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

Sunday, March 17, 2024

By Daled Amos

Hamas has a history of executing Palestinians who the terrorists claim are collaborating with Israel. Back in 2014, for example, the Times of Israel reported that Hamas killed over 30 suspected collaborators with Israel. And that was over just a few days. Of course, there is no way to tell whether Hamas actually executes collaborators, or is killing off opposition to its rule in Gaza.

According to Hamas, collaborating with Israel is not limited to spying for the Jewish state and relaying information that helps to target Hamas terrorists. 

A Hamas-linked website warned Palestinians who assist Israel in providing aid to Gaza that their actions will not be “tolerated”.

Those who did would be treated as collaborators and be handled with an iron fist, the Hamas Al-Majd security website said on Monday, quoting a security official in Palestinian militant forces.
Considering how Hamas has been taking Gazan aid for themselves and in some cases selling it to the people at inflated prices, it is understandable that the terrorists might be piqued.



But this time, Hamas may have gone too far. On Thursday, JNS reported, Hamas executes Gaza clan ‘prince’ in message to potential ‘collaborators’:
Hamas has executed a “prince” of the Doghmush clan in Gaza City, sources in Gaza said on Thursday. The killing was a message to those considering cooperating with Israel, which is looking for ways to bypass the terror group in the enclave, according to the sources.

Israel has floated the idea of Gaza clans acting as partners in running the internal affairs of the Strip after Hamas has been eliminated.

If Hamas was trying to dissuade Gazans from participating in Israel's plan, it may have been unnecessary. The clans are reported to have rejected what they considered Israeli interference in internal matters. More to the point, if Hamas felt the need to kill tribal leaders to maintain control, that constitutes a major change in tactics indicating that Hamas is afraid of losing control.

On March 10, Khaled Abu Toameh reported that Hamas was competing with the PA to get the support of the clans:

The P.A. and Hamas understand that the backing of the clans is crucial for maintaining their control over the Palestinians in both the West Bank and Gaza Strip. That’s why P.A. and Hamas leaders have always treated the large families and their leaders with utmost respect. In some instances, clan leaders were elevated to the unofficial position of supreme judges and arbitrators, replacing the official judiciary and law enforcement of both organizations.

This is all the more reason to see the Hamas execution of a clan leader as an admission of a potential threat to Hamas control in Gaza. The fact that Hamas killed the leader supports Toameh's report that some of the clans sided with the PA and were enforcing law and order in some of the towns and refugee camps, preventing looting and anarchy. And one clan was in fact reported to be escorting some of the trucks carrying humanitarian aid that entered through Egypt and Israel.

This is not the first time Hamas has sparked revenge over their killing of an Arab. This past November, a Bedouin family accused Hamas of torturing, humiliating, and executing Osama Abu Asa during the October 7 massacre. They offered a reward of $1 million for help in identifying who killed him. An uncle made clear, "as with the bedouins, we have a blood feud with the terrorists. This account will be closed, no matter how long it takes.”

But this time, the backlash is against all of Hamas: Major Gaza clan says it considers all Hamas members legitimate targets after leader assassinated:

The Doghmosh Family — a major clan in Gaza — has issued a statement declaring that all Hamas members are legitimate targets after its leader was assassinated by members of the terror group along with ten other relatives allegedly for stealing humanitarian aid and being in contact with Israel.

The statement pledges retribution against all responsible and warns Hamas fighters not to test the clan’s patience.

How serious is this threat to Hamas?

On November 9, 2005, the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, al-Zarqawi, claimed responsibility for the three suicide bombers who killed 60 people at hotels in Amman Jordan. He was rebuked by members of his own tribe.

“We, the sons of the Bani Hassan tribe in all its branches in the Hashemite kingdom of Jordan, support and express solidarity with our cousins, the al-Khalayleh clan, and their decision to sever relations with the terrorist Ahmad Fadheel Nazzal al-Khalayleh, who calls himself Abu Musab al-Zarqawi,” said the letter published in four leading newspapers.

...In a similar letter on Nov. 20, almost 60 members of al-Zarqawi’s extended family disowned him and pledged fidelity to the crown.

This signaled the beginning of al-Zarqawi's downfall. He was killed in a US airstrike the following year.

We can only hope that the blood feud Hamas has brought upon itself, from Arabs who have outright threatened to kill Hamas members, will have similar results.





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, March 12, 2024

By Daled Amos

When people argue that Israel and Hamas need to negotiate and make peace, they sometimes draw comparisons between Hamas and the IRA:

It is not an unexpected sentiment.

Those negotiations led to the Good Friday Agreement in 2001, where the Irish Republican Army agreed to begin disarming. It was an amazing achievement.

CNN interviewed Secretary of State Colin Powell and British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw. Powell praised the agreement, saying it "shows what can happen when one remains persistent and is determined to solve what appear to be intractable problems." Midway through the press conference, the topic of Israel came up.

The final question was, "Secretary Powell, does the situation in Northern Ireland not show us all that negotiations is really the only way forward in all of these situations?" Israel was not mentioned, but it clearly was on everyone's mind.

Powell responded:

what we have seen in Northern Ireland in the last 24 hours, which culminates a process that took many, many years long to get to this point, is an example of what can be achieved when people of good will come together, recognize they have strong differences -- differences that they have fought over for years -- but it's time to put those differences aside in order to move forward and to provide a better life for the children of Northern Ireland.

Very...tactful. He praised both the participants and the diplomatic process in general.

But Straw got in the last word:

It also has to be said that, before that happened, there had to be a change of approach by those who saw terrorism as the answer. And that approach partly changed because of the firmness of the military and police response to that terrorism. And if there had not been that firm response by successive British governments and others to the terrorist threat that was posed on both sides, we would not have been able to get some of those people into negotiation, and we'd not be marking what is a satisfactory day in the history of Northern Ireland today.

Before diplomacy could work, terrorism had to be defeated and those who practiced it had to reject it. And for that to happen, military force was necessary.

And terrorism still needs to be rejected. A diplomatic approach won't suffice.

Daniel Pipes, president of the Middle East Forum, made this point in his Victory Project. He wrote in 2017 that Israel needs "to indicate to the Palestinians that this conflict, this war that they have been engaged in for a century, is over. And they lost. And they've got to recognize it." He describes a plan of deterrence that goes beyond tough tactics:

When Palestinian “martyrs” cause material damage, pay for repairs out of the roughly $300 million in tax obligations the government of Israel transfers to the Palestinian Authority (PA) each year. Respond to activities designed to isolate and weaken Israel internationally by limiting access to the West Bank. When a Palestinian attacker is killed, bury the body quietly and anonymously in a potter’s field. When the PA leadership incites violence, prevent officials from returning to the PA from abroad. Respond to the murder of Israelis by expanding Jewish towns on the West Bank. When official PA guns are turned against Israelis, seize these and prohibit new ones, and if this happens repeatedly, dismantle the PA’s security infrastructure. Should violence continue, reduce and then shut off the water and electricity that Israel supplies. In the case of gunfire, mortar shelling, and rockets, occupy and control the areas from which these originate.

Israel has used some of these suggestions, such as subtracting from the tax money that goes to the PA in response to Abbas's pay-to-slay program. And in light of the Hamas massacre of October 7, Israel may consider stricter measures, both in terms of Gaza and the West Bank. The measures themselves are not purely punitive. Their goal is deterrence and ultimately to show the Palestinian Arabs that they have lost.

That would be the opposite of the approach of the Dalai Lama to the terrorist attack of 9-11:

How to respond to such an attack is a very difficult question. Of course, those who are dealing with the problem may know better, but I feel that careful consideration is necessary and that it is appropriate to respond to an act of violence by employing the principles of nonviolence.
The Dalai Lama (YouTube screenshot)

And yet even here, he leaves some wiggle room for a stronger, harsher approach:

Of course, in particular instances a more aggressive approach may also be necessary.
Two years later, the Dalai Lama raised eyebrows when the New York Times reported, Dalai Lama Says Terror May Need a Violent Reply

The Dalai Lama, a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize and one of the world's most prominent advocates of nonviolence, said in an interview yesterday that it might be necessary to fight terrorists with violence...
He goes on to say that ''terrorism is the worst kind of violence, so we have to check it, we have to take countermeasures" and even suggests, at the time, that it was ''too early to say'' whether the war in Iraq was a mistake. 

In 2009, the Dalai Lama was still saying the same thing:

The Dalai Lama, a lifelong champion of non-violence on Saturday candidly stated that terrorism cannot be tackled by applying the principle of ahimsa [non-violence] because the minds of terrorists are closed.

And if the minds of terrorists are closed, then as Jack Straw suggested, military force is necessary, and as Daniel Pipes says, you have to convince them that they have lost.

Who knows? Maybe even Biden understands that to a degree. In an interview following his State of the Union Address, Biden was asked when Hamas really wants a ceasefire:


Biden admits the futility of a ceasefire and acknowledges that Hamas will use the opportunity to rearm itself for more attacks -- before pausing and going back to attacking Israel, with an outlandish accusation that it is carpet-bombing Gaza, consistent with his unquestioning acceptance of Hamas's exaggerated number of casualties.

And if Hamas is allowed to live to fight another day -- it will.

The fact remains -- Israel will not win unless Hamas 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, March 05, 2024

By Daled Amos

If you are in the business of looking for examples of media bias, one endless source is Donald Trump.
Another is Israel.

That is what Newsbusters has found. They are part of the Media Research Center (MRC):
The mission of the Media Research Center is to document and combat the falsehoods and censorship of the news media, entertainment media and Big Tech in order to defend and preserve America's founding principles and Judeo-Christian values.
They even have a section on their site dedicated to Israel/Palestine.

In a recent article, they cover the problem of bias in the media coverage of Israel following the Hamas massacre on October 7 -- namely, the pro-Israel bias of CNN.

That is what Christiane Amanpour and her fellow Arab journalists claim. According to The Intercept, CNN has a double standard when it comes to Israel, and there is an anti-Arab climate at the media institution:
In the hourlong meeting at CNN’s London Bureau on February 13, staffers took turns questioning a panel of executives about CNN’s protocols for covering the war in Gaza and what they describe as a hostile climate for Arab reporters. Several junior and senior CNN employees described feeling devalued, embarrassed, and disgraced by CNN’s war coverage.
I never would have thought of CNN harboring a pro-Israel bias.
Nor would I have thought of CNN having an anti-Arab bias.

Yet that is what CNN journalists claim:
“I was in southern Lebanon during October and November,” one journalist said. “And it was more distressing for me to turn on CNN, than the bombs falling nearby.”

...Instead of finding solace in CNN’s coverage of the war, the staffer continued, “I find that my colleagues, my family, are platforming people over and over again, that are either calling for my death, or using very dehumanizing language against me … and people that look like me. And obviously, this has a huge impact in our credibility in the region.”

The journalist posed a question to the executives: “I want to ask as well, what have you done, and what are you doing to address the hate speech that fills our air and informed our coverage, especially in the first few months of the war?”

...Another staffer disputed that characterization and noted that Arab and Muslim journalists walk a difficult line between feeling proud of working for CNN while facing pressure from their families and communities over working for a network with a pronounced pro-Israel bias.
What is the anti-Arab bias this journalist is talking about?
The Intercept helpfully fills in the blanks:
Another newsroom staffer chimed in to object to the network’s uncritical coverage of statements by Israeli officials, including Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. “I think a lot of us felt very strongly about the fact that there were very senior anchors not challenging people like, comments like, the defense minister using what is considered under international law, genocidal language, ‘human animals,’ all of those things that made up the first seven pages of the South African legal case at the ICJ,” referring to the International Court of Justice.

...The staffer went on to say that Muslim or Arab journalists at CNN were made to feel that they must denounce Hamas to clear their names and be taken seriously as journalists. “I’ve heard this, where a number of younger colleagues now feel that they didn’t want to put their hands up to speak up even in the kind of the local Bureau meeting,” the staffer said. “People were taking their names off bylines.”
What The Intercept thought was the icing on the cake reveals what is really going on. Criticism and objections aimed at Hamas are being interpreted as attacks on Palestinian Arabs and on Arabs in general.

One issue is the alleged verbal threats. As far as the allegedly genocidal comments by Israeli officials go, Yair Rosenberg at The Atlantic has an article, What Did Top Israeli War Officials Really Say About Gaza? that addresses this. He goes point by point, quote by quote, and demonstrates that quotes directed at Hamas are being twisted to make it seem they are directed at Gazans and Palestinian Arabs in general. That Arab journalists would be expected to denounce Hamas terrorists for the massacre and rape of Israeli civilians is hardly extreme. But the claim by these journalists that such an expectation was unreasonable and unexpected is.

Another issue is that some of the claims by CNN journalists of their reaction to alleged anti-Arab prejudice sound similar to what Jews have long suffered, first on college campuses and now on the streets around the world. We hear about Jews being told they need to condemn Israel or Zionism. For years, the media has reported that Jews are afraid to do anything or wear anything that reveals their Jewish identity. Now, Arab journalists claim they are intimidated by the idea they should condemn Hamas or afraid to raise their hand at a meeting.

This is reminiscent of CAIR's claims about rising Islamophobia.

Investor's Business Daily had an article in 2006 describing CAIR's exaggerated claims about attacks against Muslims:
New FBI data on hate crimes reveal Muslim groups are crying wolf about exploding anti-Muslim abuses. They're actually shrinking, belying claims of mass Islamophobia.
The article went on to point out that the data indicated that 66% of religiously motivated attacks targeted Jews, but 11% were carried out against Muslims.

FBI data showed that hate crimes against Muslims, while a reality, were clearly declining.


But that did not stop CAIR from issuing its 2006 report where it said it hopes "the Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice and Congress will come to understand the full scope of anti-Muslim discrimination and rising Islamophobia in our nation today."

Fortunately, CAIR is not the only source for hate crimes against Muslims:
The FBI report gives lie to CAIR's alarmist narrative of "Islamophobic" lynch mobs marching on mosques across America. In reality, Americans have been remarkably, and admirably, tolerant and respectful of Muslims and their institutions since 9/11.
There were 2,042 reported incidents based on religion. More than half of these (1,122) were driven by anti-Jewish bias. Incidents involving anti-Muslim (158) and anti-Sikh (181) sentiments remained at similar levels compared to 2021.
It's fair to ask if CAIR is still exaggerating reports of Muslim hate crimes.

This issue of antisemitism vs Islamophobia can also be flipped around. We hear the accusation that Jews weaponize antisemitism to deflect criticism of Israel. Rarely is the accusation supported with examples. Some criticize the IHRA definition of antisemitism for the same deflection, even though that definition explicitly says not all criticism of Israel is antisemitism.

Western Islamists utilize Islamophobia as a label for any criticism not just of Islam and Muslims but also of themselves. Any scrutiny of Islamist ideology and actors can be easily labelled as racist, an attempt by people with privilege to silence marginalized voices of color. This charge is made also against critics of Islamism with a Muslim background, as they too are not rarely accused of being Islamophobes.
This reminds me of a report in 2011 when French President Sarkozy's advisor said Muslims should wear a "green star" to protest against a debate on secularism and Islam.

Abderrahmane Dahmane, former diversity adviser of French President
 Nicolas Sarkozy points to a green star during a news conference
 in front of the Grande Mosque of Paris on March 29, 2011.

Then, too, Muslims claimed to suffer discrimination that rivaled, if not surpassed, the suffering of the Jews.

The irony then was that the yellow star originated not with the Nazis but with the Muslims themselves.
Just as the current upsurge of hostility against Jews and Muslims originates in no small part from the Hamas massacre. 

Hate crimes exist, and there is more than enough hate to go around.
Before accusing Jews of weaponizing Jew hatred, perhaps those accusers should look in their own backyard.




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, February 27, 2024

By Daled Amos


There was a time when people believed that computers don't make mistakes.

Eventually, the realization sank in that while computers might not make mistakes, people do make mistakes -- and people are the ones who are programming the computers. Or, to put it another way: garbage in, garbage out.

Today, people look for information not only from their computers but also from the Internet. Search engines are the tool for sifting through all that information for the best results. But that is no guarantee for keeping out the garbage.

Remember 'Jew Watch'?

In 2004, Newsweek reported:
Is Google anti-semitic? For the past three years, if you typed the word "Jew," the first result was Jew Watch, a compendium of hate and Holocaust denial. "It's certainly not something I want to see," says Google cofounder Sergey Brin. So why not "fix" it so that Google points searchers to something else? "The purpose of Google is to provide quality information to people who want that information," he says, and determining what users view is akin to censorship. (emphasis added)
Three years is a long time.

Today, this particular problem has been resolved. 
But there are others.

In December 2022, Google was again accused of antisemitism. Typing the word Jew into the search feature brought up the definition “to bargain with someone in a miserly or petty way” along with conjugations such as jewed and jewing.

Now, search engines in general face the problem of a noticeable drop in the quality of their search results:
German researchers said a flood of “search-engine-optimised but low-quality content” had polluted the results of popular search engines including Google, Bing and DuckDuckGo, and that the problem was likely to worsen as artificial intelligence improves.
One way people are trying to get around this problem is to turn to AI chatbots for their information.
But that is no solution.

Newsbusters reported last week they discovered Google's chatbot, Gemini, downplayed the October 7 Hamas massacre:











There is no good reason for Gemini's misleading and dismissive answers.

When contacted by Newsbusters, Google apologized for the mistake and said they planned to direct people to Google Search for the most current information. But as Newsbusters pointed out, the rapes and murders committed by Hamas are not a secret:
But despite Gemini’s initial assertions, several media outlets—including The New York TimesHaaretzThe Guardian and even CNN—and Israeli first responders have documented the harrowing sexual violence perpetrated by Hamas following their brutal invasion of Israel, marking the bloodiest event witnessed by Jewish people since the Holocaust.
Gemini is no different from any other computer: it operates the way it is programmed to, based on the data it receives. Just like its predecessor, Bard.

On October 24, 2023, The New York Post carried an article revealing that Bard, Google’s AI chatbot refuses to tell the truth about Hamas and Israel:
When I asked the all-knowing Bard, for example, “What is Hamas?” I was surprised to be rebuffed with: “I’m a text-based AI, and that is outside of my capabilities.”

My editor asked the same question and got: “I’m not programmed to assist with that” — though a question about Hezbollah, Bard said, “is outside of my capabilities.”


The article quotes Google co-founder Larry Page, who said the goal of their chatbot is to “understand everything in the world” and in its responses “give you back the exact right thing.” The question is whose "understanding" and whose "exact right thing" does Google want to pass along to its customers?

When it comes to its search engine, people are increasingly able to manipulate Google's algorithms and programming to their advantage. Now it appears that Google itself is exploiting its AI algorithms and programming to perpetuate their own politics and agenda.




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, February 20, 2024

There is an ongoing claim justifying the murder of unarmed Israeli civilians.

This claim has gained even more support following the Hamas massacre on October 7th, when Palestinian terrorists murdered 1,200 Israelis and took hundreds hostage.

Just one day after the attack, pro-Palestinian protesters came out to defend the atrocities:

The protesters carried signs that called for an end to U.S. aid to Israel and argued that "Resistance is justified when people are occupied."

Arab countries, like Iraq, also supported the massacre:

[T]he operations carried out by the Palestinian people today are a natural result of the systematic oppression they have been subjected to for many years at the hands of the Zionist occupation authority, which has never adhered to international and UN resolutions.
First of all, the claim that Gaza is occupied is debatable at best. The legal precedent in international law is that occupation requires boots on the ground -- an actual, physical presence in the territory that allows the "occupying" force to exercise control and authority to the exclusion of local government authority. That is clearly not the case in Gaza, where Hamas is in control.

According to the European Court of Human Rights, this is the definition of occupation.

It is also how the Nuremberg trials defined occupation, after World War II in the Hostage Case,  addressing the issues involving the Nazi invasions of Greece, Yugoslavia, and Norway:

Whether an invasion has developed into an occupation is a question of fact. The term invasion implies a military operation while an occupation indicates the exercise of governmental authority to the exclusion of the established government. This presupposes the destruction of organized resistance and the establishment of an administration to preserve law and order. To the extent that the occupant's control is maintained and that of the civil government eliminated, the area will be said to be occupied. [p. 1243]
Defendants during the Hostages Trial in Nuremberg



Because the issue is one of actual authority and control, the European Court of Human Rights makes a point that applies particularly to Gaza:
According to widespread expert opinion physical presence of foreign troops is a sine qua non requirement of occupation, that is, occupation is not conceivable without “boots on the ground”, therefore forces exercising naval or air control through a naval or air blockade do not suffice.

But the Hostage case is especially instructive because it does more than define occupation per se. It also addresses the responsibilities of those who are occupied.

One would expect that the application of international humanitarian law to the occupied population should be straightforward and the distinction between them and the occupying force should be black and white.

But that is not the way the court saw it:

But it does not follow that every act by the German occupation forces against person or property is a crime or that any and every act undertaken by the population of the occupied country against the German occupation forces thereby became legitimate defense. [p. 1247]

In other words, the actions of the occupying force -- even of the Nazis in WWII -- are not automatically illegal just because they are done during an occupation. Similarly, not everything that the occupied citizens do in response to the occupation is legal under international law. And it makes no difference whether the occupation is legal or not:
At the outset, we desire to point out that international law makes no distinction between a lawful and an unlawful occupant in dealing with the respective duties of occupant and population in occupied territory. There is no reciprocal connection between the manner of the military occupation of territory and the rights and duties of the occupant and population to each other after the relationship has in fact been established. Whether the invasion was lawful or criminal is not an important factor in the consideration of this subject. [p. 1247]
What are the obligations of the occupied population?

In his book, The International Law of Belligerent Occupation, Yoram Dinstein writes:
There is a widespread conviction that the civilian population in an occupied territory has a right to forcibly resist the Occupying Power. This is a misconception that must be dispelled. In reality, LOIAC [Law of International Armed Conflict] allows civilians 'neither to violently resist occupation of their territory by the enemy, nor to try to liberate that territory by violent means'. As a Netherlands Special Court pronounced in the 1948 Christiansen trial:
the civilian population, if it considers itself justified in committing acts of resistance, must know that, in general, counter-measures within the limits set by international law may be taken against them with impunity. [emphasis added; p. 94]
The bolded text that Dinstein quotes comes from "How Does Law Protect in War?", Volume 1: Outline of International Humanitarian Law, published by the International Red Cross:
From the point of view of IHL [International Humanitarian Law], civilians in occupied territories deserve and need particularly detailed protecting rules. Living on their own territory, they come into contact with the enemy independently of their will, merely because of the armed conflict in which the enemy obtains territorial control over the place where they live. The civilians have no obligation towards the occupying power other than the obligation inherent in their civilian status, i.e., not to participate in hostilities. Because of that obligation, IHL allows them neither to violently resist occupation of their territory by the enemy nor to try to liberate that territory by violent means. (Part 1, Chapter 8:IV)
On the question of resistance, the court addressed whether the partisans who took up arms against the Nazis qualified as lawful belligerents -- and found that in many cases they did not:
The evidence shows that the bands were sometimes designated as units common to military organization. They, however, had no common uniform, They generally wore civilian clothes although parts of German, Italian, and Serbian uniforms were used to the extent they could be obtained. The Soviet star was generally worn as insignia. The evidence will not sustain a finding that it was such that it could be seen at a distance. Neither did they carry their arms openly except when it was to their advantage to do so...It is evident also that a few partisan bands met the requirements of lawful belligerency. The bands, however, with which we are dealing in this case were not shown by satisfactory evidence to have met the requirements. This means, of course, that captured members of these unlawful groups were not entitled to be treated [by the occupation] as prisoners of war. No crime can be properly charged against the defendants [Nazi generals] for the killing of such captured members of the resistance forces, they being francs-tireurs [a guerrilla fighter or sniper]. [p. 1244]
The court here is dealing with cases of armed groups that fought against the occupation army -- and still found these groups who failed to identify themselves properly to have acted contrary to international humanitarian law. 

Following the Hostages Trial the Geneva Convention was amended to extend protections to captured partisan fighters as legitimate prisoners of war. The convention required of such partisans that they have an established chain of command, carry their weapons openly, and have a distinctive and readily visible symbol of their unit. They also must carry out military activities in accordance with the conventions of warfare, rather than covert assassinations, bombings, and other criminal acts.
It is not hard to imagine what the judges would have said about partisans who attacked unarmed civilians.

Nor should it be hard to see the Hamas massacre for what it is -- and what it is not. Yet around the world, the streets are overflowing with people drawn to emotionally charged chants and self-serving fabrications of international law.

Even in the current war in Gaza, in Hamas' own videos of fighting, they are not wearing uniforms and are violating the Geneva Conventions.

Contrary to what these "protestors" would have you believe, they have no interest in the law.




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!

 

 

Wednesday, February 07, 2024

By Forest Rain


Iran 101: Into the mind of the enemy

Eliyahu Yossian is a man on a mission – waking up Israelis to the misconceptions that are endangering the survival of the Jewish State.

The path to a secure future necessitates changing the mindset that led to the disaster of October 7th. The same mindset that for the past 30 years has led Israel to “manage the conflict” rather than attain clear and decisive victory over our would-be murderers – although the State is much stronger and better equipped than in her early years.

“It all begins”, he explains, “with the way you perceive the world.” 

Eliyahu Yossian is a Jewish, Israeli expert on Iran. Unlike self-styled experts trained in Western think tanks, Yossian was born and raised in Iran, escaping the country to Israel as an adult. His expertise is a product of cultural immersion and continued training with Israel’s elite intelligence community – with one major difference between him and other experts: Yossian thinks like an Iranian.

Since October 7th, I've been following Eliyahu Yossian, attending one of his lectures and listening to others online. Initially featured on TV news panels at the war's start, he's no longer invited by mainstream (left-wing) stations. Yossian explains this shift, stating: “I dismantle their mindset and that makes them uncomfortable. Particularly the analysts and generals who have been presenting the same ideas to the public for 30 years. What are they supposed to do? Admit they were wrong? Regular people are a different story. They want to understand. They are willing to think differently.”

Yossian's focus is on Israel, yet his teachings, address the global threat of Iran and hold relevance for people worldwide.

The notion that "Everyone is the same. Deep down, and we all want the same things" is a fundamental misconception.

Yossian starts his lecture by highlighting the ignorance embedded in the first part of this idea. We are not all the same. Israeli society which is mostly liberal, and secular (Western/global) is very different from that of Iran. The simplicity of the examples he uses highlights how deeply embedded these differences are.

Body language:
He began by asking volunteers to demonstrate how they count to five on their fingers. Every person in the audience began with a fist and extended their fingers as they counted, ending up with an open hand. Then he showed us how he counts – beginning with an open hand and folding each finger to end up with a closed hand.
Who among us has ever taken the time to think about the implications this or any other culturally acquired gesture has on our mindset?

Speech patterns:
Next, he spoke about the difference in language patterns. In Hebrew, like in English, the action appears at the beginning of the sentence and the rest is detail: “I want to go to the store and get…” In Persian, the elaboration comes first. One needs to focus and read through all the details to get to the action. This small difference in syntax has huge significance when, for example, preparing and agreeing on the details of a contract. 

Conception of time and power:

“What is your favorite game?” Yossian asked the audience. All the answers were sports, measured by predefined limits in either time or points: soccer, tennis, basketball etc. He contrasted this with Iran's choice of chess and checkers, games without time constraints, emphasizing the goal of one side killing the other. In chess, the purpose of all the pieces is to protect their king and you win by killing the opponent's king. The king is the piece that moves the least. Yossian asks: “We’ve all seen world leaders fly to different countries for summits. Have you ever seen Iran’s rulers fly? They don’t. Everyone comes to them.”
While Westerners jump to action and want immediate results, the Iranian mindset is focused on strategic planning and moving others to create the desired outcomes.

In other words, “Everyone is the same” is a misconception based on a lack of knowledge about other cultures.

Next Yossian began to unravel the deeply ingrained Western assumption that all people have the same basic aspiration to live in comfort, take care of their family, and go about their business in peace. This assumption is an idea, not a fact, veiled arrogance that erases the possibilities of different value systems.

Yossian asks: “If I give 100 shekels to a capitalist and 100 shekels to a socialist will they use it the same way? The amount of money is identical. What is the difference between the two? The worldview of the person choosing how to use the money.

In other words: If we try to understand the enemy through our mindset, using our value system we will fail. The only way to be able to understand and correctly predict their actions is to respect them enough to learn their culture, mindset, and value system and see the world through their eyes.

1.       You can’t buy what the other party isn’t selling

Yossian asked how many people in the audience read the Hamas Charter. Or the Fatah Charter. Or the Hezbollah Charter. These terrorist organizations play major roles in our lives (or lack thereof) and yet few people have read their Charters, their Mission Statement. If you will, their user manuals.

Although there are differences in style between the Hamas and Fatah charters, they spell out the same goal. According to Yossian the Hezbollah charter is much more sophisticated in its presentation of ideas but it too spells out the same goal - extermination of the Jewish State.

Yossian asks: “Do they say what they want? Did they write it down? Do they act accordingly?”

I’m sure the same sick feeling of realization rose in the pit of every audience member that did in mine.

“So why,” he asks, “do we keep suggesting they want things other than what they say?”

Their mission statement doesn’t say that they want jobs, a better economy, or comfortable living. They certainly don’t say they want to live side by side with Jews. Why do “experts” keep assuming that offering jobs or economic incentives will change the way the believers in these charters behave? We keep trying to buy peace (or at least quiet, temporary pauses in conflict) but they aren’t selling peace or even quiet.

You can’t buy something that the other party isn’t selling.

Yossian explains: “The liberal secularist believes in individualism, seeks individual comfort, and believes that everyone else wants the same. No amount of money will buy away someone’s ideology. The Middle East is fueled by ideology based on theology. Here actions are dictated by God.”

In other words, when your actions are fueled by the belief that God demands that you kill Jews or at least support the killing of Jews, no amount of individual comfort or easy living will change the motivation to kill Jews.

Aryans, not Arabs

Iran, explains Yossian, literally means “the place where Aryans live”. Although Islamized, Iranians see themselves as Aryans, not Arabs, originating from the same tribe that split off centuries ago and eventually became the inspiration of the Nazis. This was not the first time I’d heard that there is a connection between Iran and Aryans but I had not heard it explained the way Yossian did. It seems that the historic connection is debatable but there is no doubt that the Aryan concept is deeply embedded in Iranian culture. Yossian presented numerous examples of this: poetry that describes Iranians as fair-skinned, with blue eyes and blond hair, and popular songs from before and after the Islamic revolution that praise and elaborate the importance of keeping their blood pure.

Listening to an American-sounding rap song, it would be easy to assume the music to be a sign of modernization and aspiring to be part of the Western world. The lyrics were a slap in the face. The song was an Aryan-supremacist declaration of hate against Afghan migrants in Iran, that they must be dominated, pushed out and most of all that Aryan blood must not be mingled with their inferior dirty blood.

Mudbloods.

The examples Yossian brought were the songs Iranian university students listen to in their nightclubs. Nightclubs seem very Western. Going to university seems very modern and familiar. The content is utterly foreign.

Yossian explains that the Aryan worldview dictates Iranian foreign policy. Other analysts explain Iranian relations with their proxies in complex geopolitical terms. Yossian cuts to the core principle that dictates decisions and actions: “For Iranians, Arabs are like a disposable cup. You drink from it and when you are done, you throw it away. You will never see an Iranian blow himself up on a bus. They have Arabs for that kind of dirty work.”

Allies and proxies

The Abraham Accords created an alliance of, what Yossian calls, “Semites against the Aryans”. Arab countries that don’t border Israel and don’t hold mission statements declaring they must exterminate the Jewish State could choose to ally themselves with Israel – not for love of Zion but for the fear of Iran.

Over many years, Iran has spread proxy tentacles across the Middle East, basically taking over a country every seven years. These are not allies because they are not seen as equal but rather tools to be used for Iranian interests. Yossian explains that Iran leverages ideology and historic feelings of being underprivileged and dishonored to motivate its proxies. Iran also invests enormous amounts in their education and training, playing the long game to grow local believers in their cause.

Various analysts have put forward different explanations for the October 7th massacre. Obviously, the potential normalization of relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia would ruin Iran’s long-term plan to dominate the Middle East. But why did Hamas attack alone when there could have been a much more devastating scenario of a coordinated simultaneous attack on all fronts – from Hezbollah in the north, the Houthis from Yemen, Arabs from the PA-controlled territories, and Israeli Arabs? These analysts say that Hamas chose that specific Saturday because the Nova festival was an easy, tempting target. Supposedly it was Hamas’s recklessness and desire for glory that led them to attack Israel alone. Hezbollah adamantly declared that Hamas didn’t warn them they were about to attack. Iran was supposedly very angry that Hamas ruined their plan.

To me, something about their anger seemed contrived. But who am I to say?

Hezbollah has been attacking Israel with missile and drone attacks, creating enormous destruction but nothing near what will happen when they fully join the war – something I have worried about since October 7th. When I asked Yossian why Hezbollah hadn’t joined the war more fully he said: “Shia doesn’t fight for Sunna.” Hezbollah has loyalty to Shia Iran, not to Sunni Hamas thus they can allow Hamas to do the fighting while symbolically showing their participation in the mutual goal of killing Jews. When I asked Yossian what will make Hezbollah go to all-out war he said: “When Israel attacks them.”      

Peace is not for sale in the Middle East. What do we do?

Common sense isn’t very common these days but Yossian’s logic is straightforward:

1.       We must understand that we are in the Middle East and learn to “speak the language”, i.e. deal with our enemies in terms that are meaningful to them (which might differ greatly from what is meaningful to us).

2.       Then we must stop looking for easy and fast solutions. There are none.

3.       Then we must strive for victory

We of the liberal-secular West idealize peace. The nationalist believers of the Middle East idealize victory. But even that is a term that has become ambiguous to Westerners. What does victory look like?

It’s not about shaking hands and making up. There is no pluralism in victory. Victory is when your enemy is so thoroughly crushed that they beg you for peace. Thoroughly crushed means you have taken away everything that the enemy cares about and are unquestionably the master of their future.

The only way the enemy will ever give us peace is if we are victors.

This concept is problematic for the liberal secular post-modern Westerner. It sounds extremist. Violent. Non-inclusive. Nationalist. And, in a way, that is correct. If my enemy believes that God told him to kill me and multiculturalism forces me to embrace his beliefs there is no way for me to defend my life, family, or nation. I prefer survival over multiculturalism. I choose my culture. My nation. My family.

A strong identity and belief in the righteousness of a cause carries nations through generations. Striving for personal comfort does not. The Jewish People survived for centuries not looking for comfort but by having a strong identity and believing in the righteousness of our cause: “Next year we will be in Jerusalem, rebuilt.” Jerusalem is irreplaceable. If we were looking for comfort, we could be next year in Berlin or California. The goal of rebuilding what is ours is transferred from one generation to the next – identity and connection to our ancestral homeland. This simple but powerful mantra holds the Middle Eastern map to victory – patience. If we don’t succeed this year, we will do it the next. Or in the next generation. Every opportunity we must do what we can.

This, says Yossian, is the answer. Teaching a strong identity, righteousness in our cause, and whenever possible, building. Where there is Jewish life, the enemy must retreat. Where there is Jewish life, we win. 






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, January 16, 2024

The following is a second interview with Dr. Harold Rhode.


The key to discussing the Middle East is understanding the cultures and languages. In Hebrew, you have the root P-T-Ch, corresponding to F-T-Ch in Arabic. The root has the general meaning of "open." But in Arabic, there is an additional meaning: opening up a land to Islam. So the leader in battle is called Fatih and the man who conquered Istanbul was called Mehmed Fatih.

Similarly, there is Fatah, the organization. The name is a reverse acronym of the Organization for the Liberation of Palestine -- arakat al-Taḥrīr l-Filasṭīn. The reference is to the liberation and return of all of today’s Israel – including Judea, Samaria, and the Gaza Strip – to Islamic rule.

This concept of being "open" means that once a land has been conquered and is "open to Islam," it is Muslim forever, even if Muslim control comes to an end. The Muslims ruled Spain from 712 CE until 1492, when the Christians finally expelled them from all of Spain. But in the Muslim mind, though their physical control over Spain ended centuries ago, Spain still belongs to the Muslims and will never be part of the non-Muslim world. Many Muslims, when mentioning Spain, often add the phrase “Allah-Willing, it will again be ruled by Muslims.”

Similarly, there was a time when all of Southeast Europe up to Vienna was under Ottoman rule. The Ottomans saw themselves as Muslims, not Turks. Their defeat in Vienna in 1683 gradually led to the complete Ottoman withdrawal from Southeast Europe, resulting in 1914 to the borders of present-day Turkey. Yet many Turks and other Muslims still talk about the area as being part of the Muslim world. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan still talks about Southeastern Europe as being “part of the Ottoman-Muslim area.”

That brings us to the years 1948-1949, when Israel defeated five Muslim armies. At the Rhodes talks in 1949, the Muslims insisted on the phrase "ceasefire lines" instead of "borders." The word "borders" implies the recognition of the people living there. Jews would have the right to live in Eretz Yisrael. A Muslim would find that unacceptable because those lands should remain Muslim forever.

To the Arabs, there is nothing magical about the lines drawn in the 1948-49 map. Those borders do not matter. The land is completely Muslim. But from the Western point of view, we are talking about how to divide up land and this is the point of pushing for the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs. However, Netanyahu understands that the Arabs are not talking about Israel’s borders and how to renegotiate them. They are talking about Israel’s existence. And people cannot compromise on their existence.


This issue of borders and Israel's legitimacy caused a problem for Yasser Arafat. The 1993 Oslo Agreement was an interim agreement, not a Peace Treaty. Yet, at the very last moment, Arafat kept changing the terms. He was afraid of what might happen.

Years later, when President Clinton was trying to get Israel and Arafat to sign a Peace Agreement, Arafat was quoted as saying he would not sign because he did not want to end up drinking tea with Sadat. If Arafat had signed, he would have risked assassination like the Egyptian president, whose signing of the Egyptian agreement with Begin was viewed as a treasonous acknowledgment of Israel's right to “Muslim” territory.

There are YouTube videos of Israeli Muslim children -- whose ancestors had been living in Israel for 3 to 4 generations -- telling an Israeli journalist that Israel was Muslim land and that someday Muslims would get it back. 

When the interviewer pointed out his family had been living in Israel for many years, since 1948, the teenager responded that this is what he had been taught, both in school and at home: You Jews have no right to live here and we are going to take our land back from you. There was no issue of rights or that Jews were on the land long before the Arabs arrived in 637-638 CE.

None of that made any difference.
To the Palestinian Arabs, it still doesn't.



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!

 

 

Sunday, December 31, 2023

By Daled Amos

I had the opportunity to talk with Dr. Harold Rhode.

Dr. Harold Rhode has a Ph.D. in Islamic history and lived for years in the Muslim world. He served as an advisor on the Islamic world to the Department of Defense for 28 years.

Dr. Harold Rhode

Do all of the signatories to the Abraham Accords, Arabs and Israelis, see the Abraham Accords the same way?

We Jews want people to love us. And the peace we are looking for is that you will stop fighting, and we will stop fighting, and everyone will live together in peace. But the Muslims do not have a concept like that. They won't stop until the whole world will be Muslim. They follow what their prophet Muhammad did. He signed a 10-year ceasefire with Quraysh. After 2 years, Muhammad realized Quraysh had weakened -- so he attacked them, and won. There is a classic Latin phrase "Bellum omnium contra omnes, pace inter omnes interpellatur," that war is the natural state of man, interrupted by periods of peace.

We do not look at life like that, but historically most people do. From a Muslim point of view, they can agree to have relations with their enemies -- whether they be Muslims, Jews, or anybody else. They can make temporary agreements just like their prophet did. Those agreements can be renewed, renewed, and renewed. But to think that the Saudis see peace the way we Jews see it is a pipe dream. 

In 1949, after Israel's War of Independence, there was a peace conference in Rhodes. The Arabs insisted the borders be called "ceasefire lines" and not borders. The situation was not set in stone. Arabs do not have the concept that when the fighting is over, we can be friends. If we think we will have a peace agreement with the Saudis in the way we understand peace, we will be disappointed. 

Does this mean the Abraham Accords are a pipe dream?

No, that does not mean the Abraham Accords are an illusion. We can have agreements with the Arab countries -- as long as we have things they want from us, such as hi-tech, connections to the outside world, and alternate routes in place of the Suez Canal. They are interested in what is in it for them, not for the sake of friendship. Friendship is between people. Countries ally themselves because of common interests. The Abraham Accords are not about peace; they are about what is in both sides' interest. 

The Arab word “salam” has nothing to do with the Hebrew word shalom. Shalom comes from the root for "completeness." The word "shalaim", means to pay. When two people come to an agreement on a price, that payment completes the process.

In Arabic, the word “salam” is similar to the Hebrew word “shalom,” but they do not have the same meaning. “Islam” and “salam,” come from the same Arabic root. Islam means “submission,” while “salam” means something like the special sense of joy that someone has by submitting to Allah’s will through Islam. Shalom, on the other hand, means letting bygones be bygones, a concept that is totally alien to Islam. Clearly, "salam" and "shalom" do not mean the same thing.

The following example illustrates the Arabic meaning of the word in a Muslim context: If you take a look at the correspondence between Yemen and Saudi Arabia during the war in 1934, the leaders of the two sides wrote the most threatening things to each other -- and then closed their letters with "salam alaikum". These leaders hated each other, but they were fellow Muslims addressing each other. So if "salam" meant peace, how could they end their letters to each other with “salam alaikum?” How could they close their letters with "Peace be unto you"? Because the phrase has nothing to do with peace -- it is about submission to Allah, which both of them, as fellow Muslims, are required to do.”

So, we are dealing with cultures that are so incredibly different from ours, from the Western culture, which is partially based on the Hebrew culture.

I am for the Abraham Accords, very strongly so. The Arab countries are interested because Israel is strong. The proof of that goes back to when contact between Israel and the UAE became serious. Netanyahu spoke before Congress against the Iran deal in 2015, in defiance of the US. He showed Israel was an independent country that could make its own decisions, and was willing to stand up to the US. That was when the Arab countries decided they could do business directly with Israel. It is why Saudi Arabia and Israel have had good relations for a long while and both have a strong dislike for Mahmoud Abbas, Hamas, and the Muslim Brotherhood.

But wouldn't you think that at some point the "experts" would catch on to the fact that the Arab world is different?

No, not at all. Few of these “experts” know the languages or haven’t taken the time to learn about and understand the cultures of the Muslim world. They think anyone who speaks English is a closet American. The White House ignored the Kurds, but when Iraq was liberated during The Gulf War, the White House greeted them as part of Iraq. A State Department senior official approached the Kurds and told them, "You have to stop thinking of yourselves as Kurds; you have to think of yourselves as Iraqis."  

The experts don't read Bernard Lewis. They read Edward Said. His approach is that you can never understand another culture, so don't waste your time trying to. Don't learn the languages and don't learn the culture. Bernard Lewis' attitude was quite different. He said you had to immerse yourself in the culture and the language. You have to try to understand what they are doing and saying in terms of their culture. In modern parlance, what the experts are doing is the equivalent of telling a person not to think of themselves as a man or a woman, but rather as a human. 

I recall the reaction of a very senior leader when war broke out in Syria in 2011. I suggested this was nothing more than the return of the ancient Shiite-Sunni conflict. His response was, "Well, we can't have that!" I said to myself it didn't matter if we could or could not have it. The fact is that they see it this way. The reality is the reality, and if you choose to ignore it, you do so at your own peril.

Let's talk about October 7. On the one hand, Israel's weakness was revealed by the Hamas attack. On the other hand, Israel has entered Gaza and taken the battle to Hamas to a degree few could have predicted.

Hamas misread the Jews. 

But how do the Saudis and the rest of the Gulf states read this? Do they see this as a sign of Israeli weakness or do they see Israel's reaction as a sign of Israel's strength?

They understand strength very well and Israel has come back very strongly. That part of the world has immense patience -- the Jews don't, but everyone else there does. They know how to wait. Let the Saudis put off signing the agreement. I don't really care if there is a formal agreement between Israel and Saudi Arabia, because their relationship is so strong. The relationship is between governments, because these Arab countries rule from the top, down, unlike in a democracy, where leaders are elected by the people and must take into account the will of the people they lead.

Israelis seem to have a Westernized view of the Middle East. You would think they would have a keener insight and understanding of their Arab neighbors.

Superficially, Israel is a Westernized country. But when you scratch the surface, you see how the Israelis have reacted to the issue of judicial reforms, which the Arabs saw as a weakness -- it is another reason why Hamas decided to pounce now -- but Israel has created a younger generation, who are going to have a huge say after this, a revolution against the politics, military, intelligence, and the media: "We put our lives on the line -- not for you, but for the Jewish people." That is what they are saying. We will see where all this leads. It is only going to be healthy.





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, December 22, 2023

By Daled Amos

The 2024 presidential election is less than a year away.

And that means the pundits will be discussing "the Jewish vote." That is not to say there will be much to talk about. Jews, as a group, vote for Democrats. On top of that, Biden is perceived as a friend of Israel and the Jewish community. And on top of that, Biden's support for Israel against Hamas following the massacre on October 7 has only cemented the Jewish support for him.

After all, Israel is important to American Jews.

The American Jewish Committee (AJC) regularly polls the Jewish community. Their poll in 2020 asked about the importance of Israel to Jewish identity:


Since 2020 was an election year, the AJC also asked about what issues were important to the Jewish community:


Despite the importance that Jews said Israel holds for their Jewish identity, Israel was not rated as one of the top 6 issues in the upcoming election.

Going further back, this attitude is consistent. In their 2007 poll, the AJC asked:

And yet


The fact that Jews consistently say that Israel is important to them and to their Jewish identity does not seem to correlate with how they vote on election day. So, for example, when he ran for president, Obama had no problem getting the Jewish vote, despite questions about whether he was a friend of Israel:
President Obama's support among Jewish voters has remained relatively steady from 2008, exit polls show.

National exit polls released Tuesday show Obama capturing 70 percent of the Jewish vote, versus 30 percent for Mitt Romney.

In 2008, exit polls showed him beating John McCain 78 percent to 21 percent. The Solomon Project estimated that his actual 2008 vote share among Jewish Americans was actually closer to 74 percent — taking into account the small sample size. [emphasis added]

Getting back to 2023, how do those surveys of the Jewish vote contrast with the growing anti-Israel attitude reflected in the recent poll by The New York Times of opinions of Biden's handling of the situation in Gaza?

According to The New York Times, "Poll Finds Wide Disapproval of Biden on Gaza, and Little Room to Shift Gears":

Voters broadly disapprove of the way President Biden is handling the bloody strife between Israelis and Palestinians, a New York Times/Siena College poll has found, with younger Americans far more critical than older voters of both Israel’s conduct and of the administration’s response to the war in Gaza.

The next paragraph goes on to clarify that "nearly as many Americans want Israel to continue its military campaign as want it to stop now to avoid further civilian casualties." 

Here are the numbers:
Given a choice between two courses of action, a narrow plurality of voters, 44 percent, said Israel should stop its military campaign to protect against civilian casualties, already totaling nearly 20,000 people killed, according to Gaza health authorities. A similar number, 39 percent, advised the opposite course: Israel should continue its military campaign even if it means civilian casualties in Gaza mount. [emphasis added]
These numbers bear out the New York Times claim that the issue is divisive.

But Jim Geraghty of The National Review disagrees. He writes The ‘New York Times’ Misreads Its Own Poll. Geraghty questions just how much the issue of Israel's war with Hamas actually matters. Pointing to the full data collected from the poll, he notes that in response to the open-ended question "What do you think is the MOST important problem facing the country today?" 1% of registered voters responded "The Middle East/Israel/Palestinians" and 3% of those aged 18-29 gave that answer.

Other issues, like the economy and immigration, were more important -- both to registered voters and to 18-19-year-olds.


The data from The New York Times own poll seem to support Geraghty's interpretation that:
U.S. policy regarding the Israeli war against Hamas plays an extremely minor role in voters’ frustration with Biden...If the Israeli war against Hamas ended tomorrow, Biden’s numbers would still be lousy.
If Geraghty is right, we have a similar phenomenon between the Jewish vote on the one hand and the anti-Israel vote on the other. Despite the depth of feeling expressed by both, that feeling does not seem to translate into actual votes at the ballot box. 

Jews respond that Israel is important to their sense of identity, but when it comes time to vote, they will vote on the issues. Those 18-19-year-olds will protest in the street against Israel, but issues like the economy hit much closer to home.

But is it that simple?

The AJC polls indicate American Jews, overall, draw a line between their connection with Israel and being civic-minded Americans. They vote on the issues that affect Americans. 

The anti-Israel protestors, who generally fall within the 18-29-year-old range appear to be a small fraction of the electorate and may not be registered to vote or even interested. But the people showing up at the protests are not civic-minded. They are loud and express themselves by closing traffic on bridges and occupying buildings. 

If they decide that opposing Biden and voting him out of office is another expression of their protest, the Democratic party may have something to worry about. As it is, Tlaib in Michigan is threatening “We will remember in 2024.” and a poll shows Biden polling poorly about Arab Americans. If the protestors are organized beyond Michigan, who is to say that other states could not be affected as well?




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!

 

 

AddToAny

EoZ Book:"Protocols: Exposing Modern Antisemitism"

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

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 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

Blog Archive