August 2025 ~ Elder Of Ziyon

Sunday, August 03, 2025

Anti-Israel propaganda now dominating educational philosophy: @EpatJournal justifying teaching students that Israel is evil

The academic journal Educational Philosophy and Theory recently published a "Collective Writing" set of mini-essays entitled, "Gaza - We Need to Talk!"

The practice of collective writing is meant to offer multiple perspectives on a topic. Unlike research papers, it does not require peer review, only editorial acceptance.

In this case, the "multiple perspectives" all agree that it is philosophically moral for educators to focus on Gaza and demonize Israel, even when there are plenty of other conflicts in the world that students would not ever know about.

The reasons given vary, but all the mini-essays have one thing in common: the absolute knowledge that Israel is evil. The essays don't say this directly, but there is not one perspective that considers that this war is just.

Instead of truly showing different opinions, these essays all argue (with varying affective tones) that Israel is perpetrating a genocide, Zionism is a racist colonial regime, and Gaza is a symbol of civilizational collapse.

We get a chorus: Israel as genocidal aggressor, Palestinians as sacred victims, Gaza as the new Auschwitz. And if you think I’m exaggerating, read Zalloua, Yancy, Robins, or Maldonado-Torres—pieces that trade in Holocaust inversion, dehumanization charges, and sweeping declarations of collective guilt. (Plus a trace of "As-A-Jew" to justify Holocaust inversion.) Every structural check on academic inquiry - comparative reasoning, counterposition, standard of evidence - has been abandoned. This isn’t discourse. It’s declaration. It’s epistemic foreclosure, weaponized through academic format.

The result is a seamless moral consensus masquerading as dialogue.

No essay defends Israel's right to self-defense.
No one explores Hamas’s ideology or war crimes.
No one challenges the use of the word "genocide."
No one considers the pedagogical risks of reducing complex conflicts to moral binaries.
No one notices the basic fact that Hamas' entire military strategy is to maximize civilian casualties while Israel's is to minimize them

Instead, we get Holocaust inversions, totalizing anti-Zionist frameworks, and the idea that any opposing view is not just wrong - but complicit in violence. The collection creates the illusion of multifaceted discourse, but it is in fact ideologically uniform.

This entire issue echoes a cartoon I drew years ago, titled “You Gotta Start Somewhere”. I satirize exactly this: the endless excuses made to justify singling out Israel, while ignoring others who are far worse by every measurable standard.

The language of moral urgency becomes a smokescreen for ideological obsession. And that’s exactly what’s been laundered through this academic journal.

There is one gentle counter-position that doesn’t challenge the overall framing of Israel as aggressor or Gaza as pure victim. He only critiques the form - the lack of inter-author dialogue, missed educational opportunity, and the unsubstantiated Holocaust analogy. But there is nothing to challenge the premise.

And the premise is not just wrong but antisemitic. It doesn't matter how many "scholars" say Israel is guilty of genocide - when all of them admit that they had to change the definition of genocide to shoehorn Israel's actions into that concept, they are not being honest when they use the term and they know it.

Bias is nothing new, but here it is being laundered into how to transmit hate to students. And that is utterly immoral. This issue replaces inquiry with activism, and turns education into ideology transmission.

Propaganda is laundered here through academic legitimacy. Abandon review standards for “open format, ” curate voices from a single ideological spectrum, present variation in tone or emphasis as “diverse perspectives," exclude a major worldview entirely - but don’t say that part out loud.

That’s not educational philosophy. It's hate disguised as educational philosophy. And it is far worse when it is being presented as a sober justification for how to teach students themselves to be biased and unable to think objectively about Israel.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

The double standards against Israel that tie one arm behind its back

War expert John Spencer lists some of the rules that the world applies to Israel at war that have never been applied to any other party in history:

· A neighboring country refusing to allow civilians to evacuate combat areas, thus forcing Israel to fight Hamas while it uses its entire population and infrastructure as a human shield. This is a double standard with no historical comparison.

· Measuring legal adherence to the laws of war by citing daily casualty counts from the enemy force, which is an internationally designated terrorist organization. Many also use other data points, often manipulated or misapplied, to make faulty comparisons to dissimilar conflicts. The purpose is to politically and socially delegitimize Israel’s goals. This is also known as effects-based condemnation. In this framework, no matter what Israel does to prevent civilian harm, or what Hamas does to increase it, only the effects, often reported through manipulated or false data, are judged. This is not how war is assessed for any other nation. This is not how the laws of war apply to any other military. It is a double standard.

· Demanding a postwar day-after plan before the enemy military and government are defeated. The idea that an attacking military must present a plan for replacement governance before the opposing force has been defeated through force or surrender is a double standard. Victory and defeat must come first. Replacement comes after, not before.

· Providing humanitarian aid to the enemy’s population during wartime, while battles are ongoing, while the enemy still controls territory, continues to launch attacks, and holds hostages. Israel has done this out of moral responsibility and to balance military objectives with humanitarian imperatives. However, the argument that this is a legal requirement is a double standard.

· Dictating which legal tools a nation may use to fight an enemy. For example, criticizing the use of large-diameter munitions in an urban area, such as a 2,000-pound bomb, even when the enemy is embedded in dense urban terrain and operating from fortified underground tunnels that require deep penetration. This is a lawful and necessary capability in many conflicts. Yet when Israel uses it, it is singled out. That is a double standard.

· Claiming that there can be no population displacement or border change during or after an armed conflict. The idea that a terrorist army directed by the government of Hamas can cross a sovereign border, invade a country, commit atrocities, take hundreds of hostages, and that in the war that follows there must be no voluntary or temporary displacement of civilians, or any change to border control or security arrangements, is a double standard. The laws of war prohibit forced displacement, not temporary or voluntary displacement during wartime.

· Not allowing civilians the option to escape the war. Preventing civilians who want to leave Gaza from doing so is an unprecedented double standard. It affects both Israel and the people of Gaza.

· Tying a nation’s legitimate war goals to an unrelated political issue. Despite the clear context of this war, the attacked country is pressured to make concessions to a separate political entity that has rejected international mediation. Forcing Israel to link the war in Gaza, which it did not start, to the broader political effort of creating a Palestinian state with a different governing group, the Palestinian Authority, is a double standard.

But his point isn't merely that the world treats Israel unfairly. It is that most of these rules are specifically created to make it nearly impossible for Israel to achieve its legitimate war goals of defeating Hamas.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

An account of Jerusalem Jews mourning for the Temple in 1880

Today is Tisha B'Av, the saddest day of the Jewish calendar, marking the destruction of the Temples and many other tragedies.

The Jews of Jerusalem in the centuries before the rebirth of Israel treated every Friday like Tisha B'Av, crying at the Western Wall. There are many accounts by pilgrims who witnessed this scene.

Here's one account from LIGHT FROM THE EAST.TRAVELS AND RESEARCHES IN BIBLE LANDS in 1880 BY REV. HENRY R. COLEMAN:

Every traveler ought to visit the Wailing Place of the Jews at the cyclopean foundation wall of the temple just outside the enclosure of the Mosque El Aska, and near Robinson's Arch. There the Jews assemble every Friday afternoon and on festivals to bewail the downfall of the holy city. I saw on Good Friday a large number, old and young, male and female, venerable rabbis with patriarchal beards, and young men, kissing the stone wall, and watering it with their tears. They repeat from their well-worn Hebrew Bibles and prayer books the Lamentations of Jeremiah, and suitable Psalms (the 76th and 79th): "O God, the heathen they are come into thine inheritance; thy holy temple have they defiled; they have laid Jerusalem on heaps. . . . We are become a reproach to our neighbors, a scorn and derision to them that are round about us;" Dr. Tobler gives the following specimen of responsive laments from the litanies of the Karaites:

For the palace that lies desolate,
R. We sit in solitude and mourn.
For the walls that are overthrown,
R. We sit in solitude and mourn.
For our majesty that is departed,
R. We sit in solitude and mourn.
For the priests who have stumbled,
R. We sit in solitude and mourn.
For our kings who have despised Him,
R. We sit in solitude and mourn.Another prayer:
We pray thee have mercy upon Zion.
R. Gather the children of Jerusalem.
Make haste, make haste, Redeemer of Zion.
R. Speak to the hearts of Jerusalem.
May beauty and majesty surround Zion.
R. Incline mercifully toward Jerusalem.
May the kingly rule over Zion soon appear.
R. Comfort those that mourn over Jerusalem.
May peace and delight enter Zion,
R. And may the branch sprout in Jerusalem.
The keynote of these laments and prayers was struck by Jeremiah, the most pathetic and tender hearted of prophets, in the Lamentations—that funeral dirge of Jerusalem and the theocracy. This elegy, written with sighs and tears, has done its work most effectually in great public calamities, and is doing it every year on the ninth of the month of Ab (July), when it is read with loud weeping in all the synagogues of the Jews, and especially in Jerusalem. It keeps alive the memory of their deepest humiliation and guilt and the hope of final deliverance. The scene at the wailing place was to me touching and pregnant with meaning. God has no doubt reserved this remarkable people, which, like the burning bush, is never consumed, for some great purpose before the final coming of our Lord.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

08/02 Links: How will Israel find legal justice for the atrocities of October 7; Hamas forces hostage Evyatar David to dig own grave; Hamas vows not to lay down arms

From Ian:

Cochav Elkayam-Levy and Irwin Cotler: How will Israel find legal justice for the atrocities of October 7? - opinion

ISRAEL HAS never shied away from legal innovation. Nazi leader Adolf Eichmann’s trial in 1961 helped forge the modern architecture of human rights law and universal jurisdiction.

The crimes of October 7 demand a similarly groundbreaking legal response. Even before October 7, Hamas repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel and the genocide of Israelis, conduct that may constitute incitement to genocide under Article III(c) of the Genocide Convention.

A hybrid tribunal model, comprised of Israeli and international judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys, would bring global standards and expertise to bear while remaining rooted in the communities most affected. Such a tribunal would not only try perpetrators but also elevate these atrocities from local tragedy to global reckoning.

In this context, one of the darkest chapters of October 7 was the systematic use of sexual violence as a weapon of terror. Precedents from Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia have shown that such acts must be prosecuted with diligence and victim-centered care.

The sexual violence we have documented for months now at the Civil Commission on October 7 Crimes Against Women and Children underscores the necessity of international law in addressing such atrocities.

Over the past decades, the international legal framework has become essential for uncovering and prosecuting these crimes. Hamas’s use of sexual violence on October 7 must be understood within this context. A hybrid tribunal, equipped with trauma-informed procedures, as well as international best practices and liability models, can ensure that these crimes are understood and neither minimized nor forgotten.

October 7 also included the deliberate targeting of families. Our findings reveal distinct patterns: families murdered together and subjected to similar forms of torture; victims forced to witness atrocities committed against their loved ones; entire families abducted; violent and intentional separations of family members; and the use of digital and social media to broadcast abuses directly to the victims’ families and the general public, including through the victims’ own devices and social media accounts.

These were not isolated incidents. Hamas used tactics designed to weaponize the most fundamental human bonds. Above all, this conduct represents an emerging threat in the landscape of modern terrorism that demands urgent international recognition and accountability.

Recognizing and condemning this family-targeted terror, which we have named kinocide, could play one of the most critical roles in legal proceedings for justice, both for the victims and for the world, in the aftermath of the attack. These prosecutions could set a vital precedent that enables the international community to understand this form of cruelty.

SOME WILL say such a tribunal is politically unfeasible. Israel is deeply divided internally, with growing mistrust in institutions and no clear political horizon. Internationally, it faces increasing isolation as the war continues. In addition, questions will arise: What about the crimes allegedly committed by Israel?

However, prosecuting October 7 does not preclude other accountability efforts. Justice is not mutually exclusive, and deferring prosecution in the name of symmetry risks rewarding the gravest atrocities with silence.

A credible legal response to Israel’s conduct will depend on future developments, most critically, whether Israel’s leadership undertakes the necessary steps to investigate alleged violations, establish an independent and effective state commission of inquiry, and prosecute war crimes.

The immediate legal reality cannot be escaped: Israel currently holds hundreds of suspects in custody for the worst crimes committed on its soil in decades. To delay prosecution is to deny victims their rights and to abandon the rule of law when it is needed most. Justice does not always require consensus. In its earliest stages, it requires resolve and clear vision.

Democratic allies in the US, European Union, UK, Germany, Canada, France, and beyond – several of whom have already launched investigations to pursue the perpetrators of October 7 – can serve as crucial partners in establishing an international mechanism.

Such a court, designed in cooperation with trusted international legal experts, would bypass political gridlock and embody the very principles it seeks to uphold: impartiality, justice, and the dignity of victims whose suffering demands recognition and redress.

The Nuremberg Trials didn’t just prosecute criminals; they redefined how the world responded to atrocity. The same is possible now. A hybrid tribunal for October 7 can deliver more than justice. It can deliver history, memory, and perhaps, healing.

NYPost Editorial: Arab nations are getting wise to Hamas — even as others foolishly squeeze Israel

Most media ignored last week’s most important Middle East development: Arab nations for the first time publicly slammed Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, massacre and demanded the terrorists surrender power, disarm, and release their hostages.

OK, it’s a low bar. But it’s progress, and a lot more meaningful than British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s threat to recognize a Palestinian state or the other maneuvering over Gaza’s food crisis.

The landmark demands came in a seven-page declaration Tuesday by 17 countries, plus the European Union and the entire 22-member Arab League, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Qatar.

They reflect a willingness — finally! — to publicly acknowledge that Hamas’ ouster is necessary to end the war in Gaza and thus ease the suffering of its civilians.

Hallelujah: We’ve stressed since Day 1 that the conflict can’t end with Hamas in power; the group, after all, openly vows to keep attacking the Jewish state until Israel is destroyed.

Perhaps the Gaza food shortages got the Arabs’ attention — even if most reports misled readers by tacitly (or even openly) blaming Jerusalem for them.

Bigger picture: Nations like Saudi Arabia and Qatar, egged on by President Donald Trump, are now eager to normalize relations with Israel, though they want the Gaza fighting to end first.

Sadly, other parts of Tuesday’s statement are as misguided as ever, calling for Hamas to “hand over its weapons to the Palestinian Authority, with international engagement and support, in line with the objective of a sovereign and independent Palestinian State.”

With Gaza then seeing “the deployment of a temporary international stabilization mission upon invitation by the Palestinian Authority and under the aegis of the United Nations.”

The Palestinian Authority? The United Nations?

Neither is fit for real responsibilities: The PA is nothing but an autocratic kleptocracy that uses international-aid funds to enrich its leaders and to pay terrorists to kill Israelis; even clueless President Joe Biden insisted it would have to be “revitalized” before it could play any role in Gaza.

UN peacekeepers, meanwhile, have never managed to keep peace anywhere in the Middle East; instead, the world body’s presence — e.g., via groups like the UN Relief and Works Agency — has only fueled violence in the region.

Even more brainless is Starmer’s threat to recognize a Palestinian state, along with France and Canada’s plans to do so next month, “unless the Israeli government takes substantive steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza, agree to a cease-fire and commit to a long-term, sustainable peace, reviving the prospect of a two-state solution.”

Andrew Fox: Strategic and diplomatic shambles

Israel lost the narrative war not because it was wrong, but because it was outplayed. While Israeli spokespeople cited legal justifications and battlefield data, Hamas flooded global media with images, emotion, and deception. From the Al-Ahli hospital blast to footage of hostages in tunnels, Hamas weaponised perception, and the world bought it. Every misstep by Israel was magnified; every atrocity by Hamas was downplayed or forgotten. Strategic defeats in the court of public opinion overshadowed tactical victories on the ground.

Now, with global support for Israel waning significantly, Hamas has shifted its demands from resistance to statehood. They speak the language of diplomacy while holding hostages underground. Their atrocities are reframed as a cry for freedom. Even more disturbingly, many in the West are buying it.

The recognition of Palestinian statehood under current conditions would be the crowning achievement of Hamas’s propaganda campaign. It would reward mass murder with legitimacy and render the IDF’s sacrifices meaningless. Worse, it would solidify Hamas, not the Palestinian Authority or any moderate actor, as the de facto representative of the Palestinian people. Recognising a state now is not a rebuke of Hamas or a step to their removal; it is to grant Hamas its greatest victory.

This puts Israel in a vice. Capitulate, and it accepts the promise of a genocidal regime on its doorstep, one that openly declares its intent to continue fighting until Israel is destroyed. Resist, and it faces even more resounding international condemnation, lawsuits in The Hague, and the likelihood of severe sanctions. In such a scenario, even basic diplomatic recognition may be withdrawn. That level of isolation could threaten Israel’s very survival.

It did not have to be this way. Israel’s strategy has been abysmal. A ceasefire in November could have salvaged Israel’s international position, preserved goodwill for future hostilities if necessary, and potentially secured more hostages when Hamas was weakened and cornered. That window has closed, but the logic behind it remains valid. More war will not fix the damage already done. More war will not bring the hostages home.

Every bomb dropped now plays into Hamas’s hands. Every Israeli counterattack fuels the narrative of disproportionate aggression. Every day the war drags on, the world moves closer to legitimising Hamas as a political entity. Continued fighting may bring further tactical success, but at what cost? The loss of alliances, the abandonment of hostages, and the global transformation of Hamas from pariah to power broker.

Backing Israel into a diplomatic corner will not end the war. It will prolong it. Recognition of Palestinian statehood at this moment does not pressure Israel into peace: it pressures Israel into escalation. Israel, forced to choose between a potential forever war and resistance, will choose to fight. The result will not be peace, but more death.

Now is the time to return to strategy and to stabilise. Israel must consider another ceasefire; not as a surrender, but as a strategic pause to recalibrate, rescue hostages, and rebuild alliances. International actors must understand that recognising a Palestinian state today, with Hamas at the helm, is not diplomacy; it is appeasement that will bring further violence and death in Gaza, with the inevitable collateral damage that comes with it.

Israel is not wrong to want security. It is not wrong to try to destroy a group committed to its destruction, but it must also be wise. Wisdom means knowing when to stop digging. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat. It is time to cease fire, not because Hamas deserves mercy or because Western leaders demand it, but because Israel deserves a future.

However, here is the issue: Israel cannot take that option whilst meddling, performative governments dangle the sword of Damocles over their heads and all but guarantee that the violence must continue. Israel can never agree to the proposal put forward by Hamas. If the international community tries to force them to, Israel is left with no choice but to destroy the source of that proposal, and the violence will continue. The wretched idiocy of self-interested politicians knows no bounds.

From Jerusalem, to Paris, to London, to Ottawa, to Washington: what a shambles.

08/01 Links Pt2: The inverted optical fantasy of Palestine; Benny Morris: The Irish and Gaza; Melanie Phillips: The West Is Dying – And Only Israel Can Save It

From Ian:

Yisrael Medad: The inverted optical fantasy of Palestine

The framework of settler-colonialism has fixed Zionism within a box-cum-coffin.

For more than 25 years, college students have been convinced by their professors that the only way to look at Israel (and a few other countries) is through the lens of a theoretical paradigm that emerged in the 1960s, although it essentially was the Communist critique of an unacceptable Jewish nationalism since the 1920s. Some of them, in turn, became diplomats, politicians, heads of organizations, and, most importantly, media people. In short, influencers.

Zionism, they claim, is foreign to the Middle East. It represents a white and European imperialist domination of an indigenous people.

But what if an optical perversion took place? What if a true and genuine review of the history of “Palestine” revealed an inverted presentation of what took place, and is taking place? What if the historical events had been juggled and rearranged?

What if, instead of an ancient Arab people called “Palestinians” having suffered an invasion of their homeland, what actually happened was that a foreign raiding people invaded a country that had its 2,000-year-old name altered from Judea to Palestine? And these invaders emerged not as the original “Palestinians,” but were and are Islamic colonialists who had subjugated the native Jewish population?

What if they were, quite simply, another part of a large Arabian tribal federation that coalesced around a new religion that set about to take over and settle large swathes of not only the Arabian Middle East, but of the Far East, Africa and on into Europe?

“Settler colonialism,” according to the literature, is racial and is a mode of domination. It is a social formation whereby persons, typically from Europe, live on and exercise sovereignty over land inhabited by Indigenous communities. Settler colonialism seeks to eliminate Indigenous populations and to replace their societies. Unlike “Franchise colonialism,” settler colonialism has endured into the present because “settler colonizers come to stay.” It is a “structure” and not just an event of economic exploitation and temporary residence by foreigners.

It can be argued by proponents of applying that theory to Zionism that “Israeli settler-colonialism indeed stands out as a peculiar phenomenon within the spectrum of global colonial history and practices, marked by distinct features that underscore its exceptionalism.” However, they counter themselves that due to Israel’s “deep entrenchment with U.S.-led imperialism,” an “evolution within the domain of settler-colonial practices” has permitted Zionism to adapt to changed dynamics. This “adaptation is marked by the strategic employment of innovative strategies that enable the continuation and justification of settler-colonial expansion.”

Have they thus trapped Zionism in an inescapable position? Or, is it possible to point out that, in essence, the real settler colonialists who engaged in military conquest, subjugation of native populations, forced conversions and empire-building were the Muslims themselves?

Dave Rich: Antisemitism Today: the permitted prejudice

It leaves us asking the question: what can we do? We have to start, I think, by recognising the reality of where we are. The eighty-year anomaly since the Holocaust, in which antisemitism was a taboo that carried political and social costs for those who broke it, has gone. This has come as a tremendous shock to many in the Jewish world and beyond, although it has not dropped out of a clear blue sky; the signs have been there for a while, the trend lines pointing in the wrong direction for several years. But many were lucky enough not to notice until it became impossible to avoid.

And yet. This does not mean that catastrophe is inevitable. While being clear eyed about the new dangers we face, it is important not to assume all is lost. Many in our Jewish communities have found a resilience and an inner strength since October 7, a determination to stand up for our rights and our values. Perhaps they did not feel this previously, because they didn’t have to. But many have found it now. We need to build on that. There is a tradition and an ethos of campaigning and activism, of Jewish pride, that I fear we have lost sight of, and that we need to reconnect with. Any of you who remember the Soviet Jewry campaigns of the 1970s and 1980s will know how entire communities mobilized to advocate for the rights of Soviet Jews, who were at that time one of the largest Jewish communities in the world, suffering terrible oppression under Communist rule. That campaign was a tremendous success, not only in achieving its immediate goals of helping large numbers of Soviet Jews to escape persecution, but in energizing our communities in the US, the UK and other countries. That activist tradition and spirit exists in our recent history, and we would benefit from reviving it now.

And it should be done with pride. The organisation in the UK that I work for, the Community Security Trust, advises, funds and organises physical security across the UK Jewish community. We have done this for decades, because the terrorist threat to Jewish communities that we are all, now, tragically familiar with, is actually quite old. In Europe we have lived with it for many years. But importantly, we do this security work not because we are scared to be Jewish; but because we are proud to be Jewish. We are proud of our way of life, proud of the contribution that the Jewish community makes to wider society and to our nation as a whole, and we want to protect it.

Because make no mistake, protecting Jews from antisemitism also, at the same time, protects society as a whole from terrorism, from extremism and from hate. Most Jews in the world today live in democracies where the rule of law and protections for minorities are still fundamental parts of our political culture. We need to ensure this remains the case. A polity that would scapegoat and demonise one minority could do it to any minority. A society where hate and extremism are allowed to spread is one where nobody is safe.

Just as tackling antisemitism is a task that benefits all of society, so it should involve all of society. This is the part that we in the Jewish community often forget: we have many friends. Jews are not alone: there are so many people across society – I still believe they are the majority – who find anti-Jewish hatred abhorrent, who see it as an affront to their own sense of decency and their own values, and who are potential allies and partners in this struggle. We are not always good at finding them. But they are there. Perhaps many of you are here this evening. At a time when the fear and reality of antisemitism puts pressure on Jews to turn inwards, we need to resist that pressure and look outwards, to build relationships based on dialogue and communication, to reach out across communities – and to educate people about antisemitism, both the impact it has on Jewish people and the danger it poses for wider society.

Finally, and perhaps hardest of all, we need to find the self-confidence within ourselves to remain optimistic. There is a well-known, and very old, Jewish saying in Ethics of the Fathers, that reads: “It is not your duty to complete the task, but neither are you free to desist from it.” It has always struck me as a fitting description of what it means to fight antisemitism. There may not be a silver bullet that can end this blight forever, a way to erase antisemitism from our world for good, but sitting on our hands and assuming all is lost is not an option. It might seem like an impossibly daunting task: but that is no reason not to try, and there is no time other than now to start.

Benny Morris: The Irish and Gaza

On page two the Times that day sported another, medium-size piece about an Irish MP (Social Democrat Gary Gannon), who had filed legal proceedings against Ireland’s Central Bank for “facilitating the sale of Israeli [government] bonds on the European market.” Gannon claimed that the “bonds are not neutral financial instruments. They are a funding pipeline for a military campaign that includes the bombardment and starvation of thousands of civilians.” All the Times articles that day, highlighting the injury and death of Gaza civilians, avoided mention that a war was actually ongoing between Israel and Hamas, a war launched by Hamas, and that fighters on both sides were being killed.

The Times that day also published an article about the Irish Prime Minister Micheal Martin asking to see a report, published by an Israeli organization, alleging that Irish school textbooks promoted antisemitism. In one textbook, according to the Times’ report, Auschwitz was described simply as a “prisoner of war camp.” The body overseeing Irish school curriculums responded that individual schools choose their textbooks and publishers were responsible for textbook content.

The tone and content of the reporting on Gaza\Israel in other quality Irish newspapers was no different. The Irish Independent of 23 July sported two long articles in a two-page spread, accompanied by photographs depicting Palestinian hunger and death, one by Nidal al-Mughrabi and Dawoud Abu Alkas and the other by Nedal Hamdouna (all Arab names and, presumably, Palestinians). The first article was titled “Six-week-old boy among 15 people to die of Starvation in Recent Days”; the second, “Skeletons Marching to Death - Palestinians Face Hunger and Bullets as Israel Steamrolls into Gaza.”

Hamdouna’s article opened her article with a striking quote by “Younis,” a 32-year-old Gazan father of four: “The gunfire was so intense that it was like they were aiming to drink our blood.” A curious phrase, given that I have seen no reports of anyone drinking anyone’s blook in Gaza these past twenty months of combat – but, deliberately or not, it echoes the Medieval antisemitic trope about Jews drinking the blood of Christian children. I suspect that Hamdouna authored the quote, but I may be wrong, maybe the Gazans have been so indoctrinated that they believe Jews routinely do this.

That day, the Independent also ran two relevant letters to the editor. One, by Declan Foley from Melbourne, Australia, read: “The abhorrent and continuing inhumanity to the people of Gaza cannot be described as anything other than genocide.” It can, but I won’t go into this here. But the letter fails to note that “the people of Gaza” – and, incidentally, the Arab population of the West Bank – overwhelmingly endorsed the Hamas onslaught on Israel on 7 October 2023 (while, of course, denying the mass rape, mass executions, decapitations, etc. that accompanied it). Foley laments “the killing [by the IDF] of innocent people – God’s children” and goes on to decry the “antisemitism” charge voiced by Israel’s defenders by saying, in effect, that Arabs, “Phoenicians” and “Akkadians” are also “semites,” so they can’t be accused of antisemitism.

The flood of reportage on Gaza’s suffering in the Irish press appears to stake the moral high ground and Irish righteousness. I wonder whether these newspapers devoted a hundredth of their attention to the world’s other humanitarian crises during the past decades, especially crises in which Muslims slaughtered fellow Muslims actually in their hundreds of thousands.

08/01 Links Pt1: How the West handed Hamas a win and killed the ceasefire; Jenin, Gaza, and the ‘Suffocating Fog of Self-Deception’; Witkoff, Huckabee visit GHF for 100 millionth meal

From Ian:

How the West handed Hamas a win and killed the ceasefire

Hamas concluded, very reasonably, that it was getting for free what it nearly paid for with ten hostages, and it scuppered the entire negotiating process. By July 22, it raised new and unrealistic demands on issues that had already been agreed on in talks (for example on the ratio of prisoners to hostages that would be released and on where the IDF buffer zones would be during the 60 days of ceasefire), and the talks fell apart.

And the hostages stayed in the tunnels.

And the deaths in Gaza continued.

It was a stunning diplomatic failure, that then got lost in the media storm surrounding hunger in Gaza. By July 25, four days after the statement and two days after talks broke down, major media outlets were publishing pictures of emaciated children, in nearly all cases children ill with other conditions, and Israel was being blamed for creating a famine in Gaza, all while UN agencies were refusing to distribute the hundreds of trucks of aid which Israel had already cleared into Gaza and refusing to cooperate with the non-Hamas affiliated Gaza Humanitarian Foundation.

Under mounting international pressure, Israel began to airdrop aid into Gaza. It also greed to humanitarian pauses in some areas and to open more passages into the Strip for a stepped-up aid delivery, including to organisations that Israel has long suspected collaborate with Hamas or look the other way as Hamas profits from their supplies.

In less than a week, Hamas went from agreeing to release ten out of the twenty living hostages it still holds in tunnels under Gaza for nearly two years in order to get a 60-day ceasefire and a surge of supplies into Gaza – to getting an effective ceasefire and even more supplies without having to give up even one of its human bargaining chips.

We can express revulsion at Hamas’ cruelty all we want, and there is no doubt it is justified, but Hamas behaved perfectly rationally. Western diplomacy had intervened, demanded negotiations where negotiations were already happening, and handed Hamas for free the very benefits it almost gave up some, but far from all, of the hostages it had abducted, to obtain.

Without a doubt, Lammy and the other Foreign Ministers, who are under a tremendous amount of pressure domestically from self-appointed guardians of humanity and righteousness to do something to punish Israel, thought they were taking a brave stand for the weak against the strong and endeavouring to save both peoples from the ravages of war. But all they accomplished was a tactical gain for the terrorist group that launched the war, and an indefinite extension of the war itself, the plight of the hostages, and the suffering of all sides.

The Starmer team was insulted when its declaration this week that it would recognise a Palestinian state was criticised as a reward for Hamas terror. But that was an abstract and symbolic prize, albeit one conditioned in the most absurd of manners which incentivised all the worst possible behaviours on all sides.

In this case, already a week before the recognition declaration, Starmer and Lammy together with their ostensibly well-intentioned allies gave Hamas a direct win, removing its last incentive to release the men it grabbed from their homes on a Saturday morning nearly two years ago after murdering their friends and family in front of them.

What’s even worse than that is that they seemed genuinely surprised at how Hamas reacted to the very obvious incentives their diplomacy created. What’s worse even than that is that no one back home seemed to care.

Seth Mandel: Jenin, Gaza, and the ‘Suffocating Fog of Self-Deception’

We have seen in the U.S. over the past few weeks a similar trend, though it was supercharged by false images intended to prove that Israel had a policy of systematic starvation in Gaza and newspapers that printed outright lies alongside those photos. The intent was to peel away Israel supporters abroad by hoping they’d be too proud (or too dishonest) to simply admit they got it wrong. That should sound familiar.

Another, similar, detail of the propaganda campaign: Some of it was designed to drive a wedge between Jews and Christians. A columnist for the Evening Standard accused Israel of “the willful burning of several church buildings,” and then really went off the rails: “Many young Muslims in Palestine are the children of Anglican Christians, educated at St George’s Jerusalem, who felt that their parents’ mild faith was not enough to fight the oppressor.”

Again, sound familiar?

Finally, there were the revelations that Palestinian terrorists in Jenin were using human shields and routinely violating the laws of war by using civilians as bait. How do we know? At some point they simply admitted it. According to one Palestinian bombmaker who spoke to an Egyptian outlet:

⁠“We had more than 50 houses booby-trapped around the [Jenin] camp. We chose old and empty buildings and the houses of men who were wanted by Israel because we knew the soldiers would search for them… We cut off lengths of mains water pipes and packed them with explosives and nails. Then we placed them about four meters apart throughout the houses — in cupboards, under sinks, in sofas… the women went out to tell the soldiers that we had run out of bullets and were leaving. The women alerted the fighters as the soldiers reached the booby-trapped area.”

A Palestinian commander, speaking to Arab press, was more succinct: “Believe me, there are children stationed in the houses with explosive belts at their sides.”

The UN played a loud role in spreading misinformation and then quietly backed off once it became clear they had been lied to. In fact, as per usual, every claim of Israeli crimes turned out to be projection on the part of the Palestinians and their supporters.

The question is what lessons we have learned from the “Jenin Massacre” debacle. The answer appears to be: none. Now as then, media fed propagandistic and wildly imaginative tales of Jewish perfidy to the world in the service of an actual band of war criminals and intentional child-killers. Now as then, some on the political right were ensnared in an information operation from sources that they would normally mistrust. Now as then, a wedge was driven in between Jews and Christians with lurid tales of gleeful Jewish church-burners. Now as then, the atmosphere was waterlogged with one-way propaganda to the extent that even savvy media consumers denounced Israel.

Zooming out, we also learn something else: that despite the rise of the internet and the supposed democratization of information, the Western public stewed in a bubble. As Krauthammer so perfectly described it back in 2002:

“This is what it must have been like living in the false consciousness of Soviet communism, where everyone had to publicly and constantly pretend to believe the official lies, all the while knowing they were lies. This is what it must have been like living in the 1930s, as the necessities of appeasement created a gradual inversion of right and wrong — the Czechs, for example, pilloried by official opinion in Britain and France for selfishly standing in the way of peace at Munich.”

He concluded:
“Churchill’s great gift to civilization was not just that he rallied good against evil but also that he pierced a suffocating fog of self-deception by speaking truth to lies. Where is the Churchill of today, the official of any government, prepared to tell the United Nations that its frantic hunt for a phantom massacre by Jews — while ignoring massacre after massacre of Jews — is grotesque and perverse?”

Where indeed.

John Spencer: What are Israel’s choices in Gaza? The insanity of double standards and ignorance

The double standards applied against Israel
Worse, some of these arguments are completely disconnected from the political and military realities on the ground.

Here are just some of the double standards, though not all, because there are many more, reserved only for Israel when it comes to what a nation can or cannot do in war, and how wars are assessed:
A neighboring country refusing to allow civilians to evacuate combat areas, thus forcing Israel to fight Hamas while it uses its entire population and infrastructure as a human shield. This is a double standard with no historical comparison.
Measuring legal adherence to the laws of war by citing daily casualty counts from the enemy force, which is an internationally designated terrorist organization. Many also use other data points, often manipulated or misapplied, to make faulty comparisons to dissimilar conflicts. The purpose is to politically and socially delegitimize Israel’s goals. This is also known as effects-based condemnation. In this framework, no matter what Israel does to prevent civilian harm, or what Hamas does to increase it, only the effects, often reported through manipulated or false data, are judged. This is not how war is assessed for any other nation. This is not how the laws of war apply to any other military. It is a double standard.·
Demanding a postwar day-after plan before the enemy military and government are defeated. The idea that an attacking military must present a plan for replacement governance before the opposing force has been defeated through force or surrender is a double standard. Victory and defeat must come first. Replacement comes after, not before.
Providing humanitarian aid to the enemy’s population during wartime, while battles are ongoing, while the enemy still controls territory, continues to launch attacks, and holds hostages. Israel has done this out of moral responsibility and to balance military objectives with humanitarian imperatives. However, the argument that this is a legal requirement is a double standard.
Dictating which legal tools a nation may use to fight an enemy. For example, criticizing the use of large-diameter munitions in an urban area, such as a 2,000-pound bomb, even when the enemy is embedded in dense urban terrain and operating from fortified underground tunnels that require deep penetration. This is a lawful and necessary capability in many conflicts. Yet when Israel uses it, it is singled out. That is a double standard.
Claiming that there can be no population displacement or border change during or after an armed conflict. The idea that a terrorist army directed by the government of Hamas can cross a sovereign border, invade a country, commit atrocities, take hundreds of hostages, and that in the war that follows there must be no voluntary or temporary displacement of civilians, or any change to border control or security arrangements, is a double standard. The laws of war prohibit forced displacement, not temporary or voluntary displacement during wartime.
Not allowing civilians the option to escape the war. Preventing civilians who want to leave Gaza from doing so is an unprecedented double standard. It affects both Israel and the people of Gaza.
Tying a nation’s legitimate war goals to an unrelated political issue. Despite the clear context of this war, the attacked country is pressured to make concessions to a separate political entity that has rejected international mediation. Forcing Israel to link the war in Gaza, which it did not start, to the broader political effort of creating a Palestinian state with a different governing group, the Palestinian Authority, is a double standard. How Israel can achieve its goals in the Gaza Strip If even a few of these double standards were removed from the conversation, it becomes clear that there are multiple ways Israel could have, and still can, achieve its goals in Gaza:
Move all civilians out of harm’s way. Temporarily displace civilians from combat areas. All civilians who want to leave should be allowed to leave.
Destroy Hamas’s will to continue the war through force, using continued and coordinated military operations. Hamas can absolutely be defeated by military means.
Hamas surrenders. Through a combination of military and political pressure, what remains of Hamas’s leadership, both political and military, agrees to end the war, return all hostages, disarm, and relinquish control over the Gaza Strip.

Once Hamas is defeated, Israel and others begin post-conflict operations. These may include establishing secure zones or bubbles of Palestinian-led governance. This could involve localized authorities or the creation of a new centralized leadership. The post-war phase should also involve reconciliation, disarmament, demilitarization, and deradicalization programs.

Yesterday, the State Department issued a notice sanctioning members of the PLO and PA:

The State Department has reported to Congress that the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and Palestinian Authority (PA) are not in compliance with their commitments under the PLO Commitments Compliance Act of 1989 (PLOCCA) and the Middle East Peace Commitments Act of 2002 (MEPCA), including by initiating and supporting actions at international organizations that undermine and contradict prior commitments in support of Security Council Resolution 242 and 338, taking actions to internationalize its conflict with Israel such as through the International Criminal Court (ICC) and International Court of Justice (ICJ), continuing to support terrorism including incitement and glorification of violence (especially in textbooks), and providing payments and benefits in support of terrorism to Palestinian terrorists and their families. The United States is imposing sanctions that deny visas to PLO members and PA officials in accordance with section 604(a)(1) of the MEPCA.  It is in our national security interests to impose consequences and hold the PLO and PA accountable for not complying with their commitments and undermining the prospects for peace.

Here is what section 604(a)(1) of the MEPCA says (it was not easy to find):

(a) IN GENERAL.—If, in any report transmitted pursuant to section 603, the President determines that the PLO or the Palestinian Authority, as appropriate, has not complied with each of the commitments specified in section 602(1), or if the President fails to make a determination with respect to such compliance, the President shall, for a period of time not less than the period described in subsection (b), impose one or more of the following sanctions...

(1) DENIAL OF VISAS TO PLO AND PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY OFFICIALS.—The Secretary shall direct consular officers not to issue a visa to any member of the PLO or any official of the Palestinian Authority

602(1) says:

SEC. 602. FINDINGS. Congress makes the following findings:
(1) In 1993, the Palestine Liberation Organization (in this subtitle referred to as the ‘‘PLO’’) made the following commitments in an exchange of letters with the Prime Minister of Israel: (A) Recognition of the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security. (B) Acceptance of United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. (C) Resolution of all outstanding issues in the conflict between the two sides through negotiations and exclusively peaceful means. (D) Renunciation of the use of terrorism and all other acts of violence and responsibility over all PLO elements and personnel in order to assure their compliance, prevent violations, and discipline violators.

The sanctions notice doesn't go into details of how it believes the PLO is violating UNSC 242, but my guess is:

Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.

But clearly the PLO and PA have been in violation of (C) "Resolution of all outstanding issues in the conflict between the two sides through negotiations and exclusively peaceful means" because the PLO uses international courts and diplomacy to pressure Israel outside negotiations.

And also clearly the PLO has been violating (D) "Renunciation of the use of terrorism and all other acts of violence and responsibility over all PLO elements and personnel" as PA police have been involved in terror attacks and they are treated as heroes, not lawbreakers.

I'm not sure this is a slam dunk - the PLO can claim that they are compliant and they might find people who believe them - but this set of sanctions certainly is supportable under the provisions of MEPCA 604(a)(1).

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

We've been seeing articles that there is no proof of Hamas stealing aid.

No one seems to ask the Gazans.

On the COGAT Arabic Facebook page, with 1.1 million followers, there are plenty of Gazans complaining about Israel and aid. But a great deal of them confirm that Hamas and other gangs are stealing the aid.

"You bring in medicine, medical supplies, and fuel, and there is a gang that steals it and sells it in the black markets and pharmacies. The gang consists of employees of international organizations, traders of the Islamic religion, and black market traders. Everyone has seen in pictures and videos how it was done, all under the cover and security of surveillance drones."

"By God, it's not a loss for the unarmed citizens, but unfortunately, the Hamas militias, mercenaries of Iran, steal it."

"Is theft new for Hamas? They have been stealing from us for 18 years. It's their nature, not something they bought. God is sufficient for me, and He is the best Disposer of affairs. May God rid us of them. They destroyed us and our future, the traitors. I hope security, safety, and stability prevail among us. I wish you would rule Gaza, it would be better for us 🥺."

"May God hold Hamas accountable, since 2007, theft, looting, killing, they stole all of Gaza's wealth and its support."

"All the aid goes to Hamas and is sold to the poor people at multiples of its price. Fear God for the poor people."

"Haneen, I swear aid entered that could flood Gaza with food, flour, clothes, and everything, but the Iranian guys, as usual, steal it for their loved ones, for their tunnels and their children, you imbecile."

"Aysar Shehadeh, don't bring God into this. People are dying and God is asleep with no sign or sound. People want to live with dignity, and Hamas has humiliated people, made life difficult for them, and stole their resources and aid. Enough with the empty slogans. The one whose hand is in the fire is not like the one whose hand is in the water."

"It's all lies and deception. Hamas takes the lion's share, whether by blocking roads, through so-called 'Sahm' groups, or by crowding the trucks. By God, until now, my children, my grandchildren, and I have not received anything at all, neither legitimately nor illegitimately."

"It's true you let it in, and Hamas and the humanitarian organizations sell it to people at high prices. Leave us alone, we want to live."

It isn't like COGAT censors the comments - there are plenty that curse Israel for various reasons, including alleging that Israel is cooperating with the gangs. Others are asking why military drone quadcopters couldn't shoot at the armed men on top of the aid trucks so they can reach their destinations.

You can learn plenty of other things from the COGAT Arabic comments, like even though Palestinian and Arab leaders claim Gazans don't want to leave and praise heir "steadfastness," hundreds beg COGAT to let them leave Gaza.

A collection of comments about aid stealing, with links and English translation, can be seen here.

Amazing how reporters cannot find this information. Or how they don't want you to know about it.

(h/t Maarten Boudry)

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

When the narrative IS antisemitism, the world is heading for disaster

Here is a chart (not to scale) that describes how the media has treated narrative vs. facts over the past few hundred years in the US.

The Partisan Press Era was in the 1700s–1800s. Early newspapers (in the US at least) were explicit organs of political factions. No one pretended to be objective and the public knew exactly what they were getting.

The "Objective" Journalism Movement dominated from the 1890s–1950s. Here's where the media concentrated on providing facts first, context second. There was still plenty of bias but the methodologies of reporting were more professional.

The Broadcast Consolidation Era (1950s–1980s) saw three major US networks and major wire services that dominated the news gathering and reporting. Again, there was bias, but it was normally pro-American, anti-communist, pro-growth.

The Cable & Culture War Era from the 1980s to 2000s, with talk radio and Fox News, saw the country begin to bifurcate ideologically. This resulted in more biased news sources on the left and the right. News became entertainment and storylines started replacing events.

Now we are in the Algorithmic Attention Economy where the media is emotion-driven and platform-optimized. Social media and SEO incentivize outrage, virality, and moral certainty. Traditional media adapted by embedding moral binaries and identity frames - but, crucially, still positioning itself as it was 50 years ago, pretending to be objective. The line between op-ed and reporting is blurred.

Facts are now secondary to framing and narrative in even the most prestigious news sources.

Given the influence of social media and faux morality, the actual facts are harder to come by. And people are being bombarded with contradictory messaging from different places. They are confused and need some sort of way to make an increasingly bizarre world make sense.

Conspiracy theories, by definition, pretend to find a simple answer to complex problems. And conspiracy theories always end up moving towards the mothership of conspiracies - the Jews.

Antisemitism offers what the confused public seems to need. It turns complex problems into simple accusations. ("The bankers," "the Zionists," "the media.") It channels guilt, shame, or rage into a target that can never be fully exonerated. It recasts Jewish practices and ideas as metaphors for domination, thereby preserving ideological purity. It adapts across ideologies because it is morally empty and symbolically rich - it can mean anything while still blaming Jews.

Right now we are in a perfect antisemitic propaganda storm.

I noted earlier this week that Palestinian human rights is horrendous and a Palestinian state would be a disaster for the Palestinians themselves. This is a fact. But, as I showed, no one is interested in this fact - practically no one even researches Palestinian human rights abuses and corruption.

These should be relevant facts in any discussion about recognizing a Palestinian state, as it would be for any other state, but they are completely absent. The moves towards Western nations recognizing a Palestinian stare are not positioned as anything other than punishment of Israel for its role in a perceived humanitarian disaster in Gaza.

But while many (hardly all) Gazans are indeed suffering, it isn't because of Israel. Israel has done more to feed enemy civilians than any nation in history. The facts show that most aid is being stolen, that Hamas is weaponizing aid, that Hamas will endanger civilians for political gain, and that Hamas controls the information about casualties and hunger coming out of Gaza.

The media is ignoring these facts. The reason? Because the narrative is more important than the facts, yet the medias still frames its reporting as fact-based and not narrative-driven. The facts of Palestinian human rights violations, Palestinian support for terror in every poll, Palestinian Authority corruption, Hamas stealing aid, Hamas using human shields and fomenting riots to force violence at aid sites - all of these are well documented but violate the narrative of Israeli evil.

The narrative is antisemitic.

But too many people are attracted to antisemitic narratives that they will not demand the same standards of objectivity that they pretend to uphold.

Up until recently, governments understood the difference between narrative reporting and objective facts. But under the tsunami of antisemitic lies, facilitated by the UN and human rights NGOs, together with coordinated violent anti-Israel demonstrations and concern over rising extremism in their own countries, together with latent antisemitism that has never really gone away, they have started to swallow and embrace the lies that have been broadcast non-stop since October 7.

Hence, supporting a Palestinian state without scrutiny. Hence, blaming Israel for food shortages that are directly the result of Hamas policies. Hence, the deliciousness of accusing the Jewish state of genocide, of turning into the Nazis that tried to destroy the Jews as policy.

For sure, Israel's public relations efforts have been execrable. But that is only part of the problem when the world assumes everything Jews say are a lie.

The narrative is the driving force for which facts are believed and which are discarded. The world has fallen for the lie that the media and NGOs are objective. The desire for a simple explanation makes antisemitism more attractive than at any time since the 1940s.

Until we restore a distinction between narrative and fact, and hold moral claims to account, antisemitism will continue to wear the mask of virtue - and the decisions made by world leaders will lead to disaster.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Al Jazeera writes about the fast day of Tisha B'Av coming up this Sunday and warns that terrible things will happen.

Next Sunday, the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque will witness another blatant violation, as extremists commemorate the so-called " Destruction of the Temple " anniversary, which Jews consider a day of mourning for what they call the destruction of the first and second "temples."

Last year, 2,958 extremists stormed the mosque on the same occasion. This year, extremist groups are mobilizing their supporters to carry out similar raids and violations. Observers believe these violations will escalate in light of the widespread Arab and Islamic silence, and with extremist parties currently ruling the Israeli government.

Extremists insist on storming the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque on this occasion, and refuse to commemorate it solely in their synagogues. Among the violations documented in previous years was the bringing of "lamentation" scrolls into the mosque and their reading.

Several violations were also recorded on the same occasion last year, most notably the raising of the Israeli flag, the collective performance of the epic prostration ritual (full prostration and the body lying flat on the ground with the hands, feet and face fully extended), dancing and singing, in addition to the storming of the building by a number of Knesset members and Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir .

Academic and former media and public relations official at Al-Aqsa Mosque, Abdullah Maarouf, told Al Jazeera Net that this year's commemoration will be one of the most dangerous days of the year for the mosque.

It made a video showing all of these "violations by extremists at Al Aqsa."

No attacks. No storming. Just peaceful walking, praying, prostration, displaying an Israeli flag and some singing at the exit.

But there is an ominous soundtrack, and the article warns that Jews might want to build a synagogue "inside Al Aqsa Mosque," so there's that.

(I fully support building a synagogue on the large and largely empty plaza on the south of the Mount where the only Muslim activity is the occasional soccer game. It is part of the Herodian extension of the Mount so it cannot be the site of the Temple and therefore is much easier for Jews to visit halachically. Israel won't do this any time soon, but it would be a victory for the few people in the world who still believe in freedom of religion - even for Jews - to build a synagogue in an area that was sacred for some 1,800 years before Islam.)

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)