Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Monday, September 05, 2022

IDF report on Abu Akleh says "likely" she was killed by IDF but adds little new information

The IDF released a report on the results of their investigation of the killing of Shireen Abu Akleh. It says,

According to all the investigations carried out, it appears that it is not possible to determine unequivocally by whom Shirin Abu-Aqla was killed, but it is more likely that Shirin was injured inadvertently [when] the IDF fired at those identified as Palestinian militants during a battle, during which a massive, indiscriminate and life-threatening shot was fired at the IDF soldiers. Along with this, it will be emphasized and clarified that throughout the incident, the fire of the IDF soldiers was aimed and intended to hit the terrorists who fired at our forces. Another possibility is that Shireen Abu-Aqla was hit by gunfire from Palestinian armed men, fired in her direction.

The materials released add very little to what we already knew. They say, for example, that they examines the audio forensics evidence, but doesn't say what that evidence indicated.

The only interesting detail is this diagram showing where the IDF identified incoming fire from (red dots.)

It shows only one place north of the IDF vehicles, and it is immediately north. The report indicates that the IDF responded to "massive" fire that was from the north, the direction of Abu Akleh.

This brings up more questions than it answers - there were clearly many bullets in the general direction of Abu Akleh and the reporters.

On the other hand, if the placement of these dots is accurate, it indicates that there were indeed terrorists firing from on top of buildings, and who had line of sight to Abu Akleh. While most are too far from Abu Akleh according to the audio analysis, chances are that there were plenty other terrorists on rooftops in Jenin to the north. (The northernmost one is about 210 meters from Abu Akleh, only a little further than the IDF.) Whether this map is meant to be comprehensive or not, I don't know - it appears to be the shots aimed at the IDF, and shots aimed elsewhere wouldn't be included.

I wish this was a more detailed report that explains the evidence that was used and the reason the IDF thinks it was likely (but not definite) to have been their gunfire that killed Abu Akleh.

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!

Today is the 50th anniversary of the 1972 Munich Olympics hostage crisis and massacre, in which 11 Israeli athletes were killed.

There are a number of details about the event that do not get the publicity they deserve.

One is that the terror attack was financed by Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority. The mastermind of the Munich attack, Mohammed Daoud Oudeh (Abu Daoud), says that both Yasir Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas wished him luck and kissed him.

The second is that German security officials were tipped off three weeks before the attack by the German Embassy in Beirut from a Palestinian informant, and did not do anything to stop the attack.

The third inconvenient fact is that the Palestinian terrorists in Munich were aided by German neo-Nazis. At the time, it was assumed that German Leftists had been involved, but in this case the Palestinians allied with Nazis.

Another is that while the organization that took responsibility for the attack is still referred to a Black September, that organization was Fatah. Black September was a front for Fatah in order to publicly distance itself from terror. Abu Daoud was quoted in Arab media in 1972 saying, "There is no such organization as Black September. Fatah announces its own operations under this name so that Fatah will not appear as the direct executor of the operation." The US government confirmed this in a 1973 memo.

The hijackers were not simply professionals trying to arrange a prisoner. They were bloodthirsty, and as they killed weightlifter Youssef Romano, they castrated him in front of his teammates.

A sixth, and almost unbelievable, fact about Munich is what happened to the three surviving terrorists after the botched rescue attempt at the Munich airport. They were released less than two months after the attack, before going on trial, in exchange for hostages from a hijacked Lufthansa Flight 615 flight.

But that hijacking was, according to credible accounts, arranged by the Germans colluding with Fatah to get rid of the headache of jailing and trying the terrorists.

From a 2000 article in The Guardian:

Black September, the Palestinian terror group that killed 11 Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics, was allowed by the German government to hijack a passenger jet two months later to provide a 'cover story' for the release of the three gunmen captured at the scene.

According to One Day in September - an Oscar-nominated documentary which is to be released in Britain in May - Bonn indicated to the terrorist group that it would give in to their demands should a certain aircraft - carrying no women and children - be hijacked. The Germans were keen to release the three jailed terrorists to avoid Black September fulfilling threats to carry out a series of bombings and hijackings.

On 29 October, 1972 - not even eight weeks after the Munich attack - a Lufthansa Boeing 727 on its way from Damascus, Syria, to Frankfurt was hijacked by two terrorists as it left Beirut airport. There were only 11 passengers on board, all male. The pilot was told to fly to Munich and the terrorists' demands were relayed to Bonn. Within hours the German Chancellor, Willy Brandt, gave in and the three men were handed over. The Israelis were not consulted.

And only last month, TheJC reported:

“We have found documents that state that the German government asked the Palestinian terror organisation to fake the hijack of a German plane in order to be able to set them free — and for doing so, a month after the heinous terrorist attack, the Palestinians were paid nine million dollars,” Dutch lawyer Carry Knoops-Hamburger, one of the team negotiating with the German government for compensation for the victims’ families, told the JC.

The final inconvenient fact about the Munich massacre is that it is still praised as "heroic" in Palestinian media and by Palestinian officials, including Abbas himself, today. It is obvious why Abbas didn't apologize for the attack when asked by a reporter last month - because he still considers it an achievement, not a source of embarrassment.

Not one of these facts were mentioned in, for example, AFP's summary of the massacre.

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!

Does this Palestinian brewery have access to enough water? Depends on who is interviewing them

The Media Line has an article on the Oktoberfest in Taybeh, happening this month for some reason, which features Taybeh Beer:

It was the first microbrewery in the Middle East. Nadim says that, despite their great success, they operate under harsh conditions.

“We face many challenges; many stem from the Israeli occupation and the harsh restrictions it imposes on our exports and imports of ingredients we need for our operation,” he said.

Madees says her goal is to turn her family brewery into a global beer brand, and they must overcome many hurdles.

“But our biggest challenge is the occupation, it’s disruptive. We don’t have our own water, we don’t have enough water, 95% of beer is water and we can’t produce as much as we are able to because of the lack of water,” she explained.

Which is interesting, because in 2015, Eater.com had a story about Taybeh beer, where they said:

All the beers are brewed in small batches, without additives or preservatives, and using natural spring water flowing from a nearby village. The other ingredients are imported from Europe: Belgian and French malts, Bavarian and Czech hops, and yeast from London that, as Nadim says, "gives good characteristics to the beer."

It doesn't sound like they had any problems with imports then, and their access to water is from a spring, not through Israel's water carrier.

Similarly, the Boston Globe reported about the brewery in 2014:

There is also the question of water — a scarce resource in this arid part of the world. Continued Israeli settlement expansion has led to a disparity in water access, though Taybeh is able to use fresh water from a local spring. While they are all right for now, Khoury worries that in the future there may not be enough water to meet an increasing international demand.

The Jerusalem Post identifies the spring:

Taybeh’s secret is high-quality water from the Ein Samia spring five kilometers away, explains Buthina Canaan Khoury, Nadim’s and David’s youngest sister, in charge of brewery tours during the festival.

The "Israel is stealing our water" theme seems to have only become part of the Taybeh beer family's narrative recently, such as in this DW article from 2019:

Today, an end to the occupation seems far off. And Taybeh needs access to water from a nearby spring that has fallen under the control of Israel. Hops, malt and yeast are imported from Europe.

The Israeli authorities can shut off that water supply at any time, Khoury said; they have done so more than once in the past. "We can't work without water," he said.

I am not aware of any changes of the status of Ein Samia in recent years. The spring itself seems to be under full Palestinian control, according to B'Tselem's map of the territories. The UN declared in 2011 that Ein Samia was at "risk" of being taken over by "settlers" but it never happened.

Apparently, Taybeh's owners have realized that the narrative of brewing their beer under horrible Israeli occupation, with restrictions on imports and exports that seem to not affect their ever-increasing sales, is a good business move, no matter what the truth is.

Oh, and they have a new market:

“We are in 18 countries; we started in Palestine, now we are selling in San Francisco, Boston, Denmark, Japan, Canada, all over the world,” he [Nadim] said, adding that “next week we’ll send the first shipment to the United Arab Emirates. For the first time.”

If Israel hadn't normalized relations with the UAE, that wouldn't have happened. So maybe Israel is helping Taybeh Beer more than they are hurting it

Not that the current September Oktoberfest wave of articles would mention that.

(h/t Irene)

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!

Recent EoZ memes

Way before Princess Leia, other royals adopted the famous hairdo

In response to yet another idiot claiming the British Mandate coin proves "Palestine"

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!

09/04 Links: At least 7 injured in Jordan Valley Israeli military bus shooting; Col Kemp: 'There We Will Strike Them': The Munich Massacre and Its Aftermath; PA: When you lack any history, just invent one

From Ian:

Soldier, civilian seriously injured in shooting attack on a bus in Jordan Valley

Two Palestinians were arrested by IDF forces after they opened fire on a bus carrying troops from the Kfir Brigade in the Jordan Valley, injuring several troops including one soldier who was seriously wounded.

According to the IDF Spokesperson’s Unit and Magen David Adom, five soldiers and a civilian were injured in the attack.

One soldier was seriously injured with neck wounds and there were at least two moderately injured in the attack including the driver of the bus who had gunshot wounds to his face. Medics and paramedics treated the soldier and civilian driver at the scene before being evacuated to Rambam hospital in Haifa by helicopter.

Another three people were lightly injured by glass shrapnel and treated at the scene before being evacuated to Ha’Emek Hospital in Afula where they were treated before being released.

According to a senior officer involved in the investigation into the attack, the bus was coming from Tel Aviv to brigade regional headquarters when it was attacked, first by a flammable substance and then firing on it.

The officer said that the military is still investigating whether the terrorists, identified by Palestinian media as Muhammed and Walid Turkman from the Jenin area in the northern West Bank, knew that it was a military bus.

The three suspects, who were driving a pickup truck with Israeli license plates, followed the bus for several minutes before opening fire on the left side and windshield.

"We saw two gunshot victims outside of the bus who were being treated by IDF medics and other people who were at the scene. One is a 60-year-old male, and another who was younger. They were fully conscious and communicating with us,” said Senior MDA EMT Matti Carmi.

Gantz vows to increase West Bank anti-terror operations after Jordan Valley attack

In a tweet, Gantz said: “Security forces began pursuing the suspects immediately and got their hands on the suspected attackers in a quick and professional operation. We will continue to increase our focused operations against terror in the Judea and Samaria area.” He was using the biblical name for the West Bank commonly used in Hebrew.

Lapid, like Gantz, wished the wounded a speedy recovery. He offered praise to the “first responders and the security forces who acted with speed and determination to treat the wounded and catch the suspected terrorists.”

“We will continue to reach anyone who tries to harm the citizens and soldiers of the State of Israel,” he tweeted.

President Isaac Herzog, who is on an official state visit to Berlin, noted alongside his German counterpart on Sunday that “terror does not rest for a second, and today it reared its head again, alas, when a few hours ago, depraved terrorists perpetrated an attack against Israelis traveling by bus.”

Speaking next to German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier, Herzog said that Israel “will not accept any attack on our citizens or soldiers. The State of Israel will defend its citizens, and the IDF and our security forces will act at any place and at any time.”

Gaza-based terror organization Hamas labeled the “Zionist bus” attack a “heroic operation,” saying that it was a “natural response to the crimes of the occupation.” Hamas did not claim responsibility for the attack.

Opposition leader Benjamin Netanyahu said he was praying for the recovery of the injured, adding, “Only through a strong hand can we defeat terrorism.”

According to local officials, the gunmen tailed the bus before overtaking it and opening fire from the front. They then attempted to pour flammable liquid on the bus and set it on fire, before fleeing.

The getaway car caught fire as it sped away, likely as a result of the flammable liquid used in the attack. IDF forces arrested two suspects, both of whom were said to be hurt.

The pair were taken to be questioned by the Shin Bet security agency. They were named by Palestinian media as Muhammed and Walid Turkman, apparent relatives, from the Jenin area in the northern West Bank. Several firearms were found at the scene of the arrest.

A third suspect apparently fled, according to Hebrew-language media reports. The IDF said troops continued to search the area for additional suspects.

BREAKING: Drive-by shooting attack on a bus traveling in the Jordan Valley

At least 7 injured in Jordan Valley Israeli military bus shooting

Temple Mount, Jerusalem:
Police stop Jews waving the Star of David at their holiest site.
??????
Nebi Samwil, Judea:https://t.co/pfRn3ER6BL
Jews attacked nearing the tomb of the prophet Samuel from the Hebrew Bible.https://t.co/LFdNjjTZd4
??
Second-class dhimmis in their own land pic.twitter.com/90DMTKBUBO
— ???? ISRAEL BACKS #LGBTQ+ ?????????? (@h7n33n) September 2, 2022

Great news, IDF reports that the condition of the severely wounded soldier from the shooting attack in Jordan Valley today has improved and is now set as moderate. https://t.co/ydwtIY7fBX
— Arsen Ostrovsky (@Ostrov_A) September 4, 2022

Last week, a small symposium was held at the Center for Middle East Studies in Amman titled "The Relationship Between Jordan and Hamas, Foundations, Transformations and Future Directions."

The speakers said that Jordan must reconsider its policy of shunning Hamas that has been official since the late 1990s, when the kingdom expelled Hamas leaders.

The speakers said that a relationship with Hamas serves Jordan's strategic interests because Hamas is a major and "mature" Palestinian political force, and it is in Jordan's interests to have strong relations with all Palestinian factions.

Professor of International Relations at the University of Jordan, Dr. Hassan al-Momani, said that Hamas' "pragmatism" at not getting involved in the August flare-up between Israel and Islamic Jihad shows political maturity that should be rewarded.

Others claimed that Hamas positions on Zionism, and on issues like the Ramon airport plan, are more aligned with Jordan's own positions than those of the PLO.

The symposium came only days after a visit to Amman by Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal.

While there appear to have been only a handful of attendees, the coverage of the meeting in Jordanian and Arab media indicates that the Jordanian government is looking to normalize the idea of a warming relationship with Hamas - and by extension, the Muslim Brotherhood.

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!

Times of Israel reports:

The Hamas terror group announced on Sunday that it had executed five Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, including two for “collaboration” with Israel.

“On Sunday morning, the death sentence was carried out against two condemned over collaboration with the occupation (Israel), and three others in criminal cases,” Hamas, which rules Gaza said in a statement.

It added that the defendants had previously been given “their full rights to defend themselves.”

Hamas media is reporting that "experts" and "activists" are supporting the executions. Many use a hashtag, #القصاص_حياة, "Retribution is Life," from a Quran quote.

I can find no "progressive" anti-Israel activist who is condemning Hamas' death penalty for either the Gazans convicted of murder or of "collaboration."

Moreover, the "human rights" groups that Israel has outlawed are not saying a word either. Al Haq, "Protecting and Promoting Human Rights & the Rule of Law in the Occupied Palestinian Territory," is silent.

Also silent, as of this writing, are the social media of Amnesty and Human Rights Watch, who regularly condemn the death penalty in the US.

PCHR, a Palestinian human rights group not considered illegal by Israel, to its credit, does consistently condemn the death penalty. But B'Tselem hasn't said anything about this.

So-called human rights groups pretend that they are even handed and condemn Hamas when appropriate. But except for rocket fire, they tacitly support everything Hamas does with their silence, while they spend thousands of hours looking for new things to accuse Israel of.

The "collaboration" crimes occurred in 1991 and 2001.

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!

Isa Qassim, a leading Shiite cleric who lost his Bahraini citizenship in 2016, has issued a religious ruling that Bahraini citizens may not sell their land to Jews.

Al Ahed News reports:

The great Bahraini religious authority, Ayatollah Sheikh Isa Qassim, sent a message to the people of Bahrain, warning them against selling any of their property to the Jews. [He said that such a sale would] "hand over to them your religion, your history, your homeland, your present and your future."

Sheikh Qassim added that "Bahrain today is an Islamic country, tomorrow, according to the Judaization plan, a country of Jews and Muslims, and the day after tomorrow a country of Jews with Muslim residents at their disposal. After that, the Muslims will be expelled, and the beginning is when they buy your land and the land of your brother from the Muslims."

He concluded the letter by saying: "Whoever sells land or a house to the Jews is not selling soil and stone, but rather a homeland, people, nation, history and dear sanctities. He is selling Islam, which is not equal to anything. May God's peace, mercy and blessings be upon you."

This harangue seems to be related to a statement the same cleric made last week, when he condemned a rumor of a Jewish Quarter in Bahrain.

The Jewish Quarter to be established by the Government of Bahrain on the land of Manama will be a replacement for the Islamic and Arab national identity, a distortion of the nation's history, the erasure of evidence of the authenticity of the original citizens, and the opening of the door to the Israeli occupation with the complicity of local politics.

I am not sure, but I think that saying that prohibiting selling land to Jews is antisemitic. So is spreading conspiracy theories that Jews are planning to take over Bahrain and to expel all Muslims.

But if this was really antisemitism from a prominent cleric, surely it would be all over the media, wouldn't it?

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!

09/03 Links: The perpetual Palestinian paradox; Is Jordan planning to restore ties with Hamas?; Seven Myths about the Iran Nuclear Deal; Moroccan, Israeli Universities Launch Student Exchange Program

From Ian:

The perpetual Palestinian paradox

Even if the Palestinians were to have their own state, they will remain refugees “because it is an essential part of our identity,” Mansour declared. Palestinian former legislator and activist Hanan Ashrawi, with whom I got into an unpleasant heckling match, concurred.

This strange double-think was evident elsewhere. The Jerusalem Post Magazine’s Voices from the Arab Press round-up (compiled by The Media Line) last week contained an item with the headline “Lessons for Palestinian Leadership,” by Majid Kayali, writing in Lebanon’s An-Nahar on August 20. It was a diatribe against Israeli security actions and in particular the raids and closures of NGOs affiliated with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), recognized as a terrorist organization.

“Israel’s actions are also meant to send a clear message to the Palestinian Authority, according to which the Palestinians – despite having a president, a government, a flag, an anthem, embassies and even a security force – are ultimately nothing more than pawns in Israel’s chess game,” Kayali wrote, accusing Israel of seeking “to expose the fragility of the Palestinian Authority and undermine its role in front of its people.”

It’s not the PA fragility that I seek to expose, but the hypocrisy. As Kayali notes, the Palestinians already have the symbols of statehood – in fact, the State of Palestine is recognized by more than 135 UN member states – yet they see themselves as refugees, deserving unique support. This culture of entitlement gives the PA no motivation to return to the negotiating table in good faith to solve the issues that could let both Israel and the Palestinians thrive, side-by-side. On the contrary.

And it’s not only Israel that’s paying attention. Particularly following the 2020 Abraham Accords, an increasing number of Arab and Muslim countries have shown interest in growing stronger economically and technologically together with Israel – and to combat the Iranian threat and dangers of Sunni jihadi extremists. While the Palestinians are obsessively anti-normalization, Arab states are realizing that peace and stability are more beneficial for all. The Palestinians might be brothers, but they’re a heavy load for the Arab world to continue to carry. And they have been betrayed by their leadership, particularly Abbas, now in the 17th year of his four-year term of office.

It is also now obvious to all that Israel is here to stay, with the emphasis on here – in its ancient homeland. Having turned down multiple rounds of negotiations and peace processes – which usually ended with waves of terrorism – the Palestinian resolve to unilaterally declare statehood will compound the problems rather than solve them. Keep in mind that maps of “Palestine” include all Israel, “from the river to the sea.”

At the same time, the Palestinians’ long-term plan is to remain dependent on the UN and external funding and to maintain and their refugee status. Not so much a paradox as a parody, it’s classic chutzpah.

The real history of the U.S.-Israel relationship

More than half a century ago, the great American Jewish historian Jacob Rader Marcus warned: “A people that is not conscious of its past has no assurance of a future.” His words would make an apt epigraph to Walter Russell Mead’s magisterial new book, “The Arc of a Covenant: The United States, Israel, and the Fate of the Jewish People.”

Mead, a professor of foreign relations and humanities at Bard College, notes that the ancestral homeland of the Jews may be just a speck on the world map, but “it occupies a continent in the American mind.” That space, he found, is filled with misinformation, subject to prejudice and swamped by emotion. “To get the story straight I was going to have to take on both pro-Zionist and anti-Zionist legends that have obscured the historical record,” he writes. He set himself the task of helping Americans understand the “real history of their relationship with the Jewish state,” the importance of Zionism and Israel’s place in American world strategy.

He has achieved that goal. Any careful reader will come away from this book armed with facts, history and context, and with a clarity absent from most discussions of the subject. At a time when “replacement theory” has become acceptable political rhetoric on the right, and with antisemitic incidents at an all-time high, this volume is more than timely — it is necessary.

Mead tackles head-on the narrative that a secret Jewish cabal controls American foreign policy on Israel. Election by election, he cites the facts: George W. Bush, whose Iraq War was “allegedly taken in Israel’s interest,” saw Jews voting heavily against him in 2000 and 2004. Donald Trump, who moved the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem and delighted Benjamin Netanyahu by terminating the nuclear agreement with Iran, lost the Jewish vote by a wide margin. Mead writes, “To blame the Jewish community for policies it dislikes made by presidents it rejects seems, if not virulently antisemitic, at least uninformed.”

Why, then, is recent American foreign policy relentlessly pro-Israel? Because “it emerges from the same kind of political process and struggle that produces the rest of our policies.” A global strategy, grounded in domestic politics — which he spells out, decade by decade — underlies the U.S. stance, Mead writes.

PBS series asks hard questions about how Americans treated Jews in WWII

To depict the history, the filmmakers relied heavily on their advisory board (they have one for every project they take on) to determine how much time to devote to various historical events, whether to show certain images or merely describe them and how to describe them. “We don’t go anywhere without our board of advisors,” Botstein said.

For “The US and the Holocaust,” the advisors included Holocaust historians such as Debórah Dwork, Peter Hayes and Richard Breitman, as well as scholars of race history such as Nell Irvin Painter, Mae M. Ngai and Howard Bryant.

Often the advisors disagreed on how to depict moments in history, and this disagreement is sometimes reflected in the film itself. A debate over whether the United States should have bombed Auschwitz, or even the trains leading into the death camp, echoed in the advisors’ room just as much as it did in the highest levels of government in the war’s waning months. The film reproduces those debates, quoting from historians who argue both points.

The film’s treatment of Franklin D. Roosevelt is also notable given Burns’ demonstrated interest in the US president. Many historians today fault Roosevelt for failing to take more decisive action to prevent further bloodshed at key moments in the war. The director noted that the new series is more critical of FDR’s actions during the Holocaust than his earlier series “The Roosevelts” was, but Burns still believes the president was mostly acting within his means as a politician. “He could not wave a magic wand,” he said. “He was not the emperor or a king.”

All Burns films are released with teaching guides and are intended for use in the classroom, but getting “The US and the Holocaust” into schools was of particular importance to the filmmakers because they saw an opportunity to fit it into the dozens of statewide Holocaust education mandates that have been passed.

And also, Novick said, because the filmmakers have noticed the rise of various far-right, white supremacist ideologies, including many figures who espouse Holocaust denial. “It’s a never-ending battle that has to be fought,” she said. The film itself doesn’t engage with such denialists.

In their publicity for the film, Burns and company are partnering with several organizations to try to bring the Holocaust’s lessons into the modern day, including the International Rescue Committee, a refugee aid agency, and the US government-funded think tank Freedom House.

The producers asked JTA not to give away the details of the film’s ending — an unusual request for a Holocaust documentary. But the reason is that Burns and his team don’t end with the camps’ liberation in 1945. Instead, they come up to the present, in unexpected ways.

“Most of our films come up to the present,” Burns said. “And we would be remiss if we did not take on this most gargantuan of topics, and not say that this is rhyming so much with the present.”

When asked why the film makes some of the connections it makes, Burns quoted a line Lipstadt delivers in the film: “If ‘the time to stop a Holocaust is before it happens,’ then it means you have to lay on the table the ingredients that go into it. Maybe these ingredients don’t add up to it… But if you’re seeing people assembling, in the kitchen, the same ingredients, you’ve got to say, you cannot wait until the meal is prepared.”

09/02 Links Pt2: Jewish anti-Zionists are trying to legitimize anti-Semitism; The BBC's perfectly sealed thought system; Anne Frank’s Memory Is Under Assault

From Ian:

Jonathan Tobin: Jewish anti-Zionists are trying to legitimize anti-Semitism

Using the bully pulpit granted him by the Times, Beinart was able to use one of the most read publications in the world to argue that anyone who defends Israel against the apartheid lie or points out the way those who wish to eliminate it (as opposed to merely criticizing some of its government’s policies) are engaging in discrimination against Jews are the real problem. According to Beinart, the mere existence of one Jewish state is a form of racism and “Jewish supremacy” that should be opposed. In his eyes, the century-long Palestinian war on Zionism and opposition to a Jewish state, no matter where its borders are drawn, is a righteous cause. More than that, he argues that the willingness of Jews to defend their state, even while often criticizing it, as the ADL and Lipstadt do, discredits efforts to oppose anti-Semitism.

Like his Palestinian terrorist allies, Beinart is especially angry at those Arab and Muslim states that have made peace with Israel—either overtly via the Trump administration’s Abraham Accords or quietly, as is the case with Saudi Arabia—and thinks links to these admittedly authoritarian governments also discredits Jews. That his cause is discredited by the fact that those who agree with him among Palestinian groups or their Iranian allies have consistently rejected compromise and peace—and seek Jewish genocide—is a minor detail that he ignores.

Beinart’s own embarrassing history of wanderings from a neo-liberal supporter of the Bush administration’s war in Iraq to a virulent opponent of both it and U.S. foreign policy during his time as editor of The New Republic, then as a liberal Zionist supporter of Israel and advocate of a two-state solution to his current position in which he supports Israel’s dismantlement, makes it hard to take him seriously. He has always been an intellectually shallow writer whose willingness to spout his opinions is only matched by his often-breathtaking ignorance of many of the subjects he discusses, of which Israel is the most conspicuous example.

Yet Beinart, who was once included by Foreign Policy magazine on its list of 100 top global thinkers, is not only someone that is regularly given access to one of the largest publishing platforms in the world for his hateful views. He’s also a reliable weathervane that can usually tell us which way the wind is blowing among the left-wing elites who have such a stranglehold on control of the major institutions of journalism, academia and popular culture.

So it is significant that Beinart is not only venting his resentment at the way the overwhelming majority of Israelis, as well as most American Jews, haven’t taken his advice about surrendering to those who would endanger their existence. He is now embracing the intersectional narrative in which the effort to destroy Israel is identified as a cause that lovers of freedom should support.

The not-so-subtle warning implicit in his article is that the overwhelming majority of Jews who are Zionists—even liberals like the ADL and Lipstadt—are discrediting the Jewish people and leaving themselves open to what are, in his opinion, justified attacks from the left.

Melanie Phillips: The BBC's perfectly sealed thought system

After Sir Salman Rushdie was attacked in New York last month by a Muslim intent upon fulfilling the murderous 1989 Iranian fatwa against him, the BBC’s Dateline London programme ran an interview with the Palestinian commentator Abdel Bari Atwan.

Atwan said on the show that The Satanic Verses, Rushdie’s satirical novel for which he attracted the fatwa, was “blasphemy” and “offensive”.

Rushdie, said Atwan, was “very, very cruel when he talked about the Prophet Mohammed and his wives” which was also “very, very dangerous”. He added: “About 90 per cent of the people of the Muslim world believe that freedom of expression [is] practised only to insult Muslims”.

The Jewish Chronicle reports that this prompted Baroness Deech, a former BBC governor, to write in protest to the BBC Director-General, Tim Davie.

Deech, a former Oxford university law lecturer, wrote that “it is absolutely unacceptable to respond to comments with murder or violence,” and that Atwan’s comments “could amount to glorifying terrorism,” a crime under English law.

The BBC dismissed her complaint, insisting that inviting Atwan to comment was “editorially justified” and that “if extreme views are expressed on the BBC we would always seek to challenge them”.

Here, though, lies the rub. For the BBC’s definition of extremism is subjective, ideological and deeply flawed.

In giving a platform to Atwan and standing by his comments, the BBC adopted the attitude common in the west ever since that Rushdie fatwa — genuflection to the claims made by Islamists about their religion which they enforce with murderous violence.

Their charge against Rushdie’s novel was that it was offensive towards Islam’s founder, Mohammed, and therefore blasphemous. The same charge was levelled against satirical cartoons of Mohammed whose publication led to dozens of killings around the world. It also led to censorship by most of the western media of anything that Muslims held to be offensive.

Along with the rest of the secular west, whose disdain for religious belief is exceeded only by its readiness to capitulate to Muslim demands, the BBC internalised the claim that being offensive about Islam was a religious prohibition that should be respected.

So the BBC probably assumed that Atwan’s comments represented a legitimate point of view. The fact that such an interpretation inspires terrorist violence is a link that, wearing such cultural blinders, it would be unable to make.

Moreover, it has been giving a platform to Atwan for years as an impartial commentator, despite his virulent libels against Israel and support for terrorism.

He has praised Palestinian terrorists as “martyrs”. On YouTube, he called April’s shooting of three Israelis in Tel Aviv a “miracle”.

Last month, he claimed that the 1972 Munich massacre of Israeli athletes was not committed by Black September terrorists, with Mahmoud Abbas among the planners, but by “Israeli Mossad operatives and German police”; and that the hands of acting Israeli prime minister Yair Lapid were “soaked in the blood of Palestinian children”.

Yet the BBC repeatedly uses Atwan as a respectable commentator. But then, when it comes to Israel and the Palestinian Arabs, the BBC almost always suspends any critical judgment that it applies to other parts of the world.

In full: Baroness Deech's letter to the BBC

Dear Tim

I am prompted to write to you by viewing the BBC’s featuring of Abdel Bari Atwan on Dateline London on 19 August 2022.

In this appearance, approximately 22 minutes in, Mr Atwan spoke at length about the stabbing of Sir Salman Rushdie in New York, describing his book, The Satanic Verses, as “blasphemy completely and it is offensive”.

He described Rushdie as “very, very cruel when he talked about the Prophet Muhammad and his wives, and actually, to talk about the wives of the Prophet is really very, very dangerous”. He added: “About 90 per cent of the people of the Muslim world believe that freedom of expression [is] practised only to insult Muslims.”

It was wrong for the BBC to have given him this airtime. His comments about Rushdie could amount to “glorifying terrorism” under the Terrorism Act 2006. It is absolutely unacceptable to respond to Sir Salman’s writing or comments, no matter how offensive they might seem to some, with murder or violence, and any attempt to explain or justify violence committed against him should be challenged vigorously, not least by the presenter. No direct challenge was made on the programme when Mr Atwan spoke about this topic.

A quick search of Mr Atwan’s website would reveal inter alia, this post It recounts his condemnation of Chancellor Scholz for disagreeing with Mahmoud Abbas about “50 Palestinian holocausts” and his perversion of history in accusing Israel itself of the massacre of Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics.

These statements fall within the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism and, as racist and hate speech (criminalised by statute), fall outside the limits of free speech.

The BBC must have been aware that Mr Atwan was likely to offend against the BBC’s own commitment to truth and legal speech. In preparing this programme they should have considered balance and readied themselves by adding another panellist prepared to condemn the terrible attack on Rushdie and stand up for the BBC’s own principles.

JTA reports, "The student magazine at the University of Adelaide in the state of South Australia called for 'death to Israel' in an article."

I wondered at how often we hear "Death to Israel" compared to "Death to Palestine."

Google search for "Death to Israel" estimates about 700,000 hits. "Death to Palestine" has about 117,000 hits.

But that doesn't tell the whole story.

An examination of the "Death to Israel" entries finds hundreds if not thousands of unique cases where Israel haters screamed or published that term. But the "Death to Palestine" search results find only a relative handful of cases.

One is from Iran, when protestors in 2018 chanted that slogan during protests about the economy. Another was in May 2021, when someone spray painted that phrase on a Brooklyn mosque.

Those two seem to be the majority of cases listed!

It seems pretty clear which side is suffused with hate.

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!

09/02 Links Pt1: ‘The games must go on’: Athlete recounts Munich massacre and problematic aftermath; Thirsty for war and fame: Gen-Z Palestinian terror influencers

From Ian:

Thirsty for war and fame: Gen-Z Palestinian terror influencers

According to the latest statistics, more than 60 shooting incidents occurred in the West Bank in the first part of August, and 60 shooting attacks were carried out against Israeli security forces during arrest raids in the area in recent months. These numbers are higher than in all of 2021 combined.

In addition, another 220 shooting incidents were thwarted by the IDF and Shin Bet. These numbers are relatively high to the numbers we got used seeing to in the past decade.

The Palestinian terrorists with whom the IDF is dealing are also different from those it faced in recent years. To a large extent, it can be said that they are merciless, strive to engage in combat, refuse to surrender easily, and equally important - thirsty for publicity and versed in social media. The most well-known among the latest "famous" Gen-Z terrorists was Ibrahim al-Nablusi, who was killed by Israeli security forces three weeks ago while evading arrest.

Al-Nablusi became a Palestinian social media terror "influencer," having recorded himself at funerals and during shooting attacks, which he later published to online platforms.

Earlier this week, a friend of a wanted Palestinian "succeeded" to film him shooting at IDF forces as they closed in to arrest him (and he later turned himself in). Each video of this kind glorifies the militant in question, who then immediately becomes a local hero and in some cases, a national one, like al-Nablusi.

These new-age terrorists also don't have any distinct organizational affiliation. They see their local Palestinian identity as more important than being affiliated with a particular terror group.

The growing involvement of Islamic Jihad members in the shooting attacks, as well as Fatah operatives who are now collaborating with them, raises suspicions that we are witnessing a development that is beyond spontaneous. Hamas certainly won't object to this move. It contributes greatly to incessant attempts of persuading Palestinians in the West Bank to carry out attacks against Israel.

In the early years of the Second Intifada, Hezbollah invested quite a lot of funds in an attempt to incite the West Bank by supporting Fatah and Tanzim operatives in the Nablus area. Such a scenario is also possible now.

Above all, the current escalation in the West Bank makes it clear for the umpteenth time that despite the Israeli attempt to lavish the Palestinians in the West Bank with economic benefits and bury its head in the sand in the process. Since 2009, the Palestinians continue to oppose Israel's wild dream of truce through "deluxe occupation."

‘The games must go on’: Athlete recounts Munich massacre and problematic aftermath

With the Games suspended for the first time in Olympic history, the team prepared for a complete cancellation.

However, they were halted for only 34 hours, with then-IOC president Avery Brundage declaring “the Games must go on.”

Langhoff said it was “doubly difficult” for his side to focus on their sporting objectives after the attacks.

The team lost against the Soviet Union and ultimately finished fourth.

Despite the harrowing experience, the team found little understanding from the East German public upon returning home.

“Only medals counted,” he recalled. “For us in the GDR [East Germany], finishing fourth was a shock to the system. I mean, there wasn’t a prison camp, but only places one to three were financially rewarded.”

The East German government, allied with the PLO and hostile to Israel, officially called the hostage-taking a “tragedy,” while there was hardly any mention of the atrocity in the media.

The Communist authorities “completely ignored this attack and didn’t include us in any evaluations or anything else… [they] were only concerned with being successful in the competition,” Langhoff said.

Germany agrees to $28m. in compensation for families of Munich Olympics victims

Germany and the families of Israeli athletes murdered at the 1972 Munich Olympics have agreed on a compensation offer totaling 28 million euros ($28 million), said an interior ministry spokesperson on Friday.

Last month, the families had said they were unhappy with the latest German compensation offers and that they planned to boycott a ceremony on Monday in Munich marking the 50th anniversary of the attack in protest. How will the reparation be paid to victims' families from the 1972 Munich Massacre?

The federal government will contribute 22.5 million euro, while 5 million euros will come from the state of Bavaria and 500,000 euros will come from Munich, said the spokesperson.

On Sept. 5, 1972, members of the Israeli Olympic team were taken hostage at the poorly secured athletes' village by Palestinian gunmen from the radical Black September group.

Within 24 hours, 11 Israelis, five Palestinians and a German policeman were dead after a standoff and subsequent rescue effort erupted into gunfire.

Throwing rocks at Jews is all the rage lately.

Right after two Lebanese ministers proudly videoed themselves hurling rocks towards the border with Israel, Palestinian Media Watch found this news story about the Palestinian Museum in Ramallah, where there is a new interactive "intifada" exhibit.

Director of The Palestinian Museum’s Information and Communication Technology Unit Nasri Shtayyeh: “The user can choose one of these interactive stories. The first story is the intifada, and they have a kind of emotion, because the moment [the museum visitor] enters the story he needs to respond, since he is entering an environment of intifada that could contain throwing rocks, it could have road closures, it could have vehicles entering.”
…

Official PA TV host: “Let’s try it.”

Nasri Shtayyeh: “It’s really nice, and it’s interactive.”

[Official PA TV, At the Museum, Aug. 24, 2022]

We always wondered what a Palestinian museum would include. Now we know - it glorifies terror, the major Palestinian accomplishment.

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!

Activist who says Google demanded her relocation as retaliation for anti-Israel activities is lying

From The New York Times:

A Google employee who became the most visible opponent of a company contract with the Israeli military said on Tuesday that she would resign after claiming Google had tried to retaliate against her for her activism.

The employee, Ariel Koren, a marketing manager for Google’s educational products arm who has worked for the company for seven years, wrote a memo to colleagues announcing her plan to leave Google at the end of the week.

She spent more than a year organizing against Project Nimbus, a $1.2 billion agreement for Google and Amazon to supply Israel and its military with artificial intelligence tools and other computing services. Ms. Koren, 28, helped circulate petitions and lobby executives, and she talked to news organizations, all in an effort to get Google to reconsider the deal.

Then, in November, she said, came a surprising ultimatum from Google: Agree to move to São Paulo, Brazil, within 17 business days or lose your job.

Ms. Koren marketed educational products to Latin America and was based in Mexico City before moving to San Francisco during the pandemic. But, she said, there was not a clear business justification for the mandated move or its urgency, and a supervisor in Brazil told her that employees in São Paulo were working from home because of the pandemic.

But then we see this lone sentence:

Google and the National Labor Relations Board investigated her complaint and found no wrongdoing.

The NLRB dismissal letter shows that Koren's entire complaint is baseless - because Google's decision to move her role to Brazil came before she started her complaints about Israel and Project Nimbus: (I inserted her name in the redacted area.)

(I was skeptical at first, but this is definitely the correct dismissal letter, since that case number was linked in an article about Koren's complaint in March.)

The New York Times not mentioning this important fact is journalistic malpractice. It upends the entire point of the article.

Koren and the BDSers have been masterful at gaining outsized publicity since the Project Nimbus protests started.

The number of Google employees who protested the project is minuscule, but they still got their open letter published in The Guardian.

Then the BDSers pretended that there was a "shareholder revolt" which was similarly grossly exaggerated - but it generated a headline at The Intercept.

After that fizzled, the BDSers asked US students to sign a "pledge" that they will not accept internships at Google and Amazon, and again very few signed - but it was enough for them to trumpet it as a victory.

Koren's false claim that Google is retaliating against her was chapter four in this monomaniacal attempt to demonize Israel and pressure Google. Since there have been a number of similar retaliation complaints against Google in recent years, this one has received more publicity than the others did. Check out this March Los Angeles Times headline:

Koren's quitting Google is chapter five. After all, if her work environment was so toxic, she would have left Google long ago. But she wanted to squeeze out one more wave of anti-Israel articles - and the New York Times is happy to do its part.

I'll bet that Koren has been job searching for months and has another position lined up - but is framing her changing jobs, among Silicon Valley's constant employee turnover, as a principled decision to resign from Google.

(h/t Michael Starr/Jerusalem Post, David Bernstein, David Litman)

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 Security Council condemns Hezbollah - but refuses to mention Hezbollah

From UNIFIL:

(Resolution 2650 of) the Security Council requests the LAF and the UN Secretary General set out precise benchmarks and timelines for the effective and durable deployment of the Lebanese Armed Forces in southern Lebanon and in the country’s territorial waters. ...

The Council reiterates that UNIFIL does not require prior authorization or permission from anyone to undertake its mandated tasks, and that it is allowed to conduct its operations independently. It calls on the parties to guarantee UNIFIL’s freedom of movement, including by allowing announced and unannounced patrols. The Council condemns the harassment and intimidation of UNIFIL personnel, as well as the use of disinformation campaigns against peacekeepers. It further requests the mission to take measures to monitor and counter disinformation.

The Council also expresses concern in the resolution about some developments along the Blue Line. It notes the recent installation of containers that restrict peacekeepers’ access to, or ability to see, parts of the line. It also condemns the presence of unauthorized weapons controlled by armed groups in UNIFIL’s area of operations.

That last sentence is a condemnation of Hezbollah by the UN Security Council. But it refuses to name Hezbollah!

That is cowardly. While it is obvious that this resolution is meant to condemn Hezbollah, by not saying their name, they are letting them off the hook.

The resolution actually condemns two unnamed groups - both of which are Hezbollah.

The "containers" it mentions are from an NGO called "Green Without Borders" that is a Hezbollah front. Its leader is aligned with Hezbollah, outposts they build are used by Hezbollah, and these "containers" just happen to be right on the Blue Line, which seems awfully coincidental and political for an environmental group.

Palestinians use "human rights" NGOs to hide terror activity. Hezbollah uses "environmental" NGOs to do the same.

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!