Egypt's restoration of synagogue is upsetting Cairo's Muslims

Egypt now has more restored synagogues than it has Jews. 

There are only three Jewish women left in Egypt, the youngest of whom is 70. But Egypt has, in recent years, restored five synagogues to their former glory, with seven or eight more still in disrepair.

The most recent restoration was the Ibn Ezra Synagogue which re-opened last week. To tourists only, of course. 

While Egypt is presiding over these multi-million dollar restorations, Egypt's Muslims are complaining that the government is destroying Islamic historic sites to make way for development projects. 

Muslims are seeing not only Jewish but Christian, Roman, Greek, and Pharaonic antiquities being preserved, while laws to preserve Islamic sites are apparently much more onerous.  Resentment is being expressed in Arabic news media.

Egyptian media lists three reasons why Egypt's government is spending so much money and time restoring Jewish synagogues and preserving the Jewish cemetery even as a Muslim cemetery is being relocated for development work.

One reason is that the Egyptians want to stay on the good side of the US, and they think (probably because Jews run the world) that restoring synagogue will pay political dividends.

The second is that it is simply to promote tourism. Tourism went down after the last coup, and they want to attract Jews to Cairo..

The third reason is to make President Sisi look moderate to the world and to his own people. This is the sort of no-risk move that makes him look tolerant of a virtually nonexistent minority. And in 2018, Sisi passed a law allowing him to stay in office until 2030, and the optics were bad - he wants to change them

All three of the reasons are using Jews as a means to an end. 

---

---

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon! Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.  Read all about it here!

 

Read More

No, 9/11 wasn't because of US support for Israel

The increasingly deranged Zachary Foster, formerly a decent researcher, now blames 9/11 on...US support for Israel:

The US-Israel alliance was according to  Al-Qaeda one of the reasons for 9/11. The US’s unconditional support for Israel is a massive security risk and endangers Americans.

The US’s support for Israeli apartheid & ethnic cleansing is risking American lives.

First of all, this is an unbelievably stupid take. If you follow his logic, that means that US policy should adhere to whatever Islamic terrorists demand, because if they kill any Americans, it is America's fault for not doing what they say.

With that mindset, the US should insist that all American women wear the hijab and the US censor most TV shows, because Islamists have railed against the US exporting pornography and immorality to the world. 

Secondly, even Bin Laden didn't prioritize the issue of Israel in his 1998 and 1996 fatwas. 

His 1998 fatwa gives three grievances against the US: US troops in Saudi Arabia, the US war in Iraq, and US support for Israel was #3 - and his "proof" is that the US was destroying Iraq in order to help Israel, somehow.

In other words, Israel was just tacked on as an afterthought in his fatwa to appeal to Islamist antisemitism. We know that because his 1996 fatwa, which was much longer, mentioned the "Zionist-Crusader Alliance" a few times but had very little to actually say about Israel's supposed crimes considering its length. The target was America: "If there are more than one duty to be carried out, then the most important one should receive priority. Clearly after Belief (Imaan) there is no more important duty than pushing the American enemy out of the holy land [Saudi Arabia]."  Bin Laden was complaining about attacks on Muslims by Israel but also "massacres in Tajakestan, Burma, Cashmere, Assam, Philippine, Fatani, Ogadin, Somalia, Erithria, Chechnia and in Bosnia-Herzegovina." 

After 9/11, Bin Laden again gave a bunch of reasons for 9/11 - and suddenly Israel was on the top of the list. OBL thought that he could attract more Muslims to join him with more antisemitism - anyone who actually believes his reasons for attacking the US in this missive really don't understand anything about Islamist terrorism.  and Bin Laden added that the Jews were planning to destroy Al Aqsa. But he also complained about Bosnia, supposed US support for Russians in Chechnya and India in Kashmir, pro-US Arab governments, "stealing wealth," US "occupation" of Arab countries, and US "starvation" of 1.5 million Iraqi children due to sanctions.  (Child mortality in Iraq in fact did not rise at all during the time of US sanctions, but some people apparently believe Bin Laden's letter as an accurate source of information.) 

The Bin Laden letter was a recruitment letter for Muslims, not a real explanation of why he attacked the US.  

Obviously, Bin Laden and Al Qaeda altogether have had an antisemitic philosophy. But no one can read the Bin Laden fatwas and think that he was obsessed with Israel - he was obsessed with the US. He would have attacked the US if Israel didn't exist.

At the same time, no one can read Zachary Foster's tweets and think he is anything but obsessed with Israel. 

Not surprisingly, his claims have been getting lots of responses from 9/11 "truthers" - apparently they are now the audience he is attracting.

I try to spend my time only refuting intelligent arguments against Israel and pointing out their hidden bias and falsehoods, like the arguments given by the UN, or Amnesty or other NGOs. Their hate for Israel is masked behind sophisticated propaganda that takes effort to tease out and expose. However, this might be the last time I waste any time on Foster since his anti-Israel arguments have now descended into farce. 

---

---

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon! Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.  Read all about it here!

 

Read More

The UAE both helped, and tried to hurt, Israel during UNIFIL resolution debates

The UN Security Council passed a resolution extending the mandate of UNIFIL in southern Lebanon for another year.

There were some points of contention during the debates. The major issue was that the original proposed language from France copied language from last year's resolution that Hezbollah and Lebanon opposed that gives freedom of movement to UNIFIL and allows it to travel without coordination with the Lebanese Armed Forces. This is of course necessary for UNIFIL to be able to restrict Hezbollah activities there. As the US UN Ambassador Linda said after the vote:

We know UNIFIL has been unable to access a range of troubling sites across the Blue Line, including illegal firing ranges, Green Without Borders sites, rocket launch sites, and tunnel sites. It is clear the main purpose of these sites is to facilitate Hizballah’s operations in southern Lebanon along the Blue Line. This constrains the Mission from fully achieving the directives set forth in the mandate and hinders the Mission’s ability to reduce the likelihood of conflict.

The political drama between China and Russia, taking Hezbollah's side, and the US and UAE taking the anti-Hezbollah side, was interesting:

A key point of contention was language introduced by resolution 2650 saying that, pursuant to the Agreement on the Status of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (SOFA), which was signed between Lebanon and the UN in 1995, “UNIFIL does not require prior authorization or permission to undertake its mandated tasks” and that it “is authorized to conduct its operation independently”. 

...During the negotiations, China and Russia apparently supported Lebanon’s position and requested the removal of language introduced in resolution 2650 on UNIFIL not needing prior authorisation to undertake its tasks and demanding that the parties guarantee UNIFIL’s freedom of movement, “including by allowing announced and unannounced patrols”. These members demanded the replacement of this text with language saying that “UNIFIL shall benefit from freedom of movement in coordination with the government of Lebanon”. While recognising that coordination between UNIFIL and the LAF is a valuable factor, it seems that the penholder and several other members held the view that coordination is not a precondition for UNIFIL to carry out its mandated functions.

The draft resolution placed in blue on 29 August attempted to bridge these diverging positions. Although it retained language reaffirming that, pursuant to the SOFA, UNIFIL does not require prior authorisation to undertake its tasks and that it is authorised to conduct its operations independently, the phrase “while continuing to coordinate with the Government of Lebanon, as per the SOFA” was added and the reference to “announced and unannounced patrols” was removed. However, it seems that the UAE was particularly unhappy with these changes, apparently leading France to reinsert the language on “announced and unannounced patrols” in the revised draft resolution put in blue yesterday. The reference to coordination with the Lebanese government “as per the SOFA” still appears in the revised text.

So the UAE was more hawkish on Hezbollah than France was. Good to know.

Northern Ghajar is Syrian territory, not Lebanese, and Israel intended to withdraw but then the Syrian civil war broke out. Also the residents do not want to have their town divided again. Most are Israeli citizens.

But then the UAE turned around and tried to insert language condemning Israel for "occupying" a tiny part of southern Lebanon:

The first draft text included a new preambular reference “expressing concern at the continued occupation of northern Ghajar,” a village which straddles the Blue Line, “and an adjacent area north of the Blue Line”. This is in addition to operative language already contained in resolution 2650 urging Israel to expedite the withdrawal of its army from northern Ghajar. Although the UAE proposed “condemning” the occupation, it appears that this change was not made, while the term “occupation” was replaced by “the continued Israeli presence” to accommodate the US’ position on this issue.

Following requests by some members—including China, Russia, and the UAE—both references to northern Ghajar were changed during the negotiations to “northern Ghajar and an adjacent area north of the Blue Line, in the outskirts of the town of Al-Mari”, to reflect more closely the language preferred by Lebanon to refer to this area. While this language still appeared in the draft that was put in blue on 29 August, the reference to “the outskirts of the town of Al-Mari” was removed from the amended draft that was put in blue yesterday in a likely concession to the US, which had consistently opposed this language during the negotiations.

The UAE is pushing its weight at the Security Council. 

---

---

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon! Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.  Read all about it here!

 

Read More

Why doesn't the US tell Libya (and other Arab nations) to stop acting like children when Israel is discussed?

The story about the meeting between Israel's Foreign Minister Eli Cohen with his Libyan counterpart Najla Mangoush, and the angry reactions from Libya, have dominated the news cycle.

Looking at Libyan newspapers, people are falling over themselves to distance themselves from any possibility that they support talking to Israelis. 

Besides the opposition political parties who are using this episode as an opportunity to slam the government, we have the Women and Children Affairs Committee in the Libyan House of Representatives which felt obligated to announce that the meeting "does not represent the national and national constants of Libyan women towards the Palestinian cause," adding that "this meeting is high treason and a moral crime."

Meanwhile Libyans burned photos of Cohen and Mangoush.

Just another day of unbridled hate that is considered normal in the Middle East.

I don't know whether Eli Cohen's explanation that the news of the meeting was about to be leaked is true. And almost certainly Cohen did not handle this as professionally as he should have. But the US reaction to the announcement is almost as insane as the Libyan reactions. 

US President Joe Biden’s administration is reportedly furious with Jerusalem for revealing last week’s meeting between the foreign ministers of Israel and Libya.

US officials told Israel that the episode will deter other countries from embarking on a normalization process with Israel, multiple Hebrew media outlets reported Monday.

A US official also said it “killed” the conversation channel with Libya about recognizing Israel.

Something is not adding up here.

Everyone is talking about Saudi normalization with Israel, quite publicly, including top US officials. Everyone knows there have been secret talks between Saudi and Israeli officials. Somehow, those discussions and the angry response from Israel haters is not deterring the discussions. Somehow, Saudi conciliatory moves - like opening up its airspace to Israeli aircraft - is not deterring other countries from considering peace with Israel.

But for the subject to be broached for Libya, this is the end of the world?

The reason is simple. Over the past few years, the Saudi leadership started acting like adults, and the Libyans are still stuck in their old paradigm.

The US had a golden opportunity here. Instead of castigating Israel's Foreign Ministry, it could have told Libya and the rest of the Arab world, "Israel exists. Talking with a regional superpower about common interests is normal behavior for any state leaders who care about their own people's welfare. It is literally the job of top diplomats to talk to leaders of other countries, even and sometimes especially enemies. Acting as if this is a major crime is infantile. There are real problems in the world, and having a conversation with an Israeli official is not in the top 5,000. Stop acting like babies."

The reason that countries like Libya have managed to remain steeped in their childishness concerning Israel is because the West lets them. Antisemitism is a given as part of the Arab world and not something that must be combatted - it is a cultural right, you see. Crazed hate is expected behavior for Arabs so they are never chided for reinforcing that attitude. 

Instead of demanding that Libya's top politicians act like leaders who have the best interests of their people in mind, the US rewards their mad dash to outdo themselves as to how much they publicly hate Israel. 

Instead of getting angry at the Arabs who are proud of their hate, the US is angry at Israel for not bending over backwards to accommodate their obsessive hate of Jews and Israelis. 

And while Israel needs to be sensitive to cultural mores when trying to establish relations - including, sadly, antisemitism - it shouldn't have to apologize for treating other countries as if they aren't filled with childish, Jew hating idiots. 

---

---

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon! Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.  Read all about it here!

 

Read More

What does Israel gain from a Saudi normalization deal?

The US negotiations with Saudi Arabia over recognizing Israel looks more and more like using Israel as a pawn for a US-Saudi deal than anything that will have huge benefits for Israel.

The Saudis want from Washington a NATO-style defense pact and a civilian nuclear program. The Saudis want from Israel access to intelligence (which they probably already have indirectly), access to Israeli technology and investment opportunities there. 

The US would get more leverage over the Saudis vis a vis their growing relationship with China, and for them not to abandon the US dollar as their currency. The US would prefer the Saudis be in their orbit than with BRICS (although normalization with Israel has not stopped the UAE from joining BRICS.) The Saudis would also give the US more military options in case of a war with Iran erupting.

While Israel would reap some benefits from normalization with Saudi Arabia, I don't think it adds up to much. 

As I wrote on Twitter/X yesterday:

* There is already a cold peace between Israel and Saudi Arabia, and it is unlikely to get that much warmer with an agreement. The Saudis are not and are unlikely to become a military enemy of Israel. 

* Israel can already sell things to the Saudis via the UAE if they want the products, with the exception of weapons and similar items. I'm sure that this trade already started a while ago. 

* Saudi Arabia may be modernizing but it is still one of the most repressive, anti-human rights regimes on Earth. Anything bad they do will be used as ammunition against Israel.

*  It isn't as if the Saudis would start suddenly voting against anti-Israel resolutions at the UN and dragging the rest of the Arab world with them.

* Only a small percentage of Saudis would visit Israel, and that would almost all be to Al Aqsa. 

* Speaking of, the Saudis almost certainly want influence over the Temple Mount to add to their control of the top two Sunni Islamic holy sites. This could adversely affect Israel's relations with Jordan. 

* If Iran started a war in the region that threatened the Saudis, Israel would help them out regardless. Covertly, but certainly. 

* Joint projects and investments would be nice, but they would benefit the Saudis more than the Israelis.

The Abraham Accords was a game-changer. It broke the united Arab front against Israel. It gave Israel an economic and political foothold in the Gulf, bolstered by Bahrain. 

What more would a Saudi deal give to Israel? I don't see huge advantages for Israel, especially when the US is dangling the Saudis as a means to restrict Israeli actions. 

Not that there are no advantages t Israel at all - of course there are. It would be very nice if the Israeli and Saudi air force could cooperate and practice together, and engage in war games against an Iranian threat. Normalization would solidify the idea that there is no going back in the Arab world to the days when Israel was a pariah. Open trade would benefit both parties. But these are nice-to-haves, not must-haves. 

The US is taking it for granted that the Israelis are salivating over a deal. President Herzog said to Congress that Israel prays for such a deal. But I simply don't see what Israel would get from it that they aren't getting now, or wouldn't get in case of an emergency.

Both the Saudis and the Americans are negotiating with the idea that Israel needs no prodding to join any deal. Israel needs to signal that it expects some additional concrete benefits, from both Washington and Riyadh, to join in. Because as of now, it looks like the Americans and Saudis would gain more from such a deal than Israel would. 

---

---

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon! Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.  Read all about it here!

 

Read More

There are no antisemites. They are ALL just misunderstood!

A year ago I posted newspaper articles showing that even the worst antisemites deny being antisemites. They always have a reason for hating Jews that has nothing at all about hating Jews. 

A neo-Nazi skinhead who said he doesn't hate Jews, just doesn't want them around anymore.

Famous firebrand radio star Rev. Charles Coughlin denied being antisemitic.

Henry Ford, who distribute the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in the US, denied it as well. 

Both the Soviets and Nazis (at one point) claimed they weren't antisemitic - but only anti-Zionist!

Here are some other examples of how, magically, no one is antisemitic.

General George Van Horn Moseley, 1939:

Charles Lindbergh's America First group, 1941:

A Canadian colonel who put out a pamphlet called "Plans of the Synagogue of Satan," 1953:

French political party, 1956, says they are not antisemitic but the Jews control the phone company and post office:

Their insistence that they weren't antisemitic, and even in some cases making their own definitions of antisemitism to prove it, sounds very familiar nowadays.

---

---

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon! Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.  Read all about it here!

 

Read More

The Saudis are emerging as the new superpower of the Middle East

The United States has left a leadership vacuum in the Middle east - and the Saudis filling it.

For decades, there has been jockeying on who would be the leader of the Muslim world. Egypt filled the role under Nasser but since then it has been a free for all. 

Iran tried to position itself as that leader in the 2000s, but it could not overcome the antipathy from the Sunni majority. Turkey has been making its bid. The UAE, while tiny, has been trying to set a new direction for the Gulf states in a post-oil world. 

But over the past couple of years, Saudi Arabia has emerged as the clear leader. The Saudis always wanted a leadership role as well, but until recently their main asset was Mecca, and the religious component was a necessary but not adequate prerequisite for true leadership.

Now, the Saudis are setting the agenda not just as the leaders of the Muslim world but of the entire region. 

Up until now, the Saudis have been the passive recipients of US security guarantees. The Obama administration's reckless pursuit of an Iran deal and discarding Saudi concerns taught the Saudis that relying on the US for security and leadership is foolhardy and they need to create their own solutions. The ignominious US abandonment of Afghanistan showed that the days of Pax Americana are long gone.

There has been much media attention to China filling the leadership vacuum, and indeed China has ambitions there, but mostly just to keep things calm to serve their own interests. The Saudis are not being passive anymore.  They have been becoming skilled diplomats and working all sides to become congruent with Saudi goals and ambitions. I see the Chinese role in brokering agreements between Riyadh and Tehran as more the Saudis using China to rein in Iran than China showing leadership. 

What are the Saudi goals? I believe that the major goal is security. Letting the US, Russia, and China set the agendas for the Middle East guarantees permanent strife for the region with no benefits. The Saudi vision for the region is to reduce risk by ending pointless conflict that only benefitted outsiders. 

Refreshingly, the Saudis - along with the UAE and Bahrain - seem to have abandoned the zero-sum mentality that has kept the Arab world behind for so long. They are now seeking win-win solutions that can allow everyone to prosper without the worry of war, with themselves as the leaders.  

The Saudi-led rapprochement between the Arab League and Syria is a perfect example. From their perspective, Syria is an evil regime, and there is no love lost between Syria and the other Arab states. Yet nothing has been gained by a decade of shunning them. Better to embrace them and influence them in a bear hug.

To an extent, this may be the Saudi policy towards Iran as well, as the Iranian economy is in terrible shape, and the Saudis are quite publicly telling the world that they have lots of cash.  Their buying major soccer stars is a message to their neighbors. The  Saudis may see Iran's threats to refine uranium to levels needed for the atom bomb as a bid for influence, and the message back is that Iran can have more influence and economic independence if they join in with the Saudi vision and de-emphasize their nuclear ambitions. (I'm not saying this will work, but if Iran is closer to the Saudi orbit, then Saudi Arabia is no longer a potential nuclear target.)

The Saudi leaders have been wisely investing in a future without fossil fuels, and they are trying to position themselves as an economic powerhouse in the coming decades. The Saudis want to keep the the peace with promises of sharing the economic future, but unlike similar US promises, the Saudis have skin in the game.

In recent weeks there has been more talk of the Saudis making peace with Israel. Again, the Saudi diplomats are in the driver's seat. Instead of the US leading the way, the Saudis are using the carrot of a possible peace deal to get what they can out of the US. They see the Arab-Israeli conflict as a pointless waste of time that hasn't benefitted anyone. On the other hand, they see great potential benefits of Israeli participation in the Saudi vision of the future

In the old Arab mindset, the Palestinian issue was useful: it distracted from infighting and Arab corruption. It was used to create a false sense of Arab unity. In the new Saudi vision, those goals are better addressed by actually trying to build a modern society with transparency and a prosperous future. The Saudis still care about Palestinians but they know that there is no humanitarian disaster and that Palestinians are in no worse shape - and often better shape - than most other Arabs. They will try to leverage peace to get concessions from Israel on the issue, but the Palestinians are an afterthought in the Saudi vision for its role as the leader of the region. 

The Saudis want the Middle East to be a player on the world stage in a post-superpower world, and they want to be the ones to set the agenda for the region. So far, they are doing exactly that.

Israel needs to decide on its own vision and determine how close it is to the Saudi version.

---

---

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon! Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.  Read all about it here!

 

Read More