2025 ~ Elder Of Ziyon

Tuesday, February 04, 2025

The crazy and compelling Trump plan for Gaza

Donald Trump dropped a bombshell during his press conference with Benjamin Netanyahu:

“The U.S. will take over the Gaza Strip and we will do a job with it too,” he said. “We’ll own it, and be responsible for dismantling all of the dangerous unexploded bombs and other weapons on the site. Level the site and get rid of the destroyed buildings. Level it out create an economic development that will supply unlimited numbers of jobs and housing for the people of the area."

Sometimes it is hard to parse out what Trump means. he started off saying that there will be other countries that would invest in rebuilding Gaza. But did he really mean the US would "own" it?

During the Q&A, he made clear that is exactly what he meant.

"As far as Gaza is concerned, we'll do what is necessary...We're going to take over that piece we're going to develop it, create thousands and thousands of jobs and it'll be something that the entire Middle East can be very proud of."

And he seemed to contradict himself by saying that Palestinians would live in this new Gaza, but also "the world people" will live there: "I envision a world people living there, the world's people. I think you'll make that into an international unbelievable place. I think.... world representatives from all over the world will be there. Palestinians also, Palestinians will live there, many people will live there."

Normally, a plan like this would be researched, planned, refined, given to the players for opinions and agreed upon before being publicized.

This is not how Trump works. He does not know details nor does he care. He works in broad brush strokes. This plan sounds like it was hatched that afternoon. Yet he has a very good instinct for cutting through the bull and trying to solve the root of the problem, rather than get stuck on the minutia that the experts love to argue about.

So what is Trump's vision, really?

It sounds like he wants Gazans to leave to other Arab countries, but not necessarily permanently unless they want to. He wants it to become an American territory or protectorate, perhaps similar to the US Virgin Islands. He wants to look at Gaza as an investment opportunity, not a money sink, and he wants the US to profit from it. A Mediterranean paradise where tourists can visit, where Western capitalists and oil sheikhs can rub shoulders and make deals.

The Palestinian Authority is utterly absent from this vision. So is Palestinian rule.

Would this be legal? Almost no one would say so, but creative legal minds could find a way. Gaza was never a part of any nation that has a current legal claim on it. A (strained) case could be made that Gaza - especially postwar Gaza - is terra nullius, and therefore the US can occupy it legally. In the end, international law is what the major powers want it to be and they find justifications afterwards. Israel's critics have been doing this for decades. This is no more creative than saying that Gaza between 2007-2023 was occupied by Israel, or the "apartheid" and "genocide" slurs.

Why shouldn't the US slant its own vision of international law in the other direction for once? To Trump, legality isn't an absolute - it is a political tool that is used subjectively, therefore the US can do the same thing.

An occupation would require troops. Trump has been reluctant to involve the US in foreign adventures; I do not know what he has in mind for the army. But this seems to be consistent with his desire to "clean out" Gaza - which means to only allow back in the Gazans who are not likely terrorists.

One thing is for sure: Israel and America haters will despise this plan, and claim that it violates human rights and international law. And this plan, if done properly, would save more lives than anything the "human rights" posers could possibly imagine as being "justice." Which is what makes this so compelling: if you care about the value of human life, you can have the fake "justice" of a Gaza terror state or you can have peace, but you cannot have both. Trump's plan is more pro-peace than all the "ceasefire" protestors ever could be.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

02/04 Links Pt2: She Stood Up for the Truth. Then the UN Fired Her; Karma for Columbia; Trump critics want to make America safe for antisemites; David Takes on Goliath in Epic Biblical Series

From Ian:

She Stood Up for the Truth. Then the UN Fired Her.

Nderitu’s first statement on “the situation in the Middle East,” issued on October 15, called for the return of the Israeli hostages as well as a ceasefire. “And then I spoke about Hamas,” she said, “what they did. I described it. . . . And of course, the key thing that made me the enemy was saying that the attacks happened on Israeli territory, which they did.” (Hamas does not recognize Israel, founded in 1948 and admitted to the UN in 1949.)

That night, a UN Office of Human Rights civil servant sent Nderitu an email, cc’d to several top UN officials, including the United Nations high commissioner for human rights and undersecretary-general for humanitarian affairs. (In February of 2023, that undersecretary-general would create a stir by saying, in an interview with Sky News, “Hamas is not a terrorist group for us. As you know, it is a political movement.”)

The UN civil servant described Nderitu’s statement as “one-sided,” suggesting that it “might cause reputational risk on the image of the United Nations as an independent neutral impartial body.” For an institution as hierarchical as the UN, this kind of direct written critique of an undersecretary-general by a junior staffer was highly unusual, as was his request that Nderitu review her “statement with the aim to ensure greater balance and harmonize it with similar UN leaders’ statements.”

Little more than a week later, Nderitu received a two-page letter signed by an unnamed group of “concerned UN staff including Palestinians.” While they joined her “in condemning the intentional attacks and abduction of Israeli civilians by Hamas,” they wrote, “we expected that your statement regarding Israel’s attacks on and collective punishment of Palestinian civilians would have been equally clear and unequivocal.”

That December 9, Nderitu hosted a commemoration of the 75th anniversary of the Genocide Convention, an event that she had been planning for a year. Speakers included judges and prosecutors who had served on the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, and also Karim Khan, the chief prosecutor for the International Criminal Court. (In November 2024, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and defense minister Yoav Gallant; neither has been arrested.)

On the same day as the commemoration of the Genocide Convention, another anonymous group, this one calling itself Concerned Citizens of the International Community, posted a petition calling for Nderitu’s resignation on Change.org. It garnered more than 22,000 signatures. “The gravity of her failures demands immediate action,” it stated. “We hereby demand an immediate and transparent review and investigation of the special adviser on the prevention of genocide on her failure to fulfill her mandate and to widely publish the outcome of this investigation.” (No such investigation occurred.)

Just two days later, on December 11, 2023, a second petition on Change.org, this one in support of Nderitu, was posted by an anonymous group called Humans for Human Rights. It received more than 7,000 signatures.

“They were lighting fires under me from every angle,” Nderitu said. While she continued releasing statements on the war in Gaza, including one in February 2024 in which she warned that “the risk of commission of atrocity crimes should a full [Israeli] military incursion into Rafah take place is serious, real, and high,” they were of no avail when it came to her critics. “It’s not about what I said,” Nderitu recalls. “The key thing is that I never called this genocide.”

Seth Mandel: Righteous Among the United Nations

Almost immediately, a UN civil servant wrote an email complaining about Nderitu to several top officials, warning that her condemnation of Hamas “might cause reputational risk on the image of the United Nations as an independent neutral impartial body.” He suggested Nderitu rewrite her statement to copy the usual anti-Israel belligerence from UN activists.

Then, of course, came the open letter from “concerned UN staff” pressuring Nderitu to treat Hamas as Israel’s moral equal. On Dec. 9, she was greeted with a Change.org petition that gave the game away: “With the official in charge of genocide prevention taking no action despite public pressure, statements by UN Special Rapporteurs, and thousands of civilians killed, including UN staff and their families, we demand Nderitu’s immediate resignation and for her to be held accountable for her failure to act in response to mass atrocities in Gaza.”

Nderitu, they said, had failed “to fulfill her mandate”—which was, of course, to lend her credibility to the anti-Semitic mob’s blood libels. She’d open her UN email address to find messages like “Filthy zionist rat, you will burn in hell forever for supporting the rape and torture and murder of little kids by your bestial masters.”

The next venue for the harassment campaign against Nderitu was the UN’s press briefing room, where representatives from Saudi and Qatari state outlets trashed Nderitu by name. Yet here again, the phrasing of those posing as journalists is instructive. One question from the Dec. 14, 2023, briefing was this gem:

“Ms. Nderitu has always been very vocal and very active in calling out every little sign she sees around the world that there is genocide may be happening. She spoke out for Darfur recently, even Nagorno-Karabakh — against the hateful rhetoric coming out of that, Nagorno-Karabakh. Why has she been silent on Gaza?”

It’s at this point that one is tempted to feel encouraged by the reporter, who is so close to getting it! He is, in fact, arguably answering his own question. If the genocide specialist is outspoken on some conflicts but not others, what might we learn from this? The obvious answer is: The genocide specialist talks about genocides and does not talk about cases that clearly don’t amount to genocide. That’s why you have an expert on genocide in that position.

The UN ecosystem completely flips out when an official isn’t corrupt. And these open letters and protests, barely six weeks into Israel’s counter-incursion into Gaza, also serve to remind us how badly anti-Israel activists telegraphed their pitches. “Genocide” was the talking point with which they began the war.

Nderitu didn’t understand that she wasn’t being hired to do her job. She was being hired to read a predeveloped script. It’s just that she was too honorable to degrade her life and work for the sole purpose of spreading lies about the Jewish state. So they’ll have to find someone else.

02/04 Links Pt1: The two-state delusion is dead: Israel knows it, the world must accept it; Five female observers used as human shields for senior Hamas official

From Ian:

Seth Frantzman: Losing the PR battle? Gaza hostage releases are not a victory for Hamas

The strength of the five women who returned, Daniella Gilboa, Liri Albag, Naama Levy, Agam Berger, and Karina Ariev has resonated across Israel. Hamas knew how important the young women were.

Hamas now faces a different challenge: As it releases more hostages, it can’t hold parades every week because many people will tire of these images. When the terror organization first conducted its handover, many tuned in to watch. Hamas used this as a spectacle.

Hamas's dilemma
But, after this happens three or five times, there might be less of a turnout – because what begins with interest, tends to fade. Hamas can declare “victory” every week, but people may stop listening, especially when they are bitter over the state of their daily lives, and have more pressing needs to tend to.

Hamas can only squeeze this hostage deal so much. At some point, it will want the deal to move forward, but will also receive less and less credit for what it gets from it. Hamas took so many hostages on October 7 – 251, along with four men whom it has held hostage since 2014 – that its ability to exploit this situation is diminishing.

Meaning, that the tables may turn a bit, where Hamas will want the deal to continue and ask its close mediator Qatar to do whatever is possible to keep things going. In turn, they will give Trump an opening to continue to showcase his ability to get deals done and declare victories.

Hamas knows that among the hostages it continues to hold, almost are all men, and that some are deceased, with the overall number of each remaining unclear.

It understands its dilemma: Handing over bodies is not the picture of victory that it wants – it can’t parade bodies on stage and give them a certificate the way it did with the observers. Hamas already has overplayed its hand in this respect, trying to showcase how holding young women and elderly men for 15 months is victorious.

Many see the images of the strong young women returning to Israel, the strength of the elderly men such as Gadi Mozes, and the five Thai foreign workers who were released – Thaenna Pongsak, Sathian Suwannakham, Sriaoun Watchara, Seathao Bannawat, and Lumnao Surasak – and empathize with them.

In that sense, Hamas is losing the battle for its image in the arena of public relations and is facing diminishing returns in Gaza. For a year, it used the hostages and produced videos of them, but now it really does need the deal to advance.

This is clearly an opening for Trump and those who support the deal to continue the ceasefire, but also to apply more pressure on Hamas.

Hamas "Regrouping under Cover of Hostage Releases"

Hamas has been using hostage release operations to rebuild its forces and map territory within Gaza, Israeli sources say.

The terror group is deploying more soldiers at each successive handover and conducting reconnaissance with drones that film the ceremonies.

"Each time they're changing the location of the handover, so they're mapping Gaza, Rafah, Khan Yunis, Gaza Port, so they're building the intelligence," said Ronen Solomon, an Israeli intelligence analyst.

The Israeli sources claimed that Hamas recruitment efforts had not been as successful as estimated by the U.S. State Department. Israel estimates that only a few hundred new, young and inexperienced recruits have been taken on.

The quantity of equipment still held by Hamas is also coming to light, with each round of hostage releases showing more arms, including machine guns, anti-tank missiles and drones.

Preventing Hamas from Rebuilding

Hamas still has 20,000 fighters and dozens of miles of tunnels in Gaza. It is already working to rebuild its capabilities and train a new generation of terrorists. Rebuilding Gaza means rebuilding Hamas. Therefore, any reconstruction of Gaza under Hamas rule must be limited to the bare minimum.

Every mechanism established to monitor materials entering Gaza has failed in the past and will fail again in preventing Hamas from using them to restore its military capabilities. Israel and the U.S. must send a clear message to the Arab world: As long as Hamas controls Gaza, another war is only a matter of time and any investment in reconstruction will be wasted.

We must also be wary of the illusion of a "technocratic government" in Gaza. As long as Hamas remains the dominant armed force, it will ultimately control any civilian authority established in Gaza.

The Palestinian Authority (PA) cannot be the solution either. Not only does the PA continue to pay salaries to terrorists and fail to prevent attacks from its territory, it is also clear that just as Hamas expelled the PA from Gaza in 2007, the same would happen again if the PA were entrusted with security responsibilities there.

Since no other entity aside from Israel will be willing to fight Hamas over the long term, only a temporary Israeli military-civil administration in Gaza can dismantle Hamas's armed control and lay the groundwork for a local civilian alternative that could gain strength in the future.

Preventing reconstruction will also send a clear message to Gaza's population that as long as Hamas remains in power and committed to terrorism, there is no future for the territory. Additionally, it will signal to Islamist terrorist supporters, who were emboldened by Hamas's recent hostage deal, that there is a heavy price to be paid for launching murderous attacks against Israel.

Analyzing the antisemitic responses to a viral meme I posted

Last night, I posted this meme I made:

It started going viral today; as of this writing it has been viewed over 210,000 times with hundreds more every minute.

As with many truth bombs, it is driving the antisemites crazy. Their responses are quite illuminating.

Many are saying that DNA proves that Jews aren't really Jews and Palestinians are the only indigenous people of the region (and some say that most Palestinians are descended from Jews.)

Of course, reputable DNA studies consistently prove that Jews are descended from the region. As far as Palestinians go, I have not looked closely at the studies that say they descended from the Levant to see how they chose their samples, but a significant number of Palestinians proudly trace their origins to elsewhere, especially the Arabian peninsula. In fact, a Palestinian project "Howiyya" ("Identity") that started in 2010 has been trying to identify the origins of Palestinian families and readily admits the claims that many Palestinian clans came from elsewhere is true:

According to Yasser Qaddoura, the project director, preserving Palestinian family trees is part of an identity battle aimed at refuting the Zionist narrative that Palestine was a “land without a people.”

Qaddoura explains that the occupation has always tried to cast doubt on the Palestinians’ affiliation by claiming that their family names (such as Al-Masry, Al-Baghdadi, Al-Beiruti, etc.) indicate their origins in neighboring countries.

The occupation forgets that these migrations were natural throughout history, and that the Palestinian people, like the rest of the world’s peoples, are made up of individuals who moved due to economic, political, or social circumstances.

So, I guess I'm right!

The only group of Palestinian families I've seen that consistently traced themselves back to the region are Christians. Who converted from - well, you know.

Speaking of DNA, a surprising number of people claimed that Israel bans DNA testing because Zionists are afraid that they will find out they were really Khazars or otherwise not original Jews.

This is another lie that is based on a grain of truth. Israel does regulate DNA testing for privacy purposes but any Israeli who wants can easily buy a DNA test online.

A number of Muslims are saying that Moses and Abraham were Muslim, insisting I study history. Their "history book" is, of course, the Quran.

Another antisemitic response shared by many is people pointing out that the coin isn't round, and they are amused that Jews are guilty of "clipping" or shaving the sides of coins to steal gold and silver.

Coin clipping is real. Associating it specifically with Jews is an antisemitic trope.

The English accused Jews of the practice in the 13th century, sentencing 300 Jews to death and seizing their assets.

This 19th century antisemitic Russian painting shows stereotypical Jews clipping coins.

I had no idea that this libel was still around. Amazing what you can learn by posting something that upsets antisemites. Not quite as amazing is how these people who claim to care about human rights are so quick to spread a libel that was used to justify the murder of many Jews.

Then there are the people who tacitly admit that Jews really are indigenous but move the goalposts by saying variants of "So does this give you the right to (murder, rape, bomb) children?"

If you want to talk about Israel's war practices and why they are moral, I have plenty of articles about that. But the truth is obviously not what these people are interested in.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

This is an excerpt from "Moon Of Israel," a 1924 Austrian film that depicted a love story between a Jewish slave and an Egyptian prince. It is perhaps best known for its depiction of the splitting of the sea, which was considered by critics at the time to be technically superior to that of Cecil B. DeMille in his 1923 silent version of The Ten Commandments. Unfortunately, the film quality of Moon of Israel is not close to restored versions of the original Ten Commandments. (You can see that version here, start around 30:00.)

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

USAID for Palestinians has been problematic for years - for reasons you might not expect

With the news that the US has put USAID under the control of the State Department, it is worthwhile to look back on USAID support for Palestinians over the years.

USAID was ostensibly funding humanitarian and democracy-building programs for Palestinians in the territories. It took pains to ensure that any infrastructure projects it built in the territories were only for Arabs, not Jews. (In at least one case, a road that they built for Palestinians ended up also benefitting Jews, much to the consternation of Haaretz.)

There have been many bumps along the way. For example, the head of a Palestinian "refugee" agency that USAID funded was a raging antisemite. But in general, USAID would attempt to ensure that the funding they gave did not go to terrorists, at least not directly.

In more recent years, however, USAID (like the EU) has been actively trying to give Area C land, under Israeli control, to Palestinians. The Biden administration supported USAID building an entire Palestinian university as well as other Palestinian projects on Area C lands.

There is another angle to this which is rarely reported. When USAID attaches strings to its programs to minimize the chances that they will be used for terror, Palestinian leaders fume.

As early as 2011, Palestinians warned about the evils of USAID requiring recipients to sign statements that they oppose terrorism. In 2012, Palestinian universities were urged not to accept USAID money because they would investigate whether professors were terrorists.

In 2019. the PA itself told USAID to stop all activities out of fear of terror-related lawsuits. The Anti-Terrorism Clarification Act (ATCA), passed by Congress and signed into law by then-President Trump allows Americans to sue those receiving foreign aid from their country in US courts over complicity in "acts of war" and the PA did not want any money under those circumstances.

The major reason given for US foreign aid is to be "soft power" to promote pro-American and pro-democracy thinking among the people. However, Palestinians - and Arabs altogether - never got that memo.

Millions of dollars were given in private, without publishing the recipients and with no transparency, apparently because of fear that there would be backlash from Palestinians for accepting money from the US.

What kind of "soft power" is it when the US cannot even make the names of the recipients public because they hate the US so much?

USAID has clearly not come close to achieving its stated goals in the Palestinian territories. It has not advanced democracy, it has not dissuaded terrorism, it has not improved Palestinian governance or reduced corruption. The Palestinians want all of the funding but none of the responsibility.

An Egyptian cleric once said that he considered all US funding of Egypt to be a form of jizya tax - something the dhimmis owe their Muslim masters. This is exactly how the Palestinians have treated US funding from USAID - it is something they feel they are owed.

As with UNRWA, over the years USAID itself has internalized that thinking and throwing money away on Palestinians without expecting anything in return became the entrenched mentality of the agency.

That is all the evidence you need that hundreds of millions of dollars have been wasted over the years.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Monday was the 50th anniversary of the death of Egypt's, and the Arab world's most famous singer, Umm Kulthum.

El Masrawy and other Egyptian newspapers reported:

During his program "On My Responsibility" broadcast on "Sada El Balad" channel, media figure Ahmed Moussa praised the late artist, considering her an example of patriotism and sacrifice for Egypt.

Musa pointed out that the Zionist entity sentenced Umm Kulthum to death, which is something that many people do not know.

He explained that the Zionist enemy saw Umm Kulthum as a threat because of her ability to inspire soldiers and people through her patriotic songs, which made her a target.

Kulthum remains a popular singer in Israel, and there are even streets named after her, despite her anti-Israel politics.

So where did this story come from?

It turns out that this is a much older rumor than I expected. Egyptian newspaper Al Balagh reported this on July 6, 1949, without any source.

Death sentence for Umm Kulthum!

For three weeks, the Israeli radio station has been broadcasting every day the text of the sentence issued by the Zionist authorities against Umm Kulthum, Mrs. Salima Pasha, and Mrs. Suham Rafqi!!

This sentence calls for the execution of the three Arab singers on charges of inciting the masses in the Arab countries against the 'peaceful Zionists!'

The story about her "death sentence" is of course an Arab fantasy.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

02/03 Links Pt2: Hamas’s ‘kinocide’: A new crime against humanity revealed; Israel is bracing for an unimaginable requiem; Remembering Marion Wiesel

From Ian:

Hamas a threat to all of a Western civilization, Aristotle Foundation president says

The central Jewish thinker Maimonides was influenced extensively by Aristotle, so it makes sense that a new pro-Israel, Canadian think tank bears the name of the ancient Greek philosopher.

Mark Milke, a Canadian political scientist and writer, founded the Calgary-based Aristotle Foundation for Public Policy in 2023 “to renew common-sense discourse in Canada,” per the charity’s site.

Though Milke is not Jewish, he and the think tank have focused often on defending Jews and Israel. “When the board, staff and I set up the Aristotle Foundation to champion reason, democracy and civilization, we never thought we’d have to address antisemitic mob behaviour on Canadian streets and campuses,” he wrote two days before the anniversary of Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, terror attacks.

“You often hear the excuse that the demonstrations across Canada are not antisemitic or anti-Jew but anti-Israel and its policies. If that were true, the only protests in the past year would have been at the Israeli embassy,” he added. “Instead, antisemitic protests have occurred in front of Jewish coffee shops, synagogues, hospitals and seniors’ centers and demonstrations have taken place at university grounds.”

The native of Kelowna, British Columbia told JNS that his family goes back to Prussia on his mother’s side. His great-great-grandfather fought for the North in the U.S. Civil War before settling in Saskatchewan.

His paternal grandmother fled Ukraine in the 1920s, escaping the tumultuous political climate that would soon engulf Eastern Europe. His Polish-born grandfather arrived in Canada in 1929 and settled in Edmonton. Both grandparents narrowly avoided the devastation of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, instilling in them a deep appreciation for their new home and a strong aversion to extremist ideologies.

“I never heard a smidgen of antisemitism,” he said, of his parents and family. “Quite the opposite. Growing up, they just understood what was right and what was wrong, and so they had no sympathy for the Nazis. They certainly didn’t like communism.”

“I hate bullies. I always have,” he told JNS. “I’m aware of bullies in history. That’s what tyrants are.”

Milke developed an early fascination with history and politics. He read encyclopedias voraciously as a child, and learned about historical figures and events that shaped his later worldview and career path.

“When I was a kid, I asked myself, ‘How did Adolf Hitler rise to power?’” he told JNS. “The core problem with Hitler was that we gave in and gave in because nobody wanted another war. You had to recognize the evil that was in front of you eventually, but it was far too late.”

Netanyahu’s 'Iran first' strategy ignores the real enemy

And that is the real enemy—not just of Israel but of the entire world. Yet, the leaders who adhere to the old conception are missing this crucial point. The enemy is not a state, an army, or an organization—it is religious ideology. Wherever it takes root, it fosters both social and military organizations.

Even when these organizations are dismantled, they regenerate time and time again. They will always reemerge because the fuel of the revolution is not military strength—it is spirit. And that is what we must break in order to achieve victory.

"The primary axis—Allah." This should have been the security establishment's realization after October 7. This understanding has dramatic implications for Israel’s and the West’s strategy, as well as for intelligence assessments and operational planning. The first conclusion from this realization is: Gaza first! Not Iran first.

Why? Because the October 7 war is the ultimate litmus test of how a Western state fares against radical Islamic ideology. If Hamas' ideology emerges victorious, as has been the case so far, this lesson will be learned in every arena—from London to Tehran, from Damascus to Berlin. The conclusion will be that the postmodern West, despite its overwhelming military and economic advantage, does not know how to defeat radical Islam.

1. The West struggles to target imams and mosques due to a distorted discourse on religious freedom—even though they are the Muslim equivalent of Goebbels’ propaganda machine.

2. The West fails to understand that victory is defined by control over land, because the enemy’s ideology is driven by a totalitarian aspiration to conquer the entire world as a religious imperative.

3. The West is incapable of subjugating enemy populations and imposing human values on them, because deep down, it justifies their struggle as that of the oppressed proletariat.

This is why Gaza is the test of the West. If we cannot even secure victory in Gaza, we will fail everywhere else.

Moreover, the immediate regional threat around us is far greater than Iran because the enemy’s goal is the conquest and destruction of Israel. Missiles from Iran would be met with missiles from Israel, and on Judgment Day, with even more strategic weaponry.

But what the jihadist fighters did in Gaza could just as easily be done by the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Jordan, or in Lebanon and Syria. Against this threat, Israel needs an army with a strong ground force—one with the capability and willingness to seize land, establish control, and subdue the population, just as the free world did with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. This is why victory against Iran—or anywhere else—begins and ends between Gaza and Rafah.

Tragically, our military and political leadership has already folded and retreated from Gaza two weeks ago. This week, the Netanyahu-Trump meeting will likely continue the "Head of the Snake" doctrine, focusing primarily on two topics: Saudi Arabia and Iran, Iran and Saudi Arabia. The ultimate enemy, and with it the possibility of total victory, will not even be on the table.

I’m not Jewish, but October 7th 2023 changed my life.

It wasn’t the events that took place that day, horrific though they were, that catalysed this change. While the atrocities committed by Hamas are hard to top, it was the horrific events that happened afterwards which have affected me so deeply. The events which started a mere day later. The events which have only worsened as the 18-month anniversary approaches. October 7th changed my life because it was the impetus for me to discover a generations-old campaign of hate and propaganda, a campaign so successful it has even captured prominent members of the group it’s aimed against.

I refer of course to the campaign against Israel and the Jews.

I’m embarrassed to admit that I’d fallen for it at one point. I recall saying to myself many years ago, after reading a Wikipedia article on the number of United Nations resolutions against Israel, “This has to be the evillest country on Earth.” In my defence, one can be forgiven for thinking the UN holds no agenda against the only democracy in the region, an idea that seemed utterly uncontroversial to me at the time. Thankfully, I never shared my views.

It was seeing how the world reacted to the October 7th massacre that made me start looking into Israel, the war and the wider region. Two days after the attack, protests erupted against Israel in Sydney. It sounded like “Gas the Jews” was chanted alongside the burning of an Israeli flag. This chant was interpreted by a police expert as the no-less-disturbing “where’s the Jews”, but despite the mob also chanting the unambiguously hateful “fuck the Jews”, the ABC focused an article about the protests on the fact that the chant wasn’t as bad as people had first thought. The article also featured a Palestinian rally organiser complaining about a smear campaign against Palestinians – he was photographed, but no Jews were. I wondered at this interpretation of “fair and balanced” reporting in light of explicit antisemitism. Later on, I wondered why our national broadcaster decided to include an outraged quote from the Russian Deputy Foreign Minister in a future article about the assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh. Since when is the offense of a brutal dictatorship at the assassination of a brutal terrorist leader an appropriate way for Australia’s state-run media to frame the news?

The more I read articles, listened to podcasts, studied the history and watched interviews and documentaries, the more I noticed such oddities in the response to the Gaza war. The death toll being quoted by pretty well everybody comes directly from the Gaza Health Ministry. Hamas, who spent almost 20 years building tunnels beneath the Palestinian population and turning schools, mosques and hospitals into military bases, runs that institution – and one might suspect they have a motive in inflating the numbers. The Hamas-Gaza Health Ministry connection was referenced less and less over time by the media and even the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Türk, omits it from an official statement. Türk also neglects to mention that the death toll includes upwards of 10,000 Hamas combatants, plus anyone who has died in Gaza for any reason since the war began.

I noticed more and more such omissions in reporting. Israel is bombing schools and hospitals, yet there’s often no mention of Hamas’s military bases within. Hamas are resisting “occupation”, yet Israel’s complete withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, including the forced expulsion of almost ten thousand Israeli citizens, isn’t noted. Israel invades Lebanon, yet the thousands of rockets shot by Hezbollah, the resultant tens of thousands of Israeli refugees, and the complete failure of UNIFIL to fulfil their mandate of keeping Hezbollah north of the Litani River is ignored. In fact, despite studying the topic daily, it took me many months to discover that Hezbollah had even been firing rockets at Israeli civilians – every day since October 8th, before Israel had even retaliated against Hamas, no less. These rockets have killed civilians yet this fact is rarely reported, or it’s reported in utterly repugnant ways such as BBC’s stunning headline “Israel hits Hezbollah targets after football pitch attack”, published when 12 Israeli Druze children were hit by Hezbollah rockets and killed.

It was becoming clearer and clearer that an agenda is afoot. Every day I read about Israel’s brutality, yet John Spencer, the world’s leading academic specialising in urban warfare, is almost never quoted despite (or likely thanks to) his belief that Israel is doing “harm mitigation at a level that nobody’s ever tried.” Rarely is it mentioned that civilians are routinely notified, by Israel, of military actions before they take place. Even rarer is the blame for the civilian casualties, all of which could be stopped in a day if Hamas returned all of the hostages and disarmed, placed on the group which started the war. Instead, Hamas are often painted as freedom fighters or a resistance group even though their charter openly outlines their core aims of Jihad and the ethnic cleansing of Jews.

02/03 Links Pt1: How Western governments are funding the persecution of Jews; Trump to watch October 7 film; Trump withdraws from UNHRC, defunds UNRWA and closes USAID

From Ian:

To Save Itself from International Isolation, Israel Must Hold On to the West Bank

Yet, as Elliott Abrams argued in Mosaic a decade ago, the rhetoric of unsustainability is misguided: a regional realignment is taking place in the Middle East, and that realignment was made possible by the supposedly unsustainable status quo that benefitted Israel over the past few decades. Abrams’s points are even more valid today, after the “unsustainable” situation in the West Bank has endured another ten years, than at the time of his essay’s publication. But an important point must be added.

Talk of political “unsustainability” implies that there is a different equilibrium that would be “sustainable.” For how long? Critics of the status quo rarely ask this question, because they implicitly assume that while the status quo that they criticize cannot last forever, their proposed way of replacing the status quo could. Not only two-statists assume this, but right-wing critics of the status quo as well, for example the journalist Caroline Glick and the former U.S. ambassador to Israel David Friedman, who both wrote book-length defenses of their vision of “one Jewish state” that would include all of Judea and Samaria and (for Glick) the Gaza Strip as well.

The assumption that just because the status quo cannot last forever there must be something else that will, is itself flawed: it exemplifies what I elsewhere called “end of history” thinking. In reality, history never ends. Political arrangements come and go, and nothing about the status quo makes it inherently less stable than any of the proposed political solutions to the Israel-Palestinian conflict. That the status quo will have to end one day is true but trivial: Baathist rule in Syria also ended one day, and so will the mullahs’ rule in Iran, as well as oil dominance in the energy sector and the resulting importance of most Gulf states. But in the foreseeable future, there is no reason to build policy on these forecasts.

An unsentimental view of Israel’s regional realities should force us to replace the impossible mission of ending history in the Middle East with a more down-to-earth principle, one articulated by Hippocrates: first, do no harm. The directive to avoid harm doesn’t mean that Israel shouldn’t strive for incremental improvements in the everyday life of all residents between the river and the sea, which the Israeli writer Micah Goodman describes as “shrinking the conflict.” But competent conflict management must take precedence over utopianism, be it the left’s two-state solution or the hard right’s dream of Jewish sovereignty over all of the land. Israeli policymakers must instead focus on securing a better future for our children and grandchildren. For the foreseeable future, nobody has suggested anything better than the status quo.

The implications of this essay’s argument for Israel’s Western supporters, especially in the U.S., are also clear. Israel’s Western friends who would like to see Israel withdraw from further territories, let alone agree to a two-state solution with the Palestinians, must completely change their attitude to Israel’s wars. They need to abandon the language of “de-escalation” and clearly and unambiguously state that in any war between Israel and its adversaries, the goal should be not cease-fire for cease-fire’s sake, but total and unquestionable Israeli victory. They need to stop talking about “Israel’s right to defend itself,” a phrase that has become empty of content over the years, since in practice it often means little more than Israel’s right to intercept rockets in the air. Instead, they should emphasize Israel’s right to do what it must to defeat its regional adversaries, and to finish wars on its own terms and according to its own timing, not under American pressure. They should stop demanding that American assistance to Israel be conditioned on any of the great many constraints that U.S. administrations routinely want to impose on Israel’s war efforts; and they should view arms embargos as an absolute taboo.

Coming from an Israeli, this might sound self-serving and all too convenient, but it’s based on a rational understanding of incentive structures. Any friend of Israel who wants to encourage Israel’s withdrawal from parts of the West Bank should want to avoid a situation in which Israel finds the diplomatic cost of withdrawing even steeper than the diplomatic cost of not withdrawing. Lukewarm, hesitant, and unreliable support during a defensive war against an enemy whose base is territory from which Israel previously withdrew (as is the case of Israel’s current war against Hamas) sends Israel the message that heeding the call to withdraw isn’t merely dangerous but could even lead to the very outcome that the withdrawal was supposed to stave off: diplomatic isolation. Thus, anyone who wants to convince Israelis that withdrawal is in their interest should be steadfastly and unconditionally supportive of Israel when it finds itself at war.

Of course, we know that this is not how things work in reality. In practice, politicians and opinionmakers who see the greatest urgency in Israel’s relinquishment of additional territory also tend to be the people who are the most critical of Israel’s war effort, and indeed their criticism of the war is much harsher and much more vocal than their criticism of Israel’s management of the Israel-Palestinian conflict during quieter times. This means, however, that in view of its self-declared allies’ and partners’ easily observable revealed preferences, Israel has no incentive to make further territorial concessions. Quite the contrary: if Israel is truly concerned about potential diplomatic isolation in the future, it must resist the idea of territorial concessions with all its might.

Lyn Julius: Palestinian resettlement would complete the 1948 exchange

President Donald Trump’s proposal that 1.5 million Palestinians in the Gaza Strip be transferred to Egypt and Jordan has been met with outright rejection by said countries, in addition to howls of outrage and accusations of “ethnic cleansing.”

The refugee problem needs to be considered in its historical context. Trump has focused attention on the Gazans by effectively suggesting the completion of an exchange of refugee populations that began in 1948 with the first Arab-Israel war. Arab refugees fled from Israel to Gaza, and the areas of Judea and Samaria, while thousands of others left for Lebanon and Syria.

It is often forgotten that Jewish refugees—persecuted in Arab countries, where they had been established for millennia—fled in the opposite direction. The numbers of refugees who swapped places were 711,000 Arabs (according to U.N. figures) vs. 650,000 Jews—roughly equal. (Another 200,000 Jewish refugees fled to the West).

The Jews were granted citizenship in Israel and the West. They were quickly resettled and are no longer refugees. But the Palestinian Arabs remained stateless, many shunted into camps. Not only were they not resettled but weaponized into a tool of permanent conflict with Israel.

They were actively prevented from resettling by two factors.

The Arab League passed, in 1959, Resolution No. 1457, which forbids the countries from offering citizenship to the refugees “in order to prevent their assimilation into their host countries.”

The other gatekeeper of statelessness has been the U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) set up exclusively for Palestinians. The agency not only provides health, food and education in the refugee camps but allows the Palestinians to pass on their refugee status to succeeding generations ad infinitum.

Population exchanges have been the norm after most conflicts in the 20th century. Indeed, the principle of population exchange and, therefore, of resettlement has been accepted in international law as in the Treaty of Neuilly (1919) and the Lausanne Convention (1923). More than a million Greeks from Asia Minor and the Caucasus swapped places with 400,000 Muslims from Greece.

A vast population exchange took place following the partition of the Indian subcontinent into India and Pakistan. In that case, 8.5 million Hindus left Pakistan for India, and 6.5 million Muslims fled Pakistan. Millions of Germans and Russians were forced from their homes during World War II, never to return.

Approx. 80% of Israelis support Trump's plan to relocate Gazans

A large majority of Israeli Jews support US President Donald Trump’s proposal to relocate Gaza’s population to other countries, a Jewish People Policy Institute Israel Index survey revealed Monday.

The survey, which was published ahead of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s meeting with Trump in Washington, found that approximately eight out of 10 Jewish Israelis support Trump’s suggestion that “Arabs from Gaza should relocate to another country,” while most Arab Israelis oppose the proposal.

According to the findings, 43% of all Israelis believe Trump’s plan is “practical” and should be pursued, while an additional 30% of Jewish Israelis responded that the plan is “not practical, but desirable,” meaning they support the idea but do not see it as realistically feasible.

However, 13% of Israelis believe Trump’s proposal is “immoral.” This group includes 54% of Arab respondents and only 3% of Jewish Israelis.

The JPPI study also found differences in opinion in political views, with 81% of right-wing respondents saying the plan is both desirable and practical, compared to 31% of those in the Center and 27% of left-wing Jewish respondents.

Results found that a majority of Likud voters say they believe the relocation plan is both desirable and practical, with half of National Unity Party voters agreeing it is desirable but not practical. Furthermore, 62% of those who associated themselves with the Labor Party consider the plan either a “distraction” or “immoral.”

Change in views
According to the JPPI, the idea of significantly relocating Gaza’s Palestinian population – once considered illegitimate by many Israelis – now sees support among Jewish Israelis. When there is opposition, it is typically based on practicality, with some dismissing the plan as “a distraction” rather than on moral grounds.

Surveys conducted in the 1990s and mid-2000s on the transfer of Palestinians from the West Bank generally found support levels of 40%–50% among Jewish Israelis.

More proof of Hamas casualty lies

About a week before the ceasefire, Hamas said that there were 11,200 missing people in Gaza buried under the rubble.

On the day of the ceasefire, Hamas updated that figure to the very authoritative sounding 14,222 missing people in Gaza presumed dead under the rubble.

Since the fighting has stopped and there are no impediments to recovering bodies, we should be seeing hundreds of bodies arriving in hospitals every day, right?

The first days after the ceasefire, dozens of bodies were reported recovered by the Ministry of Health. Since then, the number of bodies has been going steadily down.

That is 457 bodies recovered so far, half of which were recovered in the first three days. (They didn't issue reports on three days.)

Based on these trends, the total number of bodies expected to be recovered is probably less than a thousand, certainly not 14,000 or the 10,000 that NGOs parroted from Hamas for months.

Hamas lied. And no media outlet noticed.

Also, the MoH counts 17 "martyrs" who succumbed to their injuries since January 20 and 22 "new martyrs" that they claim Israel is still somehow killing, that the media hasn't managed to find out about. (There are occasional articles in Palestinian media claiming Israel is still killing Gazans. The Institute for the Study of War has consistently stated in their daily reports that it "has recorded no verifiable reports of kinetic activity in the Gaza Strip or attacks from the Gaza Strip into Israel" in every daily report since then, meaning Israel is holding to the ceasefire.)

So who is the ministry counting? People who are dying of natural causes? The people being executed by Hamas?

Or are they just making this up, like they have been the past 15 months?

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

From Anadolu:

Algerian President Abdelmadjid Tebboune has confirmed that his country will not normalize relations with Israel before the establishment of a Palestinian state.

The statement came in an interview with the French daily Le Point on Sunday and it was featured in Monday's edition.

In response to a question about Algeria's readiness to normalize its relations with Israel if a Palestinian state were established, Tebboune said: "Of course, on the day that happens."

"Our priority is the establishment of a Palestinian state,” he said.

A Moroccan writer mocks Tebboune.

The promotion of the idea that Israel might be interested in normalizing its relations with Algeria reflects an intellectual alienation confined to outdated narratives...The reality is that Algeria, from the perspective of Israeli interests and from the angle of the global Jewish strategic vision, represents nothing but a dark historical case, as the state that committed one of the largest mass expulsions and ethnic cleansing of Jews in modern times, confiscated their property, annihilated their cultural presence, and practiced against them a policy of systematic institutional exclusion.
The Jewish presence in Algeria was not marginal, but rather a structural part of the social and economic fabric of the region, extending over many centuries, from the Roman era to the Ottoman Empire and then the French colonial era.
But with the outbreak of the War of Independence and the rise of Algerian nationalism in its radical form, the Jewish community became a victim of an exclusionary system that did not differentiate between Jews and French, and considered everyone an extension of colonialism. After the independence phase, the Algerian state embarked on a process of systematic eradication of Algerian Jews, by looting their property, nationalizing their places of worship, and completely dismantling their social existence, in a blatant and profound violation of all legal principles and international norms related to the rights of minorities and indigenous peoples.
...The Algerian state is required to offer an official apology to the Jews of Algeria, review the legislation that legalized the seizure of their property, and open real channels of communication with representatives of the Jewish community abroad, within a serious conciliatory approach based on the foundations of historical justice and not on empty diplomatic maneuvers.
As for Israeli interests, Algeria does not constitute an influential player in the normalization equation, nor does it have any strategic value that could make its relations with Tel Aviv a priority. So, from a geopolitical perspective, Algeria lacks weight in the regional system, so it remains an isolated state, withdrawn into itself, unable to produce a rational and balanced foreign policy.
From an economic perspective, the Algerian economy suffers from structural fragility resulting from an eroded rentier model, which relies on hydrocarbon revenues without any ability to diversify its resources or develop its productive sectors. From a military perspective, the Algerian regime is bound by an outdated security doctrine, based on mechanical hostility to Israel without possessing any real ability to exert any influence on regional deterrence equations.
....The Arab countries that have engaged in the process of normalization with Israel did not do so in compliance with external dictates, as the Algerian discourse claims, but rather out of a strategic vision that realizes that engaging in the Israeli technological, economic, and security system represents a rational choice that is consistent with the facts of reality. As for Algeria, which is still a prisoner of the mentality of the sixties, it continues to close itself off, insisting on remaining outside the context of history, governed by a regime that suffers from intellectual poverty and a fragile vision, and relies on a wooden discourse that no longer has an echo even within local public opinion.
It goes without saying that the world is not waiting for Algeria, and Israel does not need relations with a political regime that lacks internal legitimacy and relies on empty slogans to cover up its inability to achieve development and stability.
If the Algerian president believes that he can bargain over the normalization card as a pressure tool or diplomatic gain, he is delusional, because Israel only recognizes real interests, not political outbidding that has no basis in reality.

Even taking into account Morocco's contentious relationship with Algeria, it is rare to find an Arabic article that so clearly - and accurately - describes the benefits of normalization with Israel and folly of those who are wedded to the old Arab mentality of the 1960s. And note also that the Moroccan writer understands, in a way that most Westerners don't, the strong connection between Israel and world Jewry.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

There is a great deal of discussion and angst about the current Trump administration's freezing of most foreign aid. Typical is this Washington Post editorial:

Foreign assistance is one of the more misunderstood items in the federal budget. In creates an enormous bang for a relatively small buck. American aid supports thousands of programs across 204 countries. It provides lifesaving drugs for millions of people afflicted with HIV/AIDS and malaria. It purifies drinking water, helps rid former war zones of leftover land mines, and trains local police to combat human trafficking and the illegal wildlife trade.

For many people around the world, aid is also the most visible symbol of U.S. power — soft power — and a tangible demonstration of America’s decency. Amounting to $68 billion in fiscal 2023, foreign aid is only about 1 percent of the federal budget. Yet it has long been in the crosshairs of some fiscal conservatives and other critics who deem it a waste of taxpayer dollars that could be better spent at home.

One could argue about the bang for the buck of foreign aid. For example, a significant part of Jordan's GDP - more than 2.5% - comes directly from US aid. Does this prompt Jordan to vote with the US in the UN? Does it promote Jordanian respect for human rights? Does it promote a warmer peace with Israel than it would have otherwise?

US foreign aid should be closer tied to US interests. This furtherance of US interests can of course be indirect but the programs should be monitored to see how effective they are, and not become self-sustaining programs that run only on inertia. Similarly, programs to fight disease and epidemics help the the entire world, including the US, in the long run, and should continue to be funded while they are effective.

The funding freeze had several exceptions:

On President Donald Trump’s first day back in office, he signed an executive order suspending all foreign aid for 90 days, pending a review, saying the “foreign aid industry and bureaucracy are not aligned with American interests and in many cases antithetical to American values.” Secretary of State Marco Rubio followed up with a cable on Jan. 24 to all U.S. diplomatic outposts stopping work on most foreign aid programs during the review period, which is supposed to be completed by the time the freeze expires. Initially, exemptions were made only for emergency food aid and military assistance to Israel and Egypt — and conspicuously not for aid to Ukraine or Taiwan. Then on Tuesday, perhaps bowing to global outrage and criticism, Rubio issued an additional waiver for lifesaving humanitarian assistance.

Military aid to Israel is recognized by all fair minded observers as a great investment in US security. The technological advances that Israel achieves, its battlefield methodologies, its intelligence, all help the US defend itself and save billions of dollars. I recently linked to an article at National Defense about Israel's use of directed energy weapons, and it said:

As the report, “Directed Energy Weapon Supply Chains” published by the National Defense Industrial Association’s Emerging Technologies Institute in January 2024 pointed out, the United States has no established laser weapon industrial base to speak of — no supply chain, no factories, no cadre of workers. The U.S. military has fewer than 20 laser weapon systems, all of them built in laboratories, according to a list provided by the Pentagon’s Joint Directed Energy Transition Office.

In a briefing with reporters in early December at the headquarters of Rafael Advanced Defense Systems, company chairman Yuval Steinitz did little to mask his pride, calling the Iron Beam a scientific and technological breakthrough and emphasizing that Israel had accomplished what so many others could not.

Israel is a laboratory for defense research that the US benefits from mightily.

But why should Egypt be an exception?

Certainly the massive US aid to Egypt has come about to encourage it to keep the peace treaty with Israel. But Egypt benefits from that treaty anyway - primarily by saving the immense military expense of defending its border with Israel.

But recently, Egypt has been using the US aid to build a military capability whose purpose, to put it generously, is unclear.

Israeli envoy to the UN Danny Danon raised concerns about Egypt’s military expansion, questioning its necessity in the absence of threats.

“They spend hundreds of millions of dollars on modern military equipment every year, yet they have no threats on their borders,” Danon said recently during a Kol BaRama radio interview. “Why do they need all these submarines and tanks? After October 7, this should raise alarm bells. We have learned our lesson. We must monitor Egypt closely and prepare for every scenario.”

Speaking to journalist Mendi Rizel on News of the Week, Danon pointed to Washington’s role in supplying Egypt’s military and urged a reevaluation of the issue.

For example, Egypt recently signed made a $4.7 million deal with the US for the refurbishment and upgrade of 555 M1A1 Abrams tanks. Military Africa reports, "This refurbishment program is expected to enhance Egypt’s main battle tank fleet, enabling it to address modern threats and align its capabilities with U.S. and allied forces. " The link to the phrase "modern threats" points to Egypt deploying tanks in Rafah to underscore how they want to stop any Palestinians from Gaza crossing the border.

Which means that Egypt is using US military equipment to do the opposite of what the US wants Egypt to do, which is to allow Gazans to flee to Egypt.

To be sure, Egypt does need tanks to defend itself from any potential threats from Libya and Sudan, but it has a large military edge over those threats already; the need to upgrade to the most modern tanks can only be seen as a means to fight Israel. This is clearly not in the interests of the US.

Israel's peace with all Arab countries aligns with their own interests, with or without US aid. If they only maintain peace with Israel because of US "soft power" then there is no peace to begin with. Every country acts primarily for self interest, and the US should be no exception.

The question is, how does supplying Egypt with advanced weapons that the US does not provide to other countries help US interests? And if it doesn't, why continue to spend that money?

(h/t Irene)

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Yesterday, we mentioned the reports that Jordan asked Hamas to find a country willing to accept Sbarro bombing terrorist Ahlam Tamimi or have her face extradition to the US.

Jordanian Parliament Speaker Ahmad al-Safadi was asked about this topic from a member of the first chamber of the parliament.

Al-Safadi said: “We followed that topic, and the news is inaccurate, and it is better not to open (the subject).”

If Jordan supported keeping Tamimi this would not be the expected response.

Tamimi has become a liability for Jordan, but having her face justice is not their priority. Even the idea that they would ask Hamas to give her a lifeline shows how pro-terror the Jordanian government is. They clearly don't want Tamimi to be extradited or they would have done it already.

As we mentioned, Qatar is the obvious choice for Tamimi to flee to, and chances are quite high that she is already there or on her way there. This would perfectly align with the parliament speaker's remarks.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)