It Is Time For Jews To Go Beyond 'Holocaust Mode' (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

Following October 7, the media's anti-Israel bias is again a topic -- not that it ever stops. Journalists keep jumping on the topic of Israeli retaliation against Hamas, magnifying claims of indiscriminate bombing and accepting Hamas's number of casualties.

In a recent article for Haaretz, Laurel Leff takes another angle and examines how the media omits the history behind the founding of the State of Israel:

For Jews, the six million murdered in the Holocaust and the 500,000 survivors without a home helped spur the state's creation...[But] when Israel's origins are evoked in contemporaneous press accounts of the Israel-Hamas War, and it happens often, the Holocaust is almost never mentioned.

Leff's concern is that the omission of the Holocaust from the story leaves a gap in the history of the re-establishment of the State of Israel, "a blank that can be filled by motivations such as settler colonialism or white supremacy." To establish the existence of this pattern of omission, Leff sifted through over 500 news articles and opinion pieces in the top US newspapers following October 7.

One example is the Boston Globe, where an article explains that the slogan "From the river to the sea" generates fears that

touch on memories of genocide and displacement instilled in Jewish communities by Nazi Germany’s eradication of some 6 million Jews in the Holocaust.

Leff argues that while the article recognizes the Holocaust, it fails to connect it with the establishment of Israel.

In another example, an article in the Washington Post runs the headline: "Israeli operations uprooted Palestinians in 1948. Many fear a repeat," but when it refers to "Jewish immigration" increasing "under decades of British authority" there is no reference to where those Jews were coming from or why.

A New York Times article refers to "the young state's triumph against its Arab neighbors in 1948," as "a cherished national story." Leff criticizes the article for failing to connect the dots: the triumph is not revered because of some kind of joy in warfare, but rather because this victory comes against the background of the Holocaust. 

Her argument is that because the media glosses over the connection between the Holocaust and the State of Israel, it creates a faulty narrative about Israel:

A powerful state controlled by Jews emerges out of nowhere and immediately persecutes and displaces Arabs living in its midst. Who the Jews are, why they are there, what they hope to create is never explicated. Into the void flows more noxious accounts, of colonial settlers who migrated to the region only to pillage and exploit, of white supremacists whose sole interest is in subjugating an indigenous population.

But is Leff right -- is knowledge of the Holocaust key to presenting a proper history and understanding of the re-establishment of the modern Jewish State?

After all, the Holocaust seems to be an important component in presenting Israel's case. It is an emotional argument -- and one of the criticisms of Hasbarah is that it is too focused on dry facts and numbers instead of making a visceral, emotional argument.

But the genocide of Jews under Nazi Germany does not resonate the same way that it did in the past. Just as importantly, historically the Holocaust only supports the case for the re-creation of Israel from 1948 forward, not for anything before.

Holocaust history is important, but it does not generate Jewish pride in the same way that the 3,000+ year indigenous history of the Jewish people in the Land of Israel does. Knowledge of Jewish history, language, culture, and religion plants the seeds for Jewish pride in a way that knowledge about the Holocaust alone does not.

I remember being told as a child that it was important to maintain one's Jewishness so as not to give Hitler a victory. Today, that argument will not fly.

This long historical Jewish bond to the land is something that Palestinian Arabs can never have, no matter how many times they claim to be descended from the Jebusites. That may explain in part why they are looked down upon by other Arabs. Rafael Patai writes in his book, The Seeds of Abraham:

Sentiments in French mandatory, and later independent, Syria were thus related back to the great days when Syria, with Damascus as its splendid capital, was the center of the great Umayyad caliphate, while the newly reestablished Iraq saw herself as heir to the Abbasid empire whose center was the Iraqi capital of Baghdad. However, no other Arab country had as solid a basis for priding itself of its glorious past as Egypt, which, although its greatest age lay far back in the millennia of the jahiliyya [Arabia before the advent of Islam], nevertheless came to view that early Pharaonic period as part of its national history.

However, Palestinian Arabs lack that rich Arab heritage.

In Palestine, such attempts at establishing a great Arab national past ran into a vexing problem. Since Palestine had never been an independent Arab country, its period of pride had to be sought in the biblical Israelite age.

And their claims of a rival connection to the land are periodically contradicted by archaeological discoveries.

Thus the resort to the Nakba.

Leff sees the Holocaust as both an argument for the Jewish right to Israel as well as a defense against the claim that Jews are not sufficiently woke:

But without mention of the then fresh Jewish trauma of the Holocaust, Jews' reasons for wanting, perhaps needing, a state, are absent, leaving a blank that can be filled by motivations such as settler colonialism or white supremacy.

But Jewish indigeneity and our uninterrupted presence on the land for over 3,000 years is just as effective in making our case. It is a source of pride and of Jewish identity in the fight against assimilation that Holocaust studies cannot match.

The media may not remind their readers of the historical Jewish bond to Israel, but we cannot afford to fail in passing on this heritage to future generations.

---

---

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

Terrorism is not resistance (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

A new book, A Brief and Visual History of Antisemitism, was published last year. The over 500 pages of text are thorough and filled with photos, illustrations, cartoons, and maps. It is designed in a way that makes it easy to find information.

Like debunking antisemitic and anti-Israel myths.

Chapter Eight deals with The Current Landscape, and includes a section on Debunking the Myths. One of those myths is very prevalent now and is being used as an excuse by the terrorist apologists who defend the Hamas massacre --

Claim: "Terrorism (an indiscriminate attack on innocent civilians) is a legitimate response to Israel's [insert excuse here]"

Israel Bitton, the author of A Brief and Visual History of Antisemitism and executive director of Americans Against Antisemitism, points out:

Intifada, jihad, "resistance" Khaybar, "from the river to the sea," and "free Palestine," are all euphemisms for the erasure of Israel and the annihilation of the Jewish state, including the Jews within. [p. 516]

He exposes the excuses.

The following is based on what he writes.

Unlike the apologists, Hamas leaders emerge from behind the euphemisms when making their case. In 2006, Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal candidly said, "Our enemies don't understand that a suicide operation is a natural right." On October 7, we saw just how far Hamas goes in its pursuit of these "natural rights" -- and how far their allies are willing to go to defend and excuse those attacks.

But back in 2003, Olara A. Otunnu, undersecretary-general and UN Special Representative for Children in Armed Conflict said in a statement before the Security Council: "The use of suicide bombing is entirely unacceptable. Nothing can justify this."

And to prove the point, all you have to do is look at international law -- not read the self-serving statements by Francesca Albanese, but read the actual documents. Bitton points out:

Revenge isn't a right granted per international law, nor is it tolerated and justified in any human society, so murdering innocent people can never be equated with legitimately "resisting" oppression. [p. 517]

He supports that by quoting what international humanitarian law actually says as explained by the International Red Cross:

There is no "right of resistance."

Contrary to what we are seeing presented as international humanitarian law, "by all means necessary" is an anti-Israel agenda dressed up as international law.

Protocol I, Article 51 clearly states, "Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited."

The first two examples are:

(a) those which are not directed at a specific military objective;
(b) those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective;

The Geneva Convention recognizes the difference between deliberately targeting civilians and targeting terrorists who exploit civilians as human shields.

This touches on another point that is particularly relevant in light of the intimidation, vandalism, and attacks on Jews and Jewish establishments by Hamas apologists and supporters. According to Article 33 of the Geneva Convention:

No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed.
Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.

Pillage is prohibited.

Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.

Bitton suggests a novel angle:

That means that Palestinian calls to violence, such as "globalize the intifada," which render all Jews around the world legitimate targets of reprisal are an incitement to war crimes and ought to be treated as such. [p. 518; emphasis added]

Today, these public calls for the collective punishment of Jews around the world are not only being made by Palestinian terrorists -- their apologists make these calls during their "protests" -- protests that often deteriorate into riots and attacks on both Jews and their property.

A Brief History, published a year ago, describes examples of war crimes we actually witnessed on October 7:

Taking Israelis (and Jews) hostage is a war crime and one with which Israel is, sadly, too experienced. Mutilating corpses is a war crime, but it's also the height of depravity and the essence of a crime against one's humanity to which Israelis have been repeated subjected. Finally, Hamas, for the most part, doesn't use willing human shields for protection but has been shown to force residents of Gaza to remain in their places even after Israel calls in advance for civilians to evacuate--to those who dare flee, Hamas eventually catches up. [p. 519]

The book explains further on the context of the Geneva Conventions and international law:

o International law is not written with the intent that it can be suspended when committing war crimes is the only option for reaching a political end

o The fact that Hamas is limited to rockets that can only be fired in the direction of population centers in Israel and that Israel has the Iron Dome does not justify Palestinian terrorism

o The fact that more Palestinian Arabs are killed in response to its terrorist attacks reveals nothing about the circumstances under which those deaths occurred. [p. 521]

The "experts" on international law, both individuals and organizations, seem to either be ignorant of the facts or use their positions to pursue their agenda instead of pursuing the facts.

Yet, sometimes the truth manages to stick its head out, even if only temporarily. In 2002, Amnesty International published its report: Without Distinction – Attacks on Civilians by Palestinian Armed Groups. While the report, true to form, accuses Israel of various violations, it also condemned Palestinian attacks on Israeli civilians and made clear those attacks had no basis under international law:

o "The attacks against civilians by Palestinian armed groups are widespread, systematic and in pursuit of an explicit policy to attack civilians. They therefore constitute crimes against humanity under international law."

o "Amnesty International condemns unreservedly direct attacks on civilians as well as indiscriminate attacks, whatever the cause for which the perpetrators are fighting, whatever justification they give for their actions."

o "Targeting civilians and being reckless as to their fate are contrary to fundamental principles of humanity which should apply in all circumstances at all times."

This was during the Second Intifada.

But these days, twenty years later, there is an attempt to legitimize October's Hamas massacre, whitewash the rapes and kidnappings, and push for a ceasefire that will enable Hamas to survive and terrorize another day -- which is exactly what they have sworn to do.

International humanitarian law is easily misunderstood and distorted by the mobs blindly chanting slogans that hide their ignorance of the Middle East. The reality is very different.

Terrorism is not resistance

---

---

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

Is Israeli Hasbara Getting Better, Or Are Journalists Losing It? (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

There is always concern about Hasbara, Israel's ability to counter anti-Israel propaganda, especially during conflicts with Hamas terrorists in Gaza. When it comes to the reaction from the IDF, there are obvious problems where there is a need to get the facts out quickly while making sure the information is confirmed. Just as important, the spokesperson has to have a good command of the language of the audience to which he is speaking and must also speak confidently and coherently.

This has been a continuing concern.

There is also the need for Israeli spokespersons to present Israel's case when interviewed on live TV by journalists who are not necessarily sympathetic, or even objective. Some recent examples show that Israeli spokespersons can hold their own. Those same examples call the objectivity and ability of the journalist into question.

Here is Mark Regev, former Israeli ambassador to the UK and currently an adviser to Netanyahu. The journalist doesn't attack anything Regev said or Israel has done. She just makes a disturbing comparison in passing and Regev reacts immediately.

He doesn't just challenges the comparison of Israeli hostages with Palestinian Arab prisoners. When the interviewer attempts to defend herself by bringing up the example of a 14-year-old Palestinian Arab, Regev challenges her again to reveal what crime the boy had been imprisoned for. She could not.

Here is another example, this time with Israeli Government Spokesman Eylon Levy. Here,
Kay Burleigh of Sky News, says she spoke to an unnamed hostage negotiator who 

made the comparison between the fifty hostages that Hamas has promised to release, as opposed to the one hundred and fifty that are Palestinian that has said it will release. And he made the comparison between the numbers and the fact that does Israel not think that Palestinian lives are valued as highly as Israeli lives?

Just look at Levy's eyebrows -- and listen to his sharp rebuke.

In both interviews, the deliberate attempt by journalists to make Israeli hostages comparable to violent Palestinian prisoners is disturbing. It also reflects the narrative that we will continue to see in the media.

Burleigh's attempt to portray the larger number of Palestinian Arabs being released as reflecting poorly on Israel reminds me of a paper published in 2007 that theorized that,

Arab women in Judea and Samaria are not raped by IDF soldiers because the women are de-humanized in the soldiers' eyes.

Something that would be seen as reflecting positively on the IDF is turned into a negative. Nevertheless, the paper won a Hebrew University teachers' committee prize.

But Makor Rishon editor Amnon Lord noted the absurdity:

It is noteworthy that Palestinian propaganda around the world frequently accuses Israelis of murder and rape. Such that this situation is unique: An army is found blameworthy of rape, and is also blameworthy of not raping.

Here is one last example. The interviewer is not speaking to an Israeli spokesperson. A British doctor is describing his experience in the al-Shifa hospital in Gaza and how hospital staff was ordered not to enter certain areas -- and warned that they would be shot if they disobeyed.

In response to the doctor being threatened with being shot for going into certain areas of the hospital, she responds:

They would say there could be many other reasons that you would be told not to go to a particular area of a hospital. It's not unusual.

She's right, of course. They -- Hamas -- likely will say there are other, perfectly rational reasons why they forbade free access in a hospital to a doctor using the threat of death. But it is jarring to hear her do their work for them.

A British doctor who used to work in Gaza's Shifa hospital recounts: "I was told there was a part of the hospital I was not to go near and if I did, I'd be in danger of being shot."

Is this also totally normal in the hospitals you frequent @BowenBBC? pic.twitter.com/JGwIwEiR3K

— Aviva Klompas (@AvivaKlompas) November 19, 2023

Defending Israel in the media, and having to have an immediate answer to questions that are usually unsympathetic is a daunting task. Especially when the media asks what they consider questions in the interests of "evenhandedness."  When done successfully, it is reassuring.

But these media confrontations, like the current Gaza War itself, are far from over.

---

---

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

Exclusive interview with Colonel Richard Kemp: "Hamas can only benefit" from the ceasefire (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

Colonel Richard Kemp is a retired British Army Commander who served from 1977 to 2006. He has spoken out in defense of Israel against Hamas, against those who have accused it of violating international law. I had an opportunity to talk with him about what he thought about the ceasefire with Hamas.

Colonel Richard Kemp

You don't have to have a military background to see the military benefits of this ceasefire for Hamas, but what about Israel? Other than rescuing the hostages, Does Israel get any benefit out of this ceasefire? 

I think there is nothing really that Israel can do as a result of this ceasefire that they wouldn't have been able to do anyway. There is no direct on-the-ground military advantage for Israel.

So is there any upside at all to this cease-fire for Israel?

The upside for Israel is that obviously, many people are sympathetic to the families, and a lot of pressure on the government to agree to arrange for the release of the hostages. That is important because of what Israel is going through. There are a lot of soldiers being killed and a huge amount of disruption to the society in Israel. It is extremely important that the population is kept supporting the government's actions. And I think this ceasefire and the release of hostages helps with that. That is one of the upsides. 

The other upside is there is a lot of pressure from the United States on Israel to agree to this cease-fire, and it is important for Israel to take into account the opinions of the White House because the continued support of the US president is extremely important to Israel.

Those are the only two upsides, besides getting the hostages back, which obviously is important.

On the flip side, does Hamas lose anything by this ceasefire, or is it a pure win for them?

Hamas doesn't lose anything. They can only benefit. They get breathing room in which to regroup, recover, maybe replenish weaponry, and reorganize themselves for what is going to come next. That is obviously an advantage for them, but equally a disadvantage for Israel. 

And the other benefit is for those who are already sympathetic to Hamas and opposed to Israel. Hamas's humanitarian image is going to be improved. They will be seen as willing to release some of these hostages. That doesn't add up for any rational person, but it will be portrayed in that way by some in the media who oppose Israel. So I think that is a pretty big benefit to them. And it is a pretty big drawback for Israel. There is obviously a lot of public support for what Israel is doing in light of the horrors of the seventh of October but memories fade, and they fade very quickly if you are not directly involved. I think there will be a bit of a shift of sympathy toward Hamas's image on this.

So Hamas is not going to look weak or desperate?

To me personally, it makes Hamas look very weak. It is a sign of desperation by Hamas and I hope that other people will see it that way as well. To release these hostages in exchange for 150 Hamas prisoners is an unprecedented deal by Hamas. Normally, they would want a lot more prisoners. It just shows how weak they are because frankly, the 150 prisoners who are being released -- Hamas couldn't care less about them. Whereas Israel gains the release of 50 hostages, Hamas doesn't gain these 150 prisoners because Hamas doesn't get any real benefit from them. So all Hamas is getting out of the ceasefire is that breathing room. 

There are other downsides for Israel as well, not military but geopolitical or strategic downsides. When the ceasefire goes into effect, there will be a great deal of pressure on Israel to extend it. People have been watching a large number of civilians getting killed and the destruction inside Gaza. Many people don't understand why that is necessary and are determined it should end. They will be pressuring Israel on this ceasefire to extend and extend and extend. And of course, Hamas will try to do the same thing by offering a further drip-feed of hostage releases, which if Israel does not have sufficient resolve to withstand could be very detrimental to the long-term campaign.

The second major strategic downside is that some Arab countries will see this as a sign of Israeli weakness because most Arab countries want to see Israel destroy Hamas. Hamas threatens them, maybe indirectly, but it threatens them. They want to see Israel smash Hamas. And they will see this ceasefire maybe as an Israeli weakness. I'm talking about countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE. They want a strong Israel, an Israel that can defend itself and can also help defend them. So I think that this could be an undermining of confidence in Israel. 

Along those lines, some suggest that a goal of Iran on October 7 could have been to undercut the Abraham Accords as a joint front against Iran. Would you agree?

Yes, I would agree that one of the reasons for the attack was that Iran wanted to disrupt and terminate the normalization, particularly between Israel and Saudi Arabia. I think the Abraham Accords has held together during this conflict. I do think that it is quite likely that after the conflict in Gaza is over, it is likely there will be a resumption to get normalization between Israel and the Saudis. The ceasefire might delay this,  but it is likely to go ahead. The Saudis are not fools; they know very well why Iran directed this attack to happen. 

I do not believe this hostage release alone is going to be pivotal in any of these Arab relationships. It doesn't help matters because the Accords are not just about economic benefits. It is about military strength and support by Israel. Israel just has to be extremely careful to conclude this war effectively and successfully and guard against any further actions that could be seen as weakness by the Arab countries.

So taking into account the hostage deal, Israel really cannot afford to stop short of the complete elimination of Hamas?

I agree. I think it is essential that Israel achieves that and has a minimum delay in doing it. Obviously, the longer the delay, the more problematic it is. Also, I think that Israel has to look very carefully at what is happening in the north with Hezbollah. It has to be dealt with. If Israel doesn't address Hezbollah and act against Hezbollah after what Hezbollah has been doing during the last few weeks, that too will be seen as a sign of weakness. 

It is not only the Arab countries that will get that message about Israeli weakness, but also the US. The US wants to see a strong Israel. Whether that is the agenda of President Biden or was the agenda of President Obama, I do not know, but I think that in broader terms the US needs a strong Israel because the US has other major concerns outside the Middle East, including what is going on in Europe, China and Taiwan, etc. and needs a strong Israel that is not overly dependent on the US and also bolsters the security of other Arab countries against Iran. 

You wouldn't necessarily be able to tell that from Biden's actions in relation to Iran, but I think more broadly in the longer term that is important for the US and Israel.

So the repercussions of this ceasefire and hostage deal extend beyond the Middle East?

The Biden administration has had a track record of weakness, going back to the very start of his presidency, which was soon followed by the withdrawal from Afghanistan. That was a major sign of weakness. We have also seen the Biden administration's weakness over Ukraine, failing to give enough support to Ukraine to enable it to succeed against Russia. The ceasefire is good for Russia and China and the other enemies of the US. The last thing that the US needs now is further signs of weakness. The pressure on Israel not to take the war to its obvious conclusion and the pressure on Israel not to deal with Hezbollah -- play straight into the hands of Russia, China, and Iran. 

Netanyahu is in a weak position, both because of accusations that he is partly responsible for Oct 7 and because of the backlash against his judicial reforms. And that weakens Israel as well -- True, Oct 7 has unified Israel, but now with the ceasefire -- what is the mood in Israel, now?

I've been here, In Israel, since a few days following the October massacre, and I've seen what is going on here. I think that Israel is very closely united in seeking to destroy Hamas. There is not much dissent, if any, among people in Israel. I think there has been more division in terms of the hostages. I've spoken to a lot of people in different positions in the government, in the military, and the ordinary people in the street about what their views are, and obviously there are quite a few different perspectives. I would say the majority have reservations about the ceasefire to enable the release of the hostages, but I think the majority -- though they may have reservations -- also think this is the right thing to do. I haven't done my own poll, but my impression is the majority is behind what is happening. 

In straight military terms, I see the ceasefire for the hostages as a military negative for Israel, but Netanyahu has more important things to concern himself with than just the military campaign. He has to take into account public opinion and public pressure, plus pressure from the US. You have to look at the perspective of how much Israel needs the US, both politically and militarily. Israel has stood up to the US on some things but there has to be some give-and-take.

 Putting aside the geopolitical, what about the protests in the West -- how might the ceasefire affect them? 

The protestors are not going to be calmed by a short ceasefire. They are going to seize on it as something they can work on to try and continue and apply pressure on their political leaders to get the ceasefire extended. I think if anything it could lead to an upsurge. And then assuming the hostilities continue in Gaza, we could see an upsurge in protests and violence. I think it is going to get worse than it has been so far. I think the ceasefire is going to have a more inflammatory effect on the protests.

What will Gaza look like post-Hamas -- who will be in charge?

I think the IDF will have to retain overall security responsibility in Gaza, which will either require a permanent presence there or the ability to move in and out at will. Maybe they will have to take over the immediate general management of the Strip as well unless the UN steps up to the mark quickly. I suspect Israel and its partners will be trying to identify someone from within Gaza who can be empowered to take over the reconstruction as soon as possible, backed by international money. The other alternative is the PA, but I suspect this is unlikely.

Finishing up, from a military perspective is there anything that you would like to see Israel do differently? 

I don't think so. I think Israel's tactics have been remarkably successful in their military operations inside Gaza, probably exceeding the expectations of the IDF commanders. Fundamentally, I would not see an alternative to what they are doing. 

And things like the civilian death rates, we have no idea what they are because we don't believe the Hamas figures on that, though they are significant, I'm sure. But Israel is taking the most effective possible steps to minimize civilian casualties. However, it is impossible to prevent them altogether when you are fighting an enemy that hides behind the civilian population. You have two choices. You can either say you cannot attack the enemy because civilians might die and you will allow the enemy to remain a threat, or you say that it is unfortunate that some civilians are going to die -- we cannot stop it, but that is just the way it is.

The actions of the UN, particularly the Human Rights Council, the NGOs, the universities, the politicians in some cases -- their activities going back to the Goldstone Report have led to this situation. The whole objective of Hamas has been the delegitimization of Israel by carrying out attacks that force Israel to respond in ways that result in the deaths of civilians, which are then condemned as war crimes. So all of that is playing directly into Hamas's hands. That is the cycle of violence that exists in the Middle East. It is not the cycle of violence in which Israel is involved. Instead, it is the cycle of violence in which Hamas, the UN, other international bodies, and other political leaders are involved. These people who have condemned Israel unjustly of war crimes over the years have blood on their hands. They have directly led to what is going on today.

---

---

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

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