2024 ~ Elder Of Ziyon

Friday, July 26, 2024

07/26 Links Pt2: Harris’s Naivete on the Mideast; Identity Politics and the Israel-Hamas War; US envoy says Albanese ‘not fit’ for position

From Ian:

Sen. Mitch McConnell in conversation with Jewish Insider

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) sat down with Jewish Insider on Thursday for an interview about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to Washington, the surging rates of antisemitism in the United States, and the foreign policy divisions within both parties.

The conversation came one day after Netanyahu’s joint session and the subsequent protests that turned violent and saw the defacing of Union Station, and hours after McConnell called on the Department of Justice to pursue the same maximum sentences for those involved in the Wednesday’s violence that prosecutors sought “for the Capitol rioters of Jan. 6.”

Below is a transcript of the interview, edited for length and clarity:

Jewish Insider: I want to start with what you said on the floor this morning about what we’ve seen occur at the Watergate and at Union Station over the past few days. I’m going to quote you, you said it “only underscores the challenge facing the world’s only Jewish state.” Taking a more domestic view, what do you think these last 36 hours say about the current state of antisemitism in the United States and what do you think needs to be done to address it?

Mitch McConnell: I think from the very beginning, this effort to try to convince people that there’s some sort of moral equivalence between how Israel is conducting the war and how it started has been outrageous. [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi yesterday attacking the prime minister of Israel for what I thought was one of the best speeches I’ve ever heard shows you that on the political left in this country, they’re confused, in my view, about the moral equivalency between being attacked and defending yourself and going after the attackers. So, I think it tells you something about the critics that they can’t tell the difference between Hamas, which started the whole thing and murdered 1,200 people, and the response to that, which has been about as selective as the Israeli military could be.

JI: About Democrats, do you have any thoughts on the dichotomy between [Senate Foreign Relations] Chairman [Ben] Cardin, who presided in Vice President Harris’ place and praised the address, with [Senate Minority] Leader [Chuck] Schumer still not offering his thoughts on the speech? What do you make of that? Is it that Chairman Cardin is retiring and doesn’t have to worry about political considerations?

MM: He was the only one willing to do it. The vice president, who should have been there, was not there. The president pro tem [Patty Murray] took a pass. I think the Democrats in the United States are confused about which side we ought to be on, unequivocally on. They’re divided by a fanatically sort of anti-Israel crowd. Frankly, I’ve been surprised by the level of antisemitism in this country. I had no idea, I thought this was something we had gotten past years ago. I’m pleased that in my party there seems to be no confusion about which side we ought to be on. I’m proud of our folks for sticking with Israel, our Democratic ally. Even the Biden administration trying to tell the Israelis how to run the war or the majority leader saying they ought to have an election, it’s not our job to tell a Democratic ally defending itself how to conduct a war, and by the way, you ought to have an election to get a new prime minister. We don’t do that normally, and I’m certain the Israelis are not confused about seeing the difference in this country.

Seth Mandel: Harris’s Naivete on the Mideast

The question that first came to mind watching Kamala Harris’s brief monologue (it was billed as a press conference, but there were no question taken) after her meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was: Who is she talking to? Who is the audience for this?

By the end of her comments, I realized she wasn’t actually trying to convince or reassure anyone of anything. It would have been quite useful to hear her answer questions in the moment, but alas we’re not yet at that stage of the Kamala rollout.

One point of continuity between Harris and Biden, however, was made clear when the vice president seemed to address a Democratic base that no longer exists. She went to great efforts to project empathy for the Palestinians when the progressive activist base doesn’t want to hear anything about Palestinians. Their focus is Israel, exclusively.

Hence, “Israel has a right to defend itself, and how it does so matters,” is crafted to appeal to both sides. And that might have succeeded… in 1994. The activists who have been interrupting President Biden’s speeches and press conferences and church visits don’t believe Israel has a right to defend itself and therefore “how it does so” doesn’t matter at all to them. The rioters attacking police officers yesterday while painting “Hamas is coming” graffiti, the “tentifada” students on college campuses, and the captured academic institutions all share a strong belief that Israel’s self-defense is itself illegitimate.

Indeed, the UN’s special envoy for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Francesca Albanese, rejected outright Israel’s right to self-defense after Hamas’s October massacre.

“The right to self-defense can be invoked when the state is threatened by another state, which is not the case,” Albanese said in November. “It cannot claim the right of self-defense against a threat that emanates from a territory it occupies, from a territory kept under belligerent occupation.”

Israel’s putative occupation of Gaza ended 20 years ago, but Albanese is speaking the language of the global left, which does not acknowledge this indisputable reality. A very popular slogan among the demonstrators is “Resistance is justified when people are occupied.”

Seth Mandel: Identity Politics and the Israel-Hamas War

In May, the New York Times looked into why antiwar sentiment at black colleges didn’t turn into pro-Hamas encampments. “The reasons stem from political, cultural and socioeconomic differences with other institutions of higher learning,” the reporters wrote. “While H.B.C.U.s host a range of political views, domestic concerns tend to outweigh foreign policy in the minds of most students. Many started lower on the economic ladder and are more intently focused on their education and their job prospects after graduation.”

There is also a sense of self-awareness at these colleges that is sorely lacking at a ridiculous elite circus like Columbia. “Whether people support the decision or not,” Morehouse President David Thomas said of the school hosting a speech by Biden, “they are committed to having it happen on our campus in a way that doesn’t undermine the integrity or dignity of the school.”

One gets the sense that, just as dignity is not a word readily associated with the behavior of students and faculty at Columbia or the University of Pennsylvania, dignity is also unlikely to be a factor in the considerations of a hundred thousand white women for Harris—the latter are heavily invested in self-actualization, not self-awareness.

So are these white wonder women going to turn their self-love army into anti-Kamala riots in Chicago? Unlikely. Will they interrupt Harris’s speeches to accuse her of not caring about “brown people”? I don’t think they will. Legions of white women who think saving the world requires a vote for Kamala Harris aren’t going to protest Kamala Harris as an avatar of white supremacy and colonialism.

The Washington Post’s Karen Attiah, one of the more prominent voices to amplify celebrations of Hamas’s slaughter on October 7, wants Harris to believe the threat is there. “If Harris does not get Gaza and protests right, especially as colleges start the fall semester — the campaign will be in *SERIOUS* trouble with young + PoC voters,” she posted. Attiah added: “Do people not understand that these groups could just as easily organize massive ‘Young People for Uncommitted’ Zooms just as quickly as people mobilized for Harris?”

No, they can’t. And they won’t. Harris’s speech yesterday suggests she, unfortunately, won’t seek to take much advantage of the neutralizing of this factional revolt when it comes to the war in Gaza. Harris seems dedicated to presenting the conflict as a false equivalence between Israel and Hamas. But her strong statement against the pro-Hamas protesters and rioters on Wednesday was a sign that she understands that the insulation from protests that Biden had pales in comparison to what Harris has in her pocket.

07/26 Links Pt1: Glick: The hour of Israeli leadership has arrived; Hamas rejects hostage-ceasefire deal before receiving it; Canada revoking JNF's charitable status

From Ian:

Caroline Glick: The hour of Israeli leadership has arrived

During the course of his address to Congress, Netanyahu described the existential threat Iran poses to both Israel and the United States and laid out his vision for contending with it.

In his words, “America and Israel today can forge a security alliance in the Middle East to counter the growing Iranian threat.

“All countries that are in peace with Israel and all those countries who will make peace with Israel should be invited to join this alliance. We saw a glimpse of that potential alliance on April 14. Led by the United States, more than half a dozen nations worked alongside Israel to help neutralize hundreds of missiles and drones launched by Iran against us. …

“The new alliance I envision would be a natural extension of the groundbreaking Abraham Accords. Those accords saw peace forged between Israel and four Arab countries, and they were supported by Republicans and Democrats alike.

“I have a name for this new alliance. I think we should call it: ‘The Abraham Alliance.’”

On the face of things, since both Republicans and Democrats have played a role in forging the alliance—former President Donald Trump through the 2020 Abraham Accords, and President Joe Biden by organizing the Arab states in support of intercepting Iran’s missiles and drones shot against Israel on April 14—Netanyahu’s vision ought to attract support from both sides of the aisle. The problem is that Trump and Biden view their regional alliance as a means to achieve opposite ends.

Biden’s actions in the region are a continuation of those initiated by former President Barack Obama, and to understand his policies, they must be viewed in the context of Obama’s policies.

Obama’s predecessors hoped to buy off Iran with a “grand bargain” that could moderate its policies. That is, they believed Iran should change. In contrast, Obama believed that the United States should change.

Obama’s foreign policy was predicated on his anti-imperialist worldview. Guided by its principles of Western culpability for the pathologies of the Middle East, Obama believed that Iran’s hostility towards America was justified. As he saw things, it was up to the United States to make amends to Iran by changing the way it operated in the Middle East.

To accomplish this goal, Obama began realigning the United States towards Iran and its Sunni allies in the Muslim Brotherhood at the expense of Israel and America’s traditional Sunni Arab allies.

Obama’s betrayal of both Israel and the Sunni Arabs brought the long-estranged neighbors together. The Israeli-Sunni partnership was first brought to bear in the 2014 Hamas war (“Operation Protective Edge”) against Israel. Obama sided with Hamas’s state sponsors Qatar and Turkey and insisted that Israel accept the terror regime’s ceasefire demands. Supported by Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, Netanyahu was able to withstand Obama’s pressure.

The true birth of the Abraham alliance then, came without U.S. involvement, in response to the U.S.’s betrayal of Israel and the Sunni Arabs under the Obama administration.

When Trump came into office, he abandoned Obama’s realignment and sought to rebuild America’s credibility in the eyes of its allies. To this end, Trump embraced the new Israeli-Sunni partnership, using it as a means to rebuild U.S. credibility and reassert U.S. regional leadership.

Trump envisioned a regional partnership where, supported by U.S. military equipment, intelligence and diplomatic support, U.S. allies led by Israel and Saudi Arabia would combat Iran on their own. America wouldn’t fight the wars of the region for its allies, but it also wouldn’t second guess its actions in pursuit of the common goal of defeating the threat Iran posed to the region.

Douglas Murray: The flag burning, terrorist supporting anti-Israel protesters are proving Netanyahu right

On Wednesday, I was down in DC to hear Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu give his address to the joint session of Congress.

I don’t think I have ever seen a case made so forcefully — not just by the speaker but by the people who had come to town to oppose him.

As I waited to get into the heavily guarded Capitol, I chatted with two very friendly and professional police officers.

As we were there, a number of groups of “anti-Israel protesters” started to march past.

Many of them were so proud of their views that they covered their faces — as usual — with COVID masks.

“You c–k-sucking motherf–ckers. Get the f–k out of our city,” they screamed at the policemen.

“White supremacists,” they also screamed through megaphones at the boys in blue who were (incidentally) black.

The protesters continued on their way, screaming abuse and profanities everywhere they could.

Common enemies
Inside Congress, the Israeli prime minister made many points, but one was especially relevant to the American public.

Netanyahu addressed the complete moral inversion that we have seen from some people in America since the attacks of Oct. 7.

Referring to those people who immediately turned on Israel when its citizens had been raped, butchered and burned alive, he said people have to be able to make the moral distinction “between those who target terrorists and those who target civilians, between the democratic state of Israel and the terrorist thugs of Hamas.”

He mentioned the fact that the US director of national intelligence recently confirmed that Iran is funding anti-Israel protests in America.

This explains why the surge in radical anti-Israel protests — from the streets of our cities to the nation’s campuses — has been so coordinated and organized.

“They want to disrupt America,” Netanyahu said.

“These protesters burned America flags even on the 4th of July. If you remember one thing from this speech, remember this: Our enemies are your enemies, our fight is your fight, and our victory will be your victory.”

Prominent Democrats — including Nancy Pelosi, who had boycotted the prime minister’s speech — promptly took to social media to denounce Netanyahu for these words.

How dare the Israeli prime minister suggest that these protesters are bigots, useful idiots of the Iranians and much more?

As if on cue, the mobs outside on the streets of Washington immediately proved Netanyahu right.

Outside Union Station, these terrorist supporters ripped down the American flags that were flying there.

And then the mob burned them. Right on the streets of the nation’s capital.

The flag that American servicemen throughout the generations, and to this day, have fought for, bled for and died for was burned and trampled upon by people who no longer even pretend that their problem is with Israel.

Daniel Greenfield: Kamala’s Anti-Israel Advisers Helped Bring On Oct 7

“The idea that terrorists attack because they hate freedom, however, is misguided,” Philip Gordon wrote in ‘Winning the Right War’. “Even most of the Muslims who support terrorism and trust Osama bin Laden favor elected government” and “personal liberty.”

Gordon, Obama’s future Middle East coordinator, explained in his book that Muslim terrorists weren’t “born evil” or “hate our freedoms”, but rather they feel “shame” over the state of “a once great Islamic civilization” surpassed by other cultures including “the local upstart, Israel.”

America was “creating conditions” that “generate” Islamic terrorism by detaining Al Qaeda terrorists, failing to punish American soldiers and “justifying any Israeli military action”. Gordon urged the White House to assure Iran that we have “no intention of using military force against Iran or fomenting internal dissent” because “Iran’s concerns about such issues are legitimate”

Published in 2007 by an imprint of the New York Times, Gordon’s book was a blueprint of the policies that the Obama administration would adopt, including blaming America and Israel, appeasing Iran and Islamists, and making Muslims feel better about themselves. These are the building blocks of the policies that led us to Oct 7 and an Iranian war across the region.

Today, Gordon is Kamala’s National Security Advisor, and possible future Secretary of State.

Gordon’s hostility toward Israel and sympathy for Islamic terrorists is a longstanding matter. Even before joining the Biden administration, he had co-written an article with Iran lobby figure Robert Malley, under FBI investigation for mishandling classified documents, urging Biden to reverse Trump’s possible recognition of Israel territory, and to cut political and economic support for Israel to punish it for its diplomatic successes under the Trump administration.

Recently, Gordon urged Israel to stop seeking victory against Hamas and accept a hostage deal that would allow the Islamic terrorist group to hang on in Gaza and free thousands of terrorists.

In his book, Gordon had claimed that “though Hamas refuses to recognize Israel today, it is not hard to imagine an eventual change in that position”. And in 2014, he had argued that a reconciliation deal between the PLO and Hamas “isn’t necessarily a bad thing”.

In 2016, Gordon, speaking on behalf of the Clinton campaign, appeared at a conference by National Iranian American Council (NIAC) widely regarded as the Iran Lobby, and promised that Hillary Clinton would veto new sanctions on Iran. He was described as assuring the Iran Lobby of the “potential for collaboration with Iran”. The New York Times even appeared to list him as a “tour guide” on its Iran trips.

And Gordon is not the only terror booster on Kamala’s team.

Americans are three times as likely to die of malnutrition as Gazans

According to the Hamas media office, 34 people have died so far from malnutrition in Gaza since October 7. At an annual rate, that is about 2 people per 100,000 population.

In 2022, in the United States, 20,500 people died from malnutrition. That is 6 deaths per 100,000 population.

In 2018, the US death rate from malnutrition was significantly lower - 9,300. That is still roughly double Gaza's death rate per hundred thousand.

Now, how many articles have you seen about US deaths by starvation? And how many have you seen about Gaza?

This is what people in a real famine look like.

Are you starting to get the impression that the news media is not reporting the facts as they are, but the facts as they want them to be?

Is the US on the brink of famine? Of course not.

And neither is Gaza.

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!

Fact-checking the fact-checkers on Netanyahu's description of the Rafah operation

CNN's fact check says

Claim: Netanyahu said a commander in Rafah told him that there practically no civilian deaths in the city with the exception of “a single incident where shrapnel from a bomb hit a Hamas weapons depot and unintentionally killed two dozen people.”

Fact: There have been multiple reports of several Israeli strikes in Rafah that have caused civilian casualties....

At least 29 Palestinians were killed in two separate Israeli attacks on displacement camps in Rafah, according to Palestinian and UN officials.

CNN has verified videos from Rafah and spoken to several health officials, humanitarian workers and eyewitnesses who have reported civilian fatalities as a result of Israel’s military assault on the city.

This doesn't contradict Netanyahu - CNN doesn't know if the 29 were civilian or terrorists. And the other civilian fatalities could fit in the "practically none" quote from Netanyahu.

NPR dealt with the statement similarly, and chose to do what journalists do: counter the facts with heartbreaking stories of loss of in specific incidents in Rafah. But the casualties they mention do not add up to large numbers.

More importantly, CNN and NPR took Netanyahu's statement out of context. He prefaced it by saying:

[D]espite all the lies you’ve heard, the war in Gaza has one of the lowest ratios of combatants to non-combatant casualties in the history of urban warfare. And you want to know where it’s lowest in Gaza? It’s lowest in Rafah. In Rafah. Remember what so many people said? If Israel goes into Rafah, there’ll be thousands, maybe even tens of thousands of civilians killed. Well, last week I went into Rafah. I visited our troops as they finished fighting Hamas’ remaining terrorist battalions. I asked the commander there, “How many terrorists did you take out in Rafah?” He gave me an exact number: 1,203. I asked him, “How many civilians were killed?” He said, “Prime Minister, practically none...."

Bibi's statement that the experts predicted thousands of deaths is an understatement. AP, May 3, said, "The United Nations humanitarian aid agency says hundreds of thousands of people would be 'at imminent risk of death' if Israel carries out a military assault in the southern Gaza city of Rafah. "

UNRWA said “A military incursion into Rafah could lead to a bloodbath because of how densely populated Rafah has become.”

WHO similarly warned about a "bloodbath" and stated confidently that a "Rafah incursion would substantially increase mortality." Weeks later, even after the offensive started with relatively low casualties, WHO claimed a "substantial" increases in deaths can be expected,

In the ten weeks since the Rafah operation began, there has been - according to Hamas authorities - an average weekly death toll of 395. In the ten weeks preceding it, the average weekly death toll was 489. Instead of the expected tenfold increase of casualties due to fighting in a crowded urban environment, the numbers went down.

The "experts"were wrong. Israel has continued to reduce the number of total casualties even as it has been scoring more successes against Hamas.

Even if, say, 100 civilians were killed in Rafah during the incursion, assuming that the 1,203 terrorists killed is accurate, this would be a totally unprecedented urban terrorist to civilian death toll of 12-1. The ratio was indeed lowest in Rafah, as Bibi said. In terms of real wars, "practically none" is not an inaccurate assessment.

This is the sort of information that CNN and NPR most definitely do not want you to know. They do not point out when Netanyahu is correct and they cherry-pick statements out of context to make him look like he is lying.

But he is right, and the experts were wrong about Rafah. And so are the "fact-checkers."

(h/t Irene)

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!

Most of the "fact checking" articles after Benjamin Netanyahu's speech have more bias and spin, and fewer facts, than Netanyahu had.

Let's look at Netanyahu said about aid into Gaza, and the "fact checks," to see who was more accurate.

CNN:

Claim: Netanyahu said Israel has “enabled more than 40,000 aid trucks to enter Gaza” adding that it amounts to “more than 3,000 calories for every man, women, and child in Gaza.”

Fact: More than a dozen aid agencies working in the territory have said that Israel’s statistics on truck entries “fail to address several vital components necessary for an effective operational response”.

“The mere entry of trucks into Gaza does not guarantee that the supplies reach the intended recipients due to safety and security reasons,” they said, adding that “reported numbers do not differentiate between types of cargo, often mixing commercial goods with critical humanitarian aid, which obscures the real picture of assistance reaching those in crisis.”

AP similarly said:

Israel initially imposed a complete siege on Gaza in the early days of the war and, under U.S. pressure, gradually eased it to allow the entry of food and humanitarian supplies. While Israel says it allows hundreds of truckloads of goods to enter Gaza each day, the United Nations and aid groups say they are often unable to reach it or distribute it.

There is nothing that CNN and AP are saying that contradicts Netanyahu's facts. They are saying Israel should do more to ensure the trucks reach the people they are intended for, but they do not dispute the 40,000 figure.

But this is far worse than merely moving the goalposts. Netanyahu preceded this statement by saying "The prosecutor of the International Criminal Court has shamefully accused Israel of deliberately starving the people of Gaza. This is utter complete nonsense. It’s a complete fabrication. " Netanyahu was responding to the false accusation of deliberate starvation. The ultimate distribution of the aid is not the point of his statement - it was to refute the libel that Israel is intentionally starving Gaza. Bringing in 40,000 trucks is a huge logistical effort, and it proves Israel doesn't have a policy of deliberate starvation.

CNN's and AP's omission of that context is deliberate and malicious.

The Guardian did quote the fuller context, but then said:

According to data from the UN, 28,018 aid trucks have entered Gaza since the war began. Routes into the territory no longer include the Rafah crossing, which Israeli forces stormed in early May, largely curtailing the aid supply into southern areas.
Since then, just 2,835 trucks have entered through the Kerem Shalom crossing in the south and Erez in the north – delivering a tiny fraction of the aid needed.

The Guardian ignored what even the UN admits in its dashboard om statistics since May 6: "Dashboard data includes partial cargo from INGOs, Red Cross and other UN agencies, and excludes Commercial actors. " So UN figures are incomplete, and they admit it. COGAT's statistics are complete and comprehensive, and show that over 15,000 trucks have entered since May, not less than 3,000. (This accounts for the 12,000 difference between the two numbers.)

The Guardian's "facts" are the ones that are wrong, not Netanyahu's.

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!

The Gaza health ministry posted this infographic describing its casualty statistics as of June 30, 2024.

Here is the English translation of the specific statistics on deaths:

As they have done for about six months, they say that they have confirmed and detailed data on the deaths of 28,185 people, and incomplete data on another 9.715.

Of the 28,185, they count 5,320 women and 9,351 children.

But the ministry of health has a separate breakdown of the women and children for the higher number - but it is published on the website of the Palestinian Authority Central Bureau of Statistics. It gets updated every day.

Here was that website a few days later (I couldn't access June 30, this is July 4):

Comparing the July 4 numbers of PCBS with the June 30 "complete data" numbers of the Gaza health ministry, we see a count of an additional 9.768 total deaths (presumably with incomplete information.)

And a difference of 5,249 women.

And a difference of 6,568 children.

Which is a total of 11,817 women and children.

That is 2,049 more women and children "martyrs" than is mathematically possible when subtracting the ones that have the supposedly complete documentation.

In reality, it is far more than that number, because there is no way that every single one of the partially documented deaths are women and children. If we assume the same 52% ratio of women and children in the "documented" deaths, than would indicate about 6,750 fictional women and children who were supposedly killed in Gaza, but who never existed.

If you assume that the detailed ministry of health information is accurate, then you must conclude that they are lying when they report the higher numbers.

It is possible that the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics is lying, and quoting the Hamas media office for the breakdown of women and children while claiming it is the health ministry.

But either way, the number of women and children killed cannot possibly be the higher numbers reported on the PCBS webpage and attributed to the health ministry.

Now, we have proven that the breakdown of women and children from the higher number is a lie. It is not an oversight or a mistake because this has been happening for months.

Then why should anyone believe the higher number itself? If the health ministry, or the PCBS, or Hamas, or whoever the source is, are lying about women and children, and if there is no documented evidence for nearly 10,000 of the dead, why should anyone assume that the higher number has any basis in reality? If they make up the women and children statistic - and this is absolute proof that they do - why do people believe that the total number is accurate?

We've been lied to for a long time, and the media (as well as academia) want to believe the lies so they don't do the simple math I just did.

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!

07/25 Links Pt2: What Kamala Harris Should Do About the Pro-Hamas Mobs; Wikipedia’s Jewish Problem; The German Left’s Jewish Dilemma

From Ian:

Richard Landes: Islamic and Arab Imperialism and Irredentism is driving the conflict between the river and the sea

This analysis might seem depressing. After all, the urge of Westerners to dismiss/ignore this evidence and insist so strongly on the secular, nationalist, human rights dimension of this conflict, reflects at best an unconscious need to believe there is a ‘solution’. At worst it is a dogmatic denial of reality. When Benny Morris completed his study 1948, the publisher rejected it because it depicted the Muslim war on Israel as a Jihad.[4] Our political ‘scientists’ have limited experience understanding dealing with religious movements and motivations, so rather than address the lacuna in their knowledge, they prefer to go with the fiction of Palestinian ‘nationalism’ created by Soviet propaganda. That was the logic of the Two-State Solution: land for peace. However, when your opponent plays by zero-sum logic, concessions are invitations to further aggression, Land for War. And some key figures, including members of the Israeli intelligence community, continue to believe the fiction, no matter how threadbare.[5]

What we need to explore as a culture is the mystery of how a believer can renounce triumphalism in the present (what he imagines at the eschaton only matter when she thinks the time has come), and adopt a demotic religiosity. That is a far less ‘manly’ form of religious identity, but it benefits everyone, not just the dominators. If the Western ‘progressives’ were serious about their values they would not encourage this Palestinian irredentism by pretending it is the ‘freedom fighting’ of the underdog, rather than the rage of the frustrated imperialist, especially when that imperialism targets the progressives as well.

It is not as if Islam has no demotic tradition. (One might argue it characterised the first Meccan period.) It is a form of humanitarian racism to believe that Muslims are incapable of the kind of reciprocal respect that democracies demand for the sake of separating church and state, a reciprocity that demotic religiosity makes possible. It is a form of folly not to confront the Muslim world and demand it get over its triumphalist honor-fixation and join the rest of humanity, to somehow believe that demanding this is a form of Western (progressive) imperialism.

The Jihadis have made it clear what this war is about: ‘We love death more than you love life, and that is why we will defeat you.’ Their conclusion only holds true if you who think yourselves bystanders, side with the death cult. We will win when you – infidel and believer – join us in loving life. Who would have thought that loving life was so difficult?

David Singer: Occupied Palestinian territory is reoccupied Jewish territory

The UN General Assembly should take no comfort from the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in “Legal Consequences arising from the policies and practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem” (“Territory”) which has failed to recognise the rights vested in the Jewish people to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in this Territory under articles 6 and 25 of the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine - preserved by article 80 of the United Nations Charter.

The ICJ has ridden roughshod over these vested Jewish rights in Paragraph 51 of the Advisory Opinion:

“Having been part of the Ottoman Empire, at the end of the First World War, Palestine was placed under a class “A” Mandate that was entrusted to Great Britain by the League of Nations, pursuant to Article 22, paragraph 4, of the League Covenant....

... The territorial boundaries of Mandatory Palestine were laid down by various instruments, in particular on the eastern border, by a British memorandum of 16 September 1922 and the Anglo-Transjordanian Treaty of 20 February 1928.”

Firstly: No mention by the ICJ that the primary purpose of the Mandate as expressed in its preamble and its articles was to promote the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home in what the ICJ is now misleadingly calling “Occupied Palestinian Territory”

Secondly: the Mandate for Palestine was not a class “A” Mandate as the 1937 Palestine Royal Commission Report explained:

“The Mandate is of a different type from the Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon and the draft Mandate for Iraq. These latter, which were called for convenience “A” Mandates, accorded with the fourth paragraph of Article 22. Thus the Syrian Mandate provided that the government should be based on an organic law which should take into account the rights, interests and wishes of all the inhabitants, and that measures should be enacted “to facilitate the progressive development of Syria and the Lebanon as independent States “. The corresponding sentences of the draft Mandate for Iraq were the same. In compliance with them National Legislatures were established in due course on an elective basis. Article I of the Palestine Mandate, on the other hand, vests ” full powers of legislation and of administration”, within the limits of the Mandate, in the Mandatory.”

Thirdly: Not one reference by the ICJ to article 6 of the Mandate which stated:

“The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish Agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes”

Fourthly: The territorial boundaries of Palestine remained unchanged until 1946 when Transjordan (78% of the territory of Palestine located east of the Jordan River) was granted independence by Great Britain.

The ICJ has displayed a blatant anti-Jewish bias in its consideration of the Mandate.

Daniel Pipes: A Muslim Aliyah Paralleled the Jewish Aliyah Part I, to 1948

"So far from being persecuted, the Arabs have crowded into the country
[Palestine] and multiplied till their population has increased."
— Winston Churchill in 1938

"[T]he Arab immigration into Palestine since 1921 has vastly exceeded
the total Jewish immigration during this whole period."
— Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1939

Famously, Jewish immigration to the Land of Israel, called aliyah, is centuries old and took on an organized form in 1882. Described as "the central goal of the State of Israel" (in the words of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon), it provides the demographic basis on which the entire Zionist enterprise rests. Both very public and highly controversial, it has inspired millions of Jews to move to territories now under Israeli control.

Much less famously, a large and diverse non-Jewish immigration to Palestine (meaning here, roughly Gaza, the West Bank, and the northern half of the State of Israel), mostly Muslim, has also taken place. These immigrants included Arabs, Muslims, and many others. They and their descendants probably make up a majority of the population now called Palestinian. Palestinians, in other words, are not an aboriginal, autochthonous, first, indigenous, or native people; most of them are as recently arrived as Zionists. They are also as ethnically diverse.

The scale of this non-Jewish immigration was once well known, as the Churchill and Roosevelt quotes above indicate. It has, however, long since disappeared from view, replaced by a fable about a homogeneous people living on the land since the deepest antiquity.

This article seeks to restore the historical record by reviewing non-Jewish immigration to Palestine during the century from the 1840s until the creation of Israel in 1948; then it examines the fairytale that displaced that record. A future article will take up non-Jewish immigration since 1948 to the State of Israel.

07/25 Links Pt1: Netanyahu has exposed the West’s gross moral hypocrisy; A fascist rally in Washington, DC; Bodies of 5 hostages were found in tunnel in a humanitarian zone

From Ian:

Phyllis Chesler: Netanyahu’s historic speech

I watched Netanyahu’s speech to Congress. He delivered a masterful, inspiring, historic and fact-based speech. He put every lie to rest. His delivery in perfect unaccented English was met with rousing applause again and again. Gallantly and strategically, he thanked both Presidents Biden and Trump for their support.

He introduced incredibly heroic Israeli soldiers, a hostage, families of hostages, the father of a fallen soldier. Their stories are amazing and humbling.

Netanyahu reiterated that what Israel needs are the weapons to do the job, to get the job done, to win the war—and without any American boots on the ground. He emphasized that Israel is fighting for America. If America can supply the weapons faster, he will end the war faster.

He also shared his vision for a Gazan future, which consists of “demilitarization and deradicalization,” just as the Allies in World War II insisted upon in terms of a defeated Nazi Germany.

Netanyahu spoke the truth that this is not a “war between civilizations but a war between civilization and barbarism.”

He pointed out that “like 9/11, 10/7 will forever live on in infamy.” He confirmed that Oct. 7 was the equivalent in American demographic terms to “twenty 9/11s.”

Netanyahu rightly called the anti-Israel demonstrators outside Congress “Iran’s useful idiots.” They are also incredibly vulgar, their mouths filled with obscene curses and death threats. They tore down and burned American flags. Yes, right here in Washington, D.C.

Netanyahu confirms that Israel has sent food into Gaza that Hamas has stolen. Israel has done its very best to avoid civilian casualties. Israel has protected and rescued civilians in Gaza.

Netanyahu dared to name America as the major impediment to stopping Iran. He is right. Only Israel is standing in Iran’s way. Israel is, in effect, protecting America. Iran has been attacking American soldiers for many years now. Only Israel has gone up against it.

This speech and its overwhelmingly enthusiastic reception were historic. It was a speech for the ages.

Finally, Netanyahu confirmed that Israel was going to win. There is no other option.

Jake Wallis Simons: Netanyahu has exposed the West’s gross moral hypocrisy

About 70 Democrats snubbed Prime Minister Netanyahu's speech to Congress on Wednesday, up from the 58 who boycotted his address to Congress in 2015. You'd have thought that the attack by Hamas would have resulted in a rise in support for the Middle East's sole democracy as it fights for its life against an enemy that is coming for us next. Yet in the minds of those taking the Hamas side of the argument, their hatred of "Zionism" is simply a philosophical opposition to the principle of Jewish self-determination.

While beleaguered and controversial, Netanyahu's speech was a resounding triumph. When it comes to making the case for Israel, he is by far the best orator the Jewish state has ever produced. Here, at long last, was a demonstration to the West of what moral clarity looks like, delivered at the very heart of the free world. "This is not a clash of civilizations. It's a clash between barbarism and civilization," he said. To prevail, "America and Israel must stand together. We will win." This received perhaps the most rapturous applause.

But the greatest significance of Bibi's tour de force was geopolitical. Israeli sources have suggested that Gaza leader Yahya Sinwar over-interpreted the campus protests in America, wrongly divining that public opinion was swinging behind Hamas when 80% of the population continued to support Israel.

There can be no mistake after Bibi's speech. The scenes of ranks of congressmen united in a standing ovation were more powerful than any images of idiots in keffiyehs being pepper-sprayed outside. The U.S. and Israel stand shoulder-to-shoulder. Nor was this lost on the sophisticated leadership of Iran.

Netanyahu's speech provided a clear vision of the threats facing the West. "Iran is virtually behind all the terrorism, all the turmoil, all the chaos, all the killing," Netanyahu said, and the U.S. was the only power standing in the way of Tehran's plans for global subjugation.

Melanie Phillips: Netanyahu’s hour

For the better part of an hour on Wednesday, it was possible to believe that the Western world had not lost its mind.

For some 54 minutes, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the U.S. Congress truth after truth about the war against Israel and demolished the malicious and grotesque accusations against it of war crimes and genocide.

In a magnificent, impassioned and pitch-perfect address, he roused Congress to its feet with at least 54 standing ovations.

They cheered and applauded when he declared that Israel’s battle against Iran was America’s battle.

They cheered and applauded when referring to U.S. intelligence that Iran was behind the pro-Hamas protests, he said those demonstrators “stand with evil” and are “Iran’s useful idiots.”

They cheered and applauded when, in a veiled reference to the Biden administration’s decision to slow down the supply of arms to Israel that Congress had mandated, Netanyahu said: “Give us the tools faster and we’ll finish the job faster.”

For the duration of that hour, it was possible for Jews reeling from the murderous antisemitism that has erupted around the world since the Oct. 7 pogrom, the refusal of Western governments to tackle it and the near-universal adoption of Hamas propaganda by liberal elites, to believe that the Jews are not standing alone after all.

But this ecstatic audience was composed of Republicans who get it and Democrats who were prepared at least to give Netanyahu the courtesy of a hearing. The same could not be said of the 70 Democrats who boycotted Netanyahu’s address, including the new Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris.

This was the most ominous signal possible that, if she becomes president, Harris will be a danger to both Israel and the West. Her absence wasn’t just a deliberate insult to Netanyahu. It showed contempt for America’s principal Middle East ally as it fights for its life against forces that menace America and the free world.

Far from marking her out as a statesman, Harris’s boycott was the act of a petulant partisan. And the claim made by such Democrats that they only loathe Netanyahu, not Israel, doesn’t hold water for a moment.

Brendan O'Neill: A fascist rally in Washington, DC

What would you call a gathering of angry people marching behind a giant, grotesque effigy of a horned Jew with blood dripping from his mouth? A gathering at which one attendee held up a placard calling for a ‘Final Solution’ for ‘the Zionists’? A gathering at which people giddily waved the flag of a movement that is devoted to the murder of Jews? A gathering at which there were banners and speedily daubed graffiti on public monuments singing the praises of this Jew-killing outfit? I would call it a fascist rally. And yet, bizarrely, when just such a rally took place in Washington, DC yesterday, the liberal media called it an ‘anti-war protest’. Were they watching something else?

Let’s speak frankly: yesterday’s protests in Washington, DC against the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, were deeply disturbing. They were riddled not only with the febrile Israelophobic bigotry we’ve come to expect from the supposedly progressive left, but also with open anti-Semitism. With classic anti-Semitism. With expressions of virulent contempt for the Jew as blood-drinker, the Jew as child-killer, the Jew as such a key source of the world’s ills that a ‘solution’, ideally a ‘final’ one, must be found to his continual ailing of the human race. This was a hate-fest masquerading as concern for Palestinians.

Consider what many in the press are referring to as ‘the Netanyahu puppet’. What cowardly euphemising. This was no mere mocking likeness of the Israeli PM – it was a repulsive caricature of The Jew. Displayed outside Congress, where Netanyahu was speaking, it contained almost every anti-Jew trope. Blood-spattered horns sprouted from the Jew’s head. His hands and mouth were generously smeared with fake blood, as if this creature had freshly feasted on human flesh. His white shirt was red with blood, too – the spillage from his vampiric gorging.

It was right out of Medieval Europe, where eruptions of anti-Semitism were fuelled by ‘folk beliefs’ about Jews having ‘horns and big noses’. And being blood-drinkers, of course. The blood libel that was the trigger for so many medieval pogroms held that Jews killed Christian kids to use their blood in the baking of Matzah bread. To see such Dark Ages-style hatred and hysteria on the streets of DC in 2024 – to see a mob in modern America gather to mock an effigy of a blood-drinking Jew with horns – is horrendous. There were other effigies of Netanyahu, too. One was set on fire outside Union Station to the cheers and cackles of the crowd. It was like a medieval purging. It brought to mind the centuries-old practice of ‘Judas burning’ at Easter, also known as the ‘Burning of the Jew’, when effigies of that ‘Christ killer’ would be set alight.

Houthis Thought Sloped Roof Would Prevent Israeli Airstrikes (PreOccupied Territory)

Our weekly column from the humor site PreOccupied Territory.

Check out their Facebook page.

Hodeida, July 28 - Senior figures in the Iran-backed Islamist rebel group that controls western Yemen admitted today that they had overestimated the effectiveness of an angled structure in deterring or nullifying missiles and bombs in the now-destroyed port facility.

Ayama Ful, who holds a rank roughly equivalent to brigadier general in the Ansar Allah movement, acknowledged in several conversations this morning that defense experts in the organization had relied too heavily on the defensive potential of a sloped roof over and near sensitive sites that Israeli Air Force fighters and cruise missiles destroyed over the weekend in retaliation for a deadly drone attack that hit Tel Aviv late last week. 60% of the port's fuel storage went up in flames, and the port has been rendered unusable for the foreseeable future.

"It had been our understanding that a sloped roof was too formidable an obstacle even for some of the world's most preventive forces," confessed Ful. "That was the prevailing, conventional assessment of things. We do now realize that conception was in error, and will do everything in our power, with our partners in Tehran, to eliminate this vulnerability across all of our facilities and systems. But yes, this was a sobering discovery."

Sloped roofs existed atop and adjacent to nearly 80% of the targets that Israel struck. The slanted structures failed to shield, deter, deflect, or cushion any of the bombs or missiles in the series of strikes, according to Ansar Allah statistics.

Houthi officials vowed an investigation and reorganization. "Obviously, escalation and reconstruction will be our twin goals going forward," insisted regional governor Allaeayn Aljamal. "We must augment our stockpile of drones and missiles to launch at the Zionists and also at random ships anywhere in the area - an endeavor that has become more difficult with the largest port in the country disabled. And some large ships from Iran bound for us have also disappeared. I don't know if they had sloped roofs installed. We are still investigating that."

Some Houthis expressed more alarm. "If the Zionists - or their American backers - have developed sloped-roof-penetrating technology, we face an unprecedented problem," warned advisor 'Ana Akil Alqaraf. "Our partners in Iran will have to reconsider an entire layer of their defenses for nuclear weapons and ballistic missile facilities, not to mention other military or national security sites. This carries grave implications for regional power balances."

Alqaraf noted that he has attempted to warn allies in Gaza and Lebanon about this disturbing new Israeli capability, but has not received confirmation that his messages have reached their destinations.

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!

How the media misreported Nasser Hospital (Real Jerusalem Streets)

Guest essay by Real Jerusalem Streets:

It was 25 years ago, but I remember it better than last week.

We lived in New York City, I was standing in my husband's office. On his desk was the New York Times - a must-have newspaper in those days.

One little news brief mentioned First Lady Hilary Clinton for the Senate seat to open up with the retirement of Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

As I stood there, I thought - the manipulation of the masses by the media.

The woman who had never lived in NY before 1999, was voted the US Senator from New York in 2000 after Nita Lowey - graciously - backed out of the race.

This week, multiple times, the media was influencing the public, but I will focus on only one specific issue, rather than do a long rant.

July 23, 2024, was Tuesday the 17th of Tammuz and a Jewish fast day.

In Jerusalem, Israel, the sun was blazing and too hot to go outside, better to attend Zoom meetings and stay close to the computer and the air conditioning.

Scrolling on X in the morning, I found Reuters live-streaming the Emergency Room entrance of Nasser Hospital in Khan Younis.

Here is one screenshot of the morning scene. The video live stream was on my computer all day as I did other things. Constantly I referred back, watching and listening for ambulances, etc.

You can watch all six hours here:

For most of the day, I and thousands of others watched the very less-than-chaotic images. At times little boys roamed around, and occasionally a small crowd of men gathered outside the fence. Women constantly were walking this road, even as a few cars and trucks came along.

It looks like the amount of ambulances any major hospital emergency room would receive in any six hour period. No evidence of panic or desperation.

So what's the problem?

The Washington Post used this Shutterstock image as feature on its story.

JERUSALEM — Israel’s army intensified military operations in southern Gaza on Monday, sending Palestinian casualties streaming into already buckling hospitals, as thousands of civilians fled an area that the army had previously designated a safe zone.

In Nasser Hospital, one of the most functional remaining medical facilities in the Gaza Strip, casualties streamed in and doctors did what they could. Many of the patients were children, and some arrived by themselves, medics said..."

Who are you going to believe, your own eyes or the Washington Post?

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!

One of the aims of the anti-Israel protesters is to break down law and order. We must not let that happen.

The scenes from yesterday's anti-Israel protests in Washington should upset any decent person.

These are crimes by any definition. Vandalism of public property is illegal by all measures; incitement to genocide of a protected group is is generally illegal.

Where are the police? There were plenty around - one even got attacked and dragged on the ground by the "peaceful protesters." How could they allow the public defacement of the statue, Freedom Bell and flags at Union Station?

During the 1980s and 1990s, the "broken windows theory" got a lot of attention. It says that visible signs of crime like broken windows and graffiti, antisocial behavior and civil disorder create an environment that encourages more crime, including more serious crimes.

Social scientists argue whether various experiments in policing to reduce low level crimes like vandalism have an effect on reducing bigger crimes. Other factors like changing demographics could have more to do with reduction of crime in cities that tried this than the increased police vigilance. But no one who lived in an urban areas during this time period can argue that public spaces and mass transit feel safer when there is no graffiti, when trash is picked up and when lights are repaired quickly.

It appears that the protestors subscribe to this theory. Beyond the antisemitism that animates specific anti-Israel protests, the socialist Left that organizes many of these along with the BLM protests want to subvert American society - or, as they put it in the graffiti above, "abolish the USA."

The relative laxity of the responses, both from police and from campus authorities, is encouraging these anarchists in their goal to destroy law and order.

Based on what we saw yesterday, it looks like the broken windows theory compressed into a few hours. The police didn't do anything about vandalism and arson. Protesters felt confident enough to do the crimes without their faces even covered. And then some physically attacked the police themselves.

The difference between the 1980s and now is that the vandals in the Bronx didn't have an agenda to destroy America, These criminals do. They are highly educated, well organized and law-savvy. They adjust their tactics based on how the authorities respond - or don't respond. Breaking the law is the point, not a side effect.

Over the past nine months we have witnessed the failure of law enforcement to act forcefully and early when these well publicized protests occur. That has helped encourage further violence.

And the upshot is creating an environment where ordinary people, let alone Jews, do not feel safe, just as things were in various city neighborhoods decades ago.

The rules for legal protests must be enforced at the outset. Ignoring the violations brings us to what we saw yesterday in Washington.

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!

The Nation has an article defending anti-Israel activists using the keffiyeh to hide their faces, saying that it is merely a symbol of solidarity and has nothing to do with violence:

Protesters in the United States who wear the keffiyeh at protests are not doing it because they are hoping to engage in hate crimes without being identified. Rather, they know that if they do not protect themselves, in the same way Palestinian revolutionaries did during the British mandate, they will expose themselves to the dangers of state surveillance and doxxing.

Oh, so they aren't wearing them not to be identified - they are wearing them not to be, um, identified. Anti-Israel organizers say that they are to avoid getting into legal trouble. They recommend wearing a mask at all times - not a keffiyeh but anything that covers the face.

These are exactly the same reasons white supremacists wear masks.

When the article discusses "the rich, proud history of the keffiyeh" it pointedly avoids mentioning how Palestinians themselves associate the scarf with violence.

The official Palestinian news agency said the keffiyeh is "a symbol of martyrs and prisoners" - meaning, terrorists.

More explicitly, decades of political posters by Palestinians and their supporters have directly associated the keffiyeh with weapons and violence.

Fatah poster, 1968:

Al Saiqa poster, 1968:

Leftist magazine cover, 1970:

Palestinian magazine cover celebrating the Savoy Hotel terror attack, 1975:

General Union of Palestinian Students rally, 1975:

1980 artwork:

2002, Fatah, during the height of the second intifada:

2007, Fatah:

The iconic photos of Leila Khaled:

And of terrorist Dalal Mughrabi:

And graphic artists are even associating the keffiyeh with violence today, as this poster celebrating October 7 shows:

It is entirely appropriate to compare the symbolism of the keffiyeh to the Confederate flag, or wearing it as a mask at rallies to KKK hoods. It means support for both Palestinian violence and protection for antisemitic protester violence and criminal activities.

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!