Why Won't the Red Cross Help the Hostages? (Judean Rose)

Disclaimer: the views expressed here are solely those of the author, weekly Judean Rose columnist Varda Meyers Epstein.

When 84-year-old hostage Alma Avraham was released by Hamas, she was barely alive. Her daughter, Tal Amnu described her condition. “I can say on behalf of my mother that she arrived with a pulse of 40 with a temperature of 48 degrees,” Amnu said. “Unconscious. All injured.”

Amnu added that family members had twice met with Red Cross representatives, who twice rejected their request to get medications to her mother.

On December 4, President of the International Committee of the Red Cross Mirjana Spoljaric, visited the Gaza Strip. She was there, ostensibly, to coordinate visits by Red Cross personnel to hostages held by Hamas. In a video released by Spoljaric following the visit however, she said almost nothing about hostages, but spoke at length about the plight of Gaza civilians. The hostages abducted by Hamas from Israel during the October 7 attack received only a brief mention by Spoljaric near the end of the two-minute video. 

My message from Gaza today: pic.twitter.com/0EkxwD0XRL

— Mirjana Spoljaric (@ICRCPresident) December 4, 2023

On December 14, Prime Minister Netanyahu met with Spoljaric in person, in an attempt to persuade her to deliver a box of medications for the hostages. What followed was a circular argument, Spoljaric saying, “It won’t work,” and Netanyahu saying, “Why don’t you try?”

“It’s not going to work, because the more public pressure we seemingly (air quotes) would do, the more they would shut the door.”

“I’m not so sure.”

“Yes, they would. They would with . . .”

“Well, why don’t you try?”

 

@mrb3317

♬ original sound - MRB

A week earlier Roni and Simona Steinbrecher met with the Red Cross. Their daughter Doron had been kidnapped on October 7 and she requires daily medication. Roni and Simona asked the Red Cross to intervene and help them get the medication to their daughter. Instead, they received a lecture. “Think about the Palestinian side,” the representatives of the Red Cross told Simona. “It’s hard for the Palestinians, they’re being bombed.”

Simona left in a state of shock over the brusque dismissal and reprimand. “We left there as we entered: without new information, without something new, and with disappointment,” said Steinbrecher.

Steinbrecher’s shock is understandable. And still, the Red Cross has been disappointing Jews for a very long time, such as during the Holocaust. In February 1945, the president of the Red Cross sent the following message to a U.S. official.  "Concerning the Jewish problem in Germany we are in close and continual contact with the German authorities."

Note the Nazi terminology employed by the Red Cross president: “Jewish problem.” When they saw Jews, the Red Cross didn’t see a people undergoing extermination. Like Hitler, they saw the Jews as a problem, a kind of vermin that needed to go away.

The Red Cross was aware of the Nazi atrocities as early as August 1942, but did nothing to intervene, and certainly did nothing to ensure better conditions for the Jews in the camps. Roger Du Pasquier, head of the IRC’s Information Department at that time explained that the Red Cross couldn’t do anything to help the millions of Jews slaughtered by the Nazis. His excuse? The Red Cross couldn’t help, because if they helped, they would have been deprived of all opportunities to help (emphasis added):

No relief action of any sort by the Red Cross in Germany or the occupied territories could have been undertaken without the approval of the authorities . . . Conforming to the letter, if not to the spirit of the Geneva Conventions . . . the Nazi government permitted the ICRC and its delegates to act on behalf of the several millions of prisoners held in the Stalags and Oflags. It refused, however, to allow any intervention on the part of the Red Cross in the concentration camps . . .

 . . . In the face of such an obstinate refusal which covered up the horrifying reality, about which one was then ill-informed, the ICRC certainly could have made itself heard; it could have protested publicly and called on the conscience of the world. By doing so it would, however, have deprived itself of any possibility of acting in Hitler's Empire; it would have deliberately given up what chances there still remained to it to help, even in a restricted manner, the victims of the concentration camp regime. But, above all, it would have made it impossible for it to continue its activity on behalf of millions of military captives. For the Nazi leaders viewed this activity with suspicion which they would have ruthlessly suppressed on the slightest pretext.

The Red Cross was not “ill-informed” at that time. By then, they knew about the atrocities and the camps, and had for several years. In other words, Du Pasquier lied. The Red Cross knew about the atrocities and the camps, and they did nothing. They did nothing, and pretended they did nothing because if they did something, they would have lost the opportunity to do something. 

Or something like that.

The script, as we saw in Netanyahu’s meeting with Spoljaric, has not changed since that time. Deliver a box of medications to the hostages? “It won’t work. The more pressure on Hamas, the more they’ll shut the door.”

Well, look girlie, the door is already shut. Your job is to open it. Deliver those medications. At least try, as Netanyahu repeatedly told her.

Spoljaric ran out of buts and the meeting was adjourned with nearly nothing accomplished. Why do I say “nearly nothing?” Because at least the damning exchange of a Red Cross president refusing to deliver a box of medications to hostages was captured on video for posterity. Not that it matters. The Red Cross has always been blatant in its hatred of the Jewish people.

Whereas the Nazis were defeated, the Red Cross continued on its merry way in its campaign against the Jews. It was not until 2006 that the Red Cross admitted Israel’s Magen David Adom (MDA) into its ranks. And still, the star was a no. The (Muslim) Red Crescent Society? Sure. The Red Lion and Sun Society of Iran (don't ask)? Sure, why not? But not a Jewish Red Star. And definitely not Israel.

They would neither parade that star symbol, nor give it validity. Essentially, none of this Jewish star stuff. 

And that is/was the crux of the matter. The star. The Red Cross had no problem accepting a Muslim crescent emblem in relevant countries, but the Jewish Star of David was disallowed.

Meet Oshrit Hadad - a 22 year old Magen David Adom Paramedic - and the story of just one of the lives she fought to save on October 7th#Hero #IsraelUnderFire pic.twitter.com/Cet9WPGKUf

— Magen David Adom (@Mdais) December 14, 2023

What excuse did the Red Cross have for not granting legitimacy to the Magen David Adom all those years, from 1930 to 2006, when it finally succumbed? According to Wikipedia, “concerns of territorialism.”

What, exactly, does “territorialism” mean in regard to Israel? It means that the Jews cannot have their own land, and cannot have their own symbol for their own exclusive use. The Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that Magen David Adom was boycotted by the Red Cross, “which refused to grant the organization membership because ‘it was [...] argued that having an emblem used by only one country was contrary to the principles of universality.’"

Even today, the Red Star of David, well—you can use it, but it’s not recognized as a protected symbol outside Israel. Israel is officially not protected. Israel has to use a phony, all-purpose Red Crystal symbol the Red Cross dreamed up so they wouldn’t have to admit the Jewish star:

For over 50 years, Israel requested the addition of a red Star of David, arguing that since Christian and Muslim emblems were recognized, the corresponding Jewish emblem should be as well. This emblem has been used by Magen David Adom (MDA), or Red Star of David, but it is not recognized by the Geneva Conventions as a protected symbol. The Red Star of David is not recognized as a protected symbol outside Israel; instead the MDA uses the Red Crystal emblem during international operations in order to ensure protection. Depending on the circumstances, it may place the Red Star of David inside the Red Crystal, or use the Red Crystal alone.

In her March 2000 letter to the International Herald Tribune and the New York Times, Bernadine Healy, then president of the American Red Cross, wrote: "The international committee's feared proliferation of symbols is a pitiful fig leaf, used for decades as the reason for excluding the Magen David Adom—the Shield (or Star) of David." In protest, the American Red Cross withheld millions in administrative funding to the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies since May 2000.

Some were excited when Israel’s MDA was finally admitted into the IRCRC. They crowed over this perceived sign of acceptance. They were happy to compromise on the emblem, which was just a symbol, after all. 

From the Forward (emphasis added):

Chalk up a victory for the Star of David — or, as it is called in Hebrew, the magen David or “Shield of David.” Long boycotted by the International Committee of the Red Cross, which refused to grant Israel’s “Red Shield of David” organization membership in its ranks because it did not recognize the medical and humanitarian use of this Jewish symbol alongside the Christian cross and the Muslim crescent, the magen David was finally voted in at a Red Cross meeting in Geneva last week. It’s true that it will have to appear, on Israeli ambulances and elsewhere, on a smaller scale than the cross and crescent and within a diamond-shaped “crystal,” but compromise is the stuff of politics, and the Geneva decision was nothing if not political.

In hindsight we can say that this was no victory. That we should never have compromised on our emblem, our safety, or our legitimacy. We are speaking of an organization that will not help  hostages, yet uses the word “human” twice in its mission statement:

The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement is the largest humanitarian network in the world. Its mission is to alleviate human suffering, protect life and health, and uphold human dignity, especially during armed conflicts and other emergencies.

Are the Jews then, not human? If you prick us, do we not bleed? Is the suffering of our hostages not worthy of alleviation; their lives and health not worthy of protection. Do our hostages not deserve to have their dignity upheld?

Spoljaric—and Du Pasquier before her—would never say it out loud in mixed company, but in their heads, the answer is a big, fat, loud, emphatic NO. Because to the people of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, Jews are not human. In their eyes, Jews are monsters. It’s what they tell themselves to justify their refusal to help the October 7 hostages in any way.

It’s what the Red Cross as much as told Roni and Simona Steinbrecher when they pleaded for help to get medication to their daughter. “Think about the Palestinian side,” they were told, “It’s hard for the Palestinians, they’re being bombed.”

The IRCRC has representatives in Gaza. They know what happened on October 7, and they do not care. To them, just as in Nazi Germany, Jews are a subhuman species, undeserving of human rights of any kind. Jewish suffering doesn’t touch them. The rape and torture of Jews doesn’t touch them. They don’t feel it because “Jews are not human,” they would say if they could. “Jews are monsters.”

Why would the Red Cross help Israeli hostages? The Jews, after all, are a “problem.” Perhaps they are not even human—so their suffering doesn’t count, and they don’t deserve dignity.

Because they’re Jews. 

---

---

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

Keeping Them Out: "It Begins Every Time We Wake Up Alive" (Judean Rose)

Residents of Efrat Concerned for their security say yes to only Jewish and foreign workers  

 Interview with Stephanie Treger

Stephanie Treger is determined to keep her family safe by keeping Arabs without Israeli citizenship out of Efrat where she lives. Here in Efrat, in the heart of Judea, we know what happened on October 7^th. Regular Gazans stampeded that fence, alongside Hamas, and joined right in with the slaughter. 

From Treger’s point of view then, there is no choice. We have to stop letting them in to clean our schools; build our homes; and fill our prescriptions at the pharmacy. To be clear, “them” means non-Israeli Arabs.

As such, Stephanie Treger has sparked a modest grassroots effort to explore the exclusive use of Jewish and foreign labor in her town. She began by gathering the opinions and ideas of lots and lots of women. A petition was carefully composed in language hopefully inoffensive to all, and circulated in both Hebrew and English.

Will Treger succeed in her mission? Where are things going, and how will it all play out? Will the residents of Efrat be forced to allow the entry and use of non-Israeli Arab labor?

Stephanie Treger

A busy mother of eight, Stephanie gave graciously of her time to answer my many questions about this initiative. As I always do with interview subjects, I asked her for a few lines of biographical data from which I would cobble together my intro. What she wrote was so cool, I’m quoting it here verbatim:

My name is Stephanie Treger, I am 36 years old. I live in Efrat, Gush Etzion, Israel, with my husband Brandon and our eight children. We made aliyah seven years ago from South Africa, Cape Town. We own Power Coffeeworks, a coffee roastery in Shuk Machane Yehuda in Jerusalem. We made aliyah based on our Zionism and belief in the Jewish people, our past, present, and future.

Varda Epstein: You’re one of the women at the forefront of the effort to bar non-Israeli workers from Efrat. The petition has been up since December 7^th, a full two months after the October attacks. Why now? Were the attacks the impetus for this effort or had you already been working on this?

Stephanie Treger: Correct, I am. It did take some time to get the ball rolling to start this initiative. I believe the women who have started this organisation together with me were in survival mode for some time after 7/10. Most of our husbands and partners are serving, which left us alone, and once the true magnitude of the devastation became apparent, we got right on it.

It also took time to go public; even with a simple petition it had to be done slowly, the wording of our letter needed to be politically correct. We took opinions from many women at the start. This is a very large issue, politically and emotionally. There are over 3 million Arabs living in Judea and Samaria who need jobs, and who also fulfill jobs that keep our cities running. Before the attacks on 7/10, this was a background issue for us all, but we just carried on as normal, it was just too big to deal with.

Varda Epstein: Efrat is a very modern town with many professionals among the residents. Are you meeting any resistance to your campaign? Can you talk about that? What percentage of Efrat residents would you say support allowing in only Jewish and foreign workers?

Stephanie Treger: In all honesty, I am shocked at the lack of support to date. At the same time, though we have not yet opened the tables for discussion, we are at least not in argument with or meeting resistance from non-supporters. Still, nearly two weeks after launching a simple petition, we have only retrieved 650 odd signatures in a city of over 14,000 residents.

After the 7/10 massacre by thousands of non-Israeli Arabs, I am surprised that this community, made up of extremely intelligent professionals, would want to resume “the norm” and continue bringing in non-Israeli Arab workers. At two months after 7/10, our eyes have been truly opened, watching the videos and testimonies of the survivors as they are released. We know how horrific this infiltration was and how it was planned. The intelligence collected to launch such an attack took a certain kind of evil genius. This was planned meticulously and we have proof of that from a variety of sources.

How can we possibly stand by and say “Never again”? More like “again” every few years, if we continue on in this way.

Varda Epstein: Some would say the idea of barring entry to your town of a specific ethnic demographic is racism. What would you say to them?

Stephanie Treger: I am a non-racist South African. I was raised in a racist country, and this is not racism. This is not an issue of color or ethnicity. This is an issue of protecting our families from a cult of terrorists whose sole intention is to murder us. If that were not the case, we would be living in peace. Simple.

We Jews cherish life. We want peace, we do not want war and we do not want poverty, but sadly, until Hamas and the other terrorist cells seize to exist, we have to protect our people.

Varda Epstein: Arab workers can only enter and work in Efrat accompanied by a security guard. Why is this measure not enough to keep the residents of Efrat safe?

Stephanie Treger: Since this rumor was brought to the fore, I have documented many occasions where Israeli Arabs were not accompanied by armed guards. So no, the measure is not enough to keep us safe.

The problem here is manpower and I don't personally blame the municipality or the mayor as some do. We have a huge problem on our hands. Our resources are low, we have zero manpower and I have no doubt that our local government is trying to find solutions. But we also need to take responsibility as a community.

We have to mobilize and work within the system to find solutions. There are many residents in this community who do not work. These residents could pull together and assist in cleaning the schools or work at local cafes. There are ways to create solutions but we need all hands on deck.

Varda Epstein: What types of work have Arab workers performed in Efrat, up until now?

Stephanie Treger: This exact question is what prompts my concerns for our safety. The Arab workers who have previously worked in Efrat have been able to cover every corner of our city possible. From cleaners in homes, to cleaners in schools and emergency departments; from workers in our cafes and restaurants to garbage disposal to street cleaners; and from handymen to construction workers.

There is an endless untold amount of intelligence that might have been and probably was collected by Arab workers, endless over the passing years. The workers are often unaccompanied by security, and safety checks are lax, in my opinion.

Varda Epstein: Why would a mostly right-wing populace hire Arabs to begin with? Why not Jews—their own people?

Stephanie Treger: This seems to be the crux of our struggle. We are not hiring Jews because Jews are more expensive. Jews need to shell out for taxes, arnona, and pensions. At the same time, the incomes of prospective Jewish employees are low because they must pay the same taxes as their prospective (Jewish) employees.

Arabs, conversely, can charge below half-price; be paid in cash; they have no amenity payments; and do not contribute to our society. This is something that needs to be dealt with at government level. Government now has this issue on its table. Cabinets are approving “no entry”. Now they need to find the solutions to manage it.

Varda Epstein: The petition appears to distinguish between Israeli and non-Israeli Arabs. Why? Are only non-Israeli Arabs dangerous? You don’t want to keep out the others?

Stephanie Treger: Personally, I see no difference at present. Even if Israeli Arab X doesn't want to be a terrorist, Hamas is holding guns to the heads of X’s children. Should he refuse to comply with the cult of Hamas, his entire family will be annihilated. I too, would surrender if my children's lives were at risk.

I may want to keep them out, but it’s illegal to keep them out. Israeli Arabs with ID cards cannot legally be held back from entering any part of Israel.

Varda Epstein: This campaign was started by women. Why do you think that is? Are men less concerned with this issue?

Stephanie Treger: Men are at the forefront on the borders; we women are at the forefront of our homes. It's pointless having the men protect our borders if we are not doing the same in our communities. I live in a 35-year-old home. My doors are not secure, and my window frames are old. I do not have a safe room. I am home alone, with 8 children under 13.

Gd forbid there was an infiltration of Efrat. I, as a woman, armed or not, would not be able to protect my family. We women want to serve and protect and it begins every time we wake up alive.

Varda Epstein: Is there some kind of precedent that led to this effort? Are non-Israeli workers known to attack their Jewish employers?

Stephanie Treger: My sister sat in her safe room for 23 hours with her baby and husband in Kibbutz Kfar Azza on 7/10, while her sister-in-law, cousins, and friends were raped, beheaded, burnt alive, and brutally murdered next door. Some taken hostage. My passion for this initiative is personal. I also have a love for my people. Never again is NOW.

Varda Epstein: There are Arab businesses that have cropped up right on Efrat’s doorstep, just outside the northern gate, and many Efrat residents appear happy to frequent them. But recently, a video was released showing one of these new business owners calling for settlers to die. How do feel about that?

Stephanie Treger: When you see videos of neighboring Arabs promote the death of "settlers" we naturally get concerned. Videos such as those directed by Corey Gil-Shuster are eye-openers to us all. The specific video I have in mind is of a man who lives adjacent to Efrat. His property borders that of our beautiful coffee shop that we and our children love to enjoy during the day and in the evenings. 

 

In this man's driveway is a car wash and a laundromat which until 7/10 were used by the Jews of Efrat. He was earning his living from the Jews of Efrat. Since 7/10 he has closed his gate and is not earning a salary to support his family. So to what extent do we believe that at some point the consequences of poverty will kick in?

When will he get angry enough with the Jews of Efrat that eventually he will fall in with a terrorist organisation to have revenge on the people he hated before we even shut him down.

This new reality is sad but true. We Jews who live in Judea are at risk for terror and we must not take risks in protecting our families and our people.

Varda Epstein: Do you think that there is a reluctance among the residents of Efrat, even after the events of October 7, to adopt a general attitude of distrust toward non-Israeli Arabs, especially those with whom they’ve formed casual relationships? Is there a feeling of, “Oh, he’d never do something like that. He’s always polite and friendly, and gives me good service.”

How would you illustrate the dangers of this outlook, from your perspective?

Stephanie Treger: I would point them to the words of Professor Arye Eldad, who headed the plastic surgery and burns unit at Hadassah Medical Center, and is also a former member of Knesset:

I was instrumental in establishing the Israeli National Skin Bank, which is the largest in the world. The National Skin Bank stores skin for every day needs as well as for war time or mass casualty situations. This skin bank is hosted at the Hadassah Ein Kerem University hospital in Jerusalem where I was the chairman of plastic surgery. This is how I was asked to supply skin for an Arab woman from Gaza, who was hospitalized in Soroka Hospital in Beersheba after her family burned her. Usually, such atrocities happen among Arab families when the women are suspected of having an affair. We supplied all the needed Homografts for her treatment. She was successfully treated by my friend and colleague Prof. Lior Rosenberg, and discharged to return to Gaza. She was invited for regular follow up visits to the outpatient clinic in Beersheba. One day she was caught at a border crossing wearing a suicide belt. She meant to explode herself in the outpatient clinic of the hospital where they saved her life. It seems that her family promised her that if she did that, they would forgive her.

This is only one example of the war between Jews and Muslims in the Land of Israel. It is not a territorial conflict. This is a civilizational conflict.

Varda Epstein: Is this campaign going to continue to be a local, Efrat phenomenon, or do you have bigger plans for this—perhaps to take this national?

Stephanie Treger: We will see; we can't manage alone. We all need to hold hands. We were lucky to see that it went to government last week. We will take it day by day and do our best to succeed. It's all we can do really. 

NOTE: Go to PETITION to see, sign, and share. 

---

---

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

Julie Platt: She Stood by Liz Magill (Judean Rose)

Disclaimer: the views expressed here are solely those of the author, weekly Judean Rose columnist Varda Meyers Epstein.

Liz Magill, with her smug smile and inability to denounce calls for the genocide of the Jewish people, disgraced herself and UPenn. No one wonders why she resigned. The question is why Julie Platt, chair of the Jewish Federations of North America’s board of trustees, saw fit to defend Magill, when all the other Jewish leaders were vocal in their demands that Magill step down. A second question we might ask is why Platt, who also serves as vice chair of UPenn’s board of trustees, is now overseeing the search for Magill’s replacement.

That’s right—Platt, after defending Magill—is in charge of finding a new Magill, likely every bit as antisemitic as the one who stepped down in disgrace. How do we know? Because Platt’s defense of Magill predates the events of October 7^th, says Alana Goodman, writing for the Washington Free Beacon on December 8 (emphasis added):

Platt’s defense of Magill predates the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks. She stood by the UPenn president when the school played host to the "Palestine Writes" conference in September, an event that featured anti-Semitic speakers. This included Pink Floyd singer Roger Waters, who has "dressed in a Nazi-like uniform" and "desecrated the memory of Holocaust victim Anne Frank," according to a letter sent to the school by the Jewish Federation’s Philadelphia chapter.

In October, when Apollo CEO Marc Rowan called on Magill to resign from the UPenn board after Magill declined to condemn Hamas terrorism, Platt publicly backed the UPenn president, saying she had "full confidence in the leadership of President Liz Magill and Chair Scott Bok."

"The university has publicly committed to unprecedented steps to further combat antisemitism on its campus, reaffirmed deep support for our Jewish community, and condemned the devastating and barbaric attacks on Israel by Hamas," said Platt in a statement to the New York Post.

But Platt has been noticeably silent after Magill’s shocking congressional testimony this week, during which she and other Ivy League presidents said calls for Jewish genocide were permitted on campuses. Platt, a former banker, is also co-chair of UPenn Hillel's National Board of Governors and sits on the board of overseers for the Katz Center for Advanced Judaic Studies, according to her biography on the Penn Alumni website.

Three days later, Goodman offered her readers a shocking update—the fox, in the form of Julie Platt, was now guarding the hen house (emphasis added):

Julie Platt, a prominent Jewish leader who repeatedly defended Magill as anti-Semitism surged on campus, will serve as interim chair of the Board of Trustees during the search for a new president. Platt, who was previously vice chair, will replace the board's outgoing leader, Scott Bok, who resigned alongside Magill on Saturday.

"As current Vice Chair, Julie was the clear choice, and we are grateful to her for agreeing to serve in this capacity during this time of transition," the board said in a statement on Sunday.

Critics told the Washington Free Beacon last week that Platt—who is also chair of the Jewish Federations of North America's board of trustees—leveraged her Jewish community leadership role to protect Magill's position at the university for months. 

Platt defended Liz Magill as UPenn hosted an anti-Israel conference with antisemite Roger Waters, and after October 7^th, when Magill refused to condemn Hamas terrorism. But in her official JFNA statement on her appointment as interim chair, Platt wants you to know that all this time, she was “working hard from the inside” to address the rising antisemitism on the UPenn campus—in the form of defending Magill’s indefensible defense of Jew-hatred, of course (emphasis added):

As Vice Chair of the university’s board these past several months, I have worked hard from the inside to address the rising issues of antisemitism on campus.  Unfortunately, we have not made all the progress that we should have and intend to accomplish.  In my view, given the opportunity to choose between right and wrong, the three university presidents testifying in the United States House of Representatives failed. The leadership change at the university was therefore necessary and appropriate.  I will continue as a board member of the university to use my knowledge and experience of Jewish life in North America and at Penn to accelerate this critical work.

Platt is clever, if somewhat devious, when she tells us that she has “worked hard from the inside” to address antisemitism. If the work she did was from “inside,” we didn’t see it, so we don’t know what she did, or how much effort she expended on fighting antisemitism, sight unseen. The ruse almost works, except that the whole world has been watching, or at least the Algemeiner, which documented the number of times Magill gave free rein to antisemitism, as Platt continued to defend her:

Magill had several previous opportunities throughout her tenure to denounce hateful, even conspiratorial, rhetoric directed at both Israel and the Jewish community. However, Magill repeatedly declined to respond to the mounting incidents of antisemitism, especially anti-Zionism, on campus, according to an analysis by [the Algemeiner] of public statements she had issued since July 2022, when she assumed the presidency at Penn.

“Israel is a settler colonial state that uses apartheid to further its ethnic cleansing agenda,” said an essay by Penn Against the Occupation (POA) that was included in the 2022-2023 edition of the Penn Disorientation Guide, a symposium of essays published annually by upperclassmen. It was issued just weeks after Magill started on the job.

“It is time to end the way our school helps to perpetrate human rights violations in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) and organize around divesting from Israel,” the essay continued. “Here’s what you should know about divestment, a popular movement to fight for equality for Palestinians.”

POA went on to charge the university with numerous offenses: Penn “normalizes ties with the occupation” by hosting the Perspectives Fellowship, a program the school’s Hillel chapter founded to educate students about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by taking them on a trip to Israel, as well as Gaza and the West Bank. Penn’s support of Birthright, which sends Jewish students to Israel, “turns a blind eye to the crimes of the Israeli occupation.” Both programs, POA said, “frame the Zionist colonial entity in a positive light.”

Later that semester, after campus police arrested radical student environmentalists for staging an unauthorized protest on school grounds, POA said in an Instagram post that “arresting peaceful protesters is a staple of policing in both the United States and in Israeli-Occupied Palestine.” The group drew a link between the world’s continued dependence on fossil fuels to Israel, saying, “We urge Penn not only to divest from all fossil fuel companies but divest from companies that profit from Israeli apartheid, many of which are one in the same … policies of forced displacement, from Palestine to the UC townhomes in Philadelphia, are all modern-day practices of settler colonialism.”

Neither Magill nor the university responded to the apparent accusation that the Jewish state, conspiring with the US, has caused climate change and colonized both Americans and Palestinians.

The next month, on Nov. 6, POA held a screening of Gaza Fights for Freedom “with snacks provided” in Penn’s Van Pelt Library. The film rationalizes the terrorist acts committed during the Palestinian intifadas against Israel and features a clip of an interview with Hamas co-founder Mahmoud Al-Zahar, who can be heard saying, “We run effective self-defense by all means including using guns.”

The film was directed by Abby Martin, a 9/11 conspiracy theorist and a former host on the Russian-funded media network RT America. Martin, who has compared Israel to Nazi Germany, reposted on social media posts that celebrated Hamas’ Oct. 7 massacre across southern Israel.

It doesn't seem like Platt was working hard from inside, if at all. Why did Platt, an important Jewish leader, stand by, as Magill proved, without a doubt, over and over again, that she is an Israel-hating antisemite? Even now, Magill affirms her anti-Jewish creds, most recently during the infamous hearing that led to her resignation. There, Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) asked all three Ivy League university presidents, including Magill, a loaded (and exquisitely worded) question: 

Do you believe that Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish nation?

Just as the three women answered in chorus on “conduct,” “context,” and parroted the words “pervasive and severe,” here too, the women echoed one another in both what they said—Israel can exist—and what they didn’t say, “but not as a Jewish nation”:

Virginia Foxx: Do you believe that Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish nation?

Claudine Gay: I agree that the State of Israel has a right to exist.

Virginia Foxx: Ms. Magill, same question.

Liz Magill: I agree, Chairwoman Foxx. (nodding) The State of Israel has a right to exist.

Virginia Foxx: Dr. Kornbluth? 

Sally Kornbluth: Absolutely. Israel has the right to exist.

With their collective response to that one question, Magill and her friends made clear their unified belief that Jews do not have the right to self-determination in Israel. And still, Platt stayed dumb (emphasis added):

In October, when Apollo CEO Marc Rowan called on Magill to resign from the UPenn board after Magill declined to condemn Hamas terrorism, Platt publicly backed the UPenn president, saying she had "full confidence in the leadership of President Liz Magill and Chair Scott Bok."

"The university has publicly committed to unprecedented steps to further combat antisemitism on its campus, reaffirmed deep support for our Jewish community, and condemned the devastating and barbaric attacks on Israel by Hamas," said Platt in a statement to the New York Post.

But Platt has been noticeably silent after Magill’s shocking congressional testimony this week, during which she and other Ivy League presidents said calls for Jewish genocide were permitted on campuses. Platt, a former banker, is also co-chair of UPenn Hillel's National Board of Governors and sits on the board of overseers for the Katz Center for Advanced Judaic Studies, according to her biography on the Penn Alumni website.

Why did Platt, a highly-placed Jewish leader, stick to a university president who wouldn’t condemn Hamas terror or calls for genocide? Are they friends? It seems unlikely, as the two women are almost a decade apart in age.

What then? Did Platt aim by design to rise up the UPenn chain of command to the level of interim chair, and perhaps, beyond? Put her own guy in? Who knows? She’s not talking, and neither is the CEO of the Jewish Federation:

Platt didn’t respond when the Free Beacon asked her on [December 6] to comment on Magill’s testimony. Eric Fingerhut, the CEO of the Jewish Federations of North America, also didn’t respond to a request for comment about Platt’s defense of Magill.

---

---

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

Rape Fear and the Jewish Israeli Experience (Judean Rose)

Disclaimer: the views expressed here are solely those of the author, weekly Judean Rose columnist Varda Meyers Epstein.

When the war started, I phoned my neighbor to make sure she knew she was welcome to bring her family to our safe room, at any time of the day or night. We talked about logistics and how we were having a key made for them and how I didn’t at all mind a LOT of children in a small space because I’d had 12 of my own. The whole time, my neighbor, whom I’ll call “Terry” out of respect for her privacy, said, “Thank you, but so far we’ve been sitting in the stairwell, and that’s fine with us.”

I got the idea she didn’t think the missiles were all that big a deal, and so finally I confessed, “Yeah. To tell the truth, I don’t worry so much about the missiles either. It’s the other stuff I worry about.”

“Exactly. It’s the other stuff,” said Terry.

Neither of us had to elucidate the nature of that “other stuff,” and I won’t say it here, either. But the thing I think about when I think about that “other stuff," is rape.

I can’t swear that this is the thing that worries my neighbor most, when she thinks about the things she fears most. She didn’t say. But then again, she didn’t have to—fear of rape is not exclusive to this writer—it’s fairly universal among women and researchers have been studying the phenomenon for years.

Take, for example, this abstract from “Fear of Rape Among Urban Women,” a 1985 paper by the (in-)felicitously named Mark Warr, of Penn State University (emphasis added):

Sample survey data from Seattle are used to examine fear of rape among urban women. The magnitude and prevalence of such fear are striking, particularly among younger women, who fear rape more than any other crime. The high fear attached to rape stems from the fact that it is perceived to be both extremely serious and relatively likely; and from the fact that it is closely associated with other serious offenses such as homicide and robbery. Fear of rape also lies behind fear of other offenses among women in our sample, and is strongly associated with certain social or lifestyle precautions.

Some four paragraphs into the introduction to this paper, Warr says something that touches on the universal nature of fear of rape among women. More women, it seems, are scared of rape than are actually raped (emphasis added):

This paper is not about those who rape, nor is it about those who are direct victims of rape. Rather, the paper considers a much larger group: those who fear rape. One of the major developments in criminology during the past 20 years has been a general realization that the social consequences of crime are not limited to those who are directly victimized. That principle is particularly true when it comes to fear of victimization, because the number of fearful individuals greatly exceeds the number of actual victims during any given period.

Wikipedia has something on “Rape Fear” that speaks to cause: the socialization of women. Women have been raised to fear and protect themselves from rape (emphasis added):

Socialization of Women

The fear of rape, unlike other fears of specific crimes, is almost exclusive to women. Among women, it is also one of the strongest crime-related fears, and is the strongest crime-related fear for young women. Levels of fear of rape vary among women by age, race/ethnicity, residential area, and other factors, but are especially high for women who have been victims of rape in the past or know victims personally (the latter group may include a significant portion of women, with one study estimating that over half of women know rape victims). Women are socialized from a very young age that rape can happen anywhere, to anyone, at any time. They are taught that they should always be aware of the possibility of rape and protect themselves from it. Young women are taught strategies to keep themselves safe, and this idea is instilled in them at a young age. This teaching women about the possibility of rape at a young age may contribute to higher levels of fear of crime in women. Studies have shown that women that take more precautionary steps to avoid being raped have more fear of actually being raped, whereas women who work nights and are outside in the dark tend to have less fear of rape. This may be because women that are out in the dark alone are more familiar with the area, so they feel that there is less of a threat.

“What women know and men don’t: Women have an ever-present fear of being attacked,” a 2019 review of a PBS documentary, begins with a taste for the reader, of how fear of rape is experienced by women, and why (emphasis added):

Every day, women live with fear. It’s not paralyzing, but it’s omnipresent -- whether you’re walking out of work in the dark or asking a friend to watch your drink.

“Ask any woman you know. You always have a plan,” said Mary Dickson, who worked on a PBS documentary about women and fear in 1996. Nothing’s changed since then, she says.

The fear is low hum beneath the music of your regular life, implanted in your teenage years. You’re afraid a strange man will attack you.

So you don’t run at night.

You don’t park in a public garage.

You don’t enter an elevator already occupied by a single man.

You don’t leave a party without your friends.

Women are raised to fear and protect themselves from rape. But fear of rape exponentially increases when women read about or see images or footage of rape. Perhaps that is the reason I sensed that my neighbor Terry felt as I did, after photos emerged of a female hostage being led away to Gaza, her pants bloodied at the crotch. I am also fairly certain that like me, Terry finds it difficult to stop thinking about Shani Louk, whose story I can’t bring myself to relate here.

We, the women of Israel, know that Hamas, in addition to raping women—and it must be said, men—uses fear of rape as a form of psychological warfare, to inspire incapacitating fear in Israeli women and rage in their men. For this reason, Israeli experts have advised Israelis not to watch the footage, read the stories, see the photos, or listen to podcasts where the atrocities might be mentioned. These things spike fears; in the case of women, fear of rape.

Female Fear, a US Dept. of Justice resource, speaks of several types of media that can trigger rape fear in women, among them “frightening press accounts” (emphasis added):

In the United States, the Nation with the highest rape rate in the world, warnings, admonitions, and fear of rape are handed down from mother to daughter. Although rape happens to 1 female in 12, frightening press accounts, violent pornographic movies, cultural stereotypes of rapists and their victims, attacks on friends and acquaintances, and escalating statistics have contributed to women's fear of rape. In exploring the social and psychological specter of rape in women's lives, this study probes both the myths and realities of rape and society's response to it, including strategies women have developed to protect themselves. Fear of rape is reflected in the way women think, organize their lives, and relate to others. As the authors indicate, a reasonable amount of fear is useful in motivating women to take reasonable precautions. The book presents concrete ways both women and men can begin to alleviate the destructive effects of the fear of rape. These include educating the public, integrating women into their communities, promoting legal reform, and forcing accountability in media coverage.

Fear of rape explains the “Believe Women” campaign, which arose out of the #MeToo movement. Rape is one of women’s foremost fears and concerns. Why then, do women at the forefront of efforts to support women, make excuses for Hamas rapists when the victims are Jewish? 

The UN, however, bears special mention for its spectacular betrayal of Israeli women in the face of widespread rape by Hamas terrorists, still an ongoing situation for Israeli hostages of both sexes.   

An October 26 Jerusalem Post editorial speaks of that betrayal (emphasis added):

United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres’s speech to a special Security Council meeting on the Israel-Hamas war on Tuesday began promisingly enough.

“Nothing can justify the deliberate killing, injuring, and kidnapping of civilians – or the launching of rockets against civilian targets,” he said at the beginning of the speech.

Then Guterres’ moral compass went haywire, and he began to justify what he had just said was unjustifiable.

“It is important to also recognize the attacks by Hamas did not happen in a vacuum,” he said. “The Palestinian people have been subjected to 56 years of suffocating occupation. They have seen their land steadily devoured by settlements and plagued by violence; their economy stifled; their people displaced and their homes demolished. Their hopes for a political solution to their plight have been vanishing.”

Why does Guterres justify violence against Israeli Jews, and fail to mention at all, the sexual violence and the rape and degradation of Israeli women? How does anything make rape an excusable offense? In the enlightened world, how can it be that the head of the UN uses his soapbox to blame the Jewish victims and tell lies about the Jewish State—and the Gazan people?

By November 30, however, Guterres had apparently changed his tune. It must have been getting more difficult to get away with the sort of outright Jew-hatred that makes allowances for rape when the victim is a Jew. Hence his post on X.

"There are numerous accounts of sexual violence during the abhorrent acts of terror by Hamas on 7 October that must be vigorously investigated and prosecuted.

"Gender-based violence must be condemned. Anytime. Anywhere."

There are numerous accounts of sexual violence during the abhorrent acts of terror by Hamas on 7 October that must be vigorously investigated and prosecuted.

Gender-based violence must be condemned. Anytime. Anywhere.

— António Guterres (@antonioguterres) November 29, 2023

But why so vague? Where is the mention of rape? Where are the words “support Israel women” and “believe Israeli women” and what do we gleam from these omissions?

Here is my takeaway: with his fuzzy pronouncements of “investigating accounts” and “sexual violence” Guterres is telling the world that it’s okay to suspend belief in women when they are Jewish and Israeli; that it’s understandable that Hamas terrorists would rape Jewish women; and finally, that it’s fine and dandy to lie in public and make public proclamations about Jews occupying their own indigenous Jewish territory when everyone knows the bible is their deed.

My neighbor Terry is somewhat new to Israel. She and her family made Aliyah after there was a drive-by shooting not far from their home in the States. They took the shooting as a sign that it was time to leave the States and come to Israel. She hasn’t changed her mind. Why would she when the entire world repudiates her because she is a Jew, doesn’t care if she is raped because she is a Jew?

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Inbar Cohen (@inbar_cohen95)

Rape fear is real for women everywhere, but fear of rape is compounded in a woman who is Jewish and Israeli, because she knows that the world sees her rape as legitimate resistance, and that the head of the UN himself, sees her genitals and body as free-for-the-taking, subhuman instruments for the release of pent-up Arab anger.

---

---

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

Interview With Judean Rose On The Repercussions Of October 7 (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

Varda Meyers Epstein lives in Eretz Yisrael and contributes to the Elder of Ziyon blog under the pseudonym Judean Rose. I wanted to get her perspective on the repercussions we are seeing in the wake of October 7.

Judean Rose

In the 2 weeks following the Hamas Massacre on October 7, there was a 400% increase in antisemitism, according to the ADL. Were you surprised by the breadth and intensity of these antisemitic protests and their violence?

No. I was not surprised, only sad. I’m sad that there was no other way for Diaspora Jewry to understand that this is still with us, other than for October 7th to happen. Now they understand and it’s heartbreaking. We feel it. They feel it, too.

What do you think caused this ferocity?

It was a powder keg getting ready to blow. When Hamas did what it did on October 7th, the call went out to make excuses for this in the context of supposed Israeli occupation and oppression, which of course is delusional propaganda. But the West that wants to hate Jews doesn’t care to examine things any too closely.

Do you think there is anything that can be done?

No. But while I don’t believe in boycotts, I do believe in individuals taking a stand against giving antisemitic actors, for example, royalties. I read about Susan Sarandon spouting falsehoods about Israel and I said to myself, “I will never watch another movie with her in it, again.”

The majority of creatives really hate the Jews. Sure, there are the actors who wrote a letter in support of Israel and against terror and antisemitism, but it’s all a numbers game. There are more haters than there are moral people on the side of right.

Protecting yourselves is another thing. If you want your Jewish child to get an education, you have to leave. It’s no longer safe for them to go to school. The hatred is no longer just on isolated college campuses. Antisemitism and antisemitic attacks have even hit elementary schools in the US and Canada.

I’m assuming you get where I think all Jews should be. I believe that were every Jew to make Aliyah today, the world would be too afraid of us to ever mess with us, again. Here too, it’s a numbers game. There needs to be more of us in Israel, since there are not more of us in the world. The terrorists, for example, are terrified of the God of Israel. When they see the Jews massing and banding together, they quake in their boots. It subdues them, and the world quiets down for a bit, maybe goes into hiding for decades. But it always returns at full force at some point.

While Israel retaliates, we have seen media bias as Israel strikes back against Hamas. But have there been any differences this time in the media? Considering the callousness of the Hamas massacre, do you think the media has been more circumspect?

No. But perhaps they get caught lying more frequently. Look how the BBC had to retract what they wrote about the al Shifa Hospital. 

They reported the exact opposite of what happened, stating as if it were fact that Israel targeted medical teams as well as Arabic speakers. Unbelievable chutzpa, or as they might say over at the Beeb: “cheek.”

I read a lot of news and listen to a lot of podcasts and talk shows. Israel is more in the news now, and I am impressed that Fox News is sympathetic to Israel. But they get so much of it wrong! Dana Perino, whom I really like, has spoken about how people are so ignorant of the history of the region, so they come to the wrong conclusions. She mentions, for example, that Israel left Gaza in 2005 and that claims of occupation are therefore imaginary.

Dana Perino

But if Perino is so knowledgeable about the region, why does she refer to Gaza as “Palestine.” One after the other, I have heard Fox news people refer to “Palestine” as if it were a thing. It is not. They get it wrong, and by doing so, they perpetuate the violence. They think they’re on the side of right, but in their smug ignorance, they are anything but. They’re spreading propaganda, thus carrying water for the other side and perpetuating falsehoods.

What do you see as the cause of this bias -- is it ignorance or maliciousness?

Malice. If it were merely ignorance, they would still be culpable for malice, because they didn’t care enough to discover the truth and were willing to smear Israel and the Jews without doing even minimal research.

There are codes of ethics for journalists. They have to follow the rules because otherwise people get hurt. But if no one is following the rules, they can get away with it, especially in a Jew-hating, Israel-hating world.

Are there any in the media you would single out, one way or the other?

By far, the BBC is the worst. 

Their blatant bias is the norm. It’s never an accident. The incident with Jeremy Bowen reporting that Al Ahli Hospital in Gaza “was flattened” is a good example. The network was forced to issue a vague apology when the story was discovered to be a complete fabrication.

Asked if he regretted the damning report, in which Bowen, citing a Hamas source, also claimed that hundreds had been killed and thousands injured, the reporter said he didn’t “feel bad at all.” He went with what the photos looked like to him at that time. Is this proper journalism? No. It’s the unspoken policy at the BBC. Make Israel the lede; make it, Israel, bleed.





But the BBC is only a reflection of British society and seriously ingrained British antisemitism. When it comes to antisemitism, I always say that “the British are first and worst,” going all the way back to 1144 and William of Norwich, the first known case of the blood libel.

Can anything be done?

It’s difficult because you have useful idiot Jews they can parade before the public and then they can forever more say, “Even so and so with a yarmulke says Israel is evil,” as happened with Christiane Amanpour’s Benzi Sanders interview. 

What about Israel and Hasbara -- What else can be done?

I’m not big on Hasbara. I’m big on the truth, which is why I think there should be more support for independent bloggers advocating for Israel. We say things you won’t hear in the media, and right now our people are thirsty for accurate information. The best bloggers always bring reputable sources, which they link to for credibility so you can read more deeply on the subject.


The media bias parallels the overall anti-Israel propaganda that we have seen. In what areas has anti-Israel propaganda been successful?

The anti-Israel propaganda has been so rip-roaringly successful on so many levels that it’s difficult to know where to begin. But let’s start with the worst one, in my opinion, legitimizing the massacre. There is no context that makes the events of October 7th okay. Anyone who parrots such thoughts, even if they don’t really care and just want to be popular, should not be part of normative society.

Ripping down posters of captives? Why is that a thing? Because they’ve legitimized the massacre.

Why does a professor say he is "exhilarated" by the massacre? He says it to let you know that the massacre was not only legitimate but indicated. He also says it in order to normalize genocide, to laud terrorists for murdering Jews in cruel ways.

The success of this propaganda is enabled in part by the distancing of American Jews from Israel. What do you think has led to this alienation of American Jewry?

Jews are very vulnerable to Stockholm Syndrome. In order to be accepted by the predominantly non-Jewish world, they adopted beliefs antithetical to the good of their own people—of themselves. Why does any Jew call for a two-state solution? Don’t they know that the Arabs got 78% of the British Mandate for Palestine? Don’t they know that when they sing “Next year in Jerusalem” at their Passover seder they are actually affirming the right to return to their indigenous territory?

Do you think the Hamas massacre has served as a wake-up call?

Yes. Just as Kristallnacht served as a wake-up call. So tell me: why do we still need wake-up calls? When will we understand antisemitism as a permanent feature of life that can only be dealt with by strengthening Israel?

---

---

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 Partial Ceasefire Deal with the Devil (Judean Rose)

Disclaimer: the views expressed here are solely those of the author, weekly Judean Rose columnist Varda Meyers Epstein.

                                                                     --1--

If it were you, my child, husband, brother, sister, mother, grandmother, grandfather, aunt, uncle, grandchild, friend. If it were you I would fight like hell to set you free, to bring you home and into my arms. Safe.

Then we would deal with the aftermath. The nightmares, the poisoned minds of the children raised to hate themselves and what they came from. The massive, multi-level trauma of it all, from beginning to the something that will never end.

Still, from a distance so far away that I don’t want to see it, I know that procuring your release has broader implications. You are a Hamas bargaining chip, or rather an Iran bargaining chip for use with Joe Biden, along with a cascade of other evil actors across the globe who will use human beings—use you—to get what they want. Hamas randomly keeps you alive—if you are alive—to get concessions; to retrench and regain strength to hurt the Jewish people; to score a victory; to wound Israel and live to kill, maim, and destroy more Jews another day.

                                                                    --2--

Every day since October 7th, we have heard Israeli officials say, all the hostages or no ceasefire. It was  clear from the start—Israel had been quite clear from the start.  Or rather, the objective was clear until it wasn’t, and Israel began to speak of a “partial ceasefire,” when just to speak of this even in a fuzzy sort of way, already put Israel. at a distinct disadvantage. It must be said and taken into account, that while the hostage deal may save the lives of some of the hostages, it will put an untold number of other lives at risk, for example, just now, our dear Israeli soldiers. To breathe life into Hamas is to wreak havoc with the future. This Amalek must be stopped. Hamas must be obliterated, completely.

Ain breira. There is no choice. It's all or nothing. There is no other way. All the hostages or no ceasefire, partial or otherwise. Israel must hold firm, because a deal with Hamas is Obama’s deal, Biden’s deal, a deal with the devil, Iran. For Hamas, this deal translates to Jews ceding victory and paying the jizya, even unto releasing 300 felons back onto the streets of their natural hate-infested society.

We have certainly learned something here: the going rate for a handful of Jews is 300 felons for Hamas to parade as trophies. "How stupid is the Jew?” you might hear from the laughing crowd as they watch the 300 go by, and slap each other on the back. "They turn Gaza into rubble, then cry to us, 'You won!'"

---

---

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