Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Sunday, August 07, 2022

08/07 Links: Gaza: The Usual Suspects Condemn Israel; How Israel shot down false reports on Jabaliya explosion; Amnesty is now utterly morally bankrupt

From Ian:

JPost Editorial: Operation Breaking Dawn was a long time in the making

Operation Breaking Dawn, which started on Friday, was a long time in the making.

Israel’s southern communities had been in a lockdown since last Tuesday after Israeli security forces arrested Palestinian Islamic Jihad senior member Bassam al-Saadi in Jenin. Good intelligence and careful preparation are obviously necessary to carry out such an arrest.

Residents of the South, who were held virtual hostages afterwards, now know why: Such intelligence and preparation also enabled the IDF on Friday to kill Islamic Jihad’s top commander in Gaza, Tayseer al-Jabari, in a precise operation and thwart a ticking time bomb: He was reportedly involved in planning imminent major attacks on Israel, including the use of lethal anti-tank missiles close to the border.

Jabari replaced Baha Abu Al-Ata, who was killed in a similar airstrike in November 2019. Other senior Islamic Jihad figures were killed in well-conducted strikes over the weekend, including Islamic Jihad’s southern division commander Khaled Mansour.

Although it is natural to compare the current round of fighting with terrorists in the Gaza Strip to last year’s Operation Guardian of the Walls – when Hamas launched an attack on Israel starting in the capital on Jerusalem Day in May 2021 – Operation Breaking Dawn so far seems to have more in common with Operation Black Belt in which Al-Ata was killed and Hamas chose not to get openly involved.

Responding to threats
But if Israel doesn’t forcibly respond to the threats of one terrorist organization, the other organizations driven by the same desire to harm the Jewish state will be emboldened. And that includes Hezbollah over Israel’s northern border with Lebanon as well as terror cells in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank).

Over the weekend, Islamic Jihad launched more than 350 rockets at Israel and many more were fired at the country yesterday. Although the United States and others issued initial statements of Israel’s right to self-defense, there were also immediate calls for Israel to prevent an escalation and in effect to stop responding.

Although Israel has the upper hand from a purely defensive viewpoint in this round of hostilities, like in previous ones, the Palestinians have the advantage when it comes to public relations and international sympathy. Whenever Israel justifiably responds to the indiscriminate firing of rockets – every one of them a war crime – by carrying out attacks against terrorist targets in Gaza, it is immediately and unfairly perceived as the aggressor rather than the victim.

Richard Kemp: Gaza: The Usual Suspects Condemn Israel

Commenting on the killing of Zawahiri, UN Secretary General's spokesman Stephane Dujarric said the UN was "committed to fighting against terrorism and strengthening international cooperation in countering that threat".

Of course it was a different story when Israel acted against Jabari. UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process Tor Wennesland was "deeply concerned" by "the targeted killing today of a Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader inside Gaza."

Israel has not claimed its operation in Gaza — codenamed Breaking Dawn — is to deter. The government has made it clear that the strikes were to prevent an imminent threat to the Israeli population. It had hard intelligence that PIJ, led by Jabari, was planning attacks across the border from Gaza. Protecting its people from violent external attack is not only permitted under international law, it is the duty of every government. If deterrence of such attacks were possible, Israel would have taken action to deter.

PIJ is an Iranian proxy, directed and funded to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Its leader, Ziad Nakhaleh, has been in Tehran for the last few days, meeting with his IRGC paymasters and other government officials including Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi.

As PIJ and its fellow jihadists have indiscriminately fired an estimated 400 missiles (at time of writing) at targets from Sderot to Tel Aviv since Operation Breaking Dawn began, the IDF has continued to launch precision strikes from the air and the ground to halt the attacks on Israeli citizens. Just as Israel's casus belli for attacking PIJ targets was lawful, it has taken the utmost care to ensure its continued strikes are also lawful, only attacking targets that are proportionate and necessary to the military objectives and giving warnings where civilian casualties could occur.

We can expect non-governmental organisations (NGOs) such as Human Rights Watch to pile on. Amnesty International, however, might be slightly more circumspect as they are at present gyrating from the widespread international reproach that greeted their just-published report condemning Ukraine's defensive actions, in which they again showed the total incomprehension of war and the laws of war that they often demonstrate in their denunciations of Israel.

Slavering for the last two days at the prospect of IDF-inflicted mass casualties, much of the media immediately and without any evidence eagerly pointed the finger at Israel over the tragic killing of seven people, including four children, in Jabalia camp in the Gaza Strip. They will undoubtedly try, but journalists and UN investigators will find it hard to refute the IDF's confirmation that they did not strike the location and have conclusive video and radar evidence that the deaths were caused by a misfired PIJ rocket, launched as so often from within the civilian population. This would certainly fit, as approximately a quarter of all terrorist rockets fired so far during this campaign have landed inside Gaza, not in Israel.

The Collapse of Islamic Jihad's Equations

Islamic Jihad leader Ziyad al-Nakhalah said during a television interview in Tehran that almost any time Israel attacks Gaza, all of the terrorist organizations rally to respond in unison. Yet Hamas has not fired a single rocket.

One Islamic Jihad spokesman told Lebanon's Al-Mayadeen network on Saturday that the commander of Islamic Jihad's northern region in Gaza wasn't killed due to superb intelligence acquired by Israel, but rather because he was intentionally deceived into going there by the Egyptian mediator in order "to finalize a cease-fire agreement with Israel" - implying "treasonous collaboration" between Cairo and Jerusalem.

Another spokesman said Hamas was completely in step with Islamic Jihad and a full partner in the rocket attacks against Israel, but that it was concealing this - reflecting Islamic Jihad's distress over being alone in this fight.

It's safe to assume that Hamas may see the "positive" aspects of the Israeli offensive: putting Islamic Jihad in its place, sending it a message that it isn't allowed to plot attacks against Israel without Hamas' approval, and making it obey the decisions that are made in Gaza, not in Tehran.

Ruthie Blum: Avoiding mention of Iran while urging Israeli restraint

Meanwhile, Israel made it clear to the PIJ that it was willing to end the fighting, but only if the calm is reciprocated. PIJ has said through mediators that one condition for its compliance is the release of Sa’adi—a demand that should not and will not be met.

None of this makes the slightest difference to the moral-equivalence choir, certainly not those at the United Nations, whose Israel-bashing knows no bounds. Indeed, contrary to Erdan’s false hopes, they are at the ready to sing their tired chorus of bogus accusations, regardless of other occurrences around the globe.

That Russia burst into its own aria is not surprising, of course, since anything that serves as a distraction from its blitzing of Ukraine is welcome in Moscow.

In a statement on Saturday, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova had an interesting slant on the events that are causing the Kremlin such “profound worry”: “The new escalation was caused by the Israeli army firing into the Gaza Strip on August 5, to which Palestinian groups responded by carrying out massive and indiscriminate bombardments on Israeli territory.”

Adding that her government was calling called on “all parties to show maximum restraint and work towards a ceasefire,” she said that Moscow reaffirms its “principled and consistent position, reflected in the relevant resolutions of the U.N. General Assembly and Security Council in support of a comprehensive and long-term settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in accordance with the two-state principle.”

Finally, she concluded, “It is possible to put an end to cyclical violence only within the framework of the negotiation process, the result of which should be the realization of the legitimate national rights of the Palestinian people to establish an independent state within the 1967 borders.”

She conveniently omitted key facts, such as Tehran’s role as sole bankroller of its proxy, PIJ. Hamas also receives money from Iran, but has other sources of income, as well.

Speaking of Iran, nuclear talks resumed in Vienna on Thursday between the Islamic Republic and the world powers hungry to return to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)—the disastrous 2015 nuclear deal that the mullah-led regime never adhered to in any case, and from which former U.S. President Donald Trump withdrew in 2018.

As Trump’s predecessor, Barack Obama, orchestrated the JCPOA, and his successor, Joe Biden, is as desperate to salvage it as Russian President Vladimir Putin, it is beneficial for them to leave Iran out of any discussion on Gaza. U.S. Ambassador to Israel Tom Nides, while giving a social-media nod to Israel’s “right to protect itself,” added to his tweet, “We are engaging with different parties and urge all sides for calm.”

Iran couldn’t be more pleased.

On Tisha B'Av, a story of how Jews infighting in the seventh century has worldwide implications, today

When Mohammed was starting his new religion, the Arabian peninsula had many Jewish tribes. A 2012 Aish article by Sarah Yocheved Rigler explains:

According to Dr. Hagai Mazuz, an Orientalist specializing in Arabic language, Islam, and Islamic culture, “The Jewish community of northern Arabia was one of the largest ancient Jewish communities in the history of the Jewish people.”

They were powerful and wealthy. They were respected by the local Arabian tribes for their religion, culture, erudition, and literacy. They built castles on mountaintops and developed productive plantations. They had military prowess, horses, and advanced weaponry. And they were almost totally annihilated in the short span of a few years.

The Jews of Medina were divided into three groups: The Banu Qaynuqa were blacksmiths, weapon wrights, and goldsmiths. The Banu Nadir had date plantations. The Banu QurayUa were wine merchants. These groups often quarreled. Sometimes the hostility among them broke out into actual fighting.

When Mohammed fled from Mecca in 622, he went to Medina. At first, he entered into an alliance with the Jews. He studied in their study halls and adopted many of their customs into his incipient religion (e.g. not eating pork). But when, after two years, Mohammed could not convince the Jews to accept him as a prophet and convert to his religion, his attitude turned toward open hostility. He instructed his friends to murder and decapitate Ka’b Ibn al-Ashraf, a renowned Jewish poet and chief of the Banu Nadir (date farmers tribe), and ordered his followers, “Kill every Jew you can.”

I had never heard that quote before, and the article points to an article in a popular Jewish history magazine. But I researched this and it is indeed a true quote from an Islamic source, Ibn Hishām’s biography of Muḥammad, quoted in this academic paper:

Ibn Isḥāq said: The Apostle of Allāh said: “Kill every Jew you can lay your hands on (man ẓafirtum bihi min rijāl yahūd fa-qtulūhu).” Whereupon Muḥayṣṣa b. Masʿūd attacked and killed Ibn Sunayna, one of the Jewish merchants that used to associate and do business with them.

The Aish article continues:

Mohammed then besieged the Banu Qaynuqa (blacksmith tribe), knowing that the other two Jewish tribes would not come to their aid. Although the Banu Qaynuqa were proficient warriors, the lack of food and water due to the siege weakened them to the point of surrender.

The other two Jewish tribes did nothing to save the Jewish blacksmiths. After the surrender, Mohammed wanted to slaughter the vanquished tribe, but his ally Abdullah Ibn Ubayyy prevented the massacre, and instead they were exiled to Edri (now in Jordan).

Mohammed confiscated their considerable assets. Strengthened by captured Jewish wealth, one year later Mohammed turned his attention to the next Jewish tribe, the date growers. To ensure that the tribe of the wine merchants would not come to the rescue of their fellow Jews, Mohammed made an alliance with the wine merchants.

Mohammed’s forces laid siege to the strongholds of the Jewish date farmers in 625. Like the previous Jewish tribe, they succumbed to the siege. Again Abdullah Ibn Ubayyy intervened, and instead of slaughtering the vanquished Jews, Mohammed exiled them to the city of Khaybar, which, according to Muslim tradition, was inhabited by descendants of the Jewish priestly tribe.

Three years later Mohammed conquered Khaybar, the wealthiest city in northern Arabia. Because the Muslims did not know agriculture, Mohammed permitted most of the Jews to live as dhimmis, officially second-class citizens who had to pay exorbitant taxes. Eventually the second Caliph banished the Jews of Khaybar, in obedience to Mohammed’s policy that permitted no religion other than Islam to be practiced in Arabia.

Back in Medina, the wine merchant tribe had only two years to relish their position as the sole surviving Jews. Then, in 627, Mohammed, with 3,000 soldiers, laid siege to their fortress. The Jewish tribe had only 450 trained warriors. Because Abdullah Ibn Ubayyy had died a few months before, the Jews knew that no one would intercede on their behalf. The leader of the besieged Jews proposed that they either convert to Islam or, similar to Masada, kill their own women and children to prevent their being ravished and enslaved, and then fight the Muslims to the death. The Jews rejected both options and offered to surrender and leave Medina.

Mohammed rejected their offer. The vanquished wine merchants tribe, who had twice refused to help the other besieged Jewish tribes, suffered the worst fate. The children were sold as slaves; the women were given to the victorious soldiers “for the Muslims to use,” and the men (except for three who agreed to convert to Islam) were decapitated in the marketplace. According to Muslim tradition, the blood of the decapitated Jews flooded the marketplace of Medina.

A large, powerful, affluent Jewish community was destroyed in just three years. Was it destroyed by Mohammed’s forces or was it destroyed by its own divisiveness?

This is a stunning perspective. If the Jews of Medina had just put aside their differences, Mohammed would have been defeated and history would look quite different.

The traditional Jewish view is that the Temples were destroyed because of baseless hatred between Jews. How many lives could have been saved if it wasn't for the baseless hatred of the Jews in Arabia against each other?

May Jewish unity only get stronger so we will transform Tisha B'Av from a day of mourning to a holiday.

Illustration: Detail from miniature painting The Prophet, Ali, and the Companions at the Massacre of the Prisoners of the Jewish Tribe of Beni Qurayzah, illustration of a 19th century text by Muhammad Rafi Bazil.

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!

08/06 Links: IDF: All senior Islamic Jihad officials in Gaza eliminated; Gaza terrorists’ failed rocket launch kills several Palestinian children

From Ian:

David Horovitz: As Islamic Jihad sparks Gaza-Israel conflict, all eyes are on Hamas

Israel did its utmost in the first hours of the conflict to stress that it was solely targeting PIJ assets, not those of Hamas. The IDF was engaged in “a targeted campaign against PIJ,” spokesman Kochav said repeatedly in his TV interview, and military officials made the same point in media briefings.

This contrasts sharply with previous Gaza escalations and potential escalations, when Israeli leaders have often stressed that no matter which terror group was attacking or threatening Israel, Hamas would be held responsible as Gaza’s ruling force.

Hamas asserted victory in the last major round of conflict, in May 2021, when its rocket fire toward Jerusalem against a background of growing tensions in and around the Old City triggered an 11-day confrontation. To its delight, the fighting helped foster deadly Arab-Jewish confrontations inside Israel, West Bank riots, and even minor cross-border fire from Lebanon and Syria. It also featured heavy Israeli airstrikes on the Strip, causing considerable damage to Hamas and its infrastructure — though nowhere near as much as Israel would have wanted.

The question that will define the course of this new PIJ-prompted surge in violence is whether Hamas judges its interests to be best served by staying out or wading in.

In brief Friday night remarks delivered live to the Israeli public, but also aimed at least partially at Hamas, Prime Minister Yair Lapid insisted that “Israel isn’t interested in a wider conflict in Gaza, but will not shy away from one either.”

He also noted that “Islamic Jihad is an Iranian proxy” and that “the head of Islamic Jihad is in Tehran as we speak.”

PIJ and its Iranian sponsors may be hoping for a new installment of May 2021’s multi-front conflict against Israel — an installment that they, rather than Hamas, caused this time.

Hamas’s ties with Iran have been relatively warm of late, although it is emphatically not a classic proxy of Tehran. And it is always interested in principle in confronting Israel. But does Hamas want to be dragged into a fresh round, by its much smaller local ally-rival and by Iran, at a time and in a context not of its choosing?

We’ll know soon enough.

IDF: All senior Islamic Jihad officials in Gaza eliminated

The IDF launched the operation on Friday afternoon, taking out two of PIJ's important leaders in simultaneous strikes: northern command head Tayseer al-Jabari and anti-tank guided-missile section head Abdullah Kadoum.

Also struck in the opening of the operation on Friday afternoon were two cells that had been given orders to carry out anti-tank missile attacks.

Jabari replaced Baha abu al-Ata, who was killed in an IAF strike in 2019. Jabari, who was also responsible for coordination between PIJ and Hamas, was killed at 4:16 p.m. in his Shuja'iyya apartment. According to the IDF, he commanded over the launching of hundreds of rockets during Operation Guardian of the Walls last year, including anti-tank-guided missile attacks.

The IDF said that it had received a specific warning that he was planning an attack against Israeli targets before the arrest of PIJ West Bank chief Bassem Saadi earlier in Jenin.

"The enemy has begun a war against our people and against us and we will defend ourselves and our people," Islamic Jihad said in a statement.

The group’s leader Ziad Nahalka, who is based in Damascus, said that "the enemy should expect fighting. Our military wing will stand abreast of all other resistance factions in our struggle against Israeli aggression. This campaign is no holds barred and Tel Aviv will also taste the wrath of the rockets of the resistance."

A senior IDF official said that the military is targeting Islamic Jihad and is trying to avoid civilian casualties and damage, but that it is ready for the situation to escalate, stressing that Israeli civilians must listen to all instructions from the Home Front Command.

“We couldn't allow Islamic Jihad to carry out an attack; it backfired on them,” he said, adding that “there will be [rocket] barrages – there may also be casualties; all this is clear and this should also be told to the public.”

Following the targeted killings, which were carried out by jets and armed drones, the IDF warned that the group would likely respond with rocket fire toward the Israeli home front. The military placed Iron Dome batteries in Jerusalem, Beersheba and other areas in order to intercept any projectile fired by the group.

The IDF closed roads near the Strip on Tuesday. On Wednesday, it called up 100 reservists to bolster the Gaza Division to assist in securing the area and keep civilians out of areas that could be targeted by Islamic Jihad.

The terrorist group has in the past fired anti-tank guided missiles toward Israeli vehicles, both civilian and military.

Both Qatar and Egypt have been trying to mediate with Hamas and Islamic Jihad in order to de-escalate the situation. Hamas is also working to prevent attacks by the terror group, including by putting pressure on the group and locating cells that might be planning to fire anti-tank-guided missiles toward Israeli targets.

Operation Breaking Dawn: Will Hamas join the fight? - analysis

Islamic Jihad is an Iranian proxy which, unlike Hamas, does not have any responsibility for the citizens of Gaza. The Islamic Republic funds and equips the Gaza-based terror group.

The group’s chief Ziyad Nakhalah, who is based in Damascus, met with Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi in Tehran on Thursday and with Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps Commander Hossein Salami on Saturday.

“The Israelis will pay yet another heavy price for their crime,” Salami was quoted by Iranian news networks as saying.

IRGC Quds Force Commander Ismail Kaani also warned that Hezbollah would join the fight.

“Hezbollah plans to deal the Zionist entity it’s final blow to and remove it from existence at the appropriate time,” he was quoted as saying.

Gantz said Friday morning that security forces are preparing for all scenarios on all fronts, including in the North and the center of the country, and that the IDF will continue its operational activity in all sectors as needed.

“We do not seek conflict, yet we will not hesitate to defend our citizens if required,” he said, adding that “the State of Israel and the IDF will continue its operations, knowing the responsibility we bear on our shoulders: to defend the communities and citizens of Israel’s South, and to defend the citizens of the entire State of Israel.”

08/05 Links Pt2: Melanie Phillips: Bolting from the fight for civilisation; Anti-Israel delegitimization effort is a national security issue; Jewish expat to drive from UAE to Israel, promote peace and innovation

From Ian:

Melanie Phillips: Bolting from the fight for civilisation

This was a great achievement by the CIA and whatever other shadowy actors were involved in tracking down al Zawahiri and killing him.

But by doing so, Biden exposed the terrible consequences of his action in abandoning Afghanistan.

For al Zawahiri was killed in a house owned by the acting minister of the interior, Sirajuddin Haqqani, a powerful Taliban official whose Haqqani network played a key role in the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan.

Al Zawahiri’s hiding place, showing his cosy relationship with a top Taleban official, signified that once again al Qaeda is entrenched in Afghanistan.

To this shattering revelation, the US Secretary of State Antony Blinken riposted that by hosting and sheltering Zawahiri, the Taliban had “grossly” violated the 2020 Doha Agreement.

This stipulated that the US withdrawal of forces from Afghanistan was conditional on the Taliban’s undertaking “not to co-operate with groups or individuals threatening the security of the United States and its allies”, to “prevent them from recruiting, training, and fundraising” and not to “ host them”.

Blinken’s comment displayed an asinine and all-too revealing naivety. For this agreement was always worthless — as is any agreement made with manipulative, lying, cheating warlords, whether in Kabul or Tehran.

As the former British army commander in Afghanistan Richard Kemp wrote for Gatestone last October, the Taleban and al Qaeda were joined at the hip, with both Osama bin Laden and al Zawahiri having sworn unbreakable allegiance to the Taleban’s leaders.

America’s withdrawal, he wrote, would mean al Qaeda and other jihadists would now flow into Afghanistan to train, organise, establish global connections, plan attacks and receive direction and funding.

According to Dr. Hans-Jakob Schindler, senior director of the Counter Extremism Project and former co-ordinator of the United Nations Security Council’s ISIL, al-Qaeda and Taliban Sanctions Monitoring Team, al Zawahiri is most likely to be succeeded by a potentially even bolder operative, Saif al Adel, who is currently being harboured by Iran and can easily move to Afghanistan.

The United States has now returned to the point at which it all started: the axis between the Taleban and al Qaeda that led to 9/11 and put US troops into Afghanistan in the first place.

Yet the Americans still don’t see it. Batting away concerns that al Qaeda was now back in Afghanistan, the National Security Council spokesman John Kirby insisted that the terrorist group’s leaders would now “think again” about hiding out in Kabul.

So for the Biden administration, it’s groundhog day over and over again. They appear to be incapable of learning from experience.

Jared Kushner: What did the sultan of Oman think about Israel, Palestinians? - excerpt

After two years of exploring every angle of this seemingly unsolvable conflict, I felt like I had finally reached a conceptual breakthrough: perhaps the way to achieve peace and reduce regional tension was to narrow our focus to the issue of access to the al-Aqsa Mosque. I was optimistic that this approach aligned with the sentiment of the Arab people – not just that of their leaders. Months earlier, I had commissioned State Department focus groups in the West Bank, Egypt, Jordan, and the UAE. When Arab respondents were asked to describe the source of the Arab-Israeli conflict, the vast majority cited access to the mosque. The issue of territorial sovereignty, which was the fixation of “experts,” hardly came up.

If Israel would guarantee Muslim custodianship of the holy site, and expand access to Muslim worshippers, then we could address the issue of greatest concern to Arabs. And if these nations made peace with Israel, flights to Israel would open up, making it possible for hundreds of millions of Muslims to make pilgrimages to the mosque. In order to do this, our peace plan would need to demonstrate a serious commitment to solving the Israel-Palestinian conflict. We were ready to offer a plan that would require compromise, but still maintained Israel’s security while improving the lives of the Palestinians.

A detailed proposal would put Abbas in a tough negotiating position. If he accepted the offer and ended the conflict, he would risk losing billions per year in international aid. But if he rejected our proposal for a pragmatic two-state solution, which included a massive investment plan for the Palestinian territories, he would reveal his true indifference to the wellbeing of his own people. This would strengthen the argument I was making to the leaders of the Muslim countries – that it was time to focus on their national interests and move forward with normalization.

In the twilight of his tenure as secretary of state, John Kerry gave parting words of advice to a Washington audience. “There will be no separate peace between Israel and the Arab world,” he said at the Saban Forum. “I want to make that very clear to all of you. I’ve heard several prominent politicians in Israel sometimes saying, ‘Well, the Arab world is in a different place now, we just have to reach out to them and we can work some things with the Arab world and we’ll deal with the Palestinians.’ No, no, no, and no. I can tell you that reaffirmed even in the last week as I have talked to leaders in the Arab community. There will be no advance and separate peace with the Arab world without the Palestinian process and Palestinian peace. Everybody needs to understand that. That is a hard reality.”

This was the conventional wisdom for decades, and I initially accepted it as fact. But as I listened and learned, I felt like the reverse might be true. If we could make peace between Israel and the Arab world, then more likely than not, a path to making peace between the Palestinians and Israel would eventually open as well.

As our flight approached Bahrain, I leaned toward Jason and asked him to make two changes to the peace plan. First, he should reframe the issue of access to the al-Aqsa Mosque, removing it as a subject of negotiation with the Palestinians and turning it into the centerpiece of broader normalization agreements between Israel and the Muslim world. Second, we needed to finalize the boundaries in Jerusalem and the West Bank in a rational way that was based on the modern reality, not a UN resolution from 1967. Both concepts were rooted in finding a pragmatic solution that could end the conflict and move beyond the failed paradigm of the past.

If the Palestinian leadership rejected this approach, which they almost certainly would, the Arab leaders would recognize that Palestinian intransigence was undermining their own interests in a time of increased common threats and shared opportunities.

Our dinner with the sultan of Oman, and my subsequent eureka realization, crystallized our strategy and paved the way for the Abraham Accords. As we pursued a new paradigm, we began to see an enormous opportunity that had been hiding in plain sight.

Mark Regev: Marxist Zionism: Israel's often forgotten socialist past - opinion

For many contemporary western leftists, the very concept of Marxist Zionism is an oxymoron. Among radicals, the ideology behind Jewish statehood is often erroneously associated with colonialism, the antithesis of militant socialism. Yet, as I was recently reminded, not only is a synthesis between Marxism and Zionism possible, but the practitioners of such a fusion played a noteworthy role in shaping modern Israel.

Israeli families are known to embark on multi-generational vacations. Last week, four generations of my wife’s family, participants ranging in age from two months to eighty-four years, gathered for a three-day holiday at Kibbutz Lehavot Habashan in the Upper Galilee.

Established in 1945 by child refugees from Germany and Poland who had lost family in the Holocaust, Lehavot Habashan’s founders were united in their common membership of the pioneering Marxist Zionist youth movement Hashomer Hatzair.

The kibbutz’s original settlers would have been familiar with the theories of socialist Zionist Dov Ber Borochov (1881-1917), who believed that for the Jewish people to fully participate in the hoped-for international proletarian revolution they must first forgo the abnormal socioeconomic realities of the Diaspora. Borochov believed that if the Jews rebuilt their ancient homeland, they would once again become a nation with a worker majority, like in antiquity.

Borochov’s ideas were attractive to many because they fused together the particular (Zionism) and the universal (Marxism), placing the Jewish national struggle within the framework of the larger battle for a socialist world.

Lehavot Habashan was part of Kibbutz Artzi, the most radical of the three major kibbutz movements. Accordingly, in election after election, the members of Lehavot Habashan consistently voted for MAPAM, the United Workers Party, created in 1948 by Hashomer Hatzair and other socialists as the left-wing alternative to the hegemonic rule of the more moderate MAPAI labor party.

In the 1949 elections for the first Knesset, MAPAI received 46 seats and formed the coalition government. MAPAM, with its 19 seats, was the second largest parliamentary faction and led the opposition.

Whereas MAPAI advocated a pro-Western foreign policy, MAPAM sought to align Israel with the Soviet Union; while MAPAI supported social-democracy, MAPAM embraced a militant socialism; and although MAPAI focused on state-building, MAPAM championed the non-state workers’ institutions, such as the Histadrut labor federation and the kibbutzim.

Every time a war breaks out in Gaza, the media gets it wrong. Spectacularly wrong.

I described many of them in 2021; here is an updated version of that post.

A large percentage of Gaza rockets fall in Gaza, and many Gazans are killed because of them. I've documented this for years. I've shown how Hamas' own videos show rockets falling short.

When a family is killed in Gaza, it is very rare that it is an IDF mistake. Most of the time it is because a terrorist operative is in the house - either because he is a member of the family, sometimes it seems because he is using them as human shields. Other times it is because of Hamas rockets falling short. Sometimes it is because the IDF targeted a legitimate target that had a larger cache of explosives than was thought and it caused far more collateral damage than expected.

Hamas and Islamic Jihad hides the names of most of those killed. They do this to make it look like a larger percentage of the dead are civilians - and they did it in previous wars, too.

Speaking of, the Gaza Health Ministry and the "human rights" NGOs in Gaza (PCHR and Al Mezan) downplay any mention of terrorist casualties and often call terrorists "civilians" when they report the circumstances of those who have died. (Amnesty's obscenely dishonest "Gaza Platform" with statistics from the 2014 war relied on PCHR's initial reports, and as a result it lists more "civilians" than even the UN does. They know they are lying, I've let them know enough times, and they refuse to correct it.)

The media still has no idea what "proportionality" means in the context of international law. They make scorecards of how many have been killed on both sides as if the results are supposed to be "fair," implying that if only more Jews would be killed, then they can all be happy.

The media (and human rights groups) also don't understand the principle of distinction, pretending that it means that Israel cannot bomb a high value target if there are civilians around. It can, under proper circumstances.

Then again, the media is also part of the problem. Hamas has almost complete control over the media in Gaza. Citizens who speak freely to media know that they will be punished. Everyone sticks to the Hamas-approved script. International reporters know that they will be kicked out if they say anything not to Hamas' liking. Yet the media hardly ever mentions this, giving a false impression that their reporting is objective.

The media will also ignore most of Hamas' war crimes. Using ambulances or "press" credentials to transport weapons, using Gazans as human shields, using mosques as weapons depots, shooting from schools- - I once counted 19 different war crimes that Hamas has done in the Gaza wars, but "human rights groups" somehow only notice and denounce one.

Some other must-read background that will make you more knowledgeable than the most presigious journalists from the New York Times, the BBC and CNN:

Israel's success in keeping civilian casualties to a minimum in an urban war zone where the military targets are purposefully placed among civilians is unparalleled.

The decisions as to what Israel targets in Gaza is detailed, lengthy and adheres to international law. The media and Israel haters portray Israel as a spoiled baby who lashes out at anything that moves and I've never seen a serious mainstream media article that describes anything close to the reality that military experts understand.

If the media would miss one or two of these topics, there wouldn't be a problem. They are in the job of simplifying things for readers. But they consistently get basic things wrong, and always in the direction of making Israel look bad.

It is no accident.

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!

08/05 Links Pt1: ‘Pathetic and Unconvincing’: Israel Rejects UN Investigator’s Apology for ‘Antisemitic’ Remarks; Israel launches new Gaza operation, kills top Islamic Jihad commander

From Ian:

‘Pathetic and Unconvincing’: Israel Rejects UN Investigator’s Apology for ‘Antisemitic’ Remarks

Israel called an apology by UN investigator Miloon Kothari “pathetic and unconvincing” and reiterated its demand to disband the inquiry commission on the 2021 Israel-Hamas conflict over his “antisemitic” remarks.

“The hollow apology of commission of inquiry member Miloon Kothari is a pathetic and unconvincing maneuver, which doesn’t compensate for the long record of anti-Israeli and antisemitic statements made by him and the other COI members,” Israel’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement. “In light of the antisemitic and anti-Israeli statements of the commissioners, and the fact that they do not meet the minimal standards of neutrality and impartiality required from individuals in these positions in the UN, Kothari and his colleagues must resign immediately.”

“If the UN is committed to fighting antisemitism and to upholding its values, this is the only reasonable and acceptable result,” the ministry’s statement read.

Kothari, a member of the UN’s International Commission of Inquiry (COI) expressed his “regret” on Thursday for using the words “Jewish lobby” when talking about its influence on social media.

“It was completely wrong for me to describe the social media as ‘being controlled largely by the Jewish lobby,’ Kothari wrote in a letter to United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) President Federico Villegas. “This choice of words (…) perceived and experienced to be antisemitic was incorrect, inappropriate, and insensitive.”

In recent days about 20 countries have condemned Kothari’s remarks made during a podcast interview at the end of last month to Mondoweiss, an anti-Zionist web publication, as antisemitic.

Bravo ???? Brazil! One of the strongest condemnations yet of Miloon Kothari, commissioner on the UNHRC inquiry against Israel, who ranted about “the Jewish Lobby.” Also called out Kothari’s antisemitism:????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
???? UN Sec-Gen & UNHRC Chair https://t.co/6rqPpg1N6R
— Hillel Neuer (@HillelNeuer) August 4, 2022

Denmark and Bulgaria become latest countries to condemn the deplorable antisemitic remarks of @UN_HRC’s Miloon Kothari. That makes it 20 countries! Message loud and clear: Democracies will not accept such blatant antisemitism, prejudice and bias from UN officials! pic.twitter.com/LWkELlpsj7
— Arsen Ostrovsky (@Ostrov_A) August 5, 2022

Islamic Jihad is ecstatic this morning at the legitimacy given to it after a visit from a UN official to the house of its West Bank leader in Jenin.

Jody Barrett, Chief Regional Affairs Unit of the UN Special Coordinator's Office in Jerusalem, visited the home of the family of the terrorist leader Sheikh Bassam Al-Saadi in the Jenin camp this morning.

Al-Saadi was arrested by Israeli security forces this past week.

The delegation was received by family members, leading figures in Islamic Jihad, and Fatah figures.

The media office of the Islamic Jihad stated in a press release after the visit:

The United Nations delegate listened to the painful details of what happened to Sheikh Bassam Al-Saadi at the hands of the occupation forces at the moment of his arrest, dragging and assaulting him and his family members in a brutal and barbaric manner. Mrs. Nawal Al-Saadi spoke about the details of this event and the moments of terror that they experienced at the moment of the storming.

The United Nations representative, Jody Barrett, expressed her strong disapproval and sympathy with the family of Sheikh Bassam Al-Saadi, after hearing the details of the attack.

As the leader of Islamic Jihad in the West Bank, al-Saadi was almost certainly responsible for at least some of the terror attacks in Israel this past spring. Israel had been trying to arrest him for months.

A UN visit to his home is nothing less than support of murdering Jews. It is certainly being reported that way in Palestinian media.

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!

Last week, one of the preachers at the Great Mosque in Mecca, Imam Saleh Bin Al-Humeid, gave an antisemitic sermon, calling for genocide of all Jews.

He said, "Oh Allah, bring annihilation upon the plundering and occupying Jews, for they are no match for You. Oh Allah, bring down upon them Your punishment, from which criminals cannot escape. Oh Allah, we make You our shield against them, and take refuge with You against their evil."

These sermons are televised and approved by the Saudi kingdom.

Popular Israeli expert on the Arab world Edy Cohen launched a one man campaign against Humeid, demanding that he be fired and that the Saudi government apologize for this clear incitement against world Jewry.

His campaign has been noticed and widely publicized in the Arab world - and the backlash has resulted in many major Islamic figures defending Humeid.

The Grand Mufti of the Sultanate of Oman, Ahmed bin Hamad Al Khalili, expressed his solidarity with Humeid on Thursday, saying his Jew-hatred "warmed our hearts."

The head of the Palestine Scholars Association, Nassim Yassin, used similar language, saying "Sheikh bin Hamid warmed our hearts with his support for our cause and our Palestinian people," complaining about Cohen's campaign as "a despicable arrogance, and a clear and unjust injustice against the virtuous Sheikh and our Palestinian cause."

There was a popular hashtag in some Arab countries on Wednesday saying "We are all Sheikh Bin-Humeid."

Notice that, as usual, antisemitism is whitewashed as "support for Palestinians."

This explicit antisemitism has been roundly ignored in international media, but it is not like they aren't aware of it. CNN Arabic has written at least two articles about this controversy so far. As far as I can tell, this is the first time it is being discussed in English, a full week after the offensive sermon.

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!

UN investigator Miloon Kothari gave a half-hearted, obviously insincere apology for his statements from over a week ago that the "Jewish lobby" controlled social media and his questioning of Israel's legality altogether, saying "I would go as far as to raise the question as why are they [Israel] even a member of the United Nations."

His response to that was,

I also wish to clarify that my comment on Israel's membership of the United Nations was made to highlight the fact that every member of this body should uphold. and respect findings and recommendations issued by it. in accordance with relevant UN General Assembly resolutions. What I wanted to highlight is the non-compliance of Israel with UN decisions related to its obligations under international law, a concern the Commission extensively covered in its first report to the Human Rights Council. At no place in the interview did I question the existence of the State of Israel. On the contrary, in several instances, during the media interview in question, I have defended the existence of the State of Israel. This is fully consistent with the position of the Commission, as also stated in our first report and stressed in the letter of our Chair to the President of the Council: “The Commission does not question the status or United Nations membership of either of the concerned states of its mandate. The foundations for the legality of the State of Israel, alongside that of the State of Palestine were laid out by General Assembly resolution 181 and are not and never will be in question by this Commission” I did not intend to suggest that Israel should be excluded from the United Nations.

He is asserting that UN General Assembly Resolution 181 is the legal basis for the State of Israel.

This is not remotely true.

First of all, General Assembly resolutions do not have the status of international law.

Secondly, you can read Resolution 181: it did not declare the Jewish and Arab states in Palestine. It recommended the Security Council implement the provisions listed there and suggested that if either or both states declare their independence then the UN should treat their application for membership with sympathy.

When the Arabs rejected the resolution, it became a dead letter. It is valuable in the sense that it showed that the UN overwhelmingly supported a Jewish state in Palestine, but it is has no legal weight.

Some people claim that Israel itself has used UNGA 181 as its legal basis in its Declaration of Independence. It is true that Israel's Declaration of Independence referred to the resolution as onne of many reasons supporting the right of the Jewish people to a state, but that is not the legal basis for it. The Declaration says:

In the year 5657 (1897), at the summons of the spiritual father of the Jewish State, Theodore Herzl, the First Zionist Congress convened and proclaimed the right of the Jewish people to national rebirth in its own country.

This right was recognized in the Balfour Declaration of the 2nd November, 1917, and re-affirmed in the Mandate of the League of Nations which, in particular, gave international sanction to the historic connection between the Jewish people and Eretz-Israel and to the right of the Jewish people to rebuild its National Home.

The catastrophe which recently befell the Jewish people - the massacre of millions of Jews in Europe - was another clear demonstration of the urgency of solving the problem of its homelessness by re-establishing in Eretz-Israel the Jewish State, which would open the gates of the homeland wide to every Jew and confer upon the Jewish people the status of a fully privileged member of the comity of nations.

Survivors of the Nazi holocaust in Europe, as well as Jews from other parts of the world, continued to migrate to Eretz-Israel, undaunted by difficulties, restrictions and dangers, and never ceased to assert their right to a life of dignity, freedom and honest toil in their national homeland.

In the Second World War, the Jewish community of this country contributed its full share to the struggle of the freedom- and peace-loving nations against the forces of Nazi wickedness and, by the blood of its soldiers and its war effort, gained the right to be reckoned among the peoples who founded the United Nations.

On the 29th November, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution calling for the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz-Israel; the General Assembly required the inhabitants of Eretz-Israel to take such steps as were necessary on their part for the implementation of that resolution. This recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their State is irrevocable.

This right is the natural right of the Jewish people to be masters of their own fate, like all other nations, in their own sovereign State.

ACCORDINGLY WE, MEMBERS OF THE PEOPLE'S COUNCIL, REPRESENTATIVES OF THE JEWISH COMMUNITY OF ERETZ-ISRAEL AND OF THE ZIONIST MOVEMENT, ARE HERE ASSEMBLED ON THE DAY OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER ERETZ-ISRAEL AND, BY VIRTUE OF OUR NATURAL AND HISTORIC RIGHT AND ON THE STRENGTH OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY, HEREBY DECLARE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A JEWISH STATE IN ERETZ-ISRAEL, TO BE KNOWN AS THE STATE OF ISRAEL.

Resolution 181 was one of many pieces of evidence showing that Jews have the right to a state of their own. It was not the legal basis for that state.

So what is the legal basis for the State of Israel?

This 2004 legal analysis notes:

Sir Lauterpacht, a renowned expert on international law and editor of Oppenheim’s International Law, clarified that, from a legal standpoint, the 1947 UN Partition Resolution had no legislative character to vest territorial rights in either Jews or Arabs. In a monograph relating to one of the most complex aspects of the territorial issue, the status of Jerusalem,⁷ Lauterpacht wrote that to be a binding force, the “Partition Plan” would have had to arise from the principle pacta sunt servanda,⁸ that is, from agreement of the parties at variance to the proposed plan. In the case of Israel, Lauterpacht explains:
“… the coming into existence of Israel does not depend legally upon the Resolution. The right of a State to exist flows from its factual existence – especially when that existence is prolonged, shows every sign of continuance and is recognised by the generality of nations.”
Reviewing Lauterpacht’s arguments, Professor Stone added that Israel’s “legitimacy” or the “legal foundation” for its birth does not reside with the United Nations’ “Partition Plan,” which as a consequence of Arab actions became a dead issue. Professor Stone concluded:
“… The State of Israel is thus not legally derived from the partition plan, but rests (as do most other states in the world) on assertion of independence by its people and government, on the vindication of that independence by arms against assault by other states, and on the establishment of orderly government within territory under its stable control.”⁹

That is Israel's legal claim to statehood - surviving and being recognized as a state. And if the COI doesn't know that basic fact, it is incompetent to do anything.

But it does know the truth, and it is lying for a specific reason.

Kothari is making two wrong assertions here: that Israel's legal foundation is based on Resolution 181, and also that the "State of Palestine" has the same legal basis. This is doubly absurd: not only is 181 not legally binding, but the Palestinian Arabs of the time rejected it - which is the exact reason it cannot be legally binding! They cannot turn back the clock and say that, sorry, we now accept UNGA 181 decades after we ripped it up.

It seems that the Commission making up the claim that 181 is the legal basis for Israel in order to pretend that Palestinians have an equal claim to nationhood as Israel does!

That is a breathtakingly cynical twisting of international law to create a legal basis for Palestinian statehood - and once you realize that this is a lie, one may wonder what exactly the legal basis for a nonexistent State of Palestine is to begin with?

This analysis shows that this commission is pretty much founded on lies.

(h/t Myths and Facts)

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!

08/04 Links Pt2: Bernard-Henri Levy: Socialism for Imbeciles; As Biden is applauded, we’re left wondering; Antisemites Celebrate the Death of Jews; World-class tennis coming back to Israel after 26 years

From Ian:

Bernard-Henri Levy: Socialism for Imbeciles

Just a few days after the miserable provocation—in the midst of commemorating the Vel’ d’Hiv’ Roundup—by Mathilde Panot, the head of the left-wing party La France Insoumise in the Assembly, 38 of her colleagues from La Nupes (the New Ecological and Social People’s Union left-wing alliance) piled on in abjection.

The resolution they were planning to present must have been truly disgusting for it to have disappeared from the National Assembly’s site.

But agencies have provided enough extracts for us to know that we were dealing with an unprecedentedly violent attack against the “apartheid regime” supposedly imposed by Israel on the “Palestinian people,” calling for BDS-style reprisals.

We should first note that such calls for boycott are illegal in France: Two memorandums said this in 2010 and 2012 … it was confirmed in 2020 in a dispatch dedicated to the “suppression of discriminatory calls for boycotts of Israeli products …”

Then we might note that the delegitimization of the State of Israel is also not very legal: Doesn’t it go against a resolution initiated by President Macron that, using the definition of antisemitism promulgated by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, criminalizes anti-Zionism?

And so we observe that we have, in France, 38 elected legislators whose first initiative would have been to place themselves, twice over, outside the law.

The will to annihilate Israel is not lacking champions in my country. But never before, in this body, had we gone so far. Recognizing immediately a unitary Palestinian state? To be clear, that would include everything between Gaza and the West Bank—and therefore, if words mean anything, the full territory of Israel.

We can then observe the push of a fully uninhibited left-wing antisemitism.

French Jewish leaders condemn Israel 'apartheid' bill as dangerous leftist obsession

A senior French rabbi has criticized 37 left-wing members of parliament who signed a draft resolution condemning the Israeli government for "practicing apartheid and committing war crimes against Palestinians."

Moshe Lewin, senior advisor to France's Chief Rabbi and Vice President of the Conference of European Rabbis responded to the draft, saying that "the dangerous obsession of the leftist parties against Israel broke new records.

"Member of Parliament Jean-Luc Mélenchon feels an inexplicable phobia towards Israel," Lewin said about the leader of the extreme-left wing France Unbowed Party. Mélenchon ran for president in the 2022 elections and ended up in third place.

It’s quieter in this place. Studying in the classroom, the forest, the lab, or the sea, you can hear yourself think It’s quieter in this place. Studying in the classroom, the forest, the lab, or the sea, you can hear yourself think

"While France is facing a big economic crisis, a war in Ukraine and diplomatic tensions in Taiwan, the members of the left-wing parties found time to propose a scandalous bill, the likes of which have not yet been seen [in French history]," Lewin said.

"The Palestinian lobby is working behind the scenes to incite and strengthen the flames of incitement. This proposal could increase the manifestations of hatred and antisemitism toward the Jewish community throughout France."

A proposed resolution by French members of parliament from the leftist parties condemning the Israeli "apartheid regime", demanding a boycott and imposing sanctions on Israel, has caused an uproar among political circles and the Jewish community, the senior adviser said.

Frimet Roth: As Biden is applauded, we’re left wondering

Recent blatant discrimination against our murdered Jewish child, Malki Roth, is a hard pill to swallow.

First came the preferential treatment of the Abu Akleh family which was granted a private meeting with U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken in Washington. The latter followed that up with a phone call to Israeli Defense Minister Benny Gantz on Saturday to pressure him to publicize the conclusions of Israel’s investigation into Shireen Abu Akleh’s killing. And to do so asap!

On the heels of those attempts to appease Palestinian supporters came the assassination of Ayman al-Zawahiri. In its wake, President Biden’s speech was replete with assurances regarding his administration’s commitment to eliminate terrorists.

But they rang hollow for us. We heard him declare:
The United States continues to demonstrate our resolve and our capacity to defend the American people against those who seek to do us harm. You know, we – we make it clear again tonight that no matter how long it takes, no matter where you hide, if you are a threat to our people, the United States will find you and take you out.

Where is that resolve vis a vis Ahlam Tamimi? Why isn’t the President determined to defend Americans from her incitement to terror and to bring her to justice for the murders she has committed?

Tamimi need not be found – because she isn’t hiding. The regime granting her refuge – the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan – has a valid extradition treaty with the U.S. and is a revered ally.

In fact, there is a State Department reward of $5 million for Tamimi’s capture. She has been indicted by the Department of Justice and her extradition has been formally demanded. The pieces are all in place for justice to happen.

Amnesty issued a report yesterday about Ukrainian forces violating international law:

Ukrainian forces have put civilians in harm’s way by establishing bases and operating weapons systems in populated residential areas, including in schools and hospitals, as they repelled the Russian invasion that began in February, Amnesty International said today.

Such tactics violate international humanitarian law and endanger civilians, as they turn civilian objects into military targets. The ensuing Russian strikes in populated areas have killed civilians and destroyed civilian infrastructure.

As far as I can tell, Amnesty has never said anything close to this concerning Hamas purposefully placing its rockets, tunnels, command and control centers and ammunition depots within or underneath residential areas. To be sure, they say that Hamas shouldn't do this, but they never say the (accurate) statement that placing military objects in civilian areas change the areas themselves into military targets.

Military targets are valid targets under international law. Of course, the attacker must do everything possible to minimize civilian deaths and damage, and weigh the value of the target against the expected damage to civilians. But they are not obligated to avoid attacking areas where valid military objects are just because they are placed in a civilian area.

The only time I could find the word "military targets" used in this context on an Amnesty report about Gaza was during the 2009 Gaza war, when Amnesty said nearly the opposite in regard to Israel: “Fighters on both sides must not carry out attacks from civilian areas but when they do take cover behind a civilian house or building to fire it does not make that building and its civilian inhabitants a legitimate military target. Any such attacks are unlawful.”

An Amnesty search for the words "legitimate military target" shows that it mentions that attacks on military objects embedded in civilian areas in Afghanistan, Syria, Yugoslavia and elsewhere are legitimate as long as the attack doesn't have a disproportionate impact on civilians.

In every case, militants purposefully hiding themselves or their weapons in a civilian area makes the area a legitimate military target. With Israel in Gaza, it does not make make the area a legitimate military target.

Different international law standards for Israel and everyone else? That's standard operating procedure for Amnesty.

___________________________________________

That isn't the only double standard even in that one Amnesty Gaza document. They say there,

“Our sources in Gaza report that Israeli soldiers have entered and taken up positions in a number of Palestinian homes, forcing families to stay in a ground floor room while they use the rest of their house as a military base and sniper position,” said Malcolm Smart, Amnesty International’s Middle East and North Africa Programme. “This clearly increases the risk to the Palestinian families concerned and means they are effectively being used as human shields.”

But when Hamas shoots from residential areas, Amnesty does everything possible to exonerate them from the charge of human shielding:

Amnesty International is monitoring and investigating such reports, but does not have evidence at this point that Palestinian civilians have been intentionally used by Hamas or Palestinian armed groups during the current hostilities to “shield” specific locations or military personnel or equipment from Israeli attacks. In previous conflicts Amnesty International has documented that Palestinian armed groups have stored munitions in and fired indiscriminate rockets from residential areas in the Gaza Strip in violation of international humanitarian law. Reports have also emerged during the current conflict of Hamas urging residents to ignore Israeli warnings to evacuate. However, these calls may have been motivated by a desire to minimize panic and displacement, in any case, such statements are not the same as directing specific civilians to remain in their homes as “human shields” for fighters, munitions, or military equipment. Under international humanitarian law even if “human shields” are being used Israel’s obligations to protect these civilians would still apply.

Besides the obvious double standard of changing the definition of human shields, note that Amnesty believes reports of the IDF forcing residents to stay in their homes - but goes out of its way not to believe reports that Hamas demands that residents stay in their homes.

(h/t Akiva Cohen)

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!

Occupation Forces Palestinian Official To Divert Precious Water To His 4 Pools (PreOccupied Territory)

Our weekly column from the humor site PreOccupied Territory.

Check out their Facebook page.

Moroccan pool Jericho, August 4 - A high-ranking functionary of Mahmoud Abbas's government blamed Israel for exacerbating the shortage of natural and agricultural resources, observing that to keep his spa, garden, and swimming facilities functioning, he has no choice but to deplete those public resources, all thanks to Israeli policies that fail to maintain sufficient supply for both his needs and those who must drink, bathe, wash, and cook.

Palestinian Authority Deputy Assistance Minister for Prisoner Affairs Fashla Sharmuta lamented the desperate state of water resources available to Palestinians, with the situation so dire that by the time he fills the Olympic-size pool at his home, plus his four jacuzzis, his wading pool, his wave pool for surfing practice, his backup lap pool, his decorative fountains and ponds around his property, and irrigation for his expansive lawn, not enough remains for ordinary Palestinians to access what they need for agriculture, food, and basic hygiene.

"It's the Occupation's exploitative water policies," he explained in an interview. "They take all the water from the aquifer and divert streams for their illegal settlements." Israel's water sources come in the main from desalination, the Sea of Galilee (Kinneret Lake), rain reservoirs, recycled wastewater, rivers from melted mountain snow, and the like. Palestinian government bodies charged with coordinating the maintenance and repair of water supply infrastructure have long refused to engage with their Israeli counterparts, leaving that infrastructure's decay to worsen, increasing wastage and decreasing supply.

"It's a longtime problem," agreed Abbig Hattub, assistant manager of a Jericho-area water park that has never cut back on its water use. "We go through millions of liters a day during the summer, and that puts a dent what's available for regular homes and businesses. It's a brutal thing the Occupation forces us to do, prioritizing commercial leisure activities over basic necessities."

The warped priorities that the Occupation produces exert effects even on Palestinian areas not technically under occupation. The Gaza Strip, which has no Israeli soldiers or settlers in it, suffers electrical power shortages because Hamas rockets aimed at Israeli civilian communities fell short and struck the territory's power plant instead. Hamas and the allied Islamist militant terrorists chose to delay allowing repairs to the facility, the damage to which, and the consequent human suffering from lack of electricity throughout the territory, was obviously Israel's fault. Hamas officials also pointed to the fact that Israel's existence as a safe place for Jews leaves Muslims no choice but to continue trying to kill Jews in order to prove Israel's existence does not make them safe.

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

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

08/04 Links Pt1: Sunni Arab Leaders Are No Longer Willing to Wait for the Palestinians; UN will rue burying debate on Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine; Neuer: Democracies Denounce Antisemitic U.N. Commissioner

From Ian:

Dennis Ross and David Makovsky: Sunni Arab Leaders Are No Longer Willing to Wait for the Palestinians

In speaking to Arab leaders of nine states in Jedda, Saudi Arabia, President Biden said that "we will operate in the context of the Middle East as it is today: a region more united than it has been in years....Increasingly, the world is seeing the Mideast through the lens of opening and opportunity."

As he told an Israeli television interviewer, "the more Israel is integrated into the region as an equal and is accepted, the more likely there is going to be a means by which they can eventually come to accommodation with the Palestinians down the road." Biden is saying that ties with the Arabs give Israel a gateway to an Israeli-Palestinian deal.

For Sunni Arab leaders, what began as under-the-radar cooperation against terror and traditional security threats is now expanding to include domestic economic needs. With Israeli business people now doing business in Saudi Arabia, albeit on second passports, the phenomena is clearly not limited to the countries that have made formal peace with Israel.

What the Palestinian leadership has failed to realize is that the needs of Arab states now mean they are no longer willing to wait for the Palestinians, particularly because they doubt the Palestinian leadership is capable of doing anything to help resolve the conflict. The continuing Palestinian public incitement against Israel, which necessarily legitimizes violence, gives the Israeli public little reason to think that the Palestinians will ever make real peace.

Israel working on 5-way summit with Abraham Accords' leaders

Some two years after the signing of the Abraham Accords that saw Israel and four Arab states announce the normalization of relations, a summit of all signatories is in the works, Israel Hayom has exclusively learned.

According to the plan that Israel is currently drafting, the heads of state of each country would participate in the high-profile gathering that would take place in one of the five countries. Several months ago Israel hosted the inaugural meeting of the Negev Forum, which saw the foreign ministers meet in Israel's southern desert. But the new summit, if it takes place, will be a-political as much as possible.

Although Israel has yet to receive a confirmation on the participation from any of the other signatories, officials in Jerusalem are proactively trying to secure a final date for the summit before the Knesset election on Nov. 1.

Prime Minister Yair Lapid, who has visited three of the four Arab countries as foreign minister in recent months, hopes to hold an official visit in Rabat in the coming weeks or months.

MEMRI: Senior Bahraini Journalist: The American-Israeli-Arab Negev Forum Promotes The Best Solutions For The Palestinian Issue; I Hope More Countries Will Join It

On June 27, 2022, the steering committee of the Negev Forum, comprising senior diplomats from the U.S., Israel, the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco and Egypt, held its first meeting in Bahrain's capital Manama. This forum was established at the Negev Summit, which was held in southern Israel in March 2022, with the participation of the foreign ministers of Israel, Bahrain, Egypt, Morocco, the UAE and the U.S.

The meeting's closing statement notes the member states agreed to increase the cooperation between them, to hold annual meetings at the level of foreign ministers, and to form working groups in the spheres of clean energy, education and coexistence, food and water security, health, regional security and tourism. The participants stressed their commitment to a negotiated resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict "as part of efforts to achieve a just, lasting and comprehensive peace." They also noted that the working committees were meant to promote the wellbeing of the peoples of the region, including through initiatives to strengthen the Palestinian economy and improve the Palestinians' quality of life.[1]

At a press conference following the steering committee's meeting, 'Abdallah bin Ahmad Aal Khalifa, an undersecretary at Bahrain's ministry of foreign affairs, said that the goal of the Negev Forum is to build a regional framework for expanding the cooperation and coordination among the member states.[2] Adding that the forum is open to the participation of additional regional countries, he stressed that it is not a military forum but is intended to promote cooperation between Bahrain, Israel, Morocco, the UAE and the U.S. in order to develop the region. "The six [member] states are jointly committed to taking advantage of the numerous opportunities for cooperation between Israel and its neighbors," he said, "so as to actualize common interests and promote a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that will [enable] attaining a comprehensive peace" and enhancing the quality of life and the wellbeing of the Palestinians.[3]

Against the backdrop of the steering committee's meeting, Bahraini media figure 'Ahdia Ahmed Al-Sayed, formerly the chair of the Bahraini Journalists Association, wrote an article in the Emirati daily Al-Ittihad in which she welcomed the holding of the steering committee's meeting in Bahrain. Al-Sayed, known for supporting peace with Israel, stated that, unlike those who exploit the Palestinian issue, the Negev Forum establishes ties between the Arab countries, Israel and the U.S., aspires to improve the life of the Palestinians and promotes peace between the Palestinians and Israel. Al-Sayed called on more countries to join the forum, so it can constitute the kernel of a strong regional alliance on all levels.

David Singer: UN will rue burying debate on Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine

The United Nations Security Council has lost any authority to broker an end to the Jewish-Arab conflict - after its 26th July Quarterly Open Debate: “The situation in the Middle East, including the Palestinian question” proceeded for 5 hours without any speaker making reference to a new solution emanating from Saudi Arabia to resolve the 100 years-old conflict.

That Saudi solution – the merger of Jordan, Gaza and part of the 'West Bank' into one separate territorial entity to be called “The Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine”- had been published on 8 June in Al Arabiya News.

The article was written by Ali Shihabi – a confidante of Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman – Saudi Arabia’s next King and driving force behind NEOM – a $500 billion megacity of the future to be erected in Saudi Arabia on an expanse of land the size of Israel.

The Security Council’s silence in commenting on this Saudi solution ever since its publication has been arrogant and breathtaking. This solution offers an alternative to the solution unsuccessfully pressed by the UN for the last 29 years: The creation of a new Arab State between Israel and Jordan.

The Security Council had an obligation to notify UN member States of the emergence of this new solution since its last Quarterly Debate and encourage the members to consider its pros and cons as a replacement for the UN plan that was clearly dead in the water.

The Security Council and its vast bureaucracy could certainly not claim ignorance of this Saudi proposal.