Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Saturday, June 03, 2023

06/03 Links: Troops killed along Egypt border named: Ohad Dahan, Lia Ben Nun, Ori Yitzhak Iluz; Hamas denounces UNRWA for ‘bowing’ to US pressure to renew funding

From Ian:

Three IDF soldiers killed in shootings carried out by Egyptian policeman

Two IDF soldiers were shot and killed in a security incident on the Israeli-Egyptian border early on Saturday morning, the IDF confirmed early on Saturday afternoon.

An additional third soldier was killed by the same terrorist several hours later in an exchange of fire.

The soldiers were identified as Sgt. Lia Ben-Nun, St.-Sgt. Uri Itzhak Ilouz and St.-Sgt. Ohad Dahan.

Ben-Nun and Ilouz were found lifeless at an IDF guard post sometime after 6 a.m. by members of their team who had been sent to check on their wellbeing after they failed to respond to their radios, an initial investigation has shown.

Following the discovery of their bodies, additional reinforcements arrived and a search operation was carried out in order to locate the perpetrator, who was believed to have infiltrated Israel from across the border at some point during the night.

The terrorist was later confirmed by the IDF to be an Egyptian police officer. The IDF added that it and the Egyptian military were conducting a thorough investigation.

Shortly after midday on Saturday, the IDF confirmed an exchange of fire between Israeli forces and the terrorist, who was killed in the exchange.

During the operation, Dahan was shot and killed, and an additional soldier was lightly injured. The injured soldier was hit in his hand by shrapnel but was released from the hospital in the late afternoon.

The Egyptian army later said in a statement that he was chasing drug smugglers, adding that "during the chase, the security man was involved in an exchange of fire that caused the deaths of three Israeli soldiers."

They did not add how the police officer ended up in a shootout with IDF soldiers when he should have been chasing drug smugglers.

Netanyahu Vows Inquiry Will Get to Bottom of ‘Anomalous’ Egypt Border Attack

The joint Israeli-Egyptian inquiry into the cross-border attack that saw a Egyptian policeman kill three Israeli soldiers will get to the bottom of the tragic and “anomalous” incident, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Saturday.

The Israeli leader conveyed condolences to victims’ families and praised Israel Defense Forces troops for the swift action in eliminating the terrorist.

Troops killed along Egypt border named: Ohad Dahan, Lia Ben Nun, Ori Yitzhak Iluz

The three Israeli soldiers killed by an Egyptian policeman in attacks on the border on Saturday morning were named by the Israel Defense Forces as Staff Sgt. Ohad Dahan, Sgt. Lia Ben Nun, and Staff Sgt. Ori Yitzhak Iluz.

Dahan, 20, from the southern city of Ofakim, Ben Nun, 19, from the central city of Rishon Lezion, and Iluz, 20, from the northern city of Safed, all served as combat soldiers in the Bardelas Battalion.

They were posthumously promoted from the ranks of sergeant to staff sergeant and corporal to sergeant, respectively.

There are five mixed-gender infantry units within the IDF’s Border Defense Corps, which is responsible for defending Israel’s borders with Jordan, Egypt, as well as the West Bank security barrier. The Bardelas Battalion is tasked with the Egyptian border.

The circumstances of the incidents on Saturday, which occurred between Mount Sagi and Mount Harif in the Negev desert, were under investigation by the military, including how the gunman, an Egyptian policeman, managed to infiltrate Israel from Egypt and remain undetected for several hours before and after the initial attack.

According to IDF spokesman Rear Admiral Daniel Hagari, Ben Nun and Iluz began a 12-hour shift together at 9 p.m. on Friday night at a military post on the Egyptian border. After the soldiers did not answer calls on the radio on Saturday morning, an officer reached the scene and discovered the pair dead in separate areas of the post. Hagari said the IDF believed they were killed at around 6 or 7 a.m.

Several hours later, shortly before noon, the Egyptian policeman attacked troops who were scanning the area. During the clash, Dahan was killed and a non-commissioned officer was lightly wounded. The gunman was killed several minutes later by another group of soldiers, according to the military.

The IDF was investigating how and when the Egyptian attacker infiltrated into Israel, how he was not detected for several hours, and what the military could have done to prevent the deaths of the three soldiers.

06/02 Links Pt2: Melanie Phillips: The Biden administration’s anti-antisemitism travesty; First graduates of CUNY Law slam school’s descent into hotbed of hate after commencement speech

From Ian:

The National Antisemitism Strategy Has No Clothes

There is a Hebrew maxim that reads “ve’haikar chaser min hasefer,” which roughly translates to: “The essential point is missing from the argument.” Or, to use more popular vernacular, “the emperor has no clothes.” This, in essence, is our central critique of the recently released U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism. For all its pomp and flair, the strategy misses some of the key forces driving antisemitism today and how to fight it effectively.

The lengthy, 60-page document offers a multiplicity of ways to counter the world’s oldest hatred. Many of these are quite positive, including its focus on beefing up security for Jewish institutions and the emphasis it places on education—a vital building block for any tolerant society.

But the positives it presents make the strategy all the more dangerous, as the good it espouses lends credibility to its fundamental weaknesses.

The most serious flaw is that the strategy lacks any real consideration of how anti-Zionism, the denial of the Jewish right to self-determination in their ancestral homeland, almost invariably manifests as a politically correct version of antisemitism, a version that is spiraling out of control in America today.

Unfortunately, the strategy gives cover to this contemporary iteration of antisemitism. It does so by including the fringe Nexus definition as a guide for identifying Jew hatred, alongside the globally accepted IHRA working definition. While IHRA equates anti-Zionism with antisemitism, Nexus provides several caveats allowing for opposition to the Jewish right to self-determination, as well as applying double standards to Israel, by declaring that “paying disproportionate attention to Israel and treating Israel differently than other countries is not prima facie proof of antisemitism.” Here the Nexus definition opens the antisemitism loopholes that IHRA was intended to close, thereby rendering the endorsement of IHRA entirely meaningless.

The denial of the Jewish right to self-determination in their ancestral homeland almost invariably manifests as a politically correct version of antisemitism.

Throughout the centuries, antisemitism has manifested in three distinct ways. Some—like Amalek in biblical times or the Nazis in the modern era—have focused their venom on the Jewish people, based on an almost instinctive, gut-level hatred. Their goal was to annihilate us, just because we existed.

Others have directed their hatred against our religion. A prime example is the Christian persecution of Jews during the Middle Ages. The Crusaders at the time denied any intention to murder Jews based on their peoplehood per se, but rather because they rejected the Christian faith. In the end, however, it became clear that their goal to destroy our fundamental beliefs was the equivalent of destroying the Jewish people.

Nowadays, a third type of Jew-hatred has emerged in the form of anti-Zionism. In this post-Holocaust world, targeting Jews because of a perceived ethnic identity is generally unacceptable. In order to circumvent this new barrier, attacks have shifted focus and now largely target the State of Israel. What many do not understand, is that denying Jews their homeland uproots a fundamental pillar of our peoplehood.

Melanie Phillips: The Biden administration’s anti-antisemitism travesty

Last month, it emerged that Google’s head of diversity, Kamau Bob, had said in a 2007 blog post about the Israel-Palestinian Arab conflict that Jewish people had “an insatiable appetite for war and killing” and an “insensitivity” to suffering. Although Google has now removed Bob from his post (but hasn’t fired him), the remark was a graphic illustration of the symbiosis between Jew-hatred and the DEI agenda.

Kenneth L. Marcus, the founder and chairman of the Brandeis Centre for the Protection of Human Rights Under Law, has said that in the DEI programs, “we’re seeing anti-Jewish stereotypes, biases, defamations, separation of Jews from other groups and so-called ‘erasive antisemitism,’ which is to say denial of what it means to have a Jewish identity.”

Last December, a Heritage Foundation report showed that the private social-media accounts of DEI officers at university campuses displayed virulent feelings against Israel, compared to generally positive feelings towards the People’s Republic of China. The authors noted that 96% of the tweets about Israel were critical, while 62% of the tweets about China were favorable.

The word genocide was associated with Israel nine times, “ethnic cleansing” seven times, and the accusation that Israel specifically targeted children was made 27 times. The report observed that “DEI staff have an obsessive and irrational animus toward the Jewish state.”

DEI doctrine has redefined “hatred” to include mere offense, upset or insult. Yet it itself promotes hatred of Jews and Israel while also vilifying white people and Western civilization.

Shockingly, this agenda is promoted, supported and endorsed by liberal American Jews.

These Jews refuse to acknowledge the disproportionate part played in today’s antisemitism by Muslims and African-Americans. They refuse to condemn “the Squad.” They refuse to denounce Louis Farrakhan, the leader of the Nation of Islam who embodies the nexus between black and Muslim antisemitism.

Instead, they smear anyone who does point out this nexus as Islamophobic or racist, while swooning over the Biden administration’s anti-antisemitism travesty.

Jewish community leaders in Britain similarly deny the reality of Muslim Jew-hatred and demonize those who point it out.

The doctrine of intersectionality has fueled Muslim antisemitism and helped advance the Islamist onslaught on the West, courtesy of liberal Jews.

The IHRA definition has merely given a new sheet of music to the orchestra on the Titanic to play as the ship goes down.

J’accuse: US Jewish leadership is failing to defend the community - opinion

WHAT HAPPENED to the West’s Jews? As the late Rabbi Jonathan Sacks explained, antisemitism is a virus that morphs predictably: Whatever is any society’s worst sin, that is what the Jews are charged with. In the religious epoch, Jews were the killers of the Christian God. When race “science” – eugenics – was all the rage, Jews were racial vermin. In capitalist societies, the Jews were hated as communists; in communist societies, we were despised as capitalist exploiters. When having a nation-state was the way normal people expressed their values, Jews were cursed as rootless cosmopolites. And so today, when globalism and internationalism are the reigning virtues, Jews are cursed for their state.

Once we were tainted, stripped of having the moral high ground – which, for a while, the guilt and shame from the Holocaust provided – all hell could be loosed against us. Well, the virus mutated into anti-Israelism, or Palestinianism, and Jews worldwide are tainted as oppressors. The “new antisemitism” pierced our post-Holocaust shield.

The Jewish establishment left us practically defenseless in the face of this new mutant strain, and that is why – I know it’s a serious charge – we are in this awful situation.

To make matters worse, a new “woke-progressive” ideology that is undeniably and inevitably anti-Jewish has defeated classical liberalism in many key institutions and has become an accelerant to the mounting antisemitism.

Classic liberalism believes in equal opportunity for all, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, religion and/or sexual orientation. It welcomed and supported Jewish life in America. The new ideology – which goes by many names: woke, progressivism, political correctness, intersectionality, etc. – insists instead on equal results. If there are fewer Black or Latino lawyers proportional to their numbers in society than there are white or Jewish lawyers, that proves that society is unjust and racist. Those who achieved success did so by exploiting the underachieving minorities. Success in life is proof that you have oppressed or have benefited by the oppression of Blacks, Latinos, women, homosexuals, etc. As Jews are among the most successful, we are by implication the biggest oppressors.

And all of this ideology is being taught in American public schools. Its principles are required in law schools, medical schools, corporate boards. Fewer and fewer Jews are getting into Ivy League schools, fewer are being hired by corporations, and fewer are sitting on boards of philanthropies.

The Jewish establishment is now fully trapped. It put all our eggs into the imploding liberal basket. It made alliances with all the minority groups, and now these very groups have turned on us and have become Palestinianists and antisemitic. Our leaders are flummoxed and confused. They need to be pressured, convinced, humiliated and shamed to do a massive rethink.

To help organize grassroots activists to challenge and change our leadership, we created The Jewish Leadership Project (www.jewishleadershipproject.org). Our book prescribes steps that our leaders must take to stem the tide of animus.

We are in danger at a watershed moment. But we are an accomplished community, with very talented individuals. We can and must find proud, brave and competent leadership to secure a better Jewish future.

This week's EoZ memes and posters - and they are good

I am particularly proud of most of the memes I made this week.

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!

There are no antisemites. They are ALL just misunderstood!

A year ago I posted newspaper articles showing that even the worst antisemites deny being antisemites. They always have a reason for hating Jews that has nothing at all about hating Jews.

A neo-Nazi skinhead who said he doesn't hate Jews, just doesn't want them around anymore.

Famous firebrand radio star Rev. Charles Coughlin denied being antisemitic.

Henry Ford, who distribute the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in the US, denied it as well.

Both the Soviets and Nazis (at one point) claimed they weren't antisemitic - but only anti-Zionist!

Here are some other examples of how, magically, no one is antisemitic.

General George Van Horn Moseley, 1939:

Charles Lindbergh's America First group, 1941:

A Canadian colonel who put out a pamphlet called "Plans of the Synagogue of Satan," 1953:

French political party, 1956, says they are not antisemitic but the Jews control the phone company and post office:

Their insistence that they weren't antisemitic, and even in some cases making their own definitions of antisemitism to prove it, sounds very familiar nowadays.

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!

06/02 Links Pt1: Don't forget, remember the Farhud; Ahlam Tamimi’s 16th victim; US Slams New Iranian Leadership Roles at UN; What if Bernard Lewis was right about Iran?

From Ian:

Leo Dee to 'Post': Considering multi-billion dollar lawsuit against CNN

Dear David,
We have not met, however, you may have heard about my family. My wife Lucy and two beautiful daughters, Maia (20) and Rina (15) were recently and cruelly massacred by two Palestinian gunmen while driving on their way to a holiday on the Sea of Galilee during the festival of Passover. The gunmen swerved the car off the road until it stopped and then got out of their car and shot 20 bullets into my wife’s brain stem and 6th vertebra, Rina’s face and Maia’s leg. They all died from their wounds but not before Lucy donated all her organs to save five lives including one Muslim Arab Israeli in the North of Israel.

You, I understand, have recently had the honor of becoming the CEO of Warner Bros. Discovery and the tenuous honor of becoming the de facto head of CNN.

As you know the founding fathers of Warner Bros. were Harry, Albert, Sam and Jack. They founded the company in 1923 and acted very bravely in the 1930s when they resisted a Hollywood ban on anti-Nazi films which was allegedly requested by Joseph Goebbels himself (chief propagandist for the Nazi Party) by way of the Nazi consul in Los Angeles, Georg Gyssling.

Harry, Albert, Sam and Jack would be turning in their graves today if they knew what Warner Bros was supporting in the Middle East.

CNN draws moral equivalence between victims of terror and families of killed terrorists
CNN is an organization that draws a moral equivalence between the innocent victims of terror, such as my wife Lucy and my daughters Maia and Rina, and the mother of a terrorist who was morally eliminated by Israeli forces in order to prevent him from murdering more innocent victims.

I know this, David, because of a conversation I had with the head of your Israel bureau, Richard Greene. When I asked him, “Do you think that it is morally equivalent to compare what happened to me to what happened to the mother of a terrorist?” Richard answered me, “Rabbi Dee, with great respect you are making an assertion that I do not agree with.” This is an appalling statement to someone, such as myself and my surviving three children, who have just been bereaved through a violent murderous attack by Iranian-backed Palestinian terrorists on three of our most precious family members. If CNN cannot admit that there is a moral difference between the murder in cold blood of three beautiful innocent women and the man who murdered them, then it can only be described as an evil organization.

JPost Editorial: Don't forget, remember the Farhud

We are living in an era when narratives battle with history – and often win.

This is particularly evident around this time of year, when the Palestinians and their supporters mark Nakba Day – commemorating the “catastrophe” of Israel’s creation – and Naksa Day, the “upset” of Israel surviving the Six Day War that was meant to wipe it off the face of the earth. Shamefully, Nakba Day was even commemorated this year in the United Nations, to mark its 75th anniversary.

There is, however, a gap in both knowledge and acknowledgment when it comes to the history of Jewish refugees from Arab lands. More than 850,000 Jews fled or were expelled from Arab and Muslim lands in 1948, upon Israel’s establishment as a state. But this did not come out of the blue.

Remember the Farhud
One of the horrific incidents that preceded this mass flight of Jews is often overlooked. It is the Farhud – the onslaught or violent dispossession – which took place in Iraq on June 1 and 2, 1941, coinciding with the Shavuot festival. It was a pogrom in every sense. 179 Jews of all ages were killed in the two-day rampage, which was concentrated in Baghdad and Basra. They were slaughtered in their homes and on the streets – wherever they were found by the murderous gangs, whipped up by Nazi propaganda and the pro-German Iraqi leadership.

The lethal attacks, rapes, killing, looting and desecration of synagogues affected the entire community. It is estimated that more than 2,000 Jews were wounded and the property of more than 50,000 Jews was looted or destroyed. The dead were later buried in mass graves – and the illusion of peaceful coexistence was buried with them. Although Jews had lived in this ancient Babylonia and Mesopotamia region for some 2,500 years, it counted for nothing when the Farhud broke out.

There were, of course, some righteous people among the general Muslim population, courageous people who risked their own lives to save their Jewish neighbors and friends. But they were a minority.

The campaign of terror came against the backdrop of the power vacuum between the collapse of the pro-Nazi government of Rashid Ali al-Gaylani, who had seized control from the Iraqi monarchy, and the return of British forces to Baghdad. The interim Iraqi prime minister was an ardent supporter of Hitler and introduced the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, to the Nazi leader. Nazi thinking fell on fertile ground. As always, the Jews paid the price.

King of Morocco demanded a ransom for 100,000 Jews

It is widely believed, not least by the Jews themselves, that Morocco regrets the exodus of over 100,000 Jews to Israel in the early 1960s, the final chapter in a millennial story of coexistence. Having researched the question thoroughly, Agnès Bensimon, writing in The Times of Israel, concluded that the mass aliya was foisted upon Israel because King Hassan II demanded a ransom of $50 per emigrant. Not only did the King line his own pockets, but establishment members owned shares in a travel company used by the departing Jews. Thus Morocco was no different from Iraq, for instance, where politicians and their families profited from the mass exodus (with thanks: Veronique): A Moroccan-Jewish family arriving by ship in Israel

In four years, between 1960 and 1964, 102,000 Jews left Morocco for Israel. In her investigative book “Hassan II and the Jews. History of a secret emigration”, Agnès Bensimon indicates, with supporting documents, that King Hassan II received fifty dollars per Jew who emigrated to Israel, including children.

In her book, which almost thirty years after its publication has become almost unobtainable, Agnès Bensimon, a journalist with a degree from SciencesPo Paris and (in 2018) a cultural attaché at the Israeli Embassy, reveals the hidden causes of this departure in a paragraph entitled “The price to pay. ”

“The financial aspect not being the least of the interests of Hassan II, the discussions in Geneva opened on this question. Israel had promised benefits in return for a liberal policy, and it soon learned the price. At stake was the departure of 50,000 Jews. The fixed amount per person was fifty dollars, including children. The required advance amounted to half a million dollars. A considerable sum for the finances of the Jewish state. The Jewish Agency refused to pay it, as did the World Jewish Congress, both institutions being headed by Nahoum Goldmann. He thought it would be a waste.

Isser Harel then turned to Lévi Eskhol, the Israeli finance minister, who remained inflexible. As a last resort, he turned to the equally reluctant David Ben-Gurion. To convince him, Harel played his last card: “It’s true that we may be investing this money in the sun. I firmly believe, however, that if we do not pay this price, we will miss the historic opportunity to deliver the Jews from Morocco and bring them up to Israel. According to him, Ben-Gurion summoned his Minister of Finance on the spot and ordered him to release the necessary sum. »

“Alex Gatmon went with the Israeli ambassador to France, Walter Eytan, to Geneva, each with a large suitcase. The transaction took place in one of the most luxurious hotels in the city. The half-million-dollar advance went into a personal account belonging to the king. Throughout the duration of Operation Yakhin, i.e. several years, the Israelis regularly transferred funds to Switzerland. Hassan II stuck to the fixed amount of fifty dollars.

Ahlam Tamimi’s 16th victim

Twenty-two years after a Palestinian suicide bomber devastated the Sbarro pizza restaurant in downtown Jerusalem, the 16th victim of that massacre succumbed to her injuries.

Chana Nachenberg, an American-Israeli mother who was 31 at the time of the deadly attack in August 2001, died on May 31, having never woken from the coma in which she languished for so long after the bombing. “After almost 22 years of heroism, Chana is the 16th victim of the attack,” her father, Yitzhak, said prior to her funeral in the central city of Modi’in on Thursday morning. While the family had not been expecting her death, he added, in recent weeks she had experienced trouble breathing and had been moved to hospital, where she died.

Nachenberg’s is not the only harrowing experience recorded on that terrible day, Aug. 9, 2001, which came during a spate of suicide bombings against Israeli targets carried out by Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Fatah and other Palestinian factions. Yet arguably more disturbing than the stories of those who lost their lives and the more than 100 who were injured is the simple fact that justice continues to be denied.

Thanks in part to the advocacy efforts of Arnold and Frimet Roth, whose 15-year-old daughter Malki, an American citizen, was also murdered at the Sbarro restaurant, the facts of the bombing are fairly well known, as is the identity of the accomplice of the terrorist who died executing the atrocity, Izz al-Din Shuheil al-Masri.

Al-Masri was driven to the pizzeria by a Jordanian-born Palestinian woman, Ahlam Tamimi, who also assisted with the preparation of his bomb. Tamimi was apprehended by Israeli security forces following the atrocity and sentenced to 16 consecutive life terms in prison.

In October 2011, as part of the deal in which 1,027 Palestinian prisoners were exchanged for Gilad Shalit, an Israeli soldier who spent more than five years in Hamas captivity, Tamimi walked free. Moving to her native Jordan, Tamimi became a celebrity in the Arab world, hosting her own weekly show on the Hamas satellite TV station, Al Quds. In between extolling the virtues of “martyrdom attacks” against Jews, she frequently celebrated her own monstrous achievement. On one occasion, when Tamimi learned that she had enabled the killing of eight children at the Sbarro restaurant and not three as she had previously believed, she turned to the camera wearing a broad grin of pride.

It was not until 2016, five years after Tamimi’s release, that a glimmer of hope concerning her possible arrest came into view when the U.S. Department of Justice issued a warrant for her capture. However, an American attempt to extradite her in 2017 was rebuffed by the Jordanians, who by disingenuously claimed that a bilateral extradition treaty that was agreed with the United States more than 20 years earlier had expired.

The American understanding is that the treaty remains in force and that justice for U.S. citizens murdered in terrorist attacks, like Malki Roth, is of the highest priority. Still, the Jordanians continue thumbing their noses in Washington’s direction in the case of Tamimi.

One might argue that this wretched situation would be much simpler had Tamimi moved to Iran instead of Jordan. Were Tamimi ensconced in Tehran—a capital city with no American or Israeli embassies, where diplomats representing democratic countries are closely monitored by the Iranian regime—there would be little prospect of securing her extradition. Still, that would at least allow both American and Israeli government representatives to denounce the ruling mullahs for harboring a convicted terrorist, as well as for their ongoing commitment to terrorist organizations that are sworn to the Jewish state’s destruction, without worrying about any diplomatic fallout.

J Street opposes the IHRA definition - because it shows the politicians they support are antisemitic (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

Last week the Biden Administration unveiled its plan to address the growing antisemitic violence that threatens Jews nationwide.

No one can deny the importance of fighting antisemitism, and the attempt by the Biden Administration to formulate a plan to do this is of course a positive step. However, some issues undermine Biden's plan from the outset.

One of the organizations Biden included to implement the plan is the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which is not known to be friendly to Jews. On November 27, 2021, Zahra Billoo -- the executive director of CAIR in San Francisco -- described to the American Muslims for Palestine’s (AMP) Annual Convention for Palestine that Zionists and their synagogues are enemies:

We need to pay attention to the Anti-Defamation League. We need to pay attention to the Jewish Federation[sic]. We need to pay attention to the Zionist synagogues. We need to pay attention to the Hillel chapters on our campuses. Just because they're your friend today doesn't mean that they have your back when it comes to human rights…know your enemies, and I'm not going to sugarcoat that they are your enemies.

CAIR claimed that Billoo's comments were taken out of context and CAIR would "continue to proudly stand by Zahra." According to the White House Fact Sheet, this is the same CAIR that will be responsible to "launch a tour to educate religious communities about steps they can take to protect their houses of worship from hate incidents."

Another organization listed on the fact sheet as part of the fight against antisemitism is the National Action Network, which was founded by Al Sharpton, and used by Sharpton in 1995 to stage the protest at Freddy’s Fashion Mart, during which Jews were called “bloodsuckers” and the protesters threatened, “We’re going to burn and loot the Jews.” In the end, one protester killed 7 people. In December 2019, the executive director of NAN's North Jersey chapter -- Carilyn Oliver Fair -- stood up for Jersey City Board of Education trustee Joan Terrell-Paige. Paige had defended the 2 shooters who targeted a kosher grocery store, killing 3 people inside and another at a different location. According to Fair:

[Paige] said nothing wrong. Everything she said is the truth. So where is this anti-Semitism coming in? I am not getting it.

Obviously, in order to fight antisemitism, it is necessary to recognize antisemitism when it occurs. For that reason, many organizations wanted to see the Biden Administration explicitly and unambiguously support the IHRA working definition of antisemitism. The IHRA definition of antisemitism is widely accepted as the gold standard for defining antisemitism. It is used by the US, has been adopted by 26 US states and by 36 other countries -- as well as by the EU, the Organization of American States and the Council of Europe.

Contrast the wide acceptance of the IHRA definition with the claim made by J Street.

Dylan Williams, senior vice president for policy and strategy at J Street claims that the IHRA is no help at all in the fight against antisemitism:

efforts to give the force of law to a single, controversial definition of antisemitism that focuses disproportionately on criticism of Israel does a disservice to Jewish Americans targeted by this hatred.

What has been widely accepted is, according to J Street, controversial. And as far as criticism of Israel is concerned, the IHRA makes it very clear:

criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.

J Street is also among those who claimed that IHRA would be a threat to freedom of expression and criticism o f Israel. This is a claim that has been made without giving actual, concrete instances where this has happened. On the other hand, a report on Understanding Jewish Experience in Higher Education has been published in the UK. It was researched over a 6 month period at 56 different universities. Besides noting the "underlying fear of being targeted," the report went further and pointed out:

Despite concerns expressed by some academics, none of the 56 universities spoken to could identify a single example of the [IHRA] definition restricting freedom of expression. [emphasis added]

Instead of using the IHRA definition, J Street is pushing for the definition of antisemitism given by the Nexus Task Force.

According to the Nexus definition:

Paying disproportionate attention to Israel and treating Israel differently than other countries is not prima facie proof of antisemitism. (There are numerous reasons for devoting special attention to Israel and treating Israel differently, e.g., some people care about Israel more; others may pay more attention because Israel has a special relationship with the United States and receives $4 billion in American aid). [emphasis added]

This is wonderful news!

As Lea Speyer points out, we can now attribute the UNHRC fixation with singling out Israel to it either "caring more" about Israel or because of Israel's "special relationship" with the US. The Nexus excuse for applying a double standard to Israel and singling it out for condemnation and punishment is worse than laughable.

Yet J Street supports the Nexus definition -- and no wonder.

Daniel Greenfield points out that J Street leader Jeremy Ben Ami is on the Nexus advisory committee, and this is made clear on the website:

Ben-Ami's interest in a contrary definition of antisemitism is not surprising. In fact, it could very well be that J Street opposes the IHRA definition on principle -- if it were to accept the IHRA definition, many of those whom J Street supports and allies itself with could be labeled as antisemitic.

For example, that would explain why J Street couldn't get their story straight about receiving money from George Soros.

In 2010, Eli Lake wrote in the Washington Times that from July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2009 Soros and his 2 children contributed $245,000 to J Street. Lake writes that at the very time that Ben-Ami claimed to be "very proud" to have the support of Soros, the J Street website featured a "myths and facts" section which denied receiving any money:

George Soros very publicly stated his decision not to be engaged in J Street when it was launched — precisely out of fear that his involvement would be used against the organization.

Soon afterward, the website was amended with an addition:

J Street has said it doesn’t receive money from George Soros, but now news reports indicate that he has in fact contributed.

At the same time, a spokesman for Soros had no problem stating publicly stated Soros was very clear about his desire to be involved with the group and “has made no secret of his support" for J Street.

J Street's reluctance was based on Soros's anti-Israel stance.

In 1995, Soros admitted to the New Yorker:

I don’t deny the Jews their right to a national existence — but I don’t want to be part of it.

A 2004 article in Commentary notes that in a speech to the Yivo Institute for Jewish Research in 2003, "Soros likened the behavior of Israel to that of the Nazis," an example of "his coldness toward the Jewish state. The IHRA definition explicitly points to comparisons of Israel with Nazis as antisemitic. On the other hand, the Nexus definition does not.

In 2007, The New York Sun quoted from a piece that Soros wrote for The New York Review of Books:

The current policy of not seeking a political solution but pursuing military escalation -- not just an eye for an eye but roughly speaking ten Palestinian lives for every Israeli one -- has reached a particularly dangerous point.

Soros's claim that Israel deliberately targets Palestinian Arabs mendacious.

Tablet Magazine noted in 2016 that in 14 grants since 2001, Soros had given over $2.5million to Adalah, which accuses Israel of war crimes. In 2013, the groups published a database claiming to have found 101 Israeli laws that discriminate against Palestinian Arabs. NGO Monitor has an article debunking Adalah's claim.

The Tablet article, Soros Hack Reveals Evidence of Systemic Anti-Israel Bias, concludes:

there can be little doubt about the Soros-funded extensive and deliberate effort to delegitimize Israel while doing comparatively very little to address real human rights abuses in the Palestinian Authority or elsewhere in the region.

No wonder J Street was reluctant to admit to accepting money from Soros.

Similarly, J Street -- which claims to be pro-Israel -- has itself supported politicians who are antagonistic towards Israel.

Take for example J Street's initial support for Rashida Tlaib:

J Street supported Tlaib despite the fact that Tlaib:

o supported Palestinian terrorist Rasmea Odeh
o supported Islamic Relief, which has links to the Muslim Brotherhood.
o accused Harris of “racism” for meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
o retweeted a post from Linda Sarsour supporting Ahed Tamimi, who was jailed for incitement and assaulting an IDF soldier -- and upon release voiced support for suicide bombing.

Did J Street consider any of this to be antisemitic? Apparently not. Maybe all of this merely falls under the category of criticism when in fact Tlaib was demonizing Israel.

The only reason they withdrew support from her was that Tlaib did not support a two-state solution. Nevertheless, J Street still gushed over Tlaib:

We strongly support and are encouraged by her commitment to social justice, and we are inspired by her determination to bring the voice of underrepresented communities to Capitol Hill. We wish her and her campaign well, and we look forward to a close working relationship with her and her office when she takes her seat in Congress next year. [emphasis added]

Then there is Betty McCollum, senator from Minnesota, who in 2018 was the first elected US official to accuse Israel of Apartheid.

Despite this, J Street insisted on their website at the time:

Rep. McCollum has been a strong ally of the pro-Israel, pro-peace community since her election to Congress.

While Amnesty and HRW had to cobble together different definitions of Apartheid to single out Israel, McCollum did not back up her claim, and J Street simply ignored it.

In its most recent support for McCollum, J Street no longer praises McCollum for being pro-Israel -- but rather pro-Palestinian and uncritically accepts her claim that Israel holds children in military detention and praises her stance against evictions from Masafer Yatta without any context:

J Street also supports Mark Pocan, the representative from Wisconsin, who in 2017 anonymously reserved official Capitol Hill space for an anti-Israel forum organized by organizations that support boycotts while not attending the anti-Israel forum he sponsored. A senior Congressional official was quoted as saying that Pocan "chose to facilitate a pro-BDS smear campaign using taxpayer dollars without even showing his face at the event."

Pocan's sole support for boycotting Israel as opposed to any other country represents a double-standard, which explains his hiding his support at the time.

In 2016, Pocan was one of a handful of Democratic congressmen who met an Arab terrorist affiliated with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Shawan Jabarin was described as the General Director of Al-Haq, for a discussion on “Palestinian political prisoners,” but in fact

A member of the PFLP, Jabarin was convicted for his efforts to enlist support abroad for attacks on Israel. He was sentenced to two years in prison, but was released after nine months due to respiratory difficulties.

But J Street continues to support Pocan, in part because

Lacking in J Street's description is any mention that the destruction of homes is a measure taken against terrorist attacks or that "expanded settlements" refers to the building of homes within settlements, not building additional settlements. Similarly, J Street gives no details on how Pocan's "strong support for Israel's security" manifests itself or support for human rights of Israelis facing terrorist attacks. Also, no mention of Pocan's support of BDS and how it fits in with the J Street policy of not supporting BDS but not opposing BDS that supports a two-state solution, assuming that such a thing exists.

J Street's part in drawing up the Nexus definition of antisemitism shows that their support is not based on inpartiality. This is the definition they want and their claims about the flaws in the IHRA definition is merely gaslighting in an attempt to defend and maintain the double-standard that Israel is held to in the UN and by self-proclaimed "human rights" groups. J Street supports the disproportionate focus on Israel.

Back in the day, Ben-Ami bragged that J Street saw itself as Obama's "block back."
Just who is J Street blocking for now?

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 West pretends "Palestinian resistance" means peaceful protest. In Arabic, Palestinians know it really means murdering Jews.

Palestinian chef Joudie Kalla is quoted in the antisemitic Amnesty-UK campaign I highlighted in my last post, saying, "Showcasing my Palestinian food and heritage is a way of showing resistance to the apartheid system."

Indeed, Palestinian propagandists love using the word "resistance." To Westerners, it is meant to evoke a mental picture of peaceful protests, often being violently attacked by thuggish uniformed forces.

But the word "resistance" means something entirely different to Palestinians.

A Google Image search for "Palestinian resistance" in English returns 19 out of the first 20 photos showing photos of Palestinian protesters, often confronting Israeli soldiers. Only one shows a Palestinian with a weapon.

But an identical search for المقاومة الفلسطينية, the Arabic translation of "Palestinian resistance," shows something entirely different:

19 out of the first 20 images show either members of militant groups or Palestinians with weapons.

In English, the phrase implies peaceful protest 95% of the time. In Arabic, the same phrase implies violent attacks 95% of the time.

Indeed, in Arabic, when the phrase is used by itself, it more often than not refers to Palestinian terror groups, which are called by default "Palestinian resistance."

One example: the abstract of this Arabic academic paper entitled "Palestinian resistance: stages of development and future prospects" doesn't even bother to define "resistance" to its Arab audience, but mentions that Palestinians themselves often use a different term for resistance: "armed struggle."

Even more pointedly, a search for "resistance operations" in Arabic - even without the word "Palestinian" - almost invariably refers to specifically Palestinian violence.

When Palestinians want to refer to non-violent protest they call it "popular resistance." "Resistance" by itself is understood to mean violence.

So Palestinians speaking to Western audiences know very well that they are using a term with a different meaning in English, so they can full-threadedly advocate "resistance" without fear that their fellow Palestinians would accuse them of abandoning terrorism as a tactic.

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

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

Amnesty-UK: "Let's brainwash people into hating Israel while teaching them how to cook"

Amnesty's apartheid slur is absolutely antisemitic. The arguments that Amnesty uses for the accusation are literally filled with lies and depends on a brand new definition of apartheid they made up just for Israel. If they would apply the same standards to other states, there would be scores of others that are guilty of the same definition - but Amnesty is creating an entire ecosystem to ensure that Israel and only Israel is accused of one of the worst human rights crimes possible.

The word "apartheid" is deliberately used to provoke a visceral reaction of disgust. It has nothing to do with reality - it is meant to incite hatred of the Jewish state.

No sane person would think that Israel is at the bottom of the list of human rights violators, or even that they treat non-citizen Palestinians worse than many other countries treat their (citizen) minorities. Yet Amnesty spends far more time and money slandering Israel than any other country - and spreading that incitement to hate Israel across all mediums.

Yes, that is antisemitism.

A new, insanely egregious example can be found in a new campaign that Amnesty-UK launched, called "Palestine at Home," It is meant to show sympathetic Palestinians acting like normal Westerners having fun, spreading information about Palestinian cuisine - and interspersing this with incitement to hate Israel. it has its own logo, its own materials, its own videos.

Home is peace. Home is safety. Home is love.
For many of us, it is the space we are most at ease, a space where memories are created and happiness forged. When our homes are secure we are free to live and thrive surrounded by community and those who love us. Our need for home connects us all.

But for some of us, this precious space does not exist. Right now, Palestinians are instead experiencing forced evictions and demolitions that destroy their homes and strip them of their safety net. The Israeli authorities’ system of apartheid reaches into homes and rips families apart.

Despite these injustices, Palestinians are resisting. One of the ways they are doing this is through food. Through cooking, they are preserving their histories and telling their stories. Through food, they are keeping the hope of home alive. #PalestineAtHome

This is pure propaganda filled with deception. The entire campaign appeals to emotion, not facts or context, and the purpose is simply to get people angry at Israel without giving Israelis a chance to respond. All of Amnesty's protestations that they are objective are shown to be lies by the existence of campaigns like this.

It gets worse. Amnesty quotes, without contradiction, a chef's assertion that Palestinians have been under "75 years of illegal occupation."

Which means that Amnesty agrees that Israel's entire existence is illegal.

This propaganda is not only a website. It is also a planned series of videos. It is a set of recipes.

And make no mistake - Amnesty does not target any other country besides Israel in this way. There are no videos showing cooking with Rohingyas, no recipe books of traditional Uyghur foods, no detailed explanations of the warm family lives of the Tutsis in Rwanda, no photos of quaint Darfuri homes. Victims of genocide need not apply to be part of Amnesty campaigns. No - only Palestinians are positioned as victims that are worthy of being elevated this way, and only Jews - not Arab Israelis, but Jews - are the oppressors.

Ironically, the first recipe in this campaign was for Fattet Makdous - which isn't a Palestinian dish, but Syrian! Of course, Syrian victims of their own regime do not get campaigns on their behalf by Amnesty, but they can be happy that their cuisine is being hijacked by Amnesty and Palestinians.

If this isn't enough to show how Amnesty-UK is obsessed with hatred of Israel, this is not even their first food based campaign against Israel!

Last year, in conjunction with their huge publicity campaign around the apartheid slur, Amnesty encouraged baking parties where people could watch films about how awful Israeli Jews are.

Palestinians get two food based campaigns from Amnesty, and the rest of the world - zero.

Just likeAmnesty sells T-shirts attacking only one country in the world. By coincidence, it is again Israel.

Just like Amnesty's book for children only disparages a single nation in the world - and, yet again, that country is Israel.

Truly an amazing coincidence that only Israel is singled out, time and time again, for special vitriol from Amnesty. But it couldn't be that it has anything to do with the fact that Israel is filled with Jews.

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!

06/01 Links Pt2: Why Are Israelis So Happy, and Why Isn’t It Newsworthy?; Hamas condemns Jerusalem Pride march, calls for confrontation

From Ian:

Do Jews Get to Define Antisemitism? Yes and No

The prejudice plus power definition of racism would mean that Jews, a group deemed powerful, cannot be victims of racism, and groups deemed powerless cannot be guilty of racism. In this conception, Jews are a powerful group with no legitimate gripes. Acceding to such a definition of racism effectively marginalizes Jewish claims of antisemitism.

Moreover, why should anyone be expected to outsource their thinking to anyone else? We live in a free society where people are allowed to hold and articulate their own views and no one gets to define anything for others. We should not want to be bound by a discourse in which we must defer to others and others must defer to us.

While such thinking comes from the left, it’s frequently Jews on the political right who draw from the progressive playbook and weaponize IHRA to silence alternative views. Indeed, Jews who accuse IHRA’s opponents of antisemitism are engaging in a form of cancel culture, based precisely on the same suppositions that radical leftist voices use to silence opposition to their dogmas. Ironically, there’s nothing in IHRA itself that would justify calling anyone who disagrees with the definition an antisemite. Proponents of an alternative definition of antisemitism have every right to advocate for their position and should not be demonized for doing so.

There’s nothing remotely unfair or illiberal when the IHRA definition wins out, as it did in the recently released White House national antisemitism strategy.

By the same token — and a point often lost upon IHRA’s critics — Jews who do support the IHRA definition have every right to push vigorously for government adoption of their preferred definition of antisemitism and urge governments to ignore competing definitions. Government policy is not like public discourse with multiple voices. Very often contests to set government policy are winner-take-all: Only one definition of antisemitism will be adopted, and the others will be set aside. There’s nothing remotely unfair or illiberal when the IHRA definition wins out, as it did in the recently released White House national antisemitism strategy.

Nor does the IHRA definition, used properly, suppress free speech. Kenneth Marcus, who served as Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Education and has done as much as anyone to advance IHRA on the American front, states in no uncertain terms that IHRA “does not generally ban, regulate, restrict or punish, all activities that may be described as anti-Semitic within the Definition’s meaning.” Marcus continues, “The E.O. (Executing Order issued by the Trump Administration invoking the use of IHRA in Title VI cases) protects free speech by directing its usage only as a means of discerning intent.”

In other words, the proper use of IHRA is not to prosecute those who engage in antisemitic speech or force everyone to sing from the same song sheet about antisemitism, as much as we might wish we all would, but to aid governments in determining antisemitic intent.

So, yes, Jews should have a major role in “defining” antisemitism as government policy, and no, we don’t get to insist that everyone accept our views.

‘Willful ignorance the most powerful weapon against Israel’

Ignorance, coupled with a “progressive” worldview which disregards historical fact, is the most powerful weapon in the arsenal of those who seek to deny Israel’s right to exist, Israel’s diaspora and strategic affairs minister said in Canada on Wednesday.

“In a time of ‘relative truth,’ some portray the people of Israel as foreigners in the Land of Israel,” Minister Amichai Chikli told a gathering of pro-Israel Canadian lawmakers at the Parliament in Ottawa.

The event marked Israel’s 75th anniversary and the reunification of Jerusalem in the 1967 Six-Day War.

“We are not foreigners in our home,” said Chikli.

“Our ancestors knew there would come a day when there would be those who would claim we have no connection or right to Jerusalem,” he added, citing the passage in the Book of Samuel describing how King David insisted on purchasing the Temple Mount.

“However, I don’t think they could have fully imagined the depths of absurdity we see today, including condemnations of Israel for building in Jerusalem or for Jews visiting the Temple Mount,” he continued.

The Likud minister told the gathering, organized by the Canadian Israel Allies Caucus in the first such commemoration of Jerusalem Day in the Canadian Parliament, that “basic historical facts” are the most powerful weapon for those who support Israel and the Zionist idea in the face of such “shameful ignorance.”

The event comes at a time of rising global antisemitism, often in the guise of anti-Israel activity.

Indeed, the competing Israeli and Palestinian narratives were on vivid display at the Canadian Parliament on Wednesday, where an anti-Israel event organized by Law for Palestine and the Palestinian General Delegation to Canada was held on Parliament Hill at the very same hour as the gathering of the supporters of Israel.

“At a time when antisemitism is on the rise, it is critical that Canadian parliamentarians, faith and Jewish community leaders stand together in their steadfast support of Israel,” said Canadian MP Dr. Leslyn Lewis, who immigrated to Canada as a young child from Jamaica and who now heads the Israel Allies Caucus.

“Israel is a symbol of freedom, resilience and hope to millions who wish to see the peaceful coexistence of all peoples,” she said.

How to Fight Antisemitism

The new White House strategy to counter antisemitism means well. It represents an official effort to combat the ancient curse of antisemitism that seems to follow Jews everywhere they live, even in a country as welcoming as the U.S. This administration wants us to know they have our backs, and yes, we ought to be grateful for that.

The elephant in the room no one wants to bring up is the notion that any "strategy" can ever eradicate a sentiment as immutable as hate. Would Jew haters hate Jews any less if they learned more about the history of antisemitism, or if they learned more about the Holocaust? If antisemites resent Jews because they see us as hard-working and successful, how do we make them stop resenting us? By arguing that we're not that successful?

Complaining projects weakness; pride projects confidence. If the Jewish brand in America comes to be defined by obsessive complaining against anyone who hates us, we'll end up looking weak, insecure and humorless. Who'd want to join that tribe?

Jew hatred is a resilient disease without any known cure. Thankfully, we know that there's a powerful, long-term vaccine against the hate: a strong Jewish identity.

Limited Liability Podcast: Antisemitism Roundtable

On this week’s episode, Rich and Jarrod are joined by Elana Broitman of the Jewish Federations of North America, Stephanie Hausner of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and Ken Marcus of the Brandeis Center, for a roundtable on the White House's recently released National Strategy To Counter Antisemitism and what it means for the Jewish community.

Ma'an reports:

Prime minister Muhammad Shtayyeh called on Germany to put pressure on Israel to abide by its agreements, to fulfill our right to hold elections in all Palestinian territories, including Jerusalem, and to stop all measures and violations by the occupation and its settlers.

This came during his meeting with the President of the German Federal Council (Bundesrat) Peter Tschentscher, today, Thursday, in Ramallah, in the presence of the Head of the Mission of the Federal Republic of Germany to the State of Palestine, Ambassador Oliver Ovcha.

The "elections" demand is interesting, because there are no elections scheduled nor is there any prospect for elections in the future. The last scheduled elections were "postponed" indefinitely because polls showed that Fatah would lose, so Abbas blamed Israel - for not allowing voting in Jerusalem.

The only reason that the Palestinian Authority officials talk to the EU about elections is because they want to use that issue to gain control over "east Jerusalem."

Up until now, Israel allowed Jerusalem Arabs to use ballot boxes in Jerusalem post offices. The boxes then get transported to PA-controlled areas where they are unsealed and votes counted. This way, from Israel's perspective, they are absentee ballots being "mailed" in, and from the PA perspective the ballots are being cast in Jerusalem. It is a convenient fiction for both sides.

But the PA then started insisting that Israel allow campaigning in Jerusalem, which they won't do. So they have been requesting the EU pressure Israel to give in to their demands - which are congruent with official EU policy that Israel has no rights to any part of Jerusalem across the Green Line.

It isn't like the Palestinians care about Jerusalem in itself. Before 1967, under Arab rule, it was all but ignored by Jordan and by Palestinians. The 1964 PLO Charter didn't mention Jerusalem once. Neither did the 1968 version, which is the current version.

But they are keenly interested in taking Jerusalem away from Jews.

When the UN proposed that Jerusalem be an international city, as far as I can tell, there was no outcry from the Palestinian Arabs then against that idea, claiming it was theirs or that it was purely Muslim. All those narrative are said only in the context of taking it away from Israel.

That is their only goal. That is why insisting that Jerusalem be their capital is positioned as non-negotiatible - there is no logical, historic or legal reason Judaism's holiest city must be their capital for them to have a state. There are 193 other nations that manage to survive without their capitals being in Jerusalem.

But taking Jerusalem away from Jews would, they know, be the beginning of the end of Israel. It would be cutting the heart out of the Jewish people.

That is the overriding goal. And it always has been.

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!

Violence Against Us Only Steels Our Resolve, But We Expect Israel To Be Cowed By Violence (PreOccupied Territory)

Our weekly column from the humor site PreOccupied Territory.

Check out their Facebook page.

Violence Against Us Only Steels Our Resolve, But We Expect Israel To Be Cowed By Violence

by Soubhi Al-Amad, Palestinian fighter

Jenin, June 1 - From Deir Yassin to Gaza, every time the Zionists wield their weapons against us, we use that as motivation to fight harder! On the other hand, the purpose of our attacks is to weaken Zionist morale, and that represents the only possible reaction to our operations.

It has ever been thus. Each time the enemy kills or injures one of us, we sublimate our rage into further resolve, never to be moved from our land, and never to cease our efforts to remove the usurper from all parts of it. The enemy, we expect to run from our violence, and the fact that they most often do not only means we must use more violence. Soon, inshallah, it will work and the foreign interloper will leave Palestine forever.

Of course violence will never force us to leave our homeland! It is our homeland! Not so for the Jews, whose homeland is... well, who cares! Not here, because we said so! Obviously they will leave if we fight them hard enough.

If you want to defeat your enemy, you must understand the way he thinks. Our enemy fails to understand that the harder he hits us, the stronger we stand against him. Whereas the harder we hit our enemy, the more it demoralizes him. This is why we are on the cusp of winning, of driving the accursed Jew invaders out of Palestine, any day now. Only six million to go! Such poetry in that number.

Each time we strike at the heart of the enemy - with rockets, roadside bombs, knives, bullets, cars, grenades, or anything else at our disposal, we drive home the point that he does not belong here, and he fears for his existence! Thus the constant talk of their "Holocaust." Look how scared they are! Just a few more attacks and they will all pack up and leave!

We, obviously, would not react that way, knowing this is our homeland, and will stay here through thick and thin. Except for the millions of refugees from 1948 and 1967, which we must ignore, and the thousands who try to leave every year, for greener pastures, plus the ones in refugee camps who jump at every opportunity to gain citizenship in their host countries rather than wait for glorious return to Palestine.

We are so close. Just keep attacking the Jews, and they will go elsewhere! It has always been thus.

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!