04/07 Links: Is Israel Really Alone, When It Counts?; Mourner’s wreath sent to hostage’s family; Hamas May Have Baited IDF Into Striking WCK Convoy

From Ian:

Lee Kern: Six Months

It has been six months since the October 7th massacre. Six months since the hostages were taken. Six months since a war of extermination against us began. And that is what it is. A war of extermination. Not just against Jews in Israel. Against Jews everywhere. If they could kill us all in one go they would. If they have to do it piecemeal they will. If they can destroy us physically they’ll go for it. If they must shatter our spirits and see us retreat from the world they will. We are six months into this war that was forced upon us. Right now there is unresolved pain, unprocessed trauma and unfinished business. There is also uncertainty over what comes next. Horrors have preceded us, but there will be challenges ahead. I’m going to say one thing I want you to acknowledge. I’m going to say one thing in the hope it gives you strength. You - you the individual reading this - you have had six months learning to manage and cope with the most intense and difficult feelings. You are still here. You have had six months learning to manage and cope with a new world no one would think is possible to handle. But you did. You are now a master and expert at dealing with fear and stress and you will deal with whatever comes next. You are an expert and master at living life on the edge. You are an expert and master at keeping your head above the water. Whatever happens next, there is no one more expertly placed on earth to deal with it than you. No one more equipped to complete the task ahead than you. This is a truth as sure as our inevitable victory. I cannot wait to celebrate with you my friends, my brothers, my sisters, my soulmates, my beautiful Jewish tribe.

A letter from Israel

Explanations for how Hamas’s attack on 7 October was made possible are wide and varied. The right blames the army high command for being too left-wing and pro-Arab, and blames young people for dividing Israel over the controversial judicial reform bill. The left blames Netanyahu for focusing on politics rather than security.

There is also widespread distrust and fear about the spread of Islamic fundamentalism throughout the West. Many Israelis cannot understand why we do not understand that Israel is in the frontline of a wider struggle for democracy and civilisation. I do my best to explain that there are many in the UK and elsewhere who recognise the right and duty of Israelis to fight for their country. But when Israelis look at Western media, all they see and hear are ‘pro-Palestine’ protests and ‘pro-Palestine’ voices.

It is difficult for foreigners, especially non-Jews, to fully grasp the existential character of this conflict for Jews. This is a people who were murdered in their millions before and during the Second World War. Afterwards, they were unwanted and so they came to this patch of desert and mountains to build a fortress.

Today, Israel, a country the size of Wales, is surrounded by hostile nations and facing an almost constant insurgency. Israelis cannot afford the luxury of believing that they can survive without a fight.

But there remains a sense that things could have been different. Kibbutz Magen has a population of around 500. It is a prosperous-looking place. Low buildings with brown gabled roofs, lots of open spaces covered with lush grass. It is spring and there is pink blossom and white flowers everywhere you look. A herd of several hundred black and white cows is sheltering in assorted sheds. Swallows wheel in the air and hawks hover. All you can hear is birdsong. The occasional patches of wasteland are sandy, a reminder that this kibbutz is in the Negev desert – a desert that has been transformed.

The last thing Isi of Magen did as we left the hill, from which he and his friends fought off Hamas, was to gesture towards Khan Yunis. ‘This could have been a paradise for everybody’, he says.

Jim Geraghty: Is Israel Really Alone, When It Counts?

The Israel Defense Forces strike that killed seven employees of the World Central Kitchen on Monday may cause the Israelis more friction with the U.S. government than all previous military actions combined. A lot of people want you to believe that President Biden has turned his back on the Israelis.

But in the ways that Israel needs the U.S. to help it continue its war effort in Gaza, the Biden administration has quietly signed off and nodded in agreement. In late March, the administration authorized the transfer of more than 1,800 MK84 2,000-pound bombs and 500 MK82 500-pound bombs. Between October and early March, the Biden administration authorized the sale of "thousands of precision-guided munitions, small-diameter bombs, bunker busters, small arms and other lethal aid."

President Biden may be raging about Netanyahu, but he is not actually willing to take a step that would directly harm the ongoing Israeli campaign against Hamas. It's in the anti-Israel movement's interest to act as if Biden is more opposed to Israel than he really is, because that makes it appear like they are winning the argument, and that the movement is powerful and influential.

Each week and month since the Oct. 7 Hamas massacre, world opinion has shifted against the Israelis more and more. The victims of Hamas have been quickly forgotten, as have the remaining hostages whom Hamas refuses to release, and whom Hamas men are almost certainly still abusing in the most horrific ways.

Funny thing is, as widely and furiously denounced as Israel has been over the past half year, the Israel Defense Forces' effort against Hamas just continues. Sometimes they have good days. Sometimes they have bad days. And sometimes they have extremely bad days like when the erroneous strike killed the workers from World Central Kitchen. But the IDF keeps going, no matter how much the rest of the world denounces them.

Read More

04/06 Links: Pres. Herzog: 'We will heal, build, and rise again'; Howard Jacobson: Jews are starting to lose faith; After Damascus strike, Iran’s goal: Isolate Israel, deter the US

From Ian:

Pres. Herzog: 'We will heal, build, and rise again'

Israeli President Isaac Herzog on Saturday marked six months since the brutal Hamas attack on Israel, which sparked the war dubbed "Swords of Iron."

"Tomorrow at 6:29am, we mark six months since the cruel terror attack and the horrific massacre," he noted. "Half a year since this crime against our sisters and brothers, against our state, this crime against humanity. Six months of a bloody and difficult war."

"Today we received the bitter news of the discovery and retrieval from the Gaza Strip of the body of Elad Katzir from Kibbutz Nir Oz. We met his beloved mother, Chana - whose husband Rami was murdered on that fateful morning - at the hospital after she returned from Hamas captivity. A noble soul. I send my heartfelt condolences to her entire family and especially to his kindhearted and caring sister Carmit Palty Katzir."

Herzog continued, "Half a year our sisters and brothers have been held by a cruel enemy, our hearts falter, day after day, minute after minute – with them, there. Half a year we, the entire people, accompany, support, embrace the families of the hostages. We never forget them or their loved ones."

"The terrible suffering of the hostages and their families inconsolably rocks our souls. Michal and I see this almost every day, when we meet families of those held in captivity, and make every effort to assist them, to offer them strength in their all-encompassing struggle, to open doors for them and to introduce them to leaders of the family of nations and international organizations. For half a year we have been moved by the strength and unwavering faith of these heroic families. The most fundamental covenant between a state and its citizens obliges us to do everything – with creativity, perseverance, determination – to act in every way to bring them home.

"For half a year the IDF and our security forces, in regular and reserve duty, have been operating in every arena, on every front, with all their might – to bring back the hostages and to fight terrorism. Half a year into the war, and even in these tense days, we know we have an army that will stand against every enemy, near and far. We hope for the success and safe return of the soldiers, embrace the bereaved families, and pray for the recovery of the wounded in body and soul."

Noting that not all Israelis have returned home, Herzog said, "For half a year many Israeli citizens in the north and south have not yet returned to their homes. It is imperative not to forget that this is a supreme national priority - to return them to their homes, and to assist them in rehabilitation and in building a life of security, prosperity, and peace."

"Half a year, and despite the pain and turmoil, I am full of hope and faith in us. For half a year I have seen Israeli society in all its glory: The mutual responsibility on the front and at home - despite all the disagreements - the commitment to life, the closeness to others, the unique Israeli resilience. For half a year I have seen so many Israelis doing everything for the better of us all. Half a year, and every day, I feel anew immense pride in being part of this people."

He concluded, "Half a year has passed, and it is difficult to know what challenges still lie ahead of us. But despite the long and difficult journey, I look at you, citizens of Israel, and I know - we will rise again, we will heal and build, we will plant, we will reap with joy what we sowed in tears, and we will prove to the whole world: Am Yisrael Chai!"

Howard Jacobson: Is this the end of Israel? Six months on, Jews are starting to lose faith

In defence of last year’s massacre, it was argued that it could not be understood independently of the circumstances that led to it. Hamas’s attack, its apologists insisted, was the child of the Israeli occupation. I have always resisted the word “occupation” because it suggests a pre-planned policy, rather than — as I see it — the consequence of all the wars between the two people, most of them instigated by the Palestinians, after which Israel found itself with territory it needed to demilitarise for its own safety. But alright — an occupation it became. After which, what were Palestinians expected to do?

The elusive two-state solution was presented to them several times. Not equitable enough, they said, even when it was the United Nations that had done the divvying up. “Don’t accept,” the cosmopolitan Palestinian writer Edward Said urged from the comfort of his home in North America. “Demand more.” Was he right? Wouldn’t an inequitable divvying up have given Palestinians better if not perfect lives? Well, it’s not for one person to tell another what’s fair. But right or wrong, there was to be no deal. And so the bloody impasse — a tragedy, as Amos Oz saw it, of two rights. Later, a tragedy of two wrongs. For calling it a tragedy, Oz’s erstwhile Palestinian supporters deserted him. Tragedy meant there was no villain. And the Palestinians needed a villain.

Netanyahu fitted the bill. Netanyahu put his hand out and took. In retaliation for which — though nothing in the history of the two people would ever justify its extreme and twisted violence — the massacre of October 7. But if Israel must take some blame for the massacre, the Palestinians must, by the same token, take some blame for Netanyahu, the lumbering, unsubtle child of unrelenting war, a man hardened in suspicion and fear who does not know the difference between justice and revenge.

To hold out against the Palestinian narrative of dispossession, while allowing that not all of it is fantasy or self-pity, has necessitated, these last few years, more flexibility of mind than dedicated anti-Zionists are willing to try. That’s how we know they are wrong: they do not attempt to understand their enemy and do not cry for him. Did Gazans — educated in their schoolbooks to loathe Jews — dance in the streets on October 7? Whatever the truth, may Israelis never dance the dance of blood.

The heart breaks, seeing the destruction of Gaza. But seeing the destruction of Tel Aviv will hurt no less. Do I fear that? Yes. I sense a change of mood. The constant chanting on the streets of London and elsewhere has, to a degree, contributed to that change. One lie, endlessly retold, can weaken the cause of truth eventually. But, all on his own, Netanyahu is enough to try the patience of the West whose leaders have little appetite for sticking to a mission. There is a flaw in our natures that leads to our growing bored with even the noblest causes, let alone those grown stale in their own complacency. Oh, what the hell. Enough of them. So those are swastikas. So what? It’s all just a matter of context.

I fear they — papers and commentators and politicians — are losing interest and sympathy at the same rate. They’ve heard it all before. We Jews need to find other ways to make our harrowing history compelling. We’ve tried losing. We’ve tried winning. I’m not sure what’s left.

Nations Aren’t People

There’s no need to revisit the “genocide” canard, but I will note that these are not the procedures a country takes when it’s looking to wipe out a whole population.

More to the point, it just seems improbable that a military willing to forgo the element of surprise to spare Palestinian lives would suspend all of its safeguards for the express purpose of killing non-Palestinians (including one American).

I generally don’t like cui bono arguments, but how could it possibly benefit Israel to do so? Who in command would say, “I know the Americans and EU are going to come down on us like a ton of bricks if we kill these aid workers, but it’s worth it”?

How this could possibly benefit Israel is an utter mystery to me. The only attempt at an answer I’ve seen—other than Israelis are monsters—is that they want to “starve” Palestinians, and so this was an extension of that alleged policy. Among the problems with this theory is that according to the people offering it, WCK wasn’t making much of a difference, given the scope of the food crisis in Gaza. If that’s true, surely it makes little sense to kill these people given the foreseeable blowback.

Again, I think it’s obvious this was the kind of mistake that happens in war, especially urban war, and particularly an urban war when one side—that would be Hamas—rejects all laws of war and has an open and admitted policy of trying to maximize civilian deaths on their own side.

This is the amazing thing about this war and why it confuses so many people. Normally when two countries fight a war, each side takes responsibility for taking care of its own people. In this war, Israel is expected to protect its own civilians but also be responsible for protecting—and feeding—Palestinian civilians. I’m not saying that they shouldn’t protect Palestinian civilians as best they can, nor am I saying they shouldn’t feed them as best they can. But a little recognition of the fact that this is a burden the “international community” imposes on exactly one country.

From the Biden administration and much of the media, there’s this amazing, twisted, morally deformed assumption that Hamas should not be blamed for anything that happens in Gaza. In the fringier corners of academia and activism, this belief extends so far as to make October 7 Israel’s fault, because raping and mass murder are inevitable acts of resistance to “occupation.” (Never mind that Gaza was not “occupied” on October 7.)

Mousa Abu Marzouk, a Hamas leader, explained that because the tunnels and shelters underneath Gaza were built for Hamas fighters, the civilians on the surface are somebody else’s problem. More specifically, Hamas considers Palestinian civilian deaths to be a necessary sacrifice in the effort to bring international condemnation down on Israel and its allies. After six months of war, Hamas has not budged from its original negotiating position. But, yeah, Israel is being unreasonable.

I want to get off this subject, but it’s worth noting that despite getting its ass handed to it militarily, its territory pulverized, and watching thousands of civilians get killed, Hamas looks at the international climate, and the political climate in America, and thinks time is on its side. In other words, they think their strategy is working. They could only think this if they held the lives of Palestinians cheap, far cheaper than Israelis do.

Given how the Biden administration is wavering in its supposed “unwavering support,” Hamas may be right about its strategy working.

Read More

04/05 Links Pt2: The American Left’s Milošević Moment; Hamas Concessions Are Distorting Our Mideast Policy; Prince of Truth

From Ian:

The American Left’s Milošević Moment

As Eastern bloc communism began to crumble, Serb nationalists turned to this history to fill the ideological and narrative void and employed rhetorical tactics that are entirely familiar to today’s woke American landscape, including:

No. 1: Glorifying the year of enslavement as the beginning of a national narrative. There has been much scrutiny regarding the historical accuracy of The New York Times’ 1619 Project, but little regarding the sheer strangeness of it celebrating, from its own advocates’ perspective, a calendar year of enslavement and degradation initiating centuries of persecution that have de facto never ended. (This latter characteristic makes 1619 very different from conventional American commemorations of Pearl Harbor or the Alamo, military setbacks which were quickly dealt with.) However, this logic wouldn’t seem strange at all to Serb nationalists, who celebrated Yugoslavia’s own 1619 with 1389, the year Milošević said Serbs “fell into slavery” and Muslim rule for 489 years by, depending on your interpretation, either losing or forcing a Pyrrhic draw at the Battle of Kosovo against the advancing Ottoman Empire. The glorification of the Serb-specific defeat of 1389, most famously in Milošević’s Gazimestan Speech on the Battle of Kosovo’s 600th anniversary, directly attacked Yugoslavia’s motto of multiethnic Bratstvo i jedinstvo (Brotherhood and Unity) and summoned the ancient hatreds motivating the mass rape, ethnic cleansing, and genocide of Bosnian Muslims. Milošević died in 2006 while on trial for genocide and other war crimes.

No. 2: Attributing sinister ethnically based motivations and ideologies to political opponents. Members of Congress like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ayanna Pressley, and Cori Bush regularly leave political opponents flummoxed with accusations of “racism,” “white supremacy,” and “anti-blackness.” In Bosnia, a squad of highly educated Serb politicians, propped up by Milošević and led by Karadžić—who had studied at Columbia—leveled parallel charges against Muslims. Though U.S. Ambassador to Croatia Peter Galbraith called the largely secular Muslims Bosnia’s “most Western” ethnicity, Karadžić and crew harangued them as Islamic fundamentalists scheming to create an “anti-Serb” neo-Ottoman caliphate. Meanwhile, national media outlets “deliberately fanned the flames of national hatred,” in the words of British journalist Christopher Bennett, by amplifying, embellishing, and inventing incidents of interethnic violence. Moderate Serbian politicians and honest journalists who refrained from joining the frenzy were expelled from public life.

No. 3: Calling opposition and criticism “violence,” in order to legitimize future actual violence. In October 1991, after Slovenia had won its independence in the Ten-Day War and Croatia’s declaration of independence had initiated a Serb-Croat war that would last until 1995, multiethnic Bosnia faced the decision of whether to declare independence from Serb-dominated rump Yugoslavia. Enter the charismatic Karadžić, who delivered a petrifying speech to Bosnia’s legislature taunting Muslims with “extinction” should they declare independence, continuing with a sneer, “If there is a war, the Muslim people will not be able to defend themselves.” (The line recalls President Biden repeatedly saying that the U.S. government can employ F-15s against American gun-rights supporters.) In that same speech, Karadžić pointed to the gallery and yelled that independence for Bosnia would be “violence on the Serbian people, constitutional violence” and that “constitutional violence breeds all other kinds of violence.” Calling words and beliefs “violence,” suggesting they breed and justify further violence, is a hallmark of wokeness. Karadžić was convicted of genocide in 2016.

In March 1992, Bosnia’s Muslims, joined by the province’s Croat minority, voted for Bosnian independence, rejecting Karadžić’s threats and making themselves the largest ethnicity in a new country. A month later, Yugoslavia’s politically corrupted army teamed up with extremist Serbian paramilitary gangs led by psychopathic career criminals like Željko “Arkan” Ražnatović in a coordinated campaign of ethnic cleansing, mass murder, and mass rape against the largely unarmed Bosnian Muslim population. It peaked in July 1995 with General Mladić’s Srebrenica genocide, which Mladić openly called “revenge on the Turks in this region,” i.e., payback for Ottoman rule.

An ideologically pure decolonization of the Ottoman imperial presence, perhaps? The core belief of “wokeness” or “anti-racism” is that concessions are owed by the “privileged,” especially those affiliated with groups that centuries earlier engaged in conquest and enslavement. In fact, Hoare, the historian, has documented many influential “anti-imperialist” leftists who duly defended Milošević’s ethnonationalist regime in the 1990s.

Other contemporary woke believers would almost certainly oppose Serb violence against Muslims, though, and Hoare himself was raked over the Twitter coals for suggesting similarities between the destruction of statues in summer 2020 with the destruction of Ottoman monuments and mosques in 1990s Bosnia. (Hoare, impressively, never backed down.) The motivation in these cases is not concern over human rights or the golden rule, of course, but an instinct that Muslims are “good” while groups like Serbs, Christians, whites, and—as large-scale celebrations following the Hamas massacre on Oct. 7 made clear—Jews are “bad.”

Although wokeness is sometimes called “critical race theory,” the use of an academic, clinical term like that to describe this latter, instinctive version of wokeness is to miss the point entirely. The reality of “wokeness” is the promotion of tribal hatreds. It is tribal hatred even when—as in the case of many urbane white Westerners—it involves hating one’s own ostensible tribe, a circumstance that similarly applies to Bosnian Muslims, whose European heritage complicates whether they qualify as good Muslims or as bad white people. As bizarre as it might seem, it is in fact fairly common to see social media posts where Bosnian Muslim genocide refugees get harangued for their white privilege, sometimes by woke Bosnian Muslims, just like Jewish genocide survivors and their children are regularly denounced in the U.S. for their own “privilege.” Apparently the rule of instinctive wokeness is that vilifying Bosnian Muslims regarding 600-year-old events in the Balkans is evil, but vilifying them for their “responsibility” for 400-year-old events in America is righteous, providing that they fled to Utica or St. Louis to avoid mass slaughter.

Bosnia, then, serves as an important window as to whether wokeness is fundamentally an ideological or tribal phenomenon. More importantly, it shows wokeness’s endgame. America’s establishment once reviled the ethos that killed 140,000 and displaced 4 million in the Yugoslav wars and Joe Biden bragged about calling Milošević a “damn war criminal” to his face. Now, terms like “anti-racism” and “social justice” are covering for a worldview whose routine incitements to tribal hatred and social fracturing based on fanning the embers of historical grievances directly echo the ideological formations of the most bigoted and notorious villains of the late 20th century.

Not satisfied with Balkanizing the United States, the American political and media establishment is injecting the Milošević model into the rest of the world as well. The U.S. State Department is pushing aggressive “equity”-based policies on the world at large and, as the Croatian Canadian who goes by the pseudonym Niccolo Soldo has pointed out, is also training activists in Europe in the arts of wokeness and anti-racism. As politicians in New York and Chicago are discovering, the present-day, large-scale migration into the United States and Europe is quite stressful for polities to manage. Matters become far more grave when you realize that elements of the United States government are using their country’s cultural and political hegemony to convince masses of incoming migrants to think of local Americans and Europeans the same way rampaging Serbian Chetnik death squads thought of the Muslims they spent large chunks of the 1990s brutalizing and killing.

Bosnia became a cauldron of tribal hatred in the 1990s because of its combination of real-world ethnic diversity and age-old animosities and historical wounds that were deliberately inflamed by politicians and media figures. The entire Western world may soon discover what it means to live in such a society.

Prince of Truth

As a staunch defender of the West and its values, Murray is compelled to support Israel because, as he said, it’s on the front line of the civilized world, defending the West. “Israel has recognizable ethics and culture,” he said. “It’s different, as all countries are, but it’s part of us.” What baffles him – and many others – is the fact that Westerners in America and Britain are supporting every country in the Middle East except for Israel.

“Israel is the one country in which Americans could live in the Middle East,” he said. “I’ve spent enough time in other countries to know this difference. A lot of people don’t. Israel is a core part of the West. When people ask me, ‘Why do you support Israel?’ I say, ‘Why would you support every other country but Israel?’”

If Israel is a front line of the West, then why is Western media so anti-Israel? Murray believes that, in part, “it’s a numbers game,” he said. “There are 1.6 billion Muslims and under 20 million Jews, so advertising revenues play a part. There is also the fact that Israel has this disadvantage of being a relatively comfortable war zone to report from, so it’s a deep paradox. It’s not like reporting from Syria or Yemen; there are very few brave journalists who have made it into these war zones. There is also this ridiculous thing where, ‘If it’s Jews, it’s news.’”

Murray has seen the large-scale demonstrations against Israel and Jews, with tens of thousands marching in the street in his native England, as well as hostage posters ripped down and extremists spewing antisemitic, anti-West rhetoric. In February, protesters projected their genocidal slogan, “From the river to the sea” on Big Ben, and the U.K. reported that 2023 was the worst year for antisemitism since 1984, when it initially started recording the data.

Even though it seems bleak in Britain, with many Jews there wondering if they should leave, Murray is optimistic that his country can be saved from antisemitism and progressivism because the majority of people don’t buy into it. “I’ve done everything I can and will continue to do so,” he said. “Most people do not go along with those extremists. I have great trust in the British people, whom I believe have been pushed down more and more, but have not disappeared.”

Murray also empathizes with British Jews, who have felt unsafe living there, especially post-Oct. 7. “I believe my Jewish friends when they say they can’t come into London on a Saturday [because of the protests],” he said. “We should listen to Jews when they say, ‘I am not safe.’ It’s a remarkable thing how few people seem to have sympathy for that. If any other minority said that, I think we’d speak up and say something, and I don’t think we’d doubt their testimony.”

While much of the world is gaslighting the Jewish people, Murray is validating them. Since Oct. 7, he’s been invited to speak at Jewish events and dealing with cancelations and mobs for supporting Israel. He was set to speak at a fundraiser at the Apollo Theatre in London for IDF-drafted students, but the event was canceled by the venue and relocated to a synagogue. Afterwards, he posted on X, “Wonderful event to a capacity audience in London. Shame on the Apollo Theatre for bowing to the mob. But London’s Jews will not be intimidated and neither will I.”

Protesters recently tried to disrupt a speaking event Murray held in Sydney, Australia, chanting, “Douglas Murray, you can’t hide, you’re supporting genocide.” When Murray went on Sky News to comment on what happened, he said, “First of all, I don’t feel like I’m hiding … I think that’s kind of a waste of a day, not least because I could not hear them … It’s really pathetic.”

Murray’s courage to stand up against the mob, to call out their lies, is a breath of fresh air that empowers the Jewish people and makes them feel like they have a friend in this fight. The fact that he is being embraced by Jews is “wonderful and deeply touching,” he said. “It saddens me that Jews feel alone and without allies. I think that’s a terrible thing. I spoke to one person in Tel Aviv who said they were there for the #MeToo and BLM movement, but none of those people were there for them since Oct. 7. Maybe it’ll never be reciprocated. That isolation is terrible, for the Jewish people and so many who care about Israel and see there is this lack of empathy.”

However, by using his voice, Murray knows he is strengthening the Jewish people. And he is proud of it. He said, “If I can, in any way, give people comfort or solace, that pleases me more than anything.”

Read More

04/05 Links Pt1: Israel is being subjected to obscene double standards; Biden’s Slow Motion Betrayal of Israel; Outrage over aid-worker deaths is about saving Hamas, not civilians

From Ian:

Jake Wallis Simons: Israel is being subjected to obscene double standards

In 2021, during the catastrophic allied withdrawal from Afghanistan, an errant US drone strike slaughtered an aid worker and nine members of his family in Kabul, including seven children.

Footage of the attack was later obtained by the New York Times. According to the paper, the footage showed how ‘the military made a life-or-death decision based on imagery that was fuzzy, hard to interpret in real time and prone to confirmation bias’. There were other mitigating circumstances, readers were told. ‘The military had been working that day under extreme pressure to head off another attack on troops and civilians in the middle of the chaotic withdrawal.’

Contrast this with how America’s newspaper of record reported the tragic Israeli airstrikes that claimed the lives of seven aid workers in Gaza on Monday. This, it alleged, was ‘the predictable result of a shoot-first style of engagement Israeli troops have used in their military campaign since the Hamas attacks of 7 October’. The report made no such allowances for ‘extreme pressure’ or ‘fuzzy, hard-to-interpret’ imagery.

The Gray Lady even contrasted the two incidents in a way that painted the American atrocity favourably while casting Israeli intentions in doubt. The Kabul attack, it said, ‘came after a suicide bombing killed at least 182 people, including 13 American troops, during the frantic American withdrawal from the country. Under acute pressure to avert another attack, the US military believed it was tracking a terrorist who might imminently detonate another bomb. Instead, it killed an Afghan aid worker and nine members of his family.’

The Gaza strike, however, ‘adds fuel to accusations that Israel has bombed indiscriminately’, the New York Times said, pre-empting the results of the independent investigation with breathless speculation and a healthy dose of ‘confirmation bias’ of its own. The assumption could not be clearer: whereas the Americans were acting out of panic and confusion, the Israelis were either acting out of disregard for human life or straightforward bloodlust.

Civilian deaths, including those of aid workers, are a tragic reality of modern warfare. Sixty-two humanitarian workers lost their lives in combat zones last year. Although they were mostly killed at the hands of autocratic regimes and militias, during wartime they are also the casualties of democracies, including Britain.

During the Libyan civil war in 2011, when David Cameron had his hands on the joystick, 13 people were killed by a NATO airstrike, including an ambulance driver, three nurses and some friendly troops. (He did not, surprisingly, subject his own government to the type of rhetoric that he has recently been levelling at the Israelis over the mistaken Gaza strike.) That same week, NATO wiped out a family near Ajdabiya in the north of the country. This year, even the Danish military was forced to admit that its aerial assault had claimed the lives of 14 Libyan civilians.

The difference between attitudes towards most Western armed forces and the Israelis could not be sharper. According to the UN, the average combatant-to-civilian death ratio in war around the world is one to nine. When Britain, America and our allies battled Islamic State in Mosul in 2016-17, we achieved a much more respectable rate of about one to 2.5. In Gaza, Israel has done better still, reaching about one to 1.5, and possibly even less.

Yet, while there is a willingness to believe that the Americans, British, Danes and others carry out tragic errors while doing their best to avoid harm to innocents, there is an instant suspicion when Jewish hands are on the bomb toggles.

Biden Loses the Plot on Israel

For six months, huge swaths of the press have painted Israel in the worst possible light. Netanyahu could say the sky is blue and a thousand fact-checkers would scrub his claim for signs of misinformation. Pro-Hamas falsehoods, meanwhile, are recycled without second thought. The casualty numbers from the Hamas-controlled Gaza Health Ministry, the bogus tale of the Israeli rocket "fired" at al-Shifa hospital, the blood libel that Israelis separated Palestinian babies from their mothers, the lie that the U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East was free of Hamas infiltration—these stories were peddled in bad faith before Israel had a chance to rebut them.

Which is why a sense of moral clarity in this conflict is so important. Hamas is evil. Hamas could end the war it started by surrendering its cadres and releasing its prisoners. Hamas refuses. Hamas would rather sacrifice the civilian population of Gaza on the altar of its genocidal ambition and suicidal desires. Hamas brutalizes children, abuses captives, steals food, fires its rockets indiscriminately, wears no uniforms, and hides behind schools, hospitals, and mosques. Hamas does not just commit war crimes. It is a war crime.

A global movement sympathetic to Hamas is fighting an information war with the objective of isolating Israel diplomatically and undermining its right to exist. We have learned that the United States, our universities, and our social media platforms are fronts in this campaign. And we have learned that anti-Semitism has returned with shocking power to demonize, harass, intimidate, and assault Jews throughout the diaspora. What Jewish immigrants to America in the beginning of the 20th century called the "Golden Land" is no exception.

The political heroes of this moment are the men and women who have retained the ability to make clear distinctions between Israel and Hamas, between freedom, equality, and the rule of law and violence, terror, and fear. Few have put the matter as plainly as Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, a Democrat who recently has been making more sense than most of his colleagues. "Hamas is confident we’re going to capitulate—but it's never going to be me," he posted Wednesday on X. "Hamas only deserves elimination."

Alluding to the World Central Kitchen deaths, Fetterman continued, "This war is the sum total of daily, raw tragedies. The vast majority of the harshest criticism & all responsibility for this war belongs to Hamas. Stand with Israel."

Fetterman's message deserves a million retweets. And his story contains a lesson. Last December, Fetterman dropped his identification as a "Progressive" because he understood that the label has become entangled with the poisonous vines of anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. And he, unlike Biden, refuses to play the anti-Israel lobby's game. He, unlike Biden, has drawn the correct lessons from the war in Gaza. John Fetterman knows that good friends come from unlikely places. That the truth is the most effective weapon in the war of ideas. And that the fate of our society, our nation, and our civilization depends on Israeli victory.

Jonathan Tobin: Outrage over aid-worker deaths is about saving Hamas, not civilians

His willingness to heed these calls to halt the Israeli effort to defeat Hamas goes beyond a desire for domestic peace in the White House. The entire left wing of the Democratic Party, including many so-called “progressives” in Congress, has been clamoring that he use the threat of aid cutoffs to end the war prior to the release of the more than 100 hostages still being held by Hamas, including five Americans. Isolated in the White House, Biden and his advisers truly believe that the reason he’s currently trailing former President Donald Trump in his battle for re-election is because he’s considered insufficiently hostile to Israel by the intersectional activist wing of his party that is ever more hostile to Zionism and the Jewish state.

When measured against the yawns and shrugged shoulders from the White House under Obama and Biden when civilians died as a result of their orders, it’s easy to see that the outrage about the aid workers has little to do with humanitarian concerns. Instead, it is about hatred for Israel that has taken root in left-wingers who have come to believe that Israel must not be allowed to defeat Hamas and that any civilian casualties that occur as a result of the terrorists’ actions are too many.

If Biden really wants to end the fighting in Gaza, then he should be directing all of his anger and threats against Hamas and its backers, not the Israelis. If Hamas surrendered and released the hostages—ranging from a baby to an 86-year-old man—the war would be over immediately. Instead, by threatening to trash the alliance with Israel and the mandate that it must live with Hamas terrorism, including the threat of more Oct. 7 massacres in the future, he has only strengthened the resolve of the Islamist murderers to stand their ground, secure in the belief that the United States will save them from the justice they so richly deserve for their crimes.

As much as we may all mourn what happened to the aid workers, the willingness of Israel’s foes and false friends like Biden to use this incident to end the war against Hamas should not be considered a manifestation of humanitarian sentiment. If their tragic fate provides the leverage that Washington uses to end the war, then the blood of the Israelis—and those in other nations who will fall victim to a revitalized international terror movement funded by Iran—will be on the heads of those who cynically exploited their deaths.

Read More

04/04 Links Pt2: The ICJ is waging lawfare on Israel; How Much Is a Dead Jew Worth?; The Appalling Tactics of the "Free Palestine" Movement

From Ian:

WSJ: The International Court of Justice is waging lawfare on Israel

The party with clear genocidal intent here is Hamas, which, because it’s not a state, is conveniently not subject to the jurisdiction of the ICJ. Just take a look at the Hamas founding charter, which outlines “our struggle against the Jews.” After the, yes, genocidal Oct. 7 attack, a senior Hamas official declared the terrorist group’s intention to repeat the murderous feat and announced that “Israel is a country that has no place on our land.”

As to Israel, yes, there are painful and difficult questions about the civilian casualties and suffering it has inflicted in Gaza — casualties that are the result of not only the Hamas attack but also the organization’s cruel and cynical decision to reap benefit from embedding its operations deep in the civilian population and using the ensuing civilian casualties in its war for public support.

But the matter of Israel’s complicity in the suffering is an issue of international humanitarian law entirely separate from the unfounded allegations of genocide. “Israel, its officials and/or agents, have acted with the intent to destroy Palestinians in Gaza,” South Africa claimed.

No. Israel’s intent — its legitimate intent, under international law — is to defend itself and destroy Hamas. The Genocide Convention requires proof of intent “to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.” A country with genocidal intent does not warn the civilian population it is supposedly seeking to destroy to leave an area it plans to bomb. It does not deliver incubators and baby formula to their hospitals.

None of this stopped the International Court of Justice. Responding to another prod from South Africa, it said Israel had to do more to ensure humanitarian aid to civilians — and, alarmingly, seven judges on the 15-member court said they would order Israel to stop the fighting.

To be clear: Israel has erred, badly, on the issue of humanitarian relief, which is a moral and strategic imperative as well as a legal one. The tragic killing of seven aid workers for World Central Kitchen only adds to the understandable pressure on Israel to ease the humanitarian crisis — and to its potential legal exposure on that score. But, and here I need to make a maddeningly legalistic point, the ICJ has jurisdiction to decide only the genocide question. It doesn’t have the authority to determine whether Israel has violated the broader requirements of international humanitarian law.

Add to that the structural imbalance because of the ICJ having no power over Hamas. As Judge Aharon Barak, Israel’s representative on the ICJ, wrote, “The Court has accepted South Africa’s invitation to become the micromanager of an armed conflict,” a “dangerous endeavor” when only one party, Israel, is bound by its decisions.

What’s going on here isn’t law; it’s lawfare, an effort to hijack what should be the somber mechanisms of international justice to the political ends of tarring Israel with the calumny of genocide. South Africa, with close ties to Hamas and its sponsor, Iran, is deploying the Genocide Convention to dirty Israel in the public eye.

Years from now, when the genocide claim is ultimately resolved, it’s not likely Israel will be found to have committed this most terrible of crimes. But that’s not the goal. The goal is in the here and now, to turn public opinion even further against the Jewish state.

The ICJ is enabling it. As Barak put it, the ICJ’s “approach to this case is steadily leaving the land of law and entering the land of politics. The ideas of a judge as a human being should not determine the opinions of a human being when he or she acts as a judge.” The court’s new president, or chief justice, Nawaf Salam, is a former ambassador to the United Nations from Lebanon, where another front could erupt into war at any moment. In 2015, he wrote, “Unhappy birthday to you, 48 years of occupation.” Doesn’t exactly sound impartial.

Melanie Phillips: Lawyers for blood libels

The 600 British lawyers who have signed a letter to the Prime Minister denouncing Israel for breaking international law and potentially committing genocide deserve nothing but contempt.

Not only have they parroted the falsehoods and distortions with which Israel is being demonised and delegitimised across the world. They have also shockingly misrepresented January’s ruling by the International Court of Justice in the case brought against Israel by South Africa.

The letter, which is signed by 60 KCs and three former Supreme Court judges, says that the ICJ “concluded that there was a plausible risk of genocide in Gaza”.

This is a wicked lie. The court said nothing of the kind. Here’s what the legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg (in whom I declare an interest) has written on his Substack:
In its third paragraph, the letter says that on 26 January 2024 the International Court of Justice “concluded that there was a plausible risk of genocide in Gaza”. This error is repeated by the Guardian in its report of the letter. There are several further references in the lawyers’ letter to “the ICJ’s finding of plausible risk”.

The words “plausible risk” appear nowhere in the court’s order. They are a misrepresentation of what the court concluded in paragraph 54 of its judgment:

“In the court’s view, the facts and circumstances mentioned above are sufficient to conclude that at least some of the rights claimed by South Africa and for which it is seeking protection are plausible. This is the case with respect to the right of the Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from acts of genocide and related prohibited acts identified in article III [of the Genocide Convention], and the right of South Africa to seek Israel’s compliance with the latter’s obligations under the convention.”

Gadi Taub: How Much Is a Dead Jew Worth?

The Palestinian Authority compensates the families of terrorists in proportion to the amount of harm they inflict on Jews. Killing Jews is not just a religious calling that can grant you the status of "martyr" and guarantee you a place in heaven with 72 virgins. It is also a way to make a living. If you're sentenced to 10 years, you make four times the minimum wage and twice the average wage in the PA. The PA spends 7% of its budget on the pay-for-slay scheme.

This program is just one thread in the whole fabric of Palestinian national culture that has woven the idea of jihad against the Jews into all aspects of life. Terrorists dominate the gallery of national heroes. They are essentially the only role model for Palestinian youth. Regardless of how much well-meaning Israelis tried desperately to imagine otherwise over the years, the Palestinian national ethos is built around a genocidal war to ethnically cleanse Palestine, from the river to the sea, of Jewish presence.

Itamar Marcus, founder of Palestinian Media Watch, said Oct. 7 was not the result of Hamas indoctrination, but the product of PA indoctrination, which has been around for three decades. Both in Gaza and the West Bank, Palestinian children are still being instructed in books produced by the PA that ceaselessly pump into young minds the poison of the death cult - of suicide and genocide.

Lt.-Col. (res.) Maurice Hirsch of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs concurs that PA indoctrination is a greater source than Hamas of this genocidal hate. The idea that the way forward in Gaza is for Hamas to be replaced by the PA is therefore a risible exercise in wishful thinking, since the PA, in reality, glorifies and incentivizes terrorism.

By now, we know that PA security forces personnel are directly involved in terror attacks. The police forces Israel armed and the U.S. military trains are active participants in the terror they were supposed to stop. Using the guns we gave them to stop terror, they instead kill Jews - in the process securing the livelihoods of their families.

Bret Stephens: The Appalling Tactics of the "Free Palestine" Movement

Protest movements have an honorable place in American history. But not all of them. Not the neo-Nazis who marched in Chicago in 1978. Not the white supremacists in Charlottesville, Va., in 2017. And not too much of what passes for a pro-Palestinian movement but is really pro-Hamas, with its open celebration of the murder of Israel's people and its efforts to mock, minimize or deny the suffering of Israelis, which so quickly descend into antisemitism.

It wasn't a response to the human suffering in Gaza. Pro-Hamas demonstrations broke out worldwide on Oct. 8, before any Israeli response. Nor is it a matter of seeking a Palestinian state. Among the popular chants at many protests is "We don't want no two states! We want all of '48!" - all of what had been Mandatory Palestine. In other words, the central, animating sentiment behind much of the protest movement is neither humanitarian nor liberationist. It's eliminationist.

Tactics like the routine removal or defacement of posters of Israelis kidnapped to Gaza; or holding a loud and aggressive demonstration outside of New York's Memorial Sloan Kettering cancer hospital; or shouting down Rep. Jamie Raskin at the University of Maryland for being "complicit in genocide" reveals the bullying mentality at the heart of the pro-Hamas movement.

It isn't enough for them to speak out; they must shut other voices down. They aim to instill a palpable sense of fear in their opponents. American civil libertarians once understood that inherent in the right to protest was the obligation to respect the right of people with differing views to protest as well.

Read More

04/04 Links Pt1: The global onslaught against Israel; Al-Shifa Hospital and the crisis of the West; Israel Takes Responsibility. Who Else Does?

From Ian:

Biden is dreaming it’s like 1918, but Israel is fighting like it’s 1945

Washington is dreaming like it’s 1918, but Jerusalem is fighting like it’s 1945.

President Biden is approaching the conflict in Gaza with the mindset that ended World War I, while the Israelis are fighting with the spirit that transformed Germany 27 years later.

In 1918, the United States and its allies sought a German surrender that would neutralize its war-making capabilities without having to transform its state and society.

Leaving Germany unoccupied and its latent capacity for war intact, the armistice failed to establish a stable European order.

A true solution to what contemporaries called the “German question” came only after World War II, when America and its allies demanded unconditional surrender from Hitler, occupied Germany and de-Nazified its institutions.

The Israelis believe, correctly, that only Hamas’ unconditional surrender, the dismantling of its military capabilities and the de-Hamasification of Gazan institutions will deliver a stable order.

But Biden has been significantly distancing America from these aims.

Hamas, Biden said in his State of the Union, could end the war “by releasing the hostages, laying down arms and surrendering those responsible for October 7th.”

The president was effectively calling for a World War I-style armistice, one that would allow armed Hamas cadres not just to survive in Gaza but to shape its political future.

The president’s decision last week to abstain from voting on a United Nations Security Council resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire — not predicated on the release of Israeli hostages — is the armistice plan in action.

Biden’s intentions became clear just two days after the State of the Union, when he warned that an Israeli campaign to take Rafah, Hamas’ last stronghold in Gaza, would cross an American “red line,” possibly prompting the United States to withhold military assistance.

Netanyahu responded directly and bluntly.

“I have a red line,” he said. “You know what [my] red line is? That October 7 doesn’t happen again.”

Melanie Phillips: The global onslaught against Israel

The U.S. and the U.K. have already abandoned Israel at the U.N. Security Council over its resolution last month calling for an immediate ceasefire, which would entail surrender to Hamas.

Britain and America behave in this malevolent way towards no other country on earth.

Israel is on the front line of the battle against Iran and radical Islam, which have declared war on the West. Israel is doing the West’s dirty work for it—and suffering grievous losses as a result—because America, Britain and the rest of the West aren’t prepared to fight to defend their civilization.

America and Britain refuse to face up to the Islamic war against the free world of which the Palestinian Arabs are the shock troops and whose cause is a key strategy to render the West powerless in the face of the Islamic jihad.

Instead, America and Britain have largely bought into the Palestinian cause. As a result, they are turning on Israel and making it their scapegoat. In so doing, they are tapping into profound prejudices about supposedly diabolical Jewish power and Jewish bloodlust, thus pouring petrol onto the flames of the Jew-hatred now consuming the West.

It seems as if the world has now turned against the Jewish nation and wants it gone. Yet there are many decent people who very clearly see what is happening and are horrified. And the Gulf states and countless other Muslims who recognize Islamist Nazism for what it is and what it means for them are silently cheering Israel on.

The Jewish people has been through persecution, enslavement, pogroms, inquisitions and genocide at different times and at the hands of disparate groups and states. It has suffered from varying mutations of antisemitism—the desire to wipe out the Jews as a religion, a race and a nation. It has, however, never been subjected to a concerted global onslaught like this.

Brendan O’Neill: Al-Shifa Hospital and the crisis of the West

Those still denying that Hamas uses al-Shifa as a terror base, those depicting the events of the past fortnight as just a genocidal siege by Israel, are, to be blunt, lying. This is not scepticism of ‘Israeli propaganda’. Scepticism is a noble philosophical pursuit where one awaits further evidence before deciding what the truth is. The swirling Israelophobia of Western influencers openly discounts and denies evidence on the basis that we don’t need anything as trifling as facts because the truth has already been revealed to us: Israel is evil. It is cult-like delirium dressed up as anti-war activism.

Even worse than the misinformation is the moral cover these activists provide to Hamas. Their post-truth depiction of the Battle of al-Shifa as a demented Israeli onslaught absolves Hamas of responsibility for these calamitous events. It allows Hamas to pose as the aggrieved party when in truth it was Hamas’s homicidal use of a hospital for the purposes of terror that gave rise to the battle in the first place. Hamas is now calling on the International Criminal Court to investigate Israel’s ‘crimes’ at al-Shifa. I’m struggling to think of anything more repellent than a terror group that commits the war crime of using a hospital as a military base accusing others of war crimes. It is thanks to the wide-eyed, craven apologism of so many in the West that Hamas can get away with such antics.

The Battle of al-Shifa confirms an uncomfortable truth about many Western observers and agitators – they’re in the pockets of Hamas. Wittingly or otherwise, they’re doing the bidding of violent bigots. For if it is widely known that Hamas and the IDF are fighting in al-Shifa, and if you only demand the expulsion of the IDF, then what you’re saying is: give Hamas free rein. This isn’t opposition to Israeli ‘war crimes’ – it is support for Hamas war crimes. It isn’t a principled objection to the use of hospitals for war-like violence – it is an implicit acceptance of Hamas’s right, and Hamas’s right alone, to use hospitals for this purpose. The Israelophobia of Western influencers directly benefits the pogromists of Hamas. It adds a veneer of anti-war radicalism to their anti-Semitic hysteria.

The Battle of al-Shifa is a clarifying moment. Not only for Israel in its war with Hamas, but also for us in the West. For it confirms that many of our young in particular are siding with the forces of darkness, with the violent anti-humanism of a group like Hamas. There’s a backstory to their sympathy for Hamas, their harebrained acceptance of the idea that Israel is solely responsible for the al-Shifa disaster. Namely, their inculcation with anti-Western views. Their exposure to the regressive ideology that says everything ‘white’ and Western is bad, while everything non-white and non-Western is deserving of compassion.

The end result is that even in a clash between a virulently racist movement that uses a hospital to plot war and murder and the army of a democratic state that is hunting down the terrorists that committed a pogrom against its people, they side with the former. It isn’t only al-Shifa that lies in ruins – so do the West’s own future prospects if we fail to have a serious reckoning with the Hamas apologism infecting our youth, our activists and our institutions. That so many of our fellow citizens have sided with barbarism over civilisation demands our urgent and undivided attention.

Read More

04/03 Links Pt2: A Day that Will Live On in Infamy; Eve Barlow: Parasites; Protests in Amman are linked to Iranian goal to ‘swallow’ Jordan

From Ian:

A Day that Will Live On in Infamy

Today is a dark day for the Western world; a day that will live on in infamy. The decision by the United Nations Security Council to impose a ceasefire on Israel without condemning Hamas for instigating the current war, or insisting on the immediate return of hostages before a ceasefire begins, is surely one of great injustices imposed on a country since the creation of the United Nations in the wake of the Second World War.

Since its establishment in 1945, the United Nations has ostensibly aimed to be the fulcrum of global peace and security, intervening in conflicts to halt wars and foster negotiations. However, the decision today by the UN Security Council marks a stark departure from historical precedents. It is also galling hypocrisy to use Ramadan as a foil for this resolution, when Hamas deliberately chose a Jewish festival day as the date to launch its violent bloodbath against Jews.

These omissions are not just notable; they are literally unprecedented, except when it comes to Israel. In past interventions when the Jewish state wasn’t involved, the UN has repeatedly taken a more balanced approach, recognizing aggressions and violations of international law by all parties involved. This latest stance, with a resolution that is void of any condemnation of Hamas or demands for the return of hostages for there to be a ceasefire, raises questions about fairness and the underlying principles guiding the UN’s decisions in international conflicts.

Just by way of comparison, in January, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 2722, which called for the maintenance of international peace and security in the face of Houthi attacks on commercial navigation in the Red Sea. The resolution unequivocally condemned the Houthi’s aggressive actions, including the seizure of the ship, Galaxy Leader, and its crew, emphasizing the vital importance of unimpeded maritime commerce and the exercise of navigational rights under international law. The resolution demanded an immediate halt to such attacks and called for the release of the seized vessel and its crew, highlighting the broader implications of these actions on global trade and regional stability.

Stephen Pollard: Only science fiction explains the UN’s parallel universe

See what I mean about parallel universes? Those who cite Hamas’ casualty figures are living in a parallel universe where 2+2 does not equal 4 but whatever Hamas declares it to be.

It's the same phenomenon over aid and the supposed famine that is engulfing Gaza as a result of Israel – in this other parallel universe – refusing to allow enough food or medical supplies in. (You hardly need me to tell you that the UN operates in a parallel universe. The UN Human Rights Council, after all, exists not so much in a parallel universe as in a deranged antisemitic fantasy world.)

The recent report by the UN’s Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) Famine Review Committee (FRC) said that famine was likely by May in northern Gaza, and by July in other parts of the Strip. Last week, however, COGAT, the Israeli Defense Ministry body responsible for civilian affairs in the Palestinian territories (COGAT stands for Coordination of Government Activities in the Territories) demolished the “multiple factual and methodological flaws” in the IPC’s report, which was – of course – based on Hamas supplied figures.

For one thing, the IPC simply repeated as fact the Hamas health ministry’s assertion that less than one litre of water per person was available per day, when the actual figure is 20. COGAT has provided incontrovertible photographic and other evidence of between 150 and 200 aid trucks entering daily – what is actually an 80 per cent increase in food supplies since before October 7. The problem, as anyone who lives in our actual universe rather than the parallel one in which the Jews are trying to starve the Gazans, is that the UN’s own agencies in Gaza, and some of the aid organisations, have been unable to distribute supplies which are waiting on the Gazan side of the Kerem Shalom crossing for UN distribution by aid workers – in large part because of Hamas, which is deliberately pushing the narrative of starvation by the Israelis. And the UN, of course, repeats it as fact.

This week a series of pictures has emerged on social and Palestinian media showing markets in Gaza full of food – indeed there is now so much available that, as one vendor told reporters, "an average family can now buy products for a hearty meal with 100 shekels, compared to 200 shekels required for such a meal just a few days ago."

As 3 Body Problem shows, there are an infinite number of these parallel universes. The accusation, for example, that Israel is engaged in genocide, rather than in an astonishingly precise and carefully planned attempt to destroy a terrorist organisation, is patently the product of a parallel universe. You can, I am afraid, take your pick from many more.

Col Kemp: Civilian casualties aplenty inside war's foggy lens

The implication of that is whoever ordered and conducted the strikes believed the vehicles that were hit contained terrorists, suggesting incorrect intelligence or failure of surveillance, possibly compounded by human error. There are many variables. We don’t yet know whether those who conducted the strikes were acting according to IDF rules of engagement or were negligent. Sometimes soldiers and commanders behave recklessly or irresponsibly in all armies including the IDF.

Nor do we know whether accurate information on their movements was passed by the WCK staff or whether it was correctly understood by the IDF or shared with the strike commander. We do, however, know that differentiating between enemy forces and uninvolved civilians is made much more challenging by Hamas terrorists’ use of human shields, always moving and fighting in civilian clothes and sometimes using civilian vehicles such as ambulances and aid trucks.

Unfortunately, nightmares like this occur frequently in the fog of war, with its confusion, chaos, danger, death, destruction, mental overload, human pressure, and technical failure. For example, during President Biden’s withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021, a US drone strike in Kabul mistakenly killed an aid worker and nine members of his family including seven children. General Mark Milley, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff explained: “In a dynamic high-threat environment, the commanders on the ground had appropriate authority and had reasonable certainty that the target was valid. But after deeper post strike analysis we conclude that innocent civilians were killed.” This strike also occurred as a result of a misidentified vehicle.

Another tragedy occurred in October 2015 when a US gunship attacked a hospital in Kunduz operated by Doctors Without Borders in which 42 staff and patients were killed and many wounded. The US attributed the incident to “avoidable human error compounded by process and equipment failures”, with the aircrew misidentifying the hospital as a Taliban-controlled building.

I have not had personal experience of the killing of innocent civilians but during different campaigns, I was involved with so-called “blue-on-blue” or “friendly fire” incidents, which are not dissimilar. They often occur in conditions of poor visibility or on difficult ground such as urban or wooded areas, when I know firsthand that it is all too easy to misidentify your own troops. Three soldiers from my own regiment were killed by a US air strike in Afghanistan in August 2007 due to human error by both the American strike commander and the British ground controller. The challenges of inherent battlefield chaos and consequent errors — which applies also to civilian casualties - is illustrated by estimates that suggest up to 25% of US casualties in war have been due to friendly fire.

I have no doubt the independent investigation will reveal the full facts and be made public. If there is intentional malice, breaches of IDF rules of engagement, or reckless behavior, individuals will be held accountable under military justice. Lessons will also be learned by the IDF to help them avoid repetition, although the unfortunate reality of war is that other tragic incidents will re-occur during this and other conflicts around the world, especially where terrorists use human shields. In this war in Gaza, there are two fail-safe means of preventing further major violence against civilians as well as soldiers. The first is for Hamas to surrender and release all the hostages. The second is the destruction of Hamas by the IDF.

Read More

04/03 Links Pt1: Blame terrorists, not Israelis, for the suffering in Gaza; Iran Is Winning the War; Haniyeh: Hamas won't back down from hostage deal demands

From Ian:

Iran Is Winning the War

Weakness in Washington: Advantage Iran
Do Joe Biden and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin signal fearsome intent when they fire missiles at Iranian proxies while telling Tehran the United States has no desire to escalate? When Secretary of State Tony Blinken says to Iran, “we would like to see them tell the Houthis to stop,” do you think Iran feels the heat?

The questions answer themselves.

Amazingly, some senior Biden administration officials give the impression that the supreme leader’s supposed fatwa banning nukes just might be real—despite the history of Ali Khamenei driving the country’s once-clandestine nuclear-weapons project. Nothing about the Islamic Republic’s “peaceful” nuclear research since 2002, when the weapons program was first publicly revealed, makes sense unless one assumes the supreme leader’s original objective remains.

According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, the regime currently has enough 60 percent enriched uranium for three nuclear weapons, which could rapidly be spun up to 90 percent, the ideal bomb-grade. The stockpile of 20 percent uranium would allow for several more. As it stands now, according to the Institute for Science and International Security, which closely monitors the Iranian nuclear program, Tehran could produce bomb-grade uranium for one weapon in seven days; one month would give enough for six bombs; five months would allow for 12 weapons.

Washington went through a similar experience with North Korea. There, U.S. officials wanted to believe that there was a chance that Pyongyang could be bought off short of a nuclear test, and if it couldn’t, then nuclearization was better than risking war on the peninsula.

Barring some monumental miscalculation by Tehran, Biden surely will be no more bold against the Islamic Republic than George W. Bush was against North Korea. The president’s recent decision to release $10 billion held in escrow for Iraq’s electricity payments to Iran, combined with the not-so-secret indirect talks between U.S. and Iranian officials in Oman, strongly suggest that the White House is trying hard to appease Tehran. Washington wants the clerical regime to halt its proxy attacks on U.S. forces and its atomic advance short of a fissile test—at least before the November election.

So What Can Be Done?
Americans and Israelis have for decades shied away from militarily punishing the mullahs for their malevolence. This hesitancy—an unwillingness to escalate—has fed an Islamist appetite for violence. But diplomacy and its euphemisms, sanctions, and whack-a-mole retaliatory strikes have run their course. And what Jerusalem is doing right now—beating back Iran’s proxies—will become a lot dicier once Tehran goes nuclear. Jerusalem might be obliged to accept as permanent a low-level, bloody duel with Iranian proxies. An insoluble Palestinian problem will gnaw at Israel from the West Bank, Gaza, and possibly from within Israel itself. Khamenei’s vision for destroying the “Zionist colonial settler-state”—an approach that will surely survive his death—is to erode Israeli happiness and foreign investment, not a catastrophic nuclear confrontation. Iranian nuclear weapons, the ultimate check on Israel and the United States, are a means to that end.

We are way past time pretending that any other avenue than military action against Iran has a chance of checking an Islamist nuclear-threshold state that is close to dominating the Middle East. The Biden administration’s preferred path—encouraging regime change in Israel, pining for a two-state solution, and importuning the Saudi crown prince to recognize Israel (while granting more sanctions relief to Iran and quietly sending emissaries to Oman)—is guaranteed to make a bad situation worse. As everyone in the Middle East knows, and as the Israelis momentarily forgot before October 7, hard power is the only coin of the realm.

Col. Richard Kemp: What happens if Israel does not go into Rafah? Look at Afghanistan

There is no doubting Israel’s spectacular military success so far in Gaza. I have been on the ground inside the Strip several times since the war began, and have seen first hand the remarkable combat actions of the IDF.

They have all but taken apart Hamas as a coherent fighting organisation, while doing everything in their power to minimise civilian casualties and working round the clock to get humanitarian aid to the Gazan population, which I have also witnessed.

Despite all this, the IDF has not yet accomplished its mission in Gaza: to destroy Hamas’s ability to threaten Israel and govern the Gaza Strip and to rescue the hostages. To achieve that, the IDF must launch a major offensive against the four Hamas battalions in Rafah. Focused now on its own survival, Hamas is determined to prevent that from happening and increasingly the international community seems intent on helping them.

That was underlined this week when the UN Security Council demanded a ceasefire in Gaza, which Britain supported and the US failed to veto. That historically shameful resolution was the culmination of a decades-long propaganda campaign under which Israel is an illegitimate entity. As the narrative goes, whatever is done to Israel, including the October 7 massacre, it had it coming; and whatever Israel does in its own defence, including finishing off Hamas in Rafah, it is wrong and uniquely evil.

Many supposed military experts say Israel should not mount an offensive in Rafah. I have not heard any of them put forward a single viable alternative. The White House is apparently recommending a strategy based on pinpoint, clinical strikes into the city, targeting Hamas leaders. Their template seems to be US special forces operations in Afghanistan, and we all know how that ultimately worked out. The Taliban survived, gained strength and eventually re-conquered the country. Under Taliban rule, Isis in Afghanistan has launched multiple global terrorist attacks including last week’s massacre in Moscow, according to US intelligence. A salutary lesson for those who think Israel does not need to finish off Hamas in Gaza.

In any case, in a heavily defended area like Rafah, no military operations can be “clinical”. In February, Operation Golden Hand showed us the necessity for overwhelming violence to enable special forces to extricate a single Israeli hostage from Rafah. The rescue mission had to be backed up by air strikes which reportedly killed dozens of people to enable the withdrawal of the hostage and the rescuers. Left intact, the Hamas battalions in Rafah will fight furiously against any “pinpoint” raids, which will not achieve the level of surprise of Operation Golden Hand if they become part of a series of such operations.

The Rafah conundrum: Crafting an effective strategy to crush Hamas

On Monday, the Israeli and U.S. national security advisors, along with other senior officials, had a video call in which they discussed the IDF’s current plans to evacuate civilians from Rafah, the city on the southern tip of Gaza where Hamas’s military strength is now concentrated. Israeli television reported that the American participants rejected the plan, and that their reaction was “harsh.” But, absent a Hamas surrender, one way or another the IDF will have to find have to find a way to deal with the terrorists in the city.

Amos Yadlin and Udi Evental explain that such an operation is necessary to eliminate the four Hamas battalions in Rafah, to kill or capture the group’s other leaders, and if possible to free the remaining hostages. There is yet another reason, which, Yadlin and Evental claim, is “far more important,” namely

the need to cut off the smuggling routes from the Sinai, aboveground and primarily underground, along the Egypt-Gaza border (the “Philadelphi” route). This smuggling activity has enabled Hamas to amass an enormous quantity of weaponry, which the citizens of Israel and IDF forces have encountered in the war. Without thoroughly addressing this issue, the smuggling tunnels will enable Hamas to reap profits, receive assistance from its supporters in the Muslim world, and ultimately restore its military capacity and resume its military buildup.

It should also be emphasized that complete Israeli control in Rafah does not guarantee the success of blocking the smuggling tunnels and effectively monitoring the Rafah crossing (and the adjacent Saladin Gate). These objectives depend, in part, on effective action by Egyptian forces on the other side of the border, who rake in profits from the smuggling and conduct a policy of calibrating pressures vis-à-vis Gaza.

They go on to explain how Jerusalem might deal with this diplomatic and military conundrum:

[T]he threat of an extensive operation in Rafah serves as leverage vis-à-vis Hamas in the context of a hostage deal. The IDF should take advantage of the Ramadan period to start to evacuate civilians and amass forces along the outskirts of Rafah.

Read More

04/02 Links Pt2: The unbearable sanctimony of the ‘pro-Palestine’ set; The Real Reason Al Jazeera Faces Suspension in Israel; Is CNN now part of Pallywood?

From Ian:

The Indigenous Sovereignty Movement Called Zionism

Furthermore, another question: Does every people-group around the world have a place to which it is indigenous except the Jews? Of course not. The word Jew comes from Judah, son of Israel, a patriarch for whom the nation is named—long before Judea was renamed to “Palestine” in the fourth century by Roman conquerors.

A beautiful truth concerning the Jewish people is that a tenet of the founding principles (the Ten Words/Commandments) includes a command not to steal and not to covet what a neighbor owns. This includes property. By and large, the Jewish people have observed this principle, sticking to only wanting what their Deity entrusted to their nation. Jews do not lay claim to Iraq or Egypt. They do not engage in wars of conquest against their neighbors or seek to establish global empires.

Furthermore, the Jewish people—unlike some other groups—do not have a historical, worldwide effort to force-convert and proselytize the known universe into their faith, culture, fashion, and customs or to set up diaspora colonies in every possible country to force their Torah upon unassuming local indigenous tribes, overriding and usurping local legal law. To do so would have been to transgress into becoming colonizers.

We recognize the Jewish people as the indigenous people of Israel, Judea, Samaria, and Gaza. More than that, Israel is the prime example of hope for other displaced indigenous tribes worldwide. Here is why: Israel stands as the original land-back and decolonization model multiple times in history. The Jewish people have kept a fire burning deep within their hearts even through the historical traumas of forced removals, conversions, crusades, torture, inquisitions, assimilation, and colonization by multiple empires. That inner fire speaks of an eternal promise of returning to the land of their ancestors and never again being removed. Moreover, when given the opportunity, many have returned to the place of their indigenous inception—Israel.

An ancient tribal people, the Jews, an entire nation taken hostage, enslaved, and scattered to the four directions on countless trails of tears, have been restored to the place of their origin, to the locations of their sacred places, to the land that holds their ancestors’ bones. Even the soil responds, blossoming and springing to life when its original caretakers walk upon it once again. This is the dream of any indigenous person: to return home to the land of their ancestors, to the origin place of their traditions, customs, beliefs, and language.

Empowering the Jewish people to dwell safely in their ancestral sovereign land, allowing them to self-govern as they protect their borders and people, ensuring they have charge of their own holy sites—this is Zionism. This is the essence of being indigenous.

Six years ago, in 2018, we had the vision of an indigenous embassy in Israel. While we first applied the vision to First Nations of North America, our elders later told us to expand our vision to a worldwide indigenous embassy for people all over the earth to support Israel’s declaration of indigeneity.

Now, the Indigenous Embassy of Jerusalem is a reality. It will celebrate Israel as her people, in the words of Rabbi Pesach Stadlin, “re-indigenize.” As the first nation to be restored to the boundaries of its original covenant land with the Creator, Israel stands as a beacon of hope not just to Jews around the globe but to all indigenous people—worldwide.

‘We are a great nation’: Bereaved father slams anti-gov’t protesters

The father of an IDF soldier killed in action in Gaza has denounced renewed anti-government protests, accusing demonstrators of using the plight of bereaved families and the relatives of hostages to further their political aims.

“Nobody should burn the country down,” Hagay Lober, whose son Staff Sgt. (res.) Elisha Yehonatan Lober, 24, was killed in the southern Gaza Strip in December, wrote in a viral Facebook post on Sunday.

“You cannot dismantle the country. You cannot riot. You cannot block roads. You cannot clash with the police. You cannot call for military [refusal to serve]. You cannot attempt to break into the prime minister’s house,” added Lober.

He spoke after protesters gathered at the Knesset on Sunday night, demanding that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu resign and agree to early elections. A day earlier, some families of hostages announced that they would join forces with those calling to overthrow the government.

“I was completely shocked that people were speaking like this after October 7. It felt like a second knock at my door. The first knock was the army coming to tell me that Yehonatan fell in battle in Gaza,” Lober told JNS on Tuesday.

“I am not a fighter. All I have is my Facebook page, so I wrote what I needed to say. I felt that I had the right as a bereaved parent to tell the hostage families to stop this. We are brothers, we only have one country. We should do things right. After, I was happy to see that the majority of people in Israel think like me,” he added.

On Saturday night, 16 people were arrested in Tel Aviv for blocking roads and violating public order. Protesters also clashed with police in Jerusalem, where some 200 people broke through barriers to protest near Netanyahu’s official residence, and in Caesarea, where they blocked roads close to the premier’s private home.

The demonstrators called for the prime minister to resign in a familiar chant heard during the protests against judicial reform in the months preceding Hamas’s Oct. 7 attack.

Daniel Gordis: "Even if you have family kidnapped in Gaza, I'm not going to let you burn this country down."

The post above was written by Hagai Luber, father of Yonatan Luber, z’l, 24, who was killed in battle in last December in Southern Gaza, leaving behind a pregnant wife and a nine-month old son. His words were then posted on Instagram here.

Here is what Yonatan Luber’s father wrote, via social media, to the protesters now swarming the capital:

No one is going to burn my country down.

I'm tired of the threats from the extremists.
Yes, even if these extremists have family members being held in Gaza
You're not going to burn this country.
There's no way.
And if you have to be resisted, I will resist.
Millions of people are staring at you, without believing what they're seeing, without agreeing, with horror,
And only out of respect for you, they're staying quiet.
I will not stay quiet.

My son was killed in Gaza.
He went to defend and to free your children
and he was killed.
He left everything, a pregnant wife and a nine month old son
And was killed.
He will never come back. Not in any "deal."

So I have the right to say to you:
You have no right to pull the country apart
You have no right to go crazy on the streets
You have no right to block roads
You have no right to scuffle with police officers
You have no right to call for people to refuse army service
You have no right to shake police cars
You have no right to try to break in to the Prime Minister's home.

That your children are being held captive in Gaza
It hurts, it saddens, it cuts us all to shreds inside
It will get me to send, once again, my three remaining sons
to fight, to put themselves in danger--for you.

But all that gives you no special rights.

You have no right to "take off the gloves"
You have no right to curse elected public officials
You have no right to scream "Shame!"
You have no right to create public mayhem
You have no right to block the airport
You have no right to call for a general strike.

Control yourselves. Do you hear me?
C O N T R O L Y O U R S E L V E S.

Express your views, but don't shout.
Say that we need a "deal" now, but don't block streets
Say we need an "everyone for everyone" deal but don't call for revolution.
Say that the Knesset should not be going out on recess, but don't threaten
Say that it's high time to vote Bibi out, but don't light fires
Say that we need elections now, but don't you dare try to swarm the Knesset
Say that everyone failed, but don't even think
about the possibility of revolution.

Stop threatening this people.
That's your view. We heard you. Now don't force it on anyone.

Want to hear my views, too?

To my mind, Yonatan was killed because of the Oslo agreements,
which some of you supported.
To my mind, Yonatan was killed because of the Disengagement from Gaza,
which some of your encouraged
with pro-disengagement signs at the entrances to kibbutzim.

Read More

04/02 Links Pt1: Palestinian terrorism is not about self-determination; Iran is at war with the West, but only Israel is fighting back

From Ian:

Palestinian terrorism is not about self-determination

At its core, Palestinian terrorism against Israel has nothing to do with high-minded, law-based principles of statehood or national self-determination. As a pragmatic tactic of terror, such principles merely disguise relentless criminality usefully sanitizing darkly primal objectives.

Israel must first examine Palestinian violence against the innocent in terms of the wider human need to belong. This compelling need can be expressed harmlessly, as in sports hysteria and rock concerts, or perniciously, as in jihadist terror. Further, the Hamas murders of Israeli noncombatants on October 7, 2023, went far beyond the pernicious. Prima facie, they were conspicuously barbarous and patently inexcusable.

What does this candid assessment suggest about the seemingly authentic Palestinian demand for a “two-state solution?” Above all, it reveals a demand that is based upon deliberate misinformation and orchestrated subterfuge. Not only would a Palestinian state fail to inhibit or halt Palestinian terrorism, it would render such grievous wrongdoings increasingly likely and still more injurious.

In explaining these many-sided security matters, analytic thinking and philosophy will deserve pride of place. Long ago, Aristotle understood that “man is a social animal.” Typically, the seminal Greek thinker recognized that even “normal” individuals can feel empty and insignificant apart from tangible membership in the “mass.”

Aristotle’s reasoning endures. Sometimes that “mass” is the state. Sometimes it is the tribe. Sometimes the faith (always the “one true faith”). In the case of Palestinian terror violence, it is the aspiring state.

Details aside, whatever the “mass” claims at a particular historical moment, it is an unquenchable craving for belonging that threatens to produce the catastrophic downfall of individual responsibility and correlative triumphs of collective criminality.

In jihadist-centered parts of the Middle East – and this includes places that harbor the Shiite Hezbollah as well as the Sunni Hamas/Fatah/Islamic Jihad – belonging is generally determinative. Unless millions can finally temper the all-consuming psychological desire to belong, all military, legal, and political schemes to control virulent terrorism will fail.

Col. Kemp: Iran is at war with the West, but only Israel is fighting back

Tehran claims that the air strikes which killed Iranian military commanders in Damascus on Monday were “Israel’s latest war crime against a foreign mission with diplomatic immunity”. They were nothing of the sort.

The target was, in fact, widely reported to have been an Iranian command centre coordinating military action against Israel, adjacent to the Iranian consulate. This would not, then, make the strikes a breach of the Vienna Convention, as those ever eager to condemn Jerusalem have suggested. Israel is perfectly entitled to hit military facilities in another country that is engaged in active hostilities.

Nor was this a major escalation by Israel, however, as many others have argued. It was merely the latest move in a war that Tehran itself has launched against Israel and the West.

Indeed, it may well turn out to be the most significant strategic setback for Iran since the US took out Qasem Soleimani, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Quds Force commander, in 2020. The main target of Monday’s attack, IRGC brigadier general Mohammad Reza Zahedi, was believed to be the principal interlocutor between Syria, Tehran and its terrorist proxy Hezbollah. With decades of experience in this clandestine world, he will not be easily replaced.

The flow of arms to Hezbollah could well now be further impeded. Since October 7, that terror group has launched regular missile strikes against Israelis near the Lebanese border, as a consequence of which nearly 100,000 civilians have been evacuated. Do Jerusalem’s critics really expect it to sit back and let those attacks continue?

But the real question is why it only seems to be the Israelis who are taking the Iranian threat seriously. It’s not as if Iran has only been targeting Israel. Iranian proxies have attacked international shipping in the Red Sea and Iranian-backed militias have launched more than 150 strikes against US forces in Syria, Iraq and Jordan since October 7 alone.

Arsen Ostrovsky and Richard Kemp: Israel's Attack on Rafah Must Proceed. Here's Why

In 1944, as the Allies were preparing for the D-Day landings in Normandy, it is unfathomable that anyone sought to pressure British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and President Franklin D. Roosevelt to halt the landings and enter a ceasefire agreement with Nazi Germany. Yet that is exactly what the international community is seeking to do with Israel, in pressuring the Jewish state to enter a one-sided ceasefire with Hamas and avert a necessary operation in Rafah.

Although the perpetrators may have changed 80 years later, Hamas' monstrous savagery and agenda is no different to the Nazis. And just as Normandy was a pivotal turning point in World War II, putting the Allies on a decisive path toward victory, so too can be an IDF operation in Rafah, the last remaining Hamas stronghold in southern Gaza.

Yet since its establishment in 1948, the Jewish state has been the only democracy repeatedly denied the right to achieve total victory against enemies who have time and again initiated wars and now pogroms too, seeking no less than its very annihilation.

This week, for the first time, the UN Security Council adopted a resolution calling for a unilateral ceasefire in Gaza, following the United States' decision to abstain from the vote. Meantime, both the U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and British Foreign Secretary David Cameron, have been exerting overwhelming pressure on Israel to avoid a ground operation in Rafah.

However, any leader's primary duty is, first and foremost, to defend their nation. In Israel's case, this follows in response to the most heinous massacre perpetrated against the Jewish people since the Holocaust, and one in which 134 people, including children, elderly people, and women, suffering horrific ongoing sexual abuse at the hands of their Hamas captors, remain hostage in Gaza.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said that Israel "will not compromise on less than total victory over Hamas."

"Victory" in this sense includes destroying Hamas's military and governing capability to ensure there can never be a repeat of Oct. 7, that Hamas cannot constitute a threat to Israel, and the return of all hostages.

It is currently estimated that up to 60 percent of Hamas' 30,000-strong terrorist force in Gaza has been either eliminated, severely wounded or arrested by IDF forces since Oct. 7, while at least 20 of their 24 battalions have been dismantled, with the remaining 4 battalions still present in Rafah. Israel is also operating on the working assumption that Hamas is holding hostages captive in Rafah as well.

Simply put, the IDF cannot complete its military aims, without a full ground incursion into Rafah, to take out the remaining Hamas battalions. Those who are seeking to pressure Israel to refrain from entering Rafah are denying the Jewish state the decisive victory it has every right to pursue against Hamas after the pogrom of Oct. 7.

Read More