Monday, November 25, 2024

11/25 Links Pt1: Israeli Cabinet to vote on Lebanon ceasefire; The international criminal kangaroo court strikes again; Israel is Right to ‘Cancel’ the UNRWA

From Ian:

The international criminal kangaroo court strikes again
The moral emptiness of the court’s actions is matched only by its legal frivolity and the danger of its potential impact.

Israel is not a member of the ICC. Israel has an independent and robust legal system. There is no evidence that Israel is committing war crimes by intentionally targeting civilians or using starvation as a tool of war—quite the contrary. All reliable evidence points to Israel’s extraordinary efforts to avoid civilian casualties and to provide as much food as needed to the people of Gaza. Moreover, it is known, beyond any reasonable doubt, that Hamas is operating from within civilian infrastructures, using civilians as human shields in contravention of international law. Hamas continues to steal most of the aid that goes into Gaza and is using it as a tool of repression against its own people. Yet, based primarily on Hamas’s own propagandized news reports, Kahn and his cohorts at the ICC have brought these baseless charges and arrest warrants. The reason is clear: The world’s institutions will do anything to stop Israel from defending itself from the terrorist regimes that surround the Jewish state.

It is worth noting that the Palestinian Authority managed to be admitted to the ICC as a member “state” in 2015. This comes despite the fact that there is no “state of Palestine” and that the P.A., Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad are dictatorial terrorist entities that should be given no shelter in international institutions, such as the ICC. In fact, to become a member state of the ICC, the country must ratify the Rome Statute, the court’s founding treaty. This is laughable for the Palestinian leadership for various reasons, including that the Rome Statute reaffirms in its preamble that “all States shall refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any [other] State.” But no one ever accused the ICC of being intellectually honest. Mahmoud Abbas, the dictatorial leader of the P.A. joined the ICC with impunity as a platform from which to openly launch lawfare attacks against Israel. Abbas has achieved his goal. The ICC has become the useful idiot of the P.A. and Hamas and has created immense pressure on Israel and the West through these dangerous actions.

Of course, no trial will ever occur. No country is going to arrest Netanyahu or Gallant despite grandiose statements by woke leaders such as Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. There will never be an adjudication of these nonsensical claims. The entire process is simply a charade of the left, although the danger posed by the position taken by the court cannot be understated. The ICC, which was only established in 2002, is done. It has revealed itself as a puppet of the far-left and of Islamist regimes, much like the United Nations. The court has only brought 32 cases since 2002 and has convicted just 11 people. The court was meant to be a court “of last resort” for crimes against humanity and genocide, where local courts are corrupted and are not prosecuting these most grave crimes. Kahn’s move may be the end of the ICC.

In 2020, then-President Donald Trump issued Executive Order 13928 authorizing asset freezes and family-entry bans against International Criminal Court officials for their threats to assert jurisdiction over the United States, which is also not a member of the ICC. The sanctions worked, and the ICC dropped its investigation into the United States. President Joe Biden inexplicably revoked the sanctions on April 2, 2021. But Trump is back and so will the sanctions. All indications are that this time, the sanctions will be taken to the next level. The United States should, and likely will, pressure its allies to do the same.

Even if the case goes nowhere, there will certainly be a lasting negative impact of the ICC’s actions. Remember, the war launched by Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis and the Islamic Republic of Iran against Israel will not be the last. In the next war launched by a terrorist regime against a sovereign Democratic Western nation, be it in the United States or Europe, the supposed guardrails the global community had built through the walls of the United Nations, and later the International Criminal Court will be nowhere to be found. Terrorists will continue to use the Palestinian’s playbook, which has proven to be effective in Western pseudo-intellectual institutions: Attack civilians, kidnap civilians, hide behind civilians and cry foul when those you attack launch a responsive war in response. In the end, we all lose.

I hope that this bell can be unrung, not just for Netanyahu and Gallant, but for all leaders in the Western world.
Australia Turns against Israel, While New Zealand Moves Closer
Independent of the ICC, the government of Australia appears to have already started closing its doors to Israeli dignitaries, in this case barring the former justice minister Ayelet Shaked out of fear she might “incite discord” by giving a speech to local supporters of Israel. Elliott Abrams comments:
To what other democratic country has this approach been applied? It seems the answer is none.

As Abrams goes on to explain, this sort of attitude has come to typify the government of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, who has placed catering to the wishes of the hard left “over solidarity with a fellow democracy fighting for its life against Iran and against three terrorist groups.”

By contrast, Abrams notes the very different situation in New Zealand, where the anti-Israel Labor party suffered a bruising defeat in the October 2023 election:
Lo and behold, the new National Party government announced in February of this year that it was designating Hamas in its entirety as a terrorist organization, dispensing with the fiction that there is a Hamas “political wing” uninvolved in terrorism. Then this week it designated Hizballah in its entirety as a terrorist organization, again junking the ridiculous notion of a “political wing.” New Zealand also designated the Houthis as a terrorist organization this week.

In short, Abrams observes, elections have consequences.
JCPA: Five Requirements Abbas Must Meet to Demonstrate His Commitment to Peace
While Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas is quick to express his commitment to peace, his actions tell a different story entirely. If Abbas genuinely seeks to promote peace, there are five specific actions he must take:

Unequivocally condemn the Oct. 7 massacre - While it seems unfathomable to decent people, Abbas, the PLO and the PA (both headed by Abbas) has never condemned the massacre. Abbas' Fatah even bragged about participating in the massacre.

Abolish the PLO/PA pay-for-play policy - Every year the PLO/PA pays hundreds of millions of dollars to promote, incentivize and reward terror. Abbas, the PLO, and the PA continued rewarding terrorists even after Congress passed the Taylor Force Act. While the policy is universally condemned, Abbas refuses to abolish the policy, preferring to repeatedly declare that even if the PA has one last penny in its coffers, it would be paid first to the terrorists.

Stop all delegitimization of Israel and incitement to violence and dehumanization of Jews and Israelis - In order to fuel the flames of hatred, Abbas, the PLO and the PA have turned rabid anti-Israel propaganda, incitement to violence and terror, and antisemitism into daily events. No Palestinian leader can claim to seek to promote peace, while simultaneously sustaining and supporting mechanisms that generate hate.

Agree to the resettlement of the "Palestinian refugees" - Abbas and the Palestinian leadership have cynically abused the "Palestinian refugees" for over 75 years, using them as a political tool to attack Israel. Instead of demonstrating flexibility, Abbas has dogmatically rejected any solution, demanding that the refugees demographically and democratically destroy Israel.

Clarify who he represents and what authority he has - Abbas has never enjoyed wide Palestinian support. When the Palestinians were asked who they thought was "the most deserving of representing the Palestinian people," 49% expressed support for Hamas, that led the Oct. 7, 2023, massacre. Only 17% expressed support for Fatah, led by Abbas. Abbas is a dictator, now in the 20th year of his initial four-year term as PA Chairman. Since discussions with a person incapable of delivering on his commitments are futile, before Abbas can claim to represent the Palestinians, he must first clarify exactly what authority he has to speak on their behalf.


Israeli Cabinet to vote on Lebanon ceasefire, per reports
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is scheduled to convene his Cabinet on Tuesday amid reports that Israel is set to approve to a truce in the war against Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon.

Netanyahu, according to Ynet, is slated to convene his coalition partners ahead of the Cabinet meeting, while the premier would also hold security consultations in a “limited forum.”

Saudi state-owned international television channel Al Arabiya cited a Lebanese official as saying on Monday that Beirut had been informed by the United States that an agreement with the Jewish state could be announced “within hours.”

One U.S. official told Axios, “We think we have a deal. We are on the goal line but we haven’t passed it yet. The Israeli Cabinet needs to approve the deal on Tuesday and something can always go wrong until then.”

Netanyahu reportedly backed the proposal “in principle” on Sunday, though at the time, several outstanding issues were yet to be resolved.

Among the remaining gaps between the sides was Israel’s demand that the Israel Defense Forces maintain freedom of action in Lebanon should Hezbollah violate the truce terms by rearming itself and attempting to reestablish forces south of the Litani River.

The draft deal purportedly includes a 60-day transition period during which all IDF soldiers would withdraw from Southern Lebanon, the Lebanese Armed Forces would deploy in areas close to the border, and Hezbollah would move its “heavy weapons” north of the Litani River.

The deal is said to include a U.S.-led oversight committee to monitor implementation and address violations, with Jerusalem pledging to only take military action against recurring Hezbollah terrorist activities after conferring with the U.S. and if the Lebanese Armed Forces failed to deal with the threat.
Ceasefire with Hezbollah: What Israel’s 60-day pause entails
The impending ceasefire deal between Israel and Lebanon is not the “end of the war,” and it will be evaluated based on the reality on the ground, a diplomatic official said on Monday evening.

The deal’s timing was due to a number of factors, the official said. The first was concern over a unilateral decision in the United Nations Security Council that would force Israel to cease its actions in southern Lebanon.

The second was that it enabled Israel to reevaluate the situation in two months, right after the new administration takes over in the US. The third is that the deal may apply pressure on Hamas, as it left Hamas alone in its conflict with Israel. This could lead to a breakthrough in negotiations over a deal to bring back Israeli hostages being held by Hamas in Gaza, the official said.

Regroup if needed
Another factor is that the 60-day truce will enable the IDF to regroup and prepare itself for further fighting if necessary, the official said.

The truce includes a “side document” that enables Israel to attack any Hezbollah operatives who venture south of the Litani River, as well as attack any attempts by Hezbollah to rearm itself, the official said.

Israel would not immediately call on residents of the North to return to their homes, and will continue paying stipends to those who are evacuated. A decision to call on residents to return to their homes will be made based on the reality on the ground at a later stage, the official added.
Netanyahu rejects France’s part in potential Lebanon cease-fire unless it recants ICC arrest threat
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is maintaining a veto on French involvement in a potential cease-fire in Lebanon unless Paris publicly makes clear that it will not arrest Netanyahu if he travels to the country pursuant to a warrant from the International Criminal Court, even after President Joe Biden and French President Emmanuel Macron reached a compromise on the matter, an Israeli official confirmed to Jewish Insider on Monday.

Lebanon has required France to play a central role in monitoring the cease-fire with Israel, should it be reached.

However, Netanyahu rejected French involvement following its response to the ICC announcement on Thursday that in light of “reasonable grounds to believe” they are culpable for war crimes, it was issuing warrants for the arrest of Netanyahu, former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant and senior Hamas terrorist Mohammad Deif, whom the IDF said it killed in July.

The French Foreign Ministry released a statement that it “takes note” of the ICC pre-trial chamber’s decision and “reiterates its commitment to the independent work of the court.” In addition, France noted that “for many months it has also sounded the alarm about the unacceptable nature of civilian losses in the Gaza Strip.”

Jerusalem interpreted the statement as meaning that France would arrest Netanyahu should he visit the country, and as such, the prime minister said that France could no longer be involved in the cease-fire effort.

Biden spoke with Macron over the weekend to smooth over the differences and allow a role for France in monitoring the potential cease-fire in Lebanon, Israeli and American officials confirmed.

An American official said that Netanyahu’s position was understandable, and Biden and Macron reached an acceptable compromise.

French officials privately clarified to their Israeli counterparts that there are other matters superseding the ICC arrest warrant and that Netanyahu would not be arrested should he visit France.

Netanyahu, however, will only lift his veto if France publicly rejects the arrest warrant, an Israeli official said on Thursday.

“We are fighting a just war with just means,” an Israeli official said, explaining the prime minister’s stance.
ICC’s Israel warrants damage its legitimacy, military experts say
The only legal recourse that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant, the former defense minister, have to fight the arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court is to surrender and go to trial, an expert on the laws of war said during a Friday webinar.

Geoffrey Corn, a retired lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army and chair of criminal law and director of the Texas Tech University School of Law’s military law and policy center, and Gabriel Noronha, a fellow at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America and former special adviser on Iran at the U.S. State Department, discussed the implications of the warrants on the JINSA webinar.

“This is one of the ironies here—the validity of these charges as legitimate claims of violations of international criminal law can only truly be tested by trial, but to test by trial, you have to submit to a jurisdiction you think is inherently invalid,” said Corn, who is also a distinguished fellow at JINSA and a member of its Gaza assessment and hybrid warfare task forces.

While the chances of Netanyahu or Gallant turning himself into the ICC willingly are slim, Corn said that the ramifications of the warrants, sought by Karim Khan, the ICC prosecutor, and granted by the court, are more profound politically and diplomatically than legally.

“This reinforces every critic of Israel,” Corn said. “It can and it will be used as confirmation of the worst narratives of what Israel has done in this conflict, with no real opportunity for rebuttal or to demonstrate the overreach that people like me perceive to be at the heart of this accusation.”

Corn added that the charges will “mean what people want it to mean, without ever being fully litigated.”

He added that the evidence that Khan presented, that Netanyahu and Gallant carried out a policy of starvation in Gaza and orchestrated crimes against humanity, posed “a very low bar.”

The ICC is based in The Hague and is a stand-alone court, which isn’t part of the United Nations. The court’s pre-trial chamber “plays an important role in the first phase of judicial proceedings and makes the decision whether to confirm the charges against the potential accused,” per the court.

“Ultimately, all the Pre-Trial Chamber is doing is looking at what the prosecutor mustered in terms of evidence and asking a simple question: Would it be unreasonable to believe that these crimes were committed—not were they committed, not have they been proven beyond a reasonable doubt—but would it be unreasonable to let this case go forward?” Corn said.

He added that Khan elected not to have any military law experts on an advisory panel that he created to look at the case. Corn sai

d that his criticism lies not with the judges, who issued the warrants, but with Khan, who, he said, jumped the gun, possibly in an effort to display a misguided sense of balance by prosecuting both Israeli and Hamas leaders.

“I think this is all premature,” he said.

Had Khan “come out when he announced the effort to charge Hamas leadership and said, ‘I’m also concerned about what Israel is doing. I’m going to stay focused on that and continue to interact with them and decide later whether I think they’re credibly investigating what may have been violations of the law,’ I think that would have been a very credible statement,” Corn said. “But that’s not what he did.”

The ICC is only meant to step in, Corn said, when states are incapable or unwilling to investigate themselves. But Israel has a history of investigating its own officials and practices, including prosecuting one of its own prime ministers and a president, he said.


'Rule of law disgraced by ICC': Alan Dershowitz to assemble team to defend Israel in The Hague
US defense lawyer and former Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz is assembling a team to defend Israeli leaders in The Hague, he announced in a Sunday Wall Street Journal op-ed.

Dershowitz noted that the case would be tried in the court of public opinion as well as in The Hague.

"For that reason, I am assembling a team of world-class lawyers from around the globe to help defend Israeli leaders against the false charges," Dershowitz wrote.

Last Thursday, the International Criminal Court issued international arrest warrants for war crimes allegedly committed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defense minister Yoav Gallant.

Various countries, such as the Netherlands, France, and Ireland, have announced they would uphold the ICC decision and arrest Netanyanhy and Gallant if they chose to land in those countries.

However, the United States rejected the ICC decision.

"The United States fundamentally rejects the Court’s decision to issue arrest warrants for senior Israeli officials. We remain deeply concerned by the Prosecutor’s rush to seek arrest warrants and the troubling process errors that led to this decision," a government spokesperson said.

In the WSJ op-ed, Dershowitz added that several prominent lawyers have already promised to join the legal battle, including multiple former US attorneys and a former FBI director. No jurisdiction against Israel

“We will argue that the ICC has no jurisdiction against Israel, not only because it isn’t a member, but also because the treaty that established that court precludes it from considering cases against any country with a valid judicial system that is willing and able to investigate the alleged crimes,” he wrote.

“We will also demonstrate that Israel’s actions in Gaza don’t violate any international law or laws of war over which the ICC has jurisdiction.”
ICC accuses Israel of genocide: ignoring evidence and self-defense claims
AS THE HLMG made clear in the first paragraph of its 28-paragraph submission, its observations were based on solid, first-hand evidence. “The HLMG conducted an in-country assessment of the Gaza conflict in July 2024, visiting IDF military headquarters from the top level; humanitarian aid installations and operations; units down to battalion level of command; and a visit inside Gaza.”

It first tackles Khan’s allegations that Israel blocked food supplies from reaching the Gazan population, deliberately starving them. The HLMG describes visiting crossing points built by the IDF since the war began specifically to facilitate increased volumes of aid entering the Gaza Strip.

The Erez crossing was completely destroyed by Hamas on October 7. “Since then, two vehicle crossing points in Erez were established by the IDF. We observed roads inside the Gaza Strip that were built by the IDF specifically to enable delivery of aid laterally and south to north.”

The submission continues: “The IDF operates according to a clear chain of command. The directives and commands we reviewed did not include any order to starve civilians, or to use issues related to humanitarian assistance as a method of warfare, and in fact, included clear statements regarding the IDF’s legal obligations toward the civilian population.”

Its conclusion: “Our assessment shows that the IDF is operationalizing the Israeli government’s stated policy to ‘flood Gaza with aid’… we believe this is counter indicative of and inconsistent with any plan or intent to employ starvation as a method of warfare at any stage in this conflict.”

The submission then turns to Khan’s assertion in his arrest warrant application that Israel imposed “a total siege over Gaza,” demonstrating from known and provable facts that at no stage was Gaza under siege.

Finally, the submission describes the IDF military justice and accountability mechanism that the HLMG found “consistent with the highest standards of our own armed forces.” The group singled out for praise the IDF Fact Finding and Assessment Mechanism (FFAM), which examines any incident that could raise a charge of possible illegal conduct or military procedural misconduct.

“There are currently approximately 300 incidents being actively investigated by the FFAM,” it says, “with many more which they have received initial information about. To our knowledge, no other armed forces have established such a permanent system but would benefit from doing so.”

The ICC describes its own remit in these terms. “The ICC intervenes only in situations where states themselves are either unwilling or unable to genuinely investigate and prosecute the perpetrators of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.”

The HLMG submission states: “We do not believe there is a credible basis to conclude Israel lacks the ability or will to implement national investigatory and judicial processes that are comparable to other countries and their militaries.”

The judges of the ICC have not only ignored compelling evidence from an impeccable source that challenges the charges brought by their prosecutor, but they have misdirected themselves as to the court’s competence to act against the leaders of a democratic state with a fully functioning judicial system of its own.The ICC has shot itself in the foot.
Col. Richard Kemp: With warrants, ICC has shown that it can't be salvaged, should be ended
Colonel Richard Kemp, the former commander of the British military forces in Afghanistan, spoke to Israel National News - Arutz Sheva about the International Criminal Court's decision to issue arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant.

According to Col. Kemp, "Issuing an arrest warrant for Benjamin Netanyahu in 2024 is like issuing an arrest warrant for Winston Churchill in 1944. The Nazis branded Churchill a war criminal back then and of course the most enthusiastic supporters of the ICC accusations are the modern-day Nazis, Iran and Hamas."

He said that the impact on Israel's war against Hamas and Hezbollah would be minimal. "The ICC has launched an unprecedented legal assault on a Western democracy that has been defending itself from jihadist violence on seven battlefronts for more than a year. Israel did not start this war. Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran did. Israel had no choice but to fight to defend its citizens. It is Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran’s other proxies that are the war criminals, not Israel’s leaders. This political warfare will not stop Israel from continuing to pursue its legitimate military actions."

"However," he noted, "there are grave implications for Jewish communities around the world. The ICC’s unfounded accusations and their support by member governments incite greater violence and intimidation against Jews and supporters of Israel everywhere."

In addition, "It will also impact on countries who are forced to battle against global jihadists and other terrorists. Knowing that this despicable precedent has been set will certainly deter other democracies from effectively fighting terrorism, knowing that their leaders and soldiers could well be hounded through this international court."


The ICC arrest warrants: How did we get here – and where do we go now?
Where do we go from here?
(i) Should the arrest warrants be enforced?
The International Criminal Court Act 2001 provides for the enforcement in the UK of arrest warrants issued by the ICC. It does not contain any provision for UK courts or officials to review the justification for the warrants. However, it can be argued that the (purported) arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant should be treated as nullities or that they are not “warrants of arrest” within the meaning of the UK Act, because the ICC has no jurisdiction. This view would be in line with the classic Anisminic decision or the more recent Miller case.

In any event, ICC arrest warrants do not override diplomatic immunity of nationals of States that are not parties to the Rome Statute (such as Israel), unless they are issued in a situation referred to the ICC by the UN Security Council (as in the Al-Bashir case, but not the current Gaza war). This appears to be the correct position under both the Rome Statute and the UK legislation. As matters stand, Netanyahu would benefit from this immunity, but not Gallant, since he is no longer the Defence Minister.

The majority judgment of the ICC’s Appeal Chamber in the Al-Bashir case does say that ICC arrest warrants must be implemented by parties to the Rome Statute against nationals of States that are not parties, even where they have diplomatic immunity and even in the absence of a referral by the UNSC. However, this was unnecessary, since that situation had been referred to the ICC by the UNSC, and the reasoning of the judgment has been criticised by many international lawyers.

There is no UK statutory provision conferring supremacy on rulings by the ICC. UK officials and courts should not follow them when they are wrong, particularly where this would contravene UK law and the UK’s other international obligations (as it would, if diplomatic immunity of Israelis protected under UK and international law were violated).

(ii) Further arrest warrants
The Prosecutor has lost no time in stating that his office is pursuing additional lines of inquiry in relation to Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. Normally arrest warrants are issued by the ICC in secret. A considerable number of Israelis who have been involved in the current war or in other conduct could potentially be arrested under secret warrants on arrival in other countries, and then imprisoned potentially for years pending trial, even if they are eventually acquitted. Given the falsity of the allegations on which the warrants for the arrest of Netanyahu and Gallant are based, innocence of wrongdoing would not exclude this risk.

(iii) US sanctions
In his previous administration, President Trump made an Order enabling sanctions to be imposed on any foreign person who has (i) directly engaged in any effort by the ICC to investigate, arrest, detain or prosecute any personnel of the US or any US ally, or (ii) materially assisted, sponsored or provided financial, material or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of any such effort.

The specified sanctions were (a) freezing all property of the subject in the US or in the possession or control of a US person and (b) prohibiting entry into the US of the subject or his immediate family members.

The Order was challenged in the US courts and revoked by President Biden. A Bill, diplomatically titled the “Illegitimate Court Counteraction Act”, with similar provisions to Trump’s Order, was passed by the House of Representatives on 4 June this year, but has since been stalled in the Senate, which remains controlled by the Democratic party until 3 January 2025.

However, the Republican party will soon have control of the US Presidency (from 20 January 2025), as well as the Senate and House of Representatives, and a generally sympathetic Supreme Court. Leading Republican politicians have expressed their intention to reintroduce and expand sanctions targeting those who help the ICC against US allies.

Such sanctions may target national officials and leaders as well as ICC personnel. The imposition of sanctions on European leaders could well result in a breakdown of diplomatic relations between the US and these countries.

Economic sanctions could also be imposed by the US. It has been reported that Senator Lindsey Graham warned the British Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, that the US will crush the UK economy if Britain helps to arrest Netanyahu.

But withdrawal of US military support could be even more serious for European countries bordering Russia. US politicians putting “America First” might well consider it unreasonable to deploy US servicemen in aid of States that support an institution that could arrest and incarcerate those same servicemen on the basis of false allegations of war crimes.

Perhaps the biggest beneficiary is Vladimir Putin – and he really is a war criminal.
The ICC is not a real court – it’s a tool of anti-Israel NGOs
The answer to these and countless other questions is that we don’t know. All we have to go on is a press release. Real courts deliver reasoned rulings, not superficial summaries. A real chamber would have explained why one of its members asked to be excused after five months of deliberations “based on medical grounds and the need to safeguard the proper administration of justice”, leaving her successor less than four weeks to form an independent judgment on the demonstrably false and tendentious material the prosecutor had chosen to present.

The only significant decision announced by the pre-trial chamber was that Israel’s challenge to the court’s jurisdiction had been premature. “Israel will have the full opportunity to challenge the court’s jurisdiction and/or admissibility of any case if and when the chamber issues any arrest warrants,” it said in a judgment dated November 21. But that was the very date, according to the court’s press release, that it issued the warrants. It was not “if and when” – it was a done deal.

It’s perfectly true that the court’s governing statute says that challenges to admissibility or jurisdiction “may be made by an accused or a person for whom a warrant of arrest has been issued”. But the statute does not say that a challenge cannot be brought until after a warrant has been issued. Why wouldn’t a court want to resolve questions of admissibility or jurisdiction as early as possible? An arrest might turn out to be unnecessary, perhaps unlawful.

In a national court, a suspect can be arrested and bailed while police continue to gather evidence. But there’s no suggestion that this would happen here. The real reason for arresting Netanyahu would not be try him for what the prosecutor claims he has done. It would be to stop a democratically elected prime minister continuing to defend his country against a war of extermination. That’s not something any court should do.
The Quad: The ICC & Why No One Cares About the REAL Genocide
This week, "The Quad" discusses the International Criminal Court's decision to issue arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant.

What are the consequences of such a decision? What have been the reactions around the world? Are we heading towards a world where antisemitism and double standards are the norm?

Emily Schrader, Shoshanna Keats Jaskoll and "The Quad" guest host photographer and Israel activist Laura Ben-David also discuss the murder of Chabad Rabbi Zvi Kogan in the United Arab Emirates.

And, of course, Scumbags and Heroes with a special guest you won’t want to miss!

Chapters
00:00 Reactions to the ICC's Arrest Warrants
09:37 The Murder of Rabbi Tzvi Kogan
19:27 The Role of Social Media in Anti-Semitism
29:18 European Nations and Iran's Nuclear Deal
36:15 Heroes and Scumbags of the Week


UK will arrest Netanyahu if he visits, foreign secretary says
Britain would follow due process and arrest Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu if he were to visit the United Kingdom, Foreign Secretary David Lammy said on Monday in response to a question from reporters at a G7 meeting near Rome.

Last week, the International Criminal Court in The Hague issued arrest warrants for the Israeli premier and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged “war crimes” committed in Gaza since the start of the Iron Swords War.

“We are signatories to the Rome Statute, we have always been committed to our obligations under international law and international humanitarian law,” Reuters quoted Lammy as saying.

“Of course, if there were to be such a visit to the U.K., there would be a court process and due process would be followed in relation to those issues,” he added.
Middle East minister fails to confirm UK will uphold ICC Netanyahu arrest warrant
Middle East Minister Hamish Falconer has appeared to row back from confirming the UK government will uphold an arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court for Benjamin Netanyahu.

Responding to an Urgent Question on the Labour government’s position put to him by shadow foreign secretary Priti Patel, Falconer told MPs:”I’d like to just be clear that what I’ve said this afternoon is not that the government will uphold arrest warrants.

“What I have been clear about this afternoon is that due process will be followed.

“These are questions for independent courts in the UK and independent courts that would review arrest warrants. If that situation were to arise.”

His remarks provoked criticism from some MPs on the Labour and SNP benches in particular, who demanded that the minister confirmed Netanyahu would face arrest if he stepped on UK soil.

Falconer repeatedly said the government was committed to the rule law and respecting the independence of the ICC.

But he pointedly ruled out announcing a ban of the sale of F 35 fighter jets to Israel, for which the UK supplies parts, and also ruled out further arms sale sanctions.

But Falconer defended the announcement of the susepension of 30 UK export arms licences announced by the government earlier this year.

He told the Commons earlier controversial arms sale suspensions announced by the government involved a catergory of arms “that posed a risk to be involved in a risk of breaches of international humanitarean law in Gaza.”


Interview: Is the ICC Biased Against Israel?
ILTV speaks with Prof. Eugene Kontorovich about the ICC's decision to issue arrest warrants against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant.


The U.S. Must Strike Back at the ICC
Why did Hamas think it could win a war against the larger, better trained, and better equipped IDF? In large part because it had spent years embedding its military infrastructure into schools, hospitals, and residential areas. Israeli military operations would be restricted to protect civilians. And when Israel did strike, the damage to the civilian population would be so great that global opinion would step in, saving Hamas from defeat. The editors of National Review observe that, by accusing Israel of war crimes, the International Criminal Court (ICC) “is putting more Palestinian civilians in danger by convincing Hamas that its strategy is working.”

Now that the ICC has turned on an important American ally with a legal case that, even by the court’s own dubious standards, has no basis, the question is what to do about it. National Review has some suggestions:
Egregiously, the ICC had been investigating U.S. servicemembers as part of a broader look into war crimes in Afghanistan until the Trump administration imposed sanctions on ICC officials and the court announced it would be focusing on the conduct of other parties in the conflict.

The U.S. should take a similar approach here. Representative Chip Roy and Senators Jim Risch and Tom Cotton had already drafted the Illegitimate Court Counteraction Act to impose visa bans and financial restrictions on ICC officials. . . . While this would be a start, the incoming administration should be prepared to issue even harsher sanctions, as well as pressure other countries to announce that they will not allow the warrants to be enforced on their soil.

While the ICC is targeting Israeli leaders today, it could always target American leaders in the future.

In other words, since the ICC has now made it difficult for Israeli leaders to travel in many countries for fear of arrest, it is only fitting that ICC officials should fear the same thing.
Call Me Back PodCast: The ICC vs Netanyahu & Gallant – with Natasha Hausdorff
Hosted by Dan Senor
This past Thursday, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued arrest warrants for Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Israel’s former defense minister, Yoav Gallant. The warrants were issued on charges of attempting to orchestrate starvation as a method of warfare, and crimes against humanity, of “murder and persecution”, in the ICC’s terms. A warrant was also issued for Hamas leader Mohammed Deif, who was killed in an airstrike in Gaza in July.

To help us understand the ICC; its role, jurisdiction and credibility; and the wide range of implications of these arrest warrants, our guest is Natasha Hausdorff.

Natasha is a British barrister and expert on international law, foreign affairs, and national security policy. She is the Charitable Trust Legal Director of UK Lawyers For Israel (UKLFI). Natasha regularly briefs government leaders and international organizations, and has spoken at parliaments across Europe and at the United Nations. She is a regular commentator on issues of international law, both generally and specifically as they apply to Israel.
Israel could stop ICC case against Netanyahu by launching their own war crimes investigation against him
When the International Criminal Court announced last week that it had issued arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and his former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, the prime minister reacted furiously.

"It's an antisemitic step that has one goal,” Netanyahu said. “To deter me, to deter us, from having our natural right to defend ourselves against enemies who try to destroy us."

Jerusalem could block the prosecution, however, were it to open its own investigation into Netanyahu and Gallant’s conduct, the court’s spokesperson has said.

Speaking to UN News, Fadi El Abdullah said: “It's possible either for the concerned state or for the concerned suspect to seek from the ICC to stop the proceedings against him or her but that has to be based on evidence that there are genuine serious prosecutions, at the national level, for the same alleged conduct.”

The Rome Statute, which established the ICC in 2002, states that the court should be complementary to national criminal jurisdictions.

Any case is inadmissible to the court if it is being investigated or prosecuted by the state which has jurisdiction over it, unless that country is unwilling or unable to do so.

The ICC will also not consider cases that have already been investigated by a nation that has decided not to prosecute the accused, "unless the decision resulted from the unwillingness or inability of the state genuinely to prosecute.”

Israel, along with the United States, is not a member of the ICC, however.


Top Democratic defense advisor blames Israel’s predicament on Netanyahu
One year ago, former senior Pentagon official Michèle Flournoy signed onto a letter standing by President Joe Biden’s support for Israel after the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks.

Now, Flournoy, who served as under secretary of defense for policy in the Obama administration, fears that Israel’s conduct in Gaza during its more than yearlong war against Hamas has weakened its standing in the world. It’s a problem she blames chiefly on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

“You may win the battle but lose the war. Israel is losing political support and its moral standing around the world, and I worry about it. Support for Israel has always been strongly bipartisan, and that’s starting to crumble,” Flournoy told Jewish Insider on Sunday in an interview at the Halifax International Security Forum. “I really worry about that for long-term security.”

Flournoy, who is a well-known figure in Democratic foreign policy circles in Washington, stood by Biden’s approach to the war in Gaza. The problem, she argued, is Netanyahu. Her thinking — as someone close to the Biden administration and as a Democrat known for relatively moderate views on foreign policy — is an important signal of how Democrats more broadly may be looking at the Middle East.

“I think the administration has tried from the beginning to walk the line of being staunchly supportive of Israel’s right to defend itself and retaliate for Oct. 7 against Hamas, while also counseling Israel on, ‘Are there ways to prosecute this war that are more discriminate and reduce civilian harm, tend to the civilian suffering that’s a byproduct?’ And I think they [the Biden administration] should get credit for trying,” said Flournoy, who is managing partner of the consulting firm WestExec Advisors, which she co-founded in 2017 with now-Secretary of State Tony Blinken.

“The fact is that Bibi Netanyahu has chosen not to listen most of the time,” added Flournoy, who was a top contender to serve as secretary of defense in the Biden administration. “He has resisted good advice from every quarter, even his most experienced national security professionals inside Israel, and certainly from a friendly administration that’s been trying to be supportive of Israel and help it not lose the war because of the way it’s prosecuting the battle.”

Nineteen Democratic senators voted last week to block certain weapons shipments to Israel, and Flournoy said she wasn’t surprised by the number, which alarmed pro-Israel Democrats who hoped the measures would receive fewer votes.
‘Far beyond mainstream’: Jewish groups slam J Street for
American Jewish groups denounced J Street after the liberal Jewish group, which bills itself as the “pro-Israel, pro-peace, pro-democracy movement,” issued a statement in support of the International Criminal Court’s warrants for the arrest of Israeli leaders, including Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The warrants, which mainstream Jewish and pro-Israel groups reject, represent a “clear sign of the lasting damage this extreme right-wing government is doing to the State of Israel, its place in the world and its long-term security,” J Street said.

JNS sought comments from half a dozen American Jewish organizations about J Street’s statement about the warrants issued by the court, which is based in The Hague but is a stand-alone entity that isn’t part of the United Nations.

J Street’s stance “is not surprising for an organization that endorses anti-Israel candidates to also promote anti-Israel policies,” Marshall Wittmann, an AIPAC spokesman, told JNS.

“J Street’s support of blocking arms sales to Israel and the ICC’s arrest warrants for Israeli leaders are far beyond the mainstream and in direct contrast to the pro-Israel views shared by President Biden and Democratic leaders in Congress,” Wittmann added.

Morton Klein, national president of the Zionist Organization of America, told JNS that “it is an utter antisemitic disgrace for extremist, anti-Israel J Street to falsely and egregiously support the Jew-hating ICC in its outrageous claim that it is ‘reasonable’ for the Jewish state to be accused by of intentionally ‘starving’ and committing other ‘war crimes’ against Gaza Arabs.”

He added that J Street’s “support of boycotting arms to Israel during its existential war against Islamic terrorists Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran” means “J Street is promoting having more Jews killed.”


Israel is Right to ‘Cancel’ the UNRWA
Refugee agencies are meant to resettle refugees and to equip them for a better, and more peaceful, life. But the UNRWA is not about refugee resettlement; it is about perpetuating the victimhood of the descendants of Arab refugees from Palestine.

Estimates vary, but there were approximately 700,000 Arab refugees after the 1948 War, in which numerous Arab states tried and failed to destroy the fledgling Jewish nation at its rebirth. Now, the UNRWA counts more than 5 million “refugees” according to its own spurious definition. But as then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo revealed in 2021, fewer than “200,00 Arabs displaced in 1948 are still alive and most others are not refugees by any rational criteria.”

The UNRWA keeps the conflict alive in ways beyond manufacturing refugees—it manufactures hate too. UNRWA teaches that its “refugees”—that is more than 5 million of them—have a “right of return.” Instead of advocating for a separate Palestinian Arab state, the UNRWA, in its schools, literature, and official statements, teaches that millions of Palestinian Arabs have an incontrovertible “right” to “return” to a state that most haven’t seen, or aren’t from, and thus destroy the Jewish state. Israeli leaders of all political stripes have been clear that this demand is a non-starter, but the UNRWA has been unmoved. Indeed, the UNRWA teaches that this “right” can be won by “armed resistance”—a euphemism for the acts of terrorism and murder that many UNRWA schools have been caught celebrating. 

For years, the UNRWA’s curriculum of hate has been documented by nonprofit organizations like Palestinian Media Watch, UN Watch, CAMERA, IMPACT-se, and others, and has been highlighted in testimonies before the U.S. Congress, the EU, and elsewhere. Yet, UNRWA has refused to change.

As Israel’s Foreign Minister Israel Katz recently said: “The UN was presented with endless evidence about Hamas operatives working at UNRWA and about the use of UNRWA facilities for terror purposes and nothing was done about it.” In fact, according to a recent UN Watch expose, in February 2017 the former head of UNRWA, Pierre Krahenbul, met with top operatives from Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, telling them “we are one” and “no one can separate us.”

But the UN’s bias against Israel is nothing new. In his landmark Nov. 10, 1975 speech, the U.S. Ambassador to UN Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously condemned the UN’s decision to label Zionism—the belief in Jewish self-determination in the Jewish people’s ancestral homeland—“racism.” The UN’s decision was but echoing a Soviet propaganda campaign against Israel. Moynihan called it an “infamous act” and warned that “a great evil has been loosed upon the world.” That evil was antisemitism. And the UN has been, and continues to be, one of its foremost disseminators.


IAF strikes Hezbollah's Unit 4400 in Beirut
The Israel Air Force struck key aspects of Hezbollah’s Unit 4400 in Beirut.

This is the unit responsible for Syria-Lebanon cross-border Iranian weapons smuggling to Hezbollah.

The IDF also revealed new details about strikes it has undertaken against unit 4400 in the field, including that previous strikes destroyed cross-border tunnels between Syria and Lebanon, which Iran and Hezbollah were trying to sue to smuggle weapons to the Lebanese terror group.

Further, the air force conducted multiple rounds of intelligence-based strikes on several other Hezbollah command centers in Dahiyeh, Beirut, on Monday evening, following IDF Arabic spokesman Avichay Adraee's evacuation warning to the residents of Al-Ghobeiry and Haret Hreik municipalities on X/Twitter.

"For your safety and the safety of your family members, you must evacuate these buildings and those adjacent to them immediately and stay away from them for a distance of no less than 500 meters," Adraee wrote.

Dahiyeh, a southern suburb of the Lebanese capital, is known as a Hezbollah stronghold.

The morning strikes followed earlier evacuation warnings issued to residents of southern Beirut neighborhoods.


John Spencer: Wong’s Israel op-ed full of inaccuracies and dangerous moral equivocations
Last week, I spent a few days in Australia meeting with politicians and key policy makers.

Australia’s Foreign Minister, Penny Wong, recently penned an op-ed addressing the Middle East conflict.

While she highlighted the trauma Australians feel and the importance of humanitarian efforts, her piece contains troubling inaccuracies and dangerous moral equivocations that demand a response.

The Foreign Minister opened with unverified statistics - 42,000 Palestinian deaths, including more than 13,000 children, and claims of two million people facing starvation.

These figures come from Hamas, a designated terrorist organisation, and have been widely debunked.

Independent analysts have revealed inflated and falsified data, with duplicated names and unverifiable entries.

Additionally, the claim of mass starvation is misleading.

Israel has delivered more than one million tonnes of food and aid into Gaza, despite Hamas’s repeated interception and misuse of humanitarian supplies.

To rely on Hamas for data undermines the credibility of the discussion.

No responsible leader should repeat their propaganda uncritically.

It is crucial to acknowledge these inaccuracies - largely rooted in disinformation propagated by a declared terrorist organisation - were instrumental in justifying a significant shift in Australian foreign policy under the direction of the Foreign Minister.

The reliance on such falsehoods to influence policy is not just a mistake - it is a dangerous precedent that risks Australia’s integrity on the global stage.

Wong drew an equivalence between Hamas and “Israeli extremist settlers”, sanctioning both in the same breath.

This comparison is morally bankrupt.

Hamas is a terror organisation committed to genocide, while Israel is a democratic state with a robust legal system that prosecutes its own citizens when they break the law.
‘The failures here are huge’: ICC issues arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant
Wollongong University Professor of Law Greg Rose has discussed the ICC’s decision to issue arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former defence minister Yoav Gallant.

Judges have ruled there are reasonable grounds to believe Mr Netanyahu and his former defence chief carry criminal responsibility for using starvation as a method of warfare.

“The failures here are huge,” Mr Rose told Sky News host Chris Kenny.


‘Enough is enough’: Australian leaders must have ‘clear stance’ against antisemitism
The Great Synagogue Chief Minister Rabbi Benjamin Elton discusses the “problem” with Australian leaders amid the rise of antisemitism.

“The problem has been the leaders of our country, not all of them but many of them, have not set a clear stance,” Mr Elton said.

“Which says this is not Australian, we can’t tolerate this, enough is enough and we have to re-establish our shared values, of disagreeing without being threatening, without being violent, without being intimidating.”


Man with Hezbollah tattoo charged with antisemitic rampage was nabbed trying to leave the country
The man charged over the alleged defacing of cars and buildings with anti-Israel slurs in a prominent Jewish community in Sydney's east was trying to leave the country, Sky News can reveal.

Sky News can reveal he has a Hezbollah flag tattooed on the side of his neck along with another tattoo that is understood to be a reference to a terrorist symbol - the numbers "313".

Mohammed Farhat, 20, was booked on a flight to Thailand when NSW Police swooped in and made the dramatic arrest at 3.50am Monday.

He was charged with 21 offences, including 14 counts of destroying or damaging property, three counts of entering a building with intent to commit an indictable offence and with behaving in an offensive manner.

At least two assailants targeted residents in Woollahra, in the city's eastern suburbs on Thursday about 12:30am, defacing almost a dozen cars and homes with "f**k Israel".

One vehicle was torched and completely destroyed, while popular restaurant Chiswick was also graffitied, with the total damage bill from the graffiti more than $100,000.

Police set up Strike Force Mylor to investigate the incident, with detectives last week revealing they were searching for two masked and hooded figures who had fled.

In photographs released by NSW police, Farhat is dressed in a grey tracksuit.
"Mission has failed"Demonstrators fail to disrupt synagogue shule on Monday evening.
A protest outside of Melbourne synagogue on Monday night which organisers claimed to have cancelled saw a handful of protesters turn up anyway.

The synagogue had been scheduled to host a planned talk on Israel’s challenges and opportunities in the new Middle East, organised by the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council and the United Israel Appeal Victoria.

The 20 or so protesters who attempted to get to Caulfeild Shule were outnumbered by an exuberant crowd of around 200 Jews.

They were stopped by police a few blocks from the synagogue during evening prayers.

The talk had been moved from Caulfeild Shule to Central Shule earlier in the day, a decision which was kept under wraps.

The crowd of Jews which had gathered outside the synagogue quickly moved to the area where the protestors were and shouted at them to go home.

There was a strong police presence and the protesters eventually left.

A group called Free Palestine Coalition Naarm had urged its supporters on social media to join a “peaceful demonstration against Zionist genocidal, colonial expansion” at the Caulfield Hebrew Congregation.

Panellists in the scheduled event included former chief of the Israeli air force Eitan Ben Eliyahu and former cabinet minister Ayelet Shaked had been supposed to be there in person, but was refused a visa by the government.

But in a social media post on Monday afternoon, the group announced the demonstration had been called off.

They blamed what they called “threats of serious bodily harm against people who want to show up and demonstrate peacefully”.

This followed strong criticism of their plans from various sources.
‘Very un-Australian’: Rabbi discusses rising antisemitism in Australia
Caulfield Shule Rabbi Daniel Rabin discusses the rising antisemitism in Australia.

Foreign Minister Penny Wong announced Australia “respects” the independence of the International Criminal Court, following their controversial decision to issue an arrest warrant for Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

“It’s very un-Australian,” Mr Rabin told Sky News host Andrew Bolt.

“To come right outside our synagogue here and threaten to protest and disrupt, I don’t believe it’s helping anybody.”


Pro-Palestine demonstration spills onto the streets of prominent Jewish suburb
A planned protest outside a Melbourne synagogue which was earlier cancelled over unfounded claims of threats of violence has spilled onto the streets of a prominent Jewish suburb.

The "Jewish-led" protesters, organised by Free Palestine Coalition Naarm, planned to "peacefully" assemble across the road from the synagogue in Caulfield "in support of Palestine's liberation".

Later on Monday, the group announced it would be calling off the action, citing "threats of serious bodily harm".

Despite cancelling the protest, activists still attended outside the synagogue on Monday night.

A sizeable police presence was spotted outside the mosque with some protesters moved on.

It's understood protesters gathered at the nearby Caulfield Park with plans to march toward the Caulfield Hebrew Congregation synagogue on Inkerman Road.

About 20 protestors were separated by police from pro-Israel locals who had gathered to counter the demonstrators.

Footage shows the locals brandishing Israeli flags while singing songs as the police ushered the pro-Palestine demonstrators, with some spotted wearing keffiyehs, away from the scene.

Two individuals have been arrested by Victoria Police and no charges have been laid, according to the Herald Sun.

Pro-Palestine demonstrators were protesting a panel event, organised by the United Israel Appeal Victoria, the Australia Israel and Jewish Affairs Council, and the Caulfield Hebrew Congregation, has taken place at the synagogue on Monday from 7.30pm to 9pm.

Throughout the evening ticketholders will hear from several speakers, including the former chief of the Israeli Air Force Major General Eitan Ben Eliahu, Israel’s former minister for Justice Ayelet Shaked, former head of the Mossad intelligence directorate Zohar Palti, head of the Asia-Israel policy program Gedaliah Afterman and senior consultant for Israel's Channel 12 news Ehud Yaari.
Jewish community infiltrate pro-Palestinian protest outside a Melbourne synagogue
Pro-Palestinian protesters have gathered outside a Melbourne synagogue in Caulfield.

Sky News Melbourne reporter Georgie Dickerson was live at the centre of the protest.

“We’ve had all of the Jewish community actually come out to them, yelling at them to go home,” Ms Dickerson said.




US-based lab recorded 12,400 pro-Palestine protests in 8 months after October 7
Between October 7, 2023, and June 7, 2024, there were 12,400 pro-Palestine protests in the US, according to a new study named “Protests in the United States on Palestine and Israel, 2023-2024.”

The Crowd Counting Consortium (CCC) – a collaboration between the University of Connecticut and the Nonviolent Action Lab at Harvard’s Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation – carried out the research.

The data derives from multiple sources and records information about dates of events, as well as location, crowd size, arrests, police presence, and recorded violence.

CCC found that in the eight months between those dates, there were 12,400 pro-Palestine protests across the US, involving more than 1.5 million people.

In contrast, CCC recorded 2,301 pro-Israel events in the same time period, which, though smaller “is still sizable for a foreign policy matter.” Furthermore, about a quarter of the pro-Israel events took place in the first month after the October 7 massacre, mainly in the form of vigils or protests for the release of hostages.

Of the remaining events, 38% (770 events) were weekly gatherings organized by Run for Their Lives each Sunday.

Of the 631 events (31%), were direct counter-protests to the pro-Palestine events.




Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!
 

 



AddToAny

Printfriendly

EoZTV Podcast

Podcast URL

Subscribe in podnovaSubscribe with FeedlyAdd to netvibes
addtomyyahoo4Subscribe with SubToMe

search eoz

comments

Speaking

Speaking

translate

E-Book

For $18 donation








Sample Text

EoZ's Most Popular Posts in recent years

Hasbys!

Hasbys!

2019 Nobel Peace Prize nominee

Elder of Ziyon - حـكـيـم صـهـيـون



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

Donate!

Donate to fight for Israel!

Monthly subscription:
Payment options


One time donation:

Follow EoZ on Twitter!

Interesting Blogs

Show All

Blog Archive

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