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

Monday, June 03, 2024

Whose Ceasefire Is It Anyway? (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos


On Friday, President Biden announced a ceasefire plan that would end the fighting in Gaza, release all the hostages, ensure Israel's security, and create a better Gaza after the war without Hamas. 




Problems With The Proposal

There are some potential sticking points in just in Phase One alone:
o  The release of Hamas hostages would be "in exchange for the release of hundreds of Palestinian prisoners" -- that alone could break the plan since these would likely be terrorists and Hamas would insist on the release of terrorists with blood on their hands.

o  Humanitarian assistance would surge with 600 trucks carrying aid into Gaza every single day -- no mention of the need for Hamas to stop interfering with the aid, but then again Biden is not going to point fingers.

o  According to Biden, "if the negotiations take longer than six weeks for phase one, the ceasefire will still continue as long as negotiations continue." On the one hand, this effectively ties Israel's hands as long as Hamas drags out negotiations, as Biden says, "There are a number of details to negotiate to move from phase one to phase two."

The Part Biden Leaves Out

The only thing that Biden leaves out is where Hamas gets to declare victory--after all, even though Biden claims at the outset that this proposal "creates a better 'day after' in Gaza without Hamas in power," he never addresses how that works. Instead, Biden claims that continuing the war "will not bring an enduring defeat of Hamas. That will not bring Israel lasting security." 

What will?

We have to work to reform the PA in the West Bank, which is ongoing and to having an interim administration in Gaza that can help with stabilization and pathway forward th
What kind of "reform" he is talking about is anybody's guess. Is Hamas going to step aside and relinquish power? Like Hezbollah?

More likely Hamas will continue to have power in Gaza. Back in March, Hamas assassinated the head of the Doghmush clan, one of the most powerful in Gaza, to keep them from vying for power in a reconstructed Gaza.

Hamas is not going anywhere. So the best that Biden can offer in his public statement is to claim that Israel can go forward:
without any further risk to their own security because they’ve devastated Hamas forces over the past eight months. At this point, Hamas no longer is capable of carrying out another October 7th, — one of the Israelis’ main objective in this war and, quite frankly, a righteous one.
No longer "capable"? Isn't that what they once said about Al Qaeda and ISIS?
Biden cannot guarantee Israel's security with a proposal like this.

Whose Ceasefire Is It Anyway?

Can it be that Israel offered a plan that allows Hamas to likely stay in power and live to fight and kill and kidnap another day--as they have already promised?

It seems that though Biden talked about "my efforts," "my negotiators," "my team," and "my many conversations," he does admit that "Israel has offered a comprehensive new proposal."

But on Twitter, Obama supported Biden's plan:
Today, President Biden put forward a clear, realistic and just plan to establish an immediate ceasefire and end the war in Gaza - a plan that ensures Israel’s security, returns hostages taken on October 7th to their families, increases aid into Gaza and relieves the suffering of Palestinian civilians, and engages Israelis, Palestinians, Arab countries and the broader international community in the process of rebuilding Gaza...I am deeply encouraged by the steady, tireless efforts of President Biden, Secretary of State Tony Blinken and our diplomatic team to bring this awful war to an end.
Obama supports the plan and Biden's efforts. 
So it's Israel's plan and Biden gets to take a victory lap.

But maybe it's not really Israel's plan after all. CNN reports:
Israel’s four-and-a-halfpage proposal was submitted to Hamas on Thursday evening, a US senior administration official said, and matches closely a deal the group itself recently proposed. 

“It’s nearly identical to Hamas’ own proposals of only a few weeks ago. So if that’s what Hamas wants, they can take the deal,” the official said.
So maybe it's both of their plans? According to Nadav Eyal of Yediot Ahronot, it's Israel's plan, but with one major change:


So it is Israel's plan, or at least one they both agree to, except that Netanyahu never agreed to indefinite negotiations.

And that is why Netanyahu "reiterated that Israel would not agree to a permanent cease-fire in Gaza as long as Hamas still retains governing and military power."

So all the pressure is on Israel to allow for a ceasefire that likely keeps Hamas in power, while the terrorists who slaughtered and kidnapped Israelis and have promised to keep doing exactly that, make no promises, no concessions, and get to claim victory as they continue to rule in Gaza.

When you put it like that, it kind of sounds like Biden's deal after all.

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!
 

 

Tuesday, May 28, 2024

Moses Mendelssohn Faced 18th-Century Wokeism (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

A few weeks ago, I came across an article, The Logic Puzzle You Can Only Solve with Your Brightest Friend.

I was not interested in the puzzle, but the image illustrating the article caught my eye.
It was this painting:



There was no explanation of the painting, but I recognized the person to the left, Moses Mendelssohn, the German-Jewish philosopher and theologian who lived during the 17th-century Enlightenment. He won a prize offered by the Berlin Academy for an essay on the application of mathematical proofs to metaphysics, beating out Immanuel Kant, who came in second. 

According to Google Gemini, there are some points of comparison between the Enlightenment then and Wokeism today.
o  Critical examination of power structures: Both movements challenge existing power structures and dominant ideologies. The Enlightenment questioned the absolute authority of the church and monarchy, while wokeism critiques social inequalities and systemic biases.

o  Emphasis on equality: Both movements promote ideas of equality and justice. The Enlightenment stressed universal human rights, while wokeism focuses on social justice issues like racial equality and LGBTQ+ rights.
And, of course, there are differences:
o  Universality vs. Identity: Enlightenment thinkers often believed in universal values that applied to all people. Wokeism often emphasizes identity politics and the experiences of marginalized groups.

o  Tone: The Enlightenment emphasized optimism and progress. Wokeism can sometimes be seen as more critical and focused on dismantling existing systems.
You can get a sense of the Enlightenment by looking at the two other people in the picture.
Here is the complete painting:


It is by Moritz Daniel Oppenheim and is a rendition of an imaginary conversation between
Mendelssohn, Gotthold Lessing, and Johann Lavate, who were all contemporaries.

Lessing (standing in the background) was a German philosopher, dramatist, publicist, and art critic. He was a friend of Mendelssohn and was the author of the play, Nathan The Wise, which expressed his views in favor of religious tolerance.

Johann Lavater was a Swiss poet, writer, philosopher, physiognomist, and theologian. As a physiognomist, Lavater wrote that Jewish features were a sign of “neither generosity, nor tenderness, nor elevation of mind.”  

So much for enlightenment.

Lavater was, however, an admirer of Mendelssohn, and described Mendelssohn as “a companionable, brilliant soul, with piercing eyes, the body of an Aesop—a man of keen insight, exquisite taste, and wide erudition...frank and open-hearted.” I


In 1769 Lavater read a book by the Swiss scientist and philosopher Charles Bonnet, Palingenesis. Bonnet intended his book for Christians, to strengthen their belief in the immortality of the soul. But Lavater saw the book as a proof of Christianity addressed to non-Christians. Lavater translated parts of the book from French into German and published it as Investigation of the Proofs for Christianity. 

He went further and wrote a dedication to Mendelssohn, challenging him to either refute Bonnet’s argument or do “what Socrates would have done if he had read [Bonnet’s work] and found it irrefutable.”

That put Mendelssohn in a bind, comparable to what the Ramban faced in 1263 when he was required to defend Judaism in a public debate with church officials. In that debate, Ramban had to win without at the same time denigrating Christianity. But for Mendelssohn, winning would require refuting the proofs in Bonnet's book and by definition could be seen as an insult to Christianity. And just refusing to respond to the challenge would be just as bad as a loss, calling the sincerity of Mendelssohn's commitment to Judaism into question.

In the letter, he turns the tables on Lavater by contrasting Lavater’s intolerant Christianity with tolerant Judaism. For Mendelssohn, while Christianity is a missionizing religion, according to which the only way to go to heaven is by believing in the divinity of Jesus, Judaism does not seek converts. Instead, it holds that anyone can go to heaven who observes the universal laws of rational morality, called the “Noahide laws.”

At the end of the letter, Mendelssohn notes that although he has avoided responding to Bonnet’s arguments out of concern for the deleterious effects of such a critique—both to himself and to society as a whole—he had written a response to Bonnet’s arguments in the form of a document called “Counter-Reflections to Bonnet’s Palingenesis,” which, if pressed, he would publish.

That was the end of the matter. A few years later, in 1775, when the Swiss-German Jews faced expulsion, Mendelssohn was able to intervene by turning to Lavater, who secured their stay.

Lavater's plan was mild compared with what Konstantin Petrovich Pobedonostsev had in mind a century later. A Russian statesman and jurist, Pobedonostsev was famous for his formula for how to deal with the Jews of Russia -- and conversion was not one of the options:
One-third will die, one third will leave the country, and the last third will be completely assimilated within the Russian people.
Just as anti-Zionism is a form of antisemitism and mirrors it, today enemies of Israel have taken up the advice of Pobedonostsev and applied it to Israel --

Some enemies of Israel seek to attack and kill Israelis, seeking a two-state solution to facilitate that.
Others claim that the Jews of Israel should leave and return to Poland.
And then some suggest a one-state solution under which Israel would cease to exist.

In his day, Mendelssohn faced challenges presented in the name of enlightenment.
Those pale in comparison to what Jews face today in the name of wokeism.


Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!
 

 

Monday, May 27, 2024

ICJ: The Madness To Their Method -- Why They Can't Write In Plain English (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

In January, the International Court of Justice gave its first decision regarding the Gaza War. The Media headlines tended to declare something like this one (still) on the NPR website:


But did the ICJ really hand down a ruling that Israel was likely guilty of genocide?
Not according to Joan Donoghue, the President of the ICJ from September 13, 2010 till February 6, 2024:


So according to Donoghue:

[The ICJ] 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 is a plausible case of genocide isn't what the court decided.

Let the lawyers -- the real ones, not the ones who play them on social media -- break down the implications of that formulation.  But the fact remains that the ICJ did not find Israel guilty of genocide.

Last week, the ICJ handed down a second ruling, this one addressing Israel's military operation in Rafah.

Again, the media had a field day, with headlines like this one from The New York Times:
But again, the question is what did the ICJ actually rule?
The key issue is paragraph 2(a) of the operative clause, where the Court declared that Israel must:
Immediately halt its military offensive, and any other action in the Rafah Governorate, which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.
For all the fanfare in the media headlines, some argue -- including among the ICJ judges themselves -- that the ICJ in fact did not rule that Israel must stop its operations in Rafah: 

This raises a question: considering the ambiguity we saw in the ICJ's first decision about whether Israel's actions in Gaza amount to genocide and now in this second decision where there is ambiguity in the ruling whether Israel must stop what it is doing in Rafah -- why can't the ICJ speak in plain English?

After all, the ICJ was crystal clear when it gave a ruling about Russia's invasion of Ukraine. In an article about this lack of clarity, the group UK Lawyers For Israel pointed out that this current ambiguity

is further underlined by comparison with the unqualified Order made in the Ukraine/ Russia case on 16 March 2022, which directed:
“The Russian Federation shall immediately suspend the military operations that it commenced on 24 February 2022 in the territory of Ukraine”.
That seems straightforward enough, and we had none of the disagreements over the intention of the ICJ that we see now.

So what is going on?

Juliette McIntyre, a lecturer in Law at the University of South Australia, offers a possible explanation. She writes that the equivocation of the ruling is not meant to help Israel. Quite the opposite:
the Court may have been driven by a desire to convince as many Judges as possible to vote in favour of the Order, at the cost of issuing a clearer and more straightforward directive. Quite possibly, the Court has deliberately adopted a phrasing which can be interpreted more than one way in order to get the decision across the line. [emphasis added]
The vagueness of the language was deliberately used to get as much of a consensus as possible among the judges so that a judgment could be made:
Israel can argue that it has complied with the Order if it continues military operations in a way which does not inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part. But equally, South Africa can argue that Israel has failed to comply with the Order if it continues its military operation in Rafah at all...

But this hardly qualifies as a decree of Solomonic proportions. This is a question of law, and not law of a theoretical nature either. It is not a question of inches as in other cases in which the ICJ has been called upon to rule:

this is not a maritime boundary delimitation where equidistance can be imposed in pursuit of impartiality. This Order is a demand, of Israel, to take certain concrete steps. It is unfair to Israel to be unclear in what is expected of it, and it is potentially ruinous for the people of Rafah should interpretation A be applied when interpretation B was intended.
In other words, because of the ICJ's insistence on consensus at all costs -- the ICJ has failed and everybody loses.



Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!
 

 

Tuesday, May 21, 2024

Why Did Chief Prosecutor Khan Of The ICC Back Out Of His Meeting With The Israeli Government? (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

On Monday, Karim Khan -- the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court -- announced he was going to seek arrest warrants for both Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, in addition to the top three leaders of Hamas: Yahya Sinwar, Mohammed Deif, and Ismail Haniyeh. 




Netanyahu condemned the implied comparison of Israel with the Hamas terrorists, calling it part of the "new antisemitism" appearing on college campuses and now apparently making its way to the Hague. Biden called Khan's decision "outrageous." In Europe, opinions were divided.

o  Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(b)(xxv) of the Statute;
o  Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health contrary to article 8(2)(a)(iii), or cruel treatment as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i);
o  Wilful killing contrary to article 8(2)(a)(i), or Murder as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i);
o  Intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population as a war crime contrary to articles 8(2)(b)(i), or 8(2)(e)(i);
o  Extermination and/or murder contrary to articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(a), including in the context of deaths caused by starvation, as a crime against humanity;
o  Persecution as a crime against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(h);
o  Other inhumane acts as crimes against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(k).
Announcing the indictments that way seems unusual. Globes reports that Khan has a sterling reputation:
Khan is very highly respected in the international legal community, and is considered professional, serious, and fair. He made his decision together with two advisers with high reputations whom he co-opted to his team in the past few months: US lawyer Brenda Hollis, and Andrew Cayley, formerly the chief military prosecutor in the UK.
But his appearance on CNN was more than an issue of a lack of professionalism.



The Times of Israel also quoted Blinken, who referred to Khan's pulling out of the pre-arranged meeting without prior notice as provoking "deeply troubling process questions." Blinken continued:
Fundamentally, this decision does nothing to help and could jeopardize, ongoing efforts to reach a ceasefire agreement that would get hostages out and surge humanitarian assistance in, which are the goals the United States continues to pursue relentlessly.
This goes beyond international law and jurisdiction.

The Jerusalem Post suggests that either Israel's entry into Rafah or the harsh words from the US precipitated the actions of the ICC. But if so, why didn't the Hamas massacre of 1,200 Israelis and the kidnapping of 240 hostages cause Khan to spring into action?

One of the issues surrounding whether the ICC has jurisdiction is the concept of complementarity, that the ICC is the court of last resort. Only when a nation's authorities are unwilling or unable to prosecute alleged war crimes can the ICC step in.

Complementarity, however, requires a deferral to national authorities only when they engage in independent and impartial judicial processes that do not shield suspects and are not a sham. It requires thorough investigations at all levels addressing the policies and actions underlying these applications.
Is he claiming that Israel is failing to investigate these issues?

Israel has trained lawyers who advise commanders and a robust system intended to ensure compliance with international humanitarian law.

The State Department's May 10 report to Congress also pointed out:

Israel’s own concern about such incidents is reflected in the fact it has a number of internal investigations underway. At the same time, it is also important to emphasize that a country’s overall commitment to IHL is not necessarily disproven by individual IHL violations, so long as that country is taking appropriate steps to investigate and where appropriate determine accountability for IHL violations. As this report notes, Israel does have a number of ongoing, active criminal investigations pending and there are hundreds of cases under administrative review.
Is Khan claiming that such investigations only meet the complementary criteria if the country leader himself is being specifically investigated?

Regardless of his "professionalism," Chief Prosecutor Khan has already created questions about his objectivity in this case and whether he can rise above politics.


Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!
 

 

Friday, May 17, 2024

In Response To The October 7 Massacre, Blinken Suggested Israel Settle For A Cease-Fire -- He Still Does (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos



After the October 7th massacre, when Hamas murdered over 1,200 Israelis and kidnapped  240, US Secretary of State Blinken went on Twitter to suggest a ceasefire.

He may have realized later how grotesque the idea was because Blinken later deleted the tweet:


At least Blinken acknowledges the need for Israel to get back the hostages.

But in the first tweet, he suggests a ceasefire, meaning that Israel would have to negotiate with the Hamas terrorists in order to get the hostages "released," meaning Israel should come to terms with the terrorists that killed over a thousand people and kidnapped 240 hostages? We know that such negotiations would require the release of terrorists, likely with blood on their hands, from Israeli prisons. That makes Blinken's suggestion of a ceasefire all the more obscene.

What about Blinken's revised tweet?

He agrees that Israel "has the right to defend itself...and protect its citizens." That could refer to passive defense, like Iron Dome, as opposed to the approval of military action. But to say that Israel has the right to "rescue any hostages" -- that does sound like military action.

So what is US policy?

Now that the US is delaying the delivery of the weapons Israel needs to deliver a decisive blow to Hamas in  Rafah, we have our answer. Blinken originally suggested in October a solution that allowed Hamas terrorists to survive to fight -- and slaughter -- another day. And that is the policy the US is following now. Blinken has even threatened that the US will hold back additional military aid.

This past Sunday, Blinken went a step further. 

On Meet The Press, he declared that Israel cannot hope to defeat Hamas, and the best Israel can hope for is to demilitarize the terrorist group. He demanded Israel develop "credible plans for security, for governance, for rebuilding." Considering how Hamas has been able to arm itself over the years despite Israel's best efforts, it is not clear just how Blinken expects Israel to do that. Blinken has apparently forgotten what he said when he visited Israel in October:
No country can or would tolerate the slaughter of its citizens or simply return to the conditions that allowed it to take place. Israel has the right, indeed the obligation, to defend itself and to ensure that this never happens again.

That was then. But now he insists that Israel has no choice but to live with Hamas and its threat to create more October 7th's. So what does the US want: to eliminate the threat of Hamas or to have a ceasefire?

Apparently, the goal is to weaken Hamas so severely that it can never again attack Israel -- but at the same time, allow Hamas to remain in Gaza in some form when all of the fighting is over.

Which sounds crazier: the idea that Hamas will remain in Gaza in a demilitarized form -- or that the terrorist group will actually go along with the idea?

"But the American source said there are some in the administration and in Arab capitals who believe that Hamas will be willing to formally withdraw from governing responsibilities in Gaza if it is part of a reconciliation deal with PA President Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah movement.
The more the idea is described, the crazier it sounds: a reconciliation between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority?
This would likely mean a degree of Hamas approval of the individuals tapped to lead the transitional Palestinian government in Gaza, but the American source said that no Hamas members would be allowed in the government."
Remember when the experts said Hamas having control was a good thing because having responsibility would be a moderating influence? Now the experts think that Hamas will voluntarily relinquish all power and influence in the government and will sit back while Abbas and the PA take the reins.

Is no one paying attention?

Magid points out that if you look at Afghanistan, not the US's proudest moment, the Taliban demonstrated "the proven ability of once-decimated extremist groups to regroup, rebuild and reconquer territory from more moderate forces once an external powerful military pulls out."

And if you think that keeping Hamas out of the government is the answer, all you have to do is look at Hezbollah, "where the terror group is not formally part of the government, but holds massive influence over its decision-making and is the most powerful military force in the country."

The same thinking that allowed Iran to grow as a threat to Israel has turned its attention to Hamas. And it will allow nothing to stand in its way.



Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!
 

 

Friday, May 10, 2024

Norman Finkelstein Advised BDS; Now He Is Advising The Campus Protests At Columbia (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos


In 2012, a video of Norman Finkelstein made the rounds. It was touted as a rebuttal of the BDS movement by Finkelstein, which is odd since he makes it very clear  he fully supports BDS.

Here is what Finkelstein had to say:
  


YouTube provides a transcript of the video, here edited for brevity and clarity:
I've earned my right to speak my mind, and I'm not going to tolerate what I think is silliness, childishness, and a lot of leftist posturing.

I mean we have to be honest, and I loathe the disingenuous. They don't want Israel. They think they are being very clever; they call it their "three-tier":
o  We want the end of the occupation,
o  We want the right of return
o  We want equal rights for Arabs in Israel. 
And they think they are very clever because they know the result of implementing all three is what, what is the result? You know and I know what is the result. There's no Israel! 
Finkelstein's first point is that the BDS movement's claim of using peaceful, non-violent means toward an equitable solution is just a front, a lie. The goal of BDS is not a two-state solution; the goal of BDS is the elimination of the state of Israel, 

How successful has the BDS movement been in spreading its false narrative? According to Finkelstein, not very. But he has a solution:
Israel says no, the BDS movement is not really talking about rights. They're talking about how they want to destroy Israel. And, in fact, I think Israel is right; I think that's true. I'm not going to lie. But this kind of duplicity and disingenuous by BDS, "Oh, we're agnostic about Israel." No, you're not agnostic! You don't want it! Then just say it!

But they know full well: If you say it, you don't have a prayer reaching a broad public. Because that's where the public is right now. I support the BDS. But I said it will never reach a broad public until and unless they're explicit on their goal. And their goal has to include the recognition of Israel or it's a nonstarter...They won't mention it because they know it will split the movement. Cause there's a large segment of the movement that wants to eliminate Israel.

The BDS movement's dishonesty is their refusal to admit their goal to eliminate Israel. They know that broad public opinion supports Israel, its defense, and its security. Coming out publicly and calling for Israel's destruction -- back in 2012 -- would have been absurd. As Finkelstein saw it, the only option for the movement was to acknowledge the two-state solution. BDS would have to actually recognize Israel's right to exist. But like Finkelstein, Omar Barghouti -- the face of BDS -- admitted that the two-state solution is "the big white elephant in the room...a return for refugees would end Israel’s existence as a Jewish state."

Times have changed.

In 2024, just twelve years after Finkelstein's video, those who seek Israel's destruction don't seem to care about public opinion. They are emboldened, aggressive, and well-funded. They protest openly with their chants, tents, and increasingly violent attacks on Jews both on university campuses and on city streets.

They are more brazen.

But the fact that these protestors don't care about public opinion is not because they are changing it. An article in the Wall Street Journal last week made it clear that US opinion still favors Israel:
A CAPS/Harris survey finds 80% of Americans side with Israel against Hamas. Pollster Mark Penn told the Hill that figure has “not budged” since campus protests began. Seventy-eight percent say Hamas must be removed from running Gaza; 67% say Israel is trying to avoid casualties; a majority in every group 35 and up says a cease-fire should happen only after Hamas has released hostages and been removed from power. Few Americans feel a connection to indulged college students directing invectives at Jews and erecting “intifada halls.”
And where is Norman Finkelstein?

Finkelstein can be found advising the protestors, just like he did when he offered his advice to the BDS movement back in 2012. And he thinks times have changed:
[He] advised the protesters to reconsider the use of slogans that can be used against them. Finkelstein went to Columbia to praise the students for raising public consciousness about the Palestinian cause but he advised them “to adjust to the new political reality that there are large numbers of people, probably a majority, who are potentially receptive to your message.”
Norman Finkelstein at Columbia (YouTube screencap)


Finkelstein is still going around giving advice on how to fine-tune the anti-Israel message. But now, he is no longer concerned with sounding more accepting of Israel and its existence. Contrary to the CAPS/Harris survey, Finkelstein thinks public opinion is now more open to the anti-Israel message than it was twelve years ago. And because of that possibility, he advises that the students eschew chants that advocate outright for the destruction of Israel.

And how was Finkelstein's advice about toning down the chants received?
Once Finkelstein has finished speaking, a protester took the microphone and led a chant of “from the river to the sea”.
A student protestor explained that he respected Finkelstein, but “this is not a top-down movement. We cannot dictate slogans from the top down. We can’t tell people you can say this, you can’t say that."

Based on what we have seen of students who don't know what "from the river to the sea" means, of students who cannot explain what they are protesting for, of non-students who are organizing the protests and left-wing groups providing funding -- we know that the idea that this is a grassroots movement is absurd.

But the degree of violence and willingness to harass Jews on a personal level seem to put this new agenda beyond what Finkelstein can influence.


Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!
 

 

Thursday, May 02, 2024

Is Columbia University A Model Of How To Deal With The Protestors? (Daled Amos)

 by Daled Amos

Meet Columbia University President Minouche Shafik:



At the very least, Shafik did not seem to be quite as tongue-tied and did end up trying to defend antisemitism.

But she did not come across as being in control of the university.

Yet, by Tuesday she seemed to handle the demonstrations and encampments better than some other universities did.

For example, The New York Times optimistically reported: At Brown, a Rare Agreement Between Administrators and Protesters.

Some agreement!
“Although the encampment will end, organizing to ensure that the Brown administration fulfills our calls to act on divestment will continue until the corporation vote in October,” the Brown Divest Coalition said in a statement on Tuesday.

“This feels like a real moment of realizing our collective power,” said Rafi Ash, a sophomore at Brown who participated in the protests. “This is something that demonstrates that the mobilization of the student body can force the university to listen.”
In other words, the University will have five permanent scholarships for students and two visiting Palestinian faculty in perpetuity, given that they can find a donor, which shouldn’t be hard if Qatar is around.

The National Review reports that Northwestern caved on other demands as well: 

Other concessions in the deal Schill and the rest of Northwestern’s leadership struck with the encampment occupants — one of whom assaulted a student journalist attempting to take video — include student oversight of the university’s partnerships with suppliers and the investment of its endowment.

“The University will include students in a process dedicated to implementing broad input on University dining services, including residential and retail vendors on campus,” Northwestern’s leadership wrote, as well as forming a committee on “investment responsibility” with “representation from students, faculty, and staff.”
Compare that to Columbia, where the university seemed to take a strong stand, calling in the NYPD who cleared out the protestors who had barricaded themselves inside Hamilton Hall. Nothing like the timid university president above who, like others who testified before Congress before her, appeared indecisive on how to protect the students, especially Jews, who are her responsibility.

But look at the Message From the President, where Shafik describes how "patient" the board had been with what she admits were "unauthorized demonstrations." As it turned out, the fact that the university made no concessions had nothing to do with any determination or strength of will on the part of the school. Instead, the demonstrators didn't get the concessions that Brown and Northwestern did because they overplayed their hand. 

Shafik writes:
The University offered to consider new proposals on divestment and shareholder activism, to review access to our dual degree programs and global centers, to reaffirm our commitment to free speech, and to launch educational and health programs in Gaza and the West Bank. Some other universities have achieved agreement on similar proposals.
Now that they see that other universities were forced to make major concessions, will the students quietly return to the classrooms and finish the school year? The university president thinks so, suggesting that the students "will use the weeks ahead to restore calm, allow students to complete their academic work, and honor their achievements at Commencement."

But in that same message, Shafik suggests that the disruption and destruction that Columbia has faced is not the work of the students alone, but rather "outside activists."

She may have a point.

Jonathan Schanzer, Senior Vice President of Research for the. Foundation for Defense of Democracies confirmed the influence of these outside activists during the Monday edition of his FDD Morning Brief. Here is a short excerpt that he tweeted:


In a nutshell:

Hat tip: Ian

Several agitators busted Tuesday night when police raided encampments at Columbia University and the City College of New York are seasoned anti-Israel protesters who don’t even attend the Big Apple schools.
If Shafik and Schanzer are right, and there are external influences (let alone outside funding) at play here, how can the university president be sure that the worst is over? At Columbia and other universities, the protestors have gotten away with too much for too long.

Equally worrying is that in her message, Shafik makes no mention of Jews, Israel, or October 7. She and the trustees ignore the context of the protests, convincing themselves that they are dealing with a reawakening of the 1960's.
Columbia has a long and proud tradition of protest and activism on many important issues such as the Vietnam War, civil rights, and the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa. Today’s protesters are also fighting for an important cause, for the rights of Palestinians and against the humanitarian tragedy in Gaza. They have many supporters in our community and have a right to express their views and engage in peaceful protest.
Columbia University has no idea what is happening or what they are dealing with.


Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!
 

 

Thursday, April 25, 2024

Good To Know: Terrorists of PFLP and Hamas Support Student Protests At @Columbia (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

You know the students of Columbia University are being repressed when Palestinian terrorists come out to declare their support for them.

Joe Truzman, a senior analyst for the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, tweeted Wednesday morning that Hamas came out in support of Columbia students:


Who knew that the same Hamas terrorists who slaughtered over 1,200 Israelis and took over 200 hostages -- many of whom died in captivity -- had a soft spot for individual human rights.





Apparently, Al Qaeda and ISIS were not available for comment.

But the Palestinian Front for the Liberation of Palestine was!
And the PFLP was just as outraged as Hamas.





Eitan Fischberger, who posted this on Twitter has a point: The PFLP claims to have students on the Columbia campus in some capacity. What does that mean? 

What involvement, if any, do the Palestinian terrorists of the PFLP have at Columbia?

Radical anti-Israel activists told Columbia students, “There is nothing wrong with being a fighter in Hamas” — weeks before the campus exploded in pro-Palestinian protests.

In a two-hour tirade to the hardest core of anti-Israeli activists at Columbia and its sister college, Barnard, Charlotte Kates, international coordinator of Samidoun, the Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network, said, “These are the people who are on the front lines defending Palestine and fighting for its liberation.”

Kates — who was referring to a terrorist organization responsible for the mass murder of hundreds of Israelis on October 7 — and her husband, Khaled Barakat, spoke to members of the Columbia University Apartheid Divest Group in a seminar called “Resistance 101.”


Not surprisingly, this presentation by Kates was based on deception:
Kates and Barakat represented themselves as speaking on behalf of Samidoun, the “Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network,” at the meeting.

In reality, Barakat is a senior member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), which is a designated terrorist organization responsible for a string of attacks on Israeli civilians and closely allied to both Hamas and Hezbollah. 
The PFLP has a hand in the riots at Columbia which have led Columbia University to offer remote classes for the rest of the semester.

So when the PFLP says they have students at American universities, those universities better be paying attention and the leadership of those universities better be ready to protect their students from the riots and attacks on Jewish students that we have seen so far. 

But the reasons for concern go further.

In an opinion piece for the Wall Street Journal, Steve Stalinsky, executive director of MEMRI, writes that Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis and others are grooming activists in the U.S. and across the West. He points out how various terrorist leaders openly encourage supporters to protest "in cities everywhere."

Stalinsky warns that the issue goes beyond protests:
The collaboration between senior terrorists and their growing list of friends in the U.S. and the West has real-world consequences. These groups are designated terrorist for a reason. They don’t plan marches and rallies—they carry out terrorist attacks. And when the U.S. and Western activists, including college students, see that their marches and protests aren’t achieving their goals, they may consider their next steps—which will be influenced by the company they have been keeping.
Colleges have shown they are not up to containing the developing riots.
The media again is in denial about these "mostly peaceful protests."
Congress has demonstrated its concern.

The first step is to make clear that free speech does not allow the growing threat and harassment of Jews on college campuses and on US streets.


Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!
 

 

Friday, April 19, 2024

Exclusive Interview With Dr. Irwin J. Mansdorf: "Business As Usual" -- The Third Option In Reacting To Iran's Attack (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos 


This interview was done before Israel's response to Iran's attack this morning. It outlines an approach that in fact appears to be the one adopted by Israel in Syria and Iran.

"Israel continuing undeterred to attack Iranian interests as before, would frustrate the Iranian attempt to stop Israeli action against Iran and their proxies"
Irwin Mansdorf, Ph.D., fellow at the Jerusalem Center of Public Affairs specializing in political psychology 

Dr. Irwin J. Mansdorf



In your recent article, To Respond or Not to Respond: Is That the Real Question? you discuss the issue of Israel's deterrence of Iran, in light of Iran's direct attack on Israel. From a psychological standpoint, what is the definition of deterrence? How is its success measured?

Deterrence is simply reducing the probability, frequency, or intensity of an action. For Iran, deterrence is directed at Israel’s actions against Iranian interests in Syria, Lebanon, and in Iran proper. For Israel, deterrence is targeted against Iranian aggression against Israel.

Israel has been attacking Iranian targets both in Syria and in Iran itself for years now. What do you think Israel's goal has been, and has it been successful?

Israeli actions in Syria differ from Israeli actions in Iran. Most of the activity in Syria was directed against arming Iranian proxies who fight Israel. Action on Iranian soil was directed largely at thwarting Iranian nuclear ambitions. Measuring success is relative, and since the motivation for attacking Israel and developing nuclear capability still exists, we can only talk about suppressing behavior as opposed to eliminating it.

As a psychological tool, does Israeli deterrence rely only on the 2 opposing parties, or is there a message there for Israel's "allies" in the West and the Gulf as well?

To the degree that Israeli interests align with that of “allies,” the message is the same. But for each “ally”, there are domestic considerations, and those considerations can determine how far any country will go in their cooperation with Israel or the United States against Iran.

You indicated in your article that the debate of whether Israel needs to retaliate has overlooked Iran's purpose in launching their barrage of drones and missiles. What was Iran's intent? How does that goal affect Israel's calculation of whether to retaliate immediately? What do you think Israel should do?

The immediate goal of Iran was to “punish” Israel for the strike that killed several top IRG commanders. This was a public humiliation for the Iranian regime that they apparently felt they needed to respond to. By launching such a massive response, they hoped for success, which would be a reduction in Israeli activity against Iran. However, Iran’s ultimate intent is to destroy Israel. That has been made clear time and time again. I don’t think there was an expectation that the drone and missile attack would destroy Israel, but it certainly was a test of their weaponry and an exercise that was aimed at convincing Israel to restrain attacks against Iranian interests.

Since Iran’s goal was to reduce Israeli military and covert operations against Iranian interests, Israel needs to continue according to a plan that demonstrates that the Iranian attack did not achieve that goal.

You write:

Considering the success of Israel in its defensive stance, any future Iranian actions in response to Israeli initiatives should be viewed as a failure in Iran’s stated goal of deterrence, viz. Israel

Can you elaborate?

I don’t think that Iran expected that their drone and missile attack would fail to produce more damage than it did. That reduced the deterrent effect of their action. Considering the scale of their attack, they would be risking an even greater loss of deterrence should a subsequent attack produce similarly limited results.

Business as usual -- Israel continuing undeterred to attack Iranian interests as before -- would frustrate the Iranian attempt to stop Israeli action against Iran and their proxies. While a larger-scale "show" attack would certainly make waves, we need to keep in mind that Iran's purpose in their attack was to stop the current Israeli policy, and an approach that counters those goals would appear to be most effective, and, given the international support at the moment, the most functional and practical for Israel to take.


In 2006, Kissinger wrote:

A modern, strong, peaceful Iran could become a pillar of stability and progress in the region. This cannot happen unless Iran's leaders decide whether they are representing a cause or a nation — whether their basic motivation is crusading or international cooperation. The goal of the diplomacy of the Six should be to oblige Iran to confront this choice.

Hamas sees itself more as a cause than as a nation, claiming that the defense of Gazans falls to the UN and Israel. Would that explain in part why deterrence has not worked?

Absolutely. Hamas is an abbreviation for the “Islamic” resistance movement, and “Palestine” is not even part of their name. Their motivation may include nationalistic goals, but their primary purpose is a religious one—and that sort of ideology is much more resistant to change

What about Iran -- do you think their "cause" of spreading Islam in general and their brand of radical Islam in particular help explain why the West, for its part, has had difficulty deterring Iran? Is it possible to successfully deter Iran?

“Deterrence” is temporary. Within Islamist philosophy, temporary breaks in fighting are acceptable so long as the goal of ultimate victory can be resumed at a later stage. The religious ideology of Iran’s leadership will not be deterred, in the conventional sense, from moving towards their ultimate goal. While they may make temporary concessions that, to Western eyes, may appear to be steps toward accommodation, this is only a “break in action” until the circumstances and conditions are ripe for them to take the next step toward their goals. Iran may seem to accept “moderation” as a temporary and functional step, but their ideology will always keep its goals against Israel and the United States on “standby” until they are able to take action.



Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!
 

 

Tuesday, April 09, 2024

Spain Exemplifies Both The Spread Of Antisemitism And The Attempt To Fight It (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

There has been a huge spike in antisemitism following the Hamas massacre on October 7. The riots and chanting border on the bizarre, accusing Israel of deliberate genocide while attacking Jews around the world.

But of course, not all antisemitic claims are of recent vintage:


The Holy Week referred to here is the week before Easter, where in Leon, Spain, it is popular to say, "Let's kill Jews!" but the actual meaning is supposed to refer to "drinking carbonated, spiked lemonade during Holy Week.”

How does that work?

According to UCLA's Jewish newsmagazine, Ha'Am, the history of the phrase goes back to the Middle Ages:
The strange usage is rooted in Middle-Age pogroms in Spain during Holy Week. Eventually, around 1320 CE, authorities decided to permit the consumption of a soft alcoholic beverage, overriding the usual prohibition against alcoholic drinks during Holy Week in the hopes that people forming mobs would drink themselves into a stupor and be unable to assemble against the Jewish communities. The drink evolved into carbonated lemonade and the original description of the traditional Holy Week practice was applied to the drink’s name instead.
Interesting solution.
Unfortunately, it is unlikely to help control the antisemitic riots we hear about on a nearly daily basis.

Another explanation ascribes the source for this custom to a 15th-century knight, Suero de Quiñones, who owed money to a Jewish merchant. In 1449, he incited a mob of his fellow knights to follow him into the Jewish quarter, where they murdered the lender and others on Good Friday.

But despite the bloody history behind the phrase, the phrase "Let's kill Jews!" is now merely a custom:
Today, residents say the phrase is a social custom devoid of any connection to murder, religion or real-life Jews.

“People are used to it here, it’s an expression that is not racist at all,” said José Manuel, who works at Vychio Cafe Bar. “It’s an expression from a time period of racism but now, no, it’s an expression out of custom.” [emphasis added]
The idea that "Holy Week" is an occasion for the 'custom' of calling for the death of Jews is reminiscent of the additional aspect of Ramadan. As The Christian Science Monitor pointed out in 2003:
For Islamic militants, Ramadan allows them not only to reaffirm their religious observance but to strengthen their political ideological convictions as well. "Ramadan is a month of commitment and renewal to their faith and also to their cause, whether by military or nonmilitary jihad," says Prof. Nizar Hamzeh, a specialist on political Islam at the American University of Beirut. "It is a month of martyrdom and commitment to one's Islamic ideology."

Throughout Islamic history, Ramadan has been seen as a time of victory for Muslim armies - and a period when those who are martyred have a greater assurance of a place in paradise. [emphasis added; hat tip: Elder of Ziyon]
Elder of Ziyon has written about Ramadan: The month of fasting, prayer, and murdering Jews where he points out numerous Palestinian terrorist attacks that have taken place during Ramadan.

The Ha'Am article lists other "popular" phrases of antisemitic origin. There is the "Wandering Jew" plant. The Kurds have a phrase, knishta Juhiya, (Jewish synagogue) describes a noisy, unruly gathering. The chant "Hip, Hip Hooray" is believed by some to be a corruption of the phrase "Hep, hep," which is an acronym for Hierosolyma est perdita -- "Jerusalem is lost," which was chanted during German Jew-hunts in the Middle Ages.

Sometimes, these antisemitic phrases and names are corrected.

The tiny Spanish village of Castrillo Matajudios — which means “Camp Kill Jews” — on Monday officially changed its name back to Castrillo Mota de Judios (“Jews’ Hill Camp”) following a referendum and regional government approval.

The village, with about 50 inhabitants, voted to change the name in 2014 after Mayor Lorenzo Rodriguez argued that the term was offensive and that the village should honor its Jewish origins. [emphasis added]
Apparently, the name of the town was changed to "Camp Kill Jews" in 1627 when a 1492 Spanish edict giving Jews the choice of either converting or leaving was enforced. Those Jews who remained faced the Spanish Inquisition and many were burned at the stake.

Others believe the antisemitic name was given by the Jews themselves. According to this theory, Jews who converted to Christianity wanted to emphasize their repudiation of Judaism and convince the Spanish authorities of their loyalty.

Another theory is that the name change from Castrillo Mota de Judios to Castrillo Matajudios was just a slip of the pen.

Although no Jews currently live there, the town reportedly has Jewish roots, a claim which is supported by the town's shield:


The article reported that the mayor was planning to open a center to promote the study of Sephardic Jewish culture.

In 2016, they "twinned" with the Israeli town of Kfar Vradim in the north and a delegation from the Castrillo Mota de Judios arrived in Israel for the official ceremony linking the two towns.

That's one small victory in the fight against antisemitism.
We badly need many more.


Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!
 

 

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

AddToAny

EoZ Book:"Protocols: Exposing Modern Antisemitism"

 Buy EoZ's book, PROTOCOLS: EXPOSING MODERN ANTISEMITISM


Stellar reviews from:
Algemeiner
Jewish Press
Times of Israel/Jewish Link


Printfriendly

EoZTV Podcast

Podcast URL

Subscribe in podnovaSubscribe with FeedlyAdd to netvibes
addtomyyahoo4Subscribe with SubToMe

search eoz

comments

Speaking

Speaking

translate

E-Book

For $18 donation








Sample Text

EoZ's Most Popular Posts in recent years

Hasbys!

Hasbys!

2019 Nobel Peace Prize nominee

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 over 19 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:

subscribe via email

Follow EoZ on Twitter!

Interesting Blogs

Show All

Blog Archive

Copyright © Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News | Powered by Blogger
Blogger Templates