Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News: Jewish supremacy

Showing posts with label Jewish supremacy. Show all posts

Tuesday, September 26, 2023

A Palestinian kid killed in a traffic accident with another Arab driver? Nathan Thrall blames Israel!

Israeli medics at the scene of a fatal Palestinian car crash in 2017

Heading Toward a Second Nakba
David Shulman
Nathan Thrall argues that the accident in which Abed Salama’s son died was a predictable, even inevitable, outcome of the Israeli occupation in its quotidian forms.

On a stormy winter day in February 2012, a Palestinian bus carrying schoolchildren on an outing collided with an Israeli trailer truck on the notoriously dangerous Jaba‘ Road near the West Bank village of A-Ram, not far from Ramallah. The bus burst into flames; six young children and one teacher were killed and others were seriously injured. Among the dead was Milad, the five-year-old son of Abed Salama, from the town of Anata. Nathan Thrall has made the story of that accident and that family the thread that binds together A Day in the Life of Abed Salama, a penetrating, wide-ranging, heart-wrenching exploration of life in Palestine under Israeli occupation. I know of no other writing on Israel and Palestine that reaches this depth of perception and understanding.

There is indeed something emblematic about the accident. The Jaba‘ Road is entirely within Area C, the 62 percent of the occupied West Bank that is under full Israeli control, where today there are close to two hundred settlements and settler outposts. Because of the nightmarish maze of roads in the Ramallah area—some of them closed altogether to Palestinians, others blocked by army checkpoints to keep Palestinians without special permits from entering Israel—rescuers were slow in reaching the site of the accident. They were also slow in evacuating the injured, many of them badly burned, to hospitals in Ramallah or inside Israel. Fire trucks, army medics, and ambulances were only a mile or two away in nearby Jewish settlements but failed to arrive quickly. Israeli ambulances coming from Jerusalem were held up for critical minutes at the checkpoints. Moreover, Palestinian neighborhoods in the vicinity of the Separation Barrier had (and some still have) almost no emergency or police services. As one of the Palestinian rescuers at the site of the accident later formulated what had happened: “If it had been two Palestinian children throwing stones on the road, the army would have been there in no time. When Jews are in danger, Israel sends helicopters. But a burning bus full of Palestinian children….”

...No one wanted to kill those children along with one of their teachers. Israeli rescuers and soldiers who finally reached the accident site did their best to save the injured. But the central point of Thrall’s narrative is that this disaster, like today’s ongoing violence in the Palestinian territories in general, was a predictable, even inevitable, outcome of the occupation system in its quotidian forms. It is a regime of state terror whose raison d’être is the theft of Palestinian land and, whenever possible, the expulsion of its Palestinian owners. I have seen this system in operation over the course of the past twenty-odd years.

I did not read the book, and probably won't. But this review already shows the incredible bias and the desire by Thrall to bend any evidence towards his foregone conclusion.

First of all, the driver of the Israeli truck was an Arab.

An average of two to three Palestinian Arabs are killed every week in road accidents. In 2022, there were 144 fatalities in over 16,000 accidents.

Palestinians acknowledge the epidemic of car accidents, and when they are not speaking to Westerners they blame themselves, not Israel, for these deaths. Ten reasons for Palestinian car crashes are listed in this article:

1- Narrow roads

2- Drivers who ignore traffic laws and basic safety, tailgating, passing vehicles on the opposite side of the road.

3- Not maintaining their cars.

4- Using a mobile phone while driving .

5- Low traffic awareness .

6- Young people and teenagers driving vehicles .

7- Drivers showing off.

8- Buildings being built right up to the roads.

9- Drug users who park their cars on the roads away from home.

10- Vehicles from Israel, often that would not pass Israeli inspections, being sold or stolen and used.

Even in Israel, the majority of car accidents involve young Arab drivers.

But what about the supposed delay of help for Milad and the other children? Wasn't that Israel's fault?

It doesn't seem to be true. News reports from the time say:

Following the accident, Palestinian health minister Fathi Abu Mughli accused Israeli rescue services of failing to provide timely assistance, resulting in more casualties. Ma’ariv reported that eyewitness report contradict Abu Mughli’s claim.

Israeli and Palestinian rescue teams transferred at least 30 casualties to hospitals in Ramallah, Petah Tikva and Jerusalem, Israel Police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said. Israel Radio reported that it took rescue forces seven minutes to reach the scene of the accident.

Thrall believed the Palestinian health ministry, which has a track record of lying, over the Israeli authorities. Which tells you all you need to know about his interest in the facts.

In other accidents involving Arabs in Area C, Israeli and "settler" ambulances rush to the scene to help, indicating who is telling the truth..

Earlier this year a 12-year old Palestinian Arab boy in the West Bank was internally decapitated when he was hit by an Arab car, and doctors in Israel performed an extremely rare and delicate surgery to save his life.

A similar horrific accident as Milad's from 2017 where there was a 3-way collision between an armored Israeli bus, a Palestinian minibus and a Palestinian car saw a swarm of Magen David Adom ambulances and an IDF doctor on the scene within minutes trying to save lives.

In 2017, in another fatal West Bank car accident, a nine month old Arab baby survived while his father was killed and his mother unconscious. The baby refused to drink from a bottle so the Israeli Jewish nurse volunteered to breastfeed him. She put out a call on Facebook asking for other volunteers and Jewish women from as far away as Haifa wanted to help.

The "Jewish supremacy" and "racism" that Thrall takes as a given is an anti-Israel paranoid fantasy. Jews, even "settlers," help Palestinian Arabs in trouble, all the time.

In other words, the very basis of Nathan Thrall's book is built on lies. And that is how anti-Israel writers like Thrall and the reviewer work: not only will they only look at selected evidence that supports their thesis - they will twist counter-evidence to pretend it is evidence.

This supposed microcosm of Israeli evil is anything but. The only malicious actors in this little drama are Nathan Thrall and David Shulman.

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!

An epidemic of pseudo-intellectual antisemitism

As my Twitter account gains followers (over 1500 in the past month), it is also attracting a new breed of antisemite - one that many other Zionist social media stars have seen for years.

It is not only that these people cannot stand any posts that are pro-Israel. But they also cannot stand posts that mourn dead Jews - they predictably respond with mentions of dead Arabs or other alleged Israeli atrocities, as a kind of justification for murdering Jews.

But there is another class of people who respond to pro-Israel posts. These are the ones who cite "experts."

They quote UN resolutions, or book authors, or articles that have footnotes, or NGOs, as proof positive that Israel is in the wrong, every time.

These are the people who say that international law allows Palestinians to murder Jews as "resistance."

They quote Shlomo Sand saying there is no such thing as a Jewish people. They quote Amnesty and Human Rights Watch saying Israel is guilty of "apartheid." They love Ilan Pappe's history of 1948. They claim that there was no Arab antisemitism before Zionism. They call Zionism "colonialism." They claim that Zionists tried to stop Jews from being saved in the Holocaust if they weren't going to Israel and they colluded with the Nazis. They toss off terms like "Jewish supremacy" the exact same way Germans used to but it is OK because "human rights" experts say it, too. They claim that Israel has scores of laws that discriminate against Arab citizens. They insist that Israel has "Jewish-only roads" in the territories.

All of these claims have one thing in common: they are easily debunked, as my links here show.

The mindset of the modern antisemite is that Israel and Zionist Jews are evil ab initio. But they don't want to be tarred as antisemites, because antisemitism is bad and something that only the far-Right is guilty of. Therefore, when they see articles that seem to have a sheen of validity that confirm their pre-existing hate, they are happy to accept them and spread them without any skepticism.

We have a small set of intellectual antisemites - many of them Jewish themselves - who craft opinions that carefully choose the facts that support their bigoted positions, and hide the much larger set of facts that shred their arguments. Then there is a much larger set of antisemites who enthusiastically accept this core of intellectual antisemitism as gospel, and shut their ears to any proof that they are fraudulent.

These new antisemites pretend that they are basing their hate on facts when the reality is that they choose their facts to justify their hate.

There is no greater proof than watching how they seethe so much at anyone condemning the murder of Jewish civilians in Israel that they feel they must bury any possible sympathy for the families of the victims with an avalanche of propaganda.

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!

The explicitly Jew-hating Arab articles just keep coming

From Bassem Yassin in Sawaleif:

The brutal actions of the Jews in #Palestine indicate that the personality of the Jew is still a prisoner of the Holocaust, and locked in the mentality of the castle. A sick, bipolar personality, fluctuating between moods of superiority and oppression. Actors who are good at marketing themselves, according to the seasons. Sometimes they mourn in front of the Wailing Wall, and at other times they rant that they are God's chosen people. You see them for their malice, they turned Judaism from a heavenly religion into a political identity.

The Jews found what they were looking for in a soft land - Palestine - to build a state, where they took all aggressive means to embody their dream. They were helped by the absolute support of Britain - and the absolute absence of the Arabs . The Jew was rejected by the whole world, and there was international contempt for his hateful personality that was, practiced it in Palestine.

The Jewish psychologist Freud said about Judaism: The God of the Jews, “Yahweh,” is violent and evil, and promised them a fertile land (Palestine) and the annihilation of its people. As for the Jewish philosopher Spinoza, he said: "The divine revelation inspired them to abandon paganism and materialism, but the Jewish community remained disobedient, inclined to usury and aggression."

The Holy Qur’an was the deepest, most comprehensive, and most creative, in dissecting the sick, fluctuating, dialectical Jewish personality, as it said: “They forgot God, so He made them forget themselves.” A priori the Jew does not believe in resurrection or reckoning. This is what pushes him to disassociate himself from values and principles and renounce morals, because he does not hope for a reward from God or punishment in the Hereafter. With the spread of the lack of modesty in the Jewish community, modesty in the Jewish society has become an exception. Women are investment projects, Hollywood is king. They own pornographic films, they control usurious banks.

The other shortcomings for which they became famous throughout history are their breach of covenants and reversal of covenants: “Because of their breach of their covenant, we cursed them and made their hearts hard.” And they reap its fruits. The Arabs of normalization emerged...And here is Israel working on what comes after peace, from expanding on the ground, and seizing water, gas and commercial markets along the Gulf. Therefore, we remind the normalized Arabs, of Ben Gvir’s sayings about Al-Aqsa, and what is mentioned in their lying Talmud: “God admitted his mistake by declaring the destruction of the Temple.”

Peace treaties have dissolved, leaving only a stench of them. The two-state solution is rejected by the Jew, because the structure of the Jew is built on the rejection of the other, and the complete lack of coexistence. The famous psychoanalyst Shinkel says in this regard. "The Jews refuse to merge with others.” In the Holy Qur’an, God Almighty says in Surat Al-Ahzab: “And He sent down those who supported them among the People of the Book from their fortresses – their fortresses – but in Surat Al-Hashr, God Almighty says in His greatness: “They do not fight you all except in fortified villages or from behind Walls “...and this is definitive evidence of the isolation of the Jews. Likewise, in Europe, they lived alone, residing in their own ghettos, and lanes bearing their names, so it is not a fortiori the impossibility of their coexistence with the Palestinians, in one geographical spot?! We discover that the Jew is a mine of lies. And the establishment of Israel is a big lie that should not continue, otherwise future generations will curse us in our graves.

He hits all the popular antisemitic themes: Jews as liars, who fake their victimhood, breakers of covenants, aggressors, supremacists, who control the banks and Hollywood.

This is mainstream. And the media keeps ignoring it.

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!

Today's Muslim antisemitism sounds a lot like Christian antisemitism in England in the 1750s

In the mid 18th century, British lawmakers were debating whether to allow Jews to become full citizens of the country. Jews had been returning to Britain starting in the mid-1600s after being expelled in 1290, but they were not allowed to be citizens.

As Parliament debated the short-lived Jewish Naturalisation Act of 1753 (repealed in 1754), a Christian Jew-hater with the nom de plume "Christianus" wrote to the Newcastle Weekly Courant about all the reasons that Jews should not become citizens of England.

His arguments mirror the antisemitic arguments of Muslims, today.

Muslims claim that Jews break their agreements. Christians in England claimed that Jewish law allows Jews to break all oaths.

Muslims claim that the Talmud is a bigoted work that ensures Jewish supremacism. Christians in England claimed the same.

Muslims claim that Jews are descendants of apes and pigs. The Christians called the Jew "wolves" who would destroy the Christian flock from within.

Muslims claim that Jews kill prophets. Of course Christians in the 18th century believed that Jews killed Jesus.(The letter writer is aghast that "the Murderers of Christ are to be incorporated into the Body of Christians!")

Here is only an excerpt of the letter:

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!

Jimmy Carter, antisemite.

The announcement that Jimmy Carter is entering hospice care at his home is prompting a wave of fawning pre-obituaries about what a wonderful humanitarian he is.

No one is talking about his antisemitism.

Carter's animus towards Israel is legendary, but the source of that hate is not his progressivism or humanitarianism, but old fashioned Christian antisemitism.

For decades, Jimmy Carter gave a weekly Sunday sermon at his Georgia church. Some of his lessons promoted classic Christian antisemitism, way beyond what the Christian scripture says.

He says that modern Israeli Jews are persecuting Palestinian Christians in line with alleged Jewish persecution of Christians in the New Testament because of Jewish supremacism:

“…this morning I’m gonna be trying to relate the assigned Bible lesson to us in the Uniformed Series with how that affected Israel and how it affects us through Christ personally… It’s hard for us to even visualize the prejudice against gentiles when Christ came on earth. If a Jew married a gentile, that person was considered to be dead. … How would you characterize from a Jew’s point of view the uncircumcised? Non believer? And what? Unclean, what? They called them DOGS! That’s true. … What was Paul’s feeling toward gentiles in his early life as a Jewish leader? [Paul was not a Jewish leader. Ed.] Anybody? Absolute commitment to persecution! To the imprisonment and even the execution of non-Jews who now professed faith in Jesus Christ. … We know the differences in the Middle East. But the differences there are between Jews on the one hand who comprise the dominating force both militarily and also politically and the Palestinians who are both Muslim and Christians. …”

Carter bizarrely claims that sacrifices in the Jewish Temples were a means for rich Jews to avoid taking care of their elderly parents:

“Corban [sacrifices] was a prayer that could be performed by usually a man in an endorsed ceremony by the Pharisees that you could say in effect, ‘God, everything that I own all these sheep all these goats this nice house and the money that I have, I dedicate to you, to God.’ And from then on according to the Pharisees law those riches didn’t belong to that person anymore. They were whose? God’s! So as long as those riches were belonged to the person, that person was supposed to share them with needy parents right? But once it was God’s it wasn’t theirs and they didn’t have anything to share with their parents. So with impunity, and approved by the Pharisaic law, they could avoid taking care of their needy parents by a trick that had been evolved by the incorrect and improper interpretation of the law primarily designed by religious leaders to benefit whom? The rich folks! The powerful people! Because the poor man wouldn’t have all of this stuff to give to God. He would probably, in fact he might very well have his parents in the house with him or still be living with his own parents.”

This is a completely fictional reading of Jewish law.

Carter repeatedly said that Jewish leaders wanted to kill Jesus for various reasons, spreading the very source of Christian antisemitism as truth:

The subject of his first class was the tale of Jesus driving the moneylenders from the temple. The press soon reported that the president had informed his students that this story was “a turning point” in Christ’s life. “He had directly challenged in a fatal way the existing church, and there was no possible way for the Jewish leaders to avoid the challenge. So they decided to kill Jesus.”

So the Jews wanted to kill Jesus because he opposed the moneylenders! And in another lesson, Carter doubled down on Jewish hate of Christians:

He soon spoke at a Sunday-school class again; and, with an AP reporter in attendance, told those assembled that Jesus, in proclaiming himself the Messiah, was aware that he was risking death “as quickly as [it] could be arranged by the Jewish leaders, who were very powerful.”

There is a theme of rich, powerful Jews who want to oppress the gentiles - that informed Carter's view of the modern Middle East.

And his opinion of American Jews reflected that same animosity he has towards the Jews of Jesus' time. he blamed Jews for his loss in the 1980 election, more than once.

Kenneth Stein, who worked with him and interviewed him for his own book, quotes Carter as railing against the "Jewish money" that opposed him:

"[Vice president] Fritz Mondale was much more deeply immersed in the Jewish organization leadership than I was. That was an alien world to me. They [American Jews] didn't support me during the presidential campaign [that] had been predicated greatly upon Jewish money."

Carter's aide Stuart Eizenstat also says that Carter blames Jews for his 1980 loss: “From the New York primary [in March 1980] onward, I believe Carter was left with the view that New York Jews had not only defeated him in the primary but were also a factor in his loss in November.” However, while New York Jews did vote overwhelmingly for Ted Kennedy in the primary, more voted for Carter than Reagan in the presidential election.

Reagan took over 90% of the electoral college in 1980. It was a landslide. For Carter to blame New York Jews for his huge loss is nothing less than pure antisemitism.

Carter's antisemitism doesn't end there. He noted how Palestinian Christians were fleeing, but he blamed not the Muslim supremacists who are persecuting them, but Israel, continuing his theme of powerful Jews persecuting Palestinian Christians - even though Israel's Christian community has stayed steady.

His hate of Jews naturally spread to his supporting antisemites. When Helen Thomas lost her job for calling for the ethnic cleansing of Jews in Israel, saying Jews must "get the hell out of Palestine" and "go home" to Germany or Poland where they were massacred, one of the very few people who supported her was....Jimmy Carter. She told Playboy that he was very sympathetic but didn't want to go into details because it would get him into trouble.

Carter also condoned terror attacks against Jews in Israel. Really.

In his "Peace, Not Apartheid" book, Carter wrote, "It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel."

This "humanitarian" didn't call for suicide bombings against Jews to end unconditionally. He advised Palestinians to use them as a bargaining chip to force Israel to give in to their demands. That is literally the definition of terrorism, and Carter is saying that he supports the goals of Palestinian terror.

Carter made many hateful statements about Israel which clearly cross the line into antisemitism. For example, he once downplayed the Iranian nuclear threat because they would only have a couple of bombs while Israel has hundreds, as if dropping a nuclear bomb on Tel Aviv is no big deal. Carter's support and even compliments for Hamas, for Palestinian "democracy" and other outrageous anti-Israel statements could fill a book. But even without mentioning Israel, his antisemitism is clear and unambiguous.

The single most damning example of Carter's antisemitism comes from an incident in 1987.

Neal Sher was the head of the Office of Special Investigations, the Justice Department’s Nazi prosecution unit. They had iron-clad evidence that a Chicago resident, Martin Bartesch, a member of the SS Death’s Head Division at the Mauthausen concentration camp, was a war criminal and a murderer.

Bartesch's family started a huge campaign against the OSI, writing letters to members of Congress and other prominent people asking for help. Most politicians contacted the OSI to find out the details, OSI provided them with evidence of his guilt, and they would drop the matter.

But, Sher says, not Jimmy Carter.

In September 1987, after all of the gruesome details of the case had been made public and widely reported in the media, I received a letter sent by Bartesch’s daughter to the former president. Citing groups that had been exposed for their anti-Semitism, it was an all-out assault against OSI as unfair, “un-American” and interested only in “vengeance” against innocent family members.

...Not even the staunchest and most sincere devotee to humanitarian causes could legitimately claim that an SS murderer who deceived authorities to obtain a visa and citizenship was somehow deserving of exceptional treatment.

That’s why I was so taken aback by the personal, handwritten note Jimmy Carter sent to me seeking “special consideration” for this Nazi SS murderer. There on the upper-right corner of Bartesch’s daughter’s letter was a note to me in the former president’s handwriting, and with his signature, urging that “in cases such as this, special consideration can be given to the families for humanitarian reasons.”

Unlike members of Congress who inquired about the facts, Carter blindly accepted at face value the daughter’s self-serving (and disingenuous) assertions.

Here is Carter's note supporting the case of a known Nazi war criminal.

Carter took the side of a family of a Nazi against his own government. And he couched it in "humanitarian" terms.

Maybe, maybe one could excuse one or two of these examples in isolation. But in the aggregate, there is no denying it: Jimmy Carter is an antisemite, and anyone who doesn't think that this detracts from his humanitarian work is condoning world's oldest hate.

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!

Two can play the Neturei Karta game

Anti-Zionists like the extremist, fringe Neturei Karta sect because they share the ir desire to destroy Israel and the embrace terrorists. But the real reason they love them is because they use them as evidence that they are not antisemitic - after all, they like some Jews!

It's a stupid game, but it is one that both sides can play.

From Times of Israel:

Police on Thursday said officers arrested a man who entered the Jenin refugee camp in the northern West Bank earlier this week along with two other members of the fringe anti-Zionist, ultra-Orthodox sect Neturei Karta, and met with Palestinians from local terror groups.

Elhanan Lax, 38, from the central city of Petah Tikva, was detained on suspicion of “supporting and associating with a terror group” and illegally entering Area A of the West Bank, where Jenin is located. Israeli citizens are barred from entering Area A, as it is under the Palestinian Authority’s civilian and security control under the Oslo Accords.

The three men were filmed meeting with prominent Palestinian Islamic Jihad terror group officials as well as families of terrorist attackers on Monday.

Police said they are seeking to arrest the other two men. The trio could face lengthy prison spells if convicted of supporting terror.

Hold on - I thought that Israel was all about Jewish supremacy! About anti-Palestinian racism! How could Israel arrest fellow Jews, and threaten them with long prison terms, when they only treat Palestinians that way?

Moreover, how could Israel ban Jews from Area A? Arab Israelis can, and do, go to Palestinian controlled areas all the time. Isn't that the exact opposite of Jewish supremacy?

By the logic of the anti-Israel crowd themselves, Israel cannot be racist - just as the Israel haters use the NK idiots as proof that they cannot be antisemitic.

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!

Amnesty, HRW, the UN or David Duke? You decide

This text is from white supremacist David Duke's 2003 book, "Jewish Supremacy."

This looks virtually the same as reports from Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and the UN over the past year.

Same evidence, same methodology, same reference to international conventions.

So is David Duke suddenly a human rights expert? Or does the fact that all of them will cherry pick facts that make Israel (and Jews) look like criminals, and ignore all counterevidence, indicate that all of them are really antisemites?

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!

10/31 Links Pt2: Indoctrinating schoolchildren to hate Israel and Jews; Far-left MK: Kiryat Arba shooter not a terrorist, settlers aren’t innocent civilians

From Ian:

Head-Scratching Questions about Jews and Israel

Writing a weekly column isn’t for the faint of heart or the perpetually bored. Sometimes, I tire of attempting to write heartfelt words and reflections week after week. Therefore, I’ve devoted this week’s column to asking readers 25 head-scratching questions about Jews, Israel and that harmoniously peaceful corner of the world known as the Middle East:

1. If Jews control the media, why does the media generally depict Israel in such a harsh and even untruthful manner, and in the same vein, if Jews control the world, why isn’t the world more sympathetic toward Jews?

2. If Jews are white, why do the Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacist groups chant “White Power” while demanding their demise, and if Jews aren’t white, why are they excluded from progressive groups that vow to protect non-whites?

3. Why do Jew-haters get to keep their jobs, but those who espouse prejudiced views toward other groups are canceled? Case in point: Why has it taken more than two weeks for Adidas to drop Kanye West? (Thanks to Balenciaga, though).

4. Given that the regime in Iran is currently butchering protestors, including young girls, why have Iranian diplomats still not been expelled from any Western countries, with the exception of one (see below)?

5. Why did Iran conduct a major cyberattack against Albanian government websites (yes, Albania) last month, resulting in the expulsion of diplomats from the Iranian embassy (and can the rest of Europe take a cue from Albania)?

6. Why did the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) just ask the Supreme Court to overturn Arkansas’ anti-boycott (BDS) law against Israel, citing concern for Palestinians’ rights, but the organization hasn’t uttered a single word about Iranians dying to protect the civil liberties of their fellow citizens?

Indoctrinating schoolchildren to hate Israel and Jews

The cognitive war against Israel has been pursued on college campuses for well over a decade. It has persuaded many to view the Jewish state as a racist, colonial oppressor of an innocent indigenous people and an illegal regime that exists on land stolen from Palestinians. Now, these slanders, lies and distortions are being injected into younger and even more impressionable minds: those of schoolchildren.

A recent example of this was the Newark, New Jersey school board’s decision to include an anti-Israel book on its mandatory reading list. The book, A Little Piece of Ground by Elizabeth Laird, found its way into the sixth-grade English curriculum for the 2022-2023 school year. According to its description on Amazon, it “explores the human cost of the occupation of Palestinian lands through the eyes of a young boy.”

The book depicts Israelis as an evil force that constrains the life of the young protagonist in a capricious and cruel way. Karim, the 12-year-old protagonist, complains that his father is “humiliated” by the Israeli checkpoints, but young readers are not told that such checkpoints exist because Israeli citizens have suffered decades of terror attacks.

Israelis are portrayed throughout the book as an inhuman military machine. “The Israeli tank that had been squatting at the crossroads just below the apartment block for days now had moved a few meters closer,” the reader is told. “He could imagine the great armored machines lying down there, like a row of green scaly monsters, crouched waiting to crawl back up the hill and pin the people of Ramallah down in their houses again.”

Some Israelis are literally rather than metaphorically dehumanized. “Human?” Karim says at one point. “You call those settlers human?”

A spokesperson for the Newark school district tried to justify the inclusion of the book by claiming that it “elevates historically marginalized voices, strengthens and sustains a focus on the instructional core and provides opportunities to learn about perspectives beyond one’s own scope”.

In a letter to Newark’s superintendent of schools, Morton Klein and Susan Tuchman of the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) pointed out that the book will manufacture a false and negative image of Israel and Jews in the minds of students. They said the author was “clever, repeatedly sending the false and outrageous message to her young readers that Israelis are heartless and cruel, that their goal is to humiliate Palestinian Arabs and make their lives a misery, and that Jews are stealing other people’s land.”

Far-left MK: Kiryat Arba shooter not a terrorist, settlers aren’t innocent civilians

Hadash-Ta’al MK Ofer Cassif said Monday that he did not consider the Palestinian gunman who killed Ronen Hanania in a shooting attack near the West Bank settlement of Kiryat Araba on Saturday to be a terrorist.

In an interview with the Ynet news site, Cassif was asked if he considered settlers killed in West Bank attacks to be victims of terror, with Hanania given as an example.

Cassif, the alliance’s only Jewish MK, said he did not.

“Don’t portray him as a simple man,” he said of Hanania.

“Especially those that live as a thorn in the side [of the Palestinians], they can’t be considered innocent civilians,” Cassif said.

“Myself and my friends in Hadash have for years said that we support a nonviolent struggle, but that’s what happens in every place where there is occupation and repression — those who expect the occupied and repressed to just sit and do nothing are lying to themselves,” the lawmaker added.

Hanania and his son Daniel were shot Saturday evening while visiting a convenience store located between Kiryat Arba and the adjacent city of Hebron.

The attacker was identified as Muhammed Kamel al-Jabari, an apparent member of the Hamas terror group. After shooting Hanania and his son, Jabari opened fire on medics and settlement security guards who arrived at the scene to help the pair, seriously wounding a paramedic.

English speakers trying to figure out how to vote in the Knesset elections, and why these elections are important, please watch the video that @AviAbelow and I did this morning where we lay it out.https://t.co/r15jnLjzyV
— Caroline Glick (@CarolineGlick) October 31, 2022

This is a lie. All Israeli citizens, Arabs, Jews, Druze, Armenians, Christians, Muslims, Jewish people, however one identify or whatever religion one is, can vote. #Israel https://t.co/PzGBCnBsXk
— ?? Shai De Luca ?? ????? (@ShaiDeLuca) October 30, 2022

When Scholars and Jewish Leaders Criticize Israel (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

Last week, a piece "In Defense of Hamas" appeared in The Amherst Contra, an anonymous student publication at Amherst College. The article whitewashes the terrorist group as "the perennial bogeyman" and defends it against being "consistently portrayed as a terrorist organization". There really is not much more to say about it -- or The Amherst Contra itself, which prides itself on publishing "unpopular opinions," starting this year with "Would We Be Better Off Without Democracy?" But it is an example of the ease with which Israel is condemned on campus.

Unlike that anonymous article, last year, following the outbreak of fighting between Israel and Hamas in May 2021, a letter was circulated with the signatures of rabbinical and cantoral students, decrying the situation in Israel, and blaming Israel:

What will it take for us to see that our Israel has the military and controls the borders? How many Palestinians must lose their homes, their schools, their lives, for us to understand that today, in 2021, Israel’s choices come from a place of power and that Israel’s actions constitute an intentional removal of Palestinians?

These students inform us: "we are future leaders of the Jewish community" -- though that may not be the way most Jews view cantors. For that matter, not every rabbinical student is a future leader of "the Jewish community."

Be that as it may, there is no indication of what grasp, if any, these students have of the full situation in Israel. But even putting aside the question of the depth of their understanding of current events in Israel and of the history -- issues arguably outside their areas of expertise -- there are also the areas that are supposed to be their area of expertise.

Rabbi Bradley Shavit Artson, dean of the Ziegler School of Rabbinic Studies at the American Jewish University in Los Angeles, notes a lack of what one would have expected to find in a letter by rabbinical students and future Jewish leaders:

There wasn’t a word about Ahavat Yisrael – a love and solidarity with our fellow Jews in Israel, with the right of the Jewish people to self-determination in our own homeland, to the very real sacrifices this experiment in Jewish national self-expression has imposed from its inception.

But this vacuum goes beyond Jewish students.

There was also a letter from scholars in Jewish and Israeli studies in response to last year's conflict who condemned Zionism as being

shaped by settler colonial paradigms that saw land settlement as a virtuous means of solving political, economic, or cultural problems, as well as modern European Enlightenment discourses that assumed a hierarchy of civilizations and adopted the premise that technological progress and development of an ‘underdeveloped’ territory would be an unqualified good. [emphasis added]

While they follow this with a passing reference to "the challenges and limitations of applying a settler colonial paradigm to the Zionist case, the unique historical Jewish connection to and presence in the Land of Israel," that does not stop these scholars from accusing Israel of "unsustainable systems of Jewish supremacy."

Jewish supremacy?

No mention of the ongoing integration of Israeli Arabs in the Israeli military, government and Israeli society in general.

They conclude their letter with the obligatory

commitment to upholding student and faculty free speech and academic freedom. [emphasis added]

by which they mean a commitment to non-violent protests and boycotts at a time when pro-Israel free speech on campus by students and professors can be dangerous both to one's person and profession.

Both the rabbinical students and these Jewish and Israeli scholars proclaim their Jewishness while attacking Israel, all while at the same time lacking Jewish empathy with Israel.

In his article The Demise of Jewish Studies in America—and the Rise of Jewish Studies in Israel, Joshua M. Karlip writes about how "American Jewish studies, like American Jewry itself, is fast becoming de-Judaized." Karlip is a professor of Jewish history at YU. He sees this rejection of Jewish particularity as a major contributing factor behind these attacks by Jewish scholars on Israel. Whereas in the past, Europe demanded a "disavowal of Jewish national particularism" in exchange for acceptance, today's academic community demands "the de-Judaization" of their scholarship.

Karlip claims that part of the problem is that these scholars lack depth in their Jewish background:

Their own often scant Jewish knowledge has abetted this process. With up to 80 percent of contemporary American Jewish scholars not able to read Hebrew sources fluently, is it any wonder that they have adopted the progressive left’s rejection of Zionism and Israel as a “settler colonialism” that displaced “indigenous populations”? If they had bothered to master Hebrew, perhaps they would have studied the Jews who prayed three times a day for the return to Zion rather than the acculturated elites who sought home in Russia, Poland, Germany, and France.

What they are missing, he writes, is what makes it possible for Jews from Morocco, Yemen, Ethiopia and Russia to make aliyah and bond together with an Israeli identity, which is "more than a 'constructed,' 'invented' identity."

Without that consciousness of our own nativeness in the Holy Land, of a people exiled and yearning to return home, the national culture, language, and civil society of Israel would not exist, let alone thrive, today.

Writing in May 2021, Ruth Wisse gives another example of Jewish scholars who de-Judaize in their scholarship, in this case seeing Jewish self-perpetuation and continuity as nothing more than an exercise in corrupt male power. She quotes from The History and Sexual Politics of an American Jewish Communal Project to illustrate her point:

A Jewish continuity paradigm emerged forcefully in the 1970s as a set of expert pronouncements and community policies that treated women and their bodies as data points in service of a particular vision of Jewish communal survival...Condemning intermarriage and decrying low child-bearing rates became signature features of the affective work of Jewish communal research. [emphasis added]

As Wisse describes this approach, "every sensible Jewish communal initiative to encourage Jewish marriage, family, and education as the sustaining features of Diaspora survival is defined as a suspect tool of indoctrination."

Again, Jewish particularity is rejected with a total apathy for the richness of Jewish life, history and culture.

But what are we supposed to make of this "free speech" and "academic freedom" that the scholars above claim to support in the context of their condemnation of Israel and its alleged crimes? Is academic freedom just a variety of free speech for scholars?

According to an article this year in The New Republic, academic freedom not only covers research and teaching, but also statements that scholars make outside of that ("extramural utterances") -- for instance on social media.

The point is that academic freedom of expression is an extension of their recognized expertise and competence in their field, which is why what they outside of academia -- what they say publicly -- gets respect. But by the same token, shouldn't they be held responsible when they go off the rails?

For instance:

the AAUP (American Association of University Professors) has consistently held that faculty should not be fired for extramural speech unless that speech calls into question a professor’s fitness to serve. Ordinarily, that speech has to bear directly on the faculty member’s field of study. The idea is that a historian who is a Holocaust denier is obviously unfit, whereas an electrical engineer who is a Holocaust denier is just a crank. This position makes perfect sense, though few people realize that it entails the unsettling corollary that professors enjoy greater protection for extramural speech when they have no idea what they’re talking about than for speech within the areas of their research and teaching. (emphasis added)

And academics who talk and write outside of their field of expertise -- and say outrageous things, are not all that hard to find.

One example of this is Joy Karega:

Karega was a professor of rhetoric and composition who promoted a panoply of antisemitic conspiracy theories, including the claims that ISIS is a CIA/Mossad front and that the 2015 Islamist attack on the Paris offices of Charlie Hebdo was in fact a false flag operation conducted by Israel. Both were rightly determined to be in the ballpark of Holocaust-denying historians.

Sure enough, Oberlin College originally defended Karega on free speech grounds, and only months later finally fired her.

But what about less blatant examples of academics going outside their area of expertise?

Phyllis Chesler wrote last year about how Academics Use Propaganda, Not Expertise, to Bash Israel. She describes an open letter by Palestinian Feminist Collective, claiming that "once again, Palestinians from the far north to the far south of our homeland are defying settler colonialism's attempts to partition the land and the people." Academic feminists enthusiastically joined in with a statement that ignored both facts and context. Chesler writes:

Subsequently, academic feminists, issued a statement "In Solidarity With Palestinian Feminist Collective," which links to non-scholarly boilerplate propaganda, none of which is concerned with the Islamic gender apartheid that afflicts Arab Palestinian women in Israel, Gaza, and on the West Bank. They focus on "evictions in East Jerusalem" without understanding the history, legality, or nature of this dispute.

...The gender studies people link to facts about the "humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip," which fail to acknowledge that Israel left Gaza in 2005. Whatever the situation there may be, it is due to Hamas's greed, corruption, and terrorist goals.

Dear God: How is it possible to claim that "Palestine is a feminist issue," which they do, without even mentioning forced child marriage, forced veiling, and honor killing – which are indigenous customs – not caused by the alleged Israeli occupation?

Chesler describes how she took a random sample of 1 professor at 10 gender, women's studies and sexuality departments and found only one professor who even addressed the issue of honor killing -- and even then, only to attack Trump and Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

But none of these randomly chosen 10 have an advanced degree in the history and nature of the Middle East, the Arab World, Islam, Judaism, or Israel. None are teaching courses in such areas as experts. They are merely using their expert credentials to support propaganda. [emphasis added]

But spreading propaganda in the guise of academic scholarship is not limited to feminist academics. Chesler points to "Palestine and Praxis: Scholars for Palestinian Freedom," an open letter featuring 70 pages of signatories with about 45 names on each page. The signers claim to be "scholars" who identify with "the Palestinian struggle as an indigenous liberation movement confronting a settler colonial state." These "scholars" call for "boycott campaigns – and to anti-Israel campus activism and to "pressure (their) government to end funding Israeli military aggression."

But...

Guess what? Only 11 of the first 450 signatories teach in Middle East, Palestine, and Arabic Studies.

Both the feminist academics and the "scholars" are recycling Palestinian Islamist propaganda and trying to pass it off as scholarly opinion. Do not fall for it. [emphasis added]

This is not just an issue of academics and scholars going outside of their areas of expertise. There is an issue of a lack of objectivity and the pursuit of personal agendas. As Menachem Kellner, who teaches philosophy and Jewish thought at Shalem College writes, the concept of academic freedom is being abused:

the concept of “academic freedom” is meant to enable academics to research and teach evidence-based truths in the fields in which they are competent. It is not meant to protect academics who introduce their personal politics into their research and teaching in order to browbeat their students and foment an atmosphere of prejudice and hate designed to silence rational inquiry.

Such academics share responsibility for the atmosphere of fear that Jewish students suffer on college campuses.

Jews have all kinds of opinions about Israel, and are certainly free to express them -- so does anyone else for that matter. But the fact that someone is Jewish doesn't mean he knows what he is talking about. Jewish scholars are free to condemn Israel, but in turn, we are free to question their motives and agenda, and even whether they really have the expertise to back up what they claim. The same applies to any scholar who signs on to a condemnation of Israel -- we can question what agenda they or their group is pursuing.

And we should.

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 small example of how academic Jewish studies has been taken over by anti-Zionist politics

Recently, Joshua Karlip wrote in Commentary about how Jewish studies in American academia have been taken over by a wokeism that marginalizes and denigrates Jews:

In December 2020, I participated in a Zoom panel at the annual Association for Jewish Studies Conference that discussed the state of the field of Jewish historiography over the past two decades. One participant noted that the first two decades of the 21st century have witnessed a rise in studies of the history of anti-Jewish violence. In response, I offered what I considered an innocuous explanation. Over the past two decades, I suggested, Jews have experienced an alarming rise in violent attacks. Between 2000 and 2005, the second intifada targeted the Jewish civilian population of Israel, leaving nearly 1,000 dead. Here in America, we have witnessed synagogue shootings in Pittsburgh and Poway, as well as a steady stream of attacks, some deadly, on Jews who “look” like Jews—Orthodox men.

This explanation did not sit well with a senior scholar in the audience. “What you said was exceedingly Jewishly focused,” she lectured me. She then went on to “enlighten” me that those who attack Jews are not primarily targeting Jews. Rather, the true targets of their hatred are African Americans. These hatemongers simply are angry at American Jews for promoting African-American rights. She ended her disquisition with a challenge. If I were really serious about fighting anti-Semitism, she told me, I would openly ally myself with Black Lives Matter.

His article is specifically about his field, Jewish historiography, but we've seen similar absurdities in other Jewish studies fields, as in an article last year in Religion Dispatches that accused anyone who wants to see Judaism survive of being racist.

Or when 200 Jewish Studies academics last year signed a petition condemning Israel for defending itself from Hamas rockets and saying that Israel was engaged in "Jewish supremacy."

Or even recently, when the Association for Jewish Studies decided to stop accepting ads from Tablet magazine, because some members objected to some of Tablet's articles. The critics aren't even slightly ashamed at preferring woke politics over free speech, noting that "much of the magazine’s content is focused on decrying liberal 'wokeness'" - clearly a major crime in today's Jewish Studies cliques.

I saw a small example last week, when I tweeted, "If Jews rejoicing during their holiday upsets you, you just may be an antisemite."

If Jews rejoicing during their holiday upsets you, you just may be an antisemite. https://t.co/xAjJUmYR0b
— Elder of Ziyon 🇮🇱 (@elderofziyon) October 19, 2022

Zachary Braiterman, professor of Jewish Thought and Culture at Syracuse University, responded, "it's a show of force and deliberate provocation of Palestinians living in the Old City."

This struck me as bizarre, since the video showed no indication of any deliberate provocation. Arabs pass by the singing Jews without harm. The song being sung has nothing offensive. the dancing Jews looked exactly like dancing Jews going outside their shuls on Simchat Torah worldwide.

The conversation went like this:

EoZ: You are a professor of Jewish culture and you never heard of Jews dancing on Simchat Torah outside their synagogues???

ZB: i know what a rightwing show of force by radical rightwing religious nationalists in Israel looks like

EoZ: Funny, because it looks exactly like a Simchat Torah celebration in Teaneck or Boca to me.
Please, let us ordinary people know exactly what you see in this video that shows you are right. The song? The color of the Torahs?
I await your expertise.

ZB: because the intention is a show of force over against Palestinian people under Israeli control

EoZ: No flags. No insults. No slogans. The Arabs can pass by without issue. No incitement. They are doing in the Old City exactly what Jews did everywhere else. If you think they do not have the right to do in Jerusalem what Jews do in America, that says something about you, not them.

ZB: you are omitting the entire political context of a military occupation and threats of dispossession in E. Jerusalem

EoZ: So according to you, Jews have the right to dance outside on Simchat Torah everywhere in the world - except for Jerusalem's Old City. Even if they have NOTHING to do with Ben Gvir.
Do I have that right?

ZB: why not at the Kotel?

EoZ: Why not outside where they pray?

Braiterman insisted, three times, that the video showed Jews deliberately provoking Arabs, yet never offered any evidence outside the pompous "I know it when I see it."

In short, he sees religious Jews dancing and he assumes that they are bigots. He cannot even imagine that Jews dancing outside in Jerusalem are celebrating the holiday the way Jews do worldwide, and nothing more.

He then attempted to claim that Jews who quietly visit the Temple Mount are also deliberately provoking Arabs: "the religious zionists regularly do not respect Arab residents of Jerusalem or the sanctity of Har Ha'Bayit." I responded that this was absurd, they show far more respect for the Temple Mount than Muslims do. But he has a consistent position - when Jews show a love of Jerusalem's holy places, he assumes that they are really trying to attack Muslims and Arabs.

Braiterman throws all religious Zionist Jews into one bucket, pretending that they are all racists, all fans of Itamar Ben Gvir, all support attacking Arabs for no reason.

Stereotyping isn't sober analysis. It is bigotry.

I've prayed on the Temple Mount and would happily have joined the Simchat Torah dancing, and I am no fan of Itamar Ben Gvir. An Israeli friend told me "my guess would be that not only is it true that most religious Zionists oppose [Ben Gvir], but also most of his supporters are not religious Zionists."

The professor is not an antisemite. No one who spends two years writing a post on the Sefat Emet would be. But throwing all religious Zionists in the same racist bucket is, in a small way, just as bigoted as throwing all Jews into the same bucket.

Jewish studies is in deep trouble.

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!

Studies prove that facts don't matter: how propaganda takes advantage of psychology and normalizes antisemitism

I came across this 2021 study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by Kubin et al: "Personal experiences bridge moral and political divides better than facts."

People believe that facts are essential for earning the respect of political adversaries, but our research shows that this belief is wrong. We find that sharing personal experiences about a political issue—especially experiences involving harm—help to foster respect via increased perceptions of rationality. This research provides a straightforward pathway for increasing moral understanding and decreasing political intolerance. ....In moral and political disagreements, everyday people treat subjective experiences as truer than objective facts.

The paper makes the assumption of goodwill; if you want to convince someone of the truth of your position, enhance your facts with personal experience. The authors suggest that narratives can increase political tolerance.

But it doesn't consider how malicious people weaponize this knowledge in order to lead people away from the facts to begin with - and how propagandists can use this to increase intolerance.

A commentary on the paper in PNAS does touch on this:

The power that story has over facts to capture the imagination and create respect for an individual’s position is easily exploited. ...Narratives are easily weaponized by propagandists and other bad actors. From this perspective, Kubin et al. may not have uncovered a feature in human discourse that might bridge moral divides but rather a bug that could be easily exploited. While presenting facts garners more respect than claims with no backing at all, these studies still find that narratives beat out facts in creating a greater perception of rationality and even perceived truth. Yet, a position backed by one personal anecdote is no more objectively true than one backed by no anecdote or facts at all. More crucially, a position backed by a personal narrative is not more true than a position backed by facts.

While both narratives and facts can be cherry-picked to support a position, personal narratives, as the authors point out, are unimpugnable. A conclusion drawn from facts, on the other hand, can be disputed and disproven and, thus, science and society should prefer fact-based positions. Yet, when it comes to respect, feelings are prioritized over facts. As these studies show, what is true gains less respect than what one might feel to be true.

Are we to get into a battle of cherry-picked narratives of harm to promote our policy positions, amplified by social media and the ease with which these narratives can spread? How can such narratives be combated? The counter to a story of harm is, by definition, a story of lack of harm (e.g., a vaccine that reduces future infection). However, the larger problem is that the real counternarrative for any anecdotal evidence is found in the data (e.g., a peer-reviewed paper showing the benefits of vaccination for the treatment condition). As such, a troublesome implication of this work is that a false personal story will have more power to create respect than facts, including those facts that would serve to correct the narrative.

This is accurate - but it doesn't go far enough, either.

If narratives are more effective than facts, and personal narratives about being harmed are most effective of all (because no one wants to impugn a personal story about how someone was harmed,) then over time the cumulative narratives of alleged harm by a specific certain group will create hate for that group.

The original study hoped that using personal narratives would increase tolerance. It didn't anticipate that large groups were already weaponizing that as a propaganda method that increases intolerance - towards Jews. Because the Palestinian propaganda machine promotes antisemitism with a torrent of stories about humiliation at the hands of the Jews.

When a Palestinian goes through a Jordanian checkpoint, they are angry and upset. But when they go through an Israeli checkpoint, even though they are treated with more respect, they claim they are humiliated - because they resent Jews on what they consider their land to begin with. So the only stories the world hears are those of humiliation, whether true or not. And over time the followers of that topic start to believe that Jews are deliberately humiliating Palestinians, because that is what the Palestinian stories say.

NGOs also weaponize this propaganda tool against Israel. Amnesty and Human Rights Watch reports against Israel are far more detailed and longer than those on other countries. I once did a comparison between two Amnesty reports released around the same time:

Amnesty reports	Israel/WB	Syria/Yarmouk
Title of report	Trigger-happy	Squeezing the life out of Yarmouk
Number of pages in the report	87	39
Number of civilians killed according to Amnesty	22	194
Time period covered	12 months	8 months
Circumstances of their deaths	Mostly while participating in or near violent acts	Starvation, sniper fire, bombings
Number of extensive personal stories given for victims	At least 18, some three pages long	Zero
Number of photos of victims (dead and injured)	At least 14	Zero
Video produced to support report?	Yes, 4 minutes	No
Placement on Amnesty webpage	Linked from front page two weeks after report issued	On front page only the day it was released

Palestinians are humanized and their stories are told. Those stories are detailed and centered on showing how they were harmed and at creating empathy for them.

Meanwhile, to Amnesty, Syrian victims are just statistics.

Along with the empathy for the subjects of heart-rending stories comes anger at the victimizers. This is especially true when the storytellers themselves are angry at their supposed tormentors. Just as the audience wants to identify with the victim, they want to share in the anger the victim has towards those they blame for their pain.

So it is no surprise that the Western narrative about Israel, over time, has become more explicitly antisemitic. These same NGOs are now completely at ease in claiming that Israel has a policy of "Jewish supremacy," meant to evoke white supremacy, one of the most evil crimes possible. Singling out Israel as the only current state practicing (a made up definition of) apartheid is another example of normalizing antisemitism in the name of supporting the victims of Jewish greed. Gaza children are only victims of Israeli war crimes; their being cynically used as human shields by terrorists who were the target of the bomb is not mentioned.

The decades of favoring narrative over facts has created conditions ripe for increased Jew-hatred.

Also, in this world where narratives are favored over facts, there is little penalty for lying. After all, the victims are describing the facts as they claim that they experienced them, and arguing with that is considered to be adding to their victimhood.

One of Israel's reasons for existence is so that Jews will no longer be hapless victims of a world that doesn't care about them. Israel has helped achieve that goal - so now Jews are at a permanent disadvantage in the discourse about which side is in the right exactly because we can no longer claim the same degree of victimhood. And victimhood is the coin of the realm.

There is no defense. Ben Shapiro's famous quote "facts don't care about your feelings" may be true, but facts cannot argue with feelings, either. People want to empathize with and support the real or imagined victims.

Israel's success at protecting Jews is itself its unforgivable crime, and the Israel-haters are using that success as a reason to try to destroy it.

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!