Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News: Daled Amos

Showing posts with label Daled Amos. Show all posts

Friday, October 20, 2023

Hamas Has A History of Threatening Those Who Report The Truth From Gaza (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

These days, along with the rush to condemn Israel in its war to eliminate the Hamas terrorist threat, there are instances of retractions and deletions of hasty anti-Israel posts. One of the more unusual and unexpected examples is Ilhan Omar backtracking on her accusation that Israel bombed a hospital:

While Omar has reacted to pressure, Tlaib is still at it.

Another example of backtracking comes from Secretary of State Blinken. It's not that Blinken condemned any particular action of Israel, but rather that he came out with a suggestion that was so insulting and ill-timed that he soon deleted it. Just one day after the Hamas massacre of Israeli civilians, Blinken publicly recommended a cease-fire:

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken deleted a social media post Monday morning that expressed support for a "cease-fire" in Israel after Palestinian militants invaded the nation late last week.

The now-deleted post, which appeared on Blinken's X account late Sunday, described a conversation Blinken reportedly had with Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan.

While the tweet was deleted, it did not go unnoticed -- and was saved for posterity:

Fernandez is a former US diplomat and vice-president of MEMRI.

Keep in mind that it is unlikely that Blinken would publicly suggest this and try to set the idea for a cease-fire in motion without Biden's approval. A friend suggested to me that this was a trial balloon, which was soon shot down.

But there is another example of deletion, one not intended to save face but intended instead to save the Hamas terrorists and save their own skin.

Here is the original tweet from UNRWA:

But it didn't take long for UNRWA to delete that post:

UNRWA then posted its "clarification":

Despite UNRWA's clarification, other sources confirmed the story:

There was a time when the UN openly confirmed that Hamas violated international law.

John Ging, Director of the Operational Division at the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), in 2014 admitted that Hamas was using both UN facilities and residential areas to fire rockets at Israel.

At the time, in 2014, there were a number of journalists who reported on Hamas using human shields. Maybe because Hamas was using them as the shields.

That Shifa hospital was -- and is -- exploited by Hamas as a headquarters as well:

Shifa has indeed “become a de facto headquarters for Hamas leaders, who can be seen in the hallways and offices,” the Washington Post reported on July 15. The Wall Street Journal‘s Middle East correspondent, Nick Casey, wrote on Twitter that Hamas uses Shifa “as a safe place to see media,” but removed the post afterwards.

Some journalists even tweeted about it -- even if they did delete those tweets later.

Here is a journalist tweeting about 9 children killed by Hamas -- once he was safely out of Gaza.

Italian journalist Gabriele Barbati said he was able to speak freely about witnessing a Hamas misfire that killed nine children at the Shati camp, confirming the Israel Defense Forces version of events, but only after leaving Gaza, “far from Hamas retaliation.”

Why did Barbati wait until after he was out of Gaza?
The answer has implications for the reporting by the journalists who stay in Gaza.

In 2021, when Israel destroyed a 12-story building in Gaza used by Hamas military intelligence and AP denied knowing that it shared a building with the terrorist group, a former AP journalist refuted their claim:

As to whether AP was aware of Hamas involvement with the building, Matti Friedman wrote in his 2014 Atlantic piece: “When Hamas’ leaders surveyed their assets before this summer’s round of fighting, they knew that among those assets was the international press. The AP staff in Gaza City would witness a rocket launch right beside their office, endangering reporters and other civilians nearby — and the AP wouldn’t report it.”

Friedman claimed the Hamas militants would regularly “burst into the AP’s Gaza bureau and threaten the staff — and the AP wouldn’t report it.”

UNRWA's deletion and subsequent "clarification" shows that the same fear exists. And the history of Hamas's massive violations of international law makes the indications of Hamas stealing humanitarian supplies from their own people very believable.

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!

Better Question: What Does International Law Require The Rest of The World To Do About Hamas? (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

These days, when people talk about what International Humanitarian Law requires in the aftermath of the Hamas massacre of Israeli citizens, the discussion falls first on what limitations need to be placed on Israel. Almost as an afterthought do a few people ask what international law requires of Hamas.

That in itself demonstrates an odd sense of priorities among the global community.

But a third topic in international law is being ignored, namely: what are the obligations of the international community in the face of this terrorist attack. By merely sitting back and focusing on Israel's obligations, the nations of the world run the risk of themselves violating international law.

First of all there is the Genocide Convention. It was approved for ratification by the UN General Assembly in 1948 and went into effect in 1951. According to Article I:

The Contracting Parties confirm that whether committed in time of peace or of war, genocide is a crime under international law which nations are obligated to prevent and to punish.

The convention addresses an act committed with the intent to destroy, even in part, a

o national
o  ethnical
o  racial or
o  religious group

Genocide includes -- among other things -- killing members of the group, causing serious bodily or mental harm and deliberately inflicting conditions with the intent to cause the group's physical destruction in whole or in part. In addition to being directly involved in the genocide, this law also applies to conspiracy, incitement, complicity and even the mere attempt to commit genocide. In addition, the convention not only rulers but also public officials and private individuals liable for punishment.

Then there is UN Security Council Resolution 1373 (2001), which was passed in response to the jihadist attack on 9/11, making this resolution especially relevant to the current situation, given the obvious similarities. It was passed under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, making it binding on all UN members, unlike other UN resolutions.

According to Article 2, All States shall:

(a) Refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts, including by suppressing recruitment of members of terrorist groups and eliminating the supply of weapons to terrorists;

(c) Deny safe haven to those who finance, plan, support, or commit terrorist acts, or provide safe havens;

(e) Ensure that any person who participates in the financing, planning, preparation or perpetration of terrorist acts or in supporting terrorist acts is brought to justice and ensure that, in addition to any other measures against them, such terrorist acts are established as serious criminal offences in domestic laws and regulations and that the punishment duly reflects the seriousness of such terrorist acts;

According to Article 3, All States shall:

(f) Take appropriate measures in conformity with the relevant provisions of national and international law, including international standards of human rights, before granting refugee status, for the purpose of ensuring that the asylum seeker has not planned, facilitated or participated in the commission of terrorist acts;

(g) Ensure, in conformity with international law, that refugee status is not abused by the perpetrators, organizers or facilitators of terrorist acts, and that claims of political motivation are not recognized as grounds for refusing requests for the extradition of alleged terrorists;

Furthermore the resolution

5. Declares that acts, methods, and practices of terrorism are contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations and that knowingly financing, planning and inciting terrorist acts are also contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations;

On Sunday, Caroline Glick spoke with Professor Avi Bell -- an expert in International Law -- about the legal obligations of the rest of the world in response to the Hamas terrorist attack, and how nations are violating those obligations. Some of his insights are summarized in a JNS article published yesterday.

Bell makes reference to UN Security Council Resolution 1373, and illustrates how some of its requirements are being violated. For instance:

Resolution 1373 stipulates that all U.N. member nations must “Refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts.”

Any provision of any aid to Gaza, which is completely controlled by Hamas, is of course either “active or passive” assistance to Hamas, and hence illegal.

This puts the claims of the obligation to provide humanitarian aid to Gazans in a different light, considering how Hamas terrorists are sure to take - and have taken - the aid for themselves.

Professor Bell also points out how Qatar's involvement, supported by the Biden administration, is also in violation of Resolution 1373:

Resolution 1373 also requires all U.N. member states to “Deny safe haven to those who finance, plan, support or commit terrorist acts, or provide safe havens.”

Following Blinken’s visit to Israel last Thursday, he traveled to Qatar. Qatar houses Hamas’s top terror masters. They planned their atrocities from Qatar. Iran’s cash and arms are funneled to Hamas through Qatar. Qatar’s Al Jazeera satellite channel is an integral component of Hamas’s terror machine. On Monday morning, the IDF announced that Al Jazeera reporters are transferring information about IDF troop placements and numbers to Hamas both directly and through their broadcasts...

By embracing Qatar as an ally rather than punishing it for its central role at all levels of Hamas’s terror infrastructure, the administration is breaching international law, yet again. It is also betraying Israel.

Like Resolution 1373, article VII of the Genocide Convention also addresses the issue of extradition:

Genocide and the other acts enumerated in article III shall not be considered as political crimes for the purpose of extradition.

The Contracting Parties pledge themselves in such cases to grant extradition in accordance with their laws and treaties in force.

This becomes relevant because CDR David Levy writes about Hamas Leadership and America’s Extradition Option for The Begin-Sadat Center For Strategic Studies:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Hamas has conducted the most devastating terror attack in Israel’s history, demonstrating humanity’s worst depravity. The attack led to the tragic loss of over 1,200 lives, including at least 22 Americans, with many more individuals held hostage. The US has a responsibility to its citizens to demand the extradition of Hamas leadership to face trial in the US. Drawing upon precedent and previous successful extraditions of international terrorists, the US can leverage diplomatic relationships and military assets to actively pursue their extradition from Qatar, Lebanon, or other locations where they may reside. [emphasis added]

Levy writes that the fact that the US does not have an extradition treaty with Qatar does not have to make it impossible to get that country to hand over the terrorist leaders:

The US does not have extradition agreements with Qatar or Lebanon, but it has leverage. In requesting extradition from Qatar, Washington has some influence over Doha. Initially, Doha will almost certainly not accept. However, the US can orchestrate the desired outcome with a well-constructed “carrot and stick” approach. The US has a significant military presence in Qatar, including the Al Udeid Air Base, a crucial regional strategic asset. The future of this base and broader military cooperation, such as access to military sales, could be used as a bargaining chip. Economic levers could offer incentives like future trade deals or impose targeted sanctions against individuals or entities. Also, the US can endeavor to work with other allies, like Saudi Arabia and Turkey, to influence Qatar.

The article details examples of the US "holding those responsible for the deaths of its citizens accountable" and Levy brags that this is part of a long-standing US tradition. The article would be more convincing if we had not seen the failure of multiple administrations to apply the necessary leverage to get Jordan to hand over the mastermind of the Sbarro massacre, responsible for 16 deaths, including 2 Americans.

If a country like the US will not apply international law for itself, what are the odds we will see any country apply international law for others?

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!

International Law Supports Israel Besieging Gaza (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

The outpouring of sympathy and concern from around the world in reaction to the massacre of Israeli men, women and children by Hamas terrorists is welcome and appreciated.

But we are talking about Israel, so we knew that it would only be a matter of time -- after Israel struck back -- than some of that sympathy would dry up. More than that, critics are now claiming that Israel is the villain and is guilty of war crimes because of its efforts to remove the dangerous threat of Hamas.

Specifically, in an effort to not only get rid of Hamas but also save the hostages being held by the terrorists, Israel is imposing a siege -- and the West is crying foul.

The reasoning for the condemnation is that by cutting off water and electricity, Israel is supposed to be guilty of violating international law due to the collateral damage caused to Gazans. The problem of course is that while critics of Israel enjoy throwing around phrases like "international law," "genocide," and "war crime" they do this without knowing -- or caring -- what these terms actually mean.

The legal issue here is the concept of siege.

The US Law of War manual summarizes the legality of a siege in warfare:

It is lawful to besiege enemy forces, i.e., to encircle them with a view towards inducing their surrender by cutting them off from reinforcements, supplies, and communications with the outside world. In particular, it is permissible to seek to starve enemy forces into submission.

Article 23 of the Geneva Convention (IV): Consignment of medical supplies, food and clothing says:

Each High Contracting Party shall allow the free passage of all consignments of medical and hospital stores and objects necessary for religious worship intended only for civilians of another High Contracting Party, even if the latter is its adversary. It shall likewise permit the free passage of all consignments of essential foodstuffs, clothing and tonics intended for children under fifteen, expectant mothers and maternity cases.

The obligation of a High Contracting Party to allow the free passage of the consignments indicated in the preceding paragraph is subject to the condition that this Party is satisfied that there are no serious reasons for fearing:
(a) that the consignments may be diverted from their destination,

(b) that the control may not be effective, or

(c) that a definite advantage may accrue to the military efforts or economy of the enemy through the substitution of the above-mentioned consignments for goods which would otherwise be provided or produced by the enemy or through the release of such material, services or facilities as would otherwise be required for the production of such goods.

The key point is that while supplies are not to be automatically held up from the enemy, international law recognizes that this is subject to exceptions where those consignments may be diverted or aid the adversary's military efforts. Concrete for underground tunnels and piping used for rockets come to mind.

Then there is Customary International Humanitarian Law, rules based on general practice that has become accepted as law and is independent of treaty law.

According to Rule 53, The use of starvation of the civilian population as a method of warfare is prohibited. That being the case, how can Israel apply a siege on Gaza?

The answer is that those who blindly claim that Israel is violating International Law by using a siege just don't know what they are talking about:

Sieges that cause starvation

The prohibition of starvation as a method of warfare does not prohibit siege warfare as long as the purpose is to achieve a military objective and not to starve a civilian population. This is stated in the military manuals of France and New Zealand. Israel’s Manual on the Laws of War explains that the prohibition of starvation “clearly implies that the city’s inhabitants must be allowed to leave the city during a siege”. Alternatively, the besieging party must allow the free passage of foodstuffs and other essential supplies, in accordance with Rule 55. States denounced the use of siege warfare in Bosnia and Herzegovina. It was also condemned by international organizations.

Israel's goal is not to cause starvation to civilians. The goal it to achieve the release of the hostages kidnapped by the terrorists and get rid of Hamas. As far as allowing "the free passage of foodstuffs and other essential supplies," we saw above in Article 23(c) that international law recognizes the advantage gained by an enemy that is relieved of the responsibility for providing for its citizens -- plus there is an obvious concern that Hamas would take the supplies for itself. Recall that the consignments are to be intended for children under 15.

Now let's see how lawyers apply these principles.

Eugene Kontorovich asked the question in an article in 2014, Does Israel have to give free power to Gaza? He writes that civilian power stations are legitimate targets for attack when they are also used by the enemy military, and all the more so does Israel have the right to merely turn off the power it provides to Gaza, adding:

I do not believe such an affirmative duty to provide energy to one’s enemy has ever been suggested in any other context [other than Israel].

He points out the obvious military advantage that Hamas would be deprived of by withholding electricity: providing the lighting necessary for its underground tunnels.

This week, international law professor Avi Bell published a paper Imposing a Siege on the Gaza Strip During War. He writes that Israel has no obligation to provide anything to Gaza under the current conditions of war. And he goes further:

In addition, there is no doubt that the obligation to allow foreign parties to supply food and medicine does not exist under the circumstances of the current war, when there is a well-founded fear that Hamas will take control of the products or take a share for itself or use them to improve the enemy's economy or military efforts.

Bell wrote further on the topic in yesterday's New York Post: Israel has the right — and the duty — to besiege Gaza, clarifying the legal basis of Israel's siege of Gaza:

As the besieging state, Israel is not required to fund or assist Hamas’ war effort as it attempts to butcher Jews.

Siege law includes a humanitarian aspect: International law requires that Israel facilitate the passage of food and medicine by third parties, but only if such goods can be reliably delivered without diversion to Hamas and without fear the goods will give Hamas an economic and military boost.

Given Hamas’ 16-year exploitation of humanitarian aid and infiltration of human-rights and international organizations in Gaza, diversion is not merely a possibility — it is a certainty. [emphasis added]

Instead, Professor Bell suggests how allowing humanitarian workers or aid into Gaza will have the exact opposite of its intended effect:

Doing so would prolong the conflict, worsen Gaza’s physical destruction and result in greater loss of civilian life.
If governments and international organizations are serious about aiding Gazan civilians — to date, such organizations have been more invested in condemning Israel and immunizing Palestinian terrorists from accountability and punishment — they should devote their resources to facilitating the safe and rapid evacuation of Gaza’s civilian population outside the conflict zone.

It is up to the governments and international organizations to recognize Hamas for what it is, for what it has proudly done, and to take the appropriate measures to put this war to an end.

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!

Hamas Exploits Mosques The Same Way They Exploit Children (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

As part of its retaliation against the Hamas terrorists for its massacre of Israeli men, women and children, Israel has been responsible for the destruction of mosques.

What is Israel up to?

Better question -- what is Hamas up to?

Historically, Hamas has used mosques for storing weapons. An article from the Washington Post in 2014 asked the question Why Hamas stores its weapons inside hospitals, mosques and schools and went about why there is a need to ask the question in the first place.

The article gives an example from a brief cease-fire:

During the lull, a group of men at a mosque in northern Gaza said they had returned to clean up the green glass from windows shattered in the previous day’s bombardment. But they could be seen moving small rockets into the mosque.

Israel was not surprised by this; it has noted this other use of mosques before:

The Washington Post article also describes how schools and hospitals are put to the same use, storing weapons -- in total disregard of the lives of Gazan civilians put at risk.

But let's stick to the mosques -- and other examples of mosques being destroyed by other Muslims. I wrote about this in 2012:

In Aleppo, Syria, Muslims badly damaged a landmark mosque:
A landmark mosque in Aleppo was burned, scarred by bullets and trashed — the latest casualty of Syria's civil war — and President Bashar Assad on Monday ordered immediate repairs to try to stem Muslim outrage at the desecration of the 12th century site.
According to one of those interviewed, the Syrian army was stationed inside the mosque "because of its strategic location in the Old City".

Of course, the simpler answer could be that the Syrian army used the mosque because the mosque itself was a strategic location.

After all, what Muslim would attack and destroy a mosque?

Quite a few actually -- for example:
In August 2011, the New York Times reported that 28 Are Killed in Bombing at a Mosque in Baghdad

In October 2010 in Afghanistan, The Taliban murdered the head of Kunduz province, along with 14 other people, in a mosque bombing in Tahkar. The governor had been outspoken in his opposition to the Taliban and allied terror groups operating in the north.

There's the mosque burned during the arson attack on the Crazy Water Park in Gaza in September 2010 as reported by The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights

There was the mosque destroyed in Lebanon during a fight between Hezbollah and a rival group in August 2010

And then there's the Turkish general who admitted to destroying a mosque on purpose back in 1974 in order to psyche out the enemy:
In remarks published in the Haber Türk daily yesterday as part of an interview with Gen. Sabri Yirmibeşoğlu, who led the Special War Department in 1971 and also worked to mobilize civilian resistance during Turkey's military intervention on Cyprus in 1974, said: “In Special War, certain acts of sabotage are staged and blamed on the enemy to increase public resistance. We did this on Cyprus; we even burnt down a mosque.” In response to the surprised correspondent's incredulous look the general said, “I am giving an example,” in an attempt to clear things up.

So not only have mosques been deliberately targeted by Muslims, the destruction of those mosques has been exploited for PR against the enemy -- much in the same way that Hamas has manipulated its own people in Gaza, putting them in danger, in order to reap the PR benefits.

The Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center produced a report in 2010, Hamas and the Terrorist Threat from the Gaza Strip, which examined the military use of mosques.

The footnote at the end of the paragraph points to a separate article from 2009, The use of mosques for military and political purposes by Hamas and other terrorist organizations and Islamic groups

The point is that other Arab countries use mosques for military purposes as well. Here is an example from Iraq:

The point is that Hamas has a history of using mosques for military purposes and other Muslim countries have done it as well. In addition there is the PR value of forcing Israel to destroy the mosque and broadcasting to the world what Israel has done.

Hamas is as much at ease hiding weapons in a mosque as they are in hiding behind children.

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!

World Reaction To Hamas Massacre of Israeli Civilians: Some Surprises and Some Repercussions (Daled Amos)

In the wake of the massacre of Israeli civilians by Hamas terrorists, the world has reacted -- but not all in the same way.

Condemned Hamas

o United States
o  Germany
o  France
o  Morocco (voiced "deep concern" and condemned attacks on civilians "where ever they are".)
o  EU (EU Commission chief von der Leyen: "I unequivocally condemn the attack carried out by Hamas terrorists against Israel. It is terrorism in its most despicable form.")
o  Canada
o  Great Britain
o  Ukraine (President Zelenskiy: condemned the "terror attack" and said Israel's right to defend itself "cannot be doubted".)
o  Poland (President Duda: "Rockets attacks and detention of civilians as hostages arouse our deepest opposition. Poland strongly condemns all acts of violence")
o  Italy
o  Japan

Called For Restraint/Cease-Fire

o  UAE (Foreign Ministry: "The UAE calls for the exercise of maximum restraint and an immediate ceasefire to avoid serious repercussions," )
o   UN (UN Middle East peace envoy Wennesland: ("I appeal to all to pull back from the brink.")
o  China (The Chinese foreign ministry urged both sides "to remain calm, exercise restraint and immediately end the hostilities to protect civilians and avoid further deterioration of the situation")
o  Saudi Arabia (The foreign ministry called for an "immediate cessation of violence")
o  Egypt (Foreign minister called for "exercising maximum restraint and avoiding exposing civilians to further danger".)
o  Turkey (President Erdogan: "We call for restraint from all parties.")
o  Russia (Deputy Foreign Minister Bogdanov urged restraint)
o  Qatar (The foreign ministry said Israel alone was responsible for the ongoing escalation of violence with the Palestinian people, and called for both sides to show restraint.)
o Kenya (Principal Secretary Sing'oei: While Israel has a right to retaliate, a peaceful path to resolving this unfortunate development is urged,)
o  Uganda (President Museveni: "The break out of renewed violence in Israel- Palestine is regrettable. Why don’t the two sides implement the two States’ Solution? To be condemned, in particular, is the practice of targeting civilians and non-combatants by the belligerents.")

Blamed Israel

o Abbas (The Palestinian people have the right to defend themselves against the "terror of settlers and occupation troops,")
o African Union (Chairman Mahamat: "Denial of the fundamental rights of the Palestinian people, particularly that of an independent and sovereign State, is the main cause of the permanent Israeli-Palestinian tension" and urged "both parties to put an end to military hostilities and to return, without conditions, to the negotiating table.")
o Kuwait (Blamed Israel for "blatant attacks".)
o Indonesia ("Indonesia requests that acts of violence stop immediately to avoid increasing human casualties. The root of the conflict, namely the occupation of the Palestinian territories by Israel, must be resolved according to the parameters agreed upon by the U.N.")

Apparently, Abbas does not see a need to offer even a mild condemnation or sympathy -- not even in English.

Endorsed the Slaughter

o Iran
o Hezbollah (described the slaughter of civilians as a"decisive response to Israel's continued occupation and a message to those seeking normalization with Israel".)

No surprise here.

But in the US, there were some surprises when members of "The Squad" condemned the massacre:

o Ilhan Omar: "I condemn the horrific acts we are seeing unfold today in Israel against children, women, the elderly and the unarmed people who are being slaughtered and taken hostage by Hamas... We need to call for de-escalation and a cease-fire."

o  Bernie Sanders: "I absolutely condemn the horrifying attack on Israel by Hamas and Islamic Jihad. There is no justification for this violence...It must end now"

o  Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: "Today is devastating for all those seeking a lasting peace and respect for human rights in Israel and Palestine. I condemn Hamas' attack in the strongest possible terms...An immediate cease-fire and de-escalation are urgently needed to save lives."

o  Jamaal Bowman: "I strongly condemn the horrific attacks by Hamas and am saddened by the loss of precious lives, especially on the holy day of Simchat Torah."

o  Ayanna Pressley: "These devastating attacks on Israelis are deeply alarming, and my heart breaks for the victims and their loved ones. It is long past time to stop this cycle of violence..."

o Cori Bush: "I strongly condemn the targeting of civilians and I urge an immediate cease-fire and de-escalation to prevent further loss of life"

Seeing these politicians condemn Hamas is unusual, but understandable considering how uncomfortable they must be having to come out with public statements in response to a situation where Jews outnumber how many Palestinian Arabs have been killed.

We will see if their sympathies remain consistent.

Rashida Tlaib did not follow her fellow squad members. She offered no condemnation, settling for "I grieve the Palestinian and Israeli lives lost yesterday, today, and every day."

A major concern was raised by Italian Prime Minister Meloni, who announced that "particular attention is being paid to the security of the Jewish community in the country." Germany has begun dealing with this issue. On Saturday night German police broke up a pro-Hamas rally.

Some countries went further and translated their condemnation of Hamas into action:

Austria and Germany said on Monday they were suspending aid worth tens of millions of euro to Palestinians in response to Islamist group Hamas' deadly attack on Israel to ensure funds were not flowing into the wrong hands.

This will include aid to the West Bank. Meanwhile, the EU will hold an emergency meeting tomorrow that will include a discussion of development aid.

Of course, considering the $6 billion Iran is getting from the US, Hamas is not too upset.

The overall question is: will the West remain consistent in its condemnation of Hamas, and what actions will they take to back up those words.

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!

Oberlin College Refuses To Return Artwork Stolen by Nazis To Jewish Owners (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

This week, there were reports about several US museums that returned artwork, stolen by the Nazis, back to their original Jewish owners:

Seven artworks from the collection of Austrian Jewish cabaret performer Fritz Grünbaum, who died in the Dachau concentration camp, were returned late last month to Grünbaum’s heirs.
The Manhattan district attorney, which arranged the return, believed that the works, by 19th-century Austrian expressionist Egon Schiele, were improperly housed in U.S. museum collections, after having been looted by the Nazis.
...The museums and galleries agreed to release the works “after they were presented with evidence that they were stolen by the Nazis,” according to the Manhattan district attorney.

Not all of the museums involved have returned the artwork in question. Two insist that their acquisition of the pieces is legal and said as much in response to inquiries by JNS. A third museum did not respond.

That would be the Allen Museum at Oberlin College, which currently has possession of Girl with Black Hair by Egon Schiele.

One legal basis for returning the artwork is the Holocaust Expropriated Recovery Act, which eases the restriction on the statute of limitations that exists on recovering pieces of art stolen during WWII.

Another legal basis in this case undercuts the apparent power of attorney that Grünbaum's wife had over the artwork. In a 2019 decision in this ongoing case

The higher court agreed that Mr. Grünbaum had not voluntarily parted with his collection, despite signed documents, including a power of attorney supposedly given to his wife, and that essentially the Nazis had stolen it from him before his imprisonment. “We reject the notion that a person who signs a power of attorney in a death camp can be said to have executed the document voluntarily,” the judges wrote. [emphasis added]

Yet Oberlin College continues to argue it has the legal right to Girl with Black Hair.

Which is odd.

Legal Insurrection makes the point that in a different circumstance, Oberlin voluntarily returned an item to its rightful owners:

There is precedent for Oberlin College returning items wrongfully (but not necessarily illegally) acquired. In 2002, Oberlin College returned a twined root bag that had been taken from the Nez Perce tribe a century before, and even held a symposium celebrating the return:
On April 27, 2002, the Oberlin College Department of Anthropology returned to the Nez Perce Tribe a twined root bag that had been lost in their ethnographic collections for over a hundred years. This bag was collected by Henry Harmon Spalding, missionary to the Nez Perce, in the 1840’s, and is part of the Spalding-Allen Collection that is on display at the Nez Perce National Historic Park in Spalding, Idaho. The symposium consisted of lectures on the history of the collection and the development of flat twined weaving in the 19th and 20th centuries, as well as panel discussions on museum collections and repatriation of Native American cultural patrimony. [emphasis added]

Why voluntarily return the bag, which was not illegally acquired, to the Nez Perce yet insist on holding on to artwork requested by the heirs of a man murdered by the Nazis?

William A. Jacobson of Legal Insurrection points out that it could be that behind the scenes Oberlin College could be preparing to return the work to the heirs -- but why allow the issue to turn into what is becoming a public relations nightmare?

It is tempting to recall how Oberlin dealt with Professor Joy Karega.

In addition to vicious antisemitic posts about Jewish control of the world, Karega also claimed that Jews were responsible for 9/11, the Charlie Hebdo attacks and ISIS. In reaction to the resulting uproar, the college president, Marvin Krislov, blandly responded, that "Oberlin College respects the rights of its faculty, students, staff and alumni to express their personal views." Alan Dershowitz pointed out that the college would not have resorted to such boilerplate if such hateful remarks had targeted Blacks, Muslims or gays.

Karega was eventually fired.

But what stands out in connection to Oberlin College's current failure to return artwork stolen by the Nazis during the Holocaust is the apparent attitude toward the Holocaust on campus.

In an op-ed in The Washington Post in 2016, David Bernstein wrote The Holocaust as ‘white on white crime’ and other signs of intellectual decay In it, Bernstein described a Facebook post by an Oberlin alumna about her experience there. Her post described how some of her experiences showed how the view of Jews as "white" and "privileged" extended to the Holocaust as well. She wrote about

o "The multiple times the Holocaust was referred to as “white on white crime” by my POC peers and hip white Jewish peers..."

o "That time a Jewish person made a comment on fb saying “the only reason people care about the Holocaust is because it happened to white people” and got tons of likes from white and POC friends alike..."

o "When I overheard someone say “Islamophobia is like the anti-Semitism of our time” as if anti semitism is over/ started and ended with the Holocaust/ has been replaced by anti-muslim racism"

o "How inevitably during discussions about the establishment of Israel, people would say “the Jews decided to make Palestinians suffer for the crimes the Germans committed against them” while failing to understand that Zionism is way older than the Holocaust as is the need and the yearning for a Jewish homeland."

o "Generally antisemitic ideas floating around such as Jews are milking the Holocaust for their own gain// everything is as bad as the Holocaust except for the actual Holocaust which wasnt as bad as people say it was// Jews only care about themselves"

Oberlin president Marvin Krislov has boasted about:

our community's shared values. They set Oberlin apart from other institutions of higher education. When confronted by bias, our community turned our shared values into meaningful, positive action.

That is exactly what Oberlin did when it returned that bag to the Nez Perce Tribe.

And that is exactly what Oberlin has the opportunity to do now.
What is it waiting for?

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!

Did The UN Violate International Law When Security Grabbed The Israeli Ambassador? (Daled Amos)

Last week, Gilad Erdan -- UN ambassador of Israel -- was detained by UN security after he protested against Iranian president Ebrahim Raisi, the Butcher of Tehran, who was addressing the General Assembly.

Raisi earned his nickname for his participation in the Death Committee which oversaw the execution of up to 5,000 Iranian political prisoners in 1988. Last year, a Swedish Court sentenced an Iranian citizen, who participated in those same executions, to life imprisonment for war crimes and murder.

Erdan was the only ambassador to protest Raisi's appearance. And it was hard to miss him.

YouTube screengrab

The poster is a picture of Mahsa Amini, a 22-year-old woman who was arrested by the Iranian government police last year for failing to wear a hijab. She died under suspicious circumstances in a hospital on September 16, 2022.

Erdan got the poster from Hamid Charkhkar, a college professor protesting outside of the UN:

I had a sign with Mahsa Amini's picture on it, saying 'Iranian women deserve freedom now.' To our surprise, Israel's UN Ambassador, Gilad Erdan, walked up to our protest, clearly showing support for our cause."

Charkhkar added “He was drawn to my sign and asked if he could take a photo of it. Later, we saw on Twitter that he held my sign during Raisi's UN speech. I want to thank Ambassador Erdan. He helped raise the voices of Mahsa and many young Iranian youth who suffered under the Islamic regime in Iran.

Yes, the Israeli ambassador "clearly showed support," and in the process UN security physically accosted him:

Obviously something is wrong at the UN, when it allows the Butcher of Tehran to speak, but detains the Israeli ambassador when he exercises his expresses his view.

Melanie Phillips notes another double standard:

Not only did the UN grant a genocidal monster like Raisi the status of a world statesman, but it treated the ambassador of the country that Raisi’s regime aims to wipe off the map like a criminal.

And then there is the issue whether UN security is actually permitted to grab an ambassador like that. According to ChatGPT:

The specific rules and protocols regarding the conduct of security personnel at the United Nations, especially when it comes to dealing with diplomats and ambassadors, may not be explicitly stated in publicly available documents. Many of these protocols and guidelines are established through customary diplomatic practice, international law, and internal UN security procedures. They are typically not disclosed in detail to the public for security reasons. [emphasis added]

One such source of international law is the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961). According to Article 29:

The person of a diplomatic agent shall be inviolable. He shall not be liable to any form of arrest or detention. The receiving State shall treat him with due respect and shall take all appropriate steps to prevent any attack on his person, freedom or dignity. [emphasis added]

The UN may be keeping it's own protocols for security under wraps, but there is clearly reason to question the violation of Erdan's diplomatic status. And the UN owes an explanation.

Unfortunately, Israel did not see it in its interest to make more of an issue out of this.

But Ambassador Erdan did get in the last word:

“Shabbat Shalom. Let’s see the UN security guards try remove me from the hall with this sign!”

Epic from @giladerdan1!pic.twitter.com/JyinhQ4ntI
— Arsen Ostrovsky (@Ostrov_A) September 22, 2023

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!

A brief history of Marc Lamont Hill's "expertise" on the Middle East (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

The University of Pennsylvania is hosting a controversial event this weekend called the Palestine Writes Literature Festival, from Friday to Sunday. More than the topic is the list of speakers that is creating concern. The list of speakers includes Roger Waters, who wore a Nazi-style uniform during his concert in Berlin back in May; Aya Ghanameh, who has tweeted "Death to Israel" on more than one occasion, and Marc Lamont Hill, who while at the UN during its International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People spoke on behalf of "a free Palestine from the river to the sea."

Who is Marc Lamont Hill?

Hill is "one of the leading intellectual voices in the country." We know that because he says so himself:

He has a Ph.D with distinction, but though various sites mention this fact, no site seems to actually provide the topic of the thesis. I finally found the title of his thesis online (H/T SabraBat-Seraph)

From the back-and-forth on Twitter defending the lack of information on the topic of the Ph.D., it seems that people are far more interested in what Hill says than whether he is qualified to say it authoritatively.

His website indicates he is currently researching "the relationships between race, culture, politics, and education in the United States and the Middle East."

That is where things get interesting.

Three years ago, Marc Lamont Hill was challenged on Twitter about whether he had the background necessary to talk knowledgeably about the Middle East

In that Twitter exchange, Hill never names books that he has read that would qualify him to speak on Israel and the Middle East. When asked if he has read from a list of authors, he replies off-handedly "of course," but when pinned down to name books, classes or degrees --

o He replies he has read "exhaustively" (whatever that means), but doesn't name any books or articles. There is no way to gauge whose work he has read or if his bothered to read different viewpoints.
o He points out that he has a "graduate degree," but does not say what it is in. His Ph.D is in Hip-Hop Lit and he has a B.S. in Spanish and Education. According to Wikipedia, Hill has a Masters, but the source it links to makes no mention of it. Apparently, people are supposed to be impressed by degrees in subjects that have nothing to do with what he is talking about.
o Finally, Hill vaguely claims to have "many years scholarly experience/study on the subject," and then resorts to claiming that this is more than the authors he was asked if he had read.

When asked further on what qualifies him to speak on Israel and the Middle East, he claims to have been "trained" in the area and to have "read widely and deeply" in the area. But trained means more than reading a lot. It implies having a mentor and teacher who himself has some sort of expertise -- someone who is directing the learning and perhaps even testing to measure comprehension.

Marc Lamont Hill apparently did not see any irony when he tweeted in an argument with David Horowitz:

David Horowitz has made his career calling people communists and/or anti-semites. He sees no irony in challenging credentials, while exercising the freedom to talk about whatever he wants with NO training at all. How does his Masters in literature allow him to write books on Islamic radicalism? [emphasis added]

The bottom line is there is no indication that Marc Lamont Hill has any particular qualification as an expert on the subject. He has no more expertise than the average tweeter.

Let's see what he has been saying about Israel, both on and off Twitter.

In 2019, Marc Lamont Hill claimed

Hill’s latest excoriation of Israel, posted to his 90,000 followers [on Facebook], followed Mazzig’s argument that Israel is not a country of “privileged and powerful white Europeans.” Mazzig sought to emphasize the role of Mizrahi Jews in Israeli history and condemned the tendency of critics to define Israelis as Ashkenazi Jews alone. Hill responded that Mazzig ignores “the racial and political project that transformed Palestinian Jews (who lived peacefully with other Palestinians) into the 20th century identity category of ‘Mizrahi’ as a means of detaching them from Palestinian identity.”

Mazzig posted a screenshot of another exchange with Hill in which Hill wrote that “I literally study Yemeni and Moroccan Jews for a living.” (emphasis added)

At least Hill had the decency to delete the post.

In a 2019 article for Ami Magazine, Black Intellectuals Embrace Anti-Semitism // A Worrying trend is emerging, Rafael Medoff writes

In 2018, Hill accused Israel of poisoning Palestinian water:

"I can't just think about political prisoners here in the states; I have to think about political prisoners in Palestine," Hill said. "And I have to ask questions about what the face of those prisoners look like, and what legitimate resistance looks like."

Hill also said that people who struggle tend to favor a "civil rights tradition" that "romanticizes nonviolence."

"How can you romanticize nonviolence when you have a state that is at all moments waging war against you, against your bodies, poisoning your water, limiting your access to water, locking up your children, killing them?" Hill asked. "We can't romanticize resistance." [emphasis added]

Here is video of @TempleUniv university professor @marclamonthill telling the U.S. Campaign for Palestinian Rights in September that Israel is "poisoning" the water of Palestinians

He also appears to compare himself favorably to convicted Palestinian terrorist Leila Khaled pic.twitter.com/r4ryjZFr1Y
— Jon Levine (@LevineJonathan) December 6, 2018

In 2018, CNN fired Hill from his position as a contributor because of his "river to the sea" comment -- 9 years after he was fired from Fox News in 2009, where he was an analyst. The reason, though, was not necessarily because of his anti-Israel or antisemitic statements:

Murdoch also said that Hill has been fired. He revealed the move after a shareholder had raised the question of how Hill was hired, citing his “reputation of defending cop killers and racists.”

Hill, a frequent guest on “The O’Reilly Factor” and other Fox News shows, has been the target of increasing criticism on the blogosphere for alleged sympathies to controversial figures including Assata Shakur and Mumia Abu-Jamal. Though Hill bills himself as an expert on hip-hop culture, he also drew fire for serving as a liberal foil for various Fox News personalities on subjects far from his stated area of expertise.

Who is Assata Shakur?

Mumia Abu-Jamal was also convicted for murdering a policeman in Pennsylvania, in 1981. His original death sentence was changed to life imprisonment.

Hill supports both of them, claiming that Shakur and Abu-Jamal are heroic freedom fighters.

So it is not surprising he is a big fan of Palestinian terrorists, such as Rasmiah Odeh, Fatima Bernawi (whom he refers to as "a legend among Afro-Palestinians and a beloved daughter of Jerusalem" for trying to bomb a Jerusalem cinema in 1967).

And in that same video where he claimed Israel poisoned Palestinian water, Hill went on to invoke the first female Palestinian plane hijacker, suggesting that peaceful resistance was being romanticized and cannot be "fetishized" in the US:

"If I'm to do this, I ain't trying to be like this. I'm going Leila Khaled-style."