Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Saturday, October 15, 2022

10/15 Links: Top Law Firms Fund Anti-Semitic Campus Groups at Berkeley; White House ‘deeply disappointed’ after Abbas tells Putin he doesn’t trust US

From Ian:

Nation’s Top Law Firms Fund Anti-Semitic Campus Groups at Berkeley

A host of the nation’s premier law firms are financially supporting organizations at Berkeley Law School that are accused of fostering anti-Semitism and hatred of Israel, according to a campus watchdog group.

Student groups at the elite law school, led by Law Students for Justice in Palestine, adopted what they called a pro-Palestine bylaw earlier this month pledging to ban all speakers who support "Zionism" or "the apartheid state of Israel." The resolution primarily targets Jews who identify as pro-Israel and support the Jewish state, fueling accusations of anti-Semitism among Berkeley law students.

An analysis by StandWithUs, a nonpartisan pro-Israel organization that combats anti-Semitism on campus, indicates that half of the student groups that backed the resolution are funded in part by some of the country’s most elite law firms, including Latham & Watkins, Jenner & Block LLP, and Cooley LLP. StandWithUs is demanding these firms pull their support from the student groups, but, as of Friday, none have committed to do so. A Washington Free Beacon request for comment to 10 of the law firms named by StandWithUs was not returned by press time.

Roz Rothstein, StandWithUs’s CEO and cofounder, told the Free Beacon that she is hopeful once these law firms learn that they are financially backing anti-Semitism, they will pull their support.

"It is hard to fathom that such distinguished law firms would knowingly sponsor student groups that support anti-Semitism by punishing Jewish students for aspects of their identity," Rothstein said. "We are hopeful that as these firms learn about what their grantees have done, they will publicly and rapidly condemn the antisemitic action and cease further sponsorship of groups who are perpetrators of such hate."

Analysts offer pros and cons on Lebanon maritime deal but agree it will not make Israel safer

Opponents of the deal, among them opposition leader Benjamin Netanyahu, also complained that the agreement was a capitulation to Hezbollah, an Iranian proxy and the most powerful force in Lebanon. In July, the terrorist group launched three unarmed drones at an Israeli gas rig, and Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah warned that “no one” would drill gas as long as Lebanon’s “rights” to extract gas were not upheld.

Amidror said his central question was how Nasrallah would react. “What will be the assessment of Nasrallah? … If, sitting with his people, he says, ‘Guys, we won. Israel collapsed under the pressure. … The Israelis retreated because they don’t want another war with Hezbollah, and let’s think what will be the next space in which we can blackmail them.’… it might lead to escalation,” Amidror said.

David Schenker, assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs during the Trump administration, shared Amidror’s concern during the JINSA webinar. “The big question for me is whether this agreement makes Israel safer. And this is what we’re hearing from the Israeli government. This is what we heard from the IDF. I think it’s to be determined. It could go either way. And the problem of Hezbollah doesn’t go away because of this agreement. It could potentially exacerbate the problem,” he said.

Schenker also offered a positive note, saying the deal would essentially turn Hezbollah and its Lebanese Christian allies into Israel’s business partners. “The Israeli government got … [them] … to sign off on a document that essentially recognizes Israel. This has never been done. … This discredits Hezbollah at home [and] undermines a little bit the resistance narrative,” Schenker said.

Amidror said proponents of the agreement have argued that what matters is that Israel can start drilling immediately, something “more important than all the symbolic lines in the sea.” He agreed that with the threat from Hezbollah at least temporarily shelved, oil and gas companies will more readily agree to explore in the area.

The U.S. has agreed to mediate between French oil giant TotalEnergies and Israel. TotalEnergies will drill in Lebanese waters and as part of the deal, Israel is to receive a percentage of revenue from gas that extends over the Lebanese line into Israeli waters. The U.S. also said that it would guarantee Israel’s security and economic rights should Hezbollah challenge the agreement. The U.S. provided Israel with a letter to that effect, Israeli sources said.

“It’s a PR paper. Legally, no one is obliged to fulfill it,” Amidror said. Schenker agreed, saying, “This letter, if it exists, doesn’t have any legal weight.”

Both analysts expressed concern that some of the funds from an offshore gas windfall could end up in the hands of Hezbollah. “I think the Lebanese already fear that this money will disappear into the abyss of corruption,” Schenker said. “There’s no transparency. The state does not have a sovereign wealth fund. Already there are contracts … by Total and others to shell companies that are partially owned by some of the most corrupt political elites in Lebanon.”

“We can expect that not only will it help Hezbollah’s allies benefit, but that Hezbollah to some extent will benefit as well,” he said.

Majority of Israelis Support Maritime Deal, Poll Shows

The majority of Israelis support the maritime border deal with Lebanon, believing it was the appropriate measure notwithstanding the coincidence with the election, according to an opinion poll released on Friday.

For 47 percent of respondents to Channel 12‘s survey, the signing of the agreement some three weeks before a general election represents the right decision, while 36 percent oppose it and 17 percent have no opinion on the matter.

On a separate topic, 47 percent of respondent believe that Prime Minister Yair Lapid’s main motivations for concluding the agreement were of a “political” nature, while 41 percent say the leader was guided by considerations of what is best for the security and economy of Israel.

In addition, 57 percent of those polled believe that former premier Benjamin Netanyahu’s opposition to the agreement and his harsh criticism of Lapid are political, compared to 31 percent who believe that his positions are motivated by Israel’s security and economy.

Israel’s security cabinet voted on Wednesday afternoon in favor of the maritime border deal with Lebanon. The text is now subject to approval by the parliament.

Lapid hailed the Lebanon deal on Wednesday, saying it was “a great achievement for the state of Israel, for Israel’s security and for Israel’s economy.”

Netanyahu meanwhile accused the government of caving in to external pressures and putting Israel’s security at risk.

10/14 Links Pt2: Phillips: Hysteria greets British PM's embassy move proposal; Amnesty UK refuses to sack official who likened Israel’s Gaza policies to the Shoah

From Ian:

Melanie Phillips: Hysteria greets British PM's embassy move proposal

Few expect that the British embassy will actually be moved. Indeed, given the chaos that has engulfed Truss since she became prime minister, with the financial crisis and collapse in electoral support sparked by her scorched-earth economic policies currently threatening to bring her down before she has her feet properly under the Downing Street table, moving the embassy would hardly seem to be a priority.

If it were to happen, however, it would not only be an enormous boost to Israel. It would also represent a dramatic change in British policy.

Unlike the US, where despite various presidents' relative coolness towards Israel the Christian heartlands remain solidly supportive, Britain's attitude towards the Jewish state has always been at best ambiguous and at worst – as in Mandatory Palestine – actively hostile.

Moving the embassy would not only start to reset Britain's shameful attitude towards Israel. It would also advance the cause of peace.

The only reason this century-old conflict continues is that the Palestinian Arabs have repudiated the two-state solution. They have refused repeated offers of a state of their own, because their goal is not a Palestinian state but the eradication of the Israeli one.

Towards this infernal goal, their principal weapon has been the refusal by Britain and other western countries to recognize the Palestinians' real agenda, providing them instead with funding, training and diplomatic recognition.

In other words, Britain and the rest of the west have incentivized, rewarded and perpetuated the war against Israel by going along with the morally bankrupt proposition that the Palestinian Arabs are entitled to a state of their own, even though their actual purpose is to use that state as a means to destroy Israel.

By moving the embassy, Truss – who describes herself as a "huge Zionist" – would be signaling an end to the shameful British capitulation to the Palestinians' lies and blackmail.

That is precisely why there's been such a reaction. While the average British citizen doesn't have an opinion about Israel one way or the other, Britain's elites loathe Israel on a scale that just doesn't exist in America.

The proposal to move the British embassy has lifted a stone, and we can all see what has crawled out from underneath.

Amnesty UK refuses to sack official who likened Israel’s Gaza policies to the Shoah

Amnesty International UK is defying calls to sack a senior official who shared a post comparing Israel to Nazi Germany and likened the Jewish state’s treatment of Palestinians to the Holocaust.

Garry Ettle, who represents the human rights charity as “country coordinator for Israel and Occupied Palestinian territories”, retweeted a message asking how video footage showing Israeli youths shouting at a Palestinian woman was “any different from Nazi Germany”.

The activist called Israel’s policies towards Gaza a “slow holocaust” in a Facebook message posted on 27 January 2020.

He also condemned US band Black Eyed Peas for playing a gig in “apartheid Israel” in another social media post last year.

Mr Ettle’s hardline views, which were revealed by online investigations group GnasherJew, have led to calls for Amnesty International UK to sack him.

Tory peer Lord Leigh of Hurley, an executive board member of the Conservative Friends of Israel, told the JC he thought Mr Ettle should be dismissed, adding: “Amnesty International UK has a very worrying record and this is the moment for decisive action to be taken by them.”

And a spokesperson for advocacy group Campaign Against Antisemitism said: “Only at Amnesty and like-minded organisations could someone who allegedly compares Israel to Nazis describe himself as a ‘human-rights activist’.

“Such comparisons are a breach of the universally accepted International Definition of Antisemitism. We would call on Amnesty to investigate and dissociate itself from this individual, but the organisation’s record on antisemitism gives little reason to think that it holds the views of the Jewish community in anything but contempt.”

Both the left and the right have turned on the Jews

Conservatives claim to abhor anti-Semitism, and yet foolishly believe they can ride the coattails of non-conservative loose cannons like Kanye West and greedily feed off the cultural scraps that fall to the ground; all while trampling on the supposed principles that were their “hills to die on” in their battles with the opposing side.

Kanye West, who in a matter of days argued that Jared Kushner sought peace in the Middle East to make money, repeatedly promoted the radical Black Hebrew Israelite conspiracy theory that American blacks are the “real Jews,” implied that Jews created cancel culture and announced that he would be going “death con 3” on “Jewish people,” has shown no signs of apologizing.

And yet, days later, conservatives celebrated Kanye West—an open and unapologetic anti-Semite—on the red carpet, labeling his very presence iconic.

A line has been crossed.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez spoke with Jeremy Corbyn and said veiled anti-Semitic things in the past, and conservative media—myself included—never let it go. And quite rightly so.

Kanye West, who has far more cultural influence than Ocasio-Cortez, pushed multiple explicit anti-Semitic tropes, and what was the result?

Many high-profile conservatives shrugged and moved on that same day. Some didn’t even shrug at all.

Now, many have responded to my vocal criticism of this appalling conduct with “whataboutism,” declaring that the leftist media ignores anti-Semitism all the time.

Yes, they do. So what?

I was under the impression that we were meant to be the principled ones. If that is true, where on earth are our principles?

I do understand the attitude of wanting to bring culturally-powerful people into our tent based on their supposedly aligned views on single-issue topics. (Let’s leave aside for now the fact that Kanye West’s “pro-life” views are based on an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory.) However, if there are no entry requirements to the ideological tent, if admission numbers are the only metric of value, what does that tent even represent?

Until our movement is willing to look in the mirror and stick to their supposed principles, the Jewish people cast out from this tent will wonder whether any of this is worth fighting for.

Yet again, Jews are alone.

Iranian scholar on TV: Iranians will annihilate Israel and become the "masters of the world" BEFORE the Mahdi arrives

MEMRI uncovers an incredible video:

Iranian scholar and strategist Alireza Panahian, co-founder of the Ammar think tank, said in an October 6, 2022 public address which was aired on Channel 3 (Iran) that according to Islamic tradition, the Iranians will annihilate Israel and become the "masters of the world." He said that according to commentators on the Quran, Iranians will ravage the homes of Israelis, annihilate them, and finish them off. Panahian went on to say that according to Islamic tradition, this will happen before the rise of the Mahdi and before the appearance of the Hidden Imam, the rulers of the entire world will be Iranians. He added that all the "free nations" of the world, the Yemenis, Iraqis, Syrians, and Lebanese, are proud of these traditions, and that the Iranians will liberate the world. Panahian further said that the "wanning" Western civilization has no choice but to be annihilated in confrontation with Iran.

Iranian supremacy, anyone?

Everything Iran and Arab antisemites accuse Israel of planning is being said here for Iran, practically word for word. Iran is planning on destroying Israel and Jews, and on ruling the world.

And if you are wondering whether this is antisemitic or merely "anti-Zionist" since he is only saying that the Iranians will annihilate "Zionists"....

"According to our traditions, Imam Al-Sadiq and Imam Al-Baqir were asked: 'Who are those thorough people of great might who would pull the Zionists out of their homes and finish them off?' They answered: 'They are the Iranians.'"

Both of these Muslim theologians lived in the 8th century. I somehow don't think they said "Zionists."

Equally importantly, Panahian says that "According to the traditions, the Iranians will annihilate Israel before the rise [of the Mahdi]." Meaning, the process should start now.

This is what Iran is preaching to its people.

Incitement to genocide doesn't get much more explicit than this.

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!

10/14 Links Pt1: Lapid's Two State Solution; Ruthie Blum: It makes sense to be suspicious of the maritime deal; Israel must prepare for a nuclear Iran

From Ian:

Lapid's Two State Solution

What did Yair Lapid mean by his foregoing statement? Did he mean 2 states in an undivided Jerusalem or Jerusalem undivided as an Israel state with the Palestinian Arab state established elsewhere? If the former, he would find a majority in Israel would not accept this. If the latter, no Palestinian Arab or Arab leader would accept it.

What he should have done was to make use of an expert historian to proof positive Jewish indigenous rights to the Land of Israel, After all, during Temple Times , we learn of the Jews and the Romans. Subsequently the Greeks. The words, "Palestinians" and Arabs" don't appear until many centuries later.

To begin with, he could share the words of Lloyd George, who was outraged by the claim that Arabs had been treated unfairly in Palestine---":

"No race has done better out of the fidelity with which the Allies redeemed their promises to the oppressed races than the Arabs. Owing to the tremendous sacrifices of the Allied Nations, and more particularly of Britain and her Empire, the Arabs have already won independence in Iraq, Arabia, Syria, and Trans-jordania, although most of the Arab races fought throughout the War for the Turkish oppressors---[In particular ] the Palestinian Arabs for Turkish rule."[ A Mandate for Israel by Douglas J. Feith].

Perhaps the greatest lesson for Lapid is demonstrated by history - Appeasement mostly does not work and it certainly does not win.

Ruthie Blum: It makes sense to be suspicious of the maritime deal

Jaw-dropping press conference
LAPID’S PRIME-time press conference was just as jaw-dropping. Lauding the great “achievements” that Israel made by (ostensibly) rejecting a set of Lebanon’s additional demands, he boasted that the cabinet had approved the deal and thanked Biden and French President Emmanuel Macron for their help and support. Oy.

He proceeded to acknowledge that the agreement “staves off the possibility of a flare-up with Hezbollah,” quickly averring that “Israel is not afraid of Hezbollah. The IDF is stronger than any terror organization, and if we went to battle, we would deal it a heavy blow. That being said, if it’s possible to prevent war, it’s the job of a responsible government to do so.”

Questioned by a reporter about the government’s consent to circumvent a Knesset vote, he blabbered about the legality of the decision. Then he let the cat out of the bag.

“In light of the utterly profligate behavior of the opposition, we didn’t think that it would be [the] right [thing to do],” he explained.

In other words, the risk of Hezbollah interference in Israel’s gas mining is smaller in Lapid’s eyes than a potential parliamentary thumbs-down. Which brings us to Iran.

Biden's horrific foreign policy
DESPITE THE ongoing protests across the Islamic Republic that are providing a glimmer of hope about the ultimate fall of the regime, the US administration is continuing to convey its desperation to revive the nuclear pact and fill Tehran’s coffers with billions of dollars. This travesty is typical of Biden’s horrific foreign policy.

Israel cannot afford to follow in such ill-fated footsteps. Nevertheless, National Security Adviser Eyal Hulata defended the gas deal on the ridiculous grounds that it “goes against Iran’s interest in Lebanon and weakens Hezbollah’s hold on the government in Beirut.”

Really?

No wonder Udi Adiri, Israel’s longtime lead maritime border and gas extraction negotiator, resigned a couple of weeks ago in exasperation over the contents of the document that was crafted against his better judgment. This didn’t have an effect on what is going to be a signed, sealed and delivered deal on October 31, the day of Aoun’s exit and 24 hours before Israelis head to the polls.

No, you don’t have to be a maritime expert to grasp the magnitude of the gambit. Common sense and experience ought to suffice, if not in Israel’s soon-to-be-shuffled halls of power, then at least at the ballot box.

'All my family and friends turned against me when I enlisted in the IDF'

The Israel Defense Forces' Desert Reconnaissance Battalion is one of a kind: not only are its fighters volunteers, but they come from Muslim, Christian, and Circassian backgrounds, often having left their families and friends, who opposed their enlistment, behind.

They have served on the border with the Gaza Strip for many years, protecting Israel and putting their lives on the line.

According to one of the fighters, "there are people here whose identities cannot be revealed not because of the operational aspects, but because of what would happen to them if their photos or names were made public." The unit was established in 1986 in order to regulate the enlistment of Bedouin youth in the IDF. What began as a small unit has over time grown into a battalion.

When the Oslo Accords were signed in 1993, the unit became operational and was stationed along the Gaza border. During the Second Intifada, between 2000 and 2005, the fighters participated actively in operations in the strip, especially the Philadelphia Route, combating underground tunnels and the spread of terror.

In January 2002, four of the battalion's fighters were killed in an attack on an outpost near the Kerem Shalom border crossing, where several years later Gilad Shalit would be captured, and where the fighters carried out patrols with us, the journalists, in the dead of night.

Lt. Col. Guy Madar, 33, married and father of five from the Karmei Katif settlement in southern Israel, has been commanding the battalion for the past three months. He grew up in the Givati Brigade, and when he reached the rank of major general, he naturally wanted to continue his service in the purple brigade.

But today, he says, he could not be prouder of his fighters, even though sometimes the Arabic language, which is used outside of operational activity – as that is only conducted in Hebrew – is a challenge for him.

"I manage. The soldiers know Hebrew, and othertimes, they help me. My ambition is to learn Arabic. This is my first job as a battalion commander, but I got to know the Bedouin patrol unit because they are trained in a Givati base. But you only think you know something before you actually do it. Before that, there are a lot of preconceived notions. When I joined, I discovered how amazingly they operated. I grew up in Givati and I wanted to be an officer in Givati, and I will honestly say that at first, I was a little disappointed because I had a lot of fears, we all have our prejudices. It was only when I joined that I found out how serious this unit is. The fighters really don't get the appreciation they deserve.

"When I say that I am the commander of the Bedoun patrol unit, everyone tells me that it must be challenging and asks how I manage. My answer is that it is like any fighting unit in the IDF. That it is a group of fighters who want to contribute. They are strong, good fighters, and know the sector like the back of their hand. I have a company commander who has been here since 2013. Everyone who comes across the unit discovers that they are wonderful guys, not spoiled, who just want to fight and contribute to the country."

Because the antisemitism from Palestinian and Arab media and personalities is so pervasive, they need to keep upping the ante in order to get their incitement to break through the line noise of normal Jew-hate.

Enter the preacher of the Al-Aqsa Mosque and "Grand Mufti" of Jerusalem, Sheikh Muhammad Hussein.

In response to Jews visiting the Temple Mount on Sukkot, Hussein said that they "performed racist Talmudic rituals" and "carried out collective recitation of excerpts from their Talmud in the mosque’s courtyards."

But calling Jewish prayer racist is not nearly inflammatory enough nowadays. Modern Jew-haters need a new hook.

So the Mufti added that the goal of Jews who quietly walk around Islamic buildings designed to supplant Judaism's holiest site are "attempts to obliterate Islamic civilization."

Who knew that Jews pushing their kids in baby strollers could have such far-reaching abilities as to destroy entire civilizations? We Jews are even more powerful than I thought!

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

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

Ever since the free world has been condemning Russia for invading Ukraine, modern Jew-haters have been trying to paint Israel as being like Russia.

They tried to compare Ukraine to Gaza. They tried to compare Russia's occupation to Israel in the West Bank.

Facts, of course, are not part of the conversation. Modern antisemites rely on emotion and analogy, as well as the ignorance of their audience.

But you don't hear much from them lately about this analogy. Because the Ukrainians and the Palestinians aren't following the script.

Ukrainians have compared themselves multiple times with Israel standing up against a hostile Arab world, not with Palestinians.

And now Mahmoud Abbas, who has pretended to not take sides, has dropped the pretense that he doesn't support Russia.

A month after Hamas leaders met with senior Russian officials (without any negative reaction from Palestinians,) Abbas followed suit and met with Vladimir Putin and other officials.

"Russia adheres to justice and international law, and that is enough for us," Abbas said.

With this, Abbas has placed a "halal" sticker on Russia's invasion of Ukraine as being legitimate, legal and just.

Palestinian activists for years have been repeating the mantras of supporting "justice" and "international law." Now we see that both major Palestinian parties support Russia's interpretation of those two concepts.

And now the same Palestinian activists who have tried so hard to associate Palestinians with Ukrainians look like idiots because Palestinian leaders themselves fully support Russia's invasion - and occupation - of Ukraine.

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

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

The Center for Strategic Studies at the University of Jordan issued a survey of Jordanians this month, and the results are not good for the government.

Only 33% trust the current government and think that it can assume its responsibilities. Only 29% are optimistic about the government, with 71% disagreeing. Only 17% have confidence in Parliament and 12% in political parties.

80% of Jordanians say the country is moving in a negative direction in general, and 85% say the economy is moving in a negative direction. And perhaps most astonishingly, the vast majority of Jordanians - 69% - believe that the majority of people in Jordan cannot be trusted. 79% say that Jordan is not a happy society.

But guess who Jordanians regard as their biggest external threat? Israel, of course! 61% of Jordanians believe that Israel is a threat to Jordanian national security. 54% believe that Iran is a threat.

What can one make of these results?

The fear and hate of Israel comes directly from the daily incitement and antisemitism in Jordanian media. And Jordan's media is not exactly independent, meaning that the government is trying to ensure that the people direct their anger at the Jews rather than the government.

It is a time honored Arab tradition.

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!

10/13 Links Pt2: How Ken Burns Misuses the Holocaust; How Joe Rogan, Tucker Carlson, Berkeley and Wellesley mainstream anti-Semitism; The Wedding Canopy in Abu Dhabi

From Ian:

Jonathan Tobin: How Ken Burns Misuses the Holocaust

Yet contrary to the film’s conclusion, the Holocaust tells us little or nothing about what to do about America’s contemporary immigration debates or the current American problem with Jew-hatred. Any attempt to frame the Holocaust as a representative moment in the history of human intolerance is a moral calamity. Burns demonstrated this in a CNN interview to promote the film. He spoke of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis’s decision to ship illegal immigrants to Martha’s Vineyard—whose affluent liberal residents advocate open borders but prefer to have border communities deal with the humanitarian crisis this has engendered—as if it deserved to be mentioned in the same conversation as the subject of his documentary.

That Burns, a longtime supporter of the Democrats and liberal causes, would be guilty of playing along with such an inappropriate Holocaust analogy demonstrates that the filmmaker’s efforts to frame the question of American guilt in this context should be viewed with suspicion. The same is true of his attempt to claim that current political opponents of open borders—such as Trump, DeSantis, and their supporters—are figures who conjure up the threats that America and the Jews faced in the past.

Anti-Semitism isn’t merely a collection of hateful sentiments; it’s a political organizing principle that has attached itself to a variety of different ideologies, from Nazism to Communism to Islamism. The answer to such threats isn’t open borders for America, amnesty for illegal immigrants, or even ensuring that more people read The Diary of Anne Frank. The only way to deter another genocide of the Jews is Jewish empowerment and our ability to defend ourselves, something we would gain only after the war with the creation of the State of Israel.

Some who attempt to use the Holocaust as an exhibit in contemporary immigration-law debates are actually indifferent to the security of Israel and, indeed, support appeasement of an Iran that seeks nuclear weapons to possibly perpetrate another Holocaust. This makes it hard to take them seriously when they lecture Americans about the murder of 6 million Jews in the past century.

The Holocaust was a chapter of history marked by American failure. But whatever one may think about Franklin Roosevelt and his indifference to Hitler’s victims, the responsibility for the murder of 6 million Jews still belongs to the Nazis and their collaborators. It was a crime the United States may not have had the power to deter, but one this nation could have done more to stop had its political leadership been willing to do so. This is a disturbing fact for many who lionize Roosevelt. But Burns and others who clearly wish to apply the lessons from this failure to complicated 21st-century political debates, while ignoring real-time genocides or potent threats to the security of millions of living Jews, shouldn’t pretend they have learned anything from the past or have anything to teach us about it.

Jonathan Tobin: How Joe Rogan, Tucker Carlson, Berkeley and Wellesley mainstream anti-Semitism

At what point does a rise in anti-Semitism stop being viewed merely as a series of isolated, troubling occurrences and start being treated like an emergency? When mass- media programs mainstream hatemongers who target and seek to delegitimize Jews? When elite academic institutions behave as though it’s acceptable conduct? When Jews are attacked in the streets?

The ongoing epidemic of violence against Jews in New York City is mostly ignored, both by the media and much of the organized Jewish world. This is not only because the victims are Orthodox Jews who are easy to pick out. They’re also not the sort of people with whom opinion leaders, and even most American Jews, identify or associate.

But the mainstreaming of anti-Semitic attitudes on major campuses around the United States is harder to dismiss. Even more difficult to ignore are the widely disseminated programs that embrace open anti-Semites as legitimate voices worth considering.

Indeed, what is unfolding, inch by inch, is the normalization of anti-Semitism in the U.S. in a manner unprecedented in the post-Holocaust era. Nor is it confined to a specific segment of society or particular end of the political spectrum.

Indeed, as the events of the past week illustrate, Jew-hatred is thriving on both the left and the right. Individually, each of these instances—the legitimization of the BDS movement and targeting of Jewish institutions at Boston’s Wellesley College; the establishment of a Jew-free zone by student organizations at the University of California at Berkeley School of Law; the appearance of BDS advocate Roger Waters on the Joe Rogan podcast; and the featuring of the rapper formerly known as Kanye West on the Fox News Channel’s “Tucker Carlson Tonight”—can be unpacked, denounced or rationalized and then forgotten, before the public’s attention is diverted to new controversies.

Taken together, they represent a trend that ought to set off alarms about the way insidious ideas that normalize hatred for Jews and Israel are gaining a foothold in mainstream forums. More than that, the growing tolerance for them and lack of consequences for those responsible bode ill not just for Jews, but for the future of civil society.

Roger Waters: Israeli policy is the mass murder of Palestinians

Roger Waters, British rock musician and founding member of band Pink Floyd has expressed his strong opinions about the relationship between Israel and Hamas in a recent appearance on commentator Joe Rogan's popular podcast, The Joe Rogan Experience.

"The Israelis seem now to have a policy of ... murdering so many of them that they are absolutely trying to create another intifada. So they can make it an armed conflict...so they can just kill them all," he said, adding that Israel is provoking the Palestinians into an armed conflict in order to manufacture an excuse to destroy them.

Waters started out his statements by reminding Rogan that Hamas is actually "the democratically elected government of Gaza." He quickly added that "there is an armed wing and whatever..." and then began speaking about occupation and the Geneva convention.

Rogan pressed him, asking whether or not the elections in Gaza were corrupt. Waters responded saying, "I have no idea, I wasn't there...Has there been an election since then? I don't know. ...I can't really answer that question because I'm not there and I don't know."

Touching on the subject of rockets fired into Israel, Waters asserted that rockets fired from Gaza "almost never do any damage because they're very ineffectual."

A huge percentage of anti-Israel actions on campus, whether it is BDS votes in student unions or anti-Israel protests, are scheduled for when Jews are likely to be unavailable.

But don't call them antisemitic!

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!

In an effort to demonize Jews, anti-Zionist groups are throwing around the word "pogrom" for some hotheaded Jewish settlers who entered Huwara today.

I am not going to defend the Jewish youth who appear to only want to cause trouble. But the descriptions of the scenes there by people and groups like "Independent Jewish Voices" as a "pogrom."

Israeli settlers carrying out a pogrom in the middle of a Palestinian town near Nablus today. This kind of fascist behaviour is a natural outcome of Israeli apartheid and colonialism.

The haters also claim that the Jews are being given carte blanche to destroy property and that the IDF is protecting their rampage.

The most complete video of the events shows not a pogrom, but clashes. Palestinians are wielding sticks and throwing rocks at the Jews. And the IDF is separating the two sides, not protecting one side.

If I wanted to, I could edit the video and add deceptive captions to make it look like Palestinians are attacking Jews without any provocation. Which is exactly what the haters are doing on their side.

Using the word "pogrom" is as offensive and as antisemitic as using the word "Holocaust" to describe Jewish actions. It is meant to accuse Jews of doing exactly what those who murdered them throughout the ages have been doing. The term is meant to hurt Jews and only Jews.

And, again not to defend the Jewish youth, but they are there because Palestinians have been attacking Jews non-stop in recent days. The haters aren't talking about that.

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!

10/13 Links Pt1: How to Lose Friends and Influence Over People; Lebanon's Bait-and-Switch Treaty; Israel Passing Intelligence to Ukraine on Iranian-Made Suicide Drones

From Ian:

Yeah, Buoy!!!

The government’s new pitch was that this would be the real benefit of the deal: preserving and enhancing Israel’s security interests through the now-famous buoy line. Barak Ravid, the local Israeli journalistic mouthpiece of the Obama-Biden policy team from the Iran deal days, relayed that government officials who briefed reporters on the deal said that anchoring the “line of buoys” was “very important” because “in the last 20 years the Israeli military operated along this line unilaterally and the Lebanese side had international legitimacy to challenge it.” The deal, however, “will allow Israel to treat it as its northern territorial border.”

In other words, in the two decades up to this moment, Israel has had total freedom to operate in the area to ensure its security against Hezbollah. However, without the deal, the terror pseudo-state to its north would suddenly have enjoyed “international legitimacy” to challenge Israel. That sounds very serious—and certainly warrants ceding territory with potential energy resources under threat of force to a terrorist group that is stockpiling and pointing tens of thousands of rockets at you.

Needless to say, the Lebanese side disagrees with the Israeli reading. Instead, it claims another point on land farther south at Naqoura. Squaring this circle, probably with some creative language, is what the U.S. mediator likely has been busy figuring out.

Meanwhile, Israeli Defense Minister Benny Gantz was spit-balling another set of talkers: “This is an agreement whose essence is economic,” Gantz said last week. “And if it is signed, we, as well as Lebanon and its citizens, who are suffering from a severe crisis, will enjoy it for years to come.” The logic here was that if Lebanon gets its rig in its Block 9 opposite Israel’s rig at Karish, then Hezbollah will have a stake in maintaining calm and smooth operation of both rigs. So, in the future, if Hezbollah attacks Israeli energy infrastructure, Israel can target a gas rig owned and operated by France’s Total—putting France on Hezbollah’s side.

This pretense of hard security and pseudo-deterrence posture rang even more hollow as it clashed with another key government talker: that Israel had to conclude this awful deal ASAP if it wanted to avoid a new war with Hezbollah. An IDF official sent out to make this pitch put it this way: “There is an urgency and a necessity to reach an agreement in the near future and without delay, in order to prevent an escalation of security [dangers], which is [otherwise] highly likely, and to utilize the unique window of opportunity to reach an agreement.”

The logic here was itself unique in the annals of deterrence: If your psychopathic neighbor keeps slashing the tires on your shiny Mercedes, the solution is to buy him a spanking brand-new Mercedes of his own that you can then pretend to hold hostage.

The source of this weird pitch was again the Biden administration. As a senior U.S. administration official relayed through Ravid, the reason Biden wanted Lapid to wrap up the deal within weeks was “because the issue has become urgent and the lack of an agreement could lead to dangerous consequences for the region.”

Yet when U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz tweeted that he was troubled by how the Biden administration “pressured our Israeli allies” into a comically terrible deal, the Washington arm of the Obama-Biden messaging machine sprang into action. The progressive lobbying group J Street put out a brief that “fact checked” Sen. Cruz’s ignorant partisanship. Daniel Shapiro, Obama’s former ambassador to Israel who is intimately familiar with the communications environment in Israel, weighed in, regurgitating the same exact talkers and asserting that it was “definitely NOT” American pressure that pushed Israel into this deal.

Yet the reason the Biden administration announced that a gas deal was a key priority was precisely because it’s a deal with Hezbollah. Stabilizing and investing in Iranian regional “equities” is at the core of the Obama-Biden doctrine of realignment with Iran. It’s how you achieve “regional integration”—by publicly showcasing your ability to pressure your allies to prop up Iranian assets, even as the Iranian people are being mowed down in the streets.

How to Lose Friends and Influence Over People

Americans have a reputation, with others and in their own national literature, for being careless and breaking things. Often this is because they are so admirably creative, dynamic, and unattached to the past. But for the last two decades, the epicenter of American carelessness has been the Middle East, an area of the world that seems to encourage fantasies among all Westerners, yet where real-world margins for error are small. The result has been a series of disasters for the peoples of the region and for American prestige. This week brought what looks like another unforced error in policymaking, fed by hubris, fantasy, airy talk, and a refusal to acknowledge reality.

On Tuesday, White House national security spokesman John Kirby announced that President Joe Biden will be reevaluating America’s relationship with Saudi Arabia after OPEC+ announced the previous week that it would cut oil production. Kirby’s announcement followed a statement by Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., claiming that Saudi Arabia is helping to “underwrite Putin’s war” through OPEC+. “As Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,” Menendez said, “I will not green-light any cooperation with Riyadh until the Kingdom reassesses its position with respect to the war in Ukraine.”

As a Saudi who loves the United States, and believes deeply that our two countries need each other, the only word that comes to mind regarding the contemporary “reevaluation” of our relations is: obscene.

It was the Obama administration that decided to give Vladimir Putin a foothold in the eastern Mediterranean, which it sold to the American people as a way to “deescalate” the civil war in Syria. As the United States romanced Putin, offering him Crimea and warm water ports in Syria in exchange for pulling Iran’s irons out of the fire over the past decade, U.S. allies like Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, and Israel have had no choice but to cope. Last month, while Russian-operated Iranian drones and missiles were pounding Kyiv, Riyadh used its diplomatic leverage to obtain the release of American and British POWs from Putin.

America saddled us with the reality of a neighboring country controlled by Iranian troops and the Russian air force. Worse, as part of its Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the Obama administration sent tens of billions of dollars flowing into Iranian coffers—money that was used to demolish Iraq, crush Syria, create chaos in Lebanon, and threaten Saudi territory from Yemen. Iranian rocket and drone strikes on oil facilities in Saudi Arabia are now routine. In response to the barrage of missiles on Saudi infrastructure last year, the Biden administration withdrew U.S. missile defense batteries from Saudi territory.

Having watched Russian forces support or directly commit atrocities against innocent civilians and facilitate the use of chemical weapons for seven years in Syria, the Saudi government was quick to condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Unlike many in the West, who expected a short, parade-ground war, the Saudis understood full well what Putin was capable of. So did the Israelis.

Why Jerusalem Is the Right Location for the UK's Embassy

Up until 1948, the world generally referred to "Palestinians" as the Jews who lived in what was to become modern Israel. The "Palestinian" flag until 1948 contained a Magen David, the Palestine Post was the region's Jewish newspaper and Palestinian football teams comprised Jews.

Jews were ethnically cleansed from the Old City and eastern Jerusalem by the invading Jordanian and Arab armies in 1948. Jews were the majority of the population of the Old City. Synagogues were desecrated and destroyed and the vibrant Jewish community erased. The Jewish neighborhood of Simon HaTsadik (Simon the Just) became the Muslim area of Sheikh Jarrah.

The default position for the location of an embassy is a country's capital city, and it is for the country itself to decide its location. Israel has declared that Jerusalem is its capital city and this must be respected. The UK already has a consulate in eastern Jerusalem to serve the local Arab communities. Why, therefore, should there not be an embassy in Jerusalem to serve Israeli citizens?

The Abraham Accords and the immense benefits for the region flowing from them has shown that the relocation of the U.S. embassy in Jerusalem has had no adverse effect. Neither would the relocation of the British embassy.

This video was featured on the Fatah Facebook page. It says,

It shows a car being stoned by youths. The driver attempts to flee to save his life, and he ends up crashing the car and it falls into a ditch.

The video is captioned, "A settler entered Husan village in Bethlehem by mistake.✌️🇵🇸"

This isn't the Facebook page of some Palestinian teenager celebrating throwing rocks at cars. It is the official social media of the ruling political party of the Palestinians.

There is real glee here from Mahmoud Abbas' party at kids terrorizing a presumed Jew because he or she is a Jew.

Anyone who thinks that Fatah can run a country has 25 years of counter-evidence - but all you really need to see is in how it promotes this video.

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

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

The "If-Then" fallacy comes back in full force for Lebanon

Amir Tibon writes in Haaretz that the maritime border agreement between Israel and Lebanon are as important as the Abraham Accords:

The Abraham Accords, for all the optimism and economic benefits they created, did not save the life of one Israeli soldier. After all, Israel had never gone to war with Bahrain, the UAE or Morocco. The Lebanon deal mediated by Biden’s point man, Amos Hochstein, on the other hand, has the potential to avert a disastrous confrontation between Israel and Hezbollah.

Such a war would play out very differently than Israel’s periodic clashes with Hamas in Gaza: Conservative estimates include tens of thousands of rockets falling on Israeli cities, hundreds of casualties, and widespread destruction. If the agreement holds, this nightmare scenario will be prevented. It doesn’t mean peace will blossom between Israel and Lebanon, but securing quiet on Israel’s northern border is more important at the moment.

The assumption that the agreement will prevent war is part of an old tradition held by "experts" that I have called the "if-then" fallacy: If Israel does X, then others will do Y.

An early example was Michael Kramer in Time magazine who said, in 1988, that if Israel would give a serious peace offer to Palestinians and the Palestinians reject it, then the world wouldn't blame Israel for there not being peace.

Since then, Israel indeed did offer many serious peace offers, Palestinians rejected them all, and the world keeps blaming Israel.

Another example is ironically listed in Tibon's peace. In 2003, the conventional wisdom was that if Israel would just withdraw from Gaza, then Gaza would no longer be a problem for Israel, because there would be no incentive for Gaza groups to start wars.

Israel withdrew from Gaza - and Gaza groups continue to start wars every year or two.

What about Hezbollah, though? Aren't they a more rational actor than Hamas and Islamic Jihad? Couldn't they be trusted to react logically when Israel does what they want?

Well, in 2000, Israel withdrew from Lebanon - the entire raison d'etre of Hezbollah, it seemed. The UN certified Israel's full withdrawal. Certainly, the experts said, if Israel made a full withdrawal from southern Lebanon, then Hezbollah would have no claim on Israel and there would be peace. Yet Hezbollah continues to claim lands south of the UN-demarcated line, and it violate the Blue Line when kidnapping Israeli soldiers that sparked the 2006 Lebanon war.

Now, we are told that if Israel concedes the entire disputed area with Lebanon at sea, then Hezbollah will not do anything to jeopardize Lebanese sovereignty and will respect the border. Yet Lebanon and Hezbollah created a new "border" during the negotiations. What is stopping Hezbollah from claiming, whether this year or in five years, that Israel is extracting gas in Lebanese territorial waters and that it must "defend" the area?

Indeed, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah is taking partial credit for the agreement, saying that Israel knuckled under to his threats to attack the Karish gas platform. This was parroted by Hezbollah's deputy, saying it was Hezbollah strength that forced Israel to humiliate itself. They regard the agreement as a capitulation by Israel to Hezbollah threats.

This is not exactly the same "if-then" formula that the optimists are claiming.

The Shebaa Farms dispute, over a tiny amount of land, has been enough of an excuse for Hezbollah to continue claiming Israel is the aggressor and that it is protecting Lebanon with an army and arsenal that rivals those of many nations. Why would it act any differently over a maritime border?

Moreover, Hezbollah is not an independent player. It follows what Iran's supreme leader wants. If Iran tells Hezbollah to shoot a thousand rockets into Israel , Hezbollah will not listen to the "experts" about how pragmatic it is. It would do what terror groups always do: create a pretext that will mollify Leftist antisemitic allies ("we are protecting Jerusalem from Judaization!") and shoot the rockets.

There is no doubt that in the short term, this maritime agreement will cool tensions on the Lebanese border. But the hundreds of square kilometers Israel gave up are not only for the short term, but forever. Giving up something so valuable in exchange for an assumption of how a terror group will act far into the future, without a single Hezbollah pledge or signature, is taking the if-then fallacy to new lengths.

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!

Field teams of the Yemen Ministry of Industry and Trade in Sanaa closed a shop selling children's pajamas with the Star of David on them on Wednesday.

The Minister of Industry and Trade, Muhammad Sharaf al-Mutahhar, stressed his ministry will not be lenient towards those involved in importing and trading Israeli goods or those bearing symbols of the Israeli enemy.

Al-Mutahar expressed his thanks for citizens who reported this horrendous crime.

Samples of the offensive pajamas were taken and through intensive investigation, the importer was identified.

The Deputy Director of the Industry Office in the Secretariat, Muhammad Sudan, said that the field teams closed the shop of the merchant who imported the awful clothing, stressing that the necessary legal procedures are being completed to refer him to the competent authorities.

The streets of Yemen are safe again.

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!

10/12 Links Pt2: Alan Johnson: On Amnesty’s Antisemitic ‘Apartheid’ Report; Kontorovich: Israel should not sign a cultural agreement with Europe

From Ian:

Alan Johnson: On Amnesty’s Antisemitic ‘Apartheid’ Report

This new introduction to the updated 2022 edition of The Apartheid Smear (forthcoming), originally published by BICOM in 2013, critiques a recent Amnesty International report, one of a crop of very similar ‘reports’ published by NGOs and UN bodies in 2021 and 2022 that smear Israel as an ‘apartheid’ state [6]. The introduction is organised in three parts, critically examining in turn the analysis, politics, and methods of Amnesty’s report.

Why is it so important for opinion formers and policy makers who seek peace via the two-state solution to reject the Amnesty Apartheid Report?

Because it has long been understood by democrats on all sides that a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is impossible without the hard work of mutual recognition and peacebuilding, negotiations and compromises, and, eventually, a lasting settlement based on a division of the land and an institutionalisation of the democratic right to national self determination of both peoples.

Some way-stations on the journey to peace have been Madrid, Oslo, Camp David, Taba, Annapolis, and the Kerry-Obama talks. Yes, the last inch of the journey, as the saying goes, is a mile deep, but there is no real-world alternative to trying again to traverse it. Today, that effort will proceed in the more hopeful context of the Abraham Accords, a historic series of agreements between Israel and several surrounding Arab states. For an extensive collection of some of the most creative and expert thinking from Israelis, Palestinians and others about how to recommence that journey to peace see Rescuing Israeli-Palestinian Peace: The Fathom Essays 2016-2020.

However, while a negotiated two-state solution remains the only viable way to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by recognising the right of both peoples to national self determination, right now the gaps between the sides remain significant, and there is insufficient trust, or political will, to build the kind of relationships between the leaderships that might allow those gaps to be bridged.

In the real world, which is found at some distance from NGO-UN Reportland, the task of Britain, along with other European states, the US and Arab leaders, is not to make Israel an international pariah as the Amnesty report would have us do, but to prevent further deterioration on the ground, lower tensions, and find ways to improve the situation. This approach may not be well suited to winning applause from a campus audience, but it is well suited to encouraging a recommencement of the peace process down the line. The analysis, politics and methods of the Amnesty report would take us in the opposite direction, and should be rejected as a political dead-end by opinion-formers, policy makers and, not least, Palestinians.

Mainstream Jewish Organizations Don’t Have Leftwing Antisemitism “Under Control”

While the Jewish community is playing the short game, doing what it’s always done to win the moment, radical social justice warriors are playing the long game—what activists call “the long march through institutions”—in inculcating a stark ideological worldview that portrays anyone with power or success (success is a function of power, in this worldview)—America, Israel, Jews, Asians, men, etc.—as oppressors. Schools are teaching students to see people’s identities as markers of privilege and power and to “recognize and resist systems of oppression.” The problem is that the ideologues who are driving the agenda define the oppressor as anyone perceived to be powerful and successful, and the oppressed as anyone they deem powerless and, hence, unsuccessful. It’s a highly simplistic, binary worldview.

With this ideological software running through our kids’ brains, the school system does not have to even utter the word “Jew” or “Israel” for Jews and Israel to be ultimately implicated in oppression. Indeed, this is already happening. Survey data shows a strong correlation between progressive political attitudes on oppression and antisemitism on the left. The Jewish Institute for Liberal Values commissioned a poll of 1,600 likely voters. Survey respondents were split roughly between Democratic and Republican voters. Respondents were asked: “Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? America is a structurally racist country in which white Americans, and white-adjacent groups who emulate white culture (like Asian Americans and Jewish Americans), have unfair advantages over minorities which must be addressed to achieve equity?” The poll revealed that those on the far left were much more likely to agree with the statement, an indication that progressive ideological attitudes about structural racism are fueling antisemitic and anti-Asian sentiment (viewing Jews and Asians as privileged).

The ideologues are rewiring the way young people think so that they’ll adopt their worldview, including the view that Israel is a “settler-colonialist” state. They are, in effect, laying the groundwork for the Berkeley Law Schools of the future, when there will be more true believers on their side, at which time the future Dean of the Law School will face more pressure from radical activists and less pushback from us.

For Jewish organizations to effectively counter the long-term threat, they must come to terms with the underlying ideology that powers progressive antisemitism. They cannot, on the one hand, pretend to support this oppressor/oppressed binary, as many did in the California Ethnic Studies controversy, and, on the other, hope and pray that such a stance doesn’t ultimately manifest in the portrayal of Jews and Israel as oppressors. As long as radical social justice ideologues are experiencing success pushing a program that simplistically divides the world into oppressed and oppressors and condemns anyone who doesn’t agree with them, we are going to have major antisemitism problems, in ever greater frequency and intensity.

The sooner the Jewish community comes to terms with this reality and stops playing footsie with radical forces, the sooner we can develop strategies and tactics aimed at winning the long game.

Martin Kramer "Semites, Anti-Semites, and Bernard Lewis: The Life and Afterlife of a Seminal Book"

Martin Kramer is a historian of the Middle East and Israel at Tel Aviv University and the Walter P. Stern Fellow at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy. He was the founding president of Shalem College, a liberal arts school in Jerusalem, and a visiting professor or fellow at Brandeis, Chicago, Cornell, Georgetown, Harvard, Johns Hopkins, and the Wilson Center. He earned his degrees from Princeton, under the supervision of Bernard Lewis. Among his many publications on Islam, Israel, and the Middle East, Ivory Towers on Sand: The Failure of Middle Eastern Studies in America (2001) has been widely discussed and influential.