Showing posts with label Linkdump. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Linkdump. Show all posts

Friday, August 15, 2025

08/15 Links Pt2: Olive tree in France planted in memory of Ilan Halimi chopped down; The Madonna of Gaza; Three Israeli universities ranked in global top 100

From Ian:

Melanie Phillips: The Madonna of Gaza
What church leaders are saying about Gaza has enormous influence, even in post-religious circles. Their message that Israel is a cruel force oppressing the wretched of the earth plays directly into the West’s Christian conscience, even among people who are not believers.

This is wrapped up further with the church’s ineradicable ambivalence toward Jews, which reflects Western society’s own deep-seated antisemitism.

The Islamists, who understand the West better than it understands itself, have grasped the centrality of Christianity to the West, as well as its profound Jew-hatred, and realize that they can manipulate this to their advantage.

That’s why the now-notorious picture of the skeletal Gazan child, prominently displayed in The New York Times and countless other media outlets around the world as allegedly dying of starvation, packed the punch it did. It wasn’t merely that it was a dreadfully distressing picture of a dying child. It was that it was posed to call irresistibly to mind the original Madonna, the mother of Jesus, cradling him in her arms.

This image has been repeated countless times in paintings and sculptures. It is burned into the Western consciousness not only as an iconic image of Christianity but one that identifies that faith with love and compassion for the vulnerable and innocent, represented by the baby in his veiled mother’s arms.

The carefully staged photograph of the veiled Gaza mother holding the skeletal child was thus a diabolical masterpiece of manipulation and deceit.

Not only was the child emaciated, but suffering from cerebral palsy, not from starvation. By inciting horror and revulsion at the Israelis for apparently provoking the suffering of a Gazan Madonna and child, the picture also replaced Jews with Muslim Arabs in the iconography of Christianity.

It thus manipulated some of the deepest feelings in the emotional range of the Western world to embrace an evil lie.

The propaganda war is all about playing on emotion. That’s why these mendacious claims are impervious to facts and evidence.

Christians are among the staunchest supporters of Israel, particularly in America. But many, especially in the progressive Protestant churches, are its enemy.

Even the support of American Christians is eroding, particularly among the young, under an onslaught of secularization and the unprecedented global propaganda war that’s manipulating the Western public into believing that evil is good and goodness is evil.

Their minds have been twisted into believing the big lie that the Israelis, who are defending themselves against an Islamic holy war of extermination, are themselves guilty of the very things of which they are, in fact, the victims.

It is a godless lie. And the Vatican’s support for it is a moral stain spreading backwards into its terrible history with the Jews.
Jake Wallis Simons: This is how Leftist Israelophobia morphs into unabashed anti-Semitism
When Horst Mahler, lawyer, terrorist and anti-Semite, died last month at the age of 89, that nemesis of Germany had become little more than a deranged demagogue who had lost a leg to diabetes and was fatigued by years in prison.

Such is the derangement of the times, however, that Mahler – a member of the notorious hard-Left Baader-Meinhof gang who later converted to neo-Nazism – is more relevant in death than he ever was in life.

With sensible politics around the world challenged by anti-Western fervour, this is increasingly Mahler’s moment. Across the political extremes, his hallmarks are familiar today: conspiratorial thinking; a pathological hatred for the United States, the West and all our old certainties; a cleaving to utopian radicalism; and a loathing for both Israel and the Jews.

Since October 7, this omnidogma has accelerated its advance, reaching for influence in our schools, universities, throughout the arts and media, in our formerly great northern towns and cities, on the streets, in the digital universe and through the benighted corridors of Lanyardistan.

It reached a bloody nadir in Washington DC last May, when two young Israeli diplomats were gunned down in the name of “Palestine”, and in the firebombing of elderly Jews in Colorado by an Egyptian national a few weeks later. In Britain, it has prompted death chants at Glastonbury and the sabotage of RAF aircraft by the bourgeois radicals of Palestine Action, not to mention relentless street unrest. But its spirit has also inspired the far-Right, with figures like the American firebrand Tucker Carlson and European insurgent parties Alternative für Deutschland and Rassemblement National indulging an animosity towards Israel, fondness for the erstwhile Assad regime and adoration for Vladimir Putin.

Anything, in other words, that hurts us.
Rayner ignored complaints about Islamophobia adviser’s ‘anti-Semitic’ tweets
Angela Rayner ignored complaints about allegedly anti-Semitic posts written by a peer advising ministers on the definition of Islamophobia, The Telegraph can reveal.

Baroness Gohir, one of five figures appointed to the working group on defining anti-Muslim hatred in February, previously claimed that Israel “controls” the US in several social media posts.

In April, the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism (CAA) wrote to the Deputy Prime Minister, whose department is responsible for drawing up the definition of Islamophobia, alerting her to the comments.

It quoted five tweets written from 2013 and 2014, which were public until at least 2022 but have since been deleted, that it claimed met the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism.

In September 2013, when the US was considering whether to conduct military action against Bashar al-Assad, the then Syrian president, Lady Gohir said: “Will Israel influence the US vote on whether to invade Syria? Are the Americans really in control of their own decisions? #JustAsking.”

A week later, she tweeted: “Who controls America’s foreign policy? ISRAEL – they would be the ONLY beneficiaries of a US attack on Syria.”

The following year, she shared a news article about comments made by Barack Obama issuing a warning to Benjamin Netanyahu over him not agreeing to a peace deal with Gaza.

She wrote: “US warns Israel over Palestine talks failure. I bet Israel are quaking in their boots – NOT! Don’t they control US?”

Also in 2014, Lady Gohir said: “The hold Israel has over world leaders, including Muslim ones, is extraordinary that they continue to murder Palestinians and get away with it.”

08/15 Links Pt1: Whistleblower alleges misconduct by United Nations in Gaza; Gaza Disengagement’s Overlooked Villain; The TRUTH About Hamas, Mahmoud Khalil, and the Palestinian Deception

From Ian:

Whistleblower alleges misconduct by United Nations in Gaza
An international aid worker operating in Gaza has filed a formal whistleblower complaint to the Inspector General of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), alleging "gross misconduct and misuse of humanitarian funds by the World Food Programme and other U.N. Agencies," according to a copy of the complaint obtained by Fox News Digital.

Details of alleged United Nations interference in the delivery of aid to Gazans have been revealed by the whistleblower who was in Gaza in July. The whistleblower confirmed to Fox News Digital the content of the complaint.

The whistleblower’s complaint claims "A firsthand eyewitnessing of senior Israel Defense Forces (IDF) officials offering any support necessary, including security protection and coordination, to representatives from the World Food Programme (WFP) and the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) only to have WFP and OCHA respond that they were not prepared to discuss such coordination."

According to the whistleblower complaint, this "raises serious questions as to why WFP and OCHA were unprepared to discuss or accept the assistance offered by the IDF, thereby preventing aid from getting to the people of Gaza."

The whistleblower confirmed to Fox News Digital during an interview the allegations outlined in the complaint. The whistleblower said in the complaint that "the IDF is actively helping the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) get food into the hands of civilians while U.N. agencies, including WFP and OCHA, through their unwillingness to coordinate with the IDF, are inhibiting the distribution of such aid."

The whistleblower continued, "As has been recently shown through openly available imagery, the IDF has provided clearance for thousands of tons of U.N. humanitarian goods that are now sitting inside of Gaza, awaiting distribution. The U.N. must be held accountable to pick up and distribute such aid. I urge you to launch an independent investigation into this matter to determine the extent to which U.N. agencies, by refusing to coordinate with the IDF on essential issues, including security, are abusing U.S. taxpayer funds rather than using them to deliver the aid the American people are donating – and whether such actions are being taken independently by U.N. officials in Gaza or at the direction of the U.N. Secretary General or other senior U.N. officials in New York. "

The GHF, with support from the U.S. and Israel, has distributed 127 million meals to Gazans since May. However, its aid distribution system has been under consistent attack from Hamas and from some unlikely quarters — the world's leading aid groups.

The whistleblower told Fox News Digital "There is a concerted effort to discredit GHF and any attempts to provide aid out of [the] U.N."

A senior U.S. State Department official sent Fox News Digital a lengthy response. The official said, "The fact of the matter remains that GHF is a threat to how Hamas functions and enriches itself because GHF provides meals to those in need with safeguards to minimize Hamas from stealing. This is why Hamas continues to attack GHF aid sites."
Seth Mandel: A Plea for Sanity
Regarding the aid sites themselves, Starr’s essay is well worth reading in full. Soldiers trained for warfare had to adapt to policing strategies with enemy forces, in civilian clothing, still hunting them. The IDF suddenly had a mission of preventing humanitarian disaster while also defeating Hamas, which meant not letting Hamas get hold of the aid that they were simultaneously trying to provide civilians. Nevertheless, Starr writes, “The stories told by some of the more malicious news outlets about Palestinians being shot while peacefully queuing are ludicrous not only because live-fire warning shots were only employed on the extremely rare occasion that Gazans in the aid site yard deviated toward the closed military zone that was out of their way, but also because I never once saw anything resembling a line or queue.”

Instead, “the sites are controlled chaos, with Palestinian aid seekers constantly seeking to overrun the compound, save for the intervention of armed security contractors.” Those contractors would “use stun grenades to warn off belligerent men who attempt to enter the site in situations like when there are special distributions for women or children. Palestinian aid workers have also used mace to repel aid seekers who refused to leave the site.”

Because some items were more valuable on the market than others, Palestinians would set up literal trading posts off to the side of the distribution site. At the end of the day, Gazans were told to stay behind specific concrete roadside barriers to prevent the area from being overrun day and night. Still, many secretly dug trenches in the area and tried to sleep there. There was violence and theft between aid recipients, and a general atmosphere of fear and panic induced partly by Hamas’s threats against the aid seekers and the proliferating stories about the chaos.

Terrorists did mix in among the aid seekers: Starr recalls one throwing a grenade, another stabbing a soldier. At all times, the possibility of a stampede loomed; a crowd crush could kill and injure aid seekers and perhaps even overrun the security around the site. Soldiers used warning shots, which does hold some risk—but so does not firing any warning shots in many of the situations.

“Yet despite all the problems,” Starr writes, “people were getting fed by the SDS sites, and they appreciated it.” Some “Gazan aid seekers were waving, blowing kisses, and performing heart signs with their hands as they left. People in a ‘killing field’ wouldn’t act like that.”

It turns out well-meaning people are doing their best, which is still imperfect. Human, you might say. The narrative one hears from the Western press is far from the reality. A hearty dose of sanity would do everyone some good—and get more Gazans fed, too.
Seth Mandel: Gaza Disengagement’s Overlooked Villain
A new working paper by the cognitive scientist Netta Barak-Corren of Hebrew University sheds some light on this topic, though it isn’t the focus of her research. Barak-Corren was studying aid diversion in war zones, including but not limited to Gaza. But she offers crucial context about the primary aid agency, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, that paints a clear picture not only of the agency’s problems but of its quasi-governmental status.

“There is abundance of evidence to indicate … that the relationship between UNRWA and Hamas was symbiotic to a degree that UNRWA sustained much of the Hamas apparatus in Gaza, via various methods, allowing Hamas to build and sustain its war machine and authoritarian rule,” Barak-Corrin writes.

The UN agency was Gaza’s largest employer and at one point provided four out of every five Gazans with some form of aid, she writes. It is, alone among refugee agencies, a “permanent state of affairs” rather than a temporary solution to a particular postwar problem.

As such, the UN and Hamas have essentially “formalized” a system of aid diversion. The UN also insists on Hamas-linked escorts for its aid convoys rather than independent security. And it has taken steps to prevent employee-identification policies that aid groups have acquiesced to elsewhere.

Yet the aid problem is almost beside the point when looking at the UN’s activities in Gaza. As Barak-Corrin writes, “the focus on physical aid diversion and taxation is to some extent a distraction from the role UNRWA plays in Hamas finances: Hamas has used its influence to insert its operatives and their family members into UNRWA, so that they account for 49% of UNRWA employees.”

UNRWA also has successfully prevented an independent audit of Gaza aid and refused to report diversion incidents regarding Hamas. That means—and this is really the kicker—that “UNRWA should be seen as a streamlined aid diversion operation enjoying a unique level of international immunity and freedom from accountability.”

That is, the UN agency is itself designed to be an adjunct of Hamas. Except in name, the UN is essentially not only part of the Hamas government but the key to Hamas’s ability to sustain its power over the Palestinian enclave.

What does all this have to do with the 2005 disengagement? As COMMENTARY contributing editor Jonathan Schanzer has argued, Hamas’s program of “Talibanization” of the Gaza Strip began almost immediately and has smothered the enclave in the nearly two decades since Hamas took full control.

But as we see from Barak-Corrin’s analysis, Hamas had a partner in that process: UNRWA. Especially considering the various Western boycotts of Hamas after it dislodged Fatah from Gaza by force, sustaining a totalitarian regime and its war machine wasn’t easy or cheap. The UN didn’t merely abet Hamas; it was designed to be part of Hamas’s key governing infrastructure. Rather than being an aid organization that Hamas took advantage of, the UN agency was constructed as a pipeline to assets and materials and influence on the outside for Hamas.

And Hamas used those resources to take the Palestinians’ best chance at full self-government and turn it into an argument against Israeli disengagement from further territory. It became an engine of war and death, and then on Oct. 7, 2023, it became a symbol of world-historical evil. Gaza since disengagement is a profound condemnation of the UN and its entanglement with Hamas. Both must go before Gaza will ever get another chance.

Thursday, August 14, 2025

08/14 Links Pt2: Communism’s early anti-Zionism campaign; Murdered Hamas hostage Itzik Elgert tortured to death; Toronto film festival backtracks on 7 October documentary ban

From Ian:

Yisrael Medad: Communism’s early anti-Zionism campaign
Izabella Tabarovsky published an important essay last year in Tablet magazine titled “Zombie Anti-Zionism.” Its thesis is that the left is still addicted to “warmed-over Soviet anti-Zionist propaganda from half a century ago.”

That propaganda targeted “the Soviet-sponsored Third World” and started around 1967. Specifically, “the precise language used by the anti-Israel left today to condemn the Jewish state has been a conventional part of left-wing discourse for decades, and that it originated in the USSR,” beginning in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

In an earlier piece, she noted that 10 anti-Israel academics and BDS activists had established an Institute for the Critical Study of Zionism, a step “toward rebuilding the long-forgotten Soviet discipline of “scientific anti-Zionism” on American college campuses. Its aim is “to support the delinking of the study of Zionism from Jewish Studies” and “to reclaim academia and public discourse for the study of Zionism.”

Tabarovsky is a senior advisor at the Kennan Institute, specializing in Eastern European history, and a scholar of Soviet anti-Zionism and contemporary left-wing antisemitism. In an Instagram post promoting her Zombie characterization piece, she emphasizes that the Soviets, after the Six-Day War in June 1967, revved up a linguistic campaign to undermine Israel. They “equated it with the central cause animating the Western left at the time: the war in Vietnam.”

They used terms such as “imperialist Zionist propaganda” and “anti-colonialism,” and promoted the “progressive and peace-loving” involvement of the Soviet Union. Israel was a “white imperial outpost.”

The Kremlin did indeed write the script. Spinoffs of this theme include a YouTube clip that goes back to the 1950s. However, they did not create, as it were, a Palestinian identity.

True, the idea that the Arab residents of Mandate Palestine viewed themselves as Southern Syrians, into the mid-1920s and on, is an important part of the ideological conflict. In 1926, it was suggested to call the Mandate “Southern Syria,” and back in 1920, at least until December, reunification with the territory of Syria was the local Arabs’ representative demand, as was clearly made.

But what was the role of the Communist ideology? And does today’s progressive approach echo it?


Seth Mandel: Mamdani Makes It Easy
The DSA held its national convention this weekend and did us all the favor of making clear that it is self-consciously incompatible with public service.

According to the Algemeiner, the first example of this was the passing of a resolution affirming the DSA’s adoption of Thawabit, “the principles originally set by the Palestinian National Council in 1977 and repeatedly reaffirmed since.” Accordingly, the resolution made it an expellable offense to say “Israel has a right to defend itself” or to “have knowingly provided material aid to Israel,” among others.

As a socialist organization, it’s not surprising that the DSA has instituted totalitarian-style Stalinist rules or that the group considers free speech among its primary threats. But I suppose they’ve at least simplified the process by making clear that if you want to know what to do and what not to do, just check with the Palestinian National Council first.

The other notable part of the convention was the existence of a resolution censuring Ocasio-Cortez for being too pro-Israel, which is a bit like accusing Gargamel’s cat of being too pro-Smurf. AOC’s biggest offense appears to be reversing her opposition to Iron Dome, the purely defensive Israeli missile-defense program whose only role in the conflict is to lower the total number of Jews killed by Palestinian terrorists. The resolution was not voted on but may be at a future conference.

Ethan Eblaghie, a co-author of the resolution, told City & State: “What this resolution … aims to do is for us to be able to indicate very clearly with Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez’s office that this is something that we feel very strongly is unacceptable, and that for us to continue to have any sort of productive working relationship with her, we would like to see her take much stronger positions.”

Eblaghie didn’t seem to think AOC would actually be expelled. The likely reason is that the DSA is too cowardly to do anything about her near-but-not-total disregard for Israeli civilians. But a better reason for her to avoid expulsion would be for Ocasio-Cortez to walk away from the organization of her own free will. Why would any politician want the grand wizards of the DSA exerting influence over them?

More important, why would any politician want their name to be associated with a classic race-war hate group?
Brendan O'Neill: As Bono now knows, you criticise Hamas at your peril
The backlash has been mad. Bono’s statement is ‘word soup’, says the Twittermob. It’s ‘billionaire pacifism’. He’s making excuses for Israel, the nutters cry, having clearly been brainwashed by its ‘right to self-defence’ blather. Yes, how mad to think the Jewish State should have the right to defend itself from an army of anti-Semites hell-bent on its obliteration. Some accuse U2 of ‘dripping in Israeli blood money’, because of course the only reason someone would slam Hamas and defend ‘Israel’s right to exist’ is because they’d been thrown a few shekels.

The Irish Independent wonders if Bono’s comments are ‘too little, too late’. It reports on the ‘furious’ response to his statement, including from academics in Dublin who say he’s giving too much ‘justification for Israel’. Irish singer Mary Coughlan branded Bono’s statement ‘very, very weak [and] very, very measured’. Measured! What a crime. Music journalist Louise Bruton said Bono should have been braver, sooner, like Kneecap.

And there you have it. We must cheer the hip-hop trio who celebrated the butchery of 7 October 2023 by posting a photo of themselves grinning like loons alongside the words ‘Solidarity with the Palestinian struggle’ on 8 October. And we must condemn the band that says Hamas is ‘evil’. Bow down to the balaclava-wearing eejits who yelp ‘Up Hamas’ and rage against the old guard of Irish rock who rightly accuse Hamas of racist mass murder. Cosy up to neo-fascists and you’re a hero – criticise neo-fascists and you’re clearly a blood-moneyed billionaire who deserves public shaming.

You couldn’t ask for better proof that popular culture has fallen under the spell not only of Israelophobia but of Islamo-fascism itself. The slavish conformism of the anti-Israel mania has blinded the cultural elites to balance, truth and basic moral decency. Bono’s true transgression is that he says he didn’t ‘speak out’ earlier because he felt ‘uncertainty in the face of obvious complexity’. Uncertainty? Complexity? These are verboten emotions under the rule of the keffiyeh mob. Only the most brutally reductive and fact-lite posturing is permitted. Israel is evil. Gaza is innocent. The End. Deviate from these cultish diktats forged more from bigotry than reality and you will be branded one of the Jews’ money-grubbing stooges.

Hopefully, Bono now knows there is no appeasing the neo-religious fury of Israelophobia. Only obsequious prostration before their commandments of loathing for Israel will suffice. 7 October was designed to ‘sow the seeds for a global intifada’, he said in his statement. Indeed – and the fruits of that global intifada can be seen in the fact that even an established rocker like you now criticises Jew-killers at your peril. Forget slamming Israel for likes, guys. It won’t work. Instead turn your ire on that very ‘global intifada’ that poses such a dire threat to Jews, liberty, the souls of our young and culture itself.

08/14 Links Pt1: An Allegedly Civilized World Genuflects to Hamas; Brown Study Says Gaza is the Deadliest War Ever for Journalists. It’s a Lie; Uefa accused of promoting Jewish ‘blood libel’

From Ian:

An Allegedly Civilized World Genuflects to Hamas
Suppose we had an incident like what Israel suffered on Oct. 7, 2023. The equivalent of 1,200 murdered in Israel is over 44,000 Americans.

Suppose they, like what Israel suffered through, were not just murdered but violently raped and sexually mutilated.

Would we negotiate with these creatures? Would their demands touch sympathetic chords among our population?

Could we even imagine granting them sovereignty next to us, knowing their great dream is that we are eliminated?

The Israelis would have to be crazy to concede autonomy to a Palestinian state with a history of terror.

There are some 50 majority-Muslim countries in the world. There is one Jewish state.

No solution will be reached if those who pretend to represent the civilized world give credibility to depraved murderers.
Please define, Western leaders, this Palestinian state
Watching France, the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia announce plans to recognize a Palestinian state is maddening. While 50 Israeli hostages, some alive and some dead, remain trapped in Hamas tunnels in the de facto Palestinian state of Gaza, these Western governments are sending a message: They are not with us.

They don’t seem to care about the hostages. They seem unmoved by footage of an emaciated Evyatar David, an innocent 21-year-old Israeli forced to dig his own grave in a tunnel in the coastal enclave. They ignore the truth that Israel’s war against Hamas is not about land, borders or statehood. These Western leaders are not bothered that the Houthis, from thousands of miles away, continue to fire rockets into Israeli land, despite having no territorial dispute with the Jewish state.

They must know that if the dispute between the Arab world and Israel were simply about borders, then it would have been resolved long ago.

Can French President Emmanuel Macron, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney and Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese articulate where the so-called Palestinian state they want to recognize exists? Can they identify who governs it or where its borders are? These questions remain unanswered, but the mainstream media will not press world leaders on any of this. Why

Because much of the mainstream media agrees with these Western leaders and the more than 140 other nations that, CNN says, have or will recognize Palestinian statehood. Yet such recognition does not advance peace. Instead, it is a political slap in the face to Israel and the Jewish people in their home countries.

Many dismiss these recognitions as legally meaningless—a hollow gesture with no real-world impact—and so they don’t matter.

But they do. Not in the sense of changing facts on the ground but in continuing to shift the global climate against the Jewish state. These proclamations embolden our enemies and further isolate Israel diplomatically. And it serves as tacit support for the wave of antisemitism flooding the streets of their cities.
Western Recognition of a Palestinian State Is a Betrayal of Israel
On July 30, Robert Malley and Hussein Agha, known for their pro-Palestinian positions, published an op-ed in the UK's Guardian warning that Britain and France's recognition of a Palestinian state would actually undermine efforts to end the Gaza war. "This step is completely detached from reality and contradicts its own stated goals. It will do nothing to bring the sides closer to a two-state solution."

Israeli officials said the move amounts to giving a gift to terrorism. A terrorist organization that has effectively become an army, attacking Israel with a level of barbarism unseen since the Holocaust, is now being rewarded. Israel views the recognition moves not merely as betrayal but as active support by Western governments for Hamas and its Oct. 7 massacre. These Western governments have lowered Hamas's motivation to agree to a ceasefire or a hostage-release deal.

The fact remains that the Palestinians have no functioning governing or state infrastructure worthy of recognition. When they have been granted territory and the opportunity to govern, the entity created has descended into violent barbarism. Hamas's brutal aggression is directed not only at Israel but also at the civilians of Gaza, a level of exploitation of one's own population that experts say has no precedent in history.
Robert Satloff: The Twisted Logic behind Recognition of Palestinian Statehood
France, Britain, and Canada have announced their intention to extend full diplomatic recognition to the "state of Palestine" at the UN General Assembly next month. Recognition of Palestinian statehood may address some domestic political needs in Europe and Canada but it will do nothing to assuage the concerns of the constituency that matters most - Israel's voting public - which fears the dangers to its safety that might accompany Palestinian statehood, rejects the idea by a large majority, and has elected successive governments that reflect that view.

It is difficult to see the mechanism by which even near-global recognition of Palestinian statehood translates that concept into fact. The unalterable reality that has governed diplomacy since 1967 is that Israel needs to be convinced that its security will be enhanced, not threatened, by territorial withdrawal and the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state.

This requires winning over Israel's increasingly skeptical public, a fact that countries who choose the easy symbolism of recognizing a Palestinian state seem to ignore. The deeper reality is that the second intifada and two decades of diplomatic stalemate followed by the trauma of Oct. 7 have turned the vast Israeli center against the two-state solution.

Wednesday, August 13, 2025

08/13 Links Pt2: Human rights orgs. should demand Al Jazeera stop hiring terrorists; Toronto Film Festival Cancels October 7 Documentary; The Evil Idea That Has Taken Over the Woke Right

From Ian:

Israel, Protector of the West, Treacherously Undermined by France, UK, Canada and Australia
Macron's announcement to recognize a fantasy "Palestinian state" not only demolished the negotiations that were reportedly nearing completion for a ceasefire and the return of the 50 remaining hostages; it also might cause the death by starvation, shooting or explosives possibly strapped to them, of the 20 hostages believed to be alive

The Druze -- a small ethnically Arab religious minority that originated as a breakaway from the Ismaili sect of Shia Islam -- do not consider themselves Muslim. Therefore, the other Arabs in Syria do not consider them Muslim either. For months, regime "security forces" have been slaughtering them. Islamic terrorists believe that they are obligated to slaughter anyone not Muslim, based on passages in the Qur'an.

Something appears wrong with this picture. Al-Sharaa promised Trump that he would protect Syria's minorities; so far, he seems to be doing everything but that.

In the latest of these opposition demonstrations, on July 21, dozens of protestors in Gaza shouted "Hamas Out." There is still strong reason to doubt, however, however, if Gazans would be more favorably inclined toward Israel if Hamas were gone.

Israel is already over-extended in defending virtually every minority in the region – while receiving nothing but opprobrium from most of the insensate media and many in Europe. They seem not to realize that they are the beneficiaries of Israel's actions, even as they keep on giving away their continent to newcomers who seem intent on replacing Europe's values with their own.

The question remains, however, if Syria's al-Sharaa in is not still just a terrorist, but in a suit and tie.
Jonathan Tobin: The futility of compassion for those who want to kill you
Validating blood libels
Even worse, it provides Jewish validation for the mendacious Hamas propaganda campaign that alleges that Israel is committing genocide and deliberately starving Palestinians.

Too many Jewish groups, including liberal religious denominations, have chimed in to support a false narrative that the Israeli government’s resolve to continue fighting until Hamas is eradicated is unjust or an act of aggression, as opposed to a defensive war that needs to be won. Influenced by biased liberal media coverage, they take it for granted that blood libels about starvation and genocide are at least partially true, and not just canards rooted in antisemitism.

Israel’s many efforts to trade land for peace in the past didn’t solve the conflict. In fact, it only convinced its foes of the validity of their false claim that the Jewish state’s presence in Judea and Samaria, as well as Jerusalem, was illegal and that the Israelis were behaving as if they were criminals holding onto stolen property.

Rather than a demonstration of Jewish morality, donations aimed at alleviating Palestinian suffering are more likely to convince the recipients and their foreign cheerleaders that they are a manifestation of Jewish guilt and an indication that these Americans feel that they are complicit in Israeli crimes against humanity. In this way, it will buttress the very same blood libel about genocide that UJA says it opposes and help encourage the surge of antisemitism that followed on the heels of the attacks on Israel.

While being charitable sounds like the right thing to do, it won’t do much to help people caught up in the war. But it will be held up as evidence that even Israel’s American Jewish supporters understand that they are part of an evil conflict.

Once the war is over and Hamas eradicated, there will be a time when aid to Gaza might do some good—provided, that is, that the Palestinians are ready to move on from their obsession with an endless, futile war to destroy the Jewish state. Until then, Jewish funds should be exclusively directed toward alleviating the very real suffering of Israeli victims of the war, the wounded and the families of those slain by Hamas, as well as the health of the hostages, and rebuilding the communities sacked by Palestinians who took part in the Oct. 7 invasion and assault.

Doing so isn’t selfish, especially when considering that foreign charities, countries and the United Nations spending so much on Gaza are indifferent to the war’s impact on Israelis.

Compassion, even for one’s enemies, may seem high-minded. And, of course, we deplore all the deaths and the suffering that this war has brought to both sides. However, when it is applied to those who wish you dead, it becomes an incentive for hate, not an act of kindness. Donating to Gaza now isn’t an indication of a healthy moral compass. It’s a particularly dysfunctional indication of having lost one.
JPost Editorial: Human rights orgs. should demand Al Jazeera stop hiring terrorists, not condemn Israel
The evidence seems irrefutable. Sharif may have been a journalist, but he was also a Hamas member. And as such, given his euphoric social media posts on October 7, 2023, praising the Hamas massacre of innocent Israelis, he wasn’t an objective bystander – he was an enemy of Israel. Putting a “press” sticker on his shirt doesn’t give him immunity.

The disclosures about Sharif put Al Jazeera in an even darker light than it found itself in last year when Israel banned the media network from having offices and broadcasting from the country.

However, Israel isn’t alone in being suspicious of the Qatar-funded network. No less than The New York Times, in a Tuesday report on Al Jazeera, acknowledged it, writing that “in 2017, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain all banned Al Jazeera amid a diplomatic spat with Qatar. Along with Egypt, the countries had accused Al Jazeera of backing terror groups.”

Even the Palestinian Authority has outlawed the network, which has no credibility, either inside or outside the Arab world.

Instead of condemning Israel, journalists' associations and human rights organizations should be demanding that Al Jazeera stop employing terrorists in their midst. Its policy of doing so puts bona fide journalists in grave danger.

The issue of whether the military benefits of eliminating al-Sharif outweigh the international pummeling Israel has taken as a result of it is something the army and the government will have to grapple with.

However, to accuse Israel of deliberately targeting journalists and ignoring al-Sharif’s Hamas connection is being disingenuous – but not surprising.

08/13 Links Pt1: Why Experts Torch Their Own Credibility to Smear Israel; Hostage families sue ICC prosecutor; Hamas praises Australia’s Albanese on Palestinian statehood

From Ian:

Seth Mandel: Why Experts Torch Their Own Credibility to Smear Israel
Yet another case of corrupted international standards once again raises the question: Why is it so important to the world to falsely accuse Israel of causing famine? The genocide charge falls into this category as well: Why is legitimate criticism of warfighting not enough, and why are global agencies and other institutions driven to change their own standards just to convict Israel of a crime it didn’t commit?

The latest examples come from USAID and the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC), the latter being a food-related coalitional enterprise under the auspices of the United Nations. The Washington Free Beacon reports that the IPC “quietly changed one of its key reporting metrics … making it easier to formally declare that there is a famine in the Hamas-controlled territory.”

For many in the media and activism spheres, this was the announcement they were long waiting for. The credentialism game was again afoot: Activists could point to “experts” who would appeal to their own authority. The IPC said let there be famine, and there it was.

As the Free Beacon pointed out, the IPC simply tailored its metrics to fit the accusation. Indeed, it is the extent of the changes that really tells you how big was the gap between what Israel was being accused of and what Israel was guilty of:

“Unlike previous IPC reports on the humanitarian situation in Gaza, the July report includes a metric—known as mid-upper arm circumference (MUAC)—the agency has not historically used to determine whether a famine is taking place. The report also includes a lowered threshold for the proportion of children who must be considered malnourished for the IPC to declare a famine, down to 15 percent from 30 percent.”

Those arm circumference measurements, by the way, replaced “detailed weight and height measurements to determine whether a child is suffering from acute malnutrition.”

In other words, the agency took rigorous standards and tore them to shreds. And for what? For the opportunity to accuse Israel of a crime the IPC knew it wasn’t committing.

This is an absolutely bizarre trend. Scientific agencies are blowing up their own credibility to score political points in one conflict. That credibility won’t return to them when they turn their attention to other conflicts and perhaps go back to using accurate data.
Why is flawed Gaza data in top US journal? - opinion
The journal Foreign Affairs is one of the most prestigious academic journals in the world. It is published by the Council on Foreign Relations, headquartered in New York. Articles submitted to it undergo strict peer review before publication. Recently, the journal published an article by a respected professor from the University of Chicago, Robert A. Pape, on Israel’s fighting in Gaza.

In our view, the article suffers from fundamental flaws in the professional standards required in any academic publication, especially in one so highly respected. Here we will focus only on the numerical data given by the author.

The data on which the article is based come from reports by Hamas’s health authorities. To the author’s credit, he explicitly notes this. However, he then proceeds to rely on this data without raising the obvious question of its reliability. By omitting such a statement, he sends a clear message that, in his view, these are genuine figures – as if they were reports from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The starting point of the article is the figure disseminated by Hamas, according to which the number of Palestinians dead in Gaza exceeds 61,000, and more than 145,000 have been seriously wounded. How many of them are “Hamas fighters” and how many are “uninvolved civilians”? The author acknowledges that Hamas does not make that distinction, and he follows suit.

Flawed and misleading information
The author does not bother to pose to his readers the obvious question: Why does Hamas not present a clear distinction between “combatants” and “civilians”? Are these truly “real figures”? Or is it simply convenient for Hamas to present a blurred picture, hoping that public opinion will tag them as “civilians” – just as the author of the article does?

This “implicit” message already appears in the subheadline: “Why Punishing Civilians Doesn’t Produce Strategic Gains.” Later, he explicitly states that Israel’s tactic in the war is the “punishment of civilians.”

Only with such a label can the esteemed author define Israel’s military activity in Gaza as “slaughter.” Does this approach meet the standard required of reliable academic research? To us, it seems not.
Clifford D May: America’s fair-weather friends
In an interview on Fox News last week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu set out the plan’s goals: “We want to liberate ourselves and liberate the people of Gaza from the awful terror of Hamas in order to assure our security, remove Hamas there, enable the population to be free, and to pass it to civilian governance.”

Israelis are divided over the wisdom of the plan. Many think they’ve reached a point of diminishing returns militarily and should strategically retreat to security buffer zones.

What about Gazans? Are they divided? Or would most prefer that Hamas release the hostages and seek a truce—or at least resume negotiations that could lead to delaying Israel’s Gaza City plan?

Gazans who say such things publicly are likely to be summarily executed, with the Hamas-obedient international media giving scant coverage to either their courageous dissent or their untimely deaths.

The Trump administration’s position was clearly articulated by Vice President JD Vance last week: “Number one, we want to make it so that Hamas cannot attack innocent Israeli civilians ever again, and we think that has to come through the eradication of Hamas. Second, the president has been very moved by these terrible images of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, so we want to make sure that we solve that problem.”

I wish Germany, France and Britain were saying the same.

They’re adamant that U.S. President Donald Trump work with them to support Ukraine, a fledgling European democracy defending itself against a revanchist dictator.

Does it not follow, as a matter of principle and self-interest, that they ought to work with Trump to support a mature Middle Eastern democracy defending itself against a terrorist proxy of the Islamic Republic of Iran whose goal is openly and even proudly genocidal?

I wonder if Messrs. Merz, Starmer and Macron understand how tough they are making it for Atlanticists like me to push back against the growing number of Americans who regard West Europeans as fair-weather friends, always there for us when they need us.
Woman who worked in morgue on October 7 accuses Starmer of ‘torpedoing’ peace in Gaza
An Israeli morgue worker who witnessed the extent of Hamas’s atrocities on October 7 firsthand has accused Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer of “torpedoing” any chance for peace or the return of hostages by recognising a Palestinian state.

Shari Mendes, 64, who, as a member of the team at Israel’s national morgue, examined the bodies of many of the women murdered and mutilated on October 7, wrote an “urgent plea” to Starmer yesterday.

“Your offer to recognise a Palestinian state has put the lives of the 20 or so living Israeli hostages in jeopardy and made it harder to recover the bodies of 30 other Israelis,” she wrote. “More significantly, it has torpedoed any chances for peace.”

She wrote that despite her being a “regular person” and not in the habit of writing to prime ministers, it is “unfathomable” to her that Jews should be starved and forced to dig their own graves again so soon after the Holocaust.

She said if Hamas is pressured to surrender then the war would end and a “true demilitarised and peaceful government in Gaza is the first step toward Israeli acceptance that real peace and security is possible.”

If Starmer issues a statement similar to the following, she claimed, he would be able to save lives of both innocent Israelis and Palestinians: “‘In order for there to be lasting peace in the Middle East I must add a condition to any offer to recognise a Palestinian state. Hamas must surrender and release all Israeli hostages they hold before any negotiations over Palestinian statehood can begin. Hamas cannot stay. They must disarm and go into exile. They must leave Gaza as the first step to ending this terrible war which they started, so that reconstruction and a chance for the citizens of Gaza and Israel to live side by side in peace, can start.’”

As part of the unit in the IDF specialising in the identification and preparation for burial of female soldiers, Mendes was invited in early 2024 to the House of Lords in London to give testimony on what she had witnessed working on the mutilated bodies of October 7 victims.

Tuesday, August 12, 2025

08/12 Links Pt2: The ‘Empathy’ Lie and the Erasure of the Hostages; We Will No Longer Tolerate ‘Pay for Slay’; Leaders of terror-linked charity bankroll Democrats

From Ian:

Seth Mandel: The ‘Empathy’ Lie and the Erasure of the Hostages
As I explained yesterday, there is no longer any disputing that French President Emmanuel Macron’s announcement that his country would recognize the “state of Palestine,” in conjunction with his and other European leaders’ one-sided pressure on Israel, sabotaged the cease-fire deal that would have brought 10 living hostages home.

Which means that every leader who followed Macron in announcing a plan to recognize a Palestinian state—Mark Carney of Canada, Albanese of Australia, Keir Starmer of the UK—did so knowing the price that would be paid by the hostages.

The remaining hostages, including those who would have been freed had Europe not intervened on Hamas’s behalf, may not survive. But even those who do survive will be tortured, starved, and likely exposed to sexual mistreatment of one kind or another. Every added day of captivity brings them closer to death through painful and utterly inhuman treatment at the hands of Hamas monsters.

To join in the wave of “Palestine” recognition, knowing this, means several Western leaders have made a calculation: They can live with the deaths of the hostages, even when they are partially on their conscience. Such people may not be Hamasnik monsters themselves, but they are at the very least monster-adjacent.

Furthermore, this whole situation exposes something important about the international community. Those who claim to care for the wellbeing of Palestinians in Gaza are not displaying empathy. They are not displaying generosity of spirit or anything of the kind. They are, as they have explained time and again, acting out of domestic political pressure. That is certainly a legitimate driver of political policymaking, but it is not a display of morality or decency.

Were the “humanitarian” activists to advocate with equal force for the hostages, they might be saved. But the rest of the world doesn’t care, and politics is a numbers game: There simply aren’t enough Jews in these countries. That itself is a vicious cycle, and one the callous cowards of the West are unbothered by as well.
Seth Mandel: Why Israel Is Losing the ‘Propaganda War’
Just as recognizing a Palestinian state does not make a Palestinian state suddenly appear. It may be a boon to the people dressing up as the Palestinian state, though.

Is an NGO or some other nonstate entity a “humanitarian” organization because it calls itself humanitarian? Over the weekend there was some excitement in the anti-Israel world over an open letter written by French self-described experts in international law, which made two pretty wild points: that Israel did not have the legal right of self-defense after Oct. 7, and that Israel’s “genocidal intent” toward Gazans was made clear when someone in Israel proposed a “humanitarian city” for Palestinians civilians that was never actually pursued. I’m sure these folks have university degrees in their chosen industry, but not a single person who signs a letter like this is an “expert” in anything except signing their own name.

The propaganda debate over the war is reminiscent of MSNBC’s Joy Reid once explaining that “The enemy of the far-right, in their own words, are Antifa, meaning anti-fascist. So, they are anti-anti-fascist by their own reckoning.” If you oppose a group called anti-fascist, you are a fascist. Magnify this galactic stupidity by a thousand and you have something like what Israel is facing in the international media.

What if we call the Hamas government’s police forces the “Gaza civil police”? Then the UN can argue its trucks are being guarded by legions of people like Dwight from The Office, who boasted of his status as a Lackawanna County volunteer sheriff’s deputy.

And where do you go when you need some solid medical or hospital information? May I suggest the Gaza Health Ministry? The ministry is not affiliated with Hamas because, as you can see, the word Hamas appears nowhere in its name.

Is there a single person on earth in a position of power and influence who actually believes any of this? Of course not. And that is the problem with the propaganda war. Someone who cites the “Gaza Health Ministry” is not someone who has been fooled by one side; it is someone who has chosen one side. There’s no question at all that Israel could stand to improve its response time in providing the real story behind whatever nonsense is leading, say, the Guardian on any given day. But one must also remember why someone would read the Guardian for its Mideast war reporting in the first place.
Meir Y. Soloveichik: We Will No Longer Tolerate ‘Pay for Slay’
In 2002, Benjamin Blutstein was an American student from New Jersey, studying for a semester at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. As he began lunch in the school’s Frank Sinatra Cafeteria, a Hamas-planted bomb blew up, ending his life instantly. He had planned to fly home later that day. Blutstein was one of several Americans murdered in that attack and one of many Americans murdered by Palestinian terrorists over the past 20 years. Several of his murderers sit in Israeli prison—and are to this day given a stipend as reward by the Palestinian Authority (PA). The families of Palestinian “martyrs,” suicide bombers, receive similar sustenance.

It was more than two decades later, this past June, that the Supreme Court addressed the legal rights of Blutstein’s relatives and those of others. The case is technical, focusing on matters abstruse and abstract, but if we pay close attention, we will discover that the jurisprudential debate also makes manifest larger questions relating to American foreign policy, mistakes made over the past years—and the new attitude that must be adopted.

The case, Fuld et al. v. PLO et al., concerns the policy of the Palestinian Authority that is known as “pay for slay,” through which the PA continues to bestow financial rewards on terrorists and their families, thereby incentivizing terrorist acts. Families of murdered Americans like Benjamin Blutstein sued the Palestinian Authority for damages. They relied on the 1990 Anti-Terrorism Act, which allows for verdicts bestowing triple damages to those hurt by international terror. They, in turn, were constantly rebuffed by the courts, which insisted that U.S. law had no jurisdiction over the Palestinian Authority.

In response, Congress in 2019 passed the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, specifically stating that the PA would be deemed to have consented to the jurisdiction of United States law if it maintained a presence in American territory and if it continued its “pay for slay” activities. Because the PA does indeed maintain an office in midtown Manhattan, and because its payments for terror are still ongoing, the families of the victims successfully sued the PA in federal court, achieving a civil verdict of hundreds of millions of dollars.

That decision was overturned by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which deemed it a violation of the PA’s due-process rights because it unfairly imposed the burden of “litigating in a distant or inconvenient forum.” While the PA does have an office in New York, the circuit court argued that aside from its presence at the United Nations, the PA had no right to engage in its activities in the United States; the American government was merely turning a “blind eye” to its activities. The PA could not be deemed to have consented to U.S. jurisdiction unless it received some “reciprocal” benefit for its presence in the country.

08/12 Links Pt1: How Israel Can Defend Itself in the Future; Why Is Reuters Carrying Water for Hamas?; IDF kills five terrorists posing as part of World Central Kitchen

From Ian:

Jonathan Schanzer: How Israel Can Defend Itself in the Future
Israeli grayzone operations are undeniably ramping up as the multi-front war quiets down. But the risk-reward calculus for Israel is now likely to vary from one theater to the next across the Middle East. Striking assets in Lebanon and Syria poses little risk right now. Neither Hezbollah nor the regime of Ahmad al-Shara appears particularly eager to fight.

The Iranian regime, however, may be up for another tussle. Should the IDF conduct operations that cross Iran’s red line—a line that is currently ill-defined—there is real risk of escalation. Interestingly, the main critique of the campaign prior to October 7 was that it was too provocative and risked igniting a major war for minimal gains. That may seem ironic in hindsight, but the risk of provoking another major conflict now is not negligible.

Air strikes on military facilities in response to the Iranian regime renewing its ballistic missile production capabilities could trigger a painful response. The regime maintains the ability to launch ballistic missiles at Israel and to strike with considerable accuracy. The Israelis need to think carefully about how and where they conduct future operations in Iran. Indeed, few Israelis relish the notion of returning to their bomb shelters for extended stays.

A different sort of Israeli campaign is likely necessary, perhaps in tandem with calibrated efforts to prevent the regime from returning to its previous strength. This additional campaign might be one in which Israel supports the Iranian opposition movement and otherwise weakens the regime from within. Psychological, political, diplomatic, economic, and other measures designed to erode the power of the mullahs would be deployed with increasing intensity. The Israelis understand that the regime must not be allowed respite after the drubbing it absorbed in June. More important, such a strategy is crucial because it offers a more enduring and non-kinetic solution to the Islamic Republic’s annihilationist ambitions. The Campaign Between Wars could never offer that.

What the return of the campaign does offer is time, and time is what Israel needs. The pager and walkie-talkie operation that cut down Hezbollah’s commanders took years to execute. The gathering of the intelligence required to take out Hassan Nasrallah in his Beirut bunker was painstaking. The forward operation that launched Israel’s “Rising Lion” campaign in Iran, too, required years of preparation.

Israel has fewer tricks up its sleeve than it had a year ago. Most of its recent feats cannot be repeated. So Israel’s war planners and spies are back to the drawing board. They will need time to prepare for the next round against Iran, not to mention other enemies.

Concurrently, Israel has a few other related long-term projects that will also require time. The reconstruction of Israel’s northern communities destroyed by Hezbollah is one. The rebuilding of the communities in the Gaza envelope is another. The revitalization of the Israeli economy, which has taken a brutal hit, is crucial. The expansion of the country’s defense industrial base is another priority identified by the Israelis, after the Biden administration withheld ordnance in 2024 and offered a glimpse into a potential future in which America does not have Israel’s back. Forestalling major conflict for several years to facilitate these initiatives will be vital for the country’s long-term health. Of course, these initiatives cannot begin until the current war ends.

As my colleague Clifford May often says, in the Middle East, there are no permanent victories, only permanent battles. The rise, fall, and rise of the Campaign Between the Wars reflect this reality. It won’t solve all of Israel’s problems. But keeping Israel’s enemies weak and buying time would constitute a major achievement after the grueling war Israel has endured.
UN-Backed Famine Watchdog Quietly Changed Standards, Easing Way To Declare Famine in Gaza
The U.N.-affiliated watchdog group that recently declared a "worst-case scenario of famine" in Gaza quietly changed one of its key reporting metrics while doing so, making it easier to formally declare that there is a famine in the Hamas-controlled territory.

The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC)—a network of Western governments, the United Nations, and nonprofit groups—determined in a July 29 report "the worst-case scenario of famine is currently playing out in the Gaza Strip," claiming that "mounting evidence shows that widespread starvation, malnutrition, and disease are driving a rise in hunger-related deaths." Media outlets like the New York Times, NPR, CNN, and ABC News relied on the IPC report to claim that Israeli policies have led to mass starvation, with the Times stating that "months of severe aid restrictions imposed by Israel on the territory" have caused a famine "across most of Gaza."

Unlike previous IPC reports on the humanitarian situation in Gaza, the July report includes a metric—known as mid-upper arm circumference (MUAC)—the agency has not historically used to determine whether a famine is taking place. The report also includes a lowered threshold for the proportion of children who must be considered malnourished for the IPC to declare a famine, down to 15 percent from 30 percent.

Aid workers traditionally conduct detailed weight and height measurements to determine whether a child is suffering from acute malnutrition. MUAC, by contrast, consists only of a child's arm circumference, a measurement that can be done more quickly and is considered less precise. In the past, the IPC has declared famine after finding that 30 percent of children in an area are suffering from acute malnutrition using their weight and height measurements. In the recent Gaza report, the IPC said it would declare famine if it found that 15 percent of children were suffering from acute malnutrition using their arm circumference measurement and if the agency found unspecified "evidence of rapidly worsening underlying drivers."

The "pretty big shift" in standards, one veteran aid industry insider told the Washington Free Beacon, suggests the IPC is "lowering the bar, or trying to make it easier for the famine determination to be made."
Why Is Reuters Carrying Water for Hamas?
When it comes to the war in Gaza, how is it that the legacy media always defers to the narrative that benefits Hamas? A recent Reuters story illuminates the problem.

Last month, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) produced an internal analysis tracking reports of waste, fraud, and abuse of humanitarian aid in Gaza.

According to that report, between October 2023 and May 2025, USAID’s Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance received 156 notifications of “fraud, waste, and abuse notifications” from its NGO partners in Gaza, amounting to a loss of more than $4.6 million. The key finding was that “for all 156 incidents, partners did not provide any information in their incident reports alleging SG [sanctioned group] or FTO [foreign terrorist organization] involvement,” according to a slideshow of the findings obtained by The Free Press.

But when the analysis was leaked to legacy news organizations, they reported something completely different.

In late July, first Reuters and then CNN reported that the analysis “found no evidence of systematic theft by the Palestinian militant group Hamas.” ABC later reported that USAID “failed to find any evidence” that Hamas “engaged in widespread diversion of assistance.” Those news organizations didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.

There is a world of difference between “notifications” of aid misuse and actual misuse.

Two sources familiar with USAID and its analysis confirmed that the partners’ failure to report terrorist involvement does not mean there is “no evidence” of theft by Hamas. “The report appears to be wholly reliant on self-reporting by UN agencies and NGOs who are extremely reticent to report Hamas interference out of fear of violent retribution by Hamas,” a senior U.S. official familiar with the USAID report told The Free Press.

When the Reuters story was published, “nobody at the highest levels of the USAID administration had seen the report,” said a senior official at the State Department, which oversees USAID. “It was deliberately and intentionally manufactured. . . and distributed to plant a deliberate false narrative.”

Worse yet, Hamas used Reuters’ framing to fuel accusations of starvation and genocide against the U.S. and Israel. Allegations of theft “were recently refuted by an internal investigation by the United States Agency for International Development, which confirmed the absence of any reports or data indicating the theft of aid by Hamas,” said Izzat al-Rishq, a founding member of Hamas’s politburo, on August 1. “We strongly condemn U.S. President Trump’s reiteration of Israeli allegations and lies accusing Hamas of stealing and selling humanitarian aid in Gaza.”

Monday, August 11, 2025

08/11 Links Pt2: Europe Is Losing a War Against Reality; Hamas Is Winning the Culture War; Israel kills a terrorist and the British media goes into mourning

From Ian:

Seth Mandel: Europe Is Losing a War Against Reality
The hostages who would have been released during that cease-fire may not survive to the next, and Macron (and to some extent other European leaders, including Starmer) may have abetted their murder. So why did he do it? Reports the Times:

“Mr. Macron told [German Chancellor Friedrich] Merz that he was under immense pressure at home and would most likely recognize a Palestinian state at the United Nations in late September.… The next day, without telling the Germans, Mr. Macron announced his decision publicly.”

Behind the scenes, Merz was playing a delicate role. He has far more affection for the Jewish state and the wider Jewish world than either Macron or Starmer or nearly any other Western leader save Donald Trump. Alone among the three, Merz has a genuine desire to see the state of Israel survive. But he is also quite critical of Israeli policy of late and suspended some weapons sales after Israel’s announcement that it would pursue Hamas into Gaza City.

Macron acted out of panic and fear. He is not the only world leader under pressure to throw Israel under the bus, but he is a uniquely weak-willed one.

Merz, too, wants to see the establishment of a Palestinian state. But he is of sound mind, and he wanted to approach such a radical change with tact and caution and a sense of the long-term implications. When Starmer went public with his intent to follow Macron on a Palestinian state, the Times reports, Merz was less than pleased:

“Mr. Starmer’s announcement surprised the Germans. They already viewed Mr. Macron’s announcement as counterproductive, hardening Israel’s tone and Hamas’s stance in cease-fire negotiations in Qatar, which had collapsed.”

Events had taken place exactly as Marco Rubio said they did. The one thing everyone can agree on is that Macron did great damage to cease-fire efforts.

Thus we have a rare moment when the truth has emerged from the shadows: France’s announcement of its recognition of a Palestinian state sabotaged peace, prolonged the war, and may have signed the death warrants of Israeli hostages in Gaza. It is a moment that should be taught in international relations courses for decades to come; a cautionary tale.

The Times piece also contains an unintentionally revealing (and humorous) sentence: “Given its Nazi history and its status as one of Israel’s most important allies, Germany had always been unlikely to recognize a Palestinian state before it was established.”

Here’s another way of saying that Germany was unlikely to pretend that something existed until it existed. This sets it apart from France and Britain, and a growing list of Western countries which insist on going to war against reality.
Hamas Is Winning the Culture War
Go visit a public park in Birmingham or London or attempt to buy lunch in downtown Athens or Malmö, and it’s obvious that Europe is dying—its native populations, folkways, religions, and languages being replaced by people whose relationship with their host countries is marked most loudly by resentment, mixed with contempt. Terrified European elites, presiding over shrinking populations and dwindling resources, know no other way but to submit, while justifying their submission through ever-more elaborate rituals of pretense and denial.

Israel has no such privilege. To survive, it has just one path forward. First, it must realize that as land and humiliation are the only two viable currencies in the Middle East, it must reoccupy Gaza, reviving President Trump’s proposal to relocate the strip’s inhabitants to Egypt, the Gulf states, Ireland, France, and wherever else desires to take them. Relocation of populations as the result of war is not a barbaric offense practiced only by Nazis, as opponents shout; it is the common outcome of nearly every war in history. If shipping Gazans out of Gaza as a consequence of their defeat is somehow Nazi-like, then the list of Nazi states on the planet is long indeed: China, India, Pakistan, Vietnam, Poland, Germany, the Czech Republic, Ukraine, Russia, Austria, and France, for starters. The United States sent hundreds of thousands of Loyalists fleeing to Canada in the aftermath of the Revolutionary War, and not a single one has yet received compensation for their losses. That’s war.

Second, Israel must reject any notion of a future settlement that is absent a complete and total Palestinian surrender, not just in Gaza but in the West Bank as well. A Palestinian state is not the answer to the problems of either Jews or Arabs. It is a way for the world to guarantee a violent and bloody future for everyone in the region, by snatching victory from the jaws of defeat for Hamas. History has been very clear in its verdict that there is room at best for one state between the river and the sea, as the Palestinians and their Western partisans like to put it. Any sane person deciding between the existence of the State of Israel, a technologically advanced liberal democracy as well as the region’s leading military power, and the various Palestinian principalities that owe their existence to outside charity, should have an easy time deciding which state that should be. If your answer is Palestine, then you are either an Islamist or a nihilist. Either way, your values are not mine—especially given the scale of the murdering that your answer supposes, and the human desert that you propose to build on the resulting pile of bones.

Third, Israel must resist the enormous pressure that will result from European capitals, because the pressure is precisely the point. Britain is already facing a bubbling revolt of citizens enraged by decades-long concealment of Pakistani grooming gangs raping hundreds of defenseless young women, as well as by an even more insidious effort to arrest and silence people who point out the obvious on social media. The more vocal and violent the anti-Israel revolt in Europe grows, the more likely it is to force the continent’s feckless leadership into a reckoning that their policy of welcoming migrants is about to backfire in a very painful way.

It is the hope of European elites that by throwing Israel over the side of the ship, they might buy themselves perhaps another decade or two of relative social peace, during which they can believe whatever they want about human nature while eating gobs of Nutella. I believe these comforting assumptions about the efficacy of sacrificing the Jews will be a mistake for them. Either way, Israel can’t be part of it. Dying for Europe’s delusions of how it might buy peace with its own barbarians was the unavoidable fate of European Jews during World War II, an experience that made the necessity of a Jewish state clear to every sentient Jew and sympathetic or guilt-driven Western person on the planet. I am sad to say that our own century’s barbarians show no signs of being any friendlier to Jews than their European predecessors were.

Thankfully, having a state means that Jews are no longer compelled to sacrifice ourselves for the convenience of Europeans or the global left or deluded right-wing American podcasters or The New York Times or anyone else. Every other consequence of our national existence, however brutal or bloody, is painfully small by comparison.
Mike Huckabee, Yehuda Kaploun and Mark Walker: Silence is complicity
Peace cannot coexist with terrorism. So long as Hamas holds power, Gaza’s people will remain imprisoned by violence. Every moment they remain in control is another moment justice and stability are denied to Gazan and Israeli civilians.

In stark contrast to the silence and moral ambiguity of many global leaders, figures like President Donald Trump and U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio have shown bold clarity. They stand firm in rejecting Hamas’s legitimacy, demand the immediate release of all hostages, alive and dead, and refuse to soften their stance in the face of terror. Their leadership exemplifies what the moment demands: moral clarity and unwavering resolve.

Too many world leaders, obsessed with political calculation, have failed to act. This silence is not neutrality, it’s complicity.

This moment requires more than just political will. We call on religious leaders of all faiths—Pope Leo XIV, Muslim leaders, evangelical pastors, Jewish figures and others—to come together in shared outrage and shared purpose. The hostages are not political pawns; they are human beings whose lives hang in the balance.

Humanitarian organizations like the International Committee of the Red Cross and Red Crescent must be empowered to deliver aid, food, medicine and other essentials to those suffering in captivity. This is not a regional issue; it’s a human-rights crisis that demands a global response. Neutrality in the face of evil is not virtue; it is surrender.

Have we become so desensitized that images of tortured civilians and terrorized families no longer move us to action? The world’s silence is deafening. We must ask ourselves: If not now, when? If not us, who?

We are standing at a moral crossroads. To ignore what is happening in Gaza, to look away from the true nature of Hamas, is to forsake our shared humanity. The real truths are not buried in policy papers or press releases; they live in the faces of the victims, in the voices of grieving families and in the hollow eyes of hostages still waiting for rescue.

Every day we delay, every moment of hesitation allows more suffering. The cost of inaction is measured in lives lost, dignity denied and a future destroyed. We must stand united, not as political factions, but as human beings. Against Hamas and for the innocent.

The real truth is this: We must not allow Hamas lies to become truths.

08/11 Links Pt1: The Mirage of Palestinian Statehood; The Rules Only Israel Has to Follow; Why Does Gaza have so many Hospitals?; Doubts Over Viral Story Of Boy Killed At GHF Site

From Ian:

The Mirage of Palestinian Statehood
Here there is no avoiding the brute fact that there is no independent Palestine to recognize. Its territory is divided across the Gaza Strip and West Bank, with Israel wedged in between. Gaza has been reduced to ruins and its population depleted, uprooted, and displaced, while the West Bank is honeycombed with Israeli settlements and infrastructure defended by Israeli arms. Insofar as there is any Palestinian authority left in Gaza, it is the remnants of Hamas cowering in underground tunnels beneath the apocalyptic ruination above. Having destroyed Hamas as a military force, the Israeli government is now contemplating reoccupying the Gaza Strip in its entirety.

To extend diplomatic recognition to Palestine in such circumstances is worse than a mistake; it is to trade in illusions, to offer Palestinians the mirage of statehood. Palestinian delegates will get to participate in international fora, attend international conferences, exchange diplomatic pleasantries, and enjoy the hospitality at international conferences. It will do nothing for ordinary Palestinians. It will not prevent the Israeli occupation of Gaza nor end the construction of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. It will not result in independent institutions of self-government, nor will it enhance state capacity in the occupied territories. Nor will it provide relief or restore functioning public services.

What is worse, this mirage of statehood will encourage Palestinians to evade the reality of their military and strategic defeat at the hands of Israel. Middle class protestors on Western campuses can afford to indulge in political moralism; such idealism is suicidal for the cause of Palestinian independence. Western states have their own, mostly cynical reasons to extend recognition to Palestine in order to placate vocal Muslim minorities and undercut the radical left. Whatever violence may or may not be legitimate in establishing national independence, we can be sure that violence that establishes fictional states—states whose only existence is on the NGO conference circuit—is not only morally reprehensible but also politically futile.
What does recognizing Palestinian state mean, and does it change anything on the ground?
That being said, even if Canada, the UK, France, Australia, and potentially others choose to go ahead and recognize a Palestinian state at the UN General Assembly next month, what, if anything, will change on the ground?

International recognition of a Palestinian state does not automatically lead to the state’s creation.

There are still no internationally-agreed upon borders, no capital city, no army, and no set government. Gaza is in the middle of a war, and there is yet to be discussion on significant minutiae such as land swaps, what happens to Jewish settlements in the West Bank, what happens to Israeli Arabs, and the like.

Recognition is mostly symbolic. It is not an order or a plan. If anything, it is designed to put pressure on Israel to end the war and to ramp up humanitarian aid provision to the Strip.

This was made evident in UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s July 29 speech in which he said that the recognition of a Palestinian state would go ahead “unless the Israeli government takes substantive steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza, agrees to a ceasefire, and commits to a long-term, sustainable peace, reviving the prospect of a two-state solution.”

In other words, recognition – at least on the UK’s part – is a bargaining chip for cajoling Israel into acting in line with international consensus on how the war should be carried out.

International law regarding the creation of a state is generally based on the Montevideo Convention of 1933. This lists four specific criteria in order for something to qualify as a state.

First, it must have a permanent population. Second, it must have a defined territory. Third, a government. And fourth, the capacity to enter into relations with other states.

Palestine does not necessarily meet all of these four criteria. While it is generally considered to have a permanent population, it doesn’t have a stable government (the Palestinian Authority has only limited control over the West Bank and no control over Gaza) and has disputed borders.

As the Israel Democracy Institute recently explained, the traditional position in international law is that a state either exists, or it does not: “If it does not meet the factual conditions for statehood, recognition of it has no meaning.”

Additionally, Article 10 of the Montevideo Convention states that “The primary interest of states is the conservation of peace. Differences of any nature that arise between them should be settled by recognized peaceful methods.”

Critics have argued that this will not be upheld by a future Palestinian state.
Amb. Alan Baker: In recognizing Palestinian statehood, Canada has betrayed Israel
Palestinians' empty commitments
• In predicating his intention to recognize a “State of Palestine” on “the Palestinian Authority’s commitment to much-needed reforms, including… commitments to fundamentally reform its governance, to hold general elections in 2026 in which Hamas can play no part, and to demilitarize the Palestinian state,” the prime minister is surely fully aware of the fact that Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas made the same commitments in the Oslo Accords, commitments that to this day have not been realized and have been continuously violated, together with most of the Palestinian commitments in those accords.

In welcoming Abbas’s “renewed commitment to these reforms,” Carney is knowingly deceiving both himself and the Canadian people by paying valueless lip service to empty commitments that no leader of the Palestinian Authority is able and genuinely willing to implement.

Canada’s empty commitments
• In informing the president of the Palestinian Authority that Canada will “increase its efforts to promote peace and stability in the region, and work closely with regional allies toward this goal,” Carney is voicing a totally empty, meaningless, and misleading commitment.

Joining such regional allies as France, Russia, the UK, Norway, Ireland, Spain, and others – in ganging-up against Israel in the United Nations and unilaterally recognizing a non-existent Palestinian state – undermines the Oslo Accords – and the Palestinian commitment to negotiated resolution of the conflict. It also undermines the obligation of the very states that signed the Oslo Accords as witnesses to maintain the integrity of the accords.

As such, the prime minister’s promise to Mahmoud Abbas is the very antithesis of promoting peace. It encourages the Hamas terrorist leadership and their PA partners in their stubborn refusal to free the Israeli hostages, and in their determination to continue their terror campaign against the Jewish state. And it encourages the other states in the UN, as well as the international public, in their continued hostility to Israel and their overall antisemitism.

With this irresponsible statement, as well as the policies that it describes, Carney has blatantly abandoned Canada’s traditional support for Israel – a support that has consistently been based on a solid commonality of political, security, economic, and cultural interests between Ottawa and Jerusalem.

Indeed, former prime minister Stephen Harper declared in 2014 in the Knesset that Canada will always have Israel’s back: “Through fire and water, Canada will stand with you.”

Regrettably, and to the contrary, Canada under Prime Minister Carney – and his predecessor Justin Trudeau – has stabbed Israel in its back and continues to do so.

One may ask if this ill-advised policy really serves the genuine interests of Canada, its society, and people. This begs the question of whether the damage that has been caused will ever be repaired.

Sunday, August 10, 2025

08/10 Links: Netanyahu: ‘No choice’ but to complete defeat of Hamas; Shoah survivor dies weeks after being wounded by Iran missile; How ‘Haaretz’ built a false campaign about Gaza ‘starvation’

From Ian:

Shoah survivor dies weeks after being wounded by Iran missile
Holocaust survivor Olga Weisberg, 91, from Rehovot, collapsed and died on Saturday, shortly after her ending hospitalization for serious wounds sustained in an Iranian missile attack during June’s 12-day war.

According to the MyRehovot local news site, she underwent multiple surgeries in the wake of the missile assault and was recently released from the hospital to recover further at a hotel. However, on Saturday, she took a turn for the worse.

Weisberg reportedly left behind a husband who is also a Holocaust survivor, as well as a daughter, grandson and great-grandson. Her funeral was set to take place Sunday at Rehovot’s New Cemetery.

On July 28, an 85-year-old Israeli who was moderately wounded in a missile attack during the war with Tehran succumbed to his wounds.

The slain victim, who sustained injuries when a residential building in Rehovot in took a direct hit on June 15, died at the city’s Kaplan Medical Center.

Last month, the Philippine Embassy in Israel announced that Leah Mosquera, a Filipina caregiver working in Israel, died on July 13 of wounds sustained in the same June 15 missile attack.

Mosquera was rushed to Shamir Medical Center in Be’er Ya’akov, where she underwent many surgeries and spent several weeks in the intensive care unit. The embassy noted that Mosquera would have turned 50 on July 29.

Iran’s missile attacks in June have now killed 31 people in Israel, while wounding more than 3,000 and displacing over 13,000 others.
Gaza recalls ancient antisemitic tropes
While Hamas commits atrocities against its own people, uses its children as human shields, hoards humanitarian aid, and starves Israeli hostages like Evyatar David — forcing him to dig his own grave — the international community blames Israel.

Meanwhile, genuine humanitarian crises elsewhere are met with near silence: Uyghur Muslims detained in Chinese camps, Christians slaughtered in Nigeria, Yazidi women enslaved by ISIS, Rohingya Muslims driven from Myanmar, and mass killings in Sudan. These tragedies barely register in the headlines, let alone spark sustained outrage. There are no emergency sessions of the UN, no massive street protests, no cultural boycotts.

The spotlight seems to shine only where it serves a pre-existing bias, selectively illuminating one nation while leaving vast fields of human suffering in the shadows. This is a double standard which is yet another blatant expression of antisemitism.

The truth is that never in the annals of warfare has a nation supplied its enemy with food and aid while its own citizens are still under fire. In the aftermath of WWII, the United States did feed Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan — but only after their surrender. Yet Israel, astonishingly, has allowed 1.8 million tons of aid to enter Gaza during the ongoing war.

Much of that aid lies idle, as my grandson Eitan Fischberger, who was embedded on the scene, noted in The Wall Street Journal. It has been blocked by a United Nations that refuses to facilitate its distribution — insisting that only Hamas’ Blue Police, not Israel or even a U.S.-backed group like the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, can be trusted to deliver it. As Fischberger wrote, “put simply, the UN would rather work with Hamas than the Israelis or the Americans.”

Some claim Israel has lost the battle for global opinion. Perhaps there is truth in that. But Israel has articulate and capable spokespeople making its case. The deeper reality is more sobering: the truth is irrelevant to those who are unwilling to hear it. Much of the world, still infected by an ancient hatred of Jews, has closed its ears.

They join the long line of accusers who, over centuries, have condemned Jews as the scourge of civilization. In time, history has exposed the lies behind those charges. So too, in time, will the truth come out and condemn the defamers of today — those who, under the guise of human rights advocacy, are resurrecting and amplifying the oldest hatred in the world.
George Brandis: Recognising Palestine now only rewards Hamas, the side with clear genocidal intent
The chilling irony of the debate about the Gaza War – in Australia, as elsewhere – is that those who most volubly condemn Israel for genocide are acting, wittingly or unwittingly, as apologists for Hamas, whose very raison d’etre is genocide.

Like “fascist” before it, “genocide” has become the go-to word of abuse for the left, a denunciation invoked with such indiscriminate carelessness that it has become unmoored from its true meaning. International law defines “genocide” in the 1948 Genocide Convention as “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical [sic], racial or religious group”.

The forcible occupation of territory may be a violation of international law, but it is not genocide. Israel’s announcement last week that it intends to deploy armed personnel to secure Gaza City is not a threat of genocide.

The elimination of the state of Israel would, however, undoubtedly be an act of genocide. Every protester accusing Israel of genocide, while mindlessly chanting the mantra “From the river to the sea …” , is either too stupid to understand this truth or too hypocritical to admit it. (I suspect few of those marching on the Harbour Bridge last week could tell you what sea – let alone what river – this undergraduate slogan refers to, let alone the implications of its demand.)

The current pressure for the recognition of a Palestinian state began last month when President Emmanuel Macron announced France’s intention to do so. He was swiftly joined by Britain and Canada. (Germany’s position – so far – has been more nuanced.) The rationale was condemnation of Israel’s interference with the delivery of humanitarian aid to Gaza – including shocking evidence of starvation among Palestinian children, and instances of the killing both of aid workers delivering food supplies, and those needing them.

The UK Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, was explicit in linking the two. On 29 July, he said: “[T]he UK will recognise the state of Palestine by the United Nations General Assembly in September unless the Israeli government takes substantive steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza, agree to a ceasefire and commit to a long-term, sustainable peace, reviving the prospect of a two-state solution.”

As Starmer’s statement makes clear, he, Macron and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney are using the immediate recognition of Palestine as a threat, to pressure Israel to desist from its current policy in Gaza.

This is appallingly ill-judged diplomacy. Condemnation of Israel’s actions – however justified – is no basis for reversing those nations’ long-held position that it is a precondition of recognition – a necessary ingredient of the two-state solution – that a Palestine state must accept Israel’s right to exist and agree not to threaten its security.

The profound inconsistency in the French, British and Canadian positions is revealed in Starmer’s choice of the word “unless”. According to this logic, if Israel were to accede to the demand, Palestinian recognition would continue to be withheld. If it does not, it would be granted. Yet on either scenario, the inability of the Palestinian Authority to give the guarantees upon which the two-state solution depends – and the continuation of Hamas’ genocidal intentions – remain exactly as before.

The change of policy, couched in terms of support for the two-state solution, in reality undermines its rationale. Two states may be recognised, but the “solution” element – the use of recognition as a tool to leverage a solution to the conflict – will have been effectively abandoned. It may linger as a rhetorical trope, but nothing more – undercut by the very leaders by whom it was invoked as cover for a diplomatic demarche that already looks to have failed.

And it also means that those who perpetrated the massacre of innocents on October 7, 2023 will have succeeded.
Israeli intelligence has kept countless Australians, including Bob Hawke, safe over the years
In the early 1970s, Palestinian terrorists tried to build a network of Australians sympathetic to their cause and saw Australia as a soft touch, not least of which because of then prime minister Gough Whitlam’s policy of neutrality in the Middle East notwithstanding the Palestinian program of terror that had up to then included the Munich Olympic Games massacre, the assassination of the Jordanian prime minister and plane hijacks across Europe.

At the Sydney Town Hall on in May 1973, Whitlam said: “Australia’s policy towards the Middle East is one of neutrality and of sympathetic interest in a settlement.”

Future prime minister Bob Hawke, then president of the Australian Labor Party, bravely wanted none of it.

“I know that if we allow the bell to be tolled for Israel it will have tolled for me, for us all,” he told the Zionist Federation in a Sydney meeting in January 1974.

“For me”? If only he had known. Palestinians were already arranging his assassination.

One of their agents, posing as a journalist, was given a visa to enter Australia in 1974. Munif Mohammed Abou Rish arrived here that year and planned to return to Australia the following year with a hit list that included Hawke, the then Israeli ambassador to Australia Michael Elizur, prominent Jewish Australian Isi Leibler and my old mate, and this newspaper’s one-time foreign editor, Sam Lipski.

Israeli intelligence warned Australia about the risks. One Palestinian was expelled and the rest were watched.

The man who planned to assassinate Hawke, Munif Mohammed Abou Rish, was provided with fake passports by Australian supporters.

Later, he was “accidentally” killed by Israeli security forces.
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

AddToAny

Printfriendly

EoZTV Podcast

Podcast URL

Subscribe in podnovaSubscribe with FeedlyAdd to netvibes
addtomyyahoo4Subscribe with SubToMe

search eoz

comments

Speaking

Speaking

translate

E-Book

For $18 donation








Sample Text

EoZ's Most Popular Posts in recent years

Search2

Hasbys!

Hasbys!

2019 Nobel Peace Prize nominee

Elder of Ziyon - حـكـيـم صـهـيـون



This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For 20 years and 40,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.

Donate!

Donate to fight for Israel!

Monthly subscription:
Payment options


One time donation:

Follow EoZ on Twitter!

Interesting Blogs

Show All

Blog Archive

Copyright © Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News | Powered by Blogger
Blogger Templates