Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Friday, May 13, 2022

The PA is allowing an independent army to flourish in Jenin, and no one is talking about it

This morning, Sgt. Maj. Noam Raz, a father of six, was killed during a firefight in Jenin.

We've seen lots of videos of Palestinians firing rifles in Jenin (and elsewhere). Clearly they are not mere stone-throwers.

The Jenin Brigades - a group of men with weapons - sometimes issue statements.

Here they are from another recent photo:

Their Telegram channel logo indicates that they are a linked to Islamic Jihad:

So why does the Palestinian Authority tolerate an armed terror group in their territory?

They have certainly fought against and arrested Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists in the past. Now, they seem to be OK with this group.

Either the PA has decided that Islamic Jihad is an ally, or they quietly hope that Israel will uproot them from Jenin and while they publicly protest Zionist incursions and quietly celebrate.

But either way, the Palestinian Authority is not indicating any opposition to having a mini-army in their midst. Tolerating it now allows it to grow, especially with the current propaganda blitz around Abu Akleh's death and the boasting about the death of Noam Raz that is starting to spread in Palestinian media.

Of course, no Western media is even asking the basic question of how a heavily armed group could spring up in Jenin while the well-funded Palestinian Authority security forces do nothing.

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!

Before my Twitter ban, I tweeted:

One side: "Let's look at the evidence, transparently, with all parties, and find the truth."

Other side: "WE DON'T NEED PROOF! YOU ARE COLD-BLOODED MURDERERS!"

Why is there even a question here of which side to support?

Despite all the accusations by the PA, B'Tselem, Ken Roth and others that Israel cannot possibly hold an objective and honest investigation, as of this time the IDF investigators say that there is a possibility that Shireen Abu Akleh was killed by a shot that was aimed at a terrorist jeep that was near her.

The military’s investigation into the death of Al Jazeera journalist Shireen Abu Akleh has been narrowed to focus on one particular exchange of gunfire between IDF troops and Palestinian gunmen on Wednesday in Jenin, according to a report Thursday.

This particular incident in question “took place about 150 meters from where the journalist who was hit by gunfire and killed was positioned. The incident took place at the time [that she was hit],” Channel 12 news reported.

The IDF says that one soldier fired several shots through a slit in the armored vehicle at a group of terrorists in a jeep, andit was in the direction of Abu Akleh who was behind the terrorists.

It says the other possibility is that there was massive firing from Palestinian positions towards the north where Abu Akleh was. "As part of the attempt to hit the military force, massive Palestinian gunfire was fired, in which hundreds of bullets were fired from several targets" towards where Abu Aklen was.

Given that there were several shots around Abu Akleh, including the tree and her coworker, it seems unlikely that all the IDF bullets missed and hit near her, but the IDF says it is one of two possibilities.

It is asking the US for help in getting the PA to hand over the bullet and/or her helmet, from which it can determine whether it was one of their bullets.

So far, the PA has refused.

Why?

It is quite obvious that only one side is interested in the truth, and the other only wants propaganda. Which is the entire conflict in a nutshell.

But the larger question is why do so many people immediately assume that Israel is covering things up when it is blatantly clear that the only side with no interest the truth is the Palestinian side?

It seems to be human nature that people prefer to listen to the clear-cut, black and white narrative instead of the honest truth. But that especially applies when there is a pre-existing bias towards one side.

The answer is the same answer it has been for thousands of years. Jews are assumed, ab initio, of being liars and cheats. That age-old stereotype is what is behind the libels of today, and it is part of the reason that so many people swallow a clear-cut narrative over the ambiguous truth.

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!

I'm banned from @Twitter for a week - for supposedly violating a rule that they previously said I didn't violate! (update)

A tweet of mine where I called Susan Sarandon an airhead actress and a hateful bigot was flagged by someone who hates Israel:

Here was my notice from Twitter:

The original tweet that was also targeted by the haters was this one:

Susan Sarandon's original libelous tweet got over 122,000 Likes and 35,000 retweets.

Someone had complained to Twitter Germany about my initial response to Sarandon, and Twitter allowed it:

Since the "offensive" tweet said nothing beyond the original tweet that Twitter already said violated no policy, it appears that the haters can just keep flagging tweets until they find a moderator who agrees with them, and the rules are enforced arbitrarily.

Clearly neither tweet violates Twitter policy. I said nothing about Sarandon's gender, religion, ethnicity, age or anything else. I called her a bigot and an airhead. I would say the same about Mark Ruffalo or any other antisemitic Hollywood celebrity.

My recent tweets on the Shireen Abu Akleh issue have been getting hundreds of Likes and retweets. The haters have managed to silence me on Twitter, which is the primary way people see my blog posts.

I am appealing. Based on what I know about other cases, I'm not optimistic; as soon as the appeal fails I have to delete the tweet and then the clock starts for 7 days.

Meanwhile, I would appreciate people tweeting that Twitter banned me for pointing out someone else's hate - a public person, no less - and how Twitter enforces its own policies inconsistently in a way that tilts against free speech and towards celebrities being able to libel entire groups of people with impunity. Maybe the pressure can get their attention.

It is frustrating, but I'll keep blogging, and would appreciate people tweeting my blog posts during my time in Twitter jail.

UPDATE: Twitter, surprisingly, accepted my dispute. I'm back.

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!

Nakba Day rallies inciting murdering Israelis

Here's the poster for a "Nakba Day" rally next week in Brooklyn:

"Resistance by any means necessary" is a slightly sanitized way of saying "we support murdering random Jewish civilians." And this is well understood by both Palestinians and their antisemitic supporters.

This is not a one-off. This is a theme of supporting the murders of Israelis that we have been seeing lately in Israel.

"By Any Means Necessary" was the theme of an "Al Aqsa" rally in April in New York. Since there was no pushback from allies, the Palestinian antisemites are doubling down on calls to continue axe murders in Israel.

The Nakba Day rally in Portland supports the newest terror wave by saying, "All power to the Palestinian people defending their homelands by any means from zionism and imperialism!"

Similarly, the Toronto "Nakba Day" rally advertises "On May 15, we will honour the resistance of our people by any means necessary against settler colonial violence and ethnic cleansing."

Samidoun, which pretends to be a rights organization, uses #ByAnyMeansNecessary as a hashtag.

And an Arab Etsy seller is getting in on the message, creating earrings with the title "By Any Means Necessary" that makes it clear that it means murder: a rifle in a map of "Palestine," a motif that became popular among Palestinians when the current terror spree started.

During the second intifada, suicide bombs and the most horrific crimes were justified in the West by Palestinian supporters. For the past 15 years, since the intifada petered out, open support for terrorism in the West has been out of fashion. But now, fueled by the latest terror wave against Israelis which is hugely popular among Palestinians, proud support for terror is back.

And the Western, ostensibly liberal supporters of the Palestinian cause are silent. Their silence is tacit support for the message that it is okay to murder 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!

05/12 Links Pt2: Time for Tough Measures Against Anti-Semitism; Kate Winslet Gaza film ‘is Hamas propaganda’; The Problem with Israel-Studies Departments

From Ian:

Amb. David Friedman: Time for Tough Measures Against Anti-Semitism

Incidents of anti-Semitism in the U.S. have risen to record highs. America is a great nation because of the Judeo-Christian values upon which it was founded. An American nation that is inhospitable to Jews is no longer a great nation. Anti-Semitism thus poses an existential risk to our country.

We must step up our efforts to confront and defeat anti-Semites rather than trying to win their "hearts and minds." Anti-Semites don't have "hearts and minds" and certainly not both.

Virtually every American university is hostile to Israel and no pro-Israel professor has a chance for tenure. At the highest levels of American education, our "best and brightest" are taught to hate Israel.

Those combatting anti-Semitism are mostly engaged in defensive tactics that betray fear and insecurity. But we will not defeat anti-Semitism by only playing defense. It's time to go on offense.
1) Demand that anti-Semites be held accountable. Step up law enforcement. Insist on a robust, well-publicized presence of undercover officers to patrol the streets dressed in traditional Jewish garb. Let every violent thug wonder when he attacks a Jew whether he might be attacking a cop.
2) Demand equal rights for Jews. Jews remain a minority, subject to oppression and discrimination, and unchecked anti-Semitism ultimately affects everyone.
3) Stand with Israel. Zionism is an integral component of the Jewish faith. All three major streams of Judaism - Orthodox, Conservative and Reform - contain prayers for God to restore the Jewish people to Zion (a synonym for Jerusalem) and the Land of Israel. While 42% of the nations of the world have an official or preferred religion, only Israel - the one Jewish state - is singled out for attack, even though it meticulously strives to ensure access of all faiths to their holy sites.

Is Anti-Zionism Anti-Semitism?

Since 2015, Jonathan Greenblatt has served as the director of the Anti-Defamation League, an organization devoted to chronicling and fighting anti-Semitism in American society. Amid a rise in anti-Semitic incidents documented by his group, and with hate crimes in general on the upswing, Greenblatt, a former special assistant to Barack Obama, has been speaking harshly about the tendencies he believes exacerbate anti-Semitism. One of those tendencies is anti-Zionism, which, in a recent speech, he referred to as “an ideology rooted in rage,” comparing it to white supremacy, and adding, “Anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism.” This comes at a time when a vocal minority of young American Jews has called for one secular, democratic state across Israel and the Palestinian territories.

I recently spoke by phone with Greenblatt. During our conversation, which has been edited for length and clarity, we discussed why hate crimes are increasing, the historical roots of anti-Zionism, and whether it’s bigoted to oppose a Jewish stat

There are a lot of young Jewish people in America who don’t consider themselves Zionists, and there are also Jews in Israel, religious Jews, who do not consider themselves Zionists. So anti-Zionism is very multifaceted.

Jonathan Greenblatt People who try to compare the Satmar Jews to members of Hamas—I think that’s a farce. I mean, give me a break. I could probably find Palestinians who don’t believe in a Palestinian state.

I wasn’t equating anyone. Many Jews in America have been saying something for a long time, which is do not treat us as Israelis. Do not commit hate crimes against Jews in America because you don’t like the policies of the Israeli state. Do not accuse us of having dual loyalty and looking out for the interests of Israel. Is there any danger in equating anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism so strongly that in some ways it’s doing the work of the people who want to equate those two things: Jews as a whole with Israel and Zionism?

I wish I didn’t have to have this conversation with you or with anyone.

O.K.

Anti-Zionism is a new hue of a very old color. Jews have been delegitimized for centuries. For thousands of years. Judaism isn’t a real religion. The Jews aren’t a real people. The Jews don’t really deserve rights. We have heard this throughout time. Today, the subject of derision is the Jewish state, not the Jewish people. But it is an old practice. It's like old wine in a new bottle.

To answer your question, we have fought against dual loyalty, against that canard. There’s nothing wrong with having a passion for your homeland. Italian Americans have that, Irish Americans have that, Chinese American people have that. There’s nothing wrong with having a strong identification, but Zionism, a desire to go back to Jerusalem, the longing for Zion, isn’t something that David Ben-Gurion came up with. It isn’t something that Theodor Herzl came up with. It has been embedded in the faith and the traditions of Judaism for thousands of years. You can’t open a Torah on a Saturday morning for your daily prayer, you can’t go through a holiday, without seeing these references.

So you’re right, there are maybe more young Jewish people today who identify as progressive and think anti-Zionism is part of their progressive identity, but if you peel back the layers in anti-Zionism, it is a historic form of delegitimization targeting Jews. It may have a different veneer today, a different façade, but it’s the same architecture of intolerance that’s been there for centuries.

But you would also agree that the debate over Zionism has not necessarily had this “anti-Semitic veneer” for centuries, right? There are a lot of Jews who were anti-Zionists before—

Give me a—Isaac. Sure, there were Jews who were worried that it would create more anti-Semitism directed against them in America. When you ask me these questions, it suggests to me that you’re coming at this from a particular editorial perspective. To compare the fear that existed in the Jewish community in the nineteen-thirties—that wasn’t anti-Zionism in the way that we have it today. The Jewish people in America or in Europe who were concerned about the prospect of creating a state of their own were terrified of the literal annihilation of their people that was taking place around them. Don’t liken the American Jewish leaders from the nineteen-thirties who had deep questions about what Zionism would mean to the people writing the charter for Hamas today.

That’s not what I’m doing. I was trying to make the point that I thought that Zionism and anti-Zionism as ideas come in many forms. Look, we know that the Balfour Declaration, which was one of the bases of the modern state of Israel, was written by Arthur Balfour, who had views about Jews and other people that we might not like—

You’re missing something here. People not being supportive of the creation of the political state of Israel and its right to exist—that is anti-Zionism with a big, fat capital “A.” People who are unsure about it, like in the nineteen-thirties—that isn’t anti-Zionism. That’s something different. That wasn’t a deep-seated, visceral opposition to the ability of Jews to have the same rights they want for other people. Someone who says, “I don’t think all the jobs should go away, and we need a much different industrial policy”—that isn’t white supremacy.

David Singer: A workable plan for peace in Jerusalem

Separating Jews and Arabs in former Palestine– first decreed by the League of Nations 100 years ago under article 25 of the Mandate for Palestine and subsequently endorsed by the United Nations in its 1947 Partition Plan - has become even more urgent following:
- the outpouring of rabid Jew-hatred emanating from the Temple Mount in Jerusalem during Ramadan
- three Jewish fathers being murdered in Elad - leaving 16 Jewish children fatherless - and seven more Jews being wounded - in an axe and knife wielding bloodbath perpetrated by two Arabs. Bnai Brak, Tel Aviv, Hadera and Be'ersheva suffereed murderous terror attacks as well.

Violent Arab riots against Jews first occurred in 1920 and 1921.

Secretary of State for the Colonies - Winston Churchill – in his White Paper dated 3 June 1922 -had sought to allay Arab fears of a Jewish takeover of all of Palestine
“Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab delegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the [Balfour -ed] Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded `in Palestine.'”

As a result - Article 25 was inserted in the Mandate adopted by the League of Nations on 24 July 1922:
- Restricting the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home after 3000 years in just 22% of Palestine located west of the Jordan River – today called Israel, Judea and Samaria ('West Bank') and Gaza –
- Granting Arab self-determination in the remaining 78% of Palestine located east of the Jordan River – today called Jordan.

The Jews accepted – albeit reluctantly - article 25’s inclusion in the Mandate.

The Arabs never did – demanding 100% of the region known as Palestine - not the 78% they were allocated under article 25 The Palestinian Arabs demand the same today.

This is what Israel has been through for the past two days.

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!

Appropriation? No, Jews Can Keep Gefilte Fish. We Slavs Are Good, Thanks. (PreOccupied Territory)

Our weekly column from the humor site PreOccupied Territory.

Check out their Facebook page.

Appropriation? No, Jews Can Keep Gefilte Fish. We Slavs Are Good, Thanks.

by Stanislaw Kaczynski

Polish ethnic costume Warsaw, May 12 - Listen, I know some influential folks are up in arms about one group taking elements of another group's cultural heritage and either commodifying them or integrating them into their own, and I get the outrage, but y'all can calm down with any accusations that Jews stole Eastern European cuisine from us Eastern Europeans. Really. We're fine with Jews eating kugel, p'tcha, and gefilte fish. If they want them, it's theirs. Eww.

It's fine, people. We Poles, Ukrainians, Russians, et cetera are perfectly okay with everyone considering those, uh, delicacies "Jewish" instead of associating the, er, foodstuffs with the wider cultural and geographic milieu that helped spawn those dishes. Call us back when the Jews have appropriated something worthwhile, but until then, we're good. Thank you anyway.

Yeah, very few of us are angry that Jews have "stolen" calf trotters - you know, p'tcha. Jellied calf hoof. So appetizing.

I imagine Norwegians feel the same about lutefisk.

Or take gefilte fish. All of it - we don't want any, baked OR boiled. Loaf OR patty. Especially that weird jelly it comes with. We'll leave it to the scholars of culinary to trace the evolution of that... invention... and its sweet-vs.-savory permutations depending on which area it came from: where sugar beets were cultivated vs. where they weren't. That's actually interesting, and an exact parallel to the sweet-vs.-savory-or-spicy kugel dichotomy. What it isn't is a useful case of "cultural appropriation." Because we, the host culture, don't care. Because that stuff is just awful. The Jews can keep it. They try to take kielbasa and I'll be all over that "appropriation" bandwagon, but as it stands, that's just not necessary. Please reserve your outrage for things we Eastern Europeans genuinely find offensive, such as the Jews themselves. But I digress.

Face it: you wanted to find another reason to fault Jews for something. And we Russians, Poles, Hungarians, Lithuanians - Latvians especially, though, I must say - have no problem with that! We're all about that, and have been for a thousand years! But going along with this specific accusation would end up with our having to make a big show of appreciating horseradish. So please think about the ramifications of this bit of activism. Hard pass.

We're still up for a pogrom or two if you can gin up some good pretexts, though. You're doing a fine job on that front. Keep up the good work!

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!

05/12 Links Pt1: From Muhammad al-Durrah to Shireen Abu Akleh; Why is the PA hiding the bullet that killed Shireen Abu Akleh?; Hamas Seeks to Open New Battlefront within Israel

From Ian:

From Muhammad al-Durrah to Shireen Abu Akleh

Immediately after the reports of Al-Jazeera reporter Shireen Abu Akleh's death, the IDF Spokesperson's Office, the Foreign Ministry, the Government Press Office, the Israel Police, and the Public Diplomacy Directorate in the Prime Minister's Office, which coordinates between the various bodies, shifted to an emergency footing. It was obvious that the incident was not good for Israel, and that a quick and clear response was imperative.

Unlike the Palestinians, however, who took the liberty of unequivocally determining that Israel was responsible without providing any factual evidence – Israel is an orderly country. To get caught in a lie down the road would be worse than claiming things right now that sound beneficial. Due to all the complexities involved, this was the chosen PR approach.

As a lesson learned from the Muhammad al-Durrah fiasco, Israel on Wednesday avoided the same trap of Arab propaganda and didn't admit that our soldiers were the ones who killed Abu Akleh. Moreover: At 8 a.m., just one hour after her death, the IDF Spokesperson had already issued a statement whereby, apparently, the Palestinians themselves murdered her in the midst of the gunfight. By 9 a.m. his words had been translated to Arabic and English and sent to international news outlets and foreign reporters. At the same time, a video was released intended to support the Israeli claim.

The swiftness of the response was critical. Compared to the Public Diplomacy Directorate's deafening silence during Operation Guardian of the Walls a year ago, the quick release of an Israeli version upended the Palestinians' exclusivity and established Israel's position.

Where do we still fall short in the court of international opinion, though? When the Palestinians passionately claim "Israel murdered" while we say "perhaps not" – the Israeli side isn't really able to turn the tables. Against the Palestinian "definitely," Israel only has a "maybe."

As representatives of a responsible country, however, Israeli spokespeople couldn't entirely rule out our involvement in the incident. The truth supersedes the interest.

Palestinian Forensic Expert: ‘Not Possible’ to Determine Who Killed Journalist as Probe Ongoing

A Palestinian forensic expert said “it is not possible” to answer whether an Al Jazeera journalist who was killed in the West Bank on Wednesday was shot by the Israeli military, as investigations are ongoing.

Shireen Abu Akleh, a 51-year-old Palestinian-American reporter, died while covering Israeli military operations in Jenin.

Responding to a journalist who asked whether there is “solid evidence” that Abu Akleh was shot by the Israeli military, Dr. Rayyan Al-Ali of the Forensic Medicine Institute at An-Najah National University in Nablus, said, “It is not possible to give this information now, because the team as the forensic laboratory has to study the evidence to answer this question,” according to a translation shared by an Israeli diplomat.

The Palestinian Authority has nonetheless already blamed Israeli soldiers for Abu Akleh’s death, with the Palestinian Mission to the United Nations claiming that “Israeli occupying forces murdered in cold blood a veteran Palestinian journalist,” and calling her death an “assassination.” PA Prime Minister Mohammad Shtayyeh likewise asserted that Abu Akleh “was killed by the Israeli occupation.”

Israeli officials have cast doubt on that account, with Defense Minister Benny Gantz saying earlier Wednesday that preliminary findings from the IDF’s investigation, which is ongoing, “indicate that no gunfire was directed at the journalist.”

“Findings at this time indicate that there is a reasonable chance that the journalist was shot by Palestinian armed terrorists,” added the minister. “We have seen footage of indiscriminate shooting by Palestinian terrorists, which is likely to have hit the journalist.”

We are all saddened by the death of Shireen Abu Akleh in Jenin today. Israel called for a joint investigation to understand the events.

Watch as forensic doctor, Rayan Al-Ali, points out that it cannot be determined who is responsible for her death before a full investigation. pic.twitter.com/9nNiiYMULt
— Ohad Zemet (@OhadZemet) May 11, 2022

PMW: Why is the PA hiding the bullet that killed Shireen Abu Akleh?

While the Palestinian Authority and some in the international community are quick to condemn Israel for the death of Al-Jazeera journalist Shireen Abu Akleh, their unsubstantiated condemnations of Israel say more about their blind hatred for Israel than it does about Abu Akleh’s death.

The known facts are straightforward but inconclusive. Shireen Abu Akleh was killed yesterday during a gunfight between Palestinian terrorists and Israeli soldiers in Jenin but it is not known who fired the bullet that killed her. Asked if there is “clear evidence that the bullet came from the Israeli army,” the PA’s chief pathologist who examined the body said he could not “declare any information” at this point:

Head of An-Najah National University’s Forensic Medicine Department Dr. Rayyan Al-Ali: “The case [of Shireen Abu Akleh’s death] was transferred to autopsy… in order to confirm the direct cause of death, and to attempt to find evidence that could be connected to the party responsible for the death of Martyr Shireen Abu Akleh.” …

Journalist: “Is there clear evidence that the bullet came from the Israeli army, thereby debunking the Israeli version [of events]?”

Rayyan Al-Ali: “It is currently impossible to declare any information because the partners from the forensic laboratory, each in their own field of expertise, will study the evidence that will be gathered.”

[Al-Jazeera YouTube channel, May 11, 2022]

Obstructing the determination of the truth, the Palestinian Authority is preventing Israel from carrying out its own inquiry by withholding the bullet that killed Abu Akleh. Checking the bullet's ballistics against the rifles used by Israeli soldiers yesterday could possibly confirm or rule out an Israeli connection to her death. However, as PA minister Hussein Al-Sheikh tweeted:
It seems that the Palestinian Authority is anxious to generate international condemnation of Israel over the death of the journalist even without evidence of Israel’s connection. Enabling Israel to examine the bullet, which may expose the truth, is not in the PA’s interest and they, therefore, refuse Israel’s request.

The fact that the professionals investigating this incident, including PA’s chief pathologist, do not know whose bullet killed Abu Akleh, does not stop the PA from libeling Israel for not only killing her but for “assassinating” her and committing “the crime of execution.”

Jordan's King Abdullah Comes To Washington: Will the US finally pressure him to extradite terrorist Ahlam Tamimi? (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

On Tuesday, the White House announced that Biden will host King Abdullah II of Jordan on Friday:

The President is pleased to welcome His Majesty King Abdullah II of Jordan and his Royal Highness Crown Prince Hussein to the White House on May 13, 2022. King Abdullah’s visit to Washington, his second of the Biden Administration, will reinforce the close friendship and enduring partnership between the United States and Jordan. Jordan is a critical force for stability in the Middle East and strategic partner and ally of the United States.

Jordan, of course, is the home of the terrorist Ahlam Tamimi, the self-admitted mastermind behind the 2001 Sbarro massacre that killed 15 people, mostly schoolchildren, including 2 Americans. A third American has been in a coma ever since.

In 2017, the US Department of Justice unsealed federal charges against Tamimi, declaring her an FBI Most Wanted Terrorist for conspiring to use a weapon of mass destruction against US nationals, and requested her extradition.

Jordan refused.

Arnold and Frimet Roth are the parents of Malki Roth, one of those killed by Tamimi, and have been pushing for Jordan to honor their extradition treaty with the US.

The Jordanian courts rejected the extradition out of hand, claiming that the treaty had not been ratified by the parliament and therefore carried no weight.

Not so fast.

Actually, King Hussein of Jordan ratified the extradition treaty and put his personal assurances behind it.

Last year, in a post on Bari Weiss's site, Common Sense, Arnold Roth revealed new documentation about the ratification of the extradition treaty by Jordan:

Jordan had indeed ratified the treaty. I know because my wife and I used our right under the Freedom of Information Act to request the 1995 treaty documents from the State Department. When they failed to hand them over, we sued. In April, the State Department released the key documents.

They contained a bombshell.

Writing in regal style and invoking the “guidance of God,” the late King Hussein declared in a July 13, 1995, document addressed to the U.S. government his personal agreement as Jordan’s sovereign “to and ratification of that treaty in whole and in part. We further pledge to carry out its provisions and abide by its Articles, and we, God willing, shall not allow its violation.”

Jordan betrayed the treaty, plain as day. But no U.S. government official has publicly addressed Jordan’s failure to comply with its treaty obligation, let alone protest the moral offense or the insult to American interests and decades of mutually beneficial relations. [emphasis added]

Here is the text Roth tweeted in March:

The Biden government is neither the first nor the only administration to fail to publicly address Jordan's shielding of this terrorist. But it does have an opportunity to fix this failure.

Last month, US Representative Greg Steube introduced a bill that would apply pressure on Jordan to hand over Tamimi:

U.S. Representative Greg Steube (R-Fla.) recently introduced The Recognition of the 1995 Jordan Extradition Treaty with the U.S. Act to limit U.S. assistance to Jordan until the Government of Jordan recognizes the validity of the 1995 extradition treaty between the two countries.

"Our U.S. tax dollars will not continue to flow to a country harboring a Hamas Terrorist with American blood on her hands," said Congressman Greg Steube. "The Government of Jordan is failing to comply with a 1995 treaty which requires them to extradite individuals like Ahlam al Tamimi who faces trial for terrorism under U.S. law. My legislation will ensure our foreign assistance to Jordan is abruptly halted until Jordan is in compliance with our extradition treaty."

The U.S. and Jordan signed a Memorandum of Understanding on U.S. foreign assistance to Jordan which committed the U.S. to providing $1.2 billion per year in bilateral foreign assistance over a five-year period for a total of $6.3 billion between 2018 and 2022. This MOU represents a 27% increase in the U.S. commitment to Jordan above the previous agreements.

At a time when the US is struggling for influence in the Middle East in competition with both Russia and China, a recent poll finds that the US has the inside track when it comes to Jordan.

According to the poll by David Pollock of the Washington Institute:

A modestly larger proportion of Jordan’s public says good relations with the United States are either very (18%) or somewhat (34%) important. This is roughly on a par with China, as has been the case in other recent polls. But the United States has a clear advantage over either Russia or China, or any other foreign nation, in several key subcategories. A plurality (43%) pick the United States as “the country that can best help protect us against our foreign enemies.“ A smaller plurality also see the United States as the outside power that “can best promote human rights and democracy in our country” (37%). [emphasis added]

Not only does Jordan rely on the US for economic aid, the country also values its good relations with the US and sees it as an ally that can help Jordan against its enemies in the Middle East -- which is more than can be said for the Gulf Arab states that feel abandoned by the US.

Instead of platitudes about "close friendship and enduring partnership," it is time for the US to insist that King Abdullah II stop shielding this murderer of Americans.

And it is time for the US to use the means at its disposal to make the extradition happen.

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!

Dr. Jamal Abu Nahl, a regular columnist for the Palestinian Al Hayat Press agency - aligned with the PLO - published a screed against Jews on Wednesday. Excerpts:

A great shock hit the world after the killing of the Palestinian journalist Shireen Abu Akleh, by the bullets of the Nazi Zionist occupation army gang, especially since this crime is added to the black record of the crimes of the occupation, which is full of heinous crimes and massacres.

But it is not the first crime of this murderous, criminal occupation, because their black and bloody history is filled with a sea of blood, massacres, and murders that still continue on a daily and continuous basis.

The Holocaust of the Jews is a Zionist fabrication that was exaggerated in the media in order to sympathize with the world at that time, to help them establish the Zionist entity on the Palestinian national soil, and on the ruins of the Palestinian people, to be a poisoned dagger in the heart of the Arab world, and a guard dog for the interests of the West in the vicinity of the countries of the Arab Ring! Yes, the Holocaust was a fabricated story by killing a Jew at the hands of another Jew in order to facilitate the rape and occupation of Palestine!

The Jews are historically famous for their treachery and bloodshed! ; That is why the Jewish Hitler killed his fellow Jews - and for this, the Jews went crazy from the statement of Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, and considered him to have committed a major crime, a Jewish religious and historical taboo by saying: “Adolf Hitler has Jewish blood”; And the senior Russian political minister's allusion to the Jewish Hitler's involvement in the crime against the Jews is considered a blow to the Jewish-Zionist narrative based on the tragedy of the "Holocaust", to be a justification for your global sympathy in order to contribute to the establishment of the Zionist occupation entity!

To satisfy the Zionists, Western governments imposed the inclusion of the "false Holocaust" history to be included in their educational curricula! Likewise, it enacted laws that incriminate and criminalize those who doubt it, and even punish those who commit any attempt to “review history” and verify this or deny the existence of the “Holocaust” and face severe deterrent punishments, up to murder, assassination, and execution!

This is not a very unusual article.

As always, the issue isn't one article written by one hateful little man (who lists a large number of credentials.)

It is that not a single Palestinian ever stands up and dissociates himself or herself from this hate.

Amusingly, Al Hayat Press describes itself this way:

We do not monopolize the truth, and we believe that every issue has two sides, so we will open our pages to all directions without discrimination, and we will respect the other opinion even if it differs with ours, as long as it comes within the framework of commitment to the etiquette of dialogue and difference, away from insults, defamation and slander, a method that contradicts our values, norms and morals. , before it contradicts legal norms, and we always investigate accuracy in transmitting news, and our motto is not important to rush with the most important news to put the right news.

There ya go.

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!

These tweets from leading Palestinian official Hussein al-Sheikh tells you everything you need to know about how biased the Palestinian Authority "investigation" of the tragic death of Al Jazeera reporter Shireen Abu Akleh will be:

#Israel has requested a joint investigation and to be handed over the bullet that assassinated the journalist Shireen, we refused that, and we affirmed that our investigation would be completed independently, and we will inform her family, #USA, #Qatar and all official authorities and the public of the results of the investigation with high transparency. All of the indicators , the evidence and the witnesses confirm her assassination by #Israeli special units.

They already have the verdict of "Israel assassinated her" before the sham investigation.

It is obvious to all that the Palestinian Authority intends to hide and bury any evidence that does not conform to their pre-determined conclusion.

This is the pattern of "investigations" by modern antisemites, from Amnesty to HRW to the UN and the PA. They go into the process with the intent of finding Israel guilty. They gather lots of evidence - but only report on evidence that supports their conclusions, and ignore the rest. (In the case of the UN, they create a framework that only admits evidence that supports one side.) People who casually look at their reports only see one side of the evidence and assume that the investigators are acting in good faith, so they accept the conclusions that were written before the first piece of evidence is discovered.

The people from the Palestinian Authority to Rashida Tlaib to Susan Sarandon who have already concluded that Israel is guilty of a premeditated assassination with zero evidence are, by definition, Jew-haters. They know ahead of time that Jews are guilty and they will ignore any evidence that contradicts that.

Only rarely are they so obvious about it as Hussein al-Sheikh.

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!

The Iraqi House of Representatives completed the first reading of a proposed law banning normalization and establishing relations with "the Zionist entity".

The details are insane.

The preamble says that it aims to "criminalize normalization with the Zionist entity and prevent the establishment of any diplomatic, political, military, economic or cultural relations" with Israel.

The draft law also includes the criminalization of travel, communicating, establishing relations, and promoting Zionist ideas and principles by any means, whether public or secret, including conferences, gatherings, literature, merchandise, social media and the virtual world.

This proposed law considers all those included in the expression "normalization" and "establishing relations" as a crime punishable by death or life imprisonment.

As paranoid and insane as the law is, the explanations for it are even crazier.

The Minister of Culture, Atef Abu Seif, said that "the Israeli occupation is always trying to penetrate through culture to Arab societies because the conflict with the occupier is over the narrative and identity, and the occupation always seeks to steal the Palestinian land and history."

Abu Seif stressed that "all attempts to occupy Arab consciousness will fail because the depth and rootedness of Arab culture is greater than all the lies and myths that are being marketed."

If Iraqi Arab culture is so strong, then it should be immune to the Zionist lies and attempts at normalization, and there is no reason to pass the law, is there?

The law shows not strength but sheer terror at the loss of the one unifying Arab theme: that Israel is the ultimate evil. It is the legal equivalent to placing one's hands over one's ears and screaming "no no no no NO!"

It is not a law against Israel - it is a law against getting infected with Zionist ideas and thoughts.

It is an attempt to place Iraq in quarantine from ideas that its people might be interested in learning.

Imagine, an Iraqi can be imprisoned for chatting with a Zionist on Twitter. Which means if you don't like a particular Iraqi, just email him or her a copy of an Israeli newspaper.

This draft law is a complete violation of freedom of speech and freedom of thought. I have a feeling that Amnesty and Human Rights Watch will not say a single word in opposition to this. Their hate for Israel is far greater than their interest in human rights.

On a more serious note, I have about 150 Twitter followers from Iraq. I hope that they stay safe.

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!

Bullet math - it is more likely that Palestinian bullets killed Shireen Abu Akleh

Based on this Haaretz article, assuming that the numbers are accurate, it is highly likely but certainly not absolute that Palestinian bullet killed Al Jazeera reporter Shireen Abu Akleh.

It is still unclear whether Palestinian journalist Shireen Abu Akleh was killed by Israeli fire or Palestinian gunmen while she was covering a military raid in Jenin on Wednesday, according to an initial investigation conducted by the Israel Defense Forces.

The probe shows that Abu Akleh was about 150 meters (328 feet) away from Israeli military forces when she was shot and killed.

Soldiers from the elite Duvdevan Unit fired a few dozen bullets during the raid in Jenin, the investigation shows, but whether it was Israeli or Palestinian gunfire that killed the Al Jazeera reporter is unknown.

Wednesday evening saw feverish rounds of communication between Israel and the Palestinian Authority regarding whether the bullet removed from Abu Akleh’s body would be turned over for examination in Israel.

The bullet, which struck her in the head, is 5.56 millimeters in diameter and was shot from an M16 rifle. But since such rifles are used by both the Israel Defense Forces and Palestinian cells in the West Bank, the information is insufficient to determine which side fired the bullet.

IDF sources say that in the course of an arrest outside the Jenin refugee camp, hundreds of bullets were shot at Israeli troops, who responded by firing dozens of bullets at specific targets. These include a gunman who they spotted on the roof of a house, an armed man peering from a window and others.

Most of the Israeli fire was directed southwards, while Abu Akleh and a Reuters photographer who was wounded were positioned to the north of the Israeli forces. Nevertheless, it appears that some Israeli fire was directed northwards as well.

Some educated conjecture:

No one targeted Shireen. Neither side would benefit from killing her. She was likely killed by a bullet that was aimed at another target.

The article says "hundreds" of bullets were shot at IDF troops, while the Duvdevan unit only fired "dozens" of bullets. Based on the audio of the fighting, this seems likely.

From the geolocation analysis people were doing on Twitter, most of the Palestinian fire was towards the west or northward. This article says only "some" Israeli fire was aimed northward, towards Akleh.

So, let's say 300 Palestinian bullets, only half of them northward - 150 bullets in that direction.

Let's say six dozen Israeli bullets, 30% aimed northward - that is 22 bullets in that direction.

So, back of the envelope calculation says 87% of the bullets aimed northward were Palestinian bullets.

The chances that an IDF soldier shot the bullet that killed her becomes far less likely when you consider that professional soldiers under central command and with an awareness of the laws of armed conflict and the repercussions of a mistaken gunshot do not fire randomly and shoot at very specific targets. Palestinians in Jenin with rifles are ar more likely to shoot in a general direction hoping to hit any soldier.

The odds are overwhelming that Palestinian bullets hit the Al Jazeera reporters and the tree they were near.

Participants in a funeral in Jenin, April 22, 2022

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!

05/11 Links Pt2: Einat Wilf: The BDS Pound of Flesh; Harvard, BDS and the Nazis; Can the UN's antisemitism problem be solved?; Queen’s Speech includes ‘anit-BDS bill’

From Ian:

Einat Wilf: The BDS Pound of Flesh

Fresh from my experience as an Israeli, I was able to recognize the same dynamic starting to play out on American campuses. When I attended college in the United States in the mid-1990s, liberal, left-wing Jews could comfortably be pro-Israel and even active in AIPAC without any fear of repercussions or social pressure to hand over a pound of flesh. That changed with the emergence of J Street, IfNotNow, and Jewish Voices for Peace, until we arrived at the present condition, in which a Jewish student who does not show herself to be an ally of Students for Justice in Palestine, or does not agree that “Zionism equals racism,” or that Zionism is a form of apartheid, and Nazism, and white supremacy, and whatever other supreme evil will be identified next, cannot be considered a good Jew. This escalation in anti-Israel activism among some young Jews no longer seemed like a natural and excusable choice shaped by different generational circumstances, but the result of a relentless campaign of bullying.

Over the last several months, as a visiting professor at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., I taught a course called “Zionism and Anti-Zionism.” In the many hours I spent discussing student life with students and faculty alike, it became apparent that the anti-Zionist activism on campus—the college version of the pound of flesh dynamic—was not primarily a form of social protest or political expression, but a form of bullying. The anti-Zionist activists, like classic bullies, deliberately targeted the real and perceived frailties of their Jewish peers—fear or shame in the expression of one’s Jewish identity, with its calls to Jewish solidarity and deep connection to a faraway foreign country.

The Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement has been one of the most effective expressions of the pound of flesh bullying tactic, inviting young Jews to participate in the cause of “social justice” only to ultimately demand the mutilation of their Jewish identity. BDS has demanded that diaspora Jews not only criticize Israeli government actions, but sever their connections with Israel completely.

The issue is not limited to campus or student life. Last fall, the D.C. chapter of the Sunrise Movement, an organization “mobilizing young people to make climate change an urgent priority across America,” pulled out of a rally to support voting rights because the Jewish organizations also participating supported Israel. The groups that Sunrise mentioned—National Council of Jewish Women, the Reform movement’s Religious Action Center, and the Jewish Council for Public Affairs—are some of the most progressive organizations in American Jewry, devoted to numerous left-wing causes. No matter. These organizations, by their mere presence at an environmental rally, were sullying a noble cause. Unless, that is, they were willing to give up a pound of flesh: their Zionism.

In January, Big Duck, a Brooklyn-based marketing firm with several nonprofit clients, declined to work with the Shalom Hartman Institute over its connection to Israel. This led Shalom Hartman to issue a statement identifying Big Duck’s decision as “a moving of the goalposts on BDS from Israel to North American Jewish organizations,” the never-ending pound of flesh demand in practice. The institute correctly noted that this “applies a standard on North American Jewish commitments that would exclude the vast majority of the members of our community.” In other words, the ancient goal of making it harder and harder for Jews to be fully Jewish, until it eventually becomes impossible.

My choice to step back from the pound of flesh dynamic was a personal one. But I have since met many Jews, older and younger, who shared with me their confrontation with the same challenge and sense that they need to make a similar decision. Extracting oneself from this toxic dynamic is not only the right thing to do, but also a key to mental health. Anti-Zionist bullying takes an emotional toll, and it cuts to the deepest levels of our Jewish identities. Rather than try to find out how many pounds of flesh it would take to make the bullies go away, the only effective response is to resist them with confidence. It’s hard to bully a proud people; it’s impossible to bully a people who know they have nothing to be ashamed of, and who don’t need or seek anyone else’s approval in the first place. The only response to anti-Zionism, in other words, is Zionism.

Harvard, BDS and the Nazis

The editors of Harvard's student newspaper have just urged a boycott of the Jewish state and praised a campus group that has celebrated a murderer of Jewish college students. In the 1930s, the editors of the same newspaper asserted that Harvard should grant an award to a Nazi official who promoted anti-Jewish boycotts and celebrated murderers of Jews.

Is there a basis for comparing today's editors of The Harvard Crimson to their pre-World War II predecessors?

The Crimson's editors last week accused Israel of committing "crimes against humanity" and endorsed the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement. One presumes the editors are aware of the fact that BDS founder Omar Barghouti has said his goal is not to oppose "settlements" or "occupation," but rather to "oppose a Jewish state in any part of Palestine."

The editorial heaped praise on the "colorful" and "spirited" anti-Israel activities organized on campus by the Harvard College Palestine Solidarity Committee. For some reason, it did not refer to the Committee's 2015 post of a video that justified knife attacks against random Israeli Jews, or its 2016 event in support of Rasmea Odeh, the convicted murderer of two Hebrew University students in Jerusalem.

It would not be a stretch to imagine that if Ernst "Putzi" Hanfstaengl were alive today, he would be an enthusiastic supporter of the BDS campaign, the Palestine Solidarity Committee and Rasmea Odeh.

The shameful story of Hanfstaengl and Harvard was documented in the landmark 2005 book The Third Reich in the Ivory Tower by Prof. Stephen Norwood.

Jonathan S. Tobin: Can the UN's antisemitism problem be solved?

For decades, supporters of Israel have debated what to do about the United Nations. Should they ignore it as a talking shop that makes a lot of noise but can't impact events on the ground in the Middle East? Or should they treat its growing efforts to smear Israel as an "apartheid state" a genuine threat to the Jewish state?

Many Israelis, including those in the government, have trouble taking the United Nations seriously. Israel's first prime minister and founding father, David Ben-Gurion, famously dismissed the concerns of Moshe Sharrett, who served as his foreign minister and initial successor, about the importance of the world body. Using the Hebrew acronym for the UN (UM), Ben-Gurion disputed the idea that without UN backing in the 1947 Partition Resolution, the Jewish state wouldn't have been founded.

"Not at all," Ben-Gurion responded. "Only the daring of the Jews founded this country and not some 'Um-shmum' resolution."

That sentiment expressed his admirable philosophy that the actions of the Jews were far more important than the opinions of the non-Jewish world. Several decades later, it still accurately sums up the way many Israelis feel about the United Nations, which is even more hostile to their nation than it was in Ben-Gurion's time.

The world body's bias against the Jewish state is baked into the cake due to the dominance of Islamist, Marxist and Third World nations that buy into the lie that Zionism is racism. That bias has been expressed in many ways over the years—from the General Assembly's passage in 1975 of the infamous "Zionism is racism" resolution to its role in convening the 2001 Durban Conference on Racism, which became an anti-Semitic hatefest.

The United Nations and its various agencies are a ticker tape of reports, programs and resolutions aimed at undermining the Jewish state's security and bolstering the Palestinians' century-old war on Zionism. The UN Relief Works Agency (UNRWA) is solely focused on ensuring that the descendants of Palestinian Arabs who fled the country during Israel's 1948 War of Independence remain stateless refugees to be used as propaganda to delegitimize the existence of a Jewish state.