Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Tuesday, May 24, 2022

.@TheIntercept is a joke of a "news" site

For whatever reason, I've been seeing a number of articles in The Intercept recently. And they prove that this is a news organization that is unencumbered by worrying about things like "facts" and "truth."

Which makes reporting really, really easy.

For example, former NYT reporter Robert Mackey read the same Haaretz article I did, but only one of us read it carefully.

Mackey claims that "Israel’s military was refusing to conduct the thorough investigation it had committed to just a week ago." It is a lie.

As I reported, Israel is definitely still investigating Abu Akleh's death, and the Haaretz article said so. It is not a criminal investigation, because there is no evidence of criminal activity from any soldier. But Mackey doesn't care about truth, but truthiness, and pretending that Israel is quashing investigations fits in with his worldview, truth be damned.

The only people standing in the way of a full investigation is the Palestinian Authority which will not let anyone else examine the bullet that killed Abu Akleh. Who is engaging in a coverup again?

I also recently mentioned that The Intercept claimed, bizarrely, that there is a "shareholder revolt" at Google against their contracts with Israel. In fact the percentage of shares that these revolting [pun intended] shareholders own is a whopping 0.00013% of all Alphabet (Google) shares. It is a joke - but a joke that The Intercept is more than willing to pretend is a story, because they simply hate Israel enough to lie.

Now comes this article by Daniel Boguslaw that says, in its subhead, "Documents show that in 2021, arms made and funded by the United States destroyed UNRWA schools, USAID projects, and a Coca-Cola plant" during last summer's Gaza war (that was initiated by Hamas, a fact not to be found in the article.)

I know that when Israel targets specific terrorist targets that even Hamas admits are purposefully placed among civilian areas, sometimes civilian buildings are inadvertently hit. Israel never targets these civilian objects deliberately - there is no military advantage to do so, and lots of publicity damage. Anyone who is the slightest bit familiar with how wars are fought knows this.

The "USAID projects" seems to mean an industrial zone that USAID contributed some money to (along with the EU) a while ago. But did Hamas or Islamic Jihad have a rocket factory there, or a command and control center? Did they build a tunnel underneath used to stockpile rockets? Hate to break it to The Intercept, but if they did - and they almost certainly did - Israel's bombing of such targets is perfectly legal under the laws or armed conflict. Perhaps the aptly named Mr. Boguslaw doesn't know anything about international law but he happily makes it up.

I also know that Israel buys weapons from the US - as does most of the world. Over a billion dollars a year's worth. There is nothing the least bit problematic, legally or morally, to use weapons that you buy during a war, unless there is an agreement that says otherwise.

Which brings us to the main accusation, that Israel used arms funded by the US to destroy civilian objects. How does Boguslaw know which arms that Israel used are funded by the US, and which ones were purchased?

He has documents!

He doesn't link to these documents. He doesn't name where they are from. He doesn't say how they were vetted. He didn't answer my query asking him for any information on these unnamed, unknown "documents." For all we know, his documents came from Islamic Jihad or from "news" reports in Hamas newspapers.

But they are documents, and they were reviewed - by him! So they must be legit!

We should trust a news source that we have already seen has absolutely no regard for the truth, right?

The truth is that Israel does have restrictions on how it can use weapons funded by the US. US aid is audited. I've researched this, unlike Boguslaw. If any US funded weapons were used in the war, it was under an agreement that allowed it - one example is Iron Dome, which is largely funded by the US.

Based on what Boguslaw writes, there is no indication that anything illegal, immoral or violating US/Israeli agreements occurred. It is a story built out of nothing but the usual Intercept desire to demonize Israel.

The rest of the article is filled with more lies about how Israel acts in wars. I suggest anyone interested in actual facts read this Rand Corporation analysis of Israel's conduct in the 2009, 2012 and 2014 wars in Gaza, written by actual military experts, desiring to apply Israel's experience to help US military strategy for similar styles of conflicts. In no way does anyone think for a second that Israel targets civilians, as Boguslaw claims.

The upshot of the story: You cannot trust anything The Intercept writes.

(h/t Martin)

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!

05/23 Links Pt2: Senators Demand Biden Pull Taxpayer Funding for Anti-Israel Initiative; Playing Defense Is Not Working on Campuses; Celebrate Israel Parade marches down 5th Ave for first time in 2 years

From Ian:

Senators Demand Biden Pull Taxpayer Funding for Anti-Israel Initiative

Senate Republican foreign policy leaders are demanding the Biden administration pull nearly $1 million in taxpayer funding for groups to investigate alleged human rights abuses in Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip—an effort that the senators say is fueling a "new anti-Semitism."

The State Department's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) announced in March it will pay nonprofit groups up to $987,654 to "strengthen accountability and human rights in Israel and the West Bank and Gaza," according to a grant notice first posted online in February. Groups angling for the grant money are instructed to investigate alleged crimes inside and outside of Israel to "collect, archive, and maintain human rights documentation to support justice and accountability and civil society-led advocacy efforts, which may include documentation of legal or security sector violations and housing, land, and property rights."

The grant was seized upon by Israel's defenders on Capitol Hill as a prime example of the Biden administration's efforts to undermine the Jewish state and strengthen the anti-Semitic Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement, which wages economic warfare on Israel. Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas) and 11 other Republican lawmakers are calling on the Biden administration to cancel the grant program and live up to its repeated pledges to combat the BDS movement.

"As a policy matter, it is wholly unacceptable for the State Department to fund NGOs to delegitimize and isolate Israel," the lawmakers write, according to a copy of the letter obtained by the Washington Free Beacon. The State Department, the lawmakers allege, is using taxpayer dollars to promote a "new anti-Semitism" that is "driven by a global network of anti-Israel nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and human rights groups."

Senior Republicans on Capitol Hill who spoke to the Free Beacon say the grant is part of a larger effort by Biden administration officials to mainstream the BDS movement and undermine the U.S.-Israel alliance, even as terror attacks on the Jewish state spike. The State Department has already come under scrutiny from the GOP and pro-Israel groups for hiring several people who worked in the anti-Israel community and promoted the BDS movement.

William Jacobson: Playing Defense Is Not Working on Campuses

A Reactive Approach is Not Working
The problem with pro-Israel Jewish campus organizations is less what they’ve done than what they’ve left undone. The actions they have taken thus far are all commendable and have been helpful in limiting damage. They’re necessary, but they’re not sufficient.

Currently, Jews are playing defense. By itself, that’s rarely a winning strategy. The false narratives that Israel is a racist colonial enterprise and that Jews are “white” oppressors are rarely addressed head on, because to do so would require taking on the progressive power on campuses.

Contrast this with campus anti-Israel activists. They have been playing offense against Israel, its supporters, and Jewish students generally for many years. Groups like Students for Justice in Palestine have pursued an organized campaign of shutting down debate about Israel, imposing a narrative making outrageous claims against it (such as accusing it of Nazism and apartheid), and hounding Israel’s supporters or presumed supporters into silence.

Their cause—destroying Israel and persecuting Jews—is unjust, and their tactics harmful to the very nature of the university. Nevertheless, their public relations has been wildly successful. They have controlled the narrative of converting Israel and Jews into pro-apartheid Nazi racists, and their opponents into persecuted underdogs. Jews have responded to attacks and challenged them, but have rarely set the agenda, or tried to reframe the narrative to expose their opponents’ blatant anti-Semitism and goal of annihilating the Jewish State.

Jews were not always so passive. The Soviet Jewry movement, for instance, gained much of its energy from resourceful and provocative tactics like protestors chaining themselves to the Soviet Embassy fence, releasing black balloons during a candlelit vigil outside the Moscow Circus, picketing the Bolshoi Ballet, or unfurling banners before TV cameras at the Flyers/Soviet exhibition hockey game. These actions may or may not have had direct political impact, but they effectively framed the issue as one of Soviet repression of Jews and kept it in the public consciousness. Activists reached out directly to Soviet Jews, visiting them and supplying them with religious materials and gifts, as well as moral support, and keeping their struggle in the public eye. They also employed more conventional tactics, such as lobbying for passage of the Jackson-Vanik Amendment, which conditioned trade benefits on increased freedom of emigration from the Soviet Union.

Jews could apply similar initiative to the current campus climate. For example, Jewish student activists could:
- Turn the tables on Students for Justice in Palestine and similar groups by protesting their events, holding up pictures of Nizar Banat and journalists wrongly imprisoned and tortured by the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, with captions underscoring that SJP is really not interested in “justice in Palestine,” but only in castigating the Jewish State. Better yet, Jewish activists could stage mock arrests of journalists by Palestinian security services.

- Protest (through traditional means like outside SJP events, or through mock trials or some other attention-grabber) the oppression of homosexuals in Palestinian society. Ditto for the treatment of women. Besides potentially embarrassing pro-Palestinian groups and creating pressure to improve the lot of homosexuals and women in Palestinian society, protests like this might shame gay advocates and advocates for women into joining the protests against Palestinian authorities. It’s one thing to claim “pinkwashing” when an Israeli quotes facts and figures, and it’s another when confronted with protests against anti-gay oppression, honor killings, and so forth.

- Likewise, find a way to visualize the persecution of Arab Christians by Palestinian Muslims, leading to their departure from the West Bank and Gaza. Over the past fifty years, the Palestinian Christian population has shrunk from roughly 15 percent to about 1.5 percent of the Palestinian population.

- Stage a mock trial/sentencing of Isaam Akel, an American citizen sentenced to life in prison for facilitating the sale of Arab-owned land to Israeli Jews, for the blatant religious and ethnic prejudice of barring land sales to Jews, and for demonstrating that what the Palestinian Authority actually wants is to make its territory Judenrein.

- Find some way to dramatize the reality that it’s the Palestinians, not Israel, holding up a peace agreement. For example, they could demonstrate outside SJP events with posters captioned “Palestinian Peace Proposal”—with the rest of the poster blank, as empty as Palestinian proposals.

- Demonstrate both the Jewish people’s indigenous connection to Israel, and Palestinian efforts to erase same. For instance, students could conduct mock archeological digs on campus “finding” ancient Jewish artifacts, bulldozing them, and throwing the artifacts into the trash.

The student-founded, grassroots organization Students Supporting Israel has begun to use more offensive tactics. During so-called Apartheid Week 2022, SSI tested out messaging similar to the above suggestions. That’s an excellent sign. Hopefully, where they lead, others will follow.

Ruthie Blum: Noa Tishby’s Surprisingly Welcome Splash on the ‘Hasbara’ Scene

But Tishby’s real tour de force came in the form of a Tik Tok video, which has gone viral on every social-media platform since its release on Wednesday.

“Here are some facts you may not know,” she begins, in the minute-and-a-half clip. “The International Federation of Journalists, the IFJ, conducted a report about the number of death cases of journalists in war zones between 1990 and 2020. According to the report, 2,658 journalists have been killed in that period of time. Three hundred forty were killed in Iraq, 178 in Mexico, 160 in the Philippines, 138 in Pakistan and 116 in India. Twelve of the cases were Al Jazeera journalists. Seven of them were killed in Syria, two in Iraq, one in Yemen, one in Libya and one case from last week.”

She goes on: “Each one of these deaths is horrific, but you can’t name the other 2,657 journalists. You can only name the one [who] was killed in clashes between Palestinian terrorists and the Israeli army. In any of the other deaths, we did not see such vitriol, hateful, horrific reactions and rhetoric as we’ve seen by the international community, social media, celebrities and the United Nations towards Israel.”

This, she concludes, “is what we call a double standard … and it’s purely rooted in sometimes subconscious antisemitism, anti-Jewish racism. So, please, just think about that for a minute, as well. Okay? And rest in peace, Shireen.”

Tishby’s splash on the scene brings to the fore the decades-old debate about Israel’s ostensibly poor hasbara (public diplomacy). Ironically, it’s the one issue on which even politically diverse pundits and politicians — other than those who agree with the Jewish state’s detractors — agree. The consensus throughout the years, particularly since the advent of social media, has been that Israel is losing the propaganda war to forces bent on its destruction.

These armies possess proverbial pens that are sometimes mightier than metaphorical swords, though they have the power to incite Israel’s enemies to mass murder. The many, varied and often top-notch efforts by pro-Israel organizations and individuals to rebut the onslaught of anti-Zionist lies haven’t excused successive coalitions from being charged with sleeping on the job where hasbara is concerned.

It’s an unfair claim. Those who argue that it’s the government’s job to tackle the problem have a fantasy that Jew-hatred can be conquered, or at least minimized, through an allocation of budgets for the endeavor and the hiring of the right people for the job.

Though the latter makes sense, the former is ridiculous. The most important thing that hasbara can do is sing to the choir. Indeed, Israel’s champions need ammunition to fling, intelligently and accurately, in the face of foes.

Tishby, thus far, is proving to be just the right purveyor of the message that needs to be voiced over the incessant and diabolical cacophony.

Yesterday an antisemitic mob led by Ali Dawah surrounded and attacked me.

We refuse to be intimidated by such thuggery.

Am Yisrael Chai. pic.twitter.com/z05LNgB7nw
— Israel Advocacy Movement (@israel_advocacy) May 23, 2022

Palestinians are gathering excuses to attack Israel next Sunday, Jerusalem Day.

Ma'an is not affiliated with any terror organization. Yet even that news outlet is saying that there is no reasonable alternative to attacking Israeli Jews next Sunday with rockets, terrorism or both.

Last year's Jerusalem Day was marked with Hamas rockets towards Jerusalem - endangering the very holy places that Muslims claim are so important to them. To Palestinians, the war was a net positive because it showed that they could still affect Israel and stop Jews from celebrating the reunification of Jerusalem.

They don't look at a war that killed hundreds and that destroyed part of Gaza as a loss - to them, it was a victory, and Hamas rode a wave of popularity for months afterwards, as it took on the mantle of "defender of Al Quds and Al Aqsa."

All the Palestinians need is an excuse to repeat their purported victory. And they are collecting them.

1.) The march itself, which is an unacceptable provocation to the feelings of millions of Muslims.

2.) A court decision, not being enforced by Israeli police, allowing Jews to pray aloud on the Temple Mount.

3.) Jews continuing to visit and silently pray at the holy site, as they have done for years now.

4.) "Price tag" attacks by far right settlers, even though they are denounced by almost all Jews.

5.) Naftali Bennett not even mentioning Palestinians at his UN speech last September, which they find disrespectful.

6.) Israel rooting out terror cells in Jenin.

7.) The death of Shireen Abu Akleh.

8.) Israeli police attacking people trying to take her body on a different route at her funeral.

9.) The US taking Kahana Chai off the list of terrorist organizations.

None of these are remotely a reason to start attacking Jewish civilians. But in the Palestinian honor/shame system, not attacking Jews is being framed as unacceptable and shameful.

The editorial ends with not a threat but a virtual promise:

The statement of the Palestinian Authority and the statement of the Kingdom of Jordan to hold the occupation responsible for the upcoming religious war represents more than a warning of what will happen.

The question is no longer if a new battle will take place next Sunday. Rather, the more accurate question: What is the miracle that can prevent the occurrence of such a battle?

Palestinians are being primed in all their media for a war.

Israel needs to plan accordingly. And it should say, in no uncertain terms, that while the accusations against Israel are false and exaggerated, anyone who starts a war on May 29 will not be pleased with the outcome.

And it needs to publicize and translate the threats today, not next week.

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!

Bakr Abu Bakr, writing in Al Arab, says that the idea of Jews being a chosen people is inherently racist because God doesn't treat any people as special.

Let me refer to a term that is popular, even if it is attributed to the Torah, because it was exploited politically by Protestant Zionism and then by the Zionist movement, up to the present time!

The racist term “chosen people” is one of many Jewish religious myths that have no historical, legal, political and scientific value. Religiously, the Creator was never a racist nor a real estate dealer at all, to seal or name a “people” or a tribe with its evil and benefactor with an eternal holy seal!?

Allah of course is no racist, and would never treat anyone special. Jews, by claiming to be the Chosen People, are promoting a racist god.

So he is not only attacking Zionism but Judaism itself. Good to know.

However, the Quran also says that Allah had a special relationship with the children of Israel:

2:40 - O Children of Israel, remember My favor which I have bestowed upon you and fulfill My covenant [upon you] that I will fulfill your covenant [from Me], and be afraid of [only] Me.

2:47 - O Children of Israel! Just recall to mind My favour that bestowed upon you, and remember that I exalted you above all the peoples of the world.

There are plenty of others. While the Quran also says that the children of Israel violated this covenant and are no longer favored, clearly Allah at one point favored the Jews - meaning, according to Abu Bakr, Allah is a racist.

Perhaps sensing this argument, Abu Bakr goes on to say that Jews aren't Jews anyway, and their original tribe is long gone. Whew!

Good thing they were wiped out, or else Allah would have to ensure that they keep winning wars and gaining political, military and economic power.

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!

05/23 Links Pt1: Time for a reality check; Court Rules in Favor of Jews Praying on Temple Mount; Tlaib and her crocodile tears; Immortalizing a child terrorist

From Ian:

Time for a reality check

How convenient it is for the coalition that characters like Joint Arab List MKs Ofer Cassif and Ahmad Tibi are part of the opposition. When they are caught on camera hitting a police officer or disrupting police in the line of duty, then the coalition can adopt its combative tone. Prime Minister Naftali Bennett and Public Security Minister Omer Barlev can put on a grave expression and condemn the opposition MKs for crossing a red line, and they can back up the police and the security forces while deputy minister Abir Kara collects signatures to impeach Cassif for his "anti-Israel" comportment.

But the maelstrom surrounding Cassif's slap of a police officer is no more than a veil, and an efficient one at that, for the government's other chagrins. Cassif is the same Cassif and Tibi is the same Tibi – both of them are at the far end of the opposition and are well known for their constant and flagrant provocations against the core values of Israeli statehood. The very same statehood that the "government of change" swore to rehabilitate.

If we wish to pretend to be shocked by an anti-Israel stance and debasement of the security forces then we should do so with regard to someone who was allowed to walk into the halls of Israeli statehood thanks to a "political accident." I am referring to Ra'am MK Waleed Taha who said: "How ugly and pitiful is the face of the damned occupation! The occupation murdered Shireen Abu Akleh in cold blood, and also prevents the masses from participating in the pain of her death."

Yamina MK Nir Orbach immediately responded "the fundamental error is in the word 'occupation'" adding, "enough of this mendacious terminology." This led his coalition colleague Meretz MK Mossi Raz to suggest that he look up, "the definition of the term occupation before claiming it does not exist." While it's nice that the opportunity has been found to conduct a symposium on the semantics of the Israeli-Arab conflict, occupation or not, the key term in Taha's tweet was "murder in cold blood."

JPost Editorial: Rinawie Zoabi can no longer represent Israel in China

It’s too early to say for sure whether Meretz MK Ghaida Rinawie Zoabi got what she wanted out of the coalition crisis she manufactured last week – other than attention. But the case shines a light on many problems both in the country’s political system and in the way that diplomatic appointments are made. Rinawie Zoabi surprised Prime Minister Naftali Bennett and his partners when she suddenly announced that she was leaving the coalition to protest what she claimed was a series of problems within the Arab community. Among other things, she cited recent clashes on the Temple Mount, Sheikh Jarrah, settlements, house demolitions, the Citizenship Law and land confiscations in the Negev. The last straw, she said, was the clash between police and the Palestinians who carried the Palestinian flag-draped coffin of Al Jazeera journalist Shireen Abu Akleh in Jerusalem.

Rinawie Zoabi is no stranger to making bold protest measures. In January, she voted against the government’s bill on the ultra-Orthodox military draft, which as a result did not pass. She said then that she was voting to protest JNF tree planting on land which Bedouin residents of the Negev claim is theirs. Largely as a result of this protest gesture, instead of being punished within the coalition, Rinawie Zoabie was rewarded with a prestigious diplomatic appointment meant to remove the unpredictable lawmaker from the Knesset. She was, the government decided, to become Israel’s consul-general in Shanghai. Tellingly, Foreign Minister Yair Lapid gave the appointment to a Meretz MK, rather than to a member of his own Yesh Atid list. This was another reason to suspect that the appointment was largely a means to remove Rinawie Zoabi from the Knesset where she could endanger the government’s survival.

Her decision to resign from the coalition (but not the Knesset) was interpreted as a protest at what she sees as stalling over her appointment as consul-general, which still has to go through different channels for approval, like any official diplomatic appointment.

Although the position is considered to be more focused on commercial and financial ties, a field in which she is indeed qualified, the fact that she frequently attacks the government and the country makes her unsuitable for a post representing it. During a barrage of Hezbollah rockets from Lebanon in August, she went as far as telling KAN Radio that “Bennett knows that if the government enters into a military confrontation, the coalition will fall because Meretz and Ra’am will not agree to such a thing.” It was an open warning to the government that it could not respond to attacks from the terrorist organization and survive.

New Dialogue and Collaboration between EU and Israel

European Parliament President Roberta Metsola is visiting Israel and will address the Knesset on Monday, symbolizing an encouraging and dramatic change in Europe's tone and approach in its relations with the Jewish state.

Europeans have become much more suspicious of Iran. The danger of Iran's nuclear and hegemonic ambitions was amplified after the Russian invasion of Ukraine and Russia's nuclear threats, which shook the Europeans at their core. Statements criticizing anti-Zionism as a disguise for anti-Semitism are also becoming more prevalent among Europe's most influential voices. The EU has withheld funds from UNRWA due to the incitement against Jews and Israelis in Palestinian textbooks.

Moreover, a number of European nations have experienced acts of radical, Islamic terror and are wary of shifting demographics within their own societies that could be susceptible to further Islamic radicalization. At the same time, Israel's economic success and its pioneering prowess in the high-tech sector have increased its stature in Europe.

During the Temple Mount riots in April, a 21 year old Palestinian named Walid al-Sharif was injured and fell into a coma for three weeks before he died.

The media universally reported that he was shot by the Israeli police on the Temple Mount, quoting "witnesses," even when the police denied it and said that he fell down and apparently injured his head on his own while running away after throwing stones.

Now, medical examinations reveal that the Israeli police were telling the truth and he wasn't shot. From Haaretz:

The Palestinian who died during last month’s unrest on the Temple Mount wasn’t hit by a sponge-tipped bullet, an investigation into his death concluded.

The findings, which were obtained by Haaretz, are based on medical opinions and medical documents, including documents from Hadassah University Hospital, Ein Karem, where Walid al-Sharif was hospitalized after being injured.

Al-Sharif, 21, of East Jerusalem, collapsed last month while fleeing from the Temple Mount after police stormed it and was taken to the hospital with mortal injuries. The Palestinians claimed he was hit by a sponge-tipped bullet fired by police. Police said he had been throwing stones at them, but was injured when he fell while running away. He died of his injuries on May 14.

According to the medical documents, there are no marks on Al-Sharif’s body indicating that he was hit by a sponge-tipped bullet. Medical experts at the hospital think he collapsed due to a heart attack, and the heart attack is also what caused the massive brain injury that led to his death.

Video footage from the Temple Mount shows Al-Sharif running away swiftly and then suddenly falling on his face. The police gave him first aid, along with medics at the scene, and he was taken to the hospital with severe facial injuries.

But the medical findings show that the injuries suffered during his fall weren’t what caused his death. Moreover, medical experts said, the kind of massive brain injury he suffered can be caused by a heart attack.

Note that the hospital didn't publicize this. The Israeli government didn't announce this. Haaretz, no doubt looking for evidence that Israeli police did shoot him and the police were lying, found the opposite.

Almost invariably, the IDF and Israeli police are proven to be telling the truth and Palestinian "eyewitnesses" are proven to be lying. Time and time again. Even an Amnesty researcher has noted that Palestinian "eyewitnesses" are unreliable and often follow a disinformation script rather than accurately tell the truth.

Which is yet another reason why the "eyewitnesses" to Shireen Abu Akleh's death are not to be believed, especially when the main one has a track record of lying himself.

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!

Affirmative action is progressive. Except in Israel, where identical affirmative action for Ethiopians is racist.

In 2003, Scott Plous edited a celebrated anthology called "Understanding Prejudice and Discrimination" that includes a section widely spread across the Internet called "Ten myths about affirmative action."

The "myths" include:

Myth #1: The only way to create a color-blind society is to adopt color-blind policies.

Although this assertion sounds intuitively plausible, the reality is that color-blind policies often put racial minorities at a disadvantage. For instance, all else being equal, color-blind seniority systems tend to protect White workers against job layoffs, because senior employees are usually White (Ezorsky, 1991). Likewise, color-blind college admissions favor White students because of their earlier educational advantages. Unless pre-existing inequities are corrected or otherwise taken into account, color-blind policies do not correct racial injustice—they reinforce it.

Myth #7: You can't cure discrimination with discrimination.

The problem with this myth is that it uses the same word—discrimination—to describe two very different things. Job discrimination is grounded in prejudice and exclusion, whereas affirmative action is an effort to overcome prejudicial treatment through inclusion. The most effective way to cure society of exclusionary practices is to make special efforts at inclusion, which is exactly what affirmative action does. The logic of affirmative action is no different than the logic of treating a nutritional deficiency with vitamin supplements. For a healthy person, high doses of vitamin supplements may be unnecessary or even harmful, but for a person whose system is out of balance, supplements are an efficient way to restore the body's balance.

Myth #8: Affirmative action tends to undermine the self-esteem of women and racial minorities.

Although affirmative action may have this effect in some cases (Heilman, Simon, & Repper, 1987; Steele, 1990), interview studies and public opinion surveys suggest that such reactions are rare. For instance, a recent Gallup poll asked employed Blacks and employed White women whether they had ever felt that others questioned their abilities because of affirmative action (Roper Center, 1995c). Nearly 90% of respondents said no (which is understandable—after all, White men, who have traditionally benefited from preferential hiring, do not feel hampered by self-doubt or a loss in self-esteem). Indeed, in many cases affirmative action may actually raise the self-esteem of women and minorities by providing them with employment and opportunities for advancement. There is also evidence that affirmative action policies increase job satisfaction and organizational commitment among beneficiaries (Graves & Powell, 1994).

This isn't my field so although I might have some intuitive issues about whether these ideas are myths, I cannot bring studies to argue with them.

Until now.

Because a recently available paper criticizes Israel for doing exactly the things that are celebrated by progressives elsewhere - and Israeli academia is positioned as being racist because of it.

Sarab Abu-Rabia-Queder is a well-regarded Bedouin sociologist and expert on gender studies at Ben Gurion University of the Negev. She wrote a paper in 2019 titled "The paradox of diversity in the Israeli academia: reproducing white Jewishness and national supremacy." The abstract:

This paper claims that policies designed to promote diversity and provide Ethiopian Jews with opportunities in Israeli institutions of higher learning create a paradox where, rather than diversifying student bodies and faculties in universities, they bolster the reproduction of national and religious supremacy of white Jews in the Israeli academia. Interviews with 50 Ethiopian students reveal that the racialized cultural indexes on which Israeli society structures its racialized attitudes towards Ethiopian immigrants have not been purged from university campuses. Instead, I argue, they continue to suffuse and shape those very programs designed to combat them by reinventing Jewish privilege and national exclusivity in Israeli universities.

In short, when the most progressive and liberal Israelis do exactly what progressives worldwide insist must be done with minority students, those very progressive actions are racist themselves.

Her paper is a remarkable funhouse mirror that supports conservative arguments against affirmative action in the West, twisted to position progressive Israeli Jews as racist Jewish supremacists.

Using the most modern sociology methodology, Abu Radia Queder interviewed 50 Jewish women either born in Ethiopia or with parents who had been born there, using open ended questions so they can construct a narrative that she synthesizes into a coherent whole. (I suspect that this methodology leaves great latitude for subconscious bias by the researcher to be manifested, but this is not the place for that discussion.)

The interviewees speak of a situation in which the academic establishment is interested in aiding the Ethiopian population and facilitate its access to the academia through extensive full-funding scholarships to Ethiopian candidates, but also describes how this ‘generosity’ stigmatizes its recipients, and the Ethiopian population as a whole, as dependent. As Herzog claimed (1993, 264), the inherent problem of affirmative action is that it strengthens the group’s boundaries rather than dissolves them and fuels stigmas about them, essentially that ‘Ethiopians’ cannot compete on the basis of merit. This is echoed on Shoshana:

I won’t say no to funding. But to me it’s kind of another nail in our coffin. Makes us more and more dependent. And you’re always getting stuff: in the army you’ll get a special course to help you out, in the university they’d give you extra courses. It’s as if they never let you go, never let you actually compete for anything. It’s also important to make the distinction between Ethiopians who immigrated during the 90’s and the 2000’s. Because it really is two entirely different stories. But the issue is, as far as the government is concerned, I’m basically still a newly-arrived immigrant [Ola Khadasha]. There’s one definition to every immigrant in Israel, and then there’s one for an Ethiopian immigrant. An Ethiopian immigrant is anyone whose parents were born in Ethiopia. That’s to say that my child, when and whether they’ll be born [in Israel], would still be labelled as ‘newly arrived’. And to me it’s very disturbing to think that I’ll have a child who’ll be eligible from birth to benefits of a newly arrived immigrant, when he really isn’t one, never immigrated anywhere.

This extension of such lavish aid to black women effectively robs them of credit for their achievements, their success is always seen as derived from the aid they have been given, as Rachel tells:

If I pass something it’s because they’re doing me a favor and I’m Ethiopian. And that’s kind of disappointing. It’s like it’s not an empowering experience. There’s no question of forgetting . . . that the academy counts it to its own benefit, the place I am at right now.

We see that Israel is pouring money to help Black people - "lavish aid to black women," full scholarships - and this is framed as more evidence of white Jewish racism!

The paper includes more quotes: An Ethiopian academic who thinks that white colleagues consider her having been hired to meet a quota, self-congratulatory and irritating white progressive students constantly complimenting Ethiopians about how articulate they are or how amazing their culture is.

The three "myths" about affirmative action quoted above are all contradicted by the interviews of strong, proud Ethiopian women this paper.

To be sure, the Ethiopian interviewees experience some classic racism in the progressive halls of Israeli academia that mirror that of Blacks in America. One of them makes a stunning point about how the curricula maintains a racist attitude, which is perhaps worth its own post. But while American universities are positioned as trying their best to eradicate racism, Israeli universities are framed as being racist precisely for their efforts to eradicate racism - the same efforts that are defended to the death by academics in the West.

Perhaps the most ironic section and telling section of the paper is at the end:

The racist Jewish supremacist white Israeli government funds, for three years, the research of a Bedouin Muslim woman - but she disrespects the state so much that she cannot properly capitalize the name of the government ministry that gave her the funds to write a paper damning Israel as racist.

Racism exists - on the Right and the Left. It is not likely to ever go away. But the double standards shown here against the most progressive Israeli Jews for doing exactly what progressives insist must be done to end racism in the West proves that antisemitism is just as systemic in the Left as racism is.

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!

"Jihad" original AI-produced artwork

We've seen this show before. And it keeps repeating because the world lets it happen.

The Jerusalem Magistrate’s Court ruled that three Jewish teenagers who bowed down and said the "Shema" prayer on the Temple Mount should not have been banned because they didn't violate the law.

The State of Israel is appealing the decision - meaning that the state is against Jewish rights on the Temple Mount.

That's crazy enough. But the court ruling is starting an entirely new round of incitement from Palestinian Arab leaders, saying that this is a holy war.

Hamas official Mushir al-Masri called this "a declaration of religious war" and said "If our messages do not reach the occupation through mediators, they will find their way through missiles."

Similarly, Palestinians are warning that there will be violence if the Flag March on Jerusalem Day goes to the Temple Mount. There is no way that it will, but they are inciting violence for that day - getting hotheaded youth ready for violence whether Israel does anything or not, preparing their firebombs and stones, and with no desire not to use them.

And then, when violence breaks out, the Palestinians say that they were reacting to being "provoked," and the world blames Jews for causing Muslims to become violent.

It seems obvious, but it needs to be emphasized:

Jewish prayer on the Temple Mount isn't incitement.

Marching in Jerusalem with flags isn't incitement - even if it is on the Temple Mount.

Drawing a picture of Mohammed isn't incitement.

Even burning a Koran isn't incitement.

They may be extraordinarily disrespectful, or they may be freedom of speech or freedom of religion, or they may be knowingly provocative. But they do not cause violence.

Muslim reactions to them cause violence. Incitement and stabbings and Molotov cocktails are the responsibility of the people who call for violence and those who act on it - no matter what the provocation.

The Western world has accepted a narrative where Jews are expected to turn the other cheek when they are insulted or provoked, but Muslims are expected to turn violent - meaning that the Jews are at fault no matter what.

This is not only antisemitic. This is disrespect and bigotry against Muslims.

It is a bigotry that is eagerly sought by Muslims who want to be framed as perpetual victims. Those who stab random Jews are given a pass because of "occupation" or, if it is within the Green Line, some other imagined justification. Arabs and Muslims are animals with no free will, according to "progressive" people who always say Jews are at fault, no matter what.

Until the world makes it very clear that Palestinian violence is not a result of Israeli actions, but a decision made by Palestinians themselves and they are wholly responsible for it. When NGOs and the media link Palestinian violence to "occupation" or fictional "apartheid" or whatever the fashionable euphemism for Jewish evil is nowadays, they are accepting that violence. And Palestinians are happy to take on the role of wild animals who cannot control themselves.

The truth is clear cut. Terrorists are responsible for their actions. Not those who the terrorists blame.

We are seeing incitement to terror happening, today - and the world is silent. It is not acceptable and it encourages more attacks on Israelis and Jews.

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!

Truth is stranger than fiction, but stranger still are lies

"Truth is stranger than fiction, but stranger still are lies" is a quote from Philip Roth's Great American Novel.

I think about that quote often when researching anti-Israel propaganda.

A group of actors and other entertainers signed an open letter for "Artists for Palestine UK" that says, in part:

We are deeply disturbed by the Israeli occupation forces’ killing of the highly respected Palestinian journalist Shireen Abu Akleh, as she arrived, wearing a clearly marked press vest, to report on an Israeli incursion in the occupied city of Jenin last Wednesday. As we grieve her loss, we call for full accountability for the perpetrators of this crime and everyone involved in authorizing it.

The killing of Shireen Abu Akleh is a grave breach of international humanitarian law and an attack on journalism and freedom of expression. UN and international human rights experts have said that it may constitute a war crime and should be subject to an independent, transparent international investigation.

Who needs facts? Hollywood stars - including Susan Sarandon, Tilda Swinton, Mark Ruffalo, Kathryn Hahn and Steve Coogan, along with film directors, authors and musicians - have declared that the Israeli government authorized the murder of Shireen Abu Akleh, and insist that an investigation take place - but only an investigation that will reach the same verdict that they already reached.

Israel's already doing an investigation and has already shown a willingness to accept responsibility if it is at fault? Irrelevant!

Palestinians refusing to cooperate in a transparent investigation? Who cares?

Israeli sniper rifles have a different caliber than the bullet that killed Shireen? Hasbara!

Video with audio of sprays of gunshots at the time she is hit, knowing that the IDF only shoots single rounds at a time? Please, that's just Zionist propaganda!

Not only don't the celebrities care about the facts - they are confident that their fans don't, either, and that they won't be embarrassed by their obvious lies.

Lies are indeed strange. People are conditioned to believe those who speak earnestly and passionately. They are in general not going to bother to fact-check a famous actor or author - what incentive do they have to lie so egregiously, so nakedly?

And yet, they do. I don't know if they lie as easily about global warming or racism, but they sure lie about Israel, and knowing that should cast doubt on everything that comes out of their mouths.

In a world that values truth.

That is no longer the world we live in, if it ever was.

The people who tell the truth are at a disadvantage.The world audience prefers newsmakers to be either wearing black hats or white hats, and they are forced to judge between the truth-tellers speaking in shades of grey who say "we don't have enough information yet" and the liars who confidently say, "GUILTY!"

"The truth will come out" may be correct in some cases but by the time it does, the audience for the truth has already moved on, having decided for themselves who is right based on how earnest and photogenic the debaters are. And they are a bit more antisemitic.

Which is, of course, the goal.

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!

05/22 Links: Did Abraham use a smartphone?; ‘Ideology of Rage’ Comes to Congress; Israel bans European parliamentarian who worked with terror supporters

From Ian:

Did Abraham use a smartphone?

The question, of course, is anachronistic and the answer is no. The first smartphone was released (by IBM) in 1994, less than 30 years ago. Abraham,,Patriarch of the Jewish nation, lived 4000 years earlier. He could not possibly have used a technology invented thousands of years later.

That is why no-one suggests Abraham Avinu (Hebrew for the Patriarch Abraham), used a smartphone. That revisionist history would be too laughably obvious to try to put over on the public.. However, UNESCO does seriously allege that Abraham and Sarah’s tomb, a world heritage site, is “Palestinian”.

That’s elevating anachronism to sacrosanct status – because the term “Palestinian” is every bit as new an invention as the smartphone is. “Palestinian”, describing members of the Arab Umma who live in Eretz Israel, was coined in the twentieth century – 4000 years after the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron was purchased and consecrated by Abraham Avinu.

Of course, UNESCO has its excuses ready. UNESCO says that the Cave of the Patriarchs is “Palestinian” because Hebron is situated in what they intend to be a “Palestinian” state. But this too is incorrect. First, Hebron belongs to the Jewish people, as recognized by the unanimous and irrevocable internationally legal decision at San Remo. Second, the area allocated to the Palestinian Authority in the Oslo accords does not include the Cave of the Patriarchs. Third, the Palestinian Authority is not a state.

Fibbing has turned into a serious international problem. During COVID, wide-spread fibs caused untold millions to refuse crucial vaccines.

When fibs in the “Palestinian” arena first surfaced, the United States justified its status as the world’s superpower by refusing to take the fibs lying down. In 1989, the PLO first tried to elbow its way into the World Health Organization (WHO). But international organizations like WHO are joined only by states, not by social groups, political parties, or terrorist organizations. The PLO was pretending to be a state, and the international community was expected to acquiesce in the fib.

Jonathan Tobin: Who is really responsible for Palestinian suffering?

Resolutions proposed in the US House of Representatives mean nothing. They give members an opportunity to pay lip service to various causes favored by their constituents but don't commit the government to action. They are almost always not worth noticing. But every once in a while, a resolution is put forward that demands attention. This week that is exactly what happened when Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) proposed House Resolution 1123, "Recognizing the Nakba and Palestinian Refugee Rights."

The word nakba means "disaster" or "catastrophe," and that is how Palestinian Arabs and their supporters refer to the events of 1948 and the birth of the State of Israel. The text is a thumbnail guide to Palestinian propaganda about their suffering and the events that led to approximately 750,000 Arabs to flee their homes during Israel's War of Independence. What happened to them is a tragedy deserving of sympathy, but the story told in the resolution provides not even half of the truth about the conflict or why nearly 10 times the number of Arabs who fled the war now claim to be Palestinian refugees.

As an attempt at telling this history, the resolution is a despicable farce that deserves little notice. But it's important because it represents the way the left-wing of the Democratic Party led by the so-called "Squad" – of which Tlaib, who is of Palestinian descent, is a charter member – has fully embraced intersectional ideology. Other "Squad" members are co-sponsors, including Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), Cori Bush (D-Mo.), Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) and Betty McCollum (D-Minn.). This attempt to treat the war on Israel's existence as analogous to the struggle for civil rights in the United States and an integral part of the progressive political agenda represents a sea change in American politics.

So, while the resolution itself is contemptible, it merits a full debate and vote in the House rather than to be tabled and forgotten.

The pro-Israel community has generally ignored the Palestinian narrative about 1948. The story of Israel is one that stands on its own and is widely accepted by the overwhelming majority of Americans. It is the one Jewish state on the planet and represents the 2,000-year-old dream of Jews for a return to their ancient homeland. Israel has not known a single day of peace in the 74 years since its modern-day establishment on May 14, 1948. Few thought it would survive being invaded by five Arab armies immediately after its birth, or the subsequent wars and terrorist campaigns aimed at destroying it. It is the only democracy in the Middle East and one where all people, including its Arab minority, have equal rights under the law. And it has grown from a poor and tiny country into a regional economic and military superpower.

But seen through the funhouse mirror of the nakba rhetoric in Tlaib's resolution, which mimics the rhetoric of the anti-Semitic BDS movement that she and co-sponsor Omar support, Israel is an "apartheid state" whose creation was an injustice. Moreover, the resolution also demands recognition of the Palestinian "right of return" in which the 7 million descendants of the 1948 refugees would have the right to reclaim the homes of those who left and essentially eliminate Israel as a Jewish state.

While Tlaib and the other Progressive Caucus members who co-sponsored the resolution want to frame their gesture as a matter of support for human rights and recognition of the suffering of Palestinians, it is actually nothing of the kind. Its purpose is to place on the record, congressional support for the elimination of Israel.

‘Ideology of Rage’ Comes to Congress

It is the sort of resolution one would expect to be tabled before the UN General Assembly or even Iran’s parliament, the Majlis, but not the US Congress.

Last week, a group of left-wing Democratic legislators led by Rep. Rashida Tlaib and backed by her House colleagues Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Cori Bush (D-MO), Jamaal Bowman (D-NY), Betty McCollum (D-MN) and Marie Newman (D-IL), presented a resolution on the subject of the nakba — an Arabic word meaning “disaster” or “catastrophe” that Palestinians use as shorthand when talking about the creation of the State of Israel in 1948. In keeping with the language and themes that feature in the UN’s ritual denunciations of Israel, the resolution portrays the Jewish state as an incorrigible colonizer. “[T]he Nakba refers not only to a historical event but to an ongoing process of Israel’s expropriation of Palestinian land and its dispossession of the Palestinian people that continues to this day,” the resolution argues.

We shouldn’t be under any illusions about the core message of this resolution. Without saying so explicitly, the resolution effectively denies Israel’s right to exist by endorsing UN General Assembly Resolution 194 of December 1948, which specifies the right of Palestinians who fled from Israel during the War of Independence in that year to either return to their original homes or receive compensation. Especially as the original 750,000 refugees now number more than 5 million — thanks to the transfer of refugee status to subsequent generations of Palestinians — incorporating such an enormous and largely hostile population within the borders of Israel would almost certainly result in appalling acts of terrorism and violence, as well as the demise of a sovereign Jewish state.

While the resolution doesn’t explicitly demonize Zionism as a form of racism, as the United Nations expressly did in 1975, that is the conclusion its authors would like you to reach. This is no appeal for a historic accord between Zionism and Palestinian nationalism based on compromise and a final partition of the land between sovereign states. Rather, the resolution is an orthodox anti-Zionist screed that denies both the indigeneity of the Jewish population and the legitimacy of its national project. It is, in other words, the “original sin” version of history holding that the Jews stole Palestinian land and then justified the theft by invoking an invented past — the exact same discourse that has bedeviled peace efforts for decades through its insistence that the resolving the Palestinian question requires Israel to cease its independent existence, and the Jews to recognize that they are not a nation but a confession.

Of the many distortions of past and present contained within the resolution, one of the most glaring is its claim that the transfer of refugee status across multiple generations of Palestinians is legally and morally justified.“[P]rotracted refugee situations are the result of the failure to find political solutions to their underlying political crises,” it states. UNRWA, the refugee agency dedicated exclusively to the Palestinians, says much the same: “Under international law and the principle of family unity, the children of refugees and their descendants are also considered refugees until a durable solution is found.”

In English, a child victim of Israeli aggression. In Arabic, a heroic fighter and martyr.

Early Saturday morning, there was a firefight in Jenin where Amjad al-Fayed was killed.

The official Wafa news agency said:

A Palestinian teenager was killed and another one injured early this morning by the Israeli occupation forces during an Israeli army raid of Jenin city, north of the occupied West Bank, according to the Ministry of Health.

It said Amjad Fayed, 17, was killed and another one, 18-years-old, was seriously injured during the raid.

An Israeli military force stormed Haifa Street in Jenin sparking confrontations with residents during which Israeli soldiers fired live bullets at the Palestinians killing one and injuring another, who was reported in critical condition at a local hospital.

Photos shows a smiling teen:

It doesn't show the full photo, though, with the gun at his belt:

It turns out that Fayed was an Islamic Jihad terrorist. Which they bragged about:

The resistance fighter, Amjad Walid Al-Fayed, was martyred at dawn today, Saturday, during armed clashes that took place between Palestinian resistance fighters and the Zionist occupation forces that stormed the city of Jenin.

The Palestinian Ministry of Health announced the death of the 17-year-old Al-Fayed shortly after he was transferred to Ibn Sina Hospital, critically wounded as a result of being targeted by the occupation forces on Haifa Street in Jenin.

Other photos of this child victim:

Which means that Islamic Jihad recruits child soldiers.

Where are the NGOs that pretend to care about Palestinian children?

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!

Buffalo shooter's manifesto shows the cross-pollination between Right and Left antisemitism

Payton Gendron, the 18 year old white supremacist who targeted Black people as he murdered 10 at a Buffalo supermarket last weekend, wrote a 180 page manifesto where laid out his bizarre philosophy.

The document is divided into three major sections. The first describes Gendron's racial theories, the second describes in detail his preparations for the massacre, and the third is his call to action for white people.

For the most part, his racial theories are copy/pastes from far Right websites. He does not have any real original thoughts. (One interesting deviation is that he describes himself a "ethnically White" but admits having partial Italian ancestry, and Italians were not historically considered to be white people for much of American history.)

His chapter on Jews in the first section likewise copies both text and graphics from far Right websites. However, there is a bit of cross-pollination between the far-Left and the far-Right in how they regard Jews. One can see that his sources both take materials from the far-Left antisemites and that Leftist antisemites take materials from the same far-Right materials that he quotes.

His document includes talking points taken directly from the "anti-Zionist" Left as well as from the Arabs that he hates as well:

He also takes talking points from the Nation of Islam:

Some of his neo-Nazi antisemitism is adopted by heroes of the Left, like Alice Walker and Roger Waters, who have said things about Jews and the Talmud that directly come from the same mistranslated Nazi sites that Gendron quotes. In the case of Walker, both say falsely say that Judaism allows rape of three year old girls and that gentiles must be killed; in the case of Roger Waters, that religious Jews believe that non-Jews exist to be their slaves and are not considered human.

Like the antisemitic Left, Gendron argues that he doesn't hate all Jews: "When referring to 'the Jews' I don’t mean all ethnic or religious Jews. Some can be actually decent, and make significant progress to humanity. However many of them are not." Is there any difference between what he says and the antisemitic Left saying that their obsessive hate of Israel has nothing to do with hating Jews, since they think there are "good Jews" as well?

Finally, Gendron reproduces the graphics that far-Right sites use to "prove" Jewish influence in the media, government, porn and pharmaceutical industries:

Which is no different from David Miller's graphs of Jewish ("Zionist") influence over British institutions:

Also, while Gendron's philosophy pretends that his hate of Jews is purely racial, you see things like this in his screed:

There is no "Jewish blood" in her body, but Gendron considers her a Jew. In fact, even non-Jews are Jews to him if they act in "Jewish ways."

I should also mention that not all “Jews” are ethnic or religious Jews. Jeff Bezos for example is not a religious or ethnic Jew, but may be considered a Jew. All elitists and globalists may be considered a “Jew” simply because they act like one.

The hate for Jews is suddenly not a race issue but simply associating Jews with whatever it is he hates most. It suddenly morphed from hating Jews as an ethnicity or people to turning Jews into a symbol of everything the far-Right finds odious. Jews support Blacks, Jews support transgenderism, Jews support socialism.

Is this any different from the crazed hate from the far-Left for Israel and Zionism? Like Gendron and the far-Right, the far-Left will associate Israel with whatever they consider to be the biggest crimes they can think of: they claim that opposing Israel is a social justice issue, from animal rights to feminism to environmentalism and opposing US police brutality.

The fact that right-wing antisemites say they oppose Jews for the exact opposite reasons does not faze them.

The far-Left and the far-Right might say they hate Jews for different reasons, but neither of them have a problem with using the arguments and methods of the other side. Because, in the end, the real goal is to get the majority to hate Jews - that is the only consistent philosophy that both sides have, prompting both sides to paper over the obvious and massive self-contradictions in their pretense of having a cohesive philosophy to justify their hate.

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!

David Miller, the British professor fired for antisemitism last year, was defended at the time by a large array of well-known intellectuals.

One letter of support said, "We oppose anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and all forms of racism." It was signed by many prominent academics including Noam Chomsky, Ilan Pappe and Judith Butler. Here' s one page of its signatories.

Another letter of support came from prominent leftist Jews including Norman Finkelstein, Rabbi David Mivasair and Tony Greenstein.

I think it is time to give these people a chance to show their support for Miller again. Because last week he went full antisemite on Twitter, and no sane person could think that he was only attacking "Zionists."

Here are excerpts of his thread:

There seems to be some confusion about who the occupation for Palestine began. Jonathan @Freedland appears to believe it started in 1967. But it didn't.

So did the occupation begin in 1948 - the #Nakba - when thousands were massacred and 750,000 expelled? No, not then either.

Did the occupation begin in 1909? That was when the first ‘Kibbutz’ was created in Umm Juni, by Arthur Ruppin, the head of the Zionist Organization office in Palestine....

No, not 1909: what about 1878? ‘Petah Tikva’, often described as the ‘Mother of settlements’, was created then with financial help from Baron Edmond de Rothschild. but, it did not begin then, either.

What about 1815 when a settlement was created in Hebron by the extremist Chabad-Lubavitch sect (which originated in Russia/Ukraine)? Today it is headquartered in Brooklyn, New York City. Here is what it says about Hebron.

But no, it may have been earlier: Russian Chabadniks had created settlements in Safed from 1777.

Things you should know about Chabad-Lubavitch: It's a supremacist organisation at the extreme end of the settler movement. According to Shin Bet ( Israeli intelligence agency) it’s responsible for about 80% of ‘price-tag’ revenge attacks on Palestinians.
(Here he links to a video from that authoritative source on Judaism, Iran's PressTV.)

So, in conclusion: The settlement and occupation of Palestine has been a long time coming. The descendant's [sic] of the earliest settlers are still there continuing the #Nakba through violence and land theft. Time to end the occupation.

David Miller is saying that the continuous return of Jews to Eretz Yisrael over the centuries is all evil Zionist settlement and occupation.

No one would mistake the Chabadniks from the 18th century for modern Zionists. They moved to the Holy Land for the same reasons Jewish groups have been moving to Palestine since the Second Temple was destroyed - because that is the center of Jewish religious life.

In the 13th century many prominent French rabbis moved to Palestine. Nachmanides moved to Israel in 1267. The Arizal, Rabbi Isaac Luria, moved to Tzfat in 1579. Many Chassidic leaders and their followers moved to Tzfat and Tiberias in the 18th century.

Miller also cannot distinguish Chabad from any other religious Jews. Chabad isn't responsible for 80% of "price tag" attacks - that's completely absurd, and the Shin Bet never said that. To Miller, any Jew wearing a kippah is the same.

Miller is saying that any Jew who moved to Eretz Yisrael in the centuries before modern Zionism is an illegal settler and occupier. His link to PressTV's video about Chabad (which also conflates Chabad with all religious Jews) shows not only his ignorance and lack of critical thinking abilities when it comes to Jews, it proves his own hatred of Jews who are public about their observance.

He is saying that not only the Jews who moved to Israel from elsewhere are stealing Palestinian land, but the Jews who lived there beforehand and their descendants are also illegal thieves of the land. Even the PLO and Iranian leaders say that Jews who lived in Israel before 1917 are "Palestinian" and can stay when the other Jews are ethnically cleansed - but that opinion is too pro-"Zionist" for David Miller.

So it is time to explicitly ask Noam Chomsky and Judith Butler and Norman FInkelstein if they still think that David Miller has no antisemitic tendencies. Do these academics who claim so loudly that they are against antisemitism denounce David Miller's clear hatred for Jews, not Zionists?

Pick names from the hundreds of academics and Jews who defended him from the links above, and tweet asking them what they think of someone who calls Jews who moved to Palestine for religious reasons, centuries before modern Zionism, "thieves."

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!