Over The Years, Hamas Terrorist Control Of The Al Shifa Hospital Was Known. Why Not Now? (Daled Amos)

These days the media is demanding irrefutable proof for something that used to be an open secret: Hamas terrorists have a headquarters and maintain control in the Al Shifa hospital. 

Proof?

Put aside the claims and various proofs that the IDF has produced since gaining control of the hospital in Gazal. Take a look instead at what the media and Gazan doctors have said for more than a decade.

A 2007 episode of PBS's Wide Angle provided a glimpse of how the Al Shifa Hospital was run in 2006:

In the summer of 2006, as internal battles fracture the Palestinian Territories, WIDE ANGLE provides a glimpse inside the conflict as it spirals out of control. Gaza E.R. follows doctors, nurses, and staff at Shifa Hospital, the largest in the Gaza Strip, as they struggle in the face of turf wars between Hamas, rival faction Fatah, and powerful families with competing agendas. Our cameras reveal that gun-battles inside the hospital... [emphasis added]

This was before the bloody Hamas coup when the terrorist group ousted their Fatah rivals. Both terrorist groups were calling Al Shifa home.

Even Human Rights Watch took notice. On June 12, 2007, HRW reported that Hamas was taking advantage of the Al Shifa hospital:

Fatah and Hamas forces engaged in battles in and around two Gaza Strip hospitals on Monday. After Hamas fighters killed Fatah intelligence officer Yasir Bakar, Fatah gunmen began firing mortars and rocket-propelled grenades at Shifa Hospital in Gaza City, drawing Hamas fire from inside the building, killing one Hamas and one Fatah fighter. [emphasis added]

The June 30, 2007 issue of the British Medical Journal, corroborated the situation in an article quoting one of the doctors confirming that the hospital is infested with Hamas terrorists:

The medical staff are suffering from fear and terror, particularly of the Hamas fighters, who are in every corner of the hospital.

On December 29, 2008, The New York Times also reported that Hamas was in control of the hospital:

At Shifa Hospital on Monday, armed Hamas militants in civilian clothes roved the halls. Asked their function, they said they were providing security. But there was internal bloodletting under way.

...Hajoj, like five others who were killed at the hospital in this way in the previous 24 hours, was accused of collaboration with Israel. [emphasis added]

The article recounts how the hospital was used as a stand-in for the central prison during Operation Cast Lead, though there was not much of a trial.

Hamas was all over. in control, and taking advantage of the protection that Al Shifa offered.

On January 13, 2009, PBS again reported about how Hamas had taken control of Al Shifa:

WIDE ANGLE reached a doctor in Gaza who believes Hamas officials are hiding either in the basement or in a separate underground area underneath the hospital and said that they moved there recently because other locations have been destroyed by Israel. The doctor, who asked not to be named, added that he believes Hamas is aware that they are putting civilians in harm’s way. [emphasis added]

Five years later, things had not changed, except that the Washington Post acknowledged that the hospital was being used as a headquarters. On July 15, 2014, William Booth reported about a brief cease-fire during Operation Defensive Edge:

At the Shifa Hospital in Gaza City, crowds gathered to throw shoes and eggs at the Palestinian Authority’s health minister, who represents the crumbling “unity government” in the West Bank city of Ramallah. The minister was turned away before he reached the hospital, which has become a de facto headquarters for Hamas leaders, who can be seen in the hallways and offices. [emphasis added]

The fact that a terrorist group was using Shifa Hospital as headquarters was not even considered a revelation. It was just business as usual. We know this because the fact that Hamas was using the hospital as a headquarters was mentioned in passing in the eighth paragraph of the article.

Nick Casey, a journalist with the Wall Street Journal noted that Hamas was using the hospital for its propaganda when he posted a picture on Twitter of a Hamas spokesman being interviewed inside the hospital. He later deleted the tweet.

 

Casey later tweeted:

Casey was later compelled to delete that tweet as well.

A day later, on July 22, the French-Palestinian journalist Radjaa Abou Dagga, a correspondent for “Ouest France” and a former contributor to “Libération”, recounted his being summoned to be interrogated by Hamas in the al Shifa hospital:

A few meters from the emergency room where the wounded from the bombings are constantly arriving, he is received in the outpatient department, “a small section of the hospital used as an administration” by a group of young fighters. “They were all well dressed, ” Radjaa is surprised. In civilian clothes, with a pistol under their shirt and some had walkie-talkies . He is ordered to empty his pockets, remove his shoes and his belt and then he is called to a hospital room “which served that day as a command office for three people”. [emphasis in the original]

Hamas disapproved of Dagga's work and wanted to know if he was in fact an Israeli journalist. He was lucky enough to be able to leave Gaza.

But at Dagga's request, this article was removed.

But Hamas found that the al Shifa hospital was useful for more than just interrogations. Here, a Finnish journalist reported about a rocket being fired from the back parking lot of the hospital.

On July 23, John Reed of The Financial Times tweeted:

From August 11, 2014, from the Dutch daily newspaper Trouw about the disappearance of Hamas uniforms once the fighting begins:

they go into hiding. Only at the Shifa Hospital, the big hospital in Gaza City, are a few sitting in uniform. There, they feel protected from the Israeli bombings. In addition, that is where they monitor the international press to prevent it from doing ‘wrong’ things.

Again, Hamas is using the hospital as a headquarters.

In May 2015, Amnesty International was catching on and published a report which referenced how Hamas used the hospital. The report, ‘Strangling Necks': Abductions, Torture, And Summary Killings Of Palestinians By Hamas Forces During The 2014 Gaza/Israel Conflict, made the extent of Hamas control clear:

Hamas forces used the abandoned areas of al-Shifa hospital in Gaza City, including the outpatients’ clinic area, to detain, interrogate, torture and otherwise ill-treat suspects, even as other parts of the hospital continued to function as a medical centre. [emphasis added]

An online summary of the report actually went into more detail:

As well as carrying out unlawful killings, others abducted by Hamas were subjected to torture, including severe beatings with truncheons, gun butts, hoses and wire or held in stress positions. Some were interrogated and tortured or otherwise ill-treated in a disused outpatient’s clinic within the grounds of Gaza City’s main al-Shifa hospital. At least three people arrested during the conflict accused of “collaboration” died in custody. [emphasis added]

Clearly, over the years the presence of Hamas in Al Shifa and their control over the hospital as they conducted their day-to-day business was known. It was noted by journalists, the media and even Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch admitted to how Hamas was exploiting the hospital.

But still, not everyone could admit the truth.

For an article in Forbes in 2014, Richard Behar asks an unnamed journalist what we now know is a straightforward question:  "Are Hamas leaders and fighters using it as a base for operations?"

The journalist responded:

It’s not the fighters who are there, and they’re not using the hospital to launch rockets from, they’re using it to see media. These are Hamas spokesmen [at the hospital], not leaders. This is also something that has not been understood fully. There are probably a couple of reasons [for holding press conferences there]. It’s a safe place. Israel doesn’t kill spokespeople. Also, it’s a good place to get journalists, as we’re passing through the hospital, since that’s where the bodies are coming in. It’s a place journalists have to go anyway.

Whether it is an issue of fear of Hamas or some ingrained bias, this inability to face the facts should not surprise us.

It is going on right now, too. 

Even though the proof of Hamas presence at and beneath Shifa is overwhelming. 

Maybe it was never about finding out the truth to begin 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!

 

Read More

Debunking Francesca Albanese's Defense of Hamas Terrorists (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

Last year, I wrote about Francesca Albanese, who bears the weighty title "UN Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Palestinian Territory Occupied Since 1967." In that article, I focused on her declaration of objectivity and impartiality. I contrasted that with her accusations about the influence of the "Jewish Lobby," in addition to other issues that called her moral authority and credibility into question. 

Those questions are still pertinent today, following the Hamas Massacre and Israel's retaliation. Back in 2014, Albanese made her feelings about Hamas clear:

Last year, she made clear that applying the "resistance" label sanitized whatever Palestinian terrorists did:

As Hillel Neuer pointed out at the time, since the Palestinian call for "resistance" is a call for violence, this UN human rights expert was deliberately inciting violence.

Let's take a look at this human rights and international law expert in action.

On November 15, The Project interviewed Francesca Albanese and asked her what would have been the right and legal way for Israel to have responded to the Hamas massacre of 1,400 men, women, and children and the kidnapping of 240 others.

Israel has been widely condemned for its heavy retaliation on Hamas after the attack on October 7. @FranceskAlbs what an appropriate response would have looked like. pic.twitter.com/dZLwXy2k4F

— The Project (@theprojecttv) November 15, 2023

Here is the transcript:

Interviewer: So, Israel was always going to respond to the attacks of October 7. In your view, what would the correct response have looked like?

Albanese: The response was to be given in terms of law enforcement because Gaza is occupied, and it's under belligerent occupation. So Israel has powers to enforce the law and to pursue all security measures that are deemed necessary, considering that this is occupied territory. It could have relied on the United Nations to demilitarize Hamas, if this was the target. Instead, he does wage the war claiming the right of self-defense under Article 51, which is the right to wage a war, the right to use military force against another state. But again, we are talking of the people that Israel occupies and it has occupied for 56 years now.

Albanese is making 3 basic claims:

o  Israel should have responded to the Hamas terrorist attack by sending in the police

o  Gaza is under belligerent occupation by Israel and is not allowed to reply militarily
o  Israel could have relied on the UN to demilitarize Hamas

Let's take the second claim first.

Is Gaza Really Occupied?

There are certainly people who believe that. There are experts in international law who claim it too. But that is not a unanimous opinion. Take for example the European Court of Human Rights.

The European Court of Human Rights is an international court established by the European Convention on Human Rights, an international treaty that defends human rights. In 2015, the court made a decision relating to the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan and it touched on the issue of what constitutes "occupation."

94. Article 42 of the Regulations annexed to Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 18 October 1907 (“the 1907 Hague Regulations”) defines belligerent occupation as follows.

“Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.

The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.”

Accordingly, occupation within the meaning of the 1907 Hague Regulations exists when a State exercises actual authority over the territory, or part of the territory, of an enemy State. The requirement of actual authority is widely considered to be synonymous to that of effective control.

Military occupation is considered to exist in a territory, or part of a territory, if the following elements can be demonstrated: the presence of foreign troops, which are in a position to exercise effective control without the consent of the sovereign. 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. [emphasis added]

According to the European Court of Human Rights, occupation requires the actual, physical presence of foreign troops, i.e. boots on the ground. A blockade does not qualify as the kind of control required to constitute occupation.

Once Israel withdrew from Gaza, there was no occupation.

Of course, there are still those who insist that Gaza is occupied, and the decision by the European Court has obviously not settled the issue. However, international law is determined in part by treaties and by precedence, and this decision is a strong a valid basis for saying that Gaza is not occupied. 

Albanese is of course free to stand before the media and declare her opinion that Gaza is occupied, but to claim her opinion as if the issue is one-sided and to ignore the validity of the other side, is less than honest.

She does in fact take to Twitter to support her view, quoting a decision by the International Court of Justice:

Some problems with the ICJ decision:

o  This opinion of the ICJ was an advisory opinion. While it may carry some legal weight, the opinion is not binding

o  The court was not asked for an opinion on occupation. Instead, the issue was the security barrier.
o  Not only was the court not asked to offer an opinion on occupation, the question itself to the court presupposed the existence of occupation:

“What are the legal consequences arising from the construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, as described in the report of the Secretary-General, considering the rules and principles of international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, and relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions?”

The court did not make a legal decision about occupation, it merely parroted back the language of the question it was asked.

Also, note that parts of the ICJ's conclusion are disputed by one of the judges, Judge Buergenthal. While he was in the minority, Buergenthal's critique of the ICJ's decision is instructive:

5. Whether Israel’s right of self‑defence is in play in the instant case depends, in my opinion, on an examination of the nature and scope of the deadly terrorist attacks to which Israel proper is being subjected from across the Green Line and the extent to which the construction of the wall, in whole or in part, is a necessary and proportionate response to these attacks. As a matter of law, it is not inconceivable to me that some segments of the wall being constructed on Palestinian territory meet that test and that others do not. But to reach a conclusion either way, one has to examine the facts bearing on that issue with regard to the specific segments of the wall, their defensive needs and related topographical considerations.

Since these facts are not before the Court, it is compelled to adopt the to me legally dubious conclusion that the right of legitimate or inherent self‑defence is not applicable in the present case. The Court puts the matter as follows:

“Article 51 of the Charter . . . recognizes the existence of an inherent right of self‑defence in the case of armed attack by one State against another State. However, Israel does not claim that the attacks against it are imputable to a foreign State."

The Court also notes that Israel exercises control in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and that, as Israel itself states, the threat which it regards as justifying the construction of the wall originates within, and not outside, that territory. The situation is thus different from that contemplated by Security Council resolutions 1368 (2001) and 1373 (2001), and therefore Israel could not in any event invoke those resolutions in support of its claim to be exercising a right of self‑defence.

Consequently, the Court concludes that Article 51 of the Charter has no relevance in this case.” (Para. 139.)

6. There are two principal problems with this conclusion. The first is that the United Nations Charter, in affirming the inherent right of self‑defence, does not make its exercise dependent upon an armed attack by another State, leaving aside for the moment the question whether Palestine, for purposes of this case, should not be and is not in fact being assimilated by the Court to a State. Article 51 of the Charter provides that “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self‑defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations . . .” Moreover, in the resolutions cited by the Court, the Security Council has made clear that “international terrorism constitutes a threat to international peace and security” while “reaffirming the inherent right of individual or collective self‑defence as recognized by the Charter of the United Nations as reiterated in resolution 1368 (2001)” (Security Council resolution 1373 (2001)). In its resolution 1368 (2001), adopted only one day after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, the Security Council invokes the right of self‑defence in calling on the international community to combat terrorism. In neither of these resolutions did the Security Council limit their application to terrorist attacks by State actors only, nor was an assumption to that effect implicit in these resolutions. In fact, the contrary appears to have been the case. (See Thomas Franck, “Terrorism and the Right of Self‑Defense”, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 95, 2001, pp. 839-840.)

The ICJ belittles the terrorist threat Israel faces and its legal right and obligation to fight it. Apparently, Albanese takes her cue from their non-binding, advisory opinion.

Call The Cops on Hamas?

She is nothing if not consistent. Last year Albanese denied Israel's right to defend itself from terrorist attacks:

“Israel cannot claim self-defense while illegally occupying and while directing an act of aggression against another country,” she said. “Those who have the right to self-defense are the Palestinians.”

Last week at the National Press Club in Australia, she doubled down:

"What Israel was allowed to do was to act to establish law and order, to repel the attack, neutralize whomever was carrying out the attacks and then proceed with law and order measures ... not waging a war," she added.

So what can Israel do in the face of terrorism? Call the cops! And if that sounds absurd, Albanese goes one better.

The UN To The Rescue!

If it is difficult to imagine policemen going into Gaza to arrest Yahya Sinwar, try to imagine the UN demilitarizing Hamas. But in order to pull that off, you have to forget about the historical failures of the UN to keep the peace.

But Eugene Kontorovich has a reminder of the UN's disastrous failings:

The idea of international forces in Gaza repeats decades of mistakes.

In every single case, UN forces and agencies failed to provide Israel any security and were coopted and used by its enemies.

For example:

o  The UN Security Council created the United Nations Emergency Force after the 1956 Suez War to keep the peace on the border between Israel and Egypt. But when Nasser demanded they leave in 1967, the UN just left.

o  Similarly, the UN Truce Supervision Organization in Jerusalem fled when Jordan attacked Israel during the war in 1967.

o  After the Yom Kippur War in 1973, the UN Disengagement Observer Force was created on the border between Israel and Syria. But during the Syrian Civil War, they pulled out when Islamist militias moved in.

o  The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon did nothing to prevent the PLO from attacking Israel.

o  After the Second Lebanon War in 2006, the Security Council required UNIFIL to disarm Hezbollah in south Lebanon. But Hezbollah has on grown stronger in that area since and act with impunity, firing rockets on Israeli homes despite the "presence" on the largest peacekeeping force outside of Africa.

Yet in the face of the obvious failures of the UN as a peacekeeping force, Albanese absurdly insists that Israel "could have relied on the United Nations to demilitarize Hamas."

Her farcical claim that Israel has no right to defend itself after the Hamas Massacre only leads her to the foolish, and deadly, claims that Israel should send the police into Gaza or have the UN stroll into Gaza to disarm Hamas.

This is what happens when a law degree is used as a tool to pursue a personal, biased agenda. But this is what we have come to expect from the UN.

---

---

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon! Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.  Read all about it here!

 

Read More

The Race Card: Don't Leave Home Without It! (Daled Amos)

Last week, the Washington Post published Michael Ramirez's cartoon in its newspaper:

Ramirez succinctly captured the fact that Hamas exploits human shields, protecting terrorists and their weapons while putting Gazan civilians at risk. The cartoon was well done, but it did not reveal anything new to people paying attention to the news.

But the fact that Ramirez was accurate and on-target offended some people. A typical reaction from readers was:

The caricatures employ racial stereotypes that were offensive and disturbing. Depicting Arabs with exaggerated features and portraying women in derogatory, stereotypical roles perpetuates racism and gender bias, which is wholly unacceptable.

Racist? Was Ramirez's point to make fun of Hamas spokesman Ghazi Hamad's physical appearance?

In fact, Ramirez provided Fox News Digital with examples of other renderings he's done for his cartoons:

Is that reader unaware that a caricature's "exaggerated features" are a cartoonist's bread and butter? And what "stereotypical" and "derogatory" role is the reader accusing Ramirez of pigeonholing women into -- human shield? Seems Hamas beat him to it.

Another reader, a self-described scholar of religion and media, claimed to recognize "a deeply racist depiction of the ‘heathen’ and his barbarous cruelty toward women and children" in the cartoon. But that was the whole idea: to point out the barbarity and cruelty of Hamas. Is this reader denying that Hamas uses human shields or that it massacred over 1,400 men, women and children and took over 240 civilians as hostage?

In the rush to play the race card, basic logic and common sense were abandoned, all in defense of personal agendas.

In response, the Washington Post dutifully removed the cartoon -- even though the Washington Post opinion editor David Shipley himself handpicked it out of the multiple choices that Ramirez gave him. His cartoons are published simultaneously in the  Las Vegas Review-Journal, which kept the cartoon.

Ramirez was not pleased with Shipley's decision:

“He knew that I wasn’t happy with it [the cartoon being yanked]… And he begged me not to quit,” Ramirez said. “And honestly, I thought about the consequences of that. If I quit, then the cancel culture people win because they basically exorcise the Washington Post of my cartoon, and I didn’t want to give them that luxury.” [emphasis added]

He indicated that he would respond to the incident, and he did:

Ramirez added a note, "When the intellectually indolent cannot defend the indefensible they pull out the race card."

But this is not the first time a newspaper has bowed to external pressure. Three years ago, The New York Post reported: New York Times changes headline following pressure from Democrats. When then-President Trump said he was considering deploying the military to put an end to riots in response to the death of George Floyd, the story's headline was posted to Twitter: “As Chaos Spreads, Trump Vows to ‘End It Now.'” There was an uproar on Twitter because the headline was not negative. They preferred  the online version of the headline, "Police Clear Protesters With Tear Gas So Trump Can Pose by Church." When the late edition came out, it carried the headline, “Trump Threatens to Send Troops into States.” The mob dictated to the editor what kind of headline he could use.

These days, we are seeing another kind of disruption of speech. People are tearing down posters featuring the faces of the 240 Israeli civilians taken hostage by Hamas terrorists and dragged into Gaza. Some people find these posters offensive. They are "triggered" by them. When they were in college, they may have protested against speakers they did not like and tried to prevent them from speaking. Now, they tear down posters.

The "defense" offered by one such person below makes no more sense than the comments above by readers in defense of demanding the removal of a political cartoon that does not represent their opinion:

It is all about personal and group agendas and the need to disrupt the free speech of others with opposing views. After decades of seeing this on university campuses, we witness it now pouring out onto streets around the world.

But this is not based on logic or rights or free speech for all. It is all part of perpetuating one's own agenda. That explains the inconsistency we are seeing. As Jonah Goldberg puts it:

the idea that hurting someone’s feelings or not ratifying their grievances is a form of violence or bigotry. But now, according to their heads-we-win-tails-you-lose worldview, speech that they don’t like is literal violence, and literal violence that they do like is speech.

The rules of the game are not set in stone. They are being set by those who have the numbers online and in the streets. You do not necessarily have to be articulate. All you need is to repeat some chants and accuse anyone who stands in your way of being a racist. 

Vandalizing property and tearing down posters get you extra points.

---

---

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon! Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.  Read all about it here!

 

Read More

Interview With Pierre Rehov: "Hamas Made A Big Mistake" (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

Pierre Rehov is a French-Israeli filmmaker known for his movies about the Arab–Israeli conflict, Israel in the media, and Palestinian terrorism. I had the opportunity to speak with him about his thoughts about the latest brutal attack by Hamas.

Pierre Rehov

(This interview was edited for clarity and brevity)

In your interviews of members of Islamic Jihad, Al Qaeda and Hamas, what did you find motivates these terrorists?

There are many answers to that and 2 levels of answers.

One level is political: they are brainwashed. These terrorists actually believe Islam must prevail and conquer the world. But I was more interested in their personal stories. Most of them were suicide bombers who were unsuccessful in their mission. But there was one who succeeded, but his life was saved in an Israeli hospital. I wanted to know what motivated them to want to kill themselves like that.

Also, I sent a team to Japan to interview former kamikazes and see what they thought about Muslim "kamikazes." The Japanese kamikazes were ashamed because they acted out of honor and would only target military personnel. They were not like the Palestinian terrorists, whose main goal was to terrorize, to target women and children. The terrorists would avoid the army and the police; they just wanted to target as many women and children as possible.

Below:

In a promotional excerpt of Rehov's Path To Darkness on YouTube a former kamikaze relates

(at 1:43):

I was angry that terrorists used our tactic to carry out such dirty acts. Then people started calling them "kamikaze." I could not stand it.

I asked the Hamas prisoners why they did that -- what would it do for them? They described their actions as nationalistic and in terms of duty. I realized that I was talking to people with a high level of frustration, living in an oppressive society where they would have no real chance of going out with girls and getting married. Without this outlet, these kids were prime targets for the local imam or leader who encouraged them to kill themselves, a few Jews -- and end up in heaven.

And if they fail in their mission and end up in prison, they will receive a stipend from the Palestinian Authority and their families will be honored as a family of heroes. It is a whole society built around a hatred of Jews. It is not by accident that they become terrorists.

Have you seen any differences in the motivation among different terrorist groups?

No. Hamas made a big mistake. Most of the massacres on October 7th were committed not by Hamas people but by Gazan civilians they allowed to follow them in. Hamas had orders to commit a certain number of crimes, tortures, and kidnappings, but they were followed by over a thousand civilians from Gaza who were more than happy to torture, set people on fire, kill them, and call their families. Hamas did not expect them to then film themselves because they were so proud of themselves. Those videos are now all over social media.

 

In the past, Hamas always had the same strategy. They would attack Israel, Israel would retaliate, and then Hamas would hide behind civilians and use them as human shields. When Israel would then bomb Gaza, Hamas would show pictures that the media, especially the left-wing media, would be only too happy to publish. They would call the Israelis "murderers" and everyone would be on Hamas's side.

This time, the Hamas atrocities can be found all around the Internet, and they cannot lie about it anymore. They thought things would turn out the same way as in 2014, that Israel would retaliate, followed by another ceasefire and demands that Israel stop.

This time it is not going to work. Also, they thought with Israel's anti-government protests, left-wing vs right-wing, people protesting in the streets against judicial reform, religious vs non-religious, and everyone fighting against each other -- that Israel was divided and weak. But on October 8th, Israel woke up. It is not going to give up on getting back the hostages and it is not going to give up on getting rid of Hamas. No matter the cost. 

Why is it that this time around, with all the brutal murders, there are still sympathizers with the Palestinian terrorists?

Lenin had a phrase for people like this: useful idiots. Those brainwashed kids know nothing about history, like the kids in the 1970s who followed Che Guevera and Castro because it was so cool to be against capitalism. Today, the new hero is the Hamas terrorist who continues to attack Israel after all the Arab armies were unable to defeat it, so Palestine became a big symbol. You also have the communists, whose goal is to destroy capitalism and the West. Remember, the Palestinian cause was invented by Yasir Arafat in 1964 with the help of the KGB. Arafat wanted to pull the Arab countries together against Israel. The Soviet Union allied with the Arab countries because they opposed the US. Another factor in the creation of the Palestinian people is that between WWI and WWII you had the Grand Mufti who tried to inspire the Arabs with a sense of nationalism against a Jewish state. 

The history of pre-Israel Palestine, especially the developments between WWI and WWII is complicated. How can you explain that to a kid 20 years old, when you can just give him a Palestinian flag and tell him to go with his friends in the street and sing "Palestine Will Be Free!"

Meanwhile, antisemitism is back big time. I would say we are back to where we were in 1938, having another Chamberlain trying to make peace with Hitler, the same way that Obama tried to make peace with Iran. Iran was aware of what Hamas was going to do. In fact, Hamas was originally supposed to attack on Passover. Iran asked them to hold on and wait because they were in the middle of a deal with Biden who was going to give them six billion dollars. Iran wanted to get the money first, and then Hamas could go ahead and attack Israel. Not all of the details are clear.

Iran and Hamas did not anticipate that Biden would send the USS Gerald Ford and USS Eisenhower to the Middle East to protect Israel. If the Gazan civilians had not been filming all those atrocities, maybe Biden would not have felt forced to act so strongly on the side of Israel. Any human being, whether you are on the left or the right, Democrat or Republican, would have to be a soulless person to not be shocked or disgusted by what happened.

Besides being known for their terrorism, Hamas is also known for its propaganda. Do you think that Hamas has been as successful in its propaganda as it has been in the past?

No. A lot of people woke up, especially the Jewish community in general and the Jewish community in America in particular. Even someone like Bernie Sanders said there should not be a ceasefire. How shocked must he have been to realize at a certain point that this was not the Palestine he was dreaming of, to realize that here was a Nazi type of organization, with the goal to conquer the Western world -- but with Israel in the way, they cannot go ahead with the rest of the plan.

As far as the pogroms of the Jews are concerned, in the Muslim world you had Morocco in 1907 when sixty-five Jews were murdered in the same way. There was Hebron in 1929, when the Grand Mufti Hussein claimed Jews wanted to destroy the Al-Aqsa mosque. There was the Farhud in Iraq in 1941. But it was not just Jews. Look at Yasir Arafat, the PLO and Fatah. When they were in Lebanon, they completely destroyed the Christian city of Damour in 1976, a few weeks before Sabra and Shatila. 

You have said that to interview Hamas terrorists in Israeli prisons, you need the permission of Hamas as well as of Israel. Why would Hamas give permission to speak to Hamas terrorists in prison?

First, there is the propaganda value of the interview. Also, for the terrorists, having a reporter with a movie team, a translator, a soundtaker, and a cameraman -- it's kind of fun in the middle of the boredom.

Remember, they think differently than a Westerner. They took pictures of themselves committing massacres. Even the Nazis did not do that; they tried to hide everything they did. These terrorists did not try to hide; they posted what they did on social networks. They are proud of what they did and believe they are right. They want to convince me. My only goal was to expose them and try to understand them on a personal level.

Do you think this time Hamas will again get a ceasefire?

This time will be totally different. If the government of Israel stops or allows a ceasefire without getting rid of Hamas and getting back the hostages, the people of Israel will hang Bibi. Nobody in Israel wants a ceasefire. Everyone in Israel wants to go all the way. The leader of Israel has to do what the people want. It is a trauma beyond anything that anyone in the world can fathom at this point. It is a repetition of the Shoah. It is in our DNA. We will not forget what happened in the Holocaust. We will not forget the pogroms in Russia and Poland. We will not forget the Inquisition, the Crusades and the Warsaw Ghetto. This time it is one time too much. There is a big difference.

This time our enemies are dealing with a country with a very powerful army.

---

---

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon! Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.  Read all about it here!

 

Read More

What Effect Are The Massive Anti-Israel and Antisemitic Protests Having In The US? (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

Never take anything for granted.

That also goes for opinion polls on the attitude of Americans when it comes to Israel. For a very long time, the vast majority of Americans favored Israel over the Palestinian Arabs. 

And that support for Israel was bipartisan, shared by both Republicans and Democrats.

In January, the Pew Research Center reported that was changing: Republicans and Democrats Grow Even Further Apart in Views of Israel, Palestinians:

Currently, 79% of Republicans say they sympathize more with Israel than the Palestinians, compared with just 27% of Democrats.

While 27% of Democrats sided with Israel, 25% sided with the Palestinian Arabs.

It was easy to ignore the warning signs when the overall general attitude toward the conflict remained in favor of Israel, with 46% of Americans sympathizing more with Israelis and 16% saying they sympathize more with Palestinian Arabs.

But just two months later, Gallup reported Democrats' Sympathies in Middle East Shift to Palestinians:

After a decade in which Democrats have shown increasing affinity toward the Palestinians, their sympathies in the Middle East now lie more with the Palestinians than the Israelis, 49% versus 38%.

So much for bipartisan support for Israel in the US Congress.

That question of support for Israel became even more important following the Hamas massacre of over 1,400 Israeli men, women, and children on October 7th. In order to properly deal with the Hamas threat, Israel needed US support, both military and moral. But how much could Israel depend on US support, especially with a Democratic president in office and just over a year till the presidential elections?

Thus far, Biden has been supportive overall, even taking in account criticisms of US pressure on Israel as it seeks to rid itself of the Hamas threat once and for all. 

But at the same time, members of the "Squad," especially Tlaib, have been pushing to deny aid to Israel and to implement a ceasefire, which would allow Hamas terrorists to live to attack another day.

A month after the 10/7 massacre, social media has been bombarding users with news, at times inaccurate if not outright fake. Arguments have been made and videos and images have been posted. Hamas and its allies are known for their propaganda prowess. Israel is known for its weakness in advocating its position. The preponderance of anti-Israel protests in the US, as well as around the world, make Jews even more wary.

What do the most recent polls say now?

Yesterday, Laura Adkins of The Forward, posted the following survey on Twitter, from the NPR/PBS Newshour Marist poll from October 11.

Here is an enlarged view:

The polling data behind the poll is available online.

This is not bad, especially after being bombarded with online images of massive protests against Israel. But that was just 4 days after the massacre happened.

What are attitudes now?

Adkins tries to address this too:

On November 2nd, Shibley Telhamy posted the results of this other poll: Is the Israel-Gaza war changing US public attitudes?

To probe the issue, the University of Maryland Critical Issues Poll with Ipsos asked several questions focused on the role of the United States and the perception of the Biden administration. The poll did not directly ask about attitudes toward the war itself but probed any shifts in public attitudes on the Israeli-Palestinian issue broadly. It was fielded October 20-22 among 1,021 respondents using Ipsos’ probability-based KnowledgePanel with a margin of error of 3.3%. [Methodology of the survey is available here.]

Shibley points out that the poll itself was taken only 2 weeks after the massacre, with criticism of Israel increasing, especially now that Israel is taking the war directly to Hamas in Gaza. We know that opinion of Israel is not static under such circumstances and more polls are forthcoming.

Among the points he makes:

Public opinion on U.S. policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian issue remains divided along partisan lines. The opinion of younger Americans is always concerning. Currently, 14% vs 16.2% of young Democrats are leaning toward Israel. Overall, 54.5% of young Americans want the US not to lean toward either side.

Most of those who responded to the survey say that Biden is “too pro-Israeli” as opposed to “too pro-Palestinian.” Forty percent of respondents say they are not sure.

Even those who want Biden to take Israel's side, not all are happy with the approach he is taking:

[T]hose who say that the president favors one side or the other sometimes include those who want the United States to take that side — but that they think the president is doing it more so than they prefer. For example, among Democrats who say Biden is too pro-Israeli, 14.8% also say they want the United States to lean toward Israel. [emphasis added]

An important conclusion of the poll addresses whether efforts by Tlaib and others to apply political pressure on Biden to stop supporting Israel are having the desired effect:

Third, more respondents say that Biden’s position on the Israeli-Palestinian issue makes them “less likely” (30.9%) than “more likely” (14.2%) to vote for Biden if the presidential elections were held today.

But here is the odd part. These are the results overall of all respondents. Even Shipley understands that Republicans are unlikely to vote for Biden just because he supports Israel, so the key is how Democrats responded.

Now take a look at the breakdown:

According to these numbers, Democrats at this point are more likely to vote for Biden based on his position on Israel: 28.4% vs 10.8%. That is surprising and noteworthy. Independents are a different story.

Obviously, as the reports of casualties in Gaza continue to come out, we will see changes in these polling numbers.

Nevertheless, overall the numbers seem to indicate that negativity and threats generated by the anti-Israel and antisemitic protests we are seeing are not having the massive effect that many fear.

All the more reason for the Jewish community to get its act together.

---

---

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon! Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.  Read all about it here!

 

Read More

"Alternate Reality" Threatens Both Israel and Jewish Communities Around the World (Daled Amos)

Language is created by people. It's a reflection of both their times and their mindset.

No less an authority than Calvin & Hobbs pointed this out:

Calvin is right, the word "access" was originally only a noun.

Here is the entry for "access" in Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary -- from 1970:

Websters in 1970 defined "access" only as a noun, and then it defined "accessible" as "usable for access" or "easy of access" -- using "access" as a noun. The fact it defines "accessibility" as "easy of access" instead of "easy to access" is because there was no such thing as "to access" at the time. 

In time, possibly because of computers, "access" became a noun and a verb since it was more convenient to say "access" instead of "gain access."

But even Calvin stopped short of the whole truth. He said that "verbing weirds language." 

Actually, ideology "weirds" language too.

How long have we argued about the difference between militants and terrorists? This issue comes up when the media reports about Palestinians attacking Israeli civilians and trying to kill them. The media insists on calling these Palestinians "militants" instead of "terrorists." And no wonder. Unlike militants, terrorists target defenseless civilians while militants do not. 

A good example of this wordplay is the BBC. In the midst of the current war between Israel and Hamas, BBC has refused to call Hamas "terrorists," despite the Hamas massacre of 1,400 Israeli civilians and the over 200 hostages dragged back to Gaza:

The BBC has defended its decision not to describe Hamas militants as "terrorists" in coverage of the recent attacks in Israel.

UK Defence Secretary Grant Shapps said the policy is "verging on disgraceful".

A BBC spokesperson noted it was a long-standing position for its reporters not to use the term themselves unless attributing it to someone else.

Veteran BBC foreign correspondent John Simpson said "calling someone a terrorist means you're taking sides".

Pity the BBC. The term terrorist is decidedly negative so they felt they had to find another word -- because synonyms like assassin, bomber, fanatic, guerrilla, gunman, and hijacker didn't seem to reach the level of neutrality they needed to avoid tainting the Hamas name.

After pressure, the BBC made a compromise:

The BBC has recently dropped the use of 'militant' to describe Hamas attackers and instead is continuing to describe the group as a terrorist organisation proscribed by the UK Government and others.

The broadcaster's bosses had faced calls to review its editorial guidelines amid anger - including from Government ministers - at the corporation for not directly referring to Hamas as a terror organisation.

The guidelines state that journalists should not use the term terrorist without attribution - meaning it is permitted only when used by others - and that words such as 'bomber', 'attacker', 'gunman', 'kidnapper', 'insurgent' and 'militant' should be used to describe perpertrators.

According to BBC policy, they will use the T-word only for attribution, but not as a "judgment call." Yet the BBC had no problem describing other groups as terrorists:

Just 2 weeks ago, the BBC actually reported about a terror attack -- in Brussels:

The BBC has now dutifully wiped the headline so that it now reads, "Brussels shooting: 'Europe shaken' after two Swedes shot dead." The T-word is still used 5 times in the article -- twice while quoting an official and the other 3 times could arguably also be an attribution, each time without any qualification.

But this is part of a larger phenomenon we have been seeing in the US during the whitewashing of violence to support a political, ideological agenda.

In 2020, CNN was widely mocked for describing a riot as a 'fiery but mostly peaceful protest'

CNN national correspondent Omar Jimenez was reporting live in the early hours on Tuesday morning on the unrest that had taken place in Kenosha, Wis., following the police-involved shooting of Jacob Blake.

Jimenez was standing in front of a raging fire and the chyron at the bottom of the screen read, "FIERY BUT MOSTLY PEACEFUL PROTESTS AFTER POLICE SHOOTING."

MSNBC did something similar

MSNBC reporter just now: "I want to be clear on how I characterize this. This is mostly a protest. It is not generally speaking unruly."

The guy is literally standing in front of a burning building in the middle of a riot. pic.twitter.com/IzCV6On4sF

— Caleb Hull (@CalebJHull) May 29, 2020

NBC came out right into the open to clarify that NBC would not use the word "riot" to describe the reaction to George Floyd's murder:

NBC News came under scrutiny Thursday for allegedly telling its reporters to refer to the events in Minneapolis this week as "protests" and not "riots," according to one of its anchors.

Craig Melvin, an MSNBC host and co-anchor of "Today," shed some light as to how his network is framing its reporting. 

...Melvin's tweet raised eyebrows among critics who accused the network of downplaying the violence that took place in the city to protest the death of George Floyd.

"What kind of alternate reality is this where the mass looting and burning of businesses is not considered a riot by a news network? A protest is what we had here in LA last night. What’s happening in Minneapolis is the textbook definition of a riot. Protesters don’t loot. Period," local Fox affiliate reporter Bill Melugin tweeted.

The ability to whitewash riots, lootings and the burning of businesses as mere "protests" in defense of left-wing groups such as BLM established the precedence that violence and destruction could be excused and even covered up for a "righteous cause." It set the stage for our current "alternate reality" where people gloss over the Hamas massacres of 1,400 Israeli civilians and the kidnapping of over 200 by Hamas terrorists, and blame the victims.

Peggy Noonan writes about this "alternate reality" in the face of the Hamas massacre. She notes that while people who are middle-aged or older feel sympathy and loyalty towards Israel, the young see the situation in a completely different way. They feel antipathy, "sometimes accompanied by rage, sometimes by almost violent accusations against the colonialist oppressor state." This is more than seeing a righteous cause.

According to Noonan:

At the bottom of today’s progressive politics there is blood lust. They speak of justice and equity but that’s not what they want, they want dominance. It’s all about the will to power. Progressive students have absorbed the idea it’s good to be militant in your views, it shows you’re authentic. No, it shows you got the talking points. [emphasis added]

And now -- consistent with the whitewashing of BLM riots -- university students, armed with those talking points that Noonan mentioned, defend and praise terrorists while condemning their victims. These students are defended by university administrations and by many in the media. Protesters recite their mantra that Israel is an occupier and is therefore responsible for any "violence" committed by Hamas. They may be taking their cue from Francesca Albanese, who under the guise of a law degree, spreads her ideological hatred of Israel and admiration of Hamas and claims that Israel has no right to self-defense.

While Israel is in a battle to change the reality in Gaza, Jewish communities around the world face a rise in antisemitism that threatens to create a new reality of its own.

---

---

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon! Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.  Read all about it here!

 

Read More