More good (delusional) news from Iran!

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Nasser Kanaani said Wednesday, that "the false advocates of human rights have been supporting the racist, terrorist Zionist entity for decades."

Really? 

He apparently tweeted, "The false claimants of human rights support a racist, terrorist and occupying entity for more than 7 decades, which not only commits gross violations of human rights, but also commits genocide against the Palestinian people!”

Sadly, he didn't identify which human rights groups or advocates support Israel. We would all love to know. 

I'd also like to know his definition of "genocide," given that Iran has killed more innocent civilians in the past two months than Israel has in years.

---

---

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

Any support for Israel is "anti-Palestinian racism" according to left-wing UK Jewish group

From Jewish News (UK):

Anti-occupation group Na’amod have claimed they are opening a “conversation on anti-Palestinian racism” within the UK Jewish community after publishing a series of testimonies that are alleged to shed light on the scale of the problem.

So what are examples of the "anti-Palestinian racism" that they are so horrified at? The article lists:

Among a series of 18 personal testimonies from young members of the community, is a claim that a peaceful pro-Palestine protest at Bristol University was disrupted by a group of students hailing from north west London who “stormed the peaceful protest, sporting large Israeli flags as they frantically ran through the crowds of protestors.”   

Holding an Israeli flag is racist? I'm not sure of when this happened, but perhaps it was this incident, which shows who the racists are:

However, the protest attracted a degree of controversy from fellow students. One group of Zionist Jewish students objected to the protest and stood by the marchers holding an Israeli flag. They reported that marchers shouted at them saying, ‘you are murderers’.

Second-year Languages student, Talia Rack said, ‘No side is blameless but it didn’t feel appropriate to counter-protest this march on Nakba day, in light of what happened on Monday in Gaza’.   

So holding an Israeli flag is racist, but holding Palestinian flags and calling British Jews "murderers" is perfectly fine!

Another example of so-called Jewish racism:

A further testimony includes a claim that pointing out the appalling treatment of LGBTQ+ people in Gaza by Hamas to people holding “Queers For Palestine” banners is “a deeply racist idea — and one that often goes unchallenged in our community.”

Telling "Queers for Palestine" that they would be murdered by Hamas is a "deeply racist idea"?

There were two other examples given that were so vague as to be meaningless:

Another account suggests there are “overt examples of anti-Palestinian racism in the wider British Jewish Community” including “the occasional outbursts of certain members of the Board of Deputies to come face to face with naked bigotry.”

Other examples detail alleged racist responses to the Palestinians, while another testimony from former JFS pupil “Josh” says teaching around Israel at the school meant that “Palestinians were only referenced as an obstacle, a safety threat and a thorn in the side of Jewish freedom and safety.”

This is a list of people being offended at any point of view not their own - but there is not a single example of racism, by any definition.

Meanwhile, in Bristol, the openminded pro-Palestinian crowd routinely burns Israeli flags. Imagine how racist that would be if Zionists did that to Palestinian flags in Bristol!

Maybe the report will have more examples, but from what we see so far, the only thing this proves is that British pro-Palestinian Jews call anyone who disagrees with them "racist" - and they act worse than their supposed tormentors.

---

---

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

Terror groups very upset at UNGA for appointing Israeli as a VP. It's really funny to watch.

Israel's ambassador to the UN, Gilad Erdan was elected on Tuesday as a Vice-President of the 77th session of the United Nations General Assembly.

There are 21 vice presidents. It is not a big deal. And his predecessor, Danny Danon, also held the role one year.

But watching the terror groups and their fans freak out is a wonderful thing to behold.

Hamas issued a statement saying the appointment is an affront to the feelings of our people and to those who love peace and justice in the world. It also considered the appointment an affront to the international system

Walid Al-Awad, a member of the Political Bureau of the Palestinian People's Party, said Erdan's appointment "contradicts the moral and political values ​​stipulated in the Charter of the United Nations."

Best of all was the PFLP terror group, which "considered that the appointment of the criminal representative of the Zionist entity to the United Nations, Gilad Erdan, as Vice-President of the United Nations General Assembly, represented a black day in the history of the United Nations, and constituted a blow to the values ​​on which its charter was founded. "

It added that "this is clear evidence of the influence of the Zionist lobby on centers of power and influence in this world. "

According to the PFLP, antisemitism is one of the UN's core values. Which isn't really that far from the truth!

I just find it hilarious that anyone can claim that Jews have taken over the UN! 

Keep in mind that this same antisemitic PFLP is linked to numerous Palestinian "human rights" groups. And no human rights professional ever finds anything negative to say about the terrorist, antisemitic PFLP. 

---

---

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

Newest Palestinian lie: Israel budgeted 537 BILLION shekels to "Judaize" Jerusalem

The International Middle East Media Center, which pretends to be an independent and objective media outlet, "reports" about the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood that was ethnically cleansed of Jews in 1948:

Israel is planning to build and establish more than 540 colonialist units in the area, and is currently building 54 units, in addition to the ongoing efforts to link them with the Police Command in Sheikh Jarrah and the French Hill settlement in addition to the Hebrew University, as part of the so-called “Jerusalem Belt” colonialist plan linking the colonies with different Palestinian areas in al-‘Isawiya, Rad al-‘Amoud, Wadi ar-Rababa and many other areas, and aim at connecting East Jerusalem with West Jerusalem with this belt of illegal colonies after displacing the indigenous Palestinians.

The Israeli colonialist plan, which is intended to be implemented in phases through many years, was put forth by the government, the Jerusalem City council, the Israel Antiquities Authority and various colonialist organizations in Israel and other counties [sic], and has a budget of 537 Billion Israeli Shekels.

NIS 537 billion is a really specific sounding number! Where did that come from?

It was made up by "activist" Fakhei Abu Diab, whom we have seen both recently and in the past as being obsessed with telling journalists that Jewish history is all a lie. 

How absurd is the NIS 537 billion ($165 billion)?

It is higher than the entire budget of the State of Israel  which is NIS 426 billion!

The entire budget of the municipality of Jerusalem was NIS 11.2 billion in 2020. The entire budget of the Israel Antiquities Authority is less than half a billion shekels.

The IMEMC, which criticizes the Palestinian Authority freely but never says anything bad about Hamas, is often quoted by Electronic Intifada and other anti-Israel outlets as a reliable news source. 

Which goes to show how thoroughly dishonest the entire "pro-Palestinian" media empire is. 

---

---

Read More

A damning indictment of the UN at the WSJ

We've seen many, especially UN Watch, categorize how obsessed the UN is with Israel. But this short WSJ piece by Eugene Kontorovich and Penny Grunseid lays it out, in my opinion, in an even more devastating fashion.

The United Nations began its annual session this week, and Israel will be prominent on the agenda. Many fear the Security Council may consider a resolution setting definite territorial parameters, and a deadline, for the creation of a Palestinian state.

President Obama has hinted that in the final months of his term, he may reverse the traditional U.S. policy of vetoing such resolutions. The General Assembly, meanwhile, is likely to act as the chorus in this drama, reciting its yearly litany of resolutions criticizing Israel.

If Mr. Obama is seeking to leave his mark on the Israeli-Arab conflict—and outside the negotiated peace process that began in Oslo—there is no worse place to do it than the U.N. New research we have conducted shows that the U.N.’s focus on Israel not only undermines the organization’s legitimacy regarding the Jewish state. It also has apparently made the U.N. blind to the world’s many situations of occupation and settlements.

Our research shows that the U.N. uses an entirely different rhetoric and set of legal concepts when dealing with Israel compared with situations of occupation or settlements world-wide. For example, Israel is referred to as the “Occupying Power” 530 times in General Assembly resolutions. Yet in seven major instances of past or present prolonged military occupation—Indonesia in East Timor, Turkey in northern Cyprus, Russia in areas of Georgia, Morocco in Western Sahara, Vietnam in Cambodia, Armenia in areas of Azerbaijan, and Russia in Ukraine’s Crimea—the number is zero. The U.N. has not called any of these countries an “Occupying Power.” Not even once.

It gets worse. Since 1967, General Assembly resolutions have referred to Israeli-held territories as “occupied” 2,342 times, while the territories mentioned above are referred to as “occupied” a mere 16 times combined. The term appears in 90% of resolutions dealing with Israel, and only in 14% of the much smaller number of resolutions dealing with the all the other situations, a difference that vastly surpasses the threshold of statistical significance. Similarly, Security Council resolutions refer to the disputed territories in the Israeli-Arab conflict as “occupied” 31 times, but only a total of five times in reference to all seven other conflicts combined.

General Assembly resolutions employ the term “grave” to describe Israel’s actions 513 times, as opposed to 14 total for all the other conflicts, which involve the full gamut of human-rights abuses, including allegations of ethnic cleansing and torture. Verbs such as “condemn” and “deplore” are sprinkled into Israel-related resolutions tens more times than they are in resolutions about other conflicts, setting a unique tone of disdain.

Israel has been reminded by resolutions against it of the country’s obligations under the Geneva Conventions about 500 times since 1967—as opposed to two times for the other situations.

In particular, the resolutions refer to Article 49(6), which states that the “Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” This is the provision that the entire legal case against Israel settlements is based upon. Yet no U.N. body has ever invoked Article 49(6) in relation to any of the occupations mentioned above.

This even though, as Mr. Kontorovich shows in a new research article, “Unsettled: A Global Study of Settlements in Occupied Territories,” all these situations have seen settlement activity, typically on a scale that eclipses Israel’s. However, the U.N. has only used the legally loaded word “settlements” to describe Israeli civilian communities (256 times by the GA and 17 by the Security Council). Neither body has ever used that word in relation to any other country with settlers in occupied territory.

Our findings don’t merely quantify the U.N.’s double standard. The evidence shows that the organization’s claim to represent the interest of international justice is hollow, because the U.N. has no interest in battling injustice unless Israel is the country accused.

At a time of serious global crises—from a disintegrating Middle East to a land war and belligerent occupation in Europe—the leaders of the free world cannot afford to tempt the U.N. into indulging its obsessions. Especially when the apparent consequence of such scapegoating is that the organization ignores other situations and people in desperate need of attention.

---

---

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Read More

Now, Arabs claim the Magna Carta provides the "right to return"

In the UN on Wednesday:

The Palestine refugees would not disappear into thin air, the representative of Lebanon stated, urging that they be given the right to return. That right was acknowledged in the Magna Carta in 1215 and codified in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. However, implementing international humanitarian law and resolutions seemed to be inconvenient for Israel, but acting according to law and normality was not a matter subject to convenience.

The Magna Carta? This was a new one on me.

Since Lebanese representatives to the UN tend to simply parrot talking points, I found the likely source for this idea that the Magna Carta discusses a "right to return" all the way back from 1979.

It was mentioned in a document prepared for the UN's "Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People." And the text there shows that duplicity by the "pro-Palestinian" crowd is hardly a recent phenomenon.

The document, called "An international law analysis of the major United Nations resolutions concerning the Palestine question" by William Thomas Mallison and Sally V. Mallison, states:

Historically, the right of return was so universally accepted and practiced that it was not deemed necessary to prescribe or codify it in a formal manner. In 1215, at a time when rights were being questioned in England, the Magna Carta was agreed to by King John. It provided that: "It shall be lawful in the future for anyone... to leave our kingdom and to return, safe and secure by land and water..."

So let's look at the Magna Carta, and see what is hidden behind the ellipses.

42. In the future it shall be lawful for any man to leave and return to our kingdom unharmed and without fear, by land or water, preserving his allegiance to us, except in time of war, for some short period, for the common benefit of the realm. People that have been imprisoned or outlawed in accordance with the law of the land, people from a country that is at war with us, and merchants - who shall be dealt with as stated above - are excepted from this provision.

Ah, so it only applies to people who are citizens of the country they left! And it clearly does not apply to members of a entity that is hostile to the country.This is hardly a universal "right of return," and the authors of this paper knowingly quoted only a small excerpt to promote a ridiculous assertion - one that is now confidently shouted at the UN.

It also obviously doesn't apply to descendants.

1979 anti-Israel writers were no less deceptive than their more modern counterparts.

What about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

It says

Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

But this also only applies to citizens or nationals of that country. The text was meant primarily to stop nations from preventing nationals from leaving, and the "return" clause was only added to strengthen the right of citizens to leave. See CAMERA's analysis. Regrettably, the 1963 UN document that is the source for this is not online as far as I can tell.

(UPDATE: Ian found it online, with free registration from Calameo. Ingles' entire monograph is suffused with references to the right of return of nationals. Several times during his discussion he refers to "the right of a national to return to his country." In addition he discusses the matter of how countries may strip nationality from those who leave their country over a long period of time; again the point being that he is only speaking of nationals of the country in the context of return. Beyond that, the language added to the UDHR for "return" being only to strengthen the right to leave was added by Lebanon:

The Lebanese amendment was to add, at the end of paragraph 2, the words
"and to return to his country".

In submitting his amendment, the representative of Lebanon pointed out that
the text under discussion:

"... was intended to cover all movements inside and outside of a given
State. According to that article, any person had the right to leave any
country, including his own. The ideal would be that any person should be
able to enter any country he might choose, but account had to be taken of
actual facts. The minimum requirement was that any person should be able
to return to his country. If that right were recognized, the right to leave a
country, already sanctioned in the article, would be strengthened by the
assurance of the right to return. Such was the object of his amendment."

And, again, it clearly does not include descendants of those who left. That is an innovation that is uniquely applied to Palestinian Arabs, with legal arguments that are at least as specious as these are.

Read More