Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News: analysis

Showing posts with label analysis. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 01, 2025

Bannon’s Israel Blind Spot: The Alliance He Misunderstands (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

Among the right-wing republican isolationists weighing in about the Israel-Iran war is Steve Bannon, a former member of Trump's inner circle. Last week, Bannon chimed in on X to inform his followers that Israel was a protectorate--and not a very essential one at that:

BANNON: I’m pretty good at knowing where the puck’s going, and it’s going here—there’s going to be a major reset. It’s going to happen bc the American ppl demand it. Israel is not an ally. They’re a protectorate. They haven’t been involved in any alliance. When Soleimani was… pic.twitter.com/dkcKaf9mgP
— Grace Chong, MBI (@gc22gc) June 26, 2025

Elder of Ziyon points out that Bannon is wide of the mark: of all the things for Bannon to hang his claim of Israel being a protectorate, he rests his case on Israel not helping the US in the assassination of Soleimani.

Bannon is wrong.

Associated Press quotes NBC News about how Israel helped the US pinpoint Soleimani's location. It also refers to Yahoo News, which reports specifically that Israel supplied the US with his cellphone numbers, so they could track him down.

This is not the only detail Bannon gets wrong. Near the beginning of the war, Bannon hosted Yoram Hazony, president of the Herzl Institute in Jerusalem and author of The Virtue of Nationalism and The Jewish State: The Struggle for Israel's Soul, and other books. Bannon tells Hazony that Netanyahu caused Trump to detour from his stated goal to rely on negotiations with Iran:

The course he [Trump] wanted was a negotiated deal as he just said, right there, 'I'm talking to these guys. I'm on the phone. I want to negotiate a deal.' Why suddenly we have to go with where we have 12 or 13 months [till Iran goes nuclear]?

We can give Bannon the benefit of the doubt that he had not yet realized that Trump's public pushing for negotiations was a ruse. But Hazony reminds him that Trump did not limit himself to endless diplomacy.

You and I both remember President Trump in his first speech, laying out this policy. He was already saying it last December, and January, and February, when he came into the administration. President Trump, as far as I'm aware, has not budged an inch, not an inch. He must have said this a hundred times. His policy was Iran cannot get a nuclear bomb.

If we can get it by negotiation, that's what we're going to do, and if we can't get it by negotiation, then we're going to have to do it some other way. We've all heard him say this over and over and over again.

Bannon does not push the issue. Instead, he tries a different tack, hammering away on why Israel had to attack Iran so soon, on Thursday-Friday. He claims that Netanyahu pushed for the attack on Iran for the most crass political motives, and in the process destabilized the region and brought the United States into the mess.

We back Israel more than anybody. And the question still is, why did it have to go Thursday and Friday night?

And now we know it's regime change. The problem the Maga right has with this, it looks like a crass, political move by Bibi Netanyahu, who is vastly unpopular in Israel. I think his popularity is 30%.

Hazony corrects Bannon's mistake immediately:

So let's take this example that Tucker brought up, the supposed 30% popularity rating of Bibi Netanyahu. So I heard that this evening and I went and I checked it and the most recent polls put Bibi Netanyahu at 54 percent, 30 points ahead of Naftali Bennett, who is the number 2 contender for the prime ministership, a 30 point spread. By the way, if you go back a month or 2 and take a look at the same poll before the war, you'll see that it was almost exactly the same.

There's been nobody anywhere near Bibi Netanyahu in terms of popularity as far as appropriateness, to be the Prime Minister of the state of Israel for years.

This could be the poll Hazony is referring to, right after the war started:

Here is their last poll taken before the war:

Hazony continues his point. The issue is more than just election statistics:

So look, we have to get back to the point where all of us natcon, nationalist conservative people, we have different views on different things, but we've got to get back to the point where we're having a reasonable conversation where the information that we're using is information that's based on facts. That's unfortunately, not what's happening.

In response to Bannon's follow-up question as to why Haaretz is a "suboptimal" news source, Hazony responds with a brief history:

Ha'aretz represents the leftmost 5% of the Jewish population in the state of Israel. It's a newspaper with a very small circulation that has a great deal of prestige because it's read by our lefty elite classes. But look into it. Not only is Ha'aretz historically the newspaper that opposed the establishment of the state of Israel, but the Shocken family that founded it was anti-Zionist; they were against the establishment of the state of Israel. It is a newspaper that, over the years, has fought tooth and nail for what we in Israel call Post-Zionism, for the elimination of the Jewish character of the state, for the elimination of the right of return to Jews to the state of Israel, and on political issues.

This raises a "chicken or the egg" question: does the far right attack Israel because they read Haaretz, or do they read Haaretz to get their ammunition to attack Israel? Either way, Bannon's grasp of Israel is flawed.

His claim that Israel is not an ally of the United States, but is at best a protectorate, is also flawed. In a recent podcast, Ask Haviv Anything, Haviv Rettig Gur--political correspondent and senior analyst for The Times of Israel--examines the US-Israel relationship, and how it serves as an example to other countries, and as the implementation of a new US policy.

In A New Dawn In The Middle East, Gur spells out the special nature of that alliance:

What you just saw last night was the latest iteration of how the US-Israel relationship actually works. It isn't Israeli dependence on America, it is the opposite. It's Israeli independence and using that Israeli independence, I want to argue America essentially invented a new security architecture for the world, and it's the old architecture it has always had with Israel. Israel is a very different ally from Japan or Germany, or the Philippines or Taiwan or many, many other countries--South Korea,you name it--that depend on the United States.

Israel does not depend on the United States and israel's enemies need it to be dependent on the United States and constantly argue that it's dependent on the United States and mostly they argue that because of their own egos, because Israel has yet to be destroyed.

The claim that Israel is a protectorate, dependent on the US, is tied to the ideology of Arabs, Muslims, college students, and progressives who label Israel a colonial entity that must disappear. It is a claim that fails to see what is happening. In his post on X, Bannon claims "there’s going to be a major reset," and he is right--but it is very different from what he has in mind. It recognizes the strength and independence of Israel:

This is foundational to Trump's brand of isolationism. The United States can still secure the world, protect the world, and police the world without having to secure, protect, and police it.

And the basic idea is the ally does the heavy lifting. The local ally and the United States comes in to deliver the coup de grâce. That's exactly America's value-added, without all the massive cost to the American people, the American economy, American blood and treasure. And the Israelis have just demonstrated what that relationship could be and Trump was convinced by the Israelis. Not by Israeli begging, not by Israeli dependents, but by Israeli independence.

This strategic strength of Israel is what convinced Trump to send in the B-2s. Israel was not a distraction from Trump's isolationist policy--it spearheaded it:

The Israeli willingness to go it alone, the Israeli willingness to deliver massive strategic successes--that's what brought Trump in. If the Israelis had hobbled along and tried to strike, but hundreds of missiles had hit the Israeli civilian front and Israel had failed to take out launchers, failed to strike a great many of the nuclear sites, failed to decapitate half of the regime's leadership, Trump would not have joined. Trump would have pressured Israel to stop.

This posture by the Israelis, this willingness to go it alone, to do things that don't fit the calculations of others is what first created the American strategic support for Israel.

This paradigm of the special US-Israeli relationship is a model to other countries and can usher in a "reset" far beyond what Bannon thinks he sees.

If I were Taiwan today, I would double and triple down in the Taiwanese capability to face down China. You want America behind you? Make sure it isn't too much American blood on the line, when the war comes. Ditto, Japan. Ditto South Korea. The way you hold America is, by being able to defend yourself. America will come in and deliver its grand strategic element that it can add to your strategy, because it has that scale, because it has that technology. America doesn't put boots on the ground anymore, and America is not going to bleed for anybody. And I don't blame it.

Trump may be on the verge of expanding the Abraham Accords, but there is more here. It is an isolationist policy that does not leave the door open to China, Russia--or even Iran to do as they please. And it does not abandon allies either. But it will require those allies to stand up for themselves, to show some independence. Like Israel.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Neither Israelis Nor The Iranian People Seem Happy With The Ceasefire (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

It looks like the only people more disappointed to see Trump's Israel-Iran Ceasefire survive than the Democrats looking to impeach the President are the Iranian people:

According to this Iranian-American analyst, many Iranians feel betrayed by Israel because of promises of support. [Among X posters who identify as Iranian/Persian, about 60% agreed with Mohebbi, 30% expressed appreciation for Israel's actions, and 10% expressed mixed reactions, according to Grok - EoZ]

Accusing the Israeli government of deserting the Iranian people or of having taken advantage of them is a serious charge. However, it is important to keep in mind that Netanyahu did not promise to single-handedly liberate the Iranian people. He did, however, urge that they themseles seize the opportunity:

Just hours following Israel’s strikes on Iran’s nuclear and military facilities, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made a direct appeal to the Iranian people and said: "This is your opportunity to stand up [to the regime]."

To facilitate this, Israel targeted more than just the military in Iran:

o Israel killed several high-ranking members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Since the IRGC is an enforcer of regime control, Israel disrupted the government's ability to maintain internal security and suppress dissent.

o  Degrading Iran’s military capabilities not only benefited Israel, it also limited the Iranian regime’s ability to maintain order during protests, as the military did during the 2022 protests.

o  Israel struck police stations in urban areas, disrupting local law enforcement operations.

o  Israel targeted facilities linked to domestic surveillance, weakening the regime’s ability to monitor and control the population.

As it turns out, the Iranian people are not the only ones disappointed by the ceasefire. Apparently, Israelis are opposed to it as well. Israel Realtime, which provides updates on news affecting Israel, conducted an online poll. They asked: "What is your view on the ceasefire plan announced by Trump?"

Israelis are not happy.

Based on these numbers:

62% of Israelis oppose the ceasefire
24% of Israelis are in favor of the ceasefire
14% of Israelis are unsure

This is far from a ringing endorsement.

One reason for the lack of enthusiasm is that the idea for a ceasefire did not come from Israel. It came from Trump, and it came out of nowhere, not long after the long-awaited US bombing of Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. So, instead of taking advantage of the momentum and continuing their attack, Israel was instead warned to stand down before being able to reach all of their objectives.

When it comes to being pressured, one could argue that Trump himself was also under pressure--from the Democrats.

Once the US forces bombed Iran, multiple Democratic congressmen accused Trump of going beyond his authority and bypassing Congress. Representative Al Green (D-Texas) introduced his fifth resolution to impeach Trump, this time alleging that Trump bypassed Congress and violated the War Powers Clause. The resolution was tabled in the House by a vote of 344–79. AOC claimed that the strikes Trump authorized against Iran were grounds for impeachment because they were done without congressional approval. Even Republican Congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky also condemned the bombings as “not constitutional” because there was no imminent threat, as well as a lack of congressional involvement.

Considering there was public conjecture on the consequences of the bombing ranging from the possibility of increased regional instability to the outbreak of World War III, it is not hard to imagine that those possibilities, combined with political threats at home, pushed Trump to promote a ceasefire between Israel and Iran soon after the bombing and so depressurize the situation.

However, while Israelis in general may think that stopping the fighting hamstrings the IDF when there was more work to be done, it might have been to Israel's advantage militarily to end the fighting.

On his podcast, Call Me Back, author Dan Senor interviewed Nadav Eyal, a senior analyst at Yediot Aharonot, and Amit Segal, a senior analyst at Israel's Channel 12.

According to Eyal, even before Trump's call for a ceasefire, Netanyahu had made it clear that Israel was close to achieving its goals. Clearly, the prime minister did not want to get involved in a war of attrition in addition to the war in Gaza. Besides, "It was obvious that the Iranians were looking for a way out." But Iran's willingness to accept the deal does not automatically guarantee Israeli success. Only Iranian actions going forward will indicate the true nature of Israel's victory. It is not enough to degrade Iran's abilities, it is also important to change their behavior.

Segal also makes the point that Israel was close to running out of targets in Iran sooner than expected. So Israel was not so opposed to ending the war. In fact, Israel may have been ready to finish up within three or four days. He commented that this was the first war in which Israel did not lose a single soldier. That added to the incentive to wrap it up as soon as possible.

Senor notes that this ceasefire is not like the one with Lebanon and Hezbollah, which were negotiated first. Here, hostilities ended because Trump demanded it. Senor makes the point that one reason for the Saudi delay in joining the Abraham Accords is that they were waiting to see where the US stands. From that perspective, the ceasefire is a major plus.

Personally, I wonder if Trump's unilateral call for a ceasefire really assuages those fears or perhaps the arbitrariness with which he announced it might make the Saudis and others uneasy. And as Eyal points out, we will see what Trump expects from Israel "in return" for the ceasefire, like ending the war in Gaza.

We may be happy with the ceasefire, but questions remain.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Iran Tries To Save Face In Trump's Ceasefire (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

Israel's attack on Iran caught everyone by surprise.
Later, the US bombing of Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan caught people by surprise, too.

So maybe it makes sense that Trump's announcement of a ceasefire was also a surprise:

After the podcasts started to sink their teeth into the implications of Operation Midnight Hammer, delving into questions such as the future of Iran's nuclear program, the stability of the region, and whether Israel had an exit ramp--Trump was again one step ahead, and announced a timetable for the end of hostilities by both sides.

Of course, in the Middle East, ceasefires are not easy to come by. Just look at Gaza. And there is the underlying suspicion that a ceasefire is just a hudna--an opportunity to rest, rearm, and resume hostilities at a more fortuitous moment.

But has Iran even agreed to a ceasefire?

It's not as if Iran was in a rush to admit to the implied weakness of agreeing.

Back in 1988, Ayatollah Khomeini referred to the decision to agree to a ceasefire to end the 8-year-long Iran-Iraq War as "a chalice of poison." Ayatollah Khamenei cannot be feeling any better agreeing to a ceasefire ending a war that lasted 12 days.

That explains some of the face-saving claims on social media.

Monday night, Seyed Abbas Araghchi, Iran's foreign minister, denied there was any ceasefire:

But that didn't stop him from posting just 15 minutes later:

That was quite a turnaround.

MEMRI shared something similar with a video of Iranian General Ebrahim Jabbari, advisor to the IRGC Chief. On Iran State TV. He proclaimed the need to "chop off Trump's hand...slit Netanyahu's throat...annihilate Israel."

But Jabbari went much further than that, led by the woman interviewing him. She refers to what she claims are the over 1,000 casualties suffered in Israel:

Not to be outdone, the general goes on to brag that every single Iranian missile penetrates Israel's defenses:

The interviewer is not finished. She goes on to claim that the whole world supports Iran:

She then goes on to claim unanimous world support not only for Iran to have a nuclear program, but also for Iran to have a nuclear bomb:

Watch the whole video on MEMRI.

Iran is going into propaganda overdrive to save face as it agrees to Trump's ceasefire, similar to the missiles it fired at the US army base in Qatar--after giving advance warning.

We are only at the very beginning stages of this ceasefire, but considering the numerous benefits not only to Israel but to the region as a whole, Iran's neighbors can afford to be generous and allow its face-saving measures. Once the agreement takes hold, the focus can turn to Hamas and its hostages.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Is It So Surprising That The US Took Action Against Its Long-Time Enemy In Iran? (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

Israel's motivation in attacking Iran if pretty clear, even if people forget just how far back it goes and how long Israel has been expected to live with the threat of a nuclear Iran:

That's 20 years of the Iranian threat of nuclear annihilation.

But how about the US?

What justification does it have for getting involved?

There are suggestions that this is not America's fight and the US is just doing Israel's bidding.

Here are some reminders of why this is America's fight too:

o Iran Hostage Crisis (November 4, 1979 – January 20, 1981)

Backed by the Iranian government, Iranian students seized the US Embassy in Tehran and took 52 American diplomats and citizens hostage for 444 days. This was in violation of international law regarding diplomatic immunity.

o Beirut Barracks Bombing (October 23, 1983)

The Islamic Jihad Organization (not to be confused with the group Islamic Jihad), a precursor to Iran's proxy Hezbollah, conducted a suicide bombing on the US Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, killing 241 American servicemen. This was part of Iran’s support for proxy groups targeting U.S. forces during the Lebanese Civil War. The US State Department designated Iran a state sponsor of terrorism in 1984.

o Kidnapping and Murder of CIA Station Chief William Buckley (March 16, 1984)

The Islamic Jihad Organization, with Iranian backing, kidnapped and tortured CIA station chief William Buckley in Beirut, Lebanon. He was killed after 15 months in captivity. This was part of a series of hostage takings targeting US personnel.

o Khobar Towers Bombing (June 25, 1996)

Iran-backed Hezbollah Al-Hejaz carried out a truck bombing at the Khobar Towers housing complex in Saudi Arabia, killing 19 U.S. servicemen and injuring 498 others. The attack targeted U.S. military personnel stationed in the region.

o Kidnapping of FBI Agent Robert Levinson (March 9, 2007)

Robert Levinson was kidnapped on Kish Island, Iran. Iran denied responsibility, but evidence suggests Iranian intelligence was involved.

o Support for IED Attacks in Iraq (2003–2011)

EFPs, attributed to Iran’s Quds Force led by Qassem Soleimani, killed 196 U.S. troops and injured 861 between 2005 and 2011. It notes the sophistication of EFPs, requiring precise machining, and their use by Iranian-backed militias like Kataib Hezbollah.

o Attempted Assassination Plot on U.S. Soil (October 2011)

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) planned to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the US in Washington, D.C., using a bomb at a restaurant. The plot was foiled by U.S. authorities.

o Capture of U.S. Sailors in the Persian Gulf (January 12, 2016)

Iranian forces detained 10 U.S. Navy sailors after their boats drifted into Iranian waters in the Persian Gulf. The sailors were released after 15 hours, but the incident was seen as a provocative act.

o Attacks on U.S. Bases in Iraq and Syria (October 2023 – February 2024)

Iran-backed militias conducted over 200 drone and rocket attacks on U.S. military bases in Iraq and Syria, protesting U.S. support for Israel during the Gaza conflict. These attacks caused injuries but no U.S. fatalities.

For decades, Iran has been chanting, "Death to America!"

Maybe Iran should not be so surprised that the US took Iran seriously and finally did something about it.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Israel and its Arab Gulf Allies Are Still On The Same Page (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

The New York Times is at it again.

If the paper is to be believed, Israel Further Alienates Would-Be Arab Allies in Attacking Iran. In other words, by attacking the world's primary supporter of international terrorism, Israel has isolated itself from supportive Arab Gulf states even more. The article claims to have uncovered a reversal in the progress in the dynamic between Israel and the Arab Gulf states:

Gulf governments that were once warming to Israel — seen as a potential ally in their battle to contain Iran — have decided that courting Iran with diplomacy is more pragmatic.

And of course, this is true to an extent--from the beginning. Courting Iran with diplomacy is the pragmatic course for the Gulf states to take, and it is not surprising that the Saudis, for example, would hedge their bets. Consider when Biden publicly called Saudi Arabia a pariah during the Democratic presidential debates :

I would make it very clear we were not going to, in fact, sell more weapons to them. We were going to, in fact, make them pay the price and make them in fact the pariah that they are. There's very little social redeeming value of in the present government in Saudi Arabia, and I would also as pointed out I would end the subsidies that we have and the sale of material to the Saudis, where they're going in and murdering children. And they're murdering innocent people, and so they have to be held accountable.

That kind of talk did not endear the US to the Saudis. That comment, along with the Biden administration's clear disinterest in the Abraham Accords, added to the distance between the Biden Administration and Saudi Arabia. The Washington Free Beacon reported in June 2021 that the Biden State Department discouraged referring to the agreement by name, and when asked in May 2021, Press Secretary Jen Psaki told reporters:

We are not following the tactics of the prior administration. Aside from putting together a peace proposal that was dead on arrival, we don’t think [the previous administration] did anything constructive to really bring an end to the longstanding conflict in the Middle East.

It was not surprising when, in March 2023 (months before October 7th), the Saudis, Iran, and China announced an agreement to resume diplomatic relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran. The Carnegie Endowment explained:

For Saudi Arabia, the China-brokered deal is a pragmatic security choice that goes beyond hedging and balancing against Washington.

The European Council on Foreign Relations published a piece on their website in September 2024 about Iran's Hormuz Peace Endeavor (HOPE), which was intended to serve as an alternative to the Abraham Accords. Saudi participation signaled its lack of confidence in the Biden administration:

The Iranian HOPE initiative was never seen as credible in Riyadh. The kingdom was also unprepared to accept the initiative’s ultimate aim of accelerating the US retrenchment from the region, which would further solidify Iran’s military influence in the Gulf. At the same time, the fragility of US security guarantees, as well as the risk of an Iranian backlash, left Riyadh hesitant to fully embrace the Abraham Accords.

The point is that the Gulf hedging strategy and openness to maintaining "friendly" relations with Iran today are not some new policy in response to Israel defending itself from the Iranian threat. It is part of a cautious approach in that area of the region.

When it pursues its point using the UAE as an example of a growing distance between it and Israel, the article is no more believable:

Yet despite the Emirati government’s deep distrust of Iran, to many in the country there is only one party to blame for the escalating violence: Israel, which launched a devastating attack on Iran last week, igniting the fiercest conflagration in the history of the Israeli-Iranian conflict.

After the New York Times makes this simplistic claim, it then undercuts itself just two paragraphs later with the acknowledgement that "depending on how the war ends, some Gulf countries may gradually put partnership with Israel back on the table."

Even with the Saudis' public "strong condemnation and denunciation of the blatant Israeli aggressions against the brotherly Islamic Republic of Iran," one has to wonder if those public expressions mirror what the Kingdom and the other Gulf states believe privately.

According to Egyptian-American writer Hussein Aboubakr Mansour,

While many of those who understand the evils of the Islamic Republic of Iran have responded with euphoria and talk of a “new Middle East,” prudence demands caution. Enthusiasm obscures deeper complexities, and transformative moments rarely unfold according to our most optimistic visions.

Gulf states are very much caught between a rock and a hard place. [While] they are quietly applauding the further weakening of Iran, they face real risks and have to play their cards carefully.

The New York Times comes close to acknowledging this dilemma and the complexity of the situation the Gulf states find themselves in:

While some in the Gulf are cheering on the bombing of Iran, the events of the past week have reinforced a belief that Israel is a rogue actor operating outside the international system and that Western powers have allowed it to do so.

The remark that "some in the Gulf are cheering on the bombing of Iran" links to a comment by journalist Saleh al-Fahid on X in response to a post by Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, the former Emir of Qatar. Al Thani posted:

...We must emphasize here that it is not in the interest of the Gulf states to see their large neighbor, Iran, collapse. Such a development would inevitably lead to a devastating destabilization of our region, with dire consequences for all. To avoid this, the Gulf states must announce a clear and explicit position through their decision-making centers to immediately halt this madness initiated by Israel, the full extent of whose impact on the region has yet to be fully understood...[translated from the Arabic by Google Translate.]

Al Fahid responds

Your Excellency, the former Minister, what you expressed in this tweet reflects Qatar's well-known position on the Iranian regime, but not all Gulf states necessarily agree with you. You cannot claim to know the Gulf's interests better than they do.

Beyond the official positions of Gulf governments, many Gulf citizens believe that Iran is a greater threat to them than Israel, that the overthrow of the mullahs' regime is in the Gulf states' best interests, and that the price of this regime's demise, however painful, harsh, and costly, is far less than the state of attrition that this regime has been practicing against the Gulf states for four decades.

The truth is that some Gulf states view the mullahs' regime as a guarantee for regional balance. Other Gulf states view the mullahs' regime as a long-term existential threat. [translated from the Arabic by Google Translate.]

Pity that the New York Times article did not quote al-Fahid outright--it would have provided the much-needed balance that the article so sorely lacks.

The enmity that The New York Times claims now exists between the Gulf states and Israel is more clearly understood as a more nuanced and complex dynamic. And it is not an issue of rejection of Israel, as the New York Times is so eager to claim.

Mansour suggests that, from Israel's perspective, Iran's defeat will have a mixed result:

...Many pundits responded almost immediately to the Israeli attacks with hopeful predictions of a new era of Arab-Israeli amity. Unfortunately, such predictions are premature. It is much more likely that, despite private admiration and cooperation, public acknowledgment and overt alignment with Israel will remain restrained...

...Of all the Middle East’s leaders, the Gulf monarchs are most likely to put ideology second to practical and achievable goals. Their admiration for Israel, therefore, won’t translate into an enthusiastic embrace born of gratitude or generosity. On the contrary, the removal of the Iranian threat reduces, rather than increases, their incentive to make meaningful concessions to Israel.

Indeed, the Gulf states may quietly reach out to the now weakened Iranian regime. With their archenemy crippled, vulnerable, and desperate, these countries have a rare opportunity to extend a lifeline, albeit conditionally. In exchange for clear, enforceable guarantees that Tehran abandon its aggressive regional ambitions, they might decide that it’s possible to rehabilitate Iran as a subordinate regional actor. This move would enable them to leverage their newfound advantage, enhancing their strategic weight against Israel and the United States, and their standing on the world stage. Such maneuvers, blending quiet collaboration with Israel alongside a cautious and conditional outreach to Iran, reflect a longstanding desire to maintain the regional balance of power, which in this case means making sure that neither Israel nor Iran become dominant.

Whether the Middle East would have been different if Trump had won his second term in 2020 is a moot point. A key component of the Abraham Accords and the improved Israel-Arab relations was based on Israel's military strength vis-a-vis Iran, and not just the economic opportunities it could bring to the table. With the opportunity to cut Iran down to size, the Gulf states will want to maintain stability in the region. Whatever they decide, Israel will be included in the picture.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

The Developing Picture As Israel Preemptively Attacks Iran (Daled Amos)

It is Thursday night, and Israel has attacked Iran.Joe Truzman, FDD senior research analyst, posted on X:

The goal of the operation is to neutralize the nuclear threat from Iran to the degree that such a thing is possible. But in order to accomplish this, more than just the infrastructure is being targeted. Already, Iran has announced the names of various military leaders killed in Israel's initial attack.

Iran had crossed the line from the theoretical to a genuine threat:

Intelligence assessments showed the regime had enriched enough uranium to produce approximately 15 nuclear warheads and was actively conducting tests. The pace, the scope, and the intent had changed. What had once been described in abstract terms—potential, capability, intent—had now become operational reality.

This is only the beginning. There is more to come. But already there are hints--or hopes--for what may be coming.

Israel's goal is not to bring down the Iranian regime and free its people, but some have already expressed that hope.

(read the whole thing)

An Iranian Jew and advocate for the restoration of the Iranian monarchy posted

And there may be some basis to that:

On the other hand, there will be backlash on the streets in support of Iran, just as we saw after the massacre on October 7th.

Already, Democratic Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut has come out condemning Israel:

Israel’s attack on Iran, clearly intended to scuttle the Trump administration’s negotiations with Iran, risks a regional war that will likely be catastrophic for America.

Similarly, Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, a member of the Armed Services Committee, criticized Israel.

Israel’s alarming decision to launch airstrikes on Iran is a reckless escalation that risks igniting regional violence. These strikes threaten not only the lives of innocent civilians, but the stability of the entire Middle East.

It is only a matter of time before the more radical members of the Democratic Party follow suit and claim that Israel is the one creating tensions in the region.

We will have to wait to see what Trump's response will be and if he will take a position similar to Biden, helping Israel shoot down the rockets Iran will continue to fire in retaliation.

It is too early to say whether Israel has actually accomplished against Iran a strike comparable to what it did against Hezbollah, taking them out of the picture to a large degree, or comparable to Syria, where Israel weakened Assad to the point that he could be overthrown.

In the meantime, not the entire Arab world will be supporting Israel:

The focus should be on neutralizing Iran, not on a further redrawing of the Middle East.
/>

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

The media loves a good protest (Daled Amos)

Five years ago, CNN correspondent Omar Jimenez reported on the riots in Kenosha, Wisconsin, after the police shooting of Jacob Blake.

CNN had its own take on those "peaceful" protests:

At the time, CNN was widely mocked on social media for its "mostly peaceful" comment. However, CNN is not the only one that cannot distinguish between riots and protests. And that is not the only point of comparison with the pro-October 7th "protests."

There are also the lengths the media goes to defend the protests. When the District Attorney announced that no charges would be pressed against either the police or Blake, an AP reporter posted on X:

This is the popular version of events, as reported the previous year by NBC:

At 5:11 p.m. Kenosha police said officers responded to a call of a "domestic incident in the 2800 block of 40th Street. There, they would encounter 29-year-old Jacob Blake who is seen on video posted to social media in an altercation with officers before they Tase and ultimately shoot him seven times in the back as he leans into a vehicle. The Kenosha department does not have body cameras so officers were not wearing them at the time of the shooting. Civil rights attorney Ben Crump, representing Blake's family, said Blake was “simply trying to do the right thing by intervening in a domestic incident.”

Joel Pollak, a senior editor at Breitbart News, responded to the AP post on X. He called them out on their misrepresenting the facts and ignoring the danger it represented:

Pollak's response is based on the information presented by the DA, as summarized by Legal Insurrection:

He went through the evidence and step-by-step timeline. Blake resisted arrest, fought by police, and by his own admission, was carrying a knife, after multiple attempts to subdue him, including taser, failed. Blake was shot when he made a move with the knife, having switched it to his right hand, towards the police officer. Contrary to the popular narrative, Blake was not shot seven times in the back, three of the shots were to his side consistent with the twisting motion with the knife towards the officer. The officer’s seven shots were objectively reasonable because police are trained to keep firing until the threat is removed, which in this case was when Blake dropped the knife.

Blake lied when he said he didn’t know there was a warrant for his arrest, his phone internet records proves he knew, which would provide motive for his to resist arrest in front of his children, and makes him a not credible witness at trial. There also was a 2010 incident in Chicago where Blake similarly displayed a knife resisting arrest, and actually slashed at the officer.

We see a familiar pattern of media negligence:

o Jumping the gun to get unsubstantiated headlines
o  Building a false narrative
o  Carelessly stirring up emotions without regard to the consequences
o  Presenting the resulting riots and destruction as mere "protests" and free speech

The media defense of what passes for "free speech" is now showing itself in the media's defense of anti-Israel protests on university campuses across the US.

But there are legal limits to free speech. In a recent interview, Alan Dershowitz explained:

When you take people on college campuses who are calling, “Death to the Jews,” who are calling to prevent Jews from going to class, who are calling for immediate attacks and harassment of Jews–that’s not protected speech. On the other hand, if you make an abstract talk and say, well, it would be good if there were no Israel–that hate speech is protected speech...Abstract arguments, even if they are hateful, are permitted under our Constitution. But direct incitements to kill or harm other people or block their access or deny them the opportunity to go to class–those are not protected by the First Amendment.

Journalist Douglas Murray raises a parallel point during a recent Tikvah webinar, The War Against the Jews Comes to Washington with Professor Ruth Wisse. The moderator asks Douglas about his book, The Strange Death of Europe, and whether we should be concerned about the strange death of America.

Murray responds (at 27:17):

I think there are early warning signs, and we remain almost incapable of rising to the challenge. The most obvious one has been thrown up very visibly. I don't really like to linger on the campus issue because most people don't go to Ivy League universities anymore, thank goodness, and so it always sounds like a rarefied point to make, but just consider how most of the ivy League universities in the last two years have permitted violence and intimidation as the norm, and pretended that the figures like those in Colombia University are free speech martyrs when in no other situation, would they have got away with this if they had done this against any other minority.

And, you know, people say, well, the limits of free speech and so on. Nobody has yet been able to persuade me. But if for the last two years, there had been people from abroad coming into America using their time or student visas to call for the lynching of Black Americans, nobody can tell me that from right to left, from the universities to people in politics--nobody can persuade me that this would have been a mere free speech issue. It would not have been. People would have said from the get-go, I would have thought no more than 24 hours, whether I think under a Democrat or Republican government. They would have said: no, we have no need in our society for importing racists calling for racist violence. The case of the Jews? Yes, that's been permitted and more than permitted, encouraged.

The media's sloppiness shows itself in its coverage of campus disruptions. They insist that university disturbances are merely expressions of free speech and that the Trump administration's attempts to hold universities responsible for the safety of their Jewish students are somehow proof of its authoritarianism.

Five years ago, the New York Times published an op-ed by Republican Senator Tom Cotton on the need to use US troops to support the police in the face of riots.

Once the op-ed was printed, the paper couldn't back off fast enough.

They ended up prefacing the article with a 5-paragraph apology, explaining the supposed flaws in the piece that prevented it from meeting the New York Times' standards. The paper went so far as to claim that maybe the piece should not have been printed at all.

The lengths they went to repudiate the op-ed were due, in part, to the rebellion in the New York Times newsroom:

More than 800 staff members signed a letter protesting its publication, according to a union member involved in the letter. Addressed to high-ranking editors in the opinion and news divisions, as well as New York Times Company executives, the letter argued that Mr. Cotton’s essay contained misinformation, such as his depiction of the role of “antifa” in the protests.

Dozens of Times employees objected to the Op-Ed on social media, despite a company policy that instructs them not to post partisan comments or take sides on issues. Many of them responded on Twitter with the sentence, “Running this puts Black @NYTimes staff in danger.” More than 160 employees planned a virtual walkout for Friday morning, according to two organizers of the protest.

One of those employees was Taylor Lorenz, who in a since-deleted post on X, bewailed the alleged danger Cotton's op-ed posed to the black New York Times staff:

Taylor's claim sounds no less self-serving now than it did then. Just how concerned have the New York Times staff been about the actual danger posed to the Jewish community by their one-sided coverage of the October 7th massacre and its aftermath?

But the internal influence of the paper's staff and employees is clear. They forced the editorial editor to resign:

So much for an independent media and journalistic integrity.

The New York Times' bias goes beyond just the liberal bias at the top. The infectious agenda is hardwired into the paper, starting from the ground up. From the reaction to the riots in 2020, we could have predicted how the New York Times and others would frame the anti-Jewish riots on university campuses and whose side they would take.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)