11/21 Links Pt2: Melanie Phillips: The pope’s embrace of evil discourse; Douglas Murray, Ben Shapiro tell thousands in Jerusalem: You are the ‘tip of the spear in a civilizational battle’

From Ian:

Unfulfilled Promise

Pope Francis has called for an investigation to determine if Israel’s operation in Gaza constitutes genocide, according to a new book published for the Catholic Church’s jubilee year. “According to some experts, what is happening in Gaza has the characteristics of a genocide,” the pope said in excerpts published Sunday by the Italian daily La Stampa.

What makes the inflammatory statements in the pope’s book especially disturbing is that they follow on remarks by the pope that appear to demonize Jews even more broadly and which are contrary to teachings of the Church. Pope Francis’ prior Letter to Catholics of the Middle East on the first anniversary of the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel from Gaza provoked widespread confusion and consternation among Jews and Catholics. While he has spoken regularly about the attack and the fighting that erupted in its wake, his inclusion in the letter of a citation of John 8:44 to denounce the evils of war was to many inexplicable.

The verse chosen by the pontiff, a vitriolic accusation that the Jews “are from [their] father, the devil,” has for centuries provoked and been used to justify Church hostility to Jews. Yet such terrible imagery of Jewish malfeasance is thoroughly out of place in a modern Catholic document. Regrettably, the pope nonetheless chose to use this notorious verse at a time when global antisemitism has reached disturbingly high levels. Such a statement threatens the intellectual work of his Catholic predecessors going back to the 1960s.

While the citation is surely troubling, more significant is the letter itself, for it is yet another example of an ongoing presentation of Francis’ extensive and controversial views on the Israel-Hamas war. This letter has made people aware of this significant body of statements and demonstrates the compelling need to understand current relations with one of the Jewish community’s most influential and important partners, Pope Francis and the Catholic Church. In the year after the attack, Francis has spoken publicly about the war at least 75 different times. The conflict is not just like other conflicts, for it occurs in a place “which has witnessed the history of revelation” (2/2/24). Not only is he understandably very distressed about the war, but he is also clearly knowledgeable about it and notes many aspects of it (e.g., hostages, negotiations, humanitarian aid, Israeli airstrikes, challenges for aid workers). With the possible exception of Russia’s war on Ukraine, no other conflict has received such frequent mention by Francis, nor has he engaged so intimately with the specific features of other, often more deadly conflicts. He addressed the war most often in scheduled gatherings for the Sunday Angelus Prayer and in weekly audiences with the general public, though he has discussed it at greater length in official contexts (e.g., Address to Members of the Diplomatic Corps Accredited to the Holy See, 1/8/24).

Pope Francis does not just speak homiletically. His statements express his deep-seated and passionate convictions about morality and political affairs. They also both reflect and influence current trends in Catholic thinking about the Israel-Hamas war. The Holy See of course is not just a religious institution but also a state, engaged in pragmatic exchanges and negotiations with other states and organizations. The pope’s views on war and peace necessarily shape Vatican diplomacy and guide Catholic political proposals, as seen for example in the statement of the Apostolic Nuncio to the U.N. in January 2024, which is replete with references to Francis’ speeches and elaboration on his ideas.

Francis is struggling to reconcile traditional Catholic just war theory, which began with St. Augustine centuries ago, with contemporary Catholic resistance to almost any justification of war, especially without international sanction (Fratelli Tutti 258 n. 242; see also the Catechism of the Catholic Church 2302-17). The latter, more skeptical view of war has roots in the 19th century but emerged strongly after World War II and the Second Vatican Council (1962-65), especially in the wake of the Shoah and the development of nuclear weapons. It continues to develop today, with Francis giving it his own emphases that reflect his roots in the global south and the influence of liberationist theology.

It is ironic, or perhaps predictable, that the Catholic Church in the modern period, now without access to military power, has moved away from just war theory and now largely deploys its more restrained views of war and peace in judging others. Given the prominence of the Israel-Hamas war in Francis’ speeches and its moral and political complexity, as well as his stature internationally, his views are relevant and influential.

Melanie Phillips: The pope’s embrace of evil discourse

In other words, his attack on Israel is far more than boilerplate liberal hostility to the existence of the Jewish state. It regurgitates the ancient Christian theological hatred of the Jews and the desire to obliterate them.

This pushes the Vatican backwards by several decades. Unlike Protestant churches, the Catholics have made significant attempts from the 1960s onwards to retract their ancient libel against the Jews and express contrition for what the church had done to the Jewish people.

Particularly neuralgic had been the behavior of Pope Pius XII, who was accused of having failed to speak out publicly against the Nazis and thus made the church an accomplice to the Holocaust.

Now Pope Francis has undone all of that progress.

Yet he has also said good things about Israel and the Jews. In Tablet magazine, Adam Gregerman points out that the pope has celebrated the change in Catholic thinking about Judaism that meant “enemies and strangers have become friends and brothers”; expressed sadness over Catholics’ past misdeeds against Jews; said “the State of Israel has every right to exist in safety and prosperity”; and insisted that “to attack Jews is antisemitism, but an outright attack on the State of Israel is also antisemitism.”

Responding to a letter from Jewish scholars written in November 2023 expressing deep concern over “the worst wave of antisemitism since 1945,” he said the Oct. 7 atrocities reminded him that the promise “never again” remained relevant, and must be taught and affirmed anew.

So what’s the explanation for the apparent contradiction?

The answer is surely that the pope is driven entirely by his identification with suffering victims—and since all wars inevitably create victims, he always opposes war. Four days after the Oct. 7 pogrom, he said: “No war is worth the tears of a mother who has seen her child mutilated or killed; no war is worth the loss of the life of even one human being.”

He is a consequentialist. Seeing only the awful consequences of war, the cause becomes irrelevant. War to stop a genocide thus becomes as bad as genocide.

That amoral thinking leads him effectively to deny any justification for a just war. He thus inevitably condemns innocent victims of aggression—in this case, the Israelis—to unlimited slaughter, torture and suffering, and ultimately the State of Israel itself to existential destruction.

Believing that war is itself a crime against humanity, he excuses, sanitizes and implicitly encourages actual crimes against humanity while anathematizing the defense against them.

By believing that this Marxist-derived ideology represents conscience, Pope Francis has made himself an accomplice of evil.

Yisrael Medad: On academic indoctrination in American universities

For those opposed to Zionism, Israel is a symbol of capitalism, imperialism and colonialism—the core evils leftists exist to oppose. This is the underlying layer of today’s debasement of anything pro-Israel, its pillars sunk into a feeling of intense and even depraved degradation of Jews and all things Jewish, especially an independent and successful Jewish state.

What has evolved is epitomized at Villanova University outside Philadelphia, where a director of counseling services can present antisemitic views at an international conference, describing Zionism as a “disease” that requires psychotherapy. FBI-style “Wanted” posters targeted Jewish faculty and staff members at the University of Rochester. The sheriff’s office in Walla Walla, Wash., was required to respond to a pro-Palestine student protest outside a Whitman Board of Trustees dinner at a winery forcing the college to relocate its dinner venue.

At De Paul University, supporting Israel landed one Jewish student in the hospital while a second student was lightly injured. At Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, the campus flagpole had a Hamas flag hoisted.

The deeper invasive connection between academia and anti-Zionism, however, is not in protests but in the educational content, or rather the indoctrination, that a student undergoes. For example, the University of California, Berkeley has announced that it is offering a course this coming spring semester describing Hamas as a “revolutionary resistance force fighting settler colonialism.” More invidious, the course description reads as if a primer for a revolutionary underground:

“With the U.S.-backed and -funded genocide being carried out against Indigenous Palestinians by the Israeli Occupying Force, many have found it difficult to envision a reality beyond the one we are living in today.”

A second example is the Massachusetts Institute of Technology seminar taught by linguistics professor Michel DeGraff. The course deals with “language and linguistics for decolonization and liberation and for peace and community-building.”

His position is that Jews have no connection to Israel and that Israeli textbooks “weaponize trauma of the Holocaust.” Israeli youth, he further asserts, grow up “with this trauma that made them fear that their existence is in threat.” That may be a fair observation, but he adds that the threat comes from “anyone who doesn’t believe in the superior position of the Jewish people in Israel.”

If you perceive some racism and black supremacist theory in this explanation, you are probably correct.

This is but one sphere of influence crushing on a student. In too many cases, his/her lecturers and advisors are those who sign pro-Palestine petitions, marshal the demonstrations and sit-ins, and provide support for campus groups when they are disciplined—or more correctly, when administrations attempt to do so.

The Capital Research Center has published a study titled “Marching Towards Violence” that investigated militant left-wing antisemitism on the campuses of U.S. colleges and universities. It has identified more than 150 campus groups that explicitly support terrorism or, at the least, emphasize violent anti-Israel rhetoric.

David Bernstein, founder of the Jewish Institute for Liberal Values and author of Woke Antisemitism: How a Progressive Ideology Harms Jews, sums up the situation:

“Anti-Israel forces focused on U.S. college campuses have transformed the American university into a vector for their activist agenda … playing the long game—what activists call “the long march through institutions”—in inculcating a stark ideological worldview that portrays anyone with power or success … as oppressors.”

Is there an antidote? One is the Deborah Project, which defends the civil rights of Jews facing discrimination in educational settings. Its aim is “to use legal skills and tools to uncover, publicize and dismantle antisemitic abuses in educational systems.” Other groups and individuals work on many levels of engagement; still, if the monied Jewish establishment institutions do not get behind this, then the anarchy, irrationality and hate will at some point come to overwhelm Diaspora Jewry.

Read More

11/21 Links Pt1: BHL: There Is No ‘Genocide’ in Gaza; ICC fake charges against Netanyahu and Gallant prove US must never recognize the court; Anti-Israel vandals target Sydney suburb

From Ian:

Bernard-Henri Lévy : There Is No ‘Genocide’ in Gaza

I have “studied” these subjects in depth. I have seen genocides in Srebrenica and Darfur with my own eyes. I have filmed those tortured by Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and the bodies burned alive, thrown from rooftops, beheaded, by ISIS at Mosul. I have documented, on the ground, the indiscriminate killings by Russia in Ukraine.

I covered, long before that, the carnage of the Islamic Salvation Front in Algeria, from which the French writer Kamel Daoud escaped. I have borne witness to those survivors in the Christian villages of the Middle Belt of Nigeria, their lives decimated by the Islamist Fulani.

In short, I know what it means to be promised death. I have seen skeletons exploited to their last strength and, when that strength expired, thrown into a pit. In other words, I know what genocide and crimes against humanity mean.

The world has willingly forgotten that, in this war of Israel against the Islamic Republic of Iran and its puppets, the IDF is the first army in the world to take so many measures, sometimes to its strategic detriment, to ensure that as few innocent civilians as possible are caught in the furnace of battles.

Thus, myths are forged.

Thus, we go from the Judeo-Masonic conspiracy, or Judeo-Bolshevik, or Judeo-Capitalist conspiracy, to the Judeo-genocidal conspiracy of which all the Jews of the world would be more or less complicit. And thus we insult, not only the truth of facts and names, but the holy memory of the victims of the genocides of the last century. BERNARD-HENRI LÉVY

Unsanction Israel

President Biden's sanctions regime against Israelis "for undermining peace, security, and stability in the West Bank" violates several standards of sanctions policy. America almost never sanctions other democracies. Americans respect the desire of other self-governing peoples to govern themselves, rather than to obey coercive dictates from Washington. If America cannot peacefully persuade another democracy to change its ways, America lives with it.

America sanctions rogue states and non-state groups that brutalize people lacking recourse to courts or democratic institutions. Think China, Russia, Iran, North Korea. Or the terror groups and states within states in Yemen and Sudan.

American sanctions policy now classes Israel with the world's worst regimes, including Iran, a state sponsor of terror officially dedicated to Israel's destruction. Actually, American sanctions now treat Israel worse than Iran: by targeting the speech of its citizens. Sanctioning Israel in wartime also advances the best hope of Israel's enemies - to isolate Israel from its friends.

Moreover, the sanctions regime the administration has set up grossly misidentifies the culprit. West Bank Palestinians have committed hundreds of terrorist attacks and killed at least 20 Israelis since Oct. 7, 2023. Nearly all alleged incidents of West Bank Jews committing violence against Arabs involve property crimes.

Settler violence is so infrequent that the Biden administration has struggled to find perpetrators to sanction. Instead, it has sanctioned persons never accused of violence or already dealt with by the Israeli authorities. Meanwhile, endemic Palestinian property crimes against Jews remain under-prosecuted by Israel, ignored or encouraged by the Palestinian Authority, and unsanctioned by America.

At a recent Israeli parliament meeting, both opponents and supporters of the Netanyahu government condemned the sanctions regime. Americans should join with Israelis in opposing this intervention in Israeli public life - to protect their own free-speech rights and to support an American security partner.

State Department’s last-gasp effort to sabotage an Israeli victory over terrorists

Israel’s detractors believe that America’s unwavering support for Israel is driven by the mythologically omnipotent “Jewish lobby.” The truth is it is the Arab lobby, entrenched within the deep state, which has been adversely affecting U.S. policy since the discovery of oil in Saudi Arabia in the 1930s.

The Arabists fought first to prevent the establishment of Israel, then to strangle the nascent state at birth, and ever since, have sought to drive a wedge between the two countries despite their shared values and interests. This tradition has continued in the Biden administration, where the Arabists are determined to make a last stand before Donald Trump takes office and make their anti-Israel positions as Trump-proof as possible.

We have seen this movie before.

In the 1940s, President Harry Truman’s push for the creation of Israel was met with fierce resistance. The Arabists in the State and Defense Departments were adamantly against the establishment of a Jewish state, fearing the United States would lose access to Middle East oil (which we did not yet depend on), that Israel would be Communist, and that the Soviets would exploit Arab anger with America to gain influence in the region. Truman ordered them to support partition; however, after the resolution to create a Jewish and Arab state was adopted, American diplomats tried to prevent its implementation. The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations announced that partition was unworkable and proposed an international trusteeship for Palestine instead. Truman learned about it from the newspaper. Historian Robert Silverberg said Truman “became a staunch Zionist for the first time” and ensured that he would no longer listen to “the appeasers of the Arabs, the worriers over oil, the frenetic anti-Communists and the subtle anti-Semites in the Departments of State and Defense.”

The Arabists have never given up.

We saw President Barack Obama’s Arabist instrument, John Kerry, sticking it to Israel as he headed out the door in a preemptive strike against the incoming Trump administration. As I wrote at the time, he and Hillary Clinton “carried out President Obama’s agenda to turn on our most fervent allies, such as Israel, make catastrophic deals with enemies such as Iran and, in a nod to Nero, fiddled while Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya and Yemen burned.”

After the failure of Kerry’s efforts to broker peace between Israel and the Palestinians, and Trump defeated Clinton, Obama ordered the United States to abstain rather than veto Security Council Resolution 2334, a one-sided measure labeling Israeli settlements “a flagrant violation of international law” that damage the prospects of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Obama had previously vetoed a similar resolution but now claimed the vote reflected longstanding U.S. policy.

The US media’s war on Trump’s Middle East policy

In recent articles on Hezbollah’s rocket attacks on northern Israel, the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal all referred to the “Israeli-occupied” or “Israeli-controlled” Golan Heights. The terms were revealing. In March 2019, President Trump recognized Israeli sovereignty over the Golan, making it an indivisible part of the Jewish state. In describing the Heights as “occupied” and “controlled” by Israel, America’s papers of record were publicly rejecting the position of the country’s democratically elected leader in favor of those of Belgium, China, and the Obama administration.

The willingness of the mainstream press to make its own foreign policy signals a deeply troubling trend. Presidents often rescind their predecessors’ decisions. George Bush and Donald Trump withdrew America’s representation on the flagrantly anti-Israel UN Human Rights Council and Barack Obama and Joe Biden restored it. Trump nullified Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran and Biden tried to revive it. But the negation by the and large parts of the public of a formal White House policy poses far greater challenges. More than Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, at stake is the legitimacy of presidential decisions.

Those challenges will certainly mount under the incoming administration. Much of the controversy will center, once again, on the Middle East. President Trump has selected Secretaries of State and Defense, a National Security Advisor, and ambassadors to Israel and the UN, whose outlook on the region sharply diverges from that of the previous policymakers. While the Biden administration sought to limit Israel’s ability to defend itself, condemned Israeli settlement-building in the West Bank, and supported the creation of a Palestinian state that the vast majority of Israelis opposed, the Trump team believes that Israel should fight as it sees fit, calls the settlements communities and the West Bank by its Biblical name, Judea and Samaria. And though President Trump’s 2020 peace plan provided for a Palestinian state, those soon to be forging US foreign policy will undoubtedly oppose the establishment of any Palestinian entity bound to quickly fail and fall to Hamas. The Biden White House refused to stand up to Iran in any significant way and tried to appease it back to the negotiating table. In complete contrast, Trump’s senior staff will work to thoroughly isolate and weaken Iran. Should it ever come back to the table, it will do so begging for a deal.

All of this, of course, is good news for the majority of Israelis. Many dubbed Trump’s selection of Secretary Marco Rubio, National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, and Ambassadors Elise Stefanik and Mike Huckabee, the “Dream Team.” The Iranian regime promptly told that team it was no longer planning to attack Israel and was willing to negotiate with Trump. The restoration of trust in the relations between the United States and Israel, and fear among our common enemies, holds out the promise of unprecedented stability in the Middle East, the conclusion of wars, and the expansion of existing peace treaties. But will it last?

Read More

11/20 Links Pt2: Why they refuse to see Jews as victims; Hamas' sexual crimes: Uncollected evidence come to light; Twitch star: 'Cheerleading for terrorism'

From Ian:

Brendan O'Neill: Why they refuse to see Jews as victims

It was the speed with which the racism fearmongers became racism deniers that was most unnerving. Virtually overnight, as men whose only crime was their Jewishness were still being patched up in Amsterdam hospitals, the preening racism denouncers of what passes for the Euro-left were saying this wasn’t racism. The very people who see racism everywhere could not see it here, in the broken teeth, black eyes and bloodied faces of Israelis who became the prey of a self-described Jew hunt earlier this month in Amsterdam. Confronted with beaten, bruised Jews, they said, for the first time I can remember, ‘Maybe it wasn’t a hate crime. Maybe it was something else.’

It has been extraordinary. The people who wring their hands over the racial microaggression of asking a woman in African garb ‘Where are you from?’ were positively blasé about the racial macroaggression of a mob smashing in a man’s face because he ‘helped a Jew’. The people who cry ‘Islamophobia!’ when a schoolkid lightly scuffs a page of the Koran struggled to see the Judeaophobia in a gang of self-styled Jew-hunters accosting men and asking them: ‘Are you Yehudi? Are you Jewish?’ The people who madly insist that every tabloid piss-take of Meghan Markle is an act of unforgivable ‘racist bullying’ refused to accept that ‘Jew hunters’ on mopeds who fired fireworks at Israelis might have been racist bullies.

The zeal of the downplayers felt alarming. There are prominent British and American leftists who for a whole week devoted every waking hour to disproving the claim that Israeli Jews were the victims of a mass, coordinated racist attack. The moral energy they normally reserve for proving that the West is institutionally racist they now expended on proving that a pogrom did not take place in Amsterdam. That was their main beef: the use of that p-word by Dutch and Israeli politicians, Jewish groups and sections of the media. ‘There were no “anti-Semitic pogroms” in Amsterdam’, they cried, as noisily as they normally cry that racism is the disease our societies will never shake off.

On the rubble of the ‘pogrom’ – their scare quotes – that they feverishly rebutted, they built a new narrative. It was the visiting Israeli Jews, the brutes and bigots who support Maccabi Tel Aviv, who really instigated the violence. They were the real racists. They brought the ‘spirit of Israeli facism’ to Amsterdam. It was these ‘marauding gangs’ of foreign fans who carried out a ‘racist rampage’, cried the BDS movement. They tore down a Palestinian flag, they made offensive anti-Arab chants – ‘incitement to genocide’. These thugs embody ‘the most fascistic, right-wing, racist, misogynist elements of Israeli political culture’, said one observer. The Israeli disease, infecting Europe.

And in this retelling, in this ruthless confiscation of the rights of victimhood from the Israelis battered for being Israelis, the ‘Jew hunt’ came to be reimagined as ‘street justice’. That’s how one left-wing commentator in the UK referred to the hunting and assaulting of the visiting fans – these ‘notoriously thuggish’ football followers started a fight in the Dutch capital and ‘the street justice [was] swift’. You know who else thought that beating Jews to a pulp was a ‘just’ response to alleged misbehaviour by other members of their ‘race’? I’m not even going to say. It’s too easy.

It has added up to one of the most pitiless dismantlings of a people’s experience of racism that I can remember. The very activist class that insists we respect the ‘truth’ of what ethnic-minority people tell us were now giddily shredding the truth of what happened on the streets of Amsterdam, of this jodenjacht organised via Telegram and visited on anyone in the city that night who looked Israeli or Jewish or who just helped a Jew. And here’s the worst thing: the dismantling has been successful. These radicals’ jealous, furious chipping away at the Israeli Jews’ experience of racial hatred has had the desired effect: more people are backing off from the word pogrom. Now even the political class and media elites wonder out loud if it was just a scrap, no big deal, nothing to trouble the history books with.

Kassy Akiva: Ketanji Brown Jackson To Headline Event Featuring Activists Who Justified October 7

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is set to headline a conference in Boston this week that will also feature activists who justified Hamas’s October 7 attack on Israel.

Jackson will deliver a Thursday keynote address at the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) convention. Representing educators from K-12 to college, the 100-year-old organization adopted a 2017 vision calling on members to “apply the power of language and literacy to actively pursue justice and equity.”

The four-day-long convention, which has the theme “Heart, Hope, Humanity,” will also include Sawsan Jaber and Hannah Moushabeck, two activists who have been outspoken in justifying Hamas’s October 7 attack multiple times.

Jackson faced criticism during her confirmation hearings for her membership in Harvard’s Black Student Association, which invited anti-Semitic speaker Leonard Jeffries to speak during her time at the school. Jackson told Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-NC) that she did not attend Jeffries’ speech and does not share his views.

Mika Hackner, a Senior Research Associate for the Jewish Institute For Liberal Values, said it is “distasteful and unconscionable” that NCTE put Jackson in a position where she will be appearing at an event with anti-Israel activists.

“A Supreme Court justice, a representative of the highest court in our land, charged with protecting the laws and values of our liberal democracy, should not be sharing any kind of engagement or platform with activists who promote the view that Hamas are “legitimate resistance,” Hackner said.

Hackner noted that several sessions as a whole focus on “using education as a tool of social justice activism.”

Canadian-Israeli philanthropist Sylvan Adams challenges Roger Waters to debate

Roger Waters, co-founder of the renowned British rock group Pink Floyd, who has become notorious for his outspoken anti-Israel and antisemitic statements in recent years, may have met his match in Sylvan Adams, the noted Canadian-Israeli philanthropist who made aliyah in 2015 who bills himself as Israel’s “self-appointed ambassador-at-large.”

In October, Adams appeared on the CJN Daily podcast of the Canadian Jewish News, in which he discussed the anti-Israel protests that took place at McGill University in Montreal and the defacement of the $30 million Sylvan Adams Sports Science Institute which he donated to the school – the largest-ever gift to a Canadian university campus.

In the course of the podcast, Adams, who has long promoted Israel to the world through sports, music, and culture, expressed an interest in initiating a commemorative concert after the Swords of Iron War that would feature the two remaining members of Pink Floyd – who have repudiated Waters’ antisemitic views – and Irish musician Bono, who condemned the October 7 attack.

Ideally, he said, the concert would be held in Re’im, where hundreds of Israeli youth were massacred at the Nova Music Festival on October 7.

In response to Adams’ podcast, Waters penned an article that appeared on a progressive Canadian website called “rabble,” in which he termed Adams a “looney Zionist billionaire who thinks that he can reunite Pink Floyd to promote and celebrate the genocide of the Palestinian people.” He called Adams a “racist supremacist” and suggested that he lacked the courage to participate in a debate to discuss whether Israel’s actions in the war could be defined as genocidal.

Waters also accused Adams of bringing Madonna and the Argentine national soccer team to appear in Israel as an attempt to “whitewash Israeli apartheid.”

Speaking with the Jerusalem Post, Adams said, “He accuses me of being a looney Zionist billionaire. I don’t think I’m looney, and I don’t think that being called a Zionist is an insult. I think that Zionism, the love of our Jewish homeland of Israel, and appreciation for our 3,500-year magnificent journey is a beautiful story of a persecuted yet indestructible people who achieved something seemingly impossible by returning home. If Roger Waters thinks that Zionism is a dirty word, I vehemently disagree. It’s simple Jewish nationalism for our homeland of Israel. Not only am I not ashamed, I’m extremely proud and proud to call myself a Zionist.”

Read More

11/20 Links Pt1: US vetoes UNSC ceasefire resolution; Senate Democrats Launch Campaign To Kneecap Jewish State; Reservist KIA in Gaza is 800th IDF war casualty

From Ian:

Another Report from Human Rights Watch: Ignore Hamas, Blame Israel

On November 14, Human Rights Watch released a report titled “Hopeless, Starving, and Besieged,” which accuses Israel of numerous war crimes in Gaza.

The report is based primarily on interviews with 39 Gaza residents, along with analysis of photographs, satellite imagery, and evacuation orders the IDF published on social media.

Of course the war has caused tremendous suffering for Gaza. While fighting against Hamas in a densely urban setting makes this largely inevitable, Israel should not be immune from scrutiny as to whether it has done enough to respect the rights of Gaza civilians. So investigation and analysis of Israel’s conduct is certainly in order.

However, as we’ve unfortunately become accustomed to from Human Rights Watch, this report is biased against Israel at every turn.

Standard of Perfection
Humanitarian law is extraordinarily demanding in the protections it affords civilians — so much so, that no army has ever succeeded at upholding humanitarian law completely. In fact, most do a terrible job. A reasonable question might be to ask how Israel’s humanitarian score compares with other Western nations in their own recent conflicts. But Human Rights Watch holds Israel to a standard of complete perfection — any time Israel falls the slightest bit short of what they believe humanitarian law requires, no matter how impossible the situation, this report immediately accuses Israel of a war crime.

For example, in declaring most evacuations of civilians illegal, the report says, “failure to ensure the security and the guarantee of protections of displaced persons as they fled and in the places to which they were displaced would still render the displacement unlawful.”

In other words, the IDF told civilians to leave a residential area where it was planning to operate against Hamas missiles and tunnels, where they would be in enormous danger should they remain.

But even though evacuation was clearly a good idea and would make them much, much safer, since Israel couldn’t guarantee that they would be completely safe while traveling and at their destination, Human Rights Watch says the evacuation was a war crime.

But how can anywhere in Gaza be completely safe, with Hamas popping up all over? This demand that Israel ensure complete safety for evacuees is impossible, and that would be the case for any other army as well.

The report even criticizes Israel for this: “The evacuation orders also failed to take into account the needs of people with disabilities, many of whom are unable to leave without assistance.”

Of course it would be best if Gaza residents had plenty of time to leave in an organized fashion, with special consideration for those with disabilities. But rockets were raining down on Israel’s cities, with hostages languishing in captivity and Israeli soldiers in danger of attack by Hamas as they wait. Human Rights Watch makes it sound as if Palestinian civilians are the only ones whose rights need to be considered. They’re not.

It Is Time for Qatar to Choose a Side: The United States or Terror Groups

For the sake of peace and stability in the Middle East, it is vital that the United States drastically change its relations with Qatar. Qatar has long played a double game, seeking good relations with the United States while maintaining ties — if not support — for its adversaries. That pattern appears to be repeating itself again, with competing reports about whether the leadership of the terrorist group Hamas will continue to be welcome to live in Doha.

It is vital that the United States convince Qatar to play it straight, and cut off political and financial support for Hamas while increasing accountability.

Earlier this month, Biden administration officials claimed that Qatar was evicting Hamas from the country. But, just days later, the Qatari Foreign Ministry strongly denied those reports. Instead, Qatar said it was suspending its role as a mediator in hostage and ceasefire negotiations between Israel and Hamas.

Yet, an Arab diplomat told The Times of Israel that last week senior Hamas officials left Qatar for Turkey, a NATO ally that also risks running afoul of Washington if it provides safe harbor to terrorists.

Amid this confusion, it is not clear what exactly is taking place: has Qatar actually expelled Hamas’ leadership, but is denying it to save face publicly? Would Doha welcome these officials back if they agree to negotiate? Which Hamas members, if any, still reside in Qatar?

Whatever is happening behind the scenes, the ambiguity of the current situation is representative of Qatar’s broader strategy to play all sides and keep everyone guessing regarding its loyalties and interests. Thus, while it hosts, and helps pay for, the largest US military base in the Middle East at al Udeid, Qatar has also provided a haven and financial support to radical groups, terrorist organizations, and American adversaries such as the Taliban, Hamas, and the Muslim Brotherhood, while maintaining good relations with Iran.

Doha portrays its refusal to choose sides as a strategic asset, not only for itself but for others as well. For example, Qatari officials have claimed that allowing Hamas officials to reside on its territory is a selfless investment in diplomacy. Qatari Defense Minister Khalid bin Mohammed al-Attiyah explained that Hamas officials would remain in Doha “not because we want Hamas to stay in Qatar, but because we want to facilitate the negotiations with the parties through the organization’s office.”

Yet, there is good reason to be skeptical of these claims of Qatari neutrality and magnanimity.

Read More

11/19 Links Pt2: Israel’s Comically Inconsistent The harrowing tale of a former Hamas hostage; Critics; Coates the Charlatan; New HRW "report" is a work of fantasy and fake law

From Ian:

Seth Mandel: Israel’s Comically Inconsistent Critics

Critics of Israel’s counteroffensive in Gaza, especially those in the media, really need to settle on a complaint. Too often they are effectively arguing with each other, though unintentionally. To read the daily newspapers is to see Israel accused of mutually exclusive sins.

Take the fights over humanitarian aid and postwar governance in Gaza. Today’s New York Times carries a story on the fact that an aid convoy of 109 trucks was hijacked and looted over the weekend. Only 11 of the trucks made it to their destination.

Who’s to blame? Well, we know the one group that isn’t looting convoys is the IDF. Miraculously, the IDF is also the one at fault, according to the press. “Aid agencies have said for months that woefully inadequate food supplies have led to looting, hoarding and profiteering, exacerbating the shortages,” the Times explains. That is, when food is let into Gaza, it gets stolen, usually by Hamas. This means if there are starving Gazans it is most likely Hamas that is starving them.

What’s the fix here? You guessed it—more cowbell. The aid agencies insist “that the only solution is a significant increase in deliveries.”

Just to review: Israel let in a convoy of over 100 aid trucks. Nearly 100 of them were looted. Had the convoy been 150 trucks, they would… not have been looted? It begins to sound like a riddle: How many trucks must an aid convoy be before Hamas chooses not to loot it?

And when it’s not Hamas looting the supplies, it’s still Israel’s fault. “Gaza is basically lawless,” a UN coordinator tells the Washington Post. “There is no security anywhere. Israel is ‘the occupying power,’ he said, so ‘this is on them. They need to make sure that the area is protected and secured.’”

The Post, in fact, makes a provocative accusation: that Israel is looking the other way as local gangs are becoming bolder in areas controlled by the IDF. Says the Post: “The thieves, who have run cigarette-smuggling operations throughout this year but are now also stealing food and other supplies, are tied to local crime families, residents say. The gangs are described by observers as rivals of Hamas and, in some cases, they have been targeted by remnants of Hamas’s security forces in other parts of the enclave.”

The problem, according to the Post and the UN, is that Israel is trying to crush Hamas. Local families are trying to take the reins from Hamas, and Israel stands accused of letting them steal cigarettes.

But it’s not clear the New York Times sees it that way. “The Israeli campaign in Gaza toppled much of the Hamas government, and there is no civilian administration to take its place,” states the Gray Lady. So Israeli security measures regarding humanitarian aid are too strict and too lax at the same time. Trucks are getting looted because Israel won’t reduce security enough to let more trucks in, and there’s no replacement for Hamas but also Israel needs to crack down on Hamas’s would-be replacements.

David Hirsh: Fear and denial – why we founded the London Centre for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism

We set up the London Centre for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism (LCSCA) because we were afraid. Antisemitism had been progressively spreading into academic disciplines in the social and human sciences, and it was becoming more and more acceptable and normal. This was an antisemitism that angrily denied being antisemitic, which was carried by people who thought they opposed racism and who were convinced they were the good guys.

We were afraid because anyone who challenged this antisemitism was more and more likely to be denounced by their academic colleagues as a charlatan who misused their academic talent and perverted their disciplines in an effort to delegitimise criticism of Israel.

Hamas was founded to prevent the creation of a Palestinian state. It hoped to destroy the peace process by murdering Israelis in buses and in restaurants in the name of Palestine. Hamas hoped to make Israelis believe that all Palestinians hated them and it hoped this would turn Israeli public opinion away from peace. More recently Hamas has encouraged Palestinians to murder Israelis randomly, using knives or cars, in the hope that Israelis would come to fear any Arab who they encountered. The founding document of Hamas made it clear that it regarded peace with Israel as a violation of the principles of Islam and it repeated Nazi-style antisemitism as though it was embraced by the single, authentic reading of Islam.

Happily for Hamas, the peace process did collapse, in January 2001. In August 2001, at the World Conference against Racism, in Durban, there was a formidable campaign to reset thinking about Israel from a maker of peace to an entity that was incurably evil. It sought to take us back to the 1970s UN and Soviet era. A week after Durban was the 9/11 attack on the USA, which revitalised antisemitic Islamist politics for the 21st century.

On 7 October 2023, Hamas showed its hand. It broke into Israel and murdered everybody it could find; it perpetrated a campaign of sexual violence; and it kidnapped 250 people. It turned out that by that time, there were enough people around the world who were ready to embrace elements of the Hamas view of the world.

People in our universities glorified the day of Jew-killing as ‘resistance’; they claimed that Israel’s inherently genocidal nature was the real aggression and that the day of Jew-killing was just a small, understandable response; they blamed the victims; and they denied that there was violence against Israeli civilians.

Strangely, all four of these responses to 7 October could co-exist within an individual.

Read More

11/19 Links Pt1: Why the West Should Care About Ukrainian and Israeli Independence; Court orders PA to compensate victims of 2001 Sbarro terror attack

From Ian:

Seth Mandel: Why the West Should Care About Ukrainian and Israeli Independence

The Ukrainians are a people on their historical land. Israelis understand this concept, but fewer and fewer in the West seem to. The goal of the hostile foreign powers that invaded Ukraine and Israel was to negate the legitimacy of the land so they could wipe out the people.

The West’s original sin against Ukrainian legitimacy goes back 30 years now. In 1994, the U.S., UK, Ukraine, and Russia signed the Budapest Memorandum. In return for security guarantees, Ukraine agreed to relinquish its nuclear arsenal, which it inherited from the Soviet Union upon the USSR’s dissolution.

In addition to agreeing not to attack Ukraine, all the signatory countries vowed to “respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.” (Emphasis added.) They also promised (again, emphasis is mine) “to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.”

The U.S. and UK have failed to uphold their obligations in humiliating fashion. Not only has Ukraine been losing territory to Russian aggression for a decade, that aggression was spurred in 2014 by the discussion of increasing economic ties between Ukraine and Europe. All of which means that back in 2014, we made Ukraine give up one of the world’s largest nuclear arsenals in return for promises we have been breaking every day for 10 years. Coincidentally, the U.S. ambassador to Hungary at the time, and therefore the man standing next to President Bill Clinton at the press conference announcing the Budapest Memorandum, was Donald Blinken—the father of current Secretary of State Antony Blinken.

In 2014, Russia occupied and annexed the Crimean Peninsula. In the current war, Russian troops still occupy nearly a fifth of Ukraine. Unless the future Ukraine-Russia settlement contains any pleasant surprises, there’s no reason to believe Ukraine’s territorial integrity will remain intact. Which is to say, Ukraine has been forced to reduce its sovereign territory each time Russia wanted to take a bite. Ukraine is very nearly becoming independent in name only.

Meanwhile, in Israel, Lebanon-based Iranian militias keep killing Israelis in the north and perpetuating the forced displacement of civilians there. The Hamas invasion of last year triggered the displacement of Israelis near Gaza Strip. Israel has been building underground hospitals to go with its shelters—a slightly different use of underground construction than that of Hamas in Gaza.

Israel’s total landmass is a rounding error in the Middle East. Yet the ceasefire proposals from the U.S. and Europe have for months envisioned a “peace” in which Israelis cannot be confident that they can safely live in their homes again. Hamas and Hezbollah chose to live underground, so Israeli civilians should be forced to do the same? Nonsense. Yet, that is very clearly the implication behind any “permanent” ceasefire deal that leaves Hamas in power in Gaza or Hezbollah right on Israel’s northern border.

For the comfortable West, for those wrapped in the security blanket of NATO, our allies’ limited territory is negotiable. But NATO was founded on the principle that sovereignty and independence mean something. American and European leaders ought to act like it.

Herzog to Ukraine on 1,000th day of war: ‘You are not alone’

Israeli President Isaac Herzog issued a video message on Tuesday in support of Ukraine on the 1000th day of its war, saying that Jerusalem identifies with its cause and what it has endured at the hands of Russia.

“We also pause to reflect on the enormous human suffering that this war has brought. As a country that knows the pain and loss of war, we in Israel wish to say to our friends in Ukraine, you are not alone,” Herzog said in the English-language clip.

“We feel your pain. We feel your suffering, and we continue to grieve with you in your enormous losses. So many have lost their lives, their livelihoods, their homes, their loved ones, their basic sense of security for them and their children. And this is deeply, deeply painful,” he said.

Herzog said Israel was grateful to be among the countries that have provided resources and humanitarian, medical and psychological support to Ukraine, reflecting the “goodwill and empathy of the Israeli people.”

Israel supports the territorial integrity of Ukraine, he added, expressing his hope that “diplomacy and goodwill” would bring about an end to the suffering and a resolution for peace in Ukraine.

Now, Let Israel Win

For months the Biden-Harris administration has sought to restrain Israeli military operations by blocking or delaying the delivery of weapons - far more weapons than has been reported. It is widely known that the White House has blocked the delivery of 2,000-pound MK-84 bombs to Israel, despite Congress's approving their transfer. But Israeli officials have told us that the Defense Department is slowing the delivery of thousands of 1,000-pound MK-83 bombs, 500-pound MK-82 bombs, and the Joint Direct Attack Munition kits that convert those bombs into precision-guided munitions.

The State Department has also stalled thousands of Hellfire missiles, tank and mortar shells, and more than 100 armored bulldozers. Israel has requested expedited purchase of Apache helicopters, which the Defense Department has yet to approve.

Although President Biden has helped Israel defend itself - deploying U.S. military assets which have helped shoot down Iranian projectiles - he has held back from helping Israel win. Israel seeks to dismantle Hamas, degrade Hizbullah, and defang Tehran's nuclear program. Delaying weapons to Israel has dragged out the war, worsening humanitarian conditions and undercutting U.S. interests.

In its inevitable confrontation with Hizbullah, the Israeli air force planned to hit 3,000 targets a day. Instead, partly owing to insufficient U.S. weapons deliveries, Israel is conducting 1,000 strikes a week. Fewer airstrikes forced Israel to conduct more ground operations than planned to destroy Hizbullah's infrastructure. In Gaza, targets that might have been hit by artillery or from the air now require ground troops to clear. The result is more casualties.

Israel also needs to be fully armed to take the fight to Iran - to retaliate if the regime strikes again, or to attack its increasingly dangerous nuclear program. If Israel crushes the Iranian axis, it would be a boon for U.S. interests. Iran and its proxies kill America's troops, plot to assassinate its politicians and civilians, and meddle in its elections. Tehran's nuclear program remains one of America's greatest strategic threats. The administration should provide Israel with the weapons it needs to defeat the Iranian axis that threatens the Free World.

Israel Is a U.S. Ally, Not a Client

Israel wants to be an American ally, not an American client. A client relies on a patron for military protection and financial largess. An ally is self-reliant and pursues common interests with another country.

While President Biden provided support, every step of the way he has micromanaged Israel. He pushed for a weakened invasion of Gaza. He withheld weapons to try to stop Israel from fighting in Rafah, where Hamas's leader was hiding. He enforced delivery of humanitarian aid that Hamas stole. He urged Israel not to respond seriously to Hizbullah's rocket fire. All of this prolonged the war and put Israeli soldiers at greater risk.

If Israel were a weak state that needed the U.S. to fight its battles, that approach might make sense - but it isn't. When a strong U.S. ally is discouraged from strengthening its position, both the ally and America are undermined.

Israel targeted Houthi infrastructure that America shied away from hitting. Israel wiped out Hizbullah's missiles and leadership. Israel crippled Hamas and killed Yahya Sinwar. Israel destroyed Iran's air defenses and weapons facilities. These actions advanced the interests of the U.S. and Israel. This is the benefit of having an ally instead of a client.

Since the Oct. 7 attack, about 800 Israeli soldiers have been killed in a war to secure our country. Israelis don't expect American soldiers to risk their lives for Israel's sovereignty.

Court orders PA to compensate victims of 2001 Sbarro terror attack

The Jerusalem District Court ruled on Tuesday that the Palestinian Authority must compensate the victims of the 2001 Sbarro suicide attack in Jerusalem.

According to the report, the ruling is based on a 2022 Supreme Court ruling, which stipulates that the Palestinian Authority is a party to the crimes caused by terrorists since it financially supports both security prisoners and their families.

The compensations to the Sbarro attack victims are set to amount to millions of shekels, and the ruling comes after two lawsuits the victims and their families filed over the last two decades. Paving way for other compensations

According to N12, the ruling may pave the way for other victims of terror attacks, including victims of the October 7 massacre, to request compensation of up to NIS 10 million for each person who was murdered.

On August 9, 2001, a suicide bomber killed 15 civilians, including four children, and wounded 130 others at the Sbarro restaurant in Jerusalem.

Palestinian terrorist Ahlam Ahmad al-Tamimi led the suicide bomber to the Sbarro restaurant during lunchtime when the restaurant was at peak capacity.

Tamimi was arrested and imprisoned for her role in the bombing and was sentenced to 16 life sentences. However, she was freed in 2011 during the prisoner swap to free captured IDF soldier Gilad Shalit.

Read More

11/18 Links Pt2: How identity politics makes excuses for anti-Semitism; Chilling new report reveals just how widespread antisemitism is at US colleges

From Ian:

How identity politics makes excuses for anti-Semitism

Rachel Shabi’s aim in her new book, Off-White: The Truth About Anti-Semitism, seems to be to reassure those on what passes for the left these days that they are not anti-Semitic – and that accusations that they are anti-Semitic are just, as she puts it, ‘a stick with which the right clobbers the left’. Little wonder, perhaps, that Off-White has already won praise from various leftist luminaries.

Shabi herself is a self-avowed ‘progressive’ and a veteran Israeli-born British journalist of Iraqi Jewish origin. In Off-White, she seeks to apply contemporary ‘frames of analysis’ common on the left to the subject of anti-Semitism. In practice, this means reconceiving anti-Semitism in terms of the core ideas of the identitarian left.

Many of Shabi’s starting assumptions are conventional. She sees anti-Semitism as an ‘ancient hatred’. She also talks about how anti-Semitism is a conspiracy theory that often involves scapegoating Jews for the perceived ills of society. Few would take issue with any of this.

From there on, however, she offers up a strikingly instrumentalist history of anti-Semitism. In her view, anti-Semitism is a ‘tool’ used by ruling elites throughout history ‘to maintain their power’. Christian church leaders once needed to vilify Judaism ‘in order to ensure [Christianity’s] own spread and eventual dominance’, she says. Likewise, 19th- and 20th-century Western ruling elites needed to vilify Judaism to maintain and deepen their dominance – as evidenced by the Dreyfus Affair in France and the British government’s Aliens Act in 1905.

As Shabi sees it, there’s little difference, then, between these instances of historical anti-Semitism and other forms of racism and discrimination, such as today’s far-right targeting of refugees from Africa and the Middle East. These are all simply instances of instrumental, trans-historical prejudice.

But while anti-Semitism is presented here as one racism among many, Shabi also argues that the position of Jews has changed radically over time. After the Second World War and the Holocaust, Western elites’ view of Jews underwent a dramatic transformation, she says: ‘Jews in the West were by and large absorbed into whiteness and its corresponding power structures.’ Persisting with the jargon of critical race theory, she claims that Jews were used to ‘maintain [white privilege] as a social construct’.

Jewish group seeks six-month ‘emergency’ to fight Jew-hate in EU

A prominent rabbi from Brussels on Monday called on the European Union to declare a six-month emergency period for fighting antisemitism at anti-Israel protests and beyond. He warned that Jews would leave Europe in the absence of such action.

Rabbi Menachem Margolin, director of the Brussels-based European Jewish Association, issued the call in a speech he made in Krakow, Poland, to about 100 participants of a conference commemorating the 80th anniversary of the liberation of the nearby Auschwitz German death camp.

“The European Jewish Association calls on the European Union and its member states to declare a six-month emergency period to combat period, with high-level protection for Jewish communities but also special measures at public events,” said Margolin.

Such events have become “a fanfare where anything goes and anything can be said and done,” he said.

Organizers of protests under the plan would need to “sign an obligation” against speech that incites violence and face rigorous monitoring for such conduct and heavy punishments, said Margolin.

“If our call today won’t be answered, we will start to see an exodus of Jews from Europe and the end of Jewish life on this continent, and Europe will lose an important part of its history and rich culture,” he said.

David Collier: An open letter to the police and CPS

To the police and CPS.

With reference to complaints made by Gabriel Kanter-Webber about Rupert Nathan. I understand that the matter has now been referred by the police to the CPS. Given Webber is from Brighton I imagine the original complaint would have been received by Sussex Police but cannot be certain.

I have known about this complaint for some time – and was shocked from the outset when I learnt that the police had turned up early in the morning at Rupert Nathan’s home, arresting him in front of his child. This created unnecessary trauma. Webber (and remember we are talking about someone who – progressive or not – qualified to be a Rabbi), also reported the incident to Rupert Nathan’s professional body – the Chartered Institute of Securities & Investment [CISI]. Thankfully, they chose to take no further action. But we have every right to question the ethical position of a man (Rabbi or not) who would knowingly attempt to damage someone’s career over a single personal comment made on social media.

The reason I am writing this is because I believe I possess relevant information. On December 4 2023 (long before the incident you acted upon), and because of his behaviour, I felt compelled to write this in an email to Gabriel Webber:

“Please stop commenting on my website. You are deliberately goading people as part of your ongoing harassment. I have work to do and am not there to police deliberately provocative behaviour – and the responses to it.”

Despite my written request Gabriel Webber continued to post comments on my site – and I felt forced to disable his ability to post freely in my comment spaces.

Read More

11/18 Links Pt1: Biden threatened to leave Israel defenceless; Iranian plot to murder Irwin Cotler; Large Gaza food convoy violently looted, UNRWA says

From Ian:

Ruthie Blum: Elise Stefanik’s UN debut can’t come soon enough

Whether the Biden administration is planning a last hurrah for the Jewish state at the United Nations—a lame-duck good riddance, à la Barack Obama, in the form of an abstention in a hostile Security Council vote—remains to be seen. The updated draft of a resolution relating to the war in Gaza and Lebanon is no better, if not worse, than its first anti-Israel version.

No surprise there. The only question is how Washington’s current dubious “ironclad commitment” to its key Mideast ally will stand up to scrutiny where the international vipers’ nest in Midtown Manhattan is concerned.

What’s certain is that President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee to replace U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Linda Thomas-Greenfield can’t come soon enough.

To grasp the difference between Thomas-Greenfield and her soon-to-be-successor, Elise Stefanik, one need only compare their statements about Israel and the Iran-backed enemies bent on its annihilation.

Thomas-Greenfield opened her address last week to the UNSC by issuing a harsh rebuke. Not to Hamas, of course. No, instead, she began her Nov. 12 tirade by citing remarks by acting U.N. under-secretary-general for humanitarian affairs and relief coordinator Joyce Msuya.

“There is no need to mince words here,” Thomas-Greenfield stated at the outset. “As we heard from our briefers, the situation in northern Gaza is dire. Catastrophic, as we heard from Ms. Msuya. An unconscionable number of Palestinian civilians, many women and children, have been killed.”

She proceeded to invoke a false Integrated Food Security Phase Classification report, according to which “nearly every civilian in Gaza is without adequate food, medication, clean drinking water or housing,” adding, “They simply cannot be left to suffer indefinitely.”

Paraphrasing Secretary of State Antony Blinken, she continued: “We need to end the armed conflict, bring the hostages home, including the seven Americans held by Hamas, and chart a path forward in the post-conflict period that provides governance, security and reconstruction in Gaza.”

Not a syllable about the monsters who make such a task impossible. Never mind, though, Thomas-Greenfield, like her boss Blinken and the rest of the outgoing administration, has been focused on currying favor with the world’s malign actors.

Bassam Tawil: UNRWA Hires Palestinian Terrorists, Glorifies Violence And Terrorism

According to Israeli intelligence, more than 450 terrorists belonging to terrorist organizations in Gaza, mainly Hamas, are also employed by UNRWA.

"By not firing them, the UN Secretary-General and UNRWA's Commissioner General are brazenly demonstrating their determination to continue employing members of Hamas and Islamic Jihad even after having been presented with incriminating evidence to this effect. It is time for donor governments to wake up and stop funneling their taxpayers' money to members of designated terrorist organizations." – www.idf.il, August 5, 2024

UNRWA chief Philippe Lazzarini recently told the UN General Assembly that his agency provides tolerant, respectful and anti-extremist education in Gaza. However, IMPACT-se's new report unveils institutional teaching material taught in five UNRWA schools in Gaza, where Hamas commanders have been exposed masquerading as school principals.

A poem taught to seventh-graders... calls on knights, symbolizing Arab leaders, to liberate the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem "from the fist of unbelief, from Satan's aides – revenge to the Jews."

What is disturbing is that the UN chief and other donor countries refuse to see what many Palestinians already see, namely that UNRWA has long been playing a significant role in inciting hatred against Israel and raising another generation of Palestinian children on the glorification of violence and terrorism. It is time for this agency, as well as the entire UN, to be dismantled and removed, or at least, as suggested years ago, to have nations pay only for what they want and to get what they pay for.

It is also time for the Palestinian "refugees" to move on with their lives and stop relying on Western taxpayers' money.

Canada foils Iranian plot to murder Irwin Cotler

Canadian security forces last month foiled an Iranian assassination plot against Irwin Cotler, the Jewish former politician and human rights advocate, the country’s The Globe and Mail newspaper reported on Monday.

A source told the daily that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police warned the former Liberal justice minister on Oct. 26 that he was the target of an “imminent threat of assassination within 48 hours from Iranian agents.”

The source said authorities knew of two suspects in the plot, but it is unknown whether they were arrested or fled the country. The RCMP did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The source claimed to The Globe and Mail that Cotler was informed last week that the threat level against him had been significantly lowered.

Cotler, 84, has reportedly been under 24/7 RCMP protection since the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas-led cross-border massacre in Israel’s northwestern Negev.

The protection provided to Cotler by Canadian authorities was said to include bulletproof vehicles, armed bodyguards and other measures.

“After Oct. 7, my wife and I attended the March for Israel in Washington, D.C. When we flew back to Montreal, security asked us not to leave the airport. Security personnel spoke to me and informed me of what has been characterized as imminent and lethal threats, without going into further details,” Cotler said in an interview with JNS earlier this year.

The international legal scholar noted at the time that “the community of democracies including Canada does not understand the threat of Iran.”

Cotler, who served as Canada’s justice minister and attorney general between 2003 and 2006, has been on the Islamic Republic’s radar for his calls to list the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist entity.

The Jewish jurist has also represented Iranian political prisoners and is a strong supporter of Israel. He was Canada’s special envoy on Holocaust remembrance and combatting antisemitism from 2020 to 2023.

Read More

11/17 Links: Why Jared Kushner’s return matters ; Yasser Arafat’s legacy: The death of Palestinian statehood; Senior Hamas officials in Turkey after leaving Qatar

From Ian:

JPost Editorial: Trump’s pro-Israel appointments: Dream team or a tightrope for Jerusalem?

One of the main missions of Trump’s team, and particularly his Middle East envoy, will be to expand the historic Abraham Accords that his first administration mediated, and bring Saudi Arabia into the fold to make it the most powerful bloc of nations in the region against the “Axis of Resistance.”

It is also likely to resuscitate the “Deal of the Century,” authored by a team headed by Trump’s senior adviser and Jewish son-in-law, Jared Kushner.

While Trump’s new team might go as far as supporting Israeli sovereignty in Judea and Samaria and what former US ambassador David Friedman calls “One Jewish State” in his new book, it could also revert to the annexation of settlements combined with the establishment of a Palestinian state envisioned in the 2020 peace plan.

In April, the Biden administration signed $14.3 billion in emergency security assistance for Israel, and in September, approved an $8.7 billion aid package, including $3.5 billion for wartime procurement and $5.2 billion for defense systems such as Iron Dome and David’s Sling.

While Trump might maintain such a high level of security aid provided by the US to Israel, he could also cut it or use it as a way to pressure the Jewish state. This might become an issue for Israel in 2026, when the 10-year Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed by former president Barack Obama expires.

Perhaps most important of all will be the Trump administration’s policy on Iran. High-level sources told The Wall Street Journal that the president-elect intends to reinstate his “maximum pressure” campaign against Tehran, under the leadership of its original architect, Brian Hook.

At the heart of Trump’s foreign policy is the aspiration to end wars and expand peace initiatives in conflict zones, including the Middle East, a policy endorsed by supporters of an isolationist “America First” policy such as JD Vance, who will be vice president.

The bottom line is that while Israel can allow itself to be pleased with the make-up of the new Trump team, it should also be cautious.

Why Jared Kushner’s return matters for Jews, Arabs, and Muslims alike

Kushner’s familiarity with regional stakeholders and proven track record align with this goal, positioning him as a bridge between America’s interests and the needs of the Middle East. Today, the need for hope and healing is greater than ever.

The horrific terrorist attack of October 7 and the ongoing conflict have deepened mistrust between Jews, Arabs, and Muslims. Too many innocent lives have been lost on all sides, and the wounds from terror and violence will not heal quickly. But even amid this pain, there remains an opportunity to restore what has been destroyed.

In a world increasingly connected through technology, there are avenues for people to communicate, trade, and cooperate in unprecedented ways. Kushner’s return to diplomacy could capitalize on these opportunities, using technology and economic partnerships to break down barriers of fear and rebuild trust.

His experience in creating the Abraham Accords shows he has both the vision and commitment to make peace achievable again, despite entrenched skepticism on all sides. For peace to truly take root, someone is needed who understands the nuances, respects the complexities, and believes in the region’s potential.

Kushner is uniquely positioned to play that role. His approach—focused on investment, partnerships, and realistic goals—offers a path to a future where cooperation replaces conflict and prosperity unites rather than divides. As new challenges emerge, his guidance could help stabilize the fragile gains made in recent years.

The Middle East is at a crossroads, and the future depends on leaders who can foster hope and progress across communities. Now, more than ever, we need someone who can bridge the divides and build a lasting foundation of trust and shared purpose.

Jared Kushner has proven he can be that bridge.

Mark Dubowitz and Eugene Kontorovich: Lame-duck Biden ramps up sanctions on Israelis — and eases up on terrorists

Last week, 88 congressional Democrats wrote a letter demanding that the Biden administration go out swinging, sanctioning Israeli government members as well as a mainstream Israeli NGO that reports on illegal Palestinian activities.

These members of Congress want Israelis sanctioned for their political views and activism; their suggested targets are not alleged to have committed any violent or illegal acts.

Once he takes office, President-elect Trump can quickly rescind these sanctions or let them expire — but in the meantime, a new precedent has been set: The US government is mainstreaming the goals of the anti-Israel left’s Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign.

Meanwhile, US allies including Canada and Britain have already imitated the Biden administration, imposing even more far-reaching sanctions on Jews in the West Bank.

State Department progressives may hope these countries will keep the fire burning — including through another UN Security Council Resolution in the coming months punishing Israel — while Democrats are out of power.

US citizens have filed a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Biden’s sanctions. Trump’s Justice Department should quickly move to settle the suit, and to direct the government to stop basing sanctions on unreliable information from highly politicized NGOs.

For its part, Congress should investigate the process behind the sanctions.

Finally, Trump should warn the lame-duck administration that expanding the sanctions program could spur him to keep Biden’s executive order in place — and use it instead against progressive groups with connections to the Palestinian terrorists who are destabilizing the West Bank.

After all, turnabout is fair play.

Trump said to lift all military restrictions on Israel on 1st day in office according to reports

Amid escalating tensions between Hezbollah and Israel, President-elect Donald Trump has promised to lift all restrictions and delays on the supply of military equipment and ammunition to Israel immediately after his inauguration, Israeli Channel 12 News reports.

The assurance from Trump’s team came as Israel is considering a 60-day cease-fire with Hezbollah, which would provide a window until Trump takes office and implements the promised changes.

Sources indicate that this commitment from Trump’s administration clarifies Israel’s willingness to temporarily halt military actions, with the understanding that support will resume without delay once Trump is in office.

Unnamed Israeli officials have confirmed the reports from Israeli media to Fox News Digital.

Currently, U.S. restrictions include an embargo on a certain weapons shipment and limitations on various combat-related equipment, even if they do not involve explosive ordnance. This embargo has impacted Israel’s defense capabilities, especially as the military now contends with active fronts in both Lebanon and Gaza, requiring strict control over ammunition and supply use.

This pledge to lift all military supply restrictions, starting from Trump’s first day in office, would allow Israel to replenish its stockpiles and alleviate current constraints. With the 60-day cease-fire, Israel aims to temporarily suspend hostilities until the new administration takes office, enabling a resumption of full military operations if necessary, without the existing limitations.

On Thursday, the U.S. ambassador to Lebanon submitted a draft truce proposal to Lebanon's Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri to halt fighting between armed group Hezbollah and Israel, two political sources told Reuters, without revealing details.

Read More

11/16 Links: Israel Is Fighting a Different War Now; Trump 2.0 means the end of ambivalence about Israel; Yoseph Haddad: Taking pride in being Arab Israeli

From Ian:

Safety Is a Choice

So where does this leave American Jews who want to make themselves safer? They need to focus on reinforcing the most important potential choice: the option to be a public Zionist in America. It’s that simple. And this requires demanding and forcing the chessboard back into position.

Jews will be choiceless as long as they can be demonized and harassed while a top-down anti-Semitic establishment gives cover to “anti-Zionists” to renounce dialogue, reason, and civility. And this, for many Jews, will mean, ultimately, being deprived of the choice of safely wearing a Jewish star or yarmulke while walking through campus or strolling past a protest. Ultimately, this condition means living with a physical threat that’s always present, just below the surface.

This work has to be a Jewish grassroots endeavor because it is often hard for even well-intentioned non-Jews to recognize this aspect of Jewish safety. As a former NYPD detective admits, for many cops and campus-security officers, the attitude is: “Who gives a shit if someone is yelling ‘river to the sea,’ or if they’re saying you’re a baby killer when you’re not.”

Sidestepping useless institutional leadership, Mike mentioned some successful work by an international group called Students Supporting Israel. He described how its members recently helped Columbia students organize an event at which two IDF reservists came to campus, sat at a table, and chatted with whomever wanted to engage. It mostly went well. “Chances are somebody got in their face,” Mike observes, “but [the IDF soldiers] don’t give a f—k. They feel they are fighting for Western civilization.”

All the steps Jews are taking to feel and be safer are worthwhile. But whether it’s through displaying symbols of Zionism, or reporting anti-Zionist incidents of anti-Semitism, or lobbying institutions and governmental bodies to codify anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism, Jews of all stripes and political orientations should put pressure, time, and capital toward ensuring that Zionism is incorporated into institutional, governmental, and legal definitions of anti-Semitism. And they should call out the intellectual bankruptcy and cowardice of refusing to engage on the topic of Israel, naming and pressuring leaders who enable this silencing of dialogue.

Because identity itself is not a choice. And if Jews don’t demand the space to defend their core Zionist identity in public discourse, we will find that choice has been made for us.

Just after Kristallnacht, Gandhi said Jews should die with joy. What would he say now?

Zionism and the struggle to defend the Jewish State
Kallenbach, however, did try to convert Gandhi — to Zionism.

After witnessing with horror the Nazi rise to power, Kallenbach had become a devout Zionist and was even enlisted by the leaders of the Zionist movement in an unsuccessful attempt to convince Gandhi to follow suit. In fact, Gandhi’s opposition to Zionism had a longstanding impact, with India not adopting a warm stance toward Israel until as late as the 1990s.

The precise reasons for his opposition to Zionism remain a subject of debate. Some have pointed to the practical reasons why Gandhi — a champion of Indian inter-religious unity and independence — would certainly not have helped his cause by championing one so maligned by many of the world’s Muslims, including, of course, those in his homeland. Dr. Gangeya Mukherji, author of ‘Gandhi and Tagore: Politics, Truth and Conscience.’ (Courtesy)

“Gandhi recognized that as long as India remained unified and the Muslim League was part of its political landscape, it would be impossible for the country to take any position opposed to the Palestinians,” says Devji. “Yet, the Muslim League had itself advised Palestinians to accept the partition of the country that was proposed by the UN, which was after all what they wanted for India as well. In this sense, India’s Muslims, as a minority population like Jews, identified with the latter in many ways even as they supported the Palestinians.”

Mukherji, however, dismisses any connection outright. “Hindu-Muslim unity had no bearing on the question of Zionism,” he says. “This linkage of Gandhi’s position on the Zionist question to that of Hindu-Muslim unity is a more recent phenomenon, emerging from the notion of Gandhi’s ‘appeasement’ of Muslims. It is similar to the Arab denial of the terrible vastness of the Holocaust by describing it as an act of anti-German sentiment.”

Rajmohan Gandhi, himself deeply involved in decades-long reconciliation efforts, thinks that his grandfather’s “lifelong desire and effort for friendship and partnership between India’s Hindus and Muslims would surely have influenced his views on the Jewish-Arab question,” yet does not think that “his opposition to Zionism was strongly influenced by the desire for Hindu-Muslim friendship” but rather “intimately linked to his problem with colonialism.”

“He said that as long as the Zionists relied on British power to stake a claim on Palestine he could not sympathize with them, for he saw the same thing happening in India with the Muslim League in place of the Zionists,” says Devji. “He thought that only by appealing to and convincing the Palestinians to share the land would Zionism become a legitimate movement. India and Palestine thus mirrored each other in his eyes.”

Even if Gandhi was never converted to Zionism, it seems clear that he would have abhorred the terror onslaught of October 7, 2023, which saw thousands of Hamas-led terrorists invade southern Israel, killing 1,200 men, women, and children and kidnapping 251 to the Gaza Strip.

Yet what would he have suggested Israel’s response be?
“He would certainly not have approved a military response, but he would have equally condemned the [Hamas] attacks,” says Mukherji, elaborating that “he would not have supported the policy of Israel to expand, fortify, and settle areas in quest of safeguarding its sovereignty.”

While agreeing that Gandhi would certainly have deplored the violence from all sides, Devji thinks that the Indian leader would indeed have supported Israel forcefully driving out the terrorists, after which he “might have seen the October 7 attacks as an opportunity for Israel to take the moral high ground… declaring a unilateral peace process to resolve the conflict.” Mahatma Gandhi, center, confers with leaders of the All-India Congress Party, August 1942, location unknown. With him are Maulana Aboul Kalan Azad, right, the party’s president, and J.B. Kripalani, general secretary. This picture is from the film ‘India At War.’ (AP Photo)

“He was a great believer in the spectacle of moral action, and the attack offered Israel just such an opportunity to completely change the tenor of political debate globally and to its eternal credit,” Devji says. “But of course, elected politicians don’t always have the luxury to make such statements, depending as they do not only on their constituents but partners as well. In this case, the very weakness of a coalition government seems to have pushed it into a very predictable response.”

Citing his grandfather’s support of dispatching armed soldiers to counter Pakistani-aided militants in Kashmir in 1947, Rajhmohan Gandhi emphatically agrees that the father of modern India “would surely have mobilized and mounted resistance to the attacks.”

“At times a practitioner of nonviolence, at some other times he was a professor or teacher of nonviolence but a supporter of violent resistance. This is what actual history says,” Rajhmohan Gandhi says. “No matter what form Gandhi’s resistance to October 7 would have taken, it would have definitely involved Israel’s Arabs as well. A starting premise with Gandhi would be that Jews and Arabs share the land as siblings, have to live next to one another together no matter the past, no matter who ‘started’ which conflict, or who merely ‘reacted.’”

Gates of Hell

Review of 'The Gates of Gaza' by Amir Tibon by Michael M. Rosen
Terrorists hunted down Roi Rutberg, a 21-year-old farmer in Nahal Oz, an Israeli kibbutz on the Gaza frontier. They carefully planned their assault, crossed the border into Israel, advanced through an agricultural field, brutally murder-ed Roi, and dragged his corpse to Gaza, where frenetic crowds mutilated it.

October 7, 2023? No. The Rutberg slaying took place in April 1956. But as Amir Tibon observes in his new book, The Gates of Gaza, it presaged Hamas’s barbarous attack and reflects how profoundly and persistently intractable the enclave has been. Gaza is truly a problem from hell.

A diplomatic correspondent for Haaretz, Tibon provides a propulsive and poignant recounting of his own ordeal in Nahal Oz, where he, his wife, and their two young daughters sheltered for 10 hours in their safe room as Islamist terrorists rampaged across their community.

Seamlessly blending a history of Gaza with the harrowing events of October 7, Tibon highlights how, for more than 100 years, the Strip has destabilized the region and warped both Israeli and Palestinian society.

Long before any Israeli “occupation” of Gaza, Arab terrorists called fedayeen used it as a launching pad to infiltrate Israel and slaughter Jews. “The newly created Israel-Gaza border,” Tibon writes, of the period following the Jewish state’s establishment in 1948, “knew very few days of peace.”

Following Rutberg’s murder, the Israeli general Moshe Dayan visited the kibbutz, where he delivered a dark but realistic pronouncement. “Beyond the furrow of the border,” he intoned, “a sea of hatred and desire for revenge is swelling, awaiting the day when serenity will dull our path.” Decades of low-grade violence emanated from the enclave.

Even so, vibrant communities developed in the so-called Gaza Envelope, and the vast majority of them harbored hopes for peace with their Arab neighbors, even ferrying them to Israeli hospitals. Dani Rachamim arrived at Nahal Oz in 1975, eight years after Israel had taken the strip from Egypt, and developed close enough friendships with Palestinians across the border to invite them to his wedding on the kibbutz. “It felt totally natural for them to be there and dance with us,” he tells Tibon. “We were neighbors.” The community even hosted a Festival of Peace in 1994, amid the early euphoria of the Oslo Accords, welcoming dozens of Palestinian families. “Peace with the people of Gaza was now within reach,” Rachamim and his fellow kibbutzniks thought.

But that euphoria quickly gave way to despair, as Yasir Arafat’s Palestine Liberation Organization rejected further peace proposals and went on to arm Palestinian groups—including a newly formed Islamist faction called Hamas, whose establishment Israel tacitly blessed as a counterweight to the PLO—that launched a campaign of violent attacks, most prominently including suicide bombings that claimed the lives of hundreds of Israeli innocents. By the early 2000s, Gazan terrorists had begun developing the mortars and rockets that would figure prominently in the 10/7 onslaught.

Israel Is Fighting a Different War Now

Israel is now fighting a different kind of war, which has elicited a different Israeli mindset. “We’re no longer afraid of casualties,” a hard-bitten colonel told me. “I lost 10 guys, and nothing stopped. We don’t go to the funerals; we’ll visit after the war.” This is a fundamental change from the Israel of October 6, 2023. Israel is girding itself for the daunting prospect of a long war against Iran, even as its immediate conflicts with Hamas and Hezbollah cannot be swiftly and decisively wrapped up, no matter what American and European leaders might wish.

The IDF has always been a military focused on short-term fixes, on tactical and technical innovation, on agility and adaptability. As an Israeli strategic planner ruefully put it, “We only talk about strategy in English.” That will be a problem in the next phase of this war. Israel does not wish to put Gaza under military government during its reconstruction—but it has also failed to devise any plausible alternative, despite floating ideas such as an international police force or a return of the Palestinian Authority to Gaza. Lots of humanitarian aid goes into Gaza—I saw the long lines of trucks—but much of it is immediately hijacked by Hamas gunmen, who control the distribution of relief, and with it the population. Hezbollah is still reeling from its hammering over the past two months, but it survives in the shape of small cells. Israeli and American hopes that the Lebanese armed forces can contain it have always proved to be pipe dreams. The long-range strikes by Iran against Israel will surely continue.

The Israelis will persevere, and things may break their way—if, for example, Iran’s internal politics are shaken up by the passing of the supreme leader, by ferocious American sanctions, or by overt and covert punishment for the attempted assassination of President-elect Donald Trump. In any event, the Israelis grimly believe, and with reason, that they have no choice but to continue fighting.

Yet the changes in Israeli society are noticeable. The reserve army that has fought these wars is tired. Many soldiers and airmen have spent most of the past year in battle, and their families have felt the strain. The national-religious component of Israeli society—what would translate in American terms into modern Orthodox Jews—has particularly borne the load. Because of Israel’s reserve system, many of the fallen are middle-aged men, and many leave behind fatherless children. “Ten dead. Fifty-six orphans,” one friend bitterly remarked. The national-religious disproportionately volunteer for frontline combat units. Their antipathy toward the ultra-Orthodox, who are draft-exempt and have been draining government budgets at the expense of subsidies for soldiers whose families and careers have been upended by war, is fierce. “Cowards,” spat out one mild-mannered friend, who now despises a population whose behavior she might once have excused.

As ever, Israel is a complicated and changing place. Yossi Klein Halevi, one of Israel’s shrewdest observers, once said, “Everything you can say about Israel is true. So is the opposite.” And thus it remains. Israel includes alienated secularists and patriotic Arab citizens (increasing numbers of whom quietly join the military); it has liberals and reactionaries, men and women of all skin colors, gay-pride marches and obscurantist religious seminaries. But one thing is certain: It is engaged in an existential war of a kind that most of us in the West cannot appreciate unless we go there, observe, and listen.

Israel is now fighting a different kind of war, which has elicited a different Israeli mindset. “We’re no longer afraid of casualties,” a hard-bitten colonel told me. “I lost 10 guys, and nothing stopped. We don’t go to the funerals; we’ll visit after the war.” This is a fundamental change from the Israel of October 6, 2023. Israel is girding itself for the daunting prospect of a long war against Iran, even as its immediate conflicts with Hamas and Hezbollah cannot be swiftly and decisively wrapped up, no matter what American and European leaders might wish.

The IDF has always been a military focused on short-term fixes, on tactical and technical innovation, on agility and adaptability. As an Israeli strategic planner ruefully put it, “We only talk about strategy in English.” That will be a problem in the next phase of this war. Israel does not wish to put Gaza under military government during its reconstruction—but it has also failed to devise any plausible alternative, despite floating ideas such as an international police force or a return of the Palestinian Authority to Gaza. Lots of humanitarian aid goes into Gaza—I saw the long lines of trucks—but much of it is immediately hijacked by Hamas gunmen, who control the distribution of relief, and with it the population. Hezbollah is still reeling from its hammering over the past two months, but it survives in the shape of small cells. Israeli and American hopes that the Lebanese armed forces can contain it have always proved to be pipe dreams. The long-range strikes by Iran against Israel will surely continue.

The Israelis will persevere, and things may break their way—if, for example, Iran’s internal politics are shaken up by the passing of the supreme leader, by ferocious American sanctions, or by overt and covert punishment for the attempted assassination of President-elect Donald Trump. In any event, the Israelis grimly believe, and with reason, that they have no choice but to continue fighting.

Yet the changes in Israeli society are noticeable. The reserve army that has fought these wars is tired. Many soldiers and airmen have spent most of the past year in battle, and their families have felt the strain. The national-religious component of Israeli society—what would translate in American terms into modern Orthodox Jews—has particularly borne the load. Because of Israel’s reserve system, many of the fallen are middle-aged men, and many leave behind fatherless children. “Ten dead. Fifty-six orphans,” one friend bitterly remarked. The national-religious disproportionately volunteer for frontline combat units. Their antipathy toward the ultra-Orthodox, who are draft-exempt and have been draining government budgets at the expense of subsidies for soldiers whose families and careers have been upended by war, is fierce. “Cowards,” spat out one mild-mannered friend, who now despises a population whose behavior she might once have excused.

As ever, Israel is a complicated and changing place. Yossi Klein Halevi, one of Israel’s shrewdest observers, once said, “Everything you can say about Israel is true. So is the opposite.” And thus it remains. Israel includes alienated secularists and patriotic Arab citizens (increasing numbers of whom quietly join the military); it has liberals and reactionaries, men and women of all skin colors, gay-pride marches and obscurantist religious seminaries. But one thing is certain: It is engaged in an existential war of a kind that most of us in the West cannot appreciate unless we go there, observe, and listen.

Read More