In 2019, the UN General Assembly passed Resolution 73/328, "Promoting interreligious and intercultural dialogue and tolerance
in countering hate speech." It included this paragraph:
Strongly deploring all acts of violence against persons on the basis of their
religion or belief, as well as any such acts directed against their homes, businesses,
properties, schools, cultural centres or places of worship, as well as all attacks on and
in religious places, sites and shrines that are in violation of international law,
A resolution voted on yesterday thas an identical title. But it has a paragraph that says this:
Strongly deploring all acts of violence against persons on the basis of their religion or belief, as well as any such acts directed against their religious symbols, holy books, homes, businesses, properties, schools, cultural centres or places of worship, as well as all attacks on and in religious places, sites and shrines in violation of international law,
It adds "religious symbols" and "holy books" to what cannot be attacked, and it changes "that are in violation of international law" to "in violation of international law."
In other words, Pakistan just managed to pass a UNGA resolution that states that burning Qurans is against international law.
There was, by all accounts, a major debate. Spain tried to take out the words "in violation of international law" from the text, but its attempt was voted down, 62-44 with 24 abstentions.
And then the entire resolution was adopted by consensus.
While burning the Quran is something to be condemned, it is not against international law, and this is on the slippery slope of adopting Islamic concepts of blasphemy as something the entire world must adopt.
The text is in the preamble, and UNGA resolution itself, has no legal effect, but this is still significant - people use the text of UN resolutions as evidence of what international law is.
Two weeks ago, the UN Human Rights Council passed its own resolution that "Calls upon States to adopt national laws, policies and law enforcement frameworks that address, prevent and prosecute acts and advocacy of religious hatred that constitute incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, and to take immediate steps to ensure accountability."
As one critic notes, "One only has to look at some of the 28 states that voted in favor of the (HRC) resolution to realize that the real purpose is not to counter hate speech or foster equality and tolerance, but to provide authoritarian governments cover and legitimacy when suppressing dissent."
There is a thin line between hate speech that could lead to violence - which is incitement - and legitimate criticism. Muslim-majority states are trying to blur that line to force the West to adopt their own bans on blasphemy as international law.
As we saw in the UN yesterday, the West caved. But free speech is not something to give up on.
I don't have the text of the UNGA resolution, but the UNHRC resolution has at least two other problematic elements.
One is that, as we've seen, any statements against antisemitism are always paired with condemnations of Islamophobia. But the UNHRC resolution, supposedly against religious hatred, mentioned Islamophobia - and not a word about antisemitism. Which makes it pretty obvious that people are not serious about combating antisemitism.
The other is that the UNHRC resolution refers to the Quran consistently as "the Holy Qur’an." The word "Holy" should not be there - the Quran is only holy to Muslims. The insistence of that language indicates again that these resolutions are not meant to fight religious hatred as much as they are to elevate Islam as a belief over others.
Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!
Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.
Do the Abraham Accords and the focus on Ukraine and China change things?
Not really. The Abraham Accords are great, both in of themselves and because they got Netanyahu in 2020 to abandon his plan to annex parts of the West Bank. Ukraine and China reduce the spotlight on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, always a good thing. But Israel’s thriving relations with the UAE and other states barely diminishes the Palestinian campaign of delegitimization. And whenever the Palestinian Authority or Hamas wishes the spotlight to return, it will do so, instantly.
How should Israel handle the international spotlight?
By recognizing it as a fact of life and finding ways to deal with it. When Hamas decides to launch missiles into Israel, it knows it will get clobbered militarily but will gain international political support. Likewise, Israel knows it will get clobbered internationally, so it should take advantage of the crisis to send a very strong message to the Gazan population that it has lost the war. Ultimately, media coverage matters less than winning on the ground.
Practically speaking, how does Israel win?
I prefer to posit Israel victory as a policy goal, without going into detailed strategy and tactics. First, it’s premature to get into specifics. Second, delving into these topics distracts from establishing the policy goal.
That said, Israel has an extraordinary range of levers due to its vastly greater power than the Palestinians – and not just military and economic.
One creative example: Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman would probably love to add al-Aqsa to his collection of Islamic sanctities, especially at a time when Tehran challenges Saudi control of Mecca and Medina. How about Israel opening negotiations on this topic with Riyadh, offering the jewel in the Palestinian Authority’s crown in return for full diplomatic relations and a change in the status quo on the Temple Mount?
Can Israel defeat Hamas without reoccupying Gaza?
Again, I prefer not to discuss strategy and tactics. But, as you ask, here is one tactic: Israel announces that a single missile attack from Gaza means a one-day border closure: no water, food, medicine, or fuel crosses from it to Gaza. Two missiles means two days, and so forth. I guarantee this would rapidly improve Hamas’s behavior.
But isn’t the delegitimization issue a struggle against those in the West, too? Don’t they have to be defeated?
Horrors, no. Plus, that would be impossible. But it is also not necessary, for they are mere followers. Imagine the Palestinians acknowledge their defeat and truly accept the Jewish state; this would pull the rug out from leftist anti-Zionism. Sustaining a more-Catholic-than-the-pope stance is tough to keep up. Israel is lucky that its principal enemy is so small and weak.
Over time, do Palestinians increasingly accept Israel?
Former minister Yuval Steinitz just told me that 75% of Palestinians have come to terms with the State of Israel and live normal lives, but I wonder. A recent Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research poll found that “72% of the public (84% in the Gaza Strip and 65% in the West Bank) say they are in favor of forming armed groups such as the Lions’ Den, which do not take orders from the PA and are not part of the PA security services; 22% are against that.”
Yes, there’s a general calm. In the hotel where we are meeting, the Dan Jerusalem on Mount Scopus, the Palestinian staff goes quietly about its work and is not stabbing anyone. But at a time of crisis, say a Hamas rocket attack, I would avoid this or most other Jerusalem hotels.
Israel’s previous leadership seems to accept Micah Goodman’s idea of “shrinking the conflict.” Do you?
No, I see it as just another in a long line of attempts to finesse the difficult work of attaining victory. Prior ideas included expelling the Palestinians either by force or voluntarily, the Jordan-is-Palestine scheme, erecting more fences, finding a new Palestinian leadership, demanding good governance, implementing the Road Map, funding a Marshall Plan, imposing a trusteeship, establishing joint security forces, splitting the Temple Mount, leasing the land, withdrawing unilaterally, and so on. None worked; none will work. Defeat and victory remain imperative.
What about Iran? The Palestinian terrorist groups, like Hamas and Islamic Jihad, get support from Iran. If Iran’s regime falls, will that matter?
Regime change in Iran has vast implications for the Middle East but not so much for the Palestinian war on Israel. The mullahs’ political collapse will not close down the Palestinians’ conviction that rejectionism works, that “revolution until victory” will prevail, that they can eliminate the Jewish state. Israel cannot outsource victory.
A Russian former senior official argued the war in Ukraine became a very profitable battlefield for "black-market transplantologists," in a report picked up by several Russian media outlets.
In an interview with Russian outlet Moskovskij Komsomolets, retired Major General of Police, and ex-head of the Russian Central Bureau of Interpol Vladimir Ovchinsky claimed the Armed Forces of Ukraine are delivered human organs harvested from the dead and wounded in the war, people who are still alive, such as Russian prisoners of war, and even Ukrainian civilians who happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time.
When asked where the organs are transported to, Ovchinsky said: "The most effective and successful 'workshops' are located in four countries - Turkey, India, Israel and South Korea."
"Israel is also a leader in the field of innovative medical techniques, which are used throughout the world. The clinics of this country successfully perform organ transplant operations."
The former advisor to the interior minister of Russia also added that large amounts of medical equipment, including containers for transporting human organs, were sent to Ukraine since the beginning of Russia's invasion.
When asked what they do with the bodies, he replied: "They burn them like in Auschwitz or Dachau, they are after all heirs of Hitler. There is also information about mobile crematoria to burn the remains of people whose organs were removed."
Biden Treasury Department authorizations, announced late last year, rolled back safeguards on U.S. humanitarian aid, a move that is likely to pave the way for millions in taxpayer dollars to reach "designated terrorists, human rights abusers, and violent authoritarian regimes," according to a congressional foreign policy leader.
The authorizations, which will make it easier for aid dollars to be allocated in conflict zones and areas where terrorist activity is taking place are generating concerns in Congress. Rep. Michael McCaul (R., Texas), the incoming chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said that in its rush to push aid dollars out the door, the Biden administration is relaxing longstanding safeguards meant to stop taxpayer aid from enriching malign regimes and terrorism supporters.
"By relaxing longstanding basic restrictions on the provision of aid to countries subject to U.S. sanctions, [the] action by the Biden administration increases the likelihood some of our assistance funding will go to designated terrorists, human rights abusers, and violent authoritarian regimes," McCaul said in a statement. "I urge the administration to reverse this decision."
As part of this recalibration, the Treasury Department issued authorizations that will inject U.S. taxpayer dollars into areas that have historically been subject to strict sanctions, including in China, Cuba, Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, Iran, and other conflict areas, according to congressional officials who reviewed the new initiative.
The Treasury Department changes, these sources said, remove longstanding restrictions that prevent U.S. aid from being injected into sanctioned areas. To skirt these restrictions, the United States will funnel taxpayer dollars to United Nations organizations working in these conflict zones.
The aid policy also protects U.N. organizations from repercussions should U.S. aid dollars end up in the hands of terrorists or other sanctioned entities, like the Taliban or Bashar Al-Assad’s regime in Syria, according to one congressional official tracking the matter.
Samantha Power, the U.S. Agency for International Development’s (USAID) administrator, acknowledged in a statement issued late last year that the new aid practices will grant blanket immunity to organizations operating in conflict areas.
Francesca Albanese, the "UN Special Rapporteur Special Rapporteur on the
Situation of Human Rights in the Palestinian Territory Occupied Since 1967"
observes the strictest standards of objectivity and impartiality.
After all, that august body --
the UN Human Rights Council
-- has a code of conduct that says explicitly that mandate-holders are
expected to:
Uphold the highest standards of efficiency, competence and integrity,
meaning, in particular, though not exclusively, probity,
impartiality, equity, honesty and good faith; [emphasis added]
Going a step further, just take a look at Albanese's actual job application
for the position of Special Rapporteur,
helpfully dug up by Times of Israel (whose article is the basis of this post)
10/ On her application, Albanese denied holding “any views or opinions
that could prejudice the manner in which [she'd] discharge the
mandate.”
Yet last year she said the opposite: that her “deeply
held personal views” on the Palestinian issue “could compromise my
objectivity.”
pic.twitter.com/pseqLOYkoE
America and Europe, one of them subjugated by the Jewish lobby, and the
other by the sense of guilt about the Holocaust, remain on the sidelines and
continue to condemn the oppressed — the Palestinians — who defend themselves
with the only means they have (deranged missiles), instead of making Israel
face its international law responsibilities
The Israeli lobby is clearly inside your veins and system and you will
be remembered to have been on the big brother's side of this orwellian
nightmare caused once again by Israel's greed. [emphasis added]
She hid that last post after Times of Israel asked her about it.
It’s not so much the Jewish lobbies that influence the policies of
European and North American states towards Israel. Rather it is the
existence of pro-Israeli political-economic lobbies in France,
England, Germany, Italy and the United States that defend the international
business of security and arms sales to allow better explain the silence of
Western governments during the last war in Gaza (as in the previous ones).
[emphasis added]
All this preceded her claiming on her application that she held no prejudices
that would hamper her in fulfilling her position.
Clearly, Albanese was less than truthful when she denied her prejudice --
and she clearly is not abiding by the strictest levels of objectivity and
impartiality.
This, of course, makes her the ideal Special Rapporteur for the UN.
And her lack of objectivity combined with her support for Hamas terrorists
who murder innocent civilians has led her to claim that Israel has no legal
claim to self-defense:
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."
There is a right to oppose this occupation....The occupier cannot say he
is defending himself
We can expect Albanese to push these ideas -- that terrorist attacks on
civilians are lawful and that Israel does not have the right to defend
itself from terrorist attacks -- during her term as Special Rapporteur.
After all, as we have already seen, objectivity and impartiality will not
stop Albanese from pushing her personal agenda.
Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!
Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.
The State Department treated the IDF statement as the final word. “We welcome Israel’s review of this tragic incident, and again underscore the importance of accountability in this case, such as policies and procedures to prevent similar incidents from occurring in the future,” said spokesman Ned Price. The bureaucratic tut-tutting was unnecessary and offensive to Israeli ears—American history, after all, is replete with evidence that the best policies and procedures cannot prevent human error or freak occurrences. Still, though, after months of controversy and two investigations, the unfortunate matter appeared finally settled.
Then things got weird. On November 14, months after the IDF report and not long after elections in both Israel and the United States, Israeli defense minister Benny Gantz acknowledged that the FBI had opened an investigation into the Akleh killing. Even more remarkable than this unprecedented move was the fact that neither the White House nor the State Department seemed to be aware of it. The National Security Council provided Axios a banal statement of regret for Akleh’s death. Both the White House and the State Department let it be known that they had had nothing to do with the FBI inquiry. And the Department of Justice would not comment.
The only government that seemed to have its business in order was Israel’s. Gantz said the obvious thing: There was no way Israel would cooperate with the FBI. Van Hollen, meanwhile, cheered the news from his office in Washington. Yet imagine his reaction if the Shin Bet announced an investigation into the U.S. Army.
At the time of writing, no one knows the details of the FBI inquiry, or the identity of the official who authorized it, or how long it will go on before the U.S. government realizes its ineffectuality. What is known is that the anti-Israel gang successfully bullied an agency of the United States government into taking the extraordinary step of treating the military of the Jewish state as a criminal enterprise, with no consideration of the potential fallout in the Greater Middle East or the precedent that might be set for U.S. soldiers in future actions.
Tyrannical governments in China, Iran, Venezuela, and the West Bank and Gaza Strip murder, unjustly imprison, and violate the dignity and human rights of individuals every day, yet the Biden administration sees fit to crack down on Israel. It’s hard to decide whether to be more outraged at Biden’s appeasement of Israel’s enemies or at the confusion and incompetence of his lieutenants.
In early December, Secretary of State Blinken spoke to the anti-Israel group J Street and pledged his commitment to expanding the circle of peace encompassing Israel and her Arab neighbors. “Integrating Israel,” Blinken said, “also means continuing to fight for Israel to be treated the same way as every other nation—no more, no less.” Maybe he should tell that to the FBI.
A key “civilian” eyewitness in the formal complaint against Israel filed by Al Jazeera at the International Criminal Court (ICC) over the death of Shireen Abu Akleh Tuesday is a terrorist affiliated with the US-designated terrorist organization Islamic Jihad, HonestReporting discovered exclusively on Sunday.
Jenin resident Sleem Awwad’s social media profiles reveal that he is a staunch supporter of Islamic Jihad, having posed with the flag of the jihadist terror group. Our editorial team found at least five photos of Awwad brandishing firearms, including military-style rifles with scopes.
“The credibility of the investigations of Al Jazeera in probing Abu Akleh’s death are questionable now that HonestReporting exposed their chief witness as an active member of a murderous terrorist organization,” HonestReporting executive director Gil Hoffman said.
On December 6, Al Jazeera filed a formal complaint against Israel with the International Criminal Court over the death of Abu Akleh, the Palestinian-American reporter tragically shot on May 11 during a counter-terrorism operation in Jenin.
A thorough Israel Defense Forces probe previously concluded that she was likely mistakenly shot by a soldier who failed to identify her as a member of the press. After pinpointing every spot where troops had come under fire, the investigation found that they had strictly complied with the IDF’s rules of engagement.
In July, a report issued by the US State Department similarly said that Israeli forces probably fired the deadly shot, but that there was no indication Israelis intentionally killed Abu Akleh.
Nevertheless, Al Jazeera last week announced it contacted ICC prosecutor Karim Khan in the wake of “new evidence” it uncovered “based on several eyewitness accounts.” Without presenting proof, the Qatar-run broadcaster argued that their correspondent was somehow “targeted” as part of a campaign by “Israeli Occupation Forces [sic]… to silence Al Jazeera.”
The network’s submission under article 15 of the Rome Statute, the founding treaty of the ICC, followed just days after the airing of “The Killing of Shireen Abu Akleh,” a 40-minute documentary produced by Al Jazeera’s Fault Lines series, which set the stage for Israeli soldiers to be prosecuted in The Hague.
3 reasons Al-Jazeera should be put on trial for dishonest reporting ?????? Sound on ?? pic.twitter.com/CfSvFRzyyI
Defending the Jewish State: HonestReporting Exposé Featured on Israeli Prime-time News Program
In an exclusive report, HonestReporting revealed that the star witness in the complaint against Israel filed by Al Jazeera at the International Criminal Court over the death of Shireen Abu Akleh is a terrorist affiliated with the US-designated terrorist group Islamic Jihad.
On December 11, 2022, HonestReporting Executive Director Gil Hoffman was invited to discuss our findings on Channel 13, one of Israel’s most-watched television stations. In the broadcast, outgoing Diaspora Affairs Minister and former IDF spokesperson Nachman Shai praised our work in defending Israel from media bias.
The Al Jazeera media network has filed suit against Israel over the accidental shooting of its reporter, Shireen Abu Akleh, last May. The history of extremists suing prominent Jews suggests that Al Jazeera may regret what its lawsuit will reveal.
The lawsuit that Al Jazeera has filed in the International Criminal Court (ICC), could shine an embarrassing spotlight on the network itself. Those who do not regularly follow Al Jazeera might be surprised to learn that it is, “a major exporter of hateful content against the Jewish people, Israel, and the United States,” according to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL).
The ADL points out that Al Jazeera: “has sought to cast doubt upon the Nazi genocide of the Jewish people” (referring to it as “the alleged Holocaust”); “routinely glorifies violence against Israeli Jews”; and has ranted against what it calls, “the control of the Jews over the pornography industry.”
Al Jazeera also has a record of “providing a platform to all manner of virulent anti-Israel and even antisemitic extremists” in its commentary sections, the ADL notes.
Another question is whether Al Jazeera should be compelled to register with the US Justice Department as a foreign agent, just as the Russian television channel RT was required to register as an agent of the Russian government. Al Jazeera was founded by the government of Qatar, receives funding from the government, and maintains “extensive ties to the Qatari regime,” according to the ADL.
Both Al Jazeera and the Qatari corporation for public broadcasting are overseen by the same government official. The US ambassador in Doha “determined a number of years ago that Qatar’s government uses Al Jazeera as a tool of Qatari statecraft,” the ADL reports.
Hearings before the ICC about the Abu Akleh case, would enable the defense to ask uncomfortable questions about both the content of Al Jazeera’s reporting, and the details of its relationship with Qatar.
Readers are not informed that the UK based lawyer’s previous activities at the ICC include representation of the IHH Humanitarian Relief Foundation in the Mavi Marmara case.
As has been the case in the past, BBC audiences are not provided with any of the relevant context concerning Al Jazeera such as its throwing of a birthday party for a terrorist, its record of Holocaust revisionism, its hosting of antisemitic content from the late Muslim Brotherhood leader Qaradawi, its acceptance of an award from Hamas for ‘exemplary coverage’ or the fact that it is funded by the same government that has poured millions of dollars into the Gaza Strip.
Gritten’s report continues with amplification of a statement from a person who was invited to Al Jazeera’s press conference concerning its submission to the ICC:
“Abu Aqla’s family, who submitted their own complaint to the ICC in September, said they supported Al Jazeera’s submission.
“The evidence is overwhelmingly clear, we expect the ICC to take action,” her niece, Lina Abu Aqla, told a news conference in The Hague.”
The UN Commission of Inquiry - which is not a court - decided that Israel's occupation is illegal, which is pretty much new legal ground. And the Commission even admits it!
Its report says, "It is unclear in international law and practice when a situation of belligerent occupation becomes unlawful." But that doesn't stop it from trying - and then pretending it did!
A number of legal experts have identified several principles that, when adhered
to, may be used to determine the legality of an occupation. These include whether
sovereignty and title are not vested in the occupying power, the occupying power is
entrusted with the management of public order and civil life in the occupied territory,
the people under occupation are the beneficiaries of that trust in view of their right to
self-determination, and the occupation is temporary.
In the present report, the Commission focuses on two indicators that may be
used to determine the illegality of the occupation: the permanence of the Israeli
occupation, already noted in its previous report to the Human Rights Council at its
fiftieth session, and actions amounting to annexation, including unilateral actions
taken to dispose of parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territory as if Israel held
sovereignty over it.
No legal precedent. Just asking some "experts" who are anti-Israel - and not asking legal experts who are not already antipathetic towards the Jewish state.
In short, the UN is making things up to come to a pre-determined conclusion by cherry picking legal scholars who agree with that conclusion - and not even seeking the opinions of anyone else.
Yet none of these assumptions as to what makes an occupation illegal - a concept that is virtually sui generis, made up for Israel - are based on actual legal rulings. They are making up novel arguments, treating them as established law, and hoping that people believe it.
There is one case that is precedent for the legality of Israel's presence in the West Bank. And, naturally, the UN doesn't cite it.
The PLO had claimed that Israel's occupation is illegal based on a hodgepodge of arguments, such as claiming that Israel violates the Hague Convention IX of 1907, Article 5, that says "In bombardments by naval forces all the necessary measures must be taken by the commander to spare as far as possible sacred edifices, buildings used for artistic, scientific, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick or wounded are collected, on the understanding that they are not used at the same time for military purposes...."
The court acidly noted that there were no bombardments of Jerusalem.
More importantly, the French court ruled that the PLO's claims of being occupied under the Hague and Geneva Conventions were invalid to begin with, because those conventions are based on one nation invading the territory of another "high contracting power" and the PLO was not a state.
It is the first time since the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 that an independent, non-Israeli court has been called upon to examine the legal status of West bank territories under international law, beyond the political claims of the parties.
While this court does not decide international law, it examined international law and ruled according to those laws. As such, it should have been referred to by the UN COI as a precedent, or at least as a source for legal arguments.
Of course, the COI does nothing of the sort. The French court ruled the "wrong" way and therefore must be ignored, while wholly new legal opinions must be promoted.
Because the UN COI is not trying to determine the truth. Its entire purpose is to twist law and facts to create a new legal framework and a new "truth" tailor-made to damn Israel.
(h/t Yerushalimey)
Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!
Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.
In recent months, many young Palestinians have died as “Martyrs” while carrying out terror attacks against Israelis – be it throwing Molotov cocktails and rocks, stabbings or shootings. What is it that make kids want this? The answer is what Palestinian Media Watch has pointed out for years: That the PA and its leading party Fatah – both led by Mahmoud Abbas – as policy encourage kids (and adults) to carry out terror and seek Martyrdom - and thereby become heroes.
Now that the summer holiday is over it is important to examine the values the PA and Fatah decided to bestow on Palestinian kids via their summer camps – one of the “tools” the PA uses to inculcate the ideals of terror against Israel and Martyrdom.
One distinctive PA message was that terrorist murderers are heroes. Being presented with this strong role modeling for decades impacts on kids, and many young Palestinians set out to die as Martyrs, seeking to earn the ultimate glory in Palestinian society.
Announcing the opening of the summer camps, PLO Supreme Council for Youth and Sports Head Jibril Rajoub explained that 42,000 young Palestinians were to participate in 600 camps. Rajoub stated that: Fatah Central Committee Secretary and Head of the PLO Supreme Council for Youth and Sports Jibril Rajoub: “The goal of these camps is to serve as a melting pot and formulate the consciousness of these children according to the Palestinian national ideology.”
[Official PA daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, July 19, 2022]
Same Rajoub strongly hinted at the content of the teachings in the PA/Fatah summer camps when he in his opening speech singled out terrorist murderer Thaer Hammad who killed 10 Israelis as “deserving of blessings”: Jibril Rajoub: “[Silwad] is the town of Thaer Hammad (i.e., terrorist, murdered 10), who deserves blessings, and who constituted a milestone in proactive national action. Blessings to him, his family, and our prisoners from Silwad and from throughout the homeland.”
[Facebook page of Fatah Central Committee Secretary Jibril Rajoub, July 18, 2022]
Prior to Rajoub’s opening of the camps, a Fatah “registration announcement” for participation in a camp under Fatah’s military unit Al-Asifa explained the camp activities which clearly sound like military training and combat, among them: “military order and discipline, infantry, combat skills and Shooting live ammunition at a shooting range”; (emphasis added)
It has often been said that the media is a pillar of democracy because it keeps our politicians honest.
Lifting the veil of secrecy in which authorities like to cloak themselves, revealing inconvenient truths that expose the inadequacies and worse of government actions and subjecting all politicians to forensic questioning without bias—this is how the media acts in the public interest.
But when the media doesn’t deliver, truthfulness goes out of the window, propaganda and ignorance take over and democracy stumbles.
We see this in much Western coverage of Israel, with newspapers often delivering nothing more than thinly disguised Palestinian propaganda. So, people with no knowledge of Israel or Jewish history get a wholly false impression.
It’s in America, however, that we see most graphically and frighteningly the media’s abdication of its professional role.
The most influential mainstream media outlets have turned into brazen shills for the Democratic Party and became willing accomplices in the attempt to remove President Donald Trump via the bogus Russian conspiracy smear, which involved elements of the FBI, Justice Department and the Democrats.
At same time, the media refused to report troubling revelations of corruption involving President Joe Biden’s son Hunter’s dealings with Ukraine, which implicated Biden senior as well.
And they have left Americans largely in the dark about the acute peril into which Biden’s policies are putting America, Israel and the West.
Unfortunately, however, the Americans clearly hope that strong-arming Israel in order to help Iran-proxy Hezbollah—which will presumably profit, directly or indirectly, from Lebanon’s natural-gas business—will influence its masters in Tehran to stop stalling and sign a new, and even weaker, nuclear deal with the West.
If this happens after more humiliating U.S. concessions to Iran in the negotiations that will likely resume after the midterms, it ought to get Iranian oil flowing freely to the West. That could impact the price of oil in the long term and help the Democrats’ efforts to hold onto the White House in 2024, even if it also guarantees that the Iranians will eventually obtain a nuclear weapon. It will also constitute a betrayal of the courageous demonstrators who have taken to the streets in Iranian cities to resist the theocratic regime.
Lapid walked into this trap because he is committed to a strategy of avoiding public disputes with Biden at all costs. For months, as the Americans moved closer to an agreement with Iran that he knew was antithetical to any notion of protecting the security of Israel or its Arab allies, he spoke of trying to influence the U.S. not to go down the path of appeasement.
Iran’s hardline stance in negotiations momentarily seemed to vindicate him. Yet, when Biden gave him his marching orders on Lebanon, he appeared to have believed that he had no choice but to blindly obey.
Seen from this perspective, it’s clear that Lapid was not so much surrendering to Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah as he was to Biden, though the blow to Israel’s national interests was much the same.
It remains to be seen whether Biden will tolerate, even if only for the five weeks until the election, Lapid’s act of political survival in moving away from the Lebanon pact that the U.S. administration has ordered him to accept. What is obvious, however, is that Lapid has not yet learned what Netanyahu came to understand during the course of his 15 years as prime minister.
Managing relations with Israel’s sole superpower ally is the nation’s top foreign-policy priority. And though doing so is vitally important, Washington can’t be allowed to dictate to its small Israeli ally. The true measure of an Israeli prime minister’s diplomatic acumen is not how close he can stay to an American president. The real test is showing that a premier can say “no” to the Americans when it’s absolutely necessary, as it was with respect to the natural-gas-fields dispute.
Lapid failed that test. Biden and his team now understand how far they can push him, even when Israeli security is on the line. That’s a fatal flaw in any leader.
Behnam Ben Taleblu: You cannot stand with Iran’s women while seeking a deal with Tehran
Some accusations against Israel are so ridiculous, they can only be made at the UN Human Rights Council.
Al Awda, the "Palestinian Return Center," said at a meeting of the UN Human Rights Council that Israel was discriminating against Palestinians on religious grounds
Speaking with the UN Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, under the ninth item on the agenda of the 50th session of the Human Rights Council, they mentioned that Israel prevented those under the age of 50 from praying at Al Aqsa.
Israel sometimes does this to minimize the chance of terror attacks, but there are plenty of men under 50 who visit al-Aqsa, like this very devout worshiper.
"On the other hand, it allows Jewish settlers of all ages to storm Al-Aqsa Mosque, amid provocative and racist expressions and insults against the Palestinians." The "racist expressions" are usually Biblical quotes.
They also claimed that Palestinian Christians were subjected to religious discrimination too, as the Israeli forces recently prevented large numbers of them from celebrating Christmas in the city of Bethlehem. They didn't mention that this was in response to the Omicron variant of COVID-19.
Al-Awda said that restricting worshipers' access to Islamic and Christian holy sites is a flagrant violation of human rights, especially Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It called on members of the Human Rights Council to publicly condemn deliberate religious discrimination by Israel, and to take the necessary measures to protect places of worship in Jerusalem, and support freedom of worship for all worshipers.
Meanwhile, Palestinians are literally shooting at real worshipers attempting to visit Joseph's Tomb. And you can bet that no one said a word about this at the UNHRC (unless Hillel Neuer from UN Watch managed to.)
A pro-terror organization whose entire purpose is to destroy a UN member state is not only allowed to attend UNHRC sessions, but it can promote lies without anyone in those hallowed chambers even considering that they are making things up.
Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!
Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.
The UN Human Rights Council has released the initial report of the permanent Commission of Inquiry that is designed to delegitimize Israel. It is the only permanent commission of inquiry in the UN.
The commission is headed by Navi Pillay who has pre-judged Israel to be guilty of a host of crimes over the past 15 years before even the pretense of investigation, making her the ideal lead for this kangaroo court.
A consortium of 22 nations, led by the US, signed a letter to oppose the obvious bias of the commission:
Resolution S-30/1 established a COI of open-ended mandate with no sunset clause, end date, or clear limitations connected to the escalation in May 2021. For this reason, many of the Council’s members at the time expressed fundamental concerns when resolution S-30/1 came up for adoption.
To be clear, no one is above scrutiny and it is this Council’s responsibility to promote and protect human rights the world over. We must work to counter impunity and promote accountability on a basis of consistent and universally applied standards.
We believe the nature of the COI established last May is further demonstration of long-standing, disproportionate attention given to Israel in the Council and must stop.
We continue to believe that this long-standing disproportionate scrutiny should end, and that the Council should address all human rights concerns, regardless of country, in an even-handed manner.
The Palestinian Authority's deputy foreign minister and Palestinian observer to the UN, Ibrahim Khraishi, gave a speech to the UNHRC denouncing the letter - and said that because of this letter, the US should be expelled from the UN Human Rights Council!
There is a joint statement prepared by America with the occupying power inciting against the commission, its report and its work, which exposes the double standards practiced by other countries that demand the necessity of supporting the work of other investigation committees emanating from this council in different parts of the world.
This policy pursued by America, which undermines the legal and human rights system, disqualifies it from being a member of this Council. Therefore, we call on the General Assembly to suspend its membership in the Council.
Yes, the PA is saying that the US is guilty of double standards for opposing the UN's double standards.
Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!
Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.
The countries that voted for China’s “national security law” that imposes harsh penalties for Hong Kong residents protesting against China include every Arab country in the UN Human Rights Council.
These include Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon, Morocco, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Syria, the UAE and Yemen – and “Palestine.”
Iran, Sudan, South Sudan and Pakistan also supported China.
Ken Roth of Human Rights Watch mentioned the Arab countries that are HRW’s usual targets, but of course didn’t include “Palestine”in his list of “dictators and thugs.”
It takes a Who's Who of dictators & thugs to back China's repressive "national security" law for Hong Kong including Bahrain, Belarus, Burundi, Cambodia, Cuba, Egypt, Eritrea, Iran, Myanmar, Nicaragua, NKorea, Saudi Arabia, Syria, UAE, Venezuela, Zimbabwe. https://t.co/iaBUyd40S8pic.twitter.com/T6viYVpm0o
I see no outcry in Arabic media about voting against freedom, even in the relatively liberal Lebanese media.
One takeaway is obvious: The UN, even its purported “human rights” arm, is not a moral arbiter of anything. Nations vote according to their own self-interests and not for any reasons that are remotely related to human rights.
But the other lesson is that even “human rights” groups are loathe to criticize the UN Human Rights Council because it usually aligns with their anti-US, anti-Israel mindset and if they publicly criticize it then they cannot point to its many anti-Israel resolutions as proof of Israel’s supposed immorality, which they love to do as Ken Roth himself did over the past couple of weeks.
Now that the UN rights chief has issued the database of companies doing business with Israel's illegal settlements, it's important that she keep it updated. That's the only way it will serve as a spur to companies to meet their human rights obligations. https://t.co/eC1VJ5bLnbpic.twitter.com/7AokYVJsal
The United Nations Human Rights Council, which if you listen to Trump only criticizes Israel, just condemned Iran (yet again) by a vote of 22 for, 8 against, and 15 abstaining. pic.twitter.com/7dzv2IM6oo
David Collier has written a walloping
200-page report (available for download as pdf) exposing the anti-Israel bias and obsession
of international human rights group Amnesty
International. In its sheer breadth of coverage, the report is an
astonishing body of work, but then we’ve come to expect nothing less from
Collier. We watched on, not so long ago, as he issued a similar bombshell, his multipart exposé
of Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party. That report appeared to necessitate
Collier infiltrating a secret Labour Facebook group.
David Collier
This is like the kind of spy
stuff you read about in novels. It would take guts to do that and not a little
caution, sustained over a lengthy period of time, in order to avoid detection. But
Collier’s unconventional methods of research have borne fruit, witness the fact
that Boris Johnson is in and Corbyn is most definitely out.
Collier is using new and
different tacks in the fight for Israel and against antisemitism. The way he
uses social media, for instance, is something we haven’t seen before, at least
not with this level of commitment. What has Collier uncovered about Amnesty and
what can we, as regular people, do to emulate his work going forward? I spoke
with Collier to learn more:
Varda Epstein: Tell us about Jewish
Human Rights Watch. How did this body come to commission you to investigate
Amnesty International? Tell us about your background and credentials. What sort
of manpower and hours were devoted to this project?
David Collier: Jewish Human
Rights Watch is a UK-based NGO. They fight anti-Israel bias the clever way,
either by challenging it in the courts or exposing the toxic nature of those
that stand against us. For example, they have been fighting the legality of
local town councils passing BDS motions and this effort and the publicity they
caused, may have played a part in the UK Government’s recent
announcement that it is going to ban councils from pursuing such motions
altogether.
I have done work for them
before, when they commissioned a report
on antisemitism in the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign. The report
successfully clipped the SPSC’s wings. We both saw bias in Amnesty as a major
issue, so it was natural they would turn to me for this project.
I have been fighting
anti-Israel bias for two decades. My own strategy is different from most. I
don’t push pro-Israeli material so much. Our problem is not whether or not
Israel is perfect – it doesn’t have to be – Israel has every right to be a
state that makes mistakes like all states do. Our issue is that our enemies are
full of toxicity and hate. This is their biggest weakness and we should spend
more time exposing them for what they are. If you engage in a “did/didn’t”
argument with an anti-Israel activist, the bystander becomes confused. Far
better just to show the person you are arguing with is a terrorist-sympathizing
antisemite. Bystanders understand this much more clearly. We will never
convince an anti-Israel activist he is a hatemonger, so don’t both trying, just
expose his hate to others.
The Amnesty research took
months and well over 1000 man hours. There were hundreds of thousands of social
media posts to cover. During the summer of 2019, I didn’t sleep much.
Varda
Epstein: Why do we care about Amnesty International’s bias? What is the impact
of this organization?
David Collier: We cannot
overstate the impact of NGOs like Amnesty. They are the bridge between actions
on the ground and International forums such as the UN, UNHRC and even the ICC. The NGOs are seen as legitimate and
impartial “judges” and their findings carry real weight. None more so than
Amnesty. If Amnesty is simply pushing raw anti-Israel propaganda as evidence
during a UN hearing, they legitimise the UN’s own bias against Israel. In
effect Amnesty acts as the glue which reinforces a global anti-Israel bias – if
they played fair, things would look very different.
Ashira Prem Rachana is a "human rights researcher" for Amnesty International
Varda Epstein: Was Amnesty International always so political? Did it ever do good work? Was there a turning
point?
David Collier: Yes, of course.
Amnesty’s sterling reputation was legitimately earned and this is, in part, why
the situation is both tragic and difficult to address. Amnesty relies on the reputation
from the good work it used to do to shield it from criticism today.
Originally, and in the much
simpler days of the Cold War, Amnesty dealt solely with political prisoners. As
the NGO arena became more overcrowded and competitive, Amnesty sought growth –
both in the areas it monitored and in the type of work it undertook. They
became more political. They felt it necessary to let go of crucial rules they
imposed on themselves to stay clear of conflict of interest issues. In truth
there were logical reasons for them to do so – but they put nothing in its
place and were slowly devoured by activists using Amnesty resources for their
own narrow interests. The decline has been gradual and going on for decades.
Nadine Moawad, MENA communications manager for Amnesty International
Varda Epstein: Your report states that a consultant for Amnesty, Hind
Khoudary, tweeted support for a terror organization, referring to known Islamic
Jihad terrorists as “heroes.” Tell us about that. Was the tweet issued as a
private citizen? Does it matter?
David Collier: It doesn’t
matter at all. I think one of the things Amnesty will do to deflect the
criticism of the report is to suggest some of these people weren’t associated
with Amnesty when they made the unacceptable comments. This is irrelevant. Imagine
a judge going home and tweeting as a private citizen that terrorists are heroes
– would any sane person consider him fit to be a judge? With Khoudary, there
were numerous tweets. At roughly the same time she called the two terrorists
heroes, she also retweeted advice to people in Gaza not to publicly say
anything that would ‘hurt the resistance’. This person is a hard-core
Palestinian activist and a supporter of terrorist groups like Islamic Jihad. At
no point can she be considered impartial, not before or after the time she made
those tweets. As it happens in this case, I think she was listed as an Amnesty
consultant at the time – but in any event, it is absurd to believe she would
ever tell the truth about what is taking place on the ground.
Varda Epstein: How does it feel when you see that Amnesty staffer Laith
Abu Zeyad regularly retweets WaadGh who tweeted a smiley face in relation to the terrorist murder of
Rina Shnerb? Do you ever need a mental health day in your work?
David Collier: That’s a good
question, my wife certainly thinks so. Sadly, I have been doing this for so
long I am used to it. This is what I do, I swim in the sewers with these
people. I have to get into their heads and understand them. If I was sickened
by what I saw, I would never be able to do the research properly. I am even
forgiving. Had Zeyad only retweeted her once, I’d have written it off. We all
make mistakes. But she was a common source for him, they interacted. He must
know the type of politics she pushes. This is the problem - these people don’t
even have to hide these associations because nobody cares.
Varda Epstein: What did you find to be the most shocking fact to come
out of your investigation?
David Collier: There is the big
picture and the little picture. The most shocking single fact I found was a
person listed as the regional Media Manager for Amnesty writing a Facebook post
in Arabic that instructed terrorist factions not to “claim their martyrs” but
rather to let the West think they were innocent civilians – not terrorists. The
most shocking part of it all, though, is the big picture. We all know Amnesty
is biased, but the report exposes the level of that bias – it shows that
Amnesty operates with a subconscious (I don’t believe it is a conspiracy)
political world vision. One that hates Israel most of all, but is biased
against India, ignores the persecution of Christians and is strategically
anti-West. I call it subconscious because it is merely the sum of the parts.
Most of the parts carry a similar bias and this translates into Amnesty policy.
Amnesty is a danger to any Western nation that allows them to operate freely
and more fool the nation that pays attention to their findings.
Varda Epstein: This website, Elder of Ziyon, plays a role in your
report. Can you describe the context? What is the importance of bloggers and
tips from regular people in your investigative work?
David Collier: Elder of Ziyon
plays a role in all my reports. It is probably one of, if not the best, archive
of relevant information stretching back to the Second Intifada. If you are
writing about almost any issue relevant to the conflict, a search of the Elder
site is always advisable. In this report for example, I wouldn’t have known
that Saleh Hijazi, the Amnesty Deputy Director MENA had used images of
terrorists for his Facebook profile, if not for Elder’s website. It both saves
me time and acts as a great source for additional knowledge.
Saleh Hijazi, Amnesty International MENA deputy director used this image of PFLP terrorist and airline hijacker Leila Khaled for his profile photo.
Varda Epstein: What hope do you have that your report will instigate
positive change? Do you think there is hope that Amnesty International can be
reformed? Where might Amnesty International turn its sights instead of Israel,
to make the world a better place?
David Collier: Amnesty won’t
change from within. They can’t, this is what they are now. What needs to happen
is that we need to expose to others the toxicity within. We need to reach its
membership; the political alliances and every forum in which Amnesty has
influence. Show those people the report. Only real external pressure will ever
work and even then, I do not know if it is possible to salvage without a
complete rebuild.
What should they be doing?
Every Human Rights NGO on the planet should currently have one single goal: The
abolition of the UN Human Rights Council and the construction of a new UN human
rights body that has strict, points-based criteria about membership. The UNHRC
should be leading the way on global human rights issues and such a body could
be such a force for good. Instead it is infested with and controlled by
despots. Nothing would improve global human rights more than a properly run
UNHRC, so if you see an NGO currently working with them – rather than calling for
their abolition, you can automatically say that NGO is not a true human rights
NGO.
Sahar Mandour, Amnesty International researcher, Lebanon
Varda Epstein: Can you tell us about your roots and also about the
person you are, today? What makes you a fighter, a person dedicated to digging
deeply to fight against antisemitism?
David Collier: I was born in
the UK and lived in Israel for 19 years. I was part of the Oslo generation,
land for peace, two states, and all that. I worked intensively with
Palestinians during the 1990s. I published a monthly newspaper and used the Al
Ayam publishing house in Ramallah. I worked for peace. Then came the second
Intifada. Israel’s problem isn’t so much the Palestinians, as the global
movement that has turned them into a cause. This conflict should have ended in
1949. The reasons it didn’t have nothing to do with Israel, nor – and I can
hear people shout at me – with the Palestinians. They weren’t even a thing in
1949. The war against Israel is an international one. The Palestinian identity
as we know it today was created from the outside. I recognise this and this is
where I fight my battles.
There is no single thing that
led me to be a fighter. I lost close friends, but then so have most Israelis. I
think I fight because I have to. I do not see it as a choice. People often ask “what
would you have done” when referring to the rise of the Nazis, the creation of
Israel, and other important milestones in history. Well, we are at war now - it
is a global battle and the stakes are higher than most people imagine. If you
are not doing anything today, there is your answer.
Varda Epstein: What’s next for David Collier?
David Collier: I was writing a
book in 2015 when Corbyn was elected to lead the Labour Party. The last four
years have been an enormous time consuming and emotional rollercoaster. Corbyn
was merely a symptom of a growing problem and I see him simply as the first
wave. Boris has now been elected and we have 5 years of opportunity to continue
fighting. I am scared people will think the job is done – it would be a huge
mistake to think that. On the immediate horizon I can go back and hopefully
finish the book. It addresses the rise of the Palestinian identity as a weapon
with which to fight against Israel. I am going back to the British archives in
London to help me as much of the evidence is there. So fingers crossed, the
next major thing for me would be to have my book published.
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.
The report is not nearly as over the top as Falk's reports had been, to be sure. It is pretty much a repeat of things said at the UN and by the OCHA-OPT, relying on Palestinian Arab NGOs for some information.
Twice the report quotes the UN's OCHA-OPT as saying that "The information recorded and provided by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) showed that 2,256 Palestinians were killed, of whom 1,563 were civilians, including 538 children." with a small footnote saying "Verification continues." Yet those numbers have not changed since the war, indicating that no one at OCHA-OPT really cares to revisit the false statistics that have been widely quoted worldwide as fact.
Even though many of those same "civilians" were shown to be terrorists by the Meir Amit Center.
But, surprisingly, the report does mention that!
According to OHCHR, some 69 per cent of the Palestinians killed during the hostilities in Gaza were civilians. An Israeli organization compiling its own statistics on Palestinian fatalities has so far found the Palestinian civilian to combatant casualty ratio to be somewhat lower, at 48 per cent*.
*This ratio is based on 54 per cent of verified fatalities. See Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, “Examination of the names of the Palestinians killed in Operation Protective Edge”, 1 December 2014.
That in itself is a marked contrast to the bilious, one sided reports from Richard Falk, who would parrot the most absurd anti-Israel accusations by the most unreliable NGOs without even bothering to find out Israel's side of the story.
This is not to say that the report is unbiased. It is very biased. It doesn't mention Hamas' tunnels once, even though they were the main target of Israeli operations - and they were built under many of the homes that the IDF destroyed, unfortunately killing civilians. In fact, it barely mentions Hamas. It makes false assumptions about international law.
It is not quite sure if Hamas even fired rockets to begin with, saying only that "thousands of indiscriminate rockets were reportedly fired by Palestinian armed groups from Gaza."
The report that supposedly looks at human rights in the territories doesn't mention Hamas' use of human shields, of public executions, of booby-trapping civilian buildings, of placing military targets in medical facilities, or any of the many Hamas actions that directly violated Gaza civilians' human rights and international law.
While the UNHRC remains implacably anti-Israel, and this report shows that, it seems that it has been clearly stung by many of the criticisms that have been leveled against it so it is making some cosmetic changes to soften its reports.
This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For 20 years and 40,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.
Jews ‘treated horribly’ in 19th century Morocco
-
The indefatigable blogger Elder of Ziyon has been delving into his archive.
He has found testimonies from European travellers which bear witness to the
s...
Censor the Internet to Save the Planet
-
“Governments Should Act Now to Curb Climate Disinformation” demands a
letter backed by Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and the Center
for Count...
A Friend Indeed
-
[image: Dry Bones cartoon, Trump, MAGA, President, Jerusalem, Embassy,
America, Huckabee,]
Welcome Ambassador Huckabee!
* * * And *IT'S TIME FOR YOU TO MAK...
Michael Oren: The Altneu Antisemitism: Part I
-
[image: Michael Oren: The Altneu Antisemitism: Part I] Michael Oren: The
Altneu Antisemitism: Part I IsraelSeen.com
Michael Oren: The Altneu Antisemitism: ...
▶ What Is the Crisis at CBS News?
-
View this post on Instagram A post shared by HonestReporting
(@honestreporting) From employing a Gaza producer with terror ties to
forcing journalists ...
An open letter to the police and CPS
-
To the police and CPS. With reference to complaints made by Gabriel
Kanter-Webber about Rupert Nathan. I understand that the matter has now
been referred...
Gaza: A Brief Modern History Outline
-
Pre-1917 - Gaza part of the Ottoman Empire
1917 - Gaza conquered by British Army and subsequently becomes part of
Mandate Palestine
1948 - Gaza conquere...
One Choice: Fight to Win
-
Yesterday Israel preempted a potentially disastrous attack by Hezbollah on
the center of the country. Thirty minutes before launch time, our aircraft
destr...
Yom Hashoah 5784 – 2024
-
Israel’s Yom Hashoah began at sundown this evening with the annual ceremony
at Yad Vashem with torches lit in memory of the 6 million Jewish victims of
the...
Closing Jews Down Under Website
-
With a heavyish heart I am closing down the website after ten years.
It is and it isn’t an easy decision after 10 years of constant work. The
past...
‘Test & Trace’ is a mirage
-
Lockdown II thoughts: Day 1 Opposition politicians have been banging on
about the need for a ‘working’ Test & Trace system even more loudly than
the govern...
Wednesday, July 26, 2023
Elder of Ziyon
.jpg)
