Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Monday, May 16, 2022

Biden seemingly accepts Jordan's (incorrect) position that it is responsible for the Temple Mount - meaning Jews shouldn't visit

On Friday, President Biden met with Jordan's King Abdullah in Washington - the second meeting between the two.

The White House readout did not mention anything about the US request for the extradition of terrorist Ahlam Tamimi being repeatedly refused by Jordan despite the signed agreement between the countries.

But it did mention the administration's position on Jordan and Jerusalem, which pleased the king to no end: “The President affirmed his strong support for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and cited the need to preserve the historic status quo at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount. The president also recognized the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan’s crucial role as the custodian of Muslim holy places in Jerusalem."

This contradicts what Israeli prime minister had said the previous week: “All decisions regarding the Temple Mount and Jerusalem will be made by the Israeli government, which holds sovereignty over the city, without any foreign considerations.”

In practical terms, this means that the Biden administration is against freedom of worship, or even against Jews visiting their holist spot, because the Jordanian Waqf insists that Jews have no right to do this.

But there is also a self-contradictory phrase in this White House statement.

The "historic status quo" of the Temple Mount never gave full custodial control to the Waqf. Real control was always the responsibility of the sovereign, which conceded control to the Hashemites on an ad-neede basis - and would take away when necessary.

On October 16, 1937, the British Government took over the responsibilities of the Waqf because the Waqf had been funding terror. It created a commission to administer the Waqf until it could find a leadership that was more acceptable/

In March, 1938, the British government appointed the Waqf's treasurer:

And another British appointee to the Waqf in April, 1938, had a decidedly non-Muslim name:

That is the "status quo." The ruling government has always had the legal right to do what it deems best on the Temple Mount and it allows the Waqf to perform various duties - but the Waqf has never been the actual one controlling the holy site. Indeed, the ruling government has, under the real status quo, controlled the Waqf itself!

Freedom of religion is clearly a much higher priority than a "status quo" where the Waqf can limit such freedoms.

When the White House says that the status quo should control the Temple Mount, it doesn't seem to realize that the status quo gives the government of Jordan no rights outside what Israel voluntarily allows it to have.

(h/t AB)

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!

05/16 Links Pt1: The Three D’s and The Killing of Shireen Abu Akleh; UN Relents, Will Allow Exhibit to Call Jerusalem the Eternal Capital of the Jewish People

From Ian:

The Three D’s and The Killing of Shireen Abu Akleh

All this translates to the average news consumer only knowing about the response (the effect) and not the cause. This means that for the average news consumer, all they are reading about or seeing is the firemen taking an ax to a door – they have no idea that the firemen are responding to a fire.

This leads demonization leads to delegitimization. After all, if Israeli soldiers, without any context or apparent cause are going into places like Jenin “gun blazing,” then why not accuse them of “murder” without any evidence – as Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib and many international media outlets did within minutes of Abu Akleh’s death, and before there was even a hint of an investigation (let alone an impartial one using actual forensics). And if you believe Israel is just attacking people without reason, because you never read about bombs being blown up on Israeli buses, the thousands of rockets fired at Israel from Gaza, or the string of mass-murder attacks directed by terrorist groups in Jenin, then you may be quick to conclude those Jews and their Jewish state are just too evil to exist anymore.

Lastly, we have the infamous double standard, which as Sharansky has pointed out, gets all too often applied to Israel. Regarding the death of Abu Akleh that double standard is also made evident by some simple Google searches.

In the past 5 years about 400 journalists have been killed covering conflict zones. None have generated a fraction of the media and social media attention that Abu Akleh’s death has generated in barely 2 days.

Recently many reporters have been tragically killed covering the war in Ukraine. When one types in a Google search of the names of the French, American or Ukrainian journalists killed covering the war in Ukraine, the average search yields 226,000 results. But, when one types in the name of “Shireen Abu Akleh,” that search yields 18,200,000 results.

Was the death of Abu Akleh really 80 times more important and newsworthy than that of the reporters killed in Ukraine?

Certainly, for those who wish to demonize Israel, by applying to it standards of conduct and scrutiny that are applied to no other country, it must be. After all, jumping on the anti-Israel bandwagon this week was Susan Sarandon, who within hours of Abu Akleh’s death, and with no evidence whatsoever, tweeted that “Israeli snipers” had “executed” her. Meanwhile, over the past year, as 70 journalists were killed, Ms. Sarandon apparently only tweeted about one, Abu Akleh. And over the past 3 years, as over 150 journalists were killed, Ms. Sarandon apparently only tweeted about one, Abu Akleh.

As many Jews, all too use to the Three D’s, and how they are regularly applied to our indigenous homeland, Israel, often say: “No Jews, No News.” While this may be cynical, it is also sadly painfully true.

It is also painfully clear to anyone paying attention, how much of the mainstream media, social media, and those who wish to destroy Israel, like the Qatari owners of Al Jazeera, are using the death of Abu Akleh – an unfortunate and very likely accidental tragedy to attack Israel. By using the new antisemitism, which is almost as old as the Arab-Israeli conflict itself, to demonize and delegitimize Israel and apply to it standards of conduct that are applied to no other country.

No Diplomatic Crisis Seen after Al Jazeera Reporter's Death

Immediately after the reports of Al Jazeera reporter Shireen Abu Akleh's death, a quick and clear response from Israel was imperative. Unlike the Palestinians, 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.

One hour after her death, the IDF Spokesperson issued a statement whereby, apparently, the Palestinians themselves murdered her in the midst of a gunfight. 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 to support the Israeli claim. The quick release of an Israeli version upended the Palestinians' exclusivity and established Israel's position.

Israel's efforts bore fruit. Within four hours, most of the major news outlets in the world had already highlighted the Israeli position. It wasn't the headline, but Israel's doubts regarding the Palestinian version of events were at least given expression.

In the diplomatic arena, no serious country came out in condemnation of Israel. The US, UK, EU and UN simply asked for an investigation - which is precisely Israel's position. Israel's Foreign Ministry received no reprimands. An Israeli official summarized: "There is no crisis."

Muslim World Largely Refrains from Blaming Israel for Al Jazeera Journalist's Killing

Israel’s Gulf partners also refrained from casting direct blame.

Bahrain’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement that it “strongly condemns the killing of Palestinian journalist Shireen Abu Akleh, which took place near the Jenin refugee camp in the Palestinian territories while she was on duty, as it is a violation of the rules and principles of the international humanitarian law.”

The island kingdom also demanded an “immediate, comprehensive investigation of the crime and to bring perpetrators to justice.”

The UAE, which along with Bahrain and Morocco signed the Abraham Accords with Israel in September 2020, declined to comment. Saudi Arabia, which does not recognize Israel but has extensive security and intelligence ties with Jerusalem, also refrained from issuing a statement. United Arab Emirates’ Abdullah bin Zayed al Nahyan gives a statement at Sde Boker at the Negev Summit, March 28, 2022 (Screen grab)

Israel’s Foreign Ministry declined to comment on the response from neighboring states.

Press coverage of the killing in these countries was also restrained.

“The media coverage is relatively calm,” said Moshe Albo, modern Middle East historian at the Institute for Policy and Strategy at Reichman University in Herzliya. “It’s not over the top. Same in Egypt.”

The UAE press did not quote Emirati officials about Abu Akleh’s death, said Moran Zaga, an expert on the Gulf region at Mitvim – The Israeli Institute for Regional Foreign Policies.

“All of them, with the exception of the Khaleej Times, the most ‘right-wing,’ avoid direct accusation,” Zaga pointed out.

Saudi coverage has been similarly muted, said Albo.

Jordan condemned Abu Akleh’s killing, which it called “a horrific crime.” But Amman also chose not to specifically blame Israel.

For the full interview:https://t.co/b6fNm3Dlqt
— Asaf Zamir (@AmbAsafZamir) May 16, 2022

I've been wondering whether the conventional wisdom has been wrong since Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov claimed that Hitler had Jewish blood after Israel expressed its displeasure.

The standard analysis was like this one from Newsweek:

While Israel and Russia would likely continue their balancing act of relations based on a range of mutual interests in the Middle East, any tensions between the two raise an uncomfortable truth for the former. Israel effectively needs Russia's approval to conduct operations freely against Iran and its allies in Syria.

This is true, but Russia also has great interest in not upsetting Israel.

The Media Line reports:

The main party deterring Israel from being more aggressive in Syria used to be Russia. But this might be changing.

Russian military bases have spread across Syria since 2015 when President Vladimir Putin intervened to save the Assad regime from losing the country’s civil war. While Russian air defense systems are in use in some parts of the country, Israel continues to enjoy a large degree of freedom of action in Syrian skies.

“Russia is no match for Israel’s air superiority,” says Zvi Magen, head of the Russia research program at Tel Aviv University’s Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) and a former Israeli intelligence officer.

“Russia is deterred by Israel in Syria, and its military forces are not a factor for the IAF [Israel Air Force]. If anything, there is a match in interests when it comes to Iran, against whom Russia is fighting for control in Syria,” he adds,

Describing Russia’s interests in Syria, he says, “First of all, it’s about access to the Middle East in general. Russia aspires to be a significant force in the region. Second, the Russian naval facility in Tartus is Russia’s entry to the Mediterranean Sea. I can’t see it risking those interests just to limit Israel’s freedom of action.”

While the alleged Israeli attack [on Damascus on Wednesday] is a message to the Syrian government, it could also be directed toward Russia, following the Kremlin’s recent change of tone toward Israel, he says.

“Russia became very critical of Israel lately, and it’s not completely clear why. It most likely has to do with the war in Ukraine. But this attack could be a message, making it clear that Israel will not change its policy in Syria,” Magen explains.

As with the Arab world, Russian bluster needs to be analyzed from a perspective of an honor.shame mentality.

Russia is humiliated in Ukraine, and it tries to make up for that humiliation with overly aggressive speech and lies about its accomplishments. But even while that is happening, the number of countries willing to speak to it is diminishing.

Russia lost a lot of prestige for its military capability. Imagine if Russia would say it is changing its policy and enforcing a no-fly zone for Israel over Syria.

If Israel defeats Russia's anti-missile and anti-aircraft defenses in Syria, it would be an additional, significant psychological blow. And it is one that Moscow cannot afford to risk.

According to this analysis, that is indeed what would happen.

Which could explain Putin's (semi-official) apology to Israel.

Israel is making it clear that it will operate against Iranian interests in Syria no matter what, and Russia cannot afford to have Israel call its implied bluff that permission is required.

It is a high stakes game, but Israel has more cards than it is given credit for.

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!

Palestinian Arab "Replacement Theory" just like that of far-Right antisemites today

Israel haters, as always, are trying to hijack every news story to make it about Jewish evil.

Even though the far-Right murderer of 10 people in Buffalo was an antisemite as well as a racist, Israel-haters want to create an analogy between his beliefs and Israel:

Because every news story is ultimately about Jewish oppression of Palestinians, and every evil force in the world is comparable to Jews in Israel. Nothing antisemitic about that!

Cohen's and IfNotNow's analogy falls apart, as always, with two seconds of thought. The US doesn't define itself as a "white nation." Israel's entire reason for existence is to provide a secure place for the Jewish people to live without fear of being pawns at the whims of the leaders of the countries they reside in, as they have been so many times throughout history, including today.

Opposing that desire Jewish self determination is opposing the Jewish right to live as truly free people.

Beyond that, as is usually the case, is that Palestinian Arabs and allies have always acted towards Jews exactly like Buffalo murderer Payton S. Gendron acted towards Black people - with the exact same philosophy.

White supremacists espouse the "14 word" slogan, written David Lane who murdered Jewish radio host Alan Berg in 1984, that "we must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children." But he also pithily described the worldview behind it: "The Western nations were ruled by a Zionist conspiracy … [that] above all things wants to exterminate the White Aryan race."

Somehow, the white supremacists ascribe to Zionism the exact same foundational evil as their far Left opponents. And their use of the word "Zionist" as an innuendo for "Jew" is just as transparent.

If Em Cohen and IfNotNow were looking for an analogy for a movement that thinks that immigration of "the other" is the ultimate evil that must be opposed by any means, the best analogy would not be to Jews, but to the antisemitic Arabs who opposed Jewish immigration - and wanted to doom Jews to denocide in Europe.

After all, opposition to Jewish immigration was the single most important platform for all Arabs in Palestine in their anti-Jewish claims starting in the 1920s.

Arabs, as with today's antisemites, hid their hate of Jews behind a pretense of fear that immigration would limit their own economic opportunity - the exact opposite of the truth. Yet that was the main point hammered by the Arab side at the Shaw Commission, blaming Arab pogroms on fears of Jewish immigration (which "arouse among the Arabs the apprehensions that they will in time be deprived of their livelihood.") The murderous "Arab revolt" of 1936-1939 similarly blamed massacres of Jews on "fears of Jewish immigration."

They murdered Jews in the name of, essentially, the identical slogan of "Jews will not replace us" that the white supremacists of Charlottesville chanted in 2017.

The people who claim to be so much against antisemitism and right-wing bigotry happily embrace the worldview of the people whose philosophy towards Jews is exactly the same as the white supremacists.

No doubt, the modern antisemites would argue that they are only interested in peace for all. But that is what Jordan's King Abdullah claimed - when he pledged to stop, by force, all Jewish immigration to Palestine after Israel was declared.

He would have claimed that he was not antisemitic at all when he said that the only threat to peace in the Holy Land was...Jews. His desire to ethnically cleanse Jews from Israel was only to ensure peace - for the remaining non-Jews.

Sound familiar?

Every Nefesh B'nefesh flight into Israel showing hundreds of happy Jewish immigrants is covered by Arab media, today. Every news story about potential aliyah from South America or Ukraine or France is covered in detail by Arab media.

Their opposition to Jewish immigration has not lessened over the years. And their major Western allies never say a word against the identical, implacable opposition to immigration that white supremacists have.

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!

Qataris freak out over an Israeli at a jewelry exhibition

From Doha News:

Israeli jewellery maker Ori Vechler, a self-proclaimed proud Zionist, has triggered outrage amongst the public in Qatar where he is currently taking part in an exhibition to promote his designs.

Vechler, who founded Gemma Fine Jewelry in 2013, had previously spent three years serving with the Israeli military, an entity that has been consistently condemned by rights organisations worldwide for its involvement in war crimes, including mass killings and unlawful arrests of Palestinians.

Vechler is currently exhibiting his work at the Doha Jewellery and Watches Exhibition (DJWE) in the Qatari capital.

The Doha-based group, Qatar Youth Opposed to Normalisation (QAYON) which supports the global Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel, took to social media this week to highlight his history of Islamophobia and pro-Zionist propaganda, as seen in posts shared on social media.

In one such screenshot from Vechler’s Instagram story, the Israeli entrepreneur was asked whether he had served with the Israeli military.

“Yes, I’ve proudly served for three years,” he said, adding an emoji of the occupying state’s flag.

They point to examples of how offensive Vechler is on social media:

They pointed out in the second image that the Israeli flag was seen above the Dome of the Rock - so that was obviously meant to provoke Muslims.

The entire article is filled with the craziest hate, saying that the Yom Haatzmaut he was celebrating is "an annual occurrence to mark the 1948 ethnic cleansing and mass expulsion of Palestinians."

Gemma Fine Jewelry is headquartered in Shanghai.

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!

Google Maps calls second holiest Jewish spot by its usurped Muslim name

I looked up the Maarat HaMachpelah, Hebron's Cave of the Patriarchs in Google Maps. Here's what it found:

Muslims have been usurping Jewish holy sites from the beginnings of Islam. But there is no reason for Google to go along with it.

Let's them call it the Ibrahim Mosque in Arabic, but it is an insult to Jews to make that the default name.

UPDATE (September): Google now shows both names, not sure when it started. (h/t MN)

05/15 Links: The Palestinians and a destiny of self-imposed 'Nakba'; ‘Say Yes to the World’ but No to the Jews: Lufthansa’s Antisemitic Scandal; Israel Day Parade Returns to Big Apple

From Ian:

The Palestinians and a destiny of self-imposed 'Nakba'

This disaster, therefore, wasn't the work of some higher power, and the attempt to blame the Jews for fighting those who came to kill them, yet won, doesn't hold up to historical scrutiny. This disaster was the work of the local Arab population and its leaders, who refused proposals of compromise, opted for the path of violence and lost everything.

What has the lesson been for the Arabs since then? Apparently, it is to keep trying where they failed in 1948. This, instead of the obvious conclusion that violence only breeds more calamity for them, and that only acceptance and dialogue can extricate them from the endless cycle of bloodshed and defeat.

One clear expression of the Palestinian decision (and the decision of some Arabs of Israel) to cling to the past is Nakba Day "celebrations." These are not events of self-introspection and commemoration, but rather of incitement, agitation, and hatred that send just one message – certainly for the Jewish public watching them – which is: we are not willing to accept the existence of the State of Israel, and that the Jewish side should know that this conflict is absolute; a "zero-sum game" in which a Palestinian victory means the eradication of the Jewish state.

It's possible, of course, to downplay these shows of hatred and what it represents, but one should be troubled by the message hidden within. Its crux is that even if Israel is strong and powerful right now, it is still a "country on probation," which in our hearts we don't accept or concede, and that when the time comes and the conditions arise – we will raise our heads and our hands against it. This message, which often feeds periods of unrest in the Arab sector, isn't predicated on economic distress, nor even anger at what is happening on the Temple Mount, but rather on the rejection of the State of Israel, whose apparatuses are again failing to contend with the issue.

The State of Israel has lived by its sword since its inception, and in a complex region such as ours, it will have to keep fighting for the foreseeable future. The Palestinians were unable to defeat it, but by fomenting and cultivating a culture of "Nakba" they aren't just hurting Israel, but mainly themselves.

It would make sense, therefore, that after 150 years of conflict they would choose a different path instead of continuing to encourage and celebrate hatred and incitement. This, it seems, won't happen, as the Palestinians are destined to live – and essentially keep choosing the path they are on – from catastrophe to catastrophe.

On 'Nakba,' Abbas vows to continue payments to prisoners and 'martyrs'

The Palestinian Authority will continue to pay allowances to the families of Palestinian prisoners and those killed while carrying out attacks against Israel, PA President Mahmoud Abbas said on Sunday.

Abbas’s renewed commitment to the families of the prisoners and “martyrs” was made on the 74th anniversary of Nakba Day, “Catastrophe Day,” a term Palestinians use to describe the 1948 War of Independence.

During several rallies in the West Bank on Sunday, Palestinians sounded sirens for 74 seconds, marking the number of years since the establishment of Israel.

Abbas and other Palestinians also emphasized that they would remain committed to the “right of return” for Palestinian refugees and their descendants to their former homes inside Israel.

“The Palestinian people and their leadership will not rest until all prisoners enjoy freedom,” Abbas said, adding that he would remain committed “to the rights of the families of the martyrs and prisoners.” Israel Police arrest Arab protesters at Nakba Day rally at Tel Aviv University, May 15, 2022 (credit: AVSHALOM SASSONI/MAARIV) Israel Police arrest Arab protesters at Nakba Day rally at Tel Aviv University, May 15, 2022 (credit: AVSHALOM SASSONI/MAARIV)

Abbas said he was proud of the “steadfastness of the brave prisoners held in occupation prisons.”

Abbas has staunchly refused to halt the payments to the families of the prisoners and “martyrs” – a scheme described by some as “pay for slay.”

“The great Palestinian people cannot be defeated because they have a just issue that cannot be obliterated by false narratives,” Abbas said. He called on Israel’s leaders “to get out of the cycle of denial of the other because it will not bring security and stability to anyone.”

‘Say Yes to the World’ but No to the Jews: Lufthansa’s Antisemitic Scandal

By collectively punishing all the Orthodox Jews who flew instead of identifying and taking action against the specific passengers who allegedly violated the masking policy, Lufthansa engaged in blatant antisemitic discrimination. The reasoning of the ground staff has yet to be officially explained, but it doesn’t take a leap of the imagination to conclude that in their eyes, all of these Hasidim look the same and behave the same — a prejudiced logic that, sadly, many other minorities are also familiar with.

Perhaps the worst aspect of this scandal is Lufthansa’s refusal to recognize that its staff treated Jewish passengers with contempt that was rooted in antisemitic imagery. An apology posted only once the world’s media feasted on images of anxious-looking Jews being persecuted in a German airport was directed at “all the passengers unable to travel on this flight, not only for the inconvenience, but also for the offense caused and personal impact.” But the statement did not deal with the core of the problem; the antisemitic thinking that resulted in discriminatory action against an entire group based on their ethnicity.

A large part of the shock value around this story lies in the fact that it occurred in Germany, of all places, and with Lufthansa. Founded in 1926, the airline profited handsomely from the use of slave labor during the Nazi era before it was reconstituted in 1953 under the chairmanship of Kurt Weigelt, a Nazi businessman who served a two-year prison sentence for war crimes. One would like to think that Weigelt’s spirit has been banished from Lufthansa’s boardrooms and airport hubs; the spectacle in Frankfurt would suggest otherwise.

Lufthansa can yet emerge from this appalling episode with its credibility intact. For that to happen, it needs to recognize that its ground staff implemented an antisemitic policy and apologize for that offense specifically. And it needs to publicly announce the payment of substantial compensation to all those who missed their connecting flight — not just for the inconvenience but for the trauma that accompanies a victim’s experience of discrimination.

Until that happens, no Jewish customer can regard Lufthansa as simply one of the world’s more decent airlines. Some chatter on social media has suggested that a boycott of the airline would be the correct path to take. My answer to that is that travelers should exercise their consumer choice, as Lufthansa is hardly the only airline that flies to Europe. But a formal boycott may, at this stage, be a step too far. Let us see first whether Lufthansa can grasp the enormity of its original offense; whether, indeed, the Holocaust contrition that the Germans are famous for goes more than just skin deep.

Lots of anti-Israel bias in a short @Time magazine piece about Abu Akleh

Two weeks ago, I noted the many ways a short item in Time magazine showed extreme anti-Israel bias.

Its latest edition does the exact thing again.

Here it is:

Time highlights one section in red, as if it was a hyperlink in print media. it is clear that the red section is what Time wants to be the "takeaway" from the story. In this case, the main part that readers are led to believe are both true and important is that Abu Akleh was "fatally shot in the head by Israeli forces."

Time pretends to be objective by adding, "according to the Palestinian Health Ministry and Al Jazeera."

Both of those sources are presented as objective and accurate. A governmental health ministry wouldn't lie, right? The fact that at the time that they made this statement they knew absolutely nothing - the Palestinian medical examiner had not yet looked at the body, and when he did, he said the evidence was not conclusive. Time, of course, is not going to mention that the Palestinian Health Ministry is part of a dictatorship that prioritizes anti-Israel propaganda over accuracy.

Al Jazeera is presented as another supporting data point to the highlighted phrase, making it sound like there are two reliable sources that support the theory that Israel shot her. But Time never mentions that Al Jazeera is not an independent news source but a mouthpiece for the Qatari dictatorship and it would never report objectively on what happened to its own reporter.

Both of Time's sources for the charge are presented as objective, with no caveats about what they are saying being at least as motivated by emotion and hate rather than objective fact checking. Assuming that this was written on Wednesday morning ahead of a print deadline (the edition goes on newsstands on Fridays) Time had little hard information to go on, but it decided that Al Jazeera and the Palestinian government were reliable sources for a story that had little time for fact gathering.

Then, again without mentioning that it was Abu Akleh's employer, it adds that Al Jazeera called it a "blatant murder." Time certainly knew at this point that there was zero evidence (and plenty of circumstantial counter-evidence) that Israel would target Abu Akleh. Yet in the short story so far, it seemingly brought two data sources, one of them mentioned twice making it clear that Time considers Al Jazeera a reliable source.

Finally, after the reader has assimilated that Akleh was shot by the IDF and that it was presented as murder, comes the weak denial by the alleged murderers - a formula that readers know well, throwing in the sentence "The accused denied the charges" after lots of evidence is shown to the contrary. It makes Time look objective, but the clear aim is to denigrate the Israeli "suggestion,"

At that point in time, early Wednesday morning on the East Coast, Israel had already proposed a joint pathological investigation with the Palestinians - and the Palestinian side refused. This is a critical fact that Time chooses to not report. It contradicts its narrative of Israeli guilt - why would the guilty party want to work together with its enemy in a transparent, open investigation? The party that made an accusation without evidence does not want to have its accusation "confirmed." Why not? A guilty party claiming innocence does not typically want a transparent investigation, and the aggrieved party would insist on one. The narrative turns on its head when this is reported.

So it isn't.

Beyond that, Israel didn't accuse the Palestinian Authority of shooting Akleh - they suggested that Jenin terrorists associated with Islamic Jihad, firing wildly, might have been responsible. Time (and essentially all media) omit who the Palestinian shooters are, not showing photos of videos of groups of masked men with M16s shooting in the urban alleyways of the Jenin camp, clearly not worried about the safety of Palestinian families who live there.

Before any facts were known, the Palestinian Authority prefers to defend a terror group as innocent.

In a choice between the actions of a professional, trained army and a group of masked terrorists, Time chooses to portray the army as presumably guilty and the terrorists aren't even mentioned.

Background about, or photos of, the Jenin Brigade might upset the simple story Time wants to convey. So it is considered too unimportant for readers to know. Much more important are the evidence-free charges from two biased groups portrayed as objective, sober observers.

It is entirely possible that Abu Akleh was shot by Israeli forces by accident. It is impossible that IDF troops, in hostile Jenin to extract a terrorist, would have instructions to kill a journalist while under fire. Yet Time gives that idea prominence without any skepticism, and presents its laughably biased "sources" as authoritative.

This is media bias in action.

(Corrected paragraph where I had said Time didn't mention she was an employee of AJ; the headline said so, h/t nitsanc.)

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 official Palestinian Wafa news agency "reported" on Friday:

Dozens of Israeli settlers, under the protection of the Israeli army, today took over a Palestinian-owned uninhibited house in the Wadi al-Hasin area to the east of Hebron, according to a local activist.

Anti-settlement activist, Aref Jaber, said settlers, backed by Israeli forces, took over a 1200-square-meters three-storey uninhibited house owned by local Palestinian resident Walid al-Ja’abri.

Middle East Eye's headline says:

Israeli settlers forcibly seize Palestinian-owned building in Hebron
Video shows settlers carrying their belongings, including mattresses and suitcases, as they stormed the building

There's only one problem: Not only did a Jewish group purchase the building, but the Al Jabari family that previously owned the building admits it!

From Ibrahim Al Jabari on Facebook, autotranslated to English:

Other members of the Jabari family posted the identical message themselves.

Mohamed Eid al-Jabari sold the building to Abu Ali Harhash of Jerusalem for 500,000 Jordanian dinars ($705,000) - (the autotranslation is wrong.) Harhash then sold it to a Jewish group.

The al-Jabari family is not alleging that their property was stolen. They are incensed that a member of their family sold the property to someone who almost certainly was acting as a front for the Jewish group, and who probably will take his significant fee and move to Europe or Dubai where he doesn't have to worry as much about being assassinated.

The building, called Beit HaTekufa, is closer to Kiryat Arba than to the Tomb of the Patriarchs.

(h/t DigFind)

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!

"Thinking past the sale" - how anti-Israel propagandists work

Israel-haters have a large toolbox of brainwashing and persuasion techniques to convince the world of what are effectively lies.

One that we have seen a lot in recent days is how they refer to the death of Al Jazeera journalist Shireen Abu Akleh. It is a variant of a sales technique called “thinking past the sale.”

From Levers of Persuasion:

“Thinking past the sale” is a persuasion tool where you get someone to think about what happens after they’ve made a decision or action. By doing so, you increase the odds that person actually makes that decision or takes that action.

There’s mounds of research showing that thinking about something increases the chances it happens. For example, there’s the Pygmalion Effect, where positive expectations empirically lead to positive performance. Similarly, there’s the Golem Effect, where negative expectations lead to poorer performance.

In everyday life, you hear people talk about these effects with phrases like “self-fulfilling prophecies” or “I thought it into reality”.

Thinking past the sale works because:

The more you think about an idea, the stronger the neural pathways to that idea become in your brain (like in the Tetris Effect). The neural path of least resistance in your brain leads to that idea, and because your brain is lazy, you end up thinking about it more.

By thinking about the idea more, you’re more likely to see opportunities to make it a reality. And thanks to the representativeness heuristic, you will think it’s more likely to happen the more you think about it.

You also will consider the idea more significant, because you think things are more important than they actually are while you’re thinking about them.

On top of this, your focus on an idea makes you functionally blind to alternatives; this is called inattentional blindness. By thinking past the sale, your brain will ignore alternatives.

Getting someone to think about an outcome makes that outcome more probable.

All of this increases the odds that thinking past the sale becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Importantly, these mechanisms affect you whether you’re aware of them working or not.

The more potent the “sale”, the more likely its effects will be. And one of the most potent ways to get someone to think past the sale is by using visualizations.

You can do this by using images that force the person to see the outcome you want. But you can also do this by describing, in words, what the outcome will look like.

The “sale,” so to speak, is the idea that Abu Akleh was deliberately targeted by Israel last Wednesday– assassinated in order to silence her because her reporting was critical of Israel.

The idea is absurd. Murdering a journalist is the worst way to distract people from what the journalist says. It gets massive amounts of bad publicity. Also, the idea that in the middle of a firefight with heavily armed terrorists in Jenin, Israeli forces decide that this is a great time to kill a prominent journalist is ridiculous.

But immediately after Abu Akleh’s death, the narrative from Al Jazeera and other Israel haters was that her murder wasn’t merely a fact – it was a given. They didn’t say, “Israel murdered her.” They said, “The world needs to punish Israel for murdering her.” They would say, “I am so upset that Israel murdered her.” Or that this was part of a pattern, as Columbia professor Rashid Khalidi said, "Palestinian journalists have been systematically targeted. It's really important to Israel that nobody see what's going on in the occupied territories."

This is all making the listeners are readers think past the sale – they think that Israel murdered Abu Akleh as a given, that it is a fact known by everyone, and now they should react to this information – to be angry or sad or upset at this fake murder.

It is a deliberate lie. There is no pattern of Israel murdering journalists, and Khalidi knows it. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, 19 journalists have been killed in the Palestinian territories since 1992 with a known motive, and only one was deliberately murdered – by Palestinians.

This is a form of brainwashing that, as the description above notes, is highly effective. And in this version of the trick, the inattentional blindness is a huge factor – because by making people think and visualize Israel deliberately murdering her, it restricts people’s brains from thinking about alternative theories of what actually happened – whether it was an accidental shooting from Israel or one from the Jenin terrorists who were shooting constantly.

A variant of inattentional blindness that we see often is the use of a photo taken in Syria or elsewhere of a crying child in front of ruins, with a false caption saying that this was an orphan in Gaza. Once one’s brain makes that connection, that is now the most likely path one’s thoughts will continue to go on in the future, and when the technique is used repeatedly, it strengthens the ties in one’s mind between Israel and deliberate murder of innocents.

This is how propaganda works, and it is insidious because even if you know you are being manipulated, you are still picturing what they are saying – you can’t help it – and it tunes your brain to believe that this is how the IDF does things, even when you know it is not true.

05/14 Links: Caroline Glick: The Muslim Brotherhood's foreign minister; Officers Intervened at Reporter’s Funeral to Prevent ‘Mob’ From Taking Coffin Against Family’s Wishes

From Ian:

Caroline Glick: The Muslim Brotherhood's foreign minister

Given Abbas' mild-mannered persona, Ra'am's statements following Abu Akleh's death were stunning. Ra'am responded to her death by demanding an international inquiry. Ra'am's message is not simply about virtue signaling. It is a proclamation. The party that controls Israel's government considers Israel's governing institutions – the IDF, the police, the Health Ministry, the forensic medical institute – fundamentally illegitimate. Israel, in other words, is fundamentally illegitimate. By demanding an "international investigation," Ra'am is effectively demanding that Israel surrender to the braying blood libel mob.

Ra'am's statement was not an isolated incident. It is part of its much wider use of relations with foreign governments and institutions to advance the Islamic Movement's agenda from within the Israeli governing coalition. Abbas is carrying out an active, independent foreign policy that is hostile to Israel's most fundamental national interest – the preservation of its sovereignty.

At least publicly, the focus of Abbas' diplomatic efforts is Jordan. Since setting up the Bennett-Lapid government, Abbas has met twice with King Abdullah II of Jordan. Last November, Abdullah and Abbas met for four hours at Abdullah's palace. The regime-controlled Jordanian media gave expansive coverage of the meeting. The coverage was particularly stunning since, when Abdullah met with Bennett in the summer, he insisted that no photos be taken and that the meeting be kept secret.

Abbas' ties with Abdullah serve the interests of both men. Jordan's Islamic Waqf employs the personnel in the mosques on the Temple Mount. But over the years, the Waqf's personnel have switched their allegiance from Jordan to the PLO to the Islamic Movement and Hamas.

Whereas King Abdullah's father, the late King Hussein, viewed the Palestinians, who comprise a large majority of Jordan's population as an existential threat to the Hashemite regime, Abdullah has thrown his lot in with the Palestinians to the detriment of the Bedouin minority in Jordan. By embracing the Muslim Brotherhood through Abbas' Islamic Movement, Abdullah seeks to stabilize his grip on power at a time of economic and political instability in Jordan.

For his part, Abbas is using Abdullah, who boasts close ties to the US foreign policy establishment, the EU, and the Israeli left and security establishment as a proxy to advance the Islamic Movement's strategic goals vis-à-vis the Temple Mount and Israel as a whole.

The first unmistakable sign of the fusion of Jordan's positions with those of the Islamic Movement, (and Hamas) came in the midst of the Muslim riots during the month of Ramadan last month. On April 18, Jordanian Prime Minister Bisher Khasawneh enthusiastically supported the rioters. In a speech before the Jordanian parliament, he said, "I salute every Palestinian, and all the employees of the Jordanian Islamic Waqf, who proudly stand like minarets, hurling their stones in a volley of clay at the Zionist sympathizers defiling the Al-Aqsa Mosque under the protection of the Israeli occupation government."

A week later Abbas was back in Jordan for another four-hour meeting with Abdullah. Judging from what followed, it's clear the two men agreed on a joint policy aimed at coercing Israel into abrogating its sovereignty over Judaism's most sacred site.

Seth Frantzman: Abu Akleh's funeral: From a Jenin tragedy to a Jerusalem tragedy

EXPERTS FROM the security establishment who know the conflict will provide explanations about how civilians don’t understand the overall reality. They will say that Israel had to use force and to keep lines of control. They will say that it’s about the broader message of who runs Jerusalem. Indeed, the massive outpouring for the funeral was unlike anything seen in Jerusalem in recent memory. But then again, a country that prides itself on very good intelligence should have known that.

And the reality of “control” is lacking anyway. Last year during the conflict with Hamas, many of Israel’s cities that have mixed Jewish and Arab population descended into chaos. This included attempted lynchings and attacks. I read recently about a similar incident in Acre, involving a Jewish man who went fishing and was attacked. We hear often about stockpiles of illegal firearms in the Negev. In reality, half the country is sitting on a knife-edge of violence.

It is all just barely kept in check by security forces. The reality is always kept just beneath the surface. A feigned sense of “everything is fine” percolates into discourse. The Abraham Accords, a sense of security and "no need to address the 'conflict'” is the reality. And anyway, Israel has a relatively new government that is always in tenuous control, waiting for a coalition crisis.

ON THE sidelines is the opposition that ran the country for a decade. That opposition, symbolized by Benjamin Netanyahu, preferred the status quo. The motto was strength and not weakness – the “strong survive” and the weak will not.

But that motto means the “strong” have to always be fighting to keep the status quo and also let pesky things like masses of illegal weapons in the Negev go by the wayside. Because not all problems can be dealt with at the same time.

In that line of reasoning, half of the neighborhoods in east Jerusalem are seen as basically lawless in some ways, with clashes with some police units a norm. But don’t worry, the argument goes, this doesn’t enter central Jerusalem.

Indeed, the old border between Israel and what was then Jordan – Route 1 today – is still a kind of dividing line. So when the funeral for Abu Akleh seemed to upset the status quo, the system went into action.

Israeli Forces Clash with Armed Palestinian Militants in Jenin

Like previous encounters in Jenin, Israeli forces came under heavy fire by militants. Video shared on social media showed troops attacking a home where Duba’i was located. Duba’i was eventually captured after several hours of fighting, though a YAMAM counter-terrorism officer, Noam Raz, was shot and killed by militants during the operation.

The IDF and other Israeli security forces generally operate under the cover of darkness, especially in areas where there is a heavy presence of militants, such as Jenin. Both daytime raids on Wednesday and Friday were in part to send a message to militant groups that Israeli forces are willing to operate against them during the day despite the added danger in doing so.

The resurgence of militant activity in the West Bank is likely a response to the increase in Israeli counter-terrorism operations in the West Bank going to back to early 2021. A number of these operations have resulted in the deaths of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Hamas and al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades members. [See FDD’s Long War Journal: West Bank Militants Reorganize, Establish Joint Operations Room.]

It is likely Israeli forces will be launching another operation in Jenin in the coming days to arrest individuals responsible for the killing of Noam Raz on Friday.

05/13 Links Pt2: From Congress to Instagram, We Must Always Call Out Jew-Hatred; Abolish ‘Nakba Day’; Jordan Continues To Provide Safe Haven For Ahlam Al-Tamimi

From Ian:

From Congress to Instagram, We Must Always Call Out Jew-Hatred

Over the past few months, pro-Palestinian protests across the country in places such as New York City and Los Angeles featured shameless demonstrators burning Israeli flags and spewing the harshest rhetoric imaginable. The protesters were often chanting, "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free," and "We don't want two states, we want '48," both of which allude to the destruction of the Jewish state. In previous years, we would hear slogans suggestive of peace or a two-state solution, referring to living side by side; now, when it comes to the land, the pro-Palestinian side is not looking to share.

Well, the truth is, they never were. If they were, they'd develop prosperous communities in Gaza and the West Bank—in the lands they've been given—instead of using these territories to launch missiles and plot suicide bombings. So now, after yet another episode of terrorizing Israel with weeks of Hamas- and ISIS-supported attacks on Israeli civilians, pro-Palestinian demonstrators here in the U.S. have a clear message: They are not looking to live side by side. They're asking for all of it—and the elimination of Jews as a bonus.

This is not a surprise for those who follow the politics of the region and how it has made its way here to the U.S. There is no such thing as simply being anti-Israel and not anti-Jewish, but the pro-Palestinian side was never audacious enough to say it. And if nothing more, these slogans heard on American street corners—openly calling for genocide of the only Jewish state on the planet—clearly and unequivocally merge the concepts of hate into one. They want Jews gone; as a country, and as a people.

It's quite telling of where we are in time. They are being clear about their message. But what are we, the supporters of the Jewish people and the Jewish state, doing in response? Put another way: How much antisemitism are we willing to tolerate, and how much further will their side's hatred go?

For a society that has become obsessed with equity and tolerance of all kinds, it is crazy to think when it comes to the world's most ancient monotheistic faith, there is now silence. And yet, antisemitism is everywhere.

Wherever you look, the sick and perverted tropes of Jew-hatred have penetrated. You hear it in formal settings such as American universities, our mainstream media and, notoriously, the hypocritical and sanctimonious United Nations, where countries with egregious human rights records are lionized while Israel is repeatedly recommended for investigations on bogus charges. You hear it from elected officials such as Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), whose Jew-hatred and focus on defaming and delegitimizing Israel ring louder than any demonstration of love for the country they serve. Woke companies such as Ben and Jerry's launched a boycott against Israel, all inspired by leadership more consumed with antisemitism than with perfecting the Chunky Monkey.

Deborah Lipstadt: 'People, orgs. don't take antisemitism seriously'

Prof. Deborah Lipstadt, the new envoy to monitor and combat antisemitism, participated on Thursday in her first public event since being confirmed by the Senate last month.

In a speech at the US Holocaust Memorial Museum, Lipstadt said that “too many people, organizations and institutions do not take antisemitism seriously.”

“They fail to include it in their litany of legitimate prejudices,” she said. “They wonder, 'what is it that Jews are complaining about? After all, they're powerful. They have no reason to complain.' Conversely, too often, when there is an act of antisemitism, those who condemn it cannot bring themselves to focus specifically on this particular prejudice, they condemn antisemitism together with all other acts of prejudice.”

“It's as if antisemitism is not a true outrage and cannot stand alone as something of real concern,” said Lipstadt. She also said that “we must acknowledge that antisemitism does not come from one end of the political spectrum. It is ubiquitous and it is espoused by people who disagree on everything else.”

“This does not mean that all threats are of equal severity,” she continued. “Sometimes the threat from one group might be more severe than that from another. One of the striking features, however, of this ubiquitous nature of antisemitism is irrespective of where it's coming from, it relies on the same template of charges.”

She said that too often, the antisemites use Israel as a foil for their antisemitism.

“They camouflage their antisemitism in attacks on Israel: 'We're not attacking Jews, we're criticizing the sovereign state,' they assure you,” said Lipstadt.

"Let me state something which the United States government has repeatedly affirmed - criticism of Israeli policies is not antisemitism. But when there is an imbalance in the criticism, a failure to see the wrongs of others, and attributing of blame to only one party and the use of double standards, one is compelled to ask what's the basis for this imbalance.”

Bassem Eid: Abolish ‘Nakba Day’

The difference between a Palestinian culture taught to celebrate grievance and an Israeli culture that idealizes freedom is stark. The Christian minority population, for example, has plummeted in Palestinian Authority-controlled territory. In Bethlehem, it has dropped from 84% to 22% in the last decade alone. Meanwhile, a party with Islamic foundations has a critical role in Israel’s current government, and Israel’s Supreme Court recently appointed its first Muslim justice, Khaled Kabub.

Palestinians should celebrate our rich heritage and, like our Jewish cousins, grieve our losses. But now is the time for negotiated reconciliation, not the perpetuation of generation-old victimhood. “Nakba Day” is part of the victimhood problem, not part of the forward-looking solution. Reconciliation happens only when both sides take a step back and acknowledge joint suffering. “Nakba Day” does the reverse. Whereas Israel has three times offered Palestinians peace, dignity and independence, Yasser Arafat launched — and Mahmoud Abbas has failed to contain — the violent public culture of the 2000-05 Second Intifada, for which the 1998 establishment of “Nakba Day” can be understood as a buildup.

The fetishization of Israel’s very existence as a catastrophe is a distortion that wounds our children and leads them to war and suicide bombing. Nearly 1 million Jews in Islamic lands faced their own nakba after Israel’s independence. Perhaps if more Palestinians understood this, we would better understand our Israeli neighbors.

We must teach our children about our neighbors, seek understanding and champion peace. The Palestinian leadership should reverse course on the incitement against Israel and Jews — including the spread of antisemitic stereotypes — in public education and media. Instead, Palestinian schoolchildren and citizens should learn the history, the joys and the traumas of our neighbors the Israelis, with whom we have a great deal in common. In so doing, we can lay the foundations of a new Middle East, and cities like my native Jericho in the Jordan Valley can blossom as hubs of international cooperation and commerce. This can only be achieved if we learn to understand our neighbors’ grief, not exacerbate our own.

“Nakba Day” does the opposite and should be abolished.

From Naharnet:

Free Patriotic Movement chief Jebran Bassil on Friday said anew that he is in favor of “peace with Israel,” while adding that such a peace would have its “conditions.”

“I would like to see us reaching peace with Israel and Hizbullah does not agree with me in this issue,” Bassil said in an interview on LBCI television, a few hours before electoral silence begins for Sunday’s parliamentary elections.

“We must reach peace but peace has its condition,” he added.

Bassil is hardly a model politician - he has been accused of corruption. He is the son-in-law of the current president Aoun and has been head of the FPM since 2015.

Still, to mention peace with Israel as a campaign issue in a country that has traditionally been among the most antisemitic is significant. If he didn't think it could gain him votes, he wouldn't be talking about it.

In the 2018 election, the FPM gained 29 of 128 parliament seats, about 14%, so he can be a power broker in the elections. (I could not find any recent polling in Lebanon to see how different political parties are doing.)

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!

By Daled Amos

Jordan seems to be important to US interests.

According to the White House statement announcing King Abdullah II's meeting with Biden, their get-together

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.

But if Jordan is such a close friend of the US, why does it continue to have such a cold peace with Israel?

An even better question -- what about the ties that King Abdullah is forging with Iran?

Just last year King Abdullah II met with Egyptian president Sisi and Iraqi Prime Minister Kadhimi to announce an agreement for transporting Iraqi oil via pipelines from Iraq to Jordan to Egypt, from where it will be taken to Europe via the Mediterranean.

Dr. Edy Cohen of the BESA Center writes that this indicates that Jordan Is Now an Ally of the Islamic Republic of Iran:

Because Iraq is a puppet state under Iran’s control, this agreement represents King Abdullah’s “coming out of the closet” with the Islamic Republic. Exporting Iraqi oil through Jordan to Europe is simply exporting oil controlled by Iran, which rules Iraq through its network of Shiite militias and controls the country’s resources.

The day after the announcement, Jordanian state media began promoting full financial cooperation with Iran.

In addition, there is talk of allowing up to one million Iranian religious tourists to visit the village of Kerak to visit the shrine of Jaffar Ibn Abu Taleb and according to the Jordanian press, Iran has proposed building an airport in Kerak.

A Jordanian TV broadcast at the time warned of the dangers of allowing Iranians into the country as tourists.

Harold Rhode, a longtime former adviser on Islamic affairs in the US Defense Department, agrees:

Rhode draws attention to how Tehran became the dominant force in both Lebanon and Syria. It seems to be using the same strategy to take over Jordan. In doing so, “Iran is attempting to surround Israel and Saudi Arabia further.”

None of this seems to bother the Jordanian people. According to a poll by David Pollock of the Washington Institute, Jordan does not perceive Iran as a threat on the level that the Gulf Arab states do. According to the poll, only 17% of Jordanians responded that good ties with Iran were "somewhat important" and they are evenly split, at 47%, as to whether "a renewed nuclear deal with Iran" is good or bad for the area.

By comparison, despite their peace treaty, Jordan is anything but friendly with Israel. In his poll, Pollock found that

Israel remains even more unpopular than Iran among Jordanians today. A mere 10 percent or so, young and old alike, have even a “somewhat” favorable opinion about the late 2020 Abraham Accords between Israel and four other Arab states (the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan). And the same very low percentage of Jordanians agree, a quarter-century after their own formal peace with Israel, that “people who want to have business or sports contact with Israelis should be allowed to do so.”

That Jordan seems to be warming up to Iran does not seem to bother Biden.

And why should it?

After all, in 2019, Robert Malley -- who served as a special assistant to Obama and as White House Middle East Coordinator -- described Obama's Middle East policy like this:

[Obama's] ultimate goal was to help the region find a more stable balance of power that would make it less dependent on direct U.S. interference or protection. Much to the Saudis’ consternation, he spoke of Tehran and Riyadh needing to find a way to “share” the region. [emphasis added]

Did anyone tell Iran about this "sharing"?

Saudi Arabia now finds itself in a situation where it feels the need to talk with Iran. In light of the lengths that the Biden administration is willing to go in order to secure a nuclear deal with Iran, it is not surprising that Jordan doesn't feel it is going against the White House's wishes by opening itself up to Iran as well.

More to the point, Jordan realizes -- as do the Gulf Arab states -- that the US cannot be relied upon to defend them against the Iranian threat.

Such is the state of a "strategic partner and ally of the United States" in the Middle East today.

Last October, the foreign ministers of Jordan and Iran had a conversation by phone. According to the Tehran Times, Amir Abdollahian, the Iranian foreign minister, said that Iran favored "friendly and brotherly relations based on mutual respect with regional countries":

He expressed Iran's support for regional dialog and cooperation away from foreign interference and emphasized the expansion of cooperation among regional countries, especially Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Jordan, as a basis and driving force for further economic prosperity and stability in the region. [emphasis added]

Considering the instability of Iraq and Syria (not to mention Lebanon and Yemen), maybe Jordan should not be in too big a hurry to join Iran's fan club.

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!

05/13 Links Pt1: How Western dupes help propagate murderous Palestinian lies; Police commando killed in fierce gunfights with Palestinians in Jenin area

From Ian:

Melanie Phillips: How Western dupes help propagate murderous Palestinian lies

A Palestinian Arab journalist with Al Jazeera, Shireen Abu Akleh, was shot dead this week in a firefight between Hamas and the Israelis in the West Bank city of Jenin.

Western news outlets initially reported uncritically the Hamas claim that the Israelis had shot her, eagerly regurgitating Al Jazeera’s assertion that the Israelis had “assassinated” her “in cold blood.”

When the Israelis said Abu Akleh might have been killed instead by Palestinian gunfire, journalists grudgingly incorporated this into their reporting while continuing to repeat extensively the incendiary but unsupported Palestinian accusation.

At this point, we still don’t know who killed Abu Akleh. But any fair-minded person would say the Israelis are more likely to be telling the truth.

They said that, having gone into Jenin to root out terrorists responsible for a recent wave of murderous attacks, their forces had come under “substantial fire.” After studying what evidence they had, it looked as if Abu Akleh had been felled by a Palestinian bullet.

This was because, in a video from the scene, Arabs are heard shouting: “We hit a soldier; he is lying on the ground.” Since no Israeli soldier had been hurt, however, the suspicion was that this was Abu Akleh.

Moreover, Honest Reporting’s translated commentary on this video contains another crucial line. After the shouts about a soldier on the ground, there’s a further shout: “It’s a woman.”

Seth Frantzman: Killing of Abu Akleh shows Israel will always be guilty to the world

The guilty verdict before any details are known is part of the mantra about Israel and it sets up Israel to be in a very difficult situation. Israel can investigate potential abuses, and Israel has the technology to do investigations. However, there is a sense that while some want answers about the killing, many do not. Many judged Israel anyway. They have opinions that range from claiming Israel “assassinated” the journalist, to claiming that Israel’s “apartheid” must end. It doesn’t matter if Israel wasn’t responsible or if Israel made a mistake, or even if an individual soldier is responsible, it’s just another example to be used to slam Israel.

It's sometimes difficult to separate the legitimate demands for an investigation from claims that Israel can’t even be trusted to investigate this incident and using the incident to bash Israel. If Israel is put in the position where critics won’t even trust Israel’s own findings on this case and only an “international” investigation can perform the findings, then how will we ever know what happened?

The evidence is already being moved around, the need to protect the scene and do basic forensics is disappearing with time. Lack of cooperation from local Palestinian authorities doesn’t help. An international investigation would take time to assemble. The track record of such investigations is that they are slow. By that time it’s not clear if such a team of investigators could even come to Israel because Israel will naturally not want them to come. Demands for such an investigation put Israel in an impossible spot. If it rejects the “international” investigation it will be seen as covering up details. If it accepts it then it opens the door for more.

Either way, Israel’s current government, which is very different than the last government, has been very forthright with wanting to know the truth. Yet, the anti-Israel critics don’t want to hear anything from this government. In their view, it doesn’t matter if Israel has a centrist or left-leaning government. This impossible situation means Israel is always guilty in the view of some critics. Israel doesn’t need to satisfy those critics, but trying to figure out how to deal with the avalanche of knee-jerk anti-Israel reactions is one of the difficult challenges for Jerusalem. Knowing this bias, it behooves Israel to always be extra careful in confrontations with Palestinians.

Ben-Dror Yemini: Anti-Israel propaganda preaches louder than facts

The Watson Institute at Brown University is holding a record of casualties in wars the U.S. has been involved in since 9/11. Turns out that out of about half a million deaths, 362 were journalists. This happened - it happens. It's usually not intentional unless we're talking about the cold-blooded murder of critics as had happened to 38 Russian journalists.

Throughout the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, only one journalist has been considered "murdered" and it was Suleiman Abdul-Rahim al-Ashi who was slain by the bullets of Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Presidential Guard.

These are the facts laid out. But this doesn't stop Joint List MK Ahmad Tibi and his fan club from pinning the blame for no less than "a murder" on Israel.

The journalist's body is still warm, and the existing few testimonies point to Abu Akleh being killed by Palestinian terrorist gunfire. The Palestinians themselves insisted on conducting an independent probe without international supervision, and certainly without Israeli involvement.

The pathologist who carried out the body's autopsy claimed it was impossible to determine who shot her. Yet, Tibi and his ilk are in a hurry to scream bloody murder.

This isn't the first time Israel is facing propaganda of this sort. During the 2014 Gaza War, various Palestinian bodies published a list of 17 journalists who were killed by the JDF. The Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center diligently examined every name on the list. Their findings revealed that two of the 17 were killed by Palestinians, and most others were members of Hamas or the Islamic Jihad. Only four were actually killed in the line of duty. The problem is this kind of anti-Israeli propaganda has no dearth of buyers.

The U.S. is demanding a prob"e, given the journalist had American citizenship. "The investigation must be immediate and thorough and those responsible must be held accountable," U.S. State Department Spokesperson Ned Price tweeted out.

May we ask the honorable spokesman how many American soldiers or officers, who are "responsible" for killing journalists, were held accountable? Was any of them put on trial? He'd scoff.

The Washington Post was quick to publish a culpatory headline singling out Israel, as we Al Jazeera. Most other media outlets were a little more recalcitrant. So this is not the biggest blunder on Israel's part in the face of hostile propaganda. But when zooming out a bit, the failure reveals itself in its full splendor.

For as the U.S. fought terrorism and Jihad, from the Islamic State to Al-Qaeda, Israel is justified in its struggle against Palestinian terror and Jihad. And this is a fundamental truth that Israel has failed to communicate.