Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News: Daled Amos

Showing posts with label Daled Amos. Show all posts

Friday, November 15, 2024

The cultural reason behind Israel's failures at explaining itself to the world (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

The current Gaza War highlights a point made in previous wars between Israel and Hamas: Israel is not very good at hasbara. It is not good at defending itself or presenting its own case.

Why is that?

If you ask ChatGPT, it will give you eight reasons Israel is bad at public diplomacy.

Complex and Controversial Policies: Israel’s policies, particularly in relation to the Palestinians, involve a complex mix of history, religion, and geopolitics. Issues like the Gaza blockade, West Bank settlements, and military operations against Hamas often draw criticism internationally. Explaining these policies in a way that aligns with Israel’s security concerns while resonating with global audiences—who may lack context or see these actions as overly aggressive—is a significant hurdle.

Reactive Rather than Proactive Messaging: Often, Israel’s hasbara efforts tend to be reactive, responding to crises as they occur rather than establishing a strong, proactive narrative. This reactive stance means Israel is frequently on the defensive, trying to counter criticisms or viral images that have already shaped public opinion, rather than setting the terms of the debate.

Media and Cultural Differences: The media landscape in the West, particularly in Europe and the U.S., can have biases, or they might frame issues in ways that amplify the Palestinian narrative. Furthermore, Israeli communication style—often direct and sometimes confrontational—doesn't always translate well in other cultures, where diplomacy and softer rhetoric might be preferred.

Lack of Unified Messaging: Israel’s messaging often lacks coordination. Various ministries and agencies in Israel, including the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Defense, and the Prime Minister’s Office, may put out different messages, leading to a lack of cohesion. This disunity can result in inconsistent narratives that dilute Israel’s main talking points.

Underestimating Social Media Impact: Social media has amplified global awareness and activism, making it easy for images and stories to go viral, often before Israel can issue an official response. Additionally, Palestinian activists have been more effective at creating emotionally resonant content that tends to resonate more powerfully on platforms like Twitter, TikTok, and Instagram. Israel’s response on these platforms can feel less impactful or, at times, unrelatable to the younger generation that dominates these spaces.

Changing Global Perceptions: Public opinion globally has become more sensitive to human rights issues, and there’s a growing skepticism of military power and occupation-style control over other peoples. This has made Israel’s security-driven messaging less effective over time, especially with younger audiences who may sympathize more with Palestinians as an oppressed group.

Language and Accessibility: Hebrew-centric narratives or content that presupposes knowledge of Jewish or Israeli culture may not always resonate with global audiences. Similarly, English-language messaging is critical, but without nuanced, culturally aware English-language communicators, messaging can feel disconnected or out of touch with international sentiments.

Perception of Overreach: Sometimes, efforts in hasbara can backfire, particularly if seen as propaganda rather than genuine engagement. International audiences may become distrustful if they perceive a heavy-handed or overly defensive communication style, potentially diminishing Israel’s credibility.

These are technical reasons, focusing on the nature of the message that Israel is trying to present, on the kind of audience, or on the nature of the medium. These reasons don't completely explain why it is that the Palestinian Arabs are so adept at overcoming these hurdles.

But, another perception of Israel's hasbara problem was expressed by Haviv Rettig Gur in an interview posted on YouTube. At one point he was asked about a lecture he gave where he contrasted the claim that early settlers were inspired by the Herzl and the Zionist ideology as opposed to the fact that the early settlers were refugees fleeing pogroms in Russia -- the difference being the greater sympathy garnered by the latter interpretation.

Haviv Rettig Gur (YouTube screencap)

Gur attributes the failure in Israeli hasbara to a basic Israeli attitude:

First of all, we don't tell it [that the early settlers were refugees] to the rest of the world because we don't talk to the rest of the world about these things. One of the hearts and soul of the center of our DNA and understanding of History, is the idea that we don't justify ourselves to the world...we don't justify ourselves because in the mind that is watching us, that is observing us, that is making demands of us. we're a moral cartoon serving, the needs of the cartoonist and that is not a fight you can win...

By the way, this creates a real cultural incapacity to explain ourselves seriously And you see it everywhere. I mean, you see it in Israelis literally having trouble on CNN explaining, you know, whether or not Israel is right or wrong because the feeling that you're justifying is something that is antithetical to their basic cultural identity.

It's why the Israeli government has established a Public Diplomacy Ministry five times and the last time it closed the public diplomacy ministry was I think October 16 or October 18. The public diplomacy minister of Israel got up on national television. She was a Likud appointee to the Knesset by an ally of Netanyahu and she said obviously this is a fake thing, public diplomacy...I'm an Israeli Patriot, she said and in wartime, I will not waste public funds on a fake ministry and so she resigned and she shut down her ministry on national television To me, that's astonishing because what's even more astonishing is nobody in the government blinked, there is nobody in Israeli government responsible for public diplomacy in any way responsible for synergizing, different branches, and everyone speaks their own mind...

The biggest drink company in Israel is Coca-Cola. Israel's marketing department is brilliant. It can hack the human brain stem like Coca-Cola everywhere. It's not that the Israelis are incapable of marketing, of telling stories of building out of selling ideas. It's that they can't do it for themselves because we don't justify ourselves...[transcribed and edited for clarity and conciseness]

Here is the Haviv Rettig Gur interview:

If Gur is correct, the solution to Israel's hasbara problem is even harder to address than the solutions to the technical issues in the ChatGPT list.

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

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

It Took Only 150 Years To Revise The Reputation of General Sherman. How Long Will It Take For Israel? (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

“Those people made war on us, defied and dared us to come south to their country, where they boasted they would kill us and do all manner of horrible things. We accepted their challenge, and now for them to whine and complain of the natural and necessary results is beneath contempt."
General William Tecumseh Sherman

General William Tecumseh Sherman was one of the most notable Union generals of the Civil War, famous for his "scorched earth" policy requiring destroying anything useful to the enemy. That was arguably Sherman's main claim to fame -- or infamy.

General Sherman's military career in the Civil War does seem to have some interesting parallels to the current Israel-Gaza War -- beyond the above quote about his view of the South's challenge to the North. His policy for conducting the war has been challenged over 150 years for being destructive and brutal. General Sherman was arguably responsible for committing war crimes:

Major General William Tecumseh Sherman’s actions after the capture of Atlanta and his subsequent March to the Sea are sometimes seen as anticipating the pattern of total war in the twentieth century. Some have claimed that Sherman was a war criminal, authorizing plunder and looting of civilian property. But the matter is more complex than either of these charges indicate. In fact, Sherman’s actions were the culmination of a Union policy toward civilians that evolved during the course of the war.

But his reputation appears to be going through a makeover. That redemption gained steam in 2014, as reflected by this marker:

The marker was erected by the Georgia Historical Society and the Georgia Battlefields Association:

On November 15, 1864, during the Civil War, U.S. forces under Gen. William T. Sherman set out from Atlanta on the March to the Sea, a military campaign designed to destroy the Confederacy’s ability to wage war and break the will of its people to resist. After destroying Atlanta’s industrial and business (but not residential) districts, Sherman’s 62,500 men marched over 250 miles, reaching Savannah in mid-December. Contrary to popular myth, Sherman’s troops primarily destroyed only property used for waging war – railroads, train depots, factories, cotton gins, and warehouses. Abandoning their supply base, they lived off the land, destroying food they could not consume. They also liberated thousands of enslaved African Americans in their path. Sherman’s “hard hand of war” demoralized Confederates, hastening the end of slavery and the reunification of the nation.

The media covering the marker at the time picked up on this revision of Sherman's reputation. We can only wonder if the analysis offered just 9 years ago would be made today:

Historians have increasingly written that Sherman’s plan for the systematic obliteration in late 1864 of the South’s war machine, including its transportation network and factories, was destructive but not gratuitously destructive. Instead, those experts contend, the strategy was an effective and legal application of the general’s authority and the hard-edged masterstroke necessary to break the Confederacy.

In other words:

o The force used by the general was proportionate.
o It targeted military -- not civilian -- infrastructure.
o And it did not contravene the law.

This is not to deny the inevitable excesses one expects in war but focuses on the intent of Sherman and his troops.

And what about the accounts of the deliberate brutality of Sherman's troops?

[Experts] have described plenty of family accounts of cruelty as nothing more than fables that unfairly mar Sherman’s reputation.

“What is really happening is that over time, the views that are out there are being challenged by historical research,” said John F. Marszalek, a Sherman biographer and the executive director of the Mississippi-based Ulysses S. Grant Association. “The facts are coming out.”

Family accounts?

Apparently, Hamas terrorists are not the first to recognize the effectiveness of the use of civilian accounts for blackening the reputation of its enemies.

But this is not to say that Sherman's redemption is complete. The South still is bitter over what they view as the war crimes of General Sherman.

Not surprisingly, the battle over Sherman can also be found on college campuses. A professor at the University of Georgia notes that there is a change in attitude where he is teaching:

“You all the time run into college kids who don’t know which side Sherman was on — and their parents and certainly their grandparents would be aghast to know that,” he said. “It’s not just a matter of education. It’s a matter of being the blank slate that younger generations present for revision or education that older generations don’t because they’re steeped in the mythology of their ancestors.”

Has there ever been a time when university students were not blank slates for those with an agenda?

Another interesting parallel appears in Wikipedia, quoting authors who believe that Sherman's conduct of the war influenced the Democratic Party and the elections:

Sherman's success caused the collapse of the once powerful "Copperhead" faction within the Democratic Party, which had advocated immediate peace negotiations with the Confederacy. It also dealt a major blow to the popularity of the Democratic presidential candidate, George B. McClellan, whose victory in the election had until then appeared likely to many, including Lincoln himself. According to Holden-Reid, "Sherman did more than any other man apart from the president in creating [the] climate of opinion" that afforded Lincoln a comfortable victory over McClellan at the polls.

The "progressives" of that time who parallel today's "Ceasefire Now" advocates did not push for a definitive victory over the South. Similarly, McClellan's position on the war is reminiscent of Biden's position on the Israel-Gaza War and the problems that is causing him.

According to ChatGPT:

[McClellan's] platform, as adopted by the Democratic Party, called for an immediate cessation of hostilities and a negotiated peace with the Confederacy. However, McClellan personally distanced himself from the more extreme peace elements of his party, asserting that any peace settlement must include the restoration of the Union. Despite this, his campaign was seen as an attempt to end the war through compromise rather than military victory.

But none of this helps Israel.

General William Tecumseh Sherman died in 1891. There have been over 130 years for the dust to settle, for some degree of objectivity to set in, and for a re-examination of Sherman and his actions to begin to be re-evaluated.

It will be a long time before analysis of Israel and its modern history approaches anything near objectivity.

(Hat tip: PreOccupied Territory)

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

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

Whose Ceasefire Is It Anyway? (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

On Friday, President Biden announced a ceasefire plan that would end the fighting in Gaza, release all the hostages, ensure Israel's security, and create a better Gaza after the war without Hamas.

Biden's plan has three phases:

Problems With The Proposal

There are some potential sticking points in just in Phase One alone:

o The release of Hamas hostages would be "in exchange for the release of hundreds of Palestinian prisoners" -- that alone could break the plan since these would likely be terrorists and Hamas would insist on the release of terrorists with blood on their hands.

o Humanitarian assistance would surge with 600 trucks carrying aid into Gaza every single day -- no mention of the need for Hamas to stop interfering with the aid, but then again Biden is not going to point fingers.

o According to Biden, "if the negotiations take longer than six weeks for phase one, the ceasefire will still continue as long as negotiations continue." On the one hand, this effectively ties Israel's hands as long as Hamas drags out negotiations, as Biden says, "There are a number of details to negotiate to move from phase one to phase two."

The Part Biden Leaves Out

The only thing that Biden leaves out is where Hamas gets to declare victory--after all, even though Biden claims at the outset that this proposal "creates a better 'day after' in Gaza without Hamas in power," he never addresses how that works. Instead, Biden claims that continuing the war "will not bring an enduring defeat of Hamas. That will not bring Israel lasting security."

What will?

According to one US official:

We have to work to reform the PA in the West Bank, which is ongoing and to having an interim administration in Gaza that can help with stabilization and pathway forward th

What kind of "reform" he is talking about is anybody's guess. Is Hamas going to step aside and relinquish power? Like Hezbollah?

More likely Hamas will continue to have power in Gaza. Back in March, Hamas assassinated the head of the Doghmush clan, one of the most powerful in Gaza, to keep them from vying for power in a reconstructed Gaza.

Hamas is not going anywhere. So the best that Biden can offer in his public statement is to claim that Israel can go forward:

without any further risk to their own security because they’ve devastated Hamas forces over the past eight months. At this point, Hamas no longer is capable of carrying out another October 7th, — one of the Israelis’ main objective in this war and, quite frankly, a righteous one.

No longer "capable"? Isn't that what they once said about Al Qaeda and ISIS?

Biden cannot guarantee Israel's security with a proposal like this.

Whose Ceasefire Is It Anyway?

Can it be that Israel offered a plan that allows Hamas to likely stay in power and live to fight and kill and kidnap another day--as they have already promised?

It seems that though Biden talked about "my efforts," "my negotiators," "my team," and "my many conversations," he does admit that "Israel has offered a comprehensive new proposal."

But on Twitter, Obama supported Biden's plan:

Today, President Biden put forward a clear, realistic and just plan to establish an immediate ceasefire and end the war in Gaza - a plan that ensures Israel’s security, returns hostages taken on October 7th to their families, increases aid into Gaza and relieves the suffering of Palestinian civilians, and engages Israelis, Palestinians, Arab countries and the broader international community in the process of rebuilding Gaza...I am deeply encouraged by the steady, tireless efforts of President Biden, Secretary of State Tony Blinken and our diplomatic team to bring this awful war to an end.

Obama supports the plan and Biden's efforts.
So it's Israel's plan and Biden gets to take a victory lap.

But maybe it's not really Israel's plan after all. CNN reports:

Israel’s four-and-a-halfpage proposal was submitted to Hamas on Thursday evening, a US senior administration official said, and matches closely a deal the group itself recently proposed.

“It’s nearly identical to Hamas’ own proposals of only a few weeks ago. So if that’s what Hamas wants, they can take the deal,” the official said.

So maybe it's both of their plans? According to Nadav Eyal of Yediot Ahronot, it's Israel's plan, but with one major change:

So it is Israel's plan, or at least one they both agree to, except that Netanyahu never agreed to indefinite negotiations.

And that is why Netanyahu "reiterated that Israel would not agree to a permanent cease-fire in Gaza as long as Hamas still retains governing and military power."

So all the pressure is on Israel to allow for a ceasefire that likely keeps Hamas in power, while the terrorists who slaughtered and kidnapped Israelis and have promised to keep doing exactly that, make no promises, no concessions, and get to claim victory as they continue to rule in Gaza.

When you put it like that, it kind of sounds like Biden's deal after all.

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

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

Moses Mendelssohn Faced 18th-Century Wokeism (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

A few weeks ago, I came across an article, The Logic Puzzle You Can Only Solve with Your Brightest Friend.

I was not interested in the puzzle, but the image illustrating the article caught my eye.
It was this painting:

There was no explanation of the painting, but I recognized the person to the left, Moses Mendelssohn, the German-Jewish philosopher and theologian who lived during the 17th-century Enlightenment. He won a prize offered by the Berlin Academy for an essay on the application of mathematical proofs to metaphysics, beating out Immanuel Kant, who came in second.

According to Google Gemini, there are some points of comparison between the Enlightenment then and Wokeism today.

o Critical examination of power structures: Both movements challenge existing power structures and dominant ideologies. The Enlightenment questioned the absolute authority of the church and monarchy, while wokeism critiques social inequalities and systemic biases.

o Emphasis on equality: Both movements promote ideas of equality and justice. The Enlightenment stressed universal human rights, while wokeism focuses on social justice issues like racial equality and LGBTQ+ rights.

And, of course, there are differences:

o Universality vs. Identity: Enlightenment thinkers often believed in universal values that applied to all people. Wokeism often emphasizes identity politics and the experiences of marginalized groups.

o Tone: The Enlightenment emphasized optimism and progress. Wokeism can sometimes be seen as more critical and focused on dismantling existing systems.

You can get a sense of the Enlightenment by looking at the two other people in the picture.

Here is the complete painting:

It is by Moritz Daniel Oppenheim and is a rendition of an imaginary conversation between
Mendelssohn, Gotthold Lessing, and Johann Lavate, who were all contemporaries.

Lessing (standing in the background) was a German philosopher, dramatist, publicist, and art critic. He was a friend of Mendelssohn and was the author of the play, Nathan The Wise, which expressed his views in favor of religious tolerance.

Johann Lavater was a Swiss poet, writer, philosopher, physiognomist, and theologian. As a physiognomist, Lavater wrote that Jewish features were a sign of “neither generosity, nor tenderness, nor elevation of mind.”

So much for enlightenment.

Lavater was, however, an admirer of Mendelssohn, and described Mendelssohn as “a companionable, brilliant soul, with piercing eyes, the body of an Aesop—a man of keen insight, exquisite taste, and wide erudition...frank and open-hearted.” I

He admired him so much that Lavater decided to convince Mendelssohn to convert to Christianity.

In 1769 Lavater read a book by the Swiss scientist and philosopher Charles Bonnet, Palingenesis. Bonnet intended his book for Christians, to strengthen their belief in the immortality of the soul. But Lavater saw the book as a proof of Christianity addressed to non-Christians. Lavater translated parts of the book from French into German and published it as Investigation of the Proofs for Christianity.

He went further and wrote a dedication to Mendelssohn, challenging him to either refute Bonnet’s argument or do “what Socrates would have done if he had read [Bonnet’s work] and found it irrefutable.”

That put Mendelssohn in a bind, comparable to what the Ramban faced in 1263 when he was required to defend Judaism in a public debate with church officials. In that debate, Ramban had to win without at the same time denigrating Christianity. But for Mendelssohn, winning would require refuting the proofs in Bonnet's book and by definition could be seen as an insult to Christianity. And just refusing to respond to the challenge would be just as bad as a loss, calling the sincerity of Mendelssohn's commitment to Judaism into question.

In the end, Mendelssohn wrote an open letter to Lavater:

In the letter, he turns the tables on Lavater by contrasting Lavater’s intolerant Christianity with tolerant Judaism. For Mendelssohn, while Christianity is a missionizing religion, according to which the only way to go to heaven is by believing in the divinity of Jesus, Judaism does not seek converts. Instead, it holds that anyone can go to heaven who observes the universal laws of rational morality, called the “Noahide laws.”

At the end of the letter, Mendelssohn notes that although he has avoided responding to Bonnet’s arguments out of concern for the deleterious effects of such a critique—both to himself and to society as a whole—he had written a response to Bonnet’s arguments in the form of a document called “Counter-Reflections to Bonnet’s Palingenesis,” which, if pressed, he would publish.

That was the end of the matter. A few years later, in 1775, when the Swiss-German Jews faced expulsion, Mendelssohn was able to intervene by turning to Lavater, who secured their stay.

Lavater's plan was mild compared with what Konstantin Petrovich Pobedonostsev had in mind a century later. A Russian statesman and jurist, Pobedonostsev was famous for his formula for how to deal with the Jews of Russia -- and conversion was not one of the options:

One-third will die, one third will leave the country, and the last third will be completely assimilated within the Russian people.

Just as anti-Zionism is a form of antisemitism and mirrors it, today enemies of Israel have taken up the advice of Pobedonostsev and applied it to Israel --

Some enemies of Israel seek to attack and kill Israelis, seeking a two-state solution to facilitate that.
Others claim that the Jews of Israel should leave and return to Poland.
And then some suggest a one-state solution under which Israel would cease to exist.

In his day, Mendelssohn faced challenges presented in the name of enlightenment.
Those pale in comparison to what Jews face today in the name of wokeism.

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

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

ICJ: The Madness To Their Method -- Why They Can't Write In Plain English (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

In January, the International Court of Justice gave its first decision regarding the Gaza War. The Media headlines tended to declare something like this one (still) on the NPR website:

But did the ICJ really hand down a ruling that Israel was likely guilty of genocide?
Not according to Joan Donoghue, the President of the ICJ from September 13, 2010 till February 6, 2024:

Led by the Palegandists, the enemies of Israel and their useful idiots in the world media have skillfully and deliberately misinterpreted the ICJ ruling with the libel that the “ICJ found a plausible case of genocide in Gaza.” When in reality, that's not what the court found at… pic.twitter.com/lhBragllxw
— Chaskel Bennett (@ChaskelBennett) April 26, 2024

So according to Donoghue:

[The ICJ] didn't decide that the claim of genocide was plausible. It did emphasize in the order that there was a risk of irreparable harm to the Palestinian right to be protected from genocide. But the shorthand that often appears which is that there is a plausible case of genocide isn't what the court decided.

Let the lawyers -- the real ones, not the ones who play them on social media -- break down the implications of that formulation. But the fact remains that the ICJ did not find Israel guilty of genocide.

Last week, the ICJ handed down a second ruling, this one addressing Israel's military operation in Rafah.

Again, the media had a field day, with headlines like this one from The New York Times:

But again, the question is what did the ICJ actually rule?

The key issue is paragraph 2(a) of the operative clause, where the Court declared that Israel must:

Immediately halt its military offensive, and any other action in the Rafah Governorate, which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.

For all the fanfare in the media headlines, some argue -- including among the ICJ judges themselves -- that the ICJ in fact did not rule that Israel must stop its operations in Rafah:

🧵Understanding the ICJ Ruling on Israel's Gaza and Rafah Operations

1. ICJ DOES NOT ORDER HALT ON RAFAH OPERATION, ACCORDING TO 4 ICJ JUDGES

Four judges, including those who voted in favor of the new measures, highlighted in their dissents that the ruling addresses actions… pic.twitter.com/gB044ZVmIC
— Leslie Kajomovitz (@lkajomovitz) May 24, 2024

This raises a question: considering the ambiguity we saw in the ICJ's first decision about whether Israel's actions in Gaza amount to genocide and now in this second decision where there is ambiguity in the ruling whether Israel must stop what it is doing in Rafah -- why can't the ICJ speak in plain English?

After all, the ICJ was crystal clear when it gave a ruling about Russia's invasion of Ukraine. In an article about this lack of clarity, the group UK Lawyers For Israel pointed out that this current ambiguity

is further underlined by comparison with the unqualified Order made in the Ukraine/ Russia case on 16 March 2022, which directed:
“The Russian Federation shall immediately suspend the military operations that it commenced on 24 February 2022 in the territory of Ukraine”.

That seems straightforward enough, and we had none of the disagreements over the intention of the ICJ that we see now.

So what is going on?

Juliette McIntyre, a lecturer in Law at the University of South Australia, offers a possible explanation. She writes that the equivocation of the ruling is not meant to help Israel. Quite the opposite:

the Court may have been driven by a desire to convince as many Judges as possible to vote in favour of the Order, at the cost of issuing a clearer and more straightforward directive. Quite possibly, the Court has deliberately adopted a phrasing which can be interpreted more than one way in order to get the decision across the line. [emphasis added]

The vagueness of the language was deliberately used to get as much of a consensus as possible among the judges so that a judgment could be made:

Israel can argue that it has complied with the Order if it continues military operations in a way which does not inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part. But equally, South Africa can argue that Israel has failed to comply with the Order if it continues its military operation in Rafah at all...

But this hardly qualifies as a decree of Solomonic proportions. This is a question of law, and not law of a theoretical nature either. It is not a question of inches as in other cases in which the ICJ has been called upon to rule:

this is not a maritime boundary delimitation where equidistance can be imposed in pursuit of impartiality. This Order is a demand, of Israel, to take certain concrete steps. It is unfair to Israel to be unclear in what is expected of it, and it is potentially ruinous for the people of Rafah should interpretation A be applied when interpretation B was intended.

In other words, because of the ICJ's insistence on consensus at all costs -- the ICJ has failed and everybody loses.

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

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

Exclusive Interview With Dr. Irwin J. Mansdorf On The Psychological Effects Of Language In The Gaza War (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

Irwin J. (Yitzchak) Mansdorf, Ph.D., is a fellow at the Jerusalem Center of Public Affairs specializing in political psychology and a member of the emergency division of IDF Homefront Command. Earlier this month, the JCPA published his article, “Both Sides” and “Innocent Civilians”: The Psychological Effect of Language in the Gaza War on their website.

Dr. Irwin J. Mansdorf

I asked Dr. Mansdorf about his article.
His responses are lightly edited for brevity and clarity.

Generally, when people talk about Israel and the Arabs, they talk about "the cycle of violence," indicating that both sides are equally responsible and no one side should be blamed. You write about how "the both sides argument" is used when discussing the Gaza War. How is that different? Why do people use "the both sides argument"?

The expression "cycle of violence" is a perfect example of a "both sides" mentality. Instead of assigning responsibility for "violence," it perpetuates a myth of "action-reaction-action-reaction." It is similar to the chicken and egg analogy. Since we are never told what came first, who started, who is persisting, and who refuses to end, it appears "both sides" are to blame.

You write that this argument is "a cognitively inconsistent mantra." How so?

Saying "both sides" are responsible is fine if it is true. Otherwise, it is illogical to contend that the victim is the same as the aggressor. In Palestinian circles, there is no "both sides." Palestinian culture and its Western supporters clearly place responsibility and guilt upon the Israeli side, whom they accuse of being colonialists and hence, automatically in the wrong. When some Westerners use "both sides," they are adopting a philosophy that holds that blame is never black and white. Since that is patently false, and sometimes there is right and wrong, the automatic assumption of a "what seems fair" argument splitting blame does not meet the test of logical consistency.

Another commonly used phrase is "innocent civilians." How is that phrase used and what are the underlying assumptions?

A "civilian" may or may not be "innocent." The tendency in much of the media is to again automatically assign "innocence" to all civilians, regardless of whether or not they actually are innocent. A civilian who harbors terrorists, feeds them, covers for them, and believes in their mission carries responsibility for their actions.

How does "the both sides argument," which assumes "an air of fairness," lead to the contrary claim where Israel particularly is blamed, in this case being accused of genocide? Why is it so difficult for the West to see Israelis as "innocent civilians"

In the eyes of many, Israel is a colonial power and its citizens are thus "settler-colonialists." That makes them responsible for taking land that rightfully belongs to the indigenous people, namely the Palestinians. Those who follow this thinking do not have a "both sides" philosophy but rather come down on the wrong end of the right-wrong formula. This happened because they adopted a false ideology related to a wrongly presumed colonial identity of Israel, which assigns guilt, and blame and thus negates innocence.

What is the problem of defining Gazans as "innocent civilians"?

Some Gazans may be innocent. But those who subscribe to the Hamas philosophy related to Jews cannot be said to be fully "innocent." In many homes in Gaza, ammunition, escape tunnels, along with literature of hate and racism against Jews were found. This does not take away Israel's responsibility under international law and moral behavior to protect these civilians, regardless of their personal identification with the enemy, as long as they do not become active participants in attacks on Israelis or Israeli soldiers. For example, on October 7th, there is video documentation of "ordinary" Gazans storming into Israel along with the Hamas terrorists and looting Israeli communities and homes. Many were also seen taking part in the kidnapping and spiriting of Israeli hostages back into Gaza. These are not the actions of "innocents" even though they wore no uniform.

Is there a difference between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority that would indicate a difference between Gazans and West Bank Arabs as "innocent civilians"?

The Palestinian Authority is no different from Hamas in its goals, although some of their methods may differ. The PA funds terrorism, incentivizes people to carry out terror attacks, rewards them when they do, and teaches--through an educational system that demonizes Jews--that Israel has no place in the region and Jews have no real history in the land.

You mention that after WWII, the Allies instituted a "denazification" program in Germany and the US had the Japanese extensively reform their education program. What would be a possible approach to reforming the Gazans?

Every culture needs to be treated in ways that respect the mores and ways of that particular culture. In developing a program for the Palestinian population, the particular religious, social, and cultural mores that would support leaving terror behind and moving towards coexistence and cooperation would be embellished. A model for this can be found in the Gulf States which entered into the "Abraham Accord" agreements with Israel. They developed model educational systems that promote peace and cooperation and removed all references that negatively are associated with Jews and Israel.

You write "Legal requirements should not be confused with moral standards." Can you elaborate on that?

Despite the questionable "innocence" of many Palestinian civilians, and their clearly immoral behavior, Israel carries a legal responsibility to protect them if they act as noncombatants. Israel's moral code would similarly be consistent with this and at times go further than required under the law to protect civilians (e.g., providing advanced warning of attacks, actively moving civilians out of danger zones, providing more humanitarian aid than required, etc.)

Read “Both Sides” and “Innocent Civilians”: The Psychological Effect of Language in the Gaza War

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

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

Why Did Chief Prosecutor Khan Of The ICC Back Out Of His Meeting With The Israeli Government? (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

On Monday, Karim Khan -- the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court -- announced he was going to seek arrest warrants for both Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, in addition to the top three leaders of Hamas: Yahya Sinwar, Mohammed Deif, and Ismail Haniyeh.

Netanyahu condemned the implied comparison of Israel with the Hamas terrorists, calling it part of the "new antisemitism" appearing on college campuses and now apparently making its way to the Hague. Biden called Khan's decision "outrageous." In Europe, opinions were divided.

Chief Prosecutor Khan took the unusual step of first announcing the charges on CNN. In an exclusive interview with Christiane Amanpour, he laid out the charges against Netanyahu and Gallant:

o Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(b)(xxv) of the Statute;
o  Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health contrary to article 8(2)(a)(iii), or cruel treatment as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i);
o  Wilful killing contrary to article 8(2)(a)(i), or Murder as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i);
o  Intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population as a war crime contrary to articles 8(2)(b)(i), or 8(2)(e)(i);
o  Extermination and/or murder contrary to articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(a), including in the context of deaths caused by starvation, as a crime against humanity;
o  Persecution as a crime against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(h);
o  Other inhumane acts as crimes against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(k).

Announcing the indictments that way seems unusual. Globes reports that Khan has a sterling reputation:

Khan is very highly respected in the international legal community, and is considered professional, serious, and fair. He made his decision together with two advisers with high reputations whom he co-opted to his team in the past few months: US lawyer Brenda Hollis, and Andrew Cayley, formerly the chief military prosecutor in the UK.

But his appearance on CNN was more than an issue of a lack of professionalism.

According to Barak Ravid, Khan backed out of a planned trip to Israel to discuss the investigation with the Israeli government:

The Times of Israel also quoted Blinken, who referred to Khan's pulling out of the pre-arranged meeting without prior notice as provoking "deeply troubling process questions." Blinken continued:

Fundamentally, this decision does nothing to help and could jeopardize, ongoing efforts to reach a ceasefire agreement that would get hostages out and surge humanitarian assistance in, which are the goals the United States continues to pursue relentlessly.

This goes beyond international law and jurisdiction.

The Jerusalem Post suggests that either Israel's entry into Rafah or the harsh words from the US precipitated the actions of the ICC. But if so, why didn't the Hamas massacre of 1,200 Israelis and the kidnapping of 240 hostages cause Khan to spring into action?

One of the issues surrounding whether the ICC has jurisdiction is the concept of complementarity, that the ICC is the court of last resort. Only when a nation's authorities are unwilling or unable to prosecute alleged war crimes can the ICC step in.

Khan addressed this directly:

Complementarity, however, requires a deferral to national authorities only when they engage in independent and impartial judicial processes that do not shield suspects and are not a sham. It requires thorough investigations at all levels addressing the policies and actions underlying these applications.

Is he claiming that Israel is failing to investigate these issues?

But Khan himself has admitted:

Israel has trained lawyers who advise commanders and a robust system intended to ensure compliance with international humanitarian law.

The State Department's May 10 report to Congress also pointed out:

Israel’s own concern about such incidents is reflected in the fact it has a number of internal investigations underway. At the same time, it is also important to emphasize that a country’s overall commitment to IHL is not necessarily disproven by individual IHL violations, so long as that country is taking appropriate steps to investigate and where appropriate determine accountability for IHL violations. As this report notes, Israel does have a number of ongoing, active criminal investigations pending and there are hundreds of cases under administrative review.

Is Khan claiming that such investigations only meet the complementary criteria if the country leader himself is being specifically investigated?

Regardless of his "professionalism," Chief Prosecutor Khan has already created questions about his objectivity in this case and whether he can rise above politics.

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

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

In Response To The October 7 Massacre, Blinken Suggested Israel Settle For A Cease-Fire -- He Still Does (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

After the October 7th massacre, when Hamas murdered over 1,200 Israelis and kidnapped 240, US Secretary of State Blinken went on Twitter to suggest a ceasefire.

He may have realized later how grotesque the idea was because Blinken later deleted the tweet:

At least Blinken acknowledges the need for Israel to get back the hostages.

But in the first tweet, he suggests a ceasefire, meaning that Israel would have to negotiate with the Hamas terrorists in order to get the hostages "released," meaning Israel should come to terms with the terrorists that killed over a thousand people and kidnapped 240 hostages? We know that such negotiations would require the release of terrorists, likely with blood on their hands, from Israeli prisons. That makes Blinken's suggestion of a ceasefire all the more obscene.

What about Blinken's revised tweet?

He agrees that Israel "has the right to defend itself...and protect its citizens." That could refer to passive defense, like Iron Dome, as opposed to the approval of military action. But to say that Israel has the right to "rescue any hostages" -- that does sound like military action.

So what is US policy?

Now that the US is delaying the delivery of the weapons Israel needs to deliver a decisive blow to Hamas in Rafah, we have our answer. Blinken originally suggested in October a solution that allowed Hamas terrorists to survive to fight -- and slaughter -- another day. And that is the policy the US is following now. Blinken has even threatened that the US will hold back additional military aid.

This past Sunday, Blinken went a step further.

On Meet The Press, he declared that Israel cannot hope to defeat Hamas, and the best Israel can hope for is to demilitarize the terrorist gr oup. He demanded Israel develop "credible plans for security, for governance, for rebuilding." Considering how Hamas has been able to arm itself over the years despite Israel's best efforts, it is not clear just how Blinken expects Israel to do that. Blinken has apparently forgotten what he said when he visited Israel in October:

No country can or would tolerate the slaughter of its citizens or simply return to the conditions that allowed it to take place. Israel has the right, indeed the obligation, to defend itself and to ensure that this never happens again.

That was then. But now he insists that Israel has no choice but to live with Hamas and its threat to create more October 7th's. So what does the US want: to eliminate the threat of Hamas or to have a ceasefire?

Apparently, the goal is to weaken Hamas so severely that it can never again attack Israel -- but at the same time, allow Hamas to remain in Gaza in some form when all of the fighting is over.

Which sounds crazier: the idea that Hamas will remain in Gaza in a demilitarized form -- or that the terrorist group will actually go along with the idea?

Jacob Magid writes in an article for the Times of Israel:

"But the American source said there are some in the administration and in Arab capitals who believe that Hamas will be willing to formally withdraw from governing responsibilities in Gaza if it is part of a reconciliation deal with PA President Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah movement.

The more the idea is described, the crazier it sounds: a reconciliation between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority?

This would likely mean a degree of Hamas approval of the individuals tapped to lead the transitional Palestinian government in Gaza, but the American source said that no Hamas members would be allowed in the government."

Remember when the experts said Hamas having control was a good thing because having responsibility would be a moderating influence? Now the experts think that Hamas will voluntarily relinquish all power and influence in the government and will sit back while Abbas and the PA take the reins.

Is no one paying attention?

Magid points out that if you look at Afghanistan, not the US's proudest moment, the Taliban demonstrated "the proven ability of once-decimated extremist groups to regroup, rebuild and reconquer territory from more moderate forces once an external powerful military pulls out."

And if you think that keeping Hamas out of the government is the answer, all you have to do is look at Hezbollah, "where the terror group is not formally part of the government, but holds massive influence over its decision-making and is the most powerful military force in the country."

The same thinking that allowed Iran to grow as a threat to Israel has turned its attention to Hamas. And it will allow nothing to stand in its way.

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

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

Norman Finkelstein Advised BDS; Now He Is Advising The Campus Protests At Columbia (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

In 2012, a video of Norman Finkelstein made the rounds. It was touted as a rebuttal of the BDS movement by Finkelstein, which is odd since he makes it very clear he fully supports BDS.

Here is what Finkelstein had to say:

YouTube provides a transcript of the video, here edited for brevity and clarity:

I've earned my right to speak my mind, and I'm not going to tolerate what I think is silliness, childishness, and a lot of leftist posturing.

I mean we have to be honest, and I loathe the disingenuous. They don't want Israel. They think they are being very clever; they call it their "three-tier":
o We want the end of the occupation,
o We want the right of return
o We want equal rights for Arabs in Israel.
And they think they are very clever because they know the result of implementing all three is what, what is the result? You know and I know what is the result. There's no Israel!

Finkelstein's first point is that the BDS movement's claim of using peaceful, non-violent means toward an equitable solution is just a front, a lie. The goal of BDS is not a two-state solution; the goal of BDS is the elimination of the state of Israel,

How successful has the BDS movement been in spreading its false narrative? According to Finkelstein, not very. But he has a solution:

Israel says no, the BDS movement is not really talking about rights. They're talking about how they want to destroy Israel. And, in fact, I think Israel is right; I think that's true. I'm not going to lie. But this kind of duplicity and disingenuous by BDS, "Oh, we're agnostic about Israel." No, you're not agnostic! You don't want it! Then just say it!
But they know full well: If you say it, you don't have a prayer reaching a broad public. Because that's where the public is right now. I support the BDS. But I said it will never reach a broad public until and unless they're explicit on their goal. And their goal has to include the recognition of Israel or it's a nonstarter...They won't mention it because they know it will split the movement. Cause there's a large segment of the movement that wants to eliminate Israel.

The BDS movement's dishonesty is their refusal to admit their goal to eliminate Israel. They know that broad public opinion supports Israel, its defense, and its security. Coming out publicly and calling for Israel's destruction -- back in 2012 -- would have been absurd. As Finkelstein saw it, the only option for the movement was to acknowledge the two-state solution. BDS would have to actually recognize Israel's right to exist. But like Finkelstein, Omar Barghouti -- the face of BDS -- admitted that the two-state solution is "the big white elephant in the room...a return for refugees would end Israel’s existence as a Jewish state."

Times have changed.

In 2024, just twelve years after Finkelstein's video, those who seek Israel's destruction don't seem to care about public opinion. They are emboldened, aggressive, and well-funded. They protest openly with their chants, tents, and increasingly violent attacks on Jews both on university campuses and on city streets.

They are more brazen.

But the fact that these protestors don't care about public opinion is not because they are changing it. An article in the Wall Street Journal last week made it clear that US opinion still favors Israel:

A CAPS/Harris survey finds 80% of Americans side with Israel against Hamas. Pollster Mark Penn told the Hill that figure has “not budged” since campus protests began. Seventy-eight percent say Hamas must be removed from running Gaza; 67% say Israel is trying to avoid casualties; a majority in every group 35 and up says a cease-fire should happen only after Hamas has released hostages and been removed from power. Few Americans feel a connection to indulged college students directing invectives at Jews and erecting “intifada halls.”

And where is Norman Finkelstein?

Finkelstein can be found advising the protestors, just like he did when he offered his advice to the BDS movement back in 2012. And he thinks times have changed:

[He] advised the protesters to reconsider the use of slogans that can be used against them. Finkelstein went to Columbia to praise the students for raising public consciousness about the Palestinian cause but he advised them “to adjust to the new political reality that there are large numbers of people, probably a majority, who are potentially receptive to your message.”

Norman Finkelstein at Columbia (YouTube screencap)

Finkelstein is still going around giving advice on how to fine-tune the anti-Israel message. But now, he is no longer concerned with sounding more accepting of Israel and its existence. Contrary to the CAPS/Harris survey, Finkelstein thinks public opinion is now more open to the anti-Israel message than it was twelve years ago. And because of that possibility, he advises that the students eschew chants that advocate outright for the destruction of Israel.

And how was Finkelstein's advice about toning down the chants received?

Once Finkelstein has finished speaking, a protester took the microphone and led a chant of “from the river to the sea”.

A student protestor explained that he respected Finkelstein, but “this is not a top-down movement. We cannot dictate slogans from the top down. We can’t tell people you can say this, you can’t say that."

Based on what we have seen of students who don't know what "from the river to the sea" means, of students who cannot explain what they are protesting for, of non-students who are organizing the protests and left-wing groups providing funding -- we know that the idea that this is a grassroots movement is absurd.

But the degree of violence and willingness to harass Jews on a personal level seem to put this new agenda beyond what Finkelstein can influence.

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

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

Is Columbia University A Model Of How To Deal With The Protestors? (Daled Amos)

by Daled Amos

Meet Columbia University President Minouche Shafik:

At the very least, Shafik did not seem to be quite as tongue-tied and did end up trying to defend antisemitism.

But she did not come across as being in control of the university.

Yet, by Tuesday she seemed to handle the demonstrations and encampments better than some other universities did.

For example, The New York Times optimistically reported: At Brown, a Rare Agreement Between Administrators and Protesters.

Some agreement!

“Although the encampment will end, organizing to ensure that the Brown administration fulfills our calls to act on divestment will continue until the corporation vote in October,” the Brown Divest Coalition said in a statement on Tuesday.

“This feels like a real moment of realizing our collective power,” said Rafi Ash, a sophomore at Brown who participated in the protests. “This is something that demonstrates that the mobilization of the student body can force the university to listen.”

Northwestern handed their protestors an even bigger victory:

In other words, the University will have five permanent scholarships for students and two visiting Palestinian faculty in perpetuity, given that they can find a donor, which shouldn’t be hard if Qatar is around.

The National Review reports that Northwestern caved on other demands as well:

Other concessions in the deal Schill and the rest of Northwestern’s leadership struck with the encampment occupants — one of whom assaulted a student journalist attempting to take video — include student oversight of the university’s partnerships with suppliers and the investment of its endowment.

“The University will include students in a process dedicated to implementing broad input on University dining services, including residential and retail vendors on campus,” Northwestern’s leadership wrote, as well as forming a committee on “investment responsibility” with “representation from students, faculty, and staff.”

Compare that to Columbia, where the university seemed to take a strong stand, calling in the NYPD who cleared out the protestors who had barricaded themselves inside Hamilton Hall. Nothing like the timid university president above who, like others who testified before Congress before her, appeared indecisive on how to protect the students, especially Jews, who are her responsibility.

But look at the Message From the President, where Shafik describes how "patient" the board had been with what she admits were "unauthorized demonstrations." As it turned out, the fact that the university made no concessions had nothing to do with any determination or strength of will on the part of the school. Instead, the demonstrators didn't get the concessions that Brown and Northwestern did because they overplayed their hand.

Shafik writes:

The University offered to consider new proposals on divestment and shareholder activism, to review access to our dual degree programs and global centers, to reaffirm our commitment to free speech, and to launch educational and health programs in Gaza and the West Bank. Some other universities have achieved agreement on similar proposals.

Now that they see that other universities were forced to make major concessions, will the students quietly return to the classrooms and finish the school year? The university president thinks so, suggesting that the students "will use the weeks ahead to restore calm, allow students to complete their academic work, and honor their achievements at Commencement."

But in that same message, Shafik suggests that the disruption and destruction that Columbia has faced is not the work of the students alone, but rather "outside activists."

She may have a point.

Jonathan Schanzer, Senior Vice President of Research for the. Foundation for Defense of Democracies confirmed the influence of these outside activists during the Monday edition of his FDD Morning Brief. Here is a short excerpt that he tweeted:

The protests are not spontaneous.

The protests are not organic.

Outsiders are driving this.

My thoughts for the ⁦@FDD⁩ morning brief today. pic.twitter.com/HJkKDiYIlP
— Jonathan Schanzer (@JSchanzer) April 29, 2024

In a nutshell:

Hat tip: Ian

The New York Post reports that not all of the non-students were not necessarily associated with terrorist groups :

Several agitators busted Tuesday night when police raided encampments at Columbia University and the City College of New York are seasoned anti-Israel protesters who don’t even attend the Big Apple schools.

If Shafik and Schanzer are right, and there are external influences (let alone outside funding) at play here, how can the university president be sure that the worst is over? At Columbia and other universities, the protestors have gotten away with too much for too long.

Equally worrying is that in her message, Shafik makes no mention of Jews, Israel, or October 7. She and the trustees ignore the context of the protests, convincing themselves that they are dealing with a reawakening of the 1960's.

Columbia has a long and proud tradition of protest and activism on many important issues such as the Vietnam War, civil rights, and the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa. Today’s protesters are also fighting for an important cause, for the rights of Palestinians and against the humanitarian tragedy in Gaza. They have many supporters in our community and have a right to express their views and engage in peaceful protest.

Columbia University has no idea what is happening or what they are dealing with.

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

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!