Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Thursday, July 21, 2022

07/21 Links Pt1: Russia requests closure of Jewish Agency for Israel; Europeans still playing double game against Israel; Iran’s fabricated ‘fatwa’ excuse

From Ian:

Clifford D May: From Jerusalem to Jeddah

If Iran's rulers were to accept this deal, they would be provided with hundreds of billions of dollars to spend on whatever nefarious projects they choose.

So why do they resist? Largely because they despise Americans. They refuse even to sit at the same table with American diplomats, insisting that all negotiations be conducted through intermediaries – Russians heading the list.

They've also been demanding additional concessions, such as the removal of their Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps from the American terrorist blacklist. To his credit, Biden has not conceded, cognizant of the fact that the IRGC is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans.

Given this context, the Emiratis and the Saudis are practicing realpolitik. Their aim is to end up on the winning side. That won't be the United States if the United States is seen as being in retreat and decline, unwilling and perhaps unable to defend its own interests, much less those of allies.

Biden powerfully reinforced this perception when he chaotically and dishonorably abandoned Afghanistan one year ago next month. Of course, it was President Trump who laid the diplomatic groundwork for America's ignominious capitulation to the Taliban.

Trump also did nothing serious in response to Tehran's attacks on Saudi oil facilities in 2019 – a breach of a long-standing if implicit agreement to defend the kingdom in exchange for its collaboration on global energy stability – vital for the international economy that the U.S. leads and from which Americans benefit. (Note: High on Biden's to-do list in Jeddah was convincing the Saudis to agree to pump more oil. Didn't happen.)

Even earlier, President Obama attempted to implement what I've called the Mr. Rogers Doctrine: the naïve notion that the solution to the multiple conflicts of the Middle East was to convince Iran's jihadi masters to "share the neighborhood."

Obama was passive, too, when Tehran and Moscow intervened militarily to prop up the Assad dictatorship at the cost of hundreds of thousands of Syrian lives.

If America is seen as a sclerotic giant, if its credibility continues to shrivel, expect other nations – not only in the Middle East – to distance themselves from Washington while appeasing and even kowtowing to America's enemies.

The ramifications would be enormous. Some people grasp that. Others embrace the view succinctly expressed by that eminent 20th-century philosopher Alfred E. Neuman: "What, me worry?"

Russian Government Launches Legal Bid to Close Down Jewish Agency Operations

The Jewish Agency is facing the shuttering of its operations in Russia, following an announcement on Thursday from the Russian Ministry of Justice that it is embarking on legal action to close the organization down.

A spokeswoman for the Basmanny District Court in Moscow told the Interfax news service that the ministry had filed a request to remove the agency from the official state register of legal entities in Russia. The ministry claimed that the agency violated Russian law by allegedly maintaining a database of Russian Jews planning to emigrate to Israel. More than 16,000 Russian Jews have departed for Israel since Moscow launched the invasion of Ukraine on Feb. 24.

The ministry’s lawsuit will be discussed at a hearing on July 28, the court’s spokeswoman, Yekaterina Buravtsova, told Interfax.

A senior Jewish Agency representative meanwhile clarified that the organization would continue working in Russia in the interim. “The Jewish Agency always works in Russia according to the rules and in accordance with the requirements of the authorities,” Yigal Palmor, the head of its international relations department, told the Russian-language Israeli news portal NewsRU. “At the moment we are in dialogue with them in order to continue working as usual.”

A separate statement from the Jewish Agency’s office in Moscow said that it would “continue to operate in accordance with the requirements of the legislation of the Russian Federation.”

“There have been no requests for immediate termination of activities,” the statement continued.

Some Israeli officials nonetheless expressed anger at the announcement, with Minister of Diaspora Affairs Nachman Shai declaring that “Russian Jews will not be held hostage by the war in Ukraine.”

Europeans still playing double game against Israel

The Europeans are still playing a double game against Israel. Nine European governments last week issued a joint statement on six Palestinian NGOs that Israel designated as terrorist groups in 2021. In their statement, the governments said they have seen "no substantial evidence" to support Israel's allegations and will, therefore, "continue to cooperate with and support" these groups.

According to Israel, these organizations are a network working under the guise of human rights groups but are actually an arm of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Senior officials in these NGOs were involved in the murder of Rina Shnerb and raising funds for the terrorist organization. The foreign ministries of Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, and Sweden made it clear that from their perspective, there was nothing to prevent them from continuing to fund these NGOs.

Without getting into the question of what would constitute the "incontrovertible evidence" they seek, European governments should have stopped funding these NGOs far before Israel's declaration in 2021. There was already considerable evidence that these organizations and their employees have ties to the PFLP, and this alone should have given any reasonable government enough reason to pause and examine how their money was being used. For example, PFLP conferences were attended by the directors of these NGOs; their directors hired members of the terrorist organization – some of whom had already served time in Israeli prison – and more.

Following Rina Shnerb's murder, the Dutch government even published an independent report pointing to the ties between one of the organizations it funds and the PFLP. Meanwhile, in addition to their connections to terrorism, these NGOs are at the forefront of a campaign to de-legitimize Israel's existence. They spearhead boycott and defunding campaigns, propagate the apartheid lie, target Israel in the International Criminal Court at The Hague, accuse the IDF of war crimes, and paint the army as a killer and abuser of Palestinian children.

Palestinians angry at obvious nepotism in Palestinian Authority

Recently, a position as Palestinian "Minister of Local Government" was given to the daughter of another minister, causing Palestinian social media to erupt with anger and jeering for a history of nepotism and favored appointments to friends.

There's a history here. Last year several envoys to foreign countries were given to relatives of senior Fatah officials.

Palestinian officials defended the recent appointment, saying that the women was well qualified. Palestinians are responding with skepticism, to say the least, especially since unemployment is high and good jobs are perceived to be going to favored individuals.

On Twitter, the hashtag #عظام_الرقبة - an Palestinian euphemism for nepotism that literally means "neck bones" - is getting many posts, as people complain that in the West, you need a resume for a job, but for Palestinians you need to be related to someone.

Everyone knows about Palestinian Authority corruption - except, apparently, the hundreds of Western journalists whose jobs are to cover Palestinian topics.

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!

Amnesty-UK issued a press release linked to a 19-page paper on Wednesday warning the UK to ensure that a proposed expansion of its free trade agreement with Israel doesn't include any business in the territories nor include any dealings with companies that they claim are violating human rights.

Has Amnesty-UK ever gone through a similar amount of effort to sabotage a UK trade agreement with any other country?

You know the answer.

I found some blog posts questioning trade with Colombia in 2009 and one blog post from 2013 questioning trade with Mexico because of human rights issues. That's it.

Amnesty-UK has no campaigns, no reports, no press releases warning about UK (or, pre-Brexit, EU) free trade agreements with any nations besides Israel.

Yet the UK has an extensive free trade agreement with Turkey that was updated only last year. The same Turkey that occupies lands and has built settlements in Northern Cyprus and in Syria.

Amnesty-UK is silent.

The UK has trade agreements with the Palestinian Authority. The same government that pays salaries to terrorists and teaches children to hate Jews.

Amnesty-UK is silent.

The UK has trade agreements with Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Lebanon. Not a word of objection from Amnesty-UK.

The UK is currently negotiating a trade agreement with Algeria. Amnesty knows quite well the depth of human rights abuses there. But Amnesty-UK is not campaigning to stop that agreement.

No, Amnesty-UK chooses to campaign against UK trade with one and only one country. The one that happens to be Jewish.

Amnesty-UK will claim that their campaign is simply meant to support human rights. But somehow Israel always gets far more attention than any other country.

Their "Get Involved/Issues" section includes only four country-specific sections: Israel, Syria, North Korea and the US(!). In those sections, it lists over 60 issues with Israel, but only ten entries on Syria, nine for North Korea, and ten for the United States. There is far more effort and money spent on attacking Israel than any other country, by far.

That is modern antisemitism. It hides behind "human rights" but it abuses the issue of human rights as a club to attack only Israel.

(h/t Mitchell)

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!

Did Jews buy land in Transjordan as early as the 1870s?

Jamil Youssef Al-Shaboul, writing in Sawaleif, tells a story about a brief episode of Jewish settlement in Transjordan.

Palestine was not alone as a destination for the Jews and the Zionist movement. With the intention of establishing the slandered national homeland, the eastern part of the river was also targeted.

When the Zionist Montefiore built the first neighborhood for the Jews outside the walls of the city of Jerusalem in 1862, after he purchased a plot of land specifically for that, the first two agricultural settlements for the Jews were built in both Jerash / on the Zarqa River and Salt, and through bribes received by some Ottoman officials to facilitate their entry into the country and their ownership for the land.

The Jordanian clans sensed the seriousness of the matter early on, especially after the Jews tried to buy other lands adjacent to the Zarqa River in order to bring in another group of immigrants. The northern and Bani Hassan clans came together and held a meeting in the guesthouse of Sheikh Mustafa al-Ayasra headed by Sheikh Mufleh al-Obaidat, the father of the martyr Kayed al-Obaidat, and they unanimously agreed to expel these Jews. With all the simple light weapons they had, they burned the settlement of Rachel in Jerash and expelled the Jews from it. They headed towards Al-Balqa and burned the settlement of Kfar Ehud near Salt. The presence of these bastards from East Jordan ended.

The Jordanian clans were able to save Jordan from the clutches of the Zionist movement, which was announced at the Basel Conference in Switzerland in 1891, and this confirms that the choice of force in the time of lies and hypocrisy is the one who restores things to their rightful place and that the thief will not escape punishment.

Notice that they admit that the land was purchased by Jews but the author still considers the land "stolen."

A similar story was published in 2020 in Rai al Youm, another Jordanian news site. It said that the Jews were there from 1870 to 1876 when thy were driven out, and the names of the settlement are the same.

The writers are gleeful that they ethnically cleansed Jews from Transjordan, and they regard this as an honorable story to tell today.

I cannot find English-language documentation of any of these Jewish settlements in Transjordan in the 19th century. But the story is not altogether implausible. Zionists did buy land across the Jordan, in the Golan Heights. See my previous articles about that here and here.

Moreover, I found an Arabic book about about a dozen plans for Jews to include parts of Transjordan in the Jewish homeland, from the mid-19th century up until the 1940s. Dr. Issam Muhammad Al-Saadi wrote "Zionist Aspirations in Transjordan, 1862 - 1946." It includes all of these attempts (autotranslated so the names might be misspelled):

■ February 1867 AD, Charles Warren publishes his study, which called for the necessity of beginning Jewish settlement in the region of "Gilead" in eastern Jordan

■ January 1871 AD, Yehoshua Yellin establishes a company to invest and reclaim the lands of the "Nimrin Valley" northeast of the Dead Sea in preparation for the Jewish settlement operations in eastern Jordan

■ April 1879 CE, Lawrence Oliphant after his trip to the Golan and Ajloun lays out the "Gilead Settlement Plan" that called for the establishment of a Jewish political entity in Transjordan

■ June 8, 1880 AD, Ottoman historical document, Sublime Porte rejected Lawrence Oliphant's proposal to establish a Jewish settlement with some privileges in Gilead "Sanjak of Ajloun, Transjordan"

■ July 27, 1888 AD, Eliyahu Shed was able to purchase land as part of Baron Rothschild's plan for the settlement of Jews in northeastern Jordan.

■ January 1891, Paul Friedman put forward the "Midian Project" for Jewish settlement in Midyan / the western region of the Arabian Peninsula

■ May 1891 AD, Lord Ghosh presented to the Ottoman government his project for the settlement of Jews in the regions of Gilead and Moab in eastern Jordan

■ October 7, 1894 AD, Zionist settlement attempts in Karak, Transjordan in 1896, and the letter of the Mutasarrif of Karak to the Mutasarrif of Jerusalem

■ June 1896 AD, the expulsion of Jewish settlers and the destruction of their property in Jerash and Hauran, east of Jordan

■ March 22, 1901 AD, Hillel Yefeh's plan and a meeting with the representative of the Zionist movement "Aes Nattoot" to purchase large lands in Karak, Transjordan, for Jewish settlement

■ March 8, 1903, Aharon Blum signs a lease contract for Zizia lands south of Umm al-Amad for the settlement of Jews in eastern Jordan

■ November 24, 1904 AD, a delegation from the Zionist movement headed by Yitzhak Levy visits Transjordan to learn about the "Lepontine" project for Jewish settlement in southern Jordan

■ On April 29, 1905 AD, Aharon Blum signed a contract to purchase land in Hamra in the Salt region for the settlement of Jews in eastern Jordan.

■ On September 20, 1906 AD, Aharon Blum signed a contract to purchase land in Tanib, in the Madaba region, for the settlement of Jews in eastern Jordan.

■ October 1910 AD, Najib al-Asfar's project for Jewish settlement in the Ottoman princely lands in the Jordan Valley

■ On February 15, 1917 AD, the Zionist movement announced through the "Palestine of Palestine" the borders of the national home it aspired to.

■ On June 28, 1919, the Zionist movement announced its strong protest against the separation of Transjordan from Palestine and expressed the importance of Transjordan for the future of the Jewish state in Palestine

■ July 13, 1928 AD, Pinhas Rotenberg presented to the British commissioner Henry Cox his plan for the Jewish settlement in the lands of Al-Baqura east of Jordan

■ January 18, 1931 AD, The New York Times publishes a land lease agreement in Ghor Kebd.

■ March 8, 1936 AD, Pinhas Rothenberg presented his plan for the Jewish settlement in Wadi Zarqa, east of Jordan

■ August 15, 1936 AD, a meeting was held in Ghor al-Safi for members of a Jewish group to discuss the plan for the Jewish settlement in the al-Safi Valley in eastern Jordan

Outside of Pinhas Rutenberg, I have never heard of any of these plans. But I found Aharon Yitzchak Blum did indeed attempt to buy lands across the Jordan and even founded an organization called "חברת חלוצי עבר הירדן", Association of Pioneers of the Transjordan.

This may be a very neglected chapter of Zionist history. I found this paper in Hebrew about Blum that begins with confirmation that there were many Jewish attempts to settle across the Jordan as well as the resistance of the local tribes.

In the second half of the nineteenth century and in the first half of the present century, until close to the establishment of the state, organizations, institutions, individuals and sometimes even private entrepreneurs made attempts to acquire land for settlement across the Jordan. ...There was no hesitation about moving across the Jordan; It was, like the West Bank, part of the Ottoman Empire and was perceived in the minds of the many as an integral part of the land, the land of the patriarchs, emphasizing the acuteness of the security problem there, due to the Bedouin ruling the land. The idea of settlement there was intertwined with political ideas, both during the Ottoman rule - to establish Jewish autonomy - and of a desire - especially during the rule of the French and British Mandates - to secure the full territory of the country.

There may be lands in Jordan that were purchased by Jews who were ethnically cleansed by the Arab tribes!

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!

07/20 Links Pt2: International Support and Opposition to Establishing the Jewish State; David Collier: Palestinian lies – built upon Jewish blood; Israel is a nation of Middle Easterners

From Ian:

Book Review | Israel’s Moment: International Support and Opposition to Establishing the Jewish State, 1945-194

Herf’s book forensically demolishes the myth that the West set out to create Israel to promote its interests. Rather, he demonstrates how fragile support for the Jewish state was within the West. That support was mobilised not by imperialist interests but by leftist forces who remained influenced by the anti-Nazi struggle. Israel owes its existence to a combination of social democrats and liberals in the West and the communist Soviet Union.

Israel was established on the cusp of the Cold War. Both the United States and the USSR supported the United Nations partition plan, which was the last time the superpowers would agree on a key strategic issue for decades. At the same time the Jewish struggle for self-determination against British Imperialism was supported diplomatically and militarily by the USSR and its satellites, a pattern that followed all subsequent anti-colonial revolts. It was simultaneously the last act of the war-time alliance and the first act of the Cold War. This is what Jeffrey Herf calls Israel’s Moment.

Herf’s compelling new book tells the story of this process mainly from the viewpoint of the United States but with critical material on France. He has mined government archives and the debates in the contemporary media. He demonstrates quite conclusively that the creation of Israel was not the result of an Imperialist plot. It was in fact created in the teeth of opposition from the United States diplomatic and security establishment, the US oil companies, the French Foreign Ministry and the British Labour government. Support for the Jewish state came mainly from progressive circles in the West and communist bloc.

Israel’s Moment explores a historical period that has become entangled in ideological revisionism. The United States, despite supporting the partition resolution, imposed an arms embargo much to the disadvantage of the Jews and then Israel (292-332). It also began to row back on partition suggesting a United Nations Trusteeship (281-283) and during the first Arab-Israel war thought Israel was unreasonable in not giving up the Negev to Transjordan (408-413). Today, of course, this is airbrushed from the record. The USSR on the other hand which had been the most consistent supporter of the creation of the Jewish state throughout this critical period soon began to erase this history as it embarked on the anti-Zionist campaign against Jewish communists in Eastern Europe and moved to ally with the Arab cause after the 1952 Egyptian Revolution. This dual turn by the superpowers has fed some on the left to believe that the United States was Israeli’s architect and the Soviet Union had always championed the Palestinians. Herf systematically produces evidence to show how the United States was at most a faltering ally of Israel and frequently tried to undermine it. The Soviet Union, on the other hand the most consistent and decisive supporter of the Jewish state in 1947 and 1948.

Israel is a nation of Middle Easterners

In 1881, some 15 years before Theodor Herzl wrote The Jewish State, the seminal work of modern Zionism, Jewish families in Yemen made the 3,000-kilometer journey from the southern tip of the Arabian Peninsula to the Ottoman Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem. For once, the plight of Jews driven from Arab countries, and Israel’s Middle Eastern character, are central to this National Review mainstream piece by Andrew Doran.

Jew-hatred continues to be profitable for jihadis, corrupt dictators, human-rights groups, and professors. It hasn’t, however, been profitable for the people of the Middle East. (In the West Bank, I met a businessman who had to lay off Palestinian workers when BDS blocked his exports to Europe.) The Arab streets are filled with people sick of corruption, inefficiency, and lack of opportunity. Many Arabs come to see that trade opportunities with Israel will benefit the Middle East. As commerce with Israel becomes more common, Arabs will come into contact with many Israelis whose families were driven out of the Arab world decades ago. It is a community about which many Arabs know nothing, because the history hasn’t been told.

Few Jews remain in the Arab Middle East, and few countries have followed the king of Bahrain, who years ago implored expat Bahraini Jews to return. The heart of the Jewish Middle East today is in Israel. Some, like Ran’s family, returned in the spirit of Zionism before Zionism was an established movement. That longing to see Jerusalem kept the faithful awake at the ends of the earth for millennia. Three times daily they faced Jerusalem, prayed, and longed to return; no ritual was free of remembrance of Jerusalem. As one friend put it, “Zionism before Zionism is Judaism.”

Of course, not everyone agrees with the characterization that Israel is an essentially Middle Eastern nation, including friend and former State Department policy-planning director Peter Berkowitz. “Israel has become a strange mix,” he told me on this trip. “An outpost of the West in the Middle East, an extension of the Middle East into the West. I sometimes think of Tel Aviv as a Mediterranean beach town with the Middle East beginning about nine miles to the east.” Indeed, the distance between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem seems greater than its geography suggests — two worlds that exist in fraternal competition, the Hellenic and the Maccabean, the Sephardi Zionist on the Mediterranean, the anti-Zionist ultra-Orthodox Ashkenazim of the Jerusalem Hills. The tensions would seem irreconcilable but for the constant process of reconciliation and renewal.

Few could have imagined what Israel has become. Herzl was one of the few. One might say that he foresaw even the spirit of the Abraham Accords when he wrote, “The world will be freed by our liberty, enriched by our wealth, magnified by our greatness. And whatever we attempt there to accomplish for our own welfare, will react powerfully and beneficially for the good of humanity.”

The problems of the Middle East don’t come, as many argue, from the existence of Israel. On the contrary, the people of this tiny nation, on the Mediterranean but very much of the Middle East, quietly longs for peace with its neighbors. In the years to come, the states of the region will have the choice not merely of life or death but of peace or failure.

David Collier: Palestinian lies – built upon Jewish blood

The fake narrative

These posts go viral for several reasons. The first, as with the coin, manhole, licence and soccer team – is to suggest that ‘Palestine’ existed, happy and glorious – before the Jews stole it.

The second is that Israel is planning to build a settlement called ‘Atarot’ on the site:
Devoid of any real national story, there are two periods the Palestinians rely on for their fake ‘history’. The first is the Palestine Mandate, a land the British only called ‘Palestine’ because for them it was the romantically notional name given to the Christian ‘Holy Land’. The other is the Jordanian occupation between 1949-1967.

The airport covers both these periods. The false narrative being sold here is that the Israelis invaded, captured, and stole the airport from the Palestinians. And now they want to build on it – thus erasing the glorious Palestinian history from the map.

As you will see – rarely has a package contained so much bunkum.

What really happened
In 1912 land was purchased by ‘Hachsharat Hayeshuv’ – the *Zionist* ‘Palestine Land Development Company‘. This was before the British even arrived. The intention was to set up a farming village outside Jerusalem.

The Jews abandoned the first attempt to settle the land during WW1, probably in fear either of Ottoman oppression or military conscription. The Ottomans viewed Jews as ‘enemy’ (as an example Jewish communities in Tel Aviv were expelled at this time).

They returned in 1919 and in 1923 the JNF purchased a further 384 dunams to expand the Moshav. It was named ‘Atarot‘ after a biblical settlement that was believed to have existed in the area.

The British wanted to build a small airstrip near their seat of power in Jerusalem – and they began to expropriate the Moshav’s lands.

In 1926 and 1931 the British uprooted trees, destroyed crops, tore down buildings and restricted any further growth of the Moshav.

The fields and trees they destroyed were part of the livelihood of the Jewish village.

The British issued driver's license in the photo has Hebrew writing that includes an Alef & Yud, which stand for the words *Eretz Yisrael* (the land of Israel)

Yet 11,700 people liked a Tweet that literally proves the opposite of what this person is saying. https://t.co/fo0rMC7sx5
— Joel M. Petlin (@Joelmpetlin) July 19, 2022

Book Review: Protocols: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (Judean Rose)

Protocols: Exposing Modern Antisemitism posed an interesting problem for this once-a-week book reader. It is my habit to read books only on the Sabbath, when my computer is shut down for the duration. Since it is the Shabbat, when writing and drawing are forbidden, the use of a highlighter is similarly off-limits. How then, can one mark important passages for future reference, especially when there is something important on pretty much every page? That was the conundrum this writer encountered while reading the absorbing new read by Elder of Ziyon.

In general, the answer to my Sabbath "problem" of how to mark pages for future reference, is lots and lots of paper scraps, recycled from old printouts. I cut the paper into strips before Shabbat, and slip the resulting scraps of paper between the pages of the books I read. Then all I have to do is hope I can later figure out whether it was the page on the left, or the page on the right that had the important passage, marked as it is, by only a flimsy paper placeholder. After Shabbat, I remove the paper scraps one at a time and type out the page numbers on a document which I then save to my computer.

The problem with reading this particular book, written by Elder of Ziyon—by way of disclaimer, the host of this, my weekly column—is that I found myself slipping tiny pieces of paper between most of the pages. Everything I read seemed something worth remembering and revisiting. At a certain point, though armed with sufficient scraps of paper, I had to admit defeat: I could find nothing superfluous in Elder’s book.

There were things I didn’t know about before reading Protocols: Exposing Modern Antisemitism. The writer has a clear and impressive command of his subject matter. As one small example, I had never heard of the Jerusalem Declaration, an attempt to modify the IHRA definition of antisemitism to exclude all criticism of Israel. The writer informs, but often it is the way he frames his thoughts that catches the reader’s attention:

“What other state, based on a national group, is ever told to destroy itself?”

This is a new way of viewing an old and very tired story of hatred.

New perspectives are always good, but Protocols also succeeds on the strength of the writing. In his prolific daily tweets, scoops, and blogs, Elder of Ziyon is distinguished by his economy of words. In his book on modern antisemitism however, the writer reveals his eloquence, as in this brief history of antisemitism:

Pharaoh saw Hebrews as a fifth column. Haman said the Jews didn’t respect the King’s laws. Antiochus said the Jews refused to assimilate. Christians said Jews killed their god. Jews stood accused of killing Gentiles, especially children. Jews charged interest on loans. Jews lived apart. Jews tried to assimilate and take over nations. Jews spread capitalism. Jews spread communism. Jews were a subhuman race.

One of the great things about Protocols is that it is an accessible read. It isn’t difficult to understand. That’s because Elder is good at breaking things down for the reader. He uses plain talk for example, to explain the various types of antisemitism (philosophical, social, racial, and etc.) and how each type justifies its own brand of hate:

There are always “reasons” to hate Jews. The reasons are invariably garbage. But the excuses have a function, which is to have something on which to hang hatred of Jews and not feel like a bigot.

Protocols is based on sound and thorough research, making it a good resource and reference book for anyone. At the same time, Elder can explain difficult concepts in ways that are easy for any reader to understand. The average person may not know much about BDS. Elder presents BDS from a broader perspective, by providing information readers might otherwise never have heard or been exposed to:

BDS disregard for actual Palestinian welfare goes well beyond Israel and the territories. Palestinians in Lebanon who have lived there since the 1950s are barred, by law, from many jobs. They cannot buy land. They cannot build new housing even in overcrowded camps. Yet one would be hard-pressed to find a BDS advocate who demands that Lebanon offer basic human rights protection to their Palestinian residents. On the contrary, Lebanese bigotry against Palestinians is ignored and silenced, since the BDS narrative sees Israel as the only evil that may be discussed.

One of the best things about Protocols is that it is not hampered by political correctness. The writer is unafraid to discuss, for example, black and Hispanic antisemitism. Because the phenomenon exists, Elder gives us the numbers, all properly sourced and footnoted:

Some 22% of blacks and 14% of Hispanic in America are antisemitic, according to a 2013 ADL poll. How exactly, can racism and antisemitism be tackled together when the victims of each consider the others to be the oppressors?

Reading a book like this, on such a difficult and often emotional topic, one is struck by the integrity of the writer. He does not shy away from the truth, and he is not going to lie. In fact it was Elder's integrity that motivated this writer to approach him in 2016 for a spot on his blog, a decision I have never regretted. One can feel clean writing from this small corner of the internet: the Elder of Ziyon blog. The book is a perfect echo of the blog in this respect. It's a clean read. You don't have to sift through bias to get to the facts.

Protocols offers ample illustration that by definition, antisemites have kicked intellectual honesty to the curb. This comes through loud and clear in the concluding paragraph of the chapter entitled “Judith Butler’s fundamental dishonesty.”

No one is silencing anyone. All questions about Israel should be asked and forthrightly answered. But Butler doesn’t just ask questions—she attacks the very idea of Jews as people having the same rights as other people to self-determination. She disingenuously characterizes her criticisms as merely asking questions: she has no interest in the answers which an honest academic would welcome. She singles out Israel for vitriol way out of proportion to the supposed crimes to the point that it is the only state in the world assumed to be illegitimate. That isn’t debate, but hate—hate identical to that aimed at Jews throughout history, hate that also was justified as merely asking questions.

The point of Protocols, it seems to me, is that agree or disagree, one has to look at things and see what there is. It’s basic. Intellectual honesty demands no less from us than the willingness to look at everything. This seems as good a guide as any on how to understand critics and criticism of Israel. Those who criticize Israel but refuse to look at facts, are antisemites plain and simple, for their criticisms are founded on hate, alone.

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!

This TikTok video shows a large assembly at the Anata Secondary School east of Jerusalem, where students play-acted a kidnapping of religious Jews.

This is the Palestinian version of woke.

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!

07/20 Links Pt1: Caroline Glick: The strategic fallout of Biden’s failure; When Iran Says ‘Death to Israel,’ It Means It; Biden Administration Funds Anti-Israel Curricula, Hate Messages

From Ian:

Caroline Glick: The strategic fallout of Biden’s failure

States that support Palestinian-centric diplomacy include Jordan and Qatar, and of course also the Palestinian Authority also supports it. All of these are harsh opponents of the Abraham Accords. Indeed, they condemned them. Jordan does not view Iran as a threat. Hamas and to a degree the Palestinian Authority view Iran as a sponsor and ally. And Qatar is Iran’s close ally and partner.

All the same, the Biden administration’s policy is to bring the two sides together. The first sign of this came with Secretary of State Anthony Blinken’s visit to Israel and the Palestinian Authority in March. At the time, Blinken tried to force the foreign ministers of the Abraham Accord nations to bring the Palestinians into their deliberations. He failed.

But rather than walk away, the administration has doubled down. They have sought to bring Iranian allies and proxies Qatar and Iraq, as well as Jordan, into the regional air defense alliance that the United States seeks to create through CENTCOM. But bringing Qatar and Iraq into the alliance means emptying the alliance of all meaning. Similarly, Biden seeks to bring Jordan and the P.A., which oppose the Abraham Accords, into the summits of Abraham Accord partners, a move that would, again, gut the accords and reduce them to strategic incoherence, at best.

Immediately after Biden left Jeddah empty-handed, Egypt and the UAE beat a path to Tehran’s door looking to reopen their embassies and formally reinstate relations with a state pledged to their destruction. With the U.S. effectively batting for Iran’s team, they need to explore their options.

All of this, of course, is devastating for Israel, on every level. The move Israel has to make is fairly obvious. Israel needs to pander to the Biden administration just as emptily as Biden and his hostile advisers pander to Israel. And then they need to pursue policies that actually defend Israel’s interests.

Unfortunately, our caretaker leaders, Prime Minister Yair Lapid and Defense Minister Benny Gantz, are doing no such thing.

For reasons that have nothing to do with strategic rationality or reality, both men are apparently operating under the impression that Israel is required to advance policies towards the Palestinians and Iran that are devastating to Israel’s existential security interests.

Israel has apparently no plan to attack Iran’s nuclear installations, despite the fact that we are at crunch time. We have no policy to defend or preserve the Abraham Accords. Indeed, both Gantz and Lapid seem to have no clear understanding of the accords’ purpose or rationale. It’s hard to know whether their positions are based on ideological blindness or simple incompetence. Both men have demonstrated both, and in similar ways.

But all the same, Biden’s cataclysmically failed visit, which was followed immediately by Russian President Vladimir Putin’s triumphant visit to Tehran on Monday, means that Israel has no time for its leaders to learn remedial statecraft.

Biden’s pandering was irritating and insulting. But it’s the devastating substance of his policies that is truly alarming. Israel has to stand up for itself now, because nothing it says, no pandering on its part, will change America’s trajectory.

Gil Troy: Biden actually did a good job in Israel

Admittedly, I would have preferred to see unanimity between Israel and Biden. I toast Biden’s growing awareness regarding the dangers of Iran’s sick quest for nukes and its evil Revolutionary Guards, yet I cringed when Biden’s staff removed Israel’s flag from his limousine before entering east Jerusalem. (As a presidential historian, I deem this an unnecessary error: the limousine should fly only two flags everywhere – America’s and the president’s seal.)

Nevertheless, these minor frictions reinforced the broader message of a friendship resilient enough to absorb policy differences.

HERE IS where Biden’s age is a factor – for the good. Born in 1942 to pious, patriotic Catholics, Biden grew up understanding that, as he said, “the ancient roots of the Jewish people [in Israel] date back to biblical times,” and the once homeless Jews deserve a national home. Biden’s sympathy for Zionism contrasts with the Israel-bashers, both Jewish and non-Jewish, who echo today’s trendy vocabulary of delegitimization, sloppily and cruelly applying a critique of Western imperialism to Jews’ unique story.

Biden’s pro-Zionism contrasts with woke extremists like the Democratic member of Congress, Cori Bush, who on Saturday attended a fundraiser organized by Neveen Ayesh. The government relations coordinator for the St. Louis chapter of American Muslims for Palestine, Ayesh has tweeted out filth saying “I tried befriending a Jew once. Worst idea ever” and “I want to set Israel on fire with my own hands & watch it burn to ashes along with every Israeli in it.”

But Biden’s mature example also resists the silliness of Peace Now, which hung a huge poster in Tel Aviv proclaiming – in Hebrew – “welcome to the two states we love the most.” As the election campaign intensifies, and people wonder why Israel’s Left lacks credibility, remember that sign.

Beyond the obvious facts that Biden doesn’t speak Hebrew and the “state” of Palestine doesn’t exist, the entities currently representing Palestinians are corrupt, terrorist-addicted, dictatorships, fueled on anti-Jew hatred, abusing their own people in the West Bank and Gaza, and particularly hostile to Zionists – as well as fellow Palestinians advancing American liberal-democratic ideals. Ignoring those realities, falsely equating your own democratic country with its authoritarian enemies, confuses peacemaking with breast-beating.

Pit stop
Admittedly, a cynical British friend of mine was correct. Biden’s Israel visit was a most elaborate rest stop on the way to the Saudi Arabian “petrol station.” Still, Biden done good. He showed Democrats at home – and peaceniks in Israel – how to recognize the eternal ideals that make Israel Israel and link Americans and Israelis in our unique and mutually beneficial bond. For that, we should say, “Toda raba! Thank you, Mr. President.”

Biden Administration Funds Anti-Israel Curricula, Hate Messages

US taxpayer money, thanks to the Biden administration, is now once again going directly to an international agency that promotes messages of hate against Israel and denies its right to exist.

The claim that the UNRWA services contribute to maintaining regional stability is not only false, but, sadly, ridiculous.

On the contrary, most of the refugee camps have since become hotbeds for extremist and terrorist groups and individuals, especially in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Lebanon and Syria.

A study published earlier in early July.... found that children attending UNRWA schools are exposed to textbooks that include references to violence, martyrdom, overt antisemitism, jihad (holy war), rejection of the possibility of peace with Israel, and the complete omission of any historical Jewish presence in the region.

"[W]e found material that does not adhere to international standards and that encourages violence, jihad and martyrdom, antisemitism, hate, and intolerance...." — IMPACT-se study, July 2022.

Instead of pressuring UNRWA to change its policies and stop the anti-Israel incitement in its schools, the Biden administration has decided to reward the agency for encouraging hate, violence, martyrdom and the delegitimization and demonization of Israel and Jews.

The Biden administration, in short, has just sent a message to the Palestinians and all the Israel-haters that it supports their efforts and shares their dream of obliterating Israel.

Those who fund school textbooks that glorify terrorists and deny Israel's right to exist are complicit in the global jihad against Israel.

By Daled Amos

President Biden likes to recount his face-to-face confrontations with world leaders and how he gave them a piece of his mind.

Biden says that just this past week, he gave Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman a tongue lashing that he will not soon forget:

President Biden said he confronted Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) directly Friday about the 2018 murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, telling him in a “straightforward and direct” way that the killing was unacceptable and “making clear what I thought of it at the time and what I think of it now.”
The crown prince, who is the de facto ruler of Saudi Arabia, “basically said that he was not personally responsible for it,” Biden recounted. “I indicated that I thought he was.”

That account is from The Washington Post, which then goes on to quote Princess Reema bint Bandar bin Sultan, Saudi ambassador to the US, who confirmed that Biden did in fact bring up Khashoggi's murder, though not in as confrontational a way as Biden claimed:

It was candid, it was honest, it was open. And what I found profoundly refreshing is the president said, "I just need to be clear and direct with you," and the crown prince said, "I welcome you being clear, candid and direct, because that’s the way that we move forward.”

But Fox News quotes the Saudi Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Adel al-Jubeir that Biden did not bring up the topic of Khashoggi at all:

"I didn't hear that particular phrase," al-Jubeir said. "The President mentioned that the US is committed to human rights because since the founding fathers wrote the constitution and he also made the point that American presidents -- this is part of the agenda of every American president."

So -- did Biden directly confront MBS face-to-face on Khashoggi's murder or not?

Writing for The New York Times, Peter Baker writes about Biden's collection of stories about how he has confronted dictators

Mr. Biden is by nature a storyteller with a penchant for embellishment. He has often told the story of meeting President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia in 2011 as vice president and telling him, “I’m looking into your eyes, and I don’t think you have a soul.” Others present at the time had no memory of that specific exchange.
Mr. Biden has similarly described an unvarnished confrontation in 1993 with Slobodan Milosevic, the Serbian nationalist leader who unleashed an ethnic war in the Balkans. “I think you’re a damn war criminal and you should be tried as one,” Mr. Biden, then a senator, related having told Mr. Milosevic, according to a 2007 memoir, “Promises to Keep.” Some other people in the room later said they did not recall that line.
Mr. Biden likes presenting himself as standing up to dictators and crooked figures. Another favorite story stemmed from a meeting with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan in 2008, when the Afghan leader denied that his government was awash in corruption. Mr. Biden said he grew so irritated that he threw down his napkin, declared, “This dinner is over,” and stormed out.
Often, others in the room for such sessions say that some version of what Mr. Biden has described did take place, only not with quite as much camera-ready theatricality.

So when he claims he did not hear Biden berate MBS to the degree the president claims, al-Jubeir is in good company.

Actually, Baker may have forgotten an example.

Here is Biden speaking at the Foreign Affairs Issue Launch on January 23, 2018, talking about his time as vice president when he warned that he would cut off $1 billion in aid to Ukraine:

And I was supposed to announce that there was another billion-dollar loan guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and from Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor. And they didn’t.

So they said they had—they were walking out to a press conference. I said, nah, I’m not going to—or, we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You’re not the president. The president said—I said, call him. (Laughter.) I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a b***h. (Laughter.) He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time. [emphasis added]

Here too, all we have is Biden's account of events -- and Biden is actually being modest about the pressure he put on Ukraine. According to Tablet Magazine, a highly placed source confirmed that it was also Biden who pressured Ukraine into voting 'yes' on UN Resolution 2334 which declared that Jewish settlements in the West Bank (including the Old City of Jerusalem) were in violation of international law.

But in fact, we have an example on the record when Biden actually did angrily confront a world leader -- Menachem Begin, prime minister of Israel.

The Begin Center Diary blog has the full text of an article in The Jerusalem Post by Moshe Zak, written on March 13, 1992, describing how Biden, when he was a Senator, lost his temper with Israeli PM Menachem Begin during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing:

During that committee hearing, at the height of the Lebanon War, Sen. John Biden (Delaware) had attacked Israeli settlements in Judea and Samaria and threatened that if Israel did not immediately cease this activity, the US would have to cut economic aid to Israel.

When the senator raised his voice and banged twice on the table with his fist, Begin commented to him: "This desk is designed for writing, not for fists. Don't threaten us with slashing aid. Do you think that because the US lends us money it is entitled to impose on us what we must do?

We are grateful for the assistance we have received, but we are not to be threatened. I am a proud Jew. Three thousand years of culture are behind me, and you will not frighten me with threats. Take note: we do not want a single soldier of yours to die for us." [emphasis added]

But ironically, in this case, where there is a clear example of Biden giving an ultimatum to a world leader, Biden himself is eager to deny that it ever happened. Sarah Honig of the Jerusalem Post writes:

Back 1982, Senator Biden (D-Delaware) threatened to cut off aid to Israel. In subsequent years he hotly denied this but Prime Minister Menachem Begin’s late right-hand man Yechiel Kadisha’i unequivocally confirmed Biden’s bullying in many conversations we held. [emphasis added]

News reports at the time seem to confirm the ultimatum. On June 23, 1982, The New York Times reported Mood Is 'Angry' As Begin Meets Panel Of Senate

The bitterest exchange was said to have been between Mr. Begin and Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., Democrat of Delaware, who told the Israeli leader that he was not critical of the Lebanon operation but felt that Israel had to halt the policy of establishing new Jewish settlements in the West Bank. He said Israel was losing support in this country because of the settlements policy. [emphasis added]

There is no mention of threats from Biden about the settlements, just anger. According to this account in The New York Times, instead of threatening to take action, Biden was warning Begin about the prospect that Israel would lose support in the US.

But on the very next day, on June 24, The New York Times reported further details:

Reporting on his meetings with the members of Congress, Mr. Begin said one of the senators had threatened to cut off aid if Israel continued creating settlements in the West Bank. The senator is reported to have been Joseph R. Biden Jr., Democrat of Delaware. [emphasis added]

So which was it: did Biden warn that Israel was facing the prospect of losing support or was Biden threatening that he, himself, would see to it that aid would be cut off?

Time Magazine also recounts the confrontation between Biden and Begin:

Senator Joseph Biden, a Delaware Democrat, jabbing his finger at Begin, warned that U.S. support for Israel was eroding. Begin shouted back: "Don't threaten us with cutting off aid to give up our principles! [emphasis added]

The Time Magazine account allows for the possibility that Biden was not actually warning that he would cut aid. He was pointing out that US opposition to the settlements could lead to the loss of US support. Begin saw Biden's comments, made in anger, as an ultimatum to cut aid.

Begin's own account of what happened also seems to indicate that Biden's "threat" was less than explicit. Yisrael Medad quotes on his blog My Right Word the now-deleted page from the website of Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which gives Begin's own account of the incident in his own words:

He [Biden] hinted - more than hinted - that if we continue with this policy, it is possible that he will propose cutting our financial aid. And to this I gave him a clear answer: Sir, do not threaten us with cutting aid.

There is no record of what Biden actually said, but even according to Begin there was no explicit threat. But whatever Biden said, it apparently hinted that more than just an erosion of support was at stake. And that Biden himself could have a role in it.

So to recap:

o Moshe Zak article: Biden "threatened that if Israel did not immediately cease this activity, the US would have to cut economic aid to Israel."
o The New York Times (June 23, 1982): Biden "said Israel was losing support in this country because of the settlements policy."
o The New York Times: (June 24, 1982): "Mr. Begin said one of the senators had threatened to cut off aid if Israel continued creating settlements in the West Bank."
o Time Magazine: Biden "warned that U.S. support for Israel was eroding. Begin shouted back: "Don't threaten us with cutting off aid to give up our principles!"
o Menachem Begin: "He [Biden] hinted - more than hinted - that if we continue with this policy, it is possible that he will propose cutting our financial aid. And to this I gave him a clear answer: Sir, do not threaten us with cutting aid."

Even according to the Moshe Zak article, which seems to be the main source usually cited, the warning was that the US would cut off aid -- not that Biden would personally see to it.

Even according to Begin's personal account, whatever it was that Biden specifically said, it only hinted at the loss of aid -- it was not an explicit threat.

According to Time Magazine, whatever Biden said about the erosion of US support led Begin to understand it as a threat and call it that on the spot in front of everyone.

Based on The New York Times article from June 24, it seems that reports of the "threat" are based on Begin's account to the media.

Whatever actually happened, Biden could have responded immediately when it was clear that Begin understood what he said as an ultimatum. He could have assured Begin in from of everyone that he was not making any threat. Biden did not do that. Nor did he seem to respond immediately in the press to Begin's account of what happened.

Without a transcript of what transpired, there is no way to be sure what exactly Biden said, whether it was said as an ultimatum, and what exactly he was warning would happen. But it does seem possible that under the pressure of the moment, Begin responded to something that was not an explicit threat.

Which is not surprising.

As Moshe Zak himself pointed out:

And not only with Carter, but at all his meetings with heads of state and government, Begin customarily replied with direct, frank words against anything he perceived as harming Israel's interests or honor. [emphasis added]

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!

What does UNIFIL do in Lebanon? A TikTok video indicates, not too much.

UNIFIL, the UN peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon, released a TikTok video to show what a typical day looks like for one of its soldiers.

The answer is...outside marching down the Blue Line, not much.

Of course, this is not entirely fair. Their regular reports to the UN show that UNIFIL does do lots of things, mostly to support the Lebanese Armed Forces, although they do nothing to help disarm Hezbollah. Every report includes a paragraph like this:

No progress was achieved with regard to the disarmament of armed groups. Hizbullah continued to acknowledge publicly that it maintained military capabilities. The maintenance of arms outside the control of the State by Hizbullah and other groups in violation of resolution 1701 (2006) continued to restrict the State’s ability to exercise full sovereignty and authority over its territory.

One thing I didn't know is that the Trump administration made some efforts to turn UNIFIL into a more useful organization. The Congressional Research Service notes:

U.S. Administrations have disagreed over the mission and size of UNIFIL. Some U.S. officials have described UNIFIL as a stabilizing presence in southern Lebanon, stating that Hezbollah strikes across the Blue Line have significantly decreased since UNSCR 1701 (2006) increased UNIFIL’s troop ceiling from 2,000 to 15,000. A former U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon has noted that “UNIFIL’s value in constraining Hezbollah comes down to its size. Through sheer numbers, it essentially saturates the south. Even if it can evade UNIFIL scrutiny at times, as the tunnels show, Hezbollah does not have the almost complete freedom of movement in the south that it enjoyed under ‘old’UNIFIL.”

In contrast, the Trump Administration asserted that UNIFIL “patrols and checkpoints are of plainly limited use when offending parties can simply hide weapons and tunnel entrances on so-called ‘private property.’” The United States and Israel accused Hezbollah of hiding weapons in violation of UNSCR 1701, and pushed for the addition of language to UNIFIL’s mandate that would allow UNIFIL to access and search private property for illicit Hezbollah weapons. Trump Administration officials criticized the government of Lebanon for not facilitating UNIFIL access to key sites, such as the Lebanese origin points of Hezbollah underground tunnels that cross into Israel.

In response to U.S. pressure, additional provisions were added to annual resolutions reauthorizing UNIFIL’s mandate. In 2017, U.S. officials successfully advocated for language requiring UNIFIL to notify the Security Council whenever it encountered roadblocks or other obstacles; these incidents are now noted in regular U.N. Secretary General reports on the implementation of UNSCR 1701. In 2019, the Security Council approved U.S.-proposed language calling for the Secretary-General to assess the effectiveness of UNIFIL; the resulting report highlighted several structural weaknesses. In August 2020 the Security Council voted to reauthorize UNIFIL but also reduced UNIFIL’s maximum force strength from 15,000 to 13,000 troops. Then-U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Kelly Craft stated, “The reduction of the ceiling from 15,000 troops to 13,000 is an important step toward right-sizing a mission that has for years been over-resourced given the limits on its freedom of movement and access.”

The private property issue is serious, and it is not all UNIFIL's fault. The Lebanese Armed Forces do not let UNIFIL enter private roads or property, although it appears that UNIFIL does do some aerial reconnaissance of some private property.

Hezbollah, meanwhile, boasts of over 100,000 missiles, many of them high-precision, and UNIFIL cannot or will not do anything about those.

UNIFIL does have a band, though.

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!

Rabbi Jacob Herzog, the self-proclaimed "chief rabbi of Saudi Arabia," posted a photo of himself outside an ancient Muslim graveyard called the "Martyrs of Uhud" cemetery in Medina. He tweeted in Arabic:

I stand to pray for mercy for the soul of Mukhareq Ibn al-Nadir, the Jewish rabbi who stood with the Messenger Muhammad and defended him, fought and was martyred in the Battle of Uhud, and made his money an endowment. #Madinah

Mohammed had famously expelled all Jews from Medina when he defeated the three Jewish groups Bani Qaynuqa’, An-Nadir, and Qurayza. One of the angry comments about Rabbi Herzog's photo was, "The Prophet expelled the Jews from Medina, and Muhammad bin Salman, the crown prince, brought them back."

Another person worried, in response to the tweet, “Is this a justification for your settlement of a land and a region in Saudi Arabia with the excuse that it was the endowment of your Jewish ancestor?"

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!

07/19 Links Pt2: Radical left NGOs failed to follow law, owe millions in fines; Morningstar Relies on Research From Anti-Israel Org; J Street’s #metoo problem

From Ian:

Cary Nelson and Joe Lockard: The Modern Language Association, Antisemitism and Anti-Zionism

The MLA Executive Council have hit a new low by acting in secret, without notice and without membership approval, to conflate support for the IHRA definition of antisemitism with American racism. Cary Nelson, Professor Emeritus at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and Joe Lockard, associate professor of English at Arizona State University, set out the facts and call on MLA members to reform the organisation.

For many years, the Modern Language Association’s members voted overwhelmingly to reject resolutions condemning Israel. Now the MLA’s main governing body, the Executive Council, has joined with its Committee on Academic Freedom to endorse anti-Zionist complaints about the most widely adopted definition of contemporary antisemitism. Realising that the members would likely vote down their statement, the members of these two committees acted in secret, without notice and without membership approval.

We are both long-time MLA members, one of us since 1969, the other since the early 1990s. One, Cary Nelson, is a former member of the MLA Executive Council, as well as a former president and current lifetime member of the AAUP. We are deeply troubled by the MLA’s decision to do an end run around the membership and make a flawed understanding of antisemitism and Zionism part of the MLA’s public profile.

The definition at issue is the one adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) in 2016. In addition to misrepresenting the IHRA definition, they have joined the national American Association of University Professors (AAUP) in slandering those who find the IHRA definition’s examples helpful in understanding the contemporary world. Worse still, they link the IHRA definition with international racism: ‘Proponents of overly broad definitions of antisemitism and proponents of eliminating teaching about the history of racial and other violence share a desire to mobilise the government to enforce particular, emaciated accounts of history, harm, and injury.’ The AAUP and the MLA have conflated legislative efforts to block discussions of racism with a statement designed to do exactly the opposite: encourage discussions of antisemitism. Though the MLA leadership was not honest enough to complete the implicit equation, the intent is clear — to invoke the antisemitic claim that ‘Zionism is racism’.

To be clear: racism is the founding wound of US history and must be taught forthrightly throughout the educational system. Structural racism remains a potent force in many American institutions. We reject efforts to block the need to confront that history. Indeed, anti-racism has been foundational in our teaching and scholarship.

Radical left NGOs failed to follow law, owe millions in fines

Im Tirtzu's Research Division has released a report that shows 5,264 charity reports that do not meet the qualifications of the law. The fines that these radical left non-governmental organizations (NGOs) should, by law, receive for these reporting infractions total more than 150,000,000 shekels.

The law was originally passed as a way to provide the public with clarity on which NGOs are receiving foreign government support. Since the inception of the law through 2021, approximately 74% of reports filed by these NGOS did not meet the law's requirements.

However, the Ministry of Justice has not been enforcing the law.

Alon Schvartzer, Head of the Research Division of Im Tirtzu, explains, "In Israel there are NGOs that receive most of their funding from foreign governments, mainly European, as well as the United Nations and the European Union. Between 2012-2021 NGOs that are usually identified as leftist and many that are far-left groups have received more than 750 million shekels in foreign funding. These include, 'B'Tselem,' that received 63 million shekels, 'Yesh Din' and 'Hamoked,' that each received 50 million shekels, and, 'Breaking the Silence,' which has received 35 million shekels."

"These NGOs all share the goal of opposing or uprooting Zionist values. Their agenda is to mislead the Israeli media and legal divisions to act against the will of the Israeli public regarding topics such as the fight against terrorism, nationalism, immigration, military interventions, and more.

"The revelation of the agendas and the funding of these organizations was instrumental in the successful effort to have legislation passed in the Knesset that requires these organizations to disclose their funding from foreign governments. These laws were enacted in order to enable the Israeli public to identify Israeli organizations that are representing foreign interests."

Col Kemp: Special forces of Zionist youth

Watching the high school teens of Club Z in dialogue with pro- and anti-Zionists in Israel was an education in itself. Even the most ardently Zionist speakers approached their topics with caution, more used to American students that get triggered, fleeing to safe spaces and crying rooms, if faced with too strong a dose of the truth.

This lot had no use for safety and their tears were reserved for Rachel Frankel and Miriam Fuld who told stories of their loved ones brutally slaughtered by jihadist fanatics. Every speaker was left awestruck by the students’ unyielding stance, unexpected knowledge and deep-penetrating questions.

The anti-Zionists thought their words would elicit the standard sympathetic nods and murmurs, as they spun their halftruths and outright falsehoods to hand-wringing youths who would scurry back home and parrot them to gullible school friends.

Instead, they got an audience that saw straight through the tired narrative, and vigorously but politely pushed back against every fake tale of woe and fabricated legal recitation with the most powerful weapon in their armory: the truth.

Yes, they knew all about the Fourth Geneva Convention but unlike the self-proclaimed peace activists, fully equipped with bushy beards and patronizing clichés, they also knew it doesn’t come close to applying in Judea.

Nor, in contrast to many high school and college students, did they buy the flimsy, anonymous and unconvincing stories of IDF abuse that have been bought and paid for by foreign funds to undermine the legitimacy of Israel.

Until it was too late, the Israel-haters didn’t realize these kids are the special forces of Zionist youth. Preparing to face the antisemitic bile so prevalent on US campuses, they have been trained by experienced instructors while at high school and they practice their skills on the battlefields of Israel Apartheid Weeks and Jew-hating street demos. In Israel, they were on reconnaissance: seeing, hearing, touching and smelling the reality of the conflict for themselves.

Elder Comix: The history of the "apartheid" smear in one panel

With a special appearance by a young looking Ken Roth.

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!

Ever notice how antisemitic boycotts are meant to make other people sacrifice things, but the organizers never have to do without anything important?

Now, Jordanian antisemites are telling thousands of other Jordanians not to work in Israel, with good salaries and working conditions!

The group "I Move to Support the Resistance and Counter Normalization" (these groups always have really long names) warned Jordanian workers who had commuted to jobs in Eilat not to return as the jobs return, post-COVID.

Some 2000 hotel workers and 300 other workers from Jordan are slated to return to working in Israel on August 1.

In a statement issued by the group, they called not to go to work in Israel, as well as to boycott the recruitment companies in Jordan that act as go-betweens.

Ludicrously, the group is claiming that working in Israel with good salaries and decent working conditions "constitutes an exploitation of their conditions and their need to work, and includes labor violations that amount to human trafficking."

Hence, the logo above.

If the jobs are so exploitative, then no one has to accept them, do they?

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!