooting back and thus violating the ceasefire.

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!



From Ian:

UN chief ‘endorsing Hamas terror’ by invoking Article 99 - Israel
Diplomats said the UAE aims to put the text to a vote on Friday when the council is due to be briefed by Guterres on Gaza. To be adopted, a resolution needs at least nine votes in favor and no vetoes by the five permanent members - the United States, Russia, China, France, or Britain.

Deputy US Ambassador to the United Nations, Robert Wood, said the United States does not support any further action by the Security Council.

"However, we remain focused on the difficult and sensitive diplomacy geared to getting more hostages released, more aid flowing into Gaza, and better protection of civilians," Wood told Reuters.

Guterres in his letter to the UNSC warned, “I expect public order to completely break down soon [in Gaza] due to the desperate conditions, rendering even limited humanitarian assistance impossible” as a result of the war.

“We are facing a severe risk of collapse of the humanitarian system. The situation is fast deteriorating into a catastrophe with potentially irreversible implications for Palestinians as a whole and for peace and security in the region. Such an outcome must be avoided at all costs,” he wrote.

In his letter, Guterres condemned Hamas’ October 7 infiltration of southern Israel, in which the terror group killed over 1,200 people and seized some 250 hostages.

Some 110 of those hostages have been freed and Guterres in his letter called for the release of the remaining captives.

“Accounts of sexual violence during the attacks are appalling,” he added.

Guterres in his letter spoke of the at least 15,000 Palestinian deaths in Gaza due to war-related violence, in a way that implied that all of them were civilians. Israel has said that some 5,000 of those are Hamas terrorists.

The Security Council has passed only one resolution since the start of the war, in which it has called for a pause in the fighting and it has yet to condemn Hamas.

Israel has argued that a sustained military campaign led to the release of 105 hostages last month, 81 Israelis and 24 foreign nationals. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said this week that its military campaign to oust Hamas from Gaza was the only step that would ensure a second hostage deal.

Israel’s Ambassador to the UN Gilad Erdan said that Guterres had fallen to a “new moral low” through the use of Article 99 against Israel, charged that it was yet one more proof of his “distorted bias” against Israel.

His call for a “ceasefire is a call to keep Hamas's reign of terror in Gaza” when he should have been insisting that Hamas lay down its arms and return to the captives to end the war, Erdan stated.

Instead, he is “continue playing into Hamas' hands” by calling for a measure that would only prolong the fighting by giving Hamas hope that if it holds out long enough the international community would force an end to the war.

The United States and its ally Israel oppose a ceasefire because they believe it would only benefit Hamas. Washington instead supports pauses to protect civilians and allow for the release of hostages taken by Hamas in a deadly Oct. 7 attack on Israel.

Palestinian UN envoy Riyad Mansour said Arab ministers would discuss the draft Security Council resolution with US officials during a visit to Washington this week.

"On top of the agenda is this war has to stop," he told reporters as Arab UN ambassadors stood with him. "A ceasefire has to take place and it has to take place immediately.”
Israel: UN chief’s tenure ‘danger to world peace’
Israeli Foreign Minister Eli Cohen on Wednesday accused U.N. chief Antonio Guterres of supporting Hamas and called his tenure a global threat.

“Guterres’ tenure is a danger to world peace. His request to activate Article 99 and the call for a ceasefire in Gaza constitutes support of the Hamas terrorist organization and an endorsement of the murder of the elderly, the abduction of babies and the rape of women,” said Cohen.

“Anyone who supports world peace must support the liberation of Gaza from Hamas,” he added.

The comments came after Guterres, who has repeatedly called for an end to the war against Hamas, wrote a letter to the Security Council on Wednesday under Article 99 of the U.N. Charter, which allows the secretary-general to bring to the council’s attention issues that he perceives as a threat to international security.

It was the first time he had invoked the clause since assuming his position in 2017, and the first time any U.N. chief has done so since 1989.

Calling for a “humanitarian cease fire,” Guterres wrote that conditions in Gaza were “fast deteriorating into a catastrophe with potentially irreversible implications for Palestinians as a whole.”

He added: “The international community has a responsibility to use all its influence to prevent further escalation and end this crisis.”

In late October, Guterres told the U.N. Security Council that “it is important to also recognize the attacks by Hamas did not happen in a vacuum,” adding that “the Palestinian people have been subjected to 56 years of suffocating occupation.”

He went on to say that “they have seen their land steadily devoured by settlements and plagued by violence; their economy stifled; their people displaced; and their homes demolished. Their hopes for a political solution to their plight have been vanishing.”
Arsen Ostrovsky: The Red Cross Has Become a Glorified Uber Driver
The fact that the Red Cross is dealing with a ruthless enemy that does not abide by any rules or norms of international law is not an excuse and does absolve them of their mandate to provide “humanitarian protection and assistance for victims of armed conflict.” Nor is it enough to merely politely ‘call’ for their release.

The Red Cross still has nothing to show as Hamas have been cruelly holding the bodies of IDF soldiers Hadar Goldin and Oron Shaul, taken captive during a humanitarian ceasefire in the 2014 war with Israel.

It has nothing to show as Avner Mengistu, a 37-year-old Israeli civilian with mental health issues, has been held hostage by Hamas also since 2014, or Hisham al-Sayed, a Bedouin Israeli, who is seriously ill and has been held hostage in Gaza since 2015.

And the Red Cross had nothing to show the entire time IDF soldier Gilad Shalit, was held captive in Gaza for almost 6 years, until finally his release in 2011.

The reality is, when it comes to Israeli lives, the Red Cross has embarrasingly little to show, full stop.

Of the 240 hostages Hamas took captive, following the October 7th massacre, at least ten are believed to have been also American nationals.

The United States is by far the single largest state donor to the Red Cross, in 2022, contributing almost $700 million.

Perhaps Congress ought to be asking where that tax money is going, why the Red Cross been unable to see even a single hostage, or, for that matter, why they ignored the irrefutable evidence right under their noses that Hamas was using Shifa hospital in Gaza as their terrorist headquarters.

Almost eight weeks after the October atrocity, they are unable to even provide proof of life of the youngest of the hostages, 10-month-old Kfir Bibas.

The Red Cross prides itself on being unwaveringly neutral, but when it comes to Israeli lives, the Red Cross are unwaveringly absent.
  • Thursday, December 07, 2023
  • Elder of Ziyon

A London council called off a planned exhibition about Jewish culture at its headquarters, citing a “significant heightened risk to personal safety” amid the conflict in Gaza, prompting anger from community leaders.

The Board of Deputies of British Jews, which has run the travelling Jewish Living Experience exhibition for 40 years, said the decision by the borough of Hounslow in west London to postpone the exhibition was “baffling” and added: “The Jewish community will not accept being marginalised.”

The group said that the exhibition, designed to teach non-Jews about Jewish life and traditions, was even more important during a period of increased antisemitism and hate crimes.

So something that can combat antisemitism is canceled because of the threat of antisemitic attacks. Unreal.  

Since the eruption of violence in Israel and Gaza triggered by the Hamas attacks on October 7, the exhibition has been hosted in Borehamwood in Hertfordshire, where 500 schoolchildren visited, and in towns across south Wales, where 1,500 children visited. A source said the events had all run without incident.

So why are thing different in Hounslow? A possible hint below. 

The Times has learnt that the decision to postpone the exhibition was taken by the council on Thursday November 16 but only communicated to its organisers at the Board of Deputies late in the morning of Friday November 17, just three days before the exhibition was due to open and hours before the Jewish sabbath began at sundown that day.

Why has it taken nearly three weeks to find out about this? 

It is understood that Board of Deputies officials were left “flabbergasted” by the decision, with one source describing the move as “outrageous”.

Then why didn't they talk with the media about it until now? 

Edwin Shuker, vice-president of the Board of Deputies, said: “The Jewish Living Experience exhibition is carefully designed to inform and educate non-Jewish children and adults about our way of life.

“At a time of hugely increased antisemitism around the country it is baffling that any council would choose to cancel an exhibition with the potential to provide context and understanding. We have asked for a meeting and been refused. The Jewish community will not accept being marginalised.”

Apparently, the BoD does, by waiting so long. 

A spokeswoman for Hounslow council said: “Hounslow is one of London’s most diverse boroughs and we cherish and celebrate this diversity. The decision to postpone the two-week exhibition, due to take place in a public space, was not taken lightly and we appreciate the disappointment and inconvenience it caused.

“However, due to the current situation in Gaza and associated increase in reported hate crimes, there is significant heightened risk to personal safety across London and consideration of this had to take precedence.”      

Ah, it is diverse. And what does "diverse" mean? Wikipedia explains:

 Hounslow has a high proportion of people who identify themselves as BAME (Black, Asian and minority Ethnic), and it is the borough's most diverse town. In seven of Hounslow's eight electoral wards, the BAME proportion is above 70%.[9] The town has a large British Asian community.

 And a large plurality of "British Asians" are Muslim.

So even though the exhibit was shown in other districts since 10/7 with no incident, Hounslow knows its residents are a bit more, shall we say, animated. 

The district knows it has a lot of antisemites living there. Instead of protecting the Jews it decides to penalize them - for their own safety. Instead of giving a message to the Jew-haters that this is unacceptable behavior, they are sending a message that their hate is so potent that they can get the government to punish Jews without even vocalizing a single threat - what scholar Richard Landes calls "proleptic dhimmitude." 

Jews are quiet and compliant. Muslims are loud and unpredictable and potentially violent. So it is easier to do what the Muslims demand even before they demand it, penalize the Jews, and then claim that you are protecting the Jews by forcing them not to have their exhibits, or Chanukah menorah ceremonies, or whatever. 

The antisemites win, thanks to the spineless people who end up being their allies. 

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!



  • Thursday, December 07, 2023
  • Elder of Ziyon

The Washington Post describes Hamas deceptions ahead of their October 7 attack. As far as I can tell, it is among the most elaborate and successful deceptions in military history.

The deceptions reach back over years to make it appear that Hamas wanted quiet with Israel. 

 Hamas spent more than a year planning its historic assault on Israel, following battle plans built on open-source materials and high-level intelligence, Israeli intelligence officers told a small group of journalists this week.

The sophistication of the attack, and the growing evidence of long-term, strategic planning by Hamas, sheds new light on the reach of the group’s intelligence apparatus and the complacency of Israel’s vaunted security state.

For years, in public statements and private diplomacy, Hamas had claimed that it was more interested in building Gaza economically than in renewing a conflict with Israel.

[Head of IDF intelligence Aharon] Haliva said in September 2022 that although Hamas was involved in military activities, “we see that the processes being undertaken vis-à-vis Israel to stabilize the economy and to allow entry to laborers have potential for bringing years of quiet.”

Hamas had largely refrained from firing rockets at Israel after 2021. In May, it remained on the sidelines as Palestinian Islamic Jihad, a smaller militant group in Gaza, engaged in a short-lived conflict with Israel.

Hamas officials even provided Israel with intelligence on PIJ to reinforce the impression that they were interested in collaboration, an Israeli security official told The Post on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak with the news media.

There were plans to discuss the issue again after Oct. 7, the holiday of Simchat Torah, according to the Kan report.

Also in recent months, large demonstrations were staged at the fence in Gaza to get the IDF used to the sight of crowds at the border, and, more broadly, “to lull Israel into complacency,” said Miri Eisin, a former senior IDF intelligence officer.

Eisin said that Israel’s security apparatus, and many of Israel’s allies, were more concerned with Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed militant group to the north that in 2018 declared plans to conquer the Galilee region.
The British in World War II were perhaps the masters of deception in war, creating elaborate ruses to fool Germany as to the location of invasions . Egypt in 1973 used many months of fake deployments and other deceptions to ensure that Israel wouldn't mobilize ahead of the Yom Kippur War.

But a deception that unrolled over the course of years to plan a single devastating attack? I am not aware of this ever happening before. 

The level of planning and detail shows not only how much Hamas hates Jews, but also how little it cares about its own people. After all, the deception included improving Gaza's economy, securing jobs for Gazans in Israel, keeping things quiet to increase imports and exports from Gaza. Hundreds of thousands of Gazans, probably more, benefited from the improved economy.  A key part of the deception was to fool Israel into thinking that Hamas actually cared about the people it rules. 

Another component was not just to fool Israel but to fool the world. Hamas' new political document of 2017, where they claimed not to be antisemitic, may easily have been a part of this deception as well. And even before that, in 2011, Hamas fooled much of the world into believing that they accepted a two state solution. 

Their elaborate duplicity to make themselves appear pragmatic and moderate over more than a decade  set the stage for October 7.

Trickery is part of Hamas' political DNA. And it continues today, with the bogus statistics of civilians killed in Gaza and denials of atrocities on October 7, designed to give antisemites "evidence" that it is Israel that is lying, not Hamas. 

Who says that we now know the extent of the deception? Once we truly understand how elaborate this deceit is, how confident can we be that it is only Hamas?  Many claim Iran did not approve this specific operation on that date - but why assume that is true? Hezbollah is assumed not to want to drag Lebanon into a devastating war - but Hamas didn't care at all about its people, why do we assume Hezbollah is more sensitive to the desires of the Lebanese?  

Hezbollah's limited response so far is enough to tie down a lot of IDF soldiers in the north, who may have shortened the Gaza war if they were deployed there. Is that part of the larger, still unknown plan?

Yemen's attacks appear to be test runs of Iranian weapons - could one of the goals of this war been for Iran to probe Israel's military defenses against long range ballistic missile attacks in a far larger future war of which this is only a precursor?

Exploiting wishful thinking has been a key component not only of Hamas' deceptions over the past decade, but Iran's as well, particularly with the nuclear deal. 

And once Iran knows Hamas will happily sacrifice huge numbers of Palestinians to hurt Israel, why does Iran need missiles to shoot a nuclear weapon to Israel? A bomb smuggled to Gaza will do just as well and is much easier to hide. 

The entire world needs to re-evaluate every single assumption we have made about Iran's "axis of resistance." All the experts have been wrong about Hamas, including nearly all of Israel's best and most cynical analysts. We have to assume that everything coming directly or indirectly from Iran and its allies is false, and to reconsider everything we accepted as true over the past decade from the region.

Finally, we need to truly understand the level of evil involved in Hamas' deceptions. Their goal, at least for October 7, was purely wicked- the murder, rape and kidnapping of a large number of Israelis and terrorizing all Jews in the world. As we should have learned with the wave of suicide bombing in the 1990s and 2000s, the motivation is utterly foreign to Western thinking, and we still try to shoehorn Western ways of thought into groups like Hamas. If Hamas is as evil as October 7 proved it is, then negotiations and ceasefires are the exact wrong approach. 

Hamas' deceptions to murder Jews is not pragmatic - it is genocidal. It is irredeemable. It is Nazi-level evil. And any response that does not insist on its destruction is immoral.

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!



  • Thursday, December 07, 2023
  • Elder of Ziyon
UN News reports:

Invoking a rarely used article of the UN Charter, Secretary-General António Guterres on Wednesday called on the Security Council to “press to avert a humanitarian catastrophe” in Gaza and unite in a call for a full humanitarian ceasefire between Israel and Palestinian militants.

In a letter to the Council, Mr. Guterres invoked Article 99, contained in Chapter XV of the Charter.

This says that the UN chief “may bring to attention of the Security Council any matter which in his opinion, may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security.”

In a statement to journalists along with the letter, UN Spokesperson Stéphane Dujarric said that this was the first time Mr. Guterres had felt compelled to invoke Chapter 99, since taking office in 2017.

Mr. Dujarric explained that the UN chief was taking the step “given the scale of the loss of human life in Gaza and Israel, in such a short amount of time”.

He described the use of Article 99 as a "dramatic constitutional move" that Mr. Guterres hoped would put more pressure on the Council - and the international community at large - to demand a ceasefire between the warring parties.

"I think it's arguably the most important invocation", Mr. Dujarric told reporters at UN Headquarters, "in my opinion, the most powerful tool that he [the Secretary-General] has."

 As the report states, Article 99 says "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."

The current war indeed threatens international peace and security. But not because a lot of Gazans are suffering.

One of the astounding things about this war is how the media has been reporting it as a war between Israel and Hamas.

It isn't.

Since October 7, Israel has been attacked on five fronts: Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen.  All of those are part of Iran's "axis of resistance."

Israel was not the aggressor. Yemen, Hezbollah and other Lebanese terror groups, and Syrian rockets all attacked as soon as Hamas did. This is already an international war, if somewhat limited so far.

Any threat to international peace and security is coming from Iran's :"axis of resistance," not Israel. All of those other four fronts can escalate at any moment into a much larger crisis that could drag other countries into a war.

Yet in Guterres' invocation of Article 99 in his letter, meant to bring attention to a potential threat to international security, there is not one mention of Hezbollah or Syria or Yemen, and certainly not their patron Iran. 

If international pressure is needed anywhere, it is towards Iran as well as Hamas' sponsor Qatar, the two countries that have the most influence over the people shooting missiles at Israel. 

Why are we not seeing maps like this one in international media? Because no one wants to make Israel look like a victim, only an aggressor. Yet when you look at what is really happening you see that these countries aren't supporting Gazans but attacking Israel - for no valid reason under international law. 

Shouldn't the useless UN be spending a bit more time pressuring the countries who are actually threatening world peace?

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!



Wednesday, December 06, 2023

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.

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

When the war started, I phoned my neighbor to make sure she knew she was welcome to bring her family to our safe room, at any time of the day or night. We talked about logistics and how we were having a key made for them and how I didn’t at all mind a LOT of children in a small space because I’d had 12 of my own. The whole time, my neighbor, whom I’ll call “Terry” out of respect for her privacy, said, “Thank you, but so far we’ve been sitting in the stairwell, and that’s fine with us.”

I got the idea she didn’t think the missiles were all that big a deal, and so finally I confessed, “Yeah. To tell the truth, I don’t worry so much about the missiles either. It’s the other stuff I worry about.”

“Exactly. It’s the other stuff,” said Terry.

Neither of us had to elucidate the nature of that “other stuff,” and I won’t say it here, either. But the thing I think about when I think about that “other stuff," is rape.

I can’t swear that this is the thing that worries my neighbor most, when she thinks about the things she fears most. She didn’t say. But then again, she didn’t have to—fear of rape is not exclusive to this writer—it’s fairly universal among women and researchers have been studying the phenomenon for years.

Take, for example, this abstract from “Fear of Rape Among Urban Women,” a 1985 paper by the (in-)felicitously named Mark Warr, of Penn State University (emphasis added):

Sample survey data from Seattle are used to examine fear of rape among urban women. The magnitude and prevalence of such fear are striking, particularly among younger women, who fear rape more than any other crime. The high fear attached to rape stems from the fact that it is perceived to be both extremely serious and relatively likely; and from the fact that it is closely associated with other serious offenses such as homicide and robbery. Fear of rape also lies behind fear of other offenses among women in our sample, and is strongly associated with certain social or lifestyle precautions.

Some four paragraphs into the introduction to this paper, Warr says something that touches on the universal nature of fear of rape among women. More women, it seems, are scared of rape than are actually raped (emphasis added):

This paper is not about those who rape, nor is it about those who are direct victims of rape. Rather, the paper considers a much larger group: those who fear rape. One of the major developments in criminology during the past 20 years has been a general realization that the social consequences of crime are not limited to those who are directly victimized. That principle is particularly true when it comes to fear of victimization, because the number of fearful individuals greatly exceeds the number of actual victims during any given period.

Wikipedia has something on “Rape Fear” that speaks to cause: the socialization of women. Women have been raised to fear and protect themselves from rape (emphasis added):

Socialization of Women

The fear of rape, unlike other fears of specific crimes, is almost exclusive to women. Among women, it is also one of the strongest crime-related fears, and is the strongest crime-related fear for young women. Levels of fear of rape vary among women by age, race/ethnicity, residential area, and other factors, but are especially high for women who have been victims of rape in the past or know victims personally (the latter group may include a significant portion of women, with one study estimating that over half of women know rape victims). Women are socialized from a very young age that rape can happen anywhere, to anyone, at any time. They are taught that they should always be aware of the possibility of rape and protect themselves from it. Young women are taught strategies to keep themselves safe, and this idea is instilled in them at a young age. This teaching women about the possibility of rape at a young age may contribute to higher levels of fear of crime in women. Studies have shown that women that take more precautionary steps to avoid being raped have more fear of actually being raped, whereas women who work nights and are outside in the dark tend to have less fear of rape. This may be because women that are out in the dark alone are more familiar with the area, so they feel that there is less of a threat.

What women know and men don’t: Women have an ever-present fear of being attacked,” a 2019 review of a PBS documentary, begins with a taste for the reader, of how fear of rape is experienced by women, and why (emphasis added):

Every day, women live with fear. It’s not paralyzing, but it’s omnipresent -- whether you’re walking out of work in the dark or asking a friend to watch your drink.

“Ask any woman you know. You always have a plan,” said Mary Dickson, who worked on a PBS documentary about women and fear in 1996. Nothing’s changed since then, she says.

The fear is low hum beneath the music of your regular life, implanted in your teenage years. You’re afraid a strange man will attack you.

So you don’t run at night.

You don’t park in a public garage.

You don’t enter an elevator already occupied by a single man.

You don’t leave a party without your friends.

Women are raised to fear and protect themselves from rape. But fear of rape exponentially increases when women read about or see images or footage of rape. Perhaps that is the reason I sensed that my neighbor Terry felt as I did, after photos emerged of a female hostage being led away to Gaza, her pants bloodied at the crotch. I am also fairly certain that like me, Terry finds it difficult to stop thinking about Shani Louk, whose story I can’t bring myself to relate here.

We, the women of Israel, know that Hamas, in addition to raping women—and it must be said, men—uses fear of rape as a form of psychological warfare, to inspire incapacitating fear in Israeli women and rage in their men. For this reason, Israeli experts have advised Israelis not to watch the footage, read the stories, see the photos, or listen to podcasts where the atrocities might be mentioned. These things spike fears; in the case of women, fear of rape.

Female Fear, a US Dept. of Justice resource, speaks of several types of media that can trigger rape fear in women, among them “frightening press accounts” (emphasis added):

In the United States, the Nation with the highest rape rate in the world, warnings, admonitions, and fear of rape are handed down from mother to daughter. Although rape happens to 1 female in 12, frightening press accounts, violent pornographic movies, cultural stereotypes of rapists and their victims, attacks on friends and acquaintances, and escalating statistics have contributed to women's fear of rape. In exploring the social and psychological specter of rape in women's lives, this study probes both the myths and realities of rape and society's response to it, including strategies women have developed to protect themselves. Fear of rape is reflected in the way women think, organize their lives, and relate to others. As the authors indicate, a reasonable amount of fear is useful in motivating women to take reasonable precautions. The book presents concrete ways both women and men can begin to alleviate the destructive effects of the fear of rape. These include educating the public, integrating women into their communities, promoting legal reform, and forcing accountability in media coverage.

Fear of rape explains the “Believe Women” campaign, which arose out of the #MeToo movement. Rape is one of women’s foremost fears and concerns. Why then, do women at the forefront of efforts to support women, make excuses for Hamas rapists when the victims are Jewish? 

The UN, however, bears special mention for its spectacular betrayal of Israeli women in the face of widespread rape by Hamas terrorists, still an ongoing situation for Israeli hostages of both sexes.   

An October 26 Jerusalem Post editorial speaks of that betrayal (emphasis added):

United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres’s speech to a special Security Council meeting on the Israel-Hamas war on Tuesday began promisingly enough.

“Nothing can justify the deliberate killing, injuring, and kidnapping of civilians – or the launching of rockets against civilian targets,” he said at the beginning of the speech.

Then Guterres’ moral compass went haywire, and he began to justify what he had just said was unjustifiable.

“It is important to also recognize the attacks by Hamas did not happen in a vacuum,” he said. “The Palestinian people have been subjected to 56 years of suffocating occupation. They have seen their land steadily devoured by settlements and plagued by violence; their economy stifled; their people displaced and their homes demolished. Their hopes for a political solution to their plight have been vanishing.”

Why does Guterres justify violence against Israeli Jews, and fail to mention at all, the sexual violence and the rape and degradation of Israeli women? How does anything make rape an excusable offense? In the enlightened world, how can it be that the head of the UN uses his soapbox to blame the Jewish victims and tell lies about the Jewish State—and the Gazan people?

By November 30, however, Guterres had apparently changed his tune. It must have been getting more difficult to get away with the sort of outright Jew-hatred that makes allowances for rape when the victim is a Jew. Hence his post on X.

"There are numerous accounts of sexual violence during the abhorrent acts of terror by Hamas on 7 October that must be vigorously investigated and prosecuted.

"Gender-based violence must be condemned. Anytime. Anywhere."

But why so vague? Where is the mention of rape? Where are the words “support Israel women” and “believe Israeli women” and what do we gleam from these omissions?

Here is my takeaway: with his fuzzy pronouncements of “investigating accounts” and “sexual violence” Guterres is telling the world that it’s okay to suspend belief in women when they are Jewish and Israeli; that it’s understandable that Hamas terrorists would rape Jewish women; and finally, that it’s fine and dandy to lie in public and make public proclamations about Jews occupying their own indigenous Jewish territory when everyone knows the bible is their deed.

My neighbor Terry is somewhat new to Israel. She and her family made Aliyah after there was a drive-by shooting not far from their home in the States. They took the shooting as a sign that it was time to leave the States and come to Israel. She hasn’t changed her mind. Why would she when the entire world repudiates her because she is a Jew, doesn’t care if she is raped because she is a Jew?

Rape fear is real for women everywhere, but fear of rape is compounded in a woman who is Jewish and Israeli, because she knows that the world sees her rape as legitimate resistance, and that the head of the UN himself, sees her genitals and body as free-for-the-taking, subhuman instruments for the release of pent-up Arab anger.

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!




EoZ Book:"Protocols: Exposing Modern Antisemitism"


EoZTV Podcast

Podcast URL

Subscribe in podnovaSubscribe with FeedlyAdd to netvibes
addtomyyahoo4Subscribe with SubToMe

search eoz





For $18 donation

Sample Text

EoZ's Most Popular Posts in recent years


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 over 19 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 to fight for Israel!

Monthly subscription:
Payment options

One time donation:

subscribe via email

Follow EoZ on Twitter!

Interesting Blogs

Blog Archive