Showing posts with label analysis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label analysis. Show all posts

Friday, October 17, 2025

By Yehuda Teitelbaum

It was always strange that Hamas managed to convince so much of the world that Gaza was starving. Anyone who has studied or lived through real famine knows it looks nothing like what we were shown. Real famine is unmistakable. There is no ambiguity. It strips away everything. In Yemen, in Sudan, in Ethiopia, the evidence was everywhere. Children so emaciated they could not stand. Mothers too weak to carry them. Families dying in the streets because there was simply nothing left to eat. Those images were burned into the world’s memory because they could not be denied.

When you looked at Gaza, none of that existed. There were no pictures of groups of skeletal children sitting in rubble, no photos of neighborhoods reduced to wandering ghosts. What we saw instead were markets filled with produce, bakeries still open, and restaurants crowded late into the night. Countless videos came out of Gaza, not from Israeli sources or foreign reporters, but from Gazans themselves, showing normal commerce and daily life continuing amid the war. That did not mean life was easy. It was not. War creates chaos. Distribution networks break down. Prices rise. People go hungry. But that is not famine.

Famine is the collapse of an entire social fabric. It is starvation so deep that the weak simply disappear. It is the unraveling of families and the death of entire communities. It cannot be hidden or managed. When famine takes hold, the evidence becomes overwhelming and impossible to ignore. Gaza never looked like that, and the difference matters because words matter. When the word “famine” is used, it is not just describing a humanitarian crisis, it is triggering a political and legal framework. It transforms a tragic situation into an accusation of criminal intent.

The story itself was not new. Gaza had supposedly been starving since 2005. Each year the same claims returned under different slogans, siege, starvation, food insecurity, blockade. The language always shifted, but the accusation remained the same. In 2018, Oxfam declared that a million Gazans could not feed their families. Others echoed it without evidence, repeating it because it was convenient and effective.

Meanwhile, Israel became the only country in modern history to send food into the territory of an enemy it was fighting. Millions of pounds of supplies crossed the border even as rockets were launched at the crossing points. Over two million tons of humanitarian aid entered Gaza during the war, more than enough to feed its civilian population. Yet the United Nations still declared famine, because once you call it that, the entire framework shifts. A famine allows the narrative to move from a battlefield to a courtroom. It turns a war for survival into a moral trial. It lets international organizations accuse Israel of crimes rather than confront Hamas for creating the conditions of war in the first place.

That was always the purpose. The famine story was never meant to describe reality. Hamas understood that it could not win militarily. Its only chance was to win through narrative. Every image of destruction, every hungry child, every collapsed building could be repurposed into a weapon. And the international community played along. NGOs repeated the talking points as fact, journalists published them without verification, and politicians echoed them in speeches. The repetition was the point. Once said often enough, the lie began to sound like truth.

Inside Gaza, food was never truly the issue. Control was. Hamas controlled everything, the aid distribution, the warehouses, the access to supplies. Loyalists received food first. Fighters and their families were fed before anyone else. Ordinary people were kept desperate because desperation creates sympathy. The goal was to sustain the crisis long enough to turn public opinion against Israel.

And the world helped make that possible. The United Nations continued to fund UNRWA, an agency that has long since abandoned the idea of resettlement or reconciliation and instead exists to preserve refugee status indefinitely. Western governments poured billions into a system that guarantees permanent dependency. Human rights organizations repeated Hamas propaganda almost word for word, dressing it up as analysis. Major media outlets presented Hamas press releases as verified reporting. Western politicians followed along because it was easier than facing their own role in enabling a movement built on hate.

If the same claims had been made about Yemen or Sudan, the world would have demanded evidence. They would have sent photographers and researchers. But when it came to Gaza, the absence of evidence was treated as proof. The more the claim unraveled, the louder it was repeated. The famine narrative was never intended to help the people of Gaza. It was designed to weaponize their suffering against Israel.

Now that the war has seemingly ended, the truth is difficult to ignore. Gaza endured hardship and hunger. Lives were lost. But there was no famine. What there was, was manipulation, by Hamas, by NGOs, by journalists who knew better, and by international bodies that long ago abandoned integrity for politics. Yet the damage is done. The famine that never existed will live on in the archives of the United Nations, in the speeches of activists, and in the history books of the future.

That is how propaganda becomes history. The lie survives because it is useful, and the truth fades because it is inconvenient. The famine in Gaza was never real, but it achieved what it was meant to achieve. It turned the defense of a nation into a moral indictment, and it ensured that even in victory, Israel would stand accused.





Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

   
 

 

Sunday, October 12, 2025

Everyone who has been talking about October 7 over the past two years is now talking about the ceasefire.

Well, almost everyone. Remember the mobs we saw in growing numbers, protesting, rioting, and disrupting traffic?


Many of them have now been silent on the actual ceasefire agreement that is set to take effect in a few days. But why is that?

Journalist and commentator Haviv Rettig Gur is one of those who has pointed this out. The silence does not make any sense. As Rettig Gur points out:
You don't have to be silent. Even if you don't like every aspect of the deal, even if the deal leaves the full Israeli withdrawal from Gaza to the second stage, even if you have critiques of the deal--the deal ends the war; it ends the genocide which you believe is underway.
With all the protests against the alleged genocide in Gaza, if these same people are not speaking out about the ceasefire to this war, then maybe there really wasn't a real genocide going on after all. 

The Palestinian American activist and commentator, Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib, has also written about this phenomenon. He writes about The ‘Peace Protesters’ Who Won’t Give Peace a Chance:
The lack of support from self-styled peace activists in the West is unsurprising. A lack of clarity, consistency, or levelheaded thinking has been a staple of Western-based activism that purports to care about the Palestinian people in Gaza.

...The first step to freeing Palestinians from the horrors of war is to free them from the Free Palestine Movement in the diaspora and Western world. The unholy alliance between the far left, far right, and Islamist hooligans who normalize Hamas's narrative is harmful first and foremost to the Palestinian people.

Many of these voices have long called for a ceasefire that would merely freeze the conflict, as opposed to fundamentally altering the landscape in Gaza to effect real political transformation and deliver a lasting peace.
The protesters seemed intent on a ceasefire much like the previous one that kept Hamas in power until it picked a time of its own choosing to break it by invading Israel and slaughtering over 1,200, mostly civilians.

Of course, the response to the deal is not merely support or silence. There have been politicians who have taken advantage of the plan to attack Israel on the one hand, while recognizing it without giving any credit to the president under whose influence the deal was made.
Mayoral front-runner Zohran Mamdani refused to credit President Trump for helping broker a long-awaited truce deal in Gaza – and instead bashed Israel – as other New York Democrats offered tepid kudos to the commander-in-chief Thursday.
Other politicians in New York answered similarly when asked about the ceasefire, with US Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, Gov. Kathy Hochul, and mayoral candidate Andrew Cuomo praising it as a positive step, while leaving Trump's name out of it. 

In New York, the Democratic state Assemblyman Kalman Yeger did say that the president deserves “much” credit for the deal--and went much further, praising Israel and also Prime Minister Netanyahu as well:
The resilience of the Israeli people, the relentless focus of Prime Minister Netanyahu and his strong allies in the Knesset and the tremendous backing of a US President who recognized that no nation can survive if it gets on its knees to terror, combined for an unbreakable force that brought about the Hamas surrender and the hopeful quick return of the hostages.
Of course, being from Brooklyn would explain why Yeger was able, and even needed, to say the things that many Democratic politicians would not and could not.

The sudden silence of so many who once filled the streets, blocked traffic, and shouted about genocide is telling. If this ceasefire is not worth celebrating, if peace is not worth endorsing, then perhaps those demonstrations were never about saving lives at all. The truth is that Israel’s enemies—whether on the battlefield or in Western capitals—are invested less in Palestinian safety than in Israel’s destruction. That is why the same voices that cried for a ceasefire now fall mute when one has finally been achieved. Their hypocrisy has been laid bare: what they sought was not peace, but Israel’s defeat. The real test is not in shouting slogans when bombs fall, but in welcoming the chance for quiet when the guns fall silent. On that test, the self-styled champions of justice have failed.




Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

   
 

 

Friday, October 03, 2025

By Daled Amos


Why did Kamala Harris lose the presidential election?

A Free Press article by Kat Rosenfield following Harris's loss notes how Democrats and pundits immediately blamed sexism. According to this view, voters across the country just couldn't bring themselves to vote for a woman who, according to former MSNBC Joy Reid, had conducted "a historic, flawlessly run campaign" (sic). Rosenfield notes the attraction of blaming biased voters:
It’s not hard to see the appeal of this narrative. It displaces blame for Harris’s failure onto everyone but the candidate herself and allows her supporters to claim the moral high ground, in the face of abject defeat...Harris was perfect; it’s America that is wrong. And so she lost, yes, but only because the country itself is so full of losers.

This kind of framing is nothing new.

In July 2024, New York Attorney General Letitia James blamed racism and sexism as the real reasons why Harris lost:

[Republicans are] running very scared. That's what I think. They're running very scared, they have nothing else other than racism and sexism...The reality is that Kamala Harris, Vice President Harris, is qualified, and, you know, oftentimes she's underestimated but she’s an overachiever.

Blaming the critics is not limited to the political arena. When New York Times journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones was criticised for her 1619 Project, where she claimed that “one of the primary reasons the colonists decided to declare their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery,” her allies framed factual criticisms as racist attacks. One person on X responded that "[Washington Post pundit George] Will should’ve just written Hannah-Jones was 'uppity'”. Later, Hannah-Jones belittled criticism of her thesis when she condescendingly wrote

to clarify that this sentence had never been meant to imply that every single colonist shared this motivation, we changed the sentence to read “some of the colonists.”

When a weapon like this is so widespread, you can be sure it will be used against Jews.

So, another area where critics are rebuffed with charges of racism instead of dealing with the merits of their arguments is progressive representatives of American Muslims. In 2018, when the Women's March was criticized over one of its leaders, Tamika Mallory, having a close connection to antisemite Louis Farrakhan, Linda Sarsour apologized to the Jewish women of the group for not addressing the issue fast enough--but not before lashing out the day before:

It’s very clear to me what the underlying issue is — I am a bold, outspoken BDS supporting Palestinian Muslim American woman and the opposition’s worst nightmare...by proxy they began attacking my sister Tamika Mallory — knowing all too well that in this country the most discardable woman is a Black woman.

Here, Sarsour solidified what has become the paradigm of attacking critics instead of dealing with their points.

Indeed, her self-portrayal as a defender of women was something of a stunt, considering that her  defense of women was selective:



Further, in a 2017 Nation interview, Sarsour declared that a woman could not be both a Zionist and a feminist
In September 2016, Michael D. Cohen, Eastern Director for the Wiesenthal Center, attended a New York City Council Public Hearing on that body’s resolution to officially condemn the BDS movement. Sarsour was there too, as those in favor of the resolution were shouted down as “Jewish pigs” and “Zionist filth.”
It was Sarsour who nodded approvingly and congratulated individuals who were kicked out of the hearing room for being out of order, for walking in front of individuals providing testimony in support of the resolution, and for shouting down our supporters with anti-Semitic slurs — all in the name of protecting free speech.

Sarsour will insist that her critics are proof that her claims hit home and reveal the truth of what she says. And if she can toss in that those critics are also racist and misogynistic, so much the better.

Ilhan Omar learned from Sarsour how to accuse critics of Islamophobia. Rashida Tlaib was criticized when she claimed that

There’s always kind of a calming feeling I tell folks when I think of the Holocaust… and the fact that it was my ancestors – Palestinians – who lost their land and some lost their lives, their livelihood... all of it was in the name of trying to create a safe haven for Jews, post-Holocaust… and I love the fact that my ancestors provided that in many ways.

In response to backlash from critics, Omar did not address the critics or their concerns in Tlaib's remarks. Instead, she fell back to the accusation that criticisms were "designed to silence, sideline, and sort of almost eliminate [the] public voice of Muslims from the public discourse." Left unanswered were the facts that were whitewashed by Tlaib's comment--historical facts such as:

o  Arab protests against Jewish immigration left many stranded in Nazi Germany,
o  Pe-1948 the Arabs were guilty of massacres of Jews,
o  Palestinian Arab leader Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini collaborated with Hitler
o  Jews created economic opportunities that benefitted the Arabs and their livelihood

We saw another example of this at the beginning of this year, Amnesty International found it expedient to accuse its Israeli chapter of "anti-Palestinian racism." The Israeli chapter is the same one that worked with Palestinians to condemn Israel, and argued that the IDF committed “crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing". But when they criticized Amnesty International's genocide accusation for not proving that Israel had specifically intended to kill Palestinians--as required by the definition of genocide under international law--Amnesty International silenced the group the only way it knew how, regardless of how ridiculous their claim was.

Any attempt by Jews to defend themselves is attacked. We see this in criticisms of the widely respected IHRA definition of antisemitism. According to the IHRA website:

As of February 1, 2025, 1,266 entities worldwide have adopted the definition. Among those, 45 countries have done so—including the United States, Canada, Germany, the United Kingdom, and France. In the U.S., 37 state governments have done so, along with 98 city and county governments.

That has not stopped opponents from claiming the definition is being weaponized to stifle criticism of Israel, but those accusations are more common than actual examples. Ali Abunimah has made this claim. On the Electronic Intifadahe accuses the Jewish community of "baselessly" manipulating the term antisemitism.

We oppose the cynical and baseless use of the term anti-Semitism as a tool for stifling criticism of Israel or opposition to Zionism, as this assumes simply because someone is Jewish, they support Zionism or the colonial and apartheid policies of the state of Israel - a false generalization.

It will not come as a surprise that there is a lengthy article on Wikipedia on the topic: The Weaponization of Antisemitism, but nothing similar on the weaponization of Islamophobia. There is just a very short article on Wikipedia called LetUsTalk, which is

a campaign against silencing criticism of the Islamic law and especially hijab in the West through accusations of Islamophobia. This campaign has started when a letter written by Dr Sherif Emil—a Canadian Children’s surgeon—and published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, in which he criticizes promotion of hijab as a symbol of diversity, was retracted due to the accusations of Islamophobia.

And now going a step further, we have Democratic candidate for mayor of New York City, telling Mehdi Hasan, "There are far better representations of the concerns of Jewish New Yorkers than the ADL and Jonathan Greenblatt”-- this from the same guy who has no problem with aggressive protesters going around chanting "Globalize the Intifada" as they intimidate Jews.

Jews are so blessed to have politicians like Mamdani, who not only can decide what qualifies as antisemitism, but also are ready to tell us which leaders truly represent Jewish interests. Other minorities must be so jealous.

Whether it’s sexism, racism, or antisemitism, the goal is the same—silence dissent, deflect accountability, and emphasize one's own moral righteousness. The result is a double standard: valid criticism is dismissed as prejudice, while others weaponize those very accusations to shield themselves from scrutiny. Until this pattern ends, we will continue to see excuses masquerading as principles, and the moral language of justice—against real sexism, racism, and antisemitism—will be hollowed out.






Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

   
 

 

Thursday, September 18, 2025




One of the most enduring weapons in modern conflict is not the rocket or the rifle but the accusation. For Hamas, the most effective charge has always been the word “genocide.” It is repeated with such frequency, across so many platforms, that it begins to feel less like an allegation than an axiom.

It is a meticulously organized tactic, accomplished with the support and encouragement of the UN and various NGOs. It goes like this. Make a sweeping claim, ensure it races through the headlines, and move on before anyone has time to dismantle it. By the time the details are checked, the falsehood has already shaped public opinion. The lie itself becomes the fact.

It is not only the word itself that matters, but the way it is deployed. Hamas and its advocates understand the power of a flood. One falsehood is never enough. They release dozens at a time. A hospital bombing, a famine, a mass grave, a strike on aid workers, a claim of genocide. Each accusation is crafted to dominate headlines for a few hours or days. By the time the details are debunked, the news cycle has already moved on and the next charge is already circulating.

 A lie that travels faster than the correction can never really be corrected. The falsehood lingers in memory long after the retraction, shaping opinion in ways that facts no longer reach. In time, the accumulation of accusations builds a kind of moral sediment. Each story, however false, leaves behind a residue that hardens into conventional wisdom.

That is why the genocide accusation feels so immovable. It is not that anyone has proved it. It is that the sheer repetition has made it seem axiomatic. Each new claim adds another layer, another echo. Even when dismantled, the next one has already arrived to take its place. The flood itself becomes the strategy. The goal is not persuasion in the courtroom of law, but saturation in the court of public opinion.

That cycle is playing out again today. Israel has ordered civilians to evacuate Gaza City, Hamas’s last remaining stronghold. Simultaneously, the UN has once again declared that Israel is commiting genocide. Predictably, Western outlets splashed the front page with cries of “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing.” Yet these two headlines directly contradict one another. After nearly two years of war, Gaza City was still full of civilians. If Israel had truly been pursuing a campaign of extermination, there would not be hundreds of thousands left to evacuate. The presence of so many people at the very center of Hamas’s operations is evidence not of indiscriminate slaughter, but of a military campaign that has left vast populations untouched.

This is not the first time the genocide narrative has been deployed. In 1979 Edward Said accused Israel of “naked genocidal wars.” In the 1980s Noam Chomsky spoke of “Israeli concentration camps” and dismissed the Hebrew Bible as a “genocidal” text. The 2001 Durban NGO Forum labeled Israel guilty of “acts of genocide” while calling for its isolation. Mahmoud Abbas repeated the charge at the UN in 2014. Most recently, UN rapporteurs and professional activist networks have institutionalized the accusation in resolutions and reports. The word has become a political instrument, passed down through decades, polished and redeployed in every conflict.

But politics and law are not the same thing. The International Court of Justice, the only body with authority to rule on genocide, has never convicted Israel of it. In fact, even its much-cited provisional ruling has been widely misrepresented. In April, Joan Donoghue, the president of the court at the time, explained in a BBC interview that the court did not find Israel guilty of genocide, nor even that genocide was occurring. The court’s purpose, she said, was simply to affirm that South Africa had standing to bring its case and that Palestinians had “plausible rights to protection from genocide.” That careful legal distinction was collapsed by activists and the media into a false headline: “ICJ rules Israel plausibly guilty of genocide.”

That is why the current evacuation order matters so much. It is not a footnote in the war. It is the collapse of the central accusation. The existence of large civilian populations inside Gaza City proves that Israel has not waged a campaign of indiscriminate killing. The evidence completely contradicts the indictment.

And yet the indictment will never be withdrawn. It was never meant to withstand scrutiny. Its purpose is not to protect civilians but to delegitimize the state that fights the terrorists who endanger them. The word “genocide” has become less a claim than a strategy. A way to fix Israel permanently in the moral imagination as heir to the crimes of the twentieth century.

The tragedy is not only that this slander persists, but that it is echoed and amplified by institutions that are still considered reputable in the eyes of the world. When UN bodies, NGOs, and media outlets repeat the charge without rigor, they do not illuminate the truth. They just make it harder for Israel to finish this war once and for all.

And that is the anatomy of the lie. It begins with Hamas, but it finds its power only when others choose to repeat it.






Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

   
 

 

Monday, September 15, 2025

By Daled Amos


European leaders are still tripping over each other to muster the most indignation at Israel. The heads of France, Canada, Britain, Australia, and Belgium have loudly proclaimed their support for rewarding Hamas with a Palestinian state. But their latest fury is reserved for Israel's strike against the Hamas leadership in Doha, the capital of Qatar, a leading funder of Islamist terrorism.

This public outrage demonstrates a profound ignorance and disregard for their own obligations under international law.

During a press conference the day before Israel's strike against Hamas in Doha, the Spanish Prime Minister, Pedro Sanchez, declared:
Spain, as you know, doesn’t have nuclear bombs, nor aircraft carriers, nor large oil reserves. We alone can’t stop the Israeli offensive. But that doesn’t mean we won’t stop trying...

Spanish politicians were quick to mock Sanchez. The leader of the far-right Vox party, Santiago Abascal, said Sanchez “would like to have nuclear weapons…but not to defend Spain. To defend Hamas.” A spokesman for the center-right Popular Party asked, “A nuclear bomb on Tel Aviv? Is that what he intends to do?”

Netanyahu countered that Sanchez was the one with genocidal tendencies:

While Sanchez's comments preceded the strike, other leaders were quick to condemn the subsequent action. Canadian PM Mark Carney called the attack “an intolerable expansion of violence and an affront to Qatar’s sovereignty.” The EU issued a statement that the attack “breaches international law.” The EU Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, suspended bilateral support to Israel “without affecting our work with Israeli civil society or Yad Vashem.” As the Wall Street Journal put it, "In other words, commemorate the Holocaust, but don’t dare touch the leaders who tried to carry out another one."

In their eagerness to condemn Israel, these leaders made a big show of supporting a "rules-based international order." But what international law do they claim to support? The rules they are obligated to follow directly contradict their outrage.

On September 28, 2001, just two weeks after 9/11, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1373 (2001). Adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, it is legally binding on all UN members. This resolution obligates states to:

  • Prevent and Suppress Financing: All member states must prevent and suppress the financing of terrorism, criminalize such activities, and freeze the assets of terrorists.

  • Deny Safe Haven: States must deny safe haven and support to terrorists, and prevent their movement across borders.

  • Improve Cooperation: Governments must cooperate on investigations, extraditions, and mutual legal assistance.

  • Strengthen Domestic Laws: States must strengthen border controls, asylum/refugee screening, and ensure terrorism is prosecutable under national laws.

The bottom line is that Resolution 1373 obligates all UN member states to take concrete steps to deny terrorists financial support, safe havens, and freedom of movement. By giving a pass to a country that hosts and funds the leaders of a designated terrorist organization, these European nations are themselves in breach of international law.

This double standard is also apparent in the United States, even among those who support Israel. In July of last year, Congress recommended in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2025 that the Secretary of Defense submit a report on the operational status of the U.S. Al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar, “taking into account [Qatar's] relationship with Hamas and other terrorist organizations.” The committee noted that:

[Qatar] continues to host Hamas, a designated foreign terrorist organization responsible for the deaths of more than 33 Americans and the kidnapping of 12 Americans on October 7, 2023.

Recognition of the problem with Qatar is not a new phenomenon. A 2009 brief for Admiral Olson on his visit to Qatar noted, "Vast wealth has bolstered political ambitions, leading to Qatari foreign policy initiatives that are often at odds with U.S. objectives, notably Qatar's relationships with Hamas and Syria."

Qatari money and political influence have clearly warped the understanding of international law among many world leaders. In their rush to publicly condemn Israel, these European politicians have not only demonstrated a profound ignorance of their own binding obligations under UN Resolution 1373, but have also shown a troubling willingness to grant terrorists safe haven. When leaders boast of upholding a "rules-based international order" while simultaneously rewarding the very entities that seek to destroy it, their words ring hollow. The true measure of a nation's commitment to international law isn't in its public statements of indignation, but in its willingness to enforce the actual laws against all who break them, without exception.





Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

   
 

 

Thursday, September 11, 2025

Israel's strike against Hamas terrorists living in Qatar brings attention again to that country's ambiguous position as both a mediator with terrorists--and a key financial supporter of them. 

The very nature of Qatari mediation between Israel and Hamas would seem to violate not only common sense but also Arab cultural values. Raphael Patai writes in The Arab Mind on the topic of conflict resolution:
It goes without saying that the mediator must be a person whose impartiality is beyond question, and this means that he must not be more closely related to one side in the dispute than to the other...In sum, the ideal mediator is a man who is in a position, because of his personality, status, respect, wealth influence, and so on to create in the litigants the desire to conform with his wishes. (p. 242-243)
Qatar's partiality is beyond question, and in a purely Arab dispute, such a level of partisanship would be cause for rejecting such a mediator. It is from a Western viewpoint that bringing Qatar in, in place of Egypt, might make sense. The idea would be that Qatar, as the sponsor of the Hamas terrorists, would be the one most able to apply pressure on Hamas and wring the necessary concessions.

Not that there has been any indication of Qatar's willingness or ability to do so.

Two weeks ago, Amichai Chikli, Israeli Minister of Diaspora and Combating Antisemitism, posted a deleted tweet from the editor-in-chief of Qatar's Al-Shark:


The full translation of Al-Harmi's post is:
If the heroes of the Qassam Brigades fail to capture Zionist soldiers this time, the second, third, and fourth attempts will succeed, God willing, by adding new rats to the tally already held by the Brigades' heroes. In today's attempt, during a unique operation, the Qassam heroes stormed a newly constructed military site in Rafah and sent a number of Zionist soldiers to hell and a miserable fate. Others were sent to earthly torment with permanent disabilities and impairments, while others were sent to mental and psychological institutions.
In Qatar, al-Harmi would not have posted this if he didn't think he had the support of the ruling family or at least that they would not oppose it. But under the circumstances, it did seem odd for the "impartial" mediators to publicly delight in the death of the soldiers on one side of the "dispute." Does Qatar really want this war to end?

It was this incongruity in the acceptance of Qatar's role that was supposed to have been emphasized by Israel's strike. Actually, this is the second strike inside Qatar--the first one being Iran's retaliation against the US military base, Al Udeid Air Base, not far from the attack on Hamas. The discordance of an attack on terrorists living freely in the country that both supports Hamas terrorism and is supposedly negotiating with them should make people uncomfortable with the contradiction.

But Qatar's billions have effectively smoothed that over.

There are many reports on the billions of dollars Qatar spends on furthering its influence and polishing its image. Last year, Bloomberg's annual Qatar Economic Forum in Doha featured Donald Trump Jr., among others. Dow Jones, the parent company of the Wall Street Journal, is planning a WSJ Tech Live event in Qatar in December.

Ira Stoll writes that Dow Jones did not respond to questions about its event:
Dow Jones did not reply to questions from The Editors about why it was having an event in a country that Kirchick’s own Wall Street Journal-published piece described as “a theocratic monarchy that is Hamas’s main financial and diplomatic sponsor.” It also didn’t reply to other questions I sent: “Will Israeli companies and businessmen be welcome at the event or will they be banned? Can Dow Jones assure prospective participants that there will be no Hamas terrorist representatives staying at the hotel where the Dow Jones event is taking place? Do you have any concerns about the Qatar-Hamas ties?”
What does it take for the US to become uncomfortable with Qatar?

The Israeli strike on Qatar highlights that country's dual role as both a mediator and a financier of Hamas, exposing a deep contradiction in international diplomacy. While the country positions itself as a neutral broker in negotiations, its support for terrorism—and the public celebrations of violence by media under its aegis—reveal that its impartiality is more performative than real. Israel’s strike underscores the uncomfortable truth: a nation cannot credibly mediate a conflict it is actively fueling. Yet billions in influence and strategic partnerships have allowed Qatar to continue this balancing act largely unchecked. For the US and the international community, the question remains: how long can these contradictions go unchallenged before diplomatic convenience gives way to hard reality?




Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

   
 

 

Wednesday, September 10, 2025

By Daled Amos


When news of Israel's strike on the Hamas leadership in Qatar first came out, the immediate question, of course, was whether the strike was successful: were Hamas leaders killed, and if so, how many? The follow-up question is what effect this strike will have on Hamas, the ceasefire talks, and the attempt to remove the terrorist group from Gaza.

Natalie Ecanow, a Qatar expert at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), was interviewed yesterday on I24 News, and went beyond the immediate repercussions of the strike.

She pointed out how this was a wake-up call for Hamas, warning them that their leaders were no longer safe outside of Gaza. It was a wake-up for the Qataris as well. Today, they were called to account for their double game, where they host a US military base while hosting terrorists not far from there. It could be that today's operation "opened the door for a long overdue reset in the U.S.-Qatar relationship." The first step could be Trump using US leverage to convince Qatar to kick out any remaining Hamas leaders from Qatar.

But any hope for a reset in US-Qatari relationship were apparently quashed by White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt at today's Press Conference:
Unilaterally bombing inside Qatar, a sovereign nation and close ally of the United States that is working very hard in bravely taking risks with us to broker peace, does not advance Israel or America’s goals.

 

Initial assumptions that the Israeli attack, which apparently the US had foreknowledge of, might disrupt the relationship between the US and Qatar now seem to be wishful thinking.

A further question, raised by Jonathan Schanzer on X, however, might still have legs. He wonders aloud whether Turkey, which also hosts Hamas figures, and Oman, which hosts a Houthi headquarters, might consider themselves on notice.

Meanwhile, Mariam Wahba, another member of FDD, suggested that the attack on Qatar could open the door for Egypt to resume its position as chief negotiator between Israel and Hamas--not that Egypt's record on mediation is so fantastic.

But based on Leavitt's comments, Trump clearly wants Qatar to continue in its role as mediator and closed the door on any possibility of Egypt resuming its role as mediator.

It appears that the US is doing its best to contain any fallout from the attack.

If in fact Israel has failed to eliminate any of the Hamas leadership, what in fact has Israel gained?




Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

   
 

 

Monday, September 08, 2025

By Daled Amos



Last weekend brought another strike in the propaganda war against Israel—this time from an association of genocide scholars accusing Israel of the ultimate crime.

On August 31, the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) passed a three-page resolution condemning Israel for genocide:
Recognising that, since the horrific Hamas-led attack of 7 October 2023, which itself constitutes international crimes, the government of Israel has engaged in systematic and widespread crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide, including indiscriminate and deliberate attacks against the civilians and civilian infrastructure (hospitals, homes, commercial buildings, etc.) of Gaza, which, according to official UN estimates, at the date of this resolution, has killed more than 59,000 adults and children in Gaza;
The media ran with it. The Washington Post declared: Israel Is Committing Genocide in Gaza, Leading Scholars’ Association Says  The Guardian proclaimed Israel committing genocide in Gaza, world’s top scholars on the crime say, and the BBC echoed the same line with  Israel committing genocide in Gaza, world's leading experts say. ABC News featured IAGS president Melanie O’Brien, who proudly claimed that 90% of those voting supported the resolution.

Elder of Ziyon was among the first to expose the resolution's flaws. (The "Genocide Scholars" Who Cannot Define Genocide). He noted IAGS's lack of scholarship:

o  IAGS offered no original, independent analysis of its own. Instead, they "outsourced their scholarship on the very subject that they claim to own."
o  They did no fact-checking, accepting Hamas's number for casualties at face value, even though the number does not distinguish between terrorists and civilians.
o  They gave no recognition to serious scholars from the other side of the issue who dismissed the genocide allegations.

Meanwhile, the only IAGS brief addressing Hamas’s own genocidal attack,  Hamas's Genocidal Violence by Sara E. Brown, came with a disclaimer: “The views expressed herein are the authors’ alone and do not represent the views of IAGS.” Apparently, condemning Hamas required distance—unlike condemning Israel.

Then came a bombshell. Writing in The Forward (In the rush to vilify Israel, genocide scholars ignored the truth), Sara Brown revealed how the resolution was rammed through: of 500 members, only 129 voted. Just 108 supported it. That’s 28% of the membership—barely meeting the group’s minimal quorum of 20% plus one.

This resolution declaring what is happening in Gaza as genocide passed by an overwhelming majority far beyond the two thirds majority required. Our membership is global. We also have members who are from survivor communities, so this is a really representative opinion of people who work as experts in the field of genocide studies.
Really? Twenty-eight percent of members voted. That’s not overwhelming—that’s embarrassing. No wonder The Guardian needed to hedge their article with the sub-headline: "International Association of Genocide Scholars resolution backed by 86% of members who voted." 

Brown also exposed the secrecy: no transparency, no debate, no town hall. Leadership even refused to name the resolution’s authors. Meanwhile, IAGS amplified headlines suggesting a massive consensus. This wasn’t scholarship; it was spin. The deliberate blockage of criticism is just one more indication of the lack of real scholarship and professionalism plaguing IAGS. 

Why such sloppy work? Maybe because IAGS isn’t just scholars. As Jewish Insider notes, anyone can join—artists, activists, “others interested in genocide.” In other words: not exactly a panel of legal experts.

This is why the resolution contains a blatant error on international law:

Acknowledging that the International Court of Justice found in three provisional measures order in the case of South Africa v. Israel — January, March, and May 2024 — that it is plausible that Israel is committing genocide in its attack in Gaza and ordered Israel to take all measures within its power to prevent and punish the direct and public incitement of genocide and to ensure the provision of humanitarian assistance to civilians in Gaza;
The president of the ICJ has already publicly debunked that claim:
[The ICJ] did not decide--and this is something where I'm correcting what's often said in the media--it didn't decide that the claim of genocide was plausible. It did emphasize in the order that there was a risk of irreparable harm to the Palestinian right to be protected from genocide, but the shorthand that often appears, which is that there's a plausible case of genocide, isn't what the court decided.

The International Association of Genocide Scholars wants the world to believe its resolution reflects a united, scholarly consensus. It doesn’t. The vote was driven by a small, activist minority relying on Hamas-supplied numbers and misrepresenting international law. When an academic body trades rigor for politics, it doesn’t just fail—it erodes trust in the entire field. 

And the backlash has already begun. Scholars for Truth about Genocide issued a public letter condemning IAGS and demanding a retraction of what they call a “resolution accusing Israel of genocide amid a clear misapplication of law and history.” 





Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

   
 

 

Friday, September 05, 2025

by Daled Amos

(Part of this article originally appeared on JNS.org)

Jordan’s defiance in protecting Ahlam Tamimi—the terrorist who masterminded the 2001 Sbarro Massacre—may be even more appalling than the attack itself. For more than two decades, Jordan has celebrated Tamimi as a hero while rejecting U.S. demands to honor its 1995 extradition treaty and surrender her to face justice. In July 2021, Arnold Roth, whose 15-year-old daughter Malki was murdered in the bombing, posed a painful question in The Free Press: Will Joe Biden Grant My Daughter Justice?
The lives of three U.S. nationals and one unborn American child ended in the Sbarro conflagration. One was a newly married young woman, herself an only child, visiting from New Jersey. She was pregnant with her first baby. Next, a young mother was catastrophically brain-damaged, alive but in a vegetative coma to this day. (The toddler daughter she was eating pizza with survived unharmed and grew up motherless.) And finally, our Malki, an American citizen because her mother is a native New Yorker.
The mother succumbed to her injuries and passed away in 2023.

Jordan defends its refusal to extradite Tamimi to the US, claiming the treaty is not valid and was never ratified. Jordan's claim is bogus.

Roth points out that for more than 20 years, Jordan never denied the validity of the treaty. On the contrary, Jordan has extradited 3 Jordanian terrorists to the US in accordance with the agreement:

  • In 1995, Eyad Ismoil was extradited to the US for his involvement in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

  • In 2006, Mohammad Zaki Amawi was extradited for plotting attacks against US targets. 

  • In 2015, Nader Saadeh was extradited for conspiracy to provide material support to ISIS. Saadeh, along with others, allegedly planned to travel to Syria to join ISIS and engage in terrorist activities.

  • The treaty's validity was further established in 2021, when Roth and his wife sued the US government for documents related to the extradition treaty under the Freedom of Information Act. Among the documents was the declaration by King Hussein to the US government on July 13, 1995, giving his personal guarantee on the treaty:
    With the help of God and His guidance, 
    We, Hussein I, King of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, having reviewed the Extradition Treaty signed in Washington on March 28, 1995 between the Government of the Hashemite [Kingdom] of Jordan and the Government of the United States of America, do hereby declare our agreement to and ratification of that Treaty in whole and in part. We further pledge to carry out its provisions and abide by its Articles, and We, God willing, shall not allow its violation
    Accordingly, we have ordered that Our Seal be affixed to it, and We have signed it properly. 
    Issued on this day the Fifteenth of Safar, 1416 H, corresponding to July 13, 1995, by the Hashemite Court. 
    The Roths received the State Department's authorized Arabic-to-English translation:

     
    It was accompanied by a copy of the Arabic original:


    In past years, there has been political pressure in Washington for extradition, or at least for an explanation of the government's timid acceptance of Jordan's refusal to take action. On March 19, 2019, twenty Congressmen sent a letter to then-Secretary of State Pompeo, requesting the US State Department maintain the extradition of Al-Tamimi as a high priority with the Government of Jordan." On August 22, 2019, Jerry Nadler, then Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, sent a letter to Attorney General William P. Barr, asking that he "provide information regarding the current status of the DOJ's effort to overcome [Jordan's] objections" and that he "resolve this case swiftly." The series of Congressional letters culminated with a letter in April 30, 2020, addressed to the Jordanian ambassador, concluding that "seeing Jordan provide a professed bomber with legal impunity...amounts to a deeply troubling scenario."

    There have been some indications of results from that pressure. On October 1, 2020, Nizar Tamimi, the husband of Ahlam Tamimi, was forced to leave the country when the government refused to renew his residency permit. He currently resides in Qatar, while his wife stays in Jordan.

    Pressure on the Trump Administration was also evident last month, during the State Department Press Briefing on July 22nd. Mike Wagenheim, the senior US correspondent for I24 News, asked:
    Number one, Justice Department officials held a discussion on Thursday with the parents of Malki Roth, the American citizen who was murdered with two others in the Sbarro bombing in Jerusalem back in 2001. The discussion centered around the possible extradition of Jordanian national Ahlam Tamimi. The Jordanians get a billion and a half dollars a year in foreign aid. Democratic and Republican administrations have skated by on this extradition issue for a decade and a half now at least. What’s preventing Secretary Rubio from pushing the Jordanians to finally go through with this extradition?
    Spokesperson Tammy Bruce promised to get more information. Two days later, Wagenheim was back:
    Last question for you. Hopefully I’ll drag an answer out of you on this one. I asked in Tuesday’s briefing about why Secretary Rubio is not pushing harder for the extradition of Ahlam al-Tamimi from Jordan. I was given a written answer by the State Department on that yesterday, after you guys took it back. It basically said we continue to impress upon the Government of Jordan to bring her to justice.

    President Trump said on day one – his executive order – American citizens come first in American foreign policy, America and American citizens. Secretary Rubio put out his three questions. Every dollar spent, every program has to answer in the affirmative one of three questions: Does it make America safer? Does it make America stronger? Does it make America more prosperous? I’m sure you have these memorized by heart. A billion and a half dollars of foreign aid to Jordan – how is it conceivable that Tamimi is still there and any of that falls under these dictates of what American foreign policy is supposed to be, with three dead Americans at Tamimi’s hands?
    Deputy spokesperson Thomas Pigott responded that the US "has continually emphasized" to Jordan that Tamimi has to be held accountable and that the US "continues to impress" upon them that she should be brought to justice--not the kind of pressure Wagenheim was asking about.

    But more concrete steps are being discussed. On July 17, the Roths met with Jeanine Pirro, the US Attorney for the District of Columbia, who plays a key role in extraditions, in a video conference. They have yet to meet with the Secretary of State in their pursuit of justice, though they did meet with US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee on May 13 during a private meeting at the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem on May 13, when they presented him with a petition with over 30,000 signatures urging more pressure on Jordan. 

    August 9th marked the 24th anniversary of the Sbarro Massacre.

    For years, Tamimi’s continued freedom has been a blatant symbol of impunity and a painful affront to the victims’ families. Lately, we are again seeing signs of pressure being applied to the Trump Administration. The recent involvement of the U.S. Attorney’s office, continued high-level meetings, and public pressure signal a possible shift and a re-energizing of the push to finally hold Jordan accountable for its obligations. It’s time to put aid on the line and force Jordan to choose between Tamimi and $1.5 billion.





    Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon!

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

    PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

       
     

     

    Tuesday, August 12, 2025

    By Daled Amos

    As if to illustrate the saying "fools rush in..." Australia announced this week that it will join France, Great Britain, and Canada in recognizing a Palestinian state during the UN General Assembly’s annual session next month:
    Prime Minister Anthony Albanese of Australia said on Monday that the move was “part of a coordinated global effort building momentum for a two-state solution.”

    He said Australia’s recognition would be “predicated” on “detailed and significant” commitments he had received from the Palestinian Authority’s leader, Mahmoud Abbas, to demilitarize, hold general elections and ensure that Hamas plays no role in a future Palestinian state.
    Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese


    Like the others, Albanese also claimed that he had the commitment and support of Abbas to make this work, or--in the case of Great Britain's prime minister--an outright ultimatum to Israel:

    * Australia's Albanese claims to have commitments from Abbas to demilitarize, hold general elections, and ensure that Hamas plays no role in a future Palestinian state. (As if Abbas has the wherewithal to remove Hamas from the equation in Gaza.)

    * Canada's Carney conditions recognition on Palestinian political reform, Hamas’s exclusion from Palestinian elections, and a demilitarized state. (But who is he expecting to guarantee that Hamas has no further role in Gaza--let alone in the West Bank, where Hamas has significant influence?)

    France's Macron promises recognition, with a mere reminder to Abbas of his commitments to reform. (Not surprisingly, Secretary of State Rubio revealed last Friday that “Talks with Hamas fell apart on the day Macron made the unilateral decision that he’s going to recognize the Palestinian state.")

    * Great Britain's Starmer frames the recognition of a Palestinian state as an outright threat--against Israel. He claims he will withdraw that recognition if Israel takes “substantive steps” to remedy Gaza’s “appalling situation,” agrees to a cease-fire, and commits to peace. (He demands none of these things of Hamas.) 


    Recently, international lawyer Natasha Hausdorff critiqued Starmer's decision in an interview with Patrick Christy on GBNews Online. She debunked Starmer's claim that Palestinian Arabs have an "inalienable right" to a state. It is a criticism that applies to Starmer's buddies as well:
    You cannot will a state into existence. And it's important to state that Keir Starmer is wrong, absolutely wrong on the international law when he talks about a supposed "inalienable right" of the Palestinians to a state. There is no such thing. If there was a right to statehood under international law, the Kurds would have a state. There'd be many hundreds more states.
    In a second interview, Hausdorff addressed two legal problems that are less often discussed. First of all, granting a state to the Palestinian Arabs is, by its very nature, an attack on Israel's sovereignty. Both Gaza and "Yehuda & Shomron" were initially part of the British Mandate. Their conquest by Egypt and Jordan was not accepted as legal by the international community. (Keep in mind that the off-handed way Starmer and others suggest acknowledging a Palestinian state leaves the status of East Jerusalem--and by extension the Kotel--in doubt.)

    She adds:
    [I]t would also fly completely in the face of the Oslo accords, which the United Kingdom endorsed, as did many other international players. [It] provided very clearly that after certain territory was given to the Palestinian authority to have an autonomy given by Israel, that any change to borders or any change to the status of the territory would only arise from a bilateral negotiated final status settlement. That piece of paper that the UK endorsed is simply being torn up as a result of these proposals for recognition. And it leaves us with a very difficult position where Israel's not going to be in a position to trust any agreement it enters with international backing and international guarantees if it can be so readily thrown out of the window

    Hausdorff is not alone in pointing out how the decision to recognize a Palestinian state violates international law. The British jurist Malcolm Shaw KC points out that the 1933 Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States identifies the four basic requirements for statehood:

    A permanent population.
    o  A defined territory.
    o  A government.
    o  The capacity to enter into relations with other states. 

    Of these four requirements, the proposed Palestinian state only meets the first requirement. In their rush to recognize a state, world leaders are ignoring the failure of 3 basic conditions necessary for a sovereign state. Shaw notes:

    o  “its territorial extent is undetermined”
    o  “there is no effective single government authority over the whole of the territory”
    o  “the capacity of the [Palestinian Authority] to conduct formal legal relations with other entities, including States, is hampered by the terms of the Oslo Accords, which [are] still binding upon the parties.” 

    The Executive Council of Australian Jewry put it another way, noting that these leaders are advocating the recognition of “an entity with no agreed borders, no single government in effective control of its territory, and no demonstrated capacity to live in peace with its neighbors.

    One can understand how Great Britain and France cannot help themselves. Not so long ago, they were significant colonial powers that saw the Middle East as their playground. But one would have thought that Canada and Australia, with their history, would understand the folly of playing games with other people's states.

    But who knows, maybe this call for recognition is a con?

    Maybe these politicians calling for a state actually understand that their calls for a Palestinian state are filled with legal hot air--and are patting themselves on the back on how they are cleverly mollifying their citizens. But in the process, they are encouraging Hamas terrorists and delaying the very resolution of this war they loudly claim to be working for. 





    Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon!

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

    PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

       
     

     

    AddToAny

    Printfriendly

    EoZTV Podcast

    Podcast URL

    Subscribe in podnovaSubscribe with FeedlyAdd to netvibes
    addtomyyahoo4Subscribe with SubToMe

    search eoz

    comments

    Speaking

    translate

    E-Book

    For $18 donation








    Sample Text

    EoZ's Most Popular Posts in recent years

    Search2

    Hasbys!

    Elder of Ziyon - حـكـيـم صـهـيـون



    This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For 20 years and 40,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.

    Donate!

    Donate to fight for Israel!

    Monthly subscription:
    Payment options


    One time donation:

    Follow EoZ on Twitter!

    Interesting Blogs

    Blog Archive