Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Friday, March 18, 2022

Even after the ADL draft memo surfaced, JVP keeps lying about "Deadly Exchange"

Jewish Voice for Peace is ecstatic. They sent out an email:

We just got proof: our collective power stopped the ADL’s police exchange program for three years and caused a massive internal crisis.

A leaked ADL memo shows us that our collective organizing is working: in June 2020, at the height of Black-led uprising against police violence, staff at the ADL wrote a memo recommending an end to their police exchange programs. In it, they admit their trips militarize the police, and detail the years of our campaigning that have made the program incredibly costly and controversial to them.

This is a huge victory, built by decades of Black and Palestinian movement building, and brought home through the sustained pressure of a targeted, unrelenting grassroots campaign rooted in local communities and coalitions. However, the ADL is now doubling down on their deep relationship with police and even talking about expanding these programs.

First of all, the leaked memo is a draft. It is not at all clear it was ever sent out or acted upon.

Part of what they say is true: the ADL memo reveals that it had to spend a lot of money defending the program of cooperating with Israeli law enforcement from the haters.

But in no way does the memo say that the trips "militarizes the police."

It said that the ADL needed to ask the question of whether the programs somehow contribute to US police violence, it emphasizes that it is highly unlikely:

ADL has been taking law enforcement officers to Israel for educational and training purposes since 2004. We have involved 500-600 law enforcement officers and partners. These trips have built bonds, created trust, and helped to deepen ADL relationships with federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies and leaders. These investments have generated value for regional offices because the stronger relationships have helped ADL with the investigation of hate crimes and protecting local communities.

During these trips, officers meet with Israel National Police (INP), academics, journalists and other Israeli officials to learn about how the INP fights crime and terrorism. They have never participated in tactical training exercises with the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) or the INP. They did not learn how to apprehend or restrain individuals, nor to conduct interrogations or apply any related practices.

On the other hand, the trips axe costly, are of questionable programmatic value, and are incredibly controversial. Each trip costs approximately [$115,000] directly due to travel and related costs, and upward of $200,000 per year in the staff time it takes to support the trips and defend the trips from controversy. These costs can potentially skyrocket if additional indirect costs are taken into consideration, such as the lost donor revenue and the increase in staff time and other resources it requires to defend ADL advocacy positions while hosting such a controversial program. Further, the impact is unclear. The law enforcement officers tell us that they enjoyed their trip and that they helped "bond," but it is not clear that those officers change policies to reduce antisemitism upon their return, or that they increase activities to counter white supremacy. We have not performed an impact evaluation for the program, nor is it clear what would be measured by one. During challenging budget times, it is difficult to defend a program that is so expensive with such an unclear return on investment.

Here's the part they are distorting:

...in light of the very real police brutality at the hands of militarized police forces in the U.S., we must ask ourselves difficult questions, like whether we are contributing to the problem. ....We must ask ourselves if, upon returning home, those we train are more likely to use force. We hope that that is not accurate, and certainly JVP distorts the truth, but it is a time in American history to ask ourselves these hard questions.

The ADL is saying that the questions must be asked - but it has no indication that the answer is "yes." And in the end, it has said that it will continue to work with law enforcement, nearly two years after this memo was drafted.

The memo is simply discusses whether there is a return on investment for the program, and whether the increased relationships with US law enforcement helps the protection of Jews in the US.

The main point of the memo is that these programs are expensive, with or without the criticism, and there is no way to measure whether that funding is worth it. It is what any mature organization would do. I'm sure that there are JVP memos about which of their efforts seem successful and which ones bomb, prompting them to change tactics.

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!

Read all about it here!

03/18 Links Pt1: Caroline Glick: Ukraine's lessons for Israel; Volodymyr Zelensky, the making of a modern Winston Churchill; 13 Holocaust survivors, wounded Ukrainians rescued and airlifted to Israel

From Ian:

Caroline Glick: Ukraine's lessons for Israel

The situation with the Palestinians is also disturbing, and speaks clearly to the destructive implications of Bennett's decision to play mediator between Russia and Ukraine.

Last week, Congress passed an omnibus spending bill which Biden signed. With AIPAC's support, the bill contained a section on Israel that significantly downgraded the US commitment to the Jewish state.

The section on Israel was an amended version of a law that passed initially in 2012. The 2012 law required the US to "assist" and "support the Government of Israel" in its ongoing talks with the Palestinians. The new law deleted the part about supporting Israel. Under the new law, the US is obligated to "a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict resulting in two states living side by side in peace, security, and mutual recognition."

In other words, under the amended law, the US is committed to supporting the establishment of a Palestinian state, whether Israel supports it or not.

Sen. Ted Cruz has fought since last July to block the passage of this amendment because he recognized the damage it was liable to do both to US-Israel ties and to Israel's national security. The Israeli Embassy, on the other hand, was less concerned.

Senate sources explain that Israel's diplomats were nowhere to be found as Cruz fought adoption of the amendment.

The worst aspect of the amended law is that it wasn't initiated by the usual anti-Israel forces in the so-called "Squad." AIPAC supported the amendment and so did mainstream Republican senators, like the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, James Risch, and Sen. Rob Portman, who is Jewish.

The implications are clear. When Israel opts to remain silent as its interests and position are undermined, not only does it strengthen its enemies, it loses its friends.

After Russia invaded Ukraine, many Ukrainians told Israeli reporters on the scene that they were inspired by Israel, which has always fought its own battles and survived even in the face of global indifference and hostility. Today, the opposite should be the case.

Israel's government must learn from the Ukrainians. The West will not fight for a threatened democracy. States that wait for green lights from the West to defend themselves will not survive. But states that defend themselves will see sufficient forces rally to their side to enable them to persevere and survive.

Douglas Murray: Zelensky hails Founding Fathers and cultural heroes just as America rejects them

Poor President Zelensky. Not only must he risk constant assassination attempts and an effort by the Russian military to take over his entire country. On top of that, when he appeals to his friends and allies he seems to imagine that we are something we are not.

On Wednesday morning, when the Ukrainian president addressed the US Congress he tried to appeal to Americans. He spoke of the attacks on Pearl Harbor and 9/11. And he tried to summon up the foundational ideals of this country.

He said that “Just like anyone else in the United States I remember your national memorial in Rushmore, the faces of your prominent presidents, those who laid the foundation of the United States of America as it is today.”

The reference was touching, but wildly outdated. Clearly President Zelensky does not realize that in the last few years America has been trying to rid itself of these foundational figures. Statues of Jefferson, Washington and Lincoln have been pulled down across this country. Only last November Thomas Jefferson was crated up and humiliatingly wheeled out the back door of New York’s Council chamber.

Sticking with this city, only the other week the statue of Theodore Roosevelt was hauled away in the dead of night from its position in front of the American Museum of Natural History. And who can forget how CNN’s correspondent described Mount Rushmore just a couple of Independence Day weekends ago. According to CNN, Mount Rushmore is “a monument of two slave owners” positioned on “land wrestled away from Native Americans.”

It is wonderful that Zelensky admires the foundations of America. But the country, and politicians, he was addressing seem not to share that admiration. In fact they seem to be actively trying to shrug off the history that Zelensky was appealing to.

The Ukrainian also referenced Dr. Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream speech” without seeming to realize that this generation of Americans have been busily inverting King’s dream. So much so that today we live in a society which is not color-blind, as Dr. King hoped, but color hyper-aware.

Volodymyr Zelensky, the making of a modern Winston Churchill - opinion

Just after the start of the Russian invasion, Zelensky set the rhetorical pace. On national television, he said he had a message for Russian forces: “If you attack, you will see our faces, not our backs!”

While Russian tanks and armored vehicles clogged Ukraine’s highway, Russian cruise missiles rained death and destruction on his capital of Kyiv, Zelensky knew his own life was in danger. Still, he radiated calm, absolute coolness, distinct courage and, above all, inspiring determination.

No Hollywood producer could have made a war epic to top Zelensky’s selfie video from the heart of Kyiv. “We are here,” he said. “We are in Kyiv. We protect Ukraine.”

“Our army is here. Our civil society is there. We are all here.”

Riveting words of simple power. He speaks to his nation not from a television studio, nor from a government office, but from the streets: Streets they know and recognize, streets for which he clearly says that he will shed his own blood.

Zelensky remained in Ukraine. As did his architect wife, his teenage daughter and nine-year-old son. With this decision, he reiterates the promise: “We are here.”

Vladimir Putin, through his megalomania, made a hero out of Zelensky and villain out of himself.

Wars are not movies, of course. The brave and the good do not automatically win in the end. Consider the brave premiers of Czechoslovakia in 1938 or Poland in 1939. Zelensky may still die for beliefs, alongside many thousands of his countrymen, but he has laid down a marker for the ages, a defiant voice for freedom that will sound down through the generations.

Through his brave words and braver actions, he set the stage for a triumphant outcome. He could still save his country and his young family. Certainly, the whole world is cheering for him.

Rasmea Odeh is the convicted Palestinian terrorist who is the darling of modern antisemites (who claim they are merely anti-Zionist.)

Commentary's Jonathan Marks has a review of "The Trials of Rasmea Odeh," where he summarizes a book by Steven Lubet that examines the evidence that Odeh was guilty of both lying on her immigration form to the US as well as of murder of two Israeli Jews in 1968.

Not surprisingly to those of us who have followed the cases, Lubet shows that she is guilty on all counts.

Here is a summary of the summary:

First, Odeh was guilty of the crime to which she pleaded guilty: “procuring citizenship contrary to law.” She falsely denied, in writing and in person, being arrested, convicted, and jailed in Israel. That lie, without which she would not have obtained citizenship, was illegal. After her grudging plea was accepted, Odeh rushed to the courthouse steps to take it back in the presence of her fans. But Lubet shows that Odeh pleaded out for a good reason, namely, the weakness of her defense.

At trial, Odeh claimed that she misread her naturalization application, which asked such unambiguous questions as “Have you EVER been convicted of any crime or offense.” That boldfaced, capitalized “ever,” she said, referred only to convictions in the United States, she had thought. The official who conducted her naturalization interview testified to having clarified, as a routine practice, that the word “ever” included “anywhere in the world.” Odeh asserted that the official never did so, which is why she reaffirmed, under oath and line by line, the lies in her application.

Lubet then demolishes the claims that Odeh didn't know enough English in her 1994 visa application where she wrote the same lie (she took English in school and college materials were in English) and that her supposed PTSD didn't allow her to admit to being arrested (she clearly talks about her arrest all the time.)

Lubet then proves that the accusation that the judges were biased are completely unfounded; and he impressively shows how they bent over backwards to allow her defense.

Then:

Rasmea Odeh was guilty of the crimes she lied about, including her participation in the operation that killed Edward Joffe and Leon Kanner. Lubet counts the ways in which this should be ob-vious. Both of the women who worked with Odeh and planted the bombs have implicated her in the operation, not under duress but during interviews with friendly interlocutors. In one such interview, Odeh herself sits, smiling and denying nothing, as her accomplice thanks her for “dragging [her] into military work.” After Odeh went to prison, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) named a hijacking unit after her and made her release a high priority. Odeh, who portrayed herself to “European and American audiences” as an innocent victim caught up in an Israeli dragnet, told a sympathetic interviewer that she was a member of PFLP’s central committee, and she gave several “Arabic-language television interviews recounting her involvement in ‘military work,’” a euphemism for the PFLP’s attacks on civilians. And why not? Before she came to the United States, Odeh was celebrated in the Arab world.

Lubet finds it credible that Odeh was tortured; Israeli laws against that weren't solidified for years afterwards. But if she admitted anything under torture, it was the truth.

The people who demanded "justice for Rasmea" got exactly what they asked for.

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!

Read all about it here!

In his Wednesday speech, Russian president Vladimir Putin compared Western sanctions imposed on Russia, its economy, athletes and cultural world to the persecution of the Jews by the Nazis in the 1930s.

He said in the speech::

In many Western countries, people are subjected to persecution just because they are originally from Russia. They are being denied medical care, their children are expelled from schools, parents are losing their jobs, and Russian music, culture, and literature are being banned. In its attempts to “cancel” Russia, the West tore off its mask of decency and began to act crudely showing its true colours. One cannot help but remember the anti-Semitic Nazi pogroms in Germany in the 1930s, and then pogroms perpetrated by their henchmen in many European countries that joined the Nazi aggression against our country during the Great Patriotic War.

Whatever one thinks about Western blanket sanctions against all things Russian, it is nothing like how Nazis treated Jews in the 1930s. For one thing, Jews in Germany were utterly helpless, as they didn't have a state that could protect them.

Putin's use of the word "pogrom" is also telling, since the Russian word has been used since the 19th century to initially refer to Russian attacks on Jews. There seems to be a desire by Putin to pretend that there is no Russian history of antisemitism and it is a purely Nazi invention.

Both sides in the Russian invasion of Ukraine are not shy about accusing their opponents of antisemitism. This is not out of any love for Jews on either side. In some ways, the analogies to Jews that we are seeing are themselves a form of antisemitism.

For one thing, it is a minimization of actual pogroms and historic attacks on Jews. The war is not an attack on race or ethnicities; it is driven by nationalism. Russia may be targeting (or at least grossly uncaring about the lives of) civilians, but they aren't targeting victims by race.

Secondly, the comparisons with Jews on both sides has an implication: Jews are a dominant, unified, worldwide force and therefore both sides want to use them for their own political gains. It is a diluted version of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion where the powerful Jews decide which side should win to help their own (nefarious) goals.

When the Jews don't do what these leaders demand, that itself can foment antisemitism in their own countries.

When world leaders invoke Jews to make a political point, it is rarely good for the Jews.

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!

Read all about it here!

Arab TV channels compete to offer TV series that run during the month of Ramadan, often playing every night - 30 episodes.

Islamic Jihad's media arm has created its own Ramadan series, extolling last September's prison break from Gilboa prison through a tunnel.

Four of them were captured within days when Israeli Arabs called police. They tried to get help from other Israeli Arabs and were refused.

Two of them were caught after four days. Two more were caught on the fifth day. And the last two were caught about a week later.

All of them remain in prison, with little chance of being released.

What a victory!

Yet not only are they heroes to Islamic Jihad (five of them belonged to that terror group,) but they are somehow stretching those facts over 30 episodes!

Dramatic music can only go so far.

For people who are starved for reasons for pride, a failed prison escape where the escapees were spurned and turned in by their fellow Arabs is the most uplifting story they can find.

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!

Read all about it here!

03/17 Links Pt2: Menachem Begin's legacy and the security of Israel; Gut feelings on Amnesty International; 30 years since Israeli embassy in Argentina destroyed in terror attack

From Ian:

Menachem Begin's legacy and the security of Israel

We remember not only what Begin did, but who he was, for this is what constitutes a legacy. His moral clarity and actions were consistent throughout his life. That is the source of strength of his legacy, and the magnitude of its contribution, precisely at the intersection represented by his commitment to be a “good, Jewish-style” prime minister.

Begin’s birth on the eve of Shabbat Nachamu, after Tisha Be’av, gave him his name – Menachem (Hebrew for “comfort”). His passing on the eve of Shabbat Zachor, before Purim, find expression in a verse that represents his moral compass, according to which “the eternity of Israel will neither lie nor find comfort, for it is not a human to be comforted.”

It establishes the inextricable link between consolation and memory, modeled by public service that transcends personal, tribal, geographic or small, intra-Israeli politics. It explains the interwoven thread connecting words and actions, throughout Begin’s journey: From the declarations that “there will be no civil war” aboard the Altalena, to “I am not a Jew with shaky knees”; from painful opposition to reparations for the Holocaust from Germany, to genuine lack of understanding of Dudu Topaz’s derogatory and divisive pre-election speech about “the Chachachim” (riffraff) – because for him: “Ashkenazi? Iraqi? Jews! Brothers! Warriors!”

He charted a legacy for his successors, with his request to be buried near Jewish underground fighters Meir Feinstein and Moshe Barazani on the Mount of Olives, without pompous speeches or a royal funeral. All of these testify that consolation can only be found in memory, and that by identifying present trials and tribulations, it is possible to pave a path to a better future.

Begin’s profound wisdom, that there is no inherent contradiction in the liberal-nationalism that guided him, is his legacy. It harbors the potential to continue the journey he began, diagnosing, understanding and addressing challenges facing the State of Israel and the Jewish people, and with necessary modesty and caution, even when the crisis concerns western liberal values.

Melanie Phillips: The ominous subtext of Nazanin's release

Iranian sources always linked the release of Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe, along with other dual nationals whom the regime had effectively taken hostage, to an unpaid British debt of £400 million owed to Iran for the non-delivery of Chieftain tanks in the 1970s.

The British government maintained it couldn’t pay this money without falling foul of international sanctions against Iran. Reports emerged yesterday that the government has now agreed to pay this debt — although it insists there is no link between that payment and the release of the prisoners.

But if it has now agreed to pay it, this means that the US is no longer objecting that such a payment would contravene the sanctions against Iran. And that suggests that — just as has been feared — the US is now lifting those sanctions in the unconscionable deal that it has struck with Tehran.

The announcement of that deal, which was expected more than a week ago, was reportedly delayed by Vladimir Putin’s demand that the US should lift its sanctions against Russia over Ukraine to allow Moscow to begin trading with Tehran. Since the Iran deal was being brokered by Russia, this threw a spanner into the works.

The release of the British hostages suggests that the Biden administration has found a way to circumvent that blockage — and finally do this deal with the devil that it has been absolutely determined to achieve.

Gut feelings on Amnesty International

It’s good that I wasn’t trying to eat lunch and digest O’Brien’s words at the same time. I’m not sure whether I would have choked or upchucked, but even now I find them hard to swallow. O’Brien’s gut instincts were a kick in the guts.

O’Brien, who is not Jewish, obviously knows better than me the nature of “core Jewish values.” I’m so unprogressive that I think they can be found in the Ten Commandments. The idea of tikkun olam, mending the world, is a later addition – although the more I hear people like O’Brien and Callamard, the more I think the world is in urgent need of being fixed.

The luncheon event was reportedly the first in a series hosted by the Women’s National Democratic Club that will explore “Palestine past, present and future.” The part about “Palestine’s past” could fit in during the appetizers – unless they intend hijacking Israel’s history for the narrative instead.

Israel’s ancient past, thriving present, and optimistic future as the Jewish state seems to be less interesting to the group. Maybe they’re afraid of biting off more than they can chew. More than they want to hear. Israel is a country with a population of more than nine million, of whom the vast majority, more than six million, are Jews. O’Brien should speak to a representative sample to discover what they think about the idea of dismantling the country they call home.

Following the publication of the Amnesty International report, even Regional Cooperation Minister Esawi Frej, a Muslim Arab member of the left-wing Meretz party, declared: “Israel has many problems that must be solved, inside the Green Line and certainly in the occupied territories, but Israel is not an apartheid state.”

Whatever @SecBlinken imagined would result from embracing the leaders of #antisemitism under the facade of #HumanRights, this is an endorsement of their hate. @kenroth & @AgnesCallamard have done irreparable damage. 1/n https://t.co/BGQAqg01O8
— Prof Gerald M Steinberg (@GeraldNGOM) March 17, 2022

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!

Read all about it here!

Corbyn, Allies Slam IDF For Blocking Shipment Of Flowers To Terrorist Graves (PreOccupied Territory)

Our weekly column from the humor site PreOccupied Territory.

Check out their Facebook page.

Nablus terrorists London, March 20 - Prominent figures in Britain's Labour Party expressed outrage today upon learning that several bouquets they had dispatched to the Palestinian Territories in tribute to three gunmen who met their ends in confrontation with the IDF instead wound up stuck at an Israeli military checkpoint, never to reach the burial sites of the martyrs.

Jeremy Corbyn, Diane Abbot, George Galloway, Ken Livingstone, Owen Jones, and half a dozen other party stalwarts told reporters Sunday they are fuming over the interdiction of the flowers, which the group had intended to honor Ashraf al-Mublasat, Adham al-Mabrouk, and Muhammad al-Dakhil, members of the Fatah-affiliated Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades who died in confrontation with Israeli soldiers on February 8, and who had perpetrated shooting attacks on Israelis. Israeli forces set up an impromptu security checkpoint yesterday on a highway leading to Nablus, acting on intelligence information, according to the IDF Spokesperson's Office. The troops manning the checkpoint instructed the driver delivering the flowers to stop and submit his vehicle to inspection. The inspection found three illegal firearms, several hand grenades, and materials for the manufacture of explosives, in addition to the large bouquets from the Labour contingent. The driver was arrested.

"We are incensed at this violation," stated Corbyn. "A noble and generous acknowledgement of Palestinian pain under such trying circumstances was the entirety of our intent, and Israel's thwarting of the delivery can only be seen as cruelty for the sake of cruelty."

"We once again call upon the international community to force an end to this ongoing injustice," demanded Jones. "How many times must we witness the heartlessness of occupation? While this atrocity was taking place in the West Bank, the sadistic blockade of the Gaza Strip continues to deprive its residents of the means to properly celebrate the deaths of Israelis and of Jews worldwide, and deprives them of the means to resist the existence of Jewish sovereignty where Jewish dhimmitude and contingent existence once prevailed. Britain needs strong leadership that will right those wrongs, and not, as we have now, leaders indifferent to Palestinian suffering."

Abbot and Corbyn vowed a personal trip to Nablus to deliver even bigger replacement bouquets. "Our main concern involves not supporting the occupation," cautioned Livingstone. "Any such trip will require traversing Israeli airspace or passing through Israeli border controls, and we cannot legitimize such institutions. So the trip might not happen, unless some of us really, really want to check out the gay scene in Tel Aviv."

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!

Read all about it here!

03/17 Links Pt1: Why All Jews Understand Ukraine; UN Sec.Gen. Guterres fiddles while Ukraine burns; Biden's priority is appeasing Iran, not helping Ukraine

From Ian:

Why All Jews Understand Ukraine

For Putin, there is no Ukraine. There is no Ukrainian language, history, or culture — no independence or right of self-determination. There is no democracy, no nation, and no people. For Putin, there is only Russia.

The Jewish people know what this means, just as they understand what “from the river to the sea” means. Putin’s call — like the call of Palestinian terror groups — is the rallying cry of conquest masquerading as social justice, an affront to the norms of civilized society. It denies the humanity of people who want nothing more than the freedom to live, work, and worship in peace and in freedom, secure in their homeland and in their dignity.

The Jewish people understand the horrors of a war inflicted by a diabolical adversary who wants to drive them from their homes and their homeland. The indiscriminate rocket attacks and shelling of populated civilian areas in Ukraine is something that the people of Israel experience almost daily — and they saw it on a similar scale just last May when Hamas attacked Israel. The specter of unprovoked violence is something that Jews live with every day, be it in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, or New York City, or Colleyville, Texas.

Jews understand what it means to be attacked by much larger neighbors, who demand that you give up your land, your identity, and your democratic ideals. They understand the brutality of oppression, and the frustration of a people, like the Ukrainians, who need ammunition, “not a ride.”

The Jewish people understand why Putin’s illegal war of aggression is called the moral test of our time. Compromise in the face of terrorism does not restore humanity, it erodes it. It is the ultimate abdication of our shared responsibility for the preservation of civilized society. There is no compromise with Putin, just as there is no compromise with rogue states like Iran or North Korea, or with terrorist groups like Hamas or the PFLP. Compromise means victory for them, and victory for them means the end of us.

We all understand Ukraine, because, ultimately, we are all Ukraine. We strive for a better tomorrow, for ourselves and our families, and we recognize that to attain this future, our liberty and our values must be preserved, no matter the cost.

A dictator must always have enemies, at home and abroad, to seem powerful and to scapegoat his failings. After exiling, jailing, and killing them all, more must be invented, and endless purge. https://t.co/EjI77RYrv8
— Garry Kasparov (@Kasparov63) March 17, 2022

Douglas Murray: The West has rediscovered its purpose

Over recent days I have been reflecting on War and Peace. Or Special Operation and Peace as it must now be known in Russia, unless you want to spend 15 years in prison. And I am reminded once again of how utterly unpredictable war always is. On this occasion almost every-thing that people imagined just a couple of weeks back has been completely inverted.

In no particular order the list includes the following. A few weeks ago Vladimir Putin looked like a strongman. Today he looks like a weak and deluded leader. A few weeks ago Volodymyr Zelensky looked like an ex-comedian who might soon be out of his depth, if not his country. Today he looks like a remarkable wartime leader and an actual strong man. A few weeks back the Russian military seemed vast and unassailable. Today it looks corrupted, inept and surprisingly vulnerable.

In February the EU was riven and dis-united. Today it has rarely been more unified. Last month people still pondered the three-decade-old question ‘Whither Nato?’ Today the purpose of the alliance has rarely looked more obvious. Countries like Sweden which thought the second world war a murky conflict in which it was impossible to pick sides have started arming the Ukrainians. And even Switzerland has banned dodgy Russian oligarchs from accessing the country’s historically moral and transparent banking system.

On it goes. Poland has been transformed from a European pariah into a humanitarian superpower. Most astounding of all, Nato countries which spent decades freeloading off US defence budgets have suddenly stepped up. Germany just doubled its defence budget almost overnight.

So aside from the tide of bloodshed in Ukraine and economic misery inside Russia, the most striking thing about this conflict is that it seems to have overturned every recently held presumption. And, as in Tolstoy, it remains unclear exactly how this happened. Certainly it has not been due to any special leadership from the world’s hyperpower, led as it is by a president in cognitive decline and a vice president who talks as though she has, since childhood, never been in cognitive ascent. Still the West appears to have gelled for once, united by a common horror of seeing the type of land war Europe hoped to have left behind.

In such a moment, one might hope that there could be a certain ceasefire in the more minor conflicts that have riven the West of late. As at the start of the pandemic, is it too much to hope for that the war in Ukraine will provoke a permanent gear-change?

David Singer: UN Sec.Gen. Guterres fiddles while Ukraine burns

It is incomprehensible that the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) has held its Fifth Consultation on Our Common Agenda (Fifth Consultation) on 10 March at the same time as 2.597 million Ukrainians, men, women and children, have been forced to flee their country which is being reduced to rubble following Russia’s invasion on 24 February.

Our Common Agenda is an 85 page Report prepared by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres in 2021 following the seventy-fifth anniversary of the United Nations when:

“Member States agreed that our challenges are interconnected, across borders and all other divides. These challenges can only be addressed by an equally interconnected response, through reinvigorated multilateralism and the United Nations at the centre of our efforts. Member States asked me to report back with recommendations to advance our common agenda. This report is my response.”

This utopian talkfest discussing Guterres’ personal ego trip into fantasyland should have been postponed – using the precious time gained to formulate and recommend concrete action that can be taken by the UNGA against Russia’s invasion of Ukraine - which mandates the UNGA.

Remember?

“to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace”

The UNGA and its Secretary-General are living in a dream world - whilst the real world is drifting dangerously towards World War III as US President Joe Biden warned on 12 March.

1840 British newspapers: Hamantashen were made with Christian blood, with three sides to ridicule the Trinity

In reaction to the infamous 1840 Damascus blood libel, at least two British newspapers published an antisemitic article that pretends to confirm that Jews indeed have many rituals involving murdering Christians and consuming Christian blood.

The Cheltenham Chronicle and Gloucestershire Advertiser (July 2) and The Northern Liberator (July 4) both published, without comment, a lengthy antisemitic blood libel as if it was simple truth. (The Liberator claimed the text came from The Times of London. but I could not find that anywhere.)

The specific accusations of that essay don't only concentrate on the Passover blood libel. According to this account, every Jewish holiday and event is dedicated somehow to consuming Christian blood, from the eve of Tisha B'Av to the day of one's marriage and one's death.

It is the most lurid description of the blood libel I have ever seen.

Here is what it says about Purim:

According to the Newcastle Journal a few days later, this essay was written by a Moldavian Jewish convert to Christianity in 1803.

Most newspapers at the time were sympathetic to the Jews suffering from persecution in Damascus because of the blood libel, but these two (at least) incited hate against Jews.

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!

Read all about it here!

Algeria warns of evil Zionist avocados taking over Morocco!

Last year, Israeli agriculture and produce exporter Mehadrin struck an agreement with a Moroccan company to grow and market avocados in Morocco.

Now, the Algeria Press Service has described how terrible that is. Itreports on "agricultural normalization" in Morocco "that ignores the dire repercussions of such a project on the kingdom's water resources and on the lives of the local population."

Moroccan observers see the avocado fruit production project in Morocco, which is supervised by a subsidiary of the Zionist entity, as a "real danger" to the country's water resources, especially since the drought phenomenon is currently threatening the Kingdom.

They also denounce this project, which falls within the framework of normalization with the Zionist entity, and whose investment value is about 9 million dollars, to produce 10,000 tons of avocados annually, within the framework of an agreement signed in April 2021 between an Israeli company and a Moroccan agricultural company.

For his part, the Moroccan journalist writer, Younes Miskin, confirmed, in comments posted on social media, that the investment of the Zionist entity in the agricultural sector in Morocco, including avocado cultivation, "is another crime against Moroccans."

He strongly denounced this project and its repercussions on water resources and the local population, whose livelihood is mainly based on agriculture.

He explained, in this regard, that "the avocado fruit is one of the fruits that consume the most water, as the need of one kilogram of this fruit ranges between 500 and 1,000 liters of water."

Israel is known for its technology to allow crops to grow with much less water than has been traditionally used.

So, are these critics (and the article had more of them) worried about water usage in Morocco, or about "normalization" with Israel?

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!

Read all about it here!

Iran claimed that its missile attack on sites in Erbil, Iran on Sunday were aimed at an Israeli "strategic center" that does not seem to exist.

Since then, Iraqi and Kurdish officials have been angry at Iran.

The Iraqi Council of Representatives is holding a session today to discuss the attack. A delegation from the Iraqi parliament visited the bombed sites earlier this week, and Interior Minister Rebar Ahmed said, "The attack was carried out with guided missiles which is of high concern. This is a violation and goes against friendly and neighborly relations. We will open the path for anyone from the international community, Iraq, and the Arab League to investigate the incident and find the truth behind it."

Iraqi President Mustafa al-Kadhimi also visited the bombed sites this week.

The Kurdistan Regional Government refuted the accusations that there are any Israeli bases there and also called for fact-finding missions to prove that the missiles civilian properties and that there are no Israeli bases anywhere in the Kurdistan Region.

Kurdish leader Masoud Barzani and Shia top cleric Muqtada Al-Sadr agreed to form a committee to investigate the Iranian claims as well. Al Sadr demanded an official complaint be sent to Iran for violating Iraq’s sovereignty.

Kurdish Iraqi leaders have repeatedly visited Israel over the decades and local politicians have openly demanded Iraq normalise ties with the Jewish state, which itself backed a 2017 controversial independence referendum in the semi-autonomous Kurdistan region.

Iraq has remained implacably anti-Israel while the semi-autonomous Kurdish region has been much friendlier towards the Jewish state, with some prominent Kurds saying that Iraq should normalize relations with Israel.

Iran is very concerned about the Arab countries that have joined the Abraham Accords, and its media attacks the UAE and Bahrain constantly over that issue.

Could this gross violation of Iraqi sovereignty help push Iraq in the direction of Israel? Big things can start with small incidents, and these missiles were an attack on Iraqi honor. If Iran is the enemy, then Israel becomes - something other than the enemy.

The Iraqi reaction is something that needs to be followed.

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!

Read all about it here!

Photoshop by Judah Rosenthal

Vic Rosenthal's weekly column

The negotiations between Iran and the West are free to continue after the hiccup caused by a Russian demand for a “right to free and full trade, economic and investment cooperation and military-technical cooperation.” Either the Russians got what they wanted, or they decided to accept something less; but in any event, the rush to sign an agreement that lifts sanctions on Iran is on again.

I think it’s safe to say that everybody – Americans, Iranians, Russians, Europeans, and certainly Israelis – knows that this agreement presents only a minor impediment (if any) to the deployment of nuclear weapons by Iran. In fact, it is a get out of jail free card for the violations of the Non-Proliferation Treaty of which Iran is guilty. It is primarily a device to lift virtually all sanctions on Iran – even those that are not related to nuclear weapons – and provide an immediate windfall of tens of billions of dollars to Iran, and only secondarily a limitation on nuclear weapons development.

Numerous Israeli officials from Prime Ministers to IDF Chiefs of Staff have sat down with the Americans and explained and documented why the agreement will not prevent or significantly slow Iran’s progress toward a weapon, and how the injection of cash into Iran’s struggling economy will be used to finance weapons development, proxy warfare against Israel and the Gulf states, and terrorism around the world – including the US. What isn’t clear about “death to America,” they asked?

The Americans listened politely, but did not change direction.

It’s obvious why the Iranians are anxious to make a deal, but what the US gets out of it is not certain. Yes, President Joe Biden can reverse a Trump policy, accuse the Republicans of failure, and declare “peace in our time” while waving the new, even worse, version of Obama’s JCPOA. But I think that the main motivation is to continue a policy, going back to the 1970s, to reverse the outcome of the 1967 war.

This policy was initially justified by the “realist” argument that American alignment with Israel was counterproductive, given the larger populations of her enemies, and their possession of critical resources. Later, after 9/11, it became fashionable to believe that US support for Israel was one of the causes of terrorism against the US (after all, Osama bin Laden said so), and that Syria and Iran could be bought off from supporting the insurgency in Iraq by forcing Israel to surrender the Golan Heights and create a Palestinian state in Judea/Samaria.

With the advent of President Barack Obama, the anti-Israel policy took another turn. Obama sees the Jewish state through a postcolonialist lens. He really does believe that Israel is a settler-colonialist oppressor of indigenous Palestinians, and accepts the Palestinian narrative of dispossession. He pays lip service to Israel’s right to exist, but adoption of his policies would quickly lead to her replacement by an Arab state. His heart is with the Palestinians, whom he sees as representatives of a black and brown third world, oppressed by “white, European” Israelis.

Biden’s policymakers are either former Obama Administration officials, or others with even more radically anti-Israel views. His administration tries to avoid the kind of direct confrontation that Obama seemed to enjoy, but its policies are no better. And one of the goals of the Iran deal is to weaken Israel, make her more dependent on the US for protection against an increasingly powerful Iran, and thus make it possible to continue the process of reducing Israel to her indefensible pre-1967 borders. And it isn’t unlikely that many of those involved would be happy to see the Jewish state gone entirely.

The immediate consequence of the implementation of a new Iran deal would very likely be regional war. There are two possibilities: either Iran will develop its conventional forces and those of its proxies (with or without a nuclear umbrella) to the point that the regime feels confident to unleash them against Israel; or Israel will find its nuclear red lines crossed and preemptively attack Iran. In either case, there would be – at least – involvement of Israel, Iran, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, and the Palestinian Authority. Intervention by outside powers like Russia and the US is possible. Civilian casualties on all sides would be in the thousands, perhaps tens of thousands. The possibility that nuclear weapons will be used can’t be discounted.

Bret Stephens wrote that the invasion of Ukraine was facilitated by years of Western appeasement, and slaps on the wrist for Putin and other bad actors. After he was allowed to invade Crimea, Georgia, and Eastern Ukraine; after Syria was allowed to use chemical weapons on her own people and China to crush Hong Kong’s autonomy, asks Stephens, why should Putin think he wouldn’t get away with invading Ukraine?

Iran, too, has learned that only Israel is prepared to oppose its increasing aggression against its neighbors. Europe seems to have allowed the benefits of profitable trade with Iran to distract her from being in missile range of a revolutionary Islamic republic with nuclear weapons. The US seems to see no problem with a nuclear-armed Shiite caliphate stretching all the way to the Mediterranean, and controlling all the oil and gas in the Middle East. Why shouldn’t it continue to make agreements and violate them?

But suppose that Trump’s Maximum Pressure campaign had been continued under Biden (or a reelected Trump). Suppose that it had been expanded to a full-on international boycott of everything Iranian, like has been done to (the much stronger) Russia in the past few weeks. Suppose this were combined with a campaign of sabotage, cyberattacks, assistance to local dissidents, and pinpoint military operations – and then the regime were presented with an ultimatum, not an offer of appeasement. Would it have worked? I think so. It might even have been possible to topple the regime.

Is it too late now? I’m not sure. More importantly, though, there is no will in the West to do it, and certainly no desire on the part of the Biden Administration, “led” by its senile gasbag and actually directed by unknown forces.

There is very little that Israel can do to affect the behavior of the Western appeasers, just as Czechoslovakia had no options in 1938. What’s left is to prepare for the war that will certainly follow; to develop plans – I prefer preemption – to make it as short and decisive as possible. The worst possible approach, which I fear appeals to our government, is to try to obtain guarantees from the Americans that they will act in some way to protect us.

Just ask Ukraine how good their word is!

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!

Read all about it here!

Jokes of the Six Day War

During the Six Day War, this division of Arabs is making its way across the burning desert sands towards Israel, when the Arab commander, bouncing along in his jeep, spots an aged Israeli on top a distant sand dune.

The commander drops his binoculars and shouts orders to a foot soldier to run up ahead and kill the infidel Israeli.

The soldier sprints ahead of theadvancing troops, and soon disappears over the sand dune.

The general stops the troops and waits to see what happens.

Nothing happens.

The commander sends a whole platoon of soldiers to investigate.

All twelve Arabs disappear over the sand dune, never to be seen again.

The now-slightly-anxious commander dispatches 3 tanks to find out just what in the heck is going on, and they disappear over the dune, too.

Sweat pours down the commander's forehead as he orders his entiredivision to overrun the solitary Israeli behind the sand dune.

But just then, the first soldier reappears on the distant sand dune and cups his hands to his lips. ” Go back!” he shouts. ” Go back!

It's hopeless there's TWO of them!”

--------------------------------

Time Magazine called the Six Day War a "blintzkreig."

--------------------------------

After the war, Nasser complained that it was an unfair fight. "They have 2 million Jews - and we don't have any!"

---------------------------------

It's a few days after the end of the Six Day War between the Arabs and the Israelis, and Golda Meir is giving a press conference.

Asked how such a small country as Israel could beat such large neighbors, she replies, "Well, boys, it's like this. We called up all the doctors, and we called up all the dentists, and we called up all the lawyers, and we gave them all a gun each and put them in the front line."

"And when we yelled "CHARGE".. BOY !! Do they know how to Charge!"

--------------------------------

How many gears on an Egyptian tank? Five: one forward, four reverse. Why the forward gear? In case it gets attacked from behind.

----------------------------------

(This is an American joke)

During the war, an Israeli and Egyptian tank sollided. The egyptian jumped out and yelled "I surrender!" The Jew jumped out and yelled, "Whiplash!"

------------------------------------

03/16 Links Pt2: Why anti-Zionists lie and exaggerate about Israel; State Dept. Hire Who Ran UN Terrorist Textbook Program Also Spoke at Anti-Israel Conference

From Ian:

Gil Troy: Why anti-Zionists lie and exaggerate about Israel

Radicals used the horrific George Floyd murder in 2020 to popularize the Deadly Exchange libel blaming IDF training for police brutality – as if American racists need Israeli coaching to hate. Now, Bash Israel Firsters tweeting “War in Ukraine = Continued violent takeover of the West Bank,” link two random events, trying to hijack the world’s justifiable disgust with Vladimir Putin – to dump on Israel.

Writers who make their careers demonizing Israel embrace this libelous idiocy. In The Guardian, Peter Beinart argued that if “remaking borders by force violates a core principle of international law,” America must undo “Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights, which Israel seized from Syria in the 1967 war.” Straining to compare Israel with Russia, Beinart prefers twistory to history, ignoring the inconvenient facts that Syria repeatedly bombarded Israel from the Golan and never respected Israel’s right to exist – I somehow missed Ukraine’s bombing and anti-Russian delegitimization campaign.

In a harsher screed, “Justifications for Destroying a People,” Beinart equated the “arguments Russia’s government deploys to dehumanize Ukrainians” with “the ones Israel’s government uses to dehumanize Palestinians.” Targeting that evil, right-wing maniac Yair Lapid, who dared to suggest, as Gazans tried swarming Israel in 2018, that “the Hamas charter repeatedly calls for the genocide of the Jews, and these riots were another element in Hamas’s attempts to destroy the State of Israel,” Beinart declared: “Baselessly accusing a people of committing genocide creates the pretext for horrendous violence.” Such twistory, in the rush to demonize Israel, overlooks decades of Palestinian terrorism stirred by Palestinians’ “Death to the Jews” (not just Israel) rhetoric.

These obsessive attacks weave antisemitism into anti-Zionism, as the Jewish state becomes the despised, scapegoated collective Jew, the all-purpose lightning rod attracting so many different bolts of hatred. These smears prove that Jews can be guilty of Jew-hatred when they collaborate in the Jew-haters’ dirty work. They prove how plastic Jew-hating Zionophobia is, as the haters keep adapting it to changing headlines. And they prove Natan Sharansky’s analysis that demonizing and delegitimizing Israel, holding it to double standards, sinks from criticizing Israel into traditional cesspools of Jew-hatred.

In this topsy-turvy context, I admire Paul O’Brien’s honesty. This Amnesty International official said Israel “shouldn’t exist as a Jewish state.” He dismissed scientific polls showing that 80% of American Jews support Israel – because those aren’t the elitist progressives he hobnobs with. “I actually don’t believe that to be true,” O’Brien proclaimed. Why? “I believe my gut tells me” that instead of a Jewish state, American Jews want “a safe Jewish space.”

Ruthie Blum: A free lunch for Amnesty's antisemitism

Sure, as long as the antisemitism and accompanying physical attacks on Jews don't emanate from left-wing and pro-Palestinian sources (which, of course, they do). Indeed, during Operation Guardian of the Walls last May, while Israel defended itself from barrages of Hamas and Islamic Jihad rockets from Gaza, as well as from bloody riots in eastern Jerusalem and Arab-populated cities elsewhere in the country, Jews around the United States and Europe were being pummeled in broad daylight.

The disingenuousness on display during O'Brien's talk was in tough competition with his organization's lies. His assertion that one of the goals of the Amnesty report was to "collectively change the conversation" on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which "needs to start, first and foremost, with the Jewish community," is a perfect example.

As Jewish Insider revealed, he cast aspersions on a 2020 Ruderman Family Foundation survey showing that "eight in 10 Jewish Americans identify as 'pro-Israel,' and two-thirds feel emotionally 'attached' or 'very attached' to the Jewish state."

He had the nerve to say, "I actually don't believe that to be true. I believe my gut tell[ing] me that what Jewish people in this country want is to know that there's a sanctuary that is a safe and sustainable place that the Jews, the Jewish people, can call home."

Where this so-called "safe Jewish space" is concerned, he said, "I think they can be convinced over time that the key to sustainability is to adhere to what I see as core Jewish values, which are to be principled and fair and just in creating that space."

Finally, the anti-Zionist educating Jews about "core Jewish values" insisted that "the right of the people to self-determination and to be protected is without a doubt something that we believe in, and I personally believe that. [But] we are opposed to the idea – and this, I think, is an existential part of the debate – that Israel should be preserved as a state for the Jewish people."

It's not surprising that O'Brien exhibited the very antisemitism that he was denying. Amnesty International does that on a regular basis.

But his audience, made up of "enlightened" Democrats, welcomed him as a speaker. The point is that nothing Israel can do – other than totally succumb to its own progressives and Palestinian lobbyists – will remove the "wedge" that the left inserted with gusto.

Open Letter to My Fellow Progressive Jews: Amnesty Wants to Tokenize You

And finally: Do you think it is appropriate to attempt to weaponize my Jewish identity against my Jewish community, or convince me to participate in the delegitimization of the world’s only Jewish state, especially if you don’t have expansive answers to each of the above questions?

I also want to remind my fellow progressive Jews that standing up for yourself and your people does not mean you must be silent on the plight of the Palestinians. We can—we must—fight for their sovereignty and self-determination with the same fervor that we fight for our own. This is not a binary—except to the extent that organizations like Amnesty work so hard to try to make it one.

For 2000 years pre-1948, Jews were violently denied self-determination everywhere we lived. Jews, and the international community, supported Israel as a Jewish democracy knowing that, in the context of a world order defined by nation-states, it was the only way to ensure Jewish self-determination. Without Israel, without sovereignty, Jews would be plunged back into a state of total systemic powerlessness, our self-determination and our communal security ripped away. Mr. O’Brien and Amnesty need to know that despite their self-declared conviction in “Jewish self-determination,” that without supporting the sovereign existence of the Jewish state, this phrase is nothing more than an empty platitude.

So to my fellow progressive Jews who have felt this squeeze before, and to those who will feel it in the future, please know: Your Jewish community stands with you. Truth, righteousness and liberation for all are not and cannot be exclusive to any people, but they are core values of your people. You can believe in, and fight for, the Jewish future without abandoning your dreams of the same free, sovereign, self-determined future for the Palestinian people. In fact, recognizing the humanity and the inalienable rights of both peoples is the only way for progress to ever occur. And anyone who tells you otherwise is perpetuating anti-Jewish blind spots, biases and bigotries that will harm us all.